Changes in land use generate trade-offs in the delivery of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. However, we know little about how the stability of ecosystem services responds to landscape composition, and what ecological mechanisms underlie these trade-offs. Here, we develop a model to investigate the dynamics of three ecosystem services in intensively-managed agroecosystems, i.e. pollination-independent crop yield, crop pollination, and biodiversity. Our model reveals trade-offs and synergies imposed by landscape composition that affect not only the magnitude but also the stability of ecosystem service delivery. Trade-offs involving crop pollination are strongly affected by the degree to which crops depend on pollination and by their relative requirement for pollinator densities. We show conditions for crop production to increase with biodiversity and decreasing crop area, reconciling farmers’ profitability and biodiversity conservation. Our results further suggest that, for pollination-dependent crops, management strategies that focus on maximising yield will often overlook its stability. Given that agriculture has become more pollination-dependent over time, it is essential to understand the mechanisms driving these trade-offs to ensure food security.

Given that few ecosystems on Earth have been unaffected by humans, restoring them holds great promise for stemming the biodiversity crisis and ensuring ecosystem services are provided to humanity. Nonetheless, few studies have documented the recovery of ecosystems globally or the rates at which ecosystems recover. Even fewer have addressed the added benefit of actively restoring ecosystems versus allowing them to recover without human intervention following the cessation of a disturbance. Our meta analysis of 400 studies worldwide that document recovery from large-scale disturbances, such as oil spills, agriculture, and logging, suggests that though ecosystems are progressing towards recovery following disturbances, they rarely recover completely. This result reinforces conservation of intact ecosystems as a key strategy for protecting biodiversity. Recovery rates slowed down with time since the disturbance ended, suggesting that the final stages of recovery are the most challenging to achieve. Active restoration did not result in faster or more complete recovery than simply ending the disturbances ecosystems face. Our results on the added benefit of restoration must be interpreted cautiously, because few studies directly compared different restoration actions in the same location after the same disturbance. The lack of consistent value added of active restoration following disturbance suggests that passive recovery should be considered as a first option; if recovery is slow then active restoration actions should be better tailored to overcome specific obstacles to recovery and achieve restoration goals. We call for more strategic investment of limited restoration resources into innovative collaborative efforts between scientists, local communities, and practitioners to develop restoration techniques that are ecologically, economically, and socially viable.

Ecosystem recovery from anthropogenic disturbances, either without human intervention or assisted by ecological restoration, is increasingly occurring worldwide. As ecosystems progress through recovery, it is important to estimate any resulting deficit in biodiversity and functions. Here we use data from 3,035 sampling plots worldwide, to quantify the interim reduction of biodiversity and functions occurring during the recovery process (that is, the ‘recovery debt’). Compared with reference levels, recovering ecosystems run annual deficits of 46–51% for organism abundance, 27–33% for species diversity, 32–42% for carbon cycling and 31–41% for nitrogen cycling. Our results are consistent across biomes but not across degrading factors. Our results suggest that recovering and restored ecosystems have less abundance, diversity and cycling of carbon and nitrogen than ‘undisturbed’ ecosystems, and that even if complete recovery is reached, an interim recovery debt will accumulate. Under such circumstances, increasing the quantity of less-functional ecosystems through ecological restoration and offsetting are inadequate alternatives to ecosystem protection.