The Role of Flies as Pollinators of Horticultural Crops: An Australian Case Study with Worldwide Relevance

Cook, David F.; Voss, Sasha C.; Finch, Jonathan T. D.; Rader, Romina; Cook, James M.; Spurr, C

doi:10.3390/insects11060341

Cited by 63 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 175 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to collecting nectar and other floral resources, bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) and some flies (Diptera) visit a wide diversity of flowering plants to gather pollen (Thorp, 2000; Woodcock et al ., 2014; Cook et al ., 2020). Pollen consumption is known in fly species in the families Bombyliidae, Empididae, Muscidae, Tabanidae, Ceratopogonidae, and particularly Syrphidae (Inouye et al ., 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of defence buzzes in hoverflies and buzz‐pollinating bees

Vallejo‐Marín

Vallejo

2020

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bees and many flies, particularly hoverflies (Syrphidae), have evolved a diverse range of mechanisms to gather pollen from a wide variety of flowering plants. Bees and hoverflies use protein‐rich pollen as a food resource to mature reproductive organs and eggs and, in bees, to feed their larvae. A particularly striking pollen‐collecting behaviour involves the production of thoracic vibrations to dislodge pollen from flowers. Vibratile pollen collection is widespread in bees (>11 600 species) but extremely rare in flies (~1 species of hoverfly). Why the use of floral vibrations to collect pollen is so rare among flies is currently unknown. A hypothesis proposed to explain why flies do not engage in vibratile or buzz pollination is that they are unable to reach the vibration amplitude required to expel pollen from anthers. Here we document, for the first time, the mechanical properties of non‐flight thoracic vibrations produced by hoverflies and compare them to the vibrations produced by buzz‐pollinating bees under similar contexts (defence buzzes). We analysed ~4000 vibrations produced by nearly 300 individuals representing 20 species of hoverflies and 22 bee taxa, recorded using a miniature piezoelectric accelerometer. We characterised both frequency and acceleration amplitude components of non‐flight thoracic vibrations and their relationship to insect size. Our results show that, after accounting for size, buzz‐pollinating bees and hoverflies produce vibrations with similar acceleration. We show experimentally that the acceleration amplitude produced by some hoverflies is sufficient to elicit pollen release from buzz‐pollinated flowers (Solanum dulcamara and S. rostratum). Our study does not support the hypothesis that the dearth of buzz‐pollinating flies is caused by their inability to produce vibrations of sufficient amplitude. We discuss alternative hypotheses to explain why most flies do not engage in buzz pollination and suggest that the lack of buzz‐pollinating flies might be best explained through their life history.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of defence buzzes in hoverflies and buzz‐pollinating bees

Vallejo‐Marín

Vallejo

2020

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have reported species-selective pollinator visitation to hybrid carrot seed crops including pollinators such as A. mellifera [2,3,[6][7][8], flies [9,10], Megachile bees [11], and other native bees [12], but there appear to be no reports on carrot pollinator assemblage level visitation to different CMS cultivars, despite strong indications of differences in pollinator attraction among cultivars [13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It Is Not All about Being Sweet: Differences in Floral Traits and Insect Visitation among Hybrid Carrot Cultivars

Gaffney

Bohman

Quarrell

et al. 2020

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cytoplasmically male-sterile (CMS) carrot cultivars suffer from low pollination rates. In this study, insect visitation varied more than eightfold between 17 CMS carrot cultivars in a field-based cultivar evaluation trial. The visitation rates of honey bees, nectar scarabs, muscoid flies, and wasps each significantly differed among these cultivars. No significant difference in visitation rates was observed among cultivars of different CMS type (brown-anther or petaloid) or flower colour, but cultivars of Berlicumer root type had significantly higher insect visitation rates than Nantes. Six cultivars were further compared in regard to selected umbel traits: as umbel diameter increased, so did the visitation of soldier beetles, while that of honey bees decreased. Finally, nectar of these six cultivars was analysed for sugar content, which revealed monosaccharides to be the most common sugars in all. There was high variation in the levels of sugars from individual umbellets but no significant difference in nectar sugar composition among cultivars, suggesting that nectar sugar composition is of minor importance regarding pollinator attraction to hybrid CMS carrot umbels.

show abstract

“…Here we suggest including flies, when appropriate, in pollinator disease transmission dynamics, as the roles of flower-visiting flies has often been speculated but not tested. Cook et al 45 found that flies from 86 families have been reported visiting the flowers of more than 1100 different species of plants globally, however, flies are not the only insects sharing floral resources with bees.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eristalis flower flies can be mechanical vectors of the common trypanosome bee parasite, Crithidia bombi

Davis

Deutsch

Torres

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flowers can be transmission platforms for parasites that impact bee health, yet bees share floral resources with other pollinator taxa, such as flies, that may be hosts or non-host vectors (i.e., mechanical vectors) of parasites. Here, we assessed whether the fecal-orally transmitted gut parasite of bees, Crithidia bombi, can infect Eristalis tenax flower flies. We also investigated the potential for two confirmed solitary bee hosts of C. bombi, Osmia lignaria and Megachile rotundata, as well as two flower fly species, Eristalis arbustorum and E. tenax, to transmit the parasite at flowers. We found that C. bombi did not replicate (i.e., cause an active infection) in E. tenax flies. However, 93% of inoculated flies defecated live C. bombi in their first fecal event, and all contaminated fecal events contained C. bombi at concentrations sufficient to infect bumble bees. Flies and bees defecated inside the corolla (flower) more frequently than other plant locations, and flies defecated at volumes comparable to or greater than bees. Our results demonstrate that Eristalis flower flies are not hosts of C. bombi, but they may be mechanical vectors of this parasite at flowers. Thus, flower flies may amplify or dilute C. bombi in bee communities, though current theoretical work suggests that unless present in large populations, the effects of mechanical vectors will be smaller than hosts.

show abstract

The Role of Flies as Pollinators of Horticultural Crops: An Australian Case Study with Worldwide Relevance

Cited by 63 publications

References 175 publications

Comparison of defence buzzes in hoverflies and buzz‐pollinating bees

Comparison of defence buzzes in hoverflies and buzz‐pollinating bees

It Is Not All about Being Sweet: Differences in Floral Traits and Insect Visitation among Hybrid Carrot Cultivars

Eristalis flower flies can be mechanical vectors of the common trypanosome bee parasite, Crithidia bombi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About