Sensitivity of Systematic Reserve Selection to Decisions about Scale, Biological Data, and Targets: Case Study from Southern British Columbia

101 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Species distributions, surrogacy, and important conservation regions in Canada (2004, unknown): “The divergence in conclusions results from three factors, namely different methods in measuring surrogacy (Andelman & Fagan 2000; Reyers et al. 2000; Hopkinson et al. 2001; Lund & Rahbek 2002), different scales of study and sample units (Flather et al. 1997; Warman et al. 2004 ), and different unde”
Habitat Suitability Models and the Shortfall in Conservation Planning for African Vertebrates (2005, result): “This is in accordance with research by Warman et al. (2004), who assessed the sensitivity of systematic reserve selection to planning unit size, biodiversity features to be conserved, and quantitative target.”
Complementarity analysis: Mapping the performance of surrogates for biodiversity (2006, background): “…et al., 1998; Andelman and Fagan, 2000; Reyers et al., 2000; Virolainen et al., 2000; Lund and Rahbek, 2002; Beger et al., 2003; Moore et al., 2003; Warman et al., 2004a), or include all flexible sets or a large sample of flexible sets (e.g., Williams et al., 2000; Hopkinson et al., 2001; Manne…”
CONSERVING SPECIES IN A WORKING LANDSCAPE: LAND USE WITH BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES (2005, background): “In the reserve-site selection literature, the size of parcels can influence the choice of which parcels to include in a reserve network (Stoms 1994, Pressey and Logan 1998, Warman et al. 2004).”