1995
DOI: 10.2307/1312450
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Providing a Regional Context for Local Conservation Action

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We quantify this restoration potential based on the responsiveness of the targeted life stage, the potential to yield an overall survival increase, and the degree of increase needed to achieve population recovery and viability at the level of the evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) listed in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (see footnote 4) (NRC 1995, Lake 2001, Mangel et al 2006). These steps are essential for prioritizing conservation plans, before investments are made in costly and perhaps risky actions; this a priori evaluation and prioritization process is especially important for animals that demonstrate complex life cycles and long migrations over heterogonous habitat (Doak 1995, Reid and Murphy 1995, Palmer et al 2005. And even though the outcome of a management action can rarely be predicted with great accuracy, uncertainty parallels risk, such that the likelihood of success can usually be bracketed through some type of life-cycle modeling (Caswell 2000, Morris andDoak 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…We quantify this restoration potential based on the responsiveness of the targeted life stage, the potential to yield an overall survival increase, and the degree of increase needed to achieve population recovery and viability at the level of the evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) listed in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (see footnote 4) (NRC 1995, Lake 2001, Mangel et al 2006). These steps are essential for prioritizing conservation plans, before investments are made in costly and perhaps risky actions; this a priori evaluation and prioritization process is especially important for animals that demonstrate complex life cycles and long migrations over heterogonous habitat (Doak 1995, Reid and Murphy 1995, Palmer et al 2005. And even though the outcome of a management action can rarely be predicted with great accuracy, uncertainty parallels risk, such that the likelihood of success can usually be bracketed through some type of life-cycle modeling (Caswell 2000, Morris andDoak 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As we show here for salmon, even if restoration efforts are large scale (i.e., restoration of many tributary streams) and feasible, if the animal of concern is far ranging with a complex life cycle, factors in other life stages (e.g., passage through mainstem dams) may provide a survival bottleneck and limit the overall effectiveness of the restoration actions (Budy et al 2002, Wilson 2003, Wissmar and Bisson 2003, Schreck et al 2006. For large ESUs containing multiple populations, like the Snake River Chinook salmon ESU, comparison of characteristics of groups of populations that do, and do not, meet viability criteria under a specific manage-ment action can aid in determining the overall risk of a recovery strategy (NRC 1995, Reid andMurphy 1995).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…A high level of skill is needed in situations where a number of landholders and competing land management objectives are involved, or where negotiation is required to purchase or acquire land for the linkage. Linked systems of habitat at the regional scale that involve co-ordination amongst private landholders, land developers and multiple public authorities, are a major challenge (Reid and Murphy 1995;see Chapter 9). Important…”
Section: Management Responsibility and Adequacy Of Resourcesmentioning
confidence: 99%