Not to be downer, but recent studies have not corroborated those effects.

>One of the most celebrated claims about Yellowstone’s wolves is facing a major challenge. Scientists say the study behind the famous trophic cascade story relied on flawed methods that overstated the ecological impact of wolf recovery. Their reanalysis found no evidence for a dramatic, park-wide surge in willow growth. Instead, the effects appear smaller and vary from place to place.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/06/260613215510.h...

Is there a word for a popular misconception that nonetheless produces a positive result? The understanding by the public of the effects could be completely wrong, but the reintroduction of wolves and the restoration of Yellowstone are still good things.