Editorial

The Agroecosystem: A Need for the Conservation

Biologists Lens
The alarm bells signaling the loss of biodiversity ring
loud and clear throughout most of the world. Yet the
precise tones of those bells are elusive, with various receptors tuned to receive particular frequencies, filtering
out the rest as if it were so much confusing cacophony.
One can become schizophrenic if one changes the dial
on that tuner and listens in on the receivers of alternative discourses. We are thinking of two of the most ardent proponents of biodiversity preservation, conservation biologists and agroecologists. Practitioners in both
these fields lose no opportunity to lament the passing of
biodiversity. Both regard that passing as somewhere between serious and catastrophic. Both clamor for political
and technical action to stop the losses. Yet the discourses of the two are surprisingly different, leading to
different emphases on strategies for both political persuasion and technical research. We suggest that this dichotomy is unfortunate and unnecessary and that the
time is ripe to combine forces. Such a combination
could have positive benefits, both in generating and clarifying needed lines of research and in pointing to concrete actions to stem the current rip tide of biodiversity
loss on the planet.
The arguments of the conservation biologists are not
unfamiliar to the readers of this journal. Species are all
rivetswhen the key one falls out our plane falls down;
the rain forest carries the cure for cancer and AIDS; rain
forest fruits will solve rural poverty; we lose a bit of our
own humanity as we lose our distant relatives. Whatever
the favored argument, they all point in the same direction: the extinction of biological types is something to
be concerned, even panicked, about. This general discourse has led to a research agenda that includes assessment of biodiversity and its loss in various ecosystems,
study of genetic background for the likelihood of extinctions, study of various ecological mechanisms of maintaining biodiversity, particular autecological concerns
with ones favorite charismatic megafauna, etc.
The foci of agroecologists are fundamentally different,
originating probably from more short-term practical concerns. The postWorld War II triumph of monocultures
based on petroleum pesticides brought with it an inevi-

table loss of biodiversity. This is one ecosystem in which

one of the main goals of ecosystem managers, at least in
the past, has been to purposefully reduce biodiversity as
much as possible. From the massive genetic diversity of
traditional agroecosystems, we now have thousands of
hectares planted with the same hybrid corn variety.
From the rich soil flora and fauna, the workings of
which are still mainly enigmatic, we have reduced many
soils to almost nothing more than hydroponic media, as
devoid of life as possible. From the rich assemblage of
parasitic and predatory arthropods that kept herbivores
at non-pest levels in earlier days, we now have only a
threesomethe plant, the pest, and the agent of control, the latter usually a pesticide made from petroleum.
Participants in the world-wide movement toward sustainable agricultural systems recognize biodiversity as
somehow important to the future sustainability of these
ecosystems and lament its loss as much as any conservation biologist (Perfecto et al. 1996, 1997; Vandermeer
1996). Yet the concerns are far more practical. What
part of the biodiversity does or could function in specific ways to promote the sustainability of future systems? Are particular species groups functionally redundant? Does a multiple cropping system allow for better
pest control? Such questions form the discourse of agroecologists, a discourse that has led to a research agenda
that includes study of the specific function of various
subgroups, the specific role of individual species or genotypes in production or risk reduction, the productive advantages of multiple cropping systems, and the functional redundancy of particular groups, etc.
Conservation biologists have been mainly concerned
with the origin and maintenance of biodiversity, whereas
agroecologists have been mainly concerned with its
function. The former are concerned with so-called natural
systems and leaving them alone, whereas the latter are
concerned with managed systems and managing them
better. Certainly there is overlap, yet the general atmosphere in which biodiversity questions are formulated
and debated could not be more differentas if one is
dropping an empty coke bottle on the others Kalahari.
Consider, for example, our recent work on arthropod
591
Conservation Biology, Pages 591592
Volume 11, No. 3, June 1997

592

Editorial

biodiversity and its loss in agroecosystem transformation

(Perfecto 1996, 1997). To our surprise we discovered an
enormous biodiversity of Coleoptera, Formicidae, and
microhymenoptera in traditional coffee agroecosystems,
and a dramatic loss in all those groups as the modernization and technification of that system proceeded. It
is a result that would seem of particular interest to both
conservation biologists and agroecologists. Yet both
communities have demonstrated little interest. One famous conservation biologist once publicly dismissed
such studies because there are no endangered species
in agroecosystems, and in general managed systems are
somehow less legitimate for conservation work and
conservation biology research. We hope that the recent
discovery of the Pink-legged Graveteiro in traditional cacao agroecosystems in Brazil (Line 1996) will act as a
wake-up call. At the other extreme, agroecologists also
show scant interest in these studies because we are simply talking about biodiversity and not about its function
in the production of the system. The fact that hundreds
of species of beetles will disappear from an area if traditional coffee production is replaced with technified production is not generally of interest, unless it can be
shown that those hundreds of species also include a
predator of the coffee berry borer or some other pest.
Conservation biologists seem not to be concerned because the systems are already tainted. Agroecologists
seem not to be concerned because biodiversity in and of
itself has no obvious connection to production.
This division is unfortunate. The fact is that most of
the terrestrial world is, in one sense or another, an agroecosystem. If we are to ignore this ecosystem simply because it does not fall within our romantic notion of
pristineness, we leave the vast majority of the Earths
surface to the husbandry of those who care little about
biodiversity preservation. On the other hand, if we are
to ignore the preservation of biodiversity per se simply
because it does not fit obviously into classical production categories, we leave the preservation of the worlds
biodiversity to those who refuse to work outside of national parks and nature preserves.
Recently there has been considerable interest in the
coffee agroecosystem in Central America, spawned
partly by the realization that migrant birds use this habitat during the winter (Greenberg et al. 1997). This example should provide us with an object lesson. Little interest on the part of conservationists was displayed until
the connection with bird diversity became known. Now

Conservation Biology
Volume 11, No. 3, June 1997

it is too late. Much of Central America has already been

converted, and the political momentum for conversion
will be very hard to overcome. Had conservation biologists been concerned with this ecosystem 20 years ago,
perhaps our knowledge about its basic ecology and the
role of biodiversity therein would be better than it is
now, enabling us to make recommendations for agroecosystem design that would support biodiversity. Furthermore, had there been conservation interest in this ecosystem 20 years ago, the dramatic push to make farmers
transform their methods (even those who didnt want
to) may have been less successful.
There still exist many biodiversity-rich agroecosystems, especially in tropical areas, and part of the movement toward sustainable agriculture has as a central goal
the generation and maintenance of biodiversity. If the
conservation biology community would begin thinking
of agroecosystems as legitimate objects of study and begin asking the same questions about agroecosystems
they ask of natural systems, the topic of biodiversity in
the movement toward sustainable agriculture could be
better understood, and thus better managed, leading to
better preservation. Andwho knowswe might prevent some species from becoming endangered.
John Vandermeer
Department of Ecological Agriculture, Wageningen Agricultural University,
Haarweg 333, NL-6709 RZ Wageningen, The Netherlands, email jvander@
umich.edu

Ivette Perfecto
Department of Entomology, Wageningen Agricultural University, The
Netherlands

Literature Cited
Greenberg, R., P. Bichier, and J. Sterling. 1997. Bird populations and
planted shade coffee plantations of eastern Chiapas. Biotropica. In
Press.
Line, L. 1996. Brazils dwindling cocoa crop may put newly discovered
bird at risk. New York Times, 19 November: B6, C4.
Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, P. Hanson, and V. Cartin. 1997. Arthropod
biodiversity loss and the transformation of a tropical agro-ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation. In Press.
Perfecto, I., R. A. Rice, R. Greenberg, and M. E. Van der Voort. 1996.
Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 46:
598608.
Vandermeer, J. H. 1996. Biodiversity loss in and around agroecosystems. Pages 111127 in J. Rosenthal, editor. Biodiversity and human health.