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.

Perceptions and evaluations of biosphere reserves by local residents in Switzerland and Ukraine

In a cross-cultural study perceptions of local people living in the surroundings of biosphere reserves in Switzerland and Ukraine were examined using the method of qualitative interviews. In the UNESCO Biosphere Entlebuch in Switzerland people stated that they hoped for a better regional economic development due to the existence of the biosphere reserve. However, at the same time people feared further restrictions regarding land-use. In the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve located in Transcarpathia/Ukraine people tended to connect certain conditions – such as the high price for wood – directly to the existence of the biosphere reserve, when in fact these conditions and the biosphere reserve were separate, parallel developments. In both case studies three key-categories influencing local residents’ perceptions and evaluations of biosphere reserves could be identified. These categories are (1) the economic situation, (2) the history of nature protection, and (3) the power balance between the involved stakeholders. Paying close attention to those three categories will help planners and managers of protected areas to better understand the reasoning of local residents for or against a biosphere reserve in their area.

Leaf-herbivore attack reduces carbon reserves and regrowth from the roots via jasmonate and auxin signaling

Herbivore attack leads to resource conflicts between plant defensive strategies. Photoassimilates are required for defensive compounds and carbon storage below ground and may therefore be depleted or enriched in the roots of herbivore-defoliated plants. The potential role of belowground tissues as mediators of induced tolerance–defense trade-offs is unknown. We evaluated signaling and carbohydrate dynamics in the roots of Nicotiana attenuata following Manduca sexta attack. Experimental and natural genetic variability was exploited to link the observed metabolite patterns to plant tolerance and resistance. Leaf-herbivore attack decreased sugar and starch concentrations in the roots and reduced regrowth from the rootstock and flower production in the glasshouse and the field. Leaf-derived jasmonates were identified as major regulators of this root-mediated resource-based trade-off: lower jasmonate levels were associated with decreased defense, increased carbohydrate levels and improved regrowth from the rootstock. Application and transport inhibition experiments, in combination with silencing of the sucrose non-fermenting (SNF) -related kinase GAL83, indicated that auxins may act as additional signals that regulate regrowth patterns. In conclusion, our study shows that the ability to mobilize defenses has a hidden resource-based cost below ground that constrains defoliation tolerance. Jasmonate- and auxin-dependent mechanisms may lead to divergent defensive plant strategies against herbivores in nature.