Cited by 24Rangeland and Wildlife ManagementFire effects on ecosystemsWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Elevated Rocky Mountain elk numbers prevent positive effects of fire on quaking aspen ( Populus tremuloides ) recruitment

Smith, David Solance, Fettig, Stephen M., Bowker, Matthew A.·2016·Forest Ecology and Management

Abstract

Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) is the most widespread tree species in North America and has supported a unique ecosystem for tens of thousands of years, yet is currently threatened by dramatic loss and possible local extinctions. While multiple factors such as climate change and fire suppression are thought to contribute to aspen’s decline, increased browsing by elk (Cervus elaphus), which have experienced dramatic population increases in the last ∼80years, may severely inhibit aspen growth and regeneration. Fires are known to favor aspen recovery, but in the last several decades the spatial scale and intensity of wildfires has greatly increased, with poorly understood ramifications for aspen growth. Here, focusing on the 2000 Cerro Grande fire in central New Mexico – one of the earliest fires described as a “mega-fire” - we use three methods to examine the impact of elk browsing on aspen regeneration after a mega-fire. First, we use an exclosure experiment to show that aspen growing in the absence of elk were 3× taller than trees growing in the presence of elk. Further, aspen that were both protected from elk and experienced burning were 8.5× taller than unburned trees growing in the presence of elk, suggesting that the combination of release from herbivores and stimulation from fire creates the largest aspen growth rates. Second, using surveys at the landscape level, we found a correlation between elk browsing intensity and aspen height, such that where elk browsing wa…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.020

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

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?

  • Fire stimulates aspen reproduction from both roots and seeds, though browsing by elk and other large herbivores can suppress young plants.

    “Fire stimulates aspen reproduction from both roots and seeds, though browsing by elk and other large herbivores can suppress young plants (Smith et al., 2016; White et al., 1998).”

    From Bison alter the northern Yellowstone ecosystem by breaking aspen saplings (2023) · cites this paper as Smith et al., 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, D. S., Fettig, S. M., & Bowker, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Northern Arizona University (US)
  • National Park Service (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, David Solance
Venue
Forest Ecology and Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
362
Pages
46-54
ISSN
0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2194947635
Cited by
24
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Forest Ecology and Management (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Park Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
Populus tremuloides, elk browsing, red deer, megafires, Cerro Grande fire, exclosure experiment, aspen decline, New Mexico

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