Literature DB >> 26936225

Reasons to Conserve Nature.

Richard G Pearson1.   

Abstract

Is it sufficient to base arguments for conservation on the intrinsic value of nature, regardless of the services and economic benefits that biodiversity provides for humans? This question underlies much recent debate that has been at times acrimonious and has led to calls for a more inclusive approach to conservation. Yet melding different ideologies within a unified conceptual framework has proven difficult. Here I describe an approach that recognizes the importance of the level of biological organization and spatial extent in determining the strength of alternative arguments for why we should conserve nature. I argue that the framework helps reconcile contrasting viewpoints and brings clarity to when different conservation management approaches (for instance, regulation versus monetary valuation) are most appropriate.
Copyright © 2016 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biodiversity; conservation; ecosystem services; valuing nature

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26936225     DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol        ISSN: 0169-5347            Impact factor:   17.712


  5 in total

1.  Understanding conservationists' perspectives on the new-conservation debate.

Authors:  George Holmes; Chris Sandbrook; Janet A Fisher
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 6.560

2.  Solenodon genome reveals convergent evolution of venom in eulipotyphlan mammals.

Authors:  Nicholas R Casewell; Daniel Petras; Daren C Card; Vivek Suranse; Alexis M Mychajliw; David Richards; Ivan Koludarov; Laura-Oana Albulescu; Julien Slagboom; Benjamin-Florian Hempel; Neville M Ngum; Rosalind J Kennerley; Jorge L Brocca; Gareth Whiteley; Robert A Harrison; Fiona M S Bolton; Jordan Debono; Freek J Vonk; Jessica Alföldi; Jeremy Johnson; Elinor K Karlsson; Kerstin Lindblad-Toh; Ian R Mellor; Roderich D Süssmuth; Bryan G Fry; Sanjaya Kuruppu; Wayne C Hodgson; Jeroen Kool; Todd A Castoe; Ian Barnes; Kartik Sunagar; Eivind A B Undheim; Samuel T Turvey
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  The EICAT+ framework enables classification of positive impacts of alien taxa on native biodiversity.

Authors:  Giovanni Vimercati; Anna F Probert; Lara Volery; Ruben Bernardo-Madrid; Sandro Bertolino; Vanessa Céspedes; Franz Essl; Thomas Evans; Belinda Gallardo; Laure Gallien; Pablo González-Moreno; Marie Charlotte Grange; Cang Hui; Jonathan M Jeschke; Stelios Katsanevakis; Ingolf Kühn; Sabrina Kumschick; Jan Pergl; Petr Pyšek; Loren Rieseberg; Tamara B Robinson; Wolf-Christian Saul; Cascade J B Sorte; Montserrat Vilà; John R U Wilson; Sven Bacher
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2022-08-16       Impact factor: 9.593

4.  Species contributions to single biodiversity values under-estimate whole community contribution to a wider range of values to society.

Authors:  Matthew Hiron; Tomas Pärt; Gavin M Siriwardena; Mark J Whittingham
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 5.  Plant extinction excels plant speciation in the Anthropocene.

Authors:  Jian-Guo Gao; Hui Liu; Ning Wang; Jing Yang; Xiao-Ling Zhang
Journal:  BMC Plant Biol       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 4.215

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.