The difference between achievable to realized yield is known as “yield gap” and has been long debated. While some authors propose that intensification can fill this gap,others suggest that agroecological methods will better succeed.At this regard, carefully planned resource-conserving agricultural systems may increase yields at the same time sequestering carbon and thus contributing to climate change mitigation. Additionally, some non-intensive systems, as intensive farming systems,are below their productive potential, and can have yield improved without changing its sustainable characteristics . The second gap refers to the part of agricultural production not effectively used to feed the hungry. Some countries may succeed in improving individual food security with low yield rates, while others have improved productivity and yet not solved hunger.Hence, yield increase alone cannot guarantee food security because food security policies, health care, education,warfare and competition among edible and non-edible crops all together play a key role in hunger alleviation.

Additionally, the food industry is one of the most sophisticated businesses with refined installed lobbies which act well beyond the reach of national governments . Food industry lobbies often control international trading bodies challenging the ways in which agricultural production effectively is used to feed the hungry. LSP was largely influenced by island biogeography theory, mobile grow rack while LSH builds upon meta population theory.The theory of island biogeography describes the equilibrium in species diversity as a function of size of patches of suitable habitat and distance of these patches from the largest patch , given differential migration and extinction rates.Therefore, the number of species in a given habitat island is a balance between the chances of the species becoming locally extinct and the chances of recolonization by individuals arriving from other habitat patches into a particular habitat island. On the other hand, proponents of the LSH framework focus on the importance of the ecological qualities of the landscape matrix in balancing local extinction rates according to the meta population dynamics. In this view, the landscape is a continuum of habitat quality serving as a conduit or a barrier to dispersal, rather than a binary habitat non habitat approach.Meta population resembles the theory of island biogeography, although it is applied to population dynamics of a suite of local populations inhabiting a patchy landscape.

Each sub-population has an extinction probability along with a probability of dispersing between patches.Further application of the meta population theory on complex heterogeneous landscapes, such as the Brazilian Cerrado, also corroborates LSH higher efficiency .With respect to the relationship between biological and production parameters studies that point out for LSP superiority predict that most species follow a concave adjustment declining steeply with the increasing of agriculture intensification. According to LSH defenders,in turn,intermediate agricultural management regimes can often conserve communities/species following a convex, inverted-U and null richness/abundance and agricultural intensification. Convex patterns predicts a slight declineat intermediate levels of intensification, inverted-U pattern suggest that species richness/abundance maximum is reached at medium levels of agricultural intensification/production, which can be predicted by intermediate disturbance theory.Table 2 shows selected studies supporting these main patterns across different regions and countries.This shows different possible species responses to different degrees of agriculture intensification and production.

On the other hand, biodiversity also affects production via ecosystems services. Crops depend on pollination by bees and other arthropods,predation that decrease the levels of pest by birds , bats and insects are examples of such. Pollination estimated in 153 billion euros worldwide and long term agriculture intensification can extirpate 50% of the bee species causing great economic loses . Additionally, landscape context exert significant effect on species in the agricultural lands and richness and abundance is largely affected by the presence of nearby forest.Therefore, ecosystems provision, such as pollination and pest predation pressure largely depends on landscape context, and nearby natural habitat margins, which positively affects natural capital.All of this is not considered in by the LSP hypothesis as it assumes that the biological parameter is not causally related to production. In the land use and economic session, we showed that yield increase seldom leads to a stasis or farmed area contraction.