A systematic review of 331 studies identified 35 alternative agricultural practices that may enhance biodiversity across biomes. These practices, such as no-tillage, cover crops, and organic fertilizers, were compared to intensive practices like conventional tillage and monocultures. The study found that while no single practice benefits all taxonomic groups, overall less intensive practices generally support biodiversity. However, some practices had no effect or even negative impacts on certain taxa. Species responses were largely consistent across biomes, except for fertilization. The review highlights that alternative practices can enhance biodiversity, but their effectiveness varies by taxonomic group and practice type. Practices like 'planned biodiversity interferences' and 'no pesticide use' showed consistent positive effects on biodiversity. However, some practices, such as 'no fertilizer', had negative impacts on certain taxa. The study also found that the impact of practices varied across biomes, with some practices having positive effects in one biome and negative in another. The results suggest that a careful selection of practices is needed to enhance biodiversity across taxa in future food systems. The review emphasizes the importance of integrating knowledge on the impacts of agricultural practices on biodiversity across taxa to better manage agroecosystems. The findings indicate that alternative practices can enhance biodiversity, but they should be combined with strategies to prevent further agricultural expansion and restore natural areas. The study also highlights the need for further research on the impacts of practices across different biomes and taxonomic groups to develop effective biodiversity conservation strategies.A systematic review of 331 studies identified 35 alternative agricultural practices that may enhance biodiversity across biomes. These practices, such as no-tillage, cover crops, and organic fertilizers, were compared to intensive practices like conventional tillage and monocultures. The study found that while no single practice benefits all taxonomic groups, overall less intensive practices generally support biodiversity. However, some practices had no effect or even negative impacts on certain taxa. Species responses were largely consistent across biomes, except for fertilization. The review highlights that alternative practices can enhance biodiversity, but their effectiveness varies by taxonomic group and practice type. Practices like 'planned biodiversity interferences' and 'no pesticide use' showed consistent positive effects on biodiversity. However, some practices, such as 'no fertilizer', had negative impacts on certain taxa. The study also found that the impact of practices varied across biomes, with some practices having positive effects in one biome and negative in another. The results suggest that a careful selection of practices is needed to enhance biodiversity across taxa in future food systems. The review emphasizes the importance of integrating knowledge on the impacts of agricultural practices on biodiversity across taxa to better manage agroecosystems. The findings indicate that alternative practices can enhance biodiversity, but they should be combined with strategies to prevent further agricultural expansion and restore natural areas. The study also highlights the need for further research on the impacts of practices across different biomes and taxonomic groups to develop effective biodiversity conservation strategies.