Setting Conservation Priorities for Landbirds in the United States: The Partners in Flight Approach

Abstract

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Depauperate Avifauna in Plantations Compared to Forests and Exurban Areas

“…The habitat classes differed in their conservation value as measured by Partners in Flight (PIF) scores [21], [22]. When 2001 PIF scores were weighted by an index of abundance, exurban areas had the highest scores, followed by thinned and native forests, followed by all ages of pine plantation (MRPP standardized test statistic = −12.17, p<0.001).…”

“…Another approach takes a continent-wide perspective by using the priority scores independently developed by Partners in Flight (PIF). These scores are assigned to bird species based on both objective criteria (e.g., data on changes in abundance through time) and subjective criteria (e.g., assessments made by PIF personnel of perceived threats to habitat) [21], [22]. Species with high scores are considered to have higher conservation priority than those with low scores.…”

“…To put our results into a regional and global context we produced indexes using 2001 Partners in Flight (PIF) priority scores for the Cumberland Plateau [21] for all species and habitats in our samples. First, we calculated the number of individuals of each species detected within 50 m of count centers per transect for all habitat classes (an index of relative abundance), then multiplied this by priority scores derived from PIF.…”

Are avian population targets achievable through programs that restore habitat on private‐lands?

“…In light of this, recent efforts have attempted to prioritize conservation actions for migratory birds (Carter et al. , Faaborg ). One aspect of this effort was to estimate global population size of many declining migratory species at continental scales (Rosenberg and Blancher ).…”

The New South Wales Priorities Action Statement and opportunities for maximizing return on investment for conservation

“…Traditionally, making decisions about how to manage threatened species and communities involves identifying the asset of interest and flagging it for conservation efforts. A number of frameworks exist for ranking species based on criteria such as the perceived level of endangerment (Rabinowitz 1981; Master 1991; Mace & Collar 1995; Carter et al . 2000; IUCN 2001), evolutionary distinctiveness (Nixon & Wheler 1992; Faith 1994; Vane‐Wright et al .…”