Journal
SCIENCE
Volume 333, Issue 6047, Pages 1289-1291Publisher
AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.1208742
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- Robert Gardiner Memorial Trust
- St. John's College
- Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
- Isaac Newton Trust
- United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre
- Domestic Research Studentship
- British Ornithologists' Union
- Smuts Memorial Fund
- Cambridge Philosophical Society
- Churchill College
- Dorothy Hodgkin Scholarship
- UK Natural Environment Research Council
- Tim Whitmore Fund
- S. T. Lee Fund
Ask authors/readers for more resources
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.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available