Pest management science often disregards farming system complexities

Wyckhuys, Kris A. G.; Tang, Fiona H. M.; Hadi, Buyung

doi:10.1038/s43247-023-00894-3

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 91 publications

(158 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We employed a quantitative literature review to characterize pest management science in 65 countries in the Global South ( Figure S1 ). Specifically, we covered West Africa (WA), the Middle East (ME), Southeast Asia (SEA), and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) excluding Brazil [ 48 ] ( Table S1 ). Certain areas were not covered, e.g., South Asia, the Pacific, Central or Eastern Asia, and numerous countries of sub-Saharan Africa.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, our exercise excluded any publications that solely covered plant pathogens or weeds. Per the publication, we extracted information on focal biota, research type, IPM themes, farming system strata, and companion biota from the abstract [ 48 ]. Topic searches were conducted using the following WoS search string: TS = ((field OR crop*) AND (pest*) AND country).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Next, we determined whether a given publication covered one or more of eight IPM thematic areas [ 48 , 49 ]: 1. diagnostics and morphology; 2. pest detection, sampling, and monitoring; 3. pest forecasting and prediction; 4. pest biology, ecology, and geographical distribution; 5. preventative non-chemical management; 6. curative non-chemical management; 7. preventative chemical management; and 8. curative chemical management. For field and semi-field studies, we also noted to what extent the research covered the 15 farming system variables.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Institutional Context of Pest Management Science in the Global South

Wyckhuys,

Hadi

2023

Plants

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The natural sciences are receiving increasing attention in the Global South. This timely development may help mitigate global change and quicken an envisioned food system transformation. Yet in order to resolve complex issues such as agrochemical pollution, science ideally proceeds along suitable trajectories within appropriate institutional contexts. Here, we employ a systematic literature review to map the nature of inquiry and institutional context of pest management science in 65 low- and middle-income countries published from 2010 to 2020. Despite large inter-country variability, any given country generates an average of 5.9 publications per annum (range 0–45.9) and individual nations such as Brazil, Kenya, Benin, Vietnam, and Turkey engage extensively in regional cooperation. International development partners are prominent scientific actors in West Africa but are commonly outpaced by national institutions and foreign academia in other regions. Transnational institutions such as the CGIAR represent a 1.4-fold higher share of studies on host plant resistance but lag in public interest science disciplines such as biological control. Despite high levels of scientific abstraction, research conducted jointly with development partners shows real yet marginal improvements in incorporating the multiple (social–ecological) layers of the farming system. Added emphasis on integrative system-level approaches and agroecological or biodiversity-driven measures can extend the reach of science to unlock transformative change.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Institutional Context of Pest Management Science in the Global South

Wyckhuys,

Hadi

2023

Plants

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Actually, trans- or inter-disciplinary science is crucial to resolving global change and to mitigating the externalities of the present-day food system (Vandermeer et al, 2018). Pest management professionals in particular should strive to adopt holistic, system-level perspectives (Wyckhuys et al, 2023), taking into account below-ground realms, soil fertility, farmer knowledge and attitudes, or landscape-level dynamics (Tscharntke et al, 2021; Wyckhuys et al, 2017, 2019, 2021). The societal benefits of (legume-assisted) biological control are indeed huge, yet this is rarely apprehended.…”

Section: Shifting Gears: From Blissful Ignorance To Remedial Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legume integration for biological control deserves a firmer scientific base

Wyckhuys,

Gonzalez-Chang,

Lavandero

et al. 2023

Outlook Agric

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diversification measures are widely recognized for their potential to enhance the resilience of agri-food production systems under global change. Nitrogen-fixing legumes commonly feature in diversification schemes, where they exert positive impacts on soil structure, nutrient retention, carbon sequestration or fertilizer reduction. Though legumes are premier tools for conservation agriculture, their impacts on (invertebrate, microbial) biological control are far less clear. As legumes secrete copious amounts of energy-rich (floral, extra-floral) nectar and provide alternative host or prey items for resident natural enemies, their deployment is expected to benefit biological control. Yet, its mechanistic basis is poorly understood and scientific underpinnings weak. In this Perspective piece, we collate data from the published literature and open-access databases on the extent to which different natural enemy guilds interact with 25 legume species that are commonly used as intercrops in the (sub)tropics. Our work unveils how natural enemies regularly forage on legumes, but the portrayal of those interaction linkages –or “biostructure” data- is profoundly incomplete and their ensuing implications for biological control are under-investigated. For instance, merely 4 (out of 167) parasitoids of the globally invasive fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda have been recorded in association with legumes. We hope that this Perspective piece will stimulate further thought, drive a new wave of biodiversity x ecosystem function research, and ultimately result in the design and implementation (or preservation) of more resilient, resource-frugal and pest-suppressive farming systems.

show abstract

“…By focusing on actions that jointly benefit both control of crop pests and crop pollination and minimize conflicts between them, an Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management (IPPM) framework, applied in the context of agri‐ecosystems, may help to support both sustainable agricultual production and protection of pollinators. However, recent articles advocating this IPPM approach have arisen mostly in Europe (Belien et al., 2021; Egan et al., 2020; Lundin et al., 2021; Merle et al., 2022), North America (Bloom et al., 2022; Braman & Griffin, 2022; Leach et al., 2022; Okosun & Reddy, 2022; Pecenka et al., 2023; Penn et al., 2021), Africa (Adan et al., 2021; Toukem et al., 2022; Waithaka et al., 2023; Wangithi et al., 2022), and Asia (Jung, 2021; Jung & Shin, 2022; Wyckhuys et al., 2023), with none arising in Australasia. Sustainable agriculture and pollination …”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollination crisis Down‐Under: Has Australasia dodged the bullet?

Pyke,

Prendergast,

Ren

2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since mid‐1990s, concerns have increased about a human‐induced “pollination crisis.” Threats have been identified to animals that act as plant pollinators, plants pollinated by these animals, and consequently human well‐being. Threatening processes include loss of natural habitat, climate change, pesticide use, pathogen spread, and introduced species. However, concern has mostly been during last 10–15 years and from Europe and North America, with Australasia, known as Down‐Under, receiving little attention. So perhaps Australasia has “dodged the bullet”? We systematically reviewed the published literature relating to the “pollination crisis” via Web of Science, focusing on issues amenable to this approach. Across these issues, we found a steep increase in publications over the last few decades and a major geographic bias towards Europe and North America, with relatively little attention in Australasia. While publications from Australasia are underrepresented, factors responsible elsewhere for causing the “pollination crisis” commonly occur in Australasia, so this lack of coverage probably reflects a lack of awareness rather than the absence of a problem. In other words, Australasia has not “dodged the bullet” and should take immediate action to address and mitigate its own “pollination crisis.” Sensible steps would include increased taxonomic work on suspected plant pollinators, protection for pollinator populations threatened with extinction, establishing long‐term monitoring of plant–pollinator relationships, incorporating pollination into sustainable agriculture, restricting the use of various pesticides, adopting an Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management approach, and developing partnerships with First Nations peoples for research, conservation and management of plants and their pollinators. Appropriate Government policy, funding and regulation could help.

show abstract

Pest management science often disregards farming system complexities

Cited by 12 publications

References 91 publications

Institutional Context of Pest Management Science in the Global South

Institutional Context of Pest Management Science in the Global South

Legume integration for biological control deserves a firmer scientific base

Pollination crisis Down‐Under: Has Australasia dodged the bullet?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About