Аннотация
Sergio et al. (2006) argue that top predators are justified conservation
surrogates based on a case study where raptor presence is associated
with high species richness of birds, butterflies and trees. We question
the methodology as well as the applicability of their results, and
clarify differences between surrogates for biodiversity hotspots
and surrogates for complementarity. We show that the results from
Sergio et al. related to richness hotspots are not fully reliable
and that the ability of top predators to identify complementary areas
is not demonstrated. Given that complementarity-based surrogate studies
have produced mixed results for a variety of reasons, we clarify
some methodological misunderstandings while encouraging further testing
of functional groups as biodiversity surrogates. Synthesis and applications.
We call for caution in making generalizations, and emphasize that
case studies on the use of surrogates should be conducted in a systematic
manner. This will facilitate robust assessment across studies regarding
the usefulness of particular species groups as biodiversity surrogates.
Journal of Applied Ecology (2007) doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01364.x
Пользователи данного ресурса
Пожалуйста,
войдите в систему, чтобы принять участие в дискуссии (добавить собственные рецензию, или комментарий)