Abstract
Trophic rewilding—the (re)introduction of missing large herbivores and/or their predators—is increasingly proposed to restore biodiversity and biotic interactions, but its effects on soils have been largely neglected. The high diversity of soil organisms and the ecological functions they perform mean that the full impact of rewilding on ecosystems cannot be assessed considering only above-ground food webs. Here we outline current understanding on how animal species of rewilding interest affect soil structure, processes and communities, and how in turn soil biota may affect species above ground. We highlight considerable uncertainty in soil responses to and feedbacks on above-ground consumers, with potentially large implications for rewilding interactions with global change. For example, the impact of large herbivores on soil decomposers and plant–soil interactions could lead to reduced carbon sequestration, whereas herbivore interactions with keystone biota such as mycorrhizal fungi, dung beetles and bioturbators could promote native plants and ecosystem heterogeneity. Moreover, (re)inoculation of keystone soil biota could be considered as a strategy to meet some of the objectives of trophic rewilding. Overall, we call for the rewilding research community to engage more with soil ecology experts and consider above-ground–below-ground linkages as integral to assess potential benefits as well as pitfalls.
This article is part of the theme issue ‘Trophic rewilding: consequences for ecosystems under global change'.
1. Introduction
Trophic rewilding aims at (re)introducing large herbivores and/or their predators where they are missing due to humans [1,2]. In the debate on its merits and risks, a crucial component of the ecosystems whose functioning rewilding seeks to restore has been thus far quite neglected—soil. Perhaps tellingly, in two recent reviews on rewilding terms such as ‘soil', ‘below ground', ‘decomposition', ‘mineralization', ‘root' and ‘rhizosphere' never appear—not even in the titles of the references [1,2]. This is at odds with the ‘holistic' objectives of rewilding, given that gains and losses of herbivores and predators above ground may affect soil processes [3,4] and induce shifts in abundance, activity and community composition of soil biota [5,6]. The latter in turn contribute to carbon and nutrient cycling, primary productivity and plant diversity [7–9]. These feedbacks are especially important in the context of climate change: rewilding could either ameliorate or aggravate carbon losses to the atmosphere, but the discussion so far has focused more on plants than soil [1,10,11], although the latter is the largest terrestrial carbon pool [12], and soil microbes and animals drive its dynamics [12–14]. If rewilding is to restore ecosystems without compromising carbon sequestration, responses cannot be assessed solely above ground, as plants and soil communities may respond to vertebrates differently [15–17].
Our aim is to show how soil biota and processes may respond to trophic rewilding, and how in turn these responses would facilitate or hinder the ecosystem shifts and functions that are sought to be restored. Since any rewilding initiative will occur in the context of a rapidly changing climate, we emphasized the role of climate as a control of soil biological responses and consider how these could ameliorate or worsen climate change. We searched the available literature on ISI Web of Science using keywords ‘reintroduc*', ‘introduc*' or ‘rewild*' in combination with ‘soil' and other descriptors of species of rewilding interest (e.g. ‘herbivor*', mammal*', ‘deer', ‘ungulat*’, ‘megafauna', ‘elephant*', ‘rhino*'), yielding 522 results (10 January 2018), the abstracts of which were examined to assess their relevance; all research articles cited in topical reviews [1,2,5,6,10,18] were similarly examined. As the number of suitable studies from actual rewilding projects was limited, we also drew from the wider literature on other species of herbivores and carnivores that can be used as proxies to understand the functional ecology of rewilding species. We included some studies that investigated the effects of non-native species (e.g. free-roaming cattle and horses in the New World) because they can be informative of the impact of a reintroduction in an ecosystem decades or centuries after its disappearance; moreover, some allochthonous species are actually at the centre of some rewilding proposals [19,20]. We emphasize that the evidence from studies on non-native species should be used with caution, as the impact of a novel species in an ecosystem may differ from that of a reintroduced species, for instance, due to coevolution of native organisms with the latter [21–23].
We articulate the following discussion along the following lines. First, we consider how species that have been or could be (re)introduced in rewilding programmes, or that would be directly affected as competitors or prey, affect soil biota and processes. We then consider how soil biological responses, in turn, affect those animals above ground, what implications their interactions have for ecosystem functioning (including climate change mitigation), and whether soil biota themselves should be considered in trophic rewilding, for instance through inoculation of keystone microbes and invertebrates.
2. How species of rewilding relevance affect soil organisms and functioning
(a) Grazers and browsers
The effects of large herbivores on soil functioning have been reviewed extensively [5,18,24]. In short, grazing and browsing can change quality (e.g. recalcitrance) and quantity of plant litter, a major source of energy to soil food webs, and the resulting shifts in decomposer communities can enhance or slow down elemental cycling rates [25–27]. Plants may respond to above-ground herbivory also, by altering resource allocation to roots [28], also a major source of energy to soil food webs. Through urine and dung, herbivores provide labile carbon to soils and relocate nutrients across the landscape [29], which may result in hotspots of microbial activity [30]. Also, their cadavers provide ‘fast' resources to soil [31–33], and predators regulate and distribute such resource pulses (see §2c). Lastly, many herbivores affect soils through physical disturbance. Trampling by ungulates often reduces the abundance of soil biota and rates of nutrient cycling [34,35]. Extant megaherbivores such as elephants shape soil heterogeneity by forming trails, digging and creating open patches of vegetation [36], and many smaller species restructure soils through bioturbation (see §2b). Given such a wide array of mechanisms (figure 1), predicting the effects of herbivore introductions on soil functioning is no trivial task. A framework based on plant physiological and community composition responses outlined positive effects of herbivores on carbon and nutrient cycling in fertile conditions versus negative effects in unfertile conditions [5], but empirical support to this generalization is mixed [6,16,37,38].
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of interactions among the main species (re)introduced by trophic rewilding and keystone groups of soil biota, and resulting effects on plant–soil linkages. Large mammalian herbivores (box 1) affect soils indirectly by altering plant biomass and community composition (3), which may either speed up or slow down litter decomposition and nutrient cycling (4). Herbivores are in turn preyed upon by carnivores (2), which therefore influence plants and decomposers indirectly, and the latter also directly through provision of energy and nutrients via carrions. Herbivores also affect soil biota directly through three mechanisms: provision of energy via excreta (dung, urine) and carrions, soil compaction due to trampling, and loosening and translocation of soil through digging. Here we focus on two keystone groups of soil biota: soil microbes closely associated to plants, prominent among them mycorrhizal fungi (5), and macroinvertebrate ecosystem engineers (6). For simplicity, microbial decomposers and smaller invertebrates are implicit in box 4, as their activities drive litter decomposition and nutrient cycling. The interactive effects of herbivores and soil biota (wide arrows) could lead to synergistic, desirable effects on the ecosystem, but antagonistic effects or trade-offs could arise in some conditions. In particular, the interaction between ecosystem engineers (sensu lato) above and below ground might promote soil structure, or instead lead to soil erosion (bottom left); herbivore effects on vegetation and decomposition could improve soil fertility, but this could lead to higher carbon losses to the atmosphere (bottom right). The interactions here depicted by the black arrows represent a mixture of trophic and non-trophic effects, and the net results depend on the balance resulting from different mechanisms. Some potentially important interactions are not shown for simplicity (e.g. herbivores may directly affect the plant community also through digging and compacting soil; some mycorrhizal fungi may directly affect litter decomposition by acting as saprotrophs; and some mammals of relatively large size, such as bears and boars, may feed directly on soil macrofauna). (Online version in colour.)
Trampling was highlighted alongside grazing as a mechanism to explain the maintenance of the late Pleistocene high-latitude steppe biome that disappeared after the extinction of megaherbivores [39]. Soil disturbance by large herbivores still exerts a widespread control on ecosystem functioning. In African savannah, increased soil compaction and reduced moisture due to trampling may be as important as plant consumption for the formation of grazing lawns [40], patches of fast-growing vegetation that constitute hotspots of nutrient cycling and plant diversity [23,41]. Such ecosystem engineering by large herbivores interacts with ecosystem engineering by soil fauna, with important consequences (see §3c). The disturbance of ungulate trampling could be especially important in insular ecosystems where non-avian herbivores are an ecological novelty. Avian megaherbivores such as moa differed from mammalian herbivores not only in diet [42] but also in their physical impact on soil, because they exerted much lower foot pressures than even medium-sized ungulates [43]. Therefore, before human arrival, plant and soil communities on many insular ecosystems evolved in the absence of mammalian trampling disturbances [44]. In fact, in a large-scale ungulate exclusion study in New Zealand, forest litter macrofauna tended to respond negatively to the ungulate presence, likely due to trampling disturbance rather than plant-mediated effects such as shifts in litter quality [45]. Soil biota evolved in such ecosystems could be more sensitive to trampling disturbance than soil biota in ecosystems shaped by large mammalian herbivores, but to our knowledge, no study has sought to assess it.
(b) Digging and burrowing vertebrates
Some species that are being reintroduced, or that would be affected by reintroduced species due to predation or competition, alter soil structure (e.g. mix soil horizon) by digging for food. Wild boars, a target for rewilding in Europe [1,46], create disturbed soil patches with faster nutrient cycling, resulting in higher carbon emissions relative to undisturbed soil [47]. Whether this scales up to landscape-level effects is unclear. Short-term exclusion studies on invasive boars and feral pigs showed weak effects on soil properties [48,49], but studies of longer duration showed strong effects on nutrient cycling and uptake by plants [50] and on soil microarthropod populations [51]. In fact, in European ecosystems in which they occur naturally, boars significantly affect soil properties [52] and fauna [53,54]. Among carnivores, European badgers in forests [55] and American badgers in steppes [56] were shown to form ‘cold spots' of nutrients by translocating deep soil to the surface, although this may increase the concentration of some micronutrients [55]. Effects of such disturbances tend to be transient, but repeated use of the same patches may have long-term consequences. In coniferous forests, oribatid mites declined in abundance near badger mounds, and although their numbers recovered within a few years, effects on community structure were longer lasting [57]. In alpine meadows, grizzly bears foraging on glacier lily bulbs tend to select the same, resource-rich patches every year, and it is precisely their digging activity that increases nitrogen availability and thus maintains those hotspots [58].
Species that form and occupy long-lived systems of burrows have perhaps the greatest effects on soil structure and functioning [59–61]. Burrowing and waste deposition by fossorial mammals often form soil patches with faster rates of litter decomposition and nutrient turnover [62–64], and maintenance of such hotspots over multiple generations leads to long-term soil heterogeneity [65]. This, in turn, drives patchiness in above-ground communities, for instance by hindering plant growth on mounds and burrow openings but promoting it in adjacent areas [63]. Formation and maintenance of fertile soil patches are well-documented in Australia, where the decline of native fossorial mammals has led to a deterioration in ecosystem functioning that has not been compensated by invasive species such as rabbits [66–69]. Reintroduction of native species could restore hotspots of soil moisture and nutrient cycling in Australian drylands, promoting plant and animal diversity [67,68]. On the other hand, mammalian bioturbation can also degrade soil structure [70] and reduce carbon sink capacity [71,72]. How mammalian bioturbation affects soil biota is not well-studied, but it has the potential to induce important functional shifts. In North American grassland, high density of prairie dogs may promote plant-parasitic nematodes, likely subjecting plants to more intense root herbivory [73]. Litter decomposition by termites declined when fossorial mammals were reintroduced in an Australian desert [74], suggesting that the loss of the latter had been partially compensated, in terms of soil functioning, by invertebrate ecosystem engineers.
(c) Top predators
Top predators have the potential to affect soil functioning by regulating abundance and habitat use of their prey. Among species of rewilding interest, only wolves are well-studied in their effects on soil properties, although their effects on soil biota have not been assessed. Within a few years of reintroduction in Yellowstone, wolves reduced numbers of ungulates (particularly elk) and facilitated the recruitment of trees, such as aspen, that had declined in their absence [75]. A wolf-induced trophic cascade on understorey plant diversity was found also in Wisconsin [76]. These plant responses may affect soil food webs through the deposition of a litter of different quality to the surrounding landscape. Less intensive grazing in sites with a higher perceived risk of wolf predation was observed in Yellowstone and in Poland [77–79], and these ‘landscapes of fear' likely contribute to soil heterogeneity. In fact, soil nitrogen mineralization in Yellowstone declined after wolf reintroduction particularly in the most productive sites [77]. Similarly, dingo predation cancelled negative effects of kangaroos on carbon and nitrogen retention in an Australian desert [80]. Arctic foxes, which are being reintroduced in Scandinavia after being hunted to near-extinction [81], were shown to curtail the seabird-mediated nutrient subsidy from marine to terrestrial food webs to the point of inducing dramatic vegetation shifts on previously predator-free islands [82].
Predators may also alter soil properties by providing pulses of carbon and nutrients with their kills. By bringing salmon on land, bears form soil patches with much higher nutrient content and faster turnover than surrounding areas [83,84]. While these biochemical hotspots are highly localized and short-lived [83], the legacies of larger kills can be long-lasting and contribute to the spatial heterogeneity of vegetation, for instance facilitating subordinate plant species [85]. In Isle Royale, moose carcasses left by wolves formed hotspots of soil nutrients and microbial biomass, which resulted in improved nitrogen uptake by plants even three years later [86]. In conclusion, despite the limited available evidence, it can be presumed that reintroduced predators may have substantial effects on soil functioning. Yet, considerable uncertainty remains on the net result of these interactions. Wolves in North America can have either net positive or negative effects on carbon sequestration depending on the system in which they are reintroduced [87].
3. Predicting, and steering, soil biological feedbacks on rewilding
(a) Restoration of keystone soil biota
Promoting or reintroducing native herbivores to replace invasive ones could restore some functional attributes of soil communities. Here we focus on two keystone groups of soil biota: soil microbes closely associated with plants and coprophagous soil macroinvertebrates closely associated with herbivores (figure 1).
Mycorrhizal fungi have mutualistic associations with many plant species, and therefore they may be sensitive to plant physiological and species shifts induced by rewilding [88–90]; in turn, their role in controlling nutrient cycling and plant communities feeds back on herbivores [91]. There is also an even more direct connection: many vertebrates ingest mycorrhizal fungi and other soil microbes and disperse them through their faeces [89,92]. In Australia, reintroduction of native mammals promotes mycorrhizal colonization of rainforest soil [93], and alters fungal community composition in arid soils, with some fungal taxa being found exclusively in their presence [94]. The latter finding suggests that shifts in soil microbial community under invasive herbivores could be reversed by restoring the native herbivore assemblages. However, it is unclear whether fungal communities closely associated to certain species may be supported also by other native species, e.g. two species of insectivorous burrowing mammals in Australian drylands (short-beaked echidna and greater bilby) had dissimilar effects on soil microbial community composition [95]. Moreover, the success of (re)introducing native mammals in restoring native soil communities could only be ascertained by having a pristine baseline, such as a soil community unaffected by non-native species. Fully restoring herbivore–microbial interactions is not possible when the native species are extinct. In New Zealand, moa consumed and dispersed ectomycorrhizal fungi, including species on which native Nothofagus trees depend [96], whereas introduced herbivores (e.g. deer) disperse viable spores of invasive fungi, promoting introduced conifers over native tree species [97]. This suggests that, in addition to removal of non-native herbivores, inoculation of specific soil microbes may aid restoration of New Zealand forests, and of other ecosystems which have suffered prolonged losses of large herbivores. There is experimental evidence that targeted soil microbial inoculations can promote native plant diversity [98,99], but to our knowledge, this has not been considered in a rewilding perspective.
The redistribution and recycling of herbivore dung is an important ecological function performed by widely distributed groups of soil macrofauna, including earthworms and dung beetles. These act as keystone species in grazed and browsed ecosystems through their contribution to carbon and nutrient cycling, secondary seed dispersal, and maintenance of hotspots of microbial diversity and plant growth [100–102]. Dung beetles decline when large mammals become locally extinct [22], and in fact, some species disappeared with the late Quaternary megafauna extinctions [103]. Declines and losses of coprophagous invertebrates should be taken into account when predicting the impact of rewilding, for instance, whether a habitat has a functionally efficient community of dung recyclers. The observation of niche segregation among dung beetle species based on dung type [104] suggests that the disappearance of certain species may leave a functional gap in the community. On the other hand, some beetles that had evolved on islands formerly inhabited by avian megaherbivores, in the absence of large mammalian herbivores, readily feed on ungulate dung [105,106]. Nonetheless, it is doubtful that these generalists can fully substitute some missing species. Large-bodied dung beetles that are more closely linked to large herbivores have a disproportionate role in faeces removal and seed dispersal [22,100,107], and the ecological composition of their communities determines their functional impact [101,102,108]. Therefore, as with mycorrhizal fungi, it is worth considering whether (re)introduction of dung beetles should be a part of the rewilding discussion.
(b) Soil response feeds back on carbon cycling
A key question of trophic rewilding is whether it can promote or hinder carbon sequestration [1]. Here we focus on high-latitude ecosystems, as they are disproportionally important to global carbon cycling and are a target for some ambitious rewilding projects [109]. Modelling suggests that the shift from subarctic tundra to shrubland linked to the Pleistocene megaherbivore extinctions resulted in net carbon losses [110], but it is hard to predict whether reversing such habitat changes through rewilding would also reverse the effects on carbon cycling. Restoration of cold steppe biomes through the introduction of large herbivores in subarctic tundra can enhance soil fertility [39], yet it has been suggested that it would also reduce carbon losses under climate change, by mechanisms such as carbon storage in root biomass and reduced decomposition due to lower soil temperature [109,111]. However, quantitative evidence to date shows that, in most biomes, large herbivores increase carbon losses [112]. In high-latitude tundra, vertebrate herbivores tend to reduce the abundance of soil animal decomposers [6,34] and to promote mineralization and soil respiration [6,37,113]. This often results in reduced soil C storage [114–116], although positive effects have also been found [117]. Notably, plant responses to herbivory are sensitive to warming, resulting in an altered quantity of plant detritus entering the soil food web [118]. Of particular concern is the possibility that expanding vascular plants in tundra might prime the decomposition of soil organic matter, but a recent study found no such mechanism [119]. Moreover, top-down control of shrubs in high-latitude ecosystems may enhance vegetation resilience to warming [120]. However, retention of fresh carbon is higher under subarctic shrubs than sedges [119], and similar differences between shrubs and non-woody plants are found in other ecosystems [121]. Overall, these findings underscore the need for more research on how herbivores affect carbon cycling in high-latitude soils. We also call for caution in extrapolating effects of currently studied species, such as reindeer, to those of more diverse herbivore assemblages that may result from rewilding, as divergent diet preferences may result in contrasting effects on soil carbon sequestration even at similar densities [122]. In short, herbivore identity matters not only to plants but below ground as well.
A particularly ambitious and controversial type of rewilding is to introduce allochthonous species where native keystone species are extinct. The argument is that proxy species, i.e. non-natives taxonomically different yet ecologically similar to the lost keystone species, may restore biological interactions needed to maintain local biodiversity. Such proposals have generated an intense ecological and ethical debate, but the repercussions on soil functioning have seldom been considered. For instance, given the geologically recent and ostensibly anthropogenic extinction of wild equids in America [123], the spread of feral horses could be considered unintentional rewilding [124], but how this affects soil carbon cycling is unclear. As for intentional rewilding with allochthonous species, introduction of extant camelids in part of their extinct relatives' range could maintain local plant and pollinator diversity due to their ability to counteract shrub encroachment [19]; on the other hand, shrub encroachment tends to promote carbon sequestration [121], therefore by counteracting it camelids may have undesirable effects in a climate change mitigation perspective. Given the large but idiosyncratic effects of shrub encroachment on ecosystem functioning [121], trade-offs between above-ground and below-ground targets, e.g. plant diversity versus carbon storage, may be inevitable. Finally, extant giant tortoises have been proposed to replace extinct tortoises on some islands [20,125], on the assumption that their selective herbivory and seed dispersal would restore top-down control of the plant communities, making it a low-risk, high-reward scenario [126]. Again, a below-ground perspective might suggest different priorities. For example, it could be argued that the eradication of invasive species that cause erosion through overgrazing, such as goats do in the Galapagos [127], would suffice to limit carbon and nutrient losses.
(c) Co-engineering by large herbivores and soil macrofauna
Ecosystem engineering by soil macroinvertebrates such as earthworms, dung beetles, termites and ants leads to patchiness in soil properties and plant communities, which can influence even the largest consumers above ground. For instance, in African savannahs, nutrient hotspots around large termite mounds (particularly of Macrotermes spp.) facilitate the development of fertile vegetation patches [128], which are intensively grazed by megaherbivores [129,130]. A small but growing number of studies points to co-engineering by large herbivores and soil macrofauna as essential to the formation and turnover of the vegetation mosaic of grazed ecosystems. In particular, burrowing and soil loosening by macrofauna enable the formation of tall vegetation patches in grazed ecosystems, whereas grazing and trampling by large herbivores form lawn patches [40,131]. The mosaics observed in African savannahs and other ecosystems can, therefore, be explained not only in terms of plant responses to consumption but also as a ‘battle' between two contrasting forms of ecosystem engineering, compaction by herbivores and bioturbation by soil macrofauna [131]. Therefore, soil macrofauna may contribute to the ecological success of large herbivore reintroductions. Reintroduction of soil macrofauna could even be considered to meet some objectives of rewilding, as it has recently been shown that earthworm inoculation can speed up the restoration of plant communities [132]. However, even apparently similar ecosystem engineers may have different impacts on soil and therefore on plants and herbivores, e.g. co-occurring earthworm species in West Africa have opposite effects on soil porosity [133]. Therefore, any plan of soil invertebrate reintroductions as part of rewilding would require an understanding of the functional traits of the target species.
Soil ecosystem engineers could be especially important in shaping ecosystem responses to climate change. In arid tropical ecosystems, termite mounds constitute hotspots of carbon and nutrient cycling in water-limited conditions [134], with implications for ecosystem resilience to drought [135]. In temperate ecosystems, dung beetles may enhance water retention and thus reduce plant stress under drought in temperate climate [136], whereas deep-burrowing earthworms may enhance water infiltration and buffer plant growth against extreme rainfall [137]. Conversely, invasive earthworms in North America appear to worsen the negative impact of climate warming on forest ecosystems [138]. Therefore, whether (re)introduced herbivores would facilitate or hinder soil macrofauna can have major ecological implications. At present, it is unclear how taxonomic identity and environmental condition control the responses of soil macrofauna to large herbivores. For instance, free-roaming equids in North American drylands have negative effects on ants [139], whereas megaherbivores such as in African savannah appear to benefit from habitat modification by termites without in turn affecting their abundance [130]. Such knowledge gaps may compromise the evaluation of potential strategies for managing rewilding projects. Replacement of moose by smaller deer appears to enhance the unwanted effects of non-native earthworms in North American forests [140,141], but it is not known whether reintroducing moose or predators of deer would counteract the ecosystem disservices of those invasive ecosystem engineers.
4. Concluding remarks
Overall, we have shown that species used or proposed for (re)introduction to restore trophic interactions above ground, particularly mammalian herbivores, may affect soil functioning and biodiversity through a variety of mechanisms. In turn, the responses of soil biota will feed back on plants and food webs above ground, and may promote species and biotic interactions of rewilding interest. We stress that there is considerable uncertainty in how soil communities respond to (re)introduction of herbivores and their predators in different contexts (e.g. climate, vegetation, soil type). This makes it difficult to predict the full impact of rewilding on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning over the long term, particularly in a rapidly changing climate. We, therefore, urge caution on proceeding with rewilding without considering the potential trade-offs between desired effects above ground and unintended consequences below ground. For instance, will restoration of above-ground food webs in some ecosystems come at a cost of reduced carbon sequestration and increased soil erosion? On the other hand, there are also potential synergies between above-ground consumers and soil biota that could contribute to successful rewilding. For instance, if mycorrhizal fungi and macroinvertebrate ecosystem engineers responded positively to reintroductions of large herbivores, their contribution to soil structure and vegetation heterogeneity could, in turn, promote biodiversity and large herbivore survival. Indeed, the largely unexplored potential for (re)inoculation of some keystone soil biota poses thus far untapped opportunities to complement rewilding as a tool for successful species and ecosystem restoration. We strongly encourage the scientific community leading the trophic rewilding discourse to engage with experts in soil functioning and biodiversity and in above-ground–below-ground interactions to obtain a more comprehensive picture of its feasibility and impact, and to better detect pitfalls as well as synergies.
Data accessibility
This article has no additional data.
Authors' contributions
W.S.A. drafted manuscript and figure. Both authors contributed ideas and references, critically evaluated and revised manuscript and figure, and approved the final version.
Competing interests
We have no competing interests.
Funding
We received no funding for this study.
Footnotes
References
- 1
Svenning J-C 2016Science for a wilder Anthropocene: synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 898–906. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1502556112) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 2
Seddon PJ, Griffiths CJ, Soorae PS, Armstrong DP. 2014Reversing defaunation: restoring species in a changing world. Science 345, 406–412. (doi:10.1126/science.1251818) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 3
McSherry ME, Ritchie ME . 2013Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 1347–1357. (doi:10.1111/gcb.12144) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 4
Milchunas D, Lauenroth W . 1993Quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils over a global range of environments. Ecol. Monogr. 63, 327–366. (doi:10.2307/2937150) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 5
Bardgett RD, Wardle DA . 2003Herbivore-mediated linkages between aboveground and belowground communities. Ecology 84, 2258–2268. (doi:10.1890/02-0274) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 6
Andriuzzi WS, Wall DH . 2017Responses of belowground communities to large aboveground herbivores: meta-analysis reveals biome-dependent patterns and critical research gaps. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3857–3868. (doi:10.1111/gcb.13675) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 7
Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Callaway RM, Van der Putten WH . 2011Terrestrial ecosystem responses to species gains and losses. Science 332, 1273–1277. (doi:10.1126/science.1197479) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 8
Nielsen UN, Ayres E, Wall DH, Bardgett RD . 2011Soil biodiversity and carbon cycling: a review and synthesis of studies examining diversity–function relationships. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 62, 105–116. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01314.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 9
Bardgett RD, van der Putten WH . 2014Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 515, 505–511. (doi:10.1038/nature13855) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 10
Corlett RT . 2016Restoration, reintroduction, and rewilding in a changing world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 453–462. (doi:10.1016/J.TREE.2016.02.017) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 11
Galetti M, Pires AS, Brancalion PHS, Fernandez FAS . 2017Reversing defaunation by trophic rewilding in empty forests. Biotropica 49, 5–8. (doi:10.1111/btp.12407) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 12
Johnston CA 2004Carbon cycling in soil. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2, 522–528. (doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0522:CCIS]2.0.CO;2) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 13
de Graaff M-A, Adkins J, Kardol P, Throop HL . 2015A meta-analysis of soil biodiversity impacts on the carbon cycle. SOIL 1, 257–271. (doi:10.5194/soil-1-257-2015) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 14
Filser J 2016Soil fauna: key to new carbon models. SOIL 2, 565–582. (doi:10.5194/soil-2-565-2016) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 15
Kolstad AL, Austrheim G, Solberg EJ, Venete AMA, Woodin SJ, Speed JDM . 2017Cervid exclusion alters boreal forest properties with little cascading impacts on soils. Ecosystems 21, 1027–1041. (doi:10.1007/s10021-017-0202-4) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 16
Andriuzzi WS, Keith AM, Bardgett RD, van der Wal R . 2013Soil nematode assemblage responds weakly to grazer exclusion on a nutrient-rich seabird island. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 58, 38–41. (doi:10.1016/j.ejsobi.2013.05.009) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 17
Schrama M, van der Plas F, Berg MP, Olff H . 2017Decoupled diversity dynamics in green and brown webs during primary succession in a salt marsh. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 158–169. (doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12602) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 18
Hobbs NT . 1996Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. J. Wildlife Manage. 60, 695–713. (doi:10.2307/3802368) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 19
Root-Bernstein M, Svenning J-C . 2016Prospects for rewilding with camelids. J. Arid Environ. 130, 54–61. (doi:10.1016/J.JARIDENV.2016.03.011) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 20
Griffiths CJ, Jones CG, Hansen DM, Puttoo M, Tatayah RV, Müller CB, Harris S . 2010The use of extant non-indigenous tortoises as a restoration tool to replace extinct ecosystem engineers. Restor. Ecol. 18, 1–7. (doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00612.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 21
González JB, Petipas RH, Franken O, Kiers ET, Veblen KE, Brody AK . 2018Herbivore removal reduces influence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on plant growth and tolerance in an East African savanna. Oecologia 187, 1–11. (doi:10.1007/s00442-018-4124-4) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 22
Nichols E, Gardner TA, Peres CA, Spector S . 2009Co-declining mammals and dung beetles: an impending ecological cascade. Oikos 118, 481–487. (doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17268.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 23
Hempson GP 2015Ecology of grazing lawns in Africa. Biol. Rev. 90, 979–994. (doi:10.1111/brv.12145) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 24
Bardgett RD, Wardle DA, Yeates GW . 1998Linking above-ground and below-ground interactions: how plant responses to foliar herbivory influence soil organisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30, 1867–1878. (doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(98)00069-8) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 25
Veen GF, Olff H, Duyts H, van der Putten WH . 2010Vertebrate herbivores influence soil nematodes by modifying plant communities. Ecology 91, 828–835. (doi:10.1890/09-0134.1) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 26
Andres P 2016Soil food web stability in response to grazing in a semi-arid prairie: the importance of soil textural heterogeneity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 97, 1–13. (doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.02.014) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 27
Stark S, Wardle DA, Ohtonen R, Helle T, Yeates GW . 2000The effect of reindeer grazing on decomposition, mineralization and soil biota in a dry oligotrophic Scots pine forest. Oikos 90, 301–310. (doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900210.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 28
Sun G, Zhu-Barker X, Chen D, Liu L, Zhang N, Shi C, He L, Lei Y . 2017Responses of root exudation and nutrient cycling to grazing intensities and recovery practices in an alpine meadow: an implication for pasture management. Plant Soil 416, 515–525. (doi:10.1007/s11104-017-3236-7) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 29
Mosbacher JB, Kristensen DK, Michelsen A, Stelvig M, Schmidt NM . 2016Quantifying muskox plant biomass removal and spatial relocation of nitrogen in a high Arctic tundra ecosystem. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 48, 229–240. (doi:10.1657/AAAR0015-034) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 30
Buscardo E 2017Of mammals and bacteria in a rainforest: temporal dynamics of soil bacteria in response to simulated N pulse from mammalian urine. Funct. Ecol. 32, 773–784. (doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12998) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 31
Szelecz I, Sorge F, Seppey CVW, Mulot M, Steel H, Neilson R, Griffiths BS, Amendt J, Mitchell EAD . 2016Effects of decomposing cadavers on soil nematode communities over a one-year period. Soil Biol. Biochem. 103, 405–416. (doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.09.011) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 32
Carter DO, Yellowlees D, Tibbett M . 2006Cadaver decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Naturwissenschaften 94, 12–24. (doi:10.1007/s00114-006-0159-1) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 33
Wilson D, Read JL . 2003Kangaroo harvesters: fertilizing the rangelands. Rangel. J. 25, 47–55. (doi:10.1071/RJ03007) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 34
Sørensen LI, Mikola J, Kytöviita M-M, Olofsson J . 2009Trampling and spatial heterogeneity explain decomposer abundances in a sub-arctic grassland subjected to simulated reindeer grazing. Ecosystems 12, 830–842. (doi:10.1007/s10021-009-9260-6) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 35
Schrama M, Heijning P, Bakker JP, van Wijnen HJ, Berg MP, Olff H . 2013Herbivore trampling as an alternative pathway for explaining differences in nitrogen mineralization in moist grasslands. Oecologia 172, 231–243. (doi:10.1007/s00442-012-2484-8) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 36
Haynes G . 2012Elephants (and extinct relatives) as earth-movers and ecosystem engineers. Geomorphology 157–158, 99–107. (doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.04.045) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 37
Sitters J, te Beest M, Cherif M, Giesler R, Olofsson J . 2017Interactive effects between reindeer and habitat fertility drive soil nutrient availabilities in Arctic tundra. Ecosystems 20, 1266–1277. (doi:10.1007/s10021-017-0108-1) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 38
Stark S, Männistö MK, Eskelinen A . 2015When do grazers accelerate or decelerate soil carbon and nitrogen cycling in tundra? A test of theory on grazing effects in fertile and infertile habitats. Oikos 124, 593–602. (doi:10.1111/oik.01355) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 39
Zimov SA, Chuprynin VI, Oreshko AP, Chapin F, Reynolds JF, Chapin M . 1995Steppe–tundra transition : a herbivore-driven biome shift at the end of the Pleistocene. Am. Nat. 146, 765–794. (doi:10.1086/285824) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 40
Veldhuis MP, Howison RA, Fokkema RW, Tielens E, Olff H . 2014A novel mechanism for grazing lawn formation: large herbivore-induced modification of the plant–soil water balance. J. Ecol. 102, 1506–1517. (doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12322) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 41
Coetsee C, Stock WD, Craine JM . 2011Do grazers alter nitrogen dynamics on grazing lawns in a South African savannah?Afr. J. Ecol. 49, 62–69. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2028.2010.01236.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 42
Lee WG, Wood JR, Rogers GM . 2010Legacy of avian-dominated plant–herbivore systems in New Zealand. N. Z. J. Ecol. 34, 86–114. ISI, Google Scholar - 43
Duncan K, Holdaway R . 1989Footprint pressures and locomotion of MOAS and ungulates and their effects on the New Zealand indigenous biota through trampling. N. Z. J. Ecol. 12, 97–101. (doi:10.2307/24053252) ISI, Google Scholar - 44
Forsyth DM, Wilmshurst JM, Allen RB, Coomes DA . 2010Impacts of introduced deer and extinct moa on New Zealand ecosystems. N. Z. J. Ecol. 34, 86–114. ISI, Google Scholar - 45
Wardle DA, Barker GM, Yeates GW, Bonner KI, Ghani A . 2001Introduced browsing mammals in New Zealand natural forests: aboveground and belowground consequences. Ecol. Monogr. 71, 587–614. (doi:10.1890/0012-9615(2001)071[0587:IBMINZ]2.0.CO;2) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 46
Sandom CJ, Hughes J, Macdonald DW . 2013Rewilding the Scottish highlands: do wild boar, Sus scrofa, use a suitable foraging strategy to be effective ecosystem engineers?Restor. Ecol. 21, 336–343. (doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00903.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 47
Risch AC, Wirthner S, Busse MD, Page-Dumroese DS, Schütz M . 2010Grubbing by wild boars (Sus scrofa L.) and its impact on hardwood forest soil carbon dioxide emissions in Switzerland. Oecologia 164, 773–784. (doi:10.1007/s00442-010-1665-6) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 48
Barrios-Garcia MN, Classen AT, Simberloff D . 2014Disparate responses of above- and belowground properties to soil disturbance by an invasive mammal. Ecosphere 5, art44. (doi:10.1890/ES13-00290.1) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 49
Tierney TA, Cushman JH . 2006Temporal changes in native and exotic vegetation and soil characteristics following disturbances by feral pigs in a California grassland. Biol. Invasions 8, 1073–1089. (doi:10.1007/s10530-005-6829-7) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 50
Long MS, Litton CM, Giardina CP, Deenik J, Cole RJ, Sparks JP . 2017Impact of nonnative feral pig removal on soil structure and nutrient availability in Hawaiian tropical montane wet forests. Biol. Invasions 19, 749–763. (doi:10.1007/s10530-017-1368-6) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 51
Vtorov IP . 1993Feral pig removal: effects on soil microarthropods in a Hawaiian rain forest. J. Wildl. Manag. 57, 875–880. (doi:10.2307/3809092) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 52
Bueno CG, Azorín J, Gómez-García D, Alados CL, Badía D . 2013Occurrence and intensity of wild boar disturbances, effects on the physical and chemical soil properties of alpine grasslands. Plant Soil 373, 243–256. (doi:10.1007/s11104-013-1784-z) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 53
Mohr D, Cohnstaedt LW, Topp W . 2005Wild boar and red deer affect soil nutrients and soil biota in steep oak stands of the Eifel. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 693–700. (doi:10.1016/J.SOILBIO.2004.10.002) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 54
Bueno CG, Jiménez JJ . 2014Livestock grazing activities and wild boar rooting affect alpine earthworm communities in the Central Pyrenees (Spain). Appl. Soil Ecol. 83, 71–78. (doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.04.013) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 55
Kurek P, Kapusta P, Holeksa J . 2014Burrowing by badgers (Meles meles) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes) changes soil conditions and vegetation in a European temperate forest. Ecol. Res. 29, 1–11. (doi:10.1007/s11284-013-1094-1) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 56
Eldridge DJ, Whitford WG . 2009Badger (Taxidea taxus) disturbances increase soil heterogeneity in a degraded shrub-steppe ecosystem. J. Arid Environ. 73, 66–73. (doi:10.1016/J.JARIDENV.2008.09.004) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 57
Rola K, Kurek P, Skubała P . 2017Badger (Meles meles) disturbances affect oribatid mite (Acari: Oribatida) communities in European temperate forests. Appl. Soil Ecol. 121, 20–30. (doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.09.013) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 58
Tardiff SE, Stanford JA . 1998Grizzly bear digging: effects on subalpine meadow plants in relation to mineral nitrogen availability. Ecology 79, 2219–2228. (doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2219:GBDEOS]2.0.CO;2) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 59
Meysman FJR, Middelburg JJ, Heip CHR . 2006Bioturbation: a fresh look at Darwin's last idea. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 688–695. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.002) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 60
Davidson AD, Detling JK, Brown JH . 2012Ecological roles and conservation challenges of social, burrowing, herbivorous mammals in the world's grasslands. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 477–486. (doi:10.1890/110054) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 61
Andersen DC . 1987Below-ground herbivory in natural communities: a review emphasizing fossorial animals. Q. Rev. Biol. 62, 261–286. (doi:10.1086/415512) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 62
Barth CJ, Liebig MA, Hendrickson JR, Sedivec KK, Halvorson G . 2014Soil change induced by prairie dogs across three ecological sites. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 78, 2054. (doi:10.2136/sssaj2014.06.0263) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 63
Reichman OJ, Seabloom EW . 2002The role of pocket gophers as subterranean ecosystem engineers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 44–49. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02329-1) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 64
Whitford WG, Kay FR . 1999Biopedturbation by mammals in deserts: a review. J. Arid Environ. 41, 203–230. (doi:10.1006/jare.1998.0482) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 65
Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Liu J . 2003Burrowing rodents as ecosystem engineers: the ecology and management of plateau zokors Myospalax fontanierii in alpine meadow ecosystems on the Tibetan Plateau. Mamm. Rev. 33, 284–294. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00020.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 66
James AI, Eldridge DJ, Koen TB, Moseby KE . 2011Can the invasive European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) assume the soil engineering role of locally-extinct natives?Biol. Invasions 13, 3027–3038. (doi:10.1007/s10530-011-9987-9) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 67
Fleming PA, Anderson H, Prendergast AS, Bretz MR, Valentine LE, Hardy GES . 2014Is the loss of Australian digging mammals contributing to a deterioration in ecosystem function?Mamm. Rev. 44, 94–108. (doi:10.1111/mam.12014) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 68
James AI, Eldridge DJ . 2007Reintroduction of fossorial native mammals and potential impacts on ecosystem processes in an Australian desert landscape. Biol. Conserv. 138, 351–359. (doi:10.1016/J.BIOCON.2007.04.029) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 69
Eldridge DJ, Woodhouse JN, Curlevski NJA, Hayward M, Brown MV, Neilan BA . 2015Soil-foraging animals alter the composition and co-occurrence of microbial communities in a desert shrubland. ISME J. 9, 2671–2681. (doi:10.1038/ismej.2015.70) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 70
Guo ZG, Zhou XR, Hou Y . 2012Effect of available burrow densities of plateau pika (Ochotona curzoniae) on soil physicochemical property of the bare land and vegetation land in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Acta Ecol. Sin. 32, 104–110. (doi:10.1016/J.CHNAES.2012.02.002) Crossref, Google Scholar - 71
Qin Y, Chen J, Yi S . 2015Plateau pikas burrowing activity accelerates ecosystem carbon emission from alpine grassland on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Ecol. Eng. 84, 287–291. (doi:10.1016/J.ECOLENG.2015.09.012) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 72
Liu Y, Fan J, Harris W, Shao Q, Zhou Y, Wang N, Li Y . 2013Effects of plateau pika (Ochotona curzoniae) on net ecosystem carbon exchange of grassland in the Three Rivers Headwaters region, Qinghai-Tibet, China. Plant Soil 366, 491–504. (doi:10.1007/s11104-012-1442-x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 73
Ingham RE, Detling JK . 1984Plant–herbivore interactions in a North American mixed-grass prairie – III. Soil nematode populations and root biomass on Cynomys ludovicianus colonies and adjacent uncolonized areas. Oecologia 63, 307–313. (doi:10.1007/BF00390658) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 74
Coggan NV, Hayward MW, Gibb H . 2016Termite activity and decomposition are influenced by digging mammal reintroductions along an aridity gradient. J. Arid Environ. 133, 85–93. (doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2016.06.005) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 75
Ripple WJ, Beschta RL . 2012Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: the first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biol. Conserv. 145, 205–213. (doi:10.1016/J.BIOCON.2011.11.005) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 76
Callan R, Nibbelink NP, Rooney TP, Wiedenhoeft JE, Wydeven AP . 2013Recolonizing wolves trigger a trophic cascade in Wisconsin (USA). J. Ecol. 101, 837–845. (doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12095) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 77
Frank DA . 2008Evidence for top predator control of a grazing ecosystem. Oikos 117, 1718–1724. (doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.16846.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 78
Laundré JW, Hernández L, Altendorf KB . 2001Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the ‘landscape of fear’ in Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. Can. J. Zool. 79, 1401–1409. (doi:10.1139/z01-094) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 79
Kuijper DPJ, de Kleine C, Churski M, van Hooft P, Bubnicki J, Jędrzejewska B . 2013Landscape of fear in Europe: wolves affect spatial patterns of ungulate browsing in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland. Ecography (Cop.) 36, 1263–1275. (doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00266.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 80
Morris T, Letnic M . 2017Removal of an apex predator initiates a trophic cascade that extends from herbivores to vegetation and the soil nutrient pool. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20170111. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.0111) Link, ISI, Google Scholar - 81
Landa A, Flagstad Ø, Areskoug V, Linnell JDC, Strand O, Ulvund KR, Thierry AM, Rød-Eriksen L, Eide NE . 2017The endangered Arctic fox in Norway—the failure and success of captive breeding and reintroduction. Polar Res. 36, 9. (doi:10.1080/17518369.2017.1325139) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 82
Croll DA, Maron JL, Estes JA, Danner EM, Byrd GV . 2005Introduced predators transform subarctic islands from grassland to tundra. Science 307, 1959–1961. (doi:10.1126/science.1108485) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 83
Holtgrieve GW, Schindler DE, Jewett PK . 2009Large predators and biogeochemical hotspots: brown bear (Ursus arctos) predation on salmon alters nitrogen cycling in riparian soils. Ecol. Res. 24, 1125–1135. (doi:10.1007/s11284-009-0591-8) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 84
Gende SM, Miller AE, Hood E . 2007The effects of salmon carcasses on soil nitrogen pools in a riparian forest of southeastern Alaska. Can. J. For. Res. 37, 1194–1202. (doi:10.1139/X06-318) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 85
Towne EG . 2000Prairie vegetation and soil nutrient responses to ungulate carcasses. Oecologia 122, 232–239. (doi:10.1007/PL00008851) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 86
Bump JK, Peterson RO, Vucetich JA . 2009Wolves modulate soil nutrient heterogeneity and foliar nitrogen by configuring the distribution of ungulate carcasses. Ecology 90, 3159–3167. (doi:10.1890/09-0292.1) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 87
Wilmers CC, Schmitz OJ . 2016Effects of gray wolf-induced trophic cascades on ecosystem carbon cycling. Ecosphere 7, e01501. (doi:10.1002/ecs2.1501) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 88
Barto EK, Rillig MC . 2010Does herbivory really suppress mycorrhiza? A meta-analysis. J. Ecol. 98, 745–753. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01658.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 89
Johnson CN . 1996Interactions between mammals and ectomycorrhizal fungi. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 503–507. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(96)10053-7) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 90
Rossow LJ, Bryant JP, Kielland K . 1997Effects of above-ground browsing by mammals on mycorrhizal infection in an early successional taiga ecosystem. Oecologia 110, 94–98. (doi:10.1007/s004420050137) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 91
Stevens BM, Propster J, Wilson GWT, Abraham A, Ridenour C, Doughty C, Johnson NC . 2018Mycorrhizal symbioses influence the trophic structure of the Serengeti. J. Ecol. 106, 536–546. (doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12916) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 92
Chaia EE, Sosa MC, Raffaele E . 2012Vertebrate faeces as sources of nodulating Frankia in Patagonia. Symbiosis 56, 139–145. (doi:10.1007/s13199-012-0169-z) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 93
Gehring CA, Wolf JE, Theimer TC . 2002Terrestrial vertebrates promote arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal diversity and inoculum potential in a rain forest soil. Ecol. Lett. 5, 540–548. (doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00353.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 94
Clarke LJ, Weyrich LS, Cooper A . 2015Reintroduction of locally extinct vertebrates impacts arid soil fungal communities. Mol. Ecol. 24, 3194–3205. (doi:10.1111/mec.13229) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 95
Eldridge DJ, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Woodhouse JN, Neilan BA . 2016Contrasting effects of two mammalian soil engineers on microbial communities. Austral Ecol. 42, 380–384. (doi:10.1111/aec.12467) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 96
Boast AP, Weyrich LS, Wood JR, Metcalf JL, Knight R, Cooper A . 2017Coprolites reveal ecological interactions lost with the extinction of New Zealand birds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1546–1561. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1712337115) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 97
Wood JR, Dickie IA, Moeller HV, Peltzer DA, Bonner KI, Rattray G, Wilmshurst JM . 2015Novel interactions between non-native mammals and fungi facilitate establishment of invasive pines. J. Ecol. 103, 121–129. (doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12345) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 98
Koziol L, Bever JD . 2016The missing link in grassland restoration: arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculation increases plant diversity and accelerates succession. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1301–1309. (doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12843) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 99
Middleton EL, Bever JD . 2012Inoculation with a native soil community advances succession in a grassland restoration. Restor. Ecol. 20, 218–226. (doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00752.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 100
Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen T, Amezquita S, Favila ME . 2008Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol. Conserv. 141, 1461–1474. (doi:10.1016/J.BIOCON.2008.04.011) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 101
Howison RA, Berg MP, Smit C, van Dijk K, Olff H . 2016The importance of coprophagous macrodetritivores for the maintenance of vegetation heterogeneity in an African savannah. Ecosystems 19, 1–11. (doi:10.1007/s10021-016-9960-7) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 102
Slade EM, Roslin T, Santalahti M, Bell T . 2015Disentangling the ‘brown world’ faecal–detritus interaction web: dung beetle effects on soil microbial properties. Oikos 125, 629–635. (doi:10.1111/oik.02640) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 103
Galetti M 2017Ecological and evolutionary legacy of megafauna extinctions. Biol. Rev. 93, 845–862. (doi:10.1111/brv.12374) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 104
Whipple SD, Hoback WW . 2012A comparison of dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) attraction to native and exotic mammal dung. Environ. Entomol. 41, 238–244. (doi:10.1603/EN11285) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 105
Jones AG, Forgie SA, Scott DJ, Beggs JR . 2012Generalist dung attraction response in a New Zealand dung beetle that evolved with an absence of mammalian herbivores. Ecol. Entomol. 37, 124–133. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.2012.01344.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 106
Hanski I, Wirta H, Nyman T, Rahagalala P . 2008Resource shifts in Malagasy dung beetles: contrasting processes revealed by dissimilar spatial genetic patterns. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1208–1215. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01239.x) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 107
Larsen TH, Williams NM, Kremen C . 2005Extinction order and altered community structure rapidly disrupt ecosystem functioning. Ecol. Lett. 8, 538–547. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00749.x) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 108
Gagic V 2015Functional identity and diversity of animals predict ecosystem functioning better than species-based indices. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20142620. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.2620) Link, ISI, Google Scholar - 109
Zimov SA . 2005Pleistocene Park: return of the mammoth's ecosystem. Science 308, 796–798. (doi:10.1126/science.1113442) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 110
Brault MO, Mysak LA, Matthews HD, Simmons CT . 2013Assessing the impact of late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions on global vegetation and climate. Clim. Past 9, 1761–1771. (doi:10.5194/cp-9-1761-2013) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 111
Malhi Y, Doughty CE, Galetti M, Smith FA, Svenning J-C, Terborgh JW . 2016Megafauna and ecosystem function from the Pleistocene to the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 838–846. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1502540113) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 112
Tanentzap AJ, Coomes DA . 2012Carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems: do browsing and grazing herbivores matter?Biol. Rev. 87, 72–94. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00185.x) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 113
Stark S, Väisänen M . 2014Insensitivity of soil microbial activity to temporal variation in soil N in subarctic tundra: evidence from responses to large migratory grazers. Ecosystems 17, 906–917. (doi:10.1007/s10021-014-9768-2) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 114
Cahoon SMP, Sullivan PF, Post E, Welker JM . 2012Large herbivores limit CO2 uptake and suppress carbon cycle responses to warming in West Greenland. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 469–479. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02528.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 115
Sjögersten S, van der Wal R, Woodin SJ . 2012Impacts of grazing and climate warming on C pools and decomposition rates in Arctic environments. Ecosystems 15, 349–362. (doi:10.1007/s10021-011-9514-y) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 116
van der Wal R, Sjögersten S, Woodin SJ, Cooper EJ, Jónsdóttir IS, Kuijper D, Fox TAD, Huiskesm AD . 2007Spring feeding by pink-footed geese reduces carbon stocks and sink strength in tundra ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 539–545. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01310.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 117
Ylänne H, Olofsson J, Oksanen L, Stark S . 2018Consequences of grazer-induced vegetation transitions on ecosystem carbon storage in the tundra. Funct. Ecol. 32, 1091–1102. (doi:10.1111/1365-2435.13029) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 118
Little CJ, Cutting H, Alatalo J, Cooper EJ . 2017Short-term herbivory has long-term consequences in warmed and ambient high Arctic tundra. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 025001. (doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa579d) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 119
Lynch LM, Machmuller MB, Cotrufo MF, Paul EA, Wallenstein MD . 2018Tracking the fate of fresh carbon in the Arctic tundra: will shrub expansion alter responses of soil organic matter to warming?Soil Biol. Biochem. 120, 134–144. (doi:10.1016/J.SOILBIO.2018.02.002) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 120
Kaarlejärvi E, Hoset KS, Olofsson J . 2015Mammalian herbivores confer resilience of Arctic shrub-dominated ecosystems to changing climate. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 3379–3388. (doi:10.1111/gcb.12970) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 121
Eldridge DJ, Bowker MA, Maestre FT, Roger E, Reynolds JF, Whitford WG . 2011Impacts of shrub encroachment on ecosystem structure and functioning: towards a global synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 14, 709–722. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01630.x) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 122
Bagchi S, Ritchie ME . 2010Introduced grazers can restrict potential soil carbon sequestration through impacts on plant community composition. Ecol. Lett. 13, 959–968. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01486.x) PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 123
Buck CE, Bard E . 2007A calendar chronology for Pleistocene mammoth and horse extinction in North America based on Bayesian radiocarbon calibration. Quat. Sci. Rev. 26, 2031–2035. (doi:10.1016/J.QUASCIREV.2007.06.013) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 124
Svenning J-C 2016Reply to Rubenstein and Rubenstein: time to move on from ideological debates on rewilding. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E2–E3. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1521891113) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 125
Gibbs JP, Marquez C, Sterling EJ . 2008The role of endangered species reintroduction in ecosystem restoration: tortoise–cactus interactions on Española Island, Galápagos. Restor. Ecol. 16, 88–93. (doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00265.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 126
Hunter EA, Gibbs JP . 2014Densities of ecological replacement herbivores required to restore plant communities: a case study of giant tortoises on Pinta Island, Galápagos. Restor. Ecol. 22, 248–256. (doi:10.1111/rec.12055) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 127
Hamann O . 1979Regeneration of vegetation on Santa Fé and Pinta islands, Galápagos, after the eradication of goats. Biol. Conserv. 15, 215–235. (doi:10.1016/0006-3207(79)90042-9) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 128
Gosling CM, Cromsigt JPGM, Mpanza N, Olff H . 2012Effects of erosion from mounds of different termite genera on distinct functional grassland types in an African savannah. Ecosystems 15, 128–139. (doi:10.1007/s10021-011-9497-8) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 129
Cromsigt JPGM, te Beest M . 2014Restoration of a megaherbivore: landscape-level impacts of white rhinoceros in Kruger National Park, South Africa. J. Ecol. 102, 566–575. (doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12218) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 130
Lagendijk DDG, Davies AB, Eggleton P, Slotow R . 2016No evidence for an elephant-termite feedback loop in Sand Forest, South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 203, 125–133. (doi:10.1016/J.BIOCON.2016.08.028) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 131
Howison RA, Olff H, van de Koppel J, Smit C . 2017Biotically driven vegetation mosaics in grazing ecosystems: the battle between bioturbation and biocompaction. Ecol. Monogr. 87, 363–378. (doi:10.1002/ecm.1259) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 132
Forey E, Chauvat M, Coulibaly SFM, Langlois E, Barot S, Clause J . 2018Inoculation of an ecosystem engineer (earthworm: Lumbricus terrestris) during experimental grassland restoration: consequences for above and belowground soil compartments. Appl. Soil Ecol. 125, 148–155. (doi:10.1016/J.APSOIL.2017.12.021) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 133
Blanchart E, Lavelle P, Braudeau E, Le Bissonnais Y, Valentin C . 1997Regulation of soil structure by geophagous earthworm activities in humid savannas of Cote d'Ivoire. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29, 431–439. (doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(96)00042-9) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 134
Veldhuis MP, Laso FJ, Olff H, Berg MP . 2016Termites promote resistance of decomposition to spatiotemporal variability in rainfall. Ecology 98, 467–477. (doi:10.1002/ecy.1658) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 135
Bonachela JA, Pringle RM, Sheffer E, Coverdale TC, Guyton JA, Caylor KK, Levin SA, Tarnita CE . 2015Termite mounds can increase the robustness of dryland ecosystems to climatic change. Science 347, 651–655. (doi:10.1126/science.1261487) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 136
Johnson SN, Lopaticki G, Barnett K, Facey SL, Powell JR, Hartley SE . 2015An insect ecosystem engineer alleviates drought stress in plants without increasing plant susceptibility to an above-ground herbivore. Funct. Ecol. 30, 894–902. (doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12582) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 137
Andriuzzi WS, Pulleman M, Schmidt O, Faber JH, Brussaard L . 2015Anecic earthworms (Lumbricus terrestris) alleviate negative effects of extreme rainfall events on soil and plants in field mesocosms. Plant Soil 397, 103–113. (doi:10.1007/s11104-015-2604-4) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 138
Eisenhauer N, Fisichelli NA, Frelich LE, Reich PB . 2012Interactive effects of global warming and ‘global worming’ on the initial establishment of native and exotic herbaceous plant species. Oikos 121, 1121–1133. (doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19807.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 139
Beever EA, Herrick JE . 2006Effects of feral horses in Great Basin landscapes on soils and ants: direct and indirect mechanisms. J. Arid Environ. 66, 96–112. (doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.11.006) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 140
Frelich LE, Peterson RO, Dovčiak M, Reich PB, Vucetich JA, Eisenhauer N . 2012Trophic cascades, invasive species and body-size hierarchies interactively modulate climate change responses of ecotonal temperate-boreal forest. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 2955–2961. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0235) Link, ISI, Google Scholar - 141
Dávalos A, Nuzzo V, Blossey B . 2015Single and interactive effects of deer and earthworms on non-native plants. For. Ecol. Manage. 351, 28–35. (doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.04.026) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar


