tionally more studies on community ecology and pro-
portionally fewer systematic studies were carried out
in Monteverde than in La Selva (Table 1.1). To date,
the number of publications from Monteverde (1966—
95) is 253, versus 944 from La Selva (1951-90;
McDade et al. 1994). Several patterns emerge from a
review of Monteverde publications. Monteverde's
biotic and cultural diversity, aesthetic beauty, be-
nign climate, and welcoming human community have
attracted dedicated biologists who are strongly moti-
vated to conserve natural resources in the area. Re-
searchers, educators, residents, and conservationists
have an extraordinary pool of information at hand, but
it is distributed patchily. Certain areas are dispropor-
tionately well studied because of the efforts of a single
senior scientist (e.g., hummingbird pollination sys-
tems), while many areas have never been formally
studied (e.g., soil classification). Contribution and
access to the existing pool of information are difficult
because of the current lack of a central institution that
could supply sustained coordination of research, edu-
cation, and conservation projects, a library or biblio-
graphic system, curation of organismal collections, or
a facility for laboratory research or equipment stor-
age in Monteverde. Rather, these functions have been
spread thinly and often inefficiently among volunteer
resident and sporadically visiting biologists.
Biologists who work in Monteverde have tended
to work almost exclusively in Monteverde, so very few
cross-site comparisons to other tropical montane for-
ests exist. Opportunities to compare data sets with
other sites such as the Luquillo National Forest in
Puerto Rico or Los Planados forest in Colombia have
not been undertaken. On the other hand, Monteverde
has been the site of a great deal of long-term and
monitoring-type research, which is often lacking at
other tropical field sites. The bulk of the research re-
ported in scientific journals has been carried out by
North American biologists. A small number of Costa
Rican scientists and field workers have participated
in Monteverde research; that number appears to be
increasing and needs active encouragement.
The direct and indirect effects of ecotourism have
changed many aspects of life in Monteverde over the
past decade and the way in which research has been
conducted. The advent of telephones, electronic mail,
more efficient transportation within the country, and
numerous undergraduate courses have facilitated the
creation and exchange of scientific information. How-
ever, the social setting has altered; understandably,
Monteverde residents tend to be less "open" to new-
comers using their land to conduct research or inter-
views. The natural history guides who interpret eco-
logical and natural history research to the over 40,000
ecotourists who visit Monteverde each year are key
elements in the transfer of information from biologists
to the general public. Mechanisms are needed to en-
hance the flow of information from biologists to
guides by rewarding individuals in both groups for
taking the time and energy to share questions and
answers. The exchange of information between biolo-
gists and the practitioners of conservation is not well
facilitated by formal networks. Rather, conservation-
ists have tended to gather information informally,
from the few biologists who take the time and have
the communication skills (including fluency in Span-
ish and English) to provide relevant information, with
little direct reward.Literature CitedDaugherty, H. E. 1973. The Montecristo cloud-forest of El
Salvador—a chance for protection. Biological Conser-
vation 59:27-230.
Doumenge, C., D. Gilmour, M. Ruiz Perez, and J. Blockhus.- Tropical montane cloud forests: conservation
status and management issues. Pages 18-24 in L. S.
Hamilton, J. O. Juvik, and F. N. Scatena, editors, Tropi-
cal montane cloud forests. East-West Center, Honolulu.
Hamilton, L. S., J. O. Juvik, and F. N. Scatena, editors. 1993.
Tropical montane cloud forests. East-West Center,
Honolulu.
Holdridge, L. R. 1967. Life zone ecology. Tropical Science
Center, San Jose, Costa Rica.
LaBastille, A., and D. J. Pool. 1978. On the need for a sys-
tem of cloud-forest parks in Middle America and the
Caribbean. Environmental Conservation 5:183-190.
Lugo, A. E., and C. Lowe, editors. 1995. Tropical forests:
management and ecology. Springer, New York.
McDade, L., K. Bawa, H. Hespinheide, and G. Hartshorn.- La Selva: ecology and natural history of a neo-
tropical rain forest. University of Chicago Press, Chi-
cago, Illinois.
Stadtmiiller, T. 1987. Cloud forests in the humid tropics.
A bibliographic review. United Nations University,
Tokyo, and CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul-
tural Organization). 1981. Vegetation map of South
America. Explanatory notes. UNESCO, Paris.
13 Introduction