yudansha
TheGreatOne
... via conservation and management of ecosystem's health. (I understand that for some, this important issue may serve as a sleeping aid.)
I found this following review of Daniel Simberloff's article from Biological Conservation journal (other noted sources are Fauth from Ecology Letters, and Mills et. al. from Bioscience):
Ecosystems and its species affect each other and influence the continued existence of the biosphere’s components. The only way to manage the entire ecosystem is to save all the inhabitants at one time, but managing all of biodiversity aspects is “nearly impossible” (Simberloff). The main purpose of Simberloff’s research was to determine a situation upon which conducting conservation of particular species would result in higher efficiency and with fewer problems than the methods previously (traditionally) used. Therefore, monitoring single species at a time proved more helpful and indicative. However, problems have emerged with the indicator flagship and umbrella species traditionally used to manage and monitor the health of an ecosystem. Better protection for species’ populations needs to be provided as extinction of some species is inevitable if new actions are not taken to restore the decline.
Umbrella species are those species that require vast habitat. Therefore theoretically, if a particular umbrella species was conserved, its requirement for such large territory enables many other species inhabiting that particular area to be preserved. However, managing umbrella species alone would not indicate the health of the rest of the species residing in the same area, and hence would not be indicative of the landscape’s overall health, the richness of all the species in the landscape, as only the indicator (umbrella) species would be receiving the treatment (Simberloff). Flagship species are those species that produce public awareness only due to the factor of flagship’s appeal and thus fascinating nature forcing an obligation on flagships’ observational analyses. However, simultaneous management of more than one flagship specie is frequently different and contradictory, and more often than not, management of flagships is very expensive. Alternatively, keystone species are those that oversee the welfare of many other species in its particular habitat and in turn may provide protection to the habitat of endangered species, discontinuing the decline while being considerably minute with regards to biomass. The small biomass and abundance, relative to those other species in the landscape, in addition with having a great impact on the surroundings makes keystones a greatly important and influential specie type with respect to biological conservation of the ecosystem. Thus, the main hypothesis of Simberloff’s article was that since keystone species’ activities oversee the security of many other species, management of keystone species as opposed to flagship or umbrella species is so far the best way to manage an ecosystem on a particular landscape. Various comparative methods were used to contrast the landscape management by the umbrella, flagship, and keystone species to indicate the ecosystem’s health.
Since owls are such charismatic animals to study, a northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, was chosen in the Pacific region, as the flagship specie, to study the health of the Northwest landscape. Owls became endangered as old-growth parts of the forest were logged causing the other species to go on the endangered list in those parts of the forest. Saving owls by providing the needed large regional habitats for survival and reproduction enabled other species’ survival and indicated better ecosystem’s health, but not for all species since the other ‘non-charismatic’ species were not studied to know for certain how threatened they actually were for the conducted study. Thus in conclusion, an owl was actually both, the flagship and the umbrella specie type in the conducted experiment since the owl was of a charismatic nature and as well, required a vast area for habitat. Other problems have arisen, such as that other species inhabiting the same part of the forest as the owl did not depend only on that part of the forest where the owl resided. Moreover, such a method did not provide sufficient enough protection to the anadromous fish or the Brachyramphus marmoratum, marbled murrelet, since both depended on the old-growth part of the forest for only part of their life history (Simberloff). Thus, such results showed that using either the flagships or umbrella species proved to be not reliable or indicative enough of the landscape’s health and hence not indicative enough of all of species’ richness in that same landscape.
The beaver, Castor Canadensis, and the red-cockaded woodpecker were the keystone species studied. The study involved monitoring the keystones in their separate natural habitats. Both keystones made physical changes to the ecosystem that allowed for other species to come into view and establish themselves as the new citizens of that landscape. The woodpecker clans dug up holes, that weren’t there before, in longleaf trees allowing 22 other species to use them, while the hideaways made by beavers were also used by 332 other species. Such experimental observations showed that keystone species greatly increased the overall species’ richness in the landscape inhabited by the keystones. Therefore, keystone species had an efficient, positive impact on ecosystem’s health showing that managing keystones resulted in an indirect management of all other species associated with that keystone and greatly contributed to the landscape conservation.
Since the United States has no law to specifically protect ecosystems, the science community is obliged to find the most efficient methods to preserve and maintain the ecosystem health as deforestation continues to be an immense business in a political environment where economic reasons take priority over ecological conservation. Landscape management via umbrella and flagship species produced questionable, contradicting results with relatively high uncertainty as to whether the outcome was in fact due to the conducted experimental procedure, whereas “management based on keystone species [avoided] ambiguities” through vivid and much more certain outcomes (Simberloff). A supporting look at the significance of keystone species was also done by the study of Mills et al. The study by Mills, Soule, and Doak showed that the removal of keystone specie greatly reduced the majority of all the species in the landscape that over time became dependant on their habitat conditions made possible by the keystones. Concluding, Mills claimed that keystone species played a significant role at “[maximizing] biodiversity protection” and were advantageous over the umbrella and flagship species. Further studies of keystones’ importance to biological conservation were done by Fauth. Salamander and Notophthalmus viridescens dorsalis, newt sub-specie, appeared to be important keystone species by having positively controlled biodiversity of pond communities in North and South Carolina. Keystones in study fed on larval competitive predators and allowed the tadpole community to survive (Fauth). Therefore, Fauth showed that managing keystone species enabled maintenance of ecosystem’s health (i.e. species’ richness – enabled incline in biodiversity). Therefore at the moment, the means of keystone species is the only most efficient approach at monitoring and reducing the impact on the endangered species and in turn managing the particular landscape with respectable degree of success.
I found this following review of Daniel Simberloff's article from Biological Conservation journal (other noted sources are Fauth from Ecology Letters, and Mills et. al. from Bioscience):
Ecosystems and its species affect each other and influence the continued existence of the biosphere’s components. The only way to manage the entire ecosystem is to save all the inhabitants at one time, but managing all of biodiversity aspects is “nearly impossible” (Simberloff). The main purpose of Simberloff’s research was to determine a situation upon which conducting conservation of particular species would result in higher efficiency and with fewer problems than the methods previously (traditionally) used. Therefore, monitoring single species at a time proved more helpful and indicative. However, problems have emerged with the indicator flagship and umbrella species traditionally used to manage and monitor the health of an ecosystem. Better protection for species’ populations needs to be provided as extinction of some species is inevitable if new actions are not taken to restore the decline.
Umbrella species are those species that require vast habitat. Therefore theoretically, if a particular umbrella species was conserved, its requirement for such large territory enables many other species inhabiting that particular area to be preserved. However, managing umbrella species alone would not indicate the health of the rest of the species residing in the same area, and hence would not be indicative of the landscape’s overall health, the richness of all the species in the landscape, as only the indicator (umbrella) species would be receiving the treatment (Simberloff). Flagship species are those species that produce public awareness only due to the factor of flagship’s appeal and thus fascinating nature forcing an obligation on flagships’ observational analyses. However, simultaneous management of more than one flagship specie is frequently different and contradictory, and more often than not, management of flagships is very expensive. Alternatively, keystone species are those that oversee the welfare of many other species in its particular habitat and in turn may provide protection to the habitat of endangered species, discontinuing the decline while being considerably minute with regards to biomass. The small biomass and abundance, relative to those other species in the landscape, in addition with having a great impact on the surroundings makes keystones a greatly important and influential specie type with respect to biological conservation of the ecosystem. Thus, the main hypothesis of Simberloff’s article was that since keystone species’ activities oversee the security of many other species, management of keystone species as opposed to flagship or umbrella species is so far the best way to manage an ecosystem on a particular landscape. Various comparative methods were used to contrast the landscape management by the umbrella, flagship, and keystone species to indicate the ecosystem’s health.
Since owls are such charismatic animals to study, a northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, was chosen in the Pacific region, as the flagship specie, to study the health of the Northwest landscape. Owls became endangered as old-growth parts of the forest were logged causing the other species to go on the endangered list in those parts of the forest. Saving owls by providing the needed large regional habitats for survival and reproduction enabled other species’ survival and indicated better ecosystem’s health, but not for all species since the other ‘non-charismatic’ species were not studied to know for certain how threatened they actually were for the conducted study. Thus in conclusion, an owl was actually both, the flagship and the umbrella specie type in the conducted experiment since the owl was of a charismatic nature and as well, required a vast area for habitat. Other problems have arisen, such as that other species inhabiting the same part of the forest as the owl did not depend only on that part of the forest where the owl resided. Moreover, such a method did not provide sufficient enough protection to the anadromous fish or the Brachyramphus marmoratum, marbled murrelet, since both depended on the old-growth part of the forest for only part of their life history (Simberloff). Thus, such results showed that using either the flagships or umbrella species proved to be not reliable or indicative enough of the landscape’s health and hence not indicative enough of all of species’ richness in that same landscape.
The beaver, Castor Canadensis, and the red-cockaded woodpecker were the keystone species studied. The study involved monitoring the keystones in their separate natural habitats. Both keystones made physical changes to the ecosystem that allowed for other species to come into view and establish themselves as the new citizens of that landscape. The woodpecker clans dug up holes, that weren’t there before, in longleaf trees allowing 22 other species to use them, while the hideaways made by beavers were also used by 332 other species. Such experimental observations showed that keystone species greatly increased the overall species’ richness in the landscape inhabited by the keystones. Therefore, keystone species had an efficient, positive impact on ecosystem’s health showing that managing keystones resulted in an indirect management of all other species associated with that keystone and greatly contributed to the landscape conservation.
Since the United States has no law to specifically protect ecosystems, the science community is obliged to find the most efficient methods to preserve and maintain the ecosystem health as deforestation continues to be an immense business in a political environment where economic reasons take priority over ecological conservation. Landscape management via umbrella and flagship species produced questionable, contradicting results with relatively high uncertainty as to whether the outcome was in fact due to the conducted experimental procedure, whereas “management based on keystone species [avoided] ambiguities” through vivid and much more certain outcomes (Simberloff). A supporting look at the significance of keystone species was also done by the study of Mills et al. The study by Mills, Soule, and Doak showed that the removal of keystone specie greatly reduced the majority of all the species in the landscape that over time became dependant on their habitat conditions made possible by the keystones. Concluding, Mills claimed that keystone species played a significant role at “[maximizing] biodiversity protection” and were advantageous over the umbrella and flagship species. Further studies of keystones’ importance to biological conservation were done by Fauth. Salamander and Notophthalmus viridescens dorsalis, newt sub-specie, appeared to be important keystone species by having positively controlled biodiversity of pond communities in North and South Carolina. Keystones in study fed on larval competitive predators and allowed the tadpole community to survive (Fauth). Therefore, Fauth showed that managing keystone species enabled maintenance of ecosystem’s health (i.e. species’ richness – enabled incline in biodiversity). Therefore at the moment, the means of keystone species is the only most efficient approach at monitoring and reducing the impact on the endangered species and in turn managing the particular landscape with respectable degree of success.
