TY - JOUR

T1 - By trying to be everything, rewilding risks meaning nothing

AU - Jachowski, J.D.

AU - Bombaci, S

AU - Caravaggi, A

AU - Chalmers, A

AU - Clulow, S

AU - Griffin, A

AU - Hayward, Matt

AU - Heurich, M

AU - Linnell, J

AU - Marnewick, K

AU - Moehrenschlager, A

AU - Montgomery, A

AU - Shuttleworth, Craig

AU - Somers, M

AU - Weise, F

PY - 2019/11

Y1 - 2019/11

N2 - n their recent review, Perino et al. (1) highlighted aspects of rewilding that those involved in the discipline of ecological restoration likely value, particularly the need to increasingly prioritize ecological processes (rather than just single species outcomes) and integrating interdisciplinary thinking and adaptive management into ecosystem restoration. However, two overarching concerns remain about the extent to which rewilding is novel or even necessary to address modern conservation challenges.First, rewilding continues to suffer from a lack of clearly defined goals or measurable targets from which to determine success (2). This is even more pronounced with Perino et al. attempting to integrate a flexible, societal driven definition of "wildness". Via review of this framework and corresponding examples, it appears that the "adaptive nature of their approach" means that "wildness" is restored under every possible restorative action. Even with the recent development of a rewilding score (3), the authors admit that "objective, evidence-based assessments of rewilding initiatives are needed." Without more explicit criteria for evaluating success, rewilding risks being both vague and ubiquitous‒two characteristics that limit the utility of rewilding as an independent scientific field.Second, science is most effective as an iterative process that builds upon the foundation of knowledge provided by previous investigations. While presented as novel in the paper, each of the ecological processes (dispersal, trophic complexity, stochastic events) they value has been intensively investigated and prioritized by generations of restoration ecologists (4,5,6,7). Further, the participatory "structured restoration planning" approach "that includes monitoring and adaptive management" advocated for by the authors read as if taken directly from the standard practices for ecological restoration projects (8). As restoration ecology already has better defined goals and measurable targets, we believe rewilding advocates will find a familiar home under the restoration umbrella and the catchphrase of rewilding can be abandoned (2).

AB - n their recent review, Perino et al. (1) highlighted aspects of rewilding that those involved in the discipline of ecological restoration likely value, particularly the need to increasingly prioritize ecological processes (rather than just single species outcomes) and integrating interdisciplinary thinking and adaptive management into ecosystem restoration. However, two overarching concerns remain about the extent to which rewilding is novel or even necessary to address modern conservation challenges.First, rewilding continues to suffer from a lack of clearly defined goals or measurable targets from which to determine success (2). This is even more pronounced with Perino et al. attempting to integrate a flexible, societal driven definition of "wildness". Via review of this framework and corresponding examples, it appears that the "adaptive nature of their approach" means that "wildness" is restored under every possible restorative action. Even with the recent development of a rewilding score (3), the authors admit that "objective, evidence-based assessments of rewilding initiatives are needed." Without more explicit criteria for evaluating success, rewilding risks being both vague and ubiquitous‒two characteristics that limit the utility of rewilding as an independent scientific field.Second, science is most effective as an iterative process that builds upon the foundation of knowledge provided by previous investigations. While presented as novel in the paper, each of the ecological processes (dispersal, trophic complexity, stochastic events) they value has been intensively investigated and prioritized by generations of restoration ecologists (4,5,6,7). Further, the participatory "structured restoration planning" approach "that includes monitoring and adaptive management" advocated for by the authors read as if taken directly from the standard practices for ecological restoration projects (8). As restoration ecology already has better defined goals and measurable targets, we believe rewilding advocates will find a familiar home under the restoration umbrella and the catchphrase of rewilding can be abandoned (2).

M3 - Letter

VL - 364

SP - 6438

JO - Science

JF - Science

SN - 0036-8075

ER -