Extinction risk in evolutionarily

distinct primates

Luis D. Verde Arregoitia Kerrie Wilson, Simon Blomberg, Diana Fisher

University of Queensland

19 August 2013

The Guardian, Thursday 18 February 2010

2008

2010

2012

Primates are likely to lose more unique evolutionary history than what is expected by chance

amount of unique evolutionary history

species “uniqueness”

Evolutionary Distinctiveness

phylogeny

risk

Verde Arregoitia et al. (2013) Proc. Roy Soc. B

extinct

ion r

isk

distinctiveness

taxonomic age

Geographic range

Diet

Body Size

Hunting

Habitat loss/degradation

aims

test macroecological hypotheses

- body size, geographic range size

identify drivers of extinction risk

- extrinsic factors, threats

explain the relationships between phylogeny and extinction risk

data

diet Gómez & Verdú (2012) Syst. Biol

body size (MOM 4.1, PanTHERIA, Anage databases)

geographical range size (IUCN EOO maps)

harvesting pressure Ape Alliance Bushmeat WG

phylogenetic lineage age Fritz et al. 2009

evolutionary distinctiveness ZSL EDGE

threat status IUCN Red List

n=312

spatial data

Land use FAO 2010

Human Influence Index Sanderson et al. (2002)BioScience

Landmass type

Biogeographic region Holt et al. (2013) Science

Bearded Capuchin Cebus libidinosus

• Figures from arcmap here minimum 0

maximum 64

range 64

mean 13.44

variety 62

majority 14

minority 55

median 14

Human Influence Index

macroecology

body size

-allometric relationships

-preferential hunting

-responses to habitat loss/disturbance

macroecology

geographic range

-criteria for threatened status listing

-habitat/niche breadth

-range dynamics

pairwise correlations independent contrasts

body

size

range

size

phylogenetic

age

range size ns

phylogenetic

age - 0.261* ns

evolutionary

distinctiveness - 0.481* ns 0.633*

(n=311)

phylogenetic confirmatory path analysis

Hardenberg & Gonzalez-Voyer. (2013) Evolution

phylogenetic path analysis

C statistic P-value

11.05 0.087

range size

Age or ED

body size

extinction risk

Identifying drivers of extinction risk

Recursive partitioning

– Conditional inference trees

– Conditional random forests

VARIETY

p < 0.001

1

26 26forest.Protected

p < 0.001

2

1.2991.299

Node 3 (n = 50)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Node 4 (n = 8)

Th

NT

h

00.6

GestationLen_d

p < 0.001

5

197.7 197.7Crops.mod.livestock

p < 0.001

6

5.238 5.238VARIETY

p = 0.002

7

50 50gdpMAJORITY

p < 0.001

8

1 1HomeRange_km2

p = 0.007

9

0.220.22bodyM

p = 0.01

10

3110.793110.79forest.ModerateHigh.LivestockDens

p < 0.001

11

29.7529.75

Node 12 (n = 28)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Node 13 (n = 7)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Node 14 (n = 11)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Node 15 (n = 8)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Node 16 (n = 7)

Th

NT

h

00.6

shrubs.Protected

p = 0.007

17

0.8020.802

Node 18 (n = 50)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Node 19 (n = 7)

Th

NT

h

00.6

grasslands.HighLivestockDens

p = 0.001

20

0.224 0.224wetlands.protected

p = 0.009

21

3.704 3.704Crops.mod.livestock

p = 0.002

22

20 20grasslands.Protected

p = 0.005

23

0.1540.154

Node 24 (n = 33)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Node 25 (n = 7)

Th

NT

h

00.6

shrubs.LowLivestock

p = 0.01

26

0.1940.194

Node 27 (n = 10)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Node 28 (n = 10)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Node 29 (n = 9)

Th

NT

h

00.6

gniChangeMean

p = 0.007

30

0.6910.691

Node 31 (n = 17)

Th

NT

h

00.6

gdpMINORITY

p = 0.002

32

12 12

Node 33 (n = 23)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Node 34 (n = 8)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Node 35 (n = 19)

Th

NT

h

00.6

Six variables 92% cases correctly classified sensitivity = 0.94 specificity = 0.89

drivers of extinction risk

Geographic range Body size Variety of Human Influence Index values Minimum Human Influence Index value % of range in protected forest % of range in croplands w/ medium to high livestock density

Geographic range Body size Heterogeneity of Human Influence Index values Minimum Human Influence Index value % of range in protected forest % of range in croplands w/ medium to high livestock density

drivers of extinction risk

Larger bodied

species in younger lineages

selective advantages of larger body size passive directional trend Cope’s rule ecological opportunity

Larger bodied

species in younger lineages

selective advantages of larger body size passive directional trend Cope’s rule ecological opportunity

Larger bodied

– Preferentially hunted

– Slower life histories

– Require larger areas

species in younger lineages

Smaller bodied

evolutionarily distinct species

Smaller bodied

evolutionarily distinct species

extinction filter

Smaller bodied

»Sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation

»Lemurs

• 90% species threatened

• Largest species extinct

evolutionarily distinct species

+extrinsic factors

+threats

evolutionary history

body size

extinction risk

Acknowledgments

BES Parkyn Bursary Training and Travel Grant

UQ Graduate School International Travel Award

Behavioural Ecology Research Group

Lucie Bland

Jeff O. Hanson