Feeding the world without harming nature: The complex balance of farming

As the global population grows, pressure on farm systems and biodiversity intensifies. How we grow food shapes the planet’s health. From wheat fields in the Midwest to rice paddies in Southeast Asia, farmland is expanding and changing rapidly. But at what cost?

For decades, environmentalists and policymakers have debated two main strategies to boost food production. One is expansion – clearing more land for farms. The other is intensification – increasing the yield on existing farmland through high-input practices like pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation.

The common belief is that intensification is less damaging to biodiversity. But a new study by researchers at University College London (UCL) reveals that this assumption may not always hold.

The findings challenge long-held views and call for a more informed, flexible strategy in agricultural policy and conservation. The study invites us to question how food security and environmental protection can truly coexist.

Farm expansion and intensification

At first glance, farmland intensification seems ideal. It promises more food from the same land, sparing natural ecosystems from conversion. Yet the study led by Dr. Silvia Ceaușu at the UCL Center for Biodiversity & Environment Research suggests a deeper problem.

“Feeding the global human population comes at an increasing cost for our planet‘s biodiversity. Our new research highlights that it’s actually more complicated than that,” noted Dr. Ceaușu.

Using a large global dataset, the researchers analyzed biodiversity patterns around farms producing maize, wheat, rice, and soybean – crops that make up over half of the world’s calorie intake.

The experts focused on areas where some natural vegetation remained, excluding untouched wildlands. They then assessed biodiversity in terms of species richness, total abundance, and how widespread species were.

The results revealed that both expansion and intensification damage biodiversity, but the extent varies by region, crop type, and existing vegetation. In some areas, intensification harmed local ecosystems more than converting new land.

Boosting farm yields can harm biodiversity

Much of modern agricultural planning encourages “closing yield gaps,” meaning increasing production in areas where crop yields lag behind their potential. The logic is to reduce the need for land expansion. But this new study shows that doing so may come with serious ecological consequences.

“We show that farmland expansion is indeed drastically changing local biodiversity. However, once agriculture is established, intensifying agricultural practices can further degrade local biodiversity, sometimes more so than by further removing natural vegetation from the area,” noted Dr. Silvia Ceaușu.

This challenges the narrative of intensification as a safe compromise. It also suggests that even well-meaning conservation policies might backfire if they overly favor intensification without context.

The implications stretch far. International trade agreements often restrict imports from newly converted farmland but welcome goods from intensified farms. That distinction might be too simplistic, especially when intensified farms are located in biodiversity hotspots.

Complexity over simplicity in agricultural policy

One of the most striking conclusions of the study is that there is no universal rule. Every landscape is different. What works in temperate monocultures may fail in tropical mosaics. This variation makes broad policies difficult to apply effectively.

“Simple suggestions like favoring farmland intensification over expansion are not always effective – there’s no one-size-fits all solution for sustainable agriculture,” noted Professor Tim Newbold at UCL.

Instead of relying on single-solution strategies, policymakers must consider specific ecological, social, and agricultural data. This includes understanding which species are at risk, how ecosystems function locally, and what kind of vegetation remains around farms.

It’s not just about where and how we farm – but also about what lives nearby, and what might disappear as farming intensifies.

Farm practices reshape biodiversity over time

Beyond ecological damage, the study touches on evolutionary consequences. As intensified agriculture becomes more common, it reshapes entire ecosystems.

Only species that can adapt to altered environments survive. Over time, this selects for generalist traits – those that thrive in simplified, human-managed landscapes.

This process, described in the study as a shift in “evolutionary filters,” could gradually lead to less diverse and more homogenized wildlife communities.

Specialists, who depend on complex, intact ecosystems, are the first to vanish. This affects not only biodiversity statistics but also ecosystem function and resilience.

In intensified landscapes, nature becomes simpler. And while simple might seem efficient for farming, it rarely is for ecology.

Rethinking farmland use

While the researchers don’t endorse farmland expansion into untouched habitats, they do caution against assuming that intensification is always benign. In certain contexts, expansion into already degraded or marginal lands could do less harm than squeezing more output from heavily farmed areas

“There is likely a balance that can be struck between intensification and expansion… informed by local and crop-specific data,” noted co-author David Leclère of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria.

The goal isn’t to choose one path but to design farming systems that work for both people and the planet.

“We would not suggest expanding farmland into intact natural areas as it is vital for the planet that such unmodified landscapes are preserved,” said Dr. Newbold.

In other words, any new expansion must avoid primary forests, wetlands, and biodiversity-rich habitats. The challenge lies in identifying and managing lower-risk landscapes while avoiding additional intensification that might push ecosystems past recovery.

The role of consumers

For consumers, the picture remains complex. It’s difficult to track how sustainable any specific food product is, especially when impacts vary so widely across regions and crops. However, individuals still hold some power.

The researchers recommend reducing food waste and cutting back on meat consumption. Both actions lower agricultural demand and reduce pressure on biodiversity.

These changes, while small at the individual level, can aggregate into meaningful shifts when adopted widely.

Balancing farming and biodiversity

As the climate crisis unfolds and food insecurity grows, the global community must confront difficult questions. How do we produce enough food without sacrificing biodiversity? Can we make space for nature and still nourish billions?

This new study makes one thing clear: the answers will not come from easy slogans or blanket policies. They will come from detailed data, local context, and a willingness to embrace complexity.

Feeding the world is not just a technical challenge – it is a deeply ecological one. And how we respond will determine the kind of world future generations inherit.

The study is published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution.

—–

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.

—–