Are bears really umbrella species? : The use of fine-filter and coarse-filter approaches for conservation

Abstract

I previously (Takatsuki, 2009) proposed the following question: Although bears are often regarded as umbrella species, is this actually true? So far, I have not been able to find scientific evidence in support of this, and I feel that conservation activities should be based on scientific approaches. Indeed, this opinion is in accordance with that of S. Boutin (2005) in his review of the ecological effects of carnivores in boreal forests of Nordic countries, in which he discussed several effects of bears on ungulates, hares, rodents, and vegetation through cascade effects. Boutin emphasized that a "fine-filter" conservation approach that focuses on particularly charismatic carnivores often overlooks ecological processes and that carnivore-oriented conservation requires large refuges. However, actual refuges are often too small for such large carnivore species, particularly in Europe. Such approaches that focus only on carnivores as umbrella species risk the loss of endangered species or organisms requiring particular ecological processes. For biodiversity conservation, a "coarse-filter" approach that focuses on ecological processes such as wild fires, logging, and succession is more important and effective. Given that the social conditions of Japan in terms of biological conservation are often more similar to those of Europe than of North America, a "coarse-filter" approach may be more appropriate for bear conservation in Japan.