No abstract

No abstract

Species are the main unit used to measure biodiversity, but different preferred diagnostic criteria can lead to very different delineations. For instance, named primate species have more than doubled since 1982. Such increases have been termed "taxonomic inflation" and have been attributed to the widespread adoption of the ′phylogenetic species concept′ (PSC) in preference to the previously popular ′biological species concept′ (BSC). Criticisms of the PSC have suggested taxonomic inflation may be biased toward particular taxa and have unfavourable consequences for conservation. Here, we explore predictors of taxonomic inflation across primate taxa since the initial application of the PSC nearly 40 years ago. We do not find evidence that diversification rate, the rate of lineage formation over evolutionary time, is linked to inflation, contrary to expectations if the PSC identifies incipient species. We also do not find evidence of research effort in fields where work has been suggested to motivate splitting being associated with increases in species numbers among genera. To test the suggestion that splitting groups is likely to increase their perceived risk of extinction, we test whether genera that have undergone more splitting have also observed a greater increase in their proportion of threatened species since the introduction of the PSC. We find no cohesive signal of inflation leading to higher threat probabilities across primate genera. Overall, this analysis sends a positive message that threat statuses of primate species are not being overwhelmingly affected by splitting in line with what has recently been reported for birds. Regardless, we echo warnings that it is unwise for conservation to be reliant on taxonomic stability. Species (however defined) are not independent from one another, thus, monitoring and managing them as such may not meet the overarching goal of conserving biodiversity.

Many government organizations use recovery planning to synthesize threats, propose management strategies, and determine recovery criteria for threatened wildlife. Little is known about the extent to which physiological knowledge has been used in recovery planning, despite its potential to offer key biological information that could aid in recovery success. Using recovery strategies for atrisk animal species in Canada as a case study, we analyzed the prevalence, purpose, and type of physiological knowledge being used in recovery planning.We found that 73% of strategies contained mention of physiology and that incorporation of physiology has increased since 2006. Of the various types of physiological tools available, reference to stress, immune, thermal, and bioenergetic metrics appeared most frequently. Physiological information was more likely to be found in the background and threat assessment sections compared to action and future research sections, and less likely to be included in strategies for arthropods and birds compared to other taxonomic groups. By synthesizing our results with previous studies, we provide recommendations to encourage the application of physiological tools in recovery planning

Explaining why some species are disproportionately impacted by the extinction crisis is of critical importance for conservation biology as a science and for proactively protecting species that are likely to become threatened in the future. Using the most current data on threat status, population trends, and threat types for 446 primate species, we advance previous research on the determinants of extinction risk by including a wider array of phenotypic traits as predictors, filling gaps in these trait data using multiple imputation, and considering more explicitly the mechanisms that connect organismal traits to extinction risk. Our Bayesian phylogenetically controlled analyses reveal that larger-bodied and insular species exhibit higher threat status, while those that are more omnivorous and live in larger groups have lower threat status. The same traits are not linked to risk when repeating our analyses with older IUCN data, suggesting that the traits that influence species risk are changing as anthropogenic effects continue to transform natural landscapes. We also show that larger-bodied and arboreal species are more susceptible to key threats responsible for primate population declines. Collectively, these results provide new insights to the determinants of primate extinction and identify the mechanisms (i.e., threats) that link traits to risk.