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

Michael Beckmann; Katharina Gerstner; Morodoluwa Akin-Fajiye; Silvia Ceaușu; Stephan Kambach; Nicole L. Kinlock; Helen R.P. Phillips; Willem Verhagen; Jessica Gurevitch; Stefan Klotz; Tim Newbold; Peter H. Verburg; Marten Winter; Ralf Seppelt

doi:10.1111/gcb.14606

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

Michael Beckmann^*
, Katharina Gerstner
, Morodoluwa Akin-Fajiye
, Silvia Ceaușu
, Stephan Kambach
, Nicole L. Kinlock
, Helen R.P. Phillips
, Willem Verhagen
, Jessica Gurevitch
, Stefan Klotz
, Tim Newbold
, Peter H. Verburg
, Marten Winter
, Ralf Seppelt

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

717 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1941-1956
Number of pages	16
Journal	Global Change Biology
Volume	25
Issue number	6
Early online date	9 Apr 2019
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14606
Publication status	Published - Jun 2019

Funding

This work was supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC; NSF DBI-1052875), the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ and sDiv, the Synthesis Centre of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig (DFG FZT 118). M.B. and S.K. acknowledge funding by the Helmholtz Research School for Ecosystem Services underChangingLandUseandClimate(ESCALATE,VH-KO-613).T.N. acknowledges funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NE/J011193/1) and a Leverhulme Trust Research Project Grant. K.G. received funding with the project GLUES from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01LL0901A). W.V. and P.V. are supported by OPERAs, funded within the EU 7th Framework Program (308393). J.G. acknowledges support from the U.S. NSF project 1119891. This research contributes to the Global Land Project (http://www.globallandproject.org). We thank Kristin Powell, Chase Mendenhall for input to the conceptual design of the study; Wolfgang Viechtbauer for help with the meta-analysis; Byron C. Wallace for support with text analysis; Jeff Kaplan for providing land-use history data; TomáD?VáclavD? Skim, on Attwood and Josef Settele for comments; Rachel Lorraine Lamb, Anna-Katharina Steinmetz and Marketa VáclavD?kova for support in paper screening. This work was supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC; NSF DBI-1052875), the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ and sDiv, the Synthesis Centre of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig (DFG FZT 118). M.B. and S.K. acknowledge funding by the Helmholtz Research School for Ecosystem Services under Changing Land Use and Climate (ESCALATE, VH-KO-613). T.N. acknowledges funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NE/J011193/1) and a Leverhulme Trust Research Project Grant. K.G. received funding with the project GLUES from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01LL0901A). W.V. and P.V. are supported by OPERAs, funded within the EU 7th Framework Program (308393). J.G. acknowledges support from the U.S. NSF project 1119891. This research contributes to the Global Land Project (http://www.globallandproject.org). We thank Kristin Powell, Chase Mendenhall for input to the conceptual design of the study; Wolfgang Viechtbauer for help with the meta-analysis; Byron C. Wallace for support with text analysis; Jeff Kaplan for providing land-use history data; Tomáš Václavík, Simon Attwood and Josef Settele for comments; Rachel Lorraine Lamb, Anna-Katharina Steinmetz and Marketa Václavíkova for support in paper screening. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research, Grant/Award Number: DFG FZT 118; Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/J011193/1; SESYNC, Grant/Award Number: NSF DBI-1052875; Helmholtz Association, Grant/ Award Number: VH-KO-613; Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Leverhulme Trust; German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Grant/Award Number: 01LL0901A; OPERAs: EU 7th Framework Program, Grant/Award Number: 308393; U.S. NSF, Grant/Award Number:

Funders	Funder number
Leverhulme Trust
Helmholtz Research School for Ecosystem Services
Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung
European Commission
Synthesis Centre of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig
Rachel Lorraine Lamb
UK Research and Innovation
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung	01LL0901A
Seventh Framework Programme	308393
Natural Environment Research Council	NE/J011193/1, NE/M014533/1, NE/J011193/2
National Science Foundation	1119891, DBI-1052875
German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research	DFG FZT 118
Helmholtz Association	VH-KO-613
National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center	NSF DBI-1052875
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft	FZT 118

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 2 Zero Hunger
SDG 15 Life on Land

Keywords

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

Access to Document

10.1111/gcb.14606

gcb.14606_Conventional landuse intensification reduces species richness and increases productionFinal published version, 2.05 MBLicence: Article 25fa Dutch Copyright Act

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

Beckmann, M., Gerstner, K., Akin-Fajiye, M., Ceaușu, S., Kambach, S., Kinlock, N. L., Phillips, H. R. P., Verhagen, W., Gurevitch, J., Klotz, S., Newbold, T., Verburg, P. H., Winter, M., & Seppelt, R. (2019). Conventional land-use intensification reduces species richness and increases production: A global meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 25(6), 1941-1956. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14606

@article{d6bc0535125f450ab064ff198ce76533,

title = "Conventional land-use intensification reduces species richness and increases production: A global meta-analysis",

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.",

keywords = "arable fields, biodiversity, conservation, crop production, forests, grasslands, green fodder, land management, wood production",

author = "Michael Beckmann and Katharina Gerstner and Morodoluwa Akin-Fajiye and Silvia Ceaușu and Stephan Kambach and Kinlock, \{Nicole L.\} and Phillips, \{Helen R.P.\} and Willem Verhagen and Jessica Gurevitch and Stefan Klotz and Tim Newbold and Verburg, \{Peter H.\} and Marten Winter and Ralf Seppelt",

year = "2019",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1111/gcb.14606",

language = "English",

volume = "25",

pages = "1941--1956",

journal = "Global Change Biology",

issn = "1354-1013",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",

number = "6",

}

Beckmann, M, Gerstner, K, Akin-Fajiye, M, Ceaușu, S, Kambach, S, Kinlock, NL, Phillips, HRP, Verhagen, W, Gurevitch, J, Klotz, S, Newbold, T, Verburg, PH, Winter, M & Seppelt, R 2019, 'Conventional land-use intensification reduces species richness and increases production: A global meta-analysis', Global Change Biology, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1941-1956. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14606

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conventional land-use intensification reduces species richness and increases production

T2 - A global meta-analysis

AU - Beckmann, Michael

AU - Gerstner, Katharina

AU - Akin-Fajiye, Morodoluwa

AU - Ceaușu, Silvia

AU - Kambach, Stephan

AU - Kinlock, Nicole L.

AU - Phillips, Helen R.P.

AU - Verhagen, Willem

AU - Gurevitch, Jessica

AU - Klotz, Stefan

AU - Newbold, Tim

AU - Verburg, Peter H.

AU - Winter, Marten

AU - Seppelt, Ralf

PY - 2019/6

Y1 - 2019/6

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - arable fields

KW - biodiversity

KW - conservation

KW - crop production

KW - forests

KW - grasslands

KW - green fodder

KW - land management

KW - wood production

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85064046340

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85064046340#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1111/gcb.14606

DO - 10.1111/gcb.14606

M3 - Article

C2 - 30964578

AN - SCOPUS:85064046340

SN - 1354-1013

VL - 25

SP - 1941

EP - 1956

JO - Global Change Biology

JF - Global Change Biology

IS - 6

ER -

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

Abstract

Funding

UN SDGs

Keywords

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this