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.
@Brian H
“Brian H says:
January 11, 2012 at 4:21 pm
@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.
;)”
Is it anymore implausible than the Grimm tale you tell about the unfortunate night club disaster…no doubt poor diet from eating genetically modified food must have played a roll…
“Bigger Bambis on Rampage. Wolves Flee For Their Lives!”
But actually I failed to account for a half day at school, and I had 3 future taxpayers running around demanding my time…so proof reading was minimal. But not all typo’s are implausible, except when they are double negatives…
…and I didn’t call them elks…and trust me the ones on the Olympic Peninsula are big!
Foxgoose says:
January 11, 2012 at 1:36 pm
“Now if we could only select for intelligence instead of breeding stupidity in our universities.”
Not seeing that as a possibility in the near future -way to much $$$ involved.
I don’t agree there – it was a long time ago but I seem to remember breeding as being a fairly inexpensive activity at uni.
____________________________________________________________________
True Foxgoose…but remember we are talking inbreeding here,as in stupid breeding with stupid.
And as others have pointed out,remove the alpha predator,and the prey population explodes! Just what are they teaching in the “sciences” at school/”higher instituions of learning” these days?? Or are they just indoctrinating?
A. If they are not eating more trees at higher altitudes, then they are eating more trees a lower
altitiudes.
B. Elk and deer have had an insufficient number of predators for a long time. But wolves are expanding their terrain. They have returned to Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Idaho and Minnesota. Mexican wolves are being reintroduced to Arizona and New Mexico. Wolves kill lots of elk. Their reintroduction will have a far more dramatic effect than climate.
P. Hager,
I also remember having read that they would use the fire to stampede bison over a cliff enmass taking what they wanted or could carry and leaving the majority to rot. So much for native conservationists.
In their model, they just fenced off an area to serve as a control, but wouldn’t that mean the flora was still exposed to sunlight and able to green and grow and flourish? If they wanted to accurately “model” high snow, they should have taken a snowmaker and kept the fenced-off control area blanketed with snow. Then they can accurately compare the effects on vegetation of a reduced snow cover and elk grazing vs the effects of their assumed normal snow cover.
Not climate change, simply a classic case of overpopulation. Increase the number of elk tags, decrease the cost of those tags and voila, elk overpopulation taken care of. Where do I apply for my grant money from USGS?
Andrew says:
January 11, 2012 at 4:22 pm
“@Al Gored
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…”
Sorry Andrew, but your question is so vague that I don’t get it. Please be more clear and I would be happy to address it.
@ur momisugly Al Gored
My apology’s Sir,
My point…and opinion:
Most city folk don’t understand country folk. New Yorkers make fun of Rednecks. But Redneck hunters intuitively know more about elk(s)…than the people in the Ivory Towers overlooking Central Park, or attending a NFL game at the Meadow Lands just across the river in the “Garden State” of New Jersey…best know today…not for its gardens, but rather Snooki and The Situation.
These people will not give up their modern way of life for the sake of the environment, yet they expect the people of the “great fly over” parts of the country to give up their way of LIFE, their JOBS, their FAMILY FARMs (to pay estate taxes…which are no big deal if its liquid, but way harder for family farmers to deal with…right Mr.Buffet?)
Why do the City Slickers get to change the rules? The Constitution prohibits that behavior. So the City Slickers subvert it. ESA, EPA, NOAA…who is most impacted by these regulations? Big publicly traded companies…like GE…or the little guy?
Why should anyone listen to the beliefs from somebody in New York or Boston or LA…when it comes to ELKS in Wyoming? Do you get trendy New York City restaurant advice from a rancher in Wyoming? No you ask Stefon from Saturday Night Live.
At least get a few different opinions…from different people…before you spend trillions of dollars of our grandchildren’s money for ‘Pig in a Poke’…do not be a ‘chicken little’ or a ‘silly goose’…
Sorry, this stupid soapbox keeps getting in my way!
Al Gored…none of this rant was directed at you, btw…
Elk Smelk… I’m waiting for the peer reviewed published paper that show the expansion in the ranges of wild hogs in the south is caused by climate change.
Stephen Singer says:
January 11, 2012 at 4:00 pm
“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.”
I live in the Yellowstone region and am familiar with elk exclosures in and around YNP. If the exclosures in this study are anything like the ones I know, they never open them. They are permanent exclosures. Over time, what eventually results inside them is growth atypical of the surrounding region when subjected to normal grazing/browsing pressure. Opening these fenced areas during summer months would result in more realistic conditions. Elk would zero in the untouched areas and quickly reduce the quantity and composition to levels more realistic of the surrounding area. The upshot being that the exclusion areas would be significantly less attractive to song birds and other animals than they are under 365 day/6 year exclusion. If the study did not allow summer grazing, then the methodology is flawed IMO and the results artificially exaggerated. This is not ‘real science’ … it is real bad science.
I’d like to see a classical ecological cascade where the collapse of industrial growth leads to a shortage of funding, leading to a collapse in the number of ecology postdocs and the subsequent closure of entire universities. We’re overdue already; all the money has already been taken by wind and solar energy proponents, why don’t we shut them down already.
Brian H says:
January 11, 2012 at 4:17 pm
“Excerpts from the second link given by P. Hagar, above”
That article is the spun green version, designed to maximize the positive PR for wolves and the people who reintroduced them.
This part is a fine example of what nonsense it is:
“Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley determined that the combination of less snow and more wolves has benefited scavengers both big and small, from ravens to grizzly bears.
Instead of a boom and bust cycle of elk carrion availability-as existed before wolves and when winters were harder-there’s now a more equitable distribution of carrion throughout winter and early spring…”
First, this is relatively true for ravens – although the mass starvation die-offs of elk of the past produced some incredible abundances of spring food for ravens when it is more vital; they are early nesters.
But the bear thing is entirely bogus. These wolves COMPETE with bears for food. Large wolf packs easily displace any grizzly bear and even two wolves can displace females with cubs. Moreover, wolves KILL bear cubs, including grizzly bear cubs.
Rather than me posting links, just google ‘wolf and grizzly bear competition in Yellowstone.’
Similarly, this states that they also ‘benefit’ coyotes. I guess that explains why the coyote population has been decimated since the wolves were reintroduced. They kill coyotes.
Of course, these researchers were from Berkely, man.
Then there’s Ed Bangs. For those familiar with this whole story, Bangs is well known, and not for his ‘science.’ For his fairy tales and spin. So this is to be expected:
“I call it food for the masses,” said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He said he was genuinely surprised by the vast web of life that is linked to wolf kills. “Beetles, wolverine, lynx and more,” he said. “It turns out that the Indian legends of ravens following wolves are true-they do follow them because wolves mean food.”
Actually all that was very well known long before this reintroduction happened, and many of these researchers personally knew this because they were very familiar with what happened when wolves returned to Banff National Park in Alberta in the early 1980s. Including the ‘Indian legends of ravens following wolves’ which was observed and documented there, and observed and documented 100 or more years earlier on the plains.
But pretending to be discovering things and wrapping them in ‘Indian legends’ sounds better.
The whole wolf introduction story is a huge and controversial one but, like the other half of the AGW debate, it was barely touched by the media.
…
Here’s a nice clear explanation of the Yellowstone elk and vegetation (and more) story:
http://www.gardnerfiles.com/Yellowstones%20Natural%20Regulations%20Policy%2021-a.pdf
Google the author for more.
Brian H says:
January 11, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Excerpts from the second link given by P. Hagar, above….[showing only that a narrative about the greatness of Wolves is being developed and ignoring the fact that about 22,000 Elk have been winter-fed by State run feeding stations in the Yellowstone area but now won’t be: http://www.greateryellowstone.org/issues/wildlife/Feature.php?id=41 ]….
“Research bonanza
Biologists are often faced with the grim task of documenting the cascade effects of what happens when a species [Wolf] is removed from an ecosystem [which they obviously think they already know], by local extirpation or even extinction. In Yellowstone, biologists have the rare, almost unique, opportunity to document what happens when an ecosystem becomes whole again, what happens when a key species is added back into the ecosystem equation.”
Wolves are great!
“Research Bonanza” is the operative term.
Likewise, here locally Wolves have been reintroduced, perhaps even illegally according to a local Packer I know, to “balance” Nature and have spread rather “rapidly” to N.E. Oregon from Idaho…and, surprise, “can affect the landscape!” according to a recent self-serving report in the local paper.
In other words, the contracting experts admit openly that because funding for the idea of Wolves changing the “landscape” is difficult to obtain, locals are now urged to take pictures of the landscape they are familiar with to see if it changes, since the Wolves have only recently arrived – and are increasingly knocking off a significant number of Cattle in the “landscape” – just one or two dead cows might be significant to a small-scale, < 50 head, rancher which 40% of all cattle come from, according to a radio Ag Report I happened to hear.
Nevertheless, any landscape whatsoever that "improves" over time around here, according to taste, will now be attributed to the re-entry of Wolves! Then the fund seeking experts can get more funding to, er, prove it.
And to boot, at last report 20 years after the local "Wild and Scenic River" onslaught which has managed to build up the Wild and Scenic River corridor's fuel load here to very dangerous levels, people are still getting funded to see if the tiny "threatened" Botrychium, Moonwort Fern, does better around places where Horses tread, or not.
Well, they do seem to grow quite well right beside the dusty road next to my driveway and about 10 yd. away from the still working corral where the property’s previous Pack Station was being operated for at least 40 years. But that particular cascade resulting in the Botrychium’s own landscape feature probably wouldn’t please too many of the postmodern Environmentalists, especially because there’s also heap plenty Elk and Deer around, too, “but not yet enough Wolves.”
Mods, why are we approving OT posts about India, and Himalayan glaciers?
[Because we did. 8<) Robt]
[REP Says…. Because of the volume, moderators often dom’t have the leisure to check if the post is “in line”…. sometimes the post is rather enigmatic, as mine (in both my moderator and commentor personas sometimes are) … and sometimes it is a welcome diversion. -REP]
I was asked to give examples of risible. Here’s one “OMG! Either build more elk fences or eat more “elk burgers”; there will be more trees either way.”
and another: “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”.
and a third: “I would like to read the lame-o paper to see if it addresses a few points. First, Arizona elk having been going at it like bunnies since they were re-introduced into Arizona (the original elk population was extirpated around 1900) from Yellowstone starting in 1919 and off and on into the ’20s” I would say about the last comment if you haven’t read the paper you are hardly in a position to call it “lame-o”
As for those who don’t know what risible means (and can’t spell it) it doesn’t say much for your personal willingness to undertake any research at all let alone comment on the research of others. Risible means laughable or ludicrous as a 5 second scan of Google will show.
@ur momisugly Ian
YOU included my quote ” and another: “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”.
Please help me understand your comments as they relate to my comments. I fail to see where what I said has anything to do with the point you are attempting to make.
Were you attempting to insult me by including my quote, and then stating:
“As for those who don’t know what risible means (and can’t spell it) it doesn’t say much for your personal willingness to undertake any research at all let alone comment on the research of others.”
Was that directed at me? I am just looking for clarification. Also, were you wanting a reply of some sort?
Andrew
@ur momisugly Peak Warming Man and Ian,
I don’t read the comments above the same way that you do. It’s not possible to simultaneously have free speech and also have everybody say what we want them to say. Not even to have them say things in the way we’d like them to.
Blog comments are not scientific journals, they are people’s responses to what they’ve read. Many of these comments are the equivalent of a verbal response to what has been said. Accordingly responses with little reflection and source citation are the norm in this medium. Rather than critique the nature of the medium, I personally am impressed by the number of posts that do link to evidence in support of the writer’s views. OF course, such posts are much harder to write than an automatic riposte, and are more likely to be found further down the list of comments.
One of the strengths of WUWT is that Anthony and the moderators let people have their say. Compare this to sites like Real Climate and Tamino’s Open Mind, which repeatedly damage their credibility by censorship. It is this failure to permit all views to be voiced that turns their contributions into political advocacy not scientific discussion.
Given the choice I’d have everything I read be civil, thoughtful, evidence based and interesting. Given the choice, I’d be Bill Gates heir. Not having the choice in either case, it’s best that I not spend too much time complaining about it.
Do you think the two legged fauna of Canberra will be able to adapt to global warming/climate change/climate disruption or whatever it is they’re supposed to be adapting to nowadays?
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/canberra-wakes-to-record-big-chill/story-e6frfku0-1226242592186
Perhaps it might help if we fenced them off?
Leo Morgan makes a fair comment when comparing the policies of WUWT, RealClimate and Tamino’s Open Mind. Of course given Tamino’s policy on comments, “Open Mind” really is a risible misnomer. That said, bagging an unread piece of research gives much ammunition to Grant Foster (Tamino) and Gavin Schmidt (Real Climate) to deride WUWT. Surely this isn’t what commentators to WUWT want. Is it?
Fear not folks, as some hardy species seem to be thriving with all that warming Down Under-
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/snow-in-summer-cold-for-sun-lovers-on-the-edges-of-thredbo-village/story-e6freuzi-1226242097454
Seems I’ve been reading about the decline of US songbird populations since I was a child. Various mechanisms are porposed at various times.
A weakness with the study as described above is this: Even though animals might devegetate or kill more trees than before, have trees passed a threshhold, or do enough remain? Many songbirds fly. Maybe they fly to where there are enough trees.
BTW, if you read the notebooks of the great Audubon, you will find passages like (in today talk) “…..had a good day at the office. Shot several rare birds before lunch. Wired them to frames by nightfall, ate some from yesterday’s shooting. Had the missus and the girlfriend fill in the painting of a few backgrounds.”
Cut the glorification, stick to observation and deduction.
Cats eat songbirds.
Agree? Wanna be ‘peers’?
Next…
What is this heresy? Life adapting to its environment? You evil deniers! Don’t you know that life can’t adapt to anything and the world hasn’t changed since the dawn of time until now through our evil human activities? You should be ashamed for spreading such lies against our scientific canon, the hockey stick!
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
January 11, 2012 at 1:13 pm
They’re depicting elks as near-vermin and birds as victims.
Just another case of four legs bad, two legs better.
…………………………………………………………………………………..
WOW that’s a strong accusation, to suggest they’re anti-leg!
davidmhoffer,
Making an observation that some commentors go a bit overboard does not make a troll. Both posters do have a point. There are a number of derisive comments that are not really deserved. As I mentioned above, the USGS is one of the premier scientific organizations in the country. They concentrate on the science, not policy. Questioning their motives because one enjoys pointing out the now almost manditory reference to climate change is uncalled for. There is also the fact that we are discussing a press release, which was certainly not created by the researchers.
I for one have learned some interesting things about elk, particularly on what is happening in Yellowstone as a result of re-introduction of wolves. It is comments such as these that make this a worthwhile use of my time. Name calling other posters because they say something you don’t like isn’t.
Russ in Houston says:
January 11, 2012 at 6:34 pm
“Elk Smelk… I’m waiting for the peer reviewed published paper that show the expansion in the ranges of wild hogs in the south is caused by climate change.”
hmmm…Russ in Houston…be careful what you wish for…and umm…please don’t shoot the messenger…
http://www.feral.org.au/pest-distribution-under-climate-change/
Seriously…I read what you wrote, I googled… wild hogs in the south is caused by climate change…
This post…top hit…You are famous now! Result # 7 is from the link to Feral dot org…
“This project, funded by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre on behalf of the New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, develops and applies tools to model the distribution and abundance of vertebrate pest species in relation to climatic and biophysical variables. Such models are needed to predict how the distribution of pest species may vary under a changing climate. We assembled a priority list of vertebrate pests affecting biodiversity in New South Wales (NSW) based on reported threats to species, populations and ecological communities. Feral goats, feral cats, red foxes, European rabbits, and feral pigs are the most common recorded threats to ‘endangered’ or ‘vulnerable’ terrestrial species in NSW, affecting 84.5% of threatened species listed.”
I bet you are super happy you didn’t have to wait long…grrrrr
Andrew
[REP Says…. Because of the volume, moderators often dom’t have the leisure to check if the post is “in line”…. sometimes the post is rather enigmatic, as mine (in both my moderator and commentor personas sometimes are) … and sometimes it is a welcome diversion. -REP]
Whew…
oh and to Russ in Houston…I bet if wolves were reintroduced…pig problem solved!