Setting conservation priorities when what you see is not what you get

Animal Conservation

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 14-15

  Vellend, Mark ^a   Kharouba, Heather M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873822432     PISSN: 13679430     EISSN: 14691795     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/acv.12023     Document Type: Note

References (8)

1. Ball, I.R., Possingham, H.P. & Watts, M. (2009). Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritisation. In Spatial conservation prioritisation: quantitative methods and computational tools: 185-195. Moilanen, A., Wilson, K.A. & Possingham, H.P. (Eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Cramer, V.A., Hobbs, R.J. & Standish, R.J. (2008). What's new about old fields? Land abandonment and ecosystem assembly. Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 23, 104-112.
3. Davies, K.F., Margules, C.R. & Lawrence, J.F. (2004). A synergistic effect puts rare, specialized species at greater risk of extinction. Ecology 85, 265-271.
4. Hanski, I. (1999). Metapopulation ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Jackson, S.T. & Sax, D.F. (2010). Balancing biodiversity in a changing environment: extinction debt, immigration credit and species turnover. Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 25, 153-160.
6. Krauss, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke, T. (2003). Local species immigration, extinction and turnover of butterflies in relation to habitat area and habitat isolation. Oecologia 137, 591-602.
7. Moilanen, A. (2007). Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol. Conserv. 134, 571-579.
8. Soga, M. & Koike, S. (2013). Mapping the potential extinction debt of butterflies in a modern city: implications for conservation priorities in urban landscapes. Anim. Conserv. 16, 1-11.