Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Systematic Review of the Benefits and Costs of Bird and Insect Activity in Agroecosystems

  • Systematic Student Review
  • Published:
Springer Science Reviews

Abstract

Wild fauna occur in every agroecosystem and their interactions with crops can influence yields positively or negatively. Research on the impact of fauna activity on agricultural production focuses mostly on either the costs (e.g. crop damage) or benefits (e.g. pollination) of this activity, with few studies addressing cost–benefit trade-offs in the same context. This has resulted in an incomplete understanding of the implications of fauna activity in agroecosystems. Through a systematic review of the literature, we connect disparate studies to promote a more holistic approach to research on wild fauna in agriculture. We identified 281 studies that quantified a cost and/or benefit of fauna activity in crop systems. Overall, 53.0 % of studies examined the costs of insect and/or bird activity, 37.7 % of studies examined benefits and just 9.3 % of studies covered both costs and benefits of insect and/or bird activity simultaneously. Most birds studied were omnivorous (44.8 %), granivorous (29.0 %) or insectivorous (16.6 %), while insect studies focused on pollinators (42.2 %) or borers (17.5 %). There were clear geographic patterns for studies, with a bias towards studies of the costs of bird activity in North America and studies of benefits in Central America/Caribbean. Most studies on benefits occurred in perennial crops and most cost studies in annual crops. Our results highlight the disjointed nature of research into the cost–benefit trade-offs of fauna activity, and it is essential that future studies examine these trade-offs in order to develop sustainable agricultural strategies that limit production losses while maximising the delivery of ecosystem services from fauna.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

References

  1. Borkhataria RR, Nuessly GS, Pearlstine E, Cherry RH (2012) Effects of blackbirds (Agelaius phoenicius) on stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) populations, damage, and yield in Florida rice. Fla Entomol 95:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Klatt BK, Holzschuh A, Westphal C, Clough Y, Smit I, Pawelzik E, Tscharntke T (2014) Bee pollination improves crop quality, shelf life and commercial value. Proc R Soc B 281:20132440

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Klosterman ME, Linz GM, Slowik AA, Homan HJ (2013) Comparisons between blackbird damage to corn and sunflower in North Dakota. Crop Prot 53:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Evenden MD (1995) The laborers of nature: economic ornithology and the role of birds as agents of biological pest control in North American agriculture, ca. 1880–1930. For Conserv Hist 39:172–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kronenberg J (2014) What can the current debate on ecosystem services learn from the past? Lessons from economic ornithology. Geoforum 55:164–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wenny DG, Devault TL, Dohnson MD, Kelly DH, Sekercioglu C, Tomback DF, Whelan CJ (2011) The need to quantify ecosystem services provided by birds. Auk 128:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Whelan CJ, Wenny DG, Marquis RJ (2008) Ecosystem services provided by birds. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1134:25–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bomford M, Sinclair R (2002) Australian research on bird pests: impact, management and future directions. Emu 102:29–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gebhardt K, Anderson AM, Kirkpatrick KN, Shwiff SA (2011) A review and synthesis of bird and rodent damage estimates to select California crops. Crop Prot 30:1109–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Murray DAH, Clarke MB, Ronning DA (2013) Estimating invertebrate pest losses in six major Australian grain crops. Aust J Entomol 52:227–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  13. UNEP (2014) Assessing global land use: balancing consumption with sustainable supply. A report of the Working Group on Land and Soils of the International Resource Panel. Bringezu S, Schütz H, Pengue W, O´Brien M, Garcia F, Sims R, Howarth R, Kauppi L, Swilling M, Herrick J

  14. Klein AM, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc Biol Sci 274:303–313

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bommarco R, Miranda F, Bylund H, Björkman C (2011) Insecticides suppress natural enemies and increase pest damage in cabbage. J Econ Entomol 104:782–791

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cardinale BJ, Harvey CT, Gross K, Ives AR (2003) Biodiversity and biocontrol: emergent impacts of a multi-enemy assemblage on pest suppression and crop yield in an agroecosystem. Ecol Lett 6:857–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Maas B, Clough Y, Tscharntke T, Courchamp F (2013) Bats and birds increase crop yield in tropical agroforestry landscapes. Ecol Lett 16:1480–1487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ndang’ang’a PK, Njoroge JBM, Vickery J (2013) Quantifying the contribution of birds to the control of arthropod pests on kale, Brassica oleracea acephala, a key crop in East African highland farmland. Int J Pest Manag 59:211–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Olotu MI, du Plessis H, Seguni ZS, Maniania NK (2013) Efficacy of the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the control of Helopeltis spp. (Hemiptera: Miridae) and Pseudotheraptus wayi (Hemiptera:Coreidae) in cashew crop in Tanzania. Pest Manag Sci 69:911–918

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kellermann JL, Johnson MD, Stercho AM, Hackett SC (2008) Ecological and economic services provided by birds on Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee farms. Conserv Biol 22:1177–1185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jiménez-Soto E, Cruz-Rodríguez S, Vandermeer J, Perfecto I (2013) Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and its interactions with Azteca instabilis and Pheidole synanthropica (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a shade coffee agroecosystem. Environ Entomol 42:915–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kross SM, Tylianakis JM, Nelson XJ (2012) Effects of introducing threatened falcons into vineyards on abundance of passeriformes and bird damage to grapes. Conserv Biol 26:142–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Galeotti P, Inglisa M (2001) Estimating predation impact on honeybees Apis mellifera L. by European bee-eaters Merops apiaster L. Rev d’Écol 56:373–388

    Google Scholar 

  24. Knight TM, Helmut Hillebrand C, Holt RD (2006) Predation on mutualists can reduce the strength of trophic cascades. Ecol Lett 9:1173–1178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Oerke EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci 144:31–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tracey J, Bomford M, Hart Q, Saunders G, Sinclair R (2007) Managing bird damage to fruit and other horticultural crops. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton SM (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64:253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Avery ML, DeHaven RW (1982) Bird damage to sunflowers in the Sacramento Valley, California. In: Proceedings of the tenth vertebrate pest conference, pp 197–200

  29. Besser JF, Brady DJ (1986) Bird damage to ripening field corn increases in the United States from 1971 to 1981. Resour Publ 7:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  30. Conover MR, Dolbeer RA (1989) Reflecting tapes fail to reduce blackbird damage to ripening cornfields. Wildl Soc Bull 17:441–443

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hagy HM, Linz GM, Bleier WJ (2008) Optimizing the use of decoy plots for blackbird control in commercial sunflower. Crop Prot 27:1442–1447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nault BA, Speese J III (2002) Major insect pests and economics of fresh-market tomato in eastern Virginia. Crop Prot 21:359–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. del Hoyo J, Elliot A, Sargatal J, Christie DA (eds) (1992–2013) Handbook of the birds of the world. vol 1–7, 9–10, 12–16. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona

  35. Luck GW (2013) The net return from fauna activity in agro-ecosystems: trading off benefits from ecosystem services against costs from crop damage. F1000Research 2:239. doi:10.12688/f1000research.2-239.v1

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tremblay A, Mineau P, Stewart RK (2001) Effects of bird predation on some pest insect populations in corn. Agric Ecosyst Environ 83:143–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Borkhataria RR, Collazo JA, Groom MJ (2006) Additive effects of vertebrate predators on insects in a Puerto Rican coffee plantation. Ecol Appl 16:696–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Classen A, Peters MK, Ferger SW, Helbig-Bonitz M, Schmack JM, Maassen G, Schleuning M, Kalko EKV, Bohning-Gaese K, Steffan-Dewenter I (2014) Complementary ecosystem services provided by pest predators and pollinators increase quantity and quality of coffee yields. Proc R Soc B 281:0133148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Saunders ME, Peisley RK, Rader R, Luck GW (in review) Pollinators, predators and pests: recognising ecological trade-offs in agroecosystems. AMBIO

  40. Bullard RW, Bruggers RL, Kilburn ST (1983) Sensory-cue enhancement of the bird repellency of methiocarb. Crop Prot 2:387–398

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Conover MR (1982) Behavioral techniques to reduce bird damage to blueberries: methiocarb and a hawk-kite predator model. Wildl Soc 10:211–216

    Google Scholar 

  42. Summers RW, Hillman G (1990) Scaring brent geese Branta beznicla from fields of winter wheat with tape. Crop Prot 9:459–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Saunders ME, Luck GW, Mayfield MM (2013) Almond orchards with living ground cover host more wild insect pollinators. J Insect Conserv 17:1011–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Saunders ME, Luck GW (2014) Spatial and temporal variation in pollinator community structure relative to a woodland-almond plantation edge. Agric For Entomol 16:369–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rekika D, Stewart KA, Boivin G, Jenni S (2008) Floating rowcovers improve germination and reduce carrot weevil infestations in carrot. HortScience 43:1619–1622

    Google Scholar 

  46. Davidson MM, Butler RC, Howlett BG (2010) Apis mellifera and Megachile rotundata: a comparison of behaviour and seed yield in a hybrid carrot seed crop. N Z J Crop Hortic Sci 38:113–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Howlett BG (2012) Hybrid carrot seed crop pollination by the fly Calliphora vicina (Diptera: Calliphoridae). J Appl Entomol 136:421–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Karp DS, Mendenhall CD, Sandi RF, Chaumont N, Ehrlich PR, Hadly EA, Daily GC (2013) Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield. Ecol Lett 16:1339–1347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Johnson MD (2000) Effects of shade-tree species and crop structure on the winter arthropod and bird communities in a Jamaican shade coffee plantation. Biotropica 32:133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pucket HL, Brandle JR, Johnson RJ, Blankenship EE (2009) Avian foraging patterns in crop field edges adjacent to woody habitat. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131:9–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Bollinger EK, Caslick JW (1985) Factors influencing blackbird damage to field corn. J Wildl Manag 49:1109–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Straub RW (1989) Red-winged blackbird damage to sweet corn in relation to infestations of European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J Econ Entomol 82:1406–1410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Chakravarthy AK (1988) Bird predators of pod borers of field bean. Trop Pest Manag 34:395–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Losey JE, Vaughan M (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 56:311–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stewart AM, Craig JL (1989) Factors affecting pollinator effectiveness in Feijoa sellowiana. New Zeal J Crop Hort 17:145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Avery ML, DeHaven R (1984) Bird damage chronology and feeding behaviour in two sunflower fields, Sacremento, California, 1982. In: Proceedings of the eleventh vertebrate pest conference, pp 223–228

  57. Bruggers RL, Brooks JE, Dolbeer RA, Woronecki PP, Pandit RK, Tarimo T, All-India Co-Ordinated Research Project on Economic Ornithology, Hoque M (1986) Responses of pest birds to reflecting tape in agriculture. Wildl Soc Bull 14:161–170

    Google Scholar 

  58. Conover MR (1984) Comparative effectiveness of avitrol, exploders, and hawk-kites in reducing blackbird damage to corn. J Wildl Manag 48:109–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Seiler GJ, Rogers CE (1987) Influence of sunflower morphological characteristics on achene depredation by birds. Agric Ecosyst Environ 20:59–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pimentel D, Wilson C, McCullum C, Huang R, Dwen P, Flack J, Tran Q, Saltman T, Cliff B (1997) Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. Bioscience 47:747–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Monteiro LB, Lavigne C, Ricci B, Franck P, Toubon J-F, Sauphanor B (2013) Predation of codling moth eggs is affected by pest management practices at orchard and landscape levels. Agric Ecosyst Environ 166:86–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ramalho FS, Fernandes FS, Nascimento ARB, Nascimento Junior JL, Malaquias JB, Silva CAD (2012) Assessment of fennel aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and their predators in fennel intercropped with cotton with colored fibers. J Econ Entomol 105:113–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bisseleua Daghela HB, Fotio D, Yede Missoup AD, Vidal S (2013) Shade tree diversity, cocoa pest damage, yield compensating inputs and farmers’ net returns in West Africa. PLoS One 8:e56115. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Dedej S, Delaplane KS (2004) Nectar-robbing carpenter bees reduce seed-setting capability of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in rabbiteye blueberry, Vaccinium ashei, ‘Climax’. Environ Entomol 33:100–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sampson BJ, Danka RG, Stringer SJ (2004) Nectar robbery by bees Xylocopa virginica and Apis mellifera contributes to the pollination of rabbiteye blueberry. J Econ Entomol 97:735–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Lundin O, Smith HG, Rundlöf M, Bommarco R (2013) When ecosystem services interact: crop pollination benefits depend on the level of pest control. Proc R Soc B 280:20122243

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Basili GD, Temple SA (1999) Dickcissels and crop damage in Venezuela: defining the problem with ecological models. Ecology 9:732–739

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant DP140100709 awarded to G.W.L. All authors reviewed the literature, wrote the manuscript and approved publication. The authors thank Romina Rader for help in reviewing the literature. The authors also thank Annette Peisley and three reviewers for comments on the manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Land Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury, NSW, 2640, Australia

    Rebecca K. Peisley, Manu E. Saunders & Gary W. Luck

  2. School of Environmental Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, 2640, Australia

    Rebecca K. Peisley

Authors
  1. Rebecca K. Peisley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manu E. Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary W. Luck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca K. Peisley.

Additional information

Endorsed by Gary Luck.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 221 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peisley, R.K., Saunders, M.E. & Luck, G.W. A Systematic Review of the Benefits and Costs of Bird and Insect Activity in Agroecosystems. Springer Science Reviews 3, 113–125 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-015-0035-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-015-0035-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation