ArticlePloS one2014
Prioritizing populations for conservation using phylogenetic networks.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- Putatively Adaptive and Genome-Wide Genetic Variation Often Rank Populations as Similarly Distinctive.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Integrative assessment of Azorean Daucus: contributions to an integrative assessment of Daucus carota subsp. azoricus Franco in the Azores.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Phylogenetic networks empower biodiversity research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Phylogenetic Diversity Indices from an Affine and Projective Viewpoint.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2024Article
- A population genetic analysis of the Critically Endangered Madagascar big-headed turtle, Erymnochelys madagascariensis across captive and wild populations.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation?Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022Review
- Conservation genomics of urban populations of Streamside Salamander (Ambystoma barbouri).PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Biodiversity, Shapley value and phylogenetic trees: some remarks.Journal of mathematical biology · 2020Article
- Genomic assessment of local adaptation in dwarf birch to inform assisted gene flow.Evolutionary applications · 2020Article
- Reintroductions of birds and mammals involve evolutionarily distinct species at the regional scale.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Tongues on the EDGE: language preservation priorities based on threat and lexical distinctiveness.Royal Society open science · 2017Article
- I-HEDGE: determining the optimum complementary sets of taxa for conservation using evolutionary isolation.PeerJ · 2016Article
- Identifying designatable units for intraspecific conservation prioritization: a hierarchical approach applied to the lake whitefish species complex (Coregonus spp.).Evolutionary applications · 2015Article
- The price of conserving avian phylogenetic diversity: a global prioritization approach.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015Article
- Article
- Measuring Evolutionary Isolation for Conservation.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the face of inevitable future losses to biodiversity, ranking species by conservation priority seems more than prudent. Setting conservation priorities within species (i.e., at the population level) may be critical as species ranges become fragmented and connectivity declines. However, existing approaches to prioritization (e.g., scoring organisms by their expected genetic contribution) are based on phylogenetic trees, which may be poor representations of differentiation below the species level. In this paper we extend evolutionary isolation indices used in conservation planning from phylogenetic trees to phylogenetic networks. Such networks better represent population differentiation, and our extension allows populations to be ranked in order of their expected contribution to the set. We illustrate the approach using data from two imperiled species: the spotted owl Strix occidentalis in North America and the mountain pygmy-possum Burramys parvus in Australia. Using previously published mitochondrial and microsatellite data, we construct phylogenetic networks and score each population by its relative genetic distinctiveness. In both cases, our phylogenetic networks capture the geographic structure of each species: geographically peripheral populations harbor less-redundant genetic information, increasing their conservation rankings. We note that our approach can be used with all conservation-relevant distances (e.g., those based on whole-genome, ecological, or adaptive variation) and suggest it be added to the assortment of tools available to wildlife managers for allocating effort among threatened populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.