For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
16
views
260
references
 Top references
cited by
4
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      212
      similar
       All similar

      Publish your biodiversity research with us!

      Submit your article here.

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diptera of Canada

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract

          The Canadian Diptera fauna is updated. Numbers of species currently known from Canada, total Barcode Index Numbers (BINs), and estimated numbers of undescribed or unrecorded species are provided for each family. An overview of recent changes in the systematics and Canadian faunistics of major groups is provided as well as some general information on biology and life history. A total of 116 families and 9620 described species of Canadian Diptera are reported, representing more than a 36% increase in species numbers since the last comparable assessment by JF McAlpine et al. (1979). Almost 30,000 BINs have so far been obtained from flies in Canada. Estimates of additional number of species remaining to be documented in the country range from 5200 to 20,400.

          Related collections

          Most cited references260

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

          Romina Rader, Ignasi Bartomeus, Lucas A Garibaldi … (2016)
          Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25-50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.
          Article 0 comments Cited 279 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Counting animal species with DNA barcodes: Canadian insects

            Paul Hebert, Sujeevan Ratnasingham, Evgeny V. Zakharov … (2016)
            Recent estimates suggest that the global insect fauna includes fewer than six million species, but this projection is very uncertain because taxonomic work has been limited on some highly diverse groups. Validation of current estimates minimally requires the investigation of all lineages that are diverse enough to have a substantial impact on the final species count. This study represents a first step in this direction; it employs DNA barcoding to evaluate patterns of species richness in 27 orders of Canadian insects. The analysis of over one million specimens revealed species counts congruent with earlier results for most orders. However, Diptera and Hymenoptera were unexpectedly diverse, representing two-thirds of the 46 937 barcode index numbers (=species) detected. Correspondence checks between known species and barcoded taxa showed that sampling was incomplete, a result confirmed by extrapolations from the barcode results which suggest the occurrence of at least 94 000 species of insects in Canada, a near doubling from the prior estimate of 54 000 species. One dipteran family, the Cecidomyiidae, was extraordinarily diverse with an estimated 16 000 species, a 10-fold increase from its predicted diversity. If Canada possesses about 1% of the global fauna, as it does for known taxa, the results of this study suggest the presence of 10 million insect species with about 1.8 million of these taxa in the Cecidomyiidae. If so, the global species count for this fly family may exceed the combined total for all 142 beetle families. If extended to more geographical regions and to all hyperdiverse groups, DNA barcoding can rapidly resolve the current uncertainty surrounding a species count for the animal kingdom. A newly detailed understanding of species diversity may illuminate processes important in speciation, as suggested by the discovery that the most diverse insect lineages in Canada employ an unusual mode of reproduction, haplodiploidy. This article is part of the themed issue ‘From DNA barcodes to biomes’.
            Article 0 comments Cited 120 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              DNA barcoding cannot reliably identify species of the blowfly genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae).

              E Baudry, R. Dawson, H Magalon … (2007)
              In DNA barcoding, a short standardized DNA sequence is used to assign unknown individuals to species and aid in the discovery of new species. A fragment of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 is emerging as the standard barcode region for animals. However, patterns of mitochondrial variability can be confounded by the spread of maternally transmitted bacteria that cosegregate with mitochondria. Here, we investigated the performance of barcoding in a sample comprising 12 species of the blow fly genus Protocalliphora, known to be infected with the endosymbiotic bacteria Wolbachia. We found that the barcoding approach showed very limited success: assignment of unknown individuals to species is impossible for 60% of the species, while using the technique to identify new species would underestimate the species number in the genus by 75%. This very low success of the barcoding approach is due to the non-monophyly of many of the species at the mitochondrial level. We even observed individuals from four different species with identical barcodes, which is, to our knowledge, the most extensive case of mtDNA haplotype sharing yet described. The pattern of Wolbachia infection strongly suggests that the lack of within-species monophyly results from introgressive hybridization associated with Wolbachia infection. Given that Wolbachia is known to infect between 15 and 75% of insect species, we conclude that identification at the species level based on mitochondrial sequence might not be possible for many insects. However, given that Wolbachia-associated mtDNA introgression is probably limited to very closely related species, identification at the genus level should remain possible.
              Article 0 comments Cited 86 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Jade Savage
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Zookeys
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Zookeys
                Journal ID (publisher-id): ZooKeys
                Title: ZooKeys
                Publisher: Pensoft Publishers
                ISSN (Print): 1313-2989
                ISSN (Electronic): 1313-2970
                Publication date Collection: 2019
                Publication date (Electronic): 24 January 2019
                Issue: 819
                Pages: 397-450
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada Bishop's University Sherbrooke Canada
                [2 ] Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Royal British Columbia Museum Salmon Arm Canada
                [3 ] Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Canadian Museum of Nature Ottawa Canada
                [4 ] Mississippi Entomological Museum, Mississippi State University, Starksville, Mississippi, USA Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Ottawa Canada
                [5 ] Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Mississippi State University Starksville United States of America
                [6 ] Centre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada Royal Ontario Museum Toronto Canada
                [7 ] California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, California, USA University of Guelph Guelph Canada
                [8 ] Unaffiliated, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Royal British Columbia Museum Victoria Canada
                [9 ] University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada California Department of Food and Agriculture Sacramento United States of America
                [10 ] Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Unaffiliated Montreal Canada
                [11 ] Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency Ottawa Canada
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Jade Savage ( jade.savage@ 123456ubishops.ca )

                Academic editor: D. Langor

                Article
                DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.819.27625
                PMC ID: 6355757
                SO-VID: 89721c1c-6c30-4eec-9283-74e1fecd56fb
                Copyright © Jade Savage, Art Borkent, Fenja Brodo, Jeffrey M. Cumming, Gregory Curler, Douglas C. Currie, Jeremy R. deWaard, Joel F. Gibson, Martin Hauser, Louis Laplante, Owen Lonsdale, Stephen A. Marshall, James E. O’Hara, Bradley J. Sinclair, Jeffrey H. Skevington
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC0 Public Domain Dedication.

                History
                Date received : 19 June 2018
                Date accepted : 27 September 2018
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article
                Subject: Animalia
                Subject: Diptera
                Subject: Systematics
                Subject: Cenozoic
                Subject: Americas

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Animal science & Zoology
                Keywords: biodiversity assessment,biota of canada, diptera ,flies,systematics
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Animal science & Zoology
                Keywords: biodiversity assessment, biota of canada, diptera , flies, systematics

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content212

                See all similar

                Cited by2

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,465

                See all reference authors