Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patterns of biodiverse, understudied groups do not mirror those of the surrogate groups that set conservation priorities: a case study from the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain of eastern North America

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We conducted biodiversity inventories of lichens, woody plants, and sedges at 32 sites on the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain of eastern North America between November 2012 and June 2015. Each site comprised a single, uniform habitat, consisting of either Coastal Plain Floodplain forest, Coastal Plain Flatwood swamp, Coastal Plain Oak-Pine forest, Maritime forest, Mixed Mesic Hardwood forest, or Tidal forest. We compared alpha diversity and community assemblages of each organismal group across the sites, and compared selected minimal reserve sets in order to visualize biodiversity patterns and assess whether specific components of vascular plants (sedges and woody plants) serve as an effective surrogate for lichens. Woody plants provide a direct substrate for lichen growth, but there is no significant correlation between the alpha diversity of these groups. For conserving maximal species richness among the studied groups, lichens outperform the sedges and woody plants as the best surrogate group for building minimum reserve sets, even though vascular plants are more commonly used as a surrogate. Likewise, sedge alpha diversity does not correlate with lichens, or with woody plants. Although no group is an effective indicator for high alpha diversity sites of other organisms, a significant correlation between the community assemblages of lichens and woody plants suggests that protecting varied types of plant communities might serve as a workable surrogate for protecting lichens. The lack of congruence between species richness patterns across organismal groups suggests that the mechanisms that shape patterns of diversity are not identical, and that identifying and incorporating specific biodiversity indicators for understudied groups in conservation policy is necessary to ensure their protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilar-Santelises R, del Castillo RF (2013) Factors affecting woody plant species diversity of fragmented seasonally dry oak forests in the Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca, Mexico. Rev Mex Biodivers 84:575–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahrends A, Burgess ND, Gereau RE, Marchant R, Bulling MT, Lovett JC, Platts PJ, Kindemba VW, Owen N, Fanning E, Rahbek C (2011) Funding begets biodiversity. Divers Distrib 17:191–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen JL, Lendemer JC (2015) Fungal conservation in the USA. Endanger Species Res 28:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen JL, Lendemer JC (2016) Quantifying the impacts of sea-level rise on coastal biodiversity: a case study on lichens in the mid-Atlantic Coast of eastern North America. Biol Conserv 202:119–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand M, Laurence S, Rayfield B (2005) Diversity relationships among taxonomic groups in recovering and restored forests. Conserv Biol 19:955–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andelman SJ, Fagan WF (2000) Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:5954–5959

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DS, Davis RB, Rooney SC, Campbell CS (1996) The ecology of sedges (Cyperaceae) in Maine peatlands. B Torrey Bot Club 123:100–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auch RF (2000) Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. United States Geological Survey, Land Cover Trends Project. Reston, Virginia. http://landcovertrends.usgs.gov/east/eco63Report.html. Accessed 25 April 2016

  • Beccaloni GW, Gaston KJ (1994) Predicting the species richness of Neotropical forest butterflies: ithomiinae (Lepidoptera: Nyntphalidae) as indicators. Biol Conserv 71:77–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berglund H, Jonsson BG (2001) Predictability of plant and fungal species richness of old-growth boreal forest islands. J Veg Sci 12:857–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bibby CJ, Collar NJ, Crosey MJ, Heath MF, Imboden C, Johnson TH, Long AJ, Stattersfield AJ, Thirgood SJ (1992) Putting biodiversity on the map: priority areas for global conservation. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasi C, Marchetti M, Chiavetta U, Aleffi M, Audisio P, Azzella MM, Brunialti G, Capotorti G, Del Vico E, Lattanzi E, Persiani AM, Ravera S, Tilia A, Burrascanco S (2010) Multi-taxon and forest structure sampling for identification of indicators and monitoring of old-growth forest. Plant Biosyst 144:160–170

  • Brodo IM, Sharnoff SD, Sharnoff S (2001) Lichens of North America. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunialti G, Frati L, Aleffi M, Marignani M, Rosati L, Burrascano S, Ravera S (2010) Lichens and bryophytes as indicators of old-growth features in Mediterranean forests. Plant Biosyst 144:221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16:242–247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caro TM (2003) Umbrella species: critique and lessons from East Africa. Anim Conserv 6:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caro TM (2010) Conservation by proxy: indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Caro TM, O’Doherty G (1999) On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 13:805–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champely S (2015) pwr: Basic functions for power analysis. R package version 1.1-3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr

  • Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Austral J Ecol 18:117–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conti ME, Cecchetti G (2001) Biological monitoring: lichens as bioindicators of air pollution assessment—a review. Environ Pollut 114:471–492

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Csuti B, Polasky S, Williams PH, Pressey RL, Camm JD, Kershaw M, Kiester AR, Downs B, Hamilton R, Huso M, Sahr K (1997) A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol Conserv 80:83–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabros A, Waterway MJ (2008) Segregation of sedge species (Cyperaceae) along environmental gradients in fens of the Schefferville region, northern Quebec. In: Naczi RFC, Ford BA (eds) Sedges: uses, diversity and systematics of the Cyperaceae. Monographs in systematic botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden, vol 108. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, pp 145–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorey JE, Salinas NR (2016) CoRNS.py v. 1.0.1 A Python utility for complementary reserve. Network. doi:10.5281/zenodo.200391

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith D, Walker P (1996) How do indicator groups provide information about the relative biodiversity of different sets of areas? On hotspots, complementarity and pattern-based approaches. Biodivers Lett 3:18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauth JE, Bernardo J, Camara M, Resetarits WJ, Van Buskirk J, McCollum SA (1996) Simplifying the jargon of community ecology: a conceptual approach. Am Nat 147:282–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds) (1993+) Flora of North America North of Mexico, 19+ vols. Oxford University Press, New York

  • Franklin JF (1994) Preserving biodiversity: species in landscapes: response. Ecol Appl 3:202–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman SK, Reich PB, Frelich LE (2001) Multiple scale composition and spatial distribution patterns of the north-eastern Minnesota presettlement forest. J Ecol 89:538–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz O, Gustafsson L, Larsson K (2008) Does forest continuity matter in conservation? A study of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes in beech forests of southern Sweden. Biol Conserv 141:655–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway DJ (1992) Biodiversity: a lichenological perspective. Biodivers Conserv 1:312–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao T, Nielsen AB, Hedblom M (2015) Reviewing the strength of evidence of biodiversity indicators for forest ecosystems in Europe. Ecol Indic 57:420–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess GR, Koch FH, Rubino MJ, Eschelbach KA, Drew CA, Favreau JM (2006) Comparing the potential effectiveness of conservation planning approaches in central North Carolina. Biol Conserv 128:358–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphries CJ, Williams PH, Vane-Wright RI (1995) Measuring biodiversity value for conservation. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 26:93–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson DA (1995) PROTEST: a PROcrustean randomization TEST of community environment concordance. Ecoscience 2:297–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarek S (2012) mvnormtest: Normality test for multivariate variables. R package version 0.1-9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mvnormtest

  • Jarman SJ, Kantvilas G (1994) Lichens and bryophytes of the Tasmanian world heritage area. II. Three forest sites at Pelion Plains. Tasforests 6:103–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson P, Rydin H, Thor G (2007) Tree age relationships with epiphytic lichen diversity and lichen life history traits on ash in southern Sweden. Ecoscience 14:81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson BG, Jonsell M (1999) Exploring potential biodiversity indicators in boreal forests. Biodivers Conserv 8:1417–1433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juutinen A, Mönkkönen M, Sippola A-L (2006) Cost-efficiency of decaying wood as a surrogate for overall species richness in boreal forests. Conserv Biol 20:74–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kent R, Bar-Massada A, Carmel Y (2011) Multiscale analysis of mammal species composition-environment relationship in the contiguous USA. PLoS ONE 6:e25440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kim S (2015) ppcor: Partial and semi-partial (Part) correlation. R package version 1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ppcor

  • Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) (2013) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute, Joensuu

    Google Scholar 

  • Landres PB, Verner J, Thomas JW (1988) Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique. Conserv Biol 2:318–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landsberg J, Crowley G (2004) Monitoring rangeland biodiversity: plants as indicators. Austral Ecol 29:59–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassauce A, Paillet Y, Jactel H, Bouget C (2011) Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecol Indic 11:1027–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Launer AE, Murphy DD (1994) Umbrella species and the conservation of habitat fragments: a case of a threatened butterfly and a vanishing grassland ecosystem. Biol Conserv 69:145–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Lendemer JC, Allen J (2014) Lichen biodiversity under threat from sea-level rise in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Bioscience 64:923–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lendemer JC, Harris RC, Ruiz AM (2016) A review of the lichens of the Dare regional biodiversity hotspot in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain of North Carolina, eastern North America. Castanea 81:1–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (2000) Multiple scales and maintenance of biodiversity. Ecosystems 3:498–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang SY, Seagle SW (2002) Browsing and microhabitat effects on riparian forest woody seedling demography. Ecology 83:212–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maryland Department of Natural Resources (2016) Maryland state wildlife action plan. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach

    Google Scholar 

  • McMaster RT (2005) Factors influencing vascular plant diversity on 22 islands off the coast of eastern North America. J Biogeogr 32:475–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMullin RT, Duinker PN, Richardson DH, Cameron RP, Hamilton DC, Newmaster SG (2010) Relationships between the structural complexity and lichen community in coniferous forests of southwestern Nova Scotia. For Ecol Manag 260:744–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miadlikowska J, Kauff F, Hofstetter V, Fraker E, Grube M, Hafellner J, Reeb V, Hodkinson BP, Kukwa M, Lücking R, Hestmark G, Otálora MG, Rauhut A, Büdel B, Scheidegger C, Timdal E, Stenroos S, Brodo IM, Perlmutter GB, Ertz D, Diederich P, Lendemer JC, May PF, Schoch C, Arnold AE, Gueidan C, Tripp E, Yahr R, Robertson C, Lutzoni F (2006) New insights into classification and evolution of the Lecanoromycetes (Pezizomycotina, Ascomycota) from phylogenetic analyses of three ribosomal RNA and two protein-coding genes. Mycologia 98:1088–1103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis Assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nascimbene J, Marini L, Motta R, Nimis PL (2009) Influence of tree age, tree size and crown structure on lichen communities in mature Alpine spruce forests. Biodivers Conserv 18:1509–1522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash TH III (ed) (2008) Lichen biology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Negi HR, Gadgil M (2002) Cross-taxon surrogacy of biodiversity in the Indian Garhwal Himalaya. Biol Conserv 105:143–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newmaster SG, Belland RJ, Arsenault A, Vitt DH, Stephens TR (2005) The ones we left behind: comparing plot sampling and floristic habitat sampling for estimating bryophyte diversity. Divers Distrib 11:57–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1987) From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at the nature conservancy (USA). Biol Conserv 41:11–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberndorfer EC, Lundholm JT (2009) Species richness, abundance, rarity and environmental gradients in coastal barren vegetation. Biodivers Conserv 18:1523–1553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oden NL, Sokal RR (1986) Directional autocorrelation: an extension of spatial correlograms to two dimensions. Syst Zool 35:608–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2015) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.3-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan

  • Oliver I, Beattie AJ, York A (1998) Spatial fidelity of plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate assemblages in multiple-use forest in eastern Australia. Conserv Biol 12:822–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozaki K, Isono M, Kawahara T, Iida S, Kudo T, Fukuyama K (2006) A mechanistic approach to evaluation of umbrella species as conservation surrogates. Conserv Biol 20:1507–1515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Panwar HS (1984) What to do when you’ve succeeded: Project Tiger, ten years later. In: Jeffrey A (ed) National parks, conservation and development: the role of protected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, pp 183–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Panzer R, Schwartz MW (1998) Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservation. Conserv Biol 12:693–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson DL, Cassola F (1992) World-wide species richness patterns of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): indicator taxon for biodiversity and conservation studies. Conserv Biol 6:376–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pharo EJ, Beattie AJ, Binns D (1999) Vascular plant diversity as a surrogate for bryophyte and lichen diversity. Conserv Biol 13:282–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pharo EJ, Beattie AJ, Pressey RL (2000) Effectiveness of using vascular plants to select reserves for bryophytes and lichens. Biol Conserv 96:371–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • QGIS Development Team (2016) QGIS geographic information system. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. http://qgis.osgeo.org

  • Qian H (2013) Environmental determinants of woody plant diversity at a regional scale in China. PLoS ONE 8:e75832

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahbek C, Colwell RK (2011) Species loss revisited. Nature 473:288–289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ranius T, Johansson P, Berg N, Niklasson M (2008) The influence of tree age and microhabitat quality on the occurrence of crustose lichens associated with old oaks. J Veg Sci 19:653–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revelle W (2015) psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DHS, Cameron R (2004) Cyanolichens: their response to pollution and possible management strategies for their conservation in northeastern North America. Northeast Nat 11:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH, Dinerstein E, Olson DM, Loucks C (1999) Who’s where in North America. Bioscience 49:369–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberge J-M, Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol 18:76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ (2002) Maximising phylogenetic diversity in the selection of networks of conservation areas. Biol Conserv 105:103–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatini FM, Burrascano S, Azzella MM, Barbati A, De Paulis S, Di Santo D, Facioni L, Giuliarelli D, Lombardi F, Maggi O, Mattioli W, Parisi F, Persiani A, Ravera S, Blasi C (2016) One taxon does not fit all: herb-layer diversity and stand structural complexity are weak predictors of biodiversity in Fagus sylvatica forests. Ecol Indic 69:126–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sætersdal M, Gjerde I, Blom HH, Ihlen PG, Myrseth EW, Pommeresche R, Skartveit J, Solhøy T, Aas O (2003) Vascular plants as a surrogate species group in complementary site selection for bryophytes, macrolichens, spiders, carabids, staphylinids, snails, and wood living polypore fungi in a northern forest. Biol Conserv 115:21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santi E, Maccherini S, Rocchini D, Bonini I, Brunialti G, Favilli L, Perini C, Pezzo F, Piazzini S, Rota E, Salerni E, Chiarucci A (2010) Simple to sample: vascular plants as surrogate group in a nature reserve. J Nat Conserv 18:2–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer ML (1992) Keeping the grizzly bear in the American West: a strategy for real recovery. Wilderness Society, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (1998) Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the landscape era? Biol Conserv 83:247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen T (1948) A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 5:1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturges H (1926) The choice of a class-interval. J Am Stat Assoc 21:65–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JW, Forsman ED, Lint JB, Meslow EC, Noon BR, Verner J (1990) A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. A report by the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA, Forest Service, and U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. Portland, Oregon

  • Ugland KI, Gray JS, Ellingsen KE (2003) The species-accumulation curve and estimation of species richness. J Anim Ecol 72:888–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vassiliki K, Devillers P, Dufrêne M, Legakis A, Vokou D, Lebrun P (2004) Testing the value of six taxonomic groups as biodiversity indicators at a local scale. Conserv Biol 18:667–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vavrek MJ (2011) Fossil: palaeoecological and palaeogeographical analysis tools. Palaeontol Electron 14:1T

    Google Scholar 

  • Western D (1992) The biodiversity crisis: a challenge for biology. Oikos 63:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham H (2007) Reshaping data with the reshape package. J Stat Softw 21:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham H (2011) The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. J Stat Softw 40(1):1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiken E, Nava FJ, Griffith G (2011) North American terrestrial ecoregions—level III. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox BA (1984) In situ conservation of genetic resources: determinants of minimum area requirements. In: McNeely JA, Miller KR (eds) National parks: conservation and development: the role of protected areas in maintaining society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 639–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Young CC, Menges ES (1999) Postfire gap-phase regeneration in scrubby flatwoods on the Lake Wales Ridge. Fla sci 62:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J (2013) spaa: SPecies Association Analysis. R package version 0.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=spaa

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Delaware Wild Lands, The Nature Conservancy, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation, and the Delaware Forest Service for granting permission to conduct research in protected areas. We give special thanks to Delaware Wild Lands and Ron and Susan Haas for housing us during our work on Delmarva. We are grateful to all of the individuals who assisted us with field work: D. Ray, W. Knapp, P. Martin, A. Martin, R. Haas, J. Allen, R.C. Harris, N. Noell, J. Barton, and B.P. Hodkinson. We also thank Nelson Salinas for his help scripting in Python, and Jessica Allen for her helpful comments and discussion about the manuscript. We thank two anonymous reviewers for sharing their insights, which enabled us to greatly improve the manuscript. This work was supported by US National Science Foundation [DEB-1145511].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Systematic Botany, New York Botanical Garden, 2900 Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY, 10458, USA

    Jenna E. Dorey, James C. Lendemer & Robert F. C. Naczi

  2. Department of Biology, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, 365 5th Ave, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Jenna E. Dorey

Authors
  1. Jenna E. Dorey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James C. Lendemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert F. C. Naczi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceived project: RN, JL. Conducted field work: JL, JD. Identified specimens: JL, RN, JD. Analyzed data: JD. Wrote manuscript: JD, JL, RN.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jenna E. Dorey.

Additional information

Communicated by Daniel Sanchez Mata.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplemental Fig. 1 Two-dimensional NMDS ordination plots of pairwise ecological distance between sites for lichens and woody plants using the monoMDS function in the R package vegan. Points are plotted by the site identifier, and species scores are overlayed.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 32 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dorey, J.E., Lendemer, J.C. & Naczi, R.F.C. Patterns of biodiverse, understudied groups do not mirror those of the surrogate groups that set conservation priorities: a case study from the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain of eastern North America. Biodivers Conserv 27, 31–51 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1420-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1420-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation