Search

The conversion of natural habitats into farmland has been a leading cause of species loss worldwide. Here, we investigated to what extent less intensive soil disturbance can mitigate this loss. Specifically, we examined whether reduced soil disturbance by tillage in agricultural fields could contribute to soil microbial biodiversity by providing a habitat for species that are limited by conventional tillage. To do so, we studied the diversity of soil biotas from three agricultural practices representing conventional tillage, reduced tillage and no tillage. Study fields were sampled by taking a bulk soil sample at the centre and edge of each field. The soil communities were recorded with environmental DNA metabarcoding using three molecular markers targeting bacteria, fungi and eukaryotes. While these three markers represent the vast majority of biotic variation in the soil, they will inevitably be dominated by the megadiverse microbiota of bacteria, microfungi and protists. We found a significant differentiation in community composition related to the intensity of tillage. Richness was weakly correlated to tillage, and more influenced by whether the sample was taken in the center or the edge of the field. Despite the significant effect of tillage on composition, comparisons with natural ecosystems revealed that all 30 study fields were much more similar in composition to other rotational fields than to more natural habitats, oldfields and leys. Despite a slightly higher similarity to oldfields and semi-natural grasslands, the contribution of no-till soil communities to biodiversity conservation is negligible, and our results indicate that restoration on set aside land may contribute more to conservation., (© 2021. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.)

Policies aiming at improving biodiversity often consist of costly agri-environmental schemes, i.e. subsidized grazing or mowing of semi-natural areas. However, these practices have widely been found to be insufficient to mitigate biodiversity loss. Rewilding, i.e. restoring natural processes in self-sustaining biodiverse ecosystems, has been proposed as an alternative and is hypothesized to be a more cost-efficient approach to promote biodiversity conservation. Rewilding requires the availability of large natural areas which are not allocated for farming, forestry, and infrastructure to avoid potential conflicts over the use of the area. We perform an ex-ante private cost-benefit analysis of the establishment of four large nature reserves for rewilding in Denmark. We analyse the economic effects of changing from summer grazing in nature areas in combination with cultivated fields and forestry to the establishment of nature reserves in four case areas. We consider two scenarios involving conversion of agriculture and forestry areas into natural areas in combination with either extensive year-round cattle grazing or rewilding with wild large herbivores. In two case areas, it appears possible to establish large nature areas without incurring extra costs. Additionally, rewilding further reduces costs compared to year-round cattle grazing. Two opposing effects were dominant: increased economic rent occurred from the shift from summer grazing to year-round grazing or rewilding, while cessation of agriculture and forestry caused opportunity costs.

A variety of rewilding initiatives are being implemented across Europe, generally characterized by a more functionalist approach to nature management compared to the classic compositional approach. To address the increasing need for a framework to support implementation of rewilding in practical management, we present TRAAIL-Trophic Rewilding Advancement in Anthropogenically Impacted Landscapes. TRAAIL has been co-produced with managers and other stakeholders and provides managers with a framework to categorize rewilding initiatives and to link conventional nature management and rewilding by guiding steps towards a higher degree of self-regulation. Applying TRAAIL to data obtained in a Danish survey of rewilding-inspired initiatives we find that out of 44 initiatives there is no "Full rewilding" initiatives, 3 "Near-full rewilding" initiatives, 23 "Partial rewilding" initiatives, 2 "minimal rewilding" initiatives and 16 "Effort-intensive conservation management" initiatives. This study shows how TRAAIL can guide and inform trophic rewilding on a local and national scale.