Monoculture
[7] Several monocultures, including single-species forest plantations, have become increasingly abundant throughout the tropics following market globalization, impacting local communities.
[8][2] In addition to soil depletion, monocultures can cause significant reductions in biodiversity due to unavailability of resources, native species displacement, and loss of genetic variation.
[5] Following large-scale oil palm plantations in Latin America, research has revealed extensive declines in mammal, bird, amphibian, and pollinator diversity, particularly in Colombia and Brazil.
[3] Environmental consequences of monocultural farming have notable social impacts, commonly concentrated to the reduction of small-scale farmers[5] and pesticide-related health issues.
[5] Following pest outbreaks, over 600 million liters of pesticides are sprayed annually, contaminating nearby small-scale farming and causing communal health decline.
[24] Research has revealed increased prevalence of pesticide-related disorders, diseases, and cancers affecting the human neurological, gastrointestinal, skin, and respiratory systems.
[9] Land privatization and pressure for monocultural expansion by larger companies takes different forms: silent evictions,[8] violence,[9] and reverse leasing arrangements.
[5] Introduction to global trade makes small-scale farmers vulnerable to international demand, prices, and variations in climate affecting crop production.
[9] Farmers who make contracts or take out loans with large corporations can face debt and loss of land if they fail to meet certain crop yields or profit.
[9] Monocultures are an aspect of agro-extractivism on account of high percentages of the produced crop being exported for processing and marketing by large transnational corporations, often in developed countries.
[27][5] For instance, following the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), agave production increased three-fold in Mexico from 1995 to 2019 due to foreign consumption, specifically by the United States.
[24] Some international companies relevant in the field of agro-extractivist monocultures are Syngenta and Bayer (biotech), Los Grobo, CRESUD, El Tejar, and Maggi (landowners), and Cargill, ADM, and Bunge (grain and seed providers).
[30] Following deforestation, monoculture afforestation has become increasingly popular due to the necessity for ecosystem services, such as mitigating the effects of climate change via carbon sequestration and gas regulation.
Forest monocultures have motivated migrations across Latin America due to localized water cycle interference, declining soil health, and changes in resource availability.
A major risk associated with lawn pesticide use is the exposure to chemicals within the home through the air, clothing, and furniture, which can be more detrimental to children than to the average adult.
[35] Given the very genetically similar strains of much of the world's wheat crops following the Green Revolution, the impacts of such diseases threaten agricultural production worldwide.
[38] Despite the recent dominance of GMO monoculture crop rotations of soy, corn, and cotton across the deforested Amazon, many Afrodescendant-run farms in Brazil continue to use traditional practices of agroecology that have the capacity to sustain the local community, environment, and economy.
[12] However, the increasing modern prevalence of regenerative farming reinstates crop rotation and natural nutrient cycling to repair biodiversity and improve soil productivity.
[13] Silvopastoral systems provide greater pasture species richness and grazing feed, increasing economic and environmental outcomes on various size scales.
[40] In several studies, well-managed mixed-species plantations have been shown to produce greater economic outcomes than monocultures with regard to timber sales.
