Assessing biodiversity and endemism using phylogenetic methods across multiple taxonomic groups.

Carlos E González‐Orozco,Brent D Mishler,Dan F Rosauer,Bernd Gruber,Andrew H Thornhill,Nunzio Knerr,Arthur Georges,Shawn W Laffan,Joseph T Miller,Peter Unmack

doi:10.1002/ece3.1747

Abstract

Identifying geographical areas with the greatest representation of the tree of life is an important goal for the management and conservation of biodiversity. While there are methods available for using a single phylogenetic tree to assess spatial patterns of biodiversity, there has been limited exploration of how separate phylogenies from multiple taxonomic groups can be used jointly to map diversity and endemism. Here, we demonstrate how to apply different phylogenetic approaches to assess biodiversity across multiple taxonomic groups. We map spatial patterns of phylogenetic diversity/endemism to identify concordant areas with the greatest representation of biodiversity across multiple taxa and demonstrate the approach by applying it to the Murray–Darling basin region of southeastern Australia. The areas with significant centers of phylogenetic diversity and endemism were distributed differently for the five taxonomic groups studied (plant genera, fish, tree frogs, acacias, and eucalypts); no strong shared patterns across all five groups emerged. However, congruence was apparent between some groups in some parts of the basin. The northern region of the basin emerges from the analysis as a priority area for future conservation initiatives focused on eucalypts and tree frogs. The southern region is particularly important for conservation of the evolutionary heritage of plants and fishes.

Highlights

Accurate assessment of native biodiversity is required to effectively manage and conserve areas of high value (Ferrier 2002; Pressey et al 2013)
Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Maps of observed Taxon Richness (TR), Weighted Endemism (WE), Phylogenetic Diversity (PD), and Phylogenetic Endemism (PE) are presented for Acacia (Fig. 2A–D), eucalypts (Fig. 2E–H), plant genera (Fig. 2I–L), frogs (Fig. 2M–P), and fishes (Fig. 2Q–T)

Summary

Introduction

Accurate assessment of native biodiversity is required to effectively manage and conserve areas of high value (Ferrier 2002; Pressey et al 2013). One question that remains unclear is which diversity metrics are the most accurate and efficient for identifying underlying biodiversity patterns. Such metrics ideally should encompass both species richness and compositional distinctiveness, the latter often measured as phylogenetic diversity (Faith 1992; DinizFilho et al 2013). Mapping species and phylodiversity provides useful insights (Wiens and Donoghue 2004; Rodrigues et al 2005), but agreement on the most effective approach to assess biodiversity comprehensively in a single study remains elusive.

Methods

Results

Conclusion