Aspen Bibliography
Model-based assessment of aspen responses to elk herbivory in Rocky Mountain National Park, USA
Document Type
Article
Journal/Book Title/Conference
Environmental Management
Volume
32
First Page
152
Last Page
169
Publication Date
7-2003
Abstract
In Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) has been observed to be declining on elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) winter range for many decades. To support elk management decisions, the SAVANNA ecosystem model was adapted to explore interactions between elk herbivory and aspen dynamics. The simulated probability of successful vegetative regeneration for senescent aspen stands declines sharply when elk densities reach levels of 3–5 elk/km2, depending on model assumptions for the seasonal duration of elk foraging activities. For aspen stands with a substantial component of younger trees, the simulated regeneration probability declines more continuously with increasing elk density, dropping below 50% from densities at 8–14 elk/km2.At the landscape scale, simulated aspen regeneration probability under a scenario of extensive seasonal use was little affected by elk population level, when this level was above 300–600 elk (25%–50% current population) over the ca. 107 km2 winter range. This was because elk distribution was highly aggregated, so that a high density of elk occupied certain areas, even at low population levels overall. At approximately current elk population levels (1000–1200 elk), only 35%–45% of senescent aspen stands are simulated as having at least a 90% probability of regeneration, nearly all of them located on the periphery of the winter range. Successful management for aspen persistence on core winter range will likely require some combination of elk population reduction, management of elk distribution, and fencing to protect aspen suckers from elk browsing.
Recommended Citation
Weisberg, P., Coughenour, M. Model-Based Assessment of Aspen Responses to Elk Herbivory in Rocky Mountain National Park, USA . Environmental Management 32, 152–169 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-0029-3