The keystone species concept is often used in conservation. However, scientists and conservationists use the concept in many different ways. I suggest that a problem with the concept in conservation is not the lack of a shared definition. Instead, the problem is how the concept is applied to only certain species despite potentially covering a broader suite of species. This highlights unstated values in using the concept in conservation. I use novel examples, such as non-native Burmese pythons in Florida, to motivate this. I argue that the concept should include these species and be used value-neutral.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Derek Halm (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: