Brink of extinction: red list of epiphytes of Colombia

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2870466/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Brink of extinction: red list of epiphytes of Colombia

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2870466/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The IUCN Red List assessments of Colombian flora significantly impact national public policy by informing conservation strategies and prioritizing areas for conservation. However, little is known about the distribution, conservation status, or evolutionary history of most Colombian epiphytes, which prevents the development of strategies aimed at their protection. In this article, we present the results of national assessments of extinction risk for 290 species of vascular epiphyte species from Colombia, including 81 country endemics, using geographic occurrences obtained from GBIF, herbarium specimens, and expert observations and implementing an analysis of habitat quantity and quality. We identify the most common threats facing these taxa and highlight the most at-risk taxa, to identify conservation priorities for epiphytic plants in this megadiverse country. We show that focusing on specific taxonomic groups at the national level is a practical approach for accelerating the assessment process. We suggest continuing working collectively, implementing workshops to share the complete route for an individual or multispecies assessment, and sharing experiences of efforts in several countries since, with a standardized methodology and published evaluations in national and global repositories, we can continue working for the conservation of biodiversity of mega-diverse countries, which its protection is critical to maintaining global biodiversity.

Conservation status

Andean Forest

land use change

orchids

Gesneriaceae

ferns

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is widely recognized as one of the most comprehensive and authoritative sources of information on the status of species and the threats they face and is a critical indicator of the health of the world's biodiversity (Brooks et al., 2006; Butchart et al., 2010). It is a potent instrument to inform and galvanize action toward biodiversity conservation and policy reform. It also plays a pivotal role in protecting natural resources crucial for our survival (Betts et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2008). The IUCN Red List is essentially a list of taxa that have undergone an extinction risk assessment using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN, 2022). More than 62,000 plant species have had their extinction risk evaluated under these criteria, but biases remain toward shrubs and trees (IUCN, 2023a).

Global assessments are desired, but national assessments can directly influence environmental policies and the country's agenda. In Colombia, a hotspot of biodiversity (SiB Colombia, 2023a; Ulloa Ulloa et al., 2017), more than 4 thousand species have been assessed during the last decade (IPBES, 2018; IUCN, 2023b). The IUCN Red List assessments of Colombian flora have had a significant impact on national public policy by informing conservation strategies and prioritizing areas for conservation. One example is the development of Colombia's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, which is based in part on the IUCN Red List assessments (Rojas and Mora Jaime, 2017).

The current ratio of assessed species is approximately 18%, i.e., of the estimated 75,947 species of plants, animals, and fungi found in Colombia, since around 13,450 have Red List assessments (IUCN, 2023b; SiB Colombia, 2023a). For plants, this proportion is approximately 32% (14,000 out of 45,000) (IUCN, 2023b). Colombian Plant Specialist Group is trying to increase the assessed species with recent efforts focused on endemic trees (López-Gallego and Morales-Morales 2023).

Epiphytic plants are considered among the most extinction-vulnerable species groups due to forest loss (Hsu et al., 2012; Leão et al., 2014) and ecosystem degradation. Both processes affect pollination, dispersion, and natural regeneration (Kremen et al., 2007), resulting in a cascade effect over epiphyte assemblages and other components of the forest (Zotz and Bader, 2009). In addition, to an unsustainable collection of epiphytes for ornamental, medicinal, or handcraft manufacturing uses, species populations are depleted under natural conditions (Hinsley et al., 2017).

An estimated 31,000 species of vascular epiphytes exist worldwide (Zotz et al., 2021b), and epiphytes represent up to 40% of vascular diversity in some tropical forests (Benzing, 1990; Mendieta-Leiva et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2021). More than 6,000 species of epiphytes are estimated to occur in Colombia, including 1,668 country endemics (Arango et al., unpublished). This corresponds to nearly 20% of all Colombian plant diversity Fields (Bernal et al., 2015) and around 20% of the global estimate of vascular epiphytes fields (Zotz et al., 2021b). Because of this exceptional diversity, little is known about the distribution, conservation status, or evolutionary history of most Colombian epiphytes, which prevents the development of strategies aimed at their protection.

To help close this gap in our knowledge, we present IUCN Red List assessments for 290 species of vascular epiphytes from Colombia, including 81 country endemics. For the first time, we characterize their distributions, establish their risk of extinction, and identify the most common threats facing these taxa. We also highlight the most at-risk taxa, intending to identify conservation priorities for epiphytic plants in this megadiverse country.

We restricted the scope of these assessments to epiphyte species whose distribution is entirely or partly within Colombia.

Data collection

Epiphytes are plant species germinating and growing non-parasitically on other plants, primarily trees (Zotz, 2016). Here, we use the epiphyte in a broader sense, including all plant species that typically grow epiphytically (true epiphytes and facultative epiphytes), hemiepiphytes (Zotz et al., 2021a), and nomadic vines (Bautista-Bello et al., 2021; Moffett, 2000; Zotz, 2013). For the purposes of this study, we restricted the scope of assessments to vascular epiphyte species with distributions that are partly or entirely within Colombia. We generated a list of species names by integrating several complementary sources. First, we selected species listed as epiphytes or hemiepiphytes in the Catalogue of Plants of Antioquia (CPA) (Idárraga et al., 2011) and in the Catalogue of Plants and Lichens of Colombia (CPLC) (Bernal et al., 2015). We augmented this with a list of epiphytic ferns provided by the Ferns of Colombia working group and removed duplicated names. Finally, we used the “rgbif” R package (v. 3.7.3; Chamberlain, 2017) to filter species with occurrence records in Colombia from EpiList 1.0 (Zotz et al., 2021b), a list of more than 31,000 epiphytic vascular plant species. Additional species not included in epiphytes but flagged as epiphytes in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) were added to the list.

We shared this list with Colombian plant taxonomists and the Colombian Plant Specialist Group to prioritize the species according to (i) certain taxonomically well-known species, (ii) species endemic to Colombia, or (iii) species important for their use and/or detailed taxonomic knowledge. This initial list included more than 500 suitable species for assessment. Then, we corroborated whether other initiatives have already assessed the species' extinction risk. Species' occurrences were obtained and curated on an individual species basis using data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF.org 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2022d), published literature, and herbaria records mobilized from five of the main herbaria of the country (HUA, JAUM, CUVC, COL, FMB) and own expert observations. Data from the thesis and flora catalogs were also added to the database (Carmona-Higuita, 2022; Pedraza-Peñalosa and Betancur, 2015).

To maximize the number of records that could be used for spatial analyses and improve the data quality of dubious records, we manually georeferenced records that lacked coordinates. We also assigned municipalities and departments to specimens lacking such information in their digital records; potential errors were flagged for subsequent evaluation by taxonomic experts during subsequent record validation (see below) to minimize the well-documented issues with occurrence records from public databases.

We primarily selected records from preserved specimens and material samples in GBIF, and removed common geographic errors and records with no spatial information using the R package “CoordinateCleaner v. 2.0–20” and those without geographic coordinates (Zizka et al., 2018). Records were validated by the experts of each clade of interest. The validation process included verification of locality, species determination, and specimen data such as collector, herbarium, and collection data. We checked the location and coordinates, species name, collector, herbarium, and collection dates, among other relevant information for each specimen per species. Efforts are required between 0.1 to 1 hour per species to validate or discard a species for the assessment entirely. We discarded 189 species, either because we did not find a specialist to validate the records (53) or because there were severe errors with coordinates (136).

Data from GBIF were merged with the databases from the herbaria and human observation from experts using the biodiversity data cleaning package “bdc v. 1.1.1” (Ribeiro et al., 2022). The resulting database included only species with accepted names and was formatted following DarwinCore standards. Endemism was determined for those species listed as occurring only in Colombia based on Plants of the World Online database (POWO, 2022), and verified under information reported in TROPICOS (Tropicos.org, 2021), Ferns of the World (Ferns of the World, 2022) and modern taxonomic treatments.

Assessment of the conservation status

After consolidating the species' occurrence data set, we used the R package “ConR v. 1.3.0” (Dauby et al., 2017) to calculate key geographic distribution parameters required to assign a category of extinction risk under the Criterion B of IUCN, using “ConR v. 1.3.0” (Dauby et al., 2017): the extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO). EOO is defined by the IUCN as the minimum convex polygon encompassing all known occurrences of a species. AOO is the area within the EOO which is comprised of 2 × 2 km grid cells containing known occurrences records. Because of limited collection effort in Colombia, we did not calculate AOO for species with three or fewer occurrences, as such are considered probable underestimates (Lopez-Gallego and Morales‐Morales, 2023). Due to a lack of population survey efforts on Colombian plants, we were unable to assess population size and trends and therefore did not include IUCN criteria A, C, D1, and E in the assessments.

Along with the calculation of EOO and/or AOO, assessments using Criterion B also require complementary data on species distributions and occurrence trends, such as the number of locations where a species occurs or evidence of population fragmentation (condition a). We used ConR to calculate the number of locations sensu IUCN and score the number of locations within protected areas, as defined by the World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC, 2022). We used a custom R code developed by the IUCN Colombian Plant Specialist Group (Lopez-Gallego and Morales‐Morales, 2023) to identify severely fragmented taxa (those for which most individuals are found in small and isolated subpopulations) by intersecting species occurrence records with a binary country-level 300 m² resolution raster of forest cover (IDEAM, 2016). We use forest cover as a proxy for the habitat availability of epiphytes since they require a host tree to grow.

Continuing decline inferred of the area, extent, or quality of habitat (condition biii) was estimated based on the human footprint map (SIAC, 2016). This dataset is a proxy indicator of human-caused disturbances to natural systems and is therefore expected to be positively correlated with anthropogenic effects (Etter et al., 2011). The human footprint ranges from 0 to 100%, with higher values indicating more substantial anthropogenic disturbances. This dataset is based on geospatial layers that summarize anthropogenic pressures combining factors like population density, urbanized areas, dams and other infrastructure, land use/land cover, and human access (roads, railways, electricity lines; Correa-Ayram et al., 2018). To estimate the continuing decline of the quality of the habitat with the human footprint, we use a function developed and provided by the IUCN Colombian Plant Specialist Group (Lopez-Gallego and Morales‐Morales, 2023). This function calculates the percentage of human footprint within a buffer of 0.05 allocated to the occurrence of the species in the selected years. Here we considered > 20% average human footprint of each species as the threshold for identifying a negative effect on the available habitat of the species. We also calculated the continuing decline inferred of the number of subpopulations (condition biv) by comparing the patches of the available habitat of a species through the years 2000, 2005, and 2010 with the most recent layer of 2016 to determine if a patch where a subpopulation of the species used to inhabit is already gone (Lopez-Gallego & Morales-Morales 2023).

With all the required parameters estimated, we assign the category of the risk of extinction for each species. The assessments (at the global level and national level) follow the IUCN protocol version 3.1 (IUCN, 2022). Additional information on the standard templates includes species' ecological attributes (range of distribution, dispersion, growth form, among others), use, threats, and conservation actions. The type of dispersal was inferred for most species. Our validation process included a round with Colombian taxonomists, botanists, and biologists from the Botanical Garden of Medellin and a subsequent review by the Colombian Plant Specialist Group. All references, including sources and justifications for distribution, EOO, AOO, population trends, and threats, are cited within each species assessment (SiB Colombia, 2023b). Once we consolidated the assessments following the standard templates, we prepare them to be submitted to the Species Information Service (SIS) platform, containing all the mandatory fields for an assessment to the IUCN and other fields IUCN Colombian Plant Specialist Group. Orchid species assessments were reviewed by the IUCN Orchid Specialist Group. Maps of the geographic distribution of each species were created in R using ConR.

Species occurrences

We obtained over 800,000 records for the epiphytes selected within Colombia (Arango et al., unpublished; GBIF.org User, 2022e). After the geographic cleaning, selection of target taxa, and expert validation, we retained 14,181 occurrences of 290 epiphyte species (82 species endemic to Colombia), 70 genera, and 11 plant families. GBIF contributed most of the data (84.6%), followed by specimen records data from databases of selected herbaria (9.6%) and human expert observations (0.9%), while the remaining 4.9% were collected from thesis and literature (see Supporting information, Table TS1).

The number of records ranged between 1 to 1,378 among species, with a median of 13, with 59 species known from fewer than three records, and 24 known only from the type collection. Most of the records (72%) were preserved specimens, 25% were human observations and 12 records corresponded to living specimens, while for 418 records (3%) we could not find the basis of the record. We collected information from 117 institutions, the Colombian National Herbarium (COL) was the largest contributor with 16% of records, followed by the Missouri Botanical Garden MO (13%), a Colombian company “Empresas Públicas de Medellín” (11%), the Amazonian herbarium COAH (11%) and the Herbarium from the University of Antioquia HUA (7%).

We did not find date information for 54% of the specimens collected, and in the remaining 46% we had records from 1846 to 2022. Collections are not evenly distributed among those years, since data was left-skewed, with most of the data concentrated in between 2013 and 2018 (second and third quartile). Only 8% of the records had a specific locality missing. Occurrences were recorded from 28 departments and 588 municipalities, with records highly concentrated in the Andean region (Fig. 1).

From the study’s species total, the families with more species were Gesneriaceae with 80 species (22% of the national count; Bernal et al., 2016), Orchidaceae with 73 species (2%), Araceae with 49 species (6%), Cyclanthaceae with 23 (20%), Dryopteridaceae with 23 (8%) and Polypodiaceae with 20 (8%) (Fig. 2; Supporting information Table TS2).

Use, habitat, and dispersion

The species assessed were not evenly distributed across the regions of Colombia; they were predominant in the Andean region of the country (170 species) followed by the Pacific region (144 species), and the Amazon (92) (Fig. 1). The species were distributed in nine habitats, predominantly in montane and lowland forests, with some records in grasslands, savanna, and shrubland (Fig. 3).

More than 100 species have no unknown uses. Horticultural or medicinal use stands out among those that report some uses (Fig. 4). Araceae, Cyclanthaceae, and Gesneriaceae are dispersed by highly mobile vertebrates, and orchids and ferns are dispersed by wind (Supporting information Table TS2).

Geographic range and Habitat quality

The average EOO and AOO for flowering plant species assessed here were 110,000 km² and 79,000 km² respectively. On average, ferns had larger ranges, with mean EOO and AOO values of 290,000 km² and 170,000 km², respectively. Human footprint > 20% was reported for 219 species and was higher for Piperaceae, Dryopteridaceae, and Orchidaceae, of which 33 species presented a loss of subpopulations. Habitat threats are mainly due to the expansion of agriculture, mining, and the development of human population centers (Supporting information Table TS2). Main pressures result from threats where ecosystem conversion and degradations occur (Supporting information Table TS2).

Assessments

Of the 290 epiphytes assessed, 126 (43%) were assigned to a Red List threat category. Among the threatened species, 24 were categorized in the Critically Endangered category (CR), 66 in the Endangered (EN), and 36 in the Vulnerable category (VU). Of the remaining species, 94 were categorized as Near Threatened (NT, 32% of species assessed), and 71 as Least Concern (LC; Supporting information Table TS2). For the 82 endemic species, the assessment identified 51 species (62% of the evaluated endemic species) as threatened, 14% were CR, 34% EN, and 12% VU. Thirty-two species were in the non-threatened categories LC and NT.

Wind-dispersed species with short dispersal account for 54% of the species in the CR category and dispersal by highly mobile vertebrates predominates in the non-threatened categories with 58% and 51% (LC, NT; Supporting information Table TS2). One hundred sixty-three species report some use in horticultural and medicinal uses to stand out in all categories of threat (Fig. 4), and seventy species have more than one use.

The Andean region presented a high number of occurrences of threatened species (Fig. 4). In terms of their primary habitat, forests had a higher percentage of threatened species than other habitats (Fig. 3). Around 80% of assessed species were in at least one protected area in the country and nearly 60% were in National Parks or other protected areas of similar status. Natural reserves were the most common conservation action, where 232 species were present; however, 67 species were found in areas under legal protection status that are ineffective for biodiversity conservation. Among species out of protected areas, 38 were threatened (17 in CR, 17 in VU, and 4 in LC) while 4 species were in a non-threat category of extinction (LC).

National extinction risk assessments are crucial for biodiversity conservation in countries like Colombia. These assessments provide information on the status of different species, their habitats, and the threats they face, which can inform conservation planning and management efforts. In Colombia, one of the most biodiverse countries in the world, national assessments of extinction risk are critical given the high levels of species richness and endemism. These assessments can help prioritize conservation efforts for species at the most significant risk of extinction and guide the development of conservation policies and programs. Our database covers about 5% of the more than 6,000 epiphyte species estimated for Colombia. This study reveals that more than 40% of the evaluated epiphyte species are likely to be at some risk of extinction. This is like the results of a recent study of endemic trees in Colombia (Lopez-Gallego and Morales‐Morales, 2023). While our figure needs to be interpreted cautiously since it is based on a sample of the epiphytic species in the country, the absolute numbers from our study are alarming, with 126 epiphyte species at elevated risk of extinction.

The groups with the most species analyzed correspond to Gesneriaceae, Orchidaceae, ferns, and Araceae, with 79, 74, 56, and 49 species; these correspond to some of the most species-rich clades of vascular epiphytes in Colombia (Bernal et al., 2015). Orchids showed the highest proportion of species under threat (60%), followed by ferns (40%), Gesneriaceae, and Araceae (25%). Those groups are exceptionally diverse and ecologically important and are threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation since epiphytes are structurally dependent on trees and epiphyte assemblages are affected by landscape conditions or forest structure (Benavides et al., 2011; Wolf, 1994). For example, Araceae (including terrestrial and climbing species) have been previously reported among the most species-rich and cosmopolitan flowering plants with many endangered species (Baillie et al., 2004), and some regions have a great proportion of threatened species due to major habitat loss (e.g., Krömer et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the proportion of threatened species is higher in Dryopteridaceae (70%), Piperaceae (70%), Cyclanthaceae (61%), and Orchidaceae (61%).

The intricate taxonomy within Piperaceae may have contributed to a shortage of distributional information, potentially affecting the assessment of its threat categorization (Mathieu, 2007; Mathieu et al., 2015). This family is possibly the most challenging in terms of taxonomic issues, as evidenced by the prevalence of "herbarium names" (Mathieu, 2007). A specific example of how the lack of sampling affects the occurrence of species can be seen in the genus Peperomia. The occurrence of species in this genus is affected by the paucity of sampling in the flora of Colombia. For instance, there are no records of any epiphytes from the municipalities of Murindó and Vigia del Fuerte in Antioquia, which are in the northernmost part of the 'Chocó' region and remain pristine but entirely unknown. This highlights the urgent need for further research and exploration in these understudied areas, which may lead to the discovery of new species and contribute to their protection. Nevertheless, several endemic species have been documented in the Andes and Amazon regions, where their survival is threatened by ongoing habitat loss and fragmentation (de Figueiredo and Sazima, 2007; Frenzke et al., 2015; Mathieu, 2001–2020), and these species should be considered as a conservation priority.

Orchids are known for their narrow endemism, occupying small areas due to specific ecological interactions such as dispersal agents, pollinators, and mycorrhiza (Davis et al., 2015; Jacquemyn et al., 2015; Rasmussen and Rasmussen, 2009). These plants have significant economic value in industries such as horticulture, pharmaceuticals, and food production (Hinsley et al., 2017; Hossain, 2011; Liu et al., 2014; Subedi et al., 2013), and are also used in various cultural and religious practices (Jiménez-López et al., 2019; Solano-Gómez et al., 2010). However, many orchid species are currently at risk of local extinction due to illegal harvesting (Cruz-Garcia et al., 2015; Flores-Palacios and Valencia-Diaz, 2007).

Natural reserves were the most common conservation action for 232 species; however, 67 species were found in areas under legal figures that are ineffective for biodiversity conservation. Protected areas are a key component of strategies for biodiversity conservation, but their effectiveness can vary depending on various factors, including kind (National Parks and Flora and Fauna Sanctuaries have better management practices in the country), funding, and political support. However, many protected areas in the region need to be funded and better managed, facing increasing pressures from human activities such as agriculture, mining, and logging. Although the country has made significant progress in expanding its protected area network, many areas remain under threat from illegal activities and a lack of enforcement (Clerici et al., 2020).

Less than 11% (756) of epiphytes in Colombia (IUCN) have been assessed and published in the UICN global Red List (Hochkirch et al., 2021). Recent research has highlighted the need for more conservation capacity for neglected biodiversity, particularly in areas of high endemism. Consistent application of IUCN Red List criteria is challenging for understudied, range-restricted species. It has previously led to variation in assigned extinction-risk categories, even between species with near-identical distributions and habitats. With urgent conservation now required for plants that are dependent on forest cover, we recognized the need to establish and ensure reliable assessments.

Our database suffers from both taxonomic and spatial biases. While the Andean region is well represented with numerous records, the Amazonia and the Llanos regions are poorly represented, possibly due to the absence or low richness of epiphytes, unfavorable environmental conditions, and/or deficient sampling in these areas. Inaccessibility is a significant problem in tropical regions, resulting in insufficient sampling effort (Nelson et al., 1990). Consequently, evaluating sampling efforts remains a fundamental challenge for biogeographic analyses (e.g., Gaston, 1994; Magurran, 2004). Recent research in the Amazonia region has shown that epiphytes are indeed under-sampled, and the available studies are biased (de Araujo et al., 2022). Although monographic and herbarium specimen data have been instrumental in analyzing the distributional patterns of species (Marsico et al., 2020; Thomas, 1999; Thomas et al., 2012), it is still critical to access the data stored in herbaria that are not yet fully digitized, as is the case with most Colombian herbaria (ACH, 2023).

We highlight that studies done to assess the biodiversity listing especially for epiphytes are concentrated in charismatic groups of plants such as orchids, and recently Colombia has made progress in the evaluation of other groups such as bromeliads and Ericaceae. In this article, we want to highlight the importance of not only making the analysis of extinction risks based on distribution criteria and habitat status to be presented to the academic public, but we highlight the effort needed to make and implement the route to publish the data in national and global platforms such as the catalog of biodiversity in Colombia and the IUCN red list, that can be used by the authorities of the countries that will take concrete actions for the conservation of this group of plants.

We have faced several challenges that limited our ability to take advantage of publicly available sample data for this study and we want to point these out for consideration in planning similar projects. First, A large amount of data currently available in GBIF need to make a rigorous curation process before analysis to ensure that spatial, temporal, and taxonomic information is correct. Second, many records available through GBIF and other databases have not been studied by a taxonomic expert, and the identifications of many records are incorrect or dubious. This problem is especially relevant for taxa in countries like Colombia, which both harbor immense biodiversity and have relatively few taxonomists working in natural history collections. Despite improved access to digital specimen records through online databases, many taxonomic groups cannot be confidently identified from images alone, so a physical study of specimens, which involves expensive travel or extensive inter-institutional specimen loans, is necessary. With these realities in mind, taxonomic specialists must participate in the curation of specimen records used in conservation status assessments to improve the reliability of the data and the conclusions drawn from them.

The need for extinction risk assessments of all known plant species at national, regional, and international levels has been emphasized in various studies (Callmander et al., 2005; Cazalis et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2012). However, current assessment rates must be revised to achieve conservation goals such as the Barometer of Life (Bachman et al., 2019). In this context, automated assessments based on digitally available geographic occurrence records could be crucial in identifying species or groups facing the highest extinction risk to focus manual assessments on species most needing them (Zizka et al., 2020). Currently, there have been efforts to perform multispecies assessments using automated methodologies under packages such as ConR, GeoCAT, speciesgeocodeR, or RED (Dauby et al., 2017; Zizka et al., 2021), nevertheless, this is an effort to explore the conservation status of the selected species, but the publication of the category is necessary to take these efforts to the conservation planning were those are intended to be. The enormous difficulty of the evaluation of extinction risk to several species simultaneously has been described, since a lot of information is required per species, which is usually unavailable for most of them, nevertheless, we remark that collective efforts allow the estimation of necessary parameters to complete the assessment, as the approach used in this study proposed by the Colombian node of the IUCN, that has been useful to assess other groups of plants in Colombia (Lopez-Gallego and Morales‐Morales, 2023) and allows an effective and relatively fast process for the national assessments since the 290 species were evaluated in about a year. We highlight that the participation of taxonomists in the process and the validation of each record is necessary since the specimen records often contain errors. It is also necessary to follow a standardized workflow to achieve streamline the evaluation process; we show that focusing on specific taxonomic groups at the national level is an effective approach for accelerating the assessment process.

We suggest continuing working collectively, implementing workshops to share the complete route for an individual or multispecies assessment, and sharing experiences of efforts in several countries since, with a standardized methodology and published evaluations under IUCN or national repositories we can continue working for the conservation of biodiversity of mega-diverse countries, which its protection is critical to maintaining global biodiversity.

Statements and Declarations

Acknowledgments

We thank Dubán Canal, Amalia Diaz, Felipe Cardona, and Julio Betancur collaborators of the project "GBIF, BID 2020: Data use for decision-making grant (BID-CA2020-047-USE)", for their collaboration and discussions around this dataset. We thank Héctor Manuel Arango for the advice for using the functions to estimate habitat availability, the disappearance of subpopulations, and the continuous decrease in habitat quality. To Esteban Domínguez, Luis Pérez, Yudy Alejandra Gallego, and Milton Rincón for validating some orchid records. To Paulo Romario Rodillo for preparing the inputs for the graphs.

Author Contributions

Ana Maria Benavides contributed to the study’s conception and design. All authors contributed data for the analysis. Maria Judith Carmona-Higuita performed material preparation, data collection, and analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Maria Judith Carmona-Higuita and Ana Maria Benavides. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was made possible with support from a grant from the GBIF Biodiversity Information for Development (grant number BID-CA2020-047-USE) program to The Medellin’s Botanical Garden in association with the Humboldt Institute. The Ferns of Colombia Working Group (authors AV, SVB, WT, and MS) were supported by the National Science Foundation of the United States (grant numbers DEB-2045319, DEB-2045325).

Data Availability

The dataset of data generated and analyzed during the current study is published as supplementary information in the Zenodo repository: 10.5281/zenodo.7834255. We note that records of several orchids are hidden as required for specialists to protect the populations from illegal harvesting.

Supplementary Information (SI)

Supporting information is available in the Zenodo repository, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7834255. It includes supporting Tables S1–S2. Maps of occurrences and IUCN parameters estimated per species (JPEG) are also available under the Zenodo repository.

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

ACH (2023) Listado de herbarios registrados en la Asociación Colombiana de Herbarios [WWW Document]. Asociación Colombiana de Herbarios. URL https://www.asociacioncolombianadeherbarios.com/copy-of-herbarios-de-colombia-1 (accessed 4.16.23).
Bachman SP, Field R, Reader T, Raimondo D, Donaldson J, Schatz GE, Lughadha EN (2019) Progress, challenges and opportunities for Red Listing. Biol Conserv 234:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.002
Baillie J, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart S (eds) (2004) 2004 IUCN red list of threatened species: a global species assessment., The IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK
Bautista-Bello AP, Krömer T, Acebey AR, Weichgrebe L, Zotz G (2021) Variación biológica en las aráceas trepadoras. Acta Botánica Mexicana 128:1–18. https://doi.org/10.21829/abm128.2021.1819
Benavides aM, Vasco a, Duque aJ, Duivenvoorden JF (2011) Association of vascular epiphytes with landscape units and phorophytes in humid lowland forests of Colombian Amazonia. J Trop Ecol 27:223–237. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467410000726
Benzing DH (1990) Vascular epiphytes. Forest Canopies. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 175–211
Bernal R, Gradstein SR, Celis M (2015) Catálogo de plantas y líquenes de Colombia [WWW Document]. Instituto de Ciencias Naturales-Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Betts J, Young RP, Hilton-Taylor C, Hoffmann M, Rodríguez JP, Stuart SN, Milner‐Gulland EJ (2020) A framework for evaluating the impact of the IUCN Red List of threatened species. Conserv Biol 34:632–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13454
Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Da Fonseca GAB, Gerlach J, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF, Mittermeier CG, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues ASL (2006) Global Biodivers Conserv Priorities Sci 313:58–61. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127609
Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, Van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J, Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC, Dentener F, Foster M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P, Gregory RD, Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque J-F, Leverington F, Loh J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Morcillo MH, Oldfield TEE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR, Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vié J-C, Watson R (2010) Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science 328, 1164–1168. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512
Callmander MW, Schatz GE, Lowry PP (2005) IUCN Red List assessment and the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: taxonomists must act now. Taxon 54:1047–1050. https://doi.org/10.2307/25065491
Carmona-Higuita MJ (2022) Endemismo y estado de conservación de epífitas vasculares en el Neotrópico (Tesis de Maestría). Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, México
Cazalis V, Di Marco M, Butchart SHM, Akçakaya HR, González-Suárez M, Meyer C, Clausnitzer V, Böhm M, Zizka A, Cardoso P, Schipper AM, Bachman SP, Young BE, Hoffmann M, Benítez-López A, Lucas PM, Pettorelli N, Patoine G, Pacifici M, Jörger-Hickfang T, Brooks TM, Rondinini C, Hill SLL, Visconti P, Santini L (2022) Bridging the research-implementation gap in IUCN Red List assessments. Trends Ecol Evol 37:359–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.12.002
Chamberlain S (2017) rgbif: Interface to the Global “Biodiversity. Information Facility “API.”
Clerici N, Armenteras D, Kareiva P, Botero R, Ramírez-Delgado JP, Forero-Medina G, Ochoa J, Pedraza C, Schneider L, Lora C, Gómez C, Linares M, Hirashiki C, Biggs D (2020) Deforestation in Colombian protected areas increased during post-conflict periods. Sci Rep 10:4971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61861-y
Cruz-Garcia G, Lagunez-Rivera L, Chavez-Angeles MG, Solano-Gomez R (2015) The Wild Orchid Trade in a Mexican Local Market: Diversity and Economics. Econ Bot 69:291–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-015-9321-z
Dauby G, Stévart T, Droissart V, Cosiaux A, Deblauwe V, Simo-Droissart M, Sosef MSM, Lowry PP, Schatz GE, Gereau RE, Couvreur TLP (2017) ConR: An R package to assist large-scale multispecies preliminary conservation assessments using distribution data. Ecol Evol 7:11292–11303. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3704
Davis BJ, Phillips RD, Wright M, Linde CC, Dixon KW (2015) Continent-wide distribution in mycorrhizal fungi: implications for the biogeography of specialized orchids. Ann Botany 116:413–421. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcv084
de Araujo ML, Quaresma AC, Ramos FN (2022) GBIF information is not enough: national database improves the inventory completeness of Amazonian epiphytes. Biodivers Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02458-x
de Figueiredo RA, Sazima M (2007) Phenology and Pollination Biology of Eight Peperomia Species (Piperaceae) in Semideciduous Forests in Southeastern Brazil. Plant Biol 9:136–141. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-924543
Etter A, McAlpine CA, Seabrook L, Wilson KA (2011) Incorporating temporality and biophysical vulnerability to quantify the human spatial footprint on ecosystems. Biol Conserv 144:1585–1594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.004
Ferns of the World (2022) Ferns and Lycophytes of the World [WWW Document]. URL https://www.fernsoftheworld.com (accessed 8.7.22)
Flores-Palacios A, Valencia-Diaz (2007) Local illegal trade reveals unknown diversity and involves a high species richness of wild vascular epiphytes. Biol Conserv 136:372–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.12.017
Frenzke L, Scheiris E, Pino G, Symmank L, Goetghebeur P, Neinhuis C, Wanke S, Samain MS (2015) A revised infrageneric classification of the genus Peperomia (Piperaceae). Taxon 64:424–444. https://doi.org/10.12705/643.4
Gaston KJ (1994) Rarity. In: Usher MB, DeAngelis DL, Manly BJF (eds) The Biology of Rarity. Population and Community Biology Series Principal. Springer-Science + Business Media, p 192
GBIF.org User (2022a) Orchids Occurrence Download. https://doi.org/10.15468/DL.ZGY5KG
GBIF.org User (2022b) Orchids Occurrence Download. https://doi.org/10.15468/DL.Y6RFK5
GBIF.org User (2022c) Ferns Occurrence Download. https://doi.org/10.15468/DL.XWAQCB
GBIF.org User (2022d) Peperomia Occurrence Download. https://doi.org/10.15468/DL.MSMT88
GBIF.org User (2022e) Epiphytes of Colombia Occurrence Download. https://doi.org/10.15468/DL.DVEGFE
Hinsley A, Nuno A, Ridout M, John FAVS, Roberts DL (2017) Estimating the Extent of CITES Noncompliance among Traders and End-Consumers; Lessons from the Global Orchid Trade: CITES noncompliance among end-consumers. Conserv Lett 10:602–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12316
Hochkirch A, Samways MJ, Gerlach J, Böhm M, Williams P, Cardoso P, Cumberlidge N, Stephenson PJ, Seddon MB, Clausnitzer V, Borges PAV, Mueller GM, Pearce-Kelly P, Raimondo DC, Danielczak A, Dijkstra KB 2021. A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity.Conservation Biology35,502–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13589
Hoffmann M, Brooks T, Da Fonseca G, Gascon C, Hawkins A, James R, Langhammer P, Mittermeier R, Pilgrim J, Rodrigues A, Silva J (2008) Conservation planning and the IUCN Red List. Endang Species Res 6:113–125. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00087
Hossain MM (2011) Therapeutic orchids: traditional uses and recent advances — An overview. Fitoterapia 82:102–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2010.09.007
Hsu RC-C, Tamis WLM, Raes N, De Snoo GR, Wolf JHD, Oostermeijer G, Lin S-H (2012) Simulating climate change impacts on forests and associated vascular epiphytes in a subtropical island of East Asia: Climate change impacts on forests and epiphytes. Divers Distrib 18:334–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00819.x
Idárraga A, Ortiz R, Callejas R, Merello M (2011) Flora de Antioquia: Catálogo de las plantas vasculares. Listado de plantas vasculares del departamento de Antioquia. Universidad de Antioquia, Missouri Botanical Garden & Oficina de Planeación Departamental de la Gobernación de Antioquia. Programa Expedición Antioquia 2013, 2nd edn. Series Biodiversidad y Recursos Naturales
IPBES (2018) The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3236252. Zenodo
IUCN (2023a) The IUCN Red List of threatened species [WWW Document]. URL https://www.iucnredlist.org
IUCN (2023b) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Country profile: Colombia [WWW Document]. URL https://www.iucnredlist.org/country/co/summaries
IUCN (2022) Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 15. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Committee. IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee
Jacquemyn H, Brys R, Waud M, Busschaert P, Lievens B (2015) Mycorrhizal networks and coexistence in species-rich orchid communities. New Phytol 206:1127–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13281
Jiménez-López DA, Solano R, Peralta-Carreta C, Solórzano JV, Chávez-Angeles MG (2019) Species Richness May Determine the Income from Illicit Wild Orchid Trading in Traditional Markets in Mexico: La riqueza de especies puede determinar el ingreso del comercio ilícito de orquídeas silvestres en mercados tradicionales en México. Econ Bot 73:171–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-019-09460-5
Kremen C, Williams NM, Aizen MA, Gemmill-Herren B, LeBuhn G, Minckley R, Packer L, Potts SG, Roulston T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Vázquez DP, Winfree R, Adams L, Crone EE, Greenleaf SS, Keitt TH, Klein A-M, Regetz J, Ricketts TH (2007) Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol Lett 10:299–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01018.x
Krömer T, Acebey AR, Armenta-Montero S, Croat TB (2019) Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of Araceae in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. Ann Mo Bot Gard 104:10–32. https://doi.org/10.3417/2018214
Leão TCC, Fonseca CR, Peres CA, Tabarelli M (2014) Predicting Extinction Risk of Brazilian Atlantic Forest Angiosperms: Neotropical Plant Extinction Risk. Conserv Biol 28:1349–1359. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12286
Liu H, Luo Y-B, Heinen J, Bhat M, Liu Z-J (2014) Eat your orchid and have it too: a potentially new conservation formula for Chinese epiphytic medicinal orchids. Biodivers Conserv 23:1215–1228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0661-2
Lopez-Gallego C, Morales‐Morales PA (2023) The Red List for the endemic trees of Colombia: Effective conservation targeted for plants required in biodiversity hotspots. Plants People Planet. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10360. ppp3.10360
Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological biversity 256.
Marsico TD, Krimmel ER, Carter JR, Gillespie EL, Lowe PD, McCauley R, Morris AB, Nelson G, Smith M, Soteropoulos DL, Monfils AK (2020) Small herbaria contribute unique biogeographic records to county, locality, and temporal scales. Am J Bot 107:1577–1587. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.1563
Mathieu G (2007) Compendium of herbarium names in the genus Peperomia (Piperaceae). Nautilus Acad. Books, Zelzate
Mathieu G (2001) The internet peperomia reference [WWW Document]. URL http://www.peperomia.net
Mathieu G, Vergara-Rodriguez D, Krömer T, Karger DN (2015) Peperomia (Piperaceae) novelties from Veracruz State. Mexico Phytotaxa 205:268. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.205.4.6
Mendieta-Leiva G, Ramos FN, Elias JPC, Zotz G, Acuña-Tarazona M, Alvim FS, Barbosa DEF, Basílio GA, Batke SP, Benavides AM, Blum CT, Boelter CR, Brancalion PHS, Carmona MJ, Carvalho LP, de la Rosa-Manzano E, Einzmann HJR, Fernández M, Furtado SG, de Gasper AL, Guzmán-Jacob V, Hietz P, Irume MV, Jiménez-López DA, Kessler M, Kreft H, Krömer T, Machado GMO, Martínez-Meléndez N, Martins PLSS, Mello R, de Mendes M, Neto AFM, Mortara L, Nardy SR, Oliveira C, de Ana R, Pillaca AC, Quaresma L, Rodríguez AC, Quiel C, Medina S, Taylor E, Vega A, Wagner MS, Werneck K, Werner MS, Wolf FA, Zartman JHD, Zuleta CE, Jiménez-Alfaro D, B (2020) EpIG-DB: A database of vascular epiphyte assemblages in the Neotropics. J Veg Sci 31:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12867
Miller JS, Porter-Morgan HA, Stevens H, Boom B, Krupnick GA, Acevedo-Rodríguez P, Fleming J, Gensler M (2012) Addressing target two of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation by rapidly identifying plants at risk. Biodivers Conserv 21:1877–1887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0285-3
Moffett MW (2000) What’s “Up”? A Critical Look at the Basic Terms of Canopy Biology. Biotropica 34:569–596. https://doi.org/10.1646/0006-3606(2000)032[0569:WSUACL]2.0.CO;2
Nelson BW, Ferreira CAC, da Silva MF, Kawasaki ML (1990) Endemism centres, refugia and botanical collection density in Brazilian Amazonia. Nature 345:714–716
Pedraza-Peñalosa P, Betancur J (2015) Flora of Las Orquídeas National Park: vascular plants of the Colombian Andes and Chocó [WWW Document]. URL https://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/projects/orquideas/ (accessed 8.14.22)
POWO (2022) Plants of the World Online. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. [WWW Document]. URL http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/ (accessed 8.7.22)
Rasmussen HN, Rasmussen FN (2009) Orchid mycorrhiza: implications of a mycophagous life style. Oikos 118:334–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.17116.x
Ribeiro BR, Velazco SJE, Guidoni-Martins K, Tessarolo G, Jardim L, Bachman SP, Loyola R (2022) bdc: A toolkit for standardizing, integrating and cleaning biodiversity data. Methods Ecol Evol 13, 1421–1428. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13868
Rojas P, Mora Jaime E (2017) Plan de Accion e Biodiversidad -PAB- Para la implementación de la Política Nacional para la Gestión Integral de la Biodiversidad y sus Servicios Ecosistémicos 2016–2030.Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, Bogotá D,C., Colombia
SIAC (2016) HUELLA HUMANA - IDEAM [WWW Document]. URL (accessed 8.14.22)
SiB C (2023a) Biodiversidad en cifras. [WWW Document]. URL https://cifras.biodiversidad.co/ (accessed 4.7.23)
SiB C (2023b) Catalogo de Biodiversidad [WWW Document]. URL https://catalogo.biodiversidad.co (accessed 8.14.22)
Solano-Gómez R, Cruz G, Martínez A, Lagunez L (2010) Plantas utilizadas en la celebración de la Semana Santa en Zaachila, Oaxaca, México. Polibotánica 29
Subedi A, Kunwar B, Choi Y, Dai Y, van Andel T, Chaudhary RP, de Boer HJ, Gravendeel B (2013) Collection and trade of wild-harvested orchids in Nepal. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 9:64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-64
Taylor A, Zotz G, Weigelt P, Cai L, Karger DN, König C, Kreft H (2021) Vascular epiphytes contribute disproportionately to global centres of plant diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 31:62–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13411
Thomas WW (1999) Conservation and monographic research on the flora of Tropical America. Biodivers Conserv 8:1007–1015. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008857429787
Thomas WW, Forzza RC, Michelangeli FA, Giulietti AM, Leitman PM (2012) Large-scale monographs and floras: the sum of local floristic research. Plant Ecol Divers 5:217–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/17550874.2011.622306
Tropicos.org (2021) Missouri Botanical Garden [WWW Document]. URL http://www.tropicos.org (accessed 9.30.21)
Ulloa Ulloa C, Acevedo-Rodríguez P, Beck S, Belgrano MJ, Bernal R, Berry PE, Brako L, Celis M, Davidse G, Forzza RC, Gradstein SR, Hokche O, León B, León-Yánez S, Magill RE, Neill DA, Nee M, Raven PH, Stimmel H, Strong MT, Villaseñor JL, Zarucchi JL, Zuloaga FO, Jørgensen PM (2017) An integrated assessment of the vascular plant species of the Americas. Science 358:1614–1617. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0398
UNEP-WCMC (2022) Protected areas map of the world, March 2022 [WWW Document]. URL www.protectedplanet.net (accessed 3.11.22)
Wolf JHD (1994) Factors controlling the distribution of vascular and non-vascular epiphytes in the northern Andes. Vegetatio 112:15–28
Zizka A, Azevedo J, Leme E, Neves B, da Costa AF, Caceres D, Zizka G (2020) Biogeography and conservation status of the pineapple family (Bromeliaceae). Divers Distrib 26:183–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13004
Zizka A, Silvestro D, Andermann T, Azevedo J, Duarte Ritter C, Edler D, Farooq H, Herdean A, Ariza M, Scharn R, Svantesson S, Wengström N, Zizka V, Antonelli A (2018) CoordinateCleaner: Standardized cleaning of occurrence records from biological collection databases. Methods Ecol Evol 10:744–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13152
Zizka A, Silvestro D, Vitt P, Knight TM (2021) Automated conservation assessment of the orchid family with deep learning. Conserv Biol 35:897–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13616
Zotz G (2016) Plants on plants – the biology of vascular epiphytes, Fascinating Life Sciences. Springer, Switzerland
Zotz G (2013) Hemiepiphyte”: a confusing term and its history. Ann Botany 111:1015–1020. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mct085
Zotz G, Almeda F, Bautista-Bello AP, Eskov A, Giraldo-Cañas D, Hammel B, Harrison R, Köster N, Krömer T, Lowry PP, Moran RC, Plunkett GM, Weichgrebe L 2021a. Hemiepiphytes revisited. Perspectives in Plant Ecology,Evolution and Systematics51,125620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2021.125620
Zotz G, Bader MY (2009) Epiphytic plants in a changing world-global: change effects on vascular and non-vascular epiphytes. Progress in Botany 70:147–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68421-3_7
Zotz G, Weigelt P, Kessler M, Kreft H, Taylor A (2021b) EpiList 1.0: a global checklist of vascular epiphytes. Ecology 102:e03326. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3326

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Brink of extinction: red list of epiphytes of Colombia

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Data collection

Assessment of the conservation status

Results

Species occurrences

Use, habitat, and dispersion

Geographic range and Habitat quality

Assessments

Discussion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1