Search

Copyright of People & Nature is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

There has been a seismic shift in the center of gravity of scientific writing and thinking about agriculture over the past decades, from a prevailing focus on maximizing yields toward a goal of balancing trade‐offs and ensuring the delivery of multiple ecosystem services. Maximizing crop yields often results in a system where most benefits accrue to very few (in the form of profits), alongside irreparable environmental harm to agricultural ecosystems, landscapes, and people. Here, we present evidence that an un‐yielding, which we define as de‐emphasizing the importance of yields alone, is necessary to achieve the goal of a more Food secure, Agrobiodiverse, Regenerative, Equitable and just (FARE) agriculture. Focusing on yields places the emphasis on one particular outcome of agriculture, which is only an intermediate means to the true endpoint of human well‐being. Using yields as a placeholder for this outcome ignores the many other benefits of agriculture that people also care about, like health, livelihoods, and a sense of place. Shifting the emphasis to these multiple benefits rather than merely yields, and to their equitable delivery to all people, we find clear scientific evidence of win‐wins for people and nature through four strategies that foster FARE agriculture: reduced disturbance, systems reintegration, diversity, and justice (in the form of securing rights to land and other resources). Through a broad review of the current state of agriculture, desired futures, and the possible pathways to reach them, we argue that while trade‐offs between some ecosystem services in agriculture are unavoidable, the same need not be true of the end benefits we desire from them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Control of crop pests by shifting host plant availability and natural enemy activity at landscape scales has great potential to enhance the sustainability of agriculture. However, mainstreaming natural pest control requires improved understanding of how its benefits can be realized across a variety of agroecological contexts. Empirical studies suggest significant but highly variable responses of natural pest control to land‐use change. Current ecological models are either too specific to provide insight across agroecosystems or too generic to guide management with actionable predictions. We suggest obtaining the full benefit of available empirical, theoretical, and methodological knowledge by combining trait‐mediated understanding from correlative studies with the explicit representation of causal relationships achieved by mechanistic modeling. To link these frameworks, we adapt the concept of archetypes, or context‐specific generalizations, from sustainability science. Similar responses of natural pest control to land‐use gradients across cases that share key attributes, such as functional traits of focal organisms, indicate general processes that drive system behavior in a context‐sensitive manner. Based on such observations of natural pest control, a systematic definition of archetypes can provide the basis for mechanistic models of intermediate generality that cover all major agroecosystems worldwide. Example applications demonstrate the potential for upscaling understanding and improving predictions of natural pest control, based on knowledge transfer and scientific synthesis. A broader application of this mechanistic archetype approach promises to enhance ecology's contribution to natural resource management across diverse regions and social‐ecological contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diversifying agricultural landscapes may mitigate biodiversity declines and improve pest management. Yet landscapes are rarely managed to suppress pests, in part because researchers seldom measure key variables related to pest outbreaks and insecticides that drive management decisions. We used a 13‐year government database to analyse landscape effects on European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana) outbreaks and insecticides across c. 400 Spanish vineyards. At harvest, we found pest outbreaks increased four‐fold in simplified, vineyard‐dominated landscapes compared to complex landscapes in which vineyards are surrounded by semi‐natural habitats. Similarly, insecticide applications doubled in vineyard‐dominated landscapes but declined in vineyards surrounded by shrubland. Importantly, pest population stochasticity would have masked these large effects if numbers of study sites and years were reduced to typical levels in landscape pest‐control studies. Our results suggest increasing landscape complexity may mitigate pest populations and insecticide applications. Habitat conservation represents an economically and environmentally sound approach for achieving sustainable grape production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agriculture's influence on humanity is a dichotomy of promise and peril. Research on the food‐environment dilemma has highlighted the environmental consequences of food production, yet the identification of management solutions is an ongoing challenge.We suggest "bright spots" as a promising tool to identify levers of change by finding areas that exceed expectations for goals, such as agricultural landscape multifunctionality and biodiversity.We identified bright, dark and average spots within a complex agricultural landscape and explored the associated socioeconomic patterns. We found that areas exceeding expectations for biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality were neither spatially congruent nor in conflict. It was more common for areas to underperform (dark spots) for both biodiversity and multifunctionality than over perform for both (bright spots).While dark spots for multifunctionality were alike in their ecosystem service composition, bright spots were bright in multiple, diverse ways. The socioeconomic attributes that characterize bright and darks spots included both farm characteristics as well as farming practices, suggesting that both have potential to be levers of change.Synthesis and applications. Our results suggest that while biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality show similar spatial patterns due to underlying biophysical drivers, managing for biodiversity or landscape multifunctionality alone will not implicitly achieve the other in this system. Bright spots (areas exceeding expectations) in multifunctionality were associated with many different combinations of ecosystem services, but dark spots were uniquely agricultural intensive areas devoted to maximizing crop production at the expense of all other services. From a management perspective, specific farm characteristics and farming practices may impact the potential for multifunctionality: increased mechanization, increased agricultural inputs and larger farm size and capital were associated with dark spots, while smaller farms with potentially greater space for innovation were associated with bright spots. Our results suggest that while biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality show similar spatial patterns due to underlying biophysical drivers, managing for biodiversity or landscape multifunctionality alone will not implicitly achieve the other in this system. Bright spots (areas exceeding expectations) in multifunctionality were associated with many different combinations of ecosystem services, but dark spots were uniquely agricultural intensive areas devoted to maximizing crop production at the expense of all other services. From a management perspective, specific farm characteristics and farming practices may impact the potential for multifunctionality: increased mechanization, increased agricultural inputs and larger farm size and capital were associated with dark spots, while smaller farms with potentially greater space for innovation were associated with bright spots. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural intensification is a leading cause of global biodiversity loss, which can reduce the provisioning of ecosystem services in managed ecosystems. Organic farming and plant diversification are farm management schemes that may mitigate potential ecological harm by increasing species richness and boosting related ecosystem services to agroecosystems. What remains unclear is the extent to which farm management schemes affect biodiversity components other than species richness, and whether impacts differ across spatial scales and landscape contexts. Using a global metadataset, we quantified the effects of organic farming and plant diversification on abundance, local diversity (communities within fields), and regional diversity (communities across fields) of arthropod pollinators, predators, herbivores, and detritivores. Both organic farming and higher in-field plant diversity enhanced arthropod abundance, particularly for rare taxa. This resulted in increased richness but decreased evenness. While these responses were stronger at local relative to regional scales, richness and abundance increased at both scales, and richness on farms embedded in complex relative to simple landscapes. Overall, both organic farming and in-field plant diversification exerted the strongest effects on pollinators and predators, suggesting these management schemes can facilitate ecosystem service providers without augmenting herbivore (pest) populations. Our results suggest that organic farming and plant diversification promote diverse arthropod metacommunities that may provide temporal and spatial stability of ecosystem service provisioning. Conserving diverse plant and arthropod communities in farming systems therefore requires sustainable practices that operate both within fields and across landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Because wildlife and livestock compete for grazing resources, biodiversity conservation and livestock ranching typically have been portrayed as conflicting uses of African savannas. Here, we offer an alternative perspective by describing a savanna ecosystem in central Kenya where wildlife and livestock exhibit a suite of potential positive interactions. For example, treating livestock with an acaricide offers the unintended benefit of removing ticks from the landscape, a result that has now been shown to occur at both large and small scales. When humans derive financial benefits both from wildlife (through tourism) and from livestock (through food production), they may achieve greater economic stability than when income is derived solely from one source. The integrated management of wildlife and livestock can simultaneously improve human health and wildlife conservation. Optimization of human and wildlife benefits will require the management of ecological and socioeconomic trade- offs when conflicts occur between stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growing base of information about ecosystem services generated by ecologists, economists, and other scientists could improve the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of commodity-sourcing standards being adopted by corporations to mitigate risk in their supply chains and achieve sustainability goals. This review examines various ways that information about ecosystem services could facilitate compliance with and auditing of commodity-sourcing standards. We also identify gaps in the current state of knowledge on the ecological effectiveness of sustainability standards and demonstrate how ecosystem-service information could complement existing monitoring efforts to build credible evidence. This paper is a call to the ecosystem-service scientists to engage in this decision context and tailor the information they are generating to the needs of the standards community, which we argue would offer greater efficiency of standards implementation for producers and enhanced effectiveness for standard scheme owners and corporations, and should thus lead to more sustainable outcomes for people and nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information about the effect of habitat complexity across scales on pest suppression of the cabbage aphid Brevicoryne brassicae in broccoli. It mentions that pest control services provided by nature impact the relationship between agricultural pests and their enemies. It also states that aphid can be overwhelmed by high rates of pest reproduction or colonization from nearby source habitat.

Ecology Letters (2011) 14: 922-932 Abstract Many studies in recent years have investigated the relationship between landscape complexity and pests, natural enemies and/or pest control. However, no quantitative synthesis of this literature beyond simple vote-count methods yet exists. We conducted a meta-analysis of 46 landscape-level studies, and found that natural enemies have a strong positive response to landscape complexity. Generalist enemies show consistent positive responses to landscape complexity across all scales measured, while specialist enemies respond more strongly to landscape complexity at smaller scales. Generalist enemy response to natural habitat also tends to occur at larger spatial scales than for specialist enemies, suggesting that land management strategies to enhance natural pest control should differ depending on whether the dominant enemies are generalists or specialists. The positive response of natural enemies does not necessarily translate into pest control, since pest abundances show no significant response to landscape complexity. Very few landscape-scale studies have estimated enemy impact on pest populations, however, limiting our understanding of the effects of landscape on pest control. We suggest focusing future research efforts on measuring population dynamics rather than static counts to better characterise the relationship between landscape complexity and pest control services from natural enemies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. The occurrence of enemy-free space presents a challenge to the top-down control of agricultural pests by natural enemies, making bottom-up factors such as phytochemistry and plant distributions important considerations for successful pest management. Specialist herbivores like the cabbage aphid Brevicoryne brassicae co-opt the defence system of plants in the family Brassicaceae by sequestering glucosinolates to utilize in their own defence. The wild mustard Brassica nigra, an alternate host for cabbage aphids, contains more glucosinolates than cultivated Brassica oleracea, and these co-occur in agricultural landscapes. We examined trade-offs between aphid performance and predator impact on these two host plants to test for chemically mediated enemy-free space. 2. Glucosinolate content of broccoli B. oleracea and mustard B. nigra was measured in plant matter and in cabbage aphids feeding on each food source. Aphid development, aphid fecundity, predation and predator mortality, and field densities of aphids and their natural enemies were also tested for each food source. 3. Cabbage aphids growing on high glucosinolate plants like B. nigra contained more glucosinolates than aphids on lower glucosinolate B. oleracea. Aphids on B. nigra had shorter generation times and greater daily fecundity, while their predators (Diptera: Syrphidae) had lower feeding and higher mortality rates. Lower syrphid densities were found on B. nigra than on B. oleracea in the field. 4. Synthesis and applications. This study presents physiological and field evidence to suggest that weedy B. nigra may provide enemy-free space from an important predator. Habitat near crops should be examined for its potential to provide enemy-free space and compromise otherwise effective biological control. The issue of pest control must be considered from the bottom up as well as the top down. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize the global and multi‐dimensional nature of sustainability and thus require improving our capacity to articulate and trace the impact of ecosystem change to measures of human well‐being. Yet, the integrated nature of these goals is challenging to assess without similarly integrated assessment tools. We present a new modeling toolkit, "Mapping Ecosystem Services to Human well‐being" (MESH), that integrates commonly used, stand‐alone ecosystem services (ES) models from the InVEST suite of models to quantify and illustrate the trade‐offs and synergies across five ecosystem services and up to 10 associated SDGs. Development of the software and its functionality were informed by a broad stakeholder consultation with ministries, non‐governmental organizations and civil society groups in West Africa to identify common barriers to uptake and application of modeling tools in developing countries. In light of this process, key features included in MESH are (1) integration of multiple ecosystem service (ES) models into a common modeling framework supported by a curated base data set, (2) built‐in scenario generation capacity to support policy analysis, (3) visualization of outcomes and trade‐offs, and (4) mapping of ecosystem service change to SDG targets and goals. We illustrate the use of MESH in a case study in the Volta basin of West Africa comparing the effectiveness of three alternative conservation prioritization approaches: (1) land cover‐based, (2) topographic‐based, and (3) an ecosystem service‐based approach to minimize the impact of agricultural expansion. We evaluate these approaches by linking changes in service supply to potential impacts on achievement of specific SDG goals and targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]