# A modified EDGE framework for the prioritization of arthropod conservation **URL:** \ **Category:** Nature Talk\ **Created:** [October 3, 2026, 5:39pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/a-modified-edge-framework-for-the-prioritization-of-arthropod-conservation/86322 "2026-10-03T17:39:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/insectilluminatigetshrekt/32/50174_2.png) [@insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/insectilluminatigetshrekt)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 5:39pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/a-modified-edge-framework-for-the-prioritization-of-arthropod-conservation/86322/1 "2026-10-03T17:39:07Z")
There is this framework called the EDGE of existence, which stands for Evolutionarily Distinct Globally Endangered. This has been applied extensively to vertebrates (Gumbs et al., 2024). Essentially its a score assigned to a species for conservation priority based on two factors, how evolutionarily distinct it is (measured in millions of years since its last common ancestor with its closest extant relatives on a phylogenetic tree) and how globally endangered it is (its red list status). For example, the tuatara or coelacanth would have very high EDGE scores while the brown rat or common pigeon would very low scores. Part of the problem of applying this to arthropods is that the threat status for most arthropods is not assessed, and many of the ones that are are only done so under national/regional red lists which might not always use the same criteria or threat classification as the global red list (such as NatureServe). Another problem is that most arthropod species have not been included in comprehensive species level phylogenetic trees. But I think a set of modified EDGE criteria can be a good way to analyze them. Instead of assigning scores to individual species, we could perhaps assign scores to families. I think this is justified because arthropods are often only identified to the family level during sampling studies, and family richness is usually considered a good proxy for species richness (Báldi, 2003; Hirst, 2008; Versluijs et al., 2023; Zou et al., 2020). Additionally, using families can be robust to species level taxonomic instability (lumping/splitting) even for better sampled groups like vertebrates (Gumbs et al., 2024), let alone arthropods. My proposal for modified EDGE score for arthropods will be based on three factors. The first one, how evolutionarily distinct the family is on the phylogenetic tree, will be easy since I have already made a family level phylogenetic tree for Panarthropoda, which I have used in a previous analysis of inaturalist data. I am currently working on adding branch lengths and calibrations to the tree, which make ED quantifiable for each family. ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/inaturalist/original/3X/5/b/5b4825886b83e8b979827ebea679bd9ebd55d3c4.jpeg) _Current tree with over 5,000 taxa. This includes fossil taxa, which will of course have to be pruned off the tree for it to be used in such a project._ Next is how many extant species each family, values I have also previously obtained for each family. These numbers can be obtained from group specific taxonomic databases or monographs/revisions. I will keep this to only _known_ species since there is too much uncertainty with extrapolated hypothetical species counts. Number of species can indicate both distinctness (if a family has fewer species, each species within that family is necessarily more unique) and possibly endangeredness (a family with only 4 species is more likely to go totally extinct than a family with 4,000 species). The third category is range size. Species level distributional data is extremely sparse for most arthropods, but aggregating to the family level may get a better picture. I would primarily base it off GBIF/OBIS occurrences. I would map the range of a family as all ecoregions with occurences of said family. I would use the World Wildlife Fund’s terrestrial ecoregions for mapping terrestrial families (Dinerstein et al., 2017), and their freshwater ecoregions for mapping freshwater families (Abell et al., 2008). For marine families, I would use a composite map with both the MEOW marine ecoregions (Spalding et al., 2007) and Longhurst’s biogeochemical provinces (Oostende et al., 2023), to include both continental and oceanic systems. MEOW ecoregions take priority over Longhurst’s provinces in places where they overlap. While ecoregions vary in size unlike standardized grid cells, they correspond tightly to gradients in elevation, temperature, and vegetation type, which are all things that heavily shape arthropod distribution. Additionally, ecoregions have been used to map the richness of beetle families in a previous study (Moodley et al., 2022). Families with no GBIF or OBIS occurrences may require their ranges to be determined by primary literature. The range size value would be given in square kilometers. After each arthropod family is given a modified EDGE score, a global richness map of all arthropods would be made. The map would then be divided into standard sized grid cells (perhaps 1x1 km), and each grid cell would be assigned the mean or median of the EDGE scores of all the families who’s ranges occur inside of it. Places on Earth with particularly high concentrations of high scoring families would then be identified as conservation priorities. Now, I want to pre-empt some potential questions. 1. How can species numbers per family be a good metric when we don’t know most arthropod species? This is a valid concern to have, but I think it wont be as much of an issue as you think, because unknown species richness seems to be concentrated in already very species rich lineages. Li et al. (2025) provides model predictions for future species richness of arthropod classes and insect orders we can analyze. The subsequent charts will be based on their data. 2. What about families that have species across multiple realms? Good question, but the answer is simple. Families with both marine and freshwater species will be mapped based on both marine and freshwater ecoregions. Families with both terrestrial and marine species will be mapped based on terrestrial and marine ecoregions, though I can’t think of any examples of this other than Coenobitidae. Families with both terrestrial and freshwater regions will just be mapped in terms of freshwater ecoregions, since freshwater ecoregions cover terrestrial land area and the terrestrial habitation of said clades is likely to be tied to proximity to freshwater. 3. What about rare or endangered species within otherwise common, specious wide ranging families? This EDGE framework would not capture said species, that is a limitation. All I can say is that such species are beyond the scope of this project and are better served in other frameworks. 4. Wouldn’t invasive species artificially inflate the ranges of families? That can be an issue, but as far as I know most invasive species come from already diverse cosmopolitan families, so there would not be huge areas where they establish where other members of their families are not already living, so it wouldn’t result in a substantial range expansions for the family as a whole. An exception to this is islands. A famous example is that Hawaii has no native ants, but there are introduced ants there now. Perhaps some islands/archipelagos and other isolated systems like Antarctica with well catalogued arthropod fauna can be subjected to a special measure where all records from families known to be non native are filtered out. 5. Isn’t geographic sampling uneven? Yes it is, and this is a big reason why number of occurrences is not a factor to determine the EDGE score. Under sampling of certain countries is partially alleviated by the use of ecoregions which cross national borders. If a family occurs in South Korea, it almost certainly occurs in adjacent similar habitats in North Korea even if we have no direct evidence of it. 6. What’s even the point of this? Well, one, this would be the first major step in the application of the EDGE framework to arthropods. Second, I just don’t find most of the existing studies on arthropod conservation to be all that satisfactory. They either focus narrowly on specific taxa or on specific habitats (often agroecosystems). And even broad scale studies are not really about Arthropoda as a total group but rather just terrestrial arthropods, or sometimes even just whatever flying insects are collected at malaise traps. Marine arthropods, to the extent they are analyzed at all in this respect, are often lumped into broader categories like zooplankton or marine invertebrates. A lot of studies also have a large focus on “ecosystem services” (I dislike this term) like the status of pollinators. This study would de-emphasize a lot of hyper diverse insect taxa and put into the spot light more phylogenetically isolated taxa, parasites, meiofauna, deep sea fauna, soil microfauna, troglo/stygofauna, monotypic families, and rare micro endemics, as well as more recently described families who’s distribution is mostly unknown. Think of this as less a work of “Entomology” and more like “Arthropod Zoology” What do you think of this? Any questions, concerns, or criticisms I may not have addressed? # **References** Abell, R., Thieme, M. L., Revenga, C., Bryer, M., Kottelat, M., Bogutskaya, N., Coad, B., Mandrak, N., Balderas, S. C., Bussing, W., Stiassny, M. L. J., Skelton, P., Allen, G. R., Unmack, P., Naseka, A., Ng, R., Sindorf, N., Robertson, J., Armijo, E., … Petry, P. (2008). Freshwater ecoregions of the world: A new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. _BioScience_, _58_(5), 403–414. [https://doi.org/10.1641/b580507](https://doi.org/10.1641/b580507) Báldi, A. (2003). Using higher taxa as surrogates of species richness: a study based on 3700 Coleoptera, Diptera, and Acari species in Central-Hungarian reserves. _Basic and Applied Ecology_, _4_(6), 589–593. [https://doi.org/10.1078/1439-1791-00193](https://doi.org/10.1078/1439-1791-00193) Colwell, R. K., Guzman, L. M., Steinke, D., Chao, A., Janzen, D. H., Hallwachs, W., Baker, A., Fernández-Triana, J. L., Hebert, P. D. N., Joyce, F., Puschendorf, R., Quicke, D. L. J., Rougerie, R., Smith, M. A., Zamora, N., & Sharkey, M. J. (2026). Constructing a lower-bound estimate of the global number of insect species on a hyperdiverse empirical foundation. _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_, _123_(27). [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2524283123](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2524283123) Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., Burgess, N. D., Wikramanayake, E., Hahn, N., Palminteri, S., Hedao, P., Noss, R., Hansen, M., Locke, H., Ellis, E. C., Jones, B., Barber, C. V., Hayes, R., Kormos, C., Martin, V., Crist, E., … Saleem, M. (2017). An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. _BioScience_, _67_(6), 534–545. [https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014](https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014) Gumbs, R., Scott, O., Bates, R., Böhm, M., Forest, F., Gray, C. L., Hoffmann, M., Kane, D., Low, C., Pearse, W. D, Pipins, S., Tapley, B., Turvey, S. T., Jetz, W., Owen, N. R., & Rosindell, J. (2024). Global conservation status of the jawed vertebrate Tree of Life. _Nature Communications_, _15_(1). [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45119-z](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45119-z) Hirst, A. J. (2008). Surrogate measures for assessing cryptic faunal biodiversity on macroalgal-dominated subtidal reefs. _Biological Conservation_, _141_(1), 211–220. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.09.025](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.09.025) Li, X., Yang, D., Wang, L., & Wiens, J. J. (2025). The past and future of known biodiversity: Rates, patterns, and projections of new species over time. _Science Advances_, _11_(49). [https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adz3071](https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adz3071) Moodley, S., Procheş, Ş., Perera, S. J., Lubbe, E., & Leschen, R. A. B. (2022). Analysis of the diversity and distributional patterns of coleopteran families on a global scale. _Zootaxa_, _5138_(5), 575–583. [https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5138.5.5](https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5138.5.5) Oostende, M. van, Hieronymi, M., Krasemann, H., & Baschek, B. (2023). Global ocean colour trends in biogeochemical provinces. _Frontiers in Marine Science_, _10_. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1052166](https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1052166) Spalding, M. D., Fox, H. E., Allen, G. R., Davidson, N., Ferdaña, Z. A., Finlayson, M., Halpern, B. S., Jorge, M. A., Lombana, A., Lourie, S. A., Martin, K. D., McManus, E., Molnar, J., Recchia, C. A., & Robertson, J. (2007). Marine ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. _BioScience_, _57_(7), 573–583. Versluijs, T. S. L., Zhemchuzhnikov, M. K., Kutcherov, D., Roslin, T., Schmidt, N. M., van Glis, J. A., & Reneerkens, J. (2023). Site-specific length-biomass relationships of arctic arthropod families are critical for accurate ecological inferences. _PeerJ_, _11_, e15943–e15943. [https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15943](https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15943) Zou, Y., Werf, W., Liu, Y., & Axmacher, J. C. (2020). Predictability of species diversity by family diversity across global terrestrial animal taxa. _Global Ecology and Biogeography_, _29_(4), 629–644. [https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13043](https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13043) ---
**Author:** ![insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/insectilluminatigetshrekt/32/50174_2.png) [@insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/insectilluminatigetshrekt)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 6:03pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/a-modified-edge-framework-for-the-prioritization-of-arthropod-conservation/86322/2 "2026-10-03T18:03:28Z")
I want to make an additional post highlighting some real stand outs I think would have very high EDGE scores. Mormotomyiidae: It’s not an especially ancient or evolutionarily distinct family being part of the superfamily Ephydroidea which underwent its main radiation in the early Cenzooic. But it makes up for this by being a monotypic family with only one species, _Mormotomyia hirsuta_, and being a microendemic that occurs on only one mountain cave in Kenya. Craterostigmatidae: The only family in the order Craterostigmomorpha. It has only two species, one in Tasmania and one in New Zealand. It also likely diverged from other centipedes in the Devonian. Punciidae: A family of Ostracods with only 3 species and which are only known to occur in shallow seas above New Zealand, they also diverged from their closest relatives the Podocopid ostracods since at least the Carboniferous Proteonematalycidae: A strong candidate for perhaps the highest EDGE score of any arthropod family. It has only one species, _Proteonematalycus wagneri_, is only known to occur on the southern shores of Lake Michigan, and is a very early diverging branch of Acariformes, with its ancestors pre dating the split between Trombidiiformes and Sarcoptiformes all the back to at least the Devonian and perhaps even further back. ---
**Author:** ![jhbratton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/jhbratton/32/3718_2.png) [@jhbratton](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/jhbratton)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 8:10pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/a-modified-edge-framework-for-the-prioritization-of-arthropod-conservation/86322/3 "2026-10-03T20:10:37Z")
The comment is often made in the forum that the concept of species is much more artificial than many people realise. Isn’t that artificiality much greater for families? The EDGE score could vary immensely depending on which taxonomy you used and would be susceptible to sudden change when a taxonomic revision happens. ---
**Author:** ![insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/insectilluminatigetshrekt/32/50174_2.png) [@insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/insectilluminatigetshrekt)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 8:30pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/a-modified-edge-framework-for-the-prioritization-of-arthropod-conservation/86322/4 "2026-10-03T20:30:03Z")
Well, there is always a compromise one has to make between precision and coverage. Its true that families are not immune to taxonomic issues of lumping vs splitting. But species level data is is far to sparse for most arthropods. Family level data allows the aggregation of many sparse individual species records (as well as records not identified to species which would be unusable in a species level analysis) into a larger more usable dataset. Also, family is a very commonly used taxonomic unit in studies of insects/arthropods/invertebrates, I gave some sources justifying this in the original post. Its true taxonomic revisions can change a score. But keep in mind there is over 3,000 extant families of arthropods. I dont think all of them are undergoing constant enormous taxonomic revisions such that the big picture results would change substantially. ---
**Author:** ![insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/insectilluminatigetshrekt/32/50174_2.png) [@insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/insectilluminatigetshrekt)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2026, 9:54pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/a-modified-edge-framework-for-the-prioritization-of-arthropod-conservation/86322/5 "2026-10-06T21:54:28Z")
Something else I want to add is that this goes in an entirely different direction than the typical studies and initiatives of arthropod conservation. I already mentioned this in the original post, but would like to elaborate on it a little bit. There is this huge emphasis on “ecosystem services” like pollination, being food for other animals, break down of organic matter, pest control (though the pests in question being controlled are usually arthropods themselves too), etc. My idea here would ignore this framework entirely and just look at arthropods from a perspective we usually reserve for vertebrates. As unique evolutionary history. Due to the fact that species which provide “ecosystem services” usually come from large, cosmopolitan families, there might be no correlation, or in fact even a negative correlation, between regions of the world with high average EDGE scores among its resident arthropod families and how much “ecosystem services” are being provided by said arthropods. Who or what is being “served” by members of Sigilliidae, Gelyellidae, Valeseguyidae, Mimopidae, Holothyridae, Heterojapygidae, Proterorhagiidae, Trogloraptoridae, Hadruridae, Mictocarididae, or Glypheidae? Not a lot I imagine, at least from what we know. But a lot of obscure arthropods are not only not assessed or not protected, they are essentially never even considered in a conservation context at all. When was the last time anyone asked “How are the Arguloids doing” or “What’s going on with the Schizomids”? And an additional thing I want to mention is that places in the world with high concentrations of high scoring arthropod families are also likely to just be very unique ecosystems outright. So I think this method would be a good way to identify such systems for conservation priority, even if the threat status of any particular species cannot be ascertained. There is so many arthropod species that system level protection is often more meaningful than species level anyway. ---
**Author:** ![insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/insectilluminatigetshrekt/32/50174_2.png) [@insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/insectilluminatigetshrekt)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 7:20am UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/a-modified-edge-framework-for-the-prioritization-of-arthropod-conservation/86322/6 "2026-10-12T07:20:54Z")
Does anyone have any thoughts on they would like to share? ---
**Author:** ![jhbratton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/jhbratton/32/3718_2.png) [@jhbratton](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/jhbratton)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2026, 9:32pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/a-modified-edge-framework-for-the-prioritization-of-arthropod-conservation/86322/7 "2026-10-14T21:32:06Z")
> [@insectilluminatigetshrekt](#): > > Sigilliidae, Gelyellidae, Valeseguyidae, Mimopidae, Holothyridae, Heterojapygidae, Proterorhagiidae, Trogloraptoridae, Hadruridae, Mictocarididae, or Glypheidae I have looked up a few of these om Wikipedia. I didn’t recognise any of the names beforehand. Yes, they should be conserved. But you have to ask, what can be done for them? What you are proposing seems to lie in the gap between the ecosystem services approach which doesn’t care what the species are so long as they do the job; and the single species Red Data Book approach which can work but is very expensive and there are just too many invertebrates to conserve them one at a time. So the glib answer to invertebrate conservation is to look after the habitats, which works up to a point so long as the nature reserves are big and robust and you have a good idea of what good habitat looks like. So picking the Gelyellidae: these are subterranean copepods found in limestone areas. Clearly you want to not mine the limestone, not abstract the water, not pollute it, not alter the temperature regime and not introduce species, which are all general measures for conserving the karst assemblage. Is there anything extra that the Gelyellidae need? I suspect no one knows. > [@insectilluminatigetshrekt](#): > > places in the world with high concentrations of high scoring arthropod families are also likely to just be very unique ecosystems outright. I think this is where the value of your approach lies, identifying whole ecosystems that should be conservation priorities, especially if they are ecosystems that don’t have any charismatic vertebrates to do the job. And if you are making a case for conserving a single species (the Red Data Book approach), I agree more priority should be given to a taxonomically isolated species. ---
**Author:** ![insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/insectilluminatigetshrekt/32/50174_2.png) [@insectilluminatigetshrekt](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/insectilluminatigetshrekt)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2026, 2:54pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/a-modified-edge-framework-for-the-prioritization-of-arthropod-conservation/86322/8 "2026-10-15T14:54:28Z")
> [@jhbratton](#): > > I think this is where the value of your approach lies, identifying whole ecosystems that should be conservation priorities, especially if they are ecosystems that don’t have any charismatic vertebrates to do the job. And if you are making a case for conserving a single species (the Red Data Book approach), I agree more priority should be given to a taxonomically isolated species. Right. And I think this approach also mitigates the issues with poor species level data. We dont have in depth knowledge on the biology of most of these phylogenetically isolated species. But if there is a bunch of them in one place, there is something special about this ecosystem. Also, given that there are one million and counting arthropod species, giving all of them a red list assessment would be impossible due to time constraints alone even _if_ we had all the proper data which we definitely do not. At the same time, “conserve every species equally” is also not viable. So I hope that this would be a good way to give some prioritization. Its worth noting there are some groups of arthropods like odonates and freshwater decapods where we do have excellent species level data and we can treat them like vertebrates essentially, but I wanted a framework that could apply to the entire phylum. And even though this is for arthropods, I think my idea could be applied to other non vertebrate phyla as well.