Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale

By T. Caro, A. Engilis, E. Fitzherbert, T. Gardner. 2004

152 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e0d55171384b53f3a79ee574057960efef6ae8b1

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

1. Maan Barua
2. P. Seddon
3. K. Nekaris
4. T. Caro
5. Andrew Sih
6. V. Nijman
7. D. Armstrong
8. Roger A. Baldwin

In Ecology

1. P. Seddon
2. K. Nekaris
3. T. Caro
4. Andrew Sih
5. P. Soorae
6. John M. Eadie
7. V. Nijman
8. Jean-Michel Roberge

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. T. Caro
2. P. Seddon
3. Andrew Sih
4. Maan Barua
5. John M. Eadie
6. V. Nijman
7. Jean-Michel Roberge
8. P. Angelstam

Citations in the corpus

• Biodiversity and extinction (2007, unknown): “, 2006), flagship species (eg, Simberloff, 1998; Andelman and Fagan, 2000; Williams et al., 2000; Bowen-Jones and Entwistle, 2002; Caro et al., 2004), and indicator species (eg, Simberloff, 1998; Snaith and Beazley, 2002; King and Beazley, 2005; Maes and van Dyck, 2005; Bani et al.”
• Use of Substitute Species in Conservation Biology (2005, background): “1997; Simberloff 1998; Caro & O’Doherty 1999; Andelman & Fagan 2000; Zacharias & Roff 2001; Sanderson et al. 2002; Caro et al. 2004) and those that use the response of one species or population to an environmental disturbance to predict the response of another to a similar disturbance (e.g., Oatley…”
• Taxonomic bias in reintroduction projects (2005, background): “Also, recent studies have found little evidence to support the claim that a focus on surrogate species is an effective means of conserving biodiversity at regional (Andelman & Fagan, 2000; Williams, Burgess & Rahbek, 2000) or even local (Caro et al., 2004) scales.”
• Identifying Cinderella species: uncovering mammals with conservation flagship appeal (2012, unknown): “In addition, flagship species are generally poor biodiversity surrogates (Andelman and Fagan 2000; Williams et al. 2000; Caro et al. 2004).”
• Toward a systematic approach for identifying conservation flagships (2011, background): “This confusion is best illustrated by the many campaigns that focus on large flagship mammals because these species are popular with donors (Caro et al. 2004).”
• Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations (2009, background): “Although it has been suggested that it may be difficult to identify a species featuring all of the desirable characteristics of a flagship species (Simberloff 1998; Caro & O’Doherty 1999; Caro et al. 2004), we chose the great spotted woodpecker as a suitable candidate.”
• Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines (2008, methodology): “…Area and Idaho, USA; the mountain tapir Tapirus pinchaque was used to set up Sangay National Park, Ecuador (Downer 1996), and the Asian elephant Elephas maximus was used to promote conservation in the Rajaji and Corbett National Parks, India (Johnsingh and Joshua 1994; see also Caro et al. 2004).”
• Mobilizing metaphors: the popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts (2011, background): “The need to dumb down the quality and quantity of information relating to surrogates is taken as given ( Caro 2010 ).”
• Conservation implications of low encounter rates of five nocturnal primate species (Nycticebus spp.) in Asia (2007, background): “Caro et al. (2004) showed that those animals deemed Xagships for an area did not have a relationship with smaller vertebrates, and indeed, smaller animals at the larger spectrum of small might be a better umbrella for the small vertebrate community.”