DOI: 10.5061/dryad.9kf08rj
title: Does urbanization favor exotic bee species? Implications for the conservation of native bees in cities

description: A growing body of research indicates that cities can support diverse bee
 communities. However, urbanization may disproportionately benefit exotic
 bees, potentially to the detriment of native species. We examined the
 influence of urbanization on exotic and native bees using two datasets
 from Michigan, USA. We found that urbanization positively influenced
 exotic – but not native – bee abundance and richness, and that this
 association could not be explained by proximity to international ports of
 entry, prevalence of exotic flora, or urban warming. We found a negative
 relationship between native and exotic bee abundance at sites with high
 total bee abundance, suggesting that exotic bees may negatively affect
 native bee populations. These effects were not driven by the numerically
 dominant exotic honeybee, but rather by other exotic bees. Our findings
 complicate the emerging paradigm of cities as key sites for pollinator
 conservation.
description: R scripts for data
 analysisR markdown file
 including all scripts for collating and analyzing data and preparing
 figures for manuscript.Exotic
 bees.RmdDistance to registered
 ports of entry.csv file with distance
 in m from all field sites to the two registered ports of entry in SE
 MichiganEntryPortDists.csv2014 temperature dataData on maximum, minimum, and mean temperature recorded at each site by data loggers during 2014 sampling period.2014temp.csv2017 temperature dataData on maximum, minimum, and mean temperature recorded at each site by data loggers during 2017 sampling period.2017temp.csvLandcover dataData on proportion of developed land around each field site within 4 concentric buffers: 500m, 1000m, 1500m, and 2000m.Landcover_Data_proponly.csv2017 bee specimens - no honeybeesData on all specimens collected via pan traps and netting during 2017 sampling period, with Apis mellifera (European honeybee) specimens removed.CJWbees2017.csv2017 bee specimens - with honeybeesData on all bee specimens collected via pan traps in 2017, including Apis mellifera (European honeybee).CJWbees2017_incHB.csv2014 bee specimens - no honeybeesData on all specimens collected via pan traps and netting during 2014 sampling period, with Apis mellifera (European honeybee) specimens removed.subset_bees2014_for_merge.csv2014 bee specimens - with honeybeesData for all bee specimens collected via pan traps during 2014 sampling period, including Apis mellifera (European honeybee).fullbees_sub.csvMetadata for flowering plants observedInformation on the geographic origin and plant type (crop, ornamental, wild) for each flowering plant found during surveys in 2014 or 2017.flower_nathist20181211.csv2017 flowering plant dataInformation on all flowering plants found during surveys in 2017, including species identity and abundance.CJWPlantData.csv2014 flowering plant dataInformation on all flowering plants found during surveys in 2014, including species identity and abundance.flowersForArea2014_Sep12016.csvSite-level summary of floral resource availability for each surveyData on floral abundance and cover for each site at each survey period in both 2014 and 2017.Flower_summary.csv