Biodiversity continues to decline rapidly, despite decades of repeated national and international policy efforts. Agricultural intensification is a major driver of biodiversity losses, while conversion to organic farming has been suggested as a key technique to halt or reverse this trend.In contrast to this widespread view, certified organic agriculture raises local richness of widespread species by just a third when compared to conventional farming. This is achieved through waiving synthetic agrochemicals, but leads to considerable yield losses, requiring the conversion of more land to agriculture to obtain similar yields.Diversifying cropland and reducing field size on a landscape level can multiply biodiversity in both organic and conventional agriculture without reducing cropland productivity.Complementing such increases in cropland heterogeneity with at least 20% seminatural habitat per landscape should be a key recommendation in current biodiversity frameworks. We challenge the widespread appraisal that organic farming is the fundamental alternative to conventional farming for harnessing biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Certification of organic production is largely restricted to banning synthetic agrochemicals, resulting in limited benefits for biodiversity but high yield losses despite ongoing intensification and specialisation. In contrast, successful agricultural measures to enhance biodiversity include diversifying cropland and reducing field size, which can multiply biodiversity while sustaining high yields in both conventional and organic systems. Achieving a landscape-level mosaic of natural habitat patches and fine-grained cropland diversification in both conventional and organic agriculture is key for promoting large-scale biodiversity. This needs to be urgently acknowledged by policy makers for an agricultural paradigm shift. We challenge the widespread appraisal that organic farming is the fundamental alternative to conventional farming for harnessing biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Certification of organic production is largely restricted to banning synthetic agrochemicals, resulting in limited benefits for biodiversity but high yield losses despite ongoing intensification and specialisation. In contrast, successful agricultural measures to enhance biodiversity include diversifying cropland and reducing field size, which can multiply biodiversity while sustaining high yields in both conventional and organic systems. Achieving a landscape-level mosaic of natural habitat patches and fine-grained cropland diversification in both conventional and organic agriculture is key for promoting large-scale biodiversity. This needs to be urgently acknowledged by policy makers for an agricultural paradigm shift. Biodiversity continues to decline, despite the repeated implementation of international conservation conventions, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), the UN Decade of Biodiversity (2011–2020), and many other biodiversity conservation schemes, which had little success [1.Kleijn D. et al.Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline?.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011; 26: 474-481Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar,2.Pe'er G. et al.Adding some green to the greening: improving the EU's ecological focus areas for biodiversity and farmers.Conserv. Lett. 2017; 10: 517-530Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. Agriculture is considered the main cause of global biodiversity decline [3.Sánchez-Bayo F. Wyckhuys K.A.G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers.Biol. Conserv. 2019; 232: 8-27Crossref Scopus (919) Google Scholar, 4.Seibold S. et al.Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers.Nature. 2019; 574: 671-674Crossref PubMed Scopus (306) Google Scholar, 5.Lichtenberg E.M. et al.A global synthesis of the effects of diversified farming systems on arthropod diversity within fields and across agricultural landscapes.Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017; 23: 4946-4957Crossref PubMed Scopus (123) Google Scholar], but conservation objectives still collide with FAO calls for higher crop production to feed the world [6.Tscharntke T. et al.Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification.Biol. Conserv. 2012; 151: 53-59Crossref Scopus (1050) Google Scholar]. The current model of agricultural intensification, based on agrochemical inputs, large monocultures and landscape homogenisation, has successfully increased yields, but is associated with severe losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services, even in neighbouring nature reserves [3.Sánchez-Bayo F. Wyckhuys K.A.G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers.Biol. Conserv. 2019; 232: 8-27Crossref Scopus (919) Google Scholar,5.Lichtenberg E.M. et al.A global synthesis of the effects of diversified farming systems on arthropod diversity within fields and across agricultural landscapes.Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017; 23: 4946-4957Crossref PubMed Scopus (123) Google Scholar, 6.Tscharntke T. et al.Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification.Biol. Conserv. 2012; 151: 53-59Crossref Scopus (1050) Google Scholar, 7.Kormann U. et al.Local and landscape management drive trait-mediated biodiversity of nine taxa on small grassland fragments.Divers. Distrib. 2015; 21: 1204-1217Crossref Scopus (62) Google Scholar]. Current trends can only be reversed by a concerted effort to fundamentally redesign farming systems and agricultural landscapes [8.Landis D.A. Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services.Basic Appl. Ecol. 2017; 18: 1-12Crossref Scopus (262) Google Scholar, 9.Grass I. et al.Land-sharing/-sparing connectivity landscapes for ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation.People Nat. 2019; 1: 262-272Google Scholar, 10.Grass I. et al.Combining land-sparing and land-sharing in European landscapes.Adv. Ecol. Res. 2021; 64: 251-303Crossref Scopus (14) Google Scholar]; that is, a paradigm shift in agriculture. Certified organic farming, that is, banning synthetic agrochemicals [11.Seufert V. Ramankutty N. Many shades of gray – the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture.Sci. Adv. 2017; 3e1602638Crossref PubMed Google Scholar] to achieve sustainability in agricultural systems in general and biodiversity conservation in particular, is often claimed to be the fundamental alternative to conventional farming [12.Niggli U. Sustainability of organic food production: challenges and innovations.Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2015; 74: 83-88Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar, 13.Bosshard A. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements IFOAM Guide to Biodiversity and Landscape Quality in Organic Agriculture. IFOAM, 2009Google Scholar, 14.Geiger F. et al.Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland.Basic Appl. Ecol. 2010; 11: 97-105Crossref Scopus (724) Google Scholar]. However, the contribution of certified organic agriculture to stop the losses in biodiversity appears to be exaggerated in the public perception [15.Hole D.G. et al.Does organic farming benefit biodiversity?.Biol. Conserv. 2005; 122: 113-130Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar,16.Schneider M.K. et al.Gains to species diversity in organically farmed fields are not propagated at the farm level.Nat. Commun. 2014; 5: 4151Crossref PubMed Scopus (64) Google Scholar]. In fact, switching from conventional to organic practices increases local species richness by just a third [17.Tuck S.L. et al.Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis.J. Appl. Ecol. 2014; 51: 746-755Crossref PubMed Scopus (367) Google Scholar], but leads to considerable yield losses, so that more land is needed to produce the same amount of food [11.Seufert V. Ramankutty N. Many shades of gray – the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture.Sci. Adv. 2017; 3e1602638Crossref PubMed Google Scholar,18.Meemken E.-M. Qaim M. Organic agriculture, food security, and the environment.Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2018; 10: 39-63Crossref Scopus (82) Google Scholar]. Surprisingly, a wealth of biodiversity-friendly measures that can enhance biodiversity and can be implemented in conventional agriculture, have so far been poorly adopted in current agricultural systems [19.Kleijn D. et al.Ecological intensification: bridging the gap between science and practice.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019; 34: 154-166Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar, 20.Sirami C. et al.Increasing crop heterogeneity enhances multitrophic diversity across agricultural regions.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2019; 116: 16442-16447Crossref PubMed Scopus (123) Google Scholar, 21.Batary P. et al.Landscape-moderated importance of hedges in conserving farmland bird diversity of organic vs. conventional croplands and grasslands.Biol. Conserv. 2010; 143: 2020-2027Crossref Scopus (102) Google Scholar, 22.Haan N.L. et al.Designing agricultural landscapes for arthropod-based ecosystem services in North America.Adv. Ecol. Res. 2021; 64: 191-250Crossref Scopus (1) Google Scholar, 23.Boetzl F.A. et al.A multitaxa assessment of the effectiveness of agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity management.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2021; 118: 1-9Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar]. Here, we challenge the widespread appraisal that organic farming is the fundamental alternative to conventional farming for promoting or restoring biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. After considering measures essential for biodiversity-friendly farming, we propose more effective solutions towards biodiversity friendly landscapes and ways to integrate local and landscape scales in existing organic and conventional farming systems as well as in agricultural policies. Certified organic farming can enhance biodiversity when compared to conventional farming. On average, organic farming across the world's crops increases local species richness by ~34% and abundance by ~50% [17.Tuck S.L. et al.Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis.J. Appl. Ecol. 2014; 51: 746-755Crossref PubMed Scopus (367) Google Scholar,24.Bengtsson J. et al.The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis.J. Appl. Ecol. 2005; 42: 261-269Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar,25.Smith O.M. et al.Landscape context affects the sustainability of organic farming systems.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2020; 117: 2870-2878Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar], with plants and bees benefitting most and other arthropods and birds to a smaller degree [11.Seufert V. Ramankutty N. Many shades of gray – the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture.Sci. Adv. 2017; 3e1602638Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. Benefits also vary with crop type and landscape context [17.Tuck S.L. et al.Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis.J. Appl. Ecol. 2014; 51: 746-755Crossref PubMed Scopus (367) Google Scholar]. Organic farming strives for environmental benefits, sustaining soil fertility and biodiversity, and prohibits synthetic fertilisers, synthetic pesticides, and genetically modified organisms [11.Seufert V. Ramankutty N. Many shades of gray – the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture.Sci. Adv. 2017; 3e1602638Crossref PubMed Google Scholar,12.Niggli U. Sustainability of organic food production: challenges and innovations.Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2015; 74: 83-88Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar,26.Mäder P. et al.Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming.Science. 2002; 296: 1694-1697Crossref PubMed Scopus (1744) Google Scholar]. In particular, the replacement of herbicides by mechanical weeding is important for biodiversity conservation, because higher weed cover benefits many organisms [27.Roschewitz I. et al.The effects of landscape complexity on arable weed species diversity in organic and conventional farming.J. Appl. Ecol. 2005; 42: 873-882Crossref Scopus (283) Google Scholar, 28.Clough Y. et al.Alpha and beta diversity of arthropods and plants in organically and conventionally managed wheat fields.J. Appl. Ecol. 2007; 44: 804-812Crossref Scopus (143) Google Scholar, 29.Holzschuh A. et al.Agricultural landscapes with organic crops support higher pollinator diversity.Oikos. 2008; 117: 354-361Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 30.Batáry P. et al.The former Iron Curtain still drives biodiversity-profit trade-offs in German agriculture.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017; 1: 1279-1284Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar]. Practices such as crop diversification, small fields, green manure, low fertiliser input, and restoration of natural landscape elements are often recommended by organic food organisations and can be more prevalent on organic than conventional farms [31.Fuller R.J. et al.Benefits of organic farming to biodiversity vary among taxa.Biol. Lett. 2005; 1: 431-434Crossref PubMed Scopus (209) Google Scholar,32.Holzschuh A. et al.Diversity of flower-visiting bees in cereal fields: effects of farming system, landscape composition and regional context.J. Appl. Ecol. 2007; 44: 41-49Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar], but they are not formal part of certification regulations [33.Tscharntke T. et al.Conserving biodiversity through certification of tropical agroforestry crops at local and landscape scales.Conserv. Lett. 2015; 8: 14-23Crossref Scopus (69) Google Scholar]. Mainstreaming of organic agriculture in the public, pushed by green policies and NGO activities, continues to play an important role in its success, promoting empathy for and trust in organic certification schemes. Lastly, organic products are more profitable for farmers, while consumers, not governments, pay for most of the premium prices [11.Seufert V. Ramankutty N. Many shades of gray – the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture.Sci. Adv. 2017; 3e1602638Crossref PubMed Google Scholar,25.Smith O.M. et al.Landscape context affects the sustainability of organic farming systems.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2020; 117: 2870-2878Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar,30.Batáry P. et al.The former Iron Curtain still drives biodiversity-profit trade-offs in German agriculture.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017; 1: 1279-1284Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar,34.Reganold J.P. Wachter J.M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century.Nat. Plants. 2016; 2: 1-8Crossref Scopus (464) Google Scholar]. However, there are also important limitations to the biodiversity benefits of organic farming, resulting from reduced yields, misconceptions about pesticide use, taxon-specific benefits, and commercial intensification of production. While reducing food waste and meat consumption are important for global food security [6.Tscharntke T. et al.Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification.Biol. Conserv. 2012; 151: 53-59Crossref Scopus (1050) Google Scholar,18.Meemken E.-M. Qaim M. Organic agriculture, food security, and the environment.Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2018; 10: 39-63Crossref Scopus (82) Google Scholar], lower crop yields and the additional land needed for similar yields are major obstacles for organic farming to benefit biodiversity conservation [35.Gabriel D. et al.Food production vs. biodiversity: comparing organic and conventional agriculture.J. Appl. Ecol. 2013; 50: 355-364Crossref Scopus (134) Google Scholar]. When biodiversity benefits are measured per unit of land necessary for a defined agricultural output or yield (e.g., number of kilograms of wheat produced) and not simply per unit of agricultural land (e.g., a hectare of wheat), the biodiversity benefits of organic farming can disappear [10.Grass I. et al.Combining land-sparing and land-sharing in European landscapes.Adv. Ecol. Res. 2021; 64: 251-303Crossref Scopus (14) Google Scholar,18.Meemken E.-M. Qaim M. Organic agriculture, food security, and the environment.Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2018; 10: 39-63Crossref Scopus (82) Google Scholar,36.Kremen C. Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2015; 1355: 52-76Crossref PubMed Scopus (207) Google Scholar]. Globally and across all major crops, organic farming yields are lower by 19–25% [18.Meemken E.-M. Qaim M. Organic agriculture, food security, and the environment.Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2018; 10: 39-63Crossref Scopus (82) Google Scholar]. Vegetables and cereals show the highest yield gaps [37.Seufert V. et al.Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture.Nature. 2012; 485: 229-232Crossref PubMed Scopus (1006) Google Scholar], with up to 50% yield decrease in wheat [30.Batáry P. et al.The former Iron Curtain still drives biodiversity-profit trade-offs in German agriculture.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017; 1: 1279-1284Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar,35.Gabriel D. et al.Food production vs. biodiversity: comparing organic and conventional agriculture.J. Appl. Ecol. 2013; 50: 355-364Crossref Scopus (134) Google Scholar]; however, yields of fruits and oilseed crops are not lower [37.Seufert V. et al.Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture.Nature. 2012; 485: 229-232Crossref PubMed Scopus (1006) Google Scholar]. Moreover, it is a myth that organic farms principally waive pesticides. Pesticides are allowed under organic labels as long as they are derived from natural substances rather than synthetic ones [11.Seufert V. Ramankutty N. Many shades of gray – the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture.Sci. Adv. 2017; 3e1602638Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. Widespread insecticides used in organic farming include natural pyrethrin, derived from chrysanthemum, and azadirachtin from the Asian neem tree. Copper sulfate is often applied to cope with fungal and bacterial diseases, for example, in vineyards, orchards, and vegetables [38.Nascimbene J. et al.Organic farming benefits local plant diversity in vineyard farms located in intensive agricultural landscapes.Environ. Manag. 2012; 49: 1054-1060Crossref PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar], but is persistent and accumulates in soils [39.Tamm L. et al.Reduktion von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in der Schweiz: Beitrag des Biolandbaus.Agrarforschung Schweiz. 2018; 52–59Google Scholar]. Natural pesticides can do as much damage as synthetic pesticides [40.Biondi A. et al.Using organic-certified rather than synthetic pesticides may not be safer for biological control agents: selectivity and side effects of 14 pesticides on the predator Orius laevigatus.Chemosphere. 2012; 87: 803-812Crossref PubMed Scopus (305) Google Scholar]. While the vast majority of organic arable crops are rarely treated with pesticides, potatoes, vegetables, hops, grapes, and other fruits are regularly and heavily treated with natural pesticides. For instance, spraying in organic grapes or apples has been shown to be just 20% less but can also be more than in conventional fields [38.Nascimbene J. et al.Organic farming benefits local plant diversity in vineyard farms located in intensive agricultural landscapes.Environ. Manag. 2012; 49: 1054-1060Crossref PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar,39.Tamm L. et al.Reduktion von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in der Schweiz: Beitrag des Biolandbaus.Agrarforschung Schweiz. 2018; 52–59Google Scholar]. Overall, this suggests that smart application strategies for pesticide use (e.g., Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management techniques) are needed regardless of organic or conventional agricultural systems [14.Geiger F. et al.Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland.Basic Appl. Ecol. 2010; 11: 97-105Crossref Scopus (724) Google Scholar,41.Tscharntke T. et al.When natural habitat fails to enhance biological pest control – Five hypotheses.Biol. Conserv. 2016; 204: 449-458Crossref Scopus (241) Google Scholar,42.Müller C. Impacts of sublethal insecticide exposure on insects – facts and knowledge gaps.Basic Appl. Ecol. 2018; 30: 1-10Crossref Scopus (56) Google Scholar]. Similarly, harmful overfertilisation occurs not only with mineral fertilisers, but also with manure [43.Klimek S. et al.Additive partitioning of plant diversity with respect to grassland management regime, fertilisation and abiotic factors.Basic Appl. Ecol. 2008; 9: 626-634Crossref Scopus (45) Google Scholar]. Importantly, organic farming enhances only a limited spectrum of species [5.Lichtenberg E.M. et al.A global synthesis of the effects of diversified farming systems on arthropod diversity within fields and across agricultural landscapes.Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017; 23: 4946-4957Crossref PubMed Scopus (123) Google Scholar,44.Forrest J.R.K. et al.Contrasting patterns in species and functional-trait diversity of bees in an agricultural landscape.J. Appl. Ecol. 2015; 52: 706-715Crossref Google Scholar]. In particular, noncrop plants benefit due to missing herbicides, whereas more mobile, landscape-dependent insect populations benefit less [31.Fuller R.J. et al.Benefits of organic farming to biodiversity vary among taxa.Biol. Lett. 2005; 1: 431-434Crossref PubMed Scopus (209) Google Scholar]. Furthermore, reduced applications of agrochemicals enhance common insect species associated with agriculture, but not the less common species associated with a great diversity of seminatural habitats. These seminatural habitats include hedges, herbaceous field boundaries, and traditional, uneconomic agroecosystems such as calcareous grasslands and orchard meadows [21.Batary P. et al.Landscape-moderated importance of hedges in conserving farmland bird diversity of organic vs. conventional croplands and grasslands.Biol. Conserv. 2010; 143: 2020-2027Crossref Scopus (102) Google Scholar,45.Weibull A.-C. et al.Diversity of butterflies in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and landscape heterogeneity.Ecography. 2000; 23: 743-750Crossref Google Scholar]. In fact, a meta-analysis of agrienvironment schemes found that off-field measures, such as field margins and hedgerows, are more than twice as effective in promoting biodiversity as in-field measures such as organic management [46.Batáry P. et al.The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management.Conserv. Biol. 2015; 29: 1006-1016Crossref PubMed Scopus (419) Google Scholar]. For example, higher farmland habitat diversity, but not conversion to organic farming, increases butterfly diversity on farms by ~50% [45.Weibull A.-C. et al.Diversity of butterflies in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and landscape heterogeneity.Ecography. 2000; 23: 743-750Crossref Google Scholar]. Increasing hedge length per field by 250 m raises bird diversity from one to 12 species, whereas conversion from conventional to organic farming increased species richness by only 50% [21.Batary P. et al.Landscape-moderated importance of hedges in conserving farmland bird diversity of organic vs. conventional croplands and grasslands.Biol. Conserv. 2010; 143: 2020-2027Crossref Scopus (102) Google Scholar]. Lastly, current organic production is increasingly intensified, specialised, and often far away from the idealism and enthusiasm of the original organic movement (Figure 1). In contrast to the small and diversified family farms that characterised the beginning of the organic movement, modern organic arable fields can be huge monocultures, resembling conventional fields. Organic vegetables often come from sterile greenhouse blocks or large-scale cultures under plastic sheets, covering entire landscapes. The Almeria Province (Spain) is the heart of Europe's intensive agriculture, where >50% of fruits and vegetables are grown under plastic sheets, with the proportion of organic farming increasing over the last decade from 1.4% to 10.3% [47.Dundas M. et al.Organic Farming "Supersized": An an Imperfect Solution for the Planet?.2019Google Scholar]. Further examples of landscape-damaging practices of organic production include vegetables that are produced in greenhouse blocks, favourably doubling yields by intensification and extending growing seasons, but at high cost for biodiversity [48.Chang J. et al.Does growing vegetables in plastic greenhouses enhance regional ecosystem services beyond the food supply?.Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013; 11: 43-49Crossref Scopus (69) Google Scholar]. Overall, pesticide use, limited species benefits, and the above intensification suggest that certified organic production is not the silver bullet for current biodiversity conservation and agricultural production. Diversifying agricultural systems is key for the restoration of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, such as pollination, and biological pest and weed control [5.Lichtenberg E.M. et al.A global synthesis of the effects of diversified farming systems on arthropod diversity within fields and across agricultural landscapes.Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017; 23: 4946-4957Crossref PubMed Scopus (123) Google Scholar,49.Rosa-Schleich J. et al.Ecological-economic trade-offs of Diversified Farming Systems – a review.Ecol. Econ. 2019; 160: 251-263Crossref Scopus (41) Google Scholar,50.Tamburini G. et al.Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield.Sci. Adv. 2020; 6eaba1715Crossref PubMed Google Scholar] (Table 1 and Table 2). Agricultural land, in particular in Europe and North America, is increasingly shaped by large monocultures and short crop rotations to simplify production techniques and to specialise on the best-selling products. Diverse crop rotations are increasingly missing or dominated by just one crop (e.g., wheat after wheat or maize after maize), or only up to three crop species (e.g., standard conventional crop sequences with wheat, barley, and oilseed rape [51.Steinmann H.-H. Dobers E.S. Spatio-temporal analysis of crop rotations and crop sequence patterns in Northern Germany: potential implications on plant health and crop protection.J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2013; 120: 85-94Crossref Scopus (37) Google Scholar,52.Bennett A.J. et al.Meeting the demand for crop production: the challenge of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations.Biol. Rev. 2012; 87: 52-71Crossref PubMed Scopus (247) Google Scholar]). These simplified crop rotations deplete soils, and promote pest infestations, resistance through repeated pesticide applications, and the risk of resource bottlenecks for pollinators and biocontrol agents [53.Schellhorn N.A. et al.Time will tell: resource continuity bolsters ecosystem services.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 524-530Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (133) Google Scholar]; all of which also increase the risk of yield declines [52.Bennett A.J. et al.Meeting the demand for crop production: the challenge of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations.Biol. Rev. 2012; 87: 52-71Crossref PubMed Scopus (247) Google Scholar]. In contrast, resource continuity provided by a mixed pattern of crops, alone or combined with land-sharing practices, such as wildflower strips, effectively increases the stability of ecosystem services, such as pollination and biological pest control [53.Schellhorn N.A. et al.Time will tell: resource continuity bolsters ecosystem services.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 524-530Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (133) Google Scholar, 54.Rundlöf M. et al.Late-season mass-flowering red clover increases bumble bee queen and male densities.Biol. Conserv. 2014; 172: 138-145Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 55.Westphal C. et al.Mass flowering oilseed rape improves early colony growth but not sexual reproduction of bumblebees.J. Appl. Ecol. 2009; 46: 187-193Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. Globally, crop rotations are only 15% longer in organic than conventional farming (4.5 instead of 3.8 years). Still, organic farms have on average 48% higher crop species richness [56.Barbieri P. et al.Comparing crop rotations between organic and conventional farming.Sci. Rep. 2017; 7: 1-10Crossref PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar]. Diversification of organic farming by multicropping and diversified crop rotations may reduce the yield gap to just 8–9% [57.Ponisio L.C. et al.Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015; 282: 20141396Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. However, crop rotations could be longer, for example, over at least a 7-year period [26.Mäder P. et al.Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming.Science. 2002; 296: 1694-1697Crossref PubMed Scopus (1744) Google Scholar], but there is little uptake in both organic and conventional agriculture [58.Seufert V. et al.Current and potential contributions of organic agriculture to diversification of the food production system.Agroecosyst. Divers. 2019; 2019: 435-452Crossref Scopus (7) Google Scholar]. Instead, the current trend in organic farming is, similar to conventional agriculture, to specialise and intensify [48.Chang J. et al.Does growing vegetables in plastic greenhouses enhance regional ecosystem services beyond the food supply?.Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013; 11: 43-49Crossref Scopus (69) Google Scholar,59.Garibaldi L.A. Pérez-Méndez N. Positive outcomes between crop diversity and agricultural employment worldwide.Ecol. Econ. 2019; 164: 106358Crossref Scopus (18) Google Scholar].Table 1Biodiversity benefits through increasing heterogeneity at local and landscape scales, illustrated by meta-analyses and syntheses showing quantified estimatesMeasuresQuantified findingsRefsLocal and farm scaleOff-field vs in-field measuresMeasures at off-field areas, such as field margins and hedgerows, are roughly twice as effective at enhancing species richnes
gricultural landscapes and ecosystem services in South-East sia—the LEGATO-Project osef Settelea,b,∗, Joachim H. Spangenberga,c, Kong Luen Heongd,q, enjamin Burkharde,f, Jesus Victor Bustamanteg, Jimmy Cabbigatg, o Van Chienh, Monina Escaladai, Volker Greschoa,j, Le Huu Haik, lexander Harpkea, Finbarr G. Horgand, Stefan Hotesl, Reinhold Jahnm, ngolf Kuhna,b, Leonardo Marquezn, Martin Schadlera,b, Vera Tekkeno, oris Vetterleina, Sylvia “Bong” Villareald, Catrin Westphalp, Martin Wiemersa
Contribution of insect pollinators to crop yield and quality varies with agricultural intensificationBackground.Up to 75 % of crop species benefit at least to some degree from animal pollination for fruit or seed set and yield.However, basic information on the level of pollinator dependence and pollinator contribution to yield is lacking for many crops.Even less is known about how insect pollination affects crop quality.Given that habitat loss and agricultural intensification are known to decrease pollinator richness and abundance, there is a need to assess the consequences for different components of crop production.Methods.We used pollination exclusion on flowers or inflorescences on a whole plant basis to assess the contribution of insect pollination to crop yield and quality in four flowering crops (spring oilseed rape, field bean, strawberry, and buckwheat) located in four regions of Europe.For each crop, we recorded abundance and species richness of flower visiting insects in ten fields located along a gradient from simple to heterogeneous landscapes.Results.Insect pollination enhanced average crop yield between 18 and 71% depending on the crop.Yield quality was also enhanced in most crops.For instance, oilseed rape had higher oil and lower chlorophyll contents when adequately pollinated, the proportion of empty seeds decreased in buckwheat, and strawberries' commercial grade improved; however, we did not find higher nitrogen content in open pollinated field beans.Complex landscapes had a higher overall species richness of wild pollinators across crops, but visitation rates were only higher in complex landscapes for some crops.On the contrary, the overall yield was consistently enhanced by higher visitation rates, but not by higher pollinator richness.Discussion.For the four crops in this study, there is clear benefit delivered by pollinators on yield quantity and/or quality, but it is not maximized under current agricultural intensification.Honeybees, the most abundant pollinator, might partially compensate the loss of wild pollinators in some areas, but our results suggest the need of landscape-scale actions to enhance wild pollinator populations.
Abstract Rapid growth of the world's human population has increased pressure on landscapes to deliver high levels of multiple ecosystem services, including food and fibre production, carbon storage, biodiversity conservation, and recreation. However, we currently lack general principles describing how to achieve this landscape multifunctionality. We combine theoretical simulations and empirical data on 14 ecosystem services measured across 150 grasslands in three German regions. In doing so, we investigate the circumstances under which spatial heterogeneity in a driver of ecosystem functioning (an “ecosystem‐driver,” e.g., the presence of keystone species, land‐use intensification, or habitat types) increases landscape‐level ecosystem multifunctionality. Simulations based on theoretical data demonstrated that relationships between heterogeneity and landscape multifunctionality are highly variable and can range from nonsignificant to strongly positive. Despite this variability, we could identify criteria under which heterogeneity‐landscape multifunctionality relationships were most strongly positive: this happened when multiple ecosystem services responded contrastingly (both positively and negatively) to an ecosystem‐driver. These findings were confirmed using empirical data, which showed that heterogeneity in land‐use intensity (LUI) promoted landscape multifunctionality in cases where functions with both positive (e.g., plant biomass) and negative (e.g., flower cover) responses to land use intensification were included. For example, the simultaneous provisioning of ecosystem functions related to forage production (generally profiting from land‐use intensification), biodiversity conservation and recreation (generally decreasing with land‐use intensification) was highest in landscapes consisting of sites varying in LUI. Synthesis and applications . Our findings show that there are general principles governing landscape multifunctionality. A knowledge of these principles may support land management decisions. For example, knowledge of relationships between ecosystem services and their drivers, such as land use type, can help estimate the consequences of increasing or decreasing heterogeneity for landscape‐level ecosystem service supply, although interactions between landscape units (e.g., the movement of pollinators) must also be considered.
Abstract Context Current diversity and species composition of ecological communities can often not exclusively be explained by present land use and landscape structure. Historical land use may have considerably influenced ecosystems and their properties for decades and centuries. Objectives We analysed the effects of present and historical landscape structure on plant and arthropod species richness in temperate grasslands, using data from comprehensive plant and arthropod assessments across three regions in Germany and maps of current and historical land cover from three time periods between 1820 and 2016. Methods We calculated local, grassland class and landscape scale metrics for 150 grassland plots. Class and landscape scale metrics were calculated in buffer zones of 100 to 2000 m around the plots. We considered effects on total species richness as well as on the richness of species subsets determined by taxonomy and functional traits related to habitat use, dispersal and feeding. Results Overall, models containing a combination of present and historical landscape metrics showed the best fit for several functional groups. Comparing three historical time periods, data from the 1820/50s was among the most frequent significant time periods in our models (29.7% of all significant variables). Conclusions Our results suggest that the historical landscape structure is an important predictor of current species richness across different taxa and functional groups. This needs to be considered to better identify priority sites for conservation and to design biodiversity-friendly land use practices that will affect landscape structure in the future.
Strengthening participation of Global South researchers in tropical ecology and conservation is a target of our scientific community, but strategies for fostering increased engagement are mostly directed at Global North institutions and researchers. Whereas such approaches are crucial, there are unique challenges to addressing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) within the Global South given its socio-economic, cultural and scientific contexts. Sustainable solutions protecting biodiversity in the tropics depend on the leadership of Global South communities, and therefore DEI improvements in the Global South are paramount in our field. Here, we propose ten key actions towards equitable international collaborations in tropical ecology, which, led by Global South researchers, may improve DEI at institutional, national and international levels. At an institutional level, we recommend (1) becoming role models for DEI, (2) co-developing research with local stakeholders, and (3) promoting transparent funding management favouring local scientists. At a national level, we encourage (4) engagement in political actions protecting scientists and their research in tropical countries, (5) participation in improving biodiversity research policies, and (6) devising research that reaches society. At an international level, we encourage Global South researchers in international collaborations to (7) lead and direct funding applications, (8) ensure equitable workloads, and (9) procure equal benefits among national and foreign collaborators. Finally, (10) we propose that Global South leadership in DEI efforts has the most potential for worldwide improvements, supporting positive long-lasting changes in our entire scientific community. Supplementary materials provide this abstract in 18 other languages spoken in the Global South.
Abstract 1. The study tested the hypotheses that bumblebees have shorter foraging trips in environments that provide abundant resources than in environments that provide sparse resources, and that shorter foraging trips translate into greater colony growth. 2. Six even‐aged Bombus terrestris colonies were established in contrasting resource environments. Three colonies had access to abundant resources ( Phacelia tanacetifolia fields with high flower densities), and three colonies were placed in an environment with sparse resources (scattered semi‐natural habitats with food plants at lower densities). 3. A total of 870 foraging trips of 220 marked B. terrestris foragers were observed using automated camcorder recordings. 4. The duration of foraging trips was shorter in environments with abundant resources (66 ± 4.6 min) than in environments with sparse resources (82 ± 3.7 min). Within 34 days colonies that had access to abundant resources gained significantly more weight (129 ± 40 g) than colonies foraging on sparse resources (19 ± 7 g). 5. Thus, the spatial distribution and quality of resources at landscape level affected the duration of foraging trips and the colony growth. It was concluded that future conservation schemes need to improve the spatial and temporal availability of resources in agricultural landscapes to counteract the ongoing decline of bumblebees.
Abstract More sustainable and environmentally friendly agricultural practices, including ecological intensification, are needed to reduce biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. We evaluated the potential of ecological intensification through the enhancement of pollination services in an intensively managed and insect‐pollinated crop, Macadamia integrifolia . We compared the effects and importance of agronomic practices that include agronomic input (i.e. irrigation and managed honeybees), orchard design requiring no external inputs (i.e. spatial orchard structure) and landscape factors in 10 South African macadamia orchards. In comparison to experimental pollinator exclusion, insect pollination increased the initial and final nut set by 304% and 23%, respectively. However, nut set was pollination limited as hand pollination further improved nut set. Flower visitation rates increased with the cover of semi‐natural habitats in the surrounding landscape (1 km radius). This effect was outperforming the effect of the number of managed honeybee colonies, as agronomic practice. Initial nut set increased with orchard design and flower visitation rates. Perpendicular orientation of the planted macadamia rows towards the semi‐natural habitats increased initial nut set more than threefold compared to parallel row orientation. The initial nut set was 80% higher at the edge to semi‐natural habitats than in the orchard centre. In contrast, agronomic practices, such as irrigation, did not increase initial nut set. Final nut set depended on the preconditions of the initial nut set, additionally, high altitudes and the position in the centre of the orchard had positive effects. Synthesis and applications : Pollination services were prerequisites for high yields in macadamia and could be improved without further agronomic input. Especially, the orchard design, that is, spatial arrangement of tree rows and semi‐natural habitats at local and landscape scales, was more important to boost insect pollination and the initial development of macadamia nuts than agronomic practices, such as high levels of irrigation. Considering the urgency to reduce the environmental impacts of agricultural production, we highlight the high potential of ecological intensification by a smart orchard design and the restoration and conservation of semi‐natural habitats in the orchards and their surrounding landscape.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
