planning to save a species: the jaguar as a model...in tropical forests or only in tropical forests...

Conservation in Practice

58

Conservation Biology, Pages 58–72Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002

Planning to Save a Species: the Jaguar as a Model

ERIC W. SANDERSON,*‡ KENT H. REDFORD,* CHERYL-LESLEY B. CHETKIEWICZ,* RODRIGO A. MEDELLIN,† ALAN R. RABINOWITZ,* JOHN G. ROBINSON,* AND ANDREW B. TABER*

*Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, U.S.A. †Instituto de Ecologia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Aparto Postal 70–275, 04510 D.F., Mexico

Abstract:

International conservation planning at the end of the twentieth century is dominated by coarse-filter,supra-organismal approaches to conservation that may be insufficient to conserve certain species such as the jag-uar (

Panthera onca

). If we are to retain broadly distributed species into the next century, we need to plan explic-itly for their survival across their entire geographic range and through political boundaries while recognizing thevariety of ecological roles the species plays in different habitats. In March 1999 the Wildlife Conservation Societysponsored a priority-setting and planning exercise for the jaguar across its range, from northern Mexico to north-ern Argentina. Field scientists from 18 countries reached consensus on four types of information: (1) the spatialextent of their jaguar knowledge, (2) the known, currently occupied range of jaguars, (3) areas with substantialjaguar populations, adequate habitat, and a stable and diverse prey base, and (4) point localities where jaguarshave been observed during the last 10 years. During the exercise, these experts also conducted a range-wide as-sessment of the long-term survival prospects of the jaguar and developed an algorithm for prioritizing jaguarconservation units occurring in major habitat types. From this work, we learned that the known, occupied rangeof the jaguar has contracted to approximately 46% of estimates of its 1900 range. Jaguar status and distributionis unknown in another 12% of the jaguar’s former range, including large areas in Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil.But over 70% of the area where jaguars are thought to still occur was rated as having a high probability of sup-porting their long-term survival. Fifty-one jaguar conservation units representing 30 different jaguar geographicregions were prioritized as the basis for a comprehensive jaguar conservation program.

Planeación para Salvar una Especie: El Jaguar como Modelo

Resumen:

La planeación de la conservación internacional al final del siglo veinte esta dominada por en-foques de grano grueso, supra-organísmicas que pueden ser insuficientes para conservar ciertas especiescomo el jaguar (

Panthera onca

). Si hemos de mantener especies ampliamente distribuidas en el próximo si-glo, necesitamos planificar su supervivencia explícitamente en todo su rango geográfico a través de límitespolíticos al mismo tiempo que se reconozca la variedad de funciones ecológicas de las especies en diferenteshábitats. En marzo de 1999 la Sociedad de Conservación de Vida Silvestre promovió un ejercicio dedefinición de prioridades y de planeación para el jaguar en todo su rango de distribución, desde el norte deMéxico hasta el norte de Argentina. Científicos de 18 países llegaron a consensos en cuatro tipos de infor-mación: (1) la extensión espacial de su conocimiento del jaguar, (2) el rango conocido, actualmente ocupadopor el jaguar, (3) áreas con poblaciones importantes, hábitat adecuado y una base de presas estable y di-versa y (4) localidades en las que se han observado jaguares durante los últimos 10 años. Durante el ejerci-cio, estos expertos también hicieron una evaluación de la supervivencia a largo plazo del jaguar en todo surango y desarrollaron un algoritmo para priorizar unidades de conservación del jaguar en los tipos de hábi-tat más importantes. De este trabajo, aprendimos que el rango del jaguar conocido y ocupado se ha con-traído aproximadamente al 46% de su rango estimado

circa

de 1900. El estatus del jaguar y su distribuciónen otro 12% del rango anterior, incluyendo extensas áreas en México, Colombia y Brasil. Sin embargo, másdel 70% del área donde se piensa que todavía ocurre el jaguar fue considerada con una alta probabilidad desoportar la supervivencia a largo plazo. Se priorizaron 51 unidades de conservación representando 30 re-

giones diferentes como la base para un sólido programa de conservación del jaguar.

‡

email [email protected] submitted August 14, 2000; revised manuscript accepted April 25, 2001.

Conservation BiologyVolume 16, No. 1, February 2002

Sanderson et al. Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar

59

Introduction

Over the last 100 years the theory and practice of conserva-tion has evolved from strategies originally intended to pre-serve natural resources or awe-inspiring scenery (Callicott1990) to an intense concern for conserving biodiversity inall its facets, including genetic and species diversity and thediversity of ecosystem structure and function ( Redford &Richter 1999). This evolution has been driven by the dis-coveries of twentieth century science that have revealedthe vast diversity of biological species and the intricate andsubtle ways in which organisms interact with one anotherand with human beings—and that have thus engenderedhorror at so many species being lost through human hasteand greed (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1981; Mann & Plummer1995). At the end of the twentieth century, the new para-digm of conservation is biodiversity writ large, includinggenetic, ecosystem, and landscape perspectives.

Simultaneous with this increasing emphasis on biodiver-sity in all its components has been an increase in the scaleof planning for conservation work, typically through mech-anisms that emphasize entities other than the populationor the species as a target for conservation effort (Noss1991; Salwasser 1991). International conservation organiza-tions, governmental and nongovernmental, have alteredtheir approach to focus increasingly on strategies that areregional to global in scope and based on conserving supra-organismal entities: hotspots of species diversity (Myers etal. 2000), globally significant ecoregions (Olson & Diner-stein 1998), ecosystems (as in ecosystem management;Boyce & Haney 1997), endemic bird areas (Slattersfield etal. 1998), and continental networks (Soulé & Terborgh1999). Such approaches seek to conserve ecosystem func-tions and the diversity of habitat types despite a lack ofknowledge of the extent of biological diversity and thecomplex array of factors that maintain it ( Hunter 1991;Franklin 1993). In short, they seek to conserve the wholewhen faced with the impossibility of knowing all the parts.

But the parts are important too. Here we provide an ex-ample of how one such important part, the jaguar (

Pan-thera onca

), can form the basis for large-scale conservationplanning. Jaguars have much to teach us about the knottyproblem of conserving broadly distributed species. Be-cause jaguars as a species range across many different na-tions and habitat types, small-scale conservation efforts se-lected ad hoc and focused over narrowly defined areashave not succeeded in stemming the tide of jaguar extirpa-tion (Weber & Rabinowitz 1996). Establishment of the firstjaguar reserve in Belize (Rabinowitz 1986) and the creationof a conservation plan for the Pantanal (Quigley & Craw-shaw 1992), although important, have not slowed the col-lapse of the jaguar’s range. Moreover, range-wide conserva-tion efforts have been inhibited by national and linguisticdifferences among conservationists, lack of knowledge onthe overall status of jaguars, and the absence of a consensuson priorities for conservation of the species.

Saving jaguars requires international, range-wide plan-ning that recognizes as a first priority ecological, not politi-cal, distinctions among jaguars. We postulate that saving aspecies means, at least, saving populations of the species inall the significantly different ecological settings in whichthey occur. As Wikramanayake et al. (1998) wrote about arelated species, “in seeking to conserve representative pop-ulations of tigers, we must consider not only the geneticdistinctiveness of tigers across the range, but also behav-ioral, demographic, and ecological distinctiveness.” Thus, itis not sufficient to pursue jaguar conservation efforts onlyin tropical forests or only in tropical forests in Brazil and Be-lize; we must begin with the range-wide context that forthe jaguar requires an international perspective.

Most species-based conservation efforts do not assumeas a starting point consideration of the entire range. Con-servation of endangered populations of the CaliforniaGnatcatcher (

Polioptila californica

) is an imperative un-der the U.S. Endangered Species Act, even though sub-stantial, unthreatened populations exist in Mexico (Zinket al 2000). Moreover, most countries do not have endan-gered species legislation of any kind, and if they do, lawsare unlikely to be consistent across the 18 nations wherethe jaguar is currently found. As a result, biological con-servation plans often respect political boundaries morethan ecological ones (Hunter & Hutchinson 1994.)

In 1999 the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Insti-tute of Ecology at the National Autonomous University ofMexico initiated a geographically based, range-wide as-sessment and priority-setting exercise for the jaguar(Medellin et al. 2001). Our goals were to comprehen-sively assess the state of knowledge about the ecology,distribution, and conservation status of the jaguar, toidentify priority areas for its conservation on a range-wide basis, and to build an international consensus forconservation of the species. This work was built on ageographic data framework that respected the kinds andqualities of information we now have while forming abaseline for future evaluations. From this information,the experts assessed the status of jaguars across the rangeand developed a prioritization mechanism to determinethe most important areas for jaguar conservation in eachregional habitat type, based on factors important for thelong-term survival of jaguars. Although the results focuson the range-wide condition of jaguars, the methodologyused and the conclusions drawn present a model for con-servation planning that could be applied to many widelyranging species.

Methods

Data Definitions

Jaguar geographic regions ( JGRs) are geographic unitsdefined by potential habitat (sensu Hall et al. 1997) and

60

Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar Sanderson et al.


bioregion across the jaguar’s historic range ( Fig. 1). Pre-sumably, the ecology of jaguars in tropical moist low-land forest is significantly different from that in xericdeserts because of differences in, for example, prey baseand habitat use. Similarly, because of regional differencesin species composition and geographic factors, the roleof jaguars in the tropical moist lowland forests of CentralAmerica is substantively different from their role in thetropical moist lowland forests of the southeast Amazon.Representing these ecological differences geographi-cally through JGRs provides a convenient, ecologicallybased unit for planning.

Each JGR is named by its geographic region, then itshabitat type (e.g., northeast Amazon/tropical moist low-land forest). The limits of the historic range were ap-proximated from Seymour (1989) as the range of jaguarsaround 1900. This historic range was subdivided into 36JGRs by lumping together North American and SouthAmerican ecoregions (Dinerstein et al. 1995) to createunits similar to the regional habitat types used in a previ-ous conservation priority-setting exercise for LatinAmerica ( Biodiversity Support Program et al. 1995).Lumping together geographic units required includingsome areas that likely were never occupied by residentjaguars, including some areas above 2000 m in theAndes and Tepuis, which may overestimate the historicrange slightly. The historic range may be slightly under-estimated on its margins, particularly in the southwest-ern United States, but we estimated that

�

5% of the areain the JGRs is subject to these problems. The total ex-tent of the historic range, represented in this way, is ap-proximately 19.1 million km

2

.Thirty-five jaguar experts from 12 nations attended the

workshop on “Jaguars in the New Millennium” (March1999) or contributed information through another ex-pert (for a list of participants, see the Appendix). Priorto the workshop, each researcher was provided a basemap for his or her self-reported area of expertise at1:2,000,000–1:4,000,000 scale, showing a preliminary setof jaguar geographic regions and basic reference infor-mation such as national boundaries, major cities, and riv-ers (Lioutty 1996). We assumed that each expert couldidentify jaguar locations on the map within 1 cm (20–40km in map units). These data were compiled in geo-graphic information system databases (Arcview–GIS),and each datum was identified with the name of thecontributing expert. At the workshop these data wereexamined systematically in regional groups to resolvecontradictions and build a consensus information base.

Four basic data types were solicited from the jaguarexperts: (1) the geographic extent of their knowledgeabout jaguar status and distribution—whether or not jag-uars are present in an area (“extent of knowledge”); (2)the area where jaguars were present as of March 1999(“known, currently occupied range”); (3) important ar-eas for jaguar conservation as defined below (“jaguar

conservation units”); and (4) point localities where jag-uars have been observed within the last 10 years (“pointobservations”) ( Fig. 1). Experts were asked to combineall observations within 20 km of the center coordinatesof the point locality. Each point observation was charac-terized by dates of first and last observation, observationmethods used, and observer.

Jaguar conservation units (or JCUs) were defined ei-ther as (1) areas with a stable prey community, currentlyknown or believed to contain a population of residentjaguars large enough (at least 50 breeding individuals) tobe potentially self-sustaining over the next 100 years, or(2) areas containing fewer jaguars but with adequatehabitat and a stable, diverse prey base, such that jaguarpopulations in the area could increase if threats were al-leviated. Jaguar conservation units were not restricted toor required to contain protected areas. After the work-shop, each JCU was given a name based on an adjoiningor encompassing protected area, river, administrativeunit, or other geographic feature.

In addition, the experts developed a geographicallycomprehensive consensus on the status of jaguars acrossthe range by assigning the following codes to entireJGRs or divisions of JGRs, as necessary. Areas that wereunknown were designated “status unknown—priorityfor survey.” Areas that were known but were no longeroccupied by jaguars were designated “no jaguars.” Forareas that were known and currently occupied by jag-uars, one of the following three classes was assigned: (1)high, (2) medium, or (3) low probability of long-termsurvival. These assignments were based on qualitativeevaluation of habitat size and connectivity, the status ofthe prey base, the status of jaguar populations, and thelevel of threat from human activity.

Prioritization of Jaguar Conservation Units

The experts were asked to weight six factors ( JCU size,connectivity, habitat quality, hunting of jaguar, huntingof prey, and population status) according to their rela-tive importance for long-term jaguar survival, keepingthe sum of all weights to 100 points. To ensure maxi-mum input, weighting schemes were developed sepa-rately by two discussion groups and then an attemptwas made to synthesize the schemes in plenary session.During the review period (described below), the au-thors determined the final weighting scheme in consul-tation with the workshop participants, as follows: JCUsize (30 points), connectivity (23), habitat quality (23),hunting of jaguars (10), hunting of prey (10), and jaguarpopulation status (4).

Each JCU was assigned to the JGR where the majority ofits area occurred. In cases where a JCU overlapped morethan one JGR, the JCU was assigned to JGRs with whichit shared over 1250 km

2

of area, the equivalent of onepoint observation. (Each point observation represents a



61

Figure 1. Spatial distribution of jaguar data across jaguar geographic regions ( JGRs; background colors of each figure): (a) extent of current knowledge about the jaguar, (b) distribution of known, currently occupied jaguar range as of March 1999, (c) distribution of jaguar conservation units ( JCUs), and (d) distribution of jaguar point observations from 1990 to 2000.

62



circular area of 20-km radius.) For those JGRs with lessthan three JCUs, the size criteria was relaxed to includeall JCUs that occurred in that JGR, no matter the amountof overlap. The total size of the JCU, not the area of JCUwithin a given JGR, was used for calculating priorities,because jaguar populations were assumed to use the en-tire JCU, not just the portion within one habitat type.

The final prioritization score for each JCU was deter-mined by multiplying the JCU’s score for each of the sixfactors by its corresponding weight and then adding thescore/weight products. The JCUs within the same JGRwere then ranked to determine the most important JCUwithin each JGR.

The final results were compiled at the workshop andwere subsequently reviewed during a post-workshop re-view period. In consultation with the appropriate ex-perts, the authors made final decisions on inconsisten-cies between data sets. All data were distributed to theparticipating experts following the workshop, and alldata were made available one year after the workshop atwww.savethejaguar.com. More extensive details on allthe methods are provided by Medellin et al. (2001).

Results

Extent of Jaguar Knowledge

The extent of knowledge about jaguars—including areaswhere jaguars are not present—covers 83% of the his-toric range of jaguars, indicating that approximately 17%of the range is unknown ( Fig. 1a). Most of the area forwhich jaguar information is lacking is in several large re-gions in Mexico (over 848,000 km

2

) and in South Amer-ica (over 2.3 million km

2

in Brazil alone). The distribu-tion of jaguar knowledge by JGR reflects the distributionof these large, unknown areas (Table 1). The Mexicanpine-oak temperate forests and the Caatinga xerics inBrazil are the least-known JGRs.

Known, Currently Occupied Jaguar Range

Jaguars are known to range over approximately 8.75 mil-lion km

2

, or 46% of their historic range, broken into 48separate areas that range in size from 114 km

2

to over 7million km

2

( Fig. 1b). Unknown areas ( Fig. 1a) were notincluded as part of the known, currently occupiedrange. The largest contiguous area of jaguar range is cen-tered in the Amazon Basin (88% of occupied range) andincludes adjoining areas in the Cerrado, Pantanal, andChaco to the south, extending to the Caribbean coast ofVenezuela and the Guianas. The Colombian Cordillerassever the connections between this contiguous rangeand a series of large ranges that stretch across CentralAmerica from the Darien to the Selva Maya in Belize,Guatemala, and Mexico. At the northern end of the range

through Mexico, known jaguar range is limited to a stripalong the western coast and three isolated observationsin the southwestern United States.

Most of the loss of occupied range has occurred innorthern Mexico, the southern United States, northernBrazil, and southern Argentina. Jaguars have been extir-pated completely from the Argentine Monte and Pampasgrasslands in southern South America and the westerngulf coastal grasslands in the United States (Table 1). Be-cause of elevation limits, jaguars are also not regularlyfound in the Pantepui or Puna montane grasslands. Jag-uars are found in 10% of the area of Mexican xerics, Par-amo, and Mexican pine-oak forests.

Jaguar Conservation Units

Based on present jaguar population size, prey base, andhabitat quality in specific areas, the experts identified 51areas (1.29 million km

2

, 6.7% of the historic range, 13%of the currently occupied range) (Fig. 1c) important tothe long-term survival of jaguars. By definition, each JCUrepresents a core population of jaguars on which con-servation might be based.

Jaguar conservation units are found wholly or partiallyin 31 of the 36 JGRs and thus represent most of the eco-logical settings where jaguars occur (Table 1). Three ofthe six JGRs not represented by a JCU are in areas wherejaguars have been extirpated or apparently were neverpresent in large numbers: Argentine monte, western gulfcoastal grasslands, and Pantepui montane grasslands.The western Andean tropical dry forests, Amazonianmangroves, and Amazonian savannas are also not repre-sented by a JCU because of lack of information aboutjaguar status in those habitat types.

Jaguar Point Observations

The experts reported 5680 observations of jaguars at535 separate localities during the last 10 years, repre-senting a total area of observation of approximately513,000 km

2

, or approximately 2.7% of the jaguar’srange that has been directly sampled ( Fig. 1d). An aver-age of 10.6 jaguar observations were made at eachpoint, indicating concentrations of research at mostpoints. Sixty percent of point observations recorded jag-uars based on at least one of the more reliable observa-tion methods: direct sighting by researcher, photograph,radiotelemetry, capture, or discovery of jaguar remains.

The density of point observations is uneven across thejaguar’s range, reflecting concentrations of research ratherthan concentrations of jaguars. The most richly studiedJGR is the Central American tropical moist forests (Table1), due largely to research in Costa Rica, Belize, and Guate-mala, although extensive research has also been con-ducted in Brazillian Cerrado and the Chaco dry tropicalforests of Bolivia and Paraguay. The JGR of the northeast



63

Table 1. Distribution of jaguar data sets by jaguar geographic region.

Extent of knowledge

(%)

c

Known, occupied

range (%)

d

Percentage of area ratedwith given probability of

jaguar long-termsurvival

h

Jaguar geographic regions ( JGRs)

a

Area ( km

2

)

b

JCU(%)

e

No.JCUs

f

No.points

g

high(%)

medium(%)

low(%)

1.1 Atlantic/Tropical Moist Lowland Forest 951,120 98 20 7 3 36 1 0 191.2 Upper Amazon/Tropical Moist

Lowland Forest 2,965,517 81 80 8 10 40 80

�

1 01.3 Northeast Amazon/Tropical Moist

Lowland Forest 1,520,518 81 81 11 5 15 80

�

1

�

11.4 Southeast Amazon/Tropical Moist

Lowland Forest 1,358,285 61 61 5 5 29 60 1 01.5 Choco-Darien/Tropical Moist

Lowland Forest 231,577 72 70 27 3 8 27 42 01.6 Central American/Tropical Moist

Lowland Forest 522,443 95 77 24 11 118 71 1 22.1 Tropical Andes/Tropical Moist

Montane Forest 756,615 91 27 5 5 38 1 22 42.2 Central American/Tropical Moist

Montane Forest 190,510 65 25 8 8 17 1 9 142.4 Venezuelan Coastal Montane

Forest/Tropical Moist Montane Forest 14,341 95 51 9 1 3 0 51 02.5 Guayana Montane Forest/Tropical

Moist Montane Forest 337,586 100 100 18 4 2 100 0 03.1 North South American/Tropical Dry Forest 163,710 95 66 3 3 6 0 41 253.2 Western Andes/Tropical Dry Forest 104,683 60 10 0 0 0 0 8 33.3 Chaco/Tropical Dry Forest 1,153,437 93 35 8 3 79 30 0 53.4 Central American/Tropical Dry Forest 55,595 86 14 5 2 6 11 2 13.5 Mexican/Tropical Dry Forest 301,289 42 11 7 5 10 9

�

1 13.6 Cerrado/Tropical Dry Forest 2,411,425 91 57 6 9 34 11 28 194.1 Mexican/Xeric 1,280,778 95 1 1 1 4 1 0 04.2 Caribbean/Xeric 123,232 98 44 1 2 2

�

1 44 04.3 Caatinga/Xeric 759,625 27 10 1 1 5 0

�

1 104.6 Argentine Monte/Xeric 409,040 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 05.1 Central American Pine

Savanna/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland 18,847 96 96 35 1 4

�

1 0 955.2 Llanos–Gran Sabana/Herbaceous

Lowland Grassland 493,095 91 90 1 5 27 1 73 165.3 Pampas/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland 1,098,214 100 0

�

1 1 0

�

1 0 05.5 Amazonian Savanna/Herbaceous

Lowland Grassland 173,461 53 53

�

1 1 4 13 0 05.6 Pantanal/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland 171,053 100 100 48 3 17 99 0 15.7 Western Gulf Coastal Grassland/Herbaceous

Lowland Grassland 42,653 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 06.1 Paramo/Herbaceous Montane Grassland 78,706 83 3

�

1 1 0

�

1 1

�

16.2 Puna/Herbaceous Montane Grassland 589,486 100 0

�

1 1 2 0

�

1

�

16.4 Pantepui/Herbaceous Montane Grassland 48,836 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 07.2 Brazillian Araucaria/Temperate Forest 220,917 100 27 6 2 9 6 0 217.3 Mexican Pine-Oak/Temperate Forest 460,465 20 8 8 6 4

�

1 5 38.1 Northern Mexico/Mangrove 7,070 75 34 20 1 2

�

1 34 08.2 Central American/Mangrove 38,237 65 35 9 9 12 6 2 258.3 Northern South America/Mangrove 20,272 53 16 4 1 0 5 8 08.4 Amazonia/Mangrove 33,235 82 82 0 0 1 74 4 08.5 Eastern South America/Mangrove 10,162 54 24 19 1 0 0 0 23

a

The JGRs are named by region/habitat type. Numeric codes cross reference Fig. 1, and GIS data sets distributed through www.savethejaguar.com.

b

Area measured in equal area azimuthal projection, central meridian -72, reference latitude 0.

c

The JGR area where status and distribution of jaguars is known.

d

The JGR area where jaguars are known to exist.

e

The JGR area with substantial jaguar populations, a stable and diverse prey base, and adequate habitat ( JCU, jaguar conservation unit).

f

Jaguar conservation units wholly or partially within each JGR.

g

Jaguar point observations in each JGR.

h

See text for details.

64



Amazon has been relatively undersampled in comparisonwith other tropical forest types. The density of sampling islowest among xeric formations and herbaceous montanegrasslands, where jaguars are relatively rare.

Range-Wide Assessment

The range-wide assessment showed variation in jaguarstatus across the range (Fig. 2). Of the jaguar’s historicrange, 18% is unknown, and jaguars are known to havebeen extirpated in an additional 37%. Within the known,currently occupied range, the probability of long-termsurvival of the jaguar in 70% of the area (over 6 millionkm

2

) is considered high. The largest of these high-proba-bility portions of the range is centered on the AmazonBasin and the adjoining Gran Chaco and Pantanal. Twodisjunct sections of the tropical moist lowland forests ofCentral America are also considered areas in which theprobability of long-term jaguar survival is high: SelvaMaya of Guatemala, Mexico, and Belize, and a narrow,continuous strip from the Choco-Darien of Panama andColombia to northern Honduras. Areas in Jalisco, the Si-erra Madre of Mexico, and in the Missiones district of Ar-

gentina were also identified as areas where the probabil-ity of long-term jaguar survival is high.

Of the currently occupied range, 18% or approxi-mately 1.6 million km

2

was classified as areas in which thelong-term survival of jaguars has medium probability.These areas are generally adjacent to high-probability ar-eas and include a large portion of the northern Cerrado,most of the Venezuelan and Colombian Llanos, and thenorthern part of Colombia on the Caribbean coast. InCentral America and Mexico, medium-probability areaswere identified in the highlands of Costa Rica and Pan-ama, southern Mexico, and the two eastern mountainranges of Mexico where jaguars occur, Sierra deTamaulipas and Sierra Madre Oriental.

The remaining parts of the range were classified as ar-eas of low probability for the long-term survival of jag-uars and thus are areas of immediate conservation con-cern. These include the Atlantic tropical moist lowlandforest and Cerrado of Brazil; parts of the Chaco in northernArgentina; the Gran Sabana of northern Brazil, Venezuela,and Guyana; parts of the coastal dry forest in Venezuela;the Central American pine savannas and mangroves alongthe Caribbean coast of Nicaragua and Honduras; parts of

Figure 2. Consensus map of jaguar status across its range.



65

the Central American tropical moist montane forest ininterior Nicaragua and Honduras and a narrow strip alongthe Pacific Coast of Mexico; and areas in the Mexicanpine-oak forests in Jalisco, Mexico.

The JGRs with the largest proportions of areas (

�

75%,area basis) with a high probability for the long-term sur-vival of the jaguar were almost all in or surrounding theAmazon Basin. Central American tropical moist lowlandforest has the largest proportion of area of high-probabil-ity in Central America and Mexico (71%). In fact, it is theonly JGR north of Colombia with

�

50% of its area cate-gorized as high-probability. Overall, only 12 out of the 36JGRs had

�

10% of their area categorized as high-proba-bility for the long-term survival of the jaguar. Twenty outof 36 had

�

1% of their area so indicated.

JCU Prioritization

Although all JCUs are important areas for jaguars, theyvary in level of threat to jaguars, size, habitat quality, andconnectivity to other JCUs. According to the weightingscheme described above, JCUs were prioritized for eachJGR, with JCUs within a given JGR compared onlyamong one another (Table 2). For example, the highest-priority JCU for the upper Amazon JGR is in and aroundAmazonia National Park, Brazil ( JCU 202). Other JCUswith higher levels of hunting or lower habitat qualityranked slightly lower.

Although all JCUs represent areas with substantial jag-uar populations, a stable prey base, and adequate habi-tat, not all JCUs occur in areas classified as high-probabil-ity for the long-term survival of the jaguar ( Table 2).Eleven JCUs had a majority of their area categorized asmedium-probability for long-term survival, and 10 werecategorized as low-probability for long-term survival. Sixof these 10 JCUs fell entirely within areas of low proba-bility of long-term survival. These JCUs are located innorthern Argentina, central Honduras, the Osa Peninsulaof Costa Rica, and the Atlantic forests of Brazil. TheseJCUs in areas categorized as low-probability for long-term survival contain the most endangered jaguar popu-lations across the range. Fortunately, many other areashave strong jaguar populations and are considered areasof high probability for the long-term survival of the jag-uar. Seventeen JCUs fell entirely within areas catego-rized as high-probability, and 23 had more than 90% oftheir area within high-probability areas.

Discussion

Although the methodology used in this exercise was pio-neered for tigers and draws generally from a host of ex-pert-driven, geographic, priority-setting exercises under-taken over the last decade, it contains a number ofinnovations that advance the methodology of geographic

priority setting, particularly for single-species-based con-servation planning. The most important innovation is alsothe simplest: planning across the complete biologicalrange of the species such that all conservation effortscould be placed in the most important context, the con-text of the species’ biology. Most current species-basedconservation plans are limited first by political bound-aries. For example, habitat conservation plans under theU.S. Endangered Species Act deal mainly with popula-tions within U.S. boundaries. Therefore, the few jaguarssighted recently in the southwestern United States are ac-corded high priority in United States conservation plan-ning, whereas from a range-wide species perspective,other populations in other parts of the range are larger(e.g., Gran Chaco of Bolivia) or more endangered (e.g., At-lantic Forests of Brazil).

Another innovation is that the data sets were nested ina geographic hierarchy that accounted for the differenttypes of knowledge we had about the species (Fig. 3).The most basic distinction separated areas in which wehad knowledge of jaguars (extent of knowledge) from ar-eas in which we lacked knowledge (unknown areas).Given the areas where jaguars are known, the next dis-tinction was to separate areas where jaguars are found(the known, currently occupied range) from those wherethey have been extirpated. Finally, in those areas wherejaguars are found, we identified where the best popula-tions exist ( JCUs) based on clearly defined criteria.

A third innovation is that we retained point observa-tions throughout the analysis, which provided an impor-tant internal check on the more subjective polygonaldata. The point observations provided the only objectiveinformation we had about jaguars: we knew that at eachpoint, at least one jaguar had been observed. Even if wechose to eliminate some types of observation, the pointdatabase enabled us to identify the observation bymethod, date, and observer. Moreover, the analysis canbe updated when significant new data become available.A mechanism is already in place to capture new informa-tion while distributing the compiled information (seewww.savethejaguar.com). Data sharing is a key compo-nent to advancing international conservation efforts.

As a result of retaining the point observations, inde-pendent observers can question the data, providing animportant check against the ever-present concern ofbias in expert-driven systems. For example, severalpoint observations fell in an area outside the extent ofknowledge in southern Brazil, an apparent inconsis-tency ( Fig. 1a & 1d). Review of these observations indi-cated that they were all

�

5 years old and not typical ofthe current situation along the rapidly changing frontierof the southern Amazon Basin.

Another innovation is that we limited conclusions aboutthe currently occupied range to only known areas. Thecustom with range maps prepared previously has been toinclude all “internal” areas if habitat exists there, even if a

66



Tabl

e 2.

Prio

ritiz

ed r

anki

ng o

f jag

uar

cons

erva

tion

units

(JC

Us)

by ja

guar

geo

grap

hic

regi

on (

JGR)

.

Are

a o

f JC

U in

JG

R(

km

2

)

d

Tota

l JC

U

are

a

(km

2

)

Per

cen

tage

of

are

a r

ate

d

wit

h g

iven

pro

ba

bil

ity

of

jagu

ar

lon

g-te

rm s

urv

iva

lE

xper

t ch

ara

cter

iza

tion

of JC

Us

in te

rms

of fa

ctors

im

port

an

t fo

r th

e lo

ng-

term

su

rviv

al of

jagu

ars

JGR

s

a

an

d J

CU

s

b

Score

c

Ran

kin

g in

JG

Rh

igh

(%)

med

ium

(%

)lo

w(%

)co

nn

ecti

vity

to

oth

er J

CU

s

e

ha

bit

at

qu

ali

tyhu

nti

ng

of

jagu

ar

hu

nti

ng

of

pre

ypopu

lati

on

sta

tus

1.1

Atl

anti

c/T

rop

ical

Mo

ist

Low

lan

d F

ore

stJC

U 2

52: A

tlan

tic

Fore

sts

(Bra

zil)

182

125

,513

30,8

430

010

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

hig

hm

uch

mu

chd

ecre

asin

gJC

U 2

50: U

pp

er R

io P

aran

á (B

razi

l)18

21

15,2

6917

,731

00

100

infr

eque

nt d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

mu

chm

uch

dec

reas

ing

JCU

257

: Mis

sio

nes

(A

rgen

tin

a, B

razi

l)11

33

26,1

3136

,716

470

53n

o d

isp

ersa

lm

ediu

mm

uch

mu

chd

ecre

asin

g1.

2 U

pp

er A

maz

on

/Tro

pic

al M

ois

t Lo

wla

nd

Fo

rest

JCU

202

: Am

azo

nia

(B

razi

l)29

21

17,9

8038

,414

100

00

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

no

ne

no

ne

stab

leJC

U 3

4: M

anu

(P

eru

)25

22

38,1

6243

,387

8812

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

253

: Mad

idi (

Bo

livia

, Per

u)

252

234

,836

58,8

8074

260

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

leJC

U 7

9: N

oel

Kem

pff

Mer

cad

o (

Bo

livia

)25

22

32,3

1568

,481

810

19fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

63:

Am

acay

acu

(C

olo

mb

ia)

252

27,

538

7,53

810

00

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

207

: Mac

aren

a (C

olo

mb

ia)

214

614

,041

21,0

4167

330

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lm

ediu

mso

me

som

est

able

JCU

79:

No

el K

emp

ff M

erca

do

(B

oliv

ia)

252

232

,315

68,4

8181

019

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

leJC

U 6

3: A

mac

ayac

u (

Co

lom

bia

)25

22

7,53

87,

538

100

00

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

leJC

U 2

07: M

acar

ena

(Co

lom

bia

)21

46

14,0

4121

,041

6733

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

med

ium

som

eso

me

incr

easi

ng

JCU

62:

Rio

Ap

apo

ris

(Co

lom

bia

)18

27

4,14

54,

145

100

00

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

em

uch

stab

leJC

U 2

51: P

acay

a Sa

mir

ia (

Per

u)

179

822

,930

22,9

3010

00

0n

o d

ata

hig

hso

me

som

en

o d

ata

JCU

201

: Jav

ari (

Bra

zil)

no

dat

a9

67,5

9867

,598

100

00

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

a1.

3 N

ort

hea

st A

maz

on

/Tro

pic

al M

ois

t Lo

wla

nd

Fo

rest

JCU

204

: Am

apá

(Bra

zil,

Fren

ch G

uian

a)25

21

71,7

4671

,754

100

00

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

leJC

U 2

08: V

ich

ada

(Co

lom

bia

)25

21

22,3

9422

,714

991

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

55:

Up

per

Ori

no

co (

Ven

ezu

ela)

252

118

,932

56,6

6510

00

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

200

: Rio

Jaú

(B

razi

l)n

o d

ata

438

,162

38,1

6210

00

0n

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

JCU

203

: Pic

o d

a N

eblin

a (B

razi

l)n

o d

ata

411

,687

11,7

5810

00

0n

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

1.4

Sou

thea

st A

maz

on

/Tro

pic

al M

ois

t Lo

wla

nd

Fo

rest

JCU

256

: Xin

gu (

Bra

zil)

292

132

,185

32,1

8510

00

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hn

on

en

on

est

able

JCU

202

: Am

azo

nia

(B

razi

l)29

21

20,4

3338

,414

100

00

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

no

ne

no

ne

stab

leJC

U 6

7: G

uru

pi (

Bra

zil)

133

320

,211

20,2

1110

00

0n

o d

ata

med

ium

som

eso

me

dec

reas

ing

1.5

Ch

oco

-Dar

ien

/Tro

pic

al M

ois

t Lo

wla

nd

Fo

rest

JCU

206

: Ch

oco-

Dar

ien

(C

olom

bia,

Pa

nam

a)25

21

53,3

8770

,029

936

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

64:

In

unda

bles

del

baj

o Sa

n J

orge

(C

olom

bia)

146

26,

916

6,91

60

100

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

med

ium

som

em

uch

dec

reas

ing

JCU

65:

San

Vic

ente

de

Chu

curi

(Col

ombi

a)75

32,

630

2,63

00

100

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

poo

rso

me

muc

hin

crea

sin

g

1.6

Cen

tral

Am

eric

an/T

rop

ical

Moi

st L

owla

nd

Fore

stJC

U 1

55: S

elva

May

a (M

exic

o,

Gu

atem

ala,

Bel

ize)

252

162

,593

63,5

5010

00

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

153

: So

uth

ern

Bel

ize

(Bel

ize)

252

18,

425

8,59

099

01

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

leJC

U 2

06: C

ho

co-D

arie

n (

Co

lom

bia

, P

anam

a)25

21

7,13

070

,029

936

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

con

tin

ued



67

Tabl

e 2.

(con

tinue

d)

Are

a o

f JC

U in

JG

R(

km

2

)

d

Tota

l JC

U

are

a

(km

2

)

Per

cen

tage

of

are

a r

ate

d

wit

h g

iven

pro

ba

bil

ity

of

jagu

ar

lon

g-te

rm s

urv

iva

lE

xper

t ch

ara

cter

iza

tion

of JC

Us

in ter

ms

of fa

ctors

im

port

an

t fo

r th

e lo

ng-

term

su

rviv

al of

jagu

ars

JGR

s

a

an

d J

CU

s

b

Score

c

Ran

kin

g in

JG

Rh

igh

(%)

med

ium

(%

)lo

w(%

)co

nn

ecti

vity

to

oth

er J

CU

s

e

ha

bit

at

qu

ali

tyhu

nti

ng

of

jagu

ar

hu

nti

ng

of

pre

ypopu

lati

on

sta

tus

JCU

259

: Lag

o I

zab

al (

Gu

atem

ala)

248

43,

894

5,35

395

05

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

no

dat

aJC

U 1

50: T

alam

anca

(C

ost

a R

ica,

P

anam

a)21

45

6,12

514

,099

3157

12in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

ein

crea

sin

gJC

U 1

51: O

sa P

enis

ula

(C

ost

a R

ica)

182

61,

591

1,80

90

100

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

mu

chst

able

JCU

154

: Gu

anac

aste

(C

ost

a R

ica)

168

72,

017

5,32

394

60

infr

eque

nt d

isp

ersa

lm

ediu

mso

me

som

ein

crea

sin

gJC

U 1

3: I

stm

o d

e T

ehu

ante

pec

(M

exic

o)

160

89,

439

9,57

910

00

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

med

ium

som

eso

me

stab

leJC

U 7

6: L

a M

osq

uit

ia (

Ho

nd

ura

s)n

o d

ata

19,6

7930

,389

630

36n

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

aJC

U 7

8: C

ord

iller

a N

om

bre

de

Dio

s (H

on

du

ras)

no

dat

a9

2,26

92,

834

800

20n

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

JCU

77:

Mo

nta

ña

de

Yo

ro (

Ho

nd

ura

s)n

o d

ata

975

72,

214

00

100

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

a2.

1 T

rop

ical

An

des

/Tro

pic

al M

ois

t Lo

wla

nd

Fo

rest

JCU

253

: Mad

idi (

Bo

livia

, Per

u)

252

115

,436

58,8

8074

260

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

leJC

U 2

1: B

arit

u-C

alile

gua

(Arg

enti

na,

B

oliv

ia)

252

111

,654

12,5

720

010

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

34:

Man

u (

Per

u)

252

15,

227

43,3

8788

120

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

le2.

2 C

entr

al A

mer

ican

/Tro

pic

al M

ois

t M

on

tan

e Fo

rest

JCU

206

: Ch

oco

-Dar

ien

(C

olo

mb

ia,

Pan

ama)

252

12,

756

70,0

2993

60

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

leJC

U 2

59: L

ago

Iza

bal

(G

uat

emal

a)24

82

1,16

65,

353

950

5fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

en

o d

ata

JCU

150

: Tal

aman

ca (

Co

sta

Ric

a,

Pan

ama)

214

37,

941

14,0

9931

5712

infr

eque

nt d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

incr

easi

ng

JCU

76:

La

Mo

squ

itia

(H

on

du

ras)

no

dat

a4

1,70

430

,389

630

36n

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

JCU

77:

Mo

nta

ña

de

Yo

ro (

Ho

nd

ura

s)n

o d

ata

41,

456

2,83

480

020

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

aJC

U 7

8: C

ord

iller

a N

om

bre

de

Dio

s (H

on

du

ras)

no

dat

a4

566

2,21

40

010

0n

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

2.4

Ven

ezu

elan

Co

asta

l Mo

nta

ne

Fore

st/T

rop

ical

Mo

ist

Mo

nta

ne

Fore

stJC

U 5

4: G

uat

op

o (

Ven

ezu

ela)

132

11,

324

1,62

30

100

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

mu

chd

ecre

asin

g

2.5

Gu

ayan

a M

on

tan

e Fo

rest

/Tro

pic

al M

ois

t M

on

tan

e Fo

rest

JCU

55:

Up

per

Ori

no

co (

Ven

ezu

ela)

252

137

,733

56,6

6510

00

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

56:

Cau

ra (

Ven

ezu

ela)

252

118

,736

18,7

3610

00

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

205

: Ser

ra d

a Es

tru

tura

(B

razi

l)n

o d

ata

32,

819

2,81

910

00

0n

o d

ata

hig

hn

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

3.1

No

rth

So

uth

Am

eric

an/T

rop

ical

Dry

Fo

rest

JCU

207

: Mac

aren

a (C

olo

mb

ia)

214

14,

074

21,0

4167

330

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lm

ediu

mso

me

som

ein

crea

sin

gJC

U 5

2: C

hir

iqu

are

(Ven

ezu

ela)

182

288

497

70

1090

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

em

uch

stab

leJC

U 5

3: G

uar

itic

o (

Ven

ezu

ela)

533

771

1,42

80

4654

no

dat

am

ediu

mm

uch

mu

chd

ecre

asin

g3.

2 W

este

rn A

nd

es/T

rop

ical

Dry

Fo

rest

no

ne

——

——

——

——

——

——

con

tin

ued

68



Tabl

e 2.

(con

tinue

d)

Are

a o

f JC

U in

JG

R(

km

2

)

d

Tota

l JC

U

are

a

(km

2

)

Per

cen

tage

of

are

a r

ate

d

wit

h g

iven

pro

ba

bil

ity

of

jagu

ar

lon

g-te

rm s

urv

iva

lE

xper

t ch

ara

cter

iza

tion

of JC

Us

in ter

ms

of fa

ctors

im

port

an

t fo

r th

e lo

ng-

term

su

rviv

al of

jagu

ars

JGR

s

a

an

d J

CU

s

b

Score

c

Ran

kin

g in

JG

Rh

igh

(%)

med

ium

(%

)lo

w(%

)co

nn

ecti

vity

to

oth

er J

CU

s

e

ha

bit

at

qu

ali

tyhu

nti

ng

of

jagu

ar

hu

nti

ng

of

pre

ypopu

lati

on

sta

tus

3.3

Ch

aco

/Tro

pic

al D

ry F

ore

stJC

U 8

0: G

ran

Ch

aco

(B

oliv

ia, P

arag

uay

)25

21

85,7

0689

,116

100

00

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

leJC

U 2

4: C

hac

o (

Arg

enti

na)

192

27,

153

7,15

30

010

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

mu

chd

ecre

asin

g3.

4 C

entr

al A

mer

ican

/Tro

pic

al D

ry F

ores

tJC

U 1

54: G

uan

acas

te (

Co

sta

Ric

a)16

81

2,93

55,

323

946

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

med

ium

som

eso

me

incr

easi

ng

3.5

Mex

ican

/Tro

pic

al D

ry F

ore

stJC

U 1

01: J

alis

co (

Mex

ico

)23

81

29,4

0929

,409

615

35fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

mu

chd

ecre

asin

gJC

U 1

00: S

on

ora

(M

exic

o)

140

22,

020

13,8

5910

00

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

med

ium

mu

chm

uch

stab

le3.

6 C

erra

do

/Tro

pic

al D

ry F

ore

stJC

U 6

8: C

hap

ada

das

Man

gabe

iras

(B

razi

l)25

21

45,3

9745

,397

010

00

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

leJC

U 7

9: N

oel

Kem

pff

Mer

cad

o (

Bo

livia

)25

21

36,1

0768

,481

810

19fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

253

: Mad

idi (

Bo

livia

, Per

u)

252

18,

607

30,8

430

010

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

258

: Pan

tan

al (

Bra

zil,

Bo

livia

)23

84

9,10

187

,034

960

4fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hm

uch

som

ed

ecre

asin

gJC

U 6

9: M

aran

ho

(B

razi

l)20

25

6,25

36,

253

010

00

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lm

ediu

mso

me

som

ed

ecre

asin

gJC

U 8

: Ara

guai

a (B

razi

l)19

66

29,7

9629

,846

010

00

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lm

ediu

mso

me

mu

chst

able

JCU

250

: Up

per

Rio

Par

aná

(Bra

zil)

182

72,

462

17,7

310

010

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

hig

hm

uch

mu

chd

ecre

asin

gJC

U 7

: Ch

apad

a d

os

Vea

dei

ros

(Bra

zil)

156

810

,281

10,2

810

100

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

med

ium

som

eso

me

dec

reas

ing

JCU

255

: Ser

ra d

a C

apiv

ara

(Bra

zil)

146

92,

082

7,19

30

1387

infr

eque

nt d

isp

ersa

lm

ediu

mso

me

mu

chd

ecre

asin

g4.

1 M

exic

an/X

eric

sJC

U 1

00: S

on

ora

(M

exic

o)

140

110

,470

13,8

5910

00

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

med

ium

mu

chm

uch

stab

le4.

2 C

arib

bea

n/X

eric

sJC

U 2

09: L

lan

os

(Ven

ezu

ela)

196

11,

491

7,12

50

100

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

med

ium

mu

chso

me

stab

le4.

3 C

aati

nga

/Xer

ics

JCU

255

: Ser

ra d

a C

apiv

ara

(Bra

zil)

146

15,

111

7,19

30

1387

infr

eque

nt d

isp

ersa

lm

ediu

mso

me

mu

chd

ecre

asin

g4.

6 A

rgen

tin

e M

on

te/X

eric

sn

on

e—

——

——

——

——

——

—5.

1 C

entr

al A

mer

ican

Pin

e Sa

van

nas

/Her

bac

eou

s Lo

wla

nd

Gra

ssla

nd

JCU

76:

La

Mo

squ

itia

(H

on

du

ras)

no

dat

a1

6,63

330

,389

630

36n

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

5.2

Llan

os

- Gra

n S

aban

a/H

erb

aceo

us

Low

lan

d G

rass

lan

dJC

U 2

09: L

lan

os

(Ven

ezu

ela)

196

15,

633

7,12

50

100

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

med

ium

mu

chso

me

stab

leJC

U 5

3: G

uar

itic

o (

Ven

ezu

ela)

532

657

1,42

80

4654

no

dat

am

ediu

mm

uch

mu

chd

ecre

asin

g5.

3 Pa

mp

as/H

erba

ceou

s Lo

wla

nd

Gra

ssla

nd

JCU

257

: Mis

sio

nes

(A

rgen

tin

a, B

razi

l)11

31

1836

,716

470

53n

o d

isp

ersa

lm

ediu

mm

uch

mu

chd

ecre

asin

g5.

5 A

maz

on

ian

Sav

ann

a/H

erb

aceo

us

Low

lan

d G

rass

lan

dn

on

e—

——

——

——

——

——

—5.

6 P

anta

nal

/Her

bac

eou

s Lo

wla

nd

Gra

ssla

nd

JCU

80:

Gra

n C

hac

o (

Bo

livia

, Par

agu

ay)

252

13,

410

89,1

1610

00

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

JCU

258

: Pan

tan

al (

Bra

zil,

Bo

livia

)23

82

77,9

3287

,034

960

4fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hm

uch

som

ed

ecre

asin

g

con

tin

ued



69

Tabl

e 2.

(con

tinue

d)

Are

a o

f JC

U in

JG

R(

km

2

)

d

Tota

l JC

U

are

a

(km

2

)

Per

cen

tage

of

are

a r

ate

d

wit

h g

iven

pro

ba

bil

ity

of

jagu

ar

lon

g-te

rm s

urv

iva

lE

xper

t ch

ara

cter

iza

tion

of JC

Us

in ter

ms

of fa

ctors

im

port

an

t fo

r th

e lo

ng-

term

su

rviv

al of

jagu

ars

JGR

s

a

an

d J

CU

s

b

Score

c

Ran

kin

g in

JG

Rh

igh

(%)

med

ium

(%

)lo

w(%

)co

nn

ecti

vity

to

oth

er J

CU

s

eh

abit

at

qu

ali

tyhu

nti

ng

of

jagu

ar

hu

nti

ng

of

pre

ypopu

lati

on

sta

tus

5.7

Wes

tern

Gu

lf C

oas

tal G

rass

lan

ds/

Her

bac

eou

s Lo

wla

nd

Gra

ssla

nd

no

ne

——

——

——

——

——

——

6.1

Para

mo/

Her

bace

ous

Mon

tan

e G

rass

lan

dJC

U 2

06: C

hoc

o-D

arie

n (

Col

ombi

a,

Pan

ama)

252

15

70,0

2993

60

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

le6.

2 P

un

a/H

erb

aceo

us

Mo

nta

ne

Gra

ssla

nd

JCU

21:

Bar

itu-

Cal

ilegu

a (A

rgen

tin

a,

Bol

ivia

)25

21

911

12,5

720

010

0fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

som

est

able

6.4

Pan

tep

ui/

Her

bac

eou

s M

on

tan

e G

rass

lan

dn

on

e—

——

——

——

——

——

—7.

2 B

razi

llian

Ara

uca

ria/

Tem

per

ate

Fore

stJC

U 2

52: A

tlan

tic

Fore

st (

Bra

zil)

182

13,

060

30,8

430

010

0in

freq

uen

t dis

per

sal

hig

hm

uch

mu

chd

ecre

asin

gJC

U 2

57: M

issi

on

es (

Arg

enti

na,

Bra

zil)

113

210

,567

36,7

1647

053

no

dis

per

sal

med

ium

mu

chm

uch

dec

reas

ing

7.3

Mex

ican

Pin

e-O

ak/T

emp

erat

e Fo

rest

JCU

101

: Jal

isco

(M

exic

o)

238

110

,150

29,4

0961

535

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

em

uch

dec

reas

ing

JCU

100

: So

no

ra (

Mex

ico

)14

02

1,36

913

,859

100

00

infr

eque

nt d

isp

ersa

lm

ediu

mm

uch

mu

chst

able

JCU

12:

Sie

rra

Mad

re O

rien

tal (

Mex

ico

)13

33

21,6

1821

,618

010

00

infr

eque

nt d

isp

ersa

lp

oo

rso

me

som

ed

ecre

asin

gJC

U 1

02: S

ierr

a T

amau

lipas

(M

exic

o)

904

1,38

71,

387

010

00

infr

eque

nt d

isp

ersa

lm

ediu

mso

me

mu

chst

able

8.1

No

rth

ern

Mex

ico

/Man

gro

veJC

U 1

01: J

alis

co (

Mex

ico

)23

81

1,43

029

,409

615

35fr

equ

ent

dis

per

sal

hig

hso

me

mu

chd

ecre

asin

g8.

2 C

entr

al A

mer

ican

/Man

gro

veJC

U 2

06: C

ho

co-D

arie

n (

Co

lom

bia

, P

anam

a)25

21

660

70,0

2993

60

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

leJC

U 7

6: L

a M

osq

uit

ia (

Ho

nd

ura

s)n

o d

ata

21,

919

30,3

8963

036

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

an

o d

ata

no

dat

a8.

3 N

ort

her

n S

ou

th A

mer

ica/

Man

gro

veJC

U 2

06: C

ho

co-D

arie

n (

Co

lom

bia

, P

anam

a)25

21

772

70,0

2993

60

freq

uen

t d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

som

eso

me

stab

le8.

4 A

maz

on

ia/M

angr

ove

no

ne

——

——

——

——

——

——

8.5

East

ern

So

uth

Am

eric

a/M

angr

ove

JCU

252

: Atl

anti

c Fo

rest

(B

razi

l)18

21

1,88

730

,843

00

100

infr

eque

nt d

isp

ersa

lh

igh

mu

chm

uch

dec

reas

ing

aTh

e JG

Rs

are

na

med

by

regi

on

an

d h

abit

at

type.

Nu

mer

ic c

odes

are

in

Fig

. 1, a

nd t

he

geogr

aph

ic i

nfo

rma

tion

sys

tem

(G

SI)

da

ta s

ets

dis

trib

ute

d t

hro

ugh

ww

w.s

ave

thej

agu

ar.

com

.bTh

e JC

Us

are

na

med

usi

ng

enco

mpa

ssin

g or

adjo

inin

g ge

ogr

aph

ic f

eatu

res,

in

clu

din

g pro

tect

ed a

rea

s, r

iver

s, m

ou

nta

in r

an

ges,

an

d/o

r st

ate

s a

nd p

rovi

nce

s (

Fig.

1).

Th

e n

um

eric

codes

ref

erto

in

dic

es i

n t

he

GIS

da

ta s

ets

dis

trib

ute

d t

hro

ugh

ww

w.s

ave

thej

agu

ar.

com

.c Fi

na

l pri

ori

tiza

tion

sco

re f

or

JCU

in

giv

en J

GR

. Hig

her

va

lues

in

dic

ate

bet

ter

con

dit

ion

s fo

r lo

ng-

term

su

rviv

al of

jagu

ar.

dA

rea

mea

sure

d i

n e

qu

al a

rea

azi

mu

tha

l pro

ject

ion

, cen

tra

l m

erid

ian

-72

, ref

eren

ce la

titu

de

0.

e Con

nec

tivi

ty i

nte

rpre

ted i

n t

erm

s of

freq

uen

cy o

f dis

per

sal to

or

from

th

is J

CU

.

70 Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar Sanderson et al.


species’ status in those areas is unknown. We believe it isimportant to clearly distinguish between what is knownand what is unknown, because conservation choices de-pend on the state of knowledge. As a result, our range maphas several large “holes” because it represents only theknown, currently occupied range ( Fig. 1b).

Finally this exercise, like the preceding effort for thetiger ( Wikramanayake et al 1998), differs from otherspecies-based planning mechanisms because it is basedon an ecogeographic framework for setting priorities.The goal is not to determine the most important site forjaguar conservation overall, or the most important site ina given country, but rather to find the most importantsites for ecologically distinct populations of jaguars. Be-cause information is insufficient to define these ecologi-cal distinctions a priori, we used a geographic proxy, thejaguar geographic regions, which provided the frame-work over which the data were summarized (Table 1)and JCUs prioritized (Table 2).

All these techniques are designed to limit errors due tothe subjective nature of expert-based priority-setting sys-tems by closely tracking how well certain facts are known,where extrapolations are made, and where knowledge islacking. Moreover, these data are part of framework thatprovides to any future user the ability to reanalyze the re-sults and draw his or her own conclusions.

Whether or not the end results are “scientific” in a for-mal sense seems less important than acknowledging thelimits of what we can do when planning for speciessuch as the jaguar. The jaguar historically ranged over19.1 million km2, an area over twice that of the UnitedStates including Alaska. Within that area there are per-haps 100 professionals working to study and conservethe jaguar; of them, 35 contributed information to thiswork. Those experts speak three different languages andcome from 18 different countries. Through this exer-cise, they established a common data framework onwhich they all agreed and a broad consensus on priori-

ties for the species. The result is necessarily extensive ingeographic scope and lacking in intensive detail, but itreflects the shared state of knowledge of jaguar status,distribution, and geographic priorities.

Finally, range-wide, species-based conservation plan-ning for the jaguar, or any other broadly distributed spe-cies, complements other coarse-filter approaches to con-servation planning by testing their generality through anemphasis on single-species requirements. In this caseunfortunately, conserving supra-organismal entities suchas hotspots or ecoregions provides no guarantee of con-serving jaguars across all the ecological settings wherethey occur, because important locations for jaguars oc-cur outside hotspots and across a large number of ecore-gions (�100). Moreover, priorities determined for thejaguar alone may differ considerably from priorities de-termined through other mechanisms focused on overallbiodiversity conservation. As a result, conservation ef-forts in the Atlantic forests of Brazil might prove an inef-ficient investment for conservation of the jaguar, giventhe range of needs and opportunities for jaguar conser-vation elsewhere. No planning tool meets all goals, butdifferent planning tools can and should complement andenhance one another. With the jaguar exercise, we pro-vide a model to reintroduce species to coarse-filter, in-ternational conservation planning efforts.

Acknowledgments

We thank H. Hung, G. Raygordetsky, K. Willett, and G.Woolmer for their assistance with data entry and geo-graphic information system analysis and L. Pavajeau forSpanish translation. D. Olson, R. Sayre, and M. Grigioneprovided helpful advice for design of the priority-settingmethodology. The editors and two anonymous review-ers also provided helpful critical reviews of an early draftof this manuscript. This work was funded by grants from

Figure 3. Conceptual framework of geographic data sets for range-wide species conservation planning.


Sanderson et al. Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar 71

Jaguar Cars–US, the Prospect Hill Foundation, and soft-ware donations from the Environmental Systems ResearchInstitute (ESRI).

Literature Cited

Biodiversity Support Program, Conservation International, The NatureConservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Resources Insti-tute, and World Wildlife Fund. 1995. A regional analysis of geographicpriorities for biodiversity conservation in Latin America and the Carib-bean. U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.

Boyce, M. S., and A. Haney. 1997. Ecosystem management: applicationsfor sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press,New Haven, Connecticut.

Callicott, J. B. 1990. Whither conservation ethics? Conservation Biology4:15–20.

Dinerstein, E., D. M. Olson, D. J. Graham, A. L. Webster, S. A. Primm,M. P. Bookbinder, and G. Ledec. 1995. A conservation assessmentof the terrestrial ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean.World Wildlife Fund and The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Ehrlich, P. R., and A. H. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: the causes and conse-quences of the disappearance of species. Random House, New York.

Franklin, J. F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems orlandscapes? Ecological Applications 3:202–205.

Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Importance ofstandardized terminology in habitat evaluation. Wildlife SocietyBulletin 25:761–762.

Hunter, M. L. 1991. Coping with ignorance: the coarse-filter strategy formaintaining biodiversity. Pages 266–281 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Bal-ancing on the brink of extinction. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Hunter, M. L., and A. Hutchinson. 1994. The virtues and shortcomingsof parochialism: conserving species that are locally rare, but glo-bally common. Conservation Biology 8:1163–1165.

Lioutty, A. A. 1996. ArcAtlas: our Earth (CDROM). Environmental Sys-tems Research Institute and DATA+, Redlands, California.

Mann, C. C., and M. L. Plummer. 1995. Noah’s choice: the future of en-dangered species. Knopf, New York.

Medellin, R. A., C. Chetkiewicz, A. Rabinowitz, K. H. Redford, J. G. Robin-son, E. W. Sanderson, and A. Taber. 2001. El Jaguar en el nuevo mile-

nio: una evaluacion de su estado, deteccion de prioridades y recomen-daciones para la conservacion de los jaguares en America. UniversidadNacional Autonoma de Mexico and Wildlife Conservation Society,México, D.F.

Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca,and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.Nature 403:853–858.

Noss, R. F. 1991. From endangered species to biodiversity. Pages 227–246 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Balancing on the brink of extinction. Is-land Press, Washington, D.C.

Olson, D. M., and E. Dinerstein. 1998. The global 200: a representationapproach to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable re-gions. Conservation Biology 12:502–515.

Quigley, H. B., and P. G. Crawshaw. 1992. A conservation plan for thejaguar Panthera onca in the Pantanal region of Brazil. BiologicalConservation 61:149–157.

Rabinowitz, A. R. 1986. Jaguar: one man’s battle to establish the world’sfirst jaguar reserve. Anchor Books, New York.

Redford, K. H., and B. D. Richter. 1999. Conservation of biodiversity ina world of use. Conservation Biology 13:1246–1256.

Salwasser, H. 1991. In search of an ecosystem approach to endangeredspecies conservation. Pages 228–265 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Balanc-ing on the brink of extinction. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Seymour, K. L. 1989. Panthera onca. Mammalian Species 340.Slattersfield, A. J., M. J. Crosby, A. J. Long, and D. C. Wege. 1998. En-

demic bird areas of the world: priorities for biodiversity conserva-tion. BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Soulé, M. E., and M. Terborgh. 1999. Continental conservation: scien-tific foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press, Wash-ington, D.C.

Weber, W., and A. Rabinowitz. 1996. A global perspective on large car-nivore conservation. Conservation Biology 10:1046–1054.

Wikramanayake, E. D., E. Dinerstein, J. G. Robinson, U. Karanth, A.Rabinowitz, D. Olson, T. Mathew, P. Hedao, M. Conner, G. Hem-ley, and D. Bolze. 1998. An ecology-based method for defining pri-orities for large mammal conservation: the tiger as case study. Con-servation Biology 12:865–878.

Zink, R. M., G. F. Barrowclough, J. L. Atwood, and R. C. Blackwell-Rago.2000. Genetics, taxonomy, and conservation of the threatened Cali-fornia gnatcatcher. Conservation Biology 14::1394–1405.

72 Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar Sanderson et al.


AppendixExpert contributors to the workshop on “Jaguars in the New Millennium” (March 1999).

Region Expert contributor Institution

Northern Mexico Marcelo Aranda Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Veracruz, MéxicoGerardo Ceballos Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoCarlos A. López González Northern Rockies Conservation CooperativeRodrigo Medellín Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoBrian Miller Denver Zoological FoundationBill Van Pelt Arizona Game and Fish Department

Central America Eduardo Carrillo Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE)Sharon Matola The Belize ZooRoan McNab Wildlife Conservation SocietyCarolyn Miller Wildlife Conservation SocietyJohn Polisar Florida Museum of Natural History, University of FloridaAlan Rabinowitz Wildlife Conservation SocietyHoward Quigley The Hornocker Wildlife Research InstituteJoel Saenz Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica, HerediaChristopher Vaughan Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica, Heredia

Northern South America Ernesto Boede Centro Veterinario “Los Colorados,” VenezuelaLouise Emmons Division of Mammals, Smithsonian InstitutionAntonio González-Fernández Universidad Nacional Experimental de los Llanos

Occidentales “Ezequiel Zamora”Tadeu Gomes de Oliveira Maranho State University/Pró-Carnívoros AssociationRafael Hoogesteijn Gerente Hatos de Apur, Prohesa y Grupo de Especialistas en FelinosEdgardo Mondolfi Insituto de Zoología Tropical, Universidad Central de VenezuelaJohn Robinson Wildlife Conservation SocietyLeandro Silveira Pró-Carnívoros Association/Universidade Federal de GoiásMelvin Sunquist University of FloridaGerardo Zuloaga Villamizar Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nactional de Colombia

Southern South America Peter Crawshaw Jr. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa para a Conservaço de Predadores Naturais(CENAP/IBAMA)

Julio Dalponte Universidade de BrasíliaWarren Johnson Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer InstituteAlicia Kuroiwa Tambopata Research Centre, Rainforest ExpeditionsMaria Renata Pereira Leite Duke UniversityRonaldo Morato Pró-Carnívoros Association/University of So PauloPablo Perovic Instituto de Biologia de la Altura, Universidad Nacional de JujuyKarina Schiaffino Centro de Investigaciones Ecológicas Subtropicales, Administración de

Parques Nacionales, ArgentinaDaniel Scognamillo University of FloridaAndrew Taber Wildlife Conservation Society

planning to save a species: the jaguar as a model...in tropical forests or only in tropical forests...

Documents