What data to use for forest conservation planning? A comparison of coarse open and detailed proprietary forest inventory data in Finland

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 8, 2015, Pages

  Lehtomäki, Joona ^a,b   Tuominen, Sakari ^c   Toivonen, Tuuli ^a   Leinonen, Antti ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^d Finnish Forest Centre Suomen Metsäkeskus   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FINLAND; FOREST MANAGEMENT; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; MEASUREMENT REPEATABILITY; VALIDATION STUDY; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FACTUAL DATABASE; FOREST; FORESTRY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; SOFTWARE; TREE;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FINLAND; FORESTRY; FORESTS; SOFTWARE; TREES;

EID: 84943279605     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135926     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. Game ET, Meijaard E, Sheil D, MacDonald-Madden E. Conservation in a wicked complex world; challenges and solutions. Conserv Lett. 2014;7:271-277. doi: 10.1111/conl.12050
2. Reyers B, Roux DJ, Cowling RM, Ginsburg AE, Nel JL, O'Farrell P. Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. Conserv Biol. 2010;24:957-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01497.x PMID: 20345401
3. Pooley SP, Mendelsohn JA, Milner-Gulland EJ. Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science. Conserv Biol. 2013;28:22-32. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12183 PMID: 24299167
4. Keane A. Unusual data in conservation science: searching for validation. Anim Conserv. 2013;10:604-605. doi: 10.1111/acv. 12091
5. Ferrier S, Drielsma M. Synthesis of pattern and process in biodiversity conservation assessment: a flexible whole-landscape modelling framework. Divers Distrib. 2010;16:386-402. doi: 10.1111/j. 1472-4642.2010.00657.x
6. Ferrier S, Wintle BA. Quantitative approaches to spatial conservation prioritization: matching the solution to the need. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP, editors. Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods & computational tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 304.
7. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M. Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006;21:681-687. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.10.003 PMID: 17050033
8. Branquart E, Verheyen K, Latham J. Selection criteria of protected forest areas in Europe: the theory and the real world. Biol Conserv. 2008;141:2795-2806. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon. 2008.08.015
9. Scheller RM, Mladenoff DJ. An ecological classification of forest landscape simulation models: tools and strategies for understanding broad-scale forested ecosystems. Landsc Ecol. 2007;22:491-505. doi: 10.1007/s10980-006-9048-4
10. Kujala H, Moilanen A, Araújo MB, Cabeza M. Conservation planning with uncertain climate change projections. PLoS One. 2013;8:1-12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053315
11. Visconti P, Pressey RL, Segan DB, Wintle BA. Conservation planning with dynamic threats: the role of spatial design and priority setting for species' persistence. Biol Conserv. 2010;143:756-767.
12. Pouzols FM, Toivonen T, Di Minin E, Kukkala AS, Kullberg P, Kuusterä J, et al. Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature. 2014;516:383-386. doi: 10.1038/nature14032 PMID: 25494203
13. Arponen A, Lehtomäki J, Leppänen J, Tomppo E, Moilanen A. Effects of connectivity and spatial resolution of analyses on conservation prioritization across large extents. Conserv Biol. 2012;26:294-304. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01814.x PMID: 22268786
14. Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP. Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2009.
15. Kukkala AS, Moilanen A. Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biol Rev. 2012;88:443-464. doi: 10.1111/brv. 12008 PMID: 23279291
16. Pressey RL, Cabeza M, Watts ME, Cowling RM, Wilson KA. Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007;22:583-592. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.001 PMID: 17981360
17. Wilson KA, Underwood EC, Morrison SA, Klausmeyer KR, Murdoch WW, Reyers B, et al. Conserving biodiversity efficiently: what to do, where, and when. Mace GM, editor. PLoS Biol. 2007;5:12. doi: 10. 1371/journal.pbio.0050223
18. Knight AT, Rodrigues ASL, Strange N, Tew T, Wilson KA. Designing effective solutions to conservation planning problems. In: Macdonald DW, Willis KJ, editors. Key topics in conservation boilogy 2. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley; 2013. pp. 362-383.
19. Moilanen A, Possingham HP, Polasky S. A mathematical classification of conseravation prioritization problems. In: Moilanen A, Wilson K, Possingham HP, editors. Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods & computational tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. pp. 28-42.
20. Lehtomäki J, Moilanen A. Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation. Environ Model Softw. 2013;47:128-137. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.05.001
21. Moilanen A, Kujala H, Leathwick JR. The Zonation framework and software for conservation prioritization. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KH, Possingham HP, editors. Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods & computational toolsnservation Prioritization. Oxford University Press; 2009. pp. 196-210.
22. Pressey RL, Watts ME, Barrett TW, Ridges MJ. The C-Plan conservation planning system: origins, applications and possible futures. In: Moilanen A, Wilson K, Possingham HP, editors. Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods & computational tools. Oxford University Press; 2009. pp. 211-234.
23. Ciarleglio M, Barnes JW, Sarkar S. ConsNet: new software for the selection of conservation area networks with spatial and multi-criteria analyses. Ecography (Cop). 2009;32:205-209. doi: 10.1111/j. 1600-0587.2008.05721.x
24. Possingham HP, Ball IR, Andelman SJ. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In: Ferson S, Burgman MA, editors. Quantitative methods for conservation biology. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000. pp. 291-305.
25. Wilson KA, Cabeza M, Klein CJ. Fundamental concepts of spatial conservation prioritization. In: Moilanen AJ, Wilson KA, Possingham HP, editors. Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods & computational tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. pp. 16-27.
26. Hodgson JA, Thomas CD, Wintle BA, Moilanen A. Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics. J Appl Ecol. 2009;46:964-969. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009. 01695.x
27. Hanski I. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature. 1998;396:41-49.
28. Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A. Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology. 2011;92:847-858. doi: 10.1890/09-2190.1 PMID: 21661548
29. Williams JC, Revelle CS, Levin SA. Spatial attributes and reserve design models: a review. Environ Model Assess. 2005;10:163-181. doi: 10.1007/s10666-005-9007-5
30. Heller NE, Zavaleta ES. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: Aareview of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv. 2009;142:14-32.
31. Kool JT, Moilanen A, Treml EA. Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28:165-185. doi: 10.1007/s10980-012-9819-z
32. Langford WT, Gordon A, Bastin L, Bekessy SA, White MD, Newell G. Raising the bar for systematic conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26:634-640. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.001 PMID: 21899914
33. Pettorelli N, Laurance WF, O'Brien TG, Wegmann M, Nagendra H, Turner W. Satellite remote sensing for applied ecologists: opportunities and challenges. J Appl Ecol. 2014;51:839-848. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12261
34. Maeda EE, Torres JA. Open environmental data in developing countries: who benefits? Ambio. 2012;41:410-2. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0283-4 PMID: 22528983
35. Pressey RL. Conservation planning and biodiversity: assembling the best data for the job. Conserv Biol. 2004;18:1677-1681. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00434.x
36. Rondinini C, Wilson K A, Boitani L, Grantham H, Possingham HP. Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecol Lett. 2006;9:1136-1145. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00970.x PMID: 16972877
37. Boitani L, Maiorano L, Baisero D, Falcucci A, Visconti P, Rondinini C. What spatial data do we need to develop global mammal conservation strategies? Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2011;366:2623-2632. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0117
38. Grantham HS, Pressey RL, Wells JA, Beattie AJ. Effectiveness of biodiversity surrogates for conservation planning: different measures of effectiveness generate a kaleidoscope of variation. Moen J, editor. PLoS One. 2010;5:1-12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011430
39. Carpenter SR, Armbrust EV, Arzberger PW, Iii FSC, Elser JJ, Hackett EJ, et al. Accelerate synthesis in ecology and environmental sciences. Bioscience. 2009;59:699-701. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.8. 11
40. Uhlir PF, Schröder P. Open data for global science: a review of recent developments in national and international scientific data policies and related proposals. Data Sci J. 2007;6:36-53. doi: 10.2481/dsj.6. OD1
41. Wolkovich EM, Regetz J, O'Connor MI. Advances in global change research require open science by individual researchers. Glob Chang Biol. 2012;18:2102-2110. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012. 02693.x
42. Egloff W, Patterson DJ, Agosti D, Hagedorn G. Open exchange of scientific knowledge and European copyright: the case of biodiversity information. Zookeys. 2014;135:109-135. doi: 10.3897/zookeys. 414.7717
43. Arzberger P, Schroeder P, Beaulieu A, Bowker G, Casey K, Laaksonen L, et al. An international framework to promote access to data. Science. 2004;303:1777-1778. doi: 10.1126/science. 1095958 PMID: 15031482
44. Bode M, Wilson KA, Brooks TM, Turner WR, Mittermeier RA, Mcbride MF, et al. Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:6498-501. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710705105 PMID: 18413614
45. Reichman OJ, Jones MB, Schildhauer MP. Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology. Science. 2011;331:703-705. doi: 10.1126/science.1197962 PMID: 21311007
46. Pullin AS, Salafsky N. Save the whales? Save the rainforest? Save the data! Conserv Biol. 2010;24:915-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01537.x PMID: 20636614
47. Bradshaw CJ, Warkentin IG, Sodhi NS. Urgent preservation of boreal carbon stocks and biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009;24:541-8. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.019 PMID: 19679372
48. Kuuluvainen T, Grenfell R. Natural disturbance emulation in boreal forest ecosystem management-theories, strategies, and a comparison with conventional even-aged management. Can J For Res. 2012;1203:1185-1203.
49. Mönkkönen M. Managing Nordic boreal forest landscapes for biodiversity: ecological and economic perspectives. Biodivers Conserv. 1999;8:85-99. doi: 10.1023/A:1008813225086
50. Stephens SL, Burrows N, Buyantuyev A, Gray RW, Keane RE, Kubian R, et al. Temperate and boreal forest mega-fires: characteristics and challenges. Front Ecol Environ. 2014;12:115-122. doi: 10. 1890/120332
51. Halme P, Allen KA, Auninš A, Bradshaw RHW, Brumelis G, Cada V, et al. Challenges of ecological restoration: lessons from forests in northern Europe. Biol Conserv. 2013;167:248-256. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon. 2013.08.029
52. Esseen P, Ehnström B, Ericson L, Sjöberg K. Boreal forests. Ecol Bull. 1997;46:16-47.
53. Mace GM, Masundire H, Baillie JEM. Chapter 4: Biodiversity. In: Hassan R, Scholes RJ, Ash N, editors. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends, Volume 1. Washington D. C.: Island Press; 2005. pp. 79-122.
54. Puumalainen J, Kennedy P, Folving S. Monitoring forest biodiversity: a European perspective with reference to temperate and boreal forest zone. J Environ Manage. 2003;67:5-14. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797 (02) 00183-4 PMID: 12659799
55. Esseen P, Ehnström B, Ericson L, Sjöberg K. Boreal forests-the focal habitats of Fennoscandia. In: Hansson L, editor. Ecological principles of nature conservation. London: Elsevier; 1992. pp. 252-325.
56. Hanski I. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Ann Zool Fennici. 2000;37:271-280.
57. Martikainen P, Siitonen J, Punttila P, Kaila L, Rauh J. Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv. 2000;94:199-209. doi: 10. 1016/S0006-3207 (99) 00175-5
58. Moen J, Rist L, Bishop K, Chapin FS III, Ellison D, Petersson H, et al. Eye on the Taiga: removing global policy impediments to safeguard the boreal forest. Conserv Lett. 2014;7:408-418. doi: 10. 1111/conl.12098
59. Elbakidze M, Angelstam PK, Sobolev N, Degerman E, Andersson K, Axelsson R, et al. Protected area as an indicator of ecological sustainability? A century of development in Europe's boreal forest. Ambio. 2013;42:201-214. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0375-1 PMID: 23475656
60. Andrew ME, Wulder MA, Coops NC. Identification of de facto protected areas in boreal Canada. Biol Conserv. 2012;146:97-107. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon. 2011.11.029
61. Chirici G, Mcroberts RE, Winter S, Bertini R, Bra U, Asensio IA, et al. National forest inventory contributions to forest biodiversity monitoring. For Sci. 2012;58:257-268. doi: 10.5849/forsci.12-003
62. Tomppo EO, Haakana M, Kaitila M, Peräsaari J. Multi-source national forest inventory-methods and applications. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.
63. Corona P, Chirici G, Mcroberts RE, Winter S, Barbati A. Contribution of large-scale forest inventories to biodiversity assessment and monitoring. For Ecol Manage. 2011;262:2061-2069. doi: 10.1016/j. foreco.2011.08.044
64. Winter S, Chirici G, McRoberts E, Hauk E, Tomppo E. Possibilities for harmonizing national forest inventory data for use in forest biodiversity assessments. Forestry. 2008;81. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpm042
65. Kallio AM, Hänninen R, Vainikainen N, Luque S. Biodiversity value and the optimal location of forest conservation sites in Southern Finland. Ecol Econ. 2008;67:232-243. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2008. 05.005
66. Chirici G, Winter S, McRoberts RE. National forest inventories: contributions to forest biodiversity assessments [Internet]. Dordrecht: Springer; 2011. Available: http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-0482-4
67. Tomppo E, Gschwantner T, Lawrence M, McRoberts RE. National forest inventories-pathways for common reporting. Media. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010.
68. McElhinny C, Gibbons P, Brack C, Bauhus J. Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: its definition and measurement. For Ecol Manage. 2005;218:1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.034
69. Finnish Government. Government Resolution on the Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland 2008-2016 (METSO) [Internet]. 2008 [cited 3 May 2014] p. 15. Available: http://www.mmm.fi/attachments/metsat/5yckfcmWR/METSOResolution2008-2016-ENGL.pdf
70. Guisan A, Tingley R, Baumgartner JB, Naujokaitis-Lewis I, Sutcliffe PR, Tulloch AIT, et al. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol Lett. 2013;16:1424-1435. doi: 10.1111/ele. 12189 PMID: 24134332
71. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry. Vantaa: Metla; 2013.
72. Tuominen S, Balazs A, Korhonen KT, Muinonen E. NFI plots as complementary reference data in forest inventory based on airborne laser scanning and aerial photography in Finland. Silva Fenn. 2014;48:1-20. doi: 10.14214/sf.983
73. Tomppo EO. The Finnish national forest inventory. In: Kangas A, Maltamo M, editors. Forest inventory: methodology and applications. Managing F. Dordrecht: Springer; 2006. pp. 179-194.
74. Lehtomäki J, Tomppo E, Kuokkanen P, Hanski I, Moilanen A. Applying spatial conservation prioritization software and high-resolution GIS data to a national-scale study in forest conservation. For Ecol Manage. 2009;258:2439-2449. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.08.026
75. Sirkiä S, Lehtomäki J, Lindén H, Tomppo E, Moilanen A. Defining spatial priorities for capercaillie Tetrao urogallus lekking landscape conservation in south-central Finland. Wildlife Biol. 2012;18:337-353. doi: 10.2981/11-073
76. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Multi-source national forest inventory (MS-NFI) [Internet]. 2014 [cited 4 May 2014]. Available: http://www.metla.fi/ohjelma/vmi/vmi-moni-en.htm
77. Nagendra PM, Goldberg M. Image segmentation with directed trees. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Interligence. 1980;1:185-191. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.1980.4766999
78. Pekkarinen A. Image segment-based spectral features in the estimation of timber volume. Remote Sens Environ. 2002;82:349-359. doi: 10.1016/S0034-4257 (02) 00052-4
79. Mönkkönen M, Juutinen A, Mazziotta A, Miettinen K, Podkopaev D, Reunanen P, et al. Spatially dynamic forest management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. J Environ Manage. 2014;134C: 80-89. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman. 2013.12.021
80. Timonen J, Gustafsson L, Kotiaho JS, Mönkkönen M. Hotspots in cold climate: conservation value of woodland key habitats in boreal forests. Biol Conserv. 2011;144:2061-2067. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.biocon. 2011.02.016
81. Aune K, Jonsson BG, Moen J, Gunnar B. Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: is forest policy promoting fragmentation? Biol Conserv. 2005;124:89-95. doi: 10.1016/j. biocon. 2005.01.015
82. Pykälä J, Heikkinen RK, Toivonen H, Jääskeläinen K. Importance of Forest Act habitats for epiphytic lichens in Finnish managed forests. For Ecol Manage. 2006;223:84-92. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005. 10.059
83. Korhonen K, Hujala T, Kurttila M. Diffusion of voluntary protection among family forest owners: decision process and success factors. For Policy Econ. 2013;26:82-90. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.08. 010
84. Siitonen J, Penttilä R, Ihalainen A. METSO-ohjelman uusien pysyvien ja määräaikaisten suojelualueiden ekologinen laatu Uudenmaan alueella. Metsätieteen aikakausikirja. Vantaa; 2012:259-284. Available: http://www.metla.fi/aikakauskirja/full/ff12/ff124259.pdf
85. ESRI. ArcGIS Desktop, version 10.2.1 [Internet]. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute; 2014. Available: http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis
86. Python Development Team. Python Language Reference, version 2.7 [Internet]. Python Software Foundation; 2014. Available: http://www.python.org
87. GDAL Development Team. GDAL-Geospatial Data Abstraction Library, version 1.10.1 [Internet]. Open Source Geospatial Foundation; 2014. Available: http://www.gdal.org
88. Moilanen A, Franco AMA, Early RI, Fox R, Wintle BA, Thomas CD. Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2005;272:1885-1891. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3164
89. Moilanen A, Pouzols FM, Meller L, Veach V, Arponen A, Leppänen J, et al. Zonation spatial conservation planning methods and software v. 4, user manual. Helsinki; 2014.
90. Moilanen A. Reserve selection using nonlinear species distribution models. Am Nat. 2005;165:695-706.
91. Arponen A, Kondelin H, Moilanen A. Area-based refinement for selection of reserve sites with the benefitfunction approach. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:527-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00607.x PMID: 17391202
92. Kremen C, Cameron A, Moilanen A, Phillips SJ, Thomas CD, Beentje H, et al. Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science. 2008;320:222-226. doi: 10.1126/science.1155193 PMID: 18403708
93. Rayfield B, Moilanen A, Fortin M-J. Incorporating consumer-resource spatial interactions in reserve design. Ecol Modell. 2009;220:725-733.
94. Moilanen A. Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol Conserv. 2007;134:571-579.
95. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, version 3.1.0 [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014. Available: http://www.r-project.org
96. Lehtomäki J. zonator: Utilities for Zonation spatial conservation prioritization software. R package version 0.3.9 [Internet]. Helsinki; 2014. Available: https://github.com/cbig/zonator
97. Tomppo EO. The Finnish multi-source national forest inventory-small area estimation and map production. In: Kangas A, Maltamo M, editors. Forest inventory: methodology and Applications. Dordrecht: Springer; 2006. pp. 195-224.
98. Scott JM, Davis FW, McGhie RG, Wright RG, Groves C, Estes J. Nature reserves: do they capture the full range of America's biological diversity? Ecol Appl. 2001;11:999-1007.
99. Kuuluvainen T, Tahvonen O, Aakala T. Even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in boreal Fennoscandia: a review. Ambio. 2012;41:720-37. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0289-y PMID: 22581386
100. Siitonen J, Martikainen P, Punttila P, Rauh J. Coarse woody debris and stand characteristics in mature managed and old-growth boreal mesic forests in southern Finland. For Ecol Manage. 2000;128:211-225. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127 (99) 00148-6
101. Timonen J, Siitonen J, Gustafsson L, Kotiaho JS, Stokland JN, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, et al. Woodland key habitats in northern Europe: concepts, inventory and protection. Scand J For Res. 2010;25:309-324. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2010.497160
102. Grantham HS, Wilson KA, Moilanen A, Rebelo T, Possingham HP. Delaying conservation actions for improved knowledge: how long should we wait? Ecol Lett. 2009;12:293-301. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01287.x PMID: 19243409
103. Grantham HS, Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Pressey RL, Rebelo TG, Possingham HP. Diminishing return on investment for biodiversity data in conservation planning. Conserv Lett. 2008;1:190-198. doi: 10. 1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00029.x
104. Nordén J, Penttilä R, Siitonen J, Tomppo E, Ovaskainen O. Specialist species of wood-inhabiting fungi struggle while generalists thrive in fragmented boreal forests. Thrall P, editor. J Ecol. 2013;101:701-712. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12085
105. Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules C, Settele J. Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodivers Conserv. 2004;13:207-251. doi: 10.1023/B:BIOC.0000004319.91643.9e
106. Ranius T, Kindvall O. Extinction risk of wood-living model species in forest landscapes as related to forest history and conservation strategy. Landsc Ecol. 2006;21:687-698. doi: 10.1007/s10980-005-5222-3
107. Soranno PA, Cheruvelil KS, Elliott KC, Montgomery GM. It's good to share: why environmental scientists' ethics are out of date. Bioscience. 2015;65:69-73.