CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 176

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: Implications for conservation priorities

Naidoo, Robin, Iwamura, Takuya·2007·Biological Conservation
DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.025
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.025

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Ando, 1998, Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation, Science, 279, 2126, 10.1126/science.279.5359.2126 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Baddeley, 2005, Spatstat: An R package for analyzing spatial point patterns, Journal of Statistical Software, 12, 1, 10.18637/jss.v012.i06 · DOI
  3. Balmford, 2000, Integrating conservation costs into international priority setting, Conservation Biology, 11, 597, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.00000-i2.x · DOI
  4. Balmford, 2003, Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 1046, 10.1073/pnas.0236945100 · DOI
  5. Buttrey, 2005, Calling the lp_solve linear program software from R, S-PLUS, and Excel, Journal of Statistical Software, 14, 1, 10.18637/jss.v014.i04 · DOI
  6. Ceballos, 2005, Global Mammal Conservation: What Must We Manage? Science, 309, 603
  7. Costello, 2004, Dynamic reserve site selection, Resource and Energy Economics, 26, 157, 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2003.11.005 · DOI
  8. Daily, 2001, Countryside biogeography: use of human-dominated habitats by the avifauna of southern Costa Rica, Ecological Applications, 11, 1, 10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0001:CBUOHD]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  9. Ferraro, 2003, Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous world, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22, 27, 10.1002/pam.10094 · DOI
  10. Goodwin, 2003, What’s wrong with our models of agricultural land values?, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85, 744, 10.1111/1467-8276.00479 · DOI
  11. Green, 2005, Farming and the fate of wild nature, Science, 307, 550, 10.1126/science.1106049 · DOI · Paper page
  12. James, 1999, Balancing the Earth’s accounts, Nature, 401, 323, 10.1038/43774 · DOI
  13. Lamoreux, 2006, Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism, Nature, 440, 212, 10.1038/nature04291 · DOI
  14. Leff, 2004, Geographic distribution of major crops across the world, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 18, 10.1029/2003GB002108 · DOI
  15. Moore, 2004, Integrating costs into conservation planning across Africa, Biological Conservation, 117, 343, 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.12.013 · DOI
  16. Myers, 2000, Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities, Nature, 403, 853, 10.1038/35002501 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Naidoo, 2006, Modeling opportunity costs of conservation in transitional landscapes, Conservation Biology, 20, 490, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00304.x · DOI
  18. Naidoo, 2006, Integrating economic costs into conservation planning, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 681, 10.1016/j.tree.2006.10.003 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Odling-Smee, 2005, Dollars and sense, Nature, 437, 614, 10.1038/437614a · DOI
  20. O’Hanley, 2007, Locating and protecting critical reserve sites to minimize expected and worst-case losses, Biological Conservation, 134, 130, 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.009 · DOI
  21. Olson, 1998, The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving the earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions, Conservation Biology, 12, 502, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.012003502.x · DOI
  22. Orme, 2005, Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat, Nature, 436, 1016, 10.1038/nature03850 · DOI
  23. Polasky, 2001, Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in Oregon, Land Economics, 77, 68, 10.2307/3146981 · DOI
  24. Possingham, 2005, Turning up the heat on hotspots, Nature, 436, 919, 10.1038/436919a · DOI
  25. Pressey, 2004, Is maximizing protection the same as minimizing loss? Efficiency and retention as alternative measures of the effectiveness of proposed reserves, Ecology Letters, 7, 1035, 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00672.x · DOI
  26. Putz, 2001, Tropical forest management and conservation of biodiversity: an overview, Conservation Biology, 15, 7, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00018.x · DOI
  27. Pykala, 2000, Mitigating human effects on European biodiversity through traditional animal husbandry, Conservation Biology, 14, 705, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99119.x · DOI
  28. Stuart, 2004, Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide, Science, 306, 1783, 10.1126/science.1103538 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Svancara, 2005, Policy-driven versus Evidence-based Conservation: A Review of Political Targets and Biological Needs, Bioscience, 55, 989, 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0989:PVECAR]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  30. Wilson, 2005, Measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning, Environmental Management, 35, 527, 10.1007/s00267-004-0095-9 · DOI
  31. Wilson, 2006, Prioritizing global conservation efforts, Nature, 440, 337, 10.1038/nature04366 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Naidoo, R., & Iwamura, T.
Venue
Biological Conservation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-11
Volume
140
Issue
1-2
Pages
40-49
ISSN
0006-3207
DOI
10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.025
Cited by
176
References
1
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review