Cited by 395Wildlife Ecology and ConservationEcology and biodiversity studiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Wolf reintroduction, predation risk, and cottonwood recovery in Yellowstone National Park

Ripple, William J., Beschta, Robert L.·2003·Forest Ecology and Management

Abstract

We studied young riparian cottonwoods (Populus spp.) and associated woody plants along Soda Butte Creek and the Lamar River in northeastern Yellowstone National Park (YNP) to examine the potential influence of wolf/elk interactions upon plant growth. After a peri od of approximately 70 years without wolves in YNP, they were reintroduced in the winter of 1995–1996. When we compared woody plant heights shown in photographs taken prior to 1998 with those shown in 2001–2002 photos, we found an increase in the height of riparian woody plants for six of the eight sites within the study area. Plants were tallest (1–4 m) at point bar, stream confluence, and island sites, while heights remained relatively low (<1 m) along straight river reaches in a wide valley setting. We measured differences in both browsing intensity and cottonwood height for sites with relatively high predation risk (low visibility and/or the presence of escape barriers) and compared them to nearby sites with relatively low predation risk (open areas). In general, the high-risk sites had lower browsing intensities (percent of stems browsed) and taller plants than low-risk sites. Although the young cottonwoods on high-risk sites were growing taller each year over the last 4 years, there was little change in the plant heights for low-risk sites. For a stand of young cottonwoods growing adjacent to a gully (potential escape barrier), we found a linear correlation (r2=0.76) between cottonwood height and adjacent gully…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0378-1127(03)00154-3

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 38 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Chadde, S.W., Kay, C.E., 1996. Tall-willow communities on Yellowstone’s northern range: a test of the “natural-regulation” paradigm. In: Singer, F.J. (Ed.), Technical Report No. NPS/NRYELL/NRTR/96-01. National Park Service, Natural Resource Information Division, Denver, CO, pp. 165–183.
  2. Jonas, R.J., 1955. A population and ecological study of beaver (Castor canadensis) of Yellowstone National Park. M.S. Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow.
  3. Meagher, M.M., Houston, D.B., 1998. Yellowstone and the Biology of Time. Oklahoma State University Press, Norman, OK.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 394

Metadata

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
2003-10
Volume
184
Issue
1-3
Pages
299-313
ISSN
0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023572308
Cited by
395
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 19
FWCI
19.53
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 › Ecology and biodiversity studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
wolf reintroduction, predation risk, poplar, elk browsing, riparian vegetation, trophic cascades, top-down control, willow, riparian restoration, Yellowstone National Park

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