10.5061/DRYAD.5DK66
Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó
Institute of Ecology and Botany
Földesi, Rita
Institute of Ecology and Botany
Mózes, Edina
Institute of Ecology and Botany
Szirák, Ádám
Institute of Ecology and Botany
Fischer, Joern
Leuphana University
Hanspach, Jan
Leuphana University
Báldi, András
Institute of Ecology and Botany
Data from: Conservation of pollinators in traditional agricultural
landscapes – new challenges in Transylvania (Romania) posed by EU
accession and recommendations for future research
Dryad
dataset
2017
agricultural intensification
solitary bee
hoverfly
traditional rural landscape
Syrphidae
bumblebee
Bombus
2017-03-21T00:00:00Z
2017-03-21T00:00:00Z
en
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151650
234340 bytes
1
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
Farmland biodiversity is strongly declining in most of Western Europe, but
still survives in traditional low intensity agricultural landscapes in
Central and Eastern Europe. Accession to the EU however intensifies
agriculture, which leads to the vanishing of traditional farming. Our aim
was to describe the pollinator assemblages of the last remnants of these
landscapes, thus set the baseline of sustainable farming for pollination,
and to highlight potential measures of conservation. In these traditional
farmlands in the Transylvanian Basin, Romania (EU accession in 2007), we
studied the major pollinator groups—wild bees, hoverflies and butterflies.
Landscape scale effects of semi-natural habitats, land cover diversity,
the effects of heterogeneity and woody vegetation cover and on-site flower
resources were tested on pollinator communities in traditionally managed
arable fields and grasslands. Our results showed: (i) semi-natural
habitats at the landscape scale have a positive effect on most
pollinators, especially in the case of low heterogeneity of the direct
vicinity of the studied sites; (ii) both arable fields and grasslands hold
abundant flower resources, thus both land use types are important in
sustaining pollinator communities; (iii) thus, pollinator conservation can
rely even on arable fields under traditional management regime. This has
an indirect message that the tiny flower margins around large intensive
fields in west Europe can be insufficient conservation measures to restore
pollinator communities at the landscape scale, as this is still far the
baseline of necessary flower resources. This hypothesis needs further
study, which includes more traditional landscapes providing baseline, and
exploration of other factors behind the lower than baseline level
biodiversity values of fields under agri-environmental schemes (AES).
Sampling data of wild bees and hoverflies in TransylvaniaMetadata of the
dataset used by the following paper accepted in Plos One in March 2016
(Ref. No: PONE-D-15-36138R1). These pollinator data were sampled by
transect walk method in Transylvanian arable fields and grasslands in
2012, in a case study financed by the "Lendület" program of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Guideline for abbreviations used in the
name of variables is provided in the
file.PONE-D-15-36138_datarepository.xlsxSpecies list of wild beesSpecies
list of wild bees with their abundance (number of individuals) in arable
fields and grasslands, lecty category and conservation interest in the
studied arable fields and grasslands in Transylvania, Romania. IUCN
European Red bee list categories are presented at geographical Europe
scale (EN – Endangered; VU – Vulnerable; NT – Near Threatened; LC – Least
Concern; DD – Data Deficient).PONE-D-15-36138R1_S2_Table.docxSpecies list
of hoverfliesSpecies list of hoverflies with their abundance (number of
individuals) in the studied arable fields and semi-natural grasslands in
Transylvania, Romania.PONE-D-15-36138R1_S3_Table.docxGoogle Earth map of
the studied arable fields and grasslandsSites were assigned in the
vicinity of 19 villages in the Transylvanian Basin, Romania. Sites are
named by the first three letters of the closest village, A (arable) or P
(grassland) indicates the land use type, plus H (heterogeneity) and W
(woody vegetation cover) values in a 3 value range. Heterogeneity was
defined as the standard deviation of the 2.5m panchromatic Spot picture,
stratified in quantiles: H1 – belonging to lower third (low
heterogeneity), H2 – middle third, H3 – upper third. Woody vegetation
cover represented the proportion of woody vegetation (shrubs and trees) in
a 1 ha circle based on classified 10m SPOT 5 data: W1: 0 to 5 % woody
vegetation cover; W2: 5 to 15 % of woody vegetation; W3: 15 to 50 % of
woody vegetation (1 – low, 2 – middle, 3 –
high).PONE-D-15-36138R1_S1_Figure.kml
Romania
Transylvania