# The Effect of Land Cover on the Nectar Collection by Honeybee Colonies in Urban and Rural Areas
## 2 Materials and Methods  
### Experimental Setup and Study Site  
Building upon previous research on the relationship between environmental characteristics of urban and rural ecosystems and their suitability for honeybees [39], this study was conducted in five regions of Poland during 2021-2022 (see Table 1 and Figure 1). Each region included an experimental apiary located in the largest city or the most urbanised area (urban) and control apiaries situated in surrounding agricultural areas (rural) at distances ranging from 4.5 to 47.3 km, depending on the region.  
The average annual air temperature in these regions ranged from 8.2 to 8.7 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and the total annual precipitation varied from 530 to 700 mm (Table 1), indicating relatively similar climatic conditions across all locations. In each of the 10 apiaries, one test hive was placed on a hive scale. The surrounding forage base was assessed, and changes in hive weight were monitored using Capaz hive scales (Oberkirch, Germany). For a detailed description and photographic documentation of the scales, see [14]. The data thus obtained were then used to calculate three key annual indicators for each bee colony/apiary (April to August): hive weight gain (gross increase, kg)--the sum of all daily weight gains, reflecting the total amount of forage (mainly nectar, but also pollen and other materials--no distinction was made) collected by the bees. It should be noted that this value does not directly correspond to potential honey production; hive weight loss (gross decrease, kg)--the sum of all daily weight losses, representing the number of consumed stores and other weight reductions (e.g., water evaporation); the number of foraging days is defined as the number of days on which a positive daily weight gain was recorded (i.e., scale readings above 0). For analysis, the mean values of these indicators from both years were used to generate a single representative observation per location.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Distance**} & & \\
**No. of** & **Location of** & **Coordinates of** & **(km) and** & **The Mean** & **The Mean** \\
**Apiary** & **the Urban** & **Coordinates of** & **Direction to** & **Annual** & **Annual** \\
**Apiary (City)** & **Urban Apiary** & **the Control** & **Temperature** & **Rainfall** \\  & & & **Apiary** & **(°C)** & **(mm)** \\ \hline
1 & Warsaw & \(52^{\circ}17^{\prime}05.0^{\prime\prime}\) N & \(39.5\) km, S & 8.5 & 530 \\  & & \(20^{\circ}58^{\prime}52.0^{\prime\prime}\) E & \(39.5\) km, S & 8.5 & 530 \\
2 & Lublin & \(51^{\circ}14^{\prime}48.6^{\prime\prime}\) N & \(22.4\) km, W & 8.3 & 560 \\  & & \(22^{\circ}32^{\prime}54.7^{\prime\prime}\) E & \(22.4\) km, W & 8.3 & 560 \\
3 & Pulawy & \(51^{\circ}24^{\prime}35.7^{\prime\prime}\) N & \(4.5\) km, SW & 8.4 & 590 \\  & & \(21^{\circ}58^{\prime}44.2^{\prime\prime}\) E & \(4.5\) km, SW & 8.4 & 590 \\
4 & Cracow & \(49^{\circ}59^{\prime}42.6^{\prime\prime}\) N & \(17.2\) km, E & 8.7 & 670 \\
5 & Tychy & \(50^{\circ}6^{\prime}10.8^{\prime\prime}\) N & \(35.8\) km, SE & 8.2 & 700 \\  & & \(19^{\circ}27.098^{\prime\prime}\) E & \(35.8\) km, SE & 8.2 & 700 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: The locations and coordinates of urban experimental apiaries, distances to rural control sites, and mean annual temperature and precipitation. Table is based on the same experimental locations described in our previous study [39].  
Figure 1: The geographical distribution of experimental apiaries. The numerical values correspond to the cities as indicated in Table 1. The distribution of the apiary locations is similar to the experimental sites used in study [39].