Protecting wild species may require growing more food on less land: study

Sep 01, 2011

In parts of the world still rich in biodiversity, separating natural habitats from high-yielding farmland could be a more effective way to conserve wild species than trying to grow crops and conserve nature on the same land, according to a new study published today in the journal Science.

The study, by researchers at the University of Cambridge and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, collected information on more than 600 species in southwest Ghana and northern India, two parts of the world where demand for is putting ever more pressure on wild species. The researchers measured as well as the abundances of birds and trees in forests and in various types of farmland.

"Farmland with some retained had more and trees than high-yielding monocultures of , rice or wheat but produced far less and profit per hectare," said lead author Dr Ben Phalan from the University of Cambridge. "As well as requiring more land to produce the same amount of food, the 'wildlife-friendly' farmlands were not as wildlife-friendly as they first appeared. Compared with forest, they failed to provide good habitat for the majority of bird and in either region."

The researchers discovered that, under current and future scenarios of food demand, most species would have larger total populations if farming was restricted to the smallest area feasible, while protecting as much as possible. This was true not just for but for common species as well.

This strategy, called 'land sparing', uses higher yields on existing farmland to spare land for nature (in contrast with 'land sharing', which aims to conserve wild species and grow on the same land). Because high-yield farming produced more food from less land, it could be used as part of a strategy to protect larger tracts of natural habitats such as forest.

"It would be nice to think that we could conserve species and produce lots of food, all on the same land," said study author, Dr Malvika Onial from the University of Cambridge. "But our data from Ghana and India show that's not the best option for most species. To produce a given amount of food, it would be better for biodiversity to farm as productively as possible, if that allows more natural habitat to be protected or restored."

"It is critical to note that increasing crop yields would not work in isolation," said study author Professor Andrew Balmford from the University of Cambridge. "Such increases need to be combined with active measures such as national parks and community reserves to protect natural habitats from conversion to . Conservation policy-makers should explore new ways to link protection of natural habitats with efforts to increase food yield per unit area in sustainable ways. Food retailers could perhaps make these linkages a feature of environmentally-friendly food products."

The researchers cautioned, however, that although their findings in Ghana and India are remarkably consistent, they may not hold true everywhere. It is possible that land sparing will be a better strategy in some places and land sharing in others. They advise that further studies in representative parts of the world are needed to determine whether there is a more general pattern.

"Our study does not give uncritical support to large-scale agribusiness over small-scale farming systems," said study author Professor Rhys Green from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the University of Cambridge. "High-yielding organic farming and other systems such as agroforestry can be a useful component of a land sparing strategy and may offer the additional advantage of fewer adverse effects of farming from fertilisers and pesticides. But whatever the farming system, protection of natural habitats will continue to be essential for the conservation of many species."

Explore further: An increase in temperature by 2050 may be advantageous to the growth of forage plants

More information: The paper 'Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared' will be published in the 02 September 2011 edition of Science.

Related Stories

Farming and the fate of wild nature

Jul 19, 2011

Farming is the greatest extinction threat to birds, mammals, plants and insects, and widespread land clearing, irrigation and chemical treatments have profoundly affected wild species and habitats the world ...

Organic farming shows limited benefit to wildlife

May 05, 2010

Organic farms may be seen as wildlife friendly, but the benefits to birds, bees and butterflies don't compensate for the lower yields produced, according to new research from the University of Leeds.

Miscanthus adapts

Jun 06, 2011

An article in the current issue of Global Change Biology Bioenergy finds that natural populations of Miscanthus are promising candidates as second-generation energy sources because they have genetic variation that may in ...

Land conversion and climate threaten land birds

Jun 05, 2007

Land conversion and climate change have already had significant impacts on biodiversity and associated ecosystem services.Using future land-cover projections from the recently completed Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Walter ...

Recommended for you

Where have all the swallows gone?

8 hours ago

Extinction: the permanent loss of a species. It is deeply troubling—and scientists and birdwatchers are ringing the alarm about a bird species that only a few decades ago was widespread and very common.

Wildlife hospitals save 16,000 animals in four years

9 hours ago

Birds are the most commonly rescued wildlife in Queensland, with the laughing kookaburra among our hardiest species, according to new research from The University of Queensland's Gatton Campus.

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ArtflDgr
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2011
so green subsistence farming is NOT the way to go..
as now we produce more than 100 times as much food per parcel of land then we did 300 years ago...

read about jethro tull (the lawyer not the band)
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2011
Vertical farming could offer a lot of advantages. For one, irrigating from the top would trickle downward conserving water. Harvesting from an internal elevator or scissor lift would conserve fuel used by tractors. Prefab interlocking grow boxes could be added as needed. The structure of the wall, possibly an arc to follow the sun (it could rotate), would sit on a very small footprint, allowing our wild friends much needed galavanting room.