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
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 was negligible support for temporal interactions with landscape variables, indicating that the types of habitats where wolves have killed elk have changed little over the 10 years of wolf recolonization.”
§ 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.
- 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
“Our map of relative kill occurrence indicates that refugia for elk of considerable size exist on the NR.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A potentially naı ¨ve prey responding to a predator might undergo such changes, but studies conducted so far on the NR do not yield empirical support for profound elk behavioural shifts relative to wolves.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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 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
“In addition to the constraint of landscape and habitat on predation in the NR system, the influence of the annual wolf distribution on kill occurrence was weakened by the social interactions and territory selection of the predators themselves.”
§ 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.
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
“Hunting grounds of the NR are used by multiple wolf packs, a situation that does not conform to the widely held conceptual model of distinct territorial boundaries with interstitial prey refuges that has been suggested on an empirical (Mech 1977) and theoretical (Lewis & Murray 1993) basis.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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 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
“By contrast, wolf territory overlap is high in the NR system, and territory buffers do not appear to reduce the likelihood of kill occurrence.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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.
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
“By contrast, wolf territory overlap is high in the NR system, and territory buffers do not appear to reduce the likelihood of kill occurrence.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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
“Also, elk increased their winter use of open areas post-wolf reintroduction, despite our finding that such habitats are more risky than forested areas.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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.
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 this newly restored wolf-ungulate system, we found a striking degree of spatial variability in predation at the landscape level.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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
“Lastly, we found little support for changes in the types of habitats where wolves have killed elk over 10 years, a response we would expect if elk have altered their habitat selection and movement patterns to avoid encountering and being killed by wolves.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is little evidence that a temporal change in elk antipredator behaviour provides an alternative explanation for the decoupling of kills from predator distribution.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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 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
“Hunting grounds on the NR were flat, snow-covered grasslands close to streams and roads.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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
“By 2005, variation in predation risk is largely determined by landscape features that create risky (location C in risk map) and refuge (location D in risk map) habitats.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“However, aerial surveys were not biased with respect to vegetation type (conifer forest vs. open sage/grasslands) or roads.”
§ 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.
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 did not find evidence for a temporal change in the types of habitats where wolves killed elk, we believe that profound shifts in elk behaviour or habitat use are not responsible for the attenuating influence of wolves on kill locations.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Attenuation of wolf territory influence on kill distribution
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“During winter elk select south-facing grassland habitats, where the snow level is not deep or crusted enough to impede their ability to forage (Houston 1982;Skovlin et al. 2002).”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Accounting for elk distribution
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Houston 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Skovlin et al. 2002
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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
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 increase in pack-pack aggression over the study period represents an increasingly important spatial constraint on wolf territory selection and hunting patterns.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Pack conflict
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.
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
“Given this, it seems unlikely that a predator-dependent functional response is responsible for the decoupling of predation from predator distribution.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Attenuation of wolf territory influence on kill distribution
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.
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 data, and our case-control design that took account of the annual change in wolf distribution, suggest that the decoupling of kills from wolf distribution was not an artefact of an increasingly homogenized wolf distribution.”
§ 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.
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
“Thus, during the first 10 years of wolf population expansion in Yellowstone, wolf distribution became less important in determining variation in predation risk relative to landscape features.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > R E S U L T S
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.
- 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).
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
“Wolf kills are distinguished readily from kills made by other carnivores.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Surveys for wolf-killed elk
boosted- 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 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
“a result that was likely caused by territorial constraints on wolf distribution.”
- Also stated in: § D I S C U S S I O N · hedged
“In this system, territorial constraints on predator habitat selection and movement were the most likely mechanisms for the spatial decoupling of predator and kill sites.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
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.
- Also stated in: § D I S C U S S I O N · hedged
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
“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.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > Abstract
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Elk density across the study area is proportional to habitat use estimated by Mao et al. (2005).
In the paper
“The ability of elk to mediate predation risk in such a dynamic way may explain why elk do not avoid the riskiest habitat patches (Mao 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 Mao et al. 2005 source
hedgedconditional- 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.
In the paper
“Since wolf reintroduction, the NR elk population has declined by an average of 8% annually (White & Garrott 2005), resulting in much debate about the long-term equilibrium size of the elk herd (Eberhardt et al. 2003;Vucetich et al. 2005;Varley & Boyce 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
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites White & Garrott 2005 source
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.
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
“The risky influence of these habitat features for elk is consistent with the cursorial (as opposed to stalking) hunting strategy of wolves.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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.
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 highly heterogeneous pattern of predation found in this system offers a measure of assurance that economically and socially valuable ungulate populations will not suffer runaway predation as occurs with many exotic predator invasions (Fritts & Rodda 1998;Knapp et al. 2001).”
§ 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
hedgedconditionalSingle 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.
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
“Hunting grounds of the NR are used by multiple wolf packs, a situation that does not conform to the widely held conceptual model of distinct territorial boundaries with interstitial prey refuges that has been suggested on an empirical (Mech 1977) and theoretical (Lewis & Murray 1993) basis.”
§ 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
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 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
“However, these antipredator behaviours have not brought about landscape-level changes in the distribution or behaviour of elk required to explain the results of our kill-site analysis.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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 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
“Although the precise mechanisms for a strong landscape influence on patterns of predation in this system are unclear, we believe such spatially heterogeneous rates of predation to be a general feature of native (or restored) predator-prey systems.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- 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.
In the paper
“This work suggests that in addition to the welldocumented pattern of wolf selection of prey made vulnerable due to sex, age or body condition (Mech & Peterson 2003), habitat may also influence predation rates by mediating the successful identification, pursuit and capture of vulnerable 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 Mech & Peterson 2003 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.
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
“Overall, the physical attributes of the hunting grounds identified in this study are consistent with the natural history of wolf hunting behaviour.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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.
In the paper
“The existence of prey refugia also is likely to influence long-term wolf and elk dynamics by reducing predator-caused fluctuations in elk numbers, as found in theoretical studies (Kareiva & Wennegren 1995).”
§ 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 Kareiva & Wennegren 1995 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.
In the paper
“Similarly, streams and associated channels and ravines provide physical obstacles that may impede elk escape (Bergman 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
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bergman et al. 2006 source
hedgedconditional- 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 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 this system, territorial constraints on predator habitat selection and movement were the most likely mechanisms for the spatial decoupling of predator and kill sites.”
§ 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.
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 findings suggest that the manner in which predators organize themselves on the landscape to reduce conflict with conspecifics may obscure the relationship between predator distribution and predation risk.”
§ 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.
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 this system, it appears necessary that multiple packs maintain access to some of the same hunting grounds.”
§ Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system > D I S C U S S I O N
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.
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
“The availability of these refugia for elk, and their ease of accessing them, should buffer the population from extreme levels of predation.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Further, an analysis of GPS (Global Positioning System) collared elk on the NR (Fortin et al. 2005) found that elk did not avoid the core areas of wolf territories.”
§ 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
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 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
“We suspect that this phenomenon may be especially important in predator-prey systems where patterns of predation are strongly determined by landscape or habitat features.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“This contention is supported by an NR study evaluating elk habitat selection before and after wolf reintroduction (Mao et al. 2005) that found that elk did not shift their distribution away from wolf territories during winter.”
§ 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
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.
In the paper
“Also, elk increased their winter use of open areas post-wolf reintroduction, despite our finding that such habitats are more risky than forested areas.”
§ 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
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.
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
“Most of this variability appears to be caused by physical features of the landscape where prey and predator interact.”
§ 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.
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
“Deep snow also favours wolves after encounters because it can hinder ungulate locomotion (Huggard 1993;Post et al. 1999).”
§ 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
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, we think it is unlikely to be optimal for elk to simply avoid these resources, because many of them provide forage during the critical winter months (Creel et al. 2005;Mao et al. 2005) when NR elk (and other northern ungulates) experience diminishing fat reserves (Cook et al. 2001).”
§ 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
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.
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
“This need for winter forage most likely explains why elk have not made broad-scale changes in winter habitat selection as a means of avoiding encounters with wolves (Fortin et al. 2005;Mao 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
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.
In the paper
“We note that the strength of such behaviourally mediated cascades will depend on the cost and benefits of antipredator behaviour (i.e.avoiding or foraging less efficiently in risky areas; 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.”
Background
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
