|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
01000naa a22002652 4500 |
| 001 |
NLM24526714X |
| 003 |
DE-627 |
| 005 |
20231224140512.0 |
| 007 |
cr uuu---uuuuu |
| 008 |
231224s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c |
| 024 |
7 |
|
|a 10.1111/cobi.12442
|2 doi
|
| 028 |
5 |
2 |
|a pubmed24n0817.xml
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (DE-627)NLM24526714X
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (NLM)25580848
|
| 040 |
|
|
|a DE-627
|b ger
|c DE-627
|e rakwb
|
| 041 |
|
|
|a eng
|
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Charpentier, Anne
|e verfasserin
|4 aut
|
| 245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Insights from life history theory for an explicit treatment of trade-offs in conservation biology
|
| 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 08.02.2016
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Date Revised 13.05.2015
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a published: Print-Electronic
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Citation Status MEDLINE
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a © 2015 Society for Conservation Biology.
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a As economic and social contexts become more embedded within biodiversity conservation, it becomes obvious that resources are a limiting factor in conservation. This recognition is leading conservation scientists and practitioners to increasingly frame conservation decisions as trade-offs between conflicting societal objectives. However, this framing is all too often done in an intuitive way, rather than by addressing trade-offs explicitly. In contrast, the concept of trade-off is a keystone in evolutionary biology, where it has been investigated extensively. I argue that insights from evolutionary theory can provide methodological and theoretical support to evaluating and quantifying trade-offs in biodiversity conservation. I reviewed the diverse ways in which trade-offs have emerged within the context of conservation and how advances from evolutionary theory can help avoid the main pitfalls of an implicit approach. When studying both evolutionary trade-offs (e.g., reproduction vs. survival) and conservation trade-offs (e.g., biodiversity conservation vs. agriculture), it is crucial to correctly identify the limiting resource, hold constant the amount of this resource when comparing different scenarios, and choose appropriate metrics to quantify the extent to which the objectives have been achieved. Insights from studies in evolutionary theory also reveal how an inadequate selection of conservation solutions may result from considering suboptimal rather than optional solutions when examining whether a trade-off exits between 2 objectives. Furthermore, the shape of a trade-off curve (i.e., whether the relationship between 2 objectives follows a concave, convex, or linear form) is known to affect crucially the definition of optimal solutions in evolutionary biology and very likely affects decisions in biodiversity conservation planning too. This interface between evolutionary biology and biodiversity conservation can therefore provide methodological guidance to support decision makers in the difficult task of choosing among conservation solutions
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a Journal Article
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a Pareto optimal front
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a biodiversidad
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a biodiversity
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a características de la historia de vida
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a forma de las compensaciones
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a frente óptimo Pareto
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a life history traits
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a multi-objective optimization
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a optimización multi-objetiva
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a trade-off shape
|
| 773 |
0 |
8 |
|i Enthalten in
|t Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
|d 1999
|g 29(2015), 3 vom: 04. Juni, Seite 738-47
|w (DE-627)NLM098176803
|x 1523-1739
|7 nnns
|
| 773 |
1 |
8 |
|g volume:29
|g year:2015
|g number:3
|g day:04
|g month:06
|g pages:738-47
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12442
|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 3
|b 04
|c 06
|h 738-47
|