DOCSLIB.ORG

SOUTH AMERICAN NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS, STATUS of Philip M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SOUTH AMERICAN NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS, STATUS of Philip M SOUTH AMERICAN NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS, STATUS OF Philip M. Fearnside National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA) I. Original Extent of Terrestrial Ecosystems ilar general structure, climatic regimes, major eco- II. Present Extent of Terrestrial Ecosystems logical processes, ͱ diversity, and flora and fauna III. Human Use of Converted Areas with similar guild structures and life histories. IV. Human Use of Remaining Natural Habitats V. Threats to Remaining Natural Habitats VI. Status of Protected Areas VII. Priorities for Conservation THE TERM ECOREGION, as used in this article, refers to ‘‘natural’’ ecological systems, or terrestrial and aquatic areas as they were when Europeans first arrived in the GLOSSARY New World. The original extent of natural ecoregions is presented, grouped by bioregion, major habitat type, bioregion One of six biogeographic divisions of South and major ecosystem type. The definitions of these America consisting of contiguous ecoregions. Biore- terms, given in the Glossary, are taken from Dinerstein gions are delimited to better address the biogeo- et al. (1995); the rating codes are given in the footnotes graphic distinctiveness of ecoregions. to the table. Indications of the extent of remaining ecoregion A geographically distinct assemblage of nat- natural ecosystems, the threats to their continued exis- ural communities that share a large majority of their tence, and the status of protected areas are discussed, species and ecological dynamics, share similar envi- together with priorities for conservation. ronmental conditions, and interact ecologically in ways that are critical for their long-term persistence. ecosystem A set of interacting living and nonliving I. ORIGINAL EXTENT OF components in a defined geographic space. Ecosys- TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS tems include both plant and animal communities and the soil, water, and other physical elements of Ecosystems can be classified in many ways, making the their environment. number of categories vary widely depending on the use major ecosystem type Groups of ecoregions that share intended. Here, the system adopted by Dinerstein et minimum area requirements for conservation, re- al. (1995) is used. This divides the continent into 95 sponse characteristics to major disturbance, and sim- terrestrial ‘‘ecoregions,’’ exclusive of mangroves. These ilar levels of ͱ diversity (i.e., the rate of species are grouped into four ‘‘major ecosystem types:’’ tropical turnover with distance). broadleaf forests, conifer/temperate broadleaf forests, major habitat type Groups of ecoregions that have sim- grasslands/savannas/shrublands, and xeric formations. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Volume 5 Copyright 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 345 346 SOUTH AMERICAN NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS, STATUS OF Within each of these categories are varying numbers of The ecoregions are mapped in Fig. 1. The ecoregion ‘‘major habitat types,’’ such as tropical moist broadleaf numbering corresponds to Table I and also to the report forests. These are further divided into nine ‘‘bioregions.’’ by Dinerstein et al. (1995); the numbering presented Amazonian tropical moist forests, for example, is a bio- here is not continuous, since the report also includes region. ecoregions in Mexico, Central America, and the Carib- The 95 ecoregions, with their hierarchical groupings, bean. Extensive bibliographic material on the delimita- are presented in Table I. Also included are the ratings tion of the ecoregions and on the state of knowledge for conservation status, biological distinctiveness, and about them can be found in Dinerstein et al. (1995). biodiversity priority derived by Dinerstein et al. (1995). Mangroves occur along the coasts of Brazil, the three This study made a systematic survey of the status of Guianas, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and northern natural ecosystems in Latin America and the Caribbean Peru. Dinerstein et al. (1995) divide them into five (LAC) and applied a uniform methodology to assigning complexes: Pacific South America, Continental Carib- priorities to these ecosystems for conservation efforts. bean, Amazon–Orinoco–Maranha˜o, Northeast Brazil, The work was done for the United States Agency for and Southeast Brazil. Each complex is further subdi- International Development (USAID) by the WWF–US vided into 2–5 units, corresponding to distinct seg- Biodiversity Support Program (BSP). The document is ments of coastline. Mangroves are essential to main- based on three workshops, plus consultations with rele- taining populations and ecological processes in vant organizations and individual experts (the list of surrounding marine, freshwater, and terrestrial eco- contributors contains 178 names). systems. The classification system is hierarchical, starting with four ‘‘major ecosystem types’’ (e.g., Tropical Broad- leaf Forests), which are divided into 10 ‘‘major habitat types’’ (e.g., Tropical Moist Broadleaf Forests). These II. PRESENT EXTENT OF are crossed with 6 bioregions (e.g., Amazonia) and di- TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS vided into 95 ecoregions (e.g., Rondoˆnia/Mato Grosso moist forests). The system allows the priority of some Unfortunately, information is not available on the pres- ecoregions to be promoted upward based on uniqueness ent extent of each of the 95 ecoregions listed in Table and regional representation, even if indicators of diver- I. Information on the extent of tropical forests in ap- sity and vulnerability are not so high. proximately 1990 is available from the FAO Tropical The effort was unusual in emphasizing protection Forest Resources Survey (FAO, 1993). These data are of areas with high ͱ diversity (a measure of the turnover tabulated by country in Table II. Nontropical areas are of species along ecological gradients), as well as the covered by a variety of national surveys (Harcourt and more commonly used Ͱ diversity (species diversity Sayer, 1996). National data are important because deci- within a habitat). In the case of mangroves, the diversity sions regarding land-use policies and conservation are assessed is ecosystem diversity, including aquatic ani- taken at the national level—not at the levels of biore- mal life. This avoids mangroves receiving the unjustly gions or ecosystem types. Over half of the South Ameri- low diversity ratings that tend to result when assess- can continent is represented by a single country: Brazil ments are restrained to terrestrial organisms, espe- (Fig. 2). cially trees. An idea of the extent of existing ecosystems can be Although the ecoregions identified in Table I refer gained from measurements of land cover in 1988 made to ‘‘natural’’ (pre-Columbian) ecosystems, it should be using 1 ϫ 1 km resolution data from the AVHRR sensor emphasized that these had already been subject to mil- on the NOAA satellite series (Stone et al., 1994). These lennia of influence by indigenous peoples prior to the are tabulated in Table III. arrival of Europeans. This influence continues today, It should be emphasized that many ecosystems can together with much more rapid alterations from such be heavily disturbed by logging and other activities activities as deforestation and logging done by nonin- without the change being evident on satellite imagery. digenous residents. ‘‘South America’’ is taken to include This is true for Landsat TM imagery (30 ϫ 30 m resolu- the three Guianas (different from usage by the Food tion) used for deforestation estimates in Brazil, and the and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations limitations are much greater for 1 ϫ 1 km AVHRR data. (FAO)) and to exclude Panama (however, in the case Brazil is the country with the most extensive satellite of ecoregions that extend into Panama, the area esti- information on forest cover and its loss. Unfortunately, mates in Table I include the Panamanian portions). information on nonforest vegetation types such as cer- SOUTH AMERICAN NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS, STATUS OF 347 rado is much less complete. Considerable confusion manner similar to their counterparts in the North Amer- arises between the FAO (1993) classification and others ican temperate zone. This contrasts with the ‘‘selective’’ such as the one adopted here because FAO classifies logging (highgrading for a few species) that character- cerrado, caatinga, and chaco as ‘‘forests.’’ izes timber extraction from the diverse forests of the Brazil’s Legal Amazon region originally had 4 million tropical region. km2 of forests, the rest being cerrado and other types of savannas. Agricultural advance was slow until recent decades because of human diseases (especially yellow III. HUMAN USE OF fever and malaria), infertile soil, and vast distances to markets. These barriers have progressively crumbled, CONVERTED AREAS although a range of limiting factors restricts the extent Conversion of natural ecosystems to agroecosystems and the duration over which many uses of deforested and secondary forests creates landscapes that maintain areas can be maintained (Fearnside, 1997a). Deforesta- biodiversity to varying degrees. ‘‘Shifting cultivation’’ tion in the region has been predominantly for cattle as practiced by indigenous peoples and by traditional pasture, with critical contributions to the motivations nonindigenous residents (caboclos) in Amazonian for- for the transformation coming from the role of clearing ests maintains a substantial part of the original biodiver- as a means of establishing land tenure and in allowing sity. This contrasts with the effect of the vast expanses land to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Diversity and Endemism of Woody Plant Species in the Equatorial Pacific Seasonally Dry Forests
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Springer - Publisher Connector Biodivers Conserv (2010) 19:169–185 DOI 10.1007/s10531-009-9713-4 ORIGINAL PAPER Diversity and endemism of woody plant species in the Equatorial Pacific seasonally dry forests Reynaldo Linares-Palomino Æ Lars Peter Kvist Æ Zhofre Aguirre-Mendoza Æ Carlos Gonzales-Inca Received: 7 October 2008 / Accepted: 10 August 2009 / Published online: 16 September 2009 Ó The Author(s) 2009. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract The biodiversity hotspot of the Equatorial Pacific region in western Ecuador and northwestern Peru comprises the most extensive seasonally dry forest formations west of the Andes. Based on a recently assembled checklist of the woody plants occurring in this region, we analysed their geographical and altitudinal distribution patterns. The montane seasonally dry forest region (at an altitude between 1,000 and 1,100 m, and the smallest in terms of area) was outstanding in terms of total species richness and number of endemics. The extensive seasonally dry forest formations in the Ecuadorean and Peruvian lowlands and hills (i.e., forests below 500 m altitude) were comparatively much more species poor. It is remarkable though, that there were so many fewer collections in the Peruvian departments and Ecuadorean provinces with substantial mountainous areas, such as Ca- jamarca and Loja, respectively, indicating that these places have a potentially higher number of species. We estimate that some form of protected area (at country, state or private level) is currently conserving only 5% of the approximately 55,000 km2 of remaining SDF in the region, and many of these areas protect vegetation at altitudes below 500 m altitude.
    [Show full text]
  • Zi[ EN BIODIVERSIDAD)? 11I
    _ ---------- -i _l_ - ________ _ _ .. ~~~_._.G=.:_.__ _ _ ._.._,_,___,_____ _,_,o_ssw__ r____I_____.-- ,.................. ,,. 15_ j s - -- ,,.nn......................................... == -- -_: _: . -. - . = -- LO NI~~~- Public Disclosure Authorized CIP)~~ ~ ~~- = I 7 i s s s Public Disclosure Authorized - i, z 2. L ~LLj t1~ t !- (9~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~L Public Disclosure Authorized 0E 0 . _ - . _ _ - . r~ ~ ~ ~ .. Public Disclosure Authorized . I''U' "71111 ;:01i11:Ii 1^/]N: 1 I 1 HO1riON INVESTMENTS: I diversity Funding in H i J the Caribbean I ( Z t rt .I 'I ussell, L. Cornwell and E. Fajer zI[ EN BIODIVERSIDAD)? 11i. lEvwili I liento para la Biodiversidad ri c I 1:i na y el Caribe (: ( Linv c ) 1 Russell, L. Cornwell y E. Fajer 35111 Biodiversity Support Program Washington, DC 'l t 1 DII" World Bank -~W .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~. IA11I.E (! ) iTi NTrs TABLA DE CONTENIDOS Ackrio' v eil I ntsri 5 Reconocimientos 5 Exerut ve r via ryt 7 Resumen Ejecutivo 7 I i -,)du I c- to Introduccion Io 're\ c:l', ( ' w tion Funri v k ;essn mnt 12 Evaluaciones Previas sobre Financiamiento Bloc vn r! j r dme Asscs i 1 i i )r LA 13 para la Conservaci6n 12 Evaluacion del Financiamiento para la Mle t iod i 14 Biodiversidad en LAC 13 Metodos '4 Info nia: ( ^ llected 14 Encuesta 14 IPot( ] la ii m-sof Errot 15 Informacion Recolectada 14 Re5zu Its et id t ssicn 1 Fuentes Potenciales de Error 15 Gen r:il t .I s i6 Resultados y Discusi6n 16 Fun itig 1 nor Type 20 Resultados Generales i6 Funi itig ) r jecl Caategoi 21 Financiamiento por Tipo de Donante 20
    [Show full text]
  • Banning Goats Could Exacerbate Deforestation of the Ecuadorian Dry Forest – How the Effectiveness of Conservation Payments Is Influenced by Productive Use Options
    2016 Vol. 70 · No. 1 · 49–67 BANNING GOATS COULD EXACERBATE DEFORESTATION OF THE ECUADORIAN DRY FOREST – HOW THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSERVATION PAYMENTS IS INFLUENCED BY PRODUCTIVE USE OPTIONS W. SANTIAGO OCHOA M., CAROLA PAUL, LUZ MARÍA CASTRO, LIZ VALLE and THOMAS KNOKE With 5 figures, 3 tables and appendix Received 13 July 2015 · Accepted 16 December 2015 Summary: Due to ongoing conversion of the dry forests of southern Ecuador to pasture and farmland, they are among the most threatened ecosystems globally. This study explored how to control deforestation in the region while securing the livelihoods of local people through land-use diversification and compensation payments. Results are based on interview data collected from 163 households near the Laipuna Reserve in southern Ecuador. Combining modern financial theory and von Thünen’s theory of land distribution, we optimized land-use shares of two types of forest management (banning and allow- ing goat grazing) and three crops (maize, beans and peanuts). Land-use portfolios were calculated for four different farm sizes, represented by the quartiles of the farm size distribution. We found that goat grazing was important for diversifying farm income and reducing financial risks for all farm sizes. However, forest area would still be converted to cropland under the current financial coefficients. The amount of compensation needed to maintain current forest cover was calculated for two different scenarios: 1) banning goat grazing and 2) allowing forest use where the farmer could decide how much for- est area would be allocated to each land-use option. Offering financial compensation for forest preservation (Scenario 1) reduced deforestation but would still lead to a conversion of at least 23 % of current forests to croplands.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Versus Deforestation: Implications for Tree Species Distribution in the Dry Forests of Southern Ecuador
    CORRECTION Correction: Climate change versus deforestation: Implications for tree species distribution in the dry forests of southern Ecuador Carlos E. Manchego, Patrick Hildebrandt, Jorge Cueva, Carlos IvaÂn Espinosa, Bernd Stimm, Sven GuÈ nter There is an error in the first sentence of the second paragraph in the Introduction section. The correct sentence is: Ecuador, one of the ten most biodiversity-rich nations in the world [11, 12], has one-sixth of its territory covered by deciduous and semi-deciduous forests [13] with a reported national deforestation rate of approximately 475 km2/year during 2008±2014 [14]. Reference 1. Manchego CE, Hildebrandt P, Cueva J, Espinosa CI, Stimm B, GuÈnter S (2017) Climate change versus deforestation: Implications for tree species distribution in the dry forests of southern Ecuador. PLoS ONE 12(12): e0190092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190092 PMID: 29267357 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Manchego CE, Hildebrandt P, Cueva J, Espinosa CI, Stimm B, GuÈnter S (2018) Correction: Climate change versus deforestation: Implications for tree species distribution in the dry forests of southern Ecuador. PLoS ONE 13(4): e0195851. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195851 Published: April 9, 2018 Copyright: © 2018 Manchego et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195851 April 9, 2018 1 / 1 RESEARCH ARTICLE Climate change versus deforestation: Implications for tree species distribution in the dry forests of southern Ecuador Carlos E.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean
    A Conservation Assessment Public Disclosure Authorized of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Eric Dinerstein David M. Olson Douglas ). Graham Avis L. Webster Steven A. Primm Marnie P. Bookbinder George Ledec Public Disclosure Authorized r Published in association with The World Wildlife Fund The World Bank WWF Washington, D.C. A ConservationAssessment of the TerrestrialEcoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean Eric Dinerstein David M. Olson Douglas J. Graham Avis L. Webster Steven A. Primm Marnie P. Bookbinder George Ledec Published in association with The World Wildlife Fund The World Bank Washington, D.C. © 1995 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing September 1995 The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this study are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organiza- tions, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Anthropogenic Factors on the Diversity and Structure
    Article Influence of Anthropogenic Factors on the Diversity and Structure of a Dry Forest in the Central Part of the Tumbesian Region (Ecuador–Perú) Jorge Cueva Ortiz 1,* , Carlos Iván Espinosa 2 , Carlos Quiroz Dahik 1 , Zhofre Aguirre Mendoza 3 , Eduardo Cueva Ortiz 2, Elizabeth Gusmán 2, Michael Weber 1 and Patrick Hildebrandt 1 1 Institute of Silviculture, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, 85354 Freising, Germany; [email protected] (C.Q.D.); [email protected] (M.W.); [email protected] (P.H.) 2 EcoSs_Lab, Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, San Cayetano Alto, 110107 Loja, Ecuador; [email protected] (C.I.E.); [email protected] (E.C.O.); [email protected] (E.G.) 3 Carrera de Ingeniería Forestal, Universidad Nacional de Loja, Ciudadela Guillermo Falconí E., 110-110 Loja, Ecuador; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-8161-71-4690 Received: 1 November 2018; Accepted: 2 January 2019; Published: 5 January 2019 Abstract: The dry forest of southern Ecuador and northern Perú (called the Tumbesian region) is known for its high diversity, endemism, and healthy conservation state. Nevertheless, the forest is exposed to many threats linked with human activities. To understand the effects of these threats, which have not been appropriately assessed, we pose two questions: (a) What are the diversity and structural situations of the forest? (b) Are anthropogenic activities affecting the composition and structure of the forest? The assessed factors were species richness, diversity, species similarity, abundance, and density. Forest information was obtained from 72 plots (total area 25.92 ha) randomly placed to cover a wide range of stand densities (from 200 to 1100 m a.s.l.).
    [Show full text]
  • Free Executive Summary
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4901.html We ship printed books within 1 business day; personal PDFs are available immediately. Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources Marjorie L. Reaka-Kudla, Don E. Wilson, and Edward O. Wilson, Editors; A Joseph Henry Press book ISBN: 0-309-52075-4, 560 pages, 6 x 9, (1997) This PDF is available from the Joseph Henry Press at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4901.html Visit the Joseph Henry Press online to see more top quality, general interest science books: • Read books online, free • Explore our innovative research tools • Sign up to be notified when new books are published • Purchase printed books • Purchase PDFs The Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press, was created with the goal of publishing well-crafted, authoritative books on science, technology, and health for the science-interested general public. All Joseph Henry Press books go through scientific review before being published. The opinions expressed in this book are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academies. Thank you for downloading this PDF. If you have comments, questions or just want more information about the books published by the National Academies Press and the Joseph Henry Press, you may contact our customer service department toll-free at 888-624-8373, visit us online, or send an email to [email protected]. This book plus many more are available at http://www.jhpress.org. Copyright © All rights reserved. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Word
    BUTTERFLIES OF VERDE SUMACO, ECUADOR DURING LATE DECEMBER 2018 by Stephanie P. Cressman FACULTY OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEME NT LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY THUNDER BAY, ONTARIO April 2020 ii BUTTERFLIES OF VERDE SUMACO, ECUADOR DURING LATE DECEMBER 2018 by Stephanie P. Cressman An Undergraduate Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Honours Bachelor of Environmental Management Faculty of Natural Resources Management Lakehead University April 2020 ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ Dr. Don Henne Dr. Jian Rang Wang Major Advisor Second Reader iii LIBRARY RIGHTS STATEMENT In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the HBEM degree at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, I agree that the University will make it freely available for inspection. This thesis is made available by my authority solely for the purpose of private study and may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part (except as permitted by the Copyright Laws) without my written authority. Signature: ______ Date: _________ _April 13, 2020_____ iv A CAUTION TO THE READER This HBEM thesis has been through a semi-formal process of review and comment by at least two faculty members. It is made available for loan by the Faculty of Natural Resources Management for the purpose of advancing the practice of professional and scientific environmental management. The reader should be aware that opinions and conclusions expressed in this document are those of the student and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the thesis supervisor, the faculty or of Lakehead University. v ABSTRACT Cressman, S. P. 2020. Butterflies of Verde Sumaco, Ecuador during late December 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Information
    SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Figure S1. Title: Correlation between physical variables. Legend: Kendall’s correlation coefficients (τ) at national and continental levels; colors represents strength and sign of the correlation (from negative red, to white, to positive blue). Acronyms: PPT Precipitation, TMP Temperature, ELE Elevation, SLO Terrain slope, SOI Soil fertility. Figure S2. Title: Alternative current representativeness. Legend: Alternative relationship between current protection extent (%) and equality (G') in South America. In contrast to Fig. 3, equality values (G') were calculated considering a variable number of bins following the Sturges binning method (1926). Equality is calculated on the basis of physical continuous variables. Continental and Uruguayan results (in blue) did not feed linear regressions. Figure S3. Title: Efficiency of increasing protection extent in the protection equality. Legend: Calculated as the relationship of the differences between decades in extent and equality. Figure S4. Title: Evolution of representativeness based on biogeographical units. Legend: Temporal evolution of the relationship between protection extent (%) and equality (G') in South America. Equality is calculated on the basis of biogeographical units. Each dot indicates the end point of a temporal period except for 1960 one, which indicates the data before 1960, inclusively. Uruguay has only one ecoregion (i.e. the Uruguayan savanna), and thus, no equality values could be quantified. Figure S5. Title: Conservation priorities. Legend: Detailed national conservation priorities (Pr) in South America according to the current spatial distribution of protection extent along physical gradients, classified into deciles (D). Red represents the highest priority, dark green the lowest. White lines represent subnational political divisions. In the detail of South America, the entire continent is considered as a single unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Zootaxa, an Annotated Checklist of the Land Snail Family Orthalicidae
    TERM OF USE This pdf is provided by Magnolia Press for private/research use. Commercial sale or deposition in a public library or website site is prohibited. Zootaxa 1768: 1–40 (2008) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2008 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) An annotated checklist of the land snail family Orthalicidae (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Orthalicoidea) in Ecuador, with notes on the distribution of the mainland species ABRAHAM S.H. BREURE¹ & FRANCISCO J. BORRERO²,³ ¹National Museum of Natural History / Naturalis, P.O.Box 9517, Leiden, the Netherlands; E-mail: [email protected] ²Cincinnati Museum Center, 1301 Western Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45203, USA; ³Cincinnati Country Day School. E-mail: [email protected] Table of contents Abstract ..............................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................2 Methods ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Checklist of species ............................................................................................................................................................4 SUBFAMILIA BULIMULINAE .......................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Download Supplementary
    1 Supplementary information for: st 2 Area-based conservation in the 21 century 3 4 Global gap analysis for protected area coverage 5 The Convention on Biological Diversity’s current ten-year Strategic Plan for Biodiversity1 has an 6 explicit target (Aichi Target 11) to “at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10 7 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and 8 ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically 9 representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and OECMs, and integrated into the 10 wider landscape and seascape” by 2020. We performed a spatial overlay analysis to review how 11 expansion of protected areas globally between 2010 and 2019 affected core components of Aichi 12 Target 11. We projected all spatial data into Mollweide equal area projection, and processed in 13 vector format using ESRI ArcGIS v10.7.1, calculating coverage through spatial intersections of 14 protected areas and conservation features. 15 Data on protected area location, boundary, and year of inscription were obtained from the June 16 2019 version of the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA)2. We incorporated into the June 17 2019 version of WDPA 768 protected areas (1,425,770 km2) in China (sites that were available in the 18 June 2017 version of WDPA, but not publicly available thereafter). Following the WDPA best practice 19 guidelines (www.protectedplanet.net/c/calculating-protected-area-coverage) and similar global 20 studies3-5, we included in our analysis only protected areas from the WDPA database that have a 21 status of ‘Designated’, ‘Inscribed’ or ‘Established’, and removed all points and polygons with a status 22 of ‘Proposed’ or ‘Not Reported’.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Forest Remnants in the Cordillera De La Costa and Adjacent
    Rapid Assessment Program RAP Working Papers 2 Status of Forest Remnants in the Cordillera de la Costa and Adjacent Areas of Southwestern Ecuador CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL OCTOBER 1992 Conservation Priorities: The Role of RAP Our planet faces many serious environmental problems, among them global climate change, pollution, soil erosion, and toxic waste disposal. At Conservation International (CI), we believe that there is one problem that surpasses all others in terms of importance because of its irreversibility, the extinction of biological diversity. Conservation efforts still receive only a tiny fraction of the resources, both human and financial, needed to get the job done. As a result of this, we must use available resources efficiently, applying them to those places with the highest concentrations of diversity which are at most immediate risk of disappearing. CI uses a strategic, hierarchical approach for setting conservation investment priorities. At a global level, we have targeted the “hotspots,” 15 tropical areas that hold a third or more of all terrestrial diversity and are at great risk. Our global priorities also focus on major tropical wilderness areas and the “megadiversity” country concept, which highlights the importance of the national entities that harbor high biodiversity. We are now undertaking a series of priority-setting exercises for other major categories of ecosystems, among them marine systems, deserts, and dry forests. The next level of priority setting is the bio-regional workshop, a process where experts assemble their combined knowledge of an area to map regional conservation priorities using CI’s geographic information system (CISIG). We have also taken a taxon-based approach, working with the Species Survival Commission of IUCN to produce action plans for key groups of organisms.
    [Show full text]