In this paper, Zanini et al. explored the effect of landscape heterogeneity, cover of crops and semi-natural areas, multi-diversity index and honeybee abundance on the abundance and diversity of wild bees, visitation rate of pollinators, and pollination success in a mountainous area of Italy. The Authors selected 14 apple orchards along a gradient of apple orchard cover. They sampled wild bees using pan-traps and measured pollinator visitation rate and pollination success. Using five spatial scales, they calculated the cover of crops and semi-natural habitats in landscapes surrounding the apple orchards, and an index of landscape heterogeneity using 21 land-use categories. Moreover, they calculated a multi-diversity index including five taxa as a proxy of local habitat quality, based on pre-existing data. They highlighted that it is fundamental to preserve semi-natural habitats at a small scale to benefit wild pollinators and pollination.
The paper is potentially interesting and the collected data seems valid. However, there are two main limitations: 1) Reading the paper, it is not easy to understand at the Authors did, since the Methods and Results sections are confusing and a lot of points should be better explained; 2) The work is not innovative and I did not get which gaps the Authors were trying to fill. I think more in-depth analysis might lead to more interesting results, therefore, I suggest major revision - but the Authors should work a lot on the new version of the manuscript.
Below are my comments for the Authors. Most of my major comments regard the methodology.

Major comments
-Pollinator sampling: I wonder why you chose to use pan traps if your goal was to sample wild bees that are actually apple pollinators since transect walks would have been a much more suitable method. You need to explain why you chose pan traps rather than transect walks and also state the limitations of this sampling method.
-Visitation rate: Was flower visitation rate calculated for the whole pollinator community, for honeybees and wild pollinators (also including hoverflies and other groups), or only for wild bees? Which one was used as response variable in your models? I suggest analysing the data on visitation rates separately for wild bees and honeybees and excluding all other pollinators that you did not include in other analyses.
-Pollination success: It is not clear if the index was developed by you. Moreover, you stated that the index was calculated as the “natural logarithm of the ratio between the value of the fruit set for the open branch and the closed branch”. However, fruit set is usually calculated as the ratio between fruits and flowers, and not the opposite as you did. Please, explain how the index was conceived, why you used the natural logarithm, and in general how the index works, including for example information on what high and low values of the index mean.
-Landscape analysis: Why did you choose to aggregate all semi-natural habitats? You could at least test the effect of open and closed semi-natural habitats separately. Also, I did not get if you also tested the effect of apple orchard cover on your variables (it looks like you did from LL396-399, but there is no mention of this analysis in the Methods or Results sections).
-Data analysis paragraph (LL201-229): This part is really confusing, and makes it difficult to understand what you did. From what I got, you tested the effect of five explanatory variables (semi-natural habitat cover, crop cover, landscape heterogeneity, multi-diversity index, and honeybee abundance) on four response variables (wild pollinator abundance, wild pollinator richness, visitation rate, and pollination success). Each landscape variable was calculated at 5 spatial scales, i.e. 100 m, 250 m, 500 m, 1000 m, and 2000 m. Please, simplify this section, clearly stating what you tested. Also, some Results are not reported in the Methods section, for example, models on honeybee visitation rate (L304) and Simpson diversity of wild bees (L323).
-Discussion: The Discussion section should be profoundly modified. A large part of this section consists of the repetition of your results, without really discussing them. Also, since wild pollinator abundance and diversity, visitation rate and pollination success were affected by the same landscape variables, the text is a bit redundant. Therefore, I would change the structure of the Discussion: for example, the first paragraph could be on the effect of landscape heterogeneity, the second one on the effect of crops and semi-natural habitats, and the third one on the effect of honeybee abundance and multi-diversity index. Moreover, landscape scale is a key aspect of your work, however, it was not even discussed. I would suggest checking Steffan-Dewenter et al. (2002) https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1421:SDEOLC]2.0.CO;2 and start your bibliographic research from there.
-In general, you should better highlight the strength of your work and which gaps it fills.

Minor comments
L25: Change “affects” to “affected”.
L27: It is not clear what “other taxa” means here.
L29: Delete “the” before “wild bee visitation rate”.
L32: Change “Apis mellifera” to honeybees.
L36: It is not clear what “measures” means here.
LL45-46: Add a reference to support your statement.
L65: What does “the levels of biodiversity” mean? Please, rephrase this sentence.
LL67-69: This sentence is unclear.
LL74-75: Change “biodiversity is often high everywhere”.
L84: Change “presence” to “cover”.
L85: Change “which surround” to “around”.
LL93-94: Change this sentence to “We selected 14 apple orchards distributed along a gradient of apple orchard cover”.
L101: Change “Apis mellifera” to “honeybees”.
L103: Change “afterwards” to “Thirdly”. What would you expect from this part of the experiment? Did you test both honeybees and wild bees, or only wild bees?
L106: Change “pollinator services” to “pollination services”.
L107: Positively or negatively affected?
LL114-115: Could you please explain a bit more in detail what the aims of the Biodiversity Monitoring were?
LL115-117: How were the apple orchards managed? Were they all conventional?
L132: Change “South Tyrol Biodiversity Monitoring” to “Biodiversity Monitoring South Tyrol”.
L134: How does the min-max normalization work?
L149: Change “pollinators” to “wild bees”, since your work only focused on bees.
L151: Change “(each trap…” to “Therefore, each trap…”.
L154, L163: Change “pant traps” to “pan-traps”.
L157: Change “pan traps” to “pan-traps” (here and throughout the paper).
LL158-161: I would delete this part.
LL161-164: I feel like the multi-diversity index does not add anything substantial to your work. You could perform additional analysis, e.g. to check if local variables are more important than landscape variables, but otherwise, I would delete it. Also, looking at the title I would expect that you only focused on landscape analysis.
L164-166: Did you include Simpson and Shannon indices in your models?
L162: Species names should be italicized.
LL165-166: I would divide the two sentences: “richness data. We did not include other wild pollinators…”.
L172: Change “>” to “<”.
L173: What does “some of the trees” mean? How many?
LL175-176: Change “because different trees were chosen in some orchards between the two sampling rounds” to “For this reason”.
L181: Change the paragraph title to “Pollination success”.
L185: Were branches at the same exposition in all orchards?
LL186-188: Move this part after the first sentence of this paragraph.
L189: Again, please state in how many sites you had to change your design.
L192: Change “Because” to “Since”.
L206: How did you use incidence frequencies? They are only mentioned here in the paper.
LL207-210: Why did you use this procedure?
L217: Change “and pollination success”.
LL241-242: Delete this part.
L244: Change “heterogony” to “heterogeneity”.
LL245-246: Move this sentence before “The strength of landscape effect…”
LL246-248: Did you explain this part in the Methods section?
LL250-252: These models were not mentioned in the Methods section.
LL256-259: Add a reference for tables/figures.
LL277-279: What about semi-natural habitat cover?
L305: Delete “and significantly”.
LL305-308: What were the results of models testing the effect of honeybee abundance and multi-diversity index?
L323: Some tables are missing, for example, the one showing the effect of the visitation rate on pollination success.
LL435-436: You did not focus on this aspect of your research (no wild bee species is mentioned in your paper).