Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management

Abstract

Understanding the negative and positive effects of agricultural land use for the conservation of biodiversity, and its relation to ecosystem services, needs a landscape perspective. Agriculture can contribute to the conservation of high-diversity systems, which may provide important ecosystem services such as pollination and biological control via complementarity and sampling effects. Land-use management is often focused on few species and local processes, but in dynamic, agricultural landscapes, only a diversity of insurance species may guarantee resilience (the capacity to reorganize after disturbance). Interacting species experience their surrounding landscape at different spatial scales, which influences trophic interactions. Structurally complex landscapes enhance local diversity in agroecosystems, which may compensate for local highintensity management. Organisms with high-dispersal abilities appear to drive these biodiversity patterns and ecosystem services, because of their recolonization ability and larger resources experienced. Agri-environment schemes (incentives for farmers to benefit the environment) need to broaden their perspective and to take the different responses to schemes in simple (high impact) and complex (low impact) agricultural landscapes into account. In simple landscapes, local allocation of habitat is more important than in complex landscapes, which are in total at risk. However, little knowledge of the relative importance of local and landscape management for biodiversity and its relation to ecosystem services make reliable recommendations difficult.

Spatial diversification of agroecosystems to enhance biological control and other regulating services: An agroecological perspective

“…Indeed, 'in cleared [i.e. simple] landscapes, the very few species are not a sufficient basis to result in a recognizable response to management changes [and] in complex landscapes, management does not result in a significant effect because biodiversity is high everywhere' (Tscharntke et al, 2005). This hypothesis was confirmed in the case of wildflower strips sown at field margins for enhancing the parasitism of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) and aphids on oilseed rape (Brassica napus) (Jonsson et al, 2015).…”

“…Although they can be implemented at the farm level, they together induce a diversification at the landscape scale, influencing insects (both pests and natural enemies) that are highly mobile, easily crossing farm borders. Hence, considering the landscape scale, in addition to smaller scales, is essential to understand the pest regulation processes and to design pest control strategies (Tscharntke et al, 2005;Zhao et al, 2016). These last 10 years, studies highlighted how spatial diversification of agroecosystems can lead to the regulation of insect pests.…”

Identifying priority areas for ecosystem service management in South African grasslands

“…Many different interventions are employed for managing different aspects of biodiversity (e.g. no-take reserves and buffer zones and conservancies; Tscharntke et al, 2005;Jones, 2006) resulting in different outcomes. There are also many interventions for ecosystem services and range from restoration programmes based on tree planting for carbon storage to landscape scale change in land use for soil erosion control and water purification.…”

Regional suitability for agricultural intensification: a spatial analysis of the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania

“…Land sharing proponents argue for a more wildlife-friendly agriculture where the agricultural footprint increases to produce more food but in such a manner that it integrates agriculture and conservation to produce heterogeneous landscapes (Fischer et al, 2008;Perfecto & Vandermeer, 2010). Many of these landscape-level assessments focus on the importance of sustaining ecosystem services in areas undergoing intensification (Dale & Polasky, 2007;Tscharntke, Klein, Kruess, Steffan-Dewenter, & Thies, 2005) and have assumed a conceptual framework of eco-agricultural landscapes (Scherr & McNeely, 2008). Power (2010) showed how agricultural areas in such systems are not only recipients of ecosystem services but also providers of many services.…”