33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ecological and socio-economic functions across tropical land use systems after rainforest conversion

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 7 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 8 , 1 , 5 , 3 , 14 , 1 , 16 , 14 , 1 , 3 , 5 , 17 , 5 , 16 , 9 , 18 , 19 , 10 , 1 , 20 , 2 , 1
      Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
      The Royal Society
      agroforestry, biodiversity and ecosystem function, deforestation, EFForTS, oil palm, jungle rubber

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Tropical lowland rainforests are increasingly threatened by the expansion of agriculture and the extraction of natural resources. In Jambi Province, Indonesia, the interdisciplinary EFForTS project focuses on the ecological and socio-economic dimensions of rainforest conversion to jungle rubber agroforests and monoculture plantations of rubber and oil palm. Our data confirm that rainforest transformation and land use intensification lead to substantial losses in biodiversity and related ecosystem functions, such as decreased above- and below-ground carbon stocks. Owing to rapid step-wise transformation from forests to agroforests to monoculture plantations and renewal of each plantation type every few decades, the converted land use systems are continuously dynamic, thus hampering the adaptation of animal and plant communities. On the other hand, agricultural rainforest transformation systems provide increased income and access to education, especially for migrant smallholders. Jungle rubber and rubber monocultures are associated with higher financial land productivity but lower financial labour productivity compared to oil palm, which influences crop choice: smallholders that are labour-scarce would prefer oil palm while land-scarce smallholders would prefer rubber. Collecting long-term data in an interdisciplinary context enables us to provide decision-makers and stakeholders with scientific insights to facilitate the reconciliation between economic interests and ecological sustainability in tropical agricultural landscapes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services.

          Concern is growing about the consequences of biodiversity loss for ecosystem functioning, for the provision of ecosystem services, and for human well being. Experimental evidence for a relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem process rates is compelling, but the issue remains contentious. Here, we present the first rigorous quantitative assessment of this relationship through meta-analysis of experimental work spanning 50 years to June 2004. We analysed 446 measures of biodiversity effects (252 in grasslands), 319 of which involved primary producer manipulations or measurements. Our analyses show that: biodiversity effects are weaker if biodiversity manipulations are less well controlled; effects of biodiversity change on processes are weaker at the ecosystem compared with the community level and are negative at the population level; productivity-related effects decline with increasing number of trophic links between those elements manipulated and those measured; biodiversity effects on stability measures ('insurance' effects) are not stronger than biodiversity effects on performance measures. For those ecosystem services which could be assessed here, there is clear evidence that biodiversity has positive effects on most. Whilst such patterns should be further confirmed, a precautionary approach to biodiversity management would seem prudent in the meantime.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity.

            Human-driven land-use changes increasingly threaten biodiversity, particularly in tropical forests where both species diversity and human pressures on natural environments are high. The rapid conversion of tropical forests for agriculture, timber production and other uses has generated vast, human-dominated landscapes with potentially dire consequences for tropical biodiversity. Today, few truly undisturbed tropical forests exist, whereas those degraded by repeated logging and fires, as well as secondary and plantation forests, are rapidly expanding. Here we provide a global assessment of the impact of disturbance and land conversion on biodiversity in tropical forests using a meta-analysis of 138 studies. We analysed 2,220 pairwise comparisons of biodiversity values in primary forests (with little or no human disturbance) and disturbed forests. We found that biodiversity values were substantially lower in degraded forests, but that this varied considerably by geographic region, taxonomic group, ecological metric and disturbance type. Even after partly accounting for confounding colonization and succession effects due to the composition of surrounding habitats, isolation and time since disturbance, we find that most forms of forest degradation have an overwhelmingly detrimental effect on tropical biodiversity. Our results clearly indicate that when it comes to maintaining tropical biodiversity, there is no substitute for primary forests.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared.

              The question of how to meet rising food demand at the least cost to biodiversity requires the evaluation of two contrasting alternatives: land sharing, which integrates both objectives on the same land; and land sparing, in which high-yield farming is combined with protecting natural habitats from conversion to agriculture. To test these alternatives, we compared crop yields and densities of bird and tree species across gradients of agricultural intensity in southwest Ghana and northern India. More species were negatively affected by agriculture than benefited from it, particularly among species with small global ranges. For both taxa in both countries, land sparing is a more promising strategy for minimizing negative impacts of food production, at both current and anticipated future levels of production.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
                Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci
                RSTB
                royptb
                Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
                The Royal Society
                0962-8436
                1471-2970
                19 May 2016
                19 May 2016
                : 371
                : 1694 , Theme issue ‘Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in dynamic landscapes’ compiled and edited by Ulrich Brose and Helmut Hillebrand
                : 20150275
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Johann-Friedrich-Blumenbach Institute for Zoology and Anthropology, University of Göttingen , Berliner Strasse 28, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
                [2 ]Biodiversity, Macroecology and Conservation Biogeography, University of Göttingen, Büsgenweg 1 , 37077 Göttingen, Germany
                [3 ]Bioclimatology, Büsgen Institute, University of Göttingen , Büsgenweg 2, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
                [4 ]Soil Science of Tropical and Subtropical Ecosystems, Büsgen Institute, University of Göttingen , Büsgenweg 2, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
                [5 ]Chair of Forest Inventory and Remote Sensing, University of Göttingen , Büsgenweg 5, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
                [6 ]Department of Plant Protection, Bogor Agricultural University , Kampus IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
                [7 ]Department of Agroindustrial Technology, Bogor Agricultural University , Kampus IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
                [8 ]Forest Resources Inventory and Remote Sensing, Bogor Agricultural University , Kampus IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
                [9 ]Department of Silviculture, Bogor Agricultural University , Kampus IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
                [10 ]Agroecology, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Göttingen , Grisebachstrasse 6, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
                [11 ]Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund University , Sölvegatan 37, 22362 Lund, Sweden
                [12 ]Department of Human Geography, University of Göttingen , Goldschmidtstrasse 5, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
                [13 ]Centre for Climate Change and Air Quality, Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics (BMKG) , Jln Angkasa I No. 2, Jakarta 10720, Indonesia
                [14 ]Department of Plant Ecology and Ecosystem Research, Albrecht-von-Haller Institute for Plant Sciences, University of Göttingen , Untere Karspüle 2, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
                [15 ]Faculty of Forestry, University of Jambi , Jln Raya Jambi-Muara Bulian km 15, Mendalo Darat, Jambi 36361, Indonesia
                [16 ]Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen , Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
                [17 ]Graduate School of Life Sciences, Tokohu University , Aroba 6-3, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-85478, Japan
                [18 ]Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, University of Göttingen , Theaterplatz 15, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
                [19 ]Agriculture Faculty of Tadulako University , Jln Soekarno Hatta km 09, Tondo, Palu 94118, Indonesia
                [20 ]Ecosystem Modelling, University of Göttingen , Büsgenweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
                Author notes
                [†]

                Equally contributing first authors.

                [‡]

                Equally contributing senior authors.

                One contribution of 17 to a theme issue ‘ Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in dynamic landscapes’.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5162-9779
                Article
                rstb20150275
                10.1098/rstb.2015.0275
                4843696
                27114577
                5edfbfa6-83b7-49b8-ab1a-ed3052c7258d
                © 2016 The Authors.

                Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 27 January 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659;
                Categories
                1001
                60
                69
                204
                183
                Articles
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                May 19, 2016

                Philosophy of science
                agroforestry,biodiversity and ecosystem function,deforestation,efforts,oil palm,jungle rubber

                Comments

                Comment on this article