The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Measuring biodiversity: Taxonomic relatedness for conservation priorities
Abstract
A definition of biodiversity is adopted that takes account not only of numbers of species, but also of the degrees of difference among them. The most appropriate measure of species differences is likely to be made in terms of genealogical relationships, as embodied in taxonomic classifications. Five new measures of taxonomic diversity are compared with existing measures of species richness and taxonomic root weighting for prioritising areas for the conservation of biodiversity, using as an example some data for 43 bumble bee species of the sibiricus-group. Although certain of the new measures can be shown to perform better than any existing methods, more extensive trials are needed, and further refinements can be anticipated. We conclude that combining species richness with taxonomic diversity to give a single measure inevitably involves compromise, as either component could be maximised in its own right. Nonetheless, the new prioritisation methods are already capable of giving practical results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35002501 · Cited by 31,710
The Global 200: Priority Ecoregions for Global Conservation
Olson, D. M., & Dinerstein, E. (2002) · Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden · doi:10.2307/3298564 · Cited by 1,526
Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection
Pressey, R. L., Humphries, C. J., Margules, C. R., Vane-Wright, R. I., & Williams, P. H. (1993) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/0169-5347(93)90023-i · Cited by 1,047
Self-citationOld world fruit bats: an action plan for their conservation
Mickleburgh, S. P., Hutson, A. M., & Racey, P. A. (1992) · IUCN eBooks · doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.1992.ssc-ap.6.en · Cited by 367
Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: When does it matter and how much?
Pressey, R. L., Possingham, H. P., & Margules, C. R. (1996) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/0006-3207(95)00120-4 · Cited by 300
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, P., Humphries, C., & Vane-Wright, R.
- Venue
- Australian Systematic Botany
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 1991-12-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 665-679
- ISSN
- 1030-1887 (ISSN-L)
- 1446-5701
- OpenAlex
- W2021796694
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring biodiversity: Taxonomic relatedness for conservation priorities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/sb9910665
- The paper
- Williams, P., Humphries, C., & Vane-Wright, R. (1991). Measuring biodiversity: Taxonomic relatedness for conservation priorities. Australian Systematic Botany. https://doi.org/10.1071/sb9910665
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.