Biodiversity of (Diptera: Syrphidae) and seasonal variation in vineyards of Douro Demarcated Region, Portugal

FÁTIMA GONÇALVES1, LARA PINHEIRO2, CRISTINA CARLOS1,3, SUSANA SOUSA1, SÓNIA A.P SANTOS2, LAURA TORRES1 1Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences, CITAB, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, UTAD, Quinta de Prados, 5001-801, Vila Real, Portugal, www.utad.pt; [email protected]; 2Montain Research Centre, CIMO, School of Agriculture, Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, Apt 1172, 5301-855 Bragança, Portugal; 3ADVID – Association for the Development of Viticulture in the Douro Region, Quinta de Santa Maria, Apt. 137, 5050-106 Godim, Portugal; [email protected]

INTRODUCTION MATERIAL AND METHODS Syrphids provide important ecosystem services and are useful ecological The experimental work was carried in Quinta do Vallado, a indicators, largely due to the diversity of with different range of commercial vineyard located at Douro Demarcated Region, behavior and habitat (Burgio & Sommaggio, 2007; Sommaggio & Burgio, with about 1.32 ha of surface. The vineyard was rain fed, and 2014). Some species are important biological control agents, particularly had the soil covered with natural vegetation in the line, mowed those from subfamily , whose larvae prey on , in middle and late spring. For monitoring, eight white essentially on soft-bodied Hemiptera; in addition, adults are pollen and sticky traps were installed in the beginning of April 2013; the nectar feeders, having an important role in pollination. The objective of this traps were changed weekly, until the beginning of December work, developed under the project EcoVitis, was to study the composition of 2013. Collected were classified according to Séguy syrphid communities in vineyards, as well as their fluctuation thought the (1961), Gilbert (1986), Van Veen (2010) and Speight & Sarthou growing season . (2013).

RESULTS Eleven species from two subfamilies (Syrphinae and Eristalinae) were identified. Syrphinae was the most abundant, being represented by nine species and totalizing about 98% of the captures. Sphaerophoria scripta (Fig. 1A), Eupeodes corollae (Fig. 1B), scalare (Fig. 1C) and Episyrphus balteatus (Fig. 1D) were the most abundant species, representing 88.8% of the total captures (Table 1).

Table 1 – Syrphidae species, relative frequencies (%), eating habits of larvae and period of occurrence, during the sampling period. In all species, adults are nectar and pollen feeders. A B Legend: a – predatory, preferentially of ; b – saprophagous not saproxylic Sub-family/ Specie (%) Eating habits of Period of occurrence of adults larvae Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Syrphinae Sphaerophoria scripta 51.9 a x x x x x Eupeodes corollae 21.0 a x x x x Melanostoma scalare 9.4 a x x Episyrphus balteatus 6.5 a x x x Chrysotoxum intermedium 3.7 a x x C D auricollis 2.8 a x x x 0.9 a x x Syrphus ribesii 0.9 a x x Syrphus sp. 0.5 a x Eupeodes luniger 0.5 a x Eristalinae Eristalis tenax 0.9 b x x Eristalis sp. 0.5 b x Eristalinus taeniops 0.5 b x Figure 1 – Adults of Sphaerophoria scripta (A), Eupeodes corollae (B), Melanostoma scalare (C), Episyrphus balteatus (D)

Two periods of activity were observed (Fig. 2). The first one occurred 35 during the spring, between the beginning of April and the end of June, 30 coinciding with the period of spring floral abundance and blooming of wild 25 plants; the captures in this period represented about 72.8% of the total. 20 The second period started in the middle of October and held until the end 15 10 of the sampling period. The abundance of syrphids was higher at the end captures of Total 5 of May, while the richness was higher in the begging of November, when 0 eight different species were captured. Eristalinae only was captured in the autumn, between the end of October and the middle of November. Total S. scripta E. corollae Figure 2 – Flight curve of syrphids during 2013 (for each date, data of all CONCLUSIONS traps were analysed together).

The Syrphidae family is an important functional group of arthropoda that in REFERENCES vineyards might play a role as a potential predator of grapevine pests, such Burgio G & Sommaggio. 2007. Syrphids as landscape bioindicators in Italian agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120 (2–4): 416–422 as the grapevine mealybug, Planococcus ficus and the European grapevine Gilbert F. 1986 Hoverflies (Naturalists Handbooks; 5). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Séguy E. 1961. Diptère Syrphides de l’ Europe Occidentale. Mémoires du Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle - Séries A, moth, Lobesia botrana. Additionally, within Ecovitis project, it can give Zoologie, Tome XXIII. Paris. Van Veen, M.P. 2010. Hoverflies of Northwest Europe. Identification keys to the Syrphidae. KNNV Publishing, 2nd edition. Utrecht, The Netherlands, 256pp information about the impact of some practices of habitat conservation that Speight MCD & Sarthou JP. 2013. StN keys for the identification of adult European Syrphidae (Diptera), 2013/Clés StN pour la détermination des adultes des Syrphidae Européens (Diptères), 2013. Syrph the Net, the database of European Syrphidae, are being implemented, playing a role as bioindicators. Vol. 74, 133 pp. Acessed in http://pollinators.biodiversityireland.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/StN-KEYS-2013.pdf. Sommaggio D & Burgio G. 2014. The use of Syrphidae as functional bioindicator to compare vineyards with different managements. Bulletin of Insectology, 67 (1): 147-156

This research was developped under Ecovitis project, funded by Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural – Ministério da Poznan, Poland Agricultura, Mar, Ambiente e Ordenamento do Território – Fundo Europeu Agrícola de Desenvolvimento Rural – A Europa January 14-16, 2015 investe nas zonas rurais. We are grateful to Quinta do Vallado Sociedade Agrícola S.A for allowing us to use their farms for this study