Significance: Prairie strips are a new conservation technology designed to alleviate biodiversity loss and environmental damage associated with row-crop agriculture. Results from a multiyear, catchment-scale experiment comparing corn and soybean fields with and without prairie vegetation indicated prairie strips raised pollinator and bird abundance, decreased water runoff, and increased soil and nutrient retention. These benefits accrued at levels disproportionately greater than the land area occupied by prairie strips. Social surveys revealed demand among both farm and nonfarm populations for the outcomes prairie strips produced. We estimated prairie strips could be used to improve biodiversity and ecosystem services across 3.9 million ha of cropland in Iowa and a large portion of the 69 million ha under similar management in the United States.

International agreements aim to conserve 17% of Earth's land area by 2020 but include no area‐based conservation targets within the working landscapes that support human needs through farming, ranching, and forestry. Through a review of country‐level legislation, we found that just 38% of countries have minimum area requirements for conserving native habitats within working landscapes. We argue for increasing native habitats to at least 20% of working landscape area where it is below this minimum. Such target has benefits for food security, nature's contributions to people, and the connectivity and effectiveness of protected area networks in biomes in which protected areas are underrepresented. We also argue for maintaining native habitat at higher levels where it currently exceeds the 20% minimum, and performed a literature review that shows that even more than 50% native habitat restoration is needed in particular landscapes. The post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is an opportune moment to include a minimum habitat restoration target for working landscapes that contributes to, but does not compete with, initiatives for expanding protected areas, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The perception is that today’s large fires are an ecological catastrophe because they burn vast areas with high intensities and severities. However, little is known of the ecological impacts of large fires on both historical and contemporary landscapes. The present paper presents a review of the current knowledge of the effects of large fires in the United States by important ecosystems written by regional experts. The ecosystems are (1) ponderosa pine–Douglas-fir, (2) sagebrush–grasslands, (3) piñon–juniper, (4) chaparral, (5) mixed-conifer, and (6) spruce–fir. This review found that large fires were common on most historical western US landscapes and they will continue to be common today with exceptions. Sagebrush ecosystems are currently experiencing larger, more severe, and more frequent large fires compared to historical conditions due to exotic cheatgrass invasions. Historical large fires in south-west ponderosa pine forest created a mixed severity mosaic dominated by non-lethal surface fires while today’s large fires are mostly high severity crown fires. While large fires play an important role in landscape ecology for most regions, their importance is much less in the dry piñon–juniper forests and sagebrush–grasslands. Fire management must address the role of large fires in maintaining the health of many US fire-dominated ecosystems.