Importance of genetics in the interpretation of favourable conservation status

Conservation Biology

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1378-1381

  Laikre, Linda ^a   Nilsson, Torbjörn ^b   Primmer, Craig R ^c   Ryman, Nils ^a   Allendorf, Fred W ^d  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b Värmland County Administrative Board ^*  (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION GENETICS; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION STATUS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; LEGAL ASPECT; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; UNITED STATES;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; GENETIC VARIATION; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 70450225481     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01360.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Allendorf, F. W., and N. Ryman. 2002. The role of genetics in population viability analysis. Pages 50 85 in S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCullough, editors. Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
2. Amos, W., and A. Balmford. 2001. When does conservation genetics matter? Heredity 87 : 257 265.
3. Avise, J. C. 2008. The history, purview, and future of conservation genetics. Pages 5 15 in S. P. Carroll and C. Fox, editors. Conservation biology: evolution in action. Oxford University Press, New York.
4. European Commission. 2006. Assessment, monitoring and reporting under article 17 of the habitats directive: explanatory notes & guidelines. Final draft - October 2006. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
5. European Commission. 2008. Notes to the guidelines for population level management plans for large carnivores. DG Environment, ENV.B.2 D/14591. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
6. European Commission. 2009. Article 17 technical report. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available from http://biodiversity. eionet.europa.eu/article17 (accessed July 2009).
7. Frankham, R. 2005. Genetics and extinction. Biological Conservation 126 : 131 140.
8. Franklin, I. R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations. Pages 135 149 in M. E. Soulé and B. Wilcox, editors. Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
9. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2001. IUCN Red List categories and criteria: version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and Gland, Switzerland.
10. Lande, R. 1995. Mutation and conservation. Conservation Biology 9 : 782 791.
11. Landweber, L. F., and A. P. Dobson. 1999. Genetics and the extinction of species. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
12. Linnell, J., V. Salvatori, and L. Boitani. 2008. Guidelines for population level management plans for large carnivores in Europe. Contract nr. 070501/2005/424162/MAR/B2. Final version. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
13. Mills, L. S., and F. W. Allendorf. 1996. The one-migrant-per-generation rule in conservation and management. Conservation Biology 10 : 1509 1518.
14. Shaffer, M., L. H. Watchman, W. J. Snape, and I. K. Latchis. 2002. Population viability analysis and conservation policy. Pages 123 142 in S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCullough, editors. Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
15. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. 2008. Rovdjuren och deras förvaltning (SOU 2007:89) - Svenska Naturskyddsföreningens remissyttrande [The carnivores and their management (SOU 2007:89) - comments from the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation]. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Stockholm, Sweden.
16. Wang, J. 2006. Application of the one-migrant-per-generation rule to conservation and management. Conservation Biology 18 : 332 343.