Pollinators, pests, and predators: Recognizing ecological trade-offs in agroecosystems

Abstract

Ecological interactions between crops and wild animals frequently result in increases or declines in crop yield. Yet, positive and negative interactions have mostly been treated independently, owing partly to disciplinary silos in ecological and agricultural sciences. We advocate a new integrated research paradigm that explicitly recognizes cost-benefit trade-offs among animal activities and acknowledges that these activities occur within socialecological contexts. Support for this paradigm is presented in an evidence-based conceptual model structured around five evidence statements highlighting emerging trends applicable to sustainable agriculture. The full range of benefits and costs associated with animal activities in agroecosystems cannot be quantified by focusing on single species groups, crops, or systems. Management of productive agroecosystems should sustain cycles of ecological interactions between crops and wild animals, not isolate these cycles from the system. Advancing this paradigm will therefore require integrated studies that determine net returns of animal activity in agroecosystems.

Management trade‐offs on ecosystem services in apple orchards across Europe: Direct and indirect effects of organic production

“…One basic trade‐off between ecosystem services and agriculture emerges when management that aims to increase crop yield by stimulating plant growth (e.g., by adding nutrients and water, or by removing competing weeds) also indirectly reduce production by affecting the ecosystem services of pest control and pollination (Power, ). Trade‐offs also occur in management aimed to affect diversity‐related services or disservices (positive and negative effects from biodiversity, respectively), when actions to promote beneficial arthropods also benefit pest species, or when actions to reduce pest species also negatively affect beneficial species (Saunders, Peisley, Rader, & Luck, ; Tscharntke et al., ). For instance, several studies suggest that flower strips, which are commonly planted to benefit pollinators and natural enemies (Lichtenberg et al., ; Wratten, Gillespie, Decourtye, Mader, & Desneux, ), may not only affect the potential for pest control but also pest densities and crop damage (Tscharntke et al., ).…”

Limitations of the ecosystem services versus disservices dichotomy

“…Clearly, the term disservice is laden with as much ecological ambiguity as the term “service.” The outcome of any interaction can be positive, negative, or neutral (from an anthropocentric perspective) in one context but may have a different outcome when considered from another environmental context (Saunders et al. ) or value system (Martín‐López et al. ).…”

“…This requires identifying trade‐offs and synergies between negative (costs or EDS) and positive (benefits or ES) outcomes of interactions and their social–ecological contexts (e.g., Saunders et al. ).…”

“…Clearly, the term disservice is laden with as much ecological ambiguity as the term "service." The outcome of any interaction can be positive, negative, or neutral (from an anthropocentric perspective) in one context but may have a different outcome when considered from another environmental context (Saunders et al 2016) value system (Martín-López et al 2014). For example, the invasion of exotic zebra and quagga mussels in Lake Ontario resulted in an ecological cost (enhanced water filtration from mussel activity) that was considered a cultural (through more aesthetically pleasing water views) and economic benefit (through increased revenue from more visitors) by some Lake Ontario businesses and homeowners (Limburg et al 2010).…”

“…A more useful approach to incorporating ecological complexity into the ES concept is to focus quantification efforts and conceptual discourse on how service outcomes change over time and under different environmental contexts. This requires identifying trade-offs and synergies between negative (costs or EDS) and positive (benefits or ES) outcomes of interactions and their social-ecological contexts (e.g., Saunders et al 2016).…”