Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27635324›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2016

I-HEDGE: determining the optimum complementary sets of taxa for conservation using evolutionary isolation.

Evelyn L Jensen, Arne Ø Mooers, Adalgisa Caccone, Michael A Russello

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Evelyn L JensenDepartment of Biology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus , Kelowna , BC , Canada.
Arne Ø MooersBiological Sciences, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby , BC , Canada.
Adalgisa CacconeDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University , New Haven , CT , United States.
Michael A RusselloDepartment of Biology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus , Kelowna , BC , Canada.
University of British Columbia · CASimon Fraser University · CAYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the midst of the current biodiversity crisis, conservation efforts might profitably be directed towards ensuring that extinctions do not result in inordinate losses of evolutionary history. Numerous methods have been developed to evaluate the importance of species based on their contribution to total phylogenetic diversity on trees and networks, but existing methods fail to take complementarity into account, and thus cannot identify the best order or subset of taxa to protect. Here, we develop a novel iterative calculation of the heightened evolutionary distinctiveness and globally endangered metric (I-HEDGE) that produces the optimal ranked list for conservation prioritization, taking into account complementarity and based on both phylogenetic diversity and extinction probability. We applied this metric to a phylogenetic network based on mitochondrial control region data from extant and recently extinct giant Galápagos tortoises, a highly endangered group of closely related species. We found that the restoration of two extinct species (a project currently underway) will contribute the greatest gain in phylogenetic diversity, and present an ordered list of rankings that is the optimum complementarity set for conservation prioritization.

Indexed as

Conservation geneticsHEDGEMitochondrial control regionNoah’s Ark problemShapley index

Identifiers

PMID27635324
PMCPMC5012326
OpenAlexW2518620738

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.