Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: Evaluating the Influence of Floral Resource Provisioning on Biological Control of Erythroneura Leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) and Planococcus Mealy Bugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in California Vineyards

The research tested the natural enemies hypothesis in an attempt to explain why lower pest densities are observed in some diversified farming systems. The research evaluated the influence of floral resource provisioning (FRP) and chemical ecology strategies on biological control of Erythroneura leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) and Planococcus mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in California vineyards. Field and laboratory studies quantified the impacts on crop damage, pest and natural enemy abundance, and natural enemies fitness theorized to be enhanced through floral resource provisioning in agroecosystems. Multiple two-year studies measured the impact of intercropping three flowering ground covers, lacy phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia), bishop's weed (Ammi majus), and common carrot (Daucus carota) on biological control of leafhoppers and vine mealybug by the parasitoids Anagrus spp. (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) and Anagyrus pseudococci (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Using identical intercropping treatments, the research included three large scale and fully replicated research designs located in the central San Joaquin, the northern San Joaquin, and the Napa Valley of California. Laboratory studies quantified the impacts of FRP on the fitness of Anagyrus pseudococci, a key parasitoid natural enemy of vine mealybug. The central San Joaquin Valley field study measured the impact of FRP and pheromone based mating disruption on biological control of vine mealybug. The northern San Joaquin Valley field study measured the impact of FRP and methyl salicylate on biological control of Erythroneura leafhoppers. The Napa Valley field study measured the effect of methyl salicylate alone on biological control of Erythroneura leafhoppers

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: Evaluating the Influence of Floral Resource Provisioning on Biological Control of Erythroneura Leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) and Planococcus Mealy Bugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in California Vineyards

The research tested the natural enemies hypothesis in an attempt to explain why lower pest densities are observed in some diversified farming systems. The research evaluated the influence of floral resource provisioning (FRP) and chemical ecology strategies on biological control of Erythroneura leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) and Planococcus mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in California vineyards. Field and laboratory studies quantified the impacts on crop damage, pest and natural enemy abundance, and natural enemies fitness theorized to be enhanced through floral resource provisioning in agroecosystems. Multiple two-year studies measured the impact of intercropping three flowering ground covers, lacy phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia), bishop's weed (Ammi majus), and common carrot (Daucus carota) on biological control of leafhoppers and vine mealybug by the parasitoids Anagrus spp. (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) and Anagyrus pseudococci (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Using identical intercropping treatments, the research included three large scale and fully replicated research designs located in the central San Joaquin, the northern San Joaquin, and the Napa Valley of California. Laboratory studies quantified the impacts of FRP on the fitness of Anagyrus pseudococci, a key parasitoid natural enemy of vine mealybug. The central San Joaquin Valley field study measured the impact of FRP and pheromone based mating disruption on biological control of vine mealybug. The northern San Joaquin Valley field study measured the impact of FRP and methyl salicylate on biological control of Erythroneura leafhoppers. The Napa Valley field study measured the effect of methyl salicylate alone on biological control of Erythroneura leafhoppers

Closing the Knowledge Gap: How the USDA Could Tap the Potential of Biologically Diversified Farming Systems

Modern agriculture has proven highly productive, yet has simultaneously generated environmental and social impacts of global concern. Pressing environmental issues call into question the ability of the current model of industrial agriculture to sustain adequate yields without undermining the natural resource base upon which it depends. Meanwhile, global food needs are projected to double by 2050, raising questions over the need to further intensify agricultural production. Current research demonstrates that biologically diversified farming systems can meet global food needs sustainably and efficiently, as they outperform chemically managed monocultures across a wide range of globally important ecosystem services while producing sufficient yields and reducing resource waste throughout the food system. Research and development related to diversified systems, however, commands less than two percent of public agricultural research funding. We argue that this "knowledge gap" is at the crux of the "yield gap" that is often raised as the impediment to transitioning a greater share of global agriculture to diversified, agroecological production. If United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) research, education, and extension were to shift significantly toward agroecology and biologically diversified farming systems, the potential to address global resource challenges would be enormous. Here we present a broad framework for how the USDA could use existing infrastructure to address the challenges of food and farming in the twenty-first century and beyond

Ecosystem Services in Biologically Diversified versus Conventional Farming Systems: Benefits, Externalities, and Trade-Offs

We hypothesize that biological diversification across ecological, spatial, and temporal scales maintains and regenerates the ecosystem services that provide critical inputs - such as maintenance of soil quality, nitrogen fixation, pollination, and pest control - to agriculture. Agrobiodiversity is sustained by diversified farming practices and it also supplies multiple ecosystem services to agriculture, thus reducing environmental externalities and the need for off-farm inputs. We reviewed the literature that compares biologically diversified farming systems with conventional farming systems, and we examined 12 ecosystem services: biodiversity; soil quality; nutrient management; water-holding capacity; control of weeds, diseases, and pests; pollination services; carbon sequestration; energy efficiency and reduction of warming potential; resistance and resilience to climate change; and crop productivity. We found that compared with conventional farming systems, diversified farming systems support substantially greater biodiversity, soil quality, carbon sequestration, and water-holding capacity in surface soils, energy-use efficiency, and resistance and resilience to climate change. Relative to conventional monocultures, diversified farming systems also enhance control of weeds, diseases, and arthropod pests and they increase pollination services; however, available evidence suggests that these practices may often be insufficient to control pests and diseases or provide sufficient pollination. Significantly less public funding has been applied to agroecological research and the improvement of diversified farming systems than to conventional systems. Despite this lack of support, diversified farming systems have only somewhat reduced mean crop productivity relative to conventional farming systems, but they produce far fewer environmental and social harms. We recommend that more research and crop breeding be conducted to improve diversified farming systems and reduce yield gaps when they occur. Because single diversified farming system practices, such as crop rotation, influence multiple ecosystem services, such research should be holistic and integrated across many components of the farming system. Detailed agroecological research especially is needed to develop crop- and region-specific approaches to control of weeds, diseases, and pests

Wilson - Vineyard Landscape Data

Data is divided by tabs. "FirstRoundEarlySeason", "EarlySeason" and "LateSeason" contain yellow sticky-trap data from each of these three time periods. "Spiders" contains spider family counts from beat sheet sampling. "Parasitism" contains data on parasitism on 1st and 2nd generation E. elegantula eggs. "SiteDetails" contains data on key vineyard characteristics as well as crop vigor and landscape diversity

Response of Spiders to Landscape Diversity and <i>E</i>. <i>elegantula</i> Density (n = 53).

<p>*Common species are based on previous surveys in this region [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0141752#pone.0141752.ref044" target="_blank">44</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0141752#pone.0141752.ref054" target="_blank">54</a>–<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0141752#pone.0141752.ref056" target="_blank">56</a>].</p><p>Response of Spiders to Landscape Diversity and <i>E</i>. <i>elegantula</i> Density (n = 53).</p

Peak second generation <i>E</i>. <i>elegantula</i> was lower at sites with high first generation parasitism rates.

<p>Peak second generation <i>E</i>. <i>elegantula</i> was lower at sites with high first generation parasitism rates.</p

Higher ratios of <i>Anagrus</i> to <i>E</i>. <i>elegantula</i> led to increased parasitism of both first generation (6a) and second generation (6b) <i>E</i>. <i>elegantula</i> eggs.

<p>Higher ratios of <i>Anagrus</i> to <i>E</i>. <i>elegantula</i> led to increased parasitism of both first generation (6a) and second generation (6b) <i>E</i>. <i>elegantula</i> eggs.</p