Assessing the value of the umbrella-species concept for conservation planning with meta-analysis;Evaluación del Valor del Concepto de Especie Sombrilla para la Planificación de la Conservación Mediante Meta-Análisis

Conservation Biology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 9-20

  Branton, Margaret ^a   Richardson, John S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Environmental management; Especies sustitutas; Manejo ambiental; Surrogate species

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; CONSERVATION PLANNING; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; GENERALIST; META-ANALYSIS; SPECIALIST; SPECIES CONSERVATION; TAXONOMY; TROPHIC LEVEL;

ANIMAL; BIODIVERSITY; BIRD; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; MAMMAL; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; BIRDS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; MAMMALS; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

AVES; MAMMALIA;

EID: 78751677335     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01606.x     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Berger, J. 1997. Population constraints associated with the use of black rhinos as an umbrella species for desert herbivores. Conservation Biology 11:69-78.
2. Betrus, C. J., E. Fleishman, and R. B. Blair 2005. Cross-taxonomic potential and spatial transferability of an umbrella species index. Journal of Environmental Management 74:79-87.
3. Bifolchi, A., and T. Lode 2005. Efficiency of conservation shortcuts: an investigation with otters as umbrella species. Biological Conservation 126:523-527.
4. Caro, T., A. Engilis, E. Fitzherbert, and T. Gardner 2004. Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Animal Conservation 7:63-70.
5. Caro, T. M. 2001. Species richness and abundance of small mammals inside and outside an African national park. Biological Conservation 98:251.
6. Caro, T. M. 2003. Umbrella species: critique and lessons from East Africa. Animal Conservation 6:171-181.
7. Caro, T. M., and G. O'Doherty 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13:805-814.
8. Dunk, J. R., W. J. Zielinski, and H. H. Welsh Jr. 2006. Evaluating reserves for species richness and representation in northern California. Diversity and Distributions 12:434-442.
9. Fleishman, E., R. B. Blair, and D. D. Murphy 2001. Empirical validation of a method for umbrella species selection. Ecological Applications 11:1489-1501.
10. Fleishman, E., D. D. Murphy, and P. F. Brussard 2000. A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecological Applications 10:569-579.
11. Fleishman, E., R. F. Noss, and B. R. Noon 2006. Utility and limitations of species richness metrics for conservation planning. Ecological Indicators 6:543-553.
12. Fontaine, B., O. Gargominy, and E. Neubert 2007. Priority sites for conservation of land snails in Gabon: testing the umbrella species concept. Diversity and Distributions 13:724-725.
13. Gardner, T. A., T. Caro, E. B. Fitzherbert, T. Banda, and P. Lalbhai 2007. Conservation value of multiple-use areas in East Africa. Conservation Biology 21:1516-1525.
14. Gurevitch, J., and L. V. Hedges 1999. Statistical issues in meta-analysis. Ecology 80:1142-1149.
15. Hitt, N. P., and C. A. Frissel 2004. A case study of surrogate species in aquatic conservation planning. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14:625-633.
16. Hurme, E., M. Monkkonen, A. L. Sippola, H. Ylinen, and M. Pentinsaari 2008. Role of the Siberian flying squirrel as an umbrella species for biodiversity in northern boreal forests. Ecological Indicators 8:246-255.
17. Lajeunesse, M. J., and M. R. Forbes 2003. Variable reporting and quantitative reviews: a comparison of three meta-analytic techniques. Ecology Letters 6:448-454.
18. Lawler, J. J., and D. White 2008. Assessing the mechanisms behind successful surrogates for biodiversity in conservation planning. Animal Conservation 11:270-280.
19. Lindenmayer, D. B., and J. Fischer 2003. Sound science or social hook-a response to Brooker's application of the focal species approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 62:149-158.
20. Martikainen, P., L. Kaila, and Y. Haila 1998. Threatened beetles in White-Backed Woodpecker habitats. Conservation Biology 12:293-301.
21. Noss, R. F., H.B. Quigley, M. G. Hornocker, T. Merrill, and P. C. Paquet 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:949-963.
22. Ozaki, K., M. Isono, T. Kawahara, S. Iida, T. Kudo, and K. Fukuyama 2006. A mechanistic approach to evaluation of umbrella species as conservation surrogates. Conservation Biology 20:1507-1515.
23. Pakkala, T., J. Pellikka, and H. Lindén 2003. Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus-a good candidate for an umbrella species in taiga forests. Wildlife Biology 9:309-316.
24. Peters, R. H., and K. Wassenberg 1983. The effect of body size on animal abundance. Oecologia 60:89-96.
25. Ranius, T. 2002. Osmoderma eremita as an indicator of species richness of beetles in tree hollows. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:931-941.
26. Roberge, J.-M., and P. E. R. Angelstam 2004. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology 18:76-85.
27. Roberge, J. M., G. Mikusinski, and S. Svensson 2008. The white-backed woodpecker: umbrella species for forest conservation planning Biodiversity and Conservation 17:2479-2494.
28. Rosenberg, M. S., D. C. Adams, and J. Gurevitch 2000. MetaWin: statistical software for meta-analysis. Version 2. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts
29. Roth, T., and D. Weber 2008. Top predators as indicators for species richness? Prey species are just as useful. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:987-991.
30. Schoener, T. W. 1968. Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology 49:123-141.
31. Seddon, P. J., and T. Leech 2008. Conservation short cut, or long and winding road? A critique of umbrella species criteria. Oryx 42:240-245.
32. Sergio, F., T. Caro, D. Brown, B. Clucas, J. Hunter, J. Ketchum, K. McHugh, and F. Hiraldo 2008. Top predators as conservation tools: ecological rationale, assumptions, and efficacy. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:1-19.
33. Sergio, F., I. Newton, L. Marchesi, and P. Pedrini 2006. Ecologically justified charisma: preservation of top predators delivers biodiversity conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:1049-1055.
34. Shurin, J. B., E. T. Borer, E. W. Seabloom, K. Anderson, C. A. Blanchett, B. Broitman, S. D. Cooper, and B. S. Halpern 2002. A cross-ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades. Ecology Letters 5:785-791.
35. Silva, M., J. H. Brown, and J. A. Downing 1997. Differences in population density and energy use between birds and mammals: a microecological perspective. Journal of Animal Ecology 66:327-340.
36. Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passe in the landscape era Biological Conservation 83:247-257.
37. Suter, W., R. F. Graf, and R. Hess 2002. Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and avian biodiversity: testing the umbrella-species concept. Conservation Biology 16:778-788.
38. Sutherland, G. D., A. S. Harestad, K. Price, and K. P. Lertzman 2000. Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conservation Ecology 4:1-56.
39. Wiens, J. A., G. D. Hayward, R. S. Holthausen, and M. J. Wisdom 2008. Using surrogate species and groups for conservation planning and management. BioScience 58:241-252.
40. Wilcox, B. A. 1984. In situ conservation of genetic resources: determinants of minimum area requirements Pages 639-647 in M. J.A. and K. R. Miller, editors. National parks, conservation and development: the role of protected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.