Dynamics of Interacting Elk Populations within and Adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park

Lubow, Bruce C.; Singer, Francis J.; Johnson, Therese L.; Bowden, David C.

doi:10.2307/3803141

Cited by 52 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, declines of willow and aspen have been documented and attributed to high ungulate populations (Olmsted 1979;Baker et al 1997;Peinetti et al 2002). Lubow et al (2002) concluded that the park population was food-limited density dependent, likely at a higher population level than achieved under natural regulation with top predators. In addition to vegetation impacts inside Rocky Mountain National Park, the large elk population also impacted residential areas of the nearby town of Estes Park (Schultz and Bailey 1978).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Space use and social ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans) in a high-elevation ecosystem: relative stability in a changing environment

Gifford

Gese

Parmenter³

2016

J Ethol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coyote (Canis latrans) spatial and social ecology are variable, but have been little studied in high-elevation environments. In these temperate ecosystems, large ungulates are prevalent and coyote pack size may be large in order for them to scavenge and defend ungulate carcasses from conspecifics in neighboring packs. We initiated a study to understand the spatial and social ecology of coyotes on the Valles Caldera National Preserve, a high-elevation (2450-3400 m) protected area in northern New Mexico. Our objectives were to (1) describe the home range size and habitat use of coyotes in the preserve, (2) describe coyote movements within and outside of packs, and (3) to evaluate the relationship between coyote social cohesion and the amount of elk (Cervus elaphus) in the coyote diet. We acquired global positioning system and telemetry locations from 33 coyotes from August 2005 to July 2009. We classified 23 coyotes (70 % of individuals) as residents (i.e., territorial) during at least part of the study and ten coyotes (30 %) as transients. Overall mean home range size of resident packs was 10.6 ± 2.2 (SD) km 2 . Home range size varied between packs, but did not vary by season or year. Coyotes used dry and wet meadow habitats as expected based on availability; coyotes used riparian habitat more than expected, and forests less than expected. Social cohesion did not vary among biological seasons. Alpha coyotes were more socially cohesive with each other than with other pack members, and a transient exhibited temporal-spatial avoidance of pack members while inside the pack's territory followed by integration into the pack. Contrary to expectations, we found no relationship between coyote social cohesion and the proportion of elk in coyote diets. We concluded that coyote space use and sociality on the preserve were relatively stable year-round despite changes in biological needs, snow depth, and utilization of variously sized prey.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Space use and social ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans) in a high-elevation ecosystem: relative stability in a changing environment

Gifford

Gese

Parmenter³

2016

J Ethol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elk and beaver densities were assumed to be homogeneous throughout the 4-ha area, but varied among different simulation scenarios. We adjusted elk density levels (but not those for beaver) for observed seasonal movement patterns in RMNP, as follows: 100% of maximum during October 1 to April 30, 50% of maximum during May and September, and 10% of maximum during June, July, and August (estimated from Lubow et al 2002). Elk densities reported in this paper refers to winter densities.…”

Section: Model Setting and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beginning in 1969, managers ceased control in favor of natural regulation. By the late 1990s the elk population in the Park and nearby town of Estes Park had increased to over 3,000 animals (Lubow et al 2002: Table 1). Interestingly, elk use of willow was consistently high (;85% annually) during 1968 to 1993 (Zeigenfuss et al 1999: Fig.…”

Section: Savanna Model Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition favors elk over beaver in a riparian willow ecosystem

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Beaver (Castor spp.) conservation requires an understanding of their complex interactions with competing herbivores. Simulation modeling offers a controlled environment to examine long-term dynamics in ecosystems driven by uncontrollable variables. We used a new version of the SAVANNA ecosystem model to investigate beaver (C. canadensis) and elk (Cervus elaphus) competition for willow (Salix spp.). We initialized the model with field data from Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA, to simulate a 4-ha riparian ecosystem containing beaver, elk, and willow. We found beaver persisted indefinitely when elk density was 20 elk km À2 . Beaver persistence decreased exponentially as elk density increased from 30 to 60 elk km À2, which suggests the presence of an ecological threshold. The interaction of beaver and elk herbivory shifted the size distribution of willow plants from tall to short when elk densities were !30 elk km À2. The loss of tall willow preceded rapid beaver declines, thus willow condition may predict beaver population trajectory in natural environments. Beaver were able to persist with slightly higher elk densities if beaver alternated their use of foraging sites in a rest-rotation pattern rather than maintained continuous use. Thus, we found asymmetrical competition for willow strongly favored elk over beaver in a simulated montane ecosystem. Finally, we discuss application of the SAVANNA model and mechanisms of competition relative to beaver persistence as metapopulations, ecological resistance and alternative state models, and ecosystem regulation.

show abstract

“…Plainly, more data are needed to address these questions, yet these are some of the best-quality wildlife data available; if we are to use this data to monitor the environment, it is essential that we have some way of interpreting the mechanisms that lead to changes in its long-term trajectories. Also included in figure 2b are data from three other elk populations, one at the National Elk refuge within 100 miles of Yellowstone (Boyce 1990), one 500 miles away at Rocky Mountain National Park (Lubow et al 2002), and one nearly a thousand miles away on the coast of California (Howell et al 2002). There is very little correlation between the annual rates of change of these populations and it would be very hard to say anything about the shortterm future population trajectory of any of them from examining the dynamics of one of the others.…”

Section: How Will You Detect Change?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring global rates of biodiversity change: challenges that arise in meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2010 goals

Dobson

2005

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By agreeing to strive for 'a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity' by the year 2010, political leaders at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (held in Johannesburg, South Africa) presented conservation scientists with a great opportunity, but also one of their most significant challenges. This is an extremely exciting and laudable development, but this reporting process could be made yet more powerful if it incorporates, from the outset, independent scientific assessment of the measures, how they are analysed, and practical ways of plugging key gaps. This input is crucial if the measures are to be widely owned, credible and robust to the vigorous external scrutiny to which they will doubtless be exposed. Assessing how rates of biodiversity loss have changed from current levels by 2010 will require that a given attribute has been measured at least three times; however, most habitats, species, populations and ecosystem services have not been assessed even once. Furthermore, the best data on which to base estimates of biodiversity loss are biased towards the charismatic vertebrate species; unfortunately, these supply minimal services to the human economy. We have to find ways to redress this taxonomic imbalance and expand our analyses to consider the vast diversity of invertebrate, fungal and microbial species that play a role in determining human health and economic welfare.In the first part of this paper I will use examples from local and regional monitoring of biological diversity to examine the desired properties of 'ideal indicators'. I will then change focus and examine an initial framework that asks how we might monitor changes in the economic goods and services provided by natural ecosystems. I will use this exercise to examine how the set of possible indicators given by the Convention on Biological Diversity might be modified in ways that provide a more critical assay of the economic value of biological diversity. Here I will emphasize that we need not only to monitor these benefits, but also to significantly increase public awareness of human dependence upon the role that non-voting species play in driving the world's financial economy.

show abstract

Dynamics of Interacting Elk Populations within and Adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park

Cited by 52 publications

References 28 publications

Space use and social ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans) in a high-elevation ecosystem: relative stability in a changing environment

Space use and social ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans) in a high-elevation ecosystem: relative stability in a changing environment

Competition favors elk over beaver in a riparian willow ecosystem

Monitoring global rates of biodiversity change: challenges that arise in meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2010 goals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About