Cited by 103Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Niche relationships within a guild of ungulate species in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, following release from artificial controls

Singer, Francis J., Norland, Jack E.·1994·Canadian Journal of Zoology

Abstract

Niche relationships and diet overlaps were compared among elk (Cervus elaphus), bison (Bison bison), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) between 1967–1970 and 1986–1988, a period when total ungulate numbers nearly tripled on Yellowstone's northern range. Ungulate species ratios on Yellowstone's northern winter range during the latter period were 100 elk : 10 mule deer : 3 bison : 2 pronghorns : 1 bighorns. Elk numbers were positively correlated to bison, mule deer, and pronghorn numbers (r2 = 0.76, 0.97, and 0.48, respectively, P < 0.01). Few other changes in habitat use or habitat overlap occurred, and diets for only 2 of the 10 species pairs, elk-bighorn (Spearman's rank order coefficient (RHO) = 0.55, P < 0.05) and mule deer – pronghorn (RHO = 0.64, P < 0.05), were significantly associated with each other. Bison consumed more grass and fewer sedges, mule deer more fringed sage (Artemisia frigida) and more rabbit-brush (Chrysothamnus spp.), and bighorn sheep more grasses and fewer sedges, while pronghorns ate less saltsage (Atriplex nuttalli) but more big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) during 1986–1988 than during 1967–1970. Bison expanded their range and bison and bighorn sheep used a wider variety of habitats. We found little evidence of change in competitive interactions between ungulate species. A few diet and habitat overlaps increased, the opposite of the prediction from the competitive exc…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/z94-183

Cites

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?

  • Deciduous woody plants typically comprise only a small portion of bison diet.

    “Deciduous woody plants typically comprise only a small portion of bison diet (Singer & Norland, 1994), and these plants may be rare in some grassland environments (Blackburn et al., 2020).”

    From Bison alter the northern Yellowstone ecosystem by breaking aspen saplings (2023) · cites this paper as Singer & Norland, 1994

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 58 · Cited by 103

Authors
Singer, F. J., & Norland, J. E.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Published
1994-08-01
Volume
72
Issue
8
Pages
1383-1394
ISSN
  • 0008-4301 (ISSN-L)
  • 1480-3283
OpenAlex
W1973167414
Cited by
103
References
58
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Canadian Journal of Zoology (publishedVersion)
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
diet overlap, habitat overlap, elk, bison, bighorn sheep, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, competitive exclusion, intraspecific competition, habitat use, Yellowstone National Park, Artemisia frigida, Artemisia tridentata, Chrysothamnus

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