IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v196y2022ics092180092200057x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Current status and economic value of insect-pollinated dependent crops in Latin America

Author

Listed:
  • Basualdo, Marina
  • Cavigliasso, Pablo
  • de Avila, Rubem Samuel
  • Aldea-Sánchez, Patricia
  • Correa-Benítez, Adriana
  • Harms, Jaime Martínez
  • Ramos, Ana Karen
  • Rojas-Bravo, Valeska
  • Salvarrey, Sheena

Abstract

Latin America (LA) plays an important role in the global food supply and dedicates a significant part of its surface to croplands. Current losses of wild and managed pollinators are a threat to agricultural production because the productivity of many crops depends on entomophilous pollination; thus, consequences could be significant for the development of regional economies. We assess the current importance of pollination service for the main crops of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay, which represent approximately 74% of the total surface of LA. Our study focused on three aspects, i) analyses of crops with varying degrees of pollinator dependence in terms of the harvested area and its yield, ii) estimation of economic value attributed to pollinators (EEV) and the vulnerability of each crop category, iii) characterization of the pollinator services provided by managed bees. Regional-level analyses showed that 58% of crops have essential and high dependence levels on insect pollination. LA produced 228.1 million tons of food that can be attributed directly to insect pollination, and an additional 33.9 million tons corresponds to crops that are not directly used for human food. The total production economic value of all crops dependent on pollination was US$ 77.82 billion, of which the economic value attributable to insect pollination was US$ 22.95 billion. Industrial crops and fruits were the leading crop category in the value of entomophilous pollination, followed by beverages, vegetables, hybrid seeds, citrus, and nuts. Crops occupy an area of 64.8 million hectares, 80% of which is used for soybean production, a clear sign of poor agricultural diversification, with Chile and Mexico being the countries with the highest degree of diversification. We estimated that hybrid seeds, fruits, and beverages whose productivity reached 44 million tons, are the most vulnerable to pollinator decline with 90, 64, and 44% vulnerability ratios. Our valuation demonstrates the vulnerability of agrosystems production, socioeconomic, and ecological terms.

Suggested Citation

  • Basualdo, Marina & Cavigliasso, Pablo & de Avila, Rubem Samuel & Aldea-Sánchez, Patricia & Correa-Benítez, Adriana & Harms, Jaime Martínez & Ramos, Ana Karen & Rojas-Bravo, Valeska & Salvarrey, Sheena, 2022. "Current status and economic value of insect-pollinated dependent crops in Latin America," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:196:y:2022:i:c:s092180092200057x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092200057X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107395?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Winfree, Rachael & Gross, Brian J. & Kremen, Claire, 2011. "Valuing pollination services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-88.
    2. Tom Breeze & Nicola Gallai & Lucas A. Garibaldi & Xui S. Li, 2016. "Economic Measures of Pollination Services: Shortcomings and Future Directions," Post-Print hal-01658289, HAL.
    3. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    4. Garibaldi, Lucas A. & Pérez-Méndez, Néstor, 2019. "Positive outcomes between crop diversity and agricultural employment worldwide," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aliz Feketéné Ferenczi & Isván Szűcs & Andrea Bauerné Gáthy, 2023. "Evaluation of the Pollination Ecosystem Service of the Honey Bee ( Apis mellifera ) Based on a Beekeeping Model in Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-14, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lippert, Christian & Feuerbacher, Arndt & Narjes, Manuel, 2021. "Revisiting the economic valuation of agricultural losses due to large-scale changes in pollinator populations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    2. Tremlett, Constance J. & Peh, Kelvin S.-H. & Zamora-Gutierrez, Veronica & Schaafsma, Marije, 2021. "Value and benefit distribution of pollination services provided by bats in the production of cactus fruits in central Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    3. Aliz Feketéné Ferenczi & Isván Szűcs & Andrea Bauerné Gáthy, 2023. "Evaluation of the Pollination Ecosystem Service of the Honey Bee ( Apis mellifera ) Based on a Beekeeping Model in Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-14, June.
    4. Rafaella Guimarães Porto & Rita Fernandes Almeida & Oswaldo Cruz-Neto & Marcelo Tabarelli & Blandina Felipe Viana & Carlos A. Peres & Ariadna Valentina Lopes, 2020. "Pollination ecosystem services: A comprehensive review of economic values, research funding and policy actions," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1425-1442, December.
    5. Mwebaze, Paul & Marris, Gay C. & Brown, Mike & MacLeod, Alan & Jones, Glyn & Budge, Giles E., 2018. "Measuring public perception and preferences for ecosystem services: A case study of bee pollination in the UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 355-362.
    6. Hong Zhang & Chao Han & Tom D. Breeze & Mengdan Li & Shibonage K. Mashilingi & Jun Hua & Wenbin Zhang & Xuebin Zhang & Shiwen Zhang & Jiandong An, 2022. "Bumblebee Pollination Enhances Yield and Flavor of Tomato in Gobi Desert Greenhouses," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Melathopoulos, Andony P. & Cutler, G. Christopher & Tyedmers, Peter, 2015. "Where is the value in valuing pollination ecosystem services to agriculture?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 59-70.
    8. Fleischer, Aliza & Shafir, Sharoni & Mandelik, Yael, 2013. "A proactive approach for assessing alternative management programs for an invasive alien pollinator species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 126-132.
    9. Breeze, T.D. & Bailey, A.P. & Potts, S.G. & Balcombe, K.G., 2015. "A stated preference valuation of the non-market benefits of pollination services in the UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 76-85.
    10. Bauer, Dana Marie & Sue Wing, Ian, 2016. "The macroeconomic cost of catastrophic pollinator declines," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-13.
    11. Hanley, Nick & Breeze, Tom D. & Ellis, Ciaran & Goulson, David, 2015. "Measuring the economic value of pollination services: Principles, evidence and knowledge gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 124-132.
    12. Elena Gazzea & Péter Batáry & Lorenzo Marini, 2023. "Global meta-analysis shows reduced quality of food crops under inadequate animal pollination," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.
    13. R. David Simpson, 2019. "Conservation Incentives from an Ecosystem Service: How Much Farmland Might Be Devoted to Native Pollinators?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 661-678, June.
    14. Qin Liu & Pei Xu & Kun Yan & Yingman Guo, 2019. "Pollination Services from Insects in Homegardens in the Chengdu Plain will be Confronted with Crises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, April.
    15. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    16. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    17. Nicholas W Calderone, 2012. "Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend Analysis of Aggregate Data for the Period 1992–2009," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-27, May.
    18. repec:idb:brikps:64718 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Ioannis Arzoumanidis & Andrea Raggi & Luigia Petti, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment of Honey: Considering the Pollination Service," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, March.
    20. Centner, Terence J. & Brewer, Brady & Leal, Isaac, 2018. "Reducing damages from sulfoxaflor use through mitigation measures to increase the protection of pollinator species," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 70-76.
    21. Margot Karlikow & Evan Amalfitano & Xiaolong Yang & Jennifer Doucet & Abigail Chapman & Peivand Sadat Mousavi & Paige Homme & Polina Sutyrina & Winston Chan & Sofia Lemak & Alexander F. Yakunin & Adam, 2023. "CRISPR-induced DNA reorganization for multiplexed nucleic acid detection," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:196:y:2022:i:c:s092180092200057x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.