Recommendations for assessing the effectiveness of surrogate species approaches

Biodiversity and Conservation

Volumn 15, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 3949-3969

  Favreau, Jorie M ^a,b   Drew, C Ashton ^b   Hess, George R ^b   Rubino, Matthew J ^b   Koch, Frank H ^b   Eschelbach, Katherine A ^c  

^a PAUL SMITH S COLLEGE   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

Effectiveness; Flagship species; Focal species; Indicator species; Keystone species; Surrogate species; Umbrella species

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; RESEARCH WORK; SPATIAL VARIATION; SPECIES CONCEPT; TEMPORAL VARIATION; TESTING METHOD;

EID: 33845408286     PISSN: 09603115     EISSN: 15729710     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-005-2631-1     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. Andelman S.J. and Fagan W.F. 2000. Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 5954-5959.
2. Arnqvist G. and Wooster D. 1995. Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 236-240.
3. Baldi 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 Appl. Ecol. 4: 589-593.
4. Belovsky G.E., Botkin D.B., Crowl T.A., Cummins K.W., Franklin J.F., Hunter M.L., Joern A., Lindenmayer D.B., MacMahon J.A., Margules C.R. and Scott J.M. 2004. Ten suggestions to strengthen the science of ecology. Bioscience 54: 345-351.
5. Berger J. 1997. Population constraints associated with the use of black rhino as an umbrella species for desert herbivores. Conserv. Biol. 11: 69-78.
6. Bond W. 2001. Keystone species - hunting the snark? Science 292: 63-64.
7. Bonn A., Rodrigues A.S.L. and Gaston K.J. 2002. Threatened and endemic species: are they good indicators of patterns of biodiversity on a national scale? Ecol. Lett. 5: 733-741.
8. Brooker L. 2002. The application of focal species knowledge to landscape design in agricultural lands using the ecological neighbourhood as a template. Landscape Urban Plan. 60: 185-210.
9. Brooks T.M., da Fonseca G.A.B. and Rodrigues A.S.L. 2004. Protected areas and species. Conserv. Biol. 18: 616-618.
10. Bushman B.J. 1994. Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. In: Cooper H. and Hedges L.V. (eds), The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, NY, pp. 193-214.
11. Cardoso P., Silva I., de Oliveira N.G. and Serrano A.R.M. 2004. Higher taxa surrogates of spider (Araneae) diversity and their efficiency in conservation. Biol. Conserv. 117: 453-459.
12. Caro T., Engilis A., Fitzherbert E. and Gardner T. 2004. Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Anim. Conserv. 7: 63-70.
13. Caro T.M. 2001. Species richness and abundance of small mammals inside and outside an African national park. Biol. Conserv. 98: 251-257.
14. Caro T.M. 2003. Umbrella species: critique and lessons from East Africa. Anim. Conserv. 86: 171-181.
15. Caro T.M. and O'Doherty G. 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 13: 805-814.
16. Carroll C., Noss R.E., Paquet P.C. and Schumaker N.H. 2003. Use of population viability analysis and reserve selection algorithms in regional conservation plans. Ecol. Appl. 13: 1773-1789.
17. Chase M.K., Kristan W.B., Lynam A.J., Price M.V. and Rotenberry J.T. 2000. Single species as indicators of species richness and composition in California coastal sage scrub birds and small mammals. Conserv. Biol. 14: 474-487.
18. Coulson T., Mace G.M., Hudson E. and Possingham H. 2001. The use and abuse of population viability analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 219-221.
19. Dietz J.M., Dietz L.A. and Nagagata E.Y. 1994. The effective use of flagship species for conservation of biodiversity: the example of lion tamarins in Brazil. In: Olney P.J.S., Mace G.M. and Feistner A.T.C. (eds), Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive Animals. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 32-49.
20. Fernandez-Duque E. and Valeggia C. 1994. Meta-analysis: a valuable tool in conservation research. Conserv. Biol. 8: 555-561.
21. Fjeldsa J. 2000. The relevance of systematics in choosing priority areas for global conservation. Environ. Conserv. 27: 67-75.
22. Flather C.H., Wilson K.R., Dean D.J. and McComb W.C. 1997. Identifying gaps in conservation networks: of indicators and uncertainty in geographic-based analyses. Ecol. Appl. 7: 531-542.
23. Fleishman E., Betrus C.J. and Blair R.B. 2003. Effects of spatial scale and taxonomic group on partitioning of butterfly and bird diversity in the Great Basin, USA. Landscape Ecol. 18: 675-685.
24. Fleishman E., Betrus C.J., Blair R.B., MacNally R. and Murphy D.D. 2002. Nestedness analysis and conservation planning: the importance of place, environment, and life history across taxonomic groups. Oecologia 133: 78-89.
25. Fleishman E., Blair R.B. and Murphy D.D. 2001. Empirical validation of a method for umbrella species selection. Ecol. Appl. 11: 1489-1501.
26. Fleishman E. and Mac Nally R. 2002. Topographic determinants of faunal nestedness in Great Basin butterfly assemblages: Applications to conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 16: 422-429.
27. Fleishman E., Murphy D.D. and Brussard P.E. 2000. A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecol. Appl. 10: 569-579.
28. Garson J., Aggarwal A. and Sarkar S. 2002. Birds as surrogates for biodiversity: an analysis of a data set from southern Quebec. J. Biosci. 27: 347-360.
29. Gates S. 2002. Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology. J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 547-557.
30. Hess G.R., Koch F., Rubino M., Eschalbach K., Drew A. and Favreau J. 2004. Comparing potential effectiveness of conservation planning approaches in central North Carolina USA. Biological Conservation (in press).
31. Hughes J.B., Daily G.C. and Ehrlich P.R. 2000. Conservation of insect diversity: a habitat approach. Conserv. Biol. 14: 1788-1797.
32. Hurlbert S.H. 1997. Functional importance vs keystoneness: reformulating some questions in theoretical biocenology. Aust. J. Ecol. 22: 369-382.
33. ISI 2004. ISI Web of Science. Version 1.2. Accessed June 2004, www.isiwebofknowledge.com.
34. Jansson G. 1998. Guild indicator species on a landscape scale - an example with four avian habitat specialists. Ornis Fennica 75: 119-127.
35. Kati V., Devillers P., Dufrene M., Legakis A., Vokou D. and Lebrun P. 2004. Testing the value of six taxonomic groups as biodiversity indicators at a local scale. Conserv. Biol. 18: 667-675.
36. Kerr J.T., Sugar A. and Packer L. 2000. Indicator taxa, rapid biodiversity assessment, and nestedness in an endangered ecosystem. Conserv. Biol. 14: 1726-1734.
37. Kremen C. 1992. Assessing the indicator properties of species assemblages for natural areas monitoring. Ecol. Appl. 2: 203-217.
38. Lambeck R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv. Biol. 11: 849-856.
39. Lambeck R.J. 2002. Focal species and restoration ecology: response to Lindenmayer et al. Conserv. Biol. 16: 549-551.
40. Landres P.B., Verner J. and Thomas J.W. 1988. Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species - a critique. Conserv. Biol. 2: 316-328.
41. Launer A.E. and Murphy D.D. 1994. Umbrella species and the conservation of habitat fragments: a case of a threatened butterfly and a vanishing grassland ecosystem. Biol. Conserv. 69: 145-153.
42. Lawler J.J., White D., Sifneos J.C. and Master L.L. 2003. Rare species and the use of indicator groups for conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 17: 875-882.
43. Leader-Williams, N. and Dublin H.T. 2000. Charismatic megafauna as 'flagship species'. In: Entwistle A. and Dunstone N. (eds), Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Diversity: Has the Panda had its day? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 53-81.
44. Lindenmayer D.B., Cunningham R.B., Donnelly C.F. and Lesslie R. 2002a. On the use of landscape surrogates as ecological indicators in fragmented forests. Forest Ecol. Manage. 159: 203-216.
45. Lindenmayer D.B. and Lacy R.C. 2002. Small mammals, habitat patches and PVA models: a field test of model predictive ability. Biol. Conserv. 103: 247-265.
46. Lindenmayer D.B., Manning A.D., Smith P.L., Possingham H.P., Fischer J., Oliver I. and McCarthy M.A. 2002b. The focal-species approach and landscape restoration: a critique. Conserv. Biol. 16: 338-345.
47. Linnell J.D.C., Swenson J.E. and Andersen R. 2000. Conservation of biodiversity in Scandinavian boreal forests: large carnivores as flagships, umbrellas, indicators, or keystones? Biodivers. Conserv. 9: 857-868.
48. LTER. 2003. US long term ecological research network. Accessed 28 July 2004. http://lternet.edu.r.
49. Lund M.P. and Rahbek C. 2002. Cross-taxon congruence in complementarity and conservation of temperate biodiversity. Anim. Conserv. 5: 163-171.
50. Mac Nally R. and Fleishman E. 2002. Using "indicator" species to model species richness: Model development and predictions. Ecol. Appl. 12: 79-92.
51. Mac Nally R. and Fleishman E. 2004. A successful predictive model of species richness based on indicator species. Conserv. Biol. 18: 646-654.
52. Manne L.L. and Williams P.H. 2003. Building indicator groups based on species characteristics can improve conservation planning. Anim. Conserv. 6: 291-297.
53. Margules C.R. and Austin M.P. 1994. Biological models for monitoring species decline: the construction and use of databases. Phil. Transact. Biol. Sci. 344: 69-75.
54. Margules C.R. and Pressey R.L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243-253.
55. Mikusinski G., Gromadzki M. and Chylarecki P. 2001. Woodpeckers as indicators of forest bird diversity. Conserv. Biol. 15: 208-217.
56. Mills L.S., Soule M.E. and Doak D.F. 1993. The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation. Bioscience 43: 219-224.
57. Mittermeier R.A. 1988. Primate diversity and the tropical forest: case studies from Brazil and Madagascar and the importance of the megadiversity countries. In: Wilson E.O. (ed.), Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 145-154.
58. Moore J.L., Balrnford A., Brooks T., Burgess N.D., Hansen L.A., Rahbek C. and Williams P.H. 2003. Performance of sub-Saharan vertebrates as indicator groups for identifying priority areas for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 17: 207-218.
59. Moore N.W. 1962. The heaths of Dorset and their conservation. J. Ecol. 50: 369-391.
60. Moritz C., Richardson K.S., Ferrier S., Monteith G.B., Stanisic J., Williams S.E. and Whiffin T. 2001. Biogeographical concordance and efficiency of taxon indicators for establishing conservation priority in a tropical rainforest biota. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 268: 1875-1881.
61. NatureServe. 2003. A Network Connecting Science with Conservation. Accessed 7 May 2003, http://www.natureserve.org.
62. Negi H.R. and Gadgil M. 2002. Cross-taxon surrogacy of biodiversity in the Indian Garhwal Himalaya. Biol. Conserv. 105: 143-155.
63. Niemi G.J., Hanowski J.M., Lima A.R., Nicholls T. and Weiland N. 1997. A critical analysis on the use of indicator species in management. J. Wildlife Manage. 61: 1240-1252.
64. Noon B.R., Murphy D.D., Beissinger S.R., Shaffer M.L. and Dellasala D. 2003. Conservation planning for US National Forests: Conducting comprehensive biodiversity assessments. Bioscience 53: 1217-1220.
65. Noss R.F., Carroll C., Vance-Borland K. and Wuerthner G. 2002. A multicriteria assessment of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conserv. Biol. 16: 895-908.
66. Noss R.F., Quigley H.B., Hornocker M.G., Merrill T. and Paquet P.C. 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conserv. Biol. 10: 949-963.
67. Oliver I. and Beattie A.J. 1996. Invertebrate morphospecies as surrogates for species: A case study. Conserv. Biol. 10: 99-109.
68. Paine R.T. 1969. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am. Nat. 103: 91-93.
69. Pearson D.L. and Carroll S.S. 1999. The influence of spatial scale on cross-taxon congruence patterns and prediction accuracy of species richness. J. Biogeogr. 26: 1079-1090.
70. Poiani K.A., Merrill M.D. and Chapman K.A. 2001. Identifying conservation-priority areas in a fragmented Minnesota landscape based on the umbrella species concept and selection of large patches of natural vegetation. Conserv. Biol. 15: 513-522.
71. Power M.E., Tilman D., Estes J.A., Menge B.A., Bond W.J., Mills L.S., Daily G., Castilla J.C., Lubchenko J. and Paine R.T. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bioscience 46: 609-620.
72. Prendergast J.R., Quinn R.M., Lawton J.H., Eversham B.C. and Gibbons D.W. 1993. Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365: 335-337.
73. Pressey R.L. and Nicholls A.O. 1989. Efficiency in conservation evaluation: scoring versus iterative approaches. Biol. Conserv. 50: 199-218.
74. Pullin A.S., Knight T.M., Stone D.A. and Charman K. 2004. Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biol. Conserv. 119: 245-252.
75. Ranius T. 2002. Osmoderma eremita as an indicator of species richness of beetles in tree hollows. Biodivers. Conserv. 11: 931-941.
76. Reyers B., van Jaarsveld A.S. and Kruger M. 2000. Complementarity as a biodiversity indicator strategy. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 267: 505-513.
77. Ricketts T.H., Daily G.C. and Ehrlich P.R. 2002. Does butterfly diversity predict moth diversity? Testing a popular indicator taxon at local scales Biol. Conserv. 103: 361-370.
78. Ricketts T.H., Dinerstein E., Olson D.M. and Loucks C. 1999. Who's where in North America? Bioscience 49: 369-381.
79. Roberge J.M. and Angelstam P. 2004. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv. Biol. 18: 76-85.
80. Rubino M.J. and Hess G.R. 2003. Planning open spaces for wildlife II: mapping and verifying focal species habitat. Landscape Urban Plan. 64: 89-104.
81. Rubinoff D. 2001. Evaluating the California gnatcatcher as an umbrella species for conservation of southern California coastal sage scrub. Conserv. Biol. 15: 1374-1383.
82. Ryti R.T. 1992. Effect of the focal taxon on the selection of nature reserves. Ecol. Appl. 2: 404-410.
83. Sahlen G. and Ekestubbe K. 2001. Identification of dragonflies (Odonata) as indicators of general species richness in boreal forest lakes. Biodivers. Conserv. 10: 673-690.
84. Sauberer N., Zulka K.P., Abensperg-Traun M., Berg H.M., Bieringer G., Milasowszky N., Moser D., Plutzar C., Pollheimer M., Storch C., Trostl R., Zechmeister H. and Grabherr G. 2004. Surrogate taxa for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes of eastern Austria. Biol. Conserv. 117: 181-190.
85. Sauer J.R., Hines J.E. and Fallon J. 2002. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966 - 2001. Version 2002.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
86. Simberloff D. 1980. A succession of paradigms in ecology: essentialism to materialism and probabilism. Synthese 43: 3-39.
87. Simberloff D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passe in the landscape era? Biol. Conserv. 83: 247-257.
88. Su J.C., Debinski D.M., Jakubauskas M.E. and Kindscher K. 2004. Beyond species richness: community similarity as a measure of cross-taxon congruence for coarse-filter conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18: 167-173.
89. Summerville K.S., Ritter L.M. and Crist T.O. 2004. Forest moth taxa as indicators of lepidopteran richness and habitat disturbance: a preliminary assessment. Biol. Conserv. 116: 9-18.
90. Suter W., Graf R.F. and Hess R. 2002. Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and avian biodiversity: testing the umbrella-species concept. Conserv. Biol. 16: 778-788.
91. Swengel S.R. and Swengel A.B. 1999. Correlations in abundance of grassland songbirds and prairie butterflies. Biol. Conserv. 90: 1-11.
92. UNEP 2002. World Conservation monitoring centre - conservation databases. Access date: 28 July 2004. http://www.wcmc.org/uk/cis.
93. van Langevelde F., Schotman A., Claassen F. and Sparenburg G. 2000. Competing land use in the reserve site selection problem. Landscape Ecol. 15: 243-256.
94. Warman L.D., Forsyth D.M., Sinclair A.R.E., Freemark K., Moore H.D., Barrett T.W., Pressey R.L. and White D. 2004. Species distributions, surrogacy, and important conservation regions in Canada. Ecol. Lett. 7: 374-379.
95. Wilcox B.A. 1984. In situ conservation of genetic resources: determinants of minimum area requirements. In: McNeely J.A. and Miller K.R. (eds), National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 825.
96. Williams P.H., Burgess N.D. and Rahbek C. 2000. Flagship species, ecological complementarity and conserving the diversity of mammals and birds in sub-Saharan Africa. Anim. Conserv. 3: 249-260.
97. ZMUC (Zoological Museum University of Copenhagen) 2004. A continent-wide blueprint for conservation action in Africa: description of the databases. Accessed: 20 July 2004, http:// www.zmuc.dk/commonweb/research/biodata.htm.