Conserving large populations of lions - the argument for fences has holes
Date
2013-07-09Author
Becker, Matthew S.
Durant, S. M.
M'soka, Jassiel
Matandiko, Wigganson
Dickman, A. J.
Christianson, David A.
Dröge, E.
Mweetwa, Thandiwe
Pettorelli, N.
Rosenblatt, Elias G.
Woodroffe, R.
Bashir, S.
Beudels-Jamar, R. C.
Blake, S.
Borner, M.
Breitenmoser, C.
Broekhuis, F.
Cozzi, G.
Davenport, T. R. B.
Deutsch, J.
Dollar, L.
Dolrenry, Stephanie
Douglas-Hamilton, I.
Fitzherbert, E.
Foley, C.
Hazzah, L.
Henschel, P.
Hilborn, R.
Hopcraft, J. G. C.
Ikanda, D.
Jacobson, A.
Joubert, B.
Kelly, M. S.
Lichtenfeld, L.
Mace, G. M.
Milanzi, J.
Mitchell, N.
Msuha, M.
Muir, R.
Nyahongo, J.
Pimm, S.
Purchase, G.
Schenck, C.
Sillera-Zubiri, C.
Sinclair, A. R. E.
Songorwa, A. N.
Stanley-Price, M.
Tehou, C. A.
Trout, C.
Wall, J.
Wittemyer, G.
Zimmermann, A.
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
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.
Citation
Creel, S., Becker, M. S., Durant, S. M., M’Soka, J., Matandiko, W., Dickman, A. J., … Pettorelli, N. (2013). Conserving large populations of lions - the argument for fences has holes. Ecol Lett, 16(11), 1413–e3. doi:10.1111/ele.12145