An indicator-based adaptive management framework and its development for data-limited fisheries in Belize

Marine Policy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 76 ◽  
pp. 28-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gavin McDonald ◽  
Bill Harford ◽  
Alejandro Arrivillaga ◽  
Elizabeth A. Babcock ◽  
Ramon Carcamo ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Redmond R. Shamshiri ◽  
Muhammad Razif Mahadi ◽  
Kelly R. Thorp ◽  
Wan Ishak Wan Ismail ◽  
Desa Ahmad ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
pp. no-no ◽  
Author(s):  
JULIEN MARTIN ◽  
PAUL L. FACKLER ◽  
JAMES D. NICHOLS ◽  
MICHAEL C. RUNGE ◽  
CAROL L. McINTYRE ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 472-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Bodini ◽  
J. Baumgärtner ◽  
G. Gilioli

Koedoe ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith M. Kruger ◽  
Sandra MacFadyen

‘Behind all good science is good science support.’ Implementing a successful strategic adaptive management (SAM) framework requires an effective science support structure. This structure must be effective in all areas of data management, starting with data collection and ending with the dissemination of knowledge, to facilitate timeous management decisions and associated actions. Accordingly, South African National Parks has embraced the use of various technologies to enable the effective implementation of a functional support structure. This paper described these technologies and discussed how they benefit the implementation of the SAM framework.Conservation implications: The importance of functional support structures in science and conservation management is frequently undervalued in a system where emphasis is placed on scientific products. In order to promote research and facilitate analysis, sound data management practices are essential to integrating knowledge into an organisation’s institutional memory.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 410-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee J Baumgartner ◽  
John Conallin ◽  
Ian Wooden ◽  
Bruce Campbell ◽  
Rebecca Gee ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. S. Fleming ◽  
Benjamin L. Allen ◽  
Guy-Anthony Ballard

Australian dingoes have recently been suggested as a tool to aid biodiversity conservation through the reversal or prevention of trophic cascades and mesopredator release. However, at least seven ecological and sociological considerations must be addressed before dog populations are positively managed.Domestication and feralisation of dingoes have resulted in behavioural changes that continue to expose a broad range of native and introduced fauna to predation.Dingoes and other dogs are classic mesopredators, while humans are the apex predator and primary ecosystem engineers in Australia.Anthropogenic landscape changes could prevent modern dingoes from fulfilling their pre-European roles.Dingoes are known to exploit many of the same species they are often presumed to ‘protect’, predisposing them to present direct risks to many threatened species.The assertion that contemporary dog control facilitates the release of mesopredators disregards the realities of effective dog control, which simultaneously reduces fox and dog abundance and is unlikely to enable increases in fox abundance.The processes affecting threatened fauna are likely a combination of both top-down and bottom-up effects, which will not be solved or reversed by concentrating efforts on managing only predator effects.Most importantly, human social and economic niches are highly variable across the ecosystems where dingoes are present or proposed. Human perceptions will ultimately determine acceptance of positive dingo management.Outside of an adaptive management framework, positively managing dingoes while ignoring these seven considerations is unlikely to succeed in conserving native faunal biodiversity but is likely to have negative effects on ecological, social and economic values.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document