Comparing organic farming and land sparing: optimizing yield and butterfly populations at a landscape scale

Concentrating anthropogenic disturbance to balance ecological and economic values: applications to forest management

To maintain healthy ecosystems, natural-disturbance-based management aims to minimize differences between unmanaged and managed landscapes. Two related approaches may help accomplish this goal, either applied together or in isolation: (1) concentrating anthropogenic disturbance through zoning (with protected areas and intensive management); and (2) emulating natural disturbances. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of these two approaches, applied both in isolation and in combination, on the structure of the forest landscape. To do so, we use a spatially explicit landscape simulation model on a large fire-dominated landscape in eastern Canada. Specifically, we examine the effects of (1) increasing the maximum size of logged stands (cutblocks) to better emulate the full range of fire sizes in a fire-dominated landscape, (2) increasing protected areas, and (3) adding aggregated or dispersed intensive wood production areas to the landscape in addition to protected areas (triad management). We focus on maximizing the amount and minimizing the fragmentation of old-growth forest and on reducing road construction. Increasing maximum cutblock size and adding protected areas led to reduced road construction, while the latter also resulted in less fragmentation and more old growth. Although protected areas led to reduced harvest volume, the addition of an intensive production zone (triad management) counterbalanced this loss and resulted in more old growth than equivalent scenarios with protected areas but no intensive production zone. However, we found no differences between aggregated and dispersed intensive wood production. Our results imply that differences between unmanaged and managed landscapes can be reduced by concentrating logging efforts through a combination of protected areas and intensive wood production, and by creating some larger cutblocks. We conclude that the forest industry and regulators should therefore seek to increase protected areas through triad management and consider increasing maximum cutblock size. These results add to a growing body of literature indicating that intensive management on a small part of the landscape may be better than less intensive management spread out over a much larger part of the landscape, whether this is in the context of forestry, agriculture, or urban development.

What conservationists need to know about farming

Farming is the basis of our civilization yet is more damaging to wild nature than any other sector of human activity. Here, we propose that in order to limit its impact into the future, conservation researchers and practitioners need to address several big topics--about the scale of future demand, about which crops and livestock to study, about whether low-yield or high-yield farming has the potential to be least harmful to nature, about the environmental performance of new and existing farming methods, and about the measures needed to enable promising approaches and techniques to deliver on their potential. Tackling these issues requires conservationists to explore the many consequences that decisions about agriculture have beyond the farm, to think broadly and imaginatively about the scale and scope of what is required to halt biodiversity loss, and to be brave enough to test and when necessary support counterintuitive measures.

A comparison of land-sharing and land-sparing strategies for plant richness conservation in agricultural landscapes

Strategies for conserving plant diversity in agroecosystems generally focus on either expanding land area in non-crop habitat or enhancing diversity within crop fields through changes in within-field management practices. In this study, we compare effects on landscape-scale species richness from such land-sharing or land-sparing strategies. We collected data in arable field, grassland, pasture, and forest habitat types (1.6 ha sampled per habitat type) across a 100-km2 region of farmland in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA. We fitted species-area relationships (SARs) for each habitat type and then combined extrapolations from the curves with estimates of community overlap to estimate richness in a 314.5-ha landscape. We then modified these baseline estimates by adjusting parameters in the SAR models to compare potential effects of land-sharing and land-sparing conservation practices on landscape richness. We found that species richness of the habitat types showed a strong inverse relationship to the relative land area of each type in the region, with 89 species in arable fields (66.5% of total land area), 153 in pastures (6.7%), 196 in forests (5.2%), and 213 in grasslands (2.9%). Relative to the baseline scenario, major changes in the richness of arable fields produced gains in landscape-scale richness comparable to a conversion of 3.1% of arable field area into grassland habitat. Sensitivity analysis of our model indicated that relative gains from land sparing would be greatest in landscapes with a low amount of non-crop habitat in the baseline scenario, but that in more complex landscapes land sharing would provide greater gains. These results indicate that the majority of plant species in agroecosystems are found in small fragments of non-crop habitat and suggest that, especially in landscapes with little non-crop habitat, richness can be more readily conserved through land-sparing approaches.

Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests

Local and landscape-scale agricultural intensification is a major driver of global biodiversity loss. Controversially discussed solutions include wildlife-friendly farming or combining high-intensity farming with land-sparing for nature. Here, we integrate biodiversity and crop productivity data for smallholder cacao in Indonesia to exemplify for tropical agroforests that there is little relationship between yield and biodiversity under current management, opening substantial opportunities for wildlife-friendly management. Species richness of trees, fungi, invertebrates, and vertebrates did not decrease with yield. Moderate shade, adequate labor, and input level can be combined with a complex habitat structure to provide high biodiversity as well as high yields. Although livelihood impacts are held up as a major obstacle for wildlife-friendly farming in the tropics, our results suggest that in some situations, agroforests can be designed to optimize both biodiversity and crop production benefits without adding pressure to convert natural habitat to farmland.