Caracterización de la biodiversidad de fauna en el bioparque Yanacocha

Iarleicy Emely Flores Pérez; Wilmer Fabian Naula López; Nixon Daniel Shiguango Licuy; Daysi Lorena Caiza López

doi:10.67321/2gxa2f16

Authors

Iarleicy Emely Flores Pérez Universidad Estatal Amazónica, Puyo, Pastaza, Ecuador Author https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0684-0923
Wilmer Fabian Naula López Universidad Estatal Amazónica, Puyo, Pastaza, Ecuador Author https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7657-4750
Nixon Daniel Shiguango Licuy Universidad Estatal Amazónica, Puyo, Pastaza, Ecuador Author https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4994-4540
Daysi Lorena Caiza López Universidad Estatal Amazónica, Puyo, Pastaza, Ecuador Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9582-0762

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.67321/2gxa2f16

Keywords:

biodiversity, wildlife, illegal trafficking, rescue center, conservation, Ecuadorian Amazon

Abstract

Biodiversity loss and illegal wildlife trafficking constitute critical threats to Ecuadorian Amazonian ecosystems, where rescue centers represent key spaces for the care, documentation, and conservation of species affected by human activities. This study aimed to characterize the wildlife biodiversity of the Yanacocha Biopark, located at kilometer 3.5 of the Puyo–Tena road, Pastaza Province, Ecuador, through systematic species recording, analysis of diversity indices, and identification of the main causes of animal intake. Four weekly direct observation visits were conducted during January 2026, complemented by a semi-structured interview with the biopark owner. A total of 48 species across five taxonomic groups were recorded: mammals (20 spp., 41.67%), birds (15 spp., 31.25%), reptiles (7 spp., 14.58%), fish (5 spp., 10.42%), and amphibians (3 spp., 6.25%). Calculated indices indicated high diversity (H' = 3.75), low dominance (d = 0.22), and equitable distribution among groups (J' = 0.97). Illegal trafficking constituted the main cause of intake (57.78%), followed by rescue due to injury or vulnerability (28.89%) and illegal domestic possession (13.33%). Results demonstrate that the Yanacocha Biopark plays a relevant role in the ethical care of affected wildlife and in environmental education, although its direct contribution to population conservation is limited, reinforcing the need to strengthen regulatory frameworks and systematic registration systems in Amazonian rescue centers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Beaulieu, M. (2025). Rehabilitating wild animal welfare: A focus on veterinary rescue and rehabilitation interventions. Research in Veterinary Science. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2025.105582

Cardoso, P., et al. (2021). Scientists' warning to humanity on illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade. Biological Conservation, 247, 109341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109341

Centro Jambatu. (2024). Reporte de impacto sobre conservación ex situ de anfibios amenazados en cautiverio en Ecuador (incluye especies críticamente en peligro). https://files.stlzoo.org/production/documents/WildCare-Institute/Ecuador-Impact-Report24-241016.pdf

Costa, M. M., Pinto da Cunha, N., Hagnauer, I., & Venegas, M. (2024). A retrospective analysis of admission trends and outcomes in a wildlife rescue and rehabilitation center in Costa Rica. Animals, 14(1), Article 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14010051

Crespo-Gascón, S., Solórzano, C. B., & Guerrero-Casado, J. (2022). Tráfico nacional de fauna silvestre y especies amenazadas: Un estudio descriptivo en Manabí (Ecuador). La Granja: Revista de Ciencias de la Vida, 35(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.17163/lgr.n35.2022.03

De la Torre, S., & Morelos-Juárez, C. (2022). Primate Conservation Efforts and Sustainable Development Goals in Ecuador, Combining Research, Education and Capacity Building. Animals. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202750

Fukushima, C. S., Tricorache, P., Toomes, A., Stringham, O. C., & Marsden, S. J. (2021). Challenges and perspectives on tackling illegal wildlife trade. Biological Conservation, 263, 109342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109342

Guénard, B., Hughes, A. C., Lainé, C., Cannicci, S., Russell, B. D., & Williams, G. A. (2025). Limited and biased global conservation funding means most threatened species remain unsupported. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122(9). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412479122

Hughes, A., Auliya, M., Altherr, S., Scheffers, B., Janssen, J., Nijman, V., … Edwards, D. P. (2023a). Determining the sustainability of legal wildlife trade. Journal of Environmental Management. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117987

Hughes, L. J., Morton, O., Scheffers, B. R., & Edwards, D. P. (2023b). The ecological drivers and consequences of wildlife trade. Biological Reviews, 98(3), 775–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12929

Johnston, A., Matechou, E., & Dennis, E. B. (2023b). Outstanding challenges and future directions for biodiversity monitoring using citizen science data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 14(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13834

Kleemann, J., Koo, H., Hensen, I., Mendieta-Leiva, G., Kahnt, B., Kurze, C., … Fürst, C. (2022). Priorities of action and research for the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services in continental Ecuador. Biological Conservation. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109404

Macdonald, D. W., Harrington, L. A., Moorhouse, T. P., & D’Cruze, N. (2021). Trading animal lives: Ten tricky issues on the road to ending wildlife trade. BioScience, 71(12), 1232–1242. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab035

Ortega-Andrade, H. M., Rodes Blanco, M., Cisneros-Heredia, D. F., Guerra Arévalo, N., López de Vargas-Machuca, K. G., Sánchez-Nivicela, J. C., Armijos-Ojeda, D., Cáceres Andrade, J. F., Reyes-Puig, C., Quezada Riera, A. B., Szekely, P., Rojas Soto, O. R., Szekely, D., Guayasamin, J. M., & Yánez Muñoz, M. H. (2021). Red List assessment of amphibian species of Ecuador: A multidimensional approach for their conservation. PLoS ONE, 16(5), e0251027. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251027

Paterson, J. E., Carstairs, S., & Davy, C. M. (2021). Population-level effects of wildlife rehabilitation and release vary with life-history strategy. Journal for Nature Conservation, 61, Article 125983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2021.125983

Prosekov, A., Kuznetsov, A., Rada, A., & Ivanova, S. (2020). Methods for Monitoring Large Terrestrial Animals in the Wild. Forests, 11(8), 808. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080808

Rivera, S. N., Knight, A., & McCulloch, S. (2021). Surviving the wildlife trade: Reforming the management of confiscated animals. Animals, 11(2), 439. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020439

Rose, P. E., & Lewton, J. (2025). Key Concepts for Enhancing Zoo Animal Welfare: Coping, Comfort, Choice, Control, Challenge, and Compassion. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 28(3), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2024.2440891

Stephenson, P. J., & Carbone, G. (2021). Guidelines for planning and monitoring corporate biodiversity performance. International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.05.en

Tallo-Parra, O., Salas, M., & Manteca, X. (2023). Zoo Animal Welfare Assessment: Where Do We Stand? Animals. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121966

Villalba-Briones, R., Mendoza, P., & Garcés, D. (2024). Synergistic threats to wildlife in Ecuador. Diversity, 16(8), 490. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16080490

Zhao, Y., Liu, J., Wang, F., Zhang, Y., & Ma, Z. (2025). Targeted conservation actions are required to save species from extinction. Biological Conservation, 310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111340

Zwerts, J. A., et al. (2021). Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps and passive acoustic sensors. Conservation Science and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.568