Oil Companies thrive, Greater-Sage Grouse dies

By Rosa

Despite its potential extinction, the Greater-Sage Grouse is not listed under the endangered species act.  Nick Walsh, our fellow Conservation Science student, highlighted this at the mid-term conference to a shocked audience. He presented his poster under the title “The five billion dollar question; should the Greater Sage-Grouse be listed on the Endangered Species Act?” ‘Why of course!’ you may shout ‘this is absurd’, but…… you may then ponder ‘why is it a $5 billion dollar question?’ This is soon set out by Nick. And the answer is………..Oil.


The Great Sage Grouse is threatened with extinction. Image by Bob Wick / U.S. Bureau of Land Management via nbcnews


The Greater-Sage Grouse is under threat.

The Greater-Sage Grouse inhabits areas of sagebrush-steppe  in Midwestern and western USA and Canada. The species entirely depends on these habitats to survive.  However, this habitat is being fragmented and shrinking rapidly due to urbanisation, agriculture, drought, invasive plants and exploitation by oil and gas companies.

In addition, they have also been hit by the West Nile Virus  and increases in wild fires.

As a result, they have suffered major declines in numbers and reductions in distribution. Historical estimates of population abundance were as much as 1,600,000 to 16,000,000 birds. They now just number 100, 000 to 500, 000 birds. A study  found that breeding males fell by 56% between 2007 and 2013.  If nothing is done, these trends in population decline represent a very real possibility of extinction for the species in the near future.


The Great Sage Grouse has seen dramatic declines in distribution, occupying just over half their historical range. Image Source .


Conservation of the Greater-Sage Grouse is therefore imperative for its status. In addition, conserving the species would involve conserving the habitat, thus bringing about benefits to a whole host of other species associated with the sagebrush-steppe such as the mule deer and the Pronghorn.

Despite all of this, just last year in 2015, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service  reclassified the Greater Sage-Grouse as a species for which conservation efforts are no longer warranted.


The sage-brush steppe provides huge potential for companies such as the Western Energy Alliance to exploit oil and gas. Strict measures that would have to be implemented to conserve the Greater-sage grouse would therefore cost the 12 oil producing states $5.6 and 31,000 jobs.


Status of the Greater-Sage Grouse is under threat from financial benefits of oil and gas exploitation. Image Source.


Nick argues that economic and political factors should not be considered in deciding whether a species is listed under the endangered species act. But concludes that given there is so much at stake, legislation to conserve the species is highly improbable, therefore a compromise must be made instead. This could involve the continuation of exploiting oil in some states whilst reducing efforts in others, relocation of populations, and the introduction of financial incentives.

Perhaps, with these compromises, the Greater-sage grouse might be saved. But this all begs the question, does it not set a precedent for oil companies to continue on their destructive way?




Dreams of a Jurassic park or conservation reality?

By Malin

Species extinctions have recently been in the spotlight in media and scientific reports and it is clear that humans have to accept some of the blame. With drastic labels such as sixth extinction, it is understandable that we want to somehow fix the problems we caused. Recent biotechnology has made it possible to use cells from living or recently dead animals in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to breed new individuals. This could be a way to “bring back” extinct species or increase population sizes for a threatened species. Is this the solution we have been waiting for or a distraction from other conservation issues?

 Biotechnology and the Northern white rhino

In a recent science conference, Undergraduate Eleonora Faraggiana raised the question if biotechnology could help save the Northern white Rhino. The species currently only consists of three individuals and will go extinct if we do not apply this technology.


Najin, one of the three remaining Northern white rhinos could be donating eggs for IVF in the future Photograph: Sun Ruibo/Xinhua Press/Corbis (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/27/ol-pejeta-kenya-sudan-worlds-last-male-northern-white-rhinoceros)


Scientists are planning to use eggs from the two remaining female rhinos and sperm from frozen samples to implant a fertilised egg in a Southern white rhino surrogate. This has never been done before in rhinos but attempted and been somewhat successful in the recently extinct Ibex. This in itself is a big feat, but to save the species, we need to go much further. Since there are only two remaining females, future eggs need to be generated from stem cells of frozen samples to increase the genetic diversity. This is both costly and time consuming. Because this is new scientific territory, we need to weigh costs to other conservation projects, such as the Southern white rhino, against the value of new scientific advances. If we claim that our aim is to protect species from extinction, we need to make sure that our judgements are not clouded by protecting charismatic species but instead try to consider factors such as genetic distance and ecosystem services.


Is biotechnology the answer?

Stopping for a second to marvel at the scientific progress, it is tempting to get swept along with the prospect of mammoths and “undoing” past mistakes, especially growing up with a romantic shimmer around anything remotely related to Jurassic park. The reality however is more complicated and Stuart Pimm, a conservation biologist at Duke University is seriously concerned that people will rely on scientists to fix our mistakes rather than trying to prevent new extinctions. I personally share this concern but also think that we should promote an eagerness to progress and learn more about alternative solutions. In a practical sense, this means that biotechnology most likely will not be the solution to save the Northern white rhino, but an attempt could bring us closer to understand how to increase the genetic diversity of other threatened species in the future. Another concern is that we focus on bringing back species without addressing the underlying reason they went extinct in the first place. For rhinos, poaching has increased dramatically with at least 1.312 rhinos killed in 2015 alone. To make sure all our efforts are not in vain, we need to make sure future Northern white rhinos are not being bred for the fertility market, but for a sustainable wild existence.


Are you still curious about biotechnology and what science can do in the future? Have a look at this fascinating talk by Hendrik Poinar about bringing back the holly mammoth!


Image from TEDblog (http://blog.ted.com/10-fascinating-facts-about-woolly-mammoths/













Fish are friends, not foes

By Mollie McCulloch

At the mid-term conservation science conference on Tuesday 1st November 2016, Robert Giesler highlighted his concern towards the controversial issue of the endangered delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus); a fish native to California’s delta. Over 80% of the State of California is currently experiencing moderate drought conditions which is the basis for the controversy; fish vs farmers.


Map of the extent of drought across California on 10/11/2016. You can check out the most up-to-date figures right here:   http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/pngs/20161025/20161025_CA_trd.png

To overcome this drought, people (like the guy below) are arguing that the need for the redirection of rivers is crucial to irrigate fields to keeps crops alive for human consumption and to maximise profits. On the other hand, the diversion of water negatively impacts the ecosystems within the delta. The delta smelt may be small in size (5 to 7 inches) but they play a big role in stabilising community composition. To conserve or not conserve, that is the question.

Protest in Fresno city where farmers and farmworkers rallied to turn the pumps on in the delta to allow irrigation to the farms in the western Central Valley of California.
(Photo credit: https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/01/18613597.php)
The California Delta and its endemic species, the delta smelt.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta encompasses 57 islands and a collection of fresh water channels. The delta is an essential source of fresh water for the surrounding agricultural area. The delta smelt is endemic to the area and has seen severe population reductions, raising concern to conservationists. The IUCN has listed the species as critically endangered.


The decline of the delta smelt from 1967 to 2015 [1]
The decline in population is due to the pumping of water away from the delta to overcome the problems caused by drought in other areas of California [2]. So why is this species so important to conserve?

A small fish with big impacts;

Protecting the delta smelt has caused some controversy, mainly amongst farmers who are more concerned about their crop yield. Farmers support the decision that water should be redirected towards their farms to ensure the growth of crops and therefore profits. Farmers are even more frustrated with the fact that water restrictions to help conserve the smelt have diverted in the opposite direction; population numbers continue to decline year after year [1]. Despite all the arguments against the protection of the smelt, this little fish plays a big role in ecosystem stability.

The protection of the delta smelt does not just concern itself but can help to protect the wider ecosystem. The smelt is a good indicator species, providing information on the health of the ecosystem [3]. The extinction of the delta smelt would affect the balance of food webs as it is a key species in trophic interactions. The delta is a biodiversity hotspot in the eyes of conservationists [4], therefore has a high priority in conservation strategies to help maintain a high biodiversity. A key feature of conservation goals is to preserve biodiversity, therefore protecting the California delta must be considered in order to achieve this.

Fish or farmers; who wins?

This issue still causes controversy among California. In the eyes of conservationists, the California delta’s ecosystem is too precious to loose in terms of biodiversity but for farmers it is hard to see the importance of species protection, especially a fish as small as the delta smelt. For progress to be made, increased understanding of this important conservation issue is key to protecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.


  1. Dfg.ca.gov. (2016). Monthly Abundance Indices. [online] Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/data/fmwt/indices.asp [Accessed 10 Nov. 2016].
  1. Moyle, P., Herbold, B., Stevens, D. and Miller, L. (1992). Life History and Status of Delta Smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 121(1), pp.67-77.
  2. Hasenbein, M., Komoroske, L., Connon, R., Geist, J. and Fangue, N. (2013). Turbidity and Salinity Affect Feeding Performance and Physiological Stress in the Endangered Delta Smelt. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 53(4), pp.620-634.
  3. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A. and Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), pp.853-858.



By Jessica

Susan Kenyon from the University of Edinburgh presented her hot topic on marine protected areas (MPAs). The IUCN defines MPAs as ‘a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’ (Day et al., 2012). The growth of marine protected areas in the past 10 years has been substantial with a fivefold increase globally (Palmquist, 2013). MPAs are predicted to continuously grow throughout the 21st century (see Figure 1). Susan argues win-win solutions for marine environments when socio-economic and ecological objectives are both met for small-scale reserves. To match objectives local communities need to be involved in the planning, establishment and management of marine parks. Avoiding local peoples displacement is crucial when implementing polices on local waters. Socio-economic objectives ensure MPAs do not affect welfare of locals and protection historical, cultural, tourism and education use value – among others (Kelleher and Kenchington, 1991). Ecological objectives are ‘safe-guarding’ the biodiversity present in the waters of the reserves.



Figure 1. Recent increase of MPAs lead to a predicted increase in the global ocean area protected by the end of the 21st century (Wood et al., 2008).


MPAs have shown to be both effective and ineffective at different scales. The criticism applies more widely to large-scale reserves and networks of reserves due to a lack of management. This risks becoming a ‘paper-park’ which occurs when the objectives are not fulfilled (Fitzsimmons and Wescott, 2016). Small-scale reserves are more likely to be successful where locals are involved and management is consistent. Susan uses examples of successes (ie. Philippines and Panamda; Demesa et al., 2013; Stienitz et al., 2005; Samonte et al., 2010) and failures (ie. Indo-Pacific and Africa; Sunde & Isaacs, 2008; Cinner et al., 2014; Weigel et al., 2014) to explain importance of local involvement.


Two methods Susan proposes for small-scale MPAs to achieve a ‘win-win’ solution is via Locally Managed Marine Reserves (LMMR) and co-managed MPAs. There are different types of marine parks and at local scales these can be run solely by governments (normally in developed countries that can ‘afford’ them) or co-governed MPAs (who often provide a monetary sum that helps implement MPAs). LMMRs are a ‘bottom-up’ method where communities lead initiatives that support marine conservation whilst achieving benefits for local people. Samonte et al., (2010) state LMMR’s provide an increased income to fishers, diverse livelihoods and locally increased environmental awareness in the area. Co-managed MPAs, as a second solution, may be required where governments are unable to fund the establishment of the reserve. Local communities, local authorities and NGOs work together to plan, establish and manage these reserves. Regardless of the source of funding MPAs only prove effective when local involvement and continuous management occurs to ensure socio-economic and ecological objectives are met.


Therefore small-scale MPAs can turn into a lose-lose situation when local involvement and effective management are not present risking ‘paper-park’ status. However, MPAs can provide a win-win situation to marine conservation at small scales where objectives are met with community involvement.



MPA’s benefits and drawbacks:


MPA design:


Local involvement for more effective reserves:




Cinner, J. et al., 2014. Winners and Losers in Marine Conservation: Fishers’ Displacement and Livelihood Benefits from Marine Reserves. Society and Natural Resources. 27(9), 994-1005.

Day, J. et al., 2012. Guidelines for applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas. Gland: IUCN.

Demesa, C.B. et al., 2013. Challenges and oppourtunities in adopting ecosystem-based adaption in restoring fisheries and coastal resources. Ecosystem Alliance. Partido, Camarines Sur, Phiippines.

Fitzsimmons, J., & Wescott, C., 2016. Big, Bold and Blue: Lessons from Australia’s Marine Protected Areas. Clayton: CSIRO Publishing.

Kelleher, G., & Kenchington, R., 1991. Guidelines for establishing marine protected areas. Gland: IUCN.

Palmquist, D., 2013. New Study: Marine Protection Goals Are on Target, But Still Not Enough. [Online]. [14 Nov 2016]. Available from: http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/04/11/new-study-marine-protection-goals-are-on-target-but-still-not-enough/

Samonte, G. et al., 2010. People and Oceans. Arlington: Science and Knowledge Division, Conservation International.

Stienitz, C. et al., 2005. A Delicate Balance: Conservation and Development Scenarios for Panama’s Coiba National Park. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 47(5), 24-39.

Sunde, J., & Issacs, M., 2008. Marine conservation and coastal communities: who carries the costs? – A study of marine protected areas and their impact on traditional small-scale fishing communities in South Africa. Chennai: International Collective in Support of Fishworkers.

Weigel, J. et al., 2014. Marine protected areas and fisheries: bridging the divide. Aquatic conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 24(S2), 199-215.

Wood, L.J. et al., 2008. Assessing progress towards global marine protection shortfalls in information and action. Oryx. 42(3), 340-351.




Is The North America Rewilding mega-fauna, mega-flawed?

Firstly, what is rewilding?

Rewilding is a conservation idea that aims to restore the world to its natural state long before human activity changed the landscape.

How can it be used?

Rewilding can reintroduce key native species to areas where they have been wiped out. It can also be used to restore landscapes that may have been changed due to human activity.

Why use rewilding in North America?


Photo by Geology.com


Over time North America has suffered a great decline in species, in particular large land mammals. In 2005, a proposal was made to rewild North America with species from the Pleistocene era, with a particular focus on mega-fauna including the African elephant.


What are the risks and problems?


  • The unknown impact of reintroduction could damage the current environment such as causing disease
  • Rewilding may restrict human access and development
  • There are high financial costs with unknown benefit

Future potential?

Rewilding may have the power to protect and improve the environment through attempts to restore the native environment. This means that reintroduction of key native species could lead to an increase of biodiversity – this would be fantastic for the environment!

Although it is an exciting idea and captures our imagination, there are many uncertainties in rewilding. This makes it an unlikely solution to protecting the environment as it could result in irreversible damage to other species. Unfortunately, rewilding seems like a bad idea in North America. Funding could perhaps be better spent on other conservation efforts. It would likely make more sense to focus on protecting mega-fauna that is already there.  We should focus on protecting North America’s existing species whilst focusing on ways for humans to live harmoniously with the environment.


Photo by Chris Duncan Photography (2000)



Inglorious 12th: The True Cost of Tradition

The so-called ‘Glorious 12th’ of August marks the beginning of the 4-month-long grouse shooting season here in Scotland, an event where every year thousands of gun-toting, tweed-wearing, wealthy men and women take to the country’s uplands to practice the 150-year-old sport.


Grouse shooters

Costing up to £50 000 for a two-day party, the industry brings in approximately £40 million to the rural economy in Scotland and provides jobs where other rural activities like sheep-farming have been barely scraping by [1].

Although being anthropogenic in origin, moorland habitats are of conservation value, providing habitats for many invertebrates and some breeding birds [2].


A typical heather moorland

These have become degraded as a result of grouse moor management which is a deep-seated tradition amongst upland farmers and land owners despite its harmful consequences. Techniques used in grouse management are severely outdated in terms of biodiversity preservation. To maximise the amount of grouse per km2 landowners burn the heather to increase the younger new shoots for the grouse to eat whilst also draining the land to allow for heather to grow more readily. Muir-burn destroys nesting sites for birds and prevents afforestation and its associated diversity amongst many other things [3]. According to the ecologist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot, muir-burn and drainage are a major contributor to downstream flooding and need to be regulated.



Predator control is also carried out by gamekeepers by poisoning and shooting often resulting in the indiscriminate killing of birds of prey such as the Golden Eagle (see below). Grouse moorlands are historically associated with illegal methods of predator control [4].


Illegal killing of a golden eagle

Additionally, disease is rife in the grouse populations due to their high densities. As a result Landowners put medication in their feed, a practice that has unknown consequences for the consumer of the meat [3].


Grouse in a heather moorland

Unfortunately grouse shooting is protected by many lobbyists and wealthy investors within our government who seek to block any proposals to end these unsustainable practices. It would also be ridiculous to damage the rural economy in such a way. What is the answer? There isn’t one yet. It is clear however that we need a shift in our current practices to something more progressive. Rewilding projects, which involve large-scale habitat restoration, may provide alternative benefits for landowners like subsidies. Before any of this can be achieved though we must engage ourselves as a country with this debate and encourage a shift in our values towards nurturing the whole ecosystem.


What a moorland might look like without heavy human intervention.


  1. Wightman, A. and Tingay, R., 2015. The Intensification of Grouse Moor Management in Scotland.Commissioned and Published by the League Against Cruel Sports.
  2. Grant¹, M.C., Mallord, J., Stephen, L. and Thompson, P.S., 2012. The costs and benefits of grouse moor management to biodiversity and aspects of the wider environment: a review.
  3. Thompson, P.S., Douglas, D.J., Hoccom, D.G., Knott, J., Roos, S. and Wilson, J.D., 2016. Environmental impacts of high‐output driven shooting of Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scotica.Ibis, 158(2), pp.446-452.
  4. Whitfield, D.P., McLeod, D.R., Watson, J., Fielding, A.H. and Haworth, P.F., 2003. The association of grouse moor in Scotland with the illegal use of poisons to control predators.Biological Conservation, 114(2), pp.157-163.

By Rebecca


Oh deer! Could apex predators save Scotland a million bucks?

Imagine your future holiday. You wouldn’t plan on walking through a degraded landscape or want a constant fear of disease ruining your trip, would you? Due to a rapid increase in red deer populations (Cervus elaphus), this becoming a harsh reality facing holidaymakers in Scotland. In the past deer were seen as a tourism highlight, however social, economic and environmental consequences of deer overabundance mean efficient and cost effective management strategies are required. Katie moved away from traditional methods and addressed the use of Apex predators as an option for controlling deer populations in Scotland.


Red deer both dominate and degrade Scottish ecosystem

Picture a landscape without any deer. This was the case in the 1700s, when red deer were extinct in the Scottish lowlands. Fast forward to present day and this is hard to imagine as the species has seen a significant increase (75-80% since the 1960s), predominantly due to an increase in demand for deerstalking. Now overabundance is producing major ecological consequences, such as directly selective grazing which has altered and degraded plant communities. Higher deer densities have resulted in overgrazing, which have reduced forest regeneration and indirectly produced cascading effects on animal communities influencing bird densities2. From an economic perspective, grazing pressure has produced competition with livestock, in particular highland sheep farming, which has reduced income to the agricultural sector2. Human-deer conflicts continue as human health is directly affected by increased deer abundance, including a rise in road accidents3. Deer act a natural reservoir for diseases including lyme disease. Lyme disease is spread through ticks; if you get bitten by an infected tick it could prove fatal if left untreated4. Habitat monitoring has been used to assess the impacts of deer on ecosystems and as a tool for guiding management decisions.

Currently, deer populations are being actively managed through traditional strategies, however these are proving inefficient. Methods include culling: where a certain proportion of the population are shot5. This strategy requires a lot of manpower and is only successful when a certain amount of deer are killed5. The financial costs of hiring deer stalkers and shooting quality deer, disparity between neighbouring estates and migration of deer prove that this is not an effective management strategy5. Another widely used approach is trapping and relocating deer from high density areas to low density areas. In the past the movement of fallow deer (Dama dama), have increased incidences of car accidents6. Coupled with concerns over animal welfare, with this method proving highly stressful to deer and again the financial burden6, this method proves inefficient. Finally, fencing off areas such as woodland areas produce visual vegetative regeneration. The building and maintenance of fences can cost as high as £7.8 million and restricts other species movement.


Wolf reintroduction is an option for effective deer management

Current and past well known deer management techniques have proved inefficient. Regeneration of ecosystems will require controlling deer populations in a time and cost efficient sustainable way. You may not know that the use of Apex predators as a method for deer management is being considered as an option for controlling deer within Scotland. Once abundant in Scotland natural predators of deer including wolves (Canis lupus) which were eradicated by 1769 and lynx (Lynx lynx) over  13,000 years ago. Apex predators reduce populations to a sustainable level whilst providing other ecosystem benefits 7.

They can be described as a keystone species – meaning they directly affect trophic food webs, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning8. Success stories have occurred where wildlife researchers have reintroduced native predators including the classic example from Yellowstone National Park. Wolf reintroduction effectively reduced elk numbers whilst producing a trophic cascade. Reduced grazing pressure increased both animal and plant communities, producing a more diverse ecosystem8.

While this may seem like a feasible option, it has faced large opposition with the majority of that coming from residents and workers in the regions where the reintroductions are proposed. Estate land owners and managers are concerned that a reduction in deer populations would reduce the number of high quality deer, impairing the shooting industry and reducing estate income2. Conservationists are concerned that reintroduction would put native species at risk including the Scottish wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris) through niche overlap 9. Finally, farmers are faced with reduced income, through threats of livestock attacks, in particular sheep herds10. By working with local estate managers, farmers and conservationist’s decision makers can overcome these issues and produce minimum impact of apex predator reintroduction.

Deer densities within Scotland have now reached an unsustainable level but populations continue to grow. Large abundances cause many damaging effects socially, economically and environmentally. Current methods being used to control deer populations are proving inefficient. Apex predators provide a natural way of controlling populations whilst providing other benefits to the ecosystems. Though the strategy has had a lot of backlash from local residents and conservation authorities it is the only sustainable, cost effective and effective way which can stop rapid deer population growth.

So what do you think?  Are reintroductions of apex predators to Scottish ecosystems for the purpose of deer management a good idea?

By Louise

Get involved:

The British deer society support a wide range of scientific research into deer habitat and welfare. If you’re interested they provide training and education surrounding effective deer management.

Scottish Wildlife WATCH, run by the Scottish Wildlife Trust, produces a magazine and Scottish newsletter which include information about environmental issues and give you the chance to help wildlife by taking part in projects and surveys.

  • Contact: Scottish Wildlife WATCH, Cramond House, Cramond Glebe Road, Edinburgh EH4 6NS

So what are you waiting for? Get involved today!

Further reading:

1Aebischer, N. J., Davey, P. D., & Kingdon, N. G. (2011). National Gamebag Census: Mammal Trends to 2009. Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Fordingbridge.

2 Nilsen, E. B., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Schofield, L., Mysterud, A., Stenseth, N. C., & Coulson, T. (2007). Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: public attitudes and consequences for red deer management. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 274(1612), 995-1003.

3Ostfeld, R. S., Canham, C. D., Oggenfuss, K., Winchcombe, R. J., & Keesing, F. (2006). Climate, deer, rodents, and acorns as determinants of variation in Lyme-disease risk. PLoS Biol, 4(6), e145.

4Nilsen, E. B., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Schofield, L., Mysterud, A., Stenseth, N. C., & Coulson, T. (2007). Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: public attitudes and consequences for red deer management. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 274(1612), 995-1003.

5Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Lonergan, M. E. (1994). Culling regimes and sex ratio biases in Highland red deer. Journal of Applied Ecology, 521-527.

6Ramirez, S. 2016. Deer Management Strategies. PLSC 480: Management of Urban Forest Edges.

7Moore, O., & Crawley, M. J. (2014). Red deer exclusion and saxicolous cryptogam community structure. The Lichenologist, 46(02), 229-244.

Arts, K., Fischer, A. and van der Wal, R. 2015. Boundaries of the wolf and the wild: a conceptual examination of the relationship between rewilding and animal reintroduction. Restoration Ecology 24:27-34

8Letnic, M., Ritchie, E.G. and Dickman, C.R. 2012. Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupis dingo as a case study. Biological Reviews 87:390-413

9Lorimer, J., Sandom, C., Jepson, P., Doughty, C., Barua, M., & Kirby, K. J. (2015). Rewilding: Science, practice, and politics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40, 39-62.

10Ritchie, E.G., Elmhagen, B., Glen, A.S., Letnic, M., Ludwig, G. amd McDonald, R.A. 2012. Ecosystem restoration with teeth: what role for predators? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27:265-271