TY - JOUR
T1 - Flagship umbrella species needed for the conservation of overlooked aquatic biodiversity
AU - Kalinkat, Gregor
AU - Cabral, Juliano S.
AU - Darwall, William
AU - Ficetola, G. Francesco
AU - Fisher, Judith L.
AU - Giling, Darren P.
AU - Gosselin, Marie Pierre
AU - Grossart, Hans Peter
AU - Jähnig, Sonja C.
AU - Jeschke, Jonathan M.
AU - Knopf, Klaus
AU - Larsen, Stefano
AU - Onandia, Gabriela
AU - Pätzig, Marlene
AU - Saul, Wolf Christian
AU - Singer, Gabriel
AU - Sperfeld, Erik
AU - Jarić, Ivan
N1 - Funding Information:
This article was initiated at the workshop The Next Generation of Biodiversity Research held in 2015 and organized by the Cross-Cutting Research Domain Aquatic Biodiversity of the Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries in Berlin, Germany. We thank all participants of the workshop for many fruitful and enlightening discussions that were crucial in developing this article. We particularly thank M. Gessner, M. Burgman, E. McDonald-Madden, and 3 anonymous referees for their helpful comments that substantially improved our manuscript. J.M.J. appreciates financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (JE 288/9-1) and S.C.J. by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01LN1320A). Finally, we thank S. Gavney Moore, J. Gessner, R. Reeves, and the International Crane Foundation for their help in obtaining the species photographs.
PY - 2017/4/1
Y1 - 2017/4/1
N2 - Despite a long-standing debate about the utility of species-centered conservation approaches (Roberge & Angelstam 2004), surrogate species remain popular by providing useful-or even necessary-"shortcuts" for successful conservation programs (Caro 2010). Flagship species, as one prime example of surrogates, are primarily intended to promote public awareness and to raise funds for conservation (Veríssimo et al. 2011). In contrast, the protection of umbrella species is expected to benefit a wide range of co-occurring species (Roberge & Angelstam 2004; Caro 2010). Accordingly, the main criteria for selecting flagships should be based on socio-cultural considerations, whereas umbrellas are principally chosen based on ecological criteria (Caro 2010; Veríssimo et al. 2011; see Table 1). Since these two concepts are often confused or mistakenly used interchangeably, Caro (2010, p. 248) coined the term "flagship umbrellas" for those species that explicitly integrate both functions. Indeed, Li and Pimm (2016) recently demonstrated that the classic flagship species, the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), can simultaneously act as an umbrella species, as its protection benefits many co-occurring endemic mammals, birds and amphibians. This challenges the often held views that: (i) the umbrella concept has to be abandoned as it is not efficiently working at local scales (Caro 2015); (ii) most flagship species are weak predictors for efficient reserve planning (Caro 2010); and (iii) ecosystem- or landscape-based conservation approaches should consequentially be favored over species-based approaches whenever feasible (Roberge & Angelstam 2004; Caro 2010). Further commotion in the discussion is the increasingly demanded paradigm shift in conservation strategies to specifically target hidden or neglected biodiversity for its intrinsic value and its contribution to ecosystem processes (Dougherty et al. 2016). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
AB - Despite a long-standing debate about the utility of species-centered conservation approaches (Roberge & Angelstam 2004), surrogate species remain popular by providing useful-or even necessary-"shortcuts" for successful conservation programs (Caro 2010). Flagship species, as one prime example of surrogates, are primarily intended to promote public awareness and to raise funds for conservation (Veríssimo et al. 2011). In contrast, the protection of umbrella species is expected to benefit a wide range of co-occurring species (Roberge & Angelstam 2004; Caro 2010). Accordingly, the main criteria for selecting flagships should be based on socio-cultural considerations, whereas umbrellas are principally chosen based on ecological criteria (Caro 2010; Veríssimo et al. 2011; see Table 1). Since these two concepts are often confused or mistakenly used interchangeably, Caro (2010, p. 248) coined the term "flagship umbrellas" for those species that explicitly integrate both functions. Indeed, Li and Pimm (2016) recently demonstrated that the classic flagship species, the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), can simultaneously act as an umbrella species, as its protection benefits many co-occurring endemic mammals, birds and amphibians. This challenges the often held views that: (i) the umbrella concept has to be abandoned as it is not efficiently working at local scales (Caro 2015); (ii) most flagship species are weak predictors for efficient reserve planning (Caro 2010); and (iii) ecosystem- or landscape-based conservation approaches should consequentially be favored over species-based approaches whenever feasible (Roberge & Angelstam 2004; Caro 2010). Further commotion in the discussion is the increasingly demanded paradigm shift in conservation strategies to specifically target hidden or neglected biodiversity for its intrinsic value and its contribution to ecosystem processes (Dougherty et al. 2016). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006942151&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/cobi.12813
DO - 10.1111/cobi.12813
M3 - Article
SN - 0888-8892
VL - 31
SP - 481
EP - 485
JO - Conservation Biology
JF - Conservation Biology
IS - 2
ER -