You are on page 1of 34

Knowledge of Colombian biodiversity: published and indexed

Enrique Arbelez-Corts

Biodiversity and Conservation ISSN 0960-3115 Biodivers Conserv DOI 10.1007/s10531-013-0560-y

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com.

1 23

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv DOI 10.1007/s10531-013-0560-y ORIGINAL PAPER

Knowledge of Colombian biodiversity: published and indexed


ez-Corte s Enrique Arbela

Received: 27 January 2013 / Accepted: 29 August 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Documenting patterns of published studies on the biodiversity of megadiverse countries can offer valuable insights on global biodiversity knowledge. Here, I present results from a bibliometric analysis of 5,264 indexed publications on biodiversity in Colombia published during the period 19902011 and gathered by searching the Web of Knowledge database. I classied studies into six overlapping subjects: taxa lists, new taxa, new records, conservation, genetic diversity, and other. Publications were also classied by geographic location and the taxonomic group studied. I found variation in the number of studies per year, which presented a long-term trend of increasing volume. The 31 continental departments of Colombia and both the Atlantic and the Pacic oceans were represented in the studies, which included 98 taxonomic classes from 47 phyla. However, there were strong biases in taxonomic, geographic, and subject coverage. For instance, 75 % of studies focused on animals; and the Atlantic Ocean showed the highest number of studies, followed by Antioquia and Valle del Cauca departments. Genetic diversity and conservation were the least-studied subjects. I also found that Colombian researchers and Colombian institutions have played an important role in documenting the countrys outstanding biodiversity. However, Colombian biologists still prefer to publish in domestic or Latin American journals, which are mainly regional and have low international visibility. The patterns I present here can have important implications for optimizing and guiding research on Colombian biodiversity, and the paper concludes with some recommendations. Keywords Bibliometrics Colombia Conservation Data base South America Species Taxon

ez-Corte s (&) E. Arbela a, Departamento de Biolog a Evolutiva, Facultad de Ciencias and Posgrado en Museo de Zoolog gicas, Universidad Nacional Auto noma de Me xico, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 Ciencias Biolo xico, DF, Me xico Me e-mail: enriquearbelaez@gmail.com

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

Introduction For more than 250 years, scientic information about biodiversity has been archived in scientic collections and published in diverse media, but only now is it becoming available digitally through several databases (e.g., Biodiversity Heritage Library 2012; Encyclopedia of Life 2012; Global Biodiversity Information Facility 2012). This relative ease of accessing biodiversity information is opening a new approach in the study of biodiversity n and Peterson 2004; Smith et al. 2009; Liu et al. 2011; Wheeler et al. 2012). One (Sobero eld of study that bridges this new approach is bibliometrics, which uses several quantitative procedures to analyze scientic publications, and is a useful tool for evaluating scientic output and identifying gaps in knowledge (Pritchard 1969; Broadus 1987; nzel et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2011; Caputo et al. 2012). For example, a recent bibliometric Gla analysis revealed that global biodiversity studies became an important and dynamic eld of environmental and ecological research in 1990, with a strong emphasis on conservation and a high volume of publications from institutions in the United States (Liu et al. 2011). Biodiversity is a broad unifying concept, encompassing all forms and combinations of natural variation at all levels of biological organization (Gaston and Spicer 2004), yet this variation is not randomly distributed across the globe; for example, Latin America makes a disproportionately large contribution to global biodiversity (Myers et al. 2000; Orme et al. 2005; Kier et al. 2009). Latin American countries also have a bio-environmental publi nzel cation prole that focuses mainly on the biological, Earth, and space sciences (Gla et al. 2006). The scientic output of Latin American countries is related to their economic input, with the largest economies (i.e., Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina) having the highest n and Herrero-Solana 1999; Ino nu nzel 2003; Gla scientic production (De Moya-Anego et al. 2006; Caputo et al. 2012). While other Latin American countries have increased their n and Herrero-Solana 1999; scientic production during recent years (De Moya-Anego Bucheli et al. 2012; Caputo et al. 2012), Latin American journals remain under-represented in major international bibliographic databases, to the detriment of those publication efforts mez et al. 1999; Micha n 2011; Nielsen-Mun oz et al. 2012). (Go Documenting publication patterns of biodiversity knowledge in megadiverse countries is an important component of understanding global biodiversity knowledge. Likewise, as noted by Wilson (1984), biological knowledge has the potential to stimulate public interest in a countrys biodiversity, to the degree that it will be considered part of the national heritage. Colombia is a mid-sized country (1.1 million km2) located in northwestern South America, with marine territory in both the Atlantic and Pacic oceans (IAvH 1998). Colombia is one of the worlds most megadiverse countries, appearing frequently in the top ranks of species richness for several taxa and probably harboring more than 10 % of global biodiversity (Rangel-Ch. 1995, 2006; Samper 1997; IAvH 1998; Myers et al. 2000; Andrade-C 2007; Bernal et al. 2007; Stiles et al. 2011; IUCN 2012a; Sistema de Infor n sobre Biodiversidad de Colombia 2013). Governmental and non-governmental macio institutions have long been aware of Colombias outstanding biodiversity, which is recognized by several international treaties (IAvH 1998). However, Colombian biodiversity is not just a matter of conservation policy bound by international treaties, but also a source of national pride with strong connections to Colombian history, culture, and artistic expres enz 2001; Morcote-R os sions (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1976; Osborn 1995; Legast 2000; Sa 2006; Quintero 2011). Biodiversity can also be regarded as a storehouse of natural capital that can provide a diverse array of socioeconomic benets (Barrett et al. 2011; Atkinson et al. 2012; Palmer and Di Falco 2012). A scientic understanding of Colombian

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

biodiversity is thus of critical importance, and describing patterns of biodiversity publications can help optimize further research on Colombias outstanding biota. Several bibliometric and scientometric studies have examined scientic production in n and Herrero-Solana 1999; Anduckia et al. Colombia (Meyer et al. 1995; De Moya-Anego nu 2003; Bucheli et al. 2012; Caputo et al. 2012). In particular, analyses of 2000; Ino Colombian research in ecology and systematics describe the country as having made a n et al. 2008; modest contribution in comparison with other tropical countries (Micha Stocks et al. 2008; Pitman et al. 2011). However, these studies did not include Colombian ezjournals, in which publications about Colombian biodiversity are common (Arbela s 2013). Likewise, few studies have focused on analyzing Colombian biodiversity Corte using bibliometric approaches. One study analyzed the number of new species described ez-Corte s 2013), and two other studies focused for Colombia over the last decade (Arbela on vertebrate taxa (Estela et al. 2010; Stevenson et al. 2010). However, there is currently no bibliometric analysis of Colombian biodiversity as a whole. In this paper I use an explicit and repeatable method to analyze bibliographic information about Colombian biodiversity over a 22-year period (19902011) and to identify several key gaps in knowledge. More specically, my aims are: I) to depict temporal trends and geographical patterns, II) to examine taxonomic and subject coverage, and III) to describe basic bibliometric issues.

Methods Data collection and classication To compile a bibliographical dataset about Colombian biodiversity I searched the Web of KnowledgeSM (all databases, including Biological Abstracts, Biosis, Current Contents Connect, Web of Science, and Zoological Records) of Thomson Reuters (New York, noma de Me xico database facilities. The version USA) through Universidad Nacional Auto of the Web of Science included the following editions: Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. In February 2012 I performed searches in the topic eld, using the word Colombia plus the following keywords: biodiversity, biological, biology, checklist, ecological, ecology, endemic, endemism, fauna, faunistic, ora, oristic, species, and taxon. I used these general keywords because I considered them to be present in a broad range of biodiversity studies. The topic eld retrieves results from: title, abstract, authors key words, and the Keywords Plus of Web of Knowledge (i.e., a set of common words obtained from the references cited in each study). All results were saved as text les and compiled in a database manager. I restricted my search to the period of 19902011, because a recent analysis has shown that biodiversity publications worldwide increased dramatically after 1990 (Liu et al. 2011). After eliminating duplicates, my searches yielded 9,404 studies. I then used the information from each study (i.e., title and abstract) to choose only studies conducted in Colombian territory, or studies that were explicitly based on Colombian samples or specimens, including the following kinds of studies: checklists, descriptions of new taxa, new records or range extensions, revisions of taxonomic groups, ecology, conservation, natural history, morphometry, biogeography, phylogenetics, phylogeography, population genetics, ethnobiology, biodiversity management, and studies discussing issues of

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

conservation and access to biological information from a political, economic, or legal standpoint. I excluded studies conducted in other countries as well as studies with insufcient information in the title or abstract to assign the study to Colombia with absolute certainty. I also excluded studies related to other elds, such as: the humanities, geology, paleontology, paleoecology, agronomy, aquaculture, phytopathology, biological control, veterinary, epidemiology, medicine, clinical studies of human infectious diseases, laboratory essays in pathogens, and nomenclatural accounts. After this ltering, the nal database consisted of 5,264 studies on Colombian biodiversity. I then classied each study under various categories (see details below) by reviewing titles, abstracts, and (in cases in which abstracts and titles contained little information and the entire paper of the study was accessible to me) the main text (N = 1,320). I dedicated approximately 3 min to reviewing and classifying each study. Each study was rst classied by study subject, using six overlapping major subjects. Thus, one study could correspond to more than one subject, but each subject was analyzed independently. The six subjects were: I) Taxa lists: locality, regional, or country checklists, taxonomic revisions that included Colombian specimens, and some ecological studies reporting checklists of genera or species assigned to a dened landscape/locality or to an explicit ecological interaction (e.g., parasites from mammal species). II) New taxa: studies including descriptions of new varieties, subspecies, species, and genera. Studies which suggested but did not formally describe new species were not included in this subject. Additionally, for each study in this subject I counted the number of new taxa described and recorded their taxonomic category. III) New records: studies including explicit reports of a taxon in a locality where it was not previously known. These studies included both new records for Colombia and range extensions within the country. While new species can also be considered as new records I did not include them in this subject. IV) Conservation: studies dealing explicitly with the conservation or management of a particular species, ecosystem, or landscape. Studies on general issues related to conservation in the country were also included in this subject. V) Genetic diversity: studies using any molecular or genetic marker (e.g., DNA sequences, AFLPs, microsatellites, allozymes, or chromosomes) to analyze intraspecic variation. VI) Other: I used this subject to group a heterogeneous set of studies dealing with different issues, such as natural history, ecology, biological interactions, biogeography, taxonomy, systematics, morphometric variation, reproductive biology, and development. A detailed classication of this set of studies into their specic subjects would require a detailed review of each study, which was beyond of the scope of this work. Examples of studies assigned to each subject can be provided upon request. Each study was then classied by its geographic location. I recorded the department (i.e., rst administrative level in Colombian political division) or ocean where the study was carried out. I designated studies on marine ecosystems and islands to the ocean where they were conducted. In this way, studies from San Andres and Providence department, a Colombian Caribbean archipelago, were recorded as Atlantic Ocean, while studies from the Malpelo and Gorgona islands were recorded as Pacic Ocean. General studies (e.g., national taxa checklists or conservation analyses on a country scale), and studies conducted in more than two departments were dened as: Colombia. For studies conducted in two departments I recorded both departments and analyzed them independently. When information about the location of a study was not available I scored it as not indicated. Likewise, when locality information was not clear in a study (e.g., mention of just one locality in Colombia without another geographic reference), it was classied as not clear. I used this geographic classication by department because it was available for the

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

majority of the studies. Additionally, several Colombian academic and conservation/ management institutions (e.g., universities and corporaciones regionales) are circumscribed to departments and focus their activities at that level. Studies were also classied by the taxon examined. I used high taxonomic ranks (kingdom, phylum, and class), as dened by the Catalogue of Life (Bisby et al. 2011), and ascribed each study to the respective taxon included. Studies dealing with species from different classes, phyla, or kingdoms were dened as several and studies with broader issues (e.g., general issues about conservation or land cover analyses) were dened as not applicable. At this point I consider it necessary to clarify the reasons for including some studies focused on humans among the results. Several issues of human biology are studied by particular disciplines such as history, medicine, economy, anthropology, and in general what is known as social sciences; and none of these were included in the database. Other issues, however, are still in the domain of biology. For instance, ethnological knowledge of natural resources is studied by ethnobiology, genetic variation in human populations is part of population genetics and evolutionary biology, and the study of human impacts on ecosystems and the policy issues related to them fall into the context of conservation biology. These three kinds of human-related studies were included in the database. For the taxonomic classication of studies, only population genetic studies of humans were classied as Mammals. Studies focused on the conservation of a particular taxon were assigned to that taxon, while ethnobiology and other conservation studies were given the taxonomic classication of several or not applicable because of the broad scope of such works. Assessment of omission error Studies like this one, which are based on keyword searches in major databases, always suffer from some degree of omission error (i.e., the number of studies identied by the search is less than the number of existing studies). This error can be caused by the absence of some journals in the databases and by the absence of some studies in the search results due to inappropriate or incomplete keywords. While this kind of error can strongly bias the results of bibliometric studies, it is rarely discussed (Lorini et al. 2011). Another kind of error, the overestimation of the scientic production, was minimized because I ltered each study by examining the information in the title and abstract (see above). Here, I describe three different ways in which I measured the omission error of my database. First, I contacted 85 researchers via e-mail, including both Colombian researchers (from different institutions) and foreign researchers associated with Colombian institutions. I asked each researcher to supply ve to ten references of scientic papers that he or she considered to qualify as studies of Colombian biodiversity published during the period 19902011. I created a secondary list consisting of these references plus additional references that I had classied as studies of Colombian biodiversity before the database search. Then, I searched for all references of the secondary list in my database and dened the omission error as the percentage of secondary list references not included in my database. All omitted references were classied in the same way as references in my database in order to check for any conspicuous bias of those references and the studies included in my database. Second, I used the information presented in a recent study of all papers based on eld work in the Andes and Amazon published between 1995 and 2008 in Biotropica and Journal of Tropical Ecology (Pitman et al. 2011). I searched the studies included in my

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

database for the same period in those two regions and in both journals. After comparing my numbers with the numbers in Pitman et al. (2011), I considered the differences a second measure of omission error for my database. Third, following a recommendation of one reviewer, I performed a search in the Web of Science of studies published from 1990 to 2011 and including Colombia in the topic, and then ltered them by the sub-category biodiversity conservation. This search retrieved 166 studies, but the titles of several studies made it clear that they were conducted in another country or focused on paleontology. After removing them, 126 studies remained. I searched for these in my database and considered the difference as a third measure of omission error. Data analyses I used the information from the 5,264 studies to address questions related to four main issues. First, I used bar graphs and three-year mean tendency lines to describe the temporal trends in the number of studies per year for the complete dataset and for each subject dataset independently. Additionally, I divided the complete dataset into four ve-year periods (19901994, 19951999, 20002004, and 20052009) to test whether there were differences in the number of studies published per year, using a KruskalWallis ANOVA followed by a MannWhitney pairwise comparison. Second, I quantied the taxonomic coverage of studies about Colombian biodiversity by tallying the frequency of the major taxonomic ranks. Studies ascribed to several or not applicable were excluded (N = 635). To quantify trends in research on different taxonomic classes I recorded the subjects of the studies conducted for each taxonomic class which included more than nine studies (N = 4,444). Third, I used the department where each study was conducted to explore the geographic distribution of studies on Colombian biodiversity. I analyzed all studies with location information (N = 3,169), excluding studies ascribed to Colombia, not indicated, and not clear. Studies conducted in two departments were counted twice, once for each department. Additionally, I calculated the Simpson diversity index for each department, using PAST (Hammer et al. 2001), considering the number of studies for each taxonomic class. Because this index is sensitive to the most common taxa, low values could indicate which Colombian departments have a publication bias toward one or a few taxonomic classes. I then used ArcGis 9.3 (ESRI 2009) to assign the total number of studies, and the number of studies by subject, to the respective department or ocean. I classied these results into ve categories using natural breaks. I used this method to categorize the departments because my data were not normally distributed (ShapiroWilk test, all W \ 0.93, all P \ 0.05). I also depicted geographical trends of studies in botany, entomology, and vertebrate zoology, using taxa that are the focus of such disciplines. I used ArcGis 9.3 (ESRI 2009) to assign the total number of studies in each of these three disciplines to the respective department, classifying these results into ve categories using natural breaks, because my data were not normally distributed (ShapiroWilk test all W \ 0.9 all P \ 0.01). I also examined studies conducted in two departments to analyze whether neighboring departments were more frequently studied together than distant departments. Fourth, continental Colombia is typically divided into ve broad regions: Amazon, Andean, Caribbean, Orinoquia, and Pacic, and the numbers of species of both vertebrates n sobre and plants are available for these regions (Rangel-Ch. 2006; Sistema de Informacio Biodiversidad de Colombia 2013). Therefore, in order to identify regions which are under-

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

researched in relation to their species richness I grouped vertebrate and plant studies per o, department in each of the ve regions, as indicated in Table 1. Because the Cauca, Narin and Valle del Cauca departments include signicant territory in both the Pacic and Andean regions, I reviewed the studies assigned to these departments to determine in which region they were conducted. Fifth, I reviewed the journals included in my database and selected the ones with more than 22 studies (i.e., journals with at least one study per year), and then assessed the taxonomic coverage of each journal to depict basic bibliometric patterns of publications about Colombian biodiversity. Additionally, I analyzed the words included in the abstracts (N = 4,223 abstracts) using ConcApp V5 software (Greaves 2008), which provides several utilities for text analysis. I extracted the ten most common words by year to check for evidence of changes in researcher emphasis over time. I also examined the context in which those common words were used. Additionally, I grouped abstracts according to the three major disciplines (i.e., botany, entomology, and vertebrate zoology) to explore how researchers in different disciplines communicate their ndings about biodiversity in Colombia. I also analyzed the abstracts and grouped them into mainland (excluding studies dened as Colombia) and marine studies to test for differences in the focus of researchers in the two ecosystems. For these latter analyses I extracted the twenty most common words using ConcApp V5 (Greaves 2008). Once word counts were obtained, I excluded common words such as prepositions, articles, pronouns, some verbs, and numbers (e.g., to, from, the, of, we, are, was, two, three). Sixth, bibliometric studies usually include analysis of the institutional afliation of the authors to depict geographic patterns of research institutions and collaboration among them nzel et al. 2006; Stocks et al. 2008; Liu et al. 2011). However, institutional information (Gla is only available for searches conducted directly in the Web of Science database (i.e., full
Table 1 Number of studies on Colombian vertebrates and plants (19902011) for each major region Region Departments included Vertebrates Studies Species Studies per species 0.058 Plants Studies Species Studies per species 0.016

Amazon

Andean

Caribbean

, Guainia, Amazonas, Caqueta Guaviare, Putumayo, and s Vaupe , Caldas, Antioquia, Boyaca Cauca*, Cundinamarca, Huila, o*, Norte de Santander, Narin o, Santander, Risaralda, Quind Tolima, and Valle del Cauca* ntico, Bol var, Cesar, Atla rdoba, La Guajira, Co Magdalena, and Sucre Arauca, Casanare, Meta, Vichada , Narin o*, and Cauca*, Choco Valle del Cauca*

110

1,903

86

5,300

505

2,019

0.250

208

11,500

0.018

136

1,289

0.106

48

3,151

0.015

Orinoquia Pacic

80 86

1,527 1,491

0.052 0.058

15 56

2,692 4,525

0.006 0.012

n sobre BioData on species number per region are from Rangel-Ch. (2006) and Sistema de Informacio diversidad de Colombia (2013). Departments included in each region are indicated and asterisks indicate departments with signicant territory in two regions

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

record option), and not in searches conducted in the broader Web of Knowledge. Besides, analyses based on institutional afliations do not reect researcher nationality (Stocks et al. 2008). Therefore, in order to explore the nationality of the authors contributing to biodiversity research in Colombia I used ConcApp V5 (Greaves 2008) to extract the 100 most common surnames in the author eld of my database. Afterwards, I searched for those as de Colombia 2010). I 100 surnames in an online list of Colombian surnames (Genealog considered the proportion of the top 100 author surnames identied as Colombian surnames as a proxy of the contribution of Colombian researchers to biodiversity knowledge of the country. I am aware that this measure is based in the assumption that authors with such surnames are Colombian citizens. However, this assumption is plausible because I analyzed only studies about Colombia, several of them published in Colombian or Latin American journals (see below). I also applied my personal knowledge of the authors publishing on Colombian biodiversity, combined with specic queries to my database, to identify authors with high production and those assigned erroneously as Colombian or as de Colombia foreign according to the online list of Colombian surnames (Genealog 2010).

Results My database comprised 5,264 studies on Colombian biodiversity published during the years 19902011, in 849 journals and 72 symposia and conferences. These studies included information about 98 taxonomic classes of 47 phyla ascribed to Animalia (3,947 studies), Archaea (1), Bacteria (32), Chromista (12), Fungi (115), Plantae (810), Protozoa (55), and Viruses (29). Additionally, 169 studies considered several kingdoms, while 97 were not taxon-specic. The studies were conducted in Colombias 31 continental departments and in both oceans, with 1,759 studies classied as Colombia and 337 as not indicated or not clear. The secondary list of 280 references provided by 29 researchers from 17 institutions in ve countries included 37 studies that were not present in my database (an omission error of 13 %), but I did not nd any conspicuous bias in the coverage of those omitted references (see below). The second and third omission errors were lower: 9 and 9.6 %, respectively. There was considerable variation in the number of studies per year, with a general trend towards an increase in the number of studies through time (Figs. 1, 2). Differences in the number of studies among ve-year periods were signicant (Fig. 1, KruskalWallis Anova: P = 0.0005, MannWhitney pairwise comparisons: all P \ 0.05). The number of studies per year grew from 64 in 1990 to a peak of 426 in 2008, but declined during 20092011 (Fig. 2). A continuous growth rate was evident only for the subjects taxa lists, new records, and other, while the remaining subjects showed noticeable oscillations. The other and new taxa subjects accounted for the highest number of studies, 2,173 and 1,536 respectively, while conservation and genetic diversity accounted for only 460 and 287 studies, respectively. The new taxa subject included studies describing 2,646 new taxa (50 genera, 2,490 species, 98 subspecies, and 8 varieties). Additionally, 24 new taxa were mentioned but not formally described. Studies were biased toward animals (75 %), and other taxa were represented by few studies. Only 29 taxonomic classes had more than nine studies (Table 2) while 38 classes were represented by just one or two studies. Insecta (1,564 studies) was the most studied class, followed by Magnoliopsida and by the ve classes of the phylum Chordata (Table 2). The remaining 22 classes comprised only 17.3 % of the studies. Taxonomic

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv Fig. 1 Box plot depicting the number of studies on Colombian biodiversity per year, for four 5-year periods

coverage of each subject (Table 2) was similar to the major pattern depicted by the total set of studies. However, conservation studies focused on some classes of Animalia and Plantae, with 48 % of studies conducted on Aves and Mammalia. By comparison, the genetic diversity subject included a high number of studies of classes such as Sordariomycetes and Trypanosomatidae, taxonomic groups that were poorly represented in other subjects. The number of studies for each Colombian department and ocean varied broadly (from 9 to 448 studies, N = 3,169; Fig. 3). The most studied category ([208 studies) included the Atlantic Ocean with 448 studies, followed by Antioquia (286 studies), Valle del Cauca (285) and Cundinamarca (270). The second category (154207 studies) included Amazonas in southern Colombia, the Pacic Ocean, and Magdalena in the north. The following two categories (43153 studies) comprised mainly departments from the west (Pacic region) and from central Colombia (Andean region). The least-studied category (\43 studies) comprised 14 departments (almost one half of Colombia), some located in the east and south (Orinoquia and Amazon regions) and others in the north (Caribbean region). Analyses by subject showed a similar geographic pattern. However, Valle del Cauca and Cundinamarca dropped to a less-studied category for one or two subjects (e.g., conser, vation, genetic diversity, and new records), while other departments such as Boyaca , Narin o, and Santander moved up in the ranking for some subjects (e.g., conserChoco vation and new taxa). Studies conducted in two departments (N = 214) were more common (69 %) between neighboring departments. The Simpson diversity index indicated that Valle del Cauca and Cundinamarca, both at the top of the total number of studies, dropped to lower ranks. This is related to a bias towards studies of Insecta, which accounted for 88 and 129 studies, for Cundinamarca and Valle del Cauca, respectively (Fig. 4). The analysis of the three major disciplines (Fig. 4) showed a similar pattern as that already described for the Colombian mainland. For instance, Antioquia and Cundinamarca appeared at the top in two disciplines, and Amazonas and Valle del Cauca were in the rst

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

Fig. 2 Temporal patterns of the number of studies per year on Colombian biodiversity (19902011) for the entire dataset and for six subjects (taxa lists, new taxa, new records, conservation, genetic diversity, and other). The total number of studies for each year is indicated above each bar. The red line depicts a 3-year mean tendency. (Color gure online)

rank in one discipline and in the second category for the other two disciplines. Magdalena o appeared in the second category for two disciplines, while several departments and Narin in the east and north were always at the bottom of the ranking. The analysis by region (Table 1) showed that vertebrates were better studied than plants in all of the ve Colombian regions, both in total number of papers and when study number was corrected by species richness. In the Andes, the most studied region for both taxa, I calculated that there was one study per four vertebrate species while this value was as low as one study per 56 plant species. The analysis of the 37 omitted references revealed no bias in their coverage. For instance, they included 13 Colombian departments and both oceans, plus other studies classied as Colombia and not indicated. Taxonomically, they included animals in 25

123

Table 2 Number of studies on Colombian biodiversity (19902011) for each of the taxonomic classes included in each study Total 36 151 10 1,564 136 13 371 245 426 32 339 159 53 27 59 19 17 15 14 22 41 14 151 428 62 27 4 11 0 7 19 1 70 223 5 2 1 6 4 8 3 8 4 7 0 5 1 8 9 16 17 12 28 8 1 2 2 13 5 3 22 31 11 58 22 23 58 16 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 19 5 2 10 2 109 24 104 75 47 110 15 21 89 72 38 17 5 4 2 0 0 9 2 5 0 57 7 2 1 2 3 0 0 1 15 2 0 3 36 42 57 30 1 1 471 685 184 41 67 2 3 2 0 1 45 73 19 1 0 14 5 3 1 0 25 44 4 452 30 4 206 102 203 14 189 106 37 21 18 10 6 10 6 6 11 2 50 145 Taxa lists New taxa New records Conservation Genetic diversity Other

Taxa-kingdom

Taxa-phyla

Taxa-class

Animalia

Annelida

Clitellata

Biodivers Conserv

Animaia

Arthropoda

Arachnida

Animalia

Arthropoda

Branchiopoda

Animalia

Arthropoda

Insecta

Animalia

Arthropoda

Malacostraca

Animalia

Arthropoda

Maxillopoda

Animalia

Chordata

Actinopterygii

Animalia

Chordata

Amphibia

Animalia

Chordata

Aves

Animalia

Chordata

Elasmobranchii

Animalia

Chordata

Mammalia

Animalia

Chordata

Reptilia

Animalia

Cnidaria

Anthozoa

Animalia

Mollusca

Bivalvia

Animalia

Mollusca

Gastropoda

Author's personal copy

Animalia

Nematoda

Secernentea

Animalia

Platyhelminthes

Trematoda

Animalia

Porifera

Demospongiae

Fungi

Ascomycota

Lecanoromycetes

Fungi

Ascomycota

Sordariomycetes

Fungi

Basidiomycota

Agaricomycetes

Plantae

Bryophyta

Bryopsida

Plantae

Magnoliophyta

Liliopsida

123

Plantae

Magnoliophyta

Magnoliopsida

Table 2 continued Total 14 29 12 19 28 0 0 1 0 14 0 1 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 12 7 14 5 1 0 5 5 3 1 0 5 8 0 4 14 Taxa lists New taxa New records Conservation Genetic diversity Other

123

Taxa-kingdom

Taxa-phyla

Taxa-class

Plantae

Marchantiophyta

Jungermanniopsida

Plantae

Pteridophyta

Filicopsida

Protozoa

Apicomplexa

Not assigned

Protozoa

Euglenozoa

Trypanosomatidae

Viruses

Not assigned

Not assigned

Data are presented for the total dataset and for six subjects

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

studies and plants in six studies. The remaining six studies were classied as not applicable. Most corresponded to the other and taxa lists subjects. Chronologically, they included studies published in most years from 1990 to 2011. Finally, 13 of those studies were from Colombian journals, some of which were not included in the Web of Knowledge database. While 849 journals were represented in my database, studies on Colombian biodiversity were concentrated in a few journals. Only 32 journals included more than 22 studies (Table 3 in Appendix), while 590 included just one or two studies. The 32 top journals accounted for 46.7 % of studies. The top ten journals (Table 3 in Appendix) included seven Colombian journals, of which Caldasia was by far the most important both in number of studies and in taxonomic and subject coverage. The journals Zootaxa, Revista Colombiana de Entomoa, and Revista de Biolog a Tropical were the next most important, with the latter showing log the broadest taxonomic and subject coverage after Caldasia. Half of these 32 top journals were indexed in the 2011 Web of Science with an impact factor. The two journals with the highest impact factor were Biotropica and Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, but they ranked only 19th and 20th in number of publications on Colombian biodiversity. The majority of these listed journals (Table 3 in Appendix) focused on Animalia, including seven focused on Insecta and four on Aves. Of those 32 journals, seven included studies up until 2010, in spite of publishing volumes in 2011. The most common words in the abstracts for every year were: species, Colombia, described, and new. The word species was used in different contexts, such as descriptions of new species, reports of species counts, and descriptions of the natural history of a particular species. The words new and described were most commonly related to the description of new taxa. The other six common words varied among years but in general were similar to the previous ones (e.g., sp., genus, Colombian, nov., and illustrated). Only a few words showed some trend. For example, Brazil was common during the rst half of the 1990s and then disappeared; forest appeared during 8 years and was constant from 1997 to 2001, then disappeared and was common again in 2010. Species, Colombia, and new were also among the most common words for major disciplines and mainland and marine studies (Table 4 in Appendix). However, the latter analyses showed other noteworthy results. For instance, both botany and entomology showed other Latin American country names as common words, sharing Ecuador and Peru, while botany and vertebrate zoology shared Andes. Mainland and marine studies shared half of their common words, but exclusive words were illustrative of the focus in each main ecosystem (Table 4 in Appendix). Most author surnames (87 of the top-100 list, see Table 5 in Appendix) were identied as Colombian according to the list of surnames consulted. However, G. Kattan, a prolic Colombian biologist and a well-known leader in research on Colombian biodiversity, did not appear as Colombian in the list of Colombian surnames. In contrast, the list identied as Colombian the surnames Johnson and Brown, which in this case correspond to foreign researchers (e.g., K. Johnson, W.C. Johnson, C.D. Johnson, J.L. Brown, and J.W. Brown). a are productive Spanish authors who were also identied J. J. Jimenez and M. Ruiz-Garc as Colombian, and the latter is associated with a Colombian university. T. Deer, J. D. Lynch, and F. G. Stiles are other productive foreign researchers working at Colombian institutions. My analysis was also useful for identifying Colombian authors who have contributed large bodies of work on Colombian biodiversity, including: A. Acero, R. a, N.E. Ardila, I. Armbrecht, E.E. Bejarano, J. Betancur, R. Alvarez-Leon, G. Amat-Garc Benal, R. Botero-Trujillo, A. Cadena, C.D. Cadena, M.R. Campos, J. Cavelier, P. Chacon, a, J. Garzo n-Ferreira, D. L.M. Constantino, F. Escobar, F. Fernandez, E. Florez, C.B. Garc

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv bFig. 3 Geographic patterns of the number of studies on Colombian biodiversity (19902011) and the Simpson diversity index for each department and ocean. Number of studies is presented for the total dataset and for six subjects (taxa lists, new taxa, new records, conservation, genetic diversity, and other). Inset map depicts the location of Colombia in South America

as, R. Gonzalez, V.H. Gonzalez, J.A. Maldonado-Ocampo, L.G. Naranjo, G. Giraldo-Can n-Valencia, P.R. Stevenson, P.M. Nates-Parra, V.P. Paez, L.C. Pardo-Lorcano, C. Roma n iga. Ruiz-Carranza, J.A. Salazar, O.D. Solano, S. Zea, and M. d. C. Zu

Discussion The 5,264 studies on Colombian biodiversity compiled in this study represent the broadest bibliographic, subject, and taxonomic coverage of any bibliometric study on biodiversity for a Neotropical country. This is mostly because other studies focused on particular s and regions, taxa, subjects, or journals, or used a less comprehensive database (Corte n et al. 2008; Stocks et al. 2008; Estela et al. 2010; Nielsen 2002; Pitman et al. 2007; Micha oz et al. 2012; Stevenson et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011; Pitman et al. 2011; Nielsen-Mun ez-Corte s 2013). For instance, a study of global patterns of biodiversity publications Arbela did not include Colombia among the most productive countries, despite having gathered information for a broader period (19002009), and listed ten countries with fewer than 1,000 studies (Liu et al. 2011). This probably reects differences in data collection methods. Despite those differences, it is possible to compare my results, to some extent, with other studies. The number of studies on Colombian biodiversity for the period 19902011 is relatively high, considering that Colombia spends only 0.15 % of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on research and development while countries with the highest scientic production spend over 2 % (The World Bank 2012). However, Colombian scientic production is still below n and Herrero-Solana 1999; the expected output according to its GDP (De Moya-Anego nu 2003). Biodiversity publications represent around 30 % of Colombian scientic Ino ez-Corte s unpublished data), which is similar to the proportions production (E. Arbela nzel et al. 2006; Caputo et al. 2012). reported for other Latin American countries (Gla

Fig. 4 Geographic patterns of the number of studies on Colombian biodiversity (19902011) for each department according to three major disciplines

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

The increasing number of studies per year is not an idiosyncratic characteristic of Colombia, but rather reects changes in the international research landscape (De Moya n and Herrero-Solana 1999; Gla nzel 2001; Michels and Schmoch 2012), particularly Anego in the growth rate of biodiversity publications over the last two decades (Liu et al. 2011), and is similar to the pattern found for Venezuela (Caputo et al. 2012). However, my database indicated a decrease of studies by 2011. This could be related to a methodological bias, since my search was conducted in February 2012, and some journals probably had not fully updated their 2011 volumes at that time. Publications on Colombian biodiversity covered several subjects. However, the subject other accounted for the highest number of studies. Because other was a subject comprising several kinds of studies, a detailed classication of these studies could be more informative, and deserves further attention. With regard to the new taxa subject, I found that at least 2,490 new species were described in Colombia between 1990 and 2011. It has been shown that the number of studies describing new species has increased both globally n 2011; Costello et al. 2013). In fact, descriptions of new and in Latin America (Micha species in Colombia grew from the year 2000 to 2009, and averaged 0.73 % of all new ezspecies in the world, but there was ample variation among taxa (0.069.59 %, Arbela s 2013). Another notable result is that departments with the largest cities in the Corte , Cali, and Medell n) account for the most studies describing new taxa. country (i.e., Bogota In fact, the most recent new bird species (Thryophilus sernai, Lara et al. 2012) was n. This indicates that there is a large described from a locality less than 50 km from Medell number of unknown species even in the best-studied regions of Colombia, implying that the species numbers that make Colombia a megadiverse country are still low in comparison with their real numbers. One aim of biodiversity research is to describe ten million species in less than 50 years (Wheeler et al. 2012); therefore, a large portion of the international resources assigned to complete the global biodiversity inventory must be allocated to megadiverse countries such as Colombia in order to increase the rate of new species description. While studies in the taxa lists and new records subjects are basic and descriptive, they are important for documenting biodiversity at local and regional scales, and offer key support for conservation initiatives. Moreover, species lists can be used as data sources for more general studies (e.g., Kattan and Franco 2004; Kattan et al. 2004; Patten and SmithPatten 2008; Bass et al. 2010). However, despite the high number of descriptive studies, the basic documentation of biodiversity is still poor for several Colombian departments and for different taxa. Studies on conservation in Colombia focused on a few taxonomic classes, reecting the taxonomic bias in global conservation (IUCN 2012b), and most of the territory had few publications. Additionally, studies on conservation in Colombia represented only 9 % of the database, in contrast to a global analysis indicating that conservation held a central position in biodiversity studies (Liu et al. 2011). Finally, studies on genetic diversity showed a bias towards taxa related to infectious diseases, taxa of economic importance, and humans (which comprise one half of mammal studies in this subject). The most conspicuous characteristic of the taxonomic coverage of Colombian studies is that studies of Animalia outnumber those of Plantae. This same result had been already oz et al. 2012) and for studies about systematics in reported for Costa Rica (Nielsen-Mun n et al. 2008). While Plantae ranks second among taxa reporting the Latin America (Micha most descriptions of new species for Colombia, they only represent 1.25 % of species

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

described for the world, a proportion that is lower than the proportion represented by new ez-Corte s 2013). The low number of studies of Plantae Colombian vertebrate taxa (Arbela is even evident when compared with studies of vertebrates. The relatively few publications on Plantae over the last two decades is rare and merits further analyses, because Colombia has an outstanding ora, almost two million herbarium specimens, and a long tradition in az 1991; Bernal et al. 2007). botany (D The most notable feature in the geographic distribution of studies on Colombian biodiversity is the high rank of the Atlantic Ocean. This parallels the results of Miloslavich et al. (2010), suggesting that biodiversity of Colombian Atlantic Ocean was well represented in Caribbean marine biodiversity databases. The Pacic Ocean showed fewer publications than the Atlantic, probably due to the relatively more easy access to the second region. Besides, my word count analysis suggested that marine studies were biased toward coral reefs, which are more common and species rich in the Colombian Atlantic Ocean (Garzon-Ferreira and Pinzon 1999; Reyes 2000). However, a bibliographic analysis of marine birds (Estela et al. 2010) indicated a greater number of studies in the Pacic Ocean, implying that the pattern presented here could change depending on the taxa analyzed. It is worth noting that the high rank of both Colombian maritime territories is the result of comparing them to continental departments. When all continental studies are clumped they comprised 79 % of all studies, leaving only 21 % for marine studies (including islands). Other bibliometric studies a Tropical that 27 % of studies are on marine have reported for Revista de Biolog s and Nielsen 2002; Nielsen-Mun oz et al. 2012), while analyses of biodiversity (Corte particular disciplines have shown that marine organism are underrepresented (517 %) in comparison with mainland organisms (Hampe and Petit 2005; Beheregaray 2008). Also, journals that focus on marine ecosystems are poorly represented among the most active journals publishing on global biodiversity (Liu et al. 2011). Therefore, the proportion of studies on marine biodiversity in Colombia falls into the expected range for the marine ecosystem. The geographic patterns found for continental Colombia were expected because the highest numbers of studies were from departments that harbor the most productive academic institutions (Meyer et al. 1995; Anduckia et al. 2000; Bucheli et al. 2012). , and Magdalena ranked highly However, other departments such as Amazonas, Choco for several subjects. Those departments are of particular interest for biodiversity research because they harbor extensive areas covered by forests of extraordinary species richness or endemism (Faber-Langendoen and Gentry 1991; Duivenvoorden 1994; Lynch 2005; Bass et al. 2010; Forero-Medina and Joppa 2010). In contrast, several departments in eastern and southeastern Colombia presented few studies. This is probably a consequence of the difcult access of these areas or the high number of blica de Colombia armed actions there (Franco et al. 2006; Vicepresidencia de la Repu 2008, Regalado 2013). In fact, some studies have discussed the relationship between lvarez 2002; Fjeldsa valos 2001; A Colombias armed conict and its biodiversity (Da et al. 2005; Lynch and Arroyo 2009; Stevenson et al. 2010). The low number of studies in northern departments could be caused by a focus there on marine research. In studies involving two departments I found that neighboring departments were more common, suggesting that they are studied together probably because the ecosystem or taxon under study ranges across the area. It is clear that the number of studies presented here should be considered as a minimum of the total scientic production on Colombian biodiversity, due to the omission error of my database and because of the several studies that I assigned to general denitions (e.g.,

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

location = Colombia and Class = several). However, the omission error estimates suggest that my results are close to the total number of studies. I am aware that there is a large volume of information on Colombian biodiversity in several books that could ll some of the taxonomic, geographical, or subject gaps (e.g., Rangel-Ch. 1995; IAvH 1998; n et al. 2002; Rangel-Ch. 2004; Chaves and Rangel-Ch. 2000; Ardila et al. 2002; Caldero a 2006; Garc a and Galeano 2006; Amat-G et al. 2007; Rangel-Ch. 2008; RoSantamar mero et al. 2008; Rangel-Ch. 2009, 2010). However, books were not included in the data source that I used, and I did not nd another way to conduct an explicit and reproducible methodology to analyze book references. Other than books, gray literature is another source of biodiversity information in tropical countries (Pitman et al. 2007; Estela et al. 2010; Stevenson et al. 2010; Corlett 2011), but such documents are neither visible/ accessible nor easily citable. Despite the high volume of publications on Colombian biodiversity, the majority of this information remains in journals that have low to no impact factor; a fact that is clearly nzel detrimental to the visibility of these works. As documented for Brazilian scientists (Gla et al. 2006), Colombian biologists still prefer to publish in domestic and regional journals. Latin American journals are under-represented in international databases, partially because mez et al. 1999; Micha n 2011). Therefore, the of language and nancial reasons (Go scientic community must read and cite Latin American journals (several of them are open access), which include a lot of information from a region of incomparable biodiversity. Another feature of Colombian biodiversity publications is that none of the top journals identied here are among the top journals identied in a global assessment of biodiversity publications (Liu et al. 2011). As previously noted, this could be explained by methodological differences, but probably also indicates that Colombian biodiversity research is out of the mainstream of the eld. However, several good examples of research on Colombian biodiversity dealing with topics of broad interest have been published in top-level journals lez and Kattan (e. g., Andrade and Rubio-Torgler 1994; Duivenvoorden 1994; Arango-Ve a et al. 1998; 1997; Bernal 1998; Cavelier et al. 1998; Cavelier and Tobler 1998; Garc Renjifo 1999; Restrepo et al. 1999; Restrepo and Vargas 1999; Valenzuela 2000; Renjifo ddecke 2002; Zapata and Herron 2002; Armbrecht et al. 2005; Etter et al. 2005; 2001; Lu et al. 2005; Arbela ez-Corte s et al. 2007; Camargo Numa et al. 2005; Rodriguez-Buritica et al. 2009; Muriel and Kattan 2009; Castellanos-Galindo et al. 2010; Etter et al. 2011; Stevenson 2011). The role of megadiverse countries in advancing the knowledge of their own biodiversity seems to be increasing, as documented by the increase in taxonomists based in South America and Asia (Costello et al. 2013). A remarkable feature of publications about Colombian biodiversity is that they are dominated by authors with Colombian surnames (probably Colombian citizens), as well as foreign researchers afliated with Colombian institutions. This feature is shared with Brazil, Mexico, and the Madre de Dios department of Peru, where lead authors of ecological or biodiversity studies, tended to belong to local institutions; the pattern stands in contrast, however, to results from Costa Rica and Panama, where publications have mainly been written by authors oz from foreign institutions (Pitman et al. 2007; Stocks et al. 2008; but see Nielsen-Mun et al. 2012). This result could indicate a consolidation of biodiversity research around Colombian scientists and institutions, and is a good sign which indicates that biodiversity is a mature eld of Colombian science. Nevertheless, a precise quantication of the contribution of Colombia to the knowledge of its own biodiversity deserves an

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

nzel et al. 2006; Stocks et al. 2008; analysis based on institutional afliation (e.g., Gla Liu et al. 2011). Finally, my results suggest some recommendations for improving the documentation of knowledge about Colombian biodiversity. This could be addressed by two different, but complementary, approaches: rst, publishing more and in more visible journals; and second, conducting more research on particular targets. The rst approach is relatively less expensive than the second, and could quickly increase publication volume in coming years, continuing the trend depicted here. While precise numbers are not available, the grey literature (i.e., theses and technical reports), laboratory and eld notebooks, and scientic collections (some with data available through internet) are other sources of data about Colombian biodiversity. The use of these already-collected data to generate published studies is a priority. In fact, there are examples in which combining such data with the published literature has generated information at local, ezdepartmental, and regional scales (Bass et al. 2010; Miloslavich et al. 2010; Arbela s et al. 2011; Castellanos-Galindo et al. 2011). In addition, universities and Corte funding agencies could ask researchers to include published studies, or studies submitted to journals, in the results expected from the research they support. These same institutions, and other academic associations, could also promote more training in academic writing. In addition, researchers must recognize that much of their data merits publication and that there are particular journals specialized in publishing basic information about biodiversity (e.g., Check List: Journal of species lists and distribution). Table 3 in Appendix presents a list of the most active journals publishing on Colombian biodiversity that could be useful for some researchers to identify suitable forums for their studies. The editors of these journals also have a responsibility to maintain not only the quality and visibility of the studies they publish, but also the continuity and regularity of published volumes in order to satisfy international standards for indexing. The second approach is to conduct more research on particular targets. First, I have shown that a large part of Colombia (the Amazon, Orinoquia, and part of the Caribbean) is poorly represented and must be considered the principal geographical priorities for basic research during the next years. However, those regions have been under a severe armed conict over the last several years and their poor knowledge is due to a complex reality that does not reect scientic negligence (see Regalado 2013). In fact, Colombian institutions have tried to ll those gaps with particular publications (e.g., Romero et al. 2009 and the series: Field studies of the fauna and ora of La Macarena, Colombia). Biological eld stations are keystones for conducting research in the Amazon and Orinoquia (Pitman 2010; Stevenson et al. 2010; Pitman et al. 2011), and it is therefore necessary to both increase in Vaupes) and create or reactivate others. The support for existing stations (e.g., Caparu second target is to increase the number of published studies on plants. My data indicate that more such studies are necessary for the Andean region (which has the richest ora in o, and Tolima. Colombia), particularly in the departments of Cauca, Caldas, Huila, Quind Third, studies dealing with conservation and genetic diversity are common in the international research landscape and are another immediate priority for research in Colombia. While the number of these studies has increased in Colombia, it remains modest. The largest obstacle to conducting research based on genetic information in Colombia is obtaining the permits necessary to access genetic resources and collect specimens (Ne and Rojas 2007; Ferna ndez 2011). Therefore, it is necessary that the governmental moga

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv

agencies responsible for issuing permits understand the relevance of scientic research and provide efcient and prompt services for researchers, something that seems to be occurring (Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible 2013). Conservation studies are also an urgent priority in the Andean region, which faces the highest anthropogenic pressures and has the greatest species diversity for several taxa. Such studies are particularly necessary in , Caldas, Huila, Norte de Santander, and Tolima. Fourth, the least-studied taxa Boyaca probably harbor a large bulk of Colombian biodiversity and increasing knowledge about such taxa is another priority. Knowledge about groups such as Archaea, Bacteria, and Chromista, in addition to particular groups of Animalia (e.g., Rotifera, Acanthocephala), Fungi (e.g., Glomeromycota), and Protozoa (e.g., Mycetozoa, Cercozoa), could be enhanced by implementing new research techniques and strengthening cooperation with foreign researchers. More precise targets could be dened for particular taxa or subjects ez-Corte s 2013), and by the whole Colombian scientic community, of which (e.g., Arbela I have indicated and cited some of the most prominent biodiversity researchers over the last two decades. Their opinions and experience are crucial for optimizing knowledge about Colombian biodiversity: a unique, irreplaceable, and very important natural resource of the country.

Conclusion Despite several economic, security, and political problems faced by Colombia over the last century, I documented a growth in the number of publications on Colombian biodiversity over the last two decades. I also highlighted several gaps in the geographical, taxonomic, and subject coverage that should be addressed in the near future. Colombian researchers and institutions have played an important role in documenting the biodiversity of their country; however, Colombian biologists must nd a way to contribute with higher impact publications in order to gain more attention from the international community. The patterns presented here reect the general status of published studies on Colombian biodiversity and can be useful for optimizing and guiding research within this eld. Colombia ranks among the elite of megadiverse countries and their outstanding biodiversity is of great scientic importance. In addition, Colombian biodiversity is a source of national pride and is tightly intertwined with the cultural richness of the country. Therefore, biodiversity should remain a top research priority for Colombian science.
n General de Bibliotecas of Universidad Nacional Auto noma de Acknowledgments Thanks to the Direccio xico (DGB-UNAM) for providing access to the database and to the journals. Thanks to CONACyT -Me xico Me ri, T. Kobelkowsky-Vidrio, I. MacGregorfor a graduate studies scholarship (# 210543). I also thank A. S. Nya Fors, N. Pitman, and two anonymous reviewers who made valuable comments and corrections that improved this manuscript. A special acknowledgment to the researchers who sent me the references used to test the omission error of my database.

Appendix See Tables 3, 4, and 5.

123

Table 3 The 32 most active journals in Colombian biodiversity research (19902011) Year of the rst and last paper 1990, 2011 2002, 2011 1991, 2011 1990, 2011 1991, 2011 N.A. 17 147 52 48 8 12 0.459 26 149 35 21 16 14 0.248 3 150 57 22 28 5 0.927 18 178 32 152 24 0 1 5 7 2 N.A. 27 349 169 87 74 21 0 128 14 69 100 61 2011 Impact factor Taxonomic classes included Number of papers Taxa lists New taxa New records Conservation Genetic diversity Other

Biodivers Conserv

Journal

Journal country

Caldasia

Colombia

Zootaxa

New Zealand

a Revista Colombiana de Entomolog a Tropical Revista de Biolog

Colombia

Costa Rica

Colombia

Colombia 1997, 2011 1991, 2011 1993, 2011 1990, 2011 2000, 2009 2003, 2010 1991, 2010 1990, 2010 1993, 2011 1996, 2008 1997, 2011 1990, 2010 1991, 2010 1992, 2011 2.229 2.147 0.536 0.475 6 2 7 6 N.A. 1 N.A. 2 0.292 12 56 54 52 49 43 41 38 N.A. 1 62 N.A. 1 68 N.A. 15 84 N.A. 16 88 38 82 10 20 4 30 10 6 5 8 8 0.195 3 106 2 N.A. 22 115 63 1 102 7 1 3 0 48 6 6 39 37 0 5 N.A. 24 140 49 5 48 10 3 6 1 34 18 2 10 7 6 1 0 4

1996, 2011

N.A.

147

71

26

21

10 14 9 0 7 1 9 4 0 2 3 1 0 3 0

0 1 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 13

50 62 59 4 48 0 37 25 7 23 36 11 5 36 19

Revista de la Academia Colombiana sicas y de Ciencias Exactas F Naturales n Cient co Museo de Historia Bolet Natural Universidad de Caldas n de Investigaciones Marinas y Bolet Costeras gica Colombiana Acta Biolo

Colombia

Colombia

Novon

United States

gicas (Medell n) Actualidades Biolo

Colombia

Author's personal copy

Biota Colombiana a Colombiana Ornitolog

Colombia

Colombia

n SAO Bolet

Colombia

United States

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington n del Museo de Entomolog a Bolet de la Universidad del Valle

Colombia

Dahlia

Colombia

Brittonia

United States

Revista Brasileira de Entomologia

Brazil

Biotropica

United States

123

Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz

Brazil

Table 3 continued Year of the rst and last paper 1990, 2011 1990, 2007 1993, 2010 1990, 2011 1991, 1997 1990, 2008 1992, 2008 1991, 2011 1990, 2009 1990, 2004 2003, 2011 1993, 2010 N.A. 1 23 0.603 2 24 0.23 2 25 3 7 0 0.357 6 26 4 13 25 6 6 0.404 1 27 1 13 N.A. 3 27 3 25 1 3 2 4 4 12 0.22 12 27 9 4 4 N.A. 6 28 13 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 N.A. 5 30 6 18 5 0 0.336 1 31 5 2 3 3 N.A. 1 35 13 12 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.402 1 37 4 26 4 0 0 14 14 23 9 12 19 3 14 12 0 9 6 2011 Impact factor Taxonomic classes included Number of papers Taxa lists New taxa New records Conservation Genetic diversity Other

123

Journal

Journal country

Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington

United States

SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterologia a Neotropical Ornitolog

Spain

United States

Papeis Avulsos de Zoologia (Sao Paulo)

Brazil

Cespedesia

Colombia

Caribbean Journal of Science

United States

Revista Brasileira de Zoologia

Brazil

Coleopterists Bulletin

United States

Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment

England

Iheringia Serie Zoologia

Brazil

Author's personal copy

Neotropical Entomology

Brazil

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists Club

England

Information in each column is from the whole database, except for the journal country and impact factor, which were obtained from the web of science or from the respective journals web page. N.A. indicates that no impact factor has been assigned

Biodivers Conserv

Table 4 Abstract word counts


Frequency (%) 2.99 1.31 1.05 0.63 0.50 0.32 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 Habitat or habitats Distribution or distributions River or rivers 333 0.18 404 0.22 413 0.22 High Fish or shes 414 0.22 Study Found 420 0.22 Population or populations Andes or Andean 437 0.23 Found 766 652 613 532 Group or groups 440 0.24 Area or areas 780 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.17 Area or areas 552 0.29 Described 794 0.25 New or nov 572 0.30 Genus or genera 966 0.30 Forest or forests 625 0.33 Forest or forests 1,488 0.47 Caribbean Area or areas Reef or reefs New or nov Pacic Island or islands Fish or shes Found Population or populations 714 0.37 New or nov 1,748 0.55 Coral or corals Colombia or Colombian 1,417 0.75 Colombia or Colombian 2,328 0.74 Colombia or Colombian 670 504 458 342 340 259 256 249 239 196 Species or sp 3,210 1.69 Species or sp 6,177 1.95 Species or sp 1,284 1.46 0.76 0.57 0.52 0.39 0.39 0.29 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.22 Vertebrate zoology Count Frequency (%) Mainland Count Frequency (%) Marine Count Frequency (%)

Botany

Count

Frequency (%)

Entomology

Count

Biodivers Conserv

Species or sp

2,178

2.00

Species or sp

4,977

Colombia or Colombian

1,002

0.92

New or nov

2,180

New or nov

635

0.58

Colombia or Colombian

1,750

Forest or forests

626

0.58

Genus or genera

1,049

Genus or genera

447

0.47

Described

826

Described

383

0.35

Brazil

538

Plant or plants

277

0.25

Group or groups

419

Andes or Andean

252

0.23

Population or populations

409

Area or areas

246

0.22

Male or males

405

Ecuador

239

0.22

Ecuador

401

Author's personal copy

Distribution or distributions 0.21

227

0.20

Peru

375

High

207

0.19

Key or keys

349

Diversity

504

0.16

Distribution or distributions Distribution or distributions 495 0.17 Coast

182

0.20

Diversity

203

0.19

Forest or forests 0.20 0.19 0.19 Study Individuals Size 320 317 294

347

0.21

178

0.20

Found

196

0.18

Found

331

0.17 0.17 0.15

Andes or Andean Different First

491 482 481

0.15 0.15 0.15

Genus or genera Collected First

172 168 161

0.19 0.19 0.18

Illustrated

194

0.18

Collected

318

123

Peru

184

0.17

Type or types

308

Table 4 continued
Frequency (%) 0.18 Different 260 0.14 Total 481 0.15 Abundance or abundances Described Study Sea or seas 149 141 138 154 0.17 Vertebrate zoology Count Frequency (%) Mainland Count Frequency (%) Marine Count Frequency (%)

123
0.18 0.18 0.16 High 251 0.13 Collected 442 0.14 Conservation 252 0.13 Region or regions 474 0.15 First 254 0.13 Number or numbers 479 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.16

Botany

Count

Frequency (%)

Entomology

Count

Study

184

0.17

Distribution or distributions

312

Type or types

153

0.14

First

302

America

150

0.14

Venezuela

300

Croat

146

0.13

Costa Rica

268

Author's personal copy

The 20 most common words in abstracts of studies on Colombian biodiversity (19902011) from three major disciplines and from mainland and marine territory are presented

Biodivers Conserv

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv Table 5 Top 100 surnames of the authors of studies on Colombian biodiversity (19902011)

Surname Gonzalez Garcia Salazar Rodriguez Lynch Campos Diaz Acero Lopez Ramirez Sanchez Duque Velez Martinez Roman-Valencia Fernandez Gomez Martins Bernal Jimenez Giraldo Morales Moreno Stevenson Ubirajara Alvarez-Leon Munoz Kattan Restrepo Gutierrez Perez Rojas Vargas Alvarez Florez Cadena Escobar Ruiz Chacon Hernandez Torres Acosta Stiles Constantino

Count 115 101 101 82 82 75 71 66 64 63 63 62 60 58 58 55 55 52 50 48 44 43 43 43 43 42 42 41 39 38 38 37 37 36 36 35 35 35 34 34 34 33 33 32

Nationality Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Foreign Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Foreign Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Foreign Colombian Colombian Foreign * Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Foreign Colombian

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv Table 5 continued

Surname Castro Botero Bejarano Castillo Correa Garzon-Ferreira Decaens Pardo Jaramillo Londono Navas Armbrecht Zea Ruiz-Carranza Arango Ulloa Donegan Taylor Ardila Suarez Zapata Castano Leon Paez Velasquez Ruiz-Garcia Herrera Cavelier Maldonado-Ocampo Naranjo Ospina Reyes Valencia Johnson Medina Betancur Palacio Silva Wolff Salaman Marin Parra Giraldo-Canas Solano

Count 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 31 31 31 30 30 30 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 28 27 27 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 23 23 23 23

Nationality Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Foreign Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Foreign Foreign Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian * Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian* Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian Foreign Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv Table 5 continued

Surname Amat-Garcia Franco Zuniga Deer Wingeld Arias

Count 22 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21

Nationality Colombian Colombian Colombian Foreign Foreign Colombian Colombian Colombian Colombian* Foreign Foreign Colombian

The assignation of each surname as Colombian or foreign is based as de Colombia on Genealog (2010). Surnames marked with asterisk are indicating false assignations. Surnames are presented with the spelling they appear in web of knowledge

Castellanos Cardona Brown Clark Lourenco Mejia

References
lvarez MD (2002) Illicit crops and bird conservation priorities in Colombia. Conserv Biol A 16(4):10861096. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00537.x Amat-G G, Andrade-C MG, Eduardo C Amat-G (eds) (2007) Libro rojo de los invertebrados terrestres de n InterColombia. Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Conservacio nacional Colombia, Instituto Alexander von Humboldt, Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial, Bogota Andrade-C G (2007) Proyecto diversidad de las mariposas Andinas tropicales. http://www.andeanbutteries. org/colombia_sp.html. Accessed 03 Dec 2012 Andrade GI, Rubio-Torgler H (1994) Sustainable use of the tropical rain forest: evidence from the avifauna in a shifting-cultivation habitat mosaic in the Colombian Amazon. Conserv Biol 8(2):545554. doi:10. 1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020545.x mez J, Go mez Y (2000) Some features of Colombian research population (19831994). Anduckia J, Go Scientometrics 48(3):285305. doi:10.1023/a:1005684303869 lez N, Kattan GH (1997) Effects of forest fragmentation on experimental nest predation in Arango-Ve Andean cloud forest. Biol Conserv 81:137143. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00138-3 ez-Corte s E (2013) Describiendo especies: un panorama de la biodiversidad colombiana en el a mbito Arbela mundial. Acta biol Colomb 18(1):165178 ez-Corte s E, Castillo-Cardenas MF, Toro-Perea N, Cardenas-Henao H (2007) Genetic structure of the Arbela red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) on the Colombian Pacic detected by microsatellite molecular markers. Hydrobiology 583:321330. doi:10.1007/s10750-007-0622-9 ez-Corte s E, Mar n-Go mez OH, Duque-Montoya D, Cardona-Camacho PJ, Renjifo LM, Go mez HF Arbela o department, central Andes of Colombia. Check List 7(2):227247 (2011) Birds, Quind Ardila N, Navas GR, J. Reyes (eds) (2002) Libro rojo de invertebrados marinos de Colombia. La serie libros rojos de especies amenazadas de Colombia. INVEMAR. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Bogota Armbrecht I, Rivera L, Perfecto I (2005) Reduced diversity and complexity in the leaf-litter ant assemblage of Colombian coffee plantations. Conserv Biol 19(3):897907. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00062.x Atkinson G, Bateman I, Mourato S (2012) Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 28(1):2247. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grs007 Barrett CB, Travis AJ, Dasgupta P (2011) On biodiversity conservation and poverty traps. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(34):1390713912. doi:10.1073/pnas.1011521108 Bass MS, Finer M, Jenkins CN, Kreft H, Cisneros-Heredia DF, McCracken SF, Pitman NCA, English PH, Swing K, Villa G, Fiore AD, Voigt CC, Kunz TH (2010) Global conservation signicance of Ecua national park. PLoS One 5(1):122. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008767 dors Yasun Beheregaray LB (2008) Twenty years of phylogeography: the state of the eld and the challenges for the Southern Hemisphere. Mol Ecol 17(17):37543774 Bernal R (1998) Demography of the vegetable ivory palm Phytelephas seemannii in Colombia, and the impact of seed harvesting. J Appl Ecol 35(1):6474. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.00280.x

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv Bernal R, Celis M, Gradstein R (2007) Plant diversity of Colombia catalogued. Taxon 56(1):273 Biodiversity Heritage Library (2012) BHL: biodiversity heritage library web page. http://www. biodiversitylibrary.org/. Accessed 15 Jul 2012 Bisby FA, Roskov YR, Orrell TM, Nicolson D, Paglinawan LE, Bailly N, Kirk PM, Bourgoin T, Baillargeon G, Ouvrard D (2011) Species 2000 & ITIS catalogue of life: 2011 annual checklist. Species 2000. www.catalogueoife.org/annual-checklist/2011/. Accessed 05 Jul 2012 Broadus R (1987) Toward a denition of bibliometrics. Scientometrics 12(5):373379. doi:10.1007/ bf02016680 az A, Caldero n J, Lemoine P, Valdivia J, Villaveces J, Zarama R (2012) Growth of scientic Bucheli V, D production in Colombian universities: an intellectual capital-based approach. Scientometrics. doi:10. 1007/s11192-012-0627-7 n E, Galeano G, N. Garc a (eds) (2002) Libro rojo de plantas fanero gamas de Colombia. Volumen 1: Caldero Chrysobalanaceae, Dichapetalaceae y Lecythidaceae. La serie libros rojos de especies amenazadas de Colombia. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt, Instituto de Ciencias Naturales-Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Bogota nchez R, Mendoza S, Manrique N, Mogollo n A, Osorio J, Camargo C, Maldonado J, Alvarado E, Moreno-Sa nchez J (2009) Community involvement in management for maintaining coral reef Grajales A, Sa resilience and biodiversity in southern Caribbean marine protected areas. Biodivers Conserv 18(4):935956. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9555-5 Caputo C, Requena J, Vargas D (2012) Life sciences research in Venezuela. Scientometrics 90(3):781805. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0548-x Castellanos-Galindo GA, Krumme U, Willis TJ (2010) Tidal inuences on sh distributions on tropical eastern Pacic rocky shores (Colombia). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 416:241254. doi:10.3354/meps08768 a-Ladino LM (2011) Use of local ecological Castellanos-Galindo GA, Cantera JR, Espinosa S, Mej knowledge, scientists observations and grey literature to assess marine species at risk in a tropical eastern Pacic estuary. Aquat Conserv 21(1):3748. doi:10.1002/aqc.1163 Cavelier J, Tobler A (1998) The effect of abandoned plantations of Pinus patula and Cupressus lusitanica on soilsand regeneration of a tropical montane rain forest in Colombia. Biodivers Conserv 7(3):335347. doi:10.1023/a:1008829728564 Cavelier J, Aide T, Santos C, Eusse A, Dupuy J (1998) The savannization of moist forests in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. J Biogeogr 25:901912. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.1998.00222.x a M (eds) (2006) Informe nacional sobre el avance en el conocimiento y la inforChaves ME, Santamar n de la biodiversidad 19982004: tomo I, vol 1. Instituto de Investigacio n de Recursos Biolmacio gicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogota D.C o Corlett RT (2011) Trouble with the gray literature. Biotropica 43(1):35. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2010. 00714.x s J, Nielsen V (2002) Las ciencias del mar en la Revista de Biolog a Tropical en su 50 aniversario. Rev Corte Biol Trop 50:903907 Costello MJ, May RM, Stork NE (2013) Can we name Earths species before they go extinct? Science 339(6118):413416. doi:10.1126/science.1230318 valos L (2001) The San Lucas mountain range in Colombia: how much conservation is owed to the Da violence? Biodivers Conserv 10(1):6978. doi:10.1023/a:1016651011294 n F, Herrero-Solana V (1999) Science in America Latina: a comparison of bibliometric and De Moya-Anego scientic-technical indicators. Scientometrics 46(2):299320. doi:10.1007/bf02464780 az S (1991) La bota nica en Colombia, hechos notables en su desarrollo. Coleccio n Enrique Pe rez ArD ez. Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, F sicas y Naturales, Santa Fe de Bogota bela area, Duivenvoorden JF (1994) Vascular plant species counts in the rain forests of the middle Caqueta Colombian Amazonia. Biodivers Conserv 3(8):685715. doi:10.1007/bf00126860 Encyclopedia of Life (2012) EOL: encyclopedia of life. http://eol.org/. Accessed 10 Aug 2012 ESRI (2009) ArcGIS desktop: release 9.3. redlands. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands pez-Victoria M, Castillo LF, Naranjo LG (2010) Estado del conocimiento sobre aves marinas Estela FA, Lo s de 110 an n. Bol SAO 20:221 os de investigacio en Colombia, despue Etter A, McAlpine C, Pullar D, Possingham H (2005) Modeling the age of tropical moist forest fragments in heavilycleared lowland landscapes of Colombia. For Ecol Manag 208:249260. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.12.008 Etter A, McAlpine CA, Seabrook L, Wilson KA (2011) Incorporating temporality and biophysical vulnerability to quantify the human spatial footprint on ecosystems. Biol Conserv 144(5):15851594. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.004 Faber-Langendoen D, Gentry AH (1991) The structure and diversity of rain forests at Bajo Calima, Choco region, Western Colombia. Biotropica 23(1):211 ndez F (2011) The greatest impediment to the study of biodiversity in Colombia. Caldasia 33(2):25 Ferna

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv lvarez MD, Lazcano JM, Leo n B (2005) Illicit crops and armed conict as constraints on J, A Fjeldsa biodiversity conservation in the andes region. AMBIO 34(3):205211. doi:10.1579/0044-7447-34.3. 205 Forero-Medina G, Joppa L (2010) Representation of global and national conservation priorities by Colombias protected area network. PLoS One 5(10):e13210. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013210 ez LC, Rozo P (2006) The effects of the armed conict on the life and Franco S, Suarez CM, Naranjo CB, Ba health in Colombia. Cien Saude Colet 11(2):349361. doi:10.1590/S1413-81232006000200013 a N, Galeano G (eds) (2006) Libro Rojo de Plantas de Colombia. Volumen 3: Las bromelias, las Garc labiadas y las pasioras. Serie Libros Rojos de Especies Amenazadas de Colombia. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt, Instituto de Ciencias Naturales de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial, Bogota a CB, Duarte LO, von Schiller D (1998) Demersal sh assemblages of the gulf of Salamanca, Garc Colombia (southern Caribbean Sea). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 174(26):1325. doi:10.3354/meps174013 n ra pida de estructura y salud de las formaciones coralinas de Garzon-Ferreira J, Pinzon JH (1999) Evaluacio co Colombiano). Bol Invest Mar Cost 28:137154 la isla Malpelo (Pacif Gaston KJ, Spicer JI (2004) Biodiversity: an introduction, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford as de Colombia (2010). http://www.genealogiasdecolombia.com/apellidos/. Accessed 29 May Genealog 2013 nzel W (2001) National characteristics in international scientic co-authorship relations. Scientometrics Gla 51(1):69115. doi:10.1023/a:1010512628145 nzel W, Leta J, Thijs B (2006) Science in Brazil. Part 1: a macro-level comparative study. Scientometrics Gla 67(1):6786. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0055-7 Global Biodiversity Information Facility (2012) GBIF: global biodiversity information facility web page. http://www.gbif.org/. Accessed 15 Jul 2012 mez I, Sancho R, Moreno L, Ferna ndez M (1999) Inuence of Latin American journals coverage by Go international databases. Scientometrics 46(3):443456. doi:10.1007/bf02459603 Greaves C (2008) ConcApp V 5 Hammer , Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4(1):19 Hampe A, Petit RJ (2005) Conserving biodiversity under climate change: the rear edge matters. Ecol Lett 8:461467. doi:111/j.1461-0248.2005.00739.x IAvH (1998) Informe nacional sobre el estado de la biodiversidad Colombia 1997 vol Tomo I: Diversidad gica. Instituto Humboldt, PNUMA, Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Santa Fe de Bogota Biolo nu E (2003) The inuence of cultural factors on scientic production. Scientometrics 56(1):137146. Ino doi:10.1023/a:1021906925642 IUCN (2012a) The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/ initiatives/amphibians/analysis/geographic-patterns. Accessed 03 Dec 2012 IUCN (2012b) The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2: summary statistics. http://www. iucnredlist.org/about/summary-statistics. Accessed 10 Dec 2012 Kattan GH, Franco P (2004) Bird diversity along elevational gradients in the Andes of Colombia: area and mass effects. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13(5):451458. doi:10.1111/j.1466-822X.2004.00117.x Kattan GH, Franco P, Rojas V, Morales G (2004) Biological diversication in a complex region: a spatial analysis of faunistic diversity and biogeography of the Andes of Colombia. J Biogeogr 31:18291839. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01109.x Kier G, Kreft H, Lee TM, Jetz W, Ibisch PL, Nowicki C, Mutke J, Barthlott W (2009) A global assessment of endemism and species richness across island and mainland regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(23):93229327. doi:10.1073/pnas.0810306106 n-F D, Cadena CD (2012) A new species of wren (TrogLara CE, Cuervo AM, Valderrama SV, Caldero lodytidae: Thryophilus) from the dry Cauca river canyon, northwestern Colombia. Auk 129(3):537550 a Muisca. Bol Mus Oro 46:2239 Legast A (2000) La gura serpentiforme en la iconograf Liu X, Zhang L, Hong S (2011) Global biodiversity research during 19002009: a bibliometric analysis. Biodivers Conserv 20:807826. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9981-z Lorini ML, Paese A, Uezu A (2011) GIS and spatial snalysis meet conservation: a promising synergy to address biodiversity issues. Nat Conserv 9(2):129144 ddecke H (2002) Variation and trade-off in reproductive output of the Andean frog Hyla labialis. Lu Oecologia 130(3):403410. doi:10.1007/s00442-001-0820-5 Lynch JD (2005) Discovery of the richest frog fauna in the worldan exploration of the forests to the north of Leticia. Rev Acad Colomb Cienc 29(113):581588

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv Lynch JD, Arroyo SB (2009) Risks to Colombian amphibian fauna from cultivation of Coca (Erythroxylum coca): a geographical analysis. J Toxicol Env Heal A 72(1516):974985. doi:10.1080/ 15287390902929733 s J, Chatelin Y (1995) Is it opened or closed? Colombian science on the move. Meyer J, Charum J, Grane Scientometrics 34(1):7386. doi:10.1007/bf02019174 n L (2011) Ana lisis bibliome trico de la produccio n sistema tica en Ame rica Latina. Acta biol Colomb Micha 16(2):3346 n L, Russell JM, Pereyra AS, Cruset AL, Beltra n CL (2008) Ana lisis de la sistema tica actual en Micha rica. Interciencia 33(10):754761 Latinoame Michels C, Schmoch U (2012) The growth of science and database coverage. Scientometrics 93(3):831846. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0732-7 az JM, Klein E, Alvarado JJ, D az C, Gobin J, Escobar-Briones E, Cruz-Motta JJ, Weil E, Miloslavich P, D s J, Bastidas AC, Robertson R, Zapata F, Mart n A, Castillo J, Kazandjian A, Ortiz M (2010) Corte Marine biodiversity in the Caribbean: regional estimates and distribution patterns. PLoS One 5(8):e11916 Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (2013) Decreto No.1376 por el cual se reglamenta el n de espec menes de especies silvestres de la diversidad biolo gica con nes de permiso de recoleccio n cient ca no comercial. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, Bogota D. C investigacio os G (2006) Tumbas y plantas antiguas del suroccidente Colombiano. Bol Mus Oro 54:4671 Morcote-R Muriel SB, Kattan GH (2009) Effects of patch size and type of coffee matrix on Ithomiine buttery diversity and dispersal in cloud-forest fragments. Conserv Biol 23(4):948956. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009. 01213.x Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772):853858. doi:10.1038/35002501 GR, Rojas DA (2007) Algunas lecciones sobre el acceso a recursos gene ticos en Colombia. Dos Nemoga estudios de caso. Acta biol Colomb 14(2):137160 jera J (2012) Bibliometry of Costa Rica biodiversity oz V, Azofeifa-Mora AB, Monge-Na Nielsen-Mun a Tropical/International Journal of Tropical Biology and studies published in the Revista de Biolog Conservation (2000-2010): the content and importance of a leading tropical biology journal in its 60th Anniversary. Rev Biol Trop 60(4):14051413 nchez-Palomino P (2005) Phyllostomid bat diversity in a variegated coffee landscape. JR, Sa Numa C, Verdu Biol Conserv 122(1):151158. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.013 Orme CDL, Davies RG, Burgess M, Eigenbrod F, Pickup N, Olson VA, Webster AJ, Ding T-S, Rasmussen PC, Ridgely RS, Statterseld AJ, Bennett PM, Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Owens IPF (2005) Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat. Nature 436(7053):10161019. doi:10.1038/nature03850 a y estructura social entre los Uwa. Banco de la Repu blica Osborn A (1995) Las cuatro estaciones: Mitolog Museo del Oro, Bogota Palmer C, Di Falco S (2012) Biodiversity, poverty, and development. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 28(1):4868. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grs008 Patten MA, Smith-Patten BD (2008) Biogeographical boundaries and Monmoniers algorithm: a case study in the northern Neotropics. J Biogeogr 35(3):407416. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2007.01831.x Pitman NCA (2010) Research in biodiversity hotspots should be free. Trends Ecol Evol 25(7):381. doi:10. 1016/j.tree.2010.04.002 ldegui MDCL, Salas K, Vigo GT, Lutz DA (2007) Written accounts of an Amazonian Pitman NCA, Aza landscape over the last 450 years. Conserv Biol 21(1):253262. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00576.x Pitman NCA, Widmer J, Jenkins CN, Stocks G, Seales L, Paniagua F, Bruna EM (2011) Volume and geographical distribution of ecological research in the Andes and the Amazon, 19952008. Trop Conserv Sci 4(1):6481 Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J Documentation 25(4):348349 Quintero C (2011) Trading in birds imperial power, national pride, and the place of Nature in U.S. Colombia relations. Isis 102:421445. doi:10.1086/661592 tica I. clima, Centros de concentracio n de especies, Rangel-Ch JO (ed) (1995) Colombia diversidad bio de Bogota fauna. Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Santafe tica III. La regio n de vida paramuna. Instituto de Rangel-Ch JO (ed) (2000) Colombia diversidad bio Ciencias Naturales, Instituto Alexander von Humboldt, Bogota tica IV. El choco biogeogra co/costa pac ca. Instituto Rangel-Ch JO (ed) (2004) Colombia diversidad bio n Internacional, Bogota de Ciencias Naturales, Conservacio Rangel-Ch JO (2006) La biodiversidad de Colombia. Palimpsestos 5:292304

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv tica VI. Riqueza y diversidad de los musgos y l quenes Rangel-Ch JO (ed) (2008) Colombia diversidad bio en Colombia. Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Bogota tica VIII. Media y baja montan a de Perija . a de la serran Rangel-Ch JO (ed) (2009) Colombia diversidad bio Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Bogota tica IX: Cie nagas de co rdoba: biodiversidad-ecolog a y Rangel-Ch JO (ed) (2010) Colombia diversidad bio manejo ambiental. Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Instituto de Ciencias Naturales-CVS, Bogota Regalado A (2013) Venturing back into Colombia. Science 341(6145):450452. doi:10.1126/science.341. 6145.450 Reichel-Dolmatoff G (1976) Cosmology as ecological analysis: a view from the rain forest. Man New Series 11(3):307318 Renjifo LM (1999) Composition changes in a Subandean avifauna after long-term forest fragmentation. Conserv Biol 13(5):11241139. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98311.x Renjifo LM (2001) Effect of natural and anthropogenic landscapes matrices on the abundance of subandean bird species. Ecol Appl 11(1):1431. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011 Restrepo C, Vargas A (1999) Seeds and seedlings of two neotropical montane understory shrubs respond differently to anthropogenic edges and treefall gaps. Oecologia 119:419426. doi:10.1007/ s004420050803 Restrepo C, Gomez N, Heredia S (1999) Anthropogenic edges, treefall caps, and fruit-frugivore interactions in a neotropical montane forest. Ecol 80(2):668685 Reyes J (2000) Lista de los Corales (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia) de Colombia. Biota Col 1(2):164176 S, Orjuela M, Galeano G (2005) Demography and life history of Geonoma orbignyana: Rodriguez-Buritica an understory palm used as foliage in Colombia. Forest Ecol Manag 211(3):329340. doi:10.1016/j. foreco.2005.02.052 Romero MH, Cabrera E, Ortiz N (2008) Informe sobre el estado de la biodiversidad en Colombia 20062007. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt Colombia, Bogota Romero MH, Maldonado-Ocampo JA, Bogota-Gregory JD, Usma JS, Umana-Villaveces AM, Murillo JI, Restrepo-Calle S, Alvarez M, Palacios-Lozano MT, Valbuena MS, Mejia SL, Aldana-Dominguez J, Payan E (2009) Informe sobre el estado de la biodiversidad en Colombia 2007-2008: Piedemonte orinoquense, Sabanas y Bosques Asociados al Norte del Rio Guaviare, Bogota enz J (2001) Las a guilas doradas: ma s alla de las fronteras y del tiempo: el motivo de las aves con alas Sa a Tairona. Bol Mus Oro 48:3865 desplegadas en la orfebrer Samper C (1997) Linking science and policy: A research agenda for Colombian biodiversity. In: Raven PH, Williams T (eds) Nature and human society: the quest for a sustainable World. National Academy press, Washington, pp 483491 n sobre Biodiversidad de Colombia (2013) Las cifras de biodiversidad en Colombia. Sistema de Informacio http://www.sibcolombia.net/web/sib/cifras. Accessed 10 Mar 2013 Smith V, Rycroft S, Harman K, Scott B, Roberts D (2009) Scratchpads: a data-publishing framework to build, share and manage information on the diversity of life. BMC Bioinforma 10(14):S6. doi:10.1186/ 1471-2105-10-S14-S6 n J, Peterson AT (2004) Biodiversity informatics: managing and applying primary biodiversity data. Sobero Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 359:689698. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1439 Stevenson PR (2011) Pulpseed attachment is a dominant variable explaining legitimate seed dispersal: a case study on woolly monkeys. Oecologia 1666:693701. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-1926-z n DC, Deer TR (2010) Conservation of Colombian primates: an analysis of pubStevenson PR, Guzma lished research. Trop Conserv Sci 3(1):4562 rquez CI, Estela F, Arzuza D (2011) Species lists of birds for South Stiles FG, Cuervo AM, Rosselli L, Boho American countries and territories: Colombia. http://www.museum.lsu.edu/*Remsen/ SACCCountryLists.html. Accessed 03 Dec 2012 Stocks G, Seales L, Paniagua F, Maehr E, Bruna EM (2008) The geographical and institutional distribution of ecological research in the tropics. Biotropica 40(4):397404 The World Bank (2012) Data: Research and development expenditure (% of GDP). http://data.worldbank. org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS. Accessed 03 Dec 2012 Valenzuela N (2000) Multiple paternity in side-neck turtles Podocnemis expansa: evidence from microsatellite DNA data. Mol Ecol 9(1):99105. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00806.x blica de Colombia (2008) Acciones armadas por municipio an os 2000-2008. Vicepresidencia de la Repu co Agust n Codazzi. http://sigotn.igac. blica de Colombia. Instituto Geogra Escala 1:500.000. Repu gov.co/sigotn/. Accessed 10 Dec 2012 Wheeler QD, Knapp S, Stevenson DW, Stevenson J, Blum SD, Boom BM, Borisy GG, Buizer JL, De Carvalho MR, Cibrian A, Donoghue MJ, Doyle V, Gerson EM, Graham CH, Graves P, Graves SJ,

123

Author's personal copy


Biodivers Conserv Guralnick RP, Hamilton AL, Hanken J, Law W, Lipscomb DL, Lovejoy TE, Miller H, Miller JS, Naeem S, Novacek MJ, Page LM, Platnick NI, Porter-Morgan H, Raven PH, Solis MA, Valdecasas AG, Van Der Leeuw S, Vasco A, Vermeulen N, Vogel J, Walls RL, Wilson EO, Woolley JB (2012) Mapping the biosphere: exploring species to understand the origin, organization and sustainability of biodiversity. Syst Biodivers 10(1):120. doi:10.1080/14772000.2012.665095 Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Zapata F, Herron P (2002) Pelagic larval duration and geographic distribution of tropical eastern Pacic snappers (Pisces: Lutjanidae). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 230:295300

123