As suggested in the paper, the demonstration of the existence of two well-differentiated lineages

within Iberia would lead to recommendations aimed at preventing restocking between lineages. However, unless all restocking were GDC-0449 price stopped, even for preventive isolation between lineages, we need to rely on geographical limits. Our on-going research is clarifying the situation, PFT�� cell line and reveals that it is only West haplogroup that strongly differs from the rest of the populations in Spain. Thus, our advice to managers and pertinent authorities, is not to use the precise geographic limits for lineages outlined in the Fernández-García et al. paper, but to implement management and conservation measures for red deer in Iberia after the additional research has come to publication. There are also other minor modifications in the paper that

should have been attended too: (1) The current address of Carranza should have been corrected; (2) In acknowledgments add “We also thank our technician S. Martin Valle for laboratory work, and members of the Biology and Ethology Group at the University of Extremadura for their help. The Fundación Biodiversidad from the Spanish Ministry of the Environment and the Regional Government of Extremadura also contributed financial support to the early stages of the study”; and (3) We also regret some typographical errors not corrected in proof. Reference Fernández-García JL, Carranza J, Martínez Ricolinostat mouse JG, Randi E (2014) Mitochondrial D-loop phylogeny signals two native Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus) populations genetically different to western and eastern

European red deer and infers human-mediated translocations. Biodiv Conserv. doi:10.​1007/​s10531-013-0585-2″
“Introduction Biodiversity continues Cisplatin research buy to be lost at an alarming rate (Pereira et al. 2010). Our knowledge of biodiversity status and trends, and the drivers of change, has increased markedly and is highlighting where action is needed to improve biodiversity conservation efforts (e.g. Brooks et al. 2006). However, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity continues to be allocated low importance compared to other policy challenges, leading to a perception that research on biodiversity is still under-used in decision-making and implementation (Spierenburg 2012). Many initiatives already exist to tackle this perceived underuse of scientific knowledge. However, their design—and expectations of what they will achieve—often reflect an understanding of science-policy interfaces only as an overly simple process of transferring neutral facts to solve problems perceived by policy-makers (the ‘linear model’) (Nutley et al. 2007). There is ample evidence that transforming scientific evidence into ‘usable knowledge’ is neither automatic nor straightforward (Haas 2004; Knight et al. 2010; McNie 2007; Ozawa 1996; Rosenberg 2007). Indeed, as Vogel et al.