Global conservation of phylogenetic diversity captures more than just functional diversity
Global conservation of phylogenetic diversity captures more than just functional diversity
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/s41467-019-08600-8
复制
发表时间：
2019-02-20
影响因子：
16.6
通讯作者：
Faith, Daniel P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Owen, Nisha R.;Gumbs, Rikki;Faith, Daniel P.
生物多样性的衡量标准，系统发育多样性（PD），将进化历史与特征多样性（广义上说，物种的不同进化特征）的保护联系起来，从而与人类未来的选择（选项值）联系起来。Mazel等人2声称：（1）如果PD具有任何保守有效性，则在捕获功能多样性（FD）方面必须比随机更好;（2）PD捕获FD不可靠;（3）我们可能需要放弃在保守中使用PD，这取决于进一步FD随机化测试的结果。我们认为，Mazel等人。2歪曲PD/功能多样性框架仅限于功能性状，我们说明了如何保护功能性状的重点可能会导致全球损失的PD，功能多样性和选项值。PD保护倡议的核心理由，如存在的边缘计划，应继续建立在PD广泛的功能多样性1，3，4，而不是一个链接到几个提名的功能特性的联系。Mazel等2明确指出信仰的1原始广泛的特征多样性参数在描述的想法，保存PD将保存各种各样的形式和功能。然而，Mazel et al. 2采用了一种更狭隘的功能视角，声称这种多样性可以用FD来衡量，使用假设的生态相关性的选定特征（例如，四种哺乳动物特征：饮食，体重，活动周期，觅食高度）来计算。Mazel等人2错误地将FD与特征多样性同义，错误地将Faith对特征多样性1的引用作为对FD的引用，以及Faith对特征多样性1产生的未来选项的引用作为对FD未来选项的引用。这种错误的表述支持了他们的错误主张：“所有基于PD的保护策略的核心的基本系统发育策略......[是]......最大化PD比随机选择物种捕获更多的FD。由于他们错误地将PD的广泛特征多样性等同于其狭义定义的FD，Mazel等人2没有理由声称在其随机化试验中未能恢复FD对所有PD保护措施产生怀疑。
The biodiversity measure, phylogenetic diversity (PD), links evolutionary history to the conservation of feature-diversity (broadly, the different evolutionary features of species), and so to future options for humanity (option value) 1. Mazel et al. 2 claim that (1) PD must perform better than random in capturing functional diversity (FD) if it is to have any validity for conservation;(2) PD captures FD unreliably; and (3) we may need to abandon the use of PD in conservation, depending on the outcome of further FD randomisation tests. We argue that Mazel et al. 2 misrepresent the PD/feature-diversity framework as restricted to functional traits, and we illustrate how a conservation focus on functional traits could lead to the global loss of PD, feature-diversity and option values. The core rationale for PD conservation initiatives, such as the EDGE of Existence programme, should continue to build on the link from PD to broad feature-diversity 1, 3, 4, not a link to a few nominated functional traits. Mazel et al. 2 explicitly point to Faith’s 1 original broad featurediversity arguments in describing the idea that conserving PD will conserve a wide variety of forms and functions. However, Mazel et al. 2 then adopt a narrower functional perspective, asserting that such diversity can be measured as FD, calculated using selected traits of assumed ecological relevance (eg, four mammalian traits: diet, body mass, activity cycle, foraging height). Mazel et al. 2 incorrectly synonymise FD with feature-diversity by misrepresenting Faith’s reference to feature-diversity 1 as a reference to FD, and Faith’s reference to future options arising from feature-diversity 1 as a reference to future options from FD. This misrepresentation underpins their false claim:“the fundamental phylogenetic gambit at the heart of all PD-based conservation strategies…[is that]… maximizing PD captures more FD than randomly choosing species.” Because they incorrectly equate PD’s broad feature-diversity with their narrowly defined FD, Mazel et al. 2 have no justification for this claim that failure to recover FD in their randomisation tests casts doubt on all PD conservation initiatives.