ArticleEcology letters2022
Sampling bias exaggerates a textbook example of a trophic cascade.
Article in Ecology letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Species-specific interactions with apex carnivores yield unique benefits and burdens for mesocarnivores.Ecology · 2026Article
- Do Wolves Protect Forests? Investigating the Link Between Wolf Density, Deer Browse, and Plant Recovery.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- A shifting baseline theory of debates over potential lynx and wolf reintroductions to Scotland.Ambio · 2025Article
- Herbivores override climate control of grassland production in Yellowstone National Park.Ecology · 2025Article
- Article
- The presence of wolves leads to spatial differentiation in deer browsing pressure on forest regeneration.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Rewilding Apex Predators Has Effects on Lower Trophic Levels: Cheetahs and Ungulates in a Woodland Savanna.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- A skewed literature: Few studies evaluate the contribution of predation-risk effects to natural field patterns.Ecology letters · 2022Review
- "Ecology of fear" in ungulates: Opportunities for improving conservation.Ecology and evolution · 2022Review
- Sampling bias exaggerates a textbook example of a trophic cascade.Ecology letters · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding trophic cascades in terrestrial wildlife communities is a major challenge because these systems are difficult to sample properly. We show how a tradition of non-random sampling has confounded this understanding in a textbook system (Yellowstone National Park) where carnivore [Canis lupus (wolf)] recovery is associated with a trophic cascade involving changes in herbivore [Cervus canadensis (elk)] behaviour and density that promote plant regeneration. Long-term data indicate a practice of sampling only the tallest young plants overestimated regeneration of overstory aspen (Populus tremuloides) by a factor of 4-7 compared to random sampling because it favoured plants taller than the preferred browsing height of elk and overlooked non-regenerating aspen stands. Random sampling described a trophic cascade, but it was weaker than the one that non-random sampling described. Our findings highlight the critical importance of basic sampling principles (e.g. randomisation) for achieving an accurate understanding of trophic cascades in terrestrial wildlife systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.