TITLE:
Farming-Biodiversity Segregation or Integration? Revisiting Land Sparing versus Land Sharing Debate
AUTHORS:
Fernando F. Goulart, Sonia Carvalho-Ribeiro, Britaldo Soares-Filho
KEYWORDS:
Agriculture Intensification, Biodiversity Conservation, Forest Transition, Food Security, Jevons Paradox, Tropics
JOURNAL NAME:
Journal of Environmental Protection,
Vol.7 No.7,
June
13,
2016
ABSTRACT: Land Sparing (LSP) was proposed to
spatially segregate biodiversity and production in order to maximize both,
while Land Sharing (LSH) defenders posit that farming and nature integration is
preferable, through eco-agriculture and low-input systems. Based on a
multidisciplinary review on historical land-use data, ecological aspects,
agricultural production potential, economic and food security topics, we
summarize LSP/LSH major findings and caveats. Although LSH still has to address
some issues, LSP relies on a series of assumptions that are not supported by
data, particularly regarding the positive effects of intensification on
agriculture expansion. Furthermore, we developed conceptual models to
theoretically predict the responses of biodiversity and ecosystems services in
dynamic landscapes with different natural habitat proportions and different
intensification levels on the farmed areas. Agriculture intensification may
expand farmland reducing habitat area fostering population declines at the
“natural” patches (via habitat reduction and decreasing species intra patch
flux through the matrix), as well as at the farm site by direct effect of
intensification (heterogeneity reduction and pesticide use), leading to a
species extinction and ecosystems services loss. This multiple negative effect
of agriculture intensification is worsening in regions where habitat proportion
is below 30%, such as in many tropical biodiversity hotspots, making LSH a much
safer strategy for conservation and food security.