Agricultural landscape homogenization has detrimental effects on biodiversity and key ecosystem services. Increasing agricultural landscape heterogeneity by increasing seminatural cover can help to mitigate biodiversity loss. However, the amount of seminatural cover is generally low and difficult to increase in many intensively managed agricultural landscapes. We hypothesized that increasing the heterogeneity of the crop mosaic itself (hereafter “crop heterogeneity”) can also have positive effects on biodiversity. In 8 contrasting regions of Europe and North America, we selected 435 landscapes along independent gradients of crop diversity and mean field size. Within each landscape, we selected 3 sampling sites in 1, 2, or 3 crop types. We sampled 7 taxa (plants, bees, butterflies, hoverflies, carabids, spiders, and birds) and calculated a synthetic index of multitrophic diversity at the landscape level. Increasing crop heterogeneity was more beneficial for multitrophic diversity than increasing seminatural cover. For instance, the effect of decreasing mean field size from 5 to 2.8 ha was as strong as the effect of increasing seminatural cover from 0.5 to 11%. Decreasing mean field size benefited multitrophic diversity even in the absence of seminatural vegetation between fields. Increasing the number of crop types sampled had a positive effect on landscape-level multitrophic diversity. However, the effect of increasing crop diversity in the landscape surrounding fields sampled depended on the amount of seminatural cover. Our study provides large-scale, multitrophic, cross-regional evidence that increasing crop heterogeneity can be an effective way to increase biodiversity in agricultural landscapes without taking land out of agricultural production.

Amount of semi‐natural habitats (permanent grasslands, woodlands and hedgerows) and their level of fragmentation are among the main determinants of wild bee diversity in agricultural landscapes. However, their impact on the distribution of bee ecological traits has received little attention. In this study, we aimed to explore whether changes in the distribution of bee ecological traits along gradients of habitat amount and fragmentation were due to a direct effect of landscape context on multiple traits (‘response traits’) or to a correlation of response traits with other ecological traits not involved in the response of bee species to landscape context. In two study regions in southwest France and southeast Australia, we used a RLQ analysis (three‐table ordination method) to link bee traits with habitat amount and fragment isolation measured at the landscape scale. We found that bee ecological traits shifted at the community‐level in association with landscape gradients, whereas species‐level associations among bee traits and phylogenetic clustering in bee communities were of only minor importance in determining such shifts. We found that traits such as body size and nest location were closely linked to habitat amount and fragmentation. We also observed regionally‐specific relationships among ecological traits, suggesting that the regional species pool can play an important role in determining the response of bee communities to habitat amount and fragmentation. Our findings suggest that improved knowledge about how trait‐based responses mediate the impact of landscapes on wild bee communities will allow better prediction and understanding of subsequent effects on ecosystem functioning.

Increasing landscape heterogeneity by restoring semi‐natural elements to reverse farmland biodiversity declines is not always economically feasible or acceptable to farmers due to competition for land. We hypothesized that increasing the heterogeneity of the crop mosaic itself, hereafter referred to as crop heterogeneity, can have beneficial effects on within‐field plant diversity. Using a unique multi‐country dataset from a cross‐continent collaborative project covering 1,451 agricultural fields within 432 landscapes in Europe and Canada, we assessed the relative effects of compositional and configurational crop heterogeneity on within‐field plant diversity components. We also examined how these relationships were modulated by the position within the field. We found strong positive effects of configurational crop heterogeneity on within‐field plant alpha and gamma diversity in field interiors. These effects were as high as the effect of semi‐natural cover. In field borders, effects of crop heterogeneity were limited to alpha diversity. We suggest that a heterogeneous crop mosaic may overcome the high negative impact of management practices on plant diversity in field interiors, whereas in field borders, where plant diversity is already high, landscape effects are more limited. Synthesis and applications. Our study shows that increasing configurational crop heterogeneity is beneficial to within‐field plant diversity. It opens up a new effective and complementary way to promote farmland biodiversity without taking land out of agricultural production. We therefore recommend adopting manipulation of crop heterogeneity as a specific, effective management option in future policy measures, perhaps adding to agri‐environment schemes, to contribute to the conservation of farmland plant diversity.

Non-crop vegetation in agricultural landscapescan provide a means of conserving insects in farmed landscapes and optimising on-farm ecosystem services as a result. Inclusion of floral resources may be particularly useful in conserving many beneficial insects, where groups including pollinators and pest natural enemies often rely on nectar and pollen during (at least part of) their life-cycle.As not all flowers are equally suited to all beneficial insects, selection of appropriate flowering plants is key to ensuring that conservation targets are met and benefits to ecosystems services realised as a result. This short paper describes an experiment conducted to assess the 'total temporal attractiveness' of a range of British wildflowers to selected functional insect groups. The results obtained demonstrate that flowering period alone is a poor indicator of plant suitability to insects, where no relationship existed between this and attraction to insects overall. Data also suggest that, based on attraction over a season, certain flowering plants are more likely to be of general insect conservation value and/or benefit to functional insect groups than others. Attraction to pest insects was also considered, with relatively high catches of thrips and pollen beetles observed in flowering stands of some plants.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract