The Experts below are selected from a list of 321 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Per Angelstam - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
usefulness of the umbrella Species Concept as a conservation tool
Conservation Biology, 2004Co-Authors: Jeanmichel Roberge, Per AngelstamAbstract:Abstract: In the face of limited funding, knowledge, and time for action, conservation efforts often rely on shortcuts for the maintenance of biodiversity. The umbrella Species Concept—proposed as a way to use Species requirements as a basis for conservation planning—has recently received growing attention. We reviewed the literature to evaluate the Concept's general usefulness. An umbrella Species is defined as a Species whose conservation is expected to confer protection to a large number of naturally co-occurring Species. This Concept has been proposed as a tool for determining the minimum size for conservation areas, selecting sites to be included in reserve networks, and setting minimum standards for the composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems. Among the Species suggested as potential umbrellas, most are large mammals and birds, but invertebrates are increasingly being considered. Eighteen research papers, most of which were based on hypothetical reserves or conservation networks, have provided evaluations of umbrella Species schemes. These show that single-Species umbrellas cannot ensure the conservation of all co-occurring Species because some Species are inevitably limited by ecological factors that are not relevant to the umbrella Species. Moreover, they provide evidence that umbrella Species from a given higher taxon may not necessarily confer protection to assemblages from other taxa. On the other hand, multi-Species strategies based on systematic selection procedures (e.g., the focal Species approach) offer more compelling evidence of the usefulness of the Concept. Evaluations of umbrella Species schemes could be improved by including measures of population viability and data from many years, as well as by comparing the efficiency of the proposed scheme with alternative management strategies.
Colin P. Groves - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mammal taxonomy without taxonomists: a reply to Zachos and Lovari
Hystrix-italian Journal of Mammalogy, 2013Co-Authors: Spartaco Gippoliti, Fenton P.d. Cotterill, Colin P. GrovesAbstract:Keywords: Rhinocerotidae subSpecies conservation polytypic Species Concept Abstract Ontological and epistemological properties of the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC) as applied in recent mammalian taxonomic works are redefined and defended against criticisms raised by Zachos and Lovari (2013), which we find inapplicable to taxonomy because they relate more to the field of population biology. We summarize the negative impacts of the polytypic Species Concept for conservation and evolutionary biology, with emphasis on Rhinocerotidae. The priority need to embrace and strengthen museum-based taxonomic research is emphasized.
-
The nature of Species: A rejoinder to Zachos et al.
Mammalian Biology, 2012Co-Authors: Colin P. GrovesAbstract:Abstract I argue strongly that the Phylogenetic Species Concept offers the only way of defining Species that makes them testable, as any scientific hypothesis should be. The criticisms made by Zachos et al. (in press) are not cogent, and do not offer a means of testing Species proposals. Nonetheless, their comments on Species Concepts in conservation do provide support to the value of the Phylogenetic Species Concept.
-
Species Concept in primates
American Journal of Primatology, 2012Co-Authors: Colin P. GrovesAbstract:The way we view the Species category in Primates, as in other animals, especially other vertebrates, has been going through a revolution over the past 20 years or so. Much is wrong with the idea that we can define Species according to whether or not they are “reproductively isolated”: this Concept, the so-called Biological Species Concept, has never offered any guidelines in the case of allopatric populations; this has now been shown to be simply wrong. Although other ways of looking at Species – the Evolutionary, Recognition, Cohesion and Genetic Species Concepts – have all provided particular insights, the only proposal to offer a repeatable, falsifiable definition of Species is the Phylogenetic Species Concept. This has been criticised for increasing the number of Species to be recognised, although it is not clear why this should be a problem: indeed, it tells us that the world is far richer in biodiversity than we had conceived. Am. J. Primatol. 74:687-691, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Natasha B Kotliar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
application of the new keystone Species Concept to prairie dogs how well does it work
Conservation Biology, 2000Co-Authors: Natasha B KotliarAbstract:Abstract: It has been suggested that the keystone-Species Concept should be dropped from ecology and conservation, primarily because the Concept is poorly defined. This prompted Power et al. (1996) to refine the definition: keystone Species have large effects on community structure or ecosystem function (i.e., high overall importance), and this effect should be large relative to abundance (i.e., high community importance). Using prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) as an example, I review operational and Conceptual difficulties encountered in applying this definition. As applied to prairie dogs, the implicit assumption that overall importance is a linear function of abundance is invalid. In addition, community importance is sensitive to abundance levels, the definition of community, and sampling scale. These problems arise largely from the equation for community importance, as used in conjunction with removal experiments at single abundance levels. I suggest that we shift from the current emphasis on the dualism between keystone and nonkeystone Species and instead examine how overall and community importance vary (1) with abundance, (2) across spatial and temporal scales, and (3) under diverse ecological conditions. In addition, I propose that a third criterion be incorporated into the definition: keystone Species perform roles not performed by other Species or processes. Examination of how these factors vary among populations of keystone Species should help identify the factors contributing to, or limiting, keystone-level functions, thereby increasing the usefulness of the keystone-Species Concept in ecology and conservation. Although the quantitative framework of Power et al. falls short of being fully operational, my Conceptual guidelines may improve the usefulness of the keystone-Species Concept. Careful attention to the factors that limit keystone function will help avoid misplaced emphasis on keystone Species at the expense of other Species.
-
Application of the New Keystone‐Species Concept to Prairie Dogs: How Well Does It Work?
Conservation Biology, 2000Co-Authors: Natasha B KotliarAbstract:Abstract: It has been suggested that the keystone-Species Concept should be dropped from ecology and conservation, primarily because the Concept is poorly defined. This prompted Power et al. (1996) to refine the definition: keystone Species have large effects on community structure or ecosystem function (i.e., high overall importance), and this effect should be large relative to abundance (i.e., high community importance). Using prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) as an example, I review operational and Conceptual difficulties encountered in applying this definition. As applied to prairie dogs, the implicit assumption that overall importance is a linear function of abundance is invalid. In addition, community importance is sensitive to abundance levels, the definition of community, and sampling scale. These problems arise largely from the equation for community importance, as used in conjunction with removal experiments at single abundance levels. I suggest that we shift from the current emphasis on the dualism between keystone and nonkeystone Species and instead examine how overall and community importance vary (1) with abundance, (2) across spatial and temporal scales, and (3) under diverse ecological conditions. In addition, I propose that a third criterion be incorporated into the definition: keystone Species perform roles not performed by other Species or processes. Examination of how these factors vary among populations of keystone Species should help identify the factors contributing to, or limiting, keystone-level functions, thereby increasing the usefulness of the keystone-Species Concept in ecology and conservation. Although the quantitative framework of Power et al. falls short of being fully operational, my Conceptual guidelines may improve the usefulness of the keystone-Species Concept. Careful attention to the factors that limit keystone function will help avoid misplaced emphasis on keystone Species at the expense of other Species.
David M Geiser - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Species Concept in aspergillus recommendations of an international panel
Studies in Mycology, 2007Co-Authors: Robert A Samson, Janos Varga, S M Witiak, David M GeiserAbstract:During an International Workshop held from 12-14 April 2007 in Utrecht, The Netherlands, participants discussed what an Aspergillus Species is and how we delimit a Species. In several sessions the Species Concept was presented by researchers in Aspergillus covering traditional and modern taxonomy, genetics, clinical, industrial and applied microbiology, biochemistry and genomics. Several points were discussed including the following: What and how many genes should be used to delimit an Aspergillus taxon? How does the phylogenetic Species Concept translate to practical and routine diagnoses? What is the impact of Aspergillus taxonomy in terms of epidemiology, case definitions and biological understanding of disease? What are the roles of Aspergillus databases for Species identification? What is the value and impact of polyphasic approaches for Species identification? What genes/methods can be used to design kits for rapid identification? How should new Species be proposed?
-
phylogenetic Species recognition and Species Concepts in fungi
Fungal Genetics and Biology, 2000Co-Authors: John W Taylor, David M Geiser, David J Jacobson, Scott Kroken, Takao Kasuga, David S Hibbett, Matthew C FisherAbstract:Abstract Phylogenetic Species recognition and Species Concepts in fungi. Fungal Genetics and Biology 31, 000–000. The operational Species Concept, i.e., the one used to recognize Species, is contrasted to the theoretical Species Concept. A phylogenetic approach to recognize fungal Species based on concordance of multiple gene genealogies is compared to those based on morphology and reproductive behavior. Examples where Phylogenetic Species Recognition has been applied to fungi are reviewed and concerns regarding Phylogenetic Species Recognition are discussed.
C. P. Groves - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mammal taxonomy without taxonomists: A reply to Zachos and Lovari
Hystrix, 2013Co-Authors: Spartaco Gippoliti, Fenton P.d. Cotterill, C. P. GrovesAbstract:Ontological and epistemological properties of the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC) as applied in recent mammalian taxonomic works are redefined and defended against criticisms raised by Zachos and Lovari (2013), which we find inapplicable to taxonomy because they relate more to the field of population biology. We summarize the negative impacts of the polytypic Species Concept for conservation and evolutionary biology, with emphasis on Rhinocerotidae. The priority need to embrace and strengthen museum-based taxonomic research is emphasized.
