The Impact of Species Concept on Biodiversity Studies

By P. Agapow, Olaf R. P. Bininda-Emonds, Keith A. Crandall, J. L. Gittleman, Georgina M. Mace, Jonathon C. Marshall, Andy Purvis. The Quarterly review of biology, 2004

604 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/13d05371c72c63ad19d9ba4ea4524c3e2f12b886

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Marine turtles and IUCN Red Listing: A review of the process, the pitfalls, and novel assessment approaches (2008, background): “…conservation, there is little agreement on what constitutes a species between people whowork on different taxa, and sometimes even on the same taxa, leading to problems in biodiversity studies, assessment of trends and consequently, conservation (Isaac et al., 2004, Agapow et al., 2004; Mace 2004).”
The taxonomy of the genus Dunaliella (Chlorophyta, Dunaliellales) with emphasis on the marine and halophilic species (2007, background): “Molecular studies also have reinvigorated discussion on what constitutes a species (Mallet and Willmott 2003; Schlegel and Meisterfeld 2003; Agapow et al. 2004).”
Delimiting species without monophyletic gene trees. (2007, background): “Species are the basic unit of biodiversity and, as such, are inextricably linked to the study of the processes involved in speciation (Moritz et al., 1992; Agapow et al., 2004; de Queiroz, 2005a, 2005b), as well as the conservation of diversity (Hey et al., 2003; Gompert et al., 2006).”
The impact of taxonomic change on conservation: Does it kill, can it save, or is it just irrelevant? (2009, background): “It has been suggested that a phylogenetic species concept may encourage up-ranking of varieties or subspecies to species, perhaps by up to 48% (Agapow et al., 2004).”
The role of taxonomy in species conservation. (2004, background): “So, is it possible that to a degree the difference in threat levels among these higher taxa is explained by the adoption of different species concepts? A recent review comparing paired taxonomic assessments under phylogenetic and non-phylogenetic concepts showed species numbers roughly doubling unde”
The integrative future of taxonomy (2010, background): “Indeed, other cases of elevation of subspecies to species rank in several groups of organisms [review by [4]], but especially in birds and primates [61], have been criticized as an unjustified inflation of biodiversity with detrimental consequences for macroecology and conservation [61].”
Designatable Units for Status Assessment of Endangered Species (2005, background): “Agapow et al. (2004) decry the “terrible ambiguity of species” with reference to conservation of biodiversity in that a simple and universally applicable concept of species boundaries may never be forthcoming.”
Are the Northern Andes a species pump for Neotropical birds? Phylogenetics and biogeography of a clade of Neotropical tanagers (Aves: Thraupini) (2010, neutral): “In a conservative estimate, Agapow et al. (2004) suggested that roughly 48% more species units can be expected when applying a phylogenetic species criterion in preference to traditional taxonomical arrangements in well-studied groups such as birds.”
Biological correlates of description date in carnivores and primates (2004, background): “Right or wrong, its application may affect analyses like ours (see Agapow et al., 2004).”
Cryptic Biodiversity in Streams: A Comparison of Macroinvertebrate Communities Based on Morphological and DNA Barcode Identifications (2014, background): “We recognize the importance of discussions of species delimitation and species concepts (e.g., Agapow et al. 2004, Sites and Marshall 2004, DeSalle et al. 2005, Pons et al. 2006) and concerns about taxonomic inflation (e.g., Isaac et al. 2004, Zachos et al. 2013), but we think that the vast…”
Congeneric phylogeography: hypothesizing species limits and evolutionary processes in Patagonian lizards of the Liolaemus boulengeri group (Squamata: Liolaemini) (2006, background): “Although the uncertainty of species limits in these complexes compromises the ability to reconstruct robust phylogeographical hypotheses (Agapow et al., 2004), the present study has offered both provisional delimitations of species and used NCPA to generate hypotheses of population history, all of w”
Phenotypic plasticity leads to incongruence between morphology-based taxonomy and genetic differentiation in western Palaearctic tortoises (Testudo graeca complex; Testudines, Testudinidae) (2007, background): “Obviously, species delineation depends on the adopted species concept, and there is an ongoing debate about the benefits and shortcomings of different competing species concepts (e.g. Ereshefsky, 1992; Wheeler and Meier, 2000; Agapow et al., 2004; Coyne and Orr, 2004).”
Deciphering the products of evolution at the species level: the need for an integrative taxonomy (2009, background): “The stability of species names The degree of stability in species names is a matter of great concern for users of species names, who see their comparative units and, hence, their predictions, changing after taxonomic reanalysis (Agapow et al. 2004; Isaac et al. 2004; Padial & De la Riva 2006).”