Rapid redistribution of agricultural land alters avian richness, abundance, and functional diversity.

The conversion of natural, or seminatural, habitats to agricultural land and changes in agricultural land use are significant drivers of biodiversity loss. Within the context of land-sharing versus land-sparing debates, large-scale commercial agriculture is known to be detrimental to biodiversity, but the effects of small-scale subsistence farming on biodiversity are disputed. This poses a problem for sustainable land-use management in the Global South, where approximately 30% of farmland is small-scale. Following a rapid land redistribution program in Zimbabwe, we evaluated changes in avian biodiversity by examining richness, abundance, and functional diversity. Rapid land redistribution has, in the near term, resulted in increased avian abundance in newly farmed areas containing miombo woodland and open habitat. Conversion of seminatural ranched land to small-scale farms had a negative impact on larger-bodied birds, but species richness increased, and birds in some feeding guilds maintained or increased abundance. We found evidence that land-use change caused a shift in the functional traits of the communities present. However, functional analyses may not have adequately reflected the trait filtering effect of land redistribution on large species. Whether newly farmed landscapes in Zimbabwe can deliver multiple benefits in terms of food production and habitat for biodiversity in the longer term is an open question. When managing agricultural land transitions, relying on taxonomic measures of diversity, or abundance-weighted measures of function diversity, may obscure important information. If the value of smallholder-farmed land for birds is to be maintained or improved, it will be essential to ensure that a wide array of habitat types is retained alongside efforts to reduce hunting and persecution of large bird species.

Mainstreaming conservation agriculture in Malawi: Knowledge gaps and institutional barriers.

Conservation agriculture (CA) practices of reduced soil tillage, permanent organic soil coverage and intercropping/crop rotation, are being advocated globally, based on perceived benefits for crop yields, soil carbon storage, weed suppression, reduced soil erosion and improved soil water retention. However, some have questioned their efficacy due to uncertainty around the performance and trade-offs associated with CA practices, and their compatibility with the diverse livelihood strategies and varied agro-ecological conditions across African smallholder systems. This paper assesses the role of key institutions in Malawi in shaping pathways towards more sustainable land management based on CA by outlining their impact on national policy-making and the design and implementation of agricultural development projects. It draws on interviews at national, district and project levels and a multi-stakeholder workshop that mapped the institutional landscape of decision-making for agricultural land management practices. Findings identify knowledge gaps and institutional barriers that influence land management decision-making and constrain CA uptake. We use our findings to set out an integrated roadmap of research needs and policy options aimed at supporting CA as a route to enhanced sustainable land management in Malawi. Findings offer lessons that can inform design, planning and implementation of CA projects, and identify the multi-level institutional support structures required for mainstreaming sustainable land management in sub-Saharan Africa.

Conservation planning in agricultural landscapes: hotspots of conflict between agriculture and nature.

AIM: Conservation conflict takes place where food production imposes a cost on wildlife conservation and vice versa. Where does conservation impose the maximum cost on production, by opposing the intensification and expansion of farmland? Where does conservation confer the maximum benefit on wildlife, by buffering and connecting protected areas with a habitable and permeable matrix of crop and non-crop habitat? Our aim was to map the costs and benefits of conservation versus production and thus to propose a conceptual framework for systematic conservation planning in agricultural landscapes. LOCATION: World-wide. METHODS: To quantify these costs and benefits, we used a geographic information system to sample the cropland of the world and map the proportion of non-crop habitat surrounding the cropland, the number of threatened vertebrates with potential to live in or move through the matrix and the yield gap of the cropland. We defined the potential for different types of conservation conflict in terms of interactions between habitat and yield (potential for expansion, intensification, both or neither). We used spatial scan statistics to find 'hotspots' of conservation conflict. RESULTS: All of the 'hottest' hotspots of conservation conflict were in sub-Saharan Africa, which could have impacts on sustainable intensification in this region. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Systematic conservation planning could and should be used to identify hotspots of conservation conflict in agricultural landscapes, at multiple scales. The debate between 'land sharing' (extensive agriculture that is wildlife friendly) and 'land sparing' (intensive agriculture that is less wildlife friendly but also less extensive) could be resolved if sharing and sparing were used as different types of tool for resolving different types of conservation conflict (buffering and connecting protected areas by maintaining matrix quality, in different types of matrix). Therefore, both sharing and sparing should be prioritized in hotspots of conflict, in the context of countryside biogeography.

Comparison of pollinators and natural enemies: a meta-analysis of landscape and local effects on abundance and richness in crops.

To manage agroecosystems for multiple ecosystem services, we need to know whether the management of one service has positive, negative, or no effects on other services. We do not yet have data on the interactions between pollination and pest-control services. However, we do have data on the distributions of pollinators and natural enemies in agroecosystems. Therefore, we compared these two groups of ecosystem service providers, to see if the management of farms and agricultural landscapes might have similar effects on the abundance and richness of both. In a meta-analysis, we compared 46 studies that sampled bees, predatory beetles, parasitic wasps, and spiders in fields, orchards, or vineyards of food crops. These studies used the proximity or proportion of non-crop or natural habitats in the landscapes surrounding these crops (a measure of landscape complexity), or the proximity or diversity of non-crop plants in the margins of these crops (a measure of local complexity), to explain the abundance or richness of these beneficial arthropods. Compositional complexity at both landscape and local scales had positive effects on both pollinators and natural enemies, but different effects on different taxa. Effects on bees and spiders were significantly positive, but effects on parasitoids and predatory beetles (mostly Carabidae and Staphylinidae) were inconclusive. Landscape complexity had significantly stronger effects on bees than it did on predatory beetles and significantly stronger effects in non-woody rather than in woody crops. Effects on richness were significantly stronger than effects on abundance, but possibly only for spiders. This abundance-richness difference might be caused by differences between generalists and specialists, or between arthropods that depend on non-crop habitats (ecotone species and dispersers) and those that do not (cultural species). We call this the 'specialist-generalist' or 'cultural difference' mechanism. If complexity has stronger effects on richness than abundance, it might have stronger effects on the stability than the magnitude of these arthropod-mediated ecosystem services. We conclude that some pollinators and natural enemies seem to have compatible responses to complexity, and it might be possible to manage agroecosystems for the benefit of both. However, too few studies have compared the two, and so we cannot yet conclude that there are no negative interactions between pollinators and natural enemies, and no trade-offs between pollination and pest-control services. Therefore, we suggest a framework for future research to bridge these gaps in our knowledge.