The implications of climate change for positive contributions of invertebrates to world agriculture.

Abstract

Terrestrial invertebrate species play a dominant role in the trophic dynamics of agricultural ecosystems. Subtle changes in the composition of communities and species interactions at different trophic levels, and role of ecosystem engineers can dramatically modify the effects of invertebrates on plant productivity in agricultural systems. The effect of climate change on relevant invertebrates in agricultural systems, and their potential to adapt or move is discussed. All terrestrial systems (including forestry and pasture) are considered, although the main focus is on crop production systems. Our treatise centres on whole organisms (as opposed to genetic information from invertebrates) that play key roles in agricultural systems. We start with an overview of current thinking on how climate change may affect invertebrates. Then, recognizing the great invertebrate biodiversity associated with agro-ecosystems, the review focuses on three key groups - soil invertebrates, biological control agents and pollinators. A variety of research gaps became apparent during the course of our review. Specific conclusions regarding the impact of climate change on particular elements of invertebrate genetic resources in agriculture are not possible yet. Existing evidence suggests that three general assumptions can be made. First, it is probable that climate change will disrupt to varying degrees the role and use of invertebrates in agriculture, especially sustainable agriculture, even though the precise nature of the disruptions is not yet known. Second, without intervention, these disruptions will result in production losses particularly in sustainable agriculture, even though the scale and extent of the losses is not yet known. Third, the extent of some of the losses will justify intervention to facilitate adaptations of the invertebrates, even though the methods with which to intervene and policies to facilitate this intervention are not yet in place.

Pollination and biological control research: are we neglecting two billion smallholders

“…Obviously, there are profound climatic differences between biomes that shape the assemblages of pollinators and invertebrate pests and their natural enemies. In general, the effects of climate and climate change on pollinators are much better understood than are effects on other groups of ecosystem-service providers [44], and our analyses reflect this. We show individual quantitative reviews relevant to pollination tend to balance data from tropical and temperate regions whereas biological-control reviews were all significantly and often strongly biased to the temperate zone.…”

“…As the functional significance (flowers providing nectar and pollen) of a forest to pollinators differs between and within biomes, this is likely to be the case for other habitats (including agricultural land), functions (for example, nesting sites) and ecosystem service providers too. As such, interventions for ecological intensification that require manipulating or conserving natural areas in a farming landscape should carefully consider what climate the intervention was derived from and the implications of any functional differences in habitats between derived and target climates (see [44]). …”

Can we forecast the effects of climate change on entomophagous biological control agents?

“…According to the origin of target pest and natural enemy, different types of BC can be defined (Table ), and origin is a key feature to predict the robustness of these associations and, therefore, how they may respond to climate change. These predictions should take into account the potential of invertebrates to adapt to changing climate on the basis of existing genotypic diversity . Figure shows an adaptation of Lewis et al , which illustrates the importance of genotypic diversity to the response of a hypothetical species when exposed to a different environment.…”

“…These predictions should take into account the potential of invertebrates to adapt to changing climate on the basis of existing genotypic diversity. 109 Figure 1 shows an adaptation of Lewis et al, 110 which illustrates the importance of genotypic diversity to the response of a hypothetical species when exposed to a different environment. Under the genotypic diversity heading, the response potential for two representative individual genotypes (G1 and G2) belonging to one particular population (P4) of the same hypothetical species is shown.…”

Transgenic corn decreased total and key storage and lipid transport protein levels in honey bee hemolymph while seed treatment with imidacloprid reduced lipophorin levels

“…In addition to natural seasonal variations that directly interfere with the availability of nectar and pollen for bees, anthropogenic effects on ecosystems and agroecosystems can result in unfavorable conditions for nutritional subsistence due to intensification of food shortage periods; this includes extensive monoculture plantings with floral features that do not meet the nutritional demand of bees (Cock et al, 2013;Winston, 1987). The use of artificial diets is increasing worldwide in order to maintain the bees and to prepare them for honey production and pollination services (Brodschneider & Crailsheim, 2010;Tomlinson, Dixon, Didham, & Bradshaw, 2017).…”