IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v394y1998i6692d10.1038_28843.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Peter C. Howard

    (Forest Department
    Wildlife Department)

  • Paolo Viskanic

    (Forest Department
    Food and Agriculture Organisation)

  • Tim R. B. Davenport

    (Forest Department
    World Wide Fund for Nature-Cameroon)

  • Fred W. Kigenyi

    (Forest Department)

  • Michael Baltzer

    (Forest Department
    Groundtruth International Ltd)

  • Chris J. Dickinson

    (Forest Department
    Wildlife Conservation Division, Royal Forest Department)

  • Jeremiah S. Lwanga

    (Forest Department
    Makerere University Biological Field Station)

  • Roger A. Matthews

    (Forest Department
    Countryside Council for Wales)

  • Andrew Balmford

    (The University of Sheffield)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter C. Howard & Paolo Viskanic & Tim R. B. Davenport & Fred W. Kigenyi & Michael Baltzer & Chris J. Dickinson & Jeremiah S. Lwanga & Roger A. Matthews & Andrew Balmford, 1998. "Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda," Nature, Nature, vol. 394(6692), pages 472-475, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:394:y:1998:i:6692:d:10.1038_28843
    DOI: 10.1038/28843
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/28843
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/28843?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Juutinen, Artti & Monkkonen, Mikko, 2004. "Testing alternative indicators for biodiversity conservation in old-growth boreal forests: ecology and economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 35-48, September.
    2. Dayan J. Anderson & Vernon C. Bleich & Jeffrey T. Villepique, 2022. "The Bighorn Habitat Assessment Tool: A Method to Quantify Conservation Value on Landscapes Impacted by Mining," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:394:y:1998:i:6692:d:10.1038_28843. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.