Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Ecology and Evolution logoLink to Ecology and Evolution
. 2026 May 29;16(6):e73752. doi: 10.1002/ece3.73752

The King in the Crosshairs: Evidence of a Predation Attempt on European Bison by Wolves

Robin Rozemarijn Wijnands 1,✉, Tomasz Borowik 1
PMCID: PMC13239496  PMID: 42256166

ABSTRACT

The European bison ( Bison bonasus ), often referred to as ‘the king of the forest’, is a species with a unique and complex conservation story. The large mammal is often described as a non‐prey species, serving as a baseline reference in comparative ecological studies. However, historical data and our recent documented observation of wolves ( Canis lupus ) attacking a European bison herd suggest that they can be subjected to wolf predation. To our knowledge, we present the first video‐recorded evidence of wolves attacking a European bison herd in the Białowieża Primaeval Forest, focusing on a newborn calf. Although the video did not capture a direct kill, it suggests that other attacks on European bison could potentially be successful. This raises questions about what this could mean for conservation and management of both species and the extent of European bison‐wolf interactions. If wolf predation on bison occurs more frequently than presumed, it could potentially have ecological consequences.

Keywords: Białowieża primaeval Forest, Bison bonasus, Canis lupus, large carnivore, large herbivore, predator–prey interactions

To our knowledge, we present the first video‐recorded evidence of wolves attacking a European bison herd in the BPF. The European bison, often referred to as the king of the forest, is generally described as a non‐prey species, but historical data and our recent documented observation provide clear evidence that they can be subjected to wolf predation. We discuss potential implications for conservation and management and potential ecological consequences if these predation events occur more frequently than presumed.

graphic file with name ECE3-16-e73752-g001.jpg

1. Introduction

Predation is a fundamental phenomenon shaping various ecological processes, from ecosystem to individual scales (Schmitz 2017). It influences population size and structure, impacts nutrient cycling, triggers physiological stress responses, and pushes evolutionary adaptations (Abrams 2000; Leroux and Schmitz 2015; Schmitz 2017; Xu et al. 2019). Beyond its lethal effects, predation also induces a wide range of non‐lethal responses in prey species, for instance through shifts in activity patterns, increased vigilance and changes in habitat selection (Lima and Bednekoff 1999; Laundré et al. 2001, 2014; Kuijper et al. 2013). However, the strength and nature of both lethal and non‐lethal effects depend on ecological context, such as environmental conditions, the composition of predator communities with different hunting strategies, and the traits of prey species involved (Gervasi et al. 2012; Kuijper et al. 2016; Bonnot et al. 2020).

Body size is another key determinant of predator–prey interactions, often constraining prey selection (Clements et al. 2014). According to the optimal foraging theory, predators should select for prey that offer the highest energetic benefits and the lowest energetic costs (MacArthur and Pianka 1966; Charnov 1976). In multi‐prey systems, this generally leads to a preference for smaller and easier species when they are available (Sinclair et al. 2003; Annear et al. 2023). Additionally, prey possessing morphological defences or behavioural strategies (e.g., living in groups), may further reduce their vulnerability to predation (Hayward and Kerley 2005). Nevertheless, even when preferred prey are available, opportunistic predation on non‐preferred prey can still occur (Barnardo et al. 2020). Particularly juveniles of non‐preferred prey could provide a valuable option, since they are small and vulnerable, presenting an opportunity for predators to extend prey selection (Annear et al. 2023).

The European bison provides an example of how prey status can shift over time. While historically preyed upon by brown bears ( Ursus arctos ) and wolves, in recent times it is often classified as a non‐prey species (Samojlik et al. 2018; Churski et al. 2021). The history of the European bison, often referred to as ‘the king of the forest’, in the Białowieża Primaeval Forest (BPF) has been relatively well documented and shows high population dynamics. From the 14th to the 20th century, the BPF was a favoured hunting ground for monarchs due to its abundance of game species, including the European bison (Krasińska and Krasiński 2013). During this entire described period, information about mortality and population numbers was well recorded, making the story of the European bison a special case in conservation history. Although wolves killed “only” eight bison on a yearly basis during the period 1840–1849, they were considered a threat to the management of bison and therefore were a target of persecution (Samojlik et al. 2018, 2019). However, after this period there were still reports of wolves killing bison, specifically calves (Samojlik et al. 2019). The European bison went extinct in the wild in 1919, and after its reintroduction in the BPF in 1952, the reporting of wolves killing or attacking bison decreased, with the first official record of a bison kill in the winter of 1994–1995 (Jędrzejewska and Jędrzejewski 2001).

In more recent times, it is often mentioned that the European bison generally has no predators, apart from humans (Jędrzejewska et al. 1997; Jędrzejewski et al. 2002), likely due to its large body size and the availability of easier prey for predators. With the number of bison kills by wolves being negligible compared to other prey species (Jȩdrzejewski et al. 2000), the bison is often labelled as a non‐prey species and used as a baseline species in comparative ecological studies (e.g., Churski et al. 2021). The lethal effects of predators on European bison appear to be very limited. Since predation risk differs in space and time, prey live in a ‘landscape of fear’, where certain moments in time and space are considered risky, and therefore avoided by prey (Laundré et al. 2001; Kuijper et al. 2013). So far, there is no evidence that a landscape of fear induced by natural predators affects bison behaviour and space use in the BPF (Theuerkauf and Rouys 2008). This could be due to the fact that wolf diet in the BPF mostly consisted of roe deer ( Capreolus capreolus ), red deer ( Cervus elaphus ) and wild boar ( Sus scrofa ) (Jędrzejewski et al. 2002). Only a small portion of wolf diet involved European bison, and this occurred through scavenging on bison carcasses, with bison accounting for one‐fourth of all scavenging cases. Only one kill was documented in the timespan of 10 years (Jȩdrzejewski et al. 2000), indicating that bison kills by wolves are rare.

Nonetheless, on the North American continent, the American bison ( Bison bison ) has been described as a prey species for wolves (Smith et al. 2000; Jung 2011). Although these large mammals are not the wolves' main prey, likely because predating bison carries substantial risk, they still constitute a significant part of wolf diet (Smith et al. 2000; Newsome et al. 2016). The non‐lethal effects of wolves on American bison seem to be limited. For example, a comparison of elk ( Cervus canadensis ) and American bison habitat use in areas with and without wolf presence in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) showed that elk avoided open areas when wolves were present, whereas no such response was found in bison (Hernández and Laundré 2005). On the other hand, a study by Laundré et al. (2001), also conducted in YNP, showed that bison increased their vigilance levels in response to wolves, specifically females. After the reintroduction of wolves in YNP, 14 American bison kills were documented between 1995 and 1999. Most of these kills occurred during the colder seasons, when bison were either in poor condition, injured, or juvenile (Smith et al. 2000).

In this context, and in contrast to observations from North American systems, the apparent rarity of European bison‐wolf interactions in the BPF and European systems in general raises questions about whether the species' classification as a non‐prey species is fully justified. Based on historical data and recent reports of predation attempts, the labelling of the European bison as a non‐prey species may be inaccurate. There appears to be a lack of knowledge on the extent of European bison‐wolf interactions, as well as a lack of contemporary, direct observations. Such observations, of both attempted and successful predation events, remain scarce. This limits our understanding of whether and how wolves may influence European bison behaviour and ecology in modern populations. Such observations are relevant as they provide insight into predator–prey interactions, anti‐predator responses, and the potential ecological role of wolves in systems where both species coexist. In this study, we present the first video‐recorded predation attempt by wolves on European bison and discuss its relevance for understanding wolf‐bison interactions.

2. Methods and Results

The wolf attack on European bison was recorded in the Polish part of the Białowieża Primaeval Forest (BPF). The BPF is the oldest and most well‐preserved lowland temperate forest in Europe, consisting of various habitat types ranging from dry coniferous forests to marshlands (Modzelewska et al. 2020). The BPF houses a variety of mammal species, including five ungulate species: European bison, red deer, roe deer, moose ( Alces alces ) and wild boar, as well as two large predators: wolf (four packs of 8–12 individuals in winter) and Eurasian lynx (approximately 15 individuals) (Schmidt and Kuijper 2015; Bubnicki et al. 2019). The European bison population on the Polish side of the forest is currently estimated to surpass 870 individuals in the BPF. Since the bison is a protected species, hunting is generally forbidden.

The video of the wolf attack on European bison was recorded on a Browning Dark Ops Pro X 1080 trail camera. The camera trap was attached to a tree and was set to make 20 s video‐recordings with a 1 s interval between videos, though during day hours the camera could record up to 2 min maximum if consistent triggering occurred. The camera trap which captured the predation attempt was part of a bigger project consisting of 57 camera traps monitoring large mammal presence throughout the year (starting in April 2025).

The event was recorded on the 15th of September 2025, starting at 7:25 a.m. and ending at 7:47 a.m. (Video 1). The footage showed a pack of seven wolves attacking a European bison herd (n = 11), consisting of five adult cows, two adult bulls, one subadult bull, and three juveniles, one of which was a newborn calf (Figure 1; Video 1). The wolves focused their attack on the smallest, newborn calf. At 7:25 a.m., the wolf attack began: five wolves ran past the camera and then return into view. Three bison cows chased the wolves, which unintentionally left the newborn calf vulnerable. The wolves attacked the calf, biting its neck and attempting to drag it away, but were driven off by two adult cows (Figure 1a). After this first attempt, the calf ran away, but the wolves managed to seize it a second time (Figure 1b). This time, two adult bison charged at the wolves, aiming for the wolves with their horns, while the rest of the herd proceeded towards the calf. The adults surrounded the newborn, and the wolves seemed to terminate their attack (Figure 1c). At 7:27 a.m. one wolf ran past the camera trap, the rest of the pack or the bison herd were not within the frame. At 7:34 a.m., an adult cow was observed chasing one of the wolves away, while a second wolf trotted in the background. At 7:40 a.m., a cow and a bull walked by the camera trap, and at 7:47 a.m. an adult bull passed, indicating the end of the recorded event.

VIDEO 1.

Download video file (252MB, mp4)
Open in a new tab

A pack of wolves attacks a herd of European bison in the Białowieża Primaeval Forest. In the video recording, the wolves target a newborn calf twice to which the bison herd responds by defending the calf and charging towards the wolves. Source: Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences. Video content can be viewed at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.73752.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Wolves attack a herd of European bison in the Białowieża Primaeval Forest. (a) Wolves grab a newborn European bison calf while two adult cows charge towards the wolves to defend the calf. (b) Wolves grab the newborn European bison calf for the second time. The rest of the bison herd comes running in aid of the juvenile. (c) European bison circle around the newborn calf which was previously targeted twice during the wolf attack. After this event, the bison move away, and the wolf pack appears to give up. Source: Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences.

3. Discussion

While the European bison is generally considered a non‐prey species, we provided video‐recorded evidence of a predation attempt by wolves in the Białowieża Primaeval Forest (BPF). In our recording, wolves repeatedly targeted a bison calf, and the rest of the herd responded with anti‐predator behaviour, chasing the wolves away from the juvenile. Although the video did not show a direct kill, our observation demonstrated that the European bison is in fact a potential prey for wolves. This raises questions about why predation attempts are so rare, whether the bison can still be described as a non‐prey species, and what this could mean for conservation and management of the species.

Following the extinction and reintroduction of the European bison in the BPF, bison have been reintroduced in various parts of Europe as a part of bigger reintroduction and rewilding initiatives. Studies modelling habitat suitability for reintroductions, mainly focus on landcover (e.g., habitat type), elevation, and factors indexing anthropogenic pressure, disregarding both the non‐lethal and the lethal effects of predation risk by natural predators (Bleyhl et al. 2015; Lord et al. 2019). Predation is often mentioned as an afterthought, potentially causing mortality of a few individuals (e.g., Dănilă et al. 2022). However, there are reintroduction reports that mention predation attempts. For example, Aldea et al. (2022) reported predation attempts by brown bears and wolves in the Fagaras mountains, although no direct kills were observed. This might indicate that the European bison is a difficult prey species for large predators, a pattern also suggested by our observation, but predation attempts still occur. It is important to note that the lack of reported attempts and kills does not necessarily indicate a lack of predation events, as most such interactions are likely to go undetected.

In North America, MacNulty et al. (2014) recorded a successful attack by a wolf pack consisting of 13 individuals that captured an adult American bison, observed using a drone. The authors noted that pack size strongly impacted hunting success. According to their findings, two to six wolves are sufficient to capture an elk, whereas the optimal pack size for capturing and killing an adult American bison ranges from nine to 13 wolves. Similarly, historical reports from the BPF in the nineteenth century highlighted that attacks on European bison occurred in larger wolf packs of up to 10 individuals (Jędrzejewska and Jędrzejewski 2001). This indicates that European bison are difficult prey, especially for smaller wolf packs. In European ecosystems, the average pack size consists of 5–6 individuals, which is optimal for hunting their main prey, red deer (Jędrzejewski et al. 2004). In the BPF, the biggest wolf pack consisted of eight individuals back in 1997 (Jędrzejewski et al. 2004). At present, the maximum (winter) wolf pack size can range from five to 21 individuals (Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, unpublished data; Wijnands, personal observation), indicating a clear increase in pack sizes. Wolf pack size may be a limiting factor in predating European bison, as previous numbers might not have been sufficient to hunt such large and dangerous prey. Indeed, in our observation, the wolf pack size of seven individuals may have been inadequate to successfully kill the bison. However, with wolf pack sizes expanding, the probability of bison becoming a more common prey species might increase, with potentially cascading effects. This may also occur in other parts of Europe, where wolf numbers are continuing to grow (Kuijper et al. 2016). How the increases in wolf numbers and pack size affect predation events on European bison requires further investigation.

Reports from the nineteenth century in the BPF describe that during the majority of attempted attacks, bison would not always flee, but rather relied on defensive behaviour, such as charging or directing their head and horns towards the wolves. The success or failure of a hunting attempt is reliant on both the composition and size of the predator group as well as those of the prey group. Carbyn and Trottier (1988) suggested that herds composed of individuals of both sexes and various ages provide a more effective defence against predators. This was also observed in our video‐recording, where the wolves targeted a small calf, which should provide an easy opportunity because of its small body size and vulnerability. However, the adults in the herd defended the individual by charging towards the wolves, causing them to abort their attack on the juvenile. In a video posted by “Żubry Online” on Facebook (Żubry Online 2017), an attempted wolf attack on bison was recorded during the winter of 2017. In this video, a small pack of four wolves runs towards a group of bison, which respond by chasing the wolves, after which the wolves appear to abandon the predation attempt. Similar behaviour has been observed in free‐ranging cattle. In recent years, wolves have recolonised large parts of their former range, and species that lived without predators for over a century now have to co‐exist with them. Smit and Kuijper (2024) recorded a wolf attack on free‐ranging cattle in the Netherlands, where wolves targeted a Galloway calf. The herd protected the calf by charging at the wolves, chasing them away. It is apparent that European bison are capable of defending themselves against wolf attacks, and due to their large body size, it requires a large wolf pack to take down and kill a bison, especially adults. Bison calves, however, may be more vulnerable to predation, since they are small and cannot yet defend themselves (Jung 2011). Considering that bison possess effective defence strategies, non‐lethal effects are expected to be limited. Indeed, Theuerkauf and Rouys (2008) found that bison did not exhibit behavioural adaptations as a response to wolf predation risk. This could be due to the generally low predation risk reducing the need for adaptive responses. However, if predation becomes more frequent, non‐lethal effects may emerge, potentially influencing habitat use, activity patterns, vigilance levels or physiological stress.

In this context, an important aspect of both lethal and non‐lethal effects of predation on prey is physiological stress. Stress responses can either be acute or chronic, where acute stress is triggered by a direct threat and stress levels normally decrease once the event is over (Wingfield and Kitaysky 2002). Chronic stress can be caused by persevering and unpredictable factors, with potential negative effects on fertility and body condition (Boonstra et al. 1998). Stress responses of prey to predators do not always result in chronic stress, as stress can be omitted through behavioural adaptations (Tomasulo et al. 2026). In fact, it is even expected that chronic stress is absent in prey living among predators (Boonstra 2013). Indeed, Metrione et al. (2020) demonstrated an acute stress response following a wolf attack on American bison, but found no indication of chronic stress. In the BPF, European bison may experience acute stress during wolf encounters, but due to the low and inconsistent predation risk, it is unlikely to develop into chronic stress.

3.1. Conservation Implications

The success of conservation efforts and minimal culling have caused European bison numbers to increase significantly. Currently, there are 10 countries in Europe hosting free‐ranging European bison, with approximately 9762 individuals estimated in 2024 (Raczyński and Bołbot 2024). Although this achievement is a huge conservation success, there are mixed responses towards the presence of the European bison. Overpopulation of bison can damage habitats, indirectly affecting other mammal species, or cause bison to seek forage elsewhere, specifically croplands during winter (Olech and Perzanowski 2014). In Knyszyn forest, the bison population increased from 68 individuals to 123 individuals in the period 2008–2014. This increase in bison resulted in enhanced damage to crops, with economic damage ranging from €12,398 to €85,921 on a yearly basis (Sobczuk and Olech 2016). While culling European bison is generally avoided due to its protected status, predation by natural predators could potentially aid in maintaining population numbers if this occurs on a larger scale (Jung 2011).

Reintroduction and rewilding initiatives aiming to restore the European bison across its former range have generally assumed that predation plays a negligible role in population establishment or conservation success. However, as wolf ranges expand and population numbers increase, their interactions with large herbivores such as European bison may change. Such interactions may influence predator–prey dynamics not only through direct mortality, but also through behavioural responses such as vigilance, grouping, habitat use, and calf protection. This should be considered when assessing the ecological functioning of rewilded systems involving large predators and European bison. If the predation on European bison occurs on a greater scale than previously assumed, it could potentially contribute to naturally slowing the population growth, thereby heading towards a reduction in human‐bison conflicts. Yet, there remains a lack of up‐to‐date knowledge on interactions between European bison and large predators, especially with the recent increase in both bison and wolf population numbers. Therefore, future studies should focus on both the lethal and non‐lethal effects of predators on European bison in order to inform bison conservation strategies.

In conclusion, although no direct kills were observed, we provided evidence that the European bison is a potential prey for wolves. In North American systems, bison are a confirmed prey species, whereas in European systems bison are often labelled as “non‐prey” due to the small number of reported kills in the past 70 years. Even though confirmed kills are rare, the previously mentioned reports and our video‐recorded observation suggest that the European bison should no longer be classified as a non‐prey species. Additionally, there is a clear lack of an overview on how often bison are targeted by predators and how frequently such attempts are successful. Our finding may have implications for the conservation and future reintroductions of European bison in areas where they co‐exist with large predators. If predation on European bison, specifically young animals, occurs more frequently than previously assumed, wolves could play a small but potentially important role in the natural regulation of bison numbers. In turn, such regulation could possibly lead to mitigation of human‐bison conflicts.

Author Contributions

Robin Rozemarijn Wijnands: conceptualization (equal), writing – original draft (lead), writing – review and editing (equal). Tomasz Borowik: conceptualization (equal), writing – original draft (supporting), writing – review and editing (equal).

Funding

This work was supported by Narodowe Centrum Nauki, 2023/50/O/NZ8/00152.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank dr. habil. Rafał Kowalczyk and Nika Knez for providing feedback to improve the manuscript. Additionally, we would like to thank Wessel Veenbrink for providing comments on the early versions of the manuscript. Finally, we would like to thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions which helped improve the manuscript. This work was fully supported by the National Science Centre, Poland (grant number: 2023/50/O/NZ8/00152). For the purpose of Open Access, the authors have applied a CC‐BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission.

Data Availability Statement

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data, such as video material and photos, are included in the note. Video material was edited to remove empty frames and present the event described in the note as clearly as possible.

References

  1. Abrams, P. A. 2000. “The Evolution of Predator‐Prey Interactions: Theory and Evidence.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 31: 79–105. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.79. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldea, A. , Iosif R., and Serban C.. 2022. “Reintroduction of the European Bison ( Bison bonasus ) in Fagaras Mountains.” International Scientific Conference on the Return of the Bison to the Janow Forests, 8–9 September 2022.
  3. Annear, E. , Minnie L., Andrew K., and Kerley G. I.. 2023. “Can Smaller Predators Expand Their Prey Base Through Killing Juveniles? The Influence of Prey Demography and Season on Prey Selection for Cheetahs and Lions.” Oecologia 201, no. 3: 649–660. 10.1007/s00442-023-05335-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnardo, T. , Tambling C. J., Davies A. B., et al. 2020. “Opportunistic Feeding by Lions: Non‐Preferred Prey Comprise an Important Part of Lion Diets in a Habitat Where Preferred Prey Are Abundant.” Mammal Research 65, no. 2: 235–243. 10.1007/s13364-020-00481-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bleyhl, B. , Sipko T., Trepet S., et al. 2015. “Mapping Seasonal European Bison Habitat in the Caucasus Mountains to Identify Potential Reintroduction Sites.” Biological Conservation 191: 83–92. 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonnot, N. C. , Couriot O., Berger A., et al. 2020. “Fear of the Dark? Contrasting Impacts of Humans Versus Lynx on Diel Activity of Roe Deer Across Europe.” Journal of Animal Ecology 89, no. 1: 132–145. 10.1111/1365-2656.13161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Boonstra, R. 2013. “Reality as the Leading Cause of Stress: Rethinking the Impact of Chronic Stress in Nature.” Functional Ecology 27: 11–23. 10.1111/1365-2435.12008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Boonstra, R. , Hik D., Singleton G. R., and Tinnikov A.. 1998. “The Impact of Predator‐Induced Stress on the Snowshoe Hare Cycle.” Ecological Monographs 68: 371–394. 10.1890/0012-9615(1998)068[0371:TIOPIS]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bubnicki, J. W. , Churski M., Schmidt K., Diserens T. A., and Kuijper D. P. J.. 2019. “Linking Spatial Patterns of Terrestrial Herbivore Community Structure to Trophic Interactions.” eLife 8: e44937. 10.7554/eLife.44937. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carbyn, L. N. , and Trottier T.. 1988. “Descriptions of Wolf Attacks on Bison Calves in Wood Buffalo National Park.” Arctic 41, no. 4: 297–302. [Google Scholar]
  11. Charnov, E. L. 1976. “Optimal Foraging: The Marginal Value Theorem.” Theoretical Population Biology 752: 739–752. 10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Churski, M. , Spitzer R., Coissac E., et al. 2021. “How Do Forest Management and Wolf Space‐Use Affect Diet Composition of the Wolf's Main Prey, the Red Deer Versus a Non‐Prey Species, the European Bison?” Forest Ecology and Management 479: 118620. 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118620. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Clements, H. S. , Tambling C. J., Hayward M. W., and Kerley G. I. H.. 2014. “An Objective Approach to Determining the Weight Ranges of Prey Preferred by and Accessible to the Five Large African Carnivores.” PLoS One 9: e101054. 10.1371/journal.pone.0101054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dănilă, G. , Cătănoiu S., Simioniuc V., and Roșca S.. 2022. “The Reintroduction Analysis of European Bison ( Bison bonasus L., 1758) in the North of Romania and the Identification of the Most Favourable Locations.” Forests 13, no. 6: 920. 10.3390/f13060920. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gervasi, V. , Nilsen E. B., Sand H., et al. 2012. “Predicting the Potential Demographic Impact of Predators on Their Prey: A Comparative Analysis of Two Carnivore–Ungulate Systems in Scandinavia.” Journal of Animal Ecology 81, no. 2: 443–454. 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01928.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hayward, M. W. , and Kerley G. I. H.. 2005. “Prey Preferences of the Lion ( Panthera leo ).” Journal of Zoology 267: 309–322. 10.1017/S0952836905007508. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hernández, L. , and Laundré J. W.. 2005. “Foraging in the ‘Landscape of Fear’ and Its Implications for Habitat Use and Diet Quality of Elk Cervus Elaphus and Bison Bison bison .” Wildlife Biology 11, no. 3: 215–220. 10.2981/0909-6396(2005)11[215:FITLOF]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Jędrzejewska, B. , and Jędrzejewski W.. 2001. Ekologia zwierząt drapieżnych Puszczy Białowieskiej, 461. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jędrzejewska, B. , Jędrzejewski W., Bunevich A. N., Miłkowski L., and Krasiński Z. A.. 1997. “Factors Shaping Population Densities and Increase Rates of Ungulates in Białowieża Primeval Forest (Poland and Belarus) in the 19th and 20th Centuries.” Acta Theriologica 42, no. 4: 399–451. [Google Scholar]
  20. Jȩdrzejewski, W. , Jȩdrzejewska B., Okarma H., Schmidt K., Zub K., and Musiani M.. 2000. “Prey Selection and Predation by Wolves in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland.” Journal of Mammalogy 81, no. 1: 97–212. 10.1644/1545-1542(2000)081<0197:PSAPBW>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jędrzejewski, W. , Schmidt K., Jędrzejewska B., Theuerkauf J., Kowalczyk R., and Zub K.. 2004. “The Process of a Wolf Pack Splitting in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland.” Acta Theriologica 49: 275–280. 10.1007/BF03192527. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jędrzejewski, W. , Schmidt K., Theuerkauf J., et al. 2002. “Kill Rates and Predation by Wolves on Ungulate Populations in Bialowieza Primeval Forest (Poland).” Ecology 83, no. 5: 1341–1356. 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1341:KRAPBW]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Jung, T. S. 2011. “Gray Wolf ( Canis lupus ) Predation and Scavenging of Reintroduced American Bison ( Bison bison ) in Southwestern Yukon.” Northwestern Naturalist 92, no. 2: 126–130. 10.1898/10-07.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Krasińska, M. , and Krasiński Z. A.. 2013. European Bison Second Edition. The Nature Monograph, 380. Mammal Research Institute PAS. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kuijper, D. P. J. , De Kleine C., Churski M., Van Hooft P., Bubnicki J., and Jędrzejewska B.. 2013. “Landscape of Fear in Europe: Wolves Affect Spatial Patterns of Ungulate Browsing in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland.” Ecography 36, no. 12: 1263–1275. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00266.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuijper, D. P. J. , Sahlén E., Elmhagen B., et al. 2016. “Paws Without Claws? Ecological Effects of Large Carnivores in Anthropogenic Landscapes.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 283, no. 1841: 20161625. 10.1098/rspb.2016.1625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Laundré, J. W. , Hernández L., and Alterdorf K.. 2001. “Wolves, Elk and Bison: Reestablishing the “Landscape of Fear” in Yellowstone National Park, USA.” Canadian Journal of Zoology 79, no. 8: 1401–1409. 10.1139/z01-094. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Laundré, J. W. , Hernández L., Medina P. L., et al. 2014. “The Landscape of Fear: The Missing Link to Understand Top‐Down and Bottom‐Up Controls of Prey Abundance?” Ecology 95, no. 5: 1141–1152. 10.1890/13-1083.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Leroux, S. J. , and Schmitz O. J.. 2015. “Predator‐Driven Elemental Cycling: The Impact of Predation and Risk Effects on Ecosystem Stoichiometry.” Ecology and Evolution 5, no. 21: 4976–4988. 10.1002/ece3.1760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lima, S. L. , and Bednekoff P. A.. 1999. “Temporal Variation in Danger Drives Antipredator Behavior: The Predation Risk Allocation Hypothesis.” American Naturalist 153, no. 6: 649–659. 10.1086/303202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lord, C. M. , Wirebach K. P., Tompkins J., Bradshaw‐Wilson C., and Shaffer C. L.. 2019. “Reintroduction of the European Bison ( Bison bonasus ) in Central‐Eastern Europe: A Case Study.” International Journal of Geographical Information Science 34, no. 8: 1628–1647. 10.1080/13658816.2019.1672876. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. MacArthur, R. H. , and Pianka E. R.. 1966. “On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment.” American Naturalist 100, no. 916: 603–609. 10.1086/282454. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. MacNulty, D. R. , Tallian A., Stahler D. R., and Smith D. W.. 2014. “Influence of Group Size on the Success of Wolves Hunting Bison.” PLoS One 9, no. 11: e112884. 10.1371/journal.pone.0112884. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Metrione, L. C. , Hunter D., and Penfold L. M.. 2020. “Seasonal Changes in Fecal Glucocorticoid Metabolite Concentrations in Bison ( Bison bison ) Living With or Without Wolves ( Canis lupus ).” Journal of Wildlife Diseases 56, no. 1: 175–178. 10.7589/2017-12-308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Modzelewska, A. , Fassnacht F. E., and Stereńczak K.. 2020. “Tree Species Identification Within an Extensive Forest Area With Diverse Management Regimes Using Airborne Hyperspectral Data.” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 84: 101960. 10.1016/j.jag.2019.101960. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Newsome, T. M. , Boitani L., Chapron G., et al. 2016. “Food Habits of the World's Grey Wolves.” Mammal Review 46, no. 4: 255–269. 10.1111/mam.12067. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Olech, W. , and Perzanowski K. (eds). 2014. Podręcznik najlepszych praktyk ochrony żubra, 1–98. Centrum Koordynacji Projektów Środowiskowych. [Google Scholar]
  38. Raczyński, J. , and Bołbot M.. 2024. European Bison Pedigree Book. Białowieża National Park. [Google Scholar]
  39. Samojlik, T. , Fedotova A., Borowik T., and Kowalczyk R.. 2019. “Historical Data on European Bison Management in Białowieża Primeval Forest Can Contribute to a Better Contemporary Conservation of the Species.” Mammal Research 64, no. 4: 543–557. 10.1007/s13364-019-00437-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Samojlik, T. , Selva N., Daszkiewicz P., Fedotova A., Wajrak A., and Kuijper D. P. J.. 2018. “Lessons From Białowieża Forest on the History of Protection and the World's First Reintroduction of a Large Carnivore.” Conservation Biology 32, no. 4: 808–816. 10.1111/cobi.13088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Schmidt, K. , and Kuijper D. P. J.. 2015. “A “Death Trap” in the Landscape of Fear.” Mammal Research 60: 275–284. 10.1007/s13364-015-0229-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Schmitz, O. 2017. “Predator and Prey Functional Traits: Understanding the Adaptive Machinery Driving Predator‐Prey Interactions.” F1000Research 6: 1767. 10.12688/f1000research.11813.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Sinclair, A. R. E. , Mduma S., and Brashares J. S.. 2003. “Patterns of Predation in a Diverse Predator–Prey System.” Nature 425: 288–290. 10.1038/nature01934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Smit, C. , and Kuijper D. P. J.. 2024. “Free‐Ranging Cattle and the Return of the Wolf: Behavioral Responses and Implications for Conservation Management.” Wildlife Biology 2024, no. 6: e01237. 10.1002/wlb3.01237. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Smith, D. W. , Mech L. D., Meagher M., et al. 2000. “Wolf–Bison Interactions in Yellowstone National Park.” Journal of Mammalogy 81, no. 4: 1128–1135. 10.1644/1545-1542(2000)081<1128:WBIIYN>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sobczuk, M. , and Olech W.. 2016. “Damage to the Crops Inflicted by European Bison Living in the Knyszyn Forest.” European Bison Conservation Newsletter 9: 39–48. [Google Scholar]
  47. Theuerkauf, J. , and Rouys S.. 2008. “Habitat Selection by Ungulates in Relation to Predation Risk by Wolves and Humans in the Białowieża Forest, Poland.” Forest Ecology and Management 256, no. 6: 1325–1332. 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tomasulo, C. , Losada M., Kołodziej‐Sobocińska M., and Schmidt K.. 2026. “Predation Risk‐Induced Stress in Vertebrates: Are Ungulates Equally Susceptible?” Hormones and Behavior 177: 105869. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2025.105869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Wingfield, J. C. , and Kitaysky A. S.. 2002. “Endocrine Responses to Unpredictable Environmental Events: Stress or Anti‐Stress Hormones?” Integrative and Comparative Biology 42, no. 3: 600–609. 10.1093/icb/42.3.600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Xu, J. J. , Fu S. J., and Fu C.. 2019. “Physiological and Behavioral Stress Responses to Predators Are Altered by Prior Predator Experience in Juvenile Qingbo (Spinibarbus sinensis).” Biology Open 8, no. 5: bio041012. 10.1242/bio.041012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Żubry Online . 2017. “Dzisiejsza śnieżna noc wydała się wilkom znakomitą okazją na polowanie.” Żubry Online | Facebook. Krótka konfrontacja pokazała jednak, kto tu rządzi. Podglądanie dzikiej przyrody nigdy nam się nie znudzi, a Wam? #bliskiespotkanie #żubrygórą #wilkionline #ŻubryOnline.

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data, such as video material and photos, are included in the note. Video material was edited to remove empty frames and present the event described in the note as clearly as possible.

Articles from Ecology and Evolution are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES