Cited by 6Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementEcology and biodiversity studies

Revisiting trophic cascades and aspen recovery in northern Yellowstone

Open access
Beschta, Robert L., Painter, Luke E., Ripple, William J.·2023·Food Webs

Abstract

We revisit the nature and extent of trophic cascades and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) recovery in the northern range of Yellowstone National Park, where studies have reported on Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis) browsing and young aspen heights following the 1995–96 reintroduction of gray wolves (Canis lupus). A recent study by Brice et al. (2021) expressed concerns about methodologies employed in earlier aspen studies and that results from those studies exaggerated the extent to which a trophic cascade has benefitted aspen, concerns such as: (a) the selection of aspen stands, (b) young aspen sampling and measurements within stands, (c) the upper browse level of elk, (d) cause of increased young aspen height growth, (e) interpretation of browsing and height data, and others. We individually address these concerns and conclude that earlier aspen studies have provided important insights regarding the recovery of aspen that is underway in northern Yellowstone and that they have not exaggerated the ongoing recovery. We found that Brice et al. (2021) misinterpreted or misrepresented various aspects of those earlier studies, while failing to address potential biases and shortcomings of their own 2007–2017 study, including; sampling aspen stands from only a portion of the park's northern range, not randomly selecting aspen stands across their study area, but only within identified treatments, varying sampling density (stands/km2) by more than an order of magnitude betwee…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fooweb.2023.e00276

Cites

12 of 12 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?

  • Browsing pressure was reduced and more spatially variable, and subsequent aspen studies reported new recruitment of aspen saplings.

    “Browsing pressure was reduced and more spatially variable, and subsequent aspen studies reported new recruitment of aspen saplings (Beschta et al., 2023; Painter et al., 2014, 2015; Ripple & Beschta, 2007, 2012).”

    From Bison alter the northern Yellowstone ecosystem by breaking aspen saplings (2023) · cites this paper as Beschta et al., 2023

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beschta, R. L., Painter, L. E., & Ripple, W. J.
Affiliations
Oregon State University (US)
Corresponding author
Beschta, Robert L.
Venue
Food Webs
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-09
Volume
36
Pages
e00276
ISSN
2352-2496 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4360821297
Cited by
6
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Food Webs (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Ohio State University Foundation
  • Oregon State University Agricultural Research Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
Keywords
trophic cascades, Populus tremuloides, elk browsing, Rocky Mountain elk, gray wolf reintroduction, wolf, sampling bias, herbivory

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