# The Effect of Land Cover on the Nectar Collection by Honeybee Colonies in Urban and Rural Areas
## 5 Conclusions  
This study lends further credence to the hypothesis that both urban and rural environments can provide honeybees with effective foraging conditions. No statistically significant difference was observed in the average annual hive weight gain between apiaries in these two environments, suggesting that urban areas can serve as valuable foraging grounds for honeybees. However, urban sites exhibited a significantly higher number of foraging days, suggesting a more protracted flowering period, which is advantageous in the context of climate change and unpredictable blooming seasons. The analysis further demonstrates that the landscape composition and land cover structure exhibit no strong correlation with nectar collection, thereby underscoring the adaptability of honeybees to diverse environments, provided adequate foraging resources are available, even in fragmented form. The mosaic structure and habitat diversity appear to be more important than the general classification of the site as urban or rural. Principal component analysis (PCA) and landscape clustering revealed clear environmental gradients; however, they did not identify distinct productivity groups, highlighting that colony performance is the result of a complex interaction of factors, with land cover being only one of them. The most critical aspects of successful beekeeping are identified as continuous floral availability across the season, the bees' ability to compensate for local resource gaps through long foraging flights, and their flexibility in utilising diverse habitats. This study lends further support to the notion that the local landscape structure and the spatial configuration of foraging resources are of greater importance than geographic location alone. Consequently, urban planning and rural land use strategies should consider pollinator needs and aim to preserve or enhance habitat diversity throughout the foraging season. The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15084497/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15084497/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15084497/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15084497/s1)), Figure S1: Gross hive weight gain (kg). The mean monthly values were determined by location and month, with the data being averaged over a period of two years. Figure S2: The following data set presents the hive weight growth (kg) in five-day intervals for urban and rural areas from 2021 to 2022. The data are represented graphically by means of dashed lines, the function of which is to illustrate the trend that has been fitted via second-order polynomial regression. The peaks on the graph are related to flowering: O--orchard and rapeseed _Brassica napus_, B--black locust _Robinia pseudoaccacia_, L--Linden _Tilia_ spp., C--Goldenrod _Solidago_ spp. Figure S3A-H: The relationship between the annual hive weight gain (Gross Gain) and the proportion of different land cover classes in the surroundings of the apariies. The utilisation of nonlinear regression curves of the third degree (shown as red shadows with 95% confidence intervals) serves to illustrate the direction of the relationship. A--agricultural areas, B--anthropogenic areas, C--grassland, D--coniferous forest, E--shrubs, F--broadleaved forest, G--water bodies, H--wetlands. Figure S4: The annual gross weight gain (nectar collection) in relation to variations in land cover within each designated location. Figure S5A-H: Figure S5A. The comparison of the proportion of land cover classes in buffers of 1.5 km and 3 km radius around the same apariies and results of the \(\chi^{2}\) test for each location. Agricultural areas, \(\chi^{2}=8.432\), df = 9, \(p=0.49\), Figure S5B. The comparison of the proportion of land cover classes in buffers of 1.5 km and 3 km radius around the same apariies and the results of the \(\chi^{2}\) test for each location. Anthropogenic areas, \(\chi^{2}=4.522\), df = 9, \(p=0.86\), Figure S5C.