arbelaez-cortes 2013 biodiversity&conservation

7/27/2019 Arbelaez-Cortes 2013 Biodiversity&Conservation

1/34

1 23

Biodiversity and Conservation

ISSN 0960-3115

Biodivers Conserv

DOI 10.1007/s10531-013-0560-y

Knowledge of Colombian biodiversity:ublished and indexed

Enrique Arbelez-Corts


2/34

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wishto self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com.


3/34

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Knowledge of Colombian biodiversity: published

and indexed

Enrique Arbelaez-Cortes

Received: 27 January 2013 / Accepted: 29 August 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Documenting patterns of published studies on the biodiversity of megadiverse

countries can offer valuable insights on global biodiversity knowledge. Here, I present

results from a bibliometric analysis of 5,264 indexed publications on biodiversity in

Colombia published during the period 19902011 and gathered by searching the Web of

Knowledge database. I classified studies into six overlapping subjects: taxa lists, new

taxa, new records, conservation, genetic diversity, and other. Publications were also

classified by geographic location and the taxonomic group studied. I found variation inthe number of studies per year, which presented a long-term trend of increasing volume.

The 31 continental departments of Colombia and both the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans

were represented in the studies, which included 98 taxonomic classes from 47 phyla.

However, there were strong biases in taxonomic, geographic, and subject coverage. For

instance, 75 % of studies focused on animals; and the Atlantic Ocean showed the highest

number of studies, followed by Antioquia and Valle del Cauca departments. Genetic

diversity and conservation were the least-studied subjects. I also found that Colombian

researchers and Colombian institutions have played an important role in documenting the

countrys outstanding biodiversity. However, Colombian biologists still prefer to publish

in domestic or Latin American journals, which are mainly regional and have low inter-national visibility. The patterns I present here can have important implications for opti-

mizing and guiding research on Colombian biodiversity, and the paper concludes with

some recommendations.

Keywords Bibliometrics Colombia Conservation Data base South

America Species Taxon

E. Arbelaez-Cortes (&)Museo de Zoologa, Departamento de Biologa Evolutiva, Facultad de Ciencias and Posgrado enCiencias Biologicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510Mexico, DF, Mexicoe-mail: [email protected]

123

Biodivers ConservDOI 10.1007/s10531-013-0560-y


4/34

Introduction

For more than 250 years, scientific information about biodiversity has been archived in

scientific collections and published in diverse media, but only now is it becoming available

digitally through several databases (e.g., Biodiversity Heritage Library 2012; Encyclopediaof Life 2012; Global Biodiversity Information Facility 2012). This relative ease of

accessing biodiversity information is opening a new approach in the study of biodiversity

(Soberon and Peterson 2004; Smith et al. 2009; Liu et al. 2011; Wheeler et al. 2012). One

field of study that bridges this new approach is bibliometrics, which uses several quanti-

tative procedures to analyze scientific publications, and is a useful tool for evaluating

scientific output and identifying gaps in knowledge (Pritchard 1969; Broadus 1987;

Glanzel et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2011; Caputo et al. 2012). For example, a recent bibliometric

analysis revealed that global biodiversity studies became an important and dynamic field of

environmental and ecological research in 1990, with a strong emphasis on conservation

and a high volume of publications from institutions in the United States (Liu et al. 2011).Biodiversity is a broad unifying concept, encompassing all forms and combinations of

natural variation at all levels of biological organization (Gaston and Spicer 2004), yet this

variation is not randomly distributed across the globe; for example, Latin America makes a

disproportionately large contribution to global biodiversity (Myers et al. 2000; Orme et al.

2005; Kier et al. 2009). Latin American countries also have a bio-environmental publi-

cation profile that focuses mainly on the biological, Earth, and space sciences (Glanzel

et al. 2006). The scientific output of Latin American countries is related to their economic

input, with the largest economies (i.e., Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina) having the highest

scientific production (De Moya-Anegon and Herrero-Solana 1999; Inonu 2003; Glanzelet al. 2006; Caputo et al. 2012). While other Latin American countries have increased their

scientific production during recent years (De Moya-Anegon and Herrero-Solana 1999;

Bucheli et al. 2012; Caputo et al. 2012), Latin American journals remain under-represented

in major international bibliographic databases, to the detriment of those publication efforts

(Gomez et al. 1999; Michan 2011; Nielsen-Munoz et al. 2012).

Documenting publication patterns of biodiversity knowledge in megadiverse countries

is an important component of understanding global biodiversity knowledge. Likewise, as

noted by Wilson (1984), biological knowledge has the potential to stimulate public interest

in a countrys biodiversity, to the degree that it will be considered part of the national

heritage. Colombia is a mid-sized country (1.1 million km2) located in northwestern SouthAmerica, with marine territory in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (IAvH 1998).

Colombia is one of the worlds most megadiverse countries, appearing frequently in the top

ranks of species richness for several taxa and probably harboring more than 10 % of global

biodiversity (Rangel-Ch. 1995, 2006; Samper 1997; IAvH 1998; Myers et al. 2000;

Andrade-C 2007; Bernal et al. 2007; Stiles et al. 2011; IUCN 2012a; Sistema de Infor-

macion sobre Biodiversidad de Colombia 2013). Governmental and non-governmental

institutions have long been aware of Colombias outstanding biodiversity, which is rec-

ognized by several international treaties (IAvH 1998). However, Colombian biodiversity is

not just a matter of conservation policy bound by international treaties, but also a source ofnational pride with strong connections to Colombian history, culture, and artistic expres-

sions (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1976; Osborn 1995; Legast 2000; Saenz 2001; Morcote-Ros

2006; Quintero 2011). Biodiversity can also be regarded as a storehouse of natural capital

that can provide a diverse array of socioeconomic benefits (Barrett et al. 2011; Atkinson

et al. 2012; Palmer and Di Falco 2012). A scientific understanding of Colombian

Biodivers Conserv

123


5/34

biodiversity is thus of critical importance, and describing patterns of biodiversity publi-

cations can help optimize further research on Colombias outstanding biota.

Several bibliometric and scientometric studies have examined scientific production in

Colombia (Meyer et al. 1995; De Moya-Anegon and Herrero-Solana 1999; Anduckia et al.

2000; Inonu 2003; Bucheli et al. 2012; Caputo et al. 2012). In particular, analyses ofColombian research in ecology and systematics describe the country as having made a

modest contribution in comparison with other tropical countries (Michan et al. 2008;

Stocks et al. 2008; Pitman et al. 2011). However, these studies did not include Colombian

journals, in which publications about Colombian biodiversity are common (Arbelaez-

Cortes 2013). Likewise, few studies have focused on analyzing Colombian biodiversity

using bibliometric approaches. One study analyzed the number of new species described

for Colombia over the last decade (Arbelaez-Cortes 2013), and two other studies focused

on vertebrate taxa (Estela et al. 2010; Stevenson et al. 2010). However, there is currently

no bibliometric analysis of Colombian biodiversity as a whole. In this paper I use an

explicit and repeatable method to analyze bibliographic information about Colombianbiodiversity over a 22-year period (19902011) and to identify several key gaps in

knowledge. More specifically, my aims are: I) to depict temporal trends and geographical

patterns, II) to examine taxonomic and subject coverage, and III) to describe basic bib-

liometric issues.

Methods

Data collection and classification

To compile a bibliographical dataset about Colombian biodiversity I searched the Web of

KnowledgeSM (all databases, including Biological Abstracts, Biosis, Current Contents

Connect, Web of Science, and Zoological Records) of Thomson Reuters (New York,

USA) through Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico database facilities. The version

of the Web of Science included the following editions: Science Citation Index Expanded,

Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Conference Proceedings

Citation Index-Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science &

Humanities. In February 2012 I performed searches in the topic field, using the word

Colombia plus the following keywords: biodiversity, biological, biology, checklist,ecological, ecology, endemic, endemism, fauna, faunistic, flora, floristic, species, and

taxon. I used these general keywords because I considered them to be present in a broad

range of biodiversity studies. The topic field retrieves results from: title, abstract, authors

key words, and the Keywords Plus of Web of Knowledge (i.e., a set of common words

obtained from the references cited in each study). All results were saved as text files and

compiled in a database manager. I restricted my search to the period of 19902011,

because a recent analysis has shown that biodiversity publications worldwide increased

dramatically after 1990 (Liu et al. 2011).

After eliminating duplicates, my searches yielded 9,404 studies. I then used the infor-mation from each study (i.e., title and abstract) to choose only studies conducted in

Colombian territory, or studies that were explicitly based on Colombian samples or

specimens, including the following kinds of studies: checklists, descriptions of new taxa,

new records or range extensions, revisions of taxonomic groups, ecology, conservation,

natural history, morphometry, biogeography, phylogenetics, phylogeography, population

genetics, ethnobiology, biodiversity management, and studies discussing issues of

Biodivers Conserv

123


6/34

conservation and access to biological information from a political, economic, or legal

standpoint. I excluded studies conducted in other countries as well as studies with insuf-

ficient information in the title or abstract to assign the study to Colombia with absolute

certainty. I also excluded studies related to other fields, such as: the humanities, geology,

paleontology, paleoecology, agronomy, aquaculture, phytopathology, biological control,veterinary, epidemiology, medicine, clinical studies of human infectious diseases, labo-

ratory essays in pathogens, and nomenclatural accounts. After this filtering, the final

database consisted of 5,264 studies on Colombian biodiversity. I then classified each study

under various categories (see details below) by reviewing titles, abstracts, and (in cases in

which abstracts and titles contained little information and the entire paper of the study was

accessible to me) the main text (N= 1,320). I dedicated approximately 3 min to reviewing

and classifying each study.

Each study was first classified by study subject, using six overlapping major subjects.

Thus, one study could correspond to more than one subject, but each subject was analyzed

independently. The six subjects were: I) Taxa lists: locality, regional, or countrychecklists, taxonomic revisions that included Colombian specimens, and some ecological

studies reporting checklists of genera or species assigned to a defined landscape/locality or

to an explicit ecological interaction (e.g., parasites from mammal species). II) New taxa:

studies including descriptions of new varieties, subspecies, species, and genera. Studies

which suggested but did not formally describe new species were not included in this

subject. Additionally, for each study in this subject I counted the number of new taxa

described and recorded their taxonomic category. III) New records: studies including

explicit reports of a taxon in a locality where it was not previously known. These studies

included both new records for Colombia and range extensions within the country. Whilenew species can also be considered as new records I did not include them in this subject.

IV) Conservation: studies dealing explicitly with the conservation or management of a

particular species, ecosystem, or landscape. Studies on general issues related to conser-

vation in the country were also included in this subject. V) Genetic diversity: studies

using any molecular or genetic marker (e.g., DNA sequences, AFLPs, microsatellites,

allozymes, or chromosomes) to analyze intraspecific variation. VI) Other: I used this

subject to group a heterogeneous set of studies dealing with different issues, such as natural

history, ecology, biological interactions, biogeography, taxonomy, systematics, morpho-

metric variation, reproductive biology, and development. A detailed classification of this

set of studies into their specific subjects would require a detailed review of each study,which was beyond of the scope of this work. Examples of studies assigned to each subject

can be provided upon request.

Each study was then classified by its geographic location. I recorded the department

(i.e., first administrative level in Colombian political division) or ocean where the study

was carried out. I designated studies on marine ecosystems and islands to the ocean where

they were conducted. In this way, studies from San Andres and Providence department, a

Colombian Caribbean archipelago, were recorded as Atlantic Ocean, while studies from

the Malpelo and Gorgona islands were recorded as Pacific Ocean. General studies (e.g.,

national taxa checklists or conservation analyses on a country scale), and studies conductedin more than two departments were defined as: Colombia. For studies conducted in two

departments I recorded both departments and analyzed them independently. When infor-

mation about the location of a study was not available I scored it as not indicated.

Likewise, when locality information was not clear in a study (e.g., mention of just one

locality in Colombia without another geographic reference), it was classified as not clear.

I used this geographic classification by department because it was available for the

Biodivers Conserv

123


7/34

majority of the studies. Additionally, several Colombian academic and conservation/

management institutions (e.g., universities and corporaciones regionales) are circum-

scribed to departments and focus their activities at that level.

Studies were also classified by the taxon examined. I used high taxonomic ranks

(kingdom, phylum, and class), as defined by the Catalogue of Life (Bisby et al. 2011), andascribed each study to the respective taxon included. Studies dealing with species from

different classes, phyla, or kingdoms were defined as several and studies with broader

issues (e.g., general issues about conservation or land cover analyses) were defined as not

applicable.

At this point I consider it necessary to clarify the reasons for including some studies

focused on humans among the results. Several issues of human biology are studied by

particular disciplines such as history, medicine, economy, anthropology, and in general

what is known as social sciences; and none of these were included in the database. Other

issues, however, are still in the domain of biology. For instance, ethnological knowledge of

natural resources is studied by ethnobiology, genetic variation in human populations is partof population genetics and evolutionary biology, and the study of human impacts on

ecosystems and the policy issues related to them fall into the context of conservation

biology. These three kinds of human-related studies were included in the database. For the

taxonomic classification of studies, only population genetic studies of humans were

classified as Mammals. Studies focused on the conservation of a particular taxon were

assigned to that taxon, while ethnobiology and other conservation studies were given the

taxonomic classification of several or not applicable because of the broad scope of such

works.

Assessment of omission error

Studies like this one, which are based on keyword searches in major databases, always

suffer from some degree of omission error (i.e., the number of studies identified by the

search is less than the number of existing studies). This error can be caused by the absence

of some journals in the databases and by the absence of some studies in the search results

due to inappropriate or incomplete keywords. While this kind of error can strongly bias the

results of bibliometric studies, it is rarely discussed (Lorini et al. 2011). Another kind of

error, the overestimation of the scientific production, was minimized because I filtered each

study by examining the information in the title and abstract (see above). Here, I describethree different ways in which I measured the omission error of my database.

First, I contacted 85 researchers via e-mail, including both Colombian researchers (from

different institutions) and foreign researchers associated with Colombian institutions. I

asked each researcher to supply five to ten references of scientific papers that he or she

considered to qualify as studies of Colombian biodiversity published during the period

19902011. I created a secondary list consisting of these references plus additional

references that I had classified as studies of Colombian biodiversity before the database

search. Then, I searched for all references of the secondary list in my database and

defined the omission error as the percentage of secondary list references not included inmy database. All omitted references were classified in the same way as references in my

database in order to check for any conspicuous bias of those references and the studies

included in my database.

Second, I used the information presented in a recent study of all papers based on field

work in the Andes and Amazon published between 1995 and 2008 in Biotropica and

Journal of Tropical Ecology (Pitman et al. 2011). I searched the studies included in my

Biodivers Conserv

123


8/34

database for the same period in those two regions and in both journals. After comparing my

numbers with the numbers in Pitman et al. (2011), I considered the differences a second

measure of omission error for my database.

Third, following a recommendation of one reviewer, I performed a search in the Web of

Science of studies published from 1990 to 2011 and including Colombia in the topic, andthen filtered them by the sub-category biodiversity conservation. This search retrieved

166 studies, but the titles of several studies made it clear that they were conducted in

another country or focused on paleontology. After removing them, 126 studies remained. I

searched for these in my database and considered the difference as a third measure of

omission error.

Data analyses

I used the information from the 5,264 studies to address questions related to four main

issues. First, I used bar graphs and three-year mean tendency lines to describe the temporaltrends in the number of studies per year for the complete dataset and for each subject

dataset independently. Additionally, I divided the complete dataset into four five-year

periods (19901994, 19951999, 20002004, and 20052009) to test whether there were

differences in the number of studies published per year, using a KruskalWallis ANOVA

followed by a MannWhitney pairwise comparison.

Second, I quantified the taxonomic coverage of studies about Colombian biodiversity by

tallying the frequency of the major taxonomic ranks. Studies ascribed to several or not

applicable were excluded (N= 635). To quantify trends in research on different taxo-

nomic classes I recorded the subjects of the studies conducted for each taxonomic classwhich included more than nine studies (N= 4,444).

Third, I used the department where each study was conducted to explore the geographic

distribution of studies on Colombian biodiversity. I analyzed all studies with location

information (N= 3,169), excluding studies ascribed to Colombia, not indicated, and

not clear. Studies conducted in two departments were counted twice, once for each

department. Additionally, I calculated the Simpson diversity index for each department,

using PAST (Hammer et al. 2001), considering the number of studies for each taxonomic

class. Because this index is sensitive to the most common taxa, low values could indicate

which Colombian departments have a publication bias toward one or a few taxonomic

classes. I then used ArcGis 9.3 (ESRI 2009) to assign the total number of studies, and thenumber of studies by subject, to the respective department or ocean. I classified these

results into five categories using natural breaks. I used this method to categorize the

departments because my data were not normally distributed (ShapiroWilk test, all

W\ 0.93, all P\ 0.05). I also depicted geographical trends of studies in botany, ento-

mology, and vertebrate zoology, using taxa that are the focus of such disciplines. I used

ArcGis 9.3 (ESRI 2009) to assign the total number of studies in each of these three

disciplines to the respective department, classifying these results into five categories using

natural breaks, because my data were not normally distributed (ShapiroWilk test all

W\0.9 all

P\0.01). I also examined studies conducted in two departments to analyzewhether neighboring departments were more frequently studied together than distant

departments.

Fourth, continental Colombia is typically divided into five broad regions: Amazon,

Andean, Caribbean, Orinoquia, and Pacific, and the numbers of species of both vertebrates

and plants are available for these regions (Rangel-Ch. 2006; Sistema de Informacion sobre

Biodiversidad de Colombia 2013). Therefore, in order to identify regions which are under-

Biodivers Conserv

123


9/34

researched in relation to their species richness I grouped vertebrate and plant studies per

department in each of the five regions, as indicated in Table 1. Because the Cauca, Narino,

and Valle del Cauca departments include significant territory in both the Pacific and

Andean regions, I reviewed the studies assigned to these departments to determine in

which region they were conducted.Fifth, I reviewed the journals included in my database and selected the ones with more

than 22 studies (i.e., journals with at least one study per year), and then assessed the

taxonomic coverage of each journal to depict basic bibliometric patterns of publications

about Colombian biodiversity. Additionally, I analyzed the words included in the abstracts

(N= 4,223 abstracts) using ConcApp V5 software (Greaves 2008), which provides several

utilities for text analysis. I extracted the ten most common words by year to check for

evidence of changes in researcher emphasis over time. I also examined the context in

which those common words were used. Additionally, I grouped abstracts according to the

three major disciplines (i.e., botany, entomology, and vertebrate zoology) to explore how

researchers in different disciplines communicate their findings about biodiversity inColombia. I also analyzed the abstracts and grouped them into mainland (excluding studies

defined as Colombia) and marine studies to test for differences in the focus of researchers

in the two ecosystems. For these latter analyses I extracted the twenty most common words

using ConcApp V5 (Greaves 2008). Once word counts were obtained, I excluded common

words such as prepositions, articles, pronouns, some verbs, and numbers (e.g., to, from,

the, of, we, are, was, two, three).

Sixth, bibliometric studies usually include analysis of the institutional affiliation of the

authors to depict geographic patterns of research institutions and collaboration among them

(Glanzel et al. 2006; Stocks et al. 2008; Liu et al. 2011). However, institutional informationis only available for searches conducted directly in the Web of Science database (i.e., full

Table 1 Number of studies on Colombian vertebrates and plants (19902011) for each major region

Region Departments included Vertebrates Plants

Studies Species Studiesperspecies

Studies Species Studiesperspecies

Amazon Amazonas, Caqueta, Guainia,Guaviare, Putumayo, andVaupes

110 1,903 0.058 86 5,300 0.016

Andean Antioquia, Boyaca, Caldas,Cauca*, Cundinamarca, Huila,Narino*, Norte de Santander,Quindo, Santander, Risaralda,Tolima, and Valle del Cauca*

505 2,019 0.250 208 11,500 0.018

Caribbean Atlantico, Bolvar, Cesar,Cordoba, La Guajira,Magdalena, and Sucre

136 1,289 0.106 48 3,151 0.015

Orinoquia Arauca, Casanare, Meta,Vichada

80 1,527 0.052 15 2,692 0.006

Pacific Cauca*, Choco, Narino*, andValle del Cauca*

86 1,491 0.058 56 4,525 0.012

Data on species number per region are from Rangel-Ch. (2006) and Sistema de Informacion sobre Bio-diversidad de Colombia (2013). Departments included in each region are indicated and asterisks indicatedepartments with significant territory in two regions

Biodivers Conserv

123


10/34

record option), and not in searches conducted in the broader Web of Knowledge. Besides,

analyses based on institutional affiliations do not reflect researcher nationality (Stocks et al.

2008). Therefore, in order to explore the nationality of the authors contributing to biodi-

versity research in Colombia I used ConcApp V5 (Greaves 2008) to extract the 100 most

common surnames in the author field of my database. Afterwards, I searched for those100 surnames in an online list of Colombian surnames (Genealogas de Colombia 2010). I

considered the proportion of the top 100 author surnames identified as Colombian sur-

names as a proxy of the contribution of Colombian researchers to biodiversity knowledge

of the country. I am aware that this measure is based in the assumption that authors with

such surnames are Colombian citizens. However, this assumption is plausible because I

analyzed only studies about Colombia, several of them published in Colombian or Latin

American journals (see below). I also applied my personal knowledge of the authors

publishing on Colombian biodiversity, combined with specific queries to my database, to

identify authors with high production and those assigned erroneously as Colombian or

foreign according to the online list of Colombian surnames (Genealogas de Colombia2010).

Results

My database comprised 5,264 studies on Colombian biodiversity published during the

years 19902011, in 849 journals and 72 symposia and conferences. These studies included

information about 98 taxonomic classes of 47 phyla ascribed to Animalia (3,947 studies),

Archaea (1), Bacteria (32), Chromista (12), Fungi (115), Plantae (810), Protozoa (55), andViruses (29). Additionally, 169 studies considered several kingdoms, while 97 were not

taxon-specific. The studies were conducted in Colombias 31 continental departments and

in both oceans, with 1,759 studies classified as Colombia and 337 as not indicated or

not clear. The secondary list of 280 references provided by 29 researchers from 17

institutions in five countries included 37 studies that were not present in my database (an

omission error of 13 %), but I did not find any conspicuous bias in the coverage of those

omitted references (see below). The second and third omission errors were lower: 9 and

9.6 %, respectively.

There was considerable variation in the number of studies per year, with a general trend

towards an increase in the number of studies through time (Figs. 1, 2). Differences in thenumber of studies among five-year periods were significant (Fig. 1, KruskalWallis

Anova: P = 0.0005, MannWhitney pairwise comparisons: all P\ 0.05). The number of

studies per year grew from 64 in 1990 to a peak of 426 in 2008, but declined during

20092011 (Fig. 2). A continuous growth rate was evident only for the subjects taxa lists,

new records, and other, while the remaining subjects showed noticeable oscillations.

The other and new taxa subjects accounted for the highest number of studies, 2,173 and

1,536 respectively, while conservation and genetic diversity accounted for only 460 and

287 studies, respectively. The new taxa subject included studies describing 2,646 new

taxa (50 genera, 2,490 species, 98 subspecies, and 8 varieties). Additionally, 24 new taxawere mentioned but not formally described.

Studies were biased toward animals (75 %), and other taxa were represented by few

studies. Only 29 taxonomic classes had more than nine studies (Table 2) while 38 classes

were represented by just one or two studies. Insecta (1,564 studies) was the most studied

class, followed by Magnoliopsida and by the five classes of the phylum Chordata

(Table 2). The remaining 22 classes comprised only 17.3 % of the studies. Taxonomic

Biodivers Conserv

123


11/34

coverage of each subject (Table 2) was similar to the major pattern depicted by the total set

of studies. However, conservation studies focused on some classes of Animalia and

Plantae, with 48 % of studies conducted on Aves and Mammalia. By comparison, the

genetic diversity subject included a high number of studies of classes such as Sorda-

riomycetes and Trypanosomatidae, taxonomic groups that were poorly represented in other

subjects.

The number of studies for each Colombian department and ocean varied broadly (from

9 to 448 studies, N= 3,169; Fig. 3). The most studied category ([208 studies) included

the Atlantic Ocean with 448 studies, followed by Antioquia (286 studies), Valle del Cauca

(285) and Cundinamarca (270). The second category (154207 studies) included Ama-

zonas in southern Colombia, the Pacific Ocean, and Magdalena in the north. The following

two categories (43153 studies) comprised mainly departments from the west (Pacific

region) and from central Colombia (Andean region). The least-studied category (\43studies) comprised 14 departments (almost one half of Colombia), some located in the east

and south (Orinoquia and Amazon regions) and others in the north (Caribbean region).

Analyses by subject showed a similar geographic pattern. However, Valle del Cauca and

Cundinamarca dropped to a less-studied category for one or two subjects (e.g., conser-

vation, genetic diversity, and new records), while other departments such as Boyaca,

Choco, Narino, and Santander moved up in the ranking for some subjects (e.g., conser-

vation and new taxa). Studies conducted in two departments (N= 214) were more

common (69 %) between neighboring departments. The Simpson diversity index indicated

that Valle del Cauca and Cundinamarca, both at the top of the total number of studies,

dropped to lower ranks. This is related to a bias towards studies of Insecta, which

accounted for 88 and 129 studies, for Cundinamarca and Valle del Cauca, respectively

(Fig. 4).

The analysis of the three major disciplines (Fig. 4) showed a similar pattern as that

already described for the Colombian mainland. For instance, Antioquia and Cundinamarca

appeared at the top in two disciplines, and Amazonas and Valle del Cauca were in the first

Fig. 1 Box plot depicting thenumber of studies on Colombianbiodiversity per year, for four5-year periods

Biodivers Conserv

123


12/34

rank in one discipline and in the second category for the other two disciplines. Magdalena

and Narino appeared in the second category for two disciplines, while several departments

in the east and north were always at the bottom of the ranking. The analysis by region

(Table 1) showed that vertebrates were better studied than plants in all of the five

Colombian regions, both in total number of papers and when study number was corrected

by species richness. In the Andes, the most studied region for both taxa, I calculated that

there was one study per four vertebrate species while this value was as low as one study per

56 plant species.

The analysis of the 37 omitted references revealed no bias in their coverage. For

instance, they included 13 Colombian departments and both oceans, plus other studies

classified as Colombia and not indicated. Taxonomically, they included animals in 25

Fig. 2 Temporal patterns of the number of studies per year on Colombian biodiversity (19902011) for theentire dataset and for six subjects (taxa lists, new taxa, new records, conservation, genetic diversity, andother). The total number of studies for each year is indicated above each bar. The red line depicts a 3-yearmean tendency. (Color figure online)

Biodivers Conserv

123


13/34

Table2

Numberof

studiesonColombianbiodiversity(19902011)foreachofthetaxonomicclassesincludedineachs

tudy

Taxa-kingdom

Taxa-phyla

Taxa-class

Total

Taxalists

Newtaxa

Newrecords

Conservation

Geneticdiversity

Other

Animalia

A

nnelida

Clitellata

36

14

5

3

1

0

25

Animaia

A

rthropoda

Arachnida

151

45

73

19

1

0

44

Animalia

A

rthropoda

Branchiopoda

10

2

3

2

0

1

4

Animalia

A

rthropoda

Insecta

1,564

471

685

184

41

67

452

Animalia

A

rthropoda

Malacostraca

136

42

57

30

1

1

30

Animalia

A

rthropoda

Maxillopoda

13

5

4

2

0

0

4

Animalia

C

hordata

Actinopterygii

371

89

72

38

17

9

206

Animalia

C

hordata

Amphibia

245

47

110

15

21

2

102

Animalia

C

hordata

Aves

426

109

24

104

75

5

203

Animalia

C

hordata

Elasmobranchii

32

5

2

10

2

0

14

Animalia

C

hordata

Mammalia

339

58

22

23

58

57

189

Animalia

C

hordata

Reptilia

159

22

31

11

16

7

106

Animalia

C

nidaria

Anthozoa

53

13

5

3

10

2

37

Animalia

M

ollusca

Bivalvia

27

1

2

2

3

1

21

Animalia

M

ollusca

Gastropoda

59

12

28

8

1

2

18

Animalia

N

ematoda

Secernentea

19

3

8

4

0

3

10

Animalia

Platyhelminthes

Trematoda

17

4

8

7

0

0

6

Animalia

Porifera

Demospongia

e

15

1

6

0

0

0

10

Fungi

A

scomycota

Lecanoromyc

etes

14

5

2

5

0

1

6

Fungi

A

scomycota

Sordariomycetes

22

0

7

1

0

15

6

Fungi

B

asidiomycota

Agaricomyce

tes

41

11

19

8

0

2

11

Plantae

B

ryophyta

Bryopsida

14

4

1

9

0

0

2

Plantae

M

agnoliophyta

Liliopsida

151

27

70

16

8

3

50

Plantae

M

agnoliophyta

Magnoliopsid

a

428

62

223

17

19

36

145

Biodivers Conserv

123


14/34

Table2

continued

Taxa-kingdom

Taxa-phyla

Taxa-class

Total

Taxalists

Newtaxa

Newrecords

Conservation

Geneticdiversity

Other

Plantae

M

archantiophyta

Jungermanniopsida

14

5

5

3

1

0

5

Plantae

Pteridophyta

Filicopsida

29

7

14

5

1

0

8

Protozoa

A

picomplexa

Notassigned

12

0

0

0

0

12

0

Protozoa

Euglenozoa

Trypanosoma

tidae

19

0

1

0

0

16

4

Viruses

N

otassigned

Notassigned

28

0

0

1

0

14

14

Dataarepresentedfo

rthetotaldatasetandforsixsubjects

Biodivers Conserv

123


15/34

studies and plants in six studies. The remaining six studies were classified as not appli-

cable. Most corresponded to the other and taxa lists subjects. Chronologically, they

included studies published in most years from 1990 to 2011. Finally, 13 of those studies

were from Colombian journals, some of which were not included in the Web of Knowledge

database.While 849 journals were represented in my database, studies on Colombian biodiversity

were concentrated in a few journals. Only 32 journals included more than 22 studies (Table 3

in Appendix), while 590 included just one or two studies. The 32 top journals accounted for

46.7 % of studies. The top ten journals (Table 3 in Appendix) included seven Colombian

journals, of which Caldasia was by far the most important both in number of studies and in

taxonomic and subject coverage. The journals Zootaxa, Revista Colombiana de Entomo-

loga, and Revista de Biologa Tropical were the next most important, with the latter showing

the broadest taxonomic and subject coverage after Caldasia. Half of these 32 top journals

were indexed in the 2011 Web of Science with an impact factor. The two journals with the

highest impact factor were Biotropica and Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, but theyranked only 19th and 20th in number of publications on Colombian biodiversity. The

majority of these listed journals (Table 3 in Appendix) focused on Animalia, including

seven focused on Insecta and four on Aves. Of those 32 journals, seven included studies up

until 2010, in spite of publishing volumes in 2011.

The most common words in the abstracts for every year were: species, Colombia,

described, and new. The word species was used in different contexts, such as

descriptions of new species, reports of species counts, and descriptions of the natural

history of a particular species. The words new and described were most commonly

related to the description of new taxa. The other six common words varied among years butin general were similar to the previous ones (e.g., sp., genus, Colombian, nov., and

illustrated). Only a few words showed some trend. For example, Brazil was common

during the first half of the 1990s and then disappeared; forest appeared during 8 years and

was constant from 1997 to 2001, then disappeared and was common again in 2010.

Species, Colombia, and new were also among the most common words for major

disciplines and mainland and marine studies (Table 4 in Appendix). However, the latter

analyses showed other noteworthy results. For instance, both botany and entomology

showed other Latin American country names as common words, sharing Ecuador and

Peru, while botany and vertebrate zoology shared Andes. Mainland and marine studies

shared half of their common words, but exclusive words were illustrative of the focus ineach main ecosystem (Table 4 in Appendix).

Most author surnames (87 of the top-100 list, see Table 5 in Appendix) were identified

as Colombian according to the list of surnames consulted. However, G. Kattan, a prolific

Colombian biologist and a well-known leader in research on Colombian biodiversity, did

not appear as Colombian in the list of Colombian surnames. In contrast, the list identified

as Colombian the surnames Johnson and Brown, which in this case correspond to foreign

researchers (e.g., K. Johnson, W.C. Johnson, C.D. Johnson, J.L. Brown, and J.W. Brown).

J. J. Jimenez and M. Ruiz-Garca are productive Spanish authors who were also identified

as Colombian, and the latter is associated with a Colombian university. T. Defler, J.D. Lynch, and F. G. Stiles are other productive foreign researchers working at Colombian

institutions. My analysis was also useful for identifying Colombian authors who have

contributed large bodies of work on Colombian biodiversity, including: A. Acero, R.

Alvarez-Leon, G. Amat-Garca, N.E. Ardila, I. Armbrecht, E.E. Bejarano, J. Betancur, R.

Benal, R. Botero-Trujillo, A. Cadena, C.D. Cadena, M.R. Campos, J. Cavelier, P. Chacon,

L.M. Constantino, F. Escobar, F. Fernandez, E. Florez, C.B. Garca, J. Garzon-Ferreira, D.

Biodivers Conserv

123


16/34

Biodivers Conserv

123


17/34

Giraldo-Canas, R. Gonzalez, V.H. Gonzalez, J.A. Maldonado-Ocampo, L.G. Naranjo, G.

Nates-Parra, V.P. Paez, L.C. Pardo-Lorcano, C. Roman-Valencia, P.R. Stevenson, P.M.

Ruiz-Carranza, J.A. Salazar, O.D. Solano, S. Zea, and M. d. C. Zuniga.

Discussion

The 5,264 studies on Colombian biodiversity compiled in this study represent the broadest

bibliographic, subject, and taxonomic coverage of any bibliometric study on biodiversityfor a Neotropical country. This is mostly because other studies focused on particular

regions, taxa, subjects, or journals, or used a less comprehensive database (Cortes and

Nielsen 2002; Pitman et al. 2007; Michan et al. 2008; Stocks et al. 2008; Estela et al. 2010;

Stevenson et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011; Pitman et al. 2011; Nielsen-Munoz et al. 2012;

Arbelaez-Cortes 2013). For instance, a study of global patterns of biodiversity publications

did not include Colombia among the most productive countries, despite having gathered

information for a broader period (19002009), and listed ten countries with fewer than

1,000 studies (Liu et al. 2011). This probably reflects differences in data collection

methods. Despite those differences, it is possible to compare my results, to some extent,

with other studies.The number of studies on Colombian biodiversity for the period 19902011 is relatively

high, considering that Colombia spends only 0.15 % of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

on research and development while countries with the highest scientific production spend

over 2 % (The World Bank2012). However, Colombian scientific production is still below

the expected output according to its GDP (De Moya-Anegon and Herrero-Solana 1999;

Inonu 2003). Biodiversity publications represent around 30 % of Colombian scientific

production (E. Arbelaez-Cortes unpublished data), which is similar to the proportions

reported for other Latin American countries (Glanzel et al. 2006; Caputo et al. 2012).

Fig. 4 Geographic patterns of the number of studies on Colombian biodiversity (19902011) for eachdepartment according to three major disciplines

Fig. 3 Geographic patterns of the number of studies on Colombian biodiversity (19902011) and theSimpson diversity index for each department and ocean. Number of studies is presented for the total datasetand for six subjects (taxa lists, new taxa, new records, conservation, genetic diversity, and other). Insetmapdepicts the location of Colombia in South America

b

Biodivers Conserv

123


18/34

The increasing number of studies per year is not an idiosyncratic characteristic of

Colombia, but rather reflects changes in the international research landscape (De Moya-

Anegon and Herrero-Solana 1999; Glanzel 2001; Michels and Schmoch 2012), particularly

in the growth rate of biodiversity publications over the last two decades (Liu et al. 2011),

and is similar to the pattern found for Venezuela (Caputo et al. 2012). However, mydatabase indicated a decrease of studies by 2011. This could be related to a methodological

bias, since my search was conducted in February 2012, and some journals probably had not

fully updated their 2011 volumes at that time.

Publications on Colombian biodiversity covered several subjects. However, the subject

other accounted for the highest number of studies. Because other was a subject com-

prising several kinds of studies, a detailed classification of these studies could be more

informative, and deserves further attention. With regard to the new taxa subject, I found

that at least 2,490 new species were described in Colombia between 1990 and 2011. It has

been shown that the number of studies describing new species has increased both globally

and in Latin America (Michan 2011; Costello et al. 2013). In fact, descriptions of newspecies in Colombia grew from the year 2000 to 2009, and averaged 0.73 % of all new

species in the world, but there was ample variation among taxa (0.069.59 %, Arbelaez-

Cortes 2013). Another notable result is that departments with the largest cities in the

country (i.e., Bogota, Cali, and Medelln) account for the most studies describing new taxa.

In fact, the most recent new bird species (Thryophilus sernai, Lara et al. 2012) was

described from a locality less than 50 km from Medelln. This indicates that there is a large

number of unknown species even in the best-studied regions of Colombia, implying that

the species numbers that make Colombia a megadiverse country are still low in comparison

with their real numbers. One aim of biodiversity research is to describe ten million speciesin less than 50 years (Wheeler et al. 2012); therefore, a large portion of the international

resources assigned to complete the global biodiversity inventory must be allocated to

megadiverse countries such as Colombia in order to increase the rate of new species

description.

While studies in the taxa lists and new records subjects are basic and descriptive,

they are important for documenting biodiversity at local and regional scales, and offer key

support for conservation initiatives. Moreover, species lists can be used as data sources for

more general studies (e.g., Kattan and Franco 2004; Kattan et al. 2004; Patten and Smith-

Patten 2008; Bass et al. 2010). However, despite the high number of descriptive studies,

the basic documentation of biodiversity is still poor for several Colombian departmentsand for different taxa. Studies on conservation in Colombia focused on a few taxonomic

classes, reflecting the taxonomic bias in global conservation (IUCN 2012b), and most of

the territory had few publications. Additionally, studies on conservation in Colombia

represented only 9 % of the database, in contrast to a global analysis indicating that

conservation held a central position in biodiversity studies (Liu et al. 2011). Finally, studies

on genetic diversity showed a bias towards taxa related to infectious diseases, taxa of

economic importance, and humans (which comprise one half of mammal studies in this

subject).

The most conspicuous characteristic of the taxonomic coverage of Colombian studies isthat studies of Animalia outnumber those of Plantae. This same result had been already

reported for Costa Rica (Nielsen-Munoz et al. 2012) and for studies about systematics in

Latin America (Michan et al. 2008). While Plantae ranks second among taxa reporting the

most descriptions of new species for Colombia, they only represent 1.25 % of species

Biodivers Conserv

123


19/34

described for the world, a proportion that is lower than the proportion represented by new

Colombian vertebrate taxa (Arbelaez-Cortes 2013). The low number of studies of Plantae

is even evident when compared with studies of vertebrates. The relatively few publications

on Plantae over the last two decades is rare and merits further analyses, because Colombia

has an outstanding flora, almost two million herbarium specimens, and a long tradition inbotany (Daz 1991; Bernal et al. 2007).

The most notable feature in the geographic distribution of studies on Colombian

biodiversity is the high rank of the Atlantic Ocean. This parallels the results of

Miloslavich et al. (2010), suggesting that biodiversity of Colombian Atlantic Ocean was

well represented in Caribbean marine biodiversity databases. The Pacific Ocean showed

fewer publications than the Atlantic, probably due to the relatively more easy access to

the second region. Besides, my word count analysis suggested that marine studies were

biased toward coral reefs, which are more common and species rich in the Colombian

Atlantic Ocean (Garzon-Ferreira and Pinzon 1999; Reyes 2000). However, a biblio-

graphic analysis of marine birds (Estela et al. 2010) indicated a greater number ofstudies in the Pacific Ocean, implying that the pattern presented here could change

depending on the taxa analyzed. It is worth noting that the high rank of both

Colombian maritime territories is the result of comparing them to continental depart-

ments. When all continental studies are clumped they comprised 79 % of all studies,

leaving only 21 % for marine studies (including islands). Other bibliometric studies

have reported for Revista de Biologa Tropical that 27 % of studies are on marine

biodiversity (Cortes and Nielsen 2002; Nielsen-Munoz et al. 2012), while analyses of

particular disciplines have shown that marine organism are underrepresented (517 %)

in comparison with mainland organisms (Hampe and Petit 2005; Beheregaray 2008).Also, journals that focus on marine ecosystems are poorly represented among the most

active journals publishing on global biodiversity (Liu et al. 2011). Therefore, the

proportion of studies on marine biodiversity in Colombia falls into the expected range

for the marine ecosystem.

The geographic patterns found for continental Colombia were expected because the

highest numbers of studies were from departments that harbor the most productive

academic institutions (Meyer et al. 1995; Anduckia et al. 2000; Bucheli et al. 2012).

However, other departments such as Amazonas, Choco, and Magdalena ranked highly

for several subjects. Those departments are of particular interest for biodiversity

research because they harbor extensive areas covered by forests of extraordinary speciesrichness or endemism (Faber-Langendoen and Gentry 1991; Duivenvoorden 1994;

Lynch 2005; Bass et al. 2010; Forero-Medina and Joppa 2010). In contrast, several

departments in eastern and southeastern Colombia presented few studies. This is

probably a consequence of the difficult access of these areas or the high number of

armed actions there (Franco et al. 2006; Vicepresidencia de la Republica de Colombia

2008, Regalado 2013). In fact, some studies have discussed the relationship between

Colombias armed conflict and its biodiversity (Davalos 2001; Alvarez 2002; Fjeldsa

et al. 2005; Lynch and Arroyo 2009; Stevenson et al. 2010). The low number of

studies in northern departments could be caused by a focus there on marine research. Instudies involving two departments I found that neighboring departments were more

common, suggesting that they are studied together probably because the ecosystem or

taxon under study ranges across the area.

It is clear that the number of studies presented here should be considered as a minimum

of the total scientific production on Colombian biodiversity, due to the omission error of

my database and because of the several studies that I assigned to general definitions (e.g.,

Biodivers Conserv

123


20/34

location = Colombia and Class = several). However, the omission error estimates

suggest that my results are close to the total number of studies. I am aware that there is a

large volume of information on Colombian biodiversity in several books that could fill

some of the taxonomic, geographical, or subject gaps (e.g., Rangel-Ch. 1995; IAvH 1998;

Rangel-Ch. 2000; Ardila et al. 2002; Calderon et al. 2002; Rangel-Ch. 2004; Chaves andSantamara 2006; Garca and Galeano 2006; Amat-G et al. 2007; Rangel-Ch. 2008; Ro-

mero et al. 2008; Rangel-Ch. 2009, 2010). However, books were not included in the data

source that I used, and I did not find another way to conduct an explicit and reproducible

methodology to analyze book references. Other than books, gray literature is another

source of biodiversity information in tropical countries (Pitman et al. 2007; Estela et al.

2010; Stevenson et al. 2010; Corlett 2011), but such documents are neither visible/

accessible nor easily citable.

Despite the high volume of publications on Colombian biodiversity, the majority of this

information remains in journals that have low to no impact factor; a fact that is clearly

detrimental to the visibility of these works. As documented for Brazilian scientists (Glanzelet al. 2006), Colombian biologists still prefer to publish in domestic and regional journals.

Latin American journals are under-represented in international databases, partially because

of language and financial reasons (Gomez et al. 1999; Michan 2011). Therefore, the

scientific community must read and cite Latin American journals (several of them are open

access), which include a lot of information from a region of incomparable biodiversity.

Another feature of Colombian biodiversity publications is that none of the top journals

identified here are among the top journals identified in a global assessment of biodiversity

publications (Liu et al. 2011). As previously noted, this could be explained by methodo-

logical differences, but probably also indicates that Colombian biodiversity research is outof the mainstream of the field. However, several good examples of research on Colombian

biodiversity dealing with topics of broad interest have been published in top-level journals

(e. g., Andrade and Rubio-Torgler 1994; Duivenvoorden 1994; Arango-Velez and Kattan

1997; Bernal 1998; Cavelier et al. 1998; Cavelier and Tobler 1998; Garca et al. 1998;

Renjifo 1999; Restrepo et al. 1999; Restrepo and Vargas 1999; Valenzuela 2000; Renjifo

2001; Luddecke 2002; Zapata and Herron 2002; Armbrecht et al. 2005; Etter et al. 2005;

Numa et al. 2005; Rodriguez-Buritica et al. 2005; Arbelaez-Cortes et al. 2007; Camargo

et al. 2009; Muriel and Kattan 2009; Castellanos-Galindo et al. 2010; Etter et al. 2011;

Stevenson 2011).

The role of megadiverse countries in advancing the knowledge of their own bio-diversity seems to be increasing, as documented by the increase in taxonomists based

in South America and Asia (Costello et al. 2013). A remarkable feature of publications

about Colombian biodiversity is that they are dominated by authors with Colombian

surnames (probably Colombian citizens), as well as foreign researchers affiliated with

Colombian institutions. This feature is shared with Brazil, Mexico, and the Madre de

Dios department of Peru, where lead authors of ecological or biodiversity studies,

tended to belong to local institutions; the pattern stands in contrast, however, to results

from Costa Rica and Panama, where publications have mainly been written by authors

from foreign institutions (Pitman et al. 2007; Stocks et al. 2008; but see Nielsen-Mun

ozet al. 2012). This result could indicate a consolidation of biodiversity research around

Colombian scientists and institutions, and is a good sign which indicates that biodi-

versity is a mature field of Colombian science. Nevertheless, a precise quantification

of the contribution of Colombia to the knowledge of its own biodiversity deserves an

Biodivers Conserv

123


21/34

analysis based on institutional affiliation (e.g., Glanzel et al. 2006; Stocks et al. 2008;

Liu et al. 2011).

Finally, my results suggest some recommendations for improving the documentation

of knowledge about Colombian biodiversity. This could be addressed by two different,

but complementary, approaches: first, publishing more and in more visible journals;and second, conducting more research on particular targets. The first approach is rel-

atively less expensive than the second, and could quickly increase publication volume

in coming years, continuing the trend depicted here. While precise numbers are not

available, the grey literature (i.e., theses and technical reports), laboratory and field

notebooks, and scientific collections (some with data available through internet) are

other sources of data about Colombian biodiversity. The use of these already-collected

data to generate published studies is a priority. In fact, there are examples in which

combining such data with the published literature has generated information at local,

departmental, and regional scales (Bass et al. 2010; Miloslavich et al. 2010; Arbelaez-

Cortes et al. 2011; Castellanos-Galindo et al. 2011). In addition, universities andfunding agencies could ask researchers to include published studies, or studies sub-

mitted to journals, in the results expected from the research they support. These same

institutions, and other academic associations, could also promote more training in

academic writing. In addition, researchers must recognize that much of their data merits

publication and that there are particular journals specialized in publishing basic

information about biodiversity (e.g., Check List: Journal of species lists and distribu-

tion). Table 3 in Appendix presents a list of the most active journals publishing on

Colombian biodiversity that could be useful for some researchers to identify suitable

forums for their studies. The editors of these journals also have a responsibility tomaintain not only the quality and visibility of the studies they publish, but also the

continuity and regularity of published volumes in order to satisfy international stan-

dards for indexing.

The second approach is to conduct more research on particular targets. First, I have

shown that a large part of Colombia (the Amazon, Orinoquia, and part of the Caribbean) is

poorly represented and must be considered the principal geographical priorities for basic

research during the next years. However, those regions have been under a severe armed

conflict over the last several years and their poor knowledge is due to a complex reality that

does not reflect scientific negligence (see Regalado 2013). In fact, Colombian institutions

have tried to fill those gaps with particular publications (e.g., Romero et al. 2009 and theseries: Field studies of the fauna and flora of La Macarena, Colombia). Biological field

stations are keystones for conducting research in the Amazon and Orinoquia (Pitman 2010;

Stevenson et al. 2010; Pitman et al. 2011), and it is therefore necessary to both increase

support for existing stations (e.g., Caparu in Vaupes) and create or reactivate others. The

second target is to increase the number of published studies on plants. My data indicate that

more such studies are necessary for the Andean region (which has the richest flora in

Colombia), particularly in the departments of Cauca, Caldas, Huila, Quindo, and Tolima.

Third, studies dealing with conservation and genetic diversity are common in the inter-

national research landscape and are another immediate priority for research in Colombia.While the number of these studies has increased in Colombia, it remains modest. The

largest obstacle to conducting research based on genetic information in Colombia is

obtaining the permits necessary to access genetic resources and collect specimens (Ne-

moga and Rojas 2007; Fernandez 2011). Therefore, it is necessary that the governmental

Biodivers Conserv

123


22/34

agencies responsible for issuing permits understand the relevance of scientific research and

provide efficient and prompt services for researchers, something that seems to be occurring

(Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible 2013). Conservation studies are also an

urgent priority in the Andean region, which faces the highest anthropogenic pressures and

has the greatest species diversity for several taxa. Such studies are particularly necessary inBoyaca, Caldas, Huila, Norte de Santander, and Tolima. Fourth, the least-studied taxa

probably harbor a large bulk of Colombian biodiversity and increasing knowledge about

such taxa is another priority. Knowledge about groups such as Archaea, Bacteria, and

Chromista, in addition to particular groups of Animalia (e.g., Rotifera, Acanthocephala),

Fungi (e.g., Glomeromycota), and Protozoa (e.g., Mycetozoa, Cercozoa), could be

enhanced by implementing new research techniques and strengthening cooperation with

foreign researchers. More precise targets could be defined for particular taxa or subjects

(e.g., Arbelaez-Cortes 2013), and by the whole Colombian scientific community, of which

I have indicated and cited some of the most prominent biodiversity researchers over the last

two decades. Their opinions and experience are crucial for optimizing knowledge aboutColombian biodiversity: a unique, irreplaceable, and very important natural resource of the

country.

Conclusion

Despite several economic, security, and political problems faced by Colombia over the

last century, I documented a growth in the number of publications on Colombianbiodiversity over the last two decades. I also highlighted several gaps in the geo-

graphical, taxonomic, and subject coverage that should be addressed in the near future.

Colombian researchers and institutions have played an important role in documenting

the biodiversity of their country; however, Colombian biologists must find a way to

contribute with higher impact publications in order to gain more attention from the

international community. The patterns presented here reflect the general status of

published studies on Colombian biodiversity and can be useful for optimizing and

guiding research within this field. Colombia ranks among the elite of megadiverse

countries and their outstanding biodiversity is of great scientific importance. In addi-

tion, Colombian biodiversity is a source of national pride and is tightly intertwinedwith the cultural richness of the country. Therefore, biodiversity should remain a top

research priority for Colombian science.

Acknowledgments Thanks to the Direccion General de Bibliotecas of Universidad Nacional Autonoma deMexico (DGB-UNAM) for providing access to the database and to the journals. Thanks to CONACyT -Mexicofor a graduate studies scholarship (# 210543). I also thank A. S. Nyari, T. Kobelkowsky-Vidrio, I. MacGregor-Fors, N. Pitman, and two anonymous reviewers who made valuable comments and corrections that improvedthis manuscript. A special acknowledgment to the researchers who sent me the references used to test theomission error of my database.

Appendix

See Tables 3, 4, and 5.

Biodivers Conserv

123


23/34

Table3

The32mostactivejournalsinColombianbiodiversityresearch(19902011)

Journal

Journal

country

Yearofthe

firstand

lastpaper

2011

Impact

factor

Taxonomic

classes

included

Number

ofpapers

Taxa

lists

Newtaxa

Newrecords

Conservation

Ge

netic

div

ersity

Other

Caldasia

Colombia

1990,2011

N.A.

27

349

169

87

74

21

0

128

Zootaxa

NewZealand

2002,2011

0.927

18

178

32

152

24

0

1

14

RevistaColombianadeEntomologa

Colombia

1991,2011

0.248

3

150

57

22

28

5

5

69

RevistadeBiologaTropical

CostaRica

1990,2011

0.459

26

149

35

21

16

14

7

100

RevistadelaAcadem

iaColombiana

deCienciasExactasFsicasy

Naturales

Colombia

1991,2011

N.A.

17

147

52

48

8

12

2

61

BoletnCientficoMuseodeHistoria

NaturalUniversidaddeCaldas

Colombia

1996,2011

N.A.

9

147

71

26

21

10

0

50

BoletndeInvestigacionesMarinasy

Costeras

Colombia

1997,2011

N.A.

24

140

49

5

48

14

1

62

ActaBiologicaColombiana

Colombia

1991,2011

N.A.

22

115

63

1

10

9

7

59

Novon

UnitedStates

1993,2011

0.195

3

106

2

102

3

0

0

4

ActualidadesBiologicas(Medelln)

Colombia

1990,2011

N.A.

16

88

38

7

6

7

3

48

BiotaColombiana

Colombia

2000,2009

N.A.

15

84

82

1

1

1

0

0

OrnitologaColombiana

Colombia

2003,2010

N.A.

1

68

10

3

34

9

0

37

BoletnSAO

Colombia

1991,2010

N.A.

1

62

20

0

18

4

0

25

ProceedingsoftheBiological

SocietyofWashing

ton

UnitedStates

1990,2010

0.292

12

56

4

48

2

0

0

7

BoletndelMuseode

Entomologa

delaUniversidadd

elValle

Colombia

1993,2011

N.A.

2

54

30

6

10

2

0

23

Dahlia

Colombia

1996,2008

N.A.

1

52

10

6

7

3

0

36

Brittonia

UnitedStates

1997,2011

0.475

6

49

6

39

6

1

0

11

RevistaBrasileirade

Entomologia

Brazil

1990,2010

0.536

2

43

5

37

1

0

0

5

Biotropica

UnitedStates

1991,2010

2.229

7

41

8

0

0

3

6

36

MemoriasdoInstitutoOswaldoCruz

Brazil

1992,2011

2.147

6

38

8

5

4

0

13

19

Biodivers Conserv

123


24/34

Table3

continued

Journal

Journal

country

Yearofthe

firstand

lastpaper

2011

Impact

factor

Taxonomic

classes

included

Number

ofpapers

Taxa

lists

Newtaxa

Newrecords

Conservation

Ge

netic

div

ersity

Other

ProceedingsoftheEntomological

SocietyofWashing

ton

UnitedStates

1990,2011

0.402

1

37

4

26

4

0

0

14

SHILAPRevistade

Lepidopterologia

Spain

1990,2007

N.A.

1

35

13

12

2

1

0

14

OrnitologaNeotropical

UnitedStates

1993,2010

0.336

1

31

5

2

3

3

1

23

PapeisAvulsosdeZoologia(Sao

Paulo)

Brazil

1990,2011

N.A.

5

30

6

18

5

0

0

9

Cespedesia

Colombia

1991,1997

N.A.

6

28

13

1

2

2

0

12

CaribbeanJournalof

Science

UnitedStates

1990,2008

0.22

12

27

9

4

4

2

0

19

RevistaBrasileirade

Zoologia

Brazil

1992,2008

N.A.

3

27

3

25

1

0

0

3

ColeopteristsBulletin

UnitedStates

1991,2011

0.404

1

27

1

13

3

0

0

14

StudiesonNeotropicalFaunaand

Environment

England

1990,2009

0.357

6

26

4

13

2

0

0

12

IheringiaSerieZoolo

gia

Brazil

1990,2004

0.23

2

25

3

25

4

0

0

0

NeotropicalEntomology

Brazil

2003,2011

0.603

2

24

7

6

4

0

4

9

BulletinoftheBritish

Ornithologists

Club

England

1993,2010

N.A.

1

23

0

6

12

1

0

6

Informationineachcolumnisfromthewholedatabase,exceptforthejournalcountryand

impactfactor,whichwereobtainedfromthewebofscienceorfrom

therespective

journalswebpage.N

.A.indicatesthatnoimpactfactorhasbeenassigned

Biodivers Conserv

123


25/34

Table4

Abstractwo

rdcounts

Botany

Count

Frequency

(%)

Entomology

Count

Frequency

(%)

Vertebrate

zoology

Count

Frequency

(%)

Mainland

Count

Frequency

(%)

Marine

Count

Frequency

(%)

Speciesorsp

2,178

2.00

Speciesorsp

4,977

2.99

Speciesorsp

3,210

1.69

Speciesorsp

6,177

1.95

Speciesorsp

1,284

1.46

Colombiaor

Colombian

1,002

0.92

Newornov

2,180

1.31

Colombiaor

Colombian

1,417

0.75

Colombiaor

Colombian

2,328

0.74

Colombiaor

Colombian

670

0.76

Newornov

635

0.58

Colombiaor

Colombian

1,750

1.05

Populationor

populations

714

0.37

Newornov

1,748

0.55

Coralor

corals

504

0.57

Forestor

forests

626

0.58

Genusor

genera

1,049

0.63

Forestor

forests

625

0.33

Forestor

forests

1,488

0.47

Caribbean

458

0.52

Genusor

genera

447

0.47

Described

826

0.50

Newornov

572

0.30

Genusor

genera

966

0.30

Areaorareas

342

0.39

Described

383

0.35

Brazil

538

0.32

Areaorareas

552

0.29

Described

794

0.25

Reeforreefs

340

0.39

Plantorplants

277

0.25

Groupor

groups

419

0.26

Groupor

groups

440

0.24

Areaorareas

780

0.25

Newornov

259

0.29

Andesor

Andean

252

0.23

Populationor

populations

409

0.24

Andesor

Andean

437

0.23

Found

766

0.24

Pacific

256

0.29

Areaorareas

246

0.22

Maleormales

405

0.24

Found

420

0.22

Populationor

populations

652

0.21

Islandor

islands

249

0.27

Ecuador

239

0.22

Ecuador

401

0.24

Fishorfishes

414

0.22

Study

613

0.19

Fishorfishes

239

0.27

Distribution

ordistributions

227

0.20

Peru

375

0.23

Habitator

habitats

413

0.22

High

532

0.17

Found

196

0.22

High

207

0.19

Keyorkeys

349

0.21

Distribution

ordistributions

404

0.22

Diversity

504

0.16

Distribution

ordistributions

182

0.20

Diversity

203

0.19

Forestor

forests

347

0.21

Riverorrivers

333

0.18

Distribution

ordistributions

495

0.17

Coast

178

0.20

Found

196

0.18

Found

331

0.20

Size

320

0.17

Andesor

Andean

491

0.15

Genusor

genera

172

0.19

Illustrated

194

0.18

Collected

318

0.19

Study

317

0.17

Different

482

0.15

Collected

168

0.19

Peru

184

0.17

Typeortypes

308

0.19

Individuals

294

0.15

First

481

0.15

First

161

0.18

Biodivers Conserv

123


26/34

Table4

continued

Botany

Count

Frequency

(%)

Entomology

Count

Frequency

(%)

Vertebrate

zoology

Count

Frequency

(%)

Mainland

Count

Frequency

(%)

Marine

Count

Frequency

(%)

Study

184

0.17

Distribution

ordistributions

312

0.18

Different

26

0

0.14

Total

4

81

0.15

Abundanceor

abundances

154

0.17

Typeortypes

153

0.14

First

302

0.18

First

25

4

0.13

Numberor

numbers

4

79

0.15

Described

149

0.17

America

150

0.14

Venezuela

300

0.18

Conservation

25

2

0.13

Regionor

regions

4

74

0.15

Study

141

0.16

Croat

146

0.13

CostaRica

268

0.16

High

25

1

0.13

Collected

4

42

0.14

Seaorseas

138

0.16

The20mostcommonw

ordsinabstractsofstudiesonColombianbiodiversity(19902011)fromthreemajordisciplinesandfrommainlandandmarineterritoryarepresented

Biodivers Conserv

123


27/34

Table 5 Top 100 surnames ofthe authors of studies on Colom-bian biodiversity (19902011)

Surname Count Nationality

Gonzalez 115 Colombian

Garcia 101 Colombian

Salazar 101 ColombianRodriguez 82 Colombian

Lynch 82 Foreign

Campos 75 Colombian

Diaz 71 Colombian

Acero 66 Colombian

Lopez 64 Colombian

Ramirez 63 Colombian

Sanchez 63 Colombian

Duque 62 ColombianVelez 60 Colombian

Martinez 58 Colombian

Roman-Valencia 58 Colombian

Fernandez 55 Colombian

Gomez 55 Colombian

Martins 52 Foreign

Bernal 50 Colombian

Jimenez 48 Colombian

Giraldo 44 ColombianMorales 43 Colombian

Moreno 43 Colombian

Stevenson 43 Colombian

Ubirajara 43 Foreign

Alvarez-Leon 42 Colombian

Munoz 42 Colombian

Kattan 41 Foreign *

Restrepo 39 Colombian

Gutierrez 38 Colombian

Perez 38 Colombian

Rojas 37 Colombian

Vargas 37 Colombian

Alvarez 36 Colombian

Florez 36 Colombian

Cadena 35 Colombian

Escobar 35 Colombian

Ruiz 35 Colombian

Chacon 34 Colombian

Hernandez 34 Colombian

Torres 34 Colombian

Acosta 33 Colombian

Stiles 33 Foreign

Constantino 32 Colombian

Biodivers Conserv

123


28/34

Table 5 continuedSurname Count Nationality

Castro 32 Colombian

Botero 32 Colombian

Bejarano 32 ColombianCastillo 32 Colombian

Correa 32 Colombian

Garzon-Ferreira 32 Colombian

Decaens 32 Foreign

Pardo 31 Colombian

Jaramillo 31 Colombian

Londono 31 Colombian

Navas 30 Colombian

Armbrecht 30 ColombianZea 30 Colombian

Ruiz-Carranza 29 Colombian

Arango 29 Colombian

Ulloa 29 Colombian

Donegan 29 Foreign

Taylor 29 Foreign

Ardila 28 Colombian

Suarez 28 Colombian

Zapata 28 ColombianCastano 27 Colombian

Leon 27 Colombian

Paez 27 Colombian

Velasquez 27 Colombian

Ruiz-Garcia 27 Colombian *

Herrera 26 Colombian

Cavelier 26 Colombian

Maldonado-Ocampo 25 Colombian

Naranjo 25 Colombian

Ospina 25 Colombian

Reyes 25 Colombian

Valencia 25 Colombian

Johnson 25 Colombian*

Medina 24 Colombian

Betancur 24 Colombian

Palacio 24 Colombian

Silva 24 Colombian

Wolff 24 Colombian

Salaman 24 Foreign

Marin 23 Colombian

Parra 23 Colombian

Giraldo-Canas 23 Colombian

Solano 23 Colombian

Biodivers Conserv

123


29/34

References

Alvarez MD (2002) Illicit crops and bird conservation priorities in Colombia. Conserv Biol16(4):10861096. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00537.x

Amat-G G, Andrade-C MG, Eduardo C Amat-G (eds) (2007) Libro rojo de los invertebrados terrestres deColombia. Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Conservacion Inter-nacional Colombia, Instituto Alexander von Humboldt, Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y DesarrolloTerritorial, Bogota

Andrade-C G (2007) Proyecto diversidad de las mariposas Andinas tropicales. http://www.andeanbutterflies.org/colombia_sp.html. Accessed 03 Dec 2012

Andrade GI, Rubio-Torgler H (1994) Sustainable use of the tropical rain forest: evidence from the avifaunain a shifting-cultivation habitat mosaic in the Colombian Amazon. Conserv Biol 8(2):545554. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020545.x

Anduckia J, Gomez J, Gomez Y (2000) Some features of Colombian research population (19831994).Scientometrics 48(3):285305. doi:10.1023/a:1005684303869

Arango-Velez N, Kattan GH (1997) Effects of forest fragmentation on experimental nest predation inAndean cloud forest. Biol Conserv 81:137143. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00138-3

Arbelaez-Cortes E (2013) Describiendo especies: un panorama de la biodiversidad colombiana en el ambitomundial. Acta biol Colomb 18(1):165178

Arbelaez-Cortes E, Castillo-Cardenas MF, Toro-Perea N, Cardenas-Henao H (2007) Genetic structure of thered mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) on the Colombian Pacific detected by microsatellite molecularmarkers. Hydrobiology 583:321330. doi:10.1007/s10750-007-0622-9

Arbelaez-Cortes E, Marn-Gomez OH, Duque-Montoya D, Cardona-Camacho PJ, Renjifo LM, Gomez HF(2011) Birds, Quindo department, central Andes of Colombia. Check List 7(2):227247

Ardila N, Navas GR, J. Reyes (eds) (2002) Libro rojo de invertebrados marinos de Colombia. La serie librosrojos de especies amenazadas de Colombia. INVEMAR. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Bogota

Armbrecht I, Rivera L, Perfecto I (2005) Reduced diversity and complexity in the leaf-litter ant assemblageof Colombian coffee plantations. Conserv Biol 19(3):897907. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00062.x

Atkinson G, Bateman I, Mourato S (2012) Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services andbiodiversity. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 28(1):2247. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grs007

Barrett CB, Travis AJ, Dasgupta P (2011) On biodiversity conservation and poverty traps. Proc Natl Acad

Sci 108(34):1390713912. doi:10.1073/pnas.1011521108Bass MS, Finer M, Jenkins CN, Kreft H, Cisneros-Heredia DF, McCracken SF, Pitman NCA, English PH,Swing K, Villa G, Fiore AD, Voigt CC, Kunz TH (2010) Global conservation significance of Ecua-dors Yasun national park. PLoS One 5(1):122. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008767

Beheregaray LB (2008) Twenty years of phylogeography: the state of the field and the challenges for theSouthern Hemisphere. Mol Ecol 17(17):37543774

Bernal R (1998) Demography of the vegetable ivory palm Phytelephas seemannii in Colombia, and theimpact of seed harvesting. J Appl Ecol 35(1):6474. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.00280.x

Table 5 continued

The assignation of each surnameas Colombian or foreign is basedon Genealogas de Colombia(2010). Surnames marked withasterisk are indicating falseassignations. Surnames are

presented with the spelling theyappear in web of knowledge

Surname Count Nationality

Amat-Garcia 22 Colombian

Franco 22 Colombian

Zuniga 22 ColombianDefler 22 Foreign

Wingfield 22 Foreign

Arias 21 Colombian

Castellanos 21 Colombian

Cardona 21 Colombian

Brown 21 Colombian*

Clark 21 Foreign

Lourenco 21 Foreign

Mejia 21 Colombian

Biodivers Conserv

123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00537.xhttp://www.andeanbutterflies.org/colombia_sp.htmlhttp://www.andeanbutterflies.org/colombia_sp.htmlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020545.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020545.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1005684303869http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00138-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-0622-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00062.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grs007http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011521108http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008767http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.00280.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.00280.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008767http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011521108http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grs007http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00062.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-0622-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00138-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1005684303869http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020545.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020545.xhttp://www.andeanbutterflies.org/colombia_sp.htmlhttp://www.andeanbutterflies.org/colombia_sp.htmlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00537.x


30/34

Bernal R, Celis M, Gradstein R (2007) Plant diversity of Colombia catalogued. Taxon 56(1):273Biodiversity Heritage Library (2012) BHL: biodiversity heritage library web page. http://www.

biodiversitylibrary.org/. Accessed 15 Jul 2012Bisby FA, Roskov YR, Orrell TM, Nicolson D, Paglinawan LE, Bailly N, Kirk PM, Bourgoin T, Baillargeon

G, Ouvrard D (2011) Species 2000 & ITIS catalogue of life: 2011 annual checklist. Species 2000.

www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2011/. Accessed 05 Jul 2012Broadus R (1987) Toward a definition of bibliometrics. Scientometrics 12(5):373379. doi:10.1007/

bf02016680Bucheli V, Daz A, Calderon J, Lemoine P, Valdivia J, Villaveces J, Zarama R (2012) Growth of scientific

production in Colombian universities: an intellectual capital-based approach. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0627-7

Calderon E, Galeano G, N. Garca (eds) (2002) Libro rojo de plantas fanerogamas de Colombia. Volumen 1:Chrysobalanaceae, Dichapetalaceae y Lecythidaceae. La serie libros rojos de especies amenazadas deColombia. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt, Instituto de Ciencias Naturales-Universidad Nacional deColombia, Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Bogota

Camargo C, Maldonado J, Alvarado E, Moreno-Sanchez R, Mendoza S, Manrique N, Mogollon A, Osorio J,

arbelaez-cortes 2013 biodiversity&conservation

Documents