Vulnerability of mammals to land-use changes in Colombia’s post-conflict era

Abstract

Colombia, one of the most biodiverse countries in the world, is entering a peaceful period after more than fifty years of armed conflict. Due to land use changes resulting from this new situation, negative effects on biodiversity, including mammals are expected. We think that mammal populations will be more sensitive in municipalities where activities related to post-conflict will be carried out. In that order, we aim to: 1) identify which mammal species would be more sensitive and 2) identify the critical regions where there is higher richness of sensitive mammals. We used the distributions of 95 mammal taxa and calculated a sensitivity index by combining four factors: 1) the proportion of each species distribution within protected areas in relation to their proposed extinction thresholds, 2) the proportion within post-conflict municipalities, 3) the proportion of five types of potential land use in post-conflict municipalities and 4) the threat status of each species. Using this index, we drew a map of species richness for mammals classified at high-risk and very high-risk categories. Primates were the most sensitive group to post-conflict changes. Urabá and the region near to the Serranía de San Lucas were the areas with the highest richness of sensitive species. We suggest using primates as flagship species to carry out conservation schemes in the post-conflict era in programmes led by local farmers and former fighters who have been reintegrated into civilian life.

Effect of Site Attributes and Matrix Composition on Neotropical Primate Species Richness and Functional Traits: A Comparison Among Regions

“…At the regional level, the economic, social, political, and cultural context can have different influences on the matrix. For example, post-conflict areas can modify the land uses and make some areas within biodiversity hotspots more sensitive for primates [125]. For species with broad geographic range distributed in more than one sub-region (e.g., Ateles belzebuth, present in the Amazon and Orinoco; Alouatta belzebul, in the Amazon and Atlantic Forest; and Alouatta palliata in Mesoamerica and Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena) [126], we need to consider that deforestation rates are different among countries and forest types, and the amount of remaining natural habitat changes from one region to another [127,128].…”

Envisioning a resilient future for biodiversity conservation in the wake of the COVID‐19 pandemic

“…While habitat fragmentation and loss are common outcomes of perturbation, those that result in the curtailment of human activity can create de facto wildlife refuges, at least during the course of the perturbation (Annecke & Masubelele, 2016;Calle-Rendon et al, 2018;Coates, 2014;Constantinou et al, 2020;Conteh et al, 2017;Lawrence et al, 2015;Lindenmayer et al, 2016;Lindsell et al, 2011). Gains for conservation through de facto protection or F I G U R E 1 A conservation issue highlighted or driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, by case study site.…”

“…However, in locations where enforcement capacity was reduced or communities were driven to unsustainably harvest resources due to a loss of livelihood opportunities or declines in trade, habitat integrity was compromised (Lindsey et al, 2020, Schwartz et al, 2020; CS2, Table 1). land abandonment may, however, be negated by tactical habitat destruction or settlement of populations in highly diverse habitats elsewhere (Calle-Rendon et al, 2018;Yong Sung et al, 2019). Long-term refuges have also been created from changing political, economic and technical fortunes (Agyeman & Ogneva-Himmelberger, 2009;Bragina et al, 2015;Hostert et al, 2011).…”

“…research and enhanced partnerships with local institutions, development agencies and regional/national government, with the aim of finding innovative ways of dealing with complex conservation challenges resulting from the perturbation (Butsic et al, 2015;Brito et al, 2018;Calle-Rendon et al, 2018;Conteh et al, 2017;Dudley et al, 2002). Research into zoonotic disease called for holistic approaches to understand the links between zoonotic transmission, public health and biodiversity loss (Cunningham et al, 2017;De Vos et al, 2016;Wood et al, 2017), while studies of conflict-hit regions highlighted the need to understand not only the opportunities but also the challenges that peace and rebuilding bring for conservation and natural resource management (Grima & Singh, 2019;Zúñiga-Upegui et al, 2019).…”

Use of macroecology to integrate social justice and conservation

“…Macroecological methods also can be used to examine potential relations between climate and violence among humans, which can have cascading negative or positive effects on species and ecosystems (e.g., Calle‐Rendon, Moreno, & Hilário, ; Daskin & Pringle, ; Francis, ; Lawrence, Stemberger, Zolderdo, Struthers, & Cooke, ). The first synthesis of literature on climate‐driven conflicts concluded that substantial deviations from long‐term average precipitation and temperature were associated with increases in the frequency of violence and conflict between individuals and populations (Hsiang, Burke, & Miguel, ).…”