Aspen Height, Stem-girth and Survivorship in an Area of High Ungulate Use
Open accessAbstract
An increase in ungulate population size potentially exposes aspen suckers, saplings, and trees to increased use. This study examined how stem height and girth influenced the selection of stems by ungulates for browsing, rubbing, and gnawing, and reconstructed the history of ungulate use for the study area. Transects were run through each of three aspen clones growing in southwestern Montana to determine height, circumference, and the surface area from which bark was totally and partially removed by rubbing and gnawing. Stems 20–250 cm tall were browsed. Stems 2–13 cm diameter were preferentially selected for rubbing and gnawing. The area of totally removed bark on dead saplings was twice the area of removed bark on live stems of similar diameter, suggesting that bark removal played a major role in the death of some stems. Based on an analysis of stem height and age, ungulate browsing was inferred to have increased from a light-to-moderate level to an intense level in 1991. The depth of scars was used to date scarring events. An increase in rubbing and gnawing was determined to have occurred about 1985. We concluded that elk were primarily responsible for the observed impacts. The combined effect of rubbing, gnawing, and browsing affects a broader span of ages compared to the effect of browsing alone. If prescribed fire is used to rejuvenate aspen stands, the resulting young stems should be protected from heavy browsing, rubbing and gnawing until they reach about 13 cm diameter and have grown out of the browse zone.
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?
Large numbers of stripped aspen saplings occur where winter elk densities have recently increased, as observed in Dome Mountain Wildlife Management Area north of the park.
“Large numbers of stripped saplings would be expected where winter elk densities had recently increased (Keigley & Frisina, 2008), as we observed in Dome Mountain Wildlife Management Area north of the park (Painter et al., 2018).”
From Bison alter the northern Yellowstone ecosystem by breaking aspen saplings (2023) · cites this paper as Keigley & Frisina, 2008
The paper’s summary section (page unavailable in our copy) says increased ungulate numbers may expose aspen saplings to more use and reports rubbing and gnawing at a site where increased use was attributed primarily to elk. It does not specifically establish that large numbers of stripped saplings should be expected following an increase in winter elk density. The Dome Mountain observation is attributed separately to Painter et al., not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBison are known to break tree saplings, but this is not a behavior reported for elk.
“Bison are known to break tree saplings (Bork et al., 1997; Coppedge & Shaw, 1997), but this is not a behavior reported for elk (Keigley & Frisina, 2008).”
From Bison alter the northern Yellowstone ecosystem by breaking aspen saplings (2023) · cites this paper as Keigley & Frisina, 2008
The paper’s opening summary (page unavailable) attributes browsing, rubbing, and gnawing of aspen stems primarily to elk. It does not address whether elk break saplings or whether that behavior has been reported; searches for breaking and snapping returned no relevant passage. The bison claim is cited to other sources, not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.73)
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.
Cites
Aspen, Elk, and Fire in Northern Yellowstone Park
Romme, W. H., Turner, M. G., Wallace, L. L., & Walker, J. S. (1995) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1941684 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Winnie, J. A. (2012) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/11-1990.1 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Aspen Recovery Since Wolf Reintroduction on the Northern Yellowstone Winter Range
Kimble, D. S., Tyers, D. B., Robison-Cox, J., & Sowell, B. F. (2011) · Rangeland Ecology & Management · doi:10.2111/rem-d-10-00018.1 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Painter, L. E., Beschta, R. L., Larsen, E. J., & Ripple, W. J. (2018) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.2376 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Bison alter the northern Yellowstone ecosystem by breaking aspen saplings
Painter, L. E., Beschta, R. L., & Ripple, W. J. (2023) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.10369 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Keigley, R. B., & Frisina, M. R.
- Affiliations
- Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (US)
- Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (US)
- Corresponding author
- Keigley, Richard B.
- Venue
- Northwest Science
- Publisher
- Northwest Scientific Association
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 199
- ISSN
- 0029-344X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2105050106
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- arc.lib.montana.edu
- Locations
- Northwest Science (publishedVersion)
- Intermountain journal of sciences (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Ecology and biodiversity studies
- Keywords
- aspen, Populus tremuloides, ungulate browsing, elk, stem girth, stem height, bark removal, rubbing, gnawing, tree mortality, prescribed burning, aspen regeneration, southwestern Montana
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
