Advertisement

Ambio

pp 1–14 | Cite as

Trophic Rewilding Advancement in Anthropogenically Impacted Landscapes (TRAAIL): A framework to link conventional conservation management and rewilding

  • Pil Birkefeldt Møller PedersenEmail author
  • Rasmus Ejrnæs
  • Brody Sandel
  • Jens-Christian Svenning
Research Article

Abstract

A variety of rewilding initiatives are being implemented across Europe, generally characterized by a more functionalist approach to nature management compared to the classic compositional approach. To address the increasing need for a framework to support implementation of rewilding in practical management, we present TRAAIL—Trophic Rewilding Advancement in Anthropogenically Impacted Landscapes. TRAAIL has been co-produced with managers and other stakeholders and provides managers with a framework to categorize rewilding initiatives and to link conventional nature management and rewilding by guiding steps towards a higher degree of self-regulation. Applying TRAAIL to data obtained in a Danish survey of rewilding-inspired initiatives we find that out of 44 initiatives there is no “Full rewilding” initiatives, 3 “Near-full rewilding” initiatives, 23 “Partial rewilding” initiatives, 2 “minimal rewilding” initiatives and 16 “Effort-intensive conservation management” initiatives. This study shows how TRAAIL can guide and inform trophic rewilding on a local and national scale.

Keywords

Categorization Conservation management Ecological restoration Large herbivores Protected areas Trophic rewilding 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Aarhus University (PBMP) and the Aage V. Jensen Foundations (PBMP, RE). We also consider this study a contribution to JCS’s Carlsberg Foundation Semper Arden project MegaPast2Future (grant CF16-0005), to the Danish National Research Foundation Niels Bohr professorship project Aarhus University Research on the Anthropocene (AURA), and to JCS’ VILLUM Investigator project (VILLUM FONDEN, grant 16549). The authors would like to thank an editor and two reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve this work. For feedback on the TRAAIL model the authors would like to thank the members of EnviNa (Environment and Nature), The Nature Agency (Naturstyrelsen), and participants at the workshop “Visual Communication Clinic” at University of Cambridge (organized by University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute (UCCRI) and Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (C-EENRG)).

Supplementary material

13280_2019_1192_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (130 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 130 kb)

References

  1. Aaris-Sørensen, K. 2009. Diversity and dynamics of the mammalian fauna in Denmark throughout the last glacial–interglacial cycle, 115-0 kyr BP. In Fossils and strata, ed. G.M. Svend Stouge. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Bakker, E.S., J.L. Gill, C.N. Johnson, F.W. Vera, C.J. Sandom, G.P. Asner, and J.C. Svenning. 2016. Combining paleo-data and modern exclosure experiments to assess the impact of megafauna extinctions on woody vegetation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America 113: 847–855.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502545112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barkham, P. 2018. The magical wilderness farm: raising cows among the weeds at Knepp. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/15/the-magical-wilderness-farm-raising-cows-among-the-weeds-at-knepp. Accessed 30 March 2019.
  4. Barnosky, A.D., N. Matzke, S. Tomiya, G.O.U. Wogan, B. Swartz, T.B. Quental, C. Marshall, J.L. McGuire, et al. 2011. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471: 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barras, C. 2016. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is arguably a nature reserve. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve. Accessed 30 March 2019.
  6. Bern Convention. 1979. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Bern.Google Scholar
  7. Berthelsen, J.P., and M. Nitschke. 2015. Overvågning af Castor fiber i Vestjylland 2011–2014. Nationalt center for miljø og energi (in Danish).Google Scholar
  8. Braczkowski, A.R., C.J. O’Bryan, M.J. Stringer, J.E.M. Watson, H.P. Possingham, and H.L. Beyer. 2018. Leopards provide public health benefits in Mumbai, India. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16: 176–182.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunbjerg, A.K., H.H. Bruun, J.E. Moeslund, J.P. Sadler, J.C. Svenning, and R. Ejrnæs. 2018. Ecospace: A unified framework for understanding variation in terrestrial biodiversity. Basic and Applied Ecology 18: 86–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2016.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CBD. 2010. Revised and updated strategic plan: Technical rationale and suggested milestones and indicators. Nagoya: CBD.Google Scholar
  11. Cromsigt, J.P.G.M., Y.J.M. Kemp, E. Rodriguez, and H. Kivit. 2017. Rewilding Europe’s large grazer community: How functionally diverse are the diets of European bison, cattle, and horses? Restoration Ecology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12661.Google Scholar
  12. Dirzo, R., H.S. Young, M. Galetti, G. Ceballos, N.J. Isaac, and B. Collen. 2014. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345: 401–406.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doughty, C.E., J. Roman, S. Faurby, A. Wolf, A. Haque, E.S. Bakker, Y. Malhi, J.B. Dunning Jr., et al. 2016. Global nutrient transport in a world of giants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America 113: 868–873.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502549112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ESRI. 2018. ArcGIS. Redland: ESRI.Google Scholar
  15. Estes, J.A., J. Terborgh, J.S. Brashares, M.E. Power, J. Berger, W.J. Bond, S.R. Carpenter, T.E. Essington, et al. 2011. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333: 301–306.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1205106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Estes, J.A., M.T. Tinker, T.M. Williams, and D.F. Doak. 1998. Killer whale predation on sea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282: 473–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission. 1992a. Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. 1992b. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. 2011. The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission. 2013. Guidelines on wilderness in Natura 2000. Management of terrestrial wildernesses and wild areas within the Natura 2000 Network. Technical report 2013-069.Google Scholar
  21. Fernández, N., L.M. Navarro, and H.M. Pereira. 2017. Rewilding: A call for boosting ecological complexity in conservation. Conservation Letters.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12374.Google Scholar
  22. Galetti, M., M. Moleon, P. Jordano, M.M. Pires, P.R. Guimaraes Jr., T. Pape, E. Nichols, D. Hansen, et al. 2018. Ecological and evolutionary legacy of megafauna extinctions. Biological Reviews 93: 845–862.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gillson, L., R.J. Ladle, and M.B. Araujo. 2011. Baselines, patterns and process. In Conservation biogeography, eds. R.J. Ladle and R.J. Whittaker. Blackwell Publisher.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444390001.
  24. Griffiths, C.J., D.M. Hansen, C.G. Jones, N. Zuël, and S. Harris. 2011. Resurrecting extinct interactions with extant substitutes. Current Biology 21: 762–765.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Halada, L., D. Evans, C. Romão, and J.-E. Petersen. 2011. Which habitats of European importance depend on agricultural practices? Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 2365–2378.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-9989-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hermoso, V., M. Clavero, D. Villero, and L. Brotons. 2017. EU’s conservation efforts need more strategic investment to meet continental commitments. Conservation Letters 10: 231–237.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodder, K.H., J.M. Bullock, P.C. Buckland, and K.J. Kirby. 2005. Large herbivores in the wildwood and modern naturalistic grazing systems. Peterborough: English Nature.Google Scholar
  28. Hughes, F.M.R., W.M. Adams, and P.A. Stroh. 2012. When is open-endedness desirable in restoration projects? Restoration Ecology 20: 291–295.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100x.2012.00874.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hughes, A.O., C.C. Tanner, L.A. McKergow, and J.P.S. Sukias. 2016. Unrestricted dairy cattle grazing of a pastoral headwater wetland and its effect on water quality. Agricultural Water Management 165: 72–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.11.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Janzen, D.H. 1984. Dispersal of small seeds by big herbivores—Foliage is the fruit. American Naturalist 123: 338–353.  https://doi.org/10.1086/284208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jepson, P. 2018. Rewilding’s next generation will mean no more reserves full of starving animals. http://theconversation.com/rewildings-next-generation-will-mean-no-more-reserves-full-of-starving-animals-96140. Accessed 30 March 2019.
  32. Jepson, P., and F. Schepers. 2016. Making space for rewilding: Creating an enabling policy environment. Nijmegen: Rewilding Europe.Google Scholar
  33. Jepson, P., F. Schepers, and W. Helmer. 2018. Governing with nature: A European perspective on putting rewilding principles into practice. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society B Biological Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0434.Google Scholar
  34. Jørgensen, D. 2015. Rethinking rewilding. Geoforum 65: 482–488.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kowalczyk, R., P. Taberlet, E. Coissac, A. Valentini, C. Miquel, T. Kamiński, and J.M. Wójcik. 2011. Influence of management practices on large herbivore diet—Case of European bison in Białowieża Primeval Forest (Poland). Forest Ecology and Management 261: 821–828.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.11.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mannstedt, T. 2015. Biotopplege mit pferden. Auswirkungen einer ganzjährigen Beweidung mit Exmoor-Ponys (Equus ferus f. caballus) auf halboffene Weidelandschaften am Beispiel Süd-Langeland. Master Thesis. Georg-August University School of Science (GAUSS), Göttingen (in German, English summary).Google Scholar
  37. Ministry for Economic Affairs and the Interior. 2014. Kommunale nøgletal. Ministry for Economic Affairs and the Interior. www.noegletal.dk. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
  38. Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 4: 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Owen-Smith, N. 1987. Pleistocene extinctions: The pivotal role of megaherbivores. Paleobiology 13: 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perino, A., H.M. Pereira, L.M. Navarro, N. Fernández, J.M. Bullock, S. Ceaușu, A. Cortés-Avizanda, R. Van Klink, et al. 2019. Rewilding complex ecosystems. Science 364: eaav5570.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav5570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pettorelli, N., J. Barlow, P.A. Stephens, S.M. Durant, B. Connor, H.S.T. Buhne, C.J. Sandom, J. Wentworth, et al. 2018. Making rewilding fit for policy. Journal of Applied Ecology 55: 1114–1125.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prior, J., and K.J. Ward. 2016. Rethinking rewilding: A response to Jørgensen. Geoforum 69: 132–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  44. Rewilding Europe. 2016. Annual review 2015. Nijmegen: Rewilding Europe.Google Scholar
  45. Ripple, W.J., T.M. Newsome, C. Wolf, R. Dirzo, K.T. Everatt, M. Galetti, M.W. Hayward, G.I. Kerley, et al. 2015. Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Science Advances 1: e1400103.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosell, F., O. Bozsér, P. Collen, and H. Parker. 2005. Ecological impact of beavers Castor fiber and Castor canadensis and their ability to modify ecosystems. Mammal Review 35: 248–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schweiger, A.H., I. Boulangeat, T. Conradi, M. Davis, and J.C. Svenning. 2018. The importance of ecological memory for trophic rewilding as an ecosystem restoration approach. Biological Reviews.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12432.Google Scholar
  48. Sinclair, A.R. 2003. Mammal population regulation, keystone processes and ecosystem dynamics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 358: 1729–1740.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, F.A., R.E.E. Smith, S.K. Lyons, and J.L. Payne. 2018. Body size downgrading of mammals over the Late Quaternary. Science 360: 310–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Svenning, J.C., M. Munk, and A. Schweiger. 2019. Trophic rewilding: Ecological restoration of top-down trophic interactions to promotes self-regulating biodiverse ecosystems. In Rewilding, ed. N. Pettorelli, S. Durant, and J. Du Toit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Svenning, J.C., P.B.M. Pedersen, C.J. Donlan, R. Ejrnaes, S. Faurby, M. Galetti, D.M. Hansen, B. Sandel, et al. 2016. Science for a wilder Anthropocene: Synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America 113: 898–906.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502556112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tälle, M., B. Deak, P. Poschlod, O. Valko, L. Westerberg, and P. Milberg. 2016. Grazing vs. mowing: A meta-analysis of biodiversity benefits for grassland management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 222: 200–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Terborgh, J., J.A. Estes, P. Paquer, K. Ralls, D. Boyd, B. Miller, and R. Noss. 1999. The role of top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  54. Torres, A., N. Fernandez, S. Zu Ermgassen, W. Helmer, E. Revilla, D. Saavedra, A. Perino, A. Mimet, et al. 2018. Measuring rewilding progress. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0433.Google Scholar
  55. UNEP. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nation Environment Programme.Google Scholar
  56. Vera, F.W.M. 2000. Grazing ecology and forest history. Oxon: CABI Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vera, F. 2009. Large-scale nature development—The Oostvaardersplassen. British Wildlife 20: 28–36.Google Scholar
  58. Vermeulen, R. 2015. Natural grazing—Practices of rewilding of cattle and horses. Free Nature.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section for Ecoinformatics & Biodiversity, Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversityÅrhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Center for Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World (BIOCHANGE)Aarhus UniversityÅrhus CDenmark
  3. 3.Section for Biodiversity & Conservation, Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversityÅrhusDenmark
  4. 4.Department of BiologySanta Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations