Cited by 32Rangeland and Wildlife ManagementWildlife Ecology and ConservationForest Insect Ecology and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of Techniques to Protect Aspen Suckers from Ungulate Browsing in the Black Hills

Kota, Andrew M., Bartos, Dale L.·2010·Western Journal of Applied Forestry

Abstract

Excessive browsing by cattle (Bos taurus L.) and wild ungulates, particularly elk (Cervus elaphus L.), sometimes inhibits growth and maturity of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) suckers in Western North America. In areas where aspen stands are in poor condition or declining, protecting suckers from ungulates may be necessary. This study compared the utility of livestock fences, complete wildlife exclosures, barriers created from slash debris, and tree hinging during 2004 and 2005 in the Black Hills of South Dakota. All of the barriers significantly reduced percentage browsing of aspen suckers compared with the pretreatment average (78%) and posttreatment control (79%). Slash treatments andlivestock fences decreased ungulate browsing by 19%, hinge treatments decreased it by 39%, and wildlife fences eliminated nearly allincidences of sucker browsing. The average length removed per terminal stem for aspen suckers decreased from 20.8 to 14.4 cm across all treatments. After 1 year, the mean number of suckers above 100 cm height in both the hinge and slash treatments were significantly greater than both the fence treatments and control. Data showed that autumn and winter browsing was primarily by wild ungulates. Slash barriers can replace livestock fences where cattle affect aspen suckers. Hinge barriers are more useful than both slash barriers and livestock fences in areas where wild ungulates are the primary browsers.

Overview

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 · 10.1093/wjaf/25.4.161

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. BARTOS, D.L., AND R.B. CAMPBELL. 1998b. Water depletion and other ecosystem values forfeited when conifer forests displace aspen communities. P. 427-434 in Rangeland management and water resources, D.F. Potts (ed.). Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association Specialty Conference, May 27-29, 1998, Reno, NV. American Water Resources Association, Herndon, VA. TPS-98-1.
  2. DEBYLE, N.V. 1985. Animal impacts. P. 115-123 in Aspen: Ecology and management in the western United States, DeByle, N.V., and R.P. Winokur (eds.). US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-119. US For. Serv., Ft.
  3. KEIGLEY, R.B., AND M.R. FRISINA. 1998. Browse evaluation by analysis of growth form: Vol. 1. Methods for evaluating condition and trend. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Butte, Mont. 153 p.
  4. KILPATRICK, S., AND D. ABENDROTH. 2001. Aspen response to prescribed fire and wild ungulate herbivory. P. 387-394 in Proc. symp. on sustaining aspen in western landscape, June 13-15, 2000, Grand Junction, CO. US For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Res. Stn., Ft. Collins, CO. RMRS-P-18.
  5. KOTA, A.M. 2005. Fences and on-site forest materials as ungulate barriers to promote aspen persistence. M.S. Thesis. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 74 p. KRANZ, J.J., AND R.L. LINDER. 1973. Value of Black Hills forest communities to deer and cattle. J. Range Manag. 26:263-265.
  6. RUMBLE, M.A., L.D. FLAKE, T.R. MILLS, AND B.L. DYKSTRA. 2001. Do pine trees in aspen stands increase bird diversity? P. 185-191 in Proc. symp. on sustaining aspen in western landscapes, June 13-15, 2000, Grand Junction, CO. US For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Res. Stn., Ft. Collins, CO. RMRS-P-18.
  7. SEVERSON, K.E., AND A.L. MEDINA. 1983. Deer and elk habitat management in the Southwest. Journal of Range Management Monograph 2. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 64 p.
  8. SHEPPERD, W.D. 2004. Techniques to restore aspen forests in the western U.S. P. 52-60 in Trans. West. Sect. Widlife Soc. 40.
  9. SHEPPERD, W.D., AND M.L. FAIRWEATHER. 1994. Impact of large ungulates in restoration of aspen communities in a southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystem. P. 333-347 in Sustainable ecological systems: Implementing an ecological approach to land management, Covington, W.S., and L.F. DeBano (eds.). US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-247. US For. Serv., Ft. Collins, CO.
  10. SHIRLEY, D.M., AND V. ERICKSON. 2001. Aspen restoration in the Blue Mountains of Northeast Oregon. P. 101-116 in Proc. symp. on sustaining aspen in western landscapes, June 13-15, 2000, Grand Junction, CO. US For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Res. Stn., Ft. Collins, CO. RMRS-P-18.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 32

Metadata

Authors
Kota, A. M., & Bartos, D. L.
Affiliations
US Forest Service (US)
Venue
Western Journal of Applied Forestry
Published
2010-10-01
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
161-168
ISSN
  • 0885-6095 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3770
OpenAlex
W1775390040
Cited by
32
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Western Journal of Applied Forestry (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Forest Insect Ecology and Management
Keywords
Populus tremuloides, ungulate browsing, elk, cattle, Black Hills

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of Techniques to Protect Aspen Suckers from Ungulate Browsing in the Black Hills. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/wjaf/25.4.161
The paper
Kota, A. M., & Bartos, D. L. (2010). Evaluation of Techniques to Protect Aspen Suckers from Ungulate Browsing in the Black Hills. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. https://doi.org/10.1093/wjaf/25.4.161