Economic benefits of conservation biocontrol: A spatially explicit bioeconomic model for insect pest management in agricultural landscapes

Spatially explicit population dynamic models have been successfully used to explore management scenarios in terms of pest suppression across a wide range of systems. However, the economic implications of pest management, particularly in the case of biological control and non-crop management strategies, have not been well considered. A bioeconomic spatially explicit simulation model was developed, that integrates models of pest population dynamics, pest movement and economics of management. The utility of the model is demonstrated here using Nysius vinitor, a pest of grain crops in Australia. The model estimates the short- and long-term economic benefits of three pest management strategies: (1) in-field pesticide spray; (2) pest suppression through weed management in non-crop habitat; and (3) bolstering biocontrol through revegetation with, or maintenance of, native vegetation. Across all management types, high yield and low relative management cost resulted in a greater chance of a gross profit. The impacts of the pests themselves were shown to be non-linear, with an intermediate level of pest pressure maximizing the economic gain from management. Pest dispersal capacity influenced the profitability of management of non-crop vegetation, with lower pest dispersal resulting in a greater likelihood of benefit, as benefits from non-crop management are localized (e.g., increased beneficial insect populations). In an intensively cropped landscape, pesticide management was most profitable over the short-term. Once a 10-year horizon was reached, then the profitability of revegetation was greater and continued to increase. While weeding requirements are low, it is likely to always be profitable in the long-term to maintain or restore native vegetation in good condition to control this pest in an intensively cropped landscape. Using pesticide alongside revegetation gave some short-term gain, but the negative impact of pesticide on beneficials outweighed the benefit and in the long-term it is less profitable. These results do not hold in a low production landscape, due to increased pest pressure and costs of managing non-crop habitat. In summary, when quantified over a 10–20 year time horizon, revegetation or conserving native remnants in good (i.e., non-weedy) condition could be economically more beneficial to control an insect pest than ongoing pesticide use, in intensively cropped landscapes.