Umbrella types | Protect more than tigers and rhinos

The fishing cats, which are considered endangered, also live on the outskirts of villages in Nepal. Photo: IMAGO/Shotshop When Rama Mishra from the University of Antwerp evaluated the first GPS transmitter data from the young fishing cat Gulabi, an unexpected pattern emerged. Gulabi's whereabouts were actually supposed to be concentrated in the Koshi-Tappu nature reserve in southeastern Nepal. But she primarily used the surroundings of the village of Kusaha. “Gulabi lived almost entirely between rice and sugar cane fields and on the edge of the village,” says biologist Mishra. During the day, the fishing cat often hid just a few meters from farms.

For many nature conservation programs in Nepal, however, tigers are the crucial reference point. A common assumption is that smaller species in the same region automatically benefit from their protected areas. But the risks shift with proximity to people: Mishra cites reprisal killings at fish ponds, makeshift electric fences, traffic accidents and attacks by guard dogs as common threats. »Tiger-oriented protected areas can also contribute to the conservation of other species to a certain extent; However, they do not guarantee the complete protection of species with their own ecological requirements, such as the fishing cat,” she emphasizes.

The idea of ​​protecting a species and taking entire communities with it is known in technical jargon as the umbrella species principle. Protected areas and management plans are geared towards a species with large space requirements or specific habitat requirements, in the hope that lesser-known species in the same area will automatically be protected. Flagship species, on the other hand, primarily mobilize attention and funding.

Such priorities also affect funding. According to calculations by biologist Jim Sanderson from the Small Wild Cat Conservation Foundation, a good 97 percent of all funding in big cat conservation goes to programs for the “big seven”: tigers, lions, leopards, jaguars, cheetahs, snow leopards and pumas. The more than 30 remaining big cat species have to share the remaining three percent.

Existing studies show some positive and some clearly limited umbrella effects. One study comes from the Leuser ecosystem on the Indonesian island of Sumatra. Just like in Nepal, the tiger is at the center of conservation planning here, as is the rhinoceros. Between 2016 and 2018, the biologist Ardiantiono and his colleagues used camera traps distributed over large areas to check which species indicate those forest sections in which the remaining mammal community is particularly diverse.

»Flagship species (...) are not automatically good umbrella species.«

“Species become effective umbrella species when their habitat requirements and distribution closely match the broader community,” says Ardiantiono. Sumatran tigers and Sumatran rhinos often use rugged mountainous regions in Leuser. Most other mammals, on the other hand, are concentrated in the more productive lowland forests - where large-scale deforestation is particularly widespread. Two lesser-known species proved to be significantly better indicators of species-rich forests: sambar deer and Sunda clouded leopard.

The question is not whether large protected areas are fundamentally effective, but rather whether an area selection geared towards tigers or rhinos reliably captures the most species-rich forest sections. The comparison argues for a data-based selection of multiple species that better represent different parts of the mammal community.

Such comparisons only work if it is clear which standards are used to test potential umbrella types. The New Zealand zoologist Philip Seddon complains that in practice there is often a lack of clear criteria. He summarizes 17 criteria in an overview. Among other things, the species should use large areas of activity, be well researched and easy to record, and live in the same areas as the species that are intended to benefit from their protection. »You should actually know a lot about the umbrella type and the species that occur with it. “It’s a significant amount of research and doesn’t seem like a shortcut,” he explains.

Why then does the principle persist so stubbornly? The British evolutionary ecologist Tim Caro also sees the reason in the political and financial logic of nature conservation. "It's a clear way to gain political will and funding," he says. Flagship species are always treated like umbrella species. »Flagship species, especially if they were selected because of their rarity or their narrow distribution area, are not automatically good umbrella species.«

Wildlife ecologist Tatiane Micheletti shows how difficult it is to quantify the benefits using the example of woodland caribou in Canada's boreal forests. On rough maps, the animal looks like an ideal umbrella: its range overlaps with a large part of the northern bird and mammal world. But what is particularly relevant are those areas that would actually have priority in caribou-focused protection. Micheletti and her colleagues therefore examined whether protecting high-quality caribou habitats would also help many bird species. For most birds studied, these areas in the model were no better than other randomly selected areas of the same size.

In narrowly defined habitats, the umbrella species principle can certainly be effective - namely where several species actually depend on the same structures and protective measures maintain precisely these conditions. The value of a protection concept is often determined by whether it reduces risks where animals actually live. For Caro, it is also a question of the people who use such landscapes. “Your involvement is absolutely crucial,” he emphasizes.

What this can look like was shown in Kusaha in Nepal, where two fishermen discovered Gulabi trapped in an irrigation pipe and immediately informed Rama Mishra. Mishra also attributes the fact that they did not kill the fishing cat or abandon it to its own devices, but rather got help, to their educational work in the community.

This article cost you nothing. Us: research, production and technology. We saved on office rent as well as printing and distribution. And we gave up salary. Nevertheless, the calculation doesn't work without you. We need 300,000 euros by the end of the year. You pay what you can, in return we keep writing.

No paywall, no small print, just one goal: that nd stays.