{"title":"并非所有的鸟都是一样的羽毛:园艺生态系统服务和危害的系统综述","authors":"Giuliana Caldeira Pires Ferrari, Karen Mason, Alastair Robertson, Isabel Castro","doi":"10.1111/aec.70110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Wild birds can provide essential benefits and cause significant harm in food production systems, commonly framed as ecosystem services and disservices, respectively. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on avian ecosystem services and disservices in horticultural systems, analysing 251 studies published between 1912 and 2023. Species richness and abundance were the most commonly used metrics. A total of 128 studies investigated ecosystem services, 109 addressed disservices, and only 22 considered both. Pest control (137 occurrences) and crop damage (120) were the dominant subjects within ecosystem services and disservices, respectively. However, crop damage was frequently reported without assessment, suggesting a confirmation bias towards birds as pests. The methods used to assess services and disservices were diverse, including species identification, damage and yield surveys, landscape analysis, experiments, published data, social surveys, laboratory techniques, and economic or ecological modelling. Despite this methodological diversity, most studies used only one or two approaches. Studies incorporating human-wildlife conflict were rare, despite their relevance for both conservation and horticultural management. This review reveals a bias towards studying avian contributions that are more easily measurable, such as pest control and crop damage, while more complex or less visible effects, such as pollination, disease control, or herbivore release, remain underexplored. As a result, birds' roles in horticultural systems are often understood in fragmented terms, potentially leading to ineffective or unjustified management decisions. A more holistic, species-focused, and integrative approach is needed to fully understand the trade-offs between ecosystem services and disservices. Such understanding is critical not only for enhancing the sustainability and productivity of food systems, but also for conserving wild birds in increasingly intensified agricultural landscapes.</p>","PeriodicalId":8663,"journal":{"name":"Austral Ecology","volume":"50 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aec.70110","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Not All Birds of the Same Feather: A Systematic Review of Ecosystem Services and Disservices in Horticulture\",\"authors\":\"Giuliana Caldeira Pires Ferrari, Karen Mason, Alastair Robertson, Isabel Castro\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aec.70110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Wild birds can provide essential benefits and cause significant harm in food production systems, commonly framed as ecosystem services and disservices, respectively. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on avian ecosystem services and disservices in horticultural systems, analysing 251 studies published between 1912 and 2023. Species richness and abundance were the most commonly used metrics. A total of 128 studies investigated ecosystem services, 109 addressed disservices, and only 22 considered both. Pest control (137 occurrences) and crop damage (120) were the dominant subjects within ecosystem services and disservices, respectively. However, crop damage was frequently reported without assessment, suggesting a confirmation bias towards birds as pests. The methods used to assess services and disservices were diverse, including species identification, damage and yield surveys, landscape analysis, experiments, published data, social surveys, laboratory techniques, and economic or ecological modelling. Despite this methodological diversity, most studies used only one or two approaches. Studies incorporating human-wildlife conflict were rare, despite their relevance for both conservation and horticultural management. This review reveals a bias towards studying avian contributions that are more easily measurable, such as pest control and crop damage, while more complex or less visible effects, such as pollination, disease control, or herbivore release, remain underexplored. As a result, birds' roles in horticultural systems are often understood in fragmented terms, potentially leading to ineffective or unjustified management decisions. A more holistic, species-focused, and integrative approach is needed to fully understand the trade-offs between ecosystem services and disservices. Such understanding is critical not only for enhancing the sustainability and productivity of food systems, but also for conserving wild birds in increasingly intensified agricultural landscapes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Austral Ecology\",\"volume\":\"50 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aec.70110\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Austral Ecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aec.70110\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Austral Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aec.70110","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Not All Birds of the Same Feather: A Systematic Review of Ecosystem Services and Disservices in Horticulture
Wild birds can provide essential benefits and cause significant harm in food production systems, commonly framed as ecosystem services and disservices, respectively. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on avian ecosystem services and disservices in horticultural systems, analysing 251 studies published between 1912 and 2023. Species richness and abundance were the most commonly used metrics. A total of 128 studies investigated ecosystem services, 109 addressed disservices, and only 22 considered both. Pest control (137 occurrences) and crop damage (120) were the dominant subjects within ecosystem services and disservices, respectively. However, crop damage was frequently reported without assessment, suggesting a confirmation bias towards birds as pests. The methods used to assess services and disservices were diverse, including species identification, damage and yield surveys, landscape analysis, experiments, published data, social surveys, laboratory techniques, and economic or ecological modelling. Despite this methodological diversity, most studies used only one or two approaches. Studies incorporating human-wildlife conflict were rare, despite their relevance for both conservation and horticultural management. This review reveals a bias towards studying avian contributions that are more easily measurable, such as pest control and crop damage, while more complex or less visible effects, such as pollination, disease control, or herbivore release, remain underexplored. As a result, birds' roles in horticultural systems are often understood in fragmented terms, potentially leading to ineffective or unjustified management decisions. A more holistic, species-focused, and integrative approach is needed to fully understand the trade-offs between ecosystem services and disservices. Such understanding is critical not only for enhancing the sustainability and productivity of food systems, but also for conserving wild birds in increasingly intensified agricultural landscapes.
期刊介绍:
Austral Ecology is the premier journal for basic and applied ecology in the Southern Hemisphere. As the official Journal of The Ecological Society of Australia (ESA), Austral Ecology addresses the commonality between ecosystems in Australia and many parts of southern Africa, South America, New Zealand and Oceania. For example many species in the unique biotas of these regions share common Gondwana ancestors. ESA''s aim is to publish innovative research to encourage the sharing of information and experiences that enrich the understanding of the ecology of the Southern Hemisphere.
Austral Ecology involves an editorial board with representatives from Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Brazil and Argentina. These representatives provide expert opinions, access to qualified reviewers and act as a focus for attracting a wide range of contributions from countries across the region.
Austral Ecology publishes original papers describing experimental, observational or theoretical studies on terrestrial, marine or freshwater systems, which are considered without taxonomic bias. Special thematic issues are published regularly, including symposia on the ecology of estuaries and soft sediment habitats, freshwater systems and coral reef fish.