Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Should Global Conservation Initiatives Prioritize Phylogenetic Diversity?

  • Published:
Philosophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Some recent conservation proposals – including the Zoological Society of London’s (ZSL) EDGE of Existence programme – have focused on the value of protecting species with high evolutionary distinctiveness, a dimension of biodiversity conservation that’s not been much emphasized in conservation practice. In this paper we critically examine this strategy, investigating whether there are good reasons for prioritizing evolutionarily distinctive species, and the phylogenetic diversity to which they contribute, over other forms of biodiversity. We first discuss evolutionary distinctiveness, its relationship to phylogenetic diversity, how phylogenetic diversity can be measured, and intuitive thoughts about its value. Then we consider five kinds of arguments about the value of phylogenetic diversity that might be made to support prioritizing it, given its current lack of emphasis in conservation practice. These are: arguments based on protecting biodiversity, arguments based on option value, arguments based on ecological resilience, arguments based on historical value, and arguments based on aesthetic value. We maintain that these arguments, taken individually, offer varying degrees of fairly weak support for valuing species with high evolutionary distinctiveness. Taken together, however, these arguments seem sufficiently strong to justify programs such as EDGE, insofar as such programs are framed as correctives to a past lack of emphasis on the protection of phylogenetic diversity. We suggest, however, that these arguments are not sufficiently strong to support an absolute prioritization of phylogenetic diversity over protecting other forms of biodiversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from Isaac et al (2007)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.iucn.org/resources/conservation-tools/iucn-red-list-threatened-species

  2. Isaac et al (2007) proposed the technique for mammalian conservation priorities, but it’s been extended to include other classes.

  3. http://www.edgeofexistence.org/species/hooded-grebe/

  4. We recognize that there will be disputes about these categories; hopefully the point makes general sense in any case.

  5. https://www.zsl.org/conservation/regions/asia/chinese-giant-salamander-conservation

  6. Bennett et al., 2019 and Tucket et al. 2019 contend that we can predict future evolutionary potential, but that it isn’t strongly correlated with phylogenetic diversity.

  7. https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/

  8. With respect to the very long time span scenario, we’d also need to construct independent ethical arguments about why the earth’s ecology after thousands of years—potentially without human beings—should assume any particular kind of shape (though see Nolt, 2011). Since it seems highly unlikely that, in the next 100 years or so, the world will need species with high evolutionary distinctiveness for the purpose of ecological resilience, this version of the resilience argument is an extremely weak argument for prioritizing their protection over the species low in evolutionary distinctiveness that are successful today. Also, someone might object that as the timescale increases, the odds of a species with high evolutionary distinctiveness being important for ecological resilience increase. However, it’s also the case that as the timescale increases, the odds of a species with high evolutionary distinctiveness going extinct despite (or even more depressingly, because of) human efforts increases, which seems to balance out the (evolutionary) expected utility calculation.

References

  • Barker, G. (2002). Phylogenetic diversity: A quantitative framework for measurement of priority and achievement in biodiversity conservation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 76(2), 165–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2002.tb02081.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett D. J., Sutton M. D. & Turvey S. T. (2019). How the past impacts the future: modelling the performance of evolutionarily distinct mammals through time. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B37420190210. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0210

  • Brooks, T., Mittermeier, R., da Fonseca, G., Gerlach, J., Hoffman, M., Lamoreux, J., Mittermeier, C., Pilgrim, J., & Rodrigues, A. (2006). Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities. Science, 313(5783), 58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brum, F., Graham, C., Costa, G., Hedges, S., & Penone, C. (2017). Global priorities for conservation across multiple dimensions of mammalian diversity. PNAS, 114(29), 7641–7646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadotte, M. W., Dinnage, R., & Tilman, D. (2012). Phylogenetic diversity promotes ecosystem stability. Ecology, 93, S223–S233. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0426.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadotte, M. W., Davies, J., Peres-Neto, T., & Pedro, R. (2017). Why phylogenies do not always predict ecological differences. Ecological Monographs, 87, 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, A. (2020). Environmental Aesthetics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edward N. Zalta (ed.) Retrieved July 24th 2021 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/environmental-aesthetics/

  • Crandall, K. A., Bininda-Edmonds, O. R. P., Mace, G. M., & Wayne, R. K. (2000). Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15, 290–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collen, B., Turvey, S. T., Waterman, C., et al. (2011). Investing in evolutionary history: Implementing a phylogenetic approach for mammal conservation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series b, Biological Sciences, 366(1578), 2611–2622. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, T. J., Urban, M. C., Rayfield, B., Cadotte, M. W., & Peres-Neto, P. R. (2016). Deconstructing the relationships between phylogenetic diversity and ecology: A case study on ecosystem functioning. Ecology, 97, 2212–2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erwin, T. (1991). An Evolutionary Basis for Conservation Strategies. Science, 253(5021), 750–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faith, D. P. (1992). Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biological Conservation, 61, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, D. F. B., Mirotchnick, N., Jain, M., Palmer, M. I., & Naeem, S. (2011). Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity–ecosystem-function relationships. Ecology, 92, 1573–1581. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1245.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fromm, O. (2000). Ecological structure and functions of biodiversity as elements of its total economic value. Environmental and Resource Economics, 16, 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandcolas, p & Trewick, S. (2016) What Is the Meaning of Extreme Phylogenetic Diversity? The Case of Phylogenetic Relict Species. In Pelles and Grandcolas (Eds). Biodiversity Conservation and Phylogenetic Systematics - Preserving our evolutionary heritage in an extinction crisis Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 14 (pp. 99–115). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22461-9_2

  • Hendry, A. P., et al. (2010). Evolutionary biology in biodiversity science, conservation, and policy: A call to action. Evolution, 64, 1517–1528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettinger, N. (2017). Evaluating Positive Aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 51(3), 26–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151pp.

  • Isaac, N. J., Turvey, S. T., Collen, B., Waterman, C., & Baillie, J. E. (2007). Mammals on the EDGE: conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS ONE, 2(3), e296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, C., Pimm, S., & Joppa, l. (2013). Global vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(28), E2602–E2610. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302251110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jono, C., & Pavoine, S. (2012). Threat Diversity Will Erode Mammalian Phylogenetic diversity in the Near Future. PLoS ONE, 7(9), e46235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lean C. & Maclaurin J. (2016) The Value of Phylogenetic Diversity. In: Pellens R. & Grandcolas P. (Eds.) Biodiversity Conservation and Phylogenetic Systematics - Preserving our evolutionary heritage in an extinction crisis. Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 14 (pp.19–38) Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22461-9_2

  • Mace, G. M., Gittleman, J. L., & Purvis, A. (2003). Preserving the tree of life. Science, 300, 1707–1709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manes, S., et al. (2021). Endemism increases species’ climate change risk in areas of global biodiversity importance. Biological Conservation, 257, 109070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris, E. (2007). Conservation Priorities: What to let go. Nature, 450, 152–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazel, F., Pennell, M. W., Cadotte, M. W., et al. (2018). Prioritizing phylogenetic diversity captures functional diversity unreliably. Nature Communications, 9, 2888. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05126-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCord, E. (2007). The Value of Species. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolt, J. (2011). Nonanthropocentric climate ethics. WIRES. Climate Change, 2, 701–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olden, J. D., Kennard, M. K., Lawler, J. J., & Poff, N. L. (2011). Challenges and opportunities for implementing managed relocation of species for freshwater conservation. Conservation Biology, 25, 40–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, N. R., Gumbs, R., Gray, C. L., et al. (2019). Global conservation of phylogenetic diversity captures more than just functional diversity. Nature Communications, 10, 859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearse, W. D., Pennell, M. W., Winter, M., & Mooers, A. O. (2019). Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history. Biological Reviews, 94, 1740–1760. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peel, E., Cheng, Y., Djordjevic, J., et al. (2016). Cathelicidins in the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). Science Reports, 6, 35019. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. A., Varner, G., & Linquist, S. (2017). Defending biodiversity: Environmental science and ethics. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H. (1988). Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World. Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito, Y. (1998). The Aesthetics of Unscenic Nature. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56(2), 101–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soulé, M. (1985). What Is Conservation Biology? BioScience, 35(11), 727–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockwell, C. A., Hendry, A. P., & Kinnison, M. T. (2003). Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tribot, A. S., Mouquet, N., Villéger, S., et al. (2016). Taxonomic and functional diversity increase the aesthetic value of coralligenous reefs. Science Reports, 6, 34229. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, C. M., Aze, T., Cadotte, M. W., Cantalapiedra, J. L., Chisholm, C., Díaz, S., Grenyer, R., Huang, D., Mazel, F. V., & S, Davies TJ, Cadotte MW, Clergeau P & Pavoine S. . (2017). Predicting loss of evolutionary history: Where are we? Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 92(1), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veron, S., Haevermans, T., Govaerts, R., et al. (2019). Distribution and relative age of endemism across islands worldwide. Science Reports, 9, 11693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A. (1964). Collective Consumption Services of Individual Consumption Goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 77, 71–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M., Devictor, V., & Schweiger, O. (2013). Phylogenetic diversity and nature conservation: Where are we? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(4), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

    Clare Palmer

  2. Department of Philosophy, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA

    Bob Fischer

Authors
  1. Clare Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bob Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clare Palmer.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Palmer, C., Fischer, B. Should Global Conservation Initiatives Prioritize Phylogenetic Diversity?. Philosophia 50, 2283–2302 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-021-00422-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-021-00422-7

Keywords