Biodiversity loss will likely have surprising and dramatic consequences for human wellbeing. Identifying species that benefit society represents a critical first step towards predicting the consequences of biodiversity loss. Though natural predators prevent billions of dollars in agricultural pest damage annually, characterizing which predators consume pests has proven challenging. Emerging molecular techniques may illuminate these interactions. In the countryside of Costa Rica, we identified avian predators of coffee's most damaging insect pest, the coffee berry borer beetle (Coleoptera:Scolytidae Hypothenemus hampeii), by assaying 1430 fecal samples of 108 bird species for borer DNA. While feeding trials confirmed the efficacy of our approach, detection rates were low. Nevertheless, we identified six species that consume the borer. These species had narrow diet breadths, thin bills, and short wings; traits shared with borer predators in other systems. Borer predators were not threatened; therefore, safeguarding pest control necessitates managing species beyond those at risk of regional extinction by maintaining populations in farmland habitats. Generally, our results demonstrate potential for pairing molecular methods with ecological analyses to yield novel insights into species interactions.

Agriculture is a dominant evolutionary force that drives the evolution of both domesticated and wild species. However, the various mechanisms of agriculture-induced evolution and their socio-ecological consequences are not often synthetically discussed. Here, we explore how agricultural practices and evolutionary changes in domesticated species cause evolution in wild species. We do so by examining three processes by which agriculture drives evolution. First, differences in the traits of domesticated species, compared with their wild ancestors, alter the selective environment and create opportunities for wild species to specialize. Second, selection caused by agricultural practices, including both those meant to maximize productivity and those meant to control pest species, can lead to pest adaptation. Third, agriculture can cause non-selective changes in patterns of gene flow in wild species. We review evidence for these processes and then discuss their ecological and sociological impacts. We finish by identifying important knowledge gaps and future directions related to the eco-evolutionary impacts of agriculture including their extent, how to prevent the detrimental evolution of wild species, and finally, how to use evolution to minimize the ecological impacts of agriculture.This article is part of the themed issue 'Human influences on evolution, and the ecological and societal consequences'.

Soil and soil biodiversity play critical roles in Nature's Contributions to People (NCP) # 10, defined as Nature's ability to regulate direct detrimental effects on humans, and on human-important plants and animals, through the control or regulation of particular organisms considered to be harmful. We provide an overview of pathogens in soil, focusing on human and crop pathogens, and discuss general strategies, and examples, of how soils' extraordinarily diverse microbial communities regulate soil-borne pathogens. We review the ecological principles underpinning the regulation of soil pathogens, as well as relationships between pathogen suppression and soil health. Mechanisms and specific examples are presented of how soil and soil biota are involved in regulating pathogens of humans and plants. We evaluate how specific agricultural management practices can either promote or interfere with soil's ability to regulate pathogens. Finally, we conclude with how integrating soil, plant, animal and human health through a 'One Health' framework could lead to more integrated, efficient and multifunctional strategies for regulating detrimental organisms and processes. This article is part of the theme issue 'The role of soils in delivering Nature's Contributions to People'.

Diversifying agricultural landscapes may mitigate biodiversity declines and improve pest management. Yet landscapes are rarely managed to suppress pests, in part because researchers seldom measure key variables related to pest outbreaks and insecticides that drive management decisions. We used a 13-year government database to analyse landscape effects on European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana) outbreaks and insecticides across c. 400 Spanish vineyards. At harvest, we found pest outbreaks increased four-fold in simplified, vineyard-dominated landscapes compared to complex landscapes in which vineyards are surrounded by semi-natural habitats. Similarly, insecticide applications doubled in vineyard-dominated landscapes but declined in vineyards surrounded by shrubland. Importantly, pest population stochasticity would have masked these large effects if numbers of study sites and years were reduced to typical levels in landscape pest-control studies. Our results suggest increasing landscape complexity may mitigate pest populations and insecticide applications. Habitat conservation represents an economically and environmentally sound approach for achieving sustainable grape production.

Functional trait research has led to greater understanding of the impacts of biodiversity in ecosystems. Yet, functional trait approaches have not been widely applied to agroecosystems and understanding of the importance of agrobiodiversity remains limited to a few ecosystem processes and services. To improve this understanding, we argue here for a functional trait approach to agroecology that adopts recent advances in trait research for multitrophic and spatially heterogeneous ecosystems. We suggest that trait values should be measured across environmental conditions and agricultural management regimes to predict how ecosystem services vary with farm practices and environment. This knowledge should be used to develop management strategies that can be easily implemented by farmers to manage agriculture to provide multiple ecosystem services.

In 2006, a deadly Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak in bagged spinach was traced to California's Central Coast region, where >70% of the salad vegetables sold in the United States are produced. Although no definitive cause for the outbreak could be determined, wildlife was implicated as a disease vector. Growers were subsequently pressured to minimize the intrusion of wildlife onto their farm fields by removing surrounding noncrop vegetation. How vegetation removal actually affects foodborne pathogens remains unknown, however. We combined a fine-scale land use map with three datasets comprising ∼250,000 enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC), generic E. coli, and Salmonella tests in produce, irrigation water, and rodents to quantify whether seminatural vegetation surrounding farmland is associated with foodborne pathogen prevalence in California's Central Coast region. We found that EHEC in fresh produce increased by more than an order of magnitude from 2007 to 2013, despite extensive vegetation clearing at farm field margins. Furthermore, although EHEC prevalence in produce was highest on farms near areas suitable for livestock grazing, we found no evidence of increased EHEC, generic E. coli, or Salmonella near nongrazed, seminatural areas. Rather, pathogen prevalence increased the most on farms where noncrop vegetation was removed, calling into question reforms that promote vegetation removal to improve food safety. These results suggest a path forward for comanaging fresh produce farms for food safety and environmental quality, as federal food safety reforms spread across ∼4.5 M acres of US farmland.

Wild birds pose unique food-safety risks to agriculture as they may carry multiple zoonotic pathogens, are difficult to exclude, and most are federally protected. As a result, the fresh produce industry regularly expresses concerns about these risks, and growers are sometimes instructed to not harvest crops around wild bird feces, potentially causing yield reductions and food waste. Farmers thus have financial incentives to reduce bird fecal contamination on their crops. However, existing bird deterrent methods can be expensive, have significant deleterious conservation implications, and/or are often ineffective. Thus, it is imperative to develop a holistic understanding of the true food-safety risks associated with wild bird communities and to inform growers and industry professionals about which birds, if any, represent substantive food safety concerns. Here, we evaluate the food-safety risks of wild birds, from the point of entering farms through harvest of the crop via three complementary approaches.

Diverse motivations for preserving nature both inspire and hinder its conservation. Optimal conservation strategies may differ radically depending on the objective. For example, creating nature reserves may prevent extinctions through protecting severely threatened species, whereas incentivizing farmland hedgerows may benefit people through bolstering pest-eating or pollinating species. Win-win interventions that satisfy multiple objectives are alluring, but can also be elusive. To achieve better outcomes, we developed and implemented a practical typology of nature conservation framed around seven common conservation objectives. Using an intensively studied bird assemblage in southern Costa Rica as a case study, we applied the typology in the context of biodiversity's most pervasive threat: habitat conversion. We found that rural habitats in a varied tropical landscape, comprising small farms, villages, forest fragments, and forest reserves, provided biodiversity-driven processes that benefit people, such as pollination, seed dispersal, and pest consumption. However, species valued for their rarity, endemism, and evolutionary distinctness declined in farmland. Conserving tropical forest on farmland increased species that international tourists value, but not species discussed in Costa Rican newspapers. Despite these observed trade-offs, our analyses also revealed promising synergies. For example, we found that maintaining forest cover surrounding farms in our study region would likely enhance most conservation objectives at minimal expense to others. Overall, our typology provides a framework for resolving the competing objectives of modern conservation.

Increasing diversity on farms can enhance many key ecosystem services to and from agriculture, and natural control of arthropod pests is often presumed to be among them. The expectation that increasing the size of monocultural crop plantings exacerbates the impact of pests is common throughout the agroecological literature. However, the theoretical basis for this expectation is uncertain; mechanistic mathematical models suggest instead that increasing field size can have positive, negative, neutral, or even nonlinear effects on arthropod pest densities. Here, we report a broad survey of crop field-size effects: across 14 pest species, 5 crops, and 20,000 field years of observations, we quantify the impact of field size on pest densities, pesticide applications, and crop yield. We find no evidence that larger fields cause consistently worse pest impacts. The most common outcome (9 of 14 species) was for pest severity to be independent of field size; larger fields resulted in less severe pest problems for four species, and only one species exhibited the expected trend of larger fields worsening pest severity. Importantly, pest responses to field size strongly correlated with their responses to the fraction of the surrounding landscape planted to the focal crop, suggesting that shared ecological processes produce parallel responses to crop simplification across spatial scales. We conclude that the idea that larger field sizes consistently disrupt natural pest control services is without foundation in either the theoretical or empirical record.

Habitat conversion is the primary driver of biodiversity loss, yet little is known about how it is restructuring the tree of life by favoring some lineages over others. We combined a complete avian phylogeny with 12 years of Costa Rican bird surveys (118,127 detections across 487 species) sampled in three land uses: forest reserves, diversified agricultural systems, and intensive monocultures. Diversified agricultural systems supported 600 million more years of evolutionary history than intensive monocultures but 300 million fewer years than forests. Compared with species with many extant relatives, evolutionarily distinct species were extirpated at higher rates in both diversified and intensive agricultural systems. Forests are therefore essential for maintaining diversity across the tree of life, but diversified agricultural systems may help buffer against extreme loss of phylogenetic diversity.