Cited by 26Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementEcology and biodiversity studies

Long-term aspen dynamics, trophic cascades, and climate in northern Yellowstone National Park

Open access
Beschta, Robert L., Painter, Luke E., Levi, Taal, Ripple, William J.·2016·Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Abstract

We report long-term patterns of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) recruitment for five ungulate exclosures in the northern ungulate winter range of Yellowstone National Park. Aspen recruitment was low (<3 aspen·ha−1·year−1) in the mid-1900s prior to exclosure construction due to herbivory by Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus Linnaeus, 1758) but increased more than 60-fold within 25 years after exclosure construction despite a drying climatic trend since 1940. Results support the hypothesis that long-term aspen decline in Yellowstone’s northern range during the latter half of the 20th century was caused by high levels of ungulate herbivory and not a drying climate. Gray wolves (Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758) were reintroduced during 1995–1996. For the period 1995–2012, we summarized annual predator–prey ratios, ungulate biomass, and drought severity. The average density of young aspen increased from 4350 aspen·ha−1 in 1997–1998 to 8960 aspen·ha−1 in 2012; during the same time period, those >1 m in height increased over 30-fold (from 105 to 3194 aspen·ha−1). Increased heights of young aspen occurred primarily from 2007 to 2012, a period with relatively high predator–prey ratios, declining elk numbers, and decreasing browsing rates. Consistent with a re-established trophic cascade, aspen stands in Yellowstone’s northern range have increasingly begun to recover.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/cjfr-2015-0301

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • In northern Yellowstone, herbivory has been the primary factor limiting the growth of aspen from sprouts to saplings, and eventually trees.

    “Recent trends toward a warmer and drier climate may cause additional stress (Kulakowski et al., 2013; Worrall et al., 2013), but in northern Yellowstone herbivory has been the primary factor limiting the growth of aspen from sprouts to saplings, and eventually trees (Beschta et al., 2016; Kay, 2018; Painter et al., 2014, 2018).”

    From Bison alter the northern Yellowstone ecosystem by breaking aspen saplings (2023) · cites this paper as Beschta et al., 2016

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Karl, T.R. 1986. The sensitivity of the Palmer Drought Severity Index and Palmer's Z-Index to their calibration coefficients including potential evapotranspiration. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 25: 77-86.
  2. Marshall, K.N., Cooper, D.J., and Hobbs, N.T. 2014. Interactions among herbivory, climate, topography and plant age shape riparian willow dynamics in northern Yellowstone National Park, USA. Journal of Ecology 102: 667-677.
  3. Mech, L.D., and Boitani, L. 2003. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  4. Rogers, P.C., and Mittanck, C.M. 2014. Herbivory strains resilience in drought-prone aspen landscapes of the western United States. Journal of Vegetation Science 25: 457-469.
  5. Singer, F.J. 1996. Differences between willow communities browsed by elk and communities protected for 32 years in Yellowstone National Park. In Effects of grazing by wild ungulates in Yellowstone National Park. Edited by F.J. Singer. USDI, National Park Service, Natural Resource Information Division, Denver, CO, pp. 279-290.
  6. Toweill, D.E., Thomas, J.W., and McCabe, R.E. (Editors). 2002. North American elk: ecology and management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beschta, R. L., Painter, L. E., Levi, T., & Ripple, W. J.
Affiliations
Oregon State University (US)
Venue
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Published
2016-04
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
548-556
ISSN
  • 0045-5067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1208-6037
OpenAlex
W2295424791
Cited by
26
References
67
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Forest Research (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Wyoming
  • National Park Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
Keywords
Populus tremuloides, trophic cascades, gray wolf reintroduction, predator-prey ratio, drought, climate change

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