Figure Captions
Fig. 1 Biodiversity responses to increased crop diversity within cropping systems. a , Flower visitor and b , arthropod diversity for four different cropping systems (Fallow: no crop was sown, but weeds were present; Mono: crop monoculture, 2 crops; two-species mixture; 3 crops: three-species mixture) for high (red) and low (blue) management intensity. Graphs show raw data (open circles) and model fits (filled circles) with 95% confidence intervals, predicted from generalized linear mixed-effects models from a , flower visitor observations (N=64; Cropping system: χ²=13.06, p=0.005) andb , pan traps (N=104; Cropping system: χ²=16.08, p=0.001).
Fig. 2 Biodiversity responses to crop mixtures. a , Flower visitor and b , arthropod diversity for a range of crop mixtures (0, fallow where no crop was sown; W, wheat; B, faba bean; L, linseed; O, oilseed rape; WB, wheat-faba bean; WL, wheat-linseed; WO, wheat-oilseed rape; BL, faba bean-linseed; BO, faba bean-oilseed rape; LO, linseed-oilseed rape; WBL, wheat-faba bean-linseed; WBO, wheat-faba bean-oilseed rape) for high (red) and low (blue) management intensity. Graphs show raw data (open circles) and model fits (filled circles) with 95% confidence intervals, predicted from generalized linear mixed-effects models for a , flower visitor observations (N=64; Crop mixture: χ²=60.66, p<0.001) and b , pan traps (N=104; Crop mixture: χ²=40.98, p<0.001).
Fig. 3 Bipartite plant-flower visitor networks for plots sown with different crop mixtures for a , low and b , high intensity management. Networks were generated by summing all visits for each group. N=4 for each crop mixture and management intensity. Left section in networks represents plant species and right section represents flower visitors (see Table S4). Small bars indicate fewer visits than wider bars. Networks are sorted by total number of visits, starting with the fewest (upper left network) and ending with the most (lower right network) within the two types of management intensity.
Fig. 4 Bipartite plant-flower visitor network indices in response to crop mixtures. Graphs show datapoints (open circles), model predictions (filled circles) and 95% confidence intervals from generalized linear mixed-effects models for each crop mixture (0, fallow where no crop was sown; W, wheat; B, faba bean; L, linseed; WB, wheat-faba bean; WL, wheat-linseed; BL, faba bean-linseed; WBL, wheat-faba bean-linseed) under high (red) and low (blue) management intensity. N=4. a , Number of interactions (Crop mixture: χ²=176.65, p<0.001; Crop mixture:Management: χ²=17.04, p=0.017), b , number of flower visitor species (Crop mixture: χ²=95.79, p<0.001) and c , Shannon’s diversity of interactions (Crop mixture: χ²=47.61, p<0.001).
Fig. 5 Number of visits and arthropod numbers in response toa ,c , four different cropping systems (Fallow: no crop was sown; Mono: crop monoculture, 2 crops; two-species mixture; 3 crops: three-species mixture) and b , d , different crop mixtures (0, fallow; W, wheat; B, faba bean; L, linseed; O, oilseed rape; WB, wheat-faba bean; WL, wheat-linseed; WO, wheat-oilseed rape; BL, faba bean-linseed; BO, faba bean-oilseed rape; LO, linseed-oilseed rape; WBL, wheat-faba bean-linseed; WBO, wheat-faba bean-oilseed rape) for high (red) and low (blue) management intensity. Graphs show raw data (open circles) and model fits (filled circles) with 95% confidence intervals, predicted from generalized linear mixed-effects models froma , b , flower visits (N=64; Cropping system: χ²=35.36, p<0.001; Management: χ²=8.68, p=0.003 and Crop mixture: χ²=176.65, p<0.001; Crop mixture:Management: χ²=17.04, p=0.017) and c , d , all arthropods caught in pan traps (N=104; Crop mixture: χ²=145.06, p<0.001).