Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1509–1528 | Cite as

Applying complementary species vulnerability assessments to improve conservation strategies in the Galapagos Marine Reserve

  • Katherine A. KaplanEmail author
  • Ignasi Montero-Serra
  • Ernesto L. Vaca-Pita
  • Patrick J. Sullivan
  • Esteban Suárez
  • Luis Vinueza
Original Paper


Marine biodiversity can be protected by identifying vulnerable species and creating marine protected areas (MPAs) to ensure their survival. A wide variety of methods are employed by environmental managers to determine areas of conservation priority, however which methods should be applied is often a subject of debate for practitioners and scientists. We applied two species vulnerability assessments, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list of threatened species and FishBase’s intrinsic vulnerability assessment, to fish communities in three coastal habitats (mangrove, rocky and coral) on the island of San Cristobal, Galapagos. When using the IUCN red list of threatened species, rocky reefs hosted the greatest number of vulnerable species, however when applying the FishBase assessment of intrinsic vulnerability mangroves hosted the greatest abundance of ‘very-highly’ vulnerable species and coral ecosystems hosted the greatest abundance of ‘highly’ vulnerable species. The two methods showed little overlap in determining habitat types that host vulnerable species because they rely on different biological and ecological parameters. Since extensive data is required for IUCN red list assessments, we show that the intrinsic vulnerability assessment from FishBase can be used to complement the IUCN red list especially in data-poor areas. Intrinsic vulnerability assessments are based on less data-intensive methods than the IUCN red list, but nonetheless may bridge information gaps that can arise when using the IUCN red list alone. Vulnerability assessments based on intrinsic factors are not widely applied in marine spatial planning, but their inclusion as a tool for forming conservation strategies can be useful in preventing species loss.


Conservation planning Marine fish IUCN red list of threatened species FishBase Fuzzy logic Galapagos marine reserve 



We would like to thank the Galapagos National Park and J. C. Murillo for making this project possible. We would also like to thank J. Denkinger, and Universidad San Francisco de Quito-Galapagos Academic Institute for the Arts and Sciences for providing resources and support for data collection.


  1. Allen G, Robertson R, Rivera R, Edgar G, Merlen G, Zapata F, Barraza E (2010) Stegastes beebei. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red list of threatened species. Version 2013.1Google Scholar
  2. Barber RT, Chavez FP (1986) Ocean variability in relation to living resources during the 1982–83 El Niño. Nature 319:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum JK, Worm B (2009) Cascading top-down effects of changing oceanic predator abundances. J Anim Ecol 78:699–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briggs JC (2011) Marine extinctions and conservation. Mar Biol 158:485–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bustamante RH, Wellington GM, Branch GM, Edgar GJ, Martínez P et al (2002) Outstanding marine features of Galápagos. In: Bensted-Smith R, Dinnerstein E (eds) A biodiversity vision for the Galapagos Islands: an exercise for ecoregional planning. WWF, Washington DC, pp 60–71Google Scholar
  6. Casey JM, Myers RA (1998) Near extinction of a large, widely distributed fish. Science 281:690–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheung WWL, Pitcher TJ, Pauly D (2005) A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic extinction vulnerabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biol Conserv 124:97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheung WWL, Watson R, Morato T, Pitcher TJ, Pauly D (2007) Intrinsic vulnerability in the global fish catch. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 333:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costello C, Ovando D, Hilborn R, Gaines SD, Deschenes O, Lester SE (2012) Status and Solutions for the World’s Unassessed Fisheries. Science 338:517–520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duffy JE (2003) Biodiversity loss, trophic skew, and ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 6:680–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dulvy NK, Sadovy Y, Reynolds JD (2003) Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fisheries 4:25–64Google Scholar
  12. Dulvy NK, Ellis JR, Goodwin NB, Grant A, Reynolds JD, Jennings S (2004) Methods of assessing extinction risk in marine fishes. Fisheries 5:255–276Google Scholar
  13. Edgar GJ, Banks S, Bensted-Smith R, Calvopiña M, Chiriboga A, Garske LE, Henderson S, Miller KA, Salazar S (2008) Conservation of threatened species in the Galapagos Marine Reserve through identification and protection of marine key biodiversity areas. Aquatic Conserv: Marine Fresh Eco 18:955–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edgar GJ et al (2009) El Niño, grazers and fisheries interact to greatly elevate extinction risk for Galapagos marine species. Glob Change Biol 16:2876–2890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eken G et al (2004) Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. Bioscience 54(1110–461):1118Google Scholar
  16. Fernandes L et al (2005) Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas. Conserv Biol 19:1733–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferretti F, Worm B, Britten GL, Heithaus MR, Lotze HK (2010) Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecol Lett 13:1055–1071PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Froese R, Pauly D (eds) (2014) FishBase, version 02/2014 Accessed February 2014
  19. Global Environment Facility (GEF)-United Nations Development Program project # 4810:473 (2012) Strengthening the marine protected area system to conserve marine key biodiversity areas. Accessed July 2013
  20. Hayward MW (2011) Using the IUCN Red List to determine effective conservation strategies. Biodivers Conserv 20:2563–2573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hearn A (2008) The rocky path to sustainable fisheries management and conservation in the Galápagos Marine Reserve. Ocean Coast Manag 51:567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. IUCN (2014) IUCN Red list of threatened species. Version 2013.2. Accessed February 2014
  23. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological Methodology, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  24. Lauck T, Clark CW, Mangel M, Munro GR (1998) Implementing the precautionary principle in fisheries management through marine reserves. Ecol App 8(1):72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Le Quesne W, Jennings S (2011) Predicting species vulnerability with minimal data to support rapid risk assessment of fishing impacts on biodiversity. Appl Ecol 49:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leslie HM (2005) A synthesis of marine conservation planning approaches. Conserv Biol 19(6):1701–1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akcakaya HR, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ, Stuart SN (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: the background to IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol 22:1424–1442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MATLAB (2009) MATLAB Version 7.8.0. The Math Works Inc., MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  30. Myers RA, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423:280–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Myers RA, Worm B (2005) Extinction, survival or recovery of large predatory fishes. Philos Trans Roy Soc B 360:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Myers RA, Baum JK, Shepherd TD, Powers SP, Peterson CH (2007) Cascading effects of the loss apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315:1846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nicolaides F, Murillo JC, Toral Ve, Reck G (2002) Bacalao. In: Danulat E, Edgar GJ (eds) Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Línea Base de la Biodiversidad. Fundación Charles Darwin/Servicio Parque Nacional Galápagos, Galápagos, p 146–161Google Scholar
  34. Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard V, Froese R, Torres F Jr (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279:860–863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Polidoro BA, Brooks T, Carpenter KE, Edgar GJ, Henderson S, Sanciangco J, Robertson DR (2012) Patterns of extinction risk and threat for marine vertebrates and habitat-forming species in the Tropical Eastern Pacific. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 448:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reck GK (1983) The coastal fisheries in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. In: Description and consequences for management in the context of marine environmental protection and regional development. Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades, Christian-Albrechts-Universita¨t zu Kiel, Kiel, p 231Google Scholar
  37. Reynolds JD, Webb TJ, Hawkins LA (2005) Life history and ecological correlates of extinction risk in European fresh water fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:854–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:71–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Venables, W. N. and Ripley, B. D. (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S. Fourth edition. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  40. Walker TI, Hudson RJ, Gason AS (2005) Catch Evaluation of Target, By-product and By-catch Species Taken by Gillnets and Longlines in the Shark Fishery of South-eastern Australia. J Northw Atl Fish Sci 35:505–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Halpern BS et al (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314:787–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Worm B et al (2009) Rebuilding Global Fisheries. Science 325:578–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine A. Kaplan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ignasi Montero-Serra
    • 3
  • Ernesto L. Vaca-Pita
    • 4
    • 5
  • Patrick J. Sullivan
    • 2
  • Esteban Suárez
    • 1
  • Luis Vinueza
    • 1
  1. 1.Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y AmbientalesUniversidad San Francisco de QuitoQuitoEcuador
  2. 2.Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.Departament d’Ecologia, Facultat de BiologiaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.San Cristobal Technical OfficeGalapagos National ParkGalapagos IslandsEcuador
  5. 5.Galapagos Science CenterGalapagos IslandsEcuador

Personalised recommendations