Plant trait responses to herbivore type managed as domestic or as wild.
Abstract: The urgency of restoring ecosystems over vast areas has placed rewilding using wild herbivores at the forefront. However, few scientific studies address its effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning compared to more traditional conservation interventions with domestic herbivores. Equus ferus przewalskii horses introduced 30 years ago in the National Park of Cévennes, France - as a step of a conservation program of the species for its reintroduction in Mongolia - now occur as a semi-wild horse population, socially natural (i.e., management is based on natural selection). This introduction allowed us to compare this management system ('as wild') with other breeding systems: domestic sheep or domestic horses. Rewilding projects especially focus on the restoration of ecological functions, we therefore sought to find out if there are differences in the functional traits of the vegetation depending on the grazer and its management (domestic vs 'as wild') with the aim to generalize our results to other rewilding projects. Two levels of organization were tested (1) plant communities - using the TRY database and botanical surveys and (2) plant populations - by selecting four indicator species with traits measured in situ. Our results show that at equivalent grazing pressure, domestic horses or 'as wild' horses preserve the same plant functional types as in the traditional reference ecosystem grazed by sheep. Whatever the grazer and its management, grassland plant communities are characterized and dominated by perennial polycarpic plants, with oligotrophic to mesotrophic nutrient requirement, hemicryptophytes, graminoids, plants with entire leaf blades, not spiny, erect and mainly forming tussock. Nevertheless, some interesting significant differences were measured between the plant communities growing under the three types of grazing (e.g., lower functional richness and more plants with entire leaf blade under sheep grazing). Even between horse sub-species, differences were significant for some traits (e.g., more chamaephyte species growing under 'as wild' horses), which could be linked to physiological and morphological differences between the two horses sub-species (e.g., nutritional requirements, herbivore size) and by herd management. However, the intraspecific variability on the four quantitative traits measured on four indicator species do not show a general pattern. Although these results are valid at a given time and in a particular ecosystem, the vegetation functional traits approach can help in decision-making regarding ecosystem management choices and highlight the fact that the 'as wild' management adds an interesting alternative to conservation.
Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Publication Date: 2025-07-07 PubMed ID: 40628195DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126378Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
- Journal Article
Summary
This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.
The research article discusses the effects of rewilding techniques involving domestic and wild herbivores on plant traits in an ecosystem, within the context of a case study conducted in France’s National Park of Cévennes.
Research Objective
- The main aim of this research was to understand how ‘as wild’ management compares to traditional conservation involving domestic herbivores. The study specifically investigated the differences in plant trait responses within the ecosystem depending on whether the grazer was domestic or wild.
Research Methodology
- The study was conducted in the National Park of Cévennes, France, where a wild horse population was introduced 30 years back as part of a conservation project.
- This scenario presented an opportunity to compare ‘as wild’ management (wild horses) with traditional conservation practices involving domestic animals (sheep and domestic horses).
- The research was conducted on two levels: 1) Plant communities – using the TRY database and botanical surveys and 2) Plant populations – through selection of four indicator species with in-situ measured traits.
Research Findings
- The results showed that under equivalent grazing pressure, both domestic and ‘as wild’ horses helped to preserve the same plant functional types that are found in an ecosystem traditionally grazed by sheep.
- Irrespective of the type of grazer (domestic or wild), grassland plant communities were dominated by perennial polycarpic plants with certain attributes such as non-spiny, as well as oligotrophic to mesotrophic nutrient requirement, among others.
- There were some significant differences observed between plant communities growing under the three types of grazing. For instance, there was lower functional richness and more plants with entire leaf blade under sheep grazing.
- Differences were also found even between different horse subspecies, suggesting that physiological and morphological differences (such as nutritional requirements and herbivore size) could potentially impact plant trait responses.
- However, there was no consistent pattern in terms of intraspecific variability on the four quantitative traits measured on four indicator species.
Implications and Conclusions
- Although the study’s results are specific to the time and context in which the research was done, the approach applied provides valuable insights for making informed decisions regarding ecosystem management practices.
- The research highlights that the ‘as wild’ management serves as an interesting alternative in ecological conservation practices.
Cite This Article
APA
Mutillod C, Buisson E, Tatin L, Mahy G, Dufrêne M, Morvan N, Mesléard F, Dutoit T.
(2025).
Plant trait responses to herbivore type managed as domestic or as wild.
J Environ Manage, 391, 126378.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126378 Publication
Researcher Affiliations
- Avignon Université, IMBE Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Écologie, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, Site Agroparc BP 61207, 84911 Cedex 09, Avignon, France. Electronic address: clementine.mutillod@gmail.com.
- Avignon Université, IMBE Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Écologie, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, Site Agroparc BP 61207, 84911 Cedex 09, Avignon, France.
- Avignon Université, IMBE Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Écologie, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, Site Agroparc BP 61207, 84911 Cedex 09, Avignon, France.
- Avignon Université, IMBE Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Écologie, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, Site Agroparc BP 61207, 84911 Cedex 09, Avignon, France; Université de Liège, Biodiversité et Paysage, 27 Avenue Maréchal Juin, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium.
- Université de Liège, Biodiversité et Paysage, 27 Avenue Maréchal Juin, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium.
- Avignon Université, IMBE Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Écologie, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, Site Agroparc BP 61207, 84911 Cedex 09, Avignon, France.
- Avignon Université, IMBE Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Écologie, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, Site Agroparc BP 61207, 84911 Cedex 09, Avignon, France; Institut de recherche pour la conservation des zones humides méditerranéennes, Tour du Valat, Le Sambuc, 13200, Arles, France; Association pour le Cheval de Przewalski: TAKH, Le Villaret, 48150, Hures la Parade, France.
- Avignon Université, IMBE Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Écologie, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, Site Agroparc BP 61207, 84911 Cedex 09, Avignon, France.
MeSH Terms
- Animals
- Herbivory
- Horses
- Sheep
- Conservation of Natural Resources
- Ecosystem
- Plants
- Biodiversity
- Animals, Wild
- France
Conflict of Interest Statement
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Citations
This article has been cited 0 times.Use Nutrition Calculator
Check if your horse's diet meets their nutrition requirements with our easy-to-use tool Check your horse's diet with our easy-to-use tool
Talk to a Nutritionist
Discuss your horse's feeding plan with our experts over a free phone consultation Discuss your horse's diet over a phone consultation
Submit Diet Evaluation
Get a customized feeding plan for your horse formulated by our equine nutritionists Get a custom feeding plan formulated by our nutritionists