TY - JOUR
T1 - Two roles for ecological surrogacy
T2 - Indicator surrogates and management surrogates
AU - Hunter, Malcolm
AU - Westgate, Martin
AU - Barton, Philip
AU - Calhoun, Aram
AU - Pierson, Jennifer
AU - Tulloch, Ayesha
AU - Beger, Maria
AU - Branquinho, Cristina
AU - Caro, Tim
AU - Gross, John
AU - Heino, Jani
AU - Lane, Peter
AU - Longo, Catherine
AU - Martin, Kathy
AU - McDowell, William H.
AU - Mellin, Camille
AU - Salo, Hanna
AU - Lindenmayer, David
N1 - Funding Information:
The work in this paper was funded by the Australian Research Council though a Laureate Fellowship to DBL. Tabitha Boyer and Claire Shepherd assisted with many aspects of workshop organization that brought together the co-authors of this article and subsequent manuscript preparation. Paul Beier, Bonnie Lamb, Lee O’Brien, and Greg Shriver reviewed earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/4/1
Y1 - 2016/4/1
N2 - Ecological surrogacy - here defined as using a process or element (e.g., species, ecosystem, or abiotic factor) to represent another aspect of an ecological system - is a widely used concept, but many applications of the surrogate concept have been controversial. We argue that some of this controversy reflects differences among users with different goals, a distinction that can be crystalized by recognizing two basic types of surrogate. First, many ecologists and natural resource managers measure "indicator surrogates" to provide information about ecological systems. Second, and often overlooked, are "management surrogates" (e.g., umbrella species) that are primarily used to facilitate achieving management goals, especially broad goals such as "maintain biodiversity" or "increase ecosystem resilience." We propose that distinguishing these two overarching roles for surrogacy may facilitate better communication about project goals. This is critical when evaluating the usefulness of different surrogates, especially where a potential surrogate might be useful in one role but not another. Our classification for ecological surrogacy applies to species, ecosystems, ecological processes, abiotic factors, and genetics, and thus can provide coherence across a broad range of uses.
AB - Ecological surrogacy - here defined as using a process or element (e.g., species, ecosystem, or abiotic factor) to represent another aspect of an ecological system - is a widely used concept, but many applications of the surrogate concept have been controversial. We argue that some of this controversy reflects differences among users with different goals, a distinction that can be crystalized by recognizing two basic types of surrogate. First, many ecologists and natural resource managers measure "indicator surrogates" to provide information about ecological systems. Second, and often overlooked, are "management surrogates" (e.g., umbrella species) that are primarily used to facilitate achieving management goals, especially broad goals such as "maintain biodiversity" or "increase ecosystem resilience." We propose that distinguishing these two overarching roles for surrogacy may facilitate better communication about project goals. This is critical when evaluating the usefulness of different surrogates, especially where a potential surrogate might be useful in one role but not another. Our classification for ecological surrogacy applies to species, ecosystems, ecological processes, abiotic factors, and genetics, and thus can provide coherence across a broad range of uses.
KW - Coarse-filter
KW - Environmental management
KW - Environmental proxy
KW - Flagship species
KW - Focal species
KW - Indicators
KW - Monitoring
KW - Surrogates
KW - Terminology
KW - Umbrella species
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84951299752&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.049
DO - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.049
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84951299752
SN - 1470-160X
VL - 63
SP - 121
EP - 125
JO - Ecological Indicators
JF - Ecological Indicators
ER -