Post on 14-May-2023
1
RESEARCH STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY FOR
MONTECRISTO NATIONAL PARK, EL SALVADOR
IMPROVED MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION OF CRITICAL WATERSHEDS PROJECT
APRIL 2010
THIS PUBLICATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. IT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES, INC. (DAI).
2
RESEARCH STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY FOR
MONTECRISTO NATIONAL PARK, EL SALVADOR
Prepared by Oliver Komar, Ph.D.
Technical Director, SalvaNATURA Ecological Foundation of El Salvador
okomar@salvanatura.org
Draft date 30 April 2010
Improved Management and Conservation of Critical Watersheds Project
Contract No. EPP-I-00-04-00023-00
Strategic Objective Number: 519-022
Contractor name: Development Alternatives Inc. – DAI
This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the
sole responsibility of Development Alternatives, Inc. and do not necessarily reflect the views
of USAID or the United States Government.
Cover photograph: The Blue-throated Motmot (Aspatha gularis, Momotidae) is endemic to
the Central American montane forest and pine-oak forest ecoregions, and resident in the
cloud forest and pine-oak forest of Montecristo National Park. Its population has been
monitored there monthly since 2003 by SalvaNATURA. Photo courtesy of Oliver Komar.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLES AND FIGURES ......................................................................................................... 4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 8
SCIENTIFIC ASSETS—IMPORTANCE OF MONTECRISTO NATIONAL PARK TO THE
RESEARCH COMMUNITY .......................................................................................... 10
STRATEGY ELEMENT 1. POLICIES THAT PROMOTE RESEARCH AT THE PARK ....... 13
STRATEGY ELEMENT 2. EMPLOY A RESEARCH & COMMUNICATIONS
COORDINATOR........................................................................................................... 17
STRATEGY ELEMENT 3. LEARNING FROM OTHERS (CASE STUDIES) ....................... 19
STRATEGY ELEMENT 4. MODEL FOR RESEARCH COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS21
STRATEGY ELEMENT 5. RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR MONTECRISTO NATIONAL
PARK ............................................................................................................................ 24
STRATEGY ELEMENT 6. CREATION OF A FIELD RESEARCH STATION ...................... 25
STRATEGY ELEMENT 7. ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS ................................ 28
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 31
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 32
ANNEX 1. RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS ABOUT MONTECRISTO NATIONAL PARK,
THROUGH 2009 .......................................................................................................... 31
ANNEX 2. RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR MONTECRISTO NATIONAL PARK. ............... 43
4
TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLE 1. ELEMENTS OF THE RESEARCH STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY FOR
MONTECRISTO NATIONAL PARK. .............................................................................. 6
TABLE 2. PRO-RESEARCH POLICIES. .............................................................................. 13
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A RESEARCH AND
COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR. ...................................................................... 17
TABLE 4. SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT COMBINED FORM A FIELD
RESEARCH STATION. ................................................................................................ 24
TABLE 5. COST PROJECTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RSS. ....................... 27
FIGURE 1. THE MONTECRISTO MASSIF IS AN ISOLATED HIGHLAND AREA, AND ONE
OF THE OLDEST GEOLOGICAL FEATURES IN EL SALVADOR. ............................. 9
5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Comments on the contents of a draft of this report were received from Juan Pablo
Domínguez, Carlos Hasbún, Christopher Kernan, Craig MacFarland, and Alvaro Moisés.
The author is grateful for the contributions of various persons interviewed for the purpose of
this report, including Jacob Marlin (Belize Foundation for Research and Environmental
Education) and James A. Rotenberg (University of North Carolina). The supervisor of this
report was Craig MacFarland and the director of the IMCW Project was Christopher Kernan.
USAID Project Manager was Carlos Hasbún.
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Montecristo National Park has a 60-year history of biological research, which has
established the park and its adjacent natural areas in the Montecristo tri-national protected
area (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) to have significant scientific resources. These
important natural resources merit further research, and a research stewardship strategy
(RSS) for the protection of the national park. Nearly 60 studies of the park’s biodiversity
have been published. Among the scientific assets of the park (and the tri-national protected
area) are more than 3,400 species of plants and vertebrate fauna (insects and other
invertebrates have not yet been counted) living in two principal ecosystem types (cloud
forest and pine-oak forest). These species include 44 unique species, yet to be documented
outside of the Montecristo tri-national protected area. At least 11 globally threatened species
live in Montecristo National Park, including two critically endangered species (a frog and a
lizard), such that Montecristo qualifies as a Key Biodiversity Area, and Important Bird Area,
and an Alliance for Zero Extinction priority site. Several conservation analyses have
identified Montecristo National Park as the top conservation priority for biodiversity in El
Salvador.
TABLE 1. ELEMENTS OF THE RESEARCH STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY FOR
MONTECRISTO NATIONAL PARK.
Element Number Strategy
1 Pro-research policies for park management
2 Employ a research/communications coordinator
3 Learning from others (Case studies)
4 Seek long-term collaboration agreements with research institutions
5 Identify research priorities
6 Create a field station
7 Estimated implementation costs
The RSS developed herein for 2010–2020 contains 7 principal elements (Table 1).
The first is a strategy for developing pro-research management policies, in which 11 policies
(some already in practice) are proposed to facilitate use of the park by future researchers.
The second element is the hiring of a research coordinator, who would also serve as a
communications agent to assure that research results are communicated both locally and
internationally to the broader research community. Draft terms of reference are provided for
7
the position. A third element is the evaluation of case studies from other national parks and
field research stations in Central America, which serve as potential models for Montecristo.
The fourth element is a model for long-term collaboration agreements with research
institutions; the model is provided in both English and Spanish. Fifth is an evaluation of
current research priorities for the park. The sixth element is the development of a field
research station that would attract more researchers to work at the park. The seventh and
final element is a budget projection for the cost of implementing the research strategy.
The development of more research is expected to increase the international profile of
Montecristo National Park, facilitating obtaining management funds from international
donors and increasing demand among tourists both domestically and internationally.
Research in itself is not expected to generate much direct income to the park; however,
scientific tourists, defined here as research visits from scientists and their students who offer
no direct research benefit for park management, can be charged special use fees for
lodging and access to restricted research parcels.
Among the elements of the RSS are proposals to actively seek funding to offer
financial incentives to potential researchers (such as small grants for thesis projects), and
the construction of a unique array of cloud forest canopy research platforms. Such an array,
if designed properly, could provide an attraction to researchers not available anywhere else
in the world. If the RSS is implemented as proposed, Montecristo National Park would have
a staff research coordinator and promoter for the first time in its history.
8
INTRODUCTION
Montecristo National Park, in the municipality of Metapán and the department of
Santa Ana, is a valuable resource for the people of El Salvador. It is part of the Montecristo
Tri-national Protected Area which includes extensive adjoining natural areas in Guatemala
and Honduras. The entire trinational park is located on the Montecristo massif, a large
mountain geographically isolated from other mountainous areas, located entirely within the
upper Río Lempa watershed (Fig. 1). The Montecristo National Park in El Salvador includes
some of the oldest geological features within the country, and the Trifinio landmark, where
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras meet. The park contains important biological
resources, including many endangered species found nowhere else in El Salvador and a
few species yet to be found anywhere else in the world, outside of the Montecristo tri-
national protected area. The park also contains valuable and unique historical resources as
well as recreational opportunities for the general public. Furthermore, the park contains rare
ecosystems and species that present a scientific resource, potentially attracting biodiversity
researchers, ecologists, or other scientists. The maintenance of the park and its
infrastructure present a significant cost for the Government of El Salvador, and park entry
fees are not sufficient to cover those costs. As of 2009, the park has not been financially
self-sustaining. Lack of financial self-sufficiency presents a risk for the future protection and
management of the park.
A research stewardship strategy establishes options for increasing protection of a
natural resource through management of the resource’s scientific potential, with a view to
attracting the research and science community as stakeholders in the care of the resource,
and potentially as active caretakers. Examples of natural areas managed under a research
stewardship strategy are private biological field stations, such as La Selva Biological Station
in Costa Rica, and national parks with unique scientific resources such as the Galapagos
National Park in Ecuador. Montecristo National Park has sufficient unique scientific
resources that a research stewardship strategy is warranted, at least as a significant
contribution to the park’s overall management plan and financial management strategy.
Scientific research in national parks and other protected areas has contributed to the
achievement of financial sustainability for parks outside of El Salvador in a variety of ways.
First and foremost, the publication of research results can greatly increase the international
profile of a park, and its attractiveness to both international donors and the international
ecotourism industry. Scientific research in a park can also greatly increase the local
perception of value, improving the relationship between park managers and park users.
Park users include neighbors and in the special case of Montecristo, park residents, as the
park contains two villages with almost 700 residents. In some cases, scientific research has
contributed directly to the generation of financial income for parks, through research fees or
use fees for certain services such as lodging. The establishment of use fees for researchers
can be a double-edged sword, if the value of the site for the researcher has not been
adequately established. Fees can potentially discourage and reduce research activity,
counterproductive to a research stewardship strategy.
9
FIGURE 1. THE MONTECRISTO MASSIF IS AN ISOLATED HIGHLAND AREA, AND ONE
OF THE OLDEST GEOLOGICAL FEATURES IN EL SALVADOR.
Note for map: Gray areas in the map are lowlands of 500–900 meters above sea level.
Colored areas represent elevations, with browner areas being intermediate and dark green
being the highest (up to 2400 m). Yellow lines are national boundaries (the boundary
between Honduras and El Salvador is disputed). Montecristo National Park is outlined in
magenta. The Montecristo Trinational Protected Area is outlined in red. The valley on the
right contains the upper reaches of the Lempa River. Map prepared by J.F. Gutierrez.
10
Even without establishing use fees for scientists, increasing research activity in a
park can increase income to the park. The increased international profile that results from
the publication of research results will likely increase tourism to the park, which should
translate in increased entrance fees and other types of user fees. Results from research can
also be turned into an opportunity to obtain donations, funding for management projects,
and publicity for the park. An excellent example of a park which gained financial stability
through an increased international profile is Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa
Rica, which became famous for studies of charismatic species carried out in the 1970s and
1980s. These species include principally Resplendent Quetzals (Pharomachrus mocinno;
Wheelwright 1983, 1985) and an endemic frog, the Golden Toad (Bufo periglenes; Crump et
al. 1992). The resulting interest by ecotourists from the U.S., Canada, and Europe to visit
Costa Rica is often thought to have sparked the tourism revolution that has dominated
Costa Rica’s economy for almost three decades. Visitation to the Monteverde Cloud Forest
Reserve increased from 5,000 tourists per year in 1986 to over 200,000 per year in 2009
(Craig MacFarland, pers. comm.). It may be noted that opportunities to study Resplendent
Quetzals and endemic amphibians also exist at Montecristo National Park.
Herein a Research Stewardship Strategy is proposed for Montecristo National Park
over the next 10 years, 2010–2020. In this report, seven elements to the strategy for
protecting Montecristo’s natural resources through research activities are explored. All of
these strategy elements contain possible solutions and opportunities for increasing the
park’s financial sustainability through one or another aspect of research stewardship. First,
the biological value of the park is summarized below. It is this value that will attract the
scientific community to the park in the first place, more than the services offered or potential
comfort to visiting researchers.
SCIENTIFIC ASSETS—IMPORTANCE OF MONTECRISTO NATIONAL PARK TO THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY
Despite its relatively small size (1973 hectares), Montecristo National Park has
already been recognized as an area with important scientific resources, due to a
considerable amount of previous biological research carried out in the park. For example,
the park is identified as the highest priority conservation area in El Salvador for birds (Komar
2002) and herpetofauna (Greenbaum & Komar in press). Floral and beetle diversity in the
cloud forest has been reported to surpass diversity in similar cloud forests of Central
America, suggesting that the area may have served as a refuge during the Pleistocene
climatic variations (Anderson & Ashe 2000, Komar et al. 2006). One explanation for the high
biological diversity is the considerable elevational variation within the park, which extends
from 700 meters above sea level up to the peak of Cerro Montecristo at 2,418 meters above
sea level. As explained further below, unique evolutionary processes have also contributed
to the high species diversity, through speciation from within the Montecristo natural area.
11
In general, the Montecristo natural area is a high diversity area, rich with
opportunities for biological study. It is located virtually in the middle of the Mesoamerican
Biodiversity Hotspot (Conservation International, online). A recent ecological evaluation of
the tri-national natural area estimated that the total biodiversity includes 3000 plant species,
280 bird species, 98 mammal species, and 50 amphibian and reptile species (Komar et al.
2006). Not all of these species have been identified, as the flora and fauna inventories are
not yet complete. These levels of diversity are especially impressive considering that there
are no significant wetlands in the natural area, and only two principal ecosystem types
(cloud forest and pine-oak forest).
The park contains habitats representative of the much larger (roughly 12,000
hectare) Montecristo Tri-national Protected Area, which includes the national park in El
Salvador and adjoining protected areas in Guatemala and Honduras. The principal habitats
are cloud forest (Central American Montane Forest Ecoregion, elevation range 2000–2418
meters) and humid pine-oak and pine-oak-sweetgum forest (Central American Pine-oak
Forest Ecoregion, elevation range 800–2000 meters). Other habitats present in the park
include forest plantations (pine Pinus spp. and Mexican cypress Cupressus lusitanicus) and
very small patches of coffee agroforestry systems that continue to be harvested by park
management for income generation. The lowest elevation forests in the park (700–1000
m.a.s.l.) contain many tree species indicative of the Central American dry forest ecoregion,
and can be considered a transitional area between that ecoregion and the pine-oak
ecoregion of medium elevations. The lowlands adjoining the lower limit of the park were
once covered with dry forest and pertain to the Central American dry forest ecoregion; a
representative dry forest protected area, San Diego y La Barra National Park, is located 8
km to the south, within the same municipal jurisdiction (Metapán).
While the habitats within the park are not unique in any obvious ways, nonetheless a
considerable number of species are known only from Montecristo National Park and the
adjoining natural areas. Unique, locally endemic species include one salamander, 37
beetles, and at least 6 plants (Komar et al. 2006). The insect and floral inventories are far
from complete, and many additional species in these groups in the Montecristo area may
remain undescribed for science. Almost no studies of non-insect invertebrates, such as
spiders or snails, have been undertaken at Montecristo, and these groups would also be
expected to present some unique species new to science. The presence of unique species
may be explained by the geographical isolation of the Montecristo massif (Fig. 1), and the
extended period of relatively low habitat perturbation which apparently have combined to
allow for speciation processes to take place. Montecristo can be described as a source for
new evolutionary diversity.
Montecristo National Park occupies just 15% or so of the tri-national protected area.
The presence of two critically endangered species at the global level, the tree frog
Plectrohyla guatemalensis and the tree lizard Abronia montecristoi, within the national park
and the adjoining tri-national park qualify the entire area to be recognized as an AZE site
(AZE stands for Alliance for Zero Extinction). In El Salvador, the national park falls within a
larger area containing the Salvadoran portion of the massif and its remaining natural areas,
12
that has been identified as a Key Biodiversity Area (Henríquez 2009) and an Important Bird
Area (Komar & Ibarra 2009), largely due to the presence of globally-endangered species.
The park offers numerous opportunities for ecological studies of locally endemic
species of flora and fauna that cannot be studied anywhere else in the world. In addition to
the 44 unique species restricted to the Montecristo massif natural areas, dozens of other
species in the park are ―regional endemics‖, generally restricted to northern Central
America. Some, like the epiphytic carnivorous plant Pinguicula mesophytica, are known from
just one or two sites outside of Montecristo (Zamudio 1997).
Conservation biologists may be interested in population studies of 11 globally-
threatened species (Henríquez 2009), or in evaluating the threat status for many of the
locally endemic species which have not been evaluated against IUCN Red List criteria for
threatened species. Biogeographers and geneticists may be interested in evaluating the
relationships of the many isolated populations of highland species to other populations
within the same genera or species in Central America, as was done recently for the
Resplendent Quetzal (Pharomachrus mocinno) population at Montecristo (Solorzano et al.
2004).
Montecristo National Park has a long history of scientific research, dating back to the
early 1950s, more than two decades before the property became a national park. At least 61
scientific publications (some grey literature, but more than 50% peer-reviewed articles in
technical journals) treat the flora and fauna of the park (Annex 1). A number of these articles
describe new species for science. Some ongoing research, such as monitoring of the
globally endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) by SalvaNATURA, is
not reflected in the table. Over the last 6 decades, the rate of scientific inquiry at the park
has generally increased (8 publications in the 1950s, 0 in the 1960s, 4 in the 1970s, 11 in
the 1980s, 5 in the 1990s, 33 in the 2000s). The most frequent topic of research was birds
(18 publications), followed by mammals (13), flora (12), amphibians and reptiles (11), and
insects (5).
Additional opportunities for research, in fields other than biodiversity and ecology,
may be found in social anthropology, archeology, and geology. A rural community with
approximately 700 people exists within the park, with severe restrictions on community
development. For example, the local population is not permitted to farm within park
boundaries. Geologically, the Montecristo massif is considered to be the oldest land in El
Salvador, such that opportunities for studying fossils and other geological features may be
unique in El Salvador.
13
STRATEGY ELEMENT 1. POLICIES THAT PROMOTE RESEARCH AT THE PARK
Park managers should consider adopting policies that will increase the attractiveness of the
park to potential researchers. Seven policies in particular would serve that purpose (Table
2). Some of these may already be in practice. They are described further below, and listed
in order of priority. To assure that adopted policies are implemented, a member of the
management staff should be assigned the task of coordinating research and researchers at
the park.
TABLE 2. PRO-RESEARCH POLICIES.
Number Policy Priority
1 Consult researchers about pending
management decisions High
2 Facilitate research permits High
3 Exonerate fees for researchers Medium
4 Facilitate access to prior research results Medium
5 Actively promote research opportunities Medium
6 Provide comfortable and attractive research
facilities Low
7 Provide funding to researchers Low
1. Consult researchers about pending management decisions (potentially through a
research advisory board). HIGH PRIORITY.
Management decisions regarding a variety of topics, from park zoning to public use
regulations, can inadvertently affect the potential of the park as a research site for
current or future researchers. To help assure that decisions do not reduce the
attractiveness of the park as a research and monitoring site, it is proposed that
management routinely consult pending management decisions among researchers
interested in the park. This can be done on an ad-hoc basis, by contacting a short list
of interested researchers with specific issues or consultations, as needed. The park
management should permanently maintain a contact list of the persons currently
involved with research and monitoring in the park. A more formal option would be to
establish a research advisory board, to be made up of researchers with specific
interests in the park. The research advisory board, in addition to providing feedback
on periodic consultations, could also meet formally once a year (or more often) to
14
develop research priorities for the park. While superficially attractive, the formal
research advisory board poses additional challenges. The meetings would have a
cost, and if the board were to include foreign researchers, the travel costs for
attending meetings could be substantial. Furthermore, many researchers are very
busy, and obtaining a commitment for the time to carry out the advisory board
business may require payment of honoraria in addition to travel costs.
2. Facilitate research permits. HIGH PRIORITY.
Onerous permitting processes (or reporting processes) can be counterproductive to
attracting researchers to a site. Any assistance that management can provide to
facilitate the process would be seen as beneficial by researchers. Problems that can
arise during permitting include long turnaround times on permit applications, fee
requirements (not currently required by El Salvador’s Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources), language barriers, and local institutional sponsorship. A
research project carried out by a foreign national in a Salvadoran protected area
often requires four permits in El Salvador, and additional permits in collaborating
countries. The permits include the research/collecting permit, the protected area
access permit, the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species
(CITES) exportation permit, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG)
sanitation permit (for exporting specimens). Foreigners need local institutional
sponsorship to facilitate the provisioning of a research permit. With regard to
reporting, MARN’s current system for requiring reports is not overly onerous. A
Spanish-language abstract, with copies of full technical reports prepared for scientific
journals or donors in their original language should be sufficient.
3. Exonerate fees for researchers. MEDIUM PRIORITY.
Researchers often lack sufficient funding to cover the desired or necessary project
expenses. Park access fees, if charged, can be seen as a barrier to carrying out
research within the park. Researchers will often seek field sites that present the least
expense. For this reason, it is suggested that park policy should be to exonerate use
fees for researchers as an incentive to increase the knowledge base at the park.
4. Facilitate access to prior research results. MEDIUM PRIORITY.
Researchers are often attracted to working at sites where much information has
already been collected (such as at biological field stations). The availability of prior
knowledge is useful in facilitating the interpretation of new research results. Prior
information can also serve as a baseline for the monitoring of environmental change.
Facilitating prior knowledge can also help avoid duplication of effort, and increase
efficiency of the research process. For example, maps of study sites prepared by
prior researchers, if accessible, can reduce costs or time in preparing new maps.
Access to prior research can be facilitated in several ways. Park management can
maintain a physical and a virtual (digital) library of research reports and scientific
15
articles. Some of this material can be published on the park web site, for easy
downloading (when copyrights are not violated). When previously published material
is protected by copyright, such as in the case of scientific articles published in
journals, the park website can provide the study citation with a brief description, and
a hyperlink to the journal website or to an on-line index where the abstract or the full
article can be downloaded.
5. Actively promote research opportunities. MEDIUM PRIORITY.
Many potential researchers may not know of the research opportunities at the park.
Such opportunities, which can include access to research facilities, presence of
species that can be easily studied, or availability of funding, could be communicated
to the research community in several ways. One way is to maintain a website about
the park, including a page about research opportunities. Another way is to
periodically send announcements about specific opportunities to one or several of
the popular research listserves, such as NEO-ORN (Neotropical Ornithology). A third
way is to maintain a web-log (blog) with periodic entries about research
opportunities, observations at the park, and other news for persons interested in the
park as a potential field site.
6. Provide comfortable and attractive research facilities. LOW PRIORITY.
Facilities needed by researchers include food and lodging, storage space, space for
specimen preparation or other kinds of laboratory work, access to field sites via
roads or trails, transportation, and standard equipment (microscopes, refrigerators,
freezers, traps, plant drying presses, etc.). With respect to lodging, a certain level of
privacy may be useful; some field studies require presence of a researcher for
months at a time, and the lodging facilities thus become the researcher’s temporary
home. Research facilities, including zones of the park restricted for research use
only, should be kept separate from tourist facilities or other public use sites. One way
to increase the attractiveness of research facilities is to provide something not
available elsewhere. An array of canopy platforms (Barker & Pinard 2001) in the
cloud forest would be useful for a variety of ecological and monitoring studies that
would be difficult to carry out elsewhere. This type of research facility would attract
researchers who otherwise may not consider using the park as a field site.
7. Provide funding to researchers. LOW PRIORITY.
Three types of funding are suggested. First, permanent or semi-permanent funding
for salaries and expenses of one or more staff researchers. A staff researcher can
develop applied field studies that directly inform management decisions, in response
to requests from management. Staff researchers can also help promote research
opportunities and facilitate the work of visiting researchers, essentially functioning as
a research coordinator for the park. A mechanism that may be especially productive
is the creation of a temporary (one-year?) internship, that can be designed for young
16
biologists just starting their professional career. A second funding type is the small
grant. Small grants, perhaps of just a few thousand dollars, can be enough to finance
an undergraduate thesis project, or entice a foreign graduate student to select the
park as his or her field site. For small grants, park management would evaluate
proposals based on merit, but not necessarily restrict the types of proposals that
could win funding. The third type of funding is contract work. Park management
could potentially budget funds for the highest priority research topics, and contract
professional or student researchers to carry out the studies most needed for the
park.
17
STRATEGY ELEMENT 2. EMPLOY A RESEARCH & COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR
The purpose of this element in the RSS is to actively promote research results and
opportunities at the park. Some of the ideas presented here were touched upon in the
previous element, as part of the pro-research management policies. The justification for
active research promotion is three-fold: (1) promoting research results increases interest in
conserving the park by all stakeholders, including donors; (2) promoting research results
increases the park’s international profile and its demand for tourism, translating into higher
income for the park; (3) promoting research results is likely to spark additional interest in
advancing the scientific effort at the park. Research begets more research and greater
interest from all parties. The Research and Communications Coordinator could be a single
person, or potentially the position and its responsibilities could be outsourced to an
organization through a financially favorable arrangement, such as a concession.
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF TASKS FOR A RESEARCH COORDINATOR.
Task Number Task
1 Collaborate in fundraising for research at the park.
2 Communicate research results to park staff.
3 Publicize opportunities for carrying out research at the park.
4 Coordinate consultations with researchers/advisors.
5 Maintain a webpage and a blog about research at the park.
6 Promote research results generally through media releases.
7 Facilitate permitting processes and research MOUs.
8 Carry out some priority research and monitoring at the park.
.9 Publish reports in peer-reviewed science journals.
10 Facilitate visits to the park by journalists.
11 Prepare annual (or more frequent) reports of research results.
12 Provide instruction for short courses, such as science field trips.
18
In order to achieve an increase in research activity, the park should finance a
research manager and communications coordinator who would carry out the following tasks,
summarized in Table 3. (1) Collaborate with the park director or supervisor to seek funding
for research, including specific studies identified in the management plans as high priorities,
but also including small grants to attract student researchers to carry out their thesis projects
at the park. (2) Serve as a liaison between researchers and park staff, especially in regard
to communicating research results to park staff. (3) Publicize to the international research
community the various opportunities for carrying out research at the park. (4) Coordinate
consultations with researchers/advisors about management issues. (5) Maintain a webpage
and an internet blog about research achievements, needs and opportunities at the park. (6)
Coordinate the promotion of research results to the general public, through local listserves
and press releases (in coordination with the MARN communications department). (7)
Facilitate permitting processes and development of collaborative research agreements
between the park or MARN and research institutions. (8) Carry out some priority research
and monitoring at the park. (9) Prepare technical reports of such research for publication in
scientific, peer-reviewed journals. (10) Facilitate visits to the park by journalists. (11) Prepare
and communicate publicly an annual (or more frequent) report about scientific progress in
the park. (12) Provide instruction for visiting field trips from university or high school science
courses.
The item 9 in the preceding terms of reference (tasks) merits further comments.
Formal scientific research must be published in peer-reviewed scientific literature in order to
be considered complete. In the long-term, research results that are only published in project
reports or web pages will not be formally archived, will be ignored by future researchers, and
will be soon forgotten. Unfortunately, the publication process usually requires more than one
year after submitting a first final draft to the journal editor, and therefore standard funding
mechanisms for projects or consultancies fail to finance the time required by the researcher
to achieve the final publication. Park management staff should consider this, both in terms
of how they provide funding for research, and in expectations for the research and
communications coordinator position proposed herein. The problem is generalized in El
Salvador, and has led to the majority of research never being published appropriately. In
Mexico, the government has created an incentive scheme for researchers such that
government employees who publish science papers receive increased salaries. One option
is to provide small grants or bonuses (perhaps $1000 to $2000) to researchers just for
formally publishing their research results in an appropriate technical journal.
19
STRATEGY ELEMENT 3. LEARNING FROM OTHERS (CASE STUDIES)
In Central America, research has provided stewardship (protection and
management) for a few selected natural areas, which have been managed principally for
research and conservation (rather than for tourism and recreation). Among the best known
examples is the Finca La Selva research station (about 1600 hectares of lowland rainforest),
adjacent to the Braulio Carrillo National Park in Costa Rica. The station is managed by
Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS), a U.S. research organization and consortium of
more than 70 U.S. universities, founded by Duke University in the 1960s. OTS eventually
expanded to manage field research stations at Las Cruces Biological Station and Palo
Verde wildlife reserve, also in Costa Rica. OTS charges station use fees from visiting
researchers, and course fees from hundreds of U.S. university students each year. OTS
employs a number of course instructors in order to attend to the demand from students.
A number of foreign universities have established their own research stations in
Central America, at considerable cost, to provide learning opportunities for their students.
OTS field stations are similar, in that their primary purpose is to fulfill needs of US
universities (they also serve the Costa Rican universities). Texas A&M University has a
relationship with the Programme for Belize, a private organization that operates the Hillbank
and La Milpa field stations in Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area. Among the
services that are most attractive to foreign universities is local assistance with logistics and
permitting.
Another case study worth evaluating is the case of the Belize Foundation for
Research and Environmental Education (BFREE), which has created a self-sustaining field
research station on a property of approximately 1000 ha adjacent to the larger Bladen
Nature Reserve in the Maya Mountains of southern Belize. The income from the research
station covers the protection costs for the entire property, but not the adjacent government-
owned nature reserve. On 26 October 2009, I interviewed Jacob Marlin, president and co-
founder of BFREE, and James A. Rotenberg, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Environmental
Studies at University of North Carolina, Wilmington (rotenbergj@uncw.edu), a user of the
BFREE research field station.
BFREE works with 45 universities. Appalachian College Association (37 colleges)
sends student groups to Belize and hires BFREE to organize trip logistics. Lincoln Memorial
University (LMU), Tennessee, has funded laboratory development at BFREE. As a result of
the relationship with BFREE, LMU’s Busk School of Medicine is building a medical facility, at
a cost of close to $1 million, to provide health services for buffer zone communities and
learning opportunities for U.S. medical students.
20
BFREE’s principal source of income are logistics fees for student field trips from U.S.
academic institutions. The students are organized by professors of courses such as
International Field Experiences, Tropical Watershed Ecology, and Environmental
Psychology (Human Dimensions and Environmental Science) at the University of North
Carolina. The field trips typically last one to two weeks, and involve travel to various sites in
Belize. Among the most attractive aspects of BFREE’s service is the provision of course
instruction by BFREE staff, such that the university professor is not the only instructor, and
may only provide student supervision during the trip.
BFREE offers dozens of short courses (from one week to one semester). Examples
are on their web site. They publish a catalog with detailed, day by day itineraries (which is
required by most university clients). Some problems may arise during university or school
field trips. Students get sick frequently or perhaps dehydrated. The schools arrange
international travel insurance which gets built into the cost for students. BFREE has all
visitors sign a waiver of liability, to keep BFREE protected against accidents or other
problems that may occur.
On average, BFREE attends one school field trip per month (11 universities, 1 high
school during 2009). They charge on average $120/per person per day, including all
services, food, and transportation. Groups average 18 persons. BFREE staff include four
instructors (1 Ph.D.), but dozens of other local people provide learning interactions. The
inclusion of a Ph.D. in the staff provides credibility for BFREE with the university clients.
21
STRATEGY ELEMENT 4. MODEL FOR RESEARCH COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS
As part of the RSS, it is suggested that MARN invite research institutions to sign long-term
collaboration agreements as a way to increase interest on the part of such institutions, and
the interest of their research staff or students, in creating research projects at the national
park. Below is presented a model for such an agreement, first in English and then in
Spanish.
Collaborative Agreement for Research at Montecristo National Park and other
Protected Areas of El Salvador
This document serves to initiate a cooperative agreement between the Protected Areas
program of the Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales in El Salvador (hereafter
MARN) and [NAME OF UNIVERSITY] in NAME OF STATE AND COUNTRY (hereafter
―University‖). The term of this agreement shall extend five years, with the possibility of
extension at that time.
This agreement is established in recognition of the commitment on the part of the two
institutions to study, analyze, and understand biological diversity, geology, archeology,
environmental protection, environmental economics, and other research fields related to
protected area management at Montecristo National Park or other protected areas in El
Salvador, and at local, regional and international scales. The term ―biological diversity‖ here
refers to species, ecosystems, ecological relationships, genetics, and any other biological
aspects of nature, including relationships between the environment and people. The term
―environmental protection‖ includes all administrative, technical, and socioeconomic aspects
of park management and protected area management in general. Dimensions of the
collaborative effort may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Development of collaborative and cooperative projects related to the inventory,
systematic study, monitoring, and ecological or geographical analysis of protected areas
and their management.
2. Interchange of academic and technical personnel, in the form of internships, graduate
study, and exchange of personnel.
3. Interchange of information and data.
4. Technical assistance for the development of systematic collections, data bases, and
information systems related to biological, geological, or anthropological study and
natural areas management.
22
5. Logistical assistance for biological, geographical, geological, anthropological, or area
management studies, including assistance with government permits.
Before any collaboration listed above in this Agreement is initiated, it shall be the subject of
a precise written agreement and/or permits, detailing the nature of the collaboration, the
commitments of each party, the names of the principal participants, schedule of work to be
performed, and when applicable, sources of funding.
In view of our common desire to carry out this cooperative agreement, representatives of
each institution sign and date below.
Convenio de Colaboración para Investigación en Parque Nacional Montecristo y otras
Áreas Naturales Protegidas de El Salvador
Este documento sirve para establecer un convenio de colaboración entre el programa de
áreas protegidas del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales en El Salvador
(MARN) y el [NOMBRE DE UNIVERSIDAD] en [NOMBRE DE ESTADO Y PAIS]
(―Universidad‖). Este convenio tendrá una vigencia de cinco años, con la posibilidad de
renovarse después de ese tiempo.
Este convenio de colaboración se establece dado el interés de las dos instituciones en
estudiar, analizar y entender la diversidad biológica, geología, arqueología, la protección
ambiental, economía ambiental y/u otros campos relacionados al manejo de áreas
protegidas en Parque Nacional Montecristo o en otras áreas protegidas en El Salvador, y
también en escalas local, regional e internacional. El término ―diversidad biológica‖ refiere
acá a especies, ecosistemas, y relaciones ecológicas, genética, y cualquier otro aspecto de
la naturaleza, incluyendo las relaciones entre el medio ambiente y el ser humano. El
término ―protección ambiental‖ incluye todos los aspectos administrativos, técnicos y
socioeconómicos del manejo del parque y manejo de áreas protegidas en general.
Dimensiones del esfuerzo colaborativo podrían incluir, sin limitarse, a los siguientes:
1. Desarrollo de proyectos de colaboración y cooperación relacionados a la realización de
inventarios, estudios sistemáticos, monitoreo, y análisis geográfico y ecológico de las áreas
protegidas y su manejo.
2. Intercambio de personal académico y técnico, en la forma de pasantías, estudios de
posgrado, e intercambio de personal.
3. Intercambio de información y datos.
4. Asistencia técnica para el desarrollo de colecciones científicas, bases de datos, y
sistemas de información relacionados al estudio de biología, geología, antropología y
manejo de áreas naturales.
23
5. Apoyo logístico para la realización de estudios biológicos, geográficos, geológicos,
antropológicos o de manejo de áreas, que incluye apoyo con el tramitar permisos
gubernamentales.
Antes de que se inicia una de las colaboraciones detallada arriba, será sujeta a un acuerdo
escrito preciso y/o permisos aplicables, que detallan la naturaleza de la colaboración, los
compromisos de cada parte, los nombres de los principales participantes, cronograma del
trabajo a realizar, y cuando se aplica, información sobre las fuentes de financiamiento.
En vista de nuestro común deseo de llevar a cabo este acuerdo de colaboración
representantes de cada institución firman a continuación.
24
STRATEGY ELEMENT 5. RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR MONTECRISTO NATIONAL PARK
Throughout this RSS, it is suggested that research that meets park management
needs, including identified research priorities, should be encouraged in a variety of ways,
such as via exoneration of park usage fees and even provision of funding. Some research
priorities for Montecristo National Park are identified in Annex 2. The list is suggestive, but
there are other research opportunities not listed that could also be considered of great value
for the park, especially if designed to provide new information that will help complete the
park inventory, understand its ecology, or otherwise increase the scientific value of the park.
Park management should reevaluate the research priorities each year, as part of the annual
operations planning, and in consultation with a research advisory group or board (see
Strategy Element 1).
In the manner of an initial proposal, the research priorities listed in Annex 2 are
divided among the fields of Park Management (includes sociology and anthropology), Flora,
Limnology, Ichthyology, Mammalogy, Ornithology, Herpetology, Malacology, Entomology,
Arachnology, Mycology, and Meteorology. Furthermore, each proposed priority is given a
ranking as highest, high, medium, or lower. These rankings should be reviewed by a
stakeholder group such that they represent a consensus opinion, and can be interpreted as:
highest=urgent to carry out research in short-term; high=plan to begin research within 1-2
years; medium=plan to begin research within 2-3 years; lower=plan to begin research within
3-4 years.
Until the biological inventory for the park has been carried out to completion,
inventory work should be considered of relatively high priority. Other high priorities should
be research applied directly to resolving park management issues. In the future, as
inventory work becomes less productive, research priorities should shift towards monitoring
of the park’s natural resources.
25
STRATEGY ELEMENT 6. CREATION OF A FIELD RESEARCH STATION
The provision of services for researchers will help attract scientists to the park, and
will contribute to enrolling scientists in the stewardship of the park (including carrying out
research needed by park management). The nature of the services can vary from providing
simple lodging in a cabin, to providing more complete services such as laboratory space,
transportation, field assistants, field equipment, dedicated research parcels, logistics
facilitation, and funding. The collective package of services offered can be considered as a
―field research station‖. The more complete the package, the more attractive for
researchers.
TABLE 4. SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT COMBINED FORM A FIELD
RESEARCH STATION.
Priority Service
1 Field parcels reserved for research use
(off limits to tourists or other users).
2 Full-service lodging, with options for long-term stays, cooking
facilities, unisex bathrooms, and personal storage space.
3 Access to field assistants.
4 Locally based logistics and facility coordinator
5 Transportation for reaching distant field sites.
6 Laboratory work space, for specimen preparation and storage.
7 Wireless internet access.
8 Library of basic reference books and prior research results.
9 Basic field equipment, such as traps or portable observation
blinds or platforms, binoculars, range finders, GPS units.
10 Locally based research manager
11 Computer(s) with internet and database access.
12 Room for controlled laboratory experiments.
26
The basic services and infrastructure needed for a field research station are
summarized in Table 4, in order of highest to lowest priority. Only the first four items in the
list are essential. In addition to the basic items listed, the research station will become more
complete and valuable as it accumulates scientific information about the park. Of special
interest for many potential users will be access to long-term data, such as population
monitoring data from the various research parcels, and climate data collected from the park.
The location of research parcels (quadrants), where biological and climate research
can be conducted without interference from tourists or other users, is important. The parcels
should be located strategically along one or more altitudinal transects such that information
from the entire park is available. The terrestrial parcels ideally would measure about 20
hectares each (this is the parcel size used by the SalvaNATURA bird monitoring protocol
which is currently applied at one cloud forest site and one pine-oak forest site at
Montecristo). At least four monitoring parcels, two in cloud forest and two in pine-oak forest,
would be useful, such that each major ecosystem type includes replicate data sets. Given
the particular conditions at Montecristo National Park, four additional monitoring parcels
(eight in total) would be preferable, such that one is located within the transition dry forest –
pine-oak forest near the lower altitudinal limit of the park, and individual stations are located
within the three types of agroforestry habitats: coffee plantation, cypress plantation, and pine
plantation.
Research parcels can also be identified along the park’s rivers. Since the rivers are
not subject to recreational activities (fishing, swimming) at Montecristo, the entire rivers
should be subject to research activities. Nonetheless, new access points for stream
monitoring could be considered, with the creation of access trails.
One way to greatly increase the attraction of the park to future researchers is to
provide infrastructure not available anywhere else in Central America or in the world. One
such attraction would be an array of canopy towers and platforms in the cloud forest. On
each of the two proposed cloud forest research parcels, a series of 9 towers placed at 200
m intervals, located in an array of 400 m square (16 hectares), would provide a total of 18
canopy observation platforms that would permit an unparalleled opportunity for studying the
ecology of the cloud forest ecosystem. This ecosystem contains a variety of arboreal
microhabitats that make canopy observations especially valuable.
This RSS promotes the provision of research station services to researchers at no
charge, when the research to be carried out is considered beneficial to park management.
The field research station can also become an income generator by providing services for
scientific tourism. The term ―scientific tourism‖ here is used to mean visitation by scientists
and science students, who have their own objectives and goals independent from the
objectives and goals of the park administration. Scientific tourism that can generate income
includes visits by university or high school science field trips. In addition to paying daily
entrance fees, such users could also be charged for lodging in the field station, access to
specialized research infrastructure such as canopy monitoring stations, and potentially for
instruction services to be provided by the field station staff, if such exists. Some biological
27
field stations in Central America are completely self sustainable from income generated by
visiting university classes, especially from the United States.
Four options for management of the field research station are here identified: (1) The
park administration can provide staff and direct management of the station. (2) The park
administration can subcontract a field station manager (person or institution). (3) The park
administration can provide a concession to an independent station manager, who would
charge fees or seek funding as needed to be able to provide station services. (4) The private
field research station could be located on a private property adjacent to the park, and the
station and park administration would sign a collaborative research agreement to facilitate
the use of the park’s research parcels by visiting researchers.
28
STRATEGY ELEMENT 7. ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Certain aspects of the proposed RSS do not require investment. But two of the
strategy’s elements, in particular, can be costly. These are elements 2 and 6; the first
proposes hiring a research manager, and the second proposes developing field station
infrastructure. Also mentioned in the RSS, as one of the goals of the research manager, is
obtaining funds to carry out research projects of highest priority to park management. These
costs are estimated in Table 5, with alternatives given based on minimum fundraising
success, and ideal funding.
TABLE 5. COST PROJECTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RSS.
Activity Minimum
cost, year 1
Ideal cost,
year 1
Ideal cost,
year 2
Research Manager contract $18,000 $36,000 $36,000
Research small grants fund $0 $50,000 $50,000
Research station, initial infrastructure for
lodging and services (one-time cost) $25,000 $75,000
Research station vehicle (vehicle donation
assumed; these are maintenance and
insurance costs)
$2,000 $4,000 $4,000
Cloud forest canopy platform array
(construction, one time cost) $9,000 $30,000
Research station maintenance fund $2,000 $10,000 $10,000
Unforeseen or miscellaneous costs $4,000 $10,000 $10,000
TOTALS $60,000 $215,000 $110,000
The estimates in Table 5 suggest that an ideal funding situation would provide
$215,000 in the first year, including $105,000 in one-time infrastructure investments. The
continuing annual costs for the program total $110,000. These costs do not explicitly
consider the direct costs of priority research topics listed in Annex 2, although $50,000 are
included to finance some of the high priority research projects. The specific costs of each
study are highly variable, and would be negotiated with interested donors either by the park
research manager, or more likely, by interested investigators.
29
However, if funding is scarce, the most important objectives of the RSS could be
completed with a minimum investment of $60,000 in Year 1. That scenario excludes the
$50,000 research fund, and includes $34,000 for one-time infrastructure investments. The
budget in following years could be as low as $26,000 per year. Both scenarios (ideal
funding and minimum funding) assume that one or more vehicles will be donated to the
research station for the use of visiting researchers and/or the research manager.
While this program could be carried out completely by the park management staff or
directly by MARN central office staff, the program could potentially also be carried out under
contract, either from MARN or from a donor, by a third party such as a university or NGO.
One NGO with a research mission, SalvaNATURA, has been carrying out ongoing scientific
research at the park since 2003 with independent funding, obtained through international
donors. Although this work has not been carried out under contract by MARN, it has all been
carried out under research permits authorized by MARN, and in collaboration with park
management.
How can such funds be raised for the park’s research mission? The obvious first
answers are (1) from MARN’s general budget, and (2) from use fees charged to tourists.
However, since the current park budget is insufficient for the basic park management and
maintenance costs (Juan Pablo Domínguez, pers. comm.), it can be assumed that neither of
those two options are feasible alternatives at the moment. We can consider two alternative
funding sources: (1) Research grants or donations raised by the park’s future research
manager, and (2) Use fees paid by scientific tourists, in particular students and university
professors who visit the park for organized educational tours, following the model of BFREE
described in Strategy Element 3. In fact, it could be aspired that the program generate
sufficient use fees from scientific tourists, that surplus funds are contributed towards the
park’s basic management needs.
It should be noted that for both of these alternative strategies, the flexibility required
for fundraising, international marketing, use fee negotiations and administration with
international clients, suggest that MARN strongly consider the possibility of a concession for
the research management program, in which a university, NGO or other private enterprise
be authorized to carry out the functions of the Research Manager and to promote and
execute a ―profitable‖ scientific tourism business on MARN property. In exchange, the
enterprise would provide either a fixed fee or percentage of gross income either directly to
MARN for the maintenance of Montecristo National Park, or to be spent on items that MARN
requests for the benefit of the park. As a working recommendation, I suggest that a fee of
10% of all grants, donations, and use fees collected by the research concession (but not
independent researchers or research organizations who would pay use fees when
appropriate) be directly invested in the protection of the park, according to park
management’s priorities. One caveat is that some institutional grant donors may object to a
proportional administrative fee for park management, but in those cases the grant budget
can be negotiated in advance with park management and with the donor, such that park
management receives an equivalent donation for one or more specific funding needs.
30
With respect to donations, an NGO could develop a fundraising campaign for the
park research strategy, aimed at individuals rather than institutions or donor agencies.
SalvaNATURA is currently developing a similar campaign for El Imposible National Park,
which may provide interesting lessons for Montecristo National Park in the future. The
Figueroa Foundation has been successful at raising funds for land purchase around
Montecristo National Park, and may be interested in supporting park management activities
more directly in the future.
31
RECOMMENDATIONS
The RSS is proposed to have a time frame of 10 years, beginning in 2010 and ending in
2020, when the strategy should be evaluated and reviewed. Each of the proposed strategy
elements contains a series of implied recommendations. The most important ones are
highlighted below.
1. It is proposed that MARN offer a concession to a university or NGO with a research
mission to handle the management of the RSS, including the contracting of a
research manager, international marketing campaign to attract researchers,
administration of a field station, and negotiation of special use fees for scientific
tourists who would occupy the field station and the scientific resources of the park,
either for research or for educational purposes. It is suggested that such a
concession could contribute to the general funding needs of Montecristo National
Park by paying 10% of its gross income for basic management needs of the park.
2. In El Salvador, park management budgets have typically not included funding for
research or biological monitoring. The funding of such activities has been left to the
initiative of individual researchers. Here it is proposed that the park administration, or
the RSS concession mentioned in the previous recommendation, actively seek
funding to offer financial incentives to potential researchers (such as small grants for
thesis projects and for publishing results in science journals), especially when they
can study priority topics identified in the park’s research strategy.
3. Montecristo National Park should employ a research coordinator, presumably
through the RSS concession mentioned above. This position could potentially be a
temporary internship, with renewal each year, which would increase the exposure of
potential researchers to the park and its scientific assets.
4. A web page and an internet blog should be developed to help promote the scientific
assets of Montecristo National Park.
5. A more complete field research station is needed, with services such as internet
access and laboratory space.
6. A globally unique research resource could be developed, by constructing an array of
cloud forest canopy platforms. Such an array would provide an attraction to
researchers not available anywhere else in the region, and possible in the world.
32
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. S. & Ashe, J. S. 2000. Leaf litter inhabiting beetles as surrogates for
establishing priorities for conservation of selected tropical montane cloud forests in
Honduras, Central America (Coleoptera; Staphylinidae, Curculionidae). Biodiversity and
Conservation 9[5]: 617–653.
Barker, M. G. & Pinard, M. A. 2001. Forest canopy research: sampling problems, and some
solutions. Plant Ecology 153: 23–38.
Crump, M. L., Hensley, F. R., & Clark, K. L. 1992. Apparent decline of the Golden Toad:
underground or extinct? Copeia 1992: 413–420.
Greenbaum, E. & Komar, O. In press. A conservation assessment of Salvadoran protected
areas: priorities and recommendations based on amphibian and reptile distributions. In
Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles, ed. L. D. Wilson & J. Townsend,
Eagle Mountain Publishing, Eagle Mountain, Utah.
Henríquez, V. 2009. Las KBAs de El Salvador: Establecimiento de una Línea Base de
Áreas Claves para la Biodiversidad. SalvaNATURA, San Salvador, El Salvador 29 pp.
Komar, O. 2002. Priority conservation areas for birds in El Salvador. Animal Conservation 5:
173–183.
Komar O, Borjas G, Cruz GA, Eisermann K, Herrera N, Linares JL, Escobar CE, Girón LE.
2006. Evaluación Ecológica Rápida en el Área Protegida Trinacional Montecristo en
Territorio Guatemalteco y Hondureño. Informe de Consultoría para el Banco Interamericano
de Desarrollo. San Salvador: SalvaNATURA Programa de Ciencias para la Conservación.
Komar, O. & Ibarra-Portillo, R. 2009. Las IBAs de El Salvador: Las áreas de importancia
para la conservación de aves. SalvaNATURA, San Salvador, El Salvador. Disponible en
www.salvanatura.org.
Solórzano, S., Baker, A. J., & Oyama, K. 2004. Conservation priorities for Resplendent
Quetzals based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA control region sequences. The Condor
106: 449–456.
Wheelwright, N. 1983. Fruits and the ecology of Resplendent Quetzals. Auk 100: 286–301.
Wheelwright, N. 1985. fruit-size, gape width, and the diets of fruit-eating birds. Ecology 66:
808–818.
Zamudio, S. 1997. Una especie nueva de Pinguicula (Lentibulariaceae) de Centroamérica.
Acta Bot. Mex. 40: 65–69.
33
ANNEX 1. RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS ABOUT MONTECRISTO NATIONAL PARK, THROUGH 2009
1, ORGANIZED
BY DATE.
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Reptiles 1952
Nenues über die
Reptilienfauna von El
Salvador.
Mertens, R. Zool. Anz.
148: 87–93
Reptiles 1952
Weitere neue Reptilien
aus
El Salvador.
Mertens, R. Zool. Anz.
149: 133–138
Amphibians 1952
Zur Kenntnis der
Amphibienfauna von El
Salvador
Mertens, R. Senckenbergiana
33: 169–171
Insects/Beetles 1953
The Passalidae (Ins.
Col.) of
El Salvador.
Hincks, W. D.
Senckenberg
Museum of Natural
History
Senckenbergiana
34: 29–35
Birds 1956
Uber eine kleine Vogel
sammlung aus El
Salvador
Steinbacher,
J.
Senckenberg
Museum of Natural
History
Senck. Biol.
37: 371–375
Mammals 1957
Nagetiere (Mammalia:
Rodentia) aus El
Salvador. Teil 1.
Felten, V. H. Senck. Biol.
38: 145–155.
Mammals 1958
Nagetiere (Mammalia:
Rodentia) aus El
Salvador. Teil 2.
Felten, V. H. Senck. Biol.
39: 1–10.
Birds 1958
Weitere Beitrage zur
Vogelfauna von El
Salvador.
Steinbacher,
J.
Senckenberg
Museum of Natural
History
Senck. Biol.
39: 11–40
34
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Flora 1974 Las orquídeas de El
Salvador, tomos 1 & 2. Hamer, F.
Ministerio de Educación, San
Salvador
Mammals 1978 Mamíferos de
Montecristo.
Hartmann, J.
G. U.S. Peace Corps
Servicio de Parques Nacionales y
Vida Silvestre. San Salvador. 28
pp.
Birds 1978 Cien aves de El
Salvador.
Thurber, W.
A.
Ministerio de Educación, San
Salvador.
Flora 1979
Vegetación arbórea del
bosque nublado de
Montecristo.
Reyna
Vásquez, M.
L.
Universidad de El
Salvador Tésis de licenciatura. 177 pp.
Flora 1980
A new species of
Hampea (Malvaceae)
from El Salvador.
Fryxell, P. A. Systematic Botany
5: 442–444
Flora 1981
Studies of American
plants XX.
Hamamelidacea
Lundell, C. L. Phytologia
48: 131–185
Flora 1981 Las orquídeas de El
Salvador, suplemento. Hamer, F.
The Marie Selby Botanical Garden,
Sarasota (FL).
Birds 1983
Three new specimen
records of birds for El
Salvador.
Hellebuyck,
V.
Royal Ontario
Museum of Natural
History
Wilson Bulletin 95:662–664
Birds 1983
Sound production and
reproductive biology of
the Highland Guan in El
Salvador's Montecristo
Cloud Forest.
Pullen, T., Jr. Peace Corps American Birds 37:948–950
35
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Reptiles 1983
Two new species of
Abronia (Sauria:
Anguidae) from the
cloud forests of El
Salvador.
Hidalgo, H.
Occasional Papers of the Museum
of Natural History, University of
Kansas 105: 1–11
Insects/Butterflies 1984
New Dismorphiinae of
Mexico and El Salvador
(Pieridae).
De La Maza,
E. J. & De La
Maza, E. R.
Revista de la Sociedad Mexicana
de Lepidopterología, A. C. 9: 3–12
Mammals 1984
Tendencias
poblacionales recientes
de once especies de
mamíferos de El
Salvador.
Ricord de
Mendoza, Z.
Museo de Historia
Natural de El
Salvador.
Report 17 pp.
Mammals 1985 Records of bats new to
El Salvador.
Hellebuyck,
V., Tamsitt, J.
R., &
Hartmann, J.
G..
Royal Ontario
Museum of Natural
History
Journal of Mammalogy
66: 689–693
Birds 1987
Status of uncommon
and previously
unreported birds of El
Salvador.
Thurber, W.
A., J. F.
Serrano, A.
Sermeño, &
M. Benítez
Cornell University
Laboratory of
Ornithology
Proceedings of the Western
Foundation for Vertebrate Zoology
3:109–293
Insects/Beetles 1989
Petrejoides salvadorae,
sp. nov. (Coleoptera:
Passalidae) from El
Salvador.
Schuster, J.
C.
Universidad del
Valle, Guatemala Florida Entomologist 72: 693–696
36
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Mammals 1993
The red brocket,
Mazama americana
(Artiodactyla: Cervidae),
in El Salvador.
Owen, J. G.
& Jones, J. K.
Texas Journal of Science
45: 106
Mammals 1995 Catálogo de la colección
de Mastozoología
Herrera de
Granados, A.
Museo de Historia
Natural de El
Salvador
Publicaciones Ocasionales
7: 1–25
Mammals 1997
Densidad poblacional
del venado cola blanca
(Odocoileus virginianus)
en el Parque Nacional
Montecristo, El
Salvador.
Reyes, E. &
Salinas, M.
Universidad de El
Salvador
Tesis Licenciatura en Biología. 55
p.
Flora 1997
Una especie nueva de
Pinguicula
(Lentibulariaceae) de
Centroamérica.
Zamudio, S. Acta Botánica Mexicana
40:65–69
Fauna 1998
Estudio de la fauna
vertebrada en la reserva
de la biosfera La
Fraternidad (El
Salvador, Guatemala y
Honduras).
Herrera, N.,
Rivera, R., &
Ibarra, R.
Fundación para la
Conservación de
los Ecosistemas
Mayas, Ciudad de
Guatemala.
Project Report
37
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Mammals 2000
Plan Operativo Anual
del Parque Nacional
Montecristo, Metapán,
Santa Ana. [Includes
first observations for the
park of several mammal
species.]
Latín, J. A.
Servicio de
Parques
Nacionales y Vida
Silvestre.
Servicio de Parques Nacionales y
Vida Silvestre. San Salvador. 90
pp.
Birds 2000
Lista de las aves del
Parque Nacional
Montecristo,
El Salvador.
Komar, O.
Natural History
Museum &
Biodiversity
Research Center,
University of
Kansas
SalvaNATURA, San Salvador.
Birds 2000
Black-vented Oriole
nests in a cabin in El
Salvador.
Komar, O.,
Rodríguez,
W., & Ibarra,
R.
Natural History
Museum &
Biodiversity
Research Center,
University of
Kansas
Wilson Bulletin
112: 551–553
38
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Insects/Beetles 2000
Leaf litter inhabiting
beetles as surrogates
for establishing priorities
for conservation of
selected tropical
montane cloud forests in
Honduras, Central
America (Coleoptera;
Staphylinidae,
Curculionidae).
Anderson, R.
S. & Ashe, J.
S.
Canadian Museum
of Nature
Biodiversity and Conservation
9: 617–653
Birds 2001
Contribuciones a la
avifauna de El Salvador.
[Reports two new bird
species for El Salvador
observed at Montecristo
in 1991.]
Komar, O.
Natural History
Museum &
Biodiversity
Research Center,
University of
Kansas
Cotinga 16: 40–45.
Birds 2002
Birds of Montecristo
National Park, El
Salvador.
Komar, O.
Natural History
Museum &
Biodiversity
Research Center,
University of
Kansas
Ornitología Neotropical
13:167–193.
(also available at http://www.bio-
nica.info/Biblioteca/Komar2002.pdf)
Birds 2002
Priority conservation
areas for birds in El
Salvador.
Komar, O.
Natural History
Museum &
Biodiversity
Research Center,
University of
Kansas
Animal Conservation 5: 173–183.
39
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Flora 2002
Estudio de Flora del
Área Natural Protegida
Montecristo Bajo el
Marco de la Evaluación
Ecológica Rápida
MAG-
PAES/CATIE.
Centro
Agronómico
Tropical de
Investigación y
Enseñanza
(CATIE)
MAG-PAES
Project Report 83 pp.
Flora 2002
Medición de
biodiversidad alfa y beta
en dos tipos de
vegetación del Parque
Nacional Montecristo, El
Salvador.
Murillo, L.
Escuela Agrícola
Panamericana
(Zamorano
University)
Tesis Lic. 92 pp.
Amphibians 2003
Monitoreo de anuros,
Parque Nacional
Montecristo.
Mendoza, C.
A.
Centro
Agronómico
Tropical de
Investigación y
Enseñanza
(CATIE)
MAG-PAES
Project Report 56 pp.
Mammals 2003
Evaluación ecológica
rápida estudio de
mastofauna área natural
protegida Montecristo.
Zaldaña, A.
A.
Centro
Agronómico
Tropical de
Investigación y
Enseñanza
(CATIE)
MAG-PAES
Project Report
40
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Birds 2003
Impacts of the loss of
neotropical highland
forests on species
distribution: a case
study using resplendent
quetzal an endangered
bird species.
Solórzano,
S., Castillo-
Santiago, M.
A.,
Navarrete-
Gutiérrez, D.
A., & Oyama,
K.
Centro de
Investigaciones en
Ecosistemas,
Universidad
Nacional
Autónoma de
México, Morelia,
Michoacán, Mexico
Biological Conservation
114: 341–349
Mammals 2004
Hábitat y distribución de
los quirópteros en el
Parque Nacional
Montecristo, Municipio
de Metapán,
departamento de Santa
Ana.
Aldana, I. M.,
Linares, J. E.,
& Valle
Hernández,
J. A.
Universidad de El
Salvador Tesis de Licenciatura 92 pp.
Mammals 2004
Proyecto ANABAT:
resultados preliminares
de identificación de
murciélagos en áreas
naturales protegidas de
El Salvador.
Girón, L. SalvaNATURA Ocelotlán 5:2–4.
Amphibians &
Reptiles 2004
Notes on a collection of
amphibians and reptiles
from El Salvador.
Leenders, T.
A. & Watkins-
Colwell, G. J.
Peabody Museum
of Natural History,
Yale University
Postilla (231): 1–31.
41
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Amphibians 2004
A new species of
Bolitoglossa (Amphibia:
Caudata:
Plethodontidae) from
montane forests in
Guatemala and El
Salvador.
Greenbaum,
E.
Natural History
Museum &
Biodiversity
Research Center,
University of
Kansas
Journal of Herpetology
38: 411–421
Birds 2004
Conservation priorities
for Resplendent
Quetzals based on
analysis of mitochondrial
DNA control-region
sequences.
Solórzano,
S., Baker, A.
J. & Oyama,
K.
Centro de
Investigaciones en
Ecosistemas,
Universidad
Nacional
Autónoma de
México, Morelia,
Michoacán, Mexico
Condor
106: 449–456.
Flora 2005
Thirty-five new species
of Eugenia (Myrtaceae)
from Mesoamerica.
Barrie, F.R. Novon
15(1): 4–49
Mammals 2005
Mastofauna del Parque
Nacional Montecristo, El
Salvador.
Herrera, N. &
A. Díaz
Herrera.
Ocelotlán
3 (1): 2–5.
Amphibians &
Reptiles 2005
Contribuciones al
conocimiento de la
herpetofauna de El
Salvador.
Herrera, N.,
V. Henríquez
& A. M.
Rivera.
Mesoamericana
9(3): 1–6.
Flora 2005
Especie nueva de
Albizia (Leguminosae:
Mimosoidae) de
Centroamérica.
Linares, J.L. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad
76:7–10.
42
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Birds 2005
Primer Informe Anual,
Proyecto Monitoreo
Permanente de Aves, El
Salvador.
Smith, J. R. &
Komar, O. SalvaNATURA Informe de Proyecto
Birds 2006
Nuevos registros para la
avifauna de
El Salvador.
Herrera, N.,
Rivera, R.,
Ibarra
Portillo, R., &
Rodríguez,
W.
Fundación
Zoológica de El
Salvador
Boletín de la Sociedad Antioqueña
de Ornitología
16: 1–19.
Birds 2006
Segundo Informe Anual,
Proyecto Monitoreo
Permanente de Aves, El
Salvador.
Andino, L. &
Komar, O. SalvaNATURA Informe de Proyecto
Amphibians &
Reptiles 2006
The amphibians and
reptiles of El Salvador.
Köhler, G., M.
Vesely & E.
Greenbaum.
Krieger Publishing Company,
Malabar, Florida. 238 pp.
Birds 2007
Tercer Informe Anual,
Proyecto Monitoreo
Permanente de Aves, El
Salvador.
Andino, L.,
Komar, O., &
Galán, V.
SalvaNATURA Informe de Proyecto
Amphibians 2007 Chytridiomycosis in El
Salvador.
Felger J.,
Enssle, J.,
Méndez, D.,
& Speare, R.
University of
Applied Sciences
of Eberswalde,
Faculty of Forestry,
Germany
Salamandra
43: 122–127.
Available on-line at
http://www.jcu.edu.au
/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs
/papers/felger-2007.pdf
43
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Flora/Biochemistry 2008
Sesquiterpenes from
Celastrus vulcanicola as
Photosynthetic Inhibitors
Torres-
Romero, D.,
King-Díaz, B.,
Jiménez, I.
A., Lotina-
Hennsen, B.,
& Bazzocchi,
I. L.
Universidad de La
Laguna (Tenerife,
Spain)
Journal of Natural Products
71 (8): 1331–1335
Birds 2008
Cuarto Informe Anual,
Proyecto Monitoreo
Permanente de Aves.
Andino, L.,
Galán, V., &
Komar, O.
SalvaNATURA Informe de Proyecto
Flora 2009
Una nueva combinación
y nuevos registros en
las Bromeliaceae de El
Salvador.
Morales, J.F,
& Cerén, J.
G.
Instituto Nacional
de Biodiversidad
(Costa Rica)
Darwiniana
47: 344–348.
Endangered
species 2009
Las KBAs de El
Salvador:
Establecimiento de una
Línea Base de Áreas
Claves para la
Biodiversidad.
Henríquez, V. SalvaNATURA www.salvanatura.org.
Insects/Beetles 2010
Beetles as Indicators for
Forest Conservation in
Central America
Cano, E.B., &
Schuster, J.
C.
International
Commission on
Tropical Biology
and Natural
Resources
E-book downloaded 15 Jan 2010
from http://www.eolss.net/ebooks/
44
Study topic Publication
year2 Study title Authors
Institution of first
author Serial publication or source
Amphibians &
Reptiles
2010 (in
press)
A conservation
assessment of
Salvadoran protected
areas: priorities and
recommendations based
on amphibian and reptile
distributions.
Greenbaum,
E. & Komar,
O.
University of Texas
at El Paso
―Conservation of Mesoamerican
Amphibians and Reptiles‖ (Eds., L.
D. Wilson & J. Townsend, Eagle
Mountain Publishing, Utah)
1Research published in the second half of 2009 will not appear in research indices until 2010, therefore this compilation may be
incomplete.
2The publication year refers to the date of publication of the final report or article, which may be several years after the date of field
work.
45
ANNEX 2. RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR MONTECRISTO NATIONAL PARK.
Field Study Description Priority*
Park Management
Evaluate floral responses to plantation harvesting
strategies Highest**
Evaluate impacts of invasive exotic species
(vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, etc.), and how to
control or eliminate them
Highest
Evaluate biodiversity impacts of coffee plantation
management. High
Evaluate impacts of tourism and visitor preferences High
Evaluate attitudes and impacts of park residents
toward park objectives. High
Monitor public health indicators in communities within
the park and its buffer zone. High
Identify opportunities and priorities for park expansion Lower
Flora
Evaluate locally endemic species against IUCN Red
List criteria. Highest
Formally describe new species for science High
Determine species that are vulnerable to climate
change Medium
Complete the floral inventory Medium
Carry out year-round phenology studies in major
ecosystems. Lower
46
Field Study Description Priority*
Limnology Monitoring of water quality and flow in the park’s
streams High
Ichthyology Inventory of fish in the park’s streams High
Mammalogy Study movements and population dynamics of
threatened mammals. Lower
Ornithology
Long-term monitoring of forest bird populations
(migratory and resident species) Highest**
Site fidelity and survivorship for threatened species. Highest**
Determine species that are vulnerable to climate
change High
Determine environmental correlates to altitudinal
movements of quetzals and other species. Lower
Herpetology
Ecology of locally endemic species, such as Abronia
montecristoi (lizard) and Bolitoglossa heiroreias
(salamander)
Highest**
Long term monitoring of threatened species,
especially amphibians (frogs and salamanders) Highest**
Determine species that are vulnerable to climate
change High
Malacology Inventory of the park’s snail and mollusk fauna Medium
Entomology
Inventory of the park’s insect fauna Medium
Description of new insect species for science Lower
47
Field Study Description Priority*
Arachnology Inventory of the park’s spider, mite, and scorpion
fauna Lower
Mycology Inventory of the park’s various classes of fungi
species Lower
Meteorology Establish climate monitoring stations throughout the
park’s natural and anthropogenic ecosystems High
*Highest=initiate within 1 year (**currently in process). High=initiate within 2 years.
Medium=initiate within 3 years. Lower=initiate within 4 years.