If you are experiencing problems downloading PDF or HTML fulltext, our helpdesk recommend clearing your browser cache and trying again. If you need help in clearing your cache, please click here . Still need help? Email help@ingentaconnect.com

How do indicator groups provide information about the relative biodiversity of different sets of areas?: on hotspots, complementarity and pattern-based approaches

The full text article is temporarily unavailable.

We apologise for the inconvenience. Please try again later.

Download / Buy Article:

Abstract:

Regional conservation evaluation requires the effective use of available surrogate information, such as that provided by indicator taxa, for estimating the biodiversity represented by candidate protected areas. A recent study demonstrated that accumulating areas individually species-rich for one group of indicator organisms generally did not result in a set containing the areas that were species-rich for other groups. However, the requirement for a species-rich set, and not just individually-rich areas suggests an alternative assessment based on complementary-areas methods, which find a set of areas such that each of the indicator species is represented at least once. A set of areas covering all indicator taxa is assumed to be generally biodiverse. One limitation of this approach is that the set of areas species-rich for an indicator group is likely to represent many other organisms only if the members of the group span a wide range of habitats or environments. This supports the sampling of environmental pattern itself as an alternative strategy for selecting a set of biodiverse areas. Because such a pattern can be inferred from an indicator group, this same sampling strategy may extend the predictive value of such groups. Further, environmental pattern may incorporate additional useful information; for example, abundance information for the indicator taxa may improve predictions when used in this framework. These pattern strategies use the indicator group in a way that does not depend on the usual complementarity criterion in which a set is to be found that represents each indicator species. An example suggests that the complementary-areas approach may not be the best general strategy for using indicator groups in biodiversity assessment. We conclude that the current complementarity paradigm should be replaced by a more general pattern-based approach which views `complementarity' not as a predictor, but as a general property to be predicted.

Keywords: DIVERSITY; Hotspots; biodiversity; complementarity; environmental diversity; indicator groups; ordination

Document Type: Research Article

Publication date: January 1, 1996

Related content

Tools

Favourites

Share Content

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more