Data from: Conserving evolutionary history does not result in greater diversity over geological timescales

Abstract Alternative prioritization strategies have been proposed to safeguard biodiversity over macro-evolutionary timescales. The first prioritizes the most distantly related species (maximizing phylogenetic diversity) in the hopes of capturing at least some lineages that will successfully diversi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cantalapiedra, Juan, Aze, Tracy, Cadotte, Marc, Dalla Riva, Giulio Valentino, Huang, Danwei, Mazel, Florent, Pennell, Matthew, Ríos, María, Mooers, Arne
Language:unknown
Published: Borealis
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/RR4RFT
id ftborealisdata:doi:10.5683/SP2/RR4RFT
record_format openpolar
spelling ftborealisdata:doi:10.5683/SP2/RR4RFT 2023-05-15T18:00:59+02:00 Data from: Conserving evolutionary history does not result in greater diversity over geological timescales Cantalapiedra, Juan Aze, Tracy Cadotte, Marc Dalla Riva, Giulio Valentino Huang, Danwei Mazel, Florent Pennell, Matthew Ríos, María Mooers, Arne https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/RR4RFT unknown Borealis https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/RR4RFT Other conservation phylogenetic diversity diversification ftborealisdata https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/RR4RFT 2022-10-10T05:32:58Z Abstract Alternative prioritization strategies have been proposed to safeguard biodiversity over macro-evolutionary timescales. The first prioritizes the most distantly related species (maximizing phylogenetic diversity) in the hopes of capturing at least some lineages that will successfully diversify into the future. The second prioritizes lineages that are currently speciating, in the hopes that successful lineages will continue to generate species into the future. These contrasting schemes also map onto contrasting predictions about the role of slow diversifiers in the production of biodiversity over paleontological time scales. We consider the performance of the two schemes across ten dated species-level paleo-phylogenetic trees ranging from foraminifera to dinosaurs. We find that prioritizing phylogenetic diversity for conservation generally led to fewer subsequent lineages, while prioritizing diversifiers led to modestly more subsequent diversity, compared to random sets of lineages. Importantly for conservation, the tree shape when decisions are made cannot predict which scheme will be most successful. These patterns are inconsistent with the notion that long-lived lineages are the source of new species. While there may be sound reasons for prioritizing phylogenetic diversity for conservation, long-term species production might not be one of them. Usage notes Datasets S1 to S10. Phylogenetic datasets Phylogenetic datasets used in our analyses. Each dataset is a nexus file including a tree distribution with 100 trees (except for planktonic foraminifera). Phylogenetic Datasets S1-S10.zip Other/Unknown Material Planktonic foraminifera Borealis
institution Open Polar
collection Borealis
op_collection_id ftborealisdata
language unknown
topic Other
conservation
phylogenetic diversity
diversification
spellingShingle Other
conservation
phylogenetic diversity
diversification
Cantalapiedra, Juan
Aze, Tracy
Cadotte, Marc
Dalla Riva, Giulio Valentino
Huang, Danwei
Mazel, Florent
Pennell, Matthew
Ríos, María
Mooers, Arne
Data from: Conserving evolutionary history does not result in greater diversity over geological timescales
topic_facet Other
conservation
phylogenetic diversity
diversification
description Abstract Alternative prioritization strategies have been proposed to safeguard biodiversity over macro-evolutionary timescales. The first prioritizes the most distantly related species (maximizing phylogenetic diversity) in the hopes of capturing at least some lineages that will successfully diversify into the future. The second prioritizes lineages that are currently speciating, in the hopes that successful lineages will continue to generate species into the future. These contrasting schemes also map onto contrasting predictions about the role of slow diversifiers in the production of biodiversity over paleontological time scales. We consider the performance of the two schemes across ten dated species-level paleo-phylogenetic trees ranging from foraminifera to dinosaurs. We find that prioritizing phylogenetic diversity for conservation generally led to fewer subsequent lineages, while prioritizing diversifiers led to modestly more subsequent diversity, compared to random sets of lineages. Importantly for conservation, the tree shape when decisions are made cannot predict which scheme will be most successful. These patterns are inconsistent with the notion that long-lived lineages are the source of new species. While there may be sound reasons for prioritizing phylogenetic diversity for conservation, long-term species production might not be one of them. Usage notes Datasets S1 to S10. Phylogenetic datasets Phylogenetic datasets used in our analyses. Each dataset is a nexus file including a tree distribution with 100 trees (except for planktonic foraminifera). Phylogenetic Datasets S1-S10.zip
author Cantalapiedra, Juan
Aze, Tracy
Cadotte, Marc
Dalla Riva, Giulio Valentino
Huang, Danwei
Mazel, Florent
Pennell, Matthew
Ríos, María
Mooers, Arne
author_facet Cantalapiedra, Juan
Aze, Tracy
Cadotte, Marc
Dalla Riva, Giulio Valentino
Huang, Danwei
Mazel, Florent
Pennell, Matthew
Ríos, María
Mooers, Arne
author_sort Cantalapiedra, Juan
title Data from: Conserving evolutionary history does not result in greater diversity over geological timescales
title_short Data from: Conserving evolutionary history does not result in greater diversity over geological timescales
title_full Data from: Conserving evolutionary history does not result in greater diversity over geological timescales
title_fullStr Data from: Conserving evolutionary history does not result in greater diversity over geological timescales
title_full_unstemmed Data from: Conserving evolutionary history does not result in greater diversity over geological timescales
title_sort data from: conserving evolutionary history does not result in greater diversity over geological timescales
publisher Borealis
url https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/RR4RFT
genre Planktonic foraminifera
genre_facet Planktonic foraminifera
op_relation https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/RR4RFT
op_doi https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/RR4RFT
_version_ 1766170285413761024