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

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Franklin Egan ◽  
David A. Mortensen
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Landscapes ◽  
Land Sharing ◽  
Plant Richness ◽  
Land Sparing

scholarly journals The Imperial Mind and Biodiversity Conservation: Historical perspective on current debates in biodiversity conservation

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-81
Author(s):  
Angus Wright
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Conservation Policy ◽  
Agricultural Landscapes ◽  
Wild Populations ◽  
Land Sharing ◽  
Land Sparing ◽  
Adequate Food

Biodiversity conservation debates have recently been summarized in the phrase, “land-sparing versus land-sharing.” In the land sparing camp are those who seek policies to put as much of the earth’s surface as possible into “protected areas” in which agriculture would be virtually excluded. In order to assure adequate food production, land outside protected areas would be farmed with maximum intensity through techniques that would largely exclude or exterminate wild populations of flora and fauna. In contrast, those who advocate land sharing policies argue for a combination of protected areas alongside agricultural landscapes that would use techniques tending to favor the maintenance of wild populations within a complex matrix of land uses. Here, I contend that the attempt to settle the debate through studies that seek quantification of agricultural production data and promotion of wild species populations in existing landscapes uses is of limited value because of the inability to control properly for both temporal and spatial variation. The more fundamental problem in quantitative evaluation, the one explored at length in this paper, is that the two policy positions in fact disguise profoundly different philosophical world views that can best be understood through historical analysis of the formation of colonial and post-colonial conservation ideas and practice. I argue that the essential problem with the land-sparing perspective can be summarized in two related points: first, land-sparing strategies assume that protected areas are more protective of a broad range of species than they are; and, second, they assume that the negative effect of industrial agriculture on biodiversity is minimal and can remain so even under strategies to increase production on a smaller land base. Both of these assumptions rest on a historically derived idea of control over landscape and habitat processes that is, from the land-sharing perspective, illusory. This false sense of control over human life and ecological processes arises at least partially from a way of thinking shaped by imperialism. I lay out here a historical perspective on contemporary conservation policy debates, with emphasis on the development of conservation policy in Brazil, Meso-America, and the United States.

scholarly journals The Imperial Mind and Biodiversity Conservation: Historical perspective on current debates in biodiversity conservation

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-81
Author(s):  
Angus Wright
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Conservation Policy ◽  
Agricultural Landscapes ◽  
Wild Populations ◽  
Land Sharing ◽  
Land Sparing ◽  
Adequate Food

Biodiversity conservation debates have recently been summarized in the phrase, “land-sparing versus land-sharing.” In the land sparing camp are those who seek policies to put as much of the earth’s surface as possible into “protected areas” in which agriculture would be virtually excluded. In order to assure adequate food production, land outside protected areas would be farmed with maximum intensity through techniques that would largely exclude or exterminate wild populations of flora and fauna. In contrast, those who advocate land sharing policies argue for a combination of protected areas alongside agricultural landscapes that would use techniques tending to favor the maintenance of wild populations within a complex matrix of land uses. Here, I contend that the attempt to settle the debate through studies that seek quantification of agricultural production data and promotion of wild species populations in existing landscapes uses is of limited value because of the inability to control properly for both temporal and spatial variation. The more fundamental problem in quantitative evaluation, the one explored at length in this paper, is that the two policy positions in fact disguise profoundly different philosophical world views that can best be understood through historical analysis of the formation of colonial and post-colonial conservation ideas and practice. I argue that the essential problem with the land-sparing perspective can be summarized in two related points: first, land-sparing strategies assume that protected areas are more protective of a broad range of species than they are; and, second, they assume that the negative effect of industrial agriculture on biodiversity is minimal and can remain so even under strategies to increase production on a smaller land base. Both of these assumptions rest on a historically derived idea of control over landscape and habitat processes that is, from the land-sharing perspective, illusory. This false sense of control over human life and ecological processes arises at least partially from a way of thinking shaped by imperialism. I lay out here a historical perspective on contemporary conservation policy debates, with emphasis on the development of conservation policy in Brazil, Meso-America, and the United States.

Planning for the future

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen J. Esler ◽  
Anna L. Jacobsen ◽  
R. Brandon Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Integrated Management ◽  
Biodiversity Loss ◽  
Future Climate Change ◽  
Land Sharing ◽  
Land Protection ◽  
Land Sparing ◽  
Habitat Conversion ◽  
Sustainable Conservation ◽  
Terrestrial Biomes

Mediterranean-type climate (MTC) regions are highlighted in several global analyses of conservation risk and priorities. These regions have undergone high levels of habitat conversion and yet of all terrestrial biomes they have the second lowest level of land protection. With transformation pressures set to continue (Chapter 8), planning for a sustainable conservation future in MTC regions is therefore essential. Conservation activities are represented by a variety of philosophies and motives, partially driven by the underlying differences in transformation drivers and sociopolitical contexts across MTC regions. These activities include investment in, and best-practice management of, protected areas (land sparing), an interdisciplinary focus on integrated management of production landscapes (land sharing; stewardship), as well as ecological restoration to increase habitat, improve connectivity, and provide a hedge against the impacts of future climate change. These responses need to be applied in a strategic, synergistic manner to minimize future biodiversity loss.

scholarly journals Farming with Alternative Pollinators benefits pollinators, natural enemies, and yields, and offers transformative change to agriculture

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie Christmann ◽  
Youssef Bencharki ◽  
Soukaina Anougmar ◽  
Pierre Rasmont ◽  
Moulay Chrif Smaili ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Transformative Change ◽  
Net Income ◽  
Land Sharing ◽  
Pollinator Decline ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Land Sparing ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Small Grant ◽  
Wildflower Strips

AbstractLow- and middle-income countries cannot afford reward-based land sparing for wildflower strips to combat pollinator decline. Two small-grant projects assessed, if an opportunity-cost saving land-sharing approach, Farming with Alternative Pollinators, can provide a method-inherent incentive to motivate farmers to protect pollinators without external rewards. The first large-scale Farming-with-Alternative-Pollinators project used seven main field crops in 233 farmer fields of four agro-ecosystems (adequate rainfall, semi-arid, mountainous and oasis) in Morocco. Here we show results: higher diversity and abundance of wild pollinators and lower pest abundance in enhanced fields than in monocultural control fields; the average net-income increase per surface is 121%. The higher income is a performance-related incentive to enhance habitats. The income increase for farmers is significant and the increase in food production is substantial. Higher productivity per surface can reduce pressure on (semi)-natural landscapes which are increasingly used for agriculture. Land-use change additionally endangers biodiversity and pollinators, whereas this new pollinator-protection approach has potential for transformative change in agriculture.

scholarly journals Producir y conservar: nuevos horizontes en torno a los modelos de integración y separación territorial

2018 ◽  
pp. 11-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rubén Ortega-Álvarez ◽  
Alejandro Casas ◽  
Fernanda Figueroa ◽  
Luis Antonio Sánchez-González
Keyword(s):  
Land Sharing ◽  
Land Sparing

La alimentación y provisión de materias primas a la creciente población mundial imponen retos enormes para el bienestar humano y la conservación de la biodiversidad. Frente a estos retos, ha surgido un debate multidisciplinario en el que se confrontan dos modelos de configuración territorial para la producción de alimentos y la conservación. El modelo de separación territorial (land-sparing) propone intensificar la producción agrícola industrializada y ubicar en sitios distintos las zonas para la conservación. Contrariamente, el modelo de integración territorial (land-sharing) considera indeseables los modelos industrializados de producción y sostiene que las actividades productivas primarias y la conservación son compatibles. Este trabajo revisa las propuestas y críticas asociadas con ambos modelos y aborda temas analizados de forma insuficiente en el debate. Asimismo, propone un esquema participativo para construir lineamientos de manejo de sistemas productivos. Ningún modelo por sí mismo es suficiente para resolver los retos productivos y de conservación dada la complejidad de los sistemas socioecológicos; en su lugar, es deseable construir lineamientos de manejo desde el interior de las comunidades, tomando como base las necesidades, conocimientos y capacidades de los productores locales, y apoyando su definición mediante información científica sólida. Ello facilitará desarrollar actividades productivas a través de un enfoque de sustentabilidad.

scholarly journals Land‐sparing agriculture sustains higher levels of avian functional diversity than land sharing

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 1576-1590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick G. Cannon ◽  
James J. Gilroy ◽  
Joseph A. Tobias ◽  
Alex Anderson ◽  
Torbjørn Haugaasen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Functional Diversity ◽  
Land Sharing ◽  
Land Sparing

After the fence: vegetation and topsoil condition in grazed, fenced and benchmark eucalypt woodlands of fragmented agricultural landscapes

2011 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne M. Prober ◽  
Rachel J. Standish ◽  
Georg Wiehl
Keyword(s):  
Species Composition ◽  
Plant Species ◽  
Plant Cover ◽  
Agricultural Landscapes ◽  
Livestock Grazing ◽  
Nutrient Concentrations ◽  
Plant Species Composition ◽  
Exotic Plant ◽  
Native Plant ◽  
Plant Richness

Emerging ecological theory predicts that vegetation changes caused by introduction of livestock grazing may be irreversible after livestock are removed, especially in regions such as Australia that have a short evolutionary exposure to ungulate grazing. Despite this, fencing to exclude livestock grazing is the major tool used to restore vegetation in Australian agricultural landscapes. To characterise site-scale benefits and limitations of livestock exclusion for enhancing biodiversity in forb-rich York gum (Eucalyptus loxophleba Benth. subsp. loxophleba)–jam (Acacia acuminata Benth.) woodlands, we compared 29 fenced woodlands with 29 adjacent grazed woodlands and 11 little-grazed ‘benchmark’ woodlands in the Western Australian wheatbelt. We explored the following two hypotheses: (1) fencing to exclude livestock facilitates recovery of grazed woodlands towards benchmark conditions, and (2) without additional interventions after fencing, complete recovery of grazed woodlands to benchmark conditions is constrained by ecological or other limits. Our first hypothesis was supported for vegetation parameters, with fenced woodlands being more similar to benchmark woodlands in tree recruitment, exotic plant cover, native plant cover, native plant richness and plant species composition than were grazed woodlands. Further, exotic cover decreased and frequency of jam increased with time-since-fencing (2–22 years). However, we found no evidence that fencing led to decline in topsoil nutrient concentrations towards concentrations at benchmark sites. Our second hypothesis was also supported, with higher topsoil nutrient concentrations and exotic plant cover, and lower native plant richness in fenced than in benchmark woodlands, and different plant species composition between fenced and benchmark woodlands. Regression analyses suggested that recovery of native species richness is constrained by exotic species that persist after fencing, which in turn are more persistent at higher topsoil nutrient concentrations. We conclude that fencing to exclude livestock grazing can be valuable for biodiversity conservation. However, consistent with ecological theory, additional interventions are likely to be necessary to achieve some conservation goals or to promote recovery at nutrient-enriched sites.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document