{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022718944668376696, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013558079882740931, 'mean_word_length': 5.363636363636363, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pleistocene Rewilding, Frankenstein Ecosystems, and an Alternative Conservation Agenda

ecological processes lost in the Americas in the late Pleis-tocene, a little over 10,000 years ago, by rewilding, that is, by translocating a suite of large African and Asian vertebrates to the American continent. There is a strong evidence that the megafauna in the Americas at that time was driven to extinction by humans (Martin & Klein 1984), which caused the loss of many ecological interactions such as dispersal of particular fruits eaten by megafauna (Janzen & Martin 1982). Those who support rewilding hope the introduction of surrogates for vanished large animals will bring back ecological processes indirectly disrupted by humans and allow the recreation, to some extent, of natural ecosystems in the Americas before the late Pleistocene extinctions. The unprecedented scale of rewilding has attracted much attention, and several biologists have criticized the idea, pointing out its uncertainties and high costs (e.g., Smith 2005; Rubenstein et al. 2006; Caro 2007). One issue has not yet received the attention it deserves, either by rewilding advocates or by their opponents: evolutionary history. Pimm (1991) proposes that many features of the structure of biological communities can only be understood in light of their evolutionary history. The species composition and ecological interactions of any given community reflect the history of how it was assembled , including many contingent colonization and extinction processes in the past and coevolutionary interactions among its species over thousands or millions of years. Donlan et al. (2006) and Flannery (2001) highlight the importance of taking into account evolutionary history and ecological interactions in the rewilding process. These authors make two related points. First, there was an intense faunal interchange between North America and Eurasia before the Pleistocene, supporting the idea that the megafaunas of these continents share much of their evolutionary histories. Second, there are some supposed ecological anachronisms in North America, such as the continued existence of fruits eaten by megafauna and the overbuilt speed of the pronghorn, both of which indicate that vanished ecological interactions could arise again with rewilding. These points are important, but they are not enough to answer Pimm's questions, and they do not offer much assurance of the wisdom of rewilding. Although the anachronisms could indicate latent interactions, evidence is based on isolated pairs of species and not on most of the species assemblage. Besides, the biggest problem is not the possibility of failing to restore lost interactions, but rather the risk of …