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.