Usefulness of the Umbrella Species Concept as a Conservation Tool

By Jean-Michel Roberge, P. Angelstam. 2004

1,029 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8a48e4131b4aed81b309d64e1de41cc55faec36d

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

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Application of central-place foraging theory shows the importance of Mediterranean dehesas for the conservation of the cinereous vulture, Aegypius monachus (2005, methodology): “However, beyond the Wnding that this species requires large habitat extensions for persistence (the total colony home range is at least 592,000 ha) we did not test if this is an eVective umbrella species for Wne-scale management of dehesas (Roberge and Anglestam, 2004).”
Documented and Potential Biological Impacts of Recreational Fishing: Insights for Management and Conservation (2006, methodology): “Without a reliable methodology that can cope with the whole ecosystem, management actions aiming at certain “charismatic umbrella species” ( Simberloff, 1998 ) which fill key functional roles in the system (eg, key-stone predators, indicator organisms, or integrator species) may improve the conditio”
Dead wood threshold values for the three-toed woodpecker presence in boreal and sub-alpine forest (2004, background): “To recommend the critical dead wood thresholds for three-toed woodpeckers as a practical management target, however, it is necessary to evaluate the umbrella value of this woodpecker species for other taxa in conifer-dominated boreal and mountain forest (Angelstam et al., 2003; Roberge and Angelstam”
What are we saving? Developing a standardized approach for conservation action (2009, background): “…landscape, keystone or umbrella species, and species that are ‘indicators’ or culturally/economically important have all been proposed as short-cuts in setting conservation priorities (Vane-Wright, Humphries &Williams, 1991; Roberge & Angelstam, 2004; Mace, Possingham & Leader-Williams, 2006).”
Wood-decaying fungi in the forest: conservation needs and management options (2007, background): “groups, whenever possible not merely involving a single functional group, but reXecting the requirements of diVerent organisms (Jonsson and Jonsell 1999; Berglund and Jonsson 2001; Roberge and Angelstam 2004; Similä et al. 2006).”
Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science (2017, background): “Indeed a taxonomic focus towards charismatic and wide-ranged species, e.g. large carnivores, might still deliver broader biodiversity benefits due to the umbrella role of these species (Roberge and Angelstam, 2004).”
Does size matter for dispersal distance (2007, background): “Distance–mass relationships are implicitly part of the umbrella species approach (e.g. Simberloff, 1998; Fleishman et al., 2001; Roberge & Angelstam, 2004) because ‘charismatic megafauna’ are often identified as umbrella species, due in part to their large range sizes.”