CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 271Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

Resource dispersion and consumer dominance: scavenging at wolf‐ and hunter‐killed carcasses in Greater Yellowstone, USA

Open access
Wilmers, Christopher C., Stahler, Daniel R., Crabtree, Robert L., Smith, Douglas W., Getz, Wayne M.·2003·Ecology Letters
DOI 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00522.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in the northern Rocky Mountains provides the context for a natural experiment to investigate the response of consumers to resources with differing spatial and temporal dispersion regimes. Grey wolves (Canis lupus) and human hunters both provide resource subsidies to scavengers by provisioning them with the remains of their kills. Carrion from hunter kills is highly aggregated in time and space whereas carrion from wolf kills is more dispersed in both time and space. We estimated the total amount of carrion consumed by each scavenger species at both wolf and hunter kills over 4 years. Species with large feeding radii [bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and ravens (Corvus corax)], defined as the area over which a consumer can efficiently locate and integrate resources, dominated consumption at the highly aggregated hunter kills whereas competitively dominant species [coyotes (Canis latrans)] dominated at the more dispersed wolf kills. In addition, species diversity and the evenness of carrion consumption between scavengers was greater at wolf kills than at hunter kills while the total number of scavengers at hunter kills exceeded those at wolf kills. From a community perspective, the top–down effect of predation is likely to be stronger in the vicinity of highly aggregated resource pulses as species with large feeding radii switch to feeding on alternative prey once the resource pulse subsides.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00522.x

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 7 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Most hunter-provided carrion biomass comes from the Gardiner Late Hunt.

    “The majority of carrion biomass provided by human hunters comes from the Gardiner Late Hunt, a permit-issued elk (Cervus elaphus) hunt running from early January to mid-February (Lemke et al. 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lemke et al. 1998

      The Methods identify the late Gardiner elk hunt as the winter harvest and say the season began in early January from 1990. The results report that winter hunts accounted for 1,192 of 1,823 average annual elk removals, supporting a majority of removals. The paper does not establish that these removals supplied a majority of hunter-provided carrion biomass, or specify a mid-February end date or permit issuance. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    Bald eagles and ravens, species with large feeding radii, dominated consumption at hunter kills.

    “Species with large feeding radii [bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and ravens (Corvus corax)], defined as the area over which a consumer can efficiently locate and integrate resources, dominated consumption at the highly aggregated hunter kills”
    • Also stated in: § Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May -Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May -Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May -Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May · plain
      “Ravens and bald eagles consumed significantly more carrion at hunter-kills than at wolf kills (Fig. 3, P < 0.05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The total number of scavengers was greater at hunter kills than at wolf kills.

    “while the total number of scavengers at hunter kills exceeded those at wolf kills.”
    • Also stated in: § Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May -Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May -Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May -Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May · plain
      “The average of the maximum number of ravens and bald eagles was higher at hunter kills whereas the opposite pattern was found for magpies and golden eagles (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Scavenger species diversity was greater at wolf kills than at hunter kills.

    “species diversity and the evenness of carrion consumption between scavengers was greater at wolf kills than at hunter kills”
    • Also stated in: § R E S U L T S · plain
      “We documented 12 scavenger species feeding at wolf kills and four species feeding at hunter kills (Table 1).”
    • Also stated in: § D I S C U S S I O N · plain
      “Species diversity was found to be higher at wolf kills than at hunter kills (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The evenness of carrion consumption among scavenger species was greater at wolf kills than at hunter kills.

    “species diversity and the evenness of carrion consumption between scavengers was greater at wolf kills than at hunter kills”
    • Also stated in: § D I S C U S S I O N · plain
      “The evenness of carrion consumption among species was higher at wolf kills than at hunter kills”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 4

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Coyotes, a competitively dominant species, dominated consumption at wolf kills.

    “competitively dominant species [coyotes (Canis latrans)] dominated at the more dispersed wolf kills.”
    • Also stated in: § R E S U L T S · plain
      “Bald eagles, golden eagles, ravens, magpies and coyotes were common at wolf kills during the winter period whereas coyotes were absent at hunter-kills.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Hunter-killed carrion is concentrated in time and space, while wolf-killed carrion is more spread out in both dimensions.

    “Carrion from hunter kills is highly aggregated in time and space whereas carrion from wolf kills is more dispersed in both time and space.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The complete absence of coyotes at hunter kills was unexpected because coyote packs are known to occur in the area.

    “The complete absence of coyotes at hunter kills was unexpected as coyote packs are known to occur in the area.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Hunters provided significantly more carrion to scavengers from January to mid-February, at 33,203 ± 993 kg, than wolves did.

    “Hunters provided significantly more carrion to scavengers (January to mid-February) at 33 203 ± 993 kg (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P < 0.05).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All hunters field-dressed their carcasses and left the entrails behind.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Hunter carrion arrives as a large mid-winter pulse and is more plentiful than wolf carrion, which arrives consistently over the winter.

    “Hunter provided carrion arrives as a large pulse in mid-winter and is more plentiful than wolf provided carrion which arrives consistently over the course of the entire winter.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All hunters field-dressed their carcasses and left the entrails behind.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The average maximum number of ravens and bald eagles was higher at hunter kills, while the opposite pattern held for magpies and golden eagles.

    “The average of the maximum number of ravens and bald eagles was higher at hunter kills whereas the opposite pattern was found for magpies and golden eagles (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The study observed 202 wolf-killed carcasses and 28 hunter-killed gut piles, totaling 83,325 and 5,775 observation minutes respectively.

    “We observed 202 wolf-killed carcasses and 28 hunter-killed gut piles for a total of 83 325 and 5775 min, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The differential success of scavenger species on resources with varying spatial and temporal dynamics suggests an underlying cause for their evolutionary history.

    “The differential success of scavenger species to resources with varying spatial and temporal dynamics suggests an underlying cause for the evolutionary history of these respective species.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Food chain effects are likely stronger at highly aggregated pulses and influenced by large-feeding-radius species, compared with dispersed short-lived resources where competitively dominant species affect the food chain.

    “Food chain effects are thus likely to be stronger at highly aggregated pulses, and to be influenced by species with large feeding radii, compared with highly dispersed and short-lived resources where competitively dominant species are likely to impact the food chain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    At hunter kills, the trophic effect is likely strong because of many ravens and bald eagles, but narrow because those two species do most of the predation.

    “At hunter-kills, in contrast, the effect is likely to be strong because of the high number of ravens and bald eagles, but narrow because these two species will be doing the bulk of the predation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Among common species absent at hunter kills, coyotes were likely excluded by hunters while grizzly and black bears were hibernating during the late hunt.

    “Of the common species listed in Table 1 that were not present at hunter kills, it is likely that coyotes were excluded by hunters, while grizzly bears and black bears were in hibernation at the time of the highly aggregated late hunt.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Supersaturation reduces competition and allows far-ranging species to gather in high numbers.

    “Such supersaturation reduces competition and allows far ranging species to gather in high numbers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because wolf kills are spread out in time and space, carrion is under-saturating, which lets competitively dominant coyotes dominate the resource.

    “As wolf kills are spread out over time and space, carrion is under-saturating, leading the competitively dominant coyotes to dominate the resource over other scavengers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Aggregation of resources benefits bald eagles, which are also a species of conservation concern.

    “On the other hand, aggregation of resources benefits bald eagles which are also a species of conservation concern.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The diversity difference between wolf and hunter kills is attributable to hunter-kill timing excluding hibernating or migratory species, hunter presence excluding wary species, and greater sampling effort at wolf kills.

    “This was attributable to a combination of factors: the timing of hunter kills precludes hibernating or migratory species, hunter presence may exclude species wary of being shot, and larger sampling effort at wolf kills made it more likely to detect rare species.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Near wolf kills, the trophic effects of prey switching are likely small in magnitude and broad in the number of species involved.

    “In the neighborhood of wolf kills, the trophic effects of prey switching are likely to be relatively small in magnitude and wide in the number of species participating.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Previous research has shown that generalist species are the most adaptable at tracking resource pulses.

    “Previous research has shown that generalist species are the most adaptable to tracking resources pulses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    This study reveals a significant component of ongoing comprehensive research on trophic cascades in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem due to wolf restoration.

    “This study reveals a significant component to ongoing comprehensive research on trophic cascades in the GYE because of wolf restoration (Smith et al. 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Smith et al. 2003 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Gardiner Late Hunt mainly targets antlerless elk migrating from Yellowstone National Park and often harvests more than 1000 individuals annually.

    “This hunt, which primarily targets Ôantler-lessÕ elk (cows and calves) migrating from Yellowstone National Park (YNP), often produces an annual harvest exceeding 1000 individuals (Lemke et al. 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lemke et al. 1998

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Wolves and human hunters both provide an enormous resource subsidy to Greater Yellowstone scavengers.

    “We have shown that grey wolves and human hunters alike provide an enormous resource subsidy to Greater Yellowstone's scavengers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All hunters field-dressed their carcasses and left the entrails behind.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Wolf kills are distributed regionally, highly dispersed in time and space, and consumed mainly by nearby animals.

    “Wolf kills are distributed regionally across the northern range as they are highly dispersed in time and space, and are consumed primarily by nearby animals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This study adds a spatial component to resource pulse dynamics and shows that species-specific feeding radii influence an animal's ability to track resource pulses.

    “Here, we add a spatial component to resource pulse dynamics and demonstrate that species-specific feeding radii (which is a function of movement capabilities and access to knowledge about food resources) influence an animals ability to track resource pulses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
22 of 22

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    All hunters field-dressed their carcasses and left the entrails behind.

    “we assumed that all hunters field-dressed their carcass thus leaving behind the entrails.”
1 of 1

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?

  • More dispersed resources do not saturate local scavenger communities, so a competitive dominance hierarchy (with grizzly bears and coyotes at the top) determines which species consume the bulk of available scavenge.

    “Resources that are more dispersed, conversely, do not saturate local scavenger communities, so that a competitive dominance hierarchy (with grizzly bears and coyotes at the top) determines which species consume the bulk of available scavenge.”

    From Gray Wolves as Climate Change Buffers in Yellowstone (2005) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Discussion says dispersed wolf-kill carrion is under-saturating and that competition determines access, with coyotes dominating consumption. It does not place grizzly bears alongside coyotes at the top of a competitive hierarchy; the Results say grizzlies fed on wolf kills only at the end of the sampling period. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Gray wolves provide carrion to a suite of scavenger species, including the common raven.

    “Gray wolves (Canis lupus) provide carrion to a suite of scavenger species, including the common raven (Corvus corax).”

    From Population responses of common ravens to reintroduced gray wolves (2018) · cites this paper as Wilmers, Stahler, et al., 2003

  • Carrion from late-winter hunter harvests was historically aggregated both spatially and temporally.

    “While winter‐kill was available across the Northern Range, carrion from late‐winter hunter harvests was historically aggregated both spatially and temporally (Wilmers, Stahler, et al., 2003).”

    From Population responses of common ravens to reintroduced gray wolves (2018) · cites this paper as Wilmers, Stahler, et al., 2003

  • Highly aggregated or pulsed resources saturate local communities of scavengers, allowing species with better recruitment abilities (e.g., ravens and bald eagles) to dominate consumption at carcasses.

    “Highly aggregated or pulsed resources saturate local communities of scavengers, allowing species with better recruitment abilities (animals capable of covering large distances and communicating about the location of resources such as ravens and bald eagles) to dominate consumption at carcasses [17].”

    From Gray Wolves as Climate Change Buffers in Yellowstone (2005) · cites this paper as [17]

  • Ravens, bald eagles, golden eagles, magpies, coyotes, grizzly bears, and black bears are frequent visitors at wolf kills.

    “Ravens (Corvus corax), bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), magpies (Pica pica), coyotes (Canis latrans), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), and black bears (Ursus americanus) are each frequent visitors at wolf kills [17]”

    From Gray Wolves as Climate Change Buffers in Yellowstone (2005) · cites this paper as [17]

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Panel 4 is assigned opposite dominance patterns

    Minor

    The Figure 4 caption says panel 4 is dominated by competitively superior local species, then says it is dominated by species with superior recruitment abilities. These are conflicting predictions for the same panel.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Autenrieth R., 1981, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Bulletin 9
  2. Buehler D., 2000, The Birds of North America, No. 506
  3. Gonzalez M.E., 1999, Seed litter fall in Chusquea quila (Poaceae: Bombusoideae), after synchronous flowering in south‐central Chile, Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat., 72, 169
  4. LeFrank Jr M., 1983, Working Bibliography of the Golden Eagle and the Genus Aquila
  5. Lemke T., 2001, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
  6. Lemke T., 2002, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
  7. Magoun A.J., 1976, Biology and Resource Management Project, 167
  8. Murphy K.M., 1997, Encounter competition between bears and cougars: some ecological implications, Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage., 10, 55
  9. Swenson J.E., 1986, Ecology of Bald Eagles in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, Wildl. Monogr., 1
  10. Trost C., 1999, The Birds of North America, No. 389, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wilmers, C. C., Stahler, D. R., Crabtree, R. L., Smith, D. W., & Getz, W. M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Yellowstone National Park (US)
  • Yellowstone Ecological Research Center (US)
Corresponding author
Wilmers, Christopher C.
ORCID
Venue
Ecology Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-09-26
Volume
6
Issue
11
Pages
996-1003
ISSN
  • 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-0248
DOI
10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00522.x
OpenAlex
W2112445376
Cited by
271
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Ecology Letters (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
resource dispersion, carrion scavenging, gray wolves, human hunting, resource pulses, competitive dominance, top-down predation, scavenger communities, bald eagle, ravens, coyote, resource subsidies, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-29.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-29.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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