Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29641585›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Tetrapods on the EDGE: Overcoming data limitations to identify phylogenetic conservation priorities.

Rikki Gumbs, Claudia L Gray, Oliver R Wearn, Nisha R Owen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Conservation priorities for functionally unique and specialized terrestrial vertebrates threatened by biological invasions.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Gharial (Ecology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  7. Bridging Evolutionary History and Conservation of New World Vultures.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Completing a molecular timetree of apes and monkeys.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Prioritisation to prevent extinction.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Rikki GumbsScience and Solutions for a Changing Planet DTP, and the Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, Berkshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4157-8549
Claudia L GrayEDGE of Existence Programme, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London, United Kingdom.
Oliver R WearnEDGE of Existence Programme, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London, United Kingdom.
Nisha R OwenEDGE of Existence Programme, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The scale of the ongoing biodiversity crisis requires both effective conservation prioritisation and urgent action. As extinction is non-random across the tree of life, it is important to prioritise threatened species which represent large amounts of evolutionary history. The EDGE metric prioritises species based on their Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED), which measures the relative contribution of a species to the total evolutionary history of their taxonomic group, and Global Endangerment (GE), or extinction risk. EDGE prioritisations rely on adequate phylogenetic and extinction risk data to generate meaningful priorities for conservation. However, comprehensive phylogenetic trees of large taxonomic groups are extremely rare and, even when available, become quickly out-of-date due to the rapid rate of species descriptions and taxonomic revisions. Thus, it is important that conservationists can use the available data to incorporate evolutionary history into conservation prioritisation. We compared published and new methods to estimate missing ED scores for species absent from a phylogenetic tree whilst simultaneously correcting the ED scores of their close taxonomic relatives. We found that following artificial removal of species from a phylogenetic tree, the new method provided the closest estimates of their "true" ED score, differing from the true ED score by an average of less than 1%, compared to the 31% and 38% difference of the previous methods. The previous methods also substantially under- and over-estimated scores as more species were artificially removed from a phylogenetic tree. We therefore used the new method to estimate ED scores for all tetrapods. From these scores we updated EDGE prioritisation rankings for all tetrapod species with IUCN Red List assessments, including the first EDGE prioritisation for reptiles. Further, we identified criteria to identify robust priority species in an effort to further inform conservation action whilst limiting uncertainty and anticipating future phylogenetic advances.

Indexed as

BiodiversityBiological EvolutionEndangered SpeciesExtinction, BiologicalAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesModels, StatisticalPhylogenyRiskSpecies SpecificityUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID29641585
PMCPMC5894989

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.