SignificanceDecades of research have fostered the now-prevalent assumption that noncrop habitat facilitates better pest suppression by providing shelter and food resources to the predators and parasitoids of crop pests. Based on our analysis of the largest pest-control database of its kind, noncrop habitat surrounding farm fields does affect multiple dimensions of pest control, but the actual responses of pests and enemies are highly variable across geographies and cropping systems. Because noncrop habitat often does not enhance biological control, more information about local farming contexts is needed before habitat conservation can be recommended as a viable pest-suppression strategy. Consequently, when pest control does not benefit from noncrop vegetation, farms will need to be carefully comanaged for competing conservation and production objectives.

Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield–related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.

Biodiversity loss-one of the most prominent forms of modern environmental change-has been heavily driven by terrestrial habitat loss and, in particular, the spread and intensification of agriculture. Expanding agricultural land-use has led to the search for strong conservation strategies, with some suggesting that biodiversity conservation in agriculture is best maximized by reducing local management intensity, such as fertilizer and pesticide application. Others highlight the importance of landscape-level approaches that incorporate natural or semi-natural areas in landscapes surrounding farms. Here, we show that both of these practices are valuable to the conservation of biodiversity, and that either local or landscape factors can be most crucial to conservation planning depending on which types of organisms one wishes to save. We performed a quantitative review of 266 observations taken from 31 studies that compared the impacts of localized (within farm) management strategies and landscape complexity (around farms) on the richness and abundance of plant, invertebrate and vertebrate species in agro-ecosystems. While both factors significantly impacted species richness, the richness of sessile plants increased with less-intensive local management, but did not significantly respond to landscape complexity. By contrast, the richness of mobile vertebrates increased with landscape complexity, but did not significantly increase with less-intensive local management. Invertebrate richness and abundance responded to both factors. Our analyses point to clear differences in how various groups of organisms respond to differing scales of management, and suggest that preservation of multiple taxonomic groups will require multiple scales of conservation.

79 40 INRA, UR 1115, Plantes et Systèmes de culture horticoles, ABSTRACT 138

Summary1. Agriculture comprises the largest global land use, makes it a leading cause of habitat loss. It is therefore critical to identify how to best construct agricultural systems that can simultaneously provide food and other ecosystem services. This challenge requires that we determine how to maximize win-win relationships and minimize trade-offs between services. 2. Through meta-analysis, we tested whether within-field crop diversification (polyculture) can lead to win-win relationships between two ecosystem services: yield of a focal crop species and biocontrol of crop pests. We selected only studies that recorded both services (N = 26 studies; 301 observations), allowing us to better determine the underlying mechanisms of our principal findings. We calculated log-response ratios for both ecosystem services in monoand polycultures. 3. We found win-win relationships between per-plant yield of the primary crop and biocontrol in polyculture systems that minimized intraspecific competition via substitutive planting. Additionally, we found beneficial effects on biocontrol with no difference in per-unit area yield of the primary crop in polyculture fields at high cropping densities (additive planting) where legumes were used as the secondary crop. These results suggest that there is a strong potential for win-win relationships between biocontrol and per-unit area yield under certain scenarios. Our findings were consistent across geographical regions and by type of primary crop. We did not find evidence that biocontrol had an effect on yield, but rather, both were independently affected by polycultural cropping. 4. Synthesis and applications. We show that well-designed polycultures can produce win-win outcomes between per-plant, and potentially per-unit area, primary crop yield and biocontrol. Biocontrol services are consistently enhanced in polycultures, so polyculture management that focuses on yield optimization is likely to be the best strategy for maximizing both services. In doing so, we suggest that practitioners utilize polycultures that decrease plant-plant competition through a substitution of relatively large quantities of the primary crop for compatibly harvestable secondary crops. Additionally, if planting at high cropping densities, it is important that legumes be the secondary crop.

Whether an ecological community is controlled from above or below remains a popular framework that continues generating interesting research questions and takes on especially important meaning in agroecosystems. We describe the regulation from above of three coffee herbivores, a leaf herbivore (the green coffee scale, Coccus viridis), a seed predator (the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei), and a plant pathogen (the coffee rust disease, caused by Hemelia vastatrix) by various natural enemies, emphasizing the remarkable complexity involved. We emphasize the intersection of this classical question of ecology with the burgeoning field of complex systems, including references to chaos, critical transitions, hysteresis, basin or boundary collision, and spatial self-organization, all aimed at the applied question of pest control in the coffee agroecosystem.

No abstract

Understanding how different pesticides influence bee health is inhibited by a limited knowledge about the interactions between different compounds to which bees are simultaneously exposed. Although research has demonstrated synergistic effects of some sterol biosynthesis inhibiting (SBI) fungicides on the toxicity of certain insecticides to bees, a high degree of variability exists in the relatively few SBI fungicide-insecticide interactions tested. Furthermore, most research has been conducted on honey bees, Apis mellifera , limiting our understanding of pesticide synergisms in native wild bees. We tested the effects of the SBI fungicides difenoconazole, myclobutanil, and fenhexamid on acute contact toxicity of the insecticides thiamethoxam (neonicotinoid) and bifenthrin (pyrethroid) to the common eastern bumble bee, Bombus impatiens. Based on range-finding trials, we selected a single dosage of each pesticide, with insecticides approximating LD20 values and fungicides approximating their maximum sublethal levels. We found that the triazole SBI fungicide difenoconazole interacted synergistically with bifenthrin, with a maximum synergy ratio of 1.48, while the triazole myclobutanil interacted synergistically with both bifenthrin and thiamethoxam, with maximum synergy ratios of 11.0 and 2.38, respectively. However, the hydroxyanilide SBI fungicide fenhexamid did not exhibit a synergistic effect on either insecticide. Our results suggest that certain SBI fungicides, and potentially those from particular SBI classes, may be particularly harmful to bumble bee health when co-exposure to insecticides occurs, despite their low toxicity when experienced in isolation.