site_prioritization_niche

ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELING AND CONSERVATION AREA NETWORK PRIORITIZATION FOR MEXICAN HERPETOFAUNA 

                                                                                          Back to Home

Related Publications:
(1) Ochoa-Ochoa, L., Vázquez, L-B., Urbina-Cardona, J.N. and Flores-Villela, O. In Press. Herpetofaunal conservation area prioritization using different selection algorithms. In: CONABIO, CONANP (coord.). 2009. Biodiversity conservation priorities for terrestrial biodiversity in Mexico: A National vision based in different GAP analyses. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Comisión de Áreas Naturales Protegidas. México. (In Spanish)
(2)

Ochoa-Ochoa, L. Urbina-Cardona, J.N., Flores-Villela, O., Vázquez, L-B and Bezaury-Creel, J. 2009. The role of land protection through governmental protected areas and social action in biodiversity conservation: the case of Mexican amphibians. PlosOne: 4(9): e6878. PDF  Supplementary

(3)

Ochoa-Ochoa, L., Vázquez, L.-B., Urbina-Cardona, J.N. and Flores-Villela, O. 2007. Chapter 7: Amphibians & Chapter 8: Reptiles. In: CONABIO- CONANP-TNC- PRONATURA- CF,UANL.Gap analysis and conservation omissions in terrestrial biodiversity of Mexico: spaces and species. Mexico. ISBN 978-968-817-866-9. (In Spanish) PDF 


        (4)

Ochoa-Ochoa, L., Vázquez, L-B., Urbina-Cardona, J.N. and Flores-Villela, O. 2011. Herpetofaunal conservation area prioritization using different selection algorithms. In: CONABIO-CONANP (coords.), Conservation priorities to Mexican terrestrial biodiversity conservation: A national vision based on different gap analyses. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad-Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, México. PDF (In Spanish)


Urbina-Cardona, J.N. and Flores-Villela, O. 2010. Ecological-Niche Modeling and Prioritization of Conservation-Area Networks for Mexican Herpetofauna. Conservation Biology 24(4):1031-1041.

            PDF     Supplementary material         Download shape files 

                                     ABSTRACT
One of the most important tools in conservation biology is the information on the geographic distribution of species and the variables determining those patterns. We used maximum-entropy niche modeling to run distribution models for 222 amphibian and 371 reptile species (49% endemics and 27% threatened) for which we had  34,619 single geographic records. The planning region is in southeastern Mexico, is 20% of the country’s area, includes 80% of the country’s herpetofauna, and lacks an adequate protected-area system. We used probabilistic data to build distribution models of herpetofauna for use in prioritizing conservation areas for three target groups (all species and threatened and endemic species). The accuracy of species-distribution models was better for endemic and threatened species than it was for all species. Forty-seven percent of the region has been deforested and additional conservation areas with 13.7% to 88.6% more native vegetation (76% to 96% of the areas are outside the current protected-area system) are needed. There was overlap in 26 of the main selected areas in the conservation area network prioritized to preserve the target groups, and for all three target groups the proportion of vegetation types needed for their conservation was constant: 30% pine and oak forests, 22% tropical evergreen forest, 17% low deciduous forest, and 8% montane cloud forests. The fact that different groups of species require the same proportion of habitat types suggests that the pine and oak forests support the highest proportion of endemic and threatened species and should therefore be given priority over other types of vegetation for inclusion in the protected areas of southeastern Mexico.

Figure 1a. CAN for all herpetofauna (222 amphibian and 371 reptile species) with a species representation target of 10%.
Site selection was according to ConsNet analyses, including PAs and excluding anthropogenic vegetation types. Current Mexican PA networks are in gray, and the needed additional conservation area networks are in black. The political limits (inset) of the planning region are shown in Fig. 1a.

DOWNLOAD SHAPE_FILES.zip



Figure 1b. CAN for all herpetofauna (222 amphibian and 371 reptile species) with a species representation target of 30%. Site selection was according to ConsNet analyses, including PAs and excluding anthropogenic vegetation types. Current Mexican PA networks are in gray, and the needed additional conservation area networks are in black. The political limits (inset) of the planning region are shown in Fig. 1a.


Figure 2a. CAN for endemics (290 species) with a species representation target of 10%. Site selection was according to ConsNet analyses, including PAs and excluding anthropogenic vegetation types. Current Mexican PA networks are in gray, and the needed additional conservation area networks are in black. The political limits (inset) of the planning region are shown in Fig. 1a.

DOWNLOAD SHAPE_FILES.zip


Figure 2b. CAN for endemics (290 species) with a species representation target of 30%. Site selection was according to ConsNet analyses, including PAs and excluding anthropogenic vegetation types. Current Mexican PA networks are in gray, and the needed additional conservation area networks are in black. The political limits (inset) of the planning region are shown in Fig. 1a.


Figure 3a.  CAN for threatened amphibians and reptiles (184 species) with a species representation target of 10%. Site selection was according to ConsNet analyses, including PAs and excluding anthropogenic vegetation types. Current Mexican PA networks are in gray, and the needed additional conservation area networks are in black. The political limits (inset) of the planning region are shown in Fig. 1a.
DOWNLOAD SHAPE_FILES.zip


Figure 3b.
CAN for threatened amphibians and reptiles (184 species) with a species representation target of 30%. Site selection was according to ConsNet analyses, including PAs and excluding anthropogenic vegetation types. Current Mexican PA networks are in gray, and the needed additional conservation area networks are in black. The political limits (inset) of the planning region are shown in Fig. 1a.
Comments