Review questions the idea of Europe’s ancient forests as uniformly dense
The story at a glance
A review in Biological Conservation brings together evidence spanning roughly 23 million years. It argues that temperate Europe commonly had varied landscapes, rather than being uniformly covered by dense, closed forest. 1
The authors discuss how herbivores, fire, climate and soils may have shaped these mosaics. The review’s relevance to restoration is an argument for considering varied habitats, not a measured assessment of current planting programmes. 12
What you need to know
- The paper is a review, not a report of a single new field discovery. It synthesises palaeoecological evidence including pollen, plant remains, isotopes, charcoal and ancient environmental DNA. 1
- The authors describe woodland-grassland mosaics as a common feature of humid- and warm-temperate Europe over the period reviewed. Such landscapes could include open woodland, grassland and patches of closed canopy. 1
- Large herbivores are presented as one influence on vegetation structure, alongside fire, climate and soils. The review does not reduce landscape openness to a single cause. 1
- The research suggests restoration planners should consider habitat mosaics rather than assume dense tree cover is the only historical reference. This is a recommendation, not evidence that a specific restoration approach has improved biodiversity. 12
- Evidence for open or light woodland does not establish that all European regions, or every period in the review’s broad timespan, had the same balance of habitats. 134
Why this matters
Historical baselines can influence restoration choices. This review makes the case for treating Europe’s temperate landscapes as potentially varied, while its evidence does not prescribe a single target or demonstrate the results of any present-day intervention. 12
What happens next
The review leaves questions about regional differences, the relative influence of herbivory and other drivers, and which restoration approaches deliver conservation benefits today. Those questions require evidence beyond the historical synthesis. 1
What we know
- A separate 2023 study based on 96 Last Interglacial pollen records also found substantial light woodland and open vegetation. It reported variation in openness, supporting a heterogeneous picture for that period. 3
- A pollen-based synthesis covering the last 11,000 years provides evidence about Holocene forest cover. It concerns a narrower time period than the review’s roughly 23-million-year span. 41
- A 2024 preprint raises methodological concerns about an earlier pollen-based estimate of more than 50% open or light woodland during the Last Interglacial. It is not a peer-reviewed published rebuttal to the 2026 review. 51
What we don't know
- The supplied evidence does not settle how the proportions of open, semi-open and closed habitats varied across regions and periods within the review’s long timespan. 1
- The relative contribution of herbivory compared with fire, climate, soils and human activity remains an unresolved question in the reporting. 1
- The review and accompanying coverage do not establish which restoration approaches best meet present-day conservation goals, or what biodiversity outcomes they achieve in practice. 12
Read the reporting
This WildNews briefing synthesises and summarises reporting from the sources below. WildNews did not produce the original reporting. Learn more about how we use AI
Was this story useful?
Your anonymous feedback helps us make future WildNews briefings more useful.
