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.

EditorialIFPRI5; CRP5; A Ensuring Sustainable food production; E Building ResilienceEPTDNon-PRCGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE

Managing agricultural landscapes to support biodiversity and ecosystem services is a key aim of a sustainable agriculture. However, how the spatial arrangement of crop fields and other habitats in landscapes impacts arthropods and their functions is poorly known. Synthesising data from 49 studies (1515 landscapes) across Europe, we examined effects of landscape composition (% habitats) and configuration (edge density) on arthropods in fields and their margins, pest control, pollination and yields. Configuration effects interacted with the proportions of crop and non-crop habitats, and species' dietary, dispersal and overwintering traits led to contrasting responses to landscape variables. Overall, however, in landscapes with high edge density, 70% of pollinator and 44% of natural enemy species reached highest abundances and pollination and pest control improved 1.7-and 1.4-fold respectively. Arable-dominated landscapes with high edge densities achieved high yields. This suggests that enhancing edge density in European agroecosystems can promote functional biodiversity and yield-enhancing ecosystem services.

Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield–related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.

Biological control of pests by natural enemies is a major ecosystem service delivered to agriculture worldwide. Quantifying and predicting its effectiveness at large spatial scales is critical for increased sustainability of agricultural production. Landscape complexity is known to benefit natural enemies, but its effects on interactions between natural enemies and the consequences for crop damage and yield are unclear. Here, we show that pest control at the landscape scale is driven by differences in natural enemy interactions across landscapes, rather than by the effectiveness of individual natural enemy guilds. In a field exclusion experiment, pest control by flying insect enemies increased with landscape complexity. However, so did antagonistic interactions between flying insects and birds, which were neutral in simple landscapes and increasingly negative in complex landscapes. Negative natural enemy interactions thus constrained pest control in complex landscapes. These results show that, by altering natural enemy interactions, landscape complexity can provide ecosystem services as well as disservices. Careful handling of the tradeoffs among multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity, and societal concerns is thus crucial and depends on our ability to predict the functional consequences of landscape-scale changes in trophic interactions.arthropods and birds | biodiversity-ecosystem functioning | biological pest control | ecosystem service provision | land use intensification

Original Citation:A global synthesis of the effects of diversified farming systems on arthropod diversity within fields and across agricultural landscapes Published version:DOI:10.1111/gcb.13714 Terms of use:Open Access (Article begins on next page) Anyone can freely access the full text of works made available as "Open Access". Works made available under a Creative Commons license can be used according to the terms and conditions of said license. Use of all other works requires consent of the right holder (author or publisher) if not exempted from copyright protection by the applicable law. Agricultural intensification is a leading cause of global biodiversity loss, which can reduce the provisioning of ecosystem services in managed ecosystems. Organic farming and plant diversification are farm management schemes that may mitigate potential ecological harm by increasing species richness and boosting related ecosystem services to agroecosystems. What remains unclear is the extent to which farm management schemes affect biodiversity components other than species richness, and whether impacts differ across spatial scales and landscape contexts. Using a global meta-dataset, we quantified the effects of organic farming and plant diversification on abundance, local diversity (communities within fields), and regional diversity (communities across fields) of arthropod pollinators, predators, herbivores, and detritivores. Both organic farming and higher in-field plant diversity enhanced arthropod abundance, particularly for rare taxa. This resulted in increased richness but decreased evenness. While these responses were stronger at local relative to regional scales, richness and abundance increased at both scales, and richness on farms embedded in complex relative to simple landscapes. Overall, both organic farming and in-field plant diversification exerted the strongest effects on pollinators and predators, suggesting these management schemes can facilitate ecosystem service providers without augmenting herbivore (pest) populations. Our results suggest that organic farming and plant diversification promote diverse arthropod metacommunities that may provide temporal and spatial stability of ecosystem service provisioning. Conserving diverse plant and arthropod communities in farming systems therefore requires sustainable practices that operate both within fields and across landscapes. Availability: This is the author's manuscript

79 40 INRA, UR 1115, Plantes et Systèmes de culture horticoles, ABSTRACT 138

(1) Land-use intensification in agricultural landscapes has led to changes in the way habitats and resources are distributed in space. Pests and their natural enemies are influenced by these changes, and by the farming intensity of crop fields. However, it is unknown whether the composition of landscapes (amount and diversity of land cover types) or their configuration (spatial arrangement of cover types) are more important for natural enemy diversity, and how they impact crop damage and yields. In addition, effects of interactions between local farming practices (organic vs. conventional) and landscape variables are unclear. (2) Here, we make use of a data set where landscape composition and configuration were uncorrelated across multiple spatial scales. Natural enemies, crop damage, and yields were sampled in 35 organic and conventional crop fields. Out of seven broad natural enemy taxa, five were positively affected by a complex landscape configuration. In contrast, only carabids were positively affected by the amount of seminatural habitat around fields. Increasing diversity of land cover types had positive effects on some, but negative effects on other taxa. Effect sizes varied among taxa but increased with increasing spatial scale, defined by circular areas of increasing radius around fields. (3) The diversity of aerial, but not of ground-dwelling enemies was higher in fields under organic than conventional management. Interactions of local and landscape variables were important for birds, but not other enemies. Bird richness was higher in organic fields in simple landscapes, but not in landscapes with complex configuration or high land cover diversity. (4) Crop damage decreased with landscape diversity, but increased in conventional fields with complex configuration. Yields increased with both parameters in conventional fields only, and were higher on average in organic compared to conventional fields. Enemy diversity was positively related to crop damage, indicating positive density-dependence of enemies on pests. However, the diversity of aerial enemies was also positively related to yields. (5) Our results suggest that the effectiveness of agrienvironmental schemes for managing natural enemy diversity, crop damage and yields could be enhanced by optimizing the effects of distinct landscape parameters, particularly landscape configuration and diversity, across scales.