Department of Forest Sciences and Centre for Applied Conservation Research, University of British Columbia, 3041-2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Conserv Biol. 2011 Feb;25(1):9-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01606.x. Epub 2010 Nov 17.
The umbrella-species concept, which suggests that conservation strategies designed for one species may benefit co-occurring species, has been promoted as a framework for conservation planning. Nevertheless, there has been considerable variation in the outcome of empirical tests of this concept that has led researchers to question its value, so we used data from 15 published studies in a meta-analysis to evaluate whether conservation of putative umbrella species also conserves co-occurring species. We tested the effectiveness of putative umbrella species categorized by taxonomic group, taxonomic similarity to co-occurring species, body size, generality of resource use, and trophic level to evaluate criteria proposed to guide the selection of umbrella species. We compared species richness and number of individuals (by species and higher taxonomic group) between sites with and without putative umbrella species to test whether more co-occurring species were present in greater abundances when the area or resource needs of umbrella species were met. Species richness and abundance of co-occurring species were consistently higher in sites where umbrella species were present than where they were not and for conservation schemes with avian than with mammalian umbrella species. There were no differences in species richness or species abundance with resource generalist or specialist umbrella species or based on taxonomic similarity of umbrella and co-occurring species. Taxonomic group abundance was higher in across-taxonomic umbrella species schemes than when umbrella species were of the same taxon as co-occurring species. Co-occurring species had similar, or higher, species richness with small-bodied umbrella species relative to larger-bodied umbrella species. The only significant difference among umbrella species categorized by trophic level was that species richness was higher with omnivorous than it was with carnivorous avian umbrella species. Our results suggest there is merit to the umbrella-species concept for conservation, but they do not support the use of the criteria we used to identify umbrella species.
伞物种概念表明，为一种物种设计的保护策略可能有益于共存物种，因此它被作为保护规划的框架被提出。然而，对这一概念的实证检验结果存在相当大的差异，这使得研究人员对其价值产生了质疑，因此我们使用了来自 15 项已发表研究的数据进行荟萃分析，以评估保护假定的伞物种是否也能保护共存物种。我们通过分类群、与共存物种的分类相似性、体型大小、资源利用的普遍性和营养级来测试假定的伞物种的有效性，以评估指导伞物种选择的标准。我们比较了有和没有假定伞物种的地点的物种丰富度和个体数量（按物种和更高的分类群），以检验当满足伞物种的面积或资源需求时，是否存在更多共存物种且丰度更高。有伞物种存在的地点的共存物种的物种丰富度和丰度始终高于没有伞物种存在的地点，而且鸟类伞物种的保护方案比哺乳动物伞物种的保护方案的效果更好。在资源广食性或专食性伞物种或基于伞物种和共存物种的分类相似性的基础上，物种丰富度或物种丰度没有差异。跨分类群伞物种方案的分类群丰度高于与共存物种同分类群的伞物种方案。与体型较大的伞物种相比，小型伞物种的共存物种的物种丰富度更高。根据营养级分类的伞物种中唯一显著的差异是，杂食性鸟类伞物种的物种丰富度高于肉食性鸟类伞物种。我们的研究结果表明，伞物种概念在保护方面具有一定的价值，但不支持我们用于识别伞物种的标准。
