Phylogenetic Biodiversity Metrics Should Account for Both Accumulation and Attrition of Evolutionary Heritage.

Phylogenetic metrics are essential tools used in the study of ecology, evolution and conservation. Phylogenetic diversity (PD) in particular is one of the most prominent measures of biodiversity and is based on the idea that biological features accumulate along the edges of phylogenetic trees that are summed. We argue that PD and many other phylogenetic biodiversity metrics fail to capture an essential process that we term attrition. Attrition is the gradual loss of features through causes other than extinction. Here we introduce "EvoHeritage", a generalization of PD that is founded on the joint processes of accumulation and attrition of features. We argue that while PD measures evolutionary history, EvoHeritage is required to capture a more pertinent subset of evolutionary history including only components that have survived attrition. We show that EvoHeritage is not the same as PD on a tree with scaled edges; instead, accumulation and attrition interact in a more complex non-monophyletic way that cannot be captured by edge lengths alone. This leads us to speculate that the one-dimensional edge lengths of classic trees may be insufficiently flexible to capture the nuances of evolutionary processes. We derive a measure of EvoHeritage and show that it elegantly reproduces species richness and PD at opposite ends of a continuum based on the intensity of attrition. We demonstrate the utility of EvoHeritage in ecology as a predictor of community productivity compared with species richness and PD. We also show how EvoHeritage can quantify living fossils and resolve their associated controversy. We suggest how the existing calculus of PD-based metrics and other phylogenetic biodiversity metrics can and should be recast in terms of EvoHeritage accumulation and attrition.

The robustness of phylogenetic diversity indices to extinctions.

Phylogenetic diversity indices provide a formal way to apportion evolutionary history amongst living species. Understanding the properties of these measures is key to determining their applicability in conservation biology settings. In this work, we investigate some questions posed in a recent paper by Fischer et al. (Syst Biol 72(3):606-615, 2023). In that paper, it is shown that under certain extinction scenarios, the ranking of the surviving species by their Fair Proportion index scores may be the complete reverse of their ranking beforehand. Our main results here show that this behaviour extends to a large class of phylogenetic diversity indices, including the Equal-Splits index. We also provide a necessary condition for reversals of Fair Proportion rankings to occur on phylogenetic trees whose edge lengths obey the ultrametric constraint. Specific examples of rooted phylogenetic trees displaying these behaviours are given and the impact of our results on the use of phylogenetic diversity indices more generally is discussed.

Spaces of Phylogenetic Diversity Indices: Combinatorial and Geometric Properties.

Biodiversity is a concept most naturally quantified and measured across sets of species. However, for some applications, such as prioritising species for conservation efforts, a species-by-species approach is desirable. Phylogenetic diversity indices are functions that apportion the total biodiversity value of a set of species across its constituent members. As such, they aim to measure each species' individual contribution to, and embodiment of, the diversity present in that set. However, no clear definition exists that encompasses the diversity indices in current use. This paper presents conditions that define diversity indices arising from the phylogenetic diversity measure on rooted phylogenetic trees. In this context, the diversity index 'score' given to a species represents a measure of its unique and shared evolutionary history as displayed in the underlying phylogenetic tree. Our definition generalises the diversity index notion beyond the popular Fair Proportion and Equal-Splits indices. These particular indices may now be seen as two points in a convex space of possible diversity indices, for which the boundary conditions are determined by the underlying shape of each phylogenetic tree. We calculated the dimension of the convex space associated with each tree shape and described the extremal points.

Counting and optimising maximum phylogenetic diversity sets.

In conservation biology, phylogenetic diversity (PD) provides a way to quantify the impact of the current rapid extinction of species on the evolutionary 'Tree of Life'. This approach recognises that extinction not only removes species but also the branches of the tree on which unique features shared by the extinct species arose. In this paper, we investigate three questions that are relevant to PD. The first asks how many sets of species of given size k preserve the maximum possible amount of PD in a given tree. The number of such maximum PD sets can be very large, even for moderate-sized phylogenies. We provide a combinatorial characterisation of maximum PD sets, focusing on the setting where the branch lengths are ultrametric (e.g. proportional to time). This leads to a polynomial-time algorithm for calculating the number of maximum PD sets of size k by applying a generating function; we also investigate the types of tree shapes that harbour the most (or fewest) maximum PD sets of size k. Our second question concerns optimising a linear function on the species (regarded as leaves of the phylogenetic tree) across all the maximum PD sets of a given size. Using the characterisation result from the first question, we show how this optimisation problem can be solved in polynomial time, even though the number of maximum PD sets can grow exponentially. Our third question considers a dual problem: If k species were to become extinct, then what is the largest possible loss of PD in the resulting tree? For this question, we describe a polynomial-time solution based on dynamical programming.

Self-discrepancies in bipolar disorder: comparison of manic, depressed, remitted and normal participants.

OBJECTIVES: To study the role of self-discrepancies in different phases of bipolar disorder (manic-depression). METHOD AND DESIGN: Patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder in three groups, currently depressed, currently manic or hypomanic, and currently in remission, together with healthy control participants, were administered a modified version of Higgins' Selves Questionnaire. Consistencies between the self-actual, self-ideal and self-ought representations were calculated, together with consistencies between the self-actual representation and the believed views of generalized others about the self. RESULTS: In contrast to all other groups, bipolar depressed patients showed marked discrepancies between their self-actual and self-ideal representations, and between their self-actual and self-ought representations. Manic or hypomanic patients showed higher self-actual:self-ideal consistency than non-patient controls. The differences between the depressed participants and the other groups appeared to be accounted for by their very negative self-actual descriptions. Participants in all four groups showed high levels of consistency between self-perceptions and the believed perceptions of others about the self. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm that beliefs about the self differ between different phases of bipolar disorder and are consistent with the hypothesis that the manic phase involves active avoidance of discrepancies between the self and self-ideals.