[Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value

Sun Jun 13 17:36:41 CDT 2010

Hi John,

I like your idea of a well thought out net to catch as many unknowns as possible. No doubt conserving areas of high species diversity and endemism will also protect species there that are as yet unknown. In the same way, protecting areas of high phylogenetic diversity should catch unknown high PD taxa. But areas of high PD are still being worked out. For example, everyone knows about the high species diversity of plants in SW South Africa, but Forest et al. (2007, Nature) recently found that there is higher PD in the less glamorous SE of the country (many of the species in SW South Africa belong to a relatively few genera). Obviously you can conserve areas in both SW and SE South Africa, but the principle may have practical value in selecting areas for conservation at smaller scales.

Michael   

Wellington, New Zealand.

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

--- On Sun, 13/6/10, John Shuey <jshuey at TNC.ORG> wrote:

From: John Shuey <jshuey at TNC.ORG>
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value
To: "Michael Heads" <michael.heads at yahoo.com>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Sunday, 13 June, 2010, 1:48 PM

H Michael,

To clarify the Solidago issue.  S. shorti was prioritized – not because it has High Biodiversity value – but because it is in direct risk of extinction (two extant sites – plus one historical site in a region that is very well botanized).  Most other Solidago (I’d guess about 20-30 species around here) are common enough that they are conserved by conserving coarse filter communities (ecosystems) in the Midwest.    The “unprotected” site was adjacent to a major forest conservation area, so we simply purchased the site and moved it to public ownership and management.  

But to say no resources are expended to conserve the other Solidago is highly misleading.  They are picked up as we conserve those other ecosystem types – this is a great example of why conserving a complimentary system of habitats across ecoregions is so important – we can conserve the vast majority of species without knowing exactly what occurs where.  Nice for Solidago, but critical for flower mites.  Here in Indiana, we spend about us$10-14M per year implementing this vision.  I work for an organization that works fairly globally trying to do the same in all the areas where we work.

I do agree that species are going to fall through the cracks – a million species seems a low estimate for me.  The ones that are likely to be missed – and that we happen to know about (like S. shorti) we can target individually.  But the others require that we cast a well thought-out net that compensates for our ignorance.  Redundant examples of complimentary all ecological systems across significant ecological gradients is the best net I can think of.

Claiming that some of these spots have higher value, and should take precedence over lower value sites that are highly threatened is a sure way to increase the species that fall off the evolutionary pathway.

Best
John

  Please consider the environment before printing this email 
________________________________________
John A Shuey
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

From: Michael Heads [mailto:michael.heads at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 4:50 PM
To: John Shuey
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value

Hi John,

I'm using 'biodiversity value' to mean the numerical measure of biodiversity (cf. gravity has a value of 9.8 m/s/s). In most current studies phylogenetic diversity values are calculated with data from genomes, rather than species, populations or communities.
Measuring the biodiversity value of a species or area is not necessarily  a 'value judgment' (i.e. completely subjective). Agencies spend time and money conserving Short's goldenrod, but no-one spends money on all the introduced weedy lineages of goldenrods - all the cultivars, hybrids etc. - unless it is to get rid of them. This is because Short's goldenrod has been assigned a higher biodiversity value. You can't conserve 'all evolutionary lineages'. There may be millions in a single species. Likewise, if a habitat is an area where something lives, you can't conserve all habitats. You have to choose. One example: in  New Zealand many reserves have been located where there are high numbers of locally endemic species etc. and a high biodiversity value has been inferred.       
   Most conservation is 99% politics and 1% science, but this may not be the best possible mix. 

Michael

Wellington, New Zealand.

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

--- On Sat, 12/6/10, John Shuey <jshuey at TNC.ORG> wrote:

From: John Shuey <jshuey at TNC.ORG>
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value
To: "Michael Heads" <michael.heads at yahoo.com>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Saturday, 12 June, 2010, 11:58 AM
Michael,

 Biodiversity per say has many definitions but most revolve around biological organization at three levels – communities, species and populations.   But you will have to tell me what “biodiversity value is!  It’s a concept that is foreign to the conservation community (at least on this side of the world)!  Like I said before, most planning efforts are defined to identify a system of complimentary reserves that protect all habitats (aka ecosystems, communities etc) in a region – so that all of them can be conserved.  

The work I’ve been involved with over the years assumes no relative values per say – setting out the premise that all evolutionary lineages should be preserved.  No “value” judgments invoked.  Just working towards a systematic approach to conserving biodiversity (as above) in a way that is likely to actually conserve a significant portion of it. 

What I’ve been saying is -  while many people like to talk about assigning these values – I’ll ask you to show me any tangible global efforts  (or even regional) that actually use them in a conservation scheme that has been implemented.  I’m going to guess you’ll come up blank.   I’m sure your work is very good, but unless you can place it in a global context (both taxonomically and geographically) it’s had to incorporate into systematic planning. 

There are exceptions of course – but like I said, these are generally species centric organizations like zoos and WWF that get caught up in these efforts to save a few “big furry creatures”.  If you want to see species conservation limited to zoos, seed banks and arboretums – that’s certainly a great way to go.  (apologies to WWF – they really do a great job of supporting their targets in native habitats).  But if you want to see examples of all the World’s ecosystems safeguarded – I wouldn’t start telling people that my species is better than your species…. 

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

From: Michael Heads [mailto:michael.heads at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 5:50 PM
To: John Shuey
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value

Hi John,

What is biodiversity? How do you calculate the biodiversity value of an area? Many authors now agree that it is more than just a raw species number and there is an extensive literature on 'phylogenetic diversity'. There are 1900 hits on Google scholar for papers on pd published since 2009 and many of these papers discuss the conservation implications. I don't think it's fair to say that biodiversity values calculated for taxa and areas are simply subjective or that conservation based on biodiversity value would be 'weirdly screwed'. If conservation agencies are not using this new information yet, perhaps they could have a look at it. 

Michael Heads

Wellington, New Zealand.

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

--- On Sat, 12/6/10, John Shuey <jshuey at tnc.org> wrote:

From: John Shuey <jshuey at tnc.org>
Subject: [Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Saturday, 12 June, 2010, 2:55 AM 

A few notes to clarify my rambling post from my dimly lit back porch last night.

The entities that implement conservation don’t really ponder the evolutionary “uniqueness” of individual target species.  Value as you are discussing it, is subjective and biased by personal experience – the resulting conservation agenda would be weirdly screwed by all this bias.  Value as defined by the conservation community is a cold, hard evaluation of resource allocation – how do you maximize conservation bang for the buck.   Your time spent pondering ”phylogentic conservation value” might better be spent counting angels on pin heads (sorry – couldn’t resist!).

To follow-up on horseshoe crabs – ironically there is quite a bit of conservation interest pointed in their direction at the moment – but is has nothing to do with their odd evolutionary history.  As it turns out, their seasonal mass spawning – the release of hurdreds of tons of eggs each night – is a critical resource that migrating shore birds on the East Coast depend upon.  If crab stocks are reduced below a critical threshold, it could have a ripple through impact on shore birds and the ecosystems they influence in North and South America.

And Curtis states the obvious about great apes.  I’d like to “claim” that they are treated just like every other species.  That their habitats are identified as critical for inclusion in a complementary scheme of conservation sites.  And that the actual site designs and strategies for specific conservation areas simply include them as an “area sensitive species”, so that  great apes (and big cats for a more typical example) can maintain viable populations for the foreseeable future.   The reality is that they ARE GREAT APES – and almost everyone interjects personal bias in prioritizing them for conservation.  

Again, sorry about the "angels on a pinhead thing" - but there are things you could be worrying about that would have a more tangible impact on conservation.

John Shuey

_______________________________________________

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