1998
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.1998.tb01471.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dispersal and effects of barriers on the movement of the New Zealand hover fly Melanostoma fasciatum (Dipt., Syrphidae) on cultivated land

Abstract: Dispersal within agricultural fields and the effects of different barriers on between‐field movement of the New Zealand hover fly Melanostoma fasciatum were studied using ingested pollen as markers. Hover flies did not generally disperse more than 20 m from the pollen source. Gravid females had no significant wind‐directed movement pattern whereas males significantly flew downwind. Flies tended to avoid flying over barren land: a dirt track, an asphalt road or a ploughed field all seemed to hamper hover fly di… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
13
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
3
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other groups of natural enemies, such as hoverflies, show greater dispersal activity (Lövei et al. ) and can be linked to increased biocontrol (Hickman and Wratten ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other groups of natural enemies, such as hoverflies, show greater dispersal activity (Lövei et al. ) and can be linked to increased biocontrol (Hickman and Wratten ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kwak et al. 1998; Lovei et al. 1998; Schulke & Waser 2001; Gathmann & Tscharntke 2002; Chapman et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These were calculated for circular areas with a radius of 50 m around hoverfly sample points and comprised the amount of woody and herbaceous elements (percentage cover) and local habitat diversity (number of EUNIS habitat types). A radius of 50 m seems appropriate because most European hoverfly species are considered as non‐migrants (Gatter and Schmid 1990, Speight 2003) which rarely disperse more than 50 m (Lövei et al 1998, Wratten et al 2003).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%