Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 179–188 | Cite as

Mark recapture estimates of dispersal ability and observations on the territorial behaviour of the rare hoverfly, Hammerschmidtia ferruginea (Diptera, Syrphidae)

  • E. L. Rotheray
  • L. F. Bussière
  • Pete Moore
  • Linnea Bergstrom
  • D. Goulson
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

In order to effectively manage habitat for fragmented populations, we need to know details of resource utilisation, and the capacity of species to colonise unoccupied habitat patches. Dispersal is vital in maintaining viable populations in increasingly fragmented environments by allowing re-colonisation of areas in which populations have gone extinct. In the UK, the endangered aspen hoverfly Hammerschmidtia ferruginea (Fallén 1817) (Diptera, Syrphidae) depends on a limited and transient breeding habitat: decaying aspen wood Populus tremula L. (Salicaceae). Conservation management for H. ferruginea involves encouraging aspen expansion across Scotland, and ensuring retention, maintenance and continuity of dead wood where H. ferruginea has been recorded and in areas that may link populations. In order to do this effectively we need to know how far H. ferruginea can disperse. By taking advantage of the tendency of adults to group on decaying aspen logs, we estimated dispersal ability through mark recapture techniques. In the first year, 1,066 flies were marked as they emerged from aspen logs and 78 were re-sighted at artificially-placed decaying aspen logs up to 4 km from the release site. In the second year, of 1,157 individually marked flies, 112 were re-sighted and one was observed 5 km from the release site. Territorial behaviour was recorded at all (19) decaying aspen log locations. In total, 72 males were recorded defending territories, which overlapped with 68 % of recorded female oviposition sites. Among males only, wing length was positively associated with dispersal. While these results show H. ferruginea is capable of locating decaying logs up to 5 km away, most dispersing individuals (68 %) were recorded at 1 km, which should be taken into account in developing management protocols. If enough dead wood is available it should be distributed within a radius of 1–2 km, and where possible, as stepping-stones linking up aspen woodlands. We discuss the implications of our findings for the natural history of this species, and make recommendations for its conservation management.

Keywords

Saproxylic Populus tremula Mate seeking Distribution 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was done as part of the PhD research of the lead author and was funded by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), the University of Stirling Strategic Development Fund, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). Thanks to private landowners on Alvie, Dunachton and Rothiemurchus Estates, and Angus Macpherson at Craig Dhu, for their permission to work on or use their land as part of the project. Thanks to Forestry Commission Scotland and Karen Sutcliffe, RSPB Insh marshes, for continued support for the project. Thank you to research assistants Sarah Hoy, Vicky Nall, Geoffrey Wilkinson, and also Kate Williamson, Debbie Leigh, Morten Bucheister, Andrew Ford and Richard Siller. Thanks to Dr Tom Prescott and Dr Graham E. Rotheray for their indispensable assistance, and in particular Iain McGowan for initiating the project and for his dedicated supervision. Finally, thank you to the reviewers for their helpful comments.

Supplementary material

10841_2014_9627_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1526 kb)

References

  1. Abràmoff MD, Magalhães PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int 11:36–42Google Scholar
  2. Bonduriansky R, Brooks RJ (1997) A technique for measuring and marking live flies. Can Entomol 129:827–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Denno RF (1994) The evolution of dispersal polymorphisms in insects: the influence of habitats, host plants and mates. Res Popul Ecol 36:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grove SJ (2002) Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:1–23 Google Scholar
  5. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoffmann A, Ratna E, Sgro C, Barton M, Blacket M, Hallas R et al (2007) Antagonistic selection between adult thorax and wing size in field released Drosophila melanogaster independent of thermal conditions. J Evol Biol 20:2219–2227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jonsson M, Johannesen J, Seitz A (2003) Comparative genetic structure of the threatened tenebrionid beetle Oplocephala haemorrhoidalis and its common relative Bolitophagus reticulatus. J Insect Conserv 7:111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kouki J (2008) Aspen and forest biodiversity in North European boreal forests. In: Proceedings from 2008 HAG aspen conference, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  9. Kouki J, Arnold K, Martikainen P (2004) Long-term persistence of aspen—a key host for many threatened species—is endangered in old-growth conservation areas in Finland. J Nat Conserv 12:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Langellotto G, Denno R, Ott J (2000) A trade-off between flight capability and reproduction in males of a wing-dimorphic insect. Ecology 81:865–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacGowan I (1997) The entomological value of aspen in the Scottish Highlands. Unpublished Malloch Society Research ReportGoogle Scholar
  12. Maier CT, Waldbauer G (1979) Diurnal activity patterns of flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) in an Illinois sand area. Ann Entomol Soc Am 72:237–245Google Scholar
  13. Milankov V, Francuski L, Ludoški J, Stahls G, Vujic A (2010) Genetic structure and phenotypic diversity of two northern populations of Cheilosia aff. longula (Diptera: Syrphidae) has implications for evolution and conservation. Eur J Entomol 107:305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Preston-Mafham K (2001) Resource defence mating system in two flies from Sulawesi: Gymnonerius fuscus Wiedemann and Telostylinus sp. near duplicatus Wiedemann (Diptera: Neriidae). J Nat Hist 35:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. R Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL: http://www.R-project.org/
  16. Rotheray GE (1991) Larval stages of 17 rare and poorly known British hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). J Nat Hist 25:945–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rotheray G (2001) Aspen, a vital resource for saproxylic flies. In: The biodiversity and management of aspen woodlands, proceedings from a one-day conference held in Kingussie, Scotland, on 25th May 2001, pp 29–31Google Scholar
  18. Rotheray EL (2012) The ecology and conservation of endangered saproxylic hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae) in Scotland. PhD thesis, University of StirlingGoogle Scholar
  19. Rotheray GE, MacGowan I (2000) Status and breeding sites of three presumed endangered Scottish saproxylic syrphids (Diptera, Syrphidae). J Insect Conserv 4:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rotheray GE, Hancock G, Hewitt S, Horsfield D, MacGowan I, Robertson D, Watt K (2001) The biodiversity and conservation of saproxylic diptera in Scotland. J Insect Conserv 5:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rotheray EL, MacGowan I, Rotheray GE, Sears J, Elliott A (2009) The conservation requirements of an endangered hoverfly, Hammerschmidtia ferruginea (Diptera, Syrphidae) in the British Isles. J Insect Conserv 13:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sekar S (2011) A meta-analysis of the traits affecting dispersal ability in butterflies: can wingspan be used as a proxy? J Anim Ecol 8:174–184Google Scholar
  23. Speight MC (1989) Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Nature and environment series, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  24. Speight MCD, Monteil C, Castella E, Sarthou JP (2010) StN Database, In: Speight MCD, Castella E, Sarthou J-P, Monteil C (eds) Syrph the Net on CD:7 the database of European Syrphidae. ISSN 1649-1917 Syrph the Net Publications, DublinGoogle Scholar
  25. Stevens VM, Trochet A, Van Dyck H, Clobert J, Baguette M (2012) How is dispersal integrated in life histories: a quantitative analysis using butterflies. Ecol Lett 15:74–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vinatier F, Tixier P, Duyck P-F, Lescourret F (2011) Factors and mechanisms explaining spatial heterogeneity: a review of methods for insect populations. Methods Ecol Evol 2:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weisberg S, Fox J (2010) An R companion to applied regression. Sage Publications Inc., LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Worrell R (1993) The location of aspen clones in Scotland. Unpublished report to Scottish Natural HeritageGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. L. Rotheray
    • 1
  • L. F. Bussière
    • 1
  • Pete Moore
    • 2
  • Linnea Bergstrom
    • 1
  • D. Goulson
    • 1
  1. 1.Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  2. 2.The Royal Society for the Protection of BirdsInverness-shireUK

Personalised recommendations