genome...draft preserving the tree of life of the fish family cyprinidae in africa in the face of...

Draft

Preserving the tree of life of the fish family Cyprinidae in Africa in the face of the ongoing extinction crisis

Journal: Genome

Manuscript ID gen-2018-0023.R3

Manuscript Type: Article

Date Submitted by the Author: 02-Mar-2019

Complete List of Authors: Adeoba, Mariam; University of JohannesburgTesfamichael, Solomon; University of JohannesburgYessoufou, Kowiyou; University of Johannesburg

Keyword: Conservation, African freshwater Ecosystems, IUCN Red List, EDGE, DNA barcoding

Is the invited manuscript for consideration in a Special

Issue? :7th International Barcode of Life

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/genome-pubs

Genome

Draft

1

Preserving the tree of life of the fish family Cyprinidae in Africa in the face of the

ongoing extinction crisis

Mariam Salami1, Solomon Tesfamichael2, Kowiyou Yessoufou2

1Department of Zoology, University of Johannesburg, Kingsway Campus, PO Box 524,

Auckland Park 2006, South Africa

2Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy studies, University of

Johannesburg, Kingsway Campus, PO Box 524, Auckland Park 2006, South Africa

*Corresponding author: Kowiyou Yessoufou [email protected]

Page 1 of 42


Genome

mailto:[email protected]

Draft

2

Abstract

Our understanding of how the phylogenetic tree of fishes might be affected by the ongoing

extinction risk is poor. This is due to the unavailability of comprehensive DNA data,

especially for many African lineages. In addition, the ongoing taxonomic confusion within

some lineages, e.g. Cyprinidae, makes it difficult to contribute to the debate on how the

fish tree of life might be shaped by extinction. Here, we combine COI sequences and

taxonomic information to assemble a fully sampled phylogeny of the African Cyprinidae

and investigate whether we might lose more phylogenetic diversity (PD) than expected if

currently-threatened species go extinct. We found evidence for phylogenetic signal in

extinction risk, suggesting that some lineages might be at higher risk than others. Based on

simulated extinctions, we found that the loss of all threatened species, which approximates

37% of total PD, would lead to a greater loss of PD than expected, although highly

evolutionarily-distinct species are not particularly at risk. Pending the reconstruction of an

improved multi-gene phylogeny, our results suggest that prioritizing high-EDGE species

(Evolutionary Distinct and Globally Endangered species) in conservation programmes,

particularly in some geographic regions, would contribute significantly to safeguarding the

tree of life of the African Cyprinidae.

Keywords: African freshwater ecosystems, Conservation, DNA barcoding, EDGE, IUCN

Red List

Page 2 of 42


Genome

Draft

3

Introduction

Evidence that we are losing biodiversity at an unprecedented rate is now piling up (Vamosi

and Vamosi 2008; Barnosky et al. 2011; Ceballos et al. 2015). For example, one-fifth of

vertebrate species richness, including 13% of birds, 25% of mammals, 31% of sharks and

rays and 32% of amphibians, are at risk of extinction (Hoffmann et al. 2010; IUCN 2014).

One consequence of species extinction is the disruption of ecosystem functioning and the

loss of functional diversity (Erwin 2008) that generates the ecosystem services upon which

human life relies (MEA 2005). More concerning is the recent prediction that we risk

losing, in only a few centuries, 75% of current vertebrate species (Vamosi and Vamosi

2008; Barnosky et al. 2011), if drastic measures are not taken.

To inform the decision-making process towards such measures, a great deal of studies of

extinction risk has been conducted in recent years, but these studies focus mostly on

terrestrial vertebrates (Purvis et al. 2000; Jetz et al. 2004; Davies and Yessoufou 2013;

Tingley et al. 2013; Schachat et al. 2016; Tonini et al. 2016; Veron et al. 2017). This

massive focus on terrestrial vertebrates, particularly mammals, results in a better

understanding of not only ecological and evolutionary predispositions of mammals to

extinction (Cardillo et al., 2005), but also how the current extinction crisis might deplete

the phylogenetic diversity (PD) accumulated over millions of years on the tree of life

(Purvis et al. 2000; Davies 2016). The general pattern emerging from these studies is that

at-risk species tend to cluster on a phylogenetic tree – phylogenetic signal – (Tonini et al.

2016; Veron et al. 2017) and consequently, if clusters of at-risk species go extinct, entire

lineages might be lost, thus leading to a disproportionate loss of PD (Purvis et al. 2000;

Yessoufou and Davies 2016). As such, revealing how threatened species are distributed

along a phylogeny can guide efforts to prioritise certain lineages in conservation projects.

Traditionally, the tests of phylogenetic signal in extinction risk are done on IUCN risk

categories (Caddy and Garibaldi 2000), an approach that ignores the drivers of risk. This

approach has recently been proved to mask a bigger picture of phylogenetic basis of

extinction risk because different species could be in the same risk category, but the risk

may be driven by different causes (Schachat et al. 2016).

Page 3 of 42


Genome

Draft

4

Draft

However, as opposed to terrestrial vertebrates, efforts to understand extinction risk patterns

in aquatic vertebrates have been weak, particularly from a phylogenetic perspective (see

review of Veron et al. 2017). There is therefore a need to channel more efforts towards

filling the knowledge gap in extinction risk in fish group in comparison to the vast

knowledge generated for other vertebrates; e.g. mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles (Jetz

et al. 2004; Davies and Yessoufou 2013; Tingley et al. 2013; Schachat et al. 2016; Tonini

et al. 2016; Veron et al. 2017).

In this context, the present study focuses on the African subset of the freshwater fish family

Cyprinidae. In Africa, the diversity of Cyprinidae is relatively well known with 539

described taxa on the continent (Table S1), and this provides an opportunity to fill the

existing knowledge gap on the fish tree of life and risk of extinction. Cyprinidae is the most

diverse taxonomic group of freshwater fishes distributed across the world (Nelson 2006;

Imoto et al. 2013) with 374 genera and 3 061 described species globally (Eschmeyer and

Fong 2015; Froese and Pauly 2016). This family is widely distributed across Africa, Europe

and North America (Thai et al. 2007) with 26 genera and 539 species found in Africa

(Eschmeyer and Fong, 2015). Some species of this family are of economic importance in

aquaculture, angling, fisheries, aquarium trade, and many others serve as an essential protein

source for humans, in addition to their high values in recreational fisheries (Skelton 2001;

Thai et al. 2007; Collins et al. 2012).

Investigating extinction risk in freshwater ecosystems is important and certainly urgent.

For example, the exponential growth of the human population results in unprecedented

pressures on natural systems, particularly on freshwater ecosystems in the developing

world (Marshall and Gratwicke 1998; Thieme et al. 2005; Dudgeon et al. 2006; García et

al. 2010; Thieme et al. 2013). As an illustration, the biophysical conditions of 83% of all

freshwater ecosystems are seriously degraded owing to the human footprint (Vörösmarty et

al. 2010). The drivers of this degradation include overexploitation, overfishing, dam

construction, urbanization, aquarium trade, climate change and invasive species (Venter et

al. 2010; Arthington et al. 2016). Consequently, freshwater ecosystems have suffered

higher species loss than any other terrestrial or marine ecosystems (MEA 2005; Revenga et

al. 2005), and this motivates for more investigations of extinction risk in freshwater

systems. Such investigations are expected to focus more on phylogenetic diversity (PD) as

Page 4 of 42


Genome

Draft

5

Draft

it is more likely that the loss of PD would be more dramatic than that of species richness

simply because of the emerging pattern of non-random extinction (Davies and Yessoufou,

2013; Veron et al. 2017).

From this perspective, recent conservation studies have increasingly shifted their focus

towards the preservation of the evolutionary history on the tree of life rather than just

species richness (Jetz et al. 2004; Tonini et al. 2016; Veron et al. 2017; Faith 2008; Mooers

et al. 128 2008; Thuiller et al. 2011; Billionnet 2012; Yessoufou et al. 2017). Several

evidences justify this recent shift. On one hand, the conservation of evolutionary history or

PD leads to the protection of not only a diversity of functions or services (Forest et al.

2007; Veron et al. 131 2017), but also of evolutionarily distinct species (Faith 1992;

Winter et al. 2012). On the other hand, it also leads to the conservation of biodiversity

functions that provide currently known and unknown goods and services (Forest et al.

2007; Faith 2008; Faith et al. 2010; Faith and Polloc 2014). Although there are several

metrics to quantify evolutionary diversity, ED (evolutionary distinctiveness, a metric that

measures the phylogenetic uniqueness of a species) is one of the most frequently used in

recent studies that seek to preserve evolutionary history on the tree of life (Jetz et al. 2004;

Tonini et al. 2016; Yessoufou et al. 2017). This is because ED has been shown to be

efficient in capturing most evolutionary history accumulated in a particular tree of life

(Redding et al. 2008; Redding et al. 2015), especially when ED values are analysed within

a biogeographical framework (Jetz et al. 2004; Daru et al. 2013; Yessoufou et al. 2017). In

addition, ED metrics also capture broadly the biology of a particular group (Warren et al.

2008; Redding et al. 2010).

However, as opposed to mammals, reptiles and birds, how the fish tree of life could be

affected by the ongoing mass extinction is poorly understood. This is because of the

taxonomic confusion in several lineages, e.g. Cyprinidae (Skelton 2016). The current

taxonomic debate around Cyprinidae is likely to take longer as more DNA data are

required, and the lab facilities needed to generate these sequences are not always available

on the continent. Even in the few labs that have such facilities, fish samples for the over

500 African Cyprinidae species are also not available. Given the ongoing extinction crisis,

it is critical that we attempt to elucidate how the crisis might prune the fish tree of life on

Page 5 of 42


Genome

Draft

6

the continent pending further clarification of taxonomic status within the family and the

availability of fish samples.

In the present study, our aim is to inform conservation decisions through investigating

evolutionary diversity of the fish family Cyprinidae in Africa. Specifically, we assemble a

gene-tree based on DNA barcodes of the African Cyprinidae, explore how threatened fish

species and threat drivers are distributed along the phylogeny, and investigate how the loss

of currently threatened fish species would impact the evolutionary diversity on the

phylogeny.

Material and Method

IUCN categorisation of the African Cyprinidae

We compiled the list of the 539 African Cyprinidae species from Fishbase (Froese and

Pauly 2017; accessed March 2017) presented in Table S1. The IUCN status of all the 539

species is as follows (http://www.iucnredlist.org/; accessed September 2016): Least

Concern (LC, 253 species), Near Threatened (NT, 13 species), Vulnerable (VU, 51

species), Endangered (EN, 167 33 species), Critically Endangered (EN, 10 species),

Extinct (EX, 1 species), Data Deficient (DD, 137 species) and Not Assessed (NA, 11

species) (Table S1). The only species already extinct, Enteromius microbarbis David &

Poll, 1937, was excluded from the analysis.

Threats to fish diversity

Different data on threats were retrieved from the IUCN database (IUCN 2016; accessed

September 2016). These threats were then grouped into the following categories: habitat

change, invasive species, pollution and overexploitation. When a species is under more

than one threat category, it is categorised in the group "multiple threats" (Table S1).

Assembling a fully sampled phylogeny of the African Cyprinidae

We used the recent approach of Thomas et al. (2013) to assemble a complete phylogeny

when DNA sequences are not available for all species. This approach requires taxonomic

information and DNA data (here COI sequences) with which one can assemble a constraint

tree. With regard to DNA data, three types of species (types 1, 2 and 3) are distinguished:

“type 1 species” are species for which we have COI sequences; “type 2 species” are

Page 6 of 42


Genome

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

Draft

7

species for which COI sequences are missing but they are congeners of type 1; “type 3

species” have no COI sequences and are not congeners of type 1. In this study, we have

138 type 1 species, 388 type 2 species and 13 type 3 species. To assemble the constraint

tree, an XML file was generated using the COI sequences of the type 1 species (see

Adeoba et al. 2018 for details of the origin and how sequences were compiled), in the

program BEAUTi, and this file was used to reconstruct a dated constraint tree based on a

Bayesian MCMC approach implemented in the BEAST program. Further, we selected

GTR + I + Γ as the best model of sequence evolution based on the Akaike information

criterion evaluated using MODELTEST (Nylander 2004). In addition, a Yule process was

selected as the tree prior with an uncorrelated relaxed lognormal model for rate variation

among branches. Also, we included the COI sequences of the following species used as

outgroups and for calibration (He et al. 2008; Tang et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2012):

Barbonymus altus, Barbonymus schwanenfieldii, Barbus Barbus, Carrassius auratus,

Carrassius gibelio, Gyrinocheilus aymonieri, Hybognathus argyritis, Myxocyprinus

asiaticus, Paramisgurnus dabryanus, Phoxinus phoxinus, Pseudobora parva, Rhinichthys

umatilla, Tinca tinca and Vimba vimba.

For calibration, following Wang et al. (2012) and Cavender (1991), the root node of

Cyprinidae was constrained to 55.8 million years (My, ±0.5), and the split between Tinca

and the modern leuciscins was constrained to 18.0 My. In addition, the lineage Barbus was

calibrated to 13 Mya (±0.5) following Zardoya and Doadrio (1999). In the process of tree

reconstruction, a Yule process was selected as the tree prior with an uncorrelated relaxed

lognormal model for rate variation among branches. Monte Carlo Markov chains were run

for 50 million generations with trees sampled every 1000 generations. Log files, including

prior and likelihood values, as well as the effective sample size (ESS) were examined using

TRACER (Rambaut and Drummond 2007). ESS values were all > 200 for the age

estimates. We discarded 25% of the resulting 50,000 trees as burn-in, and the remaining

trees were combined using TREEANNOTATOR (Rambaut and Drummond 2007) to

generate a maximum clade credibility (MCC) tree (our constraint tree).

To integrate the types 2 and 3 species into the constraint tree, a simple taxon definition file

that lists all three types of species along with their taxonomic information (here genus

names) was formed. Using the constraint tree and the taxon definition file, a MrBayes input

Page 7 of 42


Genome

Draft

8

Draft

file was first generated as implemented in the R library PASTIS (Thomas et al. 2013), and

then we reconstructed a dated complete phylogeny using MrBayes 3.2. (Ronquist &

Huelsenbeck 2003) under a relaxed-clock model with node-age calibrations indicated

above. In the 10,000 resulting trees, the topology of species with DNA sequences remains

fixed, and the unsampled species (types 2 and 3) were assigned randomly within their

genus. In our analyses, we used the 50% consensus of these 10,000 trees, which obviously

integrate over the phylogenetic uncertainty of the missing species by collapsing poorly

known clades into polytomies. To account for this uncertainty, we used a sample of 100

trees from the posterior to calculate a range of values specifically for some metrics; e.g.

ED, EDGE and PD (see details below in Section Data Analysis). Although we

acknowledge that the resulting phylogeny from our tree reconstruction approach may not

be suitable for estimating certain variables (e.g. rates of continuous-character evolution),

we confidently rely on the recent evidence provided through simulations that the approach

remains adequate for assessing branch-length related measures such as diversification rate

(Rabosky, 2015), and by extension ED, EDGE and PD. Also, several studies have

employed similar approach to assemble phylogenies used to investigate different types of

evolutionary or conservation questions (Isaac et al., 2012; Jetz et al., 2012, 2014; Tonini et

al. 2016; Yessoufou et al. 2017; Adeoba & Yessoufou 2018). Our phylogeny is therefore

appropriate for creating null models of the distribution of threat status that are conservative

with respect to remaining phylogenetic uncertainty.

Data analysis

All analyses were conducted in R (R Development Core Team 2013), and the R script is

provided as Supplemental Information. For each species, IUCN categories were

transformed into binary data: 0 when a species is LC or NT (i.e. non-threatened) and 1,

when a species is VU, EN or CR (i.e. threatened). DD and NE species were treated as non-

threatened following Adeoba (2018). Similarly, we coded threat data as follows: 1, when a

particular threat is reported for a species; 0, when no threat is reported for a species, and

NA when threat information is missing for a species. NA values were treated firstly as

NA=0 and then NA =1. The same binary transformation was done for habitat preferences

(pelagic, benthopelagic and demersal) and geographic origin (e.g. West Africa, Central

Africa, etc. following https://www.mapsofworld.com/africa/regions, accessed March 2017)

(Table S1). Next, using the complete phylogeny that we assembled, we applied the D

Page 8 of 42


Genome

https://www.mapsofworld.com/africa/regions

Draft

9

statistic (Fritz and Purvis, 2010) to test for phylogenetic signal in IUCN categories, threat

categories, habitat preferences and geographic origins. When D = 1 for a variable, then this

variable is randomly distributed at the tips of the phylogeny; D = 0 corresponds to a BM

(Brownian Motion) model; D < 0 signifies high phylogenetic signal, whereas D>1 signifies

that a variable is over-dispersed on the phylogenetic tree. We tested for significance of D

values using 1000 random shuffling across the tips of the phylogeny.

Further, we assessed how the loss of currently threatened species would impact the tree. To

this end, we firstly quantified the total evolutionary history accumulated on the tree using

the Faith’s (1992) phylogenetic diversity (PDTotal). Then, we calculated PDthreatened after

pruning all non-threatened species from the tree, allowing us to get the percentage of at-

risk PD in relation to PDTotal. Next, we simulated the loss of 103 species from the tree by

pruning randomly 103 species 1,000 times from the tree (103 is the number of threatened

species in the dataset). We then calculated each time the PD values of each set of random

103 species (PDrandom), and finally, we compared the average of these random PD values to

the value of PDthreatened (PDthreatened is the value of PD corresponding to the species currently

threatened).

In addition, we measured the evolutionary distinctiveness (ED; Isaac et al., 2007) of each

species as the sum of branch lengths from a tip to the root of the tree, divided by the

number of tips the branch sustains (also over 100 trees, and mean ED values are reported).

Using one-way ANOVA, we tested the correlation between EDAverage and IUCN categories

of species. This was assessed in three scenarios: i) we singled out DD and NE species

alongside other IUCN categories; ii) we repeated the same analysis but considered all DD

and NE as LC (i.e. non-threatened, following Adeoba 2018); iii) we grouped IUCN status

into non-threatened vs. threatened species.

Finally, we ranked all species according to their EDGEAverage scores (average over 100

trees), and mapped the spatial distribution of top EDGEAverage species. EDGE is computed

as [ln(1 + EDAverage) + GE *ln(2)], where EDAverage and GE stand for average evolutionary

distinctiveness and global endangerment, respectively. GE was coded as follows (Butchart

et al. 2005): Least Concern = 0, Near Threatened and Conservation Dependent = 1,

Page 9 of 42


Genome

Draft

10

Vulnerable = 2, Endangered = 3, Critically Endangered = 4. In the EDGE calculation, DD

species are treated as LC following Adeoba (2018).

Finally, we mapped the geographic distribution of the top genera in the EDGE-based

ranking of fish species. Species occurrence points were downloaded from the IUCN online

portal (http://www.iucnredlist.org; accessed February 2017). Top genera were identified

based on the number of species each genus has in the top 50 EDGE species. For the

mapping, a coverage of African freshwater bodies was used as the basic unit of mapping,

by assuming that a species identified in a water body can be spotted at any location within

that water body. The distributions cover both water bodies and land surfaces and thus

provide rather generic indications; it was therefore necessary to limit the mapping exercise

within water bodies only. Overlay analysis was performed to extract fish distributions that

fell within inland water bodies of Africa. All map analyses were done using ArcGIS

(ESRI® ArcGIS version 10.5, Redlands, CA).

Results

The gene tree reconstructed based on COI indicates three major subfamilies in Africa, of

which the largest is Cyprininae followed by Danioninae and very few representatives of

Leucisinae (Figure 1). The topology recovered contradicts early reported topologies but is

congruent to some extent to the most recent topology (see discussion).

We found evidence for phylogenetic signal in extinction risk (D = 0.90, P = 0.04*; Figure

S1). We also found support for signal in the causes of extinction risk but only for over-

exploitation (D = 0.91, P = 0.03*), pollution (D = 0.91, P = 0.03*) and invasive species (D

= 0.23, P < 0.001***) (Figure 2). Also, demersal and benthopelagic (but not pelagic)

species are more closely related than expected by chance as well as species in each

geographic region (Figures S2 and S3, respectively).

Furthermore, the total PD accumulated in the fully sampled phylogeny of the fish family

Cyprinidae is PDTotal = 13 billion 20 million years, whereas all currently threatened species

represent PDThreatened = 4 billion 783 million years, i.e. 37% of PDTotal. If all threatened

species go extinct, we would lose far more PD than expected by chance (PDMeanRandomLoss =

Page 10 of 42


Genome


Draft

11

1 billion 351 million years, confidence interval CI = 1 billion 138-1 billion 586 million

years; Figure 3).

The top ED species is Acapoeta tanganicae (EDAverage = 97.63 My), while Barbus

sylvaticus had the lowest EDAverage score (8.37 My) (Table S1). In the top 50 EDAverage

species, the genera Barbus (28%), Labeobarbus (18%) and Labeo (10%) are the most

represented in terms of species richness, and 94% of these species are benthopelagic (Table

1). In addition, 34% of the top 50 EDAverage species are LC, 32% Data Deficient and 14%

are VU, and these species are predominantly found in central (34%), eastern (24%) and

southern Africa (16%).

Nonetheless, there was no relationship between EDAverage and IUCN categories,

irrespective of how these categories are treated (one-way ANOVA, P > 0.05; Figure 4).

However, on EDGE score, it is Barbus boboi that has the highest score (EDGEAverage =

6.78), whereas the lowest score was found for B. dorsolineatus (Table S1). In the top-50

EDGEAverage score ranking, nine genera are represented (Table S1), with the genus Barbus

being the most dominant (52%) followed by Pseudobarbus (12%), Labeo and Labeobarbus

(10% each). In addition, the overwhelming majority of species in the top-50 EDGE ranking

are benthopelagic (88%). In contrast to the top-EDAverage species that are predominantly

found in central Africa, most top-EDGE species are distributed in southern (34%), eastern

and western Africa (24%, respectively; Figure 5).

Discussion

This study highlights the utility of combining DNA sequences and taxonomic information

to generate phylogenetic hypotheses for conservation studies. Nevertheless, there has been

broad concern in the literature about using COI barcodes to construct deep phylogeny.

Also, the phylogenetic literature tends to be more supportive of multi-marker phylogenetic

hypotheses. However, most recent multi-marker large phylogenies of fishes do not include

freshwater fishes (Rabosky et al. 2018), and most of those that contain freshwater fishes, to

our knowledge, exclude African Cyprinidae (Betancur-R et al. 2013). Pending the

completion of the ongoing multi-marker cypriniformes tree of life project

(http://bio.slu.edu/mayden/cypriniformes/home.html), the present study relies on a COI-

Page 11 of 42


Genome

http://bio.slu.edu/mayden/cypriniformes/home.html

Draft

12

Draft

phylogeny to explore the phylogenetic basis of extinction risk. COI-phylogenies have been

shown in several studies to be reliable in estimating phylogenetic metrics (e.g. community

phylogenetic metrics) in comparison to the same metrics calculated using multi-marker

trees (Smith et al. 2014; Boyle and Adamowicz 2015). Also, in our COI- phylogeny, the

subfamily Labeoninae is embedded within the subfamily Cyprininae, and this contradicts

the topology reported for the family Cyprinidae in earlier studies (Thai et al. 2007; Tang et

al. 2009; Zheng et al. 2010). However, this contradiction is congruent with the most recent

treatment of the subfamily Labeoninae (see Yang et al. 2015).

Using this phylogeny, and in line with the general trend of phylogenetic signal in

extinction risk (Tonin et al. 2016; Yessoufou and Davies 2016), we found evidence that

extinction-prone species are more closely related than expected by chance (but see Jetz et

al. 2004 for birds). Consequently, if at-risk species slide to extinction, we risk losing entire

clades and a great amount of evolutionary history. In particular, fish species threatened by

over-exploitation, pollution and invasive species are the most closely related, suggesting

that either closely related species are sensitive to similar threats or co-occurring threatened

species are simply exposed to similar threats. Both explanations are plausible as we also

found a phylogenetic signal in habitat preference and geographic origin of occupancy of

species. From a conservation perspective, our findings imply that, if actions are not taken

on time, over-exploitation, pollution and invasive species may drive phylogenetically close

species to extinction across the continent.

The first concern about these findings is that we risk losing more phylogenetic diversity

(PD) than expected if closely related species go extinct. We explored this eventuality on

the tree of life of the African Cyprinidae. We found that the African Cyprinidae represents

more than 13 billion years of PD, and that if all currently threatened species slide to

extinction, we would lose ~ 5 billion years of PD, representing ~ 37% of total PD of

African Cyprinidae. The loss of 37% of total PD is ill-afforded in the context of multiple

and persistent calls to preserve evolutionary diversity rather than just species richness (Jetz

et al. 2004; Pellens and Grandcolas, 2016). These calls are motivated by increasing

evidence that preserving evolutionary diversity is necessary to maintain the diversity of

ecosystem functions (Forest et al. 2007; Veron et al. 2017), the conservation of rare and

unique species (Faith 1992; Winter et al. 2012) and, more critically, for the maintenance of

Page 12 of 42


Genome

Draft

13

Draft

a sustainable delivery of known and hidden goods and services (Forest et al. 2007; Faith

2008; Faith et al. 2010; Faith and Polloc 2014).

As expected from clustered threatened species, we found that the amount of at-risk PD is

far greater than expected under a scenario of random loss. This could only be explained by

the fact that the loss of clustered threatened species may drive the loss of a greater number

of phylogenetic branches within some clades, thus heightening the possibility of losing

entire clades and therefore more PD than expected (see Davies and Yessoufou 2013). To

avoid such loss, recent studies call for the prioritization of high-ED species (Jetz et al.

2004; Redding et al. 2008; Warren et al. 2008; Redding et al. 2010; Daru et al. 2013;

Redding et al. 2015; Tonini et al. 2016; Yessoufou et al. 2017). Our study provides for

conservation biologists and decision-makers a ranking of all the African Cyprinidae based

on their ED scores. In this ranking, Acapoeta tanganicae is the top priority for

conservation. The species A. tanganicae is endemic to the Lake Tanganyika and the Rusizi

River in Burundi, DRC, Tanzania and Zambia. It is found in inshore waters over rocky

substrates and in major fast-flowing rivers (Ntakimazi 2006) where it feeds on insects,

ostracods, diatoms, worms and aufwuchs (Ntakimazi 2006). Although A. tanganicae is

IUCN-categorized as Least Concern, overexploitation has been reported as a major threat

to the species, and no known conservation measures are taken so far (Ntakimazi 2006).

Because A. tanganicae tops the list of high-ED species, we call for urgent regulated

exploitation in the countries where the species occurs. In addition, the top 50 species in ED

score are mostly Enteromius, Labeobarbus and Labeo in central, eastern and southern

Africa, making these regions the focus for conservation projects. However, the fact that

34% of these priority species are Data Deficient calls for renewed efforts to elucidate the

IUCN threat status of species, at least for those that deserve urgent conservation measures.

Our study further provides opportunity to explore how ED scores of vertebrates are

distributed across IUCN Red List categories. Here, our result of no relationships between

ED and IUCN categories of fish mirrors what has been reported for other vertebrate

lineages [e.g. mammals (Arregoitia et al. 2013), birds (Jetz 2004), reptiles (Tonini et al.

2016)], thus suggesting that evolutionarily distinct vertebrates are not particularly

threatened. From a conservation perspective, this is an interesting finding as sets of high-

ED species represent huge evolutionary diversity (Redding et al. 2008, 2015).

Page 13 of 42


Genome

Draft

14

Draft

Furthermore, the integration of ED and IUCN Red List categories provides a better scoring

system, known as EDGE scores, for species prioritization in conservation projects (Huang

et al. 2011). The Zoological Society of London (ZSL) is championing a global

conservation campaign informed by EDGE scores. The focus of the campaign has been on

mammals, amphibians, birds and reef coral species (Jetz et al. 2004; Isaac et al. 2007;

Collen et al. 2011; Isaac et al. 2012; Huang 2012). For marine fish, an EDGE prioritization

effort for sharks is currently underway (EDGE 2015); our study complements this global

effort with an EDGE ranking of 539 species of the African freshwater Cyprinidae. Our

ranking indicates that the species Enteromius boboi has the highest score, whereas the

lowest score was found for Enteromius dorsolineatus. Enteromius boboi shares a large

number of scales and long barbels with many other species of Cyprinidae but is unique

with its large blotch at the end of the caudal peduncle and the downward flexion of the

lateral line below the dorsal fin (Entsua-Mensah 2010). In addition, E. boboi occurs only in

one River, the River Farmington in the Gibi Mountains in Liberia (West Africa). Although

it is reported to be threatened by deforestation and mining activities, there is unfortunately

no available data on the trend of its population, and worse, there are no known

conservation measures ever put in place to prevent this Critically Endangered species from

sliding to extinction (Entsua-Mensah 2010). Our finding that E. boboi scores highest in

EDGE ranking among the African Cyprinidae calls for an urgent need for conservation

projects targeting this at-risk species. Nonetheless, species in nine genera are represented

in the top EDGE list, including Enteromius, Pseudobarbus, Labeo and Labeobarbus as the

most dominant in term of species richness. We mapped their geographic distributions to

aid conservation decisions. These top EDGE species are native to southern (Lesotho,

Malawi, Mozambique and South Africa), eastern (Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and

Uganda) and western Africa (Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone). We call for

conservation biologists in these countries and around the world to prioritize species in the

top EDGE list provided in this study for the African fish in their conservation agenda.

In summary, we assembled a gene-tree of the African Cyprinidae, allowing us to fill the

knowledge gap of how extinction risk in the group might deplete PD of African

Cyprinidae. We found that at-risk species that are phylogenetically closely related are

facing similar threat, and this is more likely because these species co-occur in same

Page 14 of 42


Genome

Draft

15

Draft

geographic regions or same habitat (e.g. benthopelagic vs. demersal). We also found that

threatened species are clustered on the phylogeny, and this may lead to a disproportionate

loss of PD in comparison to random expectation. Furthermore, we ranked all species based

on the urgency for conservation based on ED and EDGE scores, and further indicated the

geographic areas of distribution of the species that top the prioritisation scores. Overall, our

results suggest that conserving freshwater ecosystems, regulating the exploitation of

resources, and prioritizing high-EDGE species in conservation programmes, particularly in

Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania,

Uganda, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, would contribute significantly to

safeguarding the phylogenetic diversity of the African Cyprinidae. Finally, the results

reported here should be interpreted bearing in mind that a more comprehensive multi-gene

phylogeny is required for a better understanding of the phylogenetic pattern of extinction

risk, given that we only used a gene-tree based on COI in the present study.

Page 15 of 42


Genome

Draft

16

Ethics: No special permit was required for this study as we did not collect any data from

the field, and no informed consent of any participant was necessary because our study did

not involve any interview. All data used were retrieved from public repositories.

Data accessibility: Our data are deposited at Dryad:

http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.k10k8

Authors contributions: K.Y. designed the study; M.I.A retrieved all data analysed from

GenBank/EBI and FishBase; M.I.A carried out sequence alignments and KY performed

tree reconstruction; KY carried out the statistical analyses and coordinated the whole

study; S.G.T run all spatial analyses; M.I.A., K.Y., and S.G.T. wrote the manuscript. All

authors gave final approval for publication.

Competing interest: The authors declare no competing interest

Funding: K.Y. received financial support from South Africa’s National Research

Foundation (NRF) for funding (Grant No: 103944) and the 2016 Research prize of the

Société Botanique de France. M.I.A. received funding from the University of

Johannesburg URC International Scholarships.

Acknowledgement

We much appreciate the assistance of Gavin H. Thomas with the reconstruction of full

phylogeny of the African Cyprinidae using the R library PASTIS. We acknowledge the

South Africa’s National Research Foundation (NRF) for funding (Grant No: 103944 and

112113). We also thank the University of Johannesburg for the URC International

Scholarships provided to the first author.

Page 16 of 42


Genome


Draft

17

References

Adeoba. 2018. Phylogenetic analysis of extinction risk and diversification history of the

African Cyprinidae using DNA barcodes. PhD thesis, University of Johannesburg.

Adeoba M.I., Tesfamichael S.G., van der Bank H., Yessoufou K. 2017. Data from:

Preserving the evolutionary history of the African Cyprinidae in the context of extinction

crisis. Dryad Digital Repository. doi:10.5061/dryad.k10k8.

Adeoba MI, Yessoufou K. 2018. Analysis of temporal diversification of African

Cyprinidae (Teleostei, Cypriniformes). ZooKeys 806: 141–161.

Arregoitia LD, Blomberg SP, Fisher DO. 2013. Phylogenetic correlates of extinction risk

in mammals: species in older lineages are not at greater risk. Proceedings of the Royal

Society of London B: Biological Sciences 280, 20131092. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.1092).

Arthington AH, Dulvy NK, Gladstone W, Winfield IJ. 2016. Fish conservation in

freshwater and marine realms: status, threats and management. Aquatic Conservation:

Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26, 838– 857. (doi:10.1002/aqc.2712).

Barnosky AD et al. 2011. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471,

51–57. (doi:10.1038/nature09678).

Batista MC, Gouveia SF, Silvano DL, Rangel TF. 2013. Spatially explicit analyses highlight

idiosyncrasies: species extinctions and the loss of evolutionary history. Diversity and

Distributions 19, 1543–1552. (doi:10.1111/ddi.12126).

Betancur-R R, Broughton RE, Wiley EO, Carpenter K, López JA, Li C, Holcroft NI, Arcila

D, Sanciangco M, Cureton II JC, Zhang F, Buser T, Campbell MA, Ballesteros JA, Roa-

Varon A, Willis S, Borden C, Rowley T, Reneau PC, Hough DJ, Lu G, Grande T, Arratia G,

Ortí G. 2013. The Tree of Life and a new classification of bony fishes. PLoS Currents: Tree

of Life.

Page 17 of 42


Genome

Draft

18

Draft

Billionnet A. 2012. Solution of the generalized Noah’s ark problem. Systematic Biology 62,

147–156. (doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys081).

Boyle EE, Adamowicz SJ. 2015. Community phylogenetics: Assessing tree reconstruction

methods and the utility of DNA barcodes. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0126662.

Butchart SHM, Akcakaya HR, Kennedy E, Hilton-Taylor C. 2005. Biodiversity indicators

based on trends in conservation status: strengths of the IUCN red list index. Conservation

Biology 20, 1523–1739.

Caddy JF, Garibaldi L. 2000. Apparent changes in the trophic composition of world marine

harvests: the perspective from the FAO capture database. Ocean & Coastal Management

43, 615–655. (doi:10.1016/S0964-5691(00)00052).

Cardillo M, Mace GM, Jones KE, Bielby J, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Sechrest W, Orme

CDL, Purvis A. 2005. Multiple causes of high extinction risk in large mammal species.

Science 309, 1239–1241. (doi:10.1126/science.1114488).

Cavender TM. 1991. The fossil record of the Cyprinidae. In: Winfield IJ, Nelson JS, eds.

Cyprinid Fishes: Systematics, Biology and Exploitation. London: Chapman and Hall, 34–

54.

Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, Garcia A, Pringle RM, Palmer TM. 2015.

Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction.

Science Advances 1, e1400253. (doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253).

Collen B, Turvey ST, Waterman C, Meredith HMR, Kuhn TS, Baillie JEM, Isaac NJB.

2011. Investing in evolutionary history: implementing a phylogenetic approach for

mammal conservation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological

Sciences 366, 2611–2622. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0109).

Page 18 of 42


Genome

https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys081

Draft

19

Collins RA, Armstrong KF, Meier R, Yi Y, Brown SDJ, Cruickshank RH, Keeling S,

Johnston C. 2012. Barcoding and border biosecurity: Identifying Cyprinid Fishes in the

Aquarium Trade. PLoS ONE 7, e2838. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028381).

Daru BH, Yessoufou K, Mankga LT, Davies TJ. 2013. A Global Trend towards the Loss of

Evolutionarily Unique Species in Mangrove Ecosystems. PLoS ONE 8, e66686.

(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066686).

Davies TJ. 2015. Losing history: How extinctions prune features from the tree of life.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 370, 20140006. (doi:10.1098/rstb.

2014. 0006).

Davies TJ, Smith GF, Bellstedt DU, Boatwright JS, Bytebier B, et al. 2011. Extinction

Risk 525 and Diversification Are Linked in a Plant Biodiversity Hotspot. PLoS Biol. 9,

e1000620. (doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000620).

Davies TJ, Yessoufou K. 2013. Revisiting the impacts of non-random extinction on the

tree-of-life. Biology Letters 9, 20130343. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2013.0343).

Dudgeon D et al. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and

conservation challenges. Biological reviews 81, 163–182.

(doi:10.1017/S1464793105006950).

EDGE 2015. The EDGE of existence program, version 2015.

http://www.edgeofexistence.org/about/future_edge.php Accessed 20.02.2015.

Entsua-Mensah, M. 2010. Barbus boboi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2010: e.T181722A7714422.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20103.RLTS.T181722A7714422.en.

Downloaded on February 2017.

Page 19 of 42


Genome

http://www.edgeofexistence.org/about/future_edge.php%20Accessed%2020.02.2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-3.RLTS.T181722A7714422.en.%EF%BF%BDDownloaded%20on%EF%BF%BDFebruary%202017

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-3.RLTS.T181722A7714422.en.%EF%BF%BDDownloaded%20on%EF%BF%BDFebruary%202017

Draft

20

Erwin DH. 2008. Extinction as the loss of evolutionary history. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 11520–11527.

(doi:10.1073/pnas.0801913105).

Eschmeyer WN, Fong JD. 2013. Species by family/subfamily.http://research.calacademy.

org/research/ichthyology/catalog/SpeciesByFamily.asp.

Eschmeyer WN, Fong JD. 2015. Species by family/subfamily.http://research.calacademy.

org/research/ichthyology/catalog/SpeciesByFamily.asp. Electronic version accessed 21-02-

2015.

Faith DP. 1992. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biology and

Conservation 61, 1–10.

Faith DP. 2008. Threatened species and the potential loss of phylogenetic diversity:

Conservation scenarios based on estimated extinction probabilities and phylogenetic risk

analysis. Conservation Biology 22, 1461–1470. (doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01068.x).

Faith DP, Magallόn S, Hendry AP, Conti E, Yahara T, Donoghue MJ. 2010. Ecosystem

services: an evolutionary perspective on the links between biodiversity and human well-

being. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2, 66–74.

(doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.04.003).

Faith DP, Polloc LJ. 2014. Phylogenetic diversity and the sustainable use of biodiversity.

In Applied Ecology and Human Dimensions in Biological Conservation (eds MC Lyra-

Jorge, L M Verdade), pp. 35–52. Springer, Berlin.

Forest F et al. 2007. Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in biodiversity hotspots.

Nature 445, 757–760. (doi:10.1038/nature05587).

Fritz SA, Purvis A. 2010. Selectivity in mammalian extinction risk and threat types: A new

measure of phylogenetic signal strength in binary traits. Conservation Biology 24, 1042–

1051. (doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01455.x).

Page 20 of 42


Genome

Draft

21

Draft

Froese R, Pauly D. 2017. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available

from: http://www.fish base.org, version (assessed March 4th 2017).

Froese R, Pauly D. 2016. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.

www.fishbase.org, version (24-06-2016).

García N, Cuttelod A, Malak DA. 2010. The status and distribution of freshwater

biodiversity 582 in Northern Africa. IUCN.

He S, Mayden RL, Wang X, Wang W, Tang KL, Chen WJ. 2008. Molecular phylogenetics

of the family Cyprinidae (Actinopterygii: Cypriniformes) as evidenced by sequence

variation in the first intron of S7 ribosomal protein-coding gene:Further evidence from a

nuclear gene of 587 the systematic chaos in the family. Molecular Phylogenetics and

Evolution 46, 818–829. (doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2007.06.001).

Hoffmann M et al. 2010. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s

vertebrates. Science 330, 1503–1509. (doi:10.1126/science.1194442).

Huang D. 2012. Threatened reef corals of the world. PLoS ONE 7, e34459.


Huang S, Davies TJ, Gittleman JL. 2011. How global extinctions impact regional

biodiversity in mammals. Biology Letters 8, 222–225. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0752).

Imoto JM, Saitoh K, Sasaki T, Yonezawa T, Adachi J, Kartavtsev YP, Miya M, Nishida M,

Hanzawa N. 2013. Phylogeny and biogeography of highly diverged freshwater fish species

(Leuciscinae, Cyprinidae, Teleostei) inferred from mitochondrial genome analysis. Gene

514, 112–124. (doi:10.1016/j.gene.2012.10.019).

Isaac NJ, Redding DW, Meredith HM, Safi K. 2012. Phylogenetically-informed

priorities for amphibian conservation. PLoS one 7:e43912.

(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043912) .

Page 21 of 42


Genome

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034459

Draft

22

Isaac NJB, Turvey ST, Collen B, Waterman C, Baillie JEM. 2007. Mammals on the

EDGE: Conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS One 2, e296.


IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2014. The IUCN red list of

threatened species. Gland, Switzerland. Available from

http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/citing (accessed September 2014).

IUCN. 2016. The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2016-4.

http://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded Accessed on 19 September 2016.

Jetz W, Rahbek C, Colwell RK. 2004. The coincidence of rarity and richness and the

potential 618 signature of history in centres of endemism. Ecology Letters 7, 1180–

1191. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.011).

Jono CMA, Pavoine S. 2012. Threat diversity will erode mammalian phylogenetic

diversity in the near future. PLoS ONE 7, e46235. (doi:10.1371/

journal.pone.0046235).

Marshall BE, Gratwicke B. 1998. The barred minnows (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) of

Zimbabwe: is there cause for concern? Southern African Journal of Aquatic Science

24, 157–161. (doi.10:1080/10183469.1998.9631422).

[MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:

Synthesis. Washington (DC): Island Press.

Mooers AØ, Faith DP, Maddison WP. 2008. Converting endangered species categories to

probabilities of extinction for phylogenetic conservation prioritization. PLoS ONE 3,

e3700. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003700).

Nelson JS. 2006. Fishes of the World, Fourth edition. New York: John Wiley.

Page 22 of 42


Genome

http://www.iucnredlist/


Draft

23

Ntakimazi, G. 2006. Acapoeta tanganicae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species2006:e.T61308A12459046.http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T6130

8A12459 046.en. Downloaded on February 2017.

Nylander JAA. 2004. Modeltest v2. Program distributed by the author. Sweden:

Evolutionary 642 Biology Centre, Uppsala University.

Pellens R, Grandcolas P. 2016. Phylogenetics and conservation biology: drawing a path

into 645 the diversity of life. In: Biodiversity Conservation and Phylogenetic Systematics

(pp. 1-15). Springer International Publishing.

Purvis A, Agapow PM, Gittleman JL, Mace GM. 2000. Nonrandom extinction and the loss

of evolutionary history. Science 288, 328–330. (doi:10.1126/science.288.5464.328).

R Development Core Team. 2013. A language and environment for statistical computing.

Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org.

Rabosky, DL, Chang, J, Title, PO, Cowman, PF, Sallan, L, Friedman, M, Kaschner, K, Garilao, C, Near, TJ, Coll M, & Alfaro ME. 2018. An inverse latitudinal gradient in speciation rate for marine fishes. Nature 559, 392-408.

Rambaut A, Drummond AJ. 2007. TreeAnnotator (version 1.5.4). Retrieved from

http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk. Accessed 13th Dec 2015.

Redding DW, DeWolff CV, Mooers AØ. 2010. Evolutionary distinctiveness, threat status,

and ecological oddity in primates. Conservation Biology 24, 1052–1058.

(doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01532.x).

Redding DW, Hartmann K, Mimoto A, Bokal D, Devos M, Mooers A. 2008.

Evolutionarily distinctive species often capture more phylogenetic diversity than expected.

Journal of Theoretical Biology 251, 606–615. (doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.12.006).

Redding DW, Mooers AO, Şekercioğlu ÇH, Collen B. 2015. Global evolutionary isolation

measures can capture key local conservation species in Nearctic and Neotropical bird

Page 23 of 42


Genome

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T61308A12459046.en

http://www.r-project.org/

Draft

24

communities. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society B, 370, 20140013.

(doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0013).

Revenga C, Campbell I, Abell R, De Villiers P, Bryer M. 2005. Prospects for monitoring

freshwater ecosystems towards the 2010 targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society of London B: Biological Sciences 360, 397–413. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1595).

Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. 2003. MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under

mixed models. Bioinformatics 19, 1572–1574.

Schachat SR, Mulcahy DG, Mendelson JR. 2016. Conservation threats and the

phylogenetic utility of IUCN Red List rankings in Incilius toads. Conservation Biology 30,

72–81. (doi:10.1111/cobi.12567).

Skelton PH. 2001. A complete guide for fresh water fishes of southern Africa. Cape Town:

Struik Publishers.

Skelton PH 2016. Name changes and additions to the southern African freshwater fish

fauna. African Journal of Aquatic Science 41, 345-351. (doi:

10.2989/16085914.2016.1186004).

Smith, MA, Hallwachs, W, Janzen DH, 2014. Diversity and phylogenetic community

structure of ants along a Costa Rican elevational gradient. Ecography 37, 720-731.

Tang KL, Agnew MK, Hirt MV, Sado T, Schneider LM, Freyhof J, Sulaiman Z, Swart E,

Vidthavanon C, Miya M, Saitoh K, Soimios AM, Wood RM, Mayden RL. 2010.

Systematics of the subfamily Danioninae (Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae).

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 57, 189–214. (doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.05.021).

Tang Q, Getahun A, Liu H 2009. Multiple in-to-Africa dispersals of Labeonin fishes (Tel-

eostei: Cyprinidae) revealed by molecular phylogenetic analysis. Hydrobiologia 632, 261–

271.

Page 24 of 42


Genome

https://doi.org/10.2989/16085914.2016.1186004

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Smith%2C+M+Alex

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Hallwachs%2C+Winnie

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Janzen%2C+Daniel+H

Draft

25

Thai BT, Phan PD, Austin CM. 2007. Phylogenetic evaluation of subfamily classification

of the Cyprinidae focusing on Vietnamese species. Aquatic Living Resources 20, 143–153.

(doi:10.1051/alr:2007025).

Thieme M, Thieme ML, Abell, R. 2013. World Wildlife Fund Ecoregion assessments:

Freshwater Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: A Conservation Assessment.

Washington DC, US: Island Press. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 15 November 2016.

Thieme ML, Abel R, Stiassny MLJ, Burgess L, Lehner B, Dinerstein, E, Olso D. 2005.

Freshwater ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: A conservation Assessment. Island

Press, 704 Washington DC.

Thomas GH, Hartmann K, Jetz W, Joy JB, Mimoto A, Mooers AO. 2013. PASTIS: An R

package to facilitate phylogenetic assembly with soft taxonomic inferences. Methods in

Ecology and Evolution 4, 1011–1017. (doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12117).

Thuiller W, Lavergne S, Roquet C, Boulangeat I, Lafourcade B, Araujo MB. 2011.

Consequences of climate change on the tree of life in Europe. Nature 470, 531–534.

(doi:10.1038/nature09705).

Tingley R and Hitchmough RA, Chapple DG. 2103. Life-history traits and extrinsic threats

715 determine extinction risk in New Zealand lizards. Biological Conservation 165, 62–

68. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.028).

Tonini J FR, Beard KH, Ferreira RB, Jetz W, Pyron RA. 2016. Fully-sampled phylogenies

of squamates reveal evolutionary patterns in threat status. Biological Conservation 204,

23–31. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.039).

Vamosi JC, Vamosi SM. 2008. Extinction risk escalates in the tropics. PLoS One 3, e3886.


Page 25 of 42


Genome

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003886

Draft

26

Veron S, Davies TJ, Cadotte MW, Clergeau P, Pavoine S. 2017. Predicting loss of

evolutionary history: Where are we? Biological Reviews 92, 271–291. (doi:10.1111/

brv.12228).

Venter JA, Fouché PSO, Vlok W. 2010. Current distribution of the southern barred

minnow, Opsaridium peringueyi (Pisces: Cyprinidae), in South Africa: Is there reason for

concern? African Zoology 45, 244–253.

Vörösmarty CJ et al. 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity.

Nature 467, 555–561. (doi:10.1038/nature09440).

Wang Z-C, Gan X, Li J, Mayden R, He S. 2012. Cyprinid phylogeny based on Bayesian

and maximum likelihood analyses of partitioned data: implications for Cyprinidae

systematics. Science China Life Sciences 55, 761–773. (doi:10.1007/s11427-012-4366-z).

Warren WC et al. 2008. Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of

evolution. Nature 453, 175–183.

Winter M, Devictor V, Schweiger O. 2012. Phylogenetic diversity and nature conservation:

where are we? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28, 199–204.

(doi:10:1016/j.tree.2012.10.015)

Yang L, Sado T, Hirt MV, Pasco-Viel E, Arunachalam M, Li J, Wang X, Freyhof J, Saitoh

K, Simons AM, Miya M, He S, Mayden RL 2015. Phylogeny and polyploidy: Resolving

the classification of cyprinine fishes (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). Molecular Phlogenetics

and Evolution 85: 97–116.

Yessoufou K, Daru BH, Tafirei R, Elansary HO, Rampedi I. 2017. Integrating

biogeography, threat and evolutionary data to explore extinction crisis in the

taxonomic group of cycads. Ecology and Evolution 2017, 1–12. (doi:10.1002/ece3.2660).

Yessoufou K, Davies, TJ. 2016. Reconsidering the loss of evolutionary history: How does

non-random extinction prune the tree-oflife? In R. Pellens & P. Grandcolas (Eds.),

Page 26 of 42


Genome

Draft

27

Biodiversity Conservation and Phylogenetic Systematics, Volume 14 of the series “Topics

in Biodiversity and Conservation” (pp. 57–80). Switzerland: Springer International

Publishing.

Zardoya R, Doadrio I. 1999. Molecular evidence on the evolutionary and biogeographical

patterns of European Cyprinids. Journal of Molecular Evolution 49: 227–237.

Zheng LP, Yang JX, Chen XY, Wang WY. 2010. Phylogenetic relationships of the

Chinese Labeoninae (Teleostei, Cypriniformes) derived from two nuclear and three

mitochondrial genes. Zoologica Scripta 39: 559–571.

Page 27 of 42


Genome

Draft

28

Table 1: Top 50 EDGE-species of the African Cyprinidae alongside their geographic origin, habitat preference, IUCN conservation status and

ED values (Evolutionary distinctiveness). My = million years.

Species names ED value

(My)

EDGE

values

(my)

IUCN

category

Habitat Geographic

region

1 Enteromius oboi 53.9956798938537 6,779843357 CR Benthopelagic Western

2 Larbeobarbus ruasae 33.580796585592 6,315887238 CR Benthopelagic Eastern

3 Opsaridium microlepis 62.7623329137027 6,234604164 EN Dermasal Multiple

4 Enteromius carcharhinoides 30.576385056184 6,224998255 CR Pelagic Western

5 Pseudophoxinus punicus 61.078547639426 6,207842022 EN Benthopelagic Northern

6 Enteromius melanotaenia 23.6679463040357 5,978093402 CR Benthopelagic Western

7 Pseudobarbus erubescens 23.3066624728506 5,963339211 CR Benthopelagic Southern

Page 28 of 42


Genome

Draft

29


(My)

EDGE

values

(my)

IUCN

category

Habitat Geographic

region

8 Labeobarbus platystomus 19.986237430648 5,816455585 CR Benthopelagic Eastern

9 Pseudobarbus burchelli 19.8603106611476 5,810437064 CR Benthopelagic Southern

10 Labeo mesops 38.3398049239498 5,751678396 EN Benthopelagic Southern

11 Labeobarbus macrophtalmus 35.5632785539664 5,67848596 EN Benthopelagic Eastern

12 Pseudobarbus asper 35.4206526611476 5,674577536 EN Dermasal Southern

13 Pseudobarbus capensis 33.580796585592 5,622740058 EN Benthopelagic Southern

14 Enteromius lauzannei 33.0186918482427 5,606351676 EN Benthopelagic Western

15 Labeo alluaudi 29.9529967944722 5,511911363 CR Benthopelagic Western

16 Labeobarbus ruandae 14.4267538467375 5,508691987 NT Benthopelagic Eastern

Page 29 of 42


Genome

Draft

30


(My)

EDGE

values

(my)

IUCN

category

Habitat Geographic

region

17 Caecobarbus geertsii 59.9143490703587 5,495763125 VU Benthopelagic Central

18 Enteromius thysi 29.3893507316164 5,493533784 EN Benthopelagic Central

19 Labeobarbus acuticeps 27.8496649992284 5,441539923 EN Benthopelagic Eastern

20 Enteromius liberiensis 25.9106724992284 5,371964497 EN Benthopelagic Western

21 Phreatichthys andruzzii 52.947119389426 5,374298657 VU Benthopelagic Eastern

22 Pseudobarbus serra 25.1588345973147 5,343628518 EN Benthopelagic Southern

23 Garra tana 48.9593673902804 5,297504384 VU Benthopelagic Eastern

24 Labeobarbus mungoensis 23.3485395237216 5,271913411 EN Benthopelagic Central

Page 30 of 42


Genome

Draft

31


(My)

EDGE

values

(my)

IUCN

category

Habitat Geographic

region

25 Labeo seeberi 10.8682136917783 5,24645243 VU Benthopelagic Southern

26 Enteromius huguenyi 22.534560056184 5,237911523 EN Pelagic Western

27 Enteromius nigroluteus 22.2279768002686 5,22479899 VU Benthopelagic Central

28 Garra allostoma 43.7875523902804 5,188224613 VU Benthopelagic Central

29 Labeobarbus roylii 21.2942188418983 5,183768942 EN Benthopelagic Southern

30 Enteromius pseudotoppini 43.4238783895173 5,180071488 VU Benthopelagic Eastern

31 Enteromius treurensis 20.2694942608749 5,136715393 EN Benthopelagic Southern

32 Pseudobarbus phlegethon 19.8603106611476 5,117289884 EN Benthopelagic Southern

33 Labeo curriei 9.31089292511167 5,105789624 EN Benthopelagic Western

Page 31 of 42


Genome

Draft

32


(My)

EDGE

values

(my)

IUCN

category

Habitat Geographic

region

34 Labeobarbus alluaudi 38.3984029990523 5,060019644 VU Benthopelagic Western

35 Pseudobarbus trevelyani 18.6809443570549 5,059092418 EN Benthopelagic Southern

36 Labeobarbus petitjeani 38.0929351242284 5,052236124 VU Benthopelagic Eastern

37 Labeo percivali 36.9076949910261 5,021448487 VU Benthopelagic Eastern

38 Enteromius laticeps 36.5457561444369 5,011854714 VU Benthopelagic Eastern

39 Labeobarbus mbami 17.5043983938537 4,997449996 EN Benthopelagic Central

40 Labeobarbus gruveli 34.0947875149094 4,944346977 VU Benthopelagic Western

41 Labeobarbus claudinae 16.4416934970474 4,93830506 EN Benthopelagic Eastern

Page 32 of 42


Genome

Draft

33


(My)

EDGE

values

(my)

IUCN

category

Habitat Geographic

region

42 Pseudobarbus burgi 16.4191944744809 4,93701427 EN Benthopelagic Southern

43 Pseudobarbus quathlambae 16.2284651611476 4,926004509 EN Benthopelagic Southern

44 Pseudobarbus afer 15.8085984744809 4,901332111 EN Dermasal Southern

45 Pseudobarbus calidus 31.6698643348327 4,872747434 VU Benthopelagic Southern

46 Enteromius raimbaulti 30.5327711444369 4,83732172 VU Benthopelagic Western

47 Enteromius amatolicus 27.8794434111093 4,749424402 VU Benthopelagic Southern

48 Labeobarbus reinii 27.8630959169073 4,748858182 VU Benthopelagic Northern

49 Labeobarbus capensis 27.8630959169073 4,748858182 VU Benthopelagic Southern

Page 33 of 42


Genome

Draft

34


(My)

EDGE

values

(my)

IUCN

category

Habitat Geographic

region

50 Enteromius aliciae 13.3920337639439 4,746116384 EN Pelagic Western

Page 34 of 42


Genome

Draft

35

Caption Table:

Table 1: Top 50 EDGE-species of the African Cyprinidae alongside their geographic

origin, habitat preference, IUCN conservation status and ED values (Evolutionary

distinctiveness). My = million years.

Caption Figures:

Figure 1: Fully sampled phylogeny of the African Cyprinidae color-coded at subfamily

level. Outgroups are excluded for analysis purpose. All 50,000 trees generated are

available on dryad Digital Repository: (http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.k10k8).

Figure 2: Results of the tests of phylogenetic signal in threat status and drivers of

extinction risk using D statistic (Fritz and Purvis, 2010). Threat status is measured as

IUCN Red List categories. The graph in blue is the distribution of D values assuming a

Brownian Motion (BM) model, and the blue vertical line indicates D = 0 (when the

phylogenetic distribution of a parameter is no different from BM). The graph in red is the

distribution of D values assuming a random model, and the red vertical line indicates D = 1

(when the phylogenetic distribution of a parameter is no different from random). The bold

black vertical line indicates the observed D value. The number of * is indicative of the

significance level of the observed D values.

Figure 3: Comparison between observed (vertical red line) and random losses (frequency

histogram generated from 1000 random replicates) of phylogenetic diversity from the tree

of life of the African Cyprinidae. Observed loss is the PD that will be lost if all threatened

species go extinct.

Figure 4: Variation in values of Evolutionary Distinctiveness across 539 species of the

African Cyprinidae. IUCN categories are Least Concern (LC), Near Threatened (NT),

Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN), Critically Endangered (CR), Data Deficient (DD), and

Not-Evaluated (NE). Threat categories comprised threatened (VU+EN+CR) and non-

threatened categories (LC+NT). Three scenarios are considered: A) when DD and NE are

distinguished, B) when DD and NE are considered as LC (following Adeoba 2018), and C)

when IUCN categories are grouped into threatened and non-threatened categories.

Figure 5: Geographic distribution of the top fish genera in the EDGE-based species

categorization following urgency level for conservation. Top genera are identified based on

Page 35 of 42


Genome


Draft

36

their species richness in the top 50 EDGE species. Rivers where a representative of a genus

occurs are color-coded to match the colors attributed to genus in the legend.

Supplemental information

Table captions:

Table S1 All data analyzed in the present study presenting the characteristics of African

Cyprinidae.

Figure captions:

Figure S1 Distribution of threatened species (red branches) along the phylogeny.

Threatened species are defined following IUCN red list (≥VU).

Figure S2 Results of the tests of phylogenetic signal in habitat preference of fish species

using D statistic. Habitat preference is defined as benthopelagic, demersal and pelagic. The

graph in blue is the distribution of D values assuming a Brownian Motion (BM) model,

and the blue vertical line indicates D = 0 (when the phylogenetic distribution of a

parameter is no different from BM). The graph in red is the distribution of D values

assuming a random model, and the red vertical line indicates D = 1 (when the phylogenetic

distribution of a parameter is no different from random). The bold black vertical line

indicates the observed D value. The number of * is indicative of the significance level of

the observed D values.

Figure S2 Results of the tests of phylogenetic signal in geographic regions of species

occurrence using D statistic. Regions are defined as central, eastern, northern, southern,

and western Africa. "Multiple" indicates species occurring in more than one geographic

regions. The graph in blue is the distribution of D values assuming a Brownian Motion

(BM) model, and the blue vertical line indicates D = 0 (when the phylogenetic distribution

of a parameter is no different from BM). The graph in red is the distribution of D values

assuming a random model, and the red vertical line indicates D = 1 (when the phylogenetic

distribution of a parameter is no different from random). The bold black vertical line

Page 36 of 42


Genome

Draft

37

indicates the observed D value. The number of * is indicative of the significance level of

the observed D values.

Page 37 of 42


Genome

Draft

ThreatenedNonthreatened

Page 38 of 42


Genome

Draft−0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

02

46

threat status*

D value

Den

sity

0.0 0.5 1.0

02

46

Overexploitation*

D value

Den

sity

−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

01

23

4

Invasive***

D value

Den

sity

0.0 0.5 1.0

02

46

Pollution*

D value

Den

sity

Page 39 of 42


Genome

Draft

randomly lost pd

Fre

quen

cy

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

050

100

150

200

250

300

Page 40 of 42


Genome

Draft

LC NT VU EN CR DD NE

2040

6080

100

A

IUCN categories

Evo

lutio

nary

dis

tinct

iven

ess

LC NT VU EN CR

2040

6080

100

B

IUCN categories

nonthreatened threatened

2040

6080

100

C

Threat categories

Page 41 of 42


Genome

Draft

GuineaCôte

d'Ivoire

Liberia

Genus nameBarbusCaecobarbusGarraLabeoLabeobarbusLeptocyprisOpsaridiumPseudobarbusPseudophoxinusAfrican Countries

Algeria

Mali Niger

Morocco Tunisia

Guinea-Bissau

Spain Congo

Cameroon

Gabon DRC

Ethiopia

TanzaniaKenya

Uganda

Central African Republic

Rwanda South Africa

Mozambiq

ue

Malawi

Lesotho

Comoros

A B C

D E

0 400200Km

0 900450Km

0 600300Km

0 750375Km

0 800400Km

¯

Sierra Leone

Page 42 of 42


Genome

genome...draft preserving the tree of life of the fish family cyprinidae in africa in the face of...

Documents