Environmental Studies >“Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities”
By Meyers et al

The article discusses and describes twenty five “hotspots” all over the world which the authors feel are extremely important in a conservation point of view. The hotspot approach is similar to what we discussed in class regarding umbrella species and surrogate species. In lack of funding, there is a necessity of these kinds of approaches where scientists choose representative species, places, etc. and then extrapolate their findings to the whole.

The authors of the article recognize the need for identifying certain areas that can represent the entire conservation effort and allow them to focus on the most threatened species. They would like to help every single species but at the same time recognize their constraints in terms of resources. They would need a lot more money to implement their plan under the “hotspots” theory than what they already have, let alone if they want to save every single endangered species.

With their approach of determining “hotspots”, the authors admit they have to prioritize: how can they save the most species at the lowest cost. This point of view could be, in my opinion, argued, but I’ll talk about this point in more detail when I discuss the weaknesses of this article. They say that the best way to identify “biodiversity hotspots” is to examine places where there is an exceptional concentration of endemic species and these species are experiencing an exceptional loss of habitat. It is important to clarify the definition of endemic species to better understand why the authors feel this is an important criterion. Endemic species, whether plats or animals are those, that can only be found at that one place, and nowhere else. So in order to save certain species, all the conservation efforts should be focused on areas where these species are endemic.

According to the article, 44 percent of all vascular plant and 35 percent of all species in four vertebrate groups are confined to 1.4 percent of all the land surface of the Earth. This number shows that these twenty five hotspots are extremely rich in terms of endemic species, and probably in other species as well. The authors think that by identifying “hotspots”, they will be able to use a “silver bullet” approach, meaning that they can focus conservation efforts to only those few, but important “hotspots.” The four vertebrate groups they focus on are mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. The other vertebrate group, the fishes, is excluded from this research because the data is rather incomplete with thousands of new species waiting to be discovered.

The authors determine “hotspots” based on their “biological commonalities.” The most obvious “biogeographic” units that are created in this way are islands, such as New Caledonia, New Zealand, the Caribbean, or Madagascar just to mention a few. They also defined so called “ecological islands”, that are clearly defined continental units such as the Cape Floristic Province and Caucasus among many others.

This article is based on a previous effort that focused only on vascular plants in eighteen “hotspots”. The authors of this article expanded this list to include twenty five “hotspots”, but all these areas have to contain endemic plant species comprising at least 0.5 percent of all plant species world-wide. The key questions they analyze are the species/area ratios and congruence among taxa, and they also discuss a way to determine the hottest “hotspots.”

I think the main weakness of the article is the fact that the authors focus on endemic species and on those alone, regardless of their impact on the whole. I think this approach represents the main idea of conserving biodiversity, but I also think that there can be distinctions made between the significance of these species. Just because a plant is threatened by extinction, it doesn’t mean that by saving this plant we would do a favor to our ecosystem. What if that specie is an invasive one? Do we still have to make sure it doesn’t go extinct? Or what if that specie is poisonous to humans or to animals? What is the point of spending millions of dollars on saving it?

I understand that biologists have to be impartial in conserving biodiversity, but maybe they should prioritize. As we discussed in class, there are some animals and plants that can be used as a quasi marketing tool to attract attention to a certain problem. I think the authors could have used a similar approach. By giving us plain numbers, the readers of these types of articles will never feel a connection thus the need of helping conserve biodiversity. But if let’s say, there is a “popular” animal or plant that is endemic to an area and it gets more emphasis, there are chances that more people will feel that this issue is important. I know that this is a superficial approach, but if this is the only way to get what they want, biologists should do just this. By telling the reader that 3,429 endemic plants live in the “hotspot” of Central Chile, it won’t make them realize the urgency of the problem.

I also don’t like the “silver bullet” approach. Why should conservation efforts only focus on these twenty five “hotspots”? Because this is how they can save forty four percent of all plant species and 35 percent of all animal species? I don’t think that’s a good enough reasoning. What happens than to all the other endangered species with a much larger value? It may not be what conservationists want to hear, but I think there are differences between plant and plants. If they provide important habitat for animals, or fresh air to the people, then these plants are more important than others. So I think the authors should have found ways to connect with more readers by using the above mentioned methods.

About the strengths of the article, I would have to say that it is a fairly easy reading. After only the second reading, one can understand the main points and goals of the article. I also like the map they created (pg 853); it helps the reader visualize the extent of the problem. The reader can also appreciate the fact that the authors didn’t put more emphasis on one place over another. It is important in science that one should be impartial regarding the subject. What I also liked about the article is that the authors discuss their own weaknesses regarding the incompleteness of their data. It is much better to leave out species, such as fish, from the discussion than to come up with data. Nonetheless, the authors did have to make certain assumptions, but in those cases they always mentioned it.

All in one, I really liked this article. It is not too scientific, and if it would get into using certain terms, such as “island biography”, then the authors always explain what the term means. This is very important when you write for the public; you want them to understand what your main points are. The authors also refer to their main sources of data, and mention that they come from other professional literature, which in turn, lends a better support to their main points.

 

 

Printer Friendly Version or get for quick editing, exporting, sharing