Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.
T. M. Brooks,1,2,3*R. A. Mittermeier,1G. A. B. da Fonseca,1,4J. Gerlach,5,6M. Hoffmann,1J. F. Lamoreux,3C. G. Mittermeier,1J. D. Pilgrim,7A. S. L. Rodrigues5
The location of and threats to biodiversity are distributedunevenly, so prioritization is essential to minimize biodiversityloss. To address this need, biodiversity conservation organizationshave proposed nine templates of global priorities over the pastdecade. Here, we review the concepts, methods, results, impacts,and challenges of these prioritizations of conservation practicewithin the theoretical irreplaceability/vulnerability frameworkof systematic conservation planning. Most of the templates prioritizehighly irreplaceable regions; some are reactive (prioritizinghigh vulnerability), and others are proactive (prioritizinglow vulnerability). We hope this synthesis improves understandingof these prioritization approaches and that it results in moreefficient allocation of geographically flexible conservationfunding.
1 Conservation International, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA. 2 World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Post Office Box 35024, University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna 4031, Philippines. 3 Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA. 4 Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG 31270, Brazil. 5 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. 6 Nature Protection Trust of Seychelles, Post Office Box 207, Victoria, Mahé, Seychelles. 7 BirdLife International in Indochina, 4/209 Doi Can Street, Ba Dinh, Hanoi, Vietnam.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: t.brooks{at}conservation.org
The editors suggest the following Related Resources on Science sites:
In Science Magazine
LETTERS
George M. Woodwell;, T. M. Brooks, R. A. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffmann, J. F. Lamoreux, C. G. Mittermeier, J. D. Pilgrim, and A. S. L. Rodrigues (6 October 2006) Science314 (5796), 52b.
[DOI: 10.1126/science.314.5796.52b] |Full Text »|PDF »
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
Ecosystem Services Special Feature: Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities.
R. Naidoo, A. Balmford, R. Costanza, B. Fisher, R. E. Green, B. Lehner, T. R. Malcolm, and T. H. Ricketts (2008)
PNAS
105, 9495-9500
|Abstract »|Full Text »|PDF »
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation: Global Land-Use Implications.
Aligning Conservation Priorities Across Taxa in Madagascar with High-Resolution Planning Tools.
C. Kremen, A. Cameron, A. Moilanen, S. J. Phillips, C. D. Thomas, H. Beentje, J. Dransfield, B. L. Fisher, F. Glaw, T. C. Good, et al. (2008)
Science
320, 222-226
|Abstract »|Full Text »|PDF »
Understory Species Richness during Restoration of Wet Tropical Forest in Costa Rica.
A. C. Leopold and J. Salazar (2008)
Ecological Rest.
26, 22-26
|Abstract »|PDF »
Land-Use Allocation Protects the Peruvian Amazon.
P. J. C. Oliveira, G. P. Asner, D. E. Knapp, A. Almeyda, R. Galvan-Gildemeister, S. Keene, R. F. Raybin, and R. C. Smith (2007)
Science
317, 1233-1236
|Abstract »|Full Text »|PDF »
Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation.
