Non-random sampling measures the occurrence but not the strength of a textbook trophic cascade.

Although sampling the five tallest young aspen in a stand is useful for detecting the occurrence of any aspen recruitment, this technique overestimates the population response of aspen to wolf reintroduction. Our original conclusion that random sampling described a trophic cascade that was weaker than the one described by non-random sampling is unchanged.

Sampling bias exaggerates a textbook example of a trophic cascade.

Understanding trophic cascades in terrestrial wildlife communities is a major challenge because these systems are difficult to sample properly. We show how a tradition of non-random sampling has confounded this understanding in a textbook system (Yellowstone National Park) where carnivore [Canis lupus (wolf)] recovery is associated with a trophic cascade involving changes in herbivore [Cervus canadensis (elk)] behaviour and density that promote plant regeneration. Long-term data indicate a practice of sampling only the tallest young plants overestimated regeneration of overstory aspen (Populus tremuloides) by a factor of 4-7 compared to random sampling because it favoured plants taller than the preferred browsing height of elk and overlooked non-regenerating aspen stands. Random sampling described a trophic cascade, but it was weaker than the one that non-random sampling described. Our findings highlight the critical importance of basic sampling principles (e.g. randomisation) for achieving an accurate understanding of trophic cascades in terrestrial wildlife systems.