Literature DB >> 30964578

Conventional land-use intensification reduces species richness and increases production: A global meta-analysis.

Michael Beckmann1, Katharina Gerstner2,3, Morodoluwa Akin-Fajiye4, Silvia Ceaușu5,6, Stephan Kambach2,3, Nicole L Kinlock4, Helen R P Phillips2,3,7,8, Willem Verhagen9, Jessica Gurevitch4, Stefan Klotz10, Tim Newbold11,12, Peter H Verburg9, Marten Winter2,3, Ralf Seppelt1,13.   

Abstract

Most current research on land-use intensification addresses its potential to either threaten biodiversity or to boost agricultural production. However, little is known about the simultaneous effects of intensification on biodiversity and yield. To determine the responses of species richness and yield to conventional intensification, we conducted a global meta-analysis synthesizing 115 studies which collected data for both variables at the same locations. We extracted 449 cases that cover a variety of areas used for agricultural (crops, fodder) and silvicultural (wood) production. We found that, across all production systems and species groups, conventional intensification is successful in increasing yield (grand mean + 20.3%), but it also results in a loss of species richness (-8.9%). However, analysis of sub-groups revealed inconsistent results. For example, small intensification steps within low intensity systems did not affect yield or species richness. Within high-intensity systems species losses were non-significant but yield gains were substantial (+15.2%). Conventional intensification within medium intensity systems revealed the highest yield increase (+84.9%) and showed the largest loss in species richness (-22.9%). Production systems differed in their magnitude of richness response, with insignificant changes in silvicultural systems and substantial losses in crop systems (-21.2%). In addition, this meta-analysis identifies a lack of studies that collect robust biodiversity (i.e. beyond species richness) and yield data at the same sites and that provide quantitative information on land-use intensity. Our findings suggest that, in many cases, conventional land-use intensification drives a trade-off between species richness and production. However, species richness losses were often not significantly different from zero, suggesting even conventional intensification can result in yield increases without coming at the expense of biodiversity loss. These results should guide future research to close existing research gaps and to understand the circumstances required to achieve such win-win or win-no-harm situations in conventional agriculture.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords:  arable fields; biodiversity; conservation; crop production; forests; grasslands; green fodder; land management; wood production

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30964578     DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14606

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Glob Chang Biol        ISSN: 1354-1013            Impact factor:   10.863


  11 in total

1.  Quantifying the impacts of 166 years of land cover change on lowland bird communities.

Authors:  Munehiro Kitazawa; Yuichi Yamaura; Masayuki Senzaki; Masashi Hanioka; Haruka Ohashi; Michio Oguro; Tetsuya Matsui; Futoshi Nakamura
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 5.530

2.  Ecosystem services and biodiversity of agricultural systems at the landscape scale.

Authors:  Sonoko D Bellingrath-Kimura; Benjamin Burkhard; Brendan Fisher; Bettina Matzdorf
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Global impacts of future cropland expansion and intensification on agricultural markets and biodiversity.

Authors:  Florian Zabel; Ruth Delzeit; Julia M Schneider; Ralf Seppelt; Wolfram Mauser; Tomáš Václavík
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 14.919

4.  Global cropland could be almost halved: Assessment of land saving potentials under different strategies and implications for agricultural markets.

Authors:  Julia M Schneider; Florian Zabel; Franziska Schünemann; Ruth Delzeit; Wolfram Mauser
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-22       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  European agroforestry has no unequivocal effect on biodiversity: a time-cumulative meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anne-Christine Mupepele; Matteo Keller; Carsten F Dormann
Journal:  BMC Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-10-23

6.  Distinguishing anthropogenic and natural contributions to coproduction of national crop yields globally.

Authors:  Matthias Schröter; Lukas Egli; Lilith Brüning; Ralf Seppelt
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Enhancing flowering plant functional richness improves wild bee diversity in vineyard inter-rows in different floral kingdoms.

Authors:  Sophie Kratschmer; Bärbel Pachinger; René Gaigher; James S Pryke; Julia van Schalkwyk; Michael J Samways; Annalie Melin; Temitope Kehinde; Johann G Zaller; Silvia Winter
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  Contrasting responses of above- and belowground diversity to multiple components of land-use intensity.

Authors:  Gaëtane Le Provost; Jan Thiele; Catrin Westphal; Caterina Penone; Eric Allan; Margot Neyret; Fons van der Plas; Manfred Ayasse; Richard D Bardgett; Klaus Birkhofer; Steffen Boch; Michael Bonkowski; Francois Buscot; Heike Feldhaar; Rachel Gaulton; Kezia Goldmann; Martin M Gossner; Valentin H Klaus; Till Kleinebecker; Jochen Krauss; Swen Renner; Pascal Scherreiks; Johannes Sikorski; Dennis Baulechner; Nico Blüthgen; Ralph Bolliger; Carmen Börschig; Verena Busch; Melanie Chisté; Anna Maria Fiore-Donno; Markus Fischer; Hartmut Arndt; Norbert Hoelzel; Katharina John; Kirsten Jung; Markus Lange; Carlo Marzini; Jörg Overmann; Esther Paŝalić; David J Perović; Daniel Prati; Deborah Schäfer; Ingo Schöning; Marion Schrumpf; Ilja Sonnemann; Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter; Marco Tschapka; Manfred Türke; Juliane Vogt; Katja Wehner; Christiane Weiner; Wolfgang Weisser; Konstans Wells; Michael Werner; Volkmar Wolters; Tesfaye Wubet; Susanne Wurst; Andrey S Zaitsev; Peter Manning
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  Top-down and bottom-up controls on an herbivore on a native and introduced plant in a tropical agricultural landscape.

Authors:  Emma Despland; Paola G Santacruz
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  Biodiversity loss underlies the dilution effect of biodiversity.

Authors:  Fletcher W Halliday; Jason R Rohr; Anna-Liisa Laine
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 9.492

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.