Categorizing species by niche characteristics can clarify conservation planning in rapidly‐developing landscapes. (11th March 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gangadharan, A.; Vaidyanathan, S.; St. Clair, C. C.
• Is Part Of: Animal conservation. Volume 19:Number 5(2016:Oct.)
• Page Start: 451
• Page End: 461
• Publication Date: 2016-03-11
• Subjects: biodiversity hotspot -- connectivity -- conservation planning -- ecological niche factor analysis -- flagship species -- multiple‐use landscape -- surrogate species -- Shencottah Gap; Conservation biology -- Periodicals; Wildlife conservation -- Periodicals; Conservation de la biodiversité; Conservation de la faune; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 333.95416
• DOI: 10.1111/acv.12262
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1367-9430

Abstract

Abstract: In biodiversity‐rich landscapes that are developing rapidly, it is generally impossible to delineate land use and prioritize conservation actions in relation to the full variability of species and their responses to anthropogenic activity. Consequently, conservation policy often focuses on protecting habitat used by a few flagship, indicator or umbrella species like tigers Panthera tigris and Asian elephants Elephas maximus, which potentially leaves out species that do not share these habitat preferences. We demonstrate an empirical approach that clustered 14 mammals into surrogate groups that reflect their unique conservation needs. We surveyed a 787 km 2 multiple‐use area in the Shencottah Gap of the Western Ghats, India, using foot surveys and camera‐trap surveys. Using ecological niche factor analysis, we generated indices of species prevalence (marginality and tolerance) and habitat preferences (factor correlations to marginality axis). We then clustered species by both of the above index types to reveal four clusters based on prevalence and four clusters based on habitat preference. Most clusters contained at least one threatened species. Low‐prevalence lion‐tailed macaques Macaca silenus and tigers were strongly associated with closed forests and low human disturbance. But elephants, sloth bears Melursus ursinus and gaur Bos gaurus were more tolerant of anthropogenic impact, and sloth bears and gaur preferred open forests and grasslands. Dhole Cuon alpinus and sambar Rusa unicolor were associated with highly anthropogenic habitat (farmland, cash crop and forestry plantations) with high human use. Thus, reliance on flagship species for conservation planning can both underestimate and overestimate the ability of other species to persist in multiple‐use landscapes; protecting flagship species would only protect species with similar habitat preferences. For species that avoid human impacts more than the flagship species, core habitat must be protected from human disturbance. For more tolerant species, conservation in anthropogenic habitat may hinge on policies that bolster coexistence with humans. Abstract : By classifying species into surrogate groups defined by their common habitat preferences and response to anthropogenic activity, it is possible to identify multiple conservation priorities in anthropogenic landscapes. These priorities may span the entire range of the preservationist versus coexistence debate: conserving threatened species occurring in private land, to preserving core patches of undisturbed habitat. We demonstrate an empirical approach that clustered 14 mammals into surrogate groups that reflect their unique conservation needs. Our paper highlights that reliance on flagship species for conservation planning can both underestimate and overestimate the ability of other species to persist in multiple‐use landscapes, and that protecting flagship species would only protect species with similar habitat preferences.