j simoneti estamos cumpliendo

8/12/2019 J Simoneti Estamos Cumpliendo

1/10

CONSERVACIN BIOLGICA EN CHILE 161

Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 84: 161-170, 2011 Sociedad de Biologa de Chile

SPECIAL FEATURE: APPLYING ECOLOGY

REVISTA CHILENA DE HISTORIA NATURAL

Conservation biology in Chile: Are we fulfilling our social contract?

Conservacin biolgica en Chile: Estamos cumpliendo nuestro contrato social?

JAVIER A. SIMONETTI

Departamento de Ciencias Ecolgicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 653, Santiago, Chileemail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Biodiversity conservation needs to be informed by science. On this regard, scientific efforts ought to be allocated totackle research priorities; offer sound and explicit advice, and results ought to be translated into conservation plansand programs. If such conditions are met, scientists would be fulfilling their social contract, sensu Lubchenco. In

this brief essay I analyze the fulfillment of such a contract in Chile. In general, the scarce priorities set foraddressing conservation issues are not considered, only a third of scientific publications in conservation-relatedissues offer explicit advice and a minor fraction of relevant scientific information is considered in the preparation ofconservation plans. Current mismatch between conservation science and practice weakens longstanding efforts toachieve an effective conservation of the Chilean biota. Suggestions are advanced to close the gap.

Key words:conservation practice, conservation research.

RESUMEN

La conservacin de la biodiversidad requiere apoyo cientfico. En este sentido, desde el mbito cientfico sedeberan destinar esfuerzos para abordar las prioridades de investigacin, ofrecer recomendaciones explcitas, y losresultados de la investigacin cientfica deberan ser incorporados a los planes y programas de investigacin. Decumplirse estos pasos, los cientficos estaran satisfaciendo su contrato social, sensu Lubchenco. En este breveensayo analizo el cumplimiento de tal contrato en Chile. En general, el escaso conjunto de prioridades existente no

ha sido abordado, solamente un tercio de las publicaciones cientficas en temas de conservacin biolgica ofrecenconsejo explcito y una fraccin menor de la informacin relevante y pertinente es considerada en la elaboracin deplanes y programas de conservacin. El desacople entre la ciencia y la prctica de la conservacin debilita esfuerzosde larga data tendientes a lograr una efectiva conservacin de la biota chilena. Para intentar cerrar esta brecha,ofrezco algunas sugerencias.

Palabras clave:ciencia de la conservacin, conservacin en la prctica.

INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity loss is a biological issue of socialrelevance. The extinction of biological diversity

alters the composition, structure and dynamicsof the biota as well as the provision of goodsand services for Humankind (MillenniumEcosystem Assessment 2005). Sound andeffective biodiversity conservation dependsupon policy and regulatory frameworks, whichin turn ought to be science and evidence-based(Soul 1995, Sutherland et al. 2004, 2009).Indeed, the conservation of biodiversityrequires scientific and technical knowledge toproperly inform policy and decision-making in

order to maintain life-support systems, topreserve genetic diversity and to allow thesustainable use of species and ecosystems

(IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991). This processinvolves at least three stages ranging from thegenesis to the implementation of information,including setting research priorities and

performing research accordingly, the proposalof recommendations for policy or specificactions derived from research results, and theadoption and implementation of theserecommendations by conservation agencies(Lubchenco et al. 1991). In doing so, scientistswill be addressing a pressing environmentalproblem in a socially responsible manner. Thatis, scientists will be fulfilling its social contract:allocating intelligence and resources to acritical environmental issue in exchange for

public funding (Lubchenco 1998).Ecology and other biological sciences

enhances our understanding of factors that


2/10

162 SIMONETTI

impinge upon the distribution and abundance oforganisms, including the changes broughtabout by human activities over all biodiversitycomponents and levels. Therefore, they cancontribute theoretical and empirical knowledgeto inform public policies and to strength

decision-making for an effective biodiversityconservation (Erhlich & Wilson 1991). This isparticularly critical as research in conservation-related topics has been often disconnected fromreal-world problems, with low effectiveness,weakening their implementation due to lowbiological foundations (Svankara et al. 2005,Robinson 2006). In fact, the 2010 target of theConvention of Biological Diversity, thereduction of the rate at which biodiversity islost, was not achieved. To enhance the

implementation of the Convention, it is aimedthat by 2020 knowledge, the science base andtechnologies relating to biodiversity, its values,functioning, status, and trends, are improved(Perrings et al. 2010).

The loss of biodiversity is recognized as anenvironmental problem in Chile (Simonetti1994). In fact, Chile has a long standingtradition in the conservation of its biologicaldiversity. Concerns and regulations to protectit started in Colonial times, currently arrangedin a wide array of policies, laws and otherregulations, including the enactment of aNational Biodiversity Strategy, and explicitpolicies for the Protection of EndangeredSpecies and Protected Areas among others,and programs for the protection and recoveryof several endangered species (Ormazbal1993, Simonetti 2002). The commitment toNatures protection is also reflected in theallocation of approximately 19 % of thecontinental surface to parks, reserves andother type of protected units (Rovira et al.2005). Despite these efforts, regardingconservation of biodiversity and its habitat,Chile performs lower than countries in theAm ericas and lo wer as wel l comp ared tocountries of similar GDP. In fact, onenvironmental issues, biodiversity depicts thelowest performance compared to otherenvironmental policy categories such as airpollution, climate change and environmentalhealth (Esty et al. 2008). Further, Chile hasbeen requested to build the scientific basisneeded for the management of biodiversity.However, efforts to date have not received

support enough to cope with the long-termthreats menacing Chilean biological diversity(OECD 2005).

Interestingly, scientific productivity intopics relevant for biodiversity conservationsuch as forestry and fisheries management,

environmental management and protectedareas has steadily increased in the last decades(Fig. 1). Scientists devoted to biodiversityconservation comprise around 5 % of Chileanscientists in environmental sciences (Arroyo etal. 2006). The point is then, how relevant anduseful their research has been for informingpolicy and practice of Chilean biodiversityconservation. That is, to what extent Chileanresearchers are fulfilling their social contract(sensu Lubchenco 1998). Within this

framework, in this essay I will briefly reviewthe three stages associated to this contract: (a)whether research priorities (if any) have beendully attended, (b) whether research carriedout offers explicit advice to deal with aconservation issue, and (c) whether availablescientif ic information is adopted in theformulation and implementation ofconservation plans and programs. Thisoverview will enables us to test whether thereis a matching between the conservationscience and practice in Chile.

DO WE FOCUS ON RESEARCH PRIORITIES?

Lack of information is a menace to the survivalof species. In fact, data deficiency regardingpopulation trends and distribution is animpediment to establish the status of the biota(UICN 2001). The assessment of threateningprocesses, population dynamics andcommunity interactions ought to bestrengthened to prepare and carry outconservation plans (Mace et al. 2001). To setexplicit priorities, be they topics or speciescontributes to solve this problem, aiding tofocus intelligence and resources on criticalissues. Next, I present two examples regardingthe consideration of research priorities for theconservation of Chilean biodiversity. The firstone refers to research on endangered albeitscarcely known species. The second one refersto ecosystem services.

In 1985, the Corporacin Nacional Forestal(CONAF), through an expert workshop


3/10


including natural scientists, assessed theconservation status of Chilean trees andshrubs species. At the same time, researchpriorities were established listing speciesrequiring urgent studies to adequately ensuretheir conservation (Benoit 1989). A total of 11

species were listed as priority: Avel lani tabusti l losi i Phil . (Euphorbiaceae),Beilschsmiedia berteroana (Gay) Kos.(Lauraceae), Berberidopsis corallina Hook. F.(Flacourtiaceae), Berberis l i toralis Phil .(Berberidaceae), Dalea azurea (Phil.) Reiche(Papil ionaceae), Gomortega keule (Mol.)Baillon (Gomortegaceae), Metharme lanataPhil. (Zygophyllaceae), Nothofagus alessandriiEsp. (Fagaceae), Pitavia punctata (R. et P.)Mol. (Rutaceae),Reichea coquimbensis (Barn.)

Kaus. (Myrtaceae) and Valdivia gayana Remy(Escallonaceae) (Benoit 1989). To test thematching between the establishment ofpriorities and the subsequent researchactivities, along with two students, L. Caldernand F. Zorondo, we compared the publicationrate of scientific articles regarding the 11threatened species before (1950-1988) andafter (1990-2002). As a contrasting group, weanalyzed publication rate on two species with

no conservation problem (Aristotelia chilensis(Mol.) Stuntz and Nothofagus pumilio (Poepp.et Endl.) Krasser). If listing priority species forresearch is being dully addressed, publicationrate ought to have increased significantlythrough time, at a higher pace than that for

non-endangered species.Rather than comprehensive reviews, this

and other literature perusals in this essay aimto be illustrative of the state of the art inconservation science in Chile. For researchcarried out in Red Listed species, literatureperusal included ISI Web of Knowledge,EBSCO and SciELO listed journals, along otherChilean journals of natural history, botany andother covering a time spam from 1955 to 2005.Regardless of the topic, all publications dealing

with a listed species were tallied. Publications,despite being scant in numbers, increased afterthe workshop. However, research efforts areskewed, publications focusing largely on G.keuleandN. alessandrii (e.g., Torres-Daz et al.2007, Garca-Gonzlez et al. 2008). Otherspecies, like D. azurea have received eitherlittle or no direct attention. The increase inpublication rate of endangered species ismodest compared with that exhibited by control

Fig. 1: Chilean scientific productivity. Figures are the number of ISI publications for (a) forestry manage-

ment (open circle), (b) fisheries management (open triangle), (c) environmental management (closed trian-gle), and (d) protected areas in Chile (closed circle; data from ISI Web of Knowledge, November 2010).

Productividad cientfica chilena. Valores son el nmero de publicaciones ISI en: (a) manejo forestal, (b) manejo pesquero,(c) manejo ambiental, y (d) reas protegidas (datos de ISI Web of Knowledge, noviembre de 2010).


4/10

164 SIMONETTI

species. In fact, publication rate forA. chilensisand N. pumilio was significantly higher after1985, year when Chilean experts claimed forincreased attention in the suite of 11endangered species (Fig. 2). That is, despitethe agreed set of priorities, research including

that carried out by scientists attending theworkshop has focused in species other thanthe ones in critical need of information tostrength any conservation action.

Lower likelihood to obtain funding andworking with small samples that mightincrease difficulty to publish, among otherfactors, might bias studies against endangeredspecies, exacerbating their risk of extinction(e.g., McKinney 1999, Stein et al. 2002).Therefore, i f priority l ist ing is not

accompanied by competitive funds to supportresearch on endangered species, information

needed to enhance their conservation mightnot be gathered at the required rate. Hence,despite pioneer efforts to agree a researchagenda on a handful of species, suchagreement did not foster the research activitythat species prioritization was aimed, quite

possibly as there were no specific questionsnor funding for such research. Attendingworld, nation and sector ia l-wide ef forts toestablish critical scientific questions of policyrelevance (e.g. , Nicholson et al . 2009,Sutherland et al. 2009), a similar set could beestablished for enhancing the level of activityand effectiveness of Chilean research aimed toconserve its biota.

Human well-being depends on ecosystemservices. Such services are an outcome of

ecosystem functioning (Daz et al. 2006). Toproperly understand and inform management

Fig. 2:Scientific productivity. Figures are the publication rate (publications/yr) for species listed as priorityfor studies compared to control ones (see text) prior to and after their l isting as priority.

Productividad cientfica. Valores son la tasa de publicacin (nmero de publicaciones/ao) para especies listadas comoprioritarias para estudios comparadas con especies control (vase texto) antes y despus de ser listadas como prioritarias.


5/10


of ecosystem services, research at theecosystem level ought to be frequent (e.g.,Daily et al. 2009). This is particularly criticalwhen payment for ecosystem services isregarded as a conservation tool, includingChile (e.g., Cabrera 2010). A review of the

level of organization studied in conservation-related research indicates this is not yet thecase in Chile.

Scientific articles published during 2000-2007 in top conservation and managementrelated journals (Conservation Biology,Biological Conservation, Biodiversity andConservation, Oryx, Fisheries Management andEcology, Forest Ecology and Management,Rangeland Ecology and Management, WetlandsEcology and Management, Journal of Wildlife

Management, Ecological Applications andJournal of Applied Ecology) focused largely onthe species-population level (Fig. 3).Ecosystem-level studies accounted for 1 % ofpublications, while nearly 60 % dealt with singlespecies population-level (including geneticstudies, followed by species assemblages- andcommunity-level studies (Fig. 3).

Research has largely focused on forests,particularly temperate ones, which account for46 % of studies while aquatic environs accountfor 22 % of studies. A third of publicationsdescribe distribution or abundance of one ormore taxa, with another fifth of studies tackling

aspects of the species biology. Just sevenpercent of publications are dealing with threatsto biodiversity and around 1 % is dealing withtheir management. The most common threatsstudies are habitat fragmentation, extraction,introduced species and small sizes. Thesestudies have focused on issues considered themost pressing and challenging ones forbiodiversity conservation across theNeotropical region (Ceballos et al. 2009), albeittackling them mostly in descriptive ways (see

Grez et al. 2006 for a review of the ecology offragmented environs). Further, understandingof ecosystem processes cannot be interpolatedfrom population- and community-level studies.The rate of a given ecosystem process forinstance, might or might not be a function ofspecies richness and composition, nor all moreabundant populations account for the largest

Fig. 3:Proportion of studies dealing with different organization levels of the Chilean biodiversity. See text forsources. Population-level includes species level studies as well.

Proporcin de estudios segn nivel de organizacin analizado en publicaciones sobre la biodiversidad de Chile. Vase textopara las fuentes.


6/10


7/10


Conservation, Biodiversity and Conservation,and Oryx. The second group includes fivejournals dealing with management of naturalresources: Fisheries Management andEcology, Forest Ecology and Management,Rangeland Ecology and Management,

Wetlands Ecology and Management andJournal of Wildlife Management. A third groupconsiders two journals in applied Ecology:Ecological Applications and Journal of AppliedEcology.

Twenty-eight percent of publicationscontains an explicit recommendation (sensuFazey et al . 2005). Publications inmanagement-oriented journals contains aproportion of publications with conservationmessages 1.3 times higher than conservation

or applied ecology journals (Fig. 4).Interestingly, the fraction of Chileanpublications offering direct advice (e.g. ,Ullenberg et al. 2006) resembles those of theconservation community world-wide (Fazey etal. 2005). The lack of explicit messages furtherreduces the chances to significantly contributeto biodiversity conservation. If messages arenot explicit, it is unlikely that policy makersand managers will invest efforts to reach forinformation in difficult to access sources, asscientific journals represent for them (Pullin etal. 2004). Coupled to a reduced spectrum ofpublications referring to prirotity issues, thescant advice provided determines that thesecond component of the social contract(sensu Lubchenco) is only partially satisfied,further undermining the options to effectivelyconserve Chilean biodiversity.

IS SCIENCE CONSIDERED IN POLICY AND

PRACTICE?

Relevant information generated by scientificresearch ought to be dully considered andincorporated into policy and programs, inorder to strength its likelihood of success.Determining alternative action paths, selectingamong them, setting biologically meaningfuland verifiable objectives are activities thatscientif ic information can contribute tobiodiversity conservation (Sutherland et al.2004). Here, I analyze if that is the case inChile, reviewing a selected set of biodiversityconservation plans and programs. Like in

Australia and UK however, most plans andprograms are experience- rather thanevidence-based (Sutherland et al. 2004, Cooket al. 2010). I support this claim based on theinformation used to support conservation plansfor four endangered species, one management

plan for a small reserve, and two regionalbiodiversity regional strategies as examples.

Gomortega keule, Pitavia punctata,Chinchilla lanigera (Molina, 1782) andCyanoliseus patagonus Olson, 1995 are fourendangered species with conservation plansunderway (Galaz 2005a, 2005b, Maldonado &Benoit 2005, Vila & Benoit 2005). To avoidproblems related to accessibility to information,I tallied scientific publications freely availableon websites, on topics that directly impinge

upon the species management, usually referringto distribution, abundance, ecology, geneticsand physiology. Even tough, at best 30 % ofavailable scientific information is used tosupport the species status, diagnose theirthreats, and advance solutions (Fig. 5).Similarly, only 50 % of the technical work usedto support the management plan of the reservebound to protect G. keuleare scientific articles.Half the supporting information is internalreports of CONAF, the entity charged with itsadministration (CONAF 1999). Finally, tworegional strategies illuminate problems and apotential solution. The Estrategia Regional yPlan de Accin para la conservacin y usosustentable de la diversidad biolgica de laRegin de Antofagasta issued in 2002(available online at Ministerio del MedioAmbiente web site http://www.mma.gob.cl)does not include any scientific or technicalreference to sustain the proposal. This fact is instriking contrast with efforts deployed by theComisin Nacional de Investigacin Cientfica yTecnolgica (CONICYT), another public entity,to unravel biodiversity structure andfunctioning in the region, though theTerrestrial and Marine biomes and climates ofnorthern Chile Program, whose main resultswere published in 1998 in a widely known andaccessible journal: Revista Chilena de HistoriaNatural. On the other hand, the EstrategiaRegional y Plan de Accin de la biodiversidadIV Regin Coquimbo relies on nine out of over100 scientific papers on the regional biota.Interestingly, 67 % of the cited works are booksor book chapters, published in Spanish (e.g.,


8/10

168 SIMONETTI

Cepeda et al. 2000). Reviews, synthesizing mainfindings and proposals are more likely to beconsidered, and should be encouraged as a wayto expedite communication between scienceand practice (Sutherland et al. 2004, Fazey et al.2005). Like in the other two topics: research

priorities and recommendations, inimplementation of scientific knowledge we haveyet to deliver. Publishing reviews as booksmight be such a bridge.

FINAL COMMENTS

Biodiversity conservation is inherentlyassociated with Human welfare (Sachs et al.2009). Chile has advanced on assessing its

biodiversity and carrying out conservationefforts (Ormazbal 1993, Simonetti et al. 1995,Simonetti 2002). However, these efforts havenot been dully supported in order to build thescientific basis needed for its conservation(OECD 2005). Rather than a problem ofeconomic resources, the lack of political willseems to hamper conservation efforts(Asmssen & Simonetti 2007). This lack of willalso involves the low commitment of thescientif ic community into grasping thefundamental questions that are required to

elaborate and implement policy andmanagement actions for biodiversityconservation. Research carried out byscientists devoted to biodiversity conservation,despite ranging over a wide array of topics,types of organisms, habitats and geographic

regions, and being published in highly visibleoutlets for the Academia, fails to engage inquestions that are of interest to policy-makingor managerial actions, scarcely offeringexplicit recommendations. These factorsundermine the institutionalization ofknowledge and experience.

An outstanding example ofinstitutionalization of solid basic scientific workinto regulatory frameworks is depicted byresearch regarding the ecology and exploitation

of benthic resources (Castilla 1994). Thisresearch highlight that applied-inspired basicresearch (Pasteurs quadrant sensu Stokles1997) simultaneously advances knowledge andimmediate applications. Greater communicationbetween policy makers and scientists istherefore required in order to agree on thosefundamental questions of policy relevance,which properly financed, ought to mobilizeintelligence and resources and expediteimplementation. Doing so, we might increasethe fulfillment of our social contract.

Fig. 5: Incorporation of scientific knowledge: proportion of available publications used to support conserva-tion plans of Chilean species.

Incorporacin de conocimiento cientfico: proporcin de publicaciones disponibles empleadas para apoyar la elaboracinde planes de conservacin de especies chilenas.


9/10


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: This essay is partially basedon the Patricio Snchez Conference, offered at the IIIReunin Binacional de Ecologa, La Serena 2007. Ideeply thank Sociedad de Ecologa de Chile for thehonor. I am indebted to Audrey A. Grez, Gabriela andSebastin Simonetti for their encouragement, supportand love. Our work on conservation ecology hasbenefited from discussion with several colleagues,

including R. Dirzo, C. Estades, A. Grez, B. Saavedraand R. Serrano, whose insights I appreciate. Our workon the ecology and conservation of the Chilean biotahas been supported by Fondecyt, most recentlythrough grant 1095046. A shorter version of this workhas been published as a chapter in TropicalConservation: views from within (N S Sodhi and P HRaven, eds), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK (in press).The authors thank the Centro Nacional del MedioAmbiente CENMA, Chile, for funding the publicationcost of the article.

LITERATURE CITED

AS M SS EN MV & JA SI MONE TT I (2 00 7) Can adeveloping country l ike Chile invest inbiodiversity conservation? EnvironmentalConservation 34: 183-185.

ARRYO MTK, J ARMESTO, F BOZ INO VIC, LCAVIERES, J GUTIERRES et al. (2006) Cienciasambientales: Diagnstico y mirada hacia elfuturo. In: Allende J, J Babul, S Martnez & TUreta (eds) Anlisis y proyecciones de la cienciachilena 2005: 295-331. Academia Chilena deCiencias, Santiago.

BENOIT IL (ed) (1989) Libro Rojo de la flora terrestrede Chile. Corporacin Nacional Forestal.Impresora Creces, Santiago.

CABRERA J (ed) (2010) El estado del arte del pago porservicios ambientales en Chile. InstitutoForestal, Valdivia.

CASTILLA JC (1994) The Chilean small-scale benthicshellfisheries and institutionalization of newmanagement practices. Ecology InternationalBulletin 21: 47-63.

CEBALLOS G, MM VALE, C BONACIC, J CALVO-ALVARADO, R LIST et al. (2009) Conservationchallenges for the Austral and NeotropicalAmerica section. Conservation Biology 23: 811-817.

CEPEDA J, C ZULETA & R OSORIO (2000) Regin de

Coquimbo: Biodiversidad y ecosistemasterrestres. Ediciones Universidad de La Serena,La Serena, Chile.

CONAF (1999) Plan de manejo de la Reserva NacionalLos Queules. Documento de Trabajo No. 314,Corporacin Nacional Forestal, Talca.

COOK CN, M HOCKINGS & RW CARTER (2010)Conservation in the dark? The information usedto support management decisions. Frontiers inEcology and Environment 8: 181-186.

DAILY GC, S POLASKY, J GOLDSTEIN, PM KAREIVA,HA MOONEY et al. (2009) Ecosystem services indecision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers inEcology and Environment 7: 21-28.

DI CASTRI F (2000) Ecology in a context of economic

globalization. BioScience 50: 321-332.DAZ S, J FARGIONE J, FS CHAPIN III & D TILMAN

(2006) Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biology 4: e277.

EHRLICH PR & EO WILSON (1991) Biodiversitystudies: Science and policy. Science 253: 758-762.

ESTADES C (2008) Investigacin para la conservacinde la biodiversidad. In: CONAMA (ed)Biodiversidad de Chile: Patrimonio y desafos:609-611. Segunda edicin, Ocho Libros Editores,Santiago.

ESTY DC, MA LEVY, CH KIM, A DE SHERBININ, TSREBOTNJAK & V MARA (2008) Environmentalperformance index. Yale Center forEnvironmental Law and Policy, New Haven.

FAZEY I, J FISCHER & DB LINDENMAYER (2005)What do conservat ion biologists publish?Biological Conservation 124: 63-73.

GALAZ JL (ed) (2005) Plan nacional de conservacinde la chinchilla Chilena, Chinchilla laniger(Molina, 1782), en Chile. Corporacin NacionalForestal, Santiago.

GALAZ JL (ed) (2005) Plan nacional de conservacindel tricahue, Cyanoliseus patagonus bloxamiOlson, 1995, en Chile. Corporacin Nacional

Forestal, Santiago.GARCA-GONZLES R, B CARRASCO, PPEAILILLO, L LETELIER, R HERRERA, BLAVANDERO, M MOYA & PSD CALIGARI(2008) Genetic variability and structure ofGomortega keule (Molina) Baillon(Gomortegaceae) relict populations:Geographical and genetic fragmentation and itsimplications for conservation. Botany 86: 1299-1310.

GREZ AA, JA SIMONETTI & RO BUSTAMANTE (eds)(2006) Biodiversidad en ambientesfragmentados de Chile: Patrones y procesos adiferentes escalas. Editorial Universitaria,Santiago.

IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List categories and criteria:Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission.IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.

IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991) Caring for the Earth. Astrategy for sustainable living. Gland.

LUBCHENCO J (1998) Entering the century of theenvironment: A new social contract for science.Science 279: 491-497.

LUBCHENCO J, AM OLSON, LB BRUBAKER, SRCARPENTER, MM HOLLAND et al. (1991) TheSustainable Biosphere Initiative: An ecologicalresearch agenda. Ecology 72: 371-412.

MACE GM, JEM BAILLIE, SR BEISSINGER & KHREDFORD (2001) Assessment and managementof species at risk. In: Soul ME & GH Orians(eds) Conservation biology. Research prioritiesfor the next decade: 11-29. Island Press,Washington, DC.

MALDONADO E & I BENOIT (eds) (2005) Plannacional de conservacin del pitao, Pi tav ia

punctata (Ruiz et Pavn) Mol., en Chile. In:Planes nacionales de conservacin del queule,Gomortega keule (Mol.) Baillon, y pitao, Pitavia

punctata (Ruiz et Pavn) Mol., en Chile: 28-44.Corporacin Nacional Forestal, Santiago.

MCKINNEY ML (1999) High rates of extinction andthreat in poorly studied taxa. ConservationBiology 13: 1273 -1281.

MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT (2005)

Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversitysynthesis. World Resources Institute,Washington, DC.

NICHOLSON E, G MACE, P ARMSWORTH, G


10/10

170 SIMONETTI

ATKINSON, S BUCKLE et al. (2009). Priori tyresearch areas for ecosystem services in achanging world. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:1139-1144.

OECD (2005) Environmental Performance Reviews -Chile. Organization for Economic Developmentand Co-operation. OECD Publishing, Paris.

ORMAZBAL C (1993) The conservation of

biodiversity in Chile. Revista Chilena de HistoriaNatural 66: 383-402.PERRINGS C, S NAEEM, F AHRESTANI, DE

BUNKER, P BURKILL et al. (2010) Ecosystemservices for 2020. Science 330: 323-324.

PULLIN AS, TM KNIGHT, DA STONE & KCHARMAN (2004) Do conservation managersuse scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation 119: 245-252.

ROBINSON JG (2006) Conservation biology and real-world conservat ion. Conservation Biology 20:658-669.

ROVIRA J, D LVAREZ, K MOLT & D ORTEGA (2008)reas protegidas en Chi le. In: CONAMA (ed)

Biodiversidad de Chile: Patrimonio y desafos:512-559. Segunda edicin, Ocho Libros Editores,Santiago.

SACHS JD, JEM BAILLIE, WJ SUTHERLAND, PRARMSWORTH, N ASH et al. (2009) Biodiversityconservation and the millennium developmentgoals. Science 325: 1502-1503.

SALA OE, WK LAUENROTH, SJ McNAUGHTON, GRUSH & X ZHANG (1996) Biodiversity andecosystem functioning in grasslands. In: MooneyHA, JH Cushman, E Medina, OE Sala & EDSchulze (eds) Functional role of biodiversity: Aglobal perspective: 129-149. Wiley & Sons,Chichester.

SIMONETT JA (1994) Threatened biodiversity as an

environmental problem in Chile. Revista Chilenade Historia Natural 67: 315-319.SIMONETTI JA (2002) Diversidad biolgica. In: Gligo

G (ed) Estado del medio ambiente en Chile2002: 161-195. LOM Ediciones, Santiago.

SIMONETTI JA, MK ARROYO, AE SPOTORNO & ELOZADA (1995) Diversidad biolgica de Chile.

Comit Nacional de Diversidad Biolgica,Comisin Nacional de Investigacin Cientfica yTecnolgica de Chile, Santiago.

STOKES DE (1997) Pasteurs quadrant. Basic scienceand technological innovation. BrookingsInstitution Press, Washington DC.

SOULE ME (1985) What is conservation biology?BioScience 35: 727-734.

STEIN BA, LL MASTER & LE MORSE (2002)Taxonomic bias and vulnerable species. Science297: 1807.

SUTHERLAND WJ, AS PULLIN, PM DOLMAN & TMKNIGHT (2004) The need for evidence-basedconservation. Trend in Ecology and Evolution19: 305-308.

SUTHERLAND WJ, WM ADAMS, RB ARONSON, RAVELING, TM BLACKBURN et al. (2009) Onehundred quest ions of importance to theconservation of global biological diversity.Conservation Biology 23: 557-567.

SVANCARA LA, R BRANNON, JM SCOTT, CRGROVES, RF NOSS & RL PRESSEY (2005)

Policy-driven versus evidence-basedconservation: A review of political targets andbiological needs. BioScience 55: 989-995.

TORRES-DAZ C, E RUIZ, F GONZLEZ, G FUENTES& LA CAVIERES (2007) Genetic diversity in

Nothofagus alessandrii (Fagaceae), anendangered endemic tree species of the coastalMaulino forest of Central Chile. Annals ofBotany 100: 75-82.

ULLENBERG U, T MATTERN, PJ SEDDON & GLUNA (2006) Physiological and reproductiveconsequences of human disturbance inHumboldt penguins: The need for species-specif ic visitor management. BiologcalConservation 133: 95-106.

VILLA A & I BENOIT (eds) (2005) Plan nacional deconservacin del queule, Gomortega keule(Mol.)Baillon, en Chile. In: Planes nacionales deconservacin del queule, Gomortega keule(Mol.)Baillon, y pitao,Pitavia punctata(Ruiz et Pavn)Mol., en Chile: 5-27. Corporacin NacionalForestal, Santiago.

Associate Editor: Rodrigo Ramos-Jiliberto

Received April 4, 2011; accepted June 10, 2011

j simoneti estamos cumpliendo

Documents