J. Fischer on the land-sharing/land-sparing debate.
By Joern Fischer
Synopsis of this blog post: We don’t need sparing or sharing but both; and how exactly this should happen in any given landscape requires a (more holistic) interdisciplinary approach to be answered. Editors, reviewers and authors should recognize this and prioritise work that goes substantially beyond trading off sparing vs. sharing.
It’s no great secret that I’m not the biggest fan of the framework on land sparing and land sharing – though I do recognize that it does have an academic value, and it is an internally consistent, elegant framework. Those who know how to use this framework carefully do good science with it. But most users over-interpret it, which I find increasingly upsetting. So this blog post is a call to editors, reviewers and authors to be more critical about fundamental assumptions that are regularly being made by many authors, but hardly ever spelt out, or…
View original post 793 more words
A quick post to highlight a new publication in this weeks issue of Current Biology. Edwards et al. went for another piece on the land-sharing/land-sparing debate and presented a very nice case study. Land-sharing is often defined as combining “sustainable” agricultural production with higher biodiversity outcomes often at the tradeoff of harvesting less and loss of natural habitats. Land-sparing on the other hand attempts to prevent remaining natural habitat from being used by humans, but instead intensify production and increase yield from other areas, thus reducing their potential for wildlife-friendly farming. They combined field work from the Choco-andres region (Taxonomic focus: Birds) with simulation models to investigate which strategy might benefit biodiversity the most. Contrary to many other previous publications they focused on phylogenetic richness (PD) rather than “species richness”. Based on landscape simulation models they could show that PD decreases steadily with greater distance to forests, which is interesting because it demonstrates that land-sharing strategies might only be successful, if sufficient amounts of natural habitat are in close proximity, that can act as source habitat for dispersing species.
According to their analysis some species seem to benefit more from land-sparing strategies than others. Specific evolutionary traits thus might be ether beneficial or detrimental for surviving in intensive human land use such as agriculture. They conclude that land-sharing might be of limited benefit without the simultaneous protection of nearby blocks of natural habitat, which can only be achieved with a co-occurring land-sharing strategy.
The PREDICTS database: a global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts
New article in which I am also involved. I have told the readers of the blog about the PREDICTS initiative before. Well, the open-access article describing the last stand of the database has just been released as early-view article. So if you are curious about one of the biggest databases in the world investigating impacts of anthropogenic pressures on biodiversity, please have a look. As we speak the data is used to define new quantitative indices of global biodiversity decline valid for multiple taxa (and not only vertebrates like WWF living planet index).