The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Visual Ecology of Biting Flies
Abstract
Many of the similarities in visual ecology between the Nematocera and Brachycera and within the Cyclorrhapha may reflect the evolution of blood-feeding in these groups. In Nematocera and Brachycera, blood-feeding is thought to have evolved from predatory or nectar-feeding behavior (138). Only females feed on hosts, and association with hosts generally occurs when hosts are close to the aquatic or semiaquatic habitats of the immatures. Flies feed on nectar, make appetitive flights, disperse, or migrate prior to blood-feeding, and then oviposit in water. Many species are nocturnal or crepuscular. In Cyclorrhapha, flies are closely associated with hosts. They may have arisen from compost-feeding flies that developed a larval dependence on vertebrate-produced microhabitats. Both sexes blood-feed, and mating occurs on or near hosts. Flies generally emerge in the proximity of hosts and maintain close contact with them. These species are diurnal, and their visual systems are well developed. Comparisons between closely related blood-feeding and non-blood-feeding species may provide insight into the visual ecology of blood-feeding species. Despite the different origins of hematophagy, there appears to be a convergence of morphology and behavior that is related to ecology rather than to phylogenetic relationships. This is clearly seen in host-location strategies by tsetse and tabanids. Even within groups such as mosquitoes, species that are active at the same time of day and in the same habitat have more in common than closely related species in different habitats. For this reason, an ecological review would be more cohesive than this phylogenetic discussion. However, because of the disproportionate amount of literature on a small number of groups, the phylogenetic approach is the most practical for this subject. However, this review does point out the great need for research on the less well-studied groups and behaviors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Verdonschot, P. F. M., & Besse-Lototskaya, A. A. (2014) · Limnologica · doi:10.1016/j.limno.2013.11.002 · Cited by 358
Animal Grouping for Protection From Parasites: Selfish Herd and Encounter-Dilution Effects
Mooring, M. S., & Hart, B. L. (1992) · Behaviour · doi:10.1163/156853992x00011 · Cited by 330
Visual and olfactory responses of haematophagous Diptera to host stimuli
Gibson, G., & Torr, S. J. (1999) · Medical and Veterinary Entomology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2915.1999.00163.x · Cited by 320
Logan, J. G., Birkett, M. A., Clark, S. J., Powers, S., Seal, N. J., Wadhams, L. J., Mordue (Luntz), A. J., & Pickett, J. A. (2008) · Journal of Chemical Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10886-008-9436-0 · Cited by 239
Biting flies and activity of caribou in the boreal forest
Raponi, M., Beresford, D. V., Schaefer, J. A., Thompson, I. D., Wiebe, P. A., Rodgers, A. R., & Fryxell, J. M. (2018) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.1002/jwmg.21427 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Allan, S. A., Day, J. F., & Edman, J. D.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Entomology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 1987-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 297-314
- ISSN
- 0066-4170 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-4487
- OpenAlex
- W2163494183
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Visual Ecology of Biting Flies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.en.32.010187.001501
- The paper
- Allan, S. A., Day, J. F., & Edman, J. D. (1987). Visual Ecology of Biting Flies. Annual Review of Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.32.010187.001501
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.