Studies Confirm Yellowstone Wolf Reintroduction Improves Food Web

[Jerky]

Hello again fellas.  It has been awhile and I thought I would share a recent story about research examining effects of elk and wolves on the ecosystem...

Studies Confirm Yellowstone Wolf Reintroduction Reduces Elk Herbivory, Improves Food Web, Habitat For Aquatic Organisms.

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/biological-conservation/

An analysis of 24 studies over a 15-year period has confirmed that wolves and their influence on elk represent a major reason for the recovery of trees that had previously been declining for decades in Yellowstone National Park.
 
Despite long-term trends of increased temperatures and reduced precipitation, trees such as cottonwood, willow, aspen and other woody species have been showing signs of accelerated growth in many areas since wolves were restored to the park in 1995. Beavers and riparian songbirds are also showing signs of coming back to areas where they had been missing or in decline since the 1930s.
 
Still, it will likely take many years for established shrubs and trees to reach a size sufficient to produce the abundance of berries and seeds that support a diverse ecosystem.
 
Those are among the conclusions reported this week in the journal Biological Conservation by Robert Beschta and William Ripple, two professors in the Oregon State University College of Forestry.
 
They analyzed the results of 24 studies of streamside vegetation published since 2001 and reviewed long-term trends in temperature, precipitation, snowpack and stream discharge.
 
“When I first started studying this in 2001,” said Beschta, “I was skeptical that elk, a native ungulate, could stop nearly all cottonwood recruitment. But it was the elk that had damaged plant communities during the period when wolves were absent, and the reductions in elk browsing, since wolves have returned, are allowing them to begin recovering.”
 
In subsequent studies, Beschta and Ripple, as well as other researchers, measured the diameter of cottonwoods and aspen in the park’s northern range.  They found young trees almost completely missing.
 
“For decades, nothing had been growing into the smaller age classes of trees because of intensive elk browsing,” Beschta said.

[Bango skank]

Oh, beavers are coming back?  Could that have anything to do with the fact that over 100 beavers were trapped and transplanted into the area?  Another example of "science" by wolf advocates.  Biased bs.  Advocates make crappy scientists.

And this is in an area with protected winter range and no hunting anyway.  How things may or may not work in jellystone doesnt reflect on the rest of the world.

[huntnphool]

Oh, beavers are coming back?  Could that have anything to do with the fact that over 100 beavers were trapped and transplanted into the area?  Another example of "science" by wolf advocates.  Biased bs.  Advocates make crappy scientists.

And this is in an area with protected winter range and no hunting anyway.  How things may or may not work in jellystone doesnt reflect on the rest of the world.

 

[Jerky]

Bango, you are certainly welcomed to your own opinion.  I respect research from a peer reviewed scientific journal much more than the news media.  The data determines the conclusion.

[mfswallace]

Bango, you are certainly welcomed to your own opinion.  I respect research from a peer reviewed scientific journal much more than the news media.  The data determines the conclusion.

Unless the conclusion is predetermined and the data is manipulated to prove your predetermined conclusion 

[Bango skank]

Bango, you are certainly welcomed to your own opinion.  I respect research from a peer reviewed scientific journal much more than the news media.  The data determines the conclusion.

Is the beaver release my opinion, or something that was intentionally left out of the "scientific" study?  The beaver increase is used to support the trophic cascades theory but there is no mention of the dozens (i want to say it was about 160?) Of beavers trapped and released into the ecosystem.

Is it my opinion that the way wolves affect a protected area, with intact winter range and no hunting or livestock is different than the way theyll affect an area like ne wa where human habitation has taken over much of the landscape and cattle, sheep etc are available as prey and elk and other wildlife is routinely hunted and displaced by habitat destruction?

As much as youd like to pretend otherwise, this isnt yellowstone here.  100% of available browse is not utilized by elk.  The vast majority of quality browse here goes untouched.  We are way below our carrying capacity.  The yellowstone fairy tale just flat out does not apply here.  Wolves are NOT a benefit to our local ecosystem.  They are a menace.

[Bango skank]

Bango, you are certainly welcomed to your own opinion.  I respect research from a peer reviewed scientific journal much more than the news media.  The data determines the conclusion.

Unless the conclusion is predetermined and the data is manipulated to prove your predetermined conclusion 

 

[Bango skank]

Bango, you are certainly welcomed to your own opinion. 

Youre also entitled to your opinion, though you dont even have your own, youre just using somebody elses to try to showcase how open minded and tolerant you are.  Go hop in your subaru and drive down to your local starbucks and impress your friends with your predator loving crap

[Duckslayer89]

Bango, you are certainly welcomed to your own opinion. 

Youre also entitled to your opinion, though you dont even have your own, youre just using somebody elses to try to showcase how open minded and tolerant you are.  Go hop in your subaru and drive down to your local starbucks and impress your friends with your predator loving crap

   vermin invasive species loving crap****

[thatdamguy]

Bango, you are certainly welcomed to your own opinion.  I respect research from a peer reviewed scientific journal much more than the news media.  The data determines the conclusion.

http://m.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/wolf-driven-trophic-cascade-is-overblown/article_d633e45e-3f86-5036-aeb6-4f0cf3170d85.html?mode=jqm

[jasnt]

Bango, you are certainly welcomed to your own opinion.  I respect research from a peer reviewed scientific journal much more than the news media.  The data determines the conclusion.

Is the beaver release my opinion, or something that was intentionally left out of the "scientific" study?  The beaver increase is used to support the trophic cascades theory but there is no mention of the dozens (i want to say it was about 160?) Of beavers trapped and released into the ecosystem.

Is it my opinion that the way wolves affect a protected area, with intact winter range and no hunting or livestock is different than the way theyll affect an area like ne wa where human habitation has taken over much of the landscape and cattle, sheep etc are available as prey and elk and other wildlife is routinely hunted and displaced by habitat destruction?

As much as youd like to pretend otherwise, this isnt yellowstone here.  100% of available browse is not utilized by elk.  The vast majority of quality browse here goes untouched.  We are way below our carrying capacity.  The yellowstone fairy tale just flat out does not apply here.  Wolves are NOT a benefit to our local ecosystem.  They are a menace.

   Paints a different picture when you add the rest of the facts

[Kittman]

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I smell some serious stink with the organization cited in this post.

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=807

Guess they do not want the public to know the real scientific outcome if the solution does not fit their agenda.  I would rather buy a bridge in AZ than believe an article written about wolves from dubious sources.

[Wacenturion]

Bango, you are certainly welcomed to your own opinion.  I respect research from a peer reviewed scientific journal much more than the news media.  The data determines the conclusion.

Unless the conclusion is predetermined and the data is manipulated to prove your predetermined conclusion 

The results of reseach comes down to the reseacher.  Unless that person is completely unbiased (which is like a unicorn being real), the outcome reflects the inner views of the reseacher.  Saw it my entire career in WDFW.

[Gringo31]

Yeah, major progress there....


Look at how many people will be flooding the gates at Yellowstone to see the cottonwoods.   

[JimmyHoffa]

Humans could've culled that elk herd and not had to deal with the consequences of wolves spreading, impacting non-park herds and livestock, killing pets and economies.  But some bios want a whole region for their lab so they can write papers and get nods from their PhD community.

[pianoman9701]

Yeah, major progress there....


Look at how many people will be flooding the gates at Yellowstone to see the cottonwoods.   

Sure, tree huggers pay lots of money for the right to hug, right?

I also suggest this report purposely leaves out information that may lead to different conclusions. Yes, if you removed all ungulate wildlife from a given ecosystem, tree and plants will flourish. Is that healthy for the ecosystem? Doubtful. If you add 15 dozen beavers to an ecosystem from which you've removed the ungulates, you're going to see more tree growth in the wetter areas. But there's a problem: the ungulate herds in Yellowstone have become so small, they no longer support the enhanced predator populations, which is evidenced by the fact that wolves from Yellowstone are leaving the park, their safe place, to find ungulates elsewhere. We know this is true because they're being tracked by MFW&P and as a result, the number of wolf tags just outside the park has been increased, while the ungulate tags have decreased.

So, the conclusion of this internet biologist and keyboard expert is that the increased tree growth in the park is 1. Due to a number of influences, some which remain purposely left out of this study, leaving the results and ethics of the study in question, 2. an indication of declining ungulate populations to dangerously low levels, so low, in fact, that the predators are no longer being sustained within the study area, and 3. is an indication of negative effects reaching beyond the borders of the study into the surrounding areas.

I have to agree with many who've pointed out that when you try to reach a specific result through the compilation of data, you will, regardless of the actual value of that result. Sorry Jerky, we need more science and less theater.

[timberfaller]

Thanks for the post Jerky!!!

Interesting "they" forgot about the wildfire that ripped through Yellowstone and IT'S effect(made) on the PRESENT "eco-system"

Some pretty strong "kool-aid" those two Profs are serving!!