These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

410 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18402582)

  • 1. Assessing the ecological and social benefits of private land conservation in Colorado.
    Wallace GN; Theobald DM; Ernst T; King K
    Conserv Biol; 2008 Apr; 22(2):284-96. PubMed ID: 18402582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Conservation value of clustered housing developments.
    Lenth BA; Knight RL; Gilgert WC
    Conserv Biol; 2006 Oct; 20(5):1445-56. PubMed ID: 17002762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Aggregating high-priority landscape areas to the parcel level: an easement implementation tool.
    Strager MP; Rosenberger RS
    J Environ Manage; 2007 Jan; 82(2):290-8. PubMed ID: 16580124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Coupled ecological-social dynamics in a forested landscape: spatial interactions and information flow.
    Satake A; Leslie HM; Iwasa Y; Levin SA
    J Theor Biol; 2007 Jun; 246(4):695-707. PubMed ID: 17376488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Motivations influencing the adoption of conservation easements.
    Farmer JR; Knapp D; Meretsky VJ; Chancellor C; Fischer BC
    Conserv Biol; 2011 Aug; 25(4):827-34. PubMed ID: 21535148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem function through limited development: an empirical evaluation.
    Milder JC; Lassoie JP; Bedford BL
    Conserv Biol; 2008 Feb; 22(1):70-9. PubMed ID: 18254854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluating the potential for conservation development: biophysical, economic, and institutional perspectives.
    Pejchar L; Morgan PM; Caldwell MR; Palmer C; Daily GC
    Conserv Biol; 2007 Feb; 21(1):69-78. PubMed ID: 17298512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private land.
    Knight AT; Cowling RM; Difford M; Campbell BM
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Oct; 24(5):1348-58. PubMed ID: 20345404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Conservation easements: biodiversity protection and private use.
    Rissman AR; Lozier L; Comendant T; Kareiva P; Kiesecker JM; Shaw MR; Merenlender AM
    Conserv Biol; 2007 Jun; 21(3):709-18. PubMed ID: 17531049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Estimating the effect of protected lands on the development and conservation of their surroundings.
    McDonald RI; Yuan-Farrell C; Fievet C; Moeller M; Kareiva P; Foster D; Gragson T; Kinzig A; Kuby L; Redman C
    Conserv Biol; 2007 Dec; 21(6):1526-36. PubMed ID: 18173476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Ecological efficiency of voluntary conservation of boreal-forest biodiversity.
    Mönkkönen M; Ylisirniö AL; Hämäläinen T
    Conserv Biol; 2009 Apr; 23(2):339-47. PubMed ID: 18983601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Devising appropriate policies and instruments in support of private conservation areas: lessons learned from the Klein Karoo, South Africa.
    Pasquini L; Cowling RM; Twyman C; Wainwright J
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Apr; 24(2):470-8. PubMed ID: 19843125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluating private land conservation in the Cape Lowlands, South Africa.
    Von Hase A; Rouget M; Cowling RM
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Oct; 24(5):1182-9. PubMed ID: 21182668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Perpetual conservation easements and landowners: evaluating easement knowledge, satisfaction and partner organization relationships.
    Stroman DA; Kreuter UP
    J Environ Manage; 2014 Dec; 146():284-291. PubMed ID: 25190596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Incentive structure of and private landowner participation in an endangered species conservation program.
    Sorice MG; Haider W; Conner JR; Ditton RB
    Conserv Biol; 2011 Jun; 25(3):587-96. PubMed ID: 21488955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Characterizing urbanization, and agricultural and conservation land-use change in Riverside County, California, USA.
    Chen X; Li BL; Allen MF
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 2010 May; 1195 Suppl 1():E164-76. PubMed ID: 20586769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Local land-use planning to conserve biodiversity: planners' perspectives on what works.
    Stokes DL; Hanson MF; Oaks DD; Straub JE; Ponio AV
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Apr; 24(2):450-60. PubMed ID: 19906063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Tasmanian landowner preferences for conservation incentive programs: a latent class approach.
    Putten vI; Jennings SM; Louviere JJ; Burgess LB
    J Environ Manage; 2011 Oct; 92(10):2647-56. PubMed ID: 21719189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A landholder-based approach to the design of private-land conservation programs.
    Moon K; Cocklin C
    Conserv Biol; 2011 Jun; 25(3):493-503. PubMed ID: 21309851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands.
    Baldwin RF; Leonard PB
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(10):e0140540. PubMed ID: 26465155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.