Cited by 87Fire effects on ecosystemsRangeland and Wildlife ManagementPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics

Interactive effects of human activities, herbivory and fire on quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) age structures in western Wyoming

Hessl, Amy E., Graumlich, Lisa J.·2002·Journal of Biogeography

Abstract

Aim Fire suppression, elk (Cervus elaphusErxleben) browsing and drought have been suggested as possible explanations for low aspen (Populus tremuloidesMichx.) ramet regeneration in elk winter range of the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) during the twentieth century. This study analyses the relationship between the rates of aspen regeneration, biophysical factors and human land use since 1830. This approach reveals the importance of indirect human impacts, especially through fire and elk management strategies, on forest structure. Location This study was conducted in and around the winter range of the Jackson Hole elk herd in western Wyoming, USA. Aspen stands in this region represent the ecotone between coniferous forest and sagebrush‐grassland vegetation. Methods Age structures of aspen stands were reconstructed from tree‐rings in order to determine how variation in drought, elk populations and fire occurrence may have affected aspen ramet regeneration since 1830. The effects of recent prescribed fires and elk browse on aspen regeneration were also evaluated by measuring stem height, browse intensity and age of ramets <2 m tall in prescribed burns and in unburned areas. Results Aspen ramet regeneration has occurred consistently but at low frequencies since 1830, with three peaks of regeneration: 1860–85, 1915–40 and 1955–90. Periods of frequent ramet regeneration coincided with low to moderate elk populations and aspen regenerated only sporadically when elk populations were h…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00703.x

Cites

50 of 50 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hessl, A. E., & Graumlich, L. J.
Affiliations
  • West Virginia University (US)
  • Montana State University (US)
Corresponding author
Hessl, Amy E.
Venue
Journal of Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-07
Volume
29
Issue
7
Pages
889-902
ISSN
  • 0305-0270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2699
OpenAlex
W2166972206
Cited by
87
References
51
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Biogeography (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Keywords
Populus tremuloides, forest age structure, elk browsing, prescribed burning, fire suppression, drought, Palmer Drought Severity Index, anthropogenic land use, elk hunting, forest management history, Greater Yellowstone, tree-ring reconstruction

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