R ES E A RC H

◥ by unsustainable resource extraction, rather

REVIEW SUMMARY than serving as models that could be adapted
to modern conditions. Although various reg-
ulatory, voluntary, and financial tools exist to
CONSERVATION
promote sustainable land management, many
barriers prevent individuals, communities, and
Landscapes that work for biodiversity corporations from adopting biodiversity-based
practices, including deeply entrenched policy

and people and market conditions that favor industrialized

or extractive models of land use. Thus, uptake
◥ of these approaches has
ON OUR WEBSITE
C. Kremen* and A. M. Merenlender been patchy and slow and
Read the full article is not yet sufficient to cre-
at http://dx.doi. ate change at the tempo-
BACKGROUND: Biodiversity is under siege, of parks for all or portions of their life cycles. org/10.1126/ ral and spatial scales needed
with greatly enhanced rates of local and global Lastly, protected-area effectiveness is greatly science.aau6020 to face the triple Anthro-
..................................................
extinction and the decline of once-abundant influenced by surrounding land management. pocene threat.
species. Current rates of human-induced climate “Working lands conservation” aims to sup- Biodiversity-based land management prac-
change and land use forecast the Anthropocene port biodiversity while providing goods and tices are knowledge- rather than technology-
as one of the most devastating epochs for life services for humanity over the long term, assur- intensive. They are well adapted to empower

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on August 9, 2020

on earth. How do we handle the Anthropocene’s ing sustainability and resilience. By manag- local communities to manage their natural
triple challenge of preventing biodiversity loss, ing lands surrounding parks favorably, working resources. One of the most exciting emerging
mitigating and adapting to climate change, and lands can buffer protected areas from threats trends is community-driven initiatives to man-
sustainably providing resources for a growing and connect them to one another. This ap- age working landscapes for conservation and
human population? The answer is in how we proach complements protected areas by pro- sustainability. By linking up through grass-
manage Earth’s “working lands”; that is, farms, viding accessory habitats and resources for roots organizations, social movements, and
forests, and rangelands. These lands must be some species while facilitating dispersal and public-private partnerships, these initiatives
managed both to complement the biodiversity climate change adaptation for others. Further, can scale up to create collective impact and can
conservation goals of protected areas and to by maintaining the biodiversity that supplies demand changes in government policies to
maintain the diverse communities of orga- critical ecosystem services within working facilitate the conservation of working lands.
nisms, from microbes to mammals, that con- lands, these approaches ensure that the pro- Scientists and conservation practitioners can
tribute to producing food, materials, clean duction of food, fiber, fuel, and timber can be support these initiatives by engaging with the
water, and healthy soils; sequestering green- sustained over the long run and be more resil- public, listening to alternative ways of knowing,
house gases; and buffering extreme weather ient to extreme events, such as floods, droughts, and cocreating landscapes that work for bio-
events, functions that are essential for all life
on Earth.
hurricanes, and pest and disease outbreaks, which
are becoming more frequent with climate change.
diversity and people.
▪
A variety of biodiversity-based land management
ADVANCES: Protected areas are the corner- techniques can be used in working lands, includ-
stone of biodiversity conservation. Although ing agroforestry, silvopasture, diversified farming, TOMORROW’S EARTH
the total area of protected regions needs to be and ecosystem-based forest management, to en- Read more articles online
increased, parks will nonetheless continue to sure sustainable production of food and fiber. at scim.ag/TomorrowsEarth
lose species if these areas are isolated from one
another by inhospitable land uses and are OUTLOOK: The underlying principle of
faced with a rapidly changing climate. Further, biodiversity-based management of working The list of author affiliations is available in the full article online.
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
many species, such as those that migrate, re- lands has been practiced since ancient times. Cite this article as C. Kremen and A. M. Merenlender, Science
main unprotected as they occupy lands outside Today, these systems have largely been replaced 362, eaau6020 (2018). DOI: 10.1126/science.aau6020

Strawberry production in
Central Coast, California. On
the left, a homogeneous land-
scape of strawberry mono-
culture, including organic fields,
supports fewer wild species
then a diversified, organic farm
(right) in the same region, which
includes a small field of straw-
berry, surrounded by orchards,
hedgerows, diverse vegetable
crops, and natural habitats. The
PHOTO: C. KREMEN

monoculture landscape creates

barriers to wildlife dispersal,
whereas the diversified land-
scape is more permeable.

Kremen et al., Science 362, 304 (2018) 19 October 2018 1 of 1

R ES E A RC H

◥ unproductive, an incorrect viewpoint that im-

REVIEW pedes the public investment needed to develop
and promote these methods. Here, we describe
managing the matrix jointly and sustainably for
CONSERVATION biodiversity and people through “working lands
conservation” and ask what strategies can be used

Landscapes that work for biodiversity to strengthen and scale up this approach as
rapidly as possible to help combat the triple
Anthropocene threats of biodiversity loss, cli-
and people mate change, and unsustainable land use.

Working lands conservation defined

C. Kremen* and A. M. Merenlender
Although the term “working lands conservation”
is already used in policy statements and in guid-
How can we manage farmlands, forests, and rangelands to respond to the triple challenge
ance for conservation programs [e.g., (24)], the
of the Anthropocene—biodiversity loss, climate change, and unsustainable land use?
concept has yet to be formally defined and risks
When managed by using biodiversity-based techniques such as agroforestry, silvopasture,
being misapplied. We define it at the landscape
diversified farming, and ecosystem-based forest management, these socioeconomic systems
scale (Box 1).
can help maintain biodiversity and provide habitat connectivity, thereby complementing
To avoid mass extinction and ecosystem col-
protected areas and providing greater resilience to climate change. Simultaneously, the
lapse, we must integrate biodiversity conserva-
use of these management techniques can improve yields and profitability more sustainably,
tion into the landscapes we use and not simply
enhancing livelihoods and food security. This approach to “working lands conservation” can

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on August 9, 2020

relegate nature to a limited number of protected
create landscapes that work for nature and people. However, many socioeconomic challenges
areas that are doomed if left as isolated habitat
impede the uptake of biodiversity-based land management practices. Although improving
islands within biological deserts. Working lands
voluntary incentives, market instruments, environmental regulations, and governance is
can provide food, breeding sites, and shelter for
essential to support working lands conservation, it is community action, social movements,
a myriad of species while maintaining abiotic
and broad coalitions among citizens, businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies that
conditions, including temperature, light, wind,
have the power to transform how we manage land and protect the environment.
water, fire, and other disturbance processes,

B
within required ranges. They can facilitate func-
iodiversity, the product of 3.8 billion years cluding rangelands, forests, and farms, to pro- tional connectivity—that is, the movement of orga-
of evolution, is under siege. Not only are duce food, water, fiber, fuel, and forest products. nisms across the landscape and among habitat
both marine and terrestrial species expe- All too often, however, these goods are produced patches that promotes population persistence by
riencing accelerated rates of local and global at severe environmental cost, including habitat allowing for gene flow, recolonization, and adap-
extinction (1–3), but even common species degradation, toxic contamination, and depletion tation to climate and other global changes (25, 26).
are declining (2, 4, 5). This alarming situation of water quantity and quality, leading to ecologi- To support humanity sustainably, a working
has prompted a strong call for increasing the cal collapse, local extinctions, and the creation of landscape must be productive and maintain the
number (6, 7) and effectiveness (8) of protected unproductive wastelands (20, 21). We argue that, ecosystem services, such as pollination, pest
areas, the principal method for combatting spe- instead, working lands can be used to support control, and nutrient cycling, that underlie that
cies loss. Though such protections are essential, we high levels of biodiversity while satisfying human production. Maintaining these services requires
cannot rely on protected areas alone to preserve needs in a sustainable way. Because rangelands, supporting the underlying populations of service-
species. As protected areas become increasingly forests, and cultivated lands collectively occupy providing organisms. Within each service, a greater
isolated because of habitat loss and degradation, ~80% of terrestrial area (21), the potential for con- diversity of service providers often enhances the
much research has revealed that they will lose spe- servation in such lands is enormous. level and/or quality of services and reduces un-
cies over time (9). Further, many critical threats to Critical ecosystem functions and services are certainty in service delivery (22), because different
species do not respect protected-area boundaries provided by a suite of diverse organisms, from species respond differentially to environmental
(10), including climate change, which both exac- microbes to mammals, and thus maintenance change (27, 28). Maintaining connectivity is also
erbates species losses (11) and threatens to alter of these organisms is necessary for long-term important, both to support flows of ecosystem
the biomes of many currently protected regions and sustainable productivity of working lands service providers and/or materials (e.g., pollination
entirely (12). (22, 23). Hence, managing the matrix to main- requires animal vectors to move pollen between
More hopefully, recent studies show that some tain biodiversity is not only necessary for species flowers; water purification requires water to flow
human-dominated landscapes can support much conservation but also essential for sustainable pro- through vegetation) (29) and to enhance meta-
more biodiversity than previously recognized duction. Biodiversity-based production systems, community persistence of service-providing orga-
(13–17), suggesting a complementary path for- including agroecological farming or ecosystem- nisms to sustain ecosystem functions and services
ward. Specifically, when these areas, generally based forest management, are often perceived as over space and time (22, 30).
referred to as the “matrix,” represent a high-
quality mosaic of land uses, they can play a crit-
ical role in sustaining biodiversity, both in situ
Box 1. Definition of working lands conservation.
and by promoting species dispersal among pro-
tected areas and remnant habitats and along Definition: Conservation in working landscapes maintains biodiversity, provides goods and services
migratory routes (Fig. 1) (15, 18, 19). Of course, for humanity, and supports the abiotic conditions necessary for sustainability and resilience.
human survival also depends on the long-term These socioecological systems both support biodiversity by providing critical resources and
capacity of this matrix of “working lands,” in- rely on biodiversity (specifically, ecosystem service providers) for sustainable production of
food, water, fiber, fuel, and forest products. These landscapes also enhance connectivity to
Department of Environmental Science, Policy and promote the movement of organisms, natural processes, and ecosystem services.
Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, Working lands conservation emphasizes the critical role of managing the matrix for species
CA 94720, USA. conservation to complement protected areas.
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 1 of 9

 R ES E A RC H | R E V IE W

The underlying principle of maintaining eco-

logical diversity inherent to these approaches
has been practiced since ancient times. Some of
these management systems, such as indigenous
use of fire, weeding, pruning, and the seed dis-
persal that shaped Californian ecosystems (38), no
longer exist in their original form, whereas others,
such as regional pastoral and high-mountain farm-
ing systems in Europe (39), persist in some areas.
By creating highly simplified and intensified pro-
duction systems (21, 40), from corn and soy in
U.S. midwestern states to palm oil plantations in
southeast Asia and vineyards in Chile, we have
abandoned this critical sustainability principle
across much of Earth’s cultivated landscapes.
However, it is a fallacy that such systems will
ultimately spare more land for nature conser-
vation or feed the world indefinitely; rather, we
need to find ways to allow biodiversity-based
production methods to figure much more prom-
inently in local, regional, and global markets (16).

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on August 9, 2020

Working lands conservation as a
Fig. 1. Rebuilding connectivity in the matrix by using silvopasture. Photo of Finca La Luisa complement to protected areas
showing several types of silvopastoral systems, including regenerating secondary tropical dry forest Given the dire situation facing many species and
trees with grass understory (yellow) and rows of planted Eucalyptus trees interspersed with the expectation of further species losses and shifts
nitrogen-fixing Leucaena leucocephala fodder shrubs and forage grasses (blue). These systems were in ecosystem composition due to climate change
established on former monoculture agricultural lands to restore compacted, degraded soils; the (2, 4, 11), ceasing further habitat conversion
red area shows early stages of tropical dry forest regeneration prior to grass seeding for silvopasture. completely and protecting large regions of Earth
Silvopastures produce more cattle sustainably on less land, buffer ranchers from economic losses effectively are critical necessities for conservation
due to climate extremes, and create landscape connectivity to other forest fragments (orange) in the (6–8), although just how much should be pro-
Cesar river valley, Colombia. tected is highly debated (41). [By “protected area,”
we refer to parks whose primary function is to
conserve biodiversity and wilderness (Interna-
Ensuring the sustainability of production re- support species dispersal and provide regulating tional Union for Conservation of Nature and
quires balancing across provisioning, regulat- services such as pollination (29, 31). Maintaining Natural Resources categories I to IV, constituting
ing, and supporting services; in other words, mosaic landscapes composed of different patch 6.75% of terrestrial area) (42), in contrast to areas
seeking multifunctionality and stability rather types provides opportunities to maximize diver- blending conservation and livelihood objectives
than maximal production. For example, conven- sity, resilience, and multifunctionality. Radar dia- (categories V to VI, constituting 8.65%).] How-
tional (chemically intensive) monoculture agri- grams reveal likely trade-offs and sustainability ever, the protected-area strategy alone will not
culture produces high yields but often at the within and across patches (Fig. 2B), as well as be successful without complementary working
expense of water quality, climate regulation, and multifunctionality at the landscape scale (Fig. 2C). lands conservation in the surrounding landscapes.
soil health (Fig. 2A) (20) and can suffer produc- Conservation in working landscapes draws First, even the largest protected areas will lose
tion collapse in response to periodic extreme upon several related concepts. Integrated land- species over the long term (9) unless surrounding
weather, pests, and diseases (31–33). Although scape management initiatives seek to simulta- landscapes can be managed to provide connec-
transforming to a more sustainable system may neously improve food production, biodiversity tivity among parks. Further, less than 10% of pro-
reduce average yields somewhat [e.g., (34)], by or ecosystem conservation, and rural livelihoods tected areas are expected to represent current
relying on ecosystem services produced on the and are being implemented by governments and climatic conditions within 100 years, increasing
farm and in the surrounding landscape, a sus- nongovernmental organizations in Latin America the criticality of matrix connectivity to permit
tainable system is both multifunctional and more and Africa (36). The ecosystem stewardship con- species to follow their suitable climates (12).
resilient to change (20, 31) (Fig. 2C). cept focuses on the need to sustain Earth’s capac- Lastly, effectiveness in controlling threats, such
Working landscapes often comprise hetero- ity to provide ecosystem services and support as invasive species, encroachment, poaching, and
geneous patch types, including novel commu- socioecological resilience under conditions of other impacts on protected lands, also critically
PHOTO: J. J. LOPERA/CIPAV; ADAPTED BY NIRJA DESAI/SCIENCE

nities made up of mixtures of native and nonnative uncertainty and change (27). The socioecological depends on the surrounding matrix (10). Thus, to
species, as well as remnants of natural or semi- production landscape of the Japan Satoyama stem the tide of biodiversity loss, we must expand
natural habitats whose composition is more simi- Satoumi Assessment refers to dynamic landscape beyond protected areas, using working lands con-
lar to that of a historical ecological community mosaics that have been shaped over time by the servation both to buffer and to reduce the threats
(35). Although management goals likely will dif- interactions between people and nature in ways that cross park boundaries and to create acces-
fer among patch types, both individual patches that jointly support biodiversity and human well- sory habitats for both movement and persistence.
and the whole landscape should be managed being (37). These concepts also emphasize critical Working lands conservation is a key linchpin
for sustainability. For example, patches whose social components, such as involving multiple for combatting the triple Anthropocene chal-
communities are far from historical could be man- stakeholders at the landscape scale, community lenge of biodiversity loss, climate change, and
aged principally for crops (a provisioning service) participation, intersectoral coordination, flexible unsustainable land use. A large-scale example is
by using sustainable agricultural practices to min- and adaptive governance systems, social learn- the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor project,
imize negative effects on biodiversity and ecosys- ing, and adaptive management, which are nec- which has fostered a multistakeholder partic-
tem services on and off site. Remnant patches essary for successful conservation of working ipatory process to enhance connectivity on culti-
could be retained as stepping-stone habitats to landscapes. vated, range, and forest working lands to link

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 2 of 9

 R ES E A RC H | R E V IE W

more than 650 protected areas in the region (43). porting ecosystem services. For example, evi- that is more advanced (the San Juan–La Selva
A concurrent goal is to use sustainable agriculture dence suggests that an economically devastating Biological Corridor in Costa Rica), some success
and forestry techniques to promote livelihoods invasive pest, the coffee berry borer, is reduced by has been achieved in arresting deforestation and
and enhance resilience to climate change (36). the integration of forest elements within coffee encouraging tree planting, forest regeneration,
Protected areas are vital in this region because landscapes, which both limits the borer’s ability and connectivity through a government-run pay-
many species are restricted to forest; however, most to colonize new coffee fields (49) and promotes ments for ecosystem services program, as well as
reserves are small and isolated. In combination bird species that prey on the borer (50). Reduced other grassroots initiatives (43, 53).
with steep elevational and latitudinal gradients economic losses due to pest control from birds are
in the region, this isolation makes species in- similar in magnitude to average per capita income Mechanisms for promoting working
habiting reserves particularly vulnerable to climate in the region and are strongly related to forest lands conservation
change. The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor cover (50). Adopting sustainable agricultural The challenge of shifting from managing work-
project recognizes the role that working lands can techniques and enhancing tree cover simulta- ing lands solely for profit to conservation of
play to restore critical connectivity by increasing neously creates more flexible and resilient pro- working lands is not insignificant, but there are
tree diversity and cover through live fences, agro- duction systems that allow farmers and ranchers clear paths toward larger-scale integration of
forestry, silvopasture, forest fallows, home gardens, to adapt to extreme conditions prompted by this approach. These strategies include various
and protection or restoration of riparian forests climate change (33, 51). Although some critics regulatory, voluntary, incentive, market-based,
and forest fragments (43). These forest elements, decry the effectiveness of the Mesoamerican or governance instruments (table S1), which vary
which include both ribbonlike and patch struc- Biological Corridor project, it may be too early to in their applicability to private, communal, or
tures, support a large number of neotropical judge. Quite a few integrated landscape initiatives state-owned lands and the extent to which they
birds, insects, mammals, and plants (17, 44); en- are concentrated in the region, in association with support biodiversity conservation versus liveli-
hance the movement of birds and bats across the biological corridors (36). However, many began hoods or economies (Fig. 3A). Each approach has

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on August 9, 2020

landscape (45–47); and thus contribute to con- relatively recently, and we know from the few challenges, especially around reconciling conser-
servation, even of vulnerable wildlife (17, 47, 48). scientific studies that exist that developing an vation and socioeconomic objectives (table S1)
Forest elements also promote sustainable land effective multistakeholder participatory process (42, 54). Collectively, problems associated with
use and contribute to local livelihoods by sup- takes substantial time (36, 43, 52). In one case regulatory and incentive programs can include
inter alia lack of permanence or compliance, com-
plex implementation, unintended economic con-
A Monoculture row-crop C Mixed cultivated, forest and range landscape sequences, low adoption rates, high monitoring
costs, and little evaluation of effectiveness against
ILLUSTRATION: NIRJA DESAI/SCIENCE BASED ON C. KREMEN AND A.M. MERENLENDER; PHOTO: NATIONAL AERIAL IMAGERY PROGRAM, ADAPTED BY NIRJA DESAI/SCIENCE

Forest Forest
products products Livestock goals (table S1).
Livestock
Connectivity production Connectivity production Further, there is often the risk that the bio-
diversity conserved through these actions is not
Biodiversity equivalent to that which was lost because of eco-
Crops Biodiversity Crops nomically driven land conversion. Instruments
for private lands may result in piecemeal land
Pollination Pollination management actions that have little positive ef-
Healthy Healthy
services services fect on biodiversity at the landscape scale; promis-
soils soils
ing public-private initiatives to overcome this
Freshwater Pest control Freshwater defect include corridor planning (43, 55) (Box 2
Pest control
services Carbon and Fig. 4) and landscape-level mitigation (table
services Carbon
sequestration sequestration S1). For example, landowners required to set aside
forest on their properties under Brazil’s forest
B code may develop these lands in exchange for mit-
igating lands elsewhere within the same biome
that provide greater conservation value (56). Man-
Rangelands aging the matrix to promote biodiversity could
also exacerbate human-wildlife conflict; how-
ever, the recovery of carnivore populations within
human-dominated areas in Europe provides a
hopeful and inspiring example for how landscapes
can be shared between wildlife and people (14)
(Box 3). These instruments can exacerbate the
unequal distribution of benefits and costs within
and across communities (table S1). For example,
Diversified farm
trading development rights on forestlands in ex-
change for permitting high-density urban devel-
opment elsewhere can provide open spaces for
Riparian forest working lands conservation. However, such trades
could exacerbate the lack of access to open space
already experienced by low-income urban house-
holds. Thus, the effects of conservation measures
Fig. 2. Ecosystem service trade-offs with land management. Radar diagrams display how on social equity and environmental justice should
different land uses affect various ecosystem services and biodiversity. (A) Monoculture row cropping also be considered (57). A final concern is that
contributes to food production at the expense of other ecosystem services and biodiversity. (B) In a there is often a trade-off between the rigor of
working landscape managed for conservation, patch types differ in the services they provide, but each environmental standards or restrictions enforced
patch type should display a relatively even array of services, minimizing trade-offs. (C) Across and the likelihood of adoption (table S1); incen-
patches, the services provided for the working landscape in (B) are multifunctional. tive schemes that are flexible, provide obvious

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 3 of 9

 R ES E A RC H | R E V IE W

benefits, target likely adopters, fit the sociocul- A Private

tural context, foster enabling market and reg-
Conservation easement Private
ulatory environments, and provide technical Intensive agriculture
assistance may boost adoption (58). For example, Management incentives reserve
payments for conserving or restoring forests in Certification schemes
Costa Rica are based on area, whereas transaction Mitigation
costs are the same regardless of size, disincen-
Payment for ecosystem services
tivizing smaller landowners from participating
Development Conservation
in the payments for ecosystem services scheme. Community based natural resources management
Encouraging smallholders to participate would Indigenous conserved areas
require adjusting the costs of participation so
that these landowners could also realize net gains Protected areas (IUCN Cat V,VI)
(53). Although numerous changes are required, Government Protected areas
careful attention to the construction of these plantation Government lands
(IUCN Cat I–IV)
programs could increase their success.
Further, several current trends favor working Public
lands conservation approaches. First, new policy Local diversification and landscape-scale heterogeneity
instruments [such as REDD+ (Reducing Emis- B Cultivated lands Rangelands (<10% tree cover)
sions from Deforestation and Forest Degrada-
tion)] operating across a range of scales, from Single-species Multi-species Silvo-pastoral Management Restored Nomadic
individual private landholdings to large-scale patures pastures system intensive range pastoralism
grazing

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on August 9, 2020

community-based or government-funded initia-
tives, are being developed to incentivize conser- Complex
Row crop Simple Mixed Agroforestry Home garden
vation on working lands. Second, the number and monoculture rotation rotation/ crop/livestock system
variety of institutions involved in working lands intercrop
conservation are increasing, and such institu- Monoculture tree plantations Native/non-native Restored Native forest
tions include both public-private partnerships (even-aged) (multi-aged) multi-age forests forest with EBM
and nongovernmental conservation organiza-
tions that formerly focused primarily on pro- Forest lands
Chemical intensification
tected areas (36, 59, 60). Third, these institutions
can take advantage of recent increases in both Fig. 3. Approaches for conservation of working lands occupy the space (yellow) between highly
public and private “investments for conserva- developed (brown) and highly conserved (green) land uses. (A) An array of tools are available
tion” (investments designed to cogenerate finan- for working lands conservation, for private, communal, or public lands (see table S2 for more detail and
cial returns and conservation benefits) (60). Such examples). IUCN Cat. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources categories.
investments include projects in sustainable food (B) Forms of management for forage, crops, and tree products from cultivated lands (yellow),
and fiber production, water quality and quantity rangelands (light green), and forests (dark green), arrayed roughly along a management gradient of
projects, and outright habitat conservation (in diversification (left to right) or chemical intensification (right to left). Cultivated lands include all
the latter, financial returns are based on chang- planted systems. Dashed lines indicate overlapping concepts. EBM, ecosystem-based management.
ing land values or carbon stocks). Fourth, out-
side of these investments, an increasing number
of companies have committed to greening their
supply chains by reducing the environmental
Box 2. Community stewardship: The case of Landcare Australia.
impacts at the source, processing, delivery, and
end-of-life management of the product (61). Al- The Landcare movement is a well-documented community stewardship effort begun in the
though supply chain greening requires much mid-1980s to conserve biodiversity and sustain agriculture in Australia, resulting in more than
better monitoring, accountability, and inclusion 5000 Landcare and Coastcare groups. More than 20 countries have since adopted the model.
of biodiversity conservation as an explicit goal In Australia, this model combines substantial government investment with landowner and
(61, 62), it could ultimately contribute to conser-
ILLUSTRATION: NIRJA DESAI/SCIENCE BASED ON C. KREMEN AND A.M MERENLENDER

community engagement. For example, Landcare groups across eastern Australia contribute to
vation in working landscapes, particularly given the delivery of the Great Eastern Ranges (GER) Initiative (105), alongside public land management
the vast economic power represented within cor- authorities, conservation organizations, research institutions, and traditional owners groups.
porations (61). A final trend is the creation of The GER is one of Australia’s largest public-private partnerships to conserve biodiversity in the
voluntary, community-driven programs (Box 2) face of climate change (Fig. 4) as part of Australia’s National Wildlife Corridors Plan. Landcare
in which local communities participate in the groups along the corridor undertake restoration and management activities, along with community
conservation of working landscapes to gain in- building and engagement. In the Queanbeyan Landcare group, 25 landholders signed up to
creased access to information and expertise, build increase the foraging habitat for the glossy black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) through
interpersonal connections, and obtain both per- the restoration of 10,000 she-oaks (Allocasuarina sp.) in production lands along three river
sonal benefits and public recognition for practic- catchments. The social networks and learning spaces created are promising ways of encouraging
ing sustainable methods (63). conservation commitment among land managers. However, far more landowners must become
We argue that this latter trend of community- engaged to restore connectivity at the scale desired.
based actions and the innovations, networks,
and social movements that sometimes emerge
from them present the most exciting opportunity
to turn the tide against the triple Anthropocene grove forests in Sri Lanka and India through Further, local initiatives can link together to
threat [see also (64)]. Communities seeking solu- youth-based community engagement to build form larger networks with the help of boundary
tions for socioecological resilience frequently rely shoreline resilience to cyclones while enhancing organizations to form social movements that can
on working lands conservation approaches. For livelihoods from fisheries dependent on man- advance environmental policies, improve sus-
example, Sustainable Solutions restores man- grove ecosystems. tainable behaviors, and demand supply chain

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 4 of 9

 R ES E A RC H | R E V IE W

the conservation of working lands approach

[e.g., (65)].
The benefits of local land conservation can
Australia also be scaled up and made more effective if they
are carried out within a landscape or regional
conservation program organized by a state or
nonprofit agency (58). Innovative social and
institutional arrangements for working lands
conservation may emerge, such as The Nature
Conservancy’s BirdReturns program in California.
Through a reverse auction, the program finds and
pays farmers willing to alter water management
The great eastern to create “pop-up” wetlands to provide habitats
ranges corridor 1 Hinterland bush links for shorebirds during their northward migra-
tion, selecting sites that optimize the conserva-
2 Border ranges alliance tion benefits relative to payments (15).

Management techniques for conserving

Kanangra boyo to
3 Jaliigirr biodiversity alliance
8 working lands
wyangala link Cultivated lands
Slopes to summit 9 4 Hunter valley partnership Cultivated lands make up 12% of the terrestrial

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on August 9, 2020

ice-free surface (66) and comprise row and forage
Central victoria
10 5 Illawarra to shoalhaven crops, seeded pastures, vineyards and orchards,
biolinks alliance mixed crop and livestock systems, and tree crops
6 Southern highlands link
and plantations (Fig. 3B). Cultivated lands are
7 Kosciuszko to coast often highly simplified ecologically; thus, they
rely extensively on chemical fertilizers and pes-
ticides to replace ecosystem services formerly
generated within or around agroecosystems (31),
Fig. 4. The GER Corridor Initiative, Australia. The light green outline represents the plan to protect often creating negative consequences for the
and restore more than 3,600 km2 as a climate corridor. The numbered, dark green shapes denote environment and human health (Fig. 2A) (21),
regional alliances of conservation and natural resource management organizations, including including continued large-scale forest conver-
Landcare communities (Box 2). In the photo, members of the Molonglo Catchment Group Landcare sion in some areas of the biodiverse tropics (62).
community conduct restoration. Instead, diversified farming systems using ag-
roecological management practices operate by
fostering biophysical conditions and ecolog-
ical interactions favorable to crop production
Box 3. Carnivore conservation in shared landscapes.
(31, 67, 68), producing a more balanced (sustain-
Maintaining populations of large carnivores ranks among the greatest of conservation
able) distribution of ecosystem services (Fig. 2B).
challenges. These area-demanding species require larger territories than most protected areas
Evidence also suggests that they minimize many
possess, potentially necessitating costly translocations to ensure gene flow and maintain
of the negative environmental consequences as-
populations. Further, these species conflict with people in surrounding matrices through
sociated with simplified farming (31) (Fig. 5). Fur-
predation on livestock or, occasionally, maiming or killing of humans. Nonetheless, in Europe,
ther, these techniques can maintain crop yields
most large carnivore populations are stable or expanding. One-third of the area of mainland
and profitability; create new market opportunities;
enhance food security, nutrition, and livelihoods;
MAPS: GREAT EASTERN RANGES; PHOTO: ANDREW CAMPBELL; ADAPTED BY NIRJA DESAI/SCIENCE

Europe hosts at least one permanent population of its four large carnivore species, persisting
alongside moderate human densities and largely outside of protected areas. The success of
and contribute substantially to the global food
carnivore conservation in Europe is attributed to well-enforced, coordinated legislative protection,
supply, particularly under a changing climate
improvements in habitat and ungulate prey base, and rural depopulation. Importantly, ranchers
(table S2). Because they rely on relatively low-
have found ways to live with carnivores by using carnivore-proofed electric fences and re-
cost, low-technology, knowledge-based methods
invigorating traditional livestock-guarding practices using shepherds and dogs (14). Similarly, in a
(69), agroecological diversification techniques can
cultivated region in India, large carnivore species (the leopard and striped hyena) persist with
be made accessible to the majority of farmers.
few conflicts despite high human densities (300 people/km2) and the lack of wild prey (106),
[Small-scale farms with <5 ha make up 94% of
suggesting the potential that exists for carnivore conservation in shared landscapes.
farms worldwide (40) and produce more than
half of world food crops (70).] These farming
methods use open-pollinated seed varieties that
can be saved and cultivars that are locally adapted;
thus, they are less dependent on purchased seeds
accountability (64). For example, the withdrawal Its Land and Ocean Stewardship “30 × 30” chal- and other inputs that can lead to poverty traps
of the United States from the Paris Agreement lenge brings together more than 100 organ- (71). Multiple grassroots organizations and social
at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) and izations focused on managing forests, farmlands, movements support learning, sharing, and adapta-
delays in regulation of emissions by other nations and oceans to provide 30% of the climate change tion of agroecological knowledge and seeds
galvanized a series of on-the-ground climate solution by 2030, rather than waiting on agree- through farmer-to-farmer networks under par-
actions from civil society, businesses, nonpro- ments among nation states that continue to ticipatory governance (64). Diversified, agroeco-
fits, and subnational government. The Global fall short of the necessary carbon reduction logical practices are therefore farming methods
Action Climate Summit of 2018 instigated by targets. The land management techniques that are highly compatible with working lands
California governor Jerry Brown illustrates a being developed locally to mitigate and adapt conservation, although potentially more ap-
new stage of this growing social movement. to climate change are generally consistent with plicable to certain farming systems. Large-scale

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 5 of 9

 R ES E A RC H | R E V IE W

commercial farmers that have invested heavily in provided technical, social, and material support shrublands, savanna woodlands, alpine meadows,
the machinery associated with chemically intensive to farmers for the spread of agroecology, con- and areas of tundra grasses and shrubs, constitute
agriculture may not readily switch to agroeco- fronted industrial agribusiness, and fought to ~44% (90). Grazed by wild and domestic animals,
logical techniques (68, 72); however, the use of influence national and global policies (64). Alter- they vary greatly in productivity. Both natural
some agroecological techniques can be compa- native agrifood systems and local and regional forests and rangelands have been lost or degraded
tible with existing infrastructure and can lead initiatives that provide support for diversified, over the past several hundred years by the in-
to reduced agrochemical use at similar or even agroecological systems are emerging (64, 69). In- creased extent and intensity of human use, in-
enhanced profits [e.g.,( 73)]. ternational initiatives supporting agroecology cluding timber harvest, grazing, and conversion
A concern is that the use of “wildlife-friendly” include the United Nations Right to Food program, to agriculture. Forests continue to be lost and
agroecological practices will require more land which embraces it as a key element for enhancing degraded at an alarming rate (62), although for-
to be farmed to produce the same amount of food security globally (88), and programs of the est regrowth due to rural depopulation is also
food, promoting deforestation and harming bio- Food and Agriculture Organization, which has occurring in some areas (20). A recent global
diversity (74). However, a number of diversified, held global and regional conferences on agro- analysis of sources of tree cover losses showed
agroecological farming methods maintain or in- ecology and included it in Farmer Field Schools that industrial agriculture for commodity crops
crease yields (table S2) (32, 50, 73, 75–78). For since 2014 (68). is responsible for the permanent conversion of
example, techniques such as intercropping, cover 5 million ha of forest per year (27% of losses, con-
cropping, and crop rotation may promote crop Rangelands and forests centrated primarily in portions of Latin America
yields through a variety of ecological mechanisms Forests in the boreal, temperate, and tropical and Southeast Asia), whereas shifting agriculture
(23), including complementarity of water and regions make up ~30% of Earth’s area (89), (primarily in Africa) and forestry (primarily in
nutrient use (e.g., different crops access differ- whereas rangelands, which are defined as having North America and Europe) cause forest distur-
ent soil layers for water and nutrient uptake), <10% tree cover and include grasslands, desert bance or degradation over an equivalent land

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on August 9, 2020

facilitation of nutrient uptake [e.g., intercropped
faba bean acidifies the soil, mobilizing phospho-
rus that is taken up by rice (79)], reduction of Monoculture crop: Adding prairie strips (10%):
pests and diseases [e.g., pests and diseases spread
more slowly in spatially or temporally heteroge-
neous crop systems, and such systems also sup-
port predator populations that keep pests in
check (80, 81)], and enhancement of soil biota
and fertility (82). By improving soil structure and
stability, which then enhances water infiltration
and retention, these techniques also stabilize
yields against annual environmental fluctua-
tions and more catastrophic disturbances such
as droughts and hurricanes (32, 33).
Beyond providing resources and habitats for
agrobiodiversity, specific techniques such as agro-
ILLUSTRATION: NIRJA DESAI/SCIENCE BASED ON STRIPS RESEARCH TEAM AND LEOPOLD CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

forestry and the use of silvopasture, hedgerows,

flower strips, live fences, and riparian buffers
may also enhance the connectivity of landscapes
and promote the dispersal of various wildlife
species (16, 47, 83). Although these structural
features are known to increase the occurrence of
a wide variety of organisms within agricultural
landscapes (43, 84), how they affect the dispersal
potential of organisms within diversified agri-
cultural lands is poorly understood. Nonetheless,
ambitious, large-scale connectivity projects, such
as the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor project
(43), the silvopastoral and rotational grazing proj-
ect in the Santa Catarina Atlantic Forest (55),
various linkages in Australia (Box 2), and the res-
toration of the migratory pathway of the mon-
arch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) in the U.S.
midwestern states (85), are under way for agricul-
tural lands. In the latter case, although a daunt-
ing amount of restoration would be required to
support the butterfly, it could simultaneously en- 8 inches/acre runoff 42% less runoff
hance soybean pollination, improve water quality, 4 tons/acre sediment lost 95% less soil export
protect other biodiversity, and increase agricul- 7 lbs/acre phosphorus lost 89% less phosphorus export
tural profitability (Fig. 5 and table S2) (86, 87). 35 lbs/acre nitrogen lost 84% less nitrogen export
Although entrenched policies and the extreme
concentration of agrifood industries favor indus- Fig. 5. Diversification practices can increase biodiversity. The integration of prairie strips into a
trialized supply chains and make transformation corn-soy rotation exemplifies how diversification within working lands can substantially increase plant,
to diversified, agroecological systems difficult pollinator, and bird species richness and abundance by two- to fourfold (as indicated by colors and
(68, 72), reasons for optimism exist. Global grass- numbers of icons, respectively) while minimizing externalities and enhancing other ecosystem
roots movements such as La Via Campesina have services, such as pollination for the soy crop (table S2) (86).

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 6 of 9

R ES E A RC H | R E V IE W

area, followed by regrowth (62). It is critical, silvopastoral techniques, which also enhance measures to reduce human population and con-
therefore, to cease permanent conversion of connectivity in these landscapes (Fig. 1). sumption while increasing equitable access to
forests for commodity cropping and to apply resources to achieve sustainability. Opportunities
restorative management approaches in working Freshwater ecosystems to stabilize population and consumption exist.
forests and rangelands. Maintaining stream flows and hydrologic con- For example, through concerted government in-
Since 1990, many nations have created en- nectivity is essential for conserving freshwater vestment in voluntary family planning programs,
abling policies and legislation for sustainable biodiversity and ecosystems. Because of changes enormous progress in reducing total fertility
forest management (89). Of the 54% of global in stream flows, estimates suggest that up to 75% rates has been made even in poor countries [e.g.,
forests considered “permanent” (that is, expected of freshwater fish species are headed for local (101], leading to smaller families living better.
to retain forest cover in the long term), 99% of extinction by 2070 (96). Fresh water also limits Globally, a large unmet need for family planning
these 2.17 billion ha are covered by such policies, the production of many natural resources, and still exists (101); further investment could help
a necessary but not sufficient condition for sus- its quantity and quality are in turn affected by stabilize the global population at 6 billion people
tainable management. Indicators of sustainable landscape management. Appropriate manage- by 2100, instead of the 9 to 12 billion projected
management also show positive temporal trends, ment techniques can promote groundwater re- without intervention (102, 103). To reduce con-
but over smaller areas. For example, forest cer- charge and stream flow in working landscapes sumption, critical targets include reducing food
tification (table S1) covered 430 million ha by (table S2) (31, 86), of increasing importance waste and meat consumption (104) and seeking
2014 (89), but largely within boreal and temper- under drier futures with more extreme precip- efficiencies in energy and water use that can
ate regions, where land-clearing rates are less itation events (97). Flood plains and associated accompany urbanization (102). Even with well-
acute than those in the tropics. riparian zones are particularly critical to conserve structured policies, these changes toward lower
An array of restorative forest and rangeland in working landscapes, because they dispropor- human population and consumption would take
management options exist that are compati- tionately support biodiversity and ecosystem time; thus, concerns exist that humanity will

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on August 9, 2020

ble with the conservation of working lands (Fig. processes compared with other landscape ele- destroy biodiversity and natural resources before
3B and table S2). For forests, the adoption of ments (98). Riparian corridors also provide cooler achieving a more sustainable human population
ecosystem-based management approaches has and moister microclimates than surrounding areas (102). Conservation in working landscapes can
led to the integration of a greater variety of tree and often span elevational and climatic gradients help maintain all species, including people, as we
species and age and size classes, including old that may permit species to follow their climate strive to achieve a planet where a smaller human
growth and dead and downed trees, and the in- envelopes (99). population lives better and more equitably with
corporation of natural disturbance regimes to sup- and because of wild nature.
port more diverse ecological communities (91). Recommendations and
This uneven-aged management style maintains concluding thoughts REFERENCES AND NOTES
similarities between natural and managed forests, Managing the working lands matrix for bio- 1. J. L. Payne, A. M. Bush, N. A. Heim, M. L. Knope,
contrasting with even-aged management from diversity needs to become a mainstream compo- D. J. McCauley, Ecological selectivity of the emerging mass
extinction in the oceans. Science 353, 1284–1286 (2016).
clear-cutting. Evidence from silvicultural trials and nent of public and private conservation efforts,
doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2416; pmid: 27629258
natural forests suggests that greater tree diversity complementing the more traditional (and essen- 2. G. Ceballos, P. R. Ehrlich, R. Dirzo, Biological annihilation via
also enhances wood yield quantity and stability tial) focus on increasing the extent and effective- the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate
(23). In keeping with the ecosystem stewardship ness of protected areas (16). These restorative, population losses and declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
114, E6089–E6096 (2017). pmid: 28696295
concept (27), ecosystem-based management also working lands conservation approaches (table
3. G. Ceballos et al., Accelerated modern human-induced species
emphasizes collaborative decentralized control S2) should be applied to the large land area that losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253
and adaptive management, as well as landscape is already used for farming, forestry, and ranch- (2015). doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253; pmid: 26601195
planning and the designation of corridors to pro- ing. At the same time, we critically need policies 4. C. A. Hallmann et al., More than 75 percent decline over
mote wildlife (92). However, stakeholders may to prevent further conversion and degradation of 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas.
PLOS ONE 12, e0185809 (2017). doi: 10.1371/
reject harvesting practices that negatively af- wilderness and relatively intact ecosystems (62). journal.pone.0185809; pmid: 29045418
fect financial returns in the short term. Environ- To scale up working lands conservation, in- 5. T. Newbold et al., Global effects of land use on local
mental outcomes suffered when stakeholders creased support is needed for the voluntary, policy, terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).
had stronger oversight of the process than a and market instruments described in table S1. doi: 10.1038/nature14324; pmid: 25832402
6. E. O. Wilson, Half Earth (Liveright Publishing Company, 2016).
regulatory authority with political backing (93), However, further adaptation and learning is 7. P. R. Elsen, W. B. Monahan, A. M. Merenlender, Global
supporting the need for public-private part- needed to improve their efficacy, both at the patterns of protection of elevational gradients in mountain
nerships to achieve biodiversity conservation project level and through evidence-based synthe- ranges. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 6004–6009 (2018).
objectives. ses [e.g., (100], and to increase adoption rates doi: 10.1073/pnas.1720141115; pmid: 29784825
8. R. M. Pringle, Upgrading protected areas to conserve wild
In rangelands, compatible management prac- by considering an array of social factors (58). biodiversity. Nature 546, 91–99 (2017). doi: 10.1038/
tices are exemplified by the dehesa and montado Further, these measures must be complemented nature22902; pmid: 28569807
traditional pastoral systems in oak savannas of by community-driven conservation initiatives, 9. J. M. Halley, N. Monokrousos, A. D. Mazaris, W. D. Newmark,
Spain and Portugal, respectively. The oak trees which, by involving young and old in steward- D. Vokou, Dynamics of extinction debt across five taxonomic
groups. Nat. Commun. 7, 12283 (2016). doi: 10.1038/
(Quercus rotundifolia and Q. suber) are pruned ship, communication, citizen science, and edu- ncomms12283; pmid: 27452815
to increase the production of acorns to feed to cation, can create a shared vision and innovative 10. W. F. Laurance et al., Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical
pigs and other livestock grown for high-value practices that result in collective impact. Scien- forest protected areas. Nature 489, 290–294 (2012).
doi: 10.1038/nature11318; pmid: 22832582
meat products; other sustainably harvested pro- tists can support community-driven conserva- 11. M. C. Urban, Climate change. Accelerating extinction risk
ducts include fuelwood and cork from oaks (94). tion and help advance environmental social from climate change. Science 348, 571–573 (2015).
These ecosystems also support endangered spe- movements by engaging the public, listening to doi: 10.1126/science.aaa4984; pmid: 25931559
cies and high plant and animal diversity rela- alternative ways of knowing, and cocreating con- 12. S. R. Loarie et al., The velocity of climate change. Nature 462,
1052–1055 (2009). doi: 10.1038/nature08649;
tive to other seminatural habitats in Europe. servation, management, and policy alternatives. pmid: 20033047
However, grazing, browsing, and trampling can Especially important is to create alliances with 13. L. O. Frishkoff et al., Loss of avian phylogenetic
limit oak regeneration; thus, pasture areas need existing community actions and social movements diversity in neotropical agricultural systems. Science
periodic temporary protection from livestock to that share common ground, such as climate or 345, 1343–1346 (2014). doi: 10.1126/science.1254610;
pmid: 25214627
promote oak recruitment and sustainable use local food movements. 14. G. Chapron et al., Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s
(95). In Colombia, many ranchers are restoring Ultimately, our efforts to protect biodiversity modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519
degraded agricultural lands by using various and sustain resources must be accompanied by (2014). doi: 10.1126/science.1257553; pmid: 25525247

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 7 of 9

R ES E A RC H | R E V IE W

15. M. D. Reynolds et al., Dynamic conservation for migratory 37. H. Gu, S. M. Subramanian, Drivers of change in 57. I. Scoones, P. Newell, M. Leach, in The Politics of Green
species. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700707 (2017). doi: 10.1126/ socio-ecological production landscapes: Implications for Transformations, I. Scoones, M. Leach, P. Newell, Eds.
sciadv.1700707; pmid: 28845449 better management. Ecol. Soc. 19, 41 (2014). doi: 10.5751/ (Earthscan from Routledge, 2015), pp. 1–24.
16. C. Kremen, Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing ES-06283-190141 58. M. B. Mascia, M. Mills, When conservation goes viral:
debate for biodiversity conservation. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 38. M. K. Anderson, Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge The diffusion of innovative biodiversity conservation
1355, 52–76 (2015). doi: 10.1111/nyas.12845; and the Management of California’s Natural Resources policies and practices. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12442 (2018).
pmid: 26213864 (Univ. of California Press, 2005). doi: 10.1111/conl.12442
17. C. D. Mendenhall, A. Shields-Estrada, A. J. Krishnaswami, 39. E. M. Bignal, D. I. McCracken, The nature conservation value 59. D. F. Doak, V. J. Bakker, B. E. Goldstein, B. Hale, What
G. C. Daily, Quantifying and sustaining biodiversity in tropical of European traditional farming systems. Environ. Rev. 8, is the future of conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 77–81
agricultural landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 149–171 (2000). doi: 10.1139/a00-009 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.10.013; pmid: 24332874
14544–14551 (2016). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604981113; 40. S. K. Lowder, J. Skoet, T. Raney, The number, size, and 60. K. Hamrick, “State of private investment in conservation
pmid: 27791070 distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms 2016: A landscape assessment of an emerging market”
18. C. D. Mendenhall, D. S. Karp, C. F. J. Meyer, E. A. Hadly, worldwide. World Dev. 87, 16–29 (2016). doi: 10.1016/ (Forest Trends, 2016).
G. C. Daily, Predicting biodiversity change and averting j.worlddev.2015.10.041 61. R. Chaplin-Kramer et al., Ecosystem service information to
collapse in agricultural landscapes. Nature 509, 213–217 41. C. L. Gray et al., Local biodiversity is higher inside than benefit sustainability standards for commodity supply chains.
(2014). doi: 10.1038/nature13139; pmid: 24739971 outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1355, 77–97 (2015). doi: 10.1111/
19. C. M. Kennedy, E. H. C. Grant, M. C. Neel, W. F. Fagan, 7, 12306 (2016). doi: 10.1038/ncomms12306; nyas.12961; pmid: 26555859
P. P. Marra, Landscape matrix mediates occupancy dynamics pmid: 27465407 62. P. G. Curtis, C. M. Slay, N. L. Harris, A. Tyukavina,
of Neotropical avian insectivores. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1837–1850 42. C. L. Shafer, Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area M. C. Hansen, Classifying drivers of global forest loss.
(2011). doi: 10.1890/10-1044.1; pmid: 21830722 management categories V-VI. Global Ecol. Conserv. 3, Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018). doi: 10.1126/science.
20. J. A. Foley et al., Global consequences of land use. Science 331–348 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2014.12.007 aau3445; pmid: 30213911
309, 570–574 (2005). doi: 10.1126/science.1111772; 43. F. A. J. DeClerck et al., Biodiversity conservation in 63. D. Pannell et al., Understanding and promoting adoption of
pmid: 16040698 human-modified landscapes of Mesoamerica: Past, present conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust. J. Exp.
21. N. Ramankutty et al., Trends in global agricultural land use: and future. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2301–2313 (2010). Agric. 46, 1407–1424 (2006). doi: 10.1071/EA05037
Implications for environmental health and food security. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.026 64. M. Leach, I. Scoones, in The Politics of Green
Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 69, 789–815 (2018). doi: 10.1146/ 44. C. A. Harvey et al., Patterns of animal diversity Transformations, I. Scoones, P. Newell, M. Leach, Eds.

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on August 9, 2020

annurev-arplant-042817-040256; pmid: 29489395 in different forms of tree cover in agricultural (Earthscan from Routledge, 2015), pp. 119–133.
22. F. Isbell et al., Linking the influence and dependence landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 16, 1986–1999 (2006). 65. D. R. Cameron, D. C. Marvin, J. M. Remucal, M. C. Passero,
of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 546, 65–72 doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1986:POADID]2.0.CO;2; Ecosystem management and land conservation can
(2017). doi: 10.1038/nature22899; pmid: 28569811 pmid: 17069389 substantially contribute to California’s climate mitigation
23. F. Isbell et al., Benefits of increasing plant diversity in 45. Ç. H. Şekercioğlu et al., Tropical countryside riparian goals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 12833–12838 (2017).
sustainable agroecosystems. J. Ecol. 105, 871–879 (2017). corridors provide critical habitat and connectivity for doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707811114; pmid: 29133408
doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12789 seed-dispersing forest birds in a fragmented landscape. 66. N. Ramankutty, A. T. Evan, C. Monfreda, J. A. Foley, Farming
24. D. J. Eastburn, A. T. O’Geen, K. W. Tate, L. M. Roche, Multiple J. Ornithol. 156 (Suppl. 1), 343–353 (2015). doi: 10.1007/ the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural
ecosystem services in a working landscape. PLOS ONE 12, s10336-015-1299-x lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22,
e0166595 (2017). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166595; 46. C. A. Harvey et al., Contribution of live fences to the GB1003 (2008). doi: 10.1029/2007GB002952
pmid: 28301475 ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes. 67. M. A. Altieri, The ecological role of biodiversity in
25. D. A. Driscoll, S. C. Banks, P. S. Barton, D. B. Lindenmayer, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 111, 200–230 (2005). doi: 10.1016/ agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 74, 19–31 (1999).
A. L. Smith, Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented j.agee.2005.06.011 doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00028-6
landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 605–613 (2013). 47. A. Medina, C. A. Harvey, D. S. Merlo, S. Vílchez, B. Hernández, 68. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.010; pmid: 23883740 Bat diversity and movement in an agricultural landscape in (IPES-Food), “From uniformity to diversity: A paradigm
26. W. F. Fagan, E. E. Holmes, Quantifying the extinction vortex. Matiguás, Nicaragua. Biotropica 39, 120–128 (2007). shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological
Ecol. Lett. 9, 51–60 (2006). pmid: 16958868 doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00240.x systems” (IPES-Food, 2016); http://www.ipes-food.org/
27. F. S. Chapin 3rd et al., Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability 48. K. Williams-Guillen, C. McCann, J. C. Martinez Sanchez, images/Reports/UniformityToDiversity_FullReport.pdf.
strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, F. Koontz, Resource availability and habitat use by mantled 69. C. Kremen, A. Iles, C. M. Bacon, Diversified farming systems:
241–249 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008; howling monkeys in a Nicaraguan coffee plantation: Can An agro-ecological, systems-based alternative to modern
pmid: 19923035 agroforests serve as core habitat for a forest mammal? industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 17, 44 (2012). doi: 10.5751/
28. F. Isbell et al., High plant diversity is needed to maintain Anim. Conserv. 9, 331–338 (2006). doi: 10.1111/ ES-05103-170444
ecosystem services. Nature 477, 199–202 (2011). j.1469-1795.2006.00042.x 70. V. Ricciardi, N. Ramankutty, Z. Mehrabi, L. Jarvis,
doi: 10.1038/nature10282; pmid: 21832994 49. J. Avelino, A. Romero-Gurdián, H. F. Cruz-Cuellar, B. Chookolingo, How much of the world’s food do
29. M. G. E. Mitchell, E. M. Bennett, A. Gonzalez, Linking F. A. J. Declerck, Landscape context and scale differentially smallholders produce? Global Food Sec. 17, 64–72 (2018).
landscape connectivity and ecosystem service provision: impact coffee leaf rust, coffee berry borer, and coffee doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002
Current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems 16, root-knot nematodes. Ecol. Appl. 22, 584–596 (2012). 71. M. Montenegro, Banking on wild relatives to feed the world.
894–908 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s10021-013-9647-2 doi: 10.1890/11-0869.1; pmid: 22611856 Gastron. J. Crit. Food Stud. 16, 1–8 (2016). doi: 10.1525/
30. M. Loreau, N. Mouquet, A. Gonzalez, Biodiversity as spatial
50. D. S. Karp et al., Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control gfc.2016.16.1.1
insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
and coffee yield. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1339–1347 (2013). 72. A. Iles, R. Marsh, Nurturing diversified farming systems
U.S.A. 100, 12765–12770 (2003). doi: 10.1073/
doi: 10.1111/ele.12173; pmid: 23981013 in industrialized countries: How public policy can
pnas.2235465100; pmid: 14569008
51. C. A. Harvey et al., Climate-smart landscapes: Opportunities contribute. Ecol. Soc. 17, 42 (2012). doi: 10.5751/
31. C. Kremen, A. Miles, Ecosystem services in biologically
and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in ES-05041-170442
diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits,
tropical agriculture. Conserv. Lett. 7, 77–90 (2014). 73. A. S. Davis, J. D. Hill, C. A. Chase, A. M. Johanns,
externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 17, 40 (2012).
doi: 10.1111/conl.12066 M. Liebman, Increasing cropping system diversity balances
doi: 10.5751/ES-05035-170440
52. A. T. H. Keeley et al., Making habitat connectivity a productivity, profitability and environmental health. PLOS
32. A. C. M. Gaudin et al., Increasing crop diversity mitigates
reality. Conserv. Biol. (2018). doi: 10.1111/cobi.13158 ONE 7, e47149 (2012). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047149;
weather variations and improves yield stability. PLOS ONE 10,
e0113261 (2015). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113261; pmid: 29920775 pmid: 23071739
pmid: 25658914 53. W. C. Morse et al., Consequences of environmental service 74. B. Phalan, M. Onial, A. Balmford, R. E. Green, Reconciling food
33. S. M. Philpott, B. B. Lin, S. Jha, S. J. Brines, A multi-scale payments for forest retention and recruitment in a Costa Rican production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and
assessment of hurricane impacts on agricultural landscapes biological corridor. Ecol. Soc. 14, 23 (2009). doi: 10.5751/ land sparing compared. Science 333, 1289–1291 (2011).
based on land use and topographic features. Agric. ES-02688-140123 doi: 10.1126/science.1208742; pmid: 21885781
Ecosyst. Environ. 128, 12–20 (2008). doi: 10.1016/ 54. J. Owley, D. Takacs, “Flexible Conservation in Uncertain 75. K. Garbach et al., Examining multi-functionality for crop yield
j.agee.2008.04.016 Times,” in Contemporary Issues in Climate Change Law and and ecosystem services in five systems of agroecological
34. L. C. Ponisio et al., Diversification practices reduce organic to Policy: Essays Inspired by the IPCC (UC Hastings Research intensification. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15, 11–28 (2017).
conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 282, Paper 180, Univ. at Buffalo School of Law, 2016), doi: 10.1080/14735903.2016.1174810
20141396 (2015). doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1396; pp. 65–102; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? 76. J. Pretty, Z. P. Bharucha, Sustainable intensification in
pmid: 25621333 abstract_id=2700658. agricultural systems. Ann. Bot. 114, 1571–1596 (2014).
35. R. J. Hobbs et al., Managing the whole landscape: Historical, 55. J. Alvez, A. L. Schmitt Filho, J. Farley, G. Alarcon, A. C. Fantini, doi: 10.1093/aob/mcu205; pmid: 25351192
hybrid, and novel ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, The potential for agroecosystems to restore ecological 77. G. M. Gurr et al., Multi-country evidence that crop diversification
557–564 (2014). doi: 10.1890/130300 corridors and sustain farmer livelihoods: Evidence from promotes ecological intensification of agriculture.
36. N. Estrada-Carmona, A. K. Hart, F. A. J. DeClerck, Brazil. Ecol. Restor. 30, 288–290 (2012). doi: 10.3368/ Nat. Plants 2, 16014 (2016). doi: 10.1038/nplants.2016.14;
C. A. Harvey, J. C. Milder, Integrated landscape management er.30.4.288 pmid: 27249349
for agriculture, rural livelihoods, and ecosystem conservation: 56. C. M. Kennedy et al., Bigger is better: Improved nature 78. R. F. Pywell et al., Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop
An assessment of experience from Latin America and conservation and economic returns from landscape-level yield: Evidence for ecological intensification. Proc. R. Soc.
the Caribbean. Landsc. Urban Plan. 129, 1–11 (2014). mitigation. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501021 (2016). doi: 10.1126/ London Ser. B 282, 20151740 (2015). doi: 10.1098/
doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.05.001 sciadv.1501021; pmid: 27419225 rspb.2015.1740; pmid: 26423846

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 8 of 9

R ES E A RC H | R E V IE W

79. L. Li et al., Diversity enhances agricultural productivity via 89. K. G. MacDicken et al., Global progress toward sustainable 100. W. Sutherland, L. V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, R. Smith, Eds., What
rhizosphere phosphorus facilitation on phosphorus-deficient forest management. For. Ecol. Manage. 352, 47–56 (2015). Works in Conservation (Open Book, ed. 2, 2017), vol. 2.
soils. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 11192–11196 (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.005 101. J. Bongaarts, S. W. Sinding, A response to critics of family
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704591104; pmid: 17592130 90. H. G. Lund, Accounting for the world’s rangelands. planning programs. Int. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health 35,
80. D. K. Letourneau et al., Does plant diversity benefit Soc. Range Manage. 29, 3–10 (2007). 39–44 (2009). doi: 10.1363/3503909; pmid: 19465347
agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecol. Appl. 21, 9–21 91. S. Gauthier, M.-A. Vaillancourt, D. Kneeshaw, P. Drapeau, 102. E. W. Sanderson, J. Walston, J. G. Robinson, From bottleneck
(2011). doi: 10.1890/09-2026.1; pmid: 21516884 L. De Grandpré, Y. Claveau, D. Paré, in Ecosystem Management to breakthrough: Urbanization and the future of biodiversity
81. Y. Zhu et al., Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. in the Boreal Forest, S. Gauthier, M.-A. Vaillancourt, A. Leduc, conservation. Bioscience 68, 412–426 (2018). doi: 10.1093/
Nature 406, 718–722 (2000). doi: 10.1038/35021046; L. De Grandpré, D. Kneeshaw, H. Morin, P. Drapeau, biosci/biy039; pmid: 29867252
pmid: 10963595 Y. Bergeron, Eds. (Univ. du Québec, 2009), pp. 13–38. 103. C. J. Bradshaw, B. W. Brook, Human population reduction is
82. S. F. Bender, C. Wagg, M. G. A. van der Heijden, An 92. M. Mangel et al., Principles for the conservation of wild living not a quick fix for environmental problems. Proc. Natl.
underground revolution: Biodiversity and soil ecological resources. Ecol. Appl. 6, 338–362 (1996). doi: 10.2307/2269369 Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 16610–16615 (2014). doi: 10.1073/
engineering for agricultural sustainability. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 93. J. A. Layzer, Natural Experiments: Ecosystem-Based pnas.1410465111; pmid: 25349398
440–452 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.016; pmid: Management and the Environment (MIT, 2008). 104. J. Poore, T. Nemecek, Reducing food’s environmental
26993667 94. P. Campos, L. Huntsinger, J. L. Oviedo, P. F. Starrs, M. Diaz, impacts through producers and consumers. Science
R. B. Standiford, G. Montero, Eds., Mediterranean Oak 360, 987–992 (2018). doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216;
83. I. Perfecto, J. Vandermeer, A. Wright, Nature’s Matrix: Linking
Woodland Working Landscapes: Dehesas of Spain and Ranchlands pmid: 29853680
Agriculture, Conservation and Food Sovereignty (Earthscan, 2009).
of California (Springer Science+Business Media, 2013). 105. Great Eastern Ranges, www.ger.org.au.
84. J. A. Hilty, A. M. Merenlender, Use of riparian corridors and
95. J. A. Ramírez, M. Díaz, The role of temporal shrub 106. V. Athreya, M. Odden, J. D. C. Linnell, J. Krishnaswamy,
vineyards by mammalian predators in northern California.
encroachment for the maintenance of Spanish holm oak U. Karanth, Big cats in our backyards: Persistence of large
Conserv. Biol. 18, 126–135 (2004). doi: 10.1111/j.1523-
Quercus ilex dehesas. For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 1976–1983 carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India.
1739.2004.00225.x
(2008). doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.019 PLOS ONE 8, e57872 (2013). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057872;
85. W. E. Thogmartin et al., Restoring monarch butterfly habitat 96. M. A. Xenopoulos et al., Scenarios of freshwater fish extinctions
in the Midwestern US: ‘All hands on deck.’ Environ. Res. Lett. pmid: 23483933
from climate change and water withdrawal. Global Change Biol.
12, 074005 (2017). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa7637 11, 1557–1564 (2005). doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001008.x
86. L. A. Schulte et al., Prairie strips improve biodiversity 97. S. D. Polade, A. Gershunov, D. R. Cayan, M. D. Dettinger, AC KNOWLED GME NTS
and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from D. W. Pierce, Precipitation in a warming world: Assessing We appreciate the constructive input of D. Ackerly, B. Brunner,

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on August 9, 2020

corn-soybean croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, projected hydro-climate changes in California and other A. Campbell, F. DeClerck, and A. Knight. Competing interests: The
11247–11252 (2017). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1620229114; Mediterranean climate regions. Sci. Rep. 7, 10783 (2017). authors declare no competing interests.
pmid: 28973922 doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11285-y; pmid: 28883636
87. E. Brandes et al., Subfield profitability analysis reveals an 98. F. R. Hauer et al., Gravel-bed river floodplains are the
economic case for cropland diversification. Environ. Res. Lett. ecological nexus of glaciated mountain landscapes. Sci. Adv. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
11, 014009 (2016). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014009 2, e1600026 (2016). doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1600026;
www.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaau6020/suppl/DC1
88. O. De Schutter, “Agroecology and the right to food,” report pmid: 27386570
Tables S1 and S2
presented at the 16th Session of the United Nations 99. A. T. Keeley et al., New concepts, models, and assessments
References (107–158)
Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49], Geneva, Switzerland, of climate-wise connectivity. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 073002
8 March 2011. (2018). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aacb85 10.1126/science.aau6020

Kremen et al., Science 362, eaau6020 (2018) 19 October 2018 9 of 9

Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people
C. Kremen and A. M. Merenlender

Science 362 (6412), eaau6020.

DOI: 10.1126/science.aau6020

A nature-friendly matrix
As the human population has grown, we have taken and modified more and more land, leaving less and less for
nonhuman species. This is clearly unsustainable, and the amount of land we protect for nature needs to be increased
and preserved. However, this still leaves vast regions of the world unprotected and modified. Such landscapes do not
have to be a lost cause. Kremen and Merenlender review how biodiversity-based techniques can be used to manage

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on August 9, 2020

most human-modified lands as ''working landscapes.'' These can provide for human needs and maintain biodiversity not
just for ecosystem services but also for maintenance and persistence of nonhuman species.
Science, this issue p. eaau6020

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaau6020

SUPPLEMENTARY http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2018/10/17/362.6412.eaau6020.DC1
MATERIALS

RELATED http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/362/6412/287.full
CONTENT
file:/content
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/363/6431/1046.2.full

REFERENCES This article cites 142 articles, 26 of which you can access for free
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaau6020#BIBL

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Use of this article is subject to the Terms of Service

Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. The title Science is a registered trademark of AAAS.
Copyright © 2018 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of
Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works