[Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value

Sun Jun 13 18:13:58 CDT 2010

Gentlemen,

By the very nature of human agricultural activity, highway making, city 
making, underground piping, etc., we are herding the flora and fauna into 
smaller and smaller islands of diminished habitat.  I say "diminished 
habitat" as I suspect that these small islands of habitat do not contain all 
the habitats needed for all those flora and fauna being herded, so even what 
appears to be a rich island of biodiversity may truly represent only the 
hardier species today.

There were many habitats around Edmonton, Alberta, that are near the Wagner 
Natural Area (WNA), but which are not represented in the WNA.  So by 
definition, these other habitats will have had flora and fauna in them that 
are NOT in the WNA. And there is no conservation of these other habitats 
because they were and are not seen as unique.  WNA is seen as unique, but 
the area around it is now almost totally committed to agriculture, highways, 
towns and cities and acreages.  So, in a sad way, we have created the WNA to 
be unique as we have destroyed all natural areas around it.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Heads" <michael.heads at yahoo.com>
To: "John Shuey" <jshuey at TNC.ORG>
Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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 