Can trees and their associated organisms still benefit arable crops in the presence of pesticide use?

IF 6.1 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Agricultural Systems Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104292
Colin R. Tosh , Jo Smith
{"title":"Can trees and their associated organisms still benefit arable crops in the presence of pesticide use?","authors":"Colin R. Tosh ,&nbsp;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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Agricultural Systems
Agricultural Systems 农林科学-农业综合
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
7.60%
发文量
174
审稿时长
30 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Characterization of greenhouse gas emissions and water requirement of farmland in China's main grain-producing areas under future climate scenarios Combining system thinking and scenario building to visualize strategic futures for agricultural systems: The case of La Araucanía, Chile The subsidy-mosaic for agricultural weather insurance in Germany Can trees and their associated organisms still benefit arable crops in the presence of pesticide use? Multivariate analysis of economic performance and environmental impacts of multispecies pastured livestock farms using direct marketing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1