Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on July 24, 2008
Behavioral Ecology 2008 19(6):1258-1266; doi:10.1093/beheco/arn079
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary Material
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/6/1258    most recent
arn079v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Christianson, D.
Right arrow Articles by Creel, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Christianson, D.
Right arrow Articles by Creel, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Risk effects in elk: sex-specific responses in grazing and browsing due to predation risk from wolves

David Christianson and Scott Creel

Department of Ecology, Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA

Address correspondence to D. Christianson. E-mail:davidc{at}montana.edu.


  Abstract

Risk effects in ungulates are poorly understood but have recently been implicated as an important driver of elk (Cervus elaphus) population dynamics since wolves were reintroduced into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) of Montana and Wyoming, USA. From December to May in 2004, 2005, and 2006, we recorded the daily presence of wolves on 3 sites occupied by the Upper Gallatin elk population in the northwest corner of the GYE. We estimated the proportion of grasses, conifers, evergreen shrubs, and woody stems in 980 elk fecal samples collected from those 3 sites and tested whether wolf presence affected elk diets. The winter of 2005 was extremely mild allowing us the opportunity to investigate how elk–wolf interactions might change if winter snowpack continues to decline in western North America due to global warming. Snow accumulation consistently favored browsing, and diets during the mild winter were dominated by grass, very similar to the spring diet. In normal winters, adult males grazed less than adult females except when wolves were near because females decreased grazing in response to wolves. Adult males decreased browsing on conifers by half whereas adult females doubled conifer browsing on days when wolves were near. Overall, the sexes had different diets when wolves were absent but showed strong overlap when wolves were present. Diet shifts due to wolves may be causing trophic cascades that have gone unrecognized and probably carry nutritional consequences for wintering elk.

Key words: behaviorally mediate trophic cascade, browsing, diet, elk, grazing, predation, risk effects, sexual segregation, wolves.

Received 1 March 2008; revised 16 May 2008; accepted 28 May 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
S. Creel, J. A. Winnie Jr., and D. Christianson
Glucocorticoid stress hormones and the effect of predation risk on elk reproduction
PNAS, July 28, 2009; 106(30): 12388 - 12393.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.