See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257852541

The importance of species diversity and its components as criteria for selecting
nature conservation areas

Article in Russian Journal of Marine Biology · December 2012

DOI: 10.1134/S106307401107008X

CITATIONS READS

6 4,163

1 author:

I. V. Volvenko
Pacific Branch of Russian Federal “Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography” (TINRO)
309 PUBLICATIONS 827 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Species diversity, its components, and other integral characteristics of the Pacific and Arctic oceans fauna View project

The multidimensional space of the integral characteristics of biocenotic systems, its goal functions and extremal principles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by I. V. Volvenko on 28 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 10630740, Russian Journal of Marine Biology, 2011, Vol. 37, No. 7, pp. 604–607. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2011.
Original Russian Text © I.V. Volvenko, 2011, published in Izvestiya TINRO.

The Importance of Species Diversity and Its Components as Criteria

for Selecting Nature Conservation Areas
I. V. Volvenko
Pacific Research Fisheries Center (TINRO Center), per. Shevchenko 4, Vladivostok, 690091 Russia
email: [email protected]
Received June 15, 2011

Abstract—The failure of one of the traditional approaches for selecting sites where economic activities
should be restricted is shown based on a simple example. Species richness cannot serve as a criterion for the
creation of protected areas and species diversity is poorly suited for this as well. The other component of
biodiversity, species evenness, is more informative: the lower its value is, the more scarce species are prone to
extinction due to anthropogenic impact. It is necessary to support the existence of substantial parts of habitats
of endemic, rare, and endangered species in areas with low species evenness, where dominant species are
actively harvested. The restriction of economic activities in those areas is more effective for the conservation
of the global species richness than simply protecting the diversity hotspots.

Keywords: nature conservation, foundation of protected areas, biodiversity, species richness, species even
ness.
DOI: 10.1134/S106307401107008X

INTRODUCTION the environmental doctrine of the Russian Federation,

which was ratified by the RF Government in 2002,
The epoch of scientific and technological revolu determines “conservation and restoration of land
tion was followed by “the mass destruction of the layer scape and biological diversity” as one of the main tasks
of life on Earth, which has become the most intensive in Russia’s ecological policy [9].
in the entire history of mankind” [9, p. 974]. The rate
of species extinction is estimated [14, 30, 42, 43] to As a result, among all possible criteria by which a
have grown by several orders of magnitude, as com an area should be defined as protected, species diver
pared to that in prehistoric times. The living layer is sity has been used most frequently [15, 18, 28, 29, 33,
being simplified, its area reduced, and species richness 39, 47 and others]; the larger diversity is, the more it
and diversity are declining [1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 16, 52, and needs to be protected. At the same time, in the envi
many others]. Hence, one of the most urgent issues in ronment protection sphere, diversity is usually
our time is restoring the destroyed parts of the bio equated with species richness [8]. Substitution of con
sphere [41, 46]. However, at all times, preventing this
destruction was considered to be much wiser [47]. cepts like these has often led to misunderstanding and
This means the foundation of sites at which economic mistakes [10, 23]. When the community structure is
activities and tourism are restricted to some extent, characterized only with the number of species, while
sometimes up to complete prohibition, or the creation interactions between them are not taken into account,
of sanctuaries. information about the rareness of some species and
commonness of others, i.e., about the complexity of
One of typical definitions for protected areas was the organization of a community structure, can be lost
proposed in the resolution of the 19th session of the [2, 3, 5].
1
General Assembly of IUCN , that was held in Buenos Indeed, species richness, a term proposed by
Aires, January 1994: “A protected (terrestrial and McIntosh [31], which means the length of the species
marine) area is an area of land and/or sea that is espe
cially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of list or the total number of species that occur on a cer
biological diversity and of natural and associated cul tain territory or water body, is only one of the two
tural resources and managed through legal or other equivalent components of environmental diversity.
effective means” [7]. Thus, a priority of nature protec The other one is a characteristic that is named the
tion is the conservation of biodiversity. In particular, equitability of abundance, evenness of species by
abundance, or heterogeneity. The more species a com
1 International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
munity includes and the more they are even in abun

604
 THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ITS COMPONENTS 605

N = 100 N = 100
S=5 S=5
J = 1.0 J = 0.1
H' = 2.3 H' = 0.3

Fig. 1. A chart of two biocenotic assemblages, in which individuals are represented as uniform figures with shapes that correspond
to certain species. Each of the groups includes 100 individuals in five species, N = 100 and S = 5, which means they are equivalent
in abundance and species richness. The obvious differences between these assemblages are described quantitatively with the indi
ces of evenness and diversity, for example, with J and H'. See the explanation in the text.

dance, the higher the diversity of the community is [5, Now we note what would remain in boxes after the
2 removal of figures without putting them back. Assume
8, 10–13, 23–27, 34, 36, 37, 45, 48, and others] . that the first sample was absolutely randomly (or
An illustrative example of two systems that are intentionally) taken from the right lower corner and
equal in all the parameters except for evenness and, the second one is taken from the middle of the box
accordingly, differ in diversity, is given in Fig. 1. There, (Fig. 2). As a result, the number in each group was
individual animals and/or plants are depicted as geo reduced by 10%. Thus, the species richness and diver
sity in the left box did not change, while only one spe
metric figures of various shapes, which designate spe
cies remained in the right box, where the diversity H'
cies. Each group contains 100 individuals, N = 100, in and evenness J are now equal to zero.
five species, S = 5 (balls, pyramids, cubes, stars, and
crosses), which means they are equal in abundance In such a way, the answer to the question which of
and species richness. Obvious differences between the two assemblages with equal numbers of individuals
these groups are described with indices of evenness and species richness values should be protected, i.e.,
and diversity, for example, J (Pielou’s index [38]) and those with higher or lower species diversity, becomes
H' (Shannon’s index [44]) values, which are shown in almost obvious. This abstract example illustrates four
certain and practically significant statements.
Fig. 1. The evenness of distribution of individuals over
species J in the left part is ten times higher than that on (1) Species richness and diversity characterize sub
the right side; consequently, the leftside diversity H' is stantially different properties of biocenotic assem
much higher as well. blages.
(2) Exploitation of assemblages with the same spe
The physical (or biological) meaning of diversity is cies richness may bring absolutely different results,
easier to comprehend if you put these figures into two which depend on their species evenness.
boxes and then take a handful of them at random
3 (3) After the removal of individuals, if other condi
(blindly), say, five figures out of each box . Despite the tions are equal, assemblages with larger species diver
fact that the content of both boxes is characterized by sity may lose less diversity.
an equal abundance and species richness, the figures (4) Assemblages with low species evenness are quite
in the samples from the left box will be always different suitable for obtaining large amounts of a single type of
and those from the right box are almost only balls (Fig. biological material, which can be very profitable from
1). the economic or technological point of view. However
2 It
their uncontrolled use can result in the loss of species
is fundamentally important here that a positive correlation of richness and diversity.
diversity with the species richness is not necessary, biologically
or mathematically. Their values depend on different factors, so The above statements must be taken into consider
they should be studied separately [22, 23, 32, 40, 51]. ation when answering the question in [21]: what do we
3 This looks like a lottery, but in this case mixing the figures it is
protect and for what purpose? If the purpose is to pre
not necessary, as vitally important resources are distributed
unevenly in space, and an organism’s demands of the environ vent the extinction of species on Earth, then the tradi
ment are species specific. As a result, the spatial distribution of tional approach to selecting the protected territories
species is heterogeneous. should be corrected.

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF MARINE BIOLOGY Vol. 37 No. 7 2011

606 VOLVENKO

N = 90 N = 90
S=5 S=1
J = 1.0 J=0
H' = 2.3 H' = 0

Fig. 2. The probable result of sampling in both groups shown in Fig. 1, from which five individuals were removed two times. The
abundance of each assemblages was reduced by 10%, but the species richness and diversity in the left group didn’t change, while
only one species remained in the right one.

Species richness cannot serve as a criterion for the 3. Bigon, M., Harper, J., and Townsend, C., Ecology.
4 Individuals, Populations and Communities, Oxford,
creation of protected areas . Diversity is of little use for USA: Blackwell Sci. Publ., 1986, vol. 2. Translated
this as well. The second component of diversity, the under the title Ekologiya. Osobi, populyatsii i soob
evenness of the distribution of individuals over species schestva, Moscow: Mir, 1989, vol. 2.
(species evenness), is more informative. The lower its 4. Vallizer, O.Kh., Anthropogenic Catastrophes: Inevita
value and the stronger the quantitative prevalence of a ble Consequences of the Evolution and Cultural Devel
small number of mass species over all others is pro opment of Mankind? Vestn. RAN, 2002, vol. 72, no. 10,
nounced, the more these other scarce species are pp. 912–919.
prone to extinction due to anthropogenic impact. In 5. Gilyarov, A.M., The Theory of Information in Ecology,
areas with low species evenness, in which dominant Uspekhi sovrem. biol., 1967, vol. 64, iss. 1(4), pp. 107–
species are often harvested intensively, it is necessary 115.
to support the existence of substantial parts of the hab 6. Kasyanov, V.L., Marine Biological Diversity: Study,
itats of endemic, rare, and endangered species, which Protection, Value for the Mankind, Vestn. RAN, 2002,
are the grounds for their reproduction, feeding, win vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 495–504.
5 7. Kulizhskii, S.P., The Effective Way of Use of Protected
tering, etc. . Restriction of economic activities on sites Nature Territories, Vestn. Tomsk. Gos. Univ. Biol., 2008,
like these is more effective for the conservation of the no. 1(2), pp. 42–56.
global species richness, than protecting socalled 8. Magurran, A.E., Ecological Diversity and Its Measure
“diversity hotspots,” or just “hotspots.” Furthermore, ment, Sydney: Croom Helm, 1983. Translated under
the study of natural hotspots of higher diversity or spe the title Ekologicheskoe raznoobrazie i yego izmerenie,
cies richness has shown their weak congruence for var Moscow: Mir, 1992.
ious taxonomic groups and the noncongruence with 9. Pavlov, D.S. and Bukvareva, E.N., Biodiversity and
spots of higher endemism and the occurrence of rare Maintenance of Life of the Mankind, Vestn. RAN,
and endangered species [17, 20, 35, 39]. 2007, vol. 77, no. 11, pp. 974–986.
10. Pesenko, Yu.A., The Concept of Species Diversity and
the Indices to Measure It, Zh. Obshch. Biol., 1978,
REFERENCES vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 380–393.
11. Pesenko, Yu.A., Printsipy i metody kolichestvennogo
1. Adrianov, A.V., Current Problems in Marine Biodiver analiza v faunisticheskikh issledovaniyakh (Principles
sity Studies, Russ. J. Mar. Biol., 2004, vol. 30, Suppl. 1, and Methods for Quantitative Analysis in Faunistic
pp. 3–19. Studies), Moscow: Nauka, 1982.
2. Alimov, A.F., The Role of Biological Diversity in Eco 12. Baczkowski, A.J., Joanes, D.N., and Shamia, G.M.,
systems, Vestn. RAN, 2006, vol. 76, no. 11, pp. 989– Properties of Generalized Diversity Index, J. Theor.
994. Biol., 1997, vol. 188, pp. 207–213.
4 For
13. Baczkowski, A.J., Joanes, D.N., and Shamia, G.M.,
other, unmentioned disadvantages of using the species rich The Distribution of a Generalized Diversity Index due
ness as a criterion for selecting protected areas see Fleishman to Good, Environmental and Ecological Statistic, 2000,
et al. [19].
5 Certainly, the accidental occurrence of some individuals on the vol. 7, pp. 329–342.
edge of their species areals, which is quite a frequent phenome 14. Barbault, R., Loss of Biodiversity, Overview, Encyclope
non, should not be taken in account, as the presence or absence dia of Biodiversity, N.Y.: Acad. Press, 2001, vol. 3,
of such species has no importance there. pp. 761–775.

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF MARINE BIOLOGY Vol. 37 No. 7 2011

 THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ITS COMPONENTS 607

15. Bibby, C.J., Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J., et al., Putting 33. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G.,
Biodiversity on the Map: Priority Areas for Global Con et al., Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priori
servation, Cambridge: International Council for Bird ties, Nature, 2000, vol. 403, no. 6772, pp. 853–858.
Preservation, 1992. 34. Orloci, L., Anand, M., and Pillar, V.D., Biodiversity
16. Biodiversity, E.O. Wilson, Ed., Washington: Nat. Acad. Analysis: Issues, Concepts, Techniques, Community
Press, 1988. Ecology, 2002, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 217–236.
17. Curnutt, J., Lockwood, J., Luh, H.K., et al., Hotspots 35. Orme, C.D.L., Davies, R.G., Burgess, M., et al., Glo
and Species Diversity, Nature, 1994, vol. 367, pp. 326– bal Hotspots of Species Richness are not Congruent
327. with Endemism or Threat, Nature, 2005, vol. 436,
pp. 1016–1019.
18. Darwall, W.R.T. and Vie, J.C., Identifying Important
Sites for Conservation of Freshwater Biodiversity: 36. Pielou, E.C., An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology,
Extending the SpeciesBased Approach, Fisheries N.Y., L.: Wiley, 1969.
Management and Ecology, 2005, vol. 12, pp. 287–293. 37. Pielou, E.C., Ecological diversity, N.Y., L., Sydney,
Toronto: Wiley Interscience Publ., 1975.
19. Fleishman, E., Noss, R.F., and Noon, B.R., Utility and
Limitations of Species Richness Metrics for Conserva 38. Pielou, E.C., The Measurement of Diversity in Differ
tion Planning, Ecological Indicators, 2006, vol. 6, no. 3, ent Types of Biological Collections, J. Theor. Biol.,
pp. 543–553. 1966, vol. 13, pp. 131–144.
39. Prendergast, J.R., Quinn, R.M., Lawton, J.H., et al.,
20. Gaston, K.J. and Williams, P.H., Spatial Patterns in
Rare Species, the Coincidence of Diversity Hotspots
Species Diversity, Biodiversity: a Biology of Numbers and
and Conservation Strategies, Nature, 1993, vol. 365,
Difference, Oxford: Blackwell, 1996, pp. 202–229.
pp. 335–337.
21. Haila, Y. and Kouki, J., The Phenomenon of Biodiver 40. Rainey, P.B. and Travisano, M., Adaptive Radiation in
sity in Conservation Biology, Ann. Zool. Fenn., 1994, a Heterogeneous Environment, Nature, 1998, vol. 394,
vol. 31, pp. 5–18. pp. 69–72.
22. Hairston, N.G., Allan, J.D., Colwell, R.K., et al., The 41. Restoration Ecology: a Synthetic Approach to Ecological
Relationship Between Species Diversity and Stability: Research, Jordan, W.R., Gilpin, M.E., and Abe, J.D.,
an Experimental Approach with Protozoa and Bacte Eds., Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996.
ria, Ecology, 1968, vol. 49, pp. 1091–1101. 42. Sepkoski, J.J., Biodiversity: Past, Present, and Future,
23. Hurlbert, S.H., The Nonconcept of Species Diversity: J. Paleontol., 1997, vol. 71, pp. 533–539.
a Critique and Alternative Parameters, Ecology, 1971, 43. Sepkoski, J.J., Mass Extinctions, Concept of, Encyclo
vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 577–586. pedia of Biodiversity, N.Y.: Acad. Press, 2001, vol. 4,
24. Laxton, R.R., The Measure of Diversity, J. Theor. Biol., pp. 97–110.
1978, vol. 70, pp. 51–67. 44. Shannon, C.E., A Mathematical Theory of Communi
25. MacArthur, R.H., On the Relative Abundance of Bird cation, Bell Syst. Technol. J., 1948, vol. 27, pp. 379–
Species, Proc. Nat. U.S. Acad. Sci., 1957, vol. 43, no. 3, 423, 623–656.
pp. 293–295. 45. Simpson, E.H., Measurement of Diversity, Nature,
26. MacArthur, R.H., On the Relative Abundance of Spe 1949, vol. 163, no. 4148, p. 688.
cies, Amer. Natur., 1960, vol. 94, no. 874, pp. 25–36. 46. Society for Ecological Restoration International Science
and Policy Working Group. The SER International
27. Margalef, R., Information Theory in Ecology, Gen.
Primer on Ecological Restoration, Tucson: Society for
Syst., 1958, vol. 3, pp. 36–71.
Ecological Restoration International, 2004,
28. Margules, C.R., Conservation evaluation in practice, http://www.ser.org.
Wildlife Conservation Evaluation, L.: Chapman and 47. Usher, M.B., Wildlife Conservation Evaluation:
Hill, 1986, pp. 297–314. Attributes, Criteria and Values, Wildlife Conservation
29. Margules, C.R. and Usher, M.B., Criteria Used in Evaluation, L.: Chapman and Hill, 1986, pp. 3–44.
Assessing Wildlife Conservation Potential: a Review, 48. Whittaker, R.H., Communities and Ecosystems, N.Y.,
Environmental Conservation, 1981, vol. 21, no. 2, L.: Macmillan, 1970.
pp. 79–109. 49. Whittaker, R.H., Evolution and Measurement of Spe
30. May, R.M., Lawton, J.H., and Stork, N.E., Assessing cies Diversity, Taxon, 1972, vol. 21, nos. 2–3, pp. 213–
Extinction Rates, Extinction Rates, Oxford: Oxford 251.
Univ. Press, 1995, pp. 1–24. 50. Whittaker, R.H., Evolution of Diversity in Plant Com
31. McIntosh, R.P., An Index of Diversity and the Rela munities, Brookhaven Symposium on Biology, 1969,
tions of Certain Concepts to Diversity, Ecology, 1967, vol. 22, pp. 178–196.
vol. 48, pp. 392–404. 51. Wilsey, B.J. and Potvin, C., Biodiversity and Ecosystem
32. McNaughton, S.J., Diversity and Stability of Ecologi Functioning: the Importance of Species Evenness and
cal Communities: a Comment on the Role of Empiri Identity in a Quebec Old Field, Ecology, 2000, vol. 81,
cism in Ecology, Am. Natur., 1977, vol. 111, pp. 515– pp. 887–893.
525. 52. Wilson, E.O., The Diversity of Life, L.: Penguin, 1992.

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF MARINE BIOLOGY Vol. 37 No. 7 2011

View publication stats