The case for fencing remains intact

Craig Packer; A. Swanson; S. Canney; A. Loveridge; S. Garnett; M. Pfeifer; A. C. Burton; H. Bauer; D. Macnulty

doi:10.1111/ele.12171

The case for fencing remains intact

Craig Packer, A. Swanson, S. Canney, A. Loveridge, S. Garnett, M. Pfeifer, A. C. Burton, H. Bauer, D. Macnulty

Ecology, Evolution and Behavior

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

20 Scopus citations

Abstract

Creel et al. argue against the conservation effectiveness of fencing based on a population measure that ignores the importance of top predators to ecosystem processes. Their statistical analyses consider, first, only a subset of fenced reserves and, second, an incomplete examination of 'costs per lion.' Our original conclusions remain unaltered.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1414-14e4
Journal	Ecology letters
Volume	16
Issue number	11
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12171
State	Published - Nov 2013

Keywords

Carrying capacity
Edge effects
Fences
Lions
Population size

Access

10.1111/ele.12171

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

@article{0705a07302df4c70a97981ebc1ad3a59,

title = "The case for fencing remains intact",

abstract = "Creel et al. argue against the conservation effectiveness of fencing based on a population measure that ignores the importance of top predators to ecosystem processes. Their statistical analyses consider, first, only a subset of fenced reserves and, second, an incomplete examination of 'costs per lion.' Our original conclusions remain unaltered.",

keywords = "Carrying capacity, Edge effects, Fences, Lions, Population size",

author = "Craig Packer and A. Swanson and S. Canney and A. Loveridge and S. Garnett and M. Pfeifer and Burton, {A. C.} and H. Bauer and D. Macnulty",

year = "2013",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1111/ele.12171",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "16",

pages = "1414--14e4",

journal = "Ecology letters",

issn = "1461-023X",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The case for fencing remains intact

AU - Packer, Craig

AU - Swanson, A.

AU - Canney, S.

AU - Loveridge, A.

AU - Garnett, S.

AU - Pfeifer, M.

AU - Burton, A. C.

AU - Bauer, H.

AU - Macnulty, D.

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - Creel et al. argue against the conservation effectiveness of fencing based on a population measure that ignores the importance of top predators to ecosystem processes. Their statistical analyses consider, first, only a subset of fenced reserves and, second, an incomplete examination of 'costs per lion.' Our original conclusions remain unaltered.

AB - Creel et al. argue against the conservation effectiveness of fencing based on a population measure that ignores the importance of top predators to ecosystem processes. Their statistical analyses consider, first, only a subset of fenced reserves and, second, an incomplete examination of 'costs per lion.' Our original conclusions remain unaltered.

KW - Carrying capacity

KW - Edge effects

KW - Fences

KW - Lions

KW - Population size

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885961550&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885961550&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ele.12171

DO - 10.1111/ele.12171

M3 - Article

C2 - 23962143

AN - SCOPUS:84885961550

SN - 1461-023X

VL - 16

SP - 1414-14e4

JO - Ecology letters

JF - Ecology letters

IS - 11

ER -

The case for fencing remains intact

Abstract

Keywords

Access

OpenUrl availability

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this