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.
authors: Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA.
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Packer
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Swanson
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Canney
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Loveridge
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Garnett
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Pfeifer
authors: A C
authors: AC
authors: Burton
authors: H
authors: H
authors: Bauer
authors: D
authors: D
authors: MacNulty
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002335:Carnivora; D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008045:Lions; D011156:Population Density
keywords: Carrying capacity; edge effects; fences; lions; population size