Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda

Abstract

A major obstacle to conserving tropical biodiversity is the lack of information as to where efforts should be concentrated. One potential solution is to focus on readily assessed indicator groups, whose distribution predicts the overall importance of the biodiversity of candidate areas1,2. Here we test this idea, using the most extensive data set on patterns of diversity assembled so far for any part of the tropics. As in studies of temperate regions2,3,4,5,6,7,8, we found little spatial congruence in the species richness of woody plants, large moths, butterflies, birds and small mammals across 50 Ugandan forests. Despite this lack of congruence, sets of priority forests selected using data on single taxa only often captured species richness in other groups with the same efficiency as using information on all taxa at once. This is because efficient conservation networks incorporate not only species-rich sites, but also those whose biotas best complement those of other areas9,10,11. In Uganda, different taxa exhibit similar biogeography, so priority forests for one taxon collectively represent the important forest types for other taxa as well. Our results highlight the need, when evaluating potential indicators for reserve selection, to consider cross-taxon congruence in complementarity as well as species richness.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Mean cumulative representation of species across all five groups (woody plants, large moths, butterflies, birds and small mammals).
Figure 2

References

  1. Kremen, C.et al. Terrestrial arthropod assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 7, 796–808 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Flather, C. H., Wilson, K. R., Dean, D. J. & McComb, W. C. Identifying gaps in conservation networks: of indicators and uncertainty in geographic-based analyses. Ecol. Appl. 7, 531–542 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Prendergast, J. R., Quinn, R. M., Lawton, J. H., Eversham, B. C. & Gibbons, D. W. Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365, 335–337 (1993).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lombard, A. T. The problems with multi-species conservation: do hotspots, ideal reserves and existing reserves coincide? S. Afr. J. Zool. 30, 145–163 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gaston, K. J. Biodiversity — congruence. Prog. Phys. Geog. 20, 105–112 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gaston, K. J. in Aspects of the Genesis and Maintenance of Biological Diversity (eds Hochberg, M. E., Clobert, J. & Barbault, R.) 221–242 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, (1996)).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Oliver, I. & Beattie, A. J. Designing a cost-effective invertebrate survey: a test of methods for rapid assessment of biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 6, 594–607 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kerr, J. T. Species richness, endemism, and the choice of areas for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 11, 1094–1100 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pressey, R. L. & Nicholls, A. O. Efficiency in conservation evaluation; scoring versus iterative approaches. Biol. Conserv. 50, 199–218 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pressey, R. L., Humphries, C. J., Margules, C. R., Vane-Wright, R. I. & Williams, P. H. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8, 121–128 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Williams, P. H.et al. Acomparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots, and complementary areas for conserving diversity of British birds. Conserv. Biol. 10, 155–174 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pomeroy, D. Centers of high biodiversity in Africa. Conserv. Biol. 7, 901–907 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Howard, P. C. Nature Conservation in Uganda's Tropical Forest Reserves. (IUCN, Gland, (1991)).

  14. Howard, P. C. & Davenport, T. R. B. (eds) Forest Biodiversity Reports Vols 1–33 (Uganda Forest Department, Kampala, (1996)).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Howard, P. C., Davenport, T. & Kigenyi, F. Planning conservation areas in Uganda's natural forests. Oryx 31, 253–264 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pearson, D. L. & Cassola, F. World-wide species richness patterns of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): indicator taxon for biodiversity and conservation studies. Conserv. Biol. 6, 376–391 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schall, J. J. & Pianka, E. R. Geographical trends in numbers of species. Science 201, 679–686 (1978).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lawton, J. H.et al. Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391, 72–76 (1998).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. van Jaarsveld, A. S.et al. Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies. Science 279, 2106–2108 (1998).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Prendergast, J. R., Wood, S. N., Lawton, J. H. & Eversham, B. C. Correcting for variation in recording effort in analyses of diversity hotspots. Biodiv. Lett. 1, 39–53 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ryti, R. T. Effect of the focal taxon on the selection of nature reserves. Ecol. Appl. 2, 404–410 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sætersdal, M., Line, J. M. & Birks, H. J. B. How to maximize biological diversity in nature reserve selection: vascular plants and breeding birds in deciduous woodlands, western Norway. Biol. Conserv. 66, 131–138 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dobson, A. P., Rodriguez, J. P., Roberts, W. M. & Wilcove, D. S. Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science 275, 550–553 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Csuti, B.et al. Acomparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol. Conserv. 80, 83–97 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Faith, D. P. & Walker, P. A. How do indicator groups provide information about the relative biodiversity of different sets of areas?: on hotspots, complementarity and pattern-based approaches. Biodiv. Lett. 3, 18–25 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Oliver, I., Beattie, A. J. & York, A. Spatial fidelity of plant, vertebrate and invertebrate assemblages in multiple-use forest in eastern Australia. Conserv. Biol. 12, (in the press).

  27. Colwell, R. K. & Coddington, J. A. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 345, 101–108 (1994).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Oksanen, J. & Minchin, P. R. Instability of ordination results under changes in input data order: explanations and remedies. J. Veg. Sci. 8, 447–454 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kershaw, M., Williams, P. H. & Mace, G. M. Conservation of Afrotropical antelopes: consequences and efficiency of using different site selection methods and diversity criteria. Biodiv. Conserv. 3, 354–372 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Williams, P. H. in Conservation in a Changing World (eds Mace, G. M., Balmford, A. & Ginsberg, J. R.) (Cambridge University Press, in the press).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank our colleagues in Uganda, especially members of the Forest Department field inventory teams, as well as R. Badaza, D. Duli, D. Hafashimana, I. Kapalaga, T.Katende, R. Kityo, E.Mupada, R. Nabanyumya, D. Olet, A. Rodgers, R. Murtland and T. Finch. Wealso thank P. Warren and J. Ward for help with analyses, and T. Birkhead, K. Gaston, J. Lawton, D.Pomeroy and P. Williams for comments on the manuscript. Most of the work was funded by the European Union and the Global Environmental Facility; P.V. was supported through the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and J.S.L. and A.B. by the Darwin Initiative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Balmford.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Howard, P., Viskanic, P., Davenport, T. et al. Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature 394, 472–475 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/28843

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/28843

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing