Interesting. It would seem that two different types of situations occur. In one fire destroys ground cover indiscriminately along with small trees (certain types excepted, such as pitch pine, which REQUIRES fire for the cones to open).
In the other, what the article is saying is that areas overgrazed by deer are relieved of that pressure by the presence of wolf packs which drive them from open areas, allowing reforestation in those areas.
I never heard of this scenario with the “magic” wolves before, but what they are saying here appears to make some kind of sense.
I don’t know if this somethnig that reliable ecologists have worked out, or some group opposed to wolf hunting. I just don’t know.
The study I linked to said the opposite. You've got George Moonbat and the BBC claiming it's the magic of wolves.
When you're comparing the destructive force of a wildfire to the minor impact of wolves occasionally redirecting ungulate grazing for causing change in vegetative growth, the non-insane person would recognize that fire is more direct and powerful agent.
The 1988 wildfires burned down over a third of Yellowstone and in the middle of the natural regeneration they introduce wolves and then claim the natural result of fire induced regeneration is somehow the result of the magical presence of wolves. It's utter bison scat and propaganda.
I use the term magical, because that's how all the pro wolf nuts talk about them, all breathy spiritualism.