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 *

209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25047072)

  • 1. The potential for biodiversity offsetting to fund effective invasive species control.
    Norton DA; Warburton B
    Conserv Biol; 2015 Feb; 29(1):5-11. PubMed ID: 25047072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The potential for biodiversity offsetting to fund invasive species eradications on islands.
    Holmes ND; Howald GR; Wegmann AS; Donlan CJ; Finkelstein M; Keitt B
    Conserv Biol; 2016 Apr; 30(2):425-7. PubMed ID: 26954432
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Landowners' Perspectives on Coordinated, Landscape-Level Invasive Species Control: The Role of Social and Ecological Context.
    Niemiec RM; Pech RP; Norbury GL; Byrom AE
    Environ Manage; 2017 Mar; 59(3):477-489. PubMed ID: 28078387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Economic and ecological outcomes of flexible biodiversity offset systems.
    Habib TJ; Farr DR; Schneider RR; Boutin S
    Conserv Biol; 2013 Dec; 27(6):1313-23. PubMed ID: 23869724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. How economic contexts shape calculations of yield in biodiversity offsetting.
    Carver L; Sullivan S
    Conserv Biol; 2017 Oct; 31(5):1053-1065. PubMed ID: 28233932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Offsetting the impacts of mining to achieve no net loss of native vegetation.
    Sonter LJ; Barrett DJ; Soares-Filho BS
    Conserv Biol; 2014 Aug; 28(4):1068-76. PubMed ID: 24673499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Ecological and economic implications of alternative metrics in biodiversity offset markets.
    Simpson KH; de Vries FP; Dallimer M; Armsworth PR; Hanley N
    Conserv Biol; 2022 Oct; 36(5):e13906. PubMed ID: 35288986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The value of using feasibility models in systematic conservation planning to predict landholder management uptake.
    Tulloch AI; Tulloch VJ; Evans MC; Mills M
    Conserv Biol; 2014 Dec; 28(6):1462-73. PubMed ID: 25382827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Achieving biodiversity net gain by addressing governance gaps underpinning ecological compensation policies.
    Rampling EE; Zu Ermgassen SOSE; Hawkins I; Bull JW
    Conserv Biol; 2024 Apr; 38(2):e14198. PubMed ID: 37811729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets.
    Moilanen A; Kotiaho JS
    Conserv Biol; 2021 Feb; 35(1):197-205. PubMed ID: 32390216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Offsets and conservation of the species of the EU habitats and birds directives.
    Regnery B; Couvet D; Kerbiriou C
    Conserv Biol; 2013 Dec; 27(6):1335-43. PubMed ID: 24033535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Ethics and biodiversity offsetting.
    Karlsson M; Edvardsson Björnberg K
    Conserv Biol; 2021 Apr; 35(2):578-586. PubMed ID: 32757221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cost shifting and other perverse incentives in biodiversity offsetting in India.
    Narain D; Maron M
    Conserv Biol; 2018 Aug; 32(4):782-788. PubMed ID: 29473220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Improving credibility and transparency of conservation impact evaluations through the partial identification approach.
    McConnachie MM; Romero C; Ferraro PJ; van Wilgen BW
    Conserv Biol; 2016 Apr; 30(2):371-81. PubMed ID: 26289970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of pond draining on biodiversity and water quality of farm ponds.
    Usio N; Imada M; Nakagawa M; Akasaka M; Takamura N
    Conserv Biol; 2013 Dec; 27(6):1429-38. PubMed ID: 23869702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss.
    Gardner TA; VON Hase A; Brownlie S; Ekstrom JM; Pilgrim JD; Savy CE; Stephens RT; Treweek J; Ussher GT; Ward G; Ten Kate K
    Conserv Biol; 2013 Dec; 27(6):1254-64. PubMed ID: 24033441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Prioritizing islands for the eradication of invasive vertebrates in the United Kingdom overseas territories.
    Dawson J; Oppel S; Cuthbert RJ; Holmes N; Bird JP; Butchart SH; Spatz DR; Tershy B
    Conserv Biol; 2015 Feb; 29(1):143-53. PubMed ID: 25163543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Poisoning the pika: must protection of grasslands be at the expense of biodiversity?
    Wu L; Wang H
    Sci China Life Sci; 2017 May; 60(5):545-547. PubMed ID: 28074383
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Mining and biodiversity offsets: a transparent and science-based approach to measure "no-net-loss".
    Virah-Sawmy M; Ebeling J; Taplin R
    J Environ Manage; 2014 Oct; 143():61-70. PubMed ID: 24866419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Incorporating geodiversity into conservation decisions.
    Comer PJ; Pressey RL; Hunter ML; Schloss CA; Buttrick SC; Heller NE; Tirpak JM; Faith DP; Cross MS; Shaffer ML
    Conserv Biol; 2015 Jun; 29(3):692-701. PubMed ID: 25923052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.