The Future for Conservation Biology Is Not More National Parks

Conservation biology is nothing but management of species, their habitat, how to protect the species. Human-species interaction, etc. Yes, it is true that the future of conservation is not more national parks. Basically, this deals with the matters of land sharing and land sparing.

Land sparing is setting aside of land for the purpose of conservation (national parks) from agricultural land (high intensity production and high yielding variety). While land sharing is food production combined with biodiversity conservation (low intensity production and low yielding variety). In the agricultural land for land sparing the farmers use pesticides and insecticides, due to which the invertebrate animals die because of the chemical components in it, this method is not sustainable. Whereas in land sharing farmers usually do not use any pesticides or insecticides in order to kill the pests. They depend on the invertebrates and bees for pollination and pest control services, this method is more sustainable. Land sharing and land sparing are two opposite ends of a pole, both of them have their own pros and cons, but the pros of land sharing over weighs its own cons better than land sparing. Being a conservationist, this pulls me more towards land sharing.

Considering the example of Kakadu National Park in northern territory of Australia, small mammals present in abundance reduced by 75% from 1995 to 2008. The park being a world heritage status it received an amount of $18 million in 2008-09, but majority of it went towards inrush of tourists which led to less availability of funds towards actual protection or conservation aspect of the national park (Flannery, 2012). Also, the introduction of water buffalos in 19h century led to the destruction of aquatic ecosystem within the park which in turn led to the culling of this animal which also had its adverse effects like the dry grass being unattended within the park leading to wildfires and demolition of the huge Allosyncarpia tree. This indicates that the animals or plant species present in the national park are not always safe and protected as the work done is not inevitably for the main objective but for the secondary purposes of the park.

According to Pressey & Ritchie (2014), the most areas covered by national parks or sanctuaries are either dying or dead. It means that the nutrients or the natural resources present in the land are very scarce or are extinct also the areas may be present in cold, arid climates and the morphological features not suitable for conservation. Even then the presence of these lands makes a little difference with regard to the result we intend and practically need to conserve species successfully. The measures taken to prevent the losses of the protected areas work negatively as the actual rate of losses is not known and is much higher. Hypothetically 100,000 acres of land of which 70% is covered by forests and wildlife. Now, human efforts lead to an annual increase of the forest area by 30%; on the other side the rate of deforestation is greater than 50% which actually makes the human efforts worthless.

In my native village of Dabil, in the state of Maharashtra, India my family owns around 100 acres of land which is primarily used for agriculture. Crops like rice, wheat, groundnuts, etc. are yielded and commercial tree plantations of cashew nuts, mangoes, jackfruit and different fruits are also part of this agricultural land.

Despite having so many varieties of crops and plants only about 50% of this land is used while the rest of it is naturally forested area which is an example of natural land sharing. Animals like wild Indian bison, wild pigs, rabbits, different bird species, snakes, elephants, porcupine, chameleon and also suspected tigers. The agricultural area is protected with the help of fences from the wildlife present in the forested area. Locals do not interfere with the wildlife and vice versa but on some occasion illegal hunting leads animals out the forest into the farms or human inhabited areas. A healthy rainfall, good amount vegetation and limited human interaction with this wildlife since a long time in history of this land proves that it is a good environment for land sharing.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

The current world population is approximately 8 billion. In order to fulfil the needs of the increasing population researchers are looking for a better way to carry out agricultural practices and maintaining the wildlife simultaneously. Many researchers believe that land sharing has great possibility for sustainable agriculture, it is a way of agriculture which is good for ecosystem and will not use up all the natural resources and hence the soil remains fertile for a long period of time. Hence food production increases resulting in abundant availability of food. According to researcher’s land sparing is beneficial for biodiversity conservation too (Borrell, 2014). Another example in support of land sharing is the European Union’s agri-environmental schemes compensate the loss of income by farmers that ease the dangerous intensification on biodiversity (Bosch, Kok, de Olde, 2017). National parks have their own rules and regulations to follow, so for researches to carry on some research in benefit of wildlife conservation is a big challenge because firstly they have to follow the norms and secondly at the current state of extinction carrying the research can be beneficial or not hence taking risk is a dilemma.

In my opinion, zoological parks like national parks are an example of land sparing as it a special set of land where different animal species are preserved alongside some plant species. As an intern last year at Rajiv Gandhi Zoological and Botanical Park in Pune I learned and realized many aspects of the zoo. In this form of land sparing, animals get used to the surroundings and culture of the zoological parks. During my time at the zoological park, I worked with tigers and leopards where I was tasked with observing the behavioral patterns of the animals. Despite being wild animals and hunting for their food, they were lethargic and unwilling to even walk around for food which forced the zoo keepers to feed them in order to keep them alive and healthy and prevent them from extinction. Using this opportunity, I tried to use some strategies like making the animals work for their food by hiding their food in different areas in their areas of display. But the attempts failed as the animals were too lazy to work for it. Another strategy I used, was to spray deer’s fecal matter in the area of display in the hope of attracting the animals and encourage them to move around. My observation was that these animals were too dependent on the humans to survive, and if left in the wild all by themselves they would suffer in finding their own food.

There are few major problems faces by national parks, the climatic changes due to global warming lead the animals residing in the national parks to migrate. But national park being a restricted area the animals are bounded to stay and face the harsh climatic conditions, which consequently lead to their suffering. Glacier national park, Montana is one of the examples as the glaciers are melting down. Water issues is also a crucial matter to look upon, as some national parks face drier conditions which leaves the animals with no water. Fresh water is used up more in big cities and national parks surrounding these cities have a scarcity of water. Great smoky mountain national parks are affected by air pollution because of power plant and smoke from the industries which travel towards the parks and is accumulated due to the mountains which in turn affects the acid levels of water and even the plants (‘Top 10 Issues’, 2010).

These are some of the factors which affect the animal and plant species present in the park adversely. The same problems may be faced by natural forests but the animal’s species are not controlled by any management which gives the animals the freedom to migrate, which is not an option in national parks. In Yellowstone National Park in 1920 a decision was made to cull grey wolves in order to save livestock, as a result grey wolves became one of the endangered species. In 1995 wild wolves were reintroduced into the park to bring back its glory, as the absence of wolves lead to a lot of drastic changes within the park. The park has not been restored completely but it is on a path of progress (Breyer, 2018). This is evident enough to prove us that in a series of good decisions can keep national parks on a right path at a slow pace but one bad decision can prove to be fatal causing big blunders. It is seen that the coffee plantation in Northern Latin America has an abundance of birds an insect species as compared to the forest nearby. It is observed that as the tree cover increases the specie abundance also increases. Tree cover is the area covered by the crown of the tree. Even by the slight change in the percentage of tree cover can affect the birds and insect species (Primack, 2010, pg.424). This is a good example of land sharing where areas of coffee plantation are shared with the birds and insects.

Dr. Akira Miyawaki is a Japanese botanist who invented the Miyawaki method which is helpful in restoration of tropical forests. This technique is a quick method of growing plants and maintaining them. Firstly, the seeds are germinated, moved and kept in a pot until it is filled with the roots. Secondly, the samplings are kept under 60% sunlight for next one to two months followed by 40% sunlight for next one or two months. Thirdly, the plants are kept in an existing forest for adaption of the natural environments for a period of one month. Lastly, the trees are maintained up to three years after which they are left alone for natural management. Seeds from these very plants are then obtained for repeating the process. As a result of this, Miyawaki method successfully begins the process of restoration in tropical forests also resulting in increase in biodiversity, decrease in soil erosion and return of small insects and soil animals which restore the natural cycle of the forest.

In conclusion, it can be said that land sharing weighs more than land sparing in the positive direction towards biodiversity conservation through the methods of sustainable agriculture, Miyawaki method, coffee plantations and better decision-making skills. Now that there are national parks, we cannot do anything about it, but to upgrade the infertile land structure we can use Miyawaki method for forest habitat restoration, and eventually wildlife will be more attracted to a healthy forest area. Measures should be taken for promoting land sharing among the citizens of this globe to increase its use and to reap its fruits. Using my personal experiences along with some other examples, land sharing is a better prospect than land sparing as it is more cost effective and a better way of protecting the endangered animal species while producing agricultural products on a large scale. Even for the increase in the population land sharing is proved to be the best method.