Global conservation strategies commonly assume that different taxonomic groups show congruent geographical patterns of diversity, and that the distribution of extinction-prone species in one group can therefore act as a surrogate for vulnerable species in other groups when conservation decisions are being made1,2,3,4. The validity of these assumptions remains unclear, however, because previous tests have been limited in both geographical and taxonomic extent5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12. Here we use a database on the global distribution of 19,349 living bird, mammal and amphibian species to show that, although the distribution of overall species richness is very similar among these groups, congruence in the distribution of rare and threatened species is markedly lower. Congruence is especially low among the very rarest species. Cross-taxon congruence is also highly scale dependent, being particularly low at the finer spatial resolutions relevant to real protected areas. ‘Hotspots’ of rarity and threat are therefore largely non-overlapping across groups, as are areas chosen to maximize species complementarity. Overall, our results indicate that ‘silver-bullet’ conservation strategies alone will not deliver efficient conservation solutions. Instead, priority areas for biodiversity conservation must be based on high-resolution data from multiple taxa.
Access optionsAccess options
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Stattersfield, A. J., Crosby, M. J., Long, A. J. & Wege, D. C. Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation (BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK, 1998)
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000)
Baillie, J. E. M., Hilton-Taylor, C. & Stuart, S. N. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: A Global Species Assessment (IUCN, Glad, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK, 2004)
Mittermeier, R. A. et al. Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions (Cemex, Conservation International and Agrupación Sierra Madre, Monterrey, Mexico, 2005)
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)
Dobson, A. P., Rodriguez, J. P., Roberts, M. W. & Wilcove, D. S. Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science 275, 550–553 (1993)
Howard, P. C. et al. Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature 394, 472–475 (1998)
Lawton, J. H. et al. Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391, 72–76 (1998)
van Jaarsveld, A. S. et al. Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies. Science 279, 2106–2108 (1998)
Brooks, T. et al. Toward a blueprint for conservation in Africa. Bioscience 51, 613–624 (2001)
Moore, J. L. et al. Performance of sub-Saharan vertebrates as indicator groups for identifying priority areas for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 17, 207–218 (2003)
Lamoreux, J. F. et al. Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism. Nature 440, 212–214 (2006)
Orme, C. D. L. et al. Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat. Nature 436, 1016–1019 (2005)
Sechrest, W. W. Global Diversity, Endemism, and Conservation of Mammals. Thesis, Univ. Virginia. (2003)
Stuart, S. N. et al. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306, 1783–1786 (2004)
Clifford, P., Richardson, S. & Hemon, D. Assessing the significance of the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 45, 123–134 (1989)
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the worlds: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51, 933–938 (2001)
Pearson, D. L. & Carroll, S. S. The influence of spatial scale on cross-taxon congruence patterns and prediction accuracy of species richness. J. Biogeogr. 26, 1079–1090 (1999)
WDPA Consortium. 2005 World Database on Protected Areas 〈http://gis.tnc.org/data/IMS/WDPA_viewer/WDPA_info/index.html〉 (2005)
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Cerdeira, J. & Gaston, K. J. Flexibility, efficiency and accountability: adapting reserve selection algorithms to more complex conservation problems. Ecography 23, 565–574 (2000)
Olson, D. M. & Dinerstein, E. The Global 200: priority ecoregions for global conservation. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 89, 199–224 (2002)
Orme, C. D. L. et al. Global patterns of geographic range size in birds. PLoS Biol. 4, e208 (2006)
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, 124–128 (1993)
Wilson, K. A., McBride, M. F., Bode, M. & Possingham, H. P. Prioritizing global conservation efforts. Nature 440, 337–340 (2006)
Brooks, T. M. et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58–61 (2006)
Birdlife International. World Bird Database 〈http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/index.html〉 (2006)
IUCN, Conservation International & NatureServe. Global Amphibian Assessment 〈http://www.globalamphibians.org〉 (2004)
IUCN, Conservation International & NatureServe. Global Mammal Assessment 〈http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/biodiversity_assessments/gma/indexgma.htm〉 (2006)
Gaston, K. J. Rarity (Chapman & Hall, London, 1994)
IUCN. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 〈http://www.iucnredlist.org〉 (2006)
We thank the field biologists who have made these data sets possible; the Global Amphibian Assessment, BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN, NatureServe, A. Stattersfield, S. Stuart, W. Sechrest and L. Boitani for access to data; J. Baillie, M. Balman, L. Bennun, L. Boitani, T. Brooks, M. Burgess, S. Butchart, M. Cardillo, F. Eigenbrod, S. Fritz, C. Godfray, G. Mace, S. Meiri, J. O’Dell, A. Phillimore, N. Pickup, A. Purvis, W. Sechrest, E. Smith, A. Stattersfield, S. Stuart, A. Webster and the London e-Science Centre for technical assistance, discussion or comments on the manuscript. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation and the UK Natural Environment Research Council. K.J.G. holds a Royal Society–Wolfson Research Merit Award. Author Contributions Team leaders J.L.G. and I.P.F.O. contributed equally to this work. The study was devised by R.G., C.D.L.O., J.L.G. and I.P.F.O. R.G., C.D.L.O. and S.F.J. conducted the analyses. R.G., C.D.L.O., S.F.J., G.H.T., R.G.D., T.J.D., K.E.J., V.A.O., R.S.R., P.C.R., T.-S.D., P.M.B., T.M.B., K.J.G., J.L.G. and I.P.F.O. contributed data or technical expertise. R.G., C.D.L.O., J.L.G. and I.P.F.O. wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors commented on subsequent drafts.
This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Figures 1–3 and additional references. (DOC 195 kb)
About this article
Field sampling is biased against small-ranged species of high conservation value: a case study on the sphingid moths of East Africa
Biodiversity and Conservation (2018)