Rewilding in Three Dimensions: What LiDAR Reveals About Forests

By Kamil Kral.

When I walk through a forest, I am always struck by the sense that there is more happening than I can perceive. My eyes trace the trunks of trees, the canopy stretching above me, and the shafts of light breaking through in places. But I also know that much of the forest remains hidden from my view. Forests are not some layers of vegetation; they are complex, three-dimensional worlds. They grow upward, outward, and in intricate layers, creating habitats within habitats. To truly understand how these structures form and evolve, we need tools that go beyond what our senses and traditional methods can capture. That is where LiDAR comes in, and why it has become such a powerful part of our work in the WILDCARD project.

LiDAR – Light Detection and Ranging – allows us to map forests in three dimensions at centimetre-to-metre resolution. By sending out laser pulses and measuring how they reflect, LiDAR creates an extraordinarily detailed picture of vegetation structure. From airplanes, it can cover entire landscapes, but in WILDCARD we focus mainly on ground-based and drone-mounted systems. These cover smaller areas, yet their precision is remarkable, revealing the layers of the understory, the openings in the canopy where light filters through, the presence of exceptionally large trees, and the way these elements combine into complex arrangements across a site. What excites me most is how LiDAR connects many different domains: a single dataset links the technical world of remote sensing with ecological research and the very practical sphere of management and policy. It shows us what remains invisible to aerial photographs and ground surveys – the fine-grained complexity of the understory, the architecture of the canopy, and the shifting patterns of light and space that drive ecological processes. And what truly matters is not just capturing these patterns but translating them into indicators that reflect biodiversity, turning three-dimensional point clouds (the reflections of laser beams emitted by the scanners) into ecological meaning.

Drone pilot Bára Kobosilová ready for the start at Jansheideberg site, Belgium. Picture: Dan Cigánek

For rewilding, this information is crucial. Rewilding is not just about leaving land unmanaged and hoping for the best. It is also about letting natural processes unfold and observing how they gradually create new ecological opportunities. LiDAR allows us to measure these changes. By comparing sites of different ages and management histories – what we call a space-for-time substitution or chronosequence – we can track how complexity develops once human interventions stop. Over decades, forests shift in structure, forming vertical layers, creating gaps, and offering niches for species that depend on a dynamic habitat. These transformations are difficult to capture with traditional field plots, which often rely on sampling a small number of trees or features. LiDAR, on the other hand, gives us a comprehensive picture and a repeatable way to observe these changes across dozens or even hundreds of sites.

With LiDAR, we can start to ask why forests behave the way they do. Why do carbon accumulation and biodiversity often rise together in some places, while in others the two seem to diverge? How does structure influence species composition? And how might we use this knowledge to guide rewilding in ways that support both climate goals and biodiversity? These are questions that matter deeply, not only to scientists but to policymakers, land managers, and communities who want to see landscapes recover.

Pictures: Bára Kobosilová and Dan Ciganek

From our pilot sites we already have encouraging results. We have built a robust processing pipeline and developed a first set of structural indicators. The early patterns are striking: rewilded stands seem to show higher levels of both vertical and horizontal complexity than managed stands. These structural differences are precisely the kinds of features that many species depend on, and we anticipate strong correlations with independent measures of biodiversity. At the same time, we are grappling with real challenges. Data collected from different sensors and platforms do not always align neatly, and we need to harmonise them to ensure comparability. We are also learning about the limits of scale – how small a plot can be before its complexity becomes too difficult to measure reliably. These are technical hurdles, but they are also stepping stones that will allow us to expand our analysis across the entire WILDCARD network.

For me, the most exciting aspect of this work is its potential to shift how we think about rewilding. Forests are often described as carbon sinks or as habitats for species, but the WILDCARD project reveals them as both at once: living, evolving, complex three-dimensional systems. With the LiDAR technology we can not only see but also measure the richness of their structure and begin to understand how it shapes biodiversity and carbon dynamics together. That knowledge can inform rewilding strategies, guide conservation investments, and support policies that build resilient ecosystems. Forests are more than collections of trees. They are dynamic, intricate habitats that we are only beginning to understand in full. LiDAR gives us a way to step into that complexity, to capture it with unprecedented precision, and to tell the story of rewilding in three dimensions. For WILDCARD, it means we are one step closer to making the so far hidden patterns measurable, and to building the knowledge that will help rewilding succeed at scales that truly matter.

Where the Bison Roam Again: Rewilding in Vânători Neamț Nature Park

In the quiet forests of Northeastern Romania, near the town of Suceava, a remarkable rewilding story is unfolding.

This short film takes us into the heart of Vânători Neamț Nature Park, where the European bison, once extinct in the wild, is once again roaming free. The journey began in the 1970s, when the first bison were brought to Romania by the National Forest Administration. But it wasn’t until 2003, with support from a World Bank project, that the dream of rewilding took real shape, with infrastructure built and the first animals arriving in the park.

By 2012, the first five bison were released into the wild. Since then, more have followed, year after year, slowly rebuilding a population that had vanished. But this isn’t just about restoring a species. It’s about restoring balance between open fields and forest, between people and nature.

The European bison is more than a keystone species. It’s a national symbol, deeply woven into Romanian and Moldavian heritage. Its presence now supports local economies, from eco-tourism to traditional crafts, and fulfills important EU conservation goals.

And while the term “rewilding” may be new to some, the idea isn’t. As Laura Bouriaud from the Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava says, “we are living with nature. Even if we didn’t put this name on it, rewilding is part of our life.”

Special thanks to the © Neamţ County Council and Parcul Natural Bucegi for the complementary video footage.

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

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.

Uncovering the hidden world beneath our feet: reflections from the WILDCARD Soil Workshop in Brno

By Santiago Alarcón, Gesche Schifferdecker, Sara Cazzaniga, and Yannick de Win.

Not far from Brno, in the Czech Republic, an inspiring team of experts from various countries came together for a two-day workshop combining theory and practice on soil sampling. The workshop provided an immersive, hands-on experience focused on one of the most vital, complex, and still largely unexplored components of terrestrial ecosystems: the soil.

Organized by the WILDCARD project and involving both project researchers and external specialists, the soil sampling workshop aimed to align diverse research objectives under a shared mission: highlighting the critical role of soil in the context of rewilding. Over the two days, participants worked in two contrasting forest environments: one with soft, loamy soil that made the sampling procedure easy, and another with hard, rocky ground that challenged their adaptability and resilience. Thanks to the strong commitment of the group, once the technical training and minor hurdles were behind everyone, we group fully immersed ourselves in the environment. The workshop fostered a deep connection, not just among the participants, but also with nature and the often-overlooked world beneath our feet.

For many of us, soil might seem like little more than the “dirt stuff” we live on. But for Sara Cazzaniga from ETH Zurich, it’s a constantly shifting landscape of hidden stories. “Working with forest soil is particularly fascinating because of how much it varies”, she said. “Not only between sites, but even across different spots within the same forest.”

Sara came to Brno hoping the workshop would demystify the dense and challenging soil sampling protocol – and right from the start, she found a collaborative and supportive team. “As soon as we arrived at the first demonstration site, the outdoor setting felt just right,” she said. “Thanks to the shared insights and helpful observations, what initially felt difficult started to make sense. The hands-on practice really helped us become more comfortable and confident with applying the protocol.”

The group was a vibrant mix of backgrounds and expertise – from seasoned soil scientists to enthusiastic newcomers. That diversity quickly became a strength: beginners brought fresh questions, while more experienced participants shared field-tested tips. Everyone contributed with the shared goal of making the soil sampling protocol work – not just for science, but for nature, too.

“We had such a great mix of perspectives,” Sara added. “It made the tools and resources – like the app, FAQs, and videos – feel much more accessible and practical.”

Also, Yannick de Win from the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (EV-INBO) echoed that enthusiasm, “People often think of forests as trees, birds and mammals, but so many fundamental processes continuously happen belowground. That’s where trees and roots develop and where carbon is stored, thanks to the great diversity of organisms that live there.”

As part of the WILDCARD project, the teams at EV-INBO and Silva Tarouca Research Institute (VUK) will analyze both soil and forest floor layers to understand soil carbon dynamics, while Sara will extract environmental DNA from soil samples to investigate microbial community composition across different forest successional stages throughout Europe. Their combined efforts aim to reveal how soil carbon and biodiversity have shifted over time – specifically in areas where agricultural land and pastures were abandoned more than 70 years ago or forest management had been stopped.

The ultimate goal is to provide deeper insight into the potential for forest restoration and to inform strategies for climate change mitigation in the near future.

What began with this workshop is hoped to grow into a powerful reminder: that soil holds essential clues to the health of our planet and our future. In Brno, the WILDCARD team not only collected soil samples – they also planted seeds of knowledge, collaboration, and curiosity, laying the groundwork for more sustainable land management across Europe.

Can Nature do the Job? A Journey into Rewilding and the Nature Restoration Law

By Theresa Frei.

As I stepped into the conference hall in Brussels, I was looking forward to hearing the talks from some of the leading experts when it comes to restoration in Europe. Around 150 researchers, policymakers, and (some) practitioners had gathered from across Europe for the policy event, When Nature Can Do the Job: Fostering Co-Benefits for People and the Environment in View of the Nature Restoration Legislation. Hosted by the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency CINEA, the Horizon Europe Projects WILDCARD, WILD-E and REWRITE, as well as the Society for Ecological Restoration Europe, this event was more than an academic discussion—it was a forum where science met policy, and where the future of Europe’s landscapes was discussed.

I was eager to engage with the discussions on the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRL), a landmark law passed by the European Commission in June 2024. Though the regulation had been diluted during political negotiations, it still represents a significant step in the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030. The Regulation requires Member States to establish National Restoration Plans, but key questions are still to be discussed: where should ecological restoration be implemented? What are the most suited approached to restoration? Could passive rewilding be a cost-effective solution? And what are the societal perceptions surrounding such restoration?

Nature’s Role in Restoration

The event began with a series of presentations exploring the capacity of nature to restore itself. The term rewilding surfaced repeatedly, often used as synonym for restoration and emphasizing management efforts that aim to reduce human intervention on a site while reestablishing natural processes in the ecosystem. The speakers provided diverse perspectives:

  • Henrique Pereira (German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig and Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg) showed a European wide mapping of restoration opportunities connected to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
  • Jette Bredahl (University of Copenhagen) examined how nature-based solutions could contribute to the EU’s climate policy.
  • Sven Wunder (European Forest Institute) dissected the economic aspects, highlighting that while rewilding is a useful tool, it is not a universal solution.

The dialogue made one thing clear – nature has immense potential to restore degraded ecosystems, but its effectiveness depends on regional conditions, existing policies, and economic feasibility.

Learning from Practice: Restoration Case Studies

The second session brought theoretical discussions into reality. Practical examples illustrated how restoration projects across Europe were making an impact:

  • Wouter Helmer (Rewilding Director of Rewilding Europe) showcased how rewilding efforts along the Rhine had transformed the river basin into both a flood prevention measure and a hub for ecotourism.
  • Iris Möller (Trinity College Dublin) discussed coastal restoration projects, emphasizing how natural processes could enhance climate resilience.
  • Jens Christian Svennig (Aarhus University) challenged conventional forestry approaches, urging a shift away from the closed-forest paradigm towards more dynamic and open forest landscapes.

These case studies provided hope—when nature is given the opportunity, it can indeed do the job. However, it was evident that success depended on governance structures, financial support, and the integration and participation of local communities and stakeholders.

The Political and Financial Realities of the NRL

The final session confronted the broader challenges facing the NRL’s implementation:

  • An Cliquet (University of Ghent) warned that the NRL’s success hinged on its coherence with other EU policies, particularly the Common Agricultural Policy and energy regulations. Future lawsuits, she noted, would likely define how strictly the regulation would be enforced. She emphasized that we know from the Habitats Directives that especially scientific evidence and deteriorating habitats were decisive in the past for a strict interpretation of EU legislation.
  • Jan Verheeke (Flemish Environmental Council, Vice-Chair EEAC Network) showed inspiring insights from his work for the Flemish government: He shared success stories from engagement of environmental councils with local stakeholders that supported the implementation of restoration projects. He stressed the challenges with integration of stakeholders, the work with adjacent policy makers, and loosing track of the objectives due to excessive monitoring requirements.[GS1]  He highlighted the need for good and strong local governance mechanisms and reminded everybody that dealing with divergent interest is a crucial part of the process. Finally, he emphasized the need to find compromises, and acceptance for underlying values and mindsets.
  • Ariel Brunner (BirdLife) addressed funding concerns. Some restoration needs can be solved in an economically cheap way (he mentioned for examples beavers building dams for free) – but more expensive and long-term efforts are under threat, amongst others because of the growing influence of right-wing politics across Europe, which pose a direct challenge to environmental policymaking and funding. Brunner therefore argued for a dedicated restoration funding scheme that cannot be misused for other purposes. In general, he stressed that budget for restoration should not be seen as costs but as investments into benefits for the society and nature in the long run. 
  • Humerto Delgado Rosa (Director for Biodiversity, DG Environment, European Commission) closed the event, sharing insights from the political process of launching the NRL.  

Reflections and the Road Ahead

As the event concluded, I was inspired by the scientific insights and the success stories of rewilding in practice. However, I was acutely aware of the hurdles that lay ahead—political resistance from the right, funding constraints, economic interests. Finally, the question of how to align an EU policy restoration agenda with local people’s interests and cultures of using the land remains a continuing process.

From a political perspective, the NRR is a step in the right direction, but its success will depend on how the National Restoration Plans will be implemented in the Member States. This will be a continued process of advocacy, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the integration of local needs. Above all, it requires the willingness to embrace nature’s ability to restore itself.

The EU Nature Restoration Law is Adopted: What are the implications for rewilding?

On Monday, 17 June, months of deliberations culminated in the adoption of the new EU Nature Restoration Law by the Council of the European Union. The first-of-its-kind regulation aims to put measures in place to restore at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030, and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.

What role will rewilding play in the implementation of the new legislation? We posed this and other questions to Gert-Jan Nabuurs, project partner in WILDCARD and Professor of European Forest Resources at Wageningen University and Research. Check out his answers below!

What is your first reaction to the approval of the legislation?

It is extremely good news that the law has passed, even though the text is much weaker than the original, presented two years ago. The first version said 30% of the degraded habitats types shall be in good condition by 2030, while the approved text says countries shall start measures to improve the state of these habitats. So we went from a target to an intention to execute, which is a big difference. But it is still very important that this intention is written down formally as a law.

What is the potential importance of rewilding for the legislation as a nature restoration strategy? 

The rewilding of abandoned lands and proforestation are important strategies in achieving the law, which contains an article with clear assessment criteria for forest restoration (Article 12), such as standing and lying deadwood, share of forests with uneven-aged structure, forest connectivity, carbon stock, among others. From now on, EU Member Countries will be tasked with finding areas whose conditions they can improve and restore, with the responsibility of locating their own funding and resources for these activities. Rewilding can gain relevance as a restoration approach because its implementation costs are relatively low compared to other approaches.

What will be some of the law’s main implementation challenges?

Member States that voted against the law will not be keen to start very quickly, and there is no penalty if they don’t achieve targets which have become a bit more vague. Additionally, we still lack knowledge on how to monitor certain indicators that need to be assessed to determine if restoration was successful, and to do it cost-efficiently.

What knowledge will be provided by WILDCARD to support the law’s implementation?

The project will provide assessments on how biodiversity responds to rewilding measures, such as which species and functional groups most benefit from it. Carbon sequestration and socioeconomic aspects will also be assessed, helping to devise recommendations on future rewilding hotspots that are ecologically important and socially acceptable.