Cited by 648Plant and animal studiesLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesInsect-Plant Interactions and Control

The interplay of landscape composition and configuration: new pathways to manage functional biodiversity and agroecosystem services across Europe

Open access
Martin, Emily A., Dainese, Matteo, Clough, Yann, Báldi, András, Bommarco, Riccardo, Gagic, Vesna, Garratt, Michael P.D., Holzschuh, Andrea +57 more·2019·Ecology Letters

Abstract

Managing agricultural landscapes to support biodiversity and ecosystem services is a key aim of a sustainable agriculture. However, how the spatial arrangement of crop fields and other habitats in landscapes impacts arthropods and their functions is poorly known. Synthesising data from 49 studies (1515 landscapes) across Europe, we examined effects of landscape composition (% habitats) and configuration (edge density) on arthropods in fields and their margins, pest control, pollination and yields. Configuration effects interacted with the proportions of crop and non‐crop habitats, and species’ dietary, dispersal and overwintering traits led to contrasting responses to landscape variables. Overall, however, in landscapes with high edge density, 70% of pollinator and 44% of natural enemy species reached highest abundances and pollination and pest control improved 1.7‐ and 1.4‐fold respectively. Arable‐dominated landscapes with high edge densities achieved high yields. This suggests that enhancing edge density in European agroecosystems can promote functional biodiversity and yield‐enhancing ecosystem services.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ele.13265

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is strong evidence for positive biodiversity-ecosystem service relationships.

    “We found strong evidence for positive biodiversity–ecosystem service relationships, highlighting that managing landscapes to enhance the richness of service-providing organisms (40, 41) is a promising pathway toward a more sustainable food production globally.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Naylor, R. & Ehrlich, P.R. (1997). Natural pest control services and agriculture. In: Nature's services: societal dependance on natural ecosystems. (ed Daily, G.). Island Press, Washington D.C., U.S.A., pp. 151-174.
  2. Hansson, L.-A. Akesson, S.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., pp. 51-70.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martin, E. A., Dainese, M., Clough, Y., Báldi, A., Bommarco, R., Gagic, V., Garratt, M. P. D., Holzschuh, A., Kleijn, D., Kovács‐Hostyánszki, A., Marini, L., Potts, S. G., Smith, H. G., Al Hassan, D., Albrecht, M., Andersson, G. K. S., Asís, J. D., Aviron, S., Balzan, M. V., Baños‐Picón, L., Bartomeus, I., Batáry, P., Burel, F., Caballero‐López, B., Concepción, E. D., Coudrain, V., Dänhardt, J., Diaz, M., Diekötter, T., Dormann, C. F., Duflot, R., Entling, M. H., Farwig, N., Fischer, C., Frank, T., Garibaldi, L. A., Hermann, J., Herzog, F., Inclán, D., Jacot, K., Jauker, F., Jeanneret, P., Kaiser, M., Krauss, J., Le Féon, V., Marshall, J., Moonen, A., Moreno, G., Riedinger, V., Rundlöf, M., Rusch, A., Scheper, J., Schneider, G., Schüepp, C., Stutz, S., Sutter, L., Tamburini, G., Thies, C., Tormos, J., Tscharntke, T., Tschumi, M., Uzman, D., Wagner, C., Zubair‐Anjum, M., & Steffan‐Dewenter, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • Eurac Research (IT)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • MTA Centre for Ecological Research Institute for Ecology and Botany Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group Alkotmány u. 2‐4 2163 Vácrátót Hungary
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Dutton Park Queensland Australia
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research (HU)
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • UMR 6553 Ecobio CNRS Université de Rennes 1 Campus de Beaulieu 35042 Rennes Cedex France
  • Agroscope (CH)
  • Universidad de Salamanca (ES)
  • Institut Agro Rennes-Angers (FR)
  • Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (IT)
  • Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD‐CSIC) E‐41092 Sevilla Spain
  • Museu de Ciències Naturals de Barcelona (ES)
  • Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Department of Biogeography and Global Change National Museum of Natural Sciences Spanish National Research Council (BGC‐MNCN‐CSIC) C/Serrano 115 bis E‐28006 Madrid Spain
  • Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • University of Jyväskylä (FI)
  • University of Koblenz and Landau (DE)
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • BOKU University (AT)
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • Agroecology and Environment, Agroscope Reckenholzstrasse 191 8046 Zurich Switzerland
  • Central University of Ecuador (EC)
  • Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE)
  • University of Belgrade (RS)
  • INRA UR 406 Abeilles et Environnement, Site Agroparc 84914 Avignon France
  • Marshall Agroecology Ltd Winscombe UK
  • Universidad de Extremadura (ES)
  • Université de Bordeaux (FR)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • CABI Switzerland (CH)
  • Natural Resources Research Laboratory Bremer Str. 15 29308 Winsen Germany
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • Hochschule Geisenheim University (DE)
  • Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture (DE)
  • Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University (PK)
  • Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biocenter University of Würzburg Am Hubland 97074 Würzburg Germany
Corresponding author
Martin, Emily A.
Venue
Ecology Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-04-07
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
1083-1094
ISSN
  • 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-0248
OpenAlex
W2937730115
Cited by
648
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 109 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 12
FWCI
55.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) (submittedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Conicet (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Bari Aldo Moro) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Biodiversa+
  • European Commission (311781)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  • Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas (311781)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
  • Austrian Science Fund
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (311781)
  • Bulgarian National Science Fund
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/I000348/1, BB/P003664/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
Keywords
landscape composition, landscape configuration, edge density, arthropods, functional biodiversity, agroecosystem services, pest control, pollination, crop yield, natural enemies, pollinators, arable landscape, sustainable agriculture
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Animals, Europe, Ecosystem, Crops, Agricultural, Biodiversity, Pollination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review