Spatial overlaps between the global protected areas network and terrestrial hotspots of evolutionary diversity

AIM : A common approach for prioritizing conservation is to identify concentrations (hotspots) of biodiversity. Such hotspots have traditionally been designated on the basis of species‐level metrics (e.g., species richness, endemism and extinction vulnerability). These approaches do not consider phylogenetics explicitly, although phylogenetic relationships reflect the ecological, evolutionary and biogeographical processes by which biodiversity is generated, distributed and maintained. The aim of this study was to identify hotspots of phylogenetic diversity and compare these with hotspots based on species‐level metrics and with the existing protected areas network. LOCATION : Global. TIME PERIOD : Contemporary. MAJOR TAXA STUDIED : Terrestrial vertebrates (mammals, birds and amphibians) and angiosperms. METHODS : We used comprehensive phylogenies and distribution maps of terrestrial birds, mammals, amphibians and angiosperms to identify areas with high concentrations of phylogenetic diversity, phylogenetic endemism, and evolutionary distinctiveness and global endangerment. We compared the locations of these areas with those included within the current network of protected areas and concentrations of species‐level indices: species richness, species endemism and species threat. RESULTS : We found spatial incongruence among the three evolutionary diversity metrics in each taxonomic group. Spatial patterns of diversity and endemism also differed among taxonomic groups, with some differences between vertebrates and angiosperms. Complementarity analyses of phylogenetic diversity identified the minimal area that encapsulates the full branch lengths for each taxonomic group. The current network of protected areas and species‐level hotspots largely does not overlap with areas of high phylodiversity. MAIN CONCLUSION : Overall, < 10% of hotspot areas were designated as protected areas. Patterns of diversity, endemism and vulnerability differ among taxonomic groups.