Scientists race to save 'books' in the burning 'library of life'

December 29, 2014
Taking Ginkgo biloba does not improve memory

As species blink into extinction all around the world, environmental scientists in Australia have come up with a way to decide 'which of the books we rescue from the blazing library of life'.

Researchers at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED) have developed a cost-effective way to save a wide range of threatened , including rare old ones that may be costly to protect.

Their new technique to help maximise both the species and we save helps resolve the dilemma facing conservation managers worldwide: whether to rescue a larger number of recent and more common species or fewer, unique and older species that may be more costly to preserve.

The technology will help nations such as Australia and New Zealand to protect as much diversity of both species and their genes as possible, says lead researcher Dr Joseph Bennett of CEED and The University of Queensland (UQ).

"The global extinction crisis is getting worse, and conservation funds are seldom enough to stop biodiversity from declining," says Dr Bennett. "This is like a library on fire – and we have to save as much of the precious information as we can.

"If we have to choose, do we carry out a few rare, old tomes, or do we carry a larger number of smaller books that may contain less information than the ancient tomes?"

Dr Bennett explains that highly distinct species have few close relatives, and their lineage has been isolated on the tree of life for many millions of years. The platypus is one example of Australia's 'rare old tomes' – its ancestors diverged from other mammals somewhere between 160 and 200 million years ago.

As the distinct species are isolated from others, they also contain unique genes, which may in the future prove very important to the health of ecosystems, or even the development of medicine. For example, Ginkgo biloba is an old and genetically distinct species that was once close to extinction, but is now used traditional medicine, he says.

"So losing the more distinct species – akin to losing the rare old tome – could mean the loss of this genetic information, along with millions of years of evolution," he says. "But when these species are expensive to protect, it may mean spending money to save one or two species instead of five or ten other species."

To solve this dilemma, CEED researchers developed a computer program that predicts how many species and how much genetic diversity can be saved with a given amount of money.

The program involves ranking each species based on different criteria, including how threatened it is, the cost to save it, and how genetically unique it is.

"We used the program in a case study with New Zealand's 700 most ," says Dr Bennett. "In the study, we boosted the importance of saving rare species, so the more unique their genes, the higher they rank.

"Using this program, we found a balance that would save the greatest number of different species while conserving the maximum genetic diversity within a given budget."

The team found that the best solutions meant spending money on some less if a unique species were so expensive to save that they would have significantly reduced the total number of species – and genetic diversity – that could be conserved.

"But the good news is our best solutions were still able to reach 95 per cent of most species and 95 per cent of most genetic diversity we could get for any budget.

"This means that it may be possible to prioritise both genetic diversity and species diversity – these two aspects of biodiversity do not have to conflict. While we will have to choose among the species carefully, the rewards are well worth the effort."

"Research on species prioritisation enables governments, environmental organisations and conservation communities to devise strategies that will eventually raise enough funds to secure all of Australia's species," says CEED Director Professor Hugh Possingham.

The study "Balancing phylogenetic diversity and species numbers in conservation prioritization, using a case study of threatened species in New Zealand" by Joseph R. Bennett, Graeme Elliott, Belinda Mellish, Liana N. Joseph, Ayesha I.T. Tulloch, William J.M. Probert, Martina M.I. Di Fonzo, Joanne M. Monks, Hugh P. Possingham and Richard Maloney is published in Biological Conservation.

Explore further: Nations "failing to save earth's wildlife"

More information: Biological Conservation, … ii/S0006320714001219

Related Stories

Nations "failing to save earth's wildlife"

November 11, 2014

The world can dramatically improve the rate at which it rescues imperilled species if it starts choosing the land set aside as protected areas more wisely, international scientists say.

Governments adopt 'triage' for threatened species

June 4, 2014

Governments in Australia and internationally are coming round to the idea that conservation efforts need to focus more on saving as many endangered species as possible with the resources available.

Amazonian shrimps: An underwater world still unknown

November 26, 2014

A study reveals how little we know about the Amazonian diversity. Aiming to resolve a scientific debate about the validity of two species of freshwater shrimp described in the first half of the last century, researchers have ...

Recommended for you

Tasmanian tiger doomed long before humans came along

December 12, 2017

The Tasmanian tiger was doomed long before humans began hunting the enigmatic marsupial, scientists said Tuesday, with DNA sequencing showing it was in poor genetic health for thousands of years before its extinction.

Searching for the CRISPR Swiss-army knife

December 12, 2017

Scientists at the University of Copenhagen, led by the Spanish Professor Guillermo Montoya, are investigating the molecular features of different molecular scissors of the CRISPR-Cas system to shed light on the so-called ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2014
Conserving genetic diversity should not be solely the purview of governments or "big science" organizations - it should include the citizen scientists, hobbyists, collectors and gardeners who have the interest and skills to grow or maintain rare species in their possession. If they are included in the conservation effort, a great many more species could be conserved. Additionally, other options such as what I call "conservation hybridization" could be employed, whereby organisms with rare genes and difficult culture are crossed with other more durable, easier to maintain species so as to sequester the rare genes in a less vulnerable organism. One very important way to preserve diversity is to allow more movement of rare species to locations where they can be protected, instead of just allowing them to die off in threatened habitats due to misapplication of regulations alleged to help protect them.
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2014
The global extinction crisis is getting worse

One problem with that statement: it isn't true. It is hyperbole repeated by alarmists as though it were established fact. There is no evidence that rates of extinction are increasing. In order to quantify rates of extinction, you need to know what they were at some point (preferably several points) in the past and what they are now. In fact, we don't know what extinction rates are currently and we know even less about what they were 50 or 100 or more years ago. We don't even have a handle on how many species of organisms currently exist.

Saving species from extinction is a questionable exercise. In rare cases there is generally-acknowledged merit in saving a particular organism. "Diversity" is the oft-repeated reason to preserve species, however it's not known what the "right" number is. With millions of known species of organisms and thousands more discovered each year, we're not short on diversity.
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2014

Your comments are incredibly ignorant.

4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2014

To further your education.

Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2014
As usual you don't know what you're talking about.
Your philosophy of the "ignorant scientist" is not new, and has been nothing but a blight in civilization in history.

To have a positive impact on the world, you have to understand your roll in shaping it. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, nobody knows everything. But ignorance simply in the defence of arrogance is unjustifiable and is simply appealing to the lowest denominator of the human character.
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2014
Thanks for the links Vietvet. It is so interesting to see commenters on a science site - who are so quick to make accusations of conspiracy - with no support of course - nice to see others willing to do a little due dilligence - and provide science links in response.
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014

Your comments are incredibly ignorant.


As per normal.
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014

To further your education.


You sure are an optimist Vietvet.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.