Flowers provide resources for pollinators, and can also be transmission venues for beneficial or pathogenic pollinator-associated microbes. Floral traits could mediate transmission similarly for beneficial and pathogenic microbes, although some beneficial microbes can grow in flowers while pathogenic microbes may only survive until acquired by a new host. In spite of conceptual similarities, research on beneficial and pathogenic pollinator-associated microbes has progressed mostly independently. Recent advances demonstrate that floral traits are associated with transmission of beneficial and pathogenic microbes, with consequences for pollinator populations and communities. However, there is a near-absence of experimental manipulations of floral traits to determine causal effects on transmission, and a need to understand how floral, microbe and host traits interact to mediate transmission.

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win-win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win-win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies.