Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are Flagship, Umbrella and Keystone Species Useful Surrogates to Understand the Consequences of Landscape Change?

  • Landscape Change – Causes and Consequences (K Pigeon, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Landscape Ecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Umbrella, flagship and keystone species are among the most widely employed surrogate species concepts. We explored whether these concepts are useful for understanding the consequences of landscape change. We assessed the literature on surrogate species in relation to landscape change and identified key foci and notable gaps within the existing evidence base. We outlined strengths and limitations of surrogate species as proxies for landscape change.

Recent Findings

We found that few studies evaluated whether taxa claimed to be surrogate species were in fact robust proxies. This is particularly so for flagship species but is also common in work on umbrella species. We also found marked differences in how the terms and concepts of umbrella, flagship and keystone species were used, both between studies and between disciplines (e.g. forestry versus community ecology). Research into surrogates is often conducted independently of research on landscape change. This leaves a major gap in knowledge about how surrogates can inform decision-making in relation to ongoing threatening processes, including landscape change.

Summary

Based on results of our literature search and insights from large-scale, long-term empirical studies in south-eastern Australia, we identified a diverse mix of examples where the application of surrogate approaches has been successful, and where it has not. However, it is currently not possible to determine a priori where a given surrogate approach will work. Resolution of this problem requires considerable further work. Surrogates should be used in a critical way to help avoid mistakes in resource and biodiversity management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Caro T. Conservation by Proxy. Indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. Washington D.C.: Island Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lindenmayer DB, Barton P, Pierson J, editors. Indicators and surrogates of biodiversity and environmental change. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  3. McGeoch MA. The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biol Rev. 1998;73:181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Westgate MJ, Barton PS, Pierson JC, Lindenmayer DB. Text analysis tools for identification of emerging topics and research gaps in conservation science. Conserv Biol. 2015;29:1606–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. • Barton PS, Westgate M, Foster CN, Cuddington K, Hastings A, O'Loughlin LS, et al. Using ecological niche theory to avoid uninformative biodiversity surrogates. Ecol Indic. 2020;108:105692 This paper describes the importance of theory in identifying surrogates, particularly for ruling out those species which would be ineffective proxies.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE. Direct measurement versus surrogate indicator species for evaluating environmental change and biodiversity loss. Ecosystems. 2011;14:47–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Verissimo D, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ. Toward a systematic approach for identifying conservation flagships. Conserv Lett. 2011;4:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Roberge J-M, Angelstam P. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol. 2004;18:76–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Thornton D, Zeller K, Rondinini C, Boitani L, Crooks K, Burdett C, et al. Assessing the umbrella value of a range-wide conservation network for jaguars (Panthera onca). Ecol Appl. 2016;26:1112–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fleishman E, Murphy DD, Brussard PF. A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecol Appl. 2000;10:569–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalinkat G, Cabral JS, Darwall W, Ficetola GF, Fisher JL, Giling DPG, et al. Flagship umbrella species needed for the conservation of overlooked aquatic biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 2016;31:481–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Epps CW, Mutayoba BM, Gwin L, Brashares JS. An empirical evaluation of the African elephant as a focal species for connectivity planning in East Africa. Divers Distrib. 2011;17(4):603–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. • Li B, Pimm S. China’s endemic vertebrates sheltering under the protective umbrella of the giant panda. Conserv Biol. 2016;30:329-39. This article provides a useful example of an effective umbrella species.

  14. Shen X, Li S, McShea WJ, Wang D, Yi J, Shie X, et al. Effectiveness of management zoning designed for flagship species in protecting sympatric species. Conserv Biol. 2020;34:158–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Paine RT. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am Nat. 1969;103:91–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mills LS, Soulé ME, Doak DF. The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation. BioScience. 1993;43:219–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielborger K, Wilchmann M, Schwager M, et al. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr. 2004;31:79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Manning AD, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. Scattered trees are keystone structures–implications for conservation. Biol Conserv. 2006;132:311–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Watson DM. Mistletoe–a keystone resource in forests and woodlands worldwide. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 2001;32:219–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Michael DR, Cunningham RB, Lindenmayer DB. A forgotten habitat? Granite inselbergs conserve reptile diversity in fragmented agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol. 2008;45:1742–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Andelman SJ, Fagan WF. Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97(11):5954–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Caro T, Engilis A, Fitzherbert E, Gardner T. Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Anim Conserv. 2004;7:63–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stewart DR, Underwood ZE, Rahel FJ, Walters AW. The effectiveness of surrogate taxa to conserve freshwater biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 2017;32:183–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Westgate MJ, Barton PS, Lane PW, D.B. Lindenmayer. Global meta-analysis reveals low consistency of biodiversity congruence relationships. Nature Comms. 2014;5:3899.

  25. • Taubert F, Fischer R, Groeneveld J, Lehmann S, Muller MS, Rodnig E, et al. Global patterns of tropical forest fragmentation. Nature. 2018;554:519–22 This paper provides a sobering global assessment of the extent of fragmentation of tropical forests.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. • Westgate MJ. revtools: an R package to support article screening for evidence synthesis. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10:606–14 This is a powerful new R package that enables rapid assessment of extensive published literature to identify relevant articles underpinning a body of evidence around a particular topic.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019.

  28. Culumber ZW, Anaya-Rojas JM, Booker WW, Hooks AP, Lange EC, Pluer B, et al. Widespread biases in ecological and evolutionary studies. BioScience. 2019;69:631–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Beals SC, Preston DL, Wessman CA, Seastedt TR. Resilience of a novel ecosystem after the loss of a keystone species: plague epizootics and urban prairie dog management. Ecosphere. 2015;6(9):157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Syring JV, Tennessen JA, Jennings TN, Wegrzyn J, Scelfo-Dalbey C, Cronn R. Targeted capture sequencing in whitebark pine reveals range-wide demographic and adaptive patterns despite challenges of a large, repetitive genome. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:484.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Gaston KJ, Spicer JI. Biodiversity: an introduction. Second ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lindenmayer DB, Manning A, Smith PL, Possingham HP, Fischer J, Oliver I, et al. The focal species approach and landscape restoration: a critique. Conserv Biol. 2002;16(2):338–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rodriguez-Estrella R, Donazar JD, Hiraldo F. Raptors as indicators of environmental change in the scrub habitat of Baja California Sur, Mexico. Conserv Biol. 1998;12:921–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Roth T, Weber D. Top predators as indicators for species richness? Prey species are just as useful. J Appl Ecol. 2008;45:987–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J. Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Whelan RJ. The ecology of fire. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lewandowski AS, Noss RF, Parsons DR. The effectiveness of surrogate taxa for the representation of biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 2010;24:1367–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Manning AD, Gibbons P, Fischer J, Oliver D, Lindenmayer DB. Hollow futures? Tree decline, lag effects and hollow-dependent species. Anim Conserv. 2013;16:395–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lindenmayer DB, Lane PW, Westgate MJ, Crane M, Michael D, Okada S, et al. An empirical assessment of the focal species hypothesis. Conserv Biol. 2014;28(6):1594–603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lambeck RJ. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv Biol. 1997;11(4):849–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lindenmayer DB, Barton PS, Lane PW, Westgate MJ, McBurney L, Blair D, et al. An empirical assessment and comparison of species-based and habitat-based surrogates: a case study of forest vertebrates and large old trees. PLoS One. 2014;9:e89807.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Stojanovic D, Koch AL, Webb M, Cunningham RB, Roshier D, Heinsohn R. Validation of a landscape-scale planning tool for cavity-dependent wildlife. Austral Ecol. 2014;39:579–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Watson DM, Herring M. Mistletoe as a keystone resource: an experimental test. Proc R Soc B. 2012;279:3853–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Montague-Drake R, Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, Stein J. A reverse keystone species affects the landscape distribution of woodland avifauna: a case study using the Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala) and other Australian birds. Landsc Ecol. 2011;26:1383–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mac Nally R, Bowen M, Howes A, McAlpine CA, Maron M. Despotic, high-impact species and the subcontinental scale control of avian assemblage structure. Ecology. 2012;93:668–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Beggs R, Tulloch AIT, Pierson J, Blanchard W, Crane M, Lindenmayer DB. An empirical test of the mechanistic underpinnings of interference competition. Oikos. 2020;129:93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lindenmayer DB, Blanchard W, Crane M, Michael D, Florance D. Size or quality. What matters in vegetation restoration for bird biodiversity in endangered temperate woodlands? Austral Ecol. 2018;43(7):798–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lindenmayer DB, Knight EJ, Crane MJ, Montague-Drake R, Michael DR, MacGregor CI. What makes an effective restoration planting for woodland birds? Biol Conserv. 2010;143:289–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. • Lindenmayer DB, Laurance W. The ecology, distribution, conservation and management of large old trees. Biol Rev. 2017;92:1434–58 This paper discusses the range of key ecological roles played by large old trees and highlights the array of reasons why they are keystone structures in many landscapes.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Laurance WF, Delamonica P, Laurance SG, Vasconcelos HL, Lovejoy TE. Rainforest fragmentation kills big trees. Nature. 2000;404:836.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lindenmayer DB, Blanchard W, Blair D, McBurney L, Stein J, Banks SC. Empirical relationships between tree fall and landscape-level amounts of logging and fire PLoS One 2018;13(2):e0193132.

  52. Lindenmayer DB, Sato C. Hidden collapse is driven by fire and logging in a socioecological forest ecosystem. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115:5181–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Burns EL, Lindenmayer DB, Stein J, Blanchard W, McBurney L, Blair D, et al. Ecosystem assessment of mountain ash forest in the Central Highlands of Victoria, south-eastern Australia. Austral Ecol. 2015;40(4):386–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Simberloff DA. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passe in the landscape era? Biol Conserv. 1998;83(3):247–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Levin SA. The problem of scale and pattern in ecology: the Robert H. MacArthur award lecture. Ecology. 1992;73:1943–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mackey BG, Lindenmayer DB. Towards a hierarchical framework for modelling the spatial distribution of animals. J Biogeogr. 2001;28(9):1147–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pierson JC, Barton PS, Lane PW, Lindenmayer DB. Can habitat surrogates predict the response of target species to landscape change? Biol Conserv. 2015;184:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB. Patterns of co-occurrence among arboreal marsupials in the forests of central Victoria, southeastern Australia. Aust J Ecol. 1997;22(3):340–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, Tanton MT, Smith AP, Nix HA. Characteristics of hollow-bearing trees occupied by arboreal marsupials in the montane ash forests of the Central Highlands of Victoria, south-east Australia. For Ecol Manag. 1991;40(3–4):289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lindenmayer DB. Integrating forest biodiversity conservation and restoration ecology principles to recover natural forest ecosystems. New Forest. 2019;50:169–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Taylor C, Lindenmayer DB. The adequacy of Victoria’s protected areas for conserving its forest-dependent fauna. Austral Ecol. 2019;44:1076–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Taylor C, Cadenhead N, Lindenmayer DB, Wintle BA. Improving the design of a conservation reserve for a critically endangered species. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169629.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Swanson ME, Franklin JF, Beschta RL, Crisafulli CM, DellaSala DA, Hutto RL, et al. The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Front Ecol Environ. 2011;9(2):117–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lindenmayer DB, Pierson J, Barton P, Beger M, Branquinho C, Calhoun A, et al. A new framework for selecting environmental surrogates. Sci Total Environ. 2015;538:1029–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Westgate MJ, Lindenmayer DB. The difficulties of systematic reviews. Conserv Biol. 2017;31:1002–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Helms JA. The dictionary of forestry. Society of American Foresters: Bethesda, Maryland; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Carroll C, Noss RF, Paquet PC. Carnivores as focal species for conservation planning in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecol Appl. 2001;11:961–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv. 2015;1(2):e1500052.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Foster CN, Sato CF, Lindenmayer DB, Barton PS. Integrating theory into empirical studied of disturbance interactions to improve management outcomes. Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22(4):1325–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Côté IM, Darling ES, Brown CJ. Interactions among ecosystem stressors and their importance in conservation. Proc R Soc B. 2016;283(1824):rspb.2015.592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Foster CN, Barton PS, Wood JT, Lindenmayer DB. Interactive effects of fire and large herbivores on web-building spiders. Oecologia. 2015;179:237–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Cochrane MA, Barber CP. Climate change, human land use and future fires in the Amazon. Glob Chang Biol. 2009;15:601–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. • Bal P, Tulloch AIT, Addison P, McDonald-Madden E, Rhodes JR. Selecting indicator species for biodiversity management. Front Ecol Environ. 2018;2018:589–98 This paper is an insightful discussion of surrogates in the context of improved decision making and cost-effective environmental and conservation management.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Cabeza M, Arponen A, van Teeffelen A. Top predators: hot or not? A call for systematic assessment of biodiversity surrogates. J Appl Ecol. 2008;45:976–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Many insights into surrogates and indicators have come from work that was funded by an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship. More recent work has been supported by the Ian Potter Foundation and the Murray and Riverina Local Land Services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sustainable Farms, Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia

    David B. Lindenmayer & Martin J. Westgate

  2. Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, 141 Linnaeus Way, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia

    David B. Lindenmayer & Martin J. Westgate

Authors
  1. David B. Lindenmayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin J. Westgate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David B. Lindenmayer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of both authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Landscape Change – Causes and Consequences

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lindenmayer, D.B., Westgate, M.J. Are Flagship, Umbrella and Keystone Species Useful Surrogates to Understand the Consequences of Landscape Change?. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep 5, 76–84 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-020-00052-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-020-00052-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation