Biome type and availability of natural vegetation dictate whether farmland intensification or expansion is worse for biodiversity

Author:

Ceausu Silvia1ORCID,Leclère David2ORCID,Newbold Tim1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. University College London

2. IIASA

Abstract

Abstract

To reduce the biodiversity impact of agriculture, increasing yields on existing farmland has been proposed as an alternative to farmland expansion. However, the relative effects of yield increases versus agricultural expansion have mostly been examined regionally, and measured in terms of species persistence—a metric relevant to extinction risk but limited in describing ecological communities and their support for ecosystem services. Without a thorough analysis, the lower biodiversity impacts of agricultural intensification remain largely speculative. This study provides a global assessment of biodiversity responses to land conversion and yield increases, including closing yield gaps. We also compare the biodiversity impacts of expanding farmland versus intensifying yields in agricultural landscapes to achieve a 1% increase in total production. Utilizing a large biodiversity database, natural vegetation data, and agricultural yield estimates at the landscape scale, we assess three biodiversity metrics: species richness, total abundance, and relative community abundance-weighted average range-size (RCAR), which provides a proxy for biotic homogenisation. Our models highlight that land conversion is associated with significant biodiversity loss at both local and landscape scales, emphasizing the importance of avoiding farmland expansion into new landscapes. However, yield also lead to significant biodiversity loss; closing yield gaps is associated with a median species loss of nearly 11%, and median abundance loss of almost 13%, with some agricultural landscapes losing almost 90% of species and more than 90% in abundance. Additionally, 30% of global agricultural landscapes, predominantly in the tropics, are likely to experience increased biotic homogenization. Neither expansion nor intensification is consistently better for biodiversity, with biome type, crop, biodiversity metric, and percentage of natural vegetation influencing which approach is less harmful. Our results suggest that minimising the biodiversity cost of agriculture requires a context-dependent balance between intensification and expansion in agricultural landscapes.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference95 articles.

1. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review;Andren H;Oikos,1994

2. Designing optimal human-modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation;Arroyo-Rodríguez V;Ecology Letters,2020

3. Do arthropod assemblages display globally consistent responses to intensified agricultural land use and management?;Attwood SJ;Global Ecology and Biogeography,2008

4. Baiser, B., Olden, J.D., Record, S., Lockwood, J.L. & McKinney, M.L. (2012). Pattern and process of biotic homogenization in the New Pangaea. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279, 4772–4777.

5. Pan-European crop modelling with EPIC: Implementation, up-scaling and regional crop yield validation;Balkovič J;Agricultural Systems,2013

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3