Research priority areas based on sampling bias analysis in the QCAZ mammalian collection
Main Article Content
Abstract
The QCAZ mammalian collection presents biases related to the sampling effort that indicate a tendency to make collections in easily accessible areas. Highly significant differences were found between the number of records collected in the National System of Protected Areas and outside of it. Additionally, 20 of the 35 SNAP areas lack collections. Taking these biases into account, it can be difficult, and even misleading, to obtain true biodiversity estimates and assign priority conservation areas. The projection and interpolation of the collection points on maps generated by GIS allowed to show gaps in the collections, so that in addition to the SNAP areas, priority collection zones are proposed.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
How to Cite
1.
Burneo SF, Camacho MA. Research priority areas based on sampling bias analysis in the QCAZ mammalian collection. REMCB [Internet]. 2017Aug.9 [cited 2024Jul.3];29(1-2):22-4. Available from: https://remcb-puce.edu.ec/remcb/article/view/204
Section
Artículos Científicos
References
SOBERÓN, J., DÁVILA, P., GOLU- BOV, J. 2003. Targeting Sites for Biological Collections. En: R.D. Smith, J.B. Dickie, S.H. Linington, H.W. Pritchard y R.J. Probert, Eds. Seed Conservation. Turning Science into Practice. pp. 221–231. Royal Botanic Garden, U.K.
O’CONNELL, A.F JR., GILBERT, A.T., HATFIELD, J.S. 2004. Contribution of Natural History Collection Data to Biodiversity Assessment in National Parks. Conservation Biology 18 (5):1254− 1261.
GREEN, K. 1999. Development of the Spatial Domain in Resource Management. En: S. Morain, Ed. GIS Solutions in Natural Resource Management: Balancing the Technical- Political Equation. pp. 6−9. On Word Press, Santa Fe, U.S.A.
WILLIAMS, P.H., MARGULES, C.R., HILBERT, D.W. 2002. Data require- ments and data sources for biodiversity priority area selection. Journal of Bioscience 27(4): 327−338
FREITAG, S., HOBSON, C., BIGGS, H.C., VAN JAARSVELD, A.S. 1998. Testing for potential survey bias: the effect of roads, urban areas and nature reserves on a southern African mammal data set. Animal Conservation 1: 119−127.
REDDY, S., DÁVALOS, L.M. 2003. Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. Journal of Biogeography 30: 1719−1727.
ROMO, H., GARCÍA-BARROS, E., LOBO, J.M. 2006. Identifying recorder-induced geografic bias in an Iberian butterfly database. Ecography 29(6): 873−885.
GUISAN, A., ZIMMERMANN, N.E. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135: 147−186
RAXWORTHY, C. J., MARTÍNEZ- MEYER, E., HORNING, N., NUSS- BAUM, R. A., SCHNEIDER, G. E., ORTEGA-HUERTA, M., PETERSON, A. T. 2003. Predicting distributions of known and unknown reptile species in Madagascar. Nature 426: 837 – 841.
PHILLIPS, S., ANDERSON, R. P., SCHAPIRE, R. E. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geograph- ic distributions. Ecological Modelling 190:231–259.
MINISTERIO DEL AMBIENTE. Ecuador Megadiverso. Áreas protegi- das, [en línea]. Ministerio del Ambiente de la República del Ecuador. (2006). Dirección URL:. [Consulta: 17 de enero 2007].
APEZTEGUIA, A. 2006. Elaboración de modelos de distribución geográfica de micromamíferos voladores y uso de herramientas de Sistemas de Información Geográfica para priorizar áreas de investigación en la Amazonía del Ecuador. Tesis de Licenciatura, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.
UNEP-WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTER. 2005. En Indicadores de Biodiversidad para Uso Nacional (Proyecto BINU), [CD- ROM]. Fundación Ecociencia y Ministerio del Ambiente.
ALIANZA JATUN SACHA – CDC- ECUADOR. 2002. Centros poblados a nivel nacional. En Almanaque Electrónico Ecuatoriano, [CD- ROM]. Alianza Jatun Sacha – CDC- Ecuador,
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE. 2001. ArcGIS™ Desktop v. 8.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., New York, U.S.A.
SOKAL, R.R, ROHLF, F.J. 2003. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Tercera edición. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, U.S.A.
SÁNCHEZ, J. 2005. Introducción a la estadística no paramétrica y al análisis multivariado. Quality Print, Quito, Ecuador.
SPIEGEL, M. 1991. Estadística. Segunda edición. Mc Graw-Hill, México D.F., México
SÁNCHEZ, J. 2004. Introducción a la estadística en las ciencias biológicas. Quality Print, Quito, Ecuador. BALMFORD, A., MOORE, J.L., BROOKS, T., BURGESS, N., HANSEN, L.A., WILLIAMS, P., RAHBEK, C. 2001. Conservation Conflicts Across Africa. Science 291: 2616−2619
PRESSEY, R.L. 1994. Ad Hoc Reservations: Forward or Backward Steps in Developing Representative
O’CONNELL, A.F JR., GILBERT, A.T., HATFIELD, J.S. 2004. Contribution of Natural History Collection Data to Biodiversity Assessment in National Parks. Conservation Biology 18 (5):1254− 1261.
GREEN, K. 1999. Development of the Spatial Domain in Resource Management. En: S. Morain, Ed. GIS Solutions in Natural Resource Management: Balancing the Technical- Political Equation. pp. 6−9. On Word Press, Santa Fe, U.S.A.
WILLIAMS, P.H., MARGULES, C.R., HILBERT, D.W. 2002. Data require- ments and data sources for biodiversity priority area selection. Journal of Bioscience 27(4): 327−338
FREITAG, S., HOBSON, C., BIGGS, H.C., VAN JAARSVELD, A.S. 1998. Testing for potential survey bias: the effect of roads, urban areas and nature reserves on a southern African mammal data set. Animal Conservation 1: 119−127.
REDDY, S., DÁVALOS, L.M. 2003. Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. Journal of Biogeography 30: 1719−1727.
ROMO, H., GARCÍA-BARROS, E., LOBO, J.M. 2006. Identifying recorder-induced geografic bias in an Iberian butterfly database. Ecography 29(6): 873−885.
GUISAN, A., ZIMMERMANN, N.E. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135: 147−186
RAXWORTHY, C. J., MARTÍNEZ- MEYER, E., HORNING, N., NUSS- BAUM, R. A., SCHNEIDER, G. E., ORTEGA-HUERTA, M., PETERSON, A. T. 2003. Predicting distributions of known and unknown reptile species in Madagascar. Nature 426: 837 – 841.
PHILLIPS, S., ANDERSON, R. P., SCHAPIRE, R. E. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geograph- ic distributions. Ecological Modelling 190:231–259.
MINISTERIO DEL AMBIENTE. Ecuador Megadiverso. Áreas protegi- das, [en línea]. Ministerio del Ambiente de la República del Ecuador. (2006). Dirección URL:
APEZTEGUIA, A. 2006. Elaboración de modelos de distribución geográfica de micromamíferos voladores y uso de herramientas de Sistemas de Información Geográfica para priorizar áreas de investigación en la Amazonía del Ecuador. Tesis de Licenciatura, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.
UNEP-WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTER. 2005. En Indicadores de Biodiversidad para Uso Nacional (Proyecto BINU), [CD- ROM]. Fundación Ecociencia y Ministerio del Ambiente.
ALIANZA JATUN SACHA – CDC- ECUADOR. 2002. Centros poblados a nivel nacional. En Almanaque Electrónico Ecuatoriano, [CD- ROM]. Alianza Jatun Sacha – CDC- Ecuador,
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE. 2001. ArcGIS™ Desktop v. 8.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., New York, U.S.A.
SOKAL, R.R, ROHLF, F.J. 2003. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Tercera edición. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, U.S.A.
SÁNCHEZ, J. 2005. Introducción a la estadística no paramétrica y al análisis multivariado. Quality Print, Quito, Ecuador.
SPIEGEL, M. 1991. Estadística. Segunda edición. Mc Graw-Hill, México D.F., México
SÁNCHEZ, J. 2004. Introducción a la estadística en las ciencias biológicas. Quality Print, Quito, Ecuador. BALMFORD, A., MOORE, J.L., BROOKS, T., BURGESS, N., HANSEN, L.A., WILLIAMS, P., RAHBEK, C. 2001. Conservation Conflicts Across Africa. Science 291: 2616−2619
PRESSEY, R.L. 1994. Ad Hoc Reservations: Forward or Backward Steps in Developing Representative