Principles of Conservation Biology: Recommended Guidelines for Conservation Literacy from the Education Committee of the Society forConservation Biology*

Trombulak, Stephen C.; Omland, Kristian Shawn; Robinson, Julie A.; Lusk, Jeffrey J.; Fleischner, Thomas L.; Brown, Glenn; Domroese, Meg

doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.01851.x

Cited by 125 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Communities showing full integrity are expected, then, to follow their natural path of succession and evolution. Many authors even suggest that the main conservation targets should be the naturalness of the areas and the integrity of respective communities, instead of species diversity or endangered species in particular (Karr 1990;Angermeier 1994;Angermeier and Karr 1994;Majer and Beeston 1996;Trombulak et al 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biotic (or biological, or biodiversity) integrity was defined as ''the capability of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity and functional organization comparable to that of the natural habitat of the region'' (Karr and Dudley 1981, see also Trombulak et al 2004). Communities showing full integrity are expected, then, to follow their natural path of succession and evolution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biotic integrity of the arthropod communities in the natural forests of Azores

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The loss of biotic integrity in ecosystems due to human pressure has been receiving much attention from the scientific community. The primary aim of this study is to understand how the increasing human pressure on natural forests in the Azorean archipelago (North Atlantic) is affecting their epigean arthropod communities and which biological parameters it affects most. An expert team did fieldwork covering most of the natural forests (mainly inside nature reserves) of the archipelago using standardized pitfall trapping. To build a multimetric index we tested a number of taxonomic and ecological parameters that can potentially be influenced by disturbance. Sixteen of these were found to be significantly influenced by disturbance in forests. We retained seven metrics due to both, desirable scalability properties and relatively low correlation between them. These included the percentages of endemic and predator species richness and also predator abundance, which are inversely related to disturbance; and the percentages of native and saprophagous species richness and introduced and herbivore abundance, which are positively related to disturbance. All seven metrics were combined in an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) value. We then proceeded to understand which potential disturbance factors are influencing the biotic integrity of communities and how such influence is felt. Five disturbance factors were found to influence the IBI, although in different ways: the size and fragmentation of reserves, the distance of sites to the reserve borders, the invasion by alien plants and the density of human paths at the sites. Given that only percentages of taxonomical or ecological characteristics were chosen as metrics, we tested and found the scalability of the IBI to be possible, allowing the comparison of sites with different collecting effort or even the comparison of reserves with different areas and numbers of collecting sites in each. Finally, we propose a novel graphical representation for multimetric indices like the IBI, one which allows retaining much of the information that is usually lost in multimetric indices.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biotic integrity of the arthropod communities in the natural forests of Azores

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They also claim that this framework was designed as an educational tool for a variety of audiences and that they believe that "education is most successful when it focuses on developing knowledge, skills and attitudes in a way that gives people extended direct experience" (Trombulak et al, 2004). Although the importance of a deep understanding of all these concepts that supports the listed goals, these concepts and the goals themselves are still limited to biological field.…”

Section: Biodiversity As a Privileged Issue On Environmental Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From another perspective, the great risk on assuming this ecological literacy-oriented set of priorities (Kassas, 2002b) or the set of goals and concepts (in the case of Trombulak et al, 2004) is the fact that we can be worried on improving knowledge about species, their relationships, the multi-scaled diversity and the notion of richness and their ecological roles or environmental services, without paying enough attention to those processes that can put them in risk.…”

Section: Thus Both Kassas (2002b) and Trombulak Et Al (2004) Are Fomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another discussion about this issue can be found in Trombulak et al (2004), which present the Recommended Guidelines for Conservation Literacy from the Education Committee of the Society for Conservation Biology. This guidelines are structured in a framework composed by five themes (goals, values, concepts, threats and actions) each of them organized according to primary and secondary principles.…”

Section: Biodiversity As a Privileged Issue On Environmental Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental Education and Biodiversity Concern: Beyond the Ecological Literacy

Saito¹

2013

American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

How do Sustainability Standards Consider Biodiversity?

Englund¹,

Berndes²

2015

Advances in Bioenergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainability certification schemes and standards are meant to prevent a range of unacceptable socioeconomic and environmental consequences, such as threats to biodiversity. While there is wide support for conserving biodiversity, operationalizing this support in the form of guiding principles, criteria/indicators, and legislation is complicated. This study investigates how and to what extent 26 sustainability standards (eleven for forest management, nine for agriculture and six biofuel-related) consider biodiversity, by assessing how they seek to prevent actions that can threaten biodiversity as well as how they support actions aimed at biodiversity conservation. For this purpose, a benchmark standard was developed, meant to represent a case with very high ambitions concerning biodiversity conservation. Of the assessed standards, the biofuel-related standards demonstrated the highest level of compliance with the benchmark. On average, they complied with 72% of the benchmark's component criteria, compared to 61% for the agricultural standards and 60% for the forestry standards. Fairtrade, Sustainable Agriculture Network/Rainforest Alliance (SAN/RA), Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS) were particularly stringent, while Green Gold Label S5 (GGLS5), PEOLG, Global Partnership for Good Agricultural Practices (GLOBALGAP), European Union Organic (EU Organic), National Organic Program (NOP), Green Gold Label S2 (GGLS2), and International Sustainability & Carbon Certification (ISCC) were particularly unstringent. All eleven forestry standards, six of the nine agricultural standards, and all six biofuel-related standards addressed ecosystem conversion, ranging from requiring that high conservation value areas be identified and preserved to requiring full protection. Finally, key barriers to, and challenges for, certification schemes are discussed and recommendations are made for further development of sustainability standards.

show abstract

Principles of Conservation Biology: Recommended Guidelines for Conservation Literacy from the Education Committee of the Society forConservation Biology*

Cited by 125 publications

References 10 publications

Biotic integrity of the arthropod communities in the natural forests of Azores

Biotic integrity of the arthropod communities in the natural forests of Azores

Environmental Education and Biodiversity Concern: Beyond the Ecological Literacy

How do Sustainability Standards Consider Biodiversity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About