Diversification practices benefit biodiversity, pollination, pest control, nutrient cycling, soil fertility, and water regulation.

Sustainable agriculture requires balancing crop yields with the effects of pesticides on non-target organisms, such as bees and other crop pollinators. Field studies demonstrated that agricultural use of neonicotinoid insecticides can negatively affect wild bee species^1,2, leading to restrictions on these compounds³. However, besides neonicotinoids, field-based evidence of the effects of landscape pesticide exposure on wild bees is lacking. Bees encounter many pesticides in agricultural landscapes^4–9 and the effects of this landscape exposure on colony growth and development of any bee species remains unknown. Here we show that the many pesticides found in bumble bee-collected pollen are associated with reduced colony performance during crop bloom, especially in simplified landscapes with intensive agricultural practices. Our results from 316 Bombus terrestris colonies at 106 agricultural sites across eight European countries confirm that the regulatory system fails to sufficiently prevent pesticide-related impacts on non-target organisms, even for a eusocial pollinator species in which colony size may buffer against such impacts^10,11. These findings support the need for postapproval monitoring of both pesticide exposure and effects to confirm that the regulatory process is sufficiently protective in limiting the collateral environmental damage of agricultural pesticide use.

In agricultural landscapes, arthropods provide essential ecosystem services such as biological pest control and pollination. Intensified crop management practices and homogenization of landscapes have led to declines among such organisms. Semi‐natural habitats, associated with high numbers of these organisms, are increasingly lost from agricultural landscapes but diversification by increasing crop diversity has been proposed as a way to reverse observed arthropod declines and thus restore ecosystem services. However, whether or not an increase in the diversity of crop types within a landscape promotes diversity and abundances of pollinating and predaceous arthropods, and how semi‐natural habitats might modify this relationship, are not well understood. To test how crop diversity and the proportion of semi‐natural habitats within a landscape are related to the diversity and abundance of beneficial arthropod communities, we collected primary data from seven studies focusing on natural enemies (carabids and spiders) and pollinators (bees and hoverflies) from 154 crop fields in Southern Sweden between 2007 and 2017. Crop diversity within a 1‐km radius around each field was positively related to the Shannon diversity index of carabid and pollinator communities in landscapes rich in semi‐natural habitats. Abundances were mainly affected by the proportion of semi‐natural habitats in the landscape, with decreasing carabid and increasing pollinator numbers as the proportion of this habitat type increased. Spiders showed no response to either crop diversity or the proportion of semi‐natural habitats. Synthesis and applications. We show that the joint effort of preserving semi‐natural habitats and promoting crop diversity in agricultural landscapes is necessary to enhance communities of natural enemies and pollinators. Our results suggest that increasing the diversity of crop types can contribute to the conservation of service‐providing arthropod communities, particularly if the diversification of crops targets complex landscapes with a high proportion of semi‐natural habitats.

Summary: Biological pest control is a key ecosystem service, and it depends on multiple factors acting from the local to the landscape scale. However, the effects of soil management on biological control and its potential interaction with landscape are still poorly understood. In a field exclusion experiment, we explored the relative effect of tillage system (conservation vs. conventional tillage) on aphid biological control in 15 pairs of winter cereal fields (barley and wheat) selected along a gradient of landscape complexity. We sampled the abundance of the main natural enemy guilds, and we evaluated their relative contribution to aphid predation and parasitism. Conservation tillage was found to support more abundant predator communities and higher aphid predation (16% higher than in the fields managed under conventional tillage). In particular, both the abundance and the aphid predation of vegetation‐ and ground‐dwelling arthropods were increased under conservation tillage conditions. Conservation tillage also increased the parasitism rate of aphids. A high proportion of semi‐natural habitats in the landscape enhanced both aphid parasitism and predation by vegetation‐dwelling organisms but only in the fields managed under conventional tillage. The better local habitat quality provided by conservation tillage may compensate for a low‐quality landscape. Synthesis and applications. Our study stresses the importance of considering both soil management and landscape composition when planning strategies to maximize biological control services in agro‐ecosystems, highlighting the role played by conservation tillage in supporting natural enemy communities. In simple landscapes, the adoption of conservation tillage will locally improve biological control provided by both predators and parasitoids mitigating the negative effects of landscape simplification. Moreover, considering the small scale at which both predation and parasitism responded to landscape composition, a successful strategy to improve biological control would be to establish a fine mosaic of crop and non‐crop areas such as hedgerows, tree lines and small semi‐natural habitat patches.

Sulfoximines, the next generation systemic insecticides developed to replace neonicotinoids, have been shown to negatively impact pollinator development and reproduction. However, field-realistic studies on sulfoximines are few and consequences on pollination services unexplored. Moreover, the impacts of other agrochemicals such as fungicides, and their combined effects with insecticides remain poorly investigated. Here, we show in a full factorial semi-field experiment that spray applications of both the product Closer containing the insecticide sulfoxaflor and the product Amistar containing the fungicide azoxystrobin, negatively affected the individual foraging performance of bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Insecticide exposure further reduced colony growth and size whereas fungicide exposure decreased pollen deposition. We found indications for resource limitation that might have exacerbated pesticide effects on bumblebee colonies. Our work demonstrates that field-realistic exposure to sulfoxaflor can adversely impact bumblebees and that applications before bloom may be insufficient as a mitigation measure to prevent its negative impacts on pollinators. Moreover, fungicide use during bloom could reduce bumblebee foraging performance and pollination services.

Agroecosystems are principally managed to maximize food provisioning even if they receive a large array of supporting and regulating ecosystem services (ESs). Hence, comprehensive studies investigating the effects of local management and landscape composition on the provision of and trade-offs between multiple ESs are urgently needed. We explored the effects of conservation tillage, nitrogen fertilization and landscape composition on six ESs (crop production, disease control, soil fertility, water quality regulation, weed and pest control) in winter cereals. Conservation tillage enhanced soil fertility and pest control, decreased water quality regulation and weed control, without affecting crop production and disease control. Fertilization only influenced crop production by increasing grain yield. Landscape intensification reduced the provision of disease and pest control. We also found tillage and landscape composition to interactively affect water quality regulation and weed control. Under N fertilization, conventional tillage resulted in more trade-offs between ESs than conservation tillage. Our results demonstrate that soil management and landscape composition affect the provision of several ESs and that soil management potentially shapes the trade-offs between them.