Cited by 607Amphibian and Reptile BiologyEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFish Biology and Ecology Studies

The interplay of past diversification and evolutionary isolation with present imperilment across the amphibian tree of life

Jetz, Walter, Pyron, R. Alexander·2018·Nature Ecology & Evolution

Abstract

Human activities continue to erode the tree of life, requiring us to prioritize research and conservation. Amphibians represent key victims and bellwethers of global change, and the need for action to conserve them is drastically outpacing knowledge. We provide a phylogeny incorporating nearly all extant amphibians (7,238 species). Current amphibian diversity is composed of both older, depauperate lineages and extensive, more recent tropical radiations found in select clades. Frog and salamander diversification increased strongly after the Cretaceous-Palaeogene boundary, preceded by a potential mass-extinction event in salamanders. Diversification rates of subterranean caecilians varied little over time. Biogeographically, the Afro- and Neotropics harbour a particularly high proportion of Gondwanan relicts, comprising species with high evolutionary distinctiveness (ED). These high-ED species represent a large portion of the branches in the present tree: around 28% of all phylogenetic diversity comes from species in the top 10% of ED. The association between ED and imperilment is weak, but many species with high ED are now imperilled or lack formal threat status, suggesting opportunities for integrating evolutionary position and phylogenetic heritage in addressing the current extinction crisis. By providing a phylogenetic estimate for extant amphibians and identifying their threats and ED, we offer a preliminary basis for a quantitatively informed global approach to conserving the amphibian tree of life.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41559-018-0515-5

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jetz, W., & Pyron, R. A.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Jetz, Walter
  • Pyron, R. Alexander
Venue
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Published
2018-03-26
Volume
2
Issue
5
Pages
850-858
ISSN
2397-334X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2796242207
Cited by
607
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 110 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 6
FWCI
28.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Division of Biological Infrastructure
  • Division of Environmental Biology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Fish Biology and Ecology Studies
Keywords
amphibians, amphibian phylogeny, diversification rates, evolutionary distinctiveness, phylogenetic diversity, extinction risk, conservation prioritization, caecilians, salamanders, frogs, Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, mass extinction, biogeography, extinction crisis
MeSH terms
Amphibians, Animals, Biological Evolution, Phylogeny, Biodiversity, Extinction, Biological, Endangered Species

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review