Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.
Science. 2011 Sep 2;333(6047):1289-91. doi: 10.1126/science.1208742.
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.
如何以对生物多样性最低的成本来满足不断增长的粮食需求,这个问题需要评估两种截然不同的选择:土地共享,即将这两个目标整合在同一块土地上;以及土地保护,即将高产量农业与保护自然栖息地免受农业转化结合起来。为了检验这些选择,我们比较了加纳西南部和印度北部农业强度梯度上的作物产量和鸟类及树种密度。受农业负面影响的物种比受益于农业的物种多,特别是在全球分布范围较小的物种中。对于这两个国家的两个分类群,土地保护是一种更有前途的策略,可以最大限度地减少粮食生产的负面影响,无论是在当前还是预期的未来生产水平上。