Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

National programs to protect genetic diversity — The US example

  • Published:
Environmentalist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

A country which truly wishes to preserve the full range of genetic diversity with which it has been endowed must look beyond large biosphere reserves. It must inventory and protect individual species and habitat types in smaller preserves as well. The United States provides an example of a country which has a legacy of preserves. Much of the land that would be necessary for an effective preserve system has already been acquired, but basic information and coordination among agencies is lacking.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beltran, E., (1964) Use and recreation: two conflicting purposes. In A. Adams (ed.)Proceedings of the First World Conference on National Parks, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 471 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • BLM (Bureau of Land Management), (1978)Public Land Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 191 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boren, F. D. and Blair W. D., (1980) Decade of diversity,The Nature Conservancy News, 30(3) 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Code of Federal Regulation, (1979) Title 36, Part 294.1, Recreation areas. Title 43, Sub-part 2071.1, Type and effect of designations—recreation lands. Title 50, Section 25.11, The natural wildlife refuge system-purpose of regulations.

  • Darnell, R. M., (1976) Natural areas preservation: The US/IBP conservation of ecosystems program.BioScience, 26(2) 105–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves, (1977)A Directory of Research Natural Areas on Federal Lands of the United States of America, Forest Service, Washington, D.C., 280 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish and Wildlife Service, (1976)Annual Report 1976, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 221 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish and Wildlife Service, (1980) Habitat acquisition: costly but necessary to the recovery of many endangered species,Endangered Species Technical Bulletin, 5(6) 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), (1980)The World Conservation Strategy, IUCN, Morges, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, R., (1978) Habitat preservation by private organizations. In Brokaw, H. P. (ed.),Wildlife and America, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., pp. 532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, L. G., (1979) Unpublished xerox, April 19, 1979.

  • Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated, The Wilderness and Natural Areas Act of 1972, MCLA sections 322.751–322.763.

  • National Audubon Society, (n.d.)Islands of Life, The National Audubon Society Sanctuaries.

  • NPS, (The National Park Service), (1980)The State of the Parks-1980, A Report to Congress, Office of Science and Technology, National Park Service, Washington, D.C., 57 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Park Service, (1972)Part Two of the National Park System Plan: Natural History, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • TNC (The Nature Conservancy), (1977)Preserving Our Natural Heritage, V. 1 Federal Activities, 323 pp., V. 2 State Activities, 671 pp., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • TNC (The Nature Conservancy), (1979) 1978: Year in Review.The Nature Conservancy News, 20(3) 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • TNC (The Nature Conservancy), (1980) Decade of diversity,The Nature Conservancy News, 30(3) 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of the Census, (1979)Statistical Abstracts of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress, (1964) The Wilderness Act, P.L. 88–577, 16 U.S.C. 1131–1136.

  • U.S. Congress, (1976) General Authorities Act of 1976, P.L. 94–458.

  • U.S. Congress, (1978) Amendments to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, P. L. 95–632, 16 U.S.C.A. 1531–1543.

  • U.S. Congress, (1979)National Wilderness Preservation System, 14th Annual Report, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 96 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Parks and Insular Affairs, (1977) H, R. 6268, 95th Congress, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 192 pp.

  • US MAB (United States Program on Man and the Biosphere), (1979)Guidelines for the Selection of Biosphere Reserves: an interim report and key, US MAB, Washington, D.C. 26 pp.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urban and Environmental Policy, Tufts University, 02155, Medford, MA, U.S.A.

    Francis R. Thibodeau (Research Associate)

Authors
  1. Francis R. Thibodeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Dr Francis Roy Thibodeau graduated in Environmental Sciences from Boston College. He later took his Masters in Urban, Social and Environmental Policy, and his Doctorate in Ecology and Environmental Policy, both degrees from Tufts University. His research interests are in the field of relationship between ecology and land use, especially as they influence the preservation of genetic diversity.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thibodeau, F.R. National programs to protect genetic diversity — The US example. Environmentalist 3, 39–44 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02240043

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02240043

Keywords

Search

Navigation