4.4 Article

Wolves, trophic cascades, and rivers in the Olympic National Park, USA

Journal

ECOHYDROLOGY
Volume 1, Issue 2, Pages 118-130

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eco.12

Keywords

tropic cascades; wolves; elk; riparian plant communities; channel morphology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were extirpted in the early 1900s from the Olympic Peninsula of northwestern Washington. Thus, we studied potential cascading effects of wolf removal by undertaking a retrospective study of Roosvelt elk (Cervus elaphus) populations, riparian forests, and river channel morphology. For three ripariansites withing the western portion of Olympic National Park, the age structure of black cottonwood and bigleaf maple indicated a pattern of significantly decreased recruitment (growth of seedlings/sprouts into tall saplings and trees) associated with intensive elk browsing in the decades following the loss of wolves. At a riparian site outside the park, which represented a refugium from elk browsing, cottonwood recruitment has been ongoing during the 20th century, indicating that the climate and flow regimes, in the absence of intensive herbivory, have limited the establishment and growth of this deciduous woody species. Using 1994 orthophotos, we also measured channel dimensions and planform morphology of 8-km-long river reaches at each vegetation sampling site and an additional reach outside the park. Channels inside the park versus those outside the park had greater percent braiding (37 vs 2%) and larger ratios of active channel width/wetted width (3.0 vs 1.5 m/m). Results for western Olympic National Park were consistent with a truncated trophic cascade hypothesis whereby ungulate browsing following the extirpation of wolves caused significant long-term impacts to riparian plant communities which, in turn, allowed increased riverbank erosion and channel widening to occur. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available