The Species Problem and Conservation: What are We Protecting?

: Although conservation biologists base most of their activities on species taxa, they have participated little in the debate of systematists and evolutionary biologists about the recognition and nature of species. It is clear from this debate that there is no agreement on what species are, how they should be delimited, or what they represent. But in conservation science, and particularly in the selection, design and management of protected areas, species are either treated as types or as evolutionary units. A typological view of species may lead to a failure to protect the real diversity of life in the long term, if conservation priorities are set on the basis of species numbers or on circumscriptions of endangered, threatened, or endemic species taxa that result from the use of different species concepts. Considering species as typological entities may also lead workers to disregard geographic variation and to neglect the problem of deciding which level of variability to protect. It may even affect the goal of maintaining the evolutionary potential of organisms, if the focus is placed on the preservation of a sample of the existing types in populations that will persist as little changed as possible. When species are considered as evolutionary units, attention is shifted from the level of species to that of populations and metapopulations. Problems may still arise if these populations are considered in the context of species taxa, particularly if their composition is managed or if indicator species are used. A closer interaction between systematists and conservation biologists is suggested. Although the pressures of time and the difficulties faced by conservation biologists cannot be denied, considering the species problem more critically may result in recognizing the limitations of the taxonomic information used; it may also contribute to the refinement of the concepts and methods involved in their activities, making them more congruent with the nature of biological diversity. Resumen: A pesar de que los biologos de la conservacion basan gran parte de sus actividades en taxa al nivel de especie su participacion en la discusion de sistematicos y evolucionistas sobre el reconocimiento y naturaleza de las especies ha sido limitada. Este debate ha puesto en evidencia que existe total desacuerdo sobre que son las especies, como deben delimitarse y que representan. Sin embargo, en biologia de la conservacion y, en particular, en la seleccion, diseno y manejo de areas protegidas, las especies son consideradas como tipos o como unidades evolutivas. Un enfoque tipologico de las especies puede implicar que no se logre proteger la diversidad biologica en el largo plazo, si las prioridades de conservacion se establecen a partir de numeros de especies, o de especies en peligro, amenazadas o endemicas, cuya delimitacion resulte del uso de diferentes conceptos de especie. Considerar a las especies como entidades tipologicas tambien puede llevar a que se ignore la variacion geografica y a que no se enfrente el problema de decidir el nivel de variabilidad a proteger. Puede aun afectar el objetivo de mantener el potencial evolutivo de los organismos protegidos, en la medida en que la conservacion se centre en preservar una muestra de los tipos existentes en poblaciones que persistan con un minimo de cambio. Cuando las especies son consideradas como unidades evolutivas, el foco de atencion se desplaza del nivel de especies al de poblaciones y metapoblaciones. Pero aun pueden presentarse problemas, si las poblaciones se consideran en el contexto de especies taxonomicas y, en particular si se maneja su composicion, o se utilizan especies indicadoras. Por lo tanto, se recomienda una mavor interaccion entre sistematicos y biologos de la conservacion. Aunque la presion del tiempo y las dificultades que enfrentan los biologos de la conservacion son innegables, el considerar el problema de las especies de una forma mas critica puede resultar en el reconocimiento de las limitaciones de la informacion taxonomica empleada. Igualmente, puede contribuir al refinamiento de los conceptos y metodos utilizados en sus actividades, para hacerlos mas acordes con la naturaleza de la diversidad biologica.

[1]  D. Austin,et al.  Floristic Inventory of Tropical Countries. , 1990 .

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

[3]  M. Ghiselin A Radical Solution to the Species Problem , 1974 .

[4]  M. Gilpin,et al.  Minimum viable populations : Processes of species extinction , 1986 .

[5]  J. Endler,et al.  Speciation and Its Consequences , 1989 .

[6]  M. Gilpin,et al.  Metapopulation dynamics: a brief his-tory and conceptual domain , 1991 .

[7]  N. Knowlton,et al.  Sibling Species in Montastraea annularis, Coral Bleaching, and the Coral Climate Record , 1992, Science.

[8]  P. Stevens Nomenclatural stability, taxonomic instinct, and flora writing — a recipe for disaster? , 1990 .

[9]  E. Wiley,et al.  The Evolutionary Species Concept Reconsidered , 1978 .

[10]  P. Ashton Exploration expeditions in the tropics: what is no longer needed, what is still needed and what is urgently needed? A review of aims and goals , 1989 .

[11]  M. Shaffer Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation , 1981 .

[12]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  The Contribution of Population and Community Biology to Conservation Science , 1988 .

[13]  T. Lovejoy Discontinuous wilderness: minimum areas for conservation. , 1980 .

[14]  T. Hoban,et al.  Seeds and Sovereignty: The Use and Control of Plant Genetic Resources. , 1989 .

[15]  E. Mayr,et al.  The biological meaning of species , 1969 .

[16]  T. Lovejoy,et al.  Conservation progress in Amazonia: a structural review. , 1981 .

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

[18]  O. Rieppel Fundamentals of comparative biology , 1988 .

[19]  M. Donoghue,et al.  PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS AND THE SPECIES PROBLEM , 1988, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[20]  David L. Hull,et al.  Contemporary Systematic Philosophies , 1970 .

[21]  J. Haffer Speciation in amazonian forest birds. , 1969, Science.

[22]  L. V. Valen,et al.  Ecological Species, Multispecies, and Oaks , 1976 .

[23]  J. Avise,et al.  Molecular Genetic Relationships of the Extinct Dusky Seaside Sparrow , 1989, Science.

[24]  T. Dobzhansky Genetics and the Origin of Species , 1937 .

[25]  B. Oxelman,et al.  SPECIES-PATTERN OR PROCESS? , 1989 .

[26]  David L. Hull,et al.  The Operational Imperative: Sense and Nonsense in Operationism , 1968 .

[27]  E. Wilson,et al.  The Tropical Forest Canopy The Heart of Biotic Diversity , 1988 .

[28]  Brent D. Mishler,et al.  Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism , 1982 .

[29]  Niles Eldredge,et al.  Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. , 1981 .

[30]  D. Hull Individuality and Selection , 1980 .

[31]  S. O’Brien,et al.  Bureaucratic mischief: recognizing endangered species and subspecies. , 1991, Science.