Performance and Consistency of Indicator Groups in Two Biodiversity Hotspots

Abstract

BackgroundIn a world limited by data availability and limited funds for conservation, scientists and practitioners must use indicator groups to define spatial conservation priorities. Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of indicator groups, but still little is known about the consistency in performance of these groups in different regions, which would allow their a priori selection.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe systematically examined the effectiveness and the consistency of nine indicator groups in representing mammal species in two top-ranked Biodiversity Hotspots (BH): the Brazilian Cerrado and the Atlantic Forest. To test for group effectiveness we first found the best sets of sites able to maximize the representation of each indicator group in the BH and then calculated the average representation of different target species by the indicator groups in the BH. We considered consistent indicator groups whose representation of target species was not statistically different between BH. We called effective those groups that outperformed the target-species representation achieved by random sets of species. Effective indicator groups required the selection of less than 2% of the BH area for representing target species. Restricted-range species were the most effective indicators for the representation of all mammal diversity as well as target species. It was also the only group with high consistency.Conclusions/SignificanceWe show that several indicator groups could be applied as shortcuts for representing mammal species in the Cerrado and the Atlantic Forest to develop conservation plans, however, only restricted-range species consistently held as the most effective indicator group for such a task. This group is of particular importance in conservation planning as it captures high diversity of endemic and endangered species.

Using indicator groups to represent bird phylogenetic and functional diversity

“…Restricted-range species were the 10% of the species with the smallest number of occupied grid cells in the Atlantic Forest (see Table 1). We use these indicator groups constructed according to ecological and taxonomical criteria because many works in the literature have shown their effectiveness in representing species richness (Pinto et al, 2008;Loyola et al, 2007;Lawler et al, 2003;Larsen et al, 2009;Trindade-Filho and Loyola, 2011).…”

“…Thus, groups of species, which can be defined taxonomically or according to specific traits (see Manne and Williams, 2003) can be used as a tool to embrace several aspects of biodiversity. Accordingly, many studies demonstrated that distinct indicator groups are effective in representing species richness across various spatial scales (Pinto et al, 2008;Loyola et al, 2007;Lawler et al, 2003;Larsen et al, 2009;Trindade-Filho and Loyola, 2011). These studies assume that species richness is a good surrogate for other aspects of biodiversity, such as the amount of evolutionary history or the diversity of ecological roles species can have in a given site.…”

Global meta-analysis reveals low consistency of biodiversity congruence relationships

“…Therefore, despite the publication of a number of valuable reviews of the congruence literature 15,28,[30][31][32][33][34] , one important theme has yet to be addressed; namely, the observation that congruence is often highly variable when measured in different locations or at different times 29,35,36 . A key property of biodiversity surrogates and indicators is that they should be able to be applied with confidence in novel contexts 37 , and so this lack of consistency has the potential to undermine the usefulness of biodiversity surrogates in ecology and conservation 38 .…”

Geographical Patterns in Biodiversity: Towards an Integration of Concepts and Methods from Genes to Species Diversity

“…However, although species are usually defined as the main conservation targets, it is difficult (if not impossible) to work with all taxonomic groups. This leads to the idea that surrogate groups should be used to represent processes that would also drive patterns for other groups or that higher taxa or other ecosystem surrogates (e.g., biomes, vegetation forms) should be used instead of species (e.g., Pinto et al 2008;Grelle et al 2010;Padial et al 2010;Trindade-Filho & Loyola 2011). More generally, phylogenetic diversity can be viewed as a particular form of rarity and thus can be incorporated into SCP in several ways (Sechrest et al 2002;Rodrigues et al 2011).…”