IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i6p3347-d519537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rewilding Lite: Using Traditional Domestic Livestock to Achieve Rewilding Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Iain J. Gordon

    (Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
    James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK
    Central Queensland University, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia
    Land & Water, CSIRO, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia)

  • F. Javier Pérez-Barbería

    (Department of Agroforestry Science and Technology and Genetics, IDR, University of Castilla-La Mancha IREC, 02071 Albacete, Spain)

  • Adrian D. Manning

    (James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK)

Abstract

The vision of rewilding is to return ecosystems to a “natural” or “self-willed” state with trophic complexity, dispersal (and connectivity) and stochastic disturbance in place. The concept is gaining traction, particularly in Europe where significant land abandonment has taken place in recent years. However, in reality, the purest form of rewilding (Rewilding Max) is constrained by a number of context-specific factors whereby it may not be possible to restore the native species that form part of the trophic structure of the ecosystem if they are extinct (for example, mammoths, Mammuthus spp., aurochs, Bos taurus primigenius ). In addition, populations/communities of native herbivores/predators may not be able to survive or be acceptable to the public in small scale rewilding projects close to areas of high human density or agricultural land. Therefore, the restoration of natural trophic complexity and disturbance regimes within rewilding projects requires careful consideration if the broader conservation needs of society are to be met. Here we highlight the importance of herbivory as a key factor in rewilding. We argue that the use of the suite of livestock species, and in particular traditional breeds, offers the opportunity, under both land sharing/sparing strategies, to reinstate a more “natural” form of herbivory but still retain the option for management interventions (Rewilding Lite). It will even be possible to gain economic returns (ecotourism, sale of livestock products) from these systems, which will make them more acceptable to state and private landowners. We develop our case based on the advantages of using landraces versus de-domestication strategies, and on the implementation of eco-shepherding herbivory as a restoration tool in fine mosaics of agriculture/natural patches. If this approach is adopted, then larger areas can be given over to conservation, because of the potential broader benefits to society from these spaces and the engagement of farmers in practices that are closer to their traditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Iain J. Gordon & F. Javier Pérez-Barbería & Adrian D. Manning, 2021. "Rewilding Lite: Using Traditional Domestic Livestock to Achieve Rewilding Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3347-:d:519537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3347/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3347/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Josh Donlan, 2005. "Re-wilding North America," Nature, Nature, vol. 436(7053), pages 913-914, August.
    2. Martin, Guillaume & Barth, Kerstin & Benoit, Marc & Brock, Christopher & Destruel, Marie & Dumont, Bertrand & Grillot, Myriam & Hübner, Severin & Magne, Marie-Angélina & Moerman, Marie & Mosnier, Clai, 2020. "Potential of multi-species livestock farming to improve the sustainability of livestock farms: A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    3. Wirsenius, Stefan & Azar, Christian & Berndes, Göran, 2010. "How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 621-638, November.
    4. Delgado, Christopher L. & Rosegrant, Mark W. & Steinfeld, Henning & Ehui, Simeon K. & Courbois, Claude, 1999. "Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution," 2020 vision briefs 61, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Roper Roy E. & Goodzey C., 2004. "Ecology of Fear," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 1-7, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Corson, Michael S. & Mondière, Aymeric & Morel, Loïs & van der Werf, Hayo M.G., 2022. "Beyond agroecology: Agricultural rewilding, a prospect for livestock systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    2. James Eggers & Shannon Davis & Crile Doscher & Pablo Gregorini, 2023. "Enhancing Multifunctionality in Agricultural Landscapes with Native Woody Vegetation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-29, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tristan Le Cotty & Bruno Dorin, 2012. "A global foresight on food crop needs for livestock," Post-Print hal-00800715, HAL.
    2. Gómez, Miguel I. & Ricketts, Katie D., 2013. "Food value chain transformations in developing countries: Selected hypotheses on nutritional implications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 139-150.
    3. Sylvain, Dernat & Bertrand, Dumont & Dominique, Vollet, 2023. "La Grange®: A generic game to reveal trade-offs and synergies among stakeholders in livestock farming areas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    4. Olson, Kent & Gauto, Victor & Erenstein, Olaf & Teufel, Nils & Swain, Braja & Tui, Sabine Homann-Kee & Duncan, Alan, 2021. "Estimating Farmers’ Internal Value of Crop Residues in Smallholder Crop-Livestock Systems: A South Asia Case Study," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315188, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Keil, Alwin & Saint-Macary, Camille & Zeller, Manfred, 2013. "Intensive Commercial Agriculture in Fragile Uplands of Vietnam: How to Harness its Poverty Reduction Potential while Ensuring Environmental Sustainability?," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 52(1), pages 1-25, February.
    6. Yu, Wusheng & Hertel, Thomas W. & Preckel, Paul V. & Eales, James S., 2004. "Projecting world food demand using alternative demand systems," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 99-129, January.
    7. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    8. Shikuku, Kelvin M. & Valdivia, Roberto O. & Paul, Birthe K. & Mwongera, Caroline & Winowiecki, Leigh & Läderach, Peter & Herrero, Mario & Silvestri, Silvia, 2017. "Prioritizing climate-smart livestock technologies in rural Tanzania: A minimum data approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 204-216.
    9. Leakey, Roger & Kranjac-Berisavljevic, Gordana & Caron, Patrick & Craufurd, Peter & Martin, Adrienne M. & McDonald, Andy & Abedini, Walter & Afiff, Suraya & Bakurin, Ndey & Bass, Steve & Hilbeck, Ange, 2009. "Impacts of AKST on development and sustainability goals," Book Chapters,, International Water Management Institute.
    10. Jaleta, Moti & Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele A., 2012. "Tradeoffs in Crop Residue Utilization in Mixed Crop-Livestock Systems and Implications for Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Land Management," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126282, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Sotsha, Kayalethu & Fakudze, Bhekiwe & Myeki, Lindikaya & Ngqangweni, Simphiwe & Nyhodo, Bonani & Ngetu, Xolile & Mazibuko, Ndumiso & Lubinga, H. Moses & Khoza, Thulisile & Ntshangase, Thandeka & Mmbe, 2017. "Factors influencing communal livestock farmers' participation into the National Red Meat Development Programme (NRMDP) in South Africa: the case of the Eastern Cape Province," NAMC Publications 263686, National Agricultural Marketing Council.
    12. Popkin, Barry M. & Horton, Susan & Kim, Soowon, 2001. "The nutritional transition and diet-related chronic diseases in Asia," FCND briefs 105, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Ngoc-Ninh Ho & Truong Lam Do & Dinh-Thao Tran & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2022. "Indigenous pig production and welfare of ultra-poor ethnic minority households in the Northern mountains of Vietnam," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 156-179, January.
    14. Batidzirai, B. & Smeets, E.M.W. & Faaij, A.P.C., 2012. "Harmonising bioenergy resource potentials—Methodological lessons from review of state of the art bioenergy potential assessments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6598-6630.
    15. repec:ajn:agdeve:2017:p:1-12 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. David Bryngelsson & Fredrik Hedenus & Daniel J. A. Johansson & Christian Azar & Stefan Wirsenius, 2017. "How Do Dietary Choices Influence the Energy-System Cost of Stabilizing the Climate?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    17. Ludena, Carlos E., 2004. "Impact Of Productivity Growth In Crops And Livestock On World Food Trade Patterns," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20366, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Weizhong Su & Gaobin Ye, 2014. "Differences of Soil Fertility in Farmland Occupation and Supplement Areas in the Taihu Lake Watershed during 1985–2010," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, May.
    19. Emiko Fukase & Will Martin, 2016. "Who Will Feed China in the 21st Century? Income Growth and Food Demand and Supply in China," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 3-23, February.
    20. Griffith, Garry R. & Parnell, Peter F. & McKiernan, William A., 2005. "The Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits to NSW from Investment in the CRC for Beef Genetics Technologies," Research Reports 42654, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.
    21. Bosire, Caroline K. & Krol, Maarten S. & Mekonnen, Mesfin M. & Ogutu, Joseph O. & de Leeuw, Jan & Lannerstad, Mats & Hoekstra, Arjen Y., 2016. "Meat and milk production scenarios and the associated land footprint in Kenya," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 64-75.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3347-:d:519537. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.