PHOTOS: GETTY X2, ZIGMUND LESZCZYNSKI / NATIONAL GEOGRAPHICshare the same habitat, but that no one really
cares enough about.
Conservationists use this argument quite a lot,
so how does the ‘umbrella species’ claim stack
up? Pretty well, at least in theory. A 2015 study
by Prof Stuart Pimm and Binbin Li from Duke
University highlighted that protecting the giant
panda’s habitat enhances the survival prospects
of many other species, including 70 per cent of
forest birds, 70 per cent of mammals and 31 per
cent of amphibians found nowhere else on Earth.
But, while the umbrella analogy is laudable
on paper, some conservationists have mixed
feelings about it. “Habitat protection is pretty
vital,” argues Anne Hilborn, a carnivore biologist
from Virginia Tech, “but many species face lots of
other threats – overexploitation, pollution, climate
change, disease – that preserving habitat alone
will not protect against.”“What’s so bad about cashing in on
a beautiful bear if, by saving it,
we may save thousands
of other species?”
Habitats are more complex than we like
to imagine, and they may not always remain
unchanged once protected. Dr Sarah Henshall
of Buglife, an NGO that focuses on the
conservation of invertebrates, sees potential
in using charismatic megafauna such as pandas
to secure wider species protection but also
urges caution.
“Improving the quantity, quality and
connectivity of habitat will certainly benefit
invertebrates,” she explains. “However, the devil
is in the detail. The rare stuff is rare for a reason- species may need very specific conditions
and microhabitats to prosper, so a broad-brush
habitat approach to saving species will not
always work.”
In other words, umbrella species do have their
uses, but lesser species are bound to get wet in
the face of relentless, driving rain made worse by
ABOVE: The geometric tortoise and the Kurdistan newt don’t receive much funding, despite being critically endangeredConservation
Science
80