Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorGriffiths, Charles L
dc.contributor.authorRobinson, Tamara B
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-08T07:16:14Z
dc.date.available2021-10-08T07:16:14Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.description.abstractAbstract 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.
dc.identifier.apacitationGriffiths, C. L., & Robinson, T. B. (2016). Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa. <i>South African Journal of Science</i>, Volume 112(Number 3/4), 174 - 177. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/34800en_ZA
dc.identifier.chicagocitationGriffiths, Charles L, and Tamara B Robinson "Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa." <i>South African Journal of Science</i> Volume 112, Number 3/4. (2016): 174 - 177. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/34800en_ZA
dc.identifier.citationGriffiths, C.L. & Robinson, T.B. 2016. Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa. <i>South African Journal of Science.</i> Volume 112(Number 3/4):174 - 177. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/34800en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn0038-2353
dc.identifier.issn1996-7489
dc.identifier.ris TY - Journal Article AU - Griffiths, Charles L AU - Robinson, Tamara B AB - 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. DA - 2016 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town IS - Number 3/4 J1 - South African Journal of Science LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PY - 2016 SM - 0038-2353 SM - 1996-7489 T1 - Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa TI - Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/34800 ER - en_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11427/34800
dc.identifier.vancouvercitationGriffiths CL, Robinson TB. Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa. South African Journal of Science. 2016;Volume 112(Number 3/4):174 - 177. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/34800.en_ZA
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisher.departmentMarine Research (MA-RE) Institute
dc.publisher.facultyFaculty of Science
dc.sourceSouth African Journal of Science
dc.source.journalissueNumber 3/4
dc.source.journalvolumeVolume 112
dc.source.pagination174 - 177
dc.source.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150249
dc.subject.otherEndemic species
dc.subject.otherrange restriction
dc.subject.otherbiodiversity
dc.subject.othermarine conservation
dc.subject.othertaxonomy
dc.titleUse and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa
dc.typeJournal Article
uct.type.publicationResearch
uct.type.resourceJournal Article
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
GriffithsCharlesL_Useusefulnessme_2016.pdf
Size:
182.48 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Journal Articles