Farms can feed people and protect biodiversity at the same time

Feeding a growing global population while preserving space for wildlife is one of agriculture’s toughest challenges. The debate has often been framed as a stark choice – either intensify farming to save land for nature or spread out production in more wildlife-friendly ways.

But that either-or framing has oversimplified the problem and left policymakers with little clarity.

A new study takes a closer look at the evidence and asks a sharper question: which farming approach actually works best in practice to support biodiversity while keeping food production steady? The answer is far more complex than slogans suggest.

Challenging either-or farming

Study lead author Eva Augustiny at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland (FiBL) and her team reviewed evidence from many landscapes and production systems.

The researchers assessed 57 studies and concluded that only 17 had the right ingredients to compare strategies head to head, yielding 27 apples-to-apples cases.

In those cases, 52 percent favored a mix of approaches, 41 percent favored land sparing, and seven percent favored land sharing, with the authors noting gaps in how biodiversity and yield were measured across the literature. That tally comes from the team’s peer-reviewed paper 

“The empirical basis is thus sparse and does not support statements claiming that, in general, either land sharing or land sparing strategies are unequivocally better,” said Augustiny.

Many studies focused on a narrow slice of life. Birds dominated the sample, often tropical forest birds, while soil organisms and microbes were barely covered.

Agricultural performance focused on yield, while profitability, stability, and key services like pollination and pest control were rarely tracked.

Farms use land differently

In this debate, land sharing means lower-intensity farming across wider areas with habitat elements built into fields and pastures. Farmers may keep hedgerows, ponds, tree belts, or flower strips and use more wildlife-friendly practices.

Land sparing means concentrating production on smaller, higher yielding areas and setting aside larger, undisturbed spaces elsewhere for nature. The core idea is to meet food demand on less land and leave more intact habitat.

The modern framing grew from a 2005 theoretical model that linked species responses to farm yields and area needs. That model helped structure later field tests, but it simplified messy realities on the ground.

Biodiversity complicates the picture

Species differ. Forest-dependent birds often need large, continuous habitat and do poorly in patchy mosaics.

A European population-level study found that simple sparing outperformed sharing for many species, while a three-compartment model that paired spared habitat with some low-yield farmland improved outcomes further.

Climate, farm size, and the mobility of organisms also tilt the balance. Mobile pollinators and predators can thrive in mixed farm landscapes, while less mobile amphibians, reptiles, or cavity-nesting mammals may require the security of protected areas.

Economics and soil matter

Economics and policy strongly influence results. A cross-country analysis of yield gains and land use showed that intensifying production does not automatically free land for nature – especially where subsidies or market demand drive expansion.

Soil quality sets boundaries that short-term yield gains often obscure. A global review documented how erosion, compaction, and other forms of degradation undermine productivity over time and raise the risk that new land will be cleared.

As Rhys Green of the University of Cambridge noted in 2005, increasing yield could reduce farmland needs, but demand growth and rebound effects can erase those gains. Even the theory behind sparing warned against oversimplification.

Farms thrive when diversified

Flower strips, hedgerows, and diversified rotations can lift biodiversity and stabilize services on farms.

A large second-order meta-analysis showed that agricultural diversification supports pollination, natural pest control, nutrient cycling, soil fertility, and water regulation without sacrificing overall yields.

Protected areas still matter. Some species simply cannot persist in farmland, no matter how friendly the practices, so set-asides remain a nonnegotiable part of the picture.

Connectivity helps both sides. Corridors and stepping stones reduce isolation of protected patches, while on farm habitat elements keep beneficial organisms moving through fields.

Local food system choices can relieve pressure too. Less waste and smarter use of crops for food rather than feed reduce the acreage needed to meet diets, which strengthens the case for keeping more land wild.

Land policies must stay local

It’s time to stop asking which side wins in general. The better question is which mix of spared land and shared land fits a specific place, given its species, soils, climate, and markets.

Measure more than yield. Track profitability, stability over years, and the biodiversity based services that keep farms productive in the long run.

Tie intensification to real conservation. Sparing only works if the land that is supposedly saved is actually protected, restored, and connected.

Invest in data where it is thin. Soil microbes, fungi, and belowground communities underpin fertility and resilience yet are missing from most studies.

Remember where this started. The early model framed a useful thought experiment, but today’s decisions need local evidence, clear goals, and policies that lock in the benefits.

The study is published in the journal PNAS Nexus.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–