Return to Wildland Fire
Return to Northern Bobwhite site
Return to Working Lands for Wildlife site
Return to Working Lands for Wildlife site
Return to SE Firemap
Return to the Landscape Partnership Literature Gateway Website
RETURN TO LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP SITE
return to main site

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sections

Personal tools

You are here: Home / Expertise Search / Rhodes, Jessica

Search results

RSS Subscribe to an always-updated RSS feed.

146 items matching your search terms.
Filter the results.
Item type
























New items since



Sort by relevance · date (newest first) · alphabetically
Image Ruby script Map of Federally Listed Aquatic Species in Virginia Portion of UTRB
by Jessica Rhodes — published Apr 10, 2015 — last modified Jun 02, 2025 01:11 PM — filed under: , , , ,
Map depicting listed and candidate aquatic species in the Upper Tennessee hydrologic sub-unit of Virginia.
Located in Maps
Image Map of Federally Listed Species within the UTRB in Tennessee
by Jessica Rhodes — published Apr 10, 2015 — last modified Jun 02, 2025 01:11 PM — filed under: , , , , ,
Map of Listed and candidate aquatic species in the Upper Tennessee hydrologic sub-unit of Tennessee.
Located in Maps
Image Octet Stream Map of Federally Listed Species within the UTRB in North Carolina
by Jessica Rhodes — published Apr 10, 2015 — last modified Jan 21, 2016 11:04 AM — filed under: , ,
Map of Listed and candidate aquatic species in the Upper Tennessee hydrologic sub-unit of North Carolina.
Located in Maps
Image Ruby script Map of Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Fish in the UTRB
by Jessica Rhodes — published Apr 14, 2015 — last modified Jun 02, 2025 01:11 PM — filed under: , , ,
Map depicting the number of listed, proposed, and candidate fish species within each 12-digit HUC within the Upper Tennessee River Basin. Occurrences include extant and historical records. Areas within the UTRB boundary not shaded by a color denoted in the key have no records of imperiled fish species occurrences.
Located in Maps
Image Ruby script Map of Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Mussels in the UTRB
by Jessica Rhodes — published Apr 14, 2015 — last modified Jun 02, 2025 01:11 PM — filed under: , , ,
Map depicting the number of listed, proposed, and candidate mussel species within each 12-digit HUC within the Upper Tennessee River Basin. Occurrences include extant and historical records. Areas within the UTRB boundary not shaded by a color in the key have no records of imperiled mussel species occurrences.
Located in Maps
Image Ruby script Map of Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Fish and Mussels in the UTRB
by Jessica Rhodes — published Apr 14, 2015 — last modified Jun 02, 2025 01:11 PM — filed under: , , , ,
Map depicting the number of listed, proposed, and candidate fish and mussel species within each 12-digit HUC within the Upper Tennessee River Basin. Occurrences include extant and historical records. Areas within the UTRB boundary not shaded by a color in the key have no records of imperiled fish and mussel species occurrences.
Located in Maps
File Plan for the Population Restoration and Conservation of Imperiled Freshwater Mollusks of the Cumberland Region
by Jessica Rhodes — published Jun 22, 2015 — last modified Jun 02, 2025 01:11 PM — filed under: , , ,
The goal of this Plan is to provide a framework for the restoration of freshwater mollusk resources and their ecological functions to appropriate reaches of the Cumberlandian Region through the reintroduction, augmentation (R/A) and controlled propagation of priority mollusks. The Plan prioritizes propagation and R/A activities for Region mollusks and provides guidelines for resource managers and recovery partners. The Plan is not a legal document and is not intended to replace or supersede published recovery plans for listed mollusks.
Located in Reports & Documents
File Conservation in the face of climate change: The roles of alternative models, monitoring, and adaptation in confronting and reducing uncertainty
by Jessica Rhodes — published Jun 22, 2015 — filed under: , , , ,
The broad physical and biological principles behind climate change and its potential large scale ecological impacts on biota are fairly well understood, although likely responses of biotic communities at fine spatio-temporal scales are not, limiting the ability of conservation programs to respond effectively to climate change outside the range of human experience. Much of the climate debate has focused on attempts to resolve key uncertainties in a hypothesis-testing framework. However, conservation decisions cannot await resolution of these scientific issues and instead must proceed in the face of uncertainty. We suggest that conservation should precede in an adaptive management framework, in which decisions are guided by predictions under multiple, plausible hypotheses about climate impacts. Under this plan, monitoring is used to evaluate the response of the system to climate drivers, and management actions (perhaps experimental) are used to confront testable predictions with data, in turn providing feedback for future decision making. We illustrate these principles with the problem of mitigating the effects of climate change on terrestrial bird communities in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA.
Located in Reports & Documents
File Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting
by Jessica Rhodes — published Jun 22, 2015 — filed under: , ,
A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well-established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill- defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations.
Located in Reports & Documents
File C header Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research
by Jessica Rhodes — published Jun 22, 2015 — filed under: ,
Practicing ecologists who excel at their work (‘‘experts’’) hold a wealth of knowledge. This knowledge offers a wide range of opportunities for application in ecological research and natural resource decision-making. While experts are often consulted ad-hoc, their contributions are not widely acknowledged. These informal applications of expert knowledge lead to concerns about a lack of transparency and repeatability, causing distrust of this knowledge source in the scientific community. Here, we address these concerns with an exploration of the diversity of expert knowledge and of rigorous methods in its use. The effective use of expert knowledge hinges on an awareness of the spectrum of experts and their expertise, which varies by breadth of perspective and critical assessment. Also, experts express their knowledge in different forms depending on the degree of contextualization with other information. Careful matching of experts to application is therefore essential and has to go beyond a simple fitting of the expert to the knowledge domain. The standards for the collection and use of expert knowledge should be as rigorous as for empirical data. This involves knowing when it is appropriate to use expert knowledge and how to identify and select suitable experts. Further, it requires a careful plan for the collection, analysis and validation of the knowledge. The knowledge held by expert practitioners is too valuable to be ignored. But only when thorough methods are applied, can the application of expert knowledge be as valid as the use of empirical data. The responsibility for the effective and rigorous use of expert knowledge lies with the researchers.
Located in Reports & Documents