18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Conservation of hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae) requires complementary resources at the landscape and local scales

      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

          1. Accumulating evidence shows that landscape fragmentation drives the observed worldwide decline in populations of pollinators, particularly in species of Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera. However, Little is known about the effects of landscape fragmentation on hoverfly (Diptera, Syrphidae) communities. Hoverflies provide varied ecosystem services: larvae contribute to waste decomposition (saprophagous species) and pest control (aphidophagous species), and adults pollinate a wide range of flowers.

          2. To determine how the diversity and quantity of resources for larvae and adults affect hoverfly abundance and species richness at three spatial scales, we recorded insect visitors of five target plant species in Belgian heathlands, habitats that have decreased considerably due to human activities.

          3. Hoverflies represented the most abundant visitors on two plant species, and the second most abundant visitors (after bumblebees) on the other target plant species. A large proportion of hoverflies observed were aphidophagous species associated with coniferous and deciduous forests. Resources for the larvae and floral resources for the adults influenced interactions among hoverflies and plants, but acted at different scales: larval habitat availability (distance to larval habitat) was relevant at the landscape scale, whereas adult resource availability (floral density) was relevant at the plot scale.

          4. Hoverfly abundance and species richness decreased with distance to larval habitat but increased with floral density. Moreover, landscape structure and composition had different effects according to hoverfly ecological traits. Landscape composition influenced aphidophagous but not saprophagous hoverflies, in that their abundance and species richness decreased with distance to forests. Maintenance of the interactions between plants and their hoverfly visitors requires complementary resources at both landscape and local scales.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

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

          Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A meta-analysis of bees' responses to anthropogenic disturbance

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

              Insects as Flower Visitors and Pollinators

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                laura.moquet@uclouvain.be
                Journal
                Insect Conserv Divers
                Insect Conserv Divers
                10.1111/(ISSN)1752-4598
                ICAD
                Insect Conservation and Diversity
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1752-458X
                1752-4598
                10 July 2017
                January 2018
                : 11
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1111/icad.2018.11.issue-1 )
                : 72-87
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Research Group Genetics, Reproduction, Populations Earth and Life Institute – Université catholique de Louvain Louvain‐la‐Neuve Belgium
                [ 2 ]Present address: Research group Quantitative Conservation Biology Earth and Life Institute – Universite catholique de Louvain Louvain‐la‐Neuve Belgium
                [ 3 ]Present address: Centre Wallon de Recherches Agronomiques Rue du Bordia 4 5030 Gembloux Belgium
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Correspondence: Laura Moquet, Research Group Genetics, Reproduction, Populations, Earth and Life Institute – Université catholique de Louvain, Croix du Sud 2, Box L7.05.14, B‐1348, Louvain‐la‐Neuve, Belgium. E‐mail: laura.moquet@ 123456uclouvain.be
                Article
                ICAD12245
                10.1111/icad.12245
                7165621
                32336985
                f67146a9-78b8-44cb-a7fb-64eba99b3d4f
                © 2017 The Royal Entomological Society

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 13 June 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 4, Pages: 16, Words: 10740
                Funding
                Funded by: Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique – FNRS , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100002661;
                Award ID: FRFC 2.4613.12
                Funded by: FSR
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                January 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.8.0 mode:remove_FC converted:15.04.2020

                aphidophagous,ericaceous species,forest,heathlands,pollinators

                Comments

                Comment on this article