Cited by 148Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementEcology and biodiversity studies

Linking wolves to willows via risk-sensitive foraging by ungulates in the northern Yellowstone ecosystem

Ripple, William J., Beschta, Robert L.·2006·Forest Ecology and Management

Abstract

After an absence of approximately 70 years, gray wolves (Canis lupus) were re-introduced into Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s. We studied the potential influence of wolf/ungulate interactions upon willow (Salix spp.) growth in the valleys of the Gallatin and Lamar Rivers, as well as Slough and Soda Butte Creeks, in the northern Yellowstone ecosystem. When we compared willow heights from photographs taken prior to 1998 (willows <2 m tall) with those taken in 2004, we found an increase in willow height for 22 of 42 sites within the study area. Based on comparisons of the chronosequence photos, since wolf introduction none of the 16 upland riparian sites showed an increase in willow height, while 22 of 26 of the valley-bottom riparian sites had willow height increases. In 2004, willow height exhibited a strong inverse relationship with the percentage of browsed stems (r = −0.81, p < 0.01, n = 42). Results of regressions for valley-bottom sites indicated that view distance, impediment distance, and the number of bison (Bison bison) flops were inversely related to willow height (p ≤ 0.02). Increased willow heights were not significantly (p = 0.18) related to patterns of moisture availability. Willow height increases documented in this study appear to have been at least partially due to behaviorally mediated trophic cascades involving wolves and ungulates, via a mechanism of predation risk. While willow release (i.e., increased height growth) within the study area is in…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.04.023

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Behavioral effects of predators may have played a role in reducing browsing.

    “suggesting that behavioral effects of predators may have played a role in reducing browsing (Singer et al. 2003, Ripple and Beschta 2006, Beschta and Ripple 2007, Beyer et al. 2007).”

    From Tall willow thickets return to northern Yellowstone (2020) · cites this paper as Ripple and Beschta 2006

  • The recent recovery was triggered by the late 1990s release of willow on the northern range.

    “The recent recovery was triggered by the late 1990s release of willow on the NR (Ripple and Beschta 2006, Beyer et al. 2007).”

    From The History and Current Status and Distribution of Beavers in Yellowstone National Park (2012) · cites this paper as Ripple and Beschta 2006

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 69 · Cited by 148

Authors
Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L.
Affiliations
Oregon State University (US)
Corresponding author
Ripple, William J.
Venue
Forest Ecology and Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-07
Volume
230
Issue
1-3
Pages
96-106
ISSN
0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2141014936
Cited by
148
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
8.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Forest Ecology and Management (publishedVersion)
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
gray wolf reintroduction, willow, predation risk, risk-sensitive foraging, riparian vegetation, bison, chronosequence, Yellowstone National Park, riparian restoration

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