The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes?
Open accessAbstract
The use of umbrella and flagship species as surrogates for regional biota whose spatial distributions are poorly known is a popular conservation strategy. Yet many assumptions underlying the choice of surrogate species remain untested. By using biodiversity databases containing spatial incidence data for species of concern for ( i ) the southern California coastal sage scrub habitat, ( ii ) the Columbia Plateau ecoregion, and ( iii ) the continental United States, we evaluate the potential effectiveness of a range of conservation surrogate schemes (e.g., big carnivores, charismatic species, keystone species, wide-ranging species), asking how many species potentially are protected by each scheme and at what cost in each habitat area. For all three databases, we find that none of the surrogate schemes we evaluated performs significantly better than do a comparable number of species randomly selected from the database. Although some surrogate species may have considerable publicity value, based on the databases we analyzed, representing diverse taxa on three different geographic scales, we find that the utility of umbrella and flagship species as surrogates for regional biodiversity may be limited.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Usefulness of the Umbrella Species Concept as a Conservation Tool
ROBERGE, J., & ANGELSTAM, P. (2004) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x · Cited by 1,020
Reliable, verifiable and efficient monitoring of biodiversity via metabarcoding
Ji, Y., Ashton, L., Pedley, S. M., Edwards, D. P., Tang, Y., Nakamura, A., Kitching, R., Dolman, P. M., Woodcock, P., Edwards, F. A., et al. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12162 · Cited by 662
Top Predators as Conservation Tools: Ecological Rationale, Assumptions, and Efficacy
Sergio, F., Caro, T., Brown, D., Clucas, B., Hunter, J., Ketchum, J., McHugh, K., & Hiraldo, F. (2008) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173545 · Cited by 670
Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity
Cabeza, M., & Moilanen, A. (2001) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02125-5 · Cited by 484
Titley, M. A., Snaddon, J. L., & Turner, E. C. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189577 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Andelman, S. J., & Fagan, W. F.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2000-05-16
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 5954-5959
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2119539489
- Cited by
- 696
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.100126797
- The paper
- Andelman, S. J., & Fagan, W. F. (2000). Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.100126797
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.