Transcript Phylogeny and Conservation

How large-scale barcoding
promotes
large-scale biodiversity assessment
Dan Faith
The Australian Museum
http://www.amonline.net.au/systematics/
Andrew Baker
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
and Steffen Klaere, Bui Quang Minh, Arndt von Haeseler
MFPL - Center for Integrative Bioinformatics, Vienna, Austria
Key points
• Biodiversity assessments and monitoring linked
to climate change impacts, the 2010 biodiversity
target, need to address overall biodiversity
– We need information for many taxa and many places,
+ modeling for biodiversity surrogates
• We can use the approximate phylogenetic
information from DNA barcoding and “PD”
– This side-steps species designations
– Congruent PD patterns boost predictions of overall
biodiversity
• Output trees (NEWICK) from BOLD can link to
new PD web-based software
Systematic conservation planning and the 2010 target –
can DNA barcoding provide the needed biodiversity information?
The total PD represented by one area
shown by dark branches
PD complementarity: additional PD
2 units for area offering species { a, b, c }
6 units for area offering species { i, k, m }
Lots of cryptic variation; lots of geographic clustering
– e.g. Nepean vs. Georges rivers
Schematic tree shows PD complementarity for Georges in red
Consider implications of loss of fauna from human impacts on
Nepean (next slide)
Faith, D. P and A. Baker, 2006. Phylogenetic diversity (PD) and biodiversity
conservation: some bioinformatics challenges” Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online 2
http://www.la-press.com/cr_data/files/f_EBO-2-Faith-et-al_174.pdf
This PD-complementarity pattern is identical for different taxa
Web-based PD analyses to be linked to BOLD
http://www.cibiv.at/software/pda/
Current capabilities – use NEWICK input, evaluates PD of userdefined sets of taxa
new capabilities – calculate potential gains/losses in PD and
link to systematic conservation planning methods
Conservation planning uses
PD complementarity values
Sample output
BOLD data and the 2010 biodiversity target
Arctic Collembola PD and the 2010
Biodiversity Target
amount of PD conserved
systematic planning,
optimized, loss of
sites - this is BETTER
Random loss of sites
– this is BAD
0
1
2
3
number of sites lost
Faith, DP (2006) Taxonomic research and 2010.
http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/biota/Archive_2010target/8418.htm
4
GBIF for 2010
GBIF data serving the
2010 biodiversity target
Key
A
B
C
Sydney
D
E
Baker et al
COI
Lineage distributions
L Burragorang
Euastacus
20 km
Upper Georges
Upper Nepean
AUSTRALIA
Refer Detail
Key
A
B
C
Sydney
D
E
Baker et al
Lineage distributions
L Burragorang
Euastacus
20 km
localities already
impacted or
under threat from
mining and/or
future dams
AUSTRALIA
Refer Detail
Key
A
B
C
Sydney
D
E
Baker et al
Lineage distributions
L Burragorang
Euastacus
20 km
AUSTRALIA
Refer Detail
Higher priority
for conservation
Large or small impacts of climate change on PD?
small loss of PD for given
amount of species loss
the secure species (red)
were phylogenetically
dispersed
fortunately did not find
this large loss of PD or
evolutionary potential
for given species loss
red = surviving evolutionary potential
Yesson, C. and A. Culham. (2006) A phyloclimatic study of
Cyclamen. BMC Evolutionary Biology 6:72