Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
A. Rodrigues, Richard Grenyer, J. Baillie, O. Bininda‐Emonds, John Gittlemann, M. Hoffmann, K. Safi, J. Schipper, S. Stuart, T. Brooks (2011)
Complete, accurate, mammalian phylogenies aid conservation planning, but not muchPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366
H. Qian, R. Ricklefs (2008)
Global concordance in diversity patterns of vascular plants and terrestrial vertebrates.Ecology letters, 11 6
E. Minin, L. Hunter, G. Balme, Robert Smith, P. Goodman, R. Slotow (2013)
Creating Larger and Better Connected Protected Areas Enhances the Persistence of Big Game Species in the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Biodiversity HotspotPLoS ONE, 8
Leanna Warman, D. Forsyth, D. Forsyth, A. Sinclair, K. Freemark, H. Moore, T. Barrett, R. Pressey, D. White (2004)
Species distributions, surrogacy, and important conservation regions in CanadaEcology Letters, 7
ADAM Lewandowski, R. Noss, D. Parsons (2010)
The Effectiveness of Surrogate Taxa for the Representation of BiodiversityConservation Biology, 24
A. Rodrigues, T. Brooks (2007)
Shortcuts for Biodiversity Conservation Planning: The Effectiveness of SurrogatesAnnual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 38
C. Rondinini, K. Wilson, L. Boitani, H. Grantham, H. Possingham (2006)
Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning.Ecology letters, 9 10
J. Ragle, D. Remsen (2010)
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
H. Possingham, K. Wilson, S. Andelman, C. Vynne (2006)
Protected areas: Goals, limitations, and design
W. Jetz, G. Thomas, J. Joy, K. Hartmann, A. Mooers (2012)
The global diversity of birds in space and timeNature, 491
A. Balmford, K. Gaston (1999)
Why biodiversity surveys are good valueNature, 398
R. Pressey, Madeleine Bottrill (2008)
Opportunism, Threats, and the Evolution of Systematic Conservation PlanningConservation Biology, 22
S. Butchart, M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. Strien, J. Scharlemann, R. Almond, J. Baillie, B. Bomhard, Claire Brown, John Bruno, K. Carpenter, G. Carr, J. Chanson, Anna Chenery, J. Csirke, N. Davidson, F. Dentener, Matt Foster, A. Galli, J. Galloway, P. Genovesi, R. Gregory, M. Hockings, V. Kapos, J. Lamarque, Fiona Leverington, J. Loh, M. McGeoch, L. McRae, A. Minasyan, M. Morcillo, T. Oldfield, D. Pauly, S. Quader, C. Revenga, J. Sauer, Benjamin Skolnik, D. Spear, D. Stanwell-Smith, S. Stuart, Andy Symes, M. Tierney, T. Tyrrell, J. Vié, R. Watson (2010)
Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent DeclinesScience, 328
Joona Lehtomäki, A. Moilanen (2013)
Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using ZonationEnviron. Model. Softw., 47
E. Minin, D. Macmillan, P. Goodman, B. Escott, R. Slotow, A. Moilanen (2013)
Conservation Businesses and Conservation Planning in a Biological Diversity HotspotConservation Biology, 27
F. Larsen, J. Bladt, A. Balmford, C. Rahbek (2012)
Birds as biodiversity surrogates: will supplementing birds with other taxa improve effectiveness?Journal of Applied Ecology, 49
C. Packer, A. Loveridge, S. Canney, T. Caro, S. Garnett, M. Pfeifer, K. Zander, A. Swanson, D. MacNulty, G. Balme, H. Bauer, C. Begg, K. Begg, S. Bhalla, C. Bissett, T. Bodasing, H. Brink, A. Burger, A. Burton, B. Clegg, S. Dell, A. Delsink, T. Dickerson, S. Dloniak, D. Druce, L. Frank, P. Funston, N. Gichohi, R. Groom, C. Hanekom, B. Heath, L. Hunter, H. Deiongh, C. Joubert, S. Kasiki, B. Kissui, W. Knocker, B. Leathem, P. Lindsey, S. Maclennan, J. Mcnutt, S. Miller, S. Naylor, P. Nel, C. Ng'weno, K. Nicholls, J. Ogutu, E. Okot-Omoya, Bruce Patterson, A. Plumptre, J. Salerno, K. Skinner, R. Slotow, E. Sogbohossou, K. Stratford, C. Winterbach, H. Winterbach, S. Polasky (2013)
Conserving large carnivores: dollars and fence.Ecology letters, 16 5
C. Rondinini, M. Marco, Federica Chiozza, Giulia Santulli, D. Baisero, P. Visconti, M. Hoffmann, J. Schipper, S. Stuart, M. Tognelli, G. Amori, A. Falcucci, L. Maiorano, L. Boitani (2011)
Global habitat suitability models of terrestrial mammalsPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366
H. Grantham, K. Wilson, A. Moilanen, T. Rebelo, H. Possingham (2009)
Delaying conservation actions for improved knowledge: how long should we wait?Ecology letters, 12 4
E. Minin, A. Moilanen (2012)
Empirical evidence for reduced protection levels across biodiversity features from target-based conservation planningBiological Conservation, 153
R. Nally, A. Bennett, G. Brown, L. Lumsden, A. Yen, Simon Hinkley, P. Lillywhite, D. Ward (2002)
HOW WELL DO ECOSYSTEM-BASED PLANNING UNITS REPRESENT DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF BIODIVERSITY?Ecological Applications, 12
A. Moilanen, A. Franco, R. Early, R. Fox, Brendan Wintle, C. Thomas (2005)
Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problemsProceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272
F. Sergio, I. Newton, L. Marchesi, P. Pedrini (2006)
Ecologically justified charisma: preservation of top predators delivers biodiversity conservationJournal of Applied Ecology, 43
A. Knight, R. Cowling, B. Campbell (2006)
An Operational Model for Implementing Conservation ActionConservation Biology, 20
H. Grantham, A. Moilanen, K. Wilson, R. Pressey, T. Rebelo, H. Possingham (2008)
Diminishing return on investment for biodiversity data in conservation planningConservation Letters, 1
Anni Arponen, A. Moilanen, S. Ferrier (2008)
A successful community‐level strategy for conservation prioritizationJournal of Applied Ecology, 45
L. Mucina, M. Rutherford, Powrie Lw (2006)
The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.
H. Grantham, R. Pressey, Jessie Wells, A. Beattie (2010)
Effectiveness of Biodiversity Surrogates for Conservation Planning: Different Measures of Effectiveness Generate a Kaleidoscope of VariationPLoS ONE, 5
A. Lombard, R. Cowling, R. Pressey, A. Rebelo (2003)
Effectiveness of land classes as surrogates for species in conservation planning for the Cape Floristic RegionBiological Conservation, 112
A. Bonn, K. Gaston (2005)
Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteriaBiodiversity & Conservation, 14
E. Minin, Iain Fraser, R. Slotow, D. Macmillan (2013)
Conservation marketing and education for less charismatic biodiversity and conservation businesses for sustainable developmentAnimal Conservation, 16
P. Williams, N. Burgess, C. Rahbek (2000)
Flagship species, ecological complementarity and conserving the diversity of mammals and birds in sub‐Saharan AfricaAnimal Conservation, 3
J. Elith, Catherine Graham, Robert Anderson, Miroslav Dudı́k, Simon Ferrier, A. Guisan, R. Hijmans, F. Huettmann, J. Leathwick, Anthony Lehmann, Jin Li, Lúcia Lohmann, Bette Loiselle, G. Manion, Craig Moritz, Miguel Nakamura, Yoshinori Nakazawa, J. Overton, A. Peterson, Steven Phillips, Karen Richardson, R. Scachetti-Pereira, R. Schapire, Jorge Soberón, Stephen Williams, M. Wisz, N. Zimmermann (2006)
Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence dataEcography, 29
S. Andelman, W. Fagan (2000)
Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97 11
S. Sarkar, James Justus, Trevon Fuller, Christopher Kelley, Justin Garson, M. Mayfield (2005)
Effectiveness of Environmental Surrogates for the Selection of Conservation Area NetworksConservation Biology, 19
A. Franco, B. Anderson, D. Roy, S. Gillings, R. Fox, A. Moilanen, C. Thomas (2009)
Surrogacy and persistence in reserve selection: landscape prioritization for multiple taxa in BritainJournal of Applied Ecology, 46
M. Araújo, C. Humphries, P. Densham, R. Lampinen, W. Hagemeijer, A. Mitchell-Jones, J. Gasc (2001)
Would environmental diversity be a good surrogate for species diversityEcography, 24
J. Kirkpatrick, M. Brown (1994)
A Comparison of Direct and Environmental Domain Approaches to Planning Reservation of Forest Higher Plant Communities and Species in TasmaniaConservation Biology, 8
C. Margules, R. Pressey (2000)
Systematic conservation planningNature, 405
J. Leathwick, A. Moilanen, S. Ferrier, K. Julian (2010)
Complementarity-based conservation prioritization using a community classification, and its application to riverine ecosystemsBiological Conservation, 143
E. Minin, I. Fraser, R. Slotow, D. Macmillan (2013)
Understanding heterogeneous preference of tourists for big game species: implications for conservation and managementAnimal Conservation, 16
Susanne Fritz, O. Bininda-Emonds, A. Purvis (2009)
Geographical variation in predictors of mammalian extinction risk: big is bad, but only in the tropics.Ecology letters, 12 6
D. Simberloff (1998)
Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single-species management passé in the landscape era?Biological Conservation, 83
Richard Grenyer, C. Orme, Sarah Jackson, G. Thomas, R. Davies, T. Davies, Kate Jones, V. Olson, R. Ridgely, P. Rasmussen, Tzung-Su Ding, P. Bennett, T. Blackburn, K. Gaston, J. Gittleman, I. Owens (2006)
Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebratesNature, 444
S. Stuart, J. Chanson, N. Cox, B. Young, A. Rodrigues, Debra Fischman, R. Waller (2004)
Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions WorldwideScience, 306
C. Carroll, R. Noss, P. Paquet (2001)
CARNIVORES AS FOCAL SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION PLANNING IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONEcological Applications, 11
Jason Riggio, A. Jacobson, L. Dollar, H. Bauer, M. Becker, A. Dickman, P. Funston, R. Groom, P. Henschel, H. Iongh, L. Lichtenfeld, S. Pimm (2012)
The size of savannah Africa: a lion’s (Panthera leo) viewBiodiversity and Conservation, 22
J. Edwards, M. Lane, E. Nielsen (2000)
Interoperability of biodiversity databases: biodiversity information on every desktop.Science, 289 5488
M. Walpole, N. Leader‐Williams (2002)
Tourism and flagship species in conservationBiodiversity & Conservation, 11
A. Moilanen, B. Anderson, F. Eigenbrod, A. Heinemeyer, D. Roy, S. Gillings, P. Armsworth, K. Gaston, C. Thomas (2011)
Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 21 5
Summary Conservation planning often relies on the use of surrogates for representing many aspects of biodiversity. Previous tests on the effectiveness of charismatic mammals as biodiversity surrogates have suffered from the lack of fine‐resolution data and produced varied and contrasting results. In this study, we used unique high‐resolution data for more than 600 biodiversity features from the Maputaland–Pondoland–Albany global biodiversity hot spot to assess how the surrogacy effectiveness of the ‘Big Five’ charismatic mammal species could be improved. We found that combining the ‘Big Five’ charismatic mammal species with well‐known and surveyed taxonomic groups, such as birds, amphibians and reptiles, and habitat types, which can be mapped quickly and inexpensively, increases the representation of poorly surveyed taxonomic groups, such as endemic and threatened invertebrate and plant species, as well as other mammal species. In particular, habitat types were found to be an integral component of a successful surrogate strategy. Nevertheless, a broad cross‐taxon surrogate group composed of the ‘Big Five’, birds, amphibians and reptiles, was found to be a more effective surrogate than habitat types on their own. Meanwhile, other taxonomic groups and habitat types were not effective surrogates for the ‘Big Five’ charismatic species. As charismatic mammals have an important marketing value, they can be promoted to generate funding, which can then facilitate the implementation of conservation action and cover management costs, thereby indirectly benefiting other threatened biodiversity. Synthesis and applications. While some geographic areas and taxa have been extensively studied, detailed information about the distributions of species is missing for much of the world. This study provides important information that can have operational relevance to prioritize areas for conservation action in areas of the world with poor data on biodiversity. We found that other taxa are not good surrogates for charismatic mammal species. We also found that habitat types are a necessary component of surrogacy strategies that cover plants and insects. Overall, a combination of habitat types and charismatic mammals, complemented with other well‐known taxa (birds, amphibians and reptiles), provided the highest surrogacy effects.
Journal of Applied Ecology – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 2014
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.