Fruit quantity and quality of strawberries benefit from enhanced pollinator abundance at hedgerows in agricultural landscapes

Castle, Denise; Graß, Ingo; Westphal, Catrin

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2019.01.003

Cited by 49 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It may be that farmers simply do not know of the potential benefits. Our in silica analysis, like several in situ studies (Blaauw & Isaacs, 2014; Castle, Grass, & Westphal, 2019; Kremen, M'Gonigle, & Ponisio, 2018), suggests that the value of an enhancement can be as valuable privately as many crops. Yet California, the state with largest demand for pollinators, currently has zero acres enrolled in the CRP, a program that would pay farmers when our results suggest there are cases where no payments are needed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Partitioning private and external benefits of crop pollination services

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services (ES) provide a range of benefits to people, but landowners that produce ES are often separate from those receiving benefits. As a result, landowners bear the costs of managing ecosystems, but often share the benefits with others. Accounting for these private and external costs and benefits would improve the effectiveness of payments for ES management. We develop a spatially explicit ES modelling approach to evaluate the alignment of private and external benefits resulting from habitat enhancement for pollinators. After testing the model on synthetic landscapes, we applied it to Yolo County, California, using information on crop type, value per acre and dependence on pollination. Detailed data on parcel ownership allowed us to distinguish private and external costs and benefits of enhancing habitat on any parcel. We found that around 13% of the landowners would generate private benefits that exceed private costs, 47% would generate external benefits greater than private costs, and the remaining 40% would generate neither private nor external benefits greater than private costs. Landowners generating private net benefits had larger fields, more valuable crops and more pollinator‐dependent crops than the other owners. These results reveal mis‐alignments between private and external incentives. Just over half of the Yolo County landowners' pollinator enhancements would produce external benefits, but only 25% of these would have private incentives to do so. We estimated that enhancements by those acting privately could increase the private net present value of crops by $495,309 and provide a total external benefit of $1,193,345. The remaining 47% of landowners’ enhancements generated $1,409,247 in additional net external benefits. Accounting for heterogeneity in enhancement benefits due to ownership and crop characteristics allows one to distinguish contexts where enhancements should be managed by groups as a common‐pool resource or by individuals. Rather than fund a PES program to pay for enhancements, effort could be directed towards communicating with landowners about potential private benefits and facilitating common‐pool resource management. Overall, this analysis reveals the importance of partitioning private and external benefits of actions designed to provide ES. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Partitioning private and external benefits of crop pollination services

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Connectivity at the landscape scale may also benefit crop production as forest-connected hedgerows were documented to produce more high quality strawberries (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.) than isolated hedgerows [151]. Another study found a strong positive relationship between the percentage of hedgerows at the landscape scale (1 km radius) and pollinator visits, resulting in an increase in crop pollination of almost 70% when hedgerow cover increased from 1% to 6% [46].…”

Section: Landscape Connectivitymentioning

confidence: 92%

“…[92,147,148] Crop pollination Agroforestry practices can provide increased pollination services and crop yields, including higher crop quality, although few studies have been conducted to document this direct agronomic benefit. [30,46,[149][150][151]…”

Section: Habitat Component or Ecosystem Service Summary Key Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…when around 30% of the land within 1.2 km of a field is in natural habitat [165], which could be an approximate analog to an agroforestry practice. Regarding landscape context, one study found an increase in quality and quantity of strawberries grown adjacent to forest-connected hedgerows, as compared to isolated hedgerows or grass margins [151]. Plants placed at forest-connected hedgerows produced more high-quality strawberries with 90% classified as "marketable".…”

Section: Crop Pollination Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In comparison, only 75% of strawberries from plants at isolated hedgerows, 48% of strawberries from plants on grassy margins, and 41% of strawberries from self-pollinated control plants were classified as marketable. Based on market prices of 2016, the increase in economic value between strawberries produced at grassy margins and forest-connected hedgerows amounted to 61% [151]. Cost-benefit studies that assess the benefits of an agroforestry practice for pollination services compared to the costs of installation and maintenance, opportunity costs, and costs of potential unintended negative effects are very limited.…”

Section: Crop Pollination Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Temperate Agroforestry Systems and Insect Pollinators: A Review

Bentrup

Hopwood

Adamson

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agroforestry can provide ecosystem services and benefits such as soil erosion control, microclimate modification for yield enhancement, economic diversification, livestock production and well-being, and water quality protection. Through increased structural and functional diversity in agricultural landscapes, agroforestry practices can also affect ecosystem services provided by insect pollinators. A literature review was conducted to synthesize information on how temperate agroforestry systems influence insect pollinators and their pollination services with particular focus on the role of trees and shrubs. Our review indicates that agroforestry practices can provide three overarching benefits for pollinators: (1) providing habitat including foraging resources and nesting or egg-laying sites, (2) enhancing site and landscape connectivity, and (3) mitigating pesticide exposure. In some cases, agroforestry practices may contribute to unintended consequences such as becoming a sink for pollinators, where they may have increased exposure to pesticide residue that can accumulate in agroforestry practices. Although there is some scientific evidence suggesting that agroforestry practices can enhance crop pollination and yield, more research needs to be conducted on a variety of crops to verify this ecosystem service. Through a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of agroforestry practices on pollinators and their key services, we can better design agroforestry systems to provide these benefits in addition to other desired ecosystem services.

show abstract

Land‐sharing/‐sparing connectivity landscapes for ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The land-sharing versus land-sparing debate recently stagnated, lacking an integrating perspective in agricultural landscapes as well as consideration of ecosystem services. Here, we argue that land-sharing (i.e. wildlife-friendly farming systems) and land-sparing (i.e. separation of high-yielding agriculture and natural habitats) are not mutually exclusive, as both are needed to balance management needs for the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes.2. Land-sharing promotes ecosystem services in agricultural settings, thereby allowing for environmentally friendly production. Land set aside in protected areas by land-sparing is crucial for conservation of those species that are incompatible with agriculture.3. Importantly, as species move throughout the landscape and exploit different habitats, increased connectivity between environmentally friendly managed and protected areas is needed to (a) promote spillover of ecosystem service providers from land-sharing/-sparing measures to agricultural production and rescue service-providing species from extinction in hostile areas, (b) to facilitate immigration and counteract possible extinctions in spared habitats and (c) to conserve response diversity of species communities for ensuring resilience of ecosystem services in changing environments. 4. In conclusion, the successful management of multifunctional landscapes requires the combination of context-specific land-sharing and land-sparing measures within spatially well-connected landscape mosaics, resulting in land-sharing/sparing connectivity landscapes. K E Y W O R D S agriculture, landscape design, landscape management, land-sharing, land-sparing, multifunctionality, sustainability | 263 People and Nature GRASS et Al.

show abstract

Fruit quantity and quality of strawberries benefit from enhanced pollinator abundance at hedgerows in agricultural landscapes

Cited by 49 publications

References 50 publications

Partitioning private and external benefits of crop pollination services

Partitioning private and external benefits of crop pollination services

Temperate Agroforestry Systems and Insect Pollinators: A Review

Land‐sharing/‐sparing connectivity landscapes for ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About