Episyrphus balteatus (DeGeer) (Diptera: Syrphidae), Adalia bipunctata (L.) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Rondani) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) are the three most abundant natural enemies of Dysaphis plantaginea Passerini (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Asturian (NW Spain) apple orchards. They attack this aphid in sequence: E. balteatus arrived first, followed by A. bipunctata and then by A. aphidimyza. The cecidomyiids arrived too late to have a regulating effect. The syrphids laid an average of 2.3 ± 1.7 eggs per aphid colony and the coccinellids 18.4 ± 9.9 regardless of the degree of the infestation rates of the apple shoots. This value corresponds to the size of an egg batch laid by one female. Therefore, these aphid predators did not respond numerically to the abundance of the pest. The results of this study indicate that natural populations of syrphids and ladybird beetles are unable to control D. plantaginea, and therefore a more complex strategy than waiting for natural enemies is required.

1. The aphids Dysaphis plantaginea Passerini, Aphis spp. ( Aphis pomi De Geer and Aphis spiraecola Patch), and Eriosoma lanigerum Hausmann are commonly found together in apple orchards. Ants establish a mutualistic relationship with the myrmecophilous aphids D. plantaginea and Aphis spp. but not with E. lanigerum . 2. Field surveys and one experiment manipulating the presence of ants and the aphid species were conducted to test the hypothesis that ants play a role in structuring the community of these aphids on apple. 3. Ants tended D. plantaginea and Aphis spp. but not E. lanigerum colonies. In the field, D. plantaginea performed better in the presence of ants while no effect was observed in Aphis spp. Contrarily, populations of Aphis spp. in the manipulative experiment performed better in the presence of ants while no differences were observed for D. plantaginea . Such differences between field and manipulative conditions could be related to thermal tolerance, phenology, and life cycles. In contrast, populations of E. lanigerum were reduced in the presence of ants. 4. Ants also had a significant negative effect on the abundance of natural enemies, which could partially explain the benefits to the tended aphids. However, while ants did not provide a benefit to Aphis spp. when it was reared alone, in the presence of other species ant attendance increased Aphis abundance by 256% and simultaneously reduced E. lanigerum abundance by 63%. Therefore, ants benefited Aphis by reducing competition with other aphid species, which involves a different mechanism, explaining the benefit of ant attendance. Considering all the aphid species together, ants had a net positive effect on aphid abundance, which was consequently considered harmful for the plant. 5. Our results highlighted the role that ants play in structuring apple aphid communities and give support to the observed pattern that ants can benefit tended aphids while simultaneously reducing the abundance of untended herbivores.

Functional traits mediate the response of communities to disturbances (response traits) and their contribution to ecosystem functions (effect traits). To predict how anthropogenic disturbances influence ecosystem services requires a dual approach including both trait concepts. Here, we used a response–effect trait conceptual framework to understand how local and landscape features affect pollinator functional diversity and pollination services in apple orchards. We worked in 110 apple orchards across four European regions. Orchards differed in management practices. Low‐intensity (LI) orchards were certified organic or followed close‐to‐organic practices. High‐intensity (HI) orchards followed integrated pest management practices. Within each management type, orchards encompassed a range of local (flower diversity, agri‐environmental structures) and landscape features (orchard and pollinator‐friendly habitat cover). We measured pollinator visitation rates and calculated trait composition metrics based on 10 pollinator traits. We used initial fruit set as a measure of pollination service. Some pollinator traits (body size and hairiness) were negatively related to orchard cover and positively affected by pollinator‐friendly habitat cover. Bee functional diversity was lower in HI orchards and decreased with increased landscape orchard cover. Pollination service was not associated with any particular trait but increased with pollinator trait diversity in LI orchards. As a result, LI orchards with high pollinator trait diversity reached levels of pollination service similar to those of HI orchards. Synthesis and applications. Pollinator functional diversity enables pollinator communities to respond to agricultural intensification and to increase pollination function. Our results show that efforts to promote biodiversity provide greater returns in low‐intensity than in high‐intensity orchards. The fact that low‐intensity orchards with high pollinator functional diversity reach levels of pollination services similar to those of high‐intensity orchards provides a compelling argument for the conversion of high‐intensity into low‐intensity farms.