Rewilding adjacent: Miyawaki forests Miyawaki forests occupy an intriguing borderland


between ecological restoration and rewilding. Developed for highly degraded or urban sites where natural regeneration is no longer possible, the Miyawaki method uses dense plantings of locally appropriate species to jumpstart forest succession. Although these miniature forests are curated and intensively managed in their early years, they are designed to become self- organizing systems—multilayered, biodiverse, and increasingly autonomous. In this sense, they echo the rewilding ethos of restoring processes rather than simply planting trees, especially in landscapes where historical baselines have been erased. Yet Miyawaki forests also highlight the limits of


rewilding in constrained environments. They lack the trophic interactions, disturbance regimes, and landscape permeability that define most rewilding models. Instead, they function as accelerated ecological catalysts— small, intentional interventions that create pockets of complexity within human-dominated spaces. As such, they align most closely with the European model of functional rewilding, where ecological roles are revived within fragmented landscapes, and with Indigenous-led approaches when used to restore culturally significant species. Miyawaki forests may not be rewilding in the strict sense, but they offer a compelling example of how humans can initiate processes that, over time, begin to take on a life of their own.


How do fungi fit in? Fungi are not just beneficiaries of rewilding but among


its quiet architects. Nearly every ecological process that rewilding seeks to restore—nutrient cycling, soil formation, plant establishment, decomposition, disturbance recovery—is either powered or mediated by fungi. When landscapes are fragmented, overgrazed, simplified, or chemically stressed, fungal communities collapse or shift into impoverished states. Rewilding reverses many of those pressures. More diverse plant communities create more diverse


mycorrhizal partnerships. Deadwood accumulation supports saprotrophs and wood decay specialists. Large herbivores create disturbance mosaics that open niches for fungal succession. Predators indirectly shape fungal communities by influencing herbivore behavior and nutrient flows. Even the simple act of removing fences, as in American Prairie, allows


bison and elk to redistribute nutrients across the landscape, feeding soil fungi in ways that fenced pastures cannot replicate. Fungi are not passive recipients of these changes; they are


engines of ecological recovery. Tey rebuild soil structure after disturbance, mediate plant establishment in degraded areas, decompose the biomass that fuels nutrient cycles, and form the underground architecture that allows plant communities to reorganize. Mycorrhizal networks buffer plants against drought and pathogens, accelerating the return of functional ecosystems. Wood decay fungi open cavities for wildlife and create the coarse woody debris that anchors forest regeneration. Even fungal pathogens help maintain diversity by preventing any one species from dominating. If rewilding is about restoring processes, fungi are among the most important process-makers. Tis is where mycologists can play a transformative role.


Tey can map fungal baselines in rewilding sites, revealing whether soil communities are recovering or stagnating. Tey can identify keystone fungal guilds whose presence signals ecological resilience. Tey can guide restoration plantings by matching species with their appropriate mycorrhizal partners. Tey can monitor fungal succession after herbivore reintroduction. Tey can advise on deadwood management, fire regimes, and grazing patterns that support fungal diversity. Tey can help design fungal corridors—the subterranean analog to wildlife corridors—by restoring soil structure and organic matter. Mycologists can also bring cultural and narrative depth to rewilding, offering a language of networks, reciprocity, decay, and renewal that resonates with the philosophical core of the movement.


Conclusion Taken together, these five models—and the fungal dimension


that underlies them—reveal the diversity and adaptability of the rewilding movement. Each arises from its own ecological and cultural context, yet all share a commitment to restoring the processes that make landscapes vibrant and self-willed. American Prairie stands out for its scale, its focus on grassland migration, and its unusual emphasis on fence removal as a primary ecological tool. European trophic rewilding demonstrates how ecological functions can be revived even in densely settled regions. Oostvaardersplassen shows both the promise and the pitfalls of experimental rewilding in constrained spaces. Y2Y illustrates the power of connectivity across political and ecological boundaries. Indigenous-led rewilding reminds us that restoration is not only ecological but relational. And fungi—so often overlooked—anchor the entire enterprise, providing the metabolic, structural, and relational foundations that allow rewilded landscapes to regain their resilience and begin, once again, to shape themselves.


28 FUNGI Volume 19:2 Summer 2026


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52