Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-h5th4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-27T22:03:14.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONTRASTS IN THE TERRITORIAL BEHAVIOUR OF THREE SPECIES OF HOVER FLIES (DIPTERA: SYRPHIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

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

Abstract

Among territorial syrphids, males of Eumerus tuberculatus (Rond.) are less aggressive than Merodon equestris (Fab.) and Eristalis tenax (L.) males. This difference in aggressiveness persists even when territorial pressures increase with increasing numbers of conspecifics.

Males of each species recognized conspecific females mainly by a combination of visual and behavioural cues. A territorial male might approach any intruder, but would only attempt to mate if, like the appropriate female, the intruder did not respond to the male's approach. Differences in behavioural patterns may be due to different mating strategies.

Résumé

Chez les syrphidés territoriaux, les mâles d'Eumerus tuberculatus (Rond.) sont moins agressifs que les mâles de l'espèce Merodon equestris (Fab.) ainsi que ceux d'Eristalis tenax (L.). Même lorsque les pressions territoriales augmentent avec une augmentation du nombre des individuels, cette différence d'aggressivité continue.

Les mâles reconnaissent les femelles de leur espèce par des indices visuels et par le comportement de ces femelles. Un mâle territorial peut s'approcher de tout intrus, mais ne tentera de s'accoupler que si l'intrus demeure indifférent à ses avances, comme le ferait une femelle de l'espèce convenable. Les différences au niveau du comportement peuvent être causées par des stratégies d'accouplement distinctes.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 115 , Issue 5 , May 1983 , pp. 559 - 566
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1983

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alcock, J. 1979. Multiple mating in Calopteryx maculata (Odonata: Calopterygidae) and the advantage of non-contact guarding by males. J. Nat. Hist. 13: 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcock, J., Barrows, E. M., Gordh, G., Hubbard, L. J., Kirkendall, L., Pyle, D. W., Ponder, T. L., and Zalom, F. G.. 1978. The ecology and evolution of male reproductive behaviour in the bees and wasps. J. Linn. Soc. London (Zool.) 64: 293–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, J. D. 1972. Aggressive behavior in the adult apple maggot (Diptera: Tephritidae). Can. Ent. 104: 349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boorman, E. and Parker, G. A.. 1976. Sperm (ejaculate) competition in Drosophila melanogaster, and the reproductive value of females to males in relation to female age and mating status. Ecol. Ent. 1: 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. L. and Orians, G. H.. 1970. Spacing patterns in mobile animals. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1: 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. B. 1978. Ecological questions about territorial behaviour. pp. 317–350in Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. (Eds.), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Eickwort, G. C. And Ginsberg, H. S.. 1980. Foraging and mating behavior in Apoidea. A. Rev. Ent. 25: 421–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S. M. 1981. Territorial aggression among males of three syrphid species. M.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Heal, J. 1979. Colour patterns of Syrphidae: I. Genetic variation in the dronefly Eristalis tenax. Heredity 42: 223–236.CrossRefGoogle 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
Noble, G. K. 1939. Symposium on the individual vs. the species. IV. The role of dominance in the social life of birds. Auk 56: 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol. Rev. 45: 525–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severinghaus, L. L., Kurtak, B. H., and Eickwort, G. C.. 1981. The reproductive behavior of Anthidium manicatum (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and the significance of size for territorial males. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9: 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellington, W. G. and Fitzpatrick, S. M.. 1981. Territoriality in the drone fly, Eristalis tenax (L.) (Diptera: Syrphidae). Can. Ent. 113: 695–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar