The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
WINTER PREY SELECTION AND ESTIMATION OF WOLF KILL RATES IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, 1995–2000
Abstract
Wolf (Canis lupus) impacts on prey are a central post-wolf-reintroduction issue in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem (GYE) of the western United States. Further, estimates of wolf kill rates, used to understand these impacts, can be biased due to unrecovered kills. In Yellowstone National Park (YNP), visibility of wolves allowed us to combine independent aerial and ground observations and use a double-count method to estimate the probability of recovering kills. We consequently used these data to adjust estimates of wolf kill rates. We conducted monitoring annually from 1995 to 2000 during 2 30-day periods in early (15 Nov–14 Dec) and late winter (Mar). Estimated recovery rates of wolf kills for ground and aerial crews were 50% and 45%, respectively, although we determined that this varied by location (distance from road) and possibly age (calf or adult) of the kill. The estimated combined recovery rate was 73%. Estimated wolf kill rates were higher in late winter (2.2 kills/wolf/month) compared to early winter (1.6 kills/wolf/month), with an overall estimated rate of 1.9 kills/wolf/month. The primary prey of wolves in winter was elk (Cervus elaphus; 90%). During our study, 43% of the elk killed were calves, 28% were adult females (cows), 21% were adult males (bulls), and 9% were of unknown age/sex. Comparing prey selection to prey availability, wolf packs residing on the northern range (NR) of the GYE selected for calves, against cows, and approximately proportional to availability for bulls. Prey use was different for wolf packs occupying the NR compared to packs residing in other areas (non-northern range [NNR]) and varied seasonally for NR packs. Variation in wolf kill rates by season, and the relative stability of the northern Yellowstone elk herd during a series of mild winters despite increases in wolf density, suggest that kill rates and ultimately elk population size are influenced by winter weather. Management of ungulates should reflect the addition of wolves combined with the unpredictability of winter weather in the mountainous terrain of the western United States.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 the citing paper
“Not every carcass fed on my wolves is detected (Smith et al., 2004)”
From Population responses of common ravens to reintroduced gray wolves (2018) · cites this paper as Smith et al., 2004
In the citing paper
“Smith et al. (2004) used a double-count method to evaluate observation error in these surveys and found that ground crews are biased towards detecting wolf-killed elk in close proximity to the road system, with no kills found further than 7.23 km from the road.”
From Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system (2007) · cites this paper as Smith et al. 2004
In the citing paper
“However, aerial surveys were not biased with respect to vegetation type (conifer forest vs. open sage/grasslands) or roads.”
From Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system (2007) · cites this paper as Smith et al. 2004
In the citing paper
“While an estimated 27% of total kills went undiscovered, the two survey efforts conducted simultaneously (45% of our kills were detected from the air, 71% from the ground and 17% by both survey methods) resulted in minimal detection bias with respect to the landscape features used in our analysis (Smith et al. 2004).”
From Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system (2007) · cites this paper as Smith et al. 2004
In the citing paper
“Over this time period, 92% of the ungulate prey taken by wolves during winter have been elk (Smith et al. 2004).”
From Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system (2007) · cites this paper as Smith et al. 2004
In the citing paper
“Further, Metz et al's [35] mean kill rates include seasons when kill rates on juveniles were highest (post-partum) and herd-years where wolf∶elk ratios were exceptionally low (i.e. immediately after wolf reintroduction) producing some of the highest kill rates reported for wolves [40].”
From Ecosystem Scale Declines in Elk Recruitment and Population Growth with Wolf Colonization: A Before-After-Control-Impact Approach (2014) · cites this paper as [40]
In the citing paper
“Wolves now kill 1 female elk for every 1.3–3.8 juveniles prior to the midwinter classification surveys [35], [40] and hunters harvested 7.3 females per juvenile in the post-wolf period versus 4.6 prior to wolf reintroduction (see Results).”
From Ecosystem Scale Declines in Elk Recruitment and Population Growth with Wolf Colonization: A Before-After-Control-Impact Approach (2014) · cites this paper as [40]
Citations
Cites
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994) · doi:10.1201/9780429246593 · Cited by 40,500
Hapeman, D. E., & Agresti, A. (1991) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1991.10484817 · Cited by 9,407
Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals
White, G. C., & Burnham, K. P. (1999) · Bird Study · doi:10.1080/00063659909477239 · Cited by 7,500
Wildlife Society (2011) · Wildlife Society Bulletin · doi:10.1002/(issn)1938-5463a · Cited by 5,571
Program MARK : survival estimation from populations of marked animals
Gc, W. (1999) · Bird Study · Cited by 1,973
The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species
Coulter, M. W., & Mech, L. D. (1971) · Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3799810 · Cited by 1,153
Manly, B. F. J., McDonald, L. L., & Thomas, D. L. (1993) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-1558-2 · Cited by 1,074
Mudivarthy, S., Rao, M. B., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2000) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.2000.10486070 · Cited by 846
On the statistical analysis of capture experiments
Huggins, R. (1989) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/76.1.133 · Cited by 719
Ungulate Population Models with Predation: A Case Study with the North American Moose
Messier, F. (1994) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1939551 · Cited by 552
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Bangs, 1996, Wildife Society Bulletin, 24, 402
- Bangs, 1998, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26, 785
- Cheatum, 1949, New York State Conservationist, 3, 19
- Lemke, 1998, Intermountain Journal of Sciences, 4, 1
- Mech, 1974, Proceedings of the International Congress of Game Biologists, 11, 315
- Theberge, 1985, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 13, 449
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wolves influence elk movements: Behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park
Fortin, D., Beyer, H. L., Boyce, M. S., Smith, D. W., Duchesne, T., & Mao, J. S. (2005) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/04-0953 · Cited by 1,351
Self-citationRelationships between direct predation and risk effects
Creel, S., & Christianson, D. (2008) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.12.004 · Cited by 1,238
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
Self-citationWilmers, C. C., Crabtree, R. L., Smith, D. W., Murphy, K. M., & Getz, W. M. (2003) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00766.x · Cited by 354
Self-citationDiel predator activity drives a dynamic landscape of fear
Kohl, M. T., Stahler, D. R., Metz, M. C., Forester, J. D., Kauffman, M. J., Varley, N., White, P. J. C., Smith, D. W., & MacNulty, D. R. (2018) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1313 · Cited by 315
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- SMITH, D. W., DRUMMER, T. D., MURPHY, K. M., GUERNSEY, D. S., & EVANS, S. B.
- Affiliations
- Yellowstone National Park (US)
- Michigan Technological University (US)
- Corresponding author
- SMITH, DOUGLAS W.
- ORCID
- SMITH, DOUGLAS W.
- Venue
- Journal of Wildlife Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 153-166
- ISSN
- 0022-541X (ISSN-L)
- 1937-2817
- OpenAlex
- W2175984112
- Semantic Scholar
- cc33e363e7deb9b0f47c20f3e3e226b2b149536d
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 10.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Wildlife Management (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (Michigan Technological University) (submittedVersion)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
- 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 predation, wolf, prey selection, elk, red deer, winter weather effects, ungulate management, wolf reintroduction, Yellowstone National Park, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
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
