SYSTEMATICS AND CONSERVATION - ON PREDICTING THE FEATURE DIVERSITY OF SUBSETS OF TAXA
SYSTEMATICS AND CONSERVATION - ON PREDICTING THE FEATURE DIVERSITY OF SUBSETS OF TAXA
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1096-0031.1992.tb00078.x
复制
发表时间：
1992-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
FAITH, DP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
FAITH, DP
用于自然保护的有限资源可能需要明智地分配优先次序，以确定哪些物种本身值得特别保护，或者哪些物种子集应列入保护系统。在对不同物种进行优先排序的建议基础中，与物种的“独特性”（IUCN, 1980）或“独特性”（McNeely et al., 1990）有关的措施，相对于生物分类（另见Wheeler， 1990）。Vane-Wright等人（1991）随后建立了基于进化图编码分类独特性定量测量的原则，用于保护评估。他们承认他们的原始定量测量的弱点，他们的研究刺激了许多与分类多样性有关的替代测量的发展（May, 1990； Altschul等人）。1990年;Williams et al., 1991；信仰,1992;牧杖,1992;尼克松等人，出版中；Weitzman, 1992)。然而，由于每一种测量方法都体现了不同的多样性概念，因此“分类学多样性”究竟要测量什么仍不清楚。对一种特定的多样性测量方法进行论证，不仅需要决定何种分类/系统信息值得给予该物种更高的优先权，而且还需要决定系统发育（枝状图）的估计是否能够提供（或以某种方式预测）这一关键信息。分类多样性最近的特点是与预测分类群的潜在特征多样性模式有关（Faith, 1992）。基于系统发育信息的特征多样性定量预测测量也被提出并在计算机程序PHYLOREP中实现（Faith和Cawsey， 1990）。在本研究中，这一预测指标被称为“系统发育多样性”。是相对于已建立的信息内容和预测的分类概念来解释的。这些概念阐明了进化和枝生信息在系统发育预测中的作用，并支持在尝试使用系统发育多样性测量来预测特征多样性时包含这两种信息。然后，将系统发育多样性与不包括遗传信息的其他多样性测量方法（Williams et al., 1991）进行对比，这些方法基于基于无同源性的特征数据的简单案例预测特征多样性的相对能力。在这种理想情况下，系统发育多样性测量显示永远不会失败；然而，Williams等人（1991）的测量方法在某些情况下提供了不太令人满意的特征多样性恢复。
Limited resources for nature conservation may require the judicious assignment of priorities concerning which species deserve special conservation attention on their own, or which subsets of species should be included in reserve systems. Among the proposed bases for placing priorities on different species are those relating to measures of the “uniqueness”(IUCN, 1980) or “distinctiveness”(McNeely et al., 1990) of species, relative to biological classification(see also Wheeler, 1990). Vane-Wright et al.(1991) subsequently established the principle of encoding quantitative measures of taxonomic distinctiveness, based on cladograms, for conservation evaluation. They acknowledged weaknesses of their original quantitative measure, and their study has stimulated development of a number of alternative measures relating to taxonomic diversity (May, 1990; Altschul et al.. 1990; Williams et al., 1991; Faith, 1992; Crozier, 1992; Nixon et al., in press; Weitzman, 1992). However, because each of these measures embodies a different notion of diversity, it remains unclear exactly what it is that “taxonomic diversity” is to measure. Justification of a particular measure of diversity will require deciding not only what kind of taxonomic/systematic information warrants giving a species higher priority, but also whether estimates of phylogeny (cladograms) can provide (or in some way predict) this critical information. Taxonomic diversity recently has been characterized as relating to the prediction of underlying feuture diversity patterns of sets of taxa (Faith, 1992). A quantitative predictive measure of feature diversity, based on phylogenetic information, was also proposed and implemented in a computer program, PHYLOREP(Faith and Cawsey, 1990). In this study, this predictive measure,“phylogenetic diversity”. is interpreted relative to established cladistic concepts of information content and prediction. These concepts clarify the role of anagenetic and cladogenetic information in phylogenetic prediction, and support the inclusion of both kinds of information in attempts to predict feature diversity using the phylogenetic diversitv measure.Phylogenetic diversity then is contrasted with alternative diversity measures (Williams et al., 1991) that do not include anagenetic information, based on relative ability to predict feature diversity for the simple case based on character data having no homoplasy. The phylogenetic diversity measure is shown never to fail to recover feature diversity patterns in this idealized case; however, the measures of Williams et al.(1991) can be shown to provide, on some occasions, a less satisfactory recovery of feature diversity.