Today, global food production is the largest driver of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss (Willett et al. 2019). Rising global food demand and limited arable land are pushing us to expand agricultural frontiers and production. This often happens without regard to the environment, causing biodiversity loss, land and water degradation (Bioversity International 2017) Climate change is accelerating biodiversity loss. Higher temperatures disrupt pollination and natural pest control, affecting food quality (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN 2017).Equally, the need to feed an additional 2 billion people by 2050 is pushing us to increase yields in a few staple foods, which erodes food and genetic diversity. Biodiversity loss in food systems leaves farmers with fewer options to deal with risks of crop failure, declining soil fertility, or increasingly variable weather (Bioversity International 2017), causing production losses, food insecurity and malnutrition(FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP WHO 2018).The way we produce and consume our food is hurting both people and the planet. This calls upon all of us, from governments to producers to consumers, to put biodiversity back into food (World Economic Forum (WEF) 2017).Food and - more broadly - agricultural biodiversity are essential for sustainable food systems. Agrobiodiversity boosts productivity and nutrition quality, increases soil and water quality, and reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers. It makes farmers’ livelihoods more resilient, reducing yield losses due to climate change and pest damage. Broadening the types of cultivated plants also benefits the environment, increasing the abundance of pollinators and beneficial soil organisms, and reducing the risk of pest epidemics.To sustainably use and conserve agrobiodiversity, governments need dedicated, multi-sectoral and evidence-based policies and strategies. From smallholder farmers to multinational companies, food producers are becoming increasingly important in conserving genetic resources and adopting sustainable agricultural practices. Consumers need to become more aware of the impact of their food choices on the planet and their role in preserving the environment.What actions do we need to put in place to make change happen? To answer, we need to be able to measure biodiversity in food systems. While decades of effort have advanced our understanding of sustainable food systems, biodiversity data remain uneven and oftentimes information is analyzed from sectoral perspectives (i.e.: production, consumption or conservation). To transform food systems, we need to look at the broader picture and understand the systemic linkages between biodiversity, food security and nutrition, agricultural production, and the environment.Bioversity International has developed the Agrobiodiversity Index, an innovative tool that brings together existing data on diets and markets, production and genetic resources, analyzing them under the lens of agricultural biodiversity (Bioversity International 2018). Through open access to agricultural biodiversity data for science and society, the tool crosses disciplinary boundaries and allows users to monitor biodiversity trends in food systems. In particular, it helps food systems actors to measure agrobiodiversity in a selected area or value chain, and understand to what extent their commitments and actions are contributing to its sustainable use and conservation.This user-friendly tool equips food systems actors with the data needed to make informed decisions. For example, it helps governments to formulate evidence-based agricultural, health and food policies and strategies to address today’s global challenges, by providing information on how biological and geographical diversity influence food systems sustainability. Through the Index, companies can understand how to diversify their supply chain and production to reduce risks, and what are the best agricultural practices for their agro-ecological zone. The tool can thereby support best practices dissemination, and track progress towards global goals related to agrobiodiversity, including Sustainable Development Goals 3, 12, 13, 15 and Aichi targets 7.

In recent years consumers’ concerns regarding the environmental impact of food production has significantly increased, also due to food sustainability, food safety and food security issues. A number of certification systems for environmental-friendly products have been created e.g. water-saving labels and fishery sustainable labels. Among various environmental issues, the protection of biodiversity has recently gained popularity both in public opinion and in scientific debate. This paper describes the results of a Choice Experiment on wine consumers to estimate their willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation practices in vineyards. The survey was conducted by direct interviews at a wine tasting event in an Italian winery located at Montefano (Marche). The results show that consumers are willing to pay a premium price for wine certification that takes into account biodiversity not only for medium-high price wines, but also for low-price wines. Finally, quality of wine and organic certification remain important attributes in wine purchasing choices related to expensive wines.

Today, global food production is the largest driver of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss (Willett et al. 2019). Rising global food demand and limited arable land are pushing us to expand agricultural frontiers and production. This often happens without regard to the environment, causing biodiversity loss, land and water degradation (Bioversity International 2017) Climate change is accelerating biodiversity loss. Higher temperatures disrupt pollination and natural pest control, affecting food quality (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN 2017). Equally, the need to feed an additional 2 billion people by 2050 is pushing us to increase yields in a few staple foods, which erodes food and genetic diversity. Biodiversity loss in food systems leaves farmers with fewer options to deal with risks of crop failure, declining soil fertility, or increasingly variable weather (Bioversity International 2017), causing production losses, food insecurity and malnutrition(FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP WHO 2018). The way we produce and consume our food is hurting both people and the planet. This calls upon all of us, from governments to producers to consumers, to put biodiversity back into food (World Economic Forum (WEF) 2017). Food and - more broadly - agricultural biodiversity are essential for sustainable food systems. Agrobiodiversity boosts productivity and nutrition quality, increases soil and water quality, and reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers. It makes farmers’ livelihoods more resilient, reducing yield losses due to climate change and pest damage. Broadening the types of cultivated plants also benefits the environment, increasing the abundance of pollinators and beneficial soil organisms, and reducing the risk of pest epidemics. To sustainably use and conserve agrobiodiversity, governments need dedicated, multi-sectoral and evidence-based policies and strategies. From smallholder farmers to multinational companies, food producers are becoming increasingly important in conserving genetic resources and adopting sustainable agricultural practices. Consumers need to become more aware of the impact of their food choices on the planet and their role in preserving the environment. What actions do we need to put in place to make change happen? To answer, we need to be able to measure biodiversity in food systems. While decades of effort have advanced our understanding of sustainable food systems, biodiversity data remain uneven and oftentimes information is analyzed from sectoral perspectives (i.e.: production, consumption or conservation). To transform food systems, we need to look at the broader picture and understand the systemic linkages between biodiversity, food security and nutrition, agricultural production, and the environment. Bioversity International has developed the Agrobiodiversity Index, an innovative tool that brings together existing data on diets and markets, production and genetic resources, analyzing them under the lens of agricultural biodiversity (Bioversity International 2018). Through open access to agricultural biodiversity data for science and society, the tool crosses disciplinary boundaries and allows users to monitor biodiversity trends in food systems. In particular, it helps food systems actors to measure agrobiodiversity in a selected area or value chain, and understand to what extent their commitments and actions are contributing to its sustainable use and conservation. This user-friendly tool equips food systems actors with the data needed to make informed decisions. For example, it helps governments to formulate evidence-based agricultural, health and food policies and strategies to address today’s global challenges, by providing information on how biological and geographical diversity influence food systems sustainability. Through the Index, companies can understand how to diversify their supply chain and production to reduce risks, and what are the best agricultural practices for their agro-ecological zone. The tool can thereby support best practices dissemination, and track progress towards global goals related to agrobiodiversity, including Sustainable Development Goals 3, 12, 13, 15 and Aichi targets 7.

Increasing food production without further harming biodiversity is a key challenge of contemporary societies. In this paper, we assess trade-offs between agricultural output and two key agri-environmental indicators in four contrasting scenarios for Europe in 2040. The scenarios represent different storylines encompassing assumptions on macro-economic drivers (e.g. population and GDP growth rate), demand for food and livestock products as well as policy choices on trade liberalisation/protectionism, biodiversity conservation, regulations on land-use planning and subsidies to farmers through the European Union (EU) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Through a complex modelling chain, we projected for the year 2040: i) the total energy content of agricultural output; ii) the total nitrogen surplus, a proxy of the overall impact of agriculture on the environment; and iii) an index measuring the capacity of agricultural systems to support biodiversity. We present both aggregate results (EU level) and spatially explicit assessments at a fine resolution (1 km2). Results indicate that a strong neo-liberal approach to agriculture (full liberalisation, abolition of subsides) will lead to increased use-input efficiency and decrease of impact from Nitrogen input; however, a large amount of agricultural area in Europe will be abandoned, which will lead to an absolute decrease in production and increased land homogenisation and polarisation, with negative effects on the capacity of agricultural areas to support biodiversity. Protectionist and sovereigntist policies will keep absolute production and cultivated area high, but at the cost of less efficiency in the use of inputs and higher impacts on the environment and biodiversity. Under a scenario characterised by environmental-friendly practices, multifunctional landscapes and localism, significant decreases in the environmental pressure of agriculture (compared to other scenarios) can be achieved with minimum decrease in agricultural output. Our results indicate that agricultural and land-use policies aiming at preserving production over large rural areas, multifunctionality and diversification of agricultural landscapes can contribute to the jointly achievement of biodiversity protection and high food production.

The activities developed in forest environments such as deforestation, logging, implementation of farming systems and monocultures, together with the advance in soybean production, increase the anthropogenic effects caused by changes to the environment in the so-called "Deforestation Arc". The withdrawal of native forests leads directly to losses in biodiversity, however, some measures of natural resource management can be taken to mitigate the deleterious effects, such as the planting of mixed stands. This management is developed through the planting of tree species, native and / or exotic, in a consortium. Strategically, the application of these systems can favor with the maintenance and even with the increase of biodiversity, as these block the perpetuation of edge effects, and often provide high availability of food resources when compared to monoculture systems. In this context, we evaluated by means of photographic traps the presence of said fauna in the altered environments. The fauna present in these environments performs physiological and behavioral activities and consequently maintain the environmental dynamics, through the dispersion of seeds brought from adjacent forest habitats. The present study was carried out in southern Amazonia, in the municipality of Cotriguaçu, Mato Grosso, Brazil, in order to verify the use of the environment managed by teak intercropping (Tectona grandis L. f.) With 10 other native species of the region. In this way reforestation areas can contribute to the conservation of forest species, reducing the impact of edge effect over time, providing the mammals and others, and can contribute to the conservation of these species, as they function as relaxation zones, where environmentally friendly animals no longer compete for natural resources in native forest environments, thus complementing their ecological demands.

Experimental exclosure of birds and bats constitutes a powerful tool to study the impacts of wildlife on pests and crop yields in agricultural systems. Though widely utilized, exclosure experiments are not standardized across studies. Indeed, key differences surrounding the design, materials, and protocols for implementing field-based exclosure experiments of flying vertebrates increase heterogeneity across studies, and limit our understanding of biodiversity-friendly land use management. We reviewed the available literature on studies in which bird and bat exclosures were applied to study pest control in agricultural settings, and isolated 30 studies from both tropical and temperate land use systems, involving 12 crop types across 14 countries. Focusing on exclosure effects on crop yield, we analyzed effect detectability for a subset of suitable data. We then analyzed the potential of exclosure methods and possible extensions to improve our understanding of complex food webs and ecosystem services affecting the productivity of agricultural systems. While preferences exist in materials (e.g., nylon nets and bamboo frames), experimental exclosure studies of birds and bats differed greatly in their respective design, related costs, and effort — limiting the generalization and transferability of results at larger spatial scales. Most studies were based on experiments conducted in the United States and the Neotropics, mainly in coffee and cacao farms. A lack of preliminary or long-term data with repeated measurements makes it impossible to apply power analysis in most studies. Common constraints include, among other things, the choice of material and experimental duration, as well as the consideration of local versus landscape factors. We discuss such limitations, related common pitfalls, and options for optimization to inform improved planning, design, and execution of exclosure studies. By doing so, we aim to promote more comparable and transferable approaches in future field research on biodiversity-mediated ecosystem services.

Experimental exclosure of birds and bats constitutes a powerful tool to study the impacts of wildlife on pests and crop yields in agricultural systems. Though widely utilized, exclosure experiments are not standardized across studies. Indeed, key differences surrounding the design, materials, and protocols for implementing field-based exclosure experiments of flying vertebrates increase heterogeneity across studies, and limit our understanding of biodiversity-friendly land use management. We reviewed the available literature on studies in which bird and bat exclosures were applied to study pest control in agricultural settings, and isolated 30 studies from both tropical and temperate land use systems, involving 12 crop types across 14 countries. Focusing on exclosure effects on crop yield, we analyzed effect detectability for a subset of suitable data. We then analyzed the potential of exclosure methods and possible extensions to improve our understanding of complex food webs and ecosystem services affecting the productivity of agricultural systems. While preferences exist in materials (e.g., nylon nets and bamboo frames), experimental exclosure studies of birds and bats differed greatly in their respective design, related costs, and effort — limiting the generalization and transferability of results at larger spatial scales. Most studies were based on experiments conducted in the United States and the Neotropics, mainly in coffee and cacao farms. A lack of preliminary or long-term data with repeated measurements makes it impossible to apply power analysis in most studies. Common constraints include, among other things, the choice of material and experimental duration, as well as the consideration of local versus landscape factors. We discuss such limitations, related common pitfalls, and options for optimization to inform improved planning, design, and execution of exclosure studies. By doing so, we aim to promote more comparable and transferable approaches in future field research on biodiversity-mediated ecosystem services.

The most common words associated with sustainability are “environment,” “social,” and “economic.” Thus, sustainability is a holistic concept that jointly considers ecological, social, and economic dimensions of a system or intervention for long-lasting prosperity. Experience shows that economic development at the cost of ecology does not last; therefore, it is critical to harmonize ecology with development. This also applies to livestock systems, which should be economically viable for farmers, environmentally friendly or at least neutral, and socially acceptable in order to be considered sustainable. There are different types of livestock production systems, depending on availability of resources, environmental conditions, and social and economic contexts, and they vary considerably in sustainability. These livestock systems include the grassland-based extensive systems, intensive landless systems, and mixed farming systems among others. These systems contribute significantly to human nutrition and livelihoods and provide important ecosystem services. However, if not properly managed, they can also cause nutrient and environmental pollution and land degradation. With increasing global awareness about climate change and studies indicating that livestock is one of the contributors to greenhouse gases, environmental degradation, and loss of biodiversity, various concerted efforts have been aimed at developing and or ensuring the sustainability of livestock systems that deliver economic and ecosystems services without compromising the future integrity, health, and welfare of the environment, humans, and animals. Increasing competition for the requisite resources for feed and food production, especially under more intensive livestock production systems, has raised concerns about the economic and environmental sustainability of some livestock production systems. Feed production and processing, and enteric fermentation of feed contribute to 45% and 39%, respectively, of the total emissions from agriculture (Steinfeld et al., 2006). About 90% of livestock emissions are produced by ruminants through enteric fermentation (188 million tons) and the remaining 10% from manure (Swamy and Bhattacharya, 2006). In addition, inadequately managed livestock production systems may cause negative environmental consequences such as eutrophication in intensive high input systems, overgrazing, and soil and rangeland degradation in extensive systems and negative human health outcomes. Even though inadequately managed livestock systems may have adverse effects on the environment, widely quoted statistics about their contribution are misleading. Most do not reflect the diversity of livestock production systems nor differences between production systems dominant in various countries even for a given species. For instance, an often-cited statistic is that livestock contribute 18% of greenhouse gases globally (Steinfeld et al., 2006), more than that for the transportation industry, but that analysis is incorrect and has been corrected by the authors (Mottet and Steinfeld, 2018). Moreover, interventions can help reduce the carbon footprint of livestock production, while improving productivity. For example, with improved management and feeding strategies, the carbon footprint per billion kilograms of beef produced in 2007 was reduced by 16.3% compared with equivalent beef production in 1977 (Capper, 2011). When comparing greenhouse gas emissions of various livestock production systems, it is critical to take the need for environmental stewardship as well as food security into account to ensure the sustainability of the system. An index which takes both into account is the emissions intensity measure, which relates greenhouse gas emissions to food produced by the system. This important index shows that methane production per unit of food produced in several low- and middle-income countries is much greater than in some developed countries (Figure 1). This does not imply that the production systems in the developed countries should be copied entirely by low- and middle-income countries; rather, each country should evaluate and implement the aspects of developed country production systems that will sustainably intensify their production systems and thereby increase food production while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Open in a separate window Figure 1. Regional variation in greenhouse gas emission intensities. Reprinted with permission from “Tackling climate change through livestock—A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities” (Gerber et al., 2013).

Agroforestry systems are widely extolled as a biodiversity-friendly alternative to food and wood production. However, few studies on large-vertebrates in the tropics consistently support this assumption. In the Amazonian ‘arch of deforestation’, commodity cropland and pastures for beef production have relentlessly replaced native forests. Agroforestry should therefore be both economically profitable and a more wildlife-friendly land-use alternative. Here we assess the local abundance and habitat use by forest primates and ungulates in a landscape mosaic containing large areas of primary forest and teak (Tectona grandis) agroforestry. We focused on animals of these groups because they have similar day ranges and home ranges, and are at the same trophic level. We surveyed 12 transects in both of these environments, totalling 485 km walked. We recorded four ungulate (Tayassu pecari, Pecari tajacu, Mazama americana, and Tapirus terrestris) and seven primate species (Ateles chamek, Lagothrix cana, Sapajus apella, Saimiri ustus, Chiropotes albinasus, Plecturocebus cf. moloch and Mico cf. emiliae). We indicate the importance of a species-level approach to evaluate the contribution of agroforests to population persistence. Large-bodied atelids, which are ripe-fruit-pulp specialists, were never recorded in teak agroforest. Sakis were more common in primary forest, while the smallest faunivore-frugivores had similar sighting rates in both environments. Ungulates exhibited subtler differences in their use of space than primates, but their sighting rates and track counts indicated temporal niche partition. White-lipped peccaries and red brocket deer were the only ungulates more frequently recorded in primary forest areas. Teak agroforestry still harbours some large and midsized frugivores, which may contribute with some biotic ecosystem services if their patches are connected to primary tropical forests. However, teak agroforestry should not be used to justify population subsidies for all Amazonian forest vertebrate species, since at least some threatened species clearly avoid forest stands dominated by this fast-growing exotic tree.