|
|
Animales de uñas - animals with claws |
|
|
I have a contemporary example of a trophic pyramid that has the puma (Puma concolor) as the large carnivore at its apex, and which then has a further seven levels down through the smaller predators, herbivores and plants, to bacteria and fungi (1). It was Charles Elton who through his study of the functional attributes of animals, came up in the 1920s with the concept of food chains and webs by determining the niches they occupied on the basis of their prey, and thus their corresponding trophic position (2). He saw this as a pyramid of numbers in a community, with a greater abundance of species biomass at the base of food-chains, and the comparative scarcity of animals at the top. The trophic ecology represented in this pyramid, gives structure to the feeding relationships between species, a process of transferring energy and nutrients through a series of organisms within an ecosystem. What makes the rich level of trophic occupancy represented in this contemporary example of a pyramid so startling is that it can be found less than 10km from the outskirts of Guadalajara, the inhabitants of the city of around 1.5m making it the fourth most populous in Mexico (3). Indeed, the 4.4m inhabitants of the Guadalajara Metropolitan Area is the second largest metropolitan area in the country after Greater Mexico (4). Mapping bio-corridors for puma in Mexico The species relationships in this pyramid represent the ecology of Bosque La Primavera (Forest Spring) a 305km2 Area of Protection of Flora and Fauna (AFPP) to the west of Guadalajara in the Western-Pacific area of Mexico, and which is part of the National System of Protected Areas (5). AFPP La Primavera was designated in 2000 under the General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection from 1988, an AFPP being a place where the balance and preservation of it habitats “depend on the existence, transformation and development of species of wild flora and fauna” (see Articles 46 & 54 in (6)). AFPPs are not necessarily unused land, as the law allows the sustainable use of species and of natural resources by the communities that live there at the time of designation, or that are deemed by studies before designation to be compatible with the preservation of habitats. As it is, this mountainous area that gives rise to 20 permanent streams, has a forest cover of 80%, mostly of pine and oak associations, with only 14% used for agroforestry in the production of meat and milk from generally free ranging cattle (7). This low area of farming use is surprising, given that 50% of its area is privately owned – 35% is common land or community-owned land, and 15% is owned by the state government of Jalisco (7) – but then the population of the AFPP is estimated at only 97 people (6) and their settlements are probably clustered along the three main but limited routes of access, two from the N and one from the E (7). Perhaps more importantly, the zonation system of the APFF under the designation is predominantly designed to reduce disturbance, such that Areas of Restricted Use come out at the largest (48%) followed by Recovery Areas (23%) and with a strict Protection Zone (13%) (7). Used areas in Areas of Sustainable Use of Agroecosystems (6%) Areas of Public Use (5%) Areas of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (2%) and Areas of Special Use (1.5%) seem small by comparison. Another layer of zonation was introduced when AFPP La Primavera was designated a Biosphere Reserve (BR) in 2006 (8). In this system, 61.7 % of the area of the BR is allocated to a core area, and 38.3% is a buffer area surrounding the core. This split seems to equate to the core area being the Protection Zone and Areas of Restricted Use in the zonation on designation of the AFPP, thus emphasising a substantial area within the AFPP/BR that is undisturbed. Interestingly, the citation for the BR notes that it serves as a “genetic reservoir and biological corridor between the natural systems of the region (the canyon of the Santiago River, Cerro Los Bailadores, El Tepopote, Cerro de Tequila, Sierra de Navajas and Cerro Viejo)” I came to know about AFPP La Primavera when I met Karina Augilar three years ago, after she had come over from Mexico to learn about participative mapping techniques from Steve Carver, my colleague in the Wildland Research Institute (9). Karen is a biologist, and she was the wildlife director of the AFPP who contributed to the formulation of the trophic pyramid (1). Her interest in coming to Leeds was in using the Map-Me system to identify the most likely biological corridors around La Primavera for the migration of puma between there and other potentially suitable locations surrounding the AFPP. The system was developed by Steve with others as a Public Participation Geographical Information System in the creation of online surveys for the collection of fuzzy spatial data. Based upon a spray and say approach, Map-Me uses a virtual spraycan to allow participant's to spray-paint on to a Google Map, in order to answer vague spatial questions (e.g. "Where do you think...?") without being required to artificially enforce precise boundaries onto their data (10). For La Primavera, participants were asked in consecutive maps to identify where were the likely sites occupied by the 5-6 puma present in the APFF; had they seen any footprints, and which were the best routes for migration within the APFF? (11). Subsequent maps asked for suitable routes of migration between La Primavera and four other locations with potential habitat (and which occur in the list above): the Tequila Volcano, NW of the APFF; Ahuisculco mountain range to the SW; Cerro Viejo to the SE, a State Area of Hydrological Protection (12,13); and the Rio Santiago Canyon to the NE, a Municipal Area of Hydrological Protection (12). Two other routes were sought outside of La Primavera, between Tequila Volcano and the Ahuisculco mountain range, and between the latter and Cerro Viejo. The mapping exercise was carried out by a group of 22 people who had some expertise and local knowledge, and which included government officials, academics and staff from NGOs. I have seen the summary maps, and I have to say that some of the supposed best migration routes are surprising in that they are not always directly between the two locations, but also by a third, intermediary location that acted as a stepping stone. It is perhaps no surprise that the value of these speculative routes has been recognised by the decentralised agency that manages La Primavera, its director announcing recently that the agencies work on conservation of La Primavera is not only focused on the APFF, but also in generating wildlife information outside of it, such as in the connectivity study that identified biological corridors between the locations used in the Map-Me study (14). Steve was back in Mexico recently, working on some ground-truthing of the bio-corridors Map-Me study, but he also wanted a way to capture the knowledge of local communities. An online system like Map-Me for identifying bio-corridors doesn’t work in village community settings, but there is a way to collect participatory mapping data in local villages from a series of events based on public meetings. Participants are asked to draw on paper maps, a photograph is taken, and their drawings are extracted digitally from the map so that they can be collated and analysed (15). Steve was fortunate to have Paco from Selva Negra to guide him in where and how local communities could be enticed to participate, Selva Negra being an ecological foundation mixing the conservation and rescue of the environment with social development (16). Keeping us up to date while he was there, Steve told us about an expression he had picked up from local people for the carnivores in Mexico - animales de uñas or animals with claws. He sent me a camera-trap photo of a lynx ("lince" - Lynx rufus) - known locally as the mountain cat (“Gato montés”) - with a ground squirrel in its mouth, probably a rock squirrel (“Ardilla de las rocas” - Spermophilus variegatus). His list of those clawed animals was tantalising for its diversity, some of which I had never heard of, and so I checked the species lists in the management plan for La Primavera and found even more carnivores: amongst the mammals, as well as the puma and lynx, there is a slightly smaller, unmarked cat called the jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouarundi) that has threatened status in Mexico; coyote (Canis latrans) and gray or tree fox (Urocyon Cinereoargenteus); ring-tail cat (racoon family - Bassariscus astutus): long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata); and the insect eating bat (Myotis californicus)(7). It is probable that a century ago, the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) also wandered in these mountains (17). Avian carnivores include the American kestrel (Falco sparverius) red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) and the barn owl (Tyto alba); a range of insect eating woodpeckers like the golden-fronted woodpecker (Melanerpes aurifrons); and the scavenging black vulture (Coragyps atratus) and Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) (7). This represents a trophic onslaught of predation in the AFPP for such as the whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and for the range of small mammals, birds, reptiles and insects, all taking place against the backdrop of millions of people only a few kilometres away. Bio-corridors for jaguar in Mexico Steve had also listed jaguar (Panthera onca) and ocelot (Leopardus weidii) amongst the animals with claws, but these are not presently in APFF La Primavera. However, when he got back from Mexico, he told me that he had been talking to Erik Saracho Aguilar, a relative of Karina, about the use of Map-Me to explore bio-corridors for jaguar migration. Erik is the ex-director and founding member in the 1990s of Hojanay AC – "Hombre Jaguar Nayarit" (Man Jaguar Natarit) (18). It is now called Alianza Jaguar AC, and is based in San Francisco on the Pacific coast of Nayarit state, about 200km W from La Primavera (19). The Jaguar Alliance has an aim for jaguar conservation in harmony with human activities, and while it initially concentrated on jaguar in the state of Nayarit, it has expanded its work to its distribution area in the Mexican Pacific, with an emphasis on the coastal states of the west of the country, from Michoacán to Sinaloa. The jaguar is a protected species in Mexico, listed as endangered in the national list of species at risk (20-22). A national survey between 2008-10 found there were around 4,000 jaguars in Mexico, half of which are in the Maya jungle on the border with Guatemala and Belize, the other half distributed throughout the Gulf and Pacific coastal areas (23,24). This represents a loss of 40% in the area of its historical distribution (see page 15 in (25)). There are around 100 to 120 adult jaguar of reproductive age in the state of Narayit (21) some of which can be found in the forested mountains of Sierra de Vallejo immediately to the E of San Francisco, where an area of 2,000 hectares was decreed in 2000 as a sanctuary for the jaguar with research projects initiated on the density of jaguar and their prey (26). Hojanay A.C had encouraged designation of Sierra de Vallejo for the protection of the jaguar. Subsequently 636km2 was designated as a state biosphere reserve in 2004 to protect and conserve the ecosystems of the Sierra de Vallejo, and especially the habitat of species that are threatened and in danger of extinction (27). The decree notes in support of the designation the purpose of protecting, among others the jaguar, river otter (Lontra longicaudis) and pygmy skunk (Spilogale pygmaea) as well as declaring a core zone of 50.5% where ecosystem-altering uses are strictly prohibited or limited by the need to be technically founded and authorised. Most of the reserve is covered in tropical semi-deciduous forest within which dwells the cat family of jaguar, puma, lynx and jagarundi, and two ocelots in the margay (Leopardus weidii) and tigrillo (Leopardus pardalis nelson) as well as coyote and gray wolf (28). A proposal has since been made to upgrade Sierra de Vallejo into the National System of Protected Areas by combining it with Rio Ameca to form a much larger area of 2,614km2 that will be designated in the category of Area of Protection of Natural Resources (APRN)((29) and see Article 53 in (6)). The combination of tropical and temperate forests in this enlarged area encompass a great diversity of ecosystems and natural resources, ranging from tropical humid coastal corridors to temperate-cold mountain conditions (25). Its protection against expanding population, exploitation or development pressures, is seen as the only mechanism to safeguard the fundamental ecological and evolutionary processes of natural ecosystems, and the genetic diversity of 1,134 species of flora, 21 of them in some category of risk, and 665 fauna, 132 in some category of risk (29). The proposal notes that the advancement of extensive livestock farming, deforestation and the construction of major new roads have had notable effects on the destruction and fragmentation of the habitat of many species. This has strongly affected populations of species such as jaguar and puma that depend on large areas. Off road vehicles have also had an impact on vegetation and adverse effects on many species. It was recognised by Hojanay AC that in the original designation of Sierra de Vallejo as a state biosphere, that it would better act as a bio-corridor for jaguar between forested areas located to its N and S (26). This aspect is also noted in the proposal for APRN Sierra de Vallejo-Rio Ameca in that it will function as an ecological corridor between the lowlands and the mountains contained within it, and it will contribute to connectivity and integration of biological corridors with other protected areas of the West. One such would be the Marismas Nacionales (National Marshes) Nayarit Biosphere Reserve of the National System of Protected Areas (30) this area of marsh and extensive mangrove forest 200km to the N of the proposed APRN being home to five of the six Mexican species of felines - jaguarundi, margay, tigrillo, lynx and jaguar (31) the 40 jaguar there considered to be one of the highest densities in all of Mexico (32). One of the nine actions in the National Strategy for the Conservation of the Jaguar in Mexico is mitigation of the effects of existing and projected road infrastructure in jaguar conservation units to ensure connectivity and population viability (33). At a local level, Erik and Rodrigo Nuñez Perez have been instrumental through Alianza Jaguar AC in working with the Ministry of Communications and Transport in the construction of the Jala-Bahía de Banderas- Puerto Vallarta highway to identify jaguar movements, their areas and habitat, through GPS collaring and photo-trapping, these data being used to determine the location and design of some highway bridges (24,34). It is for this reason of connectivity, and the barriers to it, within and between the proposed Sierra de Vallejo-Rio Ameca APRN and other protected areas, and to fulfil the action on connectivity in the National Strategy, that Erik wants to use Map-Me to determine potential bio-corridors for jaguar on a much larger scale, potentially at a national level (see the map on page 17 in (25)). The Trust is very open to responding to concerns While Steve gets to go to Mexico in support of animals with claws, I went to Carlisle in mid-February for the first meeting of the Project Stakeholder Forum of the Lynx UK Trust (35). I became a full member of this constituted advisory group after the Trust’s stakeholder event last June (36). The Forum exists to iron out the concerns, issues and interests of members of the group and others, as well as provide input and comment on the policies, priorities and strategic direction of the project to develop a trial release of lynx in Britain. In particular, we are there to review and consider scientific and other evidence provided by the Trust. It was the narrowing down of the list of potential sites to a single recommended site encompassing the plantation forests of Kielder in England, and Wauchope and Eskdalemuir over the border in Scotland (37,38) that set in motion the progress there has been in doing the necessary work in developing applications for the trial release of lynx, and which we were given updates on. This progress happened without the involvement of the National Sheep Association (NSA) which rejected the invitation to become a member of the advisory group, seemingly completely misunderstanding the role of the group, and falsely assuming that its membership of the group would not enable representation of the NSA (39). The NSA then made great show of cutting communication with the Trust after some of its members had gone to the first local consultation meeting held in Kielder last August (40) and which was described as “highly charged” when it was alleged that the Association had brought in farmers from outside of the region to shout down speakers at the meeting - several Kielder residents said after the meeting that they didn’t recognise many or any of the farmers present (41). I am not alone in thinking this petulant, since a poll of readers conducted by Farmers Weekly on whether the NSA was right to cut ties with the Trust resulted in 59% saying no, that they should have kept dialogue open (40). I have found the Trust very open to responding to concerns. I had raised an issue last June at the stakeholder event about the habitat suitability of plantation forests in relation to the lack of structural complexity of their understorey that is usually a requirement for the ambush hunting of lynx, and whether they supported sufficient numbers of roe deer (42-44). Within a few months, I received a research note from the Trust summarising the literature on the extent to which lynx utilise commercial forestry blocks that has subsequently been posted up as a briefing on the Trust’s website (45). I was also alerted to some fieldwork that was being conducted at locations in the Kielder and Eskdalemuir Forests to estimate the density and abundance of roe deer, and which will be a contribution to the more detailed cost-benefit analysis that would be quantifying the impacts of a trial lynx reintroduction at this site. We got an update on the progress of this cost-benefit analysis at the advisory group meeting, as well as on the tracking of roe deer, the latter being reported in the first issue of the Trust’s e-Newsletter (46). People at the first local consultation meeting held in Kielder, and also at the advisory group meeting, referred to the issue of the lynx that had to be hunted down after escaping from Dartmoor Zoo last year (41) the Trust responding with a second briefing note that sought to identify factors that could explain why the observed predation rate of four lambs killed by this lynx was higher than expected (47). I had also corresponded with the legal adviser to the Trust on the implications for the protection of lynx under the Bern Convention, the supra-national agreement on the protection of nature that Britain would still be bound to even after leaving the EU (48). I have to say that the interpretation of the Convention I received in return, in relation to lynx reinstatement and its protection, was very effective and will be an important factor in clarifying responsibilities with statutory agencies and the general public. This issue of the legal status of lynx and its future protection came up in the discussion of the advisory group meeting, and it is a pity that the legal adviser had been unable to attend because of a clash of meetings. Extensive local consultation on trial releases There was an update to the advisory group on the local consultation meetings that had been taking place since last August around the region of the proposed site. These had been in Kielder, Newcaslteton, Langholm, and Tarset, as well as knocking on all the doors in Kielder (41, 46,49-51). Over 100 completed questionnaires collating local opinion on the project had also been collected, and these were being analysed using Q Methodology (46). I have to say that the comprehensiveness of this local consultation knocks spots off the amount of consultation that was done prior to the Devon beaver license (51). As you may expect, I commended the use of the Map-Me approach in the consultation process. It seemed to me that it would be good to have some parallel consultation data on where local people thought the releases could/could not take place to put beside the particular specific release locations that are to be worked out on an ecological basis by the Trust. It would add an interesting spatial layer to the consultation matrix that had already been building. It would also be complemented, as would the cost-benefit analysis, by the surveys of tourists carried out last October near Bad Harzbur in the Harz Mountains National Park, Germany, by a team commissioned by the Trust. The purpose of the surveys was to determine the economic benefits of lynx in the Harz Mountains through the effect of lynx on tourism in the area, and how much the presence of lynx influenced people’s decision to visit. A total of 357 people had been interviewed, collecting important evidence that will be used to assess the potential impact of lynx on local jobs and businesses in the areas around Kielder, Wauchope and Eskdalemuir Forests. This had been on the agenda for the advisory group meeting, and I was looking forward to hearing about it, but it was bumped in favour of reports on the cost benefit analysis for the farming and forestry sectors, and the veterinary support to the Trust in terms of animal handling, infectious and non-infectious disease, and the risk analysis and mitigation required in the licence application process for trial releases. A report of the survey results in the Harz Mountains National Park has now been posted, and a headline finding is that lynx were an important factor influencing the decision to visit the Harz Mountains for just over half (54%) of all people surveyed (52). After reading the report on trial site selection, I brought up a concern at the meeting about the apparent pinch point in connectivity between the Eskdalemuir Forest and the other forests, as represented by the narrow linking corridor of suitable habitat below Langholm through which runs the River Esk and the A7 road, both of which could act as barriers to migration of lynx throughout the site (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 in (38)). The Trust recognise this, and are considering whether a release of lynx only in Kielder could over time eventually result in colonisation in Eskdalemuir, or if releases have to take place in both Kielder and Eskdalemuir. There is an interesting point in the site selection report about the relevance of minimum viable population to sustain a long term population in the site, a critique often levelled against lynx reinstatement programs (38). The report argues that there is a realisation that the genetic make-up of the population is arguably more crucial for long term viability than the actual number of individuals. Thus while a standard procedure after reinstatement is to consider additional translocation of lynx to ensure genetic viability, I wonder whether an alternative could be an eventual mixing between two separate and different populations released into Kielder and Eskdalemuir. The largest unfragmented forestry entity in Western Europe Lynx would have little barrier to migration into Wauchope Forest from Kielder, and thus there would very likely be a cross-border reintroduction anyway between England and Scotland, and which creates a requirement on the Trust for license applications for release of lynx to both Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage. In this, there is an interesting parallel between the Trust’s proposals with the reinstatement of lynx in a transboundary Biosphere Reserve that straddles France and Germany. I have written before of a reinstatement of lynx planned for the Palatinate Forest on the W border of Germany, and which backs on to the Vosges du Nord in France, the expectation being that the connectivity of the contiguous forest cover across the border, the largest unfragmented forestry entity in W Europe, would eventually lead to a mixing with any pre-existing population in the Vosges Massif (36, 53). I commended this as an example to the meeting and was asked to provide further information and contact details. To better understand the full context of this lynx reinstatement for myself, I dug deeper and wrote a brief that I then passed on to the Trust (54) but it is worth giving an overview here. It is an EU funded project through the LIFE program that is at an early stage in actual releases of lynx. The project is based on sequential release of eventually 20 lynx from Switzerland and the Slovakian Carpathians into the Palatinate Forest Natural Park (Naturpark Pfälzerwald) on the German side, with the reasonable expectation that they will breed and migrate across the border into the Northern Vosges Regional Natural Park (Parc Naturel Régional des Vosges du Nord) on the French side (55). It is interesting to note that these two Natural Parks joined together to become the first trans-frontier Biosphere Reserve (56) and are already cooperating in a cross-border bio-corridor project to re-establish extensive networks of ecological continuity that will allow the free dispersal and long-term maintenance of many species, some of which are emblematic of the transboundary BR (57). This is a regional reinstatement of lynx in the two Natural Parks, rather than reintroduction, as it will be in Britain, since both Germany and France already have lynx populations (36,53). However, the LIFE lynx project has a number of similarities with the Lynx UK Trust proposal: it is a cross-border project between Germany and France; the overall location is heavily forested, but it is mainly plantation forest, as well as the forest being mainly in public ownership and managed by national and state forestry organisations. Of further value, though, is the mass of documentation available with the LIFE lynx project (58) and especially the detail in the Rhineland-Palatinate Management Plan for lynx, the state where the Natural Park in Germany is located, and which had to be developed and in place before the first release of lynx (59). This Plan covers the detail of the biology of lynx, their monitoring and legal situation; issues of disease, and the treatment of injured lynx; the conflicts with livestock, hunters and their dogs; the prevention and limitation of damage, and including the promotion of preventive measures, such as the temporary use of light fences (lichtzäune) where irregular flashing lights are installed at an interval of 10-15m on the existing fence, and the compensation amounts for livestock and hunting dogs, as well as conflict management in the sense of illegal killings and illegal releases, and adjustments in hunting quotas to account for deer predation by lynx. For those interested in how other countries get on with releasing lynx, this LIFE lynx project is certainly worth watching and learning from. Shackled to a dependence on human intervention
It may seem incongruous to sandwich information
on lynx reinstatement in Britain between protective measures for the
spectacular wild feline diversity of Mexico and the continuing efforts to
reinstate lynx to more areas in Germany and France. However, I have repeatedly
to demonstrate that the reluctance in Britain to get over the classic cultural
obstacle in recognising that there are parallels to be drawn from elsewhere is
deeply damaging to any hope of real ecological restoration, a restoring of
trophic ecology in our highly modified landscapes. I find myself agreeing with
a comment on a recent newspaper article. The article showed a graphic that
listed some of the success stories for conservation measures from around the
world, like that for the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) echo
parakeet (Psittacula eques) giant manta ray (Manta birostris)
giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) and Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx)(60).
The success story given for Britain was the large blue butterfly
(Phengaris arion) a species reintroduction that has attracted a
high profile media coverage (61) but I wonder whether the public understands
the extent of habitat management and manipulation that goes on behind this
story, because the coverage ensures that it is involuntarily seen through a
prescribed lens of a conservation industry news release where “scrub clearance
and careful grazing” shackles this butterfly to a dependence on human
intervention (62,63) as is so often the case with conservation in Britain (64).
The paucity of aspiration for wild nature that this
success story represents is nailed in the comment by CrypticMirror (65): Mark Fisher 11 April 2017 (1) La Primavera, una pirámide trófica, Dirección Ejecutiva Bosque La Primavera, con asesoria de la biologa Karen Aguillar (2) Ecological consequence of predator removal, Self-willed-land July 2014 http://www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/predator_removal.htm (3) Population change in the Guadalajara Metropolitan Area, Geo-Mexico 21 January 2011 (4) MEXICO: Metropolitan Areas, City Population https://www.citypopulation.de/php/mexico-metro.php (5) La Primavera, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas y Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales https://simec.conanp.gob.mx/ficha.php?anp=35&=11 (6) LEY GENERAL DEL EQUILIBRIO ECOLÓGICO Y LA PROTECCIÓN AL AMBIENTE, Nueva Ley publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 28 de enero de 1988. CÁMARA DE DIPUTADOS DEL H. CONGRESO DE LA UNIÓN http://biblioteca.semarnat.gob.mx/janium/Documentos/Ciga/agenda/DOFsr/148.pdf (7) Programa de Manejo Area de Protección de Flora y Fauna La Primavera, Mexico. Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas y Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2000 http://www.conanp.gob.mx/que_hacemos/pdf/programas_manejo/primavera.pdf (8) LA PRIMAVERA, Mexico, UNESCO-MAB Biosphere Reserves Directory http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?code=MEX+24&mode=all (9) Steve Carver, Wildland Research Institute, University of Leeds http://www.wildlandresearch.org/who-we-are/steve-carver/ (10) Map-Me Introduction (11) Corredores Biológicos de La Primavera, Map-Me, Bosque La Primavera, Conecta Bosques, Selva Negra, CIPAD, Anilo Primavera, WRi http://map-me.org/sites/pumagdl (12) Áreas Naturales Protegidas del Estado de Jalisco, Áreas Naturales Protegidas de competencia Local, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología http://www.conacyt.mx/cibiogem/index.php/anpl/jalisco (13) Cerro Viejo es oficialmente Área Natural Protegida, EL INFORMADOR 23 May 2013 (14) La Primavera cumple 37 años como área protegida, EL INFORMADOR 10 March 2017 (15) Paper2GIS (16) La Fundación Ecológica Selva Negra (17) La Primavera, la pirámide amenazada, Sitio de Agustín del Castillo 13 de marzo de 2011 http://www.agustindelcastillo.com/2011/03/el-ser-humano-es-el-principal.html (18) Quienes somos, Alianza Jaguar AC http://alianzajaguarac.blogspot.co.uk/p/quienes-somos.html (19) Alianza Jaguar A.C. (20) Situación Legal del Jaguar, ¿Qué esta pasando con el Jaguar?, Alianza Jaguar A.C. http://alianzajaguar.org/jaguar/ (21) Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-ECOL-2001, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/pdf/NOM-059-ECOL-2001.pdf (22) CONANP CONSERVA AL JAGUAR, ESPECIE EN PELIGRO DE EXTINCIÓN, Comunicado de prensa Conanp/ Semarnat, Ciudad de México, 20 de diciembre de 2012 http://www.conanp.gob.mx/difusion/comunicado.php?id_subcontenido=348 (23) CENSO NACIONAL DEL JAGUAR, Alianza Nacional para la Conservación del Jaguar http://alianzajaguarmexico.mx/?page_id=680&lang=es (24) Autopista Jala- Vallarta Respetará Paso y Hábitat del Jaguar de Bahía, Paty Aguilar, NoticiaPVNayarit 5 ENERO 2015 http://www.noticiaspv.com/autopista-jala-vallarta-respetara-paso-habitat-del-jaguar-de-bahia/ (25) Gerardo Ceballos, Cuauhtémoc Chávez, Heliot Zarza (2011) El jaguar en México. Laboratorio de Ecología y Conservación de de Vertebrados Terrestres,Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México http://www.ecologia-unam.com.mx/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2011-folleto-jaguar.pdf (26) Saracho Aguilar, E.E. (2006) SIERRA DE VALLEJO, NAYARIT. En Chávez, C y G. Ceballos. 2006. Memorias del Primer Simposio. El jaguar mexicano en el siglo XXI: Situación Actual y Manejo. Conabio-Alianza WWF Telcel-UNAM. México (27) Periódico Oficial del Gobierno del Estado de Nayarit. Decreto que declara a la Sierra de Vallejo, ubicada en los Municipios de Compostela y Bahía de Banderas, Nayarit; como área natural protegida bajo la categoría de Reserva de la Biosfera Estatal. Períodico Oficial del 1 de diciembre de 2004 (28) Martínez, L. y G. Ceballos. 2010. Sierra de Vallejo, Nayarit. Pp. 424–427, en: Diversidad, amenazas y áreas prioritarias para la conservación de las selvas secas del oeste de México (G. Ceballos, A. García, L. Martínez, E. Espinosa, J. Bezaury y R. Dirzo, eds). CONABIO – UNAM, México D. F. http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/eycfs/faunos/art/Gce/CL48.pdf (29) Estudio Previo Justificativo para el establecimiento del Area de Proteccion de Recursos Naturales Sierra de Vallejo-Río Ameca, Estado de Nayarit. APRN Sierra de Vallejo-Río Ameca. CONANP 27 de noviembre de 2012 http://www.conanp.gob.mx/datos_abiertos/DGCD/20.pdf (30) Reserva de la Biosfera Marismas Nacionales Nayarit, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas y Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales https://simec.conanp.gob.mx/ficha.php?anp=77&=11 (31) Programa de Manejo Reserva de la Biosfera Marismas Nacionales Nayarit, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales y Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas 2013 http://www.conanp.gob.mx/datos_abiertos/DGCD/118.pdf (32) MAMÍFEROS, Fauna, Reserva de la Biósfera Marismas Nacionales Nayarit http://marismasnacionales-nayarit.conanp.gob.mx/fauna/ (33) ESTRATEGIA NACIONAL PARA LA CONSERVACIÓN DEL JAGUAR, Alianza Nacional para la Conservación del Jaguar http://alianzajaguarmexico.mx/?page_id=12&lang=es (34) Con alta tecnología estudiarán al jaguar ante impacto de Autopista Jala-Badeba, Norma Hernández, Bahia Magazine Ago 13, 2014 (35) Lynx UK Trust (36) One more step towards the trial release of lynx, Self-willed land June 2016 www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/germany_lynx.htm (37) Lynx UK Trust select Kielder and Borders as their preferred trial reintroduction site, Lynx UK Trust Press release 25 July 2016 https://www.countryside-jobs.com/NewsArchive/2016/Jul/Press%20Release;%20Lynx%20Reintroduction%20Targets%20Kielder%20and%20Borders.pdf (38) White, C., Waters, J., Eagle, A., O’Donoghue, P., Rowcroft, P. & Wade, M. (2016), ‘Reintroduction of the Eurasian Lynx to the United Kingdom: Trial site selection’, Prepared for the Lynx UK Trust by AECOM July 2016 http://www.lynxuk.org/publications/lynxsiteselection.pdf (39) NSA rejects ‘inappropriate’ invitation to help design lynx trial, Mark Astley, Farmers Weekly 24 June 2016 http://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/nsa-rejects-inappropriate-invitation-to-help-design-lynx-trial.htm (40) NSA cuts communication with Lynx UK Trust, Mark Astley, Farmers Weekly 21 August 2016 http://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/nsa-cuts-communication-with-lynx-uk-trust.htm (41) Chaos erupts at lynx meeting, Hexham Courant 18 August 2016 (42) Lack of natural control mechanisms - the missing lynx, Self-willed land June 2014 www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/missing_lynx.htm (43) Big areas for ecological restoration, Self-willed land December 2015 http://www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/big_areas.htm (44) Podgórski, T., Schmidt, K., Kowalczyk, R., & Gulczyńska, A. (2008). Microhabitat selection by Eurasian lynx and its implications for species conservation. Acta Theriologica, 53(2), 97-110. http://zbs.bialowieza.pl/g2/pdf/1639.pdf (45) Briefing Note 1: Are plantation forests suitable for lynx? AECOM -commissioned by Lynx UK Trust November 2016 http://www.lynxuk.org/publications/briefingplantation.pdf (46) Welcome to the first issue of the Lynx UK Trust e-Newsletter, Lynx UK Trust March 2017 http://us14.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d356e1cde47883619c81bbd23&id=948d5b9c6a&e=8fc4769e27 (47) Briefing Note 2: Understanding Flaviu. AECOM -commissioned by Lynx UK Trust December 2016 http://www.lynxuk.org/publications/briefingflaviu.pdf (48) Implications for wild land on leaving the European Union, Self-willed land July 2016 www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/bern_convention.htm (49) Lynx release proposals to be unveiled, Eskdale and Liddesdale Advertiser 24 November 2016 (50) Public asked for views on reintroducing lynx, Eskdale and Liddesdale Advertiser 6 January 2017 (51) Debate continues over plan to release lynx at Kielder, Hexham Courant 24 January 2017 (52) White, C., Almond, M., Dalton, A., Eves, C., Fessey, M., Heaver, M., Hyatt, E., Rowcroft, P. & Waters, J. (2017), ‘The Economic Impact of Lynx in the Harz Mountains’, Prepared for the Lynx UK Trust by AECOM March 2017 http://www.lynxuk.org/publications/lynxharz.pdf (53) Lynx UK Trust lets the cat out of the bag, Self-willed land April 2015 http://www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/lynx_UK.htm (54) Fisher, M. (2017) LIFE Lynx Palatinate Forest, Germany. Self-willed land March 2017 www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/LIFE_LUCHS.pdf (55) LIFE Luchs Pfälzerwald - Reintroduction of lynxes (Lynx lynx carpathicus) in the Palatinate Forest Biosphere Reserve. LIFE13 NAT/DE/000755 (56) Vosges du Nord/Pfälzerwald, Biosphere Reserves, UNESCO (57) LIFE BioCorridors - Cross-border corridors: demonstrating a transboundary ecological network, LIFE14 NAT/FR/000290 (58) Luchse in Rheinland-Pfalz, Stiftung Natur und Umwelt Rheinland-Pfalz (59) MANAGEMENTPLAN FÜR DEN UMGANG MIT LUCHSEN IN RHEINLAND-PFALZ, Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie, Ernährung und Forsten Rheinland-Pfalz 06/2016 (60) Saved: the endangered species back from the brink of extinction, Robin McKie, The Observer 8 April 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/08/endangered-species-conservation-successes (61) Large blue butterfly thriving in UK since reintroduction, Press Association, Guardian 27 August 2016 (62) Best Year for Britain's Rarest Butterfly Since 1930's, Somerset Wildlife Trust Press Release 30 August 2016 http://www.somersetwildlife.org/Best_Year_for_Britains_Rarest_Butterfly_Since_1930s.html (63) Fisher, M. & Parfitt, A. (2016) The challenge of wild nature conserving itself, ECOS 37(3/4): 27-34 http://www.wildlandresearch.org/media/uploads/The-challenge-of-wild-nature-conserving-itself.pdf (64) UK plans to bring 20 species back from brink of extinction, New Scientist staff and Press Association, New Scientist 31 March 2017 (65) CrypticMirror (2017) Comment on Saved: the endangered species back from the brink of extinction, Robin McKie, The Observer 8 April 2017 url:www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/animals_claws.htm www.self-willed-land.org.uk mark.fisher@self-willed-land.org.uk |
