4.7 Review

Conservation planning for connectivity across marine, freshwater, and terrestrial realms

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 143, 期 3, 页码 565-575

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.11.006

关键词

Systematic conservation planning; Realm connectivity; Environmental realms; Integrated conservation; Conservation decision-support systems

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Ecology Centre
  3. University of Queensland
  4. Australian Government
  5. ARC
  6. Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities Programme
  7. Capes Foundation - Ministry of Education, Brazil
  8. Conservation International
  9. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/E00606X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. NERC [NE/E00606X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conservation plans are usually developed for regions that encompass only one environmental realm (terrestrial, freshwater or marine) because of logistical, institutional and political constraints. This is inadequate because these realms often interact through processes that form, utilize and maintain interfaces or connections, which are essential for the persistence of some species and ecosystem functions. We present a conceptual framework for systematic conservation prioritization that explicitly accounts for the connectivity between the terrestrial, marine, and freshwater realms. We propose a classification of this connectivity that encompasses: (1) narrow interfaces, such as riparian strips; (2) broad interfaces, such as estuaries: (3) constrained connections, such as corridors of native vegetation used by amphibians to move between natal ponds and adult habitat; and (4) diffuse connections, such as the movements of animals between breeding and feeding habitats. We use this taxonomy of inter-realm connectivity to describe existing and new spatial conservation prioritization techniques that aim to promote the persistence of processes that operate between realms. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据