Muestra métricas de impacto externas asociadas a la publicación. Para mayor detalle:
| Indexado |
|
||||
| DOI | 10.1073/PNAS.2208813119 | ||||
| Año | 2022 | ||||
| Tipo | artículo de investigación |
Citas Totales
Autores Afiliación Chile
Instituciones Chile
% Participación
Internacional
Autores
Afiliación Extranjera
Instituciones
Extranjeras
Increasing diversity on farms can enhance many key ecosystem services to and from agriculture, and natural control of arthropod pests is often presumed to be among them. The expectation that increasing the size of monocultural crop plantings exacerbates the impact of pests is common throughout the agroecological literature. However, the theoretical basis for this expectation is uncertain; mechanistic mathematical models suggest instead that increasing field size can have positive, negative, neutral, or even nonlinear effects on arthropod pest densities. Here, we report a broad survey of crop field-size effects: across 14 pest species, 5 crops, and 20,000 field years of observations, we quantify the impact of field size on pest densities, pesticide applications, and crop yield. We find no evidence that larger fields cause consistently worse pest impacts. The most common outcome (9 of 14 species) was for pest severity to be independent of field size; larger fields resulted in less severe pest problems for four species, and only one species exhibited the expected trend of larger fields worsening pest severity. Importantly, pest responses to field size strongly correlated with their responses to the fraction of the surrounding landscape planted to the focal crop, suggesting that shared ecological processes produce parallel responses to crop simplification across spatial scales. We conclude that the idea that larger field sizes consistently disrupt natural pest control services is without foundation in either the theoretical or empirical record.
| Revista | ISSN |
|---|---|
| Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America | 0027-8424 |
| Ord. | Autor | Género | Institución - País |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rosenheim, Jay A. | Hombre |
University of California, Davis - Estados Unidos
UNIV CALIF DAVIS - Estados Unidos |
| 2 | Cluff, Emma | Mujer |
University of California, Davis - Estados Unidos
UNIV CALIF DAVIS - Estados Unidos |
| 3 | Lippey, Mia K. | Mujer |
University of California, Davis - Estados Unidos
UNIV CALIF DAVIS - Estados Unidos |
| 4 | Cass, Bodil N. | Mujer |
University of California, Davis - Estados Unidos
UNIV CALIF DAVIS - Estados Unidos |
| 5 | Paredes, Daniel | Hombre |
Universidad de Extremadura - España
UNIV EXTREMADURA - España |
| 6 | Parsa, Soroush | - |
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Chile
Food & Agr Org United Nations - Chile |
| 7 | Karp, Daniel S. | Hombre |
University of California, Davis - Estados Unidos
UNIV CALIF DAVIS - Estados Unidos |
| 8 | Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca | Mujer |
University of Minnesota Twin Cities - Estados Unidos
Stanford University - Estados Unidos Univ Minnesota - Estados Unidos SPRING - Estados Unidos Universidad de Stanford - Estados Unidos |
| Fuente |
|---|
| National Institute of Food and Agriculture |
| USDA-NIFA |
| California Department of Pesticide Regulation |
| USDA-FACT |
| Agradecimiento |
|---|
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank Ashley Larsen for valuable advice on the statistical analysis. We also extend thanks to the many cooperating farmers and pest control advisors who shared data so generously. Leah Rosenheim contributed the original paintings for Figures 1 and 2. This work was supported by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation contracts 11-C0089 and 13-C0064, USDA-NIFA grant 2015-70006-24164, and USDA-FACT grant 2020-67021-32477. |
| We thank Ashley Larsen for valuable advice on the statistical analysis. We also extend thanks to the many cooperating farmers and pest control advisors who shared data so generously. Leah Rosenheim contributed the original paintings for Figures 1 and 2. This work was supported by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation contracts 11-C0089 and 13-C0064, USDA-NIFA grant 2015-70006-24164, and USDA-FACT grant 202067021-32477. |