Frameworks for marine conservation — non‐hierarchical approaches and distinctive habitats
Authors:
- 19 June 2002
- journal article
- view point
- Published by Wiley in Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
- Vol. 12 (6) , 635-648
Abstract
Conservation efforts have traditionally been directed to ‘flagship’ species (whales, seals, migratory birds, etc.) that capture public attention. Often these flagship species occupy distinctive habitats. Distinctive habitats appear to be distinguished because of anomalous physical structures and unique oceanographic processes occurring within them, whereas representative habitats are not notable in this way. Distinctive habitats are found in areas of various physical anomalies described primarily by temperature, chlorophyll and topography. Several different kinds of distinctive habitats can be defined by their anomalous physical structures and oceanographic and biological processes. Species diversity may be either higher or lower in distinctive than in representative habitats. Distinctive habitats predominantly belong to a class of environments called ‘ergoclines’, and are typically associated with elevated resources at some ‘trophic level’. These elevated resources may be either the product of true production (i.e. they are generated (in situ), or they are the product of physical accumulation due to circulation mechanisms. These processes lie at the heart of the ecology of distinctive habitats, and are fundamental to maintenance of ecosystem health, ecological integrity, distributions, abundances and recruitment of species, patterns of animal migrations, and potential or actual fisheries yields. Conservation strategies need to examine the relationships between distinctive and representative habitats and species diversity. A strategy, leading from studies on flagship or other focal species, could have several advantages. It should rejuvenate the inherent appeal and significance of ‘species’ approaches to marine conservation, provide a rationale for human interest and a new foundation for examination of marine ecological interactions. It would also require a novel synthesis of relationships between ‘species’ and ‘spaces’ approaches to marine conservation by asking how we can take the best advantage of both approaches, rather than seeing them as in conflict. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 38 references indexed in Scilit:
- Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2000
- Nearshore abundance of zooplankton in relation to shoreline configuration and mechanisms involvedJournal of Plankton Research, 1998
- Role of marine mammals in aquatic ecosystemsMarine Ecology Progress Series, 1997
- Hexactinellid cave, a unique deep-sea habitat in the scuba zoneDeep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 1994
- Productivity of Zooxanthellae and Biogeochemical Cycles1992
- Deep-Sea Biology1991
- Pelagic-benthic energy coupling at the mouth of the Bay of FundyOphelia, 1986
- Biological Production at Marine Ergoclines1986
- A STUDY OF PLANKTON ECOLOGY IN CHESTERFIELD INLET, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES: AN ARCTIC ESTUARY1980
- Daytime surface swarming by Meganyctiphanes norvegica (M. Sars) (Crustacea, Euphausiacea) off Brier Island, Bay of FundyCanadian Journal of Zoology, 1979