Umbrella Species

Earlier, I talked about how I consider it unproductive to protect single species instead of the entire ecosystems they inhabit. However, there may be a catch. Most of the creatures we think of when we think of endangered wildlife--the mega-mammals, large birds, and certain reptiles such as tortoises-- require very specific environments to survive. Any environmental preserve set aside for these creatures would, by default, also protect all other organisms living within it. For example, the Sundarban Tiger Reserve in India was created with the primary intent of protecting tigers. However, many other endangered species--some of which are even more threatened than tigers--also live in these reserves, and indirectly owe their continued existence to the efforts to preserve tigers.

This is why, rather than speaking of animals such as tigers as "charismatic megafauna", some ecologists prefer to call them "umbrella species." Like an umbrella, their presence provides a shield for all other species that occupy the same land they do. In my opinion it is acceptable to fund conservation efforts dedicated to these umbrella species, but only if the goal is to preserve them in the wild and thus maintain the ecosystem they live in. For there to be wild tigers, after all, there must first be Indian forests for them to live in, and the complete ecosystem that entails.