Hence, low to intermediate levels of intensification may induce less habitat loss maintaining biodiversity at both farmlands and natural remnants, as well as maintain matrix permeability functionally connecting population inhabiting the habitat patches .Furthermore, to give a general idea of how these land-use dynamics may affect ecosystems services provision on the agricultural lands Figure 3 is the schematic representation of landscapes C, D, C’ and D’. “Natural habitat’ support adjacent agricultural areas with ecosystems services. Population numbers of ecosystems providing species is represented as animal figure sizes. lso, at intermediate levels of agriculture intensification, the matrix may act as a population source by serving as a feeding and reproductive site. Because permeability of intensive farming is low in C and D landscapes, natural capital may be only provided nearby the natural habitat border.Further, most species may not reproduce in the intensive matrixes although they might reproduce in non-intensive ones.
Finally, D landscapes may suffer from loss of ecosystem services due to the reduction of the populations inhabiting small habitat fragments coped with intensification of farm lands.On the other hand, intermediate levels of agriculture intensification in the matrix and yet maintaining significant amount of natural habitat may provide agricultural fields with ecosystems services.Because species importance is associated with their abundance, many groups that promote these ecosystems services my follow convex patterns in density and intensification relationship and thus may maintain large populations in intermediate levels of agriculture intensification . This review shows that the main premise of LSP—namely that increasing yield will reduce further habitat loss—is not supported either by theoretical or empirical data. Furthermore, flood and drain table a LSP business-as-usual strategy is predicted to increase habitat loss. Although it is clear that potential and realized yield gap should be narrowed,many countries have decreased hunger by investing on food access, sanitation education, health and so on through local and country scale food policies. Many of the studies have compared biodiversity and agricultural production under “intensive vs. non-intensive” management and “natural habitats”.
These studies assume that,depending on the species richness/abundance and yield shape, either LSP or LSH strategies will be more effective.Beyond the well-known concave and convex patterns, also U-shaped and null models are also possible.Furthermore, species responses alone are not sufficient to compare LSP and LSH efficiency, as the relationship between agriculture output, farm expansion/retraction and habitat loss is of ultimate importance. As intensification generally leads to increase habitat loss, even if species respond on a convex fashion, habitat loss and intensification may lead to population declines at both farmed and un-farmed portions, suggesting the low or even negative biological consequences of LSP management.Our theoretical model shows that the risks of Jevons Paradox in the yield-forest loss relationship to biodiversity and ecosystems services provision are multiple. Increasing intensification of farmlands: 1) increases natural habitat loss declining population inhabiting these small habitat patches especially in regions with less than 30%of habitat cover; 2) leads to population declines for species inhabiting the anthropogenic matrix ; 3) decreases permeability of the natural habitat dwelling species that are either crossing the matrix in dispersal movements or as a daily home range movement supplementing habitat.The situation is even worrisome in landscapes where “natural habitat” cover is lower than 30%, such as many biodiversity host spots . In such places, conservation strategies that support agricultural intensification may be a shoot on biodiversity’s feet and yet may not guarantee food security.
Both sparing and sharing assumes complex causal chains that involve biophysical, ecological and cultural world that transcends several scientific disciplines and many issues are still to be addressed . Yet, LSP practices may deeply impact biodiversity, ecosystems services, food security and social wellbeing leading to a no-win scenario, although, local and small scale LSP may work in specific situations. Therefore, by and large, LSH is a safer strategy from ecological and social aspects. This review shows that responses are very context-specific given the biological, land-use and societal issues. Pesticides are the substances or mixtures of substances that are used intentionally in order to control or destroy unwanted forms of life or organisms with the aim of protecting crops and plants . Using pesticides in agricultural production is one of the most important measures to help limit the reduction of agricultural output due to pests and diseases, helping to create a large amount of agricultural products at reasonable prices year round, meeting the growing needs of people around the world.