Unpacking the push-pull system: Assessing the contribution of companion crops along a gradient of landscape complexity

Kebede, Yodit; Baudron, Frédéric; Bianchi, Felix J.J.A.; Tittonell, Pablo

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2018.09.012

Cited by 43 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2018 there are 16 articles that fit these criteria, including 44 , which reports on the agronomic findings of the soybean trials used for the current paper. Supplementary Table S1 online summarizes information for those 16 articles 44,[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] relating to the 5 possible sources of discrepancies, and documents that these are indeed common practices in recently published research. Column 3 shows that random selection of farmers is the exception, and also shows that many papers don't specify selection criteria (discrepancy 4).…”

Section: Calculation Of the Returns Of The Input Packages The Value-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling yield gains in agronomic trials with returns under African smallholder conditions

Laajaj

Macours

Masso

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

increased adoption of improved agricultural technologies is considered an essential step to address global poverty and hunger, and agronomic trials suggest intensification in developing countries could result in large yield gains. Yet the promise of new technologies does not always carry over from trials to real-life conditions, and diffusion of many technologies remains limited. We show how parcel and farmer selection, together with behavioural responses in agronomic trials, can explain why yield gain estimates from trials may differ from the yield gains of smallholders using the same inputs under real-life conditions. We provide quantitative evidence by exploiting variation in farmer selection and detailed data collection from research trials in Western Kenya on which large yield increments were observed from improved input packages for maize and soybean. After adjusting for selection, behavioural responses, and other corrections, estimates of yield gains fall to being not significantly different from zero for the input package tested on one of the crops (soybean), but remain high for the other (maize). These results suggest that testing new agricultural technologies in real-world conditions and without researcher interference early in the agricultural research and development process might help with identifying which innovations are more likely to be taken up at scale.

show abstract

Section: Calculation Of the Returns Of The Input Packages The Value-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling yield gains in agronomic trials with returns under African smallholder conditions

Laajaj

Macours

Masso

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is however likely that where odor cues may not be sufficient during associative learning, other cues such as visual may be employed (e.g., Desouhant et al, 2010). Likewise, push-pull strategies, a stimulo-deterrent cropping tactic consisting of intercropping cereals with legumes and surrounded by grasses, can also be incorporated for repulsion and attraction of stem borer pests and parasitoids, respectively (Cook et al, 2007;Kebede et al, 2018).…”

Section: Landscape Management and Parasitoid Responses To Habitat Commentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Climate Change as a Driver of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Factors in Agricultural Landscapes and the Fate of Host-Parasitoid Interactions

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global climate is rapidly changing and the evidence is increasingly manifesting across various biological systems. For arthropods, several studies have demonstrated how changing climates affect their distribution through phenological and physiological responses, largely focusing on various organismal fitness parameters. However, the net-effect of the changing climate among ecological communities may be mediated by the feedback pathways among interacting trophic groups under environmental change. For agroecosystems, the maintenance of the integrity of trophic interactions even under climate variability is a high priority. This is even more important in this era where there is advocacy for sustainable agriculture, with higher emphasis on environmentally benign methods. For this reason, pest management in food production systems using biological control (especially use of parasitoid antagonists) has come to the forefront. In this review, we give an overview of the diversity of physiological responses among host insect and parasitoid populations and how this may influence their interactions. We highlight how climate change may modify bottom-up and top-down factors among agroecosystems with a particular focus on plant-insect host-parasitoid tritrophic interactions. We also outline how habitat management may influence arthropod population dynamics and how it can be manipulated to improve on-farm climate resilience and parasitoid conservation. We wrap-up by highlighting how the application of knowledge of conservation biodiversity, designing of multifunctional resilient landscapes, and evolutionary physiology of arthropods under thermal stress may be used to improve the fitness of mass-reared parasitoids (in or ex situ) for the improvement in efficacy of parasitoids ecosystem services under thermally stressful environments

show abstract

“…Lo anterior sugiere que considerar un enfoque funcional del agroecosistema está intrínsecamente ligado con las características propias de las especies que se vayan a contemplar en los estudios de paisaje. Kebede et al (2018) encontraron que, aunque la abundancia de especies de parasitoides y moscas parásitas no estaba influenciada por el tipo de margen, los campos más pequeños y con más bordes podían soportan den-sidades de enemigos naturales relativamente más altas. Además, señalan que la proporción de un monocultivo puede anular todos los factores de manejo y gestión a nivel del campo, por lo que para el manejo de ciertas plagas es necesario considerar un enfoque a escalas de paisaje amplias, por ejemplo, en el caso los barrenadores del maíz.…”

Section: Relación Entre La Composición Del Paisaje Y Su Funciónunclassified

The influence of agricultural landscape in biological control from a spatial perspective

Clemente-Orta

Álvarez

2019

ECOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Unpacking the push-pull system: Assessing the contribution of companion crops along a gradient of landscape complexity

Cited by 43 publications

References 40 publications

Reconciling yield gains in agronomic trials with returns under African smallholder conditions

Reconciling yield gains in agronomic trials with returns under African smallholder conditions

Global Climate Change as a Driver of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Factors in Agricultural Landscapes and the Fate of Host-Parasitoid Interactions

The influence of agricultural landscape in biological control from a spatial perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About