To date, there is little evidence that phylogenetic diversity has contributed to nature conservation. Here, we discuss the scientific justification of using phylogenetic diversity in conservation and the reasons for its neglect. We show that, apart from valuing the rarity and richness aspect, commonly quoted justifications based on the usage of phylogenetic diversity as a proxy for functional diversity or evolutionary potential are still based on uncertainties. We discuss how a missing guideline through the variety of phylogenetic diversity metrics and their relevance for conservation might be responsible for the hesitation to include phylogenetic diversity in conservation practice. We outline research routes that can help to ease uncertainties and bridge gaps between research and conservation with respect to phylogenetic diversity. A promising but yet ambiguous additional biodiversity component for conservation More than two decades ago, Richard Vane-Wright et al. However, despite the increasing number of studies, the scientific proof of the added value of phylogenetic diversity for nature conservation remains weak. We believe that this is one of the main reasons why phylogenetic diversity is largely neglected in conservation practice In addition to the more general concept of conserving all components of biodiversity because of their intrinsic values, we identified four main conservation approaches that are commonly proposed as central justifications for the conservation of phylogenetic diversity: (i) the rarity aspect; (ii) the richness aspect; (iii) phylogenetic diversity as a proxy for functional diversity; and (iv) phylogenetic diversity as a proxy for evolutionary potential. Along these lines, we emphasize that a sound conceptual justification for the added value of phylogenetic diversity is often missing. We finally highlight desirable research avenues to increase our knowledge of the role of phylogenetic diversity and of how it could potentially improve conservation in the future. Phylogenetic diversity as an intrinsic biodiversity component One general agreement is to conserve all components of biodiversity

A longstanding conundrum in community ecology is the frequent observation of long-term co-occurrence of species occupying the same trophic level, especially in relatively simple environments. Hutchinson (1961) is fa-

publications – whether for sale or for noncommercial distribution – should be addressed to WHO Press through the WHO web site

If we were to describe all the species on Earth and determine their distributions, we would solve the popularly termed 'Linnean' and 'Wallacean' shortfalls in biodiversity conservation. Even so, we would still be hindered by a 'Darwinian shortfall', that is, the lack of relevant phylogenetic information for most organisms. Overall, there are too few comprehensive phylogenies, large uncertainties in the estimation of divergence times, and, most critically, unknown evolutionary models linking phylogenies to relevant ecological traits and life history variation. Here, we discuss these issues and offer suggestions for further research to support evolutionary-based conservation planning. Species, phylogenies, and biodiversity conservation Species are considered indisputable units in conservation and biodiversity analyses. For example, Costello et al. Methodological and conceptual advances to delimitate species (e.g., That said, and despite many syntheses and discussions on the need to better incorporate evolution into conservation The Darwinian shortfall We recognize three closely coupled components of the Darwinian shortfall Lack of comprehensive phylogenies The first component is the lack of useable phylogenies for most groups of organism. First, few comprehensive (in the sense of including all species in a taxon) phylogenies exist

Species richness, but not phylogenetic diversity, influences community biomass production and temporal stability in a re-examination of 16 grassland biodiversity studies

Loss of avian phylogenetic diversity in neotropical agricultural systems

1 Phylogenetic diversity (PD) is a measure of biodiversity based on the evolutionary history of species. Here, we discuss several optimization problems related to the use of PD, and the more general measure split diversity (SD), in conservation prioritization. 2 Depending on the conservation goal and the information available about species, one can construct optimiza-tion routines that incorporate various conservation constraints. We demonstrate how this information can be used to select sets of species for conservation action. Specifically, we discuss the use of species ’ geographic distri-butions, the choice of candidates under economic pressure, and the use of predator–prey interactions between the species in a community to define viability constraints. 3 Despite such optimization problems falling into the area of NP hard problems, it is possible to solve them in a reasonable amount of time using integer programming. We apply integer linear programming to a variety of models for conservation prioritization that incorporate the SDmeasure. 4 We exemplarily show the results for two data sets: the Cape region of South Africa and a Caribbean coral reef community. Finally, we provide user-friendly software at

Biologic interactions determining geographic range size: a one species response to phylogenetic community structure

diversity and the role of non-host neighbour tree