Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes

Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig; Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba

doi:doi:10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes

Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig, Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba

Published in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (Volume 7, Issue 2)

Received: 12 February 2022 Accepted: 11 March 2022 Published: 8 April 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Many selected populations from plants and animals have been frequently used as indicators species for monitoring ecological changes and ecosystems dynamics overtime, giving early warning signs for possible deviations in ecosystems, and allowing for measuring performance of management interventions. However, there is recent criticism and discussion among the environmental scientists and mangers about the pitfalls of the approach. This article aims at reviewing limitations & challenges of selecting and using indicator species in monitoring biodiversity & ecosystem changes. Particular objectives are (1) outlining and briefly discussing common challenges and limitations, (2) pointing out ways for overcoming limitations mentioned including list of best signs that must be observed and considered when identifying indicator species for monitoring ecological changes, and finally (3) providing a path for future research work needed in this topic. Literature review showed that criticism and limitations are including subjectivity and vague justifications in selecting single or group of indicators, methodological challenges during data collection, and lack of knowledge about responses of such indicators to future climate change and subsequent impacts on their effectiveness in ecological monitoring schemes. In conclusion, the best indicator species should have among others; known responses to disturbances, quickly indicate changes and cause-and-effects relationships in ecological state variables, has a stable population in space and time, and easily detected and measured. Finally, future work needed in this topic should be directed towards: (1) assessing and increasing the effectiveness of the indicators; (2) understanding the limitations of indicators including their sensitivity to anticipated climatic changes; (3) which taxonomic groups are better for which monitoring purpose; and (4) lastly, finding better quantitative multimetrics indices to assess the efficiency of the indicators.

Published in	Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (Volume 7, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11
Page(s)	14-17
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Ecosystem Changes, Ecological Monitoring, Indicator Species, Limitations of Indicators Species

References

[1]	Bartell, SM (2006) Biomarkers, bio indicators, and ecological risk assessment—A brief review and evaluation. Environmental Bio indicators. 1, 39–52.
[2]	Burger, J (2006) Bio indicators: types, development, and use in ecological assessment and research. Environmental bio indicators, 1: 22–39, 2006.
[3]	Cairns J Jr., Pratt JR (1993) A history of biological monitoring using benthic macro in vertebrates. Pages 10-27 in D. M. Rosenberg and V. H. Resh, editors. Fresh water biomonitoring and benthic macroin vertebrates, Chapman & Hall, New York.
[4]	Carignan V, Villard MA (2002) Selecting indicator species tomonitorecologicalintegrity: Review. Environmental Monitoringand Assessment 78: 45–61.
[5]	Chen K., Hughes R M, Zhang J, Xu S, Cai D., and Wang B. (2014) Evaluating performance of macro invertebrate-based adjusted and unadjusted multi-metric indices (MMI) using multi-season and multi-year samples.
[6]	Clements W H, Newman M C (2002) Community ecotoxicoly. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, England.
[7]	Dale, V H, Beyeler S C (2001) Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators. 1, 3–10.
[8]	De Cáceres M, Legendre P (2009) Associations between specie and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology. 90, 3566-3574.
[9]	Doren, R F, Trexler J, Gottleib A, Harwell M. 2009. Ecological indicators for system-wide assessment of the great ereverglades ecosystem restoration program. Ecological Indicators 9: S29–S36.
[10]	Dufrêne M. and Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asym metrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67: 345-366.
[11]	Estes-Zumpf W, Brett Addis, Brenna Marsicek, Mason Lee, Zoe Nelson, Melanie Murphy. 2022. Improving sustainability of long-term amphibian monitoring: The value of collaboration and community science for indicator species management, Ecological Indicators, Volume 134, 108451, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108451.
[12]	Furness, R. W. and Greenwood, J. J. D. 1993. Birdsas monitors of environmental change. Chapman & Hall, 2–6 Boundary Row, London–UK.
[13]	Gamble L R., K. Mc Garigal, and B. W. Compton. 2007. Fidelity and dispersal in the pond-breeding amphibian, Ambystoma opacum: Implications for spatio-temporal population dynamics and conservation. Biological Conservation 139: 247-257.
[14]	Gamble L. R., K. McGarigal, D. B. Sigourney, and B. C. Timm. 2009. Survival and breeding frequency in Marbled Salamanders (Ambystoma opacum): implications for spatio-temporal population dynamics. Copeia 2: 394-407.
[15]	Grigal D. F. (1972) Plant Indicators in Ecology. In: Thomas W.A. (eds) Indicators of Environmental Quality. Environmental Science Research, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA.
[16]	Hannah L J. (2011) Climate change biology. Academic Press in Elsevier Ltd.
[17]	Hanski, I. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Sociely, 42: 3-16.
[18]	Harrison, S., 1991. Metapopulations and conservation. In: Edwards, P. J., May, R. M., Webb, N. R. (Eds.), Large-Scale Ecology and Conservation Biology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK, pp. 111–128.
[19]	Heino J. 2010. Are indicator groups and cross-taxon congruence useful for predicting biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems? Ecol Indic 10: 112–17.
[20]	Heino, J., 2014. Taxonomic surrogacy, numerical resolution and responses of stream macroinvertebrate communities to ecological gradients: Are the inferences transferable among regions? Ecological Indicators 36 (2014) 186–194.
[21]	Hellawell, J. M. 1986. Biological indicators of freshwater pollution and environmental management. In, Pollution Monitoring Series, K. Mellanby (ed). Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, UK. 546pp.
[22]	Hilty, J., & Merenlender, A. 2000. Faunal indicator taxa selection for monitoring ecosystem health. Biological Conservation, 92 (2), 185–197.
[23]	IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basics Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T. F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.
[24]	Landres, P. B, Verner, J. and Thomas, J. W. 1988. Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique. Conserv Biol 2: 316–28.
[25]	LaPaix R, Freedman B, Patriquin D (2009) Ground vegetation as an indicator of ecological integrity. Environmental Reviews, 2009, 17: 249-265, https://doi.org/10.1139/A09-012
[26]	Lehmkuhl JF, Peffer RD, O’Connell MA. 2008. Riparian and upland small mammals on the east slope of the Cascade Range, Washington. Northwest Sci 82: 94–107.
[27]	Lertzman-Lepofsky G. F., A. M. Kissel, B. Sinervo, W. J. Palen. 2020. Water loss and temperature interact to compound amphibian vulnerability to climate change. Glob. Change Biol., 26 (9) (2020), pp. 4868-4879.
[28]	Levin, S. A. 1992. The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture. Ecology, 73 (6), 1943–1967.
[29]	Levins, R. 1970 Extinction. Pp 75-107. In: (M. Gerstenhaber, ed.) Some mathematical problems in biology. American Mathematical Society, Providence.
[30]	Lindenmayer, D. B., Likens, G. E., 2011. Direct measurement versus surrogate indicator species for evaluating environmental change and biodiversity loss. Ecosystems. 14, 47–59.
[31]	Lindenmayer, D. B. and Fischer, J. 2003. Sound science or social hook: a response to Booker’s application of the focal species approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 62 (2003) 149–158.
[32]	Lindenmayer, D. B., Margules, C. R., Botkin, D., 2000. Indicators of forest sustainability biodiversity: the selection of forest indicator species. Conserv. Biol. 14, 941–950.
[33]	McCune, B. and J. B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MJM Press.
[34]	McGeoch, M. A. and S. L. Chown. 1998. Scaling up the value of bioindicators. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13: 46-47.
[35]	Morrison, M. L. 2009. Restoring wildlife: ecological concepts and practical applications. Washington, DC: Island Press.
[36]	Morrison, M. L., Marcot, B. G., Mannan, R. W., 1992. Wildlife Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications. University of Wisconsin Press, Madision.
[37]	Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 355-364.
[38]	Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Allan, J. D., Lake, P. S., Alexander, G., Brooks, S., … Galat, D. L. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42 (2), 208–217.
[39]	Pearce J, and Venier L. 2005. Small mammals as bioindicators of sustainable forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 208: 153–75.
[40]	Siddig, A. A. H., Ellison, A. M., & Mathewson, B. G. 2016a. Assessing the impacts of the decline of Tsuga canadensis stands on two amphibian species in a New England forest. Ecosphere, 7 (11), e01574.
[41]	Siddig, A. A. H., A. M. Ellison, A. Ochs, C. Villar-Leeman, and M. K. Lau. 2016b. How do ecologists select and use indicator species to monitor ecological change? Insights from 14 years of publication in Ecological Indicators. Ecological Indicators.
[42]	Siddig, A. A. H., A. M. Ellison, and A. Ochs. 2019. Do terrestrial salamanders indicate ecosystem changes in New England forests? Forests 2019, 10, 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020154.
[43]	Simberloff, D. A., 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the landscape era. Biol. Conserv. 83, 247–257.
[44]	Spellerberg, I. F. 2005. Monitoring ecological change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[45]	U.S. EPA. 2008. Climate change effects on stream and river biological indicators: A preliminary analysis (Final report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-07/085F.
[46]	U.S. EPA. 2002. Biological assessments and criteria: Crucial components of water quality programs. Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
[47]	Wakelin J, and Hill TR. 2007. The impact of land transformation on breeding Blue Swallows Hirundo atrocaerulea Sundevall, in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. J Nat Conserv 15: 245–55.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig, Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba. (2022). Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 7(2), 14-17. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig; Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba. Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes. Ecol. Evol. Biol. 2022, 7(2), 14-17. doi: 10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig, Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba. Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes. Ecol Evol Biol. 2022;7(2):14-17. doi: 10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11,
  author = {Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig and Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba},
  title = {Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes},
  journal = {Ecology and Evolutionary Biology},
  volume = {7},
  number = {2},
  pages = {14-17},
  doi = {10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.eeb.20220702.11},
  abstract = {Many selected populations from plants and animals have been frequently used as indicators species for monitoring ecological changes and ecosystems dynamics overtime, giving early warning signs for possible deviations in ecosystems, and allowing for measuring performance of management interventions. However, there is recent criticism and discussion among the environmental scientists and mangers about the pitfalls of the approach. This article aims at reviewing limitations & challenges of selecting and using indicator species in monitoring biodiversity & ecosystem changes. Particular objectives are (1) outlining and briefly discussing common challenges and limitations, (2) pointing out ways for overcoming limitations mentioned including list of best signs that must be observed and considered when identifying indicator species for monitoring ecological changes, and finally (3) providing a path for future research work needed in this topic. Literature review showed that criticism and limitations are including subjectivity and vague justifications in selecting single or group of indicators, methodological challenges during data collection, and lack of knowledge about responses of such indicators to future climate change and subsequent impacts on their effectiveness in ecological monitoring schemes. In conclusion, the best indicator species should have among others; known responses to disturbances, quickly indicate changes and cause-and-effects relationships in ecological state variables, has a stable population in space and time, and easily detected and measured. Finally, future work needed in this topic should be directed towards: (1) assessing and increasing the effectiveness of the indicators; (2) understanding the limitations of indicators including their sensitivity to anticipated climatic changes; (3) which taxonomic groups are better for which monitoring purpose; and (4) lastly, finding better quantitative multimetrics indices to assess the efficiency of the indicators.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes
AU  - Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig
AU  - Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba
Y1  - 2022/04/08
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11
T2  - Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
JF  - Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
JO  - Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
SP  - 14
EP  - 17
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-3762
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11
AB  - Many selected populations from plants and animals have been frequently used as indicators species for monitoring ecological changes and ecosystems dynamics overtime, giving early warning signs for possible deviations in ecosystems, and allowing for measuring performance of management interventions. However, there is recent criticism and discussion among the environmental scientists and mangers about the pitfalls of the approach. This article aims at reviewing limitations & challenges of selecting and using indicator species in monitoring biodiversity & ecosystem changes. Particular objectives are (1) outlining and briefly discussing common challenges and limitations, (2) pointing out ways for overcoming limitations mentioned including list of best signs that must be observed and considered when identifying indicator species for monitoring ecological changes, and finally (3) providing a path for future research work needed in this topic. Literature review showed that criticism and limitations are including subjectivity and vague justifications in selecting single or group of indicators, methodological challenges during data collection, and lack of knowledge about responses of such indicators to future climate change and subsequent impacts on their effectiveness in ecological monitoring schemes. In conclusion, the best indicator species should have among others; known responses to disturbances, quickly indicate changes and cause-and-effects relationships in ecological state variables, has a stable population in space and time, and easily detected and measured. Finally, future work needed in this topic should be directed towards: (1) assessing and increasing the effectiveness of the indicators; (2) understanding the limitations of indicators including their sensitivity to anticipated climatic changes; (3) which taxonomic groups are better for which monitoring purpose; and (4) lastly, finding better quantitative multimetrics indices to assess the efficiency of the indicators.
VL  - 7
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig

Faculty of Forestry, University of Khartoum, Khartoum North, Sudan
Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba

Faculty of Forest Sciences and technology, University of Gezira, Madani, Sudan

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig, Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba. (2022). Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 7(2), 14-17. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig; Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba. Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes. Ecol. Evol. Biol. 2022, 7(2), 14-17. doi: 10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig, Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba. Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes. Ecol Evol Biol. 2022;7(2):14-17. doi: 10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11,
  author = {Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig and Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba},
  title = {Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes},
  journal = {Ecology and Evolutionary Biology},
  volume = {7},
  number = {2},
  pages = {14-17},
  doi = {10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.eeb.20220702.11},
  abstract = {Many selected populations from plants and animals have been frequently used as indicators species for monitoring ecological changes and ecosystems dynamics overtime, giving early warning signs for possible deviations in ecosystems, and allowing for measuring performance of management interventions. However, there is recent criticism and discussion among the environmental scientists and mangers about the pitfalls of the approach. This article aims at reviewing limitations & challenges of selecting and using indicator species in monitoring biodiversity & ecosystem changes. Particular objectives are (1) outlining and briefly discussing common challenges and limitations, (2) pointing out ways for overcoming limitations mentioned including list of best signs that must be observed and considered when identifying indicator species for monitoring ecological changes, and finally (3) providing a path for future research work needed in this topic. Literature review showed that criticism and limitations are including subjectivity and vague justifications in selecting single or group of indicators, methodological challenges during data collection, and lack of knowledge about responses of such indicators to future climate change and subsequent impacts on their effectiveness in ecological monitoring schemes. In conclusion, the best indicator species should have among others; known responses to disturbances, quickly indicate changes and cause-and-effects relationships in ecological state variables, has a stable population in space and time, and easily detected and measured. Finally, future work needed in this topic should be directed towards: (1) assessing and increasing the effectiveness of the indicators; (2) understanding the limitations of indicators including their sensitivity to anticipated climatic changes; (3) which taxonomic groups are better for which monitoring purpose; and (4) lastly, finding better quantitative multimetrics indices to assess the efficiency of the indicators.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Charismatic or Abundant Species Are Not Always Good Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity & Ecosystem Changes
AU  - Ahmed Ali Hassabelkreem Siddig
AU  - Ahmed Mustafa Morad Hasoba
Y1  - 2022/04/08
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11
T2  - Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
JF  - Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
JO  - Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
SP  - 14
EP  - 17
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-3762
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.eeb.20220702.11
AB  - Many selected populations from plants and animals have been frequently used as indicators species for monitoring ecological changes and ecosystems dynamics overtime, giving early warning signs for possible deviations in ecosystems, and allowing for measuring performance of management interventions. However, there is recent criticism and discussion among the environmental scientists and mangers about the pitfalls of the approach. This article aims at reviewing limitations & challenges of selecting and using indicator species in monitoring biodiversity & ecosystem changes. Particular objectives are (1) outlining and briefly discussing common challenges and limitations, (2) pointing out ways for overcoming limitations mentioned including list of best signs that must be observed and considered when identifying indicator species for monitoring ecological changes, and finally (3) providing a path for future research work needed in this topic. Literature review showed that criticism and limitations are including subjectivity and vague justifications in selecting single or group of indicators, methodological challenges during data collection, and lack of knowledge about responses of such indicators to future climate change and subsequent impacts on their effectiveness in ecological monitoring schemes. In conclusion, the best indicator species should have among others; known responses to disturbances, quickly indicate changes and cause-and-effects relationships in ecological state variables, has a stable population in space and time, and easily detected and measured. Finally, future work needed in this topic should be directed towards: (1) assessing and increasing the effectiveness of the indicators; (2) understanding the limitations of indicators including their sensitivity to anticipated climatic changes; (3) which taxonomic groups are better for which monitoring purpose; and (4) lastly, finding better quantitative multimetrics indices to assess the efficiency of the indicators.
VL  - 7
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download