Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Forest Fragmentation and The Representativeness of Protected Natural Areas in The Eastern Andes, Colombia
Forest Fragmentation and The Representativeness of Protected Natural Areas in The Eastern Andes, Colombia
www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
Received 1 May 2002; received in revised form 20 October 2002; accepted 8 November 2002
Abstract
Biodiversity characterization at the landscape level based on remote sensing and geographic information systems data has
become increasingly important for conservation planning. We present the results of a study of the fragmentation of Andean forests
and other ecosystems and an assessment of the representativeness at the ecosystem level of protected natural areas in the eastern
Andes of Colombia. We used satellite remote sensing data to characterize ecosystems and undertook ground truthing at six sites.
The 11 identified ecosystem types were analyzed within existing protected areas to assess the representativeness of these sites within
the region. Five ecosystems were well-represented and six of them had < 10% of their area protected. Highland ecosystems were the
best represented in protected areas due to the preponderance of highland parks in the eastern Andes. However Andean and sub
Andean forests have less than 4.5 and 6.4% of their original pre-Columbian extent currently protected. Fragmentation parameters
such as patch size, patch shape, number of patches, mean nearest neighbor distance and landscape shape index were also analyzed.
Andean, sub Andean and dry forests are highly fragmented ecosystems but there is a clear latitudinal gradient of fragmentation.
Our findings suggested that conservation efforts should be directed first toward the conservation of dry and oak forests in the center
of the eastern Andes, and then Andean and sub Andean montane forests toward the south near the border with Ecuador.
# 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Colombia; Ecosystems; Andean forest; Representativeness; Fragmentation; GIS; Protected natural areas
successfully implemented in temperate zones (Scott et to land use change and human pressures is. Our aim was
al., 1989, 1991). First all the necessary information was to provide conservationists and environmental man-
collected, then the degree in which biodiversity elements agers with information on the current state of ecosys-
are represented in a given conservation system was tems and threats to biodiversity in the eastern Andes in
evaluated (Jennings, 2000). This evaluation is usually Colombia. Our analysis includes a quantitative and
based on information on the percentage protected of descriptive analysis of the geographic distribution, the
each type of vegetation as an estimative of its repre- representativeness in protected areas, and the fragmen-
sentativeness and vulnerability (Dinerstein et al., 1995; tation state of natural ecosystems in the region. The
Stoms, 2000). Usually a figure of between 10 and 12% scale used for this analysis (1:250,000) is appropriate for
of a biodiversity element present in a protected area examining conservation priorities in the eastern Andes.
system is considered to be well-represented. This per- Scales between 1:250,000 and 1:500,000 are appropriate
centage, along with the number of protected areas and to conduct ecosystem-level priority assessments for
their extension, are the most common indicators used to small countries (or a similar extent such as the eastern
evaluate protected systems (McNeely and Miller, 1983; Andes) based on reliable risk and representativeness
World Conservation Union, 1992; World Resources measures taking advantage of data that is available or
Institute, 1994; Hummel, 1996; Noss, 1996; Duffy et al., easily developed (Sierra et al., 2002). Based on our
1999; Pressey et al., 2002). However, in temperate zones results, we propose some high-priority areas for con-
many initiatives of this kind are based on information servation or establishment of special management
concerning the distribution of all species within an area. regimes.
In the tropics it is still difficult to use this kind of infor-
mation due to the high number of species and the lack
of knowledge of their distribution. Current tendencies 2. Methods
are shifting from species level evaluation towards eco-
system level (Schmidt, 1996: Hughes et al., 2000) 2.1. Study area
assuming that the higher the number of ecosystems
protected, the higher the number of species preserved Colombia stretches through the northwestern end of
(Murray et al., 1997; Olson and Dinerstein, 1997; Stoms South America between 12 260 46 N, 4 130 30 S, 66 500 54
et al., 1998; Noss, 1999). E and 79 020 33 W. It has an area of approximately
Ecosystem degradation, habitat loss and fragmenta- 1,142,000 km2. Colombia is a topographically variable
tion are among the principal causes of biodiversity loss country. The western part is mostly mountainous as the
in the world (Terborgh, 1989; Whitcom et al., 1981; northern extent of the South American Andes sub-
Chaves and Arango, 1998; Etter, 1998). We used Geo- divides into three mountain ranges when it reaches
graphic Information Systems and Remote Sensing tech- Colombia. We centered our research in the eastern
nologies to make a first attempt toward analyzing the mountain range of the Andes (the Cordillera Oriental).
conservation and fragmentation state of natural ecosys- This region is defined as the Colombian montane
tems of the eastern Andes, an approach that has not forest ecoregion following the map of Latin America
been undertaken previously in this part of the country. and Caribbean ecoregions (Dinerstein et al., 1995).
We conducted a preliminary analysis of the representa- However, this ecoregion excludes important zones cor-
tiveness of natural protected areas and ecosystem frag- responding to the Magdalena Valley montane forests
mentation analysis of the region to provide an ecoregion, and the eastern slopes toward the Ecuador-
assessment as to the present state of the ecosystems in ian border (northern tip of the Colombian–Ecuador
this area. northern Andean paramo and eastern Cordillera Real
We used ecosystems as an indicator of terrestrial bio- montane forest ecoregions). Thus to provide a vision of
diversity following a similar approach to Powell et al. the eastern Andes as a whole, we extended the study
(2000) that used the Holdridge life zone system as their area to include any area above 1000 m.a.s.l. on either
indicator of the distribution of biodiversity in a pre- side of the mountain range including the southernmost
liminary gap analysis in Costa Rica. A similar approach area near the border of Ecuador. The total study area
has also been used in Ecuador (Sierra et al., 2002) to comprised approximately 10,320,000 ha.
assess biodiversity conservation priorities through an
analysis of ecosystem risk and representativeness. 2.2. Ecosystems mapping
Ecosystem fragmentation, especially in forest areas,
indicates a clear landscape change in regions with a high Ecosystem mapping was carried out by visual inter-
human presence and has been recognized as one of the pretation of false color digital satellite imagery (12
causes of biodiversity loss (Terborgh, 1989; Whitcom et Landsat TM scenes) corresponding to the following
al., 1981; Chaves and Arango, 1998). Furthermore, the years: 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994 and 1996. The procedure
more fragmented an ecosystem is, the higher the exposure delineates the different dominant ecosystem categories
D. Armenteras et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 245–256 247
based on criteria such as color, texture, and context. We limits to be around 800–1200 to 2000 m.a.s.l. for sub
cross-referenced each area with other sources of infor- Andean and above 2000–2400 m for Andean montane
mation (e.g. refereed literature, aerial photography, field forest. For the purpose of our study, we established the
work or other existing maps) (IGAC-ICA, 1987; IGAC, lower limit at 1000 m.a.s.l. and the limit between the
1983; Etter, 1998; IAvH, 1999). The labeling of these two ecosystems types at around 2000 m.a.s.l.
areas with categories defined by a previously defined Any kind of landscape dominated by land uses asso-
classification system and adding the attributes of the ciated with agriculture, pasture or urban sites were
interpreted individual areas to the datasets incorporated assigned the category of transformed ecosystems.
into the geographic information system followed this. We used both ERDAS Imagine (ERDAS Inc., 1999)
Andean ecosystem zonation is mainly defined by alti- remote sensing processing software and the GIS soft-
tude because of its influence on temperature and oro- ware Arcview (ESRI, 1998) to integrate all the data. As
graphic rainfall. A number of different classification a result of this interpretation we obtained a map of
systems have been used in Latin America (Holdridge, ecosystems of the eastern mountain range at a scale of
Grubb, UNESCO, IUCN) with each country adopting 1:250,000.
its own variation on one of these systems. Generally low Ground testing was carried out in seven localities
elevation rainforests ( < 900–1000 m) continue to lower (Fig. 1). Aerial photography was used to elaborate
montane (2300–2100 to 1200–1000 m) and upper mon- detailed maps of around 8000 ha for each of these sites
tane (2300–2100 to 3500 m) forests. This last transition (Fig. 2). These were used in the field to verify the satel-
is very important floristically because it is the upper lite image classification.
limit of a large number of tropical families and genera
(Van der Hammen and Hooghiemstra, 2000). The alti- 2.3. Representativeness
tudinal boundaries are location dependent with lowland
rainforest being separated from the montane forests by Once we had produced the ecosystem map of the
a 900–1000 m contour line on the west flanks of the eastern Andes we overlaid it with a digitized map of the
cordillera (Doumenge et al., 1995; Gentry, 1993; Dod- national protected areas of this mountain range
son and Gentry, 1991; Forero and Gentry, 1989; Van obtained from 1:100,000 to 1:200,000 scale maps (using
der Hammen and Hooghiemstra, 2000) and by a 500 m only those belonging to the National Protected Areas
contour on the east flanks (Gentry, 1982, 1993). The System). We quantified the ecosystem composition of
altitudinal limits are also clearly affected by the ‘‘Mas- the protected areas and derived their representation of
senerhebung’’ or mass-elevation effect, which causes the the coverage as a percentage figure of the total remain-
occurrence of montane forest conditions at lower alti- ing in the study area. For paramos, Andean and sub
tudes on narrow cordilleras and outlying ridges (Flen- Andean forests, we also estimated the pre-transforma-
ley, 1995). Sometimes a fourth altitudinal ecosystem is tion extent from the altitudinal range and quantified its
found between 3000 and 3500 m: the subparamo, fol- representativeness in terms of percentages of pre-trans-
lowed by a grass-dominated vegetation: paramo. At the formation extent. For other ecosystems we considered
highest altitudes permanent snow and ice caps are pre- that if 10% of the total area in each ecosystem was
sent. At various elevations montane forests are subject protected, the ecosystem was well-represented in the
to frequent and/or persistent ground level cloud and are national protected areas system (McNeely and Miller,
thus termed ‘cloud forests’. 1983; World Conservation Union, 1992; World
According to Hernandez (1990), a biome is defined as Resources Institute, 1994; Hummel, 1996; Noss, 1996).
an assembly of ecosystems with similar structural and This was done with the aim of obtaining a preliminary
functional characteristics. The classification system analysis of representativeness of the protected area sys-
adopted in this interpretation follows the one proposed tem (gap analysis) using ecosystems as indicators of
by Hernandez and Sanchez (1987) for the higher cate- terrestrial biodiversity.
gories (biomes). For the lower hierarchical categories
(ecosystems), the adopted classification follows that of 2.4. Fragmentation
the General Map of Ecosystems of Colombia (Etter,
1998). To differentiate between Andean and sub Andean Based on the ecosystem map previously obtained and
montane forest, ecosystems that have important compo- with the support of GIS, an analysis of the ecosystem
sitional and structural difference but are difficult to dis- fragmentation state was undertaken. The fragmentation
criminate from remote sensing data, we used GIS support parameters calculated for each ecosystem type were: (1)
and established an artificial elevation limit of 2000 m.a.s.l. patch number (n) or number of fragments of a corre-
in order to separate them. Cuatrecasas (1989) indicates sponding ecosystem type (> 1); (2) largest patch index
that sub Andean montane forests extend between 1000 (LPI) or percentage of the landscape comprised by the
and 2400 m.a.s.l. and the Andean forests are above the largest fragment of an ecosystem type (0–100%); (3) mean
2400 m.a.s.l. limit. Hernandez (1990) suggests these patch size (MPS) or the average size of the fragments in
248 D. Armenteras et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 245–256
Fig. 1. Ecosystem map, protected areas and ground truthed sites: [(1) 07 230 5300 N/72 230 2300 W, (2) 05 410 1800 N/73 270 4700 W, (3) 05 260 0500 N/
72 410 3000 W, (4) 05 350 1000 N / 73 250 3300 W, (5) 02 470 5100 N/74 510 1800 W and (6) 00 280 4700 N/77 170 4500 W)].
an ecosystem type ( > 0, no limit); (4) mean nearest fragmentation, the number of patches of a particular
neighbor distance (MNND), equals the average distance ecosystem might indicate that it suffers a higher rate of
to the nearest neighboring fragment of the same eco- disturbance (e.g. deforestation). Nevertheless, informa-
system type ( > 1) and (5) landscape shape index (LSI), tion on the number of patches alone does not have any
the irregularity of the patch shapes (> 1, no limit). interpretive value because it has no information about
The calculation of these indices was realized using the area, distribution or shape of the fragments (McGarigal
software Fragstats (McGarigal and Marks, 1995). Each and Marks, 1995), for this reason this index was calcu-
one of them was chosen because of the information lated together with other metrics that could together be
provided, and the fact that they did not include redun- more interpretable. Another example is the mean patch
dant metrics (i.e. representing the same information in size index, progressive reduction in the size of ecosystem
an alternate way). Each index indicates one aspect of fragments is a key component of ecosystem fragmenta-
D. Armenteras et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 245–256 249
Fig. 2. Classified map from aerial photography and ground truth transect in National Park Tamá.
tion, thus a landscape with a smaller mean patch size for higher fragmentation equal which is due to disturbances
the target ecosystem than another landscape might be on the edges of an ecosystem. The study area was divi-
considered more fragmented (McGarigal and Marks, ded into 25 25 km cells to allow for identification of
1995). In a similar way, the higher the mean nearest areas with a high degree of fragmentation. Each cell was
neighbor distance the higher the fragmentation of an considered a landscape and the same fragmentation
ecosystem type since the distance from a patch to indices were calculated at the landscape level in order to
another might be increasing due to human disturbances compare among them. A scale was established for the
to that ecosystem type (e.g. deforestation, land use degree of fragmentation for each index scaling the ori-
change, etc.). Landscape shape index reflects the shape ginal values into five classes (1, high to 5, low), and a
and complexity of the patches, higher indices indicate mean of all re-scaled indices was established.
250 D. Armenteras et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 245–256
Table 1
Current coverage of natural ecosystems in the eastern Andes and percentage of protection in the system of protected areas
Natural ecosystem type Original Current Study Original Protected Original Total Current Current
area area area area (ha) area protected ecosystem ecosystem
(ha) (ha) (%) remaining protected area (%) area area
(%) (%) protected unprotected
(%) (%)
Dry forest and secondary naa 377,475 3.7 na 851 na 0.1 0.2 99.8
xerophytic shrubs ( < 1200 m)*
Xerofic shrubs of andean na 128,700 1.2 na 0 na 0 0 100
localities ( > 1200 m)*
Sub-andean montane forests 3,978,925 1,796,250 17.4 45% 254,125 6.4% 30.6 14.1 85.9
(1,000 – 2,000 m )
Andean montane forests 3,812,775 1,567,525 15.2 41% 173,550 4.5% 20.9 11.2 88.8
(2,000 – 3000–3500 m)
Humid paramos na 920,875 8.9 na 322,075 na 38.8 35 65
Dry paramos na 60,275 0.6 na 850 na 0.1 1.4 98.6
Superparamo na 20,925 0.2 na 20,925 na 2.5 100 0
Snow na 3775 0.0 na 3775 na 0.5 100 0
Oak forests na 128,350 1.2 na 10,175 na 1.2 7.9 92.1
Intra Andean savanahs na 29,950 0.3 na 0 na 0 0 100
Wetlands na 16,800 0.2 na 0 na 0 0 100
Andean and the sub Andean montane forests: 1.3 and (Soulé and Sanjayan, 1998). Furthermore the declara-
1.6 km. There were some differences in the mean patch tion of a protected area does not guarantee its protec-
size: 5947 and 13,177 ha. Dry forests also appeared tion, 7 of 11 national parks analyzed show some degree
fragmented, with 135 fragments, a mean patch size of of transformation due to human activities and inter-
2796 ha, a mean nearest neighbor distance of 1.4 km active management practices might be needed.
and a largest patch index of 1.08%. Nevertheless, this Despite the high level of degradation, threat of habi-
fragmentation changed over the latitudinal gradient. tat loss and further degradation and recognized scien-
There were some areas dominated by a matrix of trans- tific interest, neither dry nor oak forests were properly
formed landscapes in which dispersed fragments of the represented in the current protected areas system of the
original ecosystems occasionally appeared. The area region. We recommend that the conservation of the
between 4 and 8 300 N concentrated the greater num- remaining fragments and the recovery of secondary
ber of patches of Andean and sub Andean forests. A vegetation in these areas be made a priority. Due to the
smaller number of fragments, but with a continuous and scale and approach we used in this research, only two
extended presence of forest were found around the areas of this ecosystem were identified as high priority
Cocuy National Park and the in the south, toward the for conservation: the Soacha-Bojacá region and the area
border with Ecuador. This is why the largest patch around the protected area Estoraques (Fig. 4). Further
index values appeared to be relatively high in these work on a more detailed scale will allow better assess-
ecosystems. ment of the real distribution of dry ecosystem remnants
From the results of the 25 25 km analysis, the 30 and the degree of anthropogenic disturbance. We sug-
cells with lower level of fragmentation were geo- gest further protection of oak forest areas around the
graphically located around five protected areas: Cocuy, Sanctuaries of Flora and Fauna de Iguaque, and the
Pisba, Sumapaz, Tama and Picachos (Fig. 3). The rest Guanentá-Alto Fonce river should also be considered
were in the southern Andes, where there is only one high priority areas for conservation (Fig. 4).
protected area established, the Cueva de los Guacharos. The area between 2 N and the border with Ecuador
This part of the eastern Andes is a very interesting area (Bota Caucana and Nudo de los Pastos) was also iden-
for conservation because ecosystems are less altered, tified as one with the greatest interest for conservation
there is a clear continuous elevation gradient of forest (Fig. 4). These areas are in a better condition, have
cover toward the Amazonia (i.e. influence of Amazo- lower degree of fragmentation and have wide elevation
nian ecosystems and species) and high biological rich- gradients of continuous forest cover and are not yet
ness (IavH, 1999). protected. Consequently, conservation actions should
be directed toward this sector. Other identified areas of
interest are located in areas already within the national
4. Discussion park system (Cocuy, Tamá, Sumapaz and Picachos
mountain range). The central region of the eastern
Transformed ecosystems covered 51% of the total Andes has the highest degree of ecosystem alteration
study area. The other 49% corresponded to natural and the fewest remaining fragments.
ecosystems, such as paramos, and Andean and sub Some of the fragmentation values obtained in the
Andean forests. These ecosystems were the best repre- remaining ecosystems owe more to their natural geo-
sented in protected areas of the eastern Cordillera (35, graphic distribution and topographic landscape hetero-
14.1 and 11%, respectively). This is due to the pre- geneity than to disturbances caused by human action.
ponderance of highland parks in the Andes which ori- This is the case for dry forests that were, to a certain
ginated in the establishment of Colombian protected degree, naturally fragmented at this regional level
natural areas without organized planning. However, because they were located in specific soil and climatic
when incorporating criteria based only on the percen- conditions. Paramos and wetlands show similar restric-
tage of total current area of an ecosystem, we are failing ted distributions. The mean neighbor distance and mean
to consider the important reduction dating from pre- patch size of paramos was high because of its natural
Columbian times. If we do take this into account, there location in the highest mountains. Dry forest frag-
is only a 41% and 45% of the original pre-transformed mented areas correspond to the Chicamocha canyon.
extent of Andean and sub Andean forest left and the Dry ecosystems have a high level of degradation and
percentage of protected area drop to figs. of 4.5% for fragmentation that are not easy to differentiate at this
Andean and 6.4% for sub Andean forests. Further, scale of research when observed from satellite images.
despite the fact that we considered 10% of the total These are only preliminary results that suggest
current area of an ecosystem as the limit to define whe- conservation actions in specific ecosystems and areas.
ther or not an ecosystem is well protected within the However, it is necessary to consider the inclusion of
national areas protected system, this is more a political other types of land management for conservation
conservation target than a scientifically based result practices outside the national parks system, such as
D. Armenteras et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 245–256 253
Fig. 3. The degree of fragmentation, 25 25 km division of the eastern Andes, Colombia and protected areas in the zone (PNN, Natural National
Park).
indigenous territories, private reserves and forest folio of sites for conservation at different geographic
reserves. These areas were not incorporated because levels.
of the scale of work we used in this study. The We also suggest redefining some of the protected
incorporation of these areas in later analyses at a areas of the national parks system to include surround-
more detailed scale (1:100,000 or 1:25,000) will help ing areas of natural ecosystems before they are further
obtain more specific information to identify a port- degraded, and in the mid term conduct an analysis of the
254 D. Armenteras et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 245–256
Fig. 4. Ecosystems and suggested areas for conservation action of the eastern Andes, Colombia.
effective protection level of each area. There is also a detailed species gap analysis (Scott et al., 1991). We also
need to clearly quantify land use change and deforesta- expect to be able to incorporate species distribution maps
tion rates through a multitemporal evaluation based on to determine areas of high species richness and endemism
remote sensing images. This multitemporal evaluation of when more taxonomic data becomes available.
change will become a valuable criterion for defining the
degree of threat to ecosystems coupled with other factors Acknowledgements
of threat such as infrastructure and population growth.
We consider this analysis an intermediate step between Thanks to C. Franco for her contribution to this work
using a coarse approach (Dinerstein et al., 1995) and a and to M. Mulligan, S. Newey and the reviewers for
D. Armenteras et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 245–256 255
their comments on the manuscript. This work was par- Grossman, D. H., Goodin, K.L. & Reuss, C.L. (Eds.) (1994). Rare
tially supported by The Nature Conservancy and Fun- plant communities of the coterminous United States—an initial
survey. Prepared for the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. The Nat-
dación Natura, Colombia.
ure Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
Hernández, J., 1990. La selva en Colombia. In: Carrizoza, J., Her-
nández, J. (Eds.), Selva y Futuro. El Sello Editorial, Bogotá,
References Colombia, pp. 28–50.
Hernández, J., Sanchez, E., 1987. Ensayo preliminar sobre los biomas
terrestres de Colombia. In: Sánchez, E., Hernández, J., Rueda, V.
Chaves, M.E., & Arango, N. (Eds.) (1998). Informe nacional sobre el (Eds.), Nuevos parques naturales. Instituto de Recursos Naturales
estado de la biodiversidad 1997. Instituto de Investigación de Renovables, Bogotá, Colombia.
Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, PNUMA and Min- Hughes, J., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., 2000. Conservation of insect
isterio de Medio Ambiente. 3 vol. Bogotá, Colombia. diversity: a habitat approach. Conservation Biology 14 (6), 1788–
Cuatrecases, J., 1989. Aspectos de la vegetación natural en Colombia. 1797.
Rev. Pérez Arbelaezia. 11, 155–287. Bogotá, Colombia.. Hummel, M., 1996. Protecting Canada’s endangered species: an own-
Departamento Nacional de Planeación, 1994. Polı́tica ambiental. er’s manual. Key Porter, Toronto, Canada.
CONPES. Presidencia de la República de Colombia, Bogota, IavH, 1999. Caracterización de la biodiversidad en áreas prioritarias
Colombia. de la vertiente oriental de la cordillera Oriental. Instituto de Inves-
Dinerstein, E., Olson, D.M., Graham, D.H., Webster, A.L., Primm, tigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Villa de
S.A., Bookbinder, M.P., Ledec, G., 1995. A Conservation Assess- Leyva, Colombia.
ment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Car- IGAC, 1983. Bosques de Colombia (escala 1:500.000). Instituto Geo-
ibbean. World Wildlife Fund and World Bank, Washington DC, gráfico Agustı́n Codazzi, Bogotá, Colombia.
USA. IGAC-ICA, 1987. Mapa de Uso actual del suelo en Colombia (escala
Dodson, C.H., Gentry, A.H., 1991. Biological extinction in western 1:500.000). Instituto Geográfico Agustı́n Codazzi, Instituto Colom-
Ecuador. Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden 78, 273–295. biano Agropecuario, Bogotá, Colombia.
Doumenge, C., Gilmour, D, Ruiz Pérez, M., Blockhus, J., 1995. Tropi- Jennings, M.D., 2000. Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent
cal montane cloud forests: conervation status and management issues. results. Landscape Ecology 15, 5–20.
In: Hamilton, L.S., Juvik, J.O., Scatena, F.N. (Eds.), Tropical Mcgarigal, K., Marks, B.J., 1995. Fragstats: spatial pattern analysis
montane cloud forest. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, pp. 24–37. program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. Tech. Rep.
Duffy, D.C., Boggs, K., Hagenstein, R.H., Lipkin, R.y., Michaelson, PNW-GTR-351. US Departament of Agriculture, Forest Service,
J.A., 1999. Landscape assessment of the degree of protection of Pacific Northwest Research Station, USA, Portland, OR.
Alaska’s terrestrial biodiversity. Conservation Biology 13 (6), 1332– McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R., 1983. National parks and protected
1343. areas. UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
Erdas Inc, 1999. Erdas Imagine Version 8.4. ERDAS, Inc, Atlanta, Pacific, Bangkok.
Georgia, USA. Murray, M., Green, M., Bunting, G, Paines, J., 1997. Priorities for
Esri Inc, 1998. Arview GIS Version 3.1. Environmental Systems biodiversity conservation in the tropics. WCMC Biodiversity Series
Research Institute, USA. 6. World Conservation Press, Cambridge UK.
Etter, A., 1993. Diversidad ecosistemica en Colombia hoy. In: Cárde- Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca,
nas, S., Correa, H.D. (Eds.), Nuestra Diversidad Biológica. Funda- G.A.B., Kent, J., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation prio-
ción Alejandro Escobar, Colección Marı́a Restrepo de Angel. rities. Nature 403, 853–858.
CEREC, Bogotá, Colombia. Noss, R.F., 1996. In: Wright, R.G. (Ed.), National parks and pro-
Etter, A., 1998. Mapa general de ecosistemas de Colombia tected areas: their role in environmental protection. Blackwell
(1:1.500.000). In: Chaves, M.E., Arango, N. (Eds.), Informe nacio- Science, Cambridge, USA, pp. 91–119.
nal sobre el estado de la biodiversidad 1997. Instituto de Investiga- Noss, R.F., 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a
ción de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, PNUMA suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Manage-
and Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. 3 vol, Bogotá, Colombia. ment 111, 135–146.
Fandiño, M.C., Ferreira, P. (Eds.), 1998. Colombia biodiversidad Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., 1997. Global 2000: conserving the
siglo XXI: propuesta técnica para la formulación de un plan de world’s distinctive ecoregions. WWF-US, USA.
acción nacional en biodiversidad. Instituto de Investigación de Powell, G.V.N., Barborak, J., Rodriguez, M., 2000. Assessing repre-
Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Ministerio del sentativenes of protected natural areas in Costa Rica for conserving
Medio Ambiente y Departamento Nacional de Planeación, Bogotá, biodiversity: a preliminary gap analyis. Biological Conservation 93,
Colombia. 35–41.
Flenley, J.R., 1995. Cloud forest, the Massenerhebung effect, and Pressey, R.L., Whish, G., 2002. L, Barrett, T. W., Watts, M.E. Effec-
ultraviolet insolation. In: Hamilton, L.S., Juvik, J.O., Scatena, F.N. tivenes of protected areas in north-eastern New South Wales: recent
(Eds.), Tropical Montane Cloud Forests. Ecol. Studies (Vol. 110). trends in six measures. Biological Conservation 106, 57–69.
Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 150–155. Schmidt, K., 1996. Rare habitat vie for protection. Science 274, 916–
Forero, E., Gentry, A.H., 1989. Lista anotada de las plantas del 918.
Departamento del Chocó, Colombia. Biblioteca J.J. Triana No. 10. Scott, J.M., Csuti, B., Estes, J.E., Anderson, H., 1989. State assess-
Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Museo de Historia Natural, Uni- ment of biodiversity protection. Conservation Biology 3, 85–87.
versidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. Scott, J.M., Csuti, B., Estes, J.E., Caicco, S., 1991. Gap analysis of
Gentry, A.H., 1982. Neotropical floristic diversity: phytogeographical species richness and vegetation cover: an integrated biodiverstiy
connections between Central and South America, Pleistocene cli- conservation strategy. In: Kohm, K. (Ed.), Balancing on the brink
matic fluctuations, or an accident of the Andean orogeny? Ann. of extinction: the endangered species act and lessons for the future.
Missouri Bot. Garden 69, 557–593. Island Press, Washington DC USA, pp. 282–297.
Gentry, A.H. 1993. Overview of the Perúvian flora. In Brako, L., Sierra, R., Campos, F., Chamberlin, J., 2002. Assessing biodiversity
Zarucchi, J.L., Catalogue of the flowering plants and gymnosperms conservation priorities: ecosystem risk and representativeness in
of Perú. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Garden 45: xxix–xl. continental Ecuador. Landscape and Urban Planning 59, 95–110.
256 D. Armenteras et al. / Biological Conservation 113 (2003) 245–256
Soulé, M.E., Sanjayan, M.A., 1998. Conservation targets: do they Terborgh, J., 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton Uni-
help? Science 279, 2060–2061. versity Press, USA, New Jersey.
Stadtmüller, T., 1987. Cloud forests in the humid tropics: a biblio- Van der Hammen, T., Hooghiemstra, H., 2000. Neogene and
graphic review. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Quaternary history of vegetation, climate, and plant diversity in
Enseñanza, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Amazonia. Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 725–742.
Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J, Long, A.J., Wege, D.C., 1998. Ende- Whitcom, R.F., Robbins, C.S., Lynch, J.F., 1981. Effects of forest
mic bird areas of the world: priorities for biodiversity conservation. fragmentation on avifauna of the estern deciduous forest. In: Burgess,
BirdLife Conservation Serires, Cambridge. R.L., Sharpe, D.M. (Eds.), Forest island dynamics in a man-domi-
Stoms, D., 2000. Gap management status and regional indicators of nated landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, pp. 125–205.
threats to biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 15, 5–20. World Conservation Union. 1992. IUCN Bulletin 43.
Stoms, D.M., Borchert, M.I., Church, R.L., 1998. A systematic process World Resources Institute, 1994. World resources, 1994–1995. Oxford
for selecting representative research natural areas. Natural Areas University Press, New York, USA.
Journal 18 (4), 338.