SignificanceDecades of research have fostered the now-prevalent assumption that noncrop habitat facilitates better pest suppression by providing shelter and food resources to the predators and parasitoids of crop pests. Based on our analysis of the largest pest-control database of its kind, noncrop habitat surrounding farm fields does affect multiple dimensions of pest control, but the actual responses of pests and enemies are highly variable across geographies and cropping systems. Because noncrop habitat often does not enhance biological control, more information about local farming contexts is needed before habitat conservation can be recommended as a viable pest-suppression strategy. Consequently, when pest control does not benefit from noncrop vegetation, farms will need to be carefully comanaged for competing conservation and production objectives.

Agriculture is being challenged to provide food, and increasingly fuel, for an expanding global population. Producing bioenergy crops on marginal lands-farmland suboptimal for food cropscould help meet energy goals while minimizing competition with food production. However, the ecological costs and benefits of growing bioenergy feedstocks-primarily annual grain crops-on marginal lands have been questioned. Here we show that perennial bioenergy crops provide an alternative to annual grains that increases biodiversity of multiple taxa and sustain a variety of ecosystem functions, promoting the creation of multifunctional agricultural landscapes. We found that switchgrass and prairie plantings harbored significantly greater plant, methanotrophic bacteria, arthropod, and bird diversity than maize. Although biomass production was greater in maize, all other ecosystem services, including methane consumption, pest suppression, pollination, and conservation of grassland birds, were higher in perennial grasslands. Moreover, we found that the linkage between biodiversity and ecosystem services is dependent not only on the choice of bioenergy crop but also on its location relative to other habitats, with local landscape context as important as crop choice in determining provision of some services. Our study suggests that bioenergy policy that supports coordinated land use can diversify agricultural landscapes and sustain multiple critical ecosystem services.energy policy | greenhouse gas mitigation I n agricultural landscapes, balancing the provisioning of food and energy with maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem functions is a global challenge. To avoid impacts on food production, attention is increasingly being focused on the potential for marginal lands to support bioenergy production (1). Marginal lands, those suboptimal for food production, may consist of relatively small areas within generally productive landscapes or larger regions where conditions generally limit crop productivity. However, there is increasing recognition that these lands are already performing a variety of useful functions, and their conversion to bioenergy cropping could reduce these services. For example, in the north central United States, rising commodity prices are predicted to bring marginal croplands-including Conservation Reserve Program lands-into annual crop production with negative impacts on wildlife habitat and water quality (2, 3). With 2013 corn plantings at recent record highs (4) and new reports of grassland and wetland conversion to cropland (5, 6), this may be occurring already.An alternative to annual cropping is conversion of marginal croplands to perennial, cellulosic crops for bioenergy. Although current US biofuel production centers on grain ethanol derived from annual monocultures of maize (Zea mays), this situation could change with full implementation of the 2007 US Energy Independence and Security Act (7), which calls for increased production of cellulosic biofuels. In the Midwest United States, perennial grasses a...

Agronomic intensification has transformed many agricultural landscapes into expansive monocultures with little natural habitat. A pervasive concern is that such landscape simplification results in an increase in insect pest pressure, and thus an increased need for insecticides. We tested this hypothesis across a range of cropping systems in the Midwestern United States, using remotely sensed land cover data, data from a national census of farm management practices, and data from a regional crop pest monitoring network. We found that, independent of several other factors, the proportion of harvested cropland treated with insecticides increased with the proportion and patch size of cropland and decreased with the proportion of seminatural habitat in a county. We also found a positive relationship between the proportion of harvested cropland treated with insecticides and crop pest abundance, and a positive relationship between crop pest abundance and the proportion cropland in a county. These results provide broad correlative support for the hypothesized link between landscape simplification, pest pressure, and insecticide use. Using regression coefficients from our analysis, we estimate that, across the seven-state region in 2007, landscape simplification was associated with insecticide application to 1.4 million hectares and an increase in direct costs totaling between $34 and $103 million. Both the direct and indirect environmental costs of landscape simplification should be considered in design of land use policy that balances multiple ecosystem goods and services.agriculture | biocontrol | crop pests | land cover change | pesticides