Pollinators, pests, and predators: Recognizing ecological trade-offs in agroecosystems
Ecological interactions between crops and wild animals frequently result in increases or declines in crop yield. Yet, positive and negative interactions have mostly been treated independently, owing partly to disciplinary silos in ecological and agricultural sciences. We advocate a new integrated research paradigm that explicitly recognizes cost-benefit trade-offs among animal activities and acknowledges that these activities occur within social-ecological contexts. Support for this paradigm is presented in an evidence-based conceptual model structured around five evidence statements highlighting emerging trends applicable to sustainable agriculture. The full range of benefits and costs associated with animal activities in agroecosystems cannot be quantified by focusing on single species groups, crops, or systems. Management of productive agroecosystems should sustain cycles of ecological interactions between crops and wild animals, not isolate these cycles from the system. Advancing this paradigm will therefore require integrated studies that determine net returns of animal activity in agroecosystems.
KeywordsAgroecology Ecosystem services Animal–plant interactions Sustainable agriculture Cost-benefit analysis
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 have no conflicts of interest to declare. We thank three anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments on the manuscript.
- Classen, A., M.K. Peters, S.W. Ferger, M. Helbig-Bonitz, J.M. Schmack, G. Maassen, M. Schleuning, E.K.V. Kalko, et al. 2014. Complementary ecosystem services provided by pest predators and pollinators increase quantity and quality of coffee yields. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281: 20133148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Keogh, R.C., Robinson, A.P.W., Mullins, I.J. 2010. Pollination aware, Case Study 24: Paterson’s Curse. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Canberra. RIRDC Pub. No. 10/131. URL: https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/items/10-131.
- Mothershead, K., and R.J. Marquis. 2000. Fitness impacts of herbivory through indirect effects on plant–pollinator interactions in Oenothera macrocarpa. Ecology 81: 30–40.Google Scholar
- Tracey, J., Saunders, G. 2003. Bird damage to the wine grape industry. Report to the Bureau of Rural Sciences, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
- Ulluwishewa, R. 1992. Indigenous knowledge systems for sustainable development: The case of pest control by traditional paddy farmers in Sri Lanka. Vidvodaya Journal of Social Science 6: 79–88.Google Scholar