Reply to Brehony et al.

Derek Lee, Monica L. Bond

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Lee and Bond (2018)quantified ecological effects associated with the establishment of the Randelin Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in the Tarangire Ecosystem.Brehony et al.'s (2018)criticisms ofLee and Bond (2018)largely stem from problematic interpretations of what we attempted and reported. Here, we respond to Brehony et al.'s 3 criticisms. First, we clarify that our concept of ecological success followed the specific terminology used inBrooks et al. (2012), thus ecological success of a WMA was defined as improved outcomes for wildlife. Second, we explain that our methods were appropriate and our findings were accurate at our scale of inference. Third, because quantitative anthropocentric analyses are lacking, the "reality" of community-based conservation in WMAs is not known.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1543-1545
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Mammalogy
Volume99
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 5 2018

Fingerprint

wildlife management
Terminology
Ecosystem
terminology
wildlife
stems
ecosystems
ecosystem
Lee Bond
methodology
effect
method

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology
  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Genetics
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Lee, Derek ; Bond, Monica L. / Reply to Brehony et al. In: Journal of Mammalogy. 2018 ; Vol. 99, No. 6. pp. 1543-1545.
@article{b0e43376f62f4763bf381559fe90eecc,
title = "Reply to Brehony et al.",
abstract = "Lee and Bond (2018)quantified ecological effects associated with the establishment of the Randelin Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in the Tarangire Ecosystem.Brehony et al.'s (2018)criticisms ofLee and Bond (2018)largely stem from problematic interpretations of what we attempted and reported. Here, we respond to Brehony et al.'s 3 criticisms. First, we clarify that our concept of ecological success followed the specific terminology used inBrooks et al. (2012), thus ecological success of a WMA was defined as improved outcomes for wildlife. Second, we explain that our methods were appropriate and our findings were accurate at our scale of inference. Third, because quantitative anthropocentric analyses are lacking, the {"}reality{"} of community-based conservation in WMAs is not known.",
author = "Derek Lee and Bond, {Monica L.}",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1093/jmammal/gyy119",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "99",
pages = "1543--1545",
journal = "Journal of Mammalogy",
issn = "0022-2372",
publisher = "Allen Press Inc.",
number = "6",

}

Reply to Brehony et al. / Lee, Derek; Bond, Monica L.

In: Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 99, No. 6, 05.12.2018, p. 1543-1545.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reply to Brehony et al.

AU - Lee, Derek

AU - Bond, Monica L.

PY - 2018/12/5

Y1 - 2018/12/5

N2 - Lee and Bond (2018)quantified ecological effects associated with the establishment of the Randelin Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in the Tarangire Ecosystem.Brehony et al.'s (2018)criticisms ofLee and Bond (2018)largely stem from problematic interpretations of what we attempted and reported. Here, we respond to Brehony et al.'s 3 criticisms. First, we clarify that our concept of ecological success followed the specific terminology used inBrooks et al. (2012), thus ecological success of a WMA was defined as improved outcomes for wildlife. Second, we explain that our methods were appropriate and our findings were accurate at our scale of inference. Third, because quantitative anthropocentric analyses are lacking, the "reality" of community-based conservation in WMAs is not known.

AB - Lee and Bond (2018)quantified ecological effects associated with the establishment of the Randelin Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in the Tarangire Ecosystem.Brehony et al.'s (2018)criticisms ofLee and Bond (2018)largely stem from problematic interpretations of what we attempted and reported. Here, we respond to Brehony et al.'s 3 criticisms. First, we clarify that our concept of ecological success followed the specific terminology used inBrooks et al. (2012), thus ecological success of a WMA was defined as improved outcomes for wildlife. Second, we explain that our methods were appropriate and our findings were accurate at our scale of inference. Third, because quantitative anthropocentric analyses are lacking, the "reality" of community-based conservation in WMAs is not known.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058806110&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85058806110&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jmammal/gyy119

DO - 10.1093/jmammal/gyy119

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85058806110

VL - 99

SP - 1543

EP - 1545

JO - Journal of Mammalogy

JF - Journal of Mammalogy

SN - 0022-2372

IS - 6

ER -