This document discusses using measures of evolutionary distinctiveness (ED) and endangerment to prioritize conservation of endangered species. It proposes a new metric called regional evolutionary distinctiveness and endangerment (RED-E) that incorporates both a species' distinctiveness within its region as well as its level of regional endangerment. The document outlines the methodology for calculating RED-E values and applies it to mammals and birds in the continental US, finding RED-E captures similar but not identical priorities as the existing global EDGE metric. It concludes RED-E can be a useful conservation planning tool at regional levels.

1. Emily K
Brantner
REGIONAL EVOLUTIONARY
DISTINCTIVENESS AND
ENDANGERMENT AS A
MEANS OF PRIORITIZING
PROTECTION OF
ENDANGERED SPECIES

2. Dr. John Withey
Dr. Maureen
Donnelly
Dr. Ken Feeley
Dr. Will Pearse
Florida International
University
Resources For the
Future (RFF)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

3.  27,000 spp/ year
 Limited resources
BIODIVERSITY LOSS
Nature Climate Change

4. CONSERVATION
Noah’s Ark Analogy
http://www.hannah-emmett.com/noahs-ark

5. Many categories
Individual
Species
Community
Ecosystem
Many types
Evolutionary
distinctiveness (ED)
Taxonomic diversity
Richness
PHYLOGENETIC DISTINCTIVENESS

6.  “phylogenetic diversity of a clade split equally among its
members, taking each branch length for all species into
account”
 Correlates with other biodiversity measures
 Richness, diversity
ED IMPORTANCE

7. RANDOM LOSSES
Could lose 95% of species,
but maintain 80% of
current phylogenetic
diversity

8. NONRANDOM LOSSES
Lose whole clades

9. Applications
ED w/ Global
Endangerment (EDGE)
ED w/ Accuracy &
Magnitude of decline
(EDAM)
EVOLUTIONARY DISTINCTIVENESS
APPLICATIONS

10. EDGE
Isaac et al. 2007
Edgeofexistence.org
Mammals
Amphibians
Birds
Corals
EVOLUTIONARY DISTINCTIVENESS AND
GLOBAL ENDANGERMENT

11. 2 components
Global Distinctiveness
 ED
Global Endangerment
 GE
 IUCN Red List
EVOLUTIONARY DISTINCTIVENESS AND
GLOBAL ENDANGERMENT

12. MY CONTRIBUTION

13. RED-E
Regional, not global
Applicable to any
region
2 Components
Regional Evolutionary
Distinctiveness
 RED
Regional
Endangerment
 RE
REGIONAL EVOLUTIONARY
DISTINCTIVENESS AND ENDANGERMENT

14. 5 Factors
Damage to or
destruction of a spp’s
habitat
Overutilization of the
spp for commercial, rec,
science, or education
Disease or predation
Inadequacy of existing
protection
Other natural or
manmade factors
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA)

15. Endangered
Danger of extinction
Threatened
Likely to become
endangered
Priority
Degree of threat
Recovery potential
Taxonomy
Conflict with
development
ESA

16. illegal to "take”
 “to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect or
attempt to engage in any
such conduct.”
Critical Habitat
ESA

17. Critical habitat
(CH)
Designated area
where no federal
agencies may allow
actions that will
destroy or harm a
listed species
"to the maximum
extent prudent and
determinable”
CH

18.  704/1577 spp w CH
(44.6%)
 Vertebrates: 175 (39.6%)
 mammals (35.9%)
 birds (29.0%)
 reptiles (37.5%)
 amphibians (45.7%)
 fishes (47.6%)
CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION

19. FWS and NMFS- feel
it’s unnecessary
Cost not worth the
minimal advantage
Spp with CH show
better recovery
CH CRITICISMS

20. ESA AND CH
ESA Listed Species
Species
w/out
Critical
Habitat

21. METHODS

22. Mammals Beninda-Edmonds (2007)
Birds Jetz et al. (2012)
DATA COLLECTION

23.  Calculate ED values for both
trees
 R program “caper” ed.calc
 Gives number to indicate
species relatedness to each
other
GLOBAL ED

24. ED CALCULATION
A: 1/1 + + 1/3 + 2/5 = 2.23
Isaac et al. 2007
Millions of years since divergence

25. ED CALCULATION
Isaac et al. 2007
Millions of years since divergence

26. EDGE CALCULATION
ln(1 + ED) + GE * ln(2)
Least Concern – 0
Near Threatened – 1
Vulnerable – 2
Endangered – 3
Critically Endangered – 4

27. EDGE CALCULATION
ln(1 + ED) + GE * ln(2)
ln(1 + 2.23) + 1 * ln(2) = 1.86
ln(1 + 2.23) + 2 * ln(2) = 2.55
ln(1 + 2.73) + 1 * ln(2) = 2.00
ln(1 + 2.4) + 0 * ln(2) = 1.22
ln(1 + 2.4) + 3 * ln(2) = 3.30
ln(1 + 2.75) + 3 * ln(2) = 3.40
ln(1 + 2.75) + 4 * ln(2) = 4.09
ED GE

28.  Continental US only
 Used drop.tip function
 3 mammals trees
 Upper
 Best
 lower
 1000 bird trees
 Ran ed.calc again
REGIONAL ED

29.  IUCN (Global Endangerment)
 Least Concern – 0
 Near Threatened – 1
 Vulnerable – 2
 Endangered – 3
 Critically Endangered – 4
 ESA (Regional Endangerment)
 Threatened – 2
 Endangered – 4
 SAT Species
 “threatened due to similar
appearance”
GE AND RE CALCULATION
GE or RE = E * ln(2)

30. EDGE= ln(1+ED) + GE*ln(2)
RED-E= ln(1+RED) + RE*ln(2)
RED-E AND EDGE RANKINGS
(Isaac et al. 2007)
Evolutionary
distinctiveness
component
Endangerment
component

31.  EDGE & RED-E calculated from trees with differing branch
numbers
 Cannot be directly compared
 Used # of std deviations away from the mean
 Both have 2 components- ED/RED and GE/RE
 Compared relative influence
 Regression
STATISTICS

32.  Threatened = 0, 1, or 2
 Endangered = 1, 2, or 4
 Calculated change in rank
SENSITIVITY TO VALUES USED FOR
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED STATUS

33.  FWS conservation expenditure reports
 2001-2012
 Regressed money spend against RED-E value
COST OF PROTECTION

34.  Ranked species without CH
 Mammals
 Birds
 RED-E vs EDGE rank change
CH PRIORITY

35. RESULTS

36.  Mammal
 Range
 7.41 – Utah Prairie Dog
 3.33 – West Indian Manatee
 Mean – 5.30
 Median – 5.33
RED-E

37.  Bird
 Range
 6.27 – Ivory-Billed Woodpecker
 3.13 – Roseate Tern
 Mean – 5.01
 Median – 5.10
RED-E

38. -2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
EDGE(sdawayfrommean)
RED-E (sd away from mean)
Average rank
change
24 places within
83 species
0.98 deviations
MAMMAL RED-E AND EDGE
Correlation of standardized mammal RED-E and
EDGE scores (R2 = 0.10, p = 0.0029 )

39. MAMMAL RED-E AND EDGE
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
EDGEtoRED-Echange
GE to LE change
A
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
EDGEtoRED-Echange
RED to ED change
B
R2 = 0.83 R2 = 0.23
GE to RE change ED to RED change
GE to RE change

40. Average rank
change
13 places within
44 species
1.08 deviations
BIRD RED-E AND EDGE
Correlation of standardized mammal RED-E and
EDGE scores (R2 = 0.022, p = 0.33 )
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
EDGE(sdawayfrommean)
RED-E (sd away from mean)

41. BIRD RED-E AND EDGE
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
EDGEtoRED-Echange
RED to ED change
B
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-2 -1 0 1 2
EDGEtoRED-Echange
RED to ED change
B
R2 = 0.86 R2 = 0.17
GE to RE change
GE to RE change ED to RED change

42.  no difference between (T = 0, E = 1) and (T = 1, E = 2)
 (T = 2, E = 4) to (T = 1, E = 2)
 No change on extreme ends
 Top 5 and bottom 4 remained the same
 Threatened species prioritization increased
T/E SENSITIVITY

43. RED-E AND COST OF PROTECTION
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Expenditures(millionsof$)
Mammal RED-E value
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Expenditures(millionsof$)
RED-E value
No correlation in birds or mammals
Mammals: R2 = 0.013 p = 0.306
Birds: R2 = 0.0091 p = 0.598

44.  RED-E and EDGE correlated in mammals (p = 0.0354)
 Not correlated in birds
CRITICAL HABITAT

45. DISCUSSION

46.  EDGE
 Global
 Limited use
 IUCN Ranking- gold standard
 No subspecies or
populations
 RED-E
 Regional
 Region-specific
 Blurry lines between T and E
 Good for governments or
agencies
 Florida Panther
 Both
 Need complete or almost
complete tree w/ at least
100 spp
 Scores can be compared
directly across trees
RED-E VERSUS EDGE

47.  T = 2 and E = 4 used for analysis
 Other values reduced the impact of RE component
 Broke down some of the prioritization already in place
 Only extremely distinct T spp should be prioritized over E
T/E SENSITIVITY

48.  Expected correlation because RED-E is sensitive to ESA status
 E spp more likely to have dedicated conservation plan
 7 mammals with most past conservation attention
(>$50million spent) mostly large, charismatic spp, and only 4
listed as endangered
 Ocelot
 Florida Panther
 2 populations of Black Bears
 Sea Lions
 Manatees
 (One species of bat)
COST OF PROTECTION

49.  Practical application
 Can go into effect immediately
 Controversial, but:
 Land-use modification
 Increases public education in CH areas
 Only protection for unoccupied habitats
 Spp w/ designation more likely to have actively implemented and
revised recovery plans
CRITICAL HABITAT

50.  Closely related spp that are all endangered many be lower on
the list
 Reasoning for high prioritization of endangerment level
 Trees are based on most likely configurations
 This approach is can be updated easily
LIMITATIONS

51. Same analysis on
other species
Biodiversity hotspots
Other countries
categories (ESA)
New Zealand: NZTCS
Australia: EPBC, DEC
Canada: COSEWIC
OTHER APPLICATIONS

52. RECOMMENDED STEPS

53. 1. Identify area for conservation planning
2. Collect phylogenetic trees for global clade chosen
 More than 100 spp
 No overlapping spp
3. Trim trees
4. Use R, caper, and the ed.calc function to calculate regional
evolutionary distinctiveness for each species.
5. Assign number values to agency conservation status,
preferably from 0-4.
 If no agency conservation status is available, IUCN status can be
used.
STEPS

54. 6. Calculate regional evolutionary distinctiveness (RED)
component
 RED component =ln1+RED
7. Calculate regional endangerment (RE) component
 RE component =RE*ln(2)
8. Add RED and RE to get RED-E score.
9. Order RED-E scores from largest to smallest
 Largest score of most concern
STEPS

55. CONCLUSION

56.  Simple ranking system
for use of limited
resources
 Powerful conservation
tool
 managers, geneticists, and
the public
 With effort from
agencies around the
world, biodiversity loss
can be mitigated
RED-E

57. QUESTIONS?

58.  Bininda-Emonds, O. R., Cardillo, M., Jones, K. E., MacPhee, R. D., Beck, R. M., Grenyer,
R., ... & Purvis, A. (2007). The delayed rise of present -day mammals. Nature, 446(7135),
07-512.
 Bennett, P. M., & Owens, I. P. (1997). Variation in extinction risk among birds: chance or
evolutionary predisposition?. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B:
Biological Sciences, 264(1380), 401-408.
 Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, et al. (2010) Global
biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328: 1164{1168.
 Cowlishaw, G. (1999). Predicting the pattern of decline of African primate diversity: an
extinction debt from historical deforestation. Conservation Biology, 13(5), 1183-1193.
 Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS). (1973). Endangered
Species Act of 1973. Washington, D.C. 20240.
 Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sevices (FWS). (2015). Endangered
Species. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
 Grelle, C. E. D. V., Fonseca, G. A. B., Fonseca, M. T., & Costa, L. P. (1999). The question
of scale in threat analysis: a case study with Brazilian mammals. Animal Conservation,
2(2), 149-152.
 Isaac NJB, Redding DW, Meredith HM, Sa_ K (2012) Phylogenetically -informed priorities
for amphibian conservation. PLoS ONE 7: e43912
 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2014) IUCN Red List of
threatened species. Version 2014.3. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge , UK . URL http://www.iucnredlist.org (visited April 15, 2015).
 Isaac NJB, Turvey ST, Collen B, Waterman C, Baillie JEM (2007) Mammals on the
EDGE:conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS ONE 2: e296
REFERENCES

59.  J e t z , W . , T h o m a s , G . H . , J o y , J . B . , H a r t m a n n , K . , & M o o e r s , A . O . ( 2 0 1 2 ) . T h e g l o b a l d i v e r s i t y o f b i r d s i n s p a c e a n d t i m e .
N a t u r e , 4 9 1 ( 7 4 2 4 ) , 4 4 4 - 4 4 8 .
 M a c e , G . M . & B a l m f o r d , A . ( 1 9 9 9 ) . F u t u r e P r i o r i t i e s f o r t h e C o n s e r v a t i o n o f M a m m a l i a n D i v e r s i t y ( e d s E n t w h i s t l e , A . &
D u n s t o n e , N . ) . C a m b r i d g e U n i v . P r e s s , C a m b r i d g e .
 M a y , R . M . , L a w t o n , J . H . , & S t o r k , N . E . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . A s s e s s i n g e x t i n c t i o n r a t e s . E x t i n c t i o n r a t e s , 1 - 2 4 .
 M e t r i c k , A . , & W e i t z m a n , M . L . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . C o n f l i c t s a n d c h o i c e s i n b i o d i v e r s i t y p r e s e r v a t i o n . T h e J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m i c
P e r s p e c t i v e s , 2 1 - 3 4 .
 M c K i n n e y , M . L . ( 1 9 9 7 ) . E x t i n c t i o n v u l n e r a b i l i t y a n d s e l e c t i v i t y : c o m b i n i n g e c o l o g i c a l a n d p a l e o n t o l o g i c a l v i e w s . A n n u a l R e v i e w
o f E c o l o g y a n d S y s t e m a t i c s , 4 9 5 - 5 1 6 .
 M c K i n n e y , M . L . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . B r a n c h i n g m o d e l s p r e d i c t l o s s o f m a n y b i r d a n d m a m m a l o r d e r s w i t h i n c e n t u r i e s . A n i m a l C o n s e r v a t i o n ,
1 ( 3 ) , 1 5 9 - 1 6 4 .
 M i l l e n n i u m E c o s y s t e m A s s e s s m e n t ( 2 0 0 5 ) E c o s y s t e m s a n d h u m a n w e l l - b e i n g : s y n t h e s i s . I s l a n d P r e s s , W a s h i n g t o n , D C .
 N e a r , T . J . , E y t a n , R . I . , D o r n b u r g , A . , K u h n , K . L . , M o o r e , J . A . , D a v i s , M . P . , . . . & S m i t h , W . L . ( 2 0 1 2 ) . R e s o l u t i o n o f r a y - f i n n e d
f i s h p h y l o g e n y a n d t i m i n g o f d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e s , 1 0 9 ( 3 4 ) , 1 3 6 9 8 - 1 3 7 0 3 .
 N e e , S . , & M a y , R . M . ( 1 9 9 7 ) . E x t i n c t i o n a n d t h e l o s s o f e v o l u t i o n a r y h i s t o r y . S c i e n c e , 2 7 8 ( 5 3 3 8 ) , 6 9 2 - 6 9 4 .
 N e l s o n , E . J . , J . C . W i t h e y , D . P e n n i n g t o n , a n d J . J . L a w l e r . ( i n p r e p ) . I d e n t i f y i n g t h e I m p a c t o f C r i t i c a l H a b i t a t D e s i g n a t i o n o n
L a n d - C o v e r C h a n g e .
 P e a r s e , W . D . , M . W . C h a s e , M . J . C r a w l e y , K . D o l p h i n , M . F . F a y , J . A . J o s e p h , G . P o w n e y , C . D . P r e s t o n , G . R a p a c c i u o l o , D . B .
R o y , a n d A . P u r v i s . ( i n r e v i e w ) . O n t h e E D G E w i t h E D A M : p r i o r i t i z i n g B r i t i s h p l a n t s p e c i e s a c c o r d i n g t o e v o l u t i o n a r y
d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s , a n d a c c u r a c y a n d m a g n i t u d e o f d e c l i n e . P L o S O N E . P O N E - D - 1 4 - 1 7 9 5 6 R 2 .
 P i m m , S . L . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . E x t i n c t i o n . C o n s e r v a t i o n s c i e n c e a n d a c t i o n , 2 0 - 3 8 .
 P o l a s k y , S . , C s u t i , B . , V o s s l e r , C . A . , & M e y e r s , S . M . ( 2 0 0 1 ) . A c o m p a r i s o n o f t a x o n o m i c d i s t i n c t n e s s v e r s u s r i c h n e s s a s
c r i t e r i a f o r s e t t i n g c o n s e r v a t i o n p r i o r i t i e s f o r N o r t h A m e r i c a n b i r d s . B i o l o g i c a l C o n s e r v a t i o n , 9 7 ( 1 ) , 9 9 - 1 0 5 .
 P u r v i s , A . , A g a p o w , P . M . , G i t t l e m a n , J . L . , & M a c e , G . M . ( 2 0 0 0 ) . N o n r a n d o m e x t i n c t i o n a n d t h e l o s s o f e v o l u t i o n a r y h i s t o r y .
S c i e n c e , 2 8 8 ( 5 4 6 4 ) , 3 2 8 - 3 3 0 .
 R D e v e l o p m e n t C o r e T e a m , R D e v e l o p m e n t C o r e T e a m ( R ) , T e a m R D C ( 2 0 1 3 ) R : A l a n g u a g e a n d e n v i r o n m e n t f o r s t a t i s t i c a l
c o m p u t i n g . A v a i l a b l e : h t t p : / / w w w . r - p r o j e c t . o r g .
 R u s s e l l , G . J . , B r o o k s , T . M . , M c K i n n e y , M . M . , & A n d e r s o n , C . G . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . P r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e t a x o n o m i c s e l e c t i v i t y i n b i r d a n d
m a m m a l e x t i n c t i o n s . C o n s e r v a t i o n B i o l o g y , 1 2 ( 6 ) , 1 3 6 5 - 1 3 7 6 .
 S u c k l i n g , K . F . , & T a y l o r , M . ( 2 0 0 5 ) . 7 C r i t i c a l H a b i t a t a n d R e c o v e r y . T h e E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s A c t a t T h i r t y : V o l . 1 : R e n e w i n g t h e
C o n s e r v a t i o n P r o m i s e , 7 5 .
 T a y l o r , M . F . , S u c k l i n g , K . F . , & R a c h l i n s k i , J . J . ( 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s A c t : a q u a n t i t a t i v e
a n a l y s i s . B i o S c i e n c e , 5 5 ( 4 ) , 3 6 0 - 3 6 7 .
 T i l m a n , D . , C a s s m a n , K . G . , M a t s o n , P . A . , N a y l o r , R . , & P o l a s k y , S . ( 2 0 0 2 ) . A g r i c u l t u r a l s u s t a i n a b i l i t y a n d i n t e n s i v e p r o d u c t i o n
p r a c t i c e s . N a t u r e , 4 1 8 ( 6 8 9 8 ) , 6 7 1 - 6 7 7 .
 V i d a l , N . , & H e d g e s , S . B . ( 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e p h y l o g e n y o f s q u a m a t e r e p t i l e s ( l i z a r d s , s n a k e s , a n d a m p h i b i a n s ) i n f e r r e d f r o m n i n e
n u c l e a r p r o t e i n - c o d i n g g e n e s . C o m p t e s r e n d u s b i o l o g i e s , 3 2 8 ( 1 0 ) , 1 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 8 .
REFERENCES