A new global study reveals that intensifying existing farmland can sometimes harm biodiversity more than expanding into new areas, challenging long-held beliefs about sustainable agriculture.
Key Points at a Glance
- Intensification of farmland may degrade biodiversity more than expansion in certain contexts.
- The impact varies by region, crop type, and local vegetation.
- Neither intensification nor expansion is universally better for biodiversity.
- Sustainable practices and reduced meat consumption are recommended to mitigate biodiversity loss.
Conventional wisdom has long held that intensifying agriculture—boosting yields on existing farmland—is a more environmentally friendly alternative to expanding agricultural land into natural habitats. However, a recent study led by researchers at University College London (UCL) challenges this assumption, revealing that intensification can, in some cases, be more detrimental to local biodiversity than expansion.
Published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, the study conducted a global assessment of biodiversity impacts resulting from both farmland intensification and expansion. The researchers analyzed data from existing agricultural areas producing maize, soybean, wheat, and rice—crops that together account for over half of the world’s calorie production. They measured biodiversity through species richness, total abundance, and geographical distribution within and around these agricultural zones.
The findings indicate that increasing crop yields, whether through intensification or expansion, generally harms biodiversity. However, the extent of the impact varies significantly depending on regional factors, crop types, and the characteristics of surrounding natural vegetation. In some instances, intensifying existing farmland—through increased use of fertilizers, pesticides, and mechanization—can lead to greater biodiversity loss than converting new land for agriculture.
Lead author Dr. Silvia Ceaușu from UCL’s Centre for Biodiversity & Environment Research emphasized the complexity of the issue: “Feeding the global human population comes at an increasing cost for our planet’s biodiversity. To mitigate this, the common assumption is that intensifying agricultural practices is always less detrimental to biodiversity than farmland expansion. But our new research highlights that it’s actually more complicated than that.”
The study’s insights have significant implications for global agricultural policies and trade initiatives, particularly those aimed at curbing deforestation by promoting the use of established farmland. The researchers caution against oversimplified solutions, advocating instead for context-specific strategies that consider local ecological conditions.
To mitigate biodiversity loss, the study suggests adopting sustainable intensification techniques, such as biological pest control and maintaining patches of natural vegetation between fields. Additionally, consumers can contribute by reducing food waste and meat consumption, thereby lessening the demand for intensive agricultural practices.
Co-author Professor Tim Newbold noted, “Finding the most sustainable way to increase crop yields is very complicated and depends on numerous factors, so simple suggestions like favouring farmland intensification over expansion are not always effective—there’s no one-size-fits-all solution for sustainable agriculture.”
In conclusion, the study underscores the need for nuanced approaches to agricultural development that balance food production goals with the imperative to preserve biodiversity. As global food demand continues to rise, integrating ecological considerations into farming practices will be crucial to ensuring both human and environmental well-being.
Source: University College London
