Mapping biodiversity value worldwide: combining higher-taxon richness from different groups

Maps of large-scale biodiversity are urgently needed to guide conservation, and yet complete enumeration of organisms is impractical at present. One indirect approach is to measure richness at higher taxonomic ranks, such as families. The difficulty is how to combine information from different groups on numbers of higher taxa, when these taxa may in effect have been defined in different ways, particularly for more distantly related major groups. In this paper, the regional family richness of terrestrial and freshwater seed plants, amphibians, reptiles and mammals is mapped worldwide by combining: (i) absolute family richness; (ii) proportional family richness; and (iii) proportional family richness weighted for the total species richness in each major group. The assumptions of the three methods and their effects on the results are discussed, although for these data the broad pattern is surprisingly robust with respect to the method of combination. Scores from each of the methods of combining families are used to rank the top five richness hotspots and complementary areas, and hotspots of endemism are mapped by unweighted combination of range-size rarity scores.

[1]  J. Wright,et al.  Macroinvertebrate richness at running-water sites in Great Britain: a comparison of species and family richness , 1998 .

[2]  Manuela M. P. Huso,et al.  A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon , 1997 .

[3]  P. Williams.  Measuring biodiversity value , 1997 .

[4]  J. W. Valentine,et al.  Higher Taxa in Biodiversity Studies: Patterns from Eastern Pacific Marine Molluscs , 1996 .

[5]  A. Balmford,et al.  Using higher-taxon richness as a surrogate for species richness: II. Local applications , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  A. Balmford,et al.  Using higher-taxon richness as a surrogate for species richness: I. Regional tests , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  Kevin J. Gaston.  Biodiversity - congruence , 1996 .

[8]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  A Comparison of Richness Hotspots, Rarity Hotspots, and Complementary Areas for Conserving Diversity of British Birds , 1996 .

[9]  K. Gaston.  Species richness : measure and measurement , 1996 .

[10]  K. Gaston,et al.  Mapping biodiversity using surrogates for species richness: macro-scales and New World birds , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Large scale patterns of biodiversity: spatial variation in family richness , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  C. Humphries,et al.  MEASURING BIODIVERSITY VALUE FOR CONSERVATION , 1995 .

[13]  David M. Stoms.  Scale Dependence of Species Richness Maps , 1994 .

[14]  Ghillean T. Prance,et al.  A comparison of the efficacy of higher taxa and species numbers in the assessment of biodiversity in the neotropics , 1994 .

[15]  D P Faith,et al.  Phylogenetic pattern and the quantification of organismal biodiversity. , 1994, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[16]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Do Conservationists and Molecular Biologists Value Differences between Organisms in the Same Way , 1994 .

[17]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Centres of seed-plant diversity: the family way , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Measuring more of biodiversity: Can higher-taxon richness predict wholesale species richness? , 1994 .

[19]  J. Lawton,et al.  Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies , 1993, Nature.

[20]  D. Graur.  Molecular phylogeny and the higher classification of eutherian mammals. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[21]  Janalee P. Caldwell,et al.  Herpetology: An Introductory Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles , 1993 .

[22]  K. Gaston,et al.  Mapping the World's Species-The Higher Taxon Approach , 1993 .

[23]  G. Zug.  CHAPTER 1 – Amphibians , 1993 .

[24]  P. Lambshead,et al.  Recent developments in marine benthic biodiversity research , 1993 .

[25]  Paul R. Ehrlich,et al.  Population biology of checkerspot butterflies and the preservation of global biodiversity , 1992 .

[26]  D. Faith.  Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity , 1992 .

[27]  David L. Hawksworth,et al.  The fungal dimension of biodiversity: magnitude, significance, and conservation , 1991 .

[28]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Measuring biodiversity taxonomic relatedness for conservation priorities , 1991 .

[29]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  What to protect?—Systematics and the agony of choice , 1991 .

[30]  Robert M. May,et al.  Taxonomy as destiny , 1990, Nature.

[31]  N. Myers,et al.  The biodiversity challenge: Expanded hot-spots analysis , 1990, The Environmentalist.

[32]  Arnold G. Kluge,et al.  AMNIOTE PHYLOGENY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF FOSSILS , 1988, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[33]  N. Myers.  Threatened biotas: "Hot spots" in tropical forests , 1988, The Environmentalist.

[34]  D. Frodin.  Guide to Standard Floras of the World , 1985 .

[35]  Matthew H. Nitecki,et al.  Some Other Books of Interest. (Book Reviews: Extinctions; Orders and Families of Recent Mammals of the World) , 1985 .

[36]  The Encyclopaedia of Mammals , 1984 .

[37]  W. R. Anderson,et al.  An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants , 1982 .

[38]  Arthur Cronquist,et al.  Angiosperm Orders and Families. (Book Reviews: An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants) , 1982 .

[39]  Miklos D. F . Udvardy,et al.  A classification of the biogeographical provinces of the world , 1975 .