Beyond species counts for assessing, valuing, and conserving biodiversity: response to Wallach et al. 2019

Ninon F.V. Meyer, Niko Balkenhol, Trishna Dutta, Maarten Hofman, Jean Yves Meyer, Euan G. Ritchie, Charlotte Alley, Chad Beranek, Cassandra K. Bugir, Alex Callen, Simon Clulow, Michael V. Cove, Kaya Klop-Toker, Omar R. Lopez, Michael Mahony, Robert Scanlon, Sandeep Sharma, Elen Shute, Rose Upton, Emy GuilbaultAndrea S. Griffin, Edwin Hernández Pérez, Lachlan G. Howell, John Paul King, Dean Lenga, Patrick O Donoghue, Matt W. Hayward

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Wallach et al. (2019) propose including all non-native species when determining species richness, distribution, and threat status for biodiversity management and conservation purposes. Although contesting prevailing conservation paradigms is a useful way to critically examine and refine practice and policy, we argue that their proposal would lead to an artificial inflation in species counts and downplay the harm some non-native species cause to native species, human livelihoods, culture, and safety. Their approach, therefore, risks poor outcomes for conservation and society.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)369-372
Number of pages4
JournalConservation Biology
Volume35
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2021
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Beyond species counts for assessing, valuing, and conserving biodiversity: response to Wallach et al. 2019'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this