Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Prioritizing species for conservation planning

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The efforts to protect biological diversity must be prioritized because resources for nature conservation are limited. Conservation prioritization can be based on numerous criteria, from ecological integrity to species representation, but in this review I address only species-level prioritization. Criteria used for species prioritization range from aesthetical to evolutionary considerations, but I focus on the aspects that are biologically relevant. I distinguish between two main aspects of diversity that are used as objectives: Maintenance of biodiversity pattern, and maintenance of biodiversity process. I identify two additional criteria typically used in species prioritization that serve for achieving the objectives: The species’ need of protection, and cost and effectiveness of conservation actions. I discuss how these criteria could be combined with either of the objectives in a complementarity-based benefit function framework for conservation prioritization. But preserving evolutionary process versus current diversity pattern may turn out to be conflicting objectives that have to be traded-off with each other, if pursued simultaneously. Although many reasonable criteria and methods exist, species prioritization is hampered by uncertainties, most of which stem from the poor quality of data on what species exist, where they occur, and what are the costs and benefits of protecting them. Surrogate measures would be extremely useful but their performance is still largely unknown. Future challenges in species prioritization lie in finding ways to compensate for missing information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams CA, Baskin JM, Baskin CC (2005) Trait stasis versus adaptation in disjunct relict species: evolutionary changes in seed dormancy-breaking and germination requirements in a subclade of Aristolochia subgenus Siphisia (Piperales). Seed Sci Res 15:161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agapow P-M, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Crandall KA, Gittleman JL, Mace GM, Marshall JC, Purvis A (2004) The impact of species concept on biodiversity studies. Q Rev Biol 79:161–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Akçakaya HR, Ferson SS, Burgman MA, Keith DA, Mace GM, Todd CR (2000) Making consistent IUCN classifications under uncertainty. Conserv Biol 14:1001–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andelman SJ, Fagan WF (2000) Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:5954–5959

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arponen A, Heikkinen RK, Thomas CD, Moilanen A (2005) The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: representation, species weighting, and benefit functions. Conserv Biol 19:2009–2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arponen A, Moilanen A, Ferrier S (2008) A successful community-level strategy for conservation prioritization. J Appl Ecol 45:1436–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arponen A, Cabeza M, Eklund J, Kujala H, Lehtomäki J (2010) Costs of integrating economics and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 24:1198–1204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barker GM (2002) Phylogenetic diversity: a quantitative framework for measurement of priority and achievement in biodiversity conservation. Biol J Linn Soc 76:165–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baselga A, Araújo MB (2009) Individualistic vs community modelling of species distributions under climate change. Ecography 32:55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bode M, Wilson KA, Brooks TM, Turner WR, Mittermeier RA, McBride MF, Underwood EC, Possingham HP (2008) Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:6498–6501

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Carwardine J, Bode M, Cook C, Game ET, Grantham H, Kark S, Linke S, McDonald-Madden E, Pressey RL, Walker S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (2008) Is conservation triage just smart decision making? Trends Ecol Evol 23:649–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs SV (2009) Priorities and paradigms: directions in threatened species recovery. Conserv Lett 2:101–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks R, Mayden L, McLennan DA (1992) Phylogeny and biodiversity: conserving our evolutionary legacy. Trends Ecol Evol 7:55–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB, Gerlach J, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF, Mittermeier CG, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues ASL (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313:58–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Mehlman DW, Stevens GC (1995) Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology 76:2028–2043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadotte MW, Davies TJ (2010) Rarest of the rare: advances in combining evolutionary distinctiveness and scarcity to inform conservation at biogeographical scales. Divers Distrib 16:376–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadotte MW, Cardinale BJ, Oakley TH (2008) Evolutionary history and the effect of biodiversity on plant productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:17012–17017

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinale BJ, Srivastava DS, Duffy JE, Wright JP, Downing AL, Sankaran M, Jouseau C (2006) Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443:989–992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Caro T, Engilis A, Fitzherbert E, Gardner T (2004) Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Anim Conserv 7:63–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassens I, Vicario S, Waddell VG, Balchowsky H, Van Belle D, Ding W, Fan C, Mohan RSL, SimÃμes-Lopes PC, Bastida R, Meyer A, Stanhope MJ, Milinkovitch MC (2000) Independent adaptation to riverine habitats allowed survival of ancient cetacean lineages. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:11343–11347

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (1992) The convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the CBD, U. N. Environment Programme, Montreal. http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2012

  • Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR (2006) Global mammal distributions, biodiversity hotspots, and conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:19374–19379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Channell R, Lomolino MV (2000) Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered species. Nature 403:84–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cofré H, Marquet PA (1999) Conservation status, rarity, and geographic priorities for conservation of Chilean mammals: an assessment. Biol Conserv 88:53–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crother BI, Murray CM (2011) Ontology of areas of endemism. J Biogeogr 38:1009–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels RJR, Hedge M, Joshi NV, Gadgil M (1991) Assigning conservation value: a case study from India. Conserv Biol 5:464–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das A, Krishnaswamy J, Bawa KS, Kiran MC, Srinivas V, Kumar NS, Karanth KU (2006) Prioritisation of conservation areas in the Western Ghats, India. Biol Conserv 133:16–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies TJ, Fritz SA, Grenyer R, Orme CDL, Bielby J, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Cardillo M, Jones KE, Gittleman JL, Mace GM, Purvis A (2008) Phylogenetic trees and the future of mammalian biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11556–11563

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Grammont PC, Cuaron AD (2006) An evaluation of threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent. Conserv Biol 20:14–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drummond SP, Wilson KA, Meijaard E, Watts M, Dennis R, Christy L, Possingham HP (2010) Influence of a threatened-species focus on conservation planning. Conserv Biol 24:441–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Early R, Thomas CD (2007) Multispecies conservation planning: identifying landscapes for the conservation of viable populations using local and continental species priorities. J Appl Ecol 44:253–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudik M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton JM, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberon J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erwin TL (1991) An evolutionary basis for conservation strategies. Science 253:750–752

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Faith DP (1992) Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv 61:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro PJ (2003) Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous world. J Policy Anal Manag 22:27–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier S, Drielsma M (2010) Synthesis of pattern and process in biodiversity conservation assessment: a flexible whole-landscape modelling framework. Divers Distrib 16:386–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier S, Powell GVN, Richardson KS, Manion G, Overton JM, Allnutt TF, Cameron SE, Mantle K, Burgess ND, Faith DP, Lamoreux JF, Kier G, Hijmans RJ, Funk VA, Cassis GA, Fisher BL, Flemons P, Lees D, Lovett JC, Van Rompaey R (2004) Mapping more of terrestrial biodiversity for global conservation assessment. Bioscience 54:1101–1109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forest F, Grenyer R, Rouget M, Davies TJ, Cowling RM, Faith DP, Balmford A, Manning JC, Proches S, van der Bank M, Reeves G, Hedderson TAJ, Savolainen V (2007) Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in biodiversity hotspots. Nature 445:757–760

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Fuller RA (2008) Commonness, population depletion and conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 23:14–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grantham HS, Pressey RL, Wells JA, Beattie AJ (2010) Effectiveness of biodiversity surrogates for conservation planning: Different measures of effectiveness generate a kaleidoscope of variation. PLoS ONE 5:e11430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter ML, Hutchinson A (1994) The virtues and shortcomings of parochialism: conserving species that are locally rare, but globally common. Conserv Biol 8:1163–1165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (2001) IUCN red list categories and criteria version 3.1. IUCN species survival commission. IUCN, Cambridge, p 30

    Google Scholar 

  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (2010) Discussion note to accompany IUCN’s position paper on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) strategic plan 2011–2020: target 20. IUCN, Cambridge, p 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac NJB, Turvey ST, Collen B, Waterman C, Baillie JEM (2007) Mammals on the EDGE: conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS ONE 2:e296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph LN, Maloney RF, Possingham HP (2009) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conserv Biol 23:328–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Juutinen A, Mäntymaa E, Mönkkönen M, Salmi J (2004) A cost-efficient approach to selecting forest stands for conserving species: a case study from northern Fennoscandia. For Sci 50:527–539

    Google Scholar 

  • Kark S, Alkon PU, Safriel UN, Randi E (1999) Conservation priorities for Chukar partridge in Israel based on genetic diversity across an ecological gradient. Conserv Biol 13:542–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kark S, Levin N, Grantham HS, Possingham HP (2009) Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:15368–15373

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keith M, Chimimba CT, Reyers B, van Jaarsveld AS (2007) A comparative analysis of components incorporated in conservation priority assessments: a case study based on South African species of terrestrial mammals. Afr Zool 42:97–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight AT, Driver A, Cowling RM, Maze K, Desmet PG, Lombard AT, Rouget M, Botha MA, Boshoff AF, Castley JG, Goodman PS, Mackinnon K, Pierce SM, Sims-Castley R, Stewart WI, Von Hase A (2006) Designing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: Best practice from South Africa. Conserv Biol 20:739–750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Langford WT, Gordon A, Bastin L, Bekessy SA, White MD, Newell G (2011) Raising the bar for systematic conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 26(12):634–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lesica P, Allendorf FW (1995) When are peripheral populations valuable for conservation? Conserv Biol 9:753–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loreau M (2010) Linking biodiversity and ecosystems: towards a unifying ecological theory. Philos Trans Royal Soc B 365:49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM, Lande R (1991) Assessing extinction threats: toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv Biol 5:148–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM, Possingham H, Leader-Williams N (2006) Prioritizing choices in conservation. In: Macdonald D, Service K (eds) Key topics in conservation biology, 1st edn. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 17–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainwaring L (2001) Biodiversity, biocomplexity, and the economics of genetic dissimilarity. Land Econom 77:79–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris E (2007) Conservation priorities: what to let go. Nature 450:152–155

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh H, Dennis A, Hines H, Kutt A, McDonald K, Weber E, Williams S, Winter J (2007) Optimizing allocation of management resources for wildlife. Conserv Biol 21:387–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • May R (1990) Taxonomy as destiny. Nature 347:129–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy MA, Thompson CJ, Garnett ST (2008) Optimal investment in conservation of species. J Appl Ecol 45:1428–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre S, Barrett GW, Kitching RL, Recher HF (1992) Species triage-seeing beyond wounded rhinos. Conserv Biol 6:604–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeely JA (1997) Assessing methods for setting conservation priorities. In: OECD Proceedings: investing in biological diversity—the cairns conference. OECD, Paris, pp 25–55

  • Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Econom 72:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller RM, Rodriguez JP, Aniskowicz-Fowler T, Bambaradeniya C, Boles R, Eaton MA, Gardenfors U, Keller V, Molur S, Walker S, Pollock C (2006) Extinction risk and conservation priorities. Science 313:441

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moffett A, Sarkar S (2006) Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations. Divers Distrib 12:125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Arponen A (2011) Administrative regions in conservation: balancing local priorities with regional to global preferences in spatial planning. Biol Conserv 144:1719–1725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adl S, Simpson AGB, Worm B (2011) How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol 9:e1001127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch W, Polasky S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP, Kareiva P, Shaw R (2007) Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Biol Conserv 139:375–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers N (1979) The sinking ark: a new look at the problem of disappearing species. Pergamon Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Knoll AH (2001) The biotic crisis and the future of evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5389–5392

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21:681–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nee S, May RM (1997) Extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science 278:692–694

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson E, Possingham HP (2006) Objectives for multiple-species conservation planning. Conserv Biol 20:871–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orme CDL, Davies RG, Burgess M, Eigenbrod F, Pickup N, Olson VA, Webster AJ, Ding T-S, Rasmussen PC, Ridgely RS, Stattersfield AJ, Bennett PM, Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Owens IPF (2005) Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat. Nature 436:1016–1019

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pavoine S, Ollier S, Dufour A-B, Crozier R (2005) Is the originality of a species measurable? Ecol Lett 8:579–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearman PB, Penskar MR, Schools EH, Enander HD (2006) Identifying potential indicators of conservation value using natural heritage occurrence data. Ecol Appl 16:186–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perhans K, Kindstrand C, Boman M, Djupström LB, Gustafsson L, Mattsson L, Schroeder LM, Weslien J, Wikberg S (2008) Conservation goals and the relative importance of costs and benefits in reserve selection. Conserv Biol 22:1331–1339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Polasky S, Csuti B, Vossler CA, Meyers SM (2001) A comparison of taxonomic distinctness versus richness as criteria for setting conservation priorities for North American birds. Biol Conserv 97:99–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Possingham HP, Andelman SJ, Burgman MA, Medellin RA, Master LL, Keith DA (2002) Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends Ecol Evol 17:503–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Humphries CJ, Margules CR, Vane-Wright RI, Williams PH (1993) Beyond opportunism-key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol Evol 8:124–128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Purvis A, Agapow P-M, Gittleman JL, Mace GM (2000) Nonrandom extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science 288:328–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Redding DW, Mooers AO (2006) Incorporating Evolutionary Measures into Conservation Prioritization. Conserv Biol 20:1670–1678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Redding DW, DeWolff CV, Mooers AØ (2010) Evolutionary Distinctiveness, Threat Status, and Ecological Oddity in Primates Singularidad Evolutiva, Estatus de Amenaza y Rareza Ecológica en Primates. Conserv Biol 24(4):1052–1058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Regan HM, Colyvan M, Burgman MA (2000) A proposal for fuzzy International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories and criteria. Biol Conserv 92:101–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan HM, Ben-Haim Y, Langford B, Wilson WG, Lundberg P, Andelman SJ, Burgman MA (2005) Robust decision-making under severe uncertainty for conservation management. Ecol Appl 15:1471–1477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Brooks TM (2007) Shortcuts for biodiversity conservation planning: the effectiveness of surrogates. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:713–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger O, Klotz S, Durka W, Kühn I (2008) A comparative test of phylogenetic diversity indices. Oecologia 157:485–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (1998) Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single-species management passe in the landscape era? Biol Conserv 83:247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson GG (1944) Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Terribile LC, De Oliveira G, Albuquerque F, Rodríguez MÁ, Diniz-Filho JAF (2009) Global conservation strategies for two clades of snakes: combining taxon-specific goals with general prioritization schemes. Divers Distrib 15:841–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tognelli MF, Fernández M, Marquet PA (2009) Assessing the performance of the existing and proposed network of marine protected areas to conserve marine biodiversity in Chile. Biol Conserv 142:3147–3153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine JW, Collins AG, Meyer CP (1994) Morphological complexity increase in metazoans. Paleobiology 20:131–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright RI (2005) Conserving biodiversity: a structural challenge. Report on Insect Inventory Project in Tropic, Asia (TAIIV), pp 27–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright RI (2009) Planetary awareness, worldviews and the conservation of biodiversity. In: Kellert SR, Speth JG (eds) The Coming Transformation. Values to sustain human and natural communities. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, New Haven, pp 353–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright RI, Humphries CJ, Williams PH (1991) What to protect?-systematics and the agony of choice. Biol Conserv 55:235–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman ML (1998) The Noah’s Ark problem. Econometrica 66:1279–1298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JJ (2004) Speciation and ecology revisited: phylogenetic niche conservatism and the origin of species. Evolution 58:193–197

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams PH, Humphries CJ (1994) Biodiversity, taxonomic relatedness, and endemism in conservation. In: Forey PL et al (eds) Systematics and conservation evaluation (the systematics association special volume, no 50). Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 269–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams PH, Humphries CJ (1996) Comparing character diversity among biotas. In: Gaston KJ (ed) Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 54–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams PH, Gaston KJ, Humphries CJ (1994) Do conservationists and molecular biologists value differences between organisms in the same way? Biodivers Lett 2:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I thank LUOVA (Finnish School in Wildlife Biology, Conservation and Management) and EU FP7 SCALES Project (“Securing the Conservation of biodiversity across Administrative Levels and spatial, temporal and Ecological Scales”; project #226852) for funding. Prof. Atte Moilanen, Prof. Mar Cabeza, Dr. Niklas Wahlberg, Prof. Stephen Polasky, Prof. R.I. Vane-Wright and an anonymous reviewer provided constructive comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anni Arponen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 85 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arponen, A. Prioritizing species for conservation planning. Biodivers Conserv 21, 875–893 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0242-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0242-1

Keywords

Navigation