# More than flowers: Habitat type, floral resources, and landscape context shape pollinator communities in villages

## TL;DR

Villages can support diverse pollinators if managed properly, with habitat quality and surrounding landscapes playing key roles.

## Contribution

Identifies the importance of landscape context and habitat management for pollinators in villages.

## Key findings

- Pollinator richness and abundance increase with floral species richness and cover.
- Solitary bee richness in green areas and bumble bee richness in fallows exceeded expectations.
- Cemeteries were less species-rich, suggesting other factors like nesting opportunities are important.

## Abstract

Wild pollinator diversity has been widely studied in agricultural habitats and increasingly also in cities, but the value of small settlements like villages in rural areas for pollinators is mainly unknown. Public green spaces and village gardens could serve as refuges from agricultural intensification and habitat loss. Moreover, semi‐natural habitats in the surrounding landscape may influence pollinator communities within villages. Here, we asked how suitable different village habitats are for wild pollinators and how this relates to floral resources and landscape context. We recorded solitary bees, bumble bees, hoverflies, honey bees, and flowering plants in five habitat types—cemeteries, fallows, farmhouse gardens, green areas, and house gardens—across 40 villages in Bavaria, Germany (200 plots in total). We recorded 208 wild bee species and 56 hoverfly species representing approximately 40% and 14% of the Bavarian fauna, respectively, along with 1258 flowering plant species. Generally, pollinator richness and abundance increased with floral species richness and cover. The proportion of semi‐natural habitats surrounding villages at larger spatial scales was positively associated with solitary bee richness and influenced bumble bee abundance, highlighting the importance of landscape context. Based on predictions from floral resources, solitary bee richness in green areas and bumble bee richness in fallows exceeded expectations, whereas cemeteries were less species‐rich. This suggests that factors beyond flower richness and abundance, such as nesting opportunities and the composition of preferred flower species, play important roles. Using 38,620 recordings of flower visits and respective flower abundance, we compiled a list of plant genera that were most visited, most preferred (corrected for plant abundance), or non‐preferential (corrected for plant abundance) for the pollinator groups. The list serves as a decision‐making tool for local stakeholders to ensure the most effective pollinator promotion within villages. Our results suggest that measures enhancing flower resources alone will not result in the best possible increase in pollinators in villages but should be accompanied by actions that enhance nesting sites in local habitats for a broad spectrum of pollinators. In conclusion, villages hold a substantial, yet underexploited, potential for pollinator conservation, achievable through targeted management and public engagement.