Biodiversity monitoring for decision-making

By J. Niemelä. 2000

123 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e0aa51e8c858bab9e2e9dcbe02bf8b7e5305fdb0

How researchers see this paper

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

1. O. Missa
2. P. Duelli
3. Josef Settele
4. Johanna Rainio
5. Y. Basset
6. Martin K. Obrist
7. S. Miller
8. Y. Paillet

Citations in the corpus

• Habitat models and habitat connectivity analysis for butterflies and burnet moths - The example of Zygaena carniolica and Coenonympha arcania (2005, background): “Monitoring can provide a profound basis for the understanding of these effects (Niemelä, 2000).”
• The indicator side of tree microhabitats: A multi-taxon approach based on bats, birds and saproxylic beetles (2018, background): “Niemela (2000) states that the correlation should be significant and strong, without further precision on the magnitude, but large- scale analyses of biodiversity rarely provide strong correlations since most of the variations observed are generally due to uncontrolled variations (e.g., due to…”
• Monitoring arthropods in a tropical landscape: relative effects of sampling methods and habitat types on trap catches (2009, methodology): “There are multiple reasons for this, owing notably to complex issues of sampling methodology, spatio-temporal replication to characterize well assemblages and taxonomic impediment (Niemelä 2000; Rohr et al. 2007).”
• Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures (2003, background): “The urgent need to perform a scientifically solid test has been advocated repeatedly (Balmford et al., 1996; McGeoch, 1998; Niemelä, 2000).”
• Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators (2003, background): “̈ Several authors (e.g. Noss 1990; Pearson and Cassola 1992; Niemela 2000) have defined the requirements that a useful indicator species should have.”