Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Multi-country evidence that crop diversification promotes ecological intensification of agriculture


Global food security requires increased crop productivity to meet escalating demand1–3. Current food production systems are heavily dependent on synthetic inputs that threaten the environment and human well-being2,4,5. Biodiversity, for instance, is key to the provision of ecosystem services such as pest control6,7, but is eroded in conventional agricultural systems. Yet the conservation and reinstatement of biodiversity is challenging5,8,9, and it remains unclear whether the promotion of biodiversity can reduce reliance on inputs without penalizing yields on a regional scale. Here we present results from multi-site field studies replicated in Thailand, China and Vietnam over a period of four years, in which we grew nectar-producing plants around rice fields, and monitored levels of pest infestation, insecticide use and yields. Compiling the data from all sites, we report that this inexpensive intervention significantly reduced populations of two key pests, reduced insecticide applications by 70%, increased grain yields by 5% and delivered an economic advantage of 7.5%. Additional field studies showed that predators and parasitoids of the main rice pests, together with detritivores, were more abundant in the presence of nectar-producing plants. We conclude that a simple diversification approach, in this case the growth of nectar-producing plants, can contribute to the ecological intensification of agricultural systems.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Multi-site, multi-year comparison of diversification of rice (intervention) with conventional practice (control).
Figure 2: Parasitoid activity in rice with diversification (intervention) and with conventional practice (control).
Figure 3: Response of ecosystem service provider guilds and taxa to insecticide and the presence of nectar-producing plants (sesame) on bunds around rice fields.


  1. 1

    Godfray, H. C. & Garnett, T. Food security and sustainable intensification. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 369, 20120273 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    West, P. C. et al. Leverage points for improving global food security and the environment. Science 345, 325–328 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Stehle, S. & Schulz, R. Agricultural insecticides threaten surface waters at the global scale. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5750–5755 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Losey, J. E. & Vaughan, M. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 56, 311–323 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G. & Swift, M. J. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277, 504–509 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Bennett, E. et al. Toward a more resilient agriculture. Solutions 5, 65–75 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. & Green, R. E. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333, 1289–1291 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Gill, R. J., Ramos-Rodriguez, O. & Raine, N. E. Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 491, 105–108 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Diaz, R. J. & Rosenberg, R. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321, 926–929 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Eskenazi, B. et al. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in young Mexican-American children. Environ. Health Persp. 115, 792–798 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Loos, J. et al. Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 356–361 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443, 989–992 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D. & Potts, S. G. Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 230–238 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Wood, S. A. et al. Functional traits in agriculture: agrobiodiversity and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 531–539 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Ekroos, J., Olsson, O., Rundlöf, M., Wätzold, F. & Smith, H. G. Optimizing agri-environment schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both? Biol. Conserv. 172, 65–71 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Letourneau, D. K. et al. Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecol. Appl. 21, 9–21 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Pretty, J. N. et al. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 1114–1119 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Khan, Z. R. et al. Exploiting chemical ecology and species diversity: stem borer and striga control for maize and sorghum in Africa. Pest Manag. Sci. 56, 957–962 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Crowder, D. W., Northfield, T. D., Strand, M. R. & Snyder, W. E. Organic agriculture promotes evenness and natural pest control. Nature 466, 109–112 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485, 229–232 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Kremen, C. & Miles, A. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 17, 40 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Luck, G. W. et al. Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience 59, 223–235 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Wäckers, F. L., Romeis, J. & van Rijn, P. Nectar and pollen feeding by insect herbivores and implications for multitrophic interactions. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 52, 301–323 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Zhu, P. et al. Laboratory screening supports the selection of sesame (Sesamum indicum) to enhance Anagrus spp. parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) of rice planthoppers. Biol. Control 64, 83–89 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Liu, Z. et al. A nicotinic acetylcholine receptor mutation conferring target-site resistance to imidacloprid in Nilaparvata lugens (brown planthopper). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 8420–8425 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Czaja, K. et al. Biopesticides—towards increased consumer safety in the European Union. Pest Manag. Sci. 71, 3–6 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported by the Asian Development Bank (TA7648-R-RDTA) and National Basic Research Program of China (973, grant no. 2010CB126200). G.M.G. is supported by a Chinese Government Thousand Talents fellowship. We thank the farmers who hosted field experiments and J. Tylianakis (Christchurch University, New Zealand) for comments on this manuscript. Assistance with arthropod sorting and taxonomy was provided by Y. Yang, G. Wenqin, L. Ding and D. Biqing of Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, and F. Zhang and X. Sheng of Jianhua Plant Protection Station, China.

Author information




G.M.G. and K.L.H. conceived and designed the project; Z.L., Z.Z., J.C. and G.C. led the Chinese studies supported by X.Z., X.Y., H.X. and P.Z.; H.V.C. and L.Q.C. led the Vietnamese studies; C.C. led the Thai studies; N.C. and P.Z. performed the bait plant study; and P.Z. and X.Z. performed the factorial study; P.V., J.L.C., L.P.L., J.C. and S.V. identified arthropods; H.I.N., D.J.P. and G.M.G. analysed the data; G.M.G. led the manuscript writing with input from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kong Luen Heong.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gurr, G., Lu, Z., Zheng, X. et al. Multi-country evidence that crop diversification promotes ecological intensification of agriculture. Nature Plants 2, 16014 (2016).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing