Browsing by Author "Perfecto, Ivette"

Under the current scenario of rapid human population increase, achieving efficient and productive agricultural land use while conserving biodiversity is a global challenge. There is an ongoing debate whether land for nature and for production should be segregated (land sparing) or integrated on the same land (land sharing, wildlife-friendly farming). While recent studies argue for agricultural intensification in a land sparing approach, we suggest here that it fails to account for real-world complexity. We argue that agriculture practiced under smallholder farmer-dominated landscapes and not large-scale farming, is currently the backbone of global food security in the developing world. Furthermore, contemporary food usage is inefficient with one third wasted and a further third used inefficiently to feed livestock and that conventional intensification causes often overlooked environmental costs. A major argument for wildlife friendly farming and agroecological intensification is that crucial ecosystem services are provided by “planned” and “associated” biodiversity, whereas the land sparing concept implies that biodiversity in agroecosystems is functionally negligible. However, loss of biological control can result in dramatic increases of pest densities, pollinator services affect a third of global human food supply, and inappropriate agricultural management can lead to environmental degradation. Hence, the true value of functional biodiversity on the farm is often inadequately acknowledged or understood, while conventional intensification tends to disrupt beneficial functions of biodiversity. In conclusion, linking agricultural intensification with biodiversity conservation and hunger reduction requires well-informed regional and targeted solutions, something which the land sparing vs sharing debate has failed to achieve so far.

1. Agricultural intensification reduces ecological resilience of land-use systems, whereas paradoxically, environmental change and climate extremes require a higher response capacity than ever. Adaptation strategies to environmental change include maintenance of shade trees in tropical agroforestry, but conversion of shaded to unshaded systems is common practice to increase short-term yield.2. In this paper, we review the short-term and long-term ecological benefits of shade trees in coffee Coffea arabica, C. canephora and cacao Theobroma cacao agroforestry and emphasize the poorly understood, multifunctional role of shade trees for farmers and conservation alike.3. Both coffee and cacao are tropical understorey plants. Shade trees in agroforestry enhance functional biodiversity, carbon sequestration, soil fertility, drought resistance as well as weed and biological pest control. However, shade is needed for young cacao trees only and is less important in older cacao plantations. This changing response to shade regime with cacao plantation age often results in a transient role for shade and associated biodiversity in agroforestry.4. Abandonment of old, unshaded cacao in favour of planting young cacao in new, thinned forest sites can be named ‘short-term cacao boom-and-bust cycle’, which counteracts tropical forest conservation. In a ‘long-term cacao boom-and-bust cycle’, cacao boom can be followed by cacao bust due to unmanageable pest and pathogen levels (e.g. in Brazil and Malaysia). Higher pest densities can result from physiological stress in unshaded cacao and from the larger cacao area planted. Risk-averse farmers avoid long-term vulnerability of their agroforestry systems by keeping shade as an insurance against insect pest outbreaks, whereas yield-maximizing farmers reduce shade and aim at short-term monetary benefits.5. Synthesis and applications. Sustainable agroforestry management needs to conserve or create a diverse layer of multi-purpose shade trees that can be pruned rather than removed when crops mature. Incentives from payment-for-ecosystem services and certification schemes encourage farmers to keep high to medium shade tree cover. Reducing pesticide spraying protects functional agrobiodiversity such as antagonists of pests and diseases, pollinating midges determining cacao yields and pollinating bees enhancing coffee yield. In a landscape perspective, natural forest alongside agroforestry allows noncrop-crop spillover of a diversity of functionally important organisms. Knowledge transfer between farmers, agronomists and ecologists in a participatory approach helps to encourage a shade management regime that balances economic and ecological needs and provides a ‘diversified food-and-cash crop’ livelihood strategy.

Increasing yield has emerged as the most prominent element in strategies to deal with growing global demand for food and fibre. It is usually acknowledged that this needs to be done while minimising harm to the environment, but historically land-use intensification has been a major driver of biodiversity loss. The risk is now great that a singular focus on increasing yields will divert attention from the linked problem of biodiversity decline, and the historical pattern will continue. There are options that increase yields while reducing harm to biodiversity, which should be the focus of future strategies. The solutions are not universal, but are locally specific. This is because landscapes vary greatly in inherent biodiversity, the production systems they can support, and the potential for them to be adopted by landholders. While new production techniques might apply at local scale, biodiversity conservation inevitably requires strategies at landscape and larger scales.