Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Conservation planning for ecosystem services.

Kai M A Chan1, M Rebecca Shaw, David R Cameron

  • 1Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. kaichan@ires.ubc.ca

Plos Biology
|November 2, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

High-quality surrounding landscapes mitigate avian extirpations from forest remnants.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2026
Same author

Model-based quantification of immune response and anti-staphylococcal activity of afabicin in immunocompetent mouse thigh infections to enable predictions of clinical efficacy.

Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy·2026
Same author

The best laid plans: How do adopted city sustainability goals influence site-level action in urban forestry?

Ambio·2025
Same author

The bactericidal FabI inhibitor Debio 1453 clears antibiotic-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection in vivo.

Nature communications·2025
Same author

Male-Like Plumage in an Urban Nesting Veraguan Mango: Evidence of a Female-Limited Polymorphism?

Ecology and evolution·2025
Same author

Targeting Chronic Biofilm Infections With Patient-derived Phages: An In Vitro and Ex Vivo Proof-of-concept Study in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Open forum infectious diseases·2025
Same journal

Towards globally equitable bioinformatics adoption.

PLoS biology·2026
Same journal

The human claustrum supports cognitive networks for externally and internally driven task demands.

PLoS biology·2026
Same journal

Unusual decay: Recombination loss leads to splicing errors in green algae.

PLoS biology·2026
Same journal

Angptl5 restricts primitive hematopoiesis by promoting retinoic acid signaling in zebrafish.

PLoS biology·2026
Same journal

Engineered bipaternal mice reveal the consequences of life without a maternal genomic contribution.

PLoS biology·2026
Same journal

Multiple adhesion molecules act together in oligodendrocyte-mediated axonal selection and myelin formation.

PLoS biology·2026
See all related articles

Integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation is crucial. A systematic planning framework can identify synergies and manage trade-offs, protecting biodiversity while ensuring ecosystem service flow.

Area of Science:

  • * Conservation planning
  • * Ecosystem services
  • * Biodiversity protection

Background:

  • * Lack of systematic methodology for planning ecosystem services in conservation.
  • * Poor characterization of ecosystem services at local-to-regional scales.
  • * Ecosystem service protection not prioritized in conservation efforts.

Purpose of the Study:

  • * Develop a systematic methodology for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning.
  • * Explore trade-offs and opportunities between biodiversity conservation and six key ecosystem services.
  • * Analyze the effectiveness of different conservation network designs.

Main Methods:

  • * Utilized a spatially explicit conservation planning framework.
  • * Assessed six ecosystem services: carbon storage, flood control, forage production, outdoor recreation, crop pollination, and water provision.

Related Experiment Videos

  • * Compared four contrasting conservation network designs for biodiversity and ecosystem service protection.

    • Main Results:

    • * Weak positive and negative associations found between biodiversity priority areas and ecosystem service flows.
    • * Excluding agriculture-focused services (crop pollination, forage production) removed negative correlations.
    • * Biodiversity conservation provided substantial collateral ecosystem service benefits.
    • * Targeting ecosystem services directly was more efficient but could not replace biodiversity protection.
    • * Targeting biodiversity plus positively associated services showed promise with minimal biodiversity loss.

    Conclusions:

    • * A systematic planning framework can identify synergies between biodiversity and ecosystem services.
    • * Potential trade-offs exist but can be managed through strategic planning.
    • * Integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services is essential for effective conservation outcomes.