# Results

## The Role of the Number of Phylogenies on Site Scores

In our dataset the number of phylogenies with species occurring at a site ranged between 5 and 16 (mean and median = 11). So, the first point that we investigated was the role of the number of phylogenies in site's scores. This showed that over 75 % of the site's ranking with *Ws sum* was explained by the number of phylogenies with species in the site (Regression model: Sum Ws = −2.13 + 0.555 number of phylogenies; F = 41.75; DF = 14; p = 0.000; R2 = 0.75). With *Ws ranks* the influence of the number of phylogenies is a bit smaller but still important (Regression model:

Ws ranks = −1.03 + 0.259 number of phylogenies; F = 26.75; DF = 14; p = 0.000; R2 = 0.66).

Based on it, we decided to standardize by dividing total *Ws sum* or total *Ws ranks* in the site by the number of phylogeny occurring in it. As expected, this came to a result where much less of the site's ranking is explained by the number the phylogenies with species occurring in the site, but the number of phylogenies still explains a substantial proportion of the variance (Regression model: Ws sum/number of phylogenies = 0.04 + 0.0105 number of phylogenies; F = 8.9; DF = 14; p = 0.01; R2 = 0.39; and Ws ranks/ number of phylogenies = 0.082 + 0.0237 number of phylogenies; F = 6.29; DF = 14; p = 0.025; R2 = 0.31). In both cases, the standardized and nonstandardized values are still correlated (Spearman *r* = 0.9, p <0.01; and *r* = 0.83, p < 0.01 for *Ws sum* and *Ws ranks*, respectively). But ranking priorities change, putting in evidence the phylogenetic distinctiveness of some groups occurring in sites with less phylogeny (Figs. 2 and 3).

## The Influence of Species Richness on Site Scores

The number of species in the 16 sites varied between 10 and 68 (mean = 33; median = 31), and over 80 % of variation in the sum of *Ws* is explained by species richness. When *Ws sums* are standardized by the number of phylogenies, 70 % of the variation is still explained by species richness – sites with more species have greater chances of accumulating high Ws sums (Fig. 4a, b).

The analysis with *Ws ranks* shows that all sites had at least one top or second ranking species (1–14 per site, mean and median = 7). The influence of species richness on *Ws ranks* is lower than *Ws sums* with just over 50 % of the variation in *Ws ranks* explained by species richness. When *Ws ranks* were standardized by the number of phylogenies, the influence of species richness became much lower (32 %), although still significant (Fig. 5a, b).