Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19461983›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary bioinformatics online2007

Hedging our bets: the expected contribution of species to future phylogenetic diversity.

Mike Steel, Aki Mimoto, Arne Ø Mooers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary bioinformatics online, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Neutral phylogenetic models and their role in tree-based biodiversity measures.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Gymnosperms on the EDGE.Scientific reports · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A synthetic phylogeny of freshwater crayfish: insights for conservation.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mike SteelBiomathematics Research Centre, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. m.steel@math.canterbury.ac.nz
Aki Mimoto
Arne Ø Mooers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

If predictions for species extinctions hold, then the 'tree of life' today may be quite different to that in (say) 100 years. We describe a technique to quantify how much each species is likely to contribute to future biodiversity, as measured by its expected contribution to phylogenetic diversity. Our approach considers all possible scenarios for the set of species that will be extant at some future time, and weights them according to their likelihood under an independent (but not identical) distribution on species extinctions. Although the number of extinction scenarios can typically be very large, we show that there is a simple algorithm that will quickly compute this index. The method is implemented and applied to the prosimian primates as a test case, and the associated species ranking is compared to a related measure (the 'Shapley index'). We describe indices for rooted and unrooted trees, and a modification that also includes the focal taxon's probability of extinction and which links two complementary approaches to conserving phylogenetic diversity.

Indexed as

biodiversity conservationextinctionphylogenetic diversityShapley index

Identifiers

PMID19461983
PMCPMC2684137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.