Increasing crop field size does not consistently exacerbate insect pest problems.
agroecology
crop yield
field size
pest density
pesticide use
Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 1091-6490
Titre abrégé: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7505876
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 09 2022
13 09 2022
Historique:
entrez:
6
9
2022
pubmed:
7
9
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Increasing diversity on farms can enhance many key ecosystem services to and from agriculture, and natural control of arthropod pests is often presumed to be among them. The expectation that increasing the size of monocultural crop plantings exacerbates the impact of pests is common throughout the agroecological literature. However, the theoretical basis for this expectation is uncertain; mechanistic mathematical models suggest instead that increasing field size can have positive, negative, neutral, or even nonlinear effects on arthropod pest densities. Here, we report a broad survey of crop field-size effects: across 14 pest species, 5 crops, and 20,000 field years of observations, we quantify the impact of field size on pest densities, pesticide applications, and crop yield. We find no evidence that larger fields cause consistently worse pest impacts. The most common outcome (9 of 14 species) was for pest severity to be independent of field size; larger fields resulted in less severe pest problems for four species, and only one species exhibited the expected trend of larger fields worsening pest severity. Importantly, pest responses to field size strongly correlated with their responses to the fraction of the surrounding landscape planted to the focal crop, suggesting that shared ecological processes produce parallel responses to crop simplification across spatial scales. We conclude that the idea that larger field sizes consistently disrupt natural pest control services is without foundation in either the theoretical or empirical record.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36067287
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2208813119
pmc: PMC9477394
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2208813119Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Ecol Lett. 2021 Jan;24(1):73-83
pubmed: 33051978
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 May 23;114(21):5473-5478
pubmed: 28484021
Proc Biol Sci. 2020 Oct 28;287(1937):20202116
pubmed: 33109015
Trends Ecol Evol. 2021 Oct;36(10):919-930
pubmed: 34362590
Science. 1997 Jul 25;277(5325):504-9
pubmed: 20662149
PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5487
pubmed: 19424439
Oecologia. 2003 Dec;137(4):591-602
pubmed: 14505022
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Mar 23;118(12):
pubmed: 33731476
J Econ Entomol. 2020 Oct 16;113(5):2335-2342
pubmed: 32651953
J Econ Entomol. 2019 Sep 23;112(5):2268-2277
pubmed: 31127848
Annu Rev Entomol. 2017 Jan 31;62:399-417
pubmed: 27912246
J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2009 Jul;4(3-4):375-392
pubmed: 23144676
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39862
pubmed: 22768147
Trends Ecol Evol. 2019 Feb;34(2):154-166
pubmed: 30509848
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Aug 14;115(33):E7863-E7870
pubmed: 30072434
Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jul 22;273(1595):1715-27
pubmed: 16790403
Ecol Appl. 2011 Jan;21(1):9-21
pubmed: 21516884
Ecol Lett. 2019 Jul;22(7):1083-1094
pubmed: 30957401
Ecol Appl. 2022 Jul;32(5):e2607
pubmed: 35366039
Science. 2018 Oct 19;362(6412):
pubmed: 30337381
Trends Ecol Evol. 2020 Feb;35(2):175-186
pubmed: 31699410
Ecol Appl. 2011 Mar;21(2):539-46
pubmed: 21563583
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 15;8(11):e80518
pubmed: 24260408
Nature. 2017 Nov 9;551(7679):187-191
pubmed: 29088701
Pest Manag Sci. 2017 Jan;73(1):232-239
pubmed: 27063001
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 15;104(20):8368-73
pubmed: 17485669
Sci Rep. 2020 Jan 15;10(1):344
pubmed: 31941914
Conserv Lett. 2020 Nov-Dec;13(6):e12752
pubmed: 33519969
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Aug 13;116(33):16442-16447
pubmed: 31358630