Table 1.
Note that all measures prioritise evolutionary distinctiveness (‘ED’ above), and that all components are scaled such that their means are zero and standard deviations one unless stated. As discussed in the text, in the EDAM framework EDGE values could be called EDMRL, although EDGE components are not scaled.
Fig 1.
Plot of EDGE scores against EDM, showing they are strongly correlated (red regression line; F1,1051 = 1846, r2 = 0.64, p < 0.0001).
The standard deviations of the EDM and EDGE values’ bootstrapped estimates are shown as grey whiskers around each point; these were not incorporated in the regression quoted above. There are 553 tied EDGE scores, and no tied EDM scores; a line of tied EDGE species can be seen at the left of the plot. The greater number of tied EDGE species suggest EDGE is worse at discriminating among species.
Fig 2.
EDGE and EDM plotted against their components.
In (A) and (B), EDGE is plotted against Red List category (increasing in threat level from left-to-right; r2 = 0.20) and the logarithm of evolutionary distinctiveness (r2 = 0.78) respectively. The larger r2 when regressed against log(ED) suggests EDGE is more strongly related to ED than GE. (C) and (D) show EDM against change index (r2 = 0.47) and the logarithm of evolutionary distinctiveness (r2 = 0.56) respectively. EDM is related almost equally strongly to its components, and so is less biased than EDGE. All models above were statistically significant (p < 0.0001) and were linear regressions, with the exception of comparison of EDGE and Red Lists status, which was an ANOVA. Note that EDM is calculated with scaled values, but is not regressed against them above.
Fig 3.
Variability of EDM values across bootstrap phylogenies.
In (A), the ranks of the best phylogeny’s EDM values are plotted against the median ranks across all the bootstrap phylogenies, with grey whiskers showing the standard deviations of those ranks. (B) plots the rank of EDM for Wahlenbergia hederacea in each bootstrap phylogeny against the log. likelihood of that phylogeny. Wahlenbergia hederacea is the species with the largest standard deviation in (A). Three distinct groupings of EDM values can be seen in (B), probably reflecting equally likely islands in treespace (see discussion).
Table 2.
Species rankings according to EDGE and EDM.
Table 3.
Species rankings according to EDAM, EDAM′, and ED(AM)max.
Fig 4.
Scatter plots of the EDAM measures against each another (lower panels), histograms of their distributions (along the diagonal), and correlation coefficients of the measures (upper panels). Note the poor correlation between EDAM′ and EDM.
Fig 5.
Distribution of top-fifty ranked species across Britain.
The sub-panels show EDGE (A), EDM (B), ED(AM)max (C), EDAM (D), and EDAM′ (E). Each map has a legend to the right hand side, splitting the counts of species into twenty ‘Jenks’ quantiles (classIntervals function in the R package classInt [58]). The greatest four quantiles have been coloured differently, to emphasise the high-priority sites.