The phylogeny of California, and how it informs setting multispecies conservation priorities

Erin Toffelmier; Joscha Beninde; H Bradley Shaffer

doi:10.1093/jhered/esac045

The phylogeny of California, and how it informs setting multispecies conservation priorities

J Hered. 2022 Nov 30;113(6):597-603. doi: 10.1093/jhered/esac045.

Authors

Erin Toffelmier^{1

2}, Joscha Beninde^{1

3}, H Bradley Shaffer^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ UCLA La Kretz Center for California Conservation Science, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
² Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
³ IUCN WCPA Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.

Abstract

Incorporating measures of taxonomic diversity into research and management plans has long been a tenet of conservation science. Increasingly, active conservation programs are turning toward multispecies landscape and regional conservation actions, and away from single species approaches. This is both a reflection of changing trends in conservation science and advances in foundational technologies, including genomics and geospatial science. Multispecies approaches may provide more fundamental insights into evolutionary processes and equip managers with a more holistic understanding of the landscapes under their jurisdiction. Central to this approach are data generation and analyses which embrace and reflect a broad range of taxonomic diversity. Here, we examine the family-level phylogenetic breadth of the California Conservation Genomics Project (CCGP) based on family-level phylogenetic diversity (PD), family-level phylogenetic distinctness, and family richness. We place this in the context of the diversity present in California and compare it to the 35-plus years of genetic research compiled in the CaliPopGen Database. We found that the family-level PD in the CCGP reflected that of California very well, slightly overrepresenting chordates and underrepresenting arthropods, and that 42% of CCGP PD represented new contributions to genetic data for the state. In one focused effort, the CCGP was able to achieve roughly half the family-level PD studied over the last several decades. To maximize studied PD, future work should focus on arthropods, a conclusion that likely reflects the overall lack of attention to this hyperdiverse clade.

Keywords: CCGP; biodiversity; conservation genetics; landscape genetics.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Biodiversity*
Biological Evolution
California
Conservation of Natural Resources*
Phylogeny