Abstract
Non-governmental organizations have proposed nine different global prioritization schemes, some of them focusing on areas with low vulnerability (a proactive reasoning) and some others targeting areas with high vulnerability (a reactive reasoning). The main threat to the remaining natural habitats of these areas is the expansion of agriculture. We evaluated the spatial congruence between agricultural land cover and global conservation priority areas in the present and in the future using a spatial model of land use cover change from 2000 to 2100. We showed that by the year 2000, the extent of agriculture was larger in reactive priority areas than in the rest of the world, while it was smaller in areas highlighted as important under proactive approaches. During the twenty-first century, we found a general increase in agriculture area and the difference between the approaches of conservation schemes is expected to hold true, although we found that high-biodiversity wilderness areas (HBWA), a proactive scheme, may be specially affected in certain scenarios of future change. These results suggest an increase in conservation conflicts over this century. In face of agricultural expansion, both kinds of prioritization approaches are important, but different strategies of protection are necessary (e.g., reactive approaches need the urgent protection of remnant habitats, while proactive ones have space to create megareserves). Further, conservation organizations must include agriculture expansion data and their uncertainty in conservation planning in order to be more successful in biological conservation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Conflicts between biodiversity conservation and human development may threaten the livelihood of species worldwide. The world is faced by an astonishing increase in the number of species considered to be threatened (IUCN 2009) in response to growth of human population (United Nations Population Division 2008) and per capita consumption (Myers and Kent 2003) that generates an increasing pressure on natural resources. The biodiversity we are losing is important for ecological processes, human economy, and human leisure (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Here, we assessed if agricultural expansion up to 2100 will threat biodiversity inhabiting priority areas for conservation worldwide scaling up conservation conflicts in the future.
Throughout the world, there are places with special biological features (i.e., high diversity or high levels of endemism) that arouse the attention of conservation scientists, practitioners and planners. When these places are also subject to human development activities, a conservation conflict emerges. Such congruencies have been measured in different ways, including the correlation between the human population and species richness (Balmford et al. 2001; Araújo 2003; see Luck 2007 for a recent review), the comparison of human population inside and outside Biodiversity Hotspots (Cincotta et al. 2000), the correlation between avian endemism and deforestation (Balmford and Long 1994), the correlation between biodiversity and agricultural productivity (Huston 1993) and the extent of agriculture within the Endemic Bird Areas (Scharlemann et al. 2004). However, we are still in need of a proper evaluation of the different global conservation priority schemes versus agriculture expansion, both in the present and in the context of future changes. Such assessment may inform the conservation practitioners and scientists about foreseeable risks to biodiversity and conservation opportunities as well.
There is growing evidence that habitat loss is the main threat to biodiversity (Vitousek et al. 1997; Sala et al. 2000; Green et al. 2005). Humans destroy natural habitats through changes in land cover and land use mostly in order to expand agriculture areas that feed human populations and livestock (Tilman et al. 2001; Foley et al. 2005; Green et al. 2005). With the increase of human populations and their consumption per capita, it is expected that the area devoted to agriculture is going to increase worldwide (Tilman et al. 2001). Beyond habitat destruction, agriculture is related to other impacts, such as biological invasion, eutrophication, chemical contamination, and greenhouse gases emissions (Tilman et al. 2001). To understand the dynamics of land cover and land use change and its associated impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, a land change science has emerged (Sala et al. 2000; Turner et al. 2007). One of the tools used by this interdisciplinary field is the development of spatially explicit models, such as the Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment (IMAGE), capable of forecasting land use change based on the joint modeling of human activities and environmental processes. To anticipate the consequences of different socioeconomic pathways that human societies can follow, different scenarios of land use change have been proposed (IPCC 2000; UNEP 2002; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Pereira et al. 2010).
Since the foundation of the systematic conservation planning framework—epitomized by Myers’ (1983) seminal paper—the conservation community has been looking for a “silver bullet” and seeking a way to get the “biggest bang for the buck”. However, even considering the existence of objective methods for analyzing data and establishing priorities, it is important to note that conservation strategies in a changing world can be done using different and alternative principles (Fonseca et al. 2000; Redford et al. 2003). Thus, important non-governmental organizations have proposed nine schemes during the last two decades, which can be interpreted as nine major institutional templates for global conservation priorities (e.g., Stattersfield et al. 1998; Myers et al. 2000; Sanderson et al. 2002). These templates were revised and classified according to the conservation planning theoretical principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability (Brooks et al. 2006). Six of them incorporate irreplaceability by means of endemism of plants (WWF and IUCN 1994–1997; Mittermeier et al. 1997; Olson and Dinerstein 1998; Myers et al. 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2003) or terrestrial vertebrates (Stattersfield et al. 1998). Five templates take into account vulnerability that has been measured as a proportion of habitat loss (Myers et al. 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2003; Hoekstra et al. 2005), forest cover (Bryant et al. 1997), protected area coverage (Hoekstra et al. 2005) or human population growth and density (Sanderson et al. 2002; Mittermeier et al. 2003). As later suggested by Brooks et al. (2006), these prioritization schemes can be classified as reactive (i.e., those highlighting areas with high vulnerability, e.g., Biodiversity Hotspots), proactive (i.e., those that prioritize areas with low vulnerability, e.g., Last of the Wild) and approaches that do not incorporate vulnerability as a criterion (neutral approaches, e.g., Endemic Bird Areas).
Here, we asked if areas highlighted as priority under reactive or neutral approaches are likely to be more affected by agriculture than non-priority areas. We also investigate if areas included in proactive schemes, in contrast, are less affected than the rest of the world; i.e. the presence of agriculture reproduces the pattern of vulnerability that would be predicted by the conservation templates’ design. Moreover, we evaluated whether agriculture expansion throughout the twenty-first century is more likely to occur inside global conservation priority areas than outside them, suggesting an increase in conservation conflict. We also assessed whether there will be a convergence in the proportion of the areas affected in each conservation template regardless of approach (reactive, neutral or proactive). Finally, we tested if the uncertainty regarding land use model scenarios was higher in these priority conservation areas.
Materials and methods
Land use data
We used the Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment (IMAGE, version 2.2) (IMAGE Team 2001) to map agricultural land. This model is an “integrated assessment model” that is used to describe the environmental consequences of human activities. The objective of IMAGE is to explore the long-term dynamics of global environmental change, taking many feedback mechanisms within the society–biosphere–climate system into account (IMAGE Team 2001). It is also a spatially explicit model that analyzes the trends found in global land cover/land use and in the variables that influence its change. Global land use was mapped by IMAGE 2.2 on a 0.5º × 0.5º latitude–longitude grid. IMAGE 2.2 does not model land use in the Antarctic and in some oceanic islands; hence, we excluded these areas from our analyses. We defined agricultural land as cropland, fallow land, and grassland (excluding extensive grassland) (IMAGE 2.2 class one). To map the extent of agricultural land, IMAGE considers variables such as previous land cover, potential vegetation cover, crop productivity, management factors, human population density, and demand for food, biofuel and timber products (IMAGE Team 2001). The model’s temporal span starts in 1970 and goes up to 2100, with maps for every 10 years, providing alternative pathways of future land use change based on six scenarios (A1B, A1F, A1T, A2, B1, B2) developed by IPCC in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (IPCC 2000; IMAGE Team 2001) (Fig. 1).
Briefly, the IPCC (SRES) scenarios are based on two axes: the degree of globalization versus regionalization and the level of orientation on material versus social and ecological values (IMAGE Team 2001). The A1 scenario family assumes a continuing globalization, very rapid economic growth, low population growth, and rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies. This process results in convergence among regions due to increased cultural and social interactions and to a substantial reduction in regional differences in per capita income. The A1 scenario is divided into three possibilities, in accordance with their technological emphasis: fossil intensive (A1F), non-fossil energy sources (A1T), and balanced across all sources (A1B) (IPCC 2000).
In the A2 scenario, globalization slows down, generating a very heterogeneous world as nations and governments focus on cultural identity and traditional values and leading to slower economic growth, technological change, and fertility reduction. The other scenario used herein (B1), also starts from the same low population growth rate as A1, but it assumes important changes in economic structures toward a service and information economy, which represents a human focus on the environmental and social or immaterial aspects of life, and the introduction of clean and resource-efficient technologies. In this scenario, the emphasis is placed on global solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability, including improved equity (IPCC 2000). In scenario B2, people are organized to find solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability issues in the same way as in B1, except that they are focused on local and regional solutions. Thus, there is significant heterogeneity between regions. All these scenarios do not include explicit climate policy interventions (IPCC 2000). Further details about each scenario are described by IPCC (2000) (see Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 for a comparison with other proposed scenarios).
Intersection of global biodiversity conservation priorities and land use maps
We used the nine major templates for Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities (GBCP) (see Brooks et al. 2006). We also evaluated the conservation schemes resulted from overlaying reactive (Crisis Ecoregions, CE; and Biodiversity Hotspots, BH) and proactive conservation approaches (high-biodiversity wilderness areas, HBWA; Frontier Forests, FF; and Last of the Wild, LW) as proposed by Brooks et al. (2006). Conservation schemes that do not consider vulnerability, i.e., neutral approaches, are Endemic Bird Areas (EBA), Megadiversity Countries (MC), Centers of Plant Diversity (CPD), and Global 200 Ecoregions (G200) (Brooks et al. 2006). Template polygons were converted to a raster image with 0.5º × 0.5º resolution, which is compatible with those from IMAGE 2.2 land use maps. The cells whose area was covered in a proportion higher than 50% by the template polygon were considered part of the template. The reference coordination system of all spatial data was WGS 84.
Maps of agricultural extent and GBCP were overlaid using the Idrisi Kilimanjaro GIS software (Eastman 2003). We calculated the proportion of global agriculture cover as the area affected by this land cover type divided by the total terrestrial area mapped by the IMAGE. The same was repeated for each conservation template. The agriculture area in 2000 was defined by the overlay of the maps of this land cover type in the world in the six scenarios, given that we found a great congruence among them (84.4%).
For predictions about the future, we performed two analyzes. Firstly, we choose a particular future scenario to help to envisage a specific future scenario for world agriculture. In this simpler analysis, we summed the 10 images of the scenario A1B and assigned value one to any cell converted to agriculture anytime during the twenty first century. This approach was based on two assumptions: (i) the A1B is a plausible scenario, since the world nowadays can be classified as economically driven (A), we are under a process of international integration through globalization (1), and the non-fossil fuels have been gaining importance, so we seem to be going to a world of balanced use of fossil and non-fossil fuels (B). Also, A1B has an intermediate level of agriculture impact (Fig. 1); (ii) the areas once affected by agriculture will be permanently altered, since the secondary habitats do not have the same value for biological conservation than original ones (Barlow et al. 2007). In the second approach, that preserves all the complexity of the model, in terms of time and scenarios, the expansion of agriculture during the twenty-first century was defined by the overlay of the 60 maps available for the years between 2010 and 2100 for all six scenarios. This procedure resulted in an agriculture-proneness-score (APS) for each cell, which varied between zero (no agriculture at any date of any scenario) and 60 (presence of permanent agriculture in all scenarios). This second approach, which maintains all uncertainties, is important because it can help to understand key uncertainties in the future, can be used to incorporate alternative perspectives in conservation planning and probably can provide more resilience to decisions in response to changes (Peterson et al. 2003).
To evaluate if the proportion of agricultural land in 2,000 was randomly distributed between each conservation template and the rest of the world, we designed a randomization test. Initially, we defined the cells prone to agriculture conversion as any cell that was affected by agriculture any time in any SRES scenario during the twenty first century (APS equal or higher than one). Then, we took the cells considered above as a constraint and, inside them, we randomized the position of the cells that were known to have agriculture in 2000. Finally, we calculated the number of cells with agriculture in this null model for each conservation template. The whole process was repeated 1,000 times.
Since we have different alternative hypothesis for reactive plus neutral in comparison to proactive templates, we used different one-tailed randomization tests in each case. For reactive and neutral templates, the proportion of randomized values equal or higher than the observed number of cells with agriculture (P value) was used to test if the observed value could be explained by chance alone (α > 0.05). For proactive templates, we did the same, but took into account the values equal to, or lower than, the observed number of cells. For the twenty-first century map, we followed the same general randomization procedure for the analysis of the A1B scenario, but multiplied the number of cells by their respective APS for the analysis that combined all scenarios. We estimated the p-value for significant tests by the proportion of APS calculated from random assignments of cells for each conservation template that was equal to or higher than the observed values. In all cases, the number of cells was corrected by cell area. All randomization procedures were done using R (R Development Core Team 2008).
Scenario uncertainty evaluation
In our analysis, we had two main sources of uncertainty, particularly for the future, i.e., time and scenario. Scenario could be considered hierarchically more important than time in those analysis because, for conservation purposes, it is more important to know if an area will be or not affected by agriculture than when or for how many years. Thus, we performed an analysis of the uncertainty related to the difference among scenarios to clarify the source of uncertainty.
To perform this analysis, we summed all maps of the ten dates of each six scenarios. With this procedure, we managed to depict the areas that will be affected by agriculture anytime in the twenty-first century in each scenario. This procedure annulled the importance of time as a source of variation. The remaining differences among maps are derived only from the distinctions in the scenarios. To quantify this uncertainty score (US), we first added the six scenarios’ maps of agriculture distribution. For areas that were affected by agricultural expansion in every scenario, uncertainty is zero. The same holds true for those areas not affected in any scenario. On the other hand, a cell affected by only one scenario has an US of five. Cells affected by two scenarios have US of four, and so on. We evaluated the probability of the sum of uncertainty score found in each conservation template through a randomization test as we have done for the presence of agriculture (see above). This procedure was done for the uncertainty of the areas of agriculture in 2000 and in the twenty-first century. The estimated the P value was the number of times that the sum of the uncertainty scores obtained through randomization was equal or lower than the observed value.
Results
Current land use
In 2000, 26.5% of the world’s land surface was converted to agricultural land (Fig. 2a; Table 1). The only reactive template significantly more affected by agriculture than the rest of the world was CE (52.3%; P = 0.001) (Table 1). All proactive schemes were less affected than the outside areas. For instance, LW had only 3.0% of its area affected and was 11 times less affected than the rest of the world (P = 0.001) (Table 1).
The comparison of reactive and proactive approaches showed that the former (48.6%; P = 0.001) are much more affected by agriculture than the latter (5.2%; P = 0.001). For the approaches that did not consider vulnerability, we found different results. For example, EBA were 83% more affected than the rest of the world (P = 0.001) (Table 1). Other neutral templates (MC, CPD, and G200) had proportions of agricultural land similar to those found in areas outside of them.
Agricultural expansion in the twenty first century
Agriculture in the world will reach 34.3% of the analyzed land surface during the twenty-first century according to the scenario A1B, which means an increase of 29.6% in relation to the agriculture extent in 2000. Reactive approaches whether combined (60.1%; P < 0.001) or separately (CE = 63.9%; P < 0.001 and BH = 56.7; P < 0.001) besides EBA (53.8%; P < 0.001) were particularly affected.
Our analyses of the 6 models and 10 dates combined (APS) reveal that there will be an increase of 80% of the world area affected by agriculture during the twenty-first century, reaching 47.7% of global land cells (Fig. 2b; Table 1). In our analyses these cells were affected, on average, by 34 out of the 60 possible combinations of scenarios each year (SD = 22.1).
Reactive templates, when analyzed separately or coupled, had about 75% of their area affected by agriculture; a higher proportion when compared to the global average. For example, BH was found to be 75.7% covered by agriculture during the twenty-first century (P < 0.001) (Table 1). The APS of their cells were also higher. In contrast, proactive templates, when taken together, had a smaller proportion and scores of affected area. However, when examined separately, HBWA had 73% of its area affected by agriculture, although it had a lower score, which means that it was reached by agriculture only in a few scenarios and for a short period of time (P value not significant); this proportion is similar to that of reactive templates.
With regard to neutral templates, only Endemic Bird Areas were significantly more affected by agriculture than expected by chance (73.7%; P < 0.001).
Scenario uncertainties
Uncertainty about the expansion of agriculture according to different scenarios also depends on the conservation approach. For 2000, although there was only 15.6% uncertainty, this uncertainty was not equally distributed among the conservation schemes. Only in CE (9.1%; P < 0.001), MC (12.5%; P < 0.001) and in the reactive approaches summed (12.4%; P < 0.001) (Table 2; Fig. 3a) the agriculture presence was significantly less uncertain than for the rest of the world. The other templates had more uncertainty than the rest of the world. The proactive areas had more uncertainties when taken separately (HBWA = 424% higher; FF = 270% higher; LW = 261% higher; Table 2) or together (Proactive = 330% higher; Table 2).
In the future, the analysis of uncertainty becomes more important, as 50.6% of the area expected to be covered by agriculture in the future has some degree of uncertainty (Table 2; Fig. 3b). We found an opposite trend of agriculture uncertainty in relation to agriculture amount. The bigger agriculture extent is inside each conservation template, the smaller the uncertainty is. Therefore, in BH (51.4%; P < 0.001), CE (36.3%; P < 0.001), EBA (47.5%; P < 0.001) and reactive approaches (12.4; P < 0.001), our uncertainty was smaller than for the rest of the world. For proactive approaches, taken together or separately, the uncertainty was bigger inside them than for the rest of the world (e.g. the agriculture uncertainty in the sum of proactive approaches area was 96% higher than in the rest of the world).
Discussion
Several authors have portrayed a spatial conflict between biodiversity conservation and human development (reviewed in Luck 2007). We analyzed the conflict between global conservation priorities and agriculture in current time and in the future. We found that the magnitude of the conflict depends on how the conservation priority was defined.
Reactive approaches, defined by high vulnerability, were strongly affected. This result was in concordance with the design of the Biodiversity Hotspots (BH), for example, which were defined by areas that had more than 70% of their natural vegetation cover destroyed (Myers et al. 2000), and the Crisis Ecoregions (CE), which were composed by ecoregions that had less than 50% of their natural areas preserved (Hoekstra et al. 2005). Our study shows that 42 and 52% of these areas, respectively, were already converted to agricultural land in 2000. However, by 2100, these areas may have about 60%, if we analyze only the A1B scenario and almost three-quarters of their total area impacted by agriculture, when combining all possible future scenarios.
Proactive approaches that take into account only wilderness (i.e., the lack of human presence), such as Last of the Wild (LW) and Frontier Forests (FF), were virtually unaffected in 2000 and during the twenty-first century were likely to have just relatively small increases, reaching about 18 and 34%, respectively, of agriculture extent inside their area when all scenario were combined. The other approaches (Global 200 ecoregions, G200; Megadiversity Countries, MC; Endemic Bird Areas, EBA; and Centers of Plant Diversity, CPD) showed different results, ranging from proactive to reactive approaches. As shown in previous research (Scharlemann et al. 2004), EBA was also highly affected, similarly to a reactive approach.
Since an effective conservation priority scheme should be able to anticipate threats for the foreseeable future, one of the most interesting findings of our analyses was the results obtained for HBWA. This is a proactive approach whose areas were affected in only 11% of their extension in 2000, but which could see up to 75% used by 2100 under certain land use scenarios, as if it were a reactive approach. This assumes great importance given that HBWA is the only proactive scheme that considers irreplaceability, defined by high levels of plant endemism (Mittermeier et al. 2003). HBWA are composed of North American deserts, savannas of Miombo-Mapone and the tropical forests of Amazonia, Congo and Indonesia. Tropical forests are regions that contain most of the global biological diversity, play a vital role in providing ecosystem goods and services and have been under intensive destruction over the last decades (Laurance 1999). Further, they encompass most of the tropical ecosystems still offering significant options for successful broad-scale conservation action (Loyola et al. 2009a).
Agricultural expansion has been encouraged in these regions, which aims at local development and generation of capital for national industrialization, although such processes do not guarantee sustainable development (Rodrigues et al. 2009). Our projections show that a less vulnerable region today may not be so in the foreseeable future, and modeling future trends of land use/land cover change can help to anticipate threats to species and ecosystem. A good (or bad) example of this assumption was observed in the Islands of Eastern Melanesia. These islands have seen their land surface converted from an almost pristine environment to a situation in which less than 30% of its natural vegetation cover remains intact, in less than 10 years. The region ended up being classified as a Biodiversity Hotspot in 2004 (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
But what are the benefits of our approach? Human population density, the ultimate cause of species extinction worldwide, has been shown to be positively correlated to pressures on biodiversity, such as habitat alteration (Thompson and Jones 1999), over-harvesting (Brashares et al. 2001) and biological invasion (McKinney 2001). However, Rangel et al. (2007) have shown that agriculture can represent a threat to biodiversity that is independent of the human population, as was found in the Brazilian “Cerrado” (the open savannas in the central part of the country), where species richness and complementarity is coincident with indicators of agriculture and cattle ranching, but not with human population per se. This pattern is explained by the increase in technology applied to agriculture in the Cerrado region of Central Brazil (Klink and Moreira 2002). To illustrate the implications of this process, in Brazil (one of the 16 megadiversity countries that also harbors two Biodiversity Hotspots), the cropland and the number of bovine heads doubled, while the number of people in agriculture reduced 6% and the number of tractors increased 475% from 1970 to 2006 (IBGE 2010). Associated with this process, there was a huge destruction in two Brazilian biomes prone to agricultural expansion: the Cerrado, where only 20% of the original vegetation remains intact (Myers et al. 2000), and the Amazon rainforest, which has been losing an average of 1.8 million hectares of forest per year during 1988–2008 period (INPE 2010). Moreover, 70% of Brazil’s population is concentrated in another biome, the Atlantic Forest (Metzger 2009). Therefore, we suggest that the agriculture area, the principal driving force of habitat destruction, should be investigated as an important indicator of the human impact for evaluating conservation conflicts, as shown by the Brazilian examples above. Also, as we found here, agriculture was capable of capturing differences among the prioritization approaches (reactive versus proactive schemes).
In addition, the use of the Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities can be reasoned by the fact that these priorities represent large areas of the world that have directed conservation funds and efforts for on-the-ground conservation actions (Brooks et al. 2006). These several conservation schemes have been criticized as been developed due to a lack of agreement about the global conservation priorities at international level and as a cause of duplicate effort that difficult the rational application of conservation resources (Mace et al. 2000). However, our work helps demonstrate that once 74% of the world’s land area is covered by some biodiversity conservation priority templates, these schemes could play an important role as part of an effective conservation strategy against agricultural expansion. Some areas highlighted in these templates are, and certainly will be even more, put in jeopardy under different intensities of destruction if society does not take action.
Like other authors (Balmford et al. 2001; Dobson et al. 2001; Luck 2007), our work suggest that these different places need different conservation strategies. For example, reactive approaches need intensive and continuous conservation actions, like the identification, at higher spatial resolution, and protection of the remnants of natural areas in landscapes dominated by agriculture and other human uses, which implies in higher costs. Areas included in reactive approaches need strategies of coexistence of agriculture and biodiversity conservation, including the so-called conservation agriculture (Baudron et al. 2009) and the conservation of wildlife on private lands (Main et al. 1999). The systematic conservation planning in these areas can also be improved by strategies in which the economic costs of land acquisition are considered (e.g. Loyola et al. 2009a). Conversely, to conserve proactive areas, it is crucial (and still possible) to protect large areas (Peres 2005) because the land considered under such approaches is available and tends to be cheaper.
Assuming the agriculture data of IMAGE is correct, it remains at least three sources of uncertainty: (i) future scenarios; (ii) time and (iii) the ability of agriculture areas for maintain biodiversity. Conservation community should take advantage of this uncertainty since it could mean just lack of knowledge or a possible “leeway”. In the case of scenarios, our analysis shows that the uncertainty in future land use change related to agriculture is higher under proactive approaches, which means that regions indicated as priorities under these schemes are likely to be affected only under certain future scenarios. Thus, the conservation community must pay attention to factors that influence the outcome of future scenarios, such as human population density (Cincotta et al. 2000), technological development (Reganold et al. 2001; Balmford et al. 2005; Ewers et al. 2009) and human per capita consumption (Myers and Kent 2003). However, the conservation community is not limited by the scenarios above, and people are free to build a future reality better than those suggested by available scenarios. In relation to time, the conservation actions may use the data about agriculture dynamic in an adaptive management (Salafsky et al. 2002) and conservation planning (see Pressey et al. 2007 for a review) to anticipate actions needed to choose areas less prone to be converted to agriculture, to work in agricultural areas, making it less harmful (uncertainty iii above), and planning the restoration actions to be implemented immediately after the agriculture areas are abandoned.
Conservation organizations must work together (Redford et al. 2003) in order to replace those unrelated initiatives that means duplicate efforts with an orchestrated mosaic of conservation strategies in which international efforts will be complementary (Loyola et al. 2009b). This cooperative work can be improved by the forecast of threats to biodiversity, such as agriculture, and its uncertainties. It seems that instead of a “silver bullet” (Myers 1983), the international conservation community needs a “utility belt” to deal with this changing world.
References
Araújo MB (2003) The coincidence of people and biodiversity in Europe. Global Ecol Biogeogr 12:5–12
Balmford A, Long A (1994) Avian endemism and forest loss. Nature 372:623–624
Balmford A, Moore JL, Brooks T et al (2001) Conservation conflicts across Africa. Science 291:1619–2616
Balmford A, Green RE, Scharlemann JPW (2005) Sparing land for nature: exploring the potential impact of changes in agricultural yield on the area needed for crop production. Global Change Biol 11:1594–1605
Barlow J, Gardner TA, Araujo IS et al (2007) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary and plantation forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:18555–18560
Baudron F, Corbeels M, Monicat F et al (2009) Cotton expansion and biodiversity loss in African savannahs, opportunities and challenges for conservation agriculture: a review paper based on two case studies. Biodivers Conserv 18:2625–2644
Brashares JS, Arcese P, Sam MK (2001) Human demography and reserve size predict wildlife extinction in West Africa. Proc R Soc B 268:2473–2478
Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Fonseca GAB et al (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313:58–61
Bryant D, Nielsen D, Tangley L (1997) Last Frontier Forests. World Resource Institute, Washington, DC
Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R (2000) Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 404:990–992
Dobson AP, Rodríguez JP, Roberts WM (2001) Synoptic tinkering: integrating strategies for large-scale conservation. Ecol Appl 11:1019–1026
Eastman JR (2003) IDRISI Kilimanjaro–Guide to GIS and Image Processing. Clark Labs, Worcester
Ewers RM, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A et al (2009) Do increases in agricultural yield spare land for nature? Global Change Biol 15:1716–1726
Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574
Fonseca GAB, Balmford A, Bibby C et al. (2000) … following Africa’s lead in setting priorities. Nature 405:393–394
Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555
Hoekstra JM, Boucher TM, Ricketts et al (2005) Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecol Lett 8:23–29
Huston M (1993) Biological diversity, soils, and economics. Science 262:1676–1680
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística) (2010) Comparison of Censuses of Agriculture structural data results—Brazil—1970/2006. http://www.ibge.gov.br. Cited 15 Apr 2010
IMAGE Team (2001) The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES Scenarios. A comprehensive analysis of emissions, climate change and impacts in the 21st century. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP) CD-ROM Publication 500110001, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
INPE (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais) (2010) Projeto PRODES: Monitoramento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira por Satélite. http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes. Cited 15 Apr 2010
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2009) 2009 IUCN red list of threatened species. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Cited 28 Oct 2009
Klink CA, Moreira AG (2002) Past and current human occupation, and land use. In: Oliveira PS, Marquis RJ (eds) The Cerrados of Brazil. Ecology and natural history of a Neotropical savanna. Columbia University Press, New York
Laurance WF (1999) Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biol Cons 91:109–117
Loyola RD, Oliveira-Santos LGR, Almeida-Neto M et al (2009a) Integrating economic costs and biological traits into global conservation priorities for carnivores. PLoS ONE 4:e6807
Loyola RD, Kubota U, Fonseca GAB, Lewinsohn TM (2009b) Key Neotropical ecoregions for conservation of terrestrial vertebrates. Biodiv Conserv 18:2017–2031
Luck GW (2007) The relationships between net primary productivity, human population density and species conservation. J Biogeography 34:201–212
Mace GM, Balmford A, Boitani L et al. (2000) It’s time to work together and stop duplicating conservation efforts… Nature 405:393
Main MB, Roka FM, Noss RF (1999) Evaluating costs of conservation. Conserv Biol 13:1262–1272
McKinney ML (2001) Effects of human population, area, and time on non-native plant and fish diversity in the United States. Biol Cons 100:243–252
Metzger JP (2009) Conservation issues in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Biol Cons 142:1138–1140
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios, vol 2. Island Press, Washington, DC
Mittermeier RA, Gil PR, Mittermeier CG (1997) Megadiversity. CEMEX, Mexico City
Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Brooks TM et al (2003) Wilderness and biodiversity conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:10309–10313
Mittermeier RA, Gil PR, Hoffman M et al (2004) Hotspots revisited: earth’s biologically richest and most threatened terrestrial ecoregions. CEMEX, Mexico City
Myers N (1983) A priority-ranking strategy for threatened species? The Environmentalist 3:97–120
Myers N, Kent J (2003) New consumers: the influence of affluence on the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:4963–4968
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–857
Olson DM, Dinerstein E (1998) The global 200: a representation approach to conserving the earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv Biol 12:502–515
Olson DM, Dinerstein E (2002) The global 200: priority ecoregions for global conservation. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 89:199–224
Pereira HM, Leadley PW, Proença V et al (2010) Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330:1496–1501
Peres CA (2005) Why we need megareserves in Amazonia. Conserv Biol 19:728–733
Peterson GD, Cumming GS, Carpenter SR (2003) scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv Biol 17:358–366
Pressey RL, Cabeza M, Watts ME et al (2007) Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol Evol 22:583–592
Rangel TFLVB, Bini LM, Diniz-Filho JAF et al (2007) Human development and biodiversity conservation in Brazilian Cerrado. Appl Geogr 27:14–27
Redford KH, Coppolillo P, Sanderson EW et al (2003) Mapping the conservation landscape. Conserv Biol 17:116–131
Reganold JP, Glover JD, Andrews PK et al (2001) Sustainability of three apple production systems. Nature 410:926–930
Rodrigues ASL, Ewers RM, Parry L et al (2009) Boom-and-bust development patterns across the amazon deforestation frontier. Science 324:1435–1437
Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ et al (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774
Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford K et al (2002) Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and agenda for conservation science. Conserv Biol 16:1469–1479
Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA et al (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52:891–904
Scharlemann JPW, Green RE, Balmford A (2004) Land-use trends in endemic bird areas: global expansion of agriculture in areas of high conservation value. Global Change Biol 10:2046–2051
Stattersfield AJ, Crosby MJ, Long AJ et al (1998) Endemic bird areas of the world. BirdLife International, Cambridge
R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, ver. 2.8.1. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org. Cited 28 Oct 2009
Thompson K, Jones A (1999) Human population density and prediction of local plant extinction in Britain. Conserv Biol 13:185–189
Tilman D, Fargione F, Wolff B et al (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292:281–284
Turner BL, Lambin EF, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:20666–20671
UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) (2002) GEO: global environmental outlook 3. Past, Present and Future Perspectives, Earthscan, London
United Nations Population Division (2008) World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. http://www.un.org/esa/population. Cited Apr 15 2010
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J et al (1997) Human domination of earth′s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499
WWF, IUCN (1994–1997) Centres of plant diversity. WWF and IUCN, Gland
Acknowledgments
We thank Daniel Brito, Andreas Kindel, Eduardo dos Santos Pacífico, and two anonymous reviewers for their critical reading and valuable comments. Thomas Brooks, Mike Hoffman, Mark Balman, Timothy Boucher, Simon Blyth, and the IMAGE Team in the name of Rineke Oosterijk, provided data and assistance. Work by R. Dobrovolski is supported by a CNPq fellowship. R. D. Loyola is supported by CNPq and CAPES. Work by J. A. F. Diniz-Filho and P. De Marco Jr. has been continuously supported by productivity grants from CNPq.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dobrovolski, R., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., Loyola, R.D. et al. Agricultural expansion and the fate of global conservation priorities. Biodivers Conserv 20, 2445–2459 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-9997-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-9997-z