黄石公园北部的营养级联和白杨恢复

IF 1.8 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Robert L. Beschta , Luke E. Painter , William J. Ripple
{"title":"黄石公园北部的营养级联和白杨恢复","authors":"Robert L. Beschta ,&nbsp;Luke E. Painter ,&nbsp;William J. Ripple","doi":"10.1016/j.fooweb.2023.e00276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We revisit the nature and extent of trophic cascades and quaking aspen (<em>Populus tremuloides</em>) recovery in the northern range of Yellowstone National Park, where studies have reported on Rocky Mountain elk (<em>Cervus canadensis</em>) browsing and young aspen heights following the 1995–96 reintroduction of gray wolves (<em>Canis lupus</em>). A recent study by Brice et al. (2021) expressed concerns about methodologies employed in earlier aspen studies and that results from those studies exaggerated the extent to which a trophic cascade has benefitted aspen, concerns such as: (a) the selection of aspen stands, (b) young aspen sampling and measurements within stands, (c) the upper browse level of elk, (d) cause of increased young aspen height growth, (e) interpretation of browsing and height data, and others. We individually address these concerns and conclude that earlier aspen studies have provided important insights regarding the recovery of aspen that is underway in northern Yellowstone and that they have not exaggerated the ongoing recovery. We found that Brice et al. (2021) misinterpreted or misrepresented various aspects of those earlier studies, while failing to address potential biases and shortcomings of their own 2007–2017 study, including; sampling aspen stands from only a portion of the park's northern range, not randomly selecting aspen stands across their study area, but only within identified treatments, varying sampling density (stands/km<sup>2</sup>) by more than an order of magnitude between treatments, and not sampling all stands in most years. Regardless of the research methodologies employed in various aspen studies, they have consistently shown that decreased browsing has resulted in greater young plant heights in the park's northern range, results consistent with an ongoing trophic cascade.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38084,"journal":{"name":"Food Webs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting trophic cascades and aspen recovery in northern Yellowstone\",\"authors\":\"Robert L. Beschta ,&nbsp;Luke E. Painter ,&nbsp;William J. Ripple\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.fooweb.2023.e00276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>We revisit the nature and extent of trophic cascades and quaking aspen (<em>Populus tremuloides</em>) recovery in the northern range of Yellowstone National Park, where studies have reported on Rocky Mountain elk (<em>Cervus canadensis</em>) browsing and young aspen heights following the 1995–96 reintroduction of gray wolves (<em>Canis lupus</em>). A recent study by Brice et al. (2021) expressed concerns about methodologies employed in earlier aspen studies and that results from those studies exaggerated the extent to which a trophic cascade has benefitted aspen, concerns such as: (a) the selection of aspen stands, (b) young aspen sampling and measurements within stands, (c) the upper browse level of elk, (d) cause of increased young aspen height growth, (e) interpretation of browsing and height data, and others. We individually address these concerns and conclude that earlier aspen studies have provided important insights regarding the recovery of aspen that is underway in northern Yellowstone and that they have not exaggerated the ongoing recovery. We found that Brice et al. (2021) misinterpreted or misrepresented various aspects of those earlier studies, while failing to address potential biases and shortcomings of their own 2007–2017 study, including; sampling aspen stands from only a portion of the park's northern range, not randomly selecting aspen stands across their study area, but only within identified treatments, varying sampling density (stands/km<sup>2</sup>) by more than an order of magnitude between treatments, and not sampling all stands in most years. Regardless of the research methodologies employed in various aspen studies, they have consistently shown that decreased browsing has resulted in greater young plant heights in the park's northern range, results consistent with an ongoing trophic cascade.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food Webs\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food Webs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352249623000058\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Webs","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352249623000058","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

我们重新审视了黄石国家公园北部地区营养级联和颤抖白杨的恢复的性质和程度,研究报告了1995-96年灰狼(犬类狼疮)重新引入后,落基山麋鹿(加拿大鹿)的觅食和年轻白杨的高度。Brice等人最近的一项研究(2021)对早期白杨研究中使用的方法表示担忧,这些研究的结果夸大了营养级联对白杨的益处,例如:(A)白杨林分的选择,(b)林分内年轻白杨的采样和测量,(c)麋鹿的浏览水平较高,(d)年轻白杨身高增长增加的原因,(e)浏览和身高数据的解释等。我们单独解决了这些问题,并得出结论,早期的白杨研究为黄石公园北部正在进行的白杨的恢复提供了重要的见解,并且他们没有夸大正在进行的恢复。我们发现Brice等人(2021)误解或歪曲了这些早期研究的各个方面,同时未能解决他们自己2007-2017年研究的潜在偏见和缺点,包括:;仅从公园北部范围的一部分采集白杨林,而不是在研究区域内随机选择白杨林,而是仅在确定的处理范围内,处理之间的采样密度(林分/km2)变化超过一个数量级,并且在大多数年份不对所有林分进行采样。不管各种白杨研究中采用的研究方法如何,他们一直表明,浏览量的减少导致公园北部范围内年轻植物的高度增加,这一结果与正在进行的营养级联一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revisiting trophic cascades and aspen recovery in northern Yellowstone

We revisit the nature and extent of trophic cascades and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) recovery in the northern range of Yellowstone National Park, where studies have reported on Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis) browsing and young aspen heights following the 1995–96 reintroduction of gray wolves (Canis lupus). A recent study by Brice et al. (2021) expressed concerns about methodologies employed in earlier aspen studies and that results from those studies exaggerated the extent to which a trophic cascade has benefitted aspen, concerns such as: (a) the selection of aspen stands, (b) young aspen sampling and measurements within stands, (c) the upper browse level of elk, (d) cause of increased young aspen height growth, (e) interpretation of browsing and height data, and others. We individually address these concerns and conclude that earlier aspen studies have provided important insights regarding the recovery of aspen that is underway in northern Yellowstone and that they have not exaggerated the ongoing recovery. We found that Brice et al. (2021) misinterpreted or misrepresented various aspects of those earlier studies, while failing to address potential biases and shortcomings of their own 2007–2017 study, including; sampling aspen stands from only a portion of the park's northern range, not randomly selecting aspen stands across their study area, but only within identified treatments, varying sampling density (stands/km2) by more than an order of magnitude between treatments, and not sampling all stands in most years. Regardless of the research methodologies employed in various aspen studies, they have consistently shown that decreased browsing has resulted in greater young plant heights in the park's northern range, results consistent with an ongoing trophic cascade.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Food Webs
Food Webs Environmental Science-Ecology
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
42
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信