| Urban matrix |
| Area size |
0.01 (0.001/0.07) |
km2
|
Area as defined by the lot’s property lines, its bordering by housing or other infrastructure |
| Urbanization |
0.000001 (−3,395/3,182) |
Urbanization score |
As of Seress et al. (2014)
|
| Isolation |
– |
0–12 |
Continual score from 0 (open site) to 12 (isolated site); see Fig. 2
|
| Site variables |
| Management |
– |
Extensive mowing |
Reflects the mowing regime of a site; differentiation was made between extensive (annually) and irregular mowing (less than once a year); data obtained from respective authorities and evaluated during field work |
|
|
Irregular mowing |
| Restoration |
– |
No |
To describe whether the site had previously been part of a five year in-situ experiment to restore grassland vegetation on wasteland sites to enhance the number of typical, native plant species. For details see Fischer et al. (2013) and Fischer, von der Lippe & Kowarik (2013)
|
|
|
Yes |
| Site type |
– |
Wasteland site, with no known intentional or directed human design influence, and where successional vegetation was able to develop freely |
To describe the human influence on the layout/design of a site |
|
|
Residual site with low or no design influence (e.g., vacant lots between houses where traces of past landscape design and greening were visible) |
|
|
Designed site, site that was purposefully constructed e.g., with formal elements like lawns, flower beds |
| Vegetation variables |
| Flower coverage |
– |
0–25% (1) |
Mean degree of coverage with currently flowering plants (excluding grasses); recorded during both bee sampling periods to reflect the short term situation; categories range from (1) no visible flowers to (4) maximum observed flowers |
|
|
25–50% (2) |
|
|
50–75% (3) |
|
|
75–100% (4) |
| Plant species |
27 (6/69) |
Number of plant species |
As of Fischer et al. (2013) and Fischer, von der Lippe & Kowarik (2013) and associated research activity |
