Data and code from: Effects of local management and landscape complexity on insects and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A review of the intermediate landscape complexity hypothesis
Data files
Jul 10, 2026 version files 905.64 KB
-
cho_and_poveda_2026.zip
898.60 KB
-
README.md
7.04 KB
Abstract
Agricultural intensification has led to many environmentally degrading practices that can cause insect biodiversity loss and a decline in ecosystem services. Local management practices and more complex landscapes can help mitigate these negative effects. The intermediate landscape complexity hypothesis suggests that local management best supports insect biodiversity in landscapes of intermediate complexity, which contain both agricultural and natural habitats. However, recent studies have also shown higher biodiversity in both simple and complex landscapes. In this review, we investigated whether certain local practices are more effective across a range of landscape complexity. Our results showed that local management or landscape complexity increases insect biodiversity or ecosystem services in about 25% of cases. We found support for the intermediate landscape complexity hypothesis in some scenarios, and positive effects of local management in simple and complex landscapes in others. Future studies should more clearly define how they measure landscape complexity, which will help compare results and find patterns. These findings can begin to inform tailored local management and research directions to maximize insect biodiversity and ecosystem services in different landscape contexts.
This lit_review_data_and_code.zip file contains all data and code associated with the paper submitted to Ecology Letters, Effects of local management and landscape complexity on insects and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A review of the intermediate landscape complexity hypothesis.
DATA & FILE OVERVIEW
cho_and_poveda_2026.zip file
|- lit_review_analysis_general.ipynb\
|- lit_review_interactions.Rmd\
|- Data/\
| |- lit_review_data.csv\
| |- lit_review_landscape_percents.csv\
| |- landscape_inverted.csv\
| |- Interaction_Analyses/\
| | |- lit_review_interactions.csv\
| | |- lit_review_recat_europe_for_analysis.csv\
| | |- lit_review_recat_for_analysis.csv\
| | |- lit_review_recat_na_for_analysis.csv
Methodological information
Description of methods used for collection/generation of data:
- Data extracted from papers listed in Supporting Information Table S1. Data were extracted by CYC. Half of the papers were double-checked for accuracy.
Methods for processing the data:
- All data analysis was done using the code in lit_review_analysis_general.ipynb and lit_review_interactions.Rmd.
Instrument- or software-specific information needed to interpret the data:
-
All analyses are done in Python (Version 3.11.5) and R, version 4.2.2 (R Core Team, 2022)
Python libraries
- pandas version v1.5.3
- numpy version v1.24.3
- seaborn version v0.13.2
- skimpy version v0.0.21
- matplotlib version v3.7.1
- scipy version v1.10.1
- statsmodels version v0.14.0
R libraries
- tidyverse v2.0.0
- dplyr v.1.1.4
- janitor v.2.2.1
- blme v.1.0.6
- lme4 v.1.1.36
Data-Specific information for: lit_review_data.csv
Data extracted from papers included in the review.
- Number of variables: 16
- Number of cases/rows: 651
- Variable List:
- Title,
- Author,
- Year,
- Country,
- Continent,
- Response: Description of measured variable,
- Response Category: Natural enemies, pollinators, pests, crops, or arthropods,
- Response Type: Biodiversity or ecosystem services,
- Local Factor: Description of local management practice,
- Local Strategy: Reduced management intensity, floral resources, crop diversity, or structural modifications,
- Local Effect: Positive, negative, or non-significant response to local management,
- Radius: Size of measured area for landscape complexity,
- Minimum Complexity: Lowest measurement of complexity for the study,
- Maximum Complexity: Highest measurement of complexity for the study,
- Landscape Effect: Positive, negative, or non-significant response to landscape complexity,
- Interaction Effect: Positive, negative, or non-significant response to the interaction between local management and landscape complexity.
- Missing data codes: NA
Data-Specific information for: lit_review_landscape_percents.csv
- Number of variables: 10
- Number of cases/rows: 138
- Variable List:
- Title,
- Author,
- Year,
- Simple Start: Low end of simple landscape category,
- Simple End: High end of simple landscape category,
- Int Start: Low end of intermediate landscape category,
- Int End: High end of intermediate landscape category,
- Complex Start: Low end of complex landscape category,
- Complex End: High end of complex landscape category,
- Metric: Way of measuring landscape complexity
- Missing data codes: NA
Data-Specific information for: lit_review_landscape_percents.csv
- Number of variables: 5
- Number of cases/rows: 138
- Variable List:
- Title,
- Author,
- Year,
- Metric: Way of measuring landscape complexity,
- Inverted: Yes/No if a measure of landscape simplification was converted to complexity
- Missing data codes: NA
Data-Specific information for: lit_review_interactions.csv
- Number of variables: 19
- Number of cases/rows: 95
- Variable List:
- Obs_ID,
- Title,
- Author,
- Year,
- Response: Description of measured variable,
- Response Type: Biodiversity or ecosystem services,
- Response Category: Natural enemies, pollinators, pests, crops, or arthropods,
- Local Factor: Description of local management practice,
- Local Strategy: Reduced management intensity, floral resources, crop diversity, or structural modifications,
- Local Effect: Positive, negative, or non-significant response to local management,
- Landscape Gradient: Range of most to least complex landscape,
- Landscape Effect: Positive, negative, or non-significant response to landscape complexity,
- Interaction Effect: Positive, negative, or non-significant response to the interaction between local management and landscape complexity,
- Simple Collapsed: Positive or non-positive responses of the above observations in simple landscapes,
- Intermediate Collapsed: Positive or non-positive responses of the above observations in intermediate landscapes,
- Complex Collapsed: Positive or non-positive responses of the above observations in complex landscapes,
- Simple: Positive, negative, or non-significant responses of the above observations in simple landscapes,
- Intermediate: Positive, negative, or non-significant responses of the above observations in intermediate landscapes,
- Complex: Positive, negative, or non-significant responses of the above observations in complex landscapes
- Missing data codes: NA
Data-Specific information for: lit_review_recat_europe_for_analysis.csv, lit_review_recat_for_analysis.csv, lit_review_recat_na_for_analysis.csv
- Number of variables: 5
- Number of cases/rows: 60, 126, 57
- Variable List:
- Title,
- Author,
- Year,
- Simple Pos: 0 or 1 for not observed or observed response for this local/landscape pairing,
- Simple NS: 0 or 1 for not observed or observed response for this local/landscape pairing,
- Simple Neg: 0 or 1 for not observed or observed response for this local/landscape pairing,
- Intermediate Pos: 0 or 1 for not observed or observed response for this local/landscape pairing,
- Intermediate NS: 0 or 1 for not observed or observed response for this local/landscape pairing,
- Intermediate Neg: 0 or 1 for not observed or observed response for this local/landscape pairing,
- Complex Pos: 0 or 1 for not observed or observed response for this local/landscape pairing,
- Complex NS: 0 or 1 for not observed or observed response for this local/landscape pairing,
- Complex Neg: 0 or 1 for not observed or observed response for this local/landscape pairing,
- Missing data codes: NA
Code/Software
lit_review_analysis_general.ipynb: Contains code for Figures 1-3, Supporting Information Figures S1 and S2.
lit_review_interactions.Rmd: Contains code for mixed-effects logistic regression models 1-4 (Table 3, Supporting Information Tables S2-5).
