Natural history museums store information on both described and undescribed species (Santos et al. 2016). Specimens in museums are an important source of evidence for identifying biodiversity elements such as functional traits. Although direct observation and experimental studies should be preferred, defining functional traits through theoretical models and indirect induction is possible (Pichler et al. 2020), as made in palaeodiversity estimates (Wagner 2000; Villéger et al. 2011).
In addition to collecting biological information from wherever it is available, we must diversify our taxon sampling when dealing with conservation issues. The principal obstacle to reaching the potential of insects regarding conservation is the lack of robust phylogenies (Ribeiro and Eterovic 2011). This limitation has been changing recently (e.g., Petersen et al. 2010; Lukashevich and Ribeiro 2019). Insects are critical when dealing with aquatic ecosystems, which are just as endangered as terrestrial environments (Geist and Hawkins 2016). Despite the efforts of global agencies (Irfan and Alatawi 2019), freshwater environments generally attract less interest than terrestrial zones (Myers et al. 2000). The habitat change in aquatic ecosystems promotes extinctions, decrease in abundance, and functional homogenization of the biota (Harding 2003; de Castro et al. 2018; Deacon et al. 2019). Many conservation proposals based on key species ignore that aquatic insects are "umbrella species" for marine ecosystems (Whiteman and Sites 2008). Due to the entangled ecological relationships among species, an integrative approach is better for protecting aquatic environments than single-species models or proposals based solely on biomass (Jähnig et al. 2021).
Since evolution is the basis of our understanding of biodiversity, biogeographical and conservation studies without reliable phylogenies will naturally perish (Santos and Amorim 2007). However, phylogenies are not always available, which leads to the so-called Darwinian shortfall (Hortal et al. 2015; Diniz-Filho et al. 2013; Assis 2018). The lack of phylogenies is an obstacle that results in the PD index being ignored in the proposition of priority conservation areas (Polasky et al. 2001; Winter et al. 2013). As PD integrates evolution, ecology, and biogeography, incorporating PD into studies on biological conservation is a form of taking evolutionary history into account (Vane-Wright et al. 1991; Rodrigues and Gaston 2002; Faith 2008).
Biodiversity conservation projects require maximizing the number of species giving special attention to those with unique characteristics (Allen et al. 2009). When analyzed from an ecological perspective, the distinctiveness of species is reflected in different niches. The more diverse the species are, the more ecological functions exist. Preserving biodiversity also preserves these ecological interactions (Tilman 2001). Besides saving species, it would be also crucial to maintain processes (cladogenesis and environmental interactions) (Bowen 1999) and functional traits (Petchey and Gaston 2006; Ebeling et al. 2014). Thus, calculating FD indices should concern conservation initiatives.
The definition of the traits used in FD analysis is not trivial. In general, the traits are how individuals assimilate energy and interact with their surroundings (Petchey and Gaston 2006; Yang et al. 2019). Unfortunately, even with direct field observations, there is no standardized measure of FD (Díaz and Cabido 2001; Tilman 2001). Here, we indirectly took patterns of seasonality, body measures, habitat range, and pollination efficiency from collected specimens; choosing such functional traits echoed other studies (e.g., Rader et al. 2014; Woodcock et al. 2019).
Species with particular traits are more vulnerable to extinction (Henle et al. 2004; Suhonen et al. 2014). If these unique traits are lost, there is a chance of altering the ecosystem's functioning and services (Larsen et al. 2005; Staddon et al. 2010). So, indirectly, FD recovers ecosystem complexity and vulnerability. When high FD indices are reached, the species are more resilient to human disturbances (de Castro et al. 2018), more productive (Cadotte 2013), and with more ecological services (Díaz et al. 2006).
Because PD and FD are based on species metrics, these indices are not independent of richness (Tucker and Cadotte 2013). Communities with several taxa tend to have higher PD values (Webb et al. 2008). There is a tendency for phylogenetically closely related species to be functionally related (Hubbell 2001). Since PD and FD also summarize ecological interactions, they may be correlated with elements such as vulnerability (Zhang et al. 2015; Carmona et al. 2017), endemism (Rosauer et al. 2009; Ibarra and Martin 2015), and climate refugees (Pugliesi and Rapini 2015; Lourenço-de-Moraes et al. 2019).
One of the main problems when dealing with PD and FD in establishing conservation priorities happens when the indices indicate different areas. Models based only on PD may not recover sufficient levels of FD (Pavoine et al., 2013; Mazel et al., 2018). Our data reinforce that the correlation between PD and FD is variable. Aphrophila and Zelandomyia have weak links between both indexes, while the connection in Amphineurus is remarkable.
Despite possible inconsistencies and mismatches, we advocate the concurrent use of species richness, PD and FD to study biodiversity. Functional diversity without phylogenetic background does not correctly recover evolutionary history (Hartmann and Andre 2013). Phylogenetic diversity alone does not always fit with complex ecological interactions (Mazel et al. 2018). If a single tool is chosen as the "ideal," the chance of undervaluing or overvaluing some areas is considerable. Due to the systematic bias in studies in conservation, primarily based on species richness measures, it is no surprise if the current preserved areas worldwide were incongruent with PD and FD indices (Carvalho et al. 2010; Quan et al. 2018; Martín-Regalado et al. 2019). The solution for dealing with the complexity of biodiversity may be combining distinct parameters and indices rather than choosing species-based unique approaches (Faith et al. 2004; Chape et al. 2005; Quan et al. 2018).
Habitat loss is the central menace to biodiversity. Data on craneflies shows that localities where specimens were collected a century ago are now surrounded by anthropomorphized habitats, sometimes even fully transformed in urban sites. As many species are still undescribed, preserving key areas means preserving even the unknown biota. Furthermore, undescribed species have higher extinction risks than known species (Liu et al. 2022). Therefore, we should define conservation areas upon the maximum possible criteria - species richness, endemism, species vulnerability, and phylogenetic and functional diversity - connecting fragments and preserving the untouchable environments (Srivastava et al. 2012).
Considering the target areas discussed here (New Zealand and South America), Chile only preserves 20.42% of its terrestrial area (UNEP-WCMC, 2020b), concentrated mainly in the Extreme South of the country (Fig. 1b). The worst situation is in Argentina, whose terrestrial protection is only 8.47% (UNEP-WCMC, 2020c). Two South American areas that summarize the distribution of the craneflies Aphrophila, Zelandomyia and Amphineurus are not considered priority areas of conservation: Chiloé Island and Central Los Lagos.
In the North of Chiloé island, a significant portion of forest in the West belongs to the Chiloé National Park (Fig. 16b). This park preserves coastal environments but may be expanded to embrace other important regions (Fig. 16b). In the East, an unprotected forest area matches the locations of some of the craneflies analyzed here (Fig. 16a).
Figure 16c shows regions between Lakes Tepuhueico and Natri. The Southeast of Chiloé Island (Fig. 16b) is a species-rich region and the most unprotected spot on the island. The small eastern islands (Fig. 16d) are also a good target for conservation. Some islands have protective projects, such as the Natural Reserve Pindal (Poblete 2014), where Castro, the largest city on the island, is located, and where many insects, especially craneflies, were collected. An option to preserve the coastal-influenced biota is to protect some Eastern portions of the islands. These islands are severely threatened by landscape homogeneity (Orellana et al. 2020).
Another forest fragment in the West, with great importance for craneflies but no legal protection, is present in Fig. 16a. In the region, there is only a tiny protection area for the indigenous people Mapu Lahaul. The expansion of these conservation areas may preserve the forest in an accidental terrain of Central Chile. In addition, the region is filled with rivers and lakes and different environments crucial to Andean aquatic insects (Fig. 6d, 7, 14a).
New Zealand preserves 32.81% of its terrestrial areas (UNEP-WCMC 2020a), although most are small and isolated (Fig. 6a). North New Zealand is less preserved than the South. We have evidence to suggest the need to define two other priority areas, which summarize the distribution of the three genera analyzed here: Westland and Auckland Districts.
Auckland is the largest city in New Zealand. Its surroundings in Auckland’s isthmus are very anthropomorphized (Fig. 17a). The isthmus is the locality of many collected specimens of craneflies (Figs. 13b and 5b). The presence of rivers, such as the Whakaki river, boosts the diversity of aquatic insects (Drake et al. 2011; Altermatt et al. 2013 ). In the West, there is the well-preserved Coromandel Forest Park. In the East, where there are more craneflies registered, some forest relics may be more beneficial to conservation if we expand the present small protected parks, as discussed here.
Another relevant region to conservation is the Westland District (Fig. 17b), where a large number of cranefly specimens were collected in parks, such as Mount Aspiring National Park, and unprotected places (Fig. 13a, Fig. 10). Many of the already protected sites have irregular terrains. However, the lowlands are very diverse. This region is notable for its aquatic biota, with rivers such as the Haast generated by the thaw of mountain glaciers. As there is no significant urbanization or agriculture in the region, the expansion of conservation areas in the archipelago is feasible.
New Zealand and the South American countries Chile and Argentina are above the global average of conservation (UNEP-WCMC 2022). However, the kind of conservation strategy adopted differs in these countries: minor areas in New Zealand and great patches in the Andes. These two ways of conservation designate SLOSS (single large or several small) debates (Fahrig 2020). Based on our results, we may say that more connectivity is the key to minimizing the adverse effects of SLOSS strategies. So, considering species richness, phylogenetic and functional diversity, it is valid to define new priority areas interconnected with previous reserves.