Assessing the potential ecological functions, including ecosystem services and disservices, of megaherbivore rewilding in traditional rural wood-pastures.
This study evaluates the ecological potential and socio-economic trade-offs of reintroducing diverse megaherbivore assemblages to Italian wood-pastures, concluding that while such rewilding could significantly enhance functional diversity and mitigate woody encroachment—particularly in Mediterranean regions—it requires context-dependent, participatory governance to balance ecosystem restoration with the management of associated disservices like crop damage and human-wildlife conflict.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed. It is not medical advice. Do not make health decisions based on this content. Read full disclaimer
In many parts of Europe, the countryside is changing. For centuries, open woodlands dotted with grass and scattered trees were kept that way by a mix of wild animals grazing and farmers herding livestock. These landscapes, known as wood-pastures, are rich in life and hold deep cultural value. But as wild herds vanished and traditional farming declined, these areas have begun to fill in with dense shrubs and trees, losing their open character and the unique species that depend on them. To fix this, some conservationists propose "rewilding": bringing back large, wild herbivores to restore the natural disturbance that keeps the landscape open. The idea is that these animals, by eating plants and trampling the ground, can replace the work once done by both wild beasts and human shepherds. However, reintroducing massive animals into modern, human-dominated landscapes is not a simple fix. It raises complex questions about whether the right animals are being chosen, whether they will help or harm specific habitats, and how local communities will cope with the changes.
A new study focused on Italy to test these ideas. Researchers started by looking deep into the past, examining fossil records from the early Holocene period, roughly 12,000 to 6,000 years ago, before agriculture transformed the land. They used this ancient snapshot to identify which large herbivores once lived there and could serve as a guide for restoration. They found that while Italy currently has a few wild herbivores like red deer and wild boar, the ancient landscape supported a much richer community. This potential group included ten species, some of which are now extinct in the wild, such as the aurochs (the wild ancestor of cattle), the wild horse, the European wild ass, and the moose. The team then compared the current animal groups with this ancient, idealized version across three different regions of Italy: the Alps, the Continental plains, and the Mediterranean south.
The researchers discovered that bringing back these missing species would not have the same effect everywhere. In the Alpine region, the change would be modest because many of the large animals are already present or have similar ecological roles. However, in the Continental and especially the Mediterranean regions, the impact would be significant. Adding species like the brown bear, wild horse, and aurochs would dramatically increase the variety of ways these animals interact with the environment. Most notably, the amount of vegetation these animals would consume would more than double in the Mediterranean, rising from about 4.45 tons per square kilometer per year to 10.58 tons. This shift would also change the type of eating habits in the area, moving the community from mostly browsing on leaves and twigs to a much stronger focus on grazing on grasses. This change in diet could help prevent woody plants from taking over open grasslands and might even reduce the fuel available for dangerous wildfires, a growing concern in southern Europe.
Yet, the study warns that more herbivory is not always better. The researchers examined specific protected habitats to see how they would react to this increased pressure. They found that while some open grasslands and scrublands would benefit from the extra grazing, many forest habitats and specialized woodlands would likely suffer. These areas often require low levels of disturbance to survive, and the added trampling and eating could damage them. The study also looked at the human side of the equation through a review of recent literature. It highlighted that while rewilding could bring benefits like nature-based tourism and a renewed connection to rural traditions, it also carries serious risks. These include the spread of diseases between wild animals, livestock, and people, damage to crops and beehives, and conflicts with local communities who fear for their safety or livelihoods. The presence of large herbivores could also attract large carnivores like wolves, which might then prey on domestic animals, creating a new layer of tension.
Ultimately, the paper concludes that megaherbivore rewilding is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It suggests that success depends entirely on the specific context of the landscape and the careful management of animal populations. Simply releasing animals into the wild without a plan could lead to unintended harm, such as overgrazing sensitive habitats or sparking social conflict. The authors argue that any future efforts must be planned with precise density limits and strong local involvement to ensure that the restoration of these ancient ecological processes truly benefits both nature and the people who live alongside it.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.