Optimizing carbon storage and biodiversity protection in tropical agricultural landscapes

With the rapidly expanding ecological footprint of agriculture, the design of farmed landscapes will play an increasingly important role for both carbon storage and biodiversity protection. Carbon and biodiversity can be enhanced by integrating natural habitats into agricultural lands, but a key question is whether benefits are maximized by including many small features throughout the landscape (‘land‐sharing’ agriculture) or a few large contiguous blocks alongside intensive farmland (‘land‐sparing’ agriculture). In this study, we are the first to integrate carbon storage alongside multi‐taxa biodiversity assessments to compare land‐sparing and land‐sharing frameworks. We do so by sampling carbon stocks and biodiversity (birds and dung beetles) in landscapes containing agriculture and forest within the Colombian Chocó‐Andes, a zone of high global conservation priority. We show that woodland fragments embedded within a matrix of cattle pasture hold less carbon per unit area than contiguous primary or advanced secondary forests (>15 years). Farmland sites also support less diverse bird and dung beetle communities than contiguous forests, even when farmland retains high levels of woodland habitat cover. Landscape simulations based on these data suggest that land‐sparing strategies would be more beneficial for both carbon storage and biodiversity than land‐sharing strategies across a range of production levels. Biodiversity benefits of land‐sparing are predicted to be similar whether spared lands protect primary or advanced secondary forests, owing to the close similarity of bird and dung beetle communities between the two forest classes. Land‐sparing schemes that encourage the protection and regeneration of natural forest blocks thus provide a synergy between carbon and biodiversity conservation, and represent a promising strategy for reducing the negative impacts of agriculture on tropical ecosystems. However, further studies examining a wider range of ecosystem services will be necessary to fully understand the links between land‐allocation strategies and long‐term ecosystem service provision.     

Agricultural matrix provides modest habitat value for ants on mixed farms in eastern Australia

Agricultural development has contributed to the global erosion of biodiversity. The farmed matrix in agricultural landscapes can and must be important for the conservation of biodiversity and provision of ecosystem services, but this assumes that the matrix has biodiversity value. We investigate the contribution of pastures and crops to ant diversity on mixed farms in eastern Australia. Remnant native woodlands, pastures of native grasses, sown pastures of exotic species, and crops were sampled for epigaeic ants on 3 farms using pitfall trapping. Ants were sorted to species and assigned to functional groups. Ant species richness and functionality followed consistent patterns across the three farms. Significant differences in assemblage composition were found between the major habitat types, and in species richness between woodland and non-woodland habitats (native and sown pastures, and crops), which did not contribute appreciably to farm-level biodiversity: 1–10% of species were found only in the farmed matrix. Insect conservation in agricultural landscapes is important for the provision of ecosystem services, including pest control and the maintenance of soil condition. As the farmed matrix makes only a modest contribution to farm-scale biodiversity, appropriate management of the unfarmed parts of the landscape is critical and habitat restoration may be warranted where the level of native vegetation is low. Maintaining a mix of land uses within the production matrix will also be a necessary bet-hedging strategy in a world with changing climates, commodities, community expectations and farming practices.     

科尔沁沙地“山水林田湖草沙”一体化治理原理及实施重点

“山水林田湖草沙”一体化治理现已成为干旱区生态环境建设的重要理念,目前虽已有部分重大工程项目在沙区实施,但一体化治理的科学与技术原理尚不清晰,仍未在这些工程中充分体现。鉴于此,本文就科尔沁沙地一体化治理的挑战、科学原理、技术原理与实施重点进行了论述。在科尔沁沙地,林-田、林-林、林-水、田-水、林-草、沙-水、田-草等要素关系尚不很协调,导致资源失衡、服务功能低下。进行一体化治理应遵循风沙运动规律、草地界面理论、水资源平衡理论、生物多样性维持理论、景观生态学理论和生态系统服务功能等科学原理与规律。一体化治理技术层面应突出体现水-沙关系协调、景观设计优化、防治技术与模式多方位并重、自然与人为景观兼顾、“三生”空间布局均衡等原理。一体化治理的重点应置于沙丘和防护林功能提升、农田和草地增效、湖泊生态保育、人居环境绿化美化、工程项目生态修复上。本文可为科尔沁沙地以及整个三北地区的沙区一体化生态环境建设提供参考。     

Woodland restoration on agricultural land: long‐term impacts on soil quality

Woodland restoration is underway globally to counter the negative soil quality and ecological impacts of agricultural expansion and woodland fragmentation, and restore or enhance biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services. However, we lack information about the long‐term effects of woodland restoration on agricultural soils, particularly at temporal scales meaningful to woodland and soil development. This study utilized soil and earthworm sampling across a chronosequence of sites transitioning from “agricultural land” to “secondary woodland” (50–110 years) and “ancient woodland” (>400 years), with the goal of quantifying the effects of woodland restoration on agricultural land, on key soil quality parameters (soil bulk density, pH, carbon and nitrogen stocks, and earthworm abundance, biomass, species richness and diversity). Broad‐leaved woodland restoration led to significantly greater soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks compared to arable land, and young (50–60 years) secondary woodland increased earthworm species and functional diversity compared to both arable and pasture agricultural land. SOC stocks in secondary broad‐leaved woodlands (50–110 years) were comparable to those found in long‐term ancient woodlands (>400 years). Our findings show that broad‐leaved woodland restoration of agricultural land can lead to meaningful soil ecological improvement and gains in SOC within 50–110 years, and provide intel on how restoration activities may be best targeted to maximize soil quality and functions.     

Striking a new balance between agricultural production and biodiversity

Agricultural policy in Europe is changing from supporting production to encouraging environmental benefits in the context of sustainable rural development. As a result, there is a window of opportunity to reconsider the balance between agricultural production and biodiversity management on British farmland, to seek to redress the problems for biodiversity that accrued during intensification without reducing the capacity to meet the coming challenges of global change and population increase. These challenges are discussed in the context of longer term historical change, and in terms of how readily they can be overcome. Current policies can deliver conservation targets that are within the control of individual land managers, and are likely to increase landscape heterogeneity significantly. However, it will be more dif. cult to plan landscapes to deliver agricultural production, ecosystem services and conserve biodiversity in the face of nutrient deposition and climate change. There can be no theoretical “optimum” balance between production and biodiversity, as environmental goals depend greatly upon decisions about scales (from local to global, immediate to long) and the viewpoints of stakeholders. Indeed, the social challenge of delivering sustainable agricultural landscapes is far greater than the scientific one of researching what they might be like.     

Land‐sparing agriculture sustains higher levels of avian functional diversity than land sharing

The ecological impacts of meeting rising demands for food production can potentially be mitigated by two competing land‐use strategies: off‐setting natural habitats through intensification of existing farmland (land sparing), or elevating biodiversity within the agricultural matrix via the integration of “wildlife‐friendly” habitat features (land sharing). However, a key unanswered question is whether sparing or sharing farming would best conserve functional diversity, which can promote ecosystem stability and resilience to future land‐use change. Focusing on bird communities in tropical cloud forests of the Colombian Andes, we test the performance of each strategy in conserving functional diversity. We show that multiple components of avian functional diversity in farmland are positively related to the proximity and extent of natural forest. Using landscape and community simulations, we also show that land‐sparing agriculture conserves greater functional diversity and predicts higher abundance of species supplying key ecological functions than land sharing, with sharing becoming progressively inferior with increasing isolation from remnant forest. These results suggest low‐intensity agriculture is likely to conserve little functional diversity unless large blocks of adjacent natural habitat are protected, consistent with land sparing. To ensure the retention of functionally diverse ecosystems, we urgently need to implement mechanisms for increasing farmland productivity whilst protecting spared land.     

Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management

Understanding the negative and positive effects of agricultural land use for the conservation of biodiversity, and its relation to ecosystem services, needs a landscape perspective. Agriculture can contribute to the conservation of high‐diversity systems, which may provide important ecosystem services such as pollination and biological control via complementarity and sampling effects. Land‐use management is often focused on few species and local processes, but in dynamic, agricultural landscapes, only a diversity of insurance species may guarantee resilience (the capacity to reorganize after disturbance). Interacting species experience their surrounding landscape at different spatial scales, which influences trophic interactions. Structurally complex landscapes enhance local diversity in agroecosystems, which may compensate for local high‐intensity management. Organisms with high‐dispersal abilities appear to drive these biodiversity patterns and ecosystem services, because of their recolonization ability and larger resources experienced. Agri‐environment schemes (incentives for farmers to benefit the environment) need to broaden their perspective and to take the different responses to schemes in simple (high impact) and complex (low impact) agricultural landscapes into account. In simple landscapes, local allocation of habitat is more important than in complex landscapes, which are in total at risk. However, little knowledge of the relative importance of local and landscape management for biodiversity and its relation to ecosystem services make reliable recommendations difficult.     

Conserving the Birds of Uganda’s Banana-Coffee Arc: Land Sparing and Land Sharing Compared

Reconciling the aims of feeding an ever more demanding human population and conserving biodiversity is a difficult challenge. Here, we explore potential solutions by assessing whether land sparing (farming for high yield, potentially enabling the protection of non-farmland habitat), land sharing (lower yielding farming with more biodiversity within farmland) or a mixed strategy would result in better bird conservation outcomes for a specified level of agricultural production. We surveyed forest and farmland study areas in southern Uganda, measuring the population density of 256 bird species and agricultural yield: food energy and gross income. Parametric non-linear functions relating density to yield were fitted. Species were identified as “winners” (total population size always at least as great with agriculture present as without it) or “losers” (total population sometimes or always reduced with agriculture present) for a range of targets for total agricultural production. For each target we determined whether each species would be predicted to have a higher total population with land sparing, land sharing or with any intermediate level of sparing at an intermediate yield. We found that most species were expected to have their highest total populations with land sparing, particularly loser species and species with small global range sizes. Hence, more species would benefit from high-yield farming if used as part of a strategy to reduce forest loss than from low-yield farming and land sharing, as has been found in Ghana and India in a previous study. We caution against advocacy for high-yield farming alone as a means to deliver land sparing if it is done without strong protection for natural habitats, other ecosystem services and social welfare. Instead, we suggest that conservationists explore how conservation and agricultural policies can be better integrated to deliver land sparing by, for example, combining land-use planning and agronomic support for small farmers.     

Expert assessment of landscape-level conservation strategies in boreal forests for biodiversity,recreation and water quality

Determining effects of landscape-level conservation strategies is needed, yet a challenging and costly endeavour. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of landscape-level conservation strategies in forests on biodiversity and provision of two ecosystem services (recreation and water quality). Specifically, we focused on the spatial allocation of unmanaged areas in production forests and different levels of “land sharing” or “land sparing”. They were represented through seven scenarios constructed for a boreal managed forest landscape in central Sweden. All scenarios had the same total level of conservation effort, but they differed in the combinations of sizes of unmanaged areas and how these areas were spread in the landscape. In one scenario, this was complemented with extended rotation of production areas. Experts (researchers in relevant fields) assessed these scenarios for overall biodiversity, recreation, and water quality. We used the Delphi technique: experts filled out an online survey individually in two rounds. In the second round they were familiarized with anonymized responses of others from the previous round. There was little agreement between experts whether concentration of unmanaged areas in one part of the landscape or dispersion of them around the entire area is more beneficial, for biodiversity as well as for the two ecosystem services. The explanation of the opinions given by biodiversity experts were based on different ecological theories resulting in different conclusions (mainly habitat complementation vs. metapopulation ecology). A few large unmanaged areas were considered more beneficial for biodiversity than many small areas. The main argument was that long-term species persistence becomes higher with larger areas. For recreation and water quality, there were almost no differences in estimates between these two strategies. One “land sharing” approach, retention trees, received the lowest score. The second “land sharing” approach, extended rotation, was scored higher, especially regarding recreation. This may be because extended rotations generate features of high recreational value, such as mature, thinned forests with not so much dead wood. Conclusively, we suggest a strategy of mixed conservation measures, with considerable efforts directed towards establishing and maintaining large unmanaged areas.     

乡村景观生物多样性研究进展

乡村景观是一种人文和自然共生的复合生态系统, 为生物多样性的维持提供了支持。目前, 中国传统乡村地区生物多样性的维持正面临着农业集约化、人工林树种单一化、非农业用地急剧扩张及生态传承机制解体等复杂多样的威胁, 亟待展开深入研究。本文在总结乡村景观生物多样性相关概念及特征的基础上, 通过文献分析概括了国际乡村景观生物多样性的热点研究方向, 包括农业集约化下的生物多样性管理、区域尺度乡村景观与生物多样性的协同关系、局地尺度不同乡村景观类型的物种多样性及乡村景观中的生物文化多样性, 进一步梳理了国内在相关研究方向上的主要进展并指出研究不足。在此基础上提出未来研究展望, 包括突出生物文化多样性特征、加强多时空尺度分析、深化动态维持机制研究、推进生物多样性研究在乡村生态景观规划中的全过程应用等建议。     

Integrating biodiversity and conservation with modern agricultural landscapes

To achieve food security and meet the demands of the ever-growing human populations, farming systems have assumed unsustainable practices to produce more from a finite land area. This has been cause for concern mainly due to the often-irreversible damage done to the otherwise productive agricultural landscapes. Agro-ecology is proclaimed to be deteriorating due to eroding integrity of connected ecological mosaics and vulnerability to climate change. This has contributed to declining species diversity, loss of buffer vegetation, fragmentation of habitats, and loss of natural pollinators or predators, which eventually leads to decline in ecosystem services. Currently, a hierarchy of conservation initiatives is being considered to restore ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes. However, the challenge of identifying a suitable conservation strategy is a daunting task in view of socio-ecological factors that may constrain the choice of available strategies. One way to mitigate this situation and integrate biodiversity with agricultural landscapes is to implement offset mechanisms, which are compensatory and balancing approaches to restore the ecological health and function of an ecosystem. This needs to be tailored to the history of location specific agricultural practices, and the social, ecological and environmental conditions. The offset mechanisms can complement other initiatives through which farmers are insured against landscape-level risks such as droughts, fire and floods. For countries in the developing world with significant biodiversity and extensive agriculture, we should promote a comprehensive model of sustainable agricultural landscapes and ecosystem services, replicable at landscape to regional scales. Arguably, the model can be a potential option to sustain the integrity of biodiversity mosaic in agricultural landscapes.     

Organic farming at local and landscape scales benefits plant diversity

Agri‐environment schemes (AES) have been suggested to counter negative effects of agricultural intensification and enhance farmland biodiversity, but evaluations have produced inconsistent results. We suggest that this is partly a consequence of scale‐dependence, i.e. that the consequence of organic farming will differ depending on the scale of uptake in a particular landscape. To test our hypothesis on diversity of forbs, we designed a landscape scale study using spatially explicit information about the Swedish AES for organic farming. The study system consisted of uncultivated field borders along paired fields (organic and conventional) in matched landscapes with either a high or a low proportion of organic faming, allowing separate tests of the effects of farming practice at the local and the landscape scale. The local effect of organic farming was consistently strong, with higher diversity in borders adjoining organic fields, most likely due to the lack of herbicide use on organically managed farmland. Thus, we show that not only the proportion of semi‐natural habitat is important for farmland biodiversity, but that also the management of cropland can influence the diversity in semi‐natural habitats. Furthermore, forb richness was also higher in borders situated in landscapes with a high proportion of organic land, irrespectively of local management, possibly as a result of dispersal of mainly annual plant species from the organically managed fields into the borders (mass effect). Our results demonstrate that farming practice at a local and a landscape scale independently can influence plant species richness, indicating that organic farming can influence diversity also at larger spatial scales and outside the organically managed land. Our study highlight the importance of studying multiple scales, including both local and landscape factors to provide a better understanding of biodiversity patterns.     

Rapid redistribution of agricultural land alters avian richness,abundance, and functional diversity

The conversion of natural, or seminatural, habitats to agricultural land and changes in agricultural land use are significant drivers of biodiversity loss. Within the context of land‐sharing versus land‐sparing debates, large‐scale commercial agriculture is known to be detrimental to biodiversity, but the effects of small‐scale subsistence farming on biodiversity are disputed. This poses a problem for sustainable land‐use management in the Global South, where approximately 30% of farmland is small‐scale. Following a rapid land redistribution program in Zimbabwe, we evaluated changes in avian biodiversity by examining richness, abundance, and functional diversity. Rapid land redistribution has, in the near term, resulted in increased avian abundance in newly farmed areas containing miombo woodland and open habitat. Conversion of seminatural ranched land to small‐scale farms had a negative impact on larger‐bodied birds, but species richness increased, and birds in some feeding guilds maintained or increased abundance. We found evidence that land‐use change caused a shift in the functional traits of the communities present. However, functional analyses may not have adequately reflected the trait filtering effect of land redistribution on large species. Whether newly farmed landscapes in Zimbabwe can deliver multiple benefits in terms of food production and habitat for biodiversity in the longer term is an open question. When managing agricultural land transitions, relying on taxonomic measures of diversity, or abundance‐weighted measures of function diversity, may obscure important information. If the value of smallholder‐farmed land for birds is to be maintained or improved, it will be essential to ensure that a wide array of habitat types is retained alongside efforts to reduce hunting and persecution of large bird species.     

Woodland Restoration in the Western Australian Wheatbelt: A Conceptual Framework Using a State and Transition Model

Woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus spp. in temperate southeastern and southwestern Australia have been extensively cleared for agriculture and are often badly degraded by livestock grazing. This has resulted in the loss of biodiversity and widespread land degradation. The continuing decline of these woodlands has become a concern for the conservation of biodiversity, and there is a growing interest among farmers, land managers, and researchers in developing techniques for restoring them. Currently few scientific guidelines exist for undertaking woodland restoration programs. We use a state and transition model to develop hypotheses on restoration strategies for salmon gum (Eucalyptus salmonophloia) woodlands. We consider that this approach provides a suitable framework for organizing knowledge and identifying areas where further information is needed, and hence provides a useful starting point for a restoration program. The model has the potential to provide a tool for land managers with which they can assess the action and effort needed to undertake woodland restoration in agricultural landscapes.     

A new view on EU agricultural landscapes: Quantifying patchiness to assess farmland heterogeneity

Mapping and assessment of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes as required by the EU biodiversity policy need a better characterization of the given landscape typology according to its ecological and cultural values. Such need should be accommodated by a better discrimination of the landscape characteristics linked to the capacity of providing ecosystem services and socio-cultural benefits. Often, these key variables depend on the degree of farmland heterogeneity and landscape patterns. We employed segmentation and landscape metrics (edge density and image texture respectively), derived from a pan-European multi-temporal and multi-spectral remote sensing dataset, to generate a consistent European indicator of farmland heterogeneity, the Farmland Heterogeneity Indicator (FHI). We mapped five degrees of FHI on a wall-to-wall basis (250 m spatial resolution) over European agricultural landscapes including natural grasslands. Image texture led to a clear improvement of the indicator compared to the pure application of Edge Density, in particular to a better detection of small patches. In addition to deriving a qualitative indicator we attributed an approximate patch size to each class, allowing an indicative assessment of European field sizes. Based on CORINE land cover, we identified pastures and heterogeneous land cover classes as classes with the highest degree of FHI, while agroforestry and olive groves appeared less heterogeneous on average. We performed a verification based on a continental and regional scale, which resulted in general good agreement with independently derived data.     

Using historical ecology to understand patterns of biodiversity in fragmented agricultural landscapes

Aim To enhance current attempts to understand biodiversity patterns by using an historical ecology approach to highlight the over‐riding influence of land‐use history in creating past, current and future patterns of biodiversity in fragmented agricultural landscapes. Methods We develop an integrative conceptual framework for understanding spatial and temporal variations in landscape patterns in fragmented agricultural landscapes by presenting five postulates (hypotheses) which highlight the important role of historical, anthropogenic disturbance regimes. We then illustrate each of these postulates with examples drawn from fragmented woodlands in agricultural areas of south‐eastern Australia, and discuss these findings in an international context. Location examples are drawn from agricultural areas in south‐eastern Australia. Results We conclude that there is limited potential to refine our understanding of patterns of biodiversity in human‐modified landscapes based on traditional concepts of island biogeography, or simple assumptions of ongoing destruction and degradation. Instead, we propose that in agricultural landscapes that were largely cleared over a century ago: (1) present‐day remnant vegetation patterns are not accidental, but are logically arrayed due to historic land‐use decisions, (2) historic anthropogenic disturbances have a major influence on current ecosystem conditions and diversity patterns, and (3) the condition of remnant ecosystems is not necessarily deteriorating rapidly. Main conclusions An historical ecology approach can enhance our understanding of why different species and ecosystem states occur where they do, and can explain internal variations in ecological conditions within remnant ecosystems, too often casually attributed to the ‘mess of history’. This framework emphasizes temporal changes (both past and future) in biotic patterns and processes in fragmented agricultural landscapes. Integration of spatially and temporally explicit historical land‐use information into ecological studies can prove extremely useful to test hypotheses of the effects of changes in landscape processes, and to enhance future research, restoration and conservation management activities.     

Die Eh da‐Initiative

The “Eh da”‐Initiative: more space for Biological Diversity in Cultural Landscapes The “Eh da”‐initiative is based on the principle that definite land in cultural landscapes is “available anyway” (what ?eh da“ means in German) and has the potential for ecological upgrading without relevant limitations of land use. “Eh da” could be the acronym “Ecological habitat development areas.” This land is located in open landscapes: along waysides, on uncropped plots in farmland, it could be communal lawn and other land categories. The initiative uses geodata in order to detect and quantify “Eh da”‐sites. According to an analysis based on geodata in selected landscapes “Eh da”‐land constitutes 2–6 per cent of the total area of Germany. “Eh da“‐sites are mostly narrow, longitudinal and spread like a net all over the landscape. Mainly insects and other invertebrate animals can be supported by upgrading of “Eh da”‐land. Since these sites often form corridors, they may be part of communal biodiversity protection initiatives under the perspective of ecological networks, or they may be used for distinct projects. Communication is a key element of any local initiative in which not only the ecological upgrading options, but also potential trade‐offs (like increase of agricultural pests and weeds, neophyta and pyrrolizidine containing or allergenic plants) should be discussed.     

Ecological restoration of rich fens in Europe and North America: from trial and error to an evidence‐based approach

Fens represent a large array of ecosystem services, including the highest biodiversity found among wetlands, hydrological services, water purification and carbon sequestration. Land‐use change and drainage has severely damaged or annihilated these services in many parts of North America and Europe; restoration plans are urgently needed at the landscape level. We review the major constraints on the restoration of rich fens and fen water bodies in agricultural areas in Europe and disturbed landscapes in North America: (i) habitat quality problems: drought, eutrophication, acidification, and toxicity, and (ii) recolonization problems: species pools, ecosystem fragmentation and connectivity, genetic variability, and invasive species; and here provide possible solutions. We discuss both positive and negative consequences of restoration measures, and their causes. The restoration of wetland ecosystem functioning and services has, for a long time, been based on a trial‐and‐error approach. By presenting research and practice on the restoration of rich fen ecosystems within agricultural areas, we demonstrate the importance of biogeochemical and ecological knowledge at different spatial scales for the management and restoration of biodiversity, water quality, carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services, especially in a changing climate. We define target processes that enable scientists, nature managers, water managers and policy makers to choose between different measures and to predict restoration prospects for different types of deteriorated fens and their starting conditions.     

Land‐use strategies to balance livestock production,biodiversity conservation and carbon storage in Yucatán,Mexico

Balancing the production of food, particularly meat, with preserving biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem services is a major societal challenge. Research into the contrasting strategies of land sparing and land sharing has suggested that land sparing—combining high‐yield agriculture with the protection or restoration of natural habitats on nonfarmed land—will have lower environmental impacts than other strategies. Ecosystems with long histories of habitat disturbance, however, could be resilient to low‐yield agriculture and thus fare better under land sharing. Using a wider suite of species (birds, dung beetles and trees) and a wider range of livestock‐production systems than previous studies, we investigated the probable impacts of different land‐use strategies on biodiversity and aboveground carbon stocks in the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico—a region with a long history of habitat disturbance. By modelling the production of multiple products from interdependent land uses, we found that land sparing would allow larger estimated populations of most species and larger carbon stocks to persist than would land sharing or any intermediate strategy. This result held across all agricultural production targets despite the history of disturbance and despite species richness in low‐ and medium‐yielding agriculture being not much lower than that in natural habitats. This highlights the importance, in evaluating the biodiversity impacts of land use, of measuring population densities of individual species, rather than simple species richness. The benefits of land sparing for both biodiversity and carbon storage suggest that safeguarding natural habitats for biodiversity protection and carbon storage alongside promoting areas of high‐yield cattle production would be desirable. However, delivering such landscapes will probably require the explicit linkage of livestock yield increases with habitat protection or restoration, as well as a deeper understanding of the long‐term sustainability of yields, and research into how other societal outcomes vary across land‐use strategies.     

From Biodiversity to Ecodiversity: A Landscape-Ecology Approach to Conservation and Restoration

An environmental revolution is urgently needed that will lead to a post-industrial symbiosis between man and nature. This can be realized only if the present unrestrained biological impoverishment and neotechnological landscape degradation are replaced by the creation of healthy and attractive landscapes. Restorationists can fulfill a vital role in this process. They must broaden their scales from biodiversity restoration in small, protected nature islands to the large-scale restoration of natural and cultural landscapes. To achieve this they must restore not only the patterns of vegetation but also the processes that create these patterns, including human land uses. Their goal should be to restore the total biological, ecological, and cultural landscape diversity, or “ecodiversity,” and its intrinsic and instrumental values of highly valuable, endangered seminatural, agricultural and rural landscapes. For this purpose it is essential to maintain and restore the dynamic flow equilibrium between biodiversity, ecological, and cultural landscape heterogeneity, as influenced by human land uses, which occur at different spatial and temporal scales and intensities. Recent advances in landscape ecology should be utilized for broader assessment of ecodiversity, including proposed indices of ecodiversity, new techniques such as Intelligent Geographical Information Systems (IGIS), and Green Books for the holistic conservation and restoration of valuable endangered landscapes. Restoration ecology can make an important contribution to an urgently needed environmental revolution. This revolution should lead to a new symbiosis between man and nature by broadening the goal of vegetation restoration to ecological and cultural landscape restoration, and thereby to total landscape ecodiversity.