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.
“”””” Ian says:
January 11, 2012 at 11:00 pm
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.”
…………………………………
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. “””””
Well I certainly didn’t ask for examples; maybe David Hoffer did. I specifically said I could live without it.
If it means “laughable” or “ludicrous”, then why not use one of those, since virtually anyone English literate knows exactly what both of those mean.
What is with this modern fad of making up words that have the same meaning as existing words; or arbitrarily using existing words unnecessarily and often completely wrongly.
For example, a very common American statement would be: ” Professor Al Gore will be with us momentarily. ”
Translation and strong suggestion; say “Professor Al Gore will be with us soon.”
Literal translation: “Professor Al Gore will be with us FOR a moment.” NOT, “IN a moment”
What if there are less elk due to human introduced wolves eating them, which is the case in parts of the state? What if the elk come down well beyond the snow line to graze/browse regularly anyway making the snow pack less of a, or no, factor, which is the case in many areas of elk habitat? What if the “snow pack” is more, not less which the one snow fall graph provided in one of the above posts would indicate? What if any one of a hundred other exogenous potential causal variables is in effect in this “study” in addition to or instead of just snow pack? What if snow pack variation is not caused by “climate change” but by cyclical weather patterns?
This study would be humorous if not so sad a comment on political correctness and the complete lack of scientific method for research in our univerities today.
I have, by the way, collected elk sheds within the fenced areas set up to keep the elk, deer and cattle from grazing in such areas. Cattle do have a significant effect of the grass, elk not so much. Cattle fences for study areas are generally shorter than those intended to keep out deer and elk. I have also seen bull elk with full head gear walk through the walk-in gates designed to keep them in/out of an area by turning their heads sideways. Most cattle can not figure these gates out.
Sorry, Montana study done in Arizona, probably not so many wolves that I know of.
Andrew says:
January 12, 2012 at 11:14 am
“My point…and opinion:
Most city folk don’t understand country folk….”
I hear you Andrew. In spades.
I am convinced that the root of this problem is very simple. People who live in cities only know nature via TV for the most part. So they are very easily to fool with cute nature shows and greenie propaganda. And since there are more of them, democracy can suck due to this misinformation.
Add to that the demonization of people like ranchers by the greenies, and you end up with masses of citiots who care more about phoney wildlife crises than about people… cause, you know, they’re all red neck hillbillies anyhow.
Classic example of this is the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone (plus). After the wolf population exploded there, to levels far higher than was originally agreed to, the greenies were able to convince the people that there were still not enough wolves while the rural people were having cattle, horses, sheep, dogs killed and wolves getting way too bold around people for comfort. Plus they could sue and had a perfect dupe of a judge to manipulate.
The hunting population is getting older. The Clinton administration closed many access roads, so hunters who can not affort horses and who do not have the physical ability to pack out an elk over several miles are not hunting any more.
Al Gored says:
“Plus they could sue and had a perfect dupe of a judge to manipulate.”
Yep, and we tax payers pay their lawyers to litigate against us. What a country!!