2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
235
2
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 266 publications
(241 citation statements)
references
References 104 publications
(114 reference statements)
1
235
2
3
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, a convex relationship, steepest initially and flattening out with increasing habitat loss (such as for the forest core or fragmentation scenario), would suggest that the greatest impact would occur right away, in which case consolidating agricultural expansion into as few different places as possible would help to minimize the impact on biodiversity. It has been noted that the empirical data required to test hypotheses about the extent to which we should separate or integrate agriculture and conservation are scarce (28) and the difference between the two may ultimately be a question of scale, with land-sparing at the field level becoming land-sharing in a mosaic at the landscape level (29). Analyses such as this, if combined with spatially explicit information about yields, can help test hypotheses about the most beneficial scale of agricultural consolidation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, a convex relationship, steepest initially and flattening out with increasing habitat loss (such as for the forest core or fragmentation scenario), would suggest that the greatest impact would occur right away, in which case consolidating agricultural expansion into as few different places as possible would help to minimize the impact on biodiversity. It has been noted that the empirical data required to test hypotheses about the extent to which we should separate or integrate agriculture and conservation are scarce (28) and the difference between the two may ultimately be a question of scale, with land-sparing at the field level becoming land-sharing in a mosaic at the landscape level (29). Analyses such as this, if combined with spatially explicit information about yields, can help test hypotheses about the most beneficial scale of agricultural consolidation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, several environmental pollution problems have been observed in cities and urban areas with concentrated population, large energy consumption, and high waste production, traffic emissions and industrial activity (Luo et al, 2012). The continuous pollution of soil, air and water has had a direct adverse impact on ecosystems, cultural heritage, and human health (Phalan et al, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Central to the discussion on conservation of biodiversity in agroecosystems is the debate between land sharing and land sparing as the best means to ensure conservation of biodiversity in the future, with evidence emerging that supports each argument as well as the spectrum of practices between [3][4][5]. Under land sparing, conservation efforts are separate from crop production while land sharing works to combine biodiversity conservation and agronomic production on the same land.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%