Cargando…

Prioritizing Populations for Conservation Using Phylogenetic Networks

In the face of inevitable future losses to biodiversity, ranking species by conservation priority seems more than prudent. Setting conservation priorities within species (i.e., at the population level) may be critical as species ranges become fragmented and connectivity declines. However, existing a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Volkmann, Logan, Martyn, Iain, Moulton, Vincent, Spillner, Andreas, Mooers, Arne O.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3938429/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24586451
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088945
_version_ 1782305597747625984
author Volkmann, Logan
Martyn, Iain
Moulton, Vincent
Spillner, Andreas
Mooers, Arne O.
author_facet Volkmann, Logan
Martyn, Iain
Moulton, Vincent
Spillner, Andreas
Mooers, Arne O.
author_sort Volkmann, Logan
collection PubMed
description In the face of inevitable future losses to biodiversity, ranking species by conservation priority seems more than prudent. Setting conservation priorities within species (i.e., at the population level) may be critical as species ranges become fragmented and connectivity declines. However, existing approaches to prioritization (e.g., scoring organisms by their expected genetic contribution) are based on phylogenetic trees, which may be poor representations of differentiation below the species level. In this paper we extend evolutionary isolation indices used in conservation planning from phylogenetic trees to phylogenetic networks. Such networks better represent population differentiation, and our extension allows populations to be ranked in order of their expected contribution to the set. We illustrate the approach using data from two imperiled species: the spotted owl Strix occidentalis in North America and the mountain pygmy-possum Burramys parvus in Australia. Using previously published mitochondrial and microsatellite data, we construct phylogenetic networks and score each population by its relative genetic distinctiveness. In both cases, our phylogenetic networks capture the geographic structure of each species: geographically peripheral populations harbor less-redundant genetic information, increasing their conservation rankings. We note that our approach can be used with all conservation-relevant distances (e.g., those based on whole-genome, ecological, or adaptive variation) and suggest it be added to the assortment of tools available to wildlife managers for allocating effort among threatened populations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3938429
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39384292014-03-04 Prioritizing Populations for Conservation Using Phylogenetic Networks Volkmann, Logan Martyn, Iain Moulton, Vincent Spillner, Andreas Mooers, Arne O. PLoS One Research Article In the face of inevitable future losses to biodiversity, ranking species by conservation priority seems more than prudent. Setting conservation priorities within species (i.e., at the population level) may be critical as species ranges become fragmented and connectivity declines. However, existing approaches to prioritization (e.g., scoring organisms by their expected genetic contribution) are based on phylogenetic trees, which may be poor representations of differentiation below the species level. In this paper we extend evolutionary isolation indices used in conservation planning from phylogenetic trees to phylogenetic networks. Such networks better represent population differentiation, and our extension allows populations to be ranked in order of their expected contribution to the set. We illustrate the approach using data from two imperiled species: the spotted owl Strix occidentalis in North America and the mountain pygmy-possum Burramys parvus in Australia. Using previously published mitochondrial and microsatellite data, we construct phylogenetic networks and score each population by its relative genetic distinctiveness. In both cases, our phylogenetic networks capture the geographic structure of each species: geographically peripheral populations harbor less-redundant genetic information, increasing their conservation rankings. We note that our approach can be used with all conservation-relevant distances (e.g., those based on whole-genome, ecological, or adaptive variation) and suggest it be added to the assortment of tools available to wildlife managers for allocating effort among threatened populations. Public Library of Science 2014-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3938429/ /pubmed/24586451 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088945 Text en © 2014 Volkmann et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Volkmann, Logan
Martyn, Iain
Moulton, Vincent
Spillner, Andreas
Mooers, Arne O.
Prioritizing Populations for Conservation Using Phylogenetic Networks
title Prioritizing Populations for Conservation Using Phylogenetic Networks
title_full Prioritizing Populations for Conservation Using Phylogenetic Networks
title_fullStr Prioritizing Populations for Conservation Using Phylogenetic Networks
title_full_unstemmed Prioritizing Populations for Conservation Using Phylogenetic Networks
title_short Prioritizing Populations for Conservation Using Phylogenetic Networks
title_sort prioritizing populations for conservation using phylogenetic networks
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3938429/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24586451
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088945
work_keys_str_mv AT volkmannlogan prioritizingpopulationsforconservationusingphylogeneticnetworks
AT martyniain prioritizingpopulationsforconservationusingphylogeneticnetworks
AT moultonvincent prioritizingpopulationsforconservationusingphylogeneticnetworks
AT spillnerandreas prioritizingpopulationsforconservationusingphylogeneticnetworks
AT mooersarneo prioritizingpopulationsforconservationusingphylogeneticnetworks