Boletín de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras

Vol. 49 No. SuplEsp (2020)
Scientific Notes

Contribution of the Marine Protected Areas of the National Natural Park System to the ecosystems representativeness of Colombia

PDF (Español (España))
David Alonso Carvajal
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras "José Benito Vives de Andréis"
Ivonne Corredor Rubiano
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras "José Benito Vives de Andréis"
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25268/bimc.invemar.2020.49.SuplEsp.1064

Published 2020-12-19

Keywords

  • representativeness gaps,
  • marine conservation,
  • conservation planning,
  • Aichi target 11,
  • Convention of Biological Diversity

How to Cite

1.
Alonso Carvajal D, Corredor Rubiano I. Contribution of the Marine Protected Areas of the National Natural Park System to the ecosystems representativeness of Colombia. Bol. Investig. Mar. Costeras [Internet]. 2020 Dec. 19 [cited 2025 Apr. 11];49(SuplEsp):275-88. Available from: https://boletin.invemar.org.co/ojs/index.php/boletin/article/view/1064

Copyright (c) 2020 David Alonso Carvajal, Ivonne Corredor Rubiano

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

An analysis of representativeness of marine and coastal ecosystems was carried out in the 18 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) administered by the System of National Natural Parks of Colombia (SPNN) and their changes in 2020 compared to 2010. The
Caribbean increased the representativeness of mangroves, seagrasses, sedimentary bottoms, and saline beaches. In the Pacific, estuaries representativeness, sedimentary bottoms, mangroves, intertidal mudflats, sandy beaches, and seamounts increased. Deep-sea corals were included as a new ecosystem for the SPNN. From the representativeness ranges determined for this analysis, it was found that the only ecosystem with no representativeness (0 %) (Deep-sea corals) became overrepresented (≥ 60 %). The number of low representative ecosystems decreased from 8 to 7 (< 10 %), while the medium representative ecosystems increased from 9 to 10 (10-29 %). In the last decade, ecosystems of ecological importance such as estuaries (0.55 %) in the Caribbean and mixed guandal forests (0.22 %) for the Pacific did not change their representativeness. There is evidence of the need to increase research and knowledge of deep benthic habitats to include them within the System and take advantage of the international dialogue scenario to contribute to ambitious conservation goals within the post-2020 framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

PDF (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Airamé, S., J.E. Dugan, K.D. Lafferty, H. Leslie, D.A. McArdle, and R.R. Warner. 2003. Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: A case study from the California Channel Islands. Ecol. Appl., 13: 170-184. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761
  2. Alonso, D., L. Ramírez, J.M. Díaz, C. Segura-Quintero, P. Castillo, and A. Chatwin. 2007. Coastal and marine conservation priorities in Colombia. 30-39. In: Chatwin, A. (Ed.). Priorities for coastal and marine conservation in South America. The Nature Conservancy-TNC, Arlington. 63 p.
  3. Alonso, D., C. Segura-Quintero, P. Castillo-Torres, and J. Gerhantz-Muro. 2008. Marine protected areas network design: conservation strategy for the Colombian northern continental Caribbean. Bol. Invest. Mar. Cost., 37: 129-156.
  4. Alonso, D., C. Segura-Quintero, P. Torres, D. Rozo-Garzón, J. Espriella, J. Bolaños y A. Lopez. 2010. Áreas significativas para la biodiversidad. 393-419. En: Invemar. (Ed.). Biodiversidad del margen continental del Caribe colombiano. Invemar, Santa Marta. 457 p.
  5. Alonso, D., H. Barbosa, M. Duque, I. Gil, M. Morales, S. Navarrete, M. Nieto, A. Ramírez, G. Sanclemente y J. Vásquez. 2015. Conceptualización del Subsistema de Áreas Marinas Protegidas en Colombia. Ser. Publ. Gener. Invemar, (88), 80 p.
  6. Álvarez-Dávila, E., G. Jaramillo-Giraldo, C. Cogollo-Rivera, H. Martínez-Higuera, E. Rojas, and F. Fernández-Méndez. 2016. Structure and diversity of the three plant associations in the San Juan River delta, Chocó, Colombia. Árvore, 40: 833-843. doi.org/10.1590/0100-67622016000500007
  7. Auster, P.J., B.C. Hodge, M.P. McKee, and S.D. Kraus. 2020. A scientific basis for designation of the northeast canyons and seamounts marine national monument. Front. Mar. Sci., 7: 566. doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00566
  8. Balbar, A.C. and A. Metaxas. 2019. The current application of ecological connectivity in the design of marine protected areas. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 17: e00569. doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00569
  9. Barr, L.M., R.L. Pressey, R.A. Fuller, D.B. Segan, E. McDonald-Madden, and H.P. Possingham. 2011. A new way to measure the world’s protected area coverage. PLoS One, 6: 9. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024707
  10. Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck, K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, C.G. Hays, K. Hoshino, T.J. Minello, R.J. Orth, P.F. Sheridan, and M.P. Weinstein. 2001. The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience, 51: 633-641. doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0633:TICAMO]2.0.CO;2
  11. Bohórquez, J.C., C. Segura-Quintero y P. Lozano. 2010. Diseño del sistema de soporte a la toma de decisiones para el subsistema de Áreas Marinas Protegidas. Informe técnico final. Invemar, Santa Marta. 13 p.
  12. CDB. 2004. Decision COP 7/12. https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/7/28. 14/07/2020.
  13. CDB. 2010. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/10/2. 19/07/2020.
  14. CDB. 2018. Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity 14/8. Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf. 25/07/2020.
  15. Codechocó, Carder, Corponariño, CRC, CVC, IIAP, Invemar, PNN y WWF. 2014. Prioridades de conservación costeras y oceánicas del SIRAP Pacífico. Informe técnico final. WWF, Cali. 146 p.
  16. Cordes, E.E., D.O.B. Jones, T.A. Schlacher, D.J. Amon, A.F. Bernardino, S. Brooke, R. Carney, D.M. DeLeo, K.M. Dunlop, E.G. Escobar-Briones, A.R. Gates, L. Génio, J. Gobin, L.A. Henry, S. Herrera, S. Hoyt, M. Joye, S. Kark, N.C. Mestre, A. Metaxas, S. Pfeifer, K. Sink, A.K. Sweetman, and U. Witte. 2016. Environmental impacts of the deep-water oil and gas industry: a review to guide management strategies. Front. Environ. Sci., 4: 58. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00058
  17. Costello, M.J., M. Coll, R. Danovaro, P. Halpin, H. Ojaveer, and P. Miloslavich. 2010. A census of marine biodiversity knowledge, resources, and future challenges. PLoS One, 5:8. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012110
  18. Costello, T. 2019. Are marine national monuments “situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States?” Oc. Coast. Law J., 24:2. https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/oclj/vol24/iss2/5
  19. Davies, A.J., J.M. Roberts, and J. Hall-Spencer. 2007. Preserving deep-sea natural heritage: Emerging issues in offshore conservation and management. Biol. Conserv., 138: 299-312. doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.05.011
  20. Decreto 2811. 1974. Diario oficial de la Republica de Colombia. Presidencia de la República de Colombia. https://www.minambiente.gov.co/images/GestionIntegraldelRecursoHidrico/pdf/normativa/Decreto_2811_de_1974.pdf. 12/07/2020.
  21. Del Valle, J.I. 2000. Consideraciones estructurales de los bosques de guandal del Pacifico sur colombiano. Rev. Fac. Nal. Agr. Medellín, 53: 1011-1042.
  22. Devillers, R., R.L. Pressey, A. Grech, J.N. Kittinger, G.J. Edgar, T. Ward, and R. Watson. 2015. Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring ease of establishment over need for protection? Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst., 25: 480-504. doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2445
  23. Dudley, N. (Ed). 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 143 p.
  24. Dudley, B.Y. and J. Parish. 2006. Closing the gap. Creating ecologically representative protected area systems: a guide to conducting the gap assessments of protected area systems for the Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD Tech. Ser., (24). 108 p. doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02316.x
  25. Durden, J.M., B.J. Bett, D.O.B. Jones, V.A.I. Huvenne, and H.A. Ruhl. 2015. Abyssal hills-hidden source of increased habitat heterogeneity, benthic megafaunal biomass and diversity in the deep sea. Prog. Oceanogr., 137: 209-218. doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.06.006
  26. Fernández-Arcaya, U., E. Ramírez-Llodra, J. Aguzzi, A.L. Allcock, J.S. Davies, A. Dissanayake, P. Harris, K. Howell, V.A.I. Huvenne, M. Macmillan-Lawler, J. Martín, L. Menot, M. Nizinski, P. Puig, A.A. Rowden, F. Sánchez, and I.M.J. den Beld. 2017. Ecological role of submarine canyons and need for canyon conservation: a review. Front. Mar. Sci., 4: 5. doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00005
  27. Fischer, A., D. Bhakta, M. Macmillan-Lawler, and P. Harris. 2019. Existing global marine protected area network is not representative or comprehensive measured against seafloor geomorphic features and benthic habitats. Oc. Coast. Manag., 167: 176-187. doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.001
  28. Gaines, S.D., C. White, M.H. Carr, and S.R. Palumbi. 2010. Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 107(43): 18286-18293. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906473107
  29. Gell, F.R. and C.M. Roberts. 2003. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol., 18: 448-455. doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00189-7
  30. Harris, P.T. and E.K. Baker. 2012. Geohab atlas of seafloor geomorphic features and benthic habitats: synthesis and lessons learned. 871-890. In: Harris, P. and E. Baker (Eds.). Seafloor geomorphology as benthic habitat. Elsevier, CIUDAD???. 936 p. doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385140-6.00064-5
  31. Huang, Z., T.A. Schlacher, S. Nichol, A. Williams, F. Althaus, and R. Kloser. 2018. A conceptual surrogacy framework to evaluate the habitat potential of submarine canyons. Prog. Oceanogr., 169: 199-213. doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2017.11.007
  32. Invemar. 2020. Informe del estado de los ambientes y recursos marinos y costeros en Colombia 2019. Ser. Publ. Periód. Invemar, (3), 183 p.
  33. IPBES, 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579
  34. Kvile, K.O., G.H. Taranto, T.J. Pitcher, and T. Morato. 2014. A global assessment of seamount ecosystems knowledge using an ecosystem evaluation framework. Biol. Conserv., 173: 108-120. doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.002
  35. MADS-PNUD. 2019. Sexto informe de Colombia ante el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica. https://www.cbd.int/doc/nr/nr-06/co-nr-06-es.pdf. 18/07/2020.
  36. Margules, C.R. and R.L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405: 243-253. doi.org/10.1038/35012251
  37. Miloslavich, P., E. Klein, J.M. Díaz, C.E. Hernández, G. Bigatti, L. Campos, F. Artigas, J. Castillo, P.E. Penchaszadeh, P.E. Neill, A. Carranza, M.V. Retana, J.M. Díaz de Astarloa, M. Lewis, P. Yorio, M.L. Piriz, D. Rodríguez, Y. Yoneshigue-Valentin, L. Gamboa, and A. Martín. 2011. Marine biodiversity in the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of South America: knowledge and gaps. PLoS One, 6: 1. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014631
  38. Morato, T., S.D. Hoyle, V. Allain, and S. J. Nicol. 2010. Seamounts are hotspots of pelagic biodiversity in the open ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 107(21): 9707-9711. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910290107
  39. Nagelkerken, I., M. Sheaves, R. Baker, and R.M. Connolly. 2015. The seascape nursery: a novel spatial approach to identify and manage nurseries for coastal marine fauna. Fish Fish., 16: 362-371. doi.org/10.1111/faf.12057
  40. O’Leary, B.C., M. Winther-Janson, J.M. Bainbridge, J. Aitken, J.P. Hawkins, and C.M. Roberts. 2016. Effective coverage targets for ocean protection. Conserv. Lett., 9(6): 398-404. doi.org/10.1111/conl.12247
  41. Ramírez-Llodra, E., P.A. Tyler, M.C. Baker, O.A. Bergstad, M.R. Clark, E. Escobar, L.A. Levin, L. Menot, A.A. Rowden, C.R. Smith, and C.L. Van Dover. 2011. Man and the last great wilderness: human impact on the deep sea. PLoS One 6: e22588. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022588
  42. Sala, E., O. Aburto-Oropeza, G. Paredes, I. Parra, J.C. Barrera, and P.K. Dayton. 2002. A general model for designing networks of marine reserves. Science, 298: 1991-1993. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1075284
  43. Segura-Quintero, C. 2019. Geoservicio web para el análisis de la representatividad ecosistémica: aporte al diseño y gestión del subsistema de Áreas Marinas Protegidas de Colombia. Univ. Salzburg, Bogotá. 103 p.
  44. Segura-Quintero, C., D. Alonso y L. Ramírez. 2012. Análisis de vacíos de representatividad en las Áreas Marinas Protegidas del Sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia. Bol. Invest. Mar. Cost., 41: 299-322.
  45. Sheaves, M. 2009. Consequences of ecological connectivity: the coastal ecosystem mosaic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 391: 107-115. doi.org/10.3354/meps08121
  46. Sheaves, M., R. Baker, I. Nagelkerken, and R.M. Connolly. 2015. True value of estuarine and coastal nurseries for fish: incorporating complexity and dynamics. Estuaries Coast., 38: 401-414. doi.org/10.1007/s12237-014-9846-x
  47. SINAP, 2019. Hacia una política para el Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas de Colombia 2021-2030. Informe técnico, PNN, WWF, GEF y BID, Bogotá D.C. 84 p. https://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/portal/es/sistema-nacional-de-areas-protegidas-sinap/representatividad-y-prioridades-de-conservacion/ 13/10/2020
  48. Stevens, T. 2002. Rigor and representativeness in marine protected area design. Coast. Manag., 30(3): 237-248. doi.org/10.1080/08920750290042183
  49. UN. 2019. Proyecto de texto de un acuerdo en el marco de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el derecho del mar relativo a la conservación y el uso sostenible de la diversidad biológica marina de las zonas situadas fuera de la jurisdicción nacional. https://undocs.org/es/A/CONF.232/2019/6. 20/07/2020
  50. UN. 2020. United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030). Zero Draft- Implementation Plan, United Nations, New York. 48 p.
  51. Waldron, A., A. Vanessa, A. James, A. Arnell, G. Asner, S. Atkinson, et al. 2020. Protecting 30 % of the planet for nature: costs, benefits and economic implications. Working paper analyzing the economic implications of the proposed 30 % target for areal protection in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Campaign for Nature. https://www.conservation.cam.ac.uk/files/waldron_report_30_by_30_publish.pdf
  52. /07/2020.
  53. Williams, A., N.J Bax, R.J. Kloser, F. Althaus, B. Barker, and G. Keith. 2009. Australia’s deep-water reserve network: implications of false homogeneity for classifying abiotic surrogates of biodiversity. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 66(1): 214-224. doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn189
  54. Woodley, S., H. Locke, D. Laffoley, K. MacKinnon, T. Sandwith, and J. Smart. 2019. A review of evidence for area‐based conservation targets for the post‐2020 global biodiversity framework. PARKS, 25(2): 31-46. doi.org/10.2305/iucn.ch.2019.parks-25-2sw2.en

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.