Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa

Abstract Numerous authors have cited numbers, or proportions, of endemic species within South(ern) African marine taxa, but comparisons between these statistics are confounded by differing definitions of regional boundaries and differences among data sets analysed. These have resulted in considerabl...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:South African Journal of Science
Main Authors: Griffiths, Charles L, Robinson, Tamara B
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Faculty of Science 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/11427/34800
https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/11427/34800/1/GriffithsCharlesL_Useusefulnessme_2016.pdf
id ftunivcapetownir:oai:localhost:11427/34800
record_format openpolar
spelling ftunivcapetownir:oai:localhost:11427/34800 2023-05-15T13:32:17+02:00 Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa Griffiths, Charles L Robinson, Tamara B 2016 application/pdf http://hdl.handle.net/11427/34800 https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/11427/34800/1/GriffithsCharlesL_Useusefulnessme_2016.pdf eng eng Faculty of Science Marine Research (MA-RE) Institute http://hdl.handle.net/11427/34800 https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/11427/34800/1/GriffithsCharlesL_Useusefulnessme_2016.pdf South African Journal of Science https://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150249 Volume 112 Number 3/4 174 - 177 Endemic species range restriction biodiversity marine conservation taxonomy Journal Article 2016 ftunivcapetownir https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150249 2022-09-13T05:53:38Z Abstract Numerous authors have cited numbers, or proportions, of endemic species within South(ern) African marine taxa, but comparisons between these statistics are confounded by differing definitions of regional boundaries and differences among data sets analysed. These have resulted in considerable variations in published endemicity data, even within the same taxonomic group. We tabulated and compared key endemicity statistics for regional marine taxa and explained biases in the data sets. The most comprehensive data sets available give overall marine endemicity within the national boundaries of South Africa as 28–33%, but estimates within individual taxa making up these totals vary enormously, from 0% (Aves, Mammalia) to over 90% (Polyplacophora). We also examined published data documenting localised endemicity patterns around the coastline. These consistently show the highest numbers of endemics occurring along the South Coast. There are logical biogeographical reasons to expect this trend, but endemicity rates are also inherently biased by distance from defined political boundaries and by differing sampling effort locally and in neighbouring countries. Range restriction is considered a better measure of conservation status than endemicity, although it is far less often used and yields very different patterns. Properly and consistently calculated measures of national endemicity do, however, retain significant conservation value, and the rates for South Africa marine biota are high relative to other regions globally, being exceeded only by New Zealand and Antarctica. It is important that when citing endemicity statistics, researchers and conservation managers understand the definitions used and the many constraints under which these measures are derived. Article in Journal/Newspaper Antarc* Antarctica University of Cape Town: OpenUCT New Zealand South African Journal of Science Volume 112 Number 3/4
institution Open Polar
collection University of Cape Town: OpenUCT
op_collection_id ftunivcapetownir
language English
topic Endemic species
range restriction
biodiversity
marine conservation
taxonomy
spellingShingle Endemic species
range restriction
biodiversity
marine conservation
taxonomy
Griffiths, Charles L
Robinson, Tamara B
Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa
topic_facet Endemic species
range restriction
biodiversity
marine conservation
taxonomy
description Abstract Numerous authors have cited numbers, or proportions, of endemic species within South(ern) African marine taxa, but comparisons between these statistics are confounded by differing definitions of regional boundaries and differences among data sets analysed. These have resulted in considerable variations in published endemicity data, even within the same taxonomic group. We tabulated and compared key endemicity statistics for regional marine taxa and explained biases in the data sets. The most comprehensive data sets available give overall marine endemicity within the national boundaries of South Africa as 28–33%, but estimates within individual taxa making up these totals vary enormously, from 0% (Aves, Mammalia) to over 90% (Polyplacophora). We also examined published data documenting localised endemicity patterns around the coastline. These consistently show the highest numbers of endemics occurring along the South Coast. There are logical biogeographical reasons to expect this trend, but endemicity rates are also inherently biased by distance from defined political boundaries and by differing sampling effort locally and in neighbouring countries. Range restriction is considered a better measure of conservation status than endemicity, although it is far less often used and yields very different patterns. Properly and consistently calculated measures of national endemicity do, however, retain significant conservation value, and the rates for South Africa marine biota are high relative to other regions globally, being exceeded only by New Zealand and Antarctica. It is important that when citing endemicity statistics, researchers and conservation managers understand the definitions used and the many constraints under which these measures are derived.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Griffiths, Charles L
Robinson, Tamara B
author_facet Griffiths, Charles L
Robinson, Tamara B
author_sort Griffiths, Charles L
title Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa
title_short Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa
title_full Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa
title_fullStr Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa
title_full_unstemmed Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa
title_sort use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in south africa
publisher Faculty of Science
publishDate 2016
url http://hdl.handle.net/11427/34800
https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/11427/34800/1/GriffithsCharlesL_Useusefulnessme_2016.pdf
geographic New Zealand
geographic_facet New Zealand
genre Antarc*
Antarctica
genre_facet Antarc*
Antarctica
op_source South African Journal of Science
https://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150249
Volume 112
Number 3/4
174 - 177
op_relation http://hdl.handle.net/11427/34800
https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/11427/34800/1/GriffithsCharlesL_Useusefulnessme_2016.pdf
op_doi https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150249
container_title South African Journal of Science
container_volume Volume 112
container_issue Number 3/4
_version_ 1766025648986390528