Significance: Many of the world’s crops are pollinated by insects, and bees are often assumed to be the most important pollinators. To our knowledge, our study is the first quantitative evaluation of the relative contribution of non-bee pollinators to global pollinator-dependent crops. Across 39 studies we show that insects other than bees are efficient pollinators providing 39% of visits to crop flowers. A shift in perspective from a bee-only focus is needed for assessments of crop pollinator biodiversity and the economic value of pollination. These studies should also consider the services provided by other types of insects, such as flies, wasps, beetles, and butterflies—important pollinators that are currently overlooked.

Biodiversity is in decline due to human‐induced pressures on ecosystems around the world. To be able to counteract this alarming trend, it is paramount to closely monitor biodiversity at global scales. Because this is practically impossible with traditional methods, the last decade has seen a strong push for new solutions. In aquatic ecosystems, the monitoring of species from environmental DNA (eDNA) has emerged as one of the most powerful tools at our disposal, but in terrestrial ecosystems, the power of eDNA for monitoring has so far been hampered by the local scale of the samples. In this study, we report the successful detection of insects from airborne eDNA from samples taken in the field. We compare our results to two traditional insect monitoring methods (1) light traps for moth monitoring and (2) transect walks for the monitoring of butterflies and wild bees. Airborne eDNA metabarcoding revealed DNA from six classes of arthropods, and twelve order of insects—including representatives from the four largest orders: Diptera (flies), Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Coleoptera (beetles), and Hymenoptera (bees, wasps, and ants). We did not detect all species observed using traditional methods and suggest further directions for the development of airborne eDNA metabarcoding. We also recovered DNA from nine species of vertebrates, including frogs, birds, and mammals as well as from 12 other phyla. Airborne eDNA has the potential to become a powerful tool for terrestrial biodiversity monitoring, with many impactful applications including the monitoring of pests, invasive, or endangered species and disease vectors.

A common approach to the conservation of farmland biodiversity and the promotion of multifunctional landscapes, particularly in landscapes containing only small remnants of non-crop habitats, has been to maintain landscape heterogeneity and reduce land-use intensity. In contrast, it has recently been shown that devoting specific areas of non-crop habitats to conservation, segregated from high-yielding farmland (‘land sparing’), can more effectively conserve biodiversity than promoting low-yielding, less intensively managed farmland occupying larger areas (‘land sharing’). In the present paper we suggest that the debate over the relative merits of land sparing or land sharing is partly blurred by the differing spatial scales at which it is suggested that land sparing should be applied. We argue that there is no single correct spatial scale for segregating biodiversity protection and commodity production in multifunctional landscapes. Instead we propose an alternative conceptual construct, which we call ‘multiple-scale land sparing’, targeting biodiversity and ecosystem services in transformed landscapes. We discuss how multiple-scale land sparing may overcome the apparent dichotomy between land sharing and land sparing and help to find acceptable compromises that conserve biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality.