Pleistocene Park: Does re-wilding North America represent sound conservation for the 21st century?

Rubenstein, Dustin R.; Rubenstein, Daniel I.; Sherman, Paul W.; Gavin, Thomas A.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.003

Cited by 92 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Examples of large-scale naturalistic grazing initiatives include the Oostvaardersplassen and Veluwezoom National Park in the Netherlands (Hodder et al 2005), and Knepp Estate, Wicken Fen and Ennerdale in the United Kingdom (Taylor 2009). These have parallels in the concept of 'Pleistocene rewilding' currently being explored in both North and South America (Galetti 2004;Rubenstein et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Does landscape-scale conservation management enhance the provision of ecosystem services?

Hodder

Newton

Cantarello

et al. 2014

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Servic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity conservation approaches are increasingly being implemented at the landscape-scale to support the maintenance of metapopulations and metacommunities. However, the impact of such interventions on the provision of ecosystem services is less well defined. Here we examine the potential impacts of landscape-scale conservation initiatives on ecosystem services, through analysis of five case study areas in England and Wales. The provision of multiple ecosystem services was projected according to current management plans and compared with a baseline scenario. Multicriteria analysis indicated that in most cases landscape-scale approaches lead to an overall increase in service provision. Consistent increases were projected in carbon storage, recreation and aesthetic value, as well as biodiversity value. However, most study areas provided evidence of trade-offs, particularly between provisioning services and other types of service. Results differed markedly between study areas, highlighting the importance of local context. These results suggest that landscape-scale conservation approaches are likely to be effective in increasing ecosystem service provision, but also indicate that associated costs can be significant, particularly in lowland areas.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Does landscape-scale conservation management enhance the provision of ecosystem services?

Hodder

Newton

Cantarello

et al. 2014

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Servic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previously, Barbero et al (1999) found that land occupied by numerous species of livestock contained greater numbers and diversity of dung beetles compared with lands occupied by few species. Introduction of exotic mammals to North America as a result of exotic game farms or conservation programs (Rubenstein et al 2006) may also affect dung beetle assemblages, although the response of dung beetles to novel resources has received little attention.Game farms have introduced herbivores such as African antelope species and omnivores such as wild boars, Sus scrofa L., whereas zoological parks may include predatory species (Rubenstein et al 2006). The dung characteristics and nutritional content of herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores differ and these factors may affect the attractiveness of dung to dung beetles (Scholtz et al 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Dung Beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Attraction to Native and Exotic Mammal Dung

Whipple

Hoback

2012

env. entom.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the preference of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) for specific types and conditions of dung has been given substantial attention, little has been done to investigate the potential effects of exotic mammal introduction for game farms or rewilding projects. We used pitfall traps baited with various native and exotic herbivore, carnivore, and omnivore dung to evaluate dung beetle preference in the Great Plains of North America. Additionally, we analyzed the nutrient quality of each dung type. In total, 9,089 dung beetles from 15 species were captured in 2 yr of sampling. We found significant differences (P < 0.05) in mean dung beetle capture among omnivore, herbivore, and carnivore dung as well as differences in individual species preference for dung type. Omnivore dung was the most attractive with chimpanzee and human dung having the highest mean capture (291.1 ± 27.6 and 287.5 ± 28.5 respectively). Carrion also was highly attractive with a mean of 231.9 ± 20.6 beetles per trap (N = 8). Our results suggest definitive local preference of carrion in Phanaeus vindex Macleay and Onthophagus hecate (Panzer), while the congener, O. pennsylvanicus (Harold), was rarely captured in carrion and highly preferred omnivore dung. Preference for a specific bait type does not appear to be correlated with dung quality, mammalian diet, or origin of mammal. Results suggest niche segregation by dung type among dung beetle species. Keywords: exotic species, feeding preference, niche partitioning, Onthophagus, Phanaeus W H I P P L E A N D H O B A C K , E N V I R O N M E N T A L E N T O M O L O G Y 4 1 (2 0 1 2 )2 Although most dung beetles are generalist dung feeders, specialization can occur as a result of competition and scarcity of dung resources (Halffter and Matthews 1966, Howden and Young 1981, Young 1981, Hanski 1989, Davis and Sutton 1997. Previous research indicates that dung beetles differ in their preference for the type of dung (Estrada et al. 1993), the condition of dung (Doube 1987, Yasuda 1987, and the odor (Dormont et al. 2004) of dung. However, most dung beetles have comparable ecological requirements, with the possibility for thousands of beetles from multiple species to arrive at a dung resource (Horgan 2005, Scholtz et al. 2009).When native dung beetle faunas encounter dung from exotic animals, they may not use the new resource (Amézquita and Favila 2009). For example, European colonization of Australia in 1778 brought a variety of nonnative herbivores (Hanski and Cambefort 1991). Overgrazing, as well as an excess of flies, midges, and parasites resulted (Bornemissza 1970, Hanski andCambefort 1991) because the native dung beetles, which had co-evolved with marsupials, did not adequately use bovine dung (Mathews 1972). In North America, the introduction of large domestic animals does not appear to have produced the same results as Australia, likely because the Great Plains had a diverse fauna of grazers and associated dung beetles.However, it is possible that the introduction of exotic mamma...

show abstract

“…Dustin Rubenstein, an ecologist at Columbia University in New York, argues that placing proxy animals in a modern landscape is not the same as turning back the clock, and could spell trouble 1 . These ecosystems have changed and existing species have evolved in the thousands of years since megafauna extinctions.…”

Section: Pleistocene Parksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation biology: Reflecting the past

Marris¹

2009

Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Pleistocene Park: Does re-wilding North America represent sound conservation for the 21st century?

Cited by 92 publications

References 37 publications

Does landscape-scale conservation management enhance the provision of ecosystem services?

Does landscape-scale conservation management enhance the provision of ecosystem services?

A Comparison of Dung Beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Attraction to Native and Exotic Mammal Dung

Conservation biology: Reflecting the past

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About