LEADER 01000naa a22002652 4500
001 NLM244262519
003 DE-627
005 20231224134328.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231224s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/cobi.12428  |2 doi 
028 5 2 |a pubmed24n0814.xml 
035 |a (DE-627)NLM244262519 
035 |a (NLM)25472827 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Camaclang, Abbey E  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Current practices in the identification of critical habitat for threatened species 
264 1 |c 2015 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a ƒaComputermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a ƒa Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
500 |a Date Completed 19.01.2016 
500 |a Date Revised 16.03.2015 
500 |a published: Print-Electronic 
500 |a Citation Status MEDLINE 
520 |a © 2014 Society for Conservation Biology. 
520 |a The term critical habitat is used to describe the subset of habitat that is essential to the survival and recovery of species. Some countries legally require that critical habitat of listed threatened and endangered species be identified and protected. However, there is little evidence to suggest that the identification of critical habitat has had much impact on species recovery. We hypothesized that this may be due at least partly to a mismatch between the intent of critical habitat identification, which is to protect sufficient habitat for species persistence and recovery, and its practice. We used content analysis to systematically review critical habitat documents from the United States, Canada, and Australia. In particular, we identified the major trends in type of information used to identify critical habitat and in occupancy of habitat identified as critical. Information about population viability was used to identify critical habitat for only 1% of the species reviewed, and for most species, designated critical habitat did not include unoccupied habitat. Without reference to population viability, it is difficult to determine how much of a species' occupied and unoccupied habitat will be required for persistence. We therefore conclude that the identification of critical habitat remains inconsistent with the goal of protecting sufficient habitat to support persistence and recovery of the species. Ensuring that critical habitat identification aligns more closely with its intent will improve the accuracy of the designations and may therefore help improve the benefits to species recovery when combined with adequate implementation and enforcement of legal protections 
650 4 |a Journal Article 
650 4 |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't 
650 4 |a Acta de la Conservación de la Biodiversidad y la Protección Ambiental 
650 4 |a Acta de las Especies en Peligro 
650 4 |a Acta de las Especies en Riesgo 
650 4 |a Endangered Species Act 
650 4 |a Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 
650 4 |a Species at Risk Act 
650 4 |a compliance 
650 4 |a conservation policy 
650 4 |a cumplimiento 
650 4 |a habitat protection 
650 4 |a plan de recuperación 
650 4 |a política de conservación 
650 4 |a protección de hábitat 
650 4 |a recovery plan 
700 1 |a Maron, Martine  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Martin, Tara G  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Possingham, Hugh P  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology  |d 1999  |g 29(2015), 2 vom: 29. Apr., Seite 482-92  |w (DE-627)NLM098176803  |x 1523-1739  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:29  |g year:2015  |g number:2  |g day:29  |g month:04  |g pages:482-92 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12428  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_NLM 
912 |a GBV_ILN_350 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 29  |j 2015  |e 2  |b 29  |c 04  |h 482-92