Plant Biomass data from: Bottom-up Herbivore-Plant Feedbacks Trump Trophic Cascades in a Wolf-Elk-Grassland System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Top-down predator-prey effects that alter the abundance, biomass, or productivity of a population community across more than one link in a food web are referred to as trophic cascades. While these effects have been extensively studied in aquatic environments, fewer studies have examined trophic cascades in terrestrial ecosystems. And fewer still terrestrial studies have tested for trophic cascades between vertebrates and grassland vegetation. Across the globe, grassland plant biomass is driven by both precipitation and non-linear positive feedbacks between grazing and plant productivity, as predicted by the Intermediate Grazing Hypothesis. Yet little is known about the role that apex carnivores play in regard to trophic impacts on grassland biomass. We utilized a long-term dataset collected over the last two decades on a montane rough-fescue grassland adjacent to Banff National Park, Alberta, to test whether top-down effects regulate grassland biomass in a wolf-elk system. First, we measured annual growing season plant biomass from 2006 – 2018 at 61 repeat sampled plots in the grassland. Next, we measured wolf predation risk using a previously developed wolf resource selection function created from GPS radiocollar data from 5 wolf packs. Finally, we measured grazing intensity using Brownian Bridge Movement Models derived from GPS radiocollar data from 131 unique elk. We then tested top-down, bottom-up and abiotic hypotheses for grassland biomass over time in program R. The top model incorporated precipitation and positive non-linear effects of elk use, excluding predator effects and thus failing to support the trophic cascade hypothesis. This may be due to the observational nature of this study, or predation effects in this system may be obscured by human use. Alternatively, our results also support the hypothesis that intermediate grazing may outweigh the benefits of predation in grassland systems. Our study serves to help fill a gap in trophic cascade literature, and emphasizes that positive feedback between grazers and grasslands may trump top-down effects. Understanding when trophic cascade theory is or is not applicable is vital for carnivore management, conservation, and reintroduction efforts across North America.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.022 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".