Special Issue "Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands"

A special issue of Land (ISSN 2073-445X).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 November 2016)

Printed Edition Available!
A printed edition of this Special Issue is available here.

Special Issue Editors

Guest Editor
Prof. Dr. Jeffrey Sayer

Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver , British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada
Website | E-Mail
Interests: integrated natural resources management; conservation and development practice; forest conservation; capacity building
Guest Editor
Prof. Chris Margules

Center for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, College of Marine and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, PO Box 6811 Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia and Research Center for Climate Change, University of Indonesia, Kota Depok, Java Barat 16424, Indonesia
Website | E-Mail
Interests: integrated social-ecological systems; conservation and development trade-offs; systematic conservation planning; landscape ecology

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The “landscape Approach” is widely promoted as a way to reconcile biodiversity conservation with both commercial agriculture and local peoples’ demands for land [1,2]. Landscape approaches imply a strong role for local communities in decision making and, therefore, local citizen science plays a role in determining landscape outcomes (Sayer et al., under review). Many claims and counter claims are made about the success and failure of local management in achieving good forest outcomes. There is significant uncertainty about the incentives for local people to manage forests for their global carbon storage and biodiversity values. Local people may be more concerned about immediate economic returns and less about the long term global environmental values of their forests [3].

This Special Issue seeks to assemble papers that provide empirical evidence for the success of landscape and community managed initiatives to conserve biodiversity. We are seeking papers that report upon successful biodiversity conservation projects that have operated at a landscape scale and those that have been led by local communities. We are also interested in cases where these approaches were attempted but were less successful. Our ultimate goals is to identify the conditions under which these approaches have succeeded and those where they have been less successful.

Papers will be considered from all regions of the world, but we are especially interested in studies from tropical developing countries. Tropical countries are at present experiencing a surge of attempts to place forests under local management and to attempt landscape approaches to addressing some of the challenges. We seek to document these trends and learn the lessons of their successes and failures.

  1. Milder, J.C.; Buck, L.E.; DeClerck, F.; Scherr, S.J. Landscape approaches to achieving food production, natural resource conservation, and the millennium development goals. In Integrating ecology and poverty reduction, Springer: 2012; pp 77-108.
  2. Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.-L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013, 110, 8349-8356.
  3. Sayer, J.; Elliott, C.; Barrow, E.; Gretzinger, S.; Maginnis, S.; McShane, T.; Shepherd, G.; Colfer, C.; Capistrano, D. Implications for biodiversity conservation of decentralized forest resources management. Politics of Decentralization: Forests, People and Power 2005, 121-137.

Prof. Dr. Jeff Sayer
Prof. Chris Margules
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Land is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 750 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Published Papers (12 papers)

View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-12
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

Open AccessArticle Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands
Received: 2 May 2017 / Revised: 30 May 2017 / Accepted: 11 June 2017 / Published: 15 June 2017
Cited by 1 | PDF Full-text (160 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Decentralizing natural resource management to local people, especially in tropical countries, has become a trend. We review recent evidence for the impacts of decentralization on the biodiversity values of forests and forested landscapes, which encompass most of the biodiversity of the tropics. Few [...] Read more.
Decentralizing natural resource management to local people, especially in tropical countries, has become a trend. We review recent evidence for the impacts of decentralization on the biodiversity values of forests and forested landscapes, which encompass most of the biodiversity of the tropics. Few studies document the impact of decentralized management on biodiversity. We conclude that there may be situations where local management is a good option for biodiversity but there are also situations where this is not the case. We advocate increased research to document the impact of local management on biodiversity. We also argue that locally managed forests should be seen as components of landscapes where governance arrangements favor the achievement of a balance between the local livelihood values and the global public goods values of forests. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Open AccessArticle Do Community-Managed Forests Work? A Biodiversity Perspective
Received: 3 January 2017 / Revised: 10 March 2017 / Accepted: 17 March 2017 / Published: 27 March 2017
Cited by 7 | PDF Full-text (202 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Community-managed reserves (CMRs) comprise the fastest-growing category of protected areas throughout the tropics. CMRs represent a compromise between advocates of nature conservation and advocates of human development. We ask whether CMRs succeed in achieving the goals of either. A fixed reserve area can [...] Read more.
Community-managed reserves (CMRs) comprise the fastest-growing category of protected areas throughout the tropics. CMRs represent a compromise between advocates of nature conservation and advocates of human development. We ask whether CMRs succeed in achieving the goals of either. A fixed reserve area can produce only a finite resource supply, whereas human populations exploiting them tend to expand rapidly while adopting high-impact technologies to satisfy rising aspirations. Intentions behind the establishment of CMRs may be admirable, but represent an ideal rarely achieved. People tied to the natural forest subsist on income levels that are among the lowest in the Amazon. Limits of sustainable harvesting are often low and rarely known prior to reserve creation or respected thereafter, and resource exhaustion predictably follows. Unintended consequences typically emerge, such as overhunting of the seed dispersers, pollinators, and other animals that provide services essential to perpetuating the forest. CMRs are a low priority for governments, so mostly operate without enforcement, a laxity that encourages illegal forest conversion. Finally, the pull of markets can alter the “business plan” of a reserve overnight, as inhabitants switch to new activities. The reality is that we live in a hyperdynamic world of accelerating change in which past assumptions must continually be re-evaluated. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Open AccessArticle Can Community Forests Be Compatible With Biodiversity Conservation in Indonesia?
Received: 19 January 2017 / Revised: 21 February 2017 / Accepted: 5 March 2017 / Published: 14 March 2017
Cited by 2 | PDF Full-text (556 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Forest lands in Indonesia are classified as state lands and subject to management under agreements allocated by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. There has been a long-standing tension between the ministry and local communities who argue that they have traditionally managed large [...] Read more.
Forest lands in Indonesia are classified as state lands and subject to management under agreements allocated by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. There has been a long-standing tension between the ministry and local communities who argue that they have traditionally managed large areas of forest and should be allowed to continue to do so. A series of recent legal and administrative decisions are now paving the way for the allocation of forests to local communities. There is a hypothesis that the communities will protect the forests against industrial conversion and that they will also conserve biodiversity. This hypothesis needs to be closely examined. Conservation of biodiversity and management for local benefits are two different and potentially conflicting objectives. This paper reviews examples of forests managed by local communities in Indonesia and concludes that there is very limited information available on the conservation of natural biodiversity in these forests. I conclude that more information is needed on the status of biodiversity in community managed forests. When forests are allocated for local management, special measures need to be in place to ensure that biodiversity values are monitored and maintained. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle Estate Crops More Attractive than Community Forests in West Kalimantan, Indonesia
Received: 19 January 2017 / Revised: 19 January 2017 / Accepted: 4 February 2017 / Published: 8 February 2017
Cited by 4 | PDF Full-text (3685 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Smallholder farmers and indigenous communities must cope with the opportunities and threats presented by rapidly spreading estate crops in the frontier of the agricultural market economy. Smallholder communities are subject to considerable speculation by outsiders, yet large-scale agriculture presents tradeoffs that they must [...] Read more.
Smallholder farmers and indigenous communities must cope with the opportunities and threats presented by rapidly spreading estate crops in the frontier of the agricultural market economy. Smallholder communities are subject to considerable speculation by outsiders, yet large-scale agriculture presents tradeoffs that they must navigate. We initiated a study in Sintang, West Kalimantan in 2012 and have returned annually for the last four years, building the baselines for a longer-term landscape approach to reconciling conservation and development tradeoffs in situ. Here, the stakeholders are heterogeneous, yet the land cover of the landscape is on a trajectory towards homogenous mono-cropping systems, primarily either palm oil or rubber. In one village on the frontier of the agricultural market economy, natural forests remain managed by the indigenous and local community but economics further intrude on forest use decisions. Conservation values are declining and the future of the forest is uncertain. As such, the community is ultimately attracted to more economically attractive uses of the land for local development oil palm or rubber mono-crop farms. We identify poverty as a threat to community-managed conservation success in the face of economic pressures to convert forest to intensive agriculture. We provide evidence that lucrative alternatives will challenge community-managed forests when prosperity seems achievable. To alleviate this trend, we identify formalized traditional management and landscape governance solutions to nurture a more sustainable landscape transition. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle Conservation Benefits of Tropical Multifunctional Land-Uses in and Around a Forest Protected Area of Bangladesh
Received: 16 November 2016 / Revised: 24 December 2016 / Accepted: 26 December 2016 / Published: 1 January 2017
Cited by 3 | PDF Full-text (4027 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Competing interests in land for agriculture and commodity production in tropical human-dominated landscapes make forests and biodiversity conservation particularly challenging. Establishment of protected areas in this regard is not functioning as expected due to exclusive ecological focus and poor recognition of local people’s [...] Read more.
Competing interests in land for agriculture and commodity production in tropical human-dominated landscapes make forests and biodiversity conservation particularly challenging. Establishment of protected areas in this regard is not functioning as expected due to exclusive ecological focus and poor recognition of local people’s traditional forest use and dependence. In recent years, multifunctional land-use systems such as agroforestry have widely been promoted as an efficient land-use in such circumstances, although their conservation effectiveness remains poorly investigated. We undertake a rapid biodiversity survey to understand the conservation value of four contrasting forms of local land-use, namely: betel leaf (Piper betle) agroforestry; lemon (Citrus limon) agroforestry; pineapple (Ananas comosus) agroforestry; and, shifting cultivation–fallow managed largely by the indigenous communities in and around a highly diverse forest protected area of Bangladesh. We measure the alpha and beta diversity of plants, birds, and mammals in these multifunctional land-uses, as well as in the old-growth secondary forest in the area. Our study finds local land-use critical in conserving biodiversity in the area, with comparable biodiversity benefits as those of the old-growth secondary forest. In Bangladesh, where population pressure and rural people’s dependence on forests are common, multifunctional land-uses in areas of high conservation priority could potentially be used to bridge the gap between conservation and commodity production, ensuring that the ecological integrity of such landscapes will be altered as little as possible. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle Large-Scale Mapping of Tree-Community Composition as a Surrogate of Forest Degradation in Bornean Tropical Rain Forests
Received: 27 July 2016 / Revised: 1 December 2016 / Accepted: 6 December 2016 / Published: 11 December 2016
Cited by 6 | PDF Full-text (1948 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
Assessment of the progress of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the safeguarding of ecosystems from the perverse negative impacts caused by Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+) requires the development of spatiotemporally [...] Read more.
Assessment of the progress of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the safeguarding of ecosystems from the perverse negative impacts caused by Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+) requires the development of spatiotemporally robust and sensitive indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem health. Recently, it has been proposed that tree-community composition based on count-plot surveys could serve as a robust, sensitive, and cost-effective indicator for forest intactness in Bornean logged-over rain forests. In this study, we developed an algorithm to map tree-community composition across the entire landscape based on Landsat imagery. We targeted six forest management units (FMUs), each of which ranged from 50,000 to 100,000 ha in area, covering a broad geographic range spanning the most area of Borneo. Approximately fifty 20 m-radius circular plots were established in each FMU, and the differences in tree-community composition at a genus level among plots were examined for trees with diameter at breast height ≥10 cm using an ordination with non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS). Subsequently, we developed a linear regression model based on Landsat metrics (e.g., reflectance value, vegetation indices and textures) to explain the nMDS axis-1 scores of the plots, and extrapolated the model to the landscape to establish a tree-community composition map in each FMU. The adjusted R2 values based on a cross-validation approach between the predicted and observed nMDS axis-1 scores indicated a close correlation, ranging from 0.54 to 0.69. Histograms of the frequency distributions of extrapolated nMDS axis-1 scores were derived from each map and used to quantitatively diagnose the forest intactness of the FMUs. Our study indicated that tree-community composition, which was reported as a robust indicator of forest intactness, could be mapped at a landscape level to quantitatively assess the spatial patterns of intactness in Bornean rain forests. Our approach can be used for large-scale assessments of tree diversity and forest intactness to monitor both the progress of Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the effectiveness of REDD+ biodiversity safeguards in production forests in the tropics. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle Accounting for the Drivers that Degrade and Restore Landscape Functions in Australia
Received: 25 July 2016 / Revised: 5 October 2016 / Accepted: 4 November 2016 / Published: 12 November 2016
Cited by 6 | PDF Full-text (8064 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
Assessment and reporting of changes in vegetation condition at site and landscape scales is critical for land managers, policy makers and planers at local, regional and national scales. Land management, reflecting individual and collective values, is used to show historic changes in ecosystem [...] Read more.
Assessment and reporting of changes in vegetation condition at site and landscape scales is critical for land managers, policy makers and planers at local, regional and national scales. Land management, reflecting individual and collective values, is used to show historic changes in ecosystem structure, composition and function (regenerative capacity). We address the issue of how the resilience of plant communities changes over time as a result of land management regimes. A systematic framework for assessing changes in resilience based on measurable success criteria and indicators is applied using 10 case studies across the range of Australia’s agro-climate regions. A simple graphical report card is produced for each site showing drivers of change and trends relative to a reference state (i.e., natural benchmark). These reports enable decision makers to quickly understand and assimilate complex ecological processes and their effects on landscape degradation, restoration and regeneration. We discuss how this framework assists decision-makers explain and describe pathways of native vegetation that is managed for different outcomes, including maintenance, replacement, removal and recovery at site and landscape levels. The findings provide sound spatial and temporal insights into reconciling agriculture, conservation and other competing land uses. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration
Received: 2 August 2016 / Revised: 25 October 2016 / Accepted: 2 November 2016 / Published: 10 November 2016
Cited by 6 | PDF Full-text (634 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Drawing on a survey of large-scale ecological restoration initiatives, we find that managers face contradictory demands. On the one hand, they have to raise funds from a variety of sources through competitive procedures for individual projects. These projects require the specification of deliverable [...] Read more.
Drawing on a survey of large-scale ecological restoration initiatives, we find that managers face contradictory demands. On the one hand, they have to raise funds from a variety of sources through competitive procedures for individual projects. These projects require the specification of deliverable outputs within a relatively short project period. On the other hand, ecologists argue that the complexity of ecosystem processes means that it is not possible to know how to deliver predetermined outcomes and that governance should be adaptive, long-term and implemented through networks of stakeholders. This debate parallels a debate in public administration between New Public Management and more recent proposals for a new approach, sometimes termed Public Value Management. Both of these approaches have strengths. Projectification provides control and accountability to funders. Adaptive governance recognises complexity and provides for long-term learning, building networks and adaptive responses. We suggest an institutional architecture that aims to capture the major benefits of each approach based on public support dedicated to ecological restoration and long-term funding programmes. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle The Community-Conservation Conundrum: Is Citizen Science the Answer?
Received: 8 August 2016 / Revised: 21 October 2016 / Accepted: 25 October 2016 / Published: 31 October 2016
Cited by 3 | PDF Full-text (1172 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Public participation theory assumes that empowering communities leads to enduring support for new initiatives. The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, approved in 2000, embraces this assumption and includes goals for community involvement in resolving threats to native flora and fauna. Over the last 20 [...] Read more.
Public participation theory assumes that empowering communities leads to enduring support for new initiatives. The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, approved in 2000, embraces this assumption and includes goals for community involvement in resolving threats to native flora and fauna. Over the last 20 years, community-based ecological restoration groups have proliferated, with between 600 and 4000 identified. Many of these groups control invasive mammals, and often include protection of native species and species reintroductions as goals. Such activities involve the groups in “wicked” problems with uncertain biological and social outcomes, plus technical challenges for implementing and measuring results. The solution might be to develop a citizen science approach, although this requires institutional support. We conducted a web-based audit of 50 community groups participating in ecological restoration projects in northern New Zealand. We found great variation in the quality of information provided by the groups, with none identifying strategic milestones and progress towards them. We concluded that, at best, many group members are accidental scientists rather than citizen scientists. Furthermore, the way community efforts are reflected in biodiversity responses is often unclear. The situation may be improved with a new approach to data gathering, training, and analyses. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle Terrestrial Species in Protected Areas and Community-Managed Lands in Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India
Received: 19 August 2016 / Revised: 12 October 2016 / Accepted: 20 October 2016 / Published: 26 October 2016
Cited by 1 | PDF Full-text (1529 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Protected areas (including areas that are nominally fully protected and those managed for multiple uses) encompass about a quarter of the total tropical forest estate. Despite growing interest in the relative value of community-managed lands and protected areas, knowledge about the biodiversity value [...] Read more.
Protected areas (including areas that are nominally fully protected and those managed for multiple uses) encompass about a quarter of the total tropical forest estate. Despite growing interest in the relative value of community-managed lands and protected areas, knowledge about the biodiversity value that each sustains remains scarce in the biodiversity-rich tropics. We investigated the species occurrence of a suite of mammal and pheasant species across four protected areas and nearby community-managed lands in a biodiversity hotspot in northeast India. Over 2.5 years we walked 98 transects (half of which were resampled on a second occasion) across the four paired sites. In addition, we interviewed 84 key informants to understand their perceptions of species trends in these two management regimes. We found that protected areas had higher overall species richness and were important for species that were apparently declining in occurrence. On a site-specific basis, community-managed lands had species richness and occurrences comparable to those of a protected area, and in one case their relative abundances of mammals were higher. Interviewees indicated declines in the abundances of larger-bodied species in community-managed lands. Their observations agreed with our field surveys for certain key, large-bodied species, such as gaur and sambar, which generally occurred less in community-managed lands. Hence, the degree to which protected areas and community-managed lands protect wildlife species depends upon the species in question, with larger-bodied species usually faring better within protected areas. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

Open AccessReview Will Biodiversity Be Conserved in Locally-Managed Forests?
Received: 16 November 2016 / Revised: 28 December 2016 / Accepted: 9 January 2017 / Published: 13 January 2017
Cited by 2 | PDF Full-text (184 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Recent decades have seen a rapid movement towards decentralising forest rights and tenure to local communities and indigenous groups in both developing and developed nations. Attribution of local and community rights to forests appears to be gathering increasing momentum in many tropical developing [...] Read more.
Recent decades have seen a rapid movement towards decentralising forest rights and tenure to local communities and indigenous groups in both developing and developed nations. Attribution of local and community rights to forests appears to be gathering increasing momentum in many tropical developing countries. Greater local control of forest resources is a response to the failure of government agencies to exercise adequate stewardship over forests and to ensure that the values of all stakeholders are adequately protected. We reviewed evidence of the impact of decentralised forest management on the biodiversity values of forests and conclude that special measures are needed to protect these values. There are trade-offs between shorter-term local needs for forest lands and products and longer-term global needs for biodiversity and other environmental values. We present evidence of local forest management leading to declining forest integrity with negative impacts on both local forest users and the global environment. We advocate greater attention to measures to ensure protection of biodiversity in locally-managed forests. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Open AccessReview Evidence for Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Landscapes
Received: 20 September 2016 / Revised: 25 October 2016 / Accepted: 26 October 2016 / Published: 4 November 2016
Cited by 6 | PDF Full-text (210 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
A growing number of protected areas are defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as protected landscapes and seascapes, or category V protected areas, one of six protected area categories based on management approach. Category V now makes up [...] Read more.
A growing number of protected areas are defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as protected landscapes and seascapes, or category V protected areas, one of six protected area categories based on management approach. Category V now makes up over half the protected area coverage in Europe, for instance. While the earliest category V areas were designated mainly for their landscape and recreational values, they are increasingly expected also to protect biodiversity. Critics have claimed that they fail to conserve enough biodiversity. The current paper addresses this question by reviewing available evidence for the effectiveness of category V in protecting wild biodiversity by drawing on published information and a set of case studies. Research to date focuses more frequently on changes in vegetation cover than on species, and results are limited and contradictory, suggesting variously that category V protected areas are better than, worse than or the same as more strictly protected categories in terms of conserving biodiversity. This may indicate that differences are not dramatic, or that effectiveness depends on many factors. The need for greater research in this area is highlighted. Research gaps include: (i) comparative studies of conservation success inside and outside category V protected areas; (ii) the contribution that small, strictly protected areas make to the conservation success of surrounding, less strictly protected areas—and vice versa; (iii) the effectiveness of different governance approaches in category V; (iv) a clearer understanding of the impacts of zoning in a protected area; and (v) better understanding of how to implement landscape approaches in and around category V protected areas. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands) Printed Edition available
Land EISSN 2073-445X Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top