Cited by 16Rangeland and Wildlife ManagementWildlife Ecology and ConservationEcology and biodiversity studies

Ecological and social consequences of bison reintroduction in Colorado.

Open access
Wilkins, Kate, Pejchar, Liba, Garvoille, Rebecca·2019·Conservation Science and Practice

Abstract

Bison were instrumental in shaping North America's Great Plains. Interest in restoring this iconic species and their ecological role in grassland ecosystems is rapidly gaining momentum. To evaluate the potential for bison to enhance habitat quality for wildlife and catalyze public engagement in grassland conservation, we assessed both the ecological and social effects of a recent bison reintroduction (2015) to northern Colorado. Specifically, we explored the effect of bison reintroduction on: (a) bird density and habitat use, (b) mammal habitat use, (c) vegetation composition and structure, and (d) visitor connectedness, known as place attachment, to a shortgrass prairie. We predicted that bison reintroduction would reduce cover and height of some grasses and shrubs, which would increase density and habitat use for obligate shortgrass prairie birds, and increase habitat use for coyote and lagomorphs. In addition, we predicted that visitors would express stronger place attachment to this grassland once bison were reintroduced. To measure ecological and social responses, we surveyed birds, mammals, and plants; and conducted structured visitor surveys before and after bison reintroduction. We found few short‐term effects of bison on grassland bird density and habitat use, mammal habitat use, and vegetation composition and structure. However, we measured a significant increase in visitor place attachment to the grassland site 1 year after bison reintroduction. Our results suggest that a new bison reintroduction may have immediate positive benefits for connecting people to conservation, and that the ecological and social effects may unfold over different time scales. We recommend that future bison reintroduction efforts monitor ecological and social outcomes to advance reintroduction biology.

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 · 10.1111/csp2.9

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • Each Tribe has initiated community engagement activities to gain public support and rebuild a constituency for bison, based upon the perception that reconnecting the community with bison herds will provide multiple benefits.

    “To that end, as demonstrated in the case studies, each Tribe has initiated community engagement activities to gain public support and rebuild a constituency for bison, based upon the perception that reconnecting the community with bison herds will provide multiple benefits (Haggerty et al., 2017;Wilkins et al., 2019).”

    From The Potential of Bison Restoration as an Ecological Approach to Future Tribal Food Sovereignty on the Northern Great Plains (2022) · cites this paper as Wilkins et al., 2019

    The Discussion reports that bison reintroduction increased visitors’ attachment to a Colorado grassland and could strengthen public interest in conservation. It does not report that any Tribe initiated community engagement activities, sought to rebuild a constituency for bison, or held the stated perception; it says tribal perspectives were outside the study’s scope. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Effective bottom-up, community-based conservation projects must be built around a viable conservation target, but targets vary from community to community and even within communities.

    “Effective bottom-up, community-based conservation projects must be built around a viable conservation target, but targets vary from community to community and even within communities (Souto et al., 2014;Wilkins et al., 2019).”

    From The Potential of Bison Restoration as an Ecological Approach to Future Tribal Food Sovereignty on the Northern Great Plains (2022) · cites this paper as Wilkins et al., 2019

    The Introduction identifies bison as a possible focal species for grassland conservation, and the Discussion recommends considering stakeholder perspectives. Neither section addresses whether bottom-up, community-based projects must have a viable conservation target or whether targets vary between and within communities. Searches for those concepts found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 3

  1. Bernard HR. 2011. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantita- tive approaches. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD.
  2. Hanni D, White C, Van Lanen N, Birek J, Berven J, McLaren M. 2014. Inte- grated monitoring in bird conservation regions (IMBCR): Field protocol for spatially balanced sampling of landbird populations. Pages 1-38. Unpub- lished report. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO.
  3. Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., & Rabinowitz, A. (Eds.). (2005). People and wild- life, conflict, or co-existence? Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilkins, K., Pejchar, L., & Garvoille, R.
Affiliations
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • Denver Zoo (US)
Corresponding author
Wilkins, Kate
Venue
Conservation Science and Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-02
Volume
1
Issue
2
ISSN
2578-4854 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2917670079
Cited by
16
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2020-05-21)
Open access
Locations
  • Conservation Science and Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Sigma Xi
  • Audubon Society of Greater Denver
  • American Association of University Women
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
Keywords
bison reintroduction, shortgrass steppe, grassland birds, habitat use, vegetation structure, coyote, lagomorphs, place attachment, wildlife conservation, northern Colorado

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