Next Article in Journal
Potential of Cucurbitacin B and Epigallocatechin Gallate as Biopesticides against Aphis gossypii
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Bean Seed Treatment with Entomopathogenic Fungus Metarhizium robertsii on Soil Microarthropods (Acari, Collembola)
Previous Article in Journal
Drosophila melanogaster Y Chromosome Genes Affect Male Sensitivity to Microbial Infections
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Practices to Conserve Pollinators and Natural Enemies in Agro-Ecosystems

1
Scientific Directorate of Pesticides Assessment and Phytopharmacy, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, 7 Ekalis str., 145 61 Kifissia, Greece
2
Departament de Ciències Agràries i del Medi Natural, Universitat Jaume I, Campus del Riu Sec, Av. de Vicent Sos Baynat, s/n, 12071 Castelló de la Plana, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2021, 12(1), 31; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12010031
Submission received: 29 December 2020 / Accepted: 2 January 2021 / Published: 5 January 2021

Introduction

Intensive agriculture has put great pressure on populations of beneficial arthropods such as natural enemies and pollinators, especially through adverse effects of pesticide use and the impact on resources in the agricultural landscape, i.e., the reduction of suitable habitats for foraging and nesting sites. The main associated consequences include the decline of biological diversity and delivery of the ecosystem services of biological control and pollination; as a subsequent result, the sustainability of agro-ecosystems is undermined [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].
Sustainable agronomic practices such as management of field margins and mid-field strips with selected flower plants, cover crops, banker plants, uncultivated areas (set aside), headlands, and hedges can create suitable habitats that provide food and shelter to pollinators and to natural enemies of insect pests in disturbed agro-ecosystems [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
The successful establishment of such habitats requires a good understanding of the food-web theory with respect to functional plant–arthropod diversity, regulation of herbivore populations by manipulation of bottom-up and top-down effects, and crop pollination. Multiple criteria should be considered regarding the selection of plant species for the semi-natural habitats, such as their soil/climatic requirements, growth habits, flowering periods, nectar and pollen production, and flower structure; their potential to become weeds and threaten crop productivity and native flora biodiversity; and finally the tri-trophic interactions between the plants, pests, and target beneficials.
The spread and possible dominance of a single or only a few plant species would have a direct impact on the desired insect communities in respect to functional biodiversity. Indeed, a narrow plant species selection could support conservation of a certain pollinator group or species in the target area [12,13,22]. In the study by Carvell et al. (2007) [22] a legume-based pollen and nectar flower mix targeted to enhance bumble bee populations in the U.K. could quickly provide a highly attractive forage resource for bumble bees, including rare long-tongued species, whereas a diverse mixture of native wild flowers could attract more of the shorter-tongued Bombus spp. and provide greater continuity of forage resources, especially early in the season. In the case of natural enemies, it is widely recognized that increasing biodiversity per se is no guarantee of pest suppression [23]. In general, the key to effective biological control may be tactics that enhance the relative abundance of the most effective natural enemies within the community of natural enemies [24]. Communities are usually characterized as having one or a few species which are relatively abundant (numerically dominant), while the majority of the members of the assemblage are relatively scarce. Moreno et al. (2010) [25] suggested that the success of management strategies by conservation biological control may be dependent on the identification of both highly abundant and scarce natural enemies to determine which assemblage is likely to work best. Nevertheless, the established plant species could possibly attract herbivorous pest species for the crop, higher-order predators/hyperparasitoids, or plant diseases [26].
Specificity on flower species as well as interactions between pollinator species at food searching, especially between managed honey bees and wild bees, are also aspects to be looked at in their habitat creation. Specificity on one or a few particular plant species is an attribute recognized in many insect pollinators when visiting a given foraging bout because floral consistency reduces handling time [27,28,29,30]. However, the fidelity between the pollinator species and plant species from one year to the next can be affected by many parameters such as the degree of specialization of the pollinator species (oligolectic or polylectic, some species being apparently specialist in one year but generalist in another even though the potential plant species pool remains the same) [31,32,33], and the patch area and flower density of the available flowering plant assemblages [34,35]. On the other hand, Shavit et al. (2009) [36] provided evidence that solitary bees did not shift to forage on other flowering plants and did not change their temporal activity pattern as a response to increased foraging by honey bees.
The benefit of these agronomic practices on the attraction of natural enemies and pollinating insects has been recognized within the flower strip or cover crop in several annual (e.g., cucumber, tomato, watermelon) [37,38,39] or perennial crops (e.g., apple, citrus, olive) [40,41,42]. In fact, the beneficial effect of diversifying fields with nectar-producing floral vegetation on parasitism rates and biological control of insect pests has been supported for several groundcover species and crops by many researchers [14,20,21,43,44]. However, in the case of pollinators, the effect of flower margins on pollination services in terms of yield and fruit quality at farm scale is not yet well established [21]. The value of wild bees in crop pollination was satisfactory in several agro-ecosystems with high populations of wild bees [45,46,47,48], while pollination was insufficient to achieve an acceptable crop yield without managed honey bees in other agro-ecosystems where the abundance or diversity of wild bees was low [45,46,49]. Greater richness of wild bees in agro-ecosystems increases the possibilities for the coexistence of the most effective pollinator species which act complementary to each other during the day or season, alongside extreme climatic conditions and disturbance levels, and would provide sustainability in the agro-ecosystems [30,50,51,52].
This Special Issue aims to focus on good agronomic practices/mitigation measures to sustain and enhance pollinators and natural enemies in terms of plant–arthropod interactions, functional biodiversity, and ecosystem services in cultivated areas.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Matson, P.A.; Parton, W.J.; Power, A.G.; Swift, M.J. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 1997, 277, 504–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Stoate, C.; Boatman, N.D.; Borralho, R.J.; Rio Carvalho, C.; de Snoo, G.R.; Eden, P. Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. J. Environ. Mana. 2001, 63, 337–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Robinson, R.A.; Sutherland, W.J. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 2002, 39, 157–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Tillman, D.; Gassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Carvell, C.; Roy, D.B.; Smart, S.M.; Pywell, R.F.; Preston, C.D.; Goulson, D. Declines in forage availability for bumblebees at a national scale. Biol. Cons. 2006, 132, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Klein, A.-M.; Vaissiere, B.E.; Cane, J.H.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Cunningham, S.A.; Kremen, C.; Tscharntke, T. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. [Biol.] 2007, 274, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Wade, M.R.; Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D. Ecological restoration of farmland: Progress and prospects. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2008, 363, 831–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Potts, S.G.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Kremen, C.; Neumann, P.; Schweiger, O. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bretagnolle, V.; Gaba, S. Weeds for bees? A review. Agron. Sustain. 2015, 35, 891–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Carvell, C.; Meek, W.R.; Pywell, R.F.; Nowakowski, M. The response of foraging bumblebees to successional change in newly created arable field margins. Biol. Cons. 2004, 118, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D.; Altieri, M.A. Ecological Engineering for Pest Management: Advances in Habitat Manipulation for Arthropods; CSIRO publishing: Collingwood, VI, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  12. Pywell, R.F.; James, K.L.; Herbert, I.; Meek, W.R.; Carvell, C.; Bell, D.; Sparks, T.H. Determinants of overwintering habitat quality for beetles and spiders on arable farmland. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 123, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pywell, R.F.; Warman, E.A.; Carvel, C.; Sparks, T.H.; Dicks, L.V.; Bennet, D.; Wright, A.; Chritchley, C.N.R.; Sherwood, A. Providing foraging resources for bumblebees in intensively farmed landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 121, 479–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Heimpel, G.E.; Jervis, M.A. Does floral nectar improve biological control by parasitoids? In Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects. A Protective Mutualism and Its Applications; Wäckers, F.L., van Rijn, P.C.J., Bruin, J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tscharntke, T.; Bommarco, R.; Clough, Y.; Crist, T.O.; Kleijn, D.; Rand, T.A.; Tylianakis, J.M.; Nouhuys, S.V.; Vidal, S. Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biol. Control 2007, 43, 294–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cullen, R.; Warner, K.D.; Jonsson, M.; Wratten, S.D. Economics and adoption of conservation biological control. Biol. Control 2008, 45, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Thomson, L.J.; McKenzie, J.; Sharley, D.J.; Nash, M.A.; Tsitsilas, A.; Hoffmann, A.A. Effect of woody vegetation at the landscape scale on the abundance of natural enemies in Australian vineyards. Biol. Control 2010, 54, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wäckers, F.L.; van Rijn, P.C.J. Pick and mix: Selecting flowering plants to meet the requirements of target biological control insects. In Biodiversity and Insect Pests: Key Issues for Sustainable Management; Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D., Snyder, W., Read, D.M.Y., Eds.; Wiley Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 139–165. [Google Scholar]
  19. Nicholls, C.I.; Altieri, M.A. Plant biodiversity enhances bees and other insect pollinators in agroecosystems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 33, 257–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Lu, Z.-X.; Zhu, P.-Y.; Gurr, G.M.; Zheng, X.-S.; Read, D.M.Y.; Heong, K.-L.; Yang, Y.-J.; Xu, H.-X. Mechanisms for flowering plants to benefit arthropod natural enemies of insect pests: Prospects for enhanced use in agriculture. Insect Sci. 2014, 21, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Campbell, A.J.; Wilby, A.; Sutton, P.; Wäckers, F.L. Do sown flower strips boost wild pollinators abundance and pollination services in a spring-flowering crop? A case study from UK cider apple orchards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 239, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Carvell, C.; Meek, W.R.; Pywell, R.F.; Goulson, D.; Nowakowski, M. Comparing the efficacy of agri-environment schemes to enhance bumble bee abundance and diversity on arable field margins. J. Appl. Ecol. 2007, 44, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Landis, D.A.; Wratten, S.D.; Gurr, G.M. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Straub, C.S.; Snyder, W.E. Species identity dominates the relationship between predator biodiversity and herbivore suppression. Ecology 2006, 87, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Moreno, C.R.; Lewins, S.A.; Barbosa, P. Influence of relative abundance and taxonomic identity on the effectiveness of generalist predators as biological control agents. Biol. Control 2010, 52, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stephens, M.J.; France, C.M.; Wratten, S.D.; Frampton, C. Enchancing biological control of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by sowing buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) in an orchard. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 1998, 8, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Goulson, D.; Ollerton, J.; Sluman, C. Foraging strategies in the small skipper butterfly, Thymelicus flavus: When to switch? Anim. Behav. 1997, 53, 1009–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Goulson, D.; Wright, N.P. Flower constancy in the hoverflies Episyrphus balteatus (Degeer) and Syrphus ribesii (L.) (Syrphidae). Behav. Ecol. 1998, 9, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Gegear, R.J.; Laverty, T.M. Flower constancy in bumblebees: A test of the trait variability hypothesis. Anim. Behav. 2005, 69, 939–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Michener, C.D. The Bees of the World, 2nd ed.; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  31. Olesen, J.M.; Bascompte, J.; Elberling, H.; Jordano, P. Temporal dynamics of a pollination network. Ecology 2008, 89, 1573–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Petanidou, T.; Kallimanis, A.S.; Tzanopoulos, J.; Sgardelis, S.P.; Pantis, J.D. Long-term observation of a pollination network, fluctuation in species and interactions, relative invariance of network structure, and implications for estimates of specialization. Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11, 564–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kallimanis, A.S.; Petanidou, T.; Tzanopoulos, J.; Pantis, J.D.; Sgardelis, S.P. Do plant-pollinator interaction networks result from stochastic processes? Ecol. Model. 2009, 220, 684–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kunin, W.E. Sex and the single mustard: Population density and pollinator behaviour effects on seed-set. Ecology 1993, 74, 2145–2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Petanidou, T.; DenNijs, J.C.M.; Oostermeijer, J.G.B. Pollination ecology and constraints on seeds of the rare perennial Gentiana cruciata L. in the Netherlands. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 1995, 44, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shavit, O.; Amots, D.; Ne’eman, G. Competition between honeybess (Apis mellifera) and native solitary bees in the Mediterranean region of Israel—Implications for conservation. Isr. J. Plant Sci. 2009, 57, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stanghellini, M.S.; Ambrose, J.T.; Schultheis, J.R. The effects of honey bee and bumble bee pollination on fruit set and abortion of cucumber and watermelon. Am. Bee J. 1997, 137, 386–391. [Google Scholar]
  38. Balzan, M.V.; Bocci, G.; Moonen, A.-C. Augmenting flower trait diversity in wildflower strips to optimise the conservation of arthropod functional groups for multiple agroecosystem services. J. Insect Conserv. 2014, 18, 713–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Balzan, M. Flowering banker plants for the delivery of multiple agroecosystem services. Arthropod. Plant Interact. 2017, 11, 743–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Aguilar-Fenollosa, E.; Pascual-Ruiz, S.; Hurtado, S.; Jacas, J.A. Efficacy and economics of ground cover management as a conservation biological control strategy against Tetranychus urticae in clementine mandarin orchards. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 1328–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Paredes, D.; Cayuela, L.; Campos, M. Synergistic effects of ground cover and adjacent vegetation on natural enemies of olive insect pests. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 2013, 173, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Karamaouna, F.; Kati, V.; Volakakis, N.; Varikou, K.; Garantonakis, N.; Economou, L.; Birouraki, A.; Markellou, E.; Liberopoulou, S.; Edwards, M. Ground cover management with mixtures of flowering plants to enhance insect pollinators and natural enemies of pests in olive groves. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 2019, 274, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jervis, M.A.; Kidd, N.A.C.; Fitton, M.G.; Huddleston, T.; Dawah, H.A. Flower-visiting by hymenopteran parasitoids. J. Nat. Hist. 1993, 27, 67–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bianchi, F.J.J.A.; Wäckers, F.L. Effects of flower attractiveness and nectar availability in field margins on biological control by parasitoids. Biol. Control 2008, 46, 400–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kremen, C.; Bugg, R.L.; Nicola, N.; Smith, S.A.; Thorp, R.W.; Williams, N.M. Native bees, native plants and crop pollination in California. Fremontia 2002, 30, 41–49. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kremen, C.; Williams, N.M.; Thorp, R.W. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 16812–16816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Winfree, R.; Williams, N.M.; Gaines, H.; Ascher, J.S.; Kremen, C. Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. J. Appl. Ecol. 2007, 45, 793–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rader, R.; Howlett, B.G.; Cunningham, S.A.; Westcott, D.A.; Edwards, W. Spatial and temporal variation in pollinator effectiveness: Do unmanaged insects provide consistent pollination services to mass flowering crops? J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Garantonakis, N.; Varikou, K.; Birouraki, A.; Edwards, M.; Kalliakaki, V.; Andrinopoulos, F. Comparing the pollination services of honey bees and wild bees in a watermelon field. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 204, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Delaplane, K.S.; Mayer, D.F. Crop Pollination by Bees; CABI Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  51. Winfree, R.; Kremen, C. Are ecosystem services stabilized by differences among species? A test using crop pollination. Proc. R. Soc. B 2009, 276, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Bartomeus, I.; Park, M.G.; Gibbs, J.; Danforth, B.N.; Lakson, A.N.; Winfree, R. Biodiversity ensures plant–pollinator phenological synchrony against climate change. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 1331–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Karamaouna, F.; Jaques, J.A.; Kati, V. Practices to Conserve Pollinators and Natural Enemies in Agro-Ecosystems. Insects 2021, 12, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12010031

AMA Style

Karamaouna F, Jaques JA, Kati V. Practices to Conserve Pollinators and Natural Enemies in Agro-Ecosystems. Insects. 2021; 12(1):31. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12010031

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karamaouna, Filitsa, Josep A. Jaques, and Vaya Kati. 2021. "Practices to Conserve Pollinators and Natural Enemies in Agro-Ecosystems" Insects 12, no. 1: 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12010031

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop