Back

EDGE2: advancing the prioritisation of threatened evolutionary history for conservation action

Gumbs, R.; Gray, C. L.; Bohm, M.; Burfield, I. J.; Couchman, O. R.; Faith, D. P.; Forest, F.; Hoffmann, M.; Isaac, N. J. B.; Jetz, W.; Mace, G. M.; Mooers, A. O.; Safi, K.; Scott, O.; Steel, M.; Tucker, C. M.; Pearse, W. D.; Owen, N. R.; Rosindell, J.

2022-05-19 zoology
10.1101/2022.05.17.492313 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The global biodiversity crisis threatens the natural world and its capacity to provide benefits to humans into the future. The conservation of evolutionary history, captured by the measure phylogenetic diversity (PD), is linked to the maintenance of these benefits and future options. The Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (EDGE) metric has, since 2007, been used to identify species for conservation action that embody large amounts of threatened evolutionary history. In 2017, we convened a workshop to update the EDGE metric to incorporate advances in the field of phylogenetically-informed conservation. Building on that workshop, we devised the metric EDGE2, which we present here. EDGE2 uses a modular, tiered approach to provide priority rankings--and associated measures of uncertainty in both phylogenetic and extinction risk data--for all species in a clade. EDGE2 takes into account the extinction risk of closely-related species to better reflect the contribution a species is expected to make to overall PD in the future. We applied EDGE2 to the worlds mammals to identify an updated list of priority EDGE species and compare the results with the original EDGE approach. Despite similarity in the priority lists produced between EDGE and EDGE2, EDGE2 places greater priority on species with fewer close relatives on the Tree of Life. As we approach a crossroads for global biodiversity policy, EDGE2 exemplifies how academic and applied conservation biologists can collaborate to guide effective priority-setting to conserve the most irreplaceable components of biodiversity upon which humanity depends.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.