Selectivity in the exploitation of floral resources by hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphinae)

By E. Branquart, Jean-Louis Hemptinne. 2000

169 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Insect Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2333ba46c4ea19b3a6f26263aab654fbe7655d3b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Insect Science

Citations in the corpus

Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes (2001, background): “Adult hover flies are generalist flower visitors using ubiquitous species from a wide range of families; some hover fly species even feed on grass polle”
Pick and Mix: Selecting Flowering Plants to Meet the Requirements of Target Biological Control Insects (2012, methodology): “This is in agreement with the fi eld studies by Gilbert (1981) and Branquart and Hemptinne (2000) showing a correlation between (relative) tongue length of the hoverfl y species and the average depth of the nation is available without complementary experimental studies.”
Contrasting resource-dependent responses of hoverfly richness and density to landscape structure (2009, background): “Adult hoverflies are usually polylectic, visiting a wide range of plants that provide large amounts of nectar and pollen and are easily reached by their short proboscis (Branquart & Hemptinne 2000).”
Enhancing floral resources for pollinators in productive agricultural grasslands (2014, background): “Although legumes are valuable for many insect pollinators (Decourtye et al., 2010; Jannersten, 1984; Mortimer et al., 2006), different pollinator species will show preferences for other plants (Branquart and Hemptinne, 2008; Forup and Memmott, 2005; Stout et al., 1998).”
FLIES AND FLOWERS III: ECOLOGY OF FORAGING AND POLLINATION (2015, background): “Branquart and Hemptinne (2000) found no strong flower preferences of adults of the Syrphinae subfamily; although they tended to visit plants having large, flat inflorescences or flowers (e.g. Apiaceae, Asteraceae, Ranunculaceae and Rosaceae), they do visit flowers with a diversity of morphologies.”
Flies and Flowers II: Floral Attractants and Rewards (2014, background): “…carbohydrates in nectar for short-term energy needs (Hocking 1953; Downes 1955; Downes & Smith 1969), especially during periods of peak activity such as swarming, mating and oviposition, dispersal, and migration (Kevan 1973; Haslett 1989a, Service 1997; Branquart & Hemptinne 2000; Willmer 2011).”
Relative Frequencies of Visits to Selected Insectary Plants by Predatory Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae), Other Beneficial Insects, and Herbivores (2006, background): “…preferences exhibited by individual hoverßy species are less comparable to this study because of differences in hoverßy and/or plant species, environmental context, and the interaction that these factors can have with habitat preferences of each hoverßy species (Branquart and Hemptinne 2000).”
Nectar accessibility determines fitness, flower choice and abundance of hoverflies that provide natural pest control (2016, background): “Gilbert (1981, 1985a) and Branquart & Hemptinne (2000) showed a correlation between (relative) proboscis length and the average depth of the flowers the species visit.”
The outcome of shared pollination services is affected by the density and spatial pattern of an attractive neighbour (2014, result): “…be that the groups were too heterogeneous for a clear trend, our results fit previous conclusions that these groups are highly generalist and are therefore not expected to show clear flower preferences or to act as effective pollinators (e.g. Branquart & Hemptinne 2000; Danieli-Silva et al. 2012).”