The Contribution of Desert-Dwelling Bats to Pest Control in Hyper-Arid Date Agriculture

This is the final version. Available on open access from MDPI via the DOI in this recordData Availability Statement: Data is part of bigger unpublished data sets which will be available once published.Over 40% of the Earth’s surface has been converted to agricultural use and agroecosystems have become important habitats for wildlife. In arid regions, intensive agriculture creates artificial oasis-like habitats due to their high irrigation inputs. Date production is one of the primary agricultural practices in the deserts of the Middle East and North Africa. Insectivorous bats are known to use agricultural areas, but the role of date plantations as their foraging habits and the importance of insectivorous bats as date bio-pest control agents are still unknown. We assessed the role of date plantations as foraging habitats for local desert bat species by acoustically recording bat activity in conventional and organic date plantations in the southern Arava Valley, Israel. In addition, we captured bats in the plantations and collected feces for DNA metabarcoding analysis to investigate the presence of pest species in their diets. We found that 12 out of the 16 known species of bats in this region frequently used both conventional and organic date plantations as foraging habitats. Species richness was highest in the organic plantation with complex ground vegetation cover. Foraging activity was not affected by plantation type or management. However, bat species richness and activity increased in all plantations during summer date harvesting. Molecular analysis confirmed that bats feed on a variety of important date pests, but the particular pests consumed and the extent of consumption varied among bat species. Our results highlight a win–win situation, whereby date plantations are an important foraging habitat for desert bats, while bats provide bio-pest control services that benefit the date plantations. Therefore, date farmers interested in bio-pest control should manage their plantations to support local desert bat populations.CA in IsraelKKL-JNFIsrael Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Developmen

From food to pest: Conversion factors determine switches between ecosystem services and disservices

Ecosystem research focuses on goods and services, thereby ascribing beneficial values to the ecosystems. Depending on the context, however, outputs from ecosystems can be both positive and negative. We examined how provisioning services of wild animals and plants can switch between being services and disservices. We studied agricultural communities in Laos to illustrate when and why these switches take place. Government restrictions on land use combined with economic and cultural changes have created perceptions of rodents and plants as problem species in some communities. In other communities that are maintaining shifting cultivation practices, the very same taxa were perceived as beneficial. We propose conversion factors that in a given context can determine where an individual taxon is located along a spectrum from ecosystem service to disservice, when, and for whom. We argue that the omission of disservices in ecosystem service accounts may lead governments to direct investments at inappropriate targets

Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies

Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies

A genome-wide investigation of the worldwide invader Sargassum muticum shows high success albeit (almost) no genetic diversity

Twenty years of genetic studies of marine invaders have shown that successful invaders are often characterized by native and introduced populations displaying similar levels of genetic diversity. This pattern is presumably due to high propagule pressure and repeated introductions. The opposite pattern is reported in this study of the brown seaweed, Sargassum muticum, an emblematic species for circumglobal invasions. Albeit demonstrating polymorphism in the native range, microsatellites failed to detect any genetic variation over 1,269 individuals sampled from 46 locations over the Pacific-Atlantic introduction range. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) obtained from ddRAD sequencing revealed some genetic variation, but confirmed severe founder events in both the Pacific and Atlantic introduction ranges. Our study thus exemplifies the need for extreme caution in interpreting neutral genetic diversity as a proxy for invasive potential. Our results confirm a previously hypothesized transoceanic secondary introduction from NE Pacific to Europe. However, the SNP panel unexpectedly revealed two additional distinct genetic origins of introductions. Also, conversely to scenarios based on historical records, southern rather than northern NE Pacific populations could have seeded most of the European populations. Finally, the most recently introduced populations showed the lowest selfing rates, suggesting higher levels of recombination might be beneficial at the early stage of the introduction process (i.e., facilitating evolutionary novelties), whereas uniparental reproduction might be favored later in sustainably established populations (i.e., sustaining local adaptation).Agence Nationale de la Recherche - ANR-10-BTBR-04; European Regional Development Fund; Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia - SFRH/BPD/107878/2015, UID/Multi/04326/2016, UID/Multi/04326/2019; Brittany Region;info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Data from: Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies

Data from: Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition

AbstractThe idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies