The purpose of this comment is to discuss and to compare briefly some systems for prioritizing species for Conservation attention. This comment is written in response to a proposed new International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) hierarchical categorization, described in Conservation Biology by Mace and Lande (1991), and based on a speciesâ probability of extinction. Resources (e.g., time and money) available for the conservation of species and ecosystems are invariably in short supply relative to the needs for those resources. Accordingly, setting priorities for conservation actions is a necessary and major preoccupation of governmental and nongovernmental organizationsconcerned with the conservation of species and ecosystems. Priorities for the allocation of resources to individual species are often based primarily on an assessment of the threats to those species, and secondarily on other factors. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has two priority species ranking systems-one for listing actions and one for recovery actions. For listing as âendangeredâ or âthreatened,â species are ranked on a scale of 1 through 12 based on magnitude (high or moderate to low) and immediacy (imminent or nonimminent) of threat, and taxonomic distinctness (monotypic genus, species, or subspecies). For
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Dec 1, 1991
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud