Recently, Driscoll et al. conducted a survey of “countryside biogeography” based on the frequency of certain words appearing in scientific articles and claim that the term is a ‘wrapper’ for pre‐existing, well‐developed concepts in landscape ecology (Driscoll et al., 2019). In their analysis, they find significant divergences between countryside biogeography versus non‐countryside biogeography articles, but nevertheless dismiss these differences to argue that “patch/matrix” binary terminology is a better way to guide research in agricultural landscapes despite citing a long list of shortcomings stemming from terminology rooted in island biogeography (Brudvig et al., 2017; Haila, 2002; Laurance, 2008; Lindenmayer & Fischer, 2007). I disagree with their interpretation. New data and ideas emerging from countryside biogeography have not only helped give rise to the continuous habitat models of landscape ecology (Betts et al., 2014; Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2006), but are bringing biogeography into the Anthropocene by focusing on the creation of new places for life to live, its intrinsic and societal value, and by generating new data on biological communities forming in human‐made habitats. This is distinctly different from landscape ecology in scope and spatial scale, which tends to focus on large spatial scales of landscape patterns as a means of quantifying biodiversity loss in terms of species richness and modelling species‐specific distributions (Betts et al., 2014; Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2006).

Since its conceptualization, countryside biogeography has sought to change the persistent and current practice of framing conservation science in terms of island biogeography (Bueno & Peres, 2019; Gibson et al., 2013; Soulé, 1985) and determine the capacity of human‐dominated landscapes to support biodiversity (Daily, 1997). Along with other fields (Ellis, 2015), it has gone beyond these pre‐existing frameworks to trace the biogeographic origins and traits of species that live partially and completely in human‐made habitats. This unsettling discovery that novel biological communities are forming in agricultural plots and other human‐made spaces as their primary and secondary habitats conceptually separates countryside biogeography from landscape ecology. The formation of novel biological communities in some types of agriculture has been shown to span taxonomic groups (Hendershot et al., 2020; Horner‐Devine, Daily, Ehrlich, & Boggs, 2003; Mendenhall, Shields‐estrada, Krishnaswami, & Daily, 2016; Ricketts, Daily, Ehrlich, & Fay, 2001) and usually involves species from different climate zones, often with large geographic ranges (Frishkoff, Hadly, & Daily, 2015; Frishkoff et al., 2016). Examples of biodiversity gains resulting from human activity (Sax & Gaines, 2003; Capinha et al., 2015) are adding new data to the biogeographic record of the Anthropocene, as well as the raw material for predicting the trajectory of evolution and speciation (Frishkoff et al., 2014) on a planet where over 75% of the global land surface is dedicated to human activities (Ellis, 2015; Ellis, Klein Goldewijk, Siebert, Lightman, & Ramankutty, 2010). Growing evidence supports the notion that humans have redefined biogeography in the Anthropocene (Capinha et al., 2015).

Although it is true that most biodiversity in human‐made habitats is less abundant (Mendenhall et al., 2014), less phylogenetically unique (Frishkoff et al., 2014) and less diverse across large spatial scales (Karp et al., 2012) compared to native habitats, it does not mean that this biodiversity is free from threats or does not merit protection for its own sake (Newman, Varner, & Linquist, 2017). For example, of the declining migratory songbirds in North America (Rosenberg et al., 2019), 25 of 36 species captured in southern Costa Rica during their wintering period prefer sun coffee plantations (2,629 individuals) compared to forests of various sizes and qualities (833 individuals), this is despite about half as much mist net sampling effort in coffee plantations (Şekercioğlu et al., 2019, Catharus ustulatus excluded from totals). In Europe, many organisms seem to depend on habitats created by livestock farming (Pärtel, Bruun, & Sammul, 2005). The biogeography of these species draws attention to consequences caused by encouraging agricultural intensification in different regions where agriculture is small scale (Perfecto, Vandermeer, & Wright, 2009) and is made up of keystone structures, scattered trees (Manning, Fischer, & Lindenmayer, 2006) that are often missed by remote sensing satellites often used in landscape ecology (Mendenhall & Wrona, 2018). This is particularly relevant to the theoretical debate of land sparing/land sharing (Fischer et al., 2008), which was identified as a divergent term between countryside and non‐countryside papers (Driscoll et al., 2019). In the land sparing/land sharing debate, countryside biogeography conceptualizes the biodiversity and biological processes at risk if agricultural intensification is realized (Tscharntke et al., 2012), even under the optimistic idea in that in practice land sparing will coincide with agricultural intensification (Gilroy, Edwards, Medina Uribe, Haugaasen, & Edwards, 2014).

Amid the sixth mass extinction (Ceballos et al., 2015) and the age of ecosystem services, there is much to be learned from both established and nascent fields and from adopting a multidisciplinary or even a transdisciplinary approach. This has encouraged researchers across all ecological disciplines to put people at the centre of conservation in production landscapes (Keeler et al., 2017) and to move past the semantics that frame how bad people are for biodiversity. Countryside biogeography, conservation biogeography (Whittaker et al., 2005) and other research areas are helping to bring the ideas and methods of biogeography to new conservation constituencies, including landowners, development banks and multinational companies engaging with conservation science through ecosystem services (Kareiva & Marvier, 2012; Perfecto et al., 2009; Tallis et al., 2018).

最近，Driscoll等人。根据科学文章中某些单词出现的频率对``农村生物地理学''进行了调查，并声称该术语是景观生态学中已有的，发达的概念的``包装器''（Driscoll等人，  2019年）。在他们的分析中，他们发现农村生物地理文章与非农村生物地理文章之间存在显着差异，但是尽管存在很多缺点，但还是忽略了这些差异，认为“补丁/矩阵”二元术语是指导农业景观研究的更好方法。源自植根于岛屿生物地理学的术语（Brudvig等人，  2017 ; Haila，  2002 ; Laurance，  2008 ; Lindenmayer＆Fischer， 2007）。我不同意他们的解释。乡村生物地理学产生的新数据和新观点不仅帮助建立了景观生态学的连续生境模型（Betts等人，  2014年； Fischer＆Lindenmayer，  2006年），而且通过着重于生物人类学的创建将生物地理学带入人类世。新的生活场所，其内在价值和社会价值，以及通过生成有关在人为栖息地中形成的生物群落的新数据。这在范围和空间尺度上与景观生态学截然不同，后者倾向于集中在大型的景观格局空间尺度上，以通过物种丰富度和模拟物种特定分布来量化生物多样性的丧失（Betts等，  2014）。; Fischer＆Lindenmayer，  2006）。

自从概念化以来，农村生物地理学就试图改变岛屿生物地理学框架科学的持久性和当前做法（Bueno＆Peres，  2019年； Gibson等人，  2013年；Soulé，1985年），并确定以人为主导的能力景观以支持生物多样性（Daily，  1997年）。以及其他领域（埃利斯，  2015年），它已经超越了这些先前存在的框架，可以追踪部分或全部生活在人工栖息地中的物种的生物地理起源和特征。这一令人不安的发现是，在农田和其他人工空间中形成了新型生物群落，因为它们的主要和次要栖息地从概念上将乡村生物地理学与景观生态学区分开来。在某些类型的农业中，新型生物群落的形成已显示出跨越了生物分类群（Hendershot等，  2020； Horner-Devine，Daily，Ehrlich和Boggs，  2003； Mendenhall，Shields-estrada，Krishnaswami和Daily，  2016年;里基茨（Ricketts），《每日报》，埃里希（Ehrlich）和费伊（Fay），  2001），通常涉及来自不同气候区的物种，通常具有较大的地理范围（Frishkoff，Hadly和＆Daily，  2015年; Frishkoff等人，2016年）。人类活动导致的生物多样性增加的例子（Sax＆Gaines，  2003； Capinha等，2015）正在向人类世的生物地理记录中添加新数据，以及用于预测进化和物种形成轨迹的原材料（Frishkoff等人，  2014年）在地球上，全球陆地表面的75％以上用于人类活动（Ellis，  2015年； Ellis，Klein Goldewijk，Siebert，Lightman和Ramankutty，  2010年））。越来越多的证据支持人类重新定义人类世的生物地理学的观点（Capinha等，2015）。

尽管人为生境中的大多数生物多样性确实不那么丰富（Mendenhall等人，  2014），系统发育上的独特性也较少（Frishkoff等人，  2014），并且在较大的空间尺度上多样性也不那么丰富（Karp等人，  2012）。与本地生境相比，这并不意味着该生物多样性没有受到威胁或不应出于自身利益而受到保护（Newman，Varner，＆Linquist，  2017）。例如，在北美不断减少的迁徙鸣鸟中（Rosenberg等人，  2019），哥斯达黎加南部在越冬期间捕获的36种树种中有25种更喜欢使用太阳咖啡种植园（2,629人），而不是各种规模和质量的森林（833人），尽管在咖啡种植园中雾气净采样量只有一半（Şekercioğlu等人，  2019年，从总数中排除了Catharus ustulatus）。在欧洲，许多生物似乎都依赖于畜牧业创造的栖息地（Pärtel，Bruun和Sammul，  2005年）。这些物种的生物地理学引起人们的注意，是由于在农业规模较小的不同地区鼓励农业集约化所造成的后果（Perfecto，Vandermeer和Wright，  2009年））并由梯形结构，零散的树木（Manning，Fischer，＆Lindenmayer，2006）所组成，而这些树木 通常被景观生态学中常用的遥感卫星所遗漏（Mendenhall＆Wrona，  2018年）。这与土地节约/土地共享的理论辩论（Fischer et al。，2008）特别相关 ，后者被认为是农村论文与非农村论文之间的分歧术语（Driscoll et al。，  2019）。在节约土地/共享土地的辩论中，如果实现了农业集约化，则农村生物地理学将生物多样性和生物过程概念化（Tscharntke等，  2012）。），即使在乐观的想法下，实践中土地节约也将与农业集约化同时发生（Gilroy，Edwards，Medina Uribe，Haugaasen和Edwards，  2014年）。

在第六次大规模灭绝（Ceballos等人，  2015）和生态系统服务的时代，既有经验的领域也有很多，新兴的领域以及采用多学科甚至跨学科的方法都需要学习。这鼓励了所有生态学科的研究人员将人们置于生产景观的保护中心（Keeler et al。，  2017），并超越了描述穷人对生物多样性有多严重的语义。农村生物地理学，保护生物地理学（Whittaker等，  2005））和其他研究领域正在帮助将生物地理学的思想和方法带入新的保护区，包括土地所有者，开发银行和通过生态系统服务与保护科学界接轨的跨国公司（Kareiva和Marvier，  2012； Perfecto等，  2009； Tallis等，  2018）。