Reply to Brown et al.: Species and places are the priorities for conservation, not economic efficiency

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 112, Issue 32, 2015, Pages E4343-

  Jenkins, Clinton N ^a   Van Houtan, Kyle S ^b   Pimm, Stuart L ^b   Sexton, Joseph O ^c  

^a Instituto de Pesquisas Ecologicas   (Brazil)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION BIOLOGY; COST; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; KNOWLEDGE; LETTER; MASS EXTINCTION; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKILL; SPECIES CONSERVATION; UNITED STATES; ANIMAL;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES;

EID: 84938906969     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1511375112     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Brown CJ, et al. (2015) Effective conservation requires clear objectives and prioritizing actions, not places or species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112: E4342.
2. Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2009) High and far: Biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS One 4(12): E8273.
3. Jenkins CN, Van Houtan KS, Pimm SL, Sexton JO (2015) US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(16): 5081-5086.
4. Soulé ME (1985) What is conservation biology? Bioscience 35(11): 727-734.
5. Pimm SL, et al. (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344(6187): 1246752.