Page 1 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 4 1 An assessment of the conservation status of Restrepia (Orchidaceae) 5 6 7 2 reveals the threatened status of the genus 8 9 10 11 12 3 13 14 15 4 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 5 19 20 21 6 22 23 24 7 25 26 27 8 28 29 30 9 31 32 33 10 34 35 36 37 11 38 39 40 12 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 1 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 2 of 49

1 2 3 13 Abstract 4 5 6 7 14 Background: The genus Restrepia occurs throughout Central and South America in areas of 8 9 15 montane forest heavily affected by deforestation and is potentially facing a high level of threat as 10 11 16 a consequence. 12 13 14 17 Aims: The current study was designed to test the feasibility of using available online resources to 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 establish the threats facing these orchids and their conservation status for later inclusion in the 18 19 19 IUCN online data base. 20 21 22 20 Methods: Online resources were searched for primary data on the distribution of species of 23 24 25 21 Restrepia. The Geospatial Conservation Assessment Tool (GeoCAT) was used to produce semi- 26 27 22 automated IUCN Red List assessments. Locations of populations were examined in Google 28 29 23 Earth to establish habitat loss. A comparison of the data produced a Red List assessment for each 30 31 24 species. 32 33 34 35 25 Results: The observed losses of Restrepia habitat were: Venezuela 45% of recorded locations for 36 37 26 15 species, Colombia 28% for 30 species, Ecuador 36% for 18 species, Peru 41% for eight 38 39 27 species, Costa Rica 81% and Panama 32% for three species. This habitat loss coincided with the 40 41 28 route of the Pan American Highway in these countries. 42 43 44 45 29 Conclusions: It was possible to establish the Red List Status of Restrepia species even with 46 47 30 minimal data. The degree of threat facing these and other epiphytic orchid genera in these habitats 48 49 31 was shown to be considerable. 50 51 52 32 Key words: Central and South America; deforestation; endangered categories; GeoCAT; Red 53 54 55 33 List; Restrepia. 56 57 2 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 3 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 34 Introduction 4 5 6 7 35 Restrepia is a small orchid genus comprising 61 species (WCSP 2018) belonging to the 8 9 36 Pleurothallidinae, the largest sub-tribe in the Orchidaceae. These species are found throughout 10 11 37 Central America and in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia in South America, 12 13 38 growing at elevations between 1000 – 3000 m a.s.l. in areas of montane rain forest. These forests 14 15 16 39 were identified as deforestationFor Peer ‘hotspots’ Reviewby Mittermeier et al. Only (1999). Habitat loss and orchid 17 18 40 population decline in these regions has been ongoing (Mittermeier et al. 1999; Myers et al. 2000; 19 20 41 Brooks et al. 2002; Bubb et al. 2004; Millner 2013) and from this, it is reasonable to assume that 21 22 23 42 all epiphytic species, including Restrepia, face significant threats to their populations. However, 24 25 43 to date, the majority of Restrepia species have not been evaluated against Red List Criteria to 26 27 44 determine their degree of threat. Therefore, this study was designed to use information and data 28 29 30 45 currently available online to determine the degree of threat facing this genus and to establish their 31 32 46 Red List status, for later inclusion in the IUCN online data base. 33 34 35 47 Figure 1 near here 36 37 38 39 48 The only comprehensive review of the genus is the monograph by Luer (1996a), which does not 40 41 49 include the most recently described species. The type species for the genus, Restrepia antennifera 42 43 50 (Humboldt et al. 1816) was described in 1801 (Figure 1). Together with other early discoveries, 44 45 46 51 such as R. contorta, R. brachypus and R. guttulata it is widely distributed geographically and 47 48 52 exhibits a high degree of within-species variation. The majority of Restrepia species have been 49 50 53 identified after 1980 and many of which have only been identified from one or two locations 51 52 54 (Luer 1996a). While these may persist in other localities in the wild, they have a narrower 53 54 55 55 geographical distribution compared to those discovered earlier. Species discovered since 1996 56 57 3 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 4 of 49

1 2 3 56 include R. piperitosa (Luer 1998), R. portillae (Luer 2002) and R. fritillina (Luer 2007). Most 4 5 6 57 recently, five species have been described in Guatemala: R. mayana Archila, R. archilae and R. 7 8 58 cobanensis, (Chiron and Szlachetko 2013a, b, c), R. nicolasii Archila (Szlachetko and Chiron 9 10 59 2017) and R. valverdii Archila (Rodriguez and Veliz 2015). None of these most recently 11 12 60 identified species are widespread and to date, have not been found elsewhere. 13 14 15 16 61 In Central America Forand Mexico, Peer only two Reviewwidespread species Onlyare known, having their centres of 17 18 62 distribution in Costa Rica and Panama. Both were described prior to 1930 - R. muscifera (Lindley 19 20 21 63 1859) and R. trichoglossa (Lehman 1901). R. trichoglossa is also found throughout Venezuela, 22 23 64 Colombia, Ecuador and Peru (thus making it the most widespread and common Restrepia species) 24 25 65 and R. muscifera is found in Colombia. One other species, R. aberrans, is native to Central 26 27 66 America. This was first identified in Panama in 1996 (Luer 1996b), and has only been found in 28 29 30 67 one other location since (Tropicos 2018). 31 32 33 68 The remaining species have their centre of distribution in the montane forests of the Andes of 34 35 69 Colombia and Ecuador (Luer 1996a). Many have only been recorded once or twice in the wild 36 37 38 70 and may be considered to occur as narrow endemics. This includes R. howei, which has no 39 40 71 recorded locations, and nothing is known of its distribution in the wild (Luer 2005). 41 42 43 72 These tropical montane forests occur typically between 2000 – 3500 m a.s.l. (Philips 1997) 44 45 46 73 where local climatic conditions often cause cloud and mist to be in contact with the vegetation 47 48 74 (Whitmore 2001; Corlett and Primack 2011). These forests contain a disproportionately large 49 50 75 number of endemic and threatened species, especially epiphytes (Whitmore 2001; Corlett and 51 52 53 76 Primack 2011). For many of these species, their numbers and distribution have yet to be recorded 54 55 77 (Armenteras et al. 2003). Threatened both by human pressures and climate change impacting on 56 57 4 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 5 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 78 temperature, rainfall and cloud formation (Benzing 1990; Bubb et al. 2004; Bruijnzeel 2004), they 4 5 6 79 are also threatened by changes in land use; such as the felling of trees for timber, farming or 7 8 80 mining, all of which leading to deforestation. In the Eastern Colombian Andes, for example, the 9 10 81 most altered and fragmented ecosystems correspond to montane and sub-montane forests 11 12 82 (Armenteras et al. 2003). How such habitat fragmentation and change is affecting Restrepia 13 14 15 83 species in these regions is unknown. 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 84 In the 1980s, it was realised that there was an urgent need to identify montane forest areas with 19 20 21 85 high concentrations of endemic species facing significant environmental threat(s). So, the 22 23 86 ‘hotspots’ analysis of tropical rain forests (Myers 1988) was extended (Myers 1990) to include 24 25 87 them. By definition, a ‘hotspot’ contains at least 1,500 species of vascular plants as endemics and 26 27 88 has lost at least 70% of its original habitat (Myers 1988). These forest ‘hotspots’ contain 45% of 28 29 30 89 known plant biodiversity (Myers et al. 2000). In such biodiversity ‘hotspots’ of the Ecuadorian 31 32 90 Andes, epiphytes constitute 30% of the vascular plant species (Kuper et al. 2004) and orchid 33 34 91 ‘hotspots’ coincide with these (Cribb and Govaerts 2005). The centres of diversity for Restrepia 35 36 37 92 species also coincide with these centres of orchid and epiphyte diversity. 38 39 40 93 Figure 2 near here 41 42 43 44 94 Figure 2 (Maps A, B and C) illustrates that montane forest distribution, Andean deforestation 45 46 95 ‘hotspots’, and the geographical distribution of Restrepia coincide; thus, highlighting the 47 48 96 threatened nature of Restrepia habitats throughout South America. It seems reasonable to assume 49 50 97 that many individual Restrepia species have been exposed to the threat of deforestation and that 51 52 53 98 their populations have declined consequently. 54 55 56 57 5 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 6 of 49

1 2 3 99 In recent years, the importance of ex situ conservation of plant species has become widely 4 5 6 100 accepted (Maunder et al. 1997; Fay and Krauss 2003; BGCI 2012; Mounce et al. 2017) and it is 7 8 101 essential to be able to carry out conservation assessments from which to formulate conservation 9 10 102 strategies. Online resources for plant conservation all share the common aim of making data 11 12 103 freely available for conservation research, these include Tropicos (2018), the Herbarium 13 14 15 104 Collections, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (2018) and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility 16 For Peer Review Only 17 105 (GBIF 2018). Accurate and detailed studies of present and past species distribution patterns may 18 19 106 now be undertaken which were not previously possible. 20 21 22 23 107 The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Programme has been 24 25 108 working with the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), since 1975 to assess the 26 27 109 conservation status of species worldwide in order to highlight taxa threatened with extinction, and 28 29 110 promote their conservation (IUCN 2018). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (hereafter 30 31 32 111 the Red List) (IUCN 2018) has been published solely online since 2001. It provides taxonomic, 33 34 112 conservation status and distribution data on plants and animals that have been globally evaluated 35 36 113 using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2012). This system was designed to 37 38 39 114 determine the relative risk of extinction of species at a global scale. 40 41 42 115 Currently, only Restrepia trichoglossa has been assessed and published on the Red List (IUCN 43 44 116 2018). The most recently published National Red Lists for Ecuador (Léon-Yánez et al. 2011) and 45 46 117 Colombia (Calderon-Sáenz 2007) both list Restrepia species. In the Colombian National Red List, 47 48 49 118 endemic species such as R. cuprea, R. pandurata and R. falkenbergii are listed as Critically 50 51 119 Endangered (CR). Such endemic species presently categorised as Nationally Endangered or more 52 53 120 threatened categories, if assessed at the global level, could also be listed as Endangered, but 54 55 121 currently are not. 56 57 6 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 7 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 122 Until 2010 there were few effective tools that took primary biodiversity data, such as those 4 5 6 123 provided through herbarium records, and used them to make analyses of the geographic range 7 8 124 of a species (Bachman et al. 2011). The Geospatial Conservation Assessment Tool (GeoCAT) 9 10 125 online facility was developed to fill this gap and harnesses primary biodiversity data for semi- 11 12 126 automated IUCN Red List assessment and analysis (Bachman et al. 2011). This tool has been 13 14 15 127 made freely available through the internet to give conservationists easy access to a fast, 16 For Peer Review Only 17 128 quantifiable and reliable species conservation assessment tool (Bachman et al. 2011). At 18 19 129 present, this tool can only produce a preliminary assessment based on extent of occurrence 20 21 22 130 (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO). It does not report on the sub-criteria that are required 23 24 131 for a full Red List assessment for which additional data are required, such as whether or not the 25 26 132 taxon is severely fragmented or in continuing decline. However, this tool has been widely used 27 28 29 133 in previous studies such as Romeiras et al. (2016) in which it was used to perform an IUCN 30 31 134 Red List assessment of the Cape Verde endemic flora and to assist plant conservation in 32 33 135 Macaronesia. As such, we decided to adapt the methodology for use in our study. 34 35 36 136 All these resources listed above, could potentially enable a qualitative assessment of the threat to 37 38 39 137 individual Restrepia species, to be made by researchers not based in their ranges of occurrence. 40 41 138 The genus has members ranging from those comparatively well-represented in herbaria databases 42 43 139 to those with only one or two records and some with no records at all. The question as to how 44 45 140 many records are required for an assessment is of great importance regarding some of these 46 47 48 141 species, as the disparity between the more common and rarer members of the genus, might hinder 49 50 142 the full use of these resources for Restrepia. 51 52 53 143 The purpose of the current study was twofold. Firstly, to assess whether currently available 54 55 56 144 online resources could produce reliable evaluations of Red List Categories and Criteria to 57 7 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 8 of 49

1 2 3 145 elucidate whether the quality of data available was adequate to produce realistic assessments for 4 5 6 146 all Restrepia species. Secondly, to produce Red List assessments for the species present in this 7 8 147 genus, for later inclusion on the IUCN Red List. 9 10 11 148 12 13 14 149 Materials and methods 15 16 150 The data presented inFor this paper Peer are based Reviewupon an investigation Only carried out using GeoCAT in 17 18 19 151 2013. 20 21 22 152 Assembling the data set 23 24 25 153 An online search of ‘Restrepia’ through the GBIF data portal produced a data set of 753 26 27 154 occurrence records with many synonyms, duplicated entries, false entries (other genera with 28 29 30 155 similar names) and entries with no collection and location data. Only entries with sufficient 31 32 156 taxonomic (i.e. specific names) and geographical data (i.e. location, elevation description) were 33 34 157 retained for later entry into the GeoCAT programme. Further online searches were made of the 35 36 37 158 New York Botanic Gardens Herbarium (Ramirez et al. 2018), Tropicos (Tropicos 2018) and 38 39 159 Kew Herbarium (RBG 2018) and details from Luer (1996a) were used to complete the data set. 40 41 160 The resulting data set of 330 occurrence records contained the following fields: species name, 42 43 44 161 collection year, location data (description only) and elevation. Not all fields were complete for 45 46 162 every species. The descriptive location data were later used for entering species details into 47 48 163 GeoCAT. 49 50 51 164 Data entry in GeoCAT 52 53 54 55 56 57 8 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 9 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 165 Each occurrence point was georeferenced by comparing location descriptions with maps and 4 5 6 166 gazetteers, using altitude details and other distribution details from Luer (1996a, b). Co-ordinates 7 8 167 for each species were subsequently analysed in GeoCAT to calculate EOO and AOO for each 9 10 168 species and in each of its countries of occurrence. The location data from GeoCAT were then 11 12 169 examined in Google Earth to establish if forest cover persisted. Further calculations of EOO and 13 14 15 170 AOO values were made, omitting locations where a visual inspection of Google Earth satellite 16 For Peer Review Only 17 171 imagery had indicated that forest cover no longer persisted. 18 19 20 172 Calculating Red List status 21 22 23 173 A complete Red List assessment involves evaluating data regarding a taxon against five criteria 24 25 26 174 (A-E), any one of which may be used to determine the final threat category: population 27 28 175 reduction, A; geographic range including EOO and AOO, B; small and declining population, C; 29 30 176 small or restricted populations, D; and quantitative analysis of extinction probability, E (IUCN 31 32 33 177 2017). Regarding Restrepia species and the data available for the current investigation, only 34 35 178 three of the criteria could be used to assess their level of threat: population reduction (criterion 36 37 179 A), geographic range (criterion B) and very small or restricted population (criterion D). 38 39 180 Criterion A - Population reduction: The decline in population may be identified as “a decline, 40 41 42 181 measured by % loss, in AOO, EOO and/or habitat quality” (IUCN 2017). By calculating the 43 44 182 reduction in sub-populations, the decline in population for the entire range of the species, the 45 46 183 decline in subpopulations in each country of distribution could be obtained. Criterion A2c 47 48 49 184 “Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past where the causes of 50 51 185 reduction may not have ceased or may not be understood or may not be reversible” (IUCN 2017) 52 53 186 indicating a past reduction which had not ceased, was used to assess Restrepia species. 54 55 56 57 9 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 10 of 49

1 2 3 187 Criterion B - Geographic range: The geographic range for a species may be recorded as EOO or 4 5 6 188 AOO. There are thresholds used to categorise the level of threat. Under this criterion, B1 and 2 7 8 189 (EOO and AOO), a (number of locations), and b (i,ii,iv) (continuing decline in any of EOO, 9 10 190 AOO or number of locations) were used for assessment, according to IUCN guidelines (IUCN 11 12 191 2017). 13 14 15 192 Criterion D - Very small or restricted populations: Many Restrepia species are only known from 16 For Peer Review Only 17 193 a few collection localities and some have only been collected once. While these locations do not 18 19 194 give any indication of the sub-population size, they may be used to assess D2, in the VU category 20 21 22 195 only, which is based solely on the size of AOO and/or the number of locations where a 23 24 196 threatening event is either happening or likely to happen. The numerical values used to assess the 25 26 197 Criteria A, B and D for each Restrepia species are presented in Table 1. 27 28 29 198 Table 1 near here 30 31 32 33 199 Calculations, assessments and patterns of habitat loss 34 35 36 200 Using EOO and AOO values produced after correction for habitat loss, the percentage declines 37 38 201 in EOO, AOO and location numbers were calculated. Each species was then subsequently 39 40 202 evaluated against Criteria A, B and D, as previously. Maps were designed with the following – 41 42 43 203 outline, physical features, major road(s), main towns, locations of national parks, reserves or 44 45 204 private reserves and positions of Restrepia sub-populations, extinct and extant. From the position 46 47 205 of the sub-populations for each country’s indigenous Restrepia species it was possible to identify 48 49 206 patterns in sub-population decline. A careful comparison was made of the position of remaining 50 51 52 207 sub-populations to establish if they occurred in safe protected areas as this meant the immediate 53 54 208 threat of loss of habitat was not present. Such sub-populations cannot be considered as threatened 55 56 57 10 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 11 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 209 using Criterion A2. When assigning the final category of risk, the type of risk a species is facing 4 5 6 210 is important, since the loss of habitat and pattern of habitat loss may occur variously through 7 8 211 natural causes as well as through human activity. Finally, a summary of habitat loss in each 9 10 212 country, together with a table of their native species and final Red List status was produced. 11 12 213 13 14 15 214 Results 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 215 Observations from Google Earth imagery 19 20 21 216 Historic Google Earth imagery for the geographical distribution of Restrepia from 1970 (the 22 23 24 217 earliest Google Earth images) to 2013 indicated that during this time period the land use in many 25 26 218 areas had changed primarily from forest to farming, with only scattered patches of the original 27 28 219 forest remaining. This pattern of habitat loss was observed at many of the locations for Restrepia 29 30 220 species and illustrates the rapid and extensive rate of deforestation and changes in land use 31 32 33 221 throughout Central and South America. By contrasting the historical imagery (1970) with the 34 35 222 satellite imagery for 2013 along the route of the Pan-American Highway the changes in land use 36 37 223 that have occurred since the highway was completed could be clearly observed (Google Earth 38 39 40 224 2013a; Millner 2013). The maximum resolution of the imagery was 65 cm pan-sharpened, 41 42 225 although in many places the available resolution was less. With recent changes in Google Earth 43 44 226 the resolutions now range from 15 cm to 15 m. 45 46 47 227 Examples of the deforestation observed include habitat loss for R. trichoglossa in Central 48 49 50 228 America (Google Earth 2013b) where land use is now primarily farming, as evidenced by fields 51 52 229 and roads with a few fragmented patches of forest remaining. However, 38 out of the 55 original 53 54 230 recorded locations for R. trichoglossa remain elsewhere. For R. roseola in Venezuela, at its only 55 56 57 11 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 12 of 49

1 2 3 231 recorded location (Google Earth 2013c), forest cover was observed to have been replaced by 4 5 6 232 urban development and road building. R. roseola is probably extinct at this location in 7 8 233 Venezuela, but other unrecorded subpopulations may persist elsewhere. Lastly, at one recorded 9 10 234 location for R. antennifera in Colombia (Google Earth 2013d) from which habitat has been lost, 11 12 235 much of the original forest has now changed to agricultural use and many roads have been built 13 14 15 236 in the area. R. antennifera is a common species and there are still 19 out of the original 37 16 For Peer Review Only 17 237 recorded locations remaining. 18 19 20 238 Statistical evaluation of the data set 21 22 23 24 239 Distribution graphs for a representative sample of the species are shown in Figure 3. R. 25 26 240 antennifera, an example of a common and widespread species, has undergone substantial loss 27 28 241 throughout its range with no remaining recorded locations in Peru. In contrast, R. muscifera has 29 30 31 242 lost most locations in Central America and very few in Colombia and Ecuador. The final species, 32 33 243 R. citrina has few recorded locations and has not lost any. Its global range is the same as its 34 35 244 national range as it has only been recorded from one country. 36 37 38 245 Figure 3 near here 39 40 41 42 246 Calculation of EOO and AOO values with GeoCAT 43 44 45 247 The EOO and AOO values as calculated by GeoCAT, after amending for habitat loss, are 46 47 248 included as supplementary data Table 1. After adjusting for habitat loss, the Red List status for 48 49 249 AOO was either EN or CR. This had changed from EN to CR, if the number of remaining 50 51 52 250 locations fell below three e.g. as is the case for R. aspasicensis and R. cuprea. The Red List status 53 54 251 values for EOO values ranged from LC to CR e.g. R. trichoglossa, LC and R. pandurata, CR. 55 56 57 12 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 13 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 252 Supplementary data Table 1 was used to produce the initial Red List assessments presented in 4 5 6 253 supplementary data Table 2 together with the assessment amended for Criterion B. 7 8 9 254 Maps and accompanying tables 10 11 12 255 Table 2 near here 13 14 15 256 Figure 4 near here 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 257 Most locations assumed to be lost (shown in red) coincide with the route of the Pan American 19 20 258 Highway, major towns and industrial areas in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and Central 21 22 23 259 America (Figure 4). The remaining locations (shown in blue) occur further away from the 24 25 260 highway. Venezuela has 22 out of 40 locations remaining, all currently in protected areas such as 26 27 261 national parks. This represents a loss of 45% of recorded locations, with 55% remaining for 15 28 29 30 262 species (Table 2). In Colombia and Ecuador, which have more Restrepia species (30 and 18 31 32 263 respectively), the overall loss of locations was estimated less. Colombia has 100 out of 138 33 34 264 locations remaining, with 46 of these in protected areas, which represents a loss of 28% of 35 36 265 recorded locations for 30 species. Ecuador has 61 out of 96 locations remaining, with 36 in 37 38 39 266 protected areas, representing a loss of 36% for 18 species (Table 2). 40 41 42 267 In Peru, the loss of locations does not coincide with the Pan-American Highway, as the highway 43 44 268 does not follow the Andes, but was built along the coast. There are fewer endemic species 45 46 269 occurring in this country (8 species) and 10 out of 17 locations remain, with six of these in 47 48 49 270 protected areas. This represents a loss of 41% for these species (Table 2). 50 51 52 271 Central America can be divided into two areas for comparison - Mexico to Nicaragua and Costa 53 54 272 Rica plus Panama. In Mexico to Nicaragua, there are fewer recorded locations for the Restrepia 55 56 57 13 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 14 of 49

1 2 3 273 species R. trichoglossa and R. muscifera, but the loss of habitat has been very high. Only 4 out of 4 5 6 274 21 of the recorded locations remain, with two of these in protected locations; this represents a loss 7 8 275 of 81% (Figures 6 A and B; Table 2). By contrast, in Costa Rica and Panama, 47 out of 68 9 10 276 recorded locations remain, with 22 of these in protected areas, which represents a loss of 32%. 11 12 277 The highest loss occurs in one area in central Costa Rica, which coincides with several towns that 13 14 15 278 are connected by the Pan American Highway (Figure 5B). In Panama, the highest loss was 16 For Peer Review Only 17 279 estimated to have occurred around Panama City and the industrial area around the Panama Canal 18 19 280 (Figure 5B). Summary diagrams showing the percentages of threat to species occurring in each of 20 21 22 281 their countries of origin is shown in Figure 6. 23 24 25 282 Figures 5 and 6 near here 26 27 28 283 GeoCAT and threat analysis 29 30 31 284 Since a category of threat may be assigned from any of the criteria (Table 1), an analysis of the 32 33 34 285 highest Red List category obtained (supplementary data) provided an assessment of the degree of 35 36 286 threat faced by each species. Every species achieved a Red List Category of ‘Vulnerable’ or 37 38 287 above for its complete range. Apart from R. trichoglossa and R. contorta, all species could be 39 40 288 classified as ‘Threatened’, with a Red List Category of ‘Vulnerable’, or above, in either one or 41 42 43 289 more of their countries of origin (Table 2). R. trichoglossa is only of Least Concern in the parts of 44 45 290 its range in Colombia and Ecuador, while R. contorta is of Least Concern in the part of its range 46 47 291 in Colombia. 48 49 50 292 In Ecuador, one species, R. trichoglossa, is categorised as Least Concern and one species, R. 51 52 293 howei, as Data Deficient. All remaining 16 species are threatened: one species, R. ephippium, is 53 54 55 294 Critically Endangered; 20% are Endangered and 80% are Vulnerable. The results for the 56 57 14 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 15 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 295 distribution of Restrepia from this study correspond closely with the results of a Parsimony 4 5 6 296 Analysis of Endemism (PAE) analysis carried out by field workers in Ecuador (Endara et al. 7 8 297 2007). This indicated that the majority of endemic orchids occurred in montane microhabitats 9 10 298 between 1500 - 3000m, in the low montane and cloud montane forests, i.e. the same habitat and 11 12 299 altitudes as identified for Restrepia from the initial data analysis. Only a small fraction of these 13 14 15 300 species has been registered in the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP) in Ecuador. It is 16 For Peer Review Only 17 301 estimated that 85% of the endemic orchids of Ecuador are threatened: 2% are Critically 18 19 302 Endangered, 11% are Endangered and 87% are Vulnerable (Endara et al. 2007). 20 21 22 23 303 In Colombia, out of 30 species found to occur there, one species, R. fritillina, was Data Deficient 24 25 304 and two species, R. trichoglossa and R. contorta were considered of Least Concern, or not under 26 27 305 threat. All the remaining species are threatened: 13% are Critically Endangered, 13% are 28 29 306 Endangered and 63% are Vulnerable. When assigning the category Data Deficient and Not 30 31 32 307 Evaluated it is important to note that this does not imply that the species concerned is/is not 33 34 308 threatened, simply there is either too little data to make an assessment or that an assessment has 35 36 309 not been carried out. For this reason, the species R. piperitosa (Peru), R. howei (Ecuador) and R. 37 38 39 310 fritillina (Colombia) are all categorised as Data Deficient. It is not possible to assign a category of 40 41 311 threat from the current data although it is probable that they may prove to be in a threatened 42 43 312 category (at least Vulnerable, VU), as they are known from only a few locations. 44 45 46 313 In Venezuela, there are three species categorised as Extinct: R. guttulata, R. aspasicensis and R. 47 48 49 314 roseola. Of these, R. guttulata is at the extreme limit of its range in Venezuela but is still found in 50 51 315 Colombia as Endangered and in Ecuador as Vulnerable. R. aspasicensis also occurs in Colombia 52 53 316 where it is Critically Endangered. R. roseola is only recorded from one location in Venezuela 54 55 56 57 15 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 16 of 49

1 2 3 317 although sub-populations may persist elsewhere in protected areas. All the remaining 12 species 4 5 6 318 are threatened: 13% are Critically Endangered, 13% are Endangered and 63% are Vulnerable. 7 8 9 319 Peru is nearly at the southern limit of the distribution range for the genus. Fewer Restrepia species 10 11 320 occur here and only two species are found further south in Bolivia. Of the nine species that have 12 13 321 been found in Peru: two species, R. antennifera and R. brachypus, (both at the furthest extent of 14 15 16 322 their respective ranges)For are categorised Peer as Extinct;Review R. piperitosa Only is categorised Data Deficient; R. 17 18 323 contorta is categorised as Critically Endangered and R. mohrii as Endangered. The remaining four 19 20 324 species (50% of those found here) are all categorised as Vulnerable. 21 22 23 325 In Bolivia, the only endemic species, R. vasquezii is categorised as Vulnerable. R. brachypus, 24 25 26 326 known from two locations, is classified as Critically Endangered, but this may be better explained 27 28 327 as this represents the limit of the range for this species, which is common in Colombia and 29 30 328 Ecuador, although extinct in Peru. 31 32 33 329 The fewest number of Restrepia species are found in Central America. Only R. muscifera, R. 34 35 36 330 trichoglossa and R. aberrans were previously recorded, although there are now five more species 37 38 331 recorded in Guatemala. As there is so little data regarding R. aberrans, it could only be assigned 39 40 332 the category D2VU (Vulnerable in Category D2) (Table 1). R. aberrans is arguably the rarest 41 42 43 333 Restrepia and to date, few plants have found their way into collections and it is virtually unknown 44 45 334 in cultivation. R. muscifera is not threatened in Costa Rica or Panama but is categorised as 46 47 335 Endangered in Mexico to Nicaragua. R. trichoglossa is categorised as Vulnerable in Costa Rica 48 49 336 and Panama and as Extinct in Mexico to Nicaragua. Habitat destruction in some of these countries 50 51 52 337 has been especially high, and the few recorded locations for R. trichoglossa have been lost (Fig. 53 54 338 5, A and b). 55 56 57 16 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 17 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 339 Discussion 4 5 6 7 340 The initial possibility arose that increased road building and improved infrastructure after 1960 in 8 9 341 the countries of origin may have led to the discovery of many new Restrepia and other orchid 10 11 342 species. The maps (Figures 5 and 6) showing the species locations for Restrepia provide evidence 12 13 343 for this. Locations where habitat had been lost (red points) were found to closely coincide with 14 15 16 344 the route of the Pan ForAmerican Peer Highway in Review Central America, Colombia, Only Ecuador and to a lesser 17 18 345 extent in Venezuela. In these countries, the route of the highway was through the valleys of the 19 20 346 high Andes. The exception was in Peru, where the route of the highway runs along the coast 21 22 23 347 where few Restrepia species have been found. The remaining locations (blue points) typically 24 25 348 occur further away from the highway. The years during which the highway was built correspond 26 27 349 with the dates of discovery for Restrepia species; i.e. most sections of the highway in South 28 29 30 350 American countries were built between 1960 and 1975. 31 32 33 351 Deforestation and habitat loss were observed, via Google Earth satellite imagery, to have occurred 34 35 352 along the route of the Pan American Highway throughout South America during the period 1970 - 36 37 353 2013 (Google Earth 2013a). For example, extensive changes in land use to agriculture were 38 39 40 354 observed along a section of the highway in Colombia, evidenced by fields and the many minor 41 42 355 roads joining the highway, built to open access to the surrounding countryside. In some areas, this 43 44 356 deforestation has been very rapid, often over as short a time period as five years, as shown from 45 46 47 357 the imagery. Road building has made many areas more easily accessible, not least to field 48 49 358 biologists who have attempted to catalogue flora and fauna in these countries. In Ecuador, many 50 51 359 orchid species have been discovered along Ecuador's road system (Endara et al. 2007; 2010), on 52 53 360 roads that surround the National Parks (Endara et al. 2010). These examples provide an 54 55 56 361 explanation as to why so many new Restrepia and other orchid species have been discovered 57 17 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 18 of 49

1 2 3 362 since 1960. The areas in which they grow were inaccessible prior to this date and only became 4 5 6 363 accessible due to the road building that accompanied that of the Pan American Highway. 7 8 9 364 National Parks 10 11 12 365 Many of the existing locations for Restrepia species were found to occur within national parks 13 14 366 (Figures 5 and 6). Species in these locations may be thought of as ‘safe’ or at a reduced risk 15 16 367 compared to those occurringFor elsewhere.Peer This Review was important when Only assigning the final Red List 17 18 19 368 status for these species. The number, type and area of national parks vary from country to 20 21 369 country, and consequently, the numbers of species protected by them also vary. However, 22 23 370 national park status may not be enough to protect these areas in the future (Cook 2004). 24 25 26 371 Table 3 near here 27 28 29 30 372 31 32 373 How many records are needed to give an accurate estimate of threat? 33 34 35 374 The above presents a rather bleak overview of the Red List Status for Restrepia species over their 36 37 38 375 complete range; in which all species are classified as being under some degree of threat, one 39 40 376 species as extinct, and 51 species as ‘Threatened’. Unfortunately, this probably underestimates the 41 42 377 degree of threat that some species face. 43 44 45 46 378 The probable cause of this arises when assessing Criterion B. Although GeoCAT will calculate 47 48 379 AOO for species with one occurrence, the EOO must be considered as numerically equal to the 49 50 380 AOO (IUCN, 2018). This results in GeoCAT assigning categories for EOO and AOO values as 51 52 381 Critically Endangered. However, this Category for Criterion B cannot be assigned to these species 53 54 55 382 as there are not enough data (i.e. more occurrences) from which to calculate values for the sub- 56 57 18 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 19 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 383 categories (a) and (b) (Table 1). These are needed for a full Red List Assessment of Criterion B. 4 5 6 384 This adjustment for the final Criterion B assessment is shown in Tables 5 and 6. The most 7 8 385 appropriate criterion available for these species is Criterion D2, even though GeoCAT had shown 9 10 386 a Red List Status of Critically Endangered. For Restrepia species with one location this affects 20 11 12 387 out of 53 species across their entire range, 13 out of 30 species in Colombia, five out of 18 species 13 14 15 388 in Ecuador, four out of 15 species in Venezuela, four out of nine species in Peru, one species in 16 For Peer Review Only 17 389 Bolivia and one species in Central America. All of these species could be classified as Critically 18 19 390 Endangered, but this could not be done when current Red List guidelines were applied. The more 20 21 22 391 recently discovered species in Guatemala - R. mayana, R. archilae, R. cobanensis, (Chiron and 23 24 392 Szlachetko, 2013a,b,c,) and R. valverdei (Rodriguez and Véliz 2015) should seemingly be 25 26 393 classified in a similar way. There is only one recorded location for them (Tropicos 2018) which 27 28 29 394 would classify these four species as Vulnerable due to their small populations and distributions. 30 31 395 The same is true of R. nicolasii Archila (Szlachetko and Chiron 2017) is listed in WCSP (2018) 32 33 396 but not recorded in Tropicos (2018). 34 35 36 397 The Criterion D2 was intended to identify taxa with very small or restricted populations. A taxon 37 38 39 398 qualifies for Vulnerable D2 if it’s AOO and EOO are very limited (Table 1), and if there is a 40 41 399 plausible, accompanying threat that would cause the taxon to become Critically Endangered or 42 43 400 Extinct in a very short time period. Taxa with very limited AOO or EOO are particularly 44 45 46 401 susceptible to such threat (IUCN 2018). However, it has been argued that the thresholds for AOO 47 48 402 and the EOO, (Table 1) are frequently interpreted too literally the sub-criterion is too inclusive, 49 50 403 resulting in extensive over-listing. It has also been argued that it is too exclusive, resulting in 51 52 404 under-listing (IUCN 2018). For Restrepia species, however, an assessment of VU D2 should be 53 54 55 405 considered an underestimation of the threat status of the species. It is indicative of a species, 56 57 19 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 20 of 49

1 2 3 406 known from few recorded locations that is threatened by habitat loss. The level of this threat 4 5 6 407 depends upon the exact known location of the species, being reduced for species in ‘safe’ areas 7 8 408 and increased for those in ‘unsafe’ locations near urban areas or highways. An alternative view to 9 10 409 the threat being underestimated might be that the AOO (and EOO to some extent) calculation is 11 12 410 likely to be an underestimate due to insufficient survey data of the habitat. While more collections 13 14 15 411 would provide more accurate data from which to calculate AOO and EOO, they could also 16 For Peer Review Only 17 412 provide data from which to further establish EN and CR categories. 18 19 20 413 A recent study (Brooks et al. 2019) has matched habitat and elevation data with remotely 21 22 23 414 sensed land cover and elevation datasets to map the extent of suitable habitat (AOH) within the 24 25 415 range of each species. This differs from the two spatial metrics (EOO and AOO) used in the 26 27 416 IUCN Red List criteria for extinction risk assessment. AOH can be of value in locating target 28 29 417 areas for species-specific field surveys, assessing the proportion of the habitat of a species 30 31 32 418 within protected areas, and monitoring habitat loss and fragmentation. However, AOH is 33 34 419 equivalent to neither EOO nor to AOO and thus cannot be compared directly (Brooks et al. 35 36 420 2019). 37 38 39 421 Even though the majority of Restrepia species have poorly known distributions, represented by 40 41 42 422 few records, it has still been possible to make robust preliminary conservation assessments as 43 44 423 shown in this investigation. Following the IUCN Red List guidelines, species known only from a 45 46 424 single locality can be assessed depending on its current status and possible threats (Rivers et al. 47 48 49 425 2011). Although more data would be desirable, it is important to make assessments based on a 50 51 426 limited number of records when these represent all the available information for a species (Rivers 52 53 427 et al. 2011). 54 55 56 57 20 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 21 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 428 Fortunately, for some of these narrow endemic species, large areas have been set aside as national 4 5 6 429 parks in their countries of origin. When an occurrence for a species is within these areas, the risk 7 8 430 may be substantially reduced. The worst example may be found in Mexico to Nicaragua which 9 10 431 has lost 81% of Restrepia locations and only 10% remain in protected habitats. Colombia, 11 12 432 Ecuador and Peru have similar percentages of Restrepia locations remaining in protected habitats. 13 14 15 433 However, in Venezuela all the remaining locations for Restrepia species are in protected habitats 16 For Peer Review Only 17 434 which would suggest that these locations will remain safe in the future. Unfortunately, this cannot 18 19 435 be relied upon, as there are great pressures in some countries to clear the currently protected areas 20 21 22 436 for farming, building, mining and transport (Cook 2004). Critical problems include inappropriate 23 24 437 forms of administration, political insecurity, encroachment, increasing human intervention and 25 26 438 illegal activities (Tranel and Hall 2003). 27 28 29 439 Conclusions 30 31 32 33 440 The past decade has seen an increasing number of online resources with which to investigate 34 35 441 conservation threats. This study has shown that it is currently possible to produce evaluations, in 36 37 442 line with Red List categories, for the conservation status of Restrepia species using such resources 38 39 443 (e.g. Tropicos, Kew Herbarium, GBIF, and GeoCAT). The problem concerning lack of accurate 40 41 42 444 georeferenced collection data should be overcome by the proliferation of Global Positioning 43 44 445 System (GPS) technology (El-Rabbany 2006) which is enabling field scientists to record location 45 46 446 data accurately. 47 48 49 447 The use of these resources has enabled a detailed evaluation of the current threats to Restrepia 50 51 448 species in the wild to be produced. Some taxa had only a few records, and the question arose as 52 53 449 to the plausibility of making reliable assessments with these. Even these poorly documented taxa 54 55 56 57 21 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 22 of 49

1 2 3 450 could often be assigned a threat category by using background information concerning the 4 5 6 451 deterioration of their habitat (IUCN 2018). 7 8 9 452 10 11 12 453 Restrepia has been shown to be an endangered genus comprising many narrow endemic species. 13 14 454 The additional effects of global warming are likely to increase the degree of threat to Restrepia 15 16 455 and other plant and Foranimal species Peer in Central Review and South America Only which occupy the same habitat. 17 18 19 20 456 The sixth mass extinction of species as a result of human activity (Holocene or Anthropocene 21 22 457 extinction) is already having a major impact on orchids, in particular, on orchid genera indigenous 23 24 458 to threatened environments (e.g. montane rain forests) such as Restrepia. Many Pleurothallid 25 26 459 orchid genera are endemic in these areas e.g. Stelis, Porroglossum, Dryadella, Masedvallia, 27 28 29 460 Dracula, Platystele, Dracula and Pleurothallis; all of which currently face the same 30 31 461 environmental threats as Restrepia, given the widespread deforestation of these habitats. 32 33 34 462 Since 2013, when these data were first collected, deforestation has continued throughout Central 35 36 37 463 and South America. As such, the current situation for these species is probably even worse than 38 39 464 presented in our study. While the full extent of the effect on these populations remains unknown, 40 41 465 this study has helped to reveal their Endangered status and the highly significant threats these 42 43 466 orchids now face. 44 45 46 47 467 Ongoing work by the authors is building on the preliminary assessments carried out for this study, 48 49 468 and they are in the process of documenting full global Red List assessments for later submission 50 51 469 to and publication on the IUCN Red List, subject to reviews. This will further disseminate this 52 53 470 information to the broader scientific and conservation community and will hopefully inform and 54 55 56 471 facilitate future conservation of this genus. 57 22 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 23 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 472 Declaration of interest 4 5 6 7 473 We hereby acknowledge that there is no financial interest or benefit that has arisen 8 9 10 474 from the direct application of our research. 11 12 13 475 References 14 15 16 476 For Peer Review Only 17 18 477 Armenteras D, Gast F, Villareal H. 2003. Andean forest fragmentation and the representativeness 19 20 21 478 of protected natural areas in the eastern Andes, Colombia. Biol Conserv. 113: 245–256. 22 23 479 Bachman S, Moat J, Hill AW, de la Torre J, Scott B. 2011. Supporting Red List threat 24 25 480 assessments with GeoCAT: geospatial conservation assessment tool. In: Smith V, Penev 26 27 28 481 L (Eds) e-Infrastructures for data publishing in biodiversity science. ZooKeys, 150: 117– 29 30 482 126. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.150.2109 31 32 483 Baker C. 2007. Panama 3rd Ed. National Geographic Traveller. 272 pp. 33 34 484 Baker C. 2009. Costa Rica. National Geographic Traveller. 276 pp. 35 36 37 485 Benzing D. 1998. Vulnerabilities of Tropical Forests to Climate Change: The significance of 38 39 486 resident epiphytes. Climate Change 39: 519–540. 40 41 487 Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI). 2012. International Agenda for Botanic 42 43 44 488 Gardens in Conservation: 2nd edition. BGCI, Richmond, UK 45 46 489 Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Rylands AB, Konstant WR, 47 48 490 Flick P, Pilgrim J, Oldfield S, Magin G, Hilton-Taylor C. 2002. Habitat loss and 49 50 51 491 extinction in the Hotspots of Biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 16: 909–923. 52 53 492 Brooks TM, Pimm SL, Akcakaya HR, Buchanan GM, Butchart SHM, Foden W, Hilton-Taylo C, 54 55 493 Hoffman M, Jenkins CN, Joppa L, Li BV, Menon V, Ocampo-Penuele N, Rondinini C. 56 57 23 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 24 of 49

1 2 3 494 2019. Measuring Terrestrial Area of Habitat (AOH) and Its Utility for the IUCN Red 4 5 6 495 List. Trends in Ecol. and Evol. TREE 2566. 10pgs. 7 8 496 Bruinjzeel LA 2004 Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? 9 10 497 Agric. Ecosy and envir. 104: 185–228 11 12 498 Bubb P, May I, Miles L, Sayer J. 2004. Cloud forest agenda. UNEP World Conservation 13 14 15 499 Monitoring Centre. 16 For Peer Review Only 17 500 Caldern-Sáenz E. (ed.) 2007. Libro rojo de plantas de Colombia. Volumen 6, Orquídeas: primera 18 19 501 parte. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt: Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y 20 21 22 502 Desarrollo Territorial, Bogotá, Colombia. 23 24 503 Chiron GR, Szlachetko DL. 2013a. Restrepia mayana Archila. Richardiana 13: 236 25 26 504 Chiron GR, Szlachetko DL. 2013b. Restrepia archilae. Richardiana 13: 237. 27 28 29 505 Chiron GR, Szlachetko DL. 2013c. Restrepia cobanensis. Richardiana 13: 238 30 31 506 Cook H. 2004. The end of the road, the Darien Jungle. International Journal of Wilderness 10:1 32 33 507 Corlett RT, Primack RB. 2011. Tropical Rain Forests, an ecological and biogeographical 34 35 508 comparison, 2nd Edn. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. 36 37 38 509 Cribb P, Govaerts R. 2005. Just how many Orchids are there? In: Raynal-Roques, A., Roguenant, 39 40 510 A., and D. Prat. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th World Orchid Conference, March 2005, 41 42 511 Dijon, France. Naturalia Publications, pp 161–172. 43 44 45 512 Darbyshire I, Anderson S, Asatryan A, Byfield B, Cheek M, Clubbe C, Ghrabi Z, Harris T, 46 47 513 Heatubun CD, Kalema J, Magassouba S, McCarthy B, Milliken W, de Montmollin B, 48 49 514 Lughadha EN, Onana J, Saıdou D, Sarbu A, Shrestha K, Radford EA. 2017. Important 50 51 52 515 Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation. 53 54 516 Biodivers Conserv 26:1767–1800. 55 56 57 24 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 25 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 517 El-Rabbany A. 2006. Introduction to GPS: The Global Positioning System, Second 4 5 6 518 Edition. Artech House Publishers, Norwood, MA. 230 pp. 7 8 519 Endara L, Len-Yánez S, Williams N. 2007. Patterns of endemism of the orchids of Ecuador: 9 10 520 Conservation perspectives and priorities. In: Pridgeon AM and Suarez JP 11 12 521 (eds.) Proceedings of the Second Scientific Conference on Andean Orchids. 13 14 15 522 Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, Loja, Ecuador. 127–147. 16 For Peer Review Only 17 523 Endara L, Grimaldi DA, Bitty AR. 2010. Lord of the Flies: pollination of Dracula orchids. 18 19 524 Lankesteriana 10(1): 1–11. 20 21 22 525 Fay MF, Krauss SL. 2003. Orchid conservation genetics in the molecular age. In: Dixon KW, 23 24 526 Kell SP, Barrett RL, Cribb PJ (eds.) Orchid Conservation. Natural History Publications, 25 26 527 Borneo. 27 28 29 528 Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 2018. GBIF Data Portal [online]. Available at: 30 31 529 http://data.gbif.org/welcome.htm. [Accessed 1st September 2018]. 32 33 530 Global Land Cover Facility. 2018. TREE’s project map - Hot spots of deforestation [online]. 34 35 531 Previously available at : www.landcover.org. [Accessed 1st September 2018]. 36 37 38 532 Google Earth. 2013a. Google Earth 7.02. Colombia 0º 41′49. 89″ S, 79º 27′47. 51″ W, elevation 39 40 533 138m. [online]. [Accessed January 2013]. Available at: 41 42 534 http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earth/index.htm. 43 44 45 535 ------2013b. Google Earth 7.02. Costa Rica 9º 58′59. 87″ N, 84º 11′41. 18″ W, elevation 921m. 46 47 536 [online]. [Accessed January 2013]. Available at: 48 49 537 http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earth/index.htm. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 25 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 26 of 49

1 2 3 538 ------2013c. Google Earth 7.02. Venezuela 10º 21′22. 15″ N, 66º 57′49. 89″ W, elevation 4 5 6 539 1460m. [online]. [Accessed January 2013]. Available at: 7 8 540 http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earth/index.htm. 9 10 541 ------(2013d) Google Earth 7.02. Colombia 0º 26′54. 90″ N, 78º 13′51. 59″ W, elevation 11 12 542 2815m. [online]. [Accessed January 2013]. Available at: 13 14 15 543 http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earth/index.htm. 16 For Peer Review Only 17 544 Hassig SM, Quek Q. 2007. Panama 2nd Edn. Cavendish Square Publishing, New York, NY. 18 19 545 144pg. 20 21 22 546 Humboldt, Bonpland, Kunth. 1816. Nova Genera et species plantarum quas in peregrinatione ad 23 24 547 plagam aequinoctialem orbis novi collegerent Bonpland et Humboldt. 7 vols., Paris, 25 26 548 1815–1825. 27 28 29 549 Inparques. 2018. National Institute of Parks. Available at: https://inparques.gob.ve/acera-de/ 30 31 550 [Accessed 1st September 2018]. 32 33 551 IUCN. 2012. International Union for Conservation of Nature. IUCN Red List Categories and 34 35 552 Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. 36 37 38 553 iv + 32pp. 39 40 554 ------2017. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 13. 41 42 555 Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee [online]. Available at: 43 44 45 556 https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/redlistguidelines [Accessed 1st September 2018]. 46 47 557 ------2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018.2 [online]. Available at: 48 49 558 http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed 1st September 2018]. 50 51 52 559 Kuper W, Kreft H, Nieder J, Koster N, Barthlott W. 2004. Large-scale diversity patterns of 53 54 560 vascular epiphytes in Neotropical montane rain forests. J Biogeogr. 31:1477–1487. 55 56 57 26 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 27 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 561 Lehman. 1901. Restrepia trichoglossa, Sanders’ Orchid Guide, 215. Sanders, St. Albans. 4 5 6 562 Len-Yánez S, Valencia R, Endara L, Pitman N, Ulloa C (eds.). 2011. The Red Book of the 7 8 563 Endemic Plantá of Ecuador. Publications of QCA Herbarium, Pontifical Catohlic 9 10 564 University of Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador. 11 12 565 Lindley J. 1859. Folia Orchidacea 8–9. London. 13 14 15 566 Luer CA. 1996a. Icones Pleurothallidinarum XIII, Systematics of the genus Restrepia 16 For Peer Review Only 17 567 (Orchidaceae). Monog Syst Botan. Missouri Botanical Gardens, St. Louis, MO. 18 19 568 ------1996b. Nuevas especies de Restrepia / New species of Restrepia. Orquideología 20 21 22 569 20:(2)117–182. 23 24 570 ------1998. Restrepia piperitosa. Monog Syst Botan. 65: 119. Missouri Botanical Gardens, St. 25 26 571 Louis, MO. 27 28 29 572 ------2002. Restrepia portillae. Monog Syst Botan. 88:109. Missouri Botanical 30 31 573 ------2005. Restrepia howei. Monog Syst Botan. 103:279. Missouri Botanical Gardens, St. 32 33 574 Louis, MO. 34 35 575 Luer CA, Rao VNM. 2007. Restrepia fritillina. Monog Syst Botan. 112: 110. Missouri Botanical 36 37 38 576 Gardens, St. Louis, MO. 39 40 577 Maunder M, Culham A, Hankamer C. 1997. Picking up the pieces: Botanical conservation on 41 42 578 degraded oceanic islands. In: Fiedler PL, Kareiva PM, (eds.) Conservation Biology: for 43 44 45 579 the coming decade. Springer 2nd ed. pp. 333. 46 47 580 Millner H J. 2013. Reproductive biology and ex situ conservation of the genus Restrepia 48 49 581 (Orchidaceae). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK. 50 51 52 582 Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Myers N. 1999. Hotspots: earth's biologically richest and most 53 54 583 endangered terrestrial ecoregions. CEMEX, Mexico City, Mexico. 55 56 57 27 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 28 of 49

1 2 3 584 Mounce R, Smith P, Brockington S. 2017. Ex situ conservation of plant diversity in the world’s 4 5 6 585 botanic gardens. Nature Plants 3:795–802. 7 8 586 Myers N. 1988. Threatened Biotas: “Hotspots” in Tropical Forests. Environmentalist 8: 187–208. 9 10 587 ------1990. The Biodiversity Challenge: Expanded Hot-Spots Analysis. Environmentalist 10: 11 12 588 1243–256. 13 14 15 589 ------, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity Hotspots: 16 For Peer Review Only 17 590 Threatened Species and Conservation Priorities. Nature 403: 853–858. 18 19 591 National Parks Worldwide. 2018a. National Parks System of Ecuador. Website 20 21 22 592 www.nationalparks-worldwide.com [Accessed 1st September 2018]. 23 24 593 ------2018b. National Parks of Peru. Website www.nationalparks-worldwide.com [Accessed 25 26 594 1st September 2018]. 27 28 29 595 Parquesnacionales. 2018. National system of protected areas. Website 30 31 596 www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/ [Accessed 1st September 2018]. 32 33 597 Philips O. 1997. Biodiversity and Conservation of Neotropical Montane Forests: Proceedings of 34 35 598 the Neotropical Montane Forest Biodiversity and Conservation Symposium, New York 36 37 38 599 Botanical Garden 21-26 June 1993. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6: 8. 39 40 600 Ramirez J, Tulig M, Watson K, Thiers B. 2018. The New York Botanical Garden Herbarium 41 42 601 (NY). Version 1.3. The New York Botanical Garden. Occurrence dataset 43 44 45 602 https://doi.org/10.15468/6e8nje accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-11-26. 46 47 603 Reichenbach HG.1886. Restrepia brachypus. Flora 69:554. 48 49 604 Rivers MC, Taylor L, Brummitt NA, Meagher TR, Roberts DL, Lughadha EN. 2011. How many 50 51 52 605 herbarium specimens are needed to detect threatened species? Biol Conserv. 144: 2541– 53 54 606 2547. 55 56 57 28 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 29 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 607 Rodriguez J, Véliz. 2015. Restrepia valverdei Archila. Moscosoa 19:15 4 5 6 608 Romeiras MM, Catarino S, Gomes I, Fernandes C, Costa JC, Caujapé-Castells J, Duarte MC. 7 8 609 2016. IUCN Red List assessment of the Cape Verde endemic flora: towards a global 9 10 610 strategy for plant conservation in Macaronesia. Bot Journal Linnean Soc. 180:413–425. 11 12 611 Royal Botanical Garden, Kew (RBG). 2018. Herbarium Collections [online]. Available at: 13 14 15 612 http://www.kew.org/collections/herbcol.html. [Accessed 1st September 2018]. 16 For Peer Review Only 17 613 Suman D. 2007. Development of an integrated coastal management plan for the Gulf of San 18 19 614 Miguel and Darien Province, Panama: Lessons from the experience. Ocean and Coastal 20 21 22 615 Management. 50:8 634–660. 23 24 616 Szlachetko DL, Chiron GR. 2017. Restrepia nicolasii Archila. Richardiana, n.s., 1: 3 25 26 617 Tranel MJ, Hall A. 2003. Parks as Battlegrounds: Managing Conflicting Values. In: Harmon DP 27 28 29 618 and Putney AD (eds.) The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible. 30 31 619 Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, US. pp 253–267. 32 33 620 Tropicos. 2018. Missouri Botanical Garden [online]. Available at: http://www.tropicos.org. 34 35 621 [Accessed 1st September 2018]. 36 37 38 622 UNEP-WCMC. 2018. United Nations Environment Programme. World Conservation Monitoring 39 40 623 Centre. Biodiversity and Ecosystems [online]. Available at: www.unep-wcmc.org. 41 42 624 [Accessed 1st September 2018]. 43 44 45 625 Whitmore TC. 2001. An Introduction to Tropical Rain Forests, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press. 46 47 626 World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP). 2018. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic 48 49 627 Gardens, Kew [online]. Available at http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/. [Accessed 1st 50 51 52 628 September 2018]. 53 54 55 56 57 29 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 30 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Fig. 1: (A) Ventral view Restrepia antennifera (Kunth, 1816) the type species for the genus (Humboldt et 32 al., 1816). Discovered by Humboldt and Bonpland near Popáyan, Colombia, in 1801 (B) lateral view R. 33 brachypus (Rchb.f. 1886). Scale bars = 5mm 34 35 204x148mm (300 x 300 DPI) 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 31 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 20 21 22 Fig. 2: Diagrams showing the distribution of montane forest, deforestation ‘hot spots’ and Restrepia species 23 in South America 24 (A) Distribution of montane forest vegetation. Adapted from the Tropical Montane Forest map (UNEP- 25 WCMC, 2018). 26 (B) ‘Hot spots’ of deforestation. Adapted from the TREE’s project map, Global and Cover Facility, University 27 of Maryland. (Global Land Cover Facility, 2018). 28 (C) Distribution of Restrepia species. Adapted from information in – Systematics of Restrepia (Orchidaceae) 29 (Luer, 1996a). 30 31 170x82mm (300 x 300 DPI) 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 32 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Fig. 3: Distribution graphs for some Restrepia species. 46 47 (A) R. antennifera, the type species for the genus, is a common species with a wide distribution in S. America. Although many of its locations remain, it has undergone substantial habitat loss throughout its 48 range. 49 (B) R. muscifera is common in Central America where 32/55 locations remain, a substantial loss of 50 approximately 40%. It is less common in Colombia and Ecuador where it has undergone less loss. 51 (C) R. citrina, a narrow endemic species with few recorded locations from Colombia. In contrast, this 52 species has not undergone recorded habitat loss, one explanation being that it was discovered within a very 53 limited range and within protected areas, such as nature reserves. 54 55 179x243mm (300 x 300 DPI) 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 33 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 34 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Fig. 4: Restrepia location loss along the Pan American Highway in South America. 39 Key: yellow - Pan American Highway, larger black dots - main towns, blue dots - locations where Restrepia 40 species were discovered, red dots – locations where forest cover no longer persists. 41 Land mass of Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador shown in green, with areas set aside as Nature reserves, 42 National Parks as a darker green. 43 The Andean mountain range is illustrated in brown and beige shading. Map A locations where Restrepia species were discovered. 44 Map B locations where forest cover was observed in Google Earth to no longer persist. These locations occur 45 mainly along the route of the Pan American Highway (shown in yellow) in these countries. 46 Originally a road planned to link North and South America, the Pan American Highway has today become a 47 network of roads covering thousands of miles. Much of the original road building was carried out in the 48 1940’s and 50’s with extensive improvement in the late 1960’s. The resulting changes in land use have had 49 a great impact on the endemic orchid species of these Andean regions. In Venezuela 45% loss, in Colombia 28% loss and in Ecuador 36% loss of recorded Restrepia locations have occurred. 50 51 52 211x209mm (300 x 300 DPI) 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 35 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Fig. 5: Restrepia location loss along the Pan American Highway in Central America. 46 Key: yellow - Pan American Highway, larger black dots - main towns, blue dots - locations where Restrepia 47 species were discovered, red dots – locations where forest cover no longer persists. Map A shows the distribution of the locations where Restrepia species were 48 Map B shows the locations where forest cover no longer persists - as observed in Google Earth . There 49 locations occur mainly along the route of the Pan American Highway. In Mexico to Nicaragua, forest cover 50 has been lost for the few discoveries made there. In Costa Rica and Panama, and while there are many 51 locations remaining there has been a substantial loss of forest cover for some locations. 52 53 209x263mm (300 x 300 DPI) 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 36 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Fig. 6: Summary of the Categories of Risk facing Restrepia species in South and Central American countries. 46 Colour key and abbreviations correspond to that for the Endangered Categories produced by the IUCN 47 DD Date deficient, LC Least Concern, NT Near Threatened, VU Vulnerable, EN Endangered, CR Critically Endangered, EX Extinct in the Wild (these are always capitalised as shown). 48 All species, except one should be regarded as Vulnerable or above at some point in their range. However, 49 this should be considered as an underestimation of threat faced by these species as there was only enough 50 data available to assess the potentially most vulnerable species as VU and the categories of EN or CR could 51 not be assigned. 52 In Central America the bars LC and VU show the category of risk facing R. trichoglossa, R. muscifera and R. 53 aberrans in Costa Rica and Panama, while the bars CR and EX/CR illustrate the contrasting risk facing these species in countries from Mexico to Nicaragua. 54 R. trichoglossa is Extinct in Mexico to Nicaragua but is Vulnerable in Costa Rica and Panama. R. muscifera is 55 Least Concern in Costa Rica and Panama, but EN/CR in Mexico to Nicaragua, see also Table 5. 56 Overall percentages of the Categories of Risk facing the species in the genus across their complete 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 37 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 geographical range: DD 6%, VU 58%, EN 17%, CR 17 %, EX 2 %. Recent species discoveries in Guatemala 4 would alter this slightly. These, from data currently available, would only qualify to be categorised as 5 Vulnerable. 6 7 190x247mm (600 x 600 DPI) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 38 of 49

1 2 3 Table 1: Criteria used to assess the Red list status of Restrepia species 4 5 6 7 8 Critically Endangered EN Vulnerable VU 9 Endangered CR 10 11 12 13 A2: (c) Population reduction ≥ 80% ≥ 50% ≥ 30% 14 observed, estimated or inferred 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 B1: EOO1 < 100 km² < 5,000 km² < 20,000 km² 18 B2: AOO2 < 10 km² < 500 km² < 2,000 km² 19 20 but for Criterion B1 or 2 to be 21 awarded these must also 22 include: 23 24 a: number of locations 1 ≤ 5 ≤ 10 25 26 b: continuing decline in either - (i) EOO; (ii) AOO or (iv) number of locations 27 28 AOO <20 km² D2 29 No. of locations ≤ 5 30 31 32 33 1 2 34 EOO Extent of Occurrence; AOO Area of Occupation 35 36 The Criteria and numerical thresholds used to establish the Red List status for Restrepia species 37 38 in the current study. Only Criterion A, population reduction, and Criteria B1 (EOO) and B2 39 40 41 (AOO) could be assessed from the available data. Criteria B1 or B2 could only be awarded if - 42 43 (a) number of locations and (b) continuing decline in either EOO or AOO, could be established 44 45 as well. Many species could only be classified as D2, Vulnerable, because there was insufficient 46 47 data to establish B1, 2, (a) and (b). This has resulted in a potential underestimation of threat to 48 49 50 these species. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 1 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 39 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 Table 2: Remaining species locations and Red List assessment amended where appropriate 4 5 6 for lower risk associated with protected habitat shown for each country. 7 8 9 Final assessment 10 Total Locations amended for safe Original 11 Restrepia number remaining in habitat4 Final Red List number of 12 species locations protected value5 locations1 13 remaining2 areas3 Criteria: 14 A B D 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 Venezuela (15 species) 18 19 Species with lost locations/habitat loss 20 21 antennifera 3 2 2 CR VU CR 22 aristulifera 6 3 3 EN VU EN 23 aspasiensis 1 0 0 EX EX 24 25 contorta 6 1 1 VU VU 26 elegans 5 3 3 EN VU EN 27 guttulata 1 0 0 EX EX 28 jesupiana 4 2 2 CR VU CR 29 30 pelyx 2 1 1 CR VU CR 31 renzii 2 1 1 CR VU CR 32 roseola 1 0 0 EX EX 33 34 Species that have not lost locations 35 36 lansbergii 2 2 CR VU CR 37 radulifera 1 1 VU VU 38 sanguinea 3 3 VU VU 39 40 trichoglossa 1 1 VU VU 41 wagnerii 2 2 VU VU 42 43 44 45 Colombia (30 species) 46 47 Species with lost locations/habitat loss 48 antennifera 9 7 5 EN EN 49 50 aristulifera 3 2 2 CR VU CR 51 aspasiensis 2 1 1 CR CR 52 brachypus 23 16 3 VU VU 53 contorta 18 13 5 EN EN 54 55 cuprea 4 2 1 CR CR VU CR 56 echo 10 8 2 EN EN 57 1 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 40 of 49

1 2 3 guttulata 16 9 5 EN EN EN 4 5 muscifera 5 2 2 CR VU CR 6 nittiorhyncha 3 1 0 CR CR VU CR 7 pelyx 3 2 1 VU CR VU CR 8 sanguinea 6 4 4 EN VU EN 9 10 trichoglossa 12 10 5 LC LC LC LC 11 teaguei 2 2 1 VU VU 12 13 Species that have not lost locations 14 15 chameleon 1 1 VU VU 16 chocoensis For Peer3 Review0 OnlyVU VU 17 chrysoglossa 1 1 VU VU 18 citrina 3 1 VU VU 19 20 echinata 1 0 VU VU 21 escobariana 1 0 VU VU 22 falkenbergii 3 1 VU VU 23 flosculata 1 0 EN CR VU CR 24 25 limbata 2 2 VU VU 26 metae 1 0 VU VU 27 pandurata 1 0 VU VU 28 purpurea 1 0 VU VU 29 30 seketii 1 1 VU VU 31 tabeae 1 1 VU VU 32 tsubotae 1 1 VU VU 33 fritillina* DD DD 34 35 36 Ecuador (18 species) 37 38 Species with lost locations/habitat loss 39 40 antennifera 19 8 5 VU VU VU 41 brachypus 15 8 5 VU EN EN 42 contorta 9 5 4 EN VU EN 43 44 dodsonii 11 5 2 VU VU VU VU 45 ephippium 3 2 2 CR VU CR 46 flosculata 4 3 2 EN VU EN 47 guttulata 9 6 6 EN EN 48 49 iris 5 4 1 VU EN VU EN 50 lansbergii 3 2 1 CR VU CR 51 52 Species that have not lost locations 53 54 55 condorensis 3 1 VU VU 56 57 2 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 41 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 cymbula 1 1 VU VU 4 5 mendozae 1 0 VU VU 6 muscifera 2 2 VU VU 7 persiciana 1 1 VU VU 8 portillae 1 0 VU VU 9 10 schizosepala 1 1 VU VU 11 trichoglossa 8 2 LC LC 12 howei* DD DD 13 14 15 Peru (9 species) 16 For Peer Review Only 17 Species with lost locations/habitat loss 18 antennifera 2 0 0 CR VU CR 19 20 brachypus 1 0 0 EX EX 21 contorta 6 3 1 EN VU EN 22 mohrii 3 2 1 EN EN VU EN 23 24 Species that have not lost locations 25 26 cloesii 1 1 VU VU 27 echinta 2 2 VU VU 28 guttulata 1 1 VU VU 29 30 lansbergii 1 1 VU VU 31 piperitosa* DD DD 32 33 34 Bolivia (2 species) 35 Species with lost locations/habitat loss 36 37 vasquezii 4 4 2 VU VU 38 brachypus 2 1 0 CR CR VU CR 39 40 41 Central America (8 species) 42 43 Species with lost locations/habitat loss 44 45 muscifera 46 Com. range 55 32 12 VU VU 47 Mex to Nic 19 4 2 EN EN VU EN 48 C. Rica and 49 36 28 10 LC LC LC LC Pan 50 trichoglossa 51 52 Com. range 34 19 10 VU VU 53 Mex to Nic 2 0 0 EX EX 54 C. Rica and 32 19 12 VU VU 55 Pan 56 57 3 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 42 of 49

1 2 3 4 Species that have not lost locations 5 6 aberrans 1 1 1 VU VU 7 7 8 Newly discovered species from Guatemala 9 10 archilae VU 11 cobanensis VU 12 mayana VU 13 nicolasii VU 14 15 valverdii VU 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 20 The table shows the distribution of species in each of their countries of origin in Central and 21 22 23 South America. The centres of diversity in South America, Colombia (30 species) and Ecuador 24 25 (18 species) are evident with the highest numbers of recorded species. The habitat loss in Central 26 27 America for the species R. muscifera and R. trichoglossa is indicated by the fact that most 28 29 locations for these species now remain in Costa Rica and Panama. The newly discovered species 30 31 32 in Guatemala are included, although only assessed as VU due to insufficient data to award any 33 34 other category. 35 36 37 1Original number of recorded locations. 2The total remaining number of locations where forest 38 39 cover remained. 3Any of the remaining locations found to occur in safe habitat e.g. National Parks 40 41 4 42 or nature reserves. Final Red List assessment after reducing level of threat when any locations 43 44 were in safe habitats (see also Table 3). 5Final Red List assessment after all amendments had been 45 46 made (see also Table 3). Species marked * are Data Deficient (DD) due to no accurate data being 47 48 49 available regarding their distribution and/or recorded locations. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 4 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 43 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 Table 3: National Parks and protected areas in Central and South America 4 5 6 Country Protected areas % of country Reference 7 Venezuela 43 national parks 21.8 National Institute of Parks (Inparques) 2018 8 9 10 Colombia 56 national protected areas >10 Parquesnacionales 2018 11 12 Ecuador 30 national parks 17 National Parks Worldwide 2018a 13 14 15 Peru* 61 natural protected areas 15.21 National Parks Worldwide 2018b 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 Costa Rica 26 national parks 25 Baker 2009 19 20 Panama designated national parks 30 Baker 2007 21 22 23 24 Notes: 25 26 The types of protection provided vary from natural protected areas to designated national parks. 27 The status of these areas is often threatened due to the discovery of natural resources and the 28 29 need to increase land available for farming. 30 31 *the land area (30%) designated as national parks in Peru includes the Darién gap, the last 32 remaining area of pristine rain forest on the Panama/Colombia border (Hassig and Quek 20007; 33 Suman, 2007). 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 44 of 49

1 2 3 Table 1: Original number of locations, percentage decrease in locations, EOO and AOO values 4 5 6 and corresponding status as calculated by GeoCAT. 7 8 9 10 11 original E00 % AOO % 12 number EOO AOO species origin % loss decrease in decrease in 13 of STATUS STATUS km2 km2 14 locations 15 16 For Peer Review Only R. aberrans Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 17 18 C. America 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 19 R. antennifera Range 37 49 10.1 LC 48.6 EN 20 21 Venezuela 3 33 76.7 CR 33.3 EN 22 Colombia 9 22 1.6 LC 22.2 EN 23 Ecuador 19 58 16.2 NT 57.9 EN 24 Peru 3 33 97.5 CR 33.3 EN 25 26 R. aristulifera Range 9 44 52.7 EN 44.4 EN 27 Venezuela 6 50 72.8 EN 50.0 EN 28 29 Colombia 3 33 66.7 CR 33.3 CR 30 R. aspasiensis* Range 3 67 99.5 CR 66.7 CR 31 32 Venezuela 1 100 100.0 33 Colombia 2 50 50.0 CR 50.0 CR 34 35 R. brachypus* Range 41 39 28.7 LC 41.5 EN 36 Colombia 23 30 30.3 LC 30.4 EN 37 Ecuador 15 47 25.9 NT 46.7 EN 38 Peru 1 100 39 40 Bolivia 2 50 50.0 CR 50.0 CR 41 R. chameleon Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 42 43 Colombia 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 44 45 R. chocoensis Range 3 0 0.0 CR 0.0 EN 46 Colombia 3 0 0.0 CR 0.0 EN 47 48 R. chrysoglossa Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 49 Colombia 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 50 51 R. citrina Range 3 0 0.0 CR 0.0 EN 52 Colombia 3 0 0.0 CR 0.0 EN 53 54 R. cloesii Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 55 Peru 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 56 57 1 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 45 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 R. condorensis Range 3 0 0.0 CR 0.0 EN 4 5 Ecuador 3 0 0.0 CR 0.0 EN 6 R. contorta Range 39 44 20.9 LC 43.6 EN 7 8 Venezuela 6 83 100.0 CR 83.3 CR 9 Colombia 18 28 5.4 LC 27.8 EN 10 Ecuador 9 44 91.6 EN 44.4 EN 11 Peru 6 50 83.9 EN 50.0 EN 12 13 R. cuprea Range 4 50 99.6 CR 50.0 CR 14 Colombia 4 50 99.6 CR 50.0 CR 15 16 R. cymbula RangeFor Peer1 0 Review0.0 OnlyCR 0.0 EN 17 Ecuador 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 EN 18 19 R. dodsonii Range 11 55 56.9 EN 54.5 EN 20 Ecuador 11 55 56.9 EN 54.5 EN 21 22 R. echinata Range 3 0 0.0 LC 0.0 EN 23 Colombia 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 24 25 Peru 2 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 26 R. echo Range 10 20 4.9 VU 20.0 EN 27 28 Colombia 10 20 4.9 VU 20.0 EN 29 R. elegans Range 5 40 31.1 VU 40.0 EN 30 31 Venezuela 5 40 31.1 VU 40.0 EN 32 R. ephippium Range 3 33 42.9 CR 33.3 CR 33 34 Ecuador 3 33 42.9 CR 33.3 CR 35 R. escobarina Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 36 37 Colombia 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 38 R. falkenbergii Range 3 0 0.0 EN 0.0 EN 39 40 Colombia 3 0 0.0 EN 0.0 EN 41 R. flosculata Range 5 20 31.5 EN 42.9 E 42 43 Colombia 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 44 Ecuador 4 25 48.2 EN 25.0 EN 45 46 R. guttulata* Range 27 41 50.5 LC 42.9 EN 47 Venezuela 1 100 100.0 48 Colombia 16 44 66.8 LC 50.0 EN 49 Ecuador 9 33 4.1 VU 33.3 EN 50 51 Peru 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 52 R. iris Range 5 20 56.6 EN 20.0 EN 53 54 Ecuador 5 20 56.6 EN 20.0 EN 55 R. jesupiana Range 4 50 98.5 CR 50.0 CR 56 57 2 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 46 of 49

1 2 3 Venezuela 4 50 98.5 CR 50.0 CR 4 5 R. lansbergii Range 6 17 12.3 LC 0.0 EN 6 Venezuela 2 0 68.8 CR 33.3 CR 7 8 Ecuador 3 33 99.3 CR 33.3 EN 9 Peru 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 10 11 R. limbata Range 2 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 12 Colombia 2 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 13 14 R. mendozae Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 15 Ecuador 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 16 For Peer Review Only 17 R. metae Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 18 19 Colombia 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 20 R. mohrii Range 3 33 98.6 EN 33.3 EN 21 22 Peru 3 33 98.6 EN 33.3 EN 23 R. muscifera Range 62 40 1.4 LC 41.9 EN 24 25 Cen. America 55 42 0.9 LC 41.8 EN 26 Colombia 5 60 99.9 CR 60.0 CR 27 Ecuador 2 0 65.2 CR 0.0 CR 28 29 R. nittiorhyncha Range 3 67 99.9 CR 66.7 CR 30 Colombia 3 67 99.9 CR 66.7 CR 31 32 R. pandurata Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 33 Colombia 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 34 35 R. pelyx Range 5 40 70.8 VU 50.0 EN 36 Venezuela 2 50 50.0 CR 50.0 CR 37 Colombia 3 33 98.7 CR 33.3 EN 38 39 R. purpurea Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 40 Colombia 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 41 42 R. radulifera Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 43 Venezuela 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 44 45 R. renzii Range 2 50 50.0 CR 50.0 CR 46 Venezuela 2 50 50.0 CR 50.0 CR 47 48 R. roseola* Range 1 100 49 Venezuela 1 100 50 51 R. sanguinea Range 9 33 3.7 LC 33.3 EN 52 Venezuela 3 0 0.0 EN 0.0 EN 53 54 Colombia 6 50 27.5 VU 50.0 EN 55 R. schizosepala Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 56 57 3 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 47 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 Ecuador 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 4 5 R. seketii Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 6 Colombia 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 7 8 R. tabeae Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 9 Colombia 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 10 11 R. teaguei Range 2 0 0.0 CR 50.0 8 12 Ecuador 2 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 13 14 R. trichoglossa Range 55 31 44.4 LC 30.9 EN 15 Central 34 44 91.2 VU 44.1 EN 16 AmericaFor Peer Review Only 17 Venezuela 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 18 Colombia 12 17 25.4 NT 16.7 EN 19 20 Ecuador 8 0 0.0 NT 0.0 EN 21 R. tsubotae Range 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 22 23 Colombia 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 24 R. vasquezii Range 4 0 0.0 VU 0.0 EN 25 26 Bolivia 4 0 0.0 VU 0.0 EN 27 R. wagnerii Range 2 0 0.0 EN 0.0 EN 28 29 Venezuela 2 0 0.0 EN 0.0 EN 30 R. piperitosaa Peru 1 31 a 32 R. portillae Ecuador 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 33 R. howeiia Ecuador 1 34 R. persicianaa Ecuador 1 0 0.0 CR 0.0 CR 35 R. fritillinaa Colombia 1 36 37 38 39 40 The ‘Range’ indicates values across the entire geographic range for a species – global values 41 42 43 The species marked * have lost all the locations in one part of their range, although they may be 44 45 common elsewhere (R. brachypus, R. guttulata) or they appear to be extinct in part of their range 46 47 (R. aspasiencis) or extinct at the only recorded locations (R. roseola). 48 49 The species marked a have very little collection data, having been discovered since 2000; their 50 51 52 national distributions are the same as their global distributions. 53 54 55 56 57 4 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 48 of 49

1 2 3 Table 2: Stages in formulating the Red List assessment for Restrepia species. 4 5 After 6 Initial Red List After amending for amending for 7 assessment1 Criterion B2 safe habitat3 Final Red species origin 8 List value 9 Criteria: Criteria: Criteria: 10 A B D A B D A B D 11 12 13 R.aberrans Range CR VU VU VU VU 14 C. America CR VU VU VU VU 15 16 R. antennifera Range ForVU PeerEN ReviewVU Only VU VU 17 Venezuela EN CR VU EN CR VU CR VU CR 18 Colombia EN EN EN EN 19 Ecuador CR CR VU EN EN VU VU VU 20 21 Peru EN CR VU EN CR VU EX EX EX 22 R. aristulifera Range VU EN VU VU EN VU CR VU CR 23 24 Venezuela EN CR VU EN EN VU EN VU EN 25 Colombia EN CR VU EN CR VU CR VU CR 26 27 R. aspasiensis Range CR CR VU CR CR VU CR VU CR 28 Venezuela CR CR EX EX EX 29 Colombia CR CR CR CR CR CR 30 31 R. brachypus Range VU EN VU VU VU 32 Colombia VU EN VU VU VU 33 Ecuador VU EN VU EN VU EN VU 34 35 Peru CR CR CR EX EX EX 36 Bolivia CR CR VU CR CR VU CR CR VU CR 37 38 R. chameleon Range CR VU VU VU VU 39 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 40 41 R. chocoensis Range CR VU VU VU VU 42 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 43 44 R. chrysoglossa Range CR VU VU VU VU 45 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 46 47 R. citrina Range CR VU VU VU VU 48 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 49 50 R. cloesii Range CR VU VU VU VU 51 Peru CR VU VU VU VU 52 53 R. condorensis Range CR VU VU VU VU 54 Ecuador CR VU VU VU VU 55 56 R. contorta Range VU EN VU VU VU 57 1 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 49 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 Venezuela CR CR VU CR VU VU VU 4 5 Colombia LC LC LC LC 6 Ecuador CR EN VU CR EN VU EN VU EN 7 Peru CR EN VU CR EN VU EN VU EN 8 9 R. cuprea Range CR CR VU CR CR VU CR CR VU CR 10 Colombia CR CR VU CR CR VU CR CR VU CR 11 12 R. cymbula Range CR VU VU VU VU 13 Ecuador CR VU VU VU VU 14 15 R. dodsonii Range CR CR VU CR CR VU VU VU VU VU 16 Ecuador ForCR PeerCR VU ReviewCR CR OnlyVU VU VU VU VU 17 18 R. echinata Range EN VU VU VU VU 19 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 20 Peru CR VU VU VU VU 21 22 R. echo Range EN EN EN EN 23 Colombia EN EN EN EN 24 25 R. elegans Range EN VU EN VU EN VU EN 26 Venezuela EN VU EN VU EN VU EN 27 28 R. ephippium Range EN CR VU EN CR VU CR VU CR 29 Ecuador EN CR VU EN CR VU CR VU CR 30 31 R. escobarina Range CR VU VU VU VU 32 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 33 34 R. falkenbergii Range EN VU VU VU VU 35 Colombia EN VU VU VU VU 36 37 R. flosculata Range VU EN VU VU EN VU VU EN VU EN 38 Colombia EN CR VU EN CR VU EN CR VU CR 39 40 Ecuador VU EN VU VU EN VU EN VU EN 41 R. guttulata Range EN EN EN EN EN 42 43 Venezuela CR CR EX EX EX 44 Colombia EN EN EN EN EN EN EN 45 Ecuador VU EN VU EN EN EN 46 Peru CR VU VU VU VU 47 48 R. iris Range VU EN VU VU EN VU VU EN VU EN 49 Ecuador VU EN VU VU EN VU VU EN VU EN 50 51 R. jesupiana Range CR CR VU CR CR VU CR VU CR 52 Venezuela CR CR VU CR CR VU CR VU CR 53 54 R. lansbergii Range EN EN EN EN 55 Venezuela VU CR VU VU CR VU CR VU CR 56 57 2 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Plant Ecology & Diversity Page 50 of 49

1 2 3 Ecuador EN CR VU EN CR VU CR VU CR 4 5 Peru EN CR VU EN VU EN VU EN 6 R. limbata Range CR VU VU VU VU 7 8 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 9 R. mendozae Range CR VU VU VU VU 10 11 Ecuador CR VU VU VU VU 12 R. metae Range CR VU VU VU VU 13 14 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 15 R. mohrii Range EN EN VU EN EN VU EN EN VU EN 16 For Peer Review Only 17 Peru EN EN VU EN EN VU EN EN VU EN 18 R. muscifera Range VU EN VU VU VU 19 Central VU EN VU VU VU 20 America 21 Colombia CR CR VU CR CR VU CR VU CR 22 23 Ecuador EN CR VU EN VU VU VU 24 R. nittioryncha Range CR CR VU CR CR VU CR CR VU CR 25 26 Colombia CR CR VU CR CR VU CR CR VU CR 27 R. pandurata Range CR VU VU VU VU 28 29 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 30 R. pelyx Range EN EN VU EN EN VU EN EN VU EN 31 32 Venezuela EN CR VU EN CR VU CR VU CR 33 Colombia EN CR VU EN CR VU VU CR VU CR 34 35 R. purpurea Range CR VU VU VU VU 36 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 37 38 R. radulifera Range CR VU VU VU VU 39 Venezuela CR VU VU VU VU 40 41 R. renzii Range CR CR VU CR CR VU CR VU CR 42 Venezuela CR CR VU CR CR VU CR VU CR 43 44 R. roseola Range CR/EX CR/EX CR/EX CR/EX EX EX EX 45 Venezuela CR/EX CR/EX CR/EX CR/EX EX EX EX 46 47 R. sanguinea Range VU EN VU EN VU EN EN 48 Venezuela EN VU VU VU VU 49 Colombia VU EN VU VU EN VU EN VU EN 50 51 R. schizosepala Range CR VU VU VU VU 52 Ecuador CR VU VU VU VU 53 54 R. seketii Range CR VU VU VU VU 55 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 56 57 3 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped Page 51 of 49 Plant Ecology & Diversity

1 2 3 R. tabeae Range CR VU VU VU VU 4 5 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 6 R. teaguei Range CR VU VU VU VU 7 8 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 9 R. trichoglossa Range VU EN VU VU VU 10 Central EN EN EN EN EN 11 America 12 Venezuela CR VU VU VU VU 13 14 Colombia EN LC LC LC LC LC LC LC 15 Ecuador EN LC LC LC LC LC LC LC 16 For Peer Review Only 17 R. tsubotae Range CR VU VU VU VU 18 Colombia CR VU VU VU VU 19 20 R. vasquezii Range EN VU VU VU VU 21 Bolivia EN VU VU VU VU 22 23 R. wagnerii Range EN VU VU VU VU 24 Venezuela EN VU VU VU VU 25 26 R. piperitosa* Peru DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD 27 R. portillae* Ecuador CR VU VU VU VU 28 R. howeii* Ecuador DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD 29 R. persiciana* Ecuador CR VU VU VU 30 31 R. fritillina* Colombia DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD 32 33 34 35 1 Red List values for each of the three criteria (A, B and D) used in the assessment. Sub- 36 37 38 categories are not included for clarity, but numerical values employed are presented in Table 1. 39 40 2 The Red List values for each of the criteria after amending for Criterion B. This could not be 41 42 assigned if the additional sub-criteria (a) and (b) were not met as well (Table 1 and Notes). 43 44 3 45 Red List values after the level of risk had been reduced for species with all or some occurrences 46 47 in safe habitats such as National Parks or nature reserves. 48 49 The final Red List value is presented in the last column. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 4 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped