Grass, I, Loos, J, Baensch, S, et al. Land‐sharing/‐sparing connectivity landscapes... (2019)

Grass, I, Loos, J, Baensch, S, Batary, P., Librán-Embid, F., Ficiciyan, A., Klaus, F., Riechers, M., Rosa, J., Tiede, J., Udy, K., Westphal, C., Wurz, A., Tscharntke, T.
Land‐sharing/‐sparing connectivity landscapes for ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation
People Nat. 2019; 1: 262– 272.

The land‐sharing versus land‐sparing debate recently stagnated, lacking an integrating perspective in agricultural landscapes as well as consideration of ecosystem services. Here, we argue that land‐sharing (i.e. wildlife‐friendly farming systems) and land‐sparing (i.e. separation of high‐yielding agriculture and natural habitats) are not mutually exclusive, as both are needed to balance management needs for the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes.
Land‐sharing promotes ecosystem services in agricultural settings, thereby allowing for environmentally friendly production. Land set aside in protected areas by land‐sparing is crucial for conservation of those species that are incompatible with agriculture.
Importantly, as species move throughout the landscape and exploit different habitats, increased connectivity between environmentally friendly managed and protected areas is needed to (a) promote spillover of ecosystem service providers from land‐sharing/‐sparing measures to agricultural production and rescue service‐providing species from extinction in hostile areas, (b) to facilitate immigration and counteract possible extinctions in spared habitats and (c) to conserve response diversity of species communities for ensuring resilience of ecosystem services in changing environments.
In conclusion, the successful management of multifunctional landscapes requires the combination of context‐specific land‐sharing and land‐sparing measures within spatially well‐connected landscape mosaics, resulting in land‐sharing/‐sparing connectivity landscapes.