Pimm, S. L. 2001. The world according to Pimm. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Morris, D. W. 2003. Forestry/Biology 4252: Conservation ecology. Course Materials - 2003.
Tuesday: 10:30-11:30; Thursday: 11:00-12:00 (7 January - 3 April 2003 only).
Other times by appointment
Friday 08:30-11:30, Room BB1006
|Report Due Date||Report Style|
|Final Term Report||Oral Reports|
|Tentative Timetable||A guide to the Literature|
This course is designed for the senior undergraduate/graduate student who wants to understand issues of conservation ecology, the processes that lead to conservation crises, and strategies to reduce/eliminate their effects. Course instruction will include a mixture of lectures, oral presentations and discussions, workshops, and investigative assignments. The lectures will emphasize conceptual, empirical, and experimental approaches to the study of conservation ecology. The course will be centred on "Problem-based Learning". All students will be required to participate actively in workshops and discussions, and to seek solutions to each "problem set". Though specific lectures are planned for each week's meeting, these may be "replaced" by class discussions and workshops. Students may be required to present a "lecture" to the class, and are expected to participate in the presentations of their classmates.
Return to contents
1. To familiarize students with ecological and evolutionary principles applicable to conservation.
2. To introduce students to the relevant and recent literature on a variety of issues and processes in conservation ecology.
3. To inspire students to question and discuss current concepts and controversies in conservation ecology.
4. To assist students in developing the skills, discipline, and study habits necessary for self-instruction in this and other areas of ecology.
5. To help provide students with the theoretical and empirical background, and the communication skills, necessary for informed discussions on issues of conservation ecology.
Return to Contents
Attendance, problem sets, discussions, weekly assignments and lectures: 80%
Term Report: 20%
THERE ARE NO FORMAL TESTS OR EXAMS. Rather, students will be evaluated weekly on their understanding of course material, and their contribution to solving problem sets. Grades will include components of self and peer evaluation. Students will be assigned to groups to solve specific conservation and ecological problems. The solutions will be presented to classmates, discussed, and summarized in written reports. ATTENDANCE IS MANDATORY. Students who miss a scheduled class date without bona fide reasons (e.g., medical statement, pre-approval from the instructor) will lose 10% of their total achievable grade. Students arriving late will have their grade in that session pro-rated accordingly. There may be one or more in-class quizzes that do not contribute to the course grade. In addition, graduate students are expected to be active participants in the Lakehead Ecology And evolution Discussions on Environmental Research (LEADER). All students should attempt to attend guest lectures related to issues of conservation.
Performance will be evaluated regularly. The evaluation will be based on the student's grasp of important issues, logical reasoning, non-trivial criticisms of the material, and the ability to understand and solve conservation problems. Students are encouraged to actively share their ideas and their questions.
Written or oral reports may be assigned at intervals during the course. Evaluation of these reports will be based on the student's ability to synthesize a field of enquiry, to apply that synthesis to a particular problem, or to develop significant new insights into issues of conservation ecology. The reports should not, in general, be restatements of review papers. Rather they will require the student to apply what is known (and what's not known) about an unresolved question or issue in conservation ecology. Evaluation will be devoted equally to clarity of presentation, rigour of treatment, and suitability of the report to the assignment.
A term report, representing the student's audit (see below) plus a summary of the student's self-evaluation during the course, must be submitted no later than 11:20 on 4 April 2003. There will be no extension.
Please note: The report is a term project and not a final examination. Students will be ineligible to write a special examination as outlined in general regulation VII in the Lakehead University Calendar.
Students may also participate in a class project related to an appropriate theme in conservation ecology. Class projects will be chosen as a group, and can range from detailed analyses of a particular issue, to the collection and analysis of novel data.
Return to Contents
Read each assignment carefully and include only relevant material. Unless otherwise indicated, maximum length of reports including tables, figures, and references will be six typed pages (double-spaced, 2.5 cm margins, minimum height of lower-case letters 2mm).
Return to Contents
Report Due Date:
All regular reports will be due two weeks after the assignment date. Late submission will be penalized at the rate of 10 % per calendar day unless prior permission is received. The due date for the final report is 4 April 2003. Reports submitted after 4 April 2003 will not be accepted for grading.
Return to Contents
Be concise. Use the active voice. Organize your thoughts before you begin writing. Omit needless or redundant words. Express your thoughts as clearly as possible even if it means re-writing the report. Write in your own words. Use quotations only when you cannot express the thoughts yourself. Never borrow a phrase without quotations. Never repeat observations, interpretations, or ideas without proper citation. Never cite a reference that you have not read. For scientific reports, follow the style of recent articles appearing in the journal "Oikos". For reports on problem sets, follow the instructions provided by the course instructor.
Return to Contents
Final Term Report:
Each student must submit an audit of the "State of Conservation in the Province of Ontario". Contents of the audit will be accumulated from each week's problem set. The audit should incorporate a balance sheet contrasting the "consumption" of resources and biodiversity by the people of Ontario, with the "surplus" saved for the rest of nature. The audit should include a one-page "exectutive summary" that highlights the key points and implications of the audit.
Each student must also submit a summary of their self-evaluation throughout the course. The summary should include weekly "scores" representing the student's understanding of material, contributions to discussions, as well as the student's contribution to solving the weekly problem set. These scores should be reported in a concise table with mean scores for each component in the final row. Students may also elect to attach a simple "journal" with no more than a single short paragraph describing their learning experience and contribution to each week's class. The total length of the self-evaluation must not exceed 6 double-spaced pages.
Each graduate student must present a class "lecture" chosen from the list of topics below. The list may be updated, expanded, or reduced by your instructor. Lectures should be designed as 30-minute presentations. In addition, each graduate student must submit a 1500 word"summary" of the lecture on or before 4 April 2003. The summary should be written in the style of the "boxes" commonly used in modern textbooks, or in the journal "Trends in Ecology and Evolution". Please scutinize published boxes to find a model that "works" for your theme. Your "box" must also include a list of key references used in preparing the summary.
BE CERTAIN TO SELECT A THEME, SELECT A PRESENTATION DATE, AND BEGIN WORK ON YOUR LECTURE AND TERM REPORT EARLY IN THE TERM. STUDENTS WHO PRESENT EARLY WILL HAVE MORE TIME TO INTEGRATE COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS INTO THEIR TERM REPORT THAN WILL STUDENTS WHO DELAY THEIR ORAL PRESENTATIONS.
Maximum length of the graduate-student term report including tables, figures, and references will be twelve typed pages (double-spaced, 2.5 cm margins, with a "Times New Roman 12" font).
The "lecture assignment" has several objectives. Some of the more important ones include: 1. To develop skills of self-instruction, communication, and teaching. 2. To help classmates learn about principles, concepts, and applications that may not be covered in lecture or in the course text. 3. To build a legacy of teaching boxes that can be added to the course materials in Forestry/Biology 4252. 4. To learn about new concepts, ideas, and applications. Please keep these objectives in mind as you prepare your lecture and summary report. General rules for the report include the following:
Return to Contents
Presentations and lectures will be given to the class throughout the term. Students making electronic presentations are required to make their own arrangements for appropriate video equipment (e.g., data projector and notebook computer). Be certain to rehearse your presentation before class to ensure that it is the proper duration. Presentations that are either too short, or too long, will be graded appropriately. Presentations will be graded primarily on content, and effective communication, not on style. Material presented by students will be considered part of the course, and students will be evaluated on that material in tests.
Evaluate the theme carefully and include only relevant material. Use visual aids in your presentation if appropriate (e.g., overheads). Concentrate on communicating the central message to your peers. Relate your lecture to recent material covered in class. Prepare to challenge your peers by making a list of important or unresolved questions you would like to see addressed. Can you articulate your perspective of the issues? Can you design a definitive study to test the underlying theory? What additional theoretical innovations are necessary to facilitate empirical tests or applications?
As much as possible, student lectures will be followed by class discussions. Students will be evaluated by the quality and consistency of their contribution.
Dates & Topics
Introduction, state of the World, general principles of conservation ecology
Required Reading: Pimm, pages 1-33.
PROBLEM: Using available data and summaries, or methods similar to Stuart Pimm, calculate, for the Province of Ontario, how much forest land has been converted to croplands. Convert the area into expected biomass production by agricultural crops. How does this compare to that expected from the native forest vegetation?
Population dynamics: general principles, demographic and environmental stochasticity
Required Reading: Pimm, pages 35-52.
PROBLEM: Calculate the area of temperate and boreal forests harvested, burned, and otherwise used in the Province of Ontario annually. Convert this metric to tons of biomass. Justify your calculations.
Population dynamics: stability, stochastic variation in K, population viability analysis
Required Reading: Pimm, pages 53-76.
PROBLEM: Calculate, for the Province of Ontario, how much forest land has been converted to "pasture" and how much has been degraded for future forest production.
Required Reading: Pimm, pages 77-98.
PROBLEM Calculate, for the Province of Ontario, how much agricultural land is lost to urbanization, roads, and other permanent uses annually. Contrast this value with that calculated for the loss of forest land. Calculate the total area of land lost annually, and from that number, the expected loss in production of biomass.
Habitat, habitat selection, habitat loss and its implications
VISITING SCIENTIST: Dr. Per Lundberg, Center Fellow, NCEAS, U. California, Santa Barbara
Required Reading: Pimm, pages 99-107.
PROBLEM: Calculate the total land within the Province of Ontario that could reasonably be converted to agricultural uses. Contrast this value with that lost from forests and wetlands. What is the expected net gain (or loss) in production?
Design and selection of nature reserves, macroecology
Required Reading: Pimm, pages 109-124.
PROBLEM: Calculate, for the Province of Ontario, the surface area of lakes, and the cumulative distance (or at least the number) of major rivers. Calculate similar metrics for those aquatic areas that have been heavily impacted by humans. Justify your calculations.
MID-TERM STUDY BREAK: - NO CLASS
Species invasions, exotics and novel organisms
Required Reading: Pimm, pages 125-143.
PROBLEM: What proportion of Ontario's fresh water is used, directly and indirectly, by humans?
Harvesting and conservation
Required Reading: Pimm, pages 145-179.
PROBLEM: Estimate the value of "subsidies" to the harvest of native habitats in the Province of Ontario. Your estimate should include those to such activities as forestry, trapping, fishing and tourism.
Required Reading: Pimm, pages 181-216.
PROBLEM: What taxon is the most diverse in the Province of Ontario (provide an estimate of its diversity)? How many "Ontario species" are under threat of extinction?
Required Reading: Pimm, pages 217-232.
PROBLEM: What area of Ontario has the highest natural biodiversity? What proportion of that area is covered by natural habitats?
New ideas and theories in conservation ecology, biodiversity and ecosystem function
Required Reading: Pimm, pages 233-249.
PROBLEM: What additional data are required to complete the audit of the "State of Conservation in the Province of Ontario"?
TERM REPORT DUE: 20% OF GRADE
Lectures and class meetings: 8:30-11:30 Fri. Room BB 1006
A selective partial guide to the literature:
Chapin, F. S. III., B. H. Walker, R. J. Hobbs, D. U. Hooper, J. H. Lawton, O. E. Sala and D. Tilman. 1997. Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science 277: 500-504.
Chown, S. L., N. J. M. Gremmen, and K. J. Gaston. 1998. Ecological biogeography of southern ocean islands: species-area relationships, human impacts, and conservation. The American Naturalist 152: 562-575.
Diaz, S., and M. Cabido. 2001. Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:646-655.
Fridley, J. D. 2001. The influence of species diversity on ecosystem productivity: how, where, and why? Oikos 93:514-526.
Ghilarov, A. M. 2000. Ecosystem functioning and intrinsic value of biodiversity. Oikos 90:408-412.
Grime, J. P. 1977. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the debate deepens. Science 277: 1260-1261.
Hooper, D. U., and P. M. Vitousek. 1997. The effects of plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes. Science 277: 1302-1305.
Klausmeier, C. A. 1998. Extinction in multispecies and spatially explicit models of habitat destruction. The American Naturalist 152: 303-310.
Tilman, D., J. Knops, D. Wedin, P. Reich, M. Ritchie and E. Siemann. 1997. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277: 1300-1302.
Wardle, D. A., O. Zackrisson, G. Hornberg and C. Gallet. 1977. The influence of island area on ecosystem properties. Science 277: 1296-1299.
Augustine, D. J., and L. E. Frelich. 1998. Effects of white-tailed deer on populations of an understory forb in fragmented deciduous forests. Conservation Biology 12: 995-1004.
Akcakaya, H. R. and J. L. Atwood. 1997. A habitat-based metapopulation model of the California gnatcatcher. Conservation Biology 11: 422-434.
Bayne, E. M., and K. A. Hobson. 1998. The effects of habitat fragmentation by forestry and agriculture on the abundance of small mammals in the southern boreal mixedwood forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 62-69.
Beier, P., and J. E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7: 564-571.
Beier, P., and R. F. Noss. 1998. Do habitat corridors really provide connectivity? Conservation Biology 12:1241-1252.
Bingham, B. B. and B. R. Noon. 1997. Mitigation of habitat "take": application to habitat conservation planning. Conservation Biology 11: 127-139.
Bolger, D. T., A. C. Alberts, R. M. Sauvajot, P. Potenza, C. McCalvin, D. Tran, S. Mazzoni, and M. E. Soule. 1997. Response of rodents to habitat fragmentation in coastal southern California. Ecological Applications 7: 552-563.
Brooks, T. M., S. L. Pimm, and J. O. Oyugi. 1999. Time lag between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conservation Biology 13: 1140-1150.
Chalfoun, A. D., F. R. Thompson III, and M. J. Ratnaswamy. 2002. Nest predators and fragmentation: a review and meta-analysis. Conservation Biology 16: 306-318.
Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16: 488-502.
Danielson, B. J., and M. W. Hubbard. 2000. The influence of corridors on the movement behavior of individual Peromyscus polionotus in experimental landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15: 323-331.
Debinski, D. M., and R. D. Holt. 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology 14: 342-355.
Enoksson, B., P. Angelstam and K. Larsson. 1995. Deciduous forest and resident birds: the problem of fragmentation within a coniferous forest landscape. Landscape Ecology 10: 267-275.
Fahrig, L. and G. Merriam. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8:50-59.
Gurd, D. B., T. D. Nudds, and D. H. Rivard. 2001. Conservation of mammals in eastern North American wildlife reserves: how small is too small? Conservation Biology 15:1355-1363.
Haddad, N. M. 1999. Corridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies. Ecological Applications 9: 612-622.
Haddad, N. M., and K. A. Baum. 1999. An experimental test of corridor effects on butterfly densities. Ecological Applications 9: 623-633.
Haddad, N. M., D. K. Rosenberg, and B. R. Noon. 2000. On experimentation and the study of corridors: response to Beir and Noss. Conservation Biology 14: 1543-1545.
Hanon, S. J., and F. K. A. Schmiegelow. 2002. Corridors may not improve the conservation value of small reserves for most boreal birds. Ecological Applications 12: 1457-1468.
Hof, J., and M. G. Raphael. 1997. Optimization of habitat placement: a case study of the Northern Spotted Owl in the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Applications 7: 1160-1169.
Joly, P., D. Miaud, A. Lehmann, and O. Grolet. 2001. Habitat matrix effects on pond occupancy in newts. Conservation Biology 15:239-248.
Keyser, A. J., G. E. Hill, and E. C. Soehren. 1998. Effects of forest fragment size, nest density, and proximity to edge on the risk of predation to ground-nesting birds. Conservation Biology 12: 986-994.
Laurance, W. F., L. V. Ferreira, J. M. Rankin-de-Merona, and S. G. Laurance. 1998. Rain forest fragmentation and the dynamics of Amazonian tree communities. Ecology 79: 2032-2040.
Marsh, D. M., and P. B. Pearman. 1997. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the abundance of two species of leptodactylid frogs in an Andean montane forest. Conservation Biology 11: 1323-1328.
McCarthy, M. A., D. B. Lindenmayer and M. Drechsler. 1997. Extinction debts and risks faced by abundant species. Conservation Biology 11: 221-226.
Mills, L. S. 1995. Edge effects and isolation: red-backed voles on forest remnants. Conservation Biology 9:395-403.
Moilanen, A., A. T. Smith, and I. Hanski. 1998. Long-term dynamics in a metapopulation of the American pika. The American Naturalist 152: 530-542.
Morris, D. W. 1994. Habitat matching: alternatives and implications to populations and communities. Evolutionary Ecology 8: 387-406.
Morris, D. W. 1997. Optimally foraging deer mice in prairie mosaics: a test of habitat theory and absence of landscape effects. Oikos 80: 31-42.
Morris, D. W., and S. R. Kingston. 2002. Predicting future threats to biodiversity from habitat selection by humans. Evolutionary Ecology Research 6:787-810.
Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 58-62.
Murphy, M. T. 2001. Source-sink dynamics of a declining eastern Kingbird population and the value of sink habitats. Conservation Biology 15:737-748.
Newmark, W. D. 1995. Extinction of mammal populations in western North American National Parks. Conservation Biology 9: 512-526.
Ney-Niffle, M., and M. Mangel. 2000. Habitat loss and changes in the species-area relationship. Conservation Biology 14: 893-898.
Nupp, T. E. and R. K. Swihart. 1996. Effect of forest patch area on population attributes of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in fragmented landscapes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:467-472.
Porneluzi, P. A., and J. Faaborg. 1999. Season-long fecundity, survival, and viability of ovenbirds in fragmented and unfragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 13: 1151-1161.
Redpath, S. M. 1995. Habitat fragmentation and the individual: tawny owls Strix aluco in woodland patches. Journal of Animal Ecology 64: 652-661.
Root, K. V. 1998. Evaluating the effects of habitat quality, connectivity, and catastrophes on a threatened species. Ecological Applications 8: 854-865.
Sisk, T. D., N. M. Haddad, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1997. Bird assemblages in patchy woodlands: modeling the effects of edge and matrix habitats. Ecological Applications 7: 1170-1180.
Suarez, A. V., D. T. Bolger, and T. J. Case. 1998. Effects of fragmentation and invasion on native ant communities in coastal southern California. Ecology 79: 2041-2056.
Tellería, J. L. and T. Santos. 1995. Effects of forest fragmentation on a guild of wintering passerines: the role of habitat selection. Biological Conservation 71: 61-67.
Tewksbury, J. T., D. J. Levey, N. M. Haddad, S. Sargent, J. L. Orrock, A. Weldon, B. J. Danielson, J. Brinderhoff, E. I. Damschen, and P. Townsend. 2002. Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 12923-12926.
Villard, M-A. 2002. Habitat fragmentation: major conservation issues or intellectural attractor. Ecological Applications 112: 319-320 (see accompanying invited articles, pages 321-397).
Villard, M-A., M. K. Trzcinski, and G. Merriam. 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conservation Biology 13: 774-783.
With, K. A., and A. W. King. 1999. Extinction thresholds for species in fractal landscapes. Conservation Biology 13: 314-326.
Wolff, J. O., E. M. Schauber and W. D. Edge. 1997. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on the behavior and demography of gray-tailed voles. Conservation Biology 11: 945-956.
Bayne, E. M., and K. A. Hobson. 1997. Comparing the effects of landscape fragmentation by forestry and agriculture on predation of artificial nests. Conservation Biology 11: 1418-1429.
Benkman, C. W. 1993. Logging, conifers, and the conservation of crossbills. Conservation Biology 7:473-479.
Bunnell, F. L. 1995. Forest-dwelling vertebrate faunas and natural fire regimes in British Columbia: patterns and implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 9: 636-644.
Carey, A. B. 2000. Effects of new forest management strategies on squirrel populations. Ecological Applications 10: 248-257.
Darveau, M., L. Belanger, J. Huot, E. Melancon and S. DeBellefeuille. 1997. Forestry practices and the risk of bird nest predation in a boreal coniferous forest. Ecological Applications 7: 572-580.
Dupuis, L. A., J. N. M. Smith and F. Bunnell. 1995. Relation of terrestrial-breeding amphibian abundance to tree-stand age. Conservation Biology 9: 645-653.
Easton, W. E., and K. Martin. 1998. The effect of vegetation management on breeding bird communities in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 8: 1092-1103.
Hanski, I. and P. Hammond. 1995. Biodiversity in boreal forests. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:5-6.
Hartley, M. J., and M. L. Hunter Jr. 1998. A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial nest predation rates. Conservation Biology 12: 465-469.
Hayward, G. D., S. H. Henry and L. F. Ruggiero. 1999. Response of red-backed voles to recent patch cutting in subalpine forest. Conservation Biology 13: 168-176.
Hobson, K. A., and J. Schiek. 1999. Changes in bird communities in boreal mixedwood forest: harvest and wildfire effects over 30 years. Ecological Applications 9: 849-863.
Hobson, K. A., D. A. Kirk, and A. R. Smith. 2000. A multivariate analysis of breeding bird species of western and central Canadian boreal forests: stand and spatial effects. Ecoscience 7: 267-280.
Imbeau, L., M. Monkkonen, and A. Desrochers. 2001. Long-term effects of forestry on birds of the eastern Canadian boreal forests: a comparison with Fennoscandia. Conservation Ecology 15:1151-1162.
Kattan, G. H., H. Alvarez-López and M. Giraldo. 1994. Forest fragmentation and bird extinctions: San Antonio eighty years later. Conservation Biology 8: 138-146.
King, D. I., C. R. Griffin and R. M. DeGraf. 1996. Effects of clearcutting on habitat use and reproductive success of the ovenbird in forested landscapes. Conservation Biology 10: 1380-1386.
Lindenmayer, D. B., C. R. Margules, and D. B. Botkin. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 14: 941-950.
Liu, Jianguo, and P. S. Ashton. 1999. Simulating effects of landscape context and timber harvest on tree species diversity. Ecological Applications 9: 186-201.
Machtans, C. S., M.-A. Billard and S. J. Hannon. 1996. Use of riparian strips as movement corridors by forest birds. Conservation Biology 10: 1366-1379.
Marshall, E., R. Haight, and F. R. Homans. 1998. Incorporating environmental uncertainty into species management decisions: Kirtland's warbler habitat management as a case study. Conservation Biology 12: 975-985.
Merrill, S. B., F. J. Cuthbert, and G. Oehlert. 1998. Residual patches and their contribution to forest-bird diversity on northern Minnesota aspen clearcuts. Conservation Biology 12: 190-199.
Niemela, J. 1997. Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conservation Biology 11: 601-610.
Noble, I. R., and R. Dirzo. 1997. Forests as human-dominated ecosystems. Science 277: 522-525.
Pausas, J. G., M. P. Austin, and I. Noble. 1997. A forest simulation model for predicting eucalypt dynamics and habitat quality for arboreal marsupials. Ecological Applications 7: 921-933.
Pettersson, R. B., J. P. Ball, K.-E. Renhorn, P.-A. Esseen and K. Sjoberg. 1995. Invertebrate communities in boreal forest canopies as influenced by forestry and lichens with implications for passerine birds. Biological Conservation 74: 57-63.
Richardson, D. M. 1998. Forestry trees as invasive aliens. Conservation Biology 12: 18-26.
Reunanen, P., M. Monkkonen, and A. Nikula. 2000. Managing boreal forest landscapes for flying squirrels. Conservation Biology 14: 218-226.
Robinson, W. D., and S. K. Robinson. 1999. Effects of selective logging on forest bird populations in a fragmented landscape. Conservation Biology 13: 58-66.
Trzcinski, M. K., L. Fahrig, and G. Merriam. 1999. Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9: 586-593.
Ceballos, G., and P. R. Ehrlich. 2002. Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis. Science 296: 904-907.
Christian, C. E. 2001. Consequences of a biological invasion reveal the importance of mutualism for plant communities. Nature 413:635-639.
Gittleman, J. L., and M. E. Gompper. 2001. The risk of extinction - what you don't know will hurt you. Science 291: 997-999.
Hackney, E. E., and J. B. McGraw. 2001. Experimental demonstration of an Allee effect in American ginseng. Conservation Biology 15:129-136.
Hanski, I., and O. Ovaskainen. 2002. Extinction debt at extinction threshold. Conservation Biology 16:666-673.
Harding, E. K., D. F. Doak, and J. D. Albertson. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of predator control: the non-native red fox as a case study. Conservation Biology 15:1114-1122.
Mooney, H. A., and E. E. Cleland. The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98:5446-5451.
Morris, D. W. 2000. Science and the conservation of biodiversity. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:2059-2060.
Myers, N., and A. H. Knoll. 2001. The biotic crisis and the future of evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98:5389-5392.
Newman, D., and D. A. Tallmon. 2001. Experimental evidence for beneficial fitness effects of gene flow in recently isolated populations. Conservation Biology 15:1054-1063.
Novacek, M. J., and E. E. Cleland. 2001. The current biodiversity extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98: 5466-5470.
Ostfeld, R. S., and F. Keesing. 2000. The function of biodiversity in the ecology of vector-borne zoonotic diseases. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:2061-2078.
Rosenzweig, M. L. 2001. Loss of speciation rate will impoverish future diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98:5404-5410.
Tilman, D., and C. Lehman. 2001. Human-caused environmental change: impacts on plant diversity and evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98:5433-5440.
Owens, P. F., and P. M. Bennett. 2000. Ecological basis of extinction risk in birds: habitat loss versus human persecution and introduced predators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 97:12144-12148.
Snow, A. A., K. L. Uthus, and T. M. Culley. 2001. Fitness of hybrids between weedy and cultivated radish: implications for weed evolution. Ecological Applications 11:934-943.
Western, D. 2001. Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98:5458-5465.
Woodruff, D. S. 2001. Declines of biomes and biotas and the future of evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98:5471-5476.
Amarasekare, P. 1998. Allee effects in metapopulation dynamics. The American Naturalist 152: 298-302.
Angermeier, P. L. 1995. Ecological attributes of extinction-prone species: loss of freshwater fishes of Virginia. Conservation Biology 9: 143-158.
Balmford, A. 1998. On hotspots and the use of indicators for reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 409.
Botsford, L. W., J. C. Castilla and C. H. Peterson. 1997. The management of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Science 277: 509-515.
Brooks, T. M., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. DaFonseca, A. B. Rylands, W. R. Konstant, P. Flick, J. Pilgrim, S. Oldfield, G. Magina and C. Hilton-Taylor. 2002. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16:909-923.
Bulte, E., and G. C. Van Kooten. 2000. Economic science, endangered species, and biodiversity loss. Conservation Biology 14: 113-119.
Caughley, G., and A. Gunne. 1996. Conservation biology in theory and practice. Blackwell Science Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Chown, S. L., N. J. M. Gremmen, and K. J. Gaston. 1998. Ecological biogeography of southern ocean islands: species-area relationships, human impacts, and conservation. The American Naturalist 152: 562-575.
Cincotta, R. P., J. Wisnewski, and R. Engelman. 2001. Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 404:990-992.
Clark, T. W., P. C. Paquet and A. P. Curlee. 1996. Special section: large carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. Conservation Biology 10: 936-1058.
Clinchy, M. 1997. Does immigration "rescue" populations from extinction? Oikos 80: 618-622.
Cote, I. M. and W. J. Sutherland. 1997. The effectiveness of removing predators to protect bird populations. Conservation Biology 11: 395-405.
Crooks, K. R., and M. E. Soule. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragemented system. Nature 400: 563-566.
Dobson, A. P., A. D. Bradshaw and A. J. M. Baker. 1997. Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 277: 515-522.
Doubleday, W. G., D. B. Atkinson and J. Baird. 1997. Comment: Scientific inquiry and fish stock assessment in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 1422-1426.
Healey, M. C. 1997. Comment: The interplay of policy, politics, and science. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 1427-1429.
Hedrick, P. W. 2001. Conservation genetics: where are we now? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:629-636.
Hutchings, J. A. 2000. Collapse and recovery of marine fishes. Nature 406: 882-885.
Hutchings, J. A., C. Walters and R. L. Haedrich. 1997. Is scientific inquiry incompatible with government information control? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 1198-1210.
Hutchings, J. A., R. L. Haedrich and C. Walters. 1997. Reply: Scientific inquiry and fish stock assessment in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Reply: The interplay of policy, politics, and science. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 1430-1431.
Keilman, N. 2001. Uncertain population forecasts. Nature 412:490-491.
Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11: 849-856.
Lande, R., S. Engen, and B-E Saether. 1994. Optimal harvesting, economic discounting and extinction risk in fluctuating populations. Nature 372: 88-90.
Laurance, W. F. 1998. A crisis in the making: responses of Amazonian forests to land use and climate change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 411-415.
Lutz, W., W. Sanderson, and S. Scherbov. 2001. The end of world population growth. Nature 412:543-545.
Mooney, H. A. (editor). 1998. Ecosystem management for sustainable marine fisheries. Ecological Applications 8: S1-S174.
Morris, D. W. 1995. Earth's peeling veneer of life. Nature 373: 25.
Morris, D. W. and L. Heidinga. 1997. Balancing the books on biodiversity. Conservation Biology 11: 287-289.
Myers, R. A., J. A. Hutchings and N. J. Barrowman. 1997. Why do fish stocks collapse? The example of cod in Atlantic Canada. Ecological Applications 7: 91-106.
Peterson, R. O. 1999. Wolf-moose interaction on Isle Royale: the end of natural regulation? Ecological Applications 9:10-16.
Prendergast, J. R., R. M. Quinn, and J. H. Lawton. 1999. The gaps between theory and practice in selecting nature reserves. Conservation Biology 13: 484-492.
Reid, W. V. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 275-280.
Rivard, D. H., J. Poitevin, D. Plasse, M. Carleton, and D. J. Currie. 2000. Changing species richness and composition in Canadian National Parks. Conservation Biology 14: 1099-1109.
Rogers, C. M., and M. J. Caro. 1998. Song sparrows, top carnivores and nest predation: a test of the mesopredator release hypothesis. Oecologia 116: 227-233.
Rothley, K. D. Designing bioreserve networks to satisfy multiple, conflicting demands. Ecological Applications 9: 741-750.
Saether, B. E. 1997. Environmental stochasticity and population dynamics of large herbivores: a search for mechanisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12: 143-149.
Sandvik, H. 1999. On human population growth, natural selection, and the tragedy of the commons. Conservation Biology 13: 447-449.
Scudder, G. G. E. 1999. Endangered species protection in Canada. Conservation Biology 13:963-965.
Wallin, D. O., F. J. Swanson and B. Marks. 1994. Landscape pattern response to changes in pattern generation rules: land-use legacies in forestry. Ecological Applications 4: 569-580.
Willson, M. F. and K. C. Halupka. 1995. Anadromous fish as keystone species in vertebrate communities. Conservation Ecology 9: 489-497.
With, K. A. 1997. The theory of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 11: 1436-1440.
Brown, J. H. 1995. Macroecology. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Case, T. J. 2000. An illustrated guide to theoretical ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chapin, F. S., E. S. Zavaleta, V. T. Eviner, R. L. Naylor, P. M. Vitousek, H. L. Reynolds, D. U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O. E. Sala, S. E. Hobbie, M. C. Mack, and S. Diaz. 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234-242.
Conservation Ecology - The Electronic Journal. http://www.consecol.org
Gaston, K. J. 2000. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405:220-227.
Gotelli, N. J. 2001. A primer of ecology (3rd ed). Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hobbs, R. J., and H. A. Mooney. 1998. Broadening the extinction debate: population deletions and additions in California and Australia. Conservation Biology 12: 271-283.
Hubbell, S. P. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Hunter, M. L. Jr. 1996. Fundamentals of conservation biology. Blackwell Science Inc., Cambridge.
Lawton, J. H. and R. M. May. 1995. Extinction rates. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243-253.
McCann, K. S. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405:228-233.
Owen, O. S., D. D. Chiras, and J. P. Reganold. 1998. Natural resource conservation (7th ed). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Pimm, S. L. 1991. The balance of nature? Ecological issues in the conservation of species and communities. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. University Press, Cambridge.
Roughgarden, J. 1998. Primer of ecological theory. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Tilman, D. 2000. Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity. Nature 405:208-211.
Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of earth's ecosystems. Science 277: 494-499.
Wilson, E. O. 1992. The diversity of life. W. W. Norton and Company, New York.