The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 66 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system
Open accessAbstract
Because some native ungulates have lived without top predators for generations, it has been uncertain whether runaway predation would occur when predators are newly restored to these systems. We show that landscape features and vegetation, which influence predator detection and capture of prey, shape large‐scale patterns of predation in a newly restored predator–prey system. We analysed the spatial distribution of wolf ( Canis lupus ) predation on elk ( Cervus elaphus ) on the Northern Range of Yellowstone National Park over 10 consecutive winters. The influence of wolf distribution on kill sites diminished over the course of this study, a result that was likely caused by territorial constraints on wolf distribution. In contrast, landscape factors strongly influenced kill sites, creating distinct hunting grounds and prey refugia. Elk in this newly restored predator–prey system should be able to mediate their risk of predation by movement and habitat selection across a heterogeneous risk landscape.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
28 No full text of the sources · 26 Own interpretation · 20 Own result · 7 Not checked yet · 6 No basis given · 4 Sources not found · 3 Supported so far · 3 Own method · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“With few visual barriers, open habitats could also enhance the wolvesÕ ability to sort through an elk group and scan its members for vulnerable individuals to attack (Mech et al. 1998;MacNulty et al. 2007)”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mech et al. 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites MacNulty et al. 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) says wolves likely assess prey vulnerability and that attacking a group is their primary method of selecting an individual. It does not say that open habitat or fewer visual barriers improves their ability to assess elk group members. (LLM, conf=0.85)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In 2005, the influence of landscape features created a predation-risk landscape that was highly variable, with areas of low and high risk varying by nearly two orders of magnitude (Fig. 2a).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > R E S U L T S
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The odds ratio from the case-control logistic regression can be interpreted as the relative probability of a kill.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Apart from snow effects, the relative distribution of elk within each year was constant.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Elk density across the study area is proportional to habitat use estimated by Mao et al. (2005).
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A model including both elk and wolf distributions fit the kill data much better than did single-term models that included the distribution of only predator or prey (likelihood ratio v 2 ¼ 88.57, d.f.¼ 1, P < 0.0001; Table S1 in Supplementary Material).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > R E S U L T S
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The odds ratio from the case-control logistic regression can be interpreted as the relative probability of a kill.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Apart from snow effects, the relative distribution of elk within each year was constant.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is ample evidence that inter-pack conflict has increased as the density of NR wolf packs has increased.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Pack conflict
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Long-term monitoring in this system has recorded 2.8 (±0.8 SE) aggressive inter-pack interactions (i.e.intraspecific chase/flee, attack or kill) per year during the first half of the study period (1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000) and 11.8 (±2.6 SE) such interactions per year during the latter half of the study (2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Pack conflict
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, comparing a risky area with a refuge area, we found that an increase in wolf density that caused a 10-fold increase in risk (relative to mean annual risk) in 1996 caused only a 1.25-fold increase in risk in 2005 (Fig. 2b).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > R E S U L T S
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The odds ratio from the case-control logistic regression can be interpreted as the relative probability of a kill.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Apart from snow effects, the relative distribution of elk within each year was constant.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Elk density across the study area is proportional to habitat use estimated by Mao et al. (2005).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The influence of wolf distribution on kill sites diminished over the course of this study, a result that was likely caused by territorial constraints on wolf distribution.”
- Also stated in: § R E S U L T S · hedged
“The best-supported time-varying models included a negative wolf • time interaction (likelihood ratio v 2 ¼ 23.66, d.f.¼ 1, P < 0.0001; Table 1; Table S1), indicating that the influence of wolf distribution on kills has diminished over time.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The odds ratio from the case-control logistic regression can be interpreted as the relative probability of a kill.
- Also stated in: § R E S U L T S · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the early years after wolf reintroduction, wolf distribution also created considerable spatial variation in risk.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > R E S U L T S
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The odds ratio from the case-control logistic regression can be interpreted as the relative probability of a kill.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Apart from snow effects, the relative distribution of elk within each year was constant.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We show that landscape features and vegetation, which influence predator detection and capture of prey, shape large-scale patterns of predation in a newly restored predator-prey system.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
“We evaluated landscape-level variability in wolf predation on elk and found that spatial patterns of predation are more strongly influenced by landscape features than by wolf distribution.”
- Also stated in: § R E S U L T S · hedged
“Because these models take into account the spatial distribution of elk and wolves, they indicate that landscape factors strongly shape where wolves kill elk in this newly restored predator-prey system.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The odds ratio from the case-control logistic regression can be interpreted as the relative probability of a kill.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Apart from snow effects, the relative distribution of elk within each year was constant.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
In the paper
“Confirmed intraspecific killing by wolves increased over the same period, from 0.8 (±0.3 SE) per year to 2.5 (±1.0 SE) per year (D.W. Smith, unpublished data).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Pack conflict
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites D.W. Smith, unpublished data
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
- It may state two separate claims as one. 31
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Native ungulates that have lived without predators are expected to become naı ¨ve and less vigilant, increasing their vulnerability to predation (Berger 1999;Berger et al. 2001;Sand et al. 2006).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berger 1999 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berger et al. 2001 source
- Supportedcites Sand et al. 2006 source
The Introduction links predation to vigilance and says isolation from predators should select against costly anti-predator behaviour. It also predicts that Scandinavian moose unfamiliar with wolves will be relatively easier to kill; the Abstract reports higher wolf hunting success in Scandinavia than in North American populations continuously exposed to predators. Together these support the cited expectation, rather than a claim that reduced vigilance was directly measured. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Several studies on Yellowstone's NR have suggested that wolves are affecting willow (Salix spp.), cottonwood (Populus spp.) and aspen (P.tremuloides) communities by changing the behaviour of elk that heavily browse these woody plants during winter (Ripple et al. 2001;Ripple & Beschta 2004;Beyer et al. 2007).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ripple et al. 2001 source
- Supportedcites Ripple & Beschta 2004 source
The “Northern winter range” section reports reduced elk browsing of willow and cottonwood at sites with higher wolf-predation risk after reintroduction. It also links wolf predation risk to elk foraging patterns and recruitment of woody plants including aspen, and describes winter browsing of these species on Yellowstone’s northern range. The claim appropriately presents this as a suggestion rather than an established effect across every site. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Beyer et al. 2007 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Several studies have shown that elk respond to the risk of predation by wolves by increasing vigilance levels (Laundre et al. 2001) or shifting habitat use temporally (Creel et al. 2005;Gude et al. 2006).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Laundre et al. 2001 source
The Discussion reports that female elk increased vigilance in areas with wolves, supporting the claim attached to Laundré et al. (2001). The temporal habitat-use claim is attached to other citations, not this source. Page numbers are not provided in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites Creel et al. 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gude et al. 2006 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the 10 years since reintroduction, the NR wolf population increased from 14 wolves in three packs to 84 wolves in six packs (Fig. 1a).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The bestfit landscape model included all landscape variables and vastly outperformed the elk + wolf encounter model (likelihood ratio v 2 ¼ 270.11, d.f.¼ 6, P < 0.0001; Table 1; Table S1).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > R E S U L T S
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The odds ratio from the case-control logistic regression can be interpreted as the relative probability of a kill.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Apart from snow effects, the relative distribution of elk within each year was constant.
In the paper
“Similarly, the per-capita kill rate for wolves on the NR has not declined sharply over the study period (D.W. Smith, unpublished data), suggesting that wolf packs maintained a relatively constant annual kill rate.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Attenuation of wolf territory influence on kill distribution
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites D.W. Smith, unpublished data
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A few large, competitively dominant packs retained access to the best hunting grounds over the 10 years, but the majority of pack territories shifted away from the best hunting grounds as wolf density increased.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Estimating catchability across the Northern Range
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Annual catchability maps roughly approximate the relative quality of wolf habitat for finding and killing elk.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After controlling for pack size, a decline through time in the average catchability of elk within each pack's winter territory area was evident (multiple regression; pack size: t ¼ )2.48, P ¼ 0.0166; year: t ¼ )3.47, P ¼ 0.0011), with a significant pack size • time interaction (t ¼ 2.33, P ¼ 0.0238) whereby large packs had access to high-quality hunting grounds and small packs were relegated to po”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Estimating catchability across the Northern Range
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Annual catchability maps roughly approximate the relative quality of wolf habitat for finding and killing elk.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, our findings indicate that risk is a function of both predator distribution and habitat features, with habitat playing the larger role at high predator densities.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When first reintroduced, wolf pack distribution also strongly influenced predation risk (panel b), but this influence has largely diminished after 10 years of wolf population expansion.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spatial variation in predation risk is largely driven by landscape features, which create a limited number of hunting grounds where predation risk is often 10 times higher than the landscape average (a map value of 1 denotes average risk).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Over this time period, 92% of the ungulate prey taken by wolves during winter have been elk (Smith et al. 2004).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith et al. 2004 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, landscape factors strongly influenced kill sites, creating distinct hunting grounds and prey refugia.”
- Also stated in: § D I S C U S S I O N · hedged
“Our study suggests that hunting grounds -habitat patches with physical features favourable to hunting success of wolvesexist on the NR, and that their distribution on the landscape influences both territorial space used by wolves and spatial variation in predation risk for elk.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The odds ratio from the case-control logistic regression can be interpreted as the relative probability of a kill.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Apart from snow effects, the relative distribution of elk within each year was constant.
- Also stated in: § D I S C U S S I O N · hedged
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The history of introductions of exotic predators to predator-free islands illustrates that novel predators can markedly reduce populations of native prey and cause local extinctions (Fritts & Rodda 1998;Knapp et al. 2001;Blackburn et al. 2004).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Wolves were reintroduced to YNP in 1995 after being extirpated from this ecosystem in the 1930s (Bangs & Fritts 1996).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bangs & Fritts 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Theory suggests that native predator-prey systems persist over the long term due to heterogeneity in predation rates caused by prey refugia in space or time (Fryxell et al. 1988;Kareiva & Wennegren 1995;Ellner et al. 2001).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Aerial relocations of wolf packs known to be on a kill were excluded from the UD estimation to reduce the spatial dependence of kill sites on pack territories.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Wolf distribution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“While an estimated 27% of total kills went undiscovered, the two survey efforts conducted simultaneously (45% of our kills were detected from the air, 71% from the ground and 17% by both survey methods) resulted in minimal detection bias with respect to the landscape features used in our analysis (Smith et al. 2004).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Surveys for wolf-killed elk
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith et al. 2004 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This indicates that wolves were not simply making kills on the landscape in strict proportion to the distribution of elk, or their own spatial patterns of winter territory use.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > R E S U L T S
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The odds ratio from the case-control logistic regression can be interpreted as the relative probability of a kill.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Apart from snow effects, the relative distribution of elk within each year was constant.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All landscape variables showed relatively low levels of collinearity (r < 0.43), except for SWE and elk, which were negatively correlated with r ¼ )0.80.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Landscape variables
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Smith et al. (2004) used a double-count method to evaluate observation error in these surveys and found that ground crews are biased towards detecting wolf-killed elk in close proximity to the road system, with no kills found further than 7.23 km from the road.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Surveys for wolf-killed elk
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith et al. 2004 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, in only 4 years at least 10 adult moose (Alces alces) fell prey to grizzly bears at the frontier of bear recolonization in the greater Yellowstone area as compared with no records of predation where both had existed for 100+ years (Berger et al. 2001).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berger et al. 2001 source
plaincorrelationaln = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike the highly vulnerable native prey of introduced predators, the heterogeneity of the landscape that elk historically shared with wolves should allow them to mediate their risk of predation from this newly restored predator.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In wolf-ungulate systems, as in other large mammal systems (Sinclair & Arcese 1995), prime-age adult prey are largely invulnerable to predation, and predators are highly selective, targeting the young, old or weak (Mech & Peterson 2003).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sinclair & Arcese 1995 source
- Not matchedcites Mech & Peterson 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This notion is supported by recent findings showing that elk move out of open areas when wolves are near (Creel et al. 2005) or likely to occur (Fortin et al. 2005), and aggregate in increasingly larger groups in open areas the longer wolves are absent (Creel & Winnie 2005).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Creel et al. 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fortin et al. 2005 source
- Not matchedcites Creel & Winnie 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“These results have implications for the potential of restored predators to initiate trophic cascades by changing the habitat-selection patterns or foraging behaviour of their prey (i.e.behaviourally mediated trophic cascades; Schmitz et al. 2004).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schmitz et al. 2004 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: A rigorous test of behaviorally mediated trophic cascades has been hindered by the lack of an empirical assessment of landscape-level predation risk.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our finding of strong landscape effects on predation suggests that landscape features may often Ôtip the balanceÕ in predator-prey encounters, thus influencing post-encounter outcomes.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Such habitat features can influence spatial patterns of predation by influencing either pre-or post-encounter interactions between predators and prey (Hebblewhite et al. 2005), and we believe both mechanisms play a role in conferring riskiness to the NR hunting grounds.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hebblewhite et al. 2005 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Wolves are inefficient predators with generally low hunting success (»20%; Smith et al. 2000) due, in part, to the large size and defensive capabilities of their prey.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith et al. 2000 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hopcraft et al. (2005) found similar patterns for Serengeti lions (Panthera leo), whereby lion kills were more closely associated with good hunting habitats (in this case, stalking cover) than areas of high prey abundance.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hopcraft et al. 2005 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In Minnesota, boundaries between wolf pack territories appear to function as buffers where most interpack killings occur (Mech 1994) and where ungulate prey densities are elevated (Hoskinson & Mech 1976).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a study that was able to decompose the stages of predation, Hebblewhite et al. (2005) found that topographic features determined patterns of wolf-elk encounters, while habitat (i.e.vegetation) mediated postencounter outcomes.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hebblewhite et al. 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Streams and roads provide convenient travel corridors that likely increase prey encounter rates (Kunkel & Pletscher 2000), while open habitats likely facilitate prey detection (Kunkel & Pletscher 2000;Creel et al. 2005).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kunkel & Pletscher 2000 source
- Not matchedcites Creel et al. 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Predator distribution has been commonly used as a surrogate for predation risk in ecological studies (e.g.Ripple et al. 2001;Creel et al. 2005;Fortin et al. 2005);”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, the relative high density of wolf and elk populations on the NR and the strong landscape influence on predation success interact to create a pattern of high territorial overlap where the best hunting opportunities exist.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results are consistent with our hypothesis that individual wolf packs shifted their winter territories away from but adjacent to the best hunting grounds, thus decoupling kill locations from wolf distribution.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Estimating catchability across the Northern Range
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Annual catchability maps roughly approximate the relative quality of wolf habitat for finding and killing elk.
In the paper
“The mosaic of risky and safe habitat patches available to NR elk suggests that elk can reduce their risk of wolf predation by making movements on the order of 1-2 km, easily achieved within daily movements (Fortin et al. 2005).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fortin et al. 2005 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because we found a strong influence of landscape variables on kill-site occurrence after accounting for the distribution of predator and prey, we believe that habitat mediates predation by influencing the occurrence or outcome of wolf-elk encounters.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The odds ratio from the case-control logistic regression can be interpreted as the relative probability of a kill.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Apart from snow effects, the relative distribution of elk within each year was constant.
In the paper
“In fact, wolf territory locations were a positive predictor of elk habitat use (i.e.wolf and elk distributions closely overlap).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mao et al. 2005 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“How elk perceive and manage the trade-off between food and safety will ultimately determine the existence and strength of a behaviourally mediated trophic cascade in the NR system.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study makes clear that NR elk in winter face a clear trade-off between forage quality and predation risk: most of these browse communities are found in open, flat areas near rivers and roads, which are risky places for elk.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The odds ratio from the case-control logistic regression can be interpreted as the relative probability of a kill.
“we assume the odds ratio to be interpretable as relative probability of kill (Keating & Cherry 2004).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Apart from snow effects, the relative distribution of elk within each year was constant.
“our habitat model assumed (aside from the influence of snow) that the relative distribution of elk within each year was constant.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Elk density across the study area is proportional to habitat use estimated by Mao et al. (2005).
“we assume that elk density across the study area is proportional to habitat use as estimated by Mao et al. (2005).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Annual catchability maps roughly approximate the relative quality of wolf habitat for finding and killing elk.
“We assumed that annual catchability maps roughly approximate the relative quality of wolf habitat as it relates to their likelihood of successfully finding and killing elk.”
The paper relies on this without support.
On the Northern Range, snow accumulation pushes elk to lower-elevation winter range, so elk distribution changes within and among winters.
“On the NR, it is well known that snow accumulation throughout winter (if deep enough) pushes elk to lower-elevation winter range; thus, elk distribution on the landscape changes within and among annual winter seasons.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A rigorous test of behaviorally mediated trophic cascades has been hindered by the lack of an empirical assessment of landscape-level predation risk.
“However, in our view, a rigorous test has been hindered thus far by the lack of an empirical assessment of landscape-level predation risk.”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > R E S U L T S
“A model including both elk and wolf distributions fit the kill data much better than did single-term models that included the distribution of only predator or prey (likelihood ratio v 2 ¼ 88.57, d.f.¼ 1, P < 0.0001; Table S1 in Supplementary Material).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Additional information
“Table S1 Spatial variance in wolf density index through time.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > R E S U L T S
“no temporal decline in the variance of the wolf density index was evident (see Fig. S1).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Additional information
“Figure S1 Model selection results for models of kill occurrence.”
Citations
Cites
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
Evaluating resource selection functions
Boyce, M. S., Vernier, P. R., Nielsen, S. E., & Schmiegelow, F. K. A. (2002) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(02)00200-4 · Cited by 2,628
Self-citationHuman‐Carnivore Conflict and Perspectives on Carnivore Management Worldwide
Treves, A., & Karanth, K. (2003) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00059.x · Cited by 1,722
Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system
Crooks, K. R., & Soulé, M. E. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/23028 · Cited by 1,721
An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Kernel Density Estimators for Home Range Analysis
Seaman, D. E., & Powell, R. A. (1996) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/2265701 · Cited by 1,672
Ecological Meltdown in Predator-Free Forest Fragments
Terborgh, J., Lopez, L., Nuñez, P., Rao, M., Shahabuddin, G., Orihuela, G., Riveros, M., Ascanio, R., Adler, G. H., Lambert, T. D., et al. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1064397 · Cited by 1,656
Wolves influence elk movements: Behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park
Fortin, D., Beyer, H. L., Boyce, M. S., Smith, D. W., Duchesne, T., & Mao, J. S. (2005) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/04-0953 · Cited by 1,351 · cited 5×
“This notion is supported by recent findings showing that elk move out of open areas when wolves are near (Creel et al. 2005) or likely to occur (Fortin et al. 2005), and aggregate in increasingly larger groups in open areas the longer wolves are absent (Creel & Winnie 2005).”
InfluentialSelf-citationWolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the "landscape of fear" in Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A.
Laundré, J. W., Hernández, L., & Altendorf, K. B. (2001) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z01-094 · Cited by 1,216
Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation
Brown, J. S., & Kotler, B. P. (2004) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00661.x · Cited by 1,130
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Bangs E.E., 1996, Reintroducing the gray wolf to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, Wildl. Soc. Bull., 24, 402
- Garshelis D., 2000, Research Techniques in Animal Ecology, 111
- Hooge P.N., 1997, Animal Movement Extension to Arcview 3.2
- Manly B.F.J., 2002, Resource Selection by Animals: Statistical Analysis and Design for Field Studies
- Orians G.H., 1997, Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management
- Skovlin J.M., 2002, North American Elk: Ecology and Management, 531
- Wockner G., 2006, Yellowstone Snow Model
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effects of Humans on Behaviour of Wildlife Exceed Those of Natural Predators in a Landscape of Fear
Ciuti, S., Northrup, J. M., Muhly, T. B., Simi, S., Musiani, M., Pitt, J. A., & Boyce, M. S. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050611 · Cited by 500
“RSFs are any function proportional to the probability of selection of a resource unit, and have been widely used to model species distributions [51,52].”
MethodSelf-citationPredator control of ecosystem nutrient dynamics
Schmitz, O. J., Hawlena, D., & Trussell, G. C. (2010) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01511.x · Cited by 489
“Decoupling carcass distribution from live-prey distribution In some habitats, prey species tend to be disproportionately vulnerable to predation leading to differences in the overall distribution of live prey and locations where they tend to be killed across the landscape (Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundBakker, E. S., Gill, J. L., Johnson, C. N., Vera, F. W. M., Sandom, C. J., Asner, G. P., & Svenning, J.-C. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1502545112 · Cited by 368
Hopcraft, J. G. C., Olff, H., & SINCLAIR, A. R. E. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.001 · Cited by 403
Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study
Letnic, M., Ritchie, E. G., & Dickman, C. R. (2012) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00203.x · Cited by 331
“<2000 km2) spatial scales (Sinclair et al., 2000; Fortin et al., 2005; Beyer et al., 2007; Kauffman et al., 2007; Berger, Gese & Berger, 2008; Trewby et al., 2008) or in fragmented landscapes and island ecosystems (McLaren & Peterson, 1994; Crooks & Soulé, 1999; Terborgh et al.”
BackgroundThaker, M., Vanak, A. T., Owen, C. R., Ogden, M. B., Niemann, S. M., & Slotow, R. (2010) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/10-0126.1 · Cited by 317
Diel predator activity drives a dynamic landscape of fear
Kohl, M. T., Stahler, D. R., Metz, M. C., Forester, J. D., Kauffman, M. J., Varley, N., White, P. J. C., Smith, D. W., & MacNulty, D. R. (2018) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1313 · Cited by 315
Self-citationPaws without claws? Ecological effects of large carnivores in anthropogenic landscapes
Kuijper, D. P. J., Sahlén, E., Elmhagen, B., Chamaillé‐Jammes, S., Sand, H., Lone, K., & Cromsigt, J. P. G. M. (2016) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.1625 · Cited by 295
Considering ecological dynamics in resource selection functions
McLoughlin, P. D., Morris, D. W., Fortin, D., Wal, E. V., & Contasti, A. L. (2009) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01613.x · Cited by 267
“The behavioural basis for these shifts is likely due to initially naı̈ve prey learning to associate what were once ‘safe’ habitat components with higher abundances of predators (Kauffman et al. 2007) and conflicts between vigilance and time spent foraging (Fortin et al. 2004).”
BackgroundResultKauffman, M. J., Brodie, J. F., & Jules, E. S. (2010) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/09-1949.1 · Cited by 275
“The wolf population appears to be near saturation, controlled currently by intraspecific competition for limited viable territories as evidenced by increased levels of inter-pack interactions and intraspecific killing (Kauffman et al .”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationHunting for fear: innovating management of human–wildlife conflicts
Cromsigt, J., Kuijper, D., Adam, M., Beschta, R., Churski, M., Eycott, A., Kerley, G., Mysterud, A., Schmidt, K., & West, K. (2013) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12076 · Cited by 229
“After temporal variation in risk, landscape characteristics clearly influence the strength of risk effects (Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundFortin, D., Fortin, M.-E., Beyer, H. L., Duchesne, T., Courant, S., & Dancose, K. (2009) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/08-0345.1 · Cited by 263
Glucocorticoid stress hormones and the effect of predation risk on elk reproduction
Creel, S., Winnie, J. A., & Christianson, D. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0902235106 · Cited by 256
Kuijper, D. P. J., Kleine, C., Churski, M., van Hooft, P., Bubnicki, J. W., & Jędrzejewska, B. (2013) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00266.x · Cited by 242
“The landscape of fear in YNP is strongly determined by the physical landscape with strongest risk effects occurring in, for example, large river valleys and mountain ridges (Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundCaribou encounters with wolves increase near roads and trails: a time‐to‐event approach
Whittington, J., Hebblewhite, M., DeCesare, N. J., Neufeld, L., Bradley, M. P., Wilmshurst, J., & Musiani, M. (2011) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02043.x · Cited by 241
Heithaus, M. R., Wirsing, A. J., Burkholder, D., Thomson, J., & Dill, L. M. (2009) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01512.x · Cited by 239
Dangerous prey and daring predators: a review
Mukherjee, S., & Heithaus, M. R. (2013) · Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · doi:10.1111/brv.12014 · Cited by 247
“For example wolves avoid steep slopes (see Kauffman et al., 2007) most likely because it helps reduce their chances of injury from falling, and hence these areas likely act as refuges for their prey.”
BackgroundDickie, M., McNay, S., Sutherland, G. D., et al. (2019) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.13130 · Cited by 213
“Other prey species avoid human-modified habitats, consistent with a predation risk reduction response (Kauffman et al., 2007).”
BackgroundRelative vulnerability of female turtles to road mortality
Steen, D. A., Aresco, M. J., Beilke, S., Compton, B. W., Condon, E. P., Dodd, C. K., Forrester, H., Gibbons, J. W., Greene, J. L., Johnson, G., et al. (2006) · Animal Conservation · doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00032.x · Cited by 233
Bailey, I., Myatt, J. P., & Wilson, A. M. (2012) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/s00265-012-1423-3 · Cited by 233
“Wolves preferentially hunt on flat open ground, often along movement corridors such as river flood plains where prey are easier to detect and follow (Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundCotterill, A., Valeix, M., Frank, L. G., Riginos, C., & Macdonald, D. W. (2015) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/oik.02224 · Cited by 231
Time and space in general models of antipredator response: tests with wolves and elk
Creel, S., Winnie, J. A., Christianson, D., & Liley, S. (2008) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.006 · Cited by 194
“…studies, predation risk is often treated as a parameter that varies among places, by measuring some index of risk across space and asking how spatial variation in risk affects the distribution, abundance or survival of prey animals (Hebblewhite et al. 2002; Kauffman et al. 2007; Frid et al. 2008).”
BackgroundHebblewhite, M., & Merrill, E. H. (2011) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19436.x · Cited by 194
Creel, S. (2018) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12975 · Cited by 183
Habitat heterogeneity and mammalian predator–prey interactions
Gorini, L., Linnell, J. D. C., May, R. F., Panzacchi, M., Boitani, L., Odden, M., & Nilsen, E. B. (2011) · Mammal Review · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2011.00189.x · Cited by 185
“…habitat selection of highly mobile terrestrial mammals as a response to predation risk and prey availability confirm, however, the importance of spatial heterogeneity in understanding observed kill rates (e.g. Hebblewhite et al. 2005, Hopcraft et al. 2005, Kauffman et al. 2007, Zub et al. 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialNowhere to hide: Effects of linear features on predator–prey dynamics in a large mammal system
DeMars, C. A., & Boutin, S. A. (2017) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12760 · Cited by 173
“Spatial heterogeneity in landscape structure plays a fundamental role in shaping predator–prey dynamics, often being a key determinant of predator–prey coexistence (Gorini et al., 2012; Huffaker, 1958; Kauffman et al., 2007).”
BackgroundBump, J. K., Peterson, R. O., & Vucetich, J. A. (2009) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/09-0292.1 · Cited by 171
Bleicher, S. S. (2017) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.3772 · Cited by 171
Cubaynes, S., MacNulty, D. R., Stahler, D. R., Quimby, K. A., Smith, D. W., & Coulson, T. N. (2014) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12238 · Cited by 168
“In the NR, wolves even shifted their territories away from the best hunting grounds as the degree of overlap between pack territories increased with wolf density (Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundSelf-citationExcess digestive capacity in predators reflects a life of feast and famine
Armstrong, J. B., & Schindler, D. E. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10240 · Cited by 163
HABITAT-MEDIATED VARIATION IN PREDATION RISK BY THE AMERICAN MARTEN
Andruskiw, M., Fryxell, J. M., Thompson, I. D., & Baker, J. A. (2008) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-1428.1 · Cited by 165
“…that has accounted for differential habitat use suggests that hunting efficiency is influenced by proximity to riverine vegetation and erosion terraces for concealment of Serengeti lions (Hopcraft et al. 2005) and the amount of open grassland adjacent to streams for wolves (Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundEvaluating Global Positioning System Telemetry Techniques for Estimating Cougar Predation Parameters
Knopff, K. H., Knopff, A. A., WARREN, M. B., & Boyce, M. S. (2009) · Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2193/2008-294 · Cited by 163
“…(Mills and Shenk 1992), the physical condition of prey (Husseman et al. 2003), and the spatial distribution of predation risk (Hebblewhite et al. 2005, Kauffman et al. 2007, Creel 2008) are fundamental to understanding the effects large carnivores have on prey populations and ecosystem structure.”
BackgroundSelf-citationHurley, M. A., Unsworth, J. W., Zager, P. E., Hebblewhite, M., Garton, E. O., Montgomery, D. M., Skalski, J. R., & Maycock, C. L. (2011) · Wildlife Monographs · doi:10.1002/wmon.4 · Cited by 154
“Short-term modification of mule deer behavior is plausible through predator removal as observed in elk-wolf (Kauffman et al. 2007) and marine systems (Wirsing et al.”
BackgroundAnderson, T. M., Hopcraft, J. G. C., Eby, S. L., Ritchie, M. E., Grace, J. B., & Olff, H. (2010) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/09-0739.1 · Cited by 146
“Ours and other studies (Ripple and Beschta 2004, Kauffman et al. 2007, Riginos and Grace 2008) suggest that the spatial distributions of herbivore concentrations, and thus areas of greatest potential for ungulate-driven feedbacks, are partially determined by behavioral adaptation to risk.”
BackgroundResultWhat Cues Do Ungulates Use to Assess Predation Risk in Dense Temperate Forests?
Kuijper, D. P. J., Verwijmeren, M., Churski, M., Zbyryt, A., Schmidt, K., Jędrzejewska, B., & Smit, C. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084607 · Cited by 152
“Landscape characteristics clearly influence predator-prey interaction and the expression of risk effects [20].”
InfluentialHopcraft, J. G. C., Anderson, T. M., Vila, S. P., Mayemba, E. P., & Olff, H. (2011) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01885.x · Cited by 148
“…with certain landscape features such as dense woodland, embankments, water sources, predator viewsheds and slope which facilitate the capture of prey or conceal huntingpredators (Balme,Hunter&Slotow2007;Hebblewhite,Merrill & McDonald 2005; Hopcraft, Sinclair & Packer 2005; Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundMattisson, J., Sand, H., Wabakken, P., Gervasi, V., Liberg, O., Linnell, J. D. C., Rauset, G. R., & Pedersen, H. C. (2013) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s00442-013-2668-x · Cited by 157
“…but the predictability and availability of prey (Rich et al. 2012), the choice of prey species (Fuller et al. 2003) and landscape features correlated with hunting success (Kauffman et al. 2007; Rich et al. 2012; Gervasi et al. 2013) may play an equally important role in modulating this effect.”
BackgroundDo wild ungulates experience higher stress with humans than with large carnivores?
Zbyryt, A., Bubnicki, J. W., Kuijper, D. P. J., Dehnhard, M., Churski, M., & Schmidt, K. (2017) · Behavioral Ecology · doi:10.1093/beheco/arx142 · Cited by 132
“these predation risk effects of both natural predators (Kunkel and Pletscher, 2000; Creel et al. 2005; Kauffman et al. 2007) and human hunters (Proffitt et al.”
BackgroundTrophic Cascades by Large Carnivores: A Case for Strong Inference and Mechanism
Ford, A. T., & Goheen, J. R. (2015) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.09.012 · Cited by 142
Spatial responses to predators vary with prey escape mode
Wirsing, A. J., Cameron, K. E., & Heithaus, M. R. (2010) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.014 · Cited by 139
“The lethality of predators at any location is often influenced by attributes of the surrounding landscape (Gripenberg & Roslin 2007; Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundBump, J. K., Webster, C. R., Vucetich, J. A., Peterson, R. O., Shields, J. M., & Powers, M. D. (2009) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10021-009-9274-0 · Cited by 135
Designing studies of predation risk for improved inference in carnivore-ungulate systems
Prugh, L. R., Sivy, K. J., Mahoney, P. J., Ganz, T. R., Ditmer, M. A., van de Kerk, M., Gilbert, S. L., & Montgomery, R. A. (2019) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.02.011 · Cited by 153
“using a model-derived, relative measure of risk across heterogeneous landscapes (e.g., Hebblewhite and Merrill, 2007; Kauffman et al., 2007; Kauffman et al., 2010; Petrunenko et al., 2016; Moll et al., 2018).”
MethodHopcraft, J. G. C., Morales, J. M., Beyer, H. L., Borner, M., Mwangomo, E., SINCLAIR, A. R. E., Olff, H., & Haydon, D. T. (2014) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1890/13-1446.1 · Cited by 128
“Landscape features such as dense thickets or drainage beds conceal predators or provide predictable locations where predators might encounter prey (Hebblewhite et al. 2005, Hopcraft et al. 2005, Balme et al. 2007, Kauffman et al. 2007, Valeix et al. 2009, Anderson et al. 2010).”
BackgroundKuijper, D. P. J., Bubnicki, J. W., Churski, M., Mols, B., & van Hooft, P. (2015) · Behavioral Ecology · doi:10.1093/beheco/arv107 · Cited by 124
Environmental determinants of habitat and kill site selection in a large carnivore: scale matters
Davidson, Z., Valeix, M., Loveridge, A. J., Hunt, J. E., Johnson, P. J., Madzikanda, H., & Macdonald, D. W. (2012) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.1644/10-mamm-a-424.1 · Cited by 110
Large carnivore impacts are context-dependent
Haswell, P. M., Kusak, J., & Hayward, M. W. (2016) · Food Webs · doi:10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.02.005 · Cited by 118
“Wolf predation success and prey vulnerability may be dependent on the amount of open grassland adjacent to streams (Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundGervasi, V., Sand, H., Zimmermann, B., Mattisson, J., Wabakken, P., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2013) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/12-1615.1 · Cited by 101
“4 E-mail: vincenzo.gervasi@nina.no 1722 different probabilities of killing (Kareiva and Wennegren 1995, Ellner et al. 2001, Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundInfluentialRisky times and risky places interact to affect prey behaviour
Dröge, E., Creel, S., Becker, M. S., & M’soka, J. (2017) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0220-9 · Cited by 109
Behavioural responses of ungulates to indirect cues of an ambush predator
Wikenros, C., Kuijper, D. P. J., Behnke, R., & Schmidt, K. (2015) · Behaviour · doi:10.1163/1568539x-00003266 · Cited by 94
“Predation risk can vary in different habitat types (Kauffman et al., 2007; Halofsky & Ripple, 2008).”
Migration of northern Yellowstone elk: implications of spatial structuring
White, P. J. C., Proffitt, K. M., Mech, L. D., Evans, S. B., Cunningham, J. A., & Hamlin, K. L. (2010) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.1644/08-mamm-a-252.1 · Cited by 94
Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?
Allen, B. L., Allen, B. L., Andrén, H., Ballard, G., Boitani, L., Engeman, R. M., Fleming, P. J. S., Ford, A. T., Haswell, P. M., Kowalczyk, R., et al. (2017) · Food Webs · doi:10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.02.008 · Cited by 98
“Not only did these earlier studies incorrectly identify areas of high predation risk (Creel et al., 2005; Kauffman et al., 2007; Kauffman et al., 2010; Winnie, 2012), but they also failed to consider more parsimonious explanations for increased tree growth in riparian areas, such as the height of…”
BackgroundKittle, A. M., Anderson, M. L., Avgar, T., Baker, J. A., Brown, G. S., Hagens, J., Iwachewski, E., Moffatt, S. M., Mosser, A. A., Patterson, B. R., et al. (2017) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.1783 · Cited by 88
“Predators influence survival, demography, and the spatial distribution of their prey through direct predation and the non-lethal risk of predation (Ripple et al. 2014), processes influenced by predator space-use patterns (Kauffman et al. 2007, McPhee et al. 2012a, Middleton et al. 2013).”
BackgroundA “death trap” in the landscape of fear
Schmidt, K., & Kuijper, D. P. J. (2015) · Mammal Research · doi:10.1007/s13364-015-0229-x · Cited by 99
Do prey select for vacant hunting domains to minimize a multi‐predator threat?
Kohl, M. T., Ruth, T. K., Metz, M. C., Stahler, D. R., Smith, D. W., White, P. J., & MacNulty, D. R. (2019) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.13319 · Cited by 86
“Wolves are cursorial predators that kill mainly in flat, open areas at morning and dusk (Kauffman et al. 2007; Kohl et al. 2018), whereas cougars are spot-and-stalk/ambush predators that kill mainly in topographically rugged, forested areas at night (Murphy et al. 1998; Ruth et al. 2019).”
BackgroundSelf-citationEvidence for top predator control of a grazing ecosystem
Frank, D. A. (2008) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.16846.x · Cited by 94
Physiological Stress and Refuge Behavior by African Elephants
Jachowski, D. S., Slotow, R., & Millspaugh, J. J. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031818 · Cited by 89
“ed space use patterns indicative of refuge behavior have been documented for a variety of species, but few previous studies have linked the internal physiological status and selection of refugia [8,32].”
BackgroundInfluence of habitat features and hunter behavior on white‐tailed deer harvest
Lebel, F., Dussault, C., Massé, A., & Côté, S. D. (2012) · Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.1002/jwmg.377 · Cited by 87
Changes in Elk Distribution and Group Sizes after Wolf Restoration
White, P. J., Proffitt, K. M., & Lemke, T. O. (2012) · The American Midland Naturalist · doi:10.1674/0003-0031-167.1.174 · Cited by 85
Elbroch, L. M., Lendrum, P. E., Quigley, H. B., & Caragiulo, A. (2015) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12447 · Cited by 89
“in ArcGIS 10 (Kauffman et al. 2007; Kunkel et al. 2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWolf presence and increased willow consumption by Yellowstone elk: implications for trophic cascades
Creel, S., & Christianson, D. (2009) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/08-2017.1 · Cited by 84
White, K. S., Barten, N. L., Crouse, S., & Crouse, J. A. (2013) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/13-0054.1 · Cited by 80
Thermal heterogeneity mediates the effects of pulsed subsidies across a landscape
Armstrong, J. B., Schindler, D. E., Omori, K. L., Ruff, C. P., & Quinn, T. P. (2010) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/09-0790.1 · Cited by 82
“For example, heterogeneity in the physical structure of habitat can affect foraging success as much as prey availability (Hopcraft et al. 2005, Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundMikusiński, G., Bubnicki, J. W., Churski, M., Czeszczewik, D., Walankiewicz, W., & Kuijper, D. P. J. (2018) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.001 · Cited by 81
Resolving the value of the dingo in ecological restoration
Newsome, T. M., Ballard, G., Crowther, M. S., Dellinger, J. A., Fleming, P. J. S., Glen, A. S., Greenville, A. C., Johnson, C. N., Letnic, M., Moseby, K. E., et al. (2015) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/rec.12186 · Cited by 81
“For example, there is debate about the exact mechanisms by which wolves affect their main prey, elk (Cervus elaphus) (Kauffman et al. 2007; Middleton et al. 2013), and how widespread the cascading effects on vegetation have been (Kauffman et al. 2010, but see Painter et al. 2014 for the most recent…”
BackgroundPredation landscapes influence migratory prey ecology and evolution
Sabal, M. C., Boyce, M. S., Charpentier, C. L., Furey, N. B., Luhring, T. M., Martin, H. W., Melnychuk, M. C., Srygley, R. B., Wagner, C. M., Wirsing, A. J., et al. (2021) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2021.04.010 · Cited by 80
Self-citationPatterns and consequences of ungulate herbivory on aspen in western North America
Seager, S., Eisenberg, C., & Clair, S. S. S. (2013) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.02.017 · Cited by 96
Recovering aspen follow changing elk dynamics in Yellowstone: evidence of a trophic cascade?
Painter, L. E., Beschta, R. L., Larsen, E. J., & Ripple, W. J. (2015) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/14-0712.1 · Cited by 76
Linking spatial patterns of terrestrial herbivore community structure to trophic interactions
Bubnicki, J. W., Churski, M., Schmidt, K., Diserens, T. A., & Kuijper, D. P. J. (2019) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.44937 · Cited by 80
Winter is changing: Trophic interactions under altered snow regimes
Penczykowski, R., Connolly, B., & Barton, B. (2017) · Food Webs · doi:10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.02.006 · Cited by 65
“…favor habitat with less snow due to topography or dense vegetation cover (Armleder et al., 1994; Rachlow and Bowyer, 1998; Schmidt, 1993), which could drive heterogeneous patterns of predation and herbivory across the landscape (Gorini et al., 2012; Kauffman et al., 2007; Nelson and Mech, 1986).”
BackgroundSeasonal Foraging Ecology of Non-Migratory Cougars in a System with Migrating Prey
Elbroch, L. M., Lendrum, P. E., Newby, J. R., Quigley, H. B., & Craighead, D. J. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083375 · Cited by 72
“We portioned kill sites into five equal sets, and models were fit to 80% partition of the data, while the remaining 20% of the data were used as test data [46,47].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMonk, J. D., & Schmitz, O. J. (2021) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/oik.08554 · Cited by 80
Cascading predator effects in a Fijian coral reef ecosystem
Rasher, D. B., Hoey, A. S., & Hay, M. E. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-15679-w · Cited by 72
Habitat and roe deer fawn vulnerability to red fox predation
Panzacchi, M., Linnell, J. D. C., Odden, M., Oddén, J., & Andersen, R. (2009) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01584.x · Cited by 74
Weak spatiotemporal response of prey to predation risk in a freely interacting system
Cusack, J. J., Kohl, M. T., Metz, M. C., Coulson, T. N., Stahler, D. R., Smith, D. W., & MacNulty, D. R. (2019) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12968 · Cited by 60
Self-citationWolves for Yellowstone: dynamics in time and space
Boyce, M. S. (2018) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyy115 · Cited by 72
Self-citationEnhancing species distribution modeling by characterizing predator–prey interactions
Trainor, A. M., Schmitz, O. J., Ivan, J. S., & Shenk, T. M. (2013) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/13-0336.1 · Cited by 68
“Following Kauffman et al. (2007, 2010) and Kertson et al. (2011), lynx telemetry locations were used to estimate utilization distributions (UD) for each lynx during each winter.”
MethodThaker, M., Vanak, A. T., Owen, C. R., Ogden, M. B., & Slotow, R. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012758 · Cited by 66
Climate change intensification of herbivore impacts on tree recruitment
Brodie, J., Post, E., Watson, F., & Berger, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1501 · Cited by 63
Beschta, R. L., & Ripple, W. J. (2011) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/11-0063.1 · Cited by 64
“Additionally, encounter sites and kill sites in Yellowstone occur, on average, nearly one kilometer apart (Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundRayl, N. D., Bastille‐Rousseau, G., Organ, J. F., Mumma, M. A., Mahoney, S. P., Soulliere, C. E., Lewis, K. P., Otto, R. D., Murray, D. L., Waits, L. P., et al. (2018) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12810 · Cited by 66
Stobo‐Wilson, A. M., Stokeld, D., Einoder, L. D., et al. (2020) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/ddi.13065 · Cited by 61
“This finding is supported by other research that shows predators are more likely to hunt in areas where they have a higher rate of success (therefore greater prey availability) than in areas where prey abundance is greatest (Kauffman et al., 2007; Pakpien et al., 2017).”
ResultWolf predation on moose and roe deer: chase distances and outcome of encounters
Wikenros, C., Sand, H., Wabakken, P., Liberg, O., & Pedersen, H. C. (2009) · ACTA THERIOLOGICA · doi:10.4098/j.at.0001-7051.082.2008 · Cited by 59
Creel, S., Dröge, E., M’soka, J., Smit, D., Becker, M., Christianson, D., & Schuette, P. A. (2017) · Ecology · doi:10.1002/ecy.1885 · Cited by 59
“…know that responses to risk are sensitive to many extrinsic and intrinsic variables (Boinski et al. 2003, Hopcraft et al. 2005, Balme et al. 2007, Kauffman et al. 2007, Liley and Creel 2008, Cresswell et al. 2010, Cresswell and Quinn 2013, Creel et al. 2014), but we do not understand the…”
BackgroundTowards an ecosystem model of infectious disease
Hassell, J. M., Newbold, T., Dobson, A. P., Linton, Y., Franklinos, L. H. V., Zimmerman, D. M., & Lohan, K. M. P. (2021) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-021-01454-8 · Cited by 61
Does wolf presence reduce moose browsing intensity in young forest plantations?
Calkoen, S. T. S. V. B., Kuijper, D. P. J., Sand, H., Singh, N. J., van Wieren, S. E., & Cromsigt, J. P. G. M. (2018) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.03329 · Cited by 54
Prey Selection by an Apex Predator: The Importance of Sampling Uncertainty
Davis, M. L., Stephens, P. A., Willis, S. G., Bassi, E., Marcon, A., Donaggio, E., Capitani, C., & Apollonio, M. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047894 · Cited by 48
“Accurate predictions require a thorough understanding of predator diets and prey selection, which can be affected by a multitude of factors including: prey and predator densities [7]; the functional and numerical responses of predators to changes in prey density [8–9]; community composition (particularly the presence…”
BackgroundBody condition and pregnancy in northern Yellowstone elk: Evidence for predation risk effects?
White, P. J., Garrott, R. A., Hamlin, K. L., Cook, R. C., Cook, J. G., & Cunningham, J. A. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/09-2123.1 · Cited by 56
“…of elk antipredator strategies during winter have been ambiguous regarding whether wolves cause elk to avoid favored foraging areas, decrease time spent foraging, and decrease nutrition (Creel et al. 2005, Fortin et al. 2005, Kauffman et al. 2007, Gower et al. 2009a, b, White et al. 2009).”
BackgroundPiscivorous fish exhibit temperature‐influenced binge feeding during an annual prey pulse
Furey, N. B., Hinch, S. G., Mesa, M. G., et al. (2016) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12565 · Cited by 54
Home range size, vegetation density, and season influences prey use by coyotes (Canis latrans)
Ward, J. N., Hinton, J. W., Johannsen, K. L., Karlin, M., Miller, K. V., & Chamberlain, M. J. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203703 · Cited by 56
“Indeed, heterogeneous landscapes and density-dependence are known to stabilize predator-prey interactions through frequency-dependent prey-switching [1,5] and by providing refugia for prey [77,128].”
BackgroundLandscape heterogeneity: concepts, quantification, challenges and future perspectives
Tonetti, V. R., Pena, J. C., Scarpelli, M., Sugai, L. S. M., de Barros, F. M., Anunciação, P. R., Santos, P. M., Tavares, A. L., & Ribeiro, M. C. (2023) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892923000097 · Cited by 58
“2009), predation (Kauffman et al. 2007), pest control (Gardiner et al.”
BackgroundHierarchical predation: wolf (Canis lupus) selection along hunt paths and at kill sites
McPhee, H. M., Webb, N., & Merrill, E. H. (2012) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z2012-021 · Cited by 53
Owen‐Smith, N. (2015) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/oik.02218 · Cited by 51
Group density, disease, and season shape territory size and overlap of social carnivores
Brandell, E. E., Fountain‐Jones, N. M., Gilbertson, M. L. J., Cross, P. C., Hudson, P. J., Smith, D. W., Stahler, D. R., Packer, C., & Craft, M. E. (2020) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.13294 · Cited by 46
Self-citationNutritional-Landscape Models Link Habitat Use to Condition of Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)
Merems, J. L., Shipley, L. A., Levi, T., Ruprecht, J., Clark, D. A., Wisdom, M. J., Jackson, N. J., Stewart, K. M., & Long, R. A. (2020) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2020.00098 · Cited by 49
Landscape of risk to roe deer imposed by lynx and different human hunting tactics
Norum, J. K., Lone, K., Linnell, J. D. C., Oddén, J., Loe, L. E., & Mysterud, A. (2015) · European Journal of Wildlife Research · doi:10.1007/s10344-015-0959-8 · Cited by 47
“Predation risk creates a mosaic of risky habitats and refugees in the landscape since the efficiency of a predator varies depending on habitat characteristics and predator hunting style (Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundThe influence of winter severity, predation and senescence on moose habitat use
Montgomery, R. A., Vucetich, J. A., Peterson, R. O., Roloff, G. J., & Millenbah, K. F. (2013) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12000 · Cited by 49
“Thus, our study substantiates that wolf hunting patterns correspond to the habitat decisions of their primary prey (Jedrzejewski et al. 2001, Bergman et al. 2006; Kauffman et al. 2007).”
BackgroundStructure and stability in exploited marine fish communities: quantifying critical transitions
Petrie, B. D., Frank, K. T., Shackell, N. L., & Leggett, W. C. (2009) · Fisheries Oceanography · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2419.2009.00500.x · Cited by 50
Diel movement patterns influence daily variation in wolf kill rates on moose
Vennen, L. M. V., Patterson, B. R., Rodgers, A. R., Moffatt, S. M., Anderson, M. L., & Fryxell, J. M. (2016) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12642 · Cited by 46
“Consequently, our understanding of the factors influencing spatial variation in predation risk is increasing (e.g. Kauffman et al. 2007; DeCesare 2012; Courbin et al. 2013), as is our understanding of the resultant effects on predator─prey interactions (Berger-Tal et al. 2010; Kotler et al. 2010;…”
BackgroundFord, A. T., & Clevenger, A. P. (2010) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01564.x · Cited by 46
Eglington, S. M., Gill, J. A., Smart, M. A., et al. (2008) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.027 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Kauffman, M. J., Varley, N., Smith, D. W., Stahler, D. R., MacNulty, D. R., & Boyce, M. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Wyoming (US)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Yellowstone National Park (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kauffman, Matthew J.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-06-07
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 690-700
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2163937023
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 12.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ecology Letters (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0613730)
- Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
- National Geographic Society
- Alberta Conservation Association
- Camp Fire Conservation Fund
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Keywords
- wolf predation, elk, wolf, red deer, landscape heterogeneity, hunting grounds, territoriality, predation risk, habitat selection, Yellowstone National Park
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Deer, Demography, Models, Theoretical, Population Dynamics, Seasons, Wyoming, Logistic Models, Ecosystem, Wolves, Food Chain, Geographic Information Systems
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-29, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-29 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
