1. The land-sharing versus land-sparing debate recently stagnated, lacking an integrating perspective in agricultural landscapes as well as consideration of ecosystem services. Here, we argue that land-sharing (i.e. wildlife-friendly farming systems) and land-sparing (i.e. separation of high-yielding agriculture and natural habitats) are not mutually exclusive, as both are needed to balance management needs for the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes.2. Land-sharing promotes ecosystem services in agricultural settings, thereby allowing for environmentally friendly production. Land set aside in protected areas by land-sparing is crucial for conservation of those species that are incompatible with agriculture.3. Importantly, as species move throughout the landscape and exploit different habitats, increased connectivity between environmentally friendly managed and protected areas is needed to (a) promote spillover of ecosystem service providers from land-sharing/-sparing measures to agricultural production and rescue service-providing species from extinction in hostile areas, (b) to facilitate immigration and counteract possible extinctions in spared habitats and (c) to conserve response diversity of species communities for ensuring resilience of ecosystem services in changing environments. 4. In conclusion, the successful management of multifunctional landscapes requires the combination of context-specific land-sharing and land-sparing measures within spatially well-connected landscape mosaics, resulting in land-sharing/sparing connectivity landscapes. K E Y W O R D S agriculture, landscape design, landscape management, land-sharing, land-sparing, multifunctionality, sustainability | 263 People and Nature GRASS et Al.

Agricultural intensification with modern plant breeding focuses on few high-yielding crops and varieties. The loss of traditional crop species and variety diversity contributes to the current decline of provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services, as reported in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Access to local and adapted varieties is pivotal for resilient agroecosystems, in particular under current global change. We reviewed the scientific literature to understand the role of different crop varieties for ecosystem services, comparing the performance and perception of traditional landraces versus modern varieties and ask the following questions: 1. Do landraces and modern varieties differ in terms of provisioning and regulating ecosystem services? 2. When and why do farmers prefer cultural ecosystem services of landraces over high-yielding varieties? Based on 41 publications, our results document that modern varieties are preferred over landraces because of their typically higher provisioning services such as crop yield. However, landraces often guarantee higher provisioning services under non-optimal farming conditions. Landraces can show high resilience under harsh environmental conditions and are a trusted source achieving stable crop yield (e.g., under droughts stress). Regulating services such as resistance against pests and diseases appear to often become lost during breeding for high-yielding, modern varieties. Furthermore, small-scale farmers typically prefer local landraces due to regional cultural features such as family traditions and cooking characteristics for special dishes. In conclusion, both landraces and modern varieties have merit depending on the farmers' priorities and the social-ecological context. In any case, maintaining and restoring the huge diversity of landrace varieties is necessary for sustaining current and future needs.

Commons approaches in the seed sector are multi-faceted: They span from traditional seed systems, i.e. seed sharing networks, to recent anti-enclosure movements that resist intellectual property rights on varieties, like organic breeding initiatives. This paper derives a conceptualization of 'Seed Commons' at the local and regional level, based on a comprehensive transdisciplinary research process that integrates diverse types of knowledge, both from practitioners (German and Philippine seed initiatives, companies and NGOs), and the scientific community. As a result, we identify four core criteria that characterize diverse Seed Commons arrangements at local and regional scales: (1) collective responsibility, (2) protection from private enclosure, (3) collective, polycentric management, and (4) sharing of formal and practical knowledge. Discussing these Seed Commons criteria in the context of different Commons approaches, we find that Seed Commons transcend the distinction between traditional (natural resource) Commons and New Commons approaches, by integrating biophysical, informational and cultural elements in their collective governance. Reaching beyond resource characteristics, the Seed Commons criteria reflect practices of Commoning, which aim to fulfill social functions such as farmer empowerment and food sovereignty.

No abstract