FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Environ Manage / What moves large grazers? Habitat preferences and complement...
Environmental management2025; 75(7); 1665-1679; doi: 10.1007/s00267-025-02164-8

What moves large grazers? Habitat preferences and complementing niches of large herbivores in a Danish trophic rewilding area.

Abstract: Large herbivores (≥45 kg) fulfill key ecological functions. Since the Late Pleistocene megafauna diversity and abundances have declined sharply, with profound consequences for ecosystems. On this background the concept of trophic rewilding has emerged and is increasingly applied to restore natural disturbance regimes and trophic interactions, ultimately aiming to recreate self-sustaining, dynamic and diverse ecosystems. Effects of such efforts (e.g., more heterogeneous habitats) are evident, but herbivore space use, and the resulting distribution of effects on vegetation remain poorly understood. Here, we examine habitat selection of semi-feral water buffalos (Bubalus bubalis), horses (Equus ferus) and cattle (Bos taurus) in a Danish rewilding area. We modelled space use with remote sensed covariates, reflecting resources (vegetation greenness, distance to water) and infrastructure (distances to fences, paths, shelter). Seasonal differences and former land use were tested separately. We found large-herbivore space use to shift seasonally, reflecting food and water availability, and to be influenced by infrastructure and former land use. Horses reacted less to vegetation greenness and water than the two bovids. Cattle selected for green vegetation in summer, while buffalos showed the strongest association with water bodies. Overall, the three semi-feral herbivore species diverged in their habitat use both spatially and seasonally. This can be expected to translate to variable and complementary ecological impacts such as grazing, physical disturbances and habitat engineering. Such variable space use likely increases habitat heterogeneity and species richness. We therefore suggest that a diverse large-herbivore guild is key, both to understanding megafauna ecology and for successful rewilding efforts.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-04-25 PubMed ID: 40278902PubMed Central: PMC12228648DOI: 10.1007/s00267-025-02164-8Google 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.
LinkedInCopy
  • 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.

Overview

  • This research investigates how large herbivores such as water buffalos, horses, and cattle choose habitats in a Danish rewilding area.
  • The study aims to understand their space use patterns and how these contribute to ecosystem recovery and biodiversity through trophic rewilding efforts.

Introduction to the Research

  • Large herbivores weighing 45 kg or more play critical ecological roles, including disturbance creation and vegetation management.
  • Since the Late Pleistocene, there has been a dramatic decline in megafauna diversity and abundance, negatively impacting ecosystems worldwide.
  • The concept of trophic rewilding has emerged to restore natural ecosystem processes by reintroducing large herbivores to help revive dynamic and diverse ecosystems.
  • While the ecological benefits of rewilding, such as increased habitat heterogeneity, are recognized, the spatial behavior and habitat preferences of these herbivores have not been thoroughly understood.

Research Objectives

  • Examine habitat selection and space use of three semi-feral large herbivore species — water buffalos (Bubalus bubalis), horses (Equus ferus), and cattle (Bos taurus) — in a Danish trophic rewilding site.
  • Explore how variables like vegetation greenness, proximity to water, and infrastructure (fences, paths, shelters) influence their movement and habitat preferences.
  • Understand seasonal differences and factors related to previous land use on space use patterns.

Methodology

  • Collected spatial data on herbivore location and movement patterns within the study area using remote sensing.
  • Measured environmental covariates:
    • Vegetation greenness as an indicator of food availability.
    • Distance to water bodies representing water accessibility.
    • Distances to human-made infrastructure such as fences, paths, and shelters.
  • Tested the influence of seasonal variation and previous land use on habitat selection models for each species.

Key Findings

  • Space use by the large herbivores changed seasonally, largely influenced by food and water availability fluctuations.
  • Presence of infrastructure and former land use patterns affected where animals moved and grazed.
  • Species-specific habitat preferences were identified:
    • Horses showed less responsiveness to vegetation greenness and water compared to the other two species.
    • Cattle preferred green vegetation especially during summer months.
    • Water buffalos had the strongest association with proximity to water bodies, highlighting their dependence on aquatic or wet habitats.
  • Overall, the spatial and seasonal divergence in habitat use among the three species suggests complementary ecological roles.

Ecological Implications

  • Diverse habitat use leads to variable ecological impacts such as different grazing intensities, physical landscape disturbances, and habitat engineering activities.
  • Complementary niches among the herbivores likely increase habitat heterogeneity, promoting greater plant and animal species richness.
  • A diverse guild of large herbivores is crucial for:
    • Understanding past megafauna ecology.
    • Enhancing the effectiveness of trophic rewilding and ecosystem restoration projects.

Conclusions and Recommendations

  • Large herbivore species exhibit distinct habitat preferences that shift with seasonal conditions and landscape features.
  • Rewilding efforts should maintain or introduce multiple large herbivore species to capture complementary niche use and maximize ecological benefits.
  • Managers of rewilding projects should consider infrastructure and past land use when designing habitats to support diverse large herbivore movement and behavior.
  • Future research should further examine how these spatial behaviors translate into ecosystem function and species diversity in trophic rewilding contexts.

Cite This Article

APA
Rech BJ, Buitenwerf R, Ruggiero R, Trepel J, Waltert M, Svenning JC. (2025). What moves large grazers? Habitat preferences and complementing niches of large herbivores in a Danish trophic rewilding area. Environ Manage, 75(7), 1665-1679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02164-8

Publication

Environmental management
ISSN: 1432-1009
NlmUniqueID: 7703893
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 75
Issue: 7
Pages: 1665-1679

Researcher Affiliations

Rech, Bent Johann
  • Institute for Social Ecology, BOKU University, Schottenfeldgasse 29, 1070, Wien, Austria. bent.rech@googlemail.com.
  • Department of Conservation Biology, University of Göttingen, Bürgerstrasse 50, 37073, Göttingen, Germany. bent.rech@googlemail.com.
  • Center for Ecological Dynamics in a Novel Biosphere (ECONOVO), Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 114, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark. bent.rech@googlemail.com.
Buitenwerf, Robert
  • Center for Ecological Dynamics in a Novel Biosphere (ECONOVO), Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 114, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark.
Ruggiero, Roberto
  • Department of Bioscience and Territory, University of Molise, 86090, Pesche, Isernia, Italy.
Trepel, Jonas
  • Center for Ecological Dynamics in a Novel Biosphere (ECONOVO), Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 114, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark.
Waltert, Matthias
  • Department of Conservation Biology, University of Göttingen, Bürgerstrasse 50, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Svenning, Jens-Christian
  • Center for Ecological Dynamics in a Novel Biosphere (ECONOVO), Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 114, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Herbivory
  • Ecosystem
  • Denmark
  • Conservation of Natural Resources / methods
  • Cattle / physiology
  • Horses / physiology
  • Seasons

Grant Funding

  • 101119940 / HORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions
  • 0135-00225B / Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond
  • 16549 / Villum Fonden

Conflict of Interest Statement

Compliance with ethical standards. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

This article includes 78 references
  1. Alexander RM. The relative merits of foregut and hindgut fermentation.. J Zool 231:391–401.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1993.tb01927.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  2. Archibald S, Bond W, Stock W, Fairbanks D. Shaping the landscape: fire–grazer interactions in an African savanna.. Ecol applic 15:96–109.
    doi: 10.1890/03-5210google scholar: lookup
  3. Assmann JJ, Moeslund JE, Treier UA, Normand S. EcoDes-DK15: high-resolution ecological descriptors of vegetation and terrain derived from Denmark’s national airborne laser scanning data set.. Earth Syst Sci Data 14:823–844.
    doi: 10.5194/essd-14-823-2022google scholar: lookup
  4. Bergin MD, Pedersen RØ, Jensen M, Svenning J-C. Mapping rewilding potential – A systematic approach to prioritise areas for rewilding in human-dominated regions.. J Nat Conserv 77:126536.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126536google scholar: lookup
  5. Bergman J, Pedersen RØ, Lundgren EJ, Lemoine RT, Monsarrat S, Pearce EA, Schierup MH, Svenning J-C. Worldwide Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene population declines in extant megafauna are associated with Homo sapiens expansion rather than climate change.. Nat Commun 14: 7679.
    doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-43426-5pmc: PMC10667484pubmed: 37996436google scholar: lookup
  6. Berti E, Svenning J-C. Megafauna extinctions have reduced biotic connectivity worldwide.. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 29:2131–2142.
    doi: 10.1111/geb.13182google scholar: lookup
  7. Beyer Jr E, Haufler JB. Diurnal versus 24-hour sampling of habitat use.. J Wildl Manag 27:178–180.
  8. Blicharska M, Smithers RJ, Mikusiński G, Rönnbäck P, Harrison PA, Nilsson M, Sutherland WJ. Biodiversity’s contributions to sustainable development.. Nat Sustain 2:1083–1093.
    doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0417-9google scholar: lookup
  9. Bocherens H. The rise of the anthroposphere since 50,000 years: an ecological replacement of megaherbivores by humans in terrestrial ecosystems?.. F Ecol Evo 6:3.
    doi: 10.3389/fevo.2018.00003google scholar: lookup
  10. Brooks ME, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A, Skaug HJ, Machler M, Bolker BM. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling.. R J 9:378–400.
    doi: 10.32614/RJ-2017-066google scholar: lookup
  11. Burkepile DE, Burns CE, Tambling CJ, Amendola E, Buis GM, Govender N, Nelson V, Thompson DI, Zinn AD, Smith MD. Habitat selection by large herbivores in a southern African savanna: the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces.. Ecosphere 4:art139.
    doi: 10.1890/ES13-00078google scholar: lookup
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection.. Sociol Methods Res 33:261–304.
    doi: 10.1177/0049124104268644google scholar: lookup
  13. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J, Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC, Dentener F, Foster M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P, Gregory RD, Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque J-F, Leverington F, Loh J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Morcillo MH, Oldfield TEE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR, Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vié J-C, Watson R. Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines.. Science 328:1164–1168.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1187512pubmed: 20430971google scholar: lookup
  14. Büttner G. CORINE Land Cover and Land Cover Change Products.. .
    doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7969-3_5google scholar: lookup
  15. Büttner G, Maucha G. The thematic accuracy of Corine land cover 2000 Assessment using LUCAS (land use/cover area frame statistical survey), EEA Technical report No 7/2006.. European Environment Agency (EEA) Copenhagen .
  16. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67.
    doi: 10.1038/nature11148pubmed: 22678280google scholar: lookup
  17. Chapin III FS, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RL, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL, Hooper DU, Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE, Mack MC, Díaz S. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242.
    doi: 10.1038/35012241pubmed: 10821284google scholar: lookup
  18. Cowie RH, Bouchet P, Fontaine B. The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation?. Biol Rev 97:640–663.
    doi: 10.1111/brv.12816pmc: PMC9786292pubmed: 35014169google scholar: lookup
  19. Cromsigt JP, Kemp YJ, Rodriguez E, Kivit H. Rewilding Europe’s large grazer community: how functionally diverse are the diets of European bison, cattle, and horses?. Restor Ecol 26:891–899.
    doi: 10.1111/rec.12661google scholar: lookup
  20. Danish Agency for Data Supply and Infrastructure (2021) Orthophoto 10cm resolution, https://datafordeler.dk/dataoversigt/. Accessed 05.02.2025
  21. Davoli M, Monsarrat S, Pedersen RØ, Scussolini P, Karger DN, Normand S, Svenning J-C. Megafauna diversity and functional declines in Europe from the Last Interglacial to the present. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 33:34–47.
    doi: 10.1101/2023.06.12.544580google scholar: lookup
  22. Dupke C, Bonenfant C, Reineking B, Hable R, Zeppenfeld T, Ewald M, Heurich M. Habitat selection by a large herbivore at multiple spatial and temporal scales is primarily governed by food resources. Ecography 40:1014–1027.
    doi: 10.1111/ecog.02152google scholar: lookup
  23. Earth Engine Data Catalog (2022) Harmonized Sentinel-2 MSI: MultiSpectral Instrument, Level-2A, https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/COPERNICUS_S2_SR_HARMONIZED#description. Acessed 05.02.2024
  24. Enquist BJ, Abraham AJ, Harfoot MBJ, Malhi Y, Doughty CE. The megabiota are disproportionately important for biosphere functioning. Nat Commun 11:699.
    doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14369-ypmc: PMC7000713pubmed: 32019918google scholar: lookup
  25. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2012) CORINE Land Cover 2012 (vector/raster 100 m), Europe, 6-yearly, https://land.copernicus.eu/en/products/corine-land-cover/clc-2012. Accessed 05.02.2025
  26. Fležar U, Le Roux E, Kerley GIH, Kuijper DPJ, te Beest M, Druce DJ, Prinsloo D, Cromsigt JPGM. Simulated elephant-induced habitat changes can create dynamic landscapes of fear. Biol Conserv 237:267–279.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.012google scholar: lookup
  27. Garroutte EL, Hansen AJ, Lawrence RL. Using NDVI and EVI to Map Spatiotemporal Variation in the Biomass and Quality of Forage for Migratory Elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Remote Sens 8:404.
    doi: 10.3390/rs8050404google scholar: lookup
  28. Gaynor KM, Brown JS, Middleton AD, Power ME, Brashares JS. Landscapes of Fear: Spatial Patterns of Risk Perception and Response. Trends Ecol Evol 34:355–368.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.004pubmed: 30745252google scholar: lookup
  29. Giotto N, Gerard J-F, Ziv A, Bouskila A, Bar-David S. Space-use patterns of the Asiatic wild ass (Equus hemionus): complementary insights from displacement, recursion movement and habitat selection analyses. PLoS One 10:e0143279.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143279pmc: PMC4667895pubmed: 26630393google scholar: lookup
  30. Gorelick N, Hanscher M, Dixon M, Ilyushchenko S, Thau D, Moore R. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens Environ 202:18–27.
    doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031google scholar: lookup
  31. Gray T, Eames J, Lyon J, Meyerhoff M. Rewilding in Southeast Asia: an assessment of conservation.. Camb J Nat Hist 2019:98–112.
  32. Hartig F. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) Regression Models.. R package version 0.4.6 .
  33. Huete A, Didan K, Miura T, Rodriguez EP, Gao X, Ferreira LG. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices.. Remote Sens Environ 83:195–213.
    doi: 10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00096-2google scholar: lookup
  34. Hughey LF, Shoemaker KT, Stewart KM, McCauley DJ, Cushman JH. Effects of human-altered landscapes on a reintroduced ungulate: Patterns of habitat selection at the rangeland-wildland interface.. Biol Conserv 257:109086.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109086google scholar: lookup
  35. Hunter MD. The Phytochemical Landscape.. Princeton University Press .
    doi: 10.1515/9781400881208google scholar: lookup
  36. Jepson P, Schepers F. Making space for rewilding: creating an enabling policy environment.. Rewilding Europe .
  37. Johnson CN, Prior LD, Archibald S, Poulos HM, Barton AM, Williamson GJ, Bowman DM. Can trophic rewilding reduce the impact of fire in a more flammable world?. Philos Trans R Soc B 373:20170443.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0443pmc: PMC6231065pubmed: 30348870google scholar: lookup
  38. Kays R, Parsons AW, Baker MC, Kalies EL, Forrester T, Costello R, Rota CT, Millspaugh JJ, McShea WJ. Does hunting or hiking affect wildlife communities in protected areas?. J Appl Ecol 54:242–252.
    doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12700google scholar: lookup
  39. Knight RL, Cole DN. Wildlife responses to recreationists.. In: Knight RL, Gutzwiller KJ (eds) Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 51–69.
  40. Kuemmerle T, Levers C, Bleyhl B, Olech W, Perzanowski K, Reusch C, Kramer-Schadt S. One size does not fit all: European bison habitat selection across herds and spatial scales.. Landsc Ecol 33:1559–1572.
    doi: 10.1007/s10980-018-0684-2google scholar: lookup
  41. Lamoot I, Meert C, Hoffmann M. Habitat use of ponies and cattle foraging together in a coastal dune area.. Biol Conserv 122:523–536.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.09.007google scholar: lookup
  42. Lendrum PE, Anderson CR, Monteith KL, Jenks JA, Bowyer RT. Relating the movement of a rapidly migrating ungulate to spatiotemporal patterns of forage quality.. Mamm Biol 79:369–375.
    doi: 10.1016/j.mambio.2014.05.005google scholar: lookup
  43. Lenoir J, Svenning J-C. Climate-related range shifts – a global multidimensional synthesis and new research directions.. Ecography 38:15–28.
    doi: 10.1111/ecog.00967google scholar: lookup
  44. Linnartz L, Meissner R. Rewilding horses in Europe: background and guidelines-a living document.. Rewilding Europe .
  45. Liu HQ, Huete A. A feedback based modification of the NDVI to minimize canopy background and atmospheric noise.. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 33:457–465.
    doi: 10.1109/TGRS.1995.8746027google scholar: lookup
  46. Lundgren EJ, Bergman J, Trepel J, Le Roux E, Monsarrat S, Kristensen JA, Pedersen RØ, Pereyra P, Tietje M, Svenning J-C. Functional traits—not nativeness—shape the effects of large mammalian herbivores on plant communities.. Science 383:531–537.
    doi: 10.1126/science.adh2616pubmed: 38301018google scholar: lookup
  47. Lundgren EJ, Ramp D, Ripple WJ, Wallach AD. Introduced megafauna are rewilding the Anthropocene.. Ecography 41:857–866.
    doi: 10.1111/ecog.03430google scholar: lookup
  48. Malhi Y, Lander T, Le Roux E, Stevens N, Macias-Fauria M, Wedding L, Girardin C, Kristensen JÅ, Sandom CJ, Evans TD. The role of large wild animals in climate change mitigation and adaptation.. Curr Biol 32:R181–R196.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.01.041pubmed: 35231416google scholar: lookup
  49. Mata JC, Davison CW, Frøslev TG, Buitenwerf R, Svenning JC. Resource partitioning in a novel herbivore assemblage in South America.. J Anim Ecol 93:606–618.
    doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.14069pubmed: 38414265google scholar: lookup
  50. Mazor T, Doropoulos C, Schwarzmueller F, Gladish DW, Kumaran N, Merkel K, Di Marco M, Gagic V. Global mismatch of policy and research on drivers of biodiversity loss.. Nat Ecol Evol 2:1071–1074.
    doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0563-xpubmed: 29784980google scholar: lookup
  51. Müller A, Dahm M, Bøcher PK, Root-Bernstein M, Svenning J-C. Large herbivores in novel ecosystems-Habitat selection by red deer (Cervus elaphus) in a former brown-coal mining area.. PLoS One 12:e0177431.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177431pmc: PMC5432106pubmed: 28505192google scholar: lookup
  52. Ödberg FO, Francis-Smith K. A Study on Eliminative and Grazing Behaviour — The Use of the Field by Captive Horses.. Equine Vet J 8:147–149.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1976.tb03326.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  53. Pedersen PBM, Ejrnæs R, Sandel B, Svenning J-C. Trophic Rewilding Advancement in Anthropogenically Impacted Landscapes (TRAAIL): A framework to link conventional conservation management and rewilding.. Ambio 49:231–244.
    doi: 10.1007/s13280-019-01192-zpmc: PMC6889113pubmed: 31201614google scholar: lookup
  54. Perino A, Pereira HM, Navarro LM, Fernández N, Bullock JM, Ceaușu S, Cortés-Avizanda A, van Klink R, Kuemmerle T, Lomba A, Pe’er G, Plieninger T, Rey Benayas JM, Sandom CJ, Svenning J-C, Wheeler HC. Rewilding complex ecosystems.. Science 364:eaav5570.
    doi: 10.1126/science.aav5570pubmed: 31023897google scholar: lookup
  55. Pires MM, Guimarães PR, Galetti M, Jordano P. Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions and the functional loss of long-distance seed-dispersal services.. Ecography 41:153–163.
    doi: 10.1111/ecog.03163google scholar: lookup
  56. Popp A, Scheibe KM. The ecological influence of large herbivores–behavior and habitat utilization of cattle and horses.. Appl Ecol Environ Res 12:681–693.
    doi: 10.15666/aeer/1203_681693google scholar: lookup
  57. Ripple WJ, Newsome TM, Wolf C, Dirzo R, Everatt KT, Galetti M, Hayward MW, Kerley GI, Levi T, Lindsey PA. Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores.. Sci Adv 1:e1400103.
    doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400103pmc: PMC4640652pubmed: 26601172google scholar: lookup
  58. Sandom C, Faurby S, Sandel B, Svenning J-C. Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate change.. Proc R Soc B 281:20133254.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.3254pmc: PMC4071532pubmed: 24898370google scholar: lookup
  59. Schmitz OJ, Sylvén M, Atwood TB, Bakker ES, Berzaghi F, Brodie JF, Cromsigt JPGM, Davies AB, Leroux SJ, Schepers FJ, Smith FA, Stark S, Svenning J-C, Tilker A, Ylänne H. Trophic rewilding can expand natural climate solutions.. Nat Clim Chang 13:324–333.
    doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01631-6google scholar: lookup
  60. Schoenecker KA, Esmaeili S, King SRB. Seasonal resource selection and movement ecology of free-ranging horses in the western United States.. J Wildl Manag 87:e22341.
    doi: 10.1002/jwmg.22341google scholar: lookup
  61. Schweiger AH, Boulangeat I, Conradi T, Davis M, Svenning J-C. The importance of ecological memory for trophic rewilding as an ecosystem restoration approach.. Biol Rev 94:1–15.
    doi: 10.1111/brv.12432pubmed: 29877019google scholar: lookup
  62. Sinclair ARE, Mduma SAR, Hopcraft JGC, Fryxell JM, Hilborn R, Thirgood S. Long-Term Ecosystem Dynamics in the Serengeti: Lessons for Conservation.. Conserv Biol 21:580–590.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00699.xpubmed: 17531037google scholar: lookup
  63. Søndergaard SA, Fløjgaard C, Ejrnæs R, Svenning J-C. Shifting baselines and the forgotten giants: integrating megafauna into plant community ecology.. Oikos e11134.
    doi: 10.1111/oik.11134google scholar: lookup
  64. St-Louis A, Côté SD. Foraging behaviour at multiple temporal scales in a wild alpine equid.. Oecologia 169:167–176.
    doi: 10.1007/s00442-011-2166-ypubmed: 22033764google scholar: lookup
  65. Svenning J-C, Lemoine RT, Bergman J, Buitenwerf R, Le Roux E, Lundgren E, Mungi N, Pedersen RØ. The late-Quaternary megafauna extinctions: Patterns, causes, ecological consequences and implications for ecosystem management in the Anthropocene.. Camb Prisms Extinct 2:e5.
    doi: 10.1017/ext.2024pmc: PMC11895740pubmed: 40078803google scholar: lookup
  66. Svenning J-C, Buitenwerf R, Le Roux E. Trophic rewilding as a restoration approach under emerging novel biosphere conditions. Curr Biol 34:R435–R451.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2024.02.044pubmed: 38714176google scholar: lookup
  67. Svenning J-C, Munk M, Schweiger A. Trophic rewilding: ecological restoration of top-down trophic interactions to promote self-regulating biodiverse ecosystems. In: Perino A, Pereira HM (eds) Rewilding. Cambridge University Press, pp 73–89.
    doi: 10.1017/9781108560962.005google scholar: lookup
  68. Svenning J-C, Pedersen PBM, Donlan CJ, Ejrnaes R, Faurby S, Galetti M, Hansen DM, Sandel B, Sandom CJ, Terborgh JW, Vera FWM. Science for a wilder Anthropocene: Synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:898–906.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1502556112pmc: PMC4743824pubmed: 26504218google scholar: lookup
  69. Taylor B, Chapron G, Kopnina H, Orlikowska E, Gray J, Piccolo JJ. The need for ecocentrism in biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 34:1089–1096.
    doi: 10.1111/cobi.13541pubmed: 32424955google scholar: lookup
  70. Trepel J, Le Roux E, Abraham AJ, Buitenwerf R, Kamp J, Kristensen JA, Tietje M, Lundgren EJ, Svenning J-C. Meta-analysis shows that wild large herbivores shape ecosystem properties and promote spatial heterogeneity. Nat Ecol Evol .
    pubmed: 38337048doi: 10.1038/s41559-024-02327-6google scholar: lookup
  71. V. 3.24 Tisler; QGIS development team (2022) QGIS Geographic Information System, https://qgis.org/. Accessed 05.02.2025
  72. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2022.
  73. Vulink J, Cornelissen P, Drost H, Prins H. Hindgut fermentation is not an evolutionary dead end: comparative feeding ecology of cattle and horses. In: Vulink J (ed) Hungry herds: management of temperate lowland wetlands by grazing, Van Zee tot Land, No 66, pp 87–103.
  74. Waesch G, Becker T. Plant diversity differs between young and old mesic meadows in a central European low mountain region. Agric Ecosyst Environ 129:457–464.
    doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.022google scholar: lookup
  75. Wang Y, Liu Q. Comparison of Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) in selection of stock–recruitment relationships. Fish Res 77:220–225.
    doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2005.08.011google scholar: lookup
  76. Wiegleb G, Krawczynski R. Biodiversity management by water buffalos in restored wetlands. Waldökologie Landschaftsforschung Naturschutz 10:17–22.
  77. Xu H, Cao Y, Yu D, Cao M, He Y, Gill M, Pereira HM. Ensuring effective implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity targets. Nat Ecol Evol 5:411–418.
    doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01375-ypubmed: 33495589google scholar: lookup
  78. Zielke L, Wrage-Mönnig N, Müller J, Neumann C. Implications of spatial habitat diversity on diet selection of European Bison and Przewalski’s Horses in a Rewilding Area. Diversity 2019;11:63.
    doi: 10.3390/d11040063google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Kristensen JÅ, Buitenwerf R, Berti E, Hansen OLP, Schowanek SD, Ejrnæs R, Hansen MDD, Olsen K, Normand S, Svenning JC. Space-use by feral cattle and horses shapes vegetation structure in a trophic rewilding area.. Ecol Appl 2026 Jan;36(1):e70170.
    doi: 10.1002/eap.70170pubmed: 41636694google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,132 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.