Ben Phalan

Reconciling Food Production and Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing and Land Sparing Compared

Protecting the largest possible area of natural habitats while growing food on the smallest area can reconcile food production with conservation. The question of how to meet rising food demand at the least cost to biodiversity requires the evaluation of two contrasting alternatives: land sharing, which integrates both objectives on the same land; and land sparing, in which high-yield farming is combined with protecting natural habitats from conversion to agriculture. To test these alternatives, we compared crop yields and densities of bird and tree species across gradients of agricultural intensity in southwest Ghana and northern India. More species were negatively affected by agriculture than benefited from it, particularly among species with small global ranges. For both taxa in both countries, land sparing is a more promising strategy for minimizing negative impacts of food production, at both current and anticipated future levels of production.

How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity

Oil palm is one of the worlds most rapidly increasing crops. We assess its contribution to tropical deforestation and review its biodiversity value. Oil palm has replaced large areas of forest in Southeast Asia, but land-cover change statistics alone do not allow an assessment of where it has driven forest clearance and where it has simply followed it. Oil palm plantations support much fewer species than do forests and often also fewer than other tree crops. Further negative impacts include habitat fragmentation and pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions. With rising demand for vegetable oils and biofuels, and strong overlap between areas suitable for oil palm and those of most importance for biodiversity, substantial biodiversity losses will only be averted if future oil palm expansion is managed to avoid deforestation.

Biofuel plantations on forested lands: double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate

The growing demand for biofuels is promoting the expansion of a number of agricultural commodities, including oil palm (Elaeis guineensis). Oil-palm plantations cover over 13 million ha, primarily in Southeast Asia, where they have directly or indirectly replaced tropical rainforest. We explored the impact of the spread of oil-palm plantations on greenhouse gas emission and biodiversity. We assessed changes in carbon stocks with changing land use and compared this with the amount of fossil-fuel carbon emission avoided through its replacement by biofuel carbon. We estimated it would take between 75 and 93 years for the carbon emissions saved through use of biofuel to compensate for the carbon lost through forest conversion, depending on how the forest was cleared. If the original habitat was peatland, carbon balance would take more than 600 years. Conversely, planting oil palms on degraded grassland would lead to a net removal of carbon within 10 years. These estimates have associated uncertainty, but their magnitude and relative proportions seem credible. We carried out a meta-analysis of published faunal studies that compared forest with oil palm. We found that plantations supported species-poor communities containing few forest species. Because no published data on flora were available, we present results from our sampling of plants in oil palm and forest plots in Indonesia. Although the species richness of pteridophytes was higher in plantations, they held few forest species. Trees, lianas, epiphytic orchids, and indigenous palms were wholly absent from oil-palm plantations. The majority of individual plants and animals in oil-palm plantations belonged to a small number of generalist species of low conservation concern. As countries strive to meet obligations to reduce carbon emissions under one international agreement (Kyoto Protocol), they may not only fail to meet their obligations under another (Convention on Biological Diversity) but may actually hasten global climate change. Reducing deforestation is likely to represent a more effective climate-change mitigation strategy than converting forest for biofuel production, and it may help nations meet their international commitments to reduce biodiversity loss.

A global strategy for road building

The number and extent of roads will expand dramatically this century. Globally, at least 25 million kilometres of new roads are anticipated by 2050; a 60% increase in the total length of roads over that in 2010. Nine-tenths of all road construction is expected to occur in developing nations, including many regions that sustain exceptional biodiversity and vital ecosystem services. Roads penetrating into wilderness or frontier areas are a major proximate driver of habitat loss and fragmentation, wildfires, overhunting and other environmental degradation, often with irreversible impacts on ecosystems. Unfortunately, much road proliferation is chaotic or poorly planned, and the rate of expansion is so great that it often overwhelms the capacity of environmental planners and managers. Here we present a global scheme for prioritizing road building. This large-scale zoning plan seeks to limit the environmental costs of road expansion while maximizing its benefits for human development, by helping to increase agricultural production, which is an urgent priority given that global food demand could double by mid-century. Our analysis identifies areas with high environmental values where future road building should be avoided if possible, areas where strategic road improvements could promote agricultural development with relatively modest environmental costs, and ‘conflict areas’ where road building could have sizeable benefits for agriculture but with serious environmental damage. Our plan provides a template for proactively zoning and prioritizing roads during the most explosive era of road expansion in human history.

Seasonal sexual segregation in two Thalassarche albatross species: competitive exclusion, reproductive role specialization or foraging niche divergence?

Sexual segregation by micro– or macrohabitat is common in birds, and usually attributed to size–mediated dominance and exclusion of females by larger males, trophic niche divergence or reproductive role specialization. Our study of black–browed albatrosses, Thalassarche melanophrys, and grey–headed albatrosses, T. chrysostoma, revealed an exceptional degree of sexual segregation during incubation, with largely mutually exclusive core foraging ranges for each sex in both species. Spatial segregation was not apparent during brood–guard or post–guard chick rearing, when adults are constrained to feed close to colonies, providing no evidence for dominance–related competitive exclusion at the macrohabitat level. A comprehensive morphometric comparison indicated considerable species and sexual dimorphism in wing area and wing loading that corresponded, both within and between species, to broad–scale habitat preferences relating to wind strength. We suggest that seasonal sexual segregation in these two species is attributable to niche divergence mediated by differences in flight performance. Such sexual segregation may also have implications for conservation in relation to sex–specific overlap with commercial fisheries.

What conservationists need to know about farming

Farming is the basis of our civilization yet is more damaging to wild nature than any other sector of human activity. Here, we propose that in order to limit its impact into the future, conservation researchers and practitioners need to address several big topics—about the scale of future demand, about which crops and livestock to study, about whether low-yield or high-yield farming has the potential to be least harmful to nature, about the environmental performance of new and existing farming methods, and about the measures needed to enable promising approaches and techniques to deliver on their potential. Tackling these issues requires conservationists to explore the many consequences that decisions about agriculture have beyond the farm, to think broadly and imaginatively about the scale and scope of what is required to halt biodiversity loss, and to be brave enough to test and when necessary support counterintuitive measures.

Crop expansion and conservation priorities in tropical countries.

Expansion of cropland in tropical countries is one of the principal causes of biodiversity loss, and threatens to undermine progress towards meeting the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. To understand this threat better, we analysed data on crop distribution and expansion in 128 tropical countries, assessed changes in area of the main crops and mapped overlaps between conservation priorities and cultivation potential. Rice was the single crop grown over the largest area, especially in tropical forest biomes. Cropland in tropical countries expanded by c. 48,000 km2 per year from 1999–2008. The countries which added the greatest area of new cropland were Nigeria, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Sudan and Brazil. Soybeans and maize are the crops which expanded most in absolute area. Other crops with large increases included rice, sorghum, oil palm, beans, sugar cane, cow peas, wheat and cassava. Areas of high cultivation potential—while bearing in mind that political and socio-economic conditions can be as influential as biophysical ones—may be vulnerable to conversion in the future. These include some priority areas for biodiversity conservation in tropical countries (e.g., Frontier Forests and High Biodiversity Wilderness Areas), which have previously been identified as having ‘low vulnerability’, in particular in central Africa and northern Australia. There are also many other smaller areas which are important for biodiversity and which have high cultivation potential (e.g., in the fringes of the Amazon basin, in the Paraguayan Chaco, and in the savanna woodlands of the Sahel and East Africa). We highlight the urgent need for more effective sustainability standards and policies addressing both production and consumption of tropical commodities, including robust land-use planning in agricultural frontiers, establishment of new protected areas or REDD+ projects in places agriculture has not yet reached, and reduction or elimination of incentives for land-demanding bioenergy feedstocks.

Senescence effects in an extremely long-lived bird: the grey-headed albatross Thalassarche chrysostoma

Studies attempting to document reproductive or other pre-lethal senescence effects in wild birds typically face an array of problems, including flaws in statistical analyses, non-adaptive philopatry to deteriorating environments, confounding effects arising from cohort heterogeneity and differential death rates of phenotypes and the frequent pairing of old birds to younger mates. Furthermore, recent studies suggest that birds could maintain a high level of physical fitness until old age, before being struck by a catastrophic illness leading quickly to their demise. The presence of terminally ill individuals in most datasets (and their greater incidence in older age categories) may therefore provide a false impression of progressive senescence in cross-sectional analyses. This study was designed explicitly to avoid all the known pitfalls linked to the demonstration of progressive senescence in wild populations, and involved one of the very longest-lived bird species. We show that, during incubation, old (aged 35 years and over) male grey-headed albatrosses Thalassarche chrysostoma make longer foraging trips, and have lower daily mass gains, than experienced mid-aged individuals (aged up to 28 years). This is, to our knowledge, the first report documenting reduced foraging performance with old age. Hatching and breeding success of pairs composed of two old individuals were reduced in comparison to mid-aged pairs. Overall results were very similar when analyses were repeated using only individuals known to have survived 1 or 2 years beyond field measurements (hence probably not suffering from the effects of an advanced terminal illness). We conclude that extremely long-lived individuals usually experience some degree of general physical deterioration, leading to reduced foraging and breeding performance, long before their final demise.

How can higher-yield farming help to spare nature?

Mechanisms to link yield increases with conservation Expansion of land area used for agriculture is a leading cause of biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in the tropics. One potential way to reduce these impacts is to increase food production per unit area (yield) on existing farmland, so as to minimize farmland area and to spare land for habitat conservation or restoration. There is now widespread evidence that such a strategy could benefit a large proportion of wild species, provided that spared land is conserved as natural habitat (1). However, the scope for yield growth to spare land by lowering food prices and, hence, incentives for clearance (“passive” land sparing) can be undermined if lower prices stimulate demand and if higher yields raise profits, encouraging agricultural expansion and increasing the opportunity cost of conservation (2, 3). We offer a first description of four categories of “active” land-sparing mechanisms that could overcome these rebound effects by linking yield increases with habitat protection or restoration (table S1). The effectiveness, limitations, and potential for unintended consequences of these mechanisms have yet to be systematically tested, but in each case, we describe real-world interventions that illustrate how intentional links between yield increases and land sparing might be developed.

Status and distribution of wandering, black-browed and grey-headed albatrosses breeding at South Georgia

Long-term studies at Bird Island, South Georgia, show that numbers of wandering, black-browed and grey-headed albatrosses have been decreasing since the late 1970s. To determine the status of the total South Georgia population, all known colonies were censused in 2003/2004 using a combination of yacht-based digital photography and ground counts. The breeding population estimates from this census are 1,553 pairs of wandering albatross, 74,296 pairs of black-browed albatross and 47,674 pairs of grey-headed albatross. A 30% decline since 1984 was recorded for wandering albatross, and comparison of a sample of black-browed and grey-headed albatross colonies on the mainland of South Georgia photo-censused in both 1985/1986 and 2003/2004 indicates similarly substantial population declines. Unless these decreases can be halted or reversed, doubt will exist as to the long-term viability of these species of albatross at South Georgia.