Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:55:47.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flower-visiting and mating behaviour of Eulonchus sapphirinus (Diptera: Acroceridae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Christopher J. Borkent  and
Evert I. Schlinger
Christopher J. Borkent*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Macdonald Campus, McGill University, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada H9X 3V9
Evert I. Schlinger
Affiliation:
World Spider-Endoparasitoid Laboratory, P.O. Box 1869, Santa Ynez, California 93460, United States of America
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Acrocerid flies are often considered to be rare and their role in pollination is poorly understood. In this study, adult Eulonchus sapphirinus Osten Sacken were common on flowers of Geranium robertianum L. (Geraniaceae) in Olympic National Park, Washington, and have morphological and behavioural characteristics that indicate a dependence on floral nectar. Both males and females of this species are good potential pollinators from a behavioural standpoint. They make few revisits to individual flowers, remain highly constant to one flowering species in each nectar-foraging bout, and carry pollen on their bodies. Individuals were abundant and formed the majority of insect visitors to G. robertianum flowers. Males and females differed in their flower-visiting behaviour, with females visiting more individual flowers and doing so more slowly than males. This difference between the sexes appears to relate to mating behaviour, which takes place within the flower patches. The ramifications of the observed flower-visiting and mating behaviour for flower pollination are discussed. This study shows that based on both their abundance and their behaviour, these flies are potentially important pollinators in certain habitats.

Résumé

Les mouches acrocérides sont souvent considérées comme étant rares et leur rôle en tant que pollinisateurs n’est pas très bien connu. Lors de cette étude, l’espèce Eulonchus sapphirinus Osten Sacken était très commune sur les fleurs de Geranium robertianum L. (Geraniaceae) dans le parc national Olympic, Washington, et certains caractères morphologiques et comportementaux de cette espèce, portent à croire qu’elle serait dépendante de nectar de fleurs pour son alimentation. Mâles et femelles de cette espèce ont un comportement qui pourrait faire d’eux de bons pollinisateurs. Ils visitent les fleurs à plus d’une reprise, restent fidèles à une espèce de fleur dans un site déterminé et transportent du pollen sur leur corps. Cette espèce était la plus commune parmi les insectes visitant les fleurs de G. robertianum. Il a été noté que les femelles agissaient différemment des mâles, en visitant plus de fleurs que ceux-ci et en le faisant plus lentement. Cette différence comportementale entre les sexes semble être reliée à la reproduction, qui se produit à l’intérieur des sites floraux. Les implications des comportements observés liés à la reproduction et la visite des fleurs sont discutées. Cette étude démontre que l’abondance et le comportement de ces mouches en font potentiellement d’importants pollinisateurs dans certains habitats.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 140 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 250 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, P.H., Reitz, S.R., and Watson, C.N. 1997. Distribution and abundance of Eulonchus marialiciae (Diptera: Acroceridae). Entomological News, 108: 190–192.Google Scholar
Borkent, C.B., and Harder, L.D. 2007. Flies (Diptera) as pollinators of two dioecious plants: behaviour and implications for plant mating. The Canadian Entomologist, 139: 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cady, A., Leech, R., Sorkin, L., Stratton, G., and Caldwell, M. 1993. Acrocerid (Insecta: Diptera) life history, behaviors, host spiders (Arachnida: Araneida), and distribution records. The Canadian Entomologist, 125: 931–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, R., and Machado, I.C. 2006. Rodriguezia bahiensis Rchb. f.: biologia floral, polinizadores e primeiro registro de polinização por moscas Acroceridae em Orchidaceae. Revista Brasileira de Botânica, 29: 461–470.Google Scholar
Cole, F.R. 1919. The dipterous family Cyrtidae in North America. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 45: 1–79.Google Scholar
Cole, F.R. 1969. The flies of western North America [With the collaboration of E.I. Schlinger.] University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
Coyle, F.A. 1971. Systematics and natural history of the mygalomorph spider genus Antrodiaetus and related genera (Araneae: Antrodiaetidae). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 141: 269–402.Google Scholar
Deyrup, M.A. 1988. Pollen-feeding in Poecilognathus punctipennis (Diptera: Bombyliidae). The Florida Entomologist, 71: 597–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, T.H. 1953. A note on the swarming habits of Ogcodes dispar (Macq.). Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 48: 39–40.Google Scholar
Gilbert, F., and Jervis, M. 1998. Functional, evolutionary and ecological aspects of feeding-related mouthpart specializations in parasitoid flies. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 63: 495–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldblatt, P., Manning, J.C., and Bernhardt, P. 1998. Notes on the pollination of Gladiolus brevifolius (Iridaceae) by bees (Anthophoridae) and bee mimicking flies (Psilodera: Acroceridae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 70: 297–304.Google Scholar
Grant, V., and Grant, K.A. 1965. Flower pollination in the Phlox family. Columbia University Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, D. 1988. Bee flies and bluets: Bombylius (Diptera: Bombyliidae) flower-constant on the distylous species, Hedyotis caerulea (Rubiaceae), and the manner of foraging. Journal of Natural History, 22: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S.D., and Dafni, A. 1998. Response of beeflies to the shape and pattern of model flowers: implications for floral evolution in a Mediterranean herb. Functional Ecology, 12: 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastinger, C., and Weber, A. 2001. Bee-flies (Bombylius spp. Bombyliidae, Diptera) and the pollination of flowers. Flora (Jena), 196: 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearns, C.A., and Inouye, D.W. 1994. Fly pollination of Linum lewisii (Linaceae). American Journal of Botany, 81: 1091–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krenn, H.W., Plant, J.D., and Szucisch, N.U. 2005. Mouthparts of flower-visiting insects. Arthropod Structure and Development, 34: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, B.M.H., Kevan, P.G., and Inouye, D.W. 2001. Flies and flowers: taxonomic diversity of anthophiles and pollinators. The Canadian Entomologist, 133: 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leprince, D.J., and Wood, D.M. 1982. Aggregation of male acrocerids (Diptera). The Canadian Entomologist, 114: 991–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luz, J.R.P. 2004. A associação de Philopota sp. Wiedemann (Diptera, Acroceridae) com flores do gervão-azul, Stachytarphetta cayenensis (Verbenaceae) na Ilha Marambaia, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Entomologia y Vectores, 11: 681–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohashi, K. 2002. Consequences of floral complexity for bumblebee-mediated geitonogamous self-pollination in Salvia nipponica Miq. (Labiatae). Evolution, 56: 2414–2423.Google ScholarPubMed
Potgieter, C.J., Edwards, T.J., Miller, R.M., and Van Staden, J. 1999. Pollination of seven Plectranthus spp. (Lamiaceae) in southern Natal, South Africa. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 218: 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlinger, E.I. 1960. A review of the genus Eulonchus Gerstaecker. Part I. The species of the smaragdinus group (Diptera: Acroceridae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 53: 416–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlinger, E.I. 1966. An analysis of the distribution of Eulonchus Gerstaecker (Diptera: Acroceridae). Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 12: 112–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlinger, E.I. 1981. Acroceridae. In Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 1. Edited by McAlpine, J.F., Peterson, B.V., Shewell, G.E., Teskey, H.J., Vockeroth, J.R., and Wood, D.M.. Monograph No. 27, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. pp. 575–584.Google Scholar
Schlinger, E.I. 1987. The biology of the Acroceridae (Diptera): true endoparasitoids of spiders. In Ecophysiology of spiders. Edited by Nentwig, W.. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp. 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlinger, E.I. 2003. Acroceridae, spider-fly endoparasitoids. In The natural history of Madagascar. Edited by Goodman, S.M. and Benstead, J.P.. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. pp. 734–740.Google Scholar
SPSS Inc. 2006. SPSS®. Release 15.0 [computer program]. SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Stuardo, C. 1980. Notas biológicas sobre Acroceridae de Chile. Revista Chilena de Entomologia, 10: 97.Google Scholar
Toft, R.J. 2004. Geranium robertianum L. Journal of Ecology, 92: 537–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldbauer, G.P. 1984. Mating behaviour at blossoms and the flower associations of mimetic Technostoma spp. (Diptera: Syrphidae) in northern Michigan. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 86: 295–304.Google Scholar