Cited by 43Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFire effects on ecosystems

Complex interactions shaping aspen dynamics in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Brown, Kathryn, Hansen, Andrew J., Keane, Robert E., Graumlich, Lisa J.·2006·Landscape Ecology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10980-005-6190-3

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Research has not isolated the effect of elk herbivory on aspen from other factors including temperature, moisture, snow pack, bovid herbivory, and conifer competition.

    “To date, however, there is an absence of research capable of isolating the effect of elk herbivory from other factors that may influence aspen, including temperature (Brown et al. 2006), moisture (Romme et al. 1995), snow pack (Brodie et al. 2012), bovid herbivory (Kimble et al. 2011, Beschta & Ripple 2014), and competition with conifers (Bartos 2001).”

    From Trophic Cascades in a Multicausal World: Isle Royale and Yellowstone (2014) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2006

  • Localized aspen recovery in the presence of relatively high elk density might be evidence of a behaviorally mediated trophic cascade, but spatial heterogeneity in aspen demography may not by itself be convincing evidence for such a cascade because aspen demography is spatially heterogeneous even when risk-sensitive foraging by elk is not implicated.

    “Localized recovery of aspen in the presence of relatively high elk density might be evidence of a behaviorally mediated trophic cascade (BMTC) (e.g., Beschta & Ripple 2012, 2013).However, spatial heterogeneity in aspen demography may not be, by itself, convincing evidence for a BMTC because aspen demography is spatially heterogeneous even when risk-sensitive foraging by elk is not implicated (e.g.”

    From Trophic Cascades in a Multicausal World: Isle Royale and Yellowstone (2014) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, K., Hansen, A. J., Keane, R. E., & Graumlich, L. J.
Affiliations
  • US Forest Service (US)
  • Montana State University (US)
Corresponding author
Keane, Robert E.
Venue
Landscape Ecology
Published
2006-08
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
933-951
ISSN
  • 0921-2973 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-9761
OpenAlex
W2135697035
Cited by
43
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Landscape Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Park Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
Keywords
aspen, Populus tremuloides, aspen decline, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, canopy cover, fire suppression, ungulate herbivory, climate change

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