If your neighbor cuts down the forest to raise some cows, or a vine climbs up a tree and chokes it out to access more sunlight, where’s the right or wrong there?
We already know how to produce enough food, new efforts to increase food production (other than coupled to some combination of local/global population change) are unnecessary (0). Therefore, destroying ecosystems and/or species to solve a a solved problem is at best less morally defensible.
The actions you've described are about food production, and thus I regard them as less morally defensible than things one might do to solve the problem of food distribution.
[0] I would note that we might still seek to change where food is produced, and what precise foods are produced, but I see that as a different question, mostly.
Destroying ecosystems and species rather than solving that problem seems a little .. well, short-sighted at best.