Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 791–803 | Cite as

Landscape makers and landscape takers: links between farming systems and landscape patterns along an intensification gradient

  • Paulo F. RibeiroEmail author
  • José L. Santos
  • Joana Santana
  • Luís Reino
  • Pedro J. Leitão
  • Pedro Beja
  • Francisco Moreira
Research Article



Agricultural intensification is a leading cause of landscape homogenization, with negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Conserving or promoting heterogeneity requires a detailed understanding of how farm management affects, and is affected by, landscape characteristics.


We assessed relationships between farming systems and landscape characteristics, hypothesising that less-intensive systems act as landscape takers, by adapting management to landscape constraints, whereas more intensive systems act as landscape makers, by changing the landscape to suit farming needs.


We mapped dominant farming systems in a region of southern Portugal: traditional cereal-grazed fallow rotations; specialization on annual crops; and specialization on either cattle or sheep. We estimated landscape metrics in 241 1-km2 buffers representing the farming systems, and analysed variation among and within systems using multivariate statistics and beta diversity metrics.


Landscape composition varied among systems, with dominance by either annual crops (Crop system) or pastures (Sheep), or a mixture between the two (Traditional and Cattle). There was a marked regional gradient of local landscape heterogeneity, but this contributed little to variation among systems. Landscape beta diversity declined from the Sheep to the Crop system, and it was inversely related to agriculture intensity.


Less intensive farming systems appeared compatible with a range of landscape characteristics (landscape takers), and may thus be particularly suited to agri-environmental management. More intensive systems appeared less flexible in terms of landscape characteristics (landscape makers), likely promoting regional homogenization. Farming systems may provide a useful standpoint to address the design of agri-environment schemes.


Agriculture intensification Agri-environment schemes Conservation Compositional heterogeneity Configurational heterogeneity Biodiversity Ecosystem services Farming systems Land use Mediterranean 



This study was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through projects PTDC/AGR-AAM/102300/2008 (FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-008701) and PTDC/BIA-BIC/2203/2012 (FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-028289) under FEDER funds through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness Factors—COMPETE and by National Funds through FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology, and grants to PFR (SFRH/BD/87530/2012), JS (SFRH/BD/63566/2009) and LR (SFRH/BPD/93079/2013). Program CIÊNCIA 2007 provided support to PB and FM. Agricultural statistics were provided by the Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas—IFAP I.P., Portuguese Ministry of Agriculture. We thank the Editor and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped improve the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10980_2015_287_MOESM1_ESM.docx (56 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 56 kb)


  1. Anderson MJ, Ellingsen KE, McArdle BH (2006) Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta diversity. Ecol Lett 9:683–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bamière L, Havlík P, Jacquet F, Lherm M (2011) Farming system modelling for agri-environmental policy design: the case of a spatially non-aggregated allocation of conservation measures. Ecol Econom 70:891–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bassa M, Boutin C, Chamorro L, Sans F (2011) Effects of farming management and landscape heterogeneity on plant species composition of Mediterranean field boundaries. Agric Ecosyst Environ 141:455–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassa M, Chamorro L, Sans FX (2012) Vegetation patchiness of field boundaries in the Mediterranean region: the effect of farming management and the surrounding landscape analysed at multiple spatial scales. Landsc Urban Plan 106:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bignal EM, McCracken DI (1996) Low-intensity systems in the conservation of the countryside. J Appl Ecol 33:413–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BirdLifeInternational (2004) Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife International. Accessed January 2015
  8. Brookfield HC (1972) Intensification and disintensification in Pacific Agriculture: a theoretical approach. Pac Viewp 13:30–48Google Scholar
  9. Brookfield HC (1993) Notes on the theory of land management. PLEC News Views 1:28–32Google Scholar
  10. Bugalho MN, Caldeira MC, Pereira JS, Aronson J, Pausas JG (2011) Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 9:278–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calvo-Iglesias MS, Fra-Paleo U, Diaz-Varela RA (2009) Changes in farming system and population as drivers of land cover and landscape dynamics: the case of enclosed and semi-openfield systems in Northern Galicia (Spain). Landsc Urban Plan 90:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carmona A, Nahuelhual L (2010) Linking farming systems to landscape change: an empirical and spatially explicit study in southern Chile. Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Concepción ED, Díaz M, Baquero RA (2007) Effects of landscape complexity on the ecological effectiveness of agri-environment schemes. Landscape Ecol 23:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deffontaines JP, Thenail C, Baudry J (1995) Agricultural systems and landscape patterns: how can we build a relationship? Landsc Urban Plan 31:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delgado A, Moreira F (2000) Bird assemblages of an Iberian cereal steppe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 78:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dietrich J, Schmitz C, Müller C (2010) Measuring agricultural land-use intensity. Paper presented at HAWEPA 2010 workshop in Halle, 28–29 JuneGoogle Scholar
  18. Dixon J, Gulliver A, Gibbon D (2001) Farming systems and poverty—Improving Farmers’ livelihoods in a changing World. FAO and The World Bank, Rome and Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Dorsey B (1999) Agricultural intensification, diversification, and commercial production among smallholder coffee growers in Central Kenya. Econ Geogr 75:178–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elkie P, Rempel R, Carr A (1999) Patch analyst user’s manual: a tool for quantifying landscape structure. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Science and Technology, Thunder BayGoogle Scholar
  22. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferraton N, Touzard I (2009) Comprendre l’agriculture familiale: diagnostic des systèmes de production, Quae. Les presse agronomique de Gembloux, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferreira M, Beja P (2013) Mediterranean amphibians and the loss of temporary ponds: are there alternative breeding habitats? Biol Conserv 165:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Friendly M, Fox J (2014) Package “candisc”. Visualizing generalized canonical discriminant and canonical correlation analysis. R package version 0.6-5. Available from (Accessed Aug 2014)
  26. IGP (2012) Carta de Ocupação do Solo—COS’ 90 (1:25,000). Portuguese Geographic Institute. Available from (Accessed 9 May 2012)
  27. Kaiser H (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 20:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kleijn D, Kohler F, Báldi A, Batáry P, Concepción ED, Clough Y, Díaz M, Gabriel D, Holzschuh A, Knop E, Kovács A, Marshall EJP, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J (2009) On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proc Biol Sci 276:903–909CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Lambin EF, Rounsevell MDA, Geist HJ (2000) Are agricultural land-use models able to predict changes in land-use intensity? Agric Ecosyst Environ 82:321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lomba A, Guerra C, Alonso J, Honrado JP, Jongman R, McCracken D (2014) Mapping and monitoring High Nature Value farmlands: challenges in European landscapes. J Environ Manage 143:140–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lomba A, Alves P, Jongman RHG, Mccracken DI (2015) Reconciling nature conservation and traditional farming practices : a spatially explicit framework to assess the extent of High Nature Value farmlands in the European countryside. Ecol Evol 5:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McDonald J (2009) Handbook of biological statistics. University of Delware, Sparky House Publishing, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  33. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General technical report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  34. Oñate JJJ, Atance I, Bardají I, Llusia D (2007) Modelling the effects of alternative CAP policies for the Spanish high-nature value cereal-steppe farming systems. Agric Syst 94:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Persson AS, Olsson O, Rundlöf M, Smith HG (2010) Land use intensity and landscape complexity—Analysis of landscape characteristics in an agricultural region in Southern Sweden. Agric Ecosyst Environ 136:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pointereau P, Doxa A, Coulon F, Jiguet F, Paracchini ML (2010) Analysis of spatial and temporal variations of High Nature Value farmland and links with changes in bird populations: a study on France. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, Joint Research Centre of the European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  37. Reboul C (1976) Mode de production et systèmes de culture et d’élevage. Économie Rural 112:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reino L, Porto M, Morgado R, Moreira F, Fabião A, Santana J, Delgado A, Gordinho L, Cal J, Beja P (2010) Effects of changed grazing regimes and habitat fragmentation on Mediterranean grassland birds. Agric Ecosyst Environ 138:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Revelle W (2014) Package “psych”: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. (Accessed Aug 2014)
  40. Ribeiro PF, Santos JL, Bugalho MN, Santana J, Reino L, Beja P, Moreira F (2014) Modelling farming system dynamics in High Nature Value Farmland under policy change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 183:138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roever C, Raabe N, Luebke K, Ligges U, Szepannek G, Zentgraf M (2014) Package “klaR”: Classification and visualization. R package version 0.6-12. Available from Accessed Aug 2014
  42. Rosário MS (2005) Margens Brutas Padrão—Triénio de 2000. Gabinete de Planeamento e Política Agro-Alimentar, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  43. Ruiz J, Domon G (2009) Analysis of landscape pattern change trajectories within areas of intensive agricultural use: case study in a watershed of southern Québec, Canada. Landscape Ecol 24:419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Santana J, Reino L, Stoate C, Borralho R, Carvalho CR, Schindler S, Moreira F, Bugalho MN, Ribeiro PF, Santos JL, Vaz A, Morgado R, Porto M, Beja P (2014) Mixed effects of long-term conservation investment in natura 2000 farmland. Conserv Lett 7:467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schindler S, Poirazidis K, Wrbka T (2008) Towards a core set of landscape metrics for biodiversity assessments: a case study from Dadia National Park, Greece. Ecol Indic 8:502–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schippers P, Van Der Heide CM, Peter H, Sterk M, Vos CC, Verboom J (2015) Landscape diversity enhances the resilience of populations, ecosystems and local economy in rural areas. Landscape Ecol 30:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stoate C, Boatman ND, Borralho RJ, Carvalho CR, de Snoo GR, Eden P (2001) Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. J Environ Manage 63:337–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, de Snoo GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C (2009) Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe—a review. J Environ Manage 91:22–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. R Development Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: R Found. Stat. Comput. (Accessed Feb 2014)
  50. Titus K, Mosher JA, Williams BK (1984) Chance-corrected classification for use in discriminant analysis: ecological applications. Am Midl Nat 111:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Turner BL, Doolittle WE (1978) The concept and measure of agricultural intensity. Prof Geogr 30:297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Venables W, Ripley B (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weihs C, Ligges U, Luebke K, Raabe N (2005) klaR Analyzing German Business Cycles. In: Baier D, Decker R, Schmidt-Thieme L (eds) Data analysis and decision support. Springer, Berlin, pp 335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo F. Ribeiro
    • 1
    Email author
  • José L. Santos
    • 1
  • Joana Santana
    • 2
  • Luís Reino
    • 2
  • Pedro J. Leitão
    • 3
  • Pedro Beja
    • 2
  • Francisco Moreira
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.CEF – Forest Research Centre, Higher Institute of AgronomyUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.EDP Biodiversity Chair, CIBIO/InBIO – Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of PortoVairãoPortugal
  3. 3.Geomatics Lab, Geography DepartmentHumboldt – Berlin UniversityBerlinGermany
  4. 4.REN Biodiversity Chair, CIBIO/InBIO - Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of PortoVairãoPortugal
  5. 5.CEABN/InBIO – Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, School of AgronomyUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations