Summary: Positive biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships (BEFRs) have been widely documented, but it is unclear if BEFRs should be expected in disturbance‐driven systems. Disturbance may limit competition and niche differentiation, which are frequently posited to underlie BEFRs. We provide the first exploration of the relationship between tree species diversity and biomass, one measure of ecosystem function, across southern African woodlands and savannas, an ecological system rife with disturbance from fire, herbivores and humans. We used > 1000 vegetation plots distributed across 10 southern African countries and structural equation modelling to determine the relationship between tree species diversity and above‐ground woody biomass, accounting for interacting effects of resource availability, disturbance by fire, tree stem density and vegetation type. We found positive effects of tree species diversity on above‐ground biomass, operating via increased structural diversity. The observed BEFR was highly dependent on organismal density, with a minimum threshold of c. 180 mature stems ha⁻¹. We found that water availability mainly affects biomass indirectly, via increasing species diversity. The study underlines the close association between tree diversity, ecosystem structure, environment and function in highly disturbed savannas and woodlands. We suggest that tree diversity is an under‐appreciated determinant of wooded ecosystem structure and function.

Emerging information on the interactions between the COVID-19 pandemic and global food systems have highlighted how the pandemic is accentuating food crises across Africa. Less clear, however, are how the impacts differ between farming systems. Drawing on 50 key informant interviews with farmers, village leaders and extension officers in South Africa and Tanzania, we identify the effects of COVID-19 and associated measures to curb the spread of the disease on farming production systems, the coping mechanisms adopted by farmers, and explore their longer-term plans for adaptation. We focus on a diverse range of production systems, from small-scale mixed farming systems in Tanzania to large-scale corporate farms in South Africa. Our findings highlight how COVID-19 restrictions have interrupted the supply chains of agricultural inputs and commodities, increasing the storage time for produce, decreasing income and purchasing power, and reducing labour availability. Farmers’ responses were heterogeneous, with highly diverse small-scale farming systems and those less engaged with international markets least affected by the associated COVID-19 measures. Large-scale farmers were most able to access capital to buffer short-term impacts, whereas smaller-scale farms shared labour, diversified to subsistence produce and sold assets. However, compounded shocks, such as recent extreme climate events, limited the available coping options, particularly for smaller-scale and emerging farmers. The study highlights the need to understand the characteristics of farm systems to better equip and support farmers, particularly in contexts of uncertainty. We propose that policy actions should focus on (i) providing temporary relief and social support and protection to financially vulnerable stakeholders, (ii) job assurance for farmworkers and engaging an alternative workforce in farming, (iii) investing in farming infrastructure, such as storage facilities, digital communication tools and extension services, and (iv) supporting diversified agroecological farming systems.

Land use change (LUC) is the leading cause of biodiversity loss worldwide. However, the global understanding of LUC's impact on biodiversity is mainly based on comparisons of land use endpoints (habitat vs non-habitat) in forest ecosystems. Hence, it may not generalise to savannas, which are ecologically distinct from forests, as they are inherently patchy, and disturbance adapted. Endpoint comparisons also cannot inform the management of intermediate mosaic landscapes. We aim to address these gaps by investigating species- and community-level responses of mammals and trees along a gradient of small scale agricultural expansion in the miombo woodlands of northern Mozambique. Thus, the case study represents the most common pathway of LUC and biodiversity change in the world's largest savanna. Tree abundance, mammal occupancy, and tree- and mammal-species richness showed a non-linear relationship with agricultural expansion (characterised by the Land Division Index, LDI). These occurrence and diversity metrics increased at intermediate LDI (0.3 to 0.7), started decreasing beyond LDI > 0.7, and underwent high levels of decline at extreme levels of agricultural expansion (LDI > 0.9). Despite similarities in species richness responses, the two taxonomic groups showed contrasting β-diversity patterns in response to increasing LDI: increased dissimilarity among tree communities (heterogenisation) and high similarity among mammals (homogenisation). Our analysis along a gradient of landscape-scale land use intensification allows a novel understanding of the impacts of different levels of land conversion, which can help guide land use and restoration policy. Biodiversity loss in this miombo landscape was lower than would be inferred from existing global syntheses of biodiversity-land use relations for Africa or the tropics, probably because such syntheses take a fully converted landscape as the endpoint. As, currently, most African savanna landscapes are a mosaic of savanna habitats and small scale agriculture, biodiversity loss is probably lower than in current global estimates, albeit with a trend towards further conversion. However, at extreme levels of land use change (LDI > 0.9 or < 15% habitat cover) miombo biodiversity appears to bemoresensitive to LUC than inferred from the meta-analyses. To mitigate the worst effects of land use on biodiversity, our results suggest that miombo landscapes should retain > 25% habitat cover and avoid LDI > 0.75—after which species richness of both groups begin to decline. Our findings indicate that tree diversity may be easier to restore from natural restoration than mammal diversity, which became spatially homogeneous.

Biophysical evaluations of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) often overlook the potential interactions with and implications for biodiversity and ecosystem services, which are important determinants of food system resilience and sustainability. Drawing on a case study in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania, we compare the impacts of CSA with other agricultural management practices on invertebrate pest and natural enemy diversity, and the associated effects on crop damage and crop yield. We found that the most common CSA practices in the region, terracing and trenching with live and compost mulches, provided the best outcomes for crop production, pest suppression and agricultural income. However, greater diversity of pests was observed when neighboring fields planted improved crop varieties, suggesting that the use of improved varieties by farmers creates increased vulnerability to pest damage among neighboring farmers that used local varieties. Also, greater natural enemy diversity was found when neighboring fields were either intercropped or left fallow highlighting spatial flows of ecosystem services between fields. Landcover heterogeneity was positively correlated with pest diversity, whilst landcover richness was positively associated with higher pest volume, highlighting the importance of landscape characteristics in pest and natural enemy dynamics. Finally, we found that crop damage was most severe when pest communities had low species richness, suggesting that a small number of key crop pests contribute to most yield losses. Our findings illustrate that those varied combinations of agricultural management practices lead to heterogeneous biodiversity outcomes and trade-offs, and highlight the importance of local management, neighborhood effects and landscape characteristics. CSA evaluations must therefore look beyond productivity as a measure for success, as trade-offs with invertebrate biodiversity, food production, and environmental sustainability often interact and feedback in complex and unexpected ways.

Humans and elephants are major disturbance agents in the African savanna woodlands. While both species remove trees, humans selectively harvest larger stems, which are less vulnerable to elephants. Increasing human pressures raise the question of how the altered disturbance regime will modify woodland structure, and in turn biodiversity and ecosystem function.

Emerging information on the interactions between the COVID-19 pandemic and global food systems has highlighted how the pandemic is accentuating food crises across Africa. Less clear, however, are how the impacts differ between farming systems. Drawing on 50 key informant interviews with farmers, village leaders and extension officers, in South Africa and Tanzania, we identify the effects of COVID-19 and associated measures to curb the spread of the disease on farming production systems, the coping mechanisms adopted by farmers, and explore their longer-term plans for adaptation. We focus on a diverse range of production systems, from small-scale mixed farming systems in Tanzania, to large-scale corporate farms in South Africa. Our findings highlight how COVID-19 restrictions have interrupted the supply chains of agricultural inputs and commodities, increasing the storage time for produce, decreasing income and purchasing power, and reducing labour availability. Farmers’ responses were heterogeneous, with highly diverse small-scale farming systems and those less engaged with international markets least affected by the associated COVID-19 measures. Large-scale farmers were most able to access capital to buffer short-term impacts, whereas smaller-scale farms shared labour, diversified to subsistence produce and sold assets. However, compounded shocks, such as recent extreme climate events, limited the available coping options, particularly for smaller-scale and emerging farmers. The study highlights the need to understand the characteristics of farm systems to better equip and support farmers, particularly in contexts of uncertainty. We propose that policy actions should focus on (i) providing temporary relief and social support and protection to financially vulnerable stakeholders, (ii) job assurance for farmworkers, and engaging an alternative workforce in farming, (iii) investing in farming infrastructure, such as storage facilities, digital communication tools, and extension services, and iv) supporting diversified agroecological farming systems.