Content uploaded by John Robinson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Robinson on Dec 09, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Conservation in Practice
58
Conservation Biology, Pages 58–72
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Planning to Save a Species: the Jaguar as a Model
ERIC W. SANDERSON,*‡ KENT H. REDFORD,* CHERYL-LESLEY B. CHETKIEWICZ,*
RODRIGO A. MEDELLIN,† ALAN R. RABINOWITZ,* JOHN G. ROBINSON,*
AND ANDREW B. TABER*
*Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, U.S.A.
†Instituto de Ecologia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Aparto Postal 70–275, 04510 D.F., Mexico
Abstract:
International conservation planning at the end of the twentieth century is dominated by coarse-filter,
supra-organismal approaches to conservation that may be insufficient to conserve certain species such as the jag-
uar (
Panthera onca
). If we are to retain broadly distributed species into the next century, we need to plan explic-
itly for their survival across their entire geographic range and through political boundaries while recognizing the
variety of ecological roles the species plays in different habitats. In March 1999 the Wildlife Conservation Society
sponsored a priority-setting and planning exercise for the jaguar across its range, from northern Mexico to north-
ern Argentina. Field scientists from 18 countries reached consensus on four types of information: (1) the spatial
extent of their jaguar knowledge, (2) the known, currently occupied range of jaguars, (3) areas with substantial
jaguar populations, adequate habitat, and a stable and diverse prey base, and (4) point localities where jaguars
have been observed during the last 10 years. During the exercise, these experts also conducted a range-wide as-
sessment of the long-term survival prospects of the jaguar and developed an algorithm for prioritizing jaguar
conservation units occurring in major habitat types. From this work, we learned that the known, occupied range
of the jaguar has contracted to approximately 46% of estimates of its 1900 range. Jaguar status and distribution
is unknown in another 12% of the jaguar’s former range, including large areas in Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil.
But over 70% of the area where jaguars are thought to still occur was rated as having a high probability of sup-
porting their long-term survival. Fifty-one jaguar conservation units representing 30 different jaguar geographic
regions were prioritized as the basis for a comprehensive jaguar conservation program.
Planeación para Salvar una Especie: El Jaguar como Modelo
Resumen:
La planeación de la conservación internacional al final del siglo veinte esta dominada por en-
foques de grano grueso, supra-organísmicas que pueden ser insuficientes para conservar ciertas especies
como el jaguar (
Panthera onca
). Si hemos de mantener especies ampliamente distribuidas en el próximo si-
glo, necesitamos planificar su supervivencia explícitamente en todo su rango geográfico a través de límites
políticos al mismo tiempo que se reconozca la variedad de funciones ecológicas de las especies en diferentes
hábitats. En marzo de 1999 la Sociedad de Conservación de Vida Silvestre promovió un ejercicio de
definición de prioridades y de planeación para el jaguar en todo su rango de distribución, desde el norte de
México hasta el norte de Argentina. Científicos de 18 países llegaron a consensos en cuatro tipos de infor-
mación: (1) la extensión espacial de su conocimiento del jaguar, (2) el rango conocido, actualmente ocupado
por el jaguar, (3) áreas con poblaciones importantes, hábitat adecuado y una base de presas estable y di-
versa y (4) localidades en las que se han observado jaguares durante los últimos 10 años. Durante el ejerci-
cio, estos expertos también hicieron una evaluación de la supervivencia a largo plazo del jaguar en todo su
rango y desarrollaron un algoritmo para priorizar unidades de conservación del jaguar en los tipos de hábi-
tat más importantes. De este trabajo, aprendimos que el rango del jaguar conocido y ocupado se ha con-
traído aproximadamente al 46% de su rango estimado
circa
de 1900. El estatus del jaguar y su distribución
en otro 12% del rango anterior, incluyendo extensas áreas en México, Colombia y Brasil. Sin embargo, más
del 70% del área donde se piensa que todavía ocurre el jaguar fue considerada con una alta probabilidad de
soportar la supervivencia a largo plazo. Se priorizaron 51 unidades de conservación representando 30 re-
giones diferentes como la base para un sólido programa de conservación del jaguar.
‡
email esanderson@wcs.org
Paper submitted August 14, 2000; revised manuscript accepted April 25, 2001.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Sanderson et al. Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar
59
Introduction
Over the last 100 years the theory and practice of conserva-
tion has evolved from strategies originally intended to pre-
serve natural resources or awe-inspiring scenery (Callicott
1990) to an intense concern for conserving biodiversity in
all its facets, including genetic and species diversity and the
diversity of ecosystem structure and function ( Redford &
Richter 1999). This evolution has been driven by the dis-
coveries of twentieth century science that have revealed
the vast diversity of biological species and the intricate and
subtle ways in which organisms interact with one another
and with human beings—and that have thus engendered
horror at so many species being lost through human haste
and greed (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1981; Mann & Plummer
1995). At the end of the twentieth century, the new para-
digm of conservation is biodiversity writ large, including
genetic, ecosystem, and landscape perspectives.
Simultaneous with this increasing emphasis on biodiver-
sity in all its components has been an increase in the scale
of planning for conservation work, typically through mech-
anisms that emphasize entities other than the population
or the species as a target for conservation effort (Noss
1991; Salwasser 1991). International conservation organiza-
tions, governmental and nongovernmental, have altered
their approach to focus increasingly on strategies that are
regional to global in scope and based on conserving supra-
organismal entities: hotspots of species diversity (Myers et
al. 2000), globally significant ecoregions (Olson & Diner-
stein 1998), ecosystems (as in ecosystem management;
Boyce & Haney 1997), endemic bird areas ( Slattersfield et
al. 1998), and continental networks (Soulé & Terborgh
1999). Such approaches seek to conserve ecosystem func-
tions and the diversity of habitat types despite a lack of
knowledge of the extent of biological diversity and the
complex array of factors that maintain it ( Hunter 1991;
Franklin 1993). In short, they seek to conserve the whole
when faced with the impossibility of knowing all the parts.
But the parts are important too. Here we provide an ex-
ample of how one such important part, the jaguar (
Pan-
thera onca
), can form the basis for large-scale conservation
planning. Jaguars have much to teach us about the knotty
problem of conserving broadly distributed species. Be-
cause jaguars as a species range across many different na-
tions and habitat types, small-scale conservation efforts se-
lected ad hoc and focused over narrowly defined areas
have not succeeded in stemming the tide of jaguar extirpa-
tion ( Weber & Rabinowitz 1996). Establishment of the first
jaguar reserve in Belize (Rabinowitz 1986) and the creation
of a conservation plan for the Pantanal (Quigley & Craw-
shaw 1992), although important, have not slowed the col-
lapse of the jaguar’s range. Moreover, range-wide conserva-
tion efforts have been inhibited by national and linguistic
differences among conservationists, lack of knowledge on
the overall status of jaguars, and the absence of a consensus
on priorities for conservation of the species.
Saving jaguars requires international, range-wide plan-
ning that recognizes as a first priority ecological, not politi-
cal, distinctions among jaguars. We postulate that saving a
species means, at least, saving populations of the species in
all the significantly different ecological settings in which
they occur. As Wikramanayake et al. (1998) wrote about a
related species, “in seeking to conserve representative pop-
ulations of tigers, we must consider not only the genetic
distinctiveness of tigers across the range, but also behav-
ioral, demographic, and ecological distinctiveness.” Thus, it
is not sufficient to pursue jaguar conservation efforts only
in tropical forests or only in tropical forests in Brazil and Be-
lize; we must begin with the range-wide context that for
the jaguar requires an international perspective.
Most species-based conservation efforts do not assume
as a starting point consideration of the entire range. Con-
servation of endangered populations of the California
Gnatcatcher (
Polioptila californica
) is an imperative un-
der the U.S. Endangered Species Act, even though sub-
stantial, unthreatened populations exist in Mexico (Zink
et al 2000). Moreover, most countries do not have endan-
gered species legislation of any kind, and if they do, laws
are unlikely to be consistent across the 18 nations where
the jaguar is currently found. As a result, biological con-
servation plans often respect political boundaries more
than ecological ones (Hunter & Hutchinson 1994.)
In 1999 the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Insti-
tute of Ecology at the National Autonomous University of
Mexico initiated a geographically based, range-wide as-
sessment and priority-setting exercise for the jaguar
(Medellin et al. 2001). Our goals were to comprehen-
sively assess the state of knowledge about the ecology,
distribution, and conservation status of the jaguar, to
identify priority areas for its conservation on a range-
wide basis, and to build an international consensus for
conservation of the species. This work was built on a
geographic data framework that respected the kinds and
qualities of information we now have while forming a
baseline for future evaluations. From this information,
the experts assessed the status of jaguars across the range
and developed a prioritization mechanism to determine
the most important areas for jaguar conservation in each
regional habitat type, based on factors important for the
long-term survival of jaguars. Although the results focus
on the range-wide condition of jaguars, the methodology
used and the conclusions drawn present a model for con-
servation planning that could be applied to many widely
ranging species.
Methods
Data Definitions
Jaguar geographic regions ( JGRs) are geographic units
defined by potential habitat (sensu Hall et al. 1997) and
60
Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar Sanderson et al.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
bioregion across the jaguar’s historic range ( Fig. 1). Pre-
sumably, the ecology of jaguars in tropical moist low-
land forest is significantly different from that in xeric
deserts because of differences in, for example, prey base
and habitat use. Similarly, because of regional differences
in species composition and geographic factors, the role
of jaguars in the tropical moist lowland forests of Central
America is substantively different from their role in the
tropical moist lowland forests of the southeast Amazon.
Representing these ecological differences geographi-
cally through JGRs provides a convenient, ecologically
based unit for planning.
Each JGR is named by its geographic region, then its
habitat type (e.g., northeast Amazon/tropical moist low-
land forest). The limits of the historic range were ap-
proximated from Seymour (1989) as the range of jaguars
around 1900. This historic range was subdivided into 36
JGRs by lumping together North American and South
American ecoregions (Dinerstein et al. 1995) to create
units similar to the regional habitat types used in a previ-
ous conservation priority-setting exercise for Latin
America (Biodiversity Support Program et al. 1995).
Lumping together geographic units required including
some areas that likely were never occupied by resident
jaguars, including some areas above 2000 m in the
Andes and Tepuis, which may overestimate the historic
range slightly. The historic range may be slightly under-
estimated on its margins, particularly in the southwest-
ern United States, but we estimated that
5% of the area
in the JGRs is subject to these problems. The total ex-
tent of the historic range, represented in this way, is ap-
proximately 19.1 million km
2
.
Thirty-five jaguar experts from 12 nations attended the
workshop on “Jaguars in the New Millennium” (March
1999) or contributed information through another ex-
pert (for a list of participants, see the Appendix). Prior
to the workshop, each researcher was provided a base
map for his or her self-reported area of expertise at
1:2,000,000–1:4,000,000 scale, showing a preliminary set
of jaguar geographic regions and basic reference infor-
mation such as national boundaries, major cities, and riv-
ers (Lioutty 1996). We assumed that each expert could
identify jaguar locations on the map within 1 cm (20–40
km in map units). These data were compiled in geo-
graphic information system databases (Arcview–GIS),
and each datum was identified with the name of the
contributing expert. At the workshop these data were
examined systematically in regional groups to resolve
contradictions and build a consensus information base.
Four basic data types were solicited from the jaguar
experts: (1) the geographic extent of their knowledge
about jaguar status and distribution—whether or not jag-
uars are present in an area (“extent of knowledge”); (2)
the area where jaguars were present as of March 1999
(“known, currently occupied range”); (3) important ar-
eas for jaguar conservation as defined below (“jaguar
conservation units”); and (4) point localities where jag-
uars have been observed within the last 10 years (“point
observations”) ( Fig. 1). Experts were asked to combine
all observations within 20 km of the center coordinates
of the point locality. Each point observation was charac-
terized by dates of first and last observation, observation
methods used, and observer.
Jaguar conservation units (or JCUs) were defined ei-
ther as (1) areas with a stable prey community, currently
known or believed to contain a population of resident
jaguars large enough (at least 50 breeding individuals) to
be potentially self-sustaining over the next 100 years, or
(2) areas containing fewer jaguars but with adequate
habitat and a stable, diverse prey base, such that jaguar
populations in the area could increase if threats were al-
leviated. Jaguar conservation units were not restricted to
or required to contain protected areas. After the work-
shop, each JCU was given a name based on an adjoining
or encompassing protected area, river, administrative
unit, or other geographic feature.
In addition, the experts developed a geographically
comprehensive consensus on the status of jaguars across
the range by assigning the following codes to entire
JGRs or divisions of JGRs, as necessary. Areas that were
unknown were designated “status unknown—priority
for survey.” Areas that were known but were no longer
occupied by jaguars were designated “no jaguars.” For
areas that were known and currently occupied by jag-
uars, one of the following three classes was assigned: (1)
high, (2) medium, or (3) low probability of long-term
survival. These assignments were based on qualitative
evaluation of habitat size and connectivity, the status of
the prey base, the status of jaguar populations, and the
level of threat from human activity.
Prioritization of Jaguar Conservation Units
The experts were asked to weight six factors ( JCU size,
connectivity, habitat quality, hunting of jaguar, hunting
of prey, and population status) according to their rela-
tive importance for long-term jaguar survival, keeping
the sum of all weights to 100 points. To ensure maxi-
mum input, weighting schemes were developed sepa-
rately by two discussion groups and then an attempt
was made to synthesize the schemes in plenary session.
During the review period (described below), the au-
thors determined the final weighting scheme in consul-
tation with the workshop participants, as follows: JCU
size (30 points), connectivity (23), habitat quality (23),
hunting of jaguars (10), hunting of prey (10), and jaguar
population status (4).
Each JCU was assigned to the JGR where the majority of
its area occurred. In cases where a JCU overlapped more
than one JGR, the JCU was assigned to JGRs with which
it shared over 1250 km
2
of area, the equivalent of one
point observation. (Each point observation represents a
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Sanderson et al. Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar
61
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of jaguar data across jaguar geographic regions ( JGRs; background colors of each
figure): (a) extent of current knowledge about the jaguar, (b) distribution of known, currently occupied jaguar
range as of March 1999, (c) distribution of jaguar conservation units ( JCUs), and (d) distribution of jaguar point
observations from 1990 to 2000.
62
Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar Sanderson et al.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
circular area of 20-km radius.) For those JGRs with less
than three JCUs, the size criteria was relaxed to include
all JCUs that occurred in that JGR, no matter the amount
of overlap. The total size of the JCU, not the area of JCU
within a given JGR, was used for calculating priorities,
because jaguar populations were assumed to use the en-
tire JCU, not just the portion within one habitat type.
The final prioritization score for each JCU was deter-
mined by multiplying the JCU’s score for each of the six
factors by its corresponding weight and then adding the
score/weight products. The JCUs within the same JGR
were then ranked to determine the most important JCU
within each JGR.
The final results were compiled at the workshop and
were subsequently reviewed during a post-workshop re-
view period. In consultation with the appropriate ex-
perts, the authors made final decisions on inconsisten-
cies between data sets. All data were distributed to the
participating experts following the workshop, and all
data were made available one year after the workshop at
www.savethejaguar.com. More extensive details on all
the methods are provided by Medellin et al. (2001).
Results
Extent of Jaguar Knowledge
The extent of knowledge about jaguars—including areas
where jaguars are not present—covers 83% of the his-
toric range of jaguars, indicating that approximately 17%
of the range is unknown ( Fig. 1a). Most of the area for
which jaguar information is lacking is in several large re-
gions in Mexico (over 848,000 km
2
) and in South Amer-
ica (over 2.3 million km
2
in Brazil alone). The distribu-
tion of jaguar knowledge by JGR reflects the distribution
of these large, unknown areas (Table 1). The Mexican
pine-oak temperate forests and the Caatinga xerics in
Brazil are the least-known JGRs.
Known, Currently Occupied Jaguar Range
Jaguars are known to range over approximately 8.75 mil-
lion km
2
, or 46% of their historic range, broken into 48
separate areas that range in size from 114 km
2
to over 7
million km
2
( Fig. 1b). Unknown areas ( Fig. 1a) were not
included as part of the known, currently occupied
range. The largest contiguous area of jaguar range is cen-
tered in the Amazon Basin (88% of occupied range) and
includes adjoining areas in the Cerrado, Pantanal, and
Chaco to the south, extending to the Caribbean coast of
Venezuela and the Guianas. The Colombian Cordilleras
sever the connections between this contiguous range
and a series of large ranges that stretch across Central
America from the Darien to the Selva Maya in Belize,
Guatemala, and Mexico. At the northern end of the range
through Mexico, known jaguar range is limited to a strip
along the western coast and three isolated observations
in the southwestern United States.
Most of the loss of occupied range has occurred in
northern Mexico, the southern United States, northern
Brazil, and southern Argentina. Jaguars have been extir-
pated completely from the Argentine Monte and Pampas
grasslands in southern South America and the western
gulf coastal grasslands in the United States (Table 1). Be-
cause of elevation limits, jaguars are also not regularly
found in the Pantepui or Puna montane grasslands. Jag-
uars are found in 10% of the area of Mexican xerics, Par-
amo, and Mexican pine-oak forests.
Jaguar Conservation Units
Based on present jaguar population size, prey base, and
habitat quality in specific areas, the experts identified 51
areas (1.29 million km
2
, 6.7% of the historic range, 13%
of the currently occupied range) (Fig. 1c) important to
the long-term survival of jaguars. By definition, each JCU
represents a core population of jaguars on which con-
servation might be based.
Jaguar conservation units are found wholly or partially
in 31 of the 36 JGRs and thus represent most of the eco-
logical settings where jaguars occur (Table 1). Three of
the six JGRs not represented by a JCU are in areas where
jaguars have been extirpated or apparently were never
present in large numbers: Argentine monte, western gulf
coastal grasslands, and Pantepui montane grasslands.
The western Andean tropical dry forests, Amazonian
mangroves, and Amazonian savannas are also not repre-
sented by a JCU because of lack of information about
jaguar status in those habitat types.
Jaguar Point Observations
The experts reported 5680 observations of jaguars at
535 separate localities during the last 10 years, repre-
senting a total area of observation of approximately
513,000 km
2
, or approximately 2.7% of the jaguar’s
range that has been directly sampled ( Fig. 1d). An aver-
age of 10.6 jaguar observations were made at each
point, indicating concentrations of research at most
points. Sixty percent of point observations recorded jag-
uars based on at least one of the more reliable observa-
tion methods: direct sighting by researcher, photograph,
radiotelemetry, capture, or discovery of jaguar remains.
The density of point observations is uneven across the
jaguar’s range, reflecting concentrations of research rather
than concentrations of jaguars. The most richly studied
JGR is the Central American tropical moist forests (Table
1), due largely to research in Costa Rica, Belize, and Guate-
mala, although extensive research has also been con-
ducted in Brazillian Cerrado and the Chaco dry tropical
forests of Bolivia and Paraguay. The JGR of the northeast
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Sanderson et al. Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar
63
Table 1. Distribution of jaguar data sets by jaguar geographic region.
Extent of
knowledge
(%)
c
Known,
occupied
range (%)
d
Percentage of area rated
with given probability of
jaguar long-term
survival
h
Jaguar geographic regions ( JGRs)
a
Area
(km
2
)
b
JCU
(%)
e
No.
JCUs
f
No.
points
g
high
(%)
medium
(%)
low
(%)
1.1 Atlantic/Tropical Moist Lowland Forest 951,120 98 20 7 3 36 1 0 19
1.2 Upper Amazon/Tropical Moist
Lowland Forest 2,965,517 81 80 8 10 40 80
10
1.3 Northeast Amazon/Tropical Moist
Lowland Forest 1,520,518 81 81 11 5 15 80
1
1
1.4 Southeast Amazon/Tropical Moist
Lowland Forest 1,358,285 61 61 5 5 29 60 1 0
1.5 Choco-Darien/Tropical Moist
Lowland Forest 231,577 72 70 27 3 8 27 42 0
1.6 Central American/Tropical Moist
Lowland Forest 522,443 95 77 24 11 118 71 1 2
2.1 Tropical Andes/Tropical Moist
Montane Forest 756,615 91 27 5 5 38 1 22 4
2.2 Central American/Tropical Moist
Montane Forest 190,510 65 25 8 8 17 1 9 14
2.4 Venezuelan Coastal Montane
Forest/Tropical Moist Montane Forest 14,341 95 51 9 1 3 0 51 0
2.5 Guayana Montane Forest/Tropical
Moist Montane Forest 337,586 100 100 18 4 2 100 0 0
3.1 North South American/Tropical Dry Forest 163,710 95 66 3 3 6 0 41 25
3.2 Western Andes/Tropical Dry Forest 104,683 60 10 0 0 0 0 8 3
3.3 Chaco/Tropical Dry Forest 1,153,437 93 35 8 3 79 30 0 5
3.4 Central American/Tropical Dry Forest 55,595 86 14 5 2 6 11 2 1
3.5 Mexican/Tropical Dry Forest 301,289 42 11 7 5 10 9
11
3.6 Cerrado/Tropical Dry Forest 2,411,425 91 57 6 9 34 11 28 19
4.1 Mexican/Xeric 1,280,778 95 1 1 1 4 1 0 0
4.2 Caribbean/Xeric 123,232 98 44 1 2 2
144 0
4.3 Caatinga/Xeric 759,625 27 10 1 1 5 0
110
4.6 Argentine Monte/Xeric 409,040 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.1 Central American Pine
Savanna/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland 18,847 96 96 35 1 4
1095
5.2 Llanos–Gran Sabana/Herbaceous
Lowland Grassland 493,095 91 90 1 5 27 1 73 16
5.3 Pampas/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland 1,098,214 100 0
11 0
10 0
5.5 Amazonian Savanna/Herbaceous
Lowland Grassland 173,461 53 53
11 413 0 0
5.6 Pantanal/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland 171,053 100 100 48 3 17 99 0 1
5.7 Western Gulf Coastal Grassland/Herbaceous
Lowland Grassland 42,653 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.1 Paramo/Herbaceous Montane Grassland 78,706 83 3
11 0
11
1
6.2 Puna/Herbaceous Montane Grassland 589,486 100 0
11 2 0
1
1
6.4 Pantepui/Herbaceous Montane Grassland 48,836 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
7.2 Brazillian Araucaria/Temperate Forest 220,917 100 27 6 2 9 6 0 21
7.3 Mexican Pine-Oak/Temperate Forest 460,465 20 8 8 6 4
15 3
8.1 Northern Mexico/Mangrove 7,070 75 34 20 1 2
134 0
8.2 Central American/Mangrove 38,237 65 35 9 9 12 6 2 25
8.3 Northern South America/Mangrove 20,272 53 16 4 1 0 5 8 0
8.4 Amazonia/Mangrove 33,235 82 82 0 0 1 74 4 0
8.5 Eastern South America/Mangrove 10,162 54 24 19 1 0 0 0 23
a
The JGRs are named by region/habitat type. Numeric codes cross reference Fig. 1, and GIS data sets distributed through www.savethejaguar.com.
b
Area measured in equal area azimuthal projection, central meridian -72, reference latitude 0.
c
The JGR area where status and distribution of jaguars is known.
d
The JGR area where jaguars are known to exist.
e
The JGR area with substantial jaguar populations, a stable and diverse prey base, and adequate habitat ( JCU, jaguar conservation unit).
f
Jaguar conservation units wholly or partially within each JGR.
g
Jaguar point observations in each JGR.
h
See text for details.
64
Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar Sanderson et al.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Amazon has been relatively undersampled in comparison
with other tropical forest types. The density of sampling is
lowest among xeric formations and herbaceous montane
grasslands, where jaguars are relatively rare.
Range-Wide Assessment
The range-wide assessment showed variation in jaguar
status across the range (Fig. 2). Of the jaguar’s historic
range, 18% is unknown, and jaguars are known to have
been extirpated in an additional 37%. Within the known,
currently occupied range, the probability of long-term
survival of the jaguar in 70% of the area (over 6 million
km
2
) is considered high. The largest of these high-proba-
bility portions of the range is centered on the Amazon
Basin and the adjoining Gran Chaco and Pantanal. Two
disjunct sections of the tropical moist lowland forests of
Central America are also considered areas in which the
probability of long-term jaguar survival is high: Selva
Maya of Guatemala, Mexico, and Belize, and a narrow,
continuous strip from the Choco-Darien of Panama and
Colombia to northern Honduras. Areas in Jalisco, the Si-
erra Madre of Mexico, and in the Missiones district of Ar-
gentina were also identified as areas where the probabil-
ity of long-term jaguar survival is high.
Of the currently occupied range, 18% or approxi-
mately 1.6 million km
2
was classified as areas in which the
long-term survival of jaguars has medium probability.
These areas are generally adjacent to high-probability ar-
eas and include a large portion of the northern Cerrado,
most of the Venezuelan and Colombian Llanos, and the
northern part of Colombia on the Caribbean coast. In
Central America and Mexico, medium-probability areas
were identified in the highlands of Costa Rica and Pan-
ama, southern Mexico, and the two eastern mountain
ranges of Mexico where jaguars occur, Sierra de
Tamaulipas and Sierra Madre Oriental.
The remaining parts of the range were classified as ar-
eas of low probability for the long-term survival of jag-
uars and thus are areas of immediate conservation con-
cern. These include the Atlantic tropical moist lowland
forest and Cerrado of Brazil; parts of the Chaco in northern
Argentina; the Gran Sabana of northern Brazil, Venezuela,
and Guyana; parts of the coastal dry forest in Venezuela;
the Central American pine savannas and mangroves along
the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua and Honduras; parts of
Figure 2. Consensus map of jaguar
status across its range.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Sanderson et al. Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar
65
the Central American tropical moist montane forest in
interior Nicaragua and Honduras and a narrow strip along
the Pacific Coast of Mexico; and areas in the Mexican
pine-oak forests in Jalisco, Mexico.
The JGRs with the largest proportions of areas (
75%,
area basis) with a high probability for the long-term sur-
vival of the jaguar were almost all in or surrounding the
Amazon Basin. Central American tropical moist lowland
forest has the largest proportion of area of high-probabil-
ity in Central America and Mexico (71%). In fact, it is the
only JGR north of Colombia with
50% of its area cate-
gorized as high-probability. Overall, only 12 out of the 36
JGRs had
10% of their area categorized as high-proba-
bility for the long-term survival of the jaguar. Twenty out
of 36 had
1% of their area so indicated.
JCU Prioritization
Although all JCUs are important areas for jaguars, they
vary in level of threat to jaguars, size, habitat quality, and
connectivity to other JCUs. According to the weighting
scheme described above, JCUs were prioritized for each
JGR, with JCUs within a given JGR compared only
among one another (Table 2). For example, the highest-
priority JCU for the upper Amazon JGR is in and around
Amazonia National Park, Brazil ( JCU 202). Other JCUs
with higher levels of hunting or lower habitat quality
ranked slightly lower.
Although all JCUs represent areas with substantial jag-
uar populations, a stable prey base, and adequate habi-
tat, not all JCUs occur in areas classified as high-probabil-
ity for the long-term survival of the jaguar (Table 2).
Eleven JCUs had a majority of their area categorized as
medium-probability for long-term survival, and 10 were
categorized as low-probability for long-term survival. Six
of these 10 JCUs fell entirely within areas of low proba-
bility of long-term survival. These JCUs are located in
northern Argentina, central Honduras, the Osa Peninsula
of Costa Rica, and the Atlantic forests of Brazil. These
JCUs in areas categorized as low-probability for long-
term survival contain the most endangered jaguar popu-
lations across the range. Fortunately, many other areas
have strong jaguar populations and are considered areas
of high probability for the long-term survival of the jag-
uar. Seventeen JCUs fell entirely within areas catego-
rized as high-probability, and 23 had more than 90% of
their area within high-probability areas.
Discussion
Although the methodology used in this exercise was pio-
neered for tigers and draws generally from a host of ex-
pert-driven, geographic, priority-setting exercises under-
taken over the last decade, it contains a number of
innovations that advance the methodology of geographic
priority setting, particularly for single-species-based con-
servation planning. The most important innovation is also
the simplest: planning across the complete biological
range of the species such that all conservation efforts
could be placed in the most important context, the con-
text of the species’ biology. Most current species-based
conservation plans are limited first by political bound-
aries. For example, habitat conservation plans under the
U.S. Endangered Species Act deal mainly with popula-
tions within U.S. boundaries. Therefore, the few jaguars
sighted recently in the southwestern United States are ac-
corded high priority in United States conservation plan-
ning, whereas from a range-wide species perspective,
other populations in other parts of the range are larger
(e.g., Gran Chaco of Bolivia) or more endangered (e.g., At-
lantic Forests of Brazil).
Another innovation is that the data sets were nested in
a geographic hierarchy that accounted for the different
types of knowledge we had about the species (Fig. 3).
The most basic distinction separated areas in which we
had knowledge of jaguars (extent of knowledge) from ar-
eas in which we lacked knowledge (unknown areas).
Given the areas where jaguars are known, the next dis-
tinction was to separate areas where jaguars are found
(the known, currently occupied range) from those where
they have been extirpated. Finally, in those areas where
jaguars are found, we identified where the best popula-
tions exist ( JCUs) based on clearly defined criteria.
A third innovation is that we retained point observa-
tions throughout the analysis, which provided an impor-
tant internal check on the more subjective polygonal
data. The point observations provided the only objective
information we had about jaguars: we knew that at each
point, at least one jaguar had been observed. Even if we
chose to eliminate some types of observation, the point
database enabled us to identify the observation by
method, date, and observer. Moreover, the analysis can
be updated when significant new data become available.
A mechanism is already in place to capture new informa-
tion while distributing the compiled information (see
www.savethejaguar.com). Data sharing is a key compo-
nent to advancing international conservation efforts.
As a result of retaining the point observations, inde-
pendent observers can question the data, providing an
important check against the ever-present concern of
bias in expert-driven systems. For example, several
point observations fell in an area outside the extent of
knowledge in southern Brazil, an apparent inconsis-
tency ( Fig. 1a & 1d). Review of these observations indi-
cated that they were all
5 years old and not typical of
the current situation along the rapidly changing frontier
of the southern Amazon Basin.
Another innovation is that we limited conclusions about
the currently occupied range to only known areas. The
custom with range maps prepared previously has been to
include all “internal” areas if habitat exists there, even if a
66
Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar Sanderson et al.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Table 2. Prioritized ranking of jaguar conservation units (JCUs) by jaguar geographic region ( JGR).
Area of
JCU in
JGR
(km
2
)
d
Total
JCU
area
(km
2
)
Percentage of area rated
with given probability of
jaguar long-term survival
Expert characterization of JCUs in terms of factors important
for the long-term survival of jaguars
JGRs
a
and JCUs
b
Score
c
Ranking
in JGR
high
(%)
medium
(%)
low
(%)
connectivity to
other JCUs
e
habitat
quality
hunting
of jaguar
hunting
of prey
population
status
1.1 Atlantic/Tropical Moist Lowland Forest
JCU 252: Atlantic Forests (Brazil) 182 1 25,513 30,843 0 0 100 infrequent dispersal high much much decreasing
JCU 250: Upper Rio Paraná (Brazil) 182 1 15,269 17,731 0 0 100 infrequent dispersal high much much decreasing
JCU 257: Missiones (Argentina, Brazil) 113 3 26,131 36,716 47 0 53 no dispersal medium much much decreasing
1.2 Upper Amazon/Tropical Moist Lowland Forest
JCU 202: Amazonia (Brazil) 292 1 17,980 38,414 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high none none stable
JCU 34: Manu (Peru) 252 2 38,162 43,387 88 12 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 253: Madidi (Bolivia, Peru) 252 2 34,836 58,880 74 26 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 79: Noel Kempff Mercado (Bolivia) 252 2 32,315 68,481 81 0 19 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 63: Amacayacu (Colombia) 252 2 7,538 7,538 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 207: Macarena (Colombia) 214 6 14,041 21,041 67 33 0 frequent dispersal medium some some stable
JCU 79: Noel Kempff Mercado (Bolivia) 252 2 32,315 68,481 81 0 19 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 63: Amacayacu (Colombia) 252 2 7,538 7,538 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 207: Macarena (Colombia) 214 6 14,041 21,041 67 33 0 frequent dispersal medium some some increasing
JCU 62: Rio Apaporis (Colombia) 182 7 4,145 4,145 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high some much stable
JCU 251: Pacaya Samiria (Peru) 179 8 22,930 22,930 100 0 0 no data high some some no data
JCU 201: Javari (Brazil) no data 9 67,598 67,598 100 0 0 no data no data no data no data no data
1.3 Northeast Amazon/Tropical Moist Lowland Forest
JCU 204: Amapá (Brazil, French Guiana) 252 1 71,746 71,754 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 208: Vichada (Colombia) 252 1 22,394 22,714 99 1 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 55: Upper Orinoco ( Venezuela) 252 1 18,932 56,665 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 200: Rio Jaú (Brazil) no data 4 38,162 38,162 100 0 0 no data no data no data no data no data
JCU 203: Pico da Neblina (Brazil) no data 4 11,687 11,758 100 0 0 no data no data no data no data no data
1.4 Southeast Amazon/Tropical Moist Lowland Forest
JCU 256: Xingu (Brazil) 292 1 32,185 32,185 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high none none stable
JCU 202: Amazonia (Brazil) 292 1 20,433 38,414 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high none none stable
JCU 67: Gurupi (Brazil) 133 3 20,211 20,211 100 0 0 no data medium some some decreasing
1.5 Choco-Darien/Tropical Moist Lowland Forest
JCU 206: Choco-Darien (Colombia,
Panama) 252 1 53,387 70,029 93 6 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 64: Inundables del bajo San Jorge
(Colombia) 146 2 6,916 6,916 0 100 0 infrequent dispersal medium some much decreasing
JCU 65: San Vicente de Chucuri (Colombia) 75 3 2,630 2,630 0 100 0 infrequent dispersal poor some much increasing
1.6 Central American/Tropical Moist Lowland Forest
JCU 155: Selva Maya ( Mexico,
Guatemala, Belize) 252 1 62,593 63,550 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 153: Southern Belize (Belize) 252 1 8,425 8,590 99 0 1 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 206: Choco-Darien (Colombia,
Panama) 252 1 7,130 70,029 93 6 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
continued
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Sanderson et al. Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar
67
Table 2. (continued)
Area of
JCU in
JGR
(km
2
)
d
Total
JCU
area
(km
2
)
Percentage of area rated
with given probability of
jaguar long-term survival
Expert characterization of JCUs in terms of factors important
for the long-term survival of jaguars
JGRs
a
and JCUs
b
Score
c
Ranking
in JGR
high
(%)
medium
(%)
low
(%)
connectivity to
other JCUs
e
habitat
quality
hunting
of jaguar
hunting
of prey
population
status
JCU 259: Lago Izabal (Guatemala) 248 4 3,894 5,353 95 0 5 frequent dispersal high some some no data
JCU 150: Talamanca (Costa Rica,
Panama) 214 5 6,125 14,099 31 57 12 infrequent dispersal high some some increasing
JCU 151: Osa Penisula (Costa Rica) 182 6 1,591 1,809 0 100 0 frequent dispersal high some much stable
JCU 154: Guanacaste (Costa Rica) 168 7 2,017 5,323 94 6 0 infrequent dispersal medium some some increasing
JCU 13: Istmo de Tehuantepec
( Mexico) 160 8 9,439 9,579 100 0 0 infrequent dispersal medium some some stable
JCU 76: La Mosquitia (Honduras) no data 19,679 30,389 63 0 36 no data no data no data no data no data no data
JCU 78: Cordillera Nombre de Dios
(Honduras) no data 9 2,269 2,834 80 0 20 no data no data no data no data no data
JCU 77: Montaña de Yoro (Honduras) no data 9 757 2,214 0 0 100 no data no data no data no data no data
2.1 Tropical Andes/Tropical Moist Lowland Forest
JCU 253: Madidi (Bolivia, Peru) 252 1 15,436 58,880 74 26 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 21: Baritu-Calilegua (Argentina,
Bolivia) 252 1 11,654 12,572 0 0 100 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 34: Manu (Peru) 252 1 5,227 43,387 88 12 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
2.2 Central American/Tropical Moist Montane Forest
JCU 206: Choco-Darien (Colombia,
Panama) 252 1 2,756 70,029 93 6 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 259: Lago Izabal (Guatemala) 248 2 1,166 5,353 95 0 5 frequent dispersal high some some no data
JCU 150: Talamanca (Costa Rica,
Panama) 214 3 7,941 14,099 31 57 12 infrequent dispersal high some some increasing
JCU 76: La Mosquitia (Honduras) no data 4 1,704 30,389 63 0 36 no data no data no data no data no data
JCU 77: Montaña de Yoro (Honduras) no data 4 1,456 2,834 80 0 20 no data no data no data no data no data
JCU 78: Cordillera Nombre de Dios
(Honduras) no data 4 566 2,214 0 0 100 no data no data no data no data no data
2.4 Venezuelan Coastal Montane Forest/Tropical Moist Montane Forest
JCU 54: Guatopo ( Venezuela) 132 1 1,324 1,623 0 100 0 infrequent dispersal high some much decreasing
2.5 Guayana Montane Forest/Tropical Moist Montane Forest
JCU 55: Upper Orinoco ( Venezuela) 252 1 37,733 56,665 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 56: Caura ( Venezuela) 252 1 18,736 18,736 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 205: Serra da Estrutura (Brazil) no data 3 2,819 2,819 100 0 0 no data high no data no data no data
3.1 North South American/Tropical Dry Forest
JCU 207: Macarena (Colombia) 214 1 4,074 21,041 67 33 0 frequent dispersal medium some some increasing
JCU 52: Chiriquare ( Venezuela) 182 2 884 977 0 10 90 frequent dispersal high some much stable
JCU 53: Guaritico ( Venezuela) 53 3 771 1,428 0 46 54 no data medium much much decreasing
3.2 Western Andes/Tropical Dry Forest
none — — — — — — — — — — — —
continued
68
Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar Sanderson et al.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Table 2. (continued)
Area of
JCU in
JGR
(km
2
)
d
Total
JCU
area
(km
2
)
Percentage of area rated
with given probability of
jaguar long-term survival
Expert characterization of JCUs in terms of factors important
for the long-term survival of jaguars
JGRs
a
and JCUs
b
Score
c
Ranking
in JGR
high
(%)
medium
(%)
low
(%)
connectivity to
other JCUs
e
habitat
quality
hunting
of jaguar
hunting
of prey
population
status
3.3 Chaco/Tropical Dry Forest
JCU 80: Gran Chaco (Bolivia, Paraguay) 252 1 85,706 89,116 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 24: Chaco (Argentina) 192 2 7,153 7,153 0 0 100 infrequent dispersal high some much decreasing
3.4 Central American/Tropical Dry Forest
JCU 154: Guanacaste (Costa Rica) 168 1 2,935 5,323 94 6 0 infrequent dispersal medium some some increasing
3.5 Mexican/Tropical Dry Forest
JCU 101: Jalisco ( Mexico) 238 1 29,409 29,409 61 5 35 frequent dispersal high some much decreasing
JCU 100: Sonora ( Mexico) 140 2 2,020 13,859 100 0 0 infrequent dispersal medium much much stable
3.6 Cerrado/Tropical Dry Forest
JCU 68: Chapada das Mangabeiras (Brazil) 252 1 45,397 45,397 0 100 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 79: Noel Kempff Mercado (Bolivia) 252 1 36,107 68,481 81 0 19 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 253: Madidi (Bolivia, Peru) 252 1 8,607 30,843 0 0 100 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 258: Pantanal (Brazil, Bolivia) 238 4 9,101 87,034 96 0 4 frequent dispersal high much some decreasing
JCU 69: Maranho (Brazil) 202 5 6,253 6,253 0 100 0 frequent dispersal medium some some decreasing
JCU 8: Araguaia (Brazil) 196 6 29,796 29,846 0 100 0 frequent dispersal medium some much stable
JCU 250: Upper Rio Paraná (Brazil) 182 7 2,462 17,731 0 0 100 infrequent dispersal high much much decreasing
JCU 7: Chapada dos Veadeiros (Brazil) 156 8 10,281 10,281 0 100 0 infrequent dispersal medium some some decreasing
JCU 255: Serra da Capivara (Brazil) 146 9 2,082 7,193 0 13 87 infrequent dispersal medium some much decreasing
4.1 Mexican/Xerics
JCU 100: Sonora ( Mexico) 140 1 10,470 13,859 100 0 0 infrequent dispersal medium much much stable
4.2 Caribbean/Xerics
JCU 209: Llanos ( Venezuela) 196 1 1,491 7,125 0 100 0 frequent dispersal medium much some stable
4.3 Caatinga/Xerics
JCU 255: Serra da Capivara (Brazil) 146 1 5,111 7,193 0 13 87 infrequent dispersal medium some much decreasing
4.6 Argentine Monte/Xerics
none — — — — — — — — — — — —
5.1 Central American Pine Savannas/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland
JCU 76: La Mosquitia (Honduras) no data 1 6,633 30,389 63 0 36 no data no data no data no data no data
5.2 Llanos - Gran Sabana/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland
JCU 209: Llanos ( Venezuela) 196 1 5,633 7,125 0 100 0 frequent dispersal medium much some stable
JCU 53: Guaritico ( Venezuela) 53 2 657 1,428 0 46 54 no data medium much much decreasing
5.3 Pampas/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland
JCU 257: Missiones (Argentina, Brazil) 113 1 18 36,716 47 0 53 no dispersal medium much much decreasing
5.5 Amazonian Savanna/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland
none — — — — — — — — — — — —
5.6 Pantanal/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland
JCU 80: Gran Chaco (Bolivia, Paraguay) 252 1 3,410 89,116 100 0 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 258: Pantanal (Brazil, Bolivia) 238 2 77,932 87,034 96 0 4 frequent dispersal high much some decreasing
continued
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Sanderson et al. Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar
69
Table 2. (continued)
Area of
JCU in
JGR
(km
2
)
d
Total
JCU
area
(km
2
)
Percentage of area rated
with given probability of
jaguar long-term survival
Expert characterization of JCUs in terms of factors important
for the long-term survival of jaguars
JGRs
a
and JCUs
b
Score
c
Ranking
in JGR
high
(%)
medium
(%)
low
(%)
connectivity to
other JCUs
ehabitat
quality
hunting
of jaguar
hunting
of prey
population
status
5.7 Western Gulf Coastal Grasslands/Herbaceous Lowland Grassland
none — — — — — — — — — — — —
6.1 Paramo/Herbaceous Montane Grassland
JCU 206: Choco-Darien (Colombia,
Panama) 252 1 5 70,029 93 6 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
6.2 Puna/Herbaceous Montane Grassland
JCU 21: Baritu-Calilegua (Argentina,
Bolivia) 252 1 911 12,572 0 0 100 frequent dispersal high some some stable
6.4 Pantepui/Herbaceous Montane Grassland
none — — — — — — — — — — — —
7.2 Brazillian Araucaria/Temperate Forest
JCU 252: Atlantic Forest (Brazil) 182 1 3,060 30,843 0 0 100 infrequent dispersal high much much decreasing
JCU 257: Missiones (Argentina, Brazil) 113 2 10,567 36,716 47 0 53 no dispersal medium much much decreasing
7.3 Mexican Pine-Oak/Temperate Forest
JCU 101: Jalisco ( Mexico) 238 1 10,150 29,409 61 5 35 frequent dispersal high some much decreasing
JCU 100: Sonora ( Mexico) 140 2 1,369 13,859 100 0 0 infrequent dispersal medium much much stable
JCU 12: Sierra Madre Oriental ( Mexico) 133 3 21,618 21,618 0 100 0 infrequent dispersal poor some some decreasing
JCU 102: Sierra Tamaulipas ( Mexico) 90 4 1,387 1,387 0 100 0 infrequent dispersal medium some much stable
8.1 Northern Mexico/Mangrove
JCU 101: Jalisco ( Mexico) 238 1 1,430 29,409 61 5 35 frequent dispersal high some much decreasing
8.2 Central American/Mangrove
JCU 206: Choco-Darien (Colombia,
Panama) 252 1 660 70,029 93 6 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
JCU 76: La Mosquitia (Honduras) no data 2 1,919 30,389 63 0 36 no data no data no data no data no data
8.3 Northern South America/Mangrove
JCU 206: Choco-Darien (Colombia,
Panama) 252 1 772 70,029 93 6 0 frequent dispersal high some some stable
8.4 Amazonia/Mangrove
none — — — — — — — — — — — —
8.5 Eastern South America/Mangrove
JCU 252: Atlantic Forest (Brazil) 182 1 1,887 30,843 0 0 100 infrequent dispersal high much much decreasing
aThe JGRs are named by region and habitat type. Numeric codes are in Fig. 1, and the geographic information system (GSI) data sets distributed through www.savethejaguar.com.
bThe JCUs are named using encompassing or adjoining geographic features, including protected areas, rivers, mountain ranges, and/or states and provinces ( Fig. 1). The numeric codes refer
to indices in the GIS data sets distributed through www.savethejaguar.com.
cFinal prioritization score for JCU in given JGR. Higher values indicate better conditions for long-term survival of jaguar.
dArea measured in equal area azimuthal projection, central meridian -72, reference latitude 0.
eConnectivity interpreted in terms of frequency of dispersal to or from this JCU.
70 Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar Sanderson et al.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
species’ status in those areas is unknown. We believe it is
important to clearly distinguish between what is known
and what is unknown, because conservation choices de-
pend on the state of knowledge. As a result, our range map
has several large “holes” because it represents only the
known, currently occupied range ( Fig. 1b).
Finally this exercise, like the preceding effort for the
tiger ( Wikramanayake et al 1998), differs from other
species-based planning mechanisms because it is based
on an ecogeographic framework for setting priorities.
The goal is not to determine the most important site for
jaguar conservation overall, or the most important site in
a given country, but rather to find the most important
sites for ecologically distinct populations of jaguars. Be-
cause information is insufficient to define these ecologi-
cal distinctions a priori, we used a geographic proxy, the
jaguar geographic regions, which provided the frame-
work over which the data were summarized (Table 1)
and JCUs prioritized (Table 2).
All these techniques are designed to limit errors due to
the subjective nature of expert-based priority-setting sys-
tems by closely tracking how well certain facts are known,
where extrapolations are made, and where knowledge is
lacking. Moreover, these data are part of framework that
provides to any future user the ability to reanalyze the re-
sults and draw his or her own conclusions.
Whether or not the end results are “scientific” in a for-
mal sense seems less important than acknowledging the
limits of what we can do when planning for species
such as the jaguar. The jaguar historically ranged over
19.1 million km2, an area over twice that of the United
States including Alaska. Within that area there are per-
haps 100 professionals working to study and conserve
the jaguar; of them, 35 contributed information to this
work. Those experts speak three different languages and
come from 18 different countries. Through this exer-
cise, they established a common data framework on
which they all agreed and a broad consensus on priori-
ties for the species. The result is necessarily extensive in
geographic scope and lacking in intensive detail, but it
reflects the shared state of knowledge of jaguar status,
distribution, and geographic priorities.
Finally, range-wide, species-based conservation plan-
ning for the jaguar, or any other broadly distributed spe-
cies, complements other coarse-filter approaches to con-
servation planning by testing their generality through an
emphasis on single-species requirements. In this case
unfortunately, conserving supra-organismal entities such
as hotspots or ecoregions provides no guarantee of con-
serving jaguars across all the ecological settings where
they occur, because important locations for jaguars oc-
cur outside hotspots and across a large number of ecore-
gions (100). Moreover, priorities determined for the
jaguar alone may differ considerably from priorities de-
termined through other mechanisms focused on overall
biodiversity conservation. As a result, conservation ef-
forts in the Atlantic forests of Brazil might prove an inef-
ficient investment for conservation of the jaguar, given
the range of needs and opportunities for jaguar conser-
vation elsewhere. No planning tool meets all goals, but
different planning tools can and should complement and
enhance one another. With the jaguar exercise, we pro-
vide a model to reintroduce species to coarse-filter, in-
ternational conservation planning efforts.
Acknowledgments
We thank H. Hung, G. Raygordetsky, K. Willett, and G.
Woolmer for their assistance with data entry and geo-
graphic information system analysis and L. Pavajeau for
Spanish translation. D. Olson, R. Sayre, and M. Grigione
provided helpful advice for design of the priority-setting
methodology. The editors and two anonymous review-
ers also provided helpful critical reviews of an early draft
of this manuscript. This work was funded by grants from
Figure 3. Conceptual framework of
geographic data sets for range-wide
species conservation planning.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Sanderson et al. Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar 71
Jaguar Cars–US, the Prospect Hill Foundation, and soft-
ware donations from the Environmental Systems Research
Institute (ESRI).
Literature Cited
Biodiversity Support Program, Conservation International, The Nature
Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Resources Insti-
tute, and World Wildlife Fund. 1995. A regional analysis of geographic
priorities for biodiversity conservation in Latin America and the Carib-
bean. U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.
Boyce, M. S., and A. Haney. 1997. Ecosystem management: applications
for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press,
New Haven, Connecticut.
Callicott, J. B. 1990. Whither conservation ethics? Conservation Biology
4:15–20.
Dinerstein, E., D. M. Olson, D. J. Graham, A. L. Webster, S. A. Primm,
M. P. Bookbinder, and G. Ledec. 1995. A conservation assessment
of the terrestrial ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean.
World Wildlife Fund and The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Ehrlich, P. R., and A. H. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: the causes and conse-
quences of the disappearance of species. Random House, New York.
Franklin, J. F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems or
landscapes? Ecological Applications 3:202–205.
Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Importance of
standardized terminology in habitat evaluation. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 25:761–762.
Hunter, M. L. 1991. Coping with ignorance: the coarse-filter strategy for
maintaining biodiversity. Pages 266–281 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Bal-
ancing on the brink of extinction. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Hunter, M. L., and A. Hutchinson. 1994. The virtues and shortcomings
of parochialism: conserving species that are locally rare, but glo-
bally common. Conservation Biology 8:1163–1165.
Lioutty, A. A. 1996. ArcAtlas: our Earth (CDROM). Environmental Sys-
tems Research Institute and DATA+, Redlands, California.
Mann, C. C., and M. L. Plummer. 1995. Noah’s choice: the future of en-
dangered species. Knopf, New York.
Medellin, R. A., C. Chetkiewicz, A. Rabinowitz, K. H. Redford, J. G. Robin-
son, E. W. Sanderson, and A. Taber. 2001. El Jaguar en el nuevo mile-
nio: una evaluacion de su estado, deteccion de prioridades y recomen-
daciones para la conservacion de los jaguares en America. Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de Mexico and Wildlife Conservation Society,
México, D.F.
Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca,
and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.
Nature 403:853–858.
Noss, R. F. 1991. From endangered species to biodiversity. Pages 227–
246 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Balancing on the brink of extinction. Is-
land Press, Washington, D.C.
Olson, D. M., and E. Dinerstein. 1998. The global 200: a representation
approach to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable re-
gions. Conservation Biology 12:502–515.
Quigley, H. B., and P. G. Crawshaw. 1992. A conservation plan for the
jaguar Panthera onca in the Pantanal region of Brazil. Biological
Conservation 61:149–157.
Rabinowitz, A. R. 1986. Jaguar: one man’s battle to establish the world’s
first jaguar reserve. Anchor Books, New York.
Redford, K. H., and B. D. Richter. 1999. Conservation of biodiversity in
a world of use. Conservation Biology 13:1246–1256.
Salwasser, H. 1991. In search of an ecosystem approach to endangered
species conservation. Pages 228–265 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Balanc-
ing on the brink of extinction. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Seymour, K. L. 1989. Panthera onca. Mammalian Species 340.
Slattersfield, A. J., M. J. Crosby, A. J. Long, and D. C. Wege. 1998. En-
demic bird areas of the world: priorities for biodiversity conserva-
tion. BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Soulé, M. E., and M. Terborgh. 1999. Continental conservation: scien-
tific foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Weber, W., and A. Rabinowitz. 1996. A global perspective on large car-
nivore conservation. Conservation Biology 10:1046–1054.
Wikramanayake, E. D., E. Dinerstein, J. G. Robinson, U. Karanth, A.
Rabinowitz, D. Olson, T. Mathew, P. Hedao, M. Conner, G. Hem-
ley, and D. Bolze. 1998. An ecology-based method for defining pri-
orities for large mammal conservation: the tiger as case study. Con-
servation Biology 12:865–878.
Zink, R. M., G. F. Barrowclough, J. L. Atwood, and R. C. Blackwell-Rago.
2000. Genetics, taxonomy, and conservation of the threatened Cali-
fornia gnatcatcher. Conservation Biology 14::1394–1405.
72 Range-wide Conservation Planning for the Jaguar Sanderson et al.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002
Appendix
Expert contributors to the workshop on “Jaguars in the New Millennium” (March 1999).
Region Expert contributor Institution
Northern Mexico Marcelo Aranda Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Veracruz, México
Gerardo Ceballos Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Carlos A. López González Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative
Rodrigo Medellín Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Brian Miller Denver Zoological Foundation
Bill Van Pelt Arizona Game and Fish Department
Central America Eduardo Carrillo Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE)
Sharon Matola The Belize Zoo
Roan McNab Wildlife Conservation Society
Carolyn Miller Wildlife Conservation Society
John Polisar Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida
Alan Rabinowitz Wildlife Conservation Society
Howard Quigley The Hornocker Wildlife Research Institute
Joel Saenz Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica, Heredia
Christopher Vaughan Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica, Heredia
Northern South America Ernesto Boede Centro Veterinario “Los Colorados,” Venezuela
Louise Emmons Division of Mammals, Smithsonian Institution
Antonio González-Fernández Universidad Nacional Experimental de los Llanos
Occidentales “Ezequiel Zamora”
Tadeu Gomes de Oliveira Maranho State University/Pró-Carnívoros Association
Rafael Hoogesteijn Gerente Hatos de Apur, Prohesa y Grupo de Especialistas en Felinos
Edgardo Mondolfi Insituto de Zoología Tropical, Universidad Central de Venezuela
John Robinson Wildlife Conservation Society
Leandro Silveira Pró-Carnívoros Association/Universidade Federal de Goiás
Melvin Sunquist University of Florida
Gerardo Zuloaga Villamizar Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nactional de Colombia
Southern South America Peter Crawshaw Jr. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa para a Conservaço de Predadores Naturais
(CENAP/IBAMA)
Julio Dalponte Universidade de Brasília
Warren Johnson Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer Institute
Alicia Kuroiwa Tambopata Research Centre, Rainforest Expeditions
Maria Renata Pereira Leite Duke University
Ronaldo Morato Pró-Carnívoros Association/University of So Paulo
Pablo Perovic Instituto de Biologia de la Altura, Universidad Nacional de Jujuy
Karina Schiaffino Centro de Investigaciones Ecológicas Subtropicales, Administración de
Parques Nacionales, Argentina
Daniel Scognamillo University of Florida
Andrew Taber Wildlife Conservation Society
