Cited by 268Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 19 of the 77 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Animal migration amid shifting patterns of phenology and predation: lessons from a Yellowstone elk herd

Open access

Abstract

Migration is a striking behavioral strategy by which many animals enhance resource acquisition while reducing predation risk. Historically, the demographic benefits of such movements made migration common, but in many taxa the phenomenon is considered globally threatened. Here we describe a long‐term decline in the productivity of elk (Cervus elaphus) that migrate through intact wilderness areas to protected summer ranges inside Yellowstone National Park, USA. We attribute this decline to a long‐term reduction in the demographic benefits that ungulates typically gain from migration. Among migratory elk, we observed a 21‐year, 70% reduction in recruitment and a 4‐year, 19% depression in their pregnancy rate largely caused by infrequent reproduction of females that were young or lactating. In contrast, among resident elk, we have recently observed increasing recruitment and a high rate of pregnancy. Landscape‐level changes in habitat quality and predation appear to be responsible for the declining productivity of Yellowstone migrants. From 1989 to 2009, migratory elk experienced an increasing rate and shorter duration of green‐up coincident with warmer spring–summer temperatures and reduced spring precipitation, also consistent with observations of an unusually severe drought in the region. Migrants are also now exposed to four times as many grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and wolves (Canis lupus) as resident elk. Both of these restored predators consume migratory elk calves at high rates in the Yellowstone wilderness but are maintained at low densities via lethal management and human disturbance in the year‐round habitats of resident elk. Our findings suggest that large‐carnivore recovery and drought, operating simultaneously along an elevation gradient, have disproportionately influenced the demography of migratory elk. Many migratory animals travel large geographic distances between their seasonal ranges. Changes in land use and climate that disparately influence such seasonal ranges may alter the ecological basis of migratory behavior, representing an important challenge for, and a powerful lens into, the ecology and conservation of migratory taxa.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A long-term study of the Clarks Fork elk herd found that migratory elk productivity declined while resident elk productivity increased, with the decline linked to drought-related changes in vegetation phenology and greater exposure to recovering grizzly bears and wolves. The results suggest that migration’s demographic advantages can weaken even in protected wilderness when climate and predation patterns shift.

Key findings

  • Migratory elk calf recruitment fell by 73.5% from 1989 to 2009, while resident recruitment declined to a breakpoint around 2002 and then increased. Over four winters, pregnancy was 70.6% for migrants (n = 75) versus 89.2% for residents (n = 65); the best model showed a quadratic age effect and an independent lower pregnancy probability for migratory status (P = 0.04).
  • Among migratory females aged 4–14, lactating elk had a 21.4% pregnancy rate (3/14) compared with 86.7% (13/15) for non-lactating elk (P < 0.001). Resident pregnancy did not differ by lactation status (86.7% vs. 100%, P = 0.57).
  • On the migratory summer range, green-up duration shortened by 1.3 days per year, totaling 27 days over 21 years, while peak NDVI and maximum NDVI increment increased. April–August temperatures rose, July temperature increased by about 4°C, and April–May precipitation declined.
  • Migratory elk were exposed to roughly four times as many grizzly bear groups and wolves as resident elk; average wolf numbers were 35.2 versus 8.1. In an overlapping study, bears caused 58–60% of calf deaths and wolves 15–17%.

Methods

  • The study compared migratory and resident subpopulations of the approximately 4,500-animal Clarks Fork elk herd using winter helicopter and ground surveys from 1989 to 2009, summer recruitment surveys from 2007 to 2009, and captures in 2007–2008 with GPS or VHF collars. Pregnancy was assessed by PSPB analysis or palpation, and body condition, rump fat, and chest girth were measured.
  • Analyses included piecewise regression, generalized linear mixed models with AIC selection, t tests, Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, and Fisher’s exact tests. Vegetation phenology was measured with AVHRR NDVI from 1989 to 2009, climate data came from PRISM, and predator counts came from Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service time series.
  • Seasonal ranges were delineated using minimum convex polygons from GPS-collared migratory and resident elk; forested cover was excluded from NDVI sampling, and irrigated field use by resident elk was quantified from GPS locations.

Limitations

  • Stated: the authors did not directly estimate cause-specific calf mortality for their study population and instead assumed predation rates were similar to those from an overlapping 2003–2005 study. They also could not document population trends for black bears or mountain lions, and they were unsure why lower pregnancy among lactating migrants was not accompanied by lower body fat.
  • Evident: the design is observational and correlational, so the links among drought, phenology, predator abundance, and elk demography are not experimentally isolated. Migratory and resident elk differ in range, management exposure, and age structure, and predator abundance is used as an index rather than a direct measure of predation on the study animals.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/11-2298.1

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

19 of 77 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 82 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 37
53 of 53
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many migratory elk calve before their spring migration.

    “many migratory elk calve prior to their spring migration”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed decline in migratory elk productivity is not primarily due to other predators or unmeasured factors.

    “Although black bears (Ursus americanus) and mountain lions (Puma concolor) also occur in the study area, we were unable to document trends for these species.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The grizzly bear group observation time series is a valid index of grizzly abundance on the migratory elk range.

    “To evaluate patterns of grizzly abundance, we used a time series of bear group observations conducted in mid-summer flights by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The wolf number time series from NPS and USFWS is a valid index of wolf abundance on the elk ranges.

    “To evaluate patterns of wolf abundance, we used a time series from the National Park Service (1996)(1997)(1998) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999-2009; available online).”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Rates of calf predation are very similar for the migratory elk studied.

    “Here, we are assuming that rates of calf predation are very similar for the migratory elk we studied.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the year-round habitats of resident elk, large carnivores are limited by management removals following livestock depredations, and bears may be further limited by low tolerance for human activity.

    “By contrast, in the year-round habitats of resident elk, large carnivores are limited by management removals following livestock depredations, and bears may be further limited by a low tolerance for human activity.”
6 of 6

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.

  • The same resident-elk trend has two denominator degrees of freedom

    Minor

    The results and Fig. 2 caption give different denominator degrees of freedom, 19 and 21, for the same F statistic and P value.

  • Fourfold predator comparison cannot apply to grizzly bears

    Minor

    The abstract applies a fourfold migrant-to-resident comparison to both grizzly bears and wolves, but the results report no grizzlies on resident range. A fourfold comparison with a zero grizzly count is not supported.

  • Grizzly-bear observation period differs between results and caption

    Minor

    The results describe grizzly-bear observations from 1989 to 2009, whereas the Fig. 5 caption dates the observation flights from 1990 to 2008. The caption also calls its shorter interval 21 years.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 60 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Rudd W. J, 1983, Do split hunting seasons influence elk migration from Yellowstone National Park?, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 11, 328
  2. Sinclair A. R. E, 1984, Dynamics of the Serengeti ecosystem: pattern and process, Serengeti: dynamics of an ecosystem, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–101 of 101

Metadata

Authors
Middleton, A. D., Kauffman, M. J., McWhirter, D. E., Cook, J. G., Cook, R. C., Nelson, A. A., Jimenez, M. D., & Klaver, R. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Wyoming (US)
  • Wyoming Game and Fish Department (US)
  • National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (US)
  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
Corresponding author
Middleton, Arthur D.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-06
Volume
94
Issue
6
Pages
1245-1256
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W1985547247
Cited by
268
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 16
FWCI
19.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
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
animal migration, elk, red deer, Yellowstone National Park, predation risk, drought, grizzly bear, wolf, recruitment (biology), pregnancy rate, climate change, habitat quality
MeSH terms
Altitude, Animals, Ursidae, Deer, Environmental Monitoring, Female, Humans, Human Activities, Male, Population Dynamics, Predatory Behavior, Time Factors, Wyoming, Ecosystem, Wolves, Animal Migration

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