CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 732Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development

The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model

Open access
Perfecto, Ivette, Vandermeer, John·2010·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0905455107PMC PMC2851926
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Among the myriad complications involved in the current food crisis, the relationship between agriculture and the rest of nature is one of the most important yet remains only incompletely analyzed. Particularly in tropical areas, agriculture is frequently seen as the antithesis of the natural world, where the problem is framed as one of minimizing land devoted to agriculture so as to devote more to conservation of biodiversity and other ecosystem services. In particular, the “forest transition model” projects an overly optimistic vision of a future where increased agricultural intensification (to produce more per hectare) and/or increased rural-to-urban migration (to reduce the rural population that cuts forest for agriculture) suggests a near future of much tropical aforestation and higher agricultural production. Reviewing recent developments in ecological theory (showing the importance of migration between fragments and local extinction rates) coupled with empirical evidence, we argue that there is little to suggest that the forest transition model is useful for tropical areas, at least under current sociopolitical structures. A model that incorporates the agricultural matrix as an integral component of conservation programs is proposed. Furthermore, we suggest that this model will be most successful within a framework of small-scale agroecological production.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0905455107

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multiple-use landscapes and unprotected areas are important for species survival, especially where the existing protected area network does not entirely cover species' ranges and suitable habitats.

    “Multiple-use landscapes and unprotected areas are important for species survival (Gardner et al., ; Perfecto & Vandermeer, ), especially where the existing network of protected areas does not entirely cover species' ranges and suitable habitats; e.g. for some large mammalian carnivores (Forrest et al., ; Swanepoel et al., ) and migratory herbivores (Western et al., ).”

    From A mix of community-based conservation and protected forests is needed for the survival of the Endangered pygmy hippopotamus<i>Choeropsis liberiensis</i> (2017) · cites this paper as Perfecto & Vandermeer, 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. [1]Chen J. Legal mythmaking in a time of mass extinctions: Reconciling stories of origins with human destiny. Harv Environ Law Rev. 2005;29:279–319. [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Pfaff ASP. In: World Forests from Deforestation to Transition? Palo M, Vanhanen H, editors. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic; 2000. pp. 67–82. [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]Mather AS. The forest transition. Area. 1992;24:367–379. [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Mather AS, Needle CL. The forest transition: A theoretical basis. Area. 1998;30:117–124. [Google Scholar]
  5. [5]Mather AS. Forest transition theory and the reforesting of Scotland. Scott Geogr J. 2008;120:83–98. [Google Scholar]
  6. [6]Rudel TK. Is there a forest transition? Deforestation, reforestation and development. Rural Sociol. 1998;63:533–552. [Google Scholar]
  7. [7]Thomlison JR, Serrano MI, Lopez TM, Aide TM, Zimmerman JK. Land-use dynamics in a post-agricultural Puerto Rican landscape (1936–1988) Biotropica. 1996;28:525–536. [Google Scholar]
  8. [8]Grau HR, et al. The ecological consequences of socioeconomic and land-use changes in post-agriculture Puerto Rico. Bioscience. 2003;53:1159–1168. [Google Scholar]
  9. [9]Aide TM, Grau HR. Globalization, migration, and Latin American ecosystems. Science. 2004;305:1915–1916. doi: 10.1126/science.1103179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  10. [10]Mercano-Vega H, Aide TM, Báez B. Forest regeneration in abandoned coffee plantations and pastures in the Cordillera Central of Puerto Rico. Plant Ecol. 2002;161:75–87. [Google Scholar]
  11. [11]Wright JS, Muller-Landau HC. The future of tropical forest species. Biotropica. 2006;38:287–301. [Google Scholar]
  12. [12]Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A. Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science. 2005;307:550–555. doi: 10.1126/science.1106049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  13. [13]Borlaug NE. Ending world hunger. Plant Physiol. 2000;124:487–490. doi: 10.1104/pp.124.2.487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  14. [14]Vandermeer J. Notes on agroecosystem complexity: Chaotic price and production trajectories deducible from simple one-dimensional maps. Biol Agric Hortic. 1990;6:293–304. [Google Scholar]
  15. [15]Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D. In: Tradeoffs or Synergies? Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development and the Environment. Lee DR, Barrett CB, editors. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2001. pp. 89–114. [Google Scholar]
  16. [16]Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D. In: Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation. Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D, editors. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2001. pp. 383–402. [Google Scholar]
  17. [17]Kleinn C, Corrales L, Morales D. Forest area in Costa Rica: A comparative case study of tropical forest cover estimates over time. Environ Monit Assess. 2002;73:17–40. doi: 10.1023/a:1012659129083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  18. [18]Rodríguez JM. Final Report: Forest, Payment for Environmental Services and Forest Industries (Informe Final: Bosque, Pago de Servicios Ambientales e Industria Foresta) San José, Costa Rica: Comisión Nacional de Rectores and Defensoria de los Habitantes; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  19. [19]Klooster D. Forest transitions in Mexico: Institutions and forests in a globalized countryside. Prof Geogr. 2003;55:227–237. [Google Scholar]
  20. [20]Roebeling P, Ruben R. In: Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation. Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D, editors. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2001. pp. 135–154. [Google Scholar]
  21. [21]Holden S. In: Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation. Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D, editors. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2001. pp. 251–270. [Google Scholar]
  22. [22]Schelhas J, Sánchez-Azofeifa GA. Post-frontier change adjacent to Braulio Carrillo National Park, Costa Rica. Hum Ecol. 2006;34:407–431. [Google Scholar]
  23. [23]Bilsborrow ER, Carr DL. In: Tradeoffs or Synergies? Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development and the Environment. Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D, editors. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2001. pp. 35–55. [Google Scholar]
  24. [24]Rudel TK, Bates D, Machinguishi R. A tropical forest transition? Agricultural change, out-migration, and secondary forests in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2002;92:87–102. [Google Scholar]
  25. [25]Hecht SB, Saatchi SS. Globalization and forest resurgence: Changes in forest cover in El Salvador. Bioscience. 2007;57:663–672. [Google Scholar]
  26. [26]Sloan S. Fewer people may not mean more forest for Latin American forest frontiers. Biotropica. 2007;39:443–446. [Google Scholar]
  27. [27]Izquierdo AE, De Angelo CD, Aide MT. Thirty years of human demography and land-use change in the Atlantic forest of Missiones, Argentina: An evaluation of the forest transition model. Ecol Soc. 2008;13:3. [Google Scholar]
  28. [28]Garcia-Barrios L, et al. Neotropical forest conservation, agricultural intensification, and rural out-migration: The Mexican experience. Bioscience. 2009;59:863–873. [Google Scholar]
  29. [29]Schmink M. In: Population and Environment: Rethinking the Debate. Arizpe L, Stone MP, Major DC, editors. Bolder, CO: Westview; 1994. pp. 253–275. [Google Scholar]
  30. [30]Hecht S. The new rurality: Globalization, peasants and the paradoxes of landscapes. Land Use Policy. 2010;27:161–169. [Google Scholar]
  31. [31]Brockington D. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve. Oxford: James Currey; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  32. [32]Brechin S, Wilshusen P, Fortwangler C, West P, editors. Contested Nature: Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty-First Century. Albany: State University Press of New York; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  33. [33]Perfecto I, Vandermeer J. Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems: A new conservation paradigm. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1134:173–200. doi: 10.1196/annals.1439.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  34. [34]Perfecto I, Vandermeer J. Nature's Matrix: Conservation, Agriculture and Food Sovereignty. London: Earthscan; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  35. [35]Levins R. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am. 1969;15:237–240. [Google Scholar]
  36. [36]Nee S. How populations persist. Nature. 1994;367:123–124. [Google Scholar]
  37. [37]Nee S, May RM, Hassell MP. In: Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. Hanski I, Gilpin M, editors. London: Academic; 1996. pp. 123–146. [Google Scholar]
  38. [38]Kareiva P, Wennergren U. Connecting landscape patterns to ecosystem and population processes. Nature. 1995;373:299–302. [Google Scholar]
  39. [40]Amarasekare P. Allee effects in metapopulation dynamics. Am Nat. 1998;152:298–302. doi: 10.1086/286169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  40. [41]Lawton JH, Nee S, Letcher AJ, Harvey PJ. In: Large-Scale Ecology and Conservation Biology. Edwards PJ, May RM, Webb NR, editors. Oxford: Blackwell; 1994. pp. 41–58. [Google Scholar]
  41. [42]Perfecto I, Rice R, Greenberg R, Van der Voolt M. Shade coffee as refuge of biodiversity. Bioscience. 1996;46:589–608. [Google Scholar]
  42. [43]Ricketts TH. The matrix matters: Effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat. 2001;158:87–99. doi: 10.1086/320863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  43. [44]Vandermeer J, Carvajal R. Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat. 2001;158:211–220. doi: 10.1086/321318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  44. [45]Perfecto I, Vandermeer J. The quality of the agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: Ants in coffee plantations in southern Mexico. Conserv Biol. 2002;16:174–182. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99536.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  45. [46]Luck GW, Daily GC. Tropical countryside bird assemblages: Richness, composition, and foraging differ by landscape context. Ecol Appl. 2003;13:235–247. [Google Scholar]
  46. [47]Dauber J, et al. Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: Matrix effects on species richness. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2003;98:321–329. [Google Scholar]
  47. [48]Donald PF, Evans AD. Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: The wider implications of agri-environment schemes. J Appl Ecol. 2006;43:209–218. [Google Scholar]
  48. [49]Jha S, Dick CW. Shade coffee farms promote genetic diversity of native trees. Curr Biol. 2008;18:1126–1128. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.11.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  49. [50]Vandermeer J, Perfecto I, Philpott SM, Chappell MJ. In: Evaluation and Conservation of Biological Diversity in Fragmented Landscapes of Mesoamerica (Evaluación y Conservación de la Biodiversidad en Paisajes Fragmentados en Mesoamerica) Saenz J, Harvey C, editors. Heredia: Editorial de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Costa Rica; 2008. pp. 75–104. [Google Scholar]
  50. [51]Leibold MA, Miller TE. In: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution of Metapopulations. Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press; 2004. pp. 133–150. [Google Scholar]
  51. [52]Fischer M, Stöcklin J. Local extinctions of plants in remnants of extensively used calcareous grasslands 1950–1985. Conserv Biol. 1997;11:727–737. [Google Scholar]
  52. [53]Kéry M. Extinction rate estimates for plant populations in revisitation studies: Importance of detectability. Conserv Biol. 2004;18:570–574. [Google Scholar]
  53. [54]Matthies D, Bräuer I, Maibom W, Tscharntke T. Population size and the risk of local extinction: Empirical evidence from rare plants. Oikos. 2004;105:481–488. [Google Scholar]
  54. [55]Wilsey BJ, Martin LM, Polley HW. Predicting plant extinction based on species-area curves in prairie fragments with high β richness. Conserv Biol. 2005;19:1835–1841. [Google Scholar]
  55. [56]Williams NSG, Morgan JW, McDonnell MJ, McCarthy MA. Plant traits and local extinctions in natural grasslands along an urban-rural gradient. J Ecol. 2005;93:1203–1213. [Google Scholar]
  56. [57]Foufopoulos J, Ives AR. Reptile extinctions on land-bridge islands: Life-history attributes and vulnerability to extinction. Am Nat. 1999;153:1–25. doi: 10.1086/303149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  57. [58]Bolger DT, Alberts AC, Soulé ME. Occurrence patterns of bird species in habitat fragments: Sampling, extinction, and nested species subsets. Am Nat. 1991;137:155–166. [Google Scholar]
  58. [59]Helm A, Hanski I, Partel M. Slow response of plant species richness to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol Lett. 2006;9:72–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00841.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  59. [60]Brooks TM, Pimm SL, Oyugi JO. Time lag between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conserv Biol. 1999;13:1140–1150. [Google Scholar]
  60. [61]Janzen DH. Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests. Am Nat. 1970;104:501–528. [Google Scholar]
  61. [62]Connell JH. In: Dynamic Populations. den Boer PJ, Gradwell GR, editors. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation; 1971. pp. 298–312. [Google Scholar]
  62. [63]Hyatt LA, et al. The distance dependence prediction of the Janzen-Connell hypothesis: A meta-analysis. Oikos. 2003;503:590–602. [Google Scholar]
  63. [64]Vandermeer J, Perfecto I, Philpott SM. Clusters of ant colonies and robust criticality in a tropical agroecosystem. Nature. 2008;451:457–459. doi: 10.1038/nature06477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  64. [65]Rooney TP, Wiegmann SM, Rogers DA, Waller DM. Biotic impoverishment and homogenization in unfragmented forest understory communities. Conserv Biol. 2004;18:787–798. [Google Scholar]
  65. [66]Werner EE, Yurewicz KL, Skelly DK, Relyea RA. Turnover in an amphibian metacommunity: The role of local and regional factors. Oikos. 2007;116:1713–1725. [Google Scholar]
  66. [67]Cornia GA. Farm size, land yields and the agricultural production function: An analysis for fifteen developing countries. World Dev. 1985;13:131–145. [Google Scholar]
  67. [68]Sen A. Economic Weekly. 1962. An aspect of Indian agriculture; pp. 243–246. February. [Google Scholar]
  68. [69]Carter MR. Identification of the inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: An empirical analysis of peasant agricultural production. Oxf Econ Pap. 1984;36:131–145. [Google Scholar]
  69. [70]Posey DA. Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems: The case of the Kayapó Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agrofor Syst. 1985;3:139–158. [Google Scholar]
  70. [71]McBratney A, Whelan B, Ancev T, Bouma J. Future directions of precision agriculture. Precis Agric. 2005;6:7–23. [Google Scholar]
  71. [72]Badgley C, et al. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew Agric Food Syst. 2007;22:86–108. [Google Scholar]
  72. [73]Stanhill G. The comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1990;30:1–26. [Google Scholar]
  73. [74]Uphoff N. Higher yields with fewer external inputs? The system of rice intensification and potential contributions to agricultural sustainability. Int J Agric Sustain. 2003;1:38–50. [Google Scholar]
  74. [75]Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Douds D, Seidel R. Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience. 2005;55:573–582. [Google Scholar]
  75. [76]Naerstad A. Africa Can Feed Itself. Oslo: The Development Fund; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  76. [77]UNCTAD-UNEP . Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity-Building Taskforce on Trade, Environment and Development. New York and Geneva: United Nations; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  77. [78]Pimentel D. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. Boca Raton, FL: CRC; 1980. [Google Scholar]
  78. [79]Altieri MA. Applying agroecology to enhance the productivity of peasant farming systems in Latin America. Environ Dev Sustain. 1999;1:197–217. [Google Scholar]
  79. [80]Dalgaard T, Helberg N, Porter JN. A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2001;87:51–65. [Google Scholar]
  80. [81]Reganold JP, Glover JD, Andrews PK, Hinman HR. Sustainability of three apple production systems. Nature. 2001;410:926–930. doi: 10.1038/35073574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  81. [82]International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development . In: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: The Synthesis Report. McIntyre BD, Herren HR, Wakhungu J, Watson RT, editors. Washington, DC: Island; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  82. [83]Food and Agriculture Organization Organic Agriculture and Food Availability. 2007 International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security, May 3–5, 2007, Rome. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2010-03-25
Volume
107
Issue
13
Pages
5786-5791
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0905455107
PMC
PMC2851926
OpenAlex
W1981291618
Cited by
732
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 56
FWCI
38.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Keywords
agricultural intensification, tropical agriculture, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, forest fragmentation, local extinction, rural-urban migration, food crisis
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Conservation of Natural Resources, Food Supply, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Rural Population, Trees, Tropical Climate, Urbanization, Ecosystem, Crops, Agricultural, Biodiversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review