Arthropod ecosystem services in apple orchards and their economic benefits

Abstract

Abstract. Apple is grown as a long-term perennial crop and orchards provide relatively stable ecological habitats. Only a small proportion of the diverse fauna of arthropods that can inhabit the orchard ecosystem are important pests, the majority of species being minor pests, beneficial or benign. In this paper, the interacting ecosystem services provided by five contrasting naturally occurring arthropod groups in cool temperate apple orchards are reviewed, and their economic benefits broadly quantified. These are:• The roles of bees and other insects in apple pollination increasing yields and fruit quality, the economic value of which may be significantly underestimated.• Naturally occurring, pesticide-resistant phytoseiid predatory mites and their role in regulating phytophagous mites. They eliminate the need for 1-2 acaricide sprays per annum and the risk of acaricide resistance.• The earwig Forficula auricularia L. and its role in regulating several important apple pests. There is great variability in populations between orchards for reasons not fully understood. It is estimated that F. auricularia reduces insecticide applications by 2-3 per annum and reduces pest damage.• Mutualism between the common black ant Lasius niger (L.) and important pest aphids, the roles of competitors, natural and artificial food sources, and ant exclusion in disrupting mutualism which can foster biocontrol of aphids by generalist predators so greatly reducing the need for sprays.• Beneficial epigeic arthropods and their role in predating the soil dwelling life stages of insect pests. These contribute to the control of pest populations although the level of suppression is not consistent depending on several ecological factors.

Management trade‐offs on ecosystem services in apple orchards across Europe: Direct and indirect effects of organic production

“…Different natural enemies have different diets. Some groups are known to feed on and reduce apple pests (Cross et al., ), while the feeding habitats and effects on pest species are less understood for other groups. In addition to pest species, also natural enemies varied in abundance between countries, with a higher abundance of dipterans in Sweden and a higher abundance of heteropterans and earwigs in Germany (A. K. Happe, N. Blüthgen, V. Boreux, J. Bosch, D. García, P. A. Hambäck, A. M. Klein, M. Miñarro, A. Rodrigo, L. Roquer‐Beni, U. Samnegård, G. Alins, M. Porcel, R. Martínez Sastre, M. Tasin and K. Mody, unpublished data).…”

“…Different natural enemies have different diets. Some groups are known to feed on and reduce apple pests(Cross et al, 2015), while the feeding habitats and effects on pest species are less understood for other groups. In addition to pest species, also natural enemies varied in abundance between countries, with a higher abundance of dipterans in Sweden and a higher abundance of heteropterans and earwigs in Germany (A. K.…”

Pollination services mapping and economic valuation from insect communities: a case study in the Azores (Terceira Island)

“…cabbage and other brassicas, carrots, turnips, lettuce, chicory and onions) increases the quality of the seed production (Gallai and Vassière 2009). In addition, insect pollinators enhance fruit and seed quality Bartomeus et al 2014;Garratt et al 2014;Marini et al 2015;Saeed et al 2016) and reinforces pest management (Cross et al 2015) which constitutes an indirect and difficult benefit to measure, but extremely important for the agricultural market. Also, a recent study on pollination by wild insect pollinators has showed their capacity to increase the seed production in 41 agricultural systems globally, regardless of the abundance of honey bees .…”

Editorial

“…These articles address agricultural services, including pest management (Midega et al ., ; Bengtsson, ; Schäckermann et al ., ; Macfadyen et al ., ), pollination (Dicks et al ., ; Birkin & Goulson, ), and waste decomposition (Beynon et al ., ; Ulyshen et al ., ), as well as cultural services (Leather, ), and service provision in specific systems (Cross et al ., ; Macadam et al ., ). Furthermore, this issue addresses key contemporary issues of economic value of services (Cross et al ., ; Beynon et al ., ), how science can inform policy to enhance service providers (Dicks et al ., ), and the use of citizen science to measure service provision (Birkin & Goulson, ). Additionally, two papers emphasise the importance of taking a landscape‐scale approach when assessing services in agroecosystems (Schäckermann et al ., ; Macfadyen et al ., ).…”