Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Biological Conservation. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Biological Conservation, 212, (B), 2017 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.002
Accepted author manuscript, 98.6 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Letter › peer-review
Managing for nitrogen, the lesser of two evils. A response to Maes et al. / Jones, L.; Stevens, C.; Rowe, E.C. et al.
In: Biological Conservation, Vol. 212, No. Part B, 08.2017, p. 495-496.Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Letter › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Managing for nitrogen, the lesser of two evils. A response to Maes et al.
AU - Jones, L.
AU - Stevens, C.
AU - Rowe, E.C.
AU - Payne, R.
AU - Caporn, S.J.M.
AU - Evans, C.D.
AU - Field, C.
AU - Dale, S.
N1 - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Biological Conservation. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Biological Conservation, 212, (B), 2017 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.002
PY - 2017/8
Y1 - 2017/8
U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.002
DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.002
M3 - Letter
VL - 212
SP - 495
EP - 496
JO - Biological Conservation
JF - Biological Conservation
SN - 0006-3207
IS - Part B
ER -