Conserving avian evolutionary history can effectively safeguard future benefits for people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic diversity (PD)-the evolutionary history of a set of species-is conceptually linked to the maintenance of yet-to-be-discovered benefits from biodiversity or "option value." We used global phylogenetic and utilization data for birds to test the PD option value link, under the assumption that the performance of sets of PD-maximizing species at capturing known benefits is analogous to selecting the same species at a point in human history before these benefits were realized. PD performed better than random at capturing utilized bird species across 60% of tests, with performance linked to the phylogenetic dispersion and prevalence of each utilization category. Prioritizing threatened species for conservation by the PD they encapsulate performs comparably to prioritizing by their functional distinctiveness. However, species selected by each metric show low overlap, indicating that we should conserve both components of biodiversity to effectively conserve a variety of uses. Our findings provide empirical support for the link between evolutionary history and benefits for future generations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".