Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,020

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Usefulness of the Umbrella Species Concept as a Conservation Tool

ROBERGE, JEAN‐MICHEL, ANGELSTAM, PER·2004·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: In the face of limited funding, knowledge, and time for action, conservation efforts often rely on shortcuts for the maintenance of biodiversity. The umbrella species concept—proposed as a way to use species requirements as a basis for conservation planning—has recently received growing attention. We reviewed the literature to evaluate the concept's general usefulness. An umbrella species is defined as a species whose conservation is expected to confer protection to a large number of naturally co‐occurring species. This concept has been proposed as a tool for determining the minimum size for conservation areas, selecting sites to be included in reserve networks, and setting minimum standards for the composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems. Among the species suggested as potential umbrellas, most are large mammals and birds, but invertebrates are increasingly being considered. Eighteen research papers, most of which were based on hypothetical reserves or conservation networks, have provided evaluations of umbrella species schemes. These show that single‐species umbrellas cannot ensure the conservation of all co‐occurring species because some species are inevitably limited by ecological factors that are not relevant to the umbrella species. Moreover, they provide evidence that umbrella species from a given higher taxon may not necessarily confer protection to assemblages from other taxa. On the other hand, multi‐species strategies based on systematic selection procedures (e.g., the focal species approach) offer more compelling evidence of the usefulness of the concept. Evaluations of umbrella species schemes could be improved by including measures of population viability and data from many years, as well as by comparing the efficiency of the proposed scheme with alternative management strategies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 51 references

Cited by

See all 1,020

Metadata

Authors
ROBERGE, J., & ANGELSTAM, P.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-01-30
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
76-85
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2158516920
Cited by
1,020
References
51
FWCI
26.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Usefulness of the Umbrella Species Concept as a Conservation Tool. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x
The paper
ROBERGE, J., & ANGELSTAM, P. (2004). Usefulness of the Umbrella Species Concept as a Conservation Tool. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x

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.