Abstract
Prioritizing conservation areas is a central theme in conservation biology. The use of surrogate species and landscape metrics to identify areas with high conservation value is common. However, few studies have examined the relative efficacy of these two surrogates. In this study, we compared the efficacy of the presence/absence (PA) of a top predator (Eastern Marsh Harrier, Circus spilonotus) and wetland patch area on species richness, total abundance, and community composition of birds, plants, and small mammals, but species richness and community composition only for plants, in a fragmented wetland landscape. Although harrier PA was an effective indicator of the distribution of birds, it had no significant efficacy on the distributions of plants and small mammals. Patch area was more effective indicator of the distributions of plants and small mammals. These results suggest that surrogate species can be more effective indicators than landscape surrogates when there are ecological linkages between surrogate species and the focal taxa (e.g., similarity of habitat requirements between surrogate species and focal taxa or hetero-specific attraction). On the other hand, landscape surrogates would be useful when ecological knowledge about the relationships is limited.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Banks-Leite C, Ewers RM, Kapos V, Martensen AC, Metzger JP (2011) Comparing species and measures of landscape structure as indicators of conservation importance. J Appl Ecol 48:706–714. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01966.x
Barbaro L, Pontcharraud L, Vetillard F, Guyon D, Jactel H (2005) Comparative response of bird, carabid, and spider assemblages to stand and landscape diversity in maritime pine plantation forests. Ecosience 12:110–121. doi:10.2980/i1195-6860-12-1-110.1
Barton PS, Westgate MJ, Lane PW, MacGregor C, Lindenmayer DB (2014) Robustness of habitat-based surrogates of animal diversity: a multitaxa comparison over time. J Appl Ecol 55:1434–1443. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12290
Branton M, Richardson J (2011) Assessing the value of the umbrella-species concept for conservation planning with meta-analysis. Conserv Biol 25:9–20. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01606.x
Bräuniger C, Knapp S, Kühn I, Klotz S (2010) Testing taxonomic and landscape surrogates for biodiversity in an urban setting. Landsc Urban Plan 97:283–295. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.001
Brose U (2001) Relative importance of isolation, area and habitat heterogeneity for vascular plant species richness of temporary wetlands in east-German farmland. Ecography 24:722–730. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2001.tb00533.x
Burgas D, Byholm P, Parkkima T (2014) Raptors as surrogates of biodiversity along a landscape gradient. J Appl Ecol 51:786–794. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12229
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practice information-theoretic approach. Springer Verlag, New York
Cabeza M, Arponen A, Van Teeffelen A (2008) Top predators: hot or not? A call for systematic assessment of biodiversity surrogates. J Appl Ecol 45:976–980. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01364.x
Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67. doi:10.1038/nature11148
Caro TM, O’Doherty G (1999) On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 13:805–814. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98338.x
Davis SK (2004) Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape, and vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. Auk 121:1130–1145. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2004)121[1130:ASIGPE]2.0.CO;2
Di Minin E, Moilanen A (2014) Improving the surrogacy effectiveness of charismatic megafauna with well-surveyed taxonomic groups and habitat types. J Appl Ecol 51:281–288. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12203
Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182. doi:10.1017/S1464793105006950
Esri R (2011) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands
Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:487–515. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419
Faith DP (2003) Environmental diversity (ED) as surrogate information for species-level biodiversity. Ecography 26:374–379. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03300.x
Ferrier S (2002) Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? Syst Biol 51:331–363. doi:10.1080/10635150252899806
Foster BL, Gross KL (1998) Species richness in a successional grassland: effects of nitrogen enrichment and plant litter. Ecology 79:2593–2602. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2593:SRIASG]2.0.CO;2
Gardner TA, Barlow J, Araujo IS et al (2008) The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. Ecol Lett 11:139–150. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01133.x
Goetz SJ, Steinberg D, Betts MG, Holmes RT, Doran PJ, Dubayah R, Hofton M (2010) Lidar remote sensing variables predict breeding habitat of a Neotropical migrant bird. Ecology 91:1569–1576. doi:10.1890/09-1670.1
Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bioscience 54:227–233. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0227:DTSSOS]2.0.C
Hortal J, Araújo MB, Lobo JM (2009) Testing the effectiveness of discrete and continuous environmental diversity as a surrogate for species diversity. Ecol Ind 9:138–149. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.02.005
Hu G, Feeley KJ, Wu J, Xu G, Yu M (2011) Determinants of plant species richness and patterns of nestedness in fragmented landscapes: evidence from land-bridge islands. Landsc Ecol 26:1405–1417. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9662-7
Japan Wildlife Research Center (2002) The threatened wildlife of Japan-red data book-revised edition. Japan Wildlife Research Center, Tokyo (In Japanese)
Kessler M, Abrahamczyk S, Bos M, Buchori D, Putra DD, Robbert Gradstein S, Tscharntke T (2011) Cost-effectiveness of plant and animal biodiversity indicators in tropical forest and agroforest habitats. J Appl Ecol 48:330–339. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01932.x
Krauss J, Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2004) Effects of habitat area, isolation, and landscape diversity on plant species richness of calcareous grasslands. Biodivers Conserv 13:1427–1439. doi:10.1023/B:BIOC.0000021323.18165.58
Larsen FW, Bladt J, Balmford A, Rahbek C (2012) Birds as biodiversity surrogates: will supplementing birds with other taxa improve effectiveness? J Appl Ecol 49:349–356. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02094.x
Leader-Williams N, Dublin HT (2000) Charismatic megafauna as ‘flagship species’. In: Entwistle A, Dunstone N (eds) Priorities for the conservation of mammalian diversity: Has the panda had its day?. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 53–81
Lindenmayer DB, Barton PS, Lane PW, Westgate MJ, McBurney L, Blair D, Likens GE (2014) An empirical assessment and comparison of species-based and habitat-based surrogates: a case study of forest vertebrates and large old trees. PLoS ONE 9:e89807. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089807
Loydi A, Eckstein RL, Otte A, Donath TW (2012) Effects of litter on seedling establishment in natural and semi-natural grasslands: a meta-analysis. J Ecol 101:454–464. doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12033
Michel N, Françoise B, Alain B (2006) How does landscape use influence small mammal diversity, abundance and biomass in hedgerow networks of farming landscapes? Acta Oecol 30:11–20. doi:10.1016/j.actao.2005.12.006
Mönkkönen M, Husby M, Tornberg R, Helle P, Thomson RL (2007) Predation as a landscape effect: the trading off by prey species between predation risks and protection benefits. J Anim Ecol 76:619–629. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01233.x
Morioka T, Kanouchi T, Kawata T, Yamagata N (1995) The birds of prey in Japan. Bun-ichi Sogo Shuppan, Tokyo (In Japanese)
Niemi GJ, McDonald ME (2004) Application of ecological indicators. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 35:89–111. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130132
Odachi S, Ishibashi Y, Iwasa MA, Saitoh T (2009) The wild mammals of Japan. Shoukadoh Book Sellers, Tokyo
Oja T, Alamets K, Pärnamets H (2005) Modelling bird habitat suitability based on landscape parameters at different scales. Ecol Indic 5:314–321. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.008
Ormerod SJ, Durance I, Terrier A, Swanson AM (2010) Priority wetland invertebrates as conservation surrogates. Conserv Biol 24:573–582. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01352.x
Pakkala T, Kouki J, Tiainen J (2006) Top predator and interference competition modify the occurrence and breeding success of a specialist species in a structurally complex forest environment. Ann Zool Fennici 43:137–164
R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
Sætersdal M, Gjerde I (2011) Prioritising conservation areas using species surrogate measures: consistent with ecological theory? J Appl Ecol 48:1236–1240. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02027.x
Sattler T, Pezzatti GB, Nobis MP, Obrist MK, Roth T, Moretti M (2014) Selection of multiple umbrella species for functional and taxonomic diversity to represent urban biodiversity. Conserv Biol 28:414–426. doi:10.1111/cobi.12213
Sergio F, Newton I, Marchesi L (2005) Conservation: top predators and biodiversity. Nature 436:192. doi:10.1038/436192a
Simmons JR (2000) Harriers of the world: their behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
The Ornithological Society of Japan (2012) Check-list of Japanese brds, 7th revised edn. The Ornithological Society Japan, Sanda
Umezawa S (2012) Wild flowers of Hokkaido. Hokkaido University Press, Sapporo (In Japanese)
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 sustaining society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp 639–647
Yamaura Y, Kawahara T, Iida S, Ozaki K (2008) Relative importance of the area and shape of patches to the diversity of multiple taxa. Conserv Biol 22:1513–1522. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01024.x
Acknowledgments
We thank T. Shimazaki and T. Namba for their field support and Tomatoh, the Yufutsu Mill of Nippon Paper Industries, and H. Honda for their logistical support. Dr. F. Nakamura, Dr. J. Morimoto, and an anonymous referee provided valuable comments on the early version of the manuscript.
Funding
MS was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 14J05368 and YY by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 23248021.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Senzaki, M., Yamaura, Y. Surrogate species versus landscape metric: does presence of a raptor species explains diversity of multiple taxa more than patch area?. Wetlands Ecol Manage 24, 427–441 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-015-9469-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-015-9469-4