{"title":"Can trees and their associated organisms still benefit arable crops in the presence of pesticide use?","authors":"Colin R. Tosh , Jo Smith","doi":"10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>CONTEXT</h3><div>Trees growing in and around the field (agroforestry) attract a range of organisms and empirical studies indicate that these are overall beneficial to the arable crop. A recently modelling study of English organic silvoarable using a new approach based on Boolean regulatory network modelling supported this conclusion.</div></div><div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><div>Here we develop this model further to consider the impact of pesticide use on the benefits trees can bring to crops through living interactions.</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>Pests in the model agroecosystem are selectively and non-selectively removed from the agroecosystem under a range of intervention thresholds to simulate pesticide use, and the benefits of trees quantified and compared to benefits accrued under a baseline treatment of no pesticide use.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS</h3><div>Selective interventions for crop disease and crop insects (pests and non-target natural enemies) dramatically reduce the benefits of trees, even at relatively high intervention thresholds. Intervention for crop weeds increases the benefits of trees, as weeds are often considered a burden associated with tree understories. Less selective, double interventions (weed-disease, weed-pest-natural enemy, disease-pest-natural enemy) all reduce the benefits of trees, but the weed-pest-natural enemy intervention least so. Unsurprisingly, removing all living associates of trees renders trees of no benefit to crop yield through biotic mechanisms but, more surprisingly, this conclusion applies when intervention thresholds are high and delayed to late in the growing season.</div></div><div><h3>SIGNIFICANCE</h3><div>Caution is urged in the interpretation of model findings but this study provides a first guide to how pesticide use in agroforestry systems modulates the benefits of trees. These findings may be particularly useful to growers in the increasingly popular area of regenerative agriculture which permits restrained and selective use of pesticides.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7730,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Systems","volume":"225 ","pages":"Article 104292"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Systems","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X25000320","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
CONTEXT
Trees growing in and around the field (agroforestry) attract a range of organisms and empirical studies indicate that these are overall beneficial to the arable crop. A recently modelling study of English organic silvoarable using a new approach based on Boolean regulatory network modelling supported this conclusion.
OBJECTIVE
Here we develop this model further to consider the impact of pesticide use on the benefits trees can bring to crops through living interactions.
METHODS
Pests in the model agroecosystem are selectively and non-selectively removed from the agroecosystem under a range of intervention thresholds to simulate pesticide use, and the benefits of trees quantified and compared to benefits accrued under a baseline treatment of no pesticide use.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Selective interventions for crop disease and crop insects (pests and non-target natural enemies) dramatically reduce the benefits of trees, even at relatively high intervention thresholds. Intervention for crop weeds increases the benefits of trees, as weeds are often considered a burden associated with tree understories. Less selective, double interventions (weed-disease, weed-pest-natural enemy, disease-pest-natural enemy) all reduce the benefits of trees, but the weed-pest-natural enemy intervention least so. Unsurprisingly, removing all living associates of trees renders trees of no benefit to crop yield through biotic mechanisms but, more surprisingly, this conclusion applies when intervention thresholds are high and delayed to late in the growing season.
SIGNIFICANCE
Caution is urged in the interpretation of model findings but this study provides a first guide to how pesticide use in agroforestry systems modulates the benefits of trees. These findings may be particularly useful to growers in the increasingly popular area of regenerative agriculture which permits restrained and selective use of pesticides.
期刊介绍:
Agricultural Systems is an international journal that deals with interactions - among the components of agricultural systems, among hierarchical levels of agricultural systems, between agricultural and other land use systems, and between agricultural systems and their natural, social and economic environments.
The scope includes the development and application of systems analysis methodologies in the following areas:
Systems approaches in the sustainable intensification of agriculture; pathways for sustainable intensification; crop-livestock integration; farm-level resource allocation; quantification of benefits and trade-offs at farm to landscape levels; integrative, participatory and dynamic modelling approaches for qualitative and quantitative assessments of agricultural systems and decision making;
The interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural landscapes; the multiple services of agricultural systems; food security and the environment;
Global change and adaptation science; transformational adaptations as driven by changes in climate, policy, values and attitudes influencing the design of farming systems;
Development and application of farming systems design tools and methods for impact, scenario and case study analysis; managing the complexities of dynamic agricultural systems; innovation systems and multi stakeholder arrangements that support or promote change and (or) inform policy decisions.