ArticlePDF Available

Pleistocene Park: Does re-wilding North America represent sound conservation for the 21st century?

Authors:

Abstract

A group of conservation biologists recently proposed to populate western North America with African and Asian megafauna, including lions, elephants, cheetahs, and camels, to create a facsimile of a species assemblage that disappeared from the continent some 13,000 years ago. The goals of this program, known as “Pleistocene re-wilding”, are to restore some of the evolutionary and ecological potential that was lost from North America during the Pleistocene extinctions, and help prevent the extinction of selected African and Asian mammals. Pleistocene re-wilders justify this conservation strategy on ethical and aesthetic grounds, arguing that humans have a moral responsibility to make amends for overexploitation by our ancestors. They believe that the flora of many North American terrestrial ecosystems has gone basically unchanged since the end of the Pleistocene, so re-wilding would help restore evolutionary and ecological potential and improve ecosystem functioning. This paper discusses some of the pros and cons of this proposal, including the ethical, aesthetic, ecological, and evolutionary issues, assesses its potential economic and political impacts on other conservation practices, both in North America and elsewhere, and reviews the realities of large mammal reintroductions. It is concluded that Pleistocene re-wilding with exotic species will not restore the evolutionary or ecological potential of native North American species nor extinct Pleistocene megafauna and their ancient ecosystems, but may instead jeopardize indigenous species and North American ecosystems. Resources would be better spent on preserving threatened organisms in their native habitats and reintroducing them to places in their historical ranges from which they were only recently extirpated.
Pleistocene Park: Does re-wilding North America
represent sound conservation for the 21st century?
Dustin R. Rubenstein
a,
*, Daniel I. Rubenstein
b
, Paul W. Sherman
a
, Thomas A. Gavin
c
a
Cornell University, Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Seeley G. Mudd Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
b
Princeton University, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Guyot Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
c
Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources, Fernow Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 28 November 2005
Received in revised form
27 March 2006
Accepted 2 April 2006
Available online 5 June 2006
Keywords:
Pleistocene re-wilding
Equid
Reintroduction
Extinct
Megafauna
Evolutionary and ecological
potential
ABSTRACT
A group of conservation biologists recently proposed to populate western North America
with African and Asian megafauna, including lions, elephants, cheetahs, and camels, to
create a facsimile of a species assemblage that disappeared from the continent some
13,000 years ago. The goals of this program, known as ‘‘Pleistocene re-wilding’’, are to
restore some of the evolutionary and ecological potential that was lost from North America
during the Pleistocene extinctions, and help prevent the extinction of selected African and
Asian mammals. Pleistocene re-wilders justify this conservation strategy on ethical and
aesthetic grounds, arguing that humans have a moral responsibility to make amends for
overexploitation by our ancestors. They believe that the flora of many North American ter-
restrial ecosystems has gone basically unchanged since the end of the Pleistocene, so
re-wilding would help restore evolutionary and ecological potential and improve ecosys-
tem functioning. This paper discusses some of the pros and cons of this proposal, including
the ethical, aesthetic, ecological, and evolutionary issues, assesses its potential economic
and political impacts on other conservation practices, both in North America and else-
where, and reviews the realities of large mammal reintroductions. It is concluded that
Pleistocene re-wilding with exotic species will not restore the evolutionary or ecological
potential of native North American species nor extinct Pleistocene megafauna and their
ancient ecosystems, but may instead jeopardize indigenous species and North American
ecosystems. Resources would be better spent on preserving threatened organisms in their
native habitats and reintroducing them to places in their historical ranges from which they
were only recently extirpated.
Ó2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Ancestors of elephants and lions once roamed much of North
America (Martin, 1984). Recently, a diverse group of conserva-
tion biologists has proposed to create a facsimile of this by-
gone era by reintroducing charismatic African and Asian
megafauna to western North America to replace species that
disappeared during the Pleistocene extinctions, some 13,000
years ago (Donlan et al., 2005). Arguing that their vision is jus-
tified on ‘‘ecological, evolutionary, economic, aesthetic and
ethical grounds’’, Donlan et al. (2005) believe that modern
‘‘Pleistocene Parks’’ would provide refuges for species that
are themselves threatened or endangered, and that repopu-
lating the American west with these large mammals would
0006-3207/$ - see front matter Ó2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.003
*Corresponding author: Tel.: +1 607 254 4325; fax: +1 607 254 4308.
E-mail address: drr24@cornell.edu (D.R. Rubenstein).
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 132 (2006) 232238
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
improve local landscapes, restore ecological and evolutionary
potential, and make amends for the ecological excesses of our
ancestors.
To understand the uniqueness of this proposal, a termi-
nological clarification is necessary. The ‘‘re-wilding’’ of eco-
systems is the practice of reintroducing extant species
(captive-bred or wild caught) back to places from which they
were extirpated in historical times (i.e., in the past several
hundred years). Because re-wilding deals with recently
extirpated species and short evolutionary time scales, it is
reasonable to assume that there have been minimal evolu-
tionary changes in the target species and their native habi-
tats. Re-wilding of ecosystems is not a new conservation
practice and, indeed, it has become a standard management
tool (Foreman, 2004).
By contrast, ‘‘Pleistocene re-wilding’’ of ecosystems is a
revolutionary idea that would involve introducing to pres-
ent-day habitats either (1) extant species that are descended
from species that occurred in those habitats during the Pleis-
tocene, but that went extinct about 13,000 years ago, or (2)
modern-day ecological proxies for extinct Pleistocene species.
Pleistocene re-wilding is thus a novel plan for ecological res-
toration on a more grandiose temporal and spatial scale than
is re-wilding (Callicott, 2002).
Pleistocene re-wilding has been discussed for many years
(Soule
´, 1990; Martin and Burney, 1999), and in 1989, it was at-
tempted in Siberia, Russia, when mega-herbivores including
wood bison (Bison bison athabascae), Yakutian horses (Equus
sp.), and muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) were introduced in an
effort to recreate the grassland ecosystem of the Pleistocene
(Zimov, 2005). However, the North American Pleistocene re-
wilding proposal of Donlan et al. (2005) is far more ambitious
than this because it aims to reconstruct an ancient ecosystem
by translocating a more diverse array of African and Asian
megafauna to geographical regions and plant communities
that have evolved without such creatures since the Pleisto-
cene. Species targeted for introduction span several trophic
levels and include predators such as African cheetahs
(Acinonyx jubatus) and lions (Panthera leo), and large herbivores
like African (Loxodonta africana) and Asian (Elephas maximus)
elephants, various equids (Equus spp.), and Bactrian camels
(Camelus bactranus)(Donlan et al., 2005). This plan includes
animals that are both descendant species of extinct taxa
and ecological proxies for extinct species.
Pleistocene re-wilding of North America has two principle
goals: (1) to restore some of the evolutionary and ecological
potential that was lost from North America 13,000 years
ago; and (2) to help prevent the extinction of some of the
world’s existing megafauna by creating new, and presumably
better protected, populations in North America (Donlan et al.,
2005). Discussion of the proposal is just beginning (Soule
´,
1990; Martin and Burney, 1999; Callicott, 2002; Foreman,
2004; Donlan et al., 2005) and, although some initial concerns
have been raised (Chapron, 2005; Dinerstein and Irvin, 2005;
Schlaepfer, 2005; Shay, 2005; Smith, 2005), supporters and
detractors agree that Pleistocene re-wilding is a bold and
innovative idea, deserving of careful consideration. This pa-
per was developed with the intent of extending healthy and
fruitful scientific debate about Pleistocene re-wilding of North
America.
2. The ecology and evolution of Pleistocene
re-wilding: restoring ecological potential to North
American ecosystems
Although an ethical desire to redress the excesses of our
ancestors might serve as an initial justification for Pleistocene
re-wilding, the ecological and evolutionary merits of such a
plan must be considered carefully. Pleistocene re-wilding of
North America would involve a monumental introduction of
large mammals into areas where they have been extinct for
millenia, and into habitats that have existed without such
creatures for similarly long periods of evolutionary time.
The potential negative ecological effects of transplanting exo-
tic species to non-native habitats are well-known (Mack et al.,
2000). The results of Pleistocene re-wilding in North America
are unknown and might well be catastrophic; ecosystem
functioning could be disrupted, native flora and fauna,
including species of conservation value (Smith, 2005), could
be negatively impacted, and a host of other unanticipated
ecological problems could arise.
Pleistocene re-wilders believe that it is possible to enhance
ecological potential, that is, to recreate evolutionarily-rele-
vant mammalian species assemblages and restore ecosystem
functioning to Pleistocene levels, because they believe that
the flora of North American ecosystems is essentially un-
changed since the Pleistocene (Soule
´, 1990; Donlan et al.,
2005). However, plant communities are dynamic and con-
stantly in flux, genotypically and phenotypically, and there
has been over 13,000 years for grassland and shrub-steppe
communities to evolve and plant assemblages to change in
the absence of the full suite of Pleistocene mega-herbivores
(Zazula et al., 2003). When managers discuss restoring ecolog-
ical potential, or simply ecosystem restoration, it is important
for them to be clear about what they are trying to restore and
to what level of restoration they are trying to reach (Jordan
et al., 1987). Whereas Pleistocene re-wilding could potentially
increase the ecological potential of some of North America’s
ecosystems by reintroducing predators on species like prong-
horn or bighorn sheep (and thus, indirectly restoring the evo-
lutionary potential of these prey species), or by restoring
herbivorous keystone species like elephants to the temperate
grasslands, it is questionable whether it would restore ecolog-
ical potential to Pleistocene levels.
Indeed, rather than restoring our ‘‘contemporary’’ wild
ecosystems to the ‘‘historic’’ wild ecosystems of the Pleisto-
cene and their original levels of ecosystem functioning, which
are unknown, Pleistocene re-wilding could instead result in
‘‘re-wilded’’ novel, or emerging, ecosystems with unique spe-
cies compositions and new or altered levels of ecosystem
functioning (Hobbs et al., 2006)(Fig. 1). Biogeographic assem-
blages and evolutionary lineages would be co-mingled in no-
vel ways; new parasites and diseases could be introduced
(Viggers et al., 1993; Cunningham, 1996); and food chains
would be disrupted. Moreover, without really knowing how
Pleistocene ecosystems functioned, there will be no way to
determine whether Pleistocene re-wilding restored ancient
ecosystems or disrupted contemporary ones.
While the reintroduction of large grazers can, in some
cases, shape and restore grassland ecosystems (Zimov et al.,
1995), this will depend on whether the grazers are indigenous
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 132 (2006) 232238 233
or exotic. Modern introductions of exotic feral horses have
dramatically altered vegetation in marsh (Levin et al., 2002)
and grassland (Zalba and Cozzani, 2004) ecosystems through-
out the New World, and these changes have had direct im-
pacts on a variety of native animal species, some positive,
but some negative. Moreover, exotic grazers, such as the
one-humped camel (Camelus dromedarius), have wreaked ha-
voc upon desert ecosystems in Australia by selectively eating
rare plant species (Edwards et al., 2001). Similarly, the reintro-
duction of large predators can also have unexpected results
on populations of prey species. For instance, wolves reintro-
duced to Yellowstone National Park, USA preyed upon elk
more, and other species of ungulates less, than what was pre-
dicted prior to reintroduction (White and Garrott, 2005).
Of course, it might be argued that these problems would
quickly become apparent if Pleistocene re-wilding were first
attempted on a small-scale, experimental basis. However,
experiments of this nature cannot be done quickly and may
take decades and generations to play out. For instance, the
Siberian Pleistocene Park experiment began in 1989, and as
of yet, few of the results have been published (Zimov, 2005).
Moreover, it may not be possible to conduct adequate, mean-
ingful experiments on small spatial scales because many of
these species have large home ranges or migrate great dis-
tances. For instance, African cheetahs can have home ranges
of nearly 200 km
2
(Broomhall et al., 2003), and African ele-
phants can migrate distances of up to nearly 150 km or more
(Thouless, 1995).
Despite the potential dangers to ecosystem functioning,
the reintroductions proposed by Donlan et al. (2005) would
place many of the animals in temperate grasslands and
shrub-steppe habitats, which are among the most threatened,
but least protected, ecosystems in the world (Hoekstra et al.,
2005). If the reintroduction of exotic megafauna could help
preserve these ecosystems, conservationists must weigh the
possibility of preserving disrupted or novel North American
ecosystems against the possibility of losing those ecosystems
altogether.
3. The ethics and aesthetics of Pleistocene
re-wilding: protecting and restoring the evolutionary
potential of threatened megafauna
Humans were at least partly responsible for exterminating
some species of Pleistocene megafauna (Martin, 1984;
Burney and Flannery, 2005) and, today, anthropogenic im-
pacts continue to contribute to the extinction of the world’s
remaining megafauna (IUCN, 2004). Donlan et al. (2005) ar-
gue that humans bear an ethical responsibility to prevent
future megafaunal extinctions and redress past losses. They
suggest that introducing large Asian and African vertebrates
to North America will not only ensure their long-term sur-
vival, but also restore their evolutionary potential (i.e., in-
crease the number of individuals worldwide to allow them
greater chances to radiate and generate new phenotypic
and genotypic variants). Although this plan is certainly
well-intentioned, the underlying reasoning is flawed. In es-
sence, it is an attempt to preserve charismatic African and
Asian species that are being driven to extinction by humans
in their native habitats by refocusing efforts in places
where those species have never occurred and where hu-
mans drove their distant ancestors extinct. Although Don-
lan et al. (2005) do not advocate giving up on conserving
megafauna in developing nations, diverting attention from
some of the world’s most economically poor, but most bio-
logically rich, countries to make amends for the ecological
excesses of our North American ancestors could cripple,
rather than assist, the conservation movement worldwide
(Chapron, 2005).
The human population is growing and natural habitats are
declining in extent and diversity everywhere. Couple this with
the political and economic strife that is occurring in many
developing nations and it is not difficult to see why native
megafauna, especially large mammals, are declining in num-
bers worldwide (Muwanika et al., 2005). Despite this dire situ-
ation, Pleistocene re-wilding of North America is not the only
viable solution to preserve the world’s megafauna. In the
developing world, new conservation models are being imple-
mented that go hand-in-hand with human development as
wildlife must pay for itself by generating economic benefits
for local citizenry to help alleviate poverty (Kiss, 2004; Naidoo
and Adamowicz, 2005). Although there are many challenges
in developing such programs, there is much to be gained by
overcoming them because most of the native megafauna in
developing regions inhabit private, often unprotected, lands
outside of parks. For instance, across Africa, 84% of African
elephant habitat is outside of protected areas (Blanc et al.,
2003), and in Kenya, 70% of the wildlife lives outside of pro-
tected areas for at least part of the year (Norton-Griffiths,
1998).
“Historic”
wild ecosystem
“Contemporary”
wild ecosystem
“Re-wilded”
novel ecosystem
Pleistocene
extinctions
Pleistocene
re-wilding
??
Fig. 1 – Re-wilders believe that Pleistocene re-wilding will lead to a restoration of the historic wild ecosystem and original
ecosystem functioning. However, re-wilding could result in a re-wilded novel ecosystem with unique species compositions
and new ecosystem functioning.
234 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 132 (2006) 232238
Conserving African and Asian megafauna does not require
relocating them to North America. However, it will require
new conservation plans that ensure local citizenry receive
economic benefits from wildlife. Available human and finan-
cial resources might be better expended on preserving land,
promoting ecotourism, building fences in areas of high hu-
man–wildlife conflict, and establishing educational and
research programs in areas of Africa and Asia where indige-
nous megafauna are most at risk, rather than on introducing
those same large, exotic species to North America.
In addition, the question of how the Pleistocene re-wilding
plan would affect existing conservation efforts in North Amer-
ica must be considered. Conservationists often struggle with
local opposition to re-wilding with native predators, and even
the reintroduction of relatively benign large mammals (e.g.,
moose) meets resistance (Lauber and Knuth, 1999). The
introduction of modern relatives of extinct predators will be
opposed even more strongly by state governments and lo-
cally-affected citizens (Shay, 2005). And, with good reason:
escapes are inevitable, resulting in human–wildlife conflict as
often occurs near protected areas in Africa and Asia. Ironically,
an article in the same journal issue as the one on Pleistocene re-
wilding of North America (Donlan et al., 2005) documents the
increasing numbers of humans killed by lions in Tanzania
(Packer et al., 2005). And only a few weeks later, news reports
surfaced from Ethiopia indicating that lions disturbed by defor-
estation killed 20 people and devoured 750 domestic animals
during August, 2005 (Anon, 2005). It is difficult enough for North
American conservationists to address the real concerns of local
citizens about attacks by mountain lions (native predators) on
joggers. One can only imagine the anti-conservation backlash
that would be generated by news coverage of farmers coping
with crop destruction by herds of elephants, or lions and chee-
tahs attacking cattle, or even children.
While Pleistocene re-wilding may help maintain the evolu-
tionary potential of modern, extant species, it cannot restore
the evolutionary potential of extinct species that no longer ex-
ist. And even attempting to restore evolutionary potential of
endangered species using modern-day species from foreign
continents as proxies for creatures that went extinct in North
America is controversial. Donlan et al. (2005) highlighted the
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) to illustrate how using simi-
lar, but not genetically identical, (sub-)species can indeed serve
as proxies for nearly-extinct taxa. Moreover, for nearly two dec-
ades, conservation biologists have proposed introducing clo-
sely related proxy species for extinct birds on New Zealand
and other Pacific islands (Atkinson, 1988, 2001). However, spe-
cies that went extinct some 13,000 years ago are probably more
genetically different from their modern-day proxies, who have
continued to evolve for millennia, than are two sub-species of
modern falcons or modern Pacific island birds. For instance,
although recent molecular data suggest that the common
horse (Equus caballus) is genetically similar to its evolutionary
ancestral species (Weinstock et al., 2005), modern elephants
(Surovell et al., 2005), cheetahs (Barnett et al., 2005), and lions
(Barnett et al., unpublished manuscript) are quite genetically
distinct from their extinct Pleistocene relatives.
Rather than use modern-day species from foreign conti-
nents as proxies for creatures that went extinct in North
America, conservation efforts should focus on re-wilding na-
tive species into their historical ranges throughout North
America to restore ecosystems and increase the evolutionary
potential of indigenous species (Dinerstein and Irvin, 2005;
Schlaepfer, 2005). For instance, native herbivores like bison
(Bison bison), pronghorn (Antilcapra americana), elk (Cervus ela-
phus), jack rabbits (Lepus townsendii), and various ground-
dwelling squirrels (Spermophilus spp.) and prairie dogs
(Cynomys spp.), as well as native predators like black-footed
ferrets (Mustela nigripes), bobcats (Lynx rufus), badgers (Taxidea
taxus), and swift foxes (Vulpes velox) are likely candidates for
reintroduction to geographic regions from which they were
extirpated in the past several hundred years (Hoogland, 2006).
Donlan et al. (2005) suggested that another appropriate
candidate for reintroduction is the Bolson tortoise (Gopherus
flavomarginatus). Because this animal once lived throughout
the southwestern United States and still persists in small
areas of similar habitat in Mexico, it may not differ greatly
from its ancestral form and, therefore, it might be a reason-
able candidate for reintroduction. However, before attempting
such a reintroduction, one would also have to consider how
much the plant and animal communities in the tortoise’s na-
tive geographic habitats have changed (evolved) since this
reptile went locally extinct.
If reintroducing charismatic megafauna is an important
goal of Pleistocene re-wilding because of its possible galvaniz-
ing effect on public support for conservation, then one might
consider expanding reintroductions of some of North Amer-
ica’s own megafauna like wolves (Canis lupus) or grizzly bears
(Urus arctos) to other portions of their known recent (i.e., his-
torical) ranges. And if more predators are deemed necessary,
an even better candidate for re-wilding would be the puma
(Puma concolor), because it is more genetically similar to the
long-extinct American cheetah (Miracinonyx trumani) than
the African cheetah is to the American cheetah (Barnett
et al., 2005). Moreover, the puma is a native mammalian pred-
ator that barely survived the Pleistocene extinctions 13,000
years ago, and still remains threatened throughout much of
its North American range (Culver et al., 2000).
4. The economics and politics of Pleistocene
re-wilding: uncertainty and tradeoffs
The political and economic ramifications of Pleistocene re-
wilding of North America are unclear. Certainly, it will be
expensive because land acquisition and preparation, translo-
cation, monitoring, protection, and containment require con-
siderable human and financial resources (Fischer and
Lindenmayer, 2000). Moreover, all of these efforts would likely
cost proportionally more in North America than they would
in Africa or Asia, given the higher prices of salaries and sup-
plies. Because conservation funding is limited, Pleistocene re-
wilding may compete for resources that might otherwise
have gone to local conservation efforts (Chapron, 2005).
Although it is possible that introducing charismatic African
and Asian megafauna to North America could ignite public
and political support, ultimately leading to an overall increase
in funding for conservation projects worldwide, other new
ideas might increase the pool of resources with less risk to
North American ecosystems and conservation efforts
worldwide.
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 132 (2006) 232238 235
Donlan et al. (2005) are careful to point out that the initial
steps of Pleistocene re-wilding can occur without large-scale
translocations of proxy species because many of these ani-
mals are already in captivity in the United States. This would
potentially reduce costs, as well as avoid potential political
problems between the United States and developing nations,
the ultimate ‘‘sources’’ for the animals. However, reintroduc-
tions from wild populations have been more successful than
those from captive populations (Fischer and Lindenmayer,
2000; Griffith et al., 1989), and Pleistocene re-wilding inevita-
bly would involve translocating animals from Asia and Africa
to North America, either to increase population numbers or to
improve population viability by augmenting genetic diversity.
Such translocations of megafauna into areas where they were
recently extirpated occur routinely throughout Africa and
Asia (Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2000), and learning from
these examples could shed some light on the practicality of
Pleistocene re-wilding of North America.
5. The practicality of Pleistocene re-wilding:
the reality of reintroductions
One of the goals of Pleistocene re-wilding of North America is
to ‘‘...restore equid species to their evolutionary homeland’’
(Donlan et al., 2005) and, indeed, some of the best known
and most successful reintroductions of endangered species
to their historical ranges involve equids (Moehlman, 2002).
For example, the Tahki, or Przewalski’s horse (Equus ferus prze-
walskii), which is endemic to Mongolia and China, was con-
sidered extinct in the wild by the end of the 1960s and
fewer than 400 Tahki remained in captivity in 1979. By the
beginning of the 1990s, however, efforts began to reestablish
populations in the wild and two reintroduction sites were
chosen in Mongolia. By 2000, the population at one site had
declined only slightly, while that at the other had increased
by 50% (Wakefield et al., 2002). These encouraging trends led
to a third introduction in 2005 and suggest that the re-wilding
of the Tahki’s historic range is likely to succeed.
In an attempt to repopulate Israel with recently extirpated
biblical animals, onagers, a race of Asian asses (Equus hemi-
onus), were translocated from Israel’s Hai Bar breeding reserve
to a nearby erosional crater in the Negev desert. Between 1968
and 1993 multiple reintroductions of 50 individuals took
place. It was not until the end of the 1990s, however, before
the population started to expand numerically and spatially.
Low fertility of translocated adult females relative to that of
their wild-born daughters and male-biased sex ratios among
the progeny limited recruitment (Saltz and Rubenstein, 1995).
These unanticipated biological constraints suggest that even
reintroductions of native species to their historical habitats
are not assured of succeeding.
Repopulating the historic range of the endangered Grevy’s
zebra (Equus grevyi) in east Africa is viewed as critically impor-
tant to saving the species from extinction (Moehlman, 2002).
Fewer then 2000 Grevy’s zebras remain in small areas of Ethi-
opia and northern Kenya, whereas only 35 years ago, over
20,000 individuals inhabited areas all the way to the horn of
Africa. Efforts to repopulate areas of the Grevy’s historic range
have involved capturing and moving small groups of appro-
priate sex ratios and age structures to holding areas before
subsequent release. While two such reintroductions in Kenya,
one to Tsavo National Park and one to Meru National Park, be-
gan successfully, neither has led to expanding populations. In
fact, in Meru, differences in the composition and abundance
of mammal species in the Grevy’s zebras’ new range have,
at times, led to rapid declines in their numbers (D.I. Ruben-
stein pers. obs). Therefore, even reintroductions within the
natural geographic regions of a species are often fraught with
surprises due to diseases, unexpected differences in environ-
mental conditions, and naı
¨vete
´toward predators.
The Przewalski’s horse and the Asian ass are presented by
Donlan et al. (2005) as two candidate examples of endangered
equid species that could be saved from extinction, while also
being used to help restore equid species to their ‘‘evolutionary
homelands’’ in North America. Small-scale reintroductions of
these and other endangered equid species throughout Asia,
their historically-known evolutionary homeland, appear to
be working. These are appropriate reintroductions and the
sort of re-wilding that makes evolutionary and ecological
sense because the time between the species’ extirpation
and reintroduction has been short enough that neither the
native ecosystem nor the animals themselves have changed
(evolved) very much. However, as both the onager and the
Grevy’s zebra reintroduction programs illustrate, success is
not assured until more is known, underscoring the need to
treat reintroductions as continuing experiments in adaptive
management. Moreover, increasing the scope of reintroduc-
tions of extant endangered equids into places from which
they were extirpated recently, the only evolutionary home-
lands that we can be sure are suitable for them, is more jus-
tifiable evolutionarily and ecologically than introducing
them to North American habitats where they have not existed
for millenia.
6. Another Jurassic Park?
We all remember ‘‘Jurassic Park’’, Crichton’s (1990) fictional
account of re-wilding an isolated island with extinct dino-
saurs recreated from ancient DNA. Pleistocene re-wilding of
North America is only a slightly less sensational proposal. It
is a little like proposing that two wrongs somehow will make
a right: both the modern-day proxy species are ‘‘wrong’’ (i.e.,
different genetically from the species that occurred in North
America during the Pleistocene), and the ecosystems into
which they are to be reintroduced are ‘‘wrong’’ (i.e., different
in composition from the Pleistocene ecosystems, as well as
from those in which the modern-day proxy species evolved).
Pleistocene re-wilding of North America will not restore evo-
lutionary potential of North America’s extinct megafauna be-
cause the species in question are evolutionarily distinct, nor
will it restore ecological potential of North America’s modern
ecosystems because they have continued to evolve over the
past 13,000 years. In addition, there is a third and potentially
greater ‘‘wrong’’ proposed: adding these exotic species to cur-
rent ecological communities could potentially devastate pop-
ulations of indigenous, native animals and plants.
Although Donlan et al. (2005) argued that Pleistocene re-
wilding of North America is justified for ecological, evolution-
ary, economic, aesthetic, and ethical reasons, there are clearly
numerous ecological and evolutionary concerns. On the one
236 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 132 (2006) 232238
hand, the plan might help conserve and maintain the evolu-
tionary potential of some endangered African and Asian
megafauna, as well as indirectly enhance the evolutionary po-
tential of native North American prey species that have
lacked appropriate predators since the Pleistocene. On the
other hand, the plan cannot restore the evolutionary potential
of extinct species and it is unlikely to restore the ecological
potential of western North America’s grassland and shrub-
steppe communities. Instead, it may irreparably disrupt cur-
rent ecosystems and species assemblages. Moreover, there
are many potential practical limitations to Donlan et al.’s
(2005) plan. Reintroduced camels did not survive for long in
the deserts of the American West (Smith, 2005). Could African
megafauna, especially large carnivores, really populate the
same areas? Would the genetically depauperate cheetah
(O’Brien et al., 1985) succumb to novel diseases? Would ele-
phants survive the harsh prairie winters, lacking the thick
coats of their mastodon ancestors?
Answering these questions and accomplishing Pleistocene
re-wilding of North America would require a massive effort
and infusion of funds and could take more time to experi-
mentally test than some of these critically endangered spe-
cies have left to survive in their existing native habitats. If
financial and physical resources were available on this scale,
they would be better spent on developing and field-testing
new ways to manage and conserve indigenous populations
of African, Asian, and North American wildlife in their histor-
ically-populated native habitats, on conducting ecological,
behavioral, and demographic studies of these organisms in
the environments in which they evolved, and on educating
the public on each continent about the wonders of their
own dwindling flora and fauna.
REFERENCES
Anon, 2005. Lions kill 20 farmers in Ethiopia. Reuters, September
20, 2005. Available from: <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
9407649>.
Atkinson, I.A.E., 1988. Opportunities for ecological restoration.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 11, 1–12.
Atkinson, I.A.E., 2001. Introduced mammals and models for
restoration. Biological Conservation 99, 81–96.
Barnett, R., Barnes, I., Burger, J., Ho, S.Y.W., Yamaguchi, N.,
Higham, T., Wheeler, H.T., Martin, L.D., Shapiro, B., Cooper, A.,
unpublished manuscript. Global phylogeny of lions.
Barnett, R., Barnes, I., Phillips, M.J., Martin, L.D., Harington, C.R.,
Leonard, J.A., Cooper, A., 2005. Evolution of the extinct
sabretooths and American cheetah-like cat. Current Biology
15, R589–R590.
Blanc, J., Thouless, C.R., Hart, J.A., Dublin, H.T., Douglas-Hamilton,
I., Craig, C.G., Barnes, R.F.W., (Eds.), 2003. African Elephant
Status Report 2002: An Update from the African Elephant
Database 304. IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Broomhall, L.S., Mills, M.G.L., du Toit, J.T., 2003. Home range and
habitat use by cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) in the Kruger
National Park. Journal of Zoology 261, 119–128.
Burney, D.A., Flannery, T., 2005. Fifty millenia of catastrophic
extinctions after human contact. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 20, 395–401.
Callicott, J.B., 2002. Choosing appropriate temporal and spatial
scales for ecological restoration. Journal of Bioscience 27,
409–420.
Chapron, G., 2005. Re-wilding: other projects help carnivores stay
wild. Nature 437, 318.
Crichton, M., 1990. Jurassic Park. Ballantine Books, New York.
Culver, M., Johnson, W.E., Pecon-Slattery, J., O’Brien, S.J., 2000.
Genomic ancestry of the American puma (Puma concolor).
Journal of Heredity 91, 186–197.
Cunningham, A.A., 1996. Disease risks of wildlife translocations.
Conservation Biology 10, 349–353.
Dinerstein, E., Irvin, W.R., 2005. Re-wilding: no need for exotics as
natives return. Nature 437, 476.
Donlan, J., Greene, H.W., Berger, J., Bock, C.E., Bock, J.H., Burney,
D.A., Estes, J.A., Foreman, D., Martin, P.S., Roemer, G.W., Smith,
F.A., Soule
´, M.E., 2005. Re-wilding North America. Nature 436,
913–914.
Edwards, G.P., Eldridge, S.R., Wurst, D., Berman, D.M., Garbin, V.,
2001. Movement patterns of female feral camels in central and
northern Australia. Wildlife Research 28, 283–289.
Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D.B., 2000. An assessment of published
results of animal relocations. Biological Conservation 96, 1–11.
Foreman, D., 2004. Rewilding North America: A Vision for
Conservation in the 21st Century. Island Press, Washington.
Griffith, B., Scott, J.M., Carpenter, J.W., Reed, C., 1989.
Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and
strategy. Science 245, 477–480.
Hobbs, R.J., Arico, S., Aronson, J., Baron, J.S., Bridgewater, P.,
Cramer, V.A., Epstein, P.R., Ewel, J.J., Klink, C.A., Lugo, A.E.,
Norton, D., Ojima, D., Richardson, D.M., Sanderson, E.W.,
Valladares, F., Vila, M., Zamora, R., Zobel, M., 2006. Novel
ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new
ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15,
1–7.
Hoekstra, J.M., Boucher, T.M., Ricketts, T.H., Roberts, C., 2005.
Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss
and protection. Ecology Letters 8, 23–29.
Hoogland, J.L. (Ed.), 2006. Conservation of the Black-tailed Prairie
Dog: Saving North America’s Western Grasslands. Island Press,
Washington.
IUCN, 2004. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
Jordan, W.R., Gilpin, M.E., Aber, J.D. (Eds.), 1987. Restoration
Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kiss, A., 2004. Is community-based ecotourism a good use of
biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 19, 232–237.
Lauber, T.B., Knuth, B.A., 1999. Measuring fairness in citizen
participation: a case study of moose management. Society and
Natural Resources 12, 19–37.
Levin, P.S., Ellis, J., Petrik, R., Hay, M.E., 2002. Indirect effects of
feral horses on estuarine communities. Conservation Biology
16, 1364–1371.
Mack, R.N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W.M., Evans, H., Clout, M.,
Bazzaz, F.A., 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology,
global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10,
689–710.
Martin, P.S., 1984. Prehistoric overkill: the global model. In: Martin,
P.S., Klein, R.G. (Eds.), Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric
Revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, pp. 354–403.
Martin, P.S., Burney, D., 1999. Bring back the elephants. Wild Earth
9, 57–65.
Moehlman, P.D. (Ed.), 2002. Equids: Zebras, Asses, and Horses:
Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SCC Equid
Specialist Group, IUCN, Cambridge, UK.
Muwanika, V.B., Nyakaana, S., Siegismund, H.R., 2005. Genetic
consequences of war and social strife in sub-Saharan Africa:
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 132 (2006) 232238 237
the case of Uganda’s large mammals. African Zoology 40,
107–113.
Naidoo, R., Adamowicz, W.L., 2005. Economic benefits of
biodiversity exceed costs of conservation at an African
rainforest reserve. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 102,
16712–16716.
Norton-Griffiths, M., 1998. The economics of wildlife conservation
policy in Kenya. In: Milner Gulland, E., Mace, R. (Eds.),
Biological Conservation and Sustainable Use. Blackwell Press,
Oxford, pp. 279–293.
O’Brien, S.J., Roelke, M.E., Marker, L., Neman, A., Winkler, C.A.,
Meltzer, D., Colly, L., Evermann, J.F., Bush, M., Wildt, D.E., 1985.
Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the cheetah. Science
227, 1428–1434.
Packer, C., Ikanda, D., Kissui, B., Kushnir, H., 2005. Lion attacks on
humans in Tanzania. Nature 436, 927–928.
Saltz, D., Rubenstein, D.I., 1995. The dynamics of a reintroduced
population: a case study. Ecological Applications 5, 327–335.
Schlaepfer, M.A., 2005. Re-wilding: a bold plan that needs native
megafauna. Nature 437, 951.
Shay, S., 2005. Re-wilding: don’t overlook humans living on the
plains. Nature 437, 476.
Smith, C.I., 2005. Re-wilding: introductions could reduce
biodiversity. Nature 437, 318.
Soule
´, M.E., 1990. The onslaught of alien species, and other
challenges in the coming decades. Conservation Biology 4,
233–239.
Surovell, T., Waguespack, N., Brantingham, P.J., 2005. Global
archaeological evidence for proboscidean overkill. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 102, 6231–6236.
Thouless, C.R., 1995. Long distance movements of elephants in
northern Kenya. African Journal of Ecology 33, 321–334.
Viggers, K.L., Lindenmayer, D.B., Spratt, D.M., 1993. The
importance of disease in reintroduction programs. Wildlife
Research 20, 687–698.
Wakefield, S., Knowles, J., Zimmermann, W., van Dierendon, M.,
2002. Status and action plan for the Przewalski’s Horse (Equus
ferus przewalskii). In: Moehlman, P.D. (Ed.), Equids: Zebras,
Asses, and Horses: Status Survey and Conservation Action
Plan. IUCN/SCC Equid Specialist Group, IUCN, Cambridge, pp.
82–92.
Weinstock, J., Willerslev, E., Sher, A.V., Tong, W., Ho, S.Y.W.,
Rubenstein, D.I., Storer, J., Burns, A., Martin, L.D., Bravi, C.,
Prieto, A., Froese, D.G., Scott, E., Xulong, L., Cooper, A., 2005.
Evolution, systematics, and phylogeography of Pleistocene
horses in the new world: a molecular perspective. PLoS Biology
3, 1373–1379.
White, P.J., Garrott, R.A., 2005. Yellowstone’s ungulates after
wolves: expectations, realizations, and predictions. Biological
Conservation 125, 141–152.
Zalba, S.M., Cozzani, N.C., 2004. The impact of feral horses on
grassland bird communities in Argentina. Animal
Conservation 7, 35–44.
Zazula, G.D., Froese, D.G., Schweger, C.E., Mathewes, R.W.,
Beaudoin, A.B., Telka,A.M. , Harington, C.R., Westgate, J.A., 2003.
Ice-age steppe vegetation in east Beringia. Nature 423, 603.
Zimov, S.A., 2005. Pleistocene park: return of the mammoth’s
ecosystem. Science 308, 796–798.
Zimov, S.A., Chuprynin, V.A., Oreshko, A.P., Chapin III, F.S.,
Reynolds, J.F., Chapin, M.C., 1995. Steppe-tundra transition: a
herbivore-driven biome shift at the end of the Pleistocene.
American Naturalist 146, 765–794.
238 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 132 (2006) 232238
... Flexible resource requirements are often considered advantageous in the rapidly changing environments of the Anthropocene (Boyles & Storm, 2007;Colles et al., 2009;Purvis et al., 2000). As certain species decline, the question of whether persisting sympatric species can serve as ecological replacements to maintain interaction networks becomes increasingly important (Parker et al., 2010;Rubenstein et al., 2006;Tylianakis et al., 2010). Whether extant persisting taxa can compensate for the functional roles of other declining populations is generally unknown in aerial arthropodivores, largely due to methodological challenges associated with characterizing the consumption of diverse prey communities prior to population declines. ...
Article
Full-text available
The extent to which persisting species may fill the functional role of extirpated or declining species has profound implications for the structure of biological communities and ecosystem functioning. In North America, arthropodivorous bats are threatened on a continent‐wide scale by the spread of white‐nose syndrome (WNS), a disease caused by the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans. We tested whether bat species that display lower mortality from this disease can partially fill the functional role of other bat species experiencing population declines. Specifically, we performed high‐throughput amplicon sequencing of guano from two generalist predators: the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). We then compared changes in prey consumption before versus after population declines related to WNS. Dietary niches contracted for both species after large and abrupt declines in little brown bats and smaller declines in big brown bats, but interspecific dietary overlap did not change. Furthermore, the incidence and taxonomic richness of agricultural pest taxa detected in diet samples decreased following bat population declines. Our results suggest that persisting generalist predators do not necessarily expand their dietary niches following population declines in other predators, providing further evidence that the functional roles of different generalist predators are ecologically distinct. While many bat species are known to function as suppressors of arthropod abundance, including several economically important agricultural pest taxa, the broader ecological consequences of disease‐related bat declines have not been fully assessed in many regions. In our study, we tested whether big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), which demonstrate lower mortality from white‐nose syndrome, could potentially fill the ecological role formerly occupied by the more severely affected little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). Overall, we found that big brown bats did not adopt more of the prey formerly consumed by little brown bats and that the dietary niche overlap between the two bat species did not change over time.
... Such efforts have inspired similar approaches in the UK (Newton et al., 2009;Taylor, 2009), where the issue of re-wilding and its consequences is now recognised as having high policy relevance (Sutherland et al., 2006). Similarly, the concept of 'Pleistocene re-wilding' is currently being explored in both North and South America (Donlan et al., 2006;Galetti, 2004;Martin, 2005;Rubenstein et al., 2006). ...
... Ecological replacement is often associated with rewilding (Fernandez et al., 2017), which emphasises ecological function over composition, but remains controversial due to potential unresolved ecological, evolutionary, practical and societal issues (Caro, 2007). For example, there are risks of ecological replacements having unpredictable effects on biodiversity (Smith, 2005) and unforeseen interactions with native taxa (Donlan et al., 2005;Ricciardi & Simberloff, 2009;Rubenstein et al., 2006). ...
Article
Full-text available
1. The use of ecological replacements (analogue species to replace extinct taxa) to restore ecosystem functioning is a promising conservation tool. However, this approach is controversial, in part due to a paucity of data on interactions between analogue species and established taxa in the ecosystem. 2. We conducted ecological surveys, comprehensively DNA barcoded an ecosystem’s flora and inferred the diet of the introduced Aldabra giant tortoise, acting as an ecological replacement, to understand how it might have modified island plant communities on a Mauritian islet. Through further dietary analyses, we investigated consequential effects on the threatened endemic Telfair’s skink. 3. Dietary overlap between tortoises and skinks was greater than expected by chance. However, there was a negative correlation between tortoise and skink preferences in herbivory and minimal overlap in the plants most frequently consumed by the reptiles. 4. Changes in the plant community associated with seven years of tortoise grazing were characterised by a decrease in the percentage cover of native herbs and creepers, and an increase in the cover of an invasive herb when compared to areas without tortoises. However, tortoise dietary preferences themselves did not directly drive changes in the plant community. 5. Tortoises successfully dispersed the seeds of an endemic palm, which in time may increase the extent of unique palm‐rich habitat. We found no evidence that tortoises have increased the extent of plant species hypothesised to be part of a lost Mauritian tortoise grazed community. Due to a negative correlation in tortoise and skink dietary preferences and minimal overlap in the most frequently consumed taxa, the presence of tortoises is unlikely to have detrimental impacts on Telfair’s skinks. Tortoise presence is likely to be beneficial to skinks in the long‐term by increasing the extent of palm‐rich habitat. Although tortoises are likely to play a role in controlling invasive plants, they are not a panacea for this challenge. After seven years, tortoises have not resurrected a lost tortoise grazed community that we hypothesise might have existed in limited areas on the islet, indicating that further interventions may be required to restore this plant community.
... This recognizes that the Pleistocene fauna represented a functional state that had been typical for millions of years and until the beginning of the Late Pleistocene extinctions ca 50 000 years ago -a blink of an eye in evolutionary times (Stegner 3 andHolmes 2013, Smith et al. 2018). Pleistocene rewilding, though controversial (Rubenstein et al. 2006), is promoted by conservation biologists in North America (Donlan et al. 2006), South America (Galetti 2004), Australia (Bowman 2012) and Russia (Zimov 2005). In Europe, the 'pre-agrarian' ecological conditions of the early to mid-Holocene ~6-10 000 years ago have often been used as a benchmark to guide rewilding efforts in Europe, with more emphasis on the introduction of large herbivores, to reinstate functional ecosystem dynamics via the restoration of resource-driven bottom-up systems (Keulartz 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
The potential for megafauna restoration is unevenly distributed across the world, along with the socio‐political capacity of countries to support these restoration initiatives. We show that choosing a recent baseline to identify species' indigenous range puts a higher burden for megafauna restoration on countries in the Global South, which also have less capacity to support these restoration initiatives. We introduce the Megafauna Index, which considers large mammal's potential species richness and range area at the country level, to explore how the responsibility for megafauna restoration is distributed across the world according to four scenarios using various temporal benchmarks to define species' indigenous range – current, historical (1500 AD), mid‐Holocene and Pleistocene. We test how the distribution of restoration burden across the world correlates with indicators of conservation funding, human development and governance. Using a recent or historical baseline as a benchmark for restoration puts a higher pressure on African and south‐east Asian countries while lifting the responsibility from the Global North, where extinctions happened a long time ago. When using a mid‐Holocene or Pleistocene baseline, new opportunities arise for megafauna restoration in Europe and North America, respectively, where countries have a higher financial and societal capacity to support megafauna restoration. These results contribute to the debate around benchmarks in rewilding initiatives and the ethical implications of using recent baselines to guide restoration efforts. We suggest that countries from the Global North should reflect on their responsibility in supporting global restoration efforts, by both increasing their support for capacity building in the Global South and taking responsibility for restoring lost megafauna at home.
... Now, introducing morphologically and ecologically similar surrogates-mostly from Africa-has been proposed to restore the ecosystem processes once driven by those now-extinct megaherbivores in North America (Donlan et al. 2005) and Australia (Bowman 2012). Those "rewilding" proposals are contentious because benchmark conditions of archaic ecosystems are unknown, the global climate is continually changing, and the practicalities are prohibitive (Rubenstein et al. 2006). Also, sociopolitical acceptance of the rewilding argument requires a leap of faith in the net benefits of quasi-Pleistocene assemblages replete with large predators and megaherbivores (Soulé and Noss 1998). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
The potential for megafauna restoration is unevenly distributed across the world, along with the socio-political capacity of countries to support these restoration initiatives. We show that choosing a recent baseline to identify species' indigenous range puts a higher burden for megafauna restoration on countries in the Global South, which also have less capacity to support these restoration initiatives. We introduce the Megafauna Index, which considers large mammal's potential species richness and range area at country-level, to explore how the responsibility for megafauna restoration distributes across the world according to four scenarios using various temporal benchmarks to define species' indigenous range - current, historical (1500AD), mid-Holocene and Pleistocene. We test how the distribution of restoration burden across the world correlates to indicators of conservation funding, human development, and governance. Using a recent or historical baseline as a benchmark for restoration puts a higher pressure on African and south-east Asian countries while lifting the responsibility from the Global North, where extinctions happened a long time ago. When using a mid-Holocene or Pleistocene baseline, new opportunities arise for megafauna restoration in Europe and North America respectively, where countries have a higher financial and societal capacity to support megafauna restoration. These results contribute to the debate around benchmarks in rewilding initiatives and the ethical implications of using recent baselines to guide restoration efforts. We suggest that countries from the Global North should reflect on their responsibility in supporting global restoration efforts, by increasing their support for capacity building in the South and taking responsibility for restoring lost biodiversity at home.
Article
For many ecosystems, feral horses are increasingly becoming an important if not dominant component of ungulate biomass and hence influence on community dynamics. Yet we still know little of how horses contribute to key ecological interactions including predator-prey and indirect competitive relationships at a community level. Notably, feral species like horses can exhibit life-history traits that differ from that of native (mainly artiodactyl) herbivore competitors. Artificial selection for traits like increased, early, or extended reproduction that have yet to be reversed by natural selection, coupled with naturally selected differences in anatomy and behavior, in addition to unique management objectives for horses compared to other species, means that the dynamics of feral horse populations are not likely to align with what might be expected of other large herbivores. Unexpected population dynamics and inherent biological asymmetries between native ungulates and feral horses may therefore influence the former via direct competition for shared resources and through enemy-mediated interactions like apparent competition. In several localities feral horses now co-exist with multiple native prey species, some of which are in decline or are species at risk. Compounding risks to native species from direct or indirect competitive exclusion by horses is the unique nature and socio-political context of feral horse management, which tends towards allowing horse populations to be limited largely by natural, density-dependent factors. We summarize the inherent asymmetries between feral horse biology and that of other ungulate prey species with consequences for conservation, focusing on predator-prey and emerging indirect interactions in multi-prey systems, and highlight future directions to address key knowledge gaps in our understanding of how feral horses may now be contributing to the (re)structuring of food webs. Observations of patterns of rapid growth and decline, and associated skews in sex ratios of feral horse populations, indicate a heightened potential for indirect interactions among large ungulate prey species, where there is a prevalence of feral horses as preferred prey, particularly where native prey are declining. In places like western North America, we expect predator-prey interactions involving feral horses to become an increasingly important factor in the conservation of wildlife. This applies not only to economically or culturally important game species but also at-risk species, both predators (e.g., wolves [Canis lupus], grizzly bears [Ursus arctos]) and prey (e.g., woodland caribou [Rangifer tarandus caribou]), necessitating an ecological understanding of the role of horses in natural environments that goes beyond that of population control.
Chapter
Full-text available
Large mammalian herbivores and the ecosystems in which they live are intimately connected through the food choices the animals make. Herbivores eat plants and plants have evolved mechanisms to defend themselves from being eaten. This arms race between plants and vertebrate herbivores continues to this day. The outcomes of this arms race are seen in the morphological, physiological and behavioural adaptations of large mammalian herbivores. The ways in which herbivores exploit plants affect not only plants, and the assemblages in which they exist but also the “dynamics” of whole ecosystems. The paleoecological work demonstrates that the consequences of large herbivore community and population dynamics at some point in history ripples through time and can be seen in the dynamics of ecosystems today. The Quaternary extinctions of many species of large mammalian herbivores changed systems as fire became the major consumer of vegetation in the absence of ungulates. Fundamental to the understanding of the role of herbivores in ecosystem dynamics is the concept of “niche”, however, “browsing” and “grazing” species of large mammalian herbivore are extremely flexible in their diet composition depending on the circumstances in which they find themselves. Whilst body size has also been used as an explanatory variable in understanding large mammalian herbivore ecology (including feeding and vital rates in population studies), there are many “exceptions to the rule”, which, as with the browser vs. grazer dichotomy, deserves further investigation and potentially also changes in ecological theory. There are rich seams of information and data from historical studies and literature that should be made freely available for such analyses, much more often than is presently the norm. Whilst ungulate ecologists should look to the literature on livestock for insights into, particularly digestive physiology and the increasing understanding of the important of the fermentation microbiome, studies on the various species of wild large mammalian herbivore (including those that are not foregut or hindgut fermenters) are needed to provide insights into dietary adaptations. So, what of the future? Climate change looms large in the picture for large mammalian herbivores; they may have flexibility in order to cope with variation but movement, to take advantage of nutritional opportunities, is key, and populations in, for example, semi-arid areas are increasingly unable to exploit spatial variation because of the massive impact of humans on land use. Let us not forget that currently about 37% of the total land area of the globe is agricultural land and 60% of this is grazing land for livestock. These proportions will only increase as the world’s human population grows in size and wealth. The foregoing Chapters in the Ecology of Browsing and Grazing II provide a wealth of information on the past and current ecology of large mammalian herbivores, but the book is also a call for future generations of researchers to seek to better understand the whats, whys and the wherefores of the interactions between herbivores and the ecosystems in which they live. Given the vital importance of mammalian herbivores to those ecosystems, and also the role they play in providing ecosystem services to humanity, researchers must seek partnership with policy and management practitioners in delivering evidence-based solutions for the future management and conservation of these amazing creatures, in a world that is changing before our eyes. But researchers should not forget that these ungulates are made of flesh and blood, that they graze and browse in real landscapes, and that there is a profound need for hard-core ungulate ecologists with a broad set of skills and deep understanding of ‘their’ animals. As a bonus, we, and all other ungulate ecologists, get to see, feel and understand some of the most beautiful creatures that share our planet.
Chapter
Full-text available
Book description: This book presents the issues surrounding the conservation of wild species and ecosystems used by people. It is aimed at final year undergraduate and master's students taking courses in conservation, environmental management, ecological economics and related subjects, as well as conservation professionals, including managers, policy-makers and researchers. The structure of the book is ideal for a course in conservation, comprising a theoretical section written by the authors, and a set of ten contributed case studies intentionally diverse in discipline, geographical region and system of study. The theoretical section provides the knowledge that is needed to understand the issues, while the case studies can form the basis of seminars. Readers will emerge with a clear recognition of the difficulties of limiting the harvesting of biological resources to sustainable levels, and of the boundaries of sustainable use as a conservation tool. The authors, an ecologist and an anthropologist, have both worked on the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife for several years, including the ivory and rhino horn trades.
Book
Full-text available
An Africa-wide overview of the distribution, abundance and conservation issues of African elephants as at the end of 2006. The introductory section is comprised of a short review outlining the background of the African Elephant Database, a discussion on the types of data and how is is it interpreted in the compilation of the report, and a descriptive text focused on the organization of the report. The body of the report initially presents the data at the continental level, following this data from the regions of Central Eastern, Southern and West Africa are presented with range states within each region reviewed in alphabetical order. Elephant population estimates and distributions from 37 range states in sub-Saharan Africa is consistently reviewed in concise text, clear tabular statistics and attractive population distribution maps. A comprehensive bibliography directly associated with the mapped information and three appendices, a quality index on the data, a comparative listing of estimates from regions and some protected areas in Eastern and Southern African countries, and an alphabetical listing of protected areas which fall within the elephant range throught the continent,complete the report.
Article
The spectacular diversity of sub-Saharan Africa's large mammals was hit by constant social strife and civil war over three decades (1970s-1990s) leading to localized extinctions and drastic reductions in population sizes for many species. These localized extinctions and reduction in population sizes undermine the ability of species to evolve and adapt to changing environments as a result of genetic erosion. The genetic consequences of the widespread reduction of population sizes as a result of social strife in sub-Saharan Africa are not well documented. Here we review past molecular genetic data that are relevant to understanding of the genetic effects of war and social strife on Africa's wildlife. Uganda was probably one of the worst affected countries. Before 1972, Uganda had large herds and a variety of mammals. However, following the breakdown of law and order, some large mammals were exterminated while other populations were decimated. Recent results of genetic surveys in five large mammals in Uganda (the common warthog, savanna elephant, savanna buffalo, common hippopotamus and Uganda kob) suggest a substantial erosion of genetic diversity in the elephants and warthogs of Queen Elizabeth National Park. Although the rest of the studied mammals show no direct loss of genetic diversity, strong genetic differentiation was observed among most populations separated by even short geographical distances, indicating an increase in the 'between' component of genetic diversity that could have been accelerated by genetic erosion due to decrease in population sizes.
Article
Ecological restoration is defined as active intervention and management to restore biotic communities that were formerly present at a particular place and time. Examples are given from both New Zealand and overseas of a variety of different restoration projects. The possibility is raised of replacing some animal species extinct in New Zealand with related living forms from other countries. Ecological restoration is a means of restoring biological diversity to depleted landscapes and, as a consequence, can increase the variety of ways in which people appreciate nature. Ecological restoration of lost biotic communities should be seen as complementary to the protection of those remaining; both activities are needed in a comprehensive approach to nature conservation. -from Author
Article
Although Przewalski's horse can hybridise with domestic horses to produce fertile offspring (Ryder et al. 1978; Trommerhausen-Smith et al. 1979), the existence of 2n=66 chromosomes in Przewalski's horse identifies it as being more different from its domestic relatives (2n=64) than are any two breeds of domestic horse (Ryder 1994). They also show a number of other consistent differences in their appearance: the manes of Przewalski's horses are erect with no forelock, and the upper part of the tail has short guard hairs, unlike domestic horses, which have long, falling manes and long guard hairs all over the tail; a dark dorsal stripe runs from the mane down the back and dorsal side of the tail to the tail tuft; three to ten dark stripes can be present on the carpus and, generally, the tarsus (Groves 1994). Przewalski horses, contrary to domestic horses, shed their tail and mane hair once per year. Przewalski's horse (Equus ferus przewalskii).
Article
Movement,patterns of female,feral camels were studied over four years (February 1993 to December 1996) in central and northern Australia using satellite telemetry. Areas used over 12-month periods (calculated using the fixed kernel method) were large (449–4933 km,) and increased with increasing aridity as measured by long-term mean annual rainfall. No consistent pattern of variation was detected in movement,rates of camels,across seasons. Data collected over several years are needed to classify movements,in feral camels. The only telemetered camel that has been monitored for longer than two years (this study) appeared to move within a large home,range over the concluding 3.5 years that it was tracked. Because the areas used are large, extensive buffer zones will be needed in arid regions to protect environmentally sensitive areas from the impacts of feral camels. G .P . E dw a rd sS .R . E ldr idg eD.Wur st D.M Be rm an V.Garbin W R00 053 M ovem en t s o f feral c ame ls G . P. E dw a rd s e ta l.
Article
Among the many environmental challenges faced by conservation scientists and managers in the coming decades, the inexorable invasion of alien species from distant land masses and between heretofore isolated regions within continents may be the most revolutionary. Although these invasions will homogenize and impoverish the world's biota, they will lead to a deeper understanding of ecological communities. One consequence of the current biotic interchange is that the public's use of the outdoors will continue to decline as new and alien pathogens and parasites, their distributions and survival enhanced by climate warming and other anthropogenic factors, reduce the safety and enjoyment of hunting fishing and hiking. The forthcoming and massive ecological disruptions are bound to produce misunderstanding and conflict among environmentalists. Attempts by conservation biologists to manage wild and feral animals, including vector species, will be blocked by animal's rights groups. Even within the conservation biology movement there are many real and potential conflicts, especially over turf and resources. Such conflicts are a serious threat to biological diversity. Tolerance and compromise are essential if conservation biology is to accomplish its mission.