Biological Control of Insect Pests in Agroecosystems

Rusch, Adrien; Valantin‐Morison, Muriel; Sarthou, Jean-Pierre; Roger-Estrade, Jean

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-385040-9.00006-2

Cited by 197 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 196 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, agricultural systems both provide and benefit from ecosystem services (Garbach et al 2014;Zhang et al 2007). Focusing on the influence of agricultural activities on ecosystem services, Le Roux et al (2008) distinguish three types of ecosystem services: (i) input services provided to farmers, which support production and reduce use of synthetic inputs and energy; (ii) production services (or goods), which provide raw agricultural materials (plant and animal products) to society; and (iii) nonmarket services, which are provided by agricultural ecosystems to society and result from regulation of biogeochemical cycles at field and landscape levels (Garbach et al 2014;Rusch et al 2010).…”

Section: Ecosystem Services and Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They correspond mainly to maintenance of soil fertility (including soil structure and nutrient cycling), erosion control, and biological regulation (including pollination) (Garbach et al 2014). They depend on management of agricultural areas but also other areas, such as (semi-)natural habitats (Power 2010;Rusch et al 2010). It is well recognized that they are mainly determined by management of planned and associated biodiversity at different spatial and temporal scales, from field to landscape and from sub-annual period (e.g., intercrop) to the duration of a crop rotation, respectively (Gaba et al 2014;Garbach et al 2014;Koohafkan et al 2011;Power 2010;Rusch et al 2010).…”

Section: Ecosystem Services and Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They depend on management of agricultural areas but also other areas, such as (semi-)natural habitats (Power 2010;Rusch et al 2010). It is well recognized that they are mainly determined by management of planned and associated biodiversity at different spatial and temporal scales, from field to landscape and from sub-annual period (e.g., intercrop) to the duration of a crop rotation, respectively (Gaba et al 2014;Garbach et al 2014;Koohafkan et al 2011;Power 2010;Rusch et al 2010). Non-market ecosystem services, mainly water quality and flow regulation, carbon (C) sequestration, climate regulation (regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions), and production of natural habitats and attractive recreational areas, are also strongly determined by farming practices (Garbach et al 2014).…”

Section: Ecosystem Services and Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…colonizing the farm; Altieri 1999) and adapted management practices that are integrated over different temporal and spatial scales (Altieri 1999;Kremen et al 2012). While soil fertility can be managed at the field level through appropriate crop rotations, intercropping, and tillage practices, biological regulation of pests can be also managed at the landscape level due to the key role of crop spatial distribution, field margins, and hedges (Garbach et al 2014;Gaba et al 2014;Landis et al 2000;Power 2010;Rusch et al 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Crop–livestock integration beyond the farm level: a review

Martin

Moraine

Ryschawy

et al. 2016

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

Self Cite

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paradoxically, the number of crop-livestock farms is declining across Europe, despite the fact that crop-livestock farms are theoretically optimal to improve the sustainability of agriculture. To solve this issue, crop-livestock integration may be organized beyond the farm level. For instance, local groups of farmers can negotiate land-use allocation patterns and exchange materials such as manure, grain, and straw. Development of such a collective agricultural system raises questions, rarely documented in the literature, about how to integrate crops and livestock among farms, and the consequences, impacts, and conditions of integrating them. Here, we review the different forms of crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level, their potential benefits, and the features of decision support systems (DSS) needed for the integration process. We identify three forms of crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level: local coexistence, complementarity, and synergy, each with increasingly stronger temporal, spatial, and organizational coordination among farms. We claim that the forms of integration implemented define the nature, area, and spatial configuration of crops, grasslands, and animals in farms and landscapes. In turn, these configurations influence the provision of ecosystem services. For instance, we show that the synergy form of integration promotes soil fertility,

show abstract

Section: Ecosystem Services and Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ecosystem Services and Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ecosystem Services and Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Crop–livestock integration beyond the farm level: a review

Martin

Moraine

Ryschawy

et al. 2016

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

Self Cite

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intensive tillage (methods used, frequency and number of operation) may also have effects on arthropod population due to mechanical damage, greater exposure to predation or their emigration to adjacent habitats (Rusch et al, 2010). One of the main problems of modern agriculture, especially viticulture, is a production based on monoculture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fauna of ground-dwelling arthropods in vineyards of Zadar County (Croatia)

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYFarming practices as well as land-use management have a great impact on biodiversity and composition of ground-dwelling arthropods. In this study, abundance and diversity of spiders and epigeic soil insects in three vineyards in Zadar County (Croatia) were researched. In each vineyard 16 pitfall traps were placed, 4 in one row at the distance of 3 m. Samples were taken every fifteen days from the beginning of May till the end of October in 2014. A total of 469 individuals belonging to 6 orders and 23 families were collected. Significant differences were found among arthropod orders. The most abundant taxonomic group was Hymenoptera (38.8%), followed by Coleoptera (31.98%) and Araneae (27.93%). The highest number of specimens (232) was recorded in the integrated vineyard, whereas in the conventional vineyard on karst only 63 individuals were found. However, these results showed significant differences in arthropod assemblage between integrated and conventional vineyards. Richness and diversity (Shannon Diversity Index) were highest in the integrated vineyard (2.36) as opposed to the conventional vineyard Zaton (2.23). Our results confirmed the importance of ground cover, in particular weeds, on arthropod abundance and diversity.

show abstract

Global Change, Herbivores and Their Natural Enemies

Hentley

Wade

2016

Global Climate Change and Terrestrial Invertebrates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological Control of Insect Pests in Agroecosystems

Cited by 197 publications

References 196 publications

Crop–livestock integration beyond the farm level: a review

Crop–livestock integration beyond the farm level: a review

Fauna of ground-dwelling arthropods in vineyards of Zadar County (Croatia)

Global Change, Herbivores and Their Natural Enemies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About