Functional Ecosystems and Biodiversity Buzzwords

Abstract: Several increasingly popular paradigms in conservation remove organismal information and life-history requirements from management planning with claims that species-specific information is not necessary to the understanding and management of "ecosystem function" and may therefore be discarded. Although several authors have called attention to the fact that ecosystem management has not yet been articulated sufficiently to comprise an adequate paradigm for wildlife protection, there has been a series of suggestions paralleling ecosystem management's popularity that the perceived or imagined emergent properties of communities should be at the root of conservation planning. Such reductions most commonly take the form of abstracted species diversity measures that may be irrelevant or misleading with respect to site-specific planning and to the monitoring of specific management treatments. Following earlier examinations of ecosystem management, I emphasize that several of its apparent outgrowths may be too vague to inform specific recommendations, that the historical mechanics of "ecosystem processes" are essentially unknowable, and that anecdotal definitions of ecosystems allow one to justify virtually any protocol as management. The primacy of process-dependent, landscape-functional considerations in conservation planning is specious in the absence of species- and population-specific information, which should form the foundation for understanding such processes in the first place. Only by viewing nature in terms of the relationships between processes and organisms, rather than in terms of emergent properties of organismal assemblages or abiotic factors divorced from organismal data, can conservation plans claim to protect biological elements.     

A Phylogenetic Approach to Conserving Amazonian Biodiversity

Abstract: Amazonia is a highly threatened rainforest that encompasses a major proportion of Earth's biological diversity. Our main goal was to establish conservation priorities for Amazonia's areas of endemism on the basis of measures of evolutionary distinctiveness. We considered two previously identified sets of areas of endemism. The first set consisted of eight large areas used traditionally in biogeographical studies: Belém, Tapajós, Xingu, Guiana, Rondônia, Imeri, Inambari, and Napo. The second set consisted of 16 smaller areas that were subdivisions of the larger areas. We assembled a data set of 50 phylogenies that represented 16 orders and 1715 distributional records. We identified priority conservation areas for the areas of endemism according to node‐based metrics of evolutionary distinctiveness. We contrasted these results with priority areas identified on the basis of raw species richness and species endemicity. For the larger areas, we identified Guiana and Inambari as the first‐ and second‐most important areas for conservation. The remaining areas in this first group scored half (e.g., Napo) or less than Guiana and Inambari on all indices. For the smaller areas, a subdivision of Guiana (i.e., Guyana and the Brazilian states of Roraima and Amazonas) was at the top of the ranking and was followed by a subdivision of Inambari (i.e., northwestern portion of Amazonas) and then another subdivision of Guiana (i.e., Suriname, French Guiana, and the Brazilian state of Amapá). The distinctiveness‐based rankings of the priority of areas correlated directly with those derived from species richness and species endemicity. Current conservation strategies in Amazonia, although they rely on many other criteria apart from phylogeny, are focusing on the most important areas for conservation we identified here.