CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Rangeland and Wildlife ManagementWildlife Ecology and ConservationEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

The Condition and Trend of Aspen, Willows, and Associated Species on the Northern Yellowstone Range

Open access
Kay, Charles E.·2018·Rangelands
DOI 10.1016/j.rala.2018.10.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Aspen, willows, cottonwoods and other deciduous shrubs and trees play a pivotal role in the natural ecosystem function of the Northern Range, and they provide critical habitat for numerous species of native plants and animals. Deciduous shrubs and trees were much more abundant on the Northern Range in primeval times than they are today, especially on the portion of the Northern Range inside Yellowstone National Park. The primary cause of the declines in deciduous shrubs and trees is repeated heavy browsing by elk and bison--not normal plant succession or climatic changes - and heavy browsing is continuing to further degrade most Northern Range aspen, willow, and cottonwood plant communities inside Yellowstone National Park. Excessive browsing is occurring because modern-day management has allowed bison and elk populations to become unnaturally large. Current policy directs the National Park Service to intervene with active management where primeval and present conditions differ because of human actions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rala.2018.10.005

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Bison substantially increased in recent years, as have their effects on aspen, particularly where bison congregate in summer as in Lamar Valley.

    “Bison, however, substantially increased in recent years (Mosley & Mundinger, 2018), as have their effects on aspen, particularly where bison congregate in summer as in the park's iconic Lamar Valley (Beschta et al., 2020; Kay, 2018).”

    From Bison alter the northern Yellowstone ecosystem by breaking aspen saplings (2023) · cites this paper as Kay, 2018

    The “Deciduous Shrubs and Trees 2003 to 2016” section says the bison population increased dramatically and that increased bison browsing is one reason aspen and other woody vegetation have not recovered. The copy discusses degraded vegetation in the Lamar watershed, but it does not say bison congregate there in summer or specifically link their effects on aspen to summer congregation in Lamar Valley. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In northern Yellowstone, herbivory has been the primary factor limiting the growth of aspen from sprouts to saplings, and eventually trees.

    “Recent trends toward a warmer and drier climate may cause additional stress (Kulakowski et al., 2013; Worrall et al., 2013), but in northern Yellowstone herbivory has been the primary factor limiting the growth of aspen from sprouts to saplings, and eventually trees (Beschta et al., 2016; Kay, 2018; Painter et al., 2014, 2018).”

    From Bison alter the northern Yellowstone ecosystem by breaking aspen saplings (2023) · cites this paper as Kay, 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 2002. Ecological dynamics on Yellowstone's Northern Range. Washington, DC, USA: Na- tional Academy Press. 180 p.
  2. KAY, C.E. 1997. Is aspen doomed? Journal of Forestry 95:4-11.
  3. DENSMORE, R., AND J. ZASADA. 1983. Seed dispersal and dormancy patterns in northern willows: ecological and evolu- tionary significance. Canadian Journal of Botany 61:3201-3216.
  4. MCDOUGALL, W.B., AND H.A. BAGGLEY. 1956. The plants of Yellowstone National Park. second edition. Mammoth, WY, USA: Yellowstone Library and Museum Association. 186 p.
  5. BONER, B.J. 2017. Yellowstone National Park through the lens of time. Boulder, CO, USA: University Press of Colorado. 297 p.
  6. MEAGHER, M.M., AND D.B. HOUSTON. 1998. Yellowstone and the biology of time: photographs across a century. Norman, OK, USA: University of Oklahoma Press. 287 p.
  7. CHRISTIANSON, D.A., AND S. CREEL. 2007. A review of environmental factors affecting elk winter diets. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:164-176.
  8. WHITE, P.J., K.M. PROFFITT, L.D. MECH, S.B. EVANS, J.A. CUNNINGHAM, AND K.L. HAMLIN. 2010. Migration of northern Yellowstone elk: implications of spatial structuring. Journal of Mammalogy 91:827-837.
  9. CHADDE, S.W., AND C.E. KAY. 1991. Tall willow communities on Yellowstone's northern range: a test of the "natural regulation" paradigm, p. 231-262. In: Keiter RB & Boyce MS, editors. The greater Yellowstone ecosystem: redefining America's wilderness heritage. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press. 428 p.
  10. GRIMM, R.L. 1939. Northern Yellowstone Winter Range studies. Journal of Wildlife Management 3:295-306.
  11. LEOPOLD, A.S., S.A. CAIN, C.M. COTTAM, I.N. GABRIELSON, AND T.L. KIMBALL. 1963. Wildlife management in the national parks. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 24:28-45.
  12. JACKSON, S.G. 1992. Relationships among birds, willows, and native ungulates in and around northern Yellowstone National Park. [MS thesis] Logan, UT, USA: Utah State University. 74 p.
  13. THOMPSON, S.K. 2002. Browse condition and trend on Montana ungulate ranges. [MS thesis] Bozeman, MT, USA: Montana State University. 147 p.
  14. KAY, C.E. 1995. Browsing by native ungulates: effects on shrub and seed production in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, p. 310-320. In: Roundy BA McArthur ED Haley JS & Mann DK, editors. Proceedings: Wildland Shrub and Arid Land Restoration Sympo- sium. Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report INT-GTR-315.
  15. Kay, C.E., and S. Chadde. 1992. Reduction of willow seed production by ungulate browsing in Yellowstone National Park, p. 92-99. In: W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C. L. Wambolt [compilers]. Proceedings-Symposium on Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub Communities. General Technical Report INT-289.
  16. Kay, C.E. 2001. Long-term aspen exclosures in the Yellowstone ecosystem, p. 225-240. In: WD Shepperd, D Binkley, DL Bartos, TJ Stohlgren, and LG Eskew [compilers]. Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings. Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO, USA: U.S. Forest Service. 460 p.
  17. KAY, C.E., AND D. BARTOS. 2000. Ungulate herbivory on Utah aspen: assessment of long-term exclosures. Journal of Range Management 53:145-153.
  18. BARIL, L.M. 2009. Change in deciduous woody vegetation, implications of increased willow (Salix spp.) growth for bird species diversity, and willow species composition in and around Yellowstone National Park's northern range. [MS thesis] Bozeman, MT, USA: Montana State University. 136 p.
  19. BRODIE, J., E. POST, F. WATSON, AND J. BERGER. 2012. Climate change intensification of herbivore impacts on tree recruitment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 79:1366-1370.
  20. FORESMAN, K.R. 2012. Mammals of Montana. second edition. Missoula, MT, USA: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 429 p.
  21. WERNER, J.K., B.A. MAXELL, P. HENDRICKS, AND D.L. FLATH. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Missoula, MT, USA: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.
  22. RUSSELL, O. 1955. Journal of a trapper, edited from original manuscript by A. L. Haines. Lincoln, NE, USA: University of Nebraska Press. 191 p.
  23. JONAS, R.J. 1955. A population and ecological study of the beaver (Castor canadensis) of Yellowstone National Park. [MS thesis]. Moscow, ID, USA: University of Idaho. 193 p.
  24. ROSGEN, D.L. 2001. A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate, p. 9-17. Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference; 25-29 March 2001. Reno, NV, USA: Volume II Stream Restoration. 167 p.
  25. WHITE, C.A., C.E. OLMSTED, AND C.E. KAY. 1998. Aspen, elk, and fire in the Rocky Mountain national parks of North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:449-462.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kay, C. E.
Affiliations
Utah State University (US)
Corresponding author
Kay, Charles E.
Venue
Rangelands
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
40
Issue
6
Pages
202-211
ISSN
0190-0528 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.rala.2018.10.005
OpenAlex
W2900928451
Cited by
10
References
15
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 4
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Rangelands (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
aspen, willow, cottonwood, deciduous shrubs, elk browsing, Yellowstone National Park, rangeland management, habitat degradation

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