@article {Ehrlich2008Where,
	title = {Where does biodiversity go from here? A grim business-as-usual forecast and a hopeful portfolio of partial solutions},
	journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
	volume = {105},
	number = {Supplement 1},
	year = {2008},
	month = {August},
	pages = {11579{\textendash}11586},
	abstract = {10.1073/pnas.0801911105 The threats to the future of biodiversity are many and well known. They include habitat conversion, environmental toxification, climate change, and direct exploitation of wildlife, among others. Moreover, the projected addition of 2.6 billion people by mid-century will almost certainly have a greater environmental impact than that of the last 2.6 billion. Collectively, these trends portend a grim future for biodiversity under a business-as-usual scenario. These threats and their interactions are formidable, but we review seven strategies that, if implemented soundly and scaled up dramatically, would preserve a substantial portion of global biodiversity. These are actions to stabilize the human population and reduce its material consumption, the deployment of endowment funds and other strategies to ensure the efficacy and permanence of conservation areas, steps to make human-dominated landscapes hospitable to biodiversity, measures to account for the economic costs of habitat degradation, the ecological reclamation of degraded lands and repatriation of extirpated species, the education and empowerment of people in the rural tropics, and the fundamental transformation of human attitudes about nature. Like the carbon {\^a}stabilization wedges{\^a} outlined by Pacala and Socolow [Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. 305:968{\^a}972] (), the science and technologies needed to effect this vision already exist. The remaining challenges are largely social, political, and economic. Although academic conservation biology still has an important role to play in developing technical tools and knowledge, success at this juncture hinges more on a massive mobilization of effort to do things that have traditionally been outside the scope of the discipline.},
	keywords = {biodiversity, conservation, science-policy},
	doi = {10.1073/pnas.0801911105},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801911105},
	author = {Ehrlich, Paul R. and Pringle, Robert M.}
}
@article {Sachs2009Biodiversity,
	title = {Biodiversity Conservation and the Millennium Development Goals},
	journal = {Science},
	volume = {325},
	number = {5947},
	year = {2009},
	month = {September},
	pages = {1502{\textendash}1503},
	abstract = {10.1126/science.1175035},
	keywords = {biodiversity, course, inventory, monitoring, science-policy},
	doi = {10.1126/science.1175035},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1175035},
	author = {Sachs, Jeffrey D. and Baillie, Jonathan E. M. and Sutherland, William J. and Armsworth, Paul R. and Ash, Neville and Beddington, John and Blackburn, Tim M. and Collen, Ben and Gardiner, Barry and Gaston, Kevin J. and Godfray and Green, Rhys E. and Harvey, Paul H. and House, Brett and Knapp, Sandra and Kumpel, Noelle F. and Macdonald, David W. and Mace, Georgina M. and Mallet, James and Matthews, Adam and May, Robert M. and Petchey, Owen and Purvis, Andy and Roe, Dilys and Safi, Kamran and Turner, Kerry and Walpole, Matt and Watson, Robert and Jones, Kate E.}
}
@article {Walpole2009Tracking,
	title = {Tracking Progress Toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target and Beyond},
	journal = {Science},
	volume = {325},
	number = {5947},
	year = {2009},
	month = {September},
	pages = {1503{\textendash}1504},
	abstract = {10.1126/science.1175466},
	keywords = {2010, conservation, course, science-policy},
	doi = {10.1126/science.1175466},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1175466},
	author = {Walpole, Matt and Almond, Rosamunde E. A. and Besancon, Charles and Butchart, Stuart H. M. and Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid and Carr, Genevieve M. and Collen, Ben and Collette, Linda and Davidson, Nick C. and Dulloo, Ehsan and Fazel, Asghar M. and Galloway, James N. and Gill, Michael and Goverse, Tessa and Hockings, Marc and Leaman, Danna J. and Morgan, David H. W. and Revenga, Carmen and Rickwood, Carrie J. and Schutyser, Frederik and Simons, Sarah and Stattersfield, Alison J. and Tyrrell, Tristan D. and Vie, Jean-Christophe and Zimsky, Mark}
}
@article {Dealing,
	title = {Dealing With Denial},
	journal = {Science},
	volume = {325},
	number = {5948},
	year = {Submitted},
	pages = {1605},
	keywords = {biodiversity, conservation, course, ehrlich, ethics, science-policy, society},
	issn = {0036-8075},
	doi = {10.1126/science.325\_1605a},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.325\_1605a}
}
@article {Samways2009Provision,
	title = {Provision of ecosystem services by large scale corridors and ecological networks},
	journal = {Biodiversity and Conservation},
	year = {2009},
	month = {October},
	abstract = {Abstract\&nbsp;\&nbsp;Large scale landscape transformation and contingent habitat loss are among the greatest threats to ecological integrity and ecosystem health. One of the mitigation approaches used to deal with these pressures is to leave interconnected corridors and nodes as remnant ecological networks (ENs) within the transformed landscape. The South African forestry industry has already allocated 500,000\&nbsp;ha, one-third of the plantation holdings, consisting predominantly of natural grassland, as ENs among and within timber plantations. These ENs are intended to maintain structural, compositional and functional biodiversity. However, little scientific research is available on the effectiveness of these huge ENs for biodiversity conservation and maintenance of natural ecosystem function, although initial findings are encouraging. While the local adverse effect of alien plantation trees on functional biodiversity is not in dispute, it is at the scale of the whole landscape where there is much interest in determining how effective these ENs are in maintaining the untransformed portion of the transformed landscape in a close-to-natural state. As these ENs are extensive, species beta diversity is a consideration in addition to alpha diversity. Initial findings reveal diminished ecological integrity in narrow corridors due in part to the adverse edge effect from the alien trees into the margin of the EN. Quality of the ENs is of great importance for maintaining functional diversity, with human disturbance reducing their effectiveness. First findings, and their application to the Framework for Ecosystem Service Provision, suggest that these ENs are significant for biodiversity conservation and for provision of ecosystem services. Nevertheless, still much more research is required on a greater range of taxa, and their interactions, to improve the design of these ENs for ecological and evolutionary processes.},
	keywords = {biodiversity, conservation, networks, policy, science-policy},
	issn = {0960-3115},
	doi = {10.1007/s10531-009-9715-2},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9715-2},
	author = {Samways, M. J. and Bazelet, C. S. and Pryke, J. S.}
}
@article {Boero2010Study,
	title = {The Study of Species in the Era of Biodiversity: A Tale of Stupidity},
	journal = {Diversity},
	volume = {2},
	number = {1},
	year = {2010},
	month = {January},
	pages = {115{\textendash}126},
	abstract = {Research policies ensuing from the Convention on Biological Diversity made huge funds available to study biodiversity. These were mostly dedicated to projects aimed at providing services to taxonomy via information and technology, or to develop {\textquotedblright} modern{\textquotedblright}, i.e., molecular, approaches to taxonomy. Traditional taxonomy was overly neglected and is in serious distress all over the world. It is argued that both novel and traditional ways to study biodiversity are essential and that the demise of traditional taxonomy (based on phenotypes) in the era of biodiversity is the result of an unwise policy, mainly fostered by portions of the scientific community that aim at taking total advantage of the funds dedicated to the study of biodiversity.},
	keywords = {biodiversity, conservation, science-policy, taxonomic-impediment, taxonomy},
	issn = {1424-2818},
	doi = {10.3390/d2010115},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/d2010115},
	author = {Boero, Ferdinando}
}
