Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28031802›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2016

Integrating data-deficient species in analyses of evolutionary history loss.

Simon Veron, Caterina Penone, Philippe Clergeau, Gabriel C Costa, Brunno F Oliveira, Vinícius A São-Pedro, Sandrine Pavoine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Predicting future invaders and future invasions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Simon VeronCentre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO UMR7204) Sorbonne Universités, MNHN, CNRS, UPMC CP51, 55-61 rue Buffon 75005 Paris France.
Caterina PenoneInstitute of Plant Sciences Bern Switzerland.
Philippe ClergeauCentre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO UMR7204) Sorbonne Universités, MNHN, CNRS, UPMC CP51, 55-61 rue Buffon 75005 Paris France.
Gabriel C CostaLaboratório de Biogeografia e Macroecologia Departamento de Ecologia Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte Natal Brazil.
Brunno F OliveiraLaboratório de Biogeografia e Macroecologia Departamento de Ecologia Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte Natal Brazil.
Vinícius A São-PedroLaboratório de Biogeografia e Macroecologia Departamento de Ecologia Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte Natal Brazil; Laboratório de Ecologia Sensorial Departamento de Fisiologia Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte Natal Brazil.
Sandrine PavoineCentre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO UMR7204) Sorbonne Universités, MNHN, CNRS, UPMC CP51, 55-61 rue Buffon 75005 Paris France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an increasing interest in measuring loss of phylogenetic diversity and evolutionary distinctiveness which together depict the evolutionary history of conservation interest. Those losses are assessed through the evolutionary relationships between species and species threat status or extinction probabilities. Yet, available information is not always sufficient to quantify the threat status of species that are then classified as data deficient. Data-deficient species are a crucial issue as they cause incomplete assessments of the loss of phylogenetic diversity and evolutionary distinctiveness. We aimed to explore the potential bias caused by data-deficient species in estimating four widely used indices: HEDGE, EDGE, PDloss, and Expected PDloss. Second, we tested four different widely applicable and multitaxa imputation methods and their potential to minimize the bias for those four indices. Two methods are based on a best- vs. worst-case extinction scenarios, one is based on the frequency distribution of threat status within a taxonomic group and one is based on correlates of extinction risks. We showed that data-deficient species led to important bias in predictions of evolutionary history loss (especially high underestimation when they were removed). This issue was particularly important when data-deficient species tended to be clustered in the tree of life. The imputation method based on correlates of extinction risks, especially geographic range size, had the best performance and enabled us to improve risk assessments. Solving threat status of DD species can fundamentally change our understanding of loss of phylogenetic diversity. We found that this loss could be substantially higher than previously found in amphibians, squamate reptiles, and carnivores. We also identified species that are of high priority for the conservation of evolutionary distinctiveness.

Indexed as

Amphibianscarnivoresmissing dataphylogenetic diversityRed List Categorysquamates

Identifiers

PMID28031802
PMCPMC5167052

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.