English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In 2008, the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted seven criteria for identifying ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) for biodiversity conservation. Nine international workshops were held in which 209 areas and 38 potential areas were identified as meeting the EBSA criteria. This study analyzes the 209 identified areas and reveals that the use of the seven criteria in different workshops differed, so their scores are therefore not quantifiable. Furthermore, descriptions specific to criteria regarding areas having “special importance for the life-history stages of species” accounted for only 1.44% of the overall descriptions. Most descriptions regarding “vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity, or slow recovery” were almost contributed by the “importance of threatened, endangered, or declining species and/or habitats”. These three criteria were based on scientific evidences and have been widely accepted by the public. Therefore, we would suggest the criteria of “special importance for the life-history stages of species” and the criteria of “vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity, or slow recovery” need further investigation for biodiversity conservation.

Short Comments on the Application of Criteria for Identifying Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs)