Making agriculture sustainable is a global challenge. In the European Union (EU), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is failing with respect to biodiversity, climate, soil, land degradation as well as socio‐economic challenges. The European Commission's proposal for a CAP post‐2020 provides a scope for enhanced sustainability. However, it also allows Member States to choose low‐ambition implementation pathways. It therefore remains essential to address citizens' demands for sustainable agriculture and rectify systemic weaknesses in the CAP, using the full breadth of available scientific evidence and knowledge. Concerned about current attempts to dilute the environmental ambition of the future CAP, and the lack of concrete proposals for improving the CAP in the draft of the European Green Deal, we call on the European Parliament, Council and Commission to adopt 10 urgent action points for delivering sustainable food production, biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation. Knowledge is available to help moving towards evidence‐based, sustainable European agriculture that can benefit people, nature and their joint futures. The statements made in this article have the broad support of the scientific community, as expressed by above 3,600 signatories to the preprint version of this manuscript. The list can be found here (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685632). A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Plant diversity has been shown to increase community biomass in experimental communities, but the mechanisms resulting in such positive biodiversity effects have remained largely unknown. We used a large‐scale six‐year biodiversity experiment near Jena, Germany, to examine how aboveground community biomass in grasslands is affected by different components of plant diversity and thereby infer the mechanisms that may underlie positive biodiversity effects. As components of diversity we defined the number of species (1–16), number of functional groups (1–4), presence of functional groups (legumes, tall herbs, small herbs, and grasses) and proportional abundance of functional groups. Using linear models, replacement series on the level of functional groups, and additive partitioning on the level of species, we explored whether the observed biodiversity effects originated from disproportionate effects of single functional groups or species or from positive interactions between them.Aboveground community biomass was positively related to the number of species measured across functional groups as well as to the number of functional groups measured across different levels of species richness. Furthermore, increasing the number of species within functional groups increased aboveground community biomass, indicating that species within functional groups were not redundant with respect to biomass production. A positive relationship between the number of functional groups and aboveground community biomass within a particular level of species richness suggested that complementarity was larger between species belonging to different rather than to the same functional groups. The presence of legumes or tall herbs had a strong positive impact on aboveground community biomass whereas the presence of small herbs or grasses had on average no significant effect. Two‐ and three‐way interactions between functional group presences were weak, suggesting that their main effects were largely additive. Replacement series analyses on the level of functional groups revealed strong transgressive overyielding and relative yields >1, indicating facilitation. On the species level, we found strong complementarity effects that increased over time while selection effects due to disproportionate contributions of particular species decreased over time. We conclude that transgressive overyielding between functional groups and species richness effects within functional groups caused the positive biodiversity effects on aboveground community biomass in our experiment.

The role and design of global expert organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) needs rethinking. Acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all model does not exist, we suggest a reflexive turn that implies treating the governance of expertise as a matter of political contestation.

1 Positive effects of biodiversity on plant productivity may result from diversity-induced changes in the size or density of individual plants, yet these two possibilities have never been tested at the same time in a biodiversity experiment with a large species pool. Here, we distinguish between size effects and density effects on plant productivity, using data from 198 experimental grassland communities that contained 1–16 species. Plant modules such as tillers or rosettes were defined as relevant units, being equivalent to plant individuals in the majority of species. 2 In agreement with previous studies, we found positive effects of species richness on above-ground productivity. We show that this positive biodiversity effect resulted from diversity-induced increases in module density rather than from increases in module size. In contrast, variation in productivity within diversity levels was related to module size rather than module density. 3 The size–density relationships varied among plant functional groups and among species but their average response to increasing species richness paralleled the pattern observed at the level of the entire plant communities: species richness had a positive effect on above-ground species biomass and species module density but not on species module size. Twenty-four out of 26 overyielding species had denser populations and 25 out of 28 underyielding species had smaller modules in mixtures than in monocultures. 4 Synthesis. In grasslands, an increase in community productivity must involve an increase in plant size or density. We found that diversity-induced increases in productivity were related to diversity-induced increases in density, whereas diversity-independent increases in productivity were related to increases in plant size. Our results suggest that increased density of overyielding species in mixtures was the main driver of the positive biodiversity–productivity relationship in our experiment. We conclude that the mechanisms leading to enhanced productivity of species-rich as compared with species-poor communities cannot be derived from mechanisms explaining high productivity within communities that contain a particular number of species.

Summary: 1. While positive effects of biodiversity on temporal stability of communities have been demonstrated in theoretical and empirical studies, diversity–stability relationships at the population level remain poorly understood.2. We investigated temporal variability of plant populations in experimental grassland plots of varying species richness (1, 2, 4, 8, 16–60 species), functional group richness and composition (presence/absence of legumes × grasses × small herbs × tall herbs) in a long‐term biodiversity experiment from 2003 to 2009 (‘Jena Experiment’).3. Average population stability, defined as the reciprocal of the coefficient of variation of above‐ground biomass production over time, differed largely between species but was generally higher in grasses and small herbs than in legumes and tall herbs. Furthermore, population stability was positively related to a species’ proportional contribution to community biomass. Thus, an increasing number of subordinate species explained lower average population stabilities at higher diversity levels.4. A negative covariance (CV) across all species‐richness levels suggested negatively correlated species dynamics. Species belonging to different functional groups fluctuated asynchronously, while species dynamics within functional groups were more synchronous. Community‐wide species synchrony decreased with increasing species richness, and temporal stability at the community level increased.5. Synthesis: Our results suggest that diversity–stability relationships are driven by fluctuations in the population biomass of individual species which are less synchronized in more diverse than in less diverse mixtures and monocultures. Dominant plant species tend to be more stabilized than subdominant species, independently of community species richness. However, asynchrony of population dynamics outweighs decreasing population stability with increasing species richness, resulting in higher temporal stability at the plant community level.

Credibility, relevance and legitimacy are often cited as determinants of the effectiveness of interfaces between science and environmental policy and serve as criteria for their evaluation. However, these concepts are hazy and have a variety of meanings. In practice, the systematic evaluation of science–policy interfaces according to credibility, relevance and legitimacy is subject to a number of difficulties and is rarely done. In this paper we offer some clarification of these concepts and show how they influence the perception and evaluation of science–policy interfaces. Our findings reveal that, while the attributes of credibility, relevance and legitimacy are helpful when reflecting on the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces, they are difficult to apply as criteria when evaluating these interfaces. To apply these concepts in a meaningful way to the task of evaluation they need to be defined specifically for the particular context of the science–policy interface concerned.