FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1536958512> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1536958512 endingPage "20" @default.
• W1536958512 startingPage "9" @default.
• W1536958512 abstract "Abstract: The umbrella-species concept, which suggests that conservation strategies designed for one species may benefit co-occurring species, has been promoted as a framework for conservation planning. Nevertheless, there has been considerable variation in the outcome of empirical tests of this concept that has led researchers to question its value, so we used data from 15 published studies in a meta-analysis to evaluate whether conservation of putative umbrella species also conserves co-occurring species. We tested the effectiveness of putative umbrella species categorized by taxonomic group, taxonomic similarity to co-occurring species, body size, generality of resource use, and trophic level to evaluate criteria proposed to guide the selection of umbrella species. We compared species richness and number of individuals (by species and higher taxonomic group) between sites with and without putative umbrella species to test whether more co-occurring species were present in greater abundances when the area or resource needs of umbrella species were met. Species richness and abundance of co-occurring species were consistently higher in sites where umbrella species were present than where they were not and for conservation schemes with avian than with mammalian umbrella species. There were no differences in species richness or species abundance with resource generalist or specialist umbrella species or based on taxonomic similarity of umbrella and co-occurring species. Taxonomic group abundance was higher in across-taxonomic umbrella species schemes than when umbrella species were of the same taxon as co-occurring species. Co-occurring species had similar, or higher, species richness with small-bodied umbrella species relative to larger-bodied umbrella species. The only significant difference among umbrella species categorized by trophic level was that species richness was higher with omnivorous than it was with carnivorous avian umbrella species. Our results suggest there is merit to the umbrella-species concept for conservation, but they do not support the use of the criteria we used to identify umbrella species. Resumen: El concepto de especie sombrilla, que sugiere que las estrategias de conservación diseñadas para una especie puede beneficiar a otras especies, ha sido promocionado como marco de referencia para la planificación de la conservación. Sin embargo, ha habido considerable variación en el resultado de pruebas empíricas de este concepto que ha llevado a que los investigadores cuestionen su valor, así que utilizamos datos de 15 estudios publicados en meta-análisis para evaluar sí la conservación de la especie sombrilla putativa también conserva a especies co-ocurrentes. Probamos la efectividad de especies sombrilla putativas clasificadas por grupo taxonómico, similitud taxonómica con especies co-ocurrentes, tamaño corporal, generalidad del uso de recursos y nivel trófico para evaluar los criterios propuestos para guiar la selección de especies sombrilla. Comparamos la riqueza de especies y el número de individuos (por especie y grupo taxonómico mayor) entre sitios con y sin especies sombrilla putativas para probar sí la abundancia de especies co-ocurrentes era mayor cuando se cubrían las necesidades de área o de recursos de las especies sombrilla. La riqueza y abundancia de especies co-ocurrentes fueron consistentemente mayores en sitios donde había presencia de especies sombrilla que en sitios sin especies sombrilla y para planes de conservación con especies de aves sombrilla que con especies de mamíferos. No hubo diferencia en la riqueza o abundancia de especies sombrilla generalistas o especialistas ni con base en la similitud taxonómica de las especies sombrilla y las co-ocurrentes. La abundancia de grupos taxonómicos fue mayor en planes con especies sombrilla de varios grupos taxonómicos que cuando las especies sombrilla eran del mismo taxón que las especies co-ocurrentes. Las especies co-ocurrentes tuvieron riqueza de especies similar, o mayor, cuando las especies sombrilla tenían tamaño corporal pequeño o grande. La única diferencia significativa entre especies sombrilla clasificadas por nivel trófico fue la mayor riqueza con especies de aves sombrilla omnívoras que con especies carnívoras. Nuestros resultados sugieren que hay méritos para el concepto de especies sombrilla para la conservación, pero no soportan el uso de los criterios que utilizamos para identificar especies sombrilla. Appendix S1 Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article." @default.
• W1536958512 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1536958512 creator A5072458760 @default.
• W1536958512 creator A5074814613 @default.
• W1536958512 date "2010-11-17" @default.
• W1536958512 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W1536958512 title "Assessing the Value of the Umbrella-Species Concept for Conservation Planning with Meta-Analysis" @default.
• W1536958512 cites W1231295150 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W150449485 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W1515739540 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W1975703476 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W1987355020 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W1996603275 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2000549938 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2009044366 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2022420356 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2027433902 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2035213408 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2050344073 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2064610079 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2066409846 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2068247706 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2074232328 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2091752605 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2096032797 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2096295128 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2107261739 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2107540936 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2107551382 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2117345504 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2123410629 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2126243822 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2130720260 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2138692982 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2140680256 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2148001066 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2149991176 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2154741974 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2155899562 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2158516920 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2160205212 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2161648608 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W2169053337 @default.
• W1536958512 cites W4233767816 @default.
• W1536958512 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01606.x" @default.
• W1536958512 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21091767" @default.
• W1536958512 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W1536958512 type Work @default.
• W1536958512 sameAs 1536958512 @default.
• W1536958512 citedByCount "147" @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122012 @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122013 @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122014 @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122015 @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122016 @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122017 @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122018 @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122019 @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122020 @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122021 @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122022 @default.
• W1536958512 countsByYear W15369585122023 @default.
• W1536958512 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1536958512 hasAuthorship W1536958512A5072458760 @default.
• W1536958512 hasAuthorship W1536958512A5074814613 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConcept C126589399 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConcept C130217890 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConcept C179345059 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConcept C185933670 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConcept C189592816 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConcept C45371612 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConcept C53565203 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConcept C71640776 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConcept C77077793 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConceptScore W1536958512C126589399 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConceptScore W1536958512C130217890 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConceptScore W1536958512C179345059 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConceptScore W1536958512C185933670 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConceptScore W1536958512C18903297 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConceptScore W1536958512C189592816 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConceptScore W1536958512C45371612 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConceptScore W1536958512C53565203 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConceptScore W1536958512C71640776 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConceptScore W1536958512C77077793 @default.
• W1536958512 hasConceptScore W1536958512C86803240 @default.
• W1536958512 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1536958512 hasLocation W15369585121 @default.
• W1536958512 hasLocation W15369585122 @default.
• W1536958512 hasOpenAccess W1536958512 @default.
• W1536958512 hasPrimaryLocation W15369585121 @default.
• W1536958512 hasRelatedWork W1580469571 @default.
• W1536958512 hasRelatedWork W1977523644 @default.
• W1536958512 hasRelatedWork W2002209785 @default.
• W1536958512 hasRelatedWork W2367590562 @default.
• W1536958512 hasRelatedWork W2584350029 @default.
• W1536958512 hasRelatedWork W2809295295 @default.

• next