1. The land-sharing versus land-sparing debate recently stagnated, lacking an integrating perspective in agricultural landscapes as well as consideration of ecosystem services. Here, we argue that land-sharing (i.e. wildlife-friendly farming systems) and land-sparing (i.e. separation of high-yielding agriculture and natural habitats) are not mutually exclusive, as both are needed to balance management needs for the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes.2. Land-sharing promotes ecosystem services in agricultural settings, thereby allowing for environmentally friendly production. Land set aside in protected areas by land-sparing is crucial for conservation of those species that are incompatible with agriculture.3. Importantly, as species move throughout the landscape and exploit different habitats, increased connectivity between environmentally friendly managed and protected areas is needed to (a) promote spillover of ecosystem service providers from land-sharing/-sparing measures to agricultural production and rescue service-providing species from extinction in hostile areas, (b) to facilitate immigration and counteract possible extinctions in spared habitats and (c) to conserve response diversity of species communities for ensuring resilience of ecosystem services in changing environments. 4. In conclusion, the successful management of multifunctional landscapes requires the combination of context-specific land-sharing and land-sparing measures within spatially well-connected landscape mosaics, resulting in land-sharing/sparing connectivity landscapes. K E Y W O R D S agriculture, landscape design, landscape management, land-sharing, land-sparing, multifunctionality, sustainability | 263 People and Nature GRASS et Al.

Agroforestry is widely promoted as a potential solution to address multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals, including Zero Hunger, Responsible Consumption and Production, Climate Action, and Life on Land. Nonetheless, agroforests in the tropics often result from direct forest conversions, displacing rapidly vanishing and highly biodiverse forests with large carbon stocks, causing undesirable trade-offs. Scientists thus debate whether the promotion of agroforestry in tropical landscapes is a sensible policy. So far, this debate typically fails to consider land-use history, that is, whether an agroforest is derived from forest or from open land. Indeed, 57% of papers which we systematically reviewed did not describe the land-use history of focal agroforestry systems. We further find that forest-derived agroforestry supports higher biodiversity than open-land-derived agroforestry but essentially represents a degradation of forest, whereas openland-derived agroforestry rehabilitates formerly forested open land. Based on a conceptual framework, we recommend to (a) promote agroforestry on suitable open land, (b) maintain tree cover in existing forest-derived agroforests, and (c) conserve remaining forests. Land-use history should be incorporated into landuse policy to avoid incentivizing forest degradation and to harness the potential of agroforestry for ecosystem services and biodiversity.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Sustainable land-system transformations are necessary to avert biodiversity and climate collapse. However, it remains unclear where entry points for transformations exist in complex land systems. Here, we conceptualize land systems along land-use trajectories, which allows us to identify and evaluate leverage points, i.e., entry points on the trajectory where targeted interventions have particular leverage to influence land-use decisions. We apply this framework in the biodiversity hotspot Madagascar. In the northeast, smallholder agriculture results in a land-use trajectory originating in old-growth forests and spanning from forest fragments to shifting hill rice cultivation and vanilla agroforests. Integrating interdisciplinary empirical data on seven taxa, five ecosystem services, and three measures of agricultural productivity, we assess trade-offs and cobenefits of land-use decisions at three leverage points along the trajectory. These trade-offs and cobenefits differ between leverage points: Two leverage points are situated at the conversion of old-growth forests and forest fragments to shifting cultivation and agroforestry, resulting in considerable trade-offs, especially between endemic biodiversity and agricultural productivity. Here, interventions enabling smallholders to conserve forests are necessary. This is urgent since ongoing forest loss threatens to eliminate these leverage points due to path dependency. The third leverage point allows for the restoration of land under shifting cultivation through vanilla agroforests and offers cobenefits between restoration goals and agricultural productivity. The co-occurring leverage points highlight that conservation and restoration are simultaneously necessary to avert collapse of multifunctional mosaic landscapes. Methodologically, the framework highlights the importance of considering path dependency along trajectories to achieve sustainable land-system transformations.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.