The differences between rewilding and restoring an ecologically degraded landscape

Abstract

Rewilding is a developing concept in ecosystem stewardship that involves reorganizing and regenerating wildness in an ecologically degraded landscape, with present and future ecosystem function being of higher consideration than historical benchmark conditions. This approach differs from ecosystem restoration but the two concepts are often conflated because (a) they both rely on similar management actions (at least initially) and (b) it can be erroneously assumed that they both aim for similar states of wildness.
Rewilding and restoring both influence biodiversity, and common management actions such as species reintroductions (e.g. beavers or wolves) can be integral to a rewilding project. However, in contrast with restoration, rewilding has lower fidelity to taxonomic precedent and promotes taxonomic substitutions for extinct native species that once underpinned the delivery of key ecological functions.
We suggest the adaptive cycle as the appropriate conceptual framework in which to distinguish rewilding from ecosystem restoration. The focus of restoration ecology is to return an ecosystem to as close to its former state as is possible after a major disturbance, by directly reinstating it on the ‘foreloop’ of the adaptive cycle. In contrast, rewilding draws from the ‘backloop’ by promoting reorganization and redevelopment of the ecosystem under changing environmental conditions. If environmental conditions have changed so significantly that a regime shift is inevitable, then rewilding can facilitate the development of a novel ecosystem to sustain the provision of ecosystem services.
Synthesis and applications. Rewilding and restoring both have their places in biodiversity conservation. In each case, their respective merits should be weighed in relation to stakeholder priorities, prevailing and predicted environmental conditions, the level of biological organization targeted for management, and existing and future management capacity. We provide simple schematic decision‐pathways to assist in exploring whether an ecologically degraded landscape might be a candidate for restoration, active rewilding, or passive rewilding.

Full text

J Appl Ecol. 2019;56:2467–2471. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jpe 
|
2467
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology
© 2019 British Ecological Society
Received:17April2019
|
Accepted:28July2019
DOI:10.1111/1365-2664.13487
COMMENTARY
The differences between rewilding and restoring an
ecologically degraded landscape
Johan T. du Toit1 | Nathalie Pettorelli2
1DepartmentofWildlandResources,Ut ah
StateUniversit y,Logan,UT,USA
2InstituteofZoology,ZoologicalSocietyof
London,London,UK
Correspondence
JohanT.duToit
Email:johan.dutoit@usu.edu
Funding information
ZoologicalSocietyofLondon
HandlingEditor:MarcCadotte
Abstract
1. Rewilding is adevelopingconcept inecosystemstewardship thatinvolves reor-
ganizing and regenerating wildnessin anecologically degradedlandscape, with
presentandfutureecosystemfunctionbeingofhigherconsiderationthanhistori-
calbenchmarkconditions.Thisapproachdiffersfromecosystemrestorationbut
thetwoconceptsareoftenconflatedbecause(a)they bothrelyonsimilarman-
agementactions(atleastinitially)and(b)itcanbeerroneouslyassumedthatthey
bothaimforsimilarstatesofwildness.
2. Rewilding and r estoring both influe nce biodiversity, and comm on management
actions such asspecies reintroductions (e.g.beaversor wolves) canbe integral
toarewildingproject.However,incontrastwithrestoration,rewildinghaslower
fidelitytotaxonomicprecedentandpromotestaxonomicsubstitutionsforextinct
nativespeciesthatonceunderpinnedthedeliveryofkeyecologicalfunctions.
3. Wesuggesttheadaptivecycleastheappropriateconceptualframeworkinwhich
to distinguish rewilding from ecosystem restoration. The focus of restoration
ecologyistoreturnanecosystemtoasclosetoitsformerstateasispossibleafter
a major distu rbance, by directl y reinstating it on t he ‘foreloop’ of the ad aptive
cycle.Incontrast,rewildingdraws fromthe‘backloop’bypromoting reorganiza-
tionandredevelopmentoftheecosystemunder changingenvironmentalcondi-
tions.Ifenvironmentalconditionshavechangedsosignificantlythataregimeshift
isinevitable,thenrewildingcanfacilitatethedevelopmentofanovelecosystem
tosustaintheprovisionofecosystemservices.
4. Synthesis and applications.Rewildingand restoringboth have theirplacesinbio-
diversityconservation.Ineachcase,theirrespectivemeritsshouldbeweighedin
relationtostakeholderpriorities, prevailingand predictedenvironmentalcondi-
tions,thelevel ofbiologicalorganizationtargetedformanagement,andexisting
and future managementc apacity. Weprovide simple schematic decision-path-
waystoassistinexploringwhetheranecologicallydegradedlandscapemightbea
candidateforrestoration,activerewilding,orpassiverewilding.
KEY WORDS
adaptivecycle,biodiversityconservation,ecologicalrestoration,ecosystemfunction,
functionaltraits,globalchange,novelecosystems,taxonomicsubstitution

2468
|
Journal of Applied Ecology
du TOIT and PE TTOR ELLI
1 | REWILDING VS RESTORATION: A
CLASH OF PHILOSOPHY
Rewilding is a rapidly developing conceptinecosystem steward-
ship,highlightedbymanyasapotentiallytransformativeapproach
toconservingand promoting biodiversity.The concept has now
enteredthemainstreamofecology(Perinoetal.,2019;Pettorelli,
Durant,&duToit,2019)anditsmultipledefinitions(reviewedby
Pettorellietal.,2018)havebeendistilleddowntotheir common
essence,whichispromotingtheself-reorganizationorregenera-
tionof wildnessinan ecologicallydegradedlandscapewithmini-
malongoing intervention.That definitionis notsimple, however,
becausewildnesssitselfisanabstractconceptrepresentinganin-
tangiblyuntamedqualityproducedinnature.Furthermore,rewil-
dingisoftenconflatedwithrestoring,becausebothmightinvolve
similar managementac tions(such as translocations) and people
canmistakenlyassumethatbothapproachesaimtoreinstatesim-
ilar types of wildness.In addition, the mediaattention drawnto
Pleistocenerewilding(Donlanetal.,2006) branded rewilding as
therestorationofPleistocenemegafauna,whichwasacaptivating
notionwhileitlasted,despiteitsimpracticalityonanecologically
meaningfulscale(duToit,2019).
Thereisperhapslittleharminthepopularmediareferringtore-
wilding as the processof bringing some wildness back to an area,
whetherrural or urban, in a waythat conflatesrewilding with res-
toration.Nevertheless,assumingnoconceptualdifferencebetween
rewildin g and restoration i s erroneous bec ause each aspires t o a
different state of nature. Restoring implies returning something
to its former condition or state, as with arevered cathedral, clas-
siccarordesiredlandscape. That requires reaching agreement on
what the former state actually was, achieving it through precise
restorationwork,andthencontinuallymaintainingtheagreedstate
despite ch anging environmental cond itions. In contras t, rewilding
meansreturningwildness,whichisuntamed,imperfect,unrulyand
alwayschanginginwaysthatarenotentirelypredictable.Likeit or
not,ecosystemscontinuallyself-organizeandmaintainresilienceby
adaptingtovariable environmental conditions through changes in
their com position, st ructure or f unctioni ng (Holling, 1973; Hollin g
&Gunderson, 2002).Rewildingis thusconceptuallydifferent from
restori ng (Table 1). It is an adaptive a pproach to conser ving eco-
logical functionalit y under changing environmental conditions, to
which historical benchmarks areless relevant than to restoring. It
inherentlyacknowledgesandpromotesunpredictability,whileplac-
ing the emp hasis on funct ion over species com position. It use s a
varietyofmanagementactionsthatcanincludetaxonomicsubstitu-
tions,meaningintroductionsofproxiesforextinctspecies(Bakker&
Svenning,2018),andsofidelitytotaxonomicprecedentismoreflex-
ible thanwith restoring. In principle, taxonomic substitution could
prioritizefunctionallyappropriateexoticspeciesfacingconservation
threat s in their nati ve ranges, alt hough in prac tice less con trover-
sial optio ns—such as various l ivestock bre eds—are more commo n.
Rewilding canalsobeappliedinurban and ruralareas, beinginclu-
siveoftheagencyofpeopleinnature.
Rewilding can operate at multiple levelsfrom genestoecosys-
tems, andmanagerscan achieve rewilding in several wayssuch as
facilitatinggeneflow,translocatingpropagulesorwholeorganisms,
conductingcivil engineeringorcombinationsthereof.For example
genetic rescue (Whiteley, Fitzpatrick, Funk, & Tallmon, 2015) in-
volvesfacilitatinggeneflowintoapopulationfacingextinctiondue
to inbreeding depression, which might be called restoration (e.g.
Johnsonetal.,2010)butisactuallyrewildingatthemolecularlevel.
Therecipientgenepoolbecomesreorganizedwithanewdiversityof
allelesincludingsomethatwerenevertherebefore,afterwhichthe
successorfailureoftheexerciseisoutofthemanagers’hands.Itde-
pendsonthegeneticanddem ographicviabilityofthe‘rescued’pop-
ulation under changing environmentalconditions (Hedrick, Adams,
&Vucetich,2011).Atthe otherextreme,theOostvaardersplassen
inthe Netherlandsisan example of rewilding arisingfrom a major
civilengineeringproject.Itinvolveddykes,poldersandpumpstoex-
poseanareaofformerseabedforcolonizationbyterrestrialspecies,
among whi ch some were intro duced and some c ontinue to arri ve
unassisted(Marris,2009).Inallcases,thesystemiscontinuallyself-
organizingastheenvironmentchanges,andthefunctionalcomposi-
tionofthesystemisahigherconsiderationthanthetaxonomyofits
operatingcomponents(e.g.Garridoetal.,2019).
2 | THE POWER OF METAPHORS
The effective communic ation of science, especially to non-scien-
tists , depends on the u se of metaphors (O lson, Arroyo-Santo s, &
Vergara-Silv a, 2019).T hese are verbal a nd graphical m odels used
TABLE 1 Acomparisonofrestoringandrewildingatthe
landscapescale,expressedinrelationtoasetofdistinguishing
attributes
Distinguishing
attributes Restoring Rewilding
Relevanceofhistorical
benchmarks
Higher Lower
Fidelit ytotaxonomic
precedent
Higher Lower
Predictabilityofsys-
temdynamics
Higher Lower
Management
commitment
Continuous Tap e red
Motivationfor
translocations
Species
composition
Functionaltype
composition
Taxonomic
substitutions
Resisted Accepted
Environmentally
drivensystem
transformation
Resisted Accepted
Emergenceofnovel
ecosystems
Resisted Accepted
Peopleandnature Moreexclusive Moreinclusive

|
2469
Journal of Applied Ecology
du TOIT and PE TTOR ELLI
ascognitivetools toassistin expressing,understanding, exploring
and develo ping complex co ncepts. The y do have their limit ations,
however,andsoshouldbeusedasaidsandneverinterpretedastrue
and full re presentat ions. Here we of fer two met aphors to hel p in
differentiating between restoring and rewilding,with full recogni-
tionthatneithercanrepresentallthecomplexitiesanddynamicsof
ecosystems.
2.1 | The adaptive cycle as a distinguishing
conceptual framework
Theadaptivecycle (Holling &Gunderson,2002), whichisawidely
successfulmetaphorforthedynamicsofsocial–ecologicalsystems
(Walker,Holling, Carpenter,& Kinzig,2004), has become avalued
heuristic toolin ecosystemstewardship (Chapin, Kofinas,& Folke,
2009).Here,weproposetheadaptivecycleastheappropriatecon-
ceptualframeworkinwhichtoidentifythefundamentaldifferences
betweenrewildingandrestoringanecologicallydegradedlandscape
(Figure1).
Followingamajordisturbance,anecosystemgenerallyrecovers
withspeciesreassemblingandbiomassgrowing (rphase).Available
resourcesbecomeexploited,withsuccessionleadingtoanincreas-
ingly connected system withmountingpotentialforniche occupa-
tion.Thisleadstotheaccumulationandconservationofresourcesin
aclimaxstate(Kphase),withthetransitionfromexploitationtocon-
servation(r‐K )beingreferredtoasthe‘foreloop’ofthecycle.Then
withthenextfire,hurricane,drought,outbreakorover-harvest,the
potential andconnectednessarerapidlyreleased(Ωphase) andan
unpredictable‘backloop’leadstoaphaseofreorganization(αphas e).
Depending on the response diversityconser ved within each func-
tionalgroup(Awiti,2011;Elmqvistetal.,2003),thefreedresources
thenallowtheecosystemtoredevelopbycyclingintoanewrphase
asgovernedbyprevailingconditions.
Restorationisconcernedwithshortcuttingthebackloopandfast
trackingtheforelooptomovethesystemfromΩdirectlybacktoK
as quickly and predictably as possible after adisturbance. In con-
trast,rewildingdrawsfromthebackloop,facilitatingreorganization
andthetransitionfromαtorphasessothatthesystemcanmaintain
resiliencebyadaptingtochangedconditions,obviatingtheneedfor
continuousmanagement.However,iftheenvironmentalconditions
havechanged so significantlythataregime shiftisinevitable, then
alternative rewilding approaches could be considered. Managers
could eith er take a ‘wait-and-see’ ap proach (passive rew ilding) as
anovel ecosystem develops on its own, or intervene initially with
species i ntroductions a nd/or engine ering works (acti ve rewilding)
to generate a n ovel ecosystem tha t might (hopefully) su stain the
provision of ecosystem services under projected environmental
conditions.
2.2 | Classic car or enduring transport system?
Metaphorsareespeciallyhelpfulinunderstandingabstractconcepts
byreferencetophysicalentities,an dweventuretowieldthatcogni-
tivetooltodistinguishbetweenrestoringandrewildingbyreference
tooldmotorcars.Thisofcourserequiresthereadertooverlookthe
obvious inability ofcars todisplay the adaptive, self-organizing be-
haviourofecosystems.
Adistinctivefeatureofpresent-dayCubaisanabundanceofcars
ofmid-20th century vintage that are still in ser vice. From its pro-
ductiondate, eachcar would have been subjected to multipledis-
turbances that its owners (‘managers’)could haveresponded toin
variouswaysdependingontheircircumstances.Whenoneormore
essentialpartsfailedandiforiginalreplacementpartswereunavail-
ableorunaffordable,andiftherewasnoconsiderationorpossibility
ofusingnon-originalparts,thenthecarwouldhavebecomederelict.
Restoringwouldbepossibleiforiginalpartscouldbeprocuredandif
therequisiteresourcesandexpertisecouldbeinvestedintheproj-
ect. A lternativel y,th e necessit y of maintainin g function ality could
drivetheownerstousesomenon-originalpartsandpossiblyadapt
bothvehicleandpartsintheprocess.Thiswouldallowavaluedser-
vicetobe maintained inanenvironmentwithaltered options,asin
present-day Cuba.There,whatmight now appear tobe astill-run-
ning classic Americancar could actuallybe powered by an engine
fromaRussiancement mixerwithelectrical wiringstrippedfroma
Chinese washingmachine.Inthiscase,restoringis notanoptionin
anenvironment ofdisturbanceandchange,soapragmaticsolution
hasemerged.Inconcept,thatsolutionistoatransportsystemwhat
rewildingistoanecosystem.
3 | MOVING FORWARD
Restoringandrewildingmaybeconsideredsimilaronlytotheextent
that they b oth involve biodive rsity and com ponents of one co uld
be neste d within the other. For exa mple restoring at t he species
level(e.g.beaversCas torspp.,or wolvesCanis lupus)mightbeinte-
gral to rewilding at theecosystem level(Figure2),but rewilding is
never part of restoration. Istherevalue in distinguishing between
theseconceptsanddoesrewildingstandaloneasaviablesteward-
ship option? We argue ‘yes’ because for any landscape, whether
FIGURE 1 TheadaptivecycleofHollingandGunderson(2002)
witharrowsaddedforthestewardshipoptionsofrewildingand
restoring,whichoperateatdifferentstageswithinthisconceptual
framework
R
e
w
i
l
d
i
n
g
R
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
E
x
p
l
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
w
i
l
d
i
n
g
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
R
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

2470
|
Journal of Applied Ecology
du TOIT and PE TTOR ELLI
ecologicallydegradedornot,itisdifficulttoimaginehowconserving
biodiversity andecosystemservicescould be possibleinpredicted
future scenarios without rewilding. Simply stated, anthropogenic
environmental forcing makes ecosystem restoration a diminishing
option. That is why restoration ecologists now find themselves at
acrossroads(Hobbs,2018)wherenewconceptslikenovelandde-
signed ecosystems (Higgs, 2017) are causingbearings to be ques-
tioned.Somesuggestextendingthe‘bigtent’ofrestorationecology
to include these concepts (Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016) whereas
otherssuggestrenamingrestoration(Rohwer&Marris,2016).Now,
themisunderstandingofrewilding and itsconflation with restoring
havecaused yet otherstogosofarastocall for banningthe term
rewilding(‘abuzz-word’)fromscientific,policyandconser vationdis-
course(Haywoodetal.,2019).Nevertheless,rewildingandrestoring
standasdistinctconcepts,eachwithitsownlogicalplacewithinthe
frameworkofthea daptivec ycle(F ig ure1).Fur therm ore,thed is tinc-
tions between the concepts (Table1)canassistinoperationalizing
thedecision-makingprocesswhena group ofstakeholdersbegins
discussingacourseofactionforanecologicallydegradedlandscape
(Figure 2). In practice,thedecisionpathwaysaremore likelytofa-
cilitate theprocess by whichstakeholdersmuddle through to con-
sensusthantoprovideaquicklyadoptableroadmaptowardsafixed
objective.Debatingprioritiesandexploringtheirimplicationsforces
stakeholderstoconfrontenvironmentalchanges,considerhowre-
versible(ornot)theyare,evaluatethecostsoffuturecommitments,
andformrealisticexpectations.
4 | CONCLUSIONS
Rewilding i s a concept that em braces new op portuni ties and pro-
videsawayforwardforecologicallydegradedlandscapeswhenres-
torationisnotanoption.Aswithrethinkinganargument,retooling
afactory, or reorganizing an institution, rewilding alandscape isa
progressiveresponse totheneedforenhanced functionalityunder
changed conditions. Rewilding and restoring are thus different
conceptsandeach has itsplace in ecosystem stewardship. In each
case, the respectivemeritsshouldbeweighedinrelation to stake-
holderpriorities,prevailingandpredictedenvironmentalconditions,
thelevelofbiological organization targeted for management,and
existingandfuturemanagementcapacity(Figure2).Becauserewil-
ding focuses on processes and functions, the approach challenges
conservationscientistsandmanagerstoconsiderwhy a functional
type is i mportant b efore worryin g about which species sh ould or
shouldno tb ep resen t.Thist ypeofth inkingisals od evelopinginthe-
oreticalecology,withagrowingnumberof studieshighlightingthe
importanceoffunctionaltraitdistributionforecosystemprocesses
and ser vices (Duncan, T hompson, & Petto relli, 2015). Such ideas
are discon certing to th ose who argue t hat rewilding sh ould focus
exclusivelyonbiodiversityandconsiderecosystemservicesonlyas
co-benefits(Genes,Svenning,Pires,&Fernandez,2019).Wildeco-
systemsare,however,asdiverseastheirenvironmentalconstraints
allow,whileproces sesandfunctionsarepartofbiod iversit ya ny way.
Therefore any rewilding project, whether initiated for e cosystem
servicesornot,willultimatelypromotelocalbiodiversity.Indeed,the
riseoftherewildingconceptisasignthatpragmaticnewapproaches
are urgently needed to conserve both biodiversity and ecosystem
servicesunderrapidlychangingenvironmentalconditions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Theideasinthispaperbenefitedfromdiscussionsamongpresenters
atapublicscienceevent entitled ‘Rewildingin a changing climate'
organizedbytheZoologicalSocietyofLondonatTheRegent'sPark,
Lond on, inDec emb er2018.WethankMa rcCadottean dt woa nony-
mousreviewersfortheirhelpfulcommentsonearlierdrafts,andto
BrianKartchnerforhelpwithgraphics.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Theauthorshavenoconflictsofinterestwiththepublicationofthis
article.
FIGURE 2 Decisionpathwaysinvolved
inexploringwhetheranecologically
degradedlandscapemightbeacandidate
forrestoration,activerewildingorpassive
rewilding
Stakeholder
priority?
Undefined
wildness
Can key
nave species be
restored?
Yes
No Taxonomic
substuon?
Impossible
Management
commitment?
Connuous
Tapered
Restoraon
Acve
rewilding
Passive
rewilding
Possible
Ecologically
degraded
landscape
Historical
community
structure
Ecosystem
funcon

|
2471
Journal of Applied Ecology
du TOIT and PE TTOR ELLI
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS
J.T.d.T.andN.P.conceivedtheideas,wrotethepaperandgavefinal
approvalforpublication.
DATA AVA ILAB ILITY STATE MEN T
Therearenodatainvolvedinthispaperandsononearearchived.
ORCID
Johan T. Toit https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0705-7117
Nathalie Pettorelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1594-6208
REFERENCES
Awiti,A.O.(2011).Biologicaldiversityandresilience:Lessonsfromthe
recoveryofcichlidspeciesinLakeVictoria.Ecology and Society,16(1),
9.https://doi.org /10.5751/ES-0 3877-160109
Bakker,E.S.,&Svenning,J.-C.(2018).Trophicrewilding:Impactonecosys-
temsunderglobalchange.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B,373(1761),20170432.https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0432
Donlan,C.J.,Berger,J.,Bock,C.E.,Bock,J.H.,Burney,D.A.,Estes,J.A.,
…Greene,H.W.(2006).Pleistocenerewilding:Anoptimisticagenda
fortwenty-firstcenturyconservation.The American Naturalist,168,
660–681.https://doi.org/10.1086/508027
duToit,J.T.(2019).Pleistocenerewilding:anenlighteningthoughtexperiment.
In N. Pettorelli,S. M. Durant, & J. T.du Toit(Eds.), Rewilding. Ecological
Reviews(pp.55–72).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Dunca n, C., Thomps on, J. R., & Pet torelli, N. (2015). T he quest for a
mechanisticunderstandingofbiodiversity–Ecosystemservicerela-
tionships.Proceedings of the Royal Society B,282,20151348.
Elmqvist,T.,Folke,C.,Nyström,M.,Peterson,G.,Bengsston,J.,Walker,
B.,&Norberg,J.(2003).Responsediversity,ecosystemchange,and
resilience.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,1,488–494.https
://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0488:RDECAR]2.0.CO;2
Garrid o, P., M årell, A., Öc kinger, E., Skarin , A., Jansson, A ., & Thulin,
C.-G.(2019).Experimentalrewildingenhancesgrasslandfunctional
compositionandpollinatorhabitatuse.Journal of Applied Ecology,56,
946–955.https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2644.133 38
Genes,L.,Svenning,J.-C.,Pires,A.S.,&Fernandez,F.A.S.(2019).Whywe
shouldletrewildingbewildandbiodiverse.Biodiversity and Conservation,
28,1285–1289.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01707-w
Hayward,M.W.,Scanlon,R.J.,Callen,A.,Howell,L.G.,Klop-Toker,K.L.,
DiBlanco,Y.,…Weise,F.J.(2019).Reintroducingrewildingtoresto-
ration–Rejectingthesearchfornovelty.Biological Conservation,233,
255–259.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.011
Hedrick,P.W.,Adams, J. R.,&Vucetich,J. A .(2011).Reevaluating and
broadeningthedefinitionofgeneticrescue.Conservation Biology,25,
1069–1070.ht tps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01751.x
Higgs,E.(2017).Novelanddesignedecosystems.Restoration Ecology,25,
8–13.htt ps://doi.org/10 .1111/rec.12410
Hobbs, R. J. (2018). Restoration Ecology’ssilver jubilee:Innovation, de-
bate, and creating a future for restoration ecology. Restoration
Ecology,26,801–805.
Holling,C.S.(1973).Resilienceandstabilityofecologicalsystems.Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics,4, 1–23.https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.es.04.110173.000245
Holling,C.S.,&Gunderson,L.H.(2002).Resilienceandadaptivecycles.In
L.H.Gunderson&C.S.Holling(Eds.),Panarchy: Understanding trans‐
formations in human and natural systems (pp. 25–62). Wash ington,
DC:IslandPress.
Chapin,F.S.III,Kofinas,G.P.,&Folke,C.(Eds.).(2009).Principles of eco‐
system stewardship.NewYork,NY:Springer.
Johnson,W.E., Onorato, D.P.,Roelke,M.E.,Land,E.D., Cunningham,
M.,Belden,R.C.,…O'Brien,S.J.(2010).Geneticrestorationofthe
Florida panther. Science, 329,1641–1645.https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1192891
Marris,E.(2009).Reflectingthepast.Nature,462,30–32.
Miller, J. R., & Bestelmeyer, B. T. (2016). What’s wrong with novel
ecosystems, really? Restoration Ecology, 24, 577–582. https://doi.
org /10.1111/re c.12378
Olson, M . E., Arroyo-Sa ntos, A., & Verg ara-Silva, F. (2019). The use r’s
guide to metaphorsinecolog yand evolution. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution,34,605–615.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.03.0 01
Perino, A ., Pereira, H. M., Navarro, L. M., Fernández, N., Bullock, J.
M., Ceaușu, S.…Wheeler, H. C. (2019). Rewilding complex sys-
tems. Science, 36 4(6438), eaav5570.https://doi.org/10.1126/scien
ce.a av5570
Pettorelli, N., Barlow, J., Stephens, P. A., Durant, S. M., Connor, B.,
Schulte t o Bühne, H., … du Toit, J. T. (2018). Ma king rewildi ng fit
for policy. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 1114–1125. ht tps://doi.
org /10.1111/1365-2664.13082
Pettorelli, N., Durant , S. M., & du Toit, J. T. (Eds.). (2019). Rewilding.
Ecological Reviews.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Rohwer,Y.,& Marris,E. (2016). Renaming restoration: Conceptualizing
andjustifyingtheactivityasarestorationoflostmoralvaluerather
than a return to a previousstate.Restoration Ecology,24 , 671–679.
https://doi.or g/10.1111/r ec .12398
Walker,B.,Holling,C.S.,Carpenter,S.R.,&Kinzig,A.(2004).Resilience,
adaptabilityandtransformabilityinsocial-ecologicalsystems.Ecology
and Society,9(2),5.https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205
Whiteley,A. R.,Fitzpatrick, S.W.,Funk,W.C., &Tallmon,D.A .(2015).
Geneticrescuetotherescue.Trends in Ecology and Evolution,30,42–
49.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.10.009
How to cite this article:duToitJT,PettorelliN.Thedifferences
betweenrewildingandrestoringanecologicallydegraded
landscape.J Appl Ecol. 2019;56:2467–2471. h t t p s : / / d o i .
org /10.1111/1365-2664.13487