about
Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge.Data acquisition for conservation assessments: is the effort worth it?Predicting the conservation status of data-deficient species.Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes?Developing a monitoring program for invertebrates: guidelines and a case study.Tropical coastal habitats as surrogates of fish community structure, grazing, and fisheries value.Balancing the Earth's accounts.Does more mean less? The value of information for conservation planning under sea level rise.Accessing local knowledge to identify where species of conservation concern occur in a tropical forest landscape.Insights from life history theory for an explicit treatment of trade-offs in conservation biology.Effectiveness of surrogate taxa in the design of coral reef reserve systems in the Indo-Pacific.Following Africa's lead in setting priorities.Spatial and Temporal Variability in Terrestrial Antarctic BiodiversitySpecies, Data, and Conservation PlanningA conservation assessment of the terrestrial invertebrate fauna of Mkambati Nature Reserve in the Pondoland Centre of EndemismImproving the surrogacy effectiveness of charismatic megafauna with well-surveyed taxonomic groups and habitat typesEDITOR'S CHOICE: How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?South African National Survey of Arachnida (SANSA): review of current knowledge, constraints and future needs for documenting spider diversity (Arachnida: Araneae)Conservation implications of omitting narrow-ranging taxa from species distribution models, now and in the future
P2860
Q30382053-57E13479-0D95-46A2-BCDC-62D7B474A0F5Q30612067-A99DA69A-E26D-44AF-AF03-B15E6788DD28Q30842853-DF089B3B-CA9B-494D-971D-4C4BC92E5688Q30870721-4B095D37-D8C4-44E2-BF41-DB841FCE0109Q33280266-76898208-D877-4A8E-9B87-A97F15C905E2Q33374371-D800940F-491D-464A-862D-BD6A5CC15510Q34550354-908B8493-7E13-4C2E-8365-CF708C61A9D0Q34624943-30B3B626-251A-4F04-A2CF-C0291A9F49A5Q34697398-FC79B38E-EFD1-4E30-804E-DB56D036CFC1Q35541509-BA55189B-2B26-4BD8-9B7E-6010314AB536Q46421815-8E9605BE-2326-417F-B414-89A41634F381Q46937879-D082D063-334D-49A8-BBDB-40822F536D49Q57004517-C1D745AE-07F7-4379-A857-5A8800A8E369Q57016496-E868403C-68F1-4566-BB6F-69DE3A80E591Q57248649-DAA95CDF-C8EF-43F8-BDD0-1E52C1A0375FQ57249016-4D50F92A-B845-4572-B3CF-F720BC82995AQ58836766-2768CAA2-8E96-4230-9412-8CE522E05C3BQ59237269-7BEE94E3-A803-46EF-9877-44EA6A81F376Q59285872-5CC0A385-1C6C-45AA-9EC4-30BE89B8096F
P2860
description
article publié dans la revue scientifique Nature
@fr
scientific article published in Nature
@en
wetenschappelijk artikel
@nl
наукова стаття, опублікована в Nature в березні 1999
@uk
name
Why biodiversity surveys are good value
@en
Why biodiversity surveys are good value
@nl
type
label
Why biodiversity surveys are good value
@en
Why biodiversity surveys are good value
@nl
prefLabel
Why biodiversity surveys are good value
@en
Why biodiversity surveys are good value
@nl
P356
P1433
P1476
Why biodiversity surveys are good value
@en
P2093
Andrew Balmford
Kevin J. Gaston
P2888
P304
P356
10.1038/18339
P407
P577
1999-03-01T00:00:00Z
P6179
1026243134