Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 18, Issue 7, pp 1793–1828 | Cite as

Systematic conservation assessment for the Mesoamerica, Chocó, and Tropical Andes biodiversity hotspots: a preliminary analysis

  • Sahotra SarkarEmail author
  • Víctor Sánchez-Cordero
  • Maria Cecilia Londoño
  • Trevon Fuller
Original Paper

Abstract

Using IUCN Red List species as biodiversity surrogates, supplemented with additional analyses based on ecoregional diversity, priority areas for conservation in Mesoamerica, Chocó, and the Tropical Andes were identified using the methods of systematic conservation planning. Species’ ecological niches were modeled from occurrence records using a maximum entropy algorithm. Niche models for 78 species were refined to produce geographical distributions. Areas were prioritized for conservation attention using a complementarity-based algorithm implemented in the ResNet software package. Targets of representation for Red List species were explored from 10 to 90% of the modeled distributions at 10% increments; for the 53 ecoregions, the target was 10% for each ecoregion. Selected areas were widely dispersed across the region, reflecting the widespread distribution of Red List species in Mesoamerica, Chocó, and the Tropical Andes, which underscores the region’s importance for biodiversity. In general, existing protected areas were no more representative of biodiversity than areas outside them. Among the countries in the region, the protected areas of Belize performed best and those of Colombia and Ecuador worst. A high representation target led to the selection of a very large proportion of each country except Colombia and Ecuador (for a 90% target, 83–95% of each country was selected). Since such large proportions of land cannot realistically be set aside as parks or reserves, biodiversity conservation in Mesoamerica, Chocó, and the Tropical Andes will require integrative landscape management which combines human use of the land with securing the persistence of biota.

Keywords

Area prioritization Ecological niche models Mesoamerica Tropical Andes Chocó Reserve selection algorithms ResNet Systematic conservation planning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Animal species data were obtained from MaNIS (http://manisnet.org, last accessed 4 April 2007), HerpNET (http://www.herpnet.org/, last accessed 4 April 2007), ORNIS (http://olla.berkeley.edu/ornisnet/, last accessed 4 April 2007), and REMIB (Red Mundial de Información sobre Biodiversidad; http://www.conabio.gob.mx/remib/doctos/remib_esp.html, last accessed 4 April 2007). Additional records were obtained from Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (http://www.mnh.si.edu/rc/, last accessed 4 April 2007). Plant species data were obtained from the University of Missouri Botanical Garden, W3TROPICOS (http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html, last accessed 22 January 2007)—thanks are due to Nancy Shackelford for processing these data. MCL thanks the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) for support and J. Nicolás Urbina-Cardona for assistance with the preparation of the Tables and Figures and for comments on an earlier draft. This work was supported by NSF Grant No. SES-0645884, 2007–2009 (“From Ecological Diversity to Biodiversity,” PI: SS). TF acknowledges support from the Marion Elizabeth Eason Endowed Scholarship for the Study of Biology and the University Continuing Fellowship from the University of Texas.

Supplementary material

10531_2008_9559_MOESM1_ESM.doc (824 kb)
(DOC 824 kb)

References

  1. Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  2. Albuja VL (1992) Mammal list; July trip. In: Parker TA III, Carr JL (eds) Status of forest remnants in the Cordillera de la Costa and adjacent areas of southwestern Ecuador. Conservation International Rapid Assessment Program Working Papers, Vol 2Google Scholar
  3. Albuja VL (1999) Murciélagos del Ecuador, 2nd edn. Cicetrónic Compañía Limitada, QuitoGoogle Scholar
  4. Albuja VL, Ibarra M, Urgilés J et al (1980) Estudio preliminar de los vertebrados ecuatorianos. Escuela Politécnica Nacional, QuitoGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson RP (2003) Real vs. artefactual absences in species distributions: tests for Oryzomys albigularis (Rodentia: Muridae) in Venezuela. J Biogeogr 30:591–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson RP, Peterson AT, Gómez-Laverde M (2002a) Using GIS-based niche modeling to test geographic predictions of competitive exclusion and competitive release in South America pocket mice. Oikos 98:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson RP, Gómez-Laverde M, Peterson AT (2002b) Geographical distributions of spiny pocket mice in South America: insights form predictive models. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Best BJ, Kessler M (1995) Biodiversity and conservation in Tumbesian Ecuador and Peru. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Bravo H, Scheinvar H, Scheinvar L (1999) El interesante mundo de las cactáceas, 2nd edn. Fondo de Cultura Económica, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  10. Briones M, Sánchez-Cordero V (2004) Diversidad de mamíferos del estado de Oaxaca. In: García-Mendoza A, Ordónez MJ, Briones-Salas M (eds) Diversidad biológica del estado de Oaxaca. Instituto de Biología, UNAM, Fondo Oaxaqueño para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, and World Wildlife FundGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryant D, Nielsen D, Tangley L (1997) The last frontier forests. Issues Sci Technol 14:85–87Google Scholar
  12. Burke L, Kura Y, Kassem K et al (2000) Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: coastal ecosystems. World Resources Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Calderón R, Boucher T, Bryer M et al (2004) Setting biodiversity conservation priorities in Central America. The Nature Conservancy, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Carr MH, Lambert JD, Zwick PD (1994) Mapeo de la potencialidad de un corredor biológico continuo en América Central/Mapping of continuous biological corridor potential in Central America. Paseo Pantera. University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  15. Casas-Andreu G, Méndez de la Cruz FR, Camarillo-Rangel JL (1996) Anfíbios y reptiles de Oaxaca: lista, distribución y conservación. Acta Zoológica Mexicana 69:1–35Google Scholar
  16. CCAD (Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo) (1989) Central American agreement for the protection of the environment. CCAD, San IsidroGoogle Scholar
  17. CCAD (Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo) (1993) Plan de acción forestal tropical para Centroamerica. CCAD, Guatemala CityGoogle Scholar
  18. CCAD (Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo) (1994) Central American alliance for sustainable development. CCAD, San JoséGoogle Scholar
  19. CCAD (Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo) (2002) Nature, people, and well being. World Bank and CCAD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  20. CONABIO (Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad) (1998) La diversidad biológica de México: estudio de país. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  21. Conservation International (2004) Conserving earth’s living heritage: a proposed framework for designing biodiversity conservation strategies. Conservation International, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Cowling RM, Pressey RL (2003) Introduction to systematic conservation planning in the cape floristic region. Biol Conserv 12:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Sims-Castley R et al (2003) The expert or the algorithm?—comparison of priority conservation areas in the cape floristic region identified by park managers and reserve selection software. Biol Conserv 112:147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cracraft J (1985) Historical biogeography and patterns of differentiation within the South American avifauna: areas of endemism. In: Buckley PA, Foster MS, Morton ES et al (eds). Neotropical ornithology. Ornithological Monographs. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, Vol 36Google Scholar
  25. Csuti B, Polasky S, Williams PH et al (1997) A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol Conserv 80:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Delgadillo MC (2000) Mosses and the Caribbean connection between North and South America. Bryologist 103:82–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Delgadillo MC, Villaseñor JL (2002) The status of the South American Grimmia herzogii (Musci). Taxon 51:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dinerstein E, Olson DM, Graham DJ (1995) A conservation assessment of the terrestrial ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Donnelly TW (1989) Geologic history of the Caribbean and Central America. In: Bally AW, Palmer AR (eds) Geological Society of America decade of North American geology, Vol. A, The geology of North America: an overview. Geological Society of America, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  30. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP et al (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29(2):129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Escalante T, Sánchez-Cordero V, Morrone JJ et al (2007) Parsimony analysis of endemicity, Goloboff fit, and areas of endemism in Mexico: a case study using species’ ecological niche modelling of terrestrial mammals. Interciencia 32(3):151–159Google Scholar
  32. Evans S (1999) The green republic: a conservation history of Costa Rica. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  33. Fa JE, Morales LM (1991) Mammals and protected areas in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt. In: Mares MA, Schmidly DJ (eds) Latin American Mammalogy: History, Biodiversity, and Conservation. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  34. Faith DP, Margules CR, Walker PA (2001) A biodiversity conservation plan for Papua New Guinea based on biodiversity trade-offs analysis. Pac Conserv Biol 6:304–324Google Scholar
  35. Fandiño-Lozano M (1996) Framework for ecological evaluation oriented at establishment and management of protected areas. Dissertation, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  36. Fandiño-Lozano M, van Wyngaarden W (2005a) Focalize software. Grupo ARCO, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  37. Fandiño-Lozano M, van Wyngaarden W (2005b) Prioridades de consevación biológica para Colombia. Grupo ARCO, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  38. FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Association) (2005) State of the world’s forests. United Nations Food and Agriculture Association, RomeGoogle Scholar
  39. Ferrier S, Pressey RL, Barrett TW (2000) A new predictor of the irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinement. Biol Conserv 93:303–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Figueroa F, Sánchez-Cordero V (2008) Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 17:3223–3240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Garson J, Aggarwal A, Sarkar S (2002) ResNet Ver 1.2 manual. University of Texas Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, AustinGoogle Scholar
  42. Groves CR, Jensen DB, Valutis LL et al (2002) Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting conservation science into practice. BioScience 52:499–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hansen M, DeFries R, Townshend JRG et al (2000) Global land cover classification at 1 km resolution using a decision tree classifier. Int J Remote Sens 21:1331–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL et al (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Holdridge LR (1967) Life zone ecology. Tropical Science Center, San JoseGoogle Scholar
  46. Hooghiemstra H, Cleef AM, Noldus G et al (1992) Upper quaternary vegetation dynamics and palaeoclimatology of the La Chonta Bog Area (Cordillera de Talamanca, Costa Rica). J Quart Sci 7:205–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Illueca J (1997) The paseo pantera agenda for regional conservation. In: Coates AG (ed) Central America: a natural and cultural history. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  48. Jarrín-V P (2001) Mamíferos en la niebla: Otonga, un bosque nublado del Ecuador. Publicaciones Especiales, Museo de Zoología, Centro de Biodiversidad y Ambiente. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador 5:1–244Google Scholar
  49. Joseph L, Stockwell D (2002) Climatic modeling of the distribution of some Pyrrhura parakeets of northwestern South America with notes on their systematics and special reference to Pyrrhura caeruleiceps Todd, 1947. Ornithol Neotrop 13:1–8Google Scholar
  50. Jukofsky D (1992) Path of the panther. Wildlife Conserv 95(5):18–24Google Scholar
  51. Kappelle M, Cleef AM, Chaverri A (1992) Phytogeography of Talamanca montane Quercus forests, Costa Rica. J Biogeogr 19:299–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:242–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Margules CR, Sarkar S (2007) Systematic conservation planning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Matthews E, Payne R, Rohweder M et al (2000) Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: forest ecosystems. World Resources Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  55. Miller K, Chang E, Johnson N (2001) Defining common ground for the Mesoamerican biological corridor. World Resources Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  56. Morris W, Doak D, Groom M et al (1999) A practical handbook for population viability analysis. The Nature Conservancy, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  57. Morrone JJ (2005) Cladistic biogeography: identity and place. J Biogeogr 32:1281–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED et al (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the worlds: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51:933–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pawar S, Koo MS, Kelley C et al (2007) Conservation assessment and prioritization of areas in northeast India: priorities for amphibians and reptiles. Biol Conserv 136:346–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Peterson AT, Flores-Villela O, León-Paniagua L et al (1993) Conservation priorities in northern Middle America: moving up in the world. Biodivers Lett 1:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Peterson AT, Soberón J, Sánchez-Cordero V (1999) Conservatism of ecological niches in evolutionary time. Science 285:1265–1267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peterson AT, Caneco-Márquez L, Contreras Jiménez JL et al (2004) A preliminary biological survey of Cerro Piedra Larga, Oaxaca, Mexico: birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and plants. An Inst Biol, Univ Nac Aut Méx, Serie Zool 75(2):439–466Google Scholar
  64. Phillips SJ, Dudik M, Shapire RE (2004) A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. In: Greiner R, Schuurmans D (eds) Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on machine learning. ACM, New York, pp 655–662Google Scholar
  65. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pressey RL (1994) Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems. Conserv Biol 8:662–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pressey RL (1999) Applications of irreplaceability analysis to planning and management problems. Parks 9:42–51Google Scholar
  68. Pressey RL, Ferrier S, Hager TC et al (1996) How well protected are the forests of north-eastern New South Wales? analyses of forest environments in relation to formal protection measures, land tenure, and vulnerability to clearing. For Ecol Manag 85:311–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Raven PH, Axelrod DI (1974) Angiosperm biogeography and past continental movement. Ann Mo Bot Gard 61:539–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Revenga C, Brunner J, Henninger N et al (2000) Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: freshwater systems. World Resources Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  71. Ricketts TH, Dinerstein E, Olson DM et al (1995) Terrestrial ecoregions of North America: a conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  72. Sánchez-Cordero V, Figueroa F (2007) La efectividad de las Reservas de la Biosfera en México para contener procesos de cambio en el uso del suelo. In: Halffter G, Guevara S (eds) Hacia una cultura de conservación de la diversidad biológica Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa, CONABIO, CONANP, CONACyT, Instituto de Ecología, A. C., MAB-UNESCO. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente-Gobierno de España, ZaragozaGoogle Scholar
  73. Sarakinos H, Nicholls AO, Tubert A et al (2001) Area prioritization for biodiversity conservation in Québec on the basis of species distributions: a preliminary analysis. Biodivers Conserv 10:1419–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sarkar S (2002) Defining ‘biodiversity’: assessing biodiversity. Monist 85:131–155Google Scholar
  75. Sarkar S (2005) Biodiversity and environmental philosophy: an introduction to the issues. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  76. Sarkar S, Margules CR (2002) Operationalizing biodiversity for conservation planning. J Biosci 27(S2):299–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sarkar S, Aggarwal A, Garson J et al (2002) Place prioritization for biodiversity content. J Biosci 27(S2):339–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sarkar S, Pappas C, Garson J et al (2004) Place prioritization for biodiversity conservation using probabilistic surrogate distribution data. Divers Distrib 10:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP et al (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Ann Rev Environ Res 31:123–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sarukhán J, Dirzo D (2001) Biodiversity rich countries. In: Levin SA (ed) Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 419–436Google Scholar
  81. Sarukhán J, Soberón J, Larson J (1996) Biological conservation in a high beta-diversity country. In: di Castri F, Younes T (eds) Biodiversity, science and development. Towards a new partnership. CAB International—IUBS, Paris, pp 246–263Google Scholar
  82. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2002) Global strategy for plant conservation. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. http://www.bgci.org/files/7/0/global_strategy.pdf. Cited 24 June 2007
  83. Sierra R, Campos F, Chamberlin J (2002) Conservation priorities in continental Ecuador: a study based on landscape and species level biodiversity patterns. Landsc Urban Plan 59:95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simonoff JS (2003) Analyzing categorical data. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  85. Smith RJ, Goodman PS, Matthews WS (2006) Systematic conservation planning: a review of perceived limitations and an illustration of the benefits, using a case study from Maputaland, South Africa. Oryx 40:400–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Soberón J, Peterson AT (2005) Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species’ distributional areas. Biodivers Inform 2:1–10Google Scholar
  87. Soulé ME, Sanjayan MA (1998) Conservation targets—do they help? Science 279:2060–2061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stehli FG, Webb SD (eds) (1985) The great american biotic interchance. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  89. The IUCN Species Survival Commission (2007) IUCN Red List of threatened species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/. Cited 26 May 2008
  90. USGS (U. S. Geological Survey) (1998) GTOPO30 Global 30 arc-second digital elevation model. USGS, Reston. http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/gtopo30/gtopo30.html. Cited 31 May 2007
  91. Utting P (1997) Deforestation in Central America: historical and contemporary dynamics. In: de Groot JP, Ruben R (eds) Sustainable agriculture in Central America. St. Martin’s, New York, pp 9–29Google Scholar
  92. WDPA Consortium (2007) World database on protected areas 2007. Available via World Conservation Union (IUCN) and UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/index.htm. Cited 26 May 2008

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sahotra Sarkar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Víctor Sánchez-Cordero
    • 2
  • Maria Cecilia Londoño
    • 2
  • Trevon Fuller
    • 1
  1. 1.Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, Section of Integrative BiologyUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Departamento de Zoología, Instituto de BiologíaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations