Arthropod functions and processes in SHF agrosystems were mostly related to pests, either their damage or their control.For instance, articles reported arthropod-related damages concerning herbivory on plants and consumption of stored grains , while potential of pest control by natural enemies was studied through parasitism and predation processes.Besides, pollination and hive-related products represented 15.35% and 6.14% of the investigated functions, respectively.These were studied to illustrate changes in knowledge and practices and potential benefits from pollinators.The remaining ES include education, medicinal, cultural or heritage services, and a lower proportion of services related to soil processes , bioindicator species, handcraft manufacturing or direct selling.These ES were considered through educational purposes and to examine the links between farmers’ knowledge and decision-making.Jointly studied functions were mainly “crop pest and pest control” and, to a lesser extent, “pollinator-related services and educational and cultural services”.A low proportion of the reviewed literature assessed more than three functions together, often associated to cultural services or crossroads between cultural and regulating services.Three main categories accounted for the most studies on crop damage, pest control and pollination.
The most studied taxa belonged to the hymenoptera , either as natural enemies , pollinators or pests.Furthermore, many arthropod taxa were studied in intercropping systems,ebb flow trays stressing the key part of landscape heterogeneity in smallholder farming.Only 4.9% of all articles assessed the management of both pollinators and natural enemies and/or pests.Except for integrated pest management , options that represented combined forms of different arthropod management were rarely evaluated in the same study.Regarding management practices, farmers’ strategies to improve an ES or counter an EDS mostly concerned chemical, organic and cultural practices for pest and habitat management.Most of them were related to pest control and implied pesticide applications.Nevertheless, several management strategies sought to improve environmental quality of agroecosystems.Arthropod management included traditional practices mostly by habitat management.Other common strategies were related to storage facilities and pest control.Overall, 40.2% of articles addressed farmers’ perceptions, actions and/or knowledge related to arthropods in SHF.Research covering farmers’ knowledge or perceptions was mainly carried on cultural services , especially for pollinator-related services.In contrast, farmers’ knowledge or perception was not prevalent in common agricultural services like pollination or pest-related functions.Very few studies addressed farmers’ point of view on processes related to soil and to species as bioindicators.Overall, farmers’ opinion and knowledge was poorly considered as 73.8% of all articles had a participation index scoring 0 or 1.In particular, farmers were poorly involved in the identification or survey processes: 78.2% of the 1264 taxa registered in the 122 articles were studied without local stakeholders.Farmers’ involvement was mainly passive through surveys or on-field sampling, and mostly aimed at collecting agronomic data, without consideration of their viewpoint in research questions or methods definitions.
Furthermore, 17.2% of articles did not report any or not explicitly mention farmer’s involvement within the research process.In this review, we evaluated current literature on arthropod-related services and disservices in smallholder systems.Despite an increasing number of studies focusing on insect-related services in the last decades , we found that only 9.0% of the arthropod literature concerned agricultural systems.Even more challenging, only 0.34% of the search outputs referred to SHF, albeit 84% of the world’s farms are small-holding, operating on about 12% of the world’s land.These results are in line with recent findings pointing that agricultural ES research is strongly biased towards large scale intensive farming landscapes and temperate biomes in HICs.This review is subject to limitations inherent to the chosen scope and focus on recent literature.In addition, it is likely that some SHF studies from L&MIC may not be published in indexed peer-reviewed journals but rather in technical reports or local academic canals, keeping several potentially relevant documents out of our scope.Similarly, despite a multilingual search, we might have omitted several references, particularly from the Asian continent, which is a limitation commonly reported in the literature.Most studied functions concerned pest, which reflects the longstanding negative view of arthropod roles in agroecosystems.In most cases, arthropods were studied only as pests or pest antagonists with no consideration of other ecological roles they could play.However, as smallholders’ actions may be driven mainly by EDS reduction , the negative impacts of these actions on ES supply should also be taken into account.
A few studies assessed floral visitors as potential enhancers of yield but almost none considered both pest control strategies and the maintenance of beneficial insects.Moving in that direction, Integrated Pest Management strategies could be adjusted for pollinator protection practices along with other beneficial arthropods for the agroecosystem.This relatively new paradigm of integrated pest and pollinator management merges both the welfare of all pollinators into the crop pest protection programs and benefits of alternative pollinators into crop production.IPPM can fit smallholder farming sustainable objectives as it intends to minimize trade-offs between ES and EDS, and to maximize co-benefits and synergies from insect management.However, any application of these principles calls for extensive transdisciplinary research among scientists, farmers and stakeholders in order to develop collectively onfield trials and monitoring instruments, but also to co-design decision support tools and evaluation of IPPM adoption.In the reviewed literature, arthropods were mainly studied separately along the food production process.However, agricultural ES and EDS require a wider consideration of the different crop stages, including management of harvested products as well as crop and non-crop habitats.This is especially important for ES and EDS related to arthropods whose life cycles often encompass both cultivated and natural habitats.The lack of a landscape level consideration may hamper farmers’ actions and proper management strategies.Indeed, the majority of reviewed papers presented pest management through chemical pesticide applications in the different crop system components while more sustainable management of traditional SHF requires a multidimensional view of the system.
Farmers aware of the role of the entomofauna at the landscape level could lower pesticide use, even if their awareness is oriented towards phenomena they observe in their fields or storages.Indeed, various articles raised the importance of increasing the entomological literacy of farmers, for example through training programs on pollinators , to achieve sustainable management actions in SHF.Arthropods also support social practices and cultural values by enabling the identification and analysis of changes in intergenerational transmission of knowledge.We found few studies focusing on how farmers’ knowledge is linked to arthropod-related ES.A similar trend was documented by Rawluk & Saunders who pointed at the scarcity of documentation of farmers’ knowledge on beneficial insects’ biology or ecology in agroecosystems.Farmer’s knowledge or perception mainly concerned pest-related functions because of the strong interdependence of smallholder farming on pest threats and risks.This makes control techniques essential to increase productivity while dealing with harsh environmental conditions.The few articles directly engaging emic local knowledge systems on arthropod-related ES dealt primarily with bees’ handling.These practices cover a broad range of cultural, medicinal or educational services that contribute to empowering bio-cultural diversity and endogenous development.These relationships would be worth studying further and together with other services or disservices to assess potential trade offs and synergies in the agricultural system.The objectives of most articles were either to identify and/or study the biology/ecology of arthropod species providing specific ES.However,4×8 flood tray several articles reported farmers being unable to recognize or identify arthropods and/ or their functions correctly , leading to inappropriate arthropod management.Furthermore, local beliefs in spontaneous generation can substitute concepts of insect reproduction and metamorphosis cycles.
These statements illustrate the mismatch between scientific and local knowledge that can be detrimental to cope with agronomic problems.Most farmers have a remarkable experiential knowledge of several elements in their agricultural landscapes resulting from long-term human-agrobiodiversity interactions.However, certain aspects might be difficult or impossible to observe such as the morphological differences between immature stages of two different pest species or the predatory behavior of small parasitic wasps of crop herbivores.This may affect farmers’ understanding of pest damage and bio-control.For example, farmers can easily observe that insect pests may be preyed upon by vertebrates but not by other insects or microorganisms.Likewise, farmers might over-react to certain pests that cause sub-economic damages or may perceive non-pest species as threatening.Misidentification remains the main issue reported in the literature, either for species names or for their ecological functions.On the other hand, even professional entomologists may have a limited knowledge on the taxonomy and ecology of many arthropods living in tropical SHS.It is therefore mandatory to reinforce transdisciplinary research by fostering the complementarity between local and scientific knowledge for arthropod management in SHF.The recognition of local classifications could be an opportunity to build synergies between knowledge systems and generate a common vision of arthropod communities.In the reviewed literature, scientists made the vast majority of taxonomic identifications, asking farmers subsequently to recognize them and then evaluate/validate their knowledge.Very few studies proceeded to recognize local categories and how arthropods were locally classified or named.This perspective widens the gaps between scientific and farmer knowledge, potentially affecting the effective implementation of more sustainable agriculture practices.Among the great diversity of insect species, farmers may name a set of organisms by a single term, even when they are not related species.Ethnoentomological studies have shown that a lack of name designation does not always reflect a missing category, as when a combination of words or concepts encompasses adjacent categories.Folk entomological classifications include cultural, social and ecological dimensions to differentiate life-forms based on morphologic, biological, behavior, utilitarian and psycho-emotional criteria.Thus, involving folk and farmers’ knowledge systems that differ from the taxonomic systems may allow broadening the scope of research in the direction of knowledge co-construction through.This may be achieved through the development of collective referential categories between scientific and folk knowledge systems or through a monitoring of knowledge changes.Including emic knowledge and intrinsic value of entomofauna in SHF may also help to better understand their socio-ecological roles in the agroecosystem, as proposed for pollinators and natural enemies.
While several authors recognized the importance of including farmers in agroecosystem ES and EDS studies, our review shows that questions related to local knowledge remained of limited interest for researchers.Poor participation of farmers and local people is a persistent problem in agricultural ES research and may have long-term implications to link different types of experience around a common problem.Applying transdisciplinary research concepts and methods may address this issue by favoring the initial co-design and co-creation of collaboration frameworks and research questions, the bidirectional information fluxes between scientists and farmers and the building of a solution-oriented knowledge.In our review, only three studies out of 122 actively engaged farmers.These works documented the successful application of participatory approaches.For example by improving pest control networks Landis et al. report on capacity building on IPM practices for wheat, providing a common learning process for farmers, crop advisors, and students.Also Smith et al. proposed a coordinated pollinator management plan integrating both local and scientific knowledge while Christmann et al. investigated human values regarding friendly actions for pollinator protection by a participatory approach focusing on farmers decision making.Such initiatives may not only trigger large system change and achieve broader systemic impact on SHF but also catalyze sustainable agriculture transition process as it combines both knowledge and social processes among actors.Coronavirus disease 2019 is a highly contagious infectious disease threating global public health and has declared as a pandemic crisis around the world.The COVID-19 is caused by the most recently discovered coronavirus Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 which is under the family of Coronaviridae a large family of enveloped, positive-sense RNA viruses that are important pathogens of humans and other mammals.In 2003 and 2012, two deadly human Coronavirus , namely SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, have emerged respectively.Recently, the SARS-CoV-2 is a third new type of CoV, which is even more pathogenic, is straightening across the world in an unparalleled manner.In Bangladesh, the first-ever confirmed case was reported on March 8, 2020.In these contrast, several strategies have been executing to control the COVID-19, some of them concerning to the social distancing, hand washing, lockdown measures and etc..To combat against the COVID-19, it is essential to boost up the body immunity and animal originated protein and fiber enriched foods play a crucial role for this perseverance.In Bangladesh, about 37% of all animal protein meat consumption comes from poultry.Particularly, about 65–70 thousand commercial poultry farms are currently operating all over the country.Moreover, poultry rearing by women is common practice in almost all families in villages and plays a crucial role in self-employed and livelihood advancement of the poor women.