Assessing the effects of agricultural intensification on natural habitats and biodiversity in Southern Amazonia

a powerful tool to systematically explore plausible constellations of social and economic drivers and the emerging trajectories and dynamics of LULCC, together with its related environmen- tal consequences. It represents a potent method to explore the efficiency and unexpected con- sequences of policies and can therefore be especially applied to inform decision making under Deep Uncertainty [92]. LandSHIFT has been tested concerning associated uncertainty in modeling LULCC in the Amazon region [58]. Concerning the data that was used to assess the effect of a loss of natural habitat area on spe- cies diversity as well as the BII values, the species diversity maps [5], issues of data deficiency have an impact on our estimates. Especially amphibian and mammal species are understudied. Data deficient mammals are mainly concentrated in the Amazon whereas around 30% of all assessed amphibians are generally data deficient [5]. This may lead to an underestimation of the impact of loss of natural habitats on vertebrate diversity especially in regions covered by rainforest (Amazon). Notable are threatened amphibian species. Here, only 4% of the assessed species appear to be threatened, whereas the global rate of threatened amphibians lies at 31% [93] suggesting that the high data deficiency in regard to this taxon and the investigated area are significantly influencing our results. Moreover, we do not holistically explore the effects of agricultural intensification on natural habitats and its biodiversity. In order to do so it would require an analysis of all factors of agri-

cultural intensification that positively or negatively influences wildlife and habitats. This analy- sis would have to include emissions caused due to intensification (livestock, fertilizers etc.) and their effect on biodiversity as well as indirect LULCC, for instance caused by a cropland expan- sion due to an increasing demand for fodder in feedstock systems. Additionally, only verte- brate species are assessed, other representative and important groups of organisms (e.g. insects, soil microorganisms) are not part of this research. Furthermore, the authors simply focus on the assessment based on species numbers. Other determining factors, like functional diversity and functional redundancy, have not yet been incorporated into the analysis. In all of our scenarios we assume that increases of crop yields until 2030 can be achieved by technological improvements and a more intensive agricultural management alone. At the same time studies such as [55, 94] point out that climate change might have negative effects on PLOS ONE Agricultural intensification effects on natural habitats and biodiversity PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225914 November 25, 2020 15 / 21

crop yields in Amazonia. It is important to note that this situation might occur until the mid or end of this century when changes in temperature and precipitation are projected to become more intense [95] with potentially stronger negative impacts on crop yields e.g. [94, 96]. 4. Conclusion Our results show that especially the potential for agricultural intensification in the Amazon may hint at the way of sustaining food production here [16] in addition to conserving natural habitats from conversion into managed land, thus preserving biodiversity. Moreover, it becomes obvious that especially the change of anthropogenic consumption habits can contrib- ute greatly to safeguard species diversity. This might look like a clear statement in favor of seg- regative agricultural approaches over integrative agricultural approaches. Segregative approaches focus on increasing agricultural production by an intensified management of agri- cultural production systems, thus conserving natural habitats from conversion into cropland or pastureland. On the contrary, integrative approaches focus on integrating agricultural pro- duction and biodiversity conservation for instance in the form of agroforestry. However, our results also draw a distressing picture of the future in regard to negative impacts of intensification measures [97]. Despite all the positives of an intensification of agri- cultural production concerning a conservation of natural habitats, the negative impacts of an intensified agriculture cannot be neglected. Especially pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer appli-

cation have to increase in order to increase grass- and cropland productivity [98]. The increased application of agro-chemical products will have negative effects on biodiversity [97]. Especially the use of pesticides in tropical regions has strong negative effects on amphibian populations because they are more susceptible to pesticide use as compared to amphibian pop- ulations in temperate regions [99]. Therefore, biodiversity on intensified cropland is likely to decrease [100, 101]. Furthermore, the adoption of intensified agricultural production will be more capital-intensive. If the access to capital is a limiting factor, as might be the case for smallholder farmers, these producers might not be able to apply the required techniques and methods. This in turn will imperil their ability to stay competitive in comparison to large land holders who have better access to monetary resources and can make larger investments into the intensification of agricultural production [102]. Concluding, sufficient access to capital is required to introduce agricultural intensification on a broad scale. An increased livestock pro- duction in intensified systems (especially feedstock systems) will increase the demand for live- stock fodder production which, in turn, will induce an expansion of cropland area and may be a cause of additional deforestation [102]. Ultimately, future scenario studies will have to adapt a more holistic approach to the assess- ment of LULCC and agricultural management and its consequences for natural habitats and

biodiversity. Currently, this is done, on the one hand, by integrating mentioned organism groups, especially soil microorganisms, and by incorporating the aspects of functional diversity and functional redundancy. On the other hand, scenarios need to be, and will be, constructed with the help of approaches that focus on participatory methods in order to capture stake- holder knowledge as well as developments and drivers especially on local to regional scales thus, increasing the representativeness as well as communicability of results and recommendations. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Jan Go¨pel, Ru¨diger Schaldach. Formal analysis: Jan Go¨pel. PLOS ONE Agricultural intensification effects on natural habitats and biodiversity PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225914 November 25, 2020 16 / 21

Funding acquisition: Ru¨diger Schaldach. Investigation: Jan Go¨pel. Methodology: Jan Schu¨ngel, Benjamin Stuch. Project administration: Ru¨diger Schaldach. Software: Jan Schu¨ngel. Supervision: Ru¨diger Schaldach. Validation: Jan Go¨pel. Visualization: Jan Go¨pel. Writing – original draft: Jan Go¨pel. Writing – review & editing: Jan Go¨pel, Benjamin Stuch, Ru¨diger Schaldach. References 1. Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 2011; 478(7369):378. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10425 PMID: 21918513 2. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Arnell AP, Contu S, Palma de A, Ferrier S et al. Has land use pushed terres- trial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 2016; 353 (6296):288–91. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2201 PMID: 27418509 3. Barlow J, Lennox GD, Ferreira J, Berenguer E, Lees AC, Mac Nally R et al. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 2016; 535(7610):144. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18326 PMID: 27362236 4. Martinelli LA, Naylor R, Vitousek PM, Moutinho P. Agriculture in Brazil: Impacts, costs, and opportuni- ties for a sustainable future. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010; 2(5–6):431–8. 5. Jenkins CN, Alves MAS, Uezu A, Vale MM. Patterns of vertebrate diversity and protection in Brazil. PLOS ONE 2015; 10(12):e0145064. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145064 PMID: 26679348

6. INPE dP in. Projeto PRODES: Monitoramento da Floresta Amazoˆnica Brasileira por sate´ lite. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais Projeto Prodes [Internet] 2015. 7. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 2015; 520(7545):45. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324 PMID: 25832402 8. Dalla-Nora EL, Aguiar de APD, Lapola DM, Woltjer G. Why have land use change models for the Ama- zon failed to capture the amount of deforestation over the last decade? Land Use Policy 2014; 39:403–11. 9. Group WB. World development report 2016: Digital dividends. World Bank Publications; 2016. 10. WTO. World Trade Statistical Review 2017 2016. 11. Vieira ICG, Toledo Pd, Silva Jd, Higuchi H. Deforestation and threats to the biodiversity of Amazonia. Brazilian Journal of Biology 2008; 68(4):949–56. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1519-69842008000500004 PMID: 19197467 12. Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision 2012. 13. Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JFet al. Food security: The chal- lenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010; 327(5967):812–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1185383 PMID: 20110467 14. Godfray HCJ, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Nisbett N et al. The future of the global food system: The Royal Society; 2010. 15. Laurance WF, Sayer J, Cassman KG. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2014; 29(2):107–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.12.001 PMID: 24388286 16. Grafton RQ, Daugbjerg C, Qureshi ME. Towards food security by 2050. Food Security 2015; 7 (2):179–83. 17. Lapola DM, Martinelli LA, Peres CA, Ometto J, PHB, Ferreira ME, Nobre CA et al. Pervasive transition of the Brazilian land-use system. Nature Climate Change 2014; 4(1):27–35. PLOS ONE Agricultural intensification effects on natural habitats and biodiversity PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225914 November 25, 2020 17 / 21

the Amazon basin: The colonist case. Ecological Applications 2004; 14(sp4):299–312. 25. Aguiar APD, Caˆmara G, Escada MIS. Spatial statistical analysis of land-use determinants in the Brazil- ian Amazonia: Exploring intra-regional heterogeneity. Ecological Modelling 2007; 209(2–4):169–88. 26. Lapola DM, Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Bondeau A, Koch J, Koelking C et al. Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 2010; 107(8):3388–93. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907318107 PMID: 20142492 27. Leite CC, Costa MH, Soares-Filho BS, Barros Viana Hissa de L. Historical land use change and asso- ciated carbon emissions in Brazil from 1940 to 1995. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2012; 26(2). 28. Arvor D, Dubreuil V, Simões M, Be´ gue´ A. Mapping and spatial analysis of the soybean agricultural frontier in Mato Grosso, Brazil, using remote sensing data. GeoJournal 2013; 78(5):833–50. 29. Gollnow F, Lakes T. Policy change, land use, and agriculture: The case of soy production and cattle ranching in Brazil, 2001–2012. Applied Geography 2014; 55:203–11. 30. Soares-Filho B, Alencar A, Nepstad D, Cerqueira G, Vera Diaz MdC, Rivero S et al. Simulating the response of land-cover changes to road paving and governance along a major Amazon highway: The Santare´ m–Cuiaba´ corridor. Global Change Biology 2004; 10(5):745–64. 31. Heckenberger MJ, Christian Russell J, Toney JR, Schmidt MJ. The legacy of cultural landscapes in

the Brazilian Amazon: Implications for biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2007; 362(1478):197–208. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1979 PMID: 17255029 32. Gentili S, Sigura M, Bonesi L. Decreased small mammals species diversity and increased population abundance along a gradient of agricultural intensification. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 2014; 25(1):39–44. 33. Castro Solar de RR, Barlow J, Andersen AN, Schoereder JH, Berenguer E, Ferreira JN et al. Biodiver- sity consequences of land-use change and forest disturbance in the Amazon: A multi-scale assess- ment using ant communities. Biological Conservation 2016; 197:98–107. 34. Chaplin-Kramer R, Sharp RP, Mandle L, Sim S, Johnson J, Butnar I et al. Spatial patterns of agricul- tural expansion determine impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2015; 112(24):7402–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406485112 PMID: 26082547 35. Ritter CD, Faurby S, Bennett DJ, Naka LN, Ter Steege H, Zizka A et al. The pitfalls of biodiversity prox- ies: Differences in richness patterns of birds, trees and understudied diversity across Amazonia. Sci Rep 2019; 9(1):19205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55490-3 PMID: 31844092 36. Monroy-Gamboa AG, Briones-Salas MA´ , Sarkar S, Sa´ nchez-Cordero V. Terrestrial vertebrates as surrogates for selecting conservation areas in a biodiversity hotspot in Mexico. Conservation Science and Practice 2019; 1(3):e12.

37. Alkemade A, Schnitzler A, Forstmann BU. Topographic organization of the human and non-human pri- mate subthalamic nucleus. Brain Struct Funct 2015; 220(6):3075–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429- 015-1047-2 PMID: 25921975 38. Scholes RJ, Biggs R. A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 2005; 434(7029):45. https://doi.org/10. 1038/nature03289 PMID: 15744293 PLOS ONE Agricultural intensification effects on natural habitats and biodiversity PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225914 November 25, 2020 18 / 21

39. Biggs R, Simons H, Bakkenes M, Scholes RJ, Eickhout B, van Vuuren D et al. Scenarios of biodiversity loss in southern Africa in the 21st century. Global Environmental Change 2008; 18(2):296–309. 40. Koch J, Schaldach R, Go¨pel J. Can agricultural intensification help to conserve biodiversity? A sce- nario study for the African continent. J Environ Manage 2019; 247:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2019.06.015 PMID: 31229783 41. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstro¨ m J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM et al. Sustainability. Plane- tary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015; 347 (6223):1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 PMID: 25592418 42. Lamb EG, Bayne E, Holloway G, Schieck J, Boutin S, Herbers J et al. Indices for monitoring biodiver- sity change: Are some more effective than others? Ecological Indicators 2009; 9(3):432–44. 43. ROUGET M, COWLING RM, VLOK JAN, THOMPSON M, BALMFORD A. Getting the biodiversity intactness index right: The importance of habitat degradation data. Global Change Biology 2006; 12 (11):2032–6. 44. Spera SA, Galford GL, Coe MT, Macedo MN, Mustard JF. Land-use change affects water recycling in Brazil’s last agricultural frontier. Global Change Biology 2016; 22(10):3405–13. https://doi.org/10. 1111/gcb.13298 PMID: 27028754 45. Dias LCP, Pimenta FM, Santos AB, Costa MH, Ladle RJ. Patterns of land use, extensification, and intensification of Brazilian agriculture. Global Change Biology 2016; 22(8):2887–903. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/gcb.13314 PMID: 27170520

46. Estatı´stica IBdGe. Indicadores IBGE: Estatı´stica da Produc¸ão Agrı´cola: IBGE Rio de Janeiro; 2007. 47. Coy M, Klingler M. Pionierfronten im brasilianischen Amazonien zwischen alten Problemen und neuen Dynamiken. Das Beispiel des „Entwicklungskorridors “Cuiaba´ (Mato Grosso)–Santare´ m (Para´ ). Innsbrucker Jahresbericht 2008; 2010:109–29. 48. Friedl MA, Sulla-Menashe D, Tan B, Schneider A, Ramankutty N, Sibley A et al. MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets. Remote Sensing of Environment 2010; 114(1):168–82. 49. GROSSO M. AMAZON CATTLE FOOTPRINT: Greenpeace Brazil Paulo; 2009. 50. Barona E, Ramankutty N, Hyman G, Coomes OT. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 2010; 5(2):24002. 51. VanWey LK, Spera S, Sa de R, Mahr D, Mustard JF. Socioeconomic development and agricultural intensification in Mato Grosso. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2013; 368(1619):20120168. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0168 PMID: 23610174 52. Spera SA, Cohn AS, VanWey LK, Mustard JF, Rudorff BF, Risso J et al. Recent cropping frequency, expansion, and abandonment in Mato Grosso, Brazil had selective land characteristics. Environmental Research Letters 2014; 9(6):64010. 53. Klink CA, Machado RB. Conservation of the Brazilian cerrado. Conservation Biology 2005; 19 (3):707–13. 54. Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Koch J, Ko¨ lking C, Lapola DM, Schu¨ngel J et al. An integrated approach to

modelling land-use change on continental and global scales. Environmental Modelling & Software 2011; 26(8):1041–51. 55. Lapola DM, Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Bondeau A, Msangi S, Priess JA et al. Impacts of climate change and the end of deforestation on land use in the Brazilian Legal Amazon. Earth Interactions 2011; 15 (16):1–29. 56. Go¨ pel J, Schu¨ ngel J, Schaldach R, Meurer KHE, Jungkunst HF, Franko U et al. Future land use and land cover in Southern Amazonia and resulting greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils. Regional Environmental Change 2018; 18(1):129–42. 57. Turner BL, Lambin EF, Reenberg A. The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007; 104(52):20666– 71. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704119104 PMID: 18093934 58. Go¨ pel J, Barros Viana Hissa de L, Schu¨ngel J, Schaldach R. Sensitivity assessment and evaluation of a spatially explicit land-use model for Southern Amazonia. Ecological Informatics 2018; 48:69–79. 59. Alcamo J. Scenarios as tools for international environmental assessment. European Environment Agency; 2001. (vol 5). 60. Alcamo J. Environmental futures: The practice of environmental scenario analysis. Elsevier; 2008. 61. Scho¨nenberg R, Boy J, Hartberger K, Schumann C, Guggenberger G, Siebold M et al. Experiences of inter-and transdisciplinary research–a trajectory of knowledge integration within a large research con- sortium. Erdkunde 2017:177–93. PLOS ONE Agricultural intensification effects on natural habitats and biodiversity

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225914 November 25, 2020 19 / 21

62. Scho¨nenberg R, Schaldach R, Lakes T, Go¨ pel J, Gollnow F. Inter- and transdisciplinary scenario con- struction to explore future land-use options in southern Amazonia. E&S 2017; 22(3). 63. Jasinski Ellen, Morton Douglas, and DeFries Ruth. Physical landscape correlates of the expansion of mechanized agriculture in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Earth Interactions 2005; Volume 9:1–18. 64. Arvor Damien, Margareth Meirelles, Dubreuil Vincent, Begue Agnes. Analyzing the agricultural transi- tion in Mato Grosso, Brazil, using satellite-derived indices. Applied Geography 2012; 32:702–13. 65. Wint W, Robinson T. Gridded livestock of the world 2007. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2007. 66. Srinivasan CS, Irz X, Shankar B. An assessment of the potential consumption impacts of WHO dietary norms in OECD countries. Food Policy 2006; 31(1):53–77. 67. Organization WH. Diet, nutrition, and the prevention of chronic diseases: Report of a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation. World Health Organization; 2003. 68. NatureServe BIa. Bird species distribution maps of the world. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International 2014. 69. IUCN. The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2014.1. IUCN 2014; 12:20. 70. IUCN SSC. IUCN Red List categories and criteria: Version 3.1. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission 2001. 71. Colwell RK, Lees DC. The mid-domain effect: Geometric constraints on the geography of species rich- ness. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2000; 15(2):70–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(99) 01767-x PMID: 10652559

72. Vale MM, Lorini ML, Cerqueira R. Neotropical wild cats susceptibility to climate change. Oecologia Australis 2015; 19(1). 73. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM. The future of biodiversity. Science 1995; 269 (5222):347–50. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.269.5222.347 PMID: 17841251 74. Alkemade R, van Oorschot M, Miles L, Nellemann C, Bakkenes M, Brink B ten. GLOBIO3: A frame- work to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems 2009; 12 (3):374–90. 75. Alkemade R, Reid RS, van den Berg M, Leeuw de J, Jeuken M. Assessing the impacts of livestock pro- duction on biodiversity in rangeland ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013; 110(52):20900–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011013108 PMID: 22308313 76. Eaton DP, Santos SA, Santos MdCA, Lima JVB, Keuroghlian A. Rotational grazing of native pasture- lands in the Pantanal: An effective conservation tool. Tropical Conservation Science 2011; 4(1):39– 52. 77. Law F. 12.727, 17 October 2012. 78. Soares-Filho B, Rajão R, Macedo M, Carneiro A, Costa W, Coe M et al. Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science 2014; 344(6182):363–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246663 PMID: 24763575 79. Pereira PAA, Martha GB, Am Santana C, Alves E. The development of Brazilian agriculture: Future technological challenges and opportunities. Agriculture & Food Security 2012; 1(1):4. 80. Macedo MN, DeFries RS, Morton DC, Stickler CM, Galford GL, Shimabukuro YE. Decoupling of defor-

estation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2012; 109(4):1341–6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111374109 PMID: 22232692 81. Latawiec AE, Strassburg BBN, Valentim JF, Ramos F, Alves-Pinto HN. Intensification of cattle ranch- ing production systems: Socioeconomic and environmental synergies and risks in Brazil. Animal 2014; 8(8):1255–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001566 PMID: 26263189 82. Arima EY, Barreto P, Arau´ jo E, Soares-Filho B. Public policies can reduce tropical deforestation: Les- sons and challenges from Brazil. Land Use Policy 2014; 41:465–73. 83. Ceddia MG, Bardsley NO, Gomez-y-Paloma S, Sedlacek S. Governance, agricultural intensification, and land sparing in tropical South America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2014; 111(20):7242–7. 84. Strassburg BBN, Latawiec AE, Barioni LG, Nobre CA, Da Silva VP, Valentim JF et al. When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global Environmental Change 2014; 28:84–97. 85. Sparovek G, Barretto AGdOP, Matsumoto M, Berndes G. Effects of Governance on Availability of Land for Agriculture and Conservation in Brazil. Environ Science & Technology 2015; 49(17):10285– 93. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01300 PMID: 26241204 86. Bento de Souza Ferreira Filho J, Ribera L, Horridge M. Deforestation Control and Agricultural Supply in Brazil. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2015; 97(2):589–601. PLOS ONE

Agricultural intensification effects on natural habitats and biodiversity PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225914 November 25, 2020 20 / 21

87. Alkimim A, Sparovek G, Clarke KC. Converting Brazil’s pastures to cropland: An alternative way to meet sugarcane demand and to spare forestlands. Applied Geography 2015; 62:75–84. 88. Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Vasconcelos HL, Bruna EM, Didham RK, Stouffer PC et al. Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: A 22-year investigation. Conservation Biology 2002; 16 (3):605–18. 89. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances 2015; 1(2):e1500052. https://doi.org/10. 1126/sciadv.1500052 PMID: 26601154 90. Figueira JEC, Cintra R, Viana LR, Yamashita C. Spatial and temporal patterns of bird species diversity in the Pantanal of Mato Grosso, Brazil: Implications for conservation. Brazilian Journal of Biology 2006; 66(2A):393–404. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1519-69842006000300003 PMID: 16862292 91. Jenkins CN, Alves MAS, Uezu A, Vale MM. Patterns of Vertebrate Diversity and Protection in Brazil. PLOS ONE 2015; 10(12):e0145064. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145064 PMID: 26679348 92. Kwakkel JH, Walker WE, Haasnoot M. Coping with the Wickedness of Public Policy Problems: Approaches for Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2016; 142(3):1816001. 93. Bland LM, Collen BEN, Orme CDL, Bielby JON. Predicting the conservation status of data-deficient species. Conservation Biology 2015; 29(1):250–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12372 PMID: 25124400

94. Oliveira LJC, Costa MH, Soares-Filho BS, Coe MT. Large-scale expansion of agriculture in Amazonia may be a no-win scenario. Environmental Research Letters 2013; 8(2):24021. 95. Marengo JA, Chou SC, Kay G, Alves LM, Pesquero JF, Soares WR et al. Development of regional future climate change scenarios in South America using the Eta CPTEC/HadCM3 climate change pro- jections: Climatology and regional analyses for the Amazon, São Francisco and the Parana´ River basins. Climate Dynamics 2012; 38(9–10):1829–48. 96. Rosenzweig C, Elliott J, Deryng D, Ruane AC, Mu¨ ller C, Arneth A et al. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2014; 111(9):3268–73. 97. Geiger F, Bengtsson J, Berendse F, Weisser WW, Emmerson M, Morales MB et al. Persistent nega- tive effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. Basic and Applied Ecology 2010; 11(2):97–105. 98. Schiesari L, Waichman A, Brock T, Adams C, Grillitsch B. Pesticide use and biodiversity conservation in the Amazonian agricultural frontier. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2013; 368(1619):20120378. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0378 PMID: 23610177 99. Tscharntke T, Bata´ ry P, Clough Y, Kleijn D, Scherber C, Thies C et al. Combining biodiversity conser- vation with agricultural intensification. Land use intensification. Effects on agriculture, biodiversity and ecological processes, CSIRO Publishing: Australia 2012:7–15.

100. Emmerson M, Morales MB, Oñate JJ, Bata´ry P, Berendse F, Liira J et al. How Agricultural Intensifica- tion Affects Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Kordas R, Dumbrell AJ, Woodward G, editors. Large-scale ecology: Model systems to global perspectives / volume editor, Rebecca Kordas, Alex Dumbrell, Guy Woodward. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2016. p. 43–97 (Advances in Ecological Research; vol. 55). 101. Kehoe L, Romero-Muñoz A, Polaina E, Estes L, Kreft H, Kuemmerle T. Biodiversity at risk under future cropland expansion and intensification. Nature Research Ecology & Evolution 2017; 1(8):1129–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0234-3 PMID: 29046577 102. Herrero M, Thornton PK, Gerber P, Reid RS. Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: Understand- ing the trade-offs. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009; 1(2):111–20. PLOS ONE Agricultural intensification effects on natural habitats and biodiversity PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225914 November 25, 2020 21 / 21