Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 1285–1289 | Cite as

Why we should let rewilding be wild and biodiverse

  • Luísa GenesEmail author
  • Jens-Christian Svenning
  • Alexandra S. Pires
  • Fernando A. S. Fernandez


Rewilding has been intensely debated among conservationists and ecologists. Multiple definitions and conceptual frameworks have been proposed for rewilding programmes, but hitherto all with a focus on promoting biodiversity conservation via restoration of ecological processes. Recently, however, it has been proposed to instead focus rewilding on the promotion of self-sustaining provisioning of preferred ecosystem services. Such shift in focus comes with an increased risk that rewilding efforts could be designed towards the promotion of simplified ecosystems providing selected ecosystem services, despite negative effects on biodiversity, as well as considerable socio-economic risks and ethical problems. We argue that rewilding should keep its focus on promoting biodiversity, with provisioning of other ecosystem services being integrated in the design of rewilding projects only as co-benefits. If such services become the main motivation for rewilding projects, there is a risk of misinterpretations and rewilding promoting less diverse ecosystems.


Biodiversity conservation Ecosystem services Reintroduction Restoration Rewilding 



This work was partly supported by Student Conference on Conservation Science Miriam Rothschild Travel Bursary Programme, which provided a Grant to LG. LG was also supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ). FASF and ASP receive personal grants by Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). FASF, ASP and LG receive support from Fundação Grupo Boticário de Proteção à Natureza (0010/2014), CNPq (Grant Numbers: 487092/2012-4 and 308356/2014-4) and FAPERJ (Grant Number: E-26/010/001645/2014). We thank the REFAUNA team for previous profitable discussions. JCS considers this work a contribution to his Carlsberg Foundation Semper Ardens project MegaPast2Future (Grant CF16-0005) and to his VILLUM Investigator project “Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World” funded by VILLUM FONDEN (Grant 16549). Mauro Galetti substantially contributed to initial discussions on this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare no conflicts of interest.


  1. Abreu RCR, Durigan G (2011) Changes in the plant community of a Brazilian grassland savannah after 22 years of invasion by Pinus elliottii Engelm. Plant Ecol Divers 4:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balaguer L, Escudero A, Martín-Duque JF et al (2014) The historical reference in restoration ecology: re-defining a cornerstone concept. Biol Conserv 176:12–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A et al (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi YD (2007) Restoration ecology to the future: a call for new paradigm. Restor Ecol 15:351–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corlett RT (2016) Restoration, reintroduction, and rewilding in a changing world. Trends Ecol Evol 31(6):453–462. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Donlan J, Greene HW, Berger J et al (2005) Re-wilding North America. Nature 436:913–914. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall SJG (2018) A novel agroecosystem: beef production in abandoned farmland as a multifunctional alternative to rewilding. Agric Syst 167:10–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harris JA, Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Aronson J (2006) Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restor Ecol 14:170–176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Higgs E, Falk DA, Guerrini A et al (2014) The changing role of history in restoration ecology. Front Ecol Environ 12:499–506. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Harris JA (2009) Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol Evol 24:599–605. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Laughlin DC, Strahan RT, Huffman DW, Sánchez Meador AJ (2017) Using trait-based ecology to restore resilient ecosystems: historical conditions and the future of montane forests in western North America. Restor Ecol 25:S135–S146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Navarro LM, Pereira HM (2012) Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems 15:900–912. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Oliveira-Santos LGR, Fernandez FAS (2010) Pleistocene rewilding, Frankenstein ecosystems, and an alternative conservation agenda. Conserv Biol 24:4–5. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Pauchard A, García R, Zalba S et al (2015) Pine invasions in south america: reducing their ecological impacts through active management. In: Canning-Clode J (ed) Biological invasions in changing ecosystems. De Gruyter Open, Warsaw, pp 318–342Google Scholar
  15. Pettorelli N, Barlow J, Stephens PA, Durant SM, Connor B, Bühne HS, Sandom CJ, Wentworth J, du Toit JT, Nuñez M (2018) Making rewilding fit for policy. J Appl Ecol 55(3):1114–1125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simberloff D, Nuñez MA, Ledgard NJ et al (2010) Spread and impact of introduced conifers in South America: lessons from other southern hemisphere regions. Austral Ecol 35:489–504. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Soulé ME, Noss RF (1998) Rewilding and biodiversity conservation as complementary goals for continental conservation. Wild Earth 8:18–28Google Scholar
  18. Svenning J-C, Pedersen PBM, Donlan CJ et al (2016) Science for a wilder Anthropocene: synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:898–906. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Tewksbury JJ, Rogers HS (2014) An animal-rich future. Science 345:400. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Torres A, Fernández N, Ermgassen SZ et al (2018) Measuring rewilding progress. Philos Trans R Soc B. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de EcologiaUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Section for Ecoinformatics & Biodiversity, Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversitetAarhus CDenmark
  3. 3.Center for Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World (BIOCHANGE)Aarhus UniversitetAarhusDenmark
  4. 4.Departamento de Ciências AmbientaisUniversidade Federal Rural do Rio de JaneiroSeropédicaBrazil

Personalised recommendations