Strategies to achieve agricultural production and biodiversity conservation fall into two categories, land-sparing or land-sharing. Plant species richness under organic arable (land sharing) versus conventional arable with land set-aside for conservation (land sparing) was evaluated on adjacent farms to compare these strategies. Sampled plant species richness was significantly higher under organic than conventional arable, as expected, but very similar to set-aside. Nevertheless, the Chao1 estimator of total plant species richness indicated that the larger area available to plants under organic arable may sustain more scarce species leading to a higher species richness. It appears that the conservation value of sparing versus sharing depends on the relative species richness of the portion of land spared (set-aside) compared to the larger area of shared land (organic), and not with the species richness on conventionally cropped land. Furthermore, in theory the land-shared use will have greater capacity to sustain populations of scarce low-density species simply due 100 % of the land area being available to these species. These are an important principals for assessing land sparing versus sharing strategies seeking to balance production and biodiversity conservation not just for arable land but all agricultural land uses.

实现农业生产和生物多样性保护的战略分为两类，即土地节约或土地共享。在相邻农场中评估了有机耕作（土地共享）与传统耕作（保留土地）之间的植物物种丰富度（节约土地），以比较这些策略。如所期望的那样，在有机条件下采样的植物物种丰富度显着高于常规耕种，但与预留耕地非常相似。但是，总植物物种丰富度的Chao1估计值表明，有机耕地下可用于植物的更大面积可能会维持更多稀缺物种，从而导致更高的物种丰富度。相对于共享土地的较大面积（有机），节约与共享的保护价值似乎取决于闲置（预留）部分土地的相对物种丰富度，而不是常规耕地的物种丰富度。此外，从理论上讲，仅由于100％的土地面积可供这些物种使用，土地共享的使用将具有更大的能力来维持稀缺的低密度物种的种群。这些是评估土地节约与共享战略的重要原则，这些战略不仅试图平衡耕地，而且还试图平衡所有农业用地的生产和生物多样性保护。从理论上讲，仅由于100％的土地面积可供这些物种使用，土地共享的使用将具有更大的能力来维持稀缺的低密度物种的种群。这些是评估土地节约与共享战略的重要原则，这些战略不仅试图平衡耕地，而且还试图平衡所有农业用地的生产和生物多样性保护。从理论上讲，仅由于100％的土地面积可供这些物种使用，土地共享的使用将具有更大的能力来维持稀缺的低密度物种的种群。这些是评估土地节约与共享战略的重要原则，这些战略不仅试图平衡耕地，而且还试图平衡所有农业用地的生产和生物多样性保护。