DOI: 10.5061/dryad.t5145
title: Data from: Functional homogenization of flower visitor communities with urbanization

description: Land-use intensification and resulting habitat loss are put forward as the
 main causes of flower visitor decline. However, the impact of
 urbanization, the prime driver of land-use intensification in Europe, is
 poorly studied. In particular, our understanding of whether and how it
 affects the composition and functioning of flower visitor assemblages is
 scant, yet required to cope with increasing urbanization worldwide. Here,
 we use a nation-wide dataset of plant-flower visitor (Coleoptera, Diptera,
 Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera) interactions sampled by citizen scientists
 following a standardized protocol to assess macroecological changes in
 richness and composition of flower visitor communities with urbanization.
 We measured the community composition by quantifying the relative
 occurrence of generalist and specialist flower visitors based on their
 specialisation on flowering plant families. We show that urbanization is
 associated with reduced flower visitor richness and a shift in community
 composition toward generalist insects, indicating a modification of the
 functional composition of communities. These results suggest that
 urbanization affects not only the richness of flower visitor assemblages
 but may also cause their large-scale functional homogenization. Future
 research should focus on designing measures to reconcile urban development
 with flower visitor conservation.
description: Flower visitor
 communities dataThis table provide the
 data of the 1606 flower visitors communities analysed as described in the
 main text of the manuscript. Field “collection_id” is a unique ID number
 for each flower visitor community; field “long” and “lat” provide
 longitude and latitude of the site sampled. Field “volunteer_id” gives a
 unique ID number for each volunteer observing data. Field
 “prop_ins_withCSI” gives, for each flower visitor community, the
 proportion of insect that were available for the calculation of the CSI
 (i.e. for each collection, the proportion of insects with a defined
 specialisation index). Field “prop_urban_1km” is the proportion of urban
 areas within 1km of the sampling sites. Fields “richness_flovis” and
 “CSI_flovis” are respectively the richness and the Community
 Specialisation Index of the flower visitor communities.Deguines et al
 2016_flovisdata.xlsxDeguines et al
 2016_ColdataThis table provide the
 data of the 677 Coleoptera communities analysed as described in Appendix
 1. Field “collection_id” is a unique ID number for each Coleoptera
 community; field “long” and “lat” provide longitude and latitude of the
 site sampled. Field “volunteer_id” gives a unique ID number for each
 volunteer observing data. Field “prop_Col_withCSI” gives, for each
 Coleoptera community, the proportion of insect that were available for the
 calculation of the CSI (i.e. for each collection, the proportion of
 insects with a defined specialisation index). Field “prop_urban_1km” is
 the proportion of urban areas within 1km of the sampling sites. Fields
 “richness_Col” and “CSI_Col” are respectively the richness and the
 Community Specialisation Index of the Coleoptera
 communities.Deguines et al
 2016_DipdataThis table provide the
 data of the 843 Diptera communities analysed as described in Appendix 1.
 Field “collection_id” is a unique ID number for each Diptera community;
 field “long” and “lat” provide longitude and latitude of the site sampled.
 Field “volunteer_id” gives a unique ID number for each volunteer observing
 data. Field “prop_Dip_withCSI” gives, for each Diptera community, the
 proportion of insect that were available for the calculation of the CSI
 (i.e. for each collection, the proportion of insects with a defined
 specialisation index). Field “prop_urban_1km” is the proportion of urban
 areas within 1km of the sampling sites. Fields “richness_Dip” and
 “CSI_Dip” are respectively the richness and the Community Specialisation
 Index of the Diptera communities.Deguines et al
 2016_HymdataThis table provide the
 data of the 1159 Hymenoptera communities analysed as described in Appendix
 1. Field “collection_id” is a unique ID number for each Hymenoptera
 community; field “long” and “lat” provide longitude and latitude of the
 site sampled. Field “volunteer_id” gives a unique ID number for each
 volunteer observing data. Field “prop_Hym_withCSI” gives, for each
 Hymenoptera community, the proportion of insect that were available for
 the calculation of the CSI (i.e. for each collection, the proportion of
 insects with a defined specialisation index). Field “prop_urban_1km” is
 the proportion of urban areas within 1km of the sampling sites. Fields
 “richness_Hym” and “CSI_Hym” are respectively the richness and the
 Community Specialisation Index of the Hymenoptera
 communities.Deguines et al
 2016_LepdataThis table provide the
 data of the 337 Lepidoptera communities analysed as described in Appendix
 1. Field “collection_id” is a unique ID number for each Lepidoptera
 community; field “long” and “lat” provide longitude and latitude of the
 site sampled. Field “volunteer_id” gives a unique ID number for each
 volunteer observing data. Field “prop_Lep_withCSI” gives, for each
 Lepidoptera community, the proportion of insect that were available for
 the calculation of the CSI (i.e. for each collection, the proportion of
 insects with a defined specialisation index). Field “prop_urban_1km” is
 the proportion of urban areas within 1km of the sampling sites. Fields
 “richness_Lep” and “CSI_Lep” are respectively the richness and the
 Community Specialisation Index of the Lepidoptera
 communities.