The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the "landscape of fear" in Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A.
Open accessAbstract
The elk or wapiti (Cervus elaphus) and bison (Bison bison) of Yellowstone National Park have lived in an environment free of wolves (Canis lupus) for the last 50 years. In the winter of 1994-1995, wolves were reintroduced into parts of Yellowstone National Park. Foraging theory predicts that elk and bison would respond to this threat by increasing their vigilance levels. We tested this prediction by comparing vigilance levels of elk and bison in areas with wolves with those of elk still in "wolf-free" zones of the Park. Male elk and bison showed no response to the reintroduction of wolves, maintaining the lowest levels of vigilance throughout the study ([Formula: see text]12 and 7% of the time was spent vigilant, respectively). Female elk and bison showed significantly higher vigilance levels in areas with wolves than in areas without wolves. The highest vigilance level (47.5 ± 4.1%; mean ± SE) was seen by the second year for female elk with calves in the areas with wolves and was maintained during the subsequent 3 years of the study. As wolves expanded into non-wolf areas, female elk with and without calves in these areas gradually increased their vigilance levels from initially 20.1 ± 3.5 and 11.5 ± 0.9% to 43.0 ± 5.9 and 30.5 ± 2.8% by the fifth year of the study, respectively. We discuss the possible reasons for the differences seen among the social groups. We suggest that these behavioural responses to the presence of wolves may have more far-reaching consequences for elk and bison ecology than the actual killing of individuals by wolves.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Recent studies have proposed that wolves (Canis lupus, Linneaus) provoke behavioral responses by elk that cause cascading effects on plants, but this conclusion is weakened by a lack of direct data on spatial and temporal variation in predation risk and the responses of elk to this variation (Ripple and Larsen 2000, Laundre et al. 2001, Childress and Lung 2003, Ripple and Bechsta 2003).”
From ELK ALTER HABITAT SELECTION AS AN ANTIPREDATOR RESPONSE TO WOLVES (2005) · cites this paper as Laundre et al. 2001
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In these studies, areas of high or low risk were defined either by habitat features (Ripple andBechsta 2003, 2004) or by large ellipses with a loose relationship to wolf home range polygons (Laundre et al. 2001).”
From ELK ALTER HABITAT SELECTION AS AN ANTIPREDATOR RESPONSE TO WOLVES (2005) · cites this paper as Laundre et al. 2001
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing 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).”
From Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system (2007) · cites this paper as Laundre et al. 2001
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Ecology of Fear: Optimal Foraging, Game Theory, and Trophic Interactions
Brown, J. S., Laundre, J. W., & Gurung, M. (1999) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.2307/1383287 · Cited by 1,347
PREDATOR VIGILANCE AND GROUP SIZE IN MAMMALS AND BIRDS: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
ELGAR, M. A. (1989) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.1989.tb00636.x · Cited by 1,119
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Bednekoff P.A., 1994, Behaviour, 129, 1, 10.1163/156853994X00325 · DOI
- Brown J.S., 1992, Ann. Zool. Fenn., 29, 301
- Brown J.S., 1999, Evol. Ecol. Res., 1, 49
- Brown J.S., 1990, Oecologia, 83, 512, 10.1007/BF00317202 · DOI
- Carbyn L.N., 1987, Can. J. Zool., 65, 2072, 10.1139/z87-317 · DOI
- Fitzgibbon C.D., 1990, Anim. Behav., 40, 837, 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80984-4 · DOI
- Hunter L.T.B., 1998, Behaviour, 135, 195, 10.1163/156853998793066320 · DOI
- Kotler B.P., 1989, Oikos, 54, 256, 10.2307/3565279 · DOI
- Kotler B.P., 1994, J. Wildl. Manag., 58, 300, 10.2307/3809395 · DOI
- Lagory K.E., 1986, Behaviour, 98, 168, 10.1163/156853986X00955 · DOI
- Lima S.L., 1995, Anim. Behav., 49, 11, 10.1016/0003-3472(95)80149-9 · DOI
- Lima S.L, 1990, Can. J. Zool., 68, 619, 10.1139/z90-092 · DOI · Paper page
- Molvar E.M., 1994, J. Mammal., 75, 621, 10.2307/1382509 · DOI
- Scheel D., 1993, Anim. Behav., 46, 695, 10.1006/anbe.1993.1246 · DOI
- Underwood R., 1982, Behaviour, 79, 81, 10.1163/156853982X00193 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15years after wolf reintroduction
Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2012) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.005 · Cited by 884
ELK ALTER HABITAT SELECTION AS AN ANTIPREDATOR RESPONSE TO WOLVES
Creel, S., Winnie, J., Maxwell, B., Hamlin, K., & Creel, M. (2005) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/05-0032 · Cited by 774
Valeix, M., Loveridge, A. J., Chamaillé-Jammes, S., Davidson, Z., Murindagomo, F., Fritz, H., & Macdonald, D. W. (2009) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/08-0606.1 · Cited by 478
Wolf reintroduction, predation risk, and cottonwood recovery in Yellowstone National Park
Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2003) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(03)00154-3 · Cited by 395
Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system
Kauffman, M. J., Varley, N., Smith, D. W., Stahler, D. R., MacNulty, D. R., & Boyce, M. S. (2007) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01059.x · Cited by 350
Metadata
- Authors
- Laundré, J. W., Hernández, L., & Altendorf, K. B.
- Affiliations
- Idaho State University (US)
- ORCID
- Laundré, John W
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Zoology
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2001-08-01
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1401-1409
- ISSN
- 0008-4301 (ISSN-L)
- 1480-3283
- OpenAlex
- W2074807536
- Cited by
- 1,216
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 61 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 133 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 101 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 41
- FWCI
- 7.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Canadian Journal of Zoology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Wyoming
- Eppley Foundation for Research
- Idaho State University
- Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
- 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 › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Keywords
- wolf reintroduction, elk, bison, vigilance behavior, landscape of fear, predator-prey interactions, Yellowstone National Park, maternal behavior, foraging theory
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
