Context: Agroecology combines agronomic and ecological concepts. It relies on the enhancement of biodiversity and related ecosystem services to support agricultural production. It is dependent on biological interactions for the design and management of agricultural systems in agricultural landscapes.Objectives: We review the role of landscape ecology to understand and promote biodiversity, pest regulation and crop pollination for the designing of “agroecology landscapes”. We illustrate the use of landscape ecological methods for supporting agroforestry systems as an example of agroecological development, and we propose pathways to implement agroecology at landscape scale.Methods: The state of the art of how landscape ecology contributes to agroecology development is summarized based on a literature review.Results: Agroecology requires thinking beyond the field scale to consider the positioning, quality and connectivity of fields and semi-natural habitats at larger spatial scales. The spatial and temporal organisation of semi-natural elements and the crop mosaic interact. Understanding this interaction is the pre-requisite for promoting patterns and mechanisms that foster biodiversity and ecosystem service provision. Promoting agroecological practices beyond individual farm borders can be rooted in a bottom-up approach from agroecological lighthouse farms to farm networks to amplify agroecology adoption at the landscape scale.Conclusions: Achieving agricultural landscapes composed of fields and farms following agroecological management requires understanding of biodiversity patterns, biological interactions and mechanisms that determine and boost ecosystem functioning to improve services at landscape scale, involving farmers in a bottom-up and context-specific approach.

Aims: We introduce ReSurveyEurope — a new data source of resurveyed vegetation plots in Europe, compiled by a collaborative network of vegetation scientists. We describe the scope of this initiative, provide an overview of currently available data, governance, data contribution rules, and accessibility. In addition, we outline further steps, including potential research questions.Results: ReSurveyEurope includes resurveyed vegetation plots from all habitats. Version 1.0 of ReSurveyEurope contains 283,135 observations (i.e., individual surveys of each plot) from 79,190 plots sampled in 449 independent resurvey projects. Of these, 62,139 (78%) are permanent plots, that is, marked in situ, or located with GPS, which allow for high spatial accuracy in resurvey. The remaining 17,051 (22%) plots are from studies in which plots from the initial survey could not be exactly relocated. Four data sets, which together account for 28,470 (36%) plots, provide only presence/absence information on plant species, while the remaining 50,720 (64%) plots contain abundance information (e.g., percentage cover or cover–abundance classes such as variants of the Braun‐Blanquet scale). The oldest plots were sampled in 1911 in the Swiss Alps, while most plots were sampled between 1950 and 2020.Conclusions: ReSurveyEurope is a new resource to address a wide range of research questions on fine‐scale changes in European vegetation. The initiative is devoted to an inclusive and transparent governance and data usage approach, based on slightly adapted rules of the well‐established European Vegetation Archive (EVA). ReSurveyEurope data are ready for use, and proposals for analyses of the data set can be submitted at any time to the coordinators. Still, further data contributions are highly welcome.

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.