Rare Species and the Use of Indicator Groups for Conservation Planning

Abstract

Indicators of biodiversity have been proposed as a potential tool for selecting areas for conservation when information about species distributions is scarce. Although tests of the concept have produced varied results, sites selected to address indicator groups can include a high proportion of other species. We tested the hypothesis that species at risk of extinction are not likely to be included in sites selected to protect indicator groups. Using a reserve-selection approach, we compared the ability of seven indicator groups-freshwater fish, birds, mammals, freshwater mussels, reptiles, amphibians, and at-risk species of those six taxa-to provide protection for other species in general and at-risk species in particular in the Middle Atlantic region of the United States. Although sites selected with single taxonomic indicator groups provided protection for between 61% and 82% of all other species, no taxonomic group provided protection for more than 58% of all other at-risk species. The failure to cover at-risk species is likely linked to their rarity. By examining the relationship between a species' probability of coverage by each indicator group and the extent of its geographic range within the study area, we found that species with more restricted ranges were less likely to be protected than more widespread species. Furthermore, we found that although sites selected with indicator groups composed primarily of terrestrial species (birds and mammals) included relatively high percentages of those species (82-85%) they included smaller percentages of strictly aquatic species (27-55%). Finally, of both importance and possible utility, we found that at-risk species themselves performed well as an indicator group, covering an average of 84% of all other species. §

Paramount Roles of Wild Birds as Bioindicators of Contamination

“…However, vulnerable species are generally not good indicators [13,14], but in process of selection there, is needs to clearly stated that these species are selected as targets due to their endangered status, independent of any use they might have such as indicators, keystone, umbrella or any other above mentioned category. One species can fall under several different categories [5].…”

Environmental factors that influence the distribution of coral reef fishes: modeling occurrence data for broad-scale conservation and management

“…Focal species for research on species distributions are often confined to a narrow habitat type or set of environmental condi-tions by traits such as specialized nutrition, restricted dispersal, or low abundance (Dunk et al 2004). Such specialized, habitat-specific species are of greater conservation concern than widespread, more generalist species because of their restricted range (Lawler et al 2003), or because threats that selectively impact their habitat may affect them more severely . In terrestrial ecosystems, species distribution models commonly serve to elucidate ecological processes affecting distributions (Lehmann et al 2002), to predict responses of species to changes of environmental variables (Thomas et al 2004), and to highlight conservation priorities (Peterson et al 2000).…”

Landscape of amphibian diversity in Latium Region: peaks, valleys and gaps of conservation priority

“…Nowadays, one third of all described amphibian species are considered threatened (Mendelson et al 2006;Allentoft & O'Brien 2010). Indeed, amphibians are well suitable to be used as indicator groups for identifying areas of highvalue biodiversity (Lawler et al 2003). Indeed, their distribution coincides with the aggregate distribution of other species of vertebrates and invertebrates linked to key habitats for freshwater and terrestrial biodiversity conservation, like ponds and streams and their immediate surroundings (Williams et al 2004;Céréghino et al 2008), so that their representation will ensure the representation of diversity as a whole (Lawler et al 2003).…”

“…defined by Reid (1998) as the areas featuring high concentrations of species such as areas of high-value diversity of species -is a promising approach for individuating the areas with high conservation need and where the payoff from safeguard measures would also be higher (Myers et al 2000). Besides species richness, other relevant surrogates of biodiversity are frequently used for ranking the priority sites for species conservation: rarity, endemism rate, taxonomic uniqueness, threatened species and indicator taxa (Prendergast et al 1993;Faith & Walker 1996;Castro et al 1997;Reid 1998;Rey Benayas et al 1999;Virolainen et al 2001 Williams et al 2002;Lawler et al 2003). Surrogates of biodiversity based on species (indicator groups) has proved to be very effective in selecting sites of interest for conservation (Rodrigues & Brooks 2007).…”