, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 1189–1201 | Cite as

A systematic evaluation of the conservation plans for the pantanal wetland in Brazil

  • Reinaldo Lourival
  • Hamish McCallum
  • Gordon Grigg
  • Claudia Arcangelo
  • Ricardo Machado
  • Hugh Possingham


The Pantanal is the world’s largest contiguous freshwater wetland spanning Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay. It contains the greatest wildlife densities in the Neotropics and was enlisted by all three countries in the Ramsar convention on wetland conservation. The Brazilian government, together the UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program, declared a biosphere reserve in the Pantanal in 2000. Other plans to protect the region include expansion of existing reserves and land use regulations following recommendations from the Cerrado-Pantanal priority setting workshop. Here we evaluated how four conservation scenarios complied with the principles of systematic conservation planning and analyzed their representativeness, efficiency, and complementarity using 17 vegetation classes as surrogates for regional biodiversity. We used MARXAN (systematic conservation planning software) to determine the value of the habitat types protected by each conservation scenario. We found that none of the four conservation scenarios met preferred areal targets for protection of habitats, nor did any protect all 17 biodiversity surrogates. The Pantanal Biosphere Reserve provided the best compromise in conservation planning.

Key Words

Biosphere Reserve CLUZ Efficiency irreplaceability MARXAN 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Ball, I. R. and H. P. Possingham. 2000. Marxan v1.8.6 Marine Reserve Design, using spatially explicit annealing, Adelaide, SA, Australia.Google Scholar
  2. Bedward, M., R. L. Pressey, and D. A. Keith. 1992. A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks — addressing efficiency, reserve design and land suitability with an iterative analysis. Biological Conservation 62:115–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campos, Z., M. Coutinho, and W. E. Magnusson. 2003. Terrestrial activity of caiman in the Pantanal, Brazil. Copeia 3:628–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cantrell, T. 1980. Conservation — Conservationists Budget. Riba Journal-Royal Institute of British Architects 87:11–13.Google Scholar
  5. Carwardine, J., W. A. Rochester, K. S. Richardson, K. J. Williams, R. L. Pressey, and H. P. Possingham. 2007. Conservation planning with irreplaceability: thus the method matter? Biodiversity and Conservation 16:245–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Catella, A. C., F. F. Albuquerque, J. Peixer, and S. Palmeira. 1999. Sistema de controle da pesca de Mato Grosso do Sul. Boletim de Pesquisa 14 — SCPESCA/MS. Pantanal/SEMAFEMAP, E., Embrapa-CPAP: 41, Corumbá, MS, Brasil.Google Scholar
  7. Caughley, G. 1974. Bias in aerial survey. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:921–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD, Programme of Work for Protected Areas, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Coutinho, M. and Z. Campos. 1996. Effect of habitat and seasonality on the densities of caiman in southern Pantanal, Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12:741–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Da Silva, J. D. and M. D. Abdon. 1998. Delimitation of the Brazilian Pantanal and its subregions. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 33:1703–11.Google Scholar
  11. Da Silva, J. M. C., A. B. Rylands, and G. A. B. Da Fonseca. 2005. The fate of the Amazonian areas of endemism. Conservation Biology 19:689–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Da Silva, M. P., R. Mauro, G. Mourão, and M. Coutinho. 2000. Distribuição e quantificação de classes de vegetação do Pantanal através de levantamento aéreo. Revista Brasileira de Botânica 23:143–52.Google Scholar
  13. Damasceno-Junior, G. A., J. Semir, F. A. M. Dos Santos, and H. D. Leitao. 2005. Structure, distribution of species and inundation in a riparian forest of Rio Paraguai, Pantanal, Brazil. Flora 200:119–35.Google Scholar
  14. Drechsler, M., K. Johst, F. Watzold, and M. I. Westphal. 2006. Integrating economic costs into the analysis of flexible conservation management strategies. Ecological Applications 16:1959–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Driver, A., R. Cowling, and K. Maze. 2003. Planning for living landscapes: perspectives and lessons from South Africa. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science — Conservation International and Botanical Society of Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
  16. Ferrier, S. 2002. Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? Systematic Biology 51:331–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Governo da República Federativa do Brasil. 1988.In Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasil, P.d.R. Jurídicos, C.C.-S.p.A. Brasilia. DF, Brasil.Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton, S. K. 1999. Potential effects of a major navigation project (Paraguay-Parana Hidrovia) on inundation in the pantanal floodplains. Regulated Rivers-Research & Management 15:289–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris, M. B., W. Tomas, G. Mourão, C. J. Da Silva, E. Guimarães, F. Sonoda, and E. Fachim. 2005. Safeguarding the Pantanal wetlands: threats and conservation initiatives. Conservation Biology 19:714–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Higgins, J. V., M. T. Bryer, M. L. Khoury, and T. W. Fitzhugh. 2005. A freshwater classification approach for biodiversity conservation planning. Conservation Biology 19:432–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. JANIS, Joint ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Sub-Committee. 1997. Nationally agreed criteria for the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system for forests in Australia. National Forest Conservation Reserves. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  22. Junk, W. J., M. Brown, I. C. Campbell, M. Finlayson, B. Gopal, L. Ramberg, and B. G. Warner. 2006a. The comparative biodiversity of seven globally important wetlands: a synthesis. Aquatic Sciences 68:400–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Junk, W. J. and C. Nunes da Cunha. 2005. Pantanal: a large South American wetland at a crossroads. Ecological Engineering 24:391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Junk, W. J., C. Nunes da Cunha, K. M. Wantzen, P. Petermann, C. Strussmann, M. I. Marques, and J. Adis. 2006b. Biodiversity and its conservation in the Pantanal of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Aquatic Sciences 68:278–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirkpatrick, J. B. 1983. An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves — an example from Tasmania. Biological Conservation 25:127–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, and B. M. Campbell. 2006. An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conservation Biology 20:408–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lombard, A. T., R. M. Cowling, R. L. Pressey, and A. G. Rebelo. 2003. Effectiveness of land classes as surrogates for species in conservation planning for the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservation 112:45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lourival, R., D. F. Calheiros, C. J. da Silva, A. Pott, and S. K. Hamilton. 1999. Impactos da Hidrovia Paraná-Paraguai na biodiversidade Pantaneira.In II Simpósio sobre Recursos Naturais e Sócio-Econômicos do Pantanal — Manejo e Conservação. EMBRAPA, Corumbá, MS, Brasil.Google Scholar
  29. Machado, R. B., M. B. Ramos Neto, M. B. Harris, R. Lourival, and L. M. S. Aguiar. 2004.In Análise de lacunas de proteção da Biodiversidade no Cerrado — Brasil. IV Congresso Brasileiro de Unidades de Conservação, FBPN — Fund. O Boticário de Proteção a Natureza Curitiba, PR, Brasil.Google Scholar
  30. Margules, C., A. J. Higgs, and R. W. Rafe. 1982. Modern biogeographic theory — are there any lessons for nature reserve design. Biological Conservation 24:115–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Margules, C. R. and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Margules, C. R., R. L. Pressey, and P. H. Williams. 2002. Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. Journal of Biosciences 27:309–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 1989. Codigo Florestal Brasileiro. Brasilia, DF, Brasil.Google Scholar
  34. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 1999. Ações Prioritárias para a Conservação da Biodiversidade do Cerrado e Pantanal. MMA. PROBIO, Brasília, DF, Brasil.Google Scholar
  35. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2007. Áreas prioritárias para a conservação, uso sustentável e repartição de benefícios da biodiversidade brasileira. Biodiversidade 31. Civil, P.d.R.C. Brasilia, DF, Brasil.Google Scholar
  36. Mittermeier, R. A. C., M. T. J. Pádua, and J. Blanck. 1990. Conservation in the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx 24:103–12.Google Scholar
  37. Mourão, G., M. Coutinho, R. Mauro, Z. Campos, W. Tomas, and W. Magnusson. 2000. Aerial surveys of caiman, marsh deer and pampas deer in the Pantanal Wetland of Brazil. Biological Conservation 92:175–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mourão, G. M., P. Bayliss, M. E. Coutinho, C. L. Abercrombie, and A. Arruda. 1994. Test of an aerial survey for caiman and other wildlife in the Pantanal, Brazil. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:50–56.Google Scholar
  39. Padovani, C. R., M. L. L. Cruz, and S. A. G. Padovani. 2004. Desmatamento do Pantanal brasileiro para o ano de 2000.In IV Simpósio de Recursos Naturais e Sócio-econômicos do Pantanal, Sustentabilidade Regional, CPAP/EMBRAPA, Corumbá MS, Brasil.Google Scholar
  40. Pinder, L. and S. Rosso. 1998. Classification and ordination of plant formations in the Pantanal of Brazil. Plant Ecology 136:151–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Por, F. D. 1995. The Pantanal of Mato Grosso (Brazil), World’s Largest Wetland, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  42. Possingham, H., I. Ball, and S. Andelman. 2000. Mathematical Methods for identifying representative reserve networks. p. 291–305.In S. Ferson and M. A. Burgman (eds.) Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Possingham, H. P., K. A. Wilson, S. J. Andelman, and C. H. Vynne. 2006a. Protected Areas: Goals, Limitations, and Design.In Principles of Conservation Biology, Groom, M. J., G. K. Meefe, and C. R. Carroll (eds.) Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Pott, A. and V. J. Pott. 1994. Plantas do Pantanal. EMBRAPA, Corumbá — MS, Brasil.Google Scholar
  45. Pott, A. and V. J. Pott. 2004. Features and conservation of Brazilian Pantanal Wetland. Wetland Ecology and Management 12:547–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Prance, G. T. and G. B. Schaller. 1982. Preliminary- study of some vegetation types of the Pantanal, Mato-Grosso, Brazil. Brittonia 34:228–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pressey, R. L. 1994. Ad hoc reservations — forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems. Conservation Biology 8:662–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pressey, R. L., C. J. Humphries, C. R. Margules, R. I. Vanewright, and P. H. Williams. 1993. Beyond Opportunism — Key Principles for Systematic Reserve Selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8:124–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pressey, R. L. and A. O. Nicholls. 1989. Efficiency in Conservation Evaluation — Scoring Versus Iterative Approaches. Biological Conservation 50:199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pressey, R. L. and K. H. Taffs. 2001a. Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation loss. Biological Conservation 100:355–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pressey, R. L. and K. H. Taffs. 2001b. Sampling of land types by protected areas: three measures of effectiveness applied to western New South Wales. Biological Conservation 101: 105–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. RAMSAR, Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 2007. Wise use of wetlands: a conceptual framework for the wise use of wetlands. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 3rd edition, vol. 1. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  53. Rodrigues, A. S. L., R. Tratt, B. D. Wheeler, and K. J. Gaston. 1999. The performance of existing networks of conservation areas in representing biodiversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 266:1453–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rylands, A. B. and K. Brandon. 2005. Brazilian protected area. Conservation Biology 19:612–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sarkar, S., J. Justus, T. Fuller, C. Kelley, J. Garson, and M. Mayfield. 2005. Effectiveness of environmental surrogates for the selection of conservation area networks. Conservation Biology 19:815–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Seidl, A. F. 2001. Intra-regional wealth-deforestation relationships in the Brazilian Pantanal: an examination of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26:561–561.Google Scholar
  57. Seidl, A. F., J. D. V. de Silva, and A. S. Moraes. 2001. Cattle ranching and deforestation in the Brazilian Pantanal. Ecological Economics 36:413–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stewart, R. R., T. Noyce, and H. P. Possingham. 2003. Opportunity cost of ad hoc marine reserve design decisions: an example from South Australia. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 253:25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stewart, R. R. and H. P. Possingham. 2005. Efficiency, costs and trade-offs in marine reserve system design. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 10:203–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ward, T. J., M. A. Vanderklift, A. O. Nicholls, and R. A. Kenchington. 1999. Selecting marine reserves using habitats and species assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity. Ecological Applications 9:691–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wu, J. J. and B. A. Babcock. 1996. Contract design for the purchase of environmental goods from agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78:935–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reinaldo Lourival
    • 1
  • Hamish McCallum
    • 2
  • Gordon Grigg
    • 1
  • Claudia Arcangelo
    • 3
  • Ricardo Machado
    • 3
  • Hugh Possingham
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Integrative BiologyUniversity of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.University of TasmaniaTasmaniaAustralia
  3. 3.SAUSInstituto Conservation International do BrasilBrasíliaBrasil

Personalised recommendations