[Taxacom] Biodiversity and Species Value

Thu Jun 10 19:59:35 CDT 2010

I could only watch this for so long before I had to quit lurking.  The idea that "taxa-level conservation value" plays much of a role in the selection of conservation areas is misplaced.  I'll explain this from the perspective of my history of leading/participating in site selection processes for the four ecoregions that impinging on Indiana (USA) using a process that has been adapted for use across the globe.

The first cut at planning involves selecting an array of complimentary sites that capture a selection of all habitat types across all significant ecological gradients.  The idea is simple - if you conserve, say longleaf pine woodlands, at appropriate scales across its geographic distribution, you should be able to conserve the vast majority of biodiversity that habitat supports.  And for this exercise, biodiversity is assumed to exist at three primary levels - ecosystem structure, species and population (aka genetic).  Repeat the process for all recognized habitat types - typically terrestrial plant communities, aquatic communities (freshwater and marine), and subterranean communities.  If you do this right, and if you actually manage to pull off the implementation of the plan, you will have conserved the "biological essence"  of the planning region.

It's worth noting that individual species seldom play a role during this phase - it's all about saving redundant and viable examples of all habitats across ecological gradients.  And no ecosystem is really more important than others.  Would the world be a better place if we sacrificed African savanna for species rich Neotropical rain forest?  How about North American prairie instead?  Or perhaps the great barrier reef?  I personally think we want all these things conserved - and placing value on one or the other is rather defeatist.

The second phase of planning does come back to those species (that we know about) that are so rare they might be missed by the broad net cast by the ecological-based assessment.  Short's Goldenrod, known from jut two extant populations in the world, deserves to be conserved as well (one of the two populations was missed our broader net, and we added a small site to ensure that this species has a future).  It's worth noting that there are several of those supposed "high biodiversity" taxa in my area (such as the hellbender salamander) but they are not globally at risk, and people feel comfortable that ecosystem based conservation areas will adequately pick these up.  In the US, Federally endangered species are included in these species specific evaluations.  For karst systems, planning for individual species can't be avoided.  Many of the invertebrates occur in just one or two systems, and if you are serious about conservation, you have to work though this mess species by species.  The 10 cave-rich counties in my state have been intensely inventoried, and most of the 35-40 endemic taxa occur at fewer than 6 sites.

In Latin America, where we know almost nothing about individual species, species-level evaluations are generally limited to very rare birds and mammals.  Conserving big swaths of complex mosaics of habitats is critical for conserving the real biodiversity of these sites.  And placing those such that they capture centers of endemism is important, but like I said, we only understand a few things with backbones well enough to define these areas.  My guess is that we don't understand endemism well at all in most tropical regions.

A third level of evaluation has recently arisen - migratory phenomena.  It's not enough to protect breeding and overwintering habitats - you have to make sure that species can make the trip successfully and in good condition.  Hence the importance of many of the IBAs (Important Bird Areas) in the US.  Aquatic species have real problems with migrations because of dams, etc - and require special planning efforts.

At no point, have I seen any type of conservation organizations (save zoos and WWF) focus exclusively on "cool" species that appeal to them.  The vast majority of NGOs and governments take a broader perspective that they are responsible for conserving ALL species, not just the tiny little bats.

I give Doug Yanega quite a bit of credit for "getting this".  Those Drosophila have just as complex and interesting evolutionary histories as do the lone survivors of dying lineages - to many of us, the story they tell us about complex speciation and radiation is perhaps more interesting (valuable?) that lone species that beat the odds of extinction. 

As I've watched and helped other wrestle with conservation planning across the globe, I can honestly say that I've never seen phylogenetic measures play any role - To quote Doug - "How likely is it that something will go extinct if we don't protect the integrity of this particular place?" That's where conservation adds value...

Back to lurking,
John

  Please consider the environment before printing this email 

John A Shuey, Ph.D.
Director of Conservation Science

jshuey at tnc.org
317.829.3898 - direct
317.951.8818 - front desk 
317.917.2478 - Fax 

nature.org 

The Nature Conservancy
Indiana Field Office 
620 E. Ohio St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 7:47 PM
To: Michael Heads
Cc: TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity and Species Value

I think I see what Michael is trying to say...

while it is true that taxonomic ranks are largely arbitrary (so, in theory, a species in a monotypic family may be no more "special" in real terms than a species in a megadiverse genus), I still don't think that all species are equal

the issue becomes how to measure the "taxonomic uniqueness" of a given species? It may not be possible to specify a formula, but I think most taxonomists would have a pretty good intuitive grasp of which species are significant, as opposed to which species are merely "gondolas" (to quote John Early, inspired in turn by John Cleese!)

Stephen

________________________________
From: Michael Heads <michael.heads at yahoo.com>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: "To: "Doug Yanega"" <dyanega at ucr.edu>; TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Sent: Fri, 11 June, 2010 11:34:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity and Species Value

Hi Stephen and Doug,

Taxononomic rank isn't bad as a rough estimate of biodiversity, but not all species  represent equal biodiversity and so an old, distinctive species in one group may represent more biodiversity than a family in another, oversplit group. Phylogenetic diversity has been measured using numbers of species in the sister group, so e.g. Amborella the basal angiosperm on  New Caledonia would be ranked higher than Acanthisittidae the basal passerines on New Zealand, because there are more angiosperm species than passerine species. Again, this assumes that all species represent equal biodiversity. The other main school suggests using branch length, so a group with long brach length or more synapomorphies would rank more highly. But this obscures the importance of basal groups with few synapomorphies.     

Michael Heads

Wellington, New Zealand.

My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0

--- On Fri, 11/6/10, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

>From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity and Species Value
>To: "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu>, TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
>Received: Friday, 11 June, 2010, 10:49 AM
>
>
>sounds like you think all species are of equal "value", but surely one species of a megadiverse genus is far less important than a monotypic family? Why conserve just species? Why not all taxa? The higher the taxon, the more important it is. So a family going extinct is far more of a tragedy than just some species ...
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
>To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
>Sent: Fri, 11 June, 2010 10:41:00 AM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity and Species Value
>
>Steve Manning wrote:
>
>>Yes, my main point though is that the NUMBER of species in a place is
>>more important than going to huge lengths to conserve one or a few
>>particular species no matter where they are, so at present reliable
>>estimates of the approximate NUMBER of species is more important than
>>info. on their relationships, anatomy, genetics or even on their
>>interactions.  Hence a higher priority to preserving tropical rain
>>forest areas, even if poorly known in details, than a particular
>>species of bird or bat that might be threatened there or anywhere
>>else if other unknown species perish while we are focused on the
>>"charismatic" species at their expense.
>
>Were I magically empowered with the ability to influence such 
>decisions, pure species numbers would be fairly low on my list of 
>criteria when ranking habitats' conservation value, their 
>phylogenetic affinities even lower, and charisma would not factor in 
>at all. I consider the limits of a species' distribution to be of 
>primary importance; as the area of the planet a species occupies 
>shrinks, the conservation value of the shrinking area goes up 
>accordingly. A species known from a single spot, like the Devil's 
>Hole Pupfish, confers an *immense* value upon the area it resides in, 
>even though that habitat (Ash Meadows wildlife refuge, in this case) 
>has nowhere near the total species diversity of anywhere in the 
>tropics. However, Ash Meadows has a whole PILE of endemic plants and 
>animals, and each one of those counts for a LOT. Various caves across 
>the globe are incredibly species-poor, but a lot of them contain 
>endemic species - just counting taxa, or charisma, would mean that 
>virtually none of these habitats would ever be protected.
>
>Ultimately, I see the rationale for conservation as boiling down to 
>this: "How likely is it that something will go extinct if we don't 
>protect the integrity of this particular place?" - meaning something 
>like endemicity really needs to be a major consideration.
>
>Sincerely,
>-- 
>
>Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology        Entomology Research Museum
>Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314        skype: dyanega
>phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
>(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>
>
>      
>_______________________________________________
>
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
>(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> 

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here