Summary: A long‐term (13‐year) data set, based on > 4000 kills, was used to test whether a sympatric group of large predators adheres to the theoretical predictions that (1) mean prey body size and (2) prey diversity increase as functions of predator body size. All kills observed by safari guides are documented routinely in Mala Mala Private Game Reserve, South Africa. We analysed these records for lion (Panthera leo, Linnaeus), leopard (Panthera pardus, Linnaeus), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus, Schreber) and African wild dog (Lycaon pictus, Temminck). Males and females of the sexually dimorphic felid species were treated as functionally distinct predator types. Prey types were classified by species, sex and age class. Prey profiles were compared among predator types in terms of richness and evenness to consider how both the range of prey types used and the dominance of particular prey types within each range may be influenced by predator size. No significant size‐dependent relationships were found, so factors separate from or additional to body size must explain variation in prey diversity across sympatric predators. A statistically strong relationship was found between mean prey mass and predator mass (r² = 0·86, P= 0·002), although pairwise comparisons showed that most predators killed similar prey despite wide differences in predator size. Also, minimum prey mass was independent of predator mass while maximum prey mass was strongly dependent on predator mass (r² = 0·71, P= 0·017). The ecological significance is that larger predators do not specialize on larger prey, but exploit a wider range of prey sizes.

Rewilding, here defined as “the reorganisation of biota and ecosystem processes to set an identified social–ecological system on a preferred trajectory, leading to the self‐sustaining provision of ecosystem services with minimal ongoing management,” is increasingly considered as an environmental management option, with potential for enhancing both biodiversity and ecosystem services. Despite burgeoning interest in the concept, there are uncertainties and difficulties associated with the practical implementation of rewilding projects, while the evidence available for facilitating sound decision‐making for rewilding initiatives remains elusive. We identify five key research areas to inform the implementation of future rewilding initiatives: increased understanding of the links between actions and impacts; improved risk assessment processes, through, for example, better definition and quantification of ecological risks; improved predictions of spatio‐temporal variation in potential economic costs and associated benefits; better identification and characterisation of the likely social impacts of a given rewilding project; and facilitated emergence of a comprehensive and practical framework for the monitoring and evaluation of rewilding projects. Policy implications. Environmental legislation is commonly based on a “compositionalist” paradigm itself predicated on the preservation of historical conditions characterised by the presence of particular species assemblages and habitat types. However, global environmental change is driving some ecosystems beyond their limits so that restoration to historical benchmarks or modern likely equivalents may no longer be an option. This means that the current environmental policy context could present barriers to the broad implementation of rewilding projects. To progress the global rewilding agenda, a better appreciation of current policy opportunities and constraints is required. This, together with a clear definition of rewilding and a scientifically robust rationale for its local implementation, is a prerequisite to engage governments in revising legislation where required to facilitate the operationalisation of rewilding.