No abstract

Soil ecosystem service (SES) approaches evidence the importance of soil for human well-being, contribute to improving dialogue between science and decision-making and encourage the translation of scientific results into public policies. Herein, through systematic review, we assess the state of the art of SES approaches in tropical regions. Through this review, 41 publications were identified; while most of these studies considered SES, a lack of a consistent framework to define SES was apparent. Most studies measured soil natural capital and processes, while only three studies undertook monetary valuation. Although the number of publications increased (from 1 to 41), between 2001 and 2019, the total number of publications for tropical regions is still small. Countries with the largest number of publications were Brazil ( n = 8), Colombia ( n = 6) and Mexico ( n = 4). This observation emphasizes an important knowledge gap pertaining to SES approaches and their link to tropical regions. With global momentum behind SES approaches, there is an opportunity to integrate SES approaches into policy and practice in tropical regions. The use of SES evaluation tools in tropical regions could transform how land use decisions are informed, mitigating soil degradation and protecting the ecosystems that soil underpins.

No abstract

Brazil is a megadiversity country with more tropical forest than any other, and is a leading agricultural producer. The technical potential to reconcile these roles by concentrating agriculture on existing farmland and sparing land for nature is well-established, but the spatial overlap of this potential with conservation priorities and institutional constraints remains poorly understood. We mapped conservation priorities, food production potential and socioeconomic variables likely to influence the success of land sparing. Pasture occupies 70% of agricultural land but contributes ≤11% of the domestic food supply. Increasing yields on pasture would add little to Brazil's food supply but-if combined with concerted conservation and restoration policies-provides the greatest opportunities for reducing land demand. Our study illustrates a method for identifying municipalities where land-sparing policies are most likely to succeed, and those where further effort is needed to overcome constraints such as land tenure insecurity, lack of access to technical advice, labour constraints, and non-compliance with environmental law. Continuing to produce food while averting the mass extinction of biodiversity are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity this century. One promising approach to address both is to protect and restore native vegetation, while increasing yields to minimize the area required for croplands and pasture 1. In broad terms, the biophysical and technical potential to spare land for nature in this way is well-established 2. This is the case in Brazil, a megadiversity country which supports more tropical forest than any other, and which is among the world's leading producers of beef, soybeans, sugarcane and other commodities. Increasing yields of pasturelands in Brazil to half of their potential would release enough cultivated land to meet even the highest demand scenarios for meat, crops, wood products and biofuels until at least 2040, without further loss of native vegetation 3. Less is known, however, about how the potential for both production and conservation are distributed in relation to each other across the country, and in relation to social and economic conditions conducive to land sparing 4. Land-sparing policies must deliver two concurrent outcomes-conserving native vegetation and increasing yields-and to do so will typically need to create linkages between these outcomes. Such policies are more likely to succeed when certain enabling conditions are in place (Table 1) 5. Adoption of more sustainable, high-yielding methods will be facilitated by access to extension services, availability of sufficient skilled labour and land tenure security. However, attempts to implement land sparing are vulnerable to rebound effects, where some of the land savings of yield increases are cancelled out by greater incentives for agricultural expansion 6. Backfire, when yield