Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Which amphibians should qualify for the ark?

Which amphibians should qualify for the ark? Animal Conservation. Print ISSN 1367-9430 COMMENTARY R. A. Griffiths Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK Correspondence Richard A. Griffiths, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NR, UK. Email: r.a.griffiths@kent.ac.uk doi: 10.1111/acv.12348 The problem of which species should be prioritized for ex in ex situ programmes. Although these include ecological situ conservation programmes has long preoccupied zoos. and biogeographical considerations, they also include broader This has led to a proliferation of prioritization schemes to criteria associated with ex situ research, developing hus- help the decision-making process. Indeed, IUCN technical bandry methods using analogue species, and conservation guidelines on the management of ex situ populations for con- education. Consequently, many of the species in zoos that servation were first published in 2002 and have recently do not meet the criteria defined by Biega et al. (2017) may been expanded and updated (IUCN/SSC, 2014). These still be serving valuable conservation roles associated with guidelines have subsequently formed the basis of collection criteria not included in their analyses. planning for many zoos. A fundamental step in the collec- Zoos in Europe http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Animal Conservation Wiley

Which amphibians should qualify for the ark?

Griffiths, R. A.
Animal Conservation , Volume 20 (2) – Apr 1, 2017
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/which-amphibians-should-qualify-for-the-ark-CCNw1q3UoB

References (15)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 The Zoological Society of London
ISSN
1367-9430
eISSN
1469-1795
DOI
10.1111/acv.12348
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Animal Conservation. Print ISSN 1367-9430 COMMENTARY R. A. Griffiths Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK Correspondence Richard A. Griffiths, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NR, UK. Email: r.a.griffiths@kent.ac.uk doi: 10.1111/acv.12348 The problem of which species should be prioritized for ex in ex situ programmes. Although these include ecological situ conservation programmes has long preoccupied zoos. and biogeographical considerations, they also include broader This has led to a proliferation of prioritization schemes to criteria associated with ex situ research, developing hus- help the decision-making process. Indeed, IUCN technical bandry methods using analogue species, and conservation guidelines on the management of ex situ populations for con- education. Consequently, many of the species in zoos that servation were first published in 2002 and have recently do not meet the criteria defined by Biega et al. (2017) may been expanded and updated (IUCN/SSC, 2014). These still be serving valuable conservation roles associated with guidelines have subsequently formed the basis of collection criteria not included in their analyses. planning for many zoos. A fundamental step in the collec- Zoos in Europe

Journal

Animal Conservation – Wiley

Published: Apr 1, 2017

There are no references for this article.