The University of Southampton

Will Intensifying Agriculture Save Us, or Starve Us?

The surge in human population in recent years is predicted to reach an unprecedented 9.1 billion people by 2050 – a 14% increase of our current population (McKee et al., 2004). This epidemic of population growth means we are faced with the daunting challenge of attaining sustainable increase in crop production to meet the increasing food demands.

Anthropogenic disturbance in natural landscapes is one of the largest contributors to biodiversity loss. Here is the aftermath of land clearance for palm oil plantations, Borneo. Photo credit: Rhett A. Butler (2012). Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2012/09/agriculture-causes-80-of-tropical-deforestation/
Anthropogenic disturbance in natural landscapes is one of the largest contributors to biodiversity loss. Here is the aftermath of land clearance for palm oil plantations, Borneo (Butler, 2012).

Global agricultural intensification has increased our food production to meet this demand through conversion of natural to simplified agricultural landscapes and escalating the application of agrochemicals such as pesticides and fertilisers (Matson et al., 1997). This simplification is a major cause of the accelerating loss of biodiversity, which affects ecological processes such as nutrient recycling, carbon storage and pollination (Flynn et al., 2009).

A biotic communities’ functional traits (i.e. characteristics) influences ecosystem functioning through mediating changes in biotic processes, such as predation and competition (Wood et al., 2015). For example, where there are collectively few traits in a community, circumstances of “niche overlap” are common, meaning ability to utilise a broad range of resources within a community decreases, whilst competition for a narrow selection resources increases (Flynn et al., 2009).

Figure 1: Theoretical total functional traits in natural, low-intensity agriculture, intensive agriculture, and managed through polyculture settings4.
Figure 1: Theoretical total functional traits in natural, low-intensity agriculture, intensive agriculture, and managed through polyculture settings (Wood et al., 2015).

Intensive agriculture may degrade (A) the number of functional traits in a given area (functional trait space). However, theoretically implementing adequate management strategies promoting multi-species crops (polycultures) may aid limited recovery of total functional traits (B), recovery to the levels of natural counterparts (C), or even exceed this (D) by endorsing evolution of new species with novel traits (figure 1).

Biodiversity loss through agricultural intensification has been reported for birds, insects, plants and mammals, along with functional trait diversity (Flynn et al., 2009).

 

 

 

Between 1970 and 1990, 86% of farmland bird species had reduced ranges and 83% had declined in abundance [in Europe]” (Benton et al., 2003)

 

The resulting loss of functional traits (including foraging strategies and diet) has significant implications for the removal of insects from farmland, whereby insect subtraction is reduced. The disruptive effects this has on pest communities increases the risk of outbreaks, which not only influences community structures, but hinders crop productivity (Wood et al., 2015).

Application of pesticides to a monoculture crop in an attempt to control pest population. Photo credit Unknown. Available at: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/
Application of pesticides to a monoculture crop in an attempt to control pest population (Hsaio, 2015)

Shifts toward monoculture (single-species) crops, and reduced predation, facilitates the spread of pests, increasing the risk of epidemics. Pesticides are commonly used as a control measure, although are often toxic to many species.  DDT, commonly used through the mid-20th century, accumulates in increasingly high concentrations up food chains between predators. This concentration may increase thousand-fold or more, of the content in the original source. This caused the endangerment of many predatory birds such as the peregrine falcon and kestrel through thinning their egg shells thus increasing infant mortality. Loss of top predators disrupts regulation of species populations further down the chain, unbalancing the community (Peakall, 1970).

Biodiversity loss is having severe adverse impacts on the health of our biotic communities, and therefore ecosystems. While agriculture cannot be halted all together, we could improve crop strength through diversity through implementing adequate management strategies to promote biodiversity, and use this to control pest outbreaks in an ecologically sensitive manner.

 

References

Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A. and Wilson, J. D. (2003) ‘Farmland biodiversity: Is habitat heterogeneity the key?’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(4), pp. 182–188. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00011-9.

Butler, R. A. (2012) Agriculture causes 80% of tropical deforestation, Mongabay. Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2012/09/agriculture-causes-80-of-tropical-deforestation/ (Accessed: 21 March 2017).

Flynn, D. F. B., Gogol-Prokurat, M., Nogeire, T., Molinari, N., Richers, B. T., Lin, B. B., Simpson, N., Mayfield, M. M. and DeClerck, F. (2009) ‘Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa’, Ecology Letters, 12(1), pp. 22–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01255.x.

Hsaio, J. (2015) GMOs and Pesticides: Helpful or Harmful?, Harvard University: The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Available at: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/ (Accessed: 20 March 2017).

Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G. and Swift, M. J. (1997) ‘Agricultural Intensification and Ecosystem Properties.’, Science, 277(5325), pp. 504–509. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5325.504.

McKee, J. K., Sciulli, P. W., Fooce, C. D. and Waite, T. A. (2004) ‘Forecasting global biodiversity threats associated with human population growth’, Biological Conservation, 115(1), pp. 161–164. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00099-5.

Peakall, D. B. (1970) ‘Pesticides and the reproduction of birds.’, Scientific American, 222, pp. 72–78. Available at: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/.

Wood, S. A., Karp, D. S., DeClerck, F., Kremen, C., Naeem, S. and Palm, C. A. (2015) ‘Functional traits in agriculture: Agrobiodiversity and ecosystem services’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Elsevier Ltd, 30(9), pp. 531–539. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.06.013.

 

[492 words]





Nasty Neonicotinoids: The cause of declines in Birds, Bees and Butterflies

 

As agriculture has intensified over the last century we have seen falling food prices and bigger fruit and veg, but what is the cost to our wildlife?

The increase in size of modern arable fields provides a veritable feast for many pests, destroying large areas of crop and literally eating into farmer’s profits. This has led to a rise in the use of pesticides to control these pests. However, not all the animals that are negatively affected by pesticides are harmful to crops, in fact some are beneficial.

Neonicotinoids

In the 1990’s a group of insecticides called neonicotinoids were developed which could be added to seeds before planting rather than externally sprayed onto the plants. The plant incorporates the chemical into all its tissues, giving insect pests a fatal dose upon taking a bite (Gilburn, 2015). This is good news for those beneficial animals that don’t munch their way through the crop right?

Wrong! The chemical gets into every part of the plant including the pollen and nectar (Blacquire et al 2012) which bees and butterflies feed on while pollinating plants. Farmland birds also often eat the seeds before they sprout. These animals don’t even have to be in the field to be affected as the majority of the chemical is not taken up by the plant and is leached into the soil water (Hallman et al 2014) and transported to wildflower field margins and neighbouring land.

What are the effects? 

Butterflies

The populations of widespread butterflies on monitored UK farmland sites have declined by 58% between 2000 and 2009 (Brereton et al 2011). This is negatively correlated with the increase in the use of neonicotinoids (Gilburn, 2015). Although it has not been proved to be a cause and effect relationship, the sudden decline in butterflies has not been seen in Scotland (Brereton et al 2011) where less neonicotinoids are used (Defra, 2014).

Painted Lady Butterfly -Alamy

Bees

Neonicotinoids are also threatening bees, impairing their homing ability and learning as well as their immunity to viruses. The chemical also reduces the growth of the colony and the production of queens (Cresswell, 2011). A recent field study by Rundolf et al (2015) has shown that the density of wild bees, nesting of solitary bees and growth of bumblebee colonies have all been reduced by neonicotinoid treated rape seeds.

neonicotinoid-pesticides-their-effect-on-bee-colonies-the-facts

Out for the count. Julia Garvin

 

Birds

A decline in insectivorous farmland birds, correlated with neonicotinoid use, has also been seen in the Netherlands (Hallman et al 2014). This is thought to be due to directly consuming the poisonous seeds (Goulson, 2013) or through the reduction in their insect food source.

Grey Partridge-Cambridge Bird Club

 

Do we need neonicotinoids anyway?

The use of neonicotinoids also appears to have no benefits to agricultural yields of soybean (Myers, 2014), Sunflower and Maize crops (Susuki, 2014). Methods like Integrated Pest Management can reduce the number of pests without the powerful chemicals so isn’t it time we put nature before ease?

More information on the effect on bees

References  painted-lady 

Blacquiere T, Smagghe G, Van Gestel CAM, Mommaerts V. 2012. ` Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 21:973–992

Brereton TM, Roy DB, Middlebrook I, Botham M, Warren M. 2011. The development of butterfly indicators in the United Kingdom and assessments in 2010. Journal of Insect Conservation 15:139–151

Cresswell JE. 2011. A meta-analysis of experiments testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide (imidacloprid) on honey bees. Ecotoxicology 20:149–157

Defra. 2014. Pesticide usage statistics. Available at https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/ (accessed March 2017).

Gilburn, A.S., Bunnefeld, N., Wilson, J.M., Botham, M.S., Brereton, T.M., Fox, R., and Goulson, D. (2015). Are neonicotinoid insecticides driving declines of widespread butterflies? PeerJ:e1402

Goulson, D. (2013). An overview of the environmental risk posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 977-987

Hallmann CA, Foppen RPB, Van Turnhout CAM, De Kroon H, Jongejans E. 2014. Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511:341–343

Myers, C., Hill, E. (2014). Benefits of Neonicotinoid Seed Treatments to Soybean Production. US Environmental protection agency

Rundlof M, Andersson GKS, Bommarco R, Fries I, Hederstrom V, Jonsson O, Klatt BK, ¨ Pedersen TR, Yourstone J, Smith HG. 2015. Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521:77–80

Susuki, D. (2014). More Bad News for Bees. Available at http://www.ecology.com/2014/10/31/the-new-word-for-bees/ (accessed March 2017)

Word Count [487]