Nature Conservation 1: 1–10, doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.1.3081
Nature Conservation – a new dimension in Open Access publishing bridging science and application
Klaus Henle1, Sandra Bell2, Lluis Brotons3, Jean Clobert4, Douglas Evans5, Christoph Görg6, Malgorzata Grodzińska-Jurczak7, Bernd Gruber8, Yrjö Haila9, Pierre-Yves Henry10, Andreas Huth11, Romain Julliard12, Petr Keil13, Michael Kleyer14, D. Johan Kotze15, William Kunin16, Szabolcs Lengyel17, Yu-Pin Lin18, Adeline Loyau4, Gary W. Luck19, William Magnusson20, Chris Margules21, Yiannis Matsinos22, Peter May23, Isabel Sousa-Pinto24, Hugh Possingham25, Simon Potts26, Irene Ring27, James S. Pryke28, Michael J. Samways28, Denis Saunders29, Dirk Schmeller4, Jukka Similä30, Simone Sommer31, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter32, Pavel Stoev33, Martin T. Sykes34, Béla Tóthmérész17, Joseph Tzanopoulos35, Rita Yam18, Lyubomir Penev33
1 UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Conservation Biology, Leipzig, Germany
2 University of Durham, Department of Anthropology, Durham, UK
3 Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya, Biodiversity & Landscape Ecology Lab, Solsona, Spain
4 Station d’Ecologie Expérimentale du CNRS, Moulis, France
5 EEA-European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC/BD), Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France
6 UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Environmental Politics, Leipzig, Germany
7 Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland
8 University of Canberra, Institute for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Applied Science, Canberra, Australia
9 University of Tampere, School of Management, Tampere, Finland
10 Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
Département Ecologie et Gestion de la Biodiversité, Brunoy, France
11 UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Ecological Modelling, Leipzig, Germany
12 Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
Département Ecologie et Gestion de la Biodiversité, Paris, France
13 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, 165 Prospect street, CT 06520 New Haven, U.S.A.
14 University of Oldenburg, Institute of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Oldenburg, Germany
15 University of Helsinki, Department of Environmental Sciences, Helsinki, Finland
16 University of Leeds, Institute of Integrative and Comparative Biology, Leads, UK
17 University of Debrecen, Department of Ecology, Debrecen, Hungary
18 National Taiwan University, Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan
19 Charles Sturt University, Institute for Land, Water and Society, Albury, Australia
20 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazonia, INPA, Manaus, Brazil
21 The Discipline of Environmental Sciences and Geography, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia
22 University of the Aegean, Department of Environmental Studies, Mytilini, Lesvos, Greece
23 Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, Brazil
24 Centre for Marine and Environmental Research and Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
25 Spatial Ecology Lab & Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, University of Queensland, Brisbane, 
26 Centre for Agri-Environmental Research, Reading University, Reading, UK
27 UFZ – Helmholtz Centre of Environmental Research, Department of Economics, Leipzig, Germany
28 Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
29 CSIRO Ecosystems Sciences, Canberra, Australia
30 SYKE, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland
31 Institut für Zoo- und Wildtierforschung, Berlin, Germany
32 Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biocenter, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
33 Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria
34 Lund University, Department of Physical Geography & Ecosystem Science, Lund, Sweden
35 Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, UK

Corresponding authors: Klaus Henle (, Lyubomir Penev (

received 6 March 2012 | accepted 12 March 2012 | Published 14 March 2012

(C) 2012 Klaus Henle. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 (CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

For reference, use of the paginated PDF or printed version of this article is recommended.


This Editorial presents the focus, scope and policies of the inaugural issue of Nature Conservation, a new open access, peer-reviewed journal bridging natural sciences, social sciences and hands-on applications in conservation management. The journal covers all aspects of nature conservation and aims particularly at facilitating better interaction between scientists and practitioners. The journal will impose no restrictions on manuscript size or the use of colour. We will use an XML-based editorial workflow and several cutting-edge innovations in publishing and information dissemination. These include semantic mark-up of, and enhancements to published text, data, and extensive cross-linking within the journal and to external sources. We believe the journal will make an important contribution to better linking science and practice, offers rapid, peer-reviewed and flexible publication for authors and unrestricted access to content.


Nature Conservation, biodiversity, conservation science, conservation policy, conservation management, semantic markup, semantic enhancements, data publishing


Nature conservation is an essential element in the cultural development of humans. Our approaches to protect nature are continuously changing with major implications for conservation science and hands-on, practical applications (Haila 2012). Humans have been extraordinarily successful in part because of our ability to manipulate ecological systems and the services they provide (Chapin et al. 2001). Yet, rapid population growth and growth in consumption, especially since the Industrial Revolution, have led to the substantial exploitation of Earth’s natural resources (Orr 2006). As a consequence, we are losing species and are causing detrimental changes to natural ecosystems at an unprecedented rate (Groombridge 1992, Kuussaari et al. 2009, Butchart et al. 2010). We are undermining the capacity of ecosystems to support human life (Daily 1997, MEA 2005, Garibaldi et al. 2011). There is good evidence that the loss of ecosystems and the services they provide have already contributed to the demise of some societies (Tainter 1988, Ehrlich and Ehrlich 2004, Diamond 2005). Threats to nature conservation occur at local to global scales, including trade globalization, climate change and land-use change. These processes are non-linear across scales and approaches to manage them often do not address the most relevant spatial or temporal scales and therefore are often inefficient or fail completely (Henle et al. 2010). Moreover, management actions are mostly driven by short-term economic or political interests that may only benefit certain sectors of society, rather than addressing broader-scale and longer-term nature conservation issues to the benefit of current and future generations.

Despite tremendous growth and progress in research on biodiversity (including nature conservation) (Fig. 1), increasing political commitments, such as the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Görg et al. 2010), and practical achievements, such as the major extension of the networks of protected areas across the world (World Database on Protected Areas, Evans 2012), we are far from achieving our targets in nature conservation (Walpole et al. 2009). Moreover, conservation targets are continuously shifting over time (Haila 2012). For example, there is currently a strong tendency to focus on ecosystem services in national and international strategies for biodiversity conservation, sometimes together with the belief that only such a focus can create a sufficiently high profile for conservation to bring it on par with other societal interests (e.g. development). Yet, others argue that this may be a dangerous approach because the modification and transformation of natural ecosystems for an improved delivery of specific ecosystem services can be a major contributor to the decline of natural ecosystems and their associated biota [see, for example, Skroch and López-Hoffman (2009) and Adams and Redford (2009) for opposing opinions].

Figure 1.

Increase in the number of publications in the field of biodiversity and nature conservation, created from the Web of Science using the string: Title = „biodiversity“ OR „nature conservation“ OR Topic =“biodiversity“ OR „nature conservation“.

While there is a current trend to use nature as service provider as a way of promoting conservation more broadly, other motivations can drive the development of conservation ethics and movements, including the emotional attachment of humans to nature (Leopold 1949, Haila 2012). And if we are successful, we often create new problems. For example, some species have returned to ranges from which they have been extirpated, for example, top-level carnivores that often create considerable conflicts among humans with different interests and ethics (White et al. 2009, Klenke et al. in press).

As a consequence, balancing anthropocentric and ecocentric views regarding nature conservation remains a major challenge for current research, policy and applied biodiversity conservation. A range of priority scientific questions (e.g. Sutherland et al. 2012) and unresolved policy and management issues have already been identified for the coming decades at the national (e.g. DEFRA 2011), European (EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy ttp://, and global levels (Aichi targets of the CBD

To be effective, research on natural resource management and conservation must be communicated to practitioners involved in hands-on conservation efforts and to policy makers. However, the results of scientific research are often not readily applied in management. Many applied conservation schemes do not reflect current research knowledge (e.g. Lynne et al. 2010). The “knowledge-implementation-gap” (Knight et al. 2008) is increasingly becoming obvious. As a consequence, the 10th Party of the Convention on Biological Diversity, in Nagoya October 2010, identified a strengthened link between science and policy as an explicit target ( This requires new alliances between science, economics, policy makers, and natural resource managers (Briggs and Knight 2011).

A major goal of the interdisciplinary journal Nature Conservation is to support synergistic interactions among scientists, policy-makers and managers. This is a practical task. The knowledge base of conservation biologists is already extensive, and the numbers of experienced practitioners are increasing around the world. The task is to bring different specialists together and create a forum that supports knowledgeable practices, and to learn from the experience – successes and failures – of all parties. The journal specifically aims at strengthening the link between science, policy and management by publishing timely, innovative papers with clear practical relevance.

The papers selected for the first volume of Nature Conservation largely reflect this vision. The paper by Evans (2012) provides background information on the development of the largest network of protected areas in the world, the European Union’s Natura 2000, and the process for assessing successes and gaps in the network. This may facilitate similar developments elsewhere in the world. The contribution by Haila (2012) highlights the continuously changing approaches to nature conservation and their dependence on societal and political backgrounds (called ‘Zeitgeist’). Based on these relationships, Haila recommends how to address current and future problems in nature conservation. The paper by Votsi et al. (2012) assesses the relationship between road networks and biodiversity in Natura 2000 areas in Greece, which contributes to our knowledge of the effectiveness of protected areas in this country and beyond. The final paper, Van Swaay et al. (2012), translates current knowledge on the conservation biology of butterflies into recommendations for the conservation and management of butterfly species listed in the Annexes of the European Habitats Directive.

Challenges of innovative publishing

The publication and dissemination of scientific information have reached conceptually new dimensions in the past decade. Although a large part of the scholarly literature is still published in the traditional manner (i.e. printed books and journals), publishers are increasingly moving towards entirely digital or a combined (conventional and digital) model for the publication of scientific data. Digital publishing is evolving rapidly in the area of ‘Open Access’, a model that is increasingly taking over from the ‘restricted access’ forms of publishing. There are many reasons for publishers to change their publication models, but this process is mainly driven by strong demands from the scientific community to publish in a format that allows quick discovery, integration, re-use and dissemination of the research data without any financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself (see for instance the Panton principles).

Pensoft is among the leading proponents of Open Access publishing of data relating to biodiversity. For this purpose, the company has developed a number of innovative products to support aggregation, interlinking, converting and the dissemination of published information, such as the publication platform TRIADA, Pensoft Mark-up Tool, Pensoft Wiki Converter, and Pensoft Taxon Profile. Several others are currently under development (Penev et al. 2010, Erwin et al. 2011). These technological innovations make it possible to link scientific information published in Pensoft’s journals to various related sources and automatically distribute it through community networks, wiki environments, and indexing and aggregation services. The maximal ‘Itemization’ of the content of scientific papers into various independently informative components, such as taxon treatments, locality records, habitat descriptions and others, ensures better integration, interlinking and dissemination of the research data. This has been one of the core elements in the company’s vision for technical development of the publication platform. In addition, recently Pensoft has invested considerable resources into developing a sustainable model for publication, dissemination and long-term preservation of data relating to biodiversity.

Nature Conservationis a new-generation journal and can be seen as a platform comprising both innovative algorithms and a routine medium for the publication of data related to biodiversity. As with most of Pensoft’s journals, Nature Conservation is based on cutting-edge Web 2.0 technologies, own content management software and XML-based editorial workflows. By providing a rapid and straightforward publication process, data publication options, and several tools for data sharing and integration, the journal is on the frontline of the present-day technological revolution in scholarly publishing and communication. In addition to “conventional” publication practices, the journal implements functionalities aimed at capturing, storing, integrating and disseminating information related to basic and applied conservation ecology and nature conservation. Nature Conservation adopts a multiple-choice data publishing model that enables the publication of data of different types and complexity as follows: (1) supplementary files published along with the perspective papers; (2) data files, submitted to data repositories as independent files and linked to the journal article for which they provide evidence; (3) data published through data repositories and aggregators, but indexed within larger databases (e.g., Genbank and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, GBIF); and (4) data published in the form of marked-up, structured and machine-readable texts. Datasets can also be published as independent papers in the form of peer-reviewed scholarly publications called “data papers” (Chavan and Penev 2011, Penev et al. 2009).

Focus and scope

The journal’s major characteristics include:

  • Open access to the published scientific content and a barrier-free environment for the dissemination of results
  • A rapid and straightforward publication process
  • Publication of articles in four different formats: (1) full-colour, high-resolution print version; (2) PDF for reference to the printed version and easy archiving; (3) HTML for easy reading, browsing and applying semantic enhancements to the text; and (4) XML to provide a machine-readable file for archiving and data mining
  • Semantic mark-up of and semantic enhancements to published texts using the TaxPub XML schema, an extension of the DTD (Document Type Definitions) of the National Library of Medicine (USA) (Catapano 2010, Penev et al. 2010, 2011) ensuring the enrichment of content via links to external sources and interlinking within the article body
  • Automated cross-linking through the Pensoft Taxon Profile with major indexing and aggregation platforms, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Encyclopedia of Life (EOL), the International Plant Name Index (IPNI), ZooBank, the National Center for Biodiversity Information (NCBI), Genbank and Barcode of Life, the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), Pub-Med, PubMedCentral, Mendeley, and many others
  • Publishing occurrence data and taxon checklists/inventories using the Darwin Core standard. This is supported by a specialized tool of GBIF, the Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT)
  • Infrastructure for the publication and indexing of data papers
  • Data communication strategy and workflow through an already established system of press releases and posts to social networks
  • No restriction in volume or usage of colour

One of the key features of Nature Conservation is a strong emphasis on the dissemination of published results. The journal’s contents will be harvested automatically by the Directory of the Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Citebank of the Biodiversity Heritage Library, BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine,, Scirus, Scientific Commons and other indexing platforms. From the very start, Nature Conservation will be submitted for indexing and coverage by ISI Web of Science, Scopus and PubMedCentral.

The journal will consider publishing the following types of manuscripts:

  • Original research articles
  • Comprehensive reviews, historical analyses, ecological modelling and scenarios
  • Monographs and collections of papers with no limit in size, published as ‘special issues’
  • Applied conservation papers
  • Short communications
  • Letters and Forum papers
  • Trend scanning papers
  • Datasets and Data papers
  • Web-based tools
  • Book reviews

Nature Conservation strongly encourages papers on ethical, social, economic, legal and policy issues related to the management and use of biodiversity and ecosystems. Authors or editors publishing large review papers, conference proceedings, Festschrift volumes, etc. will benefit from having ISBN numbers assigned to their work, providing in this way additional dissemination and promotion of the published data through the book industry network.

We are convinced that Nature Conservation will establish a new model of publishing and dissemination in basic and applied conservation ecology and nature conservation in general at various spatial, temporal and evolutionary scales, from populations to ecosystems and from microorganisms and fungi to higher plants and animals, taking advantage of exciting possibilities in the application of the semantic Web. The new technologies implemented in the journal will permit ecologists, conservationists and any other reader anywhere to harvest, within seconds, the most essential information (e.g., descriptions, images, maps, keys, gene sequences and references) on a taxon, locality, or even a specimen. Nature Conservation is committed to enhance the access to ecological data and to speed up the free dissemination of knowledge about life on Earth.


The journal Nature Conservation was established within the framework of the European Union's Framework Program 7 large-integrated project SCALES: Securing the Conservation of biodiversity across Administrative Levels and spatial, temporal, and Ecological Scales, (grant 226852; Henle et al. 2010).

Adams W, Redford KH (2009) Ecosystem services and conservation: a reply to Skroch and López-Hoffman. Conservation Biology 24: 328-329. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01417.x
Briggs SV, Knight AT (2011) Science-policy interface: scientific input limited. Science 333: 696-697. doi: 10.1126/science.333.6043.696-b
Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REABaillie JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J, Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC, Dentener F, Foster M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P, Gregory RD, Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque J-F, Leverington F, Loh J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Morcillo MH, Oldfield TEE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR, Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vié J-C, Watson R (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328: 1164-1168. doi: 10.1126/science.1187512
Catapano T (2010) TaxPub: an extension of the NLM/NCBI journal publishing DTD for taxonomic descriptions. Proceedings of the Journal Article Tag Suite Conference 2010.
Chapin FS, Sala OE, Huber-Sannwald E (2001) Global Biodiversity in a Changing Environment: Scenarios for the 21st Century. Springer-Verlag, New York. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-0157-8
Chavan V, Penev L (2011) The data paper: a mechanism to incentivize data publishing in biodiversity science. BMC Bioinformatics, 12 (Suppl 15): S2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-S15-S2
Daily GC (1997) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, 392 pp.
DEFRA (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, London, 45 pp.
Diamond J (2005) Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking, New York.
Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (2004) One with Nineveh. Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Erwin T, Stoev P, Georgiev T, Penev L (2011) ZooKeys 150: three and a half years of innovative publishing and growth. In: Smith V, Penev L (Eds). e-Infrastructures for Data Publishing in Biodiversity Science. ZooKeys 150: 5–14. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.150.2431
Evans D (2012) Building the European Union’s Natura 2000 network. Nature Conservation 1: 11-26. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.1.1808
Garibaldi LA, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kremen C, Morales JM, Bommarco R, Cunningham SA, Carvalheiro LG, Chacoff NP, Dudenhöffer JH, Greenleaf SS, Holzschuh A, Isaacs R, Krewenka K, Mandelik Y, Mayfield MM, Morandin LA, Potts SG, Ricketts TH, Szentgyörgyi H, Viana BF, Westphal C, Winfree R, Klein AM (2011) Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecology Letters 14: 1062-1072. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01669.x
Görg C, Nesshöver C, Paulsch A (2010) IPBES - A new link between biodiversity science and policy. GAIA 19/3: 183–186.
Groombridge B (1992) Global Biodiversity. Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. Chapman & Hall, London.
Haila Y (2012) Genealogy of nature conservation: a political perspective. Nature Conservation 1: 27-52. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.1.2107
Henle K, Kunin WE, Schweiger O, Schmeller DS, Grobelnik V, Matsinos Y, Pantis J, Penev L, Potts SG, Ring I, Similä J, Tzanopoulos J, van den Hove S, Baguette M, Clobert J, Excoffier L, Framstad E, Grodinska-Jurczak M, Lengyel S, Marty P, Moilanen A, Porcher E, Storch D, Steffan-Dewenter I, Sykes MT, Zobel M, Settele J (2010) Securing the conservation of biodiversity across administrative levels and spatial, temporal, and ecological scales. GAIA 19/3: 187–193.
Klenke R, Ring I, Kranz A, Jepsen N, Rauschmayer F, Henle K (in press) Human Wildlife Conflicts in Europe – Fisheries and Fish-eating Vertebrates as a Model Case. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Knight AT, Cowling RM, Rouget M, Balmford A, Lombard AT, Campbell BM (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22: 610-617. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00914.x
Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen RK, Helm A, Krauss J, Lindborg R, Öckinger E, Pärtel M, Pino J, Rodà F, Stefanescu C, Teder T, Zobel M, Steffan-Dewenter I (2009) Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 24: 564-571. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.011
Leopold A (1949) A Sand Country Almanac, and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, New York, 266 pp.
Lynne G-N, Ryan W, Stevens JR, Beard KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conservation Biology 24: 660-668. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01450.x
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, 100 pp.
Orr DW (2006) The trial. Conservation Biology 20: 1570-1573. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00597.x
Penev L, Erwin T, Miller J, Chavan V, Moritz T, Griswold C (2009) Publication and dissemination of datasets in taxonomy: ZooKeys working example. ZooKeys 11: 1-8. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.11.210
Penev L, Agosti D, Georgiev T, Catapano T, Miller J, Blagoderov V, Roberts D, Smith VS, Brake I, Ryrcroft S, Scott B, Johnson NF, Morris RA, Sautter G, Chavan V, Robertson T, Remsen D, Stoev P, Parr C, Knapp S, Kress WJ, Thompson FC, Erwin T (2010) Semantic tagging of and semantic enhancements to systematics papers. ZooKeys working example. ZooKeys 50: 1-16. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.50.538
Penev L, Lyal C, Weitzman A, Morse D, King D, Sautter G, Georgiev T, Morris R, Catapano T, Agosti D (2011) XML schemas and mark-up practices of taxonomic literature. ZooKeys 150: 89-116. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.150.2213
Skroch M, López-Hoffman L (2009) Saving nature under the big tent of ecosystem services: a response to Adams and Redford. Conservation Biology 24: 325-327. doi: 10.1111/j.1523–1739.2009.01416.x
Sutherland WJ, Aveling R, Bennun L, Chapman E, Clout M, Côté IC, Depledge MH, Dicks LV, Dobson AP, Fellman L, Fleishman E, Gibbons DW, Keim B, Lickorish F, Lindenmayer DB, Monk KA, Norris K, Peck LS, Prior SV, Scharlemann JPW, Spalding M, Watkinson AR (2012) A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2012. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 27: 12-18. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.10.011
Tainter JA (1988) The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
van Swaay C, Collins C, Dušej G, Maes D, Munguira ML, Rakosy L, Ryrholm N, Šašić M, Settele J, Thomas J, Verovnik R, Verstrael T, Warren M, Wiemers M, Wynhoff I (2012) Dos and Don'ts for butterflies of the Habitats Directive of the European Union. Nature Conservation 1: 73-153. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.1.2786
Votsi N-E, Mazaris AD, Kallimanis AS, Zomeni MS, Vogiatzakis IN, Sgardelis SP, Pantis JD (2012) Road effects on habitat richness of the Greek Natura 2000 network. Nature Conservation 1: 53-71. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.1.2086
Walpole M, Almond REA, Besançon C, Butchart SHM, Campbell-Lendrum D, Carr GM, D, Carr GM, Collen B, Collette L, Davidson NC, Dulloo E, Fazel AM, Galloway JM, Gill M, Goverse T, Hockings M, Leaman DJ, Morgan DHW, Revenga C, Rickwood CJ, Schutyser F, Simons S, Stattersfield AJ, Tyrrell TD, Vié J-C (2009) Tracking progress toward the 2010 biodiversity target and beyond. Science 325: 1503-1504. doi: 10.1126/science.1175466
White RM, Fischer A, Marshall K, Travis JMJ, Webb TJ, di Falco S, Redpath SM, van der Wal R (2009). Developing an integrated conceptual framework to understand biodiversity conflicts. Land Use Policy 26: 242-253. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.03.005