Phylogenetically-Informed Priorities for Amphibian Conservation

The amphibian decline and extinction crisis demands urgent action to prevent further large numbers of species extinctions. Lists of priority species for conservation, based on a combination of species' threat status and unique contribution to phylogenetic diversity, are one tool for the directi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPloS one Vol. 7; no. 8; p. e43912
Main Authors Isaac, Nick J. B., Redding, David W., Meredith, Helen M., Safi, Kamran
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Public Library of Science 30.08.2012
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0043912

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The amphibian decline and extinction crisis demands urgent action to prevent further large numbers of species extinctions. Lists of priority species for conservation, based on a combination of species' threat status and unique contribution to phylogenetic diversity, are one tool for the direction and catalyzation of conservation action. We describe the construction of a near-complete species-level phylogeny of 5713 amphibian species, which we use to create a list of evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered species (EDGE list) for the entire class Amphibia. We present sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our priority list to uncertainty in species' phylogenetic position and threat status. We find that both sources of uncertainty have only minor impacts on our 'top 100' list of priority species, indicating the robustness of the approach. By contrast, our analyses suggest that a large number of Data Deficient species are likely to be high priorities for conservation action from the perspective of their contribution to the evolutionary history.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Conceived and designed the experiments: NJBI. Performed the experiments: NJBI HM DWR. Analyzed the data: NJBI DWR. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: DWR. Wrote the paper: KS NJBI DWR HM.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0043912