Rewilding needs to clarify the role of management of invasive species

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

  • Matt Hayward
    University of Newcastle, Callaghan
  • D.S. Jachowski
    Clemson University
  • Craig Shuttleworth
  • J.D.C. Linnell
    NINA
  • B.L. Allen
    University of Southern Queensland
  • A.S. Griffen
    University of Newcastle, Callaghan
  • R.A. Montgomery
    Michigan State University
  • A Caravaggi
    University of South Wales
  • F.J. Weise
    Ongava Research Station, Namibia
  • A Moehrenschlager
    Calgary Zoological Society
  • M.J. Somers
    University of Pretoria
  • S Clulow
    Macquarie University, Sydney
  • M Heurich
    University of Freiberg
  • K Marnewick
    Tshwane University of Technology
Management of conflict-causing wildlife is a cornerstone of conservation, yet many definitions of rewilding ultimately require an absence of human intervention (1). Invasive alien species (IAS) are responsible for the extinction of numerous species and are a major driver of biodiversity loss (2). The restoration of fauna within the Chernobyl radioactive zone in Belarus has been upheld by rewilding proponents as a prime example of the benefits of passive rewilding (1). However, by lauding the presence of raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides – an IAS actively introduced between 1927 and 1957 via the release of 9,000 individuals across the European sections of the former Soviet Union and causing major ecological problems - Perino et al. (1) welcome an IAS into the Chernobyl system. This highlights a problem faced by rewilding proponents who risk IAS becoming ecological surrogates in rewilded landscapes where human intervention has been avoided. The other end of this spectrum is that not only are IAS tolerated, but in rewilding's quest for restoring processes over individual, imperilled native species, with little understood functional value or societal support, would be devalued; potentially leading to their extinction. Thus, rewilding fails to address the global biodiversity crisis.
The emphasis on stochasticity, dispersal, and trophic complexity that Perino et al. call for (1) is accommodated through the frequent acceptance of IAS and often the active use of domestic species as surrogates of extinct wild species within rewilded landscapes, whereas species that may be regionally or globally threatened because IAS are not prioritized (3). Therefore, rewilding proponents seem willing to accept these problems within rewilded landscapes provided no management occurs. This contrasts with a plethora of legislation aiming to prevent the impacts of IAS. Unlike rewilding, restoration is not constrained by the need to restrict human conservation actions, which will be required in most rewilding projects.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)6438
JournalScience
Volume364
Publication statusPublished - 8 May 2019
View graph of relations