Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Seiten (von - bis) | E7863-E7870 |
| Fachzeitschrift | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |
| Jahrgang | 115 |
| Ausgabenummer | 33 |
| Frühes Online-Datum | 2 Aug. 2018 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - 14 Aug. 2018 |
| Extern publiziert | Ja |
Abstract
The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies.
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Jahrgang 115, Nr. 33, 14.08.2018, S. E7863-E7870.
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition
AU - Karp, Daniel S.
AU - Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca
AU - Meehan, Timothy D.
AU - Martin, Emily A.
AU - DeClerck, Fabrice
AU - Grab, Heather
AU - Gratton, Claudio
AU - Hunt, Lauren
AU - Larsen, Ashley E.
AU - Martínez-Salinas, Alejandra
AU - O’Rourke, Megan E.
AU - Rusch, Adrien
AU - Poveda, Katja
AU - Jonsson, Mattias
AU - Rosenheim, Jay A.
AU - Schellhorn, Nancy A.
AU - Tscharntke, Teja
AU - Wratten, Stephen D.
AU - Zhang, Wei
AU - Iverson, Aaron L.
AU - Adler, Lynn S.
AU - Albrecht, Matthias
AU - Alignier, Audrey
AU - Angelella, Gina M.
AU - Anjum, Muhammad Zubair
AU - Avelino, Jacques
AU - Batáry, Péter
AU - Baveco, Johannes M.
AU - Bianchi, Felix J.J.A.
AU - Birkhofer, Klaus
AU - Bohnenblust, Eric W.
AU - Bommarco, Riccardo
AU - Brewer, Michael J.
AU - Caballero-López, Berta
AU - Carrière, Yves
AU - Carvalheiro, Luísa G.
AU - Cayuela, Luis
AU - Centrella, Mary
AU - Ćetković, Aleksandar
AU - Henri, Dominic Charles
AU - Chabert, Ariane
AU - Costamagna, Alejandro C.
AU - De la Mora, Aldo
AU - de Kraker, Joop
AU - Desneux, Nicolas
AU - Diehl, Eva
AU - Diekötter, Tim
AU - Dormann, Carsten F.
AU - Eckberg, James O.
AU - Entling, Martin H.
AU - Fiedler, Daniela
AU - Franck, Pierre
AU - van Veen, F. J.Frank
AU - Frank, Thomas
AU - Gagic, Vesna
AU - Garratt, Michael P.D.
AU - Getachew, Awraris
AU - Gonthier, David J.
AU - Goodell, Peter B.
AU - Graziosi, Ignazio
AU - Groves, Russell L.
AU - Gurr, Geoff M.
AU - Hajian-Forooshani, Zachary
AU - Heimpel, George E.
AU - Herrmann, John D.
AU - Huseth, Anders S.
AU - Inclán, Diego J.
AU - Ingrao, Adam J.
AU - Iv, Phirun
AU - Jacot, Katja
AU - Johnson, Gregg A.
AU - Jones, Laura
AU - Kaiser, Marina
AU - Kaser, Joe M.
AU - Keasar, Tamar
AU - Kim, Tania N.
AU - Kishinevsky, Miriam
AU - Landis, Douglas A.
AU - Lavandero, Blas
AU - Lavigne, Claire
AU - Le Ralec, Anne
AU - Lemessa, Debissa
AU - Letourneau, Deborah K.
AU - Liere, Heidi
AU - Lu, Yanhui
AU - Lubin, Yael
AU - Luttermoser, Tim
AU - Maas, Bea
AU - Mace, Kevi
AU - Madeira, Filipe
AU - Mader, Viktoria
AU - Cortesero, Anne Marie
AU - Marini, Lorenzo
AU - Martinez, Eliana
AU - Martinson, Holly M.
AU - Menozzi, Philippe
AU - Mitchell, Matthew G.E.
AU - Miyashita, Tadashi
AU - Molina, Gonzalo A.R.
AU - Molina-Montenegro, Marco A.
AU - O’Neal, Matthew E.
AU - Opatovsky, Itai
AU - Ortiz-Martinez, Sebaastian
AU - Nash, Michael
AU - Östman, Örjan
AU - Ouin, Annie
AU - Pak, Damie
AU - Paredes, Daniel
AU - Parsa, Soroush
AU - Parry, Hazel
AU - Perez-Alvarez, Ricardo
AU - Perović, David J.
AU - Peterson, Julie A.
AU - Petit, Sandrine
AU - Philpott, Stacy M.
AU - Plantegenest, Manuel
AU - Plećas, Milan
AU - Pluess, Therese
AU - Pons, Xavier
AU - Potts, Simon G.
AU - Pywell, Richard F.
AU - Ragsdale, David W.
AU - Rand, Tatyana A.
AU - Raymond, Lucie
AU - Ricci, Benoît
AU - Sargent, Chris
AU - Sarthou, Jean Pierre
AU - Saulais, Julia
AU - Schäckermann, Jessica
AU - Schmidt, Nick P.
AU - Schneider, Gudrun
AU - Schüepp, Christof
AU - Sivakoff, Frances S.
AU - Smith, Henrik G.
AU - Whitney, Kaitlin Stack
AU - Stutz, Sonja
AU - Szendrei, Zsofia
AU - Takada, Mayura B.
AU - Taki, Hisatomo
AU - Tamburini, Giovanni
AU - Thomson, Linda J.
AU - Tricault, Yann
AU - Tsafack, Noelline
AU - Tschumi, Matthias
AU - Valantin-Morison, Muriel
AU - van Trinh, Mai
AU - van der Werf, Wopke
AU - Vierling, Kerri T.
AU - Werling, Ben P.
AU - Wickens, Jennifer B.
AU - Wickens, Victoria J.
AU - Woodcock, Ben A.
AU - Wyckhuys, Kris
AU - Xiao, Haijun
AU - Yasuda, Mika
AU - Yoshioka, Akira
AU - Zou, Yi
N1 - Funding information: We thank the many growers, field assistants, pest-control advisors, funders, agricultural experiment stations, and researchers who provided access to study sites, technical expertise, labor, and other types of investment underlying the studies in our database. This work was supported through the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)—National Science Foundation Award DBI-1052875 for the project “Evidence and Decision-Support Tools for Controlling Agricultural Pests with Conservation Interventions” organized by D.S.K. and R.C.-K. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank the many growers, field assistants, pest-control advisors, funders, agricultural experiment stations, and researchers who provided access to study sites, technical expertise, labor, and other types of investment underlying the studies in our database. This work was supported through the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)—National Science Foundation Award DBI-1052875 for the project “Evidence and Decision-Support Tools for Controlling Agricultural Pests with Conservation Interventions” organized by D.S.K. and R.C.-K.
PY - 2018/8/14
Y1 - 2018/8/14
N2 - The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies.
AB - The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies.
KW - Agroecology
KW - Biodiversity
KW - Biological control
KW - Ecosystem services
KW - Natural enemies
KW - Pest Control, Biological
KW - Animals
KW - Crops, Agricultural/growth & development
KW - Models, Biological
KW - Ecosystem
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050686845&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1073/pnas.1800042115
DO - 10.1073/pnas.1800042115
M3 - Article
C2 - 30072434
VL - 115
SP - E7863-E7870
JO - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
SN - 0027-8424
IS - 33
ER -