Phylogenetic diversity efficiently and accurately prioritizes the conservation of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities
Abstract
O_LILand degradation is a leading cause of biodiversity loss yet its consequences on freshwater ecosystems are poorly understood, exacerbating difficulties with assessing ecosystem quality and the effectiveness of restoration practices.\nC_LIO_LIMany monitoring programs rely on macroinvertebrates to assess the biotic effects of degradation and/or restoration and management actions on freshwater ecosystems. The ratio of Observed (O) to Expected (E) macroinvertebrate taxa at a given site--O/E--is often used for this purpose, despite the amount of modeling and data required to generate expectations and difficulties quantitatively assessing the degree of degradation at a site.\nC_LIO_LIDespite widespread use in academic biology, phylogenetic diversity is rarely applied in management, regardless of empirical correlations between phylogenetic diversity and management targets such as ecosystem structure and function.\nC_LIO_LIWe use macroinvertebrate data from 1,400 watersheds to evaluate the potential for phylogenetic metrics to inform evaluations of management practices. These data have been collected since 1998, and have been used to determine the effectiveness of conservation management for the maintenance and restoration of riparian and aquatic systems.\nC_LIO_LIPhylogenetic diversity detected degradation as effectively as O/E, despite not having baseline expectation data. Site disturbance, road density, and broader environmental drivers such as mean annual temperature strongly predicted site phylogenetic diversity, providing concrete management objectives to increase site health.\nC_LIO_LISynthesis and applications. Management efforts targeted solely at taxonomic metrics, such as O/E, have been successfully used to manage sites. We show here that phylogenetic diversity metrics can support such efforts by providing additional information about the kind of species at sites. Given the ease with which such approaches can be applied, we call on others to use them to supplement existing prioritization schemes.\nC_LI
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papersReproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- A multifaceted approach to analyzing taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic β-diversity
G. Nakamura, W. Vicentin, … L. d. S. Duarte·bioRxiv·Oct 22, 2019
- Phylogenetic Biodiversity Metrics Should Account for Both Accumulation and Attrition of Evolutionary Heritage
J. Rosindell, K. Manson, … M. Steel·bioRxiv·Jul 16, 2022
- Biodiversity responses to forest cover loss: taxonomy and metrics matter
C. de Araujo Martins, O. Pays, … F. de Oliveira Roque·bioRxiv·May 21, 2023
- The robustness of phylogenetic diversity indices to extinctions
K. Manson·bioRxiv·Jun 28, 2022
- Testing the phylogenetic gambit: how much functional diversity can we reliably conserve if we prioritize phylogenetic diversity?
F. Mazel, M. Pennell, … W. Pearse·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Jul 23, 2018
- Conserving Phylogenetic Diversity Can Be A Poor Strategy For Conserving Functional Diversity
F. Mazel, A. Mooers, … M. Pennell·bioRxiv·May 12, 2017