Literature DB >> 26483508

Reply to Kirchhoff: Homogenous and mutually exclusive conservation typologies are neither possible nor desirable.

Daniel S Karp1, Chase D Mendenhall2, Elizabeth Callaway3, Luke O Frishkoff2, Peter M Kareiva4, Paul R Ehrlich2, Gretchen C Daily5.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2015        PMID： 26483508      PMCID： PMC4640779          DOI： 10.1073/pnas.1518479112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN： 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


× No keyword cloud information.
  5 in total

1.  Inquiry into congruencies and trade-offs among conservation objectives requires a consistent typology of homogeneous types.

Authors:  Thomas Kirchhoff
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Confronting and resolving competing values behind conservation objectives.

Authors:  Daniel S Karp; Chase D Mendenhall; Elizabeth Callaway; Luke O Frishkoff; Peter M Kareiva; Paul R Ehrlich; Gretchen C Daily
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-08-17       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  The influence of intraguild predation on prey suppression and prey release: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Heather D Vance-Chalcraft; Jay A Rosenheim; James R Vonesh; Craig W Osenberg; Andrew Sih
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.499

Review 4.  Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity.

Authors:  Bradley J Cardinale; J Emmett Duffy; Andrew Gonzalez; David U Hooper; Charles Perrings; Patrick Venail; Anita Narwani; Georgina M Mace; David Tilman; David A Wardle; Ann P Kinzig; Gretchen C Daily; Michel Loreau; James B Grace; Anne Larigauderie; Diane S Srivastava; Shahid Naeem
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting.

Authors:  Edward T Game; Peter Kareiva; Hugh P Possingham
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 6.560
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.