Threatened and endemic species: are they good indicators of patterns of biodiversity on a national scale?

By Aletta Bonn, A. Rodrigues, Kevin J. Gaston. 2002

203 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/93af1d4f98e14a32fee53cfb15d93f3d9d7769b6

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

Species distributions, surrogacy, and important conservation regions in Canada (2004, unknown): “Furthermore, our results suggest that endangered species from across taxonomic groups could be useful surrogates for biodiversity, supporting those of Lawler et al. (2003), although this may not be found within one taxon ( Bonn et al. 2002 ).”
Usefulness of the Umbrella Species Concept as a Conservation Tool (2004, background): “In Southern Africa, Bonn et al. (2002) simulated complementary networks representing threatened and endemic birds with the minimum possible number of conservation areas and assessed whether many other bird species would be conserved in these areas.”
Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations (2009, background): “Endangered species, and thereby many potential flagship species, often tend towards very specific habitat niches and therefore do not possess this characteristic (Berger 1997; Bonn et al. 2002).”
Complementarity analysis: Mapping the performance of surrogates for biodiversity (2006, background): “Previous studies have reported that narrow range and threatened species are the ones most likely to be missed when using a surrogate approach (Dobson et al., 1997; Fjeldså, 2000; Reyers et al., 2000; Bonn et al., 2002; Moore et al., 2003).”
Recommendations for Assessing the Effectiveness of Surrogate Species Approaches (2006, background): “Some researchers tout surrogate species as effective, efficient, and often the best (or only) way to proceed in regions for which few data are available and where planners cannot wait for additional data (e.g., Lambeck 1997; Poiani et al. 2001; Brooker 2002; Lambeck 2002).”
Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria (2005, background): “…minimum set of areas that represent all species in occurrence locations (Williams 1998; Cabeza and Moilanen 2001), or, recently, on finding appropriate areas that maximise probabilities of species persistence (Rodrigues et al. 2000; Williams and Araujo 2000; Araujo et al. 2002; Bonn et al. 2002).”
Wood-inhabiting macrofungi in Danish beech-forests – conflicting diversity patterns and their implications in a conservation perspective (2005, background): “It has repeatedly been found that conservation strategies focussed on simple species richness may be poorly able to protect the most rare and unique species and habitats – and vice versa (e.g., Prendergast et al., 1993; Bonn et al., 2002).”
Quantifying plant species diversity in a Natura 2000 network: Old ideas and new proposals (2008, background): “In general, it is known that most of the spatial pattern of species diversity is due to relatively few, more common, species ( Bonn et al., 2002; Pearman and Weber, 2007; Gaston, 2008).”
Biodiversity and extinction: the importance of being common (2008, result): “This is again contrary to long-prevailing assumptions that rare species would make better indicators, and which have led to their value in this regard repeatedly being tested (eg, Kershaw et al., 1995; Bonn et al., 2002; Lawler et al., 2003; Tognelli, 2005).”