Coral reef habitats as surrogates of species, ecological functions, and ecosystem services

Peter J. Mumby, Kenneth Broad, Daniel R. Brumbaugh, Craig P. Dahlgren, Alastair R. Harborne, Alan Hastings, Katherine E. Holmes, Carrie V. Kappel, Fiorenza Micheli, James N. Sanchirico

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

85 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Habitat maps are often the core spatially consistent data set on which marine reserve networks are designed, but their efficacy as surrogates for species richness and applicability to other conservation measures is poorly understood. Combining an analysis of field survey data, literature review, and expert assessment by a multidisciplinary working group, we examined the degree to which Caribbean coastal habitats provide useful planning information on 4 conservation measures: species richness, the ecological functions of fish species, ecosystem processes, and ecosystem services. Approximately one-quarter to one-third of benthic invertebrate species and fish species (disaggregated by life phase; hereafter fish species) occurred in a single habitat, and Montastraea-dominated forereefs consistently had the highest richness of all species, processes, and services. All 11 habitats were needed to represent all 277 fish species in the seascape, although reducing the conservation target to 95% of species approximately halved the number of habitats required to ensure representation. Species accumulation indices (SAIs) were used to compare the efficacy of surrogates and revealed that fish species were a more appropriate surrogate of benthic species (SAI = 71%) than benthic species were for fishes (SAI = 42%). Species of reef fishes were also distributed more widely across the seascape than invertebrates and therefore their use as a surrogate simultaneously included mangroves, sea grass, and coral reef habitats. Functional classes of fishes served as effective surrogates of fish and benthic species which, given their ease to survey, makes them a particularly useful measure for conservation planning. Ecosystem processes and services exhibited great redundancy among habitats and were ineffective as surrogates of species. Therefore, processes and services in this case were generally unsuitable for a complementarity-based approach to reserve design. In contrast, the representation of species or functional classes ensured inclusion of all processes and services in the reserve network.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)941-951
Number of pages11
JournalConservation Biology
Volume22
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2008

Fingerprint

Reefs
ecological function
ecosystem service
ecosystem services
Ecosystems
Fish
coral reefs
coral reef
habitat
habitats
fish
Conservation
reserve networks
planning
invertebrates
Planning
species diversity
ecosystems
Redundancy
reefs

Keywords

  • Biodiversity conservation
  • Complementarity
  • Conservation planning
  • Coral reef
  • Ecosystem services
  • Habitat representation
  • Habitat value
  • Marine reserve
  • Species richness

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Mumby, P. J., Broad, K., Brumbaugh, D. R., Dahlgren, C. P., Harborne, A. R., Hastings, A., ... Sanchirico, J. N. (2008). Coral reef habitats as surrogates of species, ecological functions, and ecosystem services. Conservation Biology, 22(4), 941-951. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00933.x

Coral reef habitats as surrogates of species, ecological functions, and ecosystem services. / Mumby, Peter J.; Broad, Kenneth; Brumbaugh, Daniel R.; Dahlgren, Craig P.; Harborne, Alastair R.; Hastings, Alan; Holmes, Katherine E.; Kappel, Carrie V.; Micheli, Fiorenza; Sanchirico, James N.

In: Conservation Biology, Vol. 22, No. 4, 08.2008, p. 941-951.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mumby, PJ, Broad, K, Brumbaugh, DR, Dahlgren, CP, Harborne, AR, Hastings, A, Holmes, KE, Kappel, CV, Micheli, F & Sanchirico, JN 2008, 'Coral reef habitats as surrogates of species, ecological functions, and ecosystem services', Conservation Biology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 941-951. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00933.x
Mumby, Peter J. ; Broad, Kenneth ; Brumbaugh, Daniel R. ; Dahlgren, Craig P. ; Harborne, Alastair R. ; Hastings, Alan ; Holmes, Katherine E. ; Kappel, Carrie V. ; Micheli, Fiorenza ; Sanchirico, James N. / Coral reef habitats as surrogates of species, ecological functions, and ecosystem services. In: Conservation Biology. 2008 ; Vol. 22, No. 4. pp. 941-951.
@article{dfaa0a0b17df4adaadd08cc8be07c75a,
title = "Coral reef habitats as surrogates of species, ecological functions, and ecosystem services",
abstract = "Habitat maps are often the core spatially consistent data set on which marine reserve networks are designed, but their efficacy as surrogates for species richness and applicability to other conservation measures is poorly understood. Combining an analysis of field survey data, literature review, and expert assessment by a multidisciplinary working group, we examined the degree to which Caribbean coastal habitats provide useful planning information on 4 conservation measures: species richness, the ecological functions of fish species, ecosystem processes, and ecosystem services. Approximately one-quarter to one-third of benthic invertebrate species and fish species (disaggregated by life phase; hereafter fish species) occurred in a single habitat, and Montastraea-dominated forereefs consistently had the highest richness of all species, processes, and services. All 11 habitats were needed to represent all 277 fish species in the seascape, although reducing the conservation target to 95{\%} of species approximately halved the number of habitats required to ensure representation. Species accumulation indices (SAIs) were used to compare the efficacy of surrogates and revealed that fish species were a more appropriate surrogate of benthic species (SAI = 71{\%}) than benthic species were for fishes (SAI = 42{\%}). Species of reef fishes were also distributed more widely across the seascape than invertebrates and therefore their use as a surrogate simultaneously included mangroves, sea grass, and coral reef habitats. Functional classes of fishes served as effective surrogates of fish and benthic species which, given their ease to survey, makes them a particularly useful measure for conservation planning. Ecosystem processes and services exhibited great redundancy among habitats and were ineffective as surrogates of species. Therefore, processes and services in this case were generally unsuitable for a complementarity-based approach to reserve design. In contrast, the representation of species or functional classes ensured inclusion of all processes and services in the reserve network.",
keywords = "Biodiversity conservation, Complementarity, Conservation planning, Coral reef, Ecosystem services, Habitat representation, Habitat value, Marine reserve, Species richness",
author = "Mumby, {Peter J.} and Kenneth Broad and Brumbaugh, {Daniel R.} and Dahlgren, {Craig P.} and Harborne, {Alastair R.} and Alan Hastings and Holmes, {Katherine E.} and Kappel, {Carrie V.} and Fiorenza Micheli and Sanchirico, {James N.}",
year = "2008",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00933.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "941--951",
journal = "Conservation Biology",
issn = "0888-8892",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Coral reef habitats as surrogates of species, ecological functions, and ecosystem services

AU - Mumby, Peter J.

AU - Broad, Kenneth

AU - Brumbaugh, Daniel R.

AU - Dahlgren, Craig P.

AU - Harborne, Alastair R.

AU - Hastings, Alan

AU - Holmes, Katherine E.

AU - Kappel, Carrie V.

AU - Micheli, Fiorenza

AU - Sanchirico, James N.

PY - 2008/8

Y1 - 2008/8

N2 - Habitat maps are often the core spatially consistent data set on which marine reserve networks are designed, but their efficacy as surrogates for species richness and applicability to other conservation measures is poorly understood. Combining an analysis of field survey data, literature review, and expert assessment by a multidisciplinary working group, we examined the degree to which Caribbean coastal habitats provide useful planning information on 4 conservation measures: species richness, the ecological functions of fish species, ecosystem processes, and ecosystem services. Approximately one-quarter to one-third of benthic invertebrate species and fish species (disaggregated by life phase; hereafter fish species) occurred in a single habitat, and Montastraea-dominated forereefs consistently had the highest richness of all species, processes, and services. All 11 habitats were needed to represent all 277 fish species in the seascape, although reducing the conservation target to 95% of species approximately halved the number of habitats required to ensure representation. Species accumulation indices (SAIs) were used to compare the efficacy of surrogates and revealed that fish species were a more appropriate surrogate of benthic species (SAI = 71%) than benthic species were for fishes (SAI = 42%). Species of reef fishes were also distributed more widely across the seascape than invertebrates and therefore their use as a surrogate simultaneously included mangroves, sea grass, and coral reef habitats. Functional classes of fishes served as effective surrogates of fish and benthic species which, given their ease to survey, makes them a particularly useful measure for conservation planning. Ecosystem processes and services exhibited great redundancy among habitats and were ineffective as surrogates of species. Therefore, processes and services in this case were generally unsuitable for a complementarity-based approach to reserve design. In contrast, the representation of species or functional classes ensured inclusion of all processes and services in the reserve network.

AB - Habitat maps are often the core spatially consistent data set on which marine reserve networks are designed, but their efficacy as surrogates for species richness and applicability to other conservation measures is poorly understood. Combining an analysis of field survey data, literature review, and expert assessment by a multidisciplinary working group, we examined the degree to which Caribbean coastal habitats provide useful planning information on 4 conservation measures: species richness, the ecological functions of fish species, ecosystem processes, and ecosystem services. Approximately one-quarter to one-third of benthic invertebrate species and fish species (disaggregated by life phase; hereafter fish species) occurred in a single habitat, and Montastraea-dominated forereefs consistently had the highest richness of all species, processes, and services. All 11 habitats were needed to represent all 277 fish species in the seascape, although reducing the conservation target to 95% of species approximately halved the number of habitats required to ensure representation. Species accumulation indices (SAIs) were used to compare the efficacy of surrogates and revealed that fish species were a more appropriate surrogate of benthic species (SAI = 71%) than benthic species were for fishes (SAI = 42%). Species of reef fishes were also distributed more widely across the seascape than invertebrates and therefore their use as a surrogate simultaneously included mangroves, sea grass, and coral reef habitats. Functional classes of fishes served as effective surrogates of fish and benthic species which, given their ease to survey, makes them a particularly useful measure for conservation planning. Ecosystem processes and services exhibited great redundancy among habitats and were ineffective as surrogates of species. Therefore, processes and services in this case were generally unsuitable for a complementarity-based approach to reserve design. In contrast, the representation of species or functional classes ensured inclusion of all processes and services in the reserve network.

KW - Biodiversity conservation

KW - Complementarity

KW - Conservation planning

KW - Coral reef

KW - Ecosystem services

KW - Habitat representation

KW - Habitat value

KW - Marine reserve

KW - Species richness

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=48749107759&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=48749107759&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00933.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00933.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 18477024

AN - SCOPUS:48749107759

VL - 22

SP - 941

EP - 951

JO - Conservation Biology

JF - Conservation Biology

SN - 0888-8892

IS - 4

ER -