Part from Ecology of Agroecsystems Given the undeniable fact that we continue with the biodiversity crisis, even

after many well-meaning intelligent and even rich people have become concerned, suggests that something is wrong. Although it is difficult to pinpoint the exact problem, one causal agent seems of overwhelming importancean ignorance of the underlying nature of the problem itself. It is an ignorance that ranges widely, from farmers in underdeveloped tropical regions, to directors of famous botanical gardens, to CEOs of large international environmental NGOs, to officials in powerful international agencies. It is not the ignorance arrogantly assumed by some developed world conservationists that peasants simply cannot appreciate the importance of Quetzales. It is general ignorance of the subject matter itself. Biodiversity is actually an immensely complex subject. It is the fundamental issue that Charles Darwin was trying to explain in the book that defined the field of biology. It is the basis on which our dependence on domesticated organisms rests. It is the yet unanswered question of how many species exist on earthindeed, the even more fundamental question of what a species is in the first place. It is a conundrum of theoretical biology since some hyperdiverse ecosystems seem to contradict fundamental principles of ecology. It is the well-founded fear of indigenous people that first world entrepreneurs will once again reap gigantic profits off their biodiversity, leaving little behind. It is the vexing question of biodiversitys functional role in ecosystems. It is the question of bet-hedging with future needs for foods, medicines, and other useful items.

When the popular media approaches the issue of biodiversity, the subject matter is almost always about charismatic megafauna tigers, elephants, pandas, and the like. I too shed tears at the probable extinction faced by these evocative creatures. The world will surely be diminished as the last wild gorilla is shot by a local warlord beholden to one or another political ideology or even as a rare but beautiful bird species has its habitat removed to make way for yet another desperately needed strip mall or fast food restaurant. The irony is gut wrenching to be sure. Such concerns, however, are a very small tip of a very large iceberg. If we simply take mammals as an estimate of the number of creatures that are likely thought of as charismatic, we are talking about approximately 4,500 known species. By comparison, there are currently about 500,000 known species of insects, and this is almost certainly a gross underestimate. We have no idea how many species there actually are, since estimates range from about 1 million to as high as 30 million. Even if the latter estimate is exaggerated, even if there are only a million species of insects, we see that restricting our attention to the 4,500 species that happen to look more or less like us is focusing on a rather small fraction of the Earths biodiversity. To make the point even more dramatic,

consider the biodiversity of bacteria. Microbiologists define two bacterial cells to be in the same species if their DNA overlaps by 70% or higher, which would likely put all primates in the same species if the same rule were applied. Simply from the point of view of numbers, the world of biodiversity is mainly in the small things, from bacteria to insects, leaving the charismatic megafauna as a rather trivial subplot to the main theme. Apart from these dramatic taxonomic patterns, there are three basic patterns of biodiversity that are relevant to the subject of agroecology. First, species diversity tends to increase with decreasing latitude, a geographic pattern with profound political consequences. Second, species diversity tends to decrease on islands when the island is smaller and/or more distant from the mainland, an insular pattern with major implications for conservation in todays fragmented world. Third, species diversity tends to decrease as the intensity of management of the ecosystem increases, an intensification pattern. Each of these three cases is treated in turn.

As elaborated previously, one of the main patterns of biodiversity in the world is a decrease with increased management intensity. The classic case is the coffee agroecosystem that ranges from the low intensity rustic system with high levels of biodiversity to high intensity sun coffee with dramatically reduced levels of biodiversity. This general pattern ought to be an important component of conservation thinking for two reasons:1) many agroecosystems contain very high levels of biodiversity, especially when the focus is on associated biodiversity rather than planned biodiversity, and 2) agroecosystems create matrices that are of varying degrees of permeability (i.e., different agroecosystem types present different probabilities of migration). The fact that many agroecosystems contain very high levels of biodiversity is now well established. A certain historical momentum remains that still sees the agroecosystem as an enemy of biodiversity, but most modern analysts consider the kind of agroecosystem as important for biodiversity conservation, not its binary presence or absence. Thus, in conservation planning, it makes sense to ask not only how many hectares of preserved natural habitat exist, but also what is the quality of the intervening matrix. Generally, the biodiversity in the remaining fragments cannot really be improved on (although it can be degraded, as explained presently), but the biodiversity in the surrounding agroecosystem can indeed be manipulated by planning of the agroecosystem itself. For conservation purposes, it makes sense to advocate biodiversity preservation within the agroecosystem as part of the planning process of agricultural landscapes, beyond the argument that biodiversity provides ecosystem services for the agroecosystem itself.

The past several decades have seen a great deal of research that challenges the basic assumptions of the conventional agricultural system. Furthermore, a more

ecologically sound form of agriculture has increasingly been promoted by many producers and planners, and much of the rhetoric of this alternative agriculture movement has to do with creating structures within agroecosystems that are much more like the original habitat than is normal with the conventional system. If this is true (and it is almost certainly true at least for tropical areas), the alternative agroecological matrix would be a high-quality matrix from the point of view of allowing migration among fragments. For example, in the Atlantic Coast rainforest of Brazil, the problem is the treeless landscape in the matrix, formed by sun coffee and open pastures. If the well-known technologies of organic and shade coffee24 and silvopastoral systems25 were to be pursued, which could easily occur with the proper political incentives, it is likely that the migratory potential of the matrix would increase dramatically.

The current needs, desires, and demands of the worlds small farmers and rural communities link to the question of what sort of agroecological matrix is needed for biodiversity conservation. In growing opposition to the excesses of the industrial model combined with intense pressure to quell some of the problems exacerbated by the neoliberal model, small farmers and rural communities are increasingly voicing their demand for more ecologically sound methods of agriculture and against the social and economic dislocations that have resulted from decades of neoliberalism. Most recently, this tendency has taken on the political slogan of food sovereignty. From the point of view of the general new paradigm, this social movement is precisely the sort of movement that is necessary for the construction of a high-quality agricultural matrix. First, human beings should have a right to food, not a right to choose to spend some of their money to buy fooda right to food as much as they have a right to Habeas Corpus or freedom of religion. This new model rejects the notion that food is nothing more than software or trinkets. Second, human beings should have the right to collectively decide, at a local level,how food is to be produced.

Predators eat their prey in all ecosystems, but which predator eats which prey is dependent on local conditions. It is itself almost a general rule that local particulars may override general rules in ecology, a fact that continues to frustrate the attempts by ecologists to devise meaningful general principles