Aim Conservation conflict takes place where food production imposes a cost on wildlife conservation and vice versa. Where does conservation impose the maximum cost on production, by opposing the intensification and expansion of farmland? Where does conservation confer the maximum benefit on wildlife, by buffering and connecting protected areas with a habitable and permeable matrix of crop and non-crop habitat? Our aim was to map the costs and benefits of conservation versus production and thus to propose a conceptual framework for systematic conservation planning in agricultural landscapes. Location World-wide. Methods To quantify these costs and benefits, we used a geographic information system to sample the cropland of the world and map the proportion of non-crop habitat surrounding the cropland, the number of threatened vertebrates with potential to live in or move through the matrix and the yield gap of the cropland. We defined the potential for different types of conservation conflict in terms of interactions between habitat and yield (potential for expansion, intensification, both or neither). We used spatial scan statistics to find ‘hotspots’ of conservation conflict. Results All of the ‘hottest’ hotspots of conservation conflict were in sub-Saharan Africa, which could have impacts on sustainable intensification in this region. Main conclusions Systematic conservation planning could and should be used to identify hotspots of conservation conflict in agricultural landscapes, at multiple scales. The debate between ‘land sharing’ (extensive agriculture that is wildlife friendly) and ‘land sparing’ (intensive agriculture that is less wildlife friendly but also less extensive) could be resolved if sharing and sparing were used as different types of tool for resolving different types of conservation conflict (buffering and connecting protected areas by maintaining matrix quality, in different types of matrix). Therefore, both sharing and sparing should be prioritized in hotspots of conflict, in the context of countryside biogeography.

中文翻译：

---

农业景观保护规划：农业与自然冲突的热点

目的 保护冲突发生在粮食生产对野生动物保护造成成本的地方，反之亦然。通过反对农田的集约化和扩张，保护在哪里对生产施加了最大的成本？通过缓冲和连接保护区与宜居和可渗透的作物和非作物栖息地矩阵，保护在哪里赋予野生动物最大利益？我们的目标是绘制保护与生产的成本和收益图，从而为农业景观的系统保护规划提出一个概念框架。位置全球。方法 为了量化这些成本和收益，我们使用地理信息系统对世界农田进行采样，并绘制农田周围非作物栖息地的比例，有可能在基质中生活或移动的受威胁脊椎动物的数量以及农田的产量差距。我们根据栖息地和产量之间的相互作用（扩张、集约化的潜力，两者兼而有之）定义了不同类型保护冲突的可能性。我们使用空间扫描统计来寻找保护冲突的“热点”。结果 所有保护冲突的“最热门”热点都在撒哈拉以南非洲，这可能会对该地区的可持续集约化产生影响。主要结论 系统的保护规划可以而且应该用于在多个尺度上确定农业景观中保护冲突的热点。“土地共享”（对野生动物友好的粗放农业）和“土地节约”（对野生动物不友好但也不那么广泛的集约化农业）之间的争论可以解决，如果共享和节约被用作不同类型的工具来解决不同的问题保护冲突的类型（通过在不同类型的矩阵中保持矩阵质量来缓冲和连接保护区）。因此，在农村生物地理学的背景下，在冲突热点中应该优先考虑共享和保留。