Refined to evaluate the relative value of species based on their contribution to total genetic diversity (Weitzman, 1992; Witting Loeschcke, 1993; Redding, 2003; Steel, Mimoto Mooers, 2007; Faith, 2008; Haake, Kashiwada Su, 2008; Minh, Klaere Von Haeseler, 2009; Hartmann, 2013). These procedures have been initially made for the analyses of phylogenetic trees, but haveHow to cite this article Jensen et al. (2016), I-HEDGE: determining the optimum complementary sets of taxa for conservation employing evolutionary isolation. PeerJ four:e2350; DOI 10.7717/peerj.recently been extended for use with phylogenetic networks that much better represent genetic diversity among populations and not too long ago diverged species (Volkmann et al., 2014). Current metrics contemplate the expected contribution of every taxon to future subsets of taxa (i.e., scenarios exactly where some taxa are lost). One particular will be the “fair proportion” or “evolutionary distinctness” metric (Redding, 2003; Isaac et al., 2007; Jetz et al., 2014) extended to networks, where all future subset sizes and identities are thought of equallylikely (referred to here as the Shapley index, SH, following Haake, Kashiwada Su, 2008). One more, heightened evolutionary distinctiveness (HED), explicitly weighs future subsets by their probability making use of estimates of the current extinction probabilities of all other taxa (Steel, Mimoto Mooers, 2007). Rankings based on these metrics alone do not necessarily constitute rational prioritizations for conservation. 1 situation is the fact that a safe species on a lengthy branch might have a higher HED score, DM1 web because its own low probability of extinction [p(ext)] does not contribute to its own score. Also, as laid out clearly by Faith (2008), the above metrics will not be made to recognize the most effective ordering or subset of taxa to protect, since complementarity just isn’t taken into account. For example, two closely related species could both be at high risk of extinction, which means every single would contribute to future diversity if its relative were to go extinct. Nonetheless, if among the list of two were effectively protected, its sister ought to drop in worth because the shared element of diversity is now retained. The first problem above has been addressed by the development of metrics including HEDGE (“heightened evolutionary distinctiveness and globally endangered,” Steel, Mimoto Mooers, 2007), which is the item of a taxon’s HED score and p(ext). HEDGE scores represent the improve in expected phylogenetic diversity when the taxon’s p(ext) is changed from its present worth to a p(ext) of zero (i.e., it is “saved” from extinction; see also Faith, 2008). Here, we present an extension of HEDGE that addresses PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20007744 the concern of complementarity. When the species which has the highest HEDGE score is indeed saved from extinction, then the HED score of neighbouring taxa should reduce to reflect this new p(ext) with the shared part of the network. We propose a modified, iteratively calculated, version of HEDGE (I-HEDGE), that is calculated by “saving” the top rated ranked taxon just after calculating HEDGE in each and every round by setting its extinction probability to near zero, and after that recalculating HEDGE until all species have been “saved.” This procedure produces the optimal ranked list for conservation prioritization, taking into account complementarity and based on both phylogenetic diversity and extinction probability. To demonstrate this procedure, we make use of the example of the giant Gal agos tortoises (genus Chelonoidis), a recent i.