Spill-over of pest control and pollination services into arable crops

Woodcock, Ben A.; Bullock, James M.; McCracken, Morag; Chapman, Roselle E.; Ball, Sarah; Edwards, Martin B.; Nowakowski, M.; Pywell, R. F.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.023

Cited by 116 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Taking into account 311 farming practices, pollinator abundance explained 50% of the variance of the yield, increasing yields by 312 0.77 t.ha -1 from the lowest abundance to the highest. This is consistent with previous studies that found 313 increases in yield from 0.4 to 1.0 t.ha -1 [24,38]. Fertilizer, especially nitrogen, is a recognized driver of 314 yield, but we failed to detect any direct effect of nitrogen fertilizer on OSR yield.…”

Section: Discussion 297supporting

confidence: 93%

“…Recent research [37] has showed that a higher proportion of OSR in the 79 surrounding landscape may also decrease insect pollination by spatial dilution of the pollinator 80 population. Moreover, pollinator abundance decreases with distance from the edge of an OSR field [38] 81 especially for wild pollinators with limited range [39]. Overall, the extent to which pollinators and other 82 farming practices interact to increase or limit OSR yields remains little known [29,30].…”

Section: Introduction 43mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Nature-based solution in practice: ecological and economic modelling shows pollinators outperform agrochemicals in oilseed crop production

Catarino¹,

Bretagnolle²,

Perrot³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstratNature-based agriculture, reducing dependency on chemical inputs, requires using ecological principles for sustainable agro-ecosystems, balancing ecology, economics and social justice. There is growing evidence that pollinator-dependent crops with high insect pollination service can give higher yields. However, the interacting effects between insect pollination and agricultural inputs on crop yields and farm economics remain to be established to reconcile food production with biodiversity conservation. We investigated the effects of insect pollination and agricultural inputs on oilseed rape (Brassica napusL.). We show that not only yield but also gross margins are 16-40% higher in fields with higher pollinator abundance than in fields with reduced pollinator abundance. This effect is however strongly reduced by pesticides use. Higher yields may be achieved by either increasing agrochemicals (reducing pests) or increasing bee abundance, but crop economic returns was only increased by the latter, because pesticides did not increase yields while their costs reduced gross margins.

show abstract

Section: Discussion 297supporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introduction 43mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Nature-based solution in practice: ecological and economic modelling shows pollinators outperform agrochemicals in oilseed crop production

Catarino¹,

Bretagnolle²,

Perrot³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Establishing and maintaining noncrop flowering areas within the farmland matrix promotes the native plant community, provides habitats for a range of insects, bird and mammals, and thus contributes to biodiversity conservation (Wratten et al, ). Further, a spill‐over effect of flower visitation rates in insect‐pollinated crops from field margins was observed for wild bees, which increased crop yields in closer proximity to field margins (Woodcock et al, ). As winegrowers experience an increased consumer demand for eco‐friendly produced wine (Schütte & Bergmann, ), establishing flower‐rich habitats for wild bees in vineyards can be used for marketing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of wild bee diversity, abundance, and functional traits to vineyard inter‐row management intensity and landscape diversity across Europe

Kratschmer

Pachinger

Schwantzer

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural intensification is a major driver of wild bee decline. Vineyards may be inhabited by plant and animal species, especially when the inter‐row space is vegetated with spontaneous vegetation or cover crops. Wild bees depend on floral resources and suitable nesting sites which may be found in vineyard inter‐rows or in viticultural landscapes. Inter‐row vegetation is managed by mulching, tillage, and/or herbicide application and results in habitat degradation when applied intensively. Here, we hypothesize that lower vegetation management intensities, higher floral resources, and landscape diversity affect wild bee diversity and abundance dependent on their functional traits. We sampled wild bees semi‐quantitatively in 63 vineyards representing different vegetation management intensities across Europe in 2016. A proxy for floral resource availability was based on visual flower cover estimations. Management intensity was assessed by vegetation cover (%) twice a year per vineyard. The Shannon Landscape Diversity Index was used as a proxy for landscape diversity within a 750 m radius around each vineyard center point. Wild bee communities were clustered by country. At the country level, between 20 and 64 wild bee species were identified. Increased floral resource availability and extensive vegetation management both affected wild bee diversity and abundance in vineyards strongly positively. Increased landscape diversity had a small positive effect on wild bee diversity but compensated for the negative effect of low floral resource availability by increasing eusocial bee abundance. We conclude that wild bee diversity and abundance in vineyards is efficiently promoted by increasing floral resources and reducing vegetation management frequency. High landscape diversity further compensates for low floral resources in vineyards and increases pollinating insect abundance in viticulture landscapes.

show abstract

“…During the last decades, agricultural management turned previously heterogeneous landscapes into machine-efficient monocultures leading to a degradation and local depletion of natural landscape elements (NLEs) (Tilman et al, 2001;Vitousek et al, 1997). However, NLEs represent valuable habitats and food resources for many animals, for example, invertebrates and birds (Amy et al, 2015;Fuller & Gregory, 1995;Staley et al, 2012) delivering a range of ecosystem services such as biological pest control (Chaplin-Kramer, O'Rourke, Blitzer, & Kremen, 2011;Woodcock et al, 2016) and pollination services (Hipólito, Boscolo, & Viana, 2018;Lindgren, Lindborg, & Cousins, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How much do we really lose?—Yield losses in the proximity of natural landscape elements in agricultural landscapes

Raatz

Bacchi

Pirhofer‐Walzl

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large‐scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field‐to‐field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid‐field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log‐scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near Göttingen, and 2015–2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11%–38% in comparison with mid‐field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95% of mid‐field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in‐field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes.

show abstract

Spill-over of pest control and pollination services into arable crops

Cited by 116 publications

References 40 publications

A Nature-based solution in practice: ecological and economic modelling shows pollinators outperform agrochemicals in oilseed crop production

A Nature-based solution in practice: ecological and economic modelling shows pollinators outperform agrochemicals in oilseed crop production

Response of wild bee diversity, abundance, and functional traits to vineyard inter‐row management intensity and landscape diversity across Europe

How much do we really lose?—Yield losses in the proximity of natural landscape elements in agricultural landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About