Abstract
Conservation biology has provided wildlife managers with a wealth of concepts and tools for use in conservation planning; among them is the surrogate species concept. Over the past 20 years, a growing body of empirical literature has demonstrated the limited effectiveness of surrogates as management tools, unless it is first established that the target species and surrogate will respond similarly to a given set of environmental conditions. Wildlife managers and policy makers have adopted the surrogate species concept, reflecting the limited information available on most species at risk of extirpation or extinction and constraints on resources available to support conservation efforts. We examined the use of surrogate species, in the form of cross‐taxon response‐indicator species (that is, one species from which data are used to guide management planning for another, distinct species) in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, California (U.S.A.). In that system there has been increasing reliance on surrogates in conservation planning for species listed under federal or state endangered species acts, although the agencies applying the surrogate species concept did not first validate that the surrogate and target species respond similarly to relevant environmental conditions. During the same period, conservation biologists demonstrated that the surrogate concept is generally unsupported by ecological theory and empirical evidence. Recently developed validation procedures may allow for the productive use of surrogates in conservation planning, but, used without validation, the surrogate species concept is not a reliable planning tool.