Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale
By T. Tscharntke, R. Bommarco, Y. Clough, T. O. Crist, D. Kleijn, T. Rand, J. Tylianakis, S. V. Nouhuys, S. Vidal. 2007
748 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Conservation biological control in agroecosystems requires a landscape management perspective, because most arthropod species experience their habitat at spatial scales beyond the plot level, and there is spillover of natural enemies across the crop–noncrop interface. The species pool in the surrounding landscape and the distance of crop from natural habitat are important for the conservation of enemy diversity and, in particular, the conservation of poorly-dispersing and specialized enemies. Hence, structurally complex landscapes with high habitat connectivity may enhance the probability of pest regulation. In contrast, generalist and highly vagile enemies may even profit from the high primary productivity of crops at a landscape scale and their abundance may partly compensate for losses in enemy diversity. Conservation biological control also needs a multitrophic perspective. For example, entomopathogenic fungi, plant pathogens and endophytes as well as below- and above-ground microorganisms are known to influence pest-enemy interactions in ways that vary across spatiotemporal scales. Enemy distribution in agricultural landscapes is determined by beta diversity among patches. The diversity needed for conservation biological control may occur where patch heterogeneity at larger spatial scales is high. However, enemy communities in managed systems are more similar across space and time than those in natural systems, emphasizing the importance of natural habitat for a spillover of diverse enemies. According to the insurance hypothesis, species richness can buffer against spatiotemporal disturbances, thereby insuring functioning in changing environments. Seemingly redundant enemy species may become important under global change. Complex landscapes characterized by highly connected crop–noncrop mosaics may be best for long-term conservation biological control and sustainable crop production, but experimental evidence for detailed recommendations to design the composition and configuration of agricultural landscapes that maintain a diversity of generalist and specialist natural enemies is still needed.
Subfields: Insect Science, Plant Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/04954ef6699cacb7f1f62f0fed24ee28846dd2fa
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Insect Science
In Plant Science
Citations in the corpus
- Parasitoids attacking fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in sweet corn habitats (2016, neutral): “One area wide management practice that has potential to lower migratory populations is to promote biological control by increasing the floral complexity of these agricultural habitats (Tscharntke et al., 2007; Hinds and Hooks, 2013).”
- Habitat manipulation to mitigate the impacts of invasive arthropod pests (2010, background): “However, for habitat management approaches to be successful it is critical that research rapidly advances to determine the actual effective spatial scales of pest enemy interactions and if landscape-scale dynamics are important (Griffiths et al. 2008; Tscharntke et al. 2008).”
- Recent advances in conservation biological control of arthropods by arthropods (2008, background): “A high diversity of natural enemies may provide an insurance against disturbances, whereby seemingly redundant natural enemy species may become important biological control agents under conditions of global change (Yachi and Loreau, 1999; Tscharntke et al., 2007).”
- Aphids and their natural enemies are differently affected by habitat features at local and landscape scales (2012, background): “However, processes at larger spatial scales may also affect their population dynamics (Tscharntke et al., 2007).”
- Field margin vegetation enhances biological control and crop damage suppression from multiple pests in organic tomato fields (2014, background): “Several previous studies emphasize the importance of assigning arthropods to different functional groups (Bengtsson, 1998; Tscharntke et al., 2007; Moonen & B arberi, 2008; Noordijk et al., 2010; Poveda et al., 2012), and each of these functional groups may contribute to the mortality of the same he”
- Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. (2011, background): “…the introduction of such lands can benefit farmers through improved ecosystem services such as pollination and pest control (Kremen et al. 2004; Tscharntke et al. 2007; Potts et al. 2010), converting an area of land from a high-output cover type (production land) to a zero- or low-output cover…”
- How well do we understand landscape effects on pollinators and pollination services (2012, background): “…of landscapes based on scientific knowledge can compensate for global habitat loss (Ricketts et al. 2004; Tscharntke & Brandl 2004), as structurally complex landscapes with good habitat connectivity have proven to be more efficient in the maintenance of species diversity (Tscharntke et al. 2007).”
- The effect of semi-natural habitats on aphids and their natural enemies across spatial and temporal scales (2014, background): “Many authors argue that habitat management at a landscape-scale is needed to enhance ecosystem services such as pollination or pest biological control by effective habitat management (Tscharntke et al., 2007).”
- Beyond nectar provision: the other resource requirements of parasitoid biological control agents (2016, background): “If any prescription can be made, it is that improvements in landscape complexity need to bemade with a thorough understanding of the target pest and enemy species, the surrounding landscape, and the variable effect of scale and complexity on the pestenemy system (Tscharntke et al., 2008; Rand et al.”