Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Selecting flagships for invertebrate conservation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Invertebrates have a low public profile and are seriously underrepresented in global conservation efforts. The promotion of flagship species is one way to generate interest in invertebrate conservation. Butterflies are frequently labeled invertebrate flagships, but clear definitions of the conservation actions they are meant to catalyze, and empirical assessments of their popularity amongst non-Western audiences are lacking. To improve the use of invertebrate flagships, we examine how butterflies compare with other taxa in terms of popularity. We then identify characteristics of individual species that are appealing and explore whether these may be used to derive a set of guidelines for selecting invertebrate flagships. We conducted questionnaire-based surveys amongst two target audiences: rural residents (n = 255) and tourists (n = 105) in northeast India. Invertebrates that were aesthetically appealing, or those that provided material benefits or ecological services were liked. Butterflies were the most popular group for both audiences, followed by dragonflies, honeybees and earthworms. A combination of large size and bright colours led to high popularity of individual species, whilst butterflies with unique features were liked by tourists but not rural residents. These results provide empirical evidence that butterflies appeal to diverse audiences and have the potential to be deployed as flagships in different contexts. However, prior to promoting invertebrate flagships, their intended uses need to be specified. Here we define an invertebrate flagship as an invertebrate species or group that resonates with a target audience and stimulates awareness, funding, research and policy support for the conservation of invertebrate diversity. In conclusion we outline a set of heuristic guidelines for selecting flagships to raise awareness of invertebrate diversity and conservation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We are grateful to Diogo Veríssimo for this observation.

References

  • Barua M (2011) Mobilizing metaphors: the popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts. Biodivers Conserv 20:1427–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barua M, Tamuly J, Ahmed RA (2010) Mutiny or clear sailing? Examining the role of the Asian elephant as a flagship species. Human Dimens Wildl 15(2):145–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barua M, Root-Bernstein M, Ladle RJ, Jepson P (2011) Defining flagship uses is critical for flagship selection: a critique of the IUCN climate change flagship fleet. Ambio 40(4):431–435. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0116-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berenbaum M (2008) Insect conservation and the entomological society of America. Am Entomol 54(2):117–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen-Jones E, Entwistle A (2002) Identifying appropriate flagship species: the importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36(2):189–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne-Nuñez C, Jonker SA (2008) Attitudes toward wildlife and conservation across Africa: a review of survey research. Human Dimens Wildl 13:47–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso P, Erwin TL, Borges PAV, New TR (2011) The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol Conserv 144:2647–2655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caro TM (2010) Conservation by Proxy. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark JA, May RM (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297(5579):191–192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clucas B, McHugh K, Caro T (2008) Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodivers Conserv 17:1517–1528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa-Neto EM, Magalhães HF (2007) The ethnocategory “insect” in the conception of the inhabitants of Tapera County, São Gonçalo dos Campos, Bahia, Brazil. Ann Brazil Acad Sci 79(2):239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davey GCL, McDonald AS, Hirisave U, Prabhu GG, Iwawaki S, Jim CI, Merckelbach H, de Jong PJ, Leung PWL, Reimann BC (1998) A cross-cultural study of animal fears. Behav Res Ther 36(7–8):735–750

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Leon JP, Cohen JH (2005) Object and walking probes in ethnographic interviewing. Field Methods 17(2):200–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFoliart GR (1999) Insects as food: why the western attitude is important. Annu Rev Entomol 44:21–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evans WH (1932) The identification of Indian butterflies, Revised 2nd edn. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai

  • Guiney MS, Oberhauser KS (2008) Insects as flagship conservation species. Terr Arthropod Rev 1:111–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heywood VH (1995) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Home R, Keller C, Nagel P, Bauer N, Hunziker M (2009) Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations, vol 36. Cambridge Journals Online. First published. doi:10.1017/S0376892909990051

  • Jin X-B, Yen AL (1998) Conservation and the cricket culture in China. J Insect Conserv 2:211–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi RC, Matchoc ORO, Bahatan RG, Dela Peña FA (2000) Farmer’s knowledge, attitudes and practices of rice crop and pest management at Ifugao Rice Terraces, Philippines. Int J Pest Manag 46(1):43–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SR (1993) Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conserv Biol 7(4):845–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King MF, Bruner GC (2000) Social desirability bias: a neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychol Mark 17(2):79–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemelin RH (2007) Finding beauty in the dragon: the role of dragonflies in recreation and tourism. J Ecotour 6(2):139–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis OT, Basset Y (2007) Insect conservation in tropical forests. In: Stewart AJA, New TR, Lewis OT (eds) Insect conservation biology. The Royal Entomological Society and CABI, Wallingford, pp 34–56

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis O, Senior M (2011) Assessing conservation status and trends for the world’s butterflies: the Sampled Red List Index approach. J Insect Conserv 15(1):121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorimer J (2007) Non-human charisma. Environ Plan D Soc Space 25(5):911–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New TR (1997) Are Lepidoptera an effective ‘umbrella group’ for biodiversity conservation? J Insect Conserv 1:5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New TR (1999) Untangling the web: spiders and the challenges of invertebrate conservation. J Insect Conserv 3:251–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New TR (2009) Insect species conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • New TR (2011) Launching and steering flagship Lepidoptera for conservation benefit. J Threat Taxa 3(6):1805–1817

    Google Scholar 

  • New TR, Pyle RM, Thomas JA, Thomas CD, Hammond PC (1995) Butterfly conservation management. Annu Rev Entomol 40:57–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons MJ (1992) The world’s largest butterfly endangered; the ecology, status and conservation of Ornithoptera alexandrae (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Trop Lepidoptera 3(1):33–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Pe’er G, Settele J (2008) Butterflies in and for conservation: trends and prospects. Israel J Ecol Evol 54(1):7–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan GW, Bernard HR (2003) Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods 15(1):85–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ (1994) Insect conservation biology. Chapman & Hall, London (First published)

    Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ (2007a) Insect conservation: a synthetic management approach. Annu Rev Entomol 25:465–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ (2007b) Rescuing the extinction of experience. Biodivers Conserv 16:1995–1997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sands DPA, Scott SE, Moffat R (1997) The threatened Richmond birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia (Gray)): a community conservation project. Mem Mus Vic 56:449–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlegel J, Rupf R (2010) Attitudes towards potential animal flagship species in nature conservation: a survey among students of different educational institutions. J Nat Conserv 18:278–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steencamp C, Stein R (1999) The Brenton Blue Saga. A case study of South African biodiversity conservation. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Parkview

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hook T (1997) Insect coloration and implications for conservation. Fla Entomol 80(2):193–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veríssimo D, Fraser I, Groombridge J, Bristol R, MacMillan DC (2009) Birds as tourism flagship species: a case study of tropical islands. Anim Conserv 12:549–558. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00292.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veríssimo D, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ (2011) Toward a systematic approach for identifying conservation flagships. Conserv Lett 4:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veríssimo D, Barua M, Jepson P, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ (2012) Selecting marine invertebrate flagship species: widening the net. Biol Conserv 145(1):4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren MS, Bourn N, Brereton T, Fox R, Middlebrook I, Parsons MS (2007) Insect conservation in tropical forests. In: Stewart AJA, New TR, Lewis OT (eds) Insect conservation biology. The Royal Entomological Society and CABI, Wallingford, pp 76–91

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1987) The little things that run the world. Conserv Biol 1:344–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1992) The diversity of life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We extend our gratitude to the Flagship Species Fund Small Grants Programme of Flora and Fauna International and the Sigma Xi Grants-in-Aid of Research (GIAR) program which provided funding for this project. We would like to thank all members of Butterfly Northeast who were instrumental in project preparation, planning, and implementation, including: Bipul Das, Santanu Dey, Sanjay Talukdar, and Rajib Rudra Tariang. Meredith Root-Bernstein and Dr Owen Lewis commented on earlier drafts of this paper. Nekib Ali, Polash Bora, Phalgun Chetia, Diganta Gogoi, Tarun Gogoi, Biju Hazarika, and Pradip Saikia extended invaluable assistance during fieldwork, and the staff and management of Wild Grass, Kaziranga hosted our team. MB’s work was enabled by the University of Oxford Clarendon Fund, Felix and Wingate Scholarships. Finally, we are grateful to all the individuals who took the time to speak with us and answer our questionnaires.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Geography and the Environment, Dysons Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK

    Maan Barua

  2. Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Illick Hall, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA

    Daniel J. Gurdak

  3. Panbari, 785609, Golaghat, Assam, India

    Riyaz Akhtar Ahmed

  4. Wild Grass, Kaziranga, Dist. Golaghat, 785609, Kaziranga, Assam, India

    Jatin Tamuly

Authors
  1. Maan Barua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel J. Gurdak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Riyaz Akhtar Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jatin Tamuly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel J. Gurdak.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 88 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barua, M., Gurdak, D.J., Ahmed, R.A. et al. Selecting flagships for invertebrate conservation. Biodivers Conserv 21, 1457–1476 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0257-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0257-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation