Why You Should Consider Horses for Your Rewilding Project
Rewilding aims to restore natural processes and ecosystems, and most practitioners agree that large herbivores play a critical role in shaping landscapes. However, different grazing animals interact with vegetation, biodiversity, and soil health in unique ways. Understanding their grazing strategies, movement behaviours, and hoof morphology is essential for successful conservation grazing.
The table below outlines these differences. For example, cattle are bulk grazers that use their tongues to rip out grass, making them less suited to short grasslands but highly effective on taller grasses. Sheep, on the other hand, nibble close to the ground and are more selective than cattle, often leaving behind fibrous material. Horses, however, occupy a middle ground, combining aspects of both species while bringing unique ecological benefits to rewilding projects. Deer, however, differ significantly by incorporating both grazing and browsing behaviours, shaping woodland structure as well as grasslands.
Unlike sheep, cattle and deer, horses are hind-gut fermenters, relying on their gut microbiota to digest fibrous material (Smith et al., 2020). Their ability to cover large distances creates a patchwork of habitats and microhabitats, enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem function (Fleurance et al., 2012). Additionally, horses do not fully digest seeds, meaning they actively disperse native plant species, boosting biodiversity restoration—a trait absent in ruminants (Wallis de Vries, 1998).
Native pony breeds, such as Exmoor, Dartmoor, and New Forest ponies, thrive in low-nutrient landscapes without overgrazing sensitive vegetation, making them ideal for rewilding projects, particularly on wetlands and heathlands (Putman et al., 2019). Their hoof action, which differs from cloven-hooved species, improves microhabitat structure by creating indentations that support seed germination and invertebrate biodiversity (Davies & Boyd, 2019).
The benefits of any grazer can be maximised through cross-grazing approaches, combining different species in managed rotations. This enhances biodiversity while mitigating potential negative impacts. For example:
- Integrating horses and sheep ensures diverse plant selection, prevents dominance by certain species, and maintains ground structure (Teague et al., 2020).
- Horses and cattle together balance bulk forage control with finer structural improvements, fostering resilient and dynamic habitats (Bakker et al., 2005).
- Deer, when integrated with horses and cattle, help control scrub encroachment while contributing to woodland regeneration. Their browsing behaviour prevents excessive tree recruitment, maintaining a balanced forest-grassland interface (Putman et al., 2011).
- Multi-species grazing systems ensure that no single species dominates, promoting structural diversity, floristic variation, and long-term ecological stability (Gordon, 2003).
Strategically incorporating deer, horses, sheep, and cattle into a holistic grazing plan can enhance ecosystem function while reducing unintended consequences like soil compaction, scrub overgrowth, or forage depletion. Successful rewilding projects, such as those at Knepp Estate in Sussex and Cambrian Wildwood in Wales, have demonstrated the value of cross-grazing, effectively preserving biodiversity while preventing scrub encroachment (Hall & Kirby, 2021).
Despite their advantages, poorly managed grazing can cause ecosystem degradation. Common pitfalls of grazing horses include:
- Scrub encroachment, as horses tend to avoid tough woody plants (Fleurance et al., 2012).
- Reed dominance in lowland wet grasslands, reducing habitat quality for wading birds (Putman, 1986).
- Unexpected landscape shifts due to a lack of herbivore diversity (Davies & Boyd, 2019).
Some UK nature reserves experienced floristic imbalance due to horse-only grazing, allowing undesirable grasses and reeds to dominate (Fleurance et al., 2012). Similarly, Dutch heathlands suffered from unsustainable stocking densities, leading to declines in heather and wildflower populations (Wallis de Vries, 1998).
These cases have contributed to misconceptions that horses damage habitats. But with proper planning and strategic land management, horses can be invaluable in conservation grazing. For instance, on Dartmoor, ponies are essential in maintaining species-rich heathlands, but only when stocking densities are carefully managed (Hall & Kirby, 2021).
Horses thrive when incorporated into thoughtful conservation programs. The key is to design grazing strategies that enhance biodiversity rather than degrade it—working with nature rather than against it.
Horses can offer immense ecological benefits when introduced strategically into conservation grazing systems. If you're considering rewilding and want to maximise biodiversity then get in touch today to discuss how horses can transform your land into a thriving ecosystem.
| Feature | Cattle | Sheep | Horses | Deer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gut Type | Ruminant (Four-chambered stomach for fermenting fibrous forage) (Hosking, 2007) | Ruminant (Smaller mouths enable more selective grazing) (Teague et al., 2020) | Hind-gut fermenter (Gut microbiota in the large intestine break down fibrous forage) (Smith et al., 2020) | Ruminant (Four-chambered stomach enables efficient digestion of browse and fibrous forage) (Gordon, 2003) |
| Forage Preference | Prefers taller grasses and bulk forage, avoiding low-growing plants. | Selects herbs, legumes, and low-growing vegetation. | Consumes a diverse mix of coarse grasses, wildflowers, and shrubs. | Browses woody plants, shrubs, and tree saplings; also grazes on grasses in open habitats. |
| Grazing Style | Wraps tongue around grass, pulling and tearing vegetation. | Close-crops vegetation by nibbling short, nutritious plants. | Bites and shears vegetation rather than tearing. | Browses woody plants by stripping leaves and twigs; grazes selectively on soft grasses. |
| Herd Behaviour | Moves in close-knit herds, often following linear pathways. | Forms loose groups, spreading out to selectively graze preferred plants. | Roams widely, covering varied terrain rather than focusing on one area. | Lives in small groups or solitary; highly mobile, shifting between browsing and grazing areas. |
| Hoof Impact | Cloven hooves distribute weight unevenly, leading to soil compaction. | Light cloven hooves exert minimal pressure, preserving ground integrity. | Single-toed hooves spread weight evenly, reducing compaction; create small indentations that encourage seed germination and break up dense sward layers. | Small cloven hooves exert minimal soil pressure; browsing behaviour influences forest regeneration. |
| Habitat Contribution | Beneficial in wetlands, where hoofprints create micro-pools for amphibians. | Maintains fragile floristic diversity in limestone grasslands. | Native pony breeds (e.g., Exmoor, Dartmoor, New Forest) thrive in low-nutrient landscapes, grazing a mix of heather, grasses, and shrubs; create patchwork habitats, particularly useful in wetland and heathland ecosystems. | Essential for woodland regeneration—helps control scrub, prevents tree overgrowth, and creates habitat mosaics in mixed ecosystems. |
| Potential Negative Impacts | Can trigger soil erosion in fragile ecosystems, reducing plant recovery rates; heavy trampling degrades wetland integrity and compacts soil, inhibiting water infiltration | Low disturbance levels limit microhabitat variation, making them less effective in dynamic ecosystems; close-cropping can prevent seedling establishment, leading to loss of floral diversity (Wallis de Vries, 1998) | Overgrazing can lead to soil compaction, reduced water infiltration (Davies & Boyd, 2019), erosion on fragile landscapes, degradation of peat bogs and riverbanks, and loss of wetland integrity, increasing flood risks (Fleurance et al., 2012). | Over-browsing can prevent tree regeneration, leading to declines in woodland structure; high deer densities cause habitat simplification and reduced species diversity (Putman et al., 2011); unchecked browsing can suppress essential plant species, shifting ecosystem dynamics (Gordon, 2003). |
References
Bakker, E.S., Olff, H., Boekhoff, M., Gleichman, J.M. & Berendse, F. (2005) Impact of herbivores on vegetation dynamics in experimental grasslands, Oecologia, 146(2), pp. 262–270.
Davies, A. & Boyd, H. (2019) Equine impact on soil and vegetation in conservation grazing, Journal of Applied Ecology, 56(3), pp. 765–777.
Fleurance, G., Duncan, P. & Fritz, H. (2012) Feeding habits of horses and their impact on grassland ecosystems, Ecological Applications, 22(2), pp. 421–437.
Hall, S.J.G. & Kirby, K.J. (2021) Rewilding and the role of native herbivores in restoring ecosystems, Biological Conservation, 260, p. 109183.
Hosking, J. (2007) Grazing ecology: A comparative study of ruminants and non-ruminants, Grassland Science, 53(1), pp. 27–34.
Putman, R.J. (1986) Grazing in temperate ecosystems: large herbivores and the dynamics of woodland-grassland interfaces, Journal of Ecology, 74(1), pp. 113–127.
Putman, R.J., Denton, P. & Chapman, D. (2019) Grazing dynamics and biodiversity in conservation landscapes, Journal of Environmental Management, 231, pp. 1100–1108.
Smith, K., Rook, A.J. & Gill, E. (2020) Gut microbiota and forage digestion in equines, Animal Science Review, 88(4), pp. 299–315.
Teague, W.R., Dowhower, S.L. & Baker, J. (2020) Selective grazing strategies and their role in ecosystem restoration, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 232, p. 105097.
Wallis de Vries, M.F. (1998) Large herbivores and biodiversity conservation, Conservation Biology, 12(4), pp. 912–923.