REV I EW
Conservation of Tropical Plant Biodiversity: What Have We Done,
Where Are We Going?
Gary A. Krupnick
Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012, U.S.A.
ABSTRACT
Plant biodiversity in the tropics is threatened by intense anthropogenic pressures. Deforestation, habitat degradation, habitat fragmenta-
tion, overexploitation, invasive species, pollution, global climate change, and the synergies among them have had a major impact on bio-
diversity. This review paper provides a brief, yet comprehensive and broad, overview of the main threats to tropical plant biodiversity
and how they differ from threats in temperate regions. The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, an international program with 16
global targets set for 2020 aimed at understanding, conserving, and using sustainably the world?s plant biodiversity, is then used as a
framework to explore efforts in assessing and managing tropical plant conservation in a changing world. Progress on 13 of the 16 out-
come-oriented targets of the Strategy is explored at the pantropical scale. Within each target, I address current challenges in assessing
and managing tropical plant biodiversity, identify key questions that should be addressed, and suggest ways for how these challenges
might be overcome.
Abstract in Spanish is available in the online version of this article.
Key words: climate change; global strategy for plant conservation; management; protected areas; threatened species; tropical ecosystems.
OUR WORLD IS IN TROUBLE. Natural habitats are diminishing at
alarming rates. Animal and plant species are being introduced
into ecosystems outside their native distributions, and becoming
invasive, outcompeting the native fauna and ?ora. The climate is
changing with increased temperatures, increased rainfall and
drought, and more violent storms. As tropical ecologists and con-
servation biologists, it is our role to record these biological
changes, to model future changes, and to make recommendations
to prevent further loss of species and their habitats.
Pitman and J?rgensen (2002) estimated that, of the
300,000?420,000 plant species (Prance et al. 2000, Govaerts
2001, Thorne 2002, Mora et al. 2011), as many as 94,000?
193,000 species are threatened with extinction worldwide. The
tropics harbor more plant species than other region in the world
(Kier et al. 2005), with the Amazon alone having at least 12
percent of all ?owering plants (around 50,000 species) (Feeley &
Silman 2009). New tropical plant species are continually being
discovered and described, including a few species that were sur-
prisingly in local use for a long time before scientists had
described them, like Globba sherwoodiana (Zingiberaceae) com-
monly sold in the markets of Myanmar (Gowda et al. 2012) or
Monstera maderaverde (Araceae) used by local Hondurans in hat
weaving (Karney & Grayum 2012). With the current level of hab-
itat loss and alteration, many new tropical species are often
endangered before we even describe them.
The tropical and subtropical realm harbors 46 of the 51
botanically richest ecoregions of the world (Kier et al. 2005), and
35 percent of all terrestrial ecoregions fall within the tropical and
subtropical moist forests biomes (Olson & Dinerstein 2002). Of
the 34 world?s hotspots (areas with high endemism and great-
est habitat loss), 18 are in the tropics (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
Levels of ?oristic endemism are high in the tropics, especially
in island systems. For example, approximately 60 percent of
the indigenous vascular plant taxa of Indonesia (Sodhi et al.
2004) and 71 percent of the vascular plant taxa of the West
Indies (Acevedo-Rodr
?guez & Strong 2012) do not occur any-
where else.
Like other biotic regions, human pressure is changing the
health of the tropics (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005,
Wright 2010), resulting in high loss of biodiversity (Vamosi & Va-
mosi 2008, Stork 2010), which shows no evidence of slowing
down (Butchart et al. 2010). Overcoming these pressures will be
a challenge. As the Association for Tropical Biology and Conser-
vation celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2013, it is timely to look
back at the progress, challenges, and shortcomings in the ?eld of
tropical plant conservation, and examine where we are today and
what the future holds.
This review is divided into two parts: (1) an overview of the
anthropological threats to tropical plants species; and (2) an eval-
uation of knowledge gaps in the ?elds of tropical plant conserva-
tion and species management, using the Global Strategy for Plant
Conservation (GSPC) as a framework. Even though much of
what is discussed below is directed toward the conservation biol-
ogy of tropical plant species, many of the threats and the strate-
gies to overcome these threats are not speci?c to plants and can
be applied to tropical animal species as well. Some strategies take
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
Received 31 January 2013; revision accepted 6 July 2013.
Corresponding author; e-mail: krupnickg@si.edu
Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. 693
BIOTROPICA 45(6): 693?708 2013 10.1111/btp.12064
a holistic approach, looking at community-level management and
restoration, whereas other strategies focus at the species level,
which can be unique to tropical plants.
OVERVIEW OF THREATS
In the past 50 years, there has been an increase in the size of the
human population in the tropics and a decrease in the amount of
wild lands (Wright 2005). In addition to habitat loss, habitats are
being fragmented and their structure is being altered. This section
reviews the drivers of this change.
HABITAT LOSS.?The most prominent cause of local plant extinc-
tions and species endangerment in the tropics is habitat destruc-
tion and deforestation (Dirzo & Raven 2003, Rodrigues et al.
2006, Wright 2010). More than 15 million hectares of tropical
rain forest is lost each year (Bradshaw et al. 2009). In the past
two decades, Southeast Asia, where more than 40 percent of rain
forest has already been lost (Wright 2005), had the highest defor-
estation rate compared with other tropical regions (i.e., Meso-
America, South America, and Sub-Saharan Africa) (DeFries et al.
2005, Bradshaw et al. 2009, Sodhi et al. 2010). This ?gure does
not take into account the amount of forest cover that satellites
erroneously record as primary forests, those that are secondary
forests or plantations (Bradshaw et al. 2009, S
anchez-Cuervo et al.
2012). Global predictions in the loss of vegetation and rates of
forecasted urban growth over the next 15 years are highest in the
undisturbed regions of the Eastern Afromontane, the Guinean
Forests of West Africa, and the Western Ghats and Sri Lanka
hotspots (Seto et al. 2012). Furthermore, it is predicted that
Southeast Asia could lose almost three-quarters of its original
forests by 2100 (Sodhi et al. 2004). In addition to tropical rain
forests, tropical savannas and mangroves around the world are
also being reduced in size (Bradshaw et al. 2009).
Habitat is lost in the tropics due to mining and other
resource extractions, cattle ranching, and agriculture, which often
takes the form of monocultures such as oil palm, rubber, soy-
bean (Sodhi et al. 2004, Koh & Wilcove 2008, Wright 2010), and
in more recent years, crop-based biofuel production (Fargione
et al. 2008). In tropical countries, croplands, for example, have
expanded by approximately 48,000 km2 per year from 1999 to
2008, primarily at the expense of tropical dry broadleaf forests
(Phalan et al. 2013). In a study of over 16,000 South American
plant species, Ramirez-Villegas et al. (2012) found that expansion
of agriculture and grazing pressure was the key driver of immedi-
ate extinction risk. Most studies, however, only imply that habitat
lost directly causes local extinctions, and only a few have mea-
sured this loss, such as the loss of 6549 vascular plant species
following the 99.6 percent loss of primary lowland evergreen rain
forest cover since 1819 in Singapore (Brook et al. 2003).
The future outlook for land-use in the tropics looks bleak.
In an analysis of the world?s terrestrial realms, Lee and Jetz
(2008) found that the land cover near the equator is projected to
face the highest levels of land-use change, owing to consequences
of high population and economic growth. To reduce future agri-
cultural expansion, for instance, there is an urgent need to
understand how production lands can increase productivity yields
without negatively impacting the environment.
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION.?Habitats that were once
continuous can become fragmented by land conversion, resulting
in edge effects, isolation effects, and effects of habitat loss for
the remaining organisms. As a result of fragmentation, seedling
recruitment, survivorship, and fecundity have been predicted to
drop in the short term, whereas in the long term, growth rates
may be reduced and detrimental genetic effects may appear (Hey-
wood & Iriondo 2003, Gagnon et al. 2011), yet few actual dem-
onstrations exist. Most studies have focused on the effect of
fragmentation on reproductive output rather than regeneration
success (Hobbs & Yates 2003). For example, seeds of an Amazo-
nian understory herb Heliconia acuminata in forest fragments,
which are exposed to hotter, drier and sunnier conditions, are less
likely to germinate than those in continuous forest (Bruna 1999).
Yet, studies of pollinator behavior, reproductive success, and gene
?ow in a variety of plant species suggest that pollination systems
in forest fragments are quite resilient (Cane 2001).
Advancements in molecular methods are expanding our
understanding of the genetic consequences of fragmentation on
plant species in the tropics (Aguilar et al. 2008, Sork & Waits
2010). For example, a study on the tropical tree Dinizia excelsa
found higher rates of sel?ng in isolated forest fragments (Dick
et al. 2003). In contrast, paternity analysis on the endangered
tropical timber tree Dysoxylum malabaricum recently revealed high
genetic connectivity across a fragmented landscape by pollen dis-
persal, yet low local tree density in isolated fragments elevated
mating between individuals and increases the likelihood of
inbreeding (Ismail et al. 2012). More studies are needed to under-
stand the interaction between ecological consequences of frag-
mentation and genetic declines (Kramer et al. 2008).
Furthermore, the rate of extinction of tropical plant species in
fragmented habitats remains an open question (Tollefson 2013).
At the community level, differences in species composition
and plant structure have been found between large well-protected
fragments and smaller fragments (Arroyo-Rodr
?guez & Manduj-
ano 2006), with pioneer species increasing in abundance in smal-
ler fragmented tropical forests and along the fragment edges
(Tabarelli et al. 2010). Forest fragmentation contributes to the tax-
onomic homogenization of the ?ora through the increased abun-
dance of native pioneer species. For example, Lo^bo et al. (2011)
found that the tree ?oras across the Atlantic forest of northeast-
ern Brazil have become more similar to each other in the past
three decades with the proliferation of native short-lived and
small-seeded pioneer species.
OVEREXPLOITATION.?Plant and animal species are often overex-
ploited causing direct and indirect threats to tropical plant species.
Commercial logging operations are on the increase in the tropics
due to continued high demand for American and Asian timber
(Jepson et al. 2001, Sodhi et al. 2004, Wright 2010). The trade in
illegal timber is threatening the rain forests of Southeast Asia,
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
694 Krupnick
Madagascar, and tropical Africa (Sodhi et al. 2004, Patel 2007,
Laurance 2008). If current trends continue, overharvesting could
threaten the supply of tropical timber (Shearman et al. 2012).
Dipterocarp tree species, many of which have a unique role in
forest ecology through their strong synchrony of fruiting, are
highly valued for their timber and are particularly vulnerable in
Southeast Asia (Ashton & Kettle 2012). Many of these threatened
dipterocarp species only exist outside of protected areas
(Maycock et al. 2012). Likewise, the illegal logging of endemic
rosewoods (Dalbergia species) from protected areas in Madagascar
has been widespread, resulting in the reduction in the species dis-
tribution by 54?98 percent, depending on the species, in the past
decade (Barrett et al. 2010).
Selective logging may result in reduced native species diver-
sity (Patel 2007) and increased likelihood of ?res (Cochrane &
Schulze 1998). The impact to the forest canopy structure and tree
species composition is not only immediate but has also shown to
be evident even after four decades of regeneration (Okuda et al.
2003). Logging roads made during timber harvest can also lead
to increased access to the forest, illegal colonization of undis-
turbed areas, and extraction of other resources including mining
and hunting (Laurance et al. 2009).
Unsustainable harvesting practices of non-timber forest
products (NTFP), such as ?rewood for fuel, lianas for basket
weaving, plant parts for consumption (e.g., hearts of palm in
Euterpe species), and plants used in botanical ethnomedicines, can
also lead to the overexploitation and endangerment of many
tropical plant species (Anyinam 1995, Ticktin 2004). Extraction
of wild-harvested plants can affect growth, reproduction, and sur-
vival of the plant populations, which can further affect population
dynamics (e.g.,Ticktin 2004, Schmidt et al. 2011). Unsustainable
harvesting practices of wild plants are widespread, and can be
found in tropical South America (Peres et al. 2003), Africa
(Ndangalasi et al. 2007), India (Veach et al. 2003), and Southeast
Asia (Soehartono & Newton 2001, Van Sam et al. 2008). Not all
harvesting practices of NTFPs are unsustainable, and the current
challenge among practitioners is ?nding the balance between
maintaining population viability of the harvested species while
supplying adequate household income needs to those who har-
vest the plants (Shaanker et al. 2004), as recently analyzed in the
Amazonian palm, Mauritia ?exuosa (Holm et al. 2008).
Bushmeat hunting and the illegal poaching of animals for
medicine and trade has increased throughout the tropics driven
by market demand and rising human densities, development of
roads, modern hunting equipment, and poor management prac-
tices (Bennett 2002). A depletion of tropical animal species can
have severe consequences on forest structure and plant popula-
tion dynamics when those hunted animals in?uence seed produc-
tion and plant regeneration (Wright et al. 2007). For example,
hunting leads to reduced seed movement of plants with large
diaspores, which alter species composition of seedling and sapling
layers (Stoner et al. 2007). A study by Donatti et al. (2009) on an
endemic Atlantic forest palm, Astrocaryum aculeatissimum, suggest
that plants that rely on scatter-hoarding rodents such as agoutis
are at risk of regional extinction due to defaunation.
INVASIVE SPECIES.?Non-native animals and plants can have
detrimental effects on native tropical biodiversity. Invasive plant
species can out-compete native plant species for abiotic resources
(sunlight, nutrients, water) and biotic resources (pollinators, seed
dispersers). Invasive animal species can lead to an increase in
herbivory and grazing and a decrease in pollination (e.g., nectar
robbers; Dohzono et al. 2008). Invasive species have been shown
to directly cause extinction in many animal species (Clavero &
Garc
?a-Berthou 2005), but there is little evidence for the extinc-
tion of plant species, especially in the tropics (Gurevitch & Padilla
2004, Sax & Gaines 2008). One example comes from Mauritius
in which two native plant species previously known to be locally
extinct reappeared after removal of the non-native vegetation
(Baider & Florens 2011).
The impact of invasives on tropical islands, which generally
have a greater number of endemics, can be large and noticeable.
The number of invasive species on many islands has increased
linearly over time and models suggest that many more species
will become naturalized on islands in the foreseeable future (Sax
& Gaines 2008). The amount of invasive species in intact conti-
nental tropical ecosystems is less noticeable and viewed as less
intense, where it is generally assumed that undisturbed tropical
forests are highly resistant to the invasion of non-native plant
species (Corlett 2010). With increased fragmentation, road access,
and altered ?re regimes, however, tropical continental ecosystems
are experiencing an increase in the rate of alien plant naturaliza-
tion (Delnatte & Meyer 2012). Martin et al. (2009) found that at
least 59 shade-tolerant, late-successional species are known to
have invaded deeply shaded tropical forest understories around
the world, including the invasive Cinnamonum verum, which domi-
nates the canopy of many inland forests of the Seychelles
(Schumacher et al. 2009). The tropical forests of Australia, for
example, have recently seen an increase in the rate of spread of
invasive plant species (Bradshaw 2012), although a history of
deforestation and fragmentation may have made them particulary
prone to invasion.
Whether these invasive species cause extinction, or more
likely cause displacement and community change, requires more
research. Although evidence of plant extinction caused by non-
native plant species is rare (Powell et al. 2013), Gilbert and Levine
(2013) recently found that it may take decades to centuries for
native plant extinctions to be realized. This delay, or ?extinction
debt,? is caused by invasive species decreasing the size of the hab-
itat of the native species, which leads to decreased seed produc-
tion, and invasive species reducing the connectivity between
native populations (Gilbert & Levine 2013).
Species-level interactions can be very complex in the case of
invasive species. In some cases, certain invasive species may facili-
tate the invasion of additional invasive species. For example, Lach
et al. (2010) found that on an islet off of Mauritius, an invasive
ant, Technomyrmex albipes, protects an invasive plant, Leucaena leuco-
cephala, from the plant?s primary herbivore (the psyllid Heteropsylla
cubana), while negatively affecting the native shrub, Scaevola taccada,
by tending to its sap-sucking hemipterans. More research is
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
Conservation of Tropical Plant Biodiversity 695
needed in the ?eld of multi-level interactions among tropical spe-
cies, which will ultimately aid in the development of management
plans for invasive species.
POLLUTION.?Studies on the effects of pollution on biodiversity
have largely focused on birds, amphibians, ?sh, and aquatic inver-
tebrates, primarily in temperate areas (McNeely 1992). Nitrogen
deposition, as a result of agricultural fertilization and fossil fuel
combustion, has greater consequences on the temperate ?ora,
which is nitrogen limited, than in tropical ecosystems (Matson
et al. 1999). Biodiversity in the tropics, however, can still be
harmed by pollutants. Urban waste, fertilizer and pesticide runoff,
and industrial pollutants were identi?ed as leading causes in the
decline of carnivorous plants worldwide, including tropical species
(Jennings & Rohr 2011). Tropical mangrove forests are particu-
larly susceptible to chemical, industrial, and urban wastes (Ellison
& Farnsworth 1996), as well as oil spills (Duke et al. 1997), which
has led to cases of tree defoliation and stand death.
CLIMATE CHANGE.?Pollutants such as carbon dioxide emissions
are the leading cause of global climate change. Current measures
of carbon dioxide emissions are following the high end of emis-
sion scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (Peters et al. 2013). If emissions continue to remain at
today?s levels, it will be unfeasible to prevent an increase in global
average temperatures less than 2?C (Peters et al. 2013), with cli-
mate models showing an increase in annual mean temperature by
2.5?4.7?C in the tropics (Cramer et al. 2004). In addition to
increasing temperatures, rainfall patterns are expected to change.
According to computer models, tropical precipitation is predicted
to shift northward, increasing the likelihood of monsoon weather
systems in Asia and a shifting of the wet season from south to
north in tropical Africa and South America (Friedman et al.
2013). With the wet season shifting northward, areas such as the
Amazon will experience severe droughts. Models predict that
dry-season water stress will lead to a large-scale ?dieback? or deg-
radation of the Amazon rain forest (Cox et al. 2004, Malhi et al.
2009). Models for the Hawaiian Islands also predict drier winter
seasons and a reduction in heavy rain events (Timm et al. 2013).
The link between climate change and drought, however, has
recently been questioned (Shef?eld et al. 2012).
Projected estimates show that climate change may differen-
tially affect biodiversity in tropical and temperate regions, with
initial estimates showing a greater impact on biodiversity in arctic
and boreal zones, and less in the tropics (Sala et al. 2000, Lee &
Jetz 2008). Furthermore, some recent arguments based on com-
parative phylogeographic data show that mass extinction of tropi-
cal plants due to a moderate increase in temperatures is unlikely
(Dick et al. 2013). Yet, empirical evidence shows that in tropical
wet forests, in Costa Rica, for example, tree growth is highly sen-
sitive to dry-season conditions and variations in mean annual
nighttime temperatures (Clark et al. 2010). Recent models predict
that tropical lowlands will experience a net loss of plant species
richness because projected temperatures may go beyond the cur-
rent range of heat tolerance (Colwell et al. 2008). Thomas et al.
(2004) predicts that 38?57 percent (under various future climate
scenarios) of Brazilian plants in the cerrado is committed to
extinction due to climate change.
Plant species in the tropics will either tolerate increased tem-
peratures or they will respond through adaptation, evolutionary
changes, distribution shifts, or extinction. It is hypothesized that
tropical lowland species are already living near their thermal opti-
mum (Colwell et al. 2008). It is theorized that tropical plants will
be sensitive to climate change because these species experience
low temperature variation and have low tolerance to high temper-
atures (Laurance et al. 2011). Ecophysiological studies suggest
that while some tropical tree species have a high-heat tolerance
threshold (Lloyd & Farquhar 2008), other species have little
capacity to acclimate to further heat stress (Krause et al. 2010).
Other current research suggests that plant communities around
the world respond better to drought conditions than previously
thought, using water more ef?ciently during periods of decreased
rainfall (Ponce Campos et al. 2013). This study, however, included
only ?ve tropical sites (Puerto Rico, Panama, and Queensland,
Australia) in its study of 43 long-term experimental sites, suggest-
ing that more research in ecosystem resilience is needed
throughout various tropical regions.
If tropical plants are thermally specialized, they may not be
able to tolerate global warming as easily as temperate plant spe-
cies. Populations of tropical plants that cannot tolerate climate
change may instead undergo evolutionary adaptation to increased
temperatures. Evolutionary change to a changing climate can be
rapid, as demonstrated in a study of a temperate annual plant, in
which ?owering phenology shifted in 7 yr as an adaptive evolu-
tionary response to climatic ?uctuations (Franks et al. 2007).
Whether tropical plant populations can respond as rapidly as this
temperate case study remains to be tested.
If adaptation to a changing climate is problematic, tropical
plant populations may shift in elevational or altitudinal range.
Habitat loss and fragmentation interrupt ecological ?ows and will
decrease the ability of many species to shift their distribution
(Beaumont & Duursma 2012). Some argue that the most vulner-
able plant species in the tropics are upper-zone specialists (i.e.,
high tropical montane, p
aramo, puna, tropical alpine) (Laurance
et al. 2011). Recent studies have examined the projected altitudi-
nal upward shift of tropical montane plant species in Africa
(Kreyling et al. 2010) and South America (Rull et al. 2009). Each
of these studies ?nds a high level of lowland attrition, range-shift
gaps, and mountain-top extinctions. Species that shift upward will
also have fewer habitats to colonize. For example, Rojas-Soto
et al. (2012) show that, under two different climate change sce-
narios, climatically suitable areas for cloud forests in Mexico will
be reduced 54?76 percent in the next four decades. Spatial analy-
sis forecasts in Vegas-Vilarr
ubia et al. (2012) predict that habitats
in the Guayana Highlands mountain biome will experience more
than 80 percent loss, which would put over 1700 vascular plant
species in danger of extinction (Nogu
e et al. 2009).
Population-wide assessments of plant mortality and recruit-
ment are already showing responses to a warmer and drier envi-
ronment on mountains. Feeley et al. (2011) shows that 23 of 38
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
696 Krupnick
Andean tropical tree genera have shifted their mean distributions
higher in altitude this past decade, and more tree genera from
lower elevations are increasing in abundance higher up. For spe-
cies at the top of mountains, the situation is dire. For example,
the Haleakala silversword, Argyroxyphium sandwicense subsp. macro-
cephalum, in Hawaii has already seen high levels of mortality at the
lower end of its distributional range over the past 30 years,
believed to be caused by increasing air temperatures and solar
radiation and decreasing rainfall (Krushelnycky et al. 2013),
foreshadowing a bleak outlook if these trends continue.
Global climate change is predicted to change the species
composition of tropical forests. The distribution of exotic vines is
predicted to increase in tropical rain forests under future climate
scenarios (Gallagher et al. 2010), particularly under increased
frequency of disturbances (Horvitz et al. 1998). In the tropical
lowlands, global warming may lead to a novel community of
heat-tolerant plant species (Colwell et al. 2008). Changes in
species composition are already being observed. Using repeated
censuses of plots in the central Amazon, Laurance et al. (2004)
found that over a 20-year period, undisturbed tropical forests
saw an increase in faster growing canopy and emergent trees and
a decrease in slower growing subcanopy trees. They could not
explain, however, if the cause of those changes was due to altera-
tions in regional temperature, atmospheric CO2 concentrations,
rainfall, or nutrient deposition (Laurance et al. 2004). In a study
using dated herbarium specimens collected from tropical South
America over the past 40 years, Feeley (2012) found that over
half of the 239 species examined exhibited some evidence of
distribution shift toward cooler areas.
Tropical coastal species and island endemics may also be
acutely vulnerable to climate change (Fordham & Brook 2010),
due to the melting of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, which
may cause a sea level rise as high as 1 meter by the end of the
century (Bamber & Aspinall 2013).
CO-EXTINCTION.?The loss of one species can lead to domino
effect on another species when they are obligately dependent on
each other. Koh et al. (2004) found that 6300 species will be
endangered should their host species become extinct, including
butter?ies on their larval host plants and pollinating ?g wasps and
Ficus species. Most of these studies examine the effect of plant
loss on animals, but the reverse may prove to be true too. Plants
can be vulnerable when the animal species they interact with (i.e.,
pollinators, frugivores, seed dispersers) are threatened. Case stud-
ies show that seedling density is higher in fragments inhabited by
their frugivores than in fragments where the frugivores are absent
due to over-hunting (Nu~nez-Iturri et al. 2008, Anzures-Dadda
et al. 2011). Invertebrate seed dispersers, such as dung beetles, can
also be indirectly affected by hunting when dung-producing verte-
brates decline (Stoner et al. 2007), which will lead to cascading
effects on plants that bene?t from these animals.
Animals pollinate an estimated 94 percent of all tropical
plant species (Ollerton et al. 2011). Any signi?cant decline in the
populations of the pollinating animal species will impede plant
reproduction in the populations of those plants that are
dependent on the affected pollinator (National Research Council
2007). Many tropical pollinating animals, such as birds, bats, and
insects, are currently at risk from overexploitation (Struebig et al.
2007), invasive species (Abe et al. 2008), pesticides (Whitehorn
et al. 2012), and global climate change (Deutsch et al. 2008). Pro-
jections show the Indomalayan, Malagasy, and Oceania regions
among those that will experience the highest proportion of real
and functional avian extinctions, suggesting severe consequences
for plant populations and community dynamics due to reduced
bird pollination and seed dispersal (S


ekercioglu et al. 2004). Spe-
cialization, however, of both pollination and seed dispersal net-
works decreases toward tropical latitudes (Schleuning et al. 2012),
buffering these mutualistic networks in the tropics against
co-extinction. More studies are needed on the interplay between
animal loss and tropical plant population dynamics, especially in
the light of climate change and its role in shifting animal habitats.
SYNERGIES.?The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
argues that the greatest threat to tropical plant biodiversity is
the combined effect of landscape modi?cation and accelerated
climate change. Most endangered species have a higher risk of
extinction than previously thought because the threats they face
are interacting and self-reinforcing (Brook et al. 2008). Frag-
mentation, for example, might lead to changes in the abiotic
environment of a species causing population decline, but the
threats are reinforced by habitat access to harvesting, invasive
species, and the impact of climate change. If organisms must
shift their distribution to avoid increased temperatures or
drought, fragmentation and habitat destruction may prevent
their dispersal. Reduced precipitation and a longer dry season
in the tropics could increase the accessibility of remote forests,
leading to increased habitat disturbance such as ?res, which in
turn will decrease the resilience of the ecosystem to climate
change (Brodie et al. 2012). Increased frequency of extreme cli-
matic events (e.g., hurricanes, droughts) brought on by climate
change may facilitate the increased rate of invasive species
introductions (Diez et al. 2012).
Future conservation actions should not just target single
threats, but rather examine the cascading effects caused by the
synergies of multiple threats (Brook et al. 2008). The interactions
among the various drivers of species endangerment remain the
largest stumbling block in modeling human impacts on the health
of tropical biodiversity.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
To halt the current and continuing loss of plant diversity, the
Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (http://www.cbd.int/
gspc/) was adopted in 2002 at the sixth meeting of the Confer-
ence of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Six-
teen outcome-oriented targets were established and designed to
explicitly address the survival and sustainable use of the world?s
plant biodiversity (GSPC 2002). By the original 2010 deadline,
considerable progress had been made toward achieving eight of
the 16 targets at the global level, but limited progress was
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
Conservation of Tropical Plant Biodiversity 697
achieved in the others (https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/
cop-09/information/cop-09-inf-25-en.pdf). In 2010, the GSPC
was revised with modi?ed targets and an extended deadline of
2020 (Convention on Biological Diversity 2010).
Various countries have developed national strategies and tar-
gets of their own, including some tropical countries such as Brazil,
Colombia, and Malaysia. Regional strategies can be more compli-
cated than national strategies as they require the cooperation of
neighboring countries. Torres-Santana et al. (2010) comprehen-
sively examined each target among the island nations of the Carib-
bean and found that even though there had been considerable
activity, accomplishments had been limited and there was relatively
little collaboration among island plant conservationists.
In this section, progress on 13 of the 16 targets is examined
for the tropical ?ora. Targets 6, 9, and 13 focus on crop manage-
ment and indigenous knowledge and will not be examined in this
review. For each target, critical research needs necessary to
achieve the targets will be discussed, and emerging questions and
opportunities relevant to the tropics will be highlighted.
TARGET 1: AN ONLINE FLORA OF ALL KNOWN PLANTS.?A working
list of all known plant species is available at The Plant List
(http://www.theplantlist.org/), and the next stage of this target is
to create an online ?ora. One cannot prevent a species from
going extinct unless that species is known to science. The world?s
?ora has not yet been fully described, several tropical areas
remain unsurveyed (Posa et al. 2011), and the tropical ?ora
remains poorly known (Chen et al. 2009). With enough effort, we
are less than 50 years away from discovering and describing the
last new species of plant on Earth (Kress & Krupnick 2005,
Wheeler et al. 2012). Rapid DNA sequencing, electronic ?eld
guides, image-recognition software, advanced cyberinfrastructure,
and fully referenced, archived and digitized herbarium collections
will aid in this effort. The conservation bene?ts of completing a
world?s ?ora are broad, from the development of baseline data
on species occurrences to the assessment and prioritization of
threatened species and ecoregions (Wheeler et al. 2012).
Building a broader collection of plant specimens within the
world?s herbaria will not only aid in completing the world?s ?ora,
but will be important in many other aspects of tropical ecology
and conservation (Kress et al. 2001, Graham et al. 2004, Lister
2011). The world?s herbaria contain millions of specimens, yet the
tropics remain under-sampled because of dif?culty of access and
are thus not adequately represented in these collections (e.g.,
Myanmar; Kress et al. 2003). Nevertheless, specimen data have
value in predictive modeling of conservation priority areas, con-
servation assessments of species, and predicting the impacts of
global climate change (Donaldson 2009). For instance, a lack of
basic data has made it dif?cult to create species distribution mod-
els for many tropical plant species (Feeley & Silman 2011b). Fee-
ley and Silman (2011a) found that geo-referenced collections of
90 percent of tropical plant species were too small for contempo-
rary modeling of climate change responses. Global biodiversity
data sets are generally skewed toward the poles (Collen et al.
2008). An increase in the collection and databasing of new
tropical plant specimens is needed.
New methods in taxonomy and molecular biology will help
lead the way in the discovery of new tropical plant species. DNA
barcoding has proven to be a valuable, cost-effective tool in the
identi?cation of new species, invasive species, medicinal species,
and other highly traded species including those listed under the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora (Kress & Erickson 2008,
Lahaye et al. 2008, Hollingsworth et al. 2009). DNA barcoding
can also be used in reconstructing plant?animal networks
(Garc
?a-Robledo et al. 2013), which may lead to the discovery
and conservation management of new interactions.
TARGET 2: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSERVATION STATUS OF ALL
KNOWN PLANT SPECIES, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, TO GUIDE CONSERVATION
ACTION.?To date, insuf?cient progress has been made on meet-
ing this target. Of the more than 350,000 known plant species,
only 15,501 vascular plant taxa appear in the 2012 IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2012), and only two groups of
plants (conifers and cycads) have been fully assessed, far fewer
than that for vertebrate taxa. The procedures of Red Listing
require data that are generally not available for many tropical
plant species. Although many regional assessments in the tropics
have been completed (e.g., Jorgensen & Le
on-Y
anez 1999, Llamo-
zas et al. 2003, Zona et al. 2007), most of these efforts have
assessed species on a regional or national, rather than global,
basis or only include those species identi?ed as threatened.
The Red List is a powerful tool for conservation planning,
management, and decision making (Rodrigues et al. 2006). The
data on extinct and endangered species are frequently being used
in assessing trends and making comparisons among the various
threats, habitats, and taxa. It is unfortunate, however, that while
the assessments for vascular plant species are less than 5 percent
of the world?s ?ora, many published analyses are making very
strong assumptions based on very limited data (e.g., Gurevitch &
Padilla 2004, Sax & Gaines 2008). It is urgent that we accelerate
plant species assessments, particularly in areas where the degree
of future plant species endangerment is predicted to be high
(Giam et al. 2010).
With 95 percent of plant species still yet to be assessed at
the global scale, new approaches to conservation assessment are
urgently needed (Lughadha et al. 2005, Krupnick et al. 2009,
Schatz 2009, Miller et al. 2012). Red List indices based on a rep-
resentative subset of plant species are one approach to under-
standing how many plant species are threatened (Lughadha et al.
2005). Target 2, however, calls for the assessment of all known
plant species and not just a subset. Full conservation assessments
are best done with expert knowledge and population data from
the ?eld. One alternative to a preliminary approach is to use data
from herbarium specimens with (Rivers et al. 2010, 2011, Miller
et al. 2012) and without (Krupnick et al. 2009) geo-referenced
coordinates. Adapting these approaches will assist in the timely
completion of Target 2.
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
698 Krupnick
TARGET 3: INFORMATION, RESEARCH AND ASSOCIATED OUTPUTS, AND
METHODS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGY DEVELOPED AND
SHARED.?An internet-based toolkit developed by BGCI (http://
www.plants2020.net) provides information, technical details, links
to manuals, and case studies relevant to each of the targets of the
Strategy. Many unpublished reports developed in tropical coun-
tries, however, are not readily accessible to plant conservation
practitioners. Retrieval of these methodologies and practices, and
translation into multiple languages, should be a top priority to
meet the goals of this target.
TARGET 4: AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF EACH ECOLOGICAL REGION OR
VEGETATION TYPE SECURED THROUGH EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
AND/OR RESTORATION.?Protecting a percentage of each ecoregion
will assist in the conservation of the different species within each
vegetation type. A recent overview by Schmitt et al. (2009) shows
the amount of forest, with 10 percent tree cover, that is protected
in Global Forest Map (GFM) forest types and WWF realms and
ecoregions. The study found that only 3 of the 12 tropical GFM
forest types (tropical upper montane forests, tropical semi-
evergreen moist broadleaf forests, and tropical sclerophyllous dry
forests) are above the 15 percent threshold for protection using
the restrictive IUCN management categories I?IV. In contrast,
tropical mixed needleleaf/broadleaf forests have only 4.3 percent
protection. The study further found that the WWF Neotropical
realm has the most protection at 10.6 percent, with the Indo-
Malayan realm (9.9%), Oceanian realm (7.5%), and Afrotropical
realm (6.4%) lagging behind.
Protected area designations are not permanent. Protected
areas can at any time be delineated or redrawn by local govern-
ments, putting these areas at risk of further degradation and
deforestation (e.g., Curran et al. 2004). For example, in a recent
study on the designation of protected areas by Mascia and Pailler
(2011), it was found that at least 63 protected areas in 20 tropical
countries have experienced downgrading, downsizing, and dega-
zettment events since 1900. Zimmerer et al. (2004) reports evi-
dence that ?ve tropical countries (Cameroon, Gabon, Ghana,
Guinea-Bissau, and Togo) had experienced a 5?60 percent
decline in protected area coverage between 1985 and 1997. It is
essential that management of endangered species take into
account the impermanence of protected area designations.
Neither are protected areas inviolate. Identifying and monitor-
ing illegal logging, encroachment, and other anthropogenic inter-
ventions in real time is one way to increase the effective
management of protected areas. Urgent calls to build an interna-
tional satellite monitoring system have recently been made (Lynch
et al. 2013). Global Forest Watch 2.0 (GFW 2.0) is a new forest
monitoring system that is currently under development and is sla-
ted to launch at the end of 2013 (http://www.wri.org/gfw2). GFW
2.0 uses satellite technology, mobile phone technology, data sharing,
and human networks around the world to monitor and address ille-
gal logging and deforestation. The new technology will make it
possible to identify forest clearing within a 2-week period.
Target 4 also calls for the effective restoration of disturbed
and degraded lands within ecological regions. The recovery and
reintroduction of individual species is covered in Target 8.
Landscape-scale restoration of forests and degraded lands are an
approach often motivated by the recovery of biodiversity and
ecosystem services and connecting fragmented areas (Sodhi et al.
2011, Ciccarese et al. 2012). Broadscale forest recovery via satel-
lite observations has recently been seen in the Caribbean (Cuba,
Puerto Rico, and Haiti), Mexico, and Central America (Honduras,
Costa Rica, and El Salvador), primarily in tropical moist forests
at high elevation (Aide et al. 2013). The satellite imagery in this
study, however, could not separate out the cause of woody vege-
tation gain as natural regeneration, encroachment, or direct
human intervention.
The biggest hurdles in landscape-scale restoration in the tro-
pics are that both successes and failures are not reported and that
research attention has not been directed across multiple sites
working over multiple years (Holl et al. 2003, Brudvig 2011,
Menz et al. 2013). Revegetation projects should also update their
methods by sourcing seeds from climatically diverse areas to
maximize evolutionary potential and adaptation to climate change
(Hoffmann & Sgro 2011).
One approach to the large-scale restoration of tropical habi-
tats that is beginning to receive attention is the development and
use of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), which have the poten-
tial for remote sensing of forest cover, species distributions, and
illegal harvesting of timber (Koh & Wich 2012). Aerial reseeding
using planes and helicopters is currently being utilized to revege-
tate temperate areas of China (Wenhua 2004). Currently under
review are opportunities of using drones in aerial reseeding,
which are cheaper than helicopters and less dangerous in moun-
tainous areas, in tropical areas, such as Thailand (Sutherland et al.
2013).
TARGET 5: AT LEAST 75 PERCENT OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AREAS
FOR PLANT DIVERSITY OF EACH ECOLOGICAL REGION WERE
PROTECTED, WITH EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT IN PLACE FOR
CONSERVING PLANTS AND THEIR GENETIC DIVERSITY.?Important
plant areas are typically de?ned as those areas with outstanding
assemblages of rare, threatened, or endemic plant species. As of
2010, 66 countries have become engaged in projects to identify
important plant areas, and of these, a mere 19 are in the tropics
(5 countries in the Afrotropics, 10 in Indo-Malay, and 4 in the
Neotropics) (Plantlife 2010), indicating that more involvement by
tropical countries is needed. Butchart et al. (2012) show that, on
a global scale, 51 percent of the Alliance for Zero Extinction
sites is unprotected, arguing that better targeted expansion of
protected areas is necessary.
Important plant areas are selected based on three criteria: (1)
threatened species, (2) species richness, and (3) threatened habi-
tats. The identi?cation of important plant areas can be improved
through recent advances in survey-gap analyses and the modeling
distributions of rare species (Funk et al. 2005). Yet, with increas-
ing knowledge of how phylogenetic diversity can contribute to
nature conservation, the integration of evolutionary knowledge
into international biodiversity policies and practice has been
largely neglected (Winter et al. 2013).
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
Conservation of Tropical Plant Biodiversity 699
TARGET 7: AT LEAST 75 PERCENT OF KNOWN THREATENED PLANT
SPECIES CONSERVED IN SITU.?The goal of in situ plant conservation
at the species level is to prevent the loss of the species in nature.
Progress in identifying priority species for this target has been
hampered by the lack of data on the conservation status of many
species (GSPC Target 2). The principal approach for in situ con-
servation is the establishment and maintenance of a network of
protected reserves. Few undisturbed tropical forests exist today,
even though these are better at sustaining tropical biodiversity
than disturbed forests (Gibson et al. 2011). As more threatened
species are found outside of protected areas, successful conserva-
tion of these species will require strategic efforts to protect them
wherever they are, including secondary forests and other
human-modi?ed landscapes (Wright 2005, Chazdon et al. 2009).
Protected area systems in the tropics are not entirely infalli-
ble either, and thus just knowing that a threatened species exists
in a reserve is no assurance that it will remain safe. To maintain
the viability of a threatened plant population in a protected area,
the species must not suffer from the ?benign neglect? approach to
conservation (Heywood & Iriondo 2003). Species within pro-
tected areas must be monitored and actively managed. In addi-
tion, neighbors of protected reserves should be treated as
?partners in conservation?, rather than managing a reserve as a
?fortress? that should never be touched (Heywood & Iriondo
2003).
As threats continue to put tropical plant species in danger of
extinction, regular monitoring based on observations and mea-
surements of select species and select sites in the tropics is neces-
sary (Bawa et al. 2004). SIGEO (http://www.sigeo.si.edu/),
GLORIA (http://www.gloria.ac.at), and RAINFOR (http://www.
rainfor.org/) are three examples that serve this purpose through
networks of tropical observation sites, which will collect repeated
data necessary to document the impact of climate change on bio-
diversity such as species range displacement. The development of
Essential Biodiversity Variables, a global harmonized observation
system, can help facilitate the measurement and management of
biodiversity change (Pereira et al. 2013).
As global climate change impacts the tropics, management
decisions will have to be made in regards to maintaining the via-
bility of the native biodiversity, including the creation of new pro-
tected areas for threatened species, connectivity, adaptive
management, managed relocation, and ex situ conservation (Han-
nah 2011). Current reserves under past management practices are
unlikely to be effective when responding to climate change, and
thus more intensive management is necessary (Lee & Jetz 2008,
Hellmann & Pfrender 2011), even though our knowledge of eco-
system management and restoration is poor (Rands et al. 2010).
Pre-emptive conservation planning, such as restoring forest conti-
nuity, especially along altitudinal gradients, will be necessary in
consideration of the impacts of high-end estimates of global
warming (Corlett 2012).
Conserving plants in situ will further require understanding
of population genetics and climate tolerance within tropical spe-
cies (Harte et al. 2004). A challenge is put forth in Dick et al.
(2013) to ask whether tropical plant species have lost their toler-
ance for higher temperatures over time. If the species do not
have the tolerance for higher temperatures and increased drought,
will tropical plant populations have the necessary genetic variance
for adaptation, and how will this differ between species that have
large effective populations and those with small population sizes
(Hoffmann & Sgro 2011)?
TARGET 8: AT LEAST 75 PERCENT OF THREATENED PLANT SPECIES IN
EX SITU COLLECTIONS, PREFERABLY IN THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, AND
AT LEAST 20 PERCENT AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY AND RESTORATION
PROGRAMS.?Ex situ collections contain representative living speci-
mens of appropriate genetic diversity, which are stored outside of
their natural environment. These specimens take the form of liv-
ing plants, viable seeds, or tissue and cell cultures, each having
their own level of expense. Seed banking is considered to be the
most cost-effective of ex situ conservation measures, and can
cost as little as one percent of conserving the species in situ (Li &
Pritchard 2009). The seeds of many moist tropical forest trees
either germinate immediately and cannot be stored or are recalci-
trant (Tweddle et al. 2003, Chen et al. 2009), but recent innova-
tions in cryopreservation may aid in the long-term storage of
many tropical species. In addition, living collections in tropical
botanical gardens can pose a risk of escape and invasion (Chen
et al. 2009), and thus new strategies must be considered.
Global progress toward Target 8 shows that at least 23 per-
cent of the world?s globally Red Listed threatened plant species
are known to be scattered among the world?s botanical gardens
(Sharrock et al. 2010, Kramer et al. 2011). Estimates of this mea-
sure for temperate regions are higher than the global average (e.g.,
Europe 42%, Russia 64%, North America 39%, South Africa
36%), suggesting that estimates for tropical regions, which have
not been measured, are most likely well below the 75 percent
goal. Efforts and approaches in the ex situ conservation and the
long-term preservation of tropical plant species need to increase
(Li & Pritchard 2009).
Recovery and reintroduction programs involve establishing
extirpated or rare species in either protected reserves or in
degraded habitats. In a review by Godefroid et al. (2011) on the
success rates of plant reintroduction programs worldwide, rein-
troduced populations generally have low levels of survival, ?ower-
ing, and fruiting, and success rates usually decline with time. That
analysis, however, was short on tropical data. Restoration meth-
ods for tropical species are critically needed and long-term data
will be highly valuable in understanding the role that ex situ col-
lections serve in recovery and restoration (Donaldson 2009).
As climate change displaces tropical plant species from their
native habitats, ex situ collections may prove to be vital in
assisted migration projects. Highly controversial, assisted migra-
tion (also known as managed relocation) involves moving a spe-
cies to new habitats outside its historical distribution as a
managed response to a changing climate. Ecological, ethical, legal,
and political arguments have been made against this practice,
including the disruption of existing communities and the dangers
of a translocated species becoming invasive in its new habitats
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
700 Krupnick
(Hewitt et al. 2011, Schwartz et al. 2012). Yet, if assisted migra-
tion programs are not chosen, the threat of climate-driven extinc-
tions may increase. Management of these species will require the
emphasis on the spread of natural populations instead (McLach-
lan et al. 2007). More research carefully examining the risks, bene-
?ts, and trade-offs to tropical lowland and montane plant species
is needed. Tropical gardens with their extensive ex situ collections
are positioned to play a big role in future studies (Chen et al.
2009).
TARGET 10: EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT PLANS IN PLACE TO PREVENT
NEW BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS AND TO MANAGE IMPORTANT AREAS FOR
PLANT DIVERSITY THAT ARE INVADED.?Fewer articles have been
published that address species invasions in tropical environments
and developing countries than in temperate environments and
developed countries (Petenon & Pivello 2008, Nu~nez & Pauchard
2010), indicating that further research on tropical biological inva-
sions and management is needed. There is a strong need for
increased surveillance, early detection, and eradication of invasive
species (Delnatte & Meyer 2012). Compared with developed
countries in temperate regions, developing countries in tropical
regions have some disadvantages in controlling exotics, such as
lower levels of social awareness and lesser means for managing
exotics, but advantages include lower rates of introduction and
the availability of low-cost labor (Nu~nez & Pauchard 2010).
Endangered species can recover after manual removal of invasive
species, and native vegetation has been shown to return to a pre-
invasion state after labor-intensive control of invasive species in
tropical areas (J?ager & Kowarik 2010). Invasive species removal,
however, must be seen in the greater context of multi-species
interactions, such as herbivory, pollination, and predation. For
example, removal of an invasive plant species in a tropical dry
forest has been shown to lead to greater levels of herbivory on
the native plant population (Prasad 2010).
More effort is also needed in identifying which native species
are most appropriate for reforestation, rehabilitation, and orna-
mentals, for which non-natives selected in those roles tend to be
those that become invasive species (Denslow et al. 2009, Delnatte
& Meyer 2012). Other key questions include knowing when and
how to manage invasive species after they establish in tropical
reserves, particularly if multi-level interactions with native species
have been found.
TARGET 11: NO SPECIES OF WILD FLORA ENDANGERED BY
INTERNATIONAL TRADE.?CITES is the leading coordinating agency
for the implementation, monitoring, and review of Target 11. Of
the approximately 300 plant species listed in CITES Appendix I
and over 28,000 species (including the entire orchid and cactus
families) listed in Appendix II, many tropical plant species are
monitored through the issue and control of export and import
permits. Many tropical timber species and medicinal plant species,
however, have yet to be listed. After several years of pressure
(Patel 2007, Schuurman & Lowry 2009, Barrett et al. 2010), the
rosewoods (genus Dalbergia) and ebonies (genus Diospyros) from
Asia, Central America, and Madagascar were recently added to
Appendix II at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties
in Bangkok, Thailand (http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/2013/
E-Notif-2013-012.pdf).
Although countries continue, and sometimes struggle (Blun-
dell 2007, Phelps et al. 2010) to regulate trade of CITES-listed
species, especially those traded in public border markets and
black markets, internet commerce has opened up as a new ave-
nue for illegal activity. In a recent study examining the sale of
listed cactus species on an internet auction site, Sajeva et al.
(2013) found that about 89 percent of a sample of 1000 plants
were potentially traded without CITES-issued permits, suggesting
concerns about the capability of protecting CITES species in an
era of e-commerce.
DNA barcoding has the potential to serve in the identi?ca-
tion of highly traded CITES-listed species. With advanced tech-
nology, custom of?cers may 1 d be able to positively identify
plant species and plant fragments, and distinguish those that are
listed in Appendix I from Appendix II and those not listed by
CITES (Lahaye et al. 2008).
TARGET 12: ALL WILD-HARVESTED PLANT-BASED PRODUCTS SOURCED
SUSTAINABLY.?Overharvesting of wild plant species for food, fuel,
and medicines can have serious consequences on both the plant
populations and the livelihoods of the people these plants sup-
port. Finding a balance between sustainably harvesting tropical
NTFPs and supporting people with enough income, medicine
and plants has been a focus of study for the past two decades
(Hall & Bawa 1993). Recent advances in comparative analysis
and the use of matrix population models (Caswell 2001) are
being used to generate management recommendations for tropi-
cal NTFPs (Mont
ufar et al. 2011, Schmidt et al. 2011). For exam-
ple, Endress et al. (2006) examined the effects of several leaf
harvest treatments on the Mexican palm Chamaedorea radicalis over
a 6-year period, and was able to provide recommendations for
sustainable harvest of this species with only a few modi?cations
of current harvest practices. Studies using matrix models, how-
ever, are rare for tropical African and Asian plant species, for
populations of lianas, vines, ferns, and cycads, and tend to be
shorter than 3 yr (Schmidt et al. 2011). To make successful pro-
gress on Target 12, long-term studies on a wide range of tropical
plant families from multiple regions and the integration of climate
change models with the matrix population models will be
necessary.
TARGET 14: THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANT DIVERSITY AND THE NEED
FOR ITS CONSERVATION INCORPORATED INTO COMMUNICATION,
EDUCATION, AND PUBLIC AWARENESS PROGRAMS.?Tropical botanists,
ecologists, and conservation biologists can play an important role
in communicating and educating the public about plant conserva-
tion issues. Addressing questions, such as ?how does human
well-being relate to the structure and functioning of tropical eco-
systems? (Bawa et al. 2004), is one way to connect conservation
biology to the public. Social and professional networking web-
sites, which did not exist when the Strategy was ?rst written, are
new ways to engage the public. Another way to engage the public
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
Conservation of Tropical Plant Biodiversity 701
and raise awareness is through citizen science, with projects such
as those focused around plant monitoring as it relates to climate
change.
TARGET 15: THE NUMBER OF TRAINED PEOPLE WORKING WITH
APPROPRIATE FACILITIES SUFFICIENT ACCORDING TO NATIONAL NEEDS,
TO ACHIEVE THE TARGETS OF THIS STRATEGY.?Ahrends et al. (2011)
shows that trained botanists in tropical plant sciences are more
ef?cient and reliable than untrained botanists in the identi?cation
of plant species, and that data quality increases with access to
herbaria. Yet, herbaria, botanic gardens, and university botany
facilities in many tropical countries suffer from poor support and
a lack of investment (Maunder et al. 2008). The call for an
increase in the capacity of conservation institutions across the
tropics is frequently found in published literature (Bawa et al.
2004, Sodhi et al. 2010), yet the majority of this capacity remains
concentrated in rich developed countries rather than in regions
facing the greatest conservation challenges to biodiversity (Rands
et al. 2010). To effectively achieve all 16 targets, we must acceler-
ate and increase the investment in Target 15.
TARGET 16: INSTITUTIONS, NETWORKS, AND PARTNERSHIPS FOR PLANT
CONSERVATION ESTABLISHED OR STRENGTHENED AT NATIONAL,
REGIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL LEVELS TO ACHIEVE THE TARGETS OF
THIS STRATEGY.?Although most protected areas are located
within individual countries, a number of tropical transboundary
protected areas, those protected area complexes that result when
different protected areas within different countries are connected
across international borders, have been growing over the past
few decades (Zimmerer et al. 2004), suggesting an increase in
international coordination and cooperation.
Networks and partnerships supporting plant conservation
activities have been on the increase. The Global Partnership for
Plant Conservation, Asociaci
on Latinoamericana y del Caribe de
Jardines Bot
anicos, the Center for Tropical Forest Science, and
the Organization for Tropical Studies are just a few examples of
partnerships all serving an important role in the support of plant
conservation. Greater efforts are needed to involve a wide variety
of other sectors, such as industry, education, and faith-based
organizations, if we are to achieve all targets of this Strategy.
SUMMARY
The driving philosophy of conservation biologists in the past cen-
tury was to safeguard every species in protected areas to prevent
extinction and to restore degraded habitats. With non-native spe-
cies invading conservation reserves, global climate change impact-
ing protected areas, and other driving forces altering protected
habitats, this philosophy can no longer stand. Plants in protected
areas are not sheltered against a changing climate. It is unlikely
that all plant species will respond similar to these pressures. The
big key questions are can we identify which species will tolerate
the predicted increase in temperature and altered precipitation,
which will adapt through evolutionary change, which will migrate
to more suitable habitats, and which will go extinct? Can we
identify a phylogenetic pattern to the response? Different groups
of plants will require different strategies for management. For
those groups that cannot migrate, tolerate, or adapt to the invent-
ible human-induced changes, what are the best courses of action
both inside and outside of their natural habitats to prevent their
extinction?
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Plant ecologists and conservation biologists have a critical role to
play in preserving the botanical heritage of the richest ?ora on
Earth. Assessing the number of species, identifying those that are
threatened, and understanding how to safeguard them in their
native habitats continue to be essential today. Managing tropical
plant species against ongoing, new and future threats and changes
in the environment is essential in preventing further extinctions.
Creating a backup in botanic gardens and seed banks can serve
as an insurance policy against extinction in the wild, particularly
in the light of climate change. It is essential that tropical plant
biologists continue to work with governments and non-pro?t
organizations in building the capacity and resources required to
achieve the goals of conservation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful for early discussions on the topic of tropical plant
conservation with Stuart Davies, Vicki Funk, and W. John
Kress. I thank Carlos Garc
?a-Robledo, two anonymous review-
ers, and the editor, Jaboury Ghazoul, for their insightful and
constructive comments on a previous version of this manu-
script.
LITERATURE CITED
ABE, T., S. MAKINO, AND I. OKOCHI. 2008. Why have endemic pollinators
declined on the Ogasawara Islands? Biodivers. Conserv. 17: 1465?
1473.
ACEVEDO-RODR
IGUEZ, P., AND M. T. STRONG. 2012. Catalogue of seed plants
of the West Indies. Smithson. Contrib. Bot. 98: 1?1192.
AGUILAR, R., M. QUESADA, L. ASHWORTH, Y. HERRERIAS-DIEGO, AND J. LOBO.
2008. Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation in plant popula-
tions: Susceptible signals in plant traits and methodological
approaches. Mol. Ecol. 17: 5177?5188.
AHRENDS, A., C. RAHBEK, M. T. BULLING, N. D. BURGESS, P. J. PLATTS, J. C.
LOVETT, V. W. KINDEMBA, N. OWEN, A. N. SALLU, A. R. MARSHALL, B.
E. MHORO, E. FANNING, AND R. MARCHANT. 2011. Conservation and
the botanist effect. Biol. Conserv. 144: 131?140.
AIDE, T. M., M. L. CLARK, H. R. GRAU, D. L
OPEZ-CARR, M. A. LEVY, D.
REDO, M. BONILLA-MOHENO, G. RINER, M. J. ANDRADE-N
U~NEZ, AND
M. MU~NIZ. 2013. Deforestation and reforestation of Latin America
and the Caribbean (2001?2010). Biotropica 45: 262?271.
ANYINAM, C. 1995. Ecology and ethnomedicine: Exploring links between cur-
rent environmental crisis and indigenous medical practices. Soc. Sci.
Med. 40: 321?329.
ANZURES-DADDA, A., E. ANDRESEN, M. L. MART
INEZ, AND R. H. MANSON.
2011. Absence of howlers (Alouatta palliata) in?uences tree seedling
densities in tropical rain forest fragments in southern Mexico. Int.
J. Primatol. 32: 634?651.
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
702 Krupnick
ARROYO-RODR
IGUEZ, V., AND S. MANDUJANO. 2006. The importance of tropical
rain forest fragments to the conservation of plant species diversity in
Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biodivers. Conserv. 15: 4159?4179.
ASHTON, P., AND C. J. KETTLE. 2012. Dipterocarp biology as a window to the
understanding of tropical forest structure: Where are we looking now?
Biotropica 44: 575?576.
BAIDER, C., AND F. B. V. FLORENS. 2011. Control of invasive alien weeds
averts imminent plant extinction. Biol. Invasions 13: 2641?2646.
BAMBER, J. L., AND W. P. ASPINALL. 2013. An expert judgement assessment of
future sea level rise from the ice sheets. Nat. Clim. Change 3: 424?
427.
BARRETT, M. A., J. L. BROWN, M. K. MORIKAWA, J.-N. LABAT, AND A. D. YO-
DER. 2010. CITES designation for endangered rosewood in Madagas-
car. Science 328: 1109?1110.
BAWA, K. S., W. J. KRESS, N. M. NADKARNI, AND S. LELE. 2004. Beyond para-
dise - meeting the challenges in tropical biology in the 21st century.
Biotropica 36: 437?446.
BEAUMONT, L. J., AND D. DUURSMA. 2012. Global projections of 21st century
land-use changes in regions adjacent to protected areas. PLoS ONE 7:
e43714.
BENNETT, E. L. 2002. Is there a link between wild meat and food security?
Conserv. Biol. 16: 590?592.
BLUNDELL, A. G. 2007. Implementing CITES regulations for timber. Ecol.
Appl. 17: 323?330.
BRADSHAW, C. J. A. 2012. Little left to lose: Deforestation and forest degrada-
tion in Australia since European colonization. J. Plant Ecol. 5: 109?
120.
BRADSHAW, C. J. A., N. S. SODHI, AND B. W. BROOK. 2009. Tropical turmoil: A
biodiversity tragedy in progress. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7: 79?87.
BRODIE, J., E. POST, AND W. F. LAURANCE. 2012. Climate change and tropical
biodiversity: A new focus. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27: 145?150.
BROOK, B. W., N. S. SODHI, AND C. J. A. BRADSHAW. 2008. Synergies among
extinction drivers under global change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23: 453?
460.
BROOK, B. W., N. S. SODHI, AND P. K. L. NG. 2003. Catastrophic extinctions
follow deforestation in Singapore. Nature 424: 420?423.
BRUDVIG, L. A. 2011. The restoration of biodiversity: Where has research been
and where does it need to go? Am. J. Bot. 98: 549?558.
BRUNA, E. M. 1999. Seed germination in rainforest fragments. Nature 402:
139?139.
BUTCHART, S. H. M., J. P. W. SCHARLEMANN, M. I. EVANS, S. QUADER, S. ARICO,
J. ARINAITWE, M. BALMAN, L. A. BENNUN, B. BERTZKY, C. BESANC
ON,
T. M. BOUCHER, T. M. BROOKS, I. J. BURFIELD, N. D. BURGESS, S.
CHAN, R. P. CLAY, M. J. CROSBY, N. C. DAVIDSON, N. DE SILVA, C. DEV-
ENISH, G. C. L. DUTSON, D. F. D. Z. FERN
ANDEZ, L. D. C. FISHPOOL,
C. FITZGERALD, M. FOSTER, M. F. HEATH, M. HOCKINGS, M. HOFF-
MANN, D. KNOX, F. W. LARSEN, J. F. LAMOREUX, C. LOUCKS, I. MAY, J.
MILLETT, D. MOLLOY, P. MORLING, M. PARR, T. H. RICKETTS, N. SED-
DON, B. SKOLNIK, S. N. STUART, A. UPGREN, AND S. WOODLEY. 2012.
Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to meeting glo-
bal conservation targets. PLoS ONE 7: e32529.
BUTCHART, S. H. M., M. WALPOLE, B. COLLEN, A. van STRIEN, J. P. W. SCHARLE-
MANN, R. E. A. ALMOND, J. E. M. BAILLIE, B. BOMHARD, C. BROWN, J.
BRUNO, K. E. CARPENTER, G. M. CARR, J. CHANSON, A. M. CHENERY, J.
CSIRKE, N. C. DAVIDSON, F. DENTENER, M. FOSTER, A. GALLI, J. N.
GALLOWAY, P. GENOVESI, R. D. GREGORY, M. HOCKINGS, V. KAPOS, J. F.
LAMARQUE, F. LEVERINGTON, J. LOH, M. A. MCGEOCH, L. MCRAE, A.
MINASYAN, M. H. MORCILLO, T. E. E. OLDFIELD, D. PAULY, S. QUADER,
C. REVENGA, J. R. SAUER, B. SKOLNIK, D. SPEAR, D. STANWELL-SMITH,
S. N. STUART, A. SYMES, M. TIERNEY, T. D. TYRRELL, J. C. VI
E, AND R.
WATSON. 2010. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Sci-
ence 328: 1164?1168.
CANE, J. H. 2001. Habitat fragmentation and native bees: A premature verdict?
Conserv. Ecol. 5: 3. Available at: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art3/.
(accessed 11 January 2013).
CASWELL, H. 2001. Matrix population models ? Construction, analysis, and
interpretation. 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
CHAZDON, R. L., C. A. HARVEY, O. KOMAR, D. M. GRIFFITH, B. G. FERGUSON,
M. MARTINEZ-RAMOS, H. MORALES, R. NIGH, L. SOTO-PINTO, M. van
BREUGEL, AND S. M. PHILPOTT. 2009. Beyond reserves: A research
agenda for conserving biodiversity in human-modi?ed tropical land-
scapes. Biotropica 41: 142?153.
CHEN, J., C. H. CANNON, AND H. B. HU. 2009. Tropical botanical gardens: At
the in situ ecosystem management frontier. Trends Plant Sci. 14: 584?
589.
CICCARESE, L., A. MATTSSON, AND D. PETTENELLA. 2012. Ecosystem services
from forest restoration: Thinking ahead. New Forest. 43: 543?560.
CLARK, D. B., D. A. CLARK, AND S. F. OBERBAUER. 2010. Annual wood pro-
duction in a tropical rain forest in NE Costa Rica linked to climatic
variation but not to increasing CO2. Glob. Change Biol. 16: 747?759.
CLAVERO, M., AND E. GARC
IA-BERTHOU. 2005. Invasive species are a leading
cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 110.
COCHRANE, M. A., AND M. D. SCHULZE. 1998. Forest ?res in the Brazilian
Amazon. Conserv. Biol. 12: 948?950.
COLLEN, B., M. RAM, T. ZAMIN, AND L. MCRAE. 2008. The tropical biodiver-
sity data gap: Addressing disparity in global monitoring. Trop. Con-
serv. Sci. 1: 75?88.
COLWELL, R. K., G. BREHM, C. L. CARDEL
US, A. C. GILMAN, AND J. T. LONGI-
NO. 2008. Global warming, elevational range shifts, and lowland biotic
attrition in the wet tropics. Science 322: 258?261.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Global Strategy for Plant Conserva-
tion: Technical rationale, Justi?cation for Updating and Suggested
Milestones and Indicators. UNEP/CBD/COP, Nagoya, Japan.
CORLETT, R. T. 2010. Invasive aliens on tropical East Asian islands. Biodivers.
Conserv. 19: 411?423.
CORLETT, R. T. 2012. Climate change in the tropics: The end of the world as
we know it? Biol. Conserv. 151: 22?25.
COX, P. M., R. A. BETTS, M. COLLINS, P. P. HARRIS, C. HUNTINGFORD, AND C.
D. JONES. 2004. Amazonian forest dieback under climate-carbon cycle
projections for the 21st century. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 78: 137?156.
CRAMER, W., A. BONDEAU, S. SCHAPHOFF, W. LUCHT, B. SMITH, AND S. SITCH.
2004. Tropical forests and the global carbon cycle: Impacts of atmo-
spheric carbon dioxide, climate change and rate of deforestation. Phi-
los. Trans. R. Soc. B 359: 331?343.
CURRAN, L. M., S. N. TRIGG, A. K. MCDONALD, D. ASTIANI, Y. M. HARDIONO,
P. SIREGAR, I. CANIAGO, AND E. KASISCHKE. 2004. Lowland forest loss
in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science 303: 1000?1003.
DEFRIES, R., A. HANSEN, A. C. NEWTON, AND M. C. HANSEN. 2005. Increasing
isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty
years. Ecol. Appl. 15: 19?26.
DELNATTE, C., AND J. Y. MEYER. 2012. Plant introduction, naturalization, and
invasion in French Guiana (South America). Biol. Invasions 14: 915?
927.
DENSLOW, J. S., J. C. SPACE, AND P. A. THOMAS. 2009. Invasive exotic plants in
the tropical Paci?c Islands: Patterns of diversity. Biotropica 41: 162?
170.
DEUTSCH, C. A., J. J. TEWKSBURY, R. B. HUEY, K. S. SHELDON, C. K. GHALAM-
BOR, D. C. HAAK, AND P. R. MARTIN. 2008. Impacts of climate warm-
ing on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
USA 105: 6668?6672.
DICK, C. W., G. ETCHELECU, AND F. AUSTERLITZ. 2003. Pollen dispersal of
tropical trees (Dinizia excelsa: Fabaceae) by native insects and African
honeybees in pristine and fragmented Amazonian rainforest. Mol.
Ecol. 12: 753?764.
DICK, C. W., S. L. LEWIS, M. MASLIN, AND E. BERMINGHAM. 2013. Neogene
origins and implied warmth tolerance of Amazon tree species. Ecol.
Evol. 3: 162?169.
DIEZ, J. M., C. M. D?ANTONIO, J. S. DUKES, E. D. GROSHOLZ, J. D. OLDEN, C.
J. B. SORTE, D. M. BLUMENTHAL, B. A. BRADLEY, R. EARLY, I. IB
A~NEZ,
S. J. JONES, J. J. LAWLER, AND L. P. MILLER. 2012. Will extreme climatic
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
Conservation of Tropical Plant Biodiversity 703
events facilitate biological invasions? Front. Ecol. Environ. 10: 249?
257.
DIRZO, R., AND P. H. RAVEN. 2003. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Ann.
Rev. Environ. Resour. 28: 137?167.
DOHZONO, I., Y. K. KUNITAKE, J. YOKOYAMA, AND K. GOKA. 2008. Alien bum-
ble bee affects native plant reproduction through interactions with
native bumble bees. Ecology 89: 3082?3092.
DONALDSON, J. S. 2009. Botanic gardens science for conservation and global
change. Trends Plant Sci. 14: 608?613.
DONATTI, C. I., P. R. GUIMAR~AES, AND M. GALETTI. 2009. Seed dispersal and
predation in the endemic Atlantic rainforest palm Astrocaryum aculeatiss-
imum across a gradient of seed disperser abundance. Ecol. Res. 24:
1187?1195.
DUKE, N. C., M. PINZ
ON, S. ZULEIKA, C. MARTHA, AND T. PRADA. 1997.
Large-scale damage to mangrove forests following two large oil spills
in Panama. Biotropica 29: 2?14.
ELLISON, A. M., AND E. J. FARNSWORTH. 1996. Anthropogenic disturbance of
Caribbean mangrove ecosystems: Past impacts, present trends, and
future predictions. Biotropica 28: 549?565.
ENDRESS, B. A., D. L. GORCHOV, AND E. J. BERRY. 2006. Sustainability of a
non-timber forest product: Effects of alternative leaf harvest practices
over 6 years on yield and demography of the palm Chamaedorea radical-
is. For. Ecol. Manage. 234: 181?191.
FARGIONE, J., J. HILL, D. TILMAN, S. POLASKY, AND P. HAWTHORNE. 2008. Land
clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319: 1235?1238.
FEELEY, K. J. 2012. Distributional migrations, expansions, and contractions of
tropical plant species as revealed in dated herbarium records. Glob.
Change Biol. 18: 1335?1341.
FEELEY, K. J., AND M. R. SILMAN. 2009. Extinction risks of Amazonian plant
species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 12382?12387.
FEELEY, K. J., AND M. R. SILMAN. 2011a. The data void in modeling current
and future distributions of tropical species. Glob. Change Biol. 17:
626?630.
FEELEY, K. J., AND M. R. SILMAN. 2011b. Keep collecting: Accurate species dis-
tribution modelling requires more collections than previously thought.
Divers. Distrib. 17: 1132?1140.
FEELEY, K. J., M. R. SILMAN, M. B. BUSH, W. FARFAN, K. G. CABRERA, Y. MALHI,
P. MEIR, N. SALINAS REVILLA, M. N. R. QUISIYUPANQUI, AND S. SAATCHI.
2011. Upslope migration of Andean trees. J. Biogeogr. 38: 783?791.
FORDHAM, D. A., AND B. W. BROOK. 2010. Why tropical island endemics are
acutely susceptible to global change. Biodivers. Conserv. 19: 329?342.
FRANKS, S. J., S. SIM, AND A. E. WEIS. 2007. Rapid evolution of ?owering time
by an annual plant in response to a climate ?uctuation. Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 104: 1278?1282.
FRIEDMAN, A. R., Y.-T. HWANG, J. C. H. CHIANG, AND D. M. W. FRIERSON.
2013. Interhemispheric temperature asymmetry over the 20th century
and in future projections. J Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00525.1.
FUNK, V. A., K. S. RICHARDSON, AND S. FERRIER. 2005. Survey-gap analysis in
expeditionary research: Where do we go from here? Biol. J. Linn. Soc.
85: 549?567.
GAGNON, P. R., E. M. BRUNA, P. RUBIM, M. R. DARRIGO, R. C. LITTELL, M.
URIARTE, AND W. J. KRESS. 2011. Growth of an understory herb is
chronically reduced in Amazonian forest fragments. Biol. Conserv.
144: 830?835.
GALLAGHER, R. V., L. HUGHES, M. R. LEISHMAN, AND P. D. WILSON. 2010. Pre-
dicted impact of exotic vines on an endangered ecological community
under future climate change. Biol. Invasions 12: 4049?4063.
GARC
IA-ROBLEDO, C., D. L. ERICKSON, C. L. STAINES, T. L. ERWIN, AND W. J.
KRESS. 2013. Tropical plant-herbivore networks: Reconstructing species
interactions using DNA barcodes. PLoS ONE 8: e52967.
GIAM, X., C. J. A. BRADSHAW, H. T. W. TAN, AND N. S. SODHI. 2010. Future
habitat loss and the conservation of plant biodiversity. Biol. Conserv.
143: 1594?1602.
GIBSON, L., T. M. LEE, L. P. KOH, B. W. BROOK, T. A. GARDNER, J. BARLOW,
C. A. PERES, C. J. A. BRADSHAW, W. F. LAURANCE, T. E. LOVEJOY, AND
N. S. SODHI. 2011. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining
tropical biodiversity. Nature 478: 378?381.
GILBERT, B., AND J. M. LEVINE. 2013. Plant invasions and extinction debts.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110: 1744?1749.
GODEFROID, S., C. PIAZZA, G. ROSSI, S. BUORD, A. D. STEVENS, R. AGURAIUJA, C.
COWELL, C. W. WEEKLEY, G. VOGG, J. M. IRIONDO, I. JOHNSON, B. DIXON,
D. GORDON, S. MAGNANON, B. VALENTIN, K. BJUREKE, R. KOOPMAN, M.
VICENS, M. VIREVAIRE, AND T. VANDERBORGHT. 2011. How successful
are plant species reintroductions? Biol. Conserv. 144: 672?682.
GOVAERTS, R. 2001. How many species of seed plants are there? Taxon 50:
1085?1090.
GOWDA, V., W. J. KRESS, AND T. HTUN. 2012. Two new species of Gingers
(Zingiberaceae) from Myanmar. PhytoKeys 13: 5?14.
GRAHAM, C. H., S. FERRIER, F. HUETTMAN, C. MORITZ, AND A. T. PETERSON.
2004. New developments in museum-based informatics and applica-
tions in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 497?503.
GSPC. 2002. Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. The Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.
GUREVITCH, J., AND D. K. PADILLA. 2004. Are invasive species a major cause
of extinctions? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 470?474.
HALL, P., AND K. BAWA. 1993. Methods to assess the impact of extraction of
non-timber tropical forest products on plant populations. Econ. Bot.
47: 234?247.
HANNAH, L. 2011. Climate change, connectivity, and conservation success.
Conserv. Biol. 25: 1139?1142.
HARTE, J., A. OSTLING, J. L. GREEN, AND A. KINZIG. 2004. Biodiversity conser-
vation: Climate change and extinction risk. Nature 430: 33. doi: 10.
1038/natur02718
HELLMANN, J. J., AND M. E. PFRENDER. 2011. Future human intervention in
ecosystems and the critical role for evolutionary biology. Conserv. Biol.
25: 1143?1147.
HEWITT, N., N. KLENK, A. L. SMITH, D. R. BAZELY, N. YAN, S. WOOD, J. I. MA-
CLELLAN, C. LIPSIG-MUMME, AND I. HENRIQUES. 2011. Taking stock of
the assisted migration debate. Biol. Conserv. 144: 2560?2572.
HEYWOOD, V. H., AND J. M. IRIONDO. 2003. Plant conservation: Old problems,
new perspectives. Biol. Conserv. 113: 321?335.
HOBBS, R. J., AND C. J. YATES. 2003. Impacts of ecosystem fragmentation on
plant populations: Generalising the idiosyncratic. Aust. J. Bot. 51:
471?488.
HOFFMANN, A. A., AND C. M. SGRO. 2011. Climate change and evolutionary
adaptation. Nature 470: 479?485.
HOLL, K. D., E. E. CRONE, AND C. B. SCHULTZ. 2003. Landscape restoration:
Moving from generalities to methodologies. Bioscience 53: 491?502.
HOLLINGSWORTH, P. M., L. L. FORREST, J. L. SPOUGE, M. HAJIBABAEI, S. RAT-
NASINGHAM, M. van der BANK, M. W. CHASE, R. S. COWAN, D. L. ER-
ICKSON, A. J. FAZEKAS, S. W. GRAHAM, K. E. JAMES, K.-J. KIM, W. J.
KRESS, H. SCHNEIDER, J. van ALPHENSTAHL, S. C. H. BARRETT, C. van
den BERG, D. BOGARIN, K. S. BURGESS, K. M. CAMERON, M. CARINE, J.
CHACON, A. CLARK, J. J. CLARKSON, F. CONRAD, D. S. DEVEY, C. S.
FORD, T. A. J. HEDDERSON, M. L. HOLLINGSWORTH, B. C. HUSBAND, L.
J. KELLY, P. R. KESANAKURTI, J. S. KIM, Y.-D. KIM, R. LAHAYE, H.-L.
LEE, D. G. LONG, S. MADRINAN, O. MAURIN, I. MEUSNIER, S. G. NEW-
MASTER, C.-W. PARK, D. M. PERCY, G. PETERSEN, J. E. RICHARDSON, G.
A. SALAZAR, V. SAVOLAINEN, O. SEBERG, M. J. WILKINSON, D.-K. YI, D.
P. LITTLE, AND C. P. W. GRP. 2009. A DNA barcode for land plants.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 12794?12797.
HOLM, J. A., C. J. MILLER, AND W. P. CROPPER. 2008. Population dynamics of
the dioecious Amazonian palm Mauritia ?exuosa: Simulation analysis of
sustainable harvesting. Biotropica 40: 550?558.
HORVITZ, C. C., J. B. PASCARELLA, S. MCMANN, A. FREEDMAN, AND R. H. HOF-
STETTER. 1998. Functional roles of invasive non-indigenous plants in
hurricane-affected subtropical hardwood forests. Ecol. Appl. 8: 947?
974.
ISMAIL, S. A., J. GHAZOUL, G. RAVIKANTH, R. UMA SHAANKER, C. G. KUSHALAP-
PA, AND C. J. KETTLE. 2012. Does long-distance pollen dispersal pre-
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
704 Krupnick
clude inbreeding in tropical trees? Fragmentation genetics of Dysoxylum
malabaricum in an agro-forest landscape. Mol. Ecol. 21: 5484?5496.
IUCN. 2012. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.
Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed 11 January 2013).
J?AGER, H., AND I. KOWARIK. 2010. Resilience of native plant community fol-
lowing manual control of invasive Cinchona pubescens in Gal
apagos.
Restor. Ecol. 18: 103?112.
JENNINGS, D. E., AND J. R. ROHR. 2011. A review of the conservation threats
to carnivorous plants. Biol. Conserv. 144: 1356?1363.
JEPSON, P., J. K. JARVIE, K. MACKINNON, AND K. A. MONK. 2001. The end for
Indonesia?s lowland forests? Science 292: 859?861.
JORGENSEN, P. M., AND S. LE
ON-Y
ANEZ. 1999. Catalogue of the vascular plants
of ecuador. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Missouri.
KARNEY, A. P., AND M. H. GRAYUM. 2012. A new Monstera species (Araceae)
of economic importance from Honduras. Econ. Bot. 66: 207?213.
KIER, G., J. MUTKE, E. DINERSTEIN, T. H. RICKETTS, W. K?UPER, H. KREFT,
AND W. BARTHLOTT. 2005. Global patterns of plant diversity and ?oris-
tic knowledge. J. Biogeogr. 32: 1107?1116.
KOH, L. P., R. R. DUNN, N. S. SODHI, R. K. COLWELL, H. C. PROCTOR, AND V.
S. SMITH. 2004. Species coextinctions and the biodiversity crisis. Sci-
ence 305: 1632?1634.
KOH, L. P., AND S. A. WICH. 2012. Dawn of drone ecology: Low-cost autono-
mous aerial vehicles for conservation. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 5: 121?132.
KOH, L. P., AND D. S. WILCOVE. 2008. Is oil palm agriculture really destroying
tropical biodiversity? Conserv. Lett. 1: 60?64.
KRAMER, A., A. HIRD, K. SHAW, M. DOSMANN, AND R. MIMS. 2011. Conserv-
ing North America?s threatened plants: Progress report on target 8
of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. p. 48, Botanic Gar-
dens Conservation International U.S., Glencoe, IL.
KRAMER, A. T., J. L. ISON, M. V. ASHLEY, AND H. F. HOWE. 2008. The paradox
of forest fragmentation genetics. Conserv. Biol. 22: 878?885.
KRAUSE, G. H., K. WINTER, B. KRAUSE, P. JAHNS, M. GARC
IA, J. ARANDA, AND
A. VIRGO. 2010. High-temperature tolerance of a tropical tree, Ficus in-
sipida: Methodological reassessment and climate change considerations.
Funct. Plant Biol. 37: 890?900.
KRESS, W. J., R. A. DEFILIPPS, E. FARR, AND D. Y. Y. KYI. 2003. A checklist of
the trees, shrubs, herbs and climbers of Myanmar (Revised from the
original works by J.H. Lace and H.G. Hundley). Contrib. U. S. Natl.
Herb. 45: 1?590.
KRESS, W. J., AND D. L. ERICKSON. 2008. DNA barcoding: A windfall for trop-
ical biology? Biotropica 40: 405?408.
KRESS, W. J., AND G. A. KRUPNICK. 2005. Documenting and conserving plant
diversity in the future. In G. A. Krupnick, and W. J. Kress (Eds.).
Plant conservation: A natural history approach, pp. 313?318. Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
KRESS, W. J., S. E. MILLER, G. A. KRUPNICK, AND T. E. LOVEJOY. 2001.
Museum collections and conservation efforts. Science 291: 828?829.
KREYLING, J., D. WANA, AND C. BEIERKUHNLEIN. 2010. Potential consequences
of climate warming for tropical plant species in high mountains of
southern Ethiopia. Divers. Distrib. 16: 593?605.
KRUPNICK, G. A., W. J. KRESS, AND W. L. WAGNER. 2009. Achieving target 2
of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: Building a preliminary
assessment of vascular plant species using data from herbarium
specimens. Biodivers. Conserv. 18: 1459?1474.
KRUSHELNYCKY, P. D., L. L. LOOPE, T. W. GIAMBELLUCA, F. STARR, K. STARR,
D. R. DRAKE, A. D. TAYLOR, AND R. H. ROBICHAUX. 2013. Climate-
associated population declines reverse recovery and threaten future of
an iconic high-elevation plant. Glob. Change Biol. 19: 911?922.
LACH, L., C. V. TILLBERG, AND A. V. SUAREZ. 2010. Contrasting effects of an
invasive ant on a native and an invasive plant. Biol. Invasions 12:
3123?3133.
LAHAYE, R., M. van der BANK, D. BOGARIN, J. WARNER, F. PUPULIN, G. GIGOT,
O. MAURIN, S. DUTHOIT, T. G. BARRACLOUGH, AND V. SAVOLAINEN.
2008. DNA barcoding the ?oras of biodiversity hotspots. Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 105: 2923?2928.
LAURANCE, W. F. 2008. The need to cut China?s illegal timber imports. Science
319: 1184?1185.
LAURANCE, W. F., M. GOOSEM, AND S. G. W. LAURANCE. 2009. Impacts of
roads and linear clearings on tropical forests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24:
659?669.
LAURANCE, W. F., A. A. OLIVEIRA, S. G. LAURANCE, R. CONDIT, H. E. M. NASCI-
MENTO, A. C. SANCHEZ-THORIN, T. E. LOVEJOY, A. ANDRADE, S. D?AN-
GELO, J. E. RIBEIRO, AND C. W. DICK. 2004. Pervasive alteration of tree
communities in undisturbed Amazonian forests. Nature 428: 171?175.
LAURANCE, W. F., D. C. USECHE, L. P. SHOO, S. K. HERZOG, M. KESSLER, F. ESCO-
BAR, G. BREHM, J. C. AXMACHER, I. C. CHEN, L. A. G
AMEZ, P. HIETZ, K.
FIEDLER, T. PYRCZ, J. WOLF, C. L. MERKORD, C. CARDELUS, A. R. MAR-
SHALL, C. AH-PENG, G. H. APLET, M. D. ARIZMENDI, W. J. BAKER, J. BA-
RONE, C. A. BR?UHL, R. W. BUSSMANN, D. CICUZZA, G. EILU, M. E. FAVILA,
A. HEMP, C. HEMP, J. HOMEIER, J. HURTADO, J. JANKOWSKI, G. KATT
AN, J.
KLUGE, T. KR?OMER, D. C. LEES, M. LEHNERT, J. T. LONGINO, J. LOVETT,
P. H. MARTIN, B. D. PATTERSON, R. G. PEARSON, K. S. H. PEH, B. RICH-
ARDSON, M. RICHARDSON, M. J. SAMWAYS, F. SENBETA, T. B. SMITH, T. M.
A. UTTERIDGE, J. E. WATKINS, R. WILSON, S. E. WILLIAMS, AND C. D.
THOMAS. 2011. Global warming, elevational ranges and the vulnerability
of tropical biota. Biol. Conserv. 144: 548?557.
LEE, T. M., AND W. JETZ. 2008. Future battlegrounds for conservation under
global change. Proc. Biol. Sci. 275: 1261?1270.
LI, D. Z., AND H. W. PRITCHARD. 2009. The science and economics of ex situ
plant conservation. Trends Plant Sci. 14: 614?621.
LISTER, A. M., andClimate Change Research Group. 2011. Natural history col-
lections as sources of long-term datasets. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26: 153?
154.
LLAMOZAS, S., R. DUNO, W. MEIER, R. RIINA, F. STAUFFER, G. AYMARD, O. HU-
BER, AND R. ORT
IZ. 2003. Libro rojo de la ?ora venezolana. 1? Edic-
i
on. PROVITA/Fundaci
on Empresas Polar/Fundaci
on Instituto
Bot
anico de Venezuela ?Dr. Tobias Lasser?/Conservaci
on Internac-
ional, Caracas.
LLOYD, J., AND G. D. FARQUHAR. 2008. Effects of rising temperatures and
CO2 on the physiology of tropical forest trees. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
B 363: 1811?1817.
L^OBO, D., T. LE~AO, F. P. L. MELO, A. M. M. SANTOS, AND M. TABARELLI. 2011.
Forest fragmentation drives Atlantic forest of northeastern Brazil to
biotic homogenization. Divers. Distrib. 17: 287?296.
LUGHADHA, E. N., J. BAILLIE, W. BARTHLOTT, N. A. BRUMMITT, M. R. CHEEK,
A. FARJON, R. GOVAERTS, K. A. HARDWICK, C. HILTON-TAYLOR, T. R.
MEAGHER, J. MOAT, J. MUTKE, A. J. PATON, L. J. PLEASANTS, V. SAVOLAI-
NEN, G. E. SCHATZ, P. SMITH, I. TURNER, P. WYSE-JACKSON, AND P. R.
CRANE. 2005. Measuring the fate of plant diversity: Towards a founda-
tion for future monitoring and opportunities for urgent action. Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. B 360: 359?372.
LYNCH, J., M. MASLIN, H. BALZTER, AND M. SWEETING. 2013. Choose satellites
to monitor deforestation. Nature 496: 293?294.
MALHI, Y., L. E. O. C. ARAG~AO, D. GALBRAITH, C. HUNTINGFORD, R. FISHER,
P. ZELAZOWSKI, S. SITCH, C. MCSWEENEY, AND P. MEIR. 2009. Explor-
ing the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback
of the Amazon rainforest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 20610?
20615.
MARTIN, P. H., C. D. CANHAM, AND P. L. MARKS. 2009. Why forests appear
resistant to exotic plant invasions: Intentional introductions, stand
dynamics, and the role of shade tolerance. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7:
142?149.
MASCIA, M. B., AND S. PAILLER. 2011. Protected area downgrading, downsiz-
ing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications.
Conserv. Lett. 4: 9?20.
MATSON, P. A., W. H. MCDOWELL, A. R. TOWNSEND, AND P. M. VITOUSEK.
1999. The globalization of N deposition: Ecosystem consequences in
tropical environments. Biogeochemistry 46: 67?83.
MAUNDER, M., A. LEIVA, E. SANTIAGO-VALENT
IN, D. W. STEVENSON, P. ACEVE-
DO-RODR
IGUEZ, A. W. MEEROW, M. MEJ
IA, C. CLUBBE, AND J. FRAN-
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
Conservation of Tropical Plant Biodiversity 705
CISCO-ORTEGA. 2008. Plant conservation in the Caribbean Island biodi-
versity hotspot. Bot. Rev. 74: 197?207.
MAYCOCK, C. R., C. J. KETTLE, E. KHOO, J. T. PEREIRA, J. B. SUGAU, R. NILUS,
R. C. ONG, N. A. AMALUDIN, M. F. NEWMAN, AND D. F. R. P. BURS-
LEM. 2012. A revised conservation assessment of dipterocarps in
Sabah. Biotropica 44: 649?657.
MCLACHLAN, J. S., J. J. HELLMANN, AND M. W. SCHWARTZ. 2007. A framework
for debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conserv.
Biol. 21: 297?302.
MCNEELY, J. A. 1992. The sinking ark: Pollution and the worldwide loss of
biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 1: 2?18.
MENZ, M. H. M., K. W. DIXON, AND R. J. HOBBS. 2013. Hurdles and opportu-
nities for landscape-scale restoration. Science 339: 526?527.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being:
Biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
MILLER, J. S., H. A. PORTER-MORGAN, H. STEVENS, B. BOOM, G. A. KRUPNICK,
P. ACEVEDO-RODR
IGUEZ, J. FLEMING, AND M. GENSLER. 2012. Address-
ing target two of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation by rapidly
identifying plants at risk. Biodivers. Conserv. 21: 1877?1887.
MITTERMEIER, R. A., P. ROBLES GIL, M. HOFFMANN, J. PILGRIM, T. BROOKS, C.
GOETTSCH MITTERMEIER, J. LAMOREUX, AND G. A. B. Da FONSECA.
2004. Hotspots revisited: Earth?s biologically richest and most endan-
gered terrestrial ecoregions. Cemex, Mexico City.
MONT
UFAR, R., F. ANTHELME, J.-C. PINTAUD, AND H. BALSLEV. 2011. Distur-
bance and resilience in tropical American palm populations and com-
munities. Bot. Rev. 77: 426?461.
MORA, C., D. P. TITTENSOR, S. ADL, A. G. B. SIMPSON, AND B. WORM. 2011.
How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol.
9: e1001127.
National Research Council. 2007. Status of pollinators in North America. The
National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
NDANGALASI, H. J., R. BITARIHO, AND D. B. K. DOVIE. 2007. Harvesting of
non-timber forest products and implications for conservation in two
montane forests of East Africa. Biol. Conserv. 134: 242?250.
NOGU
E, S., V. RULL, AND T. VEGAS-VILARR
UBIA. 2009. Modeling biodiversity
loss by global warming on Pantepui, northern South America: Pro-
jected upward migration and potential habitat loss. Clim. Change 94:
77?85.
NU~NEZ, M. A., AND A. PAUCHARD. 2010. Biological invasions in developing
and developed countries: Does one model ?t all? Biol. Invasions 12:
707?714.
NU~NEZ-ITURRI, G., O. OLSSON, AND H. F. HOWE. 2008. Hunting reduces
recruitment of primate-dispersed trees in Amazonian Peru. Biol. Con-
serv. 141: 1536?1546.
OKUDA, T., M. SUZUKI, N. ADACHI, E. S. QUAH, N. A. HUSSEIN, AND N. MA-
NOKARAN. 2003. Effect of selective logging on canopy and stand struc-
ture and tree species composition in a lowland dipterocarp forest in
peninsular Malaysia. For. Ecol. Manage. 175: 297?320.
OLLERTON, J., R. WINFREE, AND S. TARRANT. 2011. How many ?owering plants
are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120: 321?326.
OLSON, D. M., AND E. DINERSTEIN. 2002. The Global 200: Priority ecoregions
for global conservation. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 89: 199?224.
PATEL, E. R. 2007. Logging of rare rosewood and palisandre (Dalbergia spp.)
within Marojejy National Park, Madagascar. Madagas. Conserv. Dev. 2:
11?16.
PEREIRA, H. M., S. FERRIER, M. WALTERS, G. N. GELLER, R. H. G. JONGMAN,
R. J. SCHOLES, M. W. BRUFORD, N. BRUMMITT, S. H. M. BUTCHART, A.
C. CARDOSO, N. C. COOPS, E. DULLOO, D. P. FAITH, J. FREYHOF, R. D.
GREGORY, C. HEIP, R. H?OFT, G. HURTT, W. JETZ, D. S. KARP, M. A.
MCGEOCH, D. OBURA, Y. ONODA, N. PETTORELLI, B. REYERS, R. SAYRE,
J. P. W. SCHARLEMANN, S. N. STUART, E. TURAK, M. WALPOLE, AND M.
WEGMANN. 2013. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339: 277?
278.
PERES, C. A., C. BAIDER, P. A. ZUIDEMA, L. H. O. WADT, K. A. KAINER, D. A.
P. GOMES-SILVA, R. P. SALOM~AO, L. L. SIM~OES, E. R. N. FRANCIOSI, F.
CORNEJO VALVERDE, R. GRIBEL, G. H. SHEPARD, M. KANASHIRO, P. COV-
ENTRY, D. W. YU, A. R. WATKINSON, AND R. P. FRECKLETON. 2003.
Demographic threats to the sustainability of Brazil nut exploitation.
Science 302: 2112?2114.
PETENON, D., AND V. R. PIVELLO. 2008. Invasive plants: Representativeness of
research from tropical countries in the global context. Nat. Conserv.
6: 183?195.
PETERS, G. P., R. M. ANDREW, T. BODEN, J. G. CANADELL, P. CIAIS, C. Le
QU
ER
E, G. MARLAND, M. R. RAUPACH, AND C. WILSON. 2013. The chal-
lenge to keep global warming below 2 C. Nat. Clim. Change 3: 4?6.
PHALAN, B., M. BERTZKY, S. H. M. BUTCHART, P. F. DONALD, J. P. W. SCHARLE-
MANN, A. J. STATTERSFIELD, AND A. BALMFORD. 2013. Crop expansion
and conservation priorities in tropical countries. PLoS ONE 8: e51759.
PHELPS, J., E. L. WEBB, D. BICKFORD, V. NIJMAN, AND N. S. SODHI. 2010.
Boosting CITES. Science 330: 1752?1753.
PITMAN, N. C. A., AND P. M. J?RGENSEN. 2002. Estimating the size of the
world?s threatened ?ora. Science 298: 989.
Plantlife. 2010. Important plant areas around the world: Target 5 of the CBD
Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Salisbury, UK.
PONCE CAMPOS, G. E., M. S. MORAN, A. HUETE, Y. ZHANG, C. BRESLOFF, T.
E. HUXMAN, D. EAMUS, D. D. BOSCH, A. R. BUDA, S. A. GUNTER, T.
H. SCALLEY, S. G. KITCHEN, M. P. MCCLARAN, W. H. MCNAB, D. S.
MONTOYA, J. A. MORGAN, D. P. C. PETERS, E. J. SADLER, M. S. SEY-
FRIED, AND P. J. STARKS. 2013. Ecosystem resilience despite large-scale
altered hydroclimatic conditions. Nature 494: 349?352.
POSA, M. R. C., L. S. WIJEDASA, AND R. T. CORLETT. 2011. Biodiversity and
conservation of tropical peat swamp forests. Bioscience 61: 49?57.
POWELL, K. I., J. M. CHASE, AND T. M. KNIGHT. 2013. Invasive plants have
scale-dependent effects on diversity by altering species-area relation-
ships. Science 339: 316?318.
PRANCE, G. T., H. BEENTJE, J. DRANSFIELD, AND R. JOHNS. 2000. The tropical
?ora remains undercollected. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 87: 67?71.
PRASAD, A. E. 2010. Effects of an exotic plant invasion on native understory
plants in a tropical dry forest. Conserv. Biol. 24: 747?757.
RAMIREZ-VILLEGAS, J., A. JARVIS, AND J. TOUVAL. 2012. Analysis of threats to
South American ?ora and its implications for conservation. J. Nat.
Conserv. 20: 337?348.
RANDS, M. R. W., W. M. ADAMS, L. BENNUN, S. H. M. BUTCHART, A. CLE-
MENTS, D. COOMES, A. ENTWISTLE, I. HODGE, V. KAPOS, J. P. W. SCHAR-
LEMANN, W. J. SUTHERLAND, AND B. VIRA. 2010. Biodiversity
conservation: Challenges beyond 2010. Science 329: 1298?1303.
RIVERS, M. C., S. P. BACHMAN, T. R. MEAGHER, E. N. LUGHADHA, AND N. A.
BRUMMITT. 2010. Subpopulations, locations and fragmentation: Apply-
ing IUCN red list criteria to herbarium specimen data. Biodivers. Con-
serv. 19: 2071?2085.
RIVERS, M. C., L. TAYLOR, N. A. BRUMMITT, T. R. MEAGHER, D. L. ROBERTS,
AND E. N. LUGHADHA. 2011. How many herbarium specimens are
needed to detect threatened species? Biol. Conserv. 144: 2541?2547.
RODRIGUES, A. S. L., J. D. PILGRIM, J. F. LAMOREUX, M. HOFFMANN, AND T. M.
BROOKS. 2006. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 71?76.
ROJAS-SOTO, O. R., V. SOSA, AND J. F. ORNELAS. 2012. Forecasting cloud forest
in eastern and southern Mexico: Conservation insights under future
climate change scenarios. Biodivers. Conserv. 21: 2671?2690.
RULL, V., T. VEGAS-VILARR
UBIA, S. NOGU
E, AND O. HUBER. 2009. Conservation
of the unique Neotropical vascular ?ora of the Guayana Highlands in
the face of global warming. Conserv. Biol. 23: 1323?1327.
SAJEVA, M., C. AUGUGLIARO, M. J. SMITH, AND E. ODDO. 2013. Regulating in-
ternet trade in CITES species. Conserv. Biol. 27: 429?430.
SALA, O. E., F. STUART CHAPIN, III, J. J. ARMESTO, E. BERLOW, J. BLOOMFIELD,
R. DIRZO, E. HUBER-SANWALD, L. F. HUENNEKE, R. B. JACKSON, A.
KINZIG, R. LEEMANS, D. M. LODGE, H. A. MOONEY, M. N. OESTER-
HELD, N. L. POFF, M. T. SYKES, B. H. WALKER, M. WALKER, AND D. H.
WALL. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science
287: 1770?1774.
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
706 Krupnick
S
ANCHEZ-CUERVO, A. M., T. M. AIDE, M. L. CLARK, AND A. ETTER. 2012.
Land cover change in Colombia: Surprising forest recovery trends
between 2001 and 2010. PLoS ONE 7: e43943.
SAX, D. F., AND S. D. GAINES. 2008. Species invasions and extinction: The
future of native biodiversity on islands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
105: 11490?11497.
SCHATZ, G. E. 2009. Plants on the IUCN Red List: Setting priorities to
inform conservation. Trends Plant Sci. 14: 638?642.
SCHLEUNING, M., J. FR?UND, A.-M. KLEIN, S. ABRAHAMCZYK, R. ALARC
ON, M.
ALBRECHT, K. S. GEORG, S. ANDERSSON, K. BAZARIAN, R. B?OHNING-GA-
ESE, B. BOMMARCO, D. M. DALSGAARD, A. DEHLING, M. GOTLIEB, T.
HAGEN, A. HOLZSCHUH. HICKLER, CHRISTOPHER. N. KAISER-BUNBURY,
H. KREFT, REBECCA. J. MORRIS, B. SANDEL, WILLIAM. J. SUTHERLAND,
J.-C. SVENNING, T. TSCHARNTKE, S. WATTS, CHRISTIANE. N. WEINER, M.
WERNER, NEAL. M. WILLIAMS, C. WINQVIST, CARSTEN. F. DORMANN,
AND N. BL?UTHGEN. 2012. Specialization of mutualistic interaction
networks decreases toward tropical latitudes. Curr. Biol. 22: 1925?
1931.
SCHMIDT, I. B., L. MANDLE, T. TICKTIN, AND O. G. GAOUE. 2011. What do
matrix population models reveal about the sustainability of non-timber
forest product harvest? J. Appl. Ecol. 48: 815?826.
SCHMITT, C. B., N. D. BURGESS, L. COAD, A. BELOKUROV, C. BESANC
ON, L.
BOISROBERT, A. CAMPBELL, L. FISH, D. GLIDDON, K. HUMPHRIES, V.
KAPOS, C. LOUCKS, I. LYSENKO, L. MILES, C. MILLS, S. MINNEMEYER, T.
PISTORIUS, C. RAVILIOUS, M. STEININGER, AND G. WINKEL. 2009. Global
analysis of the protection status of the world?s forests. Biol. Conserv.
142: 2122?2130.
SCHUMACHER, E., C. KUEFFER, P. J. EDWARDS, AND H. DIETZ. 2009. In?uence
of light and nutrient conditions on seedling growth of native and
invasive trees in the Seychelles. Biol. Invasions 11: 1941?1954.
SCHUURMAN, D., AND P. P. LOWRY. 2009. The Madagascar rosewood massacre.
Madagas. Conserv. Dev. 4: 98?102.
SCHWARTZ, M. W., J. J. HELLMANN, J. M. MCLACHLAN, D. F. SAX, J. O. BORE-
VITZ, J. BRENNAN, A. E. CAMACHO, G. CEBALLOS, J. R. CLARK, H.
DOREMUS, R. EARLY, J. R. ETTERSON, D. FIELDER, J. L. GILL, P. GONZ-
ALEZ, N. GREEN, L. HANNAH, D. W. JAMIESON, D. JAVELINE, B. A. MIN-
TEER, J. ODENBAUGH, S. POLASKY, D. M. RICHARDSON, T. L. ROOT, H.
D. SAFFORD, O. SALA, S. H. SCHNEIDER, A. R. THOMPSON, J. W. WIL-
LIAMS, M. VELLEND, P. VITT, AND S. ZELLMER. 2012. Managed reloca-
tion: Integrating the scienti?c, regulatory, and ethical challenges.
Bioscience 62: 732?743.
S
EKERCIOGLU, C
 . H., G. C. DAILY, AND P. R. EHRLICH. 2004. Ecosystem conse-
quences of bird declines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101: 18042?
18047.
SETO, K. C., B. GUENERALP, AND L. R. HUTYRA. 2012. Global forecasts of
urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and car-
bon pools. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109: 16083?16088.
SHAANKER, R. U., K. N. GANESHAIAH, S. KRISHNAN, R. RAMYA, C. MEERA, N.
A. ARAVIND, A. KUMAR, D. RAO, G. VANARAJ, J. RAMACHANDRA, R.
GAUTHIER, J. GHAZOUL, N. POOLE, AND B. V. C. REDDY. 2004. Liveli-
hood gains and ecological costs of non-timber forest product depen-
dence: Assessing the roles of dependence, ecological knowledge and
market structure in three contrasting human and ecological settings in
south India. Environ. Conserv. 31: 242?253.
SHARROCK, S., A. HIRD, A. KRAMER, AND S. OLDFIELD(Comp.). 2010. Saving
plants, saving the planet: Botanic gardens and the implementation of
GSPC target 8. p. 12. Botanic Gardens Conservation International,
Richmond, UK.
SHEARMAN, P., J. BRYAN, AND W. F. LAURANCE. 2012. Are we approaching
?peak timber? in the tropics? Biol. Conserv. 151: 17?21.
SHEFFIELD, J., E. F. WOOD, AND M. L. RODERICK. 2012. Little change in global
drought over the past 60 years. Nature 491: 435?438.
SODHI, N. S., R. BUTLER, W. F. LAURANCE, AND L. GIBSON. 2011. Conservation
successes at micro-, meso- and macroscales. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26:
585?594.
SODHI, N. S., L. P. KOH, B. W. BROOK, AND P. K. L. NG. 2004. Southeast
Asian biodiversity: An impending disaster. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:
654?660.
SODHI, N. S., M. R. C. POSA, T. M. LEE, D. BICKFORD, L. P. KOH, AND B. W.
BROOK. 2010. The state and conservation of Southeast Asian biodiver-
sity. Biodivers. Conserv. 19: 317?328.
SOEHARTONO, T., AND A. C. NEWTON. 2001. Conservation and sustainable use
of tropical trees in the genus Aquilaria II. The impact of gaharu har-
vesting in Indonesia. Biol. Conserv. 97: 29?41.
SORK, V. L., AND L. WAITS. 2010. Contributions of landscape genetics ?
approaches, insights, and future potential. Mol. Ecol. 19: 3489?3495.
STONER, K. E., K. VULINEC, S. J. WRIGHT, AND C. A. PERES. 2007. Hunting
and plant community dynamics in tropical forests: A synthesis and
future directions. Biotropica 39: 385?392.
STORK, N. E. 2010. Re-assessing current extinction rates. Biodivers. Conserv.
19: 357?371.
STRUEBIG, M. J., M. E. HARRISON, S. M. CHEYNE, AND S. H. LIMIN. 2007.
Intensive hunting of large ?ying foxes Pteropus vampyrus natunae in Cen-
tral Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Oryx 41: 390?393.
SUTHERLAND, W. J., S. BARDSLEY, M. CLOUT, M. H. DEPLEDGE, L. V. DICKS, L.
FELLMAN, E. FLEISHMAN, D. W. GIBBONS, B. KEIM, F. LICKORISH, C.
MARGERISON, K. A. MONK, K. NORRIS, L. S. PECK, S. V. PRIOR, J. P.
W. SCHARLEMANN, M. D. SPALDING, AND A. R. WATKINSON. 2013. A
horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2013. Trends Ecol.
Evol. 28: 16?22.
TABARELLI, M., A. V. AGUIAR, L. C. GIR~AO, C. A. PERES, AND A. V. LOPES.
2010. Effects of pioneer tree species hyperabundance on forest frag-
ments in northeastern Brazil. Conserv. Biol. 24: 1654?1663.
THOMAS, C. D., A. CAMERON, R. E. GREEN, M. BAKKENES, L. J. BEAUMONT, Y.
C. COLLINGHAM, B. F. N. ERASMUS, M. F. de SIQUEIRA, A. GRAINGER,
L. HANNAH, L. HUGHES, B. HUNTLEY, A. S. van JAARSVELD, G. F. MIDG-
LEY, L. MILES, M. A. ORTEGA-HUERTA, A. TOWNSEND PETERSON, O. L.
PHILLIPS, AND S. E. WILLIAMS. 2004. Extinction risk from climate
change. Nature 427: 145?148.
THORNE, R. F. 2002. How many species of seed plants are there? Taxon 51:
511?512.
TICKTIN, T. 2004. The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest
products. J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 11?21.
TIMM, O. E., M. TAKAHASHI, T. W. GIAMBELLUCA, AND H. F. DIAZ. 2013. On
the relation between large-scale circulation pattern and heavy rain
events over the Hawaiian Islands: Recent trends and future changes. J.
Geophys. Res. Atmos. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50314.
TOLLEFSON, J. 2013. Splinters of the Amazon. Nature 496: 286?289.
TORRES-SANTANA, C. W., E. SANTIAGO-VALENT
IN, 
A. T. LEIVA S
ANCHEZ, B.
PEGUERO, AND C. CLUBBE. 2010. Conservation status of plants in the
Caribbean Island biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the 4th Global
Botanic Gardens Congress, Dublin, Ireland.
TWEDDLE, J. C., J. B. DICKIE, C. C. BASKIN, AND J. M. BASKIN. 2003. Ecological
aspects of seed desiccation sensitivity. J. Ecol. 91: 294?304.
VAMOSI, J. C., AND S. M. VAMOSI. 2008. Extinction risk escalates in the tropics.
PLoS ONE 3: e3886.
VAN SAM, H., P. BAAS, AND P. J. A. KESHARPLER. 2008. Traditional medicinal
plants in Ben En National Park, Vietnam. Blumea 53: 569?601.
VEACH, R., D. LEE, AND T. PHILIPPI. 2003. Human disturbance and forest
diversity in the Tansa Valley, India. Biodivers. Conserv. 12: 1051?1072.
VEGAS-VILARR
UBIA, T., S. NOGU
E, AND V. RULL. 2012. Global warming, habitat
shifts and potential refugia for biodiversity conservation in the neo-
tropical Guayana Highlands. Biol. Conserv. 152: 159?168.
WENHUA, L. 2004. Degradation and restoration of forest ecosystems in China.
For. Ecol. Manage. 201: 33?41.
WHEELER, Q. D., S. KNAPP, D. W. STEVENSON, J. STEVENSON, S. D. BLUM, B.
M. BOOM, G. G. BORISY, J. L. BUIZER, M. R. De CARVALHO, A. CIBRI-
AN, M. J. DONOGHUE, V. DOYLE, E. M. GERSON, C. H. GRAHAM, P.
GRAVES, S. J. GRAVES, R. P. GURALNICK, A. L. HAMILTON, J. HANKEN,
W. LAW, D. L. LIPSCOMB, T. E. LOVEJOY, H. MILLER, J. S. MILLER, S.
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
Conservation of Tropical Plant Biodiversity 707
NAEEM, M. J. NOVACEK, L. M. PAGE, N. I. PLATNICK, H. PORTER-MOR-
GAN, P. H. RAVEN, M. A. SOLIS, A. G. VALDECASAS, S. Van Der LEEUW,
A. VASCO, N. VERMEULEN, J. VOGEL, R. L. WALLS, E. O. WILSON, AND
J. B. WOOLLEY. 2012. Mapping the biosphere: Exploring species to
understand the origin, organization and sustainability of biodiversity.
Syst. Biodivers. 10: 1?20.
WHITEHORN, P. R., S. O?CONNOR, F. L. WACKERS, AND D. GOULSON. 2012. Ne-
onicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen
production. Science 336: 351?352.
WINTER, M., V. DEVICTOR, AND O. SCHWEIGER. 2013. Phylogenetic diversity
and nature conservation: Where are we? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28: 199?
204.
WRIGHT, S. J. 2005. Tropical forests in a changing environment. Trends Ecol.
Evol. 20: 553?560.
WRIGHT, S. J. 2010. The future of tropical forests. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1195:
1?27.
WRIGHT, S. J., K. E. STONER, N. BECKMAN, R. T. CORLETT, R. DIRZO, H. C.
MULLER-LANDAU, G. NU~NEZ-ITURRI, C. A. PERES, AND B. C. WANG.
2007. The plight of large animals in tropical forests and the conse-
quences for plant regeneration. Biotropica 39: 289?291.
ZIMMERER, K. S., R. E. GALT, AND M. V. BUCK. 2004. Globalization and
multi-spatial trends in the coverage of protected-area conservation
(1980?2000). Ambio 33: 520?529.
ZONA, S., R. VERDECIA, A. LEIVA S
ANCHEZ, C. E. LEWIS, AND M. MAUNDER.
2007. The conservation status of West Indian palms (Arecaceae). Oryx
41: 300?305.
ATBC 50TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEWS
708 Krupnick