Eric Dinerstein
World Wide Fund for Nature
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Eric Dinerstein.
BioScience | 2001
David Olson; Eric Dinerstein; Eric Wikramanayake; Neil D. Burgess; George V. N. Powell; Emma C. Underwood; A Jennifer; Illanga Itoua; Holly Strand; John Morrison; Thomas F. Allnutt; Taylor H. Ricketts; Yumiko Kura; John F. Lamoreux; Prashant Hedao; Kenneth R. Kassem
T tapestry of life on Earth is unraveling as humans increasingly dominate and transform natural ecosystems. Scarce resources and dwindling time force conservationists to target their actions to stem the loss of biodiversity— a pragmatic approach, given the highly uneven distribution of species and threats (Soulé and Kohm 1989, Olson and Dinerstein 1998, Mace et al. 2000, Myers et al. 2000). Unfortunately, the ability to focus strategically is hindered by the absence of a global biodiversity map with sufficient biogeographic resolution to accurately reflect the complex distribution of the Earth’s natural communities. Without such a map, many distinctive biotas remain unrecognized. In this article, we address the disparity in resolution between maps currently available for global conservation planning and the reality of the Earth’s intricate patterns of life. We have developed a detailed map of the terrestrial ecoregions of the world that is better suited to identify areas of outstanding biodiversity and representative communities (Noss 1992). We define ecoregions as relatively large units of land containing a distinct assemblage of natural communities and species, with boundaries that approximate the original extent of natural communities prior to major land-use change. Our ecoregion map offers features that enhance its utility for conservation planning at global and regional scales: comprehensive coverage, a classification framework that builds on existing biogeographic knowledge, and a detailed level of biogeographic resolution. Ecoregions reflect the distributions of a broad range of fauna and flora across the entire planet, from the vast Sahara Desert to the diminutive Clipperton Island (eastern Pacific Ocean). They are classified within a system familiar to all biologists—biogeographic realms and biomes. Ecoregions, representing distinct biotas (Dasmann 1973, 1974, Udvardy 1975), are nested within the biomes and realms and, together, these provide a framework for comparisons among units and the identification of representative habitats and species assemblages. Although our ecoregions are intended primarily as units for conservation action, they are built on the foundations of classical biogeography and reflect extensive collaboration with over 1000 biogeographers, taxonomists, conservation biologists, and ecologists from around the world. Consequently, ecoregions are likely to reflect the distribution of species and communities more accurately than do units based on global and regional models derived from gross biophysical features, such as rainfall and temperature (Holdridge 1967, Walter and Box 1976, Schulz 1995, Bailey 1998), vegetation structure (UNESCO 1969, deLaubenfels 1975, Schmidthüsen 1976), or
Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden | 2002
David Olson; Eric Dinerstein
A global strategy to conserve biodiversity must aim to protect representative examples of all of the worlds ecosystems, as well as those areas that contain exceptional concentrations of species and endemics. Although lacking the richness of tropical forests, deserts, tropical lakes, and subpolar seas all contain distinct species, communities, and ecological phenomena. We analyzed global patterns of biodiversity to identify a set of the Earths terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecoregions that harbor exceptional biodiversity and are representative of its ecosystems. We placed each of the Earths ecoregions within a system of 30 biomes and biogeographic realms to facilitate a representation analysis. Biodiversity features were compared among ecoregions to assess their irreplaceability or distinctiveness. These features included species richness, endemic species, unusual higher taxa, unusual ecological or evolutionary phenomena, and the global rarity of habitats. This process yielded 238 ecoregions-the Global 200-comprised of 142 terrestrial, 53 freshwater, and 43 marine priority ecoregions. Effective conservation in this set of ecoregions would help conserve the most outstanding and representative habitats for biodiversity nn this planet.
A conservation assessment of the terrestrial ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean. | 1995
Eric Dinerstein; David Olson; Douglas J. Graham; Avis L. Webster; Steven A. Primm; Marnie P. Bookbinder; George Ledec
This priority-setting study elevates, as a first principle, maintaining the representation of all ecosystem and habitat types in regional investment portfolios. Second, it recognizes landscape-level features as an essential guide for effective conservation planning. Without an objective framework to assess the conservation status and biological distinctiveness of geographic areas, donors run the risk of overlooking areas that are seriously threatened and of greatest biodiversity value. The lack of such an objective regional framework prompted this study, whose goals were: 1) to replace the relatively ad hoc decisionmaking process of donors investing in biodiversity conservation with a more transparent and scientific approach; 2) to move beyond evaluations based largely on species lists to a new framework that also incorporates maintaining ecosystems and habitat diversity; 3) to better integrate the principles of conservation biology and landscape ecology into decisionmaking; and 4) to ensure that proportionately more funding be channeled to areas that are of high biological value and under serious threat.
Conservation Biology | 2009
William J. Sutherland; William M. Adams; Richard B. Aronson; Rosalind Aveling; Tim M. Blackburn; S. Broad; Germán Ceballos; Isabelle M. Côté; Richard M. Cowling; G. A.B. Da Fonseca; Eric Dinerstein; Paul J. Ferraro; Erica Fleishman; Claude Gascon; Malcolm L. Hunter; Jon Hutton; Peter Kareiva; A. Kuria; David W. Macdonald; Kathy MacKinnon; F.J. Madgwick; Michael B. Mascia; Jeffrey A. McNeely; E. J. Milner-Gulland; S. Moon; C.G. Morley; S. Nelson; D. Osborn; M. Pai; E.C.M. Parsons
We identified 100 scientific questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on conservation practice and policy. Representatives from 21 international organizations, regional sections and working groups of the Society for Conservation Biology, and 12 academics, from all continents except Antarctica, compiled 2291 questions of relevance to conservation of biological diversity worldwide. The questions were gathered from 761 individuals through workshops, email requests, and discussions. Voting by email to short-list questions, followed by a 2-day workshop, was used to derive the final list of 100 questions. Most of the final questions were derived through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into 12 sections: ecosystem functions and services, climate change, technological change, protected areas, ecosystem management and restoration, terrestrial ecosystems, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, species management, organizational systems and processes, societal context and change, and impacts of conservation interventions. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and assist funders in directing funds.
Nature | 2006
John F. Lamoreux; John Morrison; Taylor H. Ricketts; David Olson; Eric Dinerstein; Meghan W. McKnight; Herman H. Shugart
Understanding patterns of biodiversity distribution is essential to conservation strategies, but severe data constraints make surrogate measures necessary. For this reason, many studies have tested the performance of terrestrial vertebrates as surrogates for overall species diversity, but these tests have typically been limited to a single taxon or region. Here we show that global patterns of richness are highly correlated among amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, as are endemism patterns. Furthermore, we demonstrate that although the correlation between global richness and endemism is low, aggregate regions selected for high levels of endemism capture significantly more species than expected by chance. Although areas high in endemism have long been targeted for the protection of narrow-ranging species, our findings provide evidence that endemism is also a useful surrogate for the conservation of all terrestrial vertebrates.
Journal of Mammalogy | 2007
John Morrison; Wes Sechrest; Eric Dinerstein; David S. Wilcove; John F. Lamoreux
Abstract Large mammals often play critical roles within ecosystems by affecting either prey populations or the structure and species composition of surrounding vegetation. However, large mammals are highly vulnerable to extirpation by humans and consequently, severe contractions of species ranges result in intact large mammal faunas becoming increasingly rare. We compared historical (AD 1500) range maps of large mammals with their current distributions to determine which areas today retain complete assemblages of large mammals. We estimate that less than 21% of the earths terrestrial surface still contains all of the large (>20 kg) mammals it once held, with the proportion varying between 68% in Australasia to only 1% in Indomalaya. Although the presence of large mammals offers no guarantee of the presence of all smaller animals, their absence represents an ecologically based measurement of human impacts on biodiversity. Given the ecological importance of large mammals and their vulnerability to extinction, better protection and extension of sites containing complete assemblages of large mammals is urgently needed.
Animal Conservation | 2003
K. Ullas Karanth; James D. Nichols; John Seidenstricker; Eric Dinerstein; James L.D. Smith; Charles McDougal; A. J. T. Johnsingh; Raghunandan S. Chundawat; Valmik Thapar
Conservation practices are supposed to get refined by advancing scientific knowledge. We study this phenomenon in the context of monitoring tiger populations in India, by evaluating the ‘pugmark census method’ employed by wildlife managers for three decades. We use an analytical framework of modern animal population sampling to test the efficacy of the pugmark censuses using scientific data on tigers and our field observations. We identify three critical goals for monitoring tiger populations, in order of increasing sophistication: (1) distribution mapping, (2) tracking relative abundance, (3) estimation of absolute abundance. We demonstrate that the present census-based paradigm does not work because it ignores the first two simpler goals, and targets, but fails to achieve, the most difficult third goal. We point out the utility and ready availability of alternative monitoring paradigms that deal with the central problems of spatial sampling and observability. We propose an alternative sampling-based approach that can be tailored to meet practical needs of tiger monitoring at different levels of refinement.
BioScience | 2017
Eric Dinerstein; David Olson; Anup R. Joshi; Carly Vynne; Neil D. Burgess; Eric Wikramanayake; Nathan Hahn; Suzanne Palminteri; Prashant Hedao; Reed F. Noss; Matthew C. Hansen; Harvey Locke; Erle C. Ellis; Benjamin S. Jones; Charles Victor Barber; Randy Hayes; Cyril Kormos; Vance G. Martin; Eileen Crist; Wes Sechrest; Lori Price; Jonathan E. M. Baillie; Don Weeden; Kieran Suckling; Crystal L. Davis; Nigel Sizer; Rebecca Moore; David Thau; Tanya Birch; Peter V. Potapov
Abstract We assess progress toward the protection of 50% of the terrestrial biosphere to address the species-extinction crisis and conserve a global ecological heritage for future generations. Using a map of Earths 846 terrestrial ecoregions, we show that 98 ecoregions (12%) exceed Half Protected; 313 ecoregions (37%) fall short of Half Protected but have sufficient unaltered habitat remaining to reach the target; and 207 ecoregions (24%) are in peril, where an average of only 4% of natural habitat remains. We propose a Global Deal for Nature—a companion to the Paris Climate Deal—to promote increased habitat protection and restoration, national- and ecoregion-scale conservation strategies, and the empowerment of indigenous peoples to protect their sovereign lands. The goal of such an accord would be to protect half the terrestrial realm by 2050 to halt the extinction crisis while sustaining human livelihoods.
Conservation Biology | 2013
Eric Dinerstein; Keshav Varma; Eric Wikramanayake; George V. N. Powell; Susan Lumpkin; Robin Naidoo; Mike Korchinsky; Christian Del Valle; Shubash Lohani; John Seidensticker; Dirk Joldersma; Thomas E. Lovejoy; Andrey Kushlin
We propose the wildlife premium mechanism as an innovation to conserve endangered large vertebrates. The performance-based payment scheme would allow stakeholders in lower-income countries to generate revenue by recovering and maintaining threatened fauna that can also serve as umbrella species (i.e., species whose protection benefits other species with which they co-occur). There are 3 possible options for applying the premium: option 1, embed premiums in a carbon payment; option 2, link premiums to a related carbon payment, but as independent and legally separate transactions; option 3, link premiums to noncarbon payments for conserving ecosystem services (PES). Each option presents advantages, such as incentive payments to improve livelihoods of rural poor who reside in or near areas harboring umbrella species, and challenges, such as the establishment of a subnational carbon credit scheme. In Kenya, Peru, and Nepal pilot premium projects are now underway or being finalized that largely follow option 1. The Kasigau (Kenya) project is the first voluntary carbon credit project to win approval from the 2 leading groups sanctioning such protocols and has already sold carbon credits totaling over
Trends in Ecology and Evolution | 2009
Michael J. Parr; Leon Bennun; Tim Boucher; Tom Brooks; Constantino Aucca Chutas; Eric Dinerstein; Gláucia Marie Drummond; Güven Eken; George H. Fenwick; Matt Foster; Juan E. Martínez-Gómez; Russell A. Mittermeier; Sanjay Molur
1.2 million since June 2011. A portion of the earnings is divided among community landowners and projects that support community members and has added over 350 jobs to the local economy. All 3 projects involve extensive community management because they occur on lands where locals hold the title or have a long-term lease from the government. The monitoring, reporting, and verification required to make premium payments credible to investors include transparent methods for collecting data on key indices by trained community members and verification of their reporting by a biologist. A wildlife premium readiness fund would enable expansion of pilot programs needed to test options beyond those presented here.