Priority areas for biodiversity conservation in mainland Ecuador

References

• Mittermeier RA, Myers N, Thomsen JB, et al. Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conserv Biol. 1998;12:516–520.10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.012003516.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bass MS, Finer M, Jenkins CN, et al. Global conservation significance of Ecuador’s Yasuní National Park. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e8767.10.1371/journal.pone.0008767
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB, et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science. 2006;313:58–61.10.1126/science.1127609
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, et al. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 2002;16:909–923.10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00530.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MAE. Análisis de la deforestación en el Ecuador Continental 1990–2014. Quito, Ecuador: Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• MAE. Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad del Ecuador y Plan de Acción (2015–2020). Quito, Ecuador: Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• de Koning F, Aguiñaga M, Bravo M, et al. Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environ Sci Policy. 2011;14:531–542.10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• León-Yánez S, Valencia R, Pitman N, et al., editors. Libro rojo de las plantas endémicas del Ecuador [Red List of the endemic plants of Ecuador], 2a. ed. Quito: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador; 2011 .
   Google Scholar
• Lessmann J, Muñoz J, Bonaccorso E. Maximizing species conservation in continental Ecuador: a case of systematic conservation planning for biodiverse regions. Ecol Evol. 2014;4:2410–2422.10.1002/ece3.2014.4.issue-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuesta-Camacho F, Peralvo M, Ganzenmüller A et al. Identificación de vacíos y prioridades de conservación para la biodiversidad terrestre en el Ecuador Continental. Reporte Técnico. Fundación EcoCiencia. Quito, Ecuador: The Nature Conservancy, Conservación Internacional y Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador; 2006. p. 1–70.
   Google Scholar
• Campos F, Peralvo M, Cuesta F et al. Análisis de vacíos y áreas prioritarias para la conservación de la biodiversidad en el Ecuador Continental. Instituto Nazca de Investigaciones Marinas, EcoCiencia, Ministerio del Ambiente. The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Proyecto GEF-Ecuador: Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas. Quito: Birdlife International y Aves & Conservation; 2007, p. 1–83.
   Google Scholar
• Sierra R, Campos F, Chamberlin J. Assessing biodiversity conservation priorities: ecosystem risk and representativeness in continental Ecuador. Landscape Urban Planning. 2002;59:95–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fajardo J, Lessmann J, Bonaccorso E, et al. Combined use of systematic conservation planning, species distribution modelling, and connectivity analysis reveals severe conservation gaps in a Megadiverse Country (Peru). PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e114367.10.1371/journal.pone.0114367
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts M. Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritisation. Spatial conservation prioritisation: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Sarkar S, Pressey R, Faith DP, et al. Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Ann Rev Environ Res. 2006;31:123–159.10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042606.085844
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, et al. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 2006;4:e379.10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ. 2009;7:4–11.10.1890/080023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snäll T, Lehtomäki J, Arponen A, et al. Green infrastructure design based on spatial conservation prioritization and modeling of biodiversity features and ecosystem services. Environ Manage. 2016;57:251–256.10.1007/s00267-015-0613-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groves CR, Jensen DB, Valutis LL, et al. Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting conservation science into practice. Bioscience. 2002;52:499–512.10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0499:PFBCPC]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2010;107:5242–5247.10.1073/pnas.0907284107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauer W. El mapa geologico del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: Editorial Universitaria; 1957.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf T. Geografía y geología del Ecuador, publicada por orden del supremo gobierno de la República. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus; 1892.
   Google Scholar
• Borchsenius F. Patterns of plant species endemism in Ecuador. Biodivers Conserv. 1997;6:379–399.10.1023/A:1018312724137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skov F, Borchsenius F. Predicting plant species distribution patterns using simple climatic parameters: a case study of Ecuadorian palms. Ecography. 1997;20:347–355.10.1111/eco.1997.20.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MAE. Sistema de clasificación de los ecosistemas del Ecuador continental. Quito, Ecuador: Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador; 2012. p. 1–136.
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen PM, Ulloa CU, León B, et al. Regional patterns of vascular plant diversity and endemism. In: Herzog SK, Martínez R, Jørgensen PM, et al., editors. Climate change and biodiversity in the tropical Andes. Brasilia: IAI; 2011. p. 192–203.
   Google Scholar
• Santander T, Freile JF, Loor-Vela S, et al., editors. Important bird areas Americas – Priority sites for biodiversity conservation. Ecuador: BirdLife International Quito; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Pinto CM, Nicolalde DA. MammaliaWebEcuador. Version 2015.0, P.U.C.d.E. Museo de Zoología, editor; [cited Sep 2015]. Available from: http://zoologia.puce.edu.ec/Vertebrados/mamiferos/MamiferosEcuador/
   Google Scholar
• Ron SRJM, Guayasamin MH, Yanez-Muñoz A, et al. AmphibiaWebEcuador. Version 2014.0. Museo de Zoología, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador; [cited Sep 2014]. Available from: http://zoologia.puce.edu.ec/Vertebrados/anfibios
   Google Scholar
• Torres-Carvajal O, Salazar-Valenzuela D, Merino-Viteri A. 2014. ReptiliaWebEcuador. Versión 2014.0. Museo de Zoología QCAZ, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador; [cited Sep 2015]. http://zoologia.puce.edu.ec/Vertebrados/reptiles/reptilesEcuador (September 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Barriga R. Lista de peces de agua dulce e intermareales del Ecuador. 2012;30:83–119.
   Google Scholar
• Kukkala AS, Moilanen A. Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biol Rev. 2013;88:443–464.10.1111/brv.2013.88.issue-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margules CR, Pressey RL. Systematic conservation planning. Nature. 2000;405:243–253.10.1038/35012251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeley KJ, Silman MR. Keep collecting: accurate species distribution modelling requires more collections than previously thought. Divers Distrib. 2010;17:1132–1140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomassen HA, Fuller T, Buermann W, et al. Mapping evolutionary process: a multi-taxa approach to conservation prioritization. Evol Appl. 2011;4:397–413.10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00172.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, et al. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib. 2011;17:43–57.10.1111/ddi.2010.17.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith AB, Santos MJ, Koo MS, et al. Evaluation of species distribution models by resampling of sites surveyed a century ago by Joseph Grinnell. Ecography. 2013;36:1017–1031.10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00107.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips SJ, Dudík M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography. 2008;31:161–175.10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa GC, Nogueira C, Machado RB, et al. Sampling bias and the use of ecological niche modeling in conservation planning: a field evaluation in a biodiversity hotspot. Biodivers Conserv. 2010;19:883–899.10.1007/s10531-009-9746-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model. 2006;190:231–259.10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramirez-Villegas J, Cuesta F, Devenish C, et al. Using species distributions models for designing conservation strategies of Tropical Andean biodiversity under climate change. J Nat Conserv. 2014;22:391–404.10.1016/j.jnc.2014.03.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson RP, Martínez-Meyer E. Modeling species’ geographic distributions for preliminary conservation assessments: an implementation with the spiny pocket mice (Heteromys) of Ecuador. Biol Conserv. 2004;116:167–179.10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00187-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu C, White M, Newell G. Selecting thresholds for the prediction of species occurrence with presence-only data. J Biogeogr. 2013;40:778–789.10.1111/jbi.2013.40.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IUCN. The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2015-3; [cited Oct 2015]. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org
   Google Scholar
• Ridgely RS, Greenfield PJ. The birds of Ecuador. Vol. I. Status, distribution and taxonomy. Vol. II. Field guide. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Ardron JA, Possingham HP, Klein CJ. Marxan good practices handbook. Vancouver: Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Pressey RL, Bottrill MC. Opportunism, threats, and the evolution of systematic conservation planning. Conserv Biol. 2008;22:1340–1345.10.1111/cbi.2008.22.issue-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pressey RL, Possingham HP, Day JR. Effectiveness of alternative heuristic algorithms for identifying indicative minimum requirements for conservation reserves. Biol Conserv. 1997;80:207–219.10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00045-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mace GM, Baillie JEM. The 2010 biodiversity indicators: challenges for science and policy. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:1406–1413.10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00830.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholson E, Collen B, Barausse A, et al. Making robust policy decisions using global biodiversity indicators. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e41128.10.1371/journal.pone.0041128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svancara LK, Brannon RJ, Scott M, et al. Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: a review of political targets and biological needs. Bioscience. 2005;55:989–995.10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0989:PVECAR]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez JP, Rodríguez-Clark KM, Baillie JEM, et al. Establishing IUCN red list criteria for threatened ecosystems. Conserv Biol. 2011;25:21–29.10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01598.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigues ASL, Akçakaya HR, Andelman SJ, et al. Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience. 2004;54:1092–1100.10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1092:GGAPRF]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball IR, Possingham HP. MARXAN (V1. 8.2). Queensland: The University of Queensland; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Game E, Grantham H. Marxan user manual: for Marxan version 1.8.10. Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland, St. Lucia; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Cuesta F, Merino-Viteri A, Baquero F, et al. Escenarios de impacto del cambio climático en la Biodiversidad contenida en el sistema nacional de áreas protegidas del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: Condesan, PUCE; MAE; GIZ; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Saatchi SS, Harris NL, Brown S, et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2011;108:9899–9904.10.1073/pnas.1019576108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvis A, Touval JL, Schmitz MC, et al. Assessment of threats to ecosystems in South America. J Nat Conserv. 2010;18:180–188.10.1016/j.jnc.2009.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geist H, McConnell W, Lambin EF, et al. Causes and trajectories of land-use/cover change. In: Lambin EF, Geist H, editors. Land-use and land-cover change. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2006. p. 41–70.10.1007/3-540-32202-7
   Google Scholar
• Larsen FW, Bladt J, Balmford A, et al. Birds as biodiversity surrogates: will supplementing birds with other taxa improve effectiveness? J Appl Ecol. 2012;49:349–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pressey RL. Conservation planning and biodiversity: assembling the best data for the job. Conserv Biol. 2004;18:1677–1681.10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00434.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freile JF, Rodas F. Conservación de aves en Ecuador: ¿cómo estamos y qué necesitamos hacer? Cotinga. 2008;29:48–55.
   Google Scholar
• Stattersfield AJ, Crosby MJ, Long AJ, et al. Endemic bird areas of the world: priorities for biodiversity conservation. V 7. Cambridge, UK: Birdlife International; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Gentry AH. Tropical forest biodiversity: distributional patterns and their conservational significance. Oikos. 1992;63:19–28.10.2307/3545512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreft H, Sommer JH, Barthlott W. The significance of geographic range size for spatial diversity patterns in Neotropical palms. Ecography. 2006;29:21–30.10.1111/j.2005.0906-7590.04203.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreft H, Jetz W. Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2007;104:5925–5930.10.1073/pnas.0608361104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venter O, Fuller RA, Segan DB, et al. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 2014;12:e1001891.10.1371/journal.pbio.1001891
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duque A, Stevenson PR, Feeley kJ. Thermophilization of adult and juvenile tree communities in the northern tropical Andes. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2015;112:10744–10749.10.1073/pnas.1506570112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geist HJ, Lambin EF. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience. 2002;52:143–150.10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0143:PCAUDF]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balthazar V, Vanacker V, Molina A, et al. Impacts of forest cover change on ecosystem services in high Andean mountains. Ecol Ind. 2015;48:63–75.10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanacker V, Govers G, Barros S, et al. The effect of short-term socio-economic and demographic change on landuse dynamics and its corresponding geomorphic response with relation to water erosion in a tropical mountainous catchment, Ecuador. Landscape Ecol. 2003;18:1–15.10.1023/A:1022902914221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baynard CW, Ellis JM, Davis H. Roads, petroleum and accessibility: the case of eastern Ecuador. GeoJournal. 2013;78:675–695.
   Google Scholar
• Panfil SN, Harvey CA. REDD+ and biodiversity conservation: a review of the biodiversity goals, monitoring methods, and impacts of 80 REDD+ projects. Conserv Lett. 2016;9:143–150.10.1111/conl.2016.9.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce SM, Cowling RM, Knight AT, et al. Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation. Biol Conserv. 2005;125:441–458.10.1016/j.biocon.2005.04.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps J, Friess DA, Webb EL. Win–win REDD+ approaches belie carbon–biodiversity trade-offs. Biol Conserv. 2012;154:53–60.10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahrig L. How much habitat is enough? Biol Conserv. 2001;100:65–74.10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00208-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noss RF, Carroll C, Vance-Borland K, et al. A multicriteria assessment of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Conserv Biol. 2002;16:895–908.10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01405.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messina JP, Walsh SJ, Mena CF, et al. Land tenure and deforestation patterns in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Conflicts in land conservation in frontier settings. Appl Geogr. 2006;26:113–128.10.1016/j.apgeog.2005.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Oliveira JAP. Implementing environmental policies in developing countries through decentralization: the case of protected areas in Bahia, Brazil. World Dev. 2002;30:1713–1736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane MB. Affirming new directions in planning theory: comanagement of protected areas. Soc Nat Res. 2001;14:657–671.10.1080/08941920118212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutz E, Caldecott JO. Decentralization and biodiversity conservation. Washington: World Bank Publications; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Jones KW, Holland MB, Naughton-Treves L, et al. Forest conservation incentives and deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Environ Conserv. 2016;44:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Naughton-Treves L, Holland MB, Brandon K. The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Ann Rev Environ Res. 2005;30:219–252.10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.164507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamb D, Erskine PD, Parrotta JA. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science. 2005;310:1628–1632.10.1126/science.1111773
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherr SJ, McNeely JA. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of 'ecoagriculture' landscapes. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2008;363:477–494.10.1098/rstb.2007.2165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey CA, Komar O, Chazdon R, et al. Integrating agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conservation in the Mesoamerican hotspot. Conserv Biol. 2008;22:8–15.10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00863.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar