Rewilding: NEG notes

Contention 1: Case Turns Rewilding is an Environmental Disaster

Overview of Rewilding's Negative Impacts

• Environmental Disaster: Rewilding initiatives are characterized by dire consequences including disease, loss of habitats, and decreased biodiversity.

  • Source: Delibes-Mateos et al. (2019).

Anthropogenic Activities and Environmental Change

• Unprecedented Environmental Changes: Human activities are driving environmental changes, leading to:

  • Soil erosion.

  • Nutrient enrichment.

  • Population and species extinctions.

  • Species invasions (Corlett, Reference Corlett2016).

• Uncertainties: These rapid changes create uncertainties that can compromise conservation and management goals, including rewilding.

  • Source: Wiens and Hobbs, Reference Wiens and Hobbs2015.

• Approaches to Nature Management:

  • Rewilding Advocates' Ideal: Allow natural processes to proceed without human intervention.

  • Alternative View: Actively manage nature due to the risks of a hands-off approach (Corlett, Reference Corlett2016).

• Increased Unpredictability: Rewilding outcomes are becoming more unpredictable due to:

  • Uncertainties in future conditions (e.g., climate change, land conversion).

  • Increased frequency of extreme events.

• Focus of the Chapter: This chapter primarily examines how trophic and passive rewilding intensify the risk of unwanted ecological effects.

  • Exclusion: Economic and societal implications are covered elsewhere (Chapters 8, 9, 19).

• Importance of Evolutionary History: Biological communities can only be understood by considering their evolutionary history.

  • Warning: Ignoring this aspect in rewilding projects risks failure.

Trophic Rewilding

• Definition and Goals:

  • Rewilding (Soulé and Noss, Reference Soulé and Noss1998; Chapter 5): Aims to restore and protect natural processes in wild areas, establish connectivity, and protect/reintroduce keystone species (known as 'trophic rewilding').

  • Trophic Rewilding Specific Goal: Restore top-down interactions and associated trophic cascades by reintroducing lost species to promote self-regulating ecosystems (Svenning et al., Reference Svenning, Pedersen and Donlan2016; Chapter 5).

• Categories of Unwanted Effects: Trophic rewilding can lead to unwanted ecological, human, and economic effects.

  • Further Discussion: Nogués-Bravo et al., Reference Nogués-Bravo, Simberloff, Rahbek and Sanders2016 offer a more detailed discussion.

• Focus of this Section: Review potential unwanted ecological effects from reintroducing top predators and herbivores.

Top Predators

• Rationale for Reintroduction: Rewilding often reintroduces large predators because their interactions with lower trophic levels maintain ecosystem stability (Corlett, Reference Corlett2016).

  • Yellowstone Wolves Example: Grey wolves (Canis lupus) in Yellowstone National Park are a globally recognized case study for trophic rewilding, demonstrating widespread effects on ecology and geography.

    • Caveat: The unprecedented impact highlights the uncertainty and need to consider undesirable outcomes (Paine et al., Reference Paine, Tegner and Johnson1998).

• Unintended Consequences (Ecological Surprises):

  • Doak and collaborators (Reference Doak, Estes and Halpern2008): Showcase surprising outcomes.

  • Rock Lobsters in South Africa: Reintroduction of rock lobsters (Jasus lalandii) to Marcus Island resulted in a predator-prey role reversal.

    • Disappearance: Lobsters vanished in the early 1970s for unknown reasons.

    • Whelk Population Increase: Predatory whelk populations, previously preyed upon by lobsters, increased substantially.

    • Failed Reintroduction: $1000$ lobsters were reintroduced but were immediately consumed by the abundant whelks; no live lobsters remained a week later (Barkai and McQuaid, Reference Barkai and McQuaid1988).

• Inevitability and Lack of Prediction: Ecological surprises are unavoidable due to complex species interactions (Berger et al., Reference Berger, Swenson and Persson2001; Laundré et al., Reference Laundré, Hernandez and Altendorf2001; Sterner and Elser, Reference Sterner and Elser2002; Hansen et al., Reference Hansen, Kiesbuy, Jones and Muller2007).

  • Problem: These potential interactions are rarely considered in broad community predictions for trophic rewilding of predators (Doak et al., Reference Doak, Estes and Halpern2008).

• Assessment Gap: While defaunation of large-bodied species shows negative consequences, the reverse (ecosystem restoration after return) is less assessed (Fernández et al., Reference Fernández, Navarro and Pereira2017).

• Potential Repercussions:

  • Changes in local diversity and ecosystem functioning.

    • Ecosystem Functioning Definition: Collective life activities of plants, animals, and microbes, and their effects on physical and chemical environmental conditions.

  • Catastrophic disease transmission (e.g., Daszak et al., Reference Daszak, Cunningham and Hyatt2000).

    • Zoonotic Diseases Example: Large carnivores depress mesopredator abundance, potentially favoring rodent prey and increasing zoonotic diseases (e.g., Ostfeld and Holt, Reference Ostfeld and Holt2004).

• Undiscovered Species: Trophic rewilding experiments typically ignore interactions with undiscovered species, even though small, undiscovered prey (e.g., insects) might support many ecosystem species.

• Context-Dependent Cascading Effects: While predators are expected to trigger top-down effects, heterogeneity at any trophic level can influence levels above or below under certain conditions.

  • Northern Utah Example: Bridgeland and collaborators (Reference Bridgeland, Beier, Kolb and Whitham2010) found that arthropod community structure on riparian trees mediated insectivorous birds' (top predators) influence on tree growth. Abiotic conditions affected tree growth and herbivore populations, which influenced bird foraging and cascaded back to trees. When water became less limiting than herbivory, avian predators could reduce herbivory.

  • Dynamic Complexity: This conditionality aligns with studies showing fundamental relationships can change over time, space, or with additional community members (Bailey and Whitham, Reference Bailey, Whitham, Ohgushi, Craig and Price2007).

    • Challenge: This complexity hinders predicting ecosystem responses to adding/losing top predators (Bridgeland et al., Reference Bridgeland, Beier, Kolb and Whitham2010; Mäntylä et al., Reference Mäntylä, Klemola and Laaksonen2011).

• Species Invasions: Rewilding might increase opportunities for non-native species to establish, outcompete natives, and reduce diversity.

  • Dingoes in Australia Proposal: Reintroduction of dingoes (Canis dingo) proposed to restore degraded rangelands (Newsome et al., Reference Newsome, Ballard and Crowther2015).

    • Suppression of Prey/Invaders: Studies suggest dingoes can suppress medium/large herbivores and invasive predators (red foxes, feral cats) that prey on threatened native species.

    • Risk: Dingoes are mesopredators themselves, posing a high risk of increased predation on threatened native predators (Allen and Fleming, Reference Allen, Fleming2012).

    • Cascading Effects: Eliminating feral cats could release other mammalian invaders (e.g., rats), leading to cascading ecosystem effects.

• Unforeseen Outcomes in Well-Documented Cases:

  • Yellowstone Wolf Example: Even well-studied rewilding, like wolves in Yellowstone, may not predict outcomes in other systems.

  • Adirondack Ecosystem (New York): Coyotes (Canis latrans) are thought to cause a trophic cascade by limiting small herbivorous mammals in burned areas.

    • Consequences: This could benefit deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), indirectly influencing vegetation (Ricketts, Reference Ricketts2016).

    • Coyote Predation: Coyotes are a major cause of mortality for red and swift foxes in Kansas and Colorado, which persist when coyote numbers are low (Sovada et al., Reference Sovada, Roy, Bright and Gillis1998; Kitchen et al., Reference Kitchen, Gese and Schauster1999).

    • Wolf Reintroduction Impact: If coyotes fill the wolf's niche, reintroducing wolves could have unknown effects, like increasing fox populations, further altering the Adirondack trophic system (Ricketts, Reference Ricketts2016).

• Predator-Prey Interactions and Loss of Adaptive Behaviors:

  • Addo Elephant National Park (South Africa): Ungulate prey at risk of predation become active diurnally when coexisting with nocturnal predators, reducing activity overlap (Tambling et al., Reference Tambling, Minnie and Meyer2015).

  • Extirpation Effects: When predators are extirpated, prey lose or dilute predator avoidance behaviors.

  • Reintroduction Risk: Reintroducing predators could dramatically impact prey communities as they lack full adaptive behaviors (Tambling et al., Reference Tambling, Minnie and Meyer2015).

• Fear of Carnivores vs. Humans:

  • Cascading Effects of Fear: Large carnivores' fear in mesocarnivores has strong cascading effects on ecosystem structure and function (Prugh et al., Reference Prugh, Stoner and Epps2009; Ritchie and Johnson, Reference Johnson2009; Ripple et al., Reference Ripple, Estes and Beschta2014; Suraci et al., Reference Suraci, Clinchy, Dill, Roberts and Zanette2016).

  • Human Dominance: Clinchy and collaborators (Reference Clinchy, Zanette and Roberts2016) suggest mesocarnivores fear humans more than large carnivores. Human numerical suppression of mesocarnivores far exceeds that by large carnivores (Darimont et al., Reference Darimont, Fox, Bryan and Reimchen2015).

  • Implications for Rewilding: Fear of humans can affect mesocarnivore demography and behavior (Dorresteijn et al., Reference Dorresteijn, Schultner and Nimmo2015; Oriol-Cotterill et al., Reference Oriol-Cotterill, Valeix, Frank, Riginos and Macdonald2015; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Wang and Wilmers2015).

    • European Context: In human-dominated landscapes (e.g., Europe), recovery or reintroduction of large carnivores is unlikely to 'restore' fear in mesocarnivores released from behavioral suppression (Prugh et al., Reference Prugh, Stoner and Epps2009; Ritchie and Johnson, Reference Ritchie and Johnson2009). Instead, it may add to existing fear of humans (Clinchy et al., Reference Clinchy, Zanette and Roberts2016).

Large Herbivores

• Ecological Roles: Large herbivores are crucial for ecosystems through direct impacts on vegetation and/or indirect effects on food web structure and ecosystem functioning.

  • Consequence of Decline: Loss of large herbivores leads to reduced ecological interactions and key ecosystem services (Ripple et al., Reference Ripple, Newsome and Wolf2015; Bakker et al., Reference Bakker, Gill and Johnson2016).

  • Evidence: Modern exclosure experiments and paleoecological records support this (Bakker et al., Reference Bakker, Gill and Johnson2016).

  • Pleistocene Megafaunal Extinction: Viewed as a natural experiment highlighting global roles of large herbivores (Ripple et al., Reference Ripple, Newsome and Wolf2015; Bakker et al., Reference Bakker, Gill and Johnson2016).

    • Variable Ecological Shifts: Ecological changes after megafaunal loss were not uniform, depending on the loss of ecosystem engineers and abiotic constraints (Barnosky et al., Reference Barnosky, Lindsey and Villavicencio2016).

• Importance of Understanding Ecological Roles: Given complex species and processes, thoroughly understanding each ecological role is crucial before predicting cascade effects (Barnosky et al., Reference Barnosky, Lindsey and Villavicencio2016).

• Central to Trophic Rewilding: Due to known impacts, herbivores are central to many trophic rewilding initiatives.

  • Goal: Restoring diverse and abundant large herbivore guilds is presumed to maintain vegetation mosaics, promoting higher biodiversity landscapes (Sandom et al., Reference Sandom, Ejrnæs, Hansen and Svenning2014).

  • Pleistocene Park (Siberia) Example: Bison and other large herbivores introduced to restore grazing-dependent mammoth steppe vegetation (Zimov, Reference Zimov2005).

    • Original Steppes: Dominated by palatable high-productivity grasses, herbs, and willow shrubs.

    • Grazing Role: High densities of large herbivores believed to suppress woody growth and accelerate nutrient cycling in cold ecosystems (Zimov et al., Reference Zimov, Zimov, Tikhonov and Chapin2012).

    • Holocene Collapse: Megafaunal collapse replaced mammoth steppe with water-logged moss and shrub tundra (Zimov et al., Reference Zimov, Chupryin, Oreshko, Chapin III, Reynolds and Chapin1995).

    • Experimental Results: Enclosures in Pleistocene Park show a shift from shrub-dominated to grass-dominated vegetation with high herbivore densities (Zimov et al., Reference Zimov, Zimov, Tikhonov and Chapin2012), demonstrating conservation potential (Zimov et al., Reference Zimov, Chupryin, Oreshko, Chapin III, Reynolds and Chapin1995).

    • Caveat: Requires predators and strong hunting pressure to keep herbivore numbers low and prevent excessive impact on vegetation/soils (Zimov, Reference Zimov2005).

  • Oostvaardersplassen (Netherlands) Example: Europe's oldest large-scale rewilding area.

    • Origin: Former industrial/agricultural land converted to nature reserve in the 1970s (Vera, Reference Vera2009).

    • Intervention: Primitive cattle and horse breeds introduced in the 1980s as extinct ancestors' replacements to keep the area open (prevent woodland conversion).

    • Management Style: Herbivore populations limited only by resource availability; no human management or effective wild predator control.

    • Negative Impacts: High herbivore densities (due to high productivity) negatively impact biodiversity and ecosystem function (Ims et al., Reference Ims, Yoccoz, Brathen, Fauchald, Tveraa and Hausner2007). For instance, they limit seedling establishment and prevent wood-pasture regeneration (Smit et al., Reference Smit, Kruifot, van Klink and Olff2015; Figure $17.1$).

    • Solution: Grazing refuges (areas inaccessible to herbivores or periods of declining numbers) are essential for woody species to establish (Cornelissen et al., Reference Cornelissen, Bokdam, Sykora and Berendse2014).

    • Requirement: Rewilding initiatives with large herbivores in productive areas must create grazing refuges for woody species regeneration (Smit et al., Reference Smit, Kruifot, van Klink and Olff2015).

• Ecological Replacement: For globally extinct species, restoring ecological functions may require introducing exotic, functionally similar species (Seddon et al., Reference Seddon, Griffiths, Soorae and Armstrong2014).

  • Giant Tortoises Example: Non-native giant tortoises replaced extinct species on oceanic islands (Hansen et al., Reference Hansen, Donlan, Griffiths and Campbell2010).

    • Mauritius Case: Aldabran (Aldabrachelys gigantea) and Madagascan (Astrochelys radiata) radiated tortoises (functionally similar to extinct Mauritian Cylindraspis spp.) successfully established, improving endemic tree dispersal and recruitment on Round Island, Mauritius (Griffiths et al., Reference Griffiths, Hansen, Jones, Zuël and Harris2011), and suppressing invasive plants (Griffiths et al., Reference Griffiths, Zuël, Jones, Ahamud and Harris2013).

    • Limitation: In severely degraded plant communities, ecological replacements alone may be insufficient, requiring large-scale habitat restoration (Griffiths et al., Reference Griffiths, Zuël, Jones, Ahamud and Harris2013; Gibbs et al., Reference Gibbs, Hunter, Shoemaker, Tapia and Cayot2014).

  • Selection Criteria: Taxonomic relatedness and functional equivalence are important for ecological replacements, but predicting their effects on recipient ecosystems is a major barrier.

  • Livestock as Surrogates: Introducing livestock (derived from wild ancestors) as surrogates for extinct wild herbivores bypasses taxonomic relatedness concerns, being theoretically functionally similar.

    • Proposal: Grassland conservation could use grazing by domestic herbivores or native species like bison (Towne et al., Reference Towne, Hartnett and Cochran2005).

    • Competition Risk: Livestock can compete with and exclude native wild herbivores when introduced into co-evolved assemblages (Mishra et al., Reference Mishra, Van Wieren, Heitköning and Prins2002; Madhusudan, Reference Madhusudan2004).

• Influence of Ecosystem Modification: Community responses to large herbivore introduction/reintroduction depend on the extent of ecosystem modification. Past environmental changes and human activities may have created new communities and ecological equilibria (Smith, Reference Smith2005).

• Complex Effects and Mixed Outcomes:

  • Tule Elk (California): Successful reintroduction reduced invasive exotic grass but increased abundance and richness of other non-native taxa (Johnson and Cushman, Reference Johnson and Cushman2007).

  • Reindeer (South Georgia): Introduced by whalers in the early 1900s, reindeer caused major vegetation changes, favoring exotic plant expansion (Leader-Williams et al., Reference Leader-Williams, Smith and Rothery1987). This is partly due to South Georgia's species-poor flora not being adapted to vertebrate grazing.

    • Mitigation: Reindeer control non-native brown rats that shelter in native tussock grassland (Leader-Williams et al., Reference Leader-Williams, Walton and Prince1989).

• Evolutionary History Assumption: A core assumption of trophic rewilding with large herbivores is that species sharing recent evolutionary history will interact the same way today and in the future (Caro, Reference Caro2007).

  • Environmental Change Impact: This is less likely with rapid environmental changes.

    • Pleistocene Megafauna: Effects possibly exacerbated by lower $CO_2$ concentrations, inhibiting woody growth and increasing browsing susceptibility (Malhi et al., Reference Malhi, Doughty, Galleti, Smith, Svenning and Terborgh2016).

    • Modern Context: Higher atmospheric $CO_2$ levels may make vegetation more resistant to browsing today.

Passive Rewilding

• Definition: Central to passive rewilding is the absence of sustained human intervention (Chapter 6), following a 'leave it to nature' philosophy.

  • Justification: More philosophical than scientific (Schnitzler, Reference Schnitzler2014).

• Land Abandonment Impacts: Land abandonment (e.g., former agricultural land) has occurred in developed countries (Europe, North America) and its effects on biodiversity are varied (Shengfa and Xiubin, Reference Shengfa and Xiubin2017).

  • Heterogeneous Outcomes: Impacts on ecosystem composition and functioning are heterogeneous and factor-dependent (Plieninger et al., Reference Plieninger, Hui, Gaertner and Huntsinger2014), with both benefits and detrimental impacts documented (Queiroz et al., Reference Queiroz, Beilin, Folke and Lindborg2014; Lasanta et al., Reference Lasanta, Nadal-Romero and Arnáez2015).

• Negative Impacts of Land Abandonment:

  • Prevalence: Highest proportion of negative reports from Europe and Asia (Queiroz et al., Reference Queiroz, Beilin, Folke and Lindborg2014).

  • Vulnerability: Particularly evident in semi-natural habitats traditionally maintained by human activities (grazing, mowing) that harbor rich biodiversity (Carboni et al., Reference Carboni, Dengler, Mantilla-Contreras, Venn and Török2015).

    • Threat: Such ecosystems are threatened if rewilding ignores risks of unwanted interactions from abandonment.

  • Documented Effects (Figure $17.2$):

    • Species Level: Decline in abundance and modified distribution.

      • Plants: Abandonment of grazing/farming threatens semi-natural plant species. Example: Endemic Primula scandinavica in Sweden/Norway projected to decrease (Wehn and Johansen, Reference Wehn and Johansen2015; Speed and Austrheim, Reference Speed and Austrheim2017).

      • Animals: Negative impacts on many animal species.

        • Gastropods: Land abandonment and pine reforestation in Collserola Natural Park (Spain) led to landscape homogeneity and likely extinction of six open-habitat gastropod species (Torre et al., Reference Torre, Bros and Santos2014).

        • Spiders: Declining ground spider abundance in Greece associated with low-intensity grazing abandonment (Zakkak et al., Reference Zakkak, Chatzaki, Karamalis and Kati2014).

        • Butterflies: Threat به endangered, endemic butterfly species in Spain (Munguira et al., Reference Munguira, Barea-Azcón and Castro-Cobo2017).

        • Vertebrates (Open Habitats): Clear detrimental impacts.

          • Avifauna: Mainly negative, decline of many farmland bird species across Europe (e.g., Zakkak et al., Reference Zakkak, Radovic, Nikolov, Shumka, Kakalis and Kati2015a; Mischenko and Sukhanova, Reference Mischenko and Sukhanova2016; Regos et al., Reference Regos, Domínguez, Gil-Tena, Brotons, Ninyerola and Pons2016) and Asia (e.g., Katayama et al., Reference Katayama, Osawa, Amano and Kusumoto2015).

          • Mammals: Reduction in abundance. Example: Loss of farmland diversity from agricultural intensification/crop abandonment linked to long-term decline of European hare (Lepus europaeus) (Edwards et al., Reference Edwards, Fletcher and Berny2000).

          • Lizards: Decline in Greece due to abandoned agricultural fields for lizard species preferring open grassy habitats (Zakkak et al., Reference Zakkak, Halley, Akriotis and Kati2015b).

Unwanted Ecological Interactions from Abandonment

• General Finding: Abundant knowledge suggests abandonment of traditional human activities (as in passive rewilding) leads to negative, unwanted ecological interactions (Figure $17.2$).

• Ungulate Numbers Increase: Forest encroachment from agricultural abandonment caused a notable increase in ungulate numbers in Europe and North America (e.g., Acevedo et al., Reference Acevedo, Farfán, Márquez, Delibes-Mateos, Real and Vargas2011).

  • Competition: Negatively affects other herbivore species.

    • Wild Boar (Spain): Increasing wild boar (Sus scrofa) populations could negatively impact European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) populations (Cabezas-Díaz et al., Reference Cabezas-Díaz, Virgós, Mangas and Lozano2011; Carpio et al., Reference Carpio, Guerrero-Casado, Ruiz-Aizpurua, Vicente and Tortosa2014), indirectly affecting rabbit predators (Lozano et al., Reference Lozano, Virgós, Cabezas-Díaz and Mangas2007).

  • Invasive Grass (Italy): Grazing abandonment favored invasion of Brachypodium genuense in central Apennines, reducing palatable plants for Apennine chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata), whose numbers declined dramatically (Corazza et al., Reference Corazza, Tardella, Ferrari and Catorci2016).

• Compromised Invasive Species Control: Allowing ecosystems to evolve without human control can hinder constraining harmful invasive species (Corlett, Reference Corlett2016).

  • Nepal Example: Lack of management in abandoned lands facilitates invasive plant spread, suppressing native vegetation (Jaquet et al., Reference Jaquet, Schwilch and Hartung-Hofmann2015).

  • Traditional Practices: Abandonment fosters establishment and spread of invasive species. Abandoned farmsteads support persistence and spread of formerly cultivated alien plants (Pándi et al., Reference Pándi, Penksza, Botta-Dukát and Kröel-Dulay2014).

• Shift in Species Composition and Community Establishment:

  • New Communities: As environmental conditions change post-abandonment, new communities establish, and species composition shifts (Figure $17.2$).

  • Japan Grasslands: Succession to secondary forests after abandonment leads to tall grass/woody species dominance, suppressing threatened grassland plants and decreasing grassland herbivorous insects (Uchida and Ushimaru, Reference Uchida and Ushimaru2014).

  • European Mountains: Abandonment of pastures/decreased herbage use encourages invasion of coarse tall grasses, competitively excluding subordinate/accidental plant species (Corazza et al., Reference Corazza, Tardella, Ferrari and Catorci2016).

  • Animal Communities: Loss of grasslands/semi-open formations alters animal community composition (Figure $17.2$).

    • Southern Balkans Butterflies: Shift from Mediterranean endemics to species with European or Eurosiberian distribution (Slancarova et al., Reference Slancarova, Bartonova and Zapletal2016).

    • Belowground Invertebrates: Analogous shifts documented in alpine soils (Steinwandter et al., Reference Steinwandter, Schlick-Steiner, Seeber, Steiner and Seeber2017).

    • Vertebrates: Forest-dwelling bird species increase at the expense of farmland birds in many abandoned European areas (Zakkak et al., Reference Zakkak, Radovic, Nikolov, Shumka, Kakalis and Kati2015a).

Overall Reduction in Species Diversity and Richness

• Vegetation Homogenization: Abandonment of traditional human practices (as in passive rewilding) can reduce species diversity and richness (Figure $17.2$).

  • Often leads to vegetation homogenization and reduced landscape heterogeneity (Rey-Benayas et al., Reference Rey-Benayas, Martinis, Nicolau and Schulz2007).

  • Fire Frequency: Homogenization triggered by secondary succession increases fire frequency (Moreira and Russo, Reference Moreira and Russo2007).

  • Biodiversity Decline: Fire on abandoned land further declines biodiversity by enhancing fire-adapted species (Rey-Benayas et al., Reference Rey-Benayas, Martinis, Nicolau and Schulz2007).

  • Europe/Asia Examples: Vegetation homogenization and plant diversity loss reported across Europe (e.g., Persson, Reference Perrson1984; Campagnaro et al., Reference Campagnaro, Frate, Carranza and Sitzia2017) and Asia (Suzuki et al., Reference Suzuki, Kenta, Sato, Masaki and Kanai2016; Uchida et al., Reference Uchida, Takahashi, Shinohara and Ushimaru2016).

• Animal Diversity/Richness Threatened: Land abandonment also threatens animal diversity and species richness (Figure $17.2$).

  • Japan Butterflies: Diversity of threatened and common butterflies significantly higher in traditional land-use sites than abandoned ones (Uchida et al., Reference Uchida, Takahashi, Shinohara and Ushimaru2016).

  • Europe (Similar Findings): Loos et al., Reference Loos, Dorresteijn, Hanspach, Fust, Rakosy and Fischer2014; Buvobá et al., Reference Buvobá, Vrabec, Kulma and Nowicki2015.

  • Other Invertebrates: Orthopteran species decrease with time since abandonment in Italian Alps (Marini et al., Reference Marini, Fontana, Battisti and Gaston2009); ground spider diversity declines in Greek ecosystems (Zakkak et al., Reference Zakkak, Chatzaki, Karamalis and Kati2014).

• Vertebrate Diversity: Passive rewilding can negatively impact vertebrate diversity.

  • European Terrestrial Vertebrates: Moreira and Russo (Reference Moreira and Russo2007) modeled impact on $554$ species, finding open habitats/farmland sustained higher species richness for all groups except amphibians.

  • Avian Species Richness (Southeastern Europe): Decreased with secondary succession after land abandonment (Zakkak et al., Reference Zakkak, Radovic, Nikolov, Shumka, Kakalis and Kati2015a).

• Loss of Human-Made Structures: Associated with abandonment, this can harm animal species richness.

  • Iberian Peninsula Mountains: Loss of many ponds in Mediterranean dry forests due to abandonment, reducing bat species richness (including horseshoe bats, Myotis spp.) (Lisón and Calvo, Reference Lisón and Calvo2014).

• Conclusion: Despite documented positive outcomes (Chapter 6), negative impacts on biodiversity are frequent and well-illustrated. Land abandonment can also cause abiotic consequences like soil erosion, desertification, and reduced water availability (Rey-Benayas et al., Reference Rey-Benayas, Martinis, Nicolau and Schulz2007).

• Recommendation: Passive rewilding must consider the social and ecological complexity of restoration areas; otherwise, high-value semi-natural habitats will be compromised.

Implications of Evolutionary Pathways in Rewilding Schemes

• Understanding Communities: Biological communities' structure and function are understood only through their evolutionary history.

  • Requirement: Successful rewilding must explicitly adopt an evolutionary perspective and consider timeframes of biotic interactions.

• Unpredictable Outcomes: Newly established interactions (on an evolutionary timescale) are expected to lead to unpredictable (often undesired) outcomes (Saul and Jeschke, Reference Saul and Jeschke2015).

  • Crucial Aspect: Maintaining or disrupting existing biotic interactions (predator-prey, host-parasite, or both simultaneously in triangles) is important (e.g., Barbosa et al., Reference Barbosa, Thode, Real, Feliu and Vargas2012).

    • Host-Parasite Consequences: Profound effects on population structure, social traits, physiology, macroecology, and evolution (Guilhaumon et al., Reference Guilhaumon, Krasnov, Poulin, Shenbrot and Mouillot2012; Quigley et al., Reference Quigley, García López, Buckling, McKane and Brown2012; Greenwood et al., Reference Greenwood, López Ezquerra, Behrens, Branca and Mallet2016).

    • Predator-Prey Role: Major role in ecosystem functioning.

    • Species-Specificity: Interactions can be highly species-specific (e.g., parasites/predators relying on a single host/prey).

• Spatial Genetic Structure: Maintenance of biotic interactions can be affected by the spatial genetic structure of involved species (Real et al., Reference Real, Barbosa and Rodríguez2009), requiring careful consideration in planning.

• Late Quaternary Extinctions: Megafaunal extinctions radically transformed habitat structure and ecosystem functioning via trophic cascades (Malhi et al., Reference Malhi, Doughty, Galleti, Smith, Svenning and Terborgh2016).

  • Plant Adaptation Loss: Many plant communities evolved in the absence of large herbivores, now lacking adaptations to grazing pressure (Johnson, Reference Johnson2009).

  • Conservation Risk: Reintroducing large herbivores can compromise several plant species' conservation, negatively affecting vegetation structure and composition.

• Complexity: All these complex interactions must be considered when designing rewilding schemes.

  • Co-evolutionary History: Critical for predicting outcomes of new interactions at the community level.

• Limitations to Evolutionary Perspective: Incorporating an evolutionary perspective is limited by:

  • Incomplete knowledge of the Tree of Life (especially terminal branches).

  • Lack of fully resolved networks of species interactions in natural communities (two major pillars for inferring evolutionary history of biotic interactions).

• Fossil Record: Provides key insights but is inherently incomplete.

• Uncertainty and Speculation: These uncertainties translate to practical stages, leaving much room for speculation.

• Human-Nature Interaction in Europe: In Europe, where humans and nature have interacted for millennia, ~$50$% of wildlife now depends on agricultural habitats (Kristensen, Reference Kristensen2003).

  • Dichotomy: Conservation attempts contrast with the enhanced dichotomy between nature and human culture implied by rewilding (Linnell et al., Reference Linnell, Kaczensky, Wotschikowsky, Lescureux and Boitani2015).

• Debate on Preserving Ecological Interactions: Not new. Some argue that species introduced long ago have become part of invaded ecosystems, filling extinct species' roles, questioning removal for long-term ecological interaction preservation (e.g., Lees and Bell, Reference Lees and Bell2008).

• Future Needs: Better integration of phylogenetic and ecological studies of species interaction networks is needed.

Conclusions

• Unwanted Outcomes: Numerous examples of potential unwanted outcomes in rewilding are explained by:

  • Complexity of natural systems.

  • Extent of ecosystem modification.

  • Limited understanding of relevant ecosystem dynamics (Baker et al., Reference Baker, Gordon and Bode2016).

• Addressing Uncertainties: Essential as they will increase with future environmental changes.

  • Tools: Modeling tools (e.g., ensemble ecosystem modeling: Baker et al., Reference Baker, Gordon and Bode2016) and natural experimental settings (Mech et al., Reference Mech, Barber-Meyer and Blanco2017) can provide structured, quantitative insights.

• Core Principle: Rewilding must recognize that species composition and ecological interactions reflect an ecosystem's assembly history.

Negative Contention 1: Ends Land Management Causes Invasive Species

The Problem of Land Management Cessation

• Pristine vs. Human-Used Land: Most of the world, especially Europe, is not pristine and has been in human use for hundreds to thousands of years.

  • European Plain Exception: The Białowieża Forest is the only remaining temperate, terrestrial pristine nature in Central Europe.

• Agricultural Landscapes and Biodiversity: Agricultural management practices over 6000 years have shaped complex ecosystems and regions with high biodiversity values that depend on continuous agriculture (Rosin et al. 2016).

  • Examples: Natura 2000 in the EU promotes extensive land management for biodiversity (e.g., large blue butterflies, ortolan bunting, corncrake, threatened orchids, Siberian iris, globeflower, chess flower, crocus).

• Current Conservation Status: Agriculture-associated habitats currently have the worst conservation status among all ecosystems (Pe’er et al. 2014).

• Agricultural Intensification: Increasing demand for food drives agricultural intensification in Europe, leading to increased agrochemical inputs and declining farmland biodiversity (Tryjanowski et al. 2011).

• Theoretical vs. Applied Land Sparing:

  • Theoretical Idea: Abandoning managed land to create new spared areas for nature conservation.

  • Practical Application: This has been applied in Europe, exemplified by "Rewilding" initiatives and the EU's "Greening policy" since 2013, which advocates abandoning at least $5$% of arable land.

    • Rewilding & Greening Policy: Both resemble land sparing, reestablishing natural lands within actively managed landscapes, usually combined with further agricultural intensification (Van Zeijts et al. 2011, Hauck et al. 2014, Sylvén and Windstrand 2015, Perino et al. 2019).

    • Chernobyl Example: Rewilding emphasizes positive effects of land abandonment, citing Chernobyl after the nuclear catastrophe (Perino et al. 2019).

Alien Species Invasions are Ignored

• Critical Omission: None of these land sparing concepts propose a specific strategy for landscapes threatened by alien species invasions.

  • Risk: Invaded areas become propagule sources, further threatening other nature conservation areas.

• Fukushima Example: Abandoned paddy fields at Fukushima became dominated by alien invasive goldenrod Solidago altissima within one year of the nuclear catastrophe (Yamashita et al. 2014, Fig. S1).

• Omission of Scientific Data: Theoretical land sparing/sharing concepts and applied policies like "Rewilding" and "Greening" omit published scientific data showing frequent invasion of abandoned agricultural land by alien plant species (Cramer et al. 2008, Lenda et al. 2021).

  • Neglected Risk: This plant invasion risk is unaddressed in the conceptual framework and practical solutions.

Impacts of Invasive Species

• Ecological Disturbances: Invasive species can:

  • Disturb natural succession (Gusev 2015).

  • Affect fire regimes (Otero et al. 2015).

  • Decrease native biodiversity of plants, pollinators, ants, and birds (Moroń et al. 2009, Skórka et al. 2010, Lenda et al. 2013).

  • Homogenize ecosystems (Lenda et al. 2019).

• Central Europe Goldenrods: Up to $90$% of abandoned agricultural land is dominated by alien goldenrods (Solidago canadensis and S. gigantea) (Szymura et al. 2016, Lenda et al. 2019, 2021).

  • Rapid Dominance: Goldenrods create homogenous habitat patches with up to $100$% dominance within a few years (Moroń et al. 2009, Lenda et al. 2019), negatively affecting ecosystem service providers and decreasing functional diversity (Patchey and Gaston 2006).

• Biodiversity Decline Due to Invasives:

  • Pollinators: Up to $70$% decline in wild pollinator abundance (Moroń et al. 2009, 2019).

  • Birds and Ants: $50$% decline in farmland bird abundance and ant diversity (Skórka et al. 2010, Lenda et al. 2013).

• Consequence for "Natural" Land: If invasives dominate spared "natural" land, its biodiversity would be much lower than extensively managed agricultural habitats (Moroń et al. 2009, Skórka et al. 2010).

• Increased Invasion on New Land: Land abandonment and sparing in the presence of invasive plants will lower native species richness and abundance by increasing invasion on post-agricultural land.

  • Bird Diversity Simulations: Non-invaded land sparing increases bird species richness (up to ~$40$% cover), but there's no gain if abandoned land is invaded (Fig. 2, Supplementary material).

Global Problem and Solutions

• Global Scope: Alien plant species invading abandoned lands is a worldwide issue.

  • Panama Example: Dense stands of invasive grass Saccharum spontaneum prevent forest regeneration in abandoned pastures (Joo Kim et al. 2006).

  • Spain Example: Ampelodesmos mauritanica invasion on abandoned farmland increases fire frequency and intensity (Grigulis et al. 2005), leading to soil erosion (Otero et al. 2015).

• Land Sharing as a Solution: Land sharing may be the best solution for sustaining biodiversity when invasion risk is high.

  • Mechanism: Land management practices (plowing, cutting, grazing) prevent successful establishment and spread of invasive alien species (Fig. 1).

  • Persian Walnut in Central Europe: Seed-catching birds disperse walnut seeds, which germinate in arable fields, but yearly land management (plowing, cutting) prevents establishment (Lenda et al. 2012, 2018).

  • Goldenrod: Wind-dispersed goldenrod seeds establish and dominate agricultural lands with land abandonment/management cessation (Fig. 1).

• Vast Abandonment Risks: Vast land abandonment/management cessation allows invasive plants to establish. Seeds often present in soil, leading to fast-growing, competitive, allelopathic seedlings achieving dominance.

  • Hotspots: Invaded abandoned lands become hotspots of invasive species dominance, spreading into other natural landscapes.

• Catastrophic Outcome: A land sparing strategy in such an environment promotes further plant invasions. Intensively managed cropland alongside invaded spared land could be catastrophic for both agriculture and biodiversity, as agricultural ecosystems provide crucial biodiversity and ecosystem services.

• Conclusion: Land sharing mitigates dangerous consequences of large-scale invasions.

Negative Contention 2: Food Prices/Precision Agriculture Disadvantage

Food System Instability

• Food Systems at Tipping Point: New supply shocks destabilize markets (Rechenberg 2025).

• Current Inflation Drivers (August 2025): Inflation is moderate but driven by:

  • Housing shortages.

  • Energy demand.

  • Food supply shocks.

  • Not Tariffs: Tariffs are not an inflation engine; they are a strategic tool for domestic industry support.

• August 2025 CPI Snapshot - Main Drivers (Rechenberg 2025):

  • Shelter: $+0.4$% m/m: Housing shortage, high borrowing costs, driving families to rental market.

  • Airline Fares: $+5.9$% m/m: High jet fuel, pilot shortages, strong summer travel demand.

  • Beef: $+2.7$% m/m retail; $+8$% wholesale PPI: Reduced cattle herds (decades of import disruption, worsening drought), disease risks (Mexican cattle ringworm outbreak) tightening supply.

  • Coffee: $+6.9$% m/m: Poor global harvest, shipping disruptions, weaker dollar.

  • Electricity: $+0.3$% m/m: Demand from data centers and AI expansion straining grid, raising costs (ripples through economy).

  • Eggs: flat m/m, but $+10.9$% YoY: Lingering effects of avian influenza, high feed costs.

• What's Not Driving Inflation (Rechenberg 2025):

  • Autos: New vehicles $+0.3$% m/m; used vehicles $+1.0$% m/m (modest, in line with CPI, not driving inflation despite Section $232$ duties).

  • Steel & Aluminum: $+0.4$% m/m (modest rise despite doubled Section $232$ tariffs; tied to energy/production costs).

  • Electronics: flat to $+0.1$% m/m (stable despite heaviest tariff exposure; competition/tech-cycle deflation offset costs).

  • Pasta, Olive Oil, Spices: $0.0-0.2$% m/m (essentially flat; stable global supply, consumer substitution).

• Bottom Line (Rechenberg 2025): August inflation came from housing, services, food shocks, and energy—not tariffed imports.

Myths About Tariffs and Inflation

• Myth 1: Tariffs Cause Inflation and Economic Disaster (Rechenberg 2025):

  • Critics: Invoke Smoot-Hawley, claim modern tariffs are catastrophic (e.g., Justin Wolfers, Jeremy Siegel).

  • Reality Check: Inflation at $2.9$% (August) is $63$% below 2022 average, below January 2025 levels. Goods imports are only $11$% of U.S. GDP ($3.3$ trillion of $29.18$ trillion in 2024). Stronger forces (credit growth, supply shocks) drive inflation.

    • 2022 Inflation: $8$% average, fueled by COVID-era credit/money supply explosion, collapsed supply from lockdowns.

• Myth 2: Tariff Costs Are Passed Directly to Consumers (Rechenberg 2025):

  • Critics: Claim consumers bear nearly all tariff costs (e.g., Scott Linicome, Jared Bernstein).

  • Reality Check: Biggest inflation increases are from non-tariffed goods/services (shelter, airfares, beef, eggs, electricity). Tariffed goods are stable or flat.

  • Foreign Firms Absorption: Foreign firms increasingly absorb U.S. tariff burdens to preserve market share, using healthier balance sheets.

  • Retail Giants: Walmart, Amazon, Costco, Home Depot use market power to shift costs onto suppliers, keeping consumer prices steady.

• Myth 3: Tariffs Crush U.S. Manufacturers by Raising Input Costs (Rechenberg 2025):

  • Critics: Claim tariffs on steel/parts choke manufacturers (e.g., Jason Furman).

  • Reality Check: August 2025 Producer Price Index (PPI) data shows no damage. Overall PPI $−0.1$% m/m; Machinery & Vehicles PPI flat; Steel & Aluminum PPI $+0.4$% m/m.

    • Historical Data: 2023 U.S. International Trade Commission study found 2018-2021 steel/aluminum tariffs led to only $0.7$% domestic price rise, while domestic production climbed $1.9$%.

  • PPI Significance: PPI is an early signal for CPI. A falling PPI indicates future CPI inflation is unlikely to accelerate.

Conclusion on Tariffs

• Rechenberg (2025): Tariffs are not driving U.S. inflation; main drivers are housing, energy, and food supply shocks. They are a strategic tool to strengthen U.S. production and can coexist with stable inflation.

Farmland Loss and Famine

• Global Problem: Loss of agricultural land is a growing global issue, affecting food security, local economies, and environmental sustainability (Tharoor 2025).

  • Urbanization Impact: Fertile lands rapidly converted into residential/industrial zones, threatening long-term food security.

  • Consequences: Rural livelihoods degradation, increased dependence on food imports, environmental degradation (loss of green spaces, biodiversity, carbon sequestration).

• Imperative: Agricultural land protection ensures healthy communities, ecological balance, and economic stability.

  • Call to Action: Governments, urban planners, individuals must adopt sustainable land-use policies, support local farmers, and encourage wise development.

Importance of Farmland to Community (Tharoor 2025)

1. Food Security: Community farms provide fresh, healthy food locally.

   • Loss of Farmland: Dwindles food output, increases reliance on imports.

   • Imported Food Issues: Less fresh, less nutritious, more expensive, unreliable due to global supply chain disruptions (climate change, pandemics, geopolitical conflicts).

   • Local Farmland Role: Guards against availability, affordability, and shocks.

2. Economic Impact: Agriculture is an income-generating sector, employing farmers, laborers, and supply chain workers.

   • Loss of Farmland: Reduces employment and income for thousands.

   • Economic Development: Thriving farms link with local markets and agribusinesses.

   • Small Businesses: Loss affects thousands of small businesses and rural economies.

3. Environmental Benefits: Farmlands are green zones that benefit biodiversity and climate change mitigation.

   • Carbon Sequestration: Healthy farms absorb $CO_2$ emissions.

   • Urban Heat/Soil Conservation: Reduce urban heat, conserve soil.

   • Urbanization Negatives: Eliminates these benefits, leading to cut-off forests, wildlife habitat loss, excess carbon emissions, soil erosion, water depletion.

   • Restoration Difficulty: Ecosystem injury from construction makes agriculture difficult to restore.

Farmland Loss Due to Urbanization (Tharoor 2025)

• Urban Inroads: Urbanization profoundly converts farmlands into urban centers, disfiguring the countryside.

  • Process: Fertile lands become residential sites, commercial areas, and high-density structures.

  • Threat to Productivity: Limits agricultural productivity.

• Statistics: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification estimates $1.6 ext{ to } 3.3 ext{ million}$ hectares of prime agricultural land lost annually to urbanization between 2000 and 2030.

  • United States: Millions of acres converted from 2001 to 2016, impacting food production, rural economies, environmental sustainability.

  • Canada (Ontario): Over $18$% of Class 1 farmland (most fertile) developed for urban purposes, increasing import dependency and food prices.

  • Global Perspective: Millions of hectares lost yearly, threatening global food security, displacing farmers, degrading ecosystems.

Consequences of Farmland Loss (Tharoor 2025)

• Fragmentation: Remaining agricultural areas become isolated, making farming difficult and less viable.

• Environmental Degradation: Green fields replaced by impervious surfaces, increasing runoff, decreasing groundwater recharge, deteriorating wildlife habitats.

• Cultural Erosion: Farming traditions and rural lifestyles endangered.

Preserving Farmland: A Community Imperative (Tharoor 2025)

• Importance: Farmland is vital for community health and well-being.

• Strategies:

  • Zoning Laws: Create agricultural zones to prevent urban sprawl.

  • Support Local Farmers: Ensure economic viability through local purchasing and Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA).

  • Urban Agriculture: Encourage urban gardening/farming to reduce pressure on rural farmland.

• Swasya Living Example: Promotes eco-friendly lifestyles with organic farming and community-based initiatives, aiming to create hubs of organic food, health, and ecological harmony.

  • Sustainable/Viable: Advocates organic, self-sufficient, regenerative farming for ecological soundness and financial viability.

Conclusion on Farmland Loss

• Primary Cause: Reduced farmland causes hunger, local economic deprivation, environmental degradation.

• Call to Action: Responsible land-use policy, conservation efforts, and local farmer support are a primary agenda.

• Future: Protection ensures food supply stability, economic viability, balance for future generations. Urgent action needed.

Rewilding's Economic Tensions with Agriculture

• Rewilding and Agriculture: Complex Relationship: While some authors suggest compatibility and synergies (Hall 2018; Hall and Bunce 2019), benefits like pest control, carrion removal, and meat production from semi-wild grazers (Sweeney et al. 2019; Delgado-Gonzalez et al. 2022; Gordon et al. 2021a; b) exist.

• Vast Majority of Studies: Highlight strong tensions between farming and rewilding, aligning with the land sharing–land sparing debate (Merckx and Pereira 2015).

  • Farm Viability Threat: Large mammal comeback can threaten farms through direct losses from predation (Doherty and Ritchie 2017; Lennox et al. 2018) or crop damages (Hearn et al. 2014; Subalusky et al. 2021), and indirect costs of prevention (e.g., fencing) (Keulartz 2016).

  • Vicious Cycle of Abandonment: Wildlife conflicts and harsh economic conditions fuel fears of abandonment, threatening traditional farming practices (Schmitz et al. 2021) and the landscapes they shape (García-Ruiz et al. 2020).

• Local Community Distrust: Communities often distrust rewilding due to perceived distance from their interests (Deary and Warren 2019) or doubtful economic promises (Van der Zanden et al. 2017; Vasile 2018; Barnaud and Couix 2020).

  • Limiting Factor: This distrust limits rewilding implementation and up-scaling (Lorimer et al. 2015; Lawton 2018; Rippa 2021).

• Agricultural Subsidies: European rewilders discuss the key role of subsidies (Ayres 2013; Ceausu et al. 2015; Schou et al. 2021).

  • Opportunities: Perceived as major funding opportunities (Merckx and Pereira 2015).

  • Adverse Policies: Also seen as adverse when supporting extensive (Merckx and Pereira 2015; Lorimer et al. 2015) or intensive (Segar et al. 2021) farming.

  • Post-2020 CAP: Identified as an opportunity for nature-friendly subsidies in the EU (Recio et al. 2020) and post-Brexit UK (Thomas 2022), but design consensus is lacking (e.g., small-scale intensification, year-round grazing, coexistence with predators, or limiting further rewilding) (Merckx and Pereira 2015; Schou et al. 2021; Hinojosa et al. 2018; Lasanta 2019).

Agriculture's Critical Role in the U.S. Economy

• Cornerstone of Economy: Agriculture extends beyond farms, nourishing populations and supporting diverse jobs (Hoover and Lacy 2024).

  • $2023$ Contribution: Agriculture, food, and related industries contributed ~$1.53$ trillion to the U.S. economy, $5.6$% of total GDP.

    • Includes farms, food services, textiles/leather, food/tobacco manufacturing, forestry/fishing, food/beverage stores.

  • Economic Impact: Sustains rural and urban economies through supply chains and business activities.

  • Exports: Production and agricultural exports sustain local, national, and global economies.

• Food Spending Multiplier Effect: For every 1$ dollar spent on U.S. food, only 0.07$ cents goes to farmers.

  • Recipient Industries: The rest supports food services, processing, retail, wholesale, energy, transportation, finance/insurance.

  • Benefit: Directly benefits local restaurants, supermarkets, Main Street businesses.

• Job Creation: Food & Agriculture supports >$34$ million jobs.

  • Direct Employment ($2022$): >$22$ million people (10.4% of U.S. employment), largest share in food services.

  • Economic Output/Wages (Direct): Nearly 3.8$ trillion in output, ~$1$ trillion in wages.

  • Indirect Employment: >12 million additional jobs, ~$3.1$ trillion in output, ~$915$ billion in wages.

  • Stimulates Jobs: Stimulates job creation in communication, finance, technology, real estate, manufacturing, entertainment.

  • Community Resilience: Fosters joint community resilience and prosperity.

Rewilding and Economics: A Radical Departure

• Paucity of Rewilding Economics: Stemming from the concept's recent emergence and quick development from 1998 onwards (Jørgensen 2015).

  • Delayed Appropriation: Emphasis on giving up management targets (though debated, Gross 2014) profoundly diverges from economics (oikos nomos = household management), delaying appropriation by social scientists.

• Philosophical Opposition: "Wild" means uncultivated, untamed, uncontrolled – against shaping nature to human will, guiding most societies since the Neolithic revolution (~12,000$years ago).</p><ul><li><p><strong>More Radical than Degrowth</strong>: Even more radical than advocating for "degrowth," which questions a 300-year-old mainstream economic policy goal (Levrel and Missemer 2023).</p></li></ul></li><li><p><strong>Geographical Bias</strong>: North America, despite hosting many trophic rewilding studies (Svenning et al. 2016), is underrepresented compared to Europe.</p><ul><li><p><strong>U.S. Origins</strong>: Rewilding was invented in the USA ("Cores, Corridors and Carnivores" following Soulé and Noss 1998), relying on vast wilderness with minimal human activity.</p><ul><li><p><strong>No Critical Economic Need</strong>: Apart from early "Pleistocene rewilding" (Josh Donlan et al. 2006), it didn't trigger a need for wildlife-based economic opportunities or conflict prevention.</p></li></ul></li><li><p><strong>European Reframing</strong>: In Europe (2010s), rewilding had to account for livelihoods and local economies due to high human density and land competition (Barraud and Périgord 2013; Barnaud and Couix 2020).</p><ul><li><p><strong>Justification/Conflict</strong>: Seen as justification (Navarro and Pereira 2012) or conflicting activity (Schmitz et al. 2021).</p></li><li><p><strong>Prevented Advances</strong>: This likely prevented North American economic advances on "restoration economics" (Blignaut et al. 2014; BenDor et al. 2015) from supporting European rewilding economics.</p></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><h4 id="0bf96b7f-341c-4d45-983d-6c78315c73b8" data-toc-id="0bf96b7f-341c-4d45-983d-6c78315c73b8" collapsed="false" seolevelmigrated="true">Food Instability's Cascading Economic Impacts</h4><ul><li><p><strong>Market Instability</strong>: Food system instability exposes markets to cascading shocks: inflation, trade disruption, insurance losses, and sovereign credit stress (Jackson 2025).</p><ul><li><p><strong>Financial System Disconnect</strong>: These risks are largely unaccounted for in core financial systems, despite mounting climate-driven volatility.</p></li></ul></li><li><p><strong>Next Financial Crisis</strong>: May originate from climate-driven breakdown in the global food system.</p></li><li><p><strong>Climate-Finance Disconnect</strong>:</p><ul><li><p><strong>Crop Yield Decline</strong>: Climate models project staple crop yields could fall$20-352^ ext{o}C$; maize is ~$4030 countries) or Ukraine war (soaring wheat/fertilizer prices).

• Chronic Pressures: Slow, eroding farm margins, straining rural credit systems, increasing sovereign exposure to food volatility.

• Underpriced Risks: Both pathways pose serious, underpriced risks to financial stability.