Phylogeny and Conservation

[John Shuey]

In a message dated 98-01-30 07:50:49 EST, you write:

<<
 It is becoming clear that there are very different values and cultures at
work here!  I myself came out of some weird blend of systematics, evolutionary
biology, ecology backgound, but I hade forgotten how different I am now (No
offense intended by the way).

 It hit me when BMNH staff wrote  << Conservation biologists often value
  threatened species, and equate this value with priority.  For biodiversity
  (variety) people, value is derived from the assessment of degrees of
  variety within assemblages (i.e. the value is transferred to areas, not
  individual species), and we contrast this with priority, which comes from
  the urgency with which action is needed to conserve particularly threatened
  parts of this variety in particular areas.   >>

 Herein  lies one of the more significant viewpoint differences between the
two approaches for prioritizing consercation tagets.  "Conservation people"
don't VALUE threatened species more than other species, rather they beleive
that the conservation of these targets is more urgent because they are in fact
imperiled.  Their  goal it to conserve ALL biodiversity, and to achive that,
you do have to select some targets first, and others later (at least for TNC
types and our partners - zoo types have very diffenerent conservation goals
and probably do value big rare mammals more than other species).

 Anyway, for those you who are't aware of it, there is actually an effort to
develop a complete North American Conservation Portfolio underway (Canada, US,
and Mexico), and it will be extened into the Caribean and continental
neotropics as time allows (but as rapidly as is possible).  There's is
probably a much better explaination of the process at our web page, but I
haven't looked at that in months (www.tnc.org - then start blundering through
the conservation science links and it should be in there somewhere)

 To emphasize that we really don't put any species above another here,  we use
a very impersonal approach to identifying conservation targets using Element
Occurences as the unit of conservation (this is THE standard of Heritage
programs in every US state, as well as the Conservation Data Centers housed in
aboput 80% of the remaining countries on this half of the planet (as well as a
couple in the south Pacific and rumor has it soon to be in Japan).  Element
Occurences (EOs) represent two of the levels of organisation for biodiversity,
communities and terminal taxa (species/subspecies).  In the US, communities
follow the recent national classification developed by TNC (funded by EPA,
USFS,  and US-FWS and soon to be implimenetd as the National Standard).
Species of course follow standard taxonomy (usually somewhat ahead of named
species for many groups), but is course limited to how many higher taxa can
actually be tracked in a meaninful way.  All vertebrates,  all vascular
plants,  some insects (tiger beetles, butterflies a few moths and soon all
dragonflies),  unionid mussels, most crayfish, and were working on all
troglibites) are assigned Global Ranks based on the estimated number of extant
viable occurences of each element in the World (note -the concept of
"estimated and viable" require that G-ranks be in some flux as imformation
emerges and conditions change). G ranks range from G1 (1-5 viable occurences)
to G5 (1000+).  Generally only G1-3 elements are tracked  by every progarm
(EOs that are thought to occur at less than 100 sites in the world). All of
this is most refined of course for the US and well known taxa, and
"resolution" deteriorates in more tropical areas (and in fresh water and
marine habitats) - but lots of  people in many countries are working as fast
as is possible to correct these problems.

 By and large, we try to target high-quality examples of communitiies for
conservation.  And we try to target every commuity type (eg, Illinionian Till
Faltwoods in Indiana, is as important as El Triunfo Cloud Forest in Mexico).
Only by choosing targets this way can you hope to capture everything.  This
approach captures most species, but of course some very rare taxa fall through
the cracks and you have to target them individually.

 This highlights another difference between the two camps.  It sounds as if
the proponents of phylogentic methods assume that we have to choose between
areas for success and while ignoring other key sites.  While resources are
tight, we firmly believe that essentially ALL species can be conserved,  Hence
phylogentic approach help pick BETWEEN sites to ensure that you maximize
(something?) at those sites, while most conservations pick AMOUNG sites so
that you most efficiently get everything.  This is a big difference in
approaches.


 And last, we here at TNC and conservation biologists in general, are VERY
introspective, always full of self doubt and always trying to maximize our
success.  The conservation goal is everything to us, and we are constantly
wondering how to best achieve the goal.  Thus we aren't married to any single
approach - rather we are always search for the optimal model that both sets
direction and implements real action.  Phylogenetic proponents are somewhat
different (at least my friends are).  They have no or little doubt that their
methods are correct and best, and the method is usually the most interesting
aspect of their work, not the results per say.

 This said, it really shouldn't surprise many of us that there are differences
in opinion between the two groups - one obsesed with results, the other with
methods.

 And by the way,  the outlook for conservation isn't really all that gloomy.
In the US and Canada, TNC has been responsible for protecting more than 10
million acres of critical lands, and we own and manage over 1,600 sites
ourselves.  In Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific and Asia, we have
helped conserve millions more, mostly by using debt for nature swaps, by
endowing operation budgets at about key 80 national  parks, and by helping
local conservation organizations with funding, training, and technical issues.
The latest  notable highlight was late last winter, when we brokered a
privately funded deal to add 2.2 million acres to Neol Kempff Mercado National
Park, Bolivia.    But enough propoganda. I've got to hit the field.

 John Shuey
 Director of Conservation Science
 Indiana Office of The Nature Conservancy
  >>