Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-10T21:51:08.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Giving the cold shoulder: why and how do we conserve farmland herpetofauna in India?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2025

Deyatima Ghosh Open the ORCID record for Deyatima Ghosh [Opens in a new window]
Deyatima Ghosh*
Affiliation:
SM Sehgal Foundation Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Royal Enclave, Srirampura, Jakkur PO, Bangalore, Karnataka 560064, India
*
Corresponding author: Deyatima Ghosh; Email: deyatima@atree.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Numerous studies highlight the adverse impacts of agriculture on farmland biodiversity. Balancing increased agricultural production along with biodiversity conservation is a critical global challenge, especially in India. Amphibians and reptiles face the greatest threats from agriculture. This perspective article highlights the need to conserve amphibian and reptile diversity in farmlands, presenting evidence of their decline and emphasizing their ecological importance. It calls for forward-looking research and policies to combat unprecedented biodiversity loss. Furthermore, I propose strategies aimed at redesigning agricultural landscapes to transition towards ecological intensification, thereby maintaining productivity and profitability while safeguarding biodiversity and regenerating rather than undermining the ecological processes that sustain food production. As agricultural intensification increases, it should be aligned with nature, leveraging biodiversity to sustain ecological functions rather than replacing them.

Keywords

Agricultural intensificationecological intensificationecosystem service approachhedgerowherpetofauna
Type
Perspectives
Information
Environmental Conservation , First View , pp. 1 - 6
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Introduction

Agricultural intensification in the twentieth century has severely affected biodiversity globally (Majumder Reference Majumder2023). However, slowing intensification is inconceivable in the current circumstances. Several studies have highlighted the detrimental effects of agriculture on farmland biodiversity, and that increases in agriculture will have costs for biodiversity. Food production has been the predominant cause of land-use change worldwide, with 80% of forest cover globally being converted to farmlands in recent decades (FAO 2016). Over the past two decades, the world has consistently lost 3–4 million hectares (7.4–9.9 million acres) of tropical forest every year (World Resources Institute 2023). At the current rate, agricultural land use is expected to increase by between 165 and 600 million hectares by 2050 (Global Landscapes Forum 2022), with a projected human population of 9.7 billion in the next two decades and an increase of 70–100% in global food demand (Population Matters 2024).

Loss of biodiversity owing to agriculture is severe, especially in the tropics and subtropics, where 73% of forest cover has been transformed into agricultural land (FAO 2016). Asia has the highest proportion globally of area under agriculture (52%) and the lowest proportion globally of forest cover (19%; FAO 2016). Within Asia, particularly India, 60% of the total geographical area is currently under cultivation, and only 5% of forest is included in the protected area network (Srivathsa et al. Reference Srivathsa, Vasudev, Nair, Chakraborti, Chanchanu and Defries2023). Furthermore, agricultural intensification is imperative in India considering the rapid human growth of its population, which is estimated to reach 1.67 billion by 2030 (Vision 2050 2015, Population Reference Bureau 2019). India stands second worldwide in agricultural production. More than two-thirds of its population directly or indirectly depend on agriculture. India’s food demand is expected to rise to ∼400 million tonnes by the year 2050, which requires an agricultural growth rate of 4% per annum (Vision 2050 2015).

Of the c. 25 000 species identified as threatened with extinction, 13 382 are threatened by agricultural land clearing and degradation alone (Tilman & Williams Reference Tilman and Williams2021). Amphibians and reptiles (herpetofauna) are at the apex of vulnerability due to their unique anatomical, ecological and physiological demands (Vitt & Cadwell Reference Vitt and Caldwell2014, Greene Reference Green2000, Ghosh Reference Ghosh2021). Their specificity to microclimate, dependence on aquatic habitat and low dispersal ability make them vulnerable to agricultural land use (Cayuela et al. Reference Cayuela, Lambrey, Vacher and Miaud2015). At present, 2249 amphibian species and 1143 species of reptiles are listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable globally due to habitat degradation in the form of agriculture and its management practices (IUCN 2024). India hosts 453 species of amphibians and 681 species of reptiles, of which 73% and 47%, respectively, are endemic (Gohain Reference Gohain2023).

This perspective article aims to discuss the impacts of agricultural intensification on herpetofauna and why these biota are important to farmlands and human well-being. Additionally, I propose strategies for how herpetofauna might be conserved without affecting the increasing agricultural production in India.

Role of herpetofauna in human well-being and farmlands

The herpetofauna are pivotal in maintaining environmental stability and resilience as they provide indicators of ecosystem health and contribute to nutrient cycling and therefore support human well-being (Valencia-Aguilar et al. Reference Valencia-Aguilar, Cortés-Gómez and Ruiz-Agudelo2013). The herpetofauna are even important in the medical field (Brozio et al. Reference Brozio, O’Shaughnessy, Woods, Hall-Barrientos, Martin and Kennedy2021). Newts, salamanders and tadpoles of frogs regulate vectors of several disease-carrying microbes (Perrin et al. Reference Perrin, Pellet, Bergonzoli, Christe and Glaizot2023). Of all the services herpetofauna deliver regarding human well-being, they have long been identified as ‘farmers’ friends’ because they improve soil quality and aeration, reduce biogas emissions, help in dispersal of seeds, improve crop health and enhance pollination (Olesen & Valido Reference Olesen and Valido2003, Fang et al. Reference Fang, Yi, Dai, Gao and Cao2019). Amphibians and reptiles are effective bioregulators of crop pests (Monagan et al. Reference Monagan, Morris, Rabosky, Perfecto and Vandermeer2017, Ghosh & Basu Reference Ghosh and Basu2023). Amphibians are major regulators of ground-dwelling pests, while reptiles feed on both ground-dwelling insects and arthropods in flight or at the crop surface (Ghosh & Borzée Reference Ghosh and Borzée2024). Furthermore, snakes also reduce the populations of rodents and other small mammals, thereby benefitting agriculture (Majumder Reference Majumder2022). Additionally, herpetofauna display diverse foraging modes (i.e., active and ambush foraging modes), which have differential impacts on crop pest regulation (Ghosh & Borzée Reference Ghosh and Borzée2024). However, in India, there is very limited information regarding ecosystem service provisioning by farmland herpetofauna (Deuti et al. Reference Deuti, Ganesh, Chandra, Kaur, Batish, Singh and Kohli2022). Thus, considering their important roles in ecosystems (Cogălniceanu et al. Reference Cogălniceanu, Stănescu, Székely, Topliceanu, Losif and Szekely2021), the loss of herpetofauna could have a cascading effect on whole agroecological systems.

Racing towards extinction

India is among the top 15% of regions in the world that could experience a phylogenetic diversity loss of reptiles owing mainly to habitat destruction from agricultural expansion (Cox et al. Reference Cox, Young, Bowles, Fernandez, Marin and Rapacciuolo2022). In India, of 426 amphibian species that have been assessed to date, 310 are endemic (Re:wild et al. 2023). In the Western Ghats of India there is a concentration of 139 threatened amphibian species, with 16 species being Critically Endangered, 72 being Endangered and 51 being Vulnerable (Gohain Reference Gohain2023).

Amphibians and reptiles share common threats, including agriculture, urbanization, tourism, small-holder grazing ranching, mining and quarrying, transportation, fire, invasive species and diseases, of which agriculture is the most severe (Fig. 1a,b; IUCN 2024). Being cold-blooded, herpetofauna have unique physiological demands and therefore narrow tolerances and specific needs for microclimates, rendering them the most vulnerable of the vertebrates (Ghosh & Basu Reference Ghosh and Basu2020). Air humidity, temperature, light intensity and nature of habitat impact the diversity and abundance of herpetofauna, as well as their breeding, spatial activity, foraging, movement, choice of retreat and thermoregulation (Wisler et al. Reference Wisler, Hofer and Arlettaz2009). Moreover, herpetofauna species have small home ranges and low dispersal rates, to the extent that many amphibians are philopatric and only travel a distance of 400 m to a few kilometres in their lifetime (Fonte et al. Reference Fonte, Mayer and Lötters2019, Guiller et al. Reference Guiller, Legentilhomme, Boissinot, Blouin-Demers, Barbraud and Lourdais2022), making them even more sensitive to land-use changes associated with agriculture.

Figure 1. Illustration of the diverse impacts of agricultural intensification on herpetofauna diversity and their ecosystem services facing similar threats following the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categorization system (IUCN 2024): (a) the difference in diversity between low and high agricultural intensification; (b) the trends in pesticide application; (c) the threats listed by IUCN for loss of amphibians; (d) the threats listed by IUCN for loss of reptiles; and (e) photographs showing the change in landscape from low to high agricultural intensification and ecosystem services such as bioregulation of crop pests provided by farmland herpetofauna. All photographs by DG. The threats mentioned here follow the IUCN categorisation system: 1.1 Housing & urban areas; 1.3 Tourism & recreation areas; 2 Agriculture & aquaculture, 2.1.1 Shifting agriculture, 2.1.2 Small-holder farming; 2.1.3 Agro-industry farming; 2.3.2 Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming; 3.2 Mining & quarrying; 4 Transportation & service corridors, 5.1.1 Intentional use (species being assessed is the target), 5.3.3 Unintentional effects: subsistence/small scale (species being assessed is not the target) [harvest], 5.3.4 Unintentional effects: large scale (species being assessed is not the target) [harvest], 5.3.5 Motivation unknown/unrecorded, 7.1.1 Increase in fire frequency/intensity, 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases. References in the figure are: 1Ghosh (Reference Ghosh2021); 2Statista (2024); 3IUCN (2024); 4Srivathsa et al. (Reference Srivathsa, Vasudev, Nair, Chakraborti, Chanchanu and Defries2023); 5Monagan et al. (Reference Monagan, Morris, Rabosky, Perfecto and Vandermeer2017); 6Ghosh and Basu (Reference Ghosh and Basu2023).

Agricultural intensification is manifested through several factors such as excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers, agricultural land conversion, types of cropping systems, cropping intensity, intensity of grazing and the proportion of natural habitat remaining around farmlands at a landscape level, and therefore the pathways through which it affects species are difficult to discern (Concepción et al. Reference Concepción, Moretti, Altermatt, Nobis and Obrist2015, Ghosh & Basu Reference Ghosh and Basu2020). These agricultural factors operate at several spatial and temporal scales, affecting both amphibians and reptiles across their various life-history stages, including their dispersal and range distribution (Arntzen et al. Reference Arntzen, Abrahams, Meilink, Losif and Zuiderwik2017, Guiller et al. Reference Guiller, Legentilhomme, Boissinot, Blouin-Demers, Barbraud and Lourdais2022), and causing a loss of genetic diversity due to reduced gene flow (Gauffre et al. Reference Gauffre, Boissinot, Quiquempois, Leblois, Grillet and Morin2022). Of all these factors, pesticides have been recognized as representing one of the major threats to herpetofauna, causing deformities in amphibians, altering movement patterns in snakes and reducing offspring numbers (Fig. 2a,b; Hopkins et al. Reference Hopkins, Winne and DuRant2005, Guerra & Aráoz Reference Guerra and Aráoz2016, Simbula et al. Reference Simbula, Macale, Gomes, Vignoli and Carretero2021). Despite their detrimental impacts, the use of pesticides is still increasing, with their use projected to increase from 4.30 to 4.41 million tonnes between 2023 and 2027 (Statista 2024). In India, intensive agriculture hosts only half the herpetofaunal diversity of traditional rain-fed agriculture with less pesticide input and more forest cover (Ghosh & Basu Reference Ghosh2021).

Figure 2. Impacts of pesticide application (e.g., carbofuran and cypermethrin), showing dead (a) a checkered keelback snake and (b) Dicroglossidae and Microhylidae amphibians from rice paddies in India. All photographs by DG.

Can redesigning agricultural landscapes reverse biodiversity loss?

Habitats within farmland such as ponds, drainage ditches, flooded fields and woodlots are regularly used by amphibians and reptiles at various life-history stages and are considered critical for the persistence of local herpetofaunal populations (Boissinot et al. Reference Boissinot, Besnard and Lourdais2019). Conventional agricultural intensification relies on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides (Kremen Reference Kremen2020), which have negative effects on biodiversity and the ecosystem. Ecological intensification, on the other hand, provides greater environmental stability by minimizing these detrimental consequences, supporting natural processes that promote, replenish and regenerate the ecosystem services on which farmers can rely and bringing societal benefits including good water quality and biodiversity conservation (Kremen Reference Kremen2020, Mondal & Palit Reference Mondal, Palit, Jhariya, Meena and Banerjee2021). Pollinators and natural crop pest predators positively respond to ecological intensification (Garibaldi et al. Reference Garibaldi, Steffan-Dewenter, Kremen, Morales, Bommarc and Cunningham2011). In California, ecological intensification increased the species richness and functional diversity of specialized and rare species of native bees and birds (M’Gonigle et al. Reference M’Gonigle, Ponisio, Cutler and Kremen2015), including several threatened ones (Kross et al. Reference Kross, Martinico, Bourbour, Townsend, McColl and Kelsey2020). In India, ecological intensification has also been shown to improve rice quality and yields (Kumar et al. Reference Kumar, Singh, Kumar, Ray and Dash2023).

Ecological intensification can be achieved by either improving heterogeneity in agricultural landscapes through diversifying crop types (higher compositional heterogeneity) or through improving the spatial heterogeneity of the cropped areas by increasing the diversity and spatial pattern complexity of arable land-cover types (configurational heterogeneity; Fahrig et al. Reference Fahrig, Baudry, Brotons, Burel, Crist, Fuller and Sirami2011). Higher crop diversity provides greater resources for different species, thus increasing biodiversity (Novotný et al. Reference Novotný, Zapletal, Kepka, Benes and Konvicka2015), as has been seen for birds, plants and different arthropod groups (Fahrig et al. Reference Fahrig, Girard, Duro, Pasher, Smith and Javorek2015).

Another strategy for increasing landscape heterogeneity is through promoting and maintaining hedgerow landscapes. Hedgerow networks are amalgamations of natural and anthropized habitats that connect diverse habitats to a greater extent than purely agricultural landscapes and are thus favourable to natural biodiversity (Boissinot et al. Reference Boissinot, Besnard and Lourdais2019). Hedgerows improve ecosystem services through pest control and pollination (Kremen Reference Kremen2020). Microhabitat quality is also dependent on the hedgerow structure and presence of herbaceous borders, which positively affect biodiversity (Graham et al. Reference Graham, Gaulton, Gerard and Staley2018). The hedgerow landscape is important for the biodiversity of several groups (Fig. 3a; insects, Chamberlain et al. Reference Chamberlain, Fuller, Bunce, Duckworth and Shrubb2000; rodents, de la Peña et al. Reference de la Peña, Butet, Delettre, Paillat, Morant, Du and Burel2003; birds, Cornulier et al. Reference Cornulier, Robinson, Elston, Lambin, Sutherland and Benton2011; amphibians, Arntzen et al. Reference Arntzen, Abrahams, Meilink, Losif and Zuiderwik2017). Reptiles also occupy hedgerows, forest edges and other anthropic habitats such as stone walls (Martinez-Freiria et al. Reference Martinez-Freiria, Lorenzo and Lizana2019). Such linear habitats offer multiple benefits, including microhabitats for thermoregulation and hydroregulation and the provision of shelter and food (Guillon et al. Reference Guillon, Guiller, DeNardo and Lourdais2014). These linear habitats also facilitate dispersion and thus connectivity between populations and offer breeding sites (Arntzen et al. Reference Arntzen, Abrahams, Meilink, Losif and Zuiderwik2017).

Figure 3. Examples of (a) hedgerows positively influencing crop yields while improving ecosystem services and biodiversity in farmlands (adapted from Kremen Reference Kremen2020) and (b) a landscape in India that shows connectivity with diverse landscapes such as forests and water bodies and the presence of linear strips of native plants in rice paddies as an indication of how farmlands can be redesigned (image created using Google Earth Pro, version 7.3.6.9796). 1Kremen (Reference Kremen2020).

Different vegetation types enhance diversity at a regional level (Michael et al. Reference Michael, Cunningham, Donnelly and Lindenmayer2012). Plants impact amphibians by affecting abiotic factors such as resource quality and the nature and strength of interspecific interactions between amphibians and other species such as predators and their abundance (Burrow & Maerz Reference Burrow and Maerz2022). Reptile diversity increases with greater native plant species in farmlands. Thus, hedgerow landscapes consisting of complex mosaics of pastures, ponds and hedges connected to forest patches could effectively reverse the loss of farmland herpetofauna in India (Fig. 3b).

The importance of hedgerows in India was tested between 1994 and 2001. North-east India is an excellent case that demonstrates the importance of hedgerows (Sundriyal Reference Sundriyal2003). Developing hedgerows incurred initial costs due to the procuring of the seeds of hedgerow species and the establishment and maintenance of hedgerows but provided consistent profits in the following years and increased major crop yields by 1.5–3.0% (Sundriyal Reference Sundriyal2003). The impact on crops has been seen to be more significant for vegetable and root crops. Hedgerows of Jum cultivation have also been reported to contribute significantly to reductions in nutrient runoff and soil erosion (Sundriyal Reference Sundriyal2003). Therefore, establishing hedgerows would require selecting species that are fast-growing, that require minimal inputs while producing high biomass and that contribute to ecosystem services including nitrogen fixation and preventing soil erosion. Low costs would be incurred to create and maintain hedgerow landscapes while also increasing profits.

The uptake of ecological intensification from science to practice is still rather limited. It is estimated that 29% of all farms worldwide have integrated some form of ecological intensification (Pretty Reference Pretty2018). Of the total land area in India, only 46% is available as cultivable land, with more than 250 cropping systems and cereal cultivation accounting for c. 75% of the cultivatable land (Hobbs & Gupta Reference Hobbs, Gupta, Kijne, Barker and Molden2003). As per the Government of India (2015) report, the small and marginal landholding farmers, dominated by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and accounting for c. 85% of the total agricultural landholders, cultivate over 72 million hectares of land and contribute 50–60% of India’s total food requirement (Nath et al. Reference Nath, Lal, Sileshi and Das2018). Therefore, alongside improving food security and preventing natural resource depletion, in India ecological intensification needs to consider farmers’ socio-economic status as well. Adoption of this approach would require awareness to be generated within the farming community and convincing of local non-governmental organizations to implement these technologies, which could prove to be an effective strategy (Sundriyal Reference Sundriyal2003).

Conclusion

Although there is a general consensus on the negative influences of agriculture on amphibians and reptiles (Trochet et al. Reference Trochet, Jérémy, Le Chevalier, Baillat, Calvez, Blanchet and Riberob2016), farming practices are not necessarily in conflict with their conservation. Different species of herpetofauna show differential responses to the various components of agricultural landscapes. Though amphibians and squamate reptiles are known to utilize hedgerows, there is a significant lack of understanding of the role of hedgerow landscapes in maintaining the diversity of these taxa (Hansen et al. Reference Hansen, Sato, Michael, Lindenmayer and Driscoll2019), especially in India. Based on the ecological requirements of the herpetofauna species, relevant landscape conservation policies (e.g., promoting pond quality and density, patches of woodland and hedge networks) could be developed at the local and landscape scales. Based on the available evidence, hedgerows do offer a potential option for promoting the conservation of species and the ecosystem services they provide while also improving crop yields. This transition towards ecological intensification in India can be expected to result in increased food security through the use of natural resources (e.g., increased natural pest predators, pollinators, etc.), while also maintaining socio-economic balance (in the form of yields, market value and livelihoods; Kumari et al. Reference Kumari, Kumar, Parveen, Pradhan, Kumar and Kumari2019). Maintaining the status quo will mean the continued loss of these beneficial animals. In the face of the dual challenges of food security and environmental sustainability, ecological intensification stands out as a compelling solution for harmonizing human needs with ecosystem health.

Acknowledgements

I thank the editor, Nicholas Polunin, for his critical, constructive review that has substantially improved the manuscript. I also thank Aditya V and Kannan A for spending time on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Financial support

This work was partly funded by Rufford Small Grants (34363-B, 2022).

Competing interests

The author declares none.

Declarations

There has been no use of any AI tools at any stage of preparing this manuscript.

Ethical standards

Not applicable.

References

Arntzen, JW, Abrahams, C, Meilink, WRM, Losif, R, Zuiderwik, A (2017) Amphibian decline, pond loss and reduced population connectivity under agricultural intensification over a 38 year period. Biodiversity and Conservation 26: 1411–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissinot, A, Besnard, A, Lourdais, O (2019) Amphibian diversity in farmlands: combined influences of breeding-site and landscape attributes in western France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 269: 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brozio, S, O’Shaughnessy, EM, Woods, S, Hall-Barrientos, I, Martin, PE, Kennedy, MW et al. (2021) Frog nest foams exhibit pharmaceutical foam-like properties. Royal Society Open Science 8: 210048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burrow, A, Maerz, J (2022) How plants affect amphibian populations. Biological Reviews 97: 1749–1767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cayuela, H, Lambrey, J, Vacher, JP, Miaud, C (2015) Highlighting the effects of land-use change on a threatened amphibian in a human-dominated landscape. Population Ecology 57: 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, DE, Fuller, RJ, Bunce, RGH, Duckworth, JC, Shrubb, M (2000) Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 771–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogălniceanu, D, Stănescu, F, Székely, D, Topliceanu, T-S, Losif, R, Szekely, P (2021) Age, size and body condition do not equally reflect population response to habitat change in the common spadefoot toad Pelobates fuscus . PeerJ 9: e11678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Concepción, ED, Moretti, M, Altermatt, F, Nobis, MP, Obrist, MK (2015) Impacts of urbanisation on biodiversity: the role of species mobility, degree of specialisation and spatial scale. Oikos 124: 1571–1582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornulier, T, Robinson, RA, Elston, D, Lambin, X, Sutherland, WJ, Benton, TG (2011) Bayesian reconstitution of environmental change from disparate historical records: hedgerow loss and farmland bird declines. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2: 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, N, Young, B.E., Bowles, P. Fernandez, M, Marin, J, Rapacciuolo, G et al. (2022) A global reptile assessment highlights shared conservation needs of tetrapods. Nature 605: 285–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de la Peña, NM, Butet, A, Delettre, Y, Paillat, G, Morant, P, Du, LL, Burel, F (2003) Response of the small mammal community to changes in western French agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecology 18: 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuti, K, Ganesh, SR, Chandra, K (2022) Diversity, distribution and endemicity of herpetofauna in different biogeographic zones and biodiversity hotspots of India. In: Kaur, S, Batish, DR, Singh, HP, Kohli, R (eds), Biodiversity in India: Status, Issues and Challenges (pp. 119–148). Singapore: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Fahrig, L, Baudry, J, Brotons, L, Burel, FG, Crist, TO, Fuller, RJ, Sirami, C et al (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecology Letters 14: 101–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fahrig, L, Girard, J, Duro, D, Pasher, J, Smith, A, Javorek, S et al. (2015) Farmlands with smaller crop fields have higher within-field biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 200: 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, K, Yi, X, Dai, W, Gao, H, Cao, L (2019) Effects of integrated rice–frog farming on paddy field greenhouse gas emissions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 1930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAO (2016) Forests and agriculture: land-use challenges and opportunities. Rome, Italy: FAO [www document]. URL https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/74b4394d-b389-4450-a4d7-bd37ab751c31/content Google Scholar
Fonte, LFMD, Mayer, M, Lötters, S (2019) Long-distance dispersal in amphibians. Frontiers of Biogeography 11: e44577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garibaldi, LA, Steffan-Dewenter, I, Kremen, C, Morales, JM, Bommarc, R, Cunningham, SA et al. (2011) Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecology Letters 14: 1062–1072.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gauffre, B, Boissinot, A, Quiquempois, V, Leblois, R, Grillet, P, Morin, S et al. (2022) Agricultural intensification alters marbled newt genetic diversity and gene flow through density and dispersal reduction. Molecular Ecology 31: 119–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghosh, D (2021) Impact of Agricultural Intensification on Diversity and Ecosystem Service Delivery of Herpetofauna. PhD thesis. University of Calcutta, India [www document]. URL http://hdl.handle.net/10603/450107 Google Scholar
Ghosh, D, Basu, P (2020) Factors influencing herpetofauna abundance and diversity in a tropical agricultural landscape mosaic. Biotropica 52: 927–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, D, Basu, P (2023) Does agricultural intensification impact pest regulation service by frogs in a natural multi-trophic system? Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 21: 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, D, Borzée, A (2024) Hunt or ambush: foraging mode in amphibians and reptiles can benefit biological pest regulation. Royal Society Open Science 11: 240535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Global Landscapes Forum (2022) Transforming agrifood systems with forests [www document]. URL https://events.globallandscapesforum.org/transforming-food-systems-with-forests/?utm_source=miragenews&utm_medium=miragenews&utm_campaign=news Google Scholar
Gohain, MP (2023) Of 426 amphibian species assessed in India, 139 found to be threatened. The Times of India [www document]. URL https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/of-426-amphibian-species-assessed-in-india-139-found-to-be-threatened/articleshow/104166472.cms Google Scholar
Government of India (2015) All India Reports on Agricultural Census 2010–11. New Delhi, India: Agricultural Census Division, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation.Google Scholar
Graham, L, Gaulton, R, Gerard, F, Staley, JT (2018) The influence of hedgerow structural condition on wildlife habitat provision in farmed landscapes. Biological Conservation 220: 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, HW (2000) Snakes: The Evolution of Mystery in Nature. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Guerra, C, Aráoz, E (2016) Amphibian malformations and body condition across an agricultural landscape of northwest Argentina. Disease of Aquatic Organisms 121: 105–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guiller, G, Legentilhomme, J, Boissinot, A, Blouin-Demers, G, Barbraud, C, Lourdais, O (2022) Response of farmland reptiles to agricultural intensification: collapse of the common adder Vipera berus and the western green lizard Lacerta bilineata in a hedgerow landscape. Animal Conservation 25: 849–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillon, M, Guiller, G, DeNardo, DF, Lourdais, O (2014) Microclimate preferences correlate with contrasted evaporative water loss in parapatric vipers at their contact zone. Canadian Journal of Zoology 92: 81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, NA, Sato, CF, Michael, DR, Lindenmayer, DB, Driscoll, DA (2019) Predation risk for reptiles is highest at remnant edges in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 56: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, P, Gupta, R (2003) Rice–wheat cropping systems in the Indo-Gangetic plains: issues of water productivity in relation to new resource-conserving technologies. In: Kijne, JW, Barker, R, Molden, D (eds), Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement (pp. 239–253). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, WA, Winne, CT, DuRant, SE (2005) Differential swimming performance of two natricine snakes exposed to a cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticide. Environmental Pollution 133: 531–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IUCN (2024) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [www document]. URL https://www.iucnredlist.org/ Google Scholar
Kremen, C (2020) Ecological intensification and diversification approaches to maintain biodiversity, ecosystem services and food production in a changing world. Emerging Topics in Life Sciences 4: 229–240.Google Scholar
Kross, SM, Martinico, BL, Bourbour, RP, Townsend, JM, McColl, C, Kelsey, TR (2020) Effects of field and landscape scale habitat on insect and bird damage to sunflowers. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, A, Singh, B, Kumar, S, Ray, NK, Dash, SS (2023) Effect of ecological intensification practices on growth and yield of rice. The Pharma Innovation Journal 12: 384–386.Google Scholar
Kumari, D, Kumar, S, Parveen, H, Pradhan, AK, Kumar, S, Kumari, R (2019) Long-Term impact of conservation agriculture on chemical properties of soil. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 8: 2144–2153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M’Gonigle, LK, Ponisio, LC, Cutler, K, Kremen, C (2015) Habitat restoration promotes pollinator persistence and colonization in intensively managed agriculture. Ecological Applications 25: 1557–1565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Majumder, R (2022) Herpetofaunal community composition in an agro-ecosystem in the Gangetic plain of eastern India. Zoology and Ecology 32: 122–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majumder, R (2023) Balancing food security and environmental safety: rethinking modern agricultural practices. Environmental and Experimental Biology 21: 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez-Freiria, F, Lorenzo, M, Lizana, M (2019) Zamenis scalaris prefers abandoned citrus orchards in eastern Spain. Ecological insights from a radio-tracking survey. Amphibia-Reptilia 40: 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, DR, Cunningham, RB, Donnelly, CF, Lindenmayer, DB (2012) Comparative use of active searches and artificial refuges to survey reptiles in temperate eucalypt woodlands. Wildlife Research 39: 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monagan, IV, Morris, JR, Rabosky, ARD, Perfecto, I, Vandermeer, J (2017) Anolis lizards as biocontrol agents in mainland and island agroecosystems. Ecology and Evolution 7: 2193–2203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mondal, S, Palit, D (2021) Ecological intensification for sustainable agriculture and environment in India. In: Jhariya, MK, Meena, RS, Banerjee, A (eds), Ecological Intensification of Natural Resources for Sustainable Agriculture (pp. 215–254). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nath, AJ, Lal, R, Sileshi, GW, Das, AK (2018) Managing India’s small landholder farms for food security and achieving the ‘4 per Thousand’ target. Science of the Total Environment 634: 1024–1033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novotný, D, Zapletal, M, Kepka, P, Benes, J, Konvicka, M (2015) Large moths captures by a pest monitoring system depend on farmland heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Entomology 139: 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olesen, J, Valido, A (2003) Lizards as pollinators and seed dispersers: an island phenomenon. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18: 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrin, A, Pellet, J, Bergonzoli, L, Christe, P, Glaizot, O (2023) Amphibian abundance is associated with reduced mosquito presence in human-modified landscapes. Ecosphere 14: e4484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Population Matters (2024) World Population Facts [www document]. URL https://populationmatters.org/lp-the-facts/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwsc24BhDPARIsAFXqAB01dHeedtLmmT9K51BU80MGrL2NWdZIsq23wosL0vX23J0pExRcjEoaAqBPEALw_wcB Google Scholar
Population Reference Bureau (2019) World Population Data Sheet [www document]. URL https://www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-world-population-data-sheet.pdf Google Scholar
Pretty, J (2018) Intensification for redesigned and sustainable agricultural systems. Science 362: eaav0294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Re:wild, Synchronicity Earth, IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2023) State of the World’s Amphibians: The Second Global Amphibian Assessment [www document]. URL https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/sotwa Google Scholar
Simbula, G, Macale, D, Gomes, V, Vignoli, L, Carretero, MA (2021) Effects of pesticides on eggs and hatchlings of the Italian wall lizard (Podarcis siculus) exposed via maternal route. Zoologischer Anzeiger 293: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivathsa, A, Vasudev, D, Nair, T, Chakraborti, S, Chanchanu, P, Defries, R et al. (2023) Prioritizing India’s landscapes for biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Nature Sustainability 6: 568–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statista (2024) Forecast: Global Agricultural Use of Pesticides 2023–2027 [www document]. URL ∼https://www.statista.com/statistics/1401556/global-agricultural-use-of-pesticides-forecast/#:~:text=Forecast%3A%20global%20agricultural%20use%20of%20pesticides%202023%2D2027%26text=The%20worldwide%20agricultural%20consumption%20of,million%20metric%20tons%20in%202027 Google Scholar
Sundriyal, RC (2003) Contour Hedgerow Farming in North-East India [www document]. URL https://www.google.com/url?sa=t%26source=web%26rct=j%26opi=89978449%26url=https://lib.icimod.org/record/21896/files/c_attachment_127_982.pdf Google Scholar
Tilman, D, Williams, D (2021) Preserving global biodiversity requires rapid agricultural improvements. The Royal Society [www document]. URL https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/biodiversity/preserving-global-biodiversity-agricultural-improvements/ Google Scholar
Trochet, A, Jérémy, D, Le Chevalier, H, Baillat, B, Calvez, O, Blanchet, S, Riberob, A (2016) Effects of habitat and fragmented-landscape parameters on amphibian distribution at a large spatial scale. Herpetological Journal 26: 73–84.Google Scholar
Valencia-Aguilar, A, Cortés-Gómez, AM, Ruiz-Agudelo, CA (2013) Ecosystem services provided by amphibians and reptiles in Neotropical ecosystems. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 9: 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vision 2050 (2015) Vision 2050. New Delhi, India: Indian Council of Agricultural Research [www document]. URL https://icar.org.in/sites/default/files/inline-files/Vision-2050-ICAR_1.pdf Google Scholar
Vitt, LJ, Caldwell, JP (2014) Herpetology: An Introductory Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles, 4th edition. Cambridge, MA, USA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wisler, C, Hofer, U, Arlettaz, R (2009) Snakes and monocultures: habitat selection and movements of female grass snakes (Natrix natrix l.) in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Herpetology 42: 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Resources Institute (2023) World Resources Institute homepage [www document]. URL https://www.wri.org/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwj9-zBhDyARIsAERjds3ZlBGJRKkCo41Ds0Y8M0GDfIrcCqdJlggyK0b806bF7ykOOnvDvLgaAgP6EALw_wcB Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Illustration of the diverse impacts of agricultural intensification on herpetofauna diversity and their ecosystem services facing similar threats following the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categorization system (IUCN 2024): (a) the difference in diversity between low and high agricultural intensification; (b) the trends in pesticide application; (c) the threats listed by IUCN for loss of amphibians; (d) the threats listed by IUCN for loss of reptiles; and (e) photographs showing the change in landscape from low to high agricultural intensification and ecosystem services such as bioregulation of crop pests provided by farmland herpetofauna. All photographs by DG. The threats mentioned here follow the IUCN categorisation system: 1.1 Housing & urban areas; 1.3 Tourism & recreation areas; 2 Agriculture & aquaculture, 2.1.1 Shifting agriculture, 2.1.2 Small-holder farming; 2.1.3 Agro-industry farming; 2.3.2 Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming; 3.2 Mining & quarrying; 4 Transportation & service corridors, 5.1.1 Intentional use (species being assessed is the target), 5.3.3 Unintentional effects: subsistence/small scale (species being assessed is not the target) [harvest], 5.3.4 Unintentional effects: large scale (species being assessed is not the target) [harvest], 5.3.5 Motivation unknown/unrecorded, 7.1.1 Increase in fire frequency/intensity, 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases. References in the figure are: 1Ghosh (2021); 2Statista (2024); 3IUCN (2024); 4Srivathsa et al. (2023); 5Monagan et al. (2017); 6Ghosh and Basu (2023).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Impacts of pesticide application (e.g., carbofuran and cypermethrin), showing dead (a) a checkered keelback snake and (b) Dicroglossidae and Microhylidae amphibians from rice paddies in India. All photographs by DG.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Examples of (a) hedgerows positively influencing crop yields while improving ecosystem services and biodiversity in farmlands (adapted from Kremen 2020) and (b) a landscape in India that shows connectivity with diverse landscapes such as forests and water bodies and the presence of linear strips of native plants in rice paddies as an indication of how farmlands can be redesigned (image created using Google Earth Pro, version 7.3.6.9796). 1Kremen (2020).