Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:04:03.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TERRITORIALITY IN THE DRONE FLY, ERISTALIS TENAX (DIPTERA: SYRPHIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

W. G. Wellington  and
Sheila M. Fitzpatrick
W. G. Wellington
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1W5
Sheila M. Fitzpatrick
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1W5
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When male drone flies (Eristalis tenax (L.)) of the spring and summer generations stop dispersing, they settle within individual home ranges that provide them with sheltering, resting, basking, grooming, feeding, and mating sites. Away from its mating place, a resident male rarely responds to other insects. On its mating site, however, it is territorial, attacking alien species, such as bees, wasps, and butterflies, as well as conspecific intruders. Territorial duty is demanding, and resident males take rest periods outside their territories whenever they can. When prevented from doing so, either by sky conditions which confine them to the territory, or by crowding which eliminates many neutral sites, they become increasingly aggressive. Males on open, horizontal territories (e.g., in flowerbeds) are more likely to notice intruders, and therefore are more liable to attack them, than males on vertical territories (e.g., on broad-leaved shrubs). The aggressiveness of E. tenax has social and ecological ramifications beyond its own species, since bees may stop foraging and aphidophagous syrphids may not oviposit in places where drone flies are exceptionally active.

Résumé

Après sa période de dispersion, le mâle de la mouche Eristalis tenax (L.) issu des générations printanières et estivales s’établit dans son domaine vital. Ceci lui procure des sites pour s’abriter, se reposer, prendre du soleil, faire sa toilette, se nourrir et s’accoupler. Un résident s’en prend rarement aux autres insectes sauf s’il se trouve sur son site d’accouplement. Il devient alors territorial, attaquant tout intrus de son espèce et même, les abeilles, les quêpes et les papillions. Mais la défense du territoire est exigeante et les mâles doivent se reposer hors de leurs territoires. Ils deviennent plus agressifs quand ils sont restreints à leurs territoires par les conditions météorologiques ou par la rareté des sites neutres causée par l’encombrement. Les résidents des territoires horizontaux et ouverts, les plates-bandes p. ex., peuvent facilement apercevoir les intrus. Ils sont donc susceptibles de réagir plus souvent que les résidents des territoires verticaux comme les arbustes à feuilles largest L’agressivité d’E. tenax a des ramifications sociales et écologiques pour d’autres espèces. Là où ils sont très actifs, les mâles peuvent empêcher le fourragement des abeilles et l’oviposition des syrphidés aphidophages.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 113 , Issue 8 , August 1981 , pp. 695 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcock, J. 1975. Territorial behaviour by males of Philanthus multimaculatus with a review of territoriality in male sphecids. Anim. Behav. 23: 889–895.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. D. 1961. Aggressiveness, territoriality, and sexual behavior in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behaviour 17: 130–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AliNiazee, M. T. 1974. The western cherry fruit fly, Rhagoletis indifferens (Diptera: Tephritidae) 2. Aggressive behavior. Can. Ent. 106: 1201–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, J. D. 1972. Aggressive behavior in the adult apple maggot (Diptera: Tephritidae). Can. Ent. 104: 349–353.Google Scholar
Brown, J. L. and Orians, G. H.. 1970. Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1: 239–262.Google Scholar
Bush, G. L. 1969. Sympatric host race formation and speciation in frugivorous flies of the genus Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae). Evolution 23: 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collett, T. S. and Land, M. F.. 1975. Visual spatial memory in a hoverfly. J. comp. Physiol. 100: 59–84.Google Scholar
Eickwort, G. C. and Ginsberg, H. S.. 1980. Foraging and mating behavior in Apoidea. A. Rev. Ent. 25: 421–446.Google Scholar
Ewing., L. S. 1973. Territoriality and the influence of females on the spacing of males in the cockroach, Nauphoeta cinerea. Behaviour 45: 282–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Y. 1960. Territorialism and residentiality in a dragonfly, Orthetrum albistylum speciosum Uhler (Odonata: Anisoptera). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 53: 851–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. 1964. The evolution of territoriality in the Odonata. Evolution 18: 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. G. 1969. Migration and Dispersal of Insects by Flight. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Leyhausen, P. 1968. Dominance and territoriality as complemented in mammalian social structure. pp. 22–34in Esser, A. H. (Ed.), Behavior and Environment. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Maier, C. T. and Waldbauer, G. P.. 1979. Dual mate-seeking strategies in male syrphid flies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 72: 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otte, D. and Joern, A.. 1975. Insect territoriality and its evolution: population studies of desert grasshoppers on creosote bushes. J. Anim. Ecol. 44: 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajunen, V. I. 1964. Aggressive behaviour in Leucorrhina caudalis Charp. (Odon., Libellulidae). Ann. Zool. Fenn. 1: 357–369.Google Scholar
Pajunen, V. I. 1966. The influence of population density on the territorial behaviour of Leucorrhina rubicunda L. (Odon., Libellulidae). Ann. Zool. Fenn. 3: 40–52.Google Scholar
Prokopy, R. J. and Bush, G. L.. 1973. Mating behavior of Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae). IV. Courtship. Can. Ent. 105: 873–891.Google Scholar
Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.). 1977. How Animals Communicate. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Spieth, H. T. 1966. Courtship behavior of endemic Hawaiian Drosophila. Univ. Texas Publ. 6615: 245–313.Google Scholar
Wellington, W. G. 1974 a. A special light to steer by. Natur. Hist. 83(10): 46–53.Google Scholar
Wellington, W. G. 1974 b. Bumblebee ocelli and navigation at dusk. Science 183: 550–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wellington, W. G. 1976. Applying behavioral studies in entomological problems. pp. 87–97in Anderson, J. F. and Kaya, H. Y. (Eds.), Perspectives in Forest Entomology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Belknap Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar