Exploitation of kairomones and synomones by Medetera spp. (Diptera: Dolichopodidae), predators of spruce bark beetles

Hulcr, Jiří; Pollet, Marc A. A.; Ubik, Karel; Vrkoč, Jan

doi:10.14411/eje.2005.093

Cited by 27 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the larvae of beetles have hard-biting mouthparts and are generally ferocious predators of fly larvae in general [46, 72]. Despite the fact that the larvae of predatory flies can kill the larvae of bark beetles [73], they probably cannot compete against the mobile and voracious larvae of predatory beetles, nor their adults.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal Segregation between Dung-Inhabiting Beetle and Fly Species

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The coexistence of ecologically similar species (i.e. species utilizing the same resource) is a major topic in ecology. Communities are assembled either through the biotic interactions of ecologically similar species, e.g. competition, or by the abiotic separation of species along gradients of environmental conditions. Here, we investigated the temporal segregation, succession and seasonality of dung-inhabiting Coleoptera and Diptera that utilize an identical resource in exactly the same way. The data were collected from two temperate pastures, one in the United Kingdom and the second in the Czech Republic. There was no evident temporal separation between ecologically similar coleopterous or dipterous taxa during succession. In contrast, these two orders were almost perfectly separated seasonally in both combined and site-specific datasets. Flies were most abundant in the summer, and beetles were more abundant in the spring and autumn. Ecologically similar beetles and flies also displayed seasonal separation in both combined and site-specific data. Analyses within site-specific data sets revealed such a separation at both the order and species level. Season is therefore the main temporal axis separating ecologically similar species of dung-inhabiting insects in temperate habitats, while succession aggregates species that may have similar environmental tolerances (to e.g. dung moisture). This separation between ecologically similar taxa of beetles and flies may be attributable to either competition-based niche separation or to temperature tolerance-based habitat filtering, since flies have peak activity in warmer months while beetles have peak activity in cooler months.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal Segregation between Dung-Inhabiting Beetle and Fly Species

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This attraction has also been studied on Medetera fly spp. [343], Macrolophus caliginosus (mired bug) [344] and Scolothrips takahashii (trips) [345]. In a similar fashion, C. paradisi × P. trifoliata release terpenes to attract Steinernema diaprepesi nematodes, predators of Diaprepes abbreviates (root weevil) larvae [346].…”

Section: Defense Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant Defense against Insect Herbivores

Fürstenberg-Hägg

Zagrobelny

Bak

2013

IJMS

662

459

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plants have been interacting with insects for several hundred million years, leading to complex defense approaches against various insect feeding strategies. Some defenses are constitutive while others are induced, although the insecticidal defense compound or protein classes are often similar. Insect herbivory induce several internal signals from the wounded tissues, including calcium ion fluxes, phosphorylation cascades and systemic- and jasmonate signaling. These are perceived in undamaged tissues, which thereafter reinforce their defense by producing different, mostly low molecular weight, defense compounds. These bioactive specialized plant defense compounds may repel or intoxicate insects, while defense proteins often interfere with their digestion. Volatiles are released upon herbivory to repel herbivores, attract predators or for communication between leaves or plants, and to induce defense responses. Plants also apply morphological features like waxes, trichomes and latices to make the feeding more difficult for the insects. Extrafloral nectar, food bodies and nesting or refuge sites are produced to accommodate and feed the predators of the herbivores. Meanwhile, herbivorous insects have adapted to resist plant defenses, and in some cases even sequester the compounds and reuse them in their own defense. Both plant defense and insect adaptation involve metabolic costs, so most plant-insect interactions reach a stand-off, where both host and herbivore survive although their development is suboptimal.

show abstract

“…Particularly remarkable cases of mass occurrences are given by the chloropid fly Thaumatomyia notata (Meigen), specimens of which, possibly guided by a species-specific male pheromone, seek suitable places for overwintering and in extreme cases may enter buildings in such numbers that they darken the ceilings and create bucket-loads of dead bodies when they die in the dry indoor climate (Nartshuk 2000). On the beneficial side, many Brachycera are efficient decomposers and play an important role in cleaning sewage and recycling organic waste (McLean 2000); some hover flies (Syrphidae) and grass flies (Chloropidae) are predators on pest aphids (Ismay and Nartshuk 2000, Thompson and Rotheray 1998) and larvae of the long-legged fly genus Medetera (Dolichopodidae) feed on all stages of bark beetles (Curculionidae, Scolytinae) (Hulcr et al 2005); and blow flies (Calliphoridae) may serve as forensic indicators (Catts and Goff 1992, Byrd and Castner 2000, Rivers and Dahlem 2014) and even improve human health through the treatment of complicated wounds (Sherman 2001, Sherman 2002, Sherman 2003). Drosophila melanogaster Meigen (Drosophilidae) has become the archetype of a geneticists laboratory animal, and the multitude of genetic studies performed on this species has had a profound impact on our understanding of gene expression, gene regulatory mechanisms, mutations, etc.…”

Section: General Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fauna Europaea: Diptera – Brachycera

Pape¹,

Beuk²,

Pont³

et al. 2015

BDJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fauna Europaea provides a public web-service with an index of scientific names (including important synonyms) of all extant multicellular European terrestrial and freshwater animals and their geographical distribution at the level of countries and major islands (east of the Urals and excluding the Caucasus region). The Fauna Europaea project comprises about 230,000 taxonomic names, including 130,000 accepted species and 14,000 accepted subspecies, which is much more than the originally projected number of 100,000 species. Fauna Europaea represents a huge effort by more than 400 contributing taxonomic specialists throughout Europe and is a unique (standard) reference suitable for many user communities in science, government, industry, nature conservation and education. The Diptera–Brachycera is one of the 58 Fauna Europaea major taxonomic groups, and data have been compiled by a network of 55 specialists.Within the two-winged insects (Diptera), the Brachycera constitute a monophyletic group, which is generally given rank of suborder. The Brachycera may be classified into the probably paraphyletic 'lower brachyceran grade' and the monophyletic Eremoneura. The latter contains the Empidoidea, the Apystomyioidea with a single Nearctic species, and the Cyclorrhapha, which in turn is divided into the paraphyletic 'aschizan grade' and the monophyletic Schizophora. The latter is traditionally divided into the paraphyletic 'acalyptrate grade' and the monophyletic Calyptratae. Our knowledge of the European fauna of Diptera–Brachycera varies tremendously among families, from the reasonably well known hoverflies (Syrphidae) to the extremely poorly known scuttle flies (Phoridae). There has been a steady growth in our knowledge of European Diptera for the last two centuries, with no apparent slow down, but there is a shift towards a larger fraction of the new species being found among the families of the nematoceran grade (lower Diptera), which due to a larger number of small-sized species may be considered as taxonomically more challenging.Most of Europe is highly industrialised and has a high human population density, and the more fertile habitats are extensively cultivated. This has undoubtedly increased the extinction risk for numerous species of brachyceran flies, yet with the recent re-discovery of Thyreophora cynophila (Panzer), there are no known cases of extinction at a European level. However, few national Red Lists have extensive information on Diptera.For the Diptera–Brachycera, data from 96 families containing 11,751 species are included in this paper.

show abstract

Exploitation of kairomones and synomones by Medetera spp. (Diptera: Dolichopodidae), predators of spruce bark beetles

Cited by 27 publications

References 36 publications

Temporal Segregation between Dung-Inhabiting Beetle and Fly Species

Temporal Segregation between Dung-Inhabiting Beetle and Fly Species

Plant Defense against Insect Herbivores

Fauna Europaea: Diptera – Brachycera

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About