The complementarity of single-species and ecosystem-oriented research in conservation research

Abstract

There has been much debate about the relative merits of single-species vs ecosystem-oriented research for conservation. This debate has become increasingly important in recent times as resource managers and policy makers in some jurisdictions focus on ecosystem-level problems. We highlight the potential strengths and limitations of both kinds of research, discuss their complementarity and highlight problems that may arise where competition occurs between the two kinds of research.While a combination of approaches is ideal, a scarcity of funding, time, and expertise means it is impossible to study and manage each species, ecological process, or ecological pattern separately. Making decisions about priorities for the kinds of research, priorities for the kinds of conservation management, and associated allocation of scarce funds is a non-trivial task. We argue for an approach whereby limited resources for conservation research are targeted at projects most likely to close important knowledge gaps, while also promoting ongoing synergies between single-species and ecosystem-oriented research.The magnitude of biodiversity losses, coupled with a need to address large-scale problems with limited budgets, has meant that resource managers and policy makers in some jurisdictions are increasingly focused on ecosystem-oriented research and management in lieu of traditional forms of single-species work (Simberloff 1999, Greene 2005, Anonymous 2006. In this short communication, we argue that disregarding singlespecies research and management ignores the important complementarity that arises from maintaining a mix of approaches in research and management. We first highlight the potential strengths and limitations of different approaches and emphasize the need for a range of strategies to conserve biodiversity. We demonstrate the potential for complementarity between different research approaches with case studies, and urge that complementarity be considered as part of funding decisions. We note that funding for conservation research and management is limited, making prioritisation critical to ensuring that funding is expended in the most efficient way possible (Stem et al. 2005, Field et al. 2005. We discuss how the choice of research projects may be effectively guided by strategically identifying key knowledge gaps, while maintaining the potential for complementarity between different research approaches. Different research approachesAlthough the various approaches to conservation and research management are best represented by a continuum, it remains useful to distinguish between the two broad categories; single-species approaches (Simberloff 1998) and ecosystem approaches (Hunter 1993,

Cheetah cub survival revisited: a re‐evaluation of the role of predation, especially by lions, and implications for conservation

“…An ongoing debate in conservation is the relative merits of single‐species versus ecosystem‐oriented conservation (Lindenmayer et al ., ). Bowen () saw this as a divergence between systematists, supporting the importance of phylogeny, ecologists arguing for the protection of populations or ecosystems, and evolutionary biologists promoting the factors that enhance adaptation and biodiversity, and proposed that it could be resolved if conservation efforts are directed towards preserving processes of life.…”

“…Lindenmayer et al . () argue for an approach that targets limited resources for conservation research at projects that may close important knowledge gaps, while also promoting ongoing synergies between single‐species and ecosystem‐oriented research. We concur and agree with Caro & Laurenson () that this process needs to be studied over a wider selection of landscapes in order to better understand diversity of intra‐ and interspecific community dynamics and ecosystem function, and to promote the conservation of all facets; compositional, structural and functional, of biodiversity (Noss, ).…”

Looking beyond fishing: Conservation of keystone freshwater species to support a diversity of socio‐economic values

“…no E. armatus seen after a ‘blackwater’ event), with a general view that their fresh waters are ‘unhealthy’ without this key species. Although there is some debate over single‐species conservation being abandoned in favour of ecosystem‐based approaches (Franklin, ; Lindenmayer et al, ), a flagship species that carries strong social values could be pivotal in engaging and maintaining long‐term stakeholder participation in conservation initiatives. In the case of a long‐lived species like E. armatus (living up to 28 years), with a small home range (Gilligan et al, ; Ryan, Ebner, & Norris, ), there is huge potential for the broader communities to develop deep connections with local populations, via long‐term monitoring in citizen‐science programmes or local habitat restoration projects, which allows participants to see and to help adapt conservation efforts in their region (Bonney et al, ; Dickinson et al, ).…”

Developing a standard approach for assessing the hydromorphology of lakes in Europe

“…One final aspect of lake monitoring that deserves mention is that the CEN standards for lake hydromorphology are directed at habitat features and processes. Maintaining or restoring natural processes within lakes and rivers is generally accepted as a foundation of freshwater conservation, but the extent to which species monitoring should also be part of an overall monitoring programme is the subject of debate (Lindenmayer et al, ). Some have suggested that species conservation is more appropriately achieved by focusing on conserving habitats and ecological processes than by considering the needs of individual species.…”