Issues in International Conservation The : A Representation Approach to Conserving the Earth’s Most Biologically Valuable

The current extinction crisis re- The representation approach, ac- environmental conditions (Diner- quires dramatic action to save the va- cepted by a growing number of con- stein et al. 1995; The Nature Conser- riety of life on Earth. Because funding servationists, is soundly based in vancy 1997). Ecoregions function ef- for conservation action is limited, conservation biology. It integrates fectively as conservation units at governments, donors, and conserva- the goal of maintaining species di- regional scales because they encom- tion groups must be strategic and ear- versity—the traditional focus of bio- pass similar biological communities mark the greatest amount of resources diversity conservation—with another and because their boundaries roughly for protecting the areas richest in level of conservation action, the pre- coincide with the area over which key . Most conservation biolo- servation of distinct and ecological processes most strongly in- gists recognize that, although we can- ecological processes. Although more teract (Orians 1993; Noss 1996). not save everything, we should at least than half of all species are likely to To maintain representation of bio- ensure that all and habitat occur in the world’s tropical moist diversity at a global scale, we first types are represented within re- , the other 50% of all species stratified ecoregions by realm (ter- gional conservation strategies (Hum- are found elsewhere. To conserve restrial, freshwater, and marine) mel 1989; Caldecott et al. 1996; Krever that half, a full representation of the and then further divided realms by et al. 1994; Noss & Cooperrider 1994; world’s diverse ecosystems must be major habitat types (MHTs), which BSP (Biodiversity Support Program) et the goal. describe different areas of the world al. 1995; Dinerstein et al. 1995; United , tropical lakes, , that share similar environmental Nations Environmental Programme and temperate broadleaf forests are conditions, habitat structure, and pat- 1995; Ricketts et al. in press). all unique expressions of biodiver- terns of biological complexity (e.g., The “representation” approach has sity. Although they may not support beta diversity) and that contain com- been applied at a number of geo- the rich communities seen in tropi- munities with similar guild struc- graphical scales, from single water- cal rainforests or coral reefs, they tures and species adaptations. The sheds to entire (Hummel contain species assemblages adapted MHT classifications are roughly equiv- 1989; Nicoll & Langrand 1989; Bed- to distinct environmental condi- alent to . We identified 12 ward et al. 1992; Cox et al. 1994; tions and reflect different evolution- MHTs in the terrestrial realm, 3 in MacKinnon 1994; Pressey & Logan ary histories. To lose examples of the freshwater realm, and 4 in the 1994; Caicco et al. 1995; Pressey et these assemblages, and the ecologi- marine realm (Table 1). Each MHT al. 1994; Dinerstein et al. 1995; Fearn- cal processes and evolutionary phe- was further subdivided by biogeo- side & Ferraz 1995; Johnson 1995). nomena they contain, would repre- graphic realm (e.g., Nearctic, Indian Here we introduce the Global 200, sent an enormous loss of biodiversity. ) in order to represent unique the first attempt to achieve represen- Although conservation action typi- faunas and floras of different conti- tation of habitat types on a global cally takes place at the country level, nents or ocean basins. Finally, we scale. Our primary objective is to pro- patterns of biodiversity and ecologi- identified ecoregions within each bio- mote the conservation of terrestrial, cal processes (e.g., migration) do not geographic realm that represent the freshwater, and marine ecosystems conform to political boundaries. Thus, most distinctive examples of biodiver- harboring globally important biodi- we used the as the unit of sity for a given MHT (Table 1). versity and ecological processes. The analysis in creating the Global 200. The boundaries of terrestrial eco- Global 200 addresses this goal by We define an ecoregion as a rela- regions for the Global 200 are taken identifying the world’s most out- tively large unit of land or water con- from intensive regional analyses of standing examples within each major taining a characteristic set of natural biodiversity patterns across five con- habitat type (e.g., tropical dry forests, communities that share a large ma- tinents undertaken by the World large lakes, coral reefs). jority of their species, dynamics, and Wildlife Fund (WWF) Conservation 502

Conservation Biology, Pages 502–515 Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

Issues in International Conservation 503

Table 1. The Global 200 ecoregions organized by terrestrial, freshwater, or marine realm; major habitat type; and .a

Conservation Realm and ecoregion Biogeographic realmb statusc Terrestrial ecoregions Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests Neotropical 1. Atlantic forests—Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina CE 2. Northern Andean montane forests—, , , CE 3. Andean —Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru V 4. Coastal Venezuela montane forests—Venezuela CE 5. Greater Antillean moist forests—Haiti, , Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Puerto Rico CE 6. Chocó-Darién moist forests—Colombia, Panama, Ecuador V 7. Varzea flooded forests—Peru, Brazil, Venezuela CE 8. Talamancan and Isthmian Pacific forests—Costa Rica, Panama V 9. —Ecuador, Colombia, Peru RS 10. Rio Negro-Juruá moist forests—Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela RS 11. Southwestern Amazonian moist forests—Peru, Brazil, Bolivia RS 12. Guayanan forests—Venezuela, Brazil, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana RS Afrotropical 13. moist forests—Madagascar CE 14. Guinean moist forests—Ghana, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Togo CE 15. Eastern Arc montane forests—, CE 16. East African coastal forests—Tanzania, Kenya, , CE 17. Albertine Rift highland forests—D.R. Congo, Rwanda, , Burundi, Tanzania CE 18. East African highland forests—Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda CE 19. and forests (e.g., Mauritius, Seychelles, Comoros, Reunion, Rodrigues) CE 20. Islands forests—São Tomé and Príncipe, Equatorial Guinea, CE 21. Macaronesian forests (Azores, Madeira, Canary, Cape Verde Islands) CE 22. Congolian coastal forests—, Gabon, R. Congo, , Equatorial Guinea, Benin CE 23. Western Congo Basin forests—Central African Republic, Cameroon, R. Congo, Gabon, D.R. Congo, Equatorial Guinea RS 24. Northeastern Congo Basin forests—D.R. Congo, Central African Republic, , Uganda RS 25. Southern Congo Basin forests—D.R. Congo, Congo, RS Indo-Malayan 26. moist forests—, , Thailand V 27. moist forests—India CE 28. Sri Lankan moist forests— CE 29. Kayah-Karen/Tenasserim moist forests—Thailand, , Malaysia RS 30. Peninsular Malaysian lowland and montane forests—Malaysia, Thailand CE 31. Sumatran-Nicobar Islands lowland forests—, India CE 32. Sumatran montane forests—Indonesia V 33. Central montane forests—Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei RS 34. Northern Borneo- moist forests—Malaysia, Indonesia, , Brunei CE 35. Philippines moist forests—Philippines CE 36. moist forests—Indonesia RS 37. Moluccas moist forests—Indonesia RS 38. Northern Indochina subtropical moist forests—Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, V 39. Southeast China subtropical forests—China CE 40. Northeastern India and Myanmar hill forests—India, Myanmar, RS 41. Andaman Islands forests—India V 42. montane forests—Taiwan V 43. Hainan Island forests—China CE 44. Nansei Shoto Archipelago forests— CE Australasian 45. moist forests—New Caledonia, CE 46. tropical forests—New Zealand CE 47. Queensland tropical forests— V 48. montane forests— New Guinea, Indonesia RS 49. New Guinea lowland forests—, Indonesia RS continued

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

504 Issues in International Conservation

Table 1. (continued)

Conservation Realm and ecoregion Biogeographic realm statusb 50. New Guinea outer islands/Solomons moist forests—Papua New Guinea, RS 51. Lord Howe and forests—Australia CE Oceanian 52. Hawai’i moist forests— CE 53. South Pacific Islands forests—, , , I Sisito, CE Tropical, subtropical dry, and monsoon broadleaf forests Neotropical 54. Bolivian lowland dry forests—Bolivia, Brazil CE 55. Tumbesian and North Inter-Andean Valleys dry forests—Ecuador, Peru, Colombia CE 56. Southern — CE Afrotropical 57. Madagascar dry forests—Madagascar CE 58. Maputaland-Pondoland dry forests—, Swaziland, Mozambique CE Indo-Malayan 59. Eastern Indochina dry and monsoon forests—Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, V 60. Lesser Sundas dry and monsoon forests—Indonesia V 61. Eastern Indian monsoon forests—India V Australasia 62. New Caledonia dry forests—New Caledonia, France CE Oceanian 63. Hawai’i dry forests—United States CE Tropical and subtropical conifer forests Neotropical 64. Mexican pine-oak forests—Mexico, United States CE 65. Greater Antillean pine forests—Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic CE Temperate conifer and broadleaf forests Nearctic 66. Klamath-Siskiyou coniferous forests—United States CE 67. Appalachian and mixed mesophytic forests—United States CE 68. Pacific temperate rainforests—United States, Canada CE 69. Sierra Nevada conifer forests—United States CE 70. Southeastern conifer and broadleaf forests—United States CE Neotropical 71. Valdivian temperate rainforests—, Argentina CE Palearctic 72. Russian Far East temperate forests—, China V 73. Altai-Sayan montane forests—Russia, Kazakstan, Mongolia, China RS 74. Caucasus and Northeast Anatolia temperate forests—, , , Russia, , V 75. Middle Asian mountains temperate forests and —, , , , Kazakstan, , Pakistan, India, Mongolia, China, Iran V 76. Western Himalayan temperate forests—Pakistan, India, Nepal CE 77. Southern European montane forests—, Greece, Spain, Italy, France, Andorra, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Germany, Romania, Ukraine, Yugoslavia CE 78. Central China temperate forests—China CE 79. Eastern Himalayan broadleaf and conifer forests—Bhutan, India, Nepal, Myanmar, China V Australasian 80. Eastern Australia temperate forests—Australia V 81. Tasmanian temperate rainforests—Australia CE 82. South Island temperate rainforests—New Zealand RS Boreal forests and Nearctic 83. Canadian boreal taiga—Canada RS 84. Northern Cordillera boreal forests—Canada RS Palearctic 85. Central and Eastern Siberian boreal forests and taiga—Russia RS 86. Ural Mountains boreal forests and taiga—Russia RS 87. Kamchatka boreal taiga and —Russia RS continued

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

Issues in International Conservation 505

Table 1. (continued)

Conservation Realm and ecoregion Biogeographic realm statusb Arctic tundra Nearctic and Palearctic 88. Alaskan North Slope coastal tundra—United States, Canada V 89. —Canada RS 90. Chukotsky coastal tundra—Russia RS 91. Taimyr coastal tundra—Russia RS 92. Scandinavian alpine tundra and taiga—Norway, Sweden, Finland V Temperate grasslands, , and Neotropical 93. Patagonian steppe and grasslands—Argentina, Chile V Nearctic 94. Tallgrass —United States CE Palearctic 95. Eastern Himalayan alpine meadows—Bhutan, Nepal, India, Myanmar, China RS 96. Tibetan Plateau steppe—China, India RS 97. Daurian steppe—Mongolia, Russia, China RS Tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas, and shrublands Neotropical 98. savannas—Venezuela, Colombia V 99. and savannas—Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay V 100. Beni savannas—Bolivia V Afrotropical 101. Angolan Escarpment woodlands—Angola CE 102. Zambezian woodlands and savannas—Zambia, Tanzania, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, , Botswana, D.R. Congo, Burundi V 103. Sudanian savannas—Central African Republic, , Uganda, , D.R. Congo, Cameroon, Sudan, Nigeria, Eritrea V 104. East African acacia savannas—Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda V Indo-Malayan 105. -Duar savannas and grasslands—Nepal, India, Bhutan, Bangladesh CE Palearctic 106. Arabian fog woodlands and shrublands—, , , V 107. fog woodlands—Egypt, Sudan, Djibouti, Eritrea CE Australasian 108. Northern Australia and Trans-Fly savannas—Australia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia RS Flooded grasslands and savannas Neotropical 109. flooded savannas—Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay V 110. flooded grasslands—United States CE Afrotropical 111. Sahelian flooded savannas—, Chad, , Nigeria, Cameroon, Senegal, Mauritania V 112. Zambezian flooded savannas—Botswana, Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique CE 113. flooded grasslands and savannas—Sudan, Ethiopia V Tropical montane grasslands and savannas Neotropical 114. North Andean paramo—Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru V Afrotropical 115. East African moorlands—Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, D.R. Congo, Rwanda RS 116. Ethiopian Highlands—Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan CE 117. Zambezian montane savannas and woodlands—Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, Tanzania CE 118. South African montane grasslands and shrublands—South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland CE Indo-Malayan 119. Mt. Kinabalu montane and alpine scrub and —Malaysia RS continued

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

506 Issues in International Conservation

Table 1. (continued)

Conservation Realm and ecoregion Biogeographic realm statusb Australasian 120. Maoke Range alpine heathlands—Indonesia RS and xeric shrublands Neotropical 121. Sonoran and Baja Deserts—Mexico, United States V 122. Chihuahuan and Tehuacán Deserts—Mexico, United States V 123. Galápagos Islands scrubs—Ecuador V 124. Atacama —Chile CE Afrotropical 125. and Karoo deserts and shrublands—South Africa, Namibia CE 126. Desert—Namibia, Angola V 127. Madagascar Spiny Desert—Madagascar CE 128. deserts—Somalia V 129. Island Desert—Yemen V Palearctic 130. Central Asian deserts—Turkmenistan, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan CE Australasian 131. Sandy Australian deserts and central ranges—Australia RS Mediterranean shrublands and woodlands Neotropical 132. —Chile CE 133. California and woodlands—United States, Mexico CE Afrotropical 134. —South Africa CE Palearctic 135. Mediterranean shrublands and woodlands—Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Monaco, Greece, Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Albania, Turkey, Libya, Lebanon, Israel, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Malta, Cyprus, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Slovenia, Gibraltar CE Australasian 136. Southwest Australian shrublands and woodlands—Australia CE Freshwater ecoregions Small rivers and streams Nearctic 137. Mississippi piedmont rivers and streams—United States 138. Southeastern rivers and streams—United States 139. coastal rivers and streams—United States 140. coastal rivers and streams—United States, Canada Neotropical 141. Guayanan highlands freshwater ecosystems—Venezuela, Brazil, Guyana, Colombia 142. Greater Antillean streams—Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic 143. Upper Amazon and Rivers and streams—Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia 144. Upper Paraná River—Brazil, Paraguay Afrotropical 145. Madagascar freshwater ecosystems—Madagascar 146. Gulf of Guinea rivers and crater lakes—Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon, Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Congo, D.R. Congo, Central African Republic, Ghana 147. Congo Basin piedmont rivers and streams—D.R. Congo, R. Congo, Angola, Zambia, Central African Republic Indo-Malayan 148. Sri Lankan rivers and streams—Sri Lanka 149. rivers and swamps—Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei 150. Western Ghats rivers and streams—India Palearctic 151. Russian Far East rivers and —Russia, China, Mongolia Australasian 152. New Guinea rivers and streams—Papua New Guinea, Indonesia 153. New Caledonia rivers and streams—New Caledonia, France 154. Eastern Australian rivers and streams—Australia continued

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

Issues in International Conservation 507

Table 1. (continued)

Conservation Realm and ecoregion Biogeographic realm statusb Large rivers Nearctic 155. —United States, Mexico Neotropical 156. Varzea and Igapó freshwater ecosystems—Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela 157. Brazilian Shield Amazonian rivers and streams—Brazil, Bolivia Afrotropical 158. Congo River—D.R. Congo, R. Congo, Angola Indo-Malayan 159. and Salween Rivers—Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, China 160. River and lakes—China Lake and closed basin freshwater ecosystems Nearctic 161. Great Basin lakes and springs—United States Neotropical 162. Chihuahuan rivers and springs—Mexico, United States 163. Mexican Highland lakes—Mexico 164. High Andean lakes—Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Peru Afrotropical 165. —D.R. Congo, Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda, Malawi, Mozambique, Burundi, Zambia Palearctic 166. —Russia 167. lakes and streams—China 168. Lake Biwa—Japan Indo-Malayan 169. Palawan and Mindanao streams and lakes (Lake Lanao)—Philippines 170. Lake Inle—Myanmar 171. Central Sulawesi lakes—Indonesia Australasian 172. Lakes Kutubu and Sentani—Papua New Guinea, Indonesia Marine ecoregions Large deltas, mangroves, and estuaries Nearctic 173. and Delaware Bay—United States Neotropical 174. Central American mangroves—Belize, Mexico, , , El Salvador, Panama, Guatémala, Costa Rica 175. Panama Bight mangroves—Ecuador, Panama, Colombia 176. Orinoco-Amazon mangroves and coastal swamps—Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Surinam, French Guiana, Brazil 177. Mexican mangroves—Mexico Afrotropical 178. Senegal and Gambia river mangroves and wetlands—Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau 179. Guinean-Congolian coast mangroves—Nigeria, Cameroon, Benin, Togo, Ghana, R. Congo, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, São Tomé and Príncipe, D.R. Congo, Sierra Leone, Angola 180. —Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, Mozambique Palearctic 181. Volga —Russia, Kazakstan 182. Mesopotamian Delta and marshes—Iraq, Iran, Kuwait 183. Danube River Delta—Romania, Ukraine, Moldavia 184. River Delta—Russia Indo-Malayan 185. Mekong River Delta mangroves—Vietnam, Cambodia 186. mangroves—India, Bangladesh 187. Sundaland and Eastern Indonesian archipelago mangroves—Indonesia 188. and —Pakistan, India Australasian 189. New Guinea mangroves—Papua New Guinea, Indonesia continued

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

508 Issues in International Conservation

Table 1. (continued)

Conservation Realm and ecoregion Biogeographic realm statusb and associated marine ecosystems Western Atlantic 190. Mesoamerican Reef—Belize, , Honduras, Mexico 191. Southern Sea—Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Netherlands Antilles 192. Greater Antilles and Bahamian marine ecosystems—Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, United States, Turks and Caicos Western 193. East African marine ecosystems—Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Somalia 194. Western Madagascar marine ecosystems—Madagascar 195. Red Sea marine ecosystems—Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Eritrea, Djibouti, Sudan, Jordan 196. marine ecosystems—Mozambique, South Africa Northern Indian Ocean 197. and Persian Gulf—Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen 198. , , and Chagos marine ecosystems—Maldives, India, 199. Andaman and Nicobar Islands marine ecosystems—India Eastern Indian Ocean 200. Western Australian marine ecosystems—Australia Western Pacific Ocean 201. Isthmus of Kra marine ecosystems—Thailand, Malaysia 202. Nansei Shoto marine ecosystems—Japan 203. Sulu Sea—Philippines, Malaysia 204. Sulawesi Sea—Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia 205. Banda-Flores Seas marine ecosystems—Indonesia 206. Northern New Guinea and Coral Sea marine ecosystems—Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Solomon Islands 207. Micronesian marine ecosystems—, Federated States of Eastern Pacific Ocean 208. Panama Bight marine ecosystems—Panama, Colombia, Ecuador Southern Pacific Ocean 209. South Pacific marine ecosystems (, Fiji, New Caledonia, Samoa, Tonga, ) 210. —Australia 211. Eastern Polynesian Island marine ecosystems (particularly, Hawai’i, Marquesas, , Societies and Tuamotus) 212. and Norfolk Island marine ecosystems—Australia Coastal marine ecosystems Northern Atlantic Ocean 213. Icelandic and Celtic marine ecosystems—Iceland, France, Ireland, United Kingdom, Denmark 214. Grand Banks—Canada, United States 215. Wadden Sea—Denmark, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands Western Atlantic Ocean 216. Northeast Brazilian coast marine ecosystems—Brazil Eastern Atlantic Ocean 217. Gulf of Guinea marine ecosystems—Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, R. Congo, D.R. Congo, Angola, Cameroon, Nigeria, Benin, Togo, São Tomé and Príncipe 218. Western Guinea current marine ecosystems—Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Cape Verde, Liberia, Mauritania Southern Atlantic Ocean 219. Benguela Current—Namibia, South Africa, Angola 220. Southwest Atlantic coast marine ecosystems—Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil 221. Mediterranean Sea Western Pacific Ocean 222. and East China Sea—China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan Eastern Pacific Ocean 223. Californian Current—United States, Canada, Mexico continued

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

Issues in International Conservation 509

Table 1. (continued)

Conservation Realm and ecoregion Biogeographic realm statusb 224. Sea of Cortez—Mexico 225. Peru Current—Peru, Chile 226. Galápagos Islands marine ecosystems—Ecuador 227. Magellanic Marine ecosystems—Chile, Argentina Southern Pacific Ocean 228. South temperate Australian marine ecosystems—Australia Polar and subpolar marine ecosystems Seas 229. Antarctic Peninsula and Weddell Sea 230. New Zealand marine ecosystems—New Zealand and Seas 231. Bering and Beaufort Seas—Russia, United States, Canada 232. and Northern Sea of Japan—Russia, Japan 233. Svalbard/Franz Joseph Land marine ecosystems—Russia, Norway aWe anticipate that there will be some minor modification of the Global 200 list in the future as new information becomes available and on- going analyses are finalized. bNumbers of ecosystems correspond to Figs. 1 and 2. cCE, critical or endangered; V, vulnerable; RS, relatively stable or intact.

Science Program and others (Victor ecosystem framework, derived from grations, extraordinary adaptive radia- 1955; Freitag 1971; Zohary 1973; several global and regional analyses tions), and global rarity of MHT (Olson Miyawaki 1975; Yim 1977; Chinese (e.g., Hayden et al. 1984; World Con- & Dinerstein 1997). We compared Map Compilation Com- servation Union and World Conserva- only the biodiversity value of ecore- mittee 1979; New Zealand Depart- tion Monitoring Centre 1988; Sher- gions sharing the same MHT because ment of Conservation 1987; Noirfa- man et al. 1990; Croom et al. 1992; the relative magnitude of parameters lise 1987; Changchun Institute of Ray & Hayden 1993; Kelleher et al. such as richness and varies Geography and Chinese Academy of 1995; Groombridge & Jenkins 1996; widely among MHTs. For ecoregions Sciences 1990; Kurnaev 1990; Bohn Sullivan & Bustamante 1996; Ormond of equal biological distinctiveness in 1994; Krever et al. 1994; WWF & et al. 1997). the same MHT and biogeographic World Conservation Union 1994, Within each MHT and biogeo- realm, we selected the ecoregions 1995, 1997; Dinerstein et al. 1995; graphic realm, ecoregions are classi- that had more intact habitats and Ecological Stratification Working fied by their biological distinctive- biotas based on assessments of their Group 1995; Gallant et al. 1995; Hil- ness at one of four levels: globally conservation status (Dinerstein et al. big 1995; Omernik 1995; Thackway outstanding, regionally outstanding 1995; Ricketts et al. in press; E. & Cresswell 1995; Mongolian Minis- (e.g., Nearctic), bioregionally out- Wikramanayake, unpublished data). try for Nature and the Environment standing (e.g., Caribbean), or locally We identified 233 ecoregions et al. 1996; Ricketts et al. in press; important. Biological distinctiveness, whose biodiversity and representa- Bohn & Katenina 1996; S. Gon, per- as a discriminator, evaluates the rela- tion values are outstanding on a global sonal communication; Wikramana- tive importance and rarity of differ- scale (Table 1, Figs. 1 & 2). They rep- yake et al., unpublished data). These ent units of biodiversity. It can be resent the terrestrial, freshwater, and assessments were conducted in col- used to estimate the urgency of ac- marine realms, and the 19 MHTs laboration with hundreds of regional tion based on the opportunities for nested within these realms. Among experts and included extensive liter- conserving distinct units around the the 3 realms, 136 (58%) are terrestrial, ature reviews. world. On a global scale, and within 36 (16%) are freshwater ecoregions, Freshwater ecoregions were based each biogeographic realm, we chose and 61 (26%) are marine. Terrestrial on several regional analyses and con- the set of ecoregions with the great- ecoregions outnumber those of the sultations with regional experts (Ho- est biological distinctiveness based other realms largely because there is cutt & Wiley 1986; Frest & Johannes on the following parameters: spe- more localized endemism in terres- 1993; World Conservation Monitor- cies richness, endemism, taxonomic trial than in marine biotas. Gaps in ing Centre 1992; Maxwell et al. 1995; uniqueness (e.g., unique genera or biogeographic information for fresh- Kottelat & Whitten 1996; Abell et al. families, relict taxa or communities, water and marine biodiversity also ac- 1997; Olson et al. 1997). Marine primitive lineages), unusual ecologi- count for some of the variation. ecoregions delineated by the Global cal or evolutionary phenomena (e.g., The results of the analysis target a 200 are nested within a large marine intact large vertebrate faunas or mi- number of well-known biodiversity

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

510 Issues in International Conservation Figure 1. Terrestrial Global 200 ecoregions and their major habitat types. The identifies outstanding representative of each major habitat type in each biogeographic realm where it occurs. The estimated original extent of ecoregions is shown, not the that remains. Be- cause many ecoregions have already been heavily altered, conservation activities are only feasible in much smaller areas than the original extent.

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

Issues in International Conservation 511 Figure 2. Freshwater and marine Global 200 ecoregions. Distinctive representative freshwater ecoregions were identified for each ma- jor habitat type in each terrestrial biogeographic realm or ocean basin. Freshwater and marine major types are not shown.

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

512 Issues in International Conservation priorities. For example, the Western et al. 1994; BSP et al. 1995; Dinerstein MHTs, areas are heavily Arc forests of the Amazon Basin, the et al. 1995; Harcourt et al. 1996; Mac- overfished, enclosed seas are de- ecoregion of Brazil, Kinnon & Bunting 1996; Bryant et al. graded, and coral reefs and man- the Chocó-Daríen ecoregion of north- 1997; Dinerstein et al. 1997; Dobson groves are severely affected by habi- western , Peninsular et al. 1997; Ricketts et al. in press; E. tat destruction, degradation, and Malaysia, and the northern Borneo for- Wikramanayake, unpublished data). overfishing around the world (Sher- est ecoregions are among the richest Terrestrial ecoregions were classi- man et al. 1990; Suchanek 1994; Bry- tropical moist forests on Earth. Simi- fied into one of three broad conser- ant et al. 1995; Kelleher et al. 1995; larly, the forests of Madagascar and vation status categories: critical/en- Olson et al. 1996). New Caledonia were also recog- dangered, vulnerable, or relatively The Global 200 is an effective tool nized as highly distinctive at global stable/relatively intact. for (1) targeting distinctive biogeo- scales, partly because of the number Among terrestrial Global 200 ecore- graphic units of biodiversity and (2) of endemic higher taxa (e.g., fami- gions, 47% are considered critical or promoting ecosystem-level represen- lies and genera). Other results high- endangered, 29% vulnerable, and 24% tation at global scales. The Global light less well-known areas. For ex- relatively stable or intact (Table 1). 200 broadens the goals of conserva- ample, Mexico harbors both the Terrestrial ecoregion boundaries ap- tion from a primary focus on pre- world’s richest and most complex proximate original extent, showing serving species diversity to an en- subtropical conifer forests and the extensive habitat loss, fragmenta- compassing view of habitat diversity, most diverse dry forests in the tion, and degradation within. In ecological processes, evolutionary world; the moist forests of Sulawesi ecoregions that have been dramati- phenomena, and adaptations of spe- display some of the highest levels of cally altered, characteristic species cies to different environmental con- endemism in the Indo- and communities survive in only a ditions around the world. In some Pacific region, and the Congolian few remaining small blocks of habi- cases, it also distinguishes representa- Coastal forests are Africa’s richest tat (Collar & Andrew 1988; Diner- tive ecoregions that are more intact moist forests and exhibit pronounced stein et al. 1995). Among the terres- than others, highlighting the best op- narrow endemism. Results for marine trial MHTs, ecoregions falling within portunities for long-term conservation. and freshwater ecoregions also con- the tropical dry forests, temperate Like any effort to set priorities, the firmed documented patterns and grasslands, Mediterranean shrublands, Global 200 cannot address all as- highlighted many less recognized and temperate broadleaf forests are pects of biodiversity conservation. priorities, such as the extraordinary the most threatened. Island ecore- The Global 200 does not explicitly temperate freshwater biotas of the gions are projected to experience a target hemispheric-scale ecological streams of southeastern North Amer- wave of extinctions over the next phenomena such as migrations of ica and the Yangtze River headwaters two decades because of the fragility marine , sea , , in central China, and the unusually of island ecosystems, the sensitivity or fish; intratropical migrations of high levels of endemism of temperate and endemicity of island species, , birds, and insects; widespread marine invertebrates in the South and the severe threats native island and dynamic pelagic ecosystems; hy- Australian coastal ecoregion. biotas face worldwide from intro- drothermal vent communities; abys- Ecoregions vary greatly not only in duced species and habitat loss (Raven sal ecosystems; cave and groundwa- their biological distinctiveness but 1988; Wilson 1988, 1992; World Con- ter ecosystems; or global ecosystem also in their conservation status. servation Monitoring Centre 1992; Su- dynamics such as carbon sequestra- Conservation status represents an es- jatnika et al. 1995; Brooks et al. 1997; tion. More-detailed, fine-scale analy- timate of the current and future abil- Reaka-Kudla 1997; Stattersfield et al. ses are essential to identify impor- ity of an ecoregion to maintain via- 1998). tant targets within ecoregions. ble species populations, to sustain We have not completed an assess- One tactical concern about the ecological processes, and to be re- ment of the status of freshwater and Global 200 is that it is too ambitious; sponsive to short- and long-term en- marine ecoregions, but preliminary that is, by focusing on 233 ecore- vironmental changes. We conducted analyses show that freshwater ecosys- gions rather than on a handful of conservation status assessments for tems, particularly seasonally flooded conservation units we run the risk of the terrestrial Global 200 ecoregions forests, cataracts, and freshwater com- placing less emphasis on the most based on landscape-level features, munities in xeric areas, are endan- diverse and distinct ecoregions. We such as total habitat loss and the de- gered worldwide (Goulding et al. argue that the broad geographic gree of fragmentation, and esti- 1996; Abell et al. 1997; Olson et al. reach of the Global 200 makes al- mates of future threat and degree of 1997). Moreover, most temperate most every nation on Earth a stake- protection. We drew heavily from freshwater biotas are threatened by holder in a global conservation strat- regional conservation assessments to invasion of exotics, pollution, dams, egy. From the global scale to regional estimate conservation status (Krever and habitat degradation. In marine and national conservation strate-

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

Issues in International Conservation 513 gies, the Global 200 lends weight to Biodiversity Support Program, Conservation tion gap analysis of Brazil’s Amazonian vege- shared priorities and provides a glo- International, The Nature Conservancy, tation. Conservation Biology 9:1134–1147. bal perspective for lobbying efforts World Resources Institute, and World Wild- Freitag, H. 1971. Studies in the natural vegeta- life Fund. 1995. A regional analysis of geo- tion of Afghanistan. Pages 89–106 in P. H. by local conservation groups. The graphic priorities for biodiversity conserva- Davis, P. C. Harper, and I. C. Hedge, edi- Global 200 also can help major de- tion in LAC. A report. USAID, Biodiversity tors. life of South-West Asia. The Bo- velopment agencies to better recog- Support Program, Washington, D.C. tanical Society of Endinburgh, Edinburgh, nize and mitigate the effects of Caicco, S. L., J. M. Scott, B. Butterfield, and B. United Kingdom. projects that result in land-use change Csuti. 1995. A gap analysis of the manage- Frest, T. J., and E. J. Johannes. 1993. Mollusk ment status of the vegetation of Idaho species of special concern within the or to forego development activities (USA). Conservation Biology 9:498–511. range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Final in particularly sensitive ecoregions. Caldecott, J. O., M. D. Jenkins, T. Johnson, report prepared for the Forest Ecosystem For these reasons we see the Global and B. Groombridge. 1996. Priorities for Management Working Group, USDA For- 200 as a map guiding conservation conserving global species richness and en- est Service. Deixis Consultants, Seattle, investments so that a comprehen- demism. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: Washington. 699–727. Gallant, A. L., E. F. Binnian, J. M. Omernik, sive plan eventually can be achieved Changchun Institute of Geography and Chi- and M. B. Shasby. 1995. Ecoregions of by the global conservation commu- nese Academy of Sciences. 1990. The con- Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey profes- nity and the nations of the world. servation atlas of China. Science Press, sional paper 1567. Map. U.S. Government The widespread destruction of the Beijing. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Earth’s biodiversity occurring today Chinese Vegetation Map Compilation Commit- Goulding, M., N. J. H. Smith, and D. J. Mahar. tee. 1979. Vegetation map of China. Map 1996. Floods of fortune: ecology and must be matched by a response an or- (1:10,000,000). Science Press, Beijing. economy along the Amazon. Columbia der of magnitude greater than cur- Collar, N. J., and P. Andrew. 1988. Birds to University Press, New York. rently exists. The Global 200 provides watch: the ICBP world checklist of threat- Groombridge, B., and M. D. Jenkins, editors. a necessarily ambitious template for a ened birds. ICBP technical publications 1996. The diversity of the seas: a regional global conservation strategy. No. 8. International Council for Pres- approach. Biodiversity series no. 4. World ervation, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Conservation Monitoring Centre, World Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gil- Conservation Press, Cambridge, United Literature Cited bert. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida’s Kingdom. wildlife habitat conservation system: rec- Harcourt, C. S., J. Sayer, and C. Billington, edi- Abell, R., D. M. Olson, E. Dinerstein, P. ommendations to meet minimum conser- tors. 1996. The conservation atlas of tropical Hedao, P. Hurley, C. Loucks, and S. vation goals for declining wildlife species forests: the . World Conservation Walters, editors. 1997. A conservation as- and rare plant and communities. Union and World Conservation Monitoring sessment of freshwater biodiversity of Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Com- Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom. . Draft report. World Wild- mission, Tallahassee, Florida. Hayden, B. P., G. C. Ray, and R. Dolan. 1984. life Fund and the U.S. Environmental Pro- Croom, M. M., R. J. Wolotira, and W. Hen- Classification of coastal and marine envi- tection Agency, Washington, D.C. wood. 1992. Proposed biogeographic sub- ronments. Environmental Conservation Bedward, M., R. L. Pressey, and D. A. Keith. divisions of the North East Pacific marine 11:199–207. 1992. A new approach for selecting fully realm. National Ocean Service, Washing- Hilbig, W. 1995. The vegetation of Mongolia. representative reserve networks: address- ton, D.C., and Environment Canada, North SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam. ing efficiency, reserve design, and land Vancouver, British Columbia. Hocutt, C. H., and E. O. Wiley, editors. 1986. suitability with an iterative analysis. Bio- Dinerstein, E., D. M. Olson, D. J. Graham, A. L. The of North American logical Conservation 62:115–125. Webster, S. A. Primm, M. P. Bookbinder, freshwater fishes. Wiley and Sons, New Bohn, U. 1994. International project for the and G. Ledec. 1995. A conservation assess- York. construction of a map of the natural vege- ment of the terrestrial ecoregions of Latin Hummel, M., editor. 1989. Endangered spaces: tation of Europe at a scale of 1:2,500,000: America and the Caribbean. The World the future for Canada’s wilderness. Key it’s concept, problems of harmonization Bank, Washington, D.C. Porter Books, Ontario, Canada. and application for nature protection. Col- Dinerstein, E., E. Wikramanayake, J. Robin- Johnson, N. 1995. Biodiversity in the balance: loques Phytosociologiques 23:23–45. son, U. Karanth, A. Rabinowitz, D. Olson, approaches to setting geographic conser- Bohn, U., and G. D. Katenina. 1996. General T. Mathew, P. Hedao, M. Connor, G. Hem- vation priorities. Biodiversity Support Pro- map of natural vegetation of Europe, Map ley, and D. Bolze. 1997. A framework for gram, Washington, D.C. (1:10,000,000). Federal Agency of Nature identifying high priority areas and actions Johnson, T. H., and A. J. Stattersfield. 1990. A Conservation, Bonn. for the conservation of tigers in the wild. global review of island endemic birds. Ibis Brooks, T. M., S. L. Pimm, and N. J. Collar. World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conser- 132:167–180. 1997. predicts the number vation Society, Washington, D.C. Kelleher, G., C. Bleakley, and S. Wells. 1995. A of threatened birds in insular Southeast Dobson, A. P., J. P. Rodriquez, W. M. Roberts, global representative system of marine pro- Asia. Conservation Biology 11:383–394. and D. S. Wilcove. 1997. Geographic dis- tected areas. 4 volumes. Great Barrier Ma- Bryant, D., E. Rodenberg, T. Cox, and D. tribution of endangered species in the rine Park Authority, The World Bank, World Nielsen. 1995. Coastlines at risk: an index United States. Science 275:550–553. Conservation Union, Washington, D.C. of potential development-related threats to Ecological Stratification Working Group. Kottelat, M., and T. Whitten. 1996. Asia-wide coastal ecosystems. Indicator brief. World 1995. A national ecological framework for assessment of freshwater biodiversity. Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Canada. Map. Agriculture and Agri-food Technical paper no. 281. The World Bank, Bryant, D., D. Nielsen, and L. Tangley. 1997. Canada, Centre for Land and Biological Re- Washington, D.C. The last frontier forests: ecosystems and sources Research, and Environment Can- Krever, V., E. Dinerstein, D. M. Olson, and L. economies on the edge. World Resources ada, Ottawa/Hull, Canada. Williams. 1994. Conserving Russia’s bio- Institute, Washington, D.C. Fearnside, P. M., and J. Ferraz. 1995. A conserva- logical diversity: an analytical framework

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

514 Issues in International Conservation

and initial investment portfolio. World Olson, D. M., B. Chernoff, G. Burgess, I. David- nesian biodiversity: the Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C. son, P. Canevari, E. Dinerstein, G. Castro, V. approach. BirdLife International Indonesia Kurnaev, S. F. 1990. Forest regionalization of Morisset, R. Abell, and E. Toledo. 1997. Programme, Bogor, Indonesia. the USSR. Map (1:16,000,000). Sheet 15 of Freshwater biodiversity of Latin America and Sullivan, K., and G. Bustamante. 1996. A con- Forests of the USSR. Main Division for Ge- the Caribbean: a conservation assessment. servation assessment of the freshwater and odesy and Cartography of the Soviet Min- Draft report. World Wildlife Fund-U.S., Wet- marine ecoregions of Latin America and the isters, Moscow. lands International, Biodiversity Support Pro- Caribbean. Draft report. Biodiversity Sup- MacKinnon, J. 1994. A method for evaluating gram, and United States Agency for Interna- port Program, The Nature Conservancy, and classifying habitat importance for tional Development, Washington, D.C. and World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C. biodiversity conservation. Paper prepared Omernik, J. M. 1995. Level III ecoregions of Thackway, R., and I. D. Cresswell, editors. for meeting on identification of habitat cri- the continental U.S. National Health and 1995. An interim biogeographic regionali- teria. World Conservation Monitoring Environment Effects Research Laboratory, sation for Australia: a framework for set- Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ting priorities in the National Reserves Sys- MacKinnon, J., and G. Bunting. 1996. Remain- Washington, D.C. tem Cooperative Program. Version 4.0. ing natural habitats of the Indo-Malayan Orians, G. H. 1993. Endangered at what level? Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Realm: digital database. World Conserva- Ecological Applications 3:206–208. Canberra. tion Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, United Ormond, R. F. G., J. D. Gage, and M. V. Angel, The Nature Conservancy. 1997. Designing a Kingdom. editors. 1997. Marine biodiversity: pat- geography of hope: guidelines for ecore- Maxwell, J. R., C. J. Edwards, M. E. Jensen, terns and processes. Cambridge University gion-based conservation in The Nature S. J. Paustian, H. Parrot, and D. M. Hill. Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy, 1995. A hierarchical framework of aquatic Pressey, R. L., and V. S. Logan. 1994. Level of Arlington, Virginia. ecological units in North America (Nearc- geographical subdivision and its effects on United Nations Environmental Programme. tic Zone). General technical report NC-176. assessments of reserve coverage: a review 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. U.S. Forest Service, St. Paul, Minnesota. of regional studies. Conservation Biology Cambridge, University Press, Cambridge, Miyawaki, A. 1975. Outline of Japanese vegeta- 8:1037–1046. United Kingdom. tion. Pages 19–27 in K. Numata, K. Yoshida, Pressey, R. L., I. R. Johnson, and D. P. Wilson. Victor, P. E. 1955. Ice-geography of Green- and M. Kato, editors. Studies in conserva- 1994. Shades of irreplaceability: towards a land. Map (1:5,000,000). Geodaeyisk Insti- tion of natural terrestrial ecosystems of Ja- measure of the contribution of sites to a tut, Copenhagen. pan. Japanese Committee for the Interna- reservation goal. Biodiversity and Conser- World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1992. tional Biological Program synthesis. Volume vation 3:242–262. Global biodiversity: status of the Earth’s liv- 8. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo. Raven, P. H. 1988. Our diminishing tropical ing resources. Chapman & Hall, London. Mongolian Ministry for Nature and the Envi- forests. Pages 199–122 in E. O. Wilson, ed- World Conservation Union and World Conser- ronment, United Nations Development itor. Biodiversity. National Academy, vation Monitoring Centre. 1988. Coral Programme–Global Environment Facility, Washington, D.C. reefs of the world. 3 volumes. World Con- and World Wildlife Fund. 1996. Mongo- Ray, G. C., and B. P. Hayden. 1993. Marine servation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, lia’s wild heritage. Avery Press, Boulder, biogeographic provinces of the Bering, United Kingdom. Colorado. Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. Pages 175– Wilson, E. O., editor. 1988. Biodiversity. Na- New Zealand Department of Conservation. 184 in K. Sherman, L. M. Alexander, and tional Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1987. Ecolgical regions and districts of B. D. Gold, editors. Large marine ecosys- Wilson, E. O. 1992. The diversity of life. Harvard New Zealand. Map (1:500,000). Depart- tems: patterns, processes and yields. University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. ment of Conservation, Wellington, New American Association for the Advance- World Wildlife Fund and World Conservation Zealand. ment of Science, Washington, D.C. Union. 1994. Centres of plant diversity: a Nicoll, M. E., and O. Langrand. 1989. Mada- Reaka-Kudla, M. L., D. E. Wilson, and E. O. Wil- guide and strategy for their conservation. gascar: Revue de la conservation et des son, editors. 1997. Biodiversity II: under- Volume 1. Europe, Africa, South West Asia aires protégées. World Wildlife Fund, In- standing and protecting our biological re- and the Middle East. World Conservation ternational, Gland, Switzerland. sources. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, Union Publications Unit, Cambridge, United Noirfalise, A. 1987. Map of the natural vegeta- D.C. Kingdom. tion of the member countries of the Euro- Ricketts, T., E. Dinerstein, D. Olson, C. World Wildlife Fund and World Conservation pean Community and the Council of Eu- Loucks, P. Hedao, K. Carney, S. Walters, Union. 1995. Centres of plant diversity: a rope. Map (1:3,000,000). 2nd edition. and P. Hurley. In press. A conservation as- guide and strategy for their conservation. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France. sessment of terrestrial ecoregions of North Volume 2. Asia, Australasia and the Pa- Noss, R. F. 1996. Ecosystems as conservation America. Island Press, Washington, D.C. cific. World Conservation Union Publica- targets. TREE 11:351. Sherman, K., L. M. Alexander, and B. D. Gold, tions Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Noss, R. F., and A. Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Sav- editors. 1990. Large marine ecosystems: World Wildlife Fund and World Conservation ing nature’s legacy: protecting and restor- patterns, processes and yields. American Union. 1997. Centres of plant diversity: a ing biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife and Association for the Advancement of Sci- guide and strategy for their conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C. ence, Washington, D.C. Volume 3. The Americas. World Conserva- Olson, D. M., and E. Dinerstein. 1997. The Stattersfield, A. J., M. J. Crosby, A. J. Long, and tion Union Publications Unit, Cambridge, Global 200: a representation approach to D. C. Wege. 1998. Endemic bird areas of United Kingdom. conserving the Earth’s distinctive ecore- the world: priorities for biodiversity con- Yim, Y.-J. 1977. Distribution of forest vegeta- gions. Draft report. World Wildlife Fund, servation. Birdlife International, Cam- tion and climate in the Korean Peninsula. Washington, D.C. bridge, United Kingdom. IV. Zonal distribution of forest vegetation Olson, D. M., E. Dinerstein, G. Cintron, and P. Suchanek, T. H. 1994. Temperate coastal ma- in relation to thermal climate. Japanese Iolster. 1996. A conservation assessment rine communities: biodiversity and threats. Journal of Ecology 27:269–278. of mangroves of Latin America and the American Zoologist 34:100–114. Zohary, M. 1973. Geobotanical foundations of Caribbean. World Wildlife Fund U.S., Wash- Sujatnika, J. P., T. R. Soehartono, M. J. Crosby, the Middle East. Volumes 1 & 2. Gustav ington, D.C. and A. Mardiastuti. 1995. Conserving Indo- Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998

Issues in International Conservation 515

Note and E. Dinerstein. This document is Fund–U.S., 1250 24th Street NW, Washington, available on the Internet at http:// D.C. 20037, U.S.A. This Issues in International Conser- www.world wildlife fund.org. vation piece summarizes a much more comprehensive document, “The Eric Dinerstein Global 200: A Representation Ap- David M. Olson Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife proach to Conserving the Earth’s Dis- Fund–U.S., 1250 24th Street NW, Washington, tinctive Ecoregions” by D. M. Olson Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife D.C. 20037, U.S.A.

Conservation Biology Volume 12, No. 3, June 1998