Inconservation biology, aflagship species is a species chosen to raise support for biodiversity conservation in a given place or social context. Definitions have varied, but they have tended to focus on the strategic goals and thesocio-economic nature of the concept, to support themarketing of a conservation effort. The species need to be popular, to work as symbols or icons, and to stimulate people to provide money or support.

Species selected since the idea was developed in 1980s include widely recognised andcharismatic species like theblack rhinoceros, theBengal tiger, and theAsian elephant. Some species such as theChesapeake blue crab and thePemba flying fox, the former of which is locally significant to Northern America, have suited a cultural and social context. Although animal species that can be described as "charismatic megafauna" are frequently the flagship species for a protected ecosystem, large, dominant plant species sometimes serve this role as well, for example, several United Statesnational parks, includingRedwood National and State Parks,Joshua Tree National Park, andSaguaro National Park, are named for the flagship plant species for those protected areas. Butterfly species, such as themonarch butterfly, have also served as flagship species in some contexts.^[1]

Utilizing a flagship species has limitations. It can skew management and conservation priorities, which may conflict. Stakeholders may be negatively affected if the flagship species is lost. The use of a flagship may have limited effect, and the approach may not protect the species from extinction: all of the top ten charismatic groups of animal, including tigers, lions, elephants and giraffes, areendangered.

The term flagship is linked to themetaphor of representation. In its popular usage, flagships are viewed as ambassadors or icons for a conservation project or movement. The geographer Maan Barua noted that metaphors influence what people understand and how they act; that mammals are disproportionately chosen; and that biologists need to come to grips with language to improve the public's knowledge of conservation.^[2] Several definitions have been advanced for the flagship species concept and for some time there has been confusion even in the academic literature.^[3] Most of the latest definitions focus on the strategic, socio-economic, and marketing character of the concept.^[3][4] Some definitions are:

• "a species used as the focus of a broader conservation marketing campaign based on its possession of one or more traits that appeal to the target audience"^[3]
• "species that have the ability to capture the imagination of the public and induce people to support conservation action and/or to donate funds"^[5]
• "popular, charismatic species that serve as symbols and rallying points to stimulate conservation awareness and action"^[4][6]

The flagship species concept appears to have become popular around the mid 1980s^[7] within the debate on how to prioritise species for conservation. The first widely available references to use the flagship concept applied it to both neotropical primates^[8] and African elephants and rhinos,^[9] in the mammal-centric approach that still dominates how the concept is used.^[10][11][12] The use of flagship species has been dominated by large bodied animals,^[13] especially mammals,^[12] although members of other taxonomic groups have occasionally been used.^[1]

Flagship species projects have sometimes been successful in saving the species and its habitat, as with the Americanbald eagle^[14] and themanatee.^[15]

Chosen flagship species are often charismatic, well-known species: see theBengal tiger (Panthera tigris), thegiant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), theGolden lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia), theAfrican elephant (Loxodonta sp.) andAsian elephant (Elephas maximus).^[3][10] However, because flagship species are selected according to the audience they are hoping to influence, these species can also belong to traditionally uncharismatic groups if the cultural and social content is right.^[16][3][17] Less charismatic but locally significant species include the use of thePemba flying fox as a flagship inTanzania,^[16] and of theChesapeake blue crab as a flagship in the US.^[18] Other examples include the use of theRuddy Shelduck (Tadorna ferruginea) as a flagship species for the conservation of theArjan International Wetland inIran, where the species was selected through a participatory process involving local communities to reconnect people with the wetland's biodiversity.^[19]

Some flagship species arekeystone species, like theAfrican lion, atop predator: it used to control the populations of large herbivores, protecting ecosystems across the entire landscape. However, the lion's ability to serve as a keystone species is decreasing as its population and range decline.^[20][21] TheWWF uses flagship species as one of its species classification categories, along with keystone andindicator species. It chooses between these when selecting a priority species to represent the conservation threats facing a certain region.^[22]

Flagship species can represent an environmental feature (e.g. a species or ecosystem), cause (e.g.climate change orocean acidification), organization (e.g. NGO or government department) or geographic region (e.g. state or protected area).^[3][23][11]

Flagship species can be selected according to many different methodologies, such associal marketing,environmental economics, andconservation biology, depending on what isvalued by the audience they try to target,^[3] and the goals of the project, such as conservation awareness, fundraising,ecotourism promotion, community-based conservation, and promotion of funded research.^[11] This is illustrated by the differences in recommendations made for flagship species selection targeting different target audiences such as local communities^[16] and tourists.^[13]

The use of flagship species has some limitations:^[24]

• They can skew the management and conservation priorities in their favour, to the detriment of more threatened but less charismatic species.^[25]
• The management of different flagships can conflict.^[25]
• The disappearance of the flagship can have negative impacts on the attitudes of the conservation stakeholders.^[25]
• They may have limited impact on the behaviour of donors, if the donors cannot dedicate much time to processing the campaign message.^[26]
• Most conservation practices for flagship species tend to be costly and difficult to maintain^[27]

Leaving aside the impact on other species, charisma does not seem to protect even charismatic species against extinction. All ten of the most charismatic groups^[a] of animal identified in a 2018 study, namely tiger, lion, elephant, giraffe, leopard, panda, cheetah, polar bear, wolf, and gorilla, are currentlyendangered; only the giant panda shows a demographic growth from an extremely small population. The researchers suggest that the widespread use of images of these animals has given the public the impression that the animals are abundant, obscuring their high risk of imminent extinction. They note that this remains true despite the intense focus of conservation efforts on these particular species.^[24] A major challenge for the utilization of several flagship species in non-Western contexts is that they may come into conflict with local communities, thereby jeopardizing well-intended conservation actions. This has been termed "flagship mutiny", and is exemplified by the Asian elephant in countries where there is human-elephant conflict.^[10]

Conservation flagships can be used at broader levels, for example as ecosystems like coral reefs, rainforests or protected areas like the Serengeti or Yellowstone. Some recent initiatives have developed flagships based on the conservation value of particular areas or species. Examples of these are the EDGE project run by theZoological Society of London and the Hotspots run byConservation International.^[3]More recently, work in microbiology has started to use flagship species in a distinct way. This work relates to the biogeography of micro-organisms and uses particular species because "eyecatching 'flagships' with conspicuous size and/or morphology are the best distribution indicators".^[28][29]

• Keystone species
• Indicator species
• Charismatic megafauna
• Umbrella species

• Caro, Tim (2010).Conservation by proxy: indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. Washington, DC: Island Press.ISBN 978-1-59726-192-0.
• Home, R.; Keller, C.; Nagel, P.; Bauer, N.; Hunziker, M. (2009)."Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations"(PDF).Environmental Conservation.36 (2):139–148.Bibcode:2009EnvCo..36..139H.doi:10.1017/s0376892909990051.S2CID 85971920.
• Smith, R. J.; Veríssimo, D.; Isaac, N. J. B.; Jones, K. E. (2012)."Identifying Cinderella species: uncovering mammals with conservation flagship appeal"(PDF).Conservation Letters.5 (3):205–212.Bibcode:2012ConL....5..205S.doi:10.1111/j.1755-263x.2012.00229.x.
• Takahashi, Y.; Veríssimo, D.; MacMillan, D. C.; Godbole, A. (2012)."Stakeholder Perceptions of Potential Flagship Species for the Sacred Groves of the North Western Ghats, India"(PDF).Human Dimensions of Wildlife.17 (4):257–269.Bibcode:2012HDW....17..257T.doi:10.1080/10871209.2012.675622.S2CID 145665593.
• Veríssimo, D.; Barua, M.; Jepson, P.; MacMillan, D. C.; Smith, R. J. (2012)."Selecting marine invertebrate flagship species: Widening the net".Biological Conservation.145 (1): 4.Bibcode:2012BCons.145....4V.doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.007.
• Veríssimo, D.; Jones, D. A.; Chaverri, R.; Meyer, S. R. (2012)."JaguarPanthera onca predation of marine turtles: conflict between flagship species in Tortuguero, Costa Rica"(PDF).Oryx.46 (3):340–347.doi:10.1017/s0030605311001487.

• Conservation biology
• Species
• Human–animal interaction

• CS1 errors: periodical ignored
• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata
• Good articles