Site icon Conservation news

Still hope for tropical biodiversity in human modified landscapes

As primary forests become increasingly rare and expensive to protect, many ecologists are looking to better management of Human Modified Landscapes (HMLs) to shepherd and shield biodiversity in the tropics. Secondary forests, selectively logged forests and lands devoted to sustainable agriculture already play an important role in conservation efforts. However, the idea that HMLs will serve as a “Noah’s Ark” for biodiversity, is controversial.



In the 2013 paper, “On the hope for biodiversity friendly tropical landscapes” published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, scientists venture into the complex topic of HMLs, setting up a framework that connects disturbance, land use, ecosystem services and biodiversity. The paper also offers a model showing potential outcomes for forests in response to different styles of forest management.



“The most important controversy is that the HML is sometimes assumed by default as viable conservation landscapes, mostly based on the number of species they can harbor at the present,” lead author Felipe Melo of Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil, told mongaby.com. “However, we argue that biodiversity persistence in HML is completely context-dependent.”



Context does seem to be key. Along with human use and disturbance, forest size, type, and the surrounding landscape matrix all affect the biodiversity friendliness of an HML.



The landscape matrix is the background cover type in a landscape, the stuff between and around the HMLs. An HML is limited in biodiversity conservation potential by this very matrix. For instance, a forest fragment embedded in a harsh matrix, such as a large clear-cut area, does not fare well. Yet even small patches of tropical forest can support long-term biodiversity if they are embedded in a large-scale forested landscape.





Land sparing versus land sharing? Here Amazon rainforest abuts against industrial soy fields. Photo by: Rhett A. Butler.


Land management practices vary, and researchers are at odds as to which best support biodiversity. Beyond this management-style disagreement, a debate exists known as “land sparing versus land sharing.” Land sparing argues that setting aside intact ecosystems, for example in large parks, while dedicating remaining lands to intensive agriculture is the best approach to species conservation. Land sharing, however, argues against industrial agriculture urging mixed land use, for examples supporting farming practices such as agroforestry, which combines forest components or tree planting with the growth of products for people.



Research supports both schools of thought. In several instances, “land sharing” agroforestry practices have proven effective in retaining biodiversity. In the Western Ghats of India, areca nut plantations still retain 90 percent of the bird diversity of native forests in the region, after two thousand years of cultivation in the area. Due to costs, scientists often measure bird and tree diversity as biodiversity indicators, and many data sets support the idea that shade-grown crops support bird diversity. This has left many questioning the effects on other species. In the Brazilian Atlantic forests where less than 6 percent of primary forest remains, one study found that in addition to birds and trees, 70 percent of bat, butterfly, fern, frog, and mammal species (to name a few) flourished in shade grown cacao crops.



A 2011 study conducted in Ghana and published in Science came out in favor of “land sparing” when researchers concluded that setting aside land for protection and using other land for intensive agriculture was the best way to both feed people and conserve species. In later comments about the study on mongabay.com, the lead researcher made it clear that they were not making a case against agroforestry, but that they encourage both “land sparing” and a move away from harmful industrial agricultural practices such as monocultures.



When asked for some successful cases of HMLs as havens for biodiversity, Melo replied, “There are no safe havens for biodiversity, at all. Even protected areas are suffering from local extinctions of forest dependent species. Amongst the HML, however, we believe that low-intensity agriculture practices such as agroforestry and some shaded cultures such as cacao and coffee should be friendlier to biodiversity. Thus, the main challenge is making such wildlife-friendly farming more profitable and competitive.”



The study by Melo and his team provides a conceptual model showing the results of different styles of forest management for forests. Given the overall complexity of the topic, this model represents a major contribution to the field.



“The model aims to show that some key landscape attributes such as the amount of old-growth forest habitat and connectivity among forest patches will determine the potential for natural regeneration and the probability of long-term persistence in the HML,” Melo says. “The take-home message being that lack of management and forest protection will drive HML to degraded state that is likely to be irreversible without human intervention such as forest restoration.”



Many questions remain unanswered in this emerging field, which Melo calls “the ecology of disturbance,” especially in regards to how ecosystems will perform in a human matrix. Given this, the study ends with a call for more research: “Classical ecological theory was developed to explain the world under ‘normal’ circumstances and to understand the ecology of the disturbance should be a good chance to refine our understanding of the real world.”





CITATION: Melo, F., Arroyo-Rodriguéz, V., Fahrig, L., Martínez-Ramos, M., Tabarelli, M. On the hope for biodiversity friendly tropical landscapes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2013.






Related articles


Warnings of global ecological tipping points may be overstated

(03/05/2013) There’s little evidence that the Earth is nearing a global ecological tipping point, according to a new Trends in Ecology and Evolution paper that is bound to be controversial. The authors argue that despite numerous warnings that the Earth is headed toward an ecological tipping point due to environmental stressors, such as habitat loss or climate change, it’s unlikely this will occur anytime soon—at least not on land. The paper comes with a number of caveats, including that a global tipping point could occur in marine ecosystems due to ocean acidification from burning fossil fuels. In addition, regional tipping points, such as the Arctic ice melt or the Amazon rainforest drying out, are still of great concern.

Will Amazon species lose the climate change race?

(02/14/2013) Deforestation could increase the risk of biodiversity loss in the Amazon by forcing species to migrate further in order to remain at equilibrium with changing climates, says new research. “As migration models are made more realistic through the inclusion of multiple climatic, biotic, abiotic and human factors, the predicted distances between current and future climate analogues invariably increases,” Kenneth Feeley, lead author of the paper published in Global Change Biology, told mongabay.com.

Scientists could name every species on Earth in 50 years

(01/28/2013) A bold new paper in Science argues that the world’s species could be named and described before they vanish into extinction, though the threat of eventual extinction will remain for many, especially as climate change worsens. The scientists say that contrary to popular belief, there are more taxonomists working than ever before and there are likely less species on Earth than often reported, making finding and naming the world’s species within reach this century.

Wealthy nations, excluding U.S., pledge to double funds for biodiversity

(10/22/2012) Although negotiations came down to the wire, nations finally brokered a new deal at the 11th meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Hyderabad, India; at its heart is a pledge to double resources from wealthier countries to the developing world by 2015 to conserve embattled species and ecosystems. While no numbers were put on the table, observers say a doubling of current resources would mean around $10-12 billion a year. However, this amount is still far short of what scientists and conservation groups say is necessary to stem current extinctions.

Saving the world’s species from oblivion will cost around $80 billion a year, but still a good deal

(10/11/2012) If the world is to conserve its wealth of life—species great and small, beautiful and terrible, beloved and unknown—it will cost from $3.41-4.76 billion annually in targeted conservation funds, according to a new study in Science. But that’s not all, the cost of protecting and managing the world’s conservation areas was estimated at an additional $76.1 billion a year.

Bird diversity at risk if ‘agroforests’ replaced with farmland

(09/13/2012) Agroforests contain much higher levels of bird diversity than their open agricultural counterparts, according to new research from the University of Utah. If large forests and agroforests continue to be replaced by simple open farms, bird communities will become much less specialized and entire groups may become extinct. Important roles for birds, such as pollination, pest control or seed dispersal, may remain unfilled if ongoing trends toward open agriculture continues and biodiversity decreases.