Additionally, as the amount of land in cropland increases, opportunities for invasion or refuge from pesticide applications may be reduced, thus leading to a negative effect of landscape simplification on pesticide use. Three recent reviews of empirical, landscape-scale ecological studies evaluating the effect of landscape complexity on insect pests reported similarly equivocal results, with some studies finding reduced pest pressure, pest abundance, or pest diversity, whereas others find no relationship or the opposite relationships . The variability in the literature may reflect the inadequacy of current study designs to disentangle the net effect of landscape simplification on pesticide use. Confounding variables, such as crop type, or endogenously determined variables, such as farm size or income, could give misleading results if not properly controlled for. Alternatively, studies that are small scale or over short time periods may miss important underlying drivers of pest abundance. Pests disperse large distances, both naturally and aided by the movement of people and goods. Agricultural pests are thus likely governed in large part by meta population processes . Within an agricultural landscape pests may go locally extinct from crop patches because of pesticide use or because of stochasticity influencing small populations, only to be recolonized from a persistent meta population existing in the surrounding agricultural matrix or from a new invasion into the system. Natural enemies too may require resources outside of individual crop fields for alternative prey and shelter for overwintering or from disturbances, such as pesticide application or harvest . Furthermore,dutch buckets the periodic disturbance of crop fields may disrupt predator–prey dynamics by reducing natural enemies directly or by temporarily reducing pest populations to the level below which predators can be supported.
As a result of pest and natural enemy dispersal and immigration, the effect of local processes on regional abundances may be small, despite large effects on within-field abundances. Thus, small-scale studies that fail to account for the landscape-scale dynamics of agricultural pests and their natural enemies could result in spurious associations of what promotes or limits pest abundance. For these reasons, landscape-scale studies provide the best insight into the effect of habitat simplification on pests . Beyond meta population dynamics and trophic interactions, invasion and spread of insect pests and natural enemies are partly stochastic processes influenced by yearly environmental conditions and by the timing of insect pest and natural enemy arrival . Thus, temporal scale may be equally as important as spatial scale to disentangle the effects of landscape simplification on pest abundance. For example, a heat wave at the right time of the growing season may result in widespread pest mortality and high crop yields, whereas a heat wave at a different time of the season may stress crops, making them more susceptible to pest outbreak but having little effect on the pests themselves. This variability over time could appear like ambivalent results of landscape simplification when it is instead the result of the interaction between insect pests and weather. If we are to mitigate the effects of pesticide use on both human health and ecological systems, it is necessary to understand the underlying abiotic or biotic factors resulting in differences in pesticide use. Here I take advantage of longitudinal data from the US Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture to revisit whether landscape simplification is a consistent driver of insecticide use. I perform cross-sectional analyses for five USDA census years in seven Midwestern US states at the county level. I follow this with a panel data analysis using a fixed-effects model, which identifies the effect of landscape simplification on insecticide use using year-to-year variation within counties.
I specifically focus on insecticides in these states to compare this multiyear analysis with a recent single-year study by Meehan et al. . I check the robustness of these results by comparing data from the USDA Census of Agriculture to the National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer , and check different selection criteria for included counties. I compare these results to that of Meehan et al. , who used the same data sources and model specifications for 2007 only, and find that incorporating multiple years of data as I do here provides insights impossible to glean from a single data year.Annual expenditure on insecticides is over 4 billion dollars in the United States , which equates to the use of almost 100 million pounds of active ingredients . Given the many health and environmental consequences related to insecticide exposure, it is critical to understand what farm, landscape, or environmental characteristics drive the insect pests that motivate insecticide use. It has long been thought that landscape simplification is one of these characteristics. Reviews of empirical evidence for this theory have been largely inconclusive , although a recent statistical analysis of the Midwestern United States in 2007 found a strong, positive relationship between landscape simplification and insecticide use . Here I analyzed data from five USDA Census of Agriculture years using cross-sectional and fixed-effects models. The cross sectional results show that landscape simplification does not consistently drive higher insecticide use. Although the coefficient on proportion of county in cropland, my metric for landscape simplification, is positive and significant in the 2007 analyses, that relationship is absent or reversed in prior census years. Furthermore, adjacent census years, such as 2002–2007 and 1992– 1997, show large changes in the magnitude and changes in significance of the landscape-simplification coefficient.It is evident that the drivers of insecticide use may not be easily or reliably identified using single time-period studies. Using a fixed-effects model to remove unobserved characteristics, I find a non-significant relationship between landscape simplification and proportion of county in cropland. Counter intuitively, these results suggest that as cropland increases, the proportion of cropland sprayed with insecticides is unaffected.
The existence of a null relationship between landscape simplification and insecticide use is not unlike the results of Hutchison et al. , who reported large reductions in the European corn borer in non-Bacillus thuringiensis corn as a positive externality from B. thuringiensis corn plantings. Although pesticides may have negative effects on public health, biodiversity, and ecosystem services,grow bucket the application of pesticides by a nearby farm may reduce pest incidence on surrounding farms because of pesticide drift or pest suppression . Additionally, as the amount of land in cropland increases, opportunities for invasion from natural or untreated areas may be reduced. As a result of landscape simplification, natural lands have been isolated to farm boundaries, fallow lands, or wood lots . Numerous ecological studies have found that these fragmented natural or less intensively managed areas can act as a source for natural enemies and pest species that recolonize species poor crop fields . If the cost of pest invasion is greater than the benefits of natural enemy pest suppression stemming from non-crop land, these habitats can have a net negative impact on the farmer in terms of pest control. The above mechanisms may explain why a null relationship is observed in the fixed-effects model; however, they do not account for the importance of year. What could explain the wild variation in the landscape simplification coefficient in the cross sectional analyses and why year fixed effects are so important? There are a number of drivers that could be behind the year-to year variability, and deciphering which mechanism is at play is critical because different policy measures are needed to address different types of drivers. For example, a stochastic driver such as weather could be the culprit. Insect development is strongly influenced by weather conditions, such as temperature and precipitation, and thus yearly differences in these or other environmental conditions could have an important effect on insecticide demand and the relationship between landscape simplification and insecticide use. Preliminary analysis indicates that the effect of weather on this relationship is complex. [Preliminary analysis using growing season precipitation and degree days based on the National Climatic Data Center Global Historical Climatology Network Daily file does not explain the variation in the cross-sectional relationship between landscape simplification and insecticide use.] This finding may be because the timing of pest arrival relative to the growing season may determine the likelihood of pest outbreaks and the benefits of applying insecticides . Furthermore, temperature and precipitation affect the survival and development of different pests differently, and thus which pests and enemies are present may determine the effect of weather on the relationship between landscape simplification and insecticide use. Refined data on pest outbreaks or type and timing of insecticide use are currently not available for the study area examined. However, the development of such data or further empirical study focusing on abiotic conditions would greatly increase our understanding of the link between weather events and insect outbreaks, and thus increase our ability to forecast variation in insecticide use both now and under future climate change. It is also conceivable that the change in the relationship between landscape simplification and insecticide use between 2007 and all previous years reflects a systematic and predictable trend in insecticide use. For example, in 1996 there was a major change in the regulation of pesticides in the form of the Food Quality Protection Act .
FQPA prompted the reevaluation of all registered pesticides, and promoted the use of more selective, less persistent “reduced-risk” pesticides via a fast-track registration process . FQPA could affect the relationship between landscape simplification and insecticide use because insecticides that are effective against a multitude of insect pests and persist in the environment for longer periods of time may have provided higher positive externalities to surrounding crop fields, thus necessitating less insecticide use in landscapes dominated by agricultural fields. The implementation of FQPA and the resulting use restrictions took 10 y, and phasing out of certain chemicals is still in progress . Because changes in available insecticides were occurring between 1996 and 2007, it is difficult to statistically evaluate the effect of FQPA on the results reported here. Future Census’ of Agriculture or more refined insecticide data that include information on the active ingredient in use could elucidate how policy changes are interacting with the relationship between landscape simplification and insecticide use. Agriculture has vast impacts on the Earth’s environment and these impacts are only expected to grow as demand increases in the coming decades . The challenge, as Balmford et al. discuss, is how to meet the increasing demand with the least effect on native biodiversity and the ecosystem services intact ecosystems provide. There are various advantages and disadvantages to whether increased demand should be met by increased intensity of farming on current agricultural land or by increased land conversion to agriculture to be farmed with more biologically harmonious farming methods . In the Midwestern United States, it appears that land-sparing at the county level does not lead to consistent increases in the proportion of cropland treated with insecticides. However, without understanding what is behind the year-to-year variation in the relationship between landscape simplification and insecticide use, it is impossible to predict how land sharing or land-sparing as a policy initiative would affect insecticide use in the future. As suggested by this study and recent empirical reviews , the presence and direction of the relationship between landscape simplification and insecticide use can be positive, negative, or null. If this variation is driven by variation in yearly weather, whether simplified landscapes cause more or less insecticide use could flip flop unpredictably. If the variation is driven by extreme weather or weather characteristics that will be altered with climate change, perhaps there will be some directionality. If the relationship between landscape simplification and insecticide use is an indirect consequence of management policies, perhaps 2007 is a glimpse of the future. The data available are currently inadequate to decipher the underlying mechanisms. However, given the different policy implications of a stochastic driver, such as weather, versus a predictable driver, such as regulatory change, developing the necessary data sources to tease apart the underlying causes is imperative. Perhaps most importantly, this study emphasizes the need for longer-term research agendas, especially when investigating a politically, economically, and ecologically important question, such as insecticide or pesticide use.