Editor’s note:
On 20 August 2025, Science Advances published the Research Article “Elusive effects of legalized wolf hunting on human-wolf interactions” by L. M. Merz et al. (1). On 3 September 2025, an Editorial Expression of Concern (2) alerted readers that the authors had informed the journal of a discrepancy with the livestock predation data used in the publication. The authors have corrected the paper as described in the Erratum (3). These changes have addressed concerns about the integrity of the paper. Therefore, Science Advances has removed the Editorial Expression of Concern. We thank the authors for bringing these issues to our attention.
—H. Holden Thorp
Editor-in-Chief, Science Advances
References
1. L. M. Merz, B. Clemm von Hohenberg, N. T. Bergmann, J. T.Bruskotter, N. H.Carter, Elusive effects of legalized wolf hunting on human-wolf interactions. Sci. Adv. 11, eadu8945 (2025).
2. H.Holden Thorp, Editorial expression of concern. Sci.Adv. 11, eaeb8930 (2025).
3. Editor’s note and erratum for the Research “Elusive effects of legalized wolf hunting on human-wolf interactions” by L. M. Merz et al. Sci. Adv. 12, eaee9299 (2026).
Erratum:
The original version of the Research Article “Elusive effects of legalized wolf hunting on human-wolf interactions” by L. M. Merz et al. contained an error with the livestock predation data used in the publication.
The following corrections have been implemented and the main text, Figs. 1, 2, and 6, and the Supplementary Materials PDF have been corrected.
• In the Results, in “Effect on livestock depredation,” the following corrections have been made to the text:
Original text: “We found that in both the PanelMatch (Fig. 1A) and TWFE (Fig. 1, B and C) models, the coefficients for the effect of legally hunting wolves on livestock predation were negative. In all but one model (PanelMatch for the outcome in the same period), they reached conventional levels of statistical significance. These negative effects support the idea that more hunted wolves leads to lower livestock predation, although with some degree of uncertainty, as not all models are statistically significant, especially when examining our robustness checks. Specifically, the PanelMatch models become insignificant for most robustness specifications”
Corrected text: “We find consistent negative effects for the TWFE models, although one of them is only marginally statistically significant. The PanelMatch model yield null effects. Collectively, these results provide some support for the idea that more hunted wolves leads to lower livestock predation - although as not all models are statistically significant, especially when examining our robustness checks, the overall picture remains mixed.”
Original text, “Substantively, a coefficient of −0.024 (SE = 0.009) in the continuous TWFE model (t + 0) means that hunting one additional wolf is associated with a 2.34% [95% CI: 0.64%, 4.08%] decrease in expected livestock depredations. Livestock depredations averaged three per county annually, so reducing depredations by 2.34% for each wolf killed in that same year would lead to a savings of ~0.07 livestock. In a county at the 90th percentile of depredations (about seven livestock depredations as baseline), those losses could be reduced by 0.17 livestock for each wolf killed. Turning to our binary TWFE (t + 0), the estimated effect size of −0.884 (SE = 0.221) for hunting any wolves translates into a decrease of 58.7% [95% CI: 36.3%, 73.2%] of livestock depredations.”
Corrected text: “Substantively, a coefficient of −0.0179 (SE = 0.008) in the continuous TWFE model (t + 0) means that hunting one additional wolf is associated with a 1.77% [95% CI: 0.22%, 3.30%] decrease in expected livestock depredations. Livestock depredations averaged three per county annually, so reducing depredations by 1.77% for each wolf killed in that same year would lead to a savings of ~0.05 livestock. In a county at the 90th percentile of depredations (about five livestock depredations as baseline), those losses could be reduced by ~0.09 livestock for each wolf killed. Turning to our binary TWFE (t + 0), the estimated effect size of −0.479 (SE = 0.211) for hunting any wolves translates into a decrease of 38.06% [95% CI: 6.33%, 59.04%] of livestock depredations.”
Original text, “The continuous coefficient is a per-unit effect; one unit is small relative to the observed range, so the per-unit change looks modest but compounds over realistic increments (e.g., 10 more hunted wolves translates to a predicted 21% decrease in livestock losses; 50 more hunted wolves to a 70% decrease in livestock losses).”
Corrected text: “The continuous coefficient is a per-unit effect; one unit is small relative to the observed range, so the per-unit change looks modest but compounds over realistic increments (e.g., 10 more hunted wolves translates to a predicted ~16% decrease in livestock losses; 50 more hunted wolves to a ~59% decrease).”
Original text, “The TWFE models remain statistically significant when measuring livestock depredation separately for sheep/cattle or in AUM (fig. S6), when only including counties from Montana and Idaho in the models (fig. S8). However, they become mostly insignificant when subsetting the data to 2012 and later when wolf numbers were roughly stable (fig. S12).”
Corrected text: “The TWFE models remain largely statistically significant when measuring livestock depredation separately for sheep/cattle or in AUM (fig. S6), but not when only including counties from Montana and Idaho in the models (fig. S8). They also become insignificant when subsetting the data to 2012 and later when wolf numbers were roughly stable (fig. S12).”
Original text, “For example, if wolf abundance was correlated to both variables at r = 0.5, then the coefficient for the effect of wolf harvests in the continuous TWFE model (t + 0) would change from −0.024 to −0.038.”
Corrected text: “For example, if wolf abundance was correlated with both variables at r = 0.5, then the coefficient for the effect of wolf harvests in the continuous TWFE model (t + 0) would change from −0.0179 to −0.029.”
Original text, “The dynamic panel models, which allow for the possibility that public wolf hunting is affected by earlier livestock predation/government removals, indicate an effect of wolf hunting on livestock predation in one specification but not the other.”
Corrected text: “The dynamic panel models, which allow for the possibility that public wolf hunting is affected by earlier livestock predation/government removals, indicate an effect of wolf hunting on livestock predation in both specifications.”
Original text: “Using alternative measures of predation (fig. S7) yields similar results.”
Corrected text: “Using alternative measures of predation (fig. S7) yields similar results, though not significant in all cases.”
• In the Discussion, the following corrections have been made to the text:
Original text, “However, wolf populations in Idaho and Montana have been relatively stable at the state level since 2012; hence, we ran robustness checks that subset the data to 2012 to 2021. The subsetted models and our sensitivity analysis suggest that trends in wolf population sizes across our study system did not confound the models.”
Corrected text: “However, wolf populations in Idaho and Montana have been relatively stable at the state level since 2012; hence, we ran robustness checks that subset the data to 2012 to 2021. We included models subsetted to the stable period of 2012 to 2021 and a sensitivity analysis to address the potential impact of wolf abundance on our results.”
• In the Materials and Methods, in “Variables,” the following corrections have been made to the text:
Original text: “We obtained temporal-spatial data on wolf hunting, wolf removals, and livestock depredation for the US states Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington from 2005 to 2021. All our variables were measured at the county- year level.”
Corrected text: “We obtained temporal-spatial data on wolf hunting, wolf removals, and livestock depredation for the US states Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington from 2005 to 2021. Livestock depredation data was unavailable for Montana from 2005-2007 and therefore was entered as null values. All our variables were measured at the county- year level.”
• Figs. 1, 2, and 6 have been updated to include the corrected data.
• The Fig. 6 caption was corrected from “Fig. 6. Geographic distribution of livestock predated. We use four select time periods, 2005 (A), 2010 (B), 2015 (C), and 2020 (D) to highlight temporal changes in the number of livestock predated by wolves at the county level in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. White indicates zero livestock predated, and darker shades of blue indicate higher numbers of livestock predated.” to “Fig. 6. Geographic distribution of livestock predated. We use four select time periods, 2005 (A), 2010 (B), 2015 (C), and 2020 (D) to highlight temporal changes in the number of livestock predated by wolves at the county level in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. White indicates zero lethal removals and darker shades of blue indicate higher numbers of livestock predated. Predation data was unavailable in Montana for 2005 to 2007 and was therefore entered as null values.”
• In the Supplementary Materials, figs. S3. S5, S6, S8, S9, S12, and S14 have been updated to include the corrected data.
• In the Supplementary Materials, the captions for figs. S3 and S5 have been updated to include the following sentence: “Predation data was unavailable in Montana for 2005-2007 and was therefore entered as null values.”
Citation: Editor’s note and erratum for the Research Article: “Elusive effects of legalized wolf hunting on human-wolf interactions” by L. M. Merz et al. Sci. Adv. 12, eaee9299 (2026).