Conservation Biology Systematics I Systematics provides the basic

Conservation Biology & Systematics I. Systematics provides the basic system of nomenclature II. Classifications allow biological prediction III. Phylogenies allow biological prediction IV. Relevance of existing taxonomy in conservation A. Determining number of distinct biological entities or kinds B. Determining taxonomic level of distinct evolutionary units C. Bad taxonomy kills: V. Species definitions VI. Using phylogeny in conservation VII. The agony of choice: prioritizing conservation actions A. Choosing among areas B. Choosing among taxa VIII. Identifying lineage or phylogenetic effects

I. Systematics provides the basic system of nomenclature: * names and classifications are vehicles for information storage and retrieval * names are anchors to which we attach, search, and then retrieve information * provide framework into which samples are sorted and stored "Getting things by the right name is the beginning of knowledge" paraphrased ancient Chinese saying

II. Classifications allow biological prediction * biological classifications are fundamentally grounded in hypotheses about common ancestry and presumed evolutionary relationships * natural classifications allow biological prediction that can inform our research, hypothesis making, etc. * every level in a hierarchical classification allows prediction

Every level in a hierarchical classification allows prediction Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Species Animalia Arthropoda Insecta Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Argynninae Speyeria idalia

III. Phylogenies allow biological prediction * if (natural) classifications are good, phylogenies are even better * phylogenies could be used to identify sister species/taxa * learn much about rare species based on knowledge/experimentation with its sister taxa Example: Captive breeding protocols: in cases where little is known about the biology of a rare or endangered animal, captive breeding protocols might be established using the sister species. * use life tables for related taxa to infer critical stages in a life cycle (that might be amenable to management)

IV. Relevance of existing taxonomy in conservation A. Determining number of distinct biological entities or kinds * for better or worse, numbers of recognized species is common currency for making conservation decisions (making policy, land use decisions, etc. ) B. Determining taxonomic level of a distinct biological entities * The more distinct an entity, the higher taxonomic level that it is accorded * Much of the Federal Endangered Species Act is about subspecific taxa - 24/44 (55%) of the insects are imperiled subspecies - unnamed vertebrate segregates can be protected under the ESA if they can be shown to be genetically or otherwise distinct - invertebrates and plants must be named entities C. Bad taxonomy kills…

San Bruno Mountain, San Mateo, California Taxonomic Level “Good” Taxon Laspeyresia edwardsii (lana) species no (Wagner) Speyeria callippe subspecies yes (Arnold) Euphydryas editha bayensis subspecies yes (Ehrlich & Murphy) no (Arnold)

Tuatara (Sphenodon guntheri) * disjunct populations (on different islands) “lumped” in conservation legislation * subsequent molecular data (Daugherty et al. 1990) indicated three distinct lineages - but molecular data came too late - near extinction of one species and probable loss of subspecies

V. Species definitions * much of the above dependent on what definition one adopts as a biologist or conservation biologist * if you use BSC you’ll come to different conclusions than if you were to adopt a phylogenetic or cohesion species concept * if phylogenetic species concept applied to birds, arguably one of our best-studied groups, we would see a significant increase in the number of bird species…but would that be a bad thing? Connecticut Trap Rock Butterflies

VI. Using phylogeny in conservation * molecular systematics critical tool for recognizing Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) - thoroughly sample existing populations - analyze for phylogenetic (or evolutionary) structure * as noted above, existing taxonomy is often inadequate - tuatara, a case in point

VII. The agony of choice * in a perfect world we have enough money and time to preserve all taxa or elements * in reality we must make decisions and prioritize our efforts…the agony of choice * any number of political, social, economic, and scientific criteria bear on our choices: * even ignoring these there are multiple criteria for “choosing” - vulnerability/susceptibility to extinction (for an area and/or a taxon) - species richness (for an area) - levels of endemism (for an area) - ecological role or importance (for a taxon) - evolutionary or ecological distinctiveness - etc.

A. Criteria for choosing among areas: 1) identify and preserve biodiversity “hotspots” - pick areas with high alpha diversity, e. g. , Rio Madeira drainage on the eastern slope of the Andes or Tambopata Peru which has > 1250 species of butterflies— 300 more than all of North America 2) pick areas with high endemism, e. g. , Transvaal in South Africa is wildly diverse but even more importantly has incredible levels of endemism 3) complementarity - maximize representation by picking areas that complement one another

High Endemism: South Africa Eastern transvaal

Pitch pine scrub oak community below Mansfield Hollow Dam

Reserve Complementarity: Vane-Wright, Humphries, Williams et al. Area Total No. Species Previously Unrepresented Occurrences Myles Standish State Forest 60 - Otis Air Force Base 50 3 Martha's Vineyard State Forest 38 5 Montague, MA 35 3 Westfield, MA 12 1 Method: a. determine taxic diversity b. first priority is area with highest species diversity c. second area would have next highest complimentary diversity --not the area with second highest diversity d. not yet represented species are recalculated at each step

B. Choosing among taxa * not all taxa are equal * some are more biologically distinct than others - systematics, and in particular phylogeny, can play a central role in making conservation decisions * early methods used branching pattern (cladogram) - simply counted nodes, e. g. Vane-Wright et al * isolated taxa got higher priority * taxa closer to tips accorded less weight * newer methods employing branch lengths * also efforts to consider biological novelty

Preserving evolutionary frontiers * Erwin (1991) warns that emphasis on basal and isolated branches may be wrong - What if unique basal lineage are merely “living fossils? ” - Might such taxa be ecologically doomed… evolutionary dead ends in today’s world? - They are interesting and worthy of protection, but perhaps they are on their way out * Should we not also be preserving taxa and associated areas that show recent speciation? - they may be the future, the evolutionary frontline, the source of burgeoning species biodiversity * evolutionary equivalent to identifying an evolutionary “hotspot” Interesting issue: Should we be preserving the pattern or should we be protecting the process?

Faith 1992, 1994, and 1996 key proponent of using branch lengths and “feature diversity” to prioritize conservation decisions * Patristic distance (branch lengths) generally correlate with ecological, behavioral, and morphological diversity: “The features are not directly countable; instead, general feature diversity patterns are predictable from phylogenetic information. Because branch lengths in cladistics predict the relative number of times that one feature changes into another, the phylogenetic diversity of subset of taxa is given by the total of the lengths of those branches on the cladogram that are spanned by the subset. A subset of taxa with high phylogenetic diversity therefore is expected to have correspondingly high feature diversity (Faith 1992). ”

VIII. Lineage or Phylogenetic Effects * Are certain clades more susceptible to extinction? * If they are, maybe it pays for conservation biologists to pay attention to phylogeny * Among North American Butterflies: blue and fritillary butterflies are much higher rates of imperilment: 20% of all blues are in trouble * 70% of all NA mussels are imperiled (or extinct) * dusky wing (Erynnis) butterflies and stalk borer (Papaipema) moths in CT * suggests a historical or phylogenetic component to extinction risk. - liken to a cancer risk factor: they don’t tell you why only to watch out * Once clades are identified we can look for susceptibility factors - “What factors are shared by all members of a clade in trouble? ”

SELECTIVE PATTERNS OF IMPERILMENT AMONG THE BUTTERFLY SPECIES OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA Objectives • Identify species characteristics and ecological associations (i. e. , niche parameters) that distinguish imperiled species from those that are not • Statistically separate the effects of these factors in order to determine their relative importance • Predict the conservation status of individual species • Hypothesize causal mechanisms for the observed relationships between niche parameters and imperilment

Species Characteristics and Ecological Associations • Size of geographic range • Host plant specificity (number of host plant genera) • Habitat associations • Habitat specificity • Mean number of annual broods • Average wingspan • Number of congeners • Taxonomic family

A few summary points: Taxonomy provides basis for many conservation actions/decisions Existing nomenclatures, with all their shortcomings, still carry considerable amounts of information But be aware: existing classifications are often inadequate (tuatara) Use population data/structure to identify important ESU’s Systematics and the “Agony of Choice. ” Use cladograms/phylogenies to evaluate patristic distance (evolutionary distinctiveness) identify evolutionary frontiers Phylogenies can help identify clades with high extinction risk