There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.

Worldwide agriculture is one of the main drivers of biodiversity decline. Effective conservation strategies depend on the type of relationship between biodiversity and land-use intensity, but to date the shape of this relationship is unknown. We linked plant species richness with nitrogen (N) input as an indicator of land-use intensity on 130 grasslands and 141 arable fields in six European countries. Using Poisson regression, we found that plant species richness was significantly negatively related to N input on both field types after the effects of confounding environmental factors had been accounted for. Subsequent analyses showed that exponentially declining relationships provided a better fit than linear or unimodal relationships and that this was largely the result of the response of rare species (relative cover less than 1%). Our results indicate that conservation benefits are disproportionally more costly on high-intensity than on low-intensity farmland. For example, reducing N inputs from 75 to 0 and 400 to 60 kg ha ⁻¹ yr ⁻¹ resulted in about the same estimated species gain for arable plants. Conservation initiatives are most (cost-)effective if they are preferentially implemented in extensively farmed areas that still support high levels of biodiversity.

Agri-environmental management (AEM) is heralded as being key to biodiversity conservation on farmland, yet results of these schemes have been mixed, making their general utility questionable. We test with meta-analysis whether the benefits of AEM for species richness and abundance of plants and animals are determined by the surrounding landscape context. Across all studies (109 observations for species richness and 114 observations for abundance), AEM significantly increased species richness and their abundance. More specifically, we test the hypothesis that AEM benefits species richness and abundance (i.e. increases the difference between fields with and without AEM) more in simple than in complex landscapes. In croplands, species richness but not abundance was significantly enhanced in simple but not in complex landscapes. In grasslands, AEM effectively enhanced species richness and abundance regardless of landscape context. Pollinators were significantly enhanced by AEM in simple but not in complex landscapes in both croplands and grasslands. Our results highlight that the one-size-fits-all approach of many agri-environmental programmes is not an efficient way of spending the limited funds available for biodiversity conservation on farmland. Therefore, we conclude that AEM should be adapted to landscape structure and the species groups at which they are targeted.