No abstract

As the demands on agricultural lands to produce food, fuel, and fiber continue to expand, effective strategies are urgently needed to balance biodiversity conservation and agricultural production. “Land sparing” and “wildlife‐friendly farming” have been proposed as seemingly opposing strategies to achieve this balance. In land sparing, homogeneous areas of farmland are managed to maximize yields, while separate reserves target biodiversity conservation. Wildlife‐friendly farming, in contrast, integrates conservation and production within more heterogeneous landscapes. Different scientific traditions underpin the two approaches. Land sparing is associated with an island model of modified landscapes, where islands of nature are seen as separate from human activities. This simple dichotomy makes land sparing easily compatible with optimization methods that attempt to allocate land uses in the most efficient way. In contrast, wildlife‐friendly farming emphasizes heterogeneity, resilience, and ecological interactions between farmed and unfarmed areas. Both social and biophysical factors influence which approach is feasible or appropriate in a given landscape. Drawing upon the strengths of each approach, we outline broad policy guidelines for conservation in agricultural landscapes.

The management of landscapes for biological conservation and ecologically sustainable natural resource use are crucial global issues. Research for over two decades has resulted in a large literature, yet there is little consensus on the applicability or even the existence of general principles or broad considerations that could guide landscape conservation. We assess six major themes in the ecology and conservation of landscapes. We identify 13 important issues that need to be considered in developing approaches to landscape conservation. They include recognizing the importance of landscape mosaics (including the integration of terrestrial and aquatic areas), recognizing interactions between vegetation cover and vegetation configuration, using an appropriate landscape conceptual model, maintaining the capacity to recover from disturbance and managing landscapes in an adaptive framework. These considerations are influenced by landscape context, species assemblages and management goals and do not translate directly into on-the-ground management guidelines but they should be recognized by researchers and resource managers when developing guidelines for specific cases. Two crucial overarching issues are: (i) a clearly articulated vision for landscape conservation and (ii) quantifiable objectives that offer unambiguous signposts for measuring progress.

Biodiversity conservation in forestry and agricultural landscapes is important because (1) reserves alone will not protect biodiversity; (2) commodity production relies on vital services provided by biodiversity; and (3) biodiversity enhances resilience, or a system's capacity to recover from external pressures such as droughts or management mistakes. We suggest ten guiding principles to help maintain biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience in production landscapes. Landscapes should include structurally characteristic patches of native vegetation, corridors and stepping stones between them, a structurally complex matrix, and buffers around sensitive areas. Management should maintain a diversity of species within and across functional groups. Highly focused management actions may be required to maintain keystone species and threatened species, and to control invasive species. These guiding principles provide a scientifically defensible starting point for the integration of conservation and production, which is urgently required from both an ecological and a long‐term economic perspective.

Beta diversity is an important concept used to describe turnover in species composition across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, and it underpins much of conservation theory and practice. Although substantial progress has been made in the mathematical and terminological treatment of different measures of beta diversity, there has been little conceptual synthesis of potential scale dependence of beta diversity with increasing spatial grain and geographic extent of sampling. Here, we evaluate different conceptual approaches to the spatial scaling of beta diversity, interpreted from 'fixed' and 'varying' perspectives of spatial grain and extent. We argue that a 'sliding window' perspective, in which spatial grain and extent covary, is an informative way to conceptualize community differentiation across scales. This concept more realistically reflects the varying empirical approaches that researchers adopt in field sampling and the varying scales of landscape perception by different organisms. Scale dependence in beta diversity has broad implications for emerging fields in ecology and biogeography, such as the integration of fine-resolution ecogenomic data with large-scale macroecological studies, as well as for guiding appropriate management responses to threats to biodiversity operating at different spatial scales.