Next Article in Journal
Heterogenous Energy Consumption Behavior by Firm Size: Evidence from Korean Environmental Regulations
Next Article in Special Issue
Governance Discourses Reflecting Tensions in a Multifunctional Land Use System in Decay; Tradition Versus Modernity in the Portuguese Montado
Previous Article in Journal
Construction of Open Innovation Ecology on the Internet: A Case Study of Xiaomi (China) Using Institutional Logic
Previous Article in Special Issue
Land Use and Land Cover Scenarios for Optimum Water Yield and Sediment Retention Ecosystem Services in Klong U-Tapao Watershed, Songkhla, Thailand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/su11113223
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Impacts of Agricultural Management Systems on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Highly Simplified Dryland Landscapes

by
Subodh Adhikari
1,2,*,
Arjun Adhikari
3,4,
David K. Weaver
1,
Anton Bekkerman
5 and
Fabian D. Menalled
1,*
1
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173120, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120, USA
2
Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Nematology; 875 Perimeter Drive MS 2329, Moscow, ID 83844-2329, USA
3
Department of Ecology, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173460, Bozeman, MT 59717-3460, USA
4
Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 008C Agricultural Hall, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
5
Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, P.O. Box 172920, Bozeman, MT 59717-3460, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(11), 3223; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113223
Submission received: 2 May 2019 / Revised: 5 June 2019 / Accepted: 9 June 2019 / Published: 11 June 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agriculture, Landscape, Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity: New Challenges for Sustainable Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Covering about 40% of Earth’s land surface and sustaining at least 38% of global population, drylands are key crop and animal production regions with high economic and social values. However, land use changes associated with industrialized agricultural managements are threatening the sustainability of these systems. While previous studies assessing the impacts of agricultural management systems on biodiversity and their services focused on more diversified mesic landscapes, there is a dearth of such research in highly simplified dryland agroecosystems. In this paper, we 1) summarize previous research on the effects of farm management systems and agricultural expansion on biodiversity and biodiversity-based ecosystem services, 2) present four case studies assessing the impacts of management systems on biodiversity and ecosystem services across highly simplified dryland landscapes of the Northern Great Plains (NGP), USA, 3) discuss approaches to sustain biodiversity-based ecosystem services in drylands, and 4) present a conceptual framework for enhancing agricultural sustainability in the drylands through research, policy, economic valuation, and adaptive management. An analysis of the land use changes due to agricultural expansion within the Golden Triangle, a representative agricultural area in the NGP, indicated that the proportion of land conversion to agriculture area was 84%, 8%, and 7% from grassland, riparian, and shrubland habitats, respectively. Our results showed this simplification was associated with a potential reduction of pollination services. Also, our economic analysis projected that if 30% parasitism could be achieved through better management systems, the estimated potential economic returns to pest regulation services through parasitoids in Montana, USA alone could reach about $11.23 million. Overall, while dryland agroecosystems showed a significant loss of native biodiversity and its services, greater pest incidence, and a decrease in plant pollinator networks, these trends were moderately reversed in organically managed farming systems. In conclusion, although land use changes due to agricultural expansion and industrialized farming threaten the sustainability of dryland agroecosystems, this impact can be partially offset by coupling ecologically-based farming practices with adaptive management strategies.

1. Background

Drylands are regions with an aridity index (ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration) of 0.05 to 0.65 [1]. Covering about 40% of Earth’s land surface and sustaining approximately 38% of global population, drylands are key agricultural production regions [2,3]. Despite their ecological, economic, and societal importance, the sustainability of drylands is heavily limited by land use changes due to agricultural expansion, geographical constraints, elevated temperature, reduced moisture, variable rainfall, drought, wildfires, and environmental degradation [4,5,6]. Furthermore, the loss of species diversity due to land use changes and industrialized agriculture seriously threatens the sustainability of major ecosystem services provided by drylands, such as pollination and pest regulation [7,8].
Drylands have considerable agricultural and societal value, as crops of global importance including barley, cotton, olives, millet, sorghum, and wheat as well as domesticated animals including cow, camel, goat, horse, and sheep originated from these regions [9]. However, industrialized farming and climatic variability have resulted in serious ecological consequences including a reduction in biodiversity due to habitat loss, degradation of soil and water quality, changes in surface energy and water balances [10], as well as production losses in drylands [11]. However, drylands have received relatively little research attention [12,13], limiting the available information on the impact of land use intensification on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and sustainable management. For example, previous studies assessed the impacts of agricultural management systems on associated biodiversity including weeds, pollinators and their services, pollination networks, or pest regulation, but were conducted in more diversified and less arid systems in Europe [14,15,16], California [17,18,19], and the mid-western US [20,21]. Further, a recent global synthesis of 89 crop systems on the role of biodiversity and biodiversity-based ecosystem services to crop productions does not include the world’s agriculturally important dryland regions [22], such as the Northern Great Plains and the Pacific Northwest of North America [23]. Hence, there is a dearth of research into the impacts of agricultural expansion and management systems on biodiversity and ecosystem services in simplified dryland landscapes [24,25,26]. However, these systems are projected to expand to 48% of global land by 2025 due to the changing climate [27]. Understanding the impacts of farm management systems and land use changes on biodiversity and ecosystem services is thus essential to sustain dryland ecosystems in the face of global climate change, population growth, and increased food and fiber demands.
In this paper, we focus on the impact of agricultural management systems on biodiversity and ecosystem services in highly simplified dryland landscapes (i.e., the landscapes in semiarid regions, with an aridity index of 0.2-0.5 [23,28], that are heavily dominated with intensive non-irrigated agriculture), with an emphasis on the Northern Great Plains (NGP), one of the leading dryland agricultural regions in the world [29,30,31,32,33]. Specifically, we combine the results from previous research into pollinators and parasitoid responses to management systems with additional data on the extent of landscape conversion and the economic impact of ecosystem services to highlight potential avenues to enhancing agricultural sustainability in drylands. Because of the scarcity of information, we were precluded from conducting a formal systematic analysis of previous research on biodiversity and ecosystem services in highly simplified dryland agricultural landscapes, such as those in the Northern Great Plains. We hope this review will help future researchers fill the existing knowledge gaps.

2. A Case Study of Land Use Changes due to Agricultural Expansion in the Drylands of the Northern Great Plains

Once dominated by grassland, shrubland, and riparian habitats, the NGP dryland has experienced agricultural expansion after European settlement, heavily simplifying the landscape into annual cropping systems. We quantified the extent of such landscape simplification in the Golden Triangle region of Montana, a representative section of the NGP dryland, by assessing the biophysical setting (BpS) data at a spatial unit of ~ 1 km2 from the LANDFIRE (a US government’s Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tool) products [34] to represent major habitats: shrubland, grassland, conifer, riparian, hardwood, and sparse vegetation. The BpS layer was developed to represent vegetation patterns that may have been dominant prior to Euro-American settlement. This layer is based on present-day biophysical environments and the approximation of historical ranges of natural disturbance regimes. The current human land-use layers (developed area, roads, and agriculture) were overlaid on these modeled historical layers to estimate aerial extents of natural habitat loss within the Golden Triangle. The total change in area of each habitat was determined by dividing the difference in area of selected classes between historical and present-day ecosystem area by total area of each ecosystem class.
Our study showed that the riparian habitat had the highest loss to land conversion (−76%), followed by grassland (−73%), shrubland (−62%), conifer (−17%), and sparse (−11%) habitats (Figure 1). The proportion of land converted into agricultural production has been estimated from grassland (84%), riparian (8%), and shrubland (7%) habitats (Figure 1). The agricultural expansion experienced in this area resulted in small remnant fragments of natural habitats within a matrix of monoculture crops, resulting in a highly simplified landscape where the remaining undisturbed natural habitats support a higher biodiversity compared to the intensified crop fields. For example, a 12-ha inventory of a remnant mixed-grass prairie conducted in 2009 near Havre (48.490° N, 109.802° W), Montana revealed a higher diversity of forbs, grass, and shrub species (Table 1) compared to previous studies conducted in croplands of this region [35]. This reduction in biodiversity, in turn, would constrain the ecosystem services they provide.

3. Impacts of Agricultural Management Systems on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Highly Simplified Drylands

Flowering crops and weeds growing in arable lands may provide food resources to beneficial insects such as bees, parasitoids, and generalist predators for a limited amount of time. In the resource-depleted environments that dominate highly simplified agricultural landscapes, non-crop habitats are required to provide season-long nesting grounds, food resources, and refugia from disturbances [36,37]. However, with the degree of high landscape simplification observed in the NGP resulting from agricultural expansion, the ecosystem benefits provided by non-crop habitats could be either significantly reduced or absent. In this section, we summarize findings of our ongoing research aimed at evaluating the impacts of management systems on plant diversity and its importance on parasitoid abundance, pollination networks, and bee colony success in the simplified agricultural landscape that dominates the NGP. Our overall goal was to examine the consequences of management systems on biodiversity and ecosystem services in highly simplified dryland agricultural landscapes. This information will, in turn, allow us assess farm management strategies that can be helpful to sustain biodiversity in dryland agroecosystems. To our knowledge, these studies represent the first attempt to assess the impact of the associated floral biodiversity on pollinator communities and ecosystem services across the Northern Great Plains.

3.1. Management Systems and Associated Plant Diversity

Access to adequate food resources such as pollen and nectar as well as shelter from adverse conditions is essential for the survival and reproduction of beneficial insects such as predators, parasitoids, and pollinators [31,38,39]. In highly simplified and biodiversity-depleted agroecosystems, weedy forb species could represent a viable source of pollen and nectar. To evaluate the impacts of farm management systems on weed communities, between 2013 and 2015, we established 55 m transects within each of nine conventional and nine organic spring wheat fields located in the simplified agricultural landscape of Big Sandy, Montana, USA (see [24,25,26] for details).
Compared to the remnant prairie (see Section 2; Table 1), we found a lower abundance and diversity of plants in the crop fields, regardless of farming system (Table 2). However, similar to Pollnac et al. [35], we observed increased weed species abundance and diversity in organic systems when compared to conventional ones. Even so, except for a single species (Artemisia frigida Willd.) that was present in a low abundance in an organic field, none of the 10 species of perennial shrubs found in mixed grass prairie was observed in crop fields. Similarly, 27 native and 3 exotic forb species that were present in the remnant prairie were not observed in either conventional or organic crop fields. Crops growing as volunteer weeds were the main contributors to forb diversity in the sampled organic crop fields. Overall, these results indicate that land use changes due to agricultural expansion and management systems adversely influence plant biodiversity; however, volunteer crop plants and other forbs contributed to the plant diversity observed during the growing season in organic crop fields.

3.2. Management Systems, Pest Infestation, Parasitoid Abundance, and Pest Regulation Services

With an annual economic value in the United States of USD 4.5 billion [40], biological control-based pest regulation is an important ecosystem service for agriculture [41,42,43]. For example, the annual economic loss to wheat growers across NGP due to Cephus cinctus Norton (wheat stem sawfly), a native pest species [44], has been estimated at USD 350 million [45]. In this region, biological control of C. cinctus by two endemic specialist parasitoids, Bracon cephi (Gahan) and B. lissogaster Muesebeck, represents a pest regulation service to wheat growers [46,47] that can effectively reduce yield losses by 19% when specific harvest outcomes are considered [48]. These parasitoids are highly specialized, and C. cinctus is their only known host [49,50].
Diversified cropping systems enhance C. cinctus parasitoid populations [25,51,52], ultimately helping to manage C. cinctus and thus reduce yield loss from infested fields. However, the conventionally-managed wheat–fallow rotations that dominate the dryland sections of the NGP can have negative impacts on parasitoid populations and effectiveness [48,53]. In a study assessing the effects of landscape composition and wheat cover on infestation by the native C. cinctus and parasitism by its endemic specialist parasitoids, Rand et al. [54] found the highest C. cinctus (wheat stem sawfly) infestation but lowest parasitism in conventionally grown wheat fields within Montana’s relatively dry Golden Triangle, a primary winter wheat production region when compared to other studied areas across North Dakota and South Dakota, USA. Surprisingly, they reported no correlation between increased natural grassland habitat and C. cinctus infestation or parasitism. The plausible explanations for this could be a) a lack of sufficient natural enemies to control pest population, b) insufficient natural habitat for supporting natural enemy populations needed for pest control, and/or c) an excessive reliance on farming practices that are unfavorable to the natural enemy communities (e.g., use of pesticides) [55,56,57].
Agricultural management systems include not only determining which crops to grow and how to manage farms (e.g., conventionally or organically), but also when to plant a crop that could potentially have differential effects on pest infestation. To assess whether the timing of plantation affects pest infestation, we compared the role of winter (i.e., fall-planted) and spring (i.e., spring-planted) wheat crops on the parasitism of C. cinctus using sample data collected from 1998–2011 in Montana wheat fields (n = 1945) across more intensively managed agricultural landscapes in the Golden Triangle (see Figure 1) and outside (n = 1895) (reported in [48]). Infestation in spring wheat fields outside the Golden Triangle was double that of spring wheat fields inside the region, while the opposite was true for winter wheat: the infestation was 20% lower outside the Golden Triangle (Table S1). Interestingly, numbers of parasitoids were nearly half in spring wheat fields, and the surviving C. cinctus larval population was lower in the Golden Triangle than the outside region. For winter wheat, however, parasitism was nearly twice as high in the Golden Triangle as outside, but the percentage of stems with surviving C. cinctus larvae was greater in the Golden Triangle. Overall, winter wheat inside the Golden Triangle was more exploited by C. cinctus and will benefit considerably from farming practices that favor increased parasitoid abundance and survivorship. With a total of 0.93 million hectares of land planted in winter wheat and 1.21 million hectares in spring wheat in 2016 in Montana only [58], the differences in C. cinctus populations associated with winter and spring wheat is a determining factor in parasitoid abundance [25]. Our result also indicates that outcomes related to ecosystem services provided by parasitoids that specialize on C. cinctus should be evaluated separately for each growing season (i.e., winter and spring), as suggested in Bekkerman and Weaver [48].
Further, to evaluate the impact of cropping systems on C. cinctus parasitism, we collected winter wheat samples between 2013 and 2015 from tilled organic and no-till conventional fields of a highly simplified landscape at Big Sandy, Montana, USA (see details in [25]). We then compared infestation by C. cinctus and subsequent parasitism across farming systems. Our results showed that, relative to conventionally-managed fields, organic management was associated with a 75% lower C. cinctus infestation and a quadrupling of parasitism by endemic braconids (Table 3). These results indicate that while simplified landscapes have relatively limited floral resources to parasitoids, by enhancing alternative sources of pollen and nectar via increased weed diversity [36,46], organic fields partially offset the negative effects of landscape simplification on pest regulation in the drylands of the NGP.
To estimate the potential economic returns to pest regulation services (i.e., biodiversity-based ecosystem services) of C. cinctus parasitoids, we developed counterfactual analyses based on the model and data in Bekkerman and Weaver [48] to consider three parasitoid population scenarios: zero parasitoids (no parasitism), 2x parasitoids (doubling the number of parasitoids present in original data), and parasitoids in 30% of all infested stems (which represents a reasonable population target, similar to observed populations reported above for organic fields [25]). Relative to a base-case scenario of sample means, each counterfactual analysis calculated the potential additional stem-level yield gains or losses from higher or lower parasitoid populations for winter and spring wheat, and then used ten-year average Montana production and price data to approximate state-level impacts. The results showed that because base-case parasitoid populations are relatively small, completely eliminating or doubling parasitoids had only modest state-level economic impacts. However, if parasitism reached a realistic optimum (i.e., 30%), estimated production losses were reduced significantly by 21%, representing an economic gain of USD 11.23 million (Table S2). As our study shows, a target of 30% parasitism could be achieved through better management systems, such as transferring and incorporating the desirable features we observed in organic winter wheat systems into larger, more conventional farming practices.

3.3. Management Systems and Bee Colony Success

Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea, Apiformes) are key agents in pollinating about one-third of the leading global crop species [59,60]. However, a suite of anthropogenic stressors and perturbations including reduced regional floral resources, landscape simplification, habitat fragmentation, and exposure to pesticides, parasites and pathogens contribute to the declining bee biodiversity [61,62,63]. The NGP is a key agricultural region for cereal, forage, pulse, and oilseed production; however, the impact of available floral resources on bee colony success mediated by agricultural expansion and management systems is unknown.
By putting 60 mini-colonies of eastern bumble bee (Bombus impatiens Cresson) at six conventional and six organic spring wheat fields over two growing seasons (2014–2015) across the abovementioned simplified agricultural landscape in Big Sandy, Montana, USA, we assessed the effects of farming systems on bee colonies’ relative growth rate, fecundity, worker lipid content and wing wear (see details in [24]). We found that colonies’ relative growth rate and fecundity were larger in weedier organic fields than in conventional fields and were positively associated with floral resources (see details in [24]). Similarly, workers from organic fields had lower wing wear and marginally greater body lipid content, indicating that foraging distances are smaller in organic than in conventional fields [24]. Overall, these results indicate that by increasing B. impatiens colony success and individual worker condition, the greater floral resources observed in organic systems can provide better biodiversity-based ecosystem services even in a highly simplified agricultural landscapes such as the ones that dominate the NGP.

3.4. Management Systems and Bee–Flower Networks

The decline in plant diversity due to conventional agricultural practices and landscape simplification observed across the NGP can ultimately impact the structure of pollinator communities and, in turn, plant–pollinator networks [61,64]. Despite the ecological and economic importance of pollinators [59,65], there is limited information on their abundance and diversity in the dryland agroecosystems of the NGP. To assess the extent to which cropping systems impact plant–pollinator networks in dryland settings, we compared bee–flower interaction networks between conventional and organic fields in the simplified agricultural landscape at Big Sandy, MT during 2013–2015 [66].
By recording the identity and frequency of bee–flower interactions during 20 minutes of observations (51 hours in total) on each of nine conventional and nine organic fields between 2013–2015, we constructed bee–flower networks [66,67]. Our results indicated that bee–flower interactions were either absent or extremely simplified in conventionally managed fields. In contrast, because of the greater forb flower density and diversity observed in organic fields, bee–flower interactions were more common in these systems (Figure 2). However, the observed networks were far less connected when compared with those observed in more botanically diverse landscapes [68,69,70]. The study indicates that highly simplified agricultural landscapes in the NGP maintain relatively impoverished bee–flower interaction networks; however, by supporting more floral resources, diversified organic farming helps to increase plant–pollinator interactions.

4. Discussion: Enhancing the Sustainability of Dryland Agroecosystems

While a majority of previous studies assessing the impacts of land use changes due to farm management systems and agricultural expansion on plant diversity, pollinator communities and services, pollination networks, and pest regulation were conducted in diversified mesic systems [14,19,21,71], a limited amount of research has been conducted on highly simplified drylands. This review fills this gap by assessing biodiversity and biodiversity-based ecosystem services in the context of dryland agroecosystems. Our results underscore the importance of diversifying agroecosystems to enhance populations of beneficial insects including parasitoids and pollinators. Specifically, our results showed that most habitat types in the NGP have been converted into agricultural production after European settlement, significantly reducing non-crop habitats. While we observed a significant economic contribution of insect parasitoids on reducing crop production loss due to pests, effects of non-crop habitats alone in agricultural fields on biological pest regulation are not guaranteed, but instead depend on farming systems, landscape composition, local climatic factors, and their interactions [66,67,69].
Our studies indicated that, even in highly simplified dryland landscapes, the increased biodiversity observed in organic systems can help to enhance ecological networks and biodiversity-based ecosystem services [24,25,26,66]. These results are in line with others that have shown that greater plant diversity supported by more complex landscapes enhance natural enemy populations including parasitoids and predators of crop pests [42,72] and augment natural pest regulation [40], thereby reducing the heavy reliance on pesticide applications. For example, Rusch et al. [73] found that natural pest control in crop-dominated simplified landscapes was 46% lower than in more complex landscapes. Similarly, tachinid parasitoids [74] and predaceous syrphid fly larvae [75] in California’s agroecosystems were positively associated with semi-natural habitats surrounding farms and negatively associated with crop cover across the landscape. Additionally, landscape diversification in drylands may also increase the provision of other services such as water quality, soil fertility development, climate stability, greenhouse gas sequestration, and aesthetics [28,76]. Hence, practices that promote increased crop and weed diversity, such as the diversification of organic farming systems, support these parasitoids so that they can provide a significant economic contribution or ecosystem services by reducing crop production loss due to pests.
Conservation biological control (i.e., the maintenance of beneficial insects through habitat management in croplands) has received significant attention in the last two decades [41,72]. Relatively undisturbed and uncultivated lands within agricultural landscapes can provide refugia for natural enemies and generalist predators supporting pest management [41,72]. As this review shows, this concept can be used to conserve other beneficial insects such as pollinators. Floral resources present in crop fields may be abundant for a short period, making them usually insufficient during the early and late seasons that are critical in bee life cycles for establishing colonies and producing offspring [77,78]. The increasing abundance and diversity of native plant communities and expanding natural habitats may enhance pollinator communities within agricultural landscapes which, in turn, could result in enhancing crop yields [21,79]. Conservation strategies for beneficial insects may include allocating 20–30% of agricultural landscape to uncultivated habitats, planting native flowers in hedgerows, and including forb crops in crop rotations [42,80,81]. Our results [24,25,26,66] indicate that combining these strategies with organic farming practices can help enhance beneficial insects’ nesting and foraging habitats, consequently bolstering their populations, and allowing growers to further reap the benefits of pest regulation and pollination.
The presented results and complementary studies [82,83,84,85] help produce a framework of adaptive management in drylands to enhance dryland agricultural resilience and sustainability. Our framework includes first identifying causes (e.g., agricultural expansion) and impacts (e.g., loss of biodiversity) of land use changes as the fundamental step (Figure 3). Second, assessing and evaluating biodiversity and its services and potential disservices would help identify and prioritize the proper farm management systems in the region. Third, identifying proper policies and extension programs based on monitoring and evaluation of ecosystem assessments could effectively help redesign agricultural landscapes to help conserve natural habitats. Fourth, adaptive management strategies are key to continuously evaluating and adjusting new policies and approaches that are informed by research results and experiences [28,86,87].

5. Conclusions

While land use changes, overexploitation of resources, climatic variability, pollution, and species invasion have resulted in biodiversity loss and serious ecological consequences globally [88], dryland ecosystems and their associated human populations are more vulnerable than other ecosystems [28,89,90]. Due to their worldwide occurrence, drylands, despite several climatic and environmental constraints, provide significant ecological and socio-economic benefits to local, regional, and global populations [91,92,93]. However, if current farm management practices associated with modern agricultural intensifications are continued, they may further jeopardize drylands, and thus increase economic and ecological uncertainty for the growers [94]. Overall, the NGP region showed a significant expansion of agricultural lands after European settlement and illustrate consequent losses of biodiversity and associated impacts. Also, conventionally managed farming systems that rely on monoculture and off-farm synthetic inputs such as nitrogen fertilizers and herbicides contribute to the reduced biodiversity and hence biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Natural and human-induced processes coupled with socioeconomic factors are responsible for the habitat loss and biodiversity reduction observed in the dryland sections of the NGP [95,96]. To mitigate these losses, priority should be given to the adoption of more appropriate management practices such as diversified organic production that relies on crop rotation, multiple cropping, and avoidance of off-farm synthetic inputs. Similarly, proactive farming practices in drylands should aim at increasing spatial and temporal habitat heterogeneity [97,98,99]. Along with crop diversification across the landscape, the preservation and restoration of natural habitats is required to enhance pest regulation in the dryland agroecosystems [73].

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3223/s1, Table S1: Cephus cinctus infestation and its parasitoid abundance in spring and winter wheat fields inside more intensively managed landscape of Golden Triangle, Montana, USA and outside. Table S2: Estimated pest regulation service values by parasitoids of Cephus cinctus in Montana, USA. To estimate the values, a counterfactual analysis was done on C. cinctus infested spring and winter wheat stems and parasitoids presence on infested stems with four scenarios: base case, zero parasitoids, 2x parasitoids, and parasitoids in 30% of infested stems.

Author Contributions

Each author contributed significantly to the manuscript. Conceptualization, S.A., A.A., & F.D.M.; Writing—original draft, S.A.; Data collection, analysis, and interpretation: S.A., A.A., D.K.W., A.B.; Resources, F.D.M.; Writing—review & editing, S.A., A.A., D.K.W., A.B., & F.D.M. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

We would like to thank the United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA NIFA) for its financial support to ORG grant 2015-51106-23970.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank D. Boss, J. Broesder, J. Mangold, M. Manoukian, and especially T. Welch for providing the plant species records from their June 30, 2009 survey.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. UNCCD. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa; United Nations Environment Programmes/Convention to Combat Desertification: Geneva, Switzerland, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  2. Feng, S.; Fu, Q. Expansion of global drylands under a warming climate. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2013, 13, 10081–10094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Yirdaw, E.; Tigabu, M.; Monge, A. Rehabilitation of degraded dryland ecosystems—Review. Silva Fenn. 2017, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Puigdefábregas, J. Ecological impacts of global change on drylands and their implications for desertification. Land Degrad. Dev. 1998, 9, 393–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cowie, A.L.; Penman, T.D.; Gorissen, L.; Winslow, M.D.; Lehmann, J.; Tyrrell, T.D.; Twomlow, S.; Wilkes, A.; Lal, R.; Jones, J.W.; et al. Towards sustainable land management in the drylands: Scientific connections in monitoring and assessing dryland degradation, climate change and biodiversity. Land Degrad. Dev. 2011, 22, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sherwood, S.; Fu, Q. A Drier Future? Climate Change. Science 2014, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Münzenberg, U.; Tscharntke, T. Pollination, seed set and seed predation on a landscape scale. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2001, 268, 1685–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Chaplin-Kramer, R.; O’Rourke, M.E.; Blitzer, E.J.; Kremen, C. A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14, 922–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Darkoh, M.B.K. Regional perspectives on agriculture and biodiversity in the drylands of Africa. J. Arid Environ. 2001, 54, 261–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hansen, A.J.; Rasker, R.; Maxwell, B.; Rotella, J.J.; Johnson, J.D.; Parmenter, A.W.; Langner, U.; Cohen, W.B.; Lawrence, R.L.; Kraska, M.P.V. Ecological Causes and Consequences of Demographic Change in the New WestAs natural amenities attract people and commerce to the rural west, the resulting land-use changes threaten biodiversity, even in protected areas, and challenge efforts to sustain local communities and ecosystems. Bioscience 2002, 52, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Koohafkan, P.; Stewart, B.A. Water and Cereals in Drylands. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i0372e/i0372e.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2019).
  12. Thomas, R.J.; Akhtar-Schuster, M.; Stringer, L.C.; Marques, M.J.; Escadafal, R.; Abraham, E.; Enne, G. Fertile ground? Options for a science-policy platform for land. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 16, 122–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Reynolds, J.F.; Mark, D.; Smith, S.; Lambin, E.F.; Ii, B.L.T.; Mortimore, M.; Batterbury, S.P.J.; Downing, T.E.; Dowlatabadi, H.; Fernández, R.J.; et al. Global Desertification: Building a Science for Dryland Development. Science 2007, 316, 847–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Brittain, C.A.; Vighi, M.; Bommarco, R.; Settele, J.; Potts, S.G. Impacts of a pesticide on pollinator species richness at different spatial scales. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2010, 11, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hole, D.G.; Perkins, A.J.; Wilson, J.D.; Alexander, I.H.; Grice, P.V.; Evans, A.D. Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 2005, 122, 113–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tscharntke, T.; Klein, A.M.; Kruess, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—Ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 857–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kremen, C.; Williams, N.M.; Thorp, R.W. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 16812–16816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Kremen, C.; Williams, N.M.; Bugg, R.L.; Fay, J.P.; Thorp, R.W. The area requirements of an ecosystem service: Crop pollination by native bee communities in California. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7, 1109–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Williams, N.M.; Crone, E.E.; Roulston, T.H.; Minckley, R.L.; Packer, L.; Potts, S.G. Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 2280–2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Isaacs, R.; Kirk, A.K. Pollination services provided to small and large highbush blueberry fields by wild and managed bees. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 841–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Isaacs, R.; Tuell, J.; Fiedler, A.; Gardiner, M.; Landis, D. Maximizing arthropod-mediated ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: The role of native plants. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dainese, M.; Martin, E.A.; Aizen, M.; Albrecht, M.; Bartomeus, I.; Bommarco, R.; Carvalheiro, L.G.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Gagic, V.; Garibaldi, L.A.; et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. bioRxiv 2019, 554170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Hansen, N.C.; Allen, B.L.; Anapalli, S.; Blackshaw, R.E.; Lyon, D.J.; Machado, S. Dryland Agriculture in North America. In Innovations in Dryland Agriculture; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 415–441. [Google Scholar]
  24. Adhikari, S.; Burkle, L.A.; O’Neill, K.M.; Weaver, D.K.; Menalled, F.D. Dryland organic farming increases floral resources and bee colony success in highly simplified agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 270–271, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Adhikari, S.; Seipel, T.; Menalled, F.D.; Weaver, D.K. Farming system and wheat cultivar affect infestation of, and parasitism on, Cephus cinctus in the Northern Great Plains. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 2480–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Adhikari, S.; Menalled, F. Impacts of Dryland Farm Management Systems on Weeds and Ground Beetles (Carabidae) in the Northern Great Plains. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Huang, J.; Yu, H.; Guan, X.; Wang, G.; Guo, R. Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  29. Brester, G.W.; Grant, B.; Boland, M.A. Marketing Organic Pasta from Big Sandy to Rome: It’s a Long Kamut®. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2009, 31, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Johnston, A.M.; Tanaka, D.L.; Miller, P.R.; Brandt, S.A.; Nielsen, D.C.; Lafond, G.P.; Riveland, N.R. Oilseed Crops for Semiarid Cropping Systems in the Northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. North Dakota Wheat Commission. North Dakota Wheat Commission: Building Bigger Better Markets. Available online: http://www.ndwheat.com/default.asp (accessed on 29 October 2018).
  32. Montana Agricultural Statistics. USDA—National Agricultural Statistics Service and Montana Department of Agriculture; Montana Agricultural Statistics, USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
  33. Lakkakula, P.; Olson, F.; Ripplinger, D. Pea and Lentil Market Analysis; North Dakota State University: Fargo, ND, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  34. Barrett, S.; Havlina, D.; Jones, J.; Hann, W.; Frame, C.; Hamilton, D.; Schon, K.; Demeo, T.; Hutter, L.; Menakis, J. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0. Available online: https://www.landfire.gov/frcc/frcc_guidebooks.php (accessed on 29 October 2018).
  35. Pollnac, F.W.; Rew, L.J.; Maxwell, B.D.; Menalled, F.D. Spatial patterns, species richness and cover in weed communities of organic and conventional no-tillage spring wheat systems. Weed Res. 2008, 48, 398–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Danner, N.; Molitor, A.M.; Schiele, S.; Härtel, S.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. Season and landscape composition affect pollen foraging distances and habitat use of honey bees. Ecol. Appl. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Landis, D.A.; Menalled, F.D.; Costamagna, A.C.; Wilkinson, T.K. Manipulating plant resources to enhance beneficial arthropods in agricultural landscapes. Weed Sci. 2005, 53, 902–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pywell, R.F.; Warman, E.A.; Carvell, C.; Sparks, T.H.; Dicks, L.V.; Bennett, D.; Wright, A.; Critchley, C.N.R.; Sherwood, A. Providing foraging resources for bumblebees in intensively farmed landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 121, 479–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nicholls, C.I.; Altieri, M.A. Plant biodiversity enhances bees and other insect pollinators in agroecosystems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 257–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Losey, J.E.; Vaughn, M. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 2006, 56, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barbosa, P. Agroecosystems and conservation biological control. In Conservation Biological Control; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1998; pp. 39–54. [Google Scholar]
  42. Landis, D.A. Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2017, 18, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Power, A.G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2959–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lesieur, V.; Martin, J.-F.; Weaver, D.K.; Hoelmer, K.A.; Smith, D.R.; Morrill, W.L.; Kadiri, N.; Peairs, F.B.; Cockrell, D.M.; Randolph, T.L.; et al. Phylogeography of the Wheat Stem Sawfly, Cephus cinctus Norton (Hymenoptera: Cephidae): Implications for Pest Management. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0168370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Beres, B.L.; Dosdall, L.M.; Weaver, D.K.; Cárcamo, H.A.; Spaner, D.M. Biology and integrated management of wheat stem sawfly and the need for continuing research. Can. Entomol. 2011, 143, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Weaver, D.K.; Nansen, C.; Runyon, J.B.; Sing, S.E.; Morrill, W.L. Spatial distributions of Cephus cinctus Norton (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) and its braconid parasitoids in Montana wheat fields. Biol. Control 2005, 34, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Peterson, R.K.D.; Buteler, M.; Weaver, D.K.; Macedo, T.B.; Sun, Z.; Perez, O.G.; Pallipparambil, G.R. Parasitism and the demography of wheat stem sawfly larvae, Cephus cinctus. Biol. Control 2011, 56, 831–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bekkerman, A.; Weaver, D.K. Modeling Joint Dependence of Managed Ecosystems Pests: The Case of the Wheat Stem Sawfly. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2018, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar]
  49. Morrill, W.L.; Kushnak, G.D.; Gabor, J.W. Parasitism of the Wheat Stem Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) in Montana. Biol. Control 1998, 12, 159–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Runyon, J.B.; Hurley, R.L.; Morrill, W.L.; Weaver, D.K. Distinguishing adults of Bracon cephi and Bracon lissogaster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), parasitoids of the wheat stem sawfly (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). Can. Entomol. 2001, 133, 215–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Runyon, J.B.; Morrill, W.L.; Weaver, D.K.; Miller, P.R. Parasitism of the Wheat Stem Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) by Bracon cephi and B. lissogaster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Wheat Fields Bordering Tilled and Untilled Fallow in Montana. J. Econ. Entomol. 2002, 95, 1130–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Weaver, D.K.; Sing, S.E.; Runyon, J.B.; Morrill, W.L.; Weaver, D. Potential Impact of Cultural Practices on Wheat Stem Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) and Associated Parasitoids. J. Agric. Urban Entomol. 2004, 21, 271–287. [Google Scholar]
  53. Buteler, M.; Weaver, D.K.; Miller, P.R. Wheat stem sawfly-infested plants benefit from parasitism of the herbivorous larvae. Agric. For. Entomol. 2008, 10, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rand, T.A.; Waters, D.K.; Blodgett, S.L.; Knodel, J.J.; Harris, M.O. Increased area of a highly suitable host crop increases herbivore pressure in intensified agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 186, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Tscharntke, T.; Karp, D.S.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Batáry, P.; DeClerck, F.; Gratton, C.; Hunt, L.; Ives, A.; Jonsson, M.; Larsen, A.; et al. When natural habitat fails to enhance biological pest control—Five hypotheses. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 204, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Karp, D.S.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Meehan, T.D.; Martin, E.A.; DeClerck, F.; Grab, H.; Gratton, C.; Hunt, L.; Larsen, A.E.; Martínez-Salinas, A.; et al. Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E7863–E7870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Settele, J.; Settle, W.H. Conservation biological control: Improving the science base. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 8241–8243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. NASS. 2016 Wheat Varieties Grown in Montana; NASS: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
  59. Kevan, P.G. Pollinators as bioindicators of the state of the environment: Species, activity and diversity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 373–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Moisset, B.B.; Buchmann, S. Bee Basics: An Introduction to Our Native Bees; Lulu.com: Morrisville, NC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  61. Goulson, D.; Nicholls, E.; Botias, C.; Rotheray, E.L. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 2015, 347, 1255957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Goulson, D.; Lye, G.C.; Darvill, B. Decline and Conservation of Bumble Bees. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2008, 53, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Potts, S.G.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Kremen, C.; Neumann, P.; Schweiger, O.; Kunin, W.E. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kremen, C.; Miles, A. Ecosystem Services in Biologically Diversified versus Conventional Farming Systems: Benefits, Externalitites, and Trade-Offs. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gallai, N.; Salles, J.M.; Settele, J.; Vaissière, B.E. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 810–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Adhikari, S. Impacts of Dryland Farming Systems on Biodiversity, Plant-Insect Interactions, and Ecosystem Services; Montana State University: Bozeman, MT, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  67. Adhikari, S.; Burkle, L.A.; O’Neill, K.M.; Weaver, D.K.; Delphia, C.M.; Menalled, F.D. Dryland Organic Farming Partially Offsets Negative Effects of Highly Simplified Agricultural Landscapes on Forbs, Bees, and Bee–Flower Networks. Environ. Entomol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Kehinde, T.; Samways, M.J. Insect-flower interactions: Network structure in organic versus conventional vineyards. Anim. Conserv. 2014, 17, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Power, E.F.; Stout, J.C. Organic dairy farming: Impacts on insect-flower interaction networks and pollination. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 561–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tucker, E.M.; Rehan, S.M. Wild Bee Community Assemblages Across Agricultural Landscapes. J. Agric. Urban Entomol. 2017, 33, 77–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Spiesman, B.J.; Bennett, A.; Isaacs, R.; Gratton, C. Bumble bee colony growth and reproduction depend on local flower dominance and natural habitat area in the surrounding landscape. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 206, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Landis, D.A.; Wratten, S.D.; Gurr, G.M. Habitat Management to Conserve Natural Enemies of Arthropod Pests in Agriculture. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rusch, A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Gardiner, M.M.; Hawro, V.; Holland, J.; Landis, D.; Thies, C.; Tscharntke, T.; Weisser, W.W.; Winqvist, C.; et al. Agricultural landscape simplification reduces natural pest control: A quantitative synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 221, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Letourneau, D.K.; Bothwell Allen, S.G.; Stireman, J.O. Perennial habitat fragments, parasitoid diversity and parasitism in ephemeral crops. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 1405–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chaplin-Kramer, R.; de Valpine, P.; Mills, N.J.; Kremen, C. Detecting pest control services across spatial and temporal scales. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 181, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Philip Robertson, G.; Gross, K.L.; Hamilton, S.K.; Landis, D.A.; Schmidt, T.M.; Snapp, S.S.; Swinton, S.M. Farming for Ecosystem Services: An Ecological Approach to Production Agriculture. Bioscience 2014, 64, 404–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Mallinger, R.E.; Gibbs, J.; Gratton, C. Diverse landscapes have a higher abundance and species richness of spring wild bees by providing complementary floral resources over bees’ foraging periods. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 1523–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Walther-Hellwig, K.; Frankl, R. Foraging habitats and foraging distances of bumblebees, Bombus spp. (Hym., Apidae), in an agricultural landscape. J. Appl. Entomol. 2000, 124, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Morandin, L.A.; Winston, M.L.; Abbott, V.A.; Franklin, M.T. Can pastureland increase wild bee abundance in agriculturally intense areas? Basic Appl. Ecol. 2007, 8, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Morandin, L.A.; Kremen, C. Hedgerow restoration promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to adjacent fields. Ecol. Appl. 2013, 23, 829–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Morandin, L.A.; Winston, M.L. Pollinators provide economic incentive to preserve natural land in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 116, 289–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Peterson, C.A.; Eviner, V.T.; Gaudin, A.C.M. Ways forward for resilience research in agroecosystems. Agric. Syst. 2018, 162, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Zhang, W.; Ricketts, T.H.; Kremen, C.; Carney, K. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Duru, M.; Therond, O.; Martin, G.; Martin-Clouaire, R.; Magne, M.-A.; Justes, E.; Journet, E.-P.; Aubertot, J.-N.; Savary, S.; Bergez, J.-E.; et al. How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1259–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sandifer, P.A.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Ward, B.P. Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Birgé, H.E.; Allen, C.R.; Garmestani, A.S.; Pope, K.L. Adaptive management for ecosystem services. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 183, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Lin, B.B. Resilience in Agriculture through Crop Diversification: Adaptive Management for Environmental Change. Bioscience 2011, 61, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); IPBES Secretariat, U.C.G. IPBES Global Assessment Report. Available online: https://www.ipbes.net/news/ipbes-global-assessment-preview (accessed on 2 June 2019).
  89. Global Drylands: A UN System-Wide Response; United Nations Environment Management Groups: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
  90. Farooq, M.; Siddique, K.H.M. Innovations in Dryland Agriculture. In Innovations in Dryland Agriculture; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 215–236. [Google Scholar]
  91. Lu, N.; Wang, M.; Ning, B.; Yu, D. Research advances in ecosystem services in drylands under global environmental changes. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 33, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Schild, J.E.M.; Vermaat, J.E.; de Groot, R.S.; Quatrini, S.; van Bodegom, P.M. A global meta-analysis on the monetary valuation of dryland ecosystem services: The role of socio-economic, environmental and methodological indicators. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 32, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Schild, J.E.M.; Vermaat, J.E.; van Bodegom, P.M. Differential effects of valuation method and ecosystem type on the monetary valuation of dryland ecosystem services: A quantitative analysis. J. Arid Environ. 2018, 159, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Lawrence, P.G.; Maxwell, B.D.; Rew, L.J.; Ellis, C.; Bekkerman, A. Vulnerability of dryland agricultural regimes to economic and climatic change. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, art34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Adhikari, A.; Hansen, A.J. Land use change and habitat fragmentation of wildland ecosystems of the North Central United States. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 177, 196–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. DeFries, R.S.; Foley, J.A.; Asner, G.P. Land-use choices: Balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Altieri, M.A. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Benton, T.G.; Vickery, J.A.; Wilson, J.D. Farmland biodiversity: Is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gaba, S.; Lescourret, F.; Boudsocq, S.; Enjalbert, J.; Hinsinger, P.; Journet, E.-P.; Navas, M.-L.; Wery, J.; Louarn, G.; Malézieux, E.; et al. Multiple cropping systems as drivers for providing multiple ecosystem services: From concepts to design. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 607–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 11 03223 g001 550
Figure 1. Land use changes due to agricultural expansion in the Golden Triangle area of the Northern Great Plains: (A) pre-European settlements versus present-day ecosystem types, (B) proportion of ecosystem types prior to European settlements, (C) relative reduction in area due to the agricultural expansion of ecosystem types from pre-European settlements to the present-day, and (D) contribution of each pre-European settlement habitat type to agricultural land.
Figure 1. Land use changes due to agricultural expansion in the Golden Triangle area of the Northern Great Plains: (A) pre-European settlements versus present-day ecosystem types, (B) proportion of ecosystem types prior to European settlements, (C) relative reduction in area due to the agricultural expansion of ecosystem types from pre-European settlements to the present-day, and (D) contribution of each pre-European settlement habitat type to agricultural land.
Sustainability 11 03223 g001
Sustainability 11 03223 g002 550
Figure 2. Bee–flower interaction networks from conventional and organic wheat fields in the Golden Triangle area, Montana, USA. The top yellow horizontal bars represent bee taxa and the bottom green horizontal bars represent forb species in the networks. The black lines connecting bee taxa and forb species represent interaction links (visits), and the thickness of these lines corresponds to the strength of the interactions between two species. Note: All observation data were pooled across months (June–August), fields (nine for each system), and years (2013–2015) to construct the networks in each system and show the general patterns of which bee and forb species were present in the landscape during our study. The figure is adopted from Adhikari [66].
Figure 2. Bee–flower interaction networks from conventional and organic wheat fields in the Golden Triangle area, Montana, USA. The top yellow horizontal bars represent bee taxa and the bottom green horizontal bars represent forb species in the networks. The black lines connecting bee taxa and forb species represent interaction links (visits), and the thickness of these lines corresponds to the strength of the interactions between two species. Note: All observation data were pooled across months (June–August), fields (nine for each system), and years (2013–2015) to construct the networks in each system and show the general patterns of which bee and forb species were present in the landscape during our study. The figure is adopted from Adhikari [66].
Sustainability 11 03223 g002
Sustainability 11 03223 g003 550
Figure 3. A conceptual framework for enhancing agricultural sustainability in the drylands through research, policy, economic valuation, and adaptive management.
Figure 3. A conceptual framework for enhancing agricultural sustainability in the drylands through research, policy, economic valuation, and adaptive management.
Sustainability 11 03223 g003
Table
Table 1. List of plant species identified in 2009 from a 12-ha mixed native prairie relict site near Havre, Montana (Welch, unpublished data).
Table 1. List of plant species identified in 2009 from a 12-ha mixed native prairie relict site near Havre, Montana (Welch, unpublished data).
PlantsFamily
Graminoids
Koeleria macrantha (Ledeb.) J.A. SchultesPoaceae
Hesperostipa comata (Trin. & Rupr.) Barkworth Poaceae
Pascopyrum smithii (Rydb.) A. LovePoaceae
Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) A. LovePoaceae
Muhlenbergia cuspidata (Torr. ex Hook.) Rydb.Poaceae
Calamovilfa longifolia (Hook.) ScribnPoaceae
Poa sandbergii VaseyPoaceae
Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) NashPoaceae
Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. ex Kunth.) Lag. ex GriffithsPoaceae
Nassella viridula (Trin.) BarkworthPoaceae
Carex filifolia Nutt.Cyperaceae
* Bromus tectorum L.Poaceae
* Bromus japonicus Thunb.Poaceae
* Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.Poaceae
* Poa pratensis L.Poaceae
Forbs
Pediomelum argophyllum (Pursh) J. Grimes Fabaceae
Phlox hoodii Richardson Polemoniaceae
Antennaria neglecta GreeneAsteraceae
Heterotheca villosa (Pursh) Shinners Asteraceae
Cirsium undulatum (Nutt.) Spreng. Asteraceae
Penstemon grandiflorus Nutt.Scrophulariaceae
Plantago elongata PurshPlantaginaceae
Lygodesmia juncea (Pursh) D. Don ex Hook.Asteraceae
Comandra umbellata (L.) Nutt.Santalaceae
Thermopsis rhombifolia (Nutt. ex Pursh) Nutt. ex RichardsonFabaceae
Gaillardia aristata PurshAsteraceae
Achillea millefolium L. var. occidentalis DC.Asteraceae
Potentilla glandulosa Lindl.Rosaceae
Allium textile A. Nelson & J.F. Macbr. Liliaceae
Linum lewisii Pursh Linaceae
Tetraneuris acaulis (Pursh) Greene Asteraceae
Sphaeralcea coccinea (Nutt.) Rydb.Malvaceae
Vicia americana Muhl. ex Willd. Fabaceae
Liatris punctata Hook.Asteraceae
Nothocalais cuspidata (Pursh) GreeneAsteraceae
Symphyotrichum ericoides (L.) G.L. Nesom var. pansum (S.F. Blake) G.L. Nesom Asteraceae
Machaeranthera pinnatifida (Hook.) Shinners Asteraceae
Ratibida columnifera (Nutt.) Wooton & StandAsteraceae
Opuntia polyacantha Haw.Cactaceae
Packera plattensis (Nutt.) W.A. Weber & Á. LöveAsteraceae
Lycopodium L., spp.Lycopodiaceae
Bryopsida (Limpr.) Rothm., spp.
* Medicago sativa L. Fabaceae
* Melilotus officinalis (L.) Lam.Fabaceae
* Sinapis arvensis L. ssp. arvensis Brassicaceae
* Tragopogon pratensis L.Asteraceae
** Taraxacum officinale F.H. WiggAsteraceae
** Urtica dioica L.Urticaceae
Shrubs
Symphoricarpos occidentalis Hook. Caprifoliaceae
Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt.Asteraceae
Artemisia dracunculus L.Asteraceae
Artemisia longifolia Nutt. Asteraceae
Artemisia frigida Willd. Asteraceae
Krascheninnikovia lanata (Pursh) A. Meeuse & SmiChenopodiaceae
Artemisia cana PurshAsteraceae
Rosa arkansana Porter Rosaceae
Rosa acicularis Lindl. Rosaceae
Gutierrezia sarothrae (Pursh) Britton & RusbyAsteraceae
* invasive, exotic; ** invasive, both native and exotic subspecies.
Table
Table 2. List of weed taxa with their relative abundance observed in organic and conventional wheat fields between 2013 and 2015. The table is adopted from Adhikari and Menalled [26].
Table 2. List of weed taxa with their relative abundance observed in organic and conventional wheat fields between 2013 and 2015. The table is adopted from Adhikari and Menalled [26].
Weed TaxaPercent Composition (Overall)
ConventionalOrganic
Amaranthus blitoides S. Watson<0.01<0.01
Amaranthus retroflexus L. <0.010.47
Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. -<0.01
Artemisia frigida Willd. -<0.01
Avena fatua L. *4.714.70
Bassia scoparia (L.) A.J. Scott 0.070.14
Brassicaceae sp.-0.04
Bromus arvensis L. *0.08<0.01
Bromus tectorum L. *8.400.20
Buglossoides arvensis (L.) I.M. Johnst. -<0.01
Carthamus tinctorius L. -0.69
Chenopodium album L. -7.43
Chenopodium murale L. -<0.01
Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. 2.55<0.01
Descurainia pinnata (Walter) Britton <0.010.03
Descurainia sophia (L.) Webb ex Prantl -0.01
Fabaceae sp.-<0.01
Fagopyrum esculentum Moench -0.03
Helianthus annuus L. <0.012.72
Hordeum jubatum L.* 5.030.04
Lactuca serriola L. 0.120.43
Lens culinaris Medik. -0.15
Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth *<0.01-
Medicago lupulina L. -0.01
Medicago sativa L. 0.893.50
Melilotus officinalis (L.) Lam. -0.07
Monolepis nuttalliana (Schult.) Greene -<0.01
Pisum sativum L.-1.08
Poa annua L.* <0.01-
Polygonum aviculare L. 0.010.14
Polygonum convolvulus L. 0.136.70
Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) *0.81-
Salsola kali L. 2.7236.15
Salvia reflexa Hornem. 0.100.01
Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv. *0.130.05
Silene latifolia Poir. -<0.01
Sinapis arvensis L. -2.23
Sisymbrium altissimum L. -0.04
Solanum triflorum Nutt. -<0.01
Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. 0.340.04
Thlaspi arvense L. -1.31
Tragopogon dubius Scop.<0.01-
Trifolium sp.-<0.01
Triticum aestivum L. *-3.50
Unknown (dicot) sp.<0.010.81
Unknown (grass) sp. *<0.010.03
Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) Rauschert -0.63
Vicia americana Muhl. ex Willd. <0.010.43
* grasses.
Table
Table 3. Number of stems infested with Cephus cinctus, C. cinctus infested stems with parasitoids, stems cut by C. cinctus, and total number of stems observed in tilled organic and no-till conventional winter wheat fields in Big Sandy, Montana between 2013 and 2015. The table is adopted from Adhikari et al. [25].
Table 3. Number of stems infested with Cephus cinctus, C. cinctus infested stems with parasitoids, stems cut by C. cinctus, and total number of stems observed in tilled organic and no-till conventional winter wheat fields in Big Sandy, Montana between 2013 and 2015. The table is adopted from Adhikari et al. [25].
Farming SystemsInfested StemsParasitoidsCut StemsTotal Stems Observed
Conventional684373591835
Organic1955448969

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Adhikari, S.; Adhikari, A.; Weaver, D.K.; Bekkerman, A.; Menalled, F.D. Impacts of Agricultural Management Systems on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Highly Simplified Dryland Landscapes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3223. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113223

AMA Style

Adhikari S, Adhikari A, Weaver DK, Bekkerman A, Menalled FD. Impacts of Agricultural Management Systems on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Highly Simplified Dryland Landscapes. Sustainability. 2019; 11(11):3223. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113223

Chicago/Turabian Style

Adhikari, Subodh, Arjun Adhikari, David K. Weaver, Anton Bekkerman, and Fabian D. Menalled. 2019. "Impacts of Agricultural Management Systems on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Highly Simplified Dryland Landscapes" Sustainability 11, no. 11: 3223. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113223

APA Style

Adhikari, S., Adhikari, A., Weaver, D. K., Bekkerman, A., & Menalled, F. D. (2019). Impacts of Agricultural Management Systems on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Highly Simplified Dryland Landscapes. Sustainability, 11(11), 3223. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113223

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