Content uploaded by Eva M. Spehn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eva M. Spehn
Content may be subject to copyright.
Geo-referenced archive databases on
mountain organisms are very promising
tools for achieving a better understand-
ing of mountain biodiversity and pre-
dicting its changes. The Global Moun-
tain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA) of
DIVERSITAS, in cooperation with the
Global Biodiversity Information Facility,
encourages a global effort to mine biodi-
versity databases on mountain organ-
isms. The wide range of climatic condi-
tions and topographies across the
world’s mountains offers an unparal-
leled opportunity for developing and
testing biodiversity theory. The power of
openly accessible, interconnected elec-
tronic databases for scientific biodiversi-
ty research, which by far exceeds the orig-
inal intent of archiving for mainly taxo-
nomic purposes, has been illustrated.
There is an urgent need to increase the
amount and quality of geo-referenced
data on mountain biodiversity provided
online, in order to meet the challenges of
global change in mountains.
Aims
The Global Mountain Biodiversity
Assessment (GMBA), a cross-cut-
ting network of DIVERSITAS, aims
to encourage and synthesize
research on high-altitude organis-
mic diversity, its regional and glob-
al patterns, and its causes and func-
tions (Koerner and Spehn 2002;
Spehn et al 2005). Existing and
emerging electronic databases are
among the most promising tools in
this field. Gradients of altitude and
associated climatic trends, topo-
graphic and soil peculiarities, frag-
mentation and connectivity among
biota and their varied geological
and phylogenetic history are the
major drivers and aspects of moun-
tain biodiversity, and electronic
archives provide avenues for testing
their impact on life at high eleva-
tions.
This research agenda was devel-
oped at a GMBA workshop in the
Central Caucasus in July 2006. It
capitalizes on expertise from differ-
ent fields of biology and database
experts, and was developed in coop-
eration with the Global Biodiversity
Information Facility (GBIF).
Enhancing awareness of the cen-
tral role of geo-referencing in data-
base building and use is one of the
central tasks of this agenda. Once
achieved, this permits linkage of bio-
logical information with other geo-
physical information, particularly cli-
mate data. The mountains of the
world exhibit different climatic
trends along their slopes, with only
few factors, such as the decline in
atmospheric pressure, ambient tem-
perature and clear sky radiation
changing in a common, altitude-spe-
cific way across the globe. None of
the other key components of cli-
mate, such as cloudiness and, with it,
actual solar radiation or precipita-
tion and associated soil moisture
show such global trends, and hence
are not altitude-specific. The separa-
tion of global from regional environ-
mental conditions along elevational
transects offers new perspectives for
understanding adaptation of moun-
tain biota. Similarly, information on
bedrock chemistry and mountain
topography offers test conditions for
edaphic drivers of biodiversity and
species radiation in an evolutionary
context across geographical scales.
Data-sharing for the mountain
research community
Many research projects generate
biodiversity datasets that may be rel-
evant for the wider scientific com-
munity, government and private
natural resource managers, policy-
makers, and the public. GBIF has a
mission to make the world’s primary
data on biodiversity freely and uni-
versally available via the Internet
(www.gbif.org).
The principle of open access
The UN Convention on Biological
Diversity has called for free and
open access to all past, present and
future public-good research results,
assessments, maps and databases on
biodiversity (CBD Dec. VIII/11).
Furthermore, all 47 current mem-
ber countries and 35 international
organizations in GBIF have commit-
ted themselves to “improving the
accessibility, completeness and inter-
operability of biodiversity databas-
es,” and to “promote the sharing of
biodiversity data in GBIF under a
common set of standards.” Added
value comes from sharing data
(Arzberger et al 2004a, b), but shar-
ing requires respect of author rights
and observation of certain rules as
defined by GBIF standards (Stolton
and Dudley 2004). Quite often it is
only through the linking of data
that scientific advance is achieved.
Hence protective habits are counter-
productive, given that an individual
database commonly does not con-
tain sufficient information for devel-
oping and testing theory and fur-
thering broad understanding. More-
over, many taxonomic databases rely
on the collective work of genera-
tions of scientists in a country.
Data sources and data
structure
There are 1) individual-based data
(primary occurrences, an individual
at a place at a particular time), and
2) taxon-based data (biological tax-
on characteristics such as morphol-
ogy, physiology, phylogeny, ecology,
genetics). These may refer to: a)
vouchered primary occurrences,
276
Creative Use of Mountain Biodiversity Databases: The Kazbegi Research Agenda
of GMBA-DIVERSITAS
Mountain Research and Development Vol 27 No 3 Aug 2007
277
b) observational data, or c) litera-
ture data. The quality and use of
primary species and species-occur-
rence data are highlighted in Chap-
man (2005a–c).
A full, best-practice database
entry should include the following
types of data:
• Organismic data (conventional
taxonomic information);
• Geo-information (coordinates,
altitude);
• Habitat information (edaphic,
topographic, atmospheric);
• Date and time of observation/
collection/recording;
• Reference to a voucher or
archive code;
• Name of collector/observer/
recorder;
• Metadata provide information on
datasets, such as content, extent,
accessibility, currency, complete-
ness, accuracy, uncertainties, fit-
ness-for-purpose and suitability-
for-use and enable the use of
data by third parties without ref-
erence to the originator of the
data (Chapman 2005b).
Mountain-specific aspects
Given the significance of topogra-
phy and elevation in mountains for
local biotic conditions, reported
geographical coordinates using
GPS should at least provide a reso-
lution of seconds. Elevation should
always be obtained independently
of GPS. Chapman and Wieczorek
(2006) provide Best Practices for
Georeferencing (assigning geo-
graphic coordinates to) a range of
different location types. Should
coordinates be missing, the Bio-
Geomancer Classic online tool
(www.biogeomancer.org) may be
able to reconstruct these from
locality, region or names.
Elevation data can have the fol-
lowing structure:
• Point data (for vouchers, data
loggers, climatic stations):
report as precisely as possible,
with uncertainties given. In most
cases a precision of 10 m eleva-
tion is enough, although earlier
GPS data will offer less preci-
sion.
• Stratified range elevation data,
which offer entries for certain
taxa in a step by step elevational
catena (eg 100-m steps). If this is
not available, at least the eleva-
tional center of the variable/tax-
on should be provided.
• Full range or amplitude data
(maximum and minimum eleva-
tion) with uncertainties. Range
data are critical for making up
lists of species for different eleva-
tional bands. The mid-point is
insufficient.
Note that such information becomes
almost useless if uncertainties in the
observation are not identified. One
way of getting around this is to
quote the data within range width
(100 m, 200 m, 1000 m). Uncertain-
ty associated with geo-referenced
localities along elevational gradients
can be measured with post-hoc 3-
dimensional geo-referencing (Rowe
2005).
Additional information (some
useful examples in a mountain
context)
• Plants: Biological attributes such
as size (height), life form, flower
features, current phenology, seed
size, growth form, and other spe-
cial attributes. These data can
sometimes be obtained from tax-
onomic sources and stored in
relational databases.
• Animals: Biological attributes
such as size (width, length, etc),
trophic habit, interactions (prey,
mutualistic species, host, phenol-
ogy, life stage).
• Abundance or frequency meas-
ures (eg random sample of
quadrats). Information on
rareness, conservation status,
dominant associates, population
structure, if available.
Visions and suggestions for
scientific use of mountain
biodiversity e-data
The power of openly accessible,
interconnected electronic databases
for scientific biodiversity research by
far exceeds the original intent of
archiving for mainly taxonomic pur-
poses, as will be illustrated by the
following examples. Each example
starts with a scientifically important
question or hypothesis (what?) and
continues by providing a motive
(why would we want to know this?)
and suggestions about how to
approach this task by data mining
and data linking. The application of
a common mountain terminology
(a convention) is an essential prereq-
uisite for communication (Figure 1).
Mountains—a laboratory for
understanding basic questions
of evolution: How is mountain
biodiversity generated,
evolved, assembled?
What? The origin and assembly of
mountain biota have to be under-
stood in a historical context. For a
given mountain area: where did its
taxa arise, and how were taxa assem-
bled over time? How many of the
extant species resulted from the
radiation of lineages that evolved
within the area as opposed to the
radiation of lineages that were
introduced from other areas or
even continents or other ecosys-
tems? How important has long-dis-
tance dispersal been for the assem-
bly of mountain biota, and how and
when did evolutionary lineages
migrate from one mountain area to
others? What are the main sources
of long-distance dispersal events?
Has the capacity of long-distance
dispersal itself been a factor in the
rapid radiation of alpine lineages?
Why? Mountains are islands of
varying size, and thus present a
good opportunity to ask questions
about genesis of mountain biota,
the impact of competition from oth-
MountainNotes
Mountain Research and Development Vol 27 No 3 Aug 2007
278
er biota on speciation rates, and
adaptive evolution. Where arid cli-
mates have developed at lower ele-
vations, alpine areas can act as “con-
servation areas for phylogenetic lin-
eage” for lowland lineages (see
Hershkovitz et al 2006). Mountains
have acted (and will act) as refugia
for species survival during extreme
climatic events, including for
ancient phylogenetic lineages.
Rapid rates of speciation have been
documented in recent phylogenetic
studies for genera in high-elevation
areas (eg Hughes and Eastwood
2006). Rapid evolution is also a fac-
tor for predictions related to cli-
mate change.
How? Combine data from phy-
logenetic and phylogeographic
databases, regional species lists,
classification by elevation (eg selec-
tion of alpine species), geographic
distribution and species range lim-
its. Information on resilience of a
species to change (life form, life
cycle characteristics, reproduction,
and phenological data).
Are there common elevational trends
in mountain biodiversity? What
drives them?
What? The overarching issue is to
challenge the common notion that
species richness in alpine areas is
necessarily low. Life conditions
change with elevation in global but
also in very regional ways, and equal
steps in elevational climatic change
are associated with decreasing avail-
able land area per step (belt; Koer-
ner 2000). Furthermore, land sur-
face roughness (habitat diversity)
commonly increases with elevation.
Finally, mountains represent archi-
pelagos of contrasting connectivity
and island size. How is biodiversity
influenced by these 4 aspects of ele-
vation (climate, area, fragmentation
and roughness)?
Why? The wide amplitude of cli-
matic conditions and topographies
across the world’s mountains offers
an unparalleled opportunity for
developing and testing biodiversity
theory. How does species richness
in mountains change with latitude
or elevation; do reductions in
species richness on opposite-facing
slopes parallel altitudinal gradients
and/or similar temperature gradi-
ents (Figure 1)? Ratios of trends in
various taxonomic groups make it
possible to distill biotic interdepen-
dencies or at least correlative associ-
ations. Such biodiversity ratios can
serve as predictive tools. The climat-
ic relatedness of emerging trends
can assist in projections of climate
change impacts.
How? The major tool is selective
comparison of stratified biodiversity
data for various organismic groups
across elevational transects of major
mountain systems. Key problems to
be solved are the confounding
between altitude-specific (global)
and region-specific (local) climatic
trends and the geological age and
spatial extent of mountain systems.
Links with fine resolution GIS and
world climate databases are essential.
Are there typical elevational trends
in organismic traits across the
globe?
What? Across the globe we observe
the independent evolution of cer-
tain traits as elevation increases
(convergent evolution). Are these
trends and traits related to common
elevational gradients under envi-
ronmental conditions (eg tempera-
ture) or do they reflect specific cli-
matic trends that are not common
to all mountains (eg precipitation),
and would they thus also be found
at respective gradients at low eleva-
tions? Would common edaphic con-
ditions (eg presence of scree) alone
explain certain trends? Typical traits
to be explored are size and mass of
organisms, special functional types
such as the cushion plant life form,
giant rosettes or woolly plants, cer-
tain reproductive strategies, plant
breeding systems, pollinator types,
hibernation, dispersal characteris-
tics, diffusivity of egg shells, etc.
Why? Most of these traits can-
not be modified experimentally and
thus presumably reflect long-term
evolutionary selection. Many of
FIGURE 1 The GMBA concept of vertical and horizontal comparison of mountain biota.
279
these trends relate to the basic func-
tioning of plants and animals. We
need to separate taxonomic related-
ness from independent environ-
mental action. A functional inter-
pretation would require a mecha-
nistic explanation: are cushion
plants abundant at high elevations
because of loose, poorly developed
substrate, insufficient moisture,
strong wind, too low temperature,
short seasons, or certain combina-
tions of these? Is high pubescence
truly and generally more abundant
at high elevation, and if so, under
which high-elevation environmental
conditions does this trend become
enhanced?
How? The compressed width of
climatic belts in mountains offers
‘experiments by nature’ to test such
hypotheses over short geographical
distances (Koerner 2003) by com-
paring trends in traits across a suite
of mountain transects in areas of
contrasting geological/evolutionary
history and different climates. A test
across different phylogenetic
groups would reveal taxonomic
relatedness. A comparison across
different latitudes could separate
seasonality and absolute altitude
(pressure) effects because low tem-
peratures such as those at treeline
are found at 4000 m near the equa-
tor and 500 m above sea level at the
polar circle.
Are biotic links and
biodiversity ratios among
organismic groups tighter
with elevation?
What? Functional interactions
between organisms (trophic,
mechanical, physiological and path-
ogenic) drive coexistence and com-
petition among taxa. Do these ties
become looser or tighter as eleva-
tion increases? For instance, does
generalist pollination increase with
elevation? Are such links (eg mycor-
rhization, predation, facilitation)
becoming simpler (multiple vs
unique partner organisms)?
Why? Alpine areas provide a
unique opportunity for understand-
ing how coevolution developed.
Functionally, the maintenance of
species richness and mutualism is
known to be critical for maintaining
plant fitness in harsh environments.
As biodiversity of montane environ-
ments usually decreases with eleva-
tion, it may be more and more diffi-
cult to find a host for any special-
ized organism, and having a wider
range of hosts could be favorable.
Biodiversity ratios are a promising
(to be explored) tool for rapid
inventory works (the diversity of key
taxonomic groups as indicators).
How? Comparisons of altitudinal
patterns of diversity of species assem-
blages, use of known data on mutual-
istic species (eg specific pollinators,
prey, mycorrhiza), linking data for
different taxonomic groups (eg but-
terflies vs. angiosperm diversity).
Are there functional
implications of mountain
biodiversity?
What? What is the contribution of
mountain biodiversity to ecosystem
integrity, ie slope stability? What is
the functional redundancy in traits
among organisms in a given area,
what is their sensitivity to stress and
disturbance (insect outbreaks, ava-
lanches)?
Why? Ecosystem integrity on
steep mountain slopes and in high-
elevation landscapes is mainly a
question of soil stability, which in
turn depends on plant cover. The
insurance hypothesis of biodiversity
suggests that the more diversity (eg
genetic diversity, morpho-types)
there is, the less likely it is that
extreme events or natural diseases
will lead to a decline in ecosystem
functioning or a failure of vegeta-
tion to prevent soil erosion. In
steep terrain, more than anywhere
else, catchment quality is intimately
linked to ecosystem integrity. The
provision of sustainable and clean
supplies of water is the most impor-
tant and increasingly limiting
mountain resource.
How? Old vs new inventory
data, recent loss or gain of certain
plant functional types (eg trees).
Recent land cover change (remote
sensing evidence, NDVI). Apart
from information on composition
of vegetation and functional traits
of taxa (eg rooting depth, root
architecture, growth form), geo-
graphical information is needed
(geomorphology: slope, relief, soil
depth; climate, precipitation, evapo-
transpiration, extreme rain events,
snow cover duration). Comparison
of different mountain regions (eg
presence/absence of woody/non-
woody vegetation). Spatial land cov-
er information can be used to devel-
op scenarios at landscape scale.
What are the socioeconomic
impacts on mountain biodiversity?
What? Humans shape mountain veg-
etation by clearing land, grazing,
abandoning, collecting, etc, which
may increase or decrease mountain
biodiversity (Spehn et al 2005) and,
through this, affect slope processes,
erosion, water yield and inhabitabil-
ity. Are areas with traditional burn-
ing regimes, in combination with
grazing, poorer in species of flower-
ing plants, butterflies, and wild
ungulates than grazed areas in
which burning is not a tradition?
Do these trends interact with pre-
cipitation? Is high human popula-
tion density at high elevations relat-
ed to the specific loss of woody
taxa? Is the biological richness of
inaccessible microhabitats (topogra-
phy-caused ‘wilderness’) a measure
or good reference of potential bio-
diversity of adjacent, transformed
land?
Why? Of all global change
effects, land use is the predominant
driver of changes in mountain bio-
diversity. By comparing areas of his-
torically contrasting land use
regimes we can learn how these
human activities shape biota. Ratios
of wilderness biodiversity to adja-
cent managed biodiversity indicate
MountainNotes
Mountain Research and Development Vol 27 No 3 Aug 2007
the actual impact of land use. The
abundance of red list taxa or medic-
inal plants can be related to human
population pressure and land use
intensity.
How? Linking thematic databas-
es for land cover type, population
density and climate with regional
biodiversity inventories. Global
comparisons across different cli-
mates and land use histories should
permit distilling certain overarch-
ing trends. Comparison of inten-
sively used high-elevation rangeland
in regions of contrasting natural
biodiversity should illustrate the sig-
nificance of regional species pools
for biodiversity in transformed land-
scapes (eg Caucasus vs Alps). A
comparison of rangeland biodiversi-
ty in geologically young (steep)
mountain regions with that in geo-
logically old (smooth) mountain
landscapes could reveal interactive
influences of landscape roughness
and land use on biodiversity.
Effective conservation of mountain
biodiversity under global
environmental change: how best to
assess effects of current efforts and
future trends?
What? Which is the minimum altitudi-
nal range required for protected
areas in mountain regions? What are
the minimum habitat size and
requirements for long-term viable
(meta-)populations under high
mountain conditions and under
future climate change? Which are the
best diversity/area relationships in
high mountain environments for con-
servation purposes? What is the rele-
vance of connectivity through gene
flow for geographically isolated popu-
lations on high mountains? Which
are suitable indicators and the most
likely drivers of biodiversity change in
protected areas in mountains?
Why? With many global moun-
tain biodiversity hotspots increasingly
threatened, efforts are underway to
preserve these unique biota, largely
by establishing a system of protected
areas on mountains (Koerner and
Ohsawa 2005). Relevant variables for
conservation biology such as mini-
mum range, viable population size,
and connectivity become especially
critical in high mountain environ-
ments, where range sizes are general-
ly small and where populations are
often geographically isolated. In
combination with population, genet-
ic, ecological, and phylogeographic
data for species of high conservation
concern, analysis of such compara-
tive data from different mountain
ranges should provide guidelines for
critical habitat sizes and minimum
coverage of elevational ranges, with
the overall task of maximizing the
evolutionary potential through phy-
logenetic diversity and of capturing
unique elements of mountain biota
(see Box).
How? For conservation plan-
ning it will be important to inte-
grate occurrence data across multi-
ple organismic groups from differ-
ent mountain areas, which need to
be analyzed in combination with
other biotic and abiotic data using
information such as in the Global
Database of Protected Areas of
IUCN and WCMC.
Open access and a GBIF
portal to shared mountain
biodiversity data
The Global Biodiversity Information
Facility (GBIF) has already estab-
lished biodiversity information net-
works, data exchange standards, and
an information architecture that
enables interoperability and facili-
tates mining of biodiversity data.
GBIF’s technical expertise is an
essential prerequisite for this proj-
ect and we welcome the idea of cre-
ating a specific GBIF data portal on
mountain biodiversity. GMBA in
turn can help to encourage moun-
tain biodiversity researchers to share
their data within GBIF, in order to
increase the amount and quality of
geo-referenced data on mountain
biodiversity provided online. These
tasks are also in line with the imple-
mentation of the program of work
(PoW) for the Global Taxonomy Ini-
tiative (GTI) and for mountain bio-
logical diversity of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD).
REFERENCES
Arzberger P, Schroeder P, Beaulieu A, Bowker G,
Casey K, Laaksonen L, Moorman D, Uhlir P,
Wouters P. 2004a. Promoting Access to Public
Research Data for Scientific, Economic, and
Social Development. Data Science Journal
3(29):135–152. http://journals.eecs.qub.ac.
uk/codata/journal/contents/3_04/3_04pdfs/
DS377.pdf: accessed on 5 January 2007.
Arzberger P, Schroeder P, Beaulieu A, Bowker G,
Casey K, Laaksonen L, Moorman D, Uhlir P,
Wouters P. 2004b. An international framework to
promote access to data. Science 303:1777–1778.
Chapman AD. 2005a. Principles and Methods of
Data Cleaning, version 1.0. Report for the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen.
Copenhagen, Denmark: Global Biodiversity Infor-
mation Facility. www.gbif.org/prog/digit/data_
quality; accessed on 5 January 2007.
Chapman AD. 2005b. Principles of Data Quality,
version 1.0. Copenhagen, Denmark: Global Biodi-
versity Information Facility. www.gbif.org/prog/
digit/data_quality; accessed on 5 January 2007.
280
Mountain terminology and GMBA concept of comparative
mountain biodiversity research
GMBA distinguishes between three elevational belts and a transition zone:
• The montane belt extends from the lower mountain limit to the upper thermal
limit of forest (irrespective of whether forest is currently present or not).
• The alpine belt is the temperature-driven treeless region between the natural
climatic forest limit and the snowline that occurs worldwide. Synonyms for
“alpine” are ‘‘andean’’ or ‘‘afro-alpine’’.
• The nival belt is the terrain above the snowline, which is defined as the
lowest elevation where snow is commonly present all year round (though not
necessarily with full cover).
• The treeline ecotone is the transition zone between the montane and
alpine belts.
281
Chapman AD. 2005c. Uses of Primary Species-
Occurrence Data, version 1.0. Copenhagen, Den-
mark: Global Biodiversity Information Facility.
www.gbif.org/prog/digit/data_quality; accessed
on 5 January 2007.
Chapman AD, Wieczorek J, editors. 2006. Guide
to Best Practices for Georeferencing. Copen-
hagen, Denmark: Global Biodiversity Information
Facility. www.gbif.org/prog/digit/Georeferencing;
accessed on 5 January 2007.
Hershkovitz MA, Arroyo MTK, Bell C, Hinojosa F.
2006. Phylogeny of Chaetanthera (Asteraceae:
Mutisieae) reveals both ancient and recent ori-
gins of the high elevation lineages. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 41:594–605.
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2006.05.003.
Hughes C, Eastwood R. 2006. Island radiation
on a continental scale: Exceptional rates of
plant diversification after uplift of the Andes.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
103:10334–10339.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0601928103.
Koerner C. 2000. Why are there global gradients
in species richness? Mountains might hold the
answer. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:
513–514.
Koerner C, Spehn EM, editors. 2002. Moun-
tain Biodiversity. A Global Assessment. Lon-
don, United Kingdom: Parthenon Publishing
Group.
Koerner C. 2003. Alpine Plant Life. 2nd edition.
Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Koerner C, Ohsawa M, et al. 2005. Mountain
Systems. [Chapter 24]. In: Hassan R, Scholes
R, Ash N, editors. Ecosystems and Human Well-
being. Current State and Trends: Findings of the
Condition and Trends Working Group. Millenni-
um Ecosystem Assessment Vol 1. Washington,
DC: Island Press, pp 681–716.
Rowe RJ. 2005. Elevational gradient analyses
and the use of historical museum specimens: A
cautionary tale. Journal of Biogeography 32:
1883–1897
Spehn EM, Liberman M, Koerner C, editors.
2005. Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiver-
sity. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Stolton S, Dudley N. 2004. Sharing Information
with Confidence—“The Biodiversity Commons”:
Past Experience, Current Trends and Potential
Future Directions. IUCN [The World Conservation
Union]. http://www.conservationcommons.org/
media/document/docu-h0xjc6.doc; accessed on
5 January 2007.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the hospitality of the
Institute of Botany, Georgian Academy of Sci-
ence (George Nakhutsrishvili, Otar Abdalaze).
Funds were provided by the Swiss National Sci-
ence Foundation (SNSF), DIVERSITAS (Paris),
and individual travel grants to participants from
their home institutions.
MountainNotes
Forests are crucial for the well-being of
humanity. They provide foundations for
life on earth through ecological func-
tions, by regulating climate and water
resources and serving as habitats for
plants and animals. Forests also furnish
a wide range of essential goods such as
wood, food, fodder and medicines, in
addition to opportunities for recreation,
spiritual renewal and other services
(FRA 2003). Forestland covers
21,188,746 ha, which corresponds to
approximately 27% of the surface area
of Turkey (OGM 2007). Forests are
among the most popular ecotourism des-
tinations because of their unique values
for tourists interested in nature in local
values and culture. It is therefore critical
to adopt a sustainable development
approach in the management of moun-
tains and forests, where biodiversity must
be conserved in the long term to mini-
mize the negative impacts of tourism.
This is increasingly being acknowledged
by governmental institutions and non-
governmental organizations in some
areas of Turkey. We report here on the
development of ecotourism and the sup-
port of local communities and other
stakeholders in the Kure Mountains,
emphasizing awareness-raising activities
and benefits to the local economy.
Ecotourism in Turkey
The Kure Mountains, located in the
provinces of Kastamonu and
Bartın—one of the largest protected
areas in Turkey with old-growth for-
est formation—have been visited by
growing numbers of tourists since
2000. There are no statistical visitor
data about the Kure Mountains, but
tourism statistics for Kastamonu
(2000–2006) give a picture of the
increasing numbers of tourists in
the region (Table 1).
It is encouraging that there are
different environmentally sensitive
Ecotourism in Old-growth Forests in Turkey: The Kure Mountains Experience
Christian Körner
Institute of Botany, Schönbeinstrasse 6,
4056 Basle, Switzerland.
gmba@unibas.ch, ch.koerner@unibas.ch
Michael Donoghue
Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
Yale University, PO Box 208105, New Haven,
CT 06520-8106, USA.
michael.donoghue@yale.edu
Thomas Fabbro
Unit of Evolutionary Biology, Vesalgasse 1,
4001 Basle, Switzerland.
thomas.fabbro@unibas.ch
Christoph Häuser
Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, Rosen-
stein 1, 70101 Stuttgart, Germany.
chaeuser@gmx.de
David Nogués-Bravo
Center for Macroecology, Universitetsparken
15, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
DNogues@bi.ku.dk
Mary T. Kalin Arroyo
Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity (IEB),
Univ de Chile, Casilla 653, Santiago, Chile.
Contract: ICM P02-051, Chile.
southern@abello.dic.uchile.cl
Jorge Soberon
Division of Ornithology, Univ of Kansas,
1345 Jayhawk Boulevard, Dyche Hall,
Lawrence, KS 6654-7562, USA.
jsoberon@ku.edu
Larry Speers
Global Biodiversity Information Facility GBIF,
Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen,
Denmark.
lspeers@gbif.org
Eva M. Spehn
GMBA office, Institute of Botany,
Schönbeinstrasse 6, 4056 Basel, Switzer-
land.
gmba@unibas.ch
Hang Sun
Kunming Institute of Botany, CAS, Longquan
Road 610, Heilongtan, Kunming 650204,
Yunnan, China.
hsun@mail.kib.ac.cn
Andreas Tribsch
Dept of Organismic Biology, Ecology and
Diversity of Plants, University of Salzburg,
Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020 Salzburg,
Austria.
andreas.tribsch@sbg.ac.at
Piotr Tykarski
Dept of Ecology, Warsaw University, Banacha
2, 2097 Warsaw, Poland.
ptyk@biol.uw.edu.pl
Niklaus Zbinden
Swiss Ornithological Institute Sempach,
6204 Sempach, Switzerland.
niklaus.zbinden@vogelwarte.ch
doi:10.1659/mrd.0880
