Institution
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Nonprofit•Dhaka, Bangladesh•
About: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources is a nonprofit organization based out in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Biodiversity & Population. The organization has 1317 authors who have published 1870 publications receiving 97588 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
University of Helsinki1, Australian National University2, Brandenburg University of Technology3, Stellenbosch University4, University of Osnabrück5, University of Salzburg6, Radboud University Nijmegen7, University of Huddersfield8, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources9, University of Trier10, National University of Singapore11, IRSA12, University of Los Andes13, University of Florida14, Florida A&M University15, University of Zurich16, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul17, James Cook University18, University of the Philippines Los Baños19, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ20, Griffith University21
TL;DR: In this paper, a group of conservation biologists deeply concerned about the decline of insect populations, reviewed what we know about the drivers of insect extinctions, their consequences, and how extinctions can negatively impact humanity.
392 citations
University of Cambridge1, VU University Amsterdam2, Autonomous University of Madrid3, Indian Institute of Forest Management4, University Of Tennessee System5, Aberystwyth University6, University of Vermont7, Colorado State University8, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation9, Arizona State University10, University of Minnesota11, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources12, University of California, Berkeley13, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics14, United States Environmental Protection Agency15, University of East Anglia16
390 citations
University of Vienna1, Stellenbosch University2, University College London3, Zoological Society of London4, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources5, Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)6, Free University of Berlin7, Leibniz Association8, University of Auckland9, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic10, Charles University in Prague11, Taizhou University12, University of Konstanz13, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology14, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens15, University of Fribourg16, University of Oldenburg17, Scion18, University of Sassari19, University of Porto20, Universidade Nova de Lisboa21, Charles Darwin Foundation22, Durham University23, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology24, University of Concepción25, University of Hong Kong26, CABI27, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg28, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ29, United States Forest Service30, Bielefeld University31, University of Bern32, Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland33, Environment Agency34, Smithsonian Institution35, Institut national de la recherche agronomique36, University of Silesia in Katowice37, Landcare Research38, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization39
TL;DR: Using a global database of the first regional records of alien species covering the years 1500–2005, a surprisingly high proportion of species in recent records that have never been recorded as alien before are detected.
Abstract: Our ability to predict the identity of future invasive alien species is largely based upon knowledge of prior invasion history Emerging alien species—those never encountered as aliens before—therefore pose a significant challenge to biosecurity interventions worldwide Understanding their temporal trends, origins, and the drivers of their spread is pivotal to improving prevention and risk assessment tools Here, we use a database of 45,984 first records of 16,019 established alien species to investigate the temporal dynamics of occurrences of emerging alien species worldwide Even after many centuries of invasions the rate of emergence of new alien species is still high: One-quarter of first records during 2000–2005 were of species that had not been previously recorded anywhere as alien, though with large variation across taxa Model results show that the high proportion of emerging alien species cannot be solely explained by increases in well-known drivers such as the amount of imported commodities from historically important source regions Instead, these dynamics reflect the incorporation of new regions into the pool of potential alien species, likely as a consequence of expanding trade networks and environmental change This process compensates for the depletion of the historically important source species pool through successive invasions We estimate that 1–16% of all species on Earth, depending on the taxonomic group, qualify as potential alien species These results suggest that there remains a high proportion of emerging alien species we have yet to encounter, with future impacts that are difficult to predict
382 citations
University of Porto1, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources2, University of Minho3, Technische Universität München4, University of Cambridge5, Spanish National Research Council6, Russian Academy of Sciences7, Buffalo State College8, Ghent University9, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague10, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University11, University of Zagreb12, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens13, University of Santiago de Compostela14, Swedish Museum of Natural History15, University of Belgrade16, American Museum of Natural History17, University of Latvia18, Mustafa Kemal University19, University of Kragujevac20, University of Jyväskylä21, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences22, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro23, Polish Academy of Sciences24
TL;DR: Greater international cooperation using standardized protocols and methods to monitor and manage European freshwater mussel diversity will not only help conserve this vulnerable group but also, through the protection of these important organisms, will offer wider benefits to freshwater ecosystems.
Abstract: Freshwater mussels of the Order Unionida provide important ecosystem functions and services, yet many of their populations are in decline. We comprehensively review the status of the 16 currently recognized species in Europe, collating for the first time their life-history traits, distribution, conservation status, habitat preferences, and main threats in order to suggest future management actions. In northern, central, and eastern Europe, a relatively homogeneous species composition is found in most basins. In southern Europe, despite the lower species richness, spatially restricted species make these basins a high conservation priority. Information on freshwater mussels in Europe is unevenly distributed with considerable differences in data quality and quantity among countries and species. To make conservation more effective in the future, we suggest greater international cooperation using standardized protocols and methods to monitor and manage European freshwater mussel diversity. Such an approach will not only help conserve this vulnerable group but also, through the protection of these important organisms, will offer wider benefits to freshwater ecosystems.
378 citations
BirdLife International1, University of Kent2, University of Sussex3, United Nations Environment Programme4, Microsoft5, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds6, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources7, University of Cambridge8, University of Tasmania9, University of the Philippines Los Baños10, Old Dominion University11, University of Grenoble12, University of Queensland13, University of Copenhagen14, Christopher Newport University15, Arizona State University16, Zoological Society of London17, Sapienza University of Rome18, Wildlife Conservation Society19, American Bird Conservancy20
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors estimate that PAs currently cover 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but 59-68% of ecoregions, 77-78% of important sites for biodiversity, and 57% of 25,380 species have inadequate coverage.
Abstract: Governments have committed to conserving 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine environments globally, especially “areas of particular importance for biodiversity” through “ecologically representative” Protected Area (PA) systems or other “area-based conservation measures”, while individual countries have committed to conserve 3–50% of their land area. We estimate that PAs currently cover 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but 59–68% of ecoregions, 77–78% of important sites for biodiversity, and 57% of 25,380 species have inadequate coverage. The existing 19.7 million km 2 terrestrial PA network needs only 3.3 million km 2 to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, it would require nearly doubling to achieve, costefficiently, coverage targets for all countries, ecoregions, important sites, and species. Poorer countries have the largest relative shortfalls. Such extensive and rapid expansion of formal PAs is unlikely to be achievable. Greater focus is therefore needed on alternative approaches, including community- and privately managed sites and other effective area-based conservation measures.
367 citations
Authors
Showing all 1320 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kevin M. Smith | 114 | 1711 | 78470 |
| Ary A. Hoffmann | 113 | 907 | 55354 |
| David W. Macdonald | 111 | 1109 | 51334 |
| Michael R. Hoffmann | 109 | 500 | 63474 |
| Fred W. Allendorf | 86 | 230 | 34738 |
| Edward B. Barbier | 84 | 450 | 36753 |
| James J. Yoo | 81 | 491 | 27738 |
| Michael William Bruford | 80 | 369 | 23635 |
| James E. M. Watson | 74 | 461 | 23362 |
| Brian Huntley | 74 | 225 | 28875 |
| Brian W. Bowen | 74 | 181 | 17451 |
| Gordon Luikart | 72 | 193 | 37564 |
| Stuart H. M. Butchart | 72 | 245 | 26585 |
| Thomas M. Brooks | 71 | 215 | 33724 |
| Joshua E. Cinner | 68 | 177 | 14384 |