Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Limits to agricultural land for retaining acceptable levels of local biodiversity

Abstract

Several studies have proposed maximum allowable areas of cropland (12.6–15.18% of terrestrial area) as environmental sustainability requirements, yet none have so far considered the minimum biodiversity levels required to support ecosystem functioning at acceptable levels. Here, we use a decision tree-based optimization model to estimate the maximum area of cropland and pasture that would meet—or come closest to meeting—the acceptable levels of local biodiversity proposed in the literature (90% local species abundance and 80% local species richness compared with an undisturbed baseline). We model four scenarios under which we vary two key sources of uncertainty: the maximization function and the potential of secondary vegetation to maintain biodiversity. The model finds that a maximum of 4.62–11.17% of the global ice-free land can be allocated to cropland (and 7.86–15.67% to pasture) to meet these biodiversity constraints—a lower level than was suggested in previous studies. The results are very sensitive to the minimum acceptable biodiversity values and the biodiversity response factors used, but the size of the disparity between current cropland area and our results suggests that actions to limit or reduce the area dedicated to agriculture should feature more prominently in policy discussions.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: A comparison of maximum acceptable global cropland levels.
Fig. 2: The sensitivity of maximum cropland levels to minimum biodiversity requirements and biodiversity response factors.
Fig. 3: Transgression of the sustainability gap in world subecoregions, measured as the gap-to-reference percentage.
Fig. 4: Transgression of the sustainability gap in world subecoregions measured as the gap-to-total land percentage.
Fig. 5: Forest cover in selected biomes in 2015 and under minimum acceptable biodiversity levels.

Data availability

The datasets used to generate the land use/land use intensity maps at the subecoregion level, as well as the biodiversity response factors, are freely available in the sources referenced above. Additional data generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

The code can be made available for replication purposes by the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.

    Ellis, E. C. Anthropocene: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).

  2. 2.

    Metzger, M. J., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Acosta-Michlik, L., Leemans, R. & Schröter, D. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114, 69–85 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bateman, I. J. et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Balmford, A. et al. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297, 950–953 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe Report No. COM(2011) 571 (European Commission, 2011).

  6. 6.

    Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Le Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 605–649 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Houghton, R. A. & Nassikas, A. A. Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 456–472 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22, 8 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Rockström, J. et al. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14, 32 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Dao, H. et al. Environmental Limits and Swiss Footprints Based on Planetary Boundaries (UNEP/GRID-Geneva & Univ. Geneva, 2015).

  12. 12.

    Bringezu, S., O’Brien, M. & Schütz, H. Beyond biofuels: assessing global land use for domestic consumption of biomass. Land Use Policy 29, 224–232 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Heck, V., Hoff, H., Wirsenius, S., Meyer, C. & Kreft, H. Land use options for staying within the planetary boundaries—synergies and trade-offs between global and local sustainability goals. Glob. Environ. Change 49, 73–84 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hurtt, G. et al. Harmonization of global land-use change and management for the period 850–2100. Geosci. Model Dev. (in the press).

  15. 15.

    Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Hooper, D. U. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486, 105–108 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Newbold, T. et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353, 288–291 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Clements, G. R. et al. Where and how are roads endangering mammals in Southeast Asia’s forests? PLoS ONE 9, e115376 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Weber, E. & Li, B. Plant invasions in China: what is to be expected in the wake of economic development? BioScience 58, 437–444 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kremen, C. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol. Lett. 8, 468–479 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. BioScience 51, 933–938 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Smith, J. R. et al. A global test of ecoregions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1889–1896 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Seto, K. C., Fragkias, M., Güneralp, B. & Reilly, M. K. A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE 6, e23777 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Lenton, T. et al. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1786–1793 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Living Planet Report 2018: Aiming Higher (WWF, 2018).

  27. 27.

    Hill, S. L. L. et al. Reconciling biodiversity indicators to guide understanding and action. Conserv. Lett. 9, 405–412 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hoff, H., Nykvist, B. & Carson, M. “Living Well, Within the Limits of our Planet”? Measuring Europe’s Growing External Footprint Working Paper 2014-05 (Stockholm Environment Institute, 2014).

  29. 29.

    Nykvist, B. et al. National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2013).

  30. 30.

    Cole, M. J., Bailey, R. M. & New, M. G. Tracking sustainable development with a national barometer for South Africa using a downscaled “safe and just space” framework. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E4399–E4408 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Phalan, B., Green, R. & Balmford, A. Closing yield gaps: perils and possibilities for biodiversity conservation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369, 20120285 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Baumann, M. et al. Deforestation and cattle expansion in the Paraguayan Chaco 1987–2012. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1179–1191 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Bren d’Amour, C. et al. Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 114, 8939–8944 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Hunter, M. C., Smith, R. G., Schipanski, M. E., Atwood, L. W. & Mortensen, D. A. Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. BioScience 67, 386–391 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Global Bioenergy: Supply and Demand Projections. A Working Paper for REmap 2030 (IRENA, 2014).

  37. 37.

    Newbold, T. Future effects of climate and land-use change on terrestrial vertebrate community diversity under different scenarios. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20180792 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Oliver, T. H. How much biodiversity loss is too much? Science 353, 220–221 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B. & Mace, G. M. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 263–275 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Lee, H. & Lautenbach, S. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 66, 340–351 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Phillips, H. R. P., Newbold, T. & Purvis, A. Land-use effects on local biodiversity in tropical forests vary between continents. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 2251–2270 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Jung, M. et al. Local factors mediate the response of biodiversity to land use on two African mountains. Anim. Conserv. 20, 370–381 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Balmford, A., Green, R. & Phalan, B. Land for food & land for nature? Daedalus 144, 57–75 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Van Asselen, S. & Verburg, P. H. A land system representation for global assessments and land-use modeling. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 3125–3148 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2011).

  47. 47.

    Kehoe, L. et al. Biodiversity at risk under future cropland expansion and intensification. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1129–1135 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Global Agro-ecological Zones (GAEZ v3.0) (FAO & IIASA, 2010).

  49. 49.

    Suitability of Global Land Area for Pasture (FGGD) (FAO, 2007).

  50. 50.

    Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Clim. Change 109, 117 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Scheffer, M. Critical Transitions in Nature and Society (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).

  52. 52.

    Moreno-Mateos, D. et al. Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt. Nat. Commun. 8, 14163 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Jones, H. P. & Schmitz, O. J. Rapid recovery of damaged ecosystems. PLoS ONE 4, e5653 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Jones, H. P. et al. Restoration and repair of Earth’s damaged ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20172577 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A.U.-L. acknowledges support from the UCL ISR Doctoral Studentship. A.U.-L. thanks T. Newbold (UCL CBER) and I. Butnar (UCL ISR) for helpful exchanges when producing an earlier version of the paper. T. Newbold also helped with the original design of the study. G.M.M. acknowledges the Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems (SHEFS) programme supported by the Wellcome Trust’s ‘Our Planet, Our Health’ programme (grant no. 205200/Z/16/Z).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A.U.-L. conceived the study idea, collected and analysed the data, and wrote the original draft. A.U.-L., G.M.M. and P.E. reviewed and edited the manuscript. P.E. supervised the study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arkaitz Usubiaga-Liaño.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary discussion, Tables 1–3, Figs. 1–13 and references 1–7

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Usubiaga-Liaño, A., Mace, G.M. & Ekins, P. Limits to agricultural land for retaining acceptable levels of local biodiversity. Nat Sustain 2, 491–498 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0300-8

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing