A comparison of land-sharing and land-sparing strategies for plant richness conservation in agricultural landscapes

J. Franklin Egan, David A. Mortensen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

62 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Strategies for conserving plant diversity in agroecosystems generally focus on either expanding land area in non-crop habitat or enhancing diversity within crop fields through changes in within-field management practices. In this study, we compare effects on landscapescale species richness from such land-sharing or land-sparing strategies. We collected data in arable field, grassland, pasture, and forest habitat types (1.6 ha sampled per habitat type) across a 100-km2 region of farmland in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA. We fitted species-area relationships (SARs) for each habitat type and then combined extrapolations from the curves with estimates of community overlap to estimate richness in a 314.5-ha landscape. We then modified these baseline estimates by adjusting parameters in the SAR models to compare potential effects of land-sharing and land-sparing conservation practices on landscape richness. We found that species richness of the habitat types showed a strong inverse relationship to the relative land area of each type in the region, with 89 species in arable fields (66.5% of total land area), 153 in pastures (6.7%), 196 in forests (5.2%), and 213 in grasslands (2.9%). Relative to the baseline scenario, major changes in the richness of arable fields produced gains in landscapescale richness comparable to a conversion of 3.1% of arable field area into grassland habitat. Sensitivity analysis of our model indicated that relative gains from land sparing would be greatest in landscapes with a low amount of non-crop habitat in the baseline scenario, but that in more complex landscapes land sharing would provide greater gains. These results indicate that the majority of plant species in agroecosystems are found in small fragments of non-crop habitat and suggest that, especially in landscapes with little non-crop habitat, richness can be more readily conserved through land-sparing approaches.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)459-471
Number of pages13
JournalEcological Applications
Volume22
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2012

Fingerprint

agricultural land
habitat type
habitat
species-area relationship
grassland
agricultural ecosystem
pasture
species richness
comparison
land
sensitivity analysis
management practice
crop

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ecology

Cite this

@article{82a00476837d4703b59ab1a4392349bd,
title = "A comparison of land-sharing and land-sparing strategies for plant richness conservation in agricultural landscapes",
abstract = "Strategies for conserving plant diversity in agroecosystems generally focus on either expanding land area in non-crop habitat or enhancing diversity within crop fields through changes in within-field management practices. In this study, we compare effects on landscapescale species richness from such land-sharing or land-sparing strategies. We collected data in arable field, grassland, pasture, and forest habitat types (1.6 ha sampled per habitat type) across a 100-km2 region of farmland in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA. We fitted species-area relationships (SARs) for each habitat type and then combined extrapolations from the curves with estimates of community overlap to estimate richness in a 314.5-ha landscape. We then modified these baseline estimates by adjusting parameters in the SAR models to compare potential effects of land-sharing and land-sparing conservation practices on landscape richness. We found that species richness of the habitat types showed a strong inverse relationship to the relative land area of each type in the region, with 89 species in arable fields (66.5{\%} of total land area), 153 in pastures (6.7{\%}), 196 in forests (5.2{\%}), and 213 in grasslands (2.9{\%}). Relative to the baseline scenario, major changes in the richness of arable fields produced gains in landscapescale richness comparable to a conversion of 3.1{\%} of arable field area into grassland habitat. Sensitivity analysis of our model indicated that relative gains from land sparing would be greatest in landscapes with a low amount of non-crop habitat in the baseline scenario, but that in more complex landscapes land sharing would provide greater gains. These results indicate that the majority of plant species in agroecosystems are found in small fragments of non-crop habitat and suggest that, especially in landscapes with little non-crop habitat, richness can be more readily conserved through land-sparing approaches.",
author = "Egan, {J. Franklin} and Mortensen, {David A.}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1890/11-0206.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "459--471",
journal = "Ecological Applications",
issn = "1051-0761",
publisher = "Ecological Society of America",
number = "2",

}

A comparison of land-sharing and land-sparing strategies for plant richness conservation in agricultural landscapes. / Egan, J. Franklin; Mortensen, David A.

In: Ecological Applications, Vol. 22, No. 2, 01.03.2012, p. 459-471.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of land-sharing and land-sparing strategies for plant richness conservation in agricultural landscapes

AU - Egan, J. Franklin

AU - Mortensen, David A.

PY - 2012/3/1

Y1 - 2012/3/1

N2 - Strategies for conserving plant diversity in agroecosystems generally focus on either expanding land area in non-crop habitat or enhancing diversity within crop fields through changes in within-field management practices. In this study, we compare effects on landscapescale species richness from such land-sharing or land-sparing strategies. We collected data in arable field, grassland, pasture, and forest habitat types (1.6 ha sampled per habitat type) across a 100-km2 region of farmland in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA. We fitted species-area relationships (SARs) for each habitat type and then combined extrapolations from the curves with estimates of community overlap to estimate richness in a 314.5-ha landscape. We then modified these baseline estimates by adjusting parameters in the SAR models to compare potential effects of land-sharing and land-sparing conservation practices on landscape richness. We found that species richness of the habitat types showed a strong inverse relationship to the relative land area of each type in the region, with 89 species in arable fields (66.5% of total land area), 153 in pastures (6.7%), 196 in forests (5.2%), and 213 in grasslands (2.9%). Relative to the baseline scenario, major changes in the richness of arable fields produced gains in landscapescale richness comparable to a conversion of 3.1% of arable field area into grassland habitat. Sensitivity analysis of our model indicated that relative gains from land sparing would be greatest in landscapes with a low amount of non-crop habitat in the baseline scenario, but that in more complex landscapes land sharing would provide greater gains. These results indicate that the majority of plant species in agroecosystems are found in small fragments of non-crop habitat and suggest that, especially in landscapes with little non-crop habitat, richness can be more readily conserved through land-sparing approaches.

AB - Strategies for conserving plant diversity in agroecosystems generally focus on either expanding land area in non-crop habitat or enhancing diversity within crop fields through changes in within-field management practices. In this study, we compare effects on landscapescale species richness from such land-sharing or land-sparing strategies. We collected data in arable field, grassland, pasture, and forest habitat types (1.6 ha sampled per habitat type) across a 100-km2 region of farmland in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA. We fitted species-area relationships (SARs) for each habitat type and then combined extrapolations from the curves with estimates of community overlap to estimate richness in a 314.5-ha landscape. We then modified these baseline estimates by adjusting parameters in the SAR models to compare potential effects of land-sharing and land-sparing conservation practices on landscape richness. We found that species richness of the habitat types showed a strong inverse relationship to the relative land area of each type in the region, with 89 species in arable fields (66.5% of total land area), 153 in pastures (6.7%), 196 in forests (5.2%), and 213 in grasslands (2.9%). Relative to the baseline scenario, major changes in the richness of arable fields produced gains in landscapescale richness comparable to a conversion of 3.1% of arable field area into grassland habitat. Sensitivity analysis of our model indicated that relative gains from land sparing would be greatest in landscapes with a low amount of non-crop habitat in the baseline scenario, but that in more complex landscapes land sharing would provide greater gains. These results indicate that the majority of plant species in agroecosystems are found in small fragments of non-crop habitat and suggest that, especially in landscapes with little non-crop habitat, richness can be more readily conserved through land-sparing approaches.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859551075&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859551075&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1890/11-0206.1

DO - 10.1890/11-0206.1

M3 - Article

C2 - 22611847

AN - SCOPUS:84859551075

VL - 22

SP - 459

EP - 471

JO - Ecological Applications

JF - Ecological Applications

SN - 1051-0761

IS - 2

ER -