R R M a b c d e a A R A A K R S S B C B S C I s 2 m a e 2 e r t a t c I 2 ( Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 15 (2017) 271–281 Supported by Boticário Group Foundation for Nature Protection www.perspectecolconserv.com esearch Letters - Rewilding South American Landscapes ewilding South America: Ten key questions eredith Root-Bernsteina,b,c,∗, Mauro Galettid, Richard J. Ladlea,e School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK Department of Biosciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark UMR SAD-APT, INRA, Grignon, France Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista Departamento de Ecologia, CP 199, 13506-900 Rio Claro, SP, Brazil Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Av. Lourival Melo Mota, s/n, Tabuleiro do Martins, Maceió, AL 57072-900, Brazil r t i c l e i n f o rticle history: eceived 5 June 2017 ccepted 28 September 2017 vailable online 7 November 2017 eywords: ewilding outh America ocio-ecological system razil hile aselines cale a b s t r a c t There are various approaches to rewilding, corresponding to different socio-ecological and policy con- texts. Most South American ecosystems have experienced Pleistocene and historical defaunation and the functional persistence of many areas will depend on restoration and rewilding. Rewilding is not seen as a priority or as a tool for restoration in South America, but we argue that several concepts could poten- tially be adapted to their contexts to respond flexibly to developing socio-ecological conditions. Here, we consider 10 questions that rewilding projects should consider, and we provide examples of how these questions are relevant to South America and how they have been answered already, in some cases. The 10 questions include: What role should humans play in rewilding projects? How can society deal with m̈onsters?̈ Is there a rationale for non-analogue rewilding? How do we justify baselines? Is it possible to do rewilding with small species? What is the right scale for a rewilding project? Should rewilding projects worry about sample size and pseudo-replication? When should we rewild carnivores? Do we need to distinguish rewilding from safari parks and zoos? What should be included in integrated monitoring errado and assessment? The questions we raise here do not have general answers optimal for all situations, but should be answered with reference to the socio-ecological conditions and transformational possibilities in different areas of South America. © 2017 Associação Brasileira de Ciência Ecológica e Conservação. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/). ntroduction Rewilding is one of the most vigorously debated topics in con- ervation (Nogues-Bravo et al., 2016; Rubenstein and Rubenstein, 016; Svenning et al., 2016; Lorimer et al., 2015; Caro and Sher- an, 2009; Fraser, 2009), despite, or perhaps because of, a lack of greement about how it is defined and applied. Perhaps the broad- st definition is restoration through reintroduction (Sandom et al., 012), usually of one or more animal species that became recently xtinct (in a historical context) in the intervention area and, more arely, of ecological surrogates for globally extinct species. Due to heir ability to capture the public imagination, rewilding projects re likely to expand dramatically in both number and scope over he following decades (Corlett, 2016). Some will be well controlled, arefully monitored and painstakingly documented within the ∗ UMR Sciences pour l’Action et le Développement, Activités, Produits, Territoires, NRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, F 78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France. E-mail address: mrootbernstein@gmail.com (M. Root-Bernstein). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.09.007 530-0644/© 2017 Associação Brasileira de Ciência Ecológica e Conservação. Published by http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). academic literature. Perhaps the majority will not, being sponsored by individuals and organizations whose over-riding motivation is to recreate past worlds. Most rewilding projects, and surround- ing debates, are currently located in Western Eurasia and North America. In the South American context, the distinction between rewilding and species reintroduction is not always well-developed. Here we examine how South American initiatives could position themselves in the design of rewilding projects. We do not attempt to tell South American (or any other) rewilders what they are doing or what they should be doing, but attempt to trace the main influences and questions that need to be considered in order to develop site-specific applications of rewilding. Like most managers who actually pursue rewilding approaches (Gooden et al. in prep.), we believe that contextual and site-specific interpretations will be more successful, and better for nature, than command-and-control approaches with one-size-fits-all definitions and recommenda- tions. Two major strands of thinking underpin current trends in rewilding. The ‘Herbivore school’ is primarily interested in the relationships between large herbivores and vegetation (Martin, Elsevier Editora Ltda. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.09.007 https://www.perspectecolconserv.com http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.pecon.2017.09.007&domain=pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ mailto:mrootbernstein@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.09.007 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 272 M. Root-Bernstein et al. / Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 15 (2017) 271–281 F ola de © 1 a h ( n l a A t t s ( t t a B n p g t c i ( C m l o g m i a j a a r t i t r p S v N p ig. 1. Camargue horses used for freshwater wetland management by grazing at Is MR-B. 969; Vera, 2000; Galetti, 2004; Zimov, 2005). Conceptually this pproach draws on predominantly European experiences with abitat restoration in cultural landscapes using domestic livestock Van Uytvanck and Verheyen, 2014) (Fig. 1). In contrast, the ‘Car- ivore school’ is characterized by an emphasis on conserving very arge tracts of land to support top predators and their prey (Soulé nd Noss, 1998; Foreman, 1998), and strongly draws on North merican cultural mythology of wilderness. However, the use of he term rewilding in applied projects does not necessarily follow hese ideological or geographical lines. We surveyed the mission tatements of protected areas and societies (see Table 1) that either 1) describe themselves as doing “rewilding”, (2) are described in he academic literature or the popular press as doing “rewilding”, or hat (3) have similar goals and use recognisably similar language s compared to organizations fitting either of the above criteria. ased on a content analysis, three main groupings emerged: orga- izations that focus on baselines, those that focus on ecosystem rocesses, and those that focus on conserving large spaces. These roups were not characterized by a particular geographical loca- ion. Jørgensen (2015) similarly finds a large variation of ideas ontained within academic research and popular writing on rewild- ng. A focus on ecosystem processes implies a functionalist approach focusing on ecological functions rather than species identities, cf. allicott et al., 1999) and organizations with this focus make little ention of cultural or social goals. In contrast, a focus on base- ines suggests a more compositionalist emphasis (that is, focused n what species are present), and these organizations also had a reater emphasis on cultural and social goals. These differences ay reflect the implicit assumption that ecosystem functioning s intended to benefit humans (e.g. ecosystem services) while compositionalist approach requires a more explicit, additional ustification of social value. In this context rewilding in practice ppears less an ideological stance and more a label co-opted to ttract public attention to existing approaches responding to a ange of concerns. This capacity to engage the public’s imagina- ion, while often ignored in the academic conservation literature, s perhaps the key aspect that differentiates rewilding from more raditional initiatives labelled as species reintroductions or habitat estoration. It is important to note that there is no particular necessity to romote rewilding as a conservation approach in South America; outh American conservationists might develop their own conser- ation approaches based on other philosophies and policy contexts. onetheless, rewilding responds to a set of ecological problems resent on the continent, and designing species reintroductions to lla Cona, a Regional Natural Reserve and Natura 2000 site in northern Italy. Image produce ecological restoration and social change, forming varia- tions on rewilding, could be a valuable complementary strategy that is responsive to social dynamics of land use. Major South American ecosystems, including rainforests, seasonally dry forests, savanna and open woodlands, sclerophyllous forest, wetlands, shrublands and grasslands are in urgent need of restoration and improved conservation and management (Naranjo, 1995; Armesto et al., 1998; Cardoso da Silva and Bates, 2002; Mayle et al., 2007; Grau and Aide, 2008; Newton et al., 2012; Root-Bernstein and Jak- sic, 2013; Ribeiro et al., 2015). These ecosystems have experienced significant defaunation, both during the Pleistocene-Holocene megafaunal extinctions (Cartelle, 1999; Guimarães et al., 2008) as well as due to modern land use and land cover change (Armesto et al., 2010; Jorge et al., 2013) and unregulated resource extrac- tion often driven by telecouplings to more-developed economies (Gasparri and Waroux, 2015; Young et al., 2016; Nolte et al., 2017). As in Europe, rewilding could offer an opportunity to reassess the modern and traditional elements of socio-ecological systems and human relations to other species. At the same time, the social context for conservation and land management is significantly dif- ferent from North America and Europe. For example, issues of indigenous rights and indigenous land tenure, governance, and tra- ditional land uses are much more politically relevant and sensitive in many areas of South America as compared to North America (Stocks, 2005; Dove, 2006). Poor non-indigenous settlers or peas- ants are also an important group, and rural underdevelopment is common throughout the region (Kay, 2006). These cultural differences mean that North American and Euro- pean perspectives on rewilding may have considerably less traction among South American conservation constituencies. As an illus- tration, while the notion that there are large areas of “untouched wildland” is a recurrent theme in colonial accounts of South Amer- ica, such a framing would be strongly and publicly contested by indigenous groups. By contrast, many European models of rewild- ing are built around developing alternate conservation and rural livelihood models on abandoned farmland or other available land- holdings. These models constitute a clear attempt to reconfigure land management practices and human relationships to the land in the face of changing socio-economic situations and unsatisfactory conservation management regimes (Navarro and Pereira, 2012; Jepson, 2016). In South America, land use practices in many areas reflect a strong colonial legacy combined with a more recent impo- sition of neo-liberal principles. There are also large areas (e.g. the Amazon region) with a strong indigenous presence and a greater emphasis on traditional land-use practices. In other words, the problems that need to be solved and the systems that society is M. Root-Bernstein et al. / Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 15 (2017) 271–281 273 Table 1 Societies (S) and parks (P) that engage in rewilding or similar conservation activities, assorted according to their mission statements. Keywords are organized according to themes: Space and wilderness, ecological bases for rewilding, species-oriented concepts, and cultural and social considerations. One group of organizations can be identified that refers to large spaces (top shaded section). The second two groups can be defined by references to restoring or preserving ecosystem processes, and references to ecological baselines (middle shaded sections). Names of each organization are listed in Appendix1. e i i i p t t f m i r mbracing or reacting against are different to those encountered n Europe or North America. By extension, South American rewild- ng will need to draw on a different sub-set of arguments and, as n Europe and North America, will be strongly shaped by what is ossible to set up and maintain. South American rewilding projects could position themselves o provide comparative ecological or socio-ecological case studies o rewilding projects in the Northern Hemisphere, requiring care- ul consideration of scientific issues. Alternatively, new projects ay wish to formulate creative and novel modes of framing and ntegrating social and ecological issues, to form contextually tailo- ed conservation approaches. The plethora of existing approaches to integrating people with conservation management—exclusion, participatory management, community based conservation, pay- ments for ecosystem services, etc. (Berkes, 2004; Büscher and Dressler, 2012), implies that many other such models could also be developed in the future, drawing, for example, on indigenous practices. Such an approach could make important and novel contributions to regional and global conservation practice. Such decisions are non-trivial and require a deep understanding of the complex issues surrounding the concept and contemporary practice of rewilding. To facilitate this process we have identified 10 key questions that we think any new South American rewilding project should consider: 2 Ecolog p h t o C p a a v w c r s i c t i w s v N c e f i t P h t e O h f a a n t t o 2 d u a s r e D a c n w b i o s e t g r o t c f 74 M. Root-Bernstein et al. / Perspectives in Question 1: What role should humans play in rewilding rojects? The idea of “wild” implies (to some people) areas that ave no significant human presence and should be maintained in his state. However, the cultural assumptions underlying this image f wilderness are constantly being challenged (Denevan, 2011; ronon, 1996). Rewilding is often associated with a shift towards assive management (also called “non-intervention management”) nd “natural experiments” in which ecosystem processes are llowed to run their course with very limited or no further inter- ention (Navarro and Pereira, 2012). Many rewilding proponents ould reject the possibility of combining rewilding with agri- ultural production, for example. However, we would argue that ewilding inherently involves humans, and can be thought of as a ocio-ecological experiment where the social variables are open to nvestigation (Lorimer et al., 2015). For example, rewilding projects ould draw inspiration from Anthropocene baselines rooted in cul- ural landscapes and traditional, declining practices of interspecies nteractions and resource management (for example, Millinger- aard in the Netherlands and Knepp in the UK). The benefits of uch projects to the biodiversity of traditional grasslands and sil- opastoral systems can be considerable (Mandema et al., 2014; avarro and Pereira, 2012; Pykälä, 2003; Wieren, 1995) and may losely align with the value systems of pastoralist cultures (Ladle t al., 2011). By contrast, the exclusion of traditional rural activities rom rewilded areas, as favored by organizations such as Rewild- ng Europe, can also be seen as a social experiment in undoing the raditional conception of cultural landscapes (Höchtl et al., 2005; lieninger et al., 2006; Bauer et al., 2009; Linnel et al., 2015; Rother- am, 2015). In many parts of South America, European colonization con- ributed to cultural models of human-free wildernesses to be either xploited or preserved by the governing classes (Sluyter, 2001; tero, 2006; Hufty, 2012; Root-Bernstein, 2014). The exclusion of umans from rewilded areas under these conditions might there- ore be supported by some members of society, while being seen s a collusion with, or repetition of, colonialism by others. In other reas, especially Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and parts of Brazil, indige- ous peoples have, to a greater extent, retained their land rights, raditional relations to the land, cosmologies, etc. Consequently, in hese areas different cultural schema will govern the perceptions f, and social interactions with, places and species (de la Cadena, 010). For example, many indigenous cosmologies of the Amazon o not recognise a dichotomy of “cultural humankind” and “nat- ral wilderness” (Descola, 2015). Rather, their cosmology is built round reciprocal shifts in perspective across species, with each pecies’ perspective taking the position of a person and thus expe- iencing their reality in a similar way, even while seeing others as xperiencing it differently (Viveiros de Castro, 1996; Kohn, 2013; escola, 2015). This understanding of the world is experienced nd mobilized in ways just as real, profound, subtle, and compli- ated as the Christian heritage that influences European ideas about ature in the image of paradise. In short, choice of cultural schema ill strongly influence the frequency and quality of interactions etween humans, landscapes and other animals, with profound mplications for project management, sustainability, and ecological utcomes. There is no one-size-fits all answer to which landscapes hould be rewilded, but the choice should take into account social ngagements with landscapes and how rewilding might alter them. Question 2: How can society deal with monsters? The use of the erm ‘monsters’ with reference to rewilding comes from human eography (Lorimer and Driessen, 2013), and refers to uncatego- izable and liminal beings that unsettle and threaten elements f civilization, demanding counteractions on the part of civiliza- ion. Rewilding can create ‘policy and governance monsters’ by hallenging legal, management and cultural categorizations and rameworks for species and lands. For example, “de-domesticated” y and Conservation 15 (2017) 271–281 or feral livestock that managers wish to introduce into passive management schemes can create serious complications within agricultural policy (Lorimer and Driessen, 2013). In contrast, active management of feral horse populations by culling (a policy tool applied to wildlife) is often strongly opposed by groups who do not see them as wild animals (Gamborg et al., 2010). Reintroduced species can also create problems by having different effects in dif- ferent contexts that policy is not prepared to distinguish between, complicating their regulation. For instance, the feral hog (Sus scrofa) in the Pantanal provide important ecological services and may reduce hunting of native wildlife (Desbiez et al., 2011; Donatti et al., 2011). However, in recently invaded ecosystems, such as the Atlantic and Araucaria forest, this same species may be a disaster (Pedrosa et al., 2015). Rewilding may similarly blur the lines between native and non- native species through the introduction of surrogate species to replace extinct ones (Griffiths et al., 2010), between protected areas and wildlife parks, between new ecosystems and past ones, and between the wild and the managed. Policy and governance mon- sters arise where existing frames do not accommodate the visions of stakeholders and managers. This means that rewilding needs to be attentive to the policy frameworks within which it seeks to func- tion, and in the most forward-thinking cases policy and governance monsters could even be positioned as tools for policy reform. For example, two elements of Chilean law complicate rewilding. While horses and other livestock can be kept with no inspection or special requirements, native wild animals inside a fenced area need to be maintained according to standards of feeding, shelter and care, and are subject to audit. This means that letting animals behave naturally in natural habitats is technically not permitted within fenced areas, thus restricting the ability of researchers to control the conditions of rewilding and monitor change within a discrete (fenced) rewilded area. It also raises the question of how to manage or avoid human-wildlife conflict without using fences. A second issue concerns private protected area legislation, in the form of a new “conservation easements” law that does not auto- matically provide monetary incentives or material and technical support for conservation. This means that funding to carry out rewilding projects (e.g. purchasing animals, fencing, feed and vet- erinary care if required, tracking and monitoring equipment and man-hours) or any other kind of conservation or restoration action, is completely dependent on private money, compensation schemes or competitive funding mechanisms. In most cases where conser- vation easements lack funding and capacity, passive management without reintroductions is likely to be preferred, raising the spec- tre of “private paper parks.” Possible solutions include using the cultural symbolism of animals such as guanacos (Lama guanicoe) (Lindon and Root-Bernstein, 2015) to leverage government buy-in for suitable management plans and new funding mechanisms. Question 3: Is there a rationale for non-analogue rewilding? Embracing new rewilding initiatives in all their diversity would inevitably encourage bolder experimentation and a wider array of surrogate species with different levels of historical justification. Indeed, some of the fiercest critiques (Caro and Sherman, 2009; Caro, 2007) of Donlan’s extravagant vision of Pleistocene rewild- ing of the American prairies, replete with elephants and cheetahs (Donlan et al., 2006; Donlan, 2005), were focused on the eco- logical disparities between the historical fauna and their modern analogues. However, there are also arguments for looser interpreta- tions of historical baselines (Corlett, 2016). First, as a consequence of invasive species and climate change most ecological communi- ties are already historically unique and are likely to deviate further from Pleistocene baselines as the century progresses (Walther, 2010; Ribeiro et al., 2015). Second, ex situ conservation could be a valuable conservation strategy if carefully managed (Bradshaw et al., 2006), and the risks associated with managing large animals Ecolog i i r a O s p R t t t s s s m f p p d ( c p f t O c s r m s d a c i i r i S s e t a t 2 B r s b p r e t h t w a a R t c c c M. Root-Bernstein et al. / Perspectives in n fenced areas are not comparable to those of unplanned species nvasions (Corlett, 2016). Finally, the idea that “non-analogue” efers to non-analogous species assemblages rather than non- nalogous ecosystem functions seems arbitrarily compositionalist. ngoing research may provide ways to determine the degree of imilarity between ecosystem functions in order to design appro- riate plans for taxon substitution (Zamora, 2000; Chalcraft and esetarits, 2003; Fan et al., 2012; Searcy et al., 2016). At this point, here is no general answer to what suite of traits are most relevant o assess, and this remains a contextual question depending on the arget species, the existing community, the restoration functions ought, the climate, and the life history adaptability of the target pecies. Throughout South America, but especially in tropical and ub-tropical regions, the loss of Pleistocene and early Holocene egafauna ecosystem processes can be observed in “megafaunal ruits”, which are too large to be eaten whole by remaining dis- ersers and consequently experience altered and reduced dispersal atterns (Guimarães et al., 2008). Two extinct megafaunal candi- ates for large fruit dispersal in South America are the gomphothere Cuverionus/Notiomastodon) and the giant sloths. Though highly ontroversial, the introduction of a functional analogue such as ele- hants (Elaphas maximus or Loxodonta africana) to South American orests with megafaunal fruits might restore tree regeneration pat- erns (e.g. Galetti, 2004; Blake et al., 2009; Haddad et al., 2009; meja et al., 2014; Asner et al., 2016), along with other ecologi- al functions presumably also associated with gomphotheres, giant loths, and perhaps other herbivorous megafauna (Galetti et al. in eview). An exciting opportunity to test the role of elephants as egafauna surrogates in South America is a recently established anctuary for elephants in Brazil, where 1100 ha of savanna will be esignated for the well-being of formerly captive elephants (glob- lelephants.org). Although this is not a rewilding project, scientists ould learn at small scale the ecological effect of a large mammal n a South American savanna. There is also an argument that non-analogue rewilding “exper- ments” have already taken place in the form of accidental eintroductions (Fig. 2). The “reintroduction” of horses to the Amer- cas by European colonists is a prime example (Naundrup and venning, 2015). Wild horses occur in many South American land- capes, but there is little or no ecological information about their ffects on the ecosystem (Janzen, 1981, 1982). The original Pleis- ocene horse species in South America were much smaller: a better nalogue might be ponies. Equally, escaped populations, such as he hippopotamus population in Colombia (Valderrama Vasquez, 012; Monsalve Buriticá, 2014), or water buffalo in Brazil (Lage isaggio et al., 2013), raise the question of whether these species ecreate some set of extinct Pleistocene ecological functions or are imply invasive. Question 4: How do we justify baselines? A baseline could e found to correspond to the objectives of almost any rewilding roject (Fig. 3). Of course, it can always be argued that past envi- onments are different from, and irrelevant to, present and future nvironments, making the use of baselines for rewilding a distrac- ion (Gillson et al., 2011). Either way, baselines can be used as a ypothesis-generating scenario for socio-ecological experimenta- ion. They can also be used to create a compelling story around hich to generate public support and involvement. Such narratives re important for aligning rewilding projects with local framings nd values of nature and landscapes. For example, a developing rewilding project in Chile (Proyecto EGenera: Restoration of Espinal with Guanacos, Fig. 4), seeks to est whether browsing by reintroduced guanacos (Lama guanicoe) ontributes to restoration of the traditional silvopastoral habitat alled espinal, a savanna dominated by the South American Aca- ia caven (Root-Bernstein et al., 2016). Whether espinal existed in y and Conservation 15 (2017) 271–281 275 central Chile in prehispanic times is unclear, due to biases inherent to the paleoecological and historical records (see Root-Bernstein and Jaksic, 2013). The traditional perspective is that the region was previously covered in dense, closed-canopy endemic sclerophyl- lous forest, with matorral (shrub) and espinal habitats representing modern degradations. However, part of the justification for this rewilding project is that this closed canopy perspective is wrong, and that the prehispanic baseline was a mosaic of open acacia woodland and closed sclerophyllous forest. Since this new base- line scenario is close to what is currently found in central Chile, it may suggest a continuous legacy of biocultural value (Otero, 2006). By changing perceptions of the cultural value of espinal as a natu- ral and historic landscape, the hope is to motivate restoration and conservation actions (Lindon and Root-Bernstein, 2015), as well as contribute to the development of further ecological research on succession and ecosystem processes in matorral and espinal habi- tats (e.g. Root-Bernstein et al., 2017; Root-Bernstein and Jaksic, 2015; Hernández et al., 2015, 2016). Other regions in South America also have unclear paleoecolog- ical histories, in which the role of humans in shaping past and present ecologies is disputed. The existence of terra preta through- out the Amazonian basin clearly demonstrates that the rainforest was never “empty” (Posey, 1985; Glaser, 2007), although the den- sity of human settlements over time is disputed (Barlow et al., 2012). There are probably many ecosystems or “biomes” in South America that currently lack megafauna and also have long histories of land use by indigenous communities (e.g. Buritizais, Castan- hais, “Campos sulinos” or grasslands) (Fernandes-Pinto and Saraiva, 2006; Overbeck et al., 2007; Almeida, 2008). The whole “cerrado” region seems to be a mosaic of formations that does not comfort- ably fit into a unique classification as a “biome” (Batalha, 2011). In such areas, following any particular baseline necessarily requires adopting a particular interpretation of ambiguous data about the history of anthropogenic influences. Baselines for rewilding should thus be chosen strategically to enrol certain stakeholders, facilitate particular actions, and generate productive dialogues. Question 5: Is it possible to do rewilding with small species? Rewilding is commonly thought of as dealing with megafauna. The largest megafauna are likely to have important ecological impacts disproportionate to their biomass (Owen-Smith, 1992) and are thus potentially efficient restoration tools. They are, moreover, dispro- portionately missing from ecosystems (Galetti et al., 2017). The reintroduction of megafauna has some advantages (e.g. protecting and locating individuals, lesser probability of becoming invasive, outcome visibility to public), but also significant disadvantages (e.g. handling, attraction to poachers, human-wildlife conflict) (Corlett, 2016). Megafauna are usually charismatic, and the Pleistocene and Holocene megafaunal extinctions fascinate both scientists and the public (Martin and Klein, 1989; Barnosky et al., 2004). Bringing back megafauna can thus have a strong symbolic role in creating ‘wild’ landscapes (see Lindon and Root-Bernstein, 2015). Never- theless, under some ecological and social circumstances, small animals could be effective restoration tools. For example, many ecosystem engineers are relatively small animals (Root-Bernstein and Ebensperger, 2012). Key functions missing from the Atlantic forest of Brazil are mostly carried out by medium-sized species, such as pacas (Agouti paca), Howler monkeys (Alouatta spp.), sloths (Bradypus spp.), agoutis (Dasyprocta spp.), tapirs (Tapirus terrestris), collared peccaries (Pecari tajacu), ocelots (Leopardus pardalis), tor- toises (Chelonoidis carbonarius) and toucans (Ramphastidae spp.) (Jorge et al., 2013; Cid et al., 2014; Galetti et al., 2017; Kenup et al., 2017; Sobral et al. this issue). Thus, in the South American context, small and medium sized animals may be appropriate for rewild- ing under different scenarios: loss of an ecosystem engineer after habitat loss or persecution, or general trophic downsizing (Young et al., 2016) or in highly fragmented forests (Sobral et al., this issue). 276 M. Root-Bernstein et al. / Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 15 (2017) 271–281 Fig. 2. “Accidentally rewilded” species in South America. Top left, wild boar Sus scrofa (photo © M. Galetti), top right, horses Equus ferus caballus, bottom left, hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius, bottom right, water buffalo Bubalus arnee. These species might have some functional equivalence to extinct megafauna, although this has not generally been assessed. F realist O F m i g s T p s ( u p m ig. 3. While are argument can be made for most rewilding baselines, some are un stellato, Italy, 2014. Image © MR-B. inally, it is important to note that body size is relative: what it eans to be megafaunal on islands is relative to the size of the sland (Hansen and Galetti, 2009). A similar logic might hold for eographically isolated areas of endemism such as Chile, which is trikingly poor in large and medium sized species. Question 6: What is the right scale for a rewilding project? here are several arguments for rewilding large areas: as for any rotected area, larger areas will have fewer edge effects and can upport more viable populations of both large and small species Triantis and Bhagwat, 2011). In most places outside Europe, the rgency to conserve large areas reflects the recognition that some laces can still be protected before large-scale anthropogenic frag- entation and habitat conversion takes place. In Europe, larger ic, even when considering proxy species. Exhibition of Italian dinosaurs, Vallete di spaces have recently become available for conservation due to agri- cultural land abandonment (Navarro and Pereira, 2012). However, beyond practical issues of land availability, the amount of land required for rewilding depends on the species being used, the scale of the ecological restoration outcomes desired, and local concep- tions of wilderness (Corlett, 2016). A gap in the ecological literature relevant to this issue is the scaling of ecosystem processes; while we can assess perceptions of wildness or species’ habitat requirements at any scale of inter- est, ecosystem processes are typically measured or estimated at regional or even global scales (e.g. Doughty et al., 2016). At smaller scales, such as landholdings, ecosystem processes are strongly dependent on landscape heterogeneity, edge effects, species M. Root-Bernstein et al. / Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 15 (2017) 271–281 277 bitat o p m a r ( R 2 t e F t n a s e i s q f a i o c u n c s p p f t f n p d i r t a m d a a Fig. 4. One of the guanacos (Lama guanicoe) reintroduced to the silvopastoral ha resence or absence (i.e. within their range) and species move- ent patterns (e.g. Root-Bernstein et al., 2013). At the same time, ll spatial scales are affected by uncontrollable factors such as egional and continental deforestation affecting weather patterns Medvigny et al., 2011) or economic policies (i.e. “teleconnections” ichards et al., 2012; Le Polain de Waroux et al., 2016; Nolte et al., 017). Because of these long-distance connections, there is no ypical scale at which all the main factors (inputs) affecting the cosystem processes (outputs) are contained within the same area. urther, measures of the necessary density and extent of functions o yield different process outcomes are not well established. Alter- atively, recent work in Tijuca National Park in Brazil has looked t the time to establish a full range of ecological interactions after pecies introduction (Genes et al., 2017). This approach should be xtended to looking at the scaling-up across space of ecological mpacts of species reintroductions. Question 7: Should rewilding projects worry about sample ize and pseudo-replication? As rewilding projects increase in fre- uency and attract academic interest, there will inevitably be calls or more experiment-quality conditions for data gathering and nalysis. A significant issue here is likely to be sample sizes and ndependence of data points. Imagine a scenario in which a 1000 ha f cerrado hosting a family group of three introduced elephants is ompared to a similar sized reference area without elephants. The nit of response being measured after reintroduction is the germi- ation rate of seeds after endozoochory on a per-plot basis. Is the orrect sample size 1 (1 experimental site) or is it the number of ampling plots? In other words, does the treatment consist of the resence of elephants, or the quantifiable interactions between ele- hants and their environment within sample plots? Because the amily group and the site are small, some aspects of the ecology of he species could be affected, and so this scenario may be criticized or not replicating valid “wild” conditions. These kinds of issues are ot unique to rewilding, and at times have been considered deeply roblematic for ecology as a whole (Hurlbert, 1984). Restoration ecologists and community ecologists often take ifferent approaches to these issues. Restoration interventions typ- cally measure effects at multiple sub-sites or samples within estored and reference areas, with the sample size derived from he number of sub-sites or samples. Community ecologists tend to pply discrete treatments the size of each independent sample, e.g. ultiple exclusion areas. These differences in approach may pro- uce controversies at the boundaries between the two fields, which re likely to slow academic study of ecological aspects of rewilding. In addition, one could consider analyzing a rewilding project s a case study, a distinct genre of analysis found in some social f central Chile in a pilot rewilding project (Proyecto REGenera). Image © MR-B. and applied sciences, in which analysis of a single site or project is legitimate. Case studies are particularly amenable to including social data, and can integrate a qualitative as well as quantitative mode of analysis. South American ecologists have strong traditions in community ecology and botany, in particular. Restoration ecology as an aca- demic field appears to be underrepresented. For example, just 4% of 468 papers on reforestation from Restoration Ecology were from South America (Ruiz-Jaen and Aide, 2005). However, international publications on restoration ecology coming from Argentina and Colombia, at least, are growing (Rovere, 2015; Murcia and Guar- iguata, 2014). Restoration as a conservation practice, for example in former industrial sites, is not always well-regulated or moni- tored. South American rewilding scientists have the opportunity to develop their own approaches to data gathering and scientific inference at single-site projects, perhaps in collaboration with the strong botanical and community ecology traditions. Question 8: When should we rewild carnivores? The reintro- duction of large carnivores or the expansion of their populations and ranges back to a historical baseline is the goal of many rewild- ing programs. While top carnivores rarely have direct habitat restoration effects, they may change how existing herbivores affect plant communities through trophic cascades and ‘landscapes of fear’ (Laundré et al., 2001). The absence of top predators from landscapes often means that active management of herbivore populations remains necessary, or that large herbivore populations self-regulate through starvation (Mduma et al., 1999; Fritz, 1997). Both culling and starvation can be undesirable from management and public relations standpoints. At the same time, the reintroduc- tion of large carnivores can prompt fear of human-wildlife conflict, as well as actual conflict (Dickman, 2010; Treves and Karanth, 2003). Large herbivores can also be dangerous to humans: deer, for example, cause about half of all wildlife-caused human fatali- ties in the United States annually, four orders of magnitude greater than puma fatalities (Conover et al., 1995). Managing megafauna- associated risks can draw on both traditional practices as well as advances in design for human-wildlife coexistence (King et al., 2009; Treves and Karanth, 2003). Some authors have called for a rewilding of the experience of being in nature, which might be achieved in part by bringing back a sense of fear and awe in the face of large, unpredictable species (Monbiot, 2013). Although this may resonate with some stakeholders, in practice the deliberate introduction of predators may conflict not only with the liveli- hoods of rural people, but also with numerous economic structures that depend on the mitigation and management of risks, such as investment, insurance and commodity prices. 2 Ecolog t ( w e r w b a u C a p a s ( e c o C s t 2 b a s o s p o ( i f c f i u m s s t b b b S ( A 2 A c p m u s A w R A t “ v z 78 M. Root-Bernstein et al. / Perspectives in The (re)introduction of prey species may also have the unin- ended consequence of increasing existing predator populations e.g. Verdade et al., 2016). Human-wildlife conflicts can also occur hen prey are abundant and predators are not reintroduced, .g. the conflict between protected guanacos (Lama guanicoe) and anchers in Southern Chile (Hernández et al., 2017). Bottom-up as ell as top-down effects need to be considered. The reintroduction of ocelot and margay (Leopardus spp.) has een proposed in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil (Galetti et al., 2017), nd jaguar (Panthera onca) are being reintroduced into Iberá Nat- ral Park in Argentina (Caruso and Jiménez Pérez, 2013). In the orrientes province where Iberá is located, the jaguar is associ- ted with cultural pride and the reintroduction is not expected to rovoke conflict despite the presence of cattle ranching (Caruso nd Jiménez Pérez, 2013). By contrast, in Chile both large and mall felids are associated with negative beliefs and are persecuted Herrmann et al., 2013; Zorondo-Rodríguez et al., 2014; Ohrens t al., 2016), making their reintroduction to parts of their histori- al range that are currently unoccupied unlikely. However, despite r because of a very low density of guiña (Leopardus guiña) on hiloe Island, Chile, local people have positive attitudes towards the pecies (Díaz, 2005). Human-wildlife conflict involving felid preda- ors is common throughout South America (e.g. Michalski et al., 006; Cavalcanti et al., 2010). The incidence of conflict may also to e linked to the expansion of agricultural frontiers (soy, oil palm nd cattle ranching), such that farmers and wild felids are con- tantly brought into contact. This situation may change and new pportunities for rewilding may arise as agricultural frontiers are tabilized or land is abandoned. Question 9: Do we need to distinguish rewilding from safari arks and zoos? The idea that rewilding simply creates large zoos r safari parks has been used to criticize Pleistocene rewilding Caro, 2007). Critics see such reintroductions as unnatural, requir- ng excessive management and primarily serving an entertainment unction. However, zoos can play useful roles, such as ex situ onservation, environmental education for the public, and raising unds for in situ conservation elsewhere. Safari park-like rewild- ng projects could have similar benefits. Pleistocene rewilding is nlikely to distract the main conservation NGOs from their core issions, but may attract new actors, mainly at local and regional cales (e.g. Table 1). The related argument that rewilded American and European ites will capture the megafaunal tourism and charity market to he detriment of in situ conservation (Rubenstein et al., 2006) may e overly simplistic. We predict that a visit to Payne’s Prairie to see ison in Florida is likely to be perceived as different from seeing ison in Yellowstone National Park or Bialoweiza Forest in Poland. imilarly, visits to Whipsnade (UK) and the San Diego Wildlife Park US) are not comparable to a visit to Kruger National Park in South frica. Place matters to wildlife perceptions (e.g. Montag et al., 005; Lindon and Root-Bernstein, 2015). By the same token, South merican rewilding projects and protected areas should not fear ompetition for nature tourism from rewilding on other continents. However, the extant South American mammal fauna is com- osed mostly by medium and small animals (e.g. peccaries, agoutis, onkeys). Within South America, the large African mammals are sually preferred as public attractions in zoos and safari parks. In ome countries, such as Chile, the public is more familiar with frican, European and North American charismatic species than ith native and endemic ones (Root-Bernstein and Armesto, 2013; oot-Bernstein, 2014). The creation of safari-like projects in South merica with large non-native mammals might confuse the educa- ional purpose of zoos. There is an educational value to observing exotic” animals (and plants), which can teach the public about the ariety and diversity of species in the world. But South American oos and other conservation programs should also be supported y and Conservation 15 (2017) 271–281 in initiatives to make small and medium-sized native species, not just exotic ones, visible and known. If rewilding projects use proxy megafauna to restore lost ecosystem functions, they need to make an extra effort towards educating the public about the South Amer- ican megafauna, both before and after the late Pleistocene/early Holocene megafaunal extinctions, that the surrogates represent. It would be unfortunate, and perhaps profoundly damaging to the public understanding of science and socio-ecological relations, if the South American public saw only elephants, hippos and horses as “the animals”. Question 10: What should be included in integrated monitor- ing and assessment? The most basic requirements for a rewilding project, monitoring of the (re-)introduced species population and its ecological impacts, can be challenging, requiring technical and funding resources that many projects lack. To date, the best-monitored species reintro- duction in South America may be that of the golden lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia) (Kierulff et al., 2012). Reintroduced agoutis in the Atlantic Forest have also been well-monitored (Kenup et al., 2017). Many reintroduction programs and habitat restoration pro- grams could contribute to knowledge about socio-ecological system dynamics with the addition of some monitoring and assessment of additional ecological and social data. Monitoring of rewilding projects should be designed to detect both predicted and surprising outcomes, as shown by the example of Oostvarder- splassen, where the reintroduction of large herbivores led to increases in many bird populations through a number of mech- anisms (e.g. Mandema et al., 2014; Vera, 2000). Monitoring of rewilding outcomes via citizen science participation can also be a way to engage the public in a controlled way in programs whether or not significant human interaction with the landscape is desired (Devictor et al., 2010). Conservationists have learned since the 1980s that working with local stakeholders is fairer and more effective than exclud- ing and ignoring them (Hulme and Murphree, 1999; Sarkar and Montoya, 2011; Reid et al., 2016). One of the problematic ele- ments of some rewilding approaches is a return to the fortress conservation mentality. We argue that a key element distinguish- ing reintroductions from rewilding projects is the level of cultural interest of the project for local and broader publics. Not only will rewilding affect human relations to the landscape in physical ways (i.e. changes in human-wildlife conflict, changes in habi- tat structure), but in psychological and cultural ways (Lindon and Root-Bernstein, 2015; Monbiot, 2013). A complete monitor- ing and assessment regime that maximizes learning opportunities should thus include a range of socio-economic, ethnographic and psychological variables. A case in point is Proyecto Iberá of the Conservation Land Trust, in Argentina. The project itself does not always use the term rewild- ing to describe its work, but it has key features in common with rewilding. The project has begun to reintroduce giant anteaters and plans to reintroduce pampas deer, green-winged macaws, pec- caries, tapirs and jaguars (www.cltargentina.org accessed 2016; Zamboni et al. this issue). In addition, the project highlights the cultural identity of the region and runs environmental education aimed towards a future ecotourism economy, and a conserva- tion training centre to produce local conservation professionals. Nevertheless, although the project was initiated in the 1980s, to our knowledge there is only one publically available publication providing assessments or analysis of the site and its reintroduc- tion plans from a socio-ecological, biocultural, ethnographic, or sociological perspective. A paper on attitudes towards jaguars pre-reintroduction provides an interesting baseline (Caruso and Jiménez Pérez, 2013) which one hopes will be followed up. A more complete, and published, account of both social and ecological http://www.cltargentina.org/ Ecolog a c t i s t t c a t l i a k s d p s p t B b w b f C l s s t s c h t b s b t e t e t o a i a s t A A i A F t ( ( f M. Root-Bernstein et al. / Perspectives in spects of the site would provide opportunities for comparative ritical assessment and learning. South American rewilding sites have an opportunity to set hemselves up as matched comparison sites to similar projects n other ecosystems. Monitoring should thus focus on both key imilarities between the sites (e.g. similar restored ecosystem func- ions) and key differences (e.g. plant diversity). Realistically, integrated monitoring requires a generous budget hat will not disappear after a few years. Surprising or signifi- ant effects of rewilding may only emerge on a decadal scale (see bove). Potential rewilding projects are thus faced with pragmatic rade-offs between doing what they know they can afford in the ong-term (potentially nothing) and investing an enormous effort n securing research or conservation funding from governmental nd NGO funding schemes every few years. Emerging carbon mar- ets and carbon emission compensation schemes might become ources of funding, while also, probably, having low reporting stan- ards that will not unduly burden project management. Brazil has a rogram supporting long-term ecological monitoring (PELD) in 30 ites, although to our knowledge none of these sites has rewilding rojects (http://cnpq.br/apresentacao-peld). The ILTER (Interna- ional Long Term Socio-Ecological Research) network lists sites in razil, Venezuela, Costa Rica and Chile, but the network does not enefit from a dedicated international funding source. It is clear that ithout reliable funding options, not only will rewilding projects e hard to start, they will be difficult to justify, assess, and learn rom. onclusions South American ecosystems face particular conservation chal- enges due to a wide variety of biodiverse habitats and endemic pecies, various colonial histories, underdevelopment, the expan- ion of agricultural frontiers, climate change, and weaknesses in heir environmental policies. Rewilding (with native or non-native pecies) is not in the environmental agenda in South America but ould provide an important tool for the conservation of areas that ave rapid habitat loss such as the Brazilian cerrado. Reintroduc- ions are already taking place in some countries in South America, ut many are not targeting the ecological function played by extinct pecies. At least one element that we argue that rewilding can ring to conservation in the region is a more explicit attention to he social changes that may result from species reintroductions: ven if the extinctions and extirpations being “reversed” are recent, he socio-ecological system will not simply be brought back to an arlier state by the species reintroduction. Rewilding contributes o socio-ecological transformation. Researchers should take the pportunity to understand the effects of unintended rewilding such s horses, feral hog, buffalo and even hippopotamus on South Amer- can ecosystems. As we have tried to emphasize in this paper, there re numerous ways to think about what rewilding is and how it hould be done, and we do not believe that there are prescrip- ive recommendations or general optimal approaches that all South merican rewilding projects should follow. We hope that South merican rewilding projects will answer the questions posed here n novel and contextually relevant ways. cknowledgements We are indebted to Paul Jepson, Adrien Lindon, Benji Barca, rans Vera, Jennifer Gooden and Alison Boyes for conversations hat contributed to our thinking. MR-B was funded by FONDECYT No. 3130336), Aarhus University Research on the Anthropocene AURA), a Danish National Research Foundation Niels Bohr pro- essorship project, and a Marie Curie FP7 COFUND Agreenskills y and Conservation 15 (2017) 271–281 279 Fellowship during the preparation of the paper. RJL is funded by CNPQ (grant number 311412/2011-4). MG is funded by Fundaç ão de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPES) and CNPq. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2017.09.007. References Almeida, A.W.B.D., 2008. Terras de quilombo, terras indígenas,“babaç uais livres”,“castanhais do povo”, faxinais e fundos de pasto: terras tradicionalmente ocupadas, vol. 2. Projeto Nova Cartografia Social da Amazônia PPGSCA-UFAM, Fundação Ford, Manaus, Brazil. Armesto, J.J., Rozzi, R., Smith-Ramirez, C., Arroyo, M.T.K., 1998. Conservation targets in South American temperate forests. Science 282 (5392), 1271–1272. Armesto, J.J., Manuschevich, D., Mora, A., Smith-Ramirez, C., Rozzi, R., Abarzúa, A.M., Marquet, P.A., 2010. From the Holocene to the Anthro-pocene: a historical framework for land cover change in southwestern South America in the past 15,000 years. Land Use Pol. 27, 148–160. Asner, G.P., Vaughn, N., Smit, I.P.J., Levick, S., 2016. Ecosystem-scale effects of megafauna in African savannas. Ecography 39, 240–252. Barlow, J., Gardner, T.A., Lees, A.C., Parry, L., Peres, C.A., 2012. How pristine are tropical forests? An ecological perspective on the pre-Columbian human footprint in Amazonia and implications for contemporary conservation. Biol. Conserv. 151 (1), 45–49. Barnosky, A.D., et al., 2004. Assessing the causes of Late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents. Science 306, 70–75. Batalha, M.A., 2011. O cerrado não é um bioma. Biota Neotr. 11, 1–4. Bauer, N., Wallner, A., Hunziker, M., 2009. The change of European landscapes: human-nature relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for landscape management in Switzerland. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 2910. Berkes, F., 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18 (3), 621–630. Blake, S., Deem, S.L., Mossimbo, E., Maisels, F., Walsh, P., 2009. Forest elephants: tree planters of the Congo. Biotropica 41 (4), 459–468. Bradshaw, C.J.A., et al., 2006. Conservation value of non-native Banteng in Northern Australia. Conserv. Biol. 20 (4), 1306–1311. Büscher, B., Dressler, W., 2012. Commodity conservation: the restructuring of community conservation in South Africa and the Philippines. Geoforum 43 (3), 367–376. Callicott, J.B., Crowder, L.B., Mumford, K., 1999. Current normative concepts in conservation. Conserv. Biol. 13, 22–35. Cardoso da Silva, J.M., Bates, J.M., 2002. Biogeographic patterns and conservation in the South American Cerrado: a tropical savanna hotspot: the Cerrado, which includes both forest and savanna habitats, is the second largest South American biome, and among the most threatened on the continent. BioScience 52 (3), 225–234. Caro, T., 2007. The Pleistocene re-wilding gambit. TREE 22, 281–283. Caro, T., Sherman, P., 2009. Rewilding can cause rather than solve ecological problems. Nature 462, 985. Cartelle, C., 1999. Pleistocene mammals of the Cerrado and Caatinga of Brazil. Mamm. Neotr. 3, 27–46. Caruso, F., Jiménez Pérez, I., 2013. Tourism, local pride, and attitudes towards the reintroduction of a large predator, the jaguar Panthera onca in Corrientes, Argentina. Endang. Sp. Res. 21, 263–272. Cavalcanti, S.M.C., Marchini, S., Zimmermann, A., Gese, E.M., Macdonald, D.W., 2010. Jaguars, Livestock, and People in Brazil: Realities and Perceptions Behind the Conflict. USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications. Paper 918. Chalcraft, D.R., Resetarits, W.J., 2003. Mapping functional similarity of predators on the basis of trait similarities. Am. Nat. 162 (4), 390–402. Cid, B., Figueira, L., Mello, A.F.T., Pires, A.S., Fernandez, F.A.S., 2014. Short-term success in the reintroduction of the red-humped agouti Dasyprocta leporina, an important seed disperser, in a Brazilian Atlantic Forest reserve. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 7. Conover, M.R., Pitt, W.C., Kessler, K.K., DuBow, T.J., Sanborn, W.A., 1995. Review of human injuries, illnesses, and economic losses caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23, 407–414. Corlett, R.T., 2016. Restoration, reintroduction, and rewilding in a changing world. TREE 31 (6), 453–462. Cronon, W., 1996. The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environ. Hist. 1, 7–28. de la Cadena, M., 2010. Indigenous cosmopolitics in the Andes: conceptual reflections beyond ‘politics’. Cult. Anthrol. 25 (2), 334–370. Denevan, W.M., 2011. The “Pristine Myth” revisited. Geogr. Rev. 101, 576–591. Descola, P., 2015. Par-delà nature et culture. Editions Gallimard, Paris, France. Devictor, V., Whittaker, R.J., Beltrame, C., 2010. Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Divers. Distrib. 16, 354–362. http://cnpq.br/apresentacao-peld http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.09.007 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2530-0644(17)30085-8/sbref0150 2 Ecolog D D D D D D D D F F F F F G G G G G G G G G G H H H H H H H H 80 M. Root-Bernstein et al. / Perspectives in esbiez, A.L.J., Keuroghlian, A., Piovezan, U., Bodmer, R.E., 2011. Invasive species and bushmeat hunting contributing to wildlife conservation: the case of feral pigs in a Neotropical wetland. Oryx 45, 78–83. íaz, V.A., (Thesis) 2005. Evaluación de la dimensión humana, a través del estudio de las acti- tudes y conocimientos de la gente de la Isla Grande de Chiloé, X Región, para futuros planes de conservación de fauna silvestre y su hábitat. Facultad de Recursos Naturales, Universidad Católica de Temuco, Temuco, Chile. ickman, A., 2010. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv. 13, 458–466. onatti, C.I., Guimaraes, P.R., Galetti, M., Pizo, M.A., Marquitti, F.M.D., Dirzo, R., 2011. Analysis of a hyper-diverse seed dispersal network: modularity and underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 14, 773–781. onlan, C.J., et al., 2006. Pleistocene rewilding: an optimistic agenda for twenty-first century conservation. Am. Nat. 168, 660–681. onlan, J., 2005. Re-wilding north America. Nature 436, 913–914. oughty, C.E., Wolf, A., Baraloto, C., Malhi, Y., 2016. Interdependency of plants and animals in controlling the sodium balance of ecosystems and the impacts of global defaunation. Ecography 39 (2), 204–212. ove, M.R., 2006. Indigenous people and environmental politics. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 191–208. an, L., Reynolds, D., Liu, M., Stark, M., Kjelleberg, S., Webster, N.S., Thomas, T., 2012. Functional equivalence and evolutionary convergence in complex communities of microbial sponge symbionts. PNAS 109 (27), E1878–E1887. ernandes-Pinto, E., Saraiva, N., 2006. Percepç ão de moradores locais sobre recursos hídricos e conservaç ão em uma região do semi-árido maranhense–abordagem etnoecológica. VI Simpósio Brasileiro de Etnobiologia e Etnoecologia: Resumos, Porto Alegre/RS. oreman, D., 1998. The wildlands project and the rewilding of North America. Denv. UL Rev. 76, 535. raser, C., 2009. Rewilding the World: Dispatches from the Conservation Revolution. Macmillan, New York. ritz, H., 1997. Low ungulate biomass in west African savannas: primary production or missing megaherbivores or large predator species? Ecography 20, 417–420. aletti, M., 2004. Parks of the Pleistocene: recreating the cerrado and the Pantanal with megafauna. Nat. Conserv. 2, 93–100. aletti, M., Pires, A.S., Brancalion, P.H.S., Fernandez, F.A.S., 2017. Reversing defaunation by trophic rewilding in empty forests. Biotropica 49 (1), 5–8. amborg, C., Gremmen, B., Christiansen, S.B., Sandøe, P., 2010. De-domestication: ethics at the intersection of landscape restoration and animal welfare. Environ. Values 19, 57–78. asparri, N.I., Waroux, Y.L.P., 2015. The coupling of South American soybean and cattle production frontiers: new challenges for conservation policy and land change science. Conserv. Lett. 8 (4), 290–298. enes, L., Cid, B., Fernandez, F.A.S., Pires, A.S., 2017. Credit of ecological interactions: a new conceptual framework to support conservation in a defaunated world. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1892–1897. illson, L., Ladle, R.J., Araújo, M.B., 2011. Baselines, Patterns and Process. In Conservation Biogeography. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 31–44. laser, B., 2007. Prehistorically modified soils of central Amazonia: a model for sustainable agriculture in the twenty-first century. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 362, 187–196. riffiths, C.J., Jones, C.G., Hansen, D.M., Puttoo, M., Tatayah, R.V., Müller, C.B., Harris, S., 2010. The use of extant non-indigenous tortoises as a restoration tool to replace extinct ecosystem engineers. Rest. Ecol. 18, 1–7. rau, H., Aide, M., 2008. Globalization and land-use transitions in Latin America. Ecol. Soc. 13 (2), 16. uimarães, P.R., Galetti, M., Jordano, P., 2008. Seed dispersal anachronisms: rethinking the fruits the extinct megafauna ate. PLoS ONE 3 (3), e1745. addad, C.R., Honiball, A.S., Dippenaar-Schoeman, A.S., Slotow, R., van Rensburg, B.J., 2009. Spiders as potential indicators of elephant-induced habitat changes in endemic sand forest, Maputaland, South Africa. Afr. J. Ecol. 48, 446–460. ansen, D.M., Galetti, M., 2009. The forgotten megafauna. Science 324 (5923), 42–43. errmann, T.M., Schüttler, E., Benavides, P., Gálvez, N., Söhn, L., Palomo, N., 2013. Values, animal symbolism, and human-animal relationships associated to two threatened felids in Mapuche and Chilean local narraties. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 9, 41. ernández, A., Miranda, M., Arellano, E.C., Saura, S., Ovalle, C., 2015. Landscape dynamics and their effect on the functional connectivity of a Mediterranean landscape in Chile. Ecol. Ind. 48, 198–206. ernández, A., Miranda, M., Arellano, E.C., Dobbs, C., 2016. Landscape trajectories and their effect on fragmentation for a Mediterranean semi-arid ecosystem in Central Chile. J. Arid Env. 127, 74–81. ernández, F., Corcoran, D., Graells, G., Roos, C., Downey, M.C., 2017. Rancher perspectives of a livestock-wildlife conflict in Southern Chile. Rangelands 39 (2), 56–63. öchtl, F., Lehringer, S., Konold, W., 2005. Wilderness”: what it means when it becomes a reality—a case study from the southwestern Alps. Landsc. Urban Plann. 70, 85–95. ufty, M., 2012. Political ecology of Latin American forests through time. In: Auroi, C., Helg, A. (Eds.), Latin America 1810–2010: Dreams and Legacies. Imperial College Press, London, UK, pp. 241–267. y and Conservation 15 (2017) 271–281 Hulme, D., Murphree, M., 1999. Communities, wildlife and the ‘new conservation’ in Africa. J. Int. Dev. 11 (2), 277. Hurlbert, S.H., 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54, 187–211. Janzen, D.H., 1981. Enterolobium cyclocarpum seed passage rate and survival in horses, costa rican pleistocene seed dispersal agents. Ecology 62 (3), 593–601. Janzen, D.H., 1982. Removal of seeds from horse dung by tropical rodents: influence of habitat and amount of dung. Ecology 63 (6), 1887–1900. Jepson, P., 2016. A rewilding agenda for Europe: creating a network of experimental reserves. Ecography 39, 117–124. Jorge, M.L.S.P., Galetti, M., Ribeiro, M.C., Ferraz, K.M.P.M.B., 2013. Mammal defaunation as surrogate of trophic cascades in a biodiversity hotspot. Biol. Conserv. 163, 49–57. Jørgensen, D., 2015. Rethinking rewilding. Geoforum 65, 482–488. Kay, C., 2006. Poverty and development strategies in Latin America. J. Agrarian Change 6 (4), 455–508. Kenup, C.F., Sepulvida, R., Kreischer, C., Fernandez, F.A., 2017. Walking on their own legs: unassisted population growth of the Agouti Dasyprocta Leporina, reintroduced to restore seed dispersal in an atlantic forest reserve. Oryx, 1–8. Kierulff, M.C.M., Ruiz-Miranda, C.R., Procópio Oliveira, P., Beck, B.B., Martins, A., Dietz, J.M., Rambaldi, D.M., Baker, A.J., 2012. The Golden lion tamarin Leontopithecus rosalia: a conservation success story. Inter. Zoo Yearbook 46 (1), 36–45. King, L.E., Lawrence, A., Douglas-Hamilton, I., Vollrath, F., 2009. Beehive fence deters crop-raiding elephants. Afr. J. Ecol. 47, 131–137. Kohn, E., 2013. How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human. University of California Press. Ladle, R.J., Jepson, P., Gillson, L., 2011. Social values and conservation biogeography. Conserv. Biogeogr., 13–30. Lage Bisaggio, E., Leonardo Alves, S., Costa Santos Jr., C., Barra Rocha, C.H., 2013. Búfalos Ferais (Bubalus bubalis) em Áreas Protegidas: um estudo de caso na Reserva Biológica do Guaporé, RO. Biodiv. Bras. 3 (2), 243–260. Laundré, J.W., Hernández, L., Altendorf, K.B., 2001. Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Can. J. Zool. 79, 1401–1409. Le Polain de Waroux, Y., Garrett, R.D., Heilmayr, R., Lambin, E.F., 2016. Land-use policies and corporate investments in agriculture in the Gran Chaco and Chiquitano. PNAS 113 (15), 4021–4026. Linnel, J.D.C., Kaczensky, P., Wotschikowsky, U., Lescureux, N., Boitani, L., 2015. Framing the relationship between people and nature in the context of European conservation. Conserv. Biol. 29 (4), 978–985. Lindon, A., Root-Bernstein, M., 2015. Pheonix flagships: conservation values and guanaco reintroduction in an anthropogenic landscape. Ambio 44, 458–471. Lorimer, J., Driessen, C., 2013. Bovine biopolitics and the promise of monsters in the rewilding of Heck cattle. Geoforum 48, 249–259. Lorimer, J., Sandom, C., Jepson, P., Doughty, C., Barua, M., Kirby, K.J., 2015. Rewilding: science, practice, and politics. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 40, 39–62. Mandema, F.S., Tinbergen, J.M., Stahl, J., Esselink, P., Bakker, J.P., 2014. Habitat preference of geese is affected by livestock grazing—seasonal variation in an experimental field evaluation. Wildl. Biol. 20, 67–72. Martin, P.S., 1969. Wanted: a suitable herbivore. Nat. Hist. 78, 35–39. Martin, P.S., Klein, R.G. (Eds.), 1989. Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, USA. Mayle, F.E., Langstroth, R.P., Fisher, R.A., Meir, P., 2007. Long-term forest–savannah dynamics in the Bolivian Amazon: implications for conservation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 362 (1478), 291–307. Mduma, S.A., Sinclair, A.R.E., Hilborn, R., 1999. Food regulates the Serengeti wildebeest: a 40 year record. J. Anim. Ecol. 68, 1101–1122. Medvigny, D., Walko, R.L., Avissar, R., 2011. Effects of deforestation on spatiotemporal distributions of precipitation in South America. J. Clim. 24 (8), 2147–2163. Michalski, F., Boulhosa, R.L.P., Faria, A., Peres, C.A., 2006. Human–wildlife conflicts in a fragmented Amazonian forest landscape: determinants of large felid depredation on livestock. Anim. Conserv. 9, 179–188. Monbiot, G., 2013. Feral: Rewilding the Land, the Sea, and Human Life. Penguin, Canada. Monsalve Buriticá, S., 2014. Los hipopótamos (Hippopotamus amphibius) en Colombia, Especie exótica, introducida e invasora. Rev. Lasallista Inv. 11 (1), 229–230. Montag, J., Patterson, M.E., Freimund, W.A., 2005. The wolf viewing experience in the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park. Hum. Dim. Wildl. 10, 273–284. Murcia, C., Guariguata, M.R., 2014. La restauración ecológica en Colombia: tendencias, necesidades y oportunidades. Documentos Ocasionales 107. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Naranjo, L.G., 1995. An evaluation of the first inventory of South American wetlands. In: Classification and Inventory of the World’s Wetlands. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 125–129. Naundrup, P.J., Svenning, J.-C., 2015. A geographic assessment of the global scope for rewilding with wild-living horses (Equus ferus). PLOS ONE 10 (7), e0132359. Navarro, L.M., Pereira, H.M., 2012. Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems 15, 900–912. Newton, A.C., del Castillo, R.F., Echeverría, C., Geneletti, D., González-Espinosa, M., Malizia, L.R., Premoli, A.C., Rey Benayas, J.M., Smith-Ramírez, C., Williams-Linera, G., 2012. Forest landscape restoration in the drylands of South America. Ecol. Soc. 17 (1), 21. http: