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...
Published in: | South African Journal of Science |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
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 |