SignificanceDecades of research have fostered the now-prevalent assumption that noncrop habitat facilitates better pest suppression by providing shelter and food resources to the predators and parasitoids of crop pests. Based on our analysis of the largest pest-control database of its kind, noncrop habitat surrounding farm fields does affect multiple dimensions of pest control, but the actual responses of pests and enemies are highly variable across geographies and cropping systems. Because noncrop habitat often does not enhance biological control, more information about local farming contexts is needed before habitat conservation can be recommended as a viable pest-suppression strategy. Consequently, when pest control does not benefit from noncrop vegetation, farms will need to be carefully comanaged for competing conservation and production objectives.

Biodiversity loss-one of the most prominent forms of modern environmental change-has been heavily driven by terrestrial habitat loss and, in particular, the spread and intensification of agriculture. Expanding agricultural land-use has led to the search for strong conservation strategies, with some suggesting that biodiversity conservation in agriculture is best maximized by reducing local management intensity, such as fertilizer and pesticide application. Others highlight the importance of landscape-level approaches that incorporate natural or semi-natural areas in landscapes surrounding farms. Here, we show that both of these practices are valuable to the conservation of biodiversity, and that either local or landscape factors can be most crucial to conservation planning depending on which types of organisms one wishes to save. We performed a quantitative review of 266 observations taken from 31 studies that compared the impacts of localized (within farm) management strategies and landscape complexity (around farms) on the richness and abundance of plant, invertebrate and vertebrate species in agro-ecosystems. While both factors significantly impacted species richness, the richness of sessile plants increased with less-intensive local management, but did not significantly respond to landscape complexity. By contrast, the richness of mobile vertebrates increased with landscape complexity, but did not significantly increase with less-intensive local management. Invertebrate richness and abundance responded to both factors. Our analyses point to clear differences in how various groups of organisms respond to differing scales of management, and suggest that preservation of multiple taxonomic groups will require multiple scales of conservation.

Understanding distribution patterns and multitrophic interactions is critical for managing bat‐ and bird‐mediated ecosystem services such as the suppression of pest and non‐pest arthropods. Despite the ecological and economic importance of bats and birds in tropical forests, agroforestry systems, and agricultural systems mixed with natural forest, a systematic review of their impact is still missing. A growing number of bird and bat exclosure experiments has improved our knowledge allowing new conclusions regarding their roles in food webs and associated ecosystem services. Here, we review the distribution patterns of insectivorous birds and bats, their local and landscape drivers, and their effects on trophic cascades in tropical ecosystems. We report that for birds but not bats community composition and relative importance of functional groups changes conspicuously from forests to habitats including both agricultural areas and forests, here termed ‘forest‐agri’ habitats, with reduced representation of insectivores in the latter. In contrast to previous theory regarding trophic cascade strength, we find that birds and bats reduce the density and biomass of arthropods in the tropics with effect sizes similar to those in temperate and boreal communities. The relative importance of birds versus bats in regulating pest abundances varies with season, geography and management. Birds and bats may even suppress tropical arthropod outbreaks, although positive effects on plant growth are not always reported. As both bats and birds are major agents of pest suppression, a better understanding of the local and landscape factors driving the variability of their impact is needed.

Summary1. Agriculture comprises the largest global land use, makes it a leading cause of habitat loss. It is therefore critical to identify how to best construct agricultural systems that can simultaneously provide food and other ecosystem services. This challenge requires that we determine how to maximize win-win relationships and minimize trade-offs between services. 2. Through meta-analysis, we tested whether within-field crop diversification (polyculture) can lead to win-win relationships between two ecosystem services: yield of a focal crop species and biocontrol of crop pests. We selected only studies that recorded both services (N = 26 studies; 301 observations), allowing us to better determine the underlying mechanisms of our principal findings. We calculated log-response ratios for both ecosystem services in monoand polycultures. 3. We found win-win relationships between per-plant yield of the primary crop and biocontrol in polyculture systems that minimized intraspecific competition via substitutive planting. Additionally, we found beneficial effects on biocontrol with no difference in per-unit area yield of the primary crop in polyculture fields at high cropping densities (additive planting) where legumes were used as the secondary crop. These results suggest that there is a strong potential for win-win relationships between biocontrol and per-unit area yield under certain scenarios. Our findings were consistent across geographical regions and by type of primary crop. We did not find evidence that biocontrol had an effect on yield, but rather, both were independently affected by polycultural cropping. 4. Synthesis and applications. We show that well-designed polycultures can produce win-win outcomes between per-plant, and potentially per-unit area, primary crop yield and biocontrol. Biocontrol services are consistently enhanced in polycultures, so polyculture management that focuses on yield optimization is likely to be the best strategy for maximizing both services. In doing so, we suggest that practitioners utilize polycultures that decrease plant-plant competition through a substitution of relatively large quantities of the primary crop for compatibly harvestable secondary crops. Additionally, if planting at high cropping densities, it is important that legumes be the secondary crop.