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).

Bees are the most important group of flower visitors providing an essential ecosystem service, namely pollination. Due to the worldwide decline of bees, there should be standardized sampling methods in place to ensure consistent and comparable results between studies. We compared the two commonly used sampling methods of yellow pan traps and transect walk to determine (i) which habitat variables affect the species composition, abundance and species richness of sampled bee communities, (ii) which method potentially contains sampling bias towards some individuals or groups of bees and (iii) the efficiency of sampling in various habitats. We conducted fieldwork in different agricultural habitats distributed along landscape heterogeneity and topography gradients. Our results showed that the height of vegetation, the average number of flowers and the amount of woody vegetation had the greatest influence on the sampling efficiency. Our survey also demonstrated that sampling by transect walk captured less bees in general, especially in stubble, maize, and cereal fields. We found that Apis mellifera and Bombus spp. were well represented in samples collected by the transect walk method, while the abundance of other genera, especially Dasypoda, Hylaeus and Panurgus was higher in pan traps. Based on the results, we suggest (i) the transect walk method to compare samples of flower-visiting wild bee communities from various habitats of different vegetation and flower characteristics, (ii) application of the transect walk or pan traps to compare similar habitats and (iii) adoption of a comprehensive method which would incorporate both sampling techniques to gain a more complex insight into wild bee species composition.