| Literature DB >> 23837659 |
S Creel1, 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.
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.Entities:
Keywords: Carnivores; conservation; cost-effectiveness; fence; lions; population density; population size
Mesh：
Year: 2013 PMID： 23837659 DOI： 10.1111/ele.12145
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Lett ISSN： 1461-023X Impact factor: 9.492