FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W35017799> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W35017799 abstract "Cranes provide an exemplary case for evaluating conservation policy because (1) they are a charismatic group with high public visibility, (2) as migratory vertebrates they provide an umbrella for the protection of aquatic habitats and a wider set of species, (3) they are a widely-distributed avian family, consequently protection efforts have favored international cooperation, (4) genetic and taxonomic relationships have been studied, and (5) populations of at least 7 crane species are threatened, endangered, or otherwise considered at direct risk. We use comparisons among the world's cranes to show how biogeographic, taxonomic, and genetic data bases can be linked for conservation decisions. We show that decisions typically faced by a conservation planner are themselves diverse (e.g., choosing species for captive propagation, or identifying priority habitats for maintaining taxonomic distinctiveness), thereby obviating the utility of any single, all-purpose measure of diversity. Conservation priorities are shown to change with successive informational input regarding phylogenetic relationships, extinction risks, and popUlation trends, and to differ greatly from priorities based on species richness alone. Key Words; biodiversity, conservation policy, crane systematics, extinction risk, genetic diversity, multidimensional scaling With few precedents in the geological record, the Earth's shrinking endowment of and accelerated decline in biodiversity has received extraordinary attention in the last decade (e.g., Norton 1986, Wilson 1988, Reid and Miller 1989). What this new focus on biological impoverishment portends for environmental policy is not yet certain, but effective conservation will require bridging the natural and social sciences. Given competing demands for limited financial resources, conservation priorities conceived without regard to all social costs and benefits can lead to a drain of available resources away from the most productive conservation efforts. Playing triage with the world's biota via policy is highly controversial, even if extinctions are inevitable (Roberts 1988). Conservation choices are difficult and contentious (O'Brien and Mayr 1991), and some form of guided decision-making is necessary if protection efforts are to bc implemented in a timely and optimal fashion. Atkinson (1989) has expressed 1 set of criteria: given two threatened taxa, one a spccies not closely related to other living species and the other a subspecies of an otherwise widespread and common species, it seems reasonable to give priority to the taxonomically distinct form. The social scicnces also give value to the benefits of biological diversity. Diverse taxa offer diverse market (e.g., food and medicine), aesthetic, or cultural benefits which may not be good substitutes for one another, I Present address: ReG/Haigler, Bailly, Inc., P. o. Drawer 0, Boulder, CO 80306 12 PROC. NORTH AM. CRANE WORKSHOP 6:12-18 while similar speCIes tend to offer more substitutable benefits to mankind. Given uncertainty regarding future events (e.g., global climate changc, technological progress) that would affcct the benefits of diverse species in very different ways, the preferred strategy is to hedge one's bets by maintaining high diversity among biological elements (Broadus and Eiswerth, unpubl. data 1990). The biodiversity concept is oft -criticized for its metaphorical rather than concise definition, and its multiple connotations. Ray (1988) suggested that the term merely reinforces preexisting biases, and if referring to species diversity alone, it fails to capture inter-taxa diversity at higher phylogenetic categories (e.g., genus, family, or phylum). Similarly, Westman (1990) noted that biodiversity is often used to describe not only species richness, but habitat, ecosystem, and genetic diversity as well. There is a profound need, then, to both explicitly define the kind of diversity being measured (e.g., Vane-Wright et al. 1991), and to link biodiversity'S taxonomic, habitat, ecosystem, and genetic elements. We use biogeographic comparisons, results from recent genetic studies (Ingold et al. 1989, Krajewski 1989), and the current statuses of crane populations to illustrate how conservation decision-making can be improved by successively incorporating greater amounts of scientific information regarding biodiversity. We use crane biology and crane conservation as a simple case study for elucidating how decisions for biodiversity preservation might be better implemented, and we identify the kinds of data necessary to achieve this goal. C. A. Faanes, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and G. R. Lingle, Platte River Whooping Crane Maintenance ProC. North Am. Crane Workshop 6: 1992 CRANE CONSERVATION AND BIODIVERSITY· Haney and Eiswerlh 13 Table 1. Potential choices, faced by a conservation planner or agency, for which information on inter-taxonomic differences can provide a decision criterion." @default.
• W35017799 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W35017799 creator A5067527192 @default.
• W35017799 creator A5075880538 @default.
• W35017799 date "1992-01-01" @default.
• W35017799 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W35017799 title "THE PLIGHT OF CRANES : A CASE STUDY FOR CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY" @default.
• W35017799 cites W1494744738 @default.
• W35017799 cites W175774103 @default.
• W35017799 cites W1936774573 @default.
• W35017799 cites W1978011074 @default.
• W35017799 cites W1978849935 @default.
• W35017799 cites W1996607160 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2029344803 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2050157940 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2052125423 @default.
• W35017799 cites W205471692 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2058896126 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2082381475 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2093611826 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2094387116 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2108057700 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2319582627 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2331669835 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2336742387 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2398865840 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2398996298 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2411018079 @default.
• W35017799 cites W2472765784 @default.
• W35017799 cites W56459253 @default.
• W35017799 cites W596519110 @default.
• W35017799 hasPublicationYear "1992" @default.
• W35017799 type Work @default.
• W35017799 sameAs 35017799 @default.
• W35017799 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W35017799 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W35017799 hasAuthorship W35017799A5067527192 @default.
• W35017799 hasAuthorship W35017799A5075880538 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C101991246 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C107826830 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C126589399 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C130217890 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C179345059 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C185933670 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C24518262 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W35017799 hasConcept C91375879 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C101991246 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C107826830 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C126589399 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C130217890 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C151730666 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C162324750 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C179345059 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C185933670 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C18903297 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C205649164 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C24518262 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C86803240 @default.
• W35017799 hasConceptScore W35017799C91375879 @default.
• W35017799 hasLocation W350177991 @default.
• W35017799 hasOpenAccess W35017799 @default.
• W35017799 hasPrimaryLocation W350177991 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W1521803993 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W157393645 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W1594332642 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W1600009138 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W164785968 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W1833085179 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W2003708280 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W2064564579 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W2095522096 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W2279465755 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W2794143204 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W2795219805 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W2883485714 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W2901276315 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W2980159057 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W3122087035 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W3125152412 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W3151760773 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W402389834 @default.
• W35017799 hasRelatedWork W971037092 @default.
• W35017799 isParatext "false" @default.
• W35017799 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W35017799 magId "35017799" @default.
• W35017799 workType "article" @default.