Conservation Biology

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 74901 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Harry F. Recher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Pacific Conservation Biology and Impact Factors
    Pacific Conservation Biology, 2006
    Co-Authors: Harry F. Recher
    Abstract:

    This is the last editorial I write as Editor of Pacific Conservation Biology. I took over as editor from Craig Moritz in 1997 with Volume III and it is time to let another assume the pleasures, frustrations and responsibilities of guiding Pacific Conservation Biology over the next few years. A fresh mind and new ideas can only help Pacific Conservation Biology to grow. My time as Editor ends with this issue.

  • Pacific Conservation Biology and Impact Factors (editorial)
    2006
    Co-Authors: Harry F. Recher
    Abstract:

    This is the last editorial I write as Editor of Pacific Conservation Biology. I took over as editor from Craig Moritz in 1997 with Volume III and it is time to let another assume the pleasures, frustrations and responsibilities of guiding Pacific Conservation Biology over the next few years. A fresh mind and new ideas can only help Pacific Conservation Biology to grow. My time as Editor ends with this issue.

  • Conservation Biology in the Pacific
    Pacific Conservation Biology, 2001
    Co-Authors: Harry F. Recher
    Abstract:

    MANY readers will have received emails asking for support to form an Australasian branch of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB). The idea is a good one and I do not discourage anyone from participating in the branch and joining its activities. Nonetheless, it makes me reflect on why a Conservation Biology society never formed in Australia and New Zealand. At the 1993 Brisbane meeting, "Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania", which saw the launch of Pacific Conservation Biology, there was enthusiastic support for forming an Australasian Conservation Biology society with nearly all 300 participants at the meeting indicating they would join. So vigorous was the support, that representatives of the Ecological Society of Australia (ESA) and the Australian Institute of Biology (AlB) requested a meeting of key individuals to discuss the proposal. At that meeting, they argued that there was no need for a separate society for Conservation Biology and that a new society could adversely affect established professional societies, such as the ESA and AlB. They also argued that their societies were or could be strong and effective voices for Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania. The ESA and AlB were persuasive in their assurances that they would be strong voices for Conservation Biology and that there was no need to form a separate Conservation Biology society. In the end, their arguments prevailed and the new society did not proceed.

  • Conservation Biology in the Pacific (editorial)
    2001
    Co-Authors: Harry F. Recher
    Abstract:

    MANY readers will have received emails asking for support to form an Australasian branch of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB). The idea is a good one and I do not discourage anyone from participating in the branch and joining its activities. Nonetheless, it makes me reflect on why a Conservation Biology society never formed in Australia and New Zealand. At the 1993 Brisbane meeting, "Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania", which saw the launch of Pacific Conservation Biology, there was enthusiastic support for forming an Australasian Conservation Biology society with nearly all 300 participants at the meeting indicating they would join. So vigorous was the support, that representatives of the Ecological Society of Australia (ESA) and the Australian Institute of Biology (AlB) requested a meeting of key individuals to discuss the proposal. At that meeting, they argued that there was no need for a separate society for Conservation Biology and that a new society could adversely affect established professional societies, such as the ESA and AlB. They also argued that their societies were or could be strong and effective voices for Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania. The ESA and AlB were persuasive in their assurances that they would be strong voices for Conservation Biology and that there was no need to form a separate Conservation Biology society. In the end, their arguments prevailed and the new society did not proceed.

  • Veterinary Conservation Biology
    Pacific Conservation Biology, 2001
    Co-Authors: Harry F. Recher
    Abstract:

    IN July, I attended the symposium at Taronga Zoo on "Wildlife Health and Management in Australasia" organized by the Australian Association of Veterinary Conservation Biologists, the World Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, the Wildlife Disease Association: Australasian Section, and the Wildlife Society of the New Zealand Veterinary Association. It is worth listing all these, not just because they organized a great symposium, but because I had never heard of any of them before and suspect I may not be alone. Comprehensively, these veterinary associations are concerned about Conservation Biology, as was the symposium. The symposium, the Proceedings of which will be reviewed in a later edition of Pacific Conservation Biology, had sections on "Conservation Biology in Australasia", "sustainable utilization of wildlife", "wildlife translocation", "marine wildlife" and "wildlife health", all of which embraced issues that are topical among non-veterinary Conservation biologists in the Pacific Region. However, the spin was different and, for me, eye-opening.

Mike Calver - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A new era for Pacific Conservation Biology
    Pacific Conservation Biology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Mike Calver
    Abstract:

    The Editor-in-Chief gives an overview of changes and outlines plans for Pacific Conservation Biology for 2015 and beyond.

  • Archives and Conservation Biology.
    Pacific Conservation Biology, 2013
    Co-Authors: Mike Calver
    Abstract:

    IN a previous editorial in Pacific Conservation Biology, (PCB 2012, 18(2), p.68), I referred to recent papers in the insect Conservation literature that made use of decades-old data sets to establish longterm changes in the species richness and abundance of insect groups in grasslands in eastern Germany. This is a signficant example of the lasting value of descriptive data sets. In this issue’s guest editorial, Sebastian Schuch, one of the authors of the recent papers, describes how he came to find the original studies and their value in documenting long-term change in insect communities.

  • Why publication matters in Conservation Biology
    Pacific Conservation Biology, 2000
    Co-Authors: Mike Calver, D.r. King
    Abstract:

    Conservation biologists increasingly follow Soule (1985) and describe Conservation Biology as a “crisis discipline”. Crises require quick, comprehensive appraisal of the situation and prompt, firm decisions. These actions can be at odds with peer review and publication, which are often slow processes. Although peer-reviewed journals in the physical sciences may take as little as six to eight weeks between first receipt of a paper and its publication (Daniel 1993), journals in ecology, wildlife science and Conservation Biology may take much longer. This problem is being exacerbated by a growth in submissions (e.g., Bull 1998). Given the slow pace of most peer-reviewed publications some important data sets and reports are unlikely ever to be published formally because authors and their employers are not prepared to spend the required time and work. Considerable effort is needed to locate and evaluate the unpublished studies. The detailed methodology for location and use of “grey literature” — data and reports not published in the mainstream peer-reviewed literature — by the Australian Commonwealth Government’s Resources Assessment Commission study of forestry impacts is an excellent recent example (see exposition in Horwitz and Calver 1998, P. 221). In other cases, government departments have funded peer-reviewed publications of their own as a forum for publishing data sets and technical reports likely to be useful to researchers, but too long for mainstream journals (e.g., the journals of the various Australian museums). Despite such opportunities, emphatic complaints are made about failure to record important work in Conservation Biology in peer-reviewed publications (Caughley and Gunn 1996). Other authors see ecological work that is not published in the peer-reviewed literature as unfinished or even undone (Maimer 1990; Ratti and Garton 1996). However, some important debates in Australian Conservation Biology are now making extensive use of unpublished or unreviewed literature. For example, in a recent debate concerning appropriate management practices for conserving hollow-bearing trees in State Forests in southwest Western Australia, Stoneman et al. (1997) cited a large but unpublished report by McComb (1994) and Calver (1997) quoted extensively from the same source. Similarly, Shea et al. (1997) included 22 unreviewed magazine articles in the 71 references they cited in a study of sustainable Conservation. Therefore, it is timely to compare some of the characteristics of unpublished and unreviewed literature with those of peer-reviewed publications, and also to initiate discussion on what role each should play in evaluating and planning Conservation research and policy. After outlining our understanding of the different categories of information available, we consider them in relation to: (i) the speed and accessibility with which information is made available, (ii) the authority carried by that information, (iii) the implications of each category for the morale of researchers, (iv) the potential for distortion or bias in information, (v) the failure to present results that do not support a favoured hypothesis in Conservation Biology research, and (vi) the special case of publications in popular magazines or newspapers. Overall, the discussion shows that peer-reviewed publications have greater accessibility and authority, but it seems foolish to reject unpublished or unreviewed work out of hand.

Reed F. Noss - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a mission driven discipline the growth of Conservation Biology
    Conservation Biology, 2006
    Co-Authors: Curt Meine, Michael E Soule, Reed F. Noss
    Abstract:

    Conservation Biology emerged in the mid-1980s, drawing on established disciplines and integrat- ing them in pursuit of a coherent goal: the protection and perpetuation of the Earth's biological diversity. Opportunistic in its borrowing and application of knowledge, Conservation Biology had its roots within the established biological sciences and resource management disciplines but has continually incorporated insights from the empirical experience of resource managers, from the social sciences and humanities, and from diverse cultural sources. The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) has represented the field's core constituency, while expanding that constituency in keeping with the field's integrative spirit. Conservation Biology has served as SCB's flagship publication, promoting research, dialog, debate, and application of the field's essential concepts. Over the last 20 years the field, SCB, and the journal have evolved to meet changing Conservation needs, to explore gaps in our knowledge base, to incorporate new information from related fields, to build professional capacity, and to provide expanded opportunities for international participation. In turn, the field, SCB, and journal have prompted change in related fields, organizations, and publications. In its dedication to advancing the scientific foundations of biodiversity Conservation and placing that science at the service of society in a world whose variety, wildness, and beauty we care for, Conservation Biology represents both a continuation and radical reconfiguration of the traditional relationship between science and Conservation.

  • “A Mission‐Driven Discipline”: the Growth of Conservation Biology
    Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2006
    Co-Authors: Curt Meine, Michael E Soule, Reed F. Noss
    Abstract:

    Conservation Biology emerged in the mid-1980s, drawing on established disciplines and integrat- ing them in pursuit of a coherent goal: the protection and perpetuation of the Earth's biological diversity. Opportunistic in its borrowing and application of knowledge, Conservation Biology had its roots within the established biological sciences and resource management disciplines but has continually incorporated insights from the empirical experience of resource managers, from the social sciences and humanities, and from diverse cultural sources. The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) has represented the field's core constituency, while expanding that constituency in keeping with the field's integrative spirit. Conservation Biology has served as SCB's flagship publication, promoting research, dialog, debate, and application of the field's essential concepts. Over the last 20 years the field, SCB, and the journal have evolved to meet changing Conservation needs, to explore gaps in our knowledge base, to incorporate new information from related fields, to build professional capacity, and to provide expanded opportunities for international participation. In turn, the field, SCB, and journal have prompted change in related fields, organizations, and publications. In its dedication to advancing the scientific foundations of biodiversity Conservation and placing that science at the service of society in a world whose variety, wildness, and beauty we care for, Conservation Biology represents both a continuation and radical reconfiguration of the traditional relationship between science and Conservation.

  • Is there a special Conservation Biology
    Ecography, 1999
    Co-Authors: Reed F. Noss
    Abstract:

    Conservation Biology is special to the extent that it fills useful roles in the scientific and Conservation fields that are not being filled by practitioners of other disciplines. The emergence of the “new Conservation Biology” in the late 1970's and its blossoming in the 1980's and 1990's reflect, to a large degree, a failure of traditional academic ecology and the natural resource disciplines to address modern Conservation problems adequately. Yet, to be successful Conservation Biology, as an interdisciplinary field, must build on the strengths of other disciplines both basic and applied. The new Conservation Biology grew out of concern over extinction of species, although the field has expanded to include issues about management of several levels of biological organization. I examine four controversial questions of importance to Conservation biologists today: 1) are there any robust principles of Conservation Biology? 2) Is advocacy an appropriate activity of Conservation biologists? 3) Are we educating Conservation biologists properly? 4) Is Conservation Biology distinct from other biological and resource management disciplines? I answer three of these questions with a tentative “yes” and one (3) with a regretful “in most cases, no.” I see a need for broader Training for students of Conservation Biology, more emphasis on collecting basic field data, compelling applications of Conservation Biology to real problems, increased influence on policy, and expansion of the international scope of the discipline. If all these occur, Conservation Biology will by truly special.

Stephen D. Hopper - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • An Australian Perspective on Plant Conservation Biology in Practice
    Conservation Biology, 1998
    Co-Authors: Stephen D. Hopper
    Abstract:

    Conservation Biology has emerged as an important scientific discipline in Australia, reflected by the appearance of the new journal Pacific Conservation Biology, and the publication of a number of recent symposium volumes (e.g., Saunders et al. 1987, 1990, 1993, 1995; Saunders and Hobbs 1992; Moritz and Kikkawa 1994; Bradstock et al. 1995; Hopper et al. 1996). My purpose here is to provide an overview of current Australian plant Conservation practice and the scientific knowledge that has delivered tangible outcomes. The emphasis on plants is deliberate because some exciting insights have recently unfolded.

Nathan Filbert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Conservation Biology - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts