scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Stephen D. Wratten

Bio: Stephen D. Wratten is an academic researcher from Lincoln University (New Zealand). The author has contributed to research in topics: Ecosystem services & Agriculture. The author has an hindex of 39, co-authored 107 publications receiving 8494 citations. Previous affiliations of Stephen D. Wratten include University of Southampton & Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The rapidly expanding literature on habitat management is reviewed with attention to practices for favoring predators and parasitoids, implementation of habitat management, and the contributions of modeling and ecological theory to this developing area of conservation biological control.
Abstract: ▪ Abstract Many agroecosystems are unfavorable environments for natural enemies due to high levels of disturbance. Habitat management, a form of conservation biological control, is an ecologically based approach aimed at favoring natural enemies and enhancing biological control in agricultural systems. The goal of habitat management is to create a suitable ecological infrastructure within the agricultural landscape to provide resources such as food for adult natural enemies, alternative prey or hosts, and shelter from adverse conditions. These resources must be integrated into the landscape in a way that is spatially and temporally favorable to natural enemies and practical for producers to implement. The rapidly expanding literature on habitat management is reviewed with attention to practices for favoring predators and parasitoids, implementation of habitat management, and the contributions of modeling and ecological theory to this developing area of conservation biological control. The potential to int...

2,705 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the existence of a hierarchy for the types of benefits of increased biodiversity is discussed, and the ways in which agricultural biodiversity may be increased to favour pest management are examined.

482 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Matteo Dainese1, Emily A. Martin1, Marcelo A. Aizen2, Matthias Albrecht, Ignasi Bartomeus3, Riccardo Bommarco4, Luísa G. Carvalheiro5, Luísa G. Carvalheiro6, Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer7, Vesna Gagic8, Lucas Alejandro Garibaldi9, Jaboury Ghazoul10, Heather Grab11, Mattias Jonsson4, Daniel S. Karp12, Christina M. Kennedy13, David Kleijn14, Claire Kremen15, Douglas A. Landis16, Deborah K. Letourneau17, Lorenzo Marini18, Katja Poveda11, Romina Rader19, Henrik G. Smith20, Teja Tscharntke21, Georg K.S. Andersson20, Isabelle Badenhausser22, Isabelle Badenhausser23, Svenja Baensch21, Antonio Diego M. Bezerra24, Felix J.J.A. Bianchi14, Virginie Boreux25, Virginie Boreux10, Vincent Bretagnolle23, Berta Caballero-López, Pablo Cavigliasso26, Aleksandar Ćetković27, Natacha P. Chacoff28, Alice Classen1, Sarah Cusser29, Felipe D. da Silva e Silva30, G. Arjen de Groot14, Jan H. Dudenhöffer31, Johan Ekroos20, Thijs P.M. Fijen14, Pierre Franck22, Breno Magalhães Freitas24, Michael P.D. Garratt32, Claudio Gratton33, Juliana Hipólito9, Juliana Hipólito34, Andrea Holzschuh1, Lauren Hunt35, Aaron L. Iverson11, Shalene Jha36, Tamar Keasar37, Tania N. Kim38, Miriam Kishinevsky37, Björn K. Klatt21, Björn K. Klatt20, Alexandra-Maria Klein25, Kristin M. Krewenka39, Smitha Krishnan10, Smitha Krishnan40, Ashley E. Larsen41, Claire Lavigne22, Heidi Liere42, Bea Maas43, Rachel E. Mallinger44, Eliana Martinez Pachon, Alejandra Martínez-Salinas45, Timothy D. Meehan46, Matthew G. E. Mitchell15, Gonzalo Alberto Roman Molina47, Maike Nesper10, Lovisa Nilsson20, Megan E. O'Rourke48, Marcell K. Peters1, Milan Plećaš27, Simon G. Potts33, Davi de L. Ramos, Jay A. Rosenheim12, Maj Rundlöf20, Adrien Rusch49, Agustín Sáez2, Jeroen Scheper14, Matthias Schleuning, Julia Schmack50, Amber R. Sciligo51, Colleen L. Seymour, Dara A. Stanley52, Rebecca Stewart20, Jane C. Stout53, Louis Sutter, Mayura B. Takada54, Hisatomo Taki, Giovanni Tamburini25, Matthias Tschumi, Blandina Felipe Viana55, Catrin Westphal21, Bryony K. Willcox19, Stephen D. Wratten56, Akira Yoshioka57, Carlos Zaragoza-Trello3, Wei Zhang58, Yi Zou59, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter1 
University of Würzburg1, National University of Comahue2, Spanish National Research Council3, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences4, University of Lisbon5, Universidade Federal de Goiás6, Stanford University7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, National University of Río Negro9, ETH Zurich10, Cornell University11, University of California, Davis12, The Nature Conservancy13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, University of British Columbia15, Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center16, University of California, Santa Cruz17, University of Padua18, University of New England (Australia)19, Lund University20, University of Göttingen21, Institut national de la recherche agronomique22, University of La Rochelle23, Federal University of Ceará24, University of Freiburg25, Concordia University Wisconsin26, University of Belgrade27, National University of Tucumán28, Michigan State University29, University of Brasília30, University of Greenwich31, University of Reading32, University of Wisconsin-Madison33, National Institute of Amazonian Research34, Boise State University35, University of Texas at Austin36, University of Haifa37, Kansas State University38, University of Hamburg39, Bioversity International40, University of California, Santa Barbara41, Seattle University42, University of Vienna43, University of Florida44, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza45, National Audubon Society46, University of Buenos Aires47, Virginia Tech48, University of Bordeaux49, University of Auckland50, University of California, Berkeley51, University College Dublin52, Trinity College, Dublin53, University of Tokyo54, Federal University of Bahia55, Lincoln University (New Zealand)56, National Institute for Environmental Studies57, International Food Policy Research Institute58, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University59
TL;DR: Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change is partitioned.
Abstract: Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.

434 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify five hypotheses for when and why natural habitat can fail to support biological pest control, and illustrate each with case studies from the literature: (1) pest populations have no effective natural enemies in the region, (2) natural habitat is a greater source of pests than natural enemies, (3) crops provide more resources for natural enemies than does natural habitat, (4) natural habitats is insufficient in amount, proximity, composition, or configuration to provide large enough enemy populations needed for pest control and (5) agricultural practices counteract enemy establishment and bioc

400 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Analysis of the largest pest-control database of its kind 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.
Abstract: 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.

398 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols used xiii 1.
Abstract: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

14,171 citations

Journal Article
Fumio Tajima1
30 Oct 1989-Genomics
TL;DR: It is suggested that the natural selection against large insertion/deletion is so weak that a large amount of variation is maintained in a population.

11,521 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A new and simple method to find indicator species and species assemblages characterizing groups of sites, and a new way to present species-site tables, accounting for the hierarchical relationships among species, is proposed.
Abstract: This paper presents a new and simple method to find indicator species and species assemblages characterizing groups of sites The novelty of our approach lies in the way we combine a species relative abundance with its relative frequency of occurrence in the various groups of sites This index is maximum when all individuals of a species are found in a single group of sites and when the species occurs in all sites of that group; it is a symmetric indicator The statistical significance of the species indicator values is evaluated using a randomization procedure Contrary to TWINSPAN, our indicator index for a given species is independent of the other species relative abundances, and there is no need to use pseudospecies The new method identifies indicator species for typologies of species releves obtained by any hierarchical or nonhierarchical classification procedure; its use is independent of the classification method Because indicator species give ecological meaning to groups of sites, this method provides criteria to compare typologies, to identify where to stop dividing clusters into subsets, and to point out the main levels in a hierarchical classification of sites Species can be grouped on the basis of their indicator values for each clustering level, the heterogeneous nature of species assemblages observed in any one site being well preserved Such assemblages are usually a mixture of eurytopic (higher level) and stenotopic species (characteristic of lower level clusters) The species assemblage approach demonstrates the importance of the ''sampled patch size,'' ie, the diversity of sampled ecological combinations, when we compare the frequencies of core and satellite species A new way to present species-site tables, accounting for the hierarchical relationships among species, is proposed A large data set of carabid beetle distributions in open habitats of Belgium is used as a case study to illustrate the new method

7,449 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: As an example of how the current "war on terrorism" could generate a durable civic renewal, Putnam points to the burst in civic practices that occurred during and after World War II, which he says "permanently marked" the generation that lived through it and had a "terrific effect on American public life over the last half-century."
Abstract: The present historical moment may seem a particularly inopportune time to review Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam's latest exploration of civic decline in America. After all, the outpouring of volunteerism, solidarity, patriotism, and self-sacrifice displayed by Americans in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks appears to fly in the face of Putnam's central argument: that \"social capital\" -defined as \"social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them\" (p. 19)'has declined to dangerously low levels in America over the last three decades. However, Putnam is not fazed in the least by the recent effusion of solidarity. Quite the contrary, he sees in it the potential to \"reverse what has been a 30to 40-year steady decline in most measures of connectedness or community.\"' As an example of how the current \"war on terrorism\" could generate a durable civic renewal, Putnam points to the burst in civic practices that occurred during and after World War II, which he says \"permanently marked\" the generation that lived through it and had a \"terrific effect on American public life over the last half-century.\" 3 If Americans can follow this example and channel their current civic

5,309 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the negative and positive effects of agricultural land use for the conservation of biodiversity, and its relation to ecosystem services, need a landscape perspective, which is difficult to be found in the literature.
Abstract: Understanding the negative and positive effects of agricultural land use for the conservation of biodiversity, and its relation to ecosystem services, needs a landscape perspective. Agriculture can contribute to the conservation of high-diversity systems, which may provide important ecosystem services such as pollination and biological control via complementarity and sampling effects. Land-use management is often focused on few species and local processes, but in dynamic, agricultural landscapes, only a diversity of insurance species may guarantee resilience (the capacity to reorganize after disturbance). Interacting species experience their surrounding landscape at different spatial scales, which influences trophic interactions. Structurally complex landscapes enhance local diversity in agroecosystems, which may compensate for local high-intensity management. Organisms with high-dispersal abilities appear to drive these biodiversity patterns and ecosystem services, because of their recolonization ability and larger resources experienced. Agri-environment schemes (incentives for farmers to benefit the environment) need to broaden their perspective and to take the different responses to schemes in simple (high impact) and complex (low impact) agricultural landscapes into account. In simple landscapes, local allocation of habitat is more important than in complex landscapes, which are in total at risk. However, little knowledge of the relative importance of local and landscape management for biodiversity and its relation to ecosystem services make reliable recommendations difficult.

3,460 citations