Setting evolutionary‐based conservation priorities for a phylogenetically data‐poor taxonomic group (Scleractinia)

Abstract

Given the current extinction crisis coupled with the shortfall in funding, there is a pressing need to establish species conservation priorities. The prioritization of phylogenetic diversity and evolutionary distinctiveness is one approach; however, taking such an approach requires more phylogenetic data than are currently available for most taxa. Here, we investigate the effects of increased phylogenetic knowledge on the accuracy of evolutionary distinctiveness (ED) scores over time using scleractinian corals as a case study. ED scores were calculated from four molecular-based phylogenies from 2008 to 2013, each one representing a chronological step of increased phylogenetic knowledge for scleractinian corals, finally resulting in a full species-level phylogeny which is used here as the reference dataset. As expected, the most complete and up-to-date phylogenies performed well at predicting scores taken from a recent, full-coverage species-level phylogeny of scleractinian corals. Surprisingly, however, older phylogenies and scores derived from expert opinion also performed well. More unexpectedly, the expert opinion-led scores, when used as a basis for imputing scores for missing species, achieved a close second in terms of prediction accuracy compared with the most recent and largest tree, which had nearly 10 times more taxonomic coverage. We recommend, once tested further, that ED score imputation be considered for assessing the conservation priorities for other poorly studied groups.

The New Systematics of Scleractinia: Integrating Molecular and Morphological Evidence

“…Therefore, these genes are more informative for reconstructing deep coral phylogenies. Other than the 16S rDNA that established widespread subordinal non-monophyly Palumbi 1996, 1997;Le GoffVitry et al 2004), 12S rDNA, cytochrome b and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) were purposed for corals relatively early (Medina et al 1999;van Oppen et al 1999;Fukami et al 2000) and have been used for inferring large scleractinian trees effectively (Chen et al 2002;Fukami et al 2004bFukami et al , 2008Barbeitos et al 2010;Kitahara et al 2010bKitahara et al , 2013Stolarski et al 2011;Arrigoni et al 2012Arrigoni et al , 2014cHuang 2012;Huang andRoy 2013, 2015;Marcelino et al 2013;Curnick et al 2015; Fig. 4.1).…”

“…With more markers available for inferring phylogenies, combined analyses of multilocus data may be the way forward. Recent large-scale studies (>450 species) have sought to concatenate data from seven or more loci (Huang 2012;Huang andRoy 2013, 2015;Curnick et al 2015;Fig. 4.1).…”

Coral Reef Restoration in Singapore — Past, Present and Future

“…Toh et al (2014) showed that while labour and equipment contributed significantly to the cost of producing sexually propagated corals for transplantation, greater economies of scale could be achieved by introducing feeds to augment coral growth during the nursery phase. Additionally, factors such as the evolutionary distinctiveness or vulnerability of a species to global extinction can be considered when prioritising corals for restoration (Curnick et al, 2015;Huang and Roy, 2015), to supplement broad-based proxies such as site-specific species rarity.…”

The effect of phylogenetic uncertainty and imputation on EDGE Scores

“…Missing species and poor phylogenetic resolution have been identified as causes of uncertainty when calculating ED (Isaac et al ., ), but we were unable to find a quantitative assessment of how missing species might affect ED values of species for which data are available. Empirically in corals and gymnosperms, incomplete phylogenies produced results similar to later, more complete trees (Curnick et al ., ; Forest et al ., ). Our results support this finding.…”