Conservation status assessment of the highest forests in the world: Polylepis flavipila forests as a case study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Polylepis flavipila forest locations as recorded in our database and the four forest sites selected for the small-scale detailed categorization proposed by Navarro et al. [25]. Forest 1: Shaitura – Shutco; forest 2: Shajsee – Shajsee; forest 3: San Luis; forest 4: Ccarhuancho

Table 1. IUCN classification criteria [43]. Abbreviations: CR: Critical Endangered, EN: Endangered, VU: Vulnerable

Criterion	Qualification range			Qualifiers
	CR	EN	VU
A1 – Reduction in population size	≥ 90%	≥70%	≥50%	Population reduction 10 years ago or more than three generations ago; the causes are reversible.
A2–4 – Reduction in population size	≥ 80%	≥50%	≥30%	Population reduction in 10 years or more than three generations; the causes have not ceased yet.
B1 – Extent of Occurrence (EOO)	< 100 km^2	< 5000 km^2	< 20,000 km^2	Severely fragmented, continuing decline and extreme fluctuation.
B2 – Area of Occupancy (AOO)	< 10 km^2	< 500 km^2	< 2,000 km^2	Severely fragmented, continuing decline and extreme fluctuation.
C – Small population and decline	< 250	<2,500	<10,000	Mature individuals who are in continuing decline projected in 100 years, in each population.
D1 – Very small population	< 50	< 250	< 1,000	Mature individuals.
D2 – Very small range locations			< 20 km^2 or ≤ 5 localities	Very restricted occupation area or low number of places.
E – Quantitative analysis	≥ 50% in 10 years or three generations	≥ 20% in 20 years or five generations	≥ 10% in 100 years	Species Extinction Probability, estimated using quantitative models.

Table 2. Classification criteria according to Navarro et al.[27], for the evaluation of conservation status (CS) and conservation priority (CP) of Polylepis forests

Nº	Criterion	Ponderation						Description
1	Forest Loss (%)		(<10)	(10-24)	(25-49)	(50-89)	(>90)	Rough estimate of forest loss over 10 years.
		CS	0	10	20	30	40
		CP	10	8	5	3	1
2	Fragmentation (%)		(0)	(>50)	(15-50)	(5-15)	(<5)	Estimation of connection between forest remnants.
		CS	0	10	20	30	40
		CP	10	8	5	3	1
3	Degradation (%)		(>50)		(25-50)		(<25)	Presence of plant species and estimation of forest structure.
		CS	0	-	10	-	15
		CP	10	-	5	-	2
4	Faunal suitability (birds) (%)		(>50)	-	(25-50)	-	(<25)	Presence of threatened, specialist and/or endemic birds.
		CS	0	-	10	-	15
		CP	27	-	12	-	6
5	Threats (proximity to road and population in km)		(0)	(>50)	(15-50)	(5-15)	(<5)	Current or projected estimation of the threat level of the forest.
		CS	0	10	20	30	40
		CP	10	8	5	3	1
6	Endemism level		High	-	Medium	-	Low	Geographical exclusivity of the dominant tree species.
		CS	-	-	-	-	-
		CP	27	-	12	-	4
7	Adequacy levels and cultural landscape balance		High	-	Medium	-	Low	Attitudes of the human community towards the protection, care and defense of forests.
		CS	-	-	-	-	-
		CP	10	-	4	-	1

Figure 2. Satellite view of the four forests under detailed study in 2020. (a) forest 1: Shaitura – Shutco (lat. −12.3411; long. −75.7763), (b) forest 2: Shajsee – Shajsee (lat. −12.3725; long. −75.7528), (c) forest 3: San Luis (lat. −12.6189; long. −75.1620) (d) forest 4: Ccarhuancho (lat. −13.3016; long. −74.9307)

Table 3. Score Assignment [27]. Abbreviations: CS, Conservation status; CP, Conservation priority

Score obtained from CS (Criteria 1 to 5)	Conservation Categories (according to IUCN)
0–6 7 – 34 35–64 65 – 88 89–100	NT: Near Threatened LC: Least Concern VU: Vulnerable EN: Endangered CR: Critically Endangered
Score obtained from CP (Criteria1 to 7)	Conservation Priority
>80 61–80 41 – 60 20–40 <20	Very High High Medium Low Very Low

Table 4. P. flavipila classification according to IUCN criteria. Abbreviations: CR, Critical Endangered; EN, Endangered; VU, Vulnerable

Criterion	Qualification range			Value obtained
	CR	EN	VU
A2 – Reduction in population size	≥ 80 %	≥50 %	≥30 %	52.8 %
B1 – Extent of Occurrence (EOO)	< 100 km^2	< 5,000 km^2	< 20,000 km^2	10,335 km^2
B2 – Area of Occupancy (AOO)	< 10 km^2	< 500 km^2	< 2,000 km^2	496 km^2
Result				EN A2abcd; B2b(i,ii,iii)

Table 5. Criterion quantification applied to four P. flavipila forests according to Navarro et al. [27]

Nº	Criteria	Forest
		1	2	3	4
1	Forest Loss (%)	21.3	23.7	31.1	22.9
2	Fragmentation (%)	91.2	55.7	31.7	39.6
3	Degradation (%)	79.4	54.3	20.4	27.3
4	Faunal suitability (%)	75.0	66.7	33.3	41.7
5	Threats (km)	1.14/1.62	0/3.67	0.46/2.18	5.3/7.9
6	Endemism level	P. flavi	P. flavi	P. flavi	P. flavi
7	Adequacy levels and cultural landscape balance	High	High	Medium	Medium

Table 6. Score assigned to each forest using classification criteria of Navarro et al. [27] for the evaluation of conservation status (CS) and conservation priority (CP) of Polylepis forests

Nº	Criteria	Forests
		1		2		3		4
		CS	CP	CS	CP	CS	CP	CS	CP
1	Forest loss	10	8	10	8	20	5	10	8
2	Fragmentation	10	8	10	8	20	5	20	5
3	Degradation	0	10	0	10	10	5	10	5
4	Faunal suitability	0	27	0	27	10	12	10	12
5	Threats	10	8	20	5	30	3	10	8
6	Endemism level		27		27		27		27
7	Adequacy levels and cultural landscape balance		10		10		4		4
	TOTAL	30	98	40	95	90	61	60	69
	IUCN categories	LC		VU		CR		VU
	Conservation priority categories	Very High		Very High		High		High

Toivonen J, Gonzales-Inca C, Bader M, et al. Elevational shifts in the topographic position of Polylepis forest stands in the Andes of Southern Peru. Forests. 2017;9(1):7.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza y de los Recursos Naturales, Red List Programme. Directrices para el uso de los criterios de la lista roja de la UICN a nivel regional y nacional: versión 4.0. 2010. Gland. UICN. 2012.

 Google Scholar

Navarro G, Arrázola S, Balderrama J. et al. Diagnóstico del estado de conservación y caracterización de bosques de Polylepis y su avifauna. Rev boliv de ecologia y conservación ambiental. 2010;28(1):1–35.

 Google Scholar