In many ecosystems a single species is often conserved in the hope that action towards them will improve survival chances of other species within the habitat. These organisms are also known as keystone species and their influence on fellow animals or an entire ecosystem can be enormous; species include the Eastern Red Backed Salamander and Sea Otter. It is seen as a more efficient way to conserve at an ecosystem level, therefore strengthening most animals within that area.
Another approach is conserving an umbrella species; one that requires a large range and therefore protecting that, shields a large area where other animals live. Many feel it is vital for conservationists to promote these types of conservation as they are the most beneficial to an entire ecosystem.
Conserving a flagship species can often be very expensive, which in impoverished areas can be a big problem. The actual identification of an animal whose existence benefits other organisms can also be difficult to determine. Any actions which are taken concerning an ecosystem are going to have an affect.
The choice of these flagship species can often be an animal which strikes an emotional chord with the general public. It is much easier to raise money through charity by using a mammal such as the gorilla as its poster animal. This may explain why much of the world’s amphibians are in danger of extinction. Would, an emotionless approach prove fairer and less biased to a species that gather little emotional sentiment?