A thought provoking perspective on an argument (sparing vs. sharing) that still rages. As you say, land sparing at large scales on land that is unsuitable for agriculture, is an effective way of conserving some elements of biodiversity. What the land sparing argument rarely seems to address, however, is that vegetation associations, habitats and species are not randomly arrayed across the landscape. There are many vegetation types that will only occur on productive soils that are also highly suitable for agriculture. Similarly, there are many species that are reliant upon these vegetation types situated on gently sloping, deep soil land forms.
As demand for food and fiber grows, land sparing is rarely going to be a realistic option in highly productive landscapes that have yet to be agriculturally developed. However, under a carefully planned and well implemented land sharing regime at the farm or multiple farm scale, one can retain elements of native and semi-natural vegetation and habitats, and integrate them into production systems. Such an approach can fulfill a number of goals: i) habitats and species not generally catered for by the ‘national park type’ system can be conserved; ii) the close juxtaposition/integration of production land with areas of high ecological function, allows the provision of a range of ecosystem services (e.g. movement of predatory arthropods into crops) that will benefit production; iii) the integration of conservation and production in a practical sense, may change the sometimes adversarial relationship between farmers and conservationists.
Land sharing and biodiversity-driven ecosystem services for agriculture are inextricably linked; consequently the development and implementation of effective and rapid ways of measuring ecosystem service delivery (and communicating findings) are of paramount importance from poverty alleviation, food security and biodiversity conservation perspectives.
A thought provoking perspective on an argument (sparing vs. sharing) that still rages. As you say, land sparing at large scales on land that is unsuitable for agriculture, is an effective way of conserving some elements of biodiversity. What the land sparing argument rarely seems to address, however, is that vegetation associations, habitats and species are not randomly arrayed across the landscape. There are many vegetation types that will only occur on productive soils that are also highly suitable for agriculture. Similarly, there are many species that are reliant upon these vegetation types situated on gently sloping, deep soil land forms.
As demand for food and fiber grows, land sparing is rarely going to be a realistic option in highly productive landscapes that have yet to be agriculturally developed. However, under a carefully planned and well implemented land sharing regime at the farm or multiple farm scale, one can retain elements of native and semi-natural vegetation and habitats, and integrate them into production systems. Such an approach can fulfill a number of goals: i) habitats and species not generally catered for by the ‘national park type’ system can be conserved; ii) the close juxtaposition/integration of production land with areas of high ecological function, allows the provision of a range of ecosystem services (e.g. movement of predatory arthropods into crops) that will benefit production; iii) the integration of conservation and production in a practical sense, may change the sometimes adversarial relationship between farmers and conservationists.
Land sharing and biodiversity-driven ecosystem services for agriculture are inextricably linked; consequently the development and implementation of effective and rapid ways of measuring ecosystem service delivery (and communicating findings) are of paramount importance from poverty alleviation, food security and biodiversity conservation perspectives.