Cited by 52Ecology and biodiversity studiesWildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Does restoring apex predators to food webs restore ecosystems? Large carnivores in Y ellowstone as a model system

Open access
Hobbs, N. Thompson, Johnston, Danielle B., Marshall, Kristin N., Wolf, Evan C., Cooper, David J.·2024·Ecological Monographs

Abstract

Modification of food webs is a frequent cause of shifts in ecosystem states that resist reversal when the food web is restored to its original condition. We used the restoration of the large carnivore guild including gray wolves ( Canis lupis ), cougars ( Felis concolor ), and grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) to the northern range of Yellowstone National Park as a model system to understand how ecosystems might resist reconfiguration after the restoration of apex predators to the food web. The absence of wolves, cougars, and grizzly bears for nearly a century from the northern range was the primary cause of dramatic changes in riparian plant communities. Willows ( Salix spp.) were suppressed in height by intense browsing by the dominant herbivore, elk ( Cervus canadensis ). The loss of activity by beavers ( Castor canadensis ) coincided with the loss of tall willows. We hypothesized that intense elk browsing interrupted the mutualism between willow and beavers: ecosystem engineering by beavers was a critical component of willow habitat and tall willows were a critical component of habitat for beavers. This interruption made riparian communities resilient to the disturbance caused by the restoration of apex predators. We hypothesized further that reductions in elk browsing attributable to reductions in elk population size were not sufficient to prevent the suppression of willow growth. To test these hypotheses, we conducted a 20‐year, factorial experiment that crossed…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ecm.1598

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hobbs, N. T., Johnston, D. B., Marshall, K. N., Wolf, E. C., & Cooper, D. J.
Affiliations
Colorado State University (US)
Corresponding author
Hobbs, N. Thompson
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-01-30
Volume
94
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7015
OpenAlex
W4391399227
Cited by
52
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 11
FWCI
14.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2024-08-29)
Open access
Locations
Ecological Monographs (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0717367, 1147369, 1655035)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
large carnivores, gray wolves, Puma concolor, grizzly bear, elk browsing, beaver dams, ecosystem engineering, riparian plant communities, alternative stable states, ecosystem resilience, Yellowstone National Park, herbivore guilds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review