Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 486

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Conservation assessment of the terrestrial ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean

·1996·Choice Reviews Online

Abstract

This priority-setting study elevates, as a first principle, maintaining the representation of all ecosystem and habitat types in regional investment portfolios. Second, it recognizes landscape-level features as an essential guide for effective conservation planning. Without an objective framework to assess the conservation status and biological distinctiveness of geographic areas, donors run the risk of overlooking areas that are seriously threatened and of greatest biodiversity value. The lack of such an objective regional framework prompted this study, whose goals were: 1) to replace the relatively ad hoc decisionmaking process of donors investing in biodiversity conservation with a more transparent and scientific approach; 2) to move beyond evaluations based largely on species lists to a new framework that also incorporates maintaining ecosystems and habitat diversity; 3) to better integrate the principles of conservation biology and landscape ecology into decisionmaking; and 4) to ensure that proportionately more funding be channeled to areas that are of high biological value and under serious threat.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5860/choice.33-5081

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 486

Metadata

Venue
Choice Reviews Online
Published
1996-05-01
Volume
33
Issue
09
Pages
33-5081-33-5081
ISSN
  • 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-8253
OpenAlex
W2160786593
Cited by
486
References
0
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Conservation assessment of the terrestrial ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.33-5081
The paper
A Conservation assessment of the terrestrial ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean. (1996). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.33-5081

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.