Effects of landscape structure on avian-mediated insect pest control services: a review
Despite increasing evidence that landscape composition and configuration strongly influence the community structure of potential pest-regulators, landscape structure has seldom been explicitly linked with the rate and magnitude of pest-control services.
Objectives and methods
We conducted a systematic literature review evaluating 158 relevant studies to: (1) characterize our existing understanding of the empirical relationships between landscape structure and avian-mediated insect pest control services in agricultural systems, (2) identify gaps in our current understanding, and (3) develop a conceptual model of landscape structural influences on avian-mediated pest control.
Results and discussion
We found on-farm pest suppression by birds was often higher in landscapes with higher native habitat cover, higher compositional heterogeneity, and in agricultural patches in closer proximity to native habitats. We identified more than 200 bird species that provide pest control services across both temperate and tropical regions. While most avian predators are habitat-generalist species, a substantial fraction of pest control services in tropical regions was mediated by habitat-dependent species, suggesting a link between conservation management and maintenance of pest control services. We identified a three-part research agenda for future investigations of the relationships between landscape structure and avian-mediated pest control, focusing on an improved understanding of mechanisms related to: (1) predator–prey interactions and landscape modulation of trophic relationships, (2) bird dispersal ability and landscape connectivity, and (3) cross-habitat spillover of habitat-dependent avian predators.
These findings can be applied to efforts to manage and design landscapes capable of supporting both biodiversity and ecosystem services.
KeywordsAvian predators Conservation Crop fields Ecosystem services Insect pests Pest suppression
This study was developed within the “Interface Project”, supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, 2013/23457-6). A.L.B was supported by doctoral fellowships from the Brazilian Ministry of Education (CAPES-DS, 2012–2013), and São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, 2013/12777-0). E.N. was supported by post-doctoral fellowships from the National Science Foundation Grant (1158817) and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, 2014/11676-8). J.P.M. was funded by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPQ, 307934/2011-0). We are grateful to J.A. Prevedello, G. Bravo, R. F. dos Santos, Christopher Whelan, Clive McAlpine, and two anonymous referees for substantial improvement in the earlier version of the manuscript.
- Boesing AL (2016) Landscape processes underpinning bird persistence and avian-mediated pest control in fragmented landscapes. University of São PauloGoogle Scholar
- Del Hoyo J, Elliot A, Sargatal J, Christie DA, Juana E (2014) Handbook of birds of the world alive. Linx Edicions, BarcelonsGoogle Scholar
- Estavillo C, Pardini R, Bernardo da Rocha PL (2013) Forest loss and the biodiversity threshold: an evaluation considering species habitat requirements and the use of matrix habitats. PLoS ONE 8Google Scholar
- Finke DL, Denno RF (2004) Predator diversity dampens trophic cascades. Nature 429Google Scholar
- Gagic V, Bartomeus I, Jonsson T, Taylor A, Winqvist C, Fischer C, Slade EM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Emmerson M, Potts SG, Tscharntke T, Weisser W, Bommarco R (2015) Functional identity and diversity of animals predict ecosystem functioning better than species-based indices. Proc R Soc B 282Google Scholar
- Geiger F, Bengtsson J, Berendse F, Weisser WW, Emmerson M, Morales MB, Ceryngier P, Liira J, Tscharntke T, Winqvist C, Eggers S, Bommarco R, Part T, Bretagnolle V, Plantegenest M, Clement LW, Dennis C, Palmer C, Onate JJ, Guerrero I, Hawro V, Aavik T, Thies C, Flohre A, Hanke S, Fischer C, Goedhart PW, Inchausti P (2010) Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. Basic Appl Ecol 11:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gonzalez E, Salvo A, Defago MT, Valladares G (2016) A moveable feast: insects moving at the forest-crop interface are affected by crop phenology and the amount of forest in the landscape. PLoS ONE 11Google Scholar
- Harris RJ, Reed JM (2002) Behavioral barriers to non-migratory movements of birds. Ann Zool Fenn 39:275–290Google Scholar
- MEA (2005) Millenium ecosystem assessment synthesisGoogle Scholar
- Pesley RK, Saunders ME, Luck GW (2016) Cost-benefit trade-offs of bird activity in apple orchards. Peerj, 1–20Google Scholar
- Robertson OJ, Radford JQ (2009) Gap-crossing decisions of forest birds in a fragmented landscape. Austral Ecol 34:435–446Google Scholar
- Tscharntke T, Rand TA, Bianchi F (2005b) The landscape context of trophic interactions: insect spillover across the crop-noncrop interface. Ann Zool Fenn 42:421–432Google Scholar
- Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Rand TA, Didham RK, Fahrig L, Batary P, Bengtsson J, Clough Y, Crist TO, Dormann CF, Ewers RM, Frund J, Holt RD, Holzschuh A, Klein AM, Kleijn D, Kremen C, Landis DA, Laurance W, Lindenmayer D, Scherber C, Sodhi N, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C, van der Putten WH, Westphal C (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes—eight hypotheses. Biol Rev 87:661–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Winqvist C, Bengtsson J, Aavik T, Berendse F, Clement LW, Eggers S, Fischer C, Flohre A, Geiger F, Liira J, Paert T, Thies C, Tscharntke T, Weisser WW, Bommarco R (2011) Mixed effects of organic farming and landscape complexity on farmland biodiversity and biological control potential across Europe. J Appl Ecol 48:570–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar