Managers often face the dilemma of planning reserve networks with limited data on species' distributions; “umbrella species,” as surrogates for other co-occurring taxa, were thus proposed. Here, the relative efficiencies of “target species” representation in reserves selected using “single-species umbrellas” and “umbrella species groups” are compared, both relative to each other and to target species representation in randomly selected reserve areas. Distribution data for vertebrates and plants on islands of six Great Lakes basin archipelagos were analyzed. Reserves selected using “umbrella groups” contained more species than did those selected using “single-species umbrellas.” Random selection constrained to the same total area occupied by umbrellas typically performed as well as umbrellas of any type. Reserve systems selected at random but constrained to the same number of islands occupied by umbrellas, however, contained lower proportions of target species than did reserve systems selected using umbrellas. Where data are limited, managers may be consoled by the result that random reserve selection appears to perform at least as well as any of the traditional applications of “umbrella species.”
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.
Vol. 13 • No. 4