Bottom-Up Factors Influencing Riparian Willow Recovery in Yellowstone National Park
Open accessAbstract
After the elimination of wolves (Canis lupis L.) in the 1920s, woody riparian plant communities on the northern range of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) declined an estimated 50%. After the reintroduction of wolves in 1995–1996, riparian willows (Salix spp.) on YNP's northern range showed significant growth for the first time since the 1920s. However, the pace of willow recovery has not been uniform. Some communities have exceeded 400 cm, while others are still at pre-1995 levels of <80 cm mean height. We took intensive, repeated measurements of abiotic factors, including soil and water-table characteristics, to determine whether these factors might be contributing to the varying pace of willow recovery. Willows at all of our study sites were “short” (<250 cm max. height) prior to 1995 and have recovered to varying degrees since. We contrasted “tall” (>250 cm max. height) willow sites where willows had escaped elk (Cervus elaphus L.) browsing with “short” willow sites that could still be browsed. Unlike studies that manipulated willow height with fences and artificial dams, we examined sites that had natural growth differences in height since the reintroduction of wolves. Tall willow sites had greater water availability, more-rapid net soil nitrogen mineralization, greater snow depth, lower soil respiration rates, and cooler summer soil temperatures than nearby short willow sites. Most of these differences were measured both in herbaceous areas adjacent to the willow patches and in the willow patches themselves, suggesting that they were not effects of varying willow height recovery but were instead preexisting site differences that may have contributed to increased plant productivity. Our results agree with earlier studies in experimental plots which suggest that the varying pace of willow recovery has been influenced by abiotic limiting factors that interact with top-down reductions in willow browsing by elk.
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
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?
Tall willows had twice the net nitrogen mineralization rates of short willows in sites with ambient stream conditions.
“Tercek et al. [50] observed that tall willows had twice the net nitrogen mineralization rates of short willows in sites with ambient stream conditions”
From Stream hydrology limits recovery of riparian ecosystems after wolf reintroduction (2013) · cites this paper as [50]
The Soil Net Nitrogen Mineralization Rate section reports that tall-willow sites had more than double the net nitrate mineralization rate of short-willow sites. The claim broadens that result to net nitrogen mineralization generally, although the same section says ammonium mineralization rates did not differ significantly. The paper describes its sites as naturally occurring and nonexperimental, consistent with the claim’s ambient-condition qualifier. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNutrient changes were due to positive feedbacks from increased shading and leaf litter.
“and suggested that nutrient changes were due to positive feedbacks from increased shading and leaf litter.”
From Stream hydrology limits recovery of riparian ecosystems after wolf reintroduction (2013) · cites this paper as [50]
The Discussion (Herbaceous Subplots, around p. 397) suggests that increased willow shading may have created conditions favorable to nitrogen mineralization, supporting a possible feedback for that nutrient measure. Our copy does not attribute the nutrient changes to increased leaf litter, and it says most other differences between tall- and short-willow sites likely reflected site conditions rather than shading. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWillow growth is limited by herbivory and multiple soil-water factors including beaver flooding, topography, water table, grass presence, and annual precipitation.
“That is, willow growth is limited by herbivory and a suite of factors related to soil-water availability, including beaver flooding, topography, the water table, the presence of grass, and annual precipitation (Wolf et al. 2007, Tercek et al. 2010, Marshall et al. 2013).”
From Trophic Cascades in a Multicausal World: Isle Royale and Yellowstone (2014) · cites this paper as Tercek et al. 2010
The Results and discussion (pp. 396–397) link shorter willows to deeper water tables and reduced water availability, and discuss topography and water-table increases from artificial beaver dams. The copy does not establish grass presence or annual precipitation as limits on growth. Its discussion of herbivory is also mixed: it reports a study in which browsed willows grew more than fenced willows. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 27
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. 2002. Ecological dynam- ics on Yellowstone's Northern Range. National Acad- emy Press, Washington, DC.
- Authors
- Tercek, M. T., Stottlemyer, R., & Renkin, R.
- Affiliations
- United States Geological Survey (US)
- National Park Service (US)
- ORCID
- Tercek, Michael T.
- Venue
- Western North American Naturalist
- Publisher
- Western North American Naturalist
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 387-399
- ISSN
- 1527-0904 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2103009769
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 2.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Western North American Naturalist (publishedVersion)
- ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) (submittedVersion)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Keywords
- willow, wolf reintroduction, elk browsing, top-down control, soil nitrogen mineralization, water table, snow depth, soil respiration, soil temperature, riparian plant communities, Yellowstone National Park, herbivory
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