WILLOW ON YELLOWSTONE'S NORTHERN RANGE: EVIDENCE FOR A TROPHIC CASCADE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reintroduction of wolves (Canis lupus) to Yellowstone National Park in 1995-1996 has been argued to promote a trophic cascade by altering elk (Cervus elaphus) density, habitat-selection patterns, and behavior that, in turn, could lead to changes within the plant communities used by elk. We sampled two species of willow (Salix boothii and S. geyeriana) on the northern winter range to determine whether (1) there was quantitative evidence of increased willow growth following wolf reintroduction, (2) browsing by elk affected willow growth, and (3) any increase in growth observed was greater than that expected by climatic and hydrological factors alone, thereby indicating a trophic cascade caused by wolves. Using stem sectioning techniques to quantify historical growth patterns we found an approximately twofold increase in stem growth-ring area following wolf reintroduction for both species of willow. This increase could not be explained by climate and hydrological factors alone; the presence of wolves on the landscape was a significant predictor of stem growth above and beyond these abiotic factors. Growth-ring area was positively correlated with the previous year's ring area and negatively correlated with the percentage of twigs browsed from the stem during the winter preceding growth, indicating that elk browse impeded stem growth. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis of a behaviorally mediated trophic cascade on Yellowstone's northern winter range following wolf reintroduction. We suggest that the community-altering effects of wolf restoration are an endorsement of ecological-process management in Yellowstone National Park.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".