Journal Article
Conserving large populations of lions – the argument for fences has holes
S. Creel; M. S. Becker; S. M. Durant; J. M'Soka; W. Matandiko; A. J. Dickman; D. Christianson; E. Dröge; T. Mweetwa; N. Pettorelli; E. Rosenblatt; P. Schuette; R. Woodroffe; S. Bashir; R. C. Beudels‐Jamar; S. Blake; M. Borner; C. Breitenmoser; F. Broekhuis; G. Cozzi; T. R. B. Davenport; J. Deutsch; L. Dollar; S. Dolrenry; I. Douglas‐Hamilton; E. Fitzherbert; C. Foley; L. Hazzah; P. Henschel; R. Hilborn; J. G. C. Hopcraft; D. Ikanda; A. Jacobson; B. Joubert; D. Joubert; M. S. Kelly; L. Lichtenfeld; G. M. Mace; J. Milanzi; N. Mitchell; M. Msuha; R. Muir; J. Nyahongo; S. Pimm; G. Purchase; C. Schenck; C. Sillero‐Zubiri; A. R. E. Sinclair; A. N. Songorwa; M. Stanley‐Price; C. A. Tehou; C. Trout; J. Wall; G. Wittemyer; A. Zimmermann
Ecology Letters · Vol. 16, Issue 11 · pp. 1413 · 2013
Abstract
Packer et al . reported that fenced lion populations attain densities closer to carrying capacity than unfenced populations. However, fenced populations are often maintained above carrying capacity, and most are small. Many more lions are conserved per dollar invested in unfenced ecosystems, which avoid the ecological and economic costs of fencing.
Bibliographic Information
| Journal | Ecology Letters |
|---|
| Publisher | Wiley |
|---|
| Publication Date | 2013-11-01 |
|---|
| Publication Year | 2013 |
|---|
| Volume | 16 |
|---|
| Issue | 11 |
|---|
| Pages | 1413 |
|---|
| Document Type | Journal Article |
|---|
| Print ISSN | 1461-023X |
|---|
| eISSN | 1461-0248 |
|---|
| DOI | 10.1111/ele.12145 |
|---|
| Subject | Ecology & Organismal Biology |
|---|
Access Information
Full-text access depends on NARA's subscribed coverage and institutional access.