BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

253 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18637912)

  • 1. Conservation goals and the relative importance of costs and benefits in reserve selection.
    Perhans K; Kindstrand C; Boman M; Djupström LB; Gustafsson L; Mattsson L; Schroeder LM; Weslien J; Wikberg S
    Conserv Biol; 2008 Oct; 22(5):1331-9. PubMed ID: 18637912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Area-based refinement for selection of reserve sites with the benefit-function approach.
    Arponen A; Kondelin H; Moilanen A
    Conserv Biol; 2007 Apr; 21(2):527-33. PubMed ID: 17391202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Uncertainty analysis for regional-scale reserve selection.
    Moilanen A; Wintle BA; Elith J; Burgman M
    Conserv Biol; 2006 Dec; 20(6):1688-97. PubMed ID: 17181804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Efficiency and concordance of alternative methods for minimizing opportunity costs in conservation planning.
    Cameron SE; Williams KJ; Mitchell DK
    Conserv Biol; 2008 Aug; 22(4):886-96. PubMed ID: 18637906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Thinking broadly about costs and benefits in ecological management.
    Costanza R
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2006 Apr; 2(2):166-73. PubMed ID: 16646385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Logic for designing nature reserves for multiple species.
    McCarthy MA; Thompson CJ; Williams NS
    Am Nat; 2006 May; 167(5):717-27. PubMed ID: 16671015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services.
    Chen X; Lupi F; Viña A; He G; Liu J
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Dec; 24(6):1469-78. PubMed ID: 20586786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effect of incremental reserve design and changing reservation goals on the long-term efficiency of reserve systems.
    Stewart RR; Ball IR; Possingham HP
    Conserv Biol; 2007 Apr; 21(2):346-54. PubMed ID: 17391185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The boundary-quality penalty: a quantitative method for approximating species responses to fragmentation in reserve selection.
    Moilanen A; Wintle BA
    Conserv Biol; 2007 Apr; 21(2):355-64. PubMed ID: 17391186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Designing cost-effective payments for conservation measures to generate spatiotemporal habitat heterogeneity.
    Drechsler M; Johst K; Ohl C; Wätzold F
    Conserv Biol; 2007 Dec; 21(6):1475-86. PubMed ID: 18173471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Biased data reduce efficiency and effectiveness of conservation reserve networks.
    Grand J; Cummings MP; Rebelo TG; Ricketts TH; Neel MC
    Ecol Lett; 2007 May; 10(5):364-74. PubMed ID: 17498135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Conservation planning when costs are uncertain.
    Carwardine J; Wilson KA; Hajkowicz SA; Smith RJ; Klein CJ; Watts M; Possingham HP
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Dec; 24(6):1529-37. PubMed ID: 20561000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Costs of integrating economics and conservation planning.
    Arponen A; Cabeza M; Eklund J; Kujala H; Lehtomäki J
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Oct; 24(5):1198-204. PubMed ID: 20575989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cost-benefit analysis and the water framework directive in Scotland.
    Hanley N; Black AR
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2006 Apr; 2(2):156-65. PubMed ID: 16646384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Conservation planning with multiple organizations and objectives.
    Bode M; Probert W; Turner WR; Wilson KA; Venter O
    Conserv Biol; 2011 Apr; 25(2):295-304. PubMed ID: 21129029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Toward efficient riparian restoration: integrating economic, physical, and biological models.
    Watanabe M; Adams RM; Wu J; Bolte JP; Cox MM; Johnson SL; Liss WJ; Boggess WG; Ebersole JL
    J Environ Manage; 2005 Apr; 75(2):93-104. PubMed ID: 15763152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Inclusion of costs in conservation planning depends on limited datasets and hopeful assumptions.
    Armsworth PR
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 2014 Aug; 1322():61-76. PubMed ID: 24919962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol.
    Joseph LN; Maloney RF; Possingham HP
    Conserv Biol; 2009 Apr; 23(2):328-38. PubMed ID: 19183202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Little Karoo, South Africa.
    Egoh BN; Reyers B; Carwardine J; Bode M; O'Farrell PJ; Wilson KA; Possingham HP; Rouget M; de Lange W; Richardson DM; Cowling RM
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Aug; 24(4):1021-30. PubMed ID: 20136871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Identifying conservation areas on the basis of alternative distribution data sets.
    Underwood JG; D'Agrosa C; Gerber LR
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Feb; 24(1):162-70. PubMed ID: 19659686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.