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

No abstract

Context Humans structure landscapes for the production of food, fibre and fuel, commonly resulting in declines of non-provisioning ecosystem services (ESs). Heterogeneous landscapes are capable of providing multiple ESs, and landscape configuration-spatial arrangement of land cover in the landscape-is expected to affect ES capacity. However, the majority of ES mapping studies have not accounted for landscape configuration. Objectives Our objective is to assess and quantify the relevance of configuration for mapping ES capacity. A review of empirical evidence for configuration effects on the capacity of ten ESs reveals that for four ESs configuration is relevant but typically ignored in ES quantification. For four ESs we quantify the relevance of configuration for mapping ESs using Scotland as a case study. Methods Each ES was quantified through modelling, respectively ignoring or accounting for configuration. The difference in ES capacity between the two ES models was determined at multiple spatial scales. Results Configuration affected the capacity of all four ESs mapped, particularly at the cell and watershed scale. At the scale of Scotland most local effects averaged out. Flood control and sediment retention responded strongest to configuration. ESs were affected by different aspects of configuration, thus requiring specific methods for mapping each ES. Conclusions Accounting for configuration is important for the assessment of certain ESs at the cell and watershed scale. Incorporating configuration in landscape management provides opportunities for spatial optimization of ES capacity, but the diverging response of ESs to configuration suggests that accounting for configuration involves trade-offs between ESs.

Policies and research increasingly focus on the protection of ecosystem services (ESs) through priority-area conservation. Priority areas for ESs should be identified based on ES capacity and ES demand and account for the connections between areas of ES capacity and demand (flow) resulting in areas of unique demand-supply connections (flow zones). We tested ways to account for ES demand and flow zones to identify priority areas in the EuropeanPalabras Clave: flujos de servicios ambientales, objetivos terrestres, planeación sistemática de la conservación, priorización espacial, software Zonation, Unión Europea

Biodiversity conservation and agricultural production are often seen as mutually exclusive objectives. Strategies for reconciling them are intensely debated. We argue that harmonization between biodiversity conservation and crop production can be improved by increasing our understanding of the underlying relationships between them. We provide a general conceptual framework that links biodiversity and agricultural production through the separate relationships between land use and biodiversity and between land use and production. Hypothesized relationships are derived by synthesizing existing empirical and theoretical ecological knowledge. The framework suggests nonlinear relationships caused by the multifaceted impacts of land use (composition, configuration, and intensity). We propose solutions for overcoming the apparently dichotomous aims of maximizing either biodiversity conservation or agricultural production and suggest new hypotheses that emerge from our proposed framework.