9 ms·
Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112725004499?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811272...
- atentaten 1y agoHow does returning wolves to ecosystem effect the mountain lion population? Can we balance things out or are we shuffling problems around?
- jebarker 1y agoIm speculating, but mountain lions were probably doing fine before the early 1800s too so they likely just balance each other out naturally if there’s competition over the same prey. I doubt humans need to do anything.
- incomingpain 1y agoThey only moved few dozen wolves, over 1000km from their homes, which is not going to have any significant consequences. Even today there's only about 100 wolves in the park? 2,200,000 acres, with 100 wolves. Then they've made the claim that those 100 wolves in 2.2million acres has resulted in plants and fish returning? As opposed to their efforts doing nothing at all?
- rustyconover 1y agoI'm not a biologist, but I grew up in West Yellowstone around the time wolves were reintroduced. Their return—and its impact—has been extensively studied by experts far more qualified than me. That said, I believe wolves had a profound effect on the Yellowstone ecosystem, particularly on elk and deer populations. Before their reintroduction, those species had few natural predators beyond hunters, vehicles, bears, and the occasional mountain lion. The imbalance led to overgrazing and the spread of diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in elk.
- asacrowflies 1y agoThe science is pretty clear on this Im not sure what you exactly are criticizing other than you don't like the vibes or vaguely incredulous? It doesn't take many wolves to change the behavior of nearly every herbivore they prey upon. Which then changes the river bank erosion. Which causes hundreds of more species to change behavior.... Trophic Cascades are not really up for debate .
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ForOldHack 1y agoNo one here used apex predictor, but many described it. The science is clear that we need to study this more, much more. We only know a brief glimpse on terms of geologic time. The effect on quaking aspens in Pardo is also something we need to study long term. Are the two related?
- asacrowflies 1y agoYes we need to study the longer term changes but the short term changes are undeniable. And focusing on geologic timescale for these improvements is inane when you look at the scale of destruction of the industrial revolution in less than a blink of an eye on the geological timescale... This is like triage, and concern trolling the 40 or 50 year side effects of triage treatment when someone is bleeding out is negligent bordering on criminal and treasonous imo
- laughingcurve 1y ago“I do not like the results!” Or “The result does not make sense to me!” are not valid criticisms of science. They are arguments made from emotion. And in your case, based on your account history, it’s clearly something political for you. I would encourage you to write that kind of commentary in a more appropriate venue. Like the bathroom stall of your local truck stop. Just not here.
- mousethatroared 1y agoBut it's perfectly valid to question results that don't make sense, and the role of the supposed expert is to explain why it does. After all, off in a democracy an expert expects to be paid by taxpayers to make decisions that affect the taxpayer the expert should be, at the very least, be able to explain himself in an intelligible manner. Thats the bare minimum of expectations. I also expect the taxpayer funded expert to provided full access to his data, notes and analysis software. Im considered an expert in thermodynamics, materials science and E&M. The people that pay me routinely don't understand what I'm working on, but they expect me to explain myself.
- sarchertech 1y ago>they expect me to explain themselves But the experts did explain themselves. They’ve published numerous studies on how small wolf populations impact the larger ecosystem. It’s not even that hard to understand. Yes Yellowstone is large, but there are a finite number of elk herds and the wolves move to follow and prey upon the elk herds. Wolf packs can kill 20 elk per year per wolf, there are 120 wolves inside the park and 500 immediately around the park wandering inside it and killing elk that wander outside. At the peak there were 18k elk in the park and now the numbers are down to 2000. There’s plenty of evidence that the decline is a direct result of the wolves. Controlling elk population has tons of 2nd and 3rd order effects which have also been well documented.
- ForOldHack 1y agoHere on HN we are looking at the effects and beliefs of the people reading the studies? What effect does this have on us? Many downvoted comments etc. ( and much thanks for explaining the population numbers!)
- williamdclt 1y ago> Then they've made the claim that those 100 wolves in 2.2million acres has resulted in plants and fish returning? As opposed to their efforts doing nothing at all? They've studied it and came to these conclusions, yes. Have you studied it and come to different conclusions?
- littlestymaar 1y agoYou're responding to someone who believe that omnivorous animals don't exist[1], so you can assume that they will disregard whatever biologists say and trust their feelings rather than reality. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44674445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44674445
- isatty 1y agoInsane how they spout out nonsense as fact. Cats are obligate carnivores. They eat protein. End of story. Please do not feed your cat vegetables.
- dboreham 1y agoThey eat catnip.
- isatty 1y agoNot for its caloric or nutritional value.
- littlestymaar 1y agoIt's not about food. They take catnip as a psychoactive substance.
- plemer 1y agoWhile I find your counter argument vague, it did prompt me to dig in and find that human hunting is arguably still the bigger suppressor of elk population. However, that’s been going on since the ‘40s. The reintroduction of wolves is associated with an immediate, steady, and durable decline in elk - i.e. pushed the ecosystem past an inflection point into a new equilibrium.
- bhaak 1y agoIt’s also possible that wolves hunt in a different way than humans, or different types (regarding age, gender, or health maybe) of elks. It’s an interesting question and this could be empirically tested if human hunting would be slowly reduced.
- rustyconover 1y agoYellowstone is a national park, you can’t hunt anything inside the park’s boundaries. Wolves can.
- bhaak 1y agoYellowstone park has a policy of natural regulation (since the 70s IIRC). The surrounding areas not necessarily.
- scott_w 1y agoThat’s a good point: hunters probably prefer strong elk but wolves prefer weak elk. I recall going to a walking with wolves experience in the Lake District where she explained that predators strengthen their prey by removing sick and those with genetic issues from the gene pool.
- specialist 1y agoIIRC: Without risk of harm, elk and deer linger near water. This tramples the shoreline. And they love eating noshing on (aspen) saplings. Over time, the shorelines become barren. With the reintroduction of wolves, shorelines are no longer safe havens. Aspens have returned. With aspens, song birds have returned. Trees shade the water (eg streams), so fish are happier. Trees stabilize the top soil, reducing erosion, allows other plants to become reestablished. I dimly recall beavers returned too. -- Aha. I was mostly right (or hallucinating). Here's perplexity link for "impact of return of wolves to yellowstone". https://www.perplexity.ai/search/impact-of-return-of-wolves-to-NmLtwHR6QXmgovSO9buZ3g https://www.perplexity.ai/search/impact-of-return-of-wolves-... I learned about the birds returning because of the wolves while volunteering at Audubon. That linked summary doesn't go into those details. -- Update: I should've read the OC first. My bad. TIL: (too many) bison also negatively impact riverbanks. I had thought (misremembered) that overall impact of bison was positive. Does Yellowstone need more cougars?
- Retric 1y agoThe simple answer for how is the elk population in that 2,200,000 acres dropped from ~18,000 to ~2,000 or 1 elk per 2 square miles. 16,000 elk do quiet a lot, especially as they aren’t spending nearly as much time along river banks. Which changes what plants are in and around steams and thus what’s happening in and around those streams.
- quesera 1y ago> 100 wolves in 2.2million acres Without engaging with the rest of your comment, and even assuming that wolves are distributed evenly (of course they are not, and some parts of the park are not suitable for wolves): This equates to 1 wolf per chunk of land measuring about 6 miles square, so about 15% smaller than the city of San Francisco (which is a small city). Wolves are territorial and they move through forest quite well. A ~35 square mile territory wouldn't be out of the question. Edit: Notes from elsewhere: > Wolf packs in Minnesota, for example, can have territories that range from 7.5 mi2 to >214 mi2 — a 28 fold difference in territory size > Average territory size in northwestern Montana was 220 square kilometers (185 square miles) but was highly variable (USFWS et al. 2002). Average territory size for Yellowstone Gray Wolves was larger, averaging 891 square kilometers (344 square miles) (USFWS et al. 2002). > Pack size is highly variable due to the birth of pups, but is typically between 4 to 8 wolves. Territory sizes range from 25 to 150 square miles; neighboring packs can share common borders, but territories rarely overlap by more than a mile.
- cwmoore 1y agoThis is a great point. 2.2M acres was posited to sound so vast. Territory sizes range from 25 to 150 square miles That is 15,000 to 100,000 acres per half-dozen wolves in the GP's units.
- owenthejumper 1y agoIt's incredible how much damage we have done to ourselves in the past 250 years, and how much effort do we now need to spend to undo that damage
- hagbard_c 1y agoIt's incredible how much good we have done to ourselves in the past 250 years, and how much good we can do in the now and the future.
- ysavir 1y agoDownvoted as this comment feels like it's trying to be witty/upshowing the parent comment without actually engaging with it or offering anything of substance. If the comment was along the lines of "yes, but we've also done a lot of good, let's reflect on both", great. But that's not what it was. Instead it feels like a statement that's trying to argue with the parent comment despite the parent comment never saying we haven't done any good.
- bluGill 1y ago> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. regaurdless of what was intended your downvote and reply shows a lack of good faith.
- ysavir 1y agoIt wasn't a criticism of what they were saying (a point on which I agree with that poster), but whether the comment itself was contributing to the discussion or not. It was a very low-effort comment that offered no reflection on what the parent said, doesn't tie into the original post, and lacks depth towards its own point.
- bluGill 1y agoLow effort but I disagree about the rest - the opposition helps makes it clear how silly the formula it was paroding is.
- cadamsdotcom 1y agoYellowstone seems like one of the most resilient ecosystems we do science on, seems it can reorganize to respond to changes in species. Can other ecosystems do this? Or is Yellowstone the only one?
- trgn 1y agoArdennes too, according to our guide at least, reintroduction of wolves changed ecosystem
- __MatrixMan__ 1y agoA recent biology teacher of mine claims that military bases often contain ecosystems that are: - intact enough to have quick bounce back behavior upon species reintroduction and - small enough for you to have a good idea about which species are present - come with a built-in control variable: the civilian space on the other side of the border represents what would have happened if we had let economics have its way with the land Maybe you don't need quite that level of protection to see such effects, but generally you do need some. Throwing some wolves at a once-forest that's now half way to being a desert will not always save that forest.
- kergonath 1y agoIt is one of the better studied ones. What makes you think this sort of things does not happen elsewhere? Yellowstone has the advantage of being in the US, where there are a lot of people studying these things.
- djoldman 1y agoThe subtitle explains: "Gray wolves were reintroduced ... to help control the numbers of elk that were eating young trees"
- flkenosad 1y agoThey should try it in nfld
- mkw5053 1y agoIt's amazing the impact that the reintroduction has had. On a recent winter trip there I also learned that the reintroduction literally moved rivers [1]: - Elk quit loitering along streams, so willow and cottonwood shot up, anchoring soil and narrowing channels. - The new woody growth gave beavers lumber; their colonies jumped from one in 1996 to a dozen within fifteen years, raising water tables and rebuilding wetlands. - With healthier riparian zones came deeper pools, colder water, and a surge in native trout and song-bird nests. [1] https://phys.org/news/2025-02-predators-ecosystems-yellowstone-wolves-carnivores.html https://phys.org/news/2025-02-predators-ecosystems-yellowsto...
- sushibowl 1y agoAs far as I know, the science on this is far from settled. There is no consensus and the evidence in favor of a trophic cascade in Yellowstone came predominantly from two studies done by the same team/person. Later studies failed to replicate findings. Do wolves fix ecosystems? CSU study debunks claims about Yellowstone reintroduction https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-state-study-debunks-trophic-cascade-claims-yellowstone-national-park/72508642007/ https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-sta... A good story: Media bias in trophic cascade research in Yellowstone National Park https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/195480918?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false#no-access-message https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/1954809...
- ChuckMcM 1y agoBoth links are paywalled so I can't comment on what they say (positive or negative). That said, I did attend an interesting lecture about systems that looks a bit at the Yellowstone as a cautionary tale about extrapolating how a system works from observational data. Basically it came down to there are secondary and tertiary effects from systems variables that express visibly differently depending on both the magnitude of the system elements influence and the time where it it changes. Thus making "simple" conclusions like 'wolves did this' often insufficient to explain system behavior and sometimes outright incorrect. However, the introduction of wolves did, incontrovertibly, add a system element that had not been present before. Exactly what that element was, and how it expressed is up for interpretation :-)
- thom 1y agoNot sure where opinion ended up on this, are there dissenting voices still? https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debunk-myth-that-yellowstone-wolves-changed-entire-ecosystem-flow-of-rivers/349988 https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debun...
- rr808 1y ago"It is a classic example of how saying something many times with enthusiasm can make it true, regardless of what the science says," Hobbs said. Welcome to the age of social media.
- patall 1y agoBecause data it is inconclusive. I.e this publication that says that the impact of wolves is beyond their population pressure, reducing traffic accidents by making deer more wary: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023251118 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023251118
- ForOldHack 1y agoIf I could pick 10 stories to follow every day on a HN dashboard, this would be first. It's really four or five stories in one.
- declan_roberts 1y agoThis is great news! Why doesn't fish and game just increase the number of elk tags they sell? There are multiple ways to reduce the elk population.
- tossandthrow 1y agoBased on another commenter it appears that it is not merely about the number of elk, but likely also how they act. But is see This has a human imperialist reaction: why don't we just micro manage everything!
- ceejayoz 1y agoHumans hunt very differently than wolves. The impacts on elk behavior are thus potentially very different.
- stevenwoo 1y agoThere are other studies that show that reintroduction of wolves also appeared to lead to a decrease in coyotes and changed the populations and behaviors of other prey animals, in turn changing other plant populations. This particular headline does not indicate all the apparent changes. These second and third order effects are not things a state fish and game body would particularly care about until it was forced to by other arms of government.
- seniortaco 1y agoBecause that's what people want. And if people want it, it can't be good?
- arnon 1y agoFinally some good news today
- rr808 1y agoI talked to a local who was friends with ranchers who now lose stock to wolves. They hate it. Its an interesting use case of local control, is the greater good more important than the people who live there?
- kingkawn 1y agoYes
- jeffbee 1y agoWelfare ranchers grazing on BLM land? Yes.
- mykowebhn 1y agoYour question rephrased from an Indigenous People's perspective: "is the greater good more important than the original people who lived there?"
- antonvs 1y agoMost colonists say no
- chrisco255 1y agoThe Clovis are indeed important but they no longer exist.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- __MatrixMan__ 1y agoMore important than their desire to continue doing business the way they're used to? I'd say so. You phrase it like we're feeding them to the wolves. It's not just predators vs livestock, there are a bunch of things that we didn't used to understand about ecosystems that we do now. The societal cost of letting people displace or kill wild animals with abandon is quite high. Zoonotic diseases are the first to come to mind. How many preventable cases of Plague or Lyme disease is that livestock worth to us?
- pcmaffey 1y agoThere’s a raging battle to decimate wolf populations in Montana. I’d encourage any and all to speak up. https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/public-comment-opportunities https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/public-comment-opportunities Click on the dropdown for “Fall 2025–Winter 2026 Furbearer and Wolf Trapping and Hunting Seasons and Quotas.” > Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MTFWP) is proposing new, despicable wolf hunting regulations that could allow up to 500 wolves to be killed. This would increase the number of wolves that can be killed next season by 50 percent, nearly half the state’s entire wolf population. MTFWP is also pushing expanded hunting and trapping rules, including allowing hunters to kill up to 30 wolves per person. > This proposal comes despite livestock losses remaining near historic lows, with only 35 confirmed cattle deaths in 2024, and a significant drop in the number of wolves killed due to livestock conflicts. It is also worth noting that revenue from wolf hunting licenses is among the lowest ever recorded – which helps explain why these expanded rules are less about science and more about politics, profit, and desperation. > The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission will vote on this proposal at its next meeting on August 21. In the meantime, public comments are open through August 4, and wolves need your voice. In your comment, consider including the following: - There is no scientific or ethical reason to kill this many wolves. - Wolves pose no significant threat to humans. - Wolves help maintain healthy prey populations by targeting the weak or sick, which may help control the spread of chronic wasting disease in elk and deer. - Legal hunting can increase poaching. - Traps and snares are cruel, outdated, and often harm pets and endangered species.
- tuna74 1y agoYes! It would be good if people could be more interested in reducing the number of ticks that causes much more human and cattle damage than wolves.
- pcmaffey 1y agoTotally. What spreads ticks - out of control deer populations that lack apex predators.
- KurSix 1y agoThe science is pretty clear on the ecological role of wolves, yet here we are debating whether to wipe out half a state's population
- searine 1y agoMade possible by 1 grant from the Oregon State University Foundation.
- staplung 1y agoHas no one considered the possibility that the aspen trees are eating the wolves to grow strong? I mean, we know that the decline of pirates causes global warming. https://doctorspaghetti.org/pastafarians-pirates-and-climate-change/ https://doctorspaghetti.org/pastafarians-pirates-and-climate... We also know that dog predation of frisbees is a real problem for healthy disc populations.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- joshtbradley 1y agoAlso collapsed the elk population from 18,000 to 2,000 and they’re worried the bison will eat the trees… I understand nature is incredibly complex and intelligent, and I’m curious what the end effect will be. But from an anthropocentric perspective, this is silly. When will the first human death occur?
- TimorousBestie 1y agoIf you’re going to exterminate every species that kills humans, there’s gonna be a lot of very angry dog owners on your doorstep.
- joshtbradley 1y agoThat’s not my argument. I’m saying wolves are dangerous, and as a human, I don’t want to have to worry about wolves when I’m hiking Yellowstone. Call me selfish but I’d rather be alive than feel good that the forest is back to its natural state.
- cactacea 1y agoYup that is pretty selfish.
- stickfigure 1y agoHave you considered that you might trip and fall when hiking Yellowstone? Perhaps we should pave it.
- triceratops 1y agoNo steaks either. Cows kill nearly as many humans as dogs (~20/year vs ~40/year)
- jjtheblunt 1y ago> When will the first human death occur? what?
- 1y ago
- tomrod 1y agoLucas Miller teaches this to kids via song. Wonderful! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-nBUqz2hG0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-nBUqz2hG0
- thangalin 1y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W88Sact1kws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W88Sact1kws "Embark on a journey to Yellowstone, where a few wolves did not just roam, but rewrote the rules of an entire ecosystem. Discover how these majestic predators triggered a cascade of life, transforming not only the park's wildlife but its very rivers and landscapes. It's a story of how nature's architects can reshape our world in ways we never imagined."
- hinkley 1y agoNow report back in ten years about Lyme disease cases.
- PicassoCTs 1y agoFrom my perspective this is a doomed ideological project, to restore a ecological "balance" that is already historic- as the climate this "balance" adapted to will vanish and the luxury of ecological preservation projects will evaporate with the funds available for such luxuries. In my eyes, ecological historicism is just another sin, wasting precious finite resources on keeping up a facade. It would be much wiser, to take specimen from the developing bulb-belt and transplant them up the lattitude to near similar developing bioms, trying to breed them to survive the winter that now befalls there "migrated" biom. Let the wulves fight for their own survival in this mess and remove protection status. The ground is moving, no sense in building cabins and planting trees on it. Cosplaying nature while sacrificing saveable species seems absurd to me.
- antonvs 1y ago> Let the wulves fight for their own survival in this mess and remove protection status. So, let wolves fight for survival against humans? That's tantamount to saying "let's make wolves extinct."
- yieldcrv 1y ago> Be Elk > Browsing, grazing, loitering in an ideal environment > Suddenly, mid life, an unidentified powerful beast appears that stalks and kills your kind > Never know why, the source, or that a third species engineered this outcome because they were too lazy to kill you all themselves and just wanted an automated way of doing so
- antonvs 1y agoA response worthy of 4chan. Worthy of HN? Not so much. It's not about "automating" the killing of elk. It's about sustainable ecosystems. Human hunting is not the same thing.
- yieldcrv 1y agoI think it fits because it is substantive and has capability of providing introspection The article and study doesn't address its disposable nature of the elk in favor of "look at the trees" When there are animals suffering, which to most actual people is a matter to highlight. This entire discussion about wolves in Yellowstone has always contorted itself to spare the reader's thoughts on the gruesome reality of what's actually happening.
- dboreham 1y agoFor readers who are not local perhaps worth noting that Wolf reintroduction is a very emotional subject in this area. The wolves were brought back just before I moved here 25 years ago and I remember wondering if anyone ever wrote a letter to the editor at the Bozeman paper that wasn't about wolves. It's a kind of pre-Trump anti-science, anti-intellectual issue, the echoes of which you'll see in the comments on the article. It's one of the things featured in that TV show with Kevin Costner that's actually accurate.
- KurSix 1y agoIt's like a real-life case study of a trophic cascade, and it kind of underlines just how interconnected everything is. You pull one species out, and decades later entire ecosystems are still feeling it