Cited by 34Rangeland and Wildlife ManagementEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Plant community responses to bison reintroduction on the Northern Great Plains, United States: a test of the keystone species concept.

McMillan, Nicholas A., Kunkel, Kyran E., Hagan, Donald L., Jachowski, David S.·2019·Restoration Ecology

Abstract

Keystone species restoration, or the restoration of species whose effect on an ecosystem is much greater than their abundance would suggest, is a central justification for many wildlife reintroduction projects globally. Following restoration, plains bison (Bison bisonL.) have been identified as a keystone species in the tallgrass prairie ecoregion, but we know of no research to document similar effects in the mixed‐grass prairie where restoration efforts are ongoing. This study addresses whether Northern Great Plains (NGP) mixed‐grass prairie plant communities exhibit traits consistent with four central keystone effects documented for bison in the tallgrass prairie. We collected species composition, diversity, abundance, bare ground cover, and plant height data in three treatments: where livestock (Bos taurusL.) continuously grazed, livestock were removed for 10 years, and bison have been introduced and resident for 10 years. We observed mixed support for bison acting as keystone species in this system. Supporting the keystone role of bison, we observed higher species richness and compositional heterogeneity (β‐diversity) in the bison treatment than either the livestock retention or livestock removal treatments. However, we observed comparable forb, bare ground, and plant height heterogeneity between bison‐restored sites and sites where livestock were retained, contradicting reported keystone effects in other systems. Our results suggest that after 10 years of being restored, bison partially fulfill their role as a keystone species in the mixed‐grass prairie, and we encourage continued long‐term data collection to evaluate their influence in the NGP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/rec.12856

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McMillan, N. A., Kunkel, K. E., Hagan, D. L., & Jachowski, D. S.
Affiliations
  • Clemson University (US)
  • American Prairie Reserve 7 East Beall Street No. 100, Bozeman MT 59715 U.S.A.
Corresponding author
McMillan, Nicholas A.
Venue
Restoration Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-08-09
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
379-388
ISSN
  • 1061-2971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-100X
OpenAlex
W2811116742
Cited by
34
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Restoration Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
plains bison, bison, keystone species, bison reintroduction, mixed-grass prairie, Northern Great Plains, tallgrass prairie, floristic composition, species richness, beta diversity, livestock grazing, bare ground, plant height, prairie restoration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review