Continuous availability of food resources, such as pollen, is vital for many insects that provide pollination and pest control services to agriculture. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the shared or complementary use of floral resources by such species, which hampers more effective landscape management to simultaneously promote them in agroecosystems. Here, we simultaneously quantified pollen use by a bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) and a mason bee (Osmia bicornis), two bee species recognized as important crop pollinators, as well as a lacewing (Chrysoperla carnea) and a ladybeetle species (Harmonia axyridis), both common predators of crop aphids, throughout the season in 23 agricultural landscapes in Germany and Switzerland. Pollen diets were more diverse and similar among C. carnea and H. axyridis compared to the two bee species, but all four species shared key pollen types early in the season such as Acer, Quercus, Salix and Prunus. All species exhibited a pronounced shift in pollen sources from primarily woody plants (mainly trees) in spring to primarily herbaceous plants in summer. The majority of pollen (overall ≥64%) came from non‐agricultural plants even in crop‐dominated landscapes. Synthesis and applications. Our results highlight the importance of trees as pollen sources for many insect species, particularly early in the season. Our findings support incentives that promote heterogeneous agricultural landscapes including both woody and herbaceous semi‐natural habitats, ensuring phenological complementarity of floral resources for insect species that can provide pollination and pest control services to agriculture. The identified key plant species can help to design and optimize agri‐environment schemes to promote these functionally important insects.

The yield of animal-pollinated crops is threatened by bee declines, but its precise sensitivity is poorly known. We therefore determined the yield dependence of Hokkaido pumpkin in Germany on insect pollination by quantifying: (i) the relationship between pollen receipt and fruit set and (ii) the cumulative pollen deposition of each pollinator group. We found that approximately 2500 pollen grains per flower were needed to maximize fruit set. At the measured rates of flower visitation, we estimated that bumblebees (21 visits/flower lifetime, 864 grains/visit) or honeybees (123 visits, 260 grains) could individually achieve maximum crop yield, whereas halictid bees are ineffective (11 visits, 16 grains). The pollinator fauna was capable of delivering 20 times the necessary amount of pollen. We therefore estimate that pumpkin yield was not pollination-limited in our study region and that it is currently fairly resilient to single declines of honeybees or wild bumblebees.

Intensive agricultural landscapes can be hostile for bees due to a lack of floral and nesting resources, and due to management-related stress such as pesticide use and soil tillage. This threatens the pollination services that bees deliver to insect-pollinated crops. We studied the effects of farming intensity (organic vs. conventional, number of insecticide applications) and availability of semi-natural habitats at the field and landscape scale on pollinator visits and pollen delivery to pumpkin in Germany. We found that wild bumble bees were the key pollinators of pumpkin in terms of pollen delivery, despite fivefold higher visitation frequency of honey bees. Critically, we observed that the area of cropland had stronger effects on bees’ pollen deposition than the area of seminatural habitats. Specifically, a 10% increase of the proportion of cropland reduced pollen delivery by 7%. Pumpkin provides a striking example for a key role of wild pollinators in crop pollination even at high numerical dominance of honey bees. In addition, our findings suggest that habitat conversion to agricultural land is a driver of deteriorating pollination. This underlines the importance to maintain sufficient areas of non-crop habitats in agricultural landscapes.

Context: Predatory insects contribute to the natural control of agricultural pests, but also use plant pollen or nectar as supplementary food resources. Resource maps have been proposed as an alternative to land cover maps for prediction of beneficial insects. Objectives: We aimed at predicting the abundance of crop pest predating insects and the pest control service they provide with both, detailed flower resource maps and land cover maps. Methods: We selected 19 landscapes of 500 m radius and mapped them with both approaches. In the centres of the landscapes, aphid predators – hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae), ladybeetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) – were surveyed in experimentally established faba bean phytometers (Vicia faba L. Var. Sutton Dwarf) and their control of introduced black bean aphids (Aphis fabae Scop.) was recorded. Results: Landscapes with higher proportions of forest edge as derived from land cover maps supported higher abundance of aphid predators, and high densities of aphid predators reduced aphid infestation on faba bean. Floral resource maps did not significantly predict predator abundance or aphid control services. Conclusions: Land cover maps allowed to relate landscape composition with predator abundance, showing positive effects of forest edges. Floral resource maps may have failed to better predict predators because other resources such as overwintering sites or alternative prey potentially play a more important role than floral resources. More research is needed to further improve our understanding of resource requirements beyond floral resource estimations and our understanding of their role for aphid predators at the landscape scale.

Wild bumblebees are key pollinators of crops and wild plants that rely on the continuous availability of floral resources. A better understanding of the spatio-temporal availability and use of floral food resources may help to promote bumblebees and their pollination services in agricultural landscapes. We placed colonies of Bombus terrestris L. in 24 agricultural landscapes with various degrees of floral resource availability and assessed different parameters of colony growth and fitness. We estimated pollen availability during different periods of colony development based on detailed information of the bumblebee pollen diet and the spatial distribution of the visited plant species. Total pollen availability did not significantly explain colony growth or fitness. However, when using habitat maps, the weight gain of colonies, the number of queen cells, and colony survival decreased with increasing distance from the forest. The better explanation of bumblebee performance by forest proximity than by (plant-inferred) pollen availability indicates that other functions of forests than pollen provision were important. The conservation of forests next to agricultural land might help to sustain high populations of these important wild pollinators and enhance their crop pollination services. Combining different mapping approaches might help to further disentangle complex relationships between B. terrestris and their environment in agricultural landscapes.