Figure 1. A) Sightability-corrected bison numbers in three herd subunits. Data from from Meagher (1969). Data from from Taper.

Similar documents
2009 WMU 328 Moose and Elk

YELLOWSTONE BISON POPULATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Population Ecology Yellowstone Elk by C. John Graves

1. The graph below shows how the velocity of a toy train moving in a straight line varies over a period of time.

Paul Schullery. for beetles, flies, and many other small animals, the elk is a village waiting to happen.

LITTLE SALMON AND MAGUNDY RIVERS

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 501 moose and deer

Bison Conservation in Canada

2008 WMU 106 mule deer

2009 WMU 527 Moose, Mule Deer, and White tailed Deer

Recent Changes in Population Distribution: The Pelican Bison and the Domino Effect

Bison: National Treasure or Pernicious Vector?

Welke daalhouding is het meest aerodynamisch?

Environmental Value of AnGR: Breed Case: Water buffalo, Greece

[NPS-IMR-GRSA-24169; PPWONRADE2, PMP00EI05.YP0000] Ungulate Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Great

Winter 2016 Hunting District 313 Elk survey (Gardiner to 6-Mile Creek) Date: Flight Duration: Weather/Survey Conditions: Survey Methods

Population Parameters and Their Estimation. Uses of Survey Results. Population Terms. Why Estimate Population Parameters? Population Estimation Terms

Factors Influencing Cattle, Elk, and Mule Deer Distribution in Managed Forests

Advanced pre and post-processing in Windsim

1.0 SPECIES-HABITAT MODEL FOR PLAINS BISON (BISON BISON) Bison bison

Conservation Worksheet III

Structure and discharge test cases

2008 WMU 360 moose, white tailed deer and mule deer. Section Authors: Robb Stavne, Dave Stepnisky and Mark Heckbert

, P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR Master Books

Utah. North Stansbury Mountains Wilderness Study Area Site-Specific Monitoring Guide

The Great Sand Dunes Ecosystem Elk and Bison Carrying Capacity Model: Description and Scenario Results

Management History of the Edwards Plateau

Fire and Cattle Grazing to Manage Exotic Grass Stands. Eric Grahmann and Alfonso Ortega Santos

Monitoring Population Trends of White-tailed Deer in Minnesota Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book

The Lake Creek Ranch. Located in the foothills of the Owl Creek Mountains in western Hot Springs County, Wyoming

FINAL REPORT. Wildlife Road Survey and Human Interactions

Chris Geremia, P. J. White, Rick Wallen, and Doug Blanton. July 29, 2013

2008 WMU 359 moose, mule deer, and white tailed deer

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 536 moose

Results of Argali Survey in Big Pamir and the Wakhjir Valley by the Marco Polo Sheep Survey Team 2008

Density and Specific Gravity

Exercise: Satellite Imagery Analysis. 29 June 2016 Japan Meteorological Agency

Follow the instructions on that sheet and be sure to include all the things your animal needs.

BUFFALO PEAKS ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN

ALTERNATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS. 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 45A, 45B, 45C, and White-tailed Deer Units

The Lesson of the Kaibab

3.3 USING A SIMPLE PARCEL MODEL TO INVESTIGATE THE HAINES INDEX

Recommendations for Pennsylvania's Deer Management Program and The 2010 Deer Hunting Season

TWO FORKS RANCH A5 REAL ESTATE. 790 Acres. Smiths Fork - Lincoln County - Wyoming

Summary of discussion

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Section of Fisheries. Stream Survey Report. Three Mile Creek 2011

YELLOWSTONE RANCH PRESERVE HEBGEN LAKE, MONTANA

Beaver Valley Ranch Steamboat Springs, Colorado

Status Report on the Yellowstone Bison Population, August 2016 Chris Geremia 1, Rick Wallen, and P.J. White August 17, 2016

B A G G S, W Y O M I N G - C R A I G, C O L O R A D O

APPROVED FACILITY SCHOOLS CURRICULUM DOCUMENT SUBJECT: Mathematics GRADE: 6. TIMELINE: Quarter 1. Student Friendly Learning Objective

BUFFALO PEAKS ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN EXTENSION

The Coriolis Effect - Deflect the Arrows!

RESOURCE BOOKLET N10/4/ENVSO/SP2/ENG/TZ0/XX/T ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS AND SOCIETIES PAPER 2. Wednesday 3 November 2010 (morning) 2 hours

POPULATION SURVEY OF THE NAHANNI WOOD BISON POPULATION MARCH 2004

MOOSE SURVEY RACKLA AREA LATE-WINTER Prepared by: Mark O'Donoghue, Joe Bellmore, Sophie Czetwertynski and Susan Westover

10 th WindSim User Meeting June 2015, Tønsberg

COMPUTATIONAL FLOW MODEL OF WESTFALL'S LEADING TAB FLOW CONDITIONER AGM-09-R-08 Rev. B. By Kimbal A. Hall, PE

Teck Safety Boundaries in the Elk Valley

Bison and Native Cultures

Animal Habitats Kindergarten

DEADLINE TO SUBMIT APPLICATION: MARCH 31 OF EACH YEAR

Ecological Studies of Bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area: Development and Implementation

Predator-Prey Interactions: Bean Simulation. Materials

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.a, Functional Unit 32 (northern North Sea, Norway Deep)

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 510 moose

Deer Population Student Guide

Integrating population- and individual-level information in a movement model of Yellowstone bison

Big Spring Creek Habitat Enhancement and Fishery Management Plans

FEATURED NEWS. Greater Sage Grouse Habitat. View Web Version Like Tweet Forward

Wildlife Introduction

Subject: Scoping Comments Ochoco Summit OHV Trail Project

Status Report on the Yellowstone Bison Population, September 2017 Chris Geremia, Rick Wallen, and P.J. White 1

Copyright 2018 by Jamie L. Sandberg

YELLOWSTONE THE BISON OF YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK. The Bison of Yellowstone National Park NPS Scientific Monograph No. 1

Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics to Compressor Efficiency Improvement

An Alternative Explanation for Leopold s Kaibab Deer Herd Irruption of the 1920 s

Maui Development Limited. Transitional disclosure of pipeline capacity

Page 1 of 10

Yellowstone Science A quarterly publication devoted to the natural and cultural resources

Chapter 3 Atmospheric Thermodynamics

Broken Bar W Ranch TETON VALLEY, IDAHO. Hunting Ranching Fly Fishing Conservation

STUDENT PACKET # 6 Student Exploration: Rabbit Population by Season

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

IM 8 Ch How Can I Find Missing Parts. Is the triangle a right triangle? Who is Pythagoras? CPM Materials modified by Mr.

Living World Review #2

BCM Lecture #3. Phase Improvement, Model Building & Refinement. Peter Pawelek & Mirek Cygler (slides 10-51(mostly))

1. Air is blown through a pipe AB at a rate of 15 litre per minute. The cross-sectional area of broad

Big Game Survey Results

Aishihik and Kluane Northern Mountain Caribou Herds Census, 2009

MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR Lion DAU L-16

ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL. Reproductive state affects reliance on public information in sticklebacks

Stakeholder Activity

O Bar O Ranch Graham County, Arizona

GRADE 1-3: SOCIAL STUDIES EARLY FIRST NATIONS AND INUIT REGIONS FLIPBOOK

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SUMMARY OF COUGAR POPULATION MODEL AND EFFECTS OF LETHAL CONTROL

440+ Acres. Laramie Mountains Cow Camp Converse County, Wyoming Offered at $660,000

Early History, Prehistory

Transcription:

Figure 1. A) Sightability-corrected bison numbers in three herd subunits. Data from 1949-1968 from Meagher (1969). Data from 1969-1997 from Taper. Meagher, and Jerde (2002). Data from 1998-2000 from Hess (2002). B) Sightability-corrected elk numbers pre-removal (management and hunting), and actual number counted uncorrected for sightability. Sightability corrections are explained in the text.

Figure 2. Scalar functions affecting habitat selection by bison.

Figure 3. Scalar functions affecting habitat selection by elk.

Figure 4. Place names on bison and elk ranges. Black grid-cells are thermal areas, including thermally warmed riparian area.

Figure 5. Simulated aboveground annual net primary production (NPP, solid lines) and grazing offtake (dashed lines) versus animal unit months (AUM) per km2 on dry sagebrush grasslands of the northern winter. See Tables 2,3 for details, including animal densities.

Figure 6. Simulated aboveground annual net primary production (NPP, solid lines) and grazing offtake (dashed lines) versus animal unit months (AUM) per km2 on moist sagebrush grasslands of the northern winter range with two different seasonal grazing regimes. See Tables 4,5 for details, including animal densties.

Figure 7. Simulated aboveground annual net primary production (NPP, solid lines) and grazing offtake (dashed lines) versus animal unit months (AUM) per km2 in the Firehole and Hayden Valley areas. See Tables 6,7 for details, including animal densities.

Figure 8. Simulated aboveground annual net primary production (NPP, solid lines) and grazing offtake (dashed lines) versus animal unit months (AUM) per km2 on northern range grasslands with varying numbers of bison and a fixed number of elk. See Table 8 for details.

Figure 9. Simulated aboveground annual net primary production (NPP, solid lines) and grazing offtake (dashed lines) versus animal unit months (AUM) per km2 on northern range sedge meadows with varying numbers of bison and a fixed number of elk. See Table 8 for details.

Figure 10. Simulated aboveground annual net primary production (NPP, solid lines) and grazing offtake (dashed lines) versus animal unit months (AUM) per km2 on Firehole and Hayden Valley grasslands with varying numbers of bison and a fixed number of elk. See Table 9 for details.

A) B) C) Figure 11. Mean bison density (#/km * 10) in Februaries in A) 1969-1981, B) 1982-1993, and 2 C) 1994-2001. Roads, park boundaries, northern winter range, Hayden Valley and Pelican Valley are delimited..

A) B) C) Figure 12. Mean bison density (#/km * 10) in Augusts in A) 1969-1981, B) 1982-1993, and C) 2 1994-2001.

A) B) C) Figure 13. Average bison density (#/km * 10) year around in A) 1969-1982, B) 1982-1993, and 2 C) 1994-2001.

A) B) C) Figure 14. Elk density (#/km * 10) in Februaries in A) 1969-1982, B) 1982-1993, and C) 1994-2 2001.

A) B) C) Figure 15. Elk density (#/km * 10) in Augusts in A) 1969-1982, B) 1983-1993, and C) 1994-2 2001.

A) B) C) Figure 16. Average elk density (#/km * 10) year around in A) 1969-1982, B) 1983-1993, and C) 2 1994-2001.

A) B) C) Figure 17. Total herbaceous offtake (kg/ha, g/m2*10) by bison and elk in A) 1969-1982, B) 1983-1993, C) 1994-2001.

A) B) C) Figure 18. Grazing intensity, measured as herbaceous offtake divided by ungrazed aboveground biomass in August in A) 1969-1982, B) 1983-1993, C) 1994-2001.

A) B) C) Figure 19. Herbaceous offtake as a fraction of aboveground net primary production in A) 1969-1982, B) 1983-1993, C) 1994-2001.

A) B) C) Figure 20. A) Histogram of grazing intensities in A) 1969-1982, B) 1983-1993, C) 1994-2001. Units of the Y-axis are number of 1 km2 grid-cells. Note cells grazed <1% are not included.

A) B) C) D) E) F) G) H) Figure 21. Histograms of grazing intensity (A,C,E,G) and fraction ANPP consumed (B,D,F,H) in 1994-2001 on the non-forested areas of A,B) the northern range, C,D) Hayden Valley, E,F) Pelican Valley, G,H) Firehole area.

A) B) C) D) Figure 22. A) Difference in ANPP (kg/ha, g/m2*10) between 1983-2001 and 1969-1981 on all bison ranges and the northern winter range in a simulation with no bison or elk (positive values indicate increases in 1983-2001). B) Difference in ANPP (kg/ha, g/m2*10) between 1983-2001 and 1969-1981 in non-forested areas. C) Difference in ANPP (kg/ha) between 1983-2001 and 1969-1981 in a simulation with observed bison and elk numbers. D) Difference in ANPP (kg/ha, g/m2*10) between 1983-2001 and 1969-1981 in non-forested areas.

A) B) C) D) Figure 23. A) Difference in ANPP (kg/ha, g/m2*10) 1969-2001 between simulations with and without bison and elk on all bison ranges and the northern range (positive values indicate greater ANPP without animals). B) Difference in ANPP (kg/ha) in non-forested areas only. C) Ratio of ANPP with animals to ANPP without animals on all bison ranges and the northern. B) Ratio of ANPP with animals to ANPP without animals in non-forested areas only.

A) B) C) D) Figure 24. A) Difference in root biomass (g/m2) 1969-2001 between simulations with and without bison and elk on all bison ranges and the northern range (positive values indicate greater root biomass without animals). B) Difference in root biomass (g/m2) in non-forested areas only. C) Ratio of root biomass with animals to root biomass without animals on all bison ranges and the northern. B) Ratio of root biomass with animals to root biomass without animals in non-forested areas only.