Skip to content
Ecological Intelligence

Ecological evidence.
Independent perspective.
Explore Wild Lands ↗

Ecological Intelligence / Subject

ecuador

Peer-reviewed Latin America & Caribbean

The Tumbesian bird list grew by 16% after researchers mapped where people had not looked

Evidence
Peer-reviewed
Geography
Tumbesian region of Ecuador and Peru
System
Tropical dry and humid forests and associated habitats

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS

A synthesis of more than 439,000 refined bird records identified 931 species in the Tumbesian region—about 16% more than previous estimates—including 24 new regional records and 82 endemic species. Sampling effort was strongly biased toward accessible coastal and protected areas; humid forests held the greatest recorded richness but only about half of estimated sampling completeness.

WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ

Conservation maps inherit survey effort. Apparent gaps in biodiversity can be gaps in observation, so prioritization should carry information about sampling completeness alongside richness and formal protection.

CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY

The analysis synthesizes occurrence records rather than standardized abundance surveys, and completeness estimates depend on the underlying data and modeling choices. More records do not automatically indicate increasing bird populations.

SOURCE

Conservation Science and Practice · Original evidence
View original evidence ↗

More than 439,000 records reveal major sampling gaps in the Ecuador–Peru hotspot, including incompletely surveyed humid forests that can distort richness and protection assessments.

Read the Wild Lands assessment →
Peer-reviewed Latin America & Caribbean

eDNA found Ecuador's Jambato frog—but only in a minority of water samples

Evidence
Peer-reviewed
Geography
Angamarca, Ecuador
System
Andean streams and critically endangered amphibian habitat

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS

A year of intensive field surveys recorded 71 Jambato frogs, including six tadpoles, at the species' only known locality. Targeted eDNA sampling detected the frog in 5 of 18 water samples, all during the wet season and often near tadpole habitat.

WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ

For rare-species surveillance, eDNA can extend detection beyond visual encounters, but absence from a sample is not strong evidence of absence from the site. Season, life stage and sampling design remain part of the observation process.

CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY

Detection probability was low and seasonally concentrated, and the study concerns one remnant population. Results support eDNA as a complementary tool, not a stand-alone census or proof that nondetections indicate local extinction.

SOURCE

Conservation Science and Practice · Original evidence
View original evidence ↗

At the critically endangered frog's only known locality, wet-season eDNA detections show promise for low-density monitoring while also exposing substantial nondetection risk.

Read the Wild Lands assessment →

Keep exploring

Follow the systems. Find the connections.

WildlifeLandWaterOceansClimateCitiesOne HealthGovernanceMethods / Monitoring
Browse the archive →