DOI: 10.5061/dryad.280gb5mvp
title: Data from: The contributions of flower strips to wild bee conservation in agricultural landscapes can be predicted using pollinator habitat suitability models

description: Sowing flower strips along field edges is a widely adopted method for
 conserving pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. To maximize the
 effect of flower strips given limited resources, we need spatially
 explicit tools that can prioritize their placement, and for identifying
 plant species to include in seed mixtures. We sampled bees and plant
 species as well as their interactions in a semi-controlled field
 experiment with roadside/field edge pairs with/without a sown flower strip
 at 31 sites in Norway and used a regional spatial model of solitary bee
 species richness to test if the effect of flower strips on bee species
 richness was predictable from the modelled solitary bee species richness.
 We found that sites with flower strips were more bee species rich compared
 to sites without flower strips and that this effect was greatest in areas
 that the regional solitary bee species richness model had identified to be
 particularly important for bees. Spatial models revealed that even within
 small landscapes there were pronounced differences between field edges in
 the predicted effect of sowing flower strips. Of the plant species that
 attracted the most bee species, the majority mainly attracted bumblebees
 and only few species also attracted solitary bees. Considering both the
 taxonomic diversity of bees and the species richness of bees attracted by
 plants we suggest that seed mixes containing Hieracium spp. such as
 Hieracium umbellatum and Pilosella officinarum; Taraxacum spp; Trifolium
 repens; Lotus corniculatus; Stellaria graminea; and Achillea millefolium
 would provide resources for diverse bee communities in our region. Spatial
 prediction models of bee diversity can be used to identify locations where
 flower strips are likely to have the largest effect and can thereby
 provide managers with an important tool for prioritizing how funding for
 agri-environmental schemes such as flower strips should be allocated. Such
 flower strips should contain plant species that are attractive to both
 solitary and bumblebees, and do not need to be particularly plant species
 rich as long as the selected plants complement each other.
description: We used a paired design of study sites located in Southeastern
 Norway consisting of a field edge and an adjacent vegetated roadside, with
 or without a sown flower strip in the field. During early spring (April)
 2022, we used data from Vestfold/Telemark County Governor’s office to
 identify sites where farmers had previously (in 2021 and sometimes also in
 2020) sown a flower strip along the field edge. We included sites in our
 study if farmers were also planning to sow a flower strip along the same
 field edge in 2022. Species composition of the flower strips varied, but
 Phacelia tanacetifolia, Trifolium pratense and Trifolium repens were
 commonly used in the seed mixtures. We paired each flower strip site with
 a control site (i.e. study site without flower strip) with a road side of
 similar width, located between one and five kilometers from the flower
 strip site. We considered our samples as independent, i.e. that they
 sampled different bee communities, because distances of one km or greater
 are beyond the typical foraging range of most wild bees in our region. At
 one of the indended control sites, the farmer did sow a flower strip in
 2022 and for another site we did not find a suitable control site. Our
 resulting study design consisted of 17 flower strip sites with a vegetated
 roadside and a flower strip, and 14 control sites with a vegetated
 roadside and without a flower strip.<br>At each site we sampled wild
 flower-visiting bees with an entomological net by walking slowly for 20
 minutes along two 50m transects placed in the vegetated road- and field
 edge, respectively. To account for handling time, we added 30 seconds
 sampling time per collected specimen. For our samples to cover seasonally
 distinct parts of the local bee communities, we conducted three surveys
 during the summer of 2022: in late May (early summer), late June/early
 July (summer), and late July (late summer). Because of unstable weather we
 were only able to sample 25 of the 31 sites during the first survey. All
 flower-visiting bees collected were kept in 50ml falcon tubes filled with
 96% ethanol, labelled according to date, collector identification, site,
 habitat (roadside vs. field edge), and plant species. Collected bees were
 identified by the lead author. Voucher specimens are stored in the
 entomological collections at the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
 in Oslo. In July, we placed five 1m2 square vegetation plots regularly
 along the 50m transects with one plot per ten meters. In each 1m2
 vegetation plot we recorded the occurrence of forb and shrub species in
 four 25 by 25 cm sub-plots. We recorded all species regardless of growth
 stage so that our single plant survey provided estimates of the relative
 frequency of plant flowering during and outside the survey
 period.
description: Data and associated R script can be opened and run using R: A
 language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
 Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/. 
description: # Title of Dataset: The contributions of flower strips to wild bee
 conservation in agricultural landscapes can be predicted using pollinator
 habitat suitability models The data contain data collected from surveys,
 spatial data showing the location of study sites, and raster maps and R
 code. The R code allows running the analyses in the manuscript and testing
 for the effects of flower strips on bee species richness and for using an
 existing spatial model of solitary bee species richness to predict the
 spatial effects of sowing flower strips. The data include R code and raw
 data (.csv, .shp, .tif) files required to reproduce the analyses in the
 manuscript and print figures 2-4. ## Description of the Data and file
 structure
 R\_script\_for\_Sydenham\_et\_al\_2023\_Ecological\_Solutions\_and\_Evidence.R &gt; R script for running analyses and producing figures. Site transect lines.shp (with: .shx,.prj,.dbf): &gt; Shapefile with study sites as 50m spatial lines along road sides and fieldedges. &gt; Contains site names for each line. MetaData\_bee\_surveys.csv: &gt; MetaData with information on survey dates at each study site. &gt; Columns &gt; &gt; Site: Site name &gt; &gt; Collector: Initials of fieldworker &gt; &gt; TransectDate: Data survey was conducted &gt; &gt; TransectCut: If vegetation along road side had been cut prior to survey (TRUE) or not (FALSE) &gt; &gt; Treatment: If the roadside+field edge combination contained a flowerstrip along the field edge (Flwstrp) or if the site was a control (Cntrl) &gt; &gt; TransectType: If the transect was in the field edge or roadside. Plant\_survey\_data.csv: &gt; data table containing results from plant surveys containing the columns: &gt; &gt; Site: Site name. &gt; &gt; SurveyDate: Date vegetation survey was conducted. &gt; &gt; Collector: Initials of fieldworker. &gt; &gt; PlantSpecies: Name of recorded plant species. &gt; &gt; RoadPlot1: Integer ranging from 0 to 4 depending on the number of 25cm*25cm subplots the plant species was recorded in within the 1m vegetation plot located along the road side transect.RoadPlot2: Integer ranging from 0 to 4 depending on the number of 25cm*25cm subplots the plant species was recorded in within the 1m vegetation plot located along the road side transect. &gt; &gt; RoadPlot3: Integer ranging from 0 to 4 depending on the number of 25cm*25cm subplots the plant species was recorded in within the 1m vegetation plot located along the road side transect.RoadPlot4: Integer ranging from 0 to 4 depending on the number of 25cm*25cm subplots the plant species was recorded in within the 1m vegetation plot located along the road side transect. &gt; &gt; RoadPlot5: Integer ranging from 0 to 4 depending on the number of 25cm*25cm subplots the plant species was recorded in within the 1m vegetation plot located along the road side transect.FieldPlot1: Integer ranging from 0 to 4 depending on the number of 25cm*25cm subplots the plant species was recorded in within the 1m vegetation plot located along the field edge transect. &gt; &gt; FieldPlot2: Integer ranging from 0 to 4 depending on the number of 25cm*25cm subplots the plant species was recorded in within the 1m vegetation plot located along the field edge transect.FieldPlot3: Integer ranging from 0 to 4 depending on the number of 25cm*25cm subplots the plant species was recorded in within the 1m vegetation plot located along the field edge transect. &gt; &gt; FieldPlot4: Integer ranging from 0 to 4 depending on the number of 25cm*25cm subplots the plant species was recorded in within the 1m vegetation plot located along the field edge transect.FieldPlot5: Integer ranging from 0 to 4 depending on the number of 25cm*25cm subplots the plant species was recorded in within the 1m vegetation plot located along the field edge transect. &gt; &gt; PlantAbundance: Sum of subplots the plant species occured in. Bee survey data: &gt; data table containing results from bee surveys containing the columns: &gt; &gt; Site: Site name. &gt; &gt; DateR: Date survey was conducted. &gt; &gt; Treatment: If the study site contained a flowerstrip (FLWRSTRP) or not (CONTRL) along its field edge. &gt; &gt; Specimen\_ID: Unique identifier of the collected bee specimen. &gt; &gt; Plant: Plant species the bee specimen was collected on. &gt; &gt; Species: Bee species. PolliLandPredictionMap.tif &gt; Rastermap with regional prediction model of solitary bee species richness. For reference see Sydenham et al., 2022. High resolution prediction maps of solitary bee diversity can guide conservation measures. Landscape and Urban Planning, 217, p.104267. Predicted\_flower\_strip\_effect\_size\_map.tif &gt; Rastermap showing the predicted effect of adding a flowerstrip. The folowing files are included in order to produce figure 3 in the manuscript: Predicted\_flower\_strip\_effect\_size\_map\_masked\_to\_field\_edges.tif Cropped\_field\_edges\_raster.tif (and Cropped\_field\_edges\_raster.tif.aux.xml) Sat\_image\_for\_figure\_3.tif (and Sat\_image\_for\_figure\_3.tfw) Sat\_image\_w\_edges\_for\_figure\_3.tif (and Sat\_image\_w\_edges\_for\_figure\_3.tfw) Sat\_image\_w\_edges\_w\_preds\_for\_figure\_3.tif (and Sat\_image\_w\_edges\_w\_preds\_for\_figure\_3.tfw) ## Sharing/access Information &gt; Not applicable Was data derived from another source? &gt; Not applicable