# The Effect of Land Cover on the Nectar Collection by Honeybee Colonies in Urban and Rural Areas
## 3 Results
### Effect of Land Cover on Bee Foraging  
The analysis of the contingency table, based on the chi-squared (\(\chi^{2}\)) test, revealed no statistically significant variations in the composition of land cover between 1.5 km and 3 km buffer zones for the same locations (see Figure S5A-H; df = 9, \(p\) > 0.05). Consequently, the subsequent analyses were based on land cover data within a 3 km radius. The proportion of anthropogenic areas was found to be significantly higher around urban apiaries than rural ones, while arable land was found to be dominant in rural landscapes (Mann-Whitney U = 3.0, \(p\) = 0.04) (Table 3). The analysis further revealed that built-up areas constituted an average of 34.4% of the land surrounding urban apiaries, in contrast to a mere 2.3% around rural ones. Conversely, arable land accounted for an average of 35.4% in rural areas and only 7.8% in urban environments. These variations are indicative of a fundamental contrast between urban and agricultural landscapes (Mann-Whitney U = 0.1, \(p\) < 0.01) (Table 3). No statistically significant differences were observed between urban and rural apiaries in the remaining land cover categories (forests, grasslands, shrubs, wetlands, and water bodies; all \(p\) > 0.05 (Table 3). However, some tendencies were observed: urban apiaries exhibited slightly lower proportions of grassland (23.2% vs. 28.7%) and broad-leaved forests (15.6% vs. 19.2%) compared to rural ones. The landscape surrounding urban apiaries was found to be more diverse and evenly distributed across several land cover types (approximately one-third built-up, two-thirds green areas), in contrast to rural sites, which were characterised by the dominance of two main components--arable land and grasslands (together two-thirds), complemented by forested areas (Figures 4 and S4). [PERSON]'s tau correlations showed no statistically significant relationships between the proportion of any land cover type and the annual nectar yield. Table 4 presents \(\tau\) values for variable pairs (nectar yield vs. land cover type and land cover (a) vs. land cover (b). Correlation coefficients between nectar yield and the proportion of individual land cover types were low and not statistically significant (\(\tau\) ranged from \(-\)0.22 to 0.46; all \(p\) > 0.1). For instance, the share of built-up areas showed a weak positive correlation with nectar yield (\(\tau\) = 0.24), while arable land showed a weak negative correlation (\(\tau\) = \(-\)0.22); however, these associations were too small to be considered meaningful. The strongest positive correlation was observed for the'shrub' category (\(\tau\) = 0.46), suggesting a trend that apiaries surrounded by more shrubland might have slightly higher yields--although this relationship was not statistically significant. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Land Cover**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Urban**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Rural**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Mean** & **Range** & **SE \(\pm\)** & **Mean** & **Range** & **SE \(\pm\)** \\ \hline Anthropogenic & 34.4 b & 28.0–40.5 & 4.8 & 2.3 a & 1.6–3.4 & 0.5 \\ Agricultural & 7.8 a & 0.0–12.5 & 2.1 & 35.4 b & 22.3–47.8 & 6.0 \\ Broad-leaved forest & 15.6 a & 8.4–22.5 & 3.3 & 19.2 a & 10.5–27.8 & 4.1 \\ Coniferous forest & 7.8 a & 0.0–15.6 & 2.7 & 6.4 a & 0.0–12.2 & 2.3 \\ Grassland & 23.2 a & 12.5–33.2 & 5.0 & 28.7 a & 5.6–38.5 & 5.3 \\ Shrubs & 7.2 a & 3.5–10.6 & 1.7 & 6.0 a & 2.4–8.5 & 1.5 \\ Wetlands & 1.0 a & 0.0–2.5 & 0.6 & 0.4 a & 0.0–2.0 & 0.4 \\ Water bodies & 2.9 a & 0.0–6.4 & 1.2 & 1.3 a & 0.0–3.2 & 0.7 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Different letters within rows indicate statistically significant differences in land cover proportion between urban and rural locations (\(p\) < 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: The mean percentage share (\(\pm\)standard error) of land cover types within a 3 km radius of urban and rural apiaries is presented (average from five locations). Figure 4: Cont.