"Can nature conservation and agriculture coexist?"

Is it possible to take care of agricultural areas so that they provide food for a growing human population and at the same time contribute to maintaining populations of wild animals and plants?

Dr. Assaf Rosenthal
In a world where three quarters of the land is directly affected by human activity and the rest of the land is affected by humanity indirectly such as by climate change - natural habitats are shrinking.

According to estimates: in the current century, about half of the animal and plant species will be extinct. This extinction will harm and even eliminate important parts of the Earth's life support systems and thus will also be a fatal injury to all environmental systems and the existence of human society as well. According to one of the researchers: "Until the next asteroid hits, the future of all life systems on Earth depends on people."

The question arises - is it possible to take care of agricultural areas so that they provide food for a growing human population and at the same time contribute to maintaining populations of wild animals and plants?

The accepted approach among conservationists is that a natural environment, habitat or migration routes that have been interrupted due to human activity prevent access to food sources, prevent the possibility of finding shelter or access to breeding areas and thus cause extinction. Based on this approach, a method was developed to estimate the number of species (or individuals) in fragmented areas compared to islands. The method is based on the "equilibrium theory of island biogeography" (The equilibrium theory of island biogeography). This method constitutes an outline and road map for the science of nature conservation, and following it the creation of nature reserves in an environment where human activity takes place.
According to this approach, the human environment - agricultural areas or settlements - is a hostile environment in which wild animals or plants have no possibility of existence.

The study of nature in the islands has a significant impact on nature conservation activities. The islands are considered isolated and in many cases undisturbed habitats. This is also the origin of the traditional reference to isolated (terrestrial) reserves or fragmented forest areas surrounded by agricultural areas or settlements. But it turns out that this reference and the comparison to islands (in the sea) is not justified, since settlements and agricultural areas are not a barrier like the sea and sometimes even the other way around. It turns out that under certain conditions, agricultural areas and gardens in settlements are a positive factor that spurs biological diversity in the environment.

In a study published in "Nature" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13139.html the researchers tested the "island theory" by comparing habitats in Costa Rica to islands who live in a similar climatic and geographical environment. The researchers showed that there is an alternative and effective method for assessing the ecological hazards in areas that have been modified by man.
According to the research, the human environment and especially agricultural fields are an important value for the existence of biological diversity. For example, when you calculate the biological value of a coffee plantation as zero, you make a mistake, because in an examination and a complete (holistic) approach of the "island theory" it turned out that agricultural areas have a much greater biological value than usual.
The test was done by comparing bat populations in fragmented areas in Costa Rica, compared to bat populations on islands in a large lake in Panama. At the same time and to support the research, about 30 studies on 700 species of bats were examined. It turned out that the "island theory" correctly predicted the damage to bats due to the cutting down of evergreen forests in the island system in Panama - the more the forests on the islands were cut down, the more bat species became extinct. But in the fragmented areas of Costa Rica the picture was much more positive, coffee plantations supported 18 bat species, and fragmented forests supported 25 species. In other words, the possibilities of nature conservation in equatorial regions depend directly on the correct management of agricultural (and other) areas.

When forests are cut down on islands, species are lost at a much higher rate than in rural areas on land. The researchers write: "A conservation policy in agricultural areas will be the important initiative on which the continuity of biological diversity depends." When referring to the "island theory" and comparing the agricultural areas to the sea, they discover that many species exist and regenerate in the "agricultural seas". In other words, even in areas that have been disturbed by people, a greater variety of species can be cultivated than expected.

The fate of many biological species is in the hands of people and depends more and more on areas that are "treated" with chemicals. Not only the biological diversity loses, people lose the services of nature and the environment such as water purification by forests and swamps, forestation of pests by birds and bats. The research findings emphasize the need for an approach that combines nature conservation and food production. For agricultural fields to be more "welcoming" to wildlife, the use of chemicals should be reduced, forest patches and other natural habitats should be preserved. It may be necessary to reward farmers so that they do not damage natural habitats.
If until now the "island theory" has been the main outline for conservation, then as a result of the research there is a different direction for the conservation policy, the "countryside biogeography theory" in an agricultural environment that will make up about half of the land surface and in which a system must be implemented that will allow the cycles of nature and the environment to continue to exist.

And after all that and yet I claim that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.