From that article:
"When Kauffman and his colleagues studied aspen in areas where risk of attack
by wolves was high or low, they obtained results different from Ripple’s.
Rather than look at the five tallest aspen in each stand, as Ripple had done,
they tallied the average tree height and used locations of elk kills to map the
risk of wolf attacks. By these measures, they found no differences between
trees in high- and low-risk areas."
So some people are getting excited about tree regrowth that might be attributed
to the presence of wolves, but others are arguing about whether there's been
any regrowth at all.
Anyone else confused?
Peter Shut
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Apr 2014, at 3:51 pm, "Ross Macfarlane"
<<>> wrote:
It's a fascinating narrative, but like most things maybe not as simple as it
sounds -
http://www.nature.com/news/rethinking-predators-legend-of-the-wolf-1.14841
-----Original Message-----
From: Clive Nealon
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 11:19 AM
To: Birding-Aus
Subject: [Birding-Aus] A vote for conservation...
A really interesting short clip on the benefits of wolves in Yellowstone N
P.
Perhaps a lesson that would translate to other areas...
http://devour.com/video/how-wolves-change-rivers/
Clive.
_______________________________________________
Birding-Aus mailing list
<>
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
_______________________________________________
Birding-Aus mailing list
<>
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
_______________________________________________
Birding-Aus mailing list
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
|
