The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Relative Attractiveness of Potential Beneficial Insectary Plants to Aphidophagous Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae)
Abstract
Establishing flowering plants in and around fields to provide pollen and nectar resources for natural enemies has shown promise as a strategy to enhance biological control of crop pests. Natural enemies are selective in their flower feeding, however, and show preferences for certain plant species. In this study the relative attractiveness of 11 flowering plant species to aphidophagous hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) was evaluated at the Oregon State University Vegetable Research Farm. Six of these plant species were also evaluated at two other farm sites. Of the 12 species of hoverflies collected, Meliscaeva cinctella (Zetterstedt), Toxomerus marginatus (Say), Toxomerus occidentalis (Curran), Sphaerophoria sulfuripes (Thomson), and Scaeva pyrastri (L.) were common to all three sites. Attractiveness of flowering plants to foraging hoverflies was assessed by conducting timed observations of feeding-visit frequencies. Flowering periods varied between plant species and comparisons were made only for plant species flowering on a particular date. Relative attractiveness of plant species to hoverflies differed between dates and sites. Among early-season flowering species, coriander, Coriandrum sativum (L.), was fed from most frequently. Among late-season flowers, yarrow, Achillea millefolium (L.), fennel, Foeniculum vulgare (Miller), and Korean licorice mint, Agastache rugosa (Fischer & C. A. Meyer) were fed from most frequently. These results help in the selection of plants to enhance biological control, but final selection of plants for this purpose requires considering flower, natural enemy, and pest phenologies, and pollen and nectar quality and availability.
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
Habitat Management to Suppress Pest Populations: Progress and Prospects
Gurr, G. M., Wratten, S. D., Landis, D. A., & You, M. (2017) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035050 · Cited by 699
Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes
Jackson, L. E., Pascual, U., & Hodgkin, T. (2007) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.017 · Cited by 560
Maximizing ecosystem services from conservation biological control: The role of habitat management
Fiedler, A. K., Landis, D. A., & Wratten, S. D. (2008) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.12.009 · Cited by 428
Dunn, L., Lequerica, M., Reid, C. R., & Latty, T. (2020) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.5807 · Cited by 253
Metadata
- Authors
- Colley, M. R., & Luna, J. M.
- Venue
- Environmental Entomology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-10-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1054-1059
- ISSN
- 0046-225X (ISSN-L)
- 1938-2936
- OpenAlex
- W2173171927
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.65
- 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: Relative Attractiveness of Potential Beneficial Insectary Plants to Aphidophagous Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1603/0046-225x-29.5.1054
- The paper
- Colley, M. R., & Luna, J. M. (2000). Relative Attractiveness of Potential Beneficial Insectary Plants to Aphidophagous Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Environmental Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225x-29.5.1054
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.