Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 23 November 2023

In my recent essay on beavers and wolves, I wrote about a study by Thomas D. Gable, Sean M. Johnson-Bice, Austin T. Homkes, John Fieberg and Joseph K. Bump, titled “Wolves alter the trajectory of forests by shaping the central place foraging behaviour of an ecosystem engineer”.
The basic finding of the study was that, in Voyageurs National Park, the interaction between beavers, which are a central place forager species, and their major predator, wolves, creates a certain definite change to the forest. In short, it creates areas that look like this:

From the images supplied in the paper, I posited that the beavers might have “eaten themselves out of house and home” in those ponds now entirely surrounded by inedible-for-beavers conifers and subsequently the beavers had to move on to other streams and ponds. Some readers thought this reasonable and some objected to the idea.
As the specific issue was not discussed in the paper, I said:
“The beavers create ponds by flooding low lying areas through the damming of streams. Then the beavers begin harvesting preferred trees for food…but only up to a distance that is safe enough to limit the predation by wolves. After some time, the shores of the beaver pond become denuded of forage trees but not conifers which allows additional conifers to take root and grow in a “fairy ring” circling the pond. At some point, the pond is no longer tenable for the beavers – they have consumed all the appropriate trees within safe foraging distance and the beavers must move on to another area where forage is available. There they build dams, flood the area, and begin to forage the shores of the new pond and on it goes.
I have emailed the corresponding author asking if they see that last effect—multiple conifer-ringed abandoned beaver ponds—along streams and ponds.
I’ll let you know what he says.”
Dr. Thomas Gable, the corresponding author, has kindly responded with many new images and his thoughts on the matter (which he has given me permission to quote):
“…your point about abandoned ponds is spot on, and that is precisely what we do see in Voyageurs. Most wetlands in the area are not occupied by beavers. For instance, we digitized a little over 7,000 beaver ponds from aerial imagery in our study area, which is about 1,500 square kilometers (excluding large lakes). Beaver density in the area is about 1 lodge/km^2 meaning there about roughly 1,500 beaver lodges (i.e., occupied ponds) or so in our study area, meaning that there are far more unoccupied ponds than there are occupied ponds! I have attached a marked up aerial image showing this using the results of our annual beaver survey last year (that is how we know which ponds are active).”

Dr. Gable also offered this insight: I would also suggest checking out this photo and post by the Wolves and Moose of Isle Royale who had a nice image of this posted online recently.” I include a copy below – but without the comments):

This image is much more dramatic with the fall colors setting off the conifer rings created by beaver central place foraging under predation of wolves.
Tom Gable also offers this further clarification:
“However, it is worth noting that conifer rings are not the only outcome of beaver foraging necessarily. As we note in the paper, although beaver foraging can push forests toward a coniferous composition, beaver foraging can also reset forest succession and promote the growth of early successional species (aspen, birch) or can push forests toward a composition of deciduous trees less preferred by beavers. So one would not necessarily expect to see a conifer ring around every wetland or to have that conifer ring to be uniform around wetlands.”
There are six additional images but no more data really, just for their beauty:






Again, fall images, making the conifers stand out. At each pond, the ‘safety zone’ for the beaver seem to be of different sizes – maybe due to the time span of beaver colonization or increased predation at each site.
I’d like to mention that my interaction with Dr. Tom Gable is how science journalism should be done — with journalists asking pertinent questions and researchers freely communicating their views and supplying additional information.
So, kudos to Dr. Gable and his team. Nice work!
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
It is so nice to get straightforward answers to one’s questions. And to receive extra material (ideas and images) that help explain and expand our understanding.
In the previous essay, one commenter was quite insistent that the major thing about beavers that must be talked about is the intensive slaughter of North America’s beaver population, and the same for wolves. Of course, to discuss the large-scale population dynamics of both species one must include the fact that humans hunted and trapped both to near extinction. But in that, and this, essay the research and my reporting was on the narrow issue of the effects on the environment of beaver/wolf interaction.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
I love Beaver
https://youtu.be/wS3LWOTCW4A?si=BpDqSnEKKDf4se9Q
The Naked Gun films are some of the funniest movies of all time.
Nielsen was a comic genius
what amazed me is that he didn’t look like a comic- looked more like a lawyer or banker- most comics are goofy looking
that film with O.J. Simpson getting on a boat with terrorists and tyrants- then they shot-stabbed- electrocuted him was so funny my ribs hurt- I gotta watch that again- and all of Nielsen’s films
then there was Airplane! dam hilarious
Don’t forget Forbidden Planet!
🙂
Hmmmm….now now children, there are ladies reading here too….
I hate beavers. They sneak up behind me while I’m peacefully kayak fishing and then slap their tails.
Although I’m pretty sure we’re talking about different things.
scadsobees ==> i think so, but think back to junior high school…..”Beaver alert!”
I’ve had that done to me and yes it scares the crap out of you.😁🙋♂️
Even Beaver College would become extinct only to give rise to Arcadia University
The conifer rings are quite distinctive. The hypothesis that predators limit beaver foraging range does seem to be reasonable. It might also be terrain limited by how far beavers can transport food trees to their pond, apart from predation. Beavers are rather too large to be prey for foxes or coyotes, etc. So wolves might very well control beaver behavior.
I bet cougars were even better at it. Cats are better at sneaking up on prey than loud mouth howling wolves.
Tom ==> You must read the paper, I gave the link. The study focuses on WOLVES…although there are other predators. They didn’t develop the hypothesis from photos, they did field studies of wolf/beaver interaction, trail cams, scat studies, real time on-the-spot checking for body parts, etc.
Really good field work.
Field work, wots that. Isn’t real “science” done from a keyboard with models?
Tsk, tsk!
Drake ==> Mostly in computers — while working from home — I believe.
Kip,
I doesnt know what happens after i tap on the keyboard.
Where does them electrons go?
But I always seems to get the answers I was looking for.
I are a climate scientist!
“Where does them electrons go?” The real answer is nowhere.
Well that’s all well and good but we should see what sort of behaviour beavers exhibit normally, with no or little predation. How about some photo’s of an unpredated beaver habitat?
Thinking the same way. What would the aerial photos of Colorado beaver dams look like. The state’s wolf poulation was reportedly trapped, hunted and poisoned out by the 1940s. Would that be long enough for the early succession species to re-establish? My guess is… no rings around the tubs.
Where on Earth would one find that habitat?
The state of Nevada….and maybe some other states are reintroducing beav to land which is pretty arid…the beav create a wetlands. Coyotes are capable of killing young beav. Cougars now kill deer for wolves so the wolves will leave them alone when they kill a deer for themselves. The wolves trail behind the cougar awaiting their feed.
Had a friend who hunted Cougars in Nevada. He said that one Cougar equaled 52 dead deer a year just to feed themselves.
Controlling the cat population allows for more deer, and more tags in Nevada. You can wait several years to draw a tag due to limited numbers of deer. Elk can take MANY years. Bighorn Sheep, once a lifetime, so you better know where you are going OR get a guide.
I was driving in rough country on a two track and saw a pack of 5 cayotes following a doe and faun. I was just LOOKING and didn’t have any weapons with me so couldn’t bail her out. Didn’t go out without a rifle after that, silly me.
I saw a cayote from the road on Cape Cod last spring, a cross of some kind, quite a bit bigger than western cayotes. The locals say they are a cross with wolves. You can hear them from my mom’s house on occasion howling not far away. My uncle who lived across the road would put out chicken and turkey scraps for them and they would be gone the next morning.
A couple of points: fire is a major driver of boreal forest ecosystems and fire burns off the conifer rings around ponds, making them suitable once again for beavers when species like poplar,which are early successional species, come in after a burn; and, don’t ignore bears. Bears also catch and kill many beavers.
Just guessing- but I bet a hungry bear won’t hesitate to jump into a beaver pond and even rip up a beaver hut to get lunch.
Wester ==> yes, and as Dr. Gable mentions, the specific action of beavers can reset successional development around ponds as well.
The study was specifically in Voyaguers National Park where bears don’t seem to have been a major factor — but yes, really hungry bears have been known to rip open beaver lodges.
I’m not too far from VNP – I live in NW Ontario, and we have a lot of bears. Our house fronts a pond that at one time had 13 beavers living in it. After they ate pretty much all the aspen and alder, most left, then wolves and bears killed and ate the remaing beavers. Today there are no resident beavers, although a single and later a pair checked it out this summer. Some aspen and alder is springing up, so I expect the beavers will be back and building a lodge in a couple or few years.
The study was SPECIFIC. Do some of you commentors not READ?
Sure. But that’s why it may not apply to what’s happening elsewhere. It’s good to point out these things. Such studies are relevant to what is seen elsewhere, but the caveats need to be recognized.
Kip, thanks for this fun series on beavers and for the great pictures!
I 2nd this statement. Thanks Kip.
pillageidiot ==> When Anthony first established WUWT, “curious things” was on his list of topics to be covered. I admit, I do get bored with skeptical climate science — important, but doesn’t really hold my interest after a decade.
O/T. Having read through today’s budget statement I saw this…
£110 million for nutrient mitigation schemes.
https://order-order.com/2023/11/22/hunts-autumn-statement-for-growth/
Look out you starving millions
That’s less than £2 per person, I’ll still be starving!
As will we all
Ah the smiling assassin. Doesn’t he just look terribly, terribly pleased with himself.
Hmm you could eat it, I guess, but I wouldn’t want to. And those starving millions had better duck, it’s shit-spreading without phosphates or nitrates! ☺
RP: If those starving millions had better duck, what kind of duck do we get?
Study to (be able) to covert EVERY house to 2 hovels. As long as it doesn’t look like it from the outside.
Yep, that’s the ticket.
KH, nice followup. Terrific fall images.
Rud ==> Aren’t they though? Dr. Gable was really very kind to send so many images. Liked his clarification as well.
One little quibble. At the end of the article is the comment “one must include the fact that humans hunted and trapped both to near extinction.” I believe that is in part just rhetorical in that I have read in a number of places that, at least in Canada, there are far more beavers now than before the fur trade began to the point that current trappers have an assigned quota of beavers that must be taken, regardless or market conditions, to keep their numbers under control.
And an observation. I live just north of the research area cited. Fall colours here are primarily yellow due to the prevalence of birch and aspen. Yet the photo from Iles Royale is dominated by red, indicative of maple trees. Is the island an enclave of the northern part of the Carolinian forest? I know there is a small area of sugar maple just south of Thunder Bay, likely due to a microclimate region. Otherwise the local area is the southern boundary zone of the Boreal Forest which is too cold for natural regeneration of hardwoods like Maple.
A_Squared ==> I think that it is well establish that the beaver was trapped out, at least in the accessible arts of North America — saved more by the “silk hat” which replaced the fad for “beaver hats”. The Wiki says “Historically, the North American beaver was trapped and nearly extirpated because its fur was highly sought after. Protections have allowed the beaver population on the continent to rebound to an estimated 6–12 million by the late 20th century; still far lower than the originally estimated 60–400 million North American beavers before the fur trade.”
Yes, beaver have rebounded nicely, and most states allow trapping during a limited season.
And. beavers can become a pest species where their range overlaps human concerns.
Isle Royale National Park, on the US side of the Canadian border, is an island in Lake Superior directly south of Thunder Bay. The image speaks for itself — I don’t know anything more about it. The link is to a Facebook page, so your could inquire with the poster for more information.
The Isle Royale island is well known for it’s long term study of the interaction of wolves and moose.
https://www.nps.gov/isro/learn/predator-prey-relationships-on-isle-royale.htm
Phil. ==> Absolutely — but it is a special case because it is an island. It does allow a lot of insight into predator-prey relationships in a closed environment.
Yes that’s the advantage from a research perspective. The first figure in the link I gave contrasts Isle Royale and Yellowstone from that perspective.
I mentioned this in the previous post but will expand a bit here and provide reference given the interest in bevears. For managed public forest lands in Ontario, Canada we encourage harvesting up to the shoreline of some ponds and lakes to regenerate early successional habitat, including deciduous trees and shrubs (aspen, birch, willow) next to water. The fundamental rationale was to avoid creating unnatural landscape patterns (i.e. fires and other natural disturbances do not typically leave rings). Providing forage for beavers near water was a key part of the rationale to demonstrate not just that rings on every waterbody is unnatural, but also that there are known ecosystem impacts of leaving them at too high a frequency. The policy direction is in what we call the Stand and Site Guide, and the rationale for this direction, including a discussion of beaver habitat is in a separate Background and Rationale Document starting on page 313.
It’s also important to recognize that ecosystem function at a landscape scale likely also relies on a certain number of beaver ponds being abandoned, eventually having the dam fail and drain, as this creates a short or long-term meadow like habitat. These meadows are used by a variety of critters at various points in their life cycle and can be relatively rare in some forests. Further, the “flushing” effect of the dam failure and water release, including sedimentation downstream, might be an important part of maintaining a natural variety of aquatic habitat conditions within the stream system. While sediment in particular is not generally good for existing aquatic habitats, if we take a long view, and recognize that ecosystems are dynamic, these changes might be necessary to maintain system integrity ove rtime.
MJB ==> Thanks for the expanded insight. The long-term effects of beavers is why they refer to them as “an ecosystem engineer”.
As in all things environmental, one must consider that there re many many factors to have led up to each result. Some known, many unknown. That’s what makes the subject so fascinating.
I think we worked together writing the S&SG! Nice to see that you read .WUWT.
The beaver is observed in my studies moved on after they had built a lot of dams. They started building multiple dams on other streams. They never ran out of food.
David ==> Gable et al found that beaver do “eat themselves out of house and home” and move on to other streams. Is this what you found as well? They dn;t run out of food if the move to a new area.
Interesting difference’s between the Boreal and Temperate Forests. The beaver in this area
utilize willow and alder riparian trees small diameter stuff and I haven’t seen any “fairy rings”. They also tend to make their dens in banks not a lot of lodges.
Wolf trapping season opens on Monday and the greens are trying to
get wolf trapping banned again. Now it’s because of the possibility of incidental grizzly bear catches, Judge Malloy says he will issue a ruling by December. The trappers I know have been
collecting beaver for their pelts but more importantly for the carcass’s which is great wolf
bait. My buddy lays out small piles of hay on the ranches he traps. The hay attracts rodents
and makes a good trap bedding material..He will be setting his traps and will come back in
week of so and lay out the bait..
Mr. Ed ==> Remind us which state you are in?
I’m in west central Montana. The wolf trapping issue is being pushed
by radical enviros. The same type of radicals that get discussed on this blog
over climate change. There have been a number of consequence from the
push to reestablish wolves and now the grizzly bears. The financial impacts
on our #1 industry, agriculture is significant. When a farmer/rancher has
a dollar loss it requires 7 dollars in income to breakeven from that dollar loss.
One of the first noticeable impacts was lower calf weaning weight averages
in the area north of Yellowstone Park. As in a loss of nearly $$200K per year.
That’s just weaning weights not actual predation losses. I’ve spent most of
my life living in harmony with nature as a farmer/rancher but these radical
enviro’s are pushing the limits..
Having begun my geology field career in the late 1960’s in northern BC, Yukon and NWT, when this life cycle of beaver ponds was a commonly-known and blatantly-obvious feature of the landscape, I admit to being a bit surprised that over half a century later it had to be rediscovered by academic study. That beavers ate themselves out of house and home, and then moved on, was clearly evidenced by the number of new beaver ponds, old beaver ponds, and drained swampy meadows that a dirt-bagger had to cross on any given day, and the ring of conifers that one often had to cut a swath through to let an underpowered piston-engined helicopter out of after it dropped you and your fly camp off.
I’ve walked enough days with soaked boots because of those unharvested hats that I thought that their habitat cycle was as obvious as water runs downhill over a beaver dam. But then–I did run across the writings of an academic when perusing the Chaco Canyon visitor centre library who maintained, for about 3 years after it was shown that his interpretation of channels chiseled by the Anasazi in the bench rock above Pueblo Bonito being water control structures would have required the water to flow uphill, that he was still right.
Academic Study: Writing a narrative regardless of observable facts.
Len ==> I’m interested in the Chaco Canyon thing — can you supply a link or a pointer on that idea. A quick look didn’t turn up anything for me.
I had a quick look for ‘anasazi channels in chaco canyon’ and that turned up some interesting hits, also overlapping with ‘bonito paleo-channels’ which I’m still not sure are the same thing.
That may take some searching Kip, although I do remember finding a reference online after returning from that trip. But there definitely were a couple of accounts of the issue in the visitor centre library.
The controversy surrounded the discovery of straight lineal grooves chipped into the rock in the ‘horizontal’ benches above Pueblo Bonito leading north to Mesa Verde and to other Anasazi enclaves. One scientist got it into his head that as water was (presently) scarce there that these must have been water control structures directing water from rainstorms towards the edge of the cliff tops to be collected below, contrary to the generally accepted notion that they were lineal markers for much-travelled roads. Subsequent surveying showed that their orientations displayed increases in elevation from farther from the canyon wall towards it.
He nevertheless stuck to his claim for several years after this discovery, but to give him (some) credit he did eventually capitulate (possibly with the arrival of a critical Friday payday?)
Incidentally I’ve often (somewhat jokingly) questioned the accepted reason for the presence of kivas, having been born on a dairy farm in the days when stanchion barns were the norm, with gutters and the underground storage tanks associated with them. After all, in all of the Anasazi ruins I’ve visited, with the numbers of people that are claimed to have lived in them, I’ve not once seen evidence of an extensive row of outhouses.
The best search words are ‘chacoan roads’.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/advances-in-archaeological-practice/article/remote-sensing-of-chaco-roads-revisited/95BBDE6BA4A222A2A18A771DD5F54927
“Other researchers argue that some linear surface anomalies have been misinterpreted as roads and should instead be understood as irrigation canals (Janes Reference Janes
2005; Wills and Dorshow Reference Wills and Dorshow
2012) or corridors for rolling construction timbers to Chaco Canyon (Weinig Reference Weinig
2016).”
Youtube has some quite interesting talks by the archaeologist Steve Lekson regarding Chaco Canyon and its area of influence.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/how-a-national-park-helps-a-river-recover.htm
(This is the river that caught fire in the late ’60’s in Cleveland.)
What does that have to with beavers?
A few years ago my wife and I visited the park.
In the story about cleaning up the river, they came to an abandoned junk yard from back in the day when there were little or no environmental regulations.
They didn’t know exactly what to do with it. Plans were being made.
Meanwhile, beavers solved the problem by making what is now known as “Beaver Marsh”, one of the parks top attractions.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/top-ten-tips-for-visiting-cuyahoga-valley.htm
(Sorry. No wolves involved.) 😎
I’ve worked in the Canadian bush across Canada for a large part of my life as a geologist (and as a young man, a chokerman in a B.C logging camp). I never realized the existence of this phenomenon, although I certainly saw countless abandoned beaver ponds and had to negotiate my way across parts of large swampy stinky ponds on compass traverses.
Thank you Kip for a wonderful report on this subject and nice to see the helpful response and corroboration of your thinking on it from the author. BTW, in the Yukon I was once followed by a wolf with cubs for a whole day! I never got a glimpse of them but I could hear the cubs yapping from time to time. I wondered if the she-wolf was training her young to hunt.
Well Gary, you just effectively cancelled my opinion above; I guess a difference might be that my Dad had been a trapper, and I lived in a northern mining town and had friends who were trappers making me think ‘everybody knows that‘. Not true.
Never been followed by wolves (that I know of) but on my scariest day I saw….a marmot. This was in alpine country way above tree line in the McConnell Creek area of BC, on a GSC mapping project on a day that I was alone. I came across a freshly-dug meter-deep hole in the ground in an alpine bowl, with a half-eaten marmot carcass based it.
Still warm.
Despite being able to see for several hundred meters in any direction, I never saw the bear. I was carrying a rifle being in known grizzly country, but spent a lot more time than usual the rest of the day looking over my shoulder. There are bound to be a few features I might have missed that I should have mapped–but I didn’t contribute to any scat up there that has little bells in it and smells like pepper.
gary ==> I guess the good news is that they didn’t catch you. Heck, I just like beavers as a subject!
They make a likable object, too.
Thank you for the pair of beautiful articles, Kip. Predator-prey dynamics are always interesting. And we are approaching the centenary of the publication of “Animal Ecology” the landmark book by Charles Elton that is one of the foundations of modern ecology.
If anybody wants to read it, it can be found here:
https://archive.org/details/animalecology00elto
Javier ==> Thanks for the link — great material. Your breadth of topics that interest you is surprising!
Kip – Thanks for the two beaver articles and all the lovely pictures. I’d just like to add some complexity based on my experience in the central Alberta aspen parkland near Elk Island NP where my wife and I had a quarter section of bushland (now a bequest to the Nature Conservancy). The meadows were once used for cattle grazing, but the beaver (which had been trapped out) were re-introduced in the nearby NP during WWII. When they got to our place they flooded out the meadows around our central water feature: a keyhole/pothole slough resulting from a stagnant chunk of ice left by a retreating glacier (the whole area is dotted with such pothole lakes).
The reintroduced beaver flooding made grazing unprofitable, which is why we could afford the land – also it had no road access and canoe in summer or snowshoe over the ice were the only way to get there. We had a tent trailer lugged over the ice and put on a point of land in the slough for summer camping and feeding the mosquitoes. The point had been denuded of all the aspen by the beavers to ~10-15 m from the shore (and also all around the slough), but with a remaining white birch (apparently not their favourite food) and lots of willow, saskatoon, wild rose, etc. along the shores.
No ring of conifers there – probably because of a massive fire around 1900 that took out the spruce and left the place to the aspen. There were only a half dozen spruce surviving in boggy spots. So, that is the first complication – beaver increase the fire resistance of the landscape. When the beaver had been trapped out, more massive fires occurred and after reintroduction, the usual May drought was less likely to result in a conflagration. So we were told anyway and I vaguely remember reading one paper that supported the hypothesis.
No wolves in the area either (at least not yet) and I don’t think a pair of coyotes would have much luck against an adult beaver (they grow big there and are aggressive – although they only slapped their tails at us while canoeing). However, one spring when the ice finally melted, the shore of the slough was lined with dead, rotting beaver carcasses. The Wildlife vet thought Tularemia (Francisella tularensis holarctica) was the likely cause as periodic outbreaks were known. It took about three years before the slough was recolonised.
So, the more one looks into the beaver story, the more complex it gets. And yes, as the grumpy forester in your previous post posits, people play a part in it too, but I doubt we still understand the system well enough to have any assurance our manipulations will make it better.
macromite ==> Dr. Gable hints at the complexity of the interaction of beavers and the environment. In some cases , resetting the relationship between conifers and fast growing species. In the REAL world, things get very complicated very quickly.
Nice follow up. Northern BC on the Alaska Highway is Toad River Lodge, on a large pond. The Beavers were felling the Aspens, so the Lodge tried wire wraps and other measures, and finally started bringing in large quantities of Willow brush and leaving it on the beaver dam. Beavers are happy and the Lodge still has Aspens. And the guests enjoy the Beavers.
In the mountain West the Beavers use small streams, dam them, and carry on Food gets too far away the go up or down stream and start over. It can and does cause road problems on occasion.
Tee Jay ==. That’s a new one for me — feeding the beavers to save local trees. Thanks for the story.
Ah, leave it to Beaver!
Thank you, Mr. Hansen. More education for me. I relish WUWT!
Some of us were introduced to beavers by Walt Disney …
The True-Life Adventures of Beaver ValleyReleased 70 years ago in 1950, Beaver Valley was the second installment in the True-Life Adventures series. As Production Supervisor Ben Sharpsteen recalled to Disney archivist Dave Smith in 1972, the film “was Walt [Disney’s] choice all over—‘We’ll make a picture about beavers.’”
https://www.waltdisney.org/blog/adventures-of-beaver-valley
roving ==> Thanks for the Disney link….I believe I watched this on TV when I was a kid.
I was introduced to them in the early 70’s at Rocky Mountain National Park. At the time, it was about the only place the public could see them. Even got to see the infamous tail slap. 50 years later, the HOA in Georgia was trying to figure out how to get rid of them. They were cutting down the planted trees in the neighborhood (but not the conifers 😉 )
g3ellis ==> We are blessed to have them more-or-less in out backyard — a five minute walk to watch them from a bridge directly over their pond and lodge.
I have a creek that runs about 200 feet behind my house.
The creek is normally about four feet deep, but when it rains a lot, the creek can rise about 20 feet higher, and turns into a roaring torrent.
I had a beaver trying to build a lodge in this creek some years ago and they made a lot of progress but the first heavy rain that came along washed it all away.
I haven’t seen another beaver around here since that day.
Tom ==> Beavers may be smarter than we are — they recognize flood plain and flash flood risks after just one instance.
Great find Kip. Nice to read about real science instead of WUWT having to call out “science” all the time.
g3ellis ==> Thank you — I like finding science that is done right and is useful (even if that use is limited to a narrow field). I especially like communicating with real scientists that are dedicated to their work and just love to share their insights.
There are far more real scientists than just reading the Science Times or Science branded magazines lead us to believe. Way way too much politics and band-wagoning in the MSM version of science.
A) From the pictures, it looks like all of the ponds have conifer halos. Yet, the authors claim that only a few ponds are occupied.
B) Where are all of the factors involved in forest succession described? Squirrels, fire, floods, etc. even mice?
C) All of the waters look to be a very low ebb. Just what is the history of those ponds relative to water levels?
D) I can understand beavers trying to avoid wolf predation and eating all of their preferred (historic dietary choices) as far as they can range safely.
But, that would pressure beavers to expand to every pond with their preferred sustenance.
E) Conifer seeds are spread by squirrels, mice, birds and fire. Just how do these factors play in this area.
F) Wolves form packs and range over miles. Typically, any given area only supports a maximum number of these apex predators.
I’d expect that beaver would be hunted hard in preferred wolf pack areas and less affected where wolf packs are under strong territory contention.
Have the authors noted these locations and verified their thesis over all similar ponds/streams?
G) Where are the impacts of mankind?
I don’t know. The areas studied are extremely complex arenas of animal-plant interactions. Blaming all of the “conifer rings” solely on the beavers seems too simplistic. Just as focusing on ponds instead of all waterways where beavers reside
Are there any ponds without “conifer rings”? What about streams?
Just how does natural beaver population expansion fit in this scenario? Do bears or moose change the dynamic for apex predators? Moose forage heavily in waterways. Bears like to think they are the only predators in the vicinity and even wolves respect bears.
I a glad that the authors are willing to answer difficult questions without resorting to some silly consensus or some other authority insults. That is proper science!
Thank you for returning with the answers to earlier questions!
ATheoK ==> You have some good questions! Forest succession is a university degree of knowledge…that said, for the areas researched by Gable et al, the beavers eat the birch and aspen and poplars and the brush, leaving open ground in which conifers easily sprout and grow, seeds dispersed by the wind, rodents, etc. The beavers don’t eat the seedling or young conifers. All the factors in forest succession would affect the whole area and not just around the ponds.
The most telling photos are those of occupied and abandoned ponds. Unfortunately not in color, so harder to see the vegetation. Abandoned ponds eventually shrink (when spring floods destroy dams) or silt up naturally. The images may have been taken in summer, don’t know.
Each of the deep questions you ask may have been the subject of research, or my be good future research questions.
A good question is better than a good answer.