Back

Integrating functional and phylogenetic perspectives reveals new priorities for bird and mammal conservation

Somekh, L.; Griffin, J. N.; Pimiento, C.; Pearse, W. D.

2025-12-12 ecology
10.64898/2025.12.10.690976 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Finite resources dictate that conservation biologists must prioritise some species over others. Conservation metrics, such as EDGE (Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered; EDGE1) and FUSE (Functionally Unique, Specialised and Endangered), make prioritisation based on species evolutionary or functional distinctiveness, respectively, and degree of threat. EDGE is in part based on the rationale that the evolutionary distinctiveness it captures serves to maximise biodiversity in form and function. However, doubts exist as to whether or not evolutionary distinctiveness truly serves as a proxy for functional distinctiveness, and, therefore, if the prominent use of EDGE lists by conservation practitioners adequately protects functional distinctiveness. To address this, we conducted a direct global comparison of EDGE against FUSE. Unlike EDGE, FUSE directly measures and prioritises functional distinctiveness. Here, we compare EDGE and FUSE scores for two well-studied groups: mammals (n = 5319 species) and birds (n = 7932 species). These groups are central to global conservation and, until now, have not been assessed under FUSE. We find that species rankings under EDGE and FUSE differ significantly, highlighting that these two metrics capture distinct, complementary aspects of biodiversity. This suggests that conservation strategies based solely on EDGE may overlook species with critical functional roles. Rather than assuming alignment between evolutionary and functional distinctiveness, we propose integrating both within a single measure, leveraging the strengths and benefits of each. To this end, we present a new conservation metric - EFUSE (Evolutionarily and Functionally Unique, Specialised, and Endangered) - which incorporates both evolutionary and functional distinctiveness into a single measure. EFUSE ensures that important components of biodiversity, which relate to ecosystem functioning, natures future contributions to people, and the intrinsic value of species, are adequately maximised in conservation decision-making.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
32.3%
2
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.7%
3
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
4
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
5
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
7
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 18%
3.9%
8
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
9
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
10
Nature Ecology & Evolution
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
11
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
12
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
13
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.7%
15
Animal Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.7%
17
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.5%
18
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
19
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
20
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 23%
1.2%
21
Global Change Biology
69 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
22
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
23
Global Ecology and Biogeography
41 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
24
Communications Earth & Environment
14 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
25
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
26
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.6%