Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:41:35.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dry forest is more threatened but less protected than evergreen forest in Ecuador’s coastal region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

Carlos A Rivas Open the ORCID record for Carlos A Rivas [Opens in a new window] ,
Rafael M Navarro-Cerillo ,
Jon C Johnston  and
José Guerrero-Casado
Carlos A Rivas*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Portoviejo, Manabí, Ecuador
Rafael M Navarro-Cerillo
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Engineering, Laboratory of Dendrochronology, Silviculture and Global Change – DendrodatLab – ERSAF, University of Cordoba, Campus de Rabanales, Crta. IV, km. 396, E-14071 Córdoba, Spain
Jon C Johnston
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA95521, USA
José Guerrero-Casado
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarios, Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Portoviejo, Manabí, Ecuador
*
Author for correspondence: Carlos A Rivas, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The Ecuadorian coast has two main types of forests, which are differentiated by their phenology: dry forests are deciduous and more humid forests are evergreen. Less of the dry forests on the Ecuadorian coast is protected (13% of its area) than the evergreen forests (28%), and the area devoted to the protection of dry forests (1069 km2) is substantially less than the area devoted to the protection of evergreen forests (2800 km2). Yet the conservation status of dry forests is more critical, with 83% of their area classified as having very low connectivity, 70% as being highly fragile and 86% as being highly threatened. In addition, the dry forests have fewer protected areas than the evergreen forests. It is therefore necessary to increase the protection of deciduous ecosystems as part of a comprehensive national strategy because they support high levels of biodiversity and many endemic species.

Keywords

deciduous forestsdry forestsevergreen forestsforest conservationprotected areas
Type
Report
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 79 - 83
Copyright
© Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bird Life International (2019) BirdLife Data [www document]. URL http://datazone.birdlife.org/eba/factsheet/47Google Scholar
Cuesta, F, Peralvo, M, Merino-Viteri, A, Bustamante, M, Baquero, F, Freile, JFet al. (2017) Priority areas for biodiversity conservation in mainland Ecuador. Neotropical Biodiversity 3: 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Aloia, CC, Naujokaitis-Lewis, I, Blackford, C, Chu, C, Curtis, JMR, Darling, Eet al. (2019) Coupled networks of permanent protected areas and dynamic conservation areas for biodiversity conservation under climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7: 1–8.Google Scholar
Elkie, PC, Rempel, RS, Carr, A (1999) Patch Analyst User’s Manual: A Tool for Quantifying Landscape Structure. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Boreal Science, Northwest Science & Technology.Google Scholar
Escribano-Ávila, G (2016) El bosque seco neotropical de la provincia Ecuatoriana: un pequeño gran desconocido. Ecosistemas 25: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escribano-Avila, G, Cervera, L, Ordóñez-Delgado, L, Jara-Guerrero, A, Amador, L, Paladines, Bet al. (2017) Biodiversity patterns and ecological processes in Neotropical dry forest: the need to connect research and management for long-term conservation. Neotropical Biodiversity 3: 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinosa, CI, de la Cruz, M, Luzuriaga, A, Escudero, A (2012). Bosques tropicales secos de la región Pacífico Ecuatorial: diversidad, estructura, funcionamiento e implicaciones para la conservación. Revista Ecosistemas 21: 167–179.Google Scholar
Ferrer-Paris, JR, Zager, I, Keith, DA, Oliveira-Miranda, MA, Rodríguez, JP, Josse, Cet al. (2019) An ecosystem risk assessment of temperate and tropical forests of the Americas with an outlook on future conservation strategies. Conservation Letters 12: e12623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero-Casado, J, Cedeño, RI, Johnston, J, Szykman Gunther, M (2020) New records of the critically endangered Ecuadorian white-fronted capuchin (Cebus aequatorialis) detected by remote cameras. Primates. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-019-00787-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2019) Ecuador Contador Nacional de población [www document]. URL http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/estadisticasGoogle Scholar
Josse, C, Navarro, G, Comer, P, Evans, R, Faber-Langendoen, D, Fellows, Met al. (2003) Ecological Systems of Latin America and the Caribbean: A Working Classification of Terrestrial Systems. Arlington, VA, USA: NatureServe.Google Scholar
Laurance, WF, Carolina Useche, D, Rendeiro, J, Kalka, M, Bradshaw, CJA, Sloan, SPet al. (2012) Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489: 290–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
León-Yánez, S, Valencia, R, Pitman, N, Endara, L, Ulloa Ulloa, C, Navarrete, H (eds) (2011) Libro rojo de las plantas endémicas del Ecuador, 2nd edition. Quito, Ecuador: Publicaciones del Herbario QCA, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador.Google Scholar
Lessmann, J, Muñoz, J, Bonaccorso, E (2014) Maximizing species conservation in continental Ecuador: a case of systematic conservation planning for biodiverse regions. Ecology and Evolution 4: 2410–2422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loaiza, S (2013) The Tumbesian center of endemism: biogeography, diversity and conservation. Biogeografía 6: 4–10.Google Scholar
Manchego, CE, Hildebrandt, P, Cueva, J, Espinosa, CI, Stimm, B, Günter, S (2018) Climate change versus deforestation: implications for tree species distribution in the dry forests of southern Ecuador. PLoS ONE 13: e0195851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Margules, CR, Pressey, RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGarigal, K, Cushman, SA, Neel, MCEE (2002) FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Amherst, MA, USA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Ministerio del Ambiente (2019) Bosques Protectores | Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas del Ecuador [www document]. URL http://areasprotegidas.ambiente.gob.ec/es/content/bosques-protectoresGoogle Scholar
Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador (2012) Especies forestales de los bosques secos del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: Subsecretaría de Patrimonio Natural.Google Scholar
Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador (2013) Sistema de Clasificación de los Ecosistemas del Ecuador Continental. Quito, Ecuador: Subsecretaría de Patrimonio Natural.Google Scholar
Ministerio del Ambiente de Ecuador (2015a) Fragilidad de Ecosistemas del Ecuador Contimental. Quito, Ecuador: Subsecretaría de Patrimonio Natural.Google Scholar
Ministerio del Ambiente de Ecuador (2015b) Fragmentacion de Ecosistemas del Ecuador Contimental. Quito, Ecuador: Subsecretaría de Patrimonio Natural.Google Scholar
Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador (2016) Areas Protegidas del Ecuador: socio estrategico para el desarrollo. Quito. Ecuador: Subsecretaría de Patrimonio Natural.Google Scholar
Ministerio del Ambiente de Ecuador (2017) Conectividad de los ecosistemas de ecuador continental. Quito, Ecuador: Subsecretaría de Patrimonio Natural.Google Scholar
Myers, N, Mittermeier, RA, Mittermeier, CG, da Fonseca, GAB, Kent, J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prentice, KC (1990) Bioclimatic distribution of vegetation for general circulation model studies. Journal of Geophysical Research 95: 11811–11830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez-Azofeifa, GA, Quesada, M, Rodríguez, JP, Nassar, JM, Stoner, KE, Castillo, Aet al. (2005) Research priorities for Neotropical dry forests. Biotropica 37: 477–485.Google Scholar
Saura, S (2008) Evaluating forest landscape connectivity through Conefor Sensinode 2.2. In: Patterns and Processes in Forest Landscapes: Multiple Use and Sustainable Management, eds. Lafortezza, R, Chen, J, Sanesi, G & Crow, ThR, pp. 403–422. Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saura, S, Gonzales, S, Elena-Roselló, R (2011) Evaluación de los cambios en la conectividad de los bosques: el índice del Área Conexa Equivalente y su aplicación a los bosques de Castilla y León. Revista Montes 106: 15–21.Google Scholar
Sierra, R (2013) Patrones y factores de deforestación en el ecuador continental, 1990–2010. Y un acercamiento a los próximos 10 años. Quito, Ecuador: Conservación Internacional Ecuador and Forest Trends.Google Scholar
Sierra, R, Campos, F, Chamberlin, J (2002) Assessing biodiversity conservation priorities: ecosystem risk and representativeness in continental Ecuador. Landscape and Urban Planning 59: 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Hoek, Y (2017) The potential of protected areas to halt deforestation in Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 44: 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar