1. The land-sharing versus land-sparing debate recently stagnated, lacking an integrating perspective in agricultural landscapes as well as consideration of ecosystem services. Here, we argue that land-sharing (i.e. wildlife-friendly farming systems) and land-sparing (i.e. separation of high-yielding agriculture and natural habitats) are not mutually exclusive, as both are needed to balance management needs for the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes.2. Land-sharing promotes ecosystem services in agricultural settings, thereby allowing for environmentally friendly production. Land set aside in protected areas by land-sparing is crucial for conservation of those species that are incompatible with agriculture.3. Importantly, as species move throughout the landscape and exploit different habitats, increased connectivity between environmentally friendly managed and protected areas is needed to (a) promote spillover of ecosystem service providers from land-sharing/-sparing measures to agricultural production and rescue service-providing species from extinction in hostile areas, (b) to facilitate immigration and counteract possible extinctions in spared habitats and (c) to conserve response diversity of species communities for ensuring resilience of ecosystem services in changing environments. 4. In conclusion, the successful management of multifunctional landscapes requires the combination of context-specific land-sharing and land-sparing measures within spatially well-connected landscape mosaics, resulting in land-sharing/sparing connectivity landscapes. K E Y W O R D S agriculture, landscape design, landscape management, land-sharing, land-sparing, multifunctionality, sustainability | 263 People and Nature GRASS et Al.

Pollinator declines in agricultural landscapes are driven by multiple stressors, but potential interactions of these remain poorly studied. Using a highly replicated semi‐field study with 56 mesocosms of varying wild plant diversity (2–16 species) and oilseed rape treated with a neonicotinoid, we tested the interacting effects of resource diversity and insecticides on reproduction of a solitary wild bee. Compared to mesocosms with oilseed rape monocultures, availability of resources from wild plants complementing oilseed rape doubled brood cell production. In addition, bee reproduction increased due to plant diversity and identity effects. Exposure to neonicotinoid‐treated oilseed rape reduced bee larval to adult development by 69%, but only in mesocosms with oilseed rape monocultures. Availability of complementary flower resources can thus offset negative effects of neonicotinoid‐treated oilseed rape on wild bee reproduction. Policy should encourage the implementation of diverse floral resources mitigating negative effects of crop monocultures and insecticides, thereby sustaining solitary bee populations in agricultural landscapes.

No abstract

Agricultural intensification and the subsequent fragmentation of semi-natural habitats severely restrict pollinator and pollen movement threatening both pollinator and plant species. Linear landscape elements such as hedgerows are planted for agricultural and conservation purposes to increase the resource availability and habitat connectivity supporting populations of beneficial organisms such as pollinators. However, hedgerows may have unexpected effects on plant and pollinator persistence by not just channeling pollinators and pollen along, but also restricting movement across the strip of habitat. Here, we tested how hedgerows influence pollinator movement and pollen flow. We used fluorescent dye particles as pollen analogues to track pollinator movement between potted cornflowers Centaurea cyanus along and across a hedgerow separating two meadows. The deposition of fluorescent dye was significantly higher along the hedgerow than across the hedgerow and into the meadow, despite comparable pollinator abundances. The differences in pollen transfer suggest that hedgerows can affect pollinator and pollen dispersal by channeling their movement and acting as a permeable barrier. We conclude that hedgerows in agricultural landscapes can increase the connectivity between otherwise isolated plant and pollinator populations (corridor function), but can have additional, and so far unknown barrier effects on pollination services. Functioning as a barrier, linear landscape elements can impede pollinator movement and dispersal, even for highly mobile species such as bees. These results should be considered in future management plans aiming to enhance the persistence of threatened pollinator and plant populations by restoring functional connectivity and to ensure sufficient crop pollination in the agricultural landscape.

Background: Globally, high amounts of food are wasted due to insufficient quality and decay. Although pollination has been shown to increase crop quality, a possible impact on shelf life has not been quantitatively studied. Results: We tested how shelf life, represented by fruit decay, firmness and weight, changes as a function of pollination limitation in two European, commercially important strawberry varieties. Pollination limitation resulted in lower amounts of deformed fruits. Whereas 65% of wind-pollinated fruits were deformed, open pollination resulted in only 20% deformed fruits. During storage, the proportion of decayed fruits increased in relation to the degree of deformation. In the variety Yamaska, 80% of the fruits with high degrees of deformation decayed after four days, whereas in the variety Sonata, all highly deformed fruits had already decayed after three days. Fruit weight decreased independent from the degree of deformation. However, strongest deformations resulted in a generally lower fruit weight in Sonata, whereas in Yamaska, also medium deformed fruits had a lower weight than highly deformed fruits. Effects of deformation on firmness declines were mostly variety dependent. Whereas firmness declined similarly for all degrees of deformation for Yamaska, highly deformed fruits lost firmness fastest in Sonata.