↓ Skip to main content

Science for a wilder Anthropocene: Synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
23 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
82 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
reddit
5 Redditors
bluesky
1 Bluesky user

Readers on

mendeley
1468 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Science for a wilder Anthropocene: Synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, October 2015
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1502556112
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Trophic rewilding is an ecological restoration strategy that uses species introductions to restore top-down trophic interactions and associated trophic cascades to promote self-regulating biodiverse ecosystems. Given the importance of large animals in trophic cascades and their widespread losses and resulting trophic downgrading, it often focuses on restoring functional megafaunas. Trophic rewilding is increasingly being implemented for conservation, but remains controversial. Here, we provide a synthesis of its current scientific basis, highlighting trophic cascades as the key conceptual framework, discussing the main lessons learned from ongoing rewilding projects, systematically reviewing the current literature, and highlighting unintentional rewilding and spontaneous wildlife comebacks as underused sources of information. Together, these lines of evidence show that trophic cascades may be restored via species reintroductions and ecological replacements. It is clear, however, that megafauna effects may be affected by poorly understood trophic complexity effects and interactions with landscape settings, human activities, and other factors. Unfortunately, empirical research on trophic rewilding is still rare, fragmented, and geographically biased, with the literature dominated by essays and opinion pieces. We highlight the need for applied programs to include hypothesis testing and science-based monitoring, and outline priorities for future research, notably assessing the role of trophic complexity, interplay with landscape settings, land use, and climate change, as well as developing the global scope for rewilding and tools to optimize benefits and reduce human-wildlife conflicts. Finally, we recommend developing a decision framework for species selection, building on functional and phylogenetic information and with attention to the potential contribution from synthetic biology.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 82 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,468 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 8 <1%
Brazil 8 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 1434 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 262 18%
Student > Bachelor 251 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 175 12%
Researcher 168 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 49 3%
Other 176 12%
Unknown 387 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 458 31%
Environmental Science 341 23%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 53 4%
Social Sciences 51 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 36 2%
Other 83 6%
Unknown 446 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 279. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2025.
All research outputs
#161,427
of 34,360,257 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#3,150
of 118,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,710
of 321,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#51
of 872 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,257 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 118,929 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 872 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.