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 *

246 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26661136)

  • 41. Effects of preference heterogeneity among landowners on spatial conservation prioritization.
    Nielsen ASE; Strange N; Bruun HH; Jacobsen JB
    Conserv Biol; 2017 Jun; 31(3):675-685. PubMed ID: 27995662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Evaluating areas of high conservation value in Western Oregon with a decision-support model.
    Staus NL; Strittholt JR; Dellasala DA
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Jun; 24(3):711-20. PubMed ID: 20184658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. [Case-based evaluation of forest ecosystem service function in China.].
    Feng JG; Ding LB; Wang JS; Yao PP; Yao SC; Wang ZK
    Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao; 2016 May; 27(5):1375-1382. PubMed ID: 29732797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. A zoological perspective on payments for ecosystem services.
    McNeely JA
    Integr Zool; 2007 Jun; 2(2):68-78. PubMed ID: 21396021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Challenges for tree officers to enhance the provision of regulating ecosystem services from urban forests.
    Davies HJ; Doick KJ; Hudson MD; Schreckenberg K
    Environ Res; 2017 Jul; 156():97-107. PubMed ID: 28342350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Quantifying preferences for the natural world using monetary and nonmonetary assessments of value.
    Dallimer M; Tinch D; Hanley N; Irvine KN; Rouquette JR; Warren PH; Maltby L; Gaston KJ; Armsworth PR
    Conserv Biol; 2014 Apr; 28(2):404-13. PubMed ID: 24372643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. [Forest ecosystem service and its evaluation in China].
    Fang J; Lu S; Yu X; Rao L; Niu J; Xie Y; Zhag Z
    Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao; 2005 Aug; 16(8):1531-6. PubMed ID: 16262073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Effects of payments for ecosystem services on wildlife habitat recovery.
    Tuanmu MN; Viña A; Yang W; Chen X; Shortridge AM; Liu J
    Conserv Biol; 2016 Aug; 30(4):827-35. PubMed ID: 26808168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture
    Tesfaw A; Senbeta F; Alemu D; Teferi E
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Jul; 19(15):. PubMed ID: 35897444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. How Much Are Floridians Willing to Pay for Protecting Sea Turtles from Sea Level Rise?
    Hamed A; Madani K; Von Holle B; Wright J; Milon JW; Bossick M
    Environ Manage; 2016 Jan; 57(1):176-88. PubMed ID: 26319030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Assessing the feasibility of carbon payments and Payments for Ecosystem Services to reduce livestock grazing pressure on saltmarshes.
    Muenzel D; Martino S
    J Environ Manage; 2018 Nov; 225():46-61. PubMed ID: 30071366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Ecosystem services capacity across heterogeneous forest types: understanding the interactions and suggesting pathways for sustaining multiple ecosystem services.
    Alamgir M; Turton SM; Macgregor CJ; Pert PL
    Sci Total Environ; 2016 Oct; 566-567():584-595. PubMed ID: 27236624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Estimating Attribute-Specific Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Health Care Contingent Valuation Study: A Best-Worst Choice Approach.
    Sever I; Verbič M; Klaric Sever E
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2020 Feb; 18(1):97-107. PubMed ID: 31562593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. A ranking of net national contributions to climate change mitigation through tropical forest conservation.
    Carrasco LR; Papworth SK
    J Environ Manage; 2014 Dec; 146():575-581. PubMed ID: 25214074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Reforming a pre-existing biodiversity conservation scheme: Promoting climate co-benefits by a carbon payment.
    Kangas J; Ollikainen M
    Ambio; 2023 Nov; 52(11):1847-1860. PubMed ID: 36773179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland.
    Tyrväinen L
    J Environ Manage; 2001 May; 62(1):75-92. PubMed ID: 11400466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Estimating the impacts of conservation on ecosystem services and poverty by integrating modeling and evaluation.
    Ferraro PJ; Hanauer MM; Miteva DA; Nelson JL; Pattanayak SK; Nolte C; Sims KR
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2015 Jun; 112(24):7420-5. PubMed ID: 26082549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Spatial prioritization of willingness to pay for ecosystem services. A novel notion of distance from origin's impression.
    Khan SU; Liu G; Zhao M; Chien H; Lu Q; Khan AA; Ali MAS; Misbahullah
    Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2020 Jan; 27(3):3100-3112. PubMed ID: 31838703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity.
    Schröter M; Rusch GM; Barton DN; Blumentrath S; Nordén B
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(11):e112557. PubMed ID: 25393951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Integrating forest ecosystem services into the farming landscape: A stochastic economic assessment.
    Monge JJ; Parker WJ; Richardson JW
    J Environ Manage; 2016 Jun; 174():87-99. PubMed ID: 26868442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.