, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 820–824 | Cite as

Integration of Land-Sharing and Land-Sparing Conservation Strategies Through Regional Networking: The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor as a Lifeline for Carnivores in El Salvador

  • Silvio J. Crespin
  • Jorge E. García-Villalta


Nations with little remaining natural habitat and small extent are challenged when trying to achieve biodiversity targets. We show that the Central American nation of El Salvador cannot viably sustain populations of 87 % of its extant carnivores, especially in the case of large-bodied species with low population densities. Current land-sparing strategies will not suffice; therefore we propose that land-sharing strategies be implemented in tandem with protected areas to expand current conservation efforts via new regional networks. In Central America such a network can be established by linking international protected area systems in a way that implements the existing vision for the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. Specifically, we propose a re-envisioning of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in which land-sharing practices are adopted throughout the agricultural matrix while ensuring formal protection of the remaining natural habitat. Such an integration of land-sparing and land-sharing could result in the creation of an effective network of protected areas, thereby increasing the probability of safeguarding species with populations that overlap national borders.


International cooperation Conservation networking Conservation targets Agro-productive matrix Spatial requirements 



S.J.C. is a fellow of the Chilean International Cooperation Agency (AGCI), as well as fellow of the Faculty of Science, University of Chile. Their support is appreciated. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for careful reading of our manuscript and insightful suggestions which helped improve the quality.


  1. Ankersen, T.T. 1994. Mesoamerican biological corridor: The legal framework for an integrated, regional system of protected areas. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 9: 499–550.Google Scholar
  2. CCAD (Central American Commission on Environment and Development). 2002. Mesoamerican biological corridor: A platform for sustainable development. Technical Series 02, Proyecto Corredor Biologico Mesoamericano, Managua, Nicaragua.Google Scholar
  3. Cervantes, F.A., J. Loredo, and J. Vargas. 2002. Abundance of sympatric skunks (Mustelidae: Carnivora) in Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18: 463–469. doi: 10.1017/S0266467402002328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi targets. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from–2020/Aichi-Targets-EN.pdf.
  5. Fischer, J., B. Brosi, G.C. Daily, P.R. Ehrlich, R. Goldman, J. Goldstein, D.B. Lindemayer, A.D. Manning, et al. 2008. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 380–385. doi: 10.1890/070019.
  6. Fischer, J., P. Batáry, K.S. Bawa, L. Brussaard, M.J. Chappell, Y. Clough, G.C. Daily, J. Dorrough, et al. 2011. Conservation: Limits of land sparing. Science 334: 593. doi: 10.1126/science.334.6056.593-a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grau, R., T. Kuemmerle, and L. Macchi. 2013. Beyond ‘land sparing versus land sharing’: Environmental heterogeneity, globalization and the balance between agricultural production and nature conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5: 477–483. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Green, R.E., S.J. Cornell, J.P.W. Sharlemann, and A. Balmford. 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 28: 550–555. doi: 10.1126/science.1106049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. IEG-WB (Independent Evaluation Group—World Bank). 2011. The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank, Regional Program Review 5.Google Scholar
  10. IUCN. 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from
  11. IUCN and UNEP-WCMC. 2013. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from
  12. Jones, K.E., J. Bielby, M. Cardillo, S.A. Fritz, J. O’Dell, C.D.L. Orme, K. Safi, W. Sechrest, et al. 2009. PanTHERIA: A species-level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals. Ecology 90: 2648. doi: 10.1890/08-1494.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kumaraswamy, S., and K. Kunte. 2013. Integrating biodiversity and conservation with modern agricultural landscapes. Biodiversity and Conservation 22: 2735–2750. doi: 10.1007/s10531-013-0562-9.
  14. MacArthur, R.H., and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. McNab, B.K. 1963. Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. American Naturalist 97: 133–140. doi: 10.1086/282264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miranda, J.A., K. Slowing, and J.C. Raudales. 2010. South–South Learning in the Trifinio Region: Transforming borderlands into areas of peace and development. Development Outreach, World Bank Institute 8: 30–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Newmark, W.D. 1985. Legal and biotic boundaries of western North American national parks: A problem of congruence. Biological Conservation 33: 197–208. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(85)90013-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Noss, R.F., and L.D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: Preserving diversity at all scales. Environmental Management 10: 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Owen, J.G., and L. Giron. 2012. Revised checklist and distributions of land mammals of El Salvador. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 310: 1–30.Google Scholar
  20. Perfecto, I., R.A. Rice, R. Greenberg, and M.E. van der Voort. 1996. Shade coffee: A disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 46: 598–608. doi: 10.2307/1312989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phalan, B., M. Onial, A. Balmford, and R.E. Green. 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333: 1289–1291. doi: 10.1126/science.1208742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Phelps, J., L.R. Carrasco, E.L. Webb, L.P. Koh, and U. Pascual. 2013. Agricultural intensification escalates future conservation costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: 7601–7606. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1220070110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Redford, K.H., and J.G. Robinson. 1991. Park size and the conservation of forest mammals in Latin America. In Latin American mammalogy: History, diversity, and conservation, ed. M.A. Mares, and D.J. Schimdly, 227–234. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sala, O.E., F.S. Chapin, J.J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, et al. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774. doi: 10.1126/science.287.5459.1770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soulé, M.E., and M.A. Sanjayan. 1998. Conservation targets: Do they help? Science 279: 2060–2061. doi: 10.1126/science.279.5359.2060.Google Scholar
  26. Svancara, L.K., R.E.E. Brannon, J.M. Scott, C.R. Groves, R.F. Noss, and R.L. Pressey. 2005. Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: A review of political targets and biological needs. BioScience 55: 989–995. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0989:PVECAR]2.0.CO;2.
  27. Tscharntke, T., Y. Clough, T.C. Wanger, L. Jackson, I. Motzle, I. Perfecto, J. Vandermeer, and A. Whitbread. 2012. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation 151: 53–59. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turnhout, E. 2012. Listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488: 454–455. doi: 10.1038/488454a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. UNSD. 2013. UNdata. New York: UNSD. Retrieved January 14, 2013, from
  30. Vreugdenhil, D., J. Linares, O. Komar, V.E. Henríquez, J.E. Barraza, and M. Machado. 2012. Mapa de los ecosistemas de El Salvador, actualización 2012 con detección de cambios 1999–2011. Shepherdstown: World Institute for Conservation and Environment.Google Scholar
  31. World Bank. 2012. World development indicators. ESDS International, University of Manchester. doi: 10.5257/wb/wdi/2012-04.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvio J. Crespin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jorge E. García-Villalta
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias Ecológicas, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Instituto de Investigaciones Tropicales de El SalvadorSan SalvadorEl Salvador

Personalised recommendations