Published
El papel de las pequeñas reservas en la conservación de mamíferos en Colombia
The role of small reserves on mammal conservation in Colombia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/caldasia.v43n2.85466Keywords:
Áreas protegidas, biogeografía de islas, diversidad de mamíferos, fragmentación, relación especie-área (es)Protected areas, island biogeography, mammal diversity, fragmentation, species-area relationship (en)
Downloads
Additional Files
El papel de las reservas privadas generalmente se subvalora debido a su pequeño tamaño y su distribución discontinua. Para examinar su relevancia en la conservación de los mamíferos, con este trabajo abordamos tres objetivos: 1) identificar el patrón de tamaño, altitud y distribución de las reservas privadas colombianas del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas - SINAP, 2) examinar, como estudio de caso, la riqueza de mamíferos y patrones geográficos de doce reservas, y 3) identificar la contribución de las pequeñas reservas a la conservación de mamíferos colombianos. Para el primer objetivo, analizamos el tamaño, altitud y distribución de las reservas privadas del SINAP discriminadas por provincias biogeográficas. Para los subsiguientes objetivos, evaluamos la relación entre la riqueza de mamíferos, con área, altitud y conectividad en las doce reservas. Encontramos que la mayoría de las reservas privadas tienen áreas menores a 100 ha, están entre los 1500 y 2500 m y se ubican en la provincia Norandina. En el conjunto de las doce reservas examinadas, encontramos una riqueza de 224 especies de once órdenes de mamíferos, con un promedio de 42,7 especies (19 murciélagos y 23,7 mamíferos no voladores). Encontramos una relación positiva entre el área y la riqueza total de mamíferos y de mamíferos no voladores, y entre la altitud y la riqueza de mamíferos no voladores. Además, identificamos que las reservas conservan principalmente mamíferos pequeños, aunque pueden ser refugio para especies medianas y grandes. Resaltamos que estas reservas contribuyen significativamente a la conservación de los mamíferos en Colombia.
The role of private reserves is often underestimated due to their small size and discontinuous distribution. To examine the relevance of small reserves in mammal conservation, with this paper we addressed three objectives: 1) to identify patterns of size, altitude, and distribution of the Colombian private reserves belonging to the Protected Areas National System (SINAP), 2) to examine, as a case study, mammal richness and geographical patterns in twelve reserves, and 3) to identify the contribution of small reserves to Colombian mammal’s conservation. To address the first objective, we analyzed size, altitude, and distribution of the SINAP reserves sorted by biogeographic provinces. For the other two objectives, we evaluated the relationship between mammal richness and area, altitude, and connectivity of the twelve small reserves. We found that most of the SINAP reserves are less than 100 ha in size, that they were distributed between 1500 and 2500 m, and that they were in the North Andean province. Together, the twelve reserves harbor 224 species of eleven mammalian orders, with a mean richness of 42.7 species (19 bats, and 23.7 non-volant mammals). We found a positive relationship between both total mammal richness and non-volant mammal richness with reserve area and between non-volant mammal richness and altitude. We also identify those small reserves conserve mainly small-sized species although they might serve as a refuge for medium and large species as well. We highlight those small reserves play a significant role in Colombian mammal’s conservation.
References
Alberico M, Rojas-Díaz V. 2002. Mamíferos de Colombia. En: Ceballos G, Simonetti J, editores. Diversidad y Conserva-ción de los Mamíferos Neotropicales. Mexico D.F.: CONABIO-UNAM. p. 185–226.
Anderson RP, Gutiérrez EE, Ochoa-G J, García FJ, Aguilera M. 2012. Faunal nestedness and species – area relationship for small non-volant mammals in “sky islands” of northern Venezuela. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 47(3):157–170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01650521.2012.745295
Areiza A, Corzo G, Castillo LS, Matallana C, Correa Ayram CA. 2018. Áreas protegidas regionales y reservas privadas: las protagonistas de las últimas décadas. En Moreno LA, Andrade GI, Gómez MF, editores. Biodiversidad 2018. Estado y tendencias de la biodiversidad continental de Colombia. Bogotá D.C.: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt.
Armenteras D, Cabrera E, Rodríguez N, Retana J. 2013. National and regional determinants of tropical deforestation in Colombia. Reg. Environ. Chang. 13:1181–1193. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0433-7
Boecklen WJ. 1991. Theoretical and empirical biogeography models in conservation. En: Mares MA, Schmidly DJ, editores. Latin American Mammalogy: History, Biodiversity, and Conservation. Norman, Oklahoma, USA: University of Oklahoma Press. p. 150–166.
Brown JH. 1971. Mammals on Mountaintops: Nonequilibrium Insular Biogeography. Am Nat. 105(945):467–478. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/282738
Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR. 2006. Global mammal distributions, biodiversity hotspots, and conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103(51):19374–19379. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609334103
Colombian National Government, FARC-EP. c2016. Final Agreement to End the Armed Conflict and Build a Stable and Lasting Peace. [Revisada en: 15 dic 2020]. https://colombia.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/s-2017-272_e.pdf
Díaz-Pulido A, Benítez A, Gómez-Ruiz DA, Calderón-Acevedo CA, Link A, Pardo A, Forero F, de Luna AG, Payán E, Solari S. 2014. Mamíferos del Bosque Seco, una mirada al Caribe colombiano. En: Pizano C, García H, editores. El Bosque Seco Tropical en Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt (IAvH).
Daily GC, Ceballos G, Pacheco J, Suzán G, Sánchez-Azofeifa A. 2003. Countryside Biogeography of Neotropical Mammals: Conservation Opportunities in Agricultural Landscapes of Costa Rica. Conserv. Biol. 17(6):1814–1826. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00298.x
Donaldson L, Wilson RJ, Maclean IMD. 2017. Old concepts, new challenges: adapting landscape-scale conservation to the twenty-first century. Biodivers. Conserv. 26(3):527–552. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1257-9
Dudley N, Parrish JD, Redford KH, Stolton S. 2010. The revised IUCN protected area management categories: The debate and ways forward. Oryx. 44(4):485–490. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000566
Etter A, Andrade A, Saavedra K, Amaya P, Arévalo P. 2017. Estado de los ecosistemas colombianos. Una aplicación de la metodología de la Lista Roja de Ecosistemas. Ver. 2.0. Bogotá: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana y Conservación Internacional – Colombia.
Etter A, McAlpine C, Possingham H. 2008. Historical patterns and drivers of landscape change in Colombia since 1500: A regionalized spatial approach. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 98(1):2–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600701733911
Ferro I, Barquez RM 2014. Patrones de distribución de micromamíferos en gradientes altitudinales del noroeste Argentino. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 85(2):472 –490. doi: https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.38029
Flantua SGA, O’Dea A, Onstein RE, Giraldo C, Hooghiemstra H. 2019. The flickering connectivity system of the north Andean páramos. J. Biogeogr. 46(8):1808–1825. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13607
Gallina S, González-Romero A. 2018. La conservación de mamíferos en dos reservas ecológicas privadas de Veracruz, México. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 89(4):1245–1254. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/ib.20078706e.2018.4.2476
Gatti A, Ferreira PM, da Cunha CJ, Seibert JB, Moreira DO. 2017. Medium and large-bodied mammals of the private reserve of natural heritage Recanto das Antas, in Espírito Santo, Brazil. Oecologia Aust. 21(2):171–181. doi: https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2017.2102.07
Glenn SM, Nudds TD. 1989. Insular Biogeography of Mammals in Canadian Parks. J. Biogeogr. 16(3):261–268. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2845262
Gomez-Laverde M, Montenegro-Diaz O, Lopez-Arevalo H, Cadena A, Bueno ML. 1997. Karyology, Morphology, and Ecology of Thomasomys laniger and T. niveipes (Rodentia) in Colombia. J. Mammal. 78(4):1282–1289. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1383071
Halffter G. 2007. Reservas archipiélago: Un nuevo tipo de área protegida. En: Halffter G, Melic A, editores. Hacia una cultura de conservación de la diversidad biológica. Xalapa, España: SEA, CONABIO, CONANP, CONACYT, INECOL, UNESCO-MaB, Ministerio Medio Ambiente-Gobierno de España. p. 281–286.
Harris LD. 1984. The fragmented forests: island biogeography theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Havmøller RW, Tenan S, Scharff N, Rovero F. 2019. Reserve size and anthropogenic disturbance affect the density of an African leopard (Panthera pardus) meta-population. PLoS One. 14(6):e0209541. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0209541
Hernández-Camacho J, Hurtado-Guerra A, Ortiz-Quijano R, Walschburger T. 1992. Unidades biogeográficas de Colombia. En: Halffter G, editor. La diversidad biológica de Iberoamérica I. Xalapa: Instituto de Ecología, A.C.; Programa Iberoamericano de Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo-CYTED-D. p. 54 –104.
Hora B, Marchant C, Borsdorf A. 2018. Private Protected Areas in Latin America: Between conservation, sustainability goals and economic interests. A review. Eco-Mont. 10(1):87–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1553/eco.mont-10-1s87
IAvH, Ecopetrol. c2016. Mapa de los distritos biogeográficos de Colombia. Serie Planeación ambiental para la conservación de la biodiversidad en las áreas operativas de ecopetrol. Proyecto Planeación ambiental para la conservación de la biodiversidad en las áreas operativas de Ecopetrol. [Revisada en: 23 Ene 2021] http://www.humboldt.org.co/en/research/projects/executed-projects/item/12-planeacion-ambiental-para-la-conservacion-ecopetrol
Laurance WF. 2008. Theory meets reality: How habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biol. Conserv. 141(7):1731–1744. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.05.011
Laverde BN, Santamaria C, Matallana C, Pohl H. 2018. Aportes de Resnatur a la conservación voluntaria: red pionera de reservas naturales de la sociedad civil. En Moreno LA, Andrade GI, Goméz MF, editores. Biodiversidad 2018. Estado y tendencias de la biodiversidad continental de Colombia. Bogotá, D. C., Colombia: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt.
Liévano-Latorre LF, Brum FT, Loyola R. 2021. How effective have been guerrilla occupation and protected areas in avoiding deforestation in Colombia? Biol. Conserv. 253:108916. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108916
Liévano-Latorre LF, López-Arévalo HF. 2015. New record of Olallamys albicaudus (Günther, 1879) in the oriental colombian cordillera, with notes on its distribution. Mastozool. Neotrop. 22(2):391–396.
Lomolino MV, Brown JH, Davis R. 1989. Island Biogeograhy of Montane Forest Mammals in the American Southwest. Ecology 70(1):180–194. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1938425
Lopes MA, Ferrari SF. 2000. Effects of human colonization on the abundance and diversity of mammals in eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Conserv. Biol. 14(6):1658–1665. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98402.x
Mantilla-Meluk H, Jiménez-Ortega AM, Baker RJ. 2009. Phyllostomid bats of Colombia: annotated checklist, distribution, and biogeography. Special Publications Museum of Texas Tech University. Lubock: Museum Of Texas Tech University.
Marquet PA. 1994. Diversity of small mammals in the pacific coastal desert of peru and chile and in the adjacent andean area: Biogeography and community structure. Aust. J. Zool. 42(4):405–433. doi: https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO9940527
McCain CM. 2007. Could temperature and water availability drive elevational species richness? A global case study for bats. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16(1):1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00263.x
Mena JL, Solari S, Carrera JP, Fernando L, Gómez H. 2011. Small Mammal Diversity in the Tropical Andes: An Overview. En: Herzog S, Martínez R, Jørgensen R, Tiessen H, editores. Climate Change and Biodiversity in the Tropical Andes. São José dos Campos: Inter- American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) and Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE). p. 260–275.
Michalski F, Peres CA. 2007. Disturbance-mediated mammal persistence and abundance-area relationships in Amazonian forest fragments. Conserv. Biol. 21(6):1626–1640. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00797.x
Millien-Parra V, Jaeger J-J. 1999. Island Biogeography of the Japanese Terrestrial Mammal Assemblages: An Example of a Relict Fauna. J. Biogeogr. 26(5):959–972. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00346.x
Moctezuma V, Halffter G, Arriaga-Jiménez A. 2018. Archipelago reserves, a new option to protect montane entomofauna and beta-diverse ecosystems. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 89(3):927–937. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/ib.20078706e.2018.3.2446
Morales-Jiménez A, Sánchez F, Poveda K, Cadena A. 2004. Mamíferos terrestres y voladores de Colombia: guía de campo. Bogotá: Ramos Lopez editorial.
Mugume S, Isabirye-Basuta G, Otali E, Reyna-Hurtado R, Chapman CA. 2015. How do human activities influence the status and distribution of terrestrial mammals in forest reserves? J. Mammal. 96(5):998–1004. doi: http://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyv104
Negret PJ, Sonter L, Watson JEM, Possingham HP, Jones KR, Suarez C, Ochoa-Quintero JM, Maron M. 2019. Emerging evidence that armed conflict and coca cultivation influence deforestation patterns. Biol. Conserv. 239:108176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.021
Negrões N, Revilla E, Fonseca C, Soares AMVM, Jácomo ATA, Silveira L. 2011. Private forest reserves can aid in preserving the community of medium and large-sized vertebrates in the Amazon arc of deforestation. Biodivers. Conserv. 20:505–518. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9961-3
Newmark WD. 1996. Insularization of Tanzanian Parks and the Local Extinction of Large Mammals. Conserv. Biol. 10(6):1549–1556. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10061549.x
Novillo A, Ojeda RA. 2012. Diversity and distribution of small mammals in the South American Dry Andes. Austral. Ecol. 37(7):758–766. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-m9993.2011.02336.x
Ocampo-López, OL, Castañeda-Peláez K, Vélez-Upegui JJ. 2017. Caracterización de los ecotopos cafeteros colombianos en el Triángulo del Café. Perspect. Geog. 22(1):89–108. doi: http://doi.org/10.19053/01233769.6100
Parks SA, Harcourt AH. 2002. Reserve Size, Local Human Density, and Mammalian Extinctions in U.S. Conserv. Biol. 16(3):800-808. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00288.x
Pasquini L, Fitzsimons JA, Cowell S, Brandon K, Wescott G. 2011. The establishment of large private nature reserves by conservation NGOs: key factors for successful implementation. Oryx. 45(3):373–380. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000876
Patterson BD. 1991. The Integral Role of Biogeographic Theory in the Conservation of Tropical Forest Diversity. En: Mares MA, Schmidly DJ, editores. Latin American Mammalogy: History, Biodiversity, and Conservation. Norman, Oklahoma. USA: University of Oklahoma Press. p. 124–149.
Prem M, Saavedra S, Vargas JF. 2020. End-of-conflict deforestation: Evidence from Colombia’s peace agreement. World Dev. 129:104852. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104852
Quintero-López M, Arias-Arbeláez FA. 2016. Conservación de la naturaleza en propiedad privada: las Reservas Naturales de la Sociedad Civil en el Valle del Cauca. Apunt CENES. 35(61):17–48. doi: https://doi.org/10.19053/22565779.3732
R Core Team. c2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [Revisada en: 22 ene 2020]. https://www.r-project.org/
Ramírez-Chaves HE, Suárez-Castro AF, González-Maya JF. 2016. Cambios recientes a la lista de mamíferos de Colombia. Mamm. Notes. 3(1-2):1–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.47603/manovol3n1.1-9
Redford KH, Robinson JG. 1991. Neotropical Wildlife use and Conservation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
De Roux JM, Noguera-Urbano EA, Ramírez-Chaves HE. 2019. The vulnerable Colombian weasel Mustela felipei (Carnivora): new record from Colombia and review of its distribution in protected areas. Therya 10(2):207–210. doi: http://doi.org/10.12933/therya-19-776
Sampaio R, Lima AP, Magnusson WE, Peres CA. 2010. Long-term persistence of midsized to large-bodied mammals in Amazonian landscapes under varying contexts of forest cover. Bio. Conserv. 19(8):2421–2439. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9848-3
Sánchez F, Sánchez-Palomino P, Cadena A. 2004. Inventario de mamíferos en un bosque de los Andes centrales de Colombia. Caldasia 26(1):291–309.
Sanclemente G, Ruiz L, Pedraza N. 2014. Contribución del Sector Privado a las Áreas Protegidas: Estudios en Colombia y Perú. Quito: UICN, Environment Canada, ECOVERSA.
Santamaría M, Areiza A, Matallana C, Solano C, Galán S. 2018. Estrategias complementarias de conservación en Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto Humboldt, Resnatur y Fundación Natura.
Schelhas J, Greenberg R. 1996. Forest patches in tropical landscapes. Introduction: The value of forest patches. Washington: Island Press. p. XV–XXXVI.
Schiavetti A, de Oliveira HT, Lins AS, Santos PS. 2010. Analysis of private natural heritage reserves as a conservation strategy for the biodiversity of the cocoa region of the southern State of Bahia , Brazil. Rev. Árvore. 34(4):699–711. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-67622010000400015
Sikes RS, Gannon WL. 2011. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J. Mammal. 92(1):235–253. doi: https://doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-F-355.1
SINAP. c2020. Registro Único Nacional de Áreas Protegidas - RNUP. [Revisada en: 21 ene 2020]. http://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/portal/es/sistema-nacional-de-areas-protegidas-sinap/registro-unico-nacional-de-areas-protegias/
Solari S, Muñoz-Saba Y, Rodríguez-mahecha JV, Defler TR, Ramírez-chaves HE, Trujillo F. 2013. Riqueza, endemismo y conservación de los mamíferos de Colombia. Mastozool. Neotrop. 20(2):301–365.
Stevens GC. 1992. The elevational gradient in altitudinal range: an extension of Rapoport’s latitudinal rule to altitude. Am. Nat. 140(6):893–911. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/285447
Turner IM, Corlett RT. 1996. The conservation value of small, isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 11(8):330–333. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)10046-X
Volenec ZM, Dobson AP. 2020. Conservation value of small reserves. Conserv. Biol. 34(1):66–79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13308
How to Cite
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Download Citation
CrossRef Cited-by
1. Laura Castrillón-Hoyos, Luisa Rincón, Juan Troncoso-Saavedra, María Giraldo-Rojas, Javier Hernández-Rincón, Aldemar Velásquez-Vázquez, Luis Gallego-López, Carolina Guzmán-Valencia, Luis Gallego-Patiño, Jhon Rojas-Osorio, José Gómez-González, Libaniel Osorio-Parra, Ronald Marquez, Guillermo Bianchi, Isaac Goldstein, Robert Márquez. (2023). Occupancy and habitat use by the Andean bear are negatively affected by human presence and forest loss. Journal for Nature Conservation, 73, p.126409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126409.
2. Aída Otálora-Ardila, Fábio Z. Farneda, Christoph F. J. Meyer, Hugo F. López-Arévalo, Jaime Polanía, Carolina Gómez-Posada. (2024). Trait-mediated filtering predicts phyllostomid bat responses to habitat disturbance in the Orinoco Llanos. Biodiversity and Conservation, 33(4), p.1285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02792-2.
3. José Mauricio Montes-Rodríguez, Oscar Efraín Ortega Molina, Yilmar Espinosa Vélez, Diego Esteban Martínez Revelo. (2023). Tamaño del fragmento de bosque y aislamiento: potenciales efectos sobre ensambles de escarabajos coprófagos (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) . Caldasia, 45(3) https://doi.org/10.15446/caldasia.v45n3.99369.
4. F. Z. Farneda, A. Otálora‐Ardila, C. F. J. Meyer, H. F. López‐Arévalo, C. Gómez‐Posada, J. Polanía. (2024). Multiple dimensions of phyllostomid bat biodiversity across ecosystems of the Orinoco Llanos. Animal Conservation, 27(5), p.659. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12941.
5. Larissa Fornitano, Jéssica Abonizio Gouvea, Rômulo Theodoro Costa, Marcelo Magioli, Rita Bianchi. (2024). Large Protected Areas Safeguard Mammalian Functional Diversity in Human-Modified Landscapes. Sustainability, 16(13), p.5419. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135419.
6. María Juliana Bedoya-Durán, Oscar E. Murillo-García, Lyn C. Branch. (2021). Factors outside privately protected areas determine mammal assemblages in a global biodiversity hotspot in the Andes. Global Ecology and Conservation, 32, p.e01921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01921.
7. Federico Mosquera-Guerra, Sebastián Barreto, Nathalia Moreno-Niño, Tania Marisol González-Delgado, Dolors Armenteras-Pascual. (2024). Habitat connectivity of threatened ungulate species in a native savanna landscape of northern South America. Mammalian Biology, 104(3), p.259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-024-00404-8.
Dimensions
PlumX
Article abstract page views
Downloads
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Caldasia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).