Birds, plants, and animals adapt to changing weather patterns, who knew?
News Release
Dramatic Links Found Between Climate Change, Elk, Plants, and Birds
Missoula, MT – Climate change in the form of reduced snowfall in mountains is causing powerful and cascading shifts in mountainous plant and bird communities through the increased ability of elk to stay at high elevations over winter and consume plants, according to a groundbreaking study in Nature Climate Change.
The U.S. Geological Survey and University of Montana study not only showed that the abundance of deciduous trees and their associated songbirds in mountainous Arizona have declined over the last 22 years as snowpack has declined, but it also experimentally demonstrated that declining snowfall indirectly affects plants and birds by enabling more winter browsing by elk. Increased winter browsing by elk results in trickle-down ecological effects such as lowering the quality of habitat for songbirds.
The authors, USGS Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit scientist Thomas Martin and University of Montana scientist John Maron, mimicked the effects of more snow on limiting the ability of elk to browse on plants by excluding the animals from large, fenced areas. They compared bird and plant communities in these exclusion areas with nearby similar areas where elk had access, and found that, over the six years of the study, multi-decadal declines in plant and songbird populations were reversed in the areas where elk were prohibited from browsing.
“This study illustrates that profound impacts of climate change on ecosystems arise over a time span of but two decades through unexplored feedbacks,” explained USGS director Marcia McNutt. “The significance lies in the fact that humans and our economy are at the end of the same chain of cascading consequences.”
The study demonstrates a classic ecological cascade, added Martin. For example, he said, from an elk’s perspective, less snow means an increased ability to freely browse on woody plants in winter in areas where they would not be inclined to forage in previous times due to high snowpack. Increased overwinter browsing led to a decline in deciduous trees, which reduced the number of birds that chose the habitat and increased predation on nests of those birds that did choose the habitat.
“This study demonstrates that the indirect effects of climate on plant communities may be just as important as the effects of climate-change-induced mismatches between migrating birds and food abundance because plants, including trees, provide the habitat birds need to survive,” Martin said.
The study, Climate impacts on bird and plant communities from altered animal-plant interactions, was published online on Jan. 8 in the journal Nature Climate Change.
This release can be found in the USGS Newsroom at: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3069.
Turn it around: Let’s say there was more snow in AZ. Wouldn’t the story line be something like:
The elk population is decreasing due to restricted foraging opportunities as winter snowpack increases. The songbird population is growing; however, that is small consolation to the dwindling population of the majestic elk.
The point is, these characters want us to believe change is bad. Why? Change is an inherent attribute of living systems. There are decades old mathematical models describing the cyclic changes in predator and prey populations. Change is life. Stasis is for dead things like the Moon and Mars.
The Apollo missions were the first interesting events on the Moon in over 3 billion years (OK, I’ll give you Tycho crater and a few others). I’ve read about demands to prevent alteration of the Moon or Mars. These people want nothing to change ever. Change is what gave them the chance to live in the first place. Rule by lawyers may be driving this attotude. Is lack of change actually safer? I would say no. This conflict of perception with reality isn’t helped by the deplorable state of science education and nearly complete lack of science knowledge among elected leaders.
Of course there is a simple inexpensive solution for this: Reintroduce Wolves.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112703001543
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/2011/06/yellowstone-national-park-wolf-reintroduction-is-changing-the-face-of-the-greater-yellowstone-ecosystem/
Apparently wolves eat elk and affect elk breeding. Since the elk population is reduced, the elk eat less. By eating less, more plants and, trees grow to maturity. The wolves have also led to a rebound in beaver population that rely on the increase in fauna.
On the other hand, you could say it isn’t global warning, it is the removal of predators from the ecosystem that is causing the problem.
Meanwhile, there are record snowfalls and avalanches in the European Alps this winter.
Why don’t we hear much about that?
crosspatch says:
January 11, 2012 at 1:52 pm
“Officially, 1926 was the year the last wolves were killed within Yellowstone’s boundaries, and over the succeeding decades, populations of elk and other large prey animals had soared, and new growth vegetation suffered as a result.”
That is the convenient green spin. The huge elephant in this room is one the greenies have been deliberately avoiding or just plain lying about for decades.
ALL early historical records of the Yellowstone area found elk rare and wolves even rarer.
The apex predator of the ‘natural ecosystem’ were Native hunters, who were removed from the ecological equation.
But they cannot deal with this reality because it upsets the myth of the ‘pristine wilderness’ as the myth of the ‘balance of nature.’
The elk overpopulation problem in Yellowstone was already evident by 1900 which was why they started shipping elk out of there to places where they were extirpated – which was almost everywhere in their original range.
We hire a PR group to smear and discredit the elk so no one will touch them on the public speaking circuit. Then, once the elk experience financial hardship, we sue them into oblivion, …..
dang, I just knew that was going to happen again. 50,000 years ago, humans were forced to leave the garden of eden flowing with milk and honey (and crocodiles and tsetse flies), and go up in the snow to live on moss and reindeer fur, until they could finally emigrate to the United States, and Mexico. But they didn’t really even know they were going to the USA, because they just followed the birds and the bees, and everything else that just wandered across the border into the USof A.
If they had had a GPS system in those days, they would have figured out they were moving; and then they would have built some big concrete cities, and then sat around and whined about the weather. Now how do you suppose a flowering plant that lives for a year, knows anything at all about climate, so it knows when to get up and leave ?
R. de Haan ,
USGS also does water quality. My experience has been that USGS is one of the finest collection of scientists employed by the federal government.
RE Times of India article:
““Issues such as climate change cannot be handled only at the central level. It needs the involvement of state governments as well as local communities, ”
Or in other words – we know India’s federal government is unlikely to support costly “climate change” policies, so we are going to see if we have more success convincing local government of the need.
Can’t believe no one has mentioned it yet… what a short time ago it was, the term ‘Global Warming’ was abandoned in favor of ‘Climate Change’ because of the heavier winter snowfalls. The climate collaborators tried to rationalize the heavy snows by saying, “warmer air holds more moisture which means it snows a lot more”… shocking.
To follow up on my previous comment…
The usual stock response to my comment about the historical record is ‘But what about Lewis and Clark’?
No surprise as the record of that expedition is the icon of the imaginary West. It also confirms the impact of Native hunters.
The only areas where they saw any abundance of wildlife was in the vacant ‘no man’s lands’ between hostile Native nations. And the upper Missouri-lower Yellowstone where they happened to pass through twice, was the largest such area in the historical West.
In contrast, they saw almost nothing in areas occupied by Native nations… because they were hunted so hard. The only exception to this rule – and only a relative exception at that – were bison, because the big herds kept moving and ‘migrated’ long distances. Even so, the numbers of historic bison suggested, most famously and falsely 60 million, are ridiculous and laughable and, not surprisingly, have zero historical or ecological basis.
oh…now something maybe actually directed at this thread:
Elk graze…source…me…I have watched them many times…and sometimes I was with another friend…so my research has been peer reviewed…Wow this science stuff is easy…even a “Caveman could do it”
Wolves graze too, ‘cept its called hunting and or scavenger(ing). We all know that Elton John sang that Circle of Life song…well Walt Disney was not the first to come up with the concept. But don’t take a public opinion poll and ask people what they think the answer is…or do and maybe you could host your own late night TV show, like Letterman or Carson or that Leno guy…
So if some animal likes to kill you and eat you…you just might change the way you live your life, I know I would. Elk eventually figure it out too…sometimes, however it takes a few generations.
How can anything even remotely scientific…related to GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE be determined when you have failed to account for wolves were extirpated from Yellowstone in 1926. Reintroduced in 1995. Elk really don’t like wolves. Wolves really like elk. The elk chase the wolves all around the park…and sometimes they even leave the park…this ain’t ‘New York City’…our parks out west are a little bit bigger than the central one.
Any study that draws any conclusion about GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, based on a 6 year study of elk…in an area that was void of their primary predator for multiple generations…but then expose that particular elk herd new ‘unknown’ predator during the study…
Wait…go ask every single elk hunting guide in Montana and Wyoming…they are experts in elk behavior right? If they were not experts they would not be hunting guides…cause I doubt they got any stimulus bail out money like General Motors…
Hey…I wonder if I could get paid by the USGS if I submitted a Road Runner cartoon and told them it was a study on flora and fauna habits…
Obviously, their model is nonsense. I see no mention of the spherical elk*.
* https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Spherical_cow
Attn: AleaJactaEst, January 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm
They did not ‘model’ anything. They fenced off an area to keep out the Elk as though there was high snow. Then OBSERVED the results on the song birds ability to live in the protected area amongst the unprotected areas. This is called real science not modeling.
Sean Peake says:
January 11, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Concur.
Excerpts from the second link given by P. Hagar, above:
Wolves are great!
@Andrew;
Implausible typo above: “The elk chase the wolves all around the park ”
Bigger Bambis on Rampage. Wolves Flee For Their Lives!
Or maybe not.
😉
@Al Gored
“The elk overpopulation problem in Yellowstone was already evident by 1900 which was why they started shipping elk out of there to places where they were extirpated – which was almost everywhere in their original range.”
Please do some research and get back to us on the native flora and fauna of Central Park, The Meadowlands, maybe Garden in Boston while you are at it…and compare it to the current flora and fauna…
I will get a bunch of…ok…we can’t deal with invasive species anymore due to EPA regulations…so no talk of culling the herd would be appropriate…
Lets see the domestic cat destroys about one billion birds and year in the US alone. Now if they apply for a grant to study if cats spend more time outdoors because of C02 warming the world, they will be in the money again.
I think this site is becoming populated with kneejerk reactionaries akin to the nuclear nutters who go postal at the mention of nuclear power.
The fact is that this piece seems quite reasonable and well researched and dosent deserve the mouth frothing piloring that it has received here by people who seem to be blinded by idealogy to any scientific research that doesn’t support their world view, there is no genuine objective scientific discussion on this site anymore, I’m becoming very disillusioned.
This is the Last Resort! Save the Eagles…they are a rare indicator species…like the Spotted Owls…and the Peregrine Falcons…They will never make it “In The City”…but then again what do I know…I am just a ordinary average guy that prefers Meadows and a Rocky Mountain Way to some corporate Wall Street High Rise…but I have seen a Window on the World from atop one…years ago.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWDmNCThDLQ&w=480&h=360%5D
“She heard about a place people were smilin’
They spoke about the red man’s way,
and how they loved the land ”
“Then the chilly winds blew down
Across the desert
through the canyons of the coast, to
the Malibu
Where the pretty people play,
hungry for power
to light their neon way
and give them things to do ”
“They even brought a neon sign: “Jesus is coming”
Brought the white man’s burden down
Brought the white man’s reign
Who will provide the grand design?
What is yours and what is mine?
‘Cause there is no more new frontier
We have got to make it here
We satisfy our endless needs and
justify our bloody deeds,
in the name of destiny and the name of God”
Watch the video and read the lyrics.
(I cut and pasted from YouTube…I wonder if I did it right…)
Too many comments on this post are derisively dismissive which does little for the credibility of WUWT in the wider on line community. It is fair to say that there the results may reflect an increase in the number of elks if the authors haven’t commented on this but many of the other comments are risible.
How about Rutgers University trend for northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter? IT IS UP!
Wow, is the quality of trolls ever dropping!
First we have:
Peak Warming Man says:
January 11, 2012 at 4:45 pm
I think this site is becoming populated with kneejerk reactionaries akin to the nuclear nutters who go postal at the mention of nuclear power.
The fact is that this piece seems quite reasonable and well researched and dosent deserve the mouth frothing piloring that it has received here by people who seem to be blinded by idealogy to any scientific research that doesn’t support their world view, there is no genuine objective scientific discussion on this site anymore, I’m becoming very disillusioned.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Followed by:
Ian says:
January 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Too many comments on this post are derisively dismissive which does little for the credibility of WUWT in the wider on line community. It is fair to say that there the results may reflect an increase in the number of elks if the authors haven’t commented on this but many of the other comments are risible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Say what? You guys all read the same “how to win an argument” book or something? Aw, you’re all disolutioned and all, the comments are just mean, Mean I say! Risable even!
OK Ian and Peak Warming Man, how about you defend your position? All you’ve done is throw out a drive by comment to the effect that the criticism being expressed is unfair. Mean. Risable even! Could you perhaps quote the specific comments that you feel are representative of your complaint and explain why each of them is, in your opinion, problematic?
While you are doing that, I’m going to trot down to my favourite park and put fences around certain sections and hang signs on them that say “no hot dog vendors beyond this point”. I’m then going to study the litter in the area to see if there is any change in distribution. If the areas within the fences show decreased littering from discarded hot dog wrappers, ketchup and mustard packs and other hot dog related items, I shall produce a study showing this as evidence that global warming could extend the range of hot dog vendors which in turn would extend the range of pigeons and other members of the flying rat species.
Al Gored,
Your comments about native hunters certainly captures another climate impactor. Before they had horses, the hunters would go upwind of a bison heard and wait. Once in place a fire was set down wind of the herd. In response to the fire the bison would run upwind and the hunters would take what they needed.
20 years ago, an article in the Nature Conservancy magazine had an article from a paleo-botanist who stated the “great plains” were the “great forest” before the native hunters arrived.
“”””” Ian says:
January 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Too many comments on this post are derisively dismissive which does little for the credibility of WUWT in the wider on line community. It is fair to say that there the results may reflect an increase in the number of elks if the authors haven’t commented on this but many of the other comments are risible. “””””
Not to mention that too many comments are derisive about other’s comments.
Now I just noticed that the very first word in the Press Release was “Dramatic”, yet nothing in the early part of the account, indicated anything at all “dramatic”.
In fact it all seemed very ordinary, and about what one would expect mother nature to do, when weather patterns shift. That after all is what survival is about.
Now the details of the study may in fact be quite interesting; but who is going to rush to read it, when the ordinary is presented as “Dramatic”.
Hence MY derisive but NOT dismissive response. And I don’t have the time to look up the word “risible”; if I haven’t needed to use that word in all these years, I am likely to survive without it; and I’m somewhat adaptable, so if it becomes imperitive to be able to use the word “risible”, I can probably make some adjustment.