Assessing strategies to reconcile agriculture and bird conservation in the temperate grasslands of South America

Sensitivity of tropical montane birds to anthropogenic disturbance and management strategies for their conservation in agricultural landscapes

Tropical montane bird communities are hypothesized to be highly sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance because species are adapted to a narrow range of environmental conditions and display high rates of endemism. We assessed avian sensitivity at regional and continental scales for a global epicenter of montane bird biodiversity, the tropical Andes. Using data from an intensive field study of cloud forest bird communities across 7 landscapes undergoing agricultural conversion in northern Peru (1800-3100 m, 2016-2017) and a pan-Andean synthesis of forest bird sensitivity, we developed management strategies for maintaining avian biodiversity in tropical countrysides and examined how environmental specialization predicts species-specific sensitivity to disturbance. In Peru, bird communities occupying countryside habitats contained 29-93% fewer species compared with those in forests and were compositionally distinct due to high levels of species turnover. Fragments of mature forest acted as reservoirs for forest bird diversity, especially when large or surrounded by mixed successional vegetation. In high-intensity agricultural plots, an addition of 10 silvopasture trees or 10% more fencerows per hectare increased species richness by 18-20%. Insectivores and frugivores were most sensitive to disturbance: abundance of 40-70% of species declined in early successional vegetation and silvopasture. These results were supported by our synthesis of 816 montane bird species studied across the Andes. At least 25% of the species declined due to all forms of disturbance, and the percentage rose to 60% in agricultural landscapes. The most sensitive species were those with narrow elevational ranges and small global range sizes, insectivores and carnivores, and species with specialized trophic niches. We recommend protecting forest fragments, especially large ones, and increasing connectivity through the maintenance of early successional vegetation and silvopastoral trees that increase avian diversity in pastures. We provide lists of species-specific sensitivities to anthropogenic disturbance to inform conservation status assessments of Andean birds.

Understanding the relative risks of zoonosis emergence under contrasting approaches to meeting livestock product demand

It has been argued that intensive livestock farming increases the risk of pandemics of zoonotic origin because of long-distance livestock movements, high livestock densities, poor animal health and welfare, low disease resistance and low genetic diversity. However, data on many of these factors are limited, and analyses to date typically ignore how land use affects emerging infectious disease (EID) risks, and how these risks might vary across systems with different yields (production per unit area). Extensive, lower yielding practices typically involve larger livestock populations, poorer biosecurity, more workers and more area under farming, resulting in different, but not necessarily lower, EID risks than higher yielding systems producing the same amount of food. To move this discussion forward, we review the evidence for each of the factors that potentially link livestock production practices to EID risk. We explore how each factor might vary with yield and consider how overall risks might differ across a mix of production systems chosen to reflect in broad terms the current livestock sector at a global level and in hypothetical low- and high-yield systems matched by overall level of production. We identify significant knowledge gaps for all potential risk factors and argue these shortfalls in understanding mean we cannot currently determine whether lower or higher yielding systems would better limit the risk of future pandemics.

Aligning biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in heterogeneous landscapes

Understanding the trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and agricultural production has become a fundamental question in sustainability science. Substantial research has focused on how species' populations respond to agricultural intensification, with the goal to understand whether conservation policies that spatially separate agriculture and conservation or, alternatively, integrate the two are more beneficial. Spatial heterogeneity in both species abundance and agricultural productivity have been largely left out of this discussion, although these patterns are ubiquitous from local to global scales due to varying land capacity. Here, we address the question of how to align agricultural production and biodiversity conservation in heterogeneous landscapes. Using model simulations of species abundance and agricultural yields, we show that trade-offs between agricultural production and species' abundance can be reduced by minimizing the cost (in terms of species abundance) of agricultural production. We find that when species' abundance and agricultural yields vary across landscapes, the optimal strategy to minimize trade-offs is rarely pure land sparing or land sharing. Instead, landscapes that combine elements of both strategies are optimal. Additionally, we show how the reference population of a species is defined has important influences on optimization results. Our findings suggest that in the real world, understanding the impact of heterogeneous land capacity on biodiversity and agricultural production is crucial to designing multi-use landscapes that jointly maximize conservation and agricultural benefits.

Insights for policy-based conservation strategies for the Rio de la Plata Grasslands through the IPBES framework

Abstract The Río de la Plata Grasslands (RPG) are one of the most modified biomes in the world. Changes in land use and cover affect the RPG’s rich biodiversity. In particular, the expansion of crops, overgrazing, afforestation, and the introduction of exotic species pose a major threat to the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES). In this study, we applied the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) conceptual framework as a new lens to approach biodiversity conservation enactments in the RPG. First, we systematically reviewed published scientific literature to identify direct and indirect drivers that affect the RPG’s BES. Further, we conducted an extensive analysis of management policies affecting the BES directly in the region, at a national and international level. We conclude by offering recommendations for policy and praxis under the umbrella of the IPBES framework.

Bird conservation and the land sharing-sparing continuum in farmland-dominated landscapes of lowland England

Empirical evidence from many regions suggests that most species would be least negatively affected if human food demand were met through high-yield agricultural production and conservation of nonfarm ecosystems (land sparing), rather than through wildlife-friendly farming over a larger area (land sharing). However, repeated glaciation and a long history of agriculture may lead to different results in regions such as western Europe. We compared the consequences of land sparing and land sharing on breeding bird species in 2 lowland regions of England, The Fens, with 101 species, and Salisbury Plain, with 83. We derived density-yield responses for each species and then estimated regional population size under regional food production strategies, including land sharing and land sparing, a range of intermediate strategies, and a novel mixed strategy. In both regions, more species achieved maximum regional population size under land sparing than land sharing. In The Fens, the majority of birds were loser species (estimated to have smaller populations under all food production strategies than in the preagricultural baseline scenario), whereas in Salisbury Plain the majority were winners (smaller populations in the preagricultural baseline scenario). Loser species overwhelmingly achieved maximum regional population size under land sparing, whereas winner species achieved maximum regional population size under either land sharing or an intermediate strategy, highlighting the importance of defining which groups of species are the target of conservation. A novel 3-compartment strategy (combining high-yield farming, natural habitat, and low-yield farming) often performed better than either land sharing or land sparing. Our results support intermediate or 3-compartment land-sparing strategies to maximize bird populations across lowland agricultural landscapes. To deliver conservation outcomes, any shift toward land sparing must, however, ensure yield increases are sustainable in the long term, do not entail increased negative effects on surrounding areas, and are linked to allocation of land for nature.

Land sparing to make space for species dependent on natural habitats and high nature value farmland

Empirical evidence from four continents indicates that human food demand may be best reconciled with biodiversity conservation through sparing natural habitats by boosting agricultural yields. This runs counter to the conservation paradigm of wildlife-friendly farming, which is influential in Europe, where many species are dependent on low-yielding high nature value farmland threatened by both intensification and abandonment. In the first multi-taxon population-level test of land-sparing theory in Europe, we quantified how population densities of 175 bird and sedge species varied with farm yield across 26 squares (each with an area of 1 km²) in eastern Poland. We discovered that, as in previous studies elsewhere, simple land sparing, with only natural habitats on spared land, markedly out-performed land sharing in its effect on region-wide projected population sizes. However, a novel 'three-compartment' land-sparing approach, in which about one-third of spared land is assigned to very low-yield agriculture and the remainder to natural habitats, resulted in least-reduced projected future populations for more species. Implementing the three-compartment model would require significant reorganization of current subsidy regimes, but would mean high-yield farming could release sufficient land for species dependent on both natural and high nature value farmland to persist.

The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming

How we manage farming and food systems to meet rising demand is pivotal to the future of biodiversity. Extensive field data suggest impacts on wild populations would be greatly reduced through boosting yields on existing farmland so as to spare remaining natural habitats. High-yield farming raises other concerns because expressed per unit area it can generate high levels of externalities such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and nutrient losses. However, such metrics underestimate the overall impacts of lower-yield systems, so here we develop a framework that instead compares externality and land costs per unit production. Applying this to diverse datasets describing the externalities of four major farm sectors reveals that, rather than involving trade-offs, the externality and land costs of alternative production systems can co-vary positively: per unit production, land-efficient systems often produce lower externalities. For GHG emissions these associations become more strongly positive once forgone sequestration is included. Our conclusions are limited: remarkably few studies report externalities alongside yields; many important externalities and farming systems are inadequately measured; and realising the environmental benefits of high-yield systems typically requires additional measures to limit farmland expansion. Yet our results nevertheless suggest that trade-offs among key cost metrics are not as ubiquitous as sometimes perceived.

Agricultural intensification without biodiversity loss is possible in grassland landscapes

Grassland biodiversity in managed landscapes is threatened by land-use intensification, but is also dependent on low-intensity management. Solutions that allow for both agricultural production and species conservation may be realized either on individual grasslands, by adjusting management intensity, or at the landscape level, when grasslands are managed at different intensities. Here we use a dataset of more than 1,000 arthropod species collected in more than 100 grasslands along gradients of productivity, to assess the reaction of individual species to changes in productivity. We defined a range of land-use strategies and evaluated their effects on overall production and on species abundances. We show that conservation of arthropods can be improved without reducing overall production. We also find that production can be increased without jeopardizing conservation. Conservation and production could, however, not be maximized simultaneously at the landscape level, emphasizing that management goals need to be clearly defined.

Reframing the Food-Biodiversity Challenge

Given the serious limitations of production-oriented frameworks, we offer here a new conceptual framework for how to analyze the nexus of food security and biodiversity conservation. We introduce four archetypes of social-ecological system states corresponding to win-win (e.g., agroecology), win-lose (e.g., intensive agriculture), lose-win (e.g., fortress conservation), and lose-lose (e.g., degraded landscapes) outcomes for food security and biodiversity conservation. Each archetype is shaped by characteristic external drivers, exhibits characteristic internal social-ecological features, and has characteristic feedbacks that maintain it. This framework shifts the emphasis from focusing on production only to considering social-ecological dynamics, and enables comparison among landscapes. Moreover, examining drivers and feedbacks facilitates the analysis of possible transitions between system states (e.g., from a lose-lose outcome to a more preferred outcome).