FORUM

You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

Top predators: hot or not? A call for systematic assessment of biodiversity surrogates

  1. Mar Cabeza1,*,
  2. Anni Arponen1,
  3. Astrid Van Teeffelen1,2

Article first published online: 30 JUL 2007

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01364.x

Issue

Journal of Applied Ecology

Journal of Applied Ecology

Volume 45, Issue 3, pages 976–980, June 2008

Additional Information

How to Cite

Cabeza, M., Arponen, A. and Van Teeffelen, A. (2008), Top predators: hot or not? A call for systematic assessment of biodiversity surrogates. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45: 976–980. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01364.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland; and

  2. 2

    Land Use Planning Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

* Correspondence author: Mar Cabeza, Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, PO Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland, Tel.: +358 9191 57743, Fax: +358 9191 57694. E-mail: cabeza@cc.helsinki.fi

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 30 JUL 2007
  2. Article first published online: 30 JUL 2007
  3. Received 27 December 2006; accepted 4 June 2007Handling Editor: Simon Thirgood

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (560K)

Keywords:

  • biodiversity hotspot;
  • complementarity;
  • indicator species;
  • reserve selection;
  • species richness

Summary

  • 1
    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.
  • 2
    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.
  • 3
    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.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (560K)