Trade‐offs between biodiversity and agriculture are moving targets in dynamic landscapes

Autores
Macchi, Leandro; Decarre, Julieta; Goijman, Andrea Paula; Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique; Blendinger, Pedro Gerardo; Gavier Pizarro, Gregorio Ignacio; Murray, Francisco; Piquer‐Rodriguez, María; Semper-Pascal, Asunción; Kuemmerle, Tobias
Año de publicación
2020
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Understanding how biodiversity responds to intensifying agriculture is critical to mitigating the trade‐offs between them. These trade‐offs are particularly strong in tropical and subtropical deforestation frontiers, yet it remains unclear how changing landscape context in such frontiers alters agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs. We focus on the Argentinean Chaco, a global deforestation hotspot, to explore how landscape context shapes trade‐off curves between agricultural intensity and avian biodiversity. We use a space‐for‐time approach and integrate a large field dataset of bird communities (197 species, 234 survey plots), three agricultural intensity metrics (meat yield, energy yield and profit) and a range of environmental covariates in a hierarchical Bayesian occupancy framework. Woodland extent in the landscape consistently determines how individual bird species, and the bird community as a whole, respond to agricultural intensity. Many species switch in their fundamental response, from decreasing occupancy with increased agricultural intensity when woodland extent in the landscape is low (loser species), to increasing occupancy with increased agricultural intensity when woodland extent is high (winner species). This suggests that landscape context strongly mediates who wins and loses along agricultural intensity gradients. Likewise, where landscapes change, such as in deforestation frontiers, the very nature of the agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs can change as landscapes transformation progresses. Synthesis and applications . Schemes to mitigate agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs, such as land sparing or sharing, must consider landscape context. Strategies that are identified based on a snapshot of data risk failure in dynamic landscapes, particularly where agricultural expansion continues to reduce natural habitats. Rather than a single, fixed strategy, adaptive management of agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs is needed in such situations. Here we provide a toolset for considering changing landscape contexts when exploring such trade‐offs. This can help to better align agriculture and biodiversity in tropical and subtropical deforestation frontiers.
Instituto de Recursos Biológicos
Fil: Macchi, Leandro. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Tucumán; Argentina
Fil: Decarre, Julieta. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; Argentina
Fil: Goijman, Andrea Paula. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; Argentina
Fil: Mastrangelo, Matias Enrique. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Grupo de Estudio de Agroecosistemas y Paisajes Rurales; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina
Fil: Blendinger, Pedro G. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Tucumán; Argentina.
Fil: Gavier Pizarro, Gregorio Ignacio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; Argentina
Fil: Murray, Francisco. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Luis. Agencia de Extensión Rural San Luis; Argentina
Fil: Piquer Rodriguez, María. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Tucumán; Argentina
Fil: Semper-Pascal, Asunción. Humboldt-University Berlin. Geography Department; Alemania
Fil: Kuemmerle, Tobias. Humboldt-University Berlin. Geography Department; Alemania. Humboldt-University Berlin. Integrative Research Institute for Transformations in Human Environment Systems; Alemania
Fuente
Journal of Applied Ecology (First published: 21 July 2020)
Materia
Agricultura
Biodiversidad
Utilización de la Tierra
Deforestación
Agriculture
Biodiversity
Land Use
Deforestation
Región Chaqueña
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Repositorio
INTA Digital (INTA)
Institución
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
OAI Identificador
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/7631
Acceder
id INTADig_ae4931460644980930ba3a91decb380d
oai_identifier_str oai:localhost:20.500.12123/7631
network_acronym_str INTADig
repository_id_str l
network_name_str INTA Digital (INTA)
spelling Trade‐offs between biodiversity and agriculture are moving targets in dynamic landscapesMacchi, LeandroDecarre, JulietaGoijman, Andrea PaulaMastrangelo, Matías EnriqueBlendinger, Pedro GerardoGavier Pizarro, Gregorio IgnacioMurray, FranciscoPiquer‐Rodriguez, MaríaSemper-Pascal, AsunciónKuemmerle, TobiasAgriculturaBiodiversidadUtilización de la TierraDeforestaciónAgricultureBiodiversityLand UseDeforestationRegión ChaqueñaUnderstanding how biodiversity responds to intensifying agriculture is critical to mitigating the trade‐offs between them. These trade‐offs are particularly strong in tropical and subtropical deforestation frontiers, yet it remains unclear how changing landscape context in such frontiers alters agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs. We focus on the Argentinean Chaco, a global deforestation hotspot, to explore how landscape context shapes trade‐off curves between agricultural intensity and avian biodiversity. We use a space‐for‐time approach and integrate a large field dataset of bird communities (197 species, 234 survey plots), three agricultural intensity metrics (meat yield, energy yield and profit) and a range of environmental covariates in a hierarchical Bayesian occupancy framework. Woodland extent in the landscape consistently determines how individual bird species, and the bird community as a whole, respond to agricultural intensity. Many species switch in their fundamental response, from decreasing occupancy with increased agricultural intensity when woodland extent in the landscape is low (loser species), to increasing occupancy with increased agricultural intensity when woodland extent is high (winner species). This suggests that landscape context strongly mediates who wins and loses along agricultural intensity gradients. Likewise, where landscapes change, such as in deforestation frontiers, the very nature of the agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs can change as landscapes transformation progresses. Synthesis and applications . Schemes to mitigate agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs, such as land sparing or sharing, must consider landscape context. Strategies that are identified based on a snapshot of data risk failure in dynamic landscapes, particularly where agricultural expansion continues to reduce natural habitats. Rather than a single, fixed strategy, adaptive management of agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs is needed in such situations. Here we provide a toolset for considering changing landscape contexts when exploring such trade‐offs. This can help to better align agriculture and biodiversity in tropical and subtropical deforestation frontiers.Instituto de Recursos BiológicosFil: Macchi, Leandro. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: Decarre, Julieta. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; ArgentinaFil: Goijman, Andrea Paula. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; ArgentinaFil: Mastrangelo, Matias Enrique. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Grupo de Estudio de Agroecosistemas y Paisajes Rurales; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; ArgentinaFil: Blendinger, Pedro G. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Tucumán; Argentina.Fil: Gavier Pizarro, Gregorio Ignacio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; ArgentinaFil: Murray, Francisco. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Luis. Agencia de Extensión Rural San Luis; ArgentinaFil: Piquer Rodriguez, María. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: Semper-Pascal, Asunción. Humboldt-University Berlin. Geography Department; AlemaniaFil: Kuemmerle, Tobias. Humboldt-University Berlin. Geography Department; Alemania. Humboldt-University Berlin. Integrative Research Institute for Transformations in Human Environment Systems; AlemaniaWiley2020-07-28T19:12:38Z2020-07-28T19:12:38Z2020-07info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/7631https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.136990021-89011365-2664https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13699Journal of Applied Ecology (First published: 21 July 2020)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repograntAgreement/INTA/PNNAT/1128053/AR./Evaluación y manejo de la biodiversidad y sus servicios ecosistémicos de interés para la producción agropecuaria.info:eu-repograntAgreement/INTA/PNNAT/1128052/AR./Desarrollo de herramientas y validación de metodologías para el estudio, gestión y manejo de los sistemas productivos, contribuyendo a su resiliencia socio agroambiental.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)2025-09-04T09:48:34Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/7631instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2025-09-04 09:48:34.994INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Trade‐offs between biodiversity and agriculture are moving targets in dynamic landscapes
title Trade‐offs between biodiversity and agriculture are moving targets in dynamic landscapes
spellingShingle Trade‐offs between biodiversity and agriculture are moving targets in dynamic landscapes
Macchi, Leandro
Agricultura
Biodiversidad
Utilización de la Tierra
Deforestación
Agriculture
Biodiversity
Land Use
Deforestation
Región Chaqueña
title_short Trade‐offs between biodiversity and agriculture are moving targets in dynamic landscapes
title_full Trade‐offs between biodiversity and agriculture are moving targets in dynamic landscapes
title_fullStr Trade‐offs between biodiversity and agriculture are moving targets in dynamic landscapes
title_full_unstemmed Trade‐offs between biodiversity and agriculture are moving targets in dynamic landscapes
title_sort Trade‐offs between biodiversity and agriculture are moving targets in dynamic landscapes
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Macchi, Leandro
Decarre, Julieta
Goijman, Andrea Paula
Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique
Blendinger, Pedro Gerardo
Gavier Pizarro, Gregorio Ignacio
Murray, Francisco
Piquer‐Rodriguez, María
Semper-Pascal, Asunción
Kuemmerle, Tobias
author Macchi, Leandro
author_facet Macchi, Leandro
Decarre, Julieta
Goijman, Andrea Paula
Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique
Blendinger, Pedro Gerardo
Gavier Pizarro, Gregorio Ignacio
Murray, Francisco
Piquer‐Rodriguez, María
Semper-Pascal, Asunción
Kuemmerle, Tobias
author_role author
author2 Decarre, Julieta
Goijman, Andrea Paula
Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique
Blendinger, Pedro Gerardo
Gavier Pizarro, Gregorio Ignacio
Murray, Francisco
Piquer‐Rodriguez, María
Semper-Pascal, Asunción
Kuemmerle, Tobias
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Agricultura
Biodiversidad
Utilización de la Tierra
Deforestación
Agriculture
Biodiversity
Land Use
Deforestation
Región Chaqueña
topic Agricultura
Biodiversidad
Utilización de la Tierra
Deforestación
Agriculture
Biodiversity
Land Use
Deforestation
Región Chaqueña
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Understanding how biodiversity responds to intensifying agriculture is critical to mitigating the trade‐offs between them. These trade‐offs are particularly strong in tropical and subtropical deforestation frontiers, yet it remains unclear how changing landscape context in such frontiers alters agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs. We focus on the Argentinean Chaco, a global deforestation hotspot, to explore how landscape context shapes trade‐off curves between agricultural intensity and avian biodiversity. We use a space‐for‐time approach and integrate a large field dataset of bird communities (197 species, 234 survey plots), three agricultural intensity metrics (meat yield, energy yield and profit) and a range of environmental covariates in a hierarchical Bayesian occupancy framework. Woodland extent in the landscape consistently determines how individual bird species, and the bird community as a whole, respond to agricultural intensity. Many species switch in their fundamental response, from decreasing occupancy with increased agricultural intensity when woodland extent in the landscape is low (loser species), to increasing occupancy with increased agricultural intensity when woodland extent is high (winner species). This suggests that landscape context strongly mediates who wins and loses along agricultural intensity gradients. Likewise, where landscapes change, such as in deforestation frontiers, the very nature of the agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs can change as landscapes transformation progresses. Synthesis and applications . Schemes to mitigate agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs, such as land sparing or sharing, must consider landscape context. Strategies that are identified based on a snapshot of data risk failure in dynamic landscapes, particularly where agricultural expansion continues to reduce natural habitats. Rather than a single, fixed strategy, adaptive management of agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs is needed in such situations. Here we provide a toolset for considering changing landscape contexts when exploring such trade‐offs. This can help to better align agriculture and biodiversity in tropical and subtropical deforestation frontiers.
Instituto de Recursos Biológicos
Fil: Macchi, Leandro. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Tucumán; Argentina
Fil: Decarre, Julieta. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; Argentina
Fil: Goijman, Andrea Paula. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; Argentina
Fil: Mastrangelo, Matias Enrique. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Grupo de Estudio de Agroecosistemas y Paisajes Rurales; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina
Fil: Blendinger, Pedro G. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Tucumán; Argentina.
Fil: Gavier Pizarro, Gregorio Ignacio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; Argentina
Fil: Murray, Francisco. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Luis. Agencia de Extensión Rural San Luis; Argentina
Fil: Piquer Rodriguez, María. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Tucumán; Argentina
Fil: Semper-Pascal, Asunción. Humboldt-University Berlin. Geography Department; Alemania
Fil: Kuemmerle, Tobias. Humboldt-University Berlin. Geography Department; Alemania. Humboldt-University Berlin. Integrative Research Institute for Transformations in Human Environment Systems; Alemania
description Understanding how biodiversity responds to intensifying agriculture is critical to mitigating the trade‐offs between them. These trade‐offs are particularly strong in tropical and subtropical deforestation frontiers, yet it remains unclear how changing landscape context in such frontiers alters agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs. We focus on the Argentinean Chaco, a global deforestation hotspot, to explore how landscape context shapes trade‐off curves between agricultural intensity and avian biodiversity. We use a space‐for‐time approach and integrate a large field dataset of bird communities (197 species, 234 survey plots), three agricultural intensity metrics (meat yield, energy yield and profit) and a range of environmental covariates in a hierarchical Bayesian occupancy framework. Woodland extent in the landscape consistently determines how individual bird species, and the bird community as a whole, respond to agricultural intensity. Many species switch in their fundamental response, from decreasing occupancy with increased agricultural intensity when woodland extent in the landscape is low (loser species), to increasing occupancy with increased agricultural intensity when woodland extent is high (winner species). This suggests that landscape context strongly mediates who wins and loses along agricultural intensity gradients. Likewise, where landscapes change, such as in deforestation frontiers, the very nature of the agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs can change as landscapes transformation progresses. Synthesis and applications . Schemes to mitigate agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs, such as land sparing or sharing, must consider landscape context. Strategies that are identified based on a snapshot of data risk failure in dynamic landscapes, particularly where agricultural expansion continues to reduce natural habitats. Rather than a single, fixed strategy, adaptive management of agriculture–biodiversity trade–offs is needed in such situations. Here we provide a toolset for considering changing landscape contexts when exploring such trade‐offs. This can help to better align agriculture and biodiversity in tropical and subtropical deforestation frontiers.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-07-28T19:12:38Z
2020-07-28T19:12:38Z
2020-07
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/7631
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.13699
0021-8901
1365-2664
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13699
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/7631
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.13699
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13699
identifier_str_mv 0021-8901
1365-2664
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repograntAgreement/INTA/PNNAT/1128053/AR./Evaluación y manejo de la biodiversidad y sus servicios ecosistémicos de interés para la producción agropecuaria.
info:eu-repograntAgreement/INTA/PNNAT/1128052/AR./Desarrollo de herramientas y validación de metodologías para el estudio, gestión y manejo de los sistemas productivos, contribuyendo a su resiliencia socio agroambiental.
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Applied Ecology (First published: 21 July 2020)
reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)
instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
reponame_str INTA Digital (INTA)
collection INTA Digital (INTA)
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.name.fl_str_mv INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.mail.fl_str_mv tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar
_version_ 1842341380056154112
score 12.623145

Publicaciones similares