New West Feature
Yellowstone Elk Study Points to Lasting Effects of a Hotter, Longer Summer
Green-up period, when wildlife packs on fat from young plants, decreased by as much as 40 percent in the last two decades, affecting pregnancy and survival rates among the Clark's Fork herd.By Shauna Stephenson, 3-09-11
![]() |
|
| An elk in Yellowstone foraging on what remains green. A new study shows the period of less-nutritious brown forage is getting longer. Photo by Flickr user Daniel Burton. | |
A study commissioned to find out why there are fewer elk in Yellowstone National Park ended up shedding light on the longterm effect climate change is having on the park’s famed wildlife.
Researchers have found that the green-up period – the time from mid-April through late July when snow finally melts and meadows start to fill with wildflowers – is gradually becoming shorter, leading into the brown doldrums of summer earlier. (Updated: A link to a website about the study is here.)
The study, conducted by Wyoming Game and Fish and the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Wyoming, found that between 1989 and 2010, the green-up period has been compressed by 40 percent, or by about 27 days over the past 21 years. At the same time, July temperatures, which used to average about 66 degrees, have increased 8 degrees since 1989, which coincides with times of drought and reduced snowpack.
This shortening of the green-up means lower quality food for ungulates such as elk and deer, which have an appetite for and receive the most nutritional benefit from plants when they first start to emerge. As the summer continues, the plants tend to lose some of their nutrition and appeal.
The shorter season gives ungulates less time to build the necessary fat reserves that get them through harsh winters. Additionally, it may help to explain why elk numbers are sagging in the area, says Arthur Middleton, a Ph.D. student based in the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Wyoming and coordinator of the Absaroka Elk Ecology Project.
“The way I think about it,” Middleton says, “and maybe the best way to put it pretty bluntly, is summer is when these animals make their living. That’s when they gain all the fat that we’re worried about them losing too quickly in the winter. If they’re not gaining as much as they need or could, (winter) doesn’t matter. The relative importance of what goes on in winter is lessened.”
To be fair, this type of shift is affecting more species than elk, and seems to be more widespread than Yellowstone National Park.
According to a 2002 study published in “Climate Research,” the average start of the growing season in Europe has shifted by eight days from 1989 to 1998. A study in 2000 in the “International Journal of Climatology” found that, in North America, it has shifted by five to six days from 1959 to 1993.
And if you think a couple days here and there don’t matter, think again. Species that base their reproduction on the seasons are finding themselves in a confusing state all over the globe. Migrating caribou in Greenland are showing up to their calving grounds too late to catch the most nutritious forage, critical in maintaining the health of their young. In the past, their migrations were timed to coincide with green-up, but warmer temperatures are causing forage to bloom earlier. Consequently, populations are declining.
The same is true for the flycatchers in Europe, which base their migration on light cues rather than temperature. With spring starting earlier, the birds are mistiming their migration. By the time they arrive to breed, the food resources they need for reproduction are already waning.
A similar trend for the elk in Yellowstone is starting to emerge. The park’s Clark’s Fork herd and can be divided into two groups: the nonmigratory herd of about 2,500 to 3,000 elk and the migratory herd of about 1,500 to 2,000 elk, which move from winter grounds near Cody, Wyoming, into Yellowstone near the headwaters of the Lamar River for their summer range, according to Wyoming Game and Fish.
When migratory herd numbers started to decline about two decades ago, researchers began looking for explanations. Most recently, biologists from Game and Fish and the University of Wyoming began studying variables that include pregnancy rates, nutrition and predator impacts.
Some would point fingers at wolves, citing their reintroduction in 1995, as the demise of ungulate herds in the West. To be fair, predators (both wolves and bears) do play a very significant role in reduction. But it’s not the only role.
It would also be easy to point fingers at wildlife managers or private landowners for gumming up the whole system. Unfortunately the issue is not that simple.
The science of predator-prey relationships is complex, but a few reasonable observations can be made. Prey in poor shape because of inadequate nutrition are more vulnerable to predators. Second, prey in poor shape tend to produce fewer offspring. For example, if there are 1,000 new elk calves, it’s not a big deal for a bear or wolf to have a snack, but when there are only 50 calves, predation has more impact.
The lynch pin in this scenario, the issue that is frequently overlooked because it does not grab attention like a pack of wolves, is the role of habitat.
The problem with the migratory portion of the Clark’s Fork herd seemed to be wrapped up in calf-retention rates—how many calves survived each year. But calf numbers were down in part because cow elk weren’t getting pregnant, says Middleton. In fact, only 68 percent were getting pregnant, significant when you consider it’s rare for numbers to drop below 90 percent.
Researchers began looking at Normalized Differential Vegetation Index, or NDVI, which is data NASA collects by satellite to measure patterns of foliage greenness. By comparing years of data, they found the time forage was staying green had been compressed by 40 percent over the last 21 years.
“It’s fairly crude information, but at the same time, if we can detect changes with a kind of blunt instrument floating in space, it’s probably going to mean something to foraging elk on the ground,” Middleton says.
The shortened green-up could explain the drop in pregnancy rates. Bob Garrott, director of the fish and wildlife management program at the ecology department of Montana State University, says nutrition plays a huge role in an elk’s ability to become pregnant. Poor nutrition can delay sexual maturity in elk herds, delaying their first calf production. It can also lower the age at which an elk will stop producing offspring, he said.
“The effects on first years of sexual maturity are really important because there are a lot of animals in a herd that are at that age,” he says. “The average age of first-calf production of two, versus three or four, has a big impact on a herd.”
Which holds true to the demographics of this particular herd, says Middleton. Clark’s Fork elk are not breeding frequently until they are 4 to 5 years old and may stop at 11 to 12, which is a much shorter window than average. On good range, it is not unheard of for yearling elk to get pregnant and adult elk are known to reproduce after the age of 12, although, like humans, it is less likely as they age. In general, they typically stop reproducing around age 15.
Similar research being conducted just south of Yellowstone echoes the Wyoming team’s findings regarding summer range. Hall Sawyer, a research biologist for Western EcoSystems Technology Inc., has been following mule deer herds for more than a decade. He’s found that unlike elk, mule deer seem to be more adept at hitting forage when it is at its peak nutritional quality.
“In the past, we thought of (that migration) as a conveyor belt where they get on and move from winter (range) to summer (range),” Sawyer says. “What we’re finding is that’s really not the case.”
Instead, deer have a series of stopover sites, moving quickly through certain areas to optimize the best nutrition; they camp out for a few days until it’s time to move to the next site. How they know when and where hasn’t been determined. But, without fail, the studies prove deer are showing up in the most nutritionally beneficial area, every time.
Traditionally, mid-April-through-July green-up has coincided with the time ungulates need the most nutrition, when they are nursing calves. For instance, a cow elk’s nutritional needs increase by almost 150 percent when she is nursing a calf.
“Summer sets the bar for the rest of the year,” Middleton says. “The rest of the year is about hanging onto what happened and what was achieved during the summer.”
And for some species like elk, making summer count is going to become more and more difficult as temperatures continue to rise.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
But seriously, thanks for sharing this new research. Very interesting.
Global warming 'myth'. Scientists have found out is cooling not warming and since 1998. Look it up. Wouldn't global warmer if it existed result in 'mild winters' in YNP more forage,winter range available? Tell the over populated bison herd leaving YNP or face starvation every year it's "global warming". Do you think we are all stupid?
http://mmarkmiller.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/emnews-emclimate-change—not-wolves—may-cause-fewer-yellowstone-elk/
The documents published in Schullery's book about the Yellowstone wolves estimated the Northern range and elk herd could withstand 100 wolves permanently. The authors did admit this might mean hunters would have to be willing to curtail or end some hunting. The estimated each wolf to kill approximately 9 elk per year, we know know that studies have shown 1.8 to 2.4 for each wolf per month, which is 2-3 times as many as anticipated. They did not take into consideration the impact on fecundity of the constant harassment of the cows.
No studies on the impact of the climate are able to explain why the elk are only affected in wolf populated areas and the more wolves, the more the impact.
This is by far the most ridiculous article I have read in quite a while.....
Funny how elk are doing fine in other areas close to the park where no wolves reside....apparently they grass stays greener there.
Another smokescreen for the wolves.
Must be money in making up research to fit data.
You will have to come up with a whopper to explain the extinction of moose in yellowstone.....
this is a very interesting read indeed. Weather changes has definitely made things chaotic<a >.</a> I have just started taking up gardening and am getting confused as to when to sow the seeds etc too, cos we still get bits of frost even though it's March. I definitely feel for the animals who can't make head or tail about these climate changes.
Perhaps I'm being unfair. Maybe Jack is a pacifist, who loaths bombs as much as wolves.
All these folks who hate hearing about science that upsets their world views, remind me of three-year-olds with fingers in their ears and screaming, so as to not hear anything unpleasant, like 'go to bed,' or 'a day-long diet of chocolate isn't good for you.'
Once upon a time, facts and the scientific method mattered and were revered. Now politics is driven by ideology and whoever can scream the longest and loudest.
Makes my head hurt.
The northern herd in 1895 was 20,000 with cold hard winters and no alfalfa fields at the end of the migration.
It's about wolf DENSITIES not global warming.
Now they get run & run & run & run by wolves but that didn't matter because daisies only last 27 days or some such crap .
It's no longer science that comes out of academia , it's all plausible deniability for wolves in hopes of grant money. Even the good science can't be trusted because they begin at the desired scienentific outcome and agenda and work backward.
BTW, who peer reviewed this garbage and what does his C.V say?
Study must have been funded by Earth Justice or maybe Ralph Maughan
This was not science, this was day dreaming & twisting facts. As someone put it, starting with a desired outcome and working backwards to make it fit. It has cost the American taxpayer tens of millions of dollars to destroy the elk and moose in Yellowstone. But I suspect that Doug Smith is a millionaire between "research grants" & book deals, so I guess he is right when he says he is not worried about the low numbers of elk.
When the elk are gone the wolves ill leave too and then what will wolf watchers do?
Shed so light on the Lolo decline. Please you know well what caused the decline in the Lolo pre wolf introduction, yet you continue to attempt to put out more false information. For those who may not know, the elk decline in the Lolo zone of Idaho pre wolf introduction was caused by Idaho Fish and Game director Jerry Connely sell what amounted to unlimited cow tags in this zone to generate revenue, and I suspect set up a decline to allow just the action we see now, another excuse, the never ending excuses of how the destruction of elk herds across the rest are the fault of everything BUT wolves.
As you can see from the other responses, people aren't buying the lies anymore.
Periods of drought have always been a part of the YS climate, and in fact it was those drought periods that were identified by real biologist as the major problem concerning willows and aspens, not elk over grazing. Which in fact explains why those trees are not recovering even though 85% of the yellowstone elk have been wiped out. Just more garbage science looking for excuses to cover other failed science.
Like others have also pointed out, it's amazing how all of these crazy elk destroying situations follow the wolves. Or, there is another well know trait that has also been seen worldwide where wolves inhabit, some biologist refer to it as isolated extinctions from over predation.
Doug Smith guaranteed an increase in the YS elk herd for this coming year. How will he bring that about, midnight removal of wolves or his magic wand?
At what point, if ever, will these fools in charge of this mess realize they can no longer hide behind lies and outcome based studies to cover their rear ends?
At what point do people no longer consider them 'experts' when they have been so incredibly wrong across the board?
They stated a 20% population loss of the YS elk before introduction, it is now at 85% and falling. They claimed a wolf biomass impact of 14 elk/year/wolf and in fact it is 24+. And these are just two of their egregiously incorrect assumptions.
These people have a poorer track record with accuracy than a 1950's weatherman.
They flat ignored the Russian science, I would assume because it didn't say what they wanted it to say. Yet what we are seeing play out is exactly what that Russian science said we would.
Let the excuse making continue.
Barry---can you steer us to some of that " Russian Science" ?. The only other large populations and habitat for Elk in the world are in fact in eastern Russia / southeast Siberia , where the predator base is also immense including Tigers and Leopards in addition to wolves. I hope your Russian science has little or nothing from ex-Ukrainian now Canadian , Valerius Geist , certified wolfhater. I'm of the belief that wolves only took their fair share of the Yellowstone northern herd since the Fires of ' 88 , maybe less than the 20 percent they get credit for .
I'm sorry Jack , but I searched for and cannot find those " Death of the Yellowstone Northern Elk Herd" video documentaries on YouTube that you referred to ? Got links ? Those wouldn't be any of Rockholm's wretched films, would it ?
*
*
By the way, lack of civility here will lead to an early termination of Comments to this article. In case you haven't noticed, the NewWest editors have lowered the threshhold of tolerance for personal attacks and use the Kill Switch a lot sooner. When the article concerns wolves , things heat up. Maybe we could keep the opinions civil and the discourse informational rather than rhetorical or lobbed in from the realm of Unfoundia?
*
I'm curious. I have to ask . Is Toby Bridges on NW probation , in self imposed exile, or what ? Normally he would be right in the middle of any wolf-elk commentary with a swinging bucket of mud .
What a crock of environmental bull hooey!
I'd say Colorado, on average, is a heck of a lot warmer than the Northern Rockies as well. Let's see...doesn't that state have 200,000+ elk???
What Utah and Colorado DO NOT HAVE that we have are out of control wolf numbers.
I wonder how many U.S. taxpayer dollars were wasted on this idiotic global warming study.
I read this morning that one of his Wolf Blood Brothers was arrested in California for threatening to kill a Senator if she did not oppose Congressional legislation to remove the wolf from under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. These folks are in melt down right now...they're losing this fight and they're going bonkers. And the reason they're losing this fight is that all they have to fight with is manipulated science...and idjut greenie biologists.
On another note...hope to see a bunch of you at the Wolf/Molloy Protest Rally at the U.S. District Courthouse here in Missoual on March 24th. All indications are that a true Wolf Control Army will mobilize that day.
I agree with Toby Bridges..... Fill up the truck & bring a friend. All hands on deck! March 24th. Ask about organized bus trips from your town....or better yet, get one started yourself. Bring a grill, & do some tailgating!
Above all, changes need to be made at the Federal level both legislatively and with personnel in the USFWS. So much Jamie Clark mentality that needs to be surgically removed at this level. They are becoming the laughing stock on the world stage!
Minnesota moose decline is not due to wolves alone. Wolves have always been in the "moose" zone, so there increase in the state away form the NE portion of the state matters not.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/sepoct03/moosemystery.html
And I would direct you to the section dealing with Ontario:
According to a summary of moose mortality in northeastern Ontario over several years, nearly half that died were killed by traffic, 10 percent by trains, 10 percent by poachers, 17 percent by subsistence hunters, and fewer than 3 percent by predators.
Poachers took more moose than wolves!
Fine, if unlimited cow tags were sold to generate revenue in Lolo, why don't you correct the writings of Hemmings and a couple of others who say the wolves drove the elk population down from 20,000 to less than 2,000. Wolves had little to no impact in Lolo until the elk numbers were already in the area of 5,000.
I have no problem with you helping me understand something, why don't you do the same with some of your group. Fair is fair.
Moose in Minnestoa did fine...until the wolf numbers got so great. In that state, wolves primarily fed on a burgeoning deer crop...and once they pulled that down by 60+ percent, they turned on the larger moose.
The MN DNR is no better than MT FWP...a bunch of liars. Right now, they're trying to cover their butts. Their claims about how moose are succumbing to "other" causes holds about as much water as global warming killing off Yellowstone's elk. The MN DNR suffers from the same problem that MT FWP continues to suffer from...they feel that sportsmen are idiots, and ignore what sportsmen are telling them.
MN DNR claims 3,000 to 3,500 wolves in the state...those thousands of hunters who spend far more time in the woods say the state's wolf count in more like 5,000+. Shoot those wolves back to 1,000...and I'd bet moose and deer numbers would rebound.
Please look at who funded the study prior to making the claims you have. All you have to do is hit the link at beginning of article and scroll down.
Project Funders
Wyoming Game & Fish Department · Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board · U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service · Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation · Wyoming Governor’s Big Game License Coalition · Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife · U.S. Forest Service - Shoshone National Forest · Boone & Crocket Club · University of Wyoming - National Park Service Research Station · Bowhunters of Wyoming · Pope & Young Club · Wildlife Heritage Foundation of Wyoming · Safari Club International · Cody Country Outfitters & Guides Association
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No where does it say these "Funders" are or were in consensus with Middleton's study.
Hell, we sportsmen continue to fund MT FWP...and we disagree with pretty much most of what they say and do these days.
Fact is, we've gotten really sick and tired of being sold all of those bills of not-so-goods. That's exactly what this discussion is all about...the manipulation of science and facts.
If you think there's so much merit to the study in question here...how do you explain all those elk across southern Colorado...New Mexico...Arizona...and the rapidly growing herd in Utah - an area where, by Yellostone standards, it has been undergoing "Global Warming" temperatures for eons?
Oh yeah, not to mention that Utah has more moose now than ever...despite very arid and very hot summer temperatures.
To kind of quote a common sense challenged idjut...
"uh oh, common sense getting in the way again, can't have that"
From what I’ve read, the current (ongoing) study last year found 114 collared dead moose. 9 were confirmed wolf kills. Close to half (52 I think) were undetermined as to the cause of death. This includes things like “scavenged to an undeterminable conclusion” and “only found collar” Do you know of any animal that quickly scavenges its prey to an undeterminable conclusion. Even the 9 in 114 that they ADMIT to is high! What makes up that 52? Do you think any of the wolf pups carry off their collar trophy from the kill sight. Is there a slight possibility that a wolf scavenged moose where wolf kills.
Next, the clam lake elk herd also had wolves since 1996 when they were introduced. But, it’s been the last six years where wolves have taken their toll! Wolves are now so thick in Minnesota there will always be a pack to replace one that moves on or dies. They went from 1500 to over 3000 wolves since the problems started with the moose. Your argument is completely refuted only by looking at the clam lake elk herd in Wisconsin!
Immer, Give it up….your excuses are running out! They also get lame, just like this article. March 24th! Immer, bring your s249 and hr509 signs its the best thing for the wolf!
Let the excuse making continue.
Gee barry, is that why you don't like american science? because it doesn't say what you want it to say? You are a hypocrite to the highest degree,