AbstractApplying research results to new locations and situations can be confounded by differences in the geographic context between the original and the applied study sites. Replication studies and meta‐analyses may be similarly hindered. We investigated how often canid management research reports (e.g., journal articles, conference proceedings) included information on historical/current lethal control, alternative prey availability, landscape features, and seasonal and settlement characteristics. We included experimental research published between 1970 and 2018, focusing on livestock depredations by wolves and coyotes in North America. Reporting on contextual factors was highly variable; seasonal context was included in 83% of research findings; human settlement characteristics were reported in only 8%. Contextual information was more common in journal versus grey literature, and in reports with academic versus government‐affiliated primary authors. Discussions of the effects of contextual factors on livestock depredation mitigation strategies were underdeveloped. Yet, geographic context of research is vital; it can alter animal behaviour and reduce the efficacy of applied mitigation. We suggest reporting guidelines to improve comparisons and meta‐analysis opportunities, which may enhance comparisons and management decision making.