Figures
Abstract
The jaguar (Panthera onca) is a charismatic species considered Vulnerable in Colombia but yet largely unknown in the country. The species is mostly threatened by the continuous decline in its habitats, mostly derived from deforestation and habitat loss, additional to hunting and conflicts with humans. Thus, the future of jaguars in Colombia depends on protecting and recovering existing habitats. The aims of this study were to 1) evaluate jaguar distribution and identify the remnant patches of habitat in Colombia, 2) define an ecological connectivity network within the country, and 3) propose a priority areas portfolio for the conservation and recovery of jaguars. We used a presence background model for estimating species potential distribution and subsequently identified remaining habitat patches across the country based on land cover and species-specific ecological attributes. We then created an ecological connectivity network based on circuit theory and following a multi-criteria approach identified jaguar priority areas for conservation (JPCA) and recovery (JPRA). Jaguar potential distribution comprises 1103122.43 km2, from which 56.71% maintain suitable patches of potential habitat. We identified 960 corridors between remnant patches of natural or semi-natural vegetation. Based on the criteria, JPCAs with greater importance were identified in each of the five Colombian regions. JPRAs were located mainly towards the Andean and Caribbean regions. These JPCAs and JPRAs could serve as a guide for designing and implementing management strategies for the long-term conservation and recovery of the species in Colombia.
Citation: Machado-Aguilera MC, Lemus-Mejía L, Pérez-Torres J, Zárrate-Charry DA, Arias-Alzate A, González-Maya JF (2024) Preserving the spots: Jaguar (Panthera onca) distribution and priority conservation areas in Colombia. PLoS ONE 19(3): e0300375. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300375
Editor: Dárius Pukenis Tubelis, UFERSA: Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Arido, BRAZIL
Received: October 24, 2023; Accepted: February 26, 2024; Published: March 22, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Machado-Aguilera et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files and through Open Science Framework online repository (1. Gonzalez-Maya JF, Machado-Aguilera MC. Jaguar (Panthera onca) distribution records for Colombia. OSF; 2024. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/RKDS9).
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Introduction
Land-use change is the main driver for habitat loss and fragmentation, the leading causes of biodiversity loss around the world [1, 2]. In Colombia, these processes result from constant land transformations generated by an increase in urbanization, cattle ranching, agriculture, and illicit crops [3]. This has caused changes in landscape structures, with detrimental effects on species ecological dynamics (especially for carnivore species), such as population isolation, genetic flow alteration, changes in abundance and distribution, among others [1, 4, 5].
The jaguar (Panthera onca) is a predator classified as Near Threatened (NT) globally according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [6] but considered Vulnerable (VU) in Colombia [7] and in most countries of its distribution, and in spite of such discrepancy, and most importantly, it is estimated that ~97% of its populations are considered either Endangered or Critically Endangered at continental scale [8]. It is the largest felid in the Americas and the only representative of the genus Panthera in the continent [9, 10]. Its overall requirements of extensive areas of natural habitats and high prey availability [11, 12] and low reproductive rates and densities [13–15], make it a susceptible species and an indicator of healthy ecosystems [13]. The species is found in a great variety of habitats, from dense forests to swamps or dry areas [16], and is mainly found in elevations below 3200 m [17, 18].
Colombia has been recognized as a critical region for connecting jaguar populations between Central and South America [19]. Within the country, five jaguar subpopulations have been identified; the Amazon, Biogeographic Choco, Paramillo-San Lucas, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and Serrania de Perija-Catatumbo [8]. However, the historical landscape changes caused by habitat fragmentation and loss, are decreasing the species potential habitat [20–22] and have reduced its occupied distribution by 39% in the country [23]. Consequently, the species populations are increasingly isolated, and its genetic diversity is reducing, making the jaguar more vulnerable to extinction at different scales [24]. Additionally, local communities’ excessive hunting of their prey increases the negative interactions with humans due to cattle predation and retaliatory hunting, which enhances the risk for the species [21, 22, 25, 26].
In response to these threats, previous efforts for identifying priority areas and corridors for the species conservation have occurred at continental [14, 18, 19] and national levels, like Mexico [10, 27], Brazil [28, 29], and Nicaragua [30]. In Colombia, previous approximations have identified some priority areas [23, 31, 32], and only one has proposed potential jaguar corridors at national level [31]. Nevertheless, considering the availability of new tools for generating objective spatial approaches, the considerable increase in basic jaguar information, and the need for robust and comprehensive landscape analysis for the species in a critical area such as Colombia, generating new approaches for spatially assessing jaguar conservation priorities was warranted. The objectives of this study where to: 1) evaluate jaguar distribution and identify the potential remnant habitat patches in Colombia, 2) define the ecological connectivity network within the remnant patches, and 3) propose a portfolio with prioritization areas of potential habitat remnants for the conservation and recovery of the jaguar in Colombia.
Materials and methods
Study area
Colombia is considered the critical connection between jaguar populations of Central and South America [18]. It is located in the northwestern part of South America, sharing borders with Panama, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, the Caribbean Sea, and the Pacific Ocean [33]. It has a land surface extension of 1141748 km2 [34] and comprises five natural regions: Amazon, Andean, Caribbean, Orinoco and Pacific [34, 35].
The country’s topography is dominated by the presence of the Andean Mountain range (i.e., the Andes) which splits into three independent branches (i.e., central, eastern, and western cordilleras) and an isolated range, the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. This topography also includes the presence of unique biomes such as the Orinoco plains, locally known as "Llanos Orientales" and the Amazon rainforests [36]. These large orographic and altitudinal variations (0–5800 m) determine the high environmental variability of the country [36, 37], which generates a high ecosystems diversity, allowing the presence of a great number of species, making Colombia one of the most biodiverse countries of the world [37, 38].
Colombia has a large variety of ecosystems, from deserts to tropical forests [37], having a total of 91 ecosystems, of which 70 are natural and 21 transformed [39]. Nevertheless, 22 ecosystems are categorized as critically endangered, 14 as endangered, and 12 as vulnerable [37]. Cattle ranching is the country’s largest economic activity with the highest representation, occupying 85% of the agricultural lands, reason why it is considered the dominant land-use of the country and the main driver of landscape transformation [3].
The country also has 498745.15 km2 covered by protected areas, including terrestrial and marine areas. In total, as for 2020, Colombia had 1671 protected areas from which 1236 are local protected areas, 313 regional and, 122 national-level areas [40]. New areas are either under planning or in the process of official declaration, especially at sub-national levels and in private lands, and most likely this number will keep changing in coming years.
Species data
As the basis for the modeling approach, we collected as many available jaguar records as possible for the country from multiple sources. We collected records of jaguar presence from secondary sources such as 1) biodiversity data sets (i.e., GBIF, Species Link, Data Basin [41–43], 2) literature [44–54], and 3) our own data derived from validated records of direct observations, camera-trap data, predation events with confirmation of the predator, among others. We applied two complementary filters for depurating the records to obtain the most reliable species potential distribution. The first filter focuses on credibility and the second focuses on geographic precision of each record [55]. Credibility combines the type of evidence (e.g., human observation, machine observation, collected specimen, etc.) with source type (e.g., scientific articles, thesis, etc.). Geographic precision is based on the spatial information associated with each record and validated with official cartographic sources [55]. We carried out this process using an RStudio code [56–64]. According to these filters (i.e., credibility and geographic precision), we classified each record in three categories of reliability: low, medium, or high (Table 1) [65]. We removed all records classified as with low reliability and dropped duplicated information from the analysis. Finally, we applied a spatial thinning of 1km for all other records [66].
Calibration area and climatic data
To generate the species potential distribution, we first identified and selected all ecoregions [67] with historical and current confirmed records of the species and defined these as the accessible area (M sensu stricto) [68] and the model´s calibration area [69, 70]. Afterwards, we obtained 19 bioclimatic variables from WorldClim2 [71] and estimated Spearman correlation scores in order to remove highly correlated variables, with values equal to or greater than 0.8 [70]. We also considered the most important variables according to permutation and contribution percentages, based on the jackknife test implemented in Maxent [72] and the variables used in other studies [28, 70]. We then selected seven bioclimatic variables: mean diurnal range (Bio2), temperature seasonality (Bio4), max temperature of warmest Month (Bio5), temperature annual range (Bio7), annual precipitation (Bio12), precipitation of driest month (Bio14), and precipitation of coldest quarter (Bio19).
Jaguar potential distribution estimation
With the selected variables, we modeled the species potential distribution using Wallace platform [73], based on the maximum entropy (Maxent) algorithm [69]. For parametrization and calibration, and to obtain the best possible model that better fitted the data, we used five feature classes (linear = L, hinge = H, linear/quadratic = LQ, linear/quadratic/hinge = LQH and linear/quadratic/hinge/product = LQHP) [74–76] and nine regularization multipliers (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4 and 4.5) [72, 75]. Then from all possible candidate models, we selected the best model using the Akaike information criterion (AIC); the best model was the one with the lowest AIC value [77, 78]. This model was validated using a spatial partitioning approach using the checkerboard2 method [77]. Subsequently, the final model was transformed into a binary output using the minimum training presence threshold as it reduces omission errors [79]. Then we refined the model based on the altitude range in which the jaguar has been reported (0–3200 m) [16, 17], and estimated the total range currently covered by protected areas in the country.
Identification of remaining habitat patches
We used a spatial approach using the national land-cover types via GIS procedures to identify the remnant patches of potential habitat for the species within its estimated distribution range. We obtained the national land-cover map for 2012 [80] and selected the land-covers reported as jaguar habitat from the literature: dense forest, open forest, gallery forest, fragmented forest, secondary vegetation, natural grasslands, swamps, and coastal swamps [41, 70, 81, 82]. We then clipped these coverages with the species potential distribution to obtain a proxy of the potentially occupied habitats. Then we estimated each patch area and selected those with a size equal to or greater than 23.5 km2, based on previous home range estimations, but that might serve as stepping stones that would allow movement through fragmented landscapes [29].
Functional connectivity network definition
We created the connectivity network based on circuit theory [83]. For this, we used remnant patches identified and developed a resistance layer based on the human footprint index for Colombia (HFI) [84]. This layer is composed of variables that better reflect human influence (i.e., rural population density, distance to roads and settlements, land use, fragmentation index of natural vegetation, biomass index, and time of intervention) [84]and the ones that most likely restrict the species mobility across a landscape. We rescaled the human footprint index from 1–100 to create a resistance layer [85], where the highest values represented a greater human influence [84] and hence a greater resistance for the species mobility. For this analysis, we used Linkage Mapper 2.0 [86] toolbox in ArcGIS to estimate the least cost path corridors between patches. A maximum Euclidean distance of 113 km was chosen, which is the median dispersal distance of the species [29], thus preventing corridors overestimation [85]. Finally, we calculated centrality values for each core habitat indicating their importance and contribution to the connectivity network [87–89].
Selection of jaguar priority areas in Colombia
To define priority areas, we selected the most appropriate criteria for selecting important jaguar areas based on a literature review in online repositories (i.e., Google Scholar, Web of Science). We identified a set of criteria used by multiple similar exercises [14, 28, 29, 90–92] and narrowed them to the most appropriate list according to data availability and pertinence for Colombia. Therefore, we estimated a priority scheme considering four criteria for each core habitat patch: 1) human footprint index (HFI) [84], calculated as the percentage of pixels with HFI values under 15 [84], as a proxy of the overall human influence indicating low human impact [84]; 2) patch size [27–29], as the total area of core habitat; 3) level of protection, as the percentage of each patch under any Protected Area category [91–93]; and, 4) connectivity importance (i.e., centrality value), estimated as the relative importance of each core patch for the whole connectivity network [87–89].
We normalized all criteria values to a 0–1 scale and weighted each of the remnant patches identified. Considering the area requirements of the species [10, 11], we additionally assigned more weight to the area criterion by assigning three scores for patch size: a score of 1 for those patches with areas between 23.5 and 1200 km2 (i.e., one of the largest home ranges reported for a male) [94], score of 2 for areas between 1200 and 5000 km2 and score of 3 for areas greater than 5000 km2 (i.e., areas large enough for maintaining viable a population of 50 individuals) [29].
Then, we defined those areas with total weighted values greater than 3, considering all criteria, as jaguar priority conservation areas (JPCA). We classified these JPCAs into two categories: 1) (JPCA I) areas with values greater than 4 and 2) (JPCA II) areas with weighed values greater than 3 but less or equal to 4. At the same time, we also defined areas with total values less or equal to 3 as jaguar priority recovery areas (JPRA). Namely, the areas with lower weights but greater conservation attention for the species recovery. We classified these JPRAs into two categories: 1) (JPRA I) areas with values greater than 2 but less or equal to 3, and 2) (JPRA II) areas with total weighted values less or equal to 2.
Results
Jaguar potential distribution estimation
We obtained 535 confirmed records of the species (S1 Table, also available through the Open Science Framework repository; doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RKDS9), of which 388 remained after the filtering process. The best two models (AIC of 10753.6 and 10754.05) had the LQHP feature class, with 4 and 3 regularization multipliers and an omission rate of 0 and 0.005, respectively (S2 Table). According to the permutation importance, the most important predictor variables were precipitation of the driest month (25.6%) and precipitation of the coldest quarter (22.8%), followed by annual precipitation (14.9%) and the temperature annual range (11.4%) (Table 2).
Total estimated jaguar potential distribution covers an area of 1103122.43 km2 in Colombia, being potentially distributed in almost the entire country, with a very low probability of occupying areas above 3200 m in the three mountain ranges, the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, and in a central portion of the Chocó region (Fig 1). Of this range, only 172975.35 km2 (15.6%) are currently under a protection category, consisting mainly of national natural parks (66.18%), natural reserves (11.47%), regional integrated management districts (11.24%), among others.
Identification of remaining habitat patches
We identified 497 remnant patches of potential habitat, covering a total area of 625532.48 km2, representing 56.71% of the species potential distribution. Of the total area of remaining patches, 367005.31 km2 (58.67%) corresponded to the Amazon, 136518.22 km2 (21.82%) to the Orinoco, 58867.49 km2 (9.41%) to the Andean, 50823.81 km2 (8.12%) to the Pacific and, 12317.65 km2 (1.97%) to the Caribbean regions. Patch sizes ranged from 23.5 to 196466 km2, with a mean (±SD) area of 1258.6±10264.45 km2. The small patches (23.5–100 km2) were the most abundant (72%) and only 7.24% of the patches had sizes larger than 1200 km2 (Fig 2A). The largest patch (196466 km2) is located in the Amazon region and represents 31.4% of the total patches area. The dominant land cover within all patches identified corresponds to dense forest (78.2%), mostly located in the Amazon and Pacific regions, followed by natural and artificial grasslands (18.4%) with a large representation in the Orinoco, and open forest and coastal swamps with the lowest representation with 0.18% and 0.02%, respectively (Fig 2B).
(A) Remnant patches classified by size and (B) remnant patches classified by land-cover type. Elevation data obtained from WorldClim2 [71].
Functional connectivity network definition
We identified 960 potential corridors between the remnant habitat patches (Fig 3). Of the 497 patches, 439 (88.3%) had at least one corridor, resulting in 58 core habitats isolated. Corridors mean length distance (±SD) was 12.43±19.39 km, ranging from 0.31 to 124.93 km (Fig 3) between core habitat patches. Andean and Caribbean regions showed the largest number of corridors identified and the longest distances (Fig 3). Mean (±SD) number of corridors between patches was 2.19±1.68, with a maximum of 24 corridors for a single remnant patch. Centrality values for all remnant patches varied considerably, with a mean (±SD) value of 5962.31±7378.13, and a maximum value of 45043.7 (Fig 3).
Corridors depicted as least cost path corridors (LCP) classified by length and centrality value (the importance of each patch within the connectivity network) of each remnant patch. Elevation data obtained from WorldClim2 [71].
Selection of jaguar priority areas in Colombia
Our methodological approximation allowed us to identify jaguar priority conservation areas (JPCA) and jaguar priority recovery areas (JPRA; Fig 4) based on four criteria: mean (±SD) patch size was 1258.6±10264.45 km2, where small patches were more frequent; centrality values showed a mean (±SD) index of 5962.31±7378.13; mean (±SD) number of “natural” (<15) HFI pixels was 11130±99946.08, while mean (±SD) proportion of natural pixels was 0.32±0.35; and, total area protected was 137559.31 km2, representing 22% of the total area of remnant patches (Fig 5). The Amazon region had the most significant proportion of the total protected area (70.11%), followed by the Andean (13.11%), Orinoco (9.60%), Caribbean (3.65%) and, Pacific (3.53%) regions (Fig 5). Of the total 497 patches, only 188 (37.8%) have any level of protection, 34 patches (predominantly of small size) had 90–100% of their area protected, and the largest remnant patches (196465.8 and 74583.3 km2) have only 35.1 and 20.4% of its area under protection respectively.
Priority areas for the conservation type I (JPCA I) and type II (JPCA II), and priority recovery areas type I (JPRA I) and type II (JPRA II). Elevation data obtained from WorldClim2 [71].
Our prioritization portfolio comprised 34 JPCAs and 463 JPRAs occupying a total area of 560047.06 km2 and 65485.41 km2 respectively. Of these JPCAs, 15 were JPCA II and 19 JPCA I, predominantly found in the Amazon and Orinoco regions (Fig 4). On the other hand, from the JPRAs identified, 377 were JPRA II and 86 JPRA I, with JPRA II mainly located in the Caribbean region and the Andes piedmont, while JPRA I meanly located in the Orinoco region and the inter-Andean valleys of Central Colombia (Fig 4).
Discussion
Our results indicated that jaguar potential distribution covered a large portion of the Colombian territory (96.62%), however, and due to habitat loss and fragmentation, currently only 56.71% of its distribution corresponds to potential habitat for the species, indicating a reduction of 43.29%, a value 4.29% larger than the reported in other studies [23]. Although it is not possible to know an exact time-frame in which this reduction occurred, previous works suggest that, considering regional heterogeneity, at least 60% of natural covers have disappeared in the last 400 years [3], but it is estimated that since the 1970´s, human influence, namely human footprint, has increased in at least 50% [84]. Though, compared to the potential distribution reported in previous studies [32] our distribution was 227 284.43 km2 greater, which may be due to the fact that in this study the elevation range was considered from 0–3200 m, while previous studies considered 0–2000 m [23, 32].
Although the Amazon and Orinoco regions hold the largest remaining habitat extensions for the species, both also face drastic landscape transformations due to persistent human encroachment that have increased in recent years [84]. According to our results, these regions harbor the largest remaining patches with lower human influence and with the largest contribution to national connectivity, thus representing the most important JPCAs in the country. Even though these areas are largely consistent with the Jaguar Conservation Units (JCU) proposed in previous studies [31], our JPCAs incorporate transformation processes, indicating not only the importance of these areas but also their status and are supported on a criteria-based systematic approach that allows monitoring and designing appropriate conservation actions. It is important to highlight that the Orinoco region also hold areas with JPRAs I towards the Andes piedmont, which correspond to areas with historically high human footprint [84].
Comparatively, the Andean region also harbors important and considerably large remaining patches, mostly towards the southern portion of the region, while smaller and isolated patches dominate the northern and central portions of the most populated region in the country. These patches are immersed in highly transformed landscapes, generated by historical population growth, urban settlement concentration, inadequate land use, and large-scale historical expansion of illicit crops [96, 97]. Additionally, the region has JPCAs I and II in the Serranía de San Lucas, the Catatumbo and, the upper Magdalena, which represent areas with historical jaguar presence [8, 31]. For instance, the Catatumbo JPCA II has been identified as an important area for jaguar populations [8], considering its central importance for the connectivity between the Orinoco and Caribbean regions [31]. Meanwhile, Serranía de San Lucas JPCA I has been previously identified as an area of great importance for connecting populations between north and south of the country [32, 98].
The Pacific region, although still retains an important proportion of ecosystems [97], it was identified as the second region with less potential habitat for the species. This might be explained by intensive deforestation processes within the region, mostly associated with illegal mining and wood exploitation [97, 99]. Nevertheless, this region is still an important area for jaguar conservation as shown herein, with important JPCAs and JPRAs all over the territory, consistent with previous conservation approaches [8, 23, 31, 41]. However, it seems the number of jaguars hunted have recently increased exponentially in the region [54] and human-jaguar conflicts have also growth considerably [25]; previous efforts have emphasized the need for conflict assessments and mitigation in the area [21, 100]. Notwithstanding, still these conservation areas are of critical importance for the country, but especially for the continent since they represent the connection between South and Central American populations [8, 25].
Finally, the Caribbean region has the smallest extent of potential habitat in the country, as a result of historical and intensive human production activities (i.e., agricultural and cattle expansion) and the proliferation of human settlements across the region [84, 101]. Nevertheless, still, important habitat patches remain in Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (SNSM) and Paramillo National Natural Parks, although most of them isolated, thus reducing potential jaguar dispersion [102]. SNSM has one JPCA II and one JPRA II that should be considered as recovery areas since it is known the area still harbors a jaguar population [8] and have active conservation actions and interesting market-based incentive programs (i.e., Jaguar Friendly). However, given the high transformation of the region [103], connectivity with other core habitats is practically null, which therefore affects genetic connectivity and hence increases the risk of local and regional extinctions, as previously suggested [20, 104]. In the case of Paramillo JPCA I, it is a protected area considered critical for ensuring the connectivity between the Caribbean and Pacific regions [20], and also as part of the continuum between Central and South America. Large scale and intensive conservation actions are urgently needed, especially by governmental institutions [70], for preserving the species and reducing current habitat transformation rates in the region.
Our study represents the first systematic approach proposing a connectivity network between remaining core habitat patches at national level. Previous efforts proposed 13 corridors between JCUs [31], however, our spatially-explicit approach further identifies 960 additional corridors distributed mainly in the Andean and Caribbean regions, which means a much more significant challenge for the species protection in Colombia than previously thought. For instance, corridors within the Andean region are critical for connecting the Amazon and Orinoco with the Pacific and Caribbean regions, but these corridors are of special concern considering they are immersed in highly transformed landscapes with high human densities [31, 96]. Additionally, a large proportion of corridors are located along the Magdalena River Basin, one of the country’s most important rivers [105], but also one of the most complicated and conflictive areas in Colombia. However, mobilizing communities around the benefits provided by the river together with the creation of conservation strategies and actions can represent a unique opportunity of combining conservation and development goals framed in the most important watershed of the country [106].
Our prioritization portfolio also allowed us to identify priority areas for jaguar recovery and conservation. JPCAs are important for the long-term maintenance of the species due to their large size, low HFI and high potential for connectivity. For example, JPCAs I from the Amazon, Orinoco, Pacific, and Serrania of San Lucas regions represent areas large enough for maintaining viable populations of >50 individuals [29], which have been previously identified [8], making them among the most important areas for ensuring not only jaguar but other species survival for the long term [20, 23]. On the other hand, the JPRAs require more significant conservation attention since most correspond to historical habitat for jaguars, but are currently under severe anthropic pressure and are most likely isolated, such as SNSM [70]. Considering connectivity therefore seems warranted as a long-term strategy for the preservation of more isolated populations [28] and thus for the maintenance of healthy jaguar populations in the country. Even though small-sized JPRAs are not large enough to host jaguar populations, they are supremely important in this conservation framework, since they might function as steppingstones [29] for long-range dispersal between larger suitable areas [107].
Given the importance of JPCAs and JPRAs for the conservation and recovery of the species, these areas should be explicitly considered in territorial planning; interesting examples exist for instance in Santa Marta territorial planning which incorporated jaguar habitats as part of the municipality’s environmental determinants [70]. Furthermore, these areas should be included in the planning for new protected areas, restoration portfolios, compensation schemes and incentives such as ecosystem services, market-based schemes, among others [97, 108, 109]. For instance, the Jaguar Friendly initiative is a market-based incentive program that certifies production units that directly contribute to jaguar conservation in human-dominated landscapes, thus articulating conservation and development and promoting coexistence, and with very promising results in cacao, coffee and forestry plantations in Costa Rica, Colombia and Venezuela [110]. Finally, a comprehensive strategy that incorporates the maintenance and expansion of suitable habitats [102] and securing individuals’ mobility and dispersal and the consequent genetic diversity [24, 111], while reducing hunting, conflict, traffic and other population pressures, will considerably contribute to reducing the overall extinction risk of the species [24]. Lastly, jaguar conservation is a national challenge that requires the commitment of society as a whole, and safeguarding the species could serve as the best indicator and signal that the country has hope for securing its most valuable asset: biodiversity.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Records used for species distribution modeling of Panthera onca in Colombia.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300375.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Models constructed for species distribution modeling and corresponding parameters for Panthera onca in Colombia.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300375.s002
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
This work was developed between ProCAT Colombia and Laboratorio de Ecología Funcional from Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. We appreciate the support, comments and review from J. Nicolas Urbina, the support from LEF Lab mates and ProCAT Colombia staff and we thank J. Schipper for language editing and comments to the manuscript.
References
- 1. Fahrig L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2003;34:487–515.
- 2. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA, et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature. 2015;520(7545):45–50. pmid:25832402
- 3. Etter A, McAlpine C, Possingham H. Historical patterns and drivers of landscape change in Colombia since 1500: A regionalized spatial approach. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2008;98(1):2–23.
- 4. Gibbs JP. Demography versus habitat fragmentation as determinants of genetic variation in wild populations. Biol Conserv. 2001;100(1):15–20.
- 5. Di Minin E, Slotow R, Hunter LTB, Montesino Pouzols F, Toivonen T, Verburg PH, et al. Global priorities for national carnivore conservation under land use change. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 23814. pmid:27034197
- 6.
Quigley H, Foster R, Petracca L, Payán E, Salom R, Harmsen B. Panthera onca (errata version published in 2018) [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Dec 1]. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/15953/123791436.
- 7.
Rodríguez-Mahecha J, Jorgenson J, Durán-Ramírez C, Bedoya-Gaitán M. Panthera onca. In: Rodríguez-Mahecha JV, Alberico M, Trujillo F, Jorgenson J, editors. Libro rojo de los mamíferos de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia: Conservacion Internacional Colombia & Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial; 2006. p. 260–6.
- 8. De La Torre JA, González-Maya JF, Zarza H, Ceballos G, Medellín RA. The jaguar’s spots are darker than they appear: Assessing the global conservation status of the jaguar Panthera onca. Oryx. 2018;52(2):300–315.
- 9.
Nowell K, Jackson P. Wild cats. Nowell K, Jackson P, editors. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group; 1996. 383 pp.
- 10.
Mosquera-Guerra F, Trujillo F, Mantilla-Meluk H, Torres-Forero P, Ortega P, Aya-Cuero C, et al. Felinos. Bogotá D. C., Colombia: Fundación Omacha y Project Design Development Colombia; 2020. 172 pp.
- 11. Rodríguez-Soto C, Monroy-Vilchis O, Zarco-González MM. Corridors for jaguar (Panthera onca) in Mexico: Conservation strategies. J Nat Conserv. 2013;21:438–443.
- 12. Crooks KR. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conserv Biol. 2002;16(2):488–502.
- 13.
Payán-Garrido E, Soto-Vargas C. Los felinos de Colombia. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, Instituto de Investigaciones de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt y Panthera Colombia; 2012. 48 p.
- 14. Boron V, Xofis P, Link A, Payan E, Tzanopoulos J. Conserving predators across agricultural landscapes in Colombia: Habitat use and space partitioning by jaguars, pumas, ocelots and jaguarundis. Oryx. 2018;54(4):554–563.
- 15. Sanderson EW, Redford KH, Chetkiewicz CLB, Medellin RA, Rabinowitz AR, Robinson JG, et al. Planning to save a species: the jaguar as a model. Conserv Biol. 2002;16(1):58–72. pmid:35701976
- 16.
Seymour K. Panthera onca. Mammalian Species 1989;(340):1–9.
- 17. Solari S, Muñoz-saba Y, Rodríguez-mahecha J V, Defler TR, Ramírez-chaves HE, Trujillo F. Riqueza, endemismo y conservación de los mamíferos de colombia. Mastozool Neotrop. 2013;20(2):301–365.
- 18. Rojas-díaz V, Reyes-Gutiérrez M, Alberico MS. Mamíferos (Synapsida, Theria) del Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Biota Colomb. 2012;13(1):99–116.
- 19. Rabinowitz A, Zeller KA. A range-wide model of landscape connectivity and conservation for the jaguar, Panthera onca. Biol Conserv. 2010;143:939–45.
- 20.
Benítez A, Finegan B, Jones J, Casanoves F, González-Maya JF. Aproximación al hábitat potencial para jaguar en la región Caribe colombiana. In: Payán Garrido E, Castaño-Uribe C, editors. Grandes Felinos de Colombia, Vol I. Bogotá; 2013. p. 175–82.
- 21.
Hoogesteijn A, Hoogesteijn R. Estrategias anti-depredación para fincas ganaderas en latinoamérica: una guía. Panthera. Campo Grande, MS, Brasil: Gráfica y Editora Microart Ltda; 2011. 56 pp.
- 22.
Payán-Garrido E, Moreno-Foglia O, Mejía-González A, Fonseca-Aldana M, Valderrama-Vásquez C. Plan de manejo para la conservación del jaguar (Panthera onca) en el Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Corporación Autónoma Regional del Valle del Cauca, Panthera; 2015. 56 pp.
- 23.
Payán-Garrido E, Castaño-Uribe C, González-Maya JF, Soto C, Valderrama Vásquez C, Ruiz-García M. Distribución y estado de conservación del jaguar en Colombia. In: Grandes Felinos de Colombia, Vol I. 2013. p. 23–36.
- 24. Haag T, Santos AS, Sana DA, Morato RG, Cullen L, Crawshaw PG, et al. The effect of habitat fragmentation on the genetic structure of a top predator: Loss of diversity and high differentiation among remnant populations of Atlantic Forest jaguars (Panthera onca). Mol Ecol. 2010;19(22):4906–4921. pmid:21040050
- 25. González-Maya JF, Jiménez-Ortega AM. Jaguares en Colombia y el Chocó: una propuesta de acción a corto plazo para una de las regiones más importantes del continente. Investig Biodivers y Desarro. 2015;34(1):36–46.
- 26.
González-Maya JF, Cepeda AA, Zárrate-Charry DA, Granados-Peña R, Pérez-Ascanio W, González M. Conflictos felinos-vida silvestre en el Caribe Colombiano: un estudio de caso en los departamentos del Cesar y La Guajira. In: Castaño-uribe C, González-Maya JF, Vela-Vargas I, Zárrate-Charry D, Pineda-guerrero A, Cepeda A, et al., editors. Plan de Conservación de Felinos del Caribe colombiano: Los felinos y su papel en la planificación regional integral basada en especies clave. 2013. p. 51–59.
- 27. Rodríguez-Soto C, Monroy-Vilchis O, Maiorano L, Boitani L, Faller JC, Briones MÁ, et al. Predicting potential distribution of the jaguar (Panthera onca) in Mexico: Identification of priority areas for conservation. Divers Distrib. 2011;17(2):350–361.
- 28. Morato RG, Ferraz KMPMDB, De Paula RC, De Campos CB. Identification of priority conservation areas and potential corridors for jaguars in the Caatinga Biome, Brazil. PLoS One. 2014;9(4): e92950. pmid:24709817
- 29. Portugal MP, Morato RG, Ferraz KM, Rodrigues FHG, Jacobi CM. Priority areas for jaguar Panthera onca conservation in the Cerrado. Oryx. 2019;854–865.
- 30. Zeller KA, Nijhawan S, Salom-Pérez R, Potosme SH, Hines JE. Integrating occupancy modeling and interview data for corridor identification: A case study for jaguars in Nicaragua. Biol Conserv. 2011;144(2):892–901.
- 31.
Payán-Garrido E, Soto C, Ruiz-García M, Nijhawan S, González-Maya J, Valderrama C, et al. Unidades de conservación, conectividad y calidad de hábitat del jaguar en Colombia. In: Medellín RA, Zarza H, Chávez C, Ceballos G, editors. El jaguar en el siglo xxi La perspectiva continental. Primera ed. Fondo de Cultur Económica, Universidad Nacional Autónama de México; 2016. 543 pp.
- 32. Arias-Alzate A, Mancera-Rodríguez N, Solari S. Distribución geográfica potencial actual y futura del jaguar (Panthera onca) en Colombia: implicaciones para su conservación. Mastozoología Neotrop. 2012;19(1):181.
- 33.
Guzmán D, Ruíz J., Cadena M. Regionalización de colombia según la estacionalidad de la precipitación media mensual, a través análisis de componentes principales (acp). IDEAM. 2014;1–55.
- 34.
Banco de la República de Colombia. Posición astronómica y geográfica de Colombia [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Nov 15]. https://enciclopedia.banrepcultural.org/index.php?title=Posición_astronómica_y_geográfica_de_Colombia#:~:text=LaRepúblicadeColombiase,occidenteconelocéanoPacífico.
- 35.
IGAC. Mapa regiones naturales de Colombia. 1997.
- 36.
Bell P. Geografía, topografía y clima Colombia. In: Banco de la República de Colombia, editor. Colombia: manual comercial e industrial. Bogotá; 2012. p. 37–50.
- 37.
Etter A, Andrade Á, Saavedra K, Amaya P, Arévalo P. Estado de los ecosistemas colombianos: una aplicación de la metodología de la Lista Roja de Ecosistemas. Informe Final. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana y Conservación Internacional- Colombia. Bogotá. [Internet]. 2017. http://www.conservation.org.co/media/A7.LRE-Colombia_INFORMEFINAL_2017.pdf
- 38. Rangel JO. La biodiversidad de Colombia: significado y distribución regional. Rev Acad Colomb. 2015;39(151):176–200.
- 39.
IDEAM, IAvH, INVEMAR, SINCHI. Mapa de ecosistemas continentales, costeros y marinos de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia; 2017.
- 40.
RUNAP. Mapa de áreas protegidas de Colombia [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 17]. https://runap.parquesnacionales.gov.co/cifras
- 41.
Zeller K. Jaguars in the new millennium data set update: The state of the jaguar in 2006. Wildl Conserv Soc Bronx, New York. 2007;1–77.
- 42.
Global Biodiversity Information Facility. GBIF Ocurrence Download.
- 43.
Marieb K. Jaguars in the new millennium data set update. New York; 2006.
- 44. Nagy-Reis MB, Oshima JE de F, Kanda CZ, Palmeira FBL, de Melo FR, Morato RG, et al. Neotropical carnivores: a data set on carnivore distribution in the Neotropics Ecology. 2020;101(11): e03128. pmid:32862433
- 45.
Arias-Alzate A, Giraldo CS, Botero-Cañola S, Solari S. Aproximación al estado de conservación de las especies de felinos en algunos municipios pertenecientes a las cuencas aportantes del sector electrico en jurdisdiccion de CORANTIOQUIA. 2009. CORANTIOQUIA. 163 pp.
- 46. Palacios-Mosquera L, Rengífo JT, Jiménez-Ortega AM. Primer registro fotográfico del jaguar (Panthera onca Linnaeus, 1758) en la zona norte del Chocó biogeográfico colombiano (Pacurita, Chocó, Colombia). Rev Biodivers Neotrop. 2014;4(1):33–36.
- 47. Arias-Alzate A, Botero-Cañola S, Sánchez-Londoño JD, Solari S, Mancera N. Primeros videos de Jaguar (Panthera onca) con cámaras automáticas en el nororiente de Antiquia (Colombia) y evidencias de una posible población en la región. Rev Lat Am Conserv. 2011;2(1):38–44.
- 48. Chacón-Pacheco JJC, González-Maya JF, Salas-Jimenez MAS. Reaparición del jaguar (Panthera onca) en el departamento de Sucre, Colombia. Mammalogy Notes. 2014;1(1):55–58.
- 49.
Benítez AM. Aproximaciones del hábitat potencial para jaguar (Panthera onca) en la Región Caribe colombiana. Tesis de Maestría. 2010.
- 50.
Arias-Alzate A, Botero S, Solari S. Caracterización del estado de los felinos (Carnivora: Felidae) y su interacción con el hombre en el oriente de Antioquia. 2012. CORNARE. 84 pp.
- 51. Racero-Casarrubia JA, Marrugo- Negrete JL, Pinedo-Hernández JJ. Hallazgo de mercurio en piezas dentales de jaguares (Panthera onca) provenientes de la zona amortiguadora del parque nacional natural paramillo, córdoba, colombia. Rev Latinoam Conserv. 2012;3(1):87–92.
- 52. Fernandez-Rodríguez C, Racero-Casarrubia J, Calvano-Zúñiga A. New records of Jaguar (Panthera onca) in the department of Cesar, Colombia with some notes about wildlife-humans conflict. Mammalogy Notes. 2020;6(1):1–6.
- 53. Escobar-Lasso S, Cerón-Cardona J, Castaño-Salazar JH, Mendieta-Giraldo L, Ospina-Herrera O. Los felinos silvestres del departamento de Caldas, en la región andina de Colombia: composición, distribución y conservación. Therya. 2014;5(2):575–588.
- 54. Balaguera-Reina SA, González-Maya JF. Occasional jaguar hunting for subsistence in Colombian Chocó. CatNews. 2008;48:5.
- 55. Meyer C. Limitations in global information on species occurrences. Front Biogeogr. 2016;8(2): e28195.
- 56.
Bivand R. rgdal: Bindings for the “geospatial” data abstraction library. R package version 1.5–32. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgdal; 2021.
- 57.
Bivand R, Rundel C. rgeos: Interface to geometry engine -open source (’GEOS’). R package version 0.5–9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgeos; 2021.
- 58.
Wickham H, Francois R, Henry L, Muller K. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 1.0.7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr; 2021.
- 59.
Dowle M, Srinivasan A. data.table: Extension of `data.frame`. R package version 1.14.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=data.table; 2021.
- 60. Wickham H. The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. J Stat Softw. 2021;40(1):1–29.
- 61.
Hijmans R. raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 3.5–15. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster; 2022.
- 62.
Wickham H, Girlich M. tidyr: Tidy messy data. R package version 1.2.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr; 2022.
- 63.
Auguie B. gridExtra: Miscellaneous functions for “grid” graphics. R package version 2.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gridExtra; 2017.
- 64.
Hijmans RJ, Phillips S, Leathwick J, Elith J. dismo: Species distribution modeling. R package version 1.3–5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dismo; 2021.
- 65.
Zárrate-Charry DA. Using biodiversity distribution data to support landscape conservation and management in Colombia. Oregon State University; 2018. 160 pp.
- 66. Boria RA, Olson LE, Goodman SM, Anderson RP. Spatial filtering to reduce sampling bias can improve the performance of ecological niche models. Ecol Modell. 2014;275:73–77.
- 67. Dinerstein E, Olson D, Joshi A, Vynne C, Burgess ND, Wikramanayake E, et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience. 2017;534–545. pmid:28608869
- 68. Saupe EE, Barve V, Myers CE, Soberón J, Barve N, Hensz CM, et al. Variation in niche and distribution model performance: The need for a priori assessment of key causal factors. Ecol Modell. 2012;11–22.
- 69. Phillips SJ, Dudík M, Elith J, Graham CH, Lehmann A, Leathwick J, et al. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: Implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol Appl. 2009;19(1):181–197. pmid:19323182
- 70. Zárrate-Charry DA, Massey AL, González-Maya JF, Betts MG. Multi-criteria spatial identification of carnivore conservation areas under data scarcity and conflict: a jaguar case study in Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Biodivers Conserv. 2018;27(13):3373–3392.
- 71. Fick SE, Hijmans RJ. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol. 2017;37(12):4302–4315.
- 72. Phillips SB, Aneja VP, Kang D, Arya SP. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Int J Glob Environ Issues. 2006;6(2–3):231–252.
- 73. Kass JM, Vilela B, Aiello-Lammens ME, Muscarella R, Merow C, Anderson RP. Wallace: A flexible platform for reproducible modeling of species niches and distributions built for community expansion. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018;9(4):1151–1156.
- 74. Phillips SJ, Dudík M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: New extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography. 2008;31(2):161–175.
- 75. Shcheglovitova M, Anderson RP. Estimating optimal complexity for ecological niche models: A jackknife approach for species with small sample sizes. Ecol Modell. 2013;269:9–17.
- 76. Merow C, Smith MJ, Silander JA. A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: What it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography (Cop). 2013;36(10):1058–1069.
- 77. Muscarella R, Galante PJ, Soley-Guardia M, Boria RA, Kass JM, Uriarte M, et al. ENMeval: An R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models. Methods Ecol Evol. 2014;5(11):1198–1205.
- 78. Warren DL, Seifert SN. Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: The importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. Ecol Appl. 2011;21(2):335–342. pmid:21563566
- 79. Giovanelli JGR, de Siqueira MF, Haddad CFB, Alexandrino J. Modeling a spatially restricted distribution in the Neotropics: How the size of calibration area affects the performance of five presence-only methods. Ecol Modell. 2010;221(2):215–224.
- 80.
IDEAM, SINCHI, IGAC, PNN, MADS. Mapa Nacional de Cobertura de la Tierra (periodo 2010–2012): Metodología CORINE Land Cover adaptada para Colombia escala 1:100.000. 2015.
- 81. Cavalcanti SMC, Gese EM. Spatial ecology and social interactions of jaguars (Panthera onca) in the southern pantanal, Brazil. J Mammal. 2009;90(4):935–945.
- 82. Soisalo MK, Cavalcanti SMC. Estimating the density of a jaguar population in the Brazilian Pantanal using camera-traps and capture-recapture sampling in combination with GPS radio-telemetry. Biol Conserv. 2006;129(4):487–496.
- 83. McRae B., Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology. 2008;89(10):2712–2724. pmid:18959309
- 84. Correa-Ayram CA, Etter A, Díaz-Timoté J, Rodríguez-Buriticá S, Ramírez W, Corzo G. Spatiotemporal evaluation of the human footprint in Colombia: Four decades of anthropic impact in highly biodiverse ecosystems. Ecol Indic. 2020;117:106630.
- 85.
McRae BH, Kavanagh DM. User guide: Linkage pathways tool of the linkage mapper toolbox. Seattle; 2011.
- 86.
McRae B, Kavanagh D. Linkage Mapper connectivity analysis software [Internet]. Seattle: The Nature Conservancy; 2011. https://linkagemapper.org.
- 87.
Zweig KA. Centrality indices. In: Brandes U, Erlebach T, editors. Network Analysis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2005. p. 243–76.
- 88. McRae BH, Hall SA, Beier P, Theobald DM. Where to restore ecological connectivity? detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits. PLoS One. 2012;7(12): e52604. pmid:23300719
- 89.
Mcrae B. Centrality mapper connectivity analysis software. Seattle; 2012.
- 90. Freirefilho R, Palmeirim JM. Potential distribution of and priority conservation areas for the Endangered Caatinga howler monkey Alouatta ululata in north-eastern Brazil. Oryx. 2020;54(6):794–802.
- 91. Peralvo MF, Cuesta F, Van Manen F. Delineating priority habitat areas for the conservation of Andean bears in northern Ecuador. Ursus. 2005;16(2):222–233.
- 92. Sutti F, Strong A, Perlut N. A multicriteria decision analysis for identifying priority conservation areas for grassland birds. Northeast Nat. 2017;24:99–118.
- 93.
RUNAP. Mapa de áreas protegidas de Colombia [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 Apr 13]. https://runap.parquesnacionales.gov.co/cifras
- 94. Morato RG, Stabach JA, Fleming CH, Calabrese JM, De Paula RC, Ferraz KMPM, et al. Space use and movement of a neotropical top predator: The endangered jaguar. PLoS One. 2016;11(12): e0168176. pmid:28030568
- 95.
(NGA) NGIA. Vector Map Level 0 [Internet]. 2000. https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/geospatial-data/vector-map-level-0-vmap0
- 96. Etter A, Wyngaarden W. Patterns of landscape transformation in Colombia, with emphasis in the Andean Region. R Swedish Acad Sci. 2016;29(7):432–439.
- 97.
Portocarrero-Aya M, Corzo G, Chavez M. Catálogo de biodiversidad para las regiones Andina, Pacífica y Piedemonte Amazónico. Nivel regional. Volumen 2 Tomo 1. Portocarrero-Aya, M Corzo, G Chavez, M.E. Bogotá D. C., Colombia: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt–Ecopetrol S.A; 2015. 175 p.
- 98. Zárrate-Charry DA, González-Maya JF, Arias-Alzate A, Jiménez-Alvarado JS, Reyes Arias JD, Armenteras D, et al. Connectivity conservation at the crossroads: protected areas versus payments for ecosystem services in conserving connectivity for Colombian carnivores. R Soc Open Sci. 2022;9(1): 201154. pmid:35242340
- 99. Ramírez Moreno G, Ledezma-Rentería E. Efectos de las actividades socio-económicas (minería y explotación maderera) sobre los bosques del departamento del Chocó. Rev Inst Univ Tecnológica del Chocó. 2007;26(1):58–65.
- 100.
Botero-Cruz A, Bohórquez-Galindo D, Mosquera-Guerra F, Parra-Sandoval C, Trujillo F, editors. Protocolo para la atención y el manejo del conclicto con felinos por depredación de animales domésticos en el departamento del Meta. Bogotá, D.C.: Cormacarena y Fundación Omacha; 2018. 80 p.
- 101.
González-Maya J, Zarrate-Charry D, Cepeda A, Balaguera-Reina S, Benítez-Gutiérrez A, Granados-Peña R, et al. Diagnóstico, evaluación y propuestas de solución a la problemática de conflictos ocasionados por jaguar (Panthera onca) y puma (Puma concolor) a actividades pecuarias en jurisdicción de la Corporación Autónoma Regional del Cesar—Corpocesa. Valledupar, Cesar, Colombia; 2010.
- 102.
González-Maya JF, Romero-Rendón JF, Zárrate-Charry DZ, Castaño-Uribe C, González M, Víquez-R LR, et al. Evaluación geográfica y prioridades de conservación de hábitat para felinos en el Caribe colombiano. In: Castaño-uribe C, González-Maya JF, Ange-jaramillo C, Zárrate-Charry D, Vela-Vargas M, editors. Plan de conservación de Felinos del Caribe colombiano. 2013. p. 77–87.
- 103. Granados-Peña R, Arias-Alzate A, Zárrate-Charry D, González-Maya JF. Una estrategia de conservación a escala regional para el jaguar (Panthera onca) en el distrito biogeográfico de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Rev Biodivers Neotrop. 2014;4(2):141–148.
- 104. Kindlmann P, Burel F. Connectivity measures: A review. Landsc Ecol. 2008;23:879–890.
- 105.
Thomas W, Angarita H, Delgado J. Hacia una gestión integral de la Cuenca y planicies inundables del Magdalena-Cauca. Foro Público: Para dónde va el río Magdalena -Foro Nacional ambiental. Bogotá D. C., Colombia; 2015.
- 106. Figel JJ, Botero-Cañola S, Forero-Medina G, Sánchez-Londoño JD, Valenzuela L, Noss RF. Wetlands are keystone habitats for jaguars in an intercontinental biodiversity hotspot. PLoS One. 2019;14(9): e0221705. pmid:31509559
- 107. Söndgerath D, Schröder B. Population dynamics and habitat connectivity affecting the spatial spread of populations–a simulation study. Ann Oper Res. 2002;17:57–70.
- 108.
Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Resolución 1447 de 2018. Por la cual se reglamenta el sistema de monitoreo, reporte y verificación de las acciones de mitigación a nivel nacional de que trata el artículo 175 de la Ley 1735 de 2015, y se dictan otras disposiciones. 2018. p. 1–34.
- 109.
Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Manual de compensaciones del componente biótico. Bogotá, D.C.; 2018. p. 1–56.
- 110.
Koprowski JL, González-Maya JF, Zarrate-Charry DA, Spencer C. Local Approaches and Community-Based Conservation. In: Koprowski JL, Krausman PR, editors. International Wildlife Management: Conservation Challenges in a Changing World. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2019. p. 198–207.
- 111. Christie MR, Knowles LL. Habitat corridors facilitate genetic resilience irrespective of species dispersal abilities or population sizes. Evol Appl. 2015;8(5):454–463. pmid:26029259