Implications of collection patterns of botanical specimens on their usefulness for conservation planning: an example of two neotropical plant families (Moraceae and Myristicaceae) in Peru
- 246 Downloads
We evaluated the usefulness of herbarium collection databases for assessing patterns of species diversity and distribution based on a dataset from the flowering plant families Moraceae and Myristicaceae from the Peruvian Amazon. For Moraceae, a total of 3523 collections were used representing 134 species. The Myristicaceae were represented by 2113 collections of 46 species. We evaluated the distribution of collections based on 252 grid cells (0.5° size) covering all lowland rainforest in the Peruvian Amazon. We found that collections were concentrated in a few cells and that species diversity clearly increases in relation to collection density. Moraceae were collected in only 45% and Myristicaceae in only 31% of the 252 grid cells. Fifty percent of the collections came from just six and three cells, respectively. Most species were represented by only a small number of collections and collected only in a few grid cells, meaning a few widespread common species tend to dominate the collection records. Not surprisingly, most collections were made close to towns and transport routes. We evaluated the usefulness of rarefaction curves and diversity estimators for comparing diversity between regions. These techniques seem to be of little use for botanical collections due to violations of underlying assumptions. Problems such as accuracy of geographic and taxonomic data and strong bias in the spatial representation of the whole dataset are important to consider when basing conservation analysis, planning, and decision-making on seemingly large databases of biodiversity collections and are discussed in detail.
KeywordsAmazon Biodiversity Botany Collection patterns Conservation Database Floristics GIS Moraceae Myristicaceae Neotropics Peru
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- BIODAMAZ. 2002. Peru Digital 1.0. Diversidad Biológica de la Amazonía Peruana (BIODAMAZ).Google Scholar
- R.L. Chazdon, R.K. Colwell, J.S. Denslow and M.R. Guariguata, Statistical methods for estimating species richness of woody regeneration in primary and secondary rain forests of NE Costa Rica. In: F. Dallmeier and J.A. Comiskey (eds.) Forest Biodiversity ResearchMonitoring and Modeling: Conceptual Background and Old World Case Studies. Paris: Parthenon Publishing (1998) pp. 285-309Google Scholar
- Colwell R.K. 2005. EstimateS: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from Samples. Version 7.5. URL: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates.
- S.D. Davis, V.H. Heywood and A.C. Hamilton, Centres of Plant Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for their Conservation. Cambridge, UK: World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and IUCN – World Conservation Union (1994).Google Scholar
- ArcGIS 8.3. Redlands: Environmental Systems Research InstituteInc. (2002).Google Scholar
- E.C. Honorio and C.R. Reynel, Vacíos en la colección de la flora de los Bosques Húmedos del Perú. Lima: Herbario de la Facultad de Ciencias Forestales Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina (2003).Google Scholar
- INRENA. 2003. Mapa de Áreas Naturales Protegidas del Perú. Versión Digital. Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales. Google Scholar
- D.M. Olson, E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D’Amico, I. Itoua, H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnutt, T.H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W. Wettengel, P. Hedao and K.R. Kassem, Terrestrial ecoregions of the worlds: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51 (2001) 933-938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- O.L. Phillips and P.H. Raven, A strategy for sampling neotropical forests. In: A.C. Gibson (ed.) Neotropical Biodiversity and Conservation. Los Angeles: Mildred E. Mathias Botanical Garden,University of California (1997) pp. 141-165Google Scholar
- G.T. Prance, The use of phytogeographic data for conservation planning. In: P.L. Forey, C.J. Humphries and R.I. Vane-Wright (eds.) Systematics and Conservation Evaluation. Oxford: Systematics and Conservation Evaluation (1994) pp. 145-163Google Scholar
- Systematic Agenda 2000: Charting the Biosphere. New York, NY: American Museum of Natural History (1994).Google Scholar
- H. ter Steege, N. Pitman, D. Sabatier, H. Castellanos, P. Van der Hout, D.C. Daly, M. Silveira, O. Phillips, R. Vasquez, T. Van Andel, J. Duivenvoorden, A.A. De Oliveira, E.K. Renske, R. Lilwah, R. Thomas, J. Van Essen, C. Baider, P. Maas, S. Mori, J. Terborgh, P. Nuez, H. Mogollon and W. Morawetz, A spatial model of tree α-diversity and tree density for the Amazon. Biodivers. Conserv. 12 (2003) 2255-2277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- H. ter Steege, D. Sabatier, H. Castellanos, T. Van Andel, J. Duivenvoorden, A.A. De Oliveira, R. Ek, R. Lilwah, P. Maas and S. Mori, An analysis of the floristic composition and diversity of Amazonian forests including those of the Guiana Shield. J. Tropical Ecol. 16 (2000b) 801-828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- P.H. Williams, G.T. Prance, C.J. Humphries and K.S. Edwards, Promise and problems in applying quantitative complementary areas for representing the diversity of some neotropical plants (families DichapetalaceaeLecythidaceaeCaryocaraceaeChrysobalanaceae and Proteaceae). Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 58 (1996) 125-157CrossRefGoogle Scholar