ArticlePDF Available

Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people

October 2018
Science 362(6412):eaau6020

DOI:10.1126/science.aau6020

Authors:

Claire Kremen

University of California System

Adina Merenlender

A nature-friendly matrix As the human population has grown, we have taken and modified more and more land, leaving less and less for nonhuman species. This is clearly unsustainable, and the amount of land we protect for nature needs to be increased and preserved. However, this still leaves vast regions of the world unprotected and modified. Such landscapes do not have to be a lost cause. Kremen and Merenlender review how biodiversity-based techniques can be used to manage most human-modified lands as “working landscapes.” These can provide for human needs and maintain biodiversity not just for ecosystem services but also for maintenance and persistence of nonhuman species. Science , this issue p. eaau6020

Rebuilding connectivity in the matrix by using silvopasture. Photo of Finca La Luisa showing several types of silvopastoral systems, including regenerating secondary tropical dry forest trees with grass understory (yellow) and rows of planted Eucalyptus trees interspersed with nitrogen-fixing Leucaena leucocephala fodder shrubs and forage grasses (blue). These systems were established on former monoculture agricultural lands to restore compacted, degraded soils; the red area shows early stages of tropical dry forest regeneration prior to grass seeding for silvopasture. Silvopastures produce more cattle sustainably on less land, buffer ranchers from economic losses due to climate extremes, and create landscape connectivity to other forest fragments (orange) in the Cesar river valley, Colombia.

…

Ecosystem service trade-offs with land management. Radar diagrams display how different land uses affect various ecosystem services and biodiversity. (A) Monoculture row cropping contributes to food production at the expense of other ecosystem services and biodiversity. (B) In a working landscape managed for conservation, patch types differ in the services they provide, but each patch type should display a relatively even array of services, minimizing trade-offs. (C) Across patches, the services provided for the working landscape in (B) are multifunctional.

…

Figures - uploaded by Adina Merenlender

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Adina Merenlender

Content may be subject to copyright.

REVIEW SUMMARY

◥

CONSERVATION

Landscapes that work for biodiversity

and people

C. Kremen*and A. M. Merenlender

BACKGROUND: Biodiversity is under siege,

with greatly enhanced rates of local and global

extinction and the decline of once-abundant

species. Current rates of human-induced climate

change and land use forecast the Anthropocene

as one of the most devastating epochs for life

on earth. How do we handle the Anthropocene’s

triple challenge of preventing biodiversity loss,

mitigating and adapting to climate change, and

sustainably providing resources for a growing

human population? The answer is in how we

manage Earth’s“working lands”; that is, farms,

forests, and rangelands. These lands must be

managed both to complement the biodiversity

conservation goals of protected ar eas and to

maintain the diverse communities of orga-

nisms, from microbes to mammals, that con-

tribute to producing food, materials, clean

water, and healthy soils; sequest eri ng gree n-

house gases; and buffering extreme weather

events, functions that are essential for all life

on Earth.

ADVANCES: Protected areas are the corner-

stone of biodiversity conservation. Although

the total area of protected regions needs to be

increased, parks will nonetheless continue to

lose species if these areas are isolated from one

another by inhospitable land uses and are

faced with a rapidly changing climate. Further,

many species, such as those that migrate, re-

main unprotected as they occupy lands outside

of parks for all or portions of their life cycles.

Lastly, protected-area effectiveness is greatly

influenced by surrounding land management.

“Working lands conservation”aims to sup-

port biodiversity while providing goods and

services for humanity over the long term, assur-

ing sustainability and resilience. By manag-

ing lands surrounding parks favorably, working

lands can buffer protected areas from threats

and connect them to one another. This ap-

proach complements protected areas by pro-

viding accessory habitats and resources for

some species while facilitating dispersal and

climate change adaptation for others. Further,

by maintaining the biodiversity that supplies

critical ecosystem services within working

lands, these approaches ensure that the pro-

duction of food, fiber, fuel, and timber can be

sustained over the long run and be more resil-

ient to extreme events, such as floods, dro ughts,

hurricanes, and pest and disease outbreaks, which

are becoming more frequent with climate change.

A variety of biodiversity-based land management

techniques can be used in working lands, includ-

ing agroforestry, silvopasture, diversified farming,

and ecosystem-based forest management, to en-

sure sustainable production of food and fiber.

OUTLOOK: The underlying principle of

biodiversity-based management of working

lands has been practiced since ancient times.

Today, these systems have largely been replaced

by unsustainable resource extraction, rather

than serving as models that could be adapted

to modern conditions. Although various reg-

ulatory, voluntary, and financial tools exist to

promote sustainable land management, many

barriers prevent individuals, communities, and

corporations from adopting biodiversity-based

practices, including deeply entrenched policy

and market conditions that favor i ndustrialized

or extractive models of land use. Thus, uptake

of these approaches has

been patchy and slow and

is not yet sufficient to cre-

ate change at the tempo-

ral and spatial scales needed

to face the triple Anthro-

pocene threat.

Biodiversity-based land management prac-

tices are knowledge- rather than technology-

intensive. They are well adapted to empower

local communities to manage their natural

resources. One of the most exciting emerging

trends is community-driven initiatives to man-

age working landscapes for conservation and

sustainability. By linking up through grass-

roots organizations, social movements, and

public-private partnerships, these initiatives

can scale up to create collective impact and can

demand changes in government policies to

facilitate the conservation of working lands.

Scientists and conservation practitioners can

support these initiatives by engaging with the

public, listening to alternative ways of knowing,

and cocreating landscapes that work for bio-

diversity and people.▪

RESEARCH

Kremen et al., Science 362, 304 (2018) 19 October 2018 1of1

TOMORROW’SEARTH

Read more articles online

at scim.ag/TomorrowsEarth

The list of author affiliations is available in the full article online.

*Corresponding author. Email: ckremen@berkeley.edu

Cite this article as C. Kremen and A. M. Merenlender, Science

362, eaau6020 (2018). DOI: 10.1126/science.aau6020

Strawberry production in

Central Coast, California. On

the left, a homogeneous land-

scape of strawberry mono-

culture, including organic fields,

supports fewer wild species

then a diversified, organic farm

(right) in the same region, which

includes a small field of straw-

berry, surrounded by orchards,

hedgerows, diverse vegetable

crops, and natural habitats. The

monoculture landscape creates

barriers to wildlife dispersal,

whereas the diversified land-

scape is more permeable.

PHOTO: C. KREMEN

ON OUR WEBSITE

◥

Read the full article

at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1126/

science.aau6020

..................................................

on October 18, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from

REVIEW

◥

CONSERVATION

Landscapes that work for biodiversity

and people

C. Kremen*and A. M. Merenlender

How can we manage farmlands, forests, and rangelands to respond to the triple challenge

of the Anthropocene—biodiversity loss, climate change, and unsustainable land use?

When managed by using biodiversity-based techniques such as agroforestry, silvopasture,

diversified farming, and ecosystem-based forest management, these socioeconomic systems

can help maintain biodiversity and provide habitat connectivity, thereby complementing

protected areas and providing greater resilience to climate change. Simultaneously, the

use of these management techniques can improve yields and profitability more sustainably,

enhancing livelihoods and food security. This approach to “working lands conservation”can

create landscapes that work for nature and people. However, many socioeconomic challenges

impede the uptake of biodiversity-based land management practices. Although improving

voluntary incentives, market instruments, environmental regulations, and governance is

essential to support working lands conservation, it is community action, social movements,

and broad coalitions among citizens, businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies that

have the power to transform how we manage land and protect the environment.

Biodiversity, the product of 3.8 billion years

of evolution, is under siege. Not only are

both marine and terrestrial species expe-

riencing accelerated rates of local and global

extinction (1–3), but even common species

are declining (2,4,5). This alarming situation

has prompted a strong call for increasing the

number (6,7) and effectiveness (8) of protected

areas, the principal method for combatting spe-

cies loss. Though such protections are essential, we

cannot rely on protected areas alone to preserve

species. As protected areas become increasingly

isolated because of habitat loss and degradation,

much research has revealedthattheywilllosespe-

cies over time (9). Further, many critical threats to

species do not respect protected-area boundaries

(10), including climate change, which both exac-

erbates species losses (11) and threatens to alter

the biomes of many currently protected regions

entirely (12).

More hopefully, recent studies show that some

human-dominated landscapes can support much

more biodiversity than previously recognized

(13–17), suggesting a complementary path for-

ward. Specifically, when these areas, generally

referred to as the “matrix,”represent a high-

quality mosaic of land uses, they can play a crit-

ical role in sustaining biodiversity, both in situ

and by promoting species dispersal among pro-

tected areas and remnant habitats and along

migratory routes (Fig. 1) (15,18,19). Of course,

human survival also depends on the long-term

capacity of this matrix of “working lands,”in-

cluding rangelands, forests, and farms, to pro-

duce food, water, fiber, fuel, and forest products.

All too often, however, these goods are produced

at severe environmental cost, including habitat

degradation, toxic contamination, and depletion

of water quantity and quality, leading to ecologi-

cal collapse, local extinctions, and the creation of

unproductive wastelands (20,21). We argue that,

instead, working lands can be used to support

high levels of biodiversity while satisfying human

needs in a sustainable way. Because rangelands,

forests, and cultivated lands collectively occupy

~80% of terrestrial area (21), the potential for con-

servationinsuchlandsisenormous.

Critical ecosystem functions and services are

provided by a suite of diverse organisms, from

microbes to mammals, and thus maintenance

of these organisms is necessary for long-term

and sustainable productivity of working lands

(22,23). Hence, managing the matrix to main-

tain biodiversity is not only necessary for species

conservation but also essential for sustainable pro-

duction. Biodiversity-based production systems,

including agroecological farming or ecosystem-

based forest management, are often perceived as

unproductive, an incorrect viewpoint that im-

pedes the public investment needed to develop

and promote these methods. Here, we describe

managingthematrixjointlyandsustainablyfor

biodiversity and people through “working lands

conservation”and ask what strategies can be used

to strengthen and scale up this approach as

rapidlyaspossibletohelpcombatthetriple

Anthropocene threats of biodiversity loss, cli-

mate change, and unsustainable land use.

Working lands conservation defined

Although the term “working lands conservation”

is already used in policy statements and in guid-

ance for conservation programs [e.g., (24)], the

concept has yet to be formally defined and risks

being misapplied. We define it at the landscape

scale (Box 1).

To avoid mass extinction and ecosystem col-

lapse, we must integrate biodiversity conserva-

tion into the landscapes we use and not simply

relegate nature to a limited number of protected

areas that are doomed if left as isolated habitat

islands within biological deserts. Working lands

can provide food, breeding sites, and shelter for

a myriad of species while maintaining abiotic

conditions, including temperature, light, wind,

water, fire, and other disturbance processes,

within required ranges. They can facilitate func-

tional connectivity—that is, the movement of orga-

nisms across the landscape and among habitat

patches that promotes population persistence by

allowing for gene flow, recolonization, and adap-

tation to climate and other global changes (25,26).

To support humanity sustainably, a working

landscape must be productive and maintain the

ecosystem services, such as pollination, pest

control, and nutrient cycling, that underlie that

production. Maintaining these services requires

supporting the underlying populations of service-

providing organisms. Within each service, a greater

diversity of service providers often enhances the

level and/or quality of services and reduces un-

certainty in service delivery (22), because different

species respond differentially to environmental

change (27,28). Maintaining connectivity is also

important, both to support flows of ecosystem

service providers and/or materials (e.g., pollination

requires animal vectors to move pollen between

flowers; water purification requires water to flow

through vegetation) (29) and to enhance meta-

community persistence of service-providing orga-

nisms to sustain ecosystem functions and services

over space and time (22,30).

RESEARCH

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 1of9

Department of Environmental Science, Policy and

Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley,

CA 94720, USA.

*Corresponding author. Email: ckremen@berkeley.edu

Box 1. Definition of working lands conservation.

Definition: Conservation in working landscapes maintains biodiversity, provides goods and services

for humanity, and supports the abiotic conditions necessary for sustainability and resilience.

These socioecological systems both support biodiversity by providing critical resources and

rely on biodiversity (specifically, ecosystem service providers) for sustainable production of

food, water, fiber, fuel, and forest products. These landscapes also enhance connectivity to

promote the movement of organisms, natural processes, and ecosystem services.

Working lands conservation emphasizes the critical role of managing the matrix for species

conservation to complement protected areas.

on October 18, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from

Ensuring the sustainability of production re-

quires balancing across provisioning, regulat-

ing, and supporting services; in other words,

seeking multifunctionality and stability rather

than maximal production. For example, conven-

tional (chemically intensive) monoculture agri-

culture produces high yields but often at the

expense of water quality, climate regulation, and

soil health (Fig. 2A) (20)andcansufferproduc-

tion collapse in response to periodic extreme

weather, pests, and diseases (31–33). Although

transforming to a more sustainable system may

reduce average yields somewhat [e.g., (34)], by

relying on ecosystem services produced on the

farm and in the surrounding landscape, a sus-

tainable system is both multifunctional and more

resilient to change (20,31)(Fig.2C).

Working landscapes often comprise hetero-

geneous patch types, including novel commu-

nities made up of mixtures of native and nonnative

species, as well as remnants of natural or semi-

natural habitats whose composition is more simi-

lar to that of a historical ecological community

(35). Although management goals likely will dif-

fer among patch types, both individual patches

and the whole landscape should be managed

for sustainability. For example, patches whose

communities are far from historical could be man-

aged principally for crops (a provisioning service)

by using sustainable agricultural practices to min-

imize negative effects on biodiversity and ecosys-

tem services on and off site. Remnant patches

could be retained as stepping-stone habitats to

support species dispersal and provide regulating

services such as pollination (29,31). Maintaining

mosaic landscapes composed of different patch

types provides opportunities to maximize diver-

sity, resilience, and multifunctionality. Radar dia-

grams reveal likely trade-offs and sustainability

within and across patches (Fig. 2B), as well as

multifunctionality at the landscape scale (Fig. 2C).

Conservation in working landscapes draws

upon several related concepts. Integrated land-

scape management initiatives seek to simulta-

neously improve food production, biodiversity

or ecosystem conservation, and rural livelihoods

and are being implemented by governments and

nongovernmental organizations in Latin America

and Africa (36). The ecosystem stewardship con-

cept focuses on the need to sustain Earth’s capac-

ity to provide ecosystem services and support

socioecological resilience under conditions of

uncertainty and change (27). The socioecological

production landscape of the Japan Satoyama

Satoumi Assessment refers to dynamic landscape

mosaics that have been shaped over time by the

interactions between people and nature in ways

that jointly support biodiversity and human well-

being (37). These concepts also emphasize critical

social components, such as involving multiple

stakeholders at the landscape scale, community

participation, intersectoral coordination, flexible

and adaptive governance systems, social learn-

ing, and adaptive management, which are nec-

essary for successful conservation of working

landscapes.

The underlying principle of maintaining eco-

logical diversity inherent to these approaches

has been practiced since ancient times. Some of

these management systems, such as indigenous

use of fire, weeding, pruning, and the seed dis-

persal that shaped Californian ecosystems (38), no

longer exist in their original form, whereas others,

such as regional pastoral and high-mountain farm-

ing systems in Europe (39), persist in some areas.

By creating highly simplified and intensified pro-

duction systems (21,40), from corn and soy in

U.S. midwestern states to palm oilplantations in

southeast Asia and vineyards in Chile, we have

abandoned this critical sustainability principle

across much of Earth’scultivatedlandscapes.

However, it is a fallacy that such systems will

ultimatelysparemorelandfornatureconser-

vation or feed the world indefinitely; rather, we

need to find ways to allow biodiversity-based

production methods to figure much more prom-

inently in local, regional, and global markets (16).

Working lands conservation as a

complement to protected areas

Given the dire situation facing many species and

the expectation of further species losses and shifts

in ecosystem composition due to climate change

(2,4,11), ceasing further habitat conversion

completely and protecting large regions of Earth

effectively are critical necessities for conservation

(6–8), although just how much should be pro-

tected is highly debated (41). [By “protected area,”

we refer to parks whose primary function is to

conserve biodiversity and wilderness (Interna-

tional Union for Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources categories I to IV, constituting

6.75% of terrestrial area) (42), in contrast to areas

blending conservation and livelihood objectives

(categories V to VI, constituting 8.65%).] How-

ever, the protected-area strategy alone will not

be successful without complementary working

lands conservation in the surrounding landscapes.

First, even the largest protected areas will lose

species over the long term (9) unless surrounding

landscapes can be managed to provide connec-

tivity among parks. Further, less than 10% of pro-

tected areas are expected to represent current

climatic conditions within 100 years, increasing

the criticality of matrix connectivity to permit

species to follow their suitable climates (12).

Lastly, effectiveness in controlling threats, such

as invasive species, encroachment, poaching, and

other impacts on protected lands, also critically

depends on the surrounding matrix (10). Thus, to

stem the tide of biodiversity loss, we must expand

beyond protected areas, using working lands con-

servation both to buffer and to reduce the threats

that cross park boundaries and to create acces-

sory habitats for both movement and persistence.

Working lands conservation is a key linchpin

for combatting the triple Anthropocene chal-

lenge of biodiversity loss, climate change, and

unsustainable land use. A large-scale example is

the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor project,

which has fostered a multistakeholder partic-

ipatory process to enhance connectivity on culti-

vated, range, and forest working lands to link

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 2of9

Fig. 1. Rebuilding connectivity in the matrix by using silvopasture. Photo of Finca La Luisa

showing several types of silvopastoral systems, including regenerating secondary tropical dry forest

trees with grass understory (yellow) and rows of planted Eucalyptus trees interspersed with

nitrogen-fixing Leucaena leucocephala fodder shrubs and forage grasses (blue). These systems were

established on former monoculture agricultural lands to restore compacted, degraded soils; the

red area shows early stages of tropical dry forest regeneration prior to grass seeding for silvopasture.

Silvopastures produce more cattle sustainably on less land, buffer ranchers from economic losses

due to climate extremes, and create landscape connectivity to other forest fragments (orange) in the

Cesar river valley, Colombia.

RESEARCH |REVIEW

PHOTO: J. J. LOPER A/CIPAV; ADAPTED BY N IRJA DESAI/SCIENC E

on October 18, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from

more than 650protected areas in the region (43).

A concurrent goal is to use sustainable agriculture

and forestry techniques to promote livelihoods

and enhance resilience to climate change (36).

Protected areas are vital in this region because

many species are restricted to forest; however, most

reserves are small and isolated. In combination

with steep elevational and latitudinal gradients

in the region, this isolation makes species in-

habiting reserves particularly vulnerable to climate

change. The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor

project recognizes the role that working lands can

play to restore critical connectivity by increasing

tree diversity and cover through live fences, agro-

forestry, silvopasture, forest fallows, home gardens,

and protection or restoration of riparian forests

and forest fragments (43). These forest elements,

which include both ribbonlike and patch struc-

tures, support a large number of neotropical

birds, insects, mammals, and plants (17,44); en-

hance the movement of birds and bats across the

landscape (45–47); and thus contribute to con-

servation, even of vulnerable wildlife (17,47,48).

Forest elements also promote sustainable land

use and contribute to local livelihoods by sup-

porting ecosystem services. For example, evi-

dence suggests that an economically devastating

invasive pest, the coffee berry borer, is reduced by

the integration of forest elements within coffee

landscapes, which both limits the borer’sability

to colonize new coffee fields (49) and promotes

bird species that prey on the borer (50). Reduced

economic losses due to pest control from birds are

similar in magnitude to average per capita income

in the region and are strongly related to forest

cover (50). Adopting sustainable agricultural

techniques and enhancing tree cover simulta-

neously creates more flexible and resilient pro-

ductionsystems that allow farmers and ranchers

to adapt to extreme conditions prompted by

climate change (33,51). Although some crit ics

decry the effectiveness of the Mesoamerican

Biological Corridor project, it may be too early to

judge. Quite a few integrated landscape initiatives

areconcentratedintheregion,inassociationwith

biological corridors (36). However, many began

relatively recently, and we know from the few

scientific studies that exist that developing an

effective multistakeholder participatory process

takes substantial time (36,43,52). In one case

that is more advanced (the San Juan–La Selva

Biological Corridor in Costa Rica), some success

has been achieved in arresting deforestation and

encouraging tree planting, forest regeneration,

and connectivity through a government-run pay-

ments for ecosystem services program, as well as

other grassroots initiatives (43,53).

Mechanisms for promoting working

lands conservation

The challenge of shifting from managing work-

ing lands solely for profit to conservation of

working lands is not insignificant, but there are

clear paths toward larger-scale integration of

this approach. These strategies include various

regulatory, voluntary, incentive, market-based,

or governance instruments (table S1), which vary

in their applicability to private, communal, or

state-owned lands and the extent to which they

support biodiversity conservation versus liveli-

hoods or economies (Fig. 3A). Each approach has

challenges, especially around reconciling conser-

vation and socioeconomic objectives (table S1)

(42,54). Collectively, problems associated with

regulatory and incentive programs can include

inter alia lack of permanence or compliance, com-

plex implementation, unintended economic con-

sequences, low adoption rates, high monitoring

costs, and little evaluationofeffectivenessagainst

goals (table S1).

Further, there is often the risk that the bio-

diversity conserved through these actions is not

equivalent to that which was lost because of eco-

nomically driven land conversion. Instruments

for private lands may result in piecemeal land

management actions that have little positive ef-

fect on biodiversity at the landscape scale; promis-

ing public-private initiatives to overcome this

defect include corridor planning (43,55) (Box 2

and Fig. 4) and landscape-level mitigation (table

S1). For example, landowners required to set aside

forest on their properties under Brazil’s forest

code may develop these lands in exchange for mit-

igating lands elsewhere within the same biome

that provide greater conservation value (56). Man-

aging the matrix to promote biodiversity could

also exacerbate human-wildlife conflict; how-

ever, the recovery of carnivore populations within

human-dominated areas in Europe provides a

hopeful and inspiring example for how landscapes

can be shared between wildlife and people (14)

(Box 3). These instruments can exacerbate the

unequal distribution of benefits and costs within

and across communities (table S1). For example,

trading development rights on forestlands in ex-

change for permitting high-density urban devel-

opment elsewhere can provide open spaces for

working lands conservation. However, such trades

could exacerbate the lack of access to open space

already experienced by low-income urban house-

holds. Thus, the effects of conservation measures

on social equity and environmental justice should

also be considered (57). A final concern is that

there is often a trade-off between the rigor of

environmental standards or restrictions enforced

and the likelihood of adoption (table S1); incen-

tive schemes that are flexible, provide obvious

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 3of9

Crops

Healthy

soils

Freshwater

Carbon

sequestration

Pest control

services

Pollination

services

Biodiversity

Connectivity

Forest

products Livestock

production

Biodiversity Crops

Healthy

soils

Freshwater

Carbon

sequestration

Pest control

services

Pollination

services

Connectivity

Forest

products Livestock

production

Monoculture row-crop Mixed cultivated, forest and range landscape

Rangelands

Diversied farm

Riparian forest

Fig. 2. Ecosystem ser vice trade-offs with land management. Radar diagrams display how

different land uses affect various ecosystem services and biodiversity. (A) Monoculture row cropping

contributes to food production at the expense of other ecosystem services and biodiversity. (B)Ina

working landscape managed for conservation, patch types differ in the services they provide, but each

patch type should display a relatively even array of services, minimizing trade-offs. (C) Across

patches, the services provided for the working landscape in (B) are multifunctional.

RESEARCH |REVIEW

ILLUSTRATION: N IRJA DESAI/SCIEN CE BASED ON C. KRE MEN AND A.M. MERENLE NDER; PHOTO: NATIONAL AERI AL IMAGERY PROGRA M, ADAPTED BY NIRJA DESAI/ SCIENCE

on October 18, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from

benefits, target likely adopters, fit the sociocul-

tural context, foster enabling market and reg-

ulatory environments, and provide technical

assistance may boost adoption (58). For example,

payments for conserving or restoring forests in

CostaRicaarebasedonarea,whereastransaction

costs are the same regardless of size, disincen-

tivizing smaller landowners from participating

in the payments for ecosystem services scheme.

Encouraging smallholders to participate would

require adjusting the costs of participation so

that these landowners could also realize net gains

(53). Although numerous changes are required,

careful attention to the construction of these

programs could increase their success.

Further, several current trends favor working

lands conservation approaches. First, new policy

instruments [such as REDD+ (Reducing Emis-

sions from Deforestation and Forest Degrada-

tion)] operating across a range of scales, from

individual private landholdings to large-scale

community-based or government-funded initia-

tives, are being developed to incentivize conser-

vation on working lands. Second, the number and

variety of institutions involved in working lands

conservation are increasing, and such institu-

tions include both public-private partnerships

and nongovernmental conservation organiza-

tions that formerly focused primarily on pro-

tected areas (36,59,60). Third, these institutions

can take advantage of recent increases in both

public and private “investments for conserva-

tion”(investments designed to cogenerate finan-

cial returns and conservation benefits) (60). Such

investments include projects in sustainable food

and fiber production, water quality and quantity

projects, and outright habitat conservation (in

the latter, financial returns are based onchang-

ing land values or carbon stocks). Fourth, out-

side of these investments, an increasing number

of companies have committed to greening their

supply chains by reducing the environmental

impacts at the source, processing, delivery, and

end-of-life management of the product (61). Al-

though supply chain greening requires much

better monitoring, accountability, and inclusion

of biodiversity conservation as an explicit goal

(61,62), it could ultimately contribute to conser-

vation in working landscapes, particularly given

the vast economic power represented within cor-

porations (61). A final trend is the creation of

voluntary, community-driven programs (Box 2)

in which local communities participate in the

conservation of working landscapes to gain in-

creased access to information and expertise, build

interpersonal connections, and obtain both per-

sonal benefits and public recognition for practic-

ing sustainable methods (63).

We argue that this latter trend of community-

basedactionsandtheinnovations,networks,

and social movements that sometimes emerge

from them present the most exciting opportunity

to turn the tide against the triple Anthropocene

threat [see also (64)]. Communities seeking solu-

tions for socioecological resilience frequently rely

on working lands conservation approaches. For

example, Sustainable Solutions restores man-

grove forests in Sri Lanka and India through

youth-based community engagement to build

shoreline resilience to cyclones while enhancing

livelihoods from fisheries dependent on man-

grove ecosystems.

Further, local initiatives can link together to

form larger networks with the help of boundary

organizations to form social movements that can

advance environmental policies, improve sus-

tainable behaviors, and demand supply chain

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 4of9

Private

Public

Intensive agriculture Conservation easement Private

reserve

Management incentives

Certication schemes

Mitigation

Payment for ecosystem services

Community based natural resources management

Indigenous conserved areas

Protected areas (IUCN Cat V,VI)

Government lands

Government

plantation

Protected areas

(IUCN Cat I–IV)

Development

Cultivated lands

Local diversication and landscape-scale heterogeneity

Single-species

patures

Rangelands (<10% tree cover)

Forest lands

Conservation

Multi-species

pastures

Row crop

monoculture

Simple

rotation

Monoculture tree plantations

(even-aged) (multi-aged)

Silvo-pastoral

system

Mixed

crop/livestock

Complex

rotation/

intercrop

Management

intensive

grazing

Restored

range

Nomadic

pastoralism

Agroforestry

system

Home garden

Native/non-native

multi-age forests

Restored

forest

Native forest

with EBM

Chemical intensication

Fig. 3. Approaches for conservation of working lands occupy the space (yellow) between highly

developed (brown) and highly conserved (green) land uses. (A) An array of tools are available

for working lands conservation, for private, communal, or public lands (see table S2 for more detail and

examples). IUCN Cat. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources categories.

(B) Forms of management for forage, crops, and tree products from cultivated lands (yellow),

rangelands (light green), and forests (dark green), arrayed roughly along a management gradient of

diversification (left to right) or chemical intensification (right to left). Cultivated lands include all

planted systems. Dashed lines indicate overlapping concepts. EBM, ecosystem-based management.

Box 2. Community stewardship: The case of Landcare Australia.

The Landcare movement is a well-documented community stewardship effort begun in the

mid-1980s to conserve biodiversity and sustain agriculture in Australia, resulting in more than

5000 Landcare and Coastcare groups. More than 20 countries have since adopted the model.

In Australia, this model combines substantial government investment with landowner and

community engagement. For example, Landcare groups across eastern Australia contribute to

the delivery of the Great Eastern Ranges (GER) Initiative (105), alongside public land management

authorities, conservation organizations, research institutions, and traditional owners groups.

The GER is one of Australia’s largest public-private partnerships to conserve biodiversity in the

face of climate change (Fig. 4) as part of Australia’s National Wildlife Corridors Plan. Landcare

groups along the corridor undertake restoration and management activities, along with community

building and engagement. In the Queanbeyan Landcare group, 25 landholders signed up to

increase the foraging habitat for the glossy black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) through

the restoration of 10,000 she-oaks (Allocasuarina sp.) in production lands along three river

catchments.The social networks and learning spaces created are promising ways of encouraging

conservation commitment among land managers. However, far more landowners must become

engaged to restore connectivity at the scale desired.

RESEARCH |REVIEW

ILLUSTRATION: N IRJA DESAI/SCIEN CE BASED ON C. KRE MEN AND A.M MERENLEN DER

on October 18, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from

accountability (64). For example, the withdrawal

of the United States from the Paris Agreement

at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) and

delays in regulation of emissions by other nations

galvanized a series of on-the-ground climate

actions from civil society, businesses, nonpro-

fits, and subnational government. The Global

Action Climate Summit of 2018 instigated by

California governor Jerry Brown illustrates a

new stage of this growing social movement.

Its Land and Ocean Stewardship “30 × 30”chal-

lenge brings together more than 100 organ-

izations focused on managing forests, farmlands,

and oceans to provide 30% of the climate change

solution by 2030, rather than waiting on agree-

ments among nation states that continue to

fall short of the necessary carbon reduction

targets. The land management techniques

being developed locally to mitigate and adapt

to climate change are generally consistent with

the conservation of working lands approach

[e.g., (65)].

The benefits of local land conservation can

also be scaledup and made more effectiveif they

are carried out within a landscape or regional

conservation program organized by a state or

nonprofit agency (58). Innovative social and

institutional arrangements for working lands

conservation may emerge, such as The Nature

Conservancy’s BirdReturns program in California.

Through a reverse auction, the program finds and

pays farmers willing to alter water management

to create “pop-up”wetlands to provide habitats

for shorebirds during their northward migra-

tion, selecting sites that optimize the conserva-

tion benefits relative to payments (15).

Management techniques for conserving

working lands

Cultivated lands

Cultivated lands make up 12% of the terrestrial

ice-free surface (66) and comprise row and forage

crops, seeded pastures, vineyards and orchards,

mixed crop and livestock systems, and tree crops

and plantations (Fig. 3B). Cultivated lands are

often highly simplified ecologically; thus, they

rely extensively on chemical fertilizers and pes-

ticides to replace ecosystem services formerly

generated within or around agroecosystems (31),

often creating negative consequences for the

environment and human health (Fig. 2A) (21),

including continued large-scale forest conver-

sion in some areas of the biodiverse tropics (62).

Instead, diversified farming systems using ag-

roecological management practices operate by

fostering biophysical conditions and ecolog-

ical interactions favorable to crop production

(31,67,68), producing a more balanced (sustain-

able) distribution of ecosystem services (Fig. 2B).

Evidence also suggests that they minimize many

of the negative environmental consequences as-

sociated with simplified farming (31) (Fig. 5). Fur-

ther, these techniques can maintain crop yields

and profitability; create new market opportunities;

enhance food security, nutrition, and livelihoods;

and contribute substantially to the global food

supply, particularly under a changing climate

(table S2). Be cause they re ly on relatively low-

cost, low-technology, knowledge-based methods

(69), agroecological diversification techniques can

be made accessible to the majority of farmers.

[Small-scale farms with <5 ha make up 94% of

farms worldwide (40) and produce more than

halfofworldfoodcrops(70).] These farming

methods use open-pollinated seed varieties that

can be saved and cultivars that are locally adapted;

thus, they are less dependent on purchased seeds

and other inputs that can lead to poverty traps

(71). Multiple grassroots organizations and social

movements support learning, sharing, and adapta-

tion of agroecological knowledge and seeds

through farmer-to-farmer networks under par-

ticipatory governance (64). Diversified, agroeco-

logical practices are therefore farming methods

that are highly compatible with working lands

conservation, although potentially more ap-

pli cable t o certain farming systems. Large-scale

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 5of9

The great eastern

ranges corridor Hinterland bush links

Australia

Border ranges alliance

Jaliigirr biodiversity alliance

Hunter valley partnership

Illawarra to shoalhaven

Southern highlands link

Kosciuszko to coast

Kanangra boyo to

wyangala link

Slopes to summit

Central victoria

biolinks alliance

Fig. 4. The GER Corridor Initiative, Australia. The light green outline represents the plan to protect

and restore more than 3,600 km

as a climate corridor. The numbered, dark green shapes denote

regional alliances of conservation and natural resource management organizations, including

Landcare communities (Box 2). In the photo, members of the Molonglo Catchment Group Landcare

community conduct restoration.

Box 3. Carnivore conservation in shared landscapes.

Maintaining populations of large carnivores ranks among the greatest of conservation

challenges. These area-demanding species require larger territories than most protected areas

possess, potentially necessitating costly translocations to ensure gene flow and maintain

populations. Further, these species conflict with people in surrounding matrices through

predation on livestock or, occasionally, maiming or killing of humans. Nonetheless, in Europe,

most large carnivore populations are stable or expanding. One-third of the area of mainland

Europe hosts at least one permanent population of its four large carnivore species, persisting

alongside moderate human densities and largely outside of protected areas.The success of

carnivore conservation in Europe is attributed to well-enforced, coordinated legislative protection,

improvements in habitat and ungulate prey base, and rural depopulation. Importantly, ranchers

have found ways to live with carnivores by using carnivore-proofed electric fence s and re-

invigorating traditional livestock-guarding practices using shepherds and dogs (14). Similarly, in a

cultivated region in India, large carnivore species (the leopard and striped hyena) persist with

few conflicts despite high human densities (300 people/km

) and the lack of wild prey (106),

suggesting the potential that exists for carnivore conservation in shared landscapes.

RESEARCH |REVIEW

MAPS: GRE AT EASTERN RA NGES; PHOTO: ANDREW CAMP BELL; ADAPTED BY NIR JA DESAI/SCIENCE

on October 18, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from

commercial farmers that have invested heavily in

the machinery associated with chemically intensive

agriculture may not readily switch to agroeco-

logical techniques (68,72); however, the use of

some agroecological techniques can be compa-

tible with existing infrastructure and can lead

to reduced agrochemical use at similar or even

enhanced profits [e.g.,( 73)].

A concern is that the use of “wildlife-friendly”

agroecological practices will require more land

to be farmed to produce the same amount of

food, promoting deforestation and harming bio-

diversity (74). However, a number of diversified,

agroecological farming methods maintain or in-

crease yields (table S2) (32,50,73,75–78). For

example, techniques such as intercropping, cover

cropping, and crop rotation may promote crop

yields through a variety of ecological mechanisms

(23), including complementarity of water and

nutrient use (e.g., different crops access differ-

ent soil layers for water and nutrient uptake),

facilitation of nutrient uptake [e.g., intercropped

faba bean acidifies the soil, mobilizing phospho-

rus that is taken up by rice (79)], reduction of

pests and diseases [e.g., pests and diseases spread

more slowly in spatially or temporally heteroge-

neous crop systems, and such systems also sup-

port predator populations that keep pests in

check (80,81)], and enhancement of soil biota

and fertility (82). By improving soil structure and

stability, which then enhances water infiltration

and retention, these techniques also stabilize

yields against annual environmental fluctua-

tions and more catastrophic disturbances such

as droughts and hurricanes (32,33).

Beyond providing resources and habitats for

agrobiodiversity, spe cific techniques such as agro-

forestry and the use of silvopasture, hedgerows,

flower strips, live fences, and riparian buffers

mayalsoenhancetheconnectivityoflandscapes

and promote the dispersal of various wildlife

species (16,47,83). Although these structural

features are known to increase the occurrence of

a wide variety of organisms within agricultural

landscapes (43,84), how they affect the dispersal

potential of organisms within diversified agri-

cultural lands is poorly understood. Nonetheless,

ambitious, large-scale connectivity projects, such

as the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor project

(43), the silvopastoral and rotational grazing proj-

ect in the Santa Catarina Atlantic Forest (55),

variouslinkagesinAustralia(Box2),andtheres-

toration of the migratory pathway of the mon-

arch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) in the U.S.

midwestern states (85),areunderwayforagricul-

turallands.Inthelattercase,althoughadaunt-

ing amount of restoration would be required to

support the butterfly, it could simultaneously en-

hance soybean pollination, improve water quality,

protect other biodiversity, and increase agricul-

tural profitability (Fig. 5 and table S2) (86,87).

Although entrenched policies and the extreme

concentration of agrifood industries favor indus-

trialized supply chains and make transformation

to diversified, agroecological systems difficult

(68,72), reasons for optimism exist. Global grass-

roots movements such as La Via Campesina have

provided technical, social, and material support

to farmers for the spread of agroecology, con-

fronted industrial agribusiness, and fought to

influence national and global policies(64). Alter-

native agrifood systems and local and regional

initiatives that provide support for diversified,

agroecological systems are emerging (64,69). In-

ternational initiatives supporting agroecology

include the United Nations Right to Food program,

which embraces it as a key element for enhancing

food security globally (88), and programs of the

Food and Agriculture Organization, which has

held global and regional conferences on agro-

ecology and included it in Farmer Field Schools

since 2014 (68).

Rangelands and forests

Forests in the boreal, temperate, and tropical

regionsmakeup~30%ofEarth’sarea(89),

whereas rangelands, which are defined as having

<10% tree cover and include grasslands, desert

shrublands, savanna woodlands, alpine meadows,

and areas of tundra grasses and shrubs, constitute

~44% (90). Grazed by wild and domestic animals,

they vary greatly in productivity. Both natural

forests and rangelands have been lost or degraded

over the past several hundred years by the in-

creased extent and intensity of human use, in-

cluding timber harvest, grazing, and conversion

to agriculture. Forests continue to be lost and

degraded at an alarming rate (62), although for-

est regrowth due to rural depopulation is also

occurring in some areas (20). A recent global

analysis of so urces of tree cover losses showed

that industrial agriculture for commodity crops

is responsible for the permanent conversion of

5 million ha of forest per year (27% of losses, con-

centrated primarily in portions of Latin America

and Southeast Asia), whereas shifting agriculture

(primarily in Africa) and forestry (primarily in

North America and Europe) cause forest distur-

bance or degradation over an equivalent land

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 6of9

Monoculture crop: Adding prairie strips (10%):

8 inches/acre runo

4 tons/acre sediment lost

7 lbs/acre phosphorus lost

35 lbs/acre nitrogen lost

42% less runo

95% less soil export

89% less phosphorus export

84% less nitrogen export

Fig. 5. Diversification practices can increase biodiversity. The integration of prairie strips into a

corn-soy rotation exemplifies how diversification within working lands can substantially increase plant,

pollinator, and bird species richness and abundance by two- to fourfold (as indicated by colors and

numbers of icons, respectively) while minimizing externalities and enhancing other ecosystem

services, such as pollination for the soy crop (table S2) (86).

RESEARCH |REVIEW

ILLUSTRATION: N IRJA DESAI/SCIEN CE BASED ON STRIP S RESEARCH TEAM AND LEO POLD CENTER FOR SUSTAINAB LE AGRICULTURE

on October 18, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from

area, followed by regrowth (62). It is critical,

therefore, to cease permanent conversion of

forests for commodity cropping and to apply

restorative management approaches in working

forests and rangelands.

Since1990,manynationshavecreateden-

abling policies and legislation for sustainable

forest management (89). Of the 54% of global

forests considered “permanent”(that is, expected

to retain forest cover in the long term), 99% of

these 2.17 billion ha are covered by such policies,

a necessary but not sufficient condition for sus-

tainable management. Indicators of sustainable

management also show positive temporal trends,

but over smaller areas. For example, forest cer-

tification (table S1) covered 430 million ha by

2014 (89), but largely within boreal and temper-

ate regions, where land-clearing rates are less

acute than those in the tropics.

An array of restorative fore st and rangeland

management options exist that are compati-

ble with the conservation of working lands (Fig.

3B and table S2). For forests, the adoption of

ecosystem-based managementapproaches has

led to the integration of a greater variety of tree

species and age and size classes, including old

growth and dead and downed trees, and the in-

corporation of natural disturbance regimes to sup-

port more diverse ecological communities (91).

This uneven-aged management style maintains

similarities between natural and managed forests,

contrasting with even-aged management from

clear-cutting. Evidence from silvicultural trials and

natural forests suggests that greater tree diversity

also enhances wood yield quantity and stability

(23). In keeping with the ecosystem stewardship

concept (27), ecosystem-based management also

emphasizes collaborative decentralized control

and adaptive management, as well as landscape

planning and the designation of corridors to pro-

mote wildlife (92). However, stakeholders may

reject harvesting practices that negatively af-

fec t financial returns in the short term. Environ-

mental outcomes suffered when stakeholders

had stronger oversight of the process than a

regulatory authority with political backing (93),

support ing the need for public-private part-

nerships to achieve biodiversity conservation

objectives.

In rangelands, compatible management prac-

tices are exemplified by the dehesa and montado

traditional pastoral systems in oak savannas of

Spain and Portugal, respectively. The oak trees

(Quercus rotundifolia and Q. suber)arepruned

to increase the production of acorns to feed to

pigs and other livestock grown for high-value

meat products; other sustainably harvested pro-

ducts include fuelwood and cork from oaks (94).

These ecosystems also support endangered spe-

cies and high plant and animal diversity rela-

tive to other seminatural habitats in Europe.

However, grazing, browsing, and trampling can

limit oak regeneration; thus, pasture areas need

periodic temporary protection from livestock to

promote oak recruitment and sustainable use

(95). In Colombia, many ranchers are restoring

degraded agricultural lands by using various

silvopastoral techniques, which also enhance

connectivity in these landscapes (Fig. 1).

Freshwater ecosystems

Maintaining stream flows and hydrologic con-

nectivity is essential for conserving freshwater

biodiversity and ecosystems. Because of changes

in stream flows, estimates suggest that up to 75%

of freshwater fish species are headed for local

extinction by 2070 (96). Fresh water also limits

the production of many natural resources, and

its quantity and quality are in turn affected by

landscape management. Appropriate manage-

ment techniques can promote groundwater re-

charge and stream flow in working landscapes

(table S2) (31,86), of increasing importance

under drier futures with more extreme precip-

itation events (97). Flood plains and associated

riparian zones are particularly critical to conserve

in working landscapes, because they dispropor-

tionately support biodiversity and ecosystem

processes compared with other landscape ele-

ments (98). Riparian corridors also provide cooler

and moister microclimates than surrounding areas

and often span elevational and climatic gradients

that may permit species to follow their climate

envelopes (99).

Recommendations and

concluding thoughts

Managing the working lands matrix for bio-

diversity needsto become a mainstream compo-

nent of public and private conservation efforts,

complementing the more traditional (and essen-

tial) focus on increasing the extent and effective-

ness of protected areas (16). These restorative,

working lands conservation approaches (table

S2)shouldbeappliedtothelargelandareathat

is already used for farming, forestry, and ranch-

ing. At the same time, we critically need policies

to prevent further conversion and degradation of

wilderness and relatively intact ecosystems (62).

To scale up working lands conservation, in-

creased support is needed for the voluntary, policy,

and market instruments described in table S1.

However, further adaptation and learning is

needed to improve their efficacy, both at the

project level and through evidence-based synthe-

ses [e.g., (100], and to increase adoption rates

by considering an array of social factors (58).

Further, these measures must be complemented

by community-driven conservation initiatives,

which, by involving young and old in steward-

ship, communication, citizen science, and edu-

cation, can create a shared vision and innovative

practicesthatresultincollectiveimpact.Scien-

tists can support community-driven conserva-

tion and help advance environmental social

movements by engaging the public, listening to

alternative ways of knowing, and cocreating con-

servation, management, and policy alternatives.

Especially important is to create alliances with

existing community actions and social movements

that share common ground, such as climate or

local food movements.

Ultimately, our efforts to protect biodiversity

and sustain resources must be accompanied by

measures to reduce human population and con-

sumption while increasing equitable access to

resources to achieve sustainability. Opportunities

to stabilize population and consumption exist.

For example, through concerted government in-

vestment in voluntary family planning programs,

enormous progress in reducing total fertility

rates has been made even in poor countries [e.g.,

(101], leading to smaller families living better.

Globally, a large unmet need for family planning

still exists (101); further investment could help

stabilize the global population at 6 billion people

by 2100, instead of the 9 to 12 billion projected

without intervention (102,103). To reduce con-

sumption, critical targets include reducing food

waste and meat consumption (104) and seeking

efficiencies in energy and water use that can

accompany urbanization (102). Even with well-

structured policies, these changes toward lower

human population and consumption would take

time; thus, concerns exist that humanity will

destroy biodiversity and natural resources before

achieving a more sustainable human population

(102). Conservation in working landscapes can

help maintain all species, including people, as we

strive to achieve a planet where a smaller human

population lives better and more equitably with

and because of wild nature.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. J. L. Payne, A. M. Bush, N. A. Heim, M. L. Knope,

D. J. McCauley, Ecological selectivity of the emerging mass

extinction in the oceans. Science 353, 1284–1286 (2016).

doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2416; pmid: 27629258

2. G. Ceballos, P. R. Ehrlich, R. Dirzo, Biological annihilation via

the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate

population losses and declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

114, E6089–E6096 (2017). pmid: 28696295

3. G. Ceballos et al., Accelerated modern human-induced species

losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253

(2015). doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253;pmid:2 6601195

4. C. A. Hallmann et al., More than 75 percent decline over

27 years in total fly ing insect biomas s in protected area s.

PLOS ONE 12, e01858 09 (2017). doi: 1 0.1371/

journal.pone. 0185809;pmid:29045418

5. T. Newbold et al., Global effects of land use on local

terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520,45–50 (2015).

doi: 10.1038/nature14324; pmid: 25832402

6. E. O. Wilson, Half Earth (Liveright Publishing Company, 2016).

7. P. R. Elsen, W. B. Monahan, A. M. Merenlender, Global

patterns of protection of elevational gradients in mountain

ranges. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 6004–6009 (2018).

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1720141115; pmid: 29784825

8. R. M. Pringle, Upgrading protected areas to conserve wild

biodiversity. Nature 546,91–99 (2017). doi: 10.1038/

nature22902; pmid: 28569807

9. J. M. Halley, N. Monokrousos, A. D. Mazaris, W. D. Newmark,

D. Vokou, Dynamics of extinction debt across five taxonomic

groups. Nat. Commun. 7, 12283 (2016). doi: 10.1038/

ncomms12283; pmid: 27452815

10. W. F. Laurance et al., Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical

forest protected areas. Nature 489, 290–294 (2012).

doi: 10.1038/nature11318;pmid: 22832582

11. M. C. Urban, Climate change. Accelerating extinction risk

from climate change. Science 348, 571–573 (2015).

doi: 10.1126/science.aaa4984; pmid: 25931559

12. S. R. Loarie et al., The velocity of climate change. Nature 462,

1052–1055 (2009). doi: 10.1038/nature08649;

pmid: 20033047

13. L. O. Frishkoff et al., Loss of avian phylogenetic

diversity in neotropical agricultural systems. Science

345, 1343–1346 (2014). doi: 10.1126/science.1254610;

pmid: 25214627

14. G. Chapron et al., Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s

modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346,1517–1519

(2014). doi: 10.1126/science.1257553; pmid: 25525247

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 7of9

RESEARCH |REVIEW

on October 18, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from

15. M. D. Reynolds et al., Dynamic conservation for migratory

species. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700707 (2017). doi: 10.1126/

sciadv.1700707; pmid: 28845449

16. C. Kremen, Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing

debate for biodiversity conservation. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.

1355, 52–76 (2015). doi: 10.1111/nyas.12845;

pmid: 26213864

17. C. D. Mendenhall, A. Shields-Estrada, A. J. Krishnaswami,

G. C. Daily, Quantifying and sustaining biodiversity in tropical

agricultural landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113,

14544–14551 (2016). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604981113;

pmid: 27791070

18. C. D. Mendenhall, D. S. Karp, C. F. J. Meyer, E. A. Hadly,

G. C. Daily, Predicting biodiversity change and averting

collapse in agricultural landscapes. Nature 509, 213–217

(2014). doi: 10.1038/nature13139; pmid: 24739971

19. C. M. Kennedy, E. H. C. Grant, M. C. Neel, W. F. Fagan,

P. P. Marra, Landscape matrix mediates occupancy dynamics

of Neotropical avian insectivores. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1837–1850

(2011). doi: 10.1890/10-1044.1; pmid: 21830722

20. J. A. Foley et al., Global consequences of land use. Science

309, 570–574 (2005). doi: 10.1126/science.1111772;

pmid: 16040698

21. N. Ramankutty et al., Trends in global agricultural land use:

Implications for environmental health and food security.

Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 69, 789–815 (2018). doi: 10.1146/

annurev-arplant-042817-040256; pmid: 29489395

22. F. Isbell et al., Linking the influence and dependence

of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 546,65–72

(2017). doi: 10.1038/nature22899; pmid: 28569811

23. F. Isbell et al., Benefits of increasing plant diversity in

sustainable agroecosystems. J. Ecol. 105,871–879 (2017).

doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12789

24. D. J. Eastburn, A. T. O’Geen, K. W. Tate, L. M. Roche, Multiple

ecosystem services in a working landscape. PLOS ONE 12,

e0166595 (2017). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166595;

pmid: 28301475

25. D. A. Driscoll, S. C. Banks, P. S. Barton, D. B. Lindenmayer,

A. L. Smith, Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented

landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 605–613 (2013).

doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.010; pmid: 23883740

26. W. F. Fagan, E. E. Holmes, Quantifying the extinction vortex.

Ecol. Lett. 9,51–60 (2006). pmid: 16958868

27. F. S. Chapin 3rd et al., Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability

strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25,

241–249 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008;

pmid: 19923035

28. F. Isbell et al., High plant diversity is needed to maintain

ecosystem services. Nature 477, 199–202 (2011).

doi: 10.1038/nature10282; pmid: 21832994

29. M. G. E. Mitchell, E. M. Bennett, A. Gonzalez, Linking

landscape connectivity and ecosystem service provision:

Current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems 16,

894–908 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s10021-013-9647-2

30. M. Loreau, N. Mouquet, A. Gonzalez, Biodiversity as spatial

insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

U.S.A. 100, 12765–12770 (2003). doi: 10.1073/

pnas.2235465100; pmid: 14569008

31. C. Kremen, A. Miles, Ecosystem services in biologically

diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits,

externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 17, 40 (2012).

doi: 10.5751/ES-05035-170440

32. A. C. M. Gaudin et al., Increasing crop diversity mitigates

weather variations and improves yield stability. PLOS ONE 10,

e0113261 (2015). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113261;

pmid: 25658914

33. S. M. Philpott, B. B. Lin, S. Jha, S. J. Brines, A multi-scale

assessment of h urricane impact s on agricultur al landscapes

basedonlanduseandtopographicfeatures.Agric.

Ecosyst. Environ. 128,12–20 (2008). doi: 10.1016/

j.agee.2008.04.016

34. L. C. Ponisio et al., Diversification practices reduce organic to

conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 282,

20141396 (2015). doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1396;

pmid: 25621333

35. R. J. Hobbs et al., Managing the whole landscape: Historical,

hybrid, and novel ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12,

557–564 (2014). doi: 10.1890/130300

36. N. Estrada-Carmona, A. K. Hart, F. A. J. DeClerck,

C. A. Harvey, J. C. Milder, Integrated landscape management

for agriculture, rural livelihoods, and ecosystem conservation:

An assessment of experience from Latin America and

the Caribbean. Landsc. Urban Plan. 129,1–1 1 (2014).

doi: 10.1016/j .landu rbplan. 2014.05. 001

37. H. Gu, S. M. Subramanian, Drivers of change in

socio-ecological production landscapes: Implications for

better management. Ecol. Soc. 19,41(2014).doi:10.5751/

ES-06283-190141

38. M. K. Anderson, Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge

and the Management of California’s Natural Resources

(Univ. of California Press, 2005).

39. E. M. Bignal, D. I. McCracken, The nature conservation value

of European traditional farming systems. Environ. Rev. 8,

149–171 (2000). doi: 10.1139/a00-009

40. S. K. Lowder, J. Skoet, T. Raney, The number, size, and

distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms

worldwide. World Dev. 87,16–29 (2016). doi: 10.1016/

j.worlddev.2015.10.041

41. C. L. Gray et al., Local biodiversity is higher inside than

outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun.

7, 12306 (2016). doi: 10.1038/ncomms12306;

pmid: 27465407

42. C. L. Shafer, Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area

management categories V-VI. Global Ecol. Conserv. 3,

331–348 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2014.12.007

43. F. A. J. De Clerck et al., Biodiversit y conservation in

human-modified landscapes of Mesoamerica: Past, present

and future. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2301–2313 (2010).

doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.026

44. C. A. Ha rvey et al., Patterns of animal diversity

in different forms of tree cover in agricultural

landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 16,1986–1999 (2006).

doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1986:POADID]2.0.CO;2;

pmid: 17069389

45. Ç. H. Şekercioğlu et al., Tropical countryside riparian

corridors provide critical habitat and connectivity for

seed-dispersing forest birds in a fragmented landscape.

J. Ornithol. 156 (Suppl. 1), 343–353 (2015). doi: 10.1007/

s10336-015-1299-x

46. C. A. Harvey et al., Contribution of live fences to the

ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes.

Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 111,200–230 (2005). doi: 10.1016/

j.agee.2005.06.011

47. A. Medina, C. A. Harvey, D. S. Merlo, S. Vílchez, B. Hernández,

Bat diversity and movement in an agricultural landscape in

Matiguás, Nicaragua. Biotropica 39, 120–128 (2007).

doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00240.x

48. K. Williams-Guillen, C. McCann, J. C. Martinez Sanchez,

F. Koontz, Resource availability and habitat use by mantled

howling monkeys in a Nicaraguan coffee plantation: Can

agroforests serve as core habitat for a forest mammal?

Anim. Conserv. 9, 331–338 (2006). doi: 10.1111/

j.1469-1795.2006.00042.x

49. J. Avelino, A. Romero-Gurdián, H. F. Cruz-Cuellar,

F. A. J. Declerck, Landscape context and scale differentially

impact coffee leaf rust, coffee berry borer, and coffee

root-knot nematodes. Ecol. Appl. 22, 584–596 (2012).

doi: 10.1890/11-0869.1; pmid: 22611856

50. D. S. Karp et al., Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control

and coffee yield. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1339–1347 (2013).

doi: 10.1111/ele.12173; pmid: 23981013

51. C. A. Harvey et al., Climate-smart landscapes: Opportunities

and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in

tropical agriculture. Conserv. Lett. 7,77–90 (2014).

doi: 10.1111/conl.12066

52. A. T. H. Keeley et al., Making habitat connectivity a

reality. Conserv. Biol. (2018). doi: 10.1111/cobi.13158

pmid: 29920775

53. W. C. Morse et al., Consequences of environmental service

payments for forest retention and recruitment in a Costa Rican

biological corridor. Ecol. Soc. 14, 23 (2009). doi: 10.5751/

ES-02688-140123

54. J. Owley, D. Takacs, “Flexible Conservation in Uncertain

Times,”in Contemporary Issues in Climate Change Law and

Policy: Essays Inspired by the IPCC (UC Hastings Research

Paper 180, Univ. at Buffalo School of Law, 2016),

pp. 65–102; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?

abstract_id=2700658.

55. J. Alvez, A. L. Schmitt Filho, J. Farley, G. Alarcon, A. C. Fantini,

The potential fo r agroecosystem s to restore ecol ogical

corridors and sustain farmer livelihoods: Evidence from

Brazil. Ecol. Restor. 30,288–290 (2012). doi: 10.3368/

er.30.4.288

56. C. M. Kennedy et al., Bigger is better: Improved nature

conservation and economic returns from landscape-level

mitigation. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501021 (2016). doi: 10.1126/

sciadv.1501021; pmid: 27419225

57. I. Scoones, P. Newell, M. Leach, in The Politics of Green

Transformations, I. Scoones, M. Leach, P. Newell, Eds.

(Earthscan from Routledge, 2015), pp. 1–24.

58. M. B. Mascia, M. Mills, When conservation goes viral:

The diffusion of innovative biodiversity conservation

policies and practices. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12442 (2018).

doi: 10.1111/conl.12442

59. D. F. Doak, V. J. Bakker, B. E. Goldstein, B. Hale, What

is the future of conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 29,77–81

(2014). doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.10.013; pmid: 24332874

60. K. Hamrick, “State of private investment in conservation

2016: A landscape assessment of an emerging market”

(Forest Trends, 2016).

61. R. Chaplin-Kramer et al., Ecosystem service information to

benefit sustainability standards for commodity supply chains.

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1355,77–97 (2015). doi: 10.1111/

nyas.12961; pmid: 26555859

62. P. G. Curtis, C. M. Slay, N. L. Harris, A. Tyukavina,

M. C. Hansen, Classifying drivers of global forest loss.

Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018). doi: 10.1126/science.

aau3445; pmid: 30213911

63. D. Pannell et al., Understanding and promoting adoption of

conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust. J. Exp.

Agric. 46, 1407–1424 (2006). doi: 10.1071/EA05037

64. M. Leach, I. Scoones, in The Politics of Green

Transformations, I. Scoones, P. Newell, M. Leach, Eds.

(Earthscan from Routledge, 2015), pp. 119–133.

65. D. R. Cameron, D. C. Marvin, J. M. Remucal, M. C. Passero,

Ecosystem management and land conservation can

substantially contribute to California’s climate mitigation

goals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 12833–12838 (2017).

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707811114; pmid: 29133408

66. N. Ramankutty, A. T. Evan, C. Monfreda, J. A. Foley, Farming

the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural

lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22,

GB1003 (2008). doi: 10.1029/2007GB002952

67. M. A. Altieri, The ecological role of biodiversity in

agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 74,19–31 (1999).

doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00028-6

68. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems

(IPES-Food), “From uniformity to diversity: A paradigm

shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological

systems”(IPES-Food, 2016); http://www.ipes-food.org/

images/Reports/UniformityToDiversity_FullReport.pdf.

69. C. Kremen, A. Iles, C. M. Bacon, Diversified farming systems:

An agro-ecological, systems-based alternative to modern

industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 17, 44 (2012). doi: 10.5751/

ES-05103-170444

70. V. Ricciardi, N. Ramankutty, Z. Mehrabi, L. Jarvis,

B. Chookolingo, How much of the world’s food do

smallholders produce? Global Food Sec. 17,64–72 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002

71. M. Montenegro, Banking on wild relatives to feed the world.

Gastron. J. Crit. Food Stud. 16,1–8 (2016). doi: 10.1525/

gfc.2016.16.1.1

72. A. Iles, R. Marsh, Nurturing diversified farming systems

in industrialized countries: How public policy can

contribute. Ecol. Soc. 17, 42 (2012). doi: 10.5751/

ES-05041-170442

73. A. S. Davis, J. D. Hill, C. A. Chase, A. M. Johanns,

M. Lie bman, Increasing cropping system diversity balances

productivity, profitability and environmental health. PLOS

ONE 7, e47149 (2012). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047149;

pmid: 23071739

74. B. Phalan, M. Onial, A. Balmford, R. E. Green, Reconciling food

production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and

land sparing compared. Science 333,1289–1291 (2011).

doi: 10.1126/science.1208742;pmid:21885781

75. K. Garbach et al., Examining multi-functionality for crop yield

and ecosystem services in five systems of agroecological

intensification. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15,11–28 (2017).

doi: 10.1080/14735903.2016.1174810

76. J.Pretty,Z.P.Bharucha,Sustainableintensificationin

agricultural systems. Ann. Bot. 114, 1571–1596 (2014).

doi: 10.1093/aob/mcu205; pmid: 25351192

77. G. M. Gurr et al., Multi-country evidence that crop diversification

promotes ecologi cal intensifica tion of agricult ure.

Nat. Plants 2, 16014 (2016). doi: 10.1038/nplants.20 16.14;

pmid: 27249349

78. R. F. Pywell et al., Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop

yield: Evidence for ecological intensification. Proc. R. Soc.

London Ser. B 282, 20151740 (2015). doi: 10.1098/

rspb.2015.1740; pmid: 26423846

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 8of9

RESEARCH |REVIEW

on October 18, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from

79. L. Li et al., Diversity enhances agricultural productivity via

rhizosphere phosphorus facilitation on phosphorus-deficient

soils. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 11192–11196 (2007).

doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704591104; pmid: 17592130

80. D. K. Letourneau et al., Does plant diversity benefit

agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecol. Appl. 21,9–21

(2011). doi: 10.1890/09-2026.1; pmid: 21516884

81. Y. Zhu et al., Genetic diversity and disease control in rice.

Nature 406, 718–722 (2000). doi: 10.1038/35021046;

pmid: 10963595

82. S. F. Bender, C. Wagg, M. G. A. van der Heijden, An

underground revolution: Biodiversity and soil ecological

engineering for agricultural sustainability. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31,

440–452 (2016). doi: 10.1016/ j.tree.2016.02 .016;pmid:

26993667

83. I. Perfecto, J. Vandermeer, A. Wright, Nature’sMatrix:Linking

Agriculture, Conservation and Food Sovereignty (Earthscan, 2009).

84. J. A. Hilty, A. M. Merenlender, Use of riparian corridors and

vineyards by mammalian predators in northern California.

Conserv. Biol. 18, 126–135 (2004). doi: 10.1111/j.1523-

1739.2004.00225.x

85. W. E. Thogmartin et al., Restoring monarch butterfly habitat

in the Midwestern US: ‘All hands on deck.’Environ. Res. Lett.

12, 074005 (2017). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa7637

86. L. A. Sc hulte et al., Prairie strips improve biodiversity

and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from

corn-soybean croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114,

11247–11252 (2017). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1620229114;

pmid: 28973922

87. E. Brandes et al., Subfield profitability analysis reveals an

economic case for cropland diversification. Environ. Res. Lett.

11, 014009 (2016). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014009

88. O. De Schutter, “Agroecology and the right to food,”report

presented at the 16th Session of the United Nations

Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49], Geneva, Switzerland,

8 March 2011.

89. K. G. MacDicken et al., Global progress toward sustainable

forest management. For. Ecol. Manage. 352,47–56 (2015).

doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.005

90. H. G. Lund, Accounting for the world’s rangelands.

Soc. Range Manage. 29,3–10 (2007).

91. S. Gauthier, M.-A. Vaillancourt, D. Kneeshaw, P. Drapeau,

L. De Grandpré, Y. Claveau, D. Paré, in Ecosystem Management

in the Boreal Forest, S. Gauthier, M.-A. Vaillancourt, A. Leduc,

L. De Grandpré, D. Kneeshaw, H. Morin, P. Drapeau,

Y. Bergeron, Eds. (Univ. du Québec, 2009), pp. 13–38.

92. M. Mangel et al., Principles for the conservation of wild living

resources. Ecol. Appl.6,338–362 (1996). doi: 10.2307/2269369

93. J. A. Layzer, Natural Experiments: Ecosystem-Based

Management and the Environment (MIT, 2008).

94. P. Campos, L. Huntsinger, J. L. Oviedo, P. F. Starrs, M. Diaz,

R. B. Standiford, G. Montero, Eds., Mediterranean Oak

Woodland Working Landscapes:Dehesas of Spainand Ranchlands

of California (Springer Science+Business Media, 2013).

95. J. A. Ramírez, M. Díaz, The role of temporal shrub

encroachment for the maintenance of Spanish holm oak

Quercus ilex dehesas. For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 1976–1983

(2008). doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.019

96. M. A. Xenopoulos et al., Scenarios of freshwater fish extinctions

from climate change and water withdrawal. Global Change Biol.

11,1557–1564 (2005). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001008.x

97. S. D. Polade, A. Gershunov, D. R. Cayan, M. D. Dettinger,

D. W. Pierce, Precipitation in a warming world: Assessing

projected hydro-climate changes in California and other

Mediterranean climate regions. Sci. Rep. 7,10783(2017).

doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11285-y;pmid:28883636

98. F. R. Hauer et al., Gravel-bed river floodplains are the

ecological nexus of glaciated mountain landscapes. Sci. Adv.

2, e1600026 (2016). doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1600026;

pmid: 27386570

99. A. T. Keeley et al., New concepts, models, and assessments

of climate-wise connectivity. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 073002

(2018). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aacb85

100. W. Sutherland, L. V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, R. Smith, Eds., What

Works in Conservation (Open Book, ed. 2, 2017), vol. 2.

101. J. Bongaarts, S. W. Sinding, A response to critics of family

planning programs. Int. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health 35,

39–44 (2009). doi: 10.1363/3503909; pmid: 19465347

102. E. W. Sanderson, J. Walston, J. G. Robinson, From bottleneck

to breakthrough: Urbanization and the future of biodiversity

conservation. B ioscience 68,412–426 (2018). doi: 10.1093/

biosci/biy039;pmid:29867252

103. C. J. Bradshaw, B. W. Brook, Human population reduction is

not a quick fix for environmental problems. Proc. Natl.

Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 16610–16615 (2014). doi: 10.1073/

pnas.1410465111; pmid: 25349398

104. J. Poore , T. Nemec ek, Reduc ing food ’s environmental

impacts through producers and consumers. Science

360,987–992 (2018). doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216;

pmid: 29853680

105. Great E astern Ra nges, www.ger.org.au.

106. V. Athreya, M. Odden, J. D. C. Linnell, J. Krishnaswamy,

U. Karanth, Big cats in our backyards: Persistence of large

carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India.

PLOS ONE 8, e57872 (2013). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057872;

pmid: 23483933

ACKNO WLED GME NTS

We appreciate the constructive input of D. Ackerly, B. Brunner,

A. Campbell, F. DeClerck, and A. Knight. Competing interests: The

authors declare no competing interests.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

www.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaau6020/suppl/DC1

Tables S1 and S2

References (107–158)

10.1126/science.aau6020

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 9of9

RESEARCH |REVIEW

on October 18, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from

Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people

C. Kremen and A. M. Merenlender

DOI: 10.1126/science.aau6020

(6412), eaau6020.362Science

, this issue p. eaau6020Science

just for ecosystem services but also for maintenance and persistence of nonhuman species.

most human-modified lands as ''working landscapes.'' These can provide for human needs and maintain biodiversity not

have to be a lost cause. Kremen and Merenlender review how biodiversity-based techniques can be used to manage

and preserved. However, this still leaves vast regions of the world unprotected and modified. Such landscapes do not

nonhuman species. This is clearly unsustainable, and the amount of land we protect for nature needs to be increased

As the human population has grown, we have taken and modified more and more land, leaving less and less for

A nature-friendly matrix

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaau6020

MATERIALS

SUPPLEMENTARY http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2018/10/17/362.6412.eaau6020.DC1

CONTENT

RELATED http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/362/6412/287.full

REFERENCES http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaau6020#BIBL

This article cites 142 articles, 29 of which you can access for free

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Terms of ServiceUse of this article is subject to the

is a registered trademark of AAAS.Science

licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. The title

Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. 2017 © The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive

(print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement ofScience

on October 18, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from

www.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaau6020/suppl/DC1

Supplementary Materials for

Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people

C. Kremen* and A. M. Merenlender

*Corresponding author: ckremen@berkeley.edu

Published 19 October 2018, Science 362, eaau6020 (2018)

DOI: 10.1126/science.aau6020

This PDF file includes:

Tables S1 and S2

References

Table S1.

Conservation instruments that have potential to promote working lands conservation along with representative examples and

challenges. Voluntary Incentives (red), Market Instruments (blue), Environmental Regulations and Compliance through Offsets

(orange), and Governance (purple).

Conservation instruments

Example applied to working landscapes

Challenges

Conservation easement: A voluntary

legal agreement between a landowner and

a private or public land trust that

permanently limits designated land uses in

order to protect conservation values in

exchange for payment or tax benefits.

The Nature Conservancy is the largest

easement holder in the US.

Approximately 46% of its easement

holdings are on working

landscapes with ranching, forestry, or

farming more likely to be designated as

buffers to enhance biodiversity in the

surrounding area than easements without

these uses (107).

1) Have been amended in the past meaning

perpetuity is uncertain.

2) Hard to monitor compliance and prescriptive

management activities in particular.

3) Private land trusts may prove not to be durable

institutions over time.

4) Can impact public tax revenue.

5) Public funds are often expended by private

institutions without public oversight for the

initial investment choices and oversight (108)

6) May not lead to landscape-level objectives if

not tied to a larger-scale acquisition plan.

Incentive programs for landowners:

public or private funds for land

management activities that can help with

the cost of restoring or maintaining

working landscapes; sometimes matched

by monetary or in-kind contributions from

the landowner.

US Farm Bill Conservation Programs

such as Conservation Reserve Program

and Environmental Quality Incentives

Program fund best management practices

on farmlands, including set-asides,

restoration, and sustainable agriculture

practices.

1) Transaction costs could be high for

government.

2) Adoption rates may be low if application

process is cumbersome or incentives

insufficient.

3) Reversible over time – once contracts are

finished, landowners may fail to renew or

support may no longer be available, which can

lead to fairly extensive land cover change, such

as the loss of grasslands and wetlands in

response to increased corn prices in the US

Conservation instruments

Example applied to working landscapes

Challenges

Midwest, causing farmers to let Conservation

Reserve Program contracts lapse(109)

4) Not likely to lead to landscape-level objectives,

unless connected to a landscape-level initiative.

Transfer development rights:

Development is permitted at higher than

allowable densities in exchange for

paying for the lost opportunity costs

associated with reducing development

elsewhere, creating higher density

development and reducing urban sprawl

that can present a threat to working

landscapes; thereby, protecting open

space that can be managed as working

lands.

A) 20,974 ha of agricultural land was

conserved in the densely-developed

Baltimore–Washington, USA, region,

through transferring development rights,

resulting in lower density zoning and

hence reducing the threat from future

development to productive farmland

(110).

B) Land rights trading has achieved

farmland preservation in China leading

the way for future application in

developing countries (111).

1) Loss of open space in higher density urban

areas where access of residents to open space is

already limited.

2) May inflate prices in low density areas thereby

excluding low income residents.

3) Transaction costs mostly borne by private

beneficiaries creating a barrier if the incentive

to increase development is not sufficient to

warrant a trade for protections elsewhere (112)

4) Can be viewed by government as complicated

to implement (113)

Certification and labeling schemes:

Sustainability standards are adopted

voluntarily by landowners and paired with

compliance verification, traceability and

labels, potentially leading to improved

farm, forest or rangeland management

compatible with working lands

conservation

Smithsonian’s “Bird-Friendly” coffee

agroforests; Rainforest Alliance green

frog label (114); organic cacao

agroforestry in Bolivia (115).

1) Limit on environmental standards that can be

met due to costs of implementation and

monitoring beyond what can be passed on to

consumer.

2) Mismatch between spatial targeting of

certification for conservation versus market

goals.

3) Economic benefits are sometimes realized by

end-seller and not by farmer, who may bear

costs (114)

4) Not likely to lead to landscape-level objectives,

unless connected to a landscape-level initiative

Sustainable supply chains: Companies

make voluntary commitments, sometimes

A) The Round-table on Responsible Soy

is a consortium-led group with 3

party

1) This approach may have a large impact due to

the economic power and influence of corporate

Conservation instruments

Example applied to working landscapes

Challenges

as part of product certification, to improve

sustainability across their supply chain

that may involve better land/water

management practices and thus may

improve conservation outcomes on

working lands.

verification whose standards include no

natural habitat conversion, protection of

high value conservation areas, and best

management practices regarding soils,

water and agrochemical use (61).

B) Some modest reductions in

deforestation are documented due to

adoption of certification standards in

Indonesia (116)

actors engaging in voluntary actions to improve

sustainability (61), but there is a risk of

“greenwashing”. (114)

2) Opportunities to benefit from certification

without actual conservation outcomes; for

example, the certification of sustainable oil

palm production in Indonesia reduced

deforestation across a limited area, while most

of the certified production comes from areas

that had little remaining forest to start with

(116). Overall the supply chain approach has

not yet arrested deforestation due to

commodity cropping (62).

3) Little data exists to evaluate effectiveness of

standards for achieving specific environmental

outcomes. (61)

4) Considerations noted for certification at the

land-owner level also apply, although when

corporations work with many land-owners in a

region, there is the potential for true landscape-

level approaches.

Payments for ecosystem services: Public

or private compensation to individuals or

communities for activities to promote

specific ecosystem services, often from

cultivated, range or forest lands, which

can include payments for biodiversity

conservation, to reduce the growth in

global greenhouse-gas emissions, and

conserve trees for carbon sequestration

(REDD+).

A) The Regional Integrated Silvopastoral

Ecosystem Management Project in

Nicaragua pays private landowners to

adopt land management practices that

favor biodiversity conservation and

carbon sequestration. Payments are

proportional to the level of management

changes and services provided (117).

B) In Wolong Reserve, China, payments

to local residents and forestry enterprises

to cease fuelwood and timber harvest and

1) Narrow focus on one goal such as C-

sequestration can lead to unintended negative

consequences for other goals; for example

when native forests are replaced by fast

growing plantations to sequester carbon more

rapidly.

2) Monetary rewards can undermine intrinsic

stewardship values or cause perceptions of

entitlement to reward for not performing

environmentally-damaging action

Conservation instruments

Example applied to working landscapes

Challenges

prevent forest encroachment through

regular monitoring improved forest cover

and habitat suitability for Giant Panda

(Ailuropoda melanoleuca) (118)

3) Inequitable distribution of benefits within and

among communities.

4) Tradeoffs between enrolling large landowners

versus many landowners.

5) Monitoring for accountability is complex and

costly.

6) Often top-down “one size fits all” programs

that don’t allow landowner knowledge and

creativity to thrive (119)

7) Not likely to lead to landscape-level objectives,

unless connected to a landscape-level initiative

Environmental regulations: Laws

designed to protect the environment by

restricting habitat or species loss,

pollution, or environmental degradation,

thereby protecting natural resources on

working lands.

The Brazilian Forest Code requires

private land-owners to set aside a certain

portion of natural habitat as well as

restore riparian areas and maintain hilltop

forests (120) (see also landscape-level

mitigation, below).

1) Inequitable application of regulations across

physical and social contexts – for example, the

Environmental Protection Agency noted fewer

emission standards violations in Hispanic

communities across the USA than warranted,

demonstrating disparities in the enforcement of

environmental laws (121)

2) Economic impacts of regulations are often

perceived as damaging, creating opposition,

when in fact the actual costs are usually small

and short lived (122).

3) Political will to implement regulations can be

limited when constituents perceive an

economic threat.

Mitigation/habitat and carbon banking:

A habitat conservation area, which can

include working landscapes, where offsets

to compensate for impacts to global

warming, species or ecosystems can be

met for a cost.

A) More than 100 conservation banks had

been approved by the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service in 11 states, covering

some 60 threatened and endangered

species on 790,000 acres (123). Some of

these land banks are working cattle

ranches where grazing is compatible with

1) Restoration can often only partially reach the

desired reference condition and generally takes

many years, meaning the impacts of habitat

loss are incurred for some time before they are

fully mitigated (125, 126).

2) For offsets that are far from the impact sites,

may not be ecologically equivalent (127).

Conservation instruments

Example applied to working landscapes

Challenges

maintaining endangered species habitat

(e.g. vernal pool species).

B) 86 out of 1838 projects registered with

the main certifier, Voluntary Carbon

Standard, relate to reforestation efforts in

agriculture and forest landscapes (124).

3) When a single reserve or the same habitat acres

are used to offset impacts for multiple

endangered species, there is no real

additionality for conservation beyond the first

species protected by the bank or site.

4) Mitigation banks are often impacted by

surrounding land use development that will

impact resource conservation within the bank

lands in the future (128).

5) Carbon banks require a stable reservoir of

carbon with consistent year-to-year harvest or

no harvest areas, which is much harder for

small landowners to achieve because their

harvest varies widely over time (129).

6) Contracting offsets requires good governance,

but it is often lacking and therefore limits the

number and quality of projects which explains

why so few forestry projects have been

certified under Kyoto's Clean Development

Mechanism (124).

7) Transactions costs can be high (e.g. measuring,

monitoring, verifying, & enforcing mitigation

results) (124).

Landscape-level mitigation: Identify

mitigation opportunities which support

regional conservation priorities such as

enhancing habitat connectivity across

working lands sometimes include habitat

restoration. This type of off-site

mitigation can be implemented through

in-lieu fees, or prior to the impacts

A) A recent amendment to the Brazilian

Forest Code permits landowners that

develop all of their land to purchase

mitigation credits elsewhere within the

same biome, in order to promote

aggregation of restored or conserved

natural habitat. The application of

landscape-level mitigation in Brazil was

found to reduce total business costs by

1) No net loss of habitat will not be met if

preservation of alternative areas is the basis for

mitigation rather than habitat restoration.

2) Mitigation lands may not be ecologically

equivalent to the impacted areas and

equivalency can be difficult to estimate across

space and time (127).

3) Requires strategic conservation planning to

identify priority investment areas.

Conservation instruments

Example applied to working landscapes

Challenges

occurring as is the case for advanced

mitigation.

$19 million per 6-year sugarcane growing

cycle while often supporting more species

and storing more carbon (56).

B) The California Department of

Transportation allocated 7.5 million for

conservation easements on farmland,

equivalent to the land that will be

impacted elsewhere by a light rail project,

thereby advancing large landscape

conservation goals.

Community-based natural resource

management: Management authority is

devolved from government or NGO to

local communities to manage or co-

manage natural resources (often common

pool resources) sustainably and for their

own well-being; including lands inhabited

and managed by indigenous peoples.

A) In Mongolia, numerous instances of

CBNRM have been instigated by

government and NGO agencies to replace

the former traditional communal

management of grazing lands, that was

disrupted in the 1920’s by Mongolia’s

revolution. (130).

B) Indigenous lands make up 20% of the

Brazilian Amazon and serve to protect

these regions from out-

right deforestation.

Indigenous lands occupy a far larger

extent than protected parks in the Amazon

and are often located near the most

vulnerable agricultural frontier areas

(131).

1) Competing interests among different

stakeholders within local communities often

exist.

2) Community governance mechanisms can be

insufficient to implement the management

goals (132).

3) Local expertise and available workforce may

be limited and interventions such as river

restoration treatments can benefit from both

indigenous and more recent scientific

knowledge (133).

4) Without full resolution of land rights and

representation by local people at the highest

levels there can be resistance to full adoption or

engagement of land management efforts (132).

Government lands managed for

production. If policies are put in place

on national forests or rangelands to

implement sustainable management and

protect environmental quality these can

contribute to working lands.

These include IUCN V protected areas --

sustainable management systems aimed at

conserving traditional management

systems and the biodiversity that

sometimes depends on them or on

developing sustainable management

1) Legal and management restrictions on use and

development may not be sufficient or may not

be enforced.

2) Working lands management can be severely

impacted if permissible economic activities on

government lands also include highly

Conservation instruments

Example applied to working landscapes

Challenges

systems alongside of biodiversity

conservation (IUCN VI). Lonjsko Polje

Nature Park (IUCN V) in Croatia protects

a traditional pasturing system adapted to a

floodplain ecosystem and maintains an

important reservoir of plant biodiversity,

along with globally endangered species

that depends on grazing (134).

damaging actions such as shale gas

development and mining (135).

3) Difficult to reconcile trade-offs between

improving livelihoods in the near term and

environmental protection and conservation

(42).

4) Restoration and management of these

government lands requires ongoing

intervention particularly in arid landscapes

(136) and because government commitment

and investment can wane.

Table S2.

Representative examples showing benefits of diversified farming, ranching and forestry systems

for biodiversity and livelihood outcomes

Outcomes

Representative Examples

Biodiversity and connectivity

promoted

1) Organic agriculture enhances biodiversity of many

taxonomic groups relative to conventional agriculture (137–

139).

2) Adding hedgerows comprised of diverse native shrubs and

trees enhances native bee and bird biodiversity in intensively-

farmed landscapes of California relative to unmanaged field

edges (140, 141).

3) Agroforestry provides habitat for tropical forest species like

the mantled howling monkey (Allouatta palliada) and

enhances connectivity between forest reserves (48, 142).

Ecosystem services increased

1) A meta-analysis showed that use of cover crops in place of

winter fallows stored 0.32+ 0.08 Mg C/ha/year, which globally

could compensate for 8% of the annual emissions from

agriculture (143).

2) In tropical coffee systems, the abundance of specific

insectivorous birds doubles pest control of the coffee berry

borer, and is enhanced by increased forest cover both within

and surrounding the farm (avoided damages estimated at

US$75–US$310/ ha/year, 50)

3) Retaining narrow wooded corridors through pasture boosted

pollination success in habitat fragments by 14.3 times,

providing ecosystem function benefits (144).

4) Revegetation with native grass seeds and soil manipulations,

show improved forage across the Great Basin rangelands,

USA, because native perennial grasses provide forage over a

longer season, and increase infiltration of limited rainfall keeps

forage palatable for longer (145).

Negative environmental

externalities minimized

1)By integrating strips of restored prairie onto 10% of the area

of corn and soy bean monocultures in Iowa, phosphorus and

soils entering waterways were reduced by 4.3 and 20-fold,

respectively (86).

2) By planting nectar-rich floral strips along rice fields in Asia

to support natural enemies of crop pests, farmers reduced

insecticide applications by 70% while enhancing yields by 5%

(77).

3) Through complex crop rotations, herbicide use was reduced

by 88% leading to 200-fold reduction in freshwater toxicity,

Outcomes

Representative Examples

while increasing yields and maintaining profits (despite higher

labor costs, 73).

Yields increased

1)Planting companion plants to create a push-pull system

controlled two devastating pests of maize (corn-borers and

Striga weeds), tripling yields while also producing fodder for

cattle and improving soil fertility (146).

2) In Bolivia, while cacao yields were lower in experimental

shade agroforestry plots compared to full sun cacao, total yield

of food plants more than doubled in agroforesty plots (147).

3) In a meta-analysis of annual inter-crops, 81% of responses

showed greater yields for the intercrop compared to the sole

crops based on land equivalent ratios (LER); LERs increased

significantly with greater temporal niche differentiation of the

two crops (148).

Profits enhanced/ markets

accessed

1) By reducing input use through diversification practices,

farmers cut costs and enhanced profits (77)

2) Farmers can increase profits by targeting less productive

lands for replacement, either with habitat for beneficial insects

(leading to increased yields on the remaining 92 – 97% of

cropped area, 78), or by planting perennials, which reduced

variable costs (leading to reduced variable costs, 87).

3) Using certification systems for best practices can bring

higher premiums and profits to farmers (e.g., organic, 149),

create market access and green supply chains (e.g. eco-labelled

coffee or cacao, 114).

Food security and livelihoods

enhanced

1) By providing improved fodder for cattle for companion x

plants in push pull maize/sorghum agriculture in Africa, cattle

provide more milk which provides better nutrition and an

income source for women and children (146).

2) Richness and evenness of plants and animals in home

gardens that were managed for consumption were strong

positive predictors of food security during a drought for

subsistence farmers in the Yucatan (150)

3) Farm production diversity led to greater dietary diversity

and improved child health among subsistence farmers in

Malawi (151, 152), although elsewhere, other factors such as

market access affected dietary diversity in important ways

(153).

4) Muyuy’s small farmers near Iquitos, Peru plant more than

260 varieties of plants in agroforestry plots resembling natural

forest, resulting in high agricultural output and immense

diversity of species (154).

Climate adaptation and

mitigation enhanced

1)Cacao farmers perceived that increasing the number and

types of trees in agroforestry plots was a method for adapting

to increased incidence of flood, drought and heat in Bolivia, as

Outcomes

Representative Examples

well as disease (115). These agroforestry systems also stored

on average 50 Mg/ha more C than full sun monocultures,

contributing to C-mitigation (155).

2) Corn and soy grown in more complex rotations exhibited

greater yields and more stability during hot and dry periods in

the USA (32), and water infiltration that reduced drought

effects was markedly improved in complex organic rotations

compared to conventional monocultures (156).

4) Large-scale riparian vegetation restoration coupled with

changes in stream flow management could enhance carbon

sequestration benefits (measured as high as 20,915 kg/ha of

biomass and carbon storage near the river compared to close to

zero 2000 m from the river), in Northwest China (157).

Significant contributions

made to global food supply

1) Resource-conserving (agroecological) systems tend to

boost production relative to unimproved (subsistence)

farming methods, on average by 79% (76)

2) Smallholder farms less than 2 ha produce 30 – 34% of the

world’s food by kcal on just 24% of the agricultural land

area (70).

3) About 50% of the world’s smallholder farmers practice

resource-conserving agriculture (158).

4) While difficult to estimate precisely, it follows from the

previous 3 points that agroecological methods currently

contribute a substantial amount to world food production,

and that there is much room for improvement with broader

adoption of these methods.

References and Notes

1. J. L. Payne, A. M. Bush, N. A. Heim, M. L. Knope, D. J. McCauley, Ecological selectivity of

the emerging mass extinction in the oceans. Science 353, 1284–1286 (2016).

doi:10.1126/science.aaf2416 Medline

2. G. Ceballos, P. R. Ehrlich, R. Dirzo, Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass

extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

U.S.A. 114, E6089–E6096 (2017). Medline

3. G. Ceballos, P. R. Ehrlich, A. D. Barnosky, A. García, R. M. Pringle, T. M. Palmer,

Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction.

Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015). doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253 Medline

4. C. A. Hallmann, M. Sorg, E. Jongejans, H. Siepel, N. Hofland, H. Schwan, W. Stenmans, A.

Müller, H. Sumser, T. Hörren, D. Goulson, H. de Kroon, More than 75 percent decline

over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLOS ONE 12, e0185809

(2017). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 Medline

5. T. Newbold, L. N. Hudson, S. L. L. Hill, S. Contu, I. Lysenko, R. A. Senior, L. Börger, D. J.

Bennett, A. Choimes, B. Collen, J. Day, A. De Palma, S. Díaz, S. Echeverria-Londoño,

M. J. Edgar, A. Feldman, M. Garon, M. L. K. Harrison, T. Alhusseini, D. J. Ingram, Y.

Itescu, J. Kattge, V. Kemp, L. Kirkpatrick, M. Kleyer, D. L. P. Correia, C. D. Martin, S.

Meiri, M. Novosolov, Y. Pan, H. R. P. Phillips, D. W. Purves, A. Robinson, J. Simpson,

S. L. Tuck, E. Weiher, H. J. White, R. M. Ewers, G. M. Mace, J. P. W. Scharlemann, A.

Purvis, Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50

(2015). doi:10.1038/nature14324 Medline

6. E. O. Wilson, Half Earth (Liveright Publishing Company, 2016).

7. P. R. Elsen, W. B. Monahan, A. M. Merenlender, Global patterns of protection of elevational

gradients in mountain ranges. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 6004–6009 (2018).

doi:10.1073/pnas.1720141115 Medline

8. R. M. Pringle, Upgrading protected areas to conserve wild biodiversity. Nature 546, 91–99

(2017). doi:10.1038/nature22902 Medline

9. J. M. Halley, N. Monokrousos, A. D. Mazaris, W. D. Newmark, D. Vokou, Dynamics of

extinction debt across five taxonomic groups. Nat. Commun. 7, 12283 (2016).

doi:10.1038/ncomms12283 Medline

10. W. F. Laurance, D. C. Useche, J. Rendeiro, M. Kalka, C. J. A. Bradshaw, S. P. Sloan, S. G.

Laurance, M. Campbell, K. Abernethy, P. Alvarez, V. Arroyo-Rodriguez, P. Ashton, J.

Benítez-Malvido, A. Blom, K. S. Bobo, C. H. Cannon, M. Cao, R. Carroll, C. Chapman,

R. Coates, M. Cords, F. Danielsen, B. De Dijn, E. Dinerstein, M. A. Donnelly, D.

Edwards, F. Edwards, N. Farwig, P. Fashing, P.-M. Forget, M. Foster, G. Gale, D. Harris,

R. Harrison, J. Hart, S. Karpanty, W. J. Kress, J. Krishnaswamy, W. Logsdon, J. Lovett,

W. Magnusson, F. Maisels, A. R. Marshall, D. McClearn, D. Mudappa, M. R. Nielsen, R.

Pearson, N. Pitman, J. van der Ploeg, A. Plumptre, J. Poulsen, M. Quesada, H. Rainey, D.

Robinson, C. Roetgers, F. Rovero, F. Scatena, C. Schulze, D. Sheil, T. Struhsaker, J.

Terborgh, D. Thomas, R. Timm, J. N. Urbina-Cardona, K. Vasudevan, S. J. Wright, J. C.

Arias-G, L. Arroyo, M. Ashton, P. Auzel, D. Babaasa, F. Babweteera, P. Baker, O.

Banki, M. Bass, I. Bila-Isia, S. Blake, W. Brockelman, N. Brokaw, C. A. Brühl, S.

Bunyavejchewin, J.-T. Chao, J. Chave, R. Chellam, C. J. Clark, J. Clavijo, R. Congdon,

R. Corlett, H. S. Dattaraja, C. Dave, G. Davies, Bde. M. Beisiegel, Rde. N. da Silva, A.

Di Fiore, A. Diesmos, R. Dirzo, D. Doran-Sheehy, M. Eaton, L. Emmons, A. Estrada, C.

Ewango, L. Fedigan, F. Feer, B. Fruth, J. G. Willis, U. Goodale, S. Goodman, J. C. Guix,

P. Guthiga, W. Haber, K. Hamer, I. Herbinger, J. Hill, Z. Huang, I. F. Sun, K. Ickes, A.

Itoh, N. Ivanauskas, B. Jackes, J. Janovec, D. Janzen, M. Jiangming, C. Jin, T. Jones, H.

Justiniano, E. Kalko, A. Kasangaki, T. Killeen, H. B. King, E. Klop, C. Knott, I. Koné, E.

Kudavidanage, J. L. Ribeiro, J. Lattke, R. Laval, R. Lawton, M. Leal, M. Leighton, M.

Lentino, C. Leonel, J. Lindsell, L. Ling-Ling, K. E. Linsenmair, E. Losos, A. Lugo, J.

Lwanga, A. L. Mack, M. Martins, W. S. McGraw, R. McNab, L. Montag, J. M.

Thompson, J. Nabe-Nielsen, M. Nakagawa, S. Nepal, M. Norconk, V. Novotny, S.

O’Donnell, M. Opiang, P. Ouboter, K. Parker, N. Parthasarathy, K. Pisciotta, D.

Prawiradilaga, C. Pringle, S. Rajathurai, U. Reichard, G. Reinartz, K. Renton, G.

Reynolds, V. Reynolds, E. Riley, M.-O. Rödel, J. Rothman, P. Round, S. Sakai, T.

Sanaiotti, T. Savini, G. Schaab, J. Seidensticker, A. Siaka, M. R. Silman, T. B. Smith, S.

S. de Almeida, N. Sodhi, C. Stanford, K. Stewart, E. Stokes, K. E. Stoner, R. Sukumar,

M. Surbeck, M. Tobler, T. Tscharntke, A. Turkalo, G. Umapathy, M. van Weerd, J. V.

Rivera, M. Venkataraman, L. Venn, C. Verea, C. V. de Castilho, M. Waltert, B. Wang,

D. Watts, W. Weber, P. West, D. Whitacre, K. Whitney, D. Wilkie, S. Williams, D. D.

Wright, P. Wright, L. Xiankai, P. Yonzon, F. Zamzani, Averting biodiversity collapse in

tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489, 290–294 (2012). doi:10.1038/nature11318

Medline

11. M. C. Urban, Climate change. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348,

571–573 (2015). doi:10.1126/science.aaa4984 Medline

12. S. R. Loarie, P. B. Duffy, H. Hamilton, G. P. Asner, C. B. Field, D. D. Ackerly, The velocity

of climate change. Nature 462, 1052–1055 (2009). doi:10.1038/nature08649 Medline

13. L. O. Frishkoff, D. S. Karp, L. K. M’Gonigle, C. D. Mendenhall, J. Zook, C. Kremen, E. A.

Hadly, G. C. Daily, Loss of avian phylogenetic diversity in neotropical agricultural

systems. Science 345, 1343–1346 (2014). doi:10.1126/science.1254610 Medline

14. G. Chapron, P. Kaczensky, J. D. C. Linnell, M. von Arx, D. Huber, H. Andrén, J. V. López-

Bao, M. Adamec, F. Álvares, O. Anders, L. Balčiauskas, V. Balys, P. Bedő, F. Bego, J.

C. Blanco, U. Breitenmoser, H. Brøseth, L. Bufka, R. Bunikyte, P. Ciucci, A. Dutsov, T.

Engleder, C. Fuxjäger, C. Groff, K. Holmala, B. Hoxha, Y. Iliopoulos, O. Ionescu, J.

Jeremić, K. Jerina, G. Kluth, F. Knauer, I. Kojola, I. Kos, M. Krofel, J. Kubala, S.

Kunovac, J. Kusak, M. Kutal, O. Liberg, A. Majić, P. Männil, R. Manz, E. Marboutin, F.

Marucco, D. Melovski, K. Mersini, Y. Mertzanis, R. W. Mysłajek, S. Nowak, J. Odden,

J. Ozolins, G. Palomero, M. Paunović, J. Persson, H. Potočnik, P.-Y. Quenette, G. Rauer,

I. Reinhardt, R. Rigg, A. Ryser, V. Salvatori, T. Skrbinšek, A. Stojanov, J. E. Swenson,

L. Szemethy, A. Trajçe, E. Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, M. Váňa, R. Veeroja, P. Wabakken,

M. Wölfl, S. Wölfl, F. Zimmermann, D. Zlatanova, L. Boitani, Recovery of large

carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519

(2014). doi:10.1126/science.1257553 Medline

15. M. D. Reynolds, B. L. Sullivan, E. Hallstein, S. Matsumoto, S. Kelling, M. Merrifield, D.

Fink, A. Johnston, W. M. Hochachka, N. E. Bruns, M. E. Reiter, S. Veloz, C. Hickey, N.

Elliott, L. Martin, J. W. Fitzpatrick, P. Spraycar, G. H. Golet, C. McColl, C. Low, S. A.

Morrison, Dynamic conservation for migratory species. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700707 (2017).

doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700707 Medline

16. C. Kremen, Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation.

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1355, 52–76 (2015). doi:10.1111/nyas.12845 Medline

17. C. D. Mendenhall, A. Shields-Estrada, A. J. Krishnaswami, G. C. Daily, Quantifying and

sustaining biodiversity in tropical agricultural landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

113, 14544–14551 (2016). doi:10.1073/pnas.1604981113 Medline

18. C. D. Mendenhall, D. S. Karp, C. F. J. Meyer, E. A. Hadly, G. C. Daily, Predicting

biodiversity change and averting collapse in agricultural landscapes. Nature 509, 213–

217 (2014). doi:10.1038/nature13139 Medline

19. C. M. Kennedy, E. H. C. Grant, M. C. Neel, W. F. Fagan, P. P. Marra, Landscape matrix

mediates occupancy dynamics of Neotropical avian insectivores. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1837–

1850 (2011). doi:10.1890/10-1044.1 Medline

20. J. A. Foley, R. Defries, G. P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S. R. Carpenter, F. S. Chapin, M.

T. Coe, G. C. Daily, H. K. Gibbs, J. H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E. A. Howard, C. J.

Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J. A. Patz, I. C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty, P. K. Snyder, Global

consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005). doi:10.1126/science.1111772

Medline

21. N. Ramankutty, Z. Mehrabi, K. Waha, L. Jarvis, C. Kremen, M. Herrero, L. H. Rieseberg,

Trends in global agricultural land use: Implications for environmental health and food

security. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 69, 789–815 (2018). doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-

042817-040256 Medline

22. F. Isbell, A. Gonzalez, M. Loreau, J. Cowles, S. Díaz, A. Hector, G. M. Mace, D. A. Wardle,

M. I. O’Connor, J. E. Duffy, L. A. Turnbull, P. L. Thompson, A. Larigauderie, Linking

the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 546, 65–72

(2017). doi:10.1038/nature22899 Medline

23. F. Isbell, P. R. Adler, N. Eisenhauer, D. Fornara, K. Kimmel, C. Kremen, D. K. Letourneau,

M. Liebman, H. W. Polley, S. Quijas, M. Scherer-Lorenzen, Benefits of increasing plant

diversity in sustainable agroecosystems. J. Ecol. 105, 871–879 (2017). doi:10.1111/1365-

2745.12789

24. D. J. Eastburn, A. T. O’Geen, K. W. Tate, L. M. Roche, Multiple ecosystem services in a

working landscape. PLOS ONE 12, e0166595 (2017). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166595

Medline

25. D. A. Driscoll, S. C. Banks, P. S. Barton, D. B. Lindenmayer, A. L. Smith, Conceptual

domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 605–613 (2013).

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.010 Medline

26. W. F. Fagan, E. E. Holmes, Quantifying the extinction vortex. Ecol. Lett. 9, 51–60 (2006).

Medline

27. F. S. Chapin 3rd, S. R. Carpenter, G. P. Kofinas, C. Folke, N. Abel, W. C. Clark, P. Olsson,

D. M. S. Smith, B. Walker, O. R. Young, F. Berkes, R. Biggs, J. M. Grove, R. L. Naylor,

E. Pinkerton, W. Steffen, F. J. Swanson, Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies

for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 241–249 (2010).

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008 Medline

28. F. Isbell, V. Calcagno, A. Hector, J. Connolly, W. S. Harpole, P. B. Reich, M. Scherer-

Lorenzen, B. Schmid, D. Tilman, J. van Ruijven, A. Weigelt, B. J. Wilsey, E. S. Zavaleta,

M. Loreau, High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477,

199–202 (2011). doi:10.1038/nature10282 Medline

29. M. G. E. Mitchell, E. M. Bennett, A. Gonzalez, Linking landscape connectivity and

ecosystem service provision: Current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems 16, 894–

908 (2013). doi:10.1007/s10021-013-9647-2

30. M. Loreau, N. Mouquet, A. Gonzalez, Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous

landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100, 12765–12770 (2003).

doi:10.1073/pnas.2235465100 Medline

31. C. Kremen, A. Miles, Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional

farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 17, 40 (2012).

doi:10.5751/ES-05035-170440

32. A. C. M. Gaudin, T. N. Tolhurst, A. P. Ker, K. Janovicek, C. Tortora, R. C. Martin, W. Deen,

Increasing crop diversity mitigates weather variations and improves yield stability. PLOS

ONE 10, e0113261 (2015). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113261 Medline

33. S. M. Philpott, B. B. Lin, S. Jha, S. J. Brines, A multi-scale assessment of hurricane impacts

on agricultural landscapes based on land use and topographic features. Agric. Ecosyst.

Environ. 128, 12–20 (2008). doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.04.016

34. L. C. Ponisio, L. K. M’Gonigle, K. C. Mace, J. Palomino, P. de Valpine, C. Kremen,

Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. London

Ser. B 282, 20141396 (2015). doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1396 Medline

35. R. J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, C. M. Hall, P. Bridgewater, F. S. Chapin III, E. C. Ellis, J. J. Ewel, L.

M. Hallett, J. Harris, K. B. Hulvey, S. T. Jackson, P. L. Kennedy, C. Kueffer, L. Lach, T.

C. Lantz, A. E. Lugo, J. Mascaro, S. D. Murphy, C. R. Nelson, M. P. Perring, D. M.

Richardson, T. R. Seastedt, R. J. Standish, B. M. Starzomski, K. N. Suding, P. M.

Tognetti, L. Yakob, L. Yung, Managing the whole landscape: Historical, hybrid, and

novel ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 557–564 (2014). doi:10.1890/130300

36. N. Estrada-Carmona, A. K. Hart, F. A. J. DeClerck, C. A. Harvey, J. C. Milder, Integrated

landscape management for agriculture, rural livelihoods, and ecosystem conservation: An

assessment of experience from Latin America and the Caribbean. Landsc. Urban Plan.

129, 1–11 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.05.001

37. H. Gu, S. M. Subramanian, Drivers of change in socio-ecological production landscapes:

Implications for better management. Ecol. Soc. 19, 41 (2014). doi:10.5751/ES-06283-

190141

38. M. K. Anderson, Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of

California’s Natural Resources (Univ. of California Press, 2005).

39. E. M. Bignal, D. I. McCracken, The nature conservation value of European traditional

farming systems. Environ. Rev. 8, 149–171 (2000). doi:10.1139/a00-009

40. S. K. Lowder, J. Skoet, T. Raney, The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder

farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev. 87, 16–29 (2016).

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.041

41. C. L. Gray, S. L. L. Hill, T. Newbold, L. N. Hudson, L. Börger, S. Contu, A. J. Hoskins, S.

Ferrier, A. Purvis, J. P. W. Scharlemann, Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside

terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 7, 12306 (2016).

doi:10.1038/ncomms12306 Medline

42. C. L. Shafer, Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V-VI.

Global Ecol. Conserv. 3, 331–348 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2014.12.007

43. F. A. J. DeClerck, R. Chazdon, K. D. Holl, J. C. Milder, B. Finegan, A. Martinez-Salinas, P.

Imbach, L. Canet, Z. Ramos, Biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes of

Mesoamerica: Past, present and future. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2301–2313 (2010).

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.026

44. C. A. Harvey, A. Medina, D. M. Sánchez, S. Vílchez, B. Hernández, J. C. Saenz, J. M. Maes,

F. Casanoves, F. L. Sinclair, Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover

in agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 16, 1986–1999 (2006). doi:10.1890/1051-

0761(2006)016[1986:POADID]2.0.CO;2 Medline

45. Ç. H. Şekercioğlu, S. R. Loarie, F. Oviedo-Brenes, C. D. Mendenhall, G. C. Daily, P. R.

Ehrlich, Tropical countryside riparian corridors provide critical habitat and connectivity

for seed-dispersing forest birds in a fragmented landscape. J. Ornithol. 156 (Suppl. 1),

343–353 (2015). doi:10.1007/s10336-015-1299-x

46. C. A. Harvey, C. Villanueva, J. Villacís, M. Chacón, D. Muñoz, M. López, M. Ibrahim, R.

Gómez, R. Taylor, J. Martinez, A. Navas, J. Saenz, D. Sánchez, A. Medina, S. Vilchez,

B. Hernández, A. Perez, F. Ruiz, F. López, I. Lang, F. L. Sinclair, Contribution of live

fences to the ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 111,

200–230 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.06.011

47. A. Medina, C. A. Harvey, D. S. Merlo, S. Vílchez, B. Hernández, Bat diversity and

movement in an agricultural landscape in Matiguás, Nicaragua. Biotropica 39, 120–128

(2007). doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00240.x

48. K. Williams-Guillen, C. McCann, J. C. Martinez Sanchez, F. Koontz, Resource availability

and habitat use by mantled howling monkeys in a Nicaraguan coffee plantation: Can

agroforests serve as core habitat for a forest mammal? Anim. Conserv. 9, 331–338

(2006). doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00042.x

49. J. Avelino, A. Romero-Gurdián, H. F. Cruz-Cuellar, F. A. J. Declerck, Landscape context

and scale differentially impact coffee leaf rust, coffee berry borer, and coffee root-knot

nematodes. Ecol. Appl. 22, 584–596 (2012). doi:10.1890/11-0869.1 Medline

50. D. S. Karp, C. D. Mendenhall, R. F. Sandí, N. Chaumont, P. R. Ehrlich, E. A. Hadly, G. C.

Daily, Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1339–

1347 (2013). doi:10.1111/ele.12173 Medline

51. C. A. Harvey, M. Chacón, C. I. Donatti, E. Garen, L. Hannah, A. Andrade, L. Bede, D.

Brown, A. Calle, J. Chará, C. Clement, E. Gray, M. H. Hoang, P. Minang, A. M.

Rodríguez, C. Seeberg-Elverfeldt, B. Semroc, S. Shames, S. Smukler, E. Somarriba, E.

Torquebiau, J. van Etten, E. Wollenberg, Climate-smart landscapes: Opportunities and

challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conserv. Lett.

7, 77–90 (2014). doi:10.1111/conl.12066

52. A. T. H. Keeley, G. Basson, D. R. Cameron, N. E. Heller, P. R. Huber, C. A. Schloss, J. H.

Thorne, A. M. Merenlender, Making habitat connectivity a reality. Conserv. Biol. (2018).

doi:10.1111/cobi.13158 Medline

53. W. C. Morse, J. L. Schedlbauer, S. E. Sesnie, B. Finegan, C. A. Harvey, S. J. Hollenhorst, K.

L. Kavanagh, D. Stoian, J. D. Wulfhorst, Consequences of environmental service

payments for forest retention and recruitment in a Costa Rican biological corridor. Ecol.

Soc. 14, 23 (2009). doi:10.5751/ES-02688-140123

54. J. Owley, D. Takacs, “Flexible Conservation in Uncertain Times,” in Contemporary Issues in

Climate Change Law and Policy: Essays Inspired by the IPCC (UC Hastings Research

Paper 180, Univ. at Buffalo School of Law, 2016), pp. 65–102;

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2700658.

55. J. Alvez, A. L. Schmitt Filho, J. Farley, G. Alarcon, A. C. Fantini, The potential for

agroecosystems to restore ecological corridors and sustain farmer livelihoods: Evidence

from Brazil. Ecol. Restor. 30, 288–290 (2012). doi:10.3368/er.30.4.288

56. C. M. Kennedy, D. A. Miteva, L. Baumgarten, P. L. Hawthorne, K. Sochi, S. Polasky, J. R.

Oakleaf, E. M. Uhlhorn, J. Kiesecker, Bigger is better: Improved nature conservation and

economic returns from landscape-level mitigation. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501021 (2016).

doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501021 Medline

57. I. Scoones, P. Newell, M. Leach, in The Politics of Green Transformations, I. Scoones, M.

Leach, P. Newell, Eds. (Earthscan from Routledge, 2015), pp. 1–24.

58. M. B. Mascia, M. Mills, When conservation goes viral: The diffusion of innovative

biodiversity conservation policies and practices. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12442 (2018).

doi:10.1111/conl.12442

59. D. F. Doak, V. J. Bakker, B. E. Goldstein, B. Hale, What is the future of conservation?

Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 77–81 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.tree.2013.10.013 Medline

60. K. Hamrick, “State of private investment in conservation 2016: A landscape assessment of an

emerging market” (Forest Trends, 2016).

61. R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. Jonell, A. Guerry, E. F. Lambin, A. J. Morgan, D. Pennington, N.

Smith, J. A. Franch, S. Polasky, Ecosystem service information to benefit sustainability

standards for commodity supply chains. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1355, 77–97 (2015).

doi:10.1111/nyas.12961 Medline

62. P. G. Curtis, C. M. Slay, N. L. Harris, A. Tyukavina, M. C. Hansen, Classifying drivers of

global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018). doi:10.1126/science.aau3445 Medline

63. D. Pannell, G. R. Marshall, N. Barr, A. Curtis, F. Vanclay, R. Wilkinson, Understanding and

promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust. J. Exp. Agric.

46, 1407–1424 (2006). doi:10.1071/EA05037

64. M. Leach, I. Scoones, in The Politics of Green Transformations, I. Scoones, P. Newell, M.

Leach, Eds. (Earthscan from Routledge, 2015), pp. 119–133.

65. D. R. Cameron, D. C. Marvin, J. M. Remucal, M. C. Passero, Ecosystem management and

land conservation can substantially contribute to California’s climate mitigation goals.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 12833–12838 (2017). doi:10.1073/pnas.1707811114

Medline

66. N. Ramankutty, A. T. Evan, C. Monfreda, J. A. Foley, Farming the planet: 1. Geographic

distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22,

GB1003 (2008). doi:10.1029/2007GB002952

67. M. A. Altieri, The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.

74, 19–31 (1999). doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00028-6

68. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food), “From uniformity

to diversity: A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological

systems” (IPES-Food, 2016); http://www.ipes-

food.org/images/Reports/UniformityToDiversity_FullReport.pdf.

69. C. Kremen, A. Iles, C. M. Bacon, Diversified farming systems: An agro-ecological, systems-

based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 17, 44 (2012).

doi:10.5751/ES-05103-170444

70. V. Ricciardi, N. Ramankutty, Z. Mehrabi, L. Jarvis, B. Chookolingo, How much of the

world’s food do smallholders produce? Global Food Sec. 17, 64–72 (2018).

doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002

71. M. Montenegro, Banking on wild relatives to feed the world. Gastron. J. Crit. Food Stud. 16,

1–8 (2016). doi:10.1525/gfc.2016.16.1.1

72. A. Iles, R. Marsh, Nurturing diversified farming systems in industrialized countries: How

public policy can contribute. Ecol. Soc. 17, 42 (2012). doi:10.5751/ES-05041-170442

73. A. S. Davis, J. D. Hill, C. A. Chase, A. M. Johanns, M. Liebman, Increasing cropping system

diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health. PLOS ONE 7,

e47149 (2012). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047149 Medline

74. B. Phalan, M. Onial, A. Balmford, R. E. Green, Reconciling food production and biodiversity

conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333, 1289–1291 (2011).

doi:10.1126/science.1208742 Medline

75. K. Garbach, J. C. Milder, F. A. J. DeClerck, M. Montenegro de Wit, L. Driscoll, B. Gemmill-

Herren, Examining multi-functionality for crop yield and ecosystem services in five

systems of agroecological intensification. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15, 11–28 (2017).

doi:10.1080/14735903.2016.1174810

76. J. Pretty, Z. P. Bharucha, Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann. Bot. 114,

1571–1596 (2014). doi:10.1093/aob/mcu205 Medline

77. G. M. Gurr, Z. Lu, X. Zheng, H. Xu, P. Zhu, G. Chen, X. Yao, J. Cheng, Z. Zhu, J. L.

Catindig, S. Villareal, H. Van Chien, Q. Cuong, C. Channoo, N. Chengwattana, L. P.

Lan, H. Hai, J. Chaiwong, H. I. Nicol, D. J. Perovic, S. D. Wratten, K. L. Heong, Multi-

country evidence that crop diversification promotes ecological intensification of

agriculture. Nat. Plants 2, 16014 (2016). doi:10.1038/nplants.2016.14 Medline

78. R. F. Pywell, M. S. Heard, B. A. Woodcock, S. Hinsley, L. Ridding, M. Nowakowski, J. M.

Bullock, Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: Evidence for ecological

intensification. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 282, 20151740 (2015).

doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.1740 Medline

79. L. Li, S.-M. Li, J.-H. Sun, L.-L. Zhou, X.-G. Bao, H.-G. Zhang, F.-S. Zhang, Diversity

enhances agricultural productivity via rhizosphere phosphorus facilitation on phosphorus-

deficient soils. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 11192–11196 (2007).

doi:10.1073/pnas.0704591104 Medline

80. D. K. Letourneau, I. Armbrecht, B. S. Rivera, J. M. Lerma, E. J. Carmona, M. C. Daza, S.

Escobar, V. Galindo, C. Gutiérrez, S. D. López, J. L. Mejía, A. M. A. Rangel, J. H.

Rangel, L. Rivera, C. A. Saavedra, A. M. Torres, A. R. Trujillo, Does plant diversity

benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecol. Appl. 21, 9–21 (2011).

doi:10.1890/09-2026.1 Medline

81. Y. Zhu, H. Chen, J. Fan, Y. Wang, Y. Li, J. Chen, J. Fan, S. Yang, L. Hu, H. Leung, T. W.

Mew, P. S. Teng, Z. Wang, C. C. Mundt, Genetic diversity and disease control in rice.

Nature 406, 718–722 (2000). doi:10.1038/35021046 Medline

82. S. F. Bender, C. Wagg, M. G. A. van der Heijden, An underground revolution: Biodiversity

and soil ecological engineering for agricultural sustainability. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31,

440–452 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.016 Medline

83. I. Perfecto, J. Vandermeer, A. Wright, Nature’s Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Conservation

and Food Sovereignty (Earthscan, 2009).

84. J. A. Hilty, A. M. Merenlender, Use of riparian corridors and vineyards by mammalian

predators in northern California. Conserv. Biol. 18, 126–135 (2004). doi:10.1111/j.1523-

1739.2004.00225.x

85. W. E. Thogmartin, L. López-Hoffman, J. Rohweder, J. Diffendorfer, R. Drum, D. Semmens,

S. Black, I. Caldwell, D. Cotter, P. Drobney, L. L. Jackson, M. Gale, D. Helmers, S.

Hilburger, E. Howard, K. Oberhauser, J. Pleasants, B. Semmens, O. Taylor, P. Ward, J.

F. Weltzin, R. Wiederholt, Restoring monarch butterfly habitat in the Midwestern US:

‘All hands on deck.’ Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 074005 (2017). doi:10.1088/1748-

9326/aa7637

86. L. A. Schulte, J. Niemi, M. J. Helmers, M. Liebman, J. G. Arbuckle, D. E. James, R. K.

Kolka, M. E. O’Neal, M. D. Tomer, J. C. Tyndall, H. Asbjornsen, P. Drobney, J. Neal, G.

Van Ryswyk, C. Witte, Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of multiple

ecosystem services from corn-soybean croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114,

11247–11252 (2017). doi:10.1073/pnas.1620229114 Medline

87. E. Brandes, G. S. McNunn, L. A. Schulte, I. J. Bonner, D. J. Muth, B. A. Babcock, B.

Sharma, E. A. Heaton, Subfield profitability analysis reveals an economic case for

cropland diversification. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 014009 (2016). doi:10.1088/1748-

9326/11/1/014009

88. O. De Schutter, “Agroecology and the right to food,” report presented at the 16th Session of

the United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49], Geneva, Switzerland, 8

March 2011.

89. K. G. MacDicken, P. Sola, J. E. Hall, C. Sabogal, M. Tadoum, C. de Wasseige, Global

progress toward sustainable forest management. For. Ecol. Manage. 352, 47–56 (2015).

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.005

90. H. G. Lund, Accounting for the world’s rangelands. Soc. Range Manage. 29, 3–10 (2007).

91. S. Gauthier, M.-A. Vaillancourt, D. Kneeshaw, P. Drapeau, L. De Grandpré, Y. Claveau, D.

Paré, in Ecosystem Management in the Boreal Forest, S. Gauthier, M.-A. Vaillancourt,

A. Leduc, L. De Grandpré, D. Kneeshaw, H. Morin, P. Drapeau, Y. Bergeron, Eds.

(Univ. du Québec, 2009), pp. 13–38.

92. M. Mangel, L. M. Talbot, G. K. Meffe, M. T. Agardy, D. L. Alverson, J. Barlow, D. B.

Botkin, G. Budowski, T. Clark, J. Cooke, R. H. Crozier, P. K. Dayton, D. L. Elder, C. W.

Fowler, S. Funtowicz, J. Giske, R. J. Hofman, S. J. Holt, S. R. Kellert, L. A. Kimball, D.

Ludgwig, K. Magnusson, B. S. Malayang III, C. Mann, E. A. Norse, S. P. Northridge, W.

F. Perrin, C. Perrings, E. A. Norse, S. P. Northridge, W. F. Perrin, C. Perrings, R. M.

Peterman, G. B. Rabb, H. A. Regier, J. E. Reynolds III, K. Sherman, M. P. Sissenwine, T.

D. Smith, A. Starfield, R. J. Taylor, M. F. Tillman, C. Toft, J. R. Twiss Jr., J. Wilen, T. P.

Young, Principles for the conservation of wild living resources. Ecol. Appl. 6, 338–362

(1996). doi:10.2307/2269369

93. J. A. Layzer, Natural Experiments: Ecosystem-Based Management and the Environment

(MIT, 2008).

94. P. Campos, L. Huntsinger, J. L. Oviedo, P. F. Starrs, M. Diaz, R. B. Standiford, G. Montero,

Eds., Mediterranean Oak Woodland Working Landscapes: Dehesas of Spain and

Ranchlands of California (Springer Science+Business Media, 2013).

95. J. A. Ramírez, M. Díaz, The role of temporal shrub encroachment for the maintenance of

Spanish holm oak Quercus ilex dehesas. For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 1976–1983 (2008).

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.019

96. M. A. Xenopoulos, D. M. Lodge, J. Alcamo, M. Marker, K. Schulze, D. P. Van Vuuren,

Scenarios of freshwater fish extinctions from climate change and water withdrawal.

Global Change Biol. 11, 1557–1564 (2005). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001008.x

97. S. D. Polade, A. Gershunov, D. R. Cayan, M. D. Dettinger, D. W. Pierce, Precipitation in a

warming world: Assessing projected hydro-climate changes in California and other

Mediterranean climate regions. Sci. Rep. 7, 10783 (2017). doi:10.1038/s41598-017-

11285-y Medline

98. F. R. Hauer, H. Locke, V. J. Dreitz, M. Hebblewhite, W. H. Lowe, C. C. Muhlfeld, C. R.

Nelson, M. F. Proctor, S. B. Rood, Gravel-bed river floodplains are the ecological nexus

of glaciated mountain landscapes. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600026 (2016).

doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600026 Medline

99. A. T. Keeley, D. D. Ackerly, D. R. Cameron, N. E. Heller, P. R. Huber, C. A. Schloss, J. H.

Thorne, A. M. Merenlender, New concepts, models, and assessments of climate-wise

connectivity. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 073002 (2018). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aacb85

100. W. Sutherland, L. V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, R. Smith, Eds., What Works in Conservation

(Open Book, ed. 2, 2017), vol. 2.

101. J. Bongaarts, S. W. Sinding, A response to critics of family planning programs. Int.

Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health 35, 39–44 (2009). doi:10.1363/3503909 Medline

102. E. W. Sanderson, J. Walston, J. G. Robinson, From bottleneck to breakthrough:

Urbanization and the future of biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 68, 412–426 (2018).

doi:10.1093/biosci/biy039 Medline

103. C. J. Bradshaw, B. W. Brook, Human population reduction is not a quick fix for

environmental problems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 16610–16615 (2014).

doi:10.1073/pnas.1410465111 Medline

104. J. Poore, T. Nemecek, Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and

consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018). doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216 Medline

105. Great Eastern Ranges, www.ger.org.au.

106. V. Athreya, M. Odden, J. D. C. Linnell, J. Krishnaswamy, U. Karanth, Big cats in our

backyards: Persistence of large carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India.

PLOS ONE 8, e57872 (2013). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057872 Medline

107. A. R. Rissman, L. Lozier, T. Comendant, P. Kareiva, J. M. Kiesecker, M. R. Shaw, A. M.

Merenlender, Conservation easements: Biodiversity protection and private use. Conserv.

Biol. 21, 709–718 (2007). doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00660.x Medline

108. A. A. M. Merenlender, L. Huntsinger, G. Guthey, S. K. Fairfax, Land trusts and

conservation easements : Who is conserving what for whom? Conserv. Biol. 18, 65–76

(2004). doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00401.x

109. C. K. Wright, M. C. Wimberly, Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens

grasslands and wetlands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 4134–4139 (2013).

doi:10.1073/pnas.1215404110 Medline

110. R. Pruetz, N. Standridge, What makes transfer of development rights work?: Success factors

from research and practice. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 75, 78–87 (2008).

doi:10.1080/01944360802565627

111. H. Wang, R. Tao, L. Wang, F. Su, Farmland preservation and land development rights

trading in Zhejiang, China. Habitat Int. 34, 454–463 (2010).

doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.12.004

112. S. Shahab, J. P. Clinch, E. O’Neill, Estimates of transaction costs in transfer of development

rights programs. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 84, 61–75 (2018).

doi:10.1080/01944363.2017.1406816

113. A. J. Shriar, A. Akins, Transfer of development rights, growth management, and landscape

conservation in Virginia. Local Environ. 23, 1–19 (2018).

doi:10.1080/13549839.2017.1382458

114. T. Tscharntke, J. C. Milder, G. Schroth, Y. Clough, F. DeClerck, A. Waldron, R. Rice, J.

Ghazoul, Conserving biodiversity through certification of tropical agroforestry crops at

local and landscape scales. Conserv. Lett. 8, 14–23 (2015). doi:10.1111/conl.12110

115. J. Jacobi, M. Schneider, P. Bottazzi, M. Pillco, P. Calizaya, S. Rist, Agroecosystem

resilience and farmers’ perceptions of climate change impacts on cocoa farms in Alto

Beni, Bolivia. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 30, 170–183 (2015).

doi:10.1017/S174217051300029X

116. K. M. Carlson, R. Heilmayr, H. K. Gibbs, P. Noojipady, D. N. Burns, D. C. Morton, N. F.

Walker, G. D. Paoli, C. Kremen, Effect of oil palm sustainability certification on

deforestation and fire in Indonesia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 121–126 (2018).

doi:10.1073/pnas.1704728114 Medline

117. S. Pagiola, A. R. Rios, A. Arcenas, Can the poor participate in payments for environmental

services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua. Environ. Dev. Econ. 13,

299–325 (2008). doi:10.1017/S1355770X08004270

118. M.-N. Tuanmu, A. Viña, W. Yang, X. Chen, A. M. Shortridge, J. Liu, Effects of payments

for ecosystem services on wildlife habitat recovery. Conserv. Biol. 30, 827–835 (2016).

doi:10.1111/cobi.12669 Medline

119. K. M. A. Chan, E. Anderson, M. Chapman, K. Jespersen, P. Olmsted, Payments for

ecosystem services: Rife with problems and potential—for transformation towards

sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 140, 110–122 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.029

120. B. Soares-Filho, R. Rajão, M. Macedo, A. Carneiro, W. Costa, M. Coe, H. Rodrigues, A.

Alencar, Land use. Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science 344, 363–364 (2014).

doi:10.1126/science.1246663 Medline

121. D. M. Konisky, C. Reenock, Regulatory enforcement, riskscapes, and environmental

justice. Policy Stud. J. 46, 7–36 (2018). doi:10.1111/psj.12203

122. A. Dechezleprêtre, M. Sato, The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness.

Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11, 183–206 (2017). doi:10.1093/reep/rex013

123. L. Scarlett, R. Espanchin-Niell, M. McKinney, The Endangered Species Act at 40: New

tools for conservation. Resources 184, 20–27 (2013).

124. G. C. van Kooten, Forest carbon offsets and carbon emissions trading: Problems of

contracting. For. Policy Econ. 75, 83–88 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.006

125. J. M. Bullock, J. Aronson, A. C. Newton, R. F. Pywell, J. M. Rey-Benayas, Restoration of

ecosystem services and biodiversity: Conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26,

541–549 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.06.011 Medline

126. N. Goldberg, K. C. Reiss, Accounting for wetland loss: Wetland mitigation trends in

northeast Florida 2006–2013. Wetlands 36, 373–384 (2016). doi:10.1007/s13157-016-

0749-4

127. F. Quétier, S. Lavorel, Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes:

Key issues and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2991–2999 (2011).

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.002

128. H. Levrel, P. Scemama, A.-C. Vaissiere, Should we be wary of mitigation banking?

Evidence regarding the risks associated with this wetland offset arrangement in Florida.

Ecol. Econ. 135, 136–149 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.025

129. H. Bigsby, Carbon banking: Creating flexibility for forest owners. For. Ecol. Manage. 257,

378–383 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.018

130. M. E. Fernández-Giménez, B. Batkhishig, B. Batbuyan, T. Ulambayar, Lessons from the

dzud: Community-based rangeland management increases the adaptive capacity of

Mongolian herders to winter disasters. World Dev. 68, 48–65 (2015).

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.015

131. D. Nepstad, S. Schwartzman, B. Bamberger, M. Santilli, D. Ray, P. Schlesinger, P.

Lefebvre, A. Alencar, E. Prinz, G. Fiske, A. Rolla, Inhibition of Amazon deforestation

and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conserv. Biol. 20, 65–73 (2006).

doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00351.x Medline

132. R. S. Wilson, T. Pearce, K. Jones, S. Fleischfresser, B. Davis, G. Jones, S. Lieske,

Indigenous land management in peri-urban landscapes: An Australian example. Soc. Nat.

Resour. 31, 335–350 (2018). doi:10.1080/08941920.2017.1383543

133. B. D. Hartman, D. A. Cleveland, O. A. Chadwick, Linking changes in knowledge and

attitudes with successful land restoration in indigenous communities. Restor. Ecol. 24,

749–760 (2016). doi:10.1111/rec.12347

134. G. Gugić, D. Župan, I. Zupan, in Protected Landscapes and Wild Biodiversity, N. Dudley,

S. Stolton, Eds. (Values of Protected Landscapes and Seascapes 3, International Union

for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2012), pp. 19–26.

135. D. Costa, J. Jesus, D. Branco, A. Danko, A. Fiúza, Extensive review of shale gas

environmental impacts from scientific literature (2010–2015). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.

Int. 24, 14579–14594 (2017). doi:10.1007/s11356-017-8970-0 Medline

136. R. J. Hobbs, Where to from here? Challenges for restoration and revegetation in a fast-

changing world. Rangeland J. 39, 563–566 (2017). doi:10.1071/RJ17053

137. C. Winqvist, J. Bengtsson, T. Aavik, F. Berendse, L. W. Clement, S. Eggers, C. Fischer, A.

Flohre, F. Geiger, J. Liira, T. Pärt, C. Thies, T. Tscharntke, W. W. Weisser, R.

Bommarco, Mixed effects of organic farming and landscape complexity on farmland

biodiversity and biological control potential across Europe. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 570–579

(2011). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01950.x

138. D. Gabriel, S. M. Sait, J. A. Hodgson, U. Schmutz, W. E. Kunin, T. G. Benton, Scale

matters: The impact of organic farming on biodiversity at different spatial scales. Ecol.

Lett. 13, 858–869 (2010). doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01481.x Medline

139. J. Bengtsson, J. Ahnström, A. C. Weibull, The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity

and abundance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 261–269 (2005). doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2664.2005.01005.x

140. L. C. Ponisio, L. K. M’Gonigle, C. Kremen, On-farm habitat restoration counters biotic

homogenization in intensively managed agriculture. Global Change Biol. 22, 704–715

(2016). doi:10.1111/gcb.13117 Medline

141. S. K. Heath, C. U. Soykan, K. L. Velas, R. Kelsey, S. M. Kross, A bustle in the hedgerow:

Woody field margins boost on farm avian diversity and abundance in an intensive

agricultural landscape. Biol. Conserv. 212, 153–161 (2017).

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.031

142. S. A. Bhagwat, K. J. Willis, H. J. B. Birks, R. J. Whittaker, Agroforestry: A refuge for

tropical biodiversity? Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 261–267 (2008).

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.005 Medline

143. C. Poeplau, A. Don, Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops

– A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200, 33–41 (2015).

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2014.10.024

144. U. Kormann, C. Scherber, T. Tscharntke, N. Klein, M. Larbig, J. J. Valente, A. S. Hadley,

M. G. Betts, Corridors restore animal-mediated pollination in fragmented tropical forest

landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 283, 20152347 (2016).

doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.2347

145. D. S. Pilliod, J. L. Welty, G. R. Toevs, Seventy-five years of vegetation treatments on

public rangelands in the Great Basin of North America. Rangelands 39, 1–9 (2017).

doi:10.1016/j.rala.2016.12.001

146. Z. Khan, C. Midega, J. Pittchar, J. Pickett, T. Bruce, Push–pull technology: A conservation

agriculture approach for integrated management of insect pests, weeds and soil health in

Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 9, 162–170 (2011). doi:10.3763/ijas.2010.0558

147. M. Schneider, C. Andres, G. Trujillo, F. Alcon, P. Amurrio, E. Perez, F. Weibel, J. Milz,

Cocoa and total system yields of organic and conventional agroforestry vs. monoculture

systems in a long-term field trial in Bolivia. Exp. Agric. 53, 351–374 (2017).

doi:10.1017/S0014479716000417

148. Y. Yu, T. J. Stomph, D. Makowski, W. van der Werf, Temporal niche differentiation

increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: A meta-analysis. Field Crops

Res. 184, 133–144 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.010

149. D. W. Crowder, J. P. Reganold, Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global

scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 7611–7616 (2015).

doi:10.1073/pnas.1423674112 Medline

150. D. Sampson, thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz (2015).

151. S. L. Dwivedi, E. T. Lammerts van Bueren, S. Ceccarelli, S. Grando, H. D. Upadhyaya, R.

Ortiz, Diversifying food systems in the pursuit of sustainable food production and healthy

diets. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 842–856 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2017.06.011 Medline

152. A. D. Jones, On-farm crop species richness is associated with household diet diversity and

quality in subsistence- and market-oriented farming households in Malawi. J. Nutr. 147,

86–96 (2017). doi:10.3945/jn.116.235879 Medline

153. K. T. Sibhatu, V. V. Krishna, M. Qaim, Production diversity and dietary diversity in

smallholder farm households. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 10657–10662 (2015).

doi:10.1073/pnas.1510982112 Medline

154. M. Pinedo-Vasquez, J. Barletti Pasqualle, D. Del Castillo Torres, K. Coffey, A tradition of

change: The dynamic relationship between biodiversity and society in sector Muyuy,

Peru. Environ. Sci. Policy 5, 43–53 (2002). doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(02)00023-0

155. J. Jacobi, C. Andres, M. Schneider, M. Pillco, P. Calizaya, S. Rist, Carbon stocks, tree

diversity, and the role of organic certification in different cocoa production systems in

Alto Beni, Bolivia. Agrofor. Syst. 88, 1117–1132 (2014). doi:10.1007/s10457-013-9643-

156. D. W. Lotter, R. Seidel, W. Liebhardt, The performance of organic and conventional

cropping systems in an extreme climate year. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 18, 146–154 (2003).

doi:10.1079/AJAA200345

157. T. Aishan, F. Betz, U. Halik, B. Cyffka, A. Rouzi, Biomass carbon sequestration potential

by riparian forest in the Tarim River watershed, Northwest China: Implication for the

mitigation of climate change impact. Forests 9, 196 (2018). doi:10.3390/f9040196

158. M. A. Altieri, V. M. Toledo, The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing

nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. J. Peasant Stud. 38, 587–

612 (2011). doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.582947

A Conservation Footprint for California Rice. Report to the California Rice Commission. University of California, Davis, and Point Blue Conservation Science. 173 pages.

Technical Report

Full-text available

Mar 2025

Native plant and pollinator survey on an organic herb farm in Washington state

Article

Mar 2025

Background: Trout Lake Farm (TLF) is a certified organic herb farm in North America. Located in Trout Lake, WA, it supplies plant material to a leading nutritional supplement company. TLF’s main crops include Coneflower (Echinacea angustifolia DC., Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench), Catnip (Nepeta cataria L.), and Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale F.H.Wigg). TLF is beginning to adopt the principles of regenerative agriculture, including the documentation and support of biodiversity on the farm’s property. The goal of this study was to provide a baseline understanding of pollinator habitat on farm property, as well as the proportion of native species found along the farm borders and field edges. Methods: The methods included random sampling of uncultivated areas on farm property for native and non-native plant species and cover, as well as sampling both cultivated and uncultivated areas on property for Lepidopteran (butterfly and moth) and Hymenopteran (bee and wasp) pollinators. Results: Results showed an estimated 8.3 percent of the farm’s property can be considered beneficial habitat for pollinators and other key wildlife. Pollinators were observed to be more abundant within the crop fields than in the uncultivated areas. The most abundant pollinator observed was the non-native honeybee (Apis mellifera), followed by native Bombus species and the Western Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio rutulus). Conclusions: TLF has a uniquely supportive relationship with native flora and fauna compared to traditional staple crop agricultural systems. Opportunities exist for increasing native habitat and improving sustainability practices. This initial evaluation of the farm’s biodiversity is the first step of supporting native species in an agricultural setting. Keywords: Regenerative agriculture, Uncultivated land, Working lands, Pollinator habitat, Organic farming, Native species

Avifaunal Salience Correlates with Conservation Interest in the Indigenous Nuer Community, Western Ethiopia

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025
HUM ECOL

Conservation frameworks are increasingly integrating scientific approaches with Indigenous knowledge to address biodiversity loss. Though Indigenous communities make up only 5% of the global population, they play an essential role in conservation. Within this paradigm, cognitive salience, people’s awareness of local species, offers insights that help decision-makers design conservation strategies tailored to specific communities and ecosystems. However, in many regions, this information is scarce. To explore cognitive salience's role in conservation, we investigated the link between bird salience and conservation interest among Ethiopia’s Indigenous Nuer people. Using bird survey data, focus group discussions, and household interviews, we explored how bird salience associates with conservation interest. Our findings reveal that birds hold high cognitive salience among the Nuer, as evidenced by their rich knowledge of folk names, perceptions, and cultural beliefs associated with avian species. A significant positive correlation was observed between an index of cognitive salience and expressed conservation interest (r = 0.53, df = 52; p = 0.0001), indicating species with higher salience would be more likely to gain conservation attention. Furthermore, this index correlated positively with both relative abundance and the aesthetic value of bird species, suggesting that more prevalent and culturally significant species tend to attract higher conservation interest. Given that highly salient species garner greater conservation interest, raising awareness of less salient but threatened or rare species could enhance local engagement to mitigate the risk of local extinctions. This highlights the importance of Indigenous perspectives in addressing contemporary conservation challenges and argues that integrating these interconnected human-nature relationships in conservation is vital for effective, culturally informed biodiversity conservation outcomes.

Differential Avian Responses to Coffee Farming Lead to Community Homogenization in a Working Landscape in Jardín, Colombia

Preprint

Full-text available

Feb 2025

In Colombia, coffee production has an ingrained cultural and economic importance. Coffee is cultivated in biodiverse areas using a variety of practices ranging from sun-exposed monocultures to mixed and shaded plantations. Management practices on this working landscape alter the composition of bird communities. We hypothesize that coffee agroecosystems homogenize bird communities by favoring the occupancy of non-forest dependent bird species and deterring forest dependent birds. We evaluate the effects of coffee plantations and associated metrics of vegetation structure on a subset of bird species in an agroforestry landscape in the Western Andes in Colombia and evaluate the hypothesis of community homogenization. We collected data in two consecutive years in 153 sites in coffee plantations and other habitats in Jardín, Colombia. In order to evaluate birds' response to changes in the working landscape we made single-season occupancy models and used five covariates: coffee (binary covariate), foliage height diversity (FHD) and canopy height (CH) as proxies for coffee management practices, human footprint (LHFI), and elevation. Finally, we used generalized dissimilarity models (GDM) with the same covariates and geographical distance to evaluate the homogenization hypothesis among coffee sites. We identified 193 species (six endangered and five endemics) and modeled occupancy of 74 species. Coffee plantations significantly decreased the occupancy of 14 species while 13 were favored. In general, non-forest dependent species preferred lower FHD and lower CH values, and occurred at lower elevations with high LHFI. On the contrary, forest dependent species preferred higher FHD and CH, and were found at higher elevations. The GDM with best fit supported the hypothesis that coffee sites tend to be more similar than no-coffee sites, and that elevation and FHD explained most of the variation in dissimilarity. The working landscape in Jardín holds an important community of birds but coffee plantations are driving its homogenization. We anticipate that non-forest dependent birds will continue to colonize working landscapes, unless structural vegetation changes are promoted. Increasing FHD and CH is a potential strategy to improve forest dependent bird occupancy and reduce homogenization in Jardín.

Farmers' tolerance for crop damage caused by wildlife: the role of compensation

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2025

Compensation is a common strategy to alleviate financial losses caused by wildlife, but its effects on farmers' tolerance towards damage to crops caused by wildlife are poorly understood. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted semi‐structured interviews in three areas in and around biosphere reserves in Sweden and Germany to examine farmers' appraisals of wildlife‐related crop damage and their evaluation of financial compensation in relation to crop damage prevention measures. We found that tolerated yield loss was higher and more variable with compensation compared to a scenario without compensation. Yet, also under a scenario of full financial compensation, farmers tolerated a median of less than 10% yield loss. Using an environmental stress model, our analysis revealed that farmers' perception of crop damage risk was influenced by their experience with wildlife and crop damage, their coping appraisals (e.g. accessibility of prevention measures and compensation), and individual motivations. Our results indicate that while compensation can be effective, its success to increase tolerance to crop damage varies most likely based on farmers' values and how they perceive administrative challenges. Effective management of wildlife‐related crop damage near and within protected areas should thus combine compensation schemes with tailored communication and crop damage prevention strategies involving governmental authorities, farmers, and other stakeholders.

How land property rights affect the effectiveness of payment for ecosystem services: A review

Article

Jan 2025
LAND USE POLICY

We conducted a qualitative literature review and provided a theoretical discussion of how private, common, and public land property rights (LPRs) uniquely influence the effectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem Service (PES). We considered three aspects of PES’s effectiveness: additionality (PES programs typically employ tests to assess whether the payment will result in additional ecosystem services), socioeconomic impacts, and transaction costs. The existing literature has not addressed differences between LPR types with respect to ensuring additionality. Particularly striking is the lack of consideration of additionality on public and common lands. Future research can assess whether private LPRs are more favorable for ensuing additionality than common and public LPRs. We found that most existing tests for additionality are for private lands, likely due to financial payment on private lands having more leverage to change land uses or technology in ways that can result in changes to ecosystem service provisions beyond baseline levels. While existing studies have shown more diverse socioeconomic impacts (e.g., on equity among community members) on common lands than on private and public lands, socioeconomic impacts between private and public lands have been insufficiently compared. Whether public LPR are associated with higher or lower transaction costs than private and common LPRs also remains unclear, although existing literature has indicated some strengths (e.g., reducing the number of PES contracts) and limitations (e.g., mistrust, contested leadership) of common lands for saving transaction costs compared to private lands. Quantitative literature reviews and more empirical evidence from real-world cases are needed to further assess the strengths and limitations of different types of LPR for enhancing PES’s effectiveness.

Monitoring ecological corridors for nature and people

Preprint

Full-text available

Mar 2025

Ecological corridors designed to maintain ecological connectivity between protected and conserved areas is a conservation strategy that is increasingly embraced around the world. Monitoring corridor effectiveness is essential to gauge progress toward connectivity conservation objectives; it also fosters learning among diverse rightsholders and interested parties. In particular, monitoring how social dynamics contribute to successful corridor conservation can enhance benefits to conservation and to local communities. By adapting to people's needs, corridor initiatives become socially acceptable and resilient to changing environmental and socio-economic conditions. Moreover, tracking public perceptions of corridors can inform adjustments in planning, management, governance, and outreach strategies. To prescribe comprehensive corridor monitoring, we follow the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation to set goals, establish objectives, select indicators, design monitoring activities, and set thresholds for triggering adaptive management. To illustrate the application of this framework, we present a case study from an ecological corridor in California. Finally, we propose various options for monitoring ecological outcomes, enabling conditions, and human well-being to ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of corridor conservation initiatives. We emphasize that creating a team environment among corridor players and holding regular meetings is vital for maintaining enthusiasm, participation, and funding over the long term.

Ecological Insights into the Biodiversity, Distribution, and Population Dynamics of Entomofauna in Semiarid and Scrub Jungle Ecosystems of Thoothukudi District, Tamil Nadu

Article

Dec 2024

G. Thanasingh Thanasingh

Entomofauna, or insect biodiversity, plays a crucial role in ecosystem stability, functioning, and conservation efforts. This study investigates the biodiversity, distribution, and population dynamics of insect species in the semiarid and scrub jungle ecosystems of Thoothukudi District, Tamil Nadu. Field surveys and statistical analyses were conducted to assess species diversity, seasonal variations, and habitat preferences. Results indicate significant variations in insect distribution patterns based on climatic conditions and vegetation types. The findings contribute to a better understanding of ecological balance and provide insights for conservation and sustainable management strategies.

Biodiversity–food trade‐offs when agricultural land is spared from production

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2025
AM J AGR ECON

Biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes, the world's predominant land use, could involve sparing, or setting aside, agricultural land from production, implying biodiversity–food trade‐offs. Employing bird species and agricultural data in two panel data sets, we evaluate the extent of set‐aside's trade‐offs in England between 1992 and 2007. Mixed biodiversity outcomes are reflected in a marginal effect, of a 100 ha increase in set‐aside, associated with a 1%–2% increase in species abundance and richness, no impact on Shannon‐Wiener diversity, and a 0.03 standard deviation fall in phylogenetic diversity. Lower phylogenetic diversity indicates that populations of less genetically distinct bird species appear when set‐aside increases. These effects are discontinuous for abundance and richness, and larger in the long run than in the short run for richness and phylogenetic diversity. Set‐aside led, on average, to a 7%–9% fall in cereal land. In turn, this led to an up to 2% decline in cereal output. A yield increase of 5%–10% is likely due to the setting aside of mostly marginal land. Biodiversity–food trade‐offs in agricultural landscapes could be minimized with a carefully targeted set‐aside policy, based on clearly defined biodiversity goals, and in settings where there is still scope for intensification.

Empowering agricultural landscapes: A game-based simulation for establishing tourism attractions property rights in farmland

Article

Feb 2025
J CLEAN PROD

Mobilizing For Green Transformations

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 2015

The Politics Of Green Transformations

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 2015

Classifying drivers of global forest loss

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2018

Mapping global deforestation patterns Forest loss is being driven by various factors, including commodity production, forestry, agriculture, wildfire, and urbanization. Curtis et al. used high-resolution Google Earth imagery to map and classify global forest loss since 2001. Just over a quarter of global forest loss is due to deforestation through permanent land use change for the production of commodities, including beef, soy, palm oil, and wood fiber. Despite regional differences and efforts by governments, conservationists, and corporations to stem the losses, the overall rate of commodity-driven deforestation has not declined since 2001. Science , this issue p. 1108

Making habitat connectivity a reality

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2018

Although a plethora of habitat-connectivity plans exists, protecting and restoring connectivity through on-the-ground action has been slow. We identified challenges to and opportunities for connectivity conservation through a literature review of project implementation, a workshop with scientists and conservation practitioners, 3 case studies of connectivity projects, and interviews with conservation professionals. Connectivity challenges and solutions tended to be context specific, dependent on land-ownership patterns, socioeconomic factors, and the policy framework. Successful connectivity implementation tended to be associated with development and promotion of a common vision among diverse sets of stakeholders, including nontraditional conservation actors, such as water districts and recreation departments, and with communication with partners and the public. Other factors that lead to successful implementation included undertaking empirical studies to prioritize and validate corridors and the identification of related co-benefits of corridor projects. Engaging partners involved in land management and planning, such as nongovernmental conservation organizations, public agencies, and private landowners, is critical to effective strategy implementation. A clear regulatory framework, including unambiguous connectivity conservation mandates, would increase public resource allocation, and incentive programs are needed to promote private sector engagement. Connectivity conservation must move more rapidly from planning to implementation. We provide an evidence-based solution composed of key elements for successful on-the-ground connectivity implementation. We identified the social processes necessary to advance habitat connectivity for biodiversity conservation and resilient landscapes under climate change.

New concepts, models, and assessments of climate-wise connectivity

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2018
ENVIRON RES LETT

Empirical studies and habitat suitability modeling project significant shifts in species distributions in response to climate change. Because habitat fragmentation can impede species range shifts, wildlife corridors may have increasing importance in enhancing climate resilience for species persistence. While habitat connectivity has been studied for over four decades, the design of connectivity specifically to facilitate species movement in response to climate change is a relatively new challenge. We conducted a systematic review of 116 relevant papers from 1996–2017. Research focused on assessing the utility of habitat connectivity for climate change adaptation by species (N = 29) and modeling and mapping climate-wise connectivity for planning purposes (N = 55). Others addressed fundamental questions of connectivity related to climate adaptation (N = 31). Based on empirical data and computer simulations examining species range shifts in response to climate change at leading edges of current distributions; it is clear that large protected areas connected through linkages, and stepping stones embedded in a permeable matrix promote population persistence and facilitate range expansion. We identified 13 approaches to modeling climate-wise connectivity based on either focal species or landscape structure. When prioritizing areas for connectivity conservation, approaches include focusing on connecting areas of low climate velocity, refugia, climate analogs, or linking current to future suitable habitats. Riparian corridors should be considered in connectivity plans because of their importance as natural movement corridors, climate gradients, and refugia. Guidance is provided on selecting the best methods for connectivity design depending on the objectives, available data, and landscape context. Future research needs to evaluate the functionality of climate-wise connectivity models for facilitating range shifts and compare connectivity outcomes across modeling approaches.

Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2018
SCIENCE

The global impacts of food production Food is produced and processed by millions of farmers and intermediaries globally, with substantial associated environmental costs. Given the heterogeneity of producers, what is the best way to reduce food's environmental impacts? Poore and Nemecek consolidated data on the multiple environmental impacts of ∼38,000 farms producing 40 different agricultural goods around the world in a meta-analysis comparing various types of food production systems. The environmental cost of producing the same goods can be highly variable. However, this heterogeneity creates opportunities to target the small numbers of producers that have the most impact. Science , this issue p. 987

How much of the world's food do smallholders produce?

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2018

The widely reported claim that smallholders produce 70-80% of the world’s food has been a linchpin of agricultural development policy despite limited empirical evidence. Recent empirical attempts to reinvestigate this number have lacked raw data on how much food smallholders produce, and have relied on model assumptions with unknown biases and with limited spatial and commodity coverage. We examine variations in crop production by farm size using a newly-compiled global sample of subnational level microdata and agricultural censuses covering more countries (n=55) and crop types (n=154) than assessed to date. We estimate that farms under 2ha globally produce 28-31% of total crop production and 30-34% of food supply on 24% of gross agricultural area. Farms under 2ha devote a greater proportion of their production to food, and account for greater crop diversity, while farms over 1000ha have the greatest proportion of post-harvest loss.

Aménagement forestier écosystémique:: Origines et fondements

Chapter

May 2008

Natural Experiments: Ecosystem-Based Management and the Environment

Book

Jul 2008

Judith A. Layzer

This systematic assessment of seven prominent initiatives is the first to evaluate the effectiveness of ecosystem-based management at protecting the environment. Scholars, scientists, and policymakers have hailed ecosystem-based management (EBM) as a remedy for the perceived shortcomings of the centralized, top-down, expert-driven environmental regulatory framework established in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s. EBM entails collaborative, landscape-scale planning and flexible, adaptive implementation. But although scholars have analyzed aspects of EBM for more than a decade, until now there has been no systematic empirical study of the overall approach. In Natural Experiments, Judith Layzer provides a detailed assessment of whether EBM delivers in practice the environmental benefits it promises in theory. She does this by examining four nationally known EBM initiatives (the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Program in Austin, Texas, the San Diego Multiple Species Program, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and the California Bay-Delta Program) and three comparison cases that used more conventional regulatory approaches (Arizona's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and efforts to restore Florida's Kissimmee River and California's Mono Basin). Layzer concludes that projects that set goals based on stakeholder collaboration, rather than through conventional politics, are less likely to result in environmental improvement, largely because the pursuit of consensus drives planners to avoid controversy and minimize short-term costs. Layzer's resolutely practical focus cuts through the ideological and theoretical arguments for and against EBM to identify strategies that hold genuine promise for restoring the ecological resilience of our landscapes.

Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California's Natural Resources

Book