image: A flower strip as an element of "land sharing" on a farm in north-western Switzerland.
Credit: Eva Augustiny et al.
To protect biodiversity, a meta-analysis finds that agriculture should use a combination of biodiversity-friendly approaches and protected areas. For decades, scientists have debated how agriculture can both feed the world and safegaurd biodiversity. Should farms be managed in a way that allows non-food species to thrive alongside crops and livestock, an approach known as “land sharing?” Or should agriculture be maximized to produce the highest yield achievable in the smallest space possible, enabling other lands to be set aside for conservation, in what is known as “land sparing?” Eva Augustiny and colleagues conducted a systematic review of 57 empirical peer-reviewed studies on this question and found that neither land sparing nor land sharing strategies alone can effectively balance agricultural production with biodiversity conservation. Data is scarce and only 17 of the studies included assessment of agricultural production, clear specification of the biodiversity metrics used, and clear definitions for the production systems, allowing comparisons between the approaches. These studies included 27 comparisons in total. Over half of these comparisons show that context-specific combinations of both approaches performed best. Many other studies relied on oversimplified methods and all studies measured biodiversity through a limited lens, such as just forest birds. According to the authors, the findings challenge the polarized debate between the two conservation strategies and highlight the need for integrated, location-specific solutions rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.
Journal
PNAS Nexus
Article Title
Empirical evidence supports neither land sparing nor land sharing as the main strategy to manage agriculture–biodiversity tradeoffs
Article Publication Date
2-Sep-2025