How imperfect can land sparing be before land sharing is more favourable for wild species?

Abstract

1. Two solutions, at opposite ends of a continuum, have been proposed to limit negative impacts of human agricultural demand on biodiversity. Under land sharing, farmed landscapes are made as beneficial to wild species as possible, usually at the cost of lower yields. Under land sparing, yields are maximised and land not needed for farming is spared for nature. Multiple empirical studies have concluded that land-sparing strategies would be the least detrimental to wild species, provided the land not needed for agriculture is actually spared for nature. However, the possibility of imperfections in the delivery of land sparing has not been comprehensively considered.2. Land sparing can be imperfect in two main ways: land not required for food production may not be used for conservation (incomplete area sparing), and habitat spared may be of lower quality than that assessed in surveys (lower habitat quality sparing). Here we use published data relating population density to landscapelevel yield for birds and trees in Ghana (167 and 220 species respectively) and India (174 birds, 40 trees) to assess effects of imperfect land sparing on regionwide population sizes and hence population viabilities.3. We find that incomplete area and lower habitat quality imperfections both reduce the benefits of a land-sparing strategy. However, sparing still outperforms sharing whenever ≥28% of land that could be spared is devoted to conservation, or the quality of land spared is ≥29% of the value of that surveyed. Thresholds are even lower under alternative assumptions of how population viability relates to population size and for species with small global ranges, and remain low even when both imperfections co-occur. 4. Comparison of these thresholds with empirical data on the likely real-world performance of land sparing suggests that reducing imperfections in its delivery would be highly beneficial. Nevertheless, given plausible relationships between population size and population viability, land sparing outperforms land sharing despite its imperfections. Policy implications.Our results confirm that real-world difficulties in implementing land sparing will have significant impacts on biodiversity. They also underscore the need for strategies which explicitly link yield increases to setting land aside for conservation,

A practical approach to measuring the biodiversity impacts of land conversion

“…The impact on population persistence of losing a given amount of AOH increases as total AOH decreases, resulting in a concave relationship between remaining AOH and local persistence (Kitzes & Harte, 2014). Although the detailed form of this relationship has yet to be investigated, we followed other studies (Balmford, Green, Onial, Phalan, & Balmford, 2019;Strassburg et al, 2017;Thomas et al, 2004) in converting changes in AOH into changes in population persistence using a power-law function with an exponent <1.…”

Achieving win-win outcomes for pastoral farming and biodiversity conservation in New Zealand

“…The key is taking a landscape-scale perspective on farming and biodiversity conservation, making sure that farming is undertaken in a manner that is friendly to biodiversity (land sharing), and recognising that much of this native biodiversity can directly benefit farming through shelter, shade, soil retention and nutrient management (Balmford et al 2019;Case et al unpubl. data) and that farming can benefit biodiversity (Norton & Reid 2013).…”

“…It seems clear that as the global human population continues to grow, food production and distribution will need to become more efficient. Notwithstanding this, pressures from farming on biodiversity are likely to continue (Crist et al 2017;Balmford et al 2019). Land sparing and land sharing have been proposed as two ways of conceptualising how we might manage biodiversity within agroecosystems, although the consensus seems to be that both are likely to be important, especially because land set aside for biodiversity conservation under the land sparing model is vulnerable to future impacts (Fischer et al 2014).…”

Land Use and Agriculture: Pitfalls and Precautions on the Road to Net Zero

“…Even where land sparing occurs, it does not inevitably mean greater public goods are then delivered. The spared land might not end up in the aimed-for alternative use, or the desired performance of the spared land in delivering public goods may not be met (Balmford et al, 2019).…”