4.5 Article

Effect of seven species of the family Asteraceae on longevity and nutrient levels of Episyrphus balteatus

Journal

BIOCONTROL
Volume 58, Issue 6, Pages 797-806

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10526-013-9535-x

Keywords

Episyrphus balteatus; Asteraceae; Syrphidae; Chamaemelum nobile; Crepis vesicaria; Longevity

Categories

Funding

  1. FEDER Funds throughout Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade - COMPETE
  2. National Funds throughout FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia, [PTDC/AGR-AAM/100979/2008]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/AGR-AAM/100979/2008] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adult hoverflies feed on pollen, nectar and honeydews. Thus, the implementation of floristically diverse resources in agroecosystems can enhance biological control of pests by increasing populations of these natural enemies. The objective of this work was to study the effect of seven species of Asteraceae (Andryala integrifolia L., Anthemis arvensis L., Calendula arvensis L., Carduus tenuiflorus Curtis, Chamaemelum nobile (L.) All., Coleostephus myconis (L.) Rchb.f. and Crepis vesicaria L.) on adult longevity and nutrient levels of Episyrphus balteatus (De Geer) (Diptera: Syrphidae). Crepis vesicaria and C. nobile gave the highest mean longevities while, for the other plant species, longevities were not significantly different from those in the water only treatment. In addition, all species tested resulted in significantly lower longevities than the positive control (glucose). In terms of nutrient levels, C. nobile generated high levels of total sugars and C. vesicaria high levels of lipids which suggests the consumption of flower resources. However, the majority of the plants tested would not allow hoverflies to complete their life cycle. Thus, further experimentation needs to be done before considering these plants for implementation in agroecosystems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available