Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history

Autores
Tucker, Caroline M.; Aze, Tracy; Cadotte, Marc W.; Cantalapiedra, Juan L.; Chisholm, Chelsea; Díaz, Sandra Myrna; Grenyer, Richard; Huang, Danwei; Mazel, Florent; Pearse, William D.; Pennell, Matthew W.; Winter, Marten; Mooers, Arne O.
Año de publicación
2019
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
It is often claimed that conserving evolutionary history is more efficient than species-based approaches for capturing the attributes of biodiversity that benefit people. This claim underpins academic analyses and recommendations about the distribution and prioritization of species and areas for conservation, but evolutionary history is rarely considered in practical conservation activities. One impediment to implementation is that arguments related to the human-centric benefits of evolutionary history are often vague and the underlying mechanisms poorly explored. Herein we identify the arguments linking the prioritization of evolutionary history with benefits to people, and for each we explicate the purported mechanism, and evaluate its theoretical and empirical support. We find that, even after 25 years of academic research, the strength of evidence linking evolutionary history to human benefits is still fragile. Most – but not all – arguments rely on the assumption that evolutionary history is a useful surrogate for phenotypic diversity. This surrogacy relationship in turn underlies additional arguments, particularly that, by capturing more phenotypic diversity, evolutionary history will preserve greater ecosystem functioning, capture more of the natural variety that humans prefer, and allow the maintenance of future benefits to humans. A surrogate relationship between evolutionary history and phenotypic diversity appears reasonable given theoretical and empirical results, but the strength of this relationship varies greatly. To the extent that evolutionary history captures unmeasured phenotypic diversity, maximizing the representation of evolutionary history should capture variation in species characteristics that are otherwise unknown, supporting some of the existing arguments. However, there is great variation in the strength and availability of evidence for benefits associated with protecting phenotypic diversity. There are many studies finding positive biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships, but little work exists on the maintenance of future benefits or the degree to which humans prefer sets of species with high phenotypic diversity or evolutionary history. Although several arguments link the protection of evolutionary history directly with the reduction of extinction rates, and with the production of relatively greater future biodiversity via increased adaptation or diversification, there are few direct tests. Several of these putative benefits have mismatches between the relevant spatial scales for conservation actions and the spatial scales at which benefits to humans are realized. It will be important for future work to fill in some of these gaps through direct tests of the arguments we define here.
Fil: Tucker, Caroline M.. University of North Carolina; Estados Unidos
Fil: Aze, Tracy. University Of Leeds.; Reino Unido
Fil: Cadotte, Marc W.. University of Toronto; Canadá
Fil: Cantalapiedra, Juan L.. Universidad de Alcalá; España
Fil: Chisholm, Chelsea. Universite de Lausanne; Suiza
Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina
Fil: Grenyer, Richard. University of Oxford; Reino Unido
Fil: Huang, Danwei. National Singapore University; Singapur
Fil: Mazel, Florent. University of British Columbia; Canadá
Fil: Pearse, William D.. University of Utah; Estados Unidos
Fil: Pennell, Matthew W.. University of British Columbia; Canadá
Fil: Winter, Marten. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania
Fil: Mooers, Arne O.. University Fraser Simon; Canadá
Materia
BENEFITS TO PEOPLE
CONSERVATION
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION
EXTINCTION
FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY
PHENOTYPIC DIVERSITY
PHYLOGENETIC DIVERSITY
PRIORITIZATION
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/115454

id CONICETDig_6fc0956d02a1268c0de5fbac04730aa6
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/115454
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary historyTucker, Caroline M.Aze, TracyCadotte, Marc W.Cantalapiedra, Juan L.Chisholm, ChelseaDíaz, Sandra MyrnaGrenyer, RichardHuang, DanweiMazel, FlorentPearse, William D.Pennell, Matthew W.Winter, MartenMooers, Arne O.BENEFITS TO PEOPLECONSERVATIONECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONEXTINCTIONFUNCTIONAL DIVERSITYPHENOTYPIC DIVERSITYPHYLOGENETIC DIVERSITYPRIORITIZATIONhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1It is often claimed that conserving evolutionary history is more efficient than species-based approaches for capturing the attributes of biodiversity that benefit people. This claim underpins academic analyses and recommendations about the distribution and prioritization of species and areas for conservation, but evolutionary history is rarely considered in practical conservation activities. One impediment to implementation is that arguments related to the human-centric benefits of evolutionary history are often vague and the underlying mechanisms poorly explored. Herein we identify the arguments linking the prioritization of evolutionary history with benefits to people, and for each we explicate the purported mechanism, and evaluate its theoretical and empirical support. We find that, even after 25 years of academic research, the strength of evidence linking evolutionary history to human benefits is still fragile. Most – but not all – arguments rely on the assumption that evolutionary history is a useful surrogate for phenotypic diversity. This surrogacy relationship in turn underlies additional arguments, particularly that, by capturing more phenotypic diversity, evolutionary history will preserve greater ecosystem functioning, capture more of the natural variety that humans prefer, and allow the maintenance of future benefits to humans. A surrogate relationship between evolutionary history and phenotypic diversity appears reasonable given theoretical and empirical results, but the strength of this relationship varies greatly. To the extent that evolutionary history captures unmeasured phenotypic diversity, maximizing the representation of evolutionary history should capture variation in species characteristics that are otherwise unknown, supporting some of the existing arguments. However, there is great variation in the strength and availability of evidence for benefits associated with protecting phenotypic diversity. There are many studies finding positive biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships, but little work exists on the maintenance of future benefits or the degree to which humans prefer sets of species with high phenotypic diversity or evolutionary history. Although several arguments link the protection of evolutionary history directly with the reduction of extinction rates, and with the production of relatively greater future biodiversity via increased adaptation or diversification, there are few direct tests. Several of these putative benefits have mismatches between the relevant spatial scales for conservation actions and the spatial scales at which benefits to humans are realized. It will be important for future work to fill in some of these gaps through direct tests of the arguments we define here.Fil: Tucker, Caroline M.. University of North Carolina; Estados UnidosFil: Aze, Tracy. University Of Leeds.; Reino UnidoFil: Cadotte, Marc W.. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Cantalapiedra, Juan L.. Universidad de Alcalá; EspañaFil: Chisholm, Chelsea. Universite de Lausanne; SuizaFil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Grenyer, Richard. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Huang, Danwei. National Singapore University; SingapurFil: Mazel, Florent. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Pearse, William D.. University of Utah; Estados UnidosFil: Pennell, Matthew W.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Winter, Marten. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Mooers, Arne O.. University Fraser Simon; CanadáWiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc2019-10info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.documentapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.documentapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/115454Tucker, Caroline M.; Aze, Tracy; Cadotte, Marc W.; Cantalapiedra, Juan L.; Chisholm, Chelsea; et al.; Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Biological Reviews; 94; 5; 10-2019; 1740-17601464-79311469-185XCONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/brv.12526info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/brv.12526info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:40:57Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/115454instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:40:57.864CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history
title Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history
spellingShingle Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history
Tucker, Caroline M.
BENEFITS TO PEOPLE
CONSERVATION
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION
EXTINCTION
FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY
PHENOTYPIC DIVERSITY
PHYLOGENETIC DIVERSITY
PRIORITIZATION
title_short Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history
title_full Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history
title_fullStr Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history
title_sort Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Tucker, Caroline M.
Aze, Tracy
Cadotte, Marc W.
Cantalapiedra, Juan L.
Chisholm, Chelsea
Díaz, Sandra Myrna
Grenyer, Richard
Huang, Danwei
Mazel, Florent
Pearse, William D.
Pennell, Matthew W.
Winter, Marten
Mooers, Arne O.
author Tucker, Caroline M.
author_facet Tucker, Caroline M.
Aze, Tracy
Cadotte, Marc W.
Cantalapiedra, Juan L.
Chisholm, Chelsea
Díaz, Sandra Myrna
Grenyer, Richard
Huang, Danwei
Mazel, Florent
Pearse, William D.
Pennell, Matthew W.
Winter, Marten
Mooers, Arne O.
author_role author
author2 Aze, Tracy
Cadotte, Marc W.
Cantalapiedra, Juan L.
Chisholm, Chelsea
Díaz, Sandra Myrna
Grenyer, Richard
Huang, Danwei
Mazel, Florent
Pearse, William D.
Pennell, Matthew W.
Winter, Marten
Mooers, Arne O.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv BENEFITS TO PEOPLE
CONSERVATION
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION
EXTINCTION
FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY
PHENOTYPIC DIVERSITY
PHYLOGENETIC DIVERSITY
PRIORITIZATION
topic BENEFITS TO PEOPLE
CONSERVATION
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION
EXTINCTION
FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY
PHENOTYPIC DIVERSITY
PHYLOGENETIC DIVERSITY
PRIORITIZATION
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv It is often claimed that conserving evolutionary history is more efficient than species-based approaches for capturing the attributes of biodiversity that benefit people. This claim underpins academic analyses and recommendations about the distribution and prioritization of species and areas for conservation, but evolutionary history is rarely considered in practical conservation activities. One impediment to implementation is that arguments related to the human-centric benefits of evolutionary history are often vague and the underlying mechanisms poorly explored. Herein we identify the arguments linking the prioritization of evolutionary history with benefits to people, and for each we explicate the purported mechanism, and evaluate its theoretical and empirical support. We find that, even after 25 years of academic research, the strength of evidence linking evolutionary history to human benefits is still fragile. Most – but not all – arguments rely on the assumption that evolutionary history is a useful surrogate for phenotypic diversity. This surrogacy relationship in turn underlies additional arguments, particularly that, by capturing more phenotypic diversity, evolutionary history will preserve greater ecosystem functioning, capture more of the natural variety that humans prefer, and allow the maintenance of future benefits to humans. A surrogate relationship between evolutionary history and phenotypic diversity appears reasonable given theoretical and empirical results, but the strength of this relationship varies greatly. To the extent that evolutionary history captures unmeasured phenotypic diversity, maximizing the representation of evolutionary history should capture variation in species characteristics that are otherwise unknown, supporting some of the existing arguments. However, there is great variation in the strength and availability of evidence for benefits associated with protecting phenotypic diversity. There are many studies finding positive biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships, but little work exists on the maintenance of future benefits or the degree to which humans prefer sets of species with high phenotypic diversity or evolutionary history. Although several arguments link the protection of evolutionary history directly with the reduction of extinction rates, and with the production of relatively greater future biodiversity via increased adaptation or diversification, there are few direct tests. Several of these putative benefits have mismatches between the relevant spatial scales for conservation actions and the spatial scales at which benefits to humans are realized. It will be important for future work to fill in some of these gaps through direct tests of the arguments we define here.
Fil: Tucker, Caroline M.. University of North Carolina; Estados Unidos
Fil: Aze, Tracy. University Of Leeds.; Reino Unido
Fil: Cadotte, Marc W.. University of Toronto; Canadá
Fil: Cantalapiedra, Juan L.. Universidad de Alcalá; España
Fil: Chisholm, Chelsea. Universite de Lausanne; Suiza
Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina
Fil: Grenyer, Richard. University of Oxford; Reino Unido
Fil: Huang, Danwei. National Singapore University; Singapur
Fil: Mazel, Florent. University of British Columbia; Canadá
Fil: Pearse, William D.. University of Utah; Estados Unidos
Fil: Pennell, Matthew W.. University of British Columbia; Canadá
Fil: Winter, Marten. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania
Fil: Mooers, Arne O.. University Fraser Simon; Canadá
description It is often claimed that conserving evolutionary history is more efficient than species-based approaches for capturing the attributes of biodiversity that benefit people. This claim underpins academic analyses and recommendations about the distribution and prioritization of species and areas for conservation, but evolutionary history is rarely considered in practical conservation activities. One impediment to implementation is that arguments related to the human-centric benefits of evolutionary history are often vague and the underlying mechanisms poorly explored. Herein we identify the arguments linking the prioritization of evolutionary history with benefits to people, and for each we explicate the purported mechanism, and evaluate its theoretical and empirical support. We find that, even after 25 years of academic research, the strength of evidence linking evolutionary history to human benefits is still fragile. Most – but not all – arguments rely on the assumption that evolutionary history is a useful surrogate for phenotypic diversity. This surrogacy relationship in turn underlies additional arguments, particularly that, by capturing more phenotypic diversity, evolutionary history will preserve greater ecosystem functioning, capture more of the natural variety that humans prefer, and allow the maintenance of future benefits to humans. A surrogate relationship between evolutionary history and phenotypic diversity appears reasonable given theoretical and empirical results, but the strength of this relationship varies greatly. To the extent that evolutionary history captures unmeasured phenotypic diversity, maximizing the representation of evolutionary history should capture variation in species characteristics that are otherwise unknown, supporting some of the existing arguments. However, there is great variation in the strength and availability of evidence for benefits associated with protecting phenotypic diversity. There are many studies finding positive biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships, but little work exists on the maintenance of future benefits or the degree to which humans prefer sets of species with high phenotypic diversity or evolutionary history. Although several arguments link the protection of evolutionary history directly with the reduction of extinction rates, and with the production of relatively greater future biodiversity via increased adaptation or diversification, there are few direct tests. Several of these putative benefits have mismatches between the relevant spatial scales for conservation actions and the spatial scales at which benefits to humans are realized. It will be important for future work to fill in some of these gaps through direct tests of the arguments we define here.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-10
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/115454
Tucker, Caroline M.; Aze, Tracy; Cadotte, Marc W.; Cantalapiedra, Juan L.; Chisholm, Chelsea; et al.; Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Biological Reviews; 94; 5; 10-2019; 1740-1760
1464-7931
1469-185X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/115454
identifier_str_mv Tucker, Caroline M.; Aze, Tracy; Cadotte, Marc W.; Cantalapiedra, Juan L.; Chisholm, Chelsea; et al.; Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Biological Reviews; 94; 5; 10-2019; 1740-1760
1464-7931
1469-185X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/brv.12526
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/brv.12526
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614439272185856
score 13.070432