High Bee and Wasp Diversity in a Heterogeneous Tropical Farming System Compared to Protected Forest

It is a globally important challenge to meet increasing demands for resources and, at the same time, protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Farming is usually regarded as a major threat to biodiversity due to its expansion into natural areas. We compared biodiversity of bees and wasps between heterogeneous small-scale farming areas and protected forest in northern coastal Belize, Central America. Malaise traps operated for three months during the transition from wet to dry season. Farming areas consisted of a mosaic of mixed crop types, open habitat, secondary forest, and agroforestry. Mean species richness per site (alpha diversity), as well as spatial and temporal community variation (beta diversity) of bees and wasps were equal or higher in farming areas compared to protected forest. The higher species richness and community variation in farmland was due to additional species that did not occur in the forest, whereas most species trapped in forest were also found in farming areas. The overall regional species richness (gamma diversity) increased by 70% with the inclusion of farming areas. Our results suggest that small-scale farming systems adjacent to protected forest may not only conserve, but even favour, biodiversity of some taxonomic groups. We can, however, not exclude possible declines of bee and wasp diversity in more intensified farmland or in landscapes completely covered by heterogeneous farming systems.

Distinct carbon sources indicate strong differentiation between tropical forest and farmland bird communities

The conversion of forest into farmland has resulted in mosaic landscapes in many parts of the tropics. From a conservation perspective, it is important to know whether tropical farmlands can buffer species loss caused by deforestation and how different functional groups of birds respond to land-use intensification. To test the degree of differentiation between farmland and forest bird communities across feeding guilds, we analyzed stable C and N isotopes in blood and claws of 101 bird species comprising four feeding guilds along a tropical forest-farmland gradient in Kenya. We additionally assessed the importance of farmland insectivores for pest control in C4 crops by using allometric relationships, C stable isotope ratios and estimates of bird species abundance. Species composition differed strongly between forest and farmland bird communities. Across seasons, forest birds primarily relied on C3 carbon sources, whereas many farmland birds also assimilated C4 carbon. While C sources of frugivores and omnivores did not differ between forest and farmland communities, insectivores used more C4 carbon in the farmland than in the forest. Granivores assimilated more C4 carbon than all other guilds in the farmland. We estimated that insectivorous farmland birds consumed at least 1,000 kg pest invertebrates km−2 year−1. We conclude that tropical forest and farmland understory bird communities are strongly separated and that tropical farmlands cannot compensate forest loss for insectivorous forest understory birds. In tropical farmlands, insectivorous bird species provide a quantitatively important contribution to pest control.

Are land sparing and land sharing real alternatives for European agricultural landscapes?

There is a lively debate on whether biodiversity conservation and agricultural production could be better reconciled by land sparing (strictly separating production fields and conservation areas) or by land sharing (combining both, agricultural production and biodiversity conservation on the same land). The debate originates from tropical countries, where agricultural land use continues to increase at the expense of natural ecosystems. But is it also relevant for Europe, where agriculture is withdrawing from marginal regions whilst farming of fertile lands continues to be intensified? Based on recent research on farmland biodiversity we conclude that the land sharing – land sparing dichotomy is too simplistic for Europe. Instead we differentiate between productive and marginal farmland. On productive farmland, semi-natural habitats are required to yield ecosystem services relevant for agriculture, to promote endangered farmland species which society wants to conserve even in intensively farmed regions, and to allow migration of non-farmland species through the agricultural matrix. On marginal farmland, high-nature value farming is a traditional way of land sharing, yielding high quality agricultural products and conserving specialized species. To conserve highly disturbance-sensitive species, there is a need for nature reserves. In conclusion, land sparing is not a viable olution for Europe in both productive and marginal farmland but because of different reasons in each type of farmland.