Do Nearctic hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) engage in long‐distance migration? An assessment of evidence and mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Long‐distance insect migration is poorly understood despite its tremendous ecological and economic importance. As a group, Nearctic hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae: Syrphinae), which are crucial pollinators as adults and biological control agents as larvae, are almost entirely unrecognized as migratory despite examples of highly migratory behavior among several Palearctic species. Here, we examined evidence and mechanisms of migration for four hover fly species (Allograpta obliqua, Eupeodes americanus, Syrphus rectus, and Syrphus ribesii) common throughout eastern North America using stable hydrogen isotope (δ2H) measurements of chitinous tissue, morphological assessments, abundance estimations, and cold‐tolerance assays. Although further studies are needed, nonlocal isotopic values obtained from hover fly specimens collected in central Illinois support the existence of long‐distance fall migratory behavior in Eu. americanus, and to a lesser extent S. ribesii and S. rectus. Elevated abundance of Eu. americanus during the expected autumn migratory period further supports the existence of such behavior. Moreover, high phenotypic plasticity of morphology associated with dispersal coupled with significant differences between local and nonlocal specimens suggest that Eu. americanus exhibits a unique suite of morphological traits that decrease costs associated with long‐distance flight. Finally, compared with the ostensibly nonmigratory A. obliqua, Eu. americanus was less cold tolerant, a factor that may be associated with migratory behavior. Collectively, our findings imply that fall migration occurs in Nearctic hover flies, but we consider the methodological limitations of our study in addition to potential ecological and economic consequences of these novel findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".