Search

Overview of the PLoS ONE collection 'Rewilding and Restoration'.

The practice of rewilding has been both promoted and criticized in recent years. Benefits include flexibility to react to environmental change and the promotion of opportunities for society to reconnect with nature. Criticisms include the lack of a clear conceptualization of rewilding, insufficient knowledge about possible outcomes, and the perception that rewilding excludes people from landscapes. Here, we present a framework for rewilding that addresses these concerns. We suggest that rewilding efforts should target trophic complexity, natural disturbances, and dispersal as interacting processes that can improve ecosystem resilience and maintain biodiversity. We propose a structured approach to rewilding projects that includes assessment of the contributions of nature to people and the social-ecological constraints on restoration.

The use of fences in conservation can be controversial, as artificial barriers constrain natural behavior and ecological dynamics. However, in the case of large predators inhabiting protected areas within a hostile human‐dominated landscape, predators may remain at low densities if they face high mortality upon leaving the reserve. In turn, this may compromise the potential for density‐dependent effects such as top‐down regulation of prey species abundance. We simulate the hypothetical reintroduction of gray wolves (Canis lupus) to reserves in their former range (Scottish Highlands), with the objectives of identifying parameters that allow a viable wolf population and the potential for direct top‐down forcing of red deer (Cervus elaphus) densities. We examine the extent to which the number of dispersing wolves leaving the protected area influences whether these objectives are achieved. Our simulations confirm that source‐sink population dynamics can result in a self‐perpetuating wolf population, but one that never achieves densities needed for strong top‐down forcing. When wolf density is weakly controlled by intraspecific competition, strong top‐down forcing occurs when 20% of dispersing wolves or less leave the population. When 20–35% of dispersing wolves leave, the strength of top‐down forcing is highly variable. The wolf population remained viable when 35–60% of dispersing wolves left, but then did not exert strong top‐down forcing. Wolves were vulnerable to extinction at greater than 60% disperser loss. Despite their negative connotations, fences (including semi‐permeable ones) could increase the potential for interspecific density‐dependent processes in some cases, thereby facilitating trophic rewilding.

We present the results of a process to attempt to identify 100 questions that, if answered, would make a substantial difference to terrestrial and marine landscape restoration in Europe. Representatives from a wide range of European governmental and non-governmental conservation organisations, universities, independent ecologists and land managers compiled 677 questions relating to all aspects of European landscape restoration for nature and people. The questions were shortlisted by an email vote, followed by a two-day workshop, to produce the final list of 100 questions. Many of the final questions evolved through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into eight sections: conservation of biodiversity; connectivity, migration and translocations; delivering and evaluating restoration; natural processes; ecosystem services; social and cultural aspects of restoration; policy and governance; and economics. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and policy-makers and assist funders and programme managers in allocating funds and planning projects, resulting in improved understanding and implementation of landscape-scale ecological restoration in Europe.

1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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

Species at risk of extinction include some of the world's most iconic animals—such as gorillas, rhinos, and big cats (figure 2 top row)—and, unfortunately, they are vanishing just as science is discovering their essential ecological roles (Estes et al. 2011). Here, our objectives are to raise awareness of how these megafauna are imperiled (species in tables S1 and S2) and to stimulate broad interest in developing specific recommendations and concerted action to conserve them.

Large wild herbivores are crucial to ecosystems and human societies. We highlight the 74 largest terrestrial herbivore species on Earth (body mass≥100 kg), the threats they face, their important and often overlooked ecosystem effects, and the conservation efforts needed to save them and their predators from extinction. Large herbivores aregenerally facing dramatic population declines and range contractions, such that ~60% are threatened with extinction. Nearly all threatened species are in developing countries, where major threats include hunting, land-use change, and resource depression by livestock. Loss of large herbivores can have cascading effects on other species including large carnivores, scavengers, mesoherbivores, small mammals, and ecological processes involving vegetation, hydrology, nutrient cycling, and fire regimes. The rate of large herbivore decline suggests that ever-largerswaths of the world will soon lack many of the vital ecological services these animals provide, resulting in enormous ecological and social costs.