We randomly reduced the number of replicates in the three different agroforestry systems to three. For each alpha, beta-spatial and beta-temporal as response variable, we used one-way ANOVA with habitat type as categorical predictor to test for diversity differences between habitats. To assess the plant and pollinator community distance between the plots we used the nonmetric multidimensional CX-6258 ic50 scaling method (NMDS). Each input matrix consisted of a Bray-Curtis similarity index calculated between each plot. Statistical analyses were carried out in Statistica (StatSoft, Inc. 2004.), version 7. www.statsoft.com.).
The Bray-Curtis similarity index and Michaelis–Menten species estimator were calculated using EstimateS (Colwell, R.K. 2005, version 7.5. Persistent URL: purl.oclc.org/estimate). learn more Residuals were tested for normal distribution and were log transformed if necessary. We used type-I (sequential) sum of squares for each model. We give arithmetic mean ± standard error in the text. Results In total 1207 bees belonging to 53 native species were caught from flowers (86%) or during search flight for flowers (14%). We identified 75 different flowering plant species
in all five habitat types, of which 38 species were visited by a bee during transect observations. For the other plant species we can therefore not prove attractiveness for bees and they Nutlin-3a cell line were not included in the analyses. Bee species
richness and density The bee community was determined by habitat type and plant density (Table 2a). Bee species richness varied significantly across habitats, with significantly lower bee richness in primary forests (1.54 ± 0.27 species per plot and sampling phase, n = 15) compared to all other habitat types (open habitat: 9.8 ± 0.92, n = 15; low-intensity agroforestry: 4.26 ± 0.53, n = 20; medium-intensity agroforestry: 4.85 ± 0.49, n = 20; high-intensity agroforestry: 4.45 ± 0.6, n = 20) and significantly higher richness in open habitats compared to low and Ergoloid high-intensity cacao agroforestry systems (Fig. 1). Bee richness increased with increasing density of flowering plants (Fig. 2), whereas sampling phase, climate and plant richness had no significant influence on bee species richness (Table 2a). We found similar results for bee density. Habitat significantly influenced bee density. Primary forest habitats had significantly lower and openland had significantly higher bee densities compared to all other habitats (primary forest 2.62 ± 0.64 individuals per plot and sampling phase, n = 15; low-intensity 8.58 ± 1.6, n = 20; med-intensity 8.4 ± 1.28, n = 20; high-intensity 9.3 ± 1.92, n = 20 and openland 43.73 ± 5.58, n = 15). Bee density increased with plant density, whereas sampling phase, climate and plant richness did not influence bee density (Table 2b).