abandoned fields - Wildcard

Where Europe could rewild: mapping the forests of the future

Gesche Schifferdecker and Margarita Penna on January 21, 2026

Proforestation in Germany (photo: Gesche Schifferdecker)

By Gesche Schifferdecker and Margarita Penna

Across Europe, landscapes are quietly changing. Mountain farms and pastures are being abandoned, forest management is easing in some regions, and climate and policy pressures are reshaping how land is used. For some, these trends raise concerns. For others, they open a powerful question: where could nature return, at scale, if we let it?

This is the starting point of WILDCARD’s “First iteration estimates of rewilding area and potential” (Deliverable 1.1), the project’s first EU-wide attempt to map where rewilding could realistically take place over the coming decades.

Rather than asking where rewilding should happen, this work asks a more grounded question: where is rewilding most likely to happen, given social, economic, and environmental change? The answer provides a much-needed baseline for understanding Europe’s rewilding potential – and for shaping future policy and restoration strategies.

Seeing opportunity in land-use change

Rewilding in WILDCARD is not a single process. It emerges through different pathways: when agricultural land is abandoned and forests naturally grow back; when managed forests are allowed to mature and develop more natural structures (proforestation); or a large step towards rewilding can be taken by going from intensive agricultural use to new mixed-use forests where ecological needs are explicitly addressed.

First main pathway to wilder forests in Europe: Agricultural abandonment can trigger rewilding from croplands/grasslands/mosaics toward more natural forest states, either by shifting into a combined-objective forest (some continued management alongside recovery) or by moving into close-to-nature forest through more hands-off rewilding.

Second main pathway to wilder forests in Europe: Proforestation, instead, focuses on existing forests, reducing management so plantations or multi-use stands mature into close-to-nature forests.

To capture this complexity, researchers explored eight future scenarios that reflect different development pathways for Europe. These scenarios cover both the IPCC Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and the IPBES Nature Futures Framework, ranging from business-as-usual futures to more ambitious, policy-driven nature restoration pathways. More particularly, the IPCC Shared Socioeconomic Pathwaysdescribe different ways society, economies, and governance might develop in the future, from current trends to transformative change. The IPBES Nature Futures Framework adds perspectives on how humans value and interact with nature. Together, they offer a comprehensive picture of how Europe’s landscape could evolve, visually showing how different socio-economic choices and visions of nature we prioritise can shape future land-use patterns.

At the heart of the analysis lies the CLUMondo model, a spatially explicit land-use model that simulates how land systems evolve under changing demands, policies, and biophysical conditions. The model projects land-use changes across Europe from 2020 to 2050, at a fine resolution of 1 km², allowing researchers to zoom from continental patterns down to regional detail.

Mapping Europe’s rewilding hotspots

Despite the diversity of futures explored, a striking pattern emerges from the WILDCARD work: forest recovery is an important feature in almost all scenarios.

The strongest signals appear along Europe’s major mountain systems – the Alps, Pyrenees, Carpathians, and the Dinaric–Šar–Pindus arc – where steep terrain, lower agricultural profitability, and existing forest cover create favourable conditions for natural regeneration. These landscapes form the backbone of Europe’s potential rewilding corridors.

Different processes dominate in different regions

Proforestation is most common in areas with relatively large and not very intensively managed forests, where reduced intervention allows forests to develop toward near-natural conditions.
Agricultural abandonment and rewilding are most likely in marginal farmland, particularly in Southern and Central Europe, where retreating agriculture opens space for forest regrowth.
Combined-objective forests emerge on previously cultivated lands mainly in Central and Eastern Europe, where land is released from agriculture but remains partially managed for multiple benefits. While not rewilding per se these transitions make an important contribution to a wilder Europe.

When these processes are combined, they reveal a coherent continental picture: rewilding potential clusters in uplands and less productive landscapes, while Europe’s intensively farmed lowlands largely remain under production.

Graphic: Total rewilding probability map of Europe, representing areas with different levels of agreement across all eight land-use change scenarios. The maximum probability is reached when the conversion from croplands (arable and permanent), grasslands, mosaics and managed forests to close-to-nature forest occurs in all eight scenarios

Why policy matters

One of the most important insights comes from the “SSP2 – Planned Rewilding scenario” developed by WILDCARD researchers. Here, rewilding is not left entirely to chance. Spatially guided towards areas of potentially high ecological importance and good chances on rewilding success, policy-supported measures produce more connected and coherent forest recovery patterns than spontaneous abandonment alone. In other words, how we guide rewilding matters as much as where it happens.

These first maps do not offer final answers – and they are not meant to. Instead, they provide a continental baseline: a shared reference point for exploring trade-offs, biodiversity outcomes, and climate benefits in the next phases of WILDCARD. As future deliverables refine these scenarios and link them to ecological and social outcomes, one message is already clear: Europe’s forests of the future are taking shape now – and understanding where nature can return is the first step toward letting it thrive.

Let them be? Exploring forest biodiversity dynamics after management has stopped

Dr. João M. Cordeiro Pereira on May 16, 2025

By João M. Cordeiro Pereira

Imagine walking through a primeval forest – towering trees with gnarled branches, thick undergrowth, and chaotic piles of fallen branches and logs. It would also be bursting with life, from the mats of moss and lichens covering logs, to the birdsong echoing across the canopy, or the insects of all sizes buzzing around on a hot day.

Primeval forests like this are a rare sight in today’s Europe. But this is changing as ever more forests are set aside from active management, allowing nature to take the reins. We would expect to see an increase in biodiversity within these “rewilded” forests, but is that really true? This is one of the key questions the WILDCARD project is asking, and answering it will be the main goal of my research for the next couple of years. What I can already tell you is that the answer will not be as straightforward as it may seem.

Forests change over time – and so does their wildlife

Following a large disturbance or a clearing, forests will go through a series of development stages, which vary in many aspects: most obviously tree height, but also the tree species present, the vegetation layers or the deadwood volume. Many forest organisms rely on a specific combination of those features, and thus thrive only in forests at specific development stages. For example, butterfly species (such as the silver-washed fritillary, Argynnis paphia, pictured below) need sunny clearings with young vegetation for their larvae and flowers for nectar. The three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus, pictured below) and the white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) instead prefer old forests with decaying trees, which they can use for nesting and foraging.

Silver-washed fritillary (*Argynnis paphia*), in the Black Forest (Germany). Source: *João M. Cordeiro Pereira*

This means letting forests develop into old age will probably not help all species – rather those adapted to older, undisturbed forests. Since traditional forestry often removes deadwood and harvests trees before they reach full maturity, these old-forest specialists are often the most threatened – and the ones most likely to benefit when we as humans step back. This is why these species will be in the center of my analyses.

Counting species is not enough

And how should biodiversity be measured? At the scale of individual forest reserves or research plots, simply measuring the number of species (the species richness) can be misleading. Within some species-rich groups, such as plants or ground beetles, most species are either generalists (using various habitat types) or depend on open habitats. Thus, over time, unmanaged forests may witness no change in species richness or even a decline, as the canopy closes up. However, this can obscure that, in fact, old-forest species of high conservation value may be recovering. That is why, in my analyses I will focus on which species appear (the community composition), rather than how many, as time goes on after management has stopped.

Eurasian three-toed woodpecker (*Argynnis paphia*), in the Black Forest (Germany), where this species is critically endangered at the regional level. Source: *João M. Cordeiro Pereira*

The hidden role of legacies and the landscape

Some species struggle to return even after a forest recovers. Why? Let us take the example of the blue ground beetle (Carabus intricatus, pictured below). This a large-bodied, flightless species, that relies on a stable forest habitat. If its environment changes, it has a limited ability to disperse in search of new habitat. If this species’ habitat in a forest patch was degraded in the past, and if this patch was too isolated from other areas with good habitat, this may have led to a local extinction of the beetle. The species would then have trouble returning, even if conditions improved. This means today’s biodiversity is not just the result of current management or the absence of it – it is also shaped by past events and how well-connected forest habitats are.

Blue ground beetle (*Carabus intricatus*), in the Black Forest (Germany), where this species is vulnerable both at regional and national levels. Source: Sebastian Schwegmann.

What is next?

My aim is to identify more clearly which components of forest biodiversity profit from non-intervention – and which elements may be the “blind spots” of this approach. To do this, I am working with a large amount of biodiversity data, contributed both by WILDCARD partners and external institutions (mostly in the EuFoRIa network). This data spans across multiple countries, forest types and taxonomic groups, and offers a unique opportunity to answer these questions. However, it also poses unique challenges – the data is very heterogeneous and often collected using different methodological approaches. Right now, I am working on bringing all datasets together, documenting and harmonizing them (a big job in itself!), before embarking on statistical analyses. Despite the challenges, I cannot help but feel excited to discover the stories hiding in these forests and share what I learn along the way.

From farmlands to forests: Understanding the effects of rewilding on soils

Santiago Alarcón on January 20, 2025

Learn how to collect soil data with our new video guide!

While many studies have explored how the presence of vegetation and animals change during rewilding, the hidden world of soil has received far less attention. Yet, soils represent the largest terrestrial carbon pool, and accommodate more than half of the Earth’s biodiversity. There’s still a lot we don’t know about how carbon stocks and soil biodiversity respond when nature is left to recover on its own. This is partly because soil is incredibly complex, expensive to study, and varies greatly from place to place.

The WILDCARD project is working to close this gap. By collecting data on soil carbon and biotic communities, the latter using advanced environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques, we aim to better understand how soils respond to rewilding. This will help us learn more about the role of soil in storing carbon and supporting biodiversity.

Instructional videos

To support the WILDCARD consortium and other organisations involved in the project, our partner Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) created a series of videos that explain the steps for collecting soil samples. These videos complement the project’s written soil sampling guide, developed by INBO and the Silva Tarouca Research Institute (VUKOZ), making it easier to follow the process in the field. The information gathered will help us track changes in soil carbon and biodiversity as rewilding progresses in forests where management was halted and on abandoned farmland. The videos and soil sampling protocol can aid other projects and researchers in doing similar investigations, thus generating consistent and harmonised data across different initiatives.

Discover our video guide:

Video #1 Sampling the forest floor

This video shows how to collect samples from the forest floor using a frame with a known surface area. It covers the steps of:

Identifying the fresh litter layer (OL) and fragmented and partly decomposed forest floor layer (OFH) and telling them apart from the mineral soil underneath.

Measuring the thickness of each layer.

Preparing samples to study their mass, chemical composition, and biodiversity using eDNA.

Video #2 Taking undisturbed soil samples

This video explains how to collect undisturbed soil samples from set depths (0–100 cm) using metal rings with a known volume. These samples are used to measure soil bulk density and the amount of stones (coarse material).

Video #3 Mixing composite samples and taking subsamples

This video demonstrates how to mix soil from different spots within the plot, to create a representative sample for each layer. It also shows the steps to:

Taking smaller samples for chemical and eDNA tests.

Properly bagging, labeling, and recording the samples.

Storing eDNA samples temporarily in a car-based freezer.

Video #4 Taking disturbed soil samples

Learn how to use a soil auger to collect disturbed soil samples from set depths (0–100 cm). These samples are tested for chemical properties over the entire depth range and for biodiversity, focusing on the 0–10 cm layer.

Video #5 Description and classification of terrestrial humus forms

This video explains how to classify the forest floor into different humus forms using a small soil pit. It highlights key features of the forest floor layers and the A horizon to help identify the humus form.

Where will we collect soil data?

The data collected using our soil sampling protocol will be used to study how rewilding affects carbon storage and biodiversity in different environments on the European continent, with a special focus on so-called High-Intensity Sites (HIS). These are carefully chosen locations that represent different ecological and climatic conditions, past land uses, classes of time since abandonment, and where additional data will be collected by WILDCARD.

At HIS-aboveground, our researchers use advanced tools like terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) and unoccupied aerial laser scanning (ULS) to map forest structures and explore their links to biodiversity. At HIS-belowground, the focus is on soil—sampling for chemical and physical properties and analysing eDNA from the mineral soil and forest floor in approximately 300 locations. By targeting these High-Intensity Sites, the project ensures comprehensive coverage and gathers detailed data to understand how ecosystems recover and thrive when left to rewild. This knowledge will help shape strategies for healthier landscapes and better climate solutions.

Banner photo credit: Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)

Monitoring vegetation succession in abandoned fields: what method works best?

Santiago Alarcón on October 8, 2024

In Europe’s rural landscape, the sight of abandoned agricultural fields is increasingly common. In some cases, the abandonment of less fertile or less accessible cultivation sites is caused by mechanisation and intensification of agriculture. In others, it is rural population exodus that leads to a decline in land management. Such transformations of the agricultural environment create a unique opportunity to study vegetation succession: the process through which the species and habitats in formerly cultivated fields change over time.

Studying vegetation succession is relevant for both environmental conservation and ecological restoration initiatives, as it provides researchers with important information such as species richness, the rate of succession, and what kinds of habitat tend to become established through natural processes. But research in the field does not come without challenges. One of them is how to observe long-term vegetation changes in a consistent and comparable manner. Another is how to cover a wide range of environmental conditions.

To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of different observation methods, WILDCARD researchers from the University of South Bohemia conducted a study gathering data from abandoned fields of the Bohemian Karst Protected Landscape Area, in the Czech Republic, since 1975. The research paper, recently published in the Journal of Vegetation Science, represents the first study of vegetation change in old fields spanning multiple decades that combines two frequently used survey methods. It compares fields in various successional stages at the same point in time (chronosequence), which results in faster acquisition of results but has limits in predicting restoration processes in disturbed sites, and the use of semi-permanent plots, which requires greater effort as researchers resurvey comparable areas at different points in time.

Our researchers found that a chronosequence approach can reliably reveal general successional patterns comparable to those obtained from semi-permanent plots. The combined method showed that both approaches studied in detail show similar succession patterns, regardless of the sampling methods used. However, to avoid pitfalls in measurement and sampling methods, the authors suggest combining different approaches to generate more reliable results. Their analysis of vegetation succession has also shown that, in fields with a moderate supply of moisture (mesic areas) a woodland landscape with the presence of trees and shrubs emerged within 25-30 years. Dry fields, conversely, continued to be dominated by perennial grasses, accompanied by scattered trees and shrubs.

Access the study

Řehounková K., Tichý L. & Prach K. 2024. Succession in abandoned fields: Chronosequence data verified by monitoring of semi-permanent plots. Journal of Vegetation Science 35: e13303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvs.13303