Mammal conservation in the Chocó: distribution, richness and protected areas representativeness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18636/bioneotropical.v2i2.81Keywords:
Colombia, Ecuador, Extinction risk, IUCN, Mammalia, Panama.Abstract
The Chocó-Magdalena biogeographic province, Chocó sector, is considered one of the most diverse and biologically singular regions in the planet; however, so far few efforts have documented at an appropriate resolution its diversity and conservation status. We assessed the distribution of mammals at the species richness level, and in terms of orders, threat categories and global trends for the province and its representativeness on protected areas (IUCN I-VI categories). We found a high documented species diversity (266), where the northern portion of the province (Panamá-Colombia border) and the depresión del Patía represent the areas with higher species richness both total and in terms of orders and threat categories. Despite protected areas cover only around ~5% of the province, and include ~83% of the species, we highlight the need for focusing efforts on clear policy management outside protected areas, with special emphasis on Indian reservations, and promote conservation corridors especially in the northern part of the province.
Downloads
References
Balaguera-Reina SA, González-Maya JF. 2007. Occasional jaguar hunting for subsistence in Colombian Chocó. CatNews. 48: 5.
Barbosa C. 1980. Estudio de comunidades vegetales y algunas de sus relaciones con los primates en el PNN Los Katíos. Informe técnico. Bogotá: INDERENA, MinAgricultura.
Beier P. 2010. A focal species for conservation planning. In: Hornocker MG, Negri,S. (Eds.). Cougar: Ecology and conservation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 177-89.
Betancur O. 2003. Identificación de la especie y estudio sobre ecología e historia natural del tapír (Tapirus bardii) presente en el Parque Natural Nacional los Katíos AME Darién, Chocó, Colombia. Medellín: UAESPNN.
Beyer HL. 2004. Hawth’s Analysis Tools for ArcGIS. http:// www.spatialecology.com/htools.
Brumfield RT, Capparella AP. 1996. Historical diversification of birds in northwestern South America: a molecular perspective on the role of Vicariant events. Evolution. 50: 1607-24.
Cracraft J. 1985. Historical biogeography and patterns of diversification within South American areas of endemism. Ornithol Monog. 36: 49-84.
Dalerum F, Somers MJ, Kunkel KE, Cameron EZ. 2008. The potential for large carnivores to act as biodiversity surrogates in southern Africa. BiodivConserv. 17: 2939- 49.
Eisenberg JF. 1989. Mammals of the neotropics. The northern neotropics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
ESRI. 2009. ArcGIS 9.3. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, USA.
Faith DP, Walker PA. 1996. How do indicator groups provide nformation about the relative biodiversity of different sets of areas? On hotspots, complementarity and pattern- based approaches author(s). Biodiv Lett. 3: 18-25.
Galvis G. 1993. Aspectos biogeográficos del Chocó. En: Leyva, P. (Ed.). Colombia Pacífico. Bogotá: Fondo para la Protección del Medio Ambiente «José Celestino Mutis».
González-Maya JF, Víquez-R LR, Pineda-Guerrero A, Vela- Vargas M, Cruz-Lizano I., Hoepker A, et al.2012. Connecting two continents: species richness, functional traits and extinction risk in the Panamanian isthmus- Chocó continuum. Rev Biodiv Neotrop. 2: 5-14.
Hernández Camacho JI, Hurtado Guerra A, Ortiz Quijano R, Walschburger T. 1992. Unidades biogeográficas de Colombia. Acta Zool Mex. (volumen especial): 105-51.
Hershkovitz P. 1982. The recent mammals of the Neotropical region: a zoogeographic and ecological review. In: Keast A, Erk FC, Glass B (Eds.). Evolution, mammals and Southern Continents. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 311-431.
Hoctor TS, Carr MH, Zwick PD. 2000. Identifying a linked reserve system using a regional landscape approach: the Florida Ecological Network. Conserv Biol. 14: 984-1000.
IUCN. 2011. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. [WWW Document]. Version 2011.2.IUCN. 2012. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [WWW Document]. Version 2012.2.
Mantilla-Meluk H, Jiménez-Ortega AM. 2006. Estado de conservación y algunas consideraciones biogeográficas sobre la quirópterofauna del Chocó Biogeográfico Colombiano. Investigación, Biodiversidad y Desarrollo.
: 10-17.
Morrone JJ. 2001. Biogeografía de América Latina y el Caribe
Volumen 3. Zaragoza: Manuales y Tesis.
Muñoz-Saba Y, Alberico M. 2004. Mamíferos en el Chocó Biogeográfico. In: Rangel, OJ (Ed.). Colombia, Diversidad Biótica IV: El Chocó Biogeográfico/Costa Pacífica. Bogotá: Instituto de Ciencias Naturales,Universidad Nacional de Colombia, pp. 559-97.
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca, GA, Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 403: 853-8.
Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND,
Powell GV, Underwood EC, et al. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth. BioScience. 51: 933-8.
Roberge J, Angelstam P. 2004. Usefulness of the Umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol. 18: 76-85.
Rodríguez-Mahecha JV, Alberico M, Trujillo F, Jorgenson J. 2006. Libro Rojo de los Mamíferos de Colombia. Serie Libr. ed. Bogotá: Conservación Internacional Colombia & Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial.
Rondinini C, Di Marco M, Chiozza F, Santulli G, Baisero D, Visconti P, et al.2011. Global habitat suitability models of terrestrial mammals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biol Sci. 366: 2633- 41.
UNEP, IUCN, 2009. World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Annual release 2009. Gland: UNEP, IUCN.
