Ecosystem disservices are underrepresented in literature on annual crop agroecosystems

Maximising ecosystem service (ES) benefits while minimising ecosystem disservices (EDS) is essential for ecological intensification in annual crop systems. Yet ecosystem disservices are often underreported in the scientific literature, potentially biasing how agroecosystem functioning is understood. To test this, we built a predicted network of plausible links between ecosystem service providers (taxa or functional groups that can deliver ecosystem services or disservices), and the ES or EDS they may provide. We then compared this with a realised network based on systematic Scopus searches of annual crop literature. The predicted network contained 47 nodes and 103 links, whereas the realised network contained 33 nodes and 58 links, representing declines of 29.8% in nodes and 43.7% in links. Overall connectivity declined, especially for highly connected nodes, and four of the nine predicted disservice nodes were absent from the literature. ES links were more likely to be documented than EDS links, and EDS links were three times more likely to be absent. Across all links, ES were reported in 6.6 times more papers than EDS. Projected networks, which map indirect connections by linking ES directly to EDS if they share common providers, showed that these bundled interactions were strongly reduced, obscuring multifunctionality and trade-offs. This systematic underrepresentation of EDS, reflecting a cognitive bias, can inflate perceived benefits, distort the evaluation of key taxa and interactions, and create unrealistic expectations about intervention outcomes in biological crop protection. Addressing EDS alongside ES is therefore essential for more balanced assessments of crop-system management and better-informed decisions.