How large-scale barcoding promotes large-scale biodiversity assessment

1. How large-scale barcoding promotes large-scale biodiversity assessment Dan Faith The Australian Museum http://www.amonline.net.au/systematics/ Andrew Baker Queensland University of Technology, Australia and Steffen Klaere, Bui Quang Minh, Arndt von Haeseler MFPL - Center for Integrative Bioinformatics, Vienna, Austria

2. Key points • Biodiversity assessments and monitoring linked to climate change impacts, the 2010 biodiversity target, need to address overall biodiversity • We need information for many taxa and many places, + modeling for biodiversity surrogates • We can use the approximate phylogenetic information from DNA barcoding and “PD” • This side-steps species designations • Congruent PD patterns boost predictions of overall biodiversity • Output trees (NEWICK) from BOLD can link to new PD web-based software

3. Systematic conservation planning and the 2010 target – can DNA barcoding provide the needed biodiversity information?

4. The total PD represented by one area shown by dark branches

5. PD complementarity:additional PD2 units for area offering species { a, b, c } 6 units for area offering species { i, k, m }

6. Lots of cryptic variation; lots of geographic clustering – e.g. Nepean vs. Georges rivers Schematic tree shows PD complementarity for Georges in red Consider implications of loss of fauna from human impacts on Nepean (next slide) Faith, D. P and A. Baker, 2006. Phylogenetic diversity (PD) and biodiversity conservation: some bioinformatics challenges” Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online 2 http://www.la-press.com/cr_data/files/f_EBO-2-Faith-et-al_174.pdf

7. This PD-complementarity pattern is identical for different taxa

8. Web-based PD analyses to be linked to BOLD http://www.cibiv.at/software/pda/ Current capabilities – use NEWICK input, evaluates PD of user-defined sets of taxa new capabilities – calculate potential gains/losses in PD and link to systematic conservation planning methods

10. Conservation planning uses PD complementarity values

11. Sample output

12. BOLD data and the 2010 biodiversity target systematic planning, optimized, loss of sites - this is BETTER Random loss of sites – this is BAD Faith, DP (2006) Taxonomic research and 2010. http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/biota/Archive_2010target/8418.htm

13. GBIF for 2010 GBIF data serving the 2010 biodiversity target

14. Key Sydney A B C D E Georges R Baker et al Nepean R L Burragorang Woronora R COI Lineage distributions Euastacus Nattai R Wingecarribee R Upper Georges 20 km Upper Nepean Shoalhaven R AUSTRALIA Refer Detail

15. Key Sydney A B C D E Georges R Baker et al Nepean R L Burragorang Woronora R Lineage distributions Euastacus Nattai R Wingecarribee R 20 km localities already impacted or under threat from mining and/or future dams Shoalhaven R AUSTRALIA Refer Detail

16. Key Sydney A B C D E Georges R Baker et al Nepean R L Burragorang Woronora R Lineage distributions Euastacus Nattai R Wingecarribee R Higher priority for conservation 20 km Shoalhaven R AUSTRALIA Refer Detail

17. Large or small impacts of climate change on PD? fortunately did not find this - large loss of PD or evolutionary potential for given species loss small loss of PD for given amount of species loss the secure species (red) were phylogenetically dispersed red = surviving evolutionary potential Yesson, C. and A. Culham. (2006) A phyloclimatic study of Cyclamen. BMC Evolutionary Biology 6:72