Translocate predators for ecosystem restoration

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating predators for ecosystem restoration. These studies were in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)                               


  • Abundance (2 studies): A before-and-after study in the USA found that following reintroduction of wolves, populations of beavers and bison increased. A before-and-after study in the USA found that after the translocation of wolves to the reserve, adult elk numbers approximately halved.
  • Reproductive success (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that after the translocation of wolves to the reserve, elk calf:cow ratios approximately halved.


About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A before-and-after study in 1986–2004 in a grassland and forest reserve in Wyoming, USA (White & Garrott 2005) found that after the translocation of wolves Canis lupus to the reserve, adult elk Cervus canadensis numbers and elk calf:cow ratios approximately halved. Results were not subjected to statistical analysis. Nine years after wolves were translocated, there were fewer adult elk (8,335) and a lower calf:cow ratio (12 calves/100 female elk) than the average before wolf translocation (adult elk: 16,664; 25 calves/100 female elk). A similar number of elk that had migrated out of the park were killed by hunters before (1,148 elk/year) and after (1,297 elk/year) wolves were translocated. Wolves were translocated into Yellowstone National Park in 1995. Between 1996 and 2004 wolf numbers increased from 21 to 106. Elk adults and calves were counted from aeroplanes annually during December–January 1986–2004. No counts were conducted during the winters of 1996 and 1997.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in 1990–2010 of riparian and adjacent upland habitat in a national park in Wyoming, USA (Ripple & Beschta 2012) found that following reintroduction of wolves Canis lupus, populations of beavers Castor canadensis and bison Bison bison increased. There were more beaver colonies in a monitored area 13 years after wolf reintroduction began (12 colonies) than at the start of reintroduction (one colony). Average summer bison counts were higher in the decade after wolf reintroduction began (1,385 bison) than in the preceding decade (708 bison). Following the start of reintroduction in 1995–1996, wolf numbers in the study area increased to 98 in 2003, followed by a decline and substantial fluctuations. Their establishment was associated with a fall in elk Cervus canadensis numbers from >15,000 in the early 1990s to approximately 6,100 in 2010. Elk browsing on woody vegetation reduced, increasing resources available to beaver and bison. Beaver and bison numbers were derived from annual surveys.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust