STANFORD UNIVERSITY
It seems intuitive that forests would provide better habitat for forest-dwelling wildlife than farms. Yet, in one of the longest-running studies of tropical wildlife populations in the world, Stanford researchers found that over 18 years, smaller farms with varying crop types – interspersed with patches or ribbons of forest – sustain many forest-dependent bird populations in Costa Rica, even as populations decline in forests.
In a paper published Sept. 4 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nicholas Hendershot and colleagues compared trends in specific bird populations across three landscape types in Costa Rica: forests, diversified farms, and intensive agriculture. The steepest declines were found in forests, then in intensive agriculture (and the species succeeding in intensive agriculture were often invasive). But on diversified farms, a significant subset of bird species typically found in forests, including some of conservation concern, actually increased over time.
“Birds are kind of a proxy we use to track the health of ecosystems. And the birds we’re seeing today aren’t the same as we saw 18 to 20 years ago. This paper really documents this pattern,” said Hendershot, a postdoctoral fellow at the time of this research in Stanford’s Department of Biology in the School of Humanities and Sciences (H&S), the Stanford Center for Conservation Biology (CCB), and the Stanford-based Natural Capital Project (NatCap).
Food security at stake
While this research implies that diversified farming could be key for biodiversity, the relationship goes both ways: biodiversity is key for food security. In this case, that means having a variety of types of birds feeding on insects and helping to pollinate crops.
“Identity does seem to matter a lot for pest control and other ecosystem services birds provide. These species are not interchangeable,” said Hendershot.
“We need a constant stream of pollinators servicing farms. About three-quarters of the world’s crops require pollinators to some extent, and that 75% is our most nutritious food – think of all the vitamins and minerals packed into fruits, nuts, and veggies,” explained Gretchen Daily, faculty director of NatCap and CCB, Bing Professor of Environmental Science in H&S, and a senior author on the paper. “We need a constant stream of birds, bats, and other wildlife to help control pests: they suppress the vast majority naturally. And we need to start building flood protection, water purification, carbon storage, and many other vital benefits back into agricultural landscapes, way beyond what can be achieved in protected areas alone.”
Daily also noted that, in terms of food production, diversified farms are not necessarily lower yielding than intensive agriculture. “This is a recent assumption that is being overturned,” she said.
Beyond protected areas
It has become increasingly apparent around the world that while protected areas remain critical, they are too few and far between to provide the ecosystem services people and nature need to thrive. Working landscapes are crucial now for preserving biodiversity and its benefits. “People, including scientists, had the idea that farmland would not support a meaningful amount of biodiversity,” said Daily. In this case, not only are diversified farms themselves providing habitat, they connect otherwise fragmented forested areas.
Over time, Hendershot said, “I have moved away from the ‘fortress conservation’ model, which focused more on creating protected areas separate from human activities, and see more and more how much potential there is outside of forests. The forests are key – we need them, of course. But in addition to that, I’m always surprised by how important how you manage a farm is for biodiversity.”
“We believe the findings of our research are new to science, but in a sense, it merely confirms what Indigenous communities around the world have already known for a long time, which is that humans can and should have reciprocal relationships with the rest of the local ecological community they are part of,” said Tadashi Fukami, a professor of biology in H&S and of Earth system science in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and a co-author of the paper.
Incentivizing farmers
In the 1980s and 90s, deforestation was occurring in Costa Rica at the fastest rate ever seen on a country scale. Then, they turned it around – becoming a renowned model of success. By setting up the world’s first countrywide payment for ecosystem services (PES) program, Costa Rica reversed this trend: today, forests cover almost 60% of its land, up from 40% in 1987.
The country currently aims to double the amount of protected forest in just a few years. In its existing PES program, any landowner can receive money for reforesting even small parts of their land. Now, the government is also working toward a new PES program to incentivize farmers to adopt best management practices.
This study will help inform Costa Rican policymakers in understanding the benefits provided over time by different farming practices. Said Daily, “We need to recognize the vital work many farmers are doing that supports biodiversity.”
Nicholas Hendershot was a postdoctoral researcher with the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford and is now a forest ecologist with The Nature Conservancy-California. Gretchen Daily is also a senior fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Other co-authors on the paper are Alejandra Echeverri, a senior scientist at the Natural Capital Project, Luke Frishkoff of the University of Texas at Arlington, and prominent Costa Rican ornithologist Jim Zook.
Hendershot’s work was supported by the Gerhard Casper and John P. Morgridge Stanford Graduate Fellowship, the OTS Emerging Challenges in Tropical Science Fellowship, and the Winslow Foundation. Funding for data collection from 1999-2017 was generously provided to Daily by the LuEsther T. Mertz Charitable Trust, the Moore Family Foundation, and the Winslow Foundation.
JOURNAL
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI
ARTICLE TITLE
Diversified farms bolster forest-bird populations despite ongoing declines in tropical forests
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
5-Sep-2023
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As soon as a saw Stanford U I knew I would not learn anything useful. Lucky Califonia has no issues with their forest.
Nope, CA forests seem to quite regularly release their CO2 stores back into atmosphere
The author says that the Sun is going to be cooling enough to lead to a mini-ice age for around 40 years with probable crop failures starting in a few years.
‘Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/
NOAA says the sunspot number, which reflects solar output, is going to be dropping to zero and staying there until 2040 when their forecast ends. The sunspot number may have already started dropping, it is below the forecast values.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/predicted-sunspot-number-and-radio-flux
That doesn’t look too good, does it?
On second thought, never mind.
They’ve been telling us for years that the sun has no effect on climate, and it surely must be true.
Where is Leif, anyway, now that we need him?
OT? – “The author” who says that “the Sun is going to be cooling” appears not to be the author of this post’s article.
Solar Cycle Progression | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center
predicted is the red line. Hmm?
More (solar) climate models?
It has become increasingly apparent around the world that while protected areas remain critical, they are too few and far between to provide the ecosystem services people and nature need to thrive. Working landscapes are crucial now for preserving biodiversity and its benefits. “
Who would bet against overbearing governments seizing some percentage of every farmer’s acreage for a “sufficiently sized” no-farming patch for all the little birds and beasts and insects to gallivant and propagate in? At the farmer’s expense, of course.
Apart from the big commercial broadacre farms, basically every farmer I know in this area already does that.
Been happening for years in the UK. First it was “set aside” and now it’s rewilding. Together with solar “farms” productive farmland is disappearing.
I’ve been following Joel Salatin for years. He mainly produces meats and has a very successful business and uses many of these practices. Can his business model feed the world? I don’t think so, But he is community minded and is very successful.
https://polyfacefarms.com/production/
Whenever land is farmed with products taken elsewhere, the land will become less productive. Essential nutrients like Potassium K and Phosphorus P will deplete and crop yields will fall over the years. In partial correction, one can add products like mulch, straw, humus, dung to the land, but this simply takes nutrients away from their sources elsewhere, with no nett gain.
P and K fertilizers and are almost entirely supplied from mineral mines. Without such mines, global food production has to decrease.
Nitrogen is important. Some plants like legumes convert inert N from the air into nitrates that fertilise. Without such input, all farmed soils will eventually become nitrogen deficient and have lower yields. There is a global industry making urea and ammonia fertilisers to augment depletion of nitrogen. The dominant feedstock is natural gas.
Those who through ignorance and/or ideology actively seek to stop mining for P and K and ban use of natural gas are inarguably causing a global loss in food production.
This article about Costa Rica seems to imply that better growth of vegetation can be achieved my management selection of crop types and intensive management. That would be a minor part of improvement, as would be better pest control options.
The elephant factor is nutrition. If you do not fertilise properly, your yields will drop. I cannot locate the full Costa Rica article, but available material suggests that fertilisation, mining and gas extraction are downplayed in favour of trendy biodynamics and minor yield improvement methods.
Essential nutrients can be likened to gas in the tank of your car. If you do not top it up, you cannot benefit from emotional likes such as acceleration, top speed, good looks, whatever.
Your like for biodiversity becomes immaterial if you fail at fertilising. Include it in your articles. Geoff S
Article writer watches “Clarkson’s Farm” and gets an idea for a grant proposal – marvelous!
Well it’s a least one scientist who isn’t attacking farming, which is a nice change.
I’m glad I read to the end of the comments section. Clarkson’s Farm was my first thought too.
Co-incidence or what?
This came past my face just yesterday – from folks who really do know a bit about food & farming.
BBC Headline:””New tech boosts Dutch drive for sustainable farming””
And without excess gushing about about nutrients and vitamins..
e.g. “”that 75% is our most nutritious food – think of all the vitamins and minerals packed into fruits, nuts, and veggies,” explained Gretchen Daily””
Back to Gretchen: There are very few vitamins and minerals in those things and what are are in all the wrong proportions and many are toxic
Tell us honestly:
Tell us Gretchen, how do a few pollinators help with those matters?
On top of which and in view of the modest little list I just complied, why do your plants need these ‘bio-diverse critters’ to control ‘pests’
The plants were able, would be able, to use the things I listed to manage the ‘pests’ all by themselves. THAT, surprise surprise, is why the plants created them
e.g. The plants did not create Ladybugs to eat Aphids as a response to their being attacked by said Greenfly/Blackfly
Historically/geologically/previously and in the ‘properly fed nutrient rich world’ which existed then (what created all the coal, gas and oil) – the plants were quite able to defend themselves against Aphids – the ladybugs/birds were and are a response to nutrient deficiency being endured by the plants.
Thus, those things you rave/gush about and describe as ‘biodiversity’, are in fact ‘invasive species’
i.e. They evolved to ‘fill a niche’ = ‘niche’ being another word for ‘hole’ or ‘gap’ and the ‘hole’ was/is in the diet of the plants.
Thus, dear Gretchen, for you to gush about ‘nutrients’ is beyond laughable – you really are utterly clueless
What she has actually done is re-discover ‘Crop Rotation’ = Itself being a response to low-nutrient soils.
Gretchen’s twist is to further expand on what middle/dark age peasants & serfs did, was to divide their fields/lands into strips, typically of one ‘pole’ ‘rod’ or ‘perch’ = one part in 320 of an imperial mile or about 5½ yards
(4 poles being = the length of a cricket pitch)
And this is the best that modern science and universities can come up with!!!???
= a return to dark-age farming
we are is soooo much trouble here
There again, Climate Science is alive, well and thriving in its own ‘Dark Age’ so why shouldn’t food/agriculture go there too?
Politics went there a long time ago.
The Wari and later the Inca grew up to 1000 varieties of potato and several hundred varieties of maize in terraces concentrating what soil there was. They protected themselves against the weather, pests and disease by growing them in close proximity so there was always something produced. They also freeze dried and then stored produce, potatoes, at altitude in cold dry conditions meaning they were protected against starvation in very lean years. Seems a more sophisticated system than the one being proposed. Modern agriculture is designed for high yields.
The imperial length and area measurements are eccentrically logical.
A furlong = 220 yards the length of a furrow, 8 of which made a mile. A chain is a tenth of a furlong, and a Pole a quarter of a Chain or a fortieth of Furlong. It’s very simple to divide a length into four or eight equal sections using a rope.. An acre is an area one furlong long and one chain wide or 4840 square yards or various combinations of square Chains, Poles, Rods and Perches.
The rod/pole/perch was the length of the stick that the ploughman used to encourage the beast pulling the plough to move forward.
I’ve been watching YouTube videos about ancient empires. I find it far more interesting than “reality TV” that floods the airwaves and internet these days.
One thing common to many is how agriculture changed the landscape. Usually by taking what was poor soil and by various means making it productive. Irrigation and terraces being two major methods globally. In fact terraces in South America allowed cultivation using an equivalent of UHI up to amazing altitudes, 3500 metres or more. So people like the Wari took fairly barren hillsides and made them productive and the Assyrians, and many others in the Middle East took semi-arid areas and grew a variety of crops.
What isn’t clear to me is what effect this had on the local wildlife, apart from species they killed for sport lions in the case of the Assyrians, the results must have been positive for most?
In the UK our dearly loved landscape is the result of 10,00 years of careful management by our hunter gatherer agrarian and even industrial ancestors that until the days of my youth at least preserved a wholesome diversity of wildlife coexisting with arable and livestock farming. Since then we chose to trash our heritage and it has gone to the dogs a lot with hedgerows grubbed out and too many wetland bogs drained . Ghastly monoculture spruce plantations suck moisture out of the soil and destroy wildlife habitat. The present fad for rewilding will propagate more of the same in addition to taking productive, and to a certain extent biodiverse landscape and by subsidy-fed neglect give us a barren landscape of rhododendron, bracken, spruce and poisonous hogweed
“Ghastly monoculture spruce plantations suck moisture out of the soil and destroy wildlife habitat.”
Too bad they didn’t plant many other tree species- even if the goal is to produce profit. Quality hardwoods are always going to be worth more than spruce. The conifer species will produce more volume of wood per year than hardwoods but they’re not worth as much per volume. So there is no justification for planting single species forests.
While the over-all intention of this article may be good, it’s conclusion is accomplished with reliance on false info and myths.Farms do help maintain habitat- some natural (marshes, riparian buffers, woodlots and wooded buffers) and some less natural, but still important (row crops are “artifical “grassland”). In the US, we lose 10,000ac per day (!) to the bulldozer for developement….Loss of habitat is the biggest problem facing MotherNature.
But some myths: Legumes do not add a significant amount of N to the soil unless you plow the crop under. The rhizobium parasite fixes extra atm N, but injects it directly into the root of the host plant, providing only about half of the N that plant requires. The classic corn & beans rotation is done not to replenish the soil, but to help prevent pest populations from becoming established….We now get 200bu/ac of corn in the Corn Belt thanks to many advances in tech, but prior to the widespread use of the Haber-Bosch Process to produce fertilizer, we got only 20bu/ac (!)
Plant based nutrition is NOT nutrient dense. Even beans, peas and potatoes, the three most dense veggies provide less than 10% per serving of most nutrients (That’s why the USDA “experts” recommend 9 servings per day of veggies & fruits.) ..One serving of beef privides all the protein and about half of all the other nutrients we need.
Pollinators are important in a healthy ecosystem. but not to produce most of our nutrition. Corn & beans- used mostly to feed our livestock to produce meat, our most important source of nutrition- are wind pollinated.
While trees are impressively big, grassland is 5-10x more productive of photosynthetic activiity than forests. That’s a fact thoise that make a living begging for money to save the Amazon don’t want you to know. The carbon sequestered in grass only remans sequestered for a year or so, while trees take a centruy or more to re-cycle themselves…but it’s still a cycle, so no carbon fixed in biomass is really “sequestered” at all.
That might depend on the legume. There isn’t much of a chick pea or faba bean crop left above ground after harvest, but it still improves available soil nitrates.
It’s usually regarded as a symbiont.
I see what you’re getting at, but it’s actually nodules attached to the roots.
I’m fairly sure there is a net nitrate increase after growing and harvesting a pulse crop. See https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/572661/nitrogen-benefits-of-chickpea-and-faba-beans.pdf
I have no experience with other beans, which may fix lower amounts of nitrates.
OC, I agree with you. Our nitrogen boosting crops were alfalfa and soybeans. Since the alfalfa is mowed and baled, the land only sees a lot of tractor compaction. Plowing is usually required inorder to be able to plant after a couple of years in alfalfa. Soybeans can be double cropped so it puts the nitrogen back in the root nodules so we can plant again.
Symbiosis is a particular form of the more general concept of parasitism, and the rhiziobium nodule is merely the name for the anatomical structure induced by the infection. Thanks for the nit pik.
A 60bu/ac yield of soybeans requires about 300lb of N– ~half of that can be provided by Rhizobium fixing atm N, and ~2/3rds of it is carried away with the harvested beans…net loss to the soil ~50lb/ac…That means you still have to add N to grow your corn next year, but not as much as if you did corn on corn. https://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.edu/2018/04/why-do-we-need-soybean-nitrogen-credit.html
Sometimes it’s important to pick nits. Parasitism and symbiosis are different.
Yes, the symbiont may have started as a parasite, and over time the host and symbiont co-evolve to be net beneficial to each other.
For example:
Rumen microflora and ruminants definitely have a symbiotic relationship. Haemonchus contortus is definitely a parasite.
As I said, net nitrogen fixation probably depends on the legume. Chick peas and faba beans increase the net soil nitrates, as per the link I provided to a NSW Department of Primary Industries fact sheet. It appears that soybeans don’t, which is interesting information.
“Meat,our most important source of nutrition”
You will be horrified to know that the ‘Plant Based Universities Campaign’ is active in more than 50 universities in the UK and so far student unions at Birmingham, University College London, Stirling, Queen Mary, Kent, London Metropolitan and Cambridge have voted to phase in 100% plant based menus. Cambridge removed beef and lamb from the menus of its 14 catering outlets in 2016, (I wonder if they have noted a decline in degree results since?)
Whilst they are not objecting to people bringing in their own meat and dairy food they want institutional divestment from meat and dairy.
When contemplating life, it is well remembered to bring along ALL your knowledge, that way you can more easily detect when your mind is forcing your brain to accept contradictory “facts”, which inevitably leads to insanity.
In this case your question should have included: How could poor nutrition cause lower grades, when the grades are now allocated according to your feelings about racial diversity and gender diaspora? Or are you still measuring academic achievement with racist and supremacist tools like mathematics and literacy?