Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:11:21.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Testing the efficiency of global-scale conservation planning by using data on Andean amphibians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Don R. Church
Affiliation:
Conservation International
Claude Gascon
Affiliation:
Conservation International
Megan Van Fossen
Affiliation:
Conservation International
Grisel Velasquez
Affiliation:
Conservation International
Luis A. Solorzano
Affiliation:
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Marc-André Villard
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton, Canada
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Affiliation:
Mid-Sweden University, Sweden
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Conservation planning at any scale (global, regional, or local) requires the best scientific input. For biodiversity conservation planning, detailed information on species distributions is needed. In addition, knowledge of the conservation status of species and of the present threats acting on those species is essential to enable some form of prioritization of conservation targets. To date, many valuable conservation planning approaches have been applied at these different scales, but often the quality and nature of the information varies among spatial scales, creating a disconnect between priorities at the local and global scales. Recent work on the global assessment of the conservation status of all amphibian species provides the conservation community with a unique opportunity to integrate conservation planning at the global, regional, and local scales using the same scientific information. Such information can help us establish global priorities for conservation action, design regional landscapes or conservation corridors based on the most highly threatened endemic species and their responses to different land uses, as well as define key gaps in existing networks of protected areas that need formal protection. Using the same detailed global information ensures that priorities at all scales are related and form an integrated strategy for addressing the most urgent conservation needs.

Although protected areas are critical to safeguarding global biodiversity, many species occur largely or entirely outside of protected areas.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bierregaard, R. O., Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E. and Mesquita, R.. 2001. Lessons from Amazonia: The Ecology and Conservation of a Fragmented Forest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Corlett, R. T. 2000. Environmental heterogeneity and species survival in degraded tropical landscapes. Pp. 333–55 in Hutchings, M. J., John, E. A. and Stewart, A. J. A. (eds.) The Ecological Consequences of Environmental Heterogeneity. London: British Ecological Society.Google Scholar
Eken, G., Bennun, L., Brooks, T. M.. 2004. Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. BioScience 54:1110–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34:487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gascon, C. and Lovejoy, T. E.. 1998. Ecological impacts of forest fragmentation in central Amazonia. Zoology, Analysis of Complex Systems 101:273–80.Google Scholar
Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E., Bierregaard, Jr. R. O.et al. 1999. Matrix habitat and species persistence in tropical forest remnants. Biological Conservation 91:223–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gascon, C., Williamson, G. B. and Fonseca, G. A. B.. 2000. Receding forest edges and vanishing reserves. Science 288:1356–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gascon, C., Fonseca, G. A. B. da, Sechrest, W., Billmark, K. A. and Sanderson, J.. 2004. Biodiversity conservation in deforested and fragmented landscapes: an overview. Pp. 15–32 in Schroth, G., Fonseca, G. A. B. da, Harvey, C. A.et al. (eds.)Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
Gilpin, M. E. and Soulé, M. E.. 1986. Minimum viable population: processes of species extinction. Pp. 19–34 in Soulé, M. E. (ed.) Conservation Biology: the Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Marca, E., Rodríguez, A. and García-Pérez, J. E.. 2006. Atelopus carbonerensis. In 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Laurance, W. F. and Cochrane, M. A.. 2001. Synergistic effects in fragmented landscapes. Special section. Conservation Biology 15:1488–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurance, W. F. and Gascon, C.. 1997. How to creatively fragment a landscape. Conservation Biology 11:577–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurance, W. F., Lovejoy, T. E., Vasconcelos, H. L.et al. 2002. Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conservation Biology 16:605–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima, M. and Gascon, C.. 1999. The conservation value of linear forest remnants in central Amazonia. Biological Conservation 91:241–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lips, K. R., Brem, F., Brenes, R.et al. 2006. Emerging infectious disease and the loss of biodiversity in a Neotropical amphibian community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103:3165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malcolm, J. R. 1991. The small mammals of Amazonian forest fragments: pattern and process. Ph.D. thesis, University of Florida.
Margules, C. R. and Pressey, R. L.. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menges, E. S. 1992. Stochastic modeling of extinction in plant populations. Pp. 253–75 in Fiedler, P. L. and Jain, S. K. (eds.) Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation and Management. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesquita, R. C. G., Delamônica, P. and Laurance, W. F.. 1999. Effect of surrounding vegetation on edge-related tree mortality in Amazonian forest fragments. Biological Conservation 91:129–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naughton-Treves, L., Mena, J. L., Treves, A., Alvarez, N. and Radeloff, V. C.. 2002. Wildlife survival beyond park boundaries: the impact of slash-and-burn agriculture and hunting on mammals in Tambopata, Peru. Conservation Biology 17:1106–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olden, J. D., Poff, N. L., Douglas, M. R., Douglas, M. E. and Fausch, K. D.. 2004. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:18–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pounds, J. A., Bustamante, M. R., Coloma, L. A.et al. 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439:161–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricketts, T. H., Dinerstein, E., Boucher, T.et al. 2006. Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:18497–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I.et al. 2004. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428:640–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez-Mahecha, J. V., Salaman, P., Jorgensen, P.et al. 2004. Tropical Andes. Pp. 73–9 in Mittermeier, R. A., Gill, P. R., Hoffman, M.et al. (eds.) Hotspots Revisited. Mexico City: Cemex.Google Scholar
Sanderson, J., Fonseca, G. A. B. da, Galindo-Leal, C.et al. 2006. Escaping the minimalist trap: design and implementation of large-scale biodiversity corridors. Pp. 620–48 in Crooks, K. R. and Sanjayan, M. (eds.) Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scariot, A. 2001. Effects of landscape fragmentation on palm communities. Pp. 121–35 in Bierregaard, Jr. R. O., Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E. and Mesquita, R. (eds.) Lessons from Amazonia: The Ecology and Conservation of a Fragmented Forest. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress and Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Semlitsch, R. D. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond breeding salamanders. Conservation Biology 12:1113–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A.et al. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabarelli, M., Mantovani, W. and Peres, C. A.. 1999. Effects of habitat fragmentation on plant guild structure in the montane Atlantic forest of southeastern Brazil. Biological Conservation 91:119–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabarelli, M., Silva, J. M. C. and Gascon, C.. 2004. Forest fragmentation, synergisms and the impoverishment of neotropical forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:1419–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocher, M. 1998. A comunidade de anfíbios da Amazônia central: diferenças na composição específica entre a mata primária e pastagens. Pp. 219–32 in Gascon, C. and Moutinho, P. (eds.) Floresta Amazônica: Dinâmica, Regeneração e Manejo. Manaus: Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia.Google Scholar
Venticinque, E. M. and Fowler, H. G.. 2001. Local extinction risks and asynchronies: the evidence for a metapopulation dynamics of a social spider, Anelosimus eximius (Araneae, Theridiidae). Pp. 187–98 in Bierregaard, Jr. R. O., Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E. and Mesquita, R. (eds.) Lessons from Amazonia: The Ecology and Conservation of a Fragmented Forest. Washington D.C.: Library of Congress and Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Williamson, G. B. and Mesquita, R. C. G.. 2001. Effects of fire on rainforest regeneration in the Amazon Basin. Pp. 325–34 in Bierregaard, Jr. R. O., Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E. and Mesquita, R. (eds.) Lessons from Amazonia: the Ecology and Conservation of a Fragmented Forest. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress and Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Williamson, G. B., Mesquita, R., Ickes, K. and Ganade, G.. 1998. Estratégias de árvores pioneiras nos Neotrópicos. Pp. 131–44 in Gascon, C. and Moutinho, P. (eds.) Floresta Amazônica: Dinâmica, Regeneração e Manejo. Manaus: Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. L. and Bierregaard, Jr. R. O. 1986. Relevance of the equilibrium theory of island biogeography with an example from Amazonia. Journal of Biogeography 13:133–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuidema, P. A., Sayer, J. A. and Dijkman, W.. 1996. Forest fragments and biodiversity: the case for intermediate-sized conservation areas. Environmental Conservation 23:290–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×