Search

Floral plantings are promoted to foster ecological intensification of agriculture through provisioning of ecosystem services. However, a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of different floral plantings, their characteristics and consequences for crop yield is lacking. Here we quantified the impacts of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control (18 studies) and pollination services (17 studies) in adjacent crops in North America, Europe and New Zealand. Flower strips, but not hedgerows, enhanced pest control services in adjacent fields by 16% on average. However, effects on crop pollination and yield were more variable. Our synthesis identifies several important drivers of variability in effectiveness of plantings: pollination services declined exponentially with distance from plantings, and perennial and older flower strips with higher flowering plant diversity enhanced pollination more effectively. These findings provide promising pathways to optimise floral plantings to more effectively contribute to ecosystem service delivery and ecological intensification of agriculture in the future., Our quantitative synthesis of the impacts of floral plantings on pest control, crop pollination and yield reveals that flower strips, but not hedgerows, enhanced pest control services in adjacent fields by 16% on average, while effects on crop pollination and yield were more variable. Our synthesis identifies several important drivers of this variability in effectiveness of plantings: pollination services declined exponentially with distance from plantings, and perennial and older flower strips with higher flowering plant diversity enhanced pollination more effectively, with important implications for the the design and implementation of these measures to effectively promote ecological intensification of agriculture in the future

Mass-flowering crops (MFCs) are increasingly cultivated and might influence pollinator communities in MFC fields and nearby semi-natural habitats (SNHs). Across six European regions and 2 years, we assessed how landscape-scale cover of MFCs affected pollinator densities in 408 MFC fields and adjacent SNHs. In MFC fields, densities of bumblebees, solitary bees, managed honeybees and hoverflies were negatively related to the cover of MFCs in the landscape. In SNHs, densities of bumblebees declined with increasing cover of MFCs but densities of honeybees increased. The densities of all pollinators were generally unrelated to the cover of SNHs in the landscape. Although MFC fields apparently attracted pollinators from SNHs, in landscapes with large areas of MFCs they became diluted. The resulting lower densities might negatively affect yields of pollinator-dependent crops and the reproductive success of wild plants. An expansion of MFCs needs to be accompanied by pollinator-supporting practices in agricultural landscapes., The study was funded by the EU FP7 project “Status and Trends of European Pollinators” (244 090, www.STEP-project.net) and Biodiversa‐FACCE project “Enhancing biodiversity‐based ecosystem services to crops through optimised densities of green infrastructure in agricultural landscapes” (PCIN‐2014‐048, http://www.cec.lu.se/research/ecodeal). JPGV and MV acknowledge support from the Severo Ochoa Program for Centres of Excellence in R+D+I (SEV‐2012‐0262), and FLORMAS (CGL 2012‐33801). JBW, VJW, SGP and SPMR acknowledge the support of Insect Pollinators Initiative research funded jointly by a grant from BBSRC, Defra, NERC, the Scottish Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the Living with Environmental Change Partnership. HGS and RB were supported by the Swedish Research Council FORMAS. JS and DK were supported by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (BO‐11‐011.01‐011 and KB‐14‐003‐006), AH and ISD were supported by the DFG Collaborative Research Centre 1047 Insect timing, and ISD and MD through the 2013–2014 BiodivERsA/FACCE – JPI project Ecodeal with national funding from BMBF.

Understanding the negative and positive effects of agricultural land use for the conservation of biodiversity, and its relation to ecosystem services, needs a landscape perspective. Agriculture can contribute to the conservation of high-diversity systems, which may provide important ecosystem services such as pollination and biological control via complementarity and sampling effects. Land-use management is often focused on few species and local processes, but in dynamic, agricultural landscapes, only a diversity of insurance species may guarantee resilience (the capacity to reorganize after disturbance). Interacting species experience their surrounding landscape at different spatial scales, which influences trophic interactions. Structurally complex landscapes enhance local diversity in agroecosystems, which may compensate for local high-intensity management. Organisms with high-dispersal abilities appear to drive these biodiversity patterns and ecosystem services, because of their recolonization ability and larger resources experienced. Agri-environment schemes (incentives for farmers to benefit the environment) need to broaden their perspective and to take the different responses to schemes in simple (high impact) and complex (low impact) agricultural landscapes into account. In simple landscapes, local allocation of habitat is more important than in complex landscapes, which are in total at risk. However, little knowledge of the relative importance of local and landscape management for biodiversity and its relation to ecosystem services make reliable recommendations difficult.