# The Effect of Land Cover on the Nectar Collection by Honeybee Colonies in Urban and Rural Areas
## 4 Discussion  
The findings demonstrated that there was no statistically significant variation in the total annual nectar yield of honeybees between urban and rural apiaries. However, the active foraging period, defined as the number of days on which nectar is gathered, was found to be longer in urban areas. This finding indicates that urban environments may offer honeybees comparable nectar resources to those found in agricultural landscapes. These findings are consistent with observations by [PERSON] et al. [22], who demonstrated that complex urban ecosystems offer a richer and more diverse foraging base for _Apis mellifera_ than suburban or rural landscapes. Concurrently, [PERSON] et al. [23] corroborated the hypothesis that bees in urban environments may exhibit a predilection for urban forage sources over those available in agricultural areas. However, research conducted in Ohio by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [25] suggests that agricultural landscapes may support higher colony success, highlighting the complex nature of this relationship. Consequently, our findings align with the hypothesis that the structural characteristics of the environment and the perpetual accessibility of nectar resources may hold more significance than the simple categorisation of environments as urban or rural. The increased number of foraging days observed in urban areas suggests that urban honeybees had access to floral resources over a longer portion of the season. This phenomenon may be attributed to the presence of more diverse and prolonged blooming vegetation, which is commonly observed in urban environments, such as parks, gardens, and green spaces, as well as ruderal and invasive plant species [22]. Furthermore, [PERSON] et al. [37] observed that intensive agricultural landscapes shorten the period of forage availability and reduce pollen quality, particularly in terms of protein content. Seasonal analysis revealed a distinct peak in honey yields during May and June for both urban and rural apiaries (Figure S2). This pattern is consistent with the phenology of plants in temperate climates and with previous studies--for example, [PERSON] et al. [11] reported that hive weight dynamics are strongly influenced by periods of intense flowering. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [35] emphasised that the availability of spring forage is critical for the energy balance of honeybee colonies in agricultural landscapes. In urban environments, however, the peak in nectar collection shifted slightly towards later months (Figure S2), likely due to the blooming of linden trees (_Tilia_ spp.) and ornamental plantings that flower in June and July. A similar seasonal shift was observed by [PERSON] et al. [27], who found that differences in plant phenology between urban and agricultural areas in the U.S. led to variations in foraging dynamics. Notwithstanding the marked disparities in land cover structure--notably, a higher proportion of built-up areas in urban sites and more arable land in rural areas--correlation analysis failed to establish any discernible relationship between the proportion of specific land cover classes and nectar yield. The strongest correlation, albeit statistically non-significant, was observed for shrub-covered areas. These findings suggest that honeybees may be able to forage effectively across diverse landscapes, provided that sufficient nectar-producing plants are available. The quality and diversity of vegetation, rather than the type of land cover per se, are the determining factors in pollinator presence and activity, as highlighted in studies by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [31] and [PERSON] et al. [32]. Conversely, [PERSON] et al. [34] and [PERSON] et al. [35] reported a positive correlation between forest proximity and honey yield. However, this correlation was not observed in the present study. This discrepancy may be attributable to the limited sample size or the high foraging flexibility of honeybees in resource selection [5,6]. Furthermore, [PERSON] et al.