The Potential for Agroecosystems to Restore Ecological Corridors and Sustain Farmer Livelihoods: Evidence from Brazil

Alvez, Juan P.; Filho, Abdon Luiz Schmitt; Farley, Joshua; Alarcon, Gisele Garcia; Fantini, Alfredo Celso

doi:10.3368/er.30.4.288

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, protection laws fail to recognize potential complementarities to forest protection that might come from farming practices that increase beneficial ecosystem services and reduce further deforestation, by improving farm productivity and sustainable livelihoods. Therefore, creating linked and buffered protected areas seems to be essential for restoring national and regional biodiversity conservation strategies (Alvez et al 2012). In addition, future dairy policies must include agroecological practices that simultaneously target current environmental degradation, rural livelihoods, and population growth trends.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Murphy et al 1996;J. Winsten 1999;Pinheiro Machado 2004;Rotz et al 2009;Farley et al 2011;Alvez et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Enforcing the BFA by completely restoring the forest would entail immediate socioeconomic problems and would force many family farms into extreme poverty (Souto 2009). Compliance with the law without causing poverty will require farming practices that sustain farming communities, and minimize effects on the ecosystem structure, functions and services (Farley et al 2011;Alvez et al 2012;Schmitt et al 2013).…”

Section: Serra Geralmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Transition from Semi-Confinement to Pasture-Based Dairy in Brazil: Farmers’ View of Economic and Environmental Performances

Alvez

Fo.

Farley

et al. 2014

Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The production of ecosystem goods and services has increased significantly in the last 100 years, while the capacity of ecosystems to generate supporting and regulating services has decreased. In this context, agriculture and livestock production have become major concerns. At the same time, livestock, particularly dairy cows, play a key role and can serve to improve ecosystems, production, and rural livelihoods. We randomly selected and conducted semistructural interviews with 61 dairy family farmers from four cooperatives in the Encosta da Serra Geral Region of the Atlantic rainforest in Santa Catarina, Brazil. The goal was to analyze their production and viewpoints about environmental variables after adopting management-intensive grazing (MIG). The overall results showed that when farmers changed from semi-confinement and continuous grazing to MIG they perceived improvements in production, livelihoods, and ecosystem services. Moreover, according to farmers' insights, MIG could be a tool to increase water and soil quality, animal health, alleviate poverty, and complement Brazilian conservation efforts. 995 Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 08:47 23 March 2015 996 J. P. Alvez et al.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Murphy et al 1996;J. Winsten 1999;Pinheiro Machado 2004;Rotz et al 2009;Farley et al 2011;Alvez et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Section: Serra Geralmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transition from Semi-Confinement to Pasture-Based Dairy in Brazil: Farmers’ View of Economic and Environmental Performances

Alvez

Fo.

Farley

et al. 2014

Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the sharing–sparing dichotomy may force conservation biologists into a choice between two undesirable alternatives. Instead of an either‐or framework, a “both‐and” framework could lead toward a scenario that most if not all conservationists could get behind—large protected areas surrounded by a relatively wildlife‐friendly matrix promoting connectivity through a combination of favorable land uses and corridors . How to get there is a question worth asking, and getting there is a goal worth striving for.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead of an either-or framework, a "both-and" framework could lead toward a scenario that most if not all conservationists could get behind-large protected areas surrounded by a relatively wildlife-friendly matrix promoting connectivity through a combination of favorable land uses and corridors. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29] How to get there is a question worth asking, and getting there is a goal worth striving for. However, achieving this goal will require a shift in research priorities, away from evaluating whether land-sharing versus land-sparing landscapes achieve greater biodiversity conservation, and toward research that examines which matrix types favor species persistence in reserves and promote dispersal among reserves; how policies and governance mechanisms can be linked to reconcile agricultural production and biodiversity conservation; and which agricultural management techniques can simultaneously promote biodiversity and livelihoods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing the land‐sparing/land‐sharing debate for biodiversity conservation

Kremen

2015

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

373

302

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation biologists are devoting an increasing amount of energy to debating whether land sparing (highyielding agriculture on a small land footprint) or land sharing (low-yielding, wildlife-friendly agriculture on a larger land footprint) will promote better outcomes for local and global biodiversity. In turn, concerns are mounting about how to feed the world, given increasing demands for food. In this review, I evaluate the land-sparing/landsharing framework-does the framework stimulate research and policy that can reconcile agricultural land use with biodiversity conservation, or is a revised framing needed? I review (1) the ecological evidence in favor of sparing versus sharing; (2) the evidence from land-use change studies that assesses whether a relationship exists between agricultural intensification and land sparing; and (3) how that relationship may be affected by socioeconomic and political factors. To address the trade-off between biodiversity conservation and food production, I then ask which forms of agricultural intensification can best feed the world now and in the future. On the basis of my review, I suggest that the dichotomy of the land-sparing/land-sharing framework limits the realm of future possibilities to two, largely undesirable, options for conservation. Both large, protected regions and favorable surrounding matrices are needed to promote biodiversity conservation; they work synergistically and are not mutually exclusive. A "bothand" framing of large protected areas surrounded by a wildlife-friendly matrix suggests different research priorities from the "either-or" framing of sparing versus sharing. Furthermore, wildlife-friendly farming methods such as agroecology may be best adapted to provide food for the world's hungry people.

show abstract

Do Riparian Buffers Protect Stream Invertebrate Communities in South American Atlantic Forest Agricultural Areas?

Hunt

Marrochi

Bonetto

et al. 2017

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the influence and relative importance of insecticides and other agricultural stressors in determining variability in invertebrate communities in small streams in intensive soy-production regions of Brazil and Paraguay. In Paraguay we sampled 17 sites on tributaries of the Pirapó River in the state of Itapúa and in Brazil we sampled 18 sites on tributaries of the San Francisco River in the state of Paraná. The riparian buffer zones generally contained native Atlantic forest remnants and/or introduced tree species at various stages of growth. In Brazil the stream buffer width was negatively correlated with sediment insecticide concentrations and buffer width was found to have moderate importance in mitigating effects on some sensitive taxa such as mayflies. However, in both regions insecticides had low relative importance in explaining variability in invertebrate communities, while various habitat parameters were more important. In Brazil, the percent coverage of soft depositional sediment in streams was the most important agriculture-related explanatory variable, and the overall stream-habitat score was the most important variable in Paraguay streams. Paraguay and Brazil both have laws requiring forested riparian buffers. The ample forested riparian buffer zones typical of streams in these regions are likely to have mitigated the effects of pesticides on stream invertebrate communities. This study provides evidence that riparian buffer regulations in the Atlantic Forest region are protecting stream ecosystems from pesticides and other agricultural stressors. Further studies are needed to determine the minimum buffer widths necessary to achieve optimal protection.

show abstract

The Potential for Agroecosystems to Restore Ecological Corridors and Sustain Farmer Livelihoods: Evidence from Brazil

Cited by 8 publications

References 24 publications

Transition from Semi-Confinement to Pasture-Based Dairy in Brazil: Farmers’ View of Economic and Environmental Performances

Transition from Semi-Confinement to Pasture-Based Dairy in Brazil: Farmers’ View of Economic and Environmental Performances

Reframing the land‐sparing/land‐sharing debate for biodiversity conservation

Do Riparian Buffers Protect Stream Invertebrate Communities in South American Atlantic Forest Agricultural Areas?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About