SEE PEER REVIEW

INTRO:

The study investigated relationship between the abundance of different pollinator taxa in field margins and pollination service in adjacent crops. The impact of landscape structure and pesticide use on pollinators was also studied. The field experiment was used and 34 rape fields with their margins were studied. The fields were situated in two landscape types. Pollinator service was only weakly influenced by the diversity of pollinators and specific taxa of pollinators differed in their contribution to the pollination service: high abundance of some of them indicated high crop visitation (but the Authors do not link the "visitation" with pollination service). Dominant pollinators were honeybees. Pesticide use negatively influenced pollinators and the strength of this effect was different for various pollinator species and for two different landscapes.

MERITS:

Very interesting idea was examined in the study: that total abundance/diversity of pollinators is not a good proxy for pollination service on specifically managed agricultural landscape. Instead, the abundance of specific pollinator taxa may be such a proxy.  Additionally, interesting connection was made: pesticide use and also landscape type impacts differently various taxa of pollinators therefore influencing pollination service of specific crop, because the pollination service depends on the abundance of specific pollinator rather than on the total abundance and diversity of pollinators.

CRITIQUE:

The disadvantage of the manuscript is its extensive range of issues including (1) relationship between abundance/diversity of pollinators and pollination service, (2) the effect of pesticides on pollinators and (3) the effect of landscape on pollinators. The abstract is chaotic, it is hard to follow the main idea of the authors and it is hard to point the most important conclusion. In my opinion the most interesting part of the study concerns the abundance/diversity of pollinators and I would read with pleasure the manuscript focused solely on this issue. However, one could say that the study is complex, and complexity should not be seen as weakness, and I agree, because the connection between (1) agricultural activity (pesticides) / land use heterogeneity and (2) pollinator abundance which in turn affect pollination service, is interesting. Nevertheless, such a complicated connection should be presented with special focus on transparency, clarity and simplicity.

DISCUSSION:

The study adds very interesting point of view on the diversity of pollinators on cultivated lands and pollinating service provided by them. Abundance of specific pollinators may be more profitable for crop cultivation than the diversity of pollinators. Agricultural activity, like use of pesticide, may affect to the high degree these specific and desirable pollinators. However, the strength of the negative effect depends on the landscape structure: pesticide use reduced pollinator abundance to the higher degree in landscapes dominated by arable fields than in landscapes with low field cover. Additional conclusion, not proposed by the Authors may also be interesting: the total abundance of pollinators (as I understand, also the diversity of pollinators), is not a good measure for assessing the value of field margins. Instead, specific groups of pollinators should be considered. Presented ideas are valuable and I believe this study is interesting and important contribution to the ECCB 2018 conference. I hope that the Authors focus on transparency and clarity leading their audience through their findings and presenting a memorable take-home message.

- - -
INTRO:

This study assessed an increasingly important aspect of crop-pollination research, that of the influence of co-flowering field margins on the conservation and abundance of crop-visiting insects. They investigated how field margins influenced crop-visitors in conjunction with both landscape composition of- and the pesticide usage in- crops. Importantly, they found that field margins were inconsistent predictors of crop-visitor abundance. Furthermore, different pollinating taxa responded differently to both landscape context and pesticide usage although these were linked, as negative effects of pesticdes were more pronounced in more homogenous arable landscapes. 

MERITS:

The summation and conclusion of this work is very important and meritorious for both applied pollination resaerch and arable land management. The study design is clearly described, of considerable size and effort (n=34 fields), and makes good use of well-established methodology in pollination research.

CRITIQUE:

I see little weakness in this manuscript, however there are grammatical mistakes which should be fixed in revision. I also think the abstract could be made more succinct. The methodology could be summarised in broader terms and the results should focus more on the overall conclusions. This way, the individual facets can be described and presented in detail during the talk or poster session.

DISCUSSION:

I believe this work is of great importance as I have often held issue with the claim that co-flowering field margins will increase the diversity and abundance of insect crop-visitors. This is also crucial for insect conservation, as it highlights that we need to do more to conserve these insects, especially in agro-ecosystems.

Field margins may be insufficient to increase crop-pollination, due to a functional mismatch between resources in the field margin and mass-flowering crops. I would be interested to know if plant surveys were conducted in the field margins and whether or not a comparison of the functional traits of these plants relative to turnips would inform the results of this study. I would also suggest considering implementing a multivariate analysis of community composition, such as PERMANOVA and non-metric multidimensional scaling ordination. These would allow you to assess community level differences between field margins and crops in interaction with landscape and pesticide usage.