Prioritizing phylogenetic diversity to protect functional diversity of reef corals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim The ecosystem functions and services of coral reefs are critical for coastal communities worldwide. Due to conservation resource limitation, species need to be prioritized to protect desirable properties of biodiversity, such as functional diversity (FD), which has been associated with greater ecosystem functioning but is difficult to quantify directly. Selecting species to maximize phylogenetic diversity (PD) has been shown to indirectly capture FD in certain other taxa but not corals. Here, we test this hypothesis, the “phylogenetic gambit”, on corals within global marine protected areas (MPAs). Location Global coral reefs. Methods Based on the global distributions of reef corals, a complete species‐level phylogeny and trait data, we compared the FD of coral assemblages within MPAs when selected to maximize PD versus FD for assemblages selected randomly. The relationships between PD and FD were also tested as predictors of surrogacy. We then used coral FD and PD to perform spatial prioritization of reefs for protection and assessed the congruence between the two approaches. Results Selecting assemblages to maximize PD captured significantly more FD than a random subset of species for 83.1% of all selection scenarios across MPAs and would protect on average 18.7% more FD than random selection. Spatial prioritization analyses showed some mismatches between PD‐ and FD‐optimized planning units, particularly in the Tropical Western Atlantic, but the high degree of overlap between the optimizations for other reef regions lends further credence to the PD‐maximizing strategy in conserving coral FD. Main Conclusions A PD‐maximizing strategy generally protects greater FD of coral assemblages relative to random selection of species, suggesting that the “phylogenetic gambit” is valid for reef corals. There are risks, however, and the mismatches between PD‐maximized and FD‐maximized MPA networks highlight specific shortcomings of the PD‐maximization approach. Nevertheless, in data‐deficient circumstances, maximizing PD may provide a viable alternative.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.036 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".