Abstract
Context
It remains unclear how agricultural landscapes can best serve multiple purposes such as simultaneously maintaining agricultural productivity and conserving biodiversity.
Objectives
Our objective was to assess how important components of biodiversity changed with different land covers, and to uncover whether particular landscapes could simultaneously deliver high agricultural productivity and biodiversity conservation.
Methods
In agriculture-forest mosaics of Southern Ethiopia, we assessed tree and bird biodiversity using detrended correspondence analyses and binomial generalized linear mixed effects models in four zones differing in cropland, grassland, and tree cover as well as agricultural production (crop, livestock feed and fuel).
Results
Tree and bird communities differed along gradients of cropland, grassland, and tree cover, implying that different species benefit from different types of land management. Bird species with smaller ranges were most abundant in the agricultural zone with highest tree cover, exceeding that of even the forest zone, and demonstrating the value of complex mosaics for conservation. The agricultural zone with the highest tree cover also had the highest total productivity in terms of crop, feed, and fuel, perhaps supported in part by ecosystem services provided by invertebrate-eating birds and trees.
Conclusions
Our results challenge current paradigms of agricultural intensification and biodiversity conservation in human dominated landscapes and point to the possibility of achieving both in multifunctional landscapes. Our work also highlights the importance of considering measures of agricultural productivity beyond mere crop yields when assessing the performance of multifunctional landscapes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Around 40% of the global ice-free and desert-free land is used for agriculture, either as cropland or pasture (Springmann et al. 2018). While primarily used for the production of food, fuel and fibre, rural landscapes also host considerable levels of biodiversity. The majority of global biodiversity is actually found in these landscapes shared with people, and not necessarily in protected areas alone (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Baudron and Giller 2014). Most rural landscapes are complex and intricate mosaics comprised of areas of cropland and rangeland interspersed by patches of primary and secondary forest. Globally, more than 40% of agricultural land possesses at least 10% tree cover (Zomer et al. 2014), often in designed agroforestry systems (agroforestry is defined in its broad sense as ‘land use systems and practices in which woody perennials are deliberately integrated with crops and/or animals on the same land management unit’; Leakey 1996). Furthermore, 70% of forest (defined as land areas with at least 30% tree cover) are within 1 km of a forest edge and are thus highly fragmented (Haddad et al. 2015).
The increased demand for food, fuel, and fibre by an increasingly affluent and growing global population—projected to reach 9 billion by the middle of this century—drives agricultural expansion in some regions and agricultural intensification in others (Vandermeer et al. 2018). Both can negatively impact the ability of landscape mosaics to conserve biodiversity and deliver essential ecosystem services (Baudron and Giller 2014; Felipe-Lucia et al. 2014; Phalan et al. 2014; Tomscha and Gergel 2016). Thus, we urgently need to better understand how agricultural productivity and biodiversity conservation can be supported simultaneously in these complex landscapes. This challenge is particularly pressing in developing countries where food security and human well-being are of critical concern and coincide with threatened biodiversity hotspots (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Since the seminal paper of Green and collegues published in 2005, several studies have used the land sparing and land sharing framework to reconcile agricultural production and biodiversity conservation in rural landscapes (e.g., Kleijn et al. 2009; Clough et al. 2011; Phalan et al. 2011; Gabriel et al. 2013). These studies classically plot density-yield functions to identify species better adapted to land sparing (segregation of production and conservation) from those better adapted to land sharing (integration of production and conservation) by examining the shape of the curve. The former is characterized by a concave curve, the latter by a convex curve (Green et al. 2005). In either case, barring a few rare ‘winner’ species, most species are expected to be ‘losers’ which decline with increasing crop yields. Crop yield is often used as the primary agricultural indicator in studies employing such density-yield functions (Green et al. 2005; Kleijn et al. 2009; Clough et al. 2011; Phalan et al. 2011; Gabriel et al. 2013; Phalan et al. 2014; Law et al. 2015). However, as already pointed out by Baudron et al. (2017), the conclusions drawn by such studies would likely differ if agricultural productivity was evaluated in a more integrated fashion. For example, in addition to crop production, livestock and fuelwood comprise two very important products in many landscapes. Indeed, a quarter of the global terrestrial surface is used for grazing (Robinson et al. 2011), whilst fuelwood use remains important in many parts of the world lacking alternative energy sources (Bugaje 2006; Iiyama et al. 2014).
In this study, we simultaneously assessed multiple measures of agricultural productivity—crop, livestock feed, and fuel—as well as biodiversity in a rural landscape of Southern Ethiopia. To explore the potential co-benefits across landscape types, we compared four zones with contrasting land cover composition—cropland, grassland, and tree cover—to account for diverse resources provided by rural landscapes: cropland provides food (and secondarily crop residues used as feed and fuel); grassland provides primarily feed (and secondarily fuelwood); and tree cover provides primarily fuelwood (and secondarily feed). Our first objective was to assess how important components of biodiversity, namely bird and tree species composition and richness, changed with different land cover types associated with different levels of crop, feed, and fuel productivity. Our second objective was to uncover whether particular landscapes could simultaneously deliver high agricultural productivity (in multiple dimensions) and biodiversity conservation.
Materials and methods
Study area
We conducted our study in the woreda (district) of Arsi-Negele, located in the Oromia region of Ethiopia. The study area covers about 100 km2 between 38°42.14′–38°49.92′E and 7°15.05′–7°22.57′N. It borders the state forest of Munesa, and encompasses parts of the three kebeles (sub-districts) of Ashooka, Bombaso Regi and Gambelto, in which a total of six villages were studied. Altitudes here range between 1970 and 2200 m above sea level. The climate is sub-humid, characterized by a mean annual rainfall of 1075 mm per year (18-year average) and a mean annual temperature of 15 °C (16-year average). The study area is characterized by bimodal rainfalls, with a short rainy season from March to May, and a long rainy season from July to September. The natural vegetation is classified as dry afromontane forest (Tesfaye 2007). Wheat (Triticum sp. L.), maize (Zea mays L.), potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and enset (Ensete ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman) are the primary crops under cultivation. Most farmers keep livestock in the form of cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys.
The Sida Malkatuka village and Dikitu Shirke village (in Ashooka kebele) border the state forest of Munesa and form a zone referred to as the ‘high tree cover’ zone in the rest of the paper (Fig. 1). Households in the high tree cover zone use the Munesa forest for fuel and livestock feed (Baudron et al. 2017). A second zone of medium tree cover encompasses Gogorri Lako Toko village (in Ashooka kebele) and Kararu Lakobsa Lama village (in Bombaso Regi kebele) and is located about 5.5 km away from Munesa forest (Fig. 1). Households from the medium tree cover zone make extensive use of a large communal grazing area for fuel and feed (Baudron et al. 2017). A third zone of low tree cover encompasses the villages of Shodna and Belamu (in Gambelto kebele) and is located about 11 km away from Munesa forest (Fig. 1). Households in the low tree cover zone lack access to common grazing or forest areas (Baudron et al. 2017).
Land use classification and agricultural productivity
Contemporary land cover was determined using RapidEye imagery (5-meter resolution) from January 2015 and land was classified into five basic classes: cropland/bare soil, grassland, natural forest, plantations/woodlots, and enset homegardens, following the method described in Baudron et al. (2017). We defined a class ‘tree cover’ by merging the classes ‘natural forest’ and ‘plantations/woodlots’.
To relate our findings to different proxies of productivity, we interviewed the head of each household in the study area between December 2014 and February 2015. A total of 266 households were interviewed (88 in the high tree cover zone, 97 in the medium tree cover zone, and 81 in the low tree cover zone) using a standardized questionnaire addressing crop, livestock, and household fuel management. A farm typology was delineated based on self-categorization exercises conducted in each zone, and a stratified subsample of nine farms was selected in each zone (27 farms in total) for which resource flow maps (i.e., maps of each farm showing the flows of resources between components in the farm and to and from the farm) and resource use calendars were produced (Geifus 2008; Giller et al. 2011). In addition, the area of each field was measured using a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) Garmin Etrek 10. Empirical measurements of daily fuel consumption were conducted in nine of these 27 farms (one farm per type and per zone, selected randomly) once in March 2015 and once in August 2015).
Crop productivity per zone was calculated by dividing the total quantity of grain, tuber and fresh product harvested in the zone (from interview data) by the area of the zone, and multiplying this by the USDA’s specific standard value of dry matter content (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search). Feed productivity per zone was calculated by estimating the total biomass consumed by livestock in the zone and dividing it by the area. For each zone, the total biomass consumed by livestock was estimated by converting livestock numbers into Tropical Livestock Units (TLU), using a value of 250 kg live weight for one TLU (Houérou and Hoste 1977), and by assuming a daily feed intake of 5 kg DM TLU−1 (i.e., 2% of live weight). Oxen and bulls were assumed to be equivalent to 1.1 TLU, cows to 0.8 TLU, steers and heifers to 0.5 TLU, calves to 0.2 TLU, sheep and goats to 0.09 TLU, and donkeys to 0.36 TLU (Gryseels 1988). The total biomass consumed by livestock in a particular zone was then allocated between the zone itself (biomass consumed within the village), Munesa forest, and purchased feed, using resource use calendars. Fuel productivity per zone was calculated by estimating the total biomass used as household fuel in the zone and dividing it by the area. For each zone, the total biomass used as household fuel was estimated by multiplying the average daily consumption of each household type by the number of households from each type in the zone and by 365 days. The total biomass used as household fuel consumed in a particular zone was then allocated between the zone itself (fuelwood, crop residue and dung from the village), Munesa forest, and purchased fuel, using resource use calendars.
Biodiversity assessment
A total of 96 point counts were selected in the study area: 24 in the Munesa forest and for each of the high, medium, and low tree cover zones. Point counts were selected randomly in GIS from a 150 m grid overlaid on a map of the area. Between May and September 2015, each tree within a radius of 50 m from the 96 point counts and with a diameter at breast height (~ 135 cm from ground level) greater than 10 cm was identified to species level by a trained local guide, and using relevant plant taxonomic literature (Hedberg and Edwards 1989; Edwards et al. 1995, 1997; Edwards and Hedberg 2000; Hedberg 2006). For each point, basal area was calculated by dividing the sum of the section area of all trees (at breast height) by the total surface area as an estimate of tree cover. In addition, each point count was visited three times between April and May (dry season) and three times between August and September (wet season) during one morning (between 6h00 and 10h00) and all birds within a 50 m radius and during a period of 10 min were identified visually and counted. A maximum of eight point counts were visited during a particular morning. Counting was avoided during rainy days or days characterized by heavy winds. Repeated bird counts were undertaken by a single experienced local bird guide.
Statistical analysis
Presence of individual tree species among the four zones were assessed by fitting the data, which was converted to a binary ‘presence’ or ‘absence’, into binomial generalized linear models. We assessed differences between zones in presence of tree species, and differences in these patterns between native versus introduced trees (classified as such using the online database from the Royal Botanic Garden, Kew www.plantsoftheworldonline.org). We used binomial generalized linear mixed effects models with count points as random variable and with zone and its interaction with ‘native/introduced’ status as fixed effects on the full dataset. Using a similar approach, we then assessed whether presence/absence among bird species differed between zones for different trophic guilds (following Wilman et al. 2014) as well as for different ranges (species with small versus large global ranges, following Phalan et al. 2011). Here, we used binomial generalized linear mixed effects models as for trees, but we added season (dry/wet) as well as point counts (N = 96) as random variables and also added zone and its two-way interaction with range and trophic guild as fixed effects. We summarised our results for trees and birds in graphs (Figs. 2, 3), in which we used species’ presences in the forest as a reference level and thus compared presences in the other zones against these values (see figure legends for details).
Detrended correspondence analyses (DCA; Hill and Gauch Jr 1980) of the biodiversity data, illustrating changes in beta-diversity, were then used to assess how tree and bird communities changed along gradients of land use—i.e., gradients from low to high cover of cropland, grassland and trees. Environmental variables such as tree, cropland and grassland cover were plotted onto the DCA plots to reveal gradients along which bird and tree communities were organised. We removed 14 sampling points before running the tree DCA (13 and one from the low and the medium tree cover, respectively), because no trees were found at these sampling points. Using ANOVAs, we then tested whether tree and bird community turnover between sampling points—as indicated by the site scores of the first DCA axis (Hill and Gauch 1980)—was related to differences between zones.
Due to logistic reasons—including a lack of accessible and matching forest-agriculture gradients elsewhere in the study region—we were only able to assess productivity and biodiversity patterns along a single gradient. However, we found minimal autocorrelation for sampling points within the zones (see online Appendix 1), and thus believe our analysis to be robust. All analyses were carried out using R software (version 2.14.1, Foundation for statistical computing, 2011).
Results
Characteristics of the four zones
Area, population, percentages of land covers, and productivities of the four zones (forest, high tree cover, medium tree cover, and low tree cover zones) are displayed in Table 1. The zones were of comparable area, except for the medium tree cover zone, which was markedly larger. The number of inhabitants was the largest in the high tree cover zone and the lowest in the low tree zone (excluding the forest zone). The four zones displayed clear differences in terms of landscape composition, and particularly in terms of tree cover (see % tree cover, No of trees and basal area in Table 1). In addition, the medium tree cover zone had a greater grassland cover, and the low tree cover zone a greater cropland cover. When considering total productivity (crop, feed and fuel), the high tree cover zone was the most productive of the three agricultural zones. The medium tree cover zone had the lowest crop productivity of the three agricultural zones while the high tree cover zone had a crop productivity similar to the low tree cover zone. The high tree cover zone also had the highest feed productivity, followed by the medium tree cover zone, the low tree cover zone, and Munesa forest. Munesa forest had the highest fuel productivity of the four zones, followed by the medium tree cover zone, the low tree cover zone and the high tree cover zone. People living in the high tree cover zone were using fuel and feed from both the high tree cover zone itself as well as the Munesa forest.
Tree and bird biodiversity along the forest-agriculture gradient
In total, 4132 individual birds, 96 bird species, 4473 individual trees, and 52 tree species were recorded. Details of these numbers for the four zones are given in Table 1. Tree species presences differed between zones (zone; GLMER, Wald χ2 = 17593150, P < 0.001), where overall species presences were highest in the forest and decreased along the forest-agriculture gradient (Fig. 2a). However, patterns differed between introduced versus native trees (zone x status; GLMER, Wald χ2 = 2174048749, P < 0.001). Native tree species decreased continuously along the gradient, while introduced tree presences, which were absent in the forest, peaked in agricultural zone with medium tree cover. Introduced tree species presences were much higher in the high tree cover zone and the medium tree cover zone than in the low tree cover zone. This integration of planted tree species and crop production in these former two zones could be considered as examples of agroforestry systems (Fig. 2b).
Presence of species representing different bird guilds showed distinct patterns in the different zones (zone × guild; GLMER, Wald χ2 = 209.5, P < 0.001). Plant and seed eaters and omnivores tended to increase along the forest-agriculture gradient while fruit and nectar eaters tended to decrease (Fig. 3a). Invertebrate eaters and omnivores showed highest presences towards the forest, but not in the forest itself (Fig. 3a). Presences of small versus large range species differed across zones (zone × range; GLMER, Wald χ2 = 151.2, P < 0.001), with large range species tending to increase in agricultural land while small range species showed highest presences in the high tree cover zone (Fig. 3b).
Community composition along gradients of land use change
The tree DCA revealed distinct communities along tree, cropland and grassland cover gradients i.e., differed in the forest, high tree cover, medium tree cover, and low tree cover zones (Fig. 4a–c). The scores of first DCA axis differed among zones indicating significant turnover in the tree community (ANOVA, F1,84 = 44.4, P < 0.001). Similarly, the bird DCA showed that the bird communities differed along gradients of tree, cropland and grassland cover i.e., differed in the forest, high tree cover, medium tree cover and low tree cover zones (Fig. 5a–c). As for trees, species turnover in the bird community was related to differences among zones along the forest-agriculture gradient (ANOVA, F1,94 = 499.5, P < 0.001).
Discussion
Multifunctional agricultural landscapes can help maintain species of high conservation value
Tree and bird communities differed along gradients of tree, cropland, and grassland cover (Figs. 4, 5). Cropland, grassland, and tree cover provide different bundles of services: cropland provides food primarily (and secondarily crop residues used as feed and fuel); grassland provides feed primarily (and secondarily fuelwood); and tree cover provides primarily fuelwood (and secondarily feed). Thus, increasing production of these products in different mixtures is likely to change the tree and bird communities in different ways, as demonstrated by our analysis. We found that individual species that may be negatively affected in landscapes that focus on crop production may benefit in landscapes that focus on fuelwood or feed. By focusing solely on crop productivity, many past studies (e.g., Kleijn et al. 2009; Clough et al. 2011; Phalan et al. 2011; Gabriel et al. 2013) have potentially placed too much emphasis on trade-offs while missing possible synergies (see below).
We found that bird species benefitting from crop production tended to include plant and seed eaters, omnivores, as well as large range species (Fig. 3a). These species may not be considered of high conservation value (and may even cause crop losses for farmers in the case of plant and seed eaters, see below). However, we also found that small range species, that is species for which local conservation tends to be more critical, were more abundant in the agricultural zone with high tree cover compared to the other zones, surpassing even the forest zone (Fig. 3b). Thus, agricultural landscapes appear to host species of high conservation value which were seldom encountered even in the forest (e.g., the wattled ibis, Bostrychia carunculata, and the brown-rumped seedeater, Crithagra tristriatus, both of which are highland species endemic to the horn of Africa).
Conservation theories and planning have long been criticized for oversimplifying the role of the landscape matrix for many species (Franklin and Lindenmayer 2009). In part, this stems from an over-emphasis on the stark contrasts portrayed in Island Biogeography perspectives which assume landscape mosaics composed of biodiversity-rich patches of natural vegetation (e.g., forest) embedded in an otherwise hostile agricultural (biodiversity-depleted) matrix. The importance of the matrix as habitat is becoming increasingly appreciated (Vandermeer et al. 1998; Dauber et al. 2003; Swift et al. 2004; Vandermeer and Perfecto 2005; Donald and Evans 2006; Fischer et al. 2006; Chazdon et al. 2009; Reed et al. 2016). Our results also challenge this simplified view of the matrix, demonstrating that the matrix is not a ‘green desert’ but is rather part of the habitat for several species, and even the main part of the habitat for some small range species when managed as a complex mosaic of open vegetation patches (e.g., cropland, grassland) and patches covered by trees (such as the high tree cover zone). Such mosaics may support a wider range of species (including in particular open-habitat species) than continuous forest (Pasari et al. 2013; Kremen and Merenlender 2018). In many natural ecosystems, large herbivores play—or used to play—a major role in creating and maintaining patches of open vegetation, on which several species depend, either totally or partially (Owen-Smith 1988; van der Waal et al. 2011). In human-dominated landscapes, where large wild herbivores are rare or have been extirpated, agriculture is often the dominant force maintaining open patches and creating heterogeneity. Domestic herbivores may mimic the functions once provided by wild herbivores (Benton et al. 2003; Vera 2009; Wright et al. 2012) and contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity, e.g., open-habitat bird species (Wright et al. 2012). In tropical forests, traditional shifting cultivation practices create patches of open grassy fallows in an otherwise homogeneous forest cover. The resulting landscape mosaic may provide diverse habitats and food sources to several species e.g., populations of endangered Asian elephant in Sri Lanka (Wikramanayake et al. 2004).
It could be argued that our study lacks a natural/baseline habitat as defined by Phalan et al. (2014). Indeed, Munesa forest was not devoid of human influence, and was intensively used for feed (grazing) and fuel: an estimated 80 GJ ha−1 of biomass was extracted every year. This could be seen as a limitation of our effort to understand the link between land management and biodiversity. However, we argue that very few forests are truly unexploited by people: many of them are used for grazing and fuelwood collection (as in this study), or for harvesting of various food products (Hladik et al. 1990; Fa et al. 2003; Vinceti et al. 2008; Nasi et al. 2011; Ickowitz et al. 2014; http://www1.cifor.org/pen). Even rainforests thought to be primary or old growth in nature have been found to have sustained periods of extensive human use (Willis et al. 2004; Levis et al. 2017; Maezumi et al. 2018). Only ~18% of the land globally (excluding Antarctica) is actually without measurable human impact (Venter et al. 2016). Thus, our experimental setup is likely to reflect the rule rather than the exception.
Multifunctional agricultural landscapes can support high agricultural productivity
The high tree cover zone had crop productivity similar to the low tree cover zone (29 and 30 GJ ha−1, respectively), despite farmers in the latter having greater market access (in Arsi Negele) and having transformed their landscape for crop production more intensely than in the other zones (Table 1). Crop productivity was similarly dominated by staples in the three zones (in average, ~93 to 95% of the total crop productivity—in GJ—was represented by wheat, maize, and potato for farms of the three zones). Total productivity (crop, feed and fuel) declined with decreasing tree cover totalling 160, 141, and 129 GJ ha−1 in the high, medium, and low tree cover zones, respectively (Table 1). These results challenge the notion that strong trade-offs exist between biodiversity conservation, including the maintenance of trees, and agricultural productivity. Our results point to the existence of landscape mosaics delivering high agricultural productivity in multiple dimensions while simultaneously playing a key role in biodiversity conservation. Interactions between forests/trees and agriculture may explain the high productivity observed in the high tree cover zone (Foli et al. 2014; Reed et al. 2017). In agroforestry systems, trees may benefit crop yield through erosion control (Young 1989), the capture of nutrients below the root zone of annual crops and recycling in the topsoil through litter decomposition (Chikowo et al. 2003) and regulation of the local climate (Ong et al. 2000; Shiferaw Sida et al. 2018). Some tree species may also fix atmospheric nitrogen (Ajayi et al. 2011), or mobilize phosphorus through root exudation or mycorrhiza (Watt and Evans 1999; Smith and Read 2008), potentially benefiting associated crops. Finally, trees may provide habitats to beneficial species, such as pollinators (Blanche et al. 2006; Ricketts et al. 2008; Garibaldi et al. 2013), predatory and parasitoid arthropods controlling crop pest populations (Dix et al. 1995; Bianchi et al. 2006) or insectivorous birds (Koh 2008; see section below). The diversity of productions in complex mosaics may also lead to greater resilience to shocks e.g., climate, or input availability (Duriaux Chavarría et al. 2018).
Trophic composition of the bird communities differed between the three agricultural zones and the forest, with important implications for smallholder farmers. Compared to the forest, agricultural zones hosted less fruit and nectar eaters but more plant and seed eaters. In the high tree cover zone, plant and seed eaters (potential ‘pests’ which may consume crops) were almost as abundant as invertebrate eaters (potential ‘natural enemies’ which may provide a service to farmers by consuming insect pests; Fig. 3a). In contrast, in the low tree cover zone, plant and seed eaters were far more abundant than invertebrate eaters. These differences may explain the fact that crop productivity in the high tree cover zone—despite a high density of trees that may compete with crops for radiation, water and nutrients—was similar to crop productivity in the low tree cover zone. As such, farmers in the high tree cover zone may benefit from ecosystem services provided by birds (such as predation on insect pests) and other wild species, whilst farmers in the low tree cover zone may sustain ecosystem disservices from a community of species adapted to feed on the dominant resource in the landscapes: crops.
Wild birds control crop and livestock pests in many agroecosystems. For example, wild insectivorous birds have been found to regulate the populations of insect pests attacking apple (Mols and Visser 2007) and oil palm (Koh and Wilcove 2008). Managers may enhance this natural pest control by erecting nest boxes in the first case (Mols and Visser 2007) and by maintaining ground and epiphytic ferns that serve as nesting sites in the second (Koh 2008). Similarly oxpeckers—birds native to Africa and feeding specifically on ectoparasites of large herbivores—are known to reduce the tick burden of domestic cattle (Samish 2000). Populations of oxpeckers may be maintained by banning the use of certain acaricides and conserving wild ungulates in the landscape. Raptors may also prey on rodents (a major pest in cereal-based farming systems) and their presence in the field may be stimulated by providing natural or artificial perches (Kay et al. 1994). Thus, the specific services and disservices provided by wild communities in diverse landscape mosaics may positively impact agricultural productivity.
Conclusions
This study suggests that focusing solely on crop productivity when examining the interactions between agricultural productivity and biodiversity—as is the case for most studies using the land sparing and land sharing approaches—risks missing possible synergies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study linking important elements of biodiversity to the three main products valued by rural communities in most landscape mosaics: crops, livestock (or feed), and fuel. Areas used for livestock grazing and fuel collection tend to be relatively undisturbed land units with higher tree cover (e.g., rangelands, forests) compared to cultivated croplands, and such areas may host higher levels of biodiversity as a consequence. Therefore, considering livestock and fuel production in addition to crop production could provide a very different view on the relationship between agriculture and biodiversity; one less dominated by trade-offs and one where coexistence and synergies are more prevalent. This, in turn, would lead to very different policy recommendations.
Although this study only focusses on a few provisioning ecosystem services, it highlights the importance of considering bundles of ecosystem services when evaluating the performance of landscape mosaics (Bennett et al. 2009). The land sparing and land sharing approaches have been developed and chiefly used by conservation ecologists, and as a result convey a strong ecological focus. In these approaches, agricultural productivity has also commonly been assessed through a narrow lens (often exclusively crop yields), disregarding local perspectives of what is actually important to people in terms of ecosystem services (Pascual et al. 2017). In addition, most biodiversity of interest to conservation ecologists tends to be species found in closed forest, rather than species found in more disturbed landscapes and providing ecosystem services to people (Gibson et al. 2011). Dimensions of ecosystem services and human wellbeing, as encapsulated in landscape sustainability science (Wu 2013), need to be incorporated to design interventions that truly balance the need of people and nature.
Our results also suggest that biodiversity may play a critical role in supporting agriculture (e.g., ecosystem services provided by trees and invertebrate-eating birds). We found agricultural productivity to be highest in the landscape with the highest tree cover, and lowest in the landscape most transformed for agricultural production. This challenges the conventional paradigm of agricultural intensification based on landscape simplification and dependence on external inputs. Livelihoods may be better supported by landscape approaches based on multi-sector interconnections between different land uses and ecosystem services (Milder et al. 2012). Productive landscapes should be designed to make the most of the services provided by biodiversity, and replace or complement mechanical and chemical inputs where possible (Bommarco et al. 2013). Such farming systems are likely to: (1) be more benign to the environment than modern conventional farming, (2) depend on self-organization rather than (largely fossil-fuel based) energy, and (3) use biophysical resources more efficiently (Doré et al. 2011; Tittonell 2014).
References
Ajayi OC, Place F, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi GW (2011) Agricultural success from Africa: the case of fertilizer tree systems in southern Africa (Malawi, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe). Int J Agric Sustain 9:129–136. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0554
Baudron F, Duriaux J-Y, Remans R, Yang K, Sunderland T (2017) Indirect contributions of forests to dietary diversity in Southern Ethiopia. Ecol Soc 22:28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09267-220228
Baudron F, Giller KE (2014) Agriculture and nature: trouble and strife? Biol Conserv 170:232–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.009
Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x
Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00011-9
Bianchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc Biol Sci 273:1715–1727. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3530
Blanche KR, Ludwig JA, Cunningham SA (2006) Proximity to rainforest enhances pollination and fruit set in orchards. J Appl Ecol 43:1182–1187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01230.x
Bommarco R, Kleijn D, Potts SG (2013) Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol Evol 28:230–238
Bugaje IM (2006) Renewable energy for sustainable development in Africa: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 10:603–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2004.11.002
Chazdon RL, Harvey CA, Komar O, Griffith DM, Ferguson BG, Martinez-Ramos M, Morales H, Nigh R, Soto-Pinto L, van Breugel M, Philpott SM (2009) Beyond reserves: a research agenda for conserving biodiversity in human-modified tropical landscapes. Biotropica 41:142–153
Chikowo R, Mapfumo P, Nyamugafata P, Nyamadzawo G, Giller KE (2003) Nitrate-N dynamics following improved fallows and maize root development in a Zimbabwean sandy clay loam. Agrofor Syst 59:187–195. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000005219.07409.a0
Clough Y, Barkmann J, Juhrbandt J, Kessler M, Wanger TC, Anshary A, Buchori D, Cicuzza D, Darras K, Putra DD, Erasmi S, Pitopang R, Schmidt C, Schulze CH, Seidel D, Steffan-Dewenter I, Stenchly K, Vidal S, Weist M, Wielgoss AC, Tscharntke T (2011) Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:8311–8316. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016799108
Dauber J, Hirsch M, Simmering D, Waldhardt R, Otte A, Wolters V (2003) Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: matrix effects on species richness. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:321–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00092-6
Dix ME, Harrell MO, Wright RJ (1995) Influences of trees on abundance of natural enemies of insect pests: a review. Agrofor Syst 29:303–311
Donald PF, Evans AD (2006) Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri environment schemes. J Appl Ecol 43:209–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01146.x
Doré T, Makowski D, Malézieux E, Munier-Jolain N, Tchamitchian M, Tittonell PA (2011) Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensification in agronomy: revisiting methods, concepts and knowledge. Eur J Agron 34:197–210
Duriaux Chavarría J-Y, Baudron F, Sunderland T (2018) Retaining forests within agricultural landscapes as a pathway to sustainable intensification: evidence from Southern Ethiopia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 263: 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.04.020
Edwards S, Demissew S, Hedberg I (1997) Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, Volume 6: Hydrocharitaceae to Arecaceae. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Edwards S, Hedberg I (2000) Flora of Ethiopia, Volume 2, part 1: Magnoliaceae to Flacourtiaceae. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Edwards S, Tadesse M, Hedberg I (1995) Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, Volume 2, part 2: Canellaceae to Euphorbiacea. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Fa JE, Currie D, Meeuwig J (2003) Bushmeat and food security in the Congo Basin: linkages between wildlife and people’s future. Environ Conserv 30:71–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892903000067
Felipe-Lucia MR, Comín FA, Bennett EM (2014) Interactions among ecosystem services across land uses in a floodplain agroecosystem. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-06249-190120
Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD (2006) Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 4:80–86. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004%5b0080:BEFART%5d2.0.CO;2
Foli S, Reed J, Clendenning J, Petrokofsky G, Padoch C, Sunderland TCH (2014) To what extent does the presence of forests and trees contribute to food production in humid and dry forest landscapes?: a systematic review protocol. Environ Evid 3:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-3-15
Franklin JF, Lindenmayer DB (2009) Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:349–350. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812016105
Gabriel D, Sait SM, Kunin WE, Benton TG (2013) Food production vs. biodiversity: comparing organic and conventional agriculture. J Appl Ecol 50:355–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12035
Garibaldi LA, Steffan-Dewenter I, Winfree R, Aizen MA, Bommarco R, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Carvalheiro LG, Harder LD, Afik O, Bartomeus I, Benjamin F, Boreux V, Cariveau D, Chacoff NP, Dudenhöffer JH, Freitas BM, Ghazoul J, Greenleaf SS, Hipólito J, Holzschuh A, Howlett B, Isaacs R, Javorek SK, Kennedy CM, Krewenka KM, Krishnan S, Mandelik Y, Mayfield MM, Motzke I, Munyuli T, Nault BA, Otieno M, Petersen J, Pisanty G, Potts SG, Rader R, Ricketts TH, Rundlöf M, Seymour CL, Schüepp C, Szentgyörgyi H, Taki H, Tscharntke T, Vergara CH, Viana BF, Wanger TC, Westphal C, Williams N, Klein AM (2013) Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339:1608–1611. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230200
Geifus F (2008) 80 tools for participatory development: appraisal, planning, follow-up and evaluation. Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), San Jose, Costa Rica
Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J, Peres CA, Bradshaw CJA, Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Sodhi NS (2011) Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478:378–381. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10425
Giller KE, Tittonell PA, Rufino MC, van Wijk MT, Zingore S, Mapfumo P, Adjei-Nsiah S, Herrero M, Chikowo R, Corbeels M, Rowe EC, Baijukya F, Mwijage A, Smith J, Yeboah E, van der Burg WJ, Sanogo OM, Misiko M, De Ridder N, Karanja S, Kaizzi C, K’ungu J, Mwale M, Nwaga D, Pacini GC, Vanlauwe B (2011) Communicating complexity: integrated assessment of trade-offs concerning soil fertility management within African farming systems to support innovation and development. Agric Syst 104:191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.07.002
Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106049
Gryseels G (1988) Role of livestock on mixed smallholder farms in the Ethiopian Highlands: a case study from the Baso and Worena Wereda near Debre Berhan. Wageningen University
Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, Lovejoy TE, Sexton JO, Austin MP, Collins CD, Cook WM, Damschen EI, Ewers RM, Foster BL, Jenkins CN, King AJ, Laurance WF, Levey DJ, Margules CR, Melbourne BA, Nicholls AO, Orrock JL, Song D-X, Townshend JR (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052
Hedberg I (2006) Flora of Ethiopia, Volume 5: Gentianaceae to Cyclocheilaceae. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Hedberg I, Edwards S (1989) Flora of Ethiopia, Volume 3: Pittosporaceae to Araliaceae. Uppsala, Sweden
Hill MO, Gauch HG (1980) Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetation 42:47–58
Hladik CM, Bahuchet S, De Garine I (1990) Food and nutrition in the African rain forest. Unesca/MAB, Paris
Houérou HN Le, Hoste CH (1977) Rangeland production and annual rainfall relations in the mediterranean basin and in the African sahelo-sudanian zone. J Range Manag 30:181–189. https://doi.org/10.2307/3897463
Ickowitz A, Powell B, Salim MA, Sunderland TCH (2014) Dietary quality and tree cover in Africa. Glob Environ Chang 24:287–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.001
Iiyama M, Neufeldt H, Dobie P, Njenga M, Ndegwa G, Jamnadass R (2014) The potential of agroforestry in the provision of sustainable woodfuel in sub-Saharan Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.12.003
Kay BJ, Twigg LE, Korn TJ, Nicol HI (1994) The use of artifical perches to increase predation on house mice (Mus domesticus) by raptors. Wildl Res 21:95–105
Kleijn D, Kohler F, Báldi A, Batáry P, Concepción ED, Clough Y, Díaz M, Gabriel D, Holzschuh A, Knop E, Kovács A, Marshall EJP, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J (2009) On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proc Biol Sci 276:903–909. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1509
Koh LP (2008) Birds defend oil palms from herbivorous insects. Ecol Appl 18:821–825
Koh LP, Wilcove DS (2008) Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity? Conserv Lett 1:60–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00011.x
Kremen C, Merenlender AM (2018) Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau6020
Law EA, Meijaard E, Bryan BA, Mallawaarachchi T, Koh LP, Wilson KA (2015) Better land-use allocation outperforms land sparing and land sharing approaches to conservation in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biol Conserv 186:276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.03.004
Leakey RRB (1996) Definition of agroforestry revisited. Agroforestry 8:5–7
Levis C, Costa FRC, Bongers F, Peña-Claros M, Clement CR, Junqueira AB, Neves EG, Tamanaha EK, Figueiredo FOG, Salomão RP, Castilho CV, Magnusson WE, Phillips OL, Guevara JE, Sabatier D, Molino J-F, Cardenas Lopez D (2017) Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication on Amazonian forest composition. Science 931:925–931. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal0157
Maezumi SY, Alves D, Robinson M, de Souza JG, Levis C, Barnett RL, Almeida de Oliveira E, Urrego D, Schaan D, Iriarte J (2018) The legacy of 4,500 years of polyculture agroforestry in the eastern Amazon. Nat Plants 4:540–547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0205-y
Milder JC, Buck LE, DeClerck F, Scherr SJ (2012) Landscape approaches to achieving food production, natural resource conservation, and the millennium development goals. In: Integrating ecology and poverty reduction. Springer, New York
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Washington, D.C
Mols CMM, Visser ME (2007) Great tits (Parus major) reduce caterpillar damage in commercial apple orchards. PLoS ONE 2:888–899
Nasi R, Taber A, Van Vliet N (2011) Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. Int For Rev 13:355–368. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554811798293872
Ong CK, Black CR, Wallace JS, Khan AAH, Lott JE, Jackson NA, Howard SB, Smith DM (2000) Productivity, microclimate and water use in Grevillea robusta-based agroforestry systems on hillslopes in semi-arid Kenya. Agric Ecosyst Environ 80:121–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00144-4
Owen-Smith N (1988) Megaherbivores; the influence of very large body size on ecology, Cambridge. Cambridge, UK
Pasari JR, Levi T, Zavaleta ES, Tilman D (2013) Several scales of biodiversity affect ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:15164–15168. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219683110
Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Başak Dessane E, Islar M, Kelemen E, Maris V, Quaas M, Subramanian SM, Wittmer H, Adlan A, Ahn SE, Al-Hafedh YS, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Berry P, Bilgin A, Breslow SJ, Bullock C, Cáceres D, Daly-Hassen H, Figueroa E, Golden CD, Gómez-Baggethun E, González-Jiménez D, Houdet J, Keune H, Kumar R, Ma K, May PH, Mead A, O’Farrell P, Pandit R, Pengue W, Pichis-Madruga R, Popa F, Preston S, Pacheco-Balanza D, Saarikoski H, Strassburg BB, van den Belt M, Verma M, Wickson F, Yagi N (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Phalan B, Green RE, Balmford A (2014) Closing yield gaps: perils and possibilities for biodiversity conservation. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 369:20120285. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0285
Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333:1289–1291. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1208742
Reed J, Van Vianen J, Deakin EL, Barlow J, Sunderland T (2016) Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future. Glob Chang Biol 22:2540–2554. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13284
Reed J, van Vianen J, Foli S, Clendenning J, Yang K, MacDonald M, Petrokofsky G, Padoch C, Sunderland T (2017) Trees for life: The ecosystem service contribution of trees to food production and livelihoods in the tropics. For Policy Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.012
Ricketts TH, Regetz J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Bogdanski A, Gemmill-Herren B, Greenleaf SS, Klein A-M, Mayfield MM, Morandin LA, Ochieng’ A, Viana BF (2008) Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecol Lett 11:499–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01157.x
Robinson TP, Thornton PK, Franceschini G, Kruska RL, Chiozza F, Notenbaert A, Cecchi G, Herrero M, Epprecht M, Fritz S, You L, Conchedda G, See L (2011) Global livestock production systems. Italy, Rome
Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, Brooks TM, Cowling RM, Fishpool LDC, da Fonseca GAB, Gaston KJ, Hoffmann M, Long JS, Marquet PA, Pilgrim JD, Pressey RL, Schipper J, Sechrest W, Stuart SN, Underhill LG, Waller RW, Watts MEJ, Yan X (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428:640–643. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02422
Samish M (2000) Biocontrol of ticks. Ann N Y Acad Sci 916:172–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb05287.x
Shiferaw Sida T, Baudron F, Kim H, Giller KE (2018) Climate-smart agroforestry: faidherbia albida trees buffer wheat against climatic extremes in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Agric For Meteorol 248:339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.10.013
Smith SE, Read DJ (2008) Mycorrhizal symbiosis. Academic Publishing, New York
Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky BL, Lassaletta L, de Vries W, Vermeulen SJ, Herrero M, Carlson KM, Jonell M, Troell M, DeClerck F, Gordon LJ, Zurayk R, Scarborough P, Rayner M, Loken B, Fanzo J, Godfray HCJ, Tilman D, Rockström J, Willett W (2018) Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562:519–525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0
Swift MJ, Izac AMN, Van Noordwijk M (2004) Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes - Are we asking the right questions? Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:113–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.013
Tesfaye G (2007) Structure, biomass and net primary production in dry tropical afromontane forest in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University
Tittonell PA (2014) Ecological intensification of agriculture-sustainable by nature. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 8:53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006
Tomscha SA, Gergel SE (2016) Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies misunderstood without landscape history. Ecol Soc 21:43. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4882.9529
Vandermeer J, Perfecto I (2005) The future of farming and conservation. Science 308:1257–1258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.308.5726.1257b
Vandermeer J, Van Noordwijk M, Anderson J, Ong C, Perfecto I (1998) Global change and multi-species agroecosystems: concepts and issues. Agric Ecosyst Environ 67:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00150-3
Vandermeer J, Aga A, Allgeier J, Badgley C, Baucom R, Blesh J, Shapiro LF, Jones AD, Hoey L, Jain M, Perfecto I, Wilson ML (2018) Feeding prometheus: an interdisciplinary approach for solving the global food crisis. Front Sustain Food Syst 2:1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00039
van der Waal C, Kool A, Meijer SS, Kohi E, Heitkönig IMA, de Boer WF, van Langevelde F, Grant RC, Peel MJS, Slotow R, de Knegt HJ, Prins HHT, de Kroon H (2011) Large herbivores may alter vegetation structureof semi-arid savannas through soil nutrient mediation. Oecologia 165:1095–1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1899-3
Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, Beher J, Jones KR, Possingham HP, Laurance WF, Wood P, Fekete BM, Levy MA, Watson JEM (2016) Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat Commun 7:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12558
Vera FWM (2009) Large-scale nature development—the Oostvaardersplassen. Br Wildl 20(5):28–36
Vinceti B, Eyzaguirre P, Johns T (2008) The nutritional role of forest plant foods for rural communities. In: Colfer CJP (ed) Human health and forests: a global overview of issues, practice and policy, Earthscan. London, UK
Watt M, Evans JR (1999) Proteoid roots. Physiology and development. Plant Physiol 121:317–323
Wikramanayake ED, Hathurusinghe HS, Janaka HK, Jayasinghe LKA, Fernando R, Weerakoon DK, Gunawardene MD (2004) The human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka: lessons for mitigation, management and conservation from traditional land-use patterns. In: Endangered elephants: past, present, and future: symposium on human-elephant relationships and conflicts, Sri Lanka, September 2003. Biodiversity and Elephant Conservation Trust, p 164
Willis KJ, Gillson L, Brncic TM (2004) How “virgin” is virgin rainforest? Science 304:402–403. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093991
Wilman H, Belmaker J, Simpson J, de la Rosa C, Rivadeneira MM, Jetz W (2014) EltonTraits 1.0: Specieslevel foraging attributes of the world’s birds and mammals. Ecology 95:2027–2027. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1917.1
Wright HL, Lake IR, Dolman PM (2012) Agriculture-a key element for conservation in the developing world. Conserv Lett 5:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00208.x
Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol 28:999–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9
Young A (1989) Agroforestry for soil conservation. CAB Intern, Wallingford
Zomer R, Trabucco A, Coe R, Place F, van Noordwijk M, Xu J (2014) Trees on farms: an update and reanalysis of agroforestry’s global extent and socio-ecological characteristics. Bogor, Indonesia
Acknowledgements
This work was implemented by CIMMYT, CIFOR, Leuphana University, and UBC as part of the project ‘The Agrarian Change Project’, made possible by the generous support of the Department for International Development (DFID), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and CRP WHEAT (www.wheat.org). Support for SEG was also provided by NSERC Discovery Grants Program. Any opinions, findings, conclusion, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of DFID, USAID, and CRP WHEAT. We thank Kedir Gemedo, Hamid Tura, and Genemo Teshite for assisting with fieldwork. We thank three anonymous reviewers for their critical and constructive comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baudron, F., Schultner, J., Duriaux, JY. et al. Agriculturally productive yet biodiverse: human benefits and conservation values along a forest-agriculture gradient in Southern Ethiopia. Landscape Ecol 34, 341–356 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00770-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00770-6