Next Article in Journal
Differences in the Natural Swimming Behavior of Schizothorax prenanti Individual and Schooling in Spatially Heterogeneous Turbulent Flows
Next Article in Special Issue
Tropilaelaps mercedesae Infestation Is Correlated with Injury Numbers on the Brood and the Population Size of Honey Bee Apis mellifera
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Trehalose Supplementation on Lipid Composition of Rooster Spermatozoa Membranes in a Freeze/Thaw Protocol
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Preliminary Study on “Personalised Treatment” against Varroa destructor Infestations in Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Beehive Proximity, Human Activity and Agricultural Intensity on Diptera Diversity in a Mediterranean Mosaic of Agroecosystems, with a Focus on Pest Species

1
Institute of Agriculture and Tourism, Karla Huguesa 8, 52440 Poreč, Croatia
2
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Heinzelova 55, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
3
Department of Life and Environment Botanical Section, University of Cagliari, Viale S. Ignazio da Laconi 13, 09123 Cagliari, Italy
4
Public Health Institute of the Istrian Region, Nazorova 23, 52100 Pula, Croatia
5
Department of Zoology and Fisheries, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha 6, Suchdol, Czech Republic
6
Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Via L. Giorgieri 10, 34127 Trieste, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(6), 1024; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13061024
Submission received: 31 January 2023 / Revised: 3 March 2023 / Accepted: 8 March 2023 / Published: 10 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bee Biology, Pathology and Management)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Diptera are rich in species, contribute significantly to plant diversity, and have the potential to assess habitat health. They also include many agricultural and forestry pests. Our study provides baseline information on Diptera and Vespidae diversity in the Mediterranean mosaic of agroecosystems. Additionally, we summarized the information on the importance of human influence on Diptera diversity. We carried out an inventory of Diptera in Croatia using a set of traps placed in the proximity of honeybee hives. We determined the presence of pests and newly introduced species. A total of 94 species belonging to 24 families were recorded, including 7 important agricultural and forest pests of Diptera and 17 new records for Croatia. Results pointed out that total insect species richness, pest species richness, and the first findings depend on human activities. Furthermore, the number of honeybee colonies was negatively correlated with total species richness, while anthropogenic influence was positively correlated with pest species richness.

Abstract

Diptera, with their participation in pollination, significantly contribute to the maintenance of plant diversity, and they also have great potential for assessing habitat health and preserving it. A decline in their abundance and diversity has been recorded worldwide as a consequence of biotic, abiotic, and anthropic alterations. In addition to pollinators, these orders include agricultural and forestry pests, which are a threat to both cultivated and wild plants that are very important to the economy. Many pests have escaped from their native areas, and it is important to monitor their spread to implement sustainable means of control. Our study provides baseline information on Diptera and Vespidae diversity in the Mediterranean mosaic of agroecosystems, giving information on the importance of human influence on insect diversity. We carried out an insect inventory in Istria, Croatia, using a set of traps placed in the proximity of beehives. This study was also important in determining the presence of pests and newly introduced species. A total of 94 species from 24 families were recorded—7 important agricultural pests of Diptera and 17 new records for Croatia. The correlation between species diversity and environmental and anthropogenic factors leads to the conclusion that total insect species richness, pest species richness, and the first findings depend on human activities. The number of honeybee colonies negatively correlated with species richness, while anthropic influence positively affected total and pest species richness.

1. Introduction

Efforts are continuously carried out to measure, estimate, and conserve the diversity of insects in different habitats [1]. Most insects provide many direct (pollination, removal of carcasses and faeces, insect predators and parasites of herbivores including pests), indirect (apian products) services for humans, as well as other important benefits like silk (silk moths), dyes and shellac (scale insects), and tannic acid and ink (insect galls) [2]. Diptera is a diverse insect order not only in species richness but also its structure, habitat needs, ecology, and human interactions [3].
The Mediterranean basin is known as a biodiversity hotspot because it has a lot of different kinds of plants and animals that pollinate them [4]. Pollinators’ decline and loss of biodiversity, directly affecting the worldwide provision of pollination services, have been reported in response to anthropogenic-driven activities [5,6]. Human impact has caused degradation, destruction, and fragmentation of natural habitats, altering pollinator communities [7]. On the other hand, some semi-natural habitats provide good conditions for insects [8].
Maintaining biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes, especially in agriculture-dominated ones, is a topic of great interest. Agriculture intensification and homogeneous agricultural landscapes are known to affect biodiversity negatively [9,10,11]. In the Mediterranean area, agriculture is fragmented into small patches, forming a mosaic landscape [12,13]. The mosaic landscape is defined as structurally complex spaces of variable scale that accommodate different interacting land-cover types of both natural and anthropogenic origin [14]. These traditional Mediterranean multifunctional landscapes [15] are also typical for the Croatian coast.
Croatian agriculture in the last 30 years has been characterized by negative trends both in the use of agricultural land and in the decrease in the economy and the number of producers. The extensive development of tertiary activities such as tourism, with the involvement of most of the working population, is advocated as the leading cause of the decline [16]. Istrian agricultural landscapes are characterized by fragmented parcels, diverse crop production, and mosaic agricultural practice. It is a patchwork of vineyards, olive fields, extensive agriculture, natural karstic vegetation, and semi-natural habitats, making suitable habitats for insect populations. The average agricultural parcel in Istrian County has an area of only 0.51 ha [17]. Goethe et al. (2021) studied the influence of different agricultural landscapes on biodiversity and concluded that agricultural landscapes dominated by wheat are associated with decreased pest abundance in the investigated area [18]. Other authors have also highlighted a need for studying how strategically managed agroecosystems can provide habitats to maximize the conservation of insect taxa [19,20,21,22,23].
Besides their positive role in the ecosystem, insects can also act as pests, depending on the environmental conditions and human activities. Invasive insect pests are a growing problem, and many researchers are working on listing and describing their effects on natural and anthropogenic environments [24]. Of all the insects in the world, only 1% are pests [25], but they are responsible for the loss of 13% of agricultural crops and 9% of forest production [26]. Human activities have significantly increased the dispersal of pests worldwide [24]. More than 200 species of Diptera are considered pests infesting ripening fruits [27,28,29]. Alien species of Diptera have exponentially increased in Europe since the second half of the 20th century [30]. Most alien pests in Europe were introduced unintentionally, and almost one-third originate from North America. Many are important horticulture pests [31]. Fruit flies can cause substantial economic losses worldwide to fruit and vegetable growing and beekeeping [32,33,34].
Honeybee apiaries can influence the diversity and abundance of insect pollinators. To our knowledge, little is known about this topic. There are not many studies about how mosaic landscapes affect the number and types of pollinators, especially in the Mediterranean area. Apiary spots could be a powerful tool for choosing points for efficient pollinator species inventories and monitoring invasive insects and pests. Habitats close to honeybee hives are characterized by plants often visited by honeybees and offer favorable conditions for pollinator species due to the vital number of floral resources. Such conditions could favor the establishment of insect pollinator species but also attract newcomers such as invasive species and pests. Apiary management practices do not affect vegetation structure and diversity but may affect the diversity of certain insect groups. On the other hand, Valido et al. (2019) showed that the expansion of beekeeping affects mutualistic interactions, potentially disturbing the structure and functioning of pollination networks in natural ecosystems and thus negatively impacting the biodiversity of wild pollinators [35]. It was also assessed that numerous honeybee colonies could strongly affect the foraging activity of wild bees in the Mediterranean area [4].
Therefore, this study aims to assess the richness and composition of Diptera and Vespidae in the Istrian region (Croatia) and to perform an inventory of invasive pests in the proximity of honeybee apiaries. Our specific objectives were to: (1) quantify Diptera diversity within 16 sites in proximity of the honeybee hives placed in the mosaic landscape; (2) provide new insights into the distribution of agricultural and forest pests; and (3) Assess the correlation of Diptera and Vespidae diversity with environmental and anthropogenic variables.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area is a typical mosaic of agricultural habitats with fragmented small parcels. Sixteen local beekeepers were randomly selected in the geographical area of the Istrian peninsula (Croatia) between the municipalities of Poreč and Buje (45° N, 13° E) (Figure 1). The size of apiaries ranged from 8 to 90 honeybee colonies (Table S1), which is in line with the Croatian average described for 2018 (57) and twice as large as the European average (22) [36]. A detailed description of each location (coordinates, anthropological and ecological data) is presented in Table S1. The surrounding vegetation is represented by Mediterranean trees (Quercus spp., Quercus pubescens Willd., Pinus halepensis Miller, Olea europaea L., Aesculus hippocastanum L., Tilia sp., Pinus nigra Arnold and Populus sp.), shrubs (Carpinus betulus L., Rubus spp., Cornus mas L., Lonicera spp., Rhamnus alaternus L., Pistacia lentiscus L., Hedera helix L., Vitis vinifera L., Juniperus oxycedrus L., Rosmarinus officinalis L.), invasive alien tree Robinia pseudoacacia L., and herbaceous species (Sorghum sp., Trifolium sp.).
The surveys comprised abundance records of all vascular plant species according to the Braun-Blanquet scale in three vegetation layers (herbaceous: 0–1 m, shrubs: 1–3 m, and trees: >3 m). Data were collected within a radius of 25 m from the set of traps.

2.2. Descriptive Variables

Mosaic habitat was described by the following quantitative (altitude, distance from the sea, agriculture intensity, anthropic disturbance, number of honeybee colonies, number of hornets) and qualitative (habitat type, dominant plant species) ecological and anthropic-related variables (Table S1). Agriculture intensity and anthropic disturbance were estimated on an ordinal scale ranging from one to three, where one is low, two is equal to medium, and three is high. Agriculture intensity reflects agricultural intensification estimated during field visits, while anthropic disturbance includes signs of human activities (e.g., waste or mowing and gardening activity, the proximity of a golf course) and human-related constructions such as small buildings, walls, fences, and bike trails. Three habitat types were described as herbaceous, shrubs, or trees. In each location where trees were present, the dominant tree species was also determined.

2.3. Sampling

Sampling was carried out during September and October 2019, every seven days, which is the late bloom period in the area and, thus, the specific fructification period. For insect collection, we used commercial traps that had been purchased at an agricultural store. The trap was a plastic container in which a wasp drowned in the attractant liquid and could not get out. A total of sixteen traps were placed on trees about 2 m above ground level and approximately 5 m from the honeybee hives. The sampling locations were on the private land of beekeepers, and we had permission to place the traps. We provided them with the results after the end of the project. On the field, we released any live species that was readily identified as our target species or was not near the place of capture. Our locations were not known for the occurrence of any taxa of conservation concern. According to standardized collection methods, we performed an active specimen orientation collection method with chemical bait classified as the B2 method [37]. Each trap was filled with the attractant liquid (a total of 50 g). The attractor liquid was composed of 190 g/kg of vinegar, 3 g/kg of 38% brandy, and 240 g/kg of food-grade liquid with an additional 1 dl of blonde beer. The traps were changed every seven days, and the samples were collected and preserved in 70% ethanol.

2.4. Selectivity of the Collecting Method

Recorded faunal composition depends on the collecting methods [38]. Selectivity of trapping methods resulted in the high frequency and diversity of some Diptera (Drosophilidae, Muscidae, Calliphoridae, and Anthomyiidae) and Hymenoptera (Vespidae and Apidae) families. The composition of the attractant most likely influenced the spectrum of captured species (mostly fruit-attacking species). Some dipteran families (Chironomidae, Sciaridae, Empididae, Agromyzidae, and Sphaeroceridae) usually very common in other collecting methods (Malaise traps, sweeping, colored dishes with water) were practically not found. We also did not find any wild bees or bumblebees. In the present study, the use of commercial traps resulted in a high number of species and specimens trapped, as well as several pest species and other very interesting, otherwise rare findings. This can be explained by the selectivity of the commercial traps used. Several characteristics of used traps could be responsible for the selectivity: (a) attractiveness of the bait itself (most Drosophilidae, Aulacigaster spp., Suillia spp., and Phaonia pallida (Fabricius 1787); (b) chance occurrence (Platypalpus) or of groups looking for hollows (Drapetis, Culicidae); (c) vicinity of honeybee apiaries (Achanthiptera, several Fanniidae); (d) attractiveness of decaying insects trapped (Platystoma lugubre, Piophilidae, several Sarcophaga spp.); and (e) sampling period (Hymenoptera).

2.5. Morphological Identification

From the total trap content, we extracted specimens of Diptera and Hymenoptera. All specimens were identified at least at the family level and, if possible, at the species level. Other specimens were assigned to higher taxonomic levels due to sample degradation. The research was carried out in two locations: the Civic Museum of Natural History of Trieste (IT) (Hymenoptera) and the Czech University of Life Sciences (Diptera). Hymenoptera specimens were identified under a stereomicroscope with direct comparison with the Stolfa Collection of Vespidae (“Vespidi 3°, n° 256” e “Vespoideae II-IB 12-ex 445”). Diptera specimens were sorted under the Nikon SMZ 1500 stereomicroscope into families and readily identifiable species and selected representatives of most families were dry-prepared and sent to the specialists for closed species identification (see section “acknowledgements”). Taxa represented by a small number of specimens were counted in full, more numerous taxa were counted from smaller subsamples (usually an eighth of a sample), and some species were confirmed without quantitative data. For the determination of new records for Croatia, the following databases were consulted: EASIN (European Alien Species Information Network), Fauna Europaea, GISD (Global Invasive Species Database), and EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). Voucher specimens are deposited in the collection of the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (acronym: CULSP).

2.6. Statistical Analyses

Since there was no statistical difference between the sampling dates, we analyzed the data for each location separately, but with no temporal separation. All collected samples were pooled into one sample per location, unifying six individual samplings. Data analysis was performed only for species with counted units. Different statistical analyses were used to determine species richness and composition patterns for different response variables. Specifically, Diptera’s and Vespidae’s species richness patterns have been described using classic extrapolation sampling curves of species richness for individual-based abundance data. Bootstrap confidence intervals around the diversity for extrapolated samples have also been calculated to facilitate comparisons of diversities across multiple sites [39]. The function iNext in the R package iNext [40] was used. A correlation analysis based on the Pearson coefficient was used to evaluate the pairwise linear relationship between species richness and the set of quantitative environmental variables.
A generalized linear model (GLM) [41] was estimated to find the set of environmental variables useful to explain variability in species richness. Poisson error distribution was selected as a fitting parameter in GLM to model species richness (count data). The adequacy of the selected error distributions in GLM and the occurrence of linear relationships between responses and predictors were checked and tested on model residuals once the model was performed. The significance of each predictor in the linear predictor was tested using the X2 statistic. As a measure of “goodness of fit” for each GLM, the adjusted D2 (D2adj) was calculated [42]. The minimally adequate model (including only significant environmental variables) was found based on the minimization of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) considering the combination of all the subsets of environmental predictors. The function glmulti in the glmulti R package [43] was used to compare the whole set of models and to select the best-reduced one. The same modeling approach was used to model species richness for pests in relation to environmental variables. Moreover, since Robinia pseudoacacia is the most spread alien tree plant species in the study region, we investigated the relation to the distribution of Callopistromia annulipes (Macquart, 1855). To have a clearer idea of the effect of R. pseudoacacia on the distribution of C. annulipes, an independent one-tier t-test was carried out to test if R. pseudoacacia stands had a higher abundance of this pest.
The species composition of Diptera and Hymenoptera was analyzed via redundancy analysis (RDA). Specifically, the RDA was based on the Hellinger-transformed plant species abundances constrained by all the environmental predictors. Quantitative predictors were standardized (mean 0, 1 standard deviation) before running the analysis. RDA analysis and tests for statistical significance (for constrained axes and environmental predictors) were performed using the “rda”, “anova.cca”, and “permustats” functions within the “vegan” v.2.5–7 package [44]. Finally, we carried out an abundance-based indicator species analysis to detect the indicator species for different levels of anthropic disturbance, habitat type, and agriculture intensity factors. We used the function multipatt in the package indicspecies [45].

3. Results

3.1. Diptera and Vespidae Diversity

From sixteen sampling locations, we collected 80 samples. In total, we isolated 31.284 individuals belonging to 94 species and 24 families (Table S2). Total species richness varied from 20 to 37 (Table S2). A significant number of autochthonous hornets Vespa crabro (L., 1758), a known bee predator, were trapped (Table S1). The species V. crabro is unable to destroy a honeybee colony like invasive hornets. Still, due to its high predation rate, especially at the end of the summer, its presence can be extremely costly, especially for weakened honeybee colonies [46]. We identified 807 specimens of Vespa crabro and 1.969 specimens of wasps (Vespidae family). The invasive alien hornet species Vespa velutina Lepeletier, 1836, and Vespa orientalis L. 1771. have not been found. A total of 2.776 individuals belonging to one family (Vespidae) and four species of Hymenoptera were recorded. The majority of collected wasps have been identified as Vespula germanica (Fabricius 1793) and Vespula vulgaris (Linnaeus 1758). In the traps, we also found nine specimens of the Polistes genus (Table S2). A total of 28,508 specimens of Diptera were found. Special attention was paid to pests and newly recorded species (details are in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3). We identified 23 families and 90 species of Diptera insects in the traps (Table S2). The most abundant family in all the investigated localities was Drosophilidae (abundance frequency: 52.6%), followed by Muscidae (20.9%) and Heleomyzidae (5.6%). Comparing accumulation curves between localities showed significantly higher total species richness in Diptera and Vespidae, indicating that some species remained undetected (Figure 2).

3.2. Pests Findings

Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura, 1931) was the most abundant invasive alien species found at every sampling site. Moreover, we found a total of 34 specimens of Chymomyza amoena (Loew 1862); this species was previously confirmed only twice in Croatia [30,47]. Callopistromyia annulipes was also found in fourteen locations with 265 specimens, representing the second record in Croatia. Atherigona varia (Meigen, 1826) (89 specimens), Bactrocera oleae (Rossi, 1790), (27 specimens), Silba adipata (McAlpine 1956) (15 specimens) and Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann 1824) (1 specimen) were also discovered in collected samples. More information on the most relevant pest species is presented in Table 1.

3.3. First Findings

Seventeen species have been recorded for the first time in Croatia (Table 2).

3.4. Correlation with Environmental Variables

A description of the habitats is presented in Table S1. The correlation plot showed that distance from the sea and the number of honeybee colonies were negatively correlated to total species richness (Table 3 and Figure 3). The number of hornets was positively correlated to species richness (Table 3 and Figure 3).
Effect plots based on model-estimated coefficients explained the relationship between total species richness and three ecological variables (distance from the sea, number of hornets, and number of honeybee colonies) and two anthropic variables (agriculture intensity, anthropic disturbance) included in the minimal adequate model (Figure 3). Total species richness increased with low to medium agriculture intensity, although it was not statistically significant. The species richness of Diptera varied between 20 and 37 species per location. It was noted that the highest level of anthropic disturbance was present in 5 out of 6 locations with species richness above 30.
The number of pest species is also negatively correlated to elevation and distance from the sea (Figure 4 and Figure S1). Generalized linear models for pest species richness showed that anthropic disturbance is positively correlated with pest species richness (Table 4).
Effect plots based on model-estimated coefficients explained the relationship between pest species richness and three ecological and anthropic variables. Total pest richness increased in the location with high anthropic disturbance, although it was not statistically significant (Figure 5). The analysis confirmed a significant (positive) influence (t = -2.67, df = 9.44, p-value = 0.012) of Robinia pseudoacacia stands on the presence of Callopistromyia annulipes.
The first two axes of the RDA (see the biplot in Figure 6) explained 60.9% of the total variation in species composition, where the first axis explained 37.58% and the second 23.32%. Specifically, the first axis highlighted a gradient of increasing agricultural and human impact intensity (from right to left) that inversely moves with the distance from the sea and with the altitudinal gradient (from left to the right). Along with these two inverse gradients, species such as Phaonia pallida, Suilia spp., Atherigona varia, and Ulidia apicalis (Wiedemann, 1824) differed. The biplot identified one group where the highest number of D. suzukii was found. On the right, three locations with an elevation higher than 200 m and a distance from the house higher than 100 m showed the highest abundance of the species Phaonia pallida. The second axis, on the other hand, was positively related to the number of honeybee colonies and the number of hornets connected with the T and S habitats.
Indicator species analysis (Table 5) showed that Bactrocera oleae and Scathophaga stercoraria are found in all locations with high agriculture intensity. Additionally, A. varia was found in all locations with medium to high agriculture intensity. B. oleae was also found in all locations with the highest anthropic disturbance. Bercaea africa (Wiedemann, 1824) was found in all locations with the habitat type herbaceous. Chymomyza amoena was found in all locations with the shrub habitat type.

4. Discussion

The present work assesses the Diptera biodiversity of captured taxa in a mosaic agricultural landscape in the proximity of apiaries and in the presence of insect pests. At the same time, it investigates dependency on environmental and anthropic variables. Our case study may well reflect a situation typical for other Eastern and Mediterranean European countries whose agricultural landscapes are still structurally complex and rich in biodiversity [83].

4.1. Pests Findings

Globalization and the increased movement of people led to the rapid spread of pests into new habitats [84]. The ongoing flow of plant pests between countries has been recorded in Europe [85], the USA [86], The Netherlands [87], Japan, and Australia [88,89]. The majority of the introductions of alien insects in Europe are associated with the international trade in ornamental plants. Alien species often cause enormous costs to agriculture, forestry, and human health [90,91,92]. Since the increased spread and worldwide distribution of plant pests, fast detection is essential for effective control and management measures. This study gives special attention to searching for the yellow-legged hornet Vespa velutina, an important invasive species causing environmental and economic damage in new areas. Fortunately, the Asian yellow-legged hornet was not detected.
Some of the species reported within this study are important economic pests since they cause severe damage to agricultural production [93,94,95]. Some of them are being recorded in Croatia for the first time. There is no up-to-date species list of invertebrates harmful to plants recently established in Croatia. In the Istria region, Diptera plant pests have never been systematically researched. So far, only a few families have been investigated in this region: Drosophilidae, Sarcophagidae, Muscidae, Tephritidae, and Culicidae. The research on species from Drosophilidae and Tephritidae has been focused mainly on the most common pest species, such as Drosophila suzukii and Ceratitis capitata [96,97]. Literature records were summarized and have shown the presence of 148 species from the Sarcophagidae family in Croatia [98]. We found twenty-four species from the family Sarcophagidae, of which fifteen were also detected in the study of Krčmar et al. (2019) [98]. More recent research in Istria [99,100] reports a list of 97 known species from the Muscidae family in Croatia, of which twenty-two were found in this study. The study by Merdic et al. (2008) [101] on the Culicidae family has shown a great faunistic diversity (54% of the total Croatian mosquito fauna) with twenty-seven determined mosquito species. The recent faunistic data by Verves and Bartak (2021) comprises a list of thirty-three species of Sarcophagidae in Croatia [102], some also mentioned in this study.
In our study, we particularly paid attention to seven main agricultural and forest pest species. All of the found species, besides Callopistromyia annulipes, are registered in the EPPO Global Database as important pests. Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura, 1931) (17.352 specimens) was found in all sixteen locations in our study in 80 samples. This species has since 2010 spread on new cultivated and wild host plants, causing damage to raspberries, peaches, and grapes [103,104]. D. suzukii was included in the EPPO A2 list of pests recommended for regulation as a quarantine pest in 2011. This species was found at every investigated locality, regardless of altitude or habitat type. The Istrian region is well known for its high production of wine grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) and figs (Ficus carica L.) in Croatia. During the late summer and early autumn months, those fruits are in full production, providing food, shelter, and suitable hosts for the reproduction of D. suzukii. Recent studies confirm that D. suzukii in European habitats is an important economic pest in fruit production since it causes severe damage to strawberry, apple, pear, grape, and fig production [105,106,107]. Even though D. suzukii is well known as a threat to fruit production, the investigation of its influence on grapes and viticulture has only recently begun [108]. The authors of this study concluded that, at present, D. suzukii might not be considered a threat to viticulture in North Italy. Still, further studies are needed to better understand the relationship between D. suzukii and grapevine. On the other hand, some other invasive and dangerous species from the Drosophilidae family (Zaprionus spp.) were not captured in the Istria region in Croatia. Possibly they have not invaded this area so far. Apart from D. suzukii, other species from the same family can also breed in various fruits [96].
The pest fly Callopistromyia annulipes was found for the second time in Croatia during our study [57]. This species originally had a Nearctic distribution but has been discovered in several European countries since 2007: Slovakia [55], France [56], Belgium [109], and Germany [54]. This species, native to North America, has rapidly spread through Europe since its first appearance in Switzerland in 2007, recorded by Merz (2008) [72]. It is usually found near Robinia pseudoacacia and Acer negundo trees or trunks [56]. The high number of individuals found in this study could be related to the dense population of R. pseudoacacia in the Istrian region (OIKON). In this study, we statistically proved the relationship between C. annulipes and R. pseudoacacia (Figure 5). In the few studies that have been carried out up to date, no known harmful behavior of this species in Europe has yet been observed [110].
The presence of the species of sorghum shoot fly, Atherigona varia, has been recorded. A. varia is one of the most important grain sorghum pests in Asia, Africa, and Mediterranean Europe [58,111]. It causes damage to the seedlings from 1 week to 30 days of age. The typical symptom of damage is the drying of the central shoot, called the “dead heart.” The common appearance of this species could be correlated with the large population of wild Sorghum species in the Istria region (https://invazivnevrste.haop.hr/katalog/5647, accessed on 20 October 2022). Sorghum species spread is connected to agriculture and causes severe impacts [112], so we proved the link between A. varia and agriculture intensity. In fact, A. varia was found at all locations with medium-to-high agriculture intensity.
The presence of Chymomyza amoena has been confirmed in the northern part of Croatia [30], and this study has revealed its presence at six new localities in the Istria region. The collecting localities are surrounded by Mediterranean forests and extensive production of grapes, figs, and sweet cherries. So far, this species has been recorded throughout Europe [113,114], but its occurrence is “pointed” in a particular area [115]. Although it is considered an invasive alien species in Europe, the abundance of C. amoena within the natural population is small and, so far, does not represent a threat to fruit production.
In the samples, we have found the olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae, one of the most important olive pests of the Mediterranean basin. Accordingly, this study found it in all locations with high anthropic disturbance and intensity. This pest occurs every year, and its success is mainly controlled by climate conditions (temperature, rainfall, and relative humidity) [116]. For example, in addition to causing significant losses to nature, the infection of the olive fly contributes a lot to the decline in oil quality [117]. Consequently, this species is responsible for high economic losses in olive oil production [118].
The species Silba adipata found in our samples can cause significant economic damage to fig fruits by infesting unripe figs and leading to premature fruit drop [119]. In the last two decades, a high intensity of infection has been recorded in coastal Croatia and along the entire coastal region of Croatia [65].
We found the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, in only one sample. The Mediterranean fruit fly is one of the world’s most destructive fruit pests and is widely distributed all over the world (https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/12367, accessed on 5 October 2022). It has a high economic impact, affecting production, control costs, and market access. C. capitata has been present in Croatia for more than 70 years [120]. Since then, it has become an important pest, particularly in citrus production, but also in apple, peach, apricot, pear, and grape production [121]. To prevent the spread of this species in Croatia, the Ministry of Agriculture published an action plan with flat measures for eradication in 2018. The symptoms of fruit infestation and size of C. capitata larvae are similar to those of Black fig fly, Silba adipata, and the damages are often mistaken.

4.2. First Records in Croatia

In this study, seventeen species have been recorded in Croatia for the first time, which is an important number of additions to the Croatian insect fauna. Ulidia apicalis Meiden, 1826, is a species from the Ulidiidae family so far confirmed in France (south, mainland, Corsica), Italy (Sicily), Portugal, Spain, Morocco, and Tunisia [122]. More recent distribution data show its presence in Greece and Turkey (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/322843-Ulidia-apicalis, accessed on 3 November 2022). In this study, U. apicalis was found in all locations with medium-to-high agricultural intensity, which may be the reason for its spread in the Mediterranean. Another species new to Croatia from the Ulidiidae family is Herina lacustris Meigen. It is a Western Palaearctic species [72].
We found Desmometopa discipalpis (Papp, 1993), a species with limited records available. According to records from Roháček 2016, D. discipalpis is a saprophagous thermophilous species inhabiting rotten wood and/or excrement [83]. Another species of the genus Desmometopa, D. microps, was found. This species, originally distributed in the Oriental, Afrotropical, and southeastern Palaearctic regions, expanded into Central Europe approximately 10 years ago [123]. Our records show further spreading of D. microps.
The captured Periscelis piricercus is important because it represents the new easternmost distribution limit of the species, which is otherwise only known from Portugal, Spain [88], and Switzerland [124].
Periscelis winnertzii Egger, 1862 (=P. fugax Roháček and Andrade, 2017), see Roháček (2022) [125], which was described and illustrated based on a series of specimens from Portugal and the Czech Republic [78]. This is the first record from Croatia, represented by two specimens. In our samples, we also recorded a high number of other rare groups from the Periscelis genus. We also found Toxoneura muliebris (Harris, 1780), known as the flutter fly because the males extend and vibrate their wings. According to a previously published report [126], flutter fly larvae can be saprophagous, phytophagous, or carnivorous. T. muliebris of the Pallopteridae family ranges in Europe from Spain and Italy to Great Britain, France, Austria, Turkey, Ireland, and western Russia [127].
Cephalia rufipes (Meigen, 1826) is a species with a northern Mediterranean and central European distribution, occurring from the Iberian Peninsula, southern Germany, Austria, Israel, and Portugal [80]. This work shows that its geographical distribution has broadened.
An extremely rare species, Phaonia regalis (Stein, 1900), was recorded. So far, it has been found in Austria, Bulgaria, Greece (Cyclades Islands), Georgia, and Turkey (https://fauna-eu.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/ac3f7319-3974-4cc1-859d-a9e916aaa397, accessed on 7 November 2022) [128]). Grzegorzekia hungarica is also a new species in Croatia; so far, it has been recorded only in Hungary [74] and Slovakia [129].
Recording the first appearance of species in different habitats is important for distribution tracking and taking timely management or removal actions. Our data provide information on the spread and distribution of some rare Diptera species in Europe. The faunistic value of a given area can be determined mainly by the number of recorded rare species, but these species do not have any significant effect on their ecosystem services [130]. These authors found that rare species in Poland were more abundant in natural habitats, while common species dominated farmlands. Our study also shows that human-dominated habitats can sink rare and new species.

4.3. Species Diversity in the Mosaic Agricultural Landscape and Correlations with Different Variables

Generally, agriculture and anthropic influence are major drivers of biodiversity loss [131]. Complex landscape structures specific to intensive agriculture and increased use of agrochemicals are the main drivers of the reduction of arthropod species richness [132,133,134]. Some authors have proved that anthropogenic influence in specific habitats linearly decreased the Diptera diversity [135]. On the other side, much biodiversity can be retained within specific agricultural landscapes [136]. Land use changes in the last decade included intensification of land use in some areas and land abandonment in others. Although the loss and fragmentation of semi-natural and mosaic habitats are prominent causes of biodiversity loss, little is known about the species diversity in different agricultural landscapes [22]. Like in many other Eastern European countries, traditional practices have created small-scale mosaic landscapes. For example, in Croatia, the average size of an agricultural farm was 0.51 ha [17]. Our study may well reflect a situation that is typical for many Eastern European countries whose agricultural landscapes are still considered biodiversity hotspots [84]. Previous studies have suggested that habitat type is an important factor in explaining the diversity of insects [137,138]. It is well understood that agricultural practices, particularly conventional farming, have a direct or indirect impact on pollinator populations [139].
This investigation provides data on Diptera and Vespidae species richness across gradients of agriculture and anthropic influence and in response to variables representing altitude, vegetation type, honeybee colony number, and the number of hornets. Our research showed that mosaic agroecosystem areas in Istria still sustain a significant number of Diptera and Vespidae species. As expected, anthropic influence positively correlated to pest richness since these species depend on human activities.
It is known that polycultures and florally diverse environments support native pollinator diversity due to a continuous supply of food resources [140,141]. Casanelles-Abella and Moretti (2022) proved that apiaries in cities are a potential problem for the biodiversity of some pollinator species, especially wild bees [142]. In fact, maybe for this reason, we did not capture any wild bees in our traps. In our study, the relationship between the size of the apiaries and species richness was statistically confirmed. The number of honeybee colonies was negatively correlated to species richness. Honeybees can have a negative impact on wild pollinators [143]. The study by Torné-Noguera et al. (2015) supports the hypothesis that high honeybee apiary densities may have an impact on other insect pollinators via competition for flower resources [144]. This is in accordance with our results showing that a higher density of honeybee hives has a lower total species richness and fewer rare first findings. Moreover, a complete absence of wild bees in the traps could also be connected to the presence of apiaries and the result of food competition with honeybees.
We found the lowest species richness in locations L5 and L11, characterized by low agricultural intensity and low anthropic influence. Moreover, our study recorded a positive correlation in insect richness and composition between environments with lower to higher agricultural influence and between environments with different anthropic influences. This appears to be in concordance with the results documented in similar analyses on Hymenoptera diversity, where insect richness was positively connected to some extent of human activities. Semi-natural habitats providing different feeding and nesting resources proved to be diversity hotspots [138]. We assume that high insect biodiversity in our study area results from agricultural practices still dominated by semi-intensive farming and labor-intensive, traditional techniques with low levels of agrochemical inputs.
The agricultural intensity was not clearly related to species richness, and it was not possible to prove statistically any correlation between those two factors. We observed that both species richness and the number of pests were statistically (negatively) associated with elevation and distance from the sea. Other authors have also confirmed the connection between species richness and those two elements. Martín-Vega et al. (2016) found that elevation is negatively correlated with species richness in Spain [145]. It can be assumed that this is connected with the transport of people and goods along the coastline. Mosaic semi-natural landscapes support high plant species diversity [146] and consequently also high insect diversity [141]. Proper management of artificial nests for solitary bees in semi-natural mosaic agricultural areas can support and maintain pollination services [147], but only after limiting pesticide use and planting native flowering plants between crop fields (prairie strips).

5. Conclusions

The inventory performed in the mosaic agricultural landscape in the Istrian Region (western Croatia) gives new information on the diversity of Diptera and Vespidae in the Mediterranean. Selectivity of the trapping method resulted in a high frequency of some Diptera (Drosophilidae, Muscidae, Calliphoridae, and Anthomyiidae) and Vespidae species and the absence of otherwise frequent species in a similar environment (Chironomidae, Sciaridae, Empididae, Agromyzidae, and Sphaeroceridae). The number of honeybee colonies was negatively correlated to species richness. Pest richness was positively correlated with anthropic influence since these species depend on human activities. The agricultural intensity was not clearly related to species richness, and it was not possible to prove statistically any correlation between those two factors. Assessing pest spread is important for generating a new understanding of environmentally friendly agroecosystems and directing management actions. Our results can be helpful for decision-makers and local authorities to develop appropriate conservation strategies and monitoring measures for pests to preserve biodiversity within Mediterranean mosaic agroecosystems. Several Diptera were recorded for the first time in Croatia, providing new information on the distribution of some rare species in South Europe. Our data suggest that mosaic agricultural landscape contributes to Diptera and Vespidae diversity in semi-rural landscapes. That leads us to the conclusion that it is necessary to diversify the types of semi-natural habitats to promote a variety of plant communities and natural nesting sites. Since the high specificity of semi-intensive agriculture landscapes, the relation between habitat specificity and habitat-specific insect communities should be explored in the future, as well as their contribution to insect diversity.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani13061024/s1, Supplement Table S1. A detailed description of locations (geographical, anthropic, ecological data). Geographical, anthropic, and ecological variables of selected sites and the number of collected hornets (Vespa crabro) as the main bee predator (Agriculture diversity: 1—low, 2—medium, 3—high diversity; Anthropic disturbance: 1—low, 2—medium, 3—high disturbance). Supplement Table S2. All recorded Diptera and Hymenoptera species and families for each location. Locations (L) correspond to sites described in Table 1 and Figure 1. Supplementary Figure S1. The correlation of ecological variables (DFS: distance from the sea, elevation, and number of pests) with pest richness. The blue gradient expresses positive correlation coefficients, and the red gradient expresses negative coefficients. Statistical significance: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.01.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, B.S., D.P., M.U. and N.L.; Methodology, B.S., C.G., M.B., M.U. and N.L.; Validation, G.B., M.B. and N.L.; Formal analysis, B.S., C.G., G.B., M.B. and M.U.; Investigation, B.S., C.G., M.B., M.U. and N.L.; Resources: B.S., D.P., I.T.G., M.B. and N.L.; Data curation: M.B.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, B.S., D.P. and M.U.; Writing—Review and Editing, B.S., D.P., G.B., I.T.G., M.B. and M.U.; Visualization, G.B., I.T.G. and M.U.; Supervision, I.T.G. and N.L.; Project Administration, B.S. and I.T.G.; Funding Acquisition, B.S., I.T.G. and N.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is an outcome of the project “Hornet monitoring in Poreč and Buje municipalities in 2019 with the aim of early determination of invasive Asian hornet (Vespa velutina) presence” which is funded by the Istrian Region (No 402-01/19-01/119, Ur. broj: 2163/1-03/18-19-03 from May, 14. 2019.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are presented in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all involved beekeepers for the help in trap replacement and Andrea Colla from the Municipal Natural History Museum of Trieste for the help in the wasp’s determination. Also, the authors express their sincere thanks to all colleagues who helped with the identifications of Diptera, namely Marek Semelbauer (Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences), Jindřich Roháček (Silesian Museum, Opava), Jan Máca (Veselí nad Lužnicí), and Štěpán Kubík (Czech University of Life Sciences Prague).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wilson, E.O. The biological diversity crises. BioScience 1985, 35, 700–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ostiguy, N. Pests and Pollinators. Nat. Educ. Knowl. 2011, 3, 3. Available online: www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/pests-and-pollinators-23564436/ (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  3. Courtney, G.W.; Pape, T.; Skevington, J.H.; Sinclair, B.J. Biodiversity of Diptera. In Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 229–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ropars, L.; Affre, L.; Thébault, E.; Geslin, B. Seasonal dynamics of competition between honey bees and wild bees in a protected Mediterranean scrubland. OIKOS 2022, 2022, e08915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Borges, R.C.; Brito, R.M.; Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L.; Giannini, T.C. The Value of Crop Production and Pollination Services in the Eastern Amazon. Neotrop. Entomol. 2020, 49, 545–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mudrić-Stojnić, S.; Andrić, A.; Jòzan, Z.; Vujić, A. Pollinator Diversity (Hymenoptera and Diptera) in Semi-natural Habitats in Serbia during Summer. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2012, 64, 777–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kremen, C.; Williams, N.M.; Aizen, M.A.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; LeBuhn, G.; Minckley, R.; Packer, L.; Potts, S.G.; Roulston, T.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; et al. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: A conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rivers-Moore, J.; Andrieu, E.; Vialatte, A.; Ouin, A. Wooded Semi-Natural Habitats Complement Permanent Grasslands in Supporting Wild Bee Diversity in Agricultural Landscapes. Insects 2020, 11, 812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fahrig, L.; Baudry, J.; Brotons, L.; Burel, F.G.; Crist, T.O.; Fuller, R.J.; Sirami, C.; Siriwardena, G.M.; Martin, J.-L. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hass, A.L.; Kormann, U.G.; Tscharntke, T.; Clough, Y.; Baillod, A.B.; Sirami, C.; Fahrig, L.; Martin, J.L.; Baudry, J.; Bertrand, C.; et al. Landscape configurational heterogeneity by small-scale agriculture, not crop diversity, maintains pollinators and plant reproduction in western Europe. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018, 285, 20172242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Purvis, E.E.N.; Matthew, L.; Meehan, Z.L. Agricultural field margins provide food and nesting resources to bumble bees (Bombus spp., Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Insect Conserv. 2020, 13, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jalut, G.; Dedoubat, J.J.; Fontugne, M.; Otto, T. A Holocene circum-Mediterranean vegetation changes: Climate forcing and human impact. Quat. Int. 2009, 200, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vimal, R.; Fonderflick, J.; Thompson, J.; Pluvinet, P.; Debussche, M.; Cheylan, M.; Géniez, P.; Mathevet, R.; Acquarone, A.; Lepart, J. Integrating habitat diversity into species conservation in the Mediterranean mosaic landscape. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2017, 22, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Asubonteng, K.O.; Ros-Tonen, M.A.F.; Baud, I.; Pfeffer, K. Envisioning the Future of Mosaic Landscapes: Actor Perceptions in a Mixed Cocoa/Oil-Palm Area in Ghana. Environ. Manag. 2021, 68, 701–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sole-Senan, X.O.; Juárez-Escario, A.; Conesa, J.A.; Jordi Recasens Guinjuan, J.R. Plant species, functional assemblages and partitioning of diversity in a Mediterranean agricultural mosaic landscape. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 256, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Oplanić, M.; Čehić, A.; Begić, M.; Franić, M. Education for sustainable agricultural development: Case study of Agricultural Secondary school Mate Balota in Poreč. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2021, 22, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. ARKOD. Overview of the Number and Area of ARKOD by Settlements and Type of Agricultural Land Use. APPRRR. Available online: https://www.arkod.hr (accessed on 31 December 2021).
  18. Goethe, J.K.; Dorman, S.J.; Huseth, A.S. Local and landscape scale drivers of Euschistus servus and Lygus lineolaris in North Carolina small grain agroecosystems. Agric. Forest Entomol. 2021, 23, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. DeFries, R.; Hansen, A.; Turner, B.L.; Reid, R.; Liu, J. Land use change around protected areas: Management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecol. Appl. 2007, 17, 1031–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kennedy, C.M.; Lonsdorf, E.; Neel, M.C.; Williams, N.M.; Ricketts, T.H.; Winfree, R.; Bommarco, R.; Brittain, C.; Burley, A.L.; Cariveau, D.; et al. A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 584–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tscharntke, T.; Klein, A.M.; Kruess, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—Ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 857–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tylianakis, J.M.; Klein, A.M.; Tscharntke, T. Spatiotemporal variation in the diversity of Hymenoptera across a tropical habitat gradient. Ecology 2005, 86, 3296–3302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Winfree, R.; Bartomeus, I.; Daniel, P.; Cariveau, D.P. Native pollinators in anthropogenic habitats. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. System. 2011, 42, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Watt, A.; Ekbom, B.; Jones, H. Invasive insect pests: A growing problem? Recent research published in Agricultural and Forest Entomology. Antenna 2019, 43, 27–30. [Google Scholar]
  25. Triplehorn, C.A.; Johnson, N.F. Borror and DeLong’s Introduction to the Study of Insects, 7th ed.; Brooks/Cole, Thomson Learning: Belmont, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pimentel, D.; Lach, L.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States. BioScience 2000, 50, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Sousa, M.; Araújo, E.; Silva, J.; Barbosa, D.; Fernandes, E. Fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in commercial mango orchards in a semiarid region of Brazil. Rev. Brasileira Fruticult. 2019, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Minga, C.; Mazón, M.; Troya, H. Population dynamics, native parasitoids and incidence of Tephritidae (Insecta, Diptera) in cherimoya (Annona cherimola mill.) secondary forests at Southern Ecuador. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2023, 69, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Berrones-Morales, M.; Vanoye-Eligio, V.; Coronado-Blanco, J.M.; Gaona-García, G.; Sánchez-Ramos, G. Species diversity of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) through different ecosystems in a Neotropical transition zone in Mexico. J. Insect Conserv. 2020, 24, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pajač Živković, I.; Barić, B.; Šubić, M.; Seljak, G.; Mešić, A. First record of alien species Chymomyza amoena [Diptera, Drosophilidae] in Croatia. Šumarski List 2017, 9–10, 489–492. [Google Scholar]
  31. Skuhravá, M.; Martinez, M.; Roques, A. Diptera. Alien terrestrial arthropods of Europe. BioRisk 2010, 4, 553–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Allwood, A.J.; Leblanc, L. Losses Caused by Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Seven Pacific Island Countries. In Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific, a Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji, 28–31 October 1996; Allwood, A.J., Drew, R.A.I., Eds.; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 1997; ACIAR Proceedings No. 76; p. 267. [Google Scholar]
  33. Blaser, S.; Heusser, C.; Diem, H.; Felten, A.; Gueuning, M.; Andreou, M.; Boonham, N.; Tomlinson, J.; Müller, P.; Utzinger, J.; et al. Dispersal of harmful fruit fly pests by international trade and a loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay to prevent their introduction. Geospat. Health 2018, 13, 370–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Dias, N.P.; Zotti, M.J.; Montoya, P.; Carvalho, I.R.; Nava, D.E. Fruit fly management research: A systematic review of monitoring and control tactics in the world. Crop Prot. 2018, 112, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Valido, A.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, M.C.; Jordano, P. Honeybees disrupt the structure and functionality of plant-pollinator networks. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 4711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. European Commission. Honey Market Overview; Office for Food, Farming, Fisheries: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; Directive on honey (2001/110). [Google Scholar]
  37. Ferro, M.L.; Summerlin, M. Developing a standardized list of entomological collection methods for use in databases. ZooKeys 2019, 861, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Knuff, A.K.; Winiger, N.; Klein, A.M.; Segelbacher, G.; Staab, M. Optimizing sampling of flying insects using a modified window trap. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 10, 1629–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Chao, A.; Gotelli, N.J.; Hsieh, T.C.; Sander, E.L.; Ma, K.H.; Colwell, R.K.; Ellison, A.M. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monogr. 2014, 84, 45–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Hsieh, T.C.; Ma, K.H.; Chao, A. iNEXT: An R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Meth. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 7, 1451–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. McCullagh, P.; Nelder, J.A. (Eds.) Generalized Linear Models; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bacaro, G.; Rocchini, D.; Bonini, I.; Marignani, M.; Maccherini, S.; Chiarucci, A. The role of regional and local scale predictors for plant species richness in Mediterranean forests. Plant Biosyst. 2008, 142, 630–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Calcagno, V. Glmulti: Model Selection and Multimodel Inference Made Easy. R Package Version 1.0.8. 2020. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=glmulti (accessed on 4 October 2022).
  44. Oksanen, J.; Blanchet, F.G.; Friendly, M.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; McGlinn, D.; Minchinm, P.R.; O’Hara, R.B.; Simpson, G.L.; Solymos, P.; et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 2.5-7. 2020. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (accessed on 5 October 2022).
  45. De Cáceres, M.; Legendre, P. Associations between species and groups of sites: Indices and statistical inference. Ecology 2009, 90, 3566–3574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Baracchi, D.; Cusseau, G.; Pradella, D.; Turillazzi, S. Defense reaction of Apis mellifera ligustica against the attacks of the European Hornet Vespa crabro. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2010, 22, 281–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tarandek, J. Population of Vinegar Fly Chymomyza amoena (Loew 1862) in Orchard in the Međimurje Area. Master’s Thesis, University of Zagreb Faculty of Agriculture, Zagreb, Croatia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  48. Grassi, A.; Palmieri, L.; Giongo, L. Drosophila (Sophophora) suzukii (Matsumura)—New pest of small fruit crops in Trentino. Terra Trent. 2009, 10, 19–23. [Google Scholar]
  49. Calabria, G.; Máca, J.; Bächli, G.; Serra, L.; Pascual, M. First records of the potential pest species Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in Europe. J. Appl. Entomol. 2010, 136, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Labanowska, B.H.; Piotrowski, W. The spotted wing drosophila Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura, 1931)—Monitoring and first records in Poland. J. Hortic. Res. 2015, 23, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Dreves, A.J.; Walton, V.; Fisher, G. A New Pest Attacking Healthy Ripening Fruit in Oregon: Spotted Wing Drosophila, Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura). Oregon State University. Extension Service. 2009. Available online: http://berrygrape.org/files/Dsuzukii_alert.pdf (accessed on 14 October 2022).
  52. Lue, C.H.; Mottern, J.L.; Walsh, G.C.; Burrington, M.L. New record for the invasive spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura, 1931) (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in Anillaco, western Argentina. Proc. Entomol. 2017, 119, 146–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Singh, F.R.; Sarswat, M.; Lhamo, N.; Sati Asha, P.S. Records of Zaprionus indianus and Drosophila suzukii indicus as Invasive Fruit Pests from Mid Valley Region of Garhwal Uttarakhand, India. Drosophila Information Service no. 97. 2014, pp. 119–123. Available online: http://www.ou.edu/journals/dis/DIS97/DIS%2097%20-%202014%20-%20Master%20Copy.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  54. Stark, A. Nachweis der „Pfauenfliege“ Callopistromyia annulipes (Macquart, 1855) in Sachsen-Anhalt (Diptera, Ulidiidae). Entomol. Nachr. Ber. 2017, 61, 108. [Google Scholar]
  55. Dvořák, L.; Čejka, T.; Semebauer, M. New records of Callopistromyia annulipes (Diptera: Ulidiidae) from Slovakia. Folia Oecologica 2017, 9, 18–21. [Google Scholar]
  56. Korneyev, V.; Dvořák, L.; Kameneva, E. New Records of Callopistromyia annulipes Macquart (Diptera: Ulidiidae: Otitinae: Myennidini) in Europe. Ukr. Entomofaunistyka 2014, 5, 10. [Google Scholar]
  57. Kasalo, N.; Topić, M.; Tarandek, A. The first record of the peacock fly Callopistromyia annulipes (Macquart, 1855) (Diptera: Ulidiidae) in Croatia revealed by social media. Nat. Croat. 2021, 30, 523–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Akmeșe, V.; Sertkaya, E.; Yucel, C. Türkiye’de sorgumda yeni bir zararlı, Atherigona varia (Meigen, 1826) (Diptera: Muscidae). Türkiye Entomoloji Bülteni 2016, 6, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Riyazaddin, M.; Kavi Kishor, P.B.; Ashok Kumar, A.; Reddy, B.V.S.; Munghate, R.S.; Sharma, H.C. Mechanisms and diversity of resistance to sorghum shoot fly, Atherigona soccata. Plant Breed 2015, 134, 423–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Jong, H.; Zuijlen, J. Chymomyza amoena (Diptera: Drosophilidae) new for The Netherlands. Entomol. Ber. 2003, 63, 103–104. [Google Scholar]
  61. Band, H.T.; Bächli, G.; Band, R.N. Behavioral constancy for interspecies dependency enables Nearctic Chymomyza amoena (Loew) (Diptera: Drosophilidae) to spread in orchards and forests in Central and Southern Europe. Biol. Invasions 2005, 7, 509–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pontikakos, V.M.; Tsiligiridis, T.A.; Yialouris, C.P.; Kontodimas, D.C. Pest management control of olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae) based on a location-aware agro-environmental system. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2012, 87, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bon, M.C.; Hoelmer, K.A.; Pickett, C.H.; Kirk, A.A.; He, Y.; Mahmood, R.; Daane, K.M. Populations of Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae) and Its Parasitoids in Himalayan Asia. Ann. Entomol. 2016, 109, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Khamis, F.M.; Karam, S.N.; Ekesi, M.D.E.; Meyer, A.; Bonomi, L.M.; Gomulski, F.; Scolari, P.; Gabrieli, P.; Siciliano, D.; Masiga; et al. Uncovering the tracks of a recent and rapid invasion: The case of the fruit ßy pest Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Africa. Mol. Ecol. 2009, 18, 4798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Popović, L.; Bjeliš, M. Black fig fly—Silba adipata McAlpin (Diptera, Lonchaeidae), pest of growing importance in Croatian fig cultivation. In Proceedings of the 12th Slovenian Conference on Plant Protection with International Participation, Ptuj, Slovenia, 2–3 March 2015; p. 95. [Google Scholar]
  66. Abbes, K.; Abir, H.; Harbi, A.; Mars, M.; Brahim, C. The black fig fly Silba adipata (Diptera: Lonchaeidae) as an emerging pest in Tunisia: Preliminary data on geographic distribution, bioecology and damage. Phytoparasitica 2021, 49, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Giliomee, J.H. Recent Establishment of Many Alien Insects in South Africa—A Cause for Concern. Afr. Entomol. 2011, 19, 151–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Elaini, R.; Mazih, A. Current Status and Future Prospects of Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae) Control in Morocco. J. Entomol. 2018, 15, 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  69. Öztemiz, S.; Doğanlar, M. Invasive plant pests (Insecta and Acarina) of Turkey. Munis Entomol. Zool. 2015, 10, 144–159. [Google Scholar]
  70. De Villiers, M.; Manrakhan, A.; Addison, P.; Hattingh, V. The distribution, relative abundance, and seasonal phenology of Ceratitis capitata, Ceratitis rosa, and Ceratitis cosyra (Diptera: Tephritidae) in South Africa. Environ. Entomol. 2013, 42, 831–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. GBIF Home Page. Available online: https://www.gbif.org (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  72. Merz, B. A revision of the Herina lugubris species group (Diptera, Ulididae, Otitinae) with the description of two new species. Rev. Suisse Zool. 2002, 109, 407–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Roháček, J.; Barták, M. Trixoscelididae. In Diptera in an Industrially Affected Region (North-Western Bohemia, Bílina and Duchcov environs), II.—Folia Facultatis Scientiarium Naturalium Universitatis Masarykianae Brunensis, Biologia; Barták, M., Vaňhara, J., Eds.; Masaryk University Brno: Brno, Czech Republic, 2021; Volume 105, pp. 407–409. [Google Scholar]
  74. Carles-Tojrá, M.; Verdugo Páez, A. Periscelis piricercus sp. n.: A new periscelidid species from Spain (Diptera: Periscelididae). Heteropterus. Rev. Entomol. 2009, 9, 101–104. [Google Scholar]
  75. Papp, L.; Withers, P. A revision of the Palaearctic periscelidinae with notes on some New World species (Diptera: Periscelididae). Ann. Hist. Nat. Mus. Nat. Hung. 2011, 103, 345–371. [Google Scholar]
  76. Wallace, P.F.; O’Connor, J.P. Palloptera muliebris (Harris) (Dipt., Pallopteridae) discovered in Dublin City. Entomol. Mon. Mag. 1997, 133, 114. [Google Scholar]
  77. Ozerov, A.L. Review of the family Pallopteridae (Diptera) of the fauna of Russia. Russ. Entomol. J. 2009, 18, 129–146. [Google Scholar]
  78. Roháček, J.; Andrade, R. Periscelis fugax sp. nov., an overlooked European species of Periscelididae (Diptera), with notes on the morphology and terminology of terminalia. Acta Entomol. Musei Nat. Pragae 2017, 57, 229–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Carles-Tolrá, M.; Kameneva, E.P. Nuevos datos faunísticos sobre Ulidiidae de España y Portugal (Diptera, Ulidiidae). Heteropterus Rev. Entomol. 2008, 8, 47–51. [Google Scholar]
  80. Almeida, J. New records of picture-winged flies (Diptera, Ulidiidae) for Portugal. Arq. Entomoloxicos 2013, 8, 149–154. [Google Scholar]
  81. Brake, I. Milichiidae of the Lake Kerkini region in Greece. Milichiidae Online. 2010. Available online: http://milichiidae.info/ (accessed on 22 October 2022).
  82. Brake, I. The type material of Milichiidae and Carnidae (Insecta: Diptera: Schizophora) in the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien. Ser. B Bot. Zool. 2008, 110, 67–76. [Google Scholar]
  83. Roháček, J. Acalyptrate flies (Diptera) on glacial sand deposits in the Hlučínsko region (NE Czech Republic): Most interesting records. Acta Musei Sil. Sci. Nat. 2016, 65, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Nita, A.; Hartel, T.; Manolache, S.; Ciocanea, C.M.; Miu, I.V.; Rozylowicz, L. Who is researching biodiversity hotspots in Eastern Europe? A case study on the grasslands in Romania. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0217638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Papp, L.; Ševčík, J. Grzegorzekia hungarica sp. n. and new records of European Mycetophilidae and Bolithophilidae (Diptera). Acta Zool. Univ. Comenianae Entomol. Gaz. 2015, 66, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  86. Hauser, M.; Hogue, J.N.; Fiesler, E. Lamprolonchaea smaragdi (Walker, 1849) (Diptera: Lonchaeidae) newly established in Los Angeles County, California: First record for North America. Pan-Pac. Entomol. 2017, 93, 61–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. De Bree, E.; Ketelaar, R. Neoalticomerus formosus new for the fauna of The Netherlands (Diptera: Odiniidae). Entomol. Ber. 2018, 78, 226–228. [Google Scholar]
  88. Withers, P.; Papp, L. The Palaearctic species of Neoalticomerus Hendel (Diptera, Odiniidae). Dipter. Digest 2012, 19, 53–63. [Google Scholar]
  89. Wang, Y.L.; Cao, H.L.; Chen, H.W. Molecular phylogeny and species delimitation of Amiota alboguttata and Amiota basdeni species groups (Diptera: Drosophilidae) from East Asia. Zool. J. Linnean Soc. 2020, 189, 1370–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Smith, A.H.; Gill, W.M.; Pinkard, E.A.; Mohammed, C.L. Anatomical and histochemical defence responses induced in juvenile leaves of Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus nitens by Mycosphaerella infection. For. Pathol. 2007, 37, 361–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Brockerhoff, E.G.; Bain, J.; Kimberley, M.; Knížek, M. Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Canad. J. Forest Res. 2006, 36, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States; OTA-F-565; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, September 1993. [Google Scholar]
  93. Kiritani, K.; Yamamura, K. Exotic insects and their pathways for invasion. In Invasive Species-Vectors and Management Strategies; Ruiz, G.M., Carlton, J.T., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 44–67. [Google Scholar]
  94. Maynard, G.V.; Hamilton, J.G.; Grimshaw, J.F. Quarantine-Phytosanitary, sanitary and incursion management: An Australian entomological perspective. Aust. Entomol. 2004, 43, 318–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kenis, M.; Rabitsch, W.; Auger-Rozenberg, M.A.; Roques, A. How can alien species inventories and interception data help us prevent insect invasions? Bull. Entomol. Res. 2007, 97, 489–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Pajač Živković, I.; Skendžić, S.; Lemić, D. Rapid spread and first massive occurrence of Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) in agricultural production in Croatia. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2021, 22, 531–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Pajač Živković, I.; Barić, B.; Šubić, M.; Mešić, A. The spread of Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura, 1931) in northwestern Croatia. In Zbornik Sažetaka 2. Hrvatskog Simpozija o Invazivnim Vrstama; Jelaska, S.D., Ed.; Hrvatsko Ekološko Društvo: Zagreb, Croatia, 2016; p. 68. [Google Scholar]
  98. Krčmar, S.; Whitmore, D.; Pape, T.; Buenaventura, E. Checklist of the Sarcophagidae (Diptera) of Croatia, with new records from Croatia and other Mediterranean countries. ZooKeys 2019, 831, 95–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Zielke, E.; Banar, P. First records of the genus Mydaea and of some other Muscidae species from Croatia (Diptera). Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 2017, 102, 43–48. [Google Scholar]
  100. Zielke, E.; Banar, P. More records of Muscidae (Diptera) from Croatia with a short comment on findings of Helina interfusa (PandellÈ) reported to date in Europe. Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 2018, 103, 281–285. [Google Scholar]
  101. Merdic, E.; Boca, I.; Bogojević, M.S.; Landeka, N. Mosquitoes of Istria, a contribution to the knowledge of Croatian mosquito fauna (Diptera, Culicidae). Period 2008, 110, 351–360. [Google Scholar]
  102. Verves, Y.G.; Barták, M. New faunistic data on Sarcophagidae (Diptera) from Croatia. Kharkov Entomol. Soc. Gaz. 2021, 29, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Masten Milek, T.; Seljak, G.; Šimala, M.; Bjeliš, M. Prvi nalaz Drosophila suzukii (Matsumara, 1931) (Diptera Drosophilidae) u Hrvatskoj. Glasilo Biljne Zaštite 2015, 5, 323–327. [Google Scholar]
  104. Bjeliš, M.; Buljubašić, I.; Popović, L.; Masten Milek, T. Spread of the spotted wing drosophila—Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) and new distribution records in Dalmatia region of Croatia. OEPP/EPPO Bull. 2015, 45, 214–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Pajač Živković, I.; Barić, B. Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura, 1931)—Potential pest of stone fruits in Croatia. Pomol. Croat. 2010, 16, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  106. Walsh, D.B.; Bolda, M.P.; Goodhue, R.E.; Dreves, A.J.; Lee, J.; Bruck, D.J. Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae): Invasive pest of ripening soft fruit expanding its geographic range and damage potencial. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2011, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Dos Santos, L.A.; Mendes, M.F.; Krüger, A.P.; Blauth, M.L.; Gottschalk, M.S.; Garcia, F.R. Global potential distribution of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera, Drosophilidae). PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Mazzetto, F.; Lessio, F.; Giacosa, S.; Rolle, L.; Alma, A. Relationships between Drosophila suzukii and grapevine in North-western Italy: Seasonal presence and cultivar susceptibility. Bull. Insectol. 2020, 73, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
  109. Ravoet, J.; Farinelle, C. The peacock fly Callopistromyia annulipes (Macquart, 1855): A long-expected new addition to the Belgian fauna (Diptera: Ulidiidae). Bull. Ann. Soc. R. Belge Entomolog. 2017, 153, 121–122. [Google Scholar]
  110. Smit, J.T.; Hamers, B. De invasieve Noord-Amerikaanse pauwvlieg Callopistromyia annulipes nieuw voor Nederland (Diptera: Ulidiidae). Ned. Faun. Meded. 2011, 36, 23–27. [Google Scholar]
  111. Singh, B.U.; Sharma, H.C. Natural Enemies of Sorghum Shoot Fly, Atherigona soccata Rondani (Diptera: Muscidae). Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2002, 12, 307–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Follak, S.; Essl, F. Spread dynamics and agricultural impact of Sorghum halepense, an emerging invasive species in Central Europe. Weed Res. 2013, 53, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Mâca, J.; Bächli, G. On the distribution of Chymomyza amoena (Loew), a species recently introduced into Europe. Mitt. Der Schweiz. Entomol. Gesellschaft. 1994, 67, 183–188. [Google Scholar]
  114. Escher, S.A.; Ekenstedt, J.; Karpa, A.; Saura, A. The Drosophilidae (Diptera) of Latvia. Latvijas Entomol. 2002, 39, 62–69. [Google Scholar]
  115. Band, H.T. Behavior and Taxonomy of a Chymomyzid Fly (Chymomyzia amoena). Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 1988, 2, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Dminić, I.; Bažok, R.; Igrc Barčić, J. Reduction of olive fruit fly damage by early harvesting and impact on oil quality parameters. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2015, 117, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Caleca, V.; Antista, G.; Campisi, G.; Caruso, T.; Verde, G.; Maltese, M.; Rizzo, R.; Planeta, D. High Quality Extra Virgin Olive Oil from Olives Attacked by the Olive Fruit Fly, Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) (Diptera Tephritidae): Which Is the Tolerable Limit? Data from Experimental ‘Nocellara Del Belice’ and ‘Cerasuola’ Olive Groves in Sicily. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 58, 451–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Bažok, R.; Lađarević, I.; Dminić, I. Praćenje dinamike pojave i prognoza maslinine muhe (Bactrocera oleae Gmelin) na trima sortama masline u zapadnoj Istri pomoću žutih ploča. Fragm. Phytomed. Herbol. 2011, 31, 13–30. [Google Scholar]
  119. Radonjić, S.; Hrnčić, S. The black fig fly Silba adipata McAlpine (Diptera, Lonchaeidae), a little known fig pest in Montenegro. Agro-Knowl. J. 2009, 10, 31–40. [Google Scholar]
  120. Kovačević, Ž. Voćna mušica Ceratitis capitata Wied. kao ekološki problem. Agron. Glas. 1960, 4, 161–170. [Google Scholar]
  121. Bjeliš, M.; Dugalić, K.; Đugum, J.; Budinšćak, Ž.; Popović, L.; Benc, D.; Perleta, M.; Cardoso-Pereira, R. Provedba akcijskog plana suzbijanja mediteranske voćne muhe na području doline Neretve. In Zbornik Sažetaka 62. Seminara Biljne Zaštite; Renata, B., Ed.; Hrvatsko Društvo Biljne Zaštite: Zagreb, Croatia, 2018; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
  122. Kameneva, E.P. New and little-known Ulidiidae (Diptera, Tephritoidea) from Europe. Vestn. Zool. 2008, 42, 45–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Roháček, J.; Mác, J. New and interesting records of Diptera (Asteiidae, Aulacigastridae, Milichiidae, Sphaeroceridae) from the Czech Republic. Čas. Slez. Muz. Opava (A) 2010, 59, 165–170. [Google Scholar]
  124. Pollini Paltrinieri, L.; Roháček, J. Periscelis (Myodris) haennii sp. nov., a new species of Periscelididae (Diptera) from Ticino, Switzerland with a new key to European species of the subgenus. Alp. Entomol. 2022, 6, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Roháček, J. The true identity of Periscelis winnertzii and description of P. laszloi sp. nov. from Europe (Diptera: Periscelididae). Acta Entomol. Musei Natl. Pragae 2022, 62, 359–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Rotheray, G.E. Development sites, feeding modes and early stages of seven European Palloptera species (Diptera, Pallopteridae). Zootaxa 2014, 3900, 50–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Cannings, R.A.; Gibson, J.F. Toxonevra muliebris (Harris) (Diptera: Pallopteridae): A European fly new to North America. J. Entomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia 2020, 116, 64–68. [Google Scholar]
  128. Vikhrev, N.E.; Erofeeva, E.A. Review of the Phaonia pallida group (Diptera: Muscidae). Russ. Entomol. J. 2018, 27, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Mantič, M.; Sikora, T.; Roháček, J.; Sevcik, J. New and interesting records of Bibionomorpha (Diptera) from the Czech and Slovak Republics. Acta Musei Sil. Sci. Natl. 2015, 64, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Williams, P.H. Some properties of rarity scores used in site quality assessment. Br. J. Entomol. Nat. Hist. 2000, 13, 73–86. [Google Scholar]
  131. Vrdoljak, S.M.; Samways, M.J. Agricultural mosaics maintain significant flower and visiting insect biodiversity in a global hotspot. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016, 23, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Kevan, P.G. Pollinators as bioindicators of the state of the environment: Species, activity and diversity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 373–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Shackelford, G.; Steward, P.R.; Benton, T.G.; Kunin, W.E.; Potts, S.G.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Sait, S.M. Comparison of pollinators and natural enemies: A meta-analysis of landscape and local effects on abundance and richness in crops. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2013, 88, 1002–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Agroecology Scaling Up for Food Sovereignty and Resiliency. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews; Lichtfouse, E., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; Volume 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Dhamorikar, A.H. Flies matter: A study of the diversity of Diptera families (Insecta: Diptera) of Mumbai Metropolitan Region, Maharashtra, India, and notes on their ecological roles. J. Threat. Taxa 2017, 9, 10865–10879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Fischer, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Adrian, D.; Manning, A.D. Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: Ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2006, 4, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Biesmeijer, J.C.; Roberts, S.P.; Reemer, M.; Ohlemüller, R.; Edwards, M.; Peeters, T.; Schaffers, A.P.; Potts, S.G.; Kleukers, R.; Thomas, C.D.; et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and The Netherlands. Science 2006, 313, 351–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Rollin, O.; Pérez-Méndez, N.; Bretagnolle, V.; Henry, M. Preserving habitat quality at local and landscape scales increase wild bee diversity in intensive farming systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 275, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Kremen, C.; Williams, N.M.; Thorp, R.W. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 16812–16816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Diekötter, T.; Crist, T.O. Quantifying habitat-specific contributions to insect diversity in agricultural mosaic landscapes. Insect Conser. Divers. 2013, 6, 607–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kaluza, B.F.; Wallace, H.M.; Heard, T.A.; Minden, V.; Klein, A.; Leonhardt, S.D. Social Bees Are Fitter in More Biodiverse Environments. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 12353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  142. Casanelles-Abella, J.; Moretti, M. Challenging the sustainability of urban beekeeping using evidence from Swiss cities. Npj Urban Sustain. 2022, 2, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Mallinger, R.E.; Gaines-Day, H.R.; Gratton, C. Do managed bees have negative effects on wild bees? A systematic review of the literature. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0189268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  144. Torné-Noguera, A.; Rodrigo, A.; Cañadas, S.O.; Bosch, J. Collateral effects of beekeeping: Impacts on pollen-nectar resources and wild bee communities. Basic App. Ecol. 2015, 17, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Martín-Vega, D.; Cifrián, B.; Díaz-Aranda, L.M.; Baz, A. Environmental correlates of species diversity for sarcosaprophagous Diptera across a pronounced elevational gradient in central Spain. Ital. J. Zool. 2014, 81, 415–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Loos, J.; Turtureanu, D.P.; Von Wehrden, H.; Hanspach, J.; Dorresteijn, I.; Frink, J.P.; Fischer, J. Plant diversity in a changing agricultural landscape mosaic in Southern Transylvania (Romania). Agric. Ecosyst. 2015, 199, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Tlak Gajger, I.; Laklija, I.; Jurković, M.; Košćević, A.; Dar, S.A.; Ševar, M. The Impact of Different Biotopes and Management Practices on the Burden of Parasites in Artificial Nests of Osmia spp. (Megachilidae) Bees. Diversity 2022, 14, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Location of study sites in the Northern Istrian peninsula, Croatia (Poreč and Buje municipalities).
Figure 1. Location of study sites in the Northern Istrian peninsula, Croatia (Poreč and Buje municipalities).
Animals 13 01024 g001
Figure 2. Analyses of sampling efficiency by extrapolation methods for each sampled site. Dotted lines represent extrapolated values. Individual-based randomized species accumulation curves for each sampling location are also shown (continuous lines). Symmetric 95% CIs are associated with each curve (shaded areas).
Figure 2. Analyses of sampling efficiency by extrapolation methods for each sampled site. Dotted lines represent extrapolated values. Individual-based randomized species accumulation curves for each sampling location are also shown (continuous lines). Symmetric 95% CIs are associated with each curve (shaded areas).
Animals 13 01024 g002
Figure 3. Effect plots based on the estimated coefficients for environmental variables (agriculture intensity, anthropic disturbance, distance from the sea, number of hornets, and number of honeybee colonies) retained in the minimally adequate model of total insect species richness (Poisson GLM with log link function).
Figure 3. Effect plots based on the estimated coefficients for environmental variables (agriculture intensity, anthropic disturbance, distance from the sea, number of hornets, and number of honeybee colonies) retained in the minimally adequate model of total insect species richness (Poisson GLM with log link function).
Animals 13 01024 g003
Figure 4. Effect plots based on the estimated coefficients for environmental variables (agriculture intensity, anthropic disturbance, and elevation) retained in the minimally adequate model of pest species richness (Poisson GLM with log link function).
Figure 4. Effect plots based on the estimated coefficients for environmental variables (agriculture intensity, anthropic disturbance, and elevation) retained in the minimally adequate model of pest species richness (Poisson GLM with log link function).
Animals 13 01024 g004
Figure 5. Correlation between dominant plant species Robinia pseudoacacia and pest C. annulipes (1 = stands with R. pseudoacacia; 0 = stands without R. pseudoacacia).
Figure 5. Correlation between dominant plant species Robinia pseudoacacia and pest C. annulipes (1 = stands with R. pseudoacacia; 0 = stands without R. pseudoacacia).
Animals 13 01024 g005
Figure 6. RDA analysis of species composition in relation to environmental and anthropic predictors. Note: categories of habitat type where H is herbaceous, S is shrubs, and T is trees. Predictors abbreviations: dfs—distance from the sea; elev—elevation; agri_int—agriculture intensity; antro_dist—anthropic disturbance.
Figure 6. RDA analysis of species composition in relation to environmental and anthropic predictors. Note: categories of habitat type where H is herbaceous, S is shrubs, and T is trees. Predictors abbreviations: dfs—distance from the sea; elev—elevation; agri_int—agriculture intensity; antro_dist—anthropic disturbance.
Animals 13 01024 g006
Table 1. List of agricultural and forest Diptera pests, their distribution, and host plants; * invasive assumes alien invasive species.
Table 1. List of agricultural and forest Diptera pests, their distribution, and host plants; * invasive assumes alien invasive species.
Species/
Family
Number of SpecimensLocationInvasive * and Pest Status in CroatiaPest Status Worldwide/ReferencesHost Plants
Drosophila suzukii
Drosophilidae
17,352L1-L16Important pest/invasiveWorldwide pest; Italy [48], Spain [49], Poland [50], USA [51], Argentina [52], and India [53].fruits vegetables
Callopistromyia annulipes Ulidiidae265L1-L11, L13, L15, L16n.d., the second record, invasivePest in Europe: Germany [54], Slovakia [55], France [56], and Croatia [57].deciduous dead trees
Atherigona varia
Muscidae
89L1, L3, L5-L9, L13, L16Important pest/invasivePest in Europe and Asia: Turkey [58] and India [59]corn, sorghum
Chymomyza amoena
Drosophilidae
34L1, L2, L6, L8, L9, L15Important pest, invasive, third appearance in CroatiaPest in Europe; Croatia [30], The Netherlands [60], and Switzerland [61].fruits, nuts
Bactrocera oleae Tephritidae27L1, L3, L6, L7, L9, L14, L15Important pest/domesticWorldwide pest: Greece [62], Pakistan, India, Nepal [63], Kenya, Tanzania, Zanzibar, Uganda, and DR Congo [64].olive trees, fruit
Silba adipata Lonchaeidae15L7Important pestPest in the Mediterranean, South Africa: Croatia [65], Tunisia [66], and South Africa [67].fruit
Ceratitis capitata
Tephritidae
1L7Important pestWorldwide pest: Morocco [68], Turkey [69], and South African Republic [70].fruit, vegetable, nuts
Table 2. First record species for Croatia and their distribution in Europe.
Table 2. First record species for Croatia and their distribution in Europe.
Species/
Family
Number of SpecimensLocationOther Records Inside Europe/ReferencesHost Plant
Ulidia apicalis (Wiedemann, 1824)
Ulidiidae
464L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8, L9, L10, L11, L12, L13. L14, L15, L16Italy Spain, and Portugal [71]possibly flowers
Herina lacustris
(Meigen, 1826)
Ulidiidae
58L1Spain [72] and France [71]n.d.
Desmometopa microps
(Lamb 1914)
Milichiidae
4L7, L10, L12Czech Republic and The Netherlands [71,73]n.d.
Periscelis (Myodris) piricercus
(Carles-Tolrá & Verdugo Páez, 2009)
Periscelididae
3L9, L10Spain [74] and Portugal [75]trees
Toxoneura muliebris
(Harris, 1780
Pallopteridae
3L4, L15Ireland [76]; Russia [77], Italy France, Spain, The Netherlands, Greece, and Portugal [71]possibly saprophagous species, flowers
Periscelis (P.) winnertzii
(Egger, 1862)
Periscelididae
2L10, L11Portugal and Czech Republic [78], Finland, France, and UK [71]n.d.
Cephalia rufipes
(Meigen, 1826)
Ulidiidae
1L4Spain [79], Portugal [80], France, Germany, The Netherlands, and Austria [71]n.d.
Desmometopa discipalpis (Papp, 1993)
Milichiidae
1L2Greece [81], Germany [82], Czech Republic [83], Sweden, and Denmark [71]n.d. (possibly saprophagous species)
Phaonia regalis
(Stein, 1900)
Phaonia
//Austria and Bulgaria [71]n.d.
Grzegorzekia hungarica
(Papp & Ševčík, 2007)
Mycetophilidae
//Hungary and Romania [84,85]n.d.
Lonchaea peregrina
(Becker, 1895)
Lonchaeidae
//
Lamprolonchaea smaragdi
(Walker, 1849)
Lonchaeidae
//Spain, Portugal, and Greece [71,86]vegetables, crops
Neoalticomerus formosus
(Loew, 1844)
Odiniidae
//The Netherlands [87], Sweden, Finland [71], Poland, France, and Italy [87]n.d.
Odinia ornata
(Zetterstedt, 1838)
Odiniidae
//Sweden, Finland, and UK [71]n.d.
Amiota alboguttata
(Wahlberg, 1839)
Drosophilidae
//Sweden, Finland, UK, and Norway [71]possibly fermenting tree sap
Scaptodrosophila deflexa
(Duda, 1924)
Drosophilidae
//UK, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, and The Netherlands [71,88]n.d.
Table 3. Generalized linear model for total species richness. Statistical significance: ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.01.
Table 3. Generalized linear model for total species richness. Statistical significance: ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.01.
Selected VariablesDegree of FreedomSum SqCoefficient Signp-Value (F Tests)
Agriculture Intensity259.43Factor0.071
Anthropic Disturbance298.08Factor0.025 *
Distance from the sea14.62−0.9320.458
N° of hornets136.160.2530.064
N° of bee colonies1112.66−0.3480.006 **
R-squared0.855 **
Table 4. Generalized linear model for pest species richness. Statistical significance: ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.01.
Table 4. Generalized linear model for pest species richness. Statistical significance: ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.01.
Selected VariablesDegree of FreedomSum SqCoefficient Signp-Value (F Tests)
Agriculture Intensity24.52Factor0.168
Anthropic Disturbance210.20Factor0.034 *
Elevation12.63−0.0040.145
R-squared0.621 **
Table 5. Indicator species analysis. Statistical significance: ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.01.
Table 5. Indicator species analysis. Statistical significance: ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.01.
Agriculture Intensity—level 3
SpeciesABstatp-valuesignificance
Bactrocera oleae0.783510.8850.0186*
Scathophaga stercoraria0.80820.750.7790.0224*
Agriculture Intensity—combined levels 2 and 3
ABstatp-valuesignificance
Atherigona varia0.899210.9480.0038**
Anthropic disturbance—level 3
ABstatp-valuesignificance
Bactrocera oleae0.80710.8980.0038**
Habitat type—habitat H (herbaceous)
ABstatp-valuesignificance
Bercaea africa0.790310.8890.0098**
Heteronychia filia10.66670.8160.021*
Habitat type—habitat S (shrubs)
ABstatp-valuesignificance
Chymomyza amoena10.66670.8160.4446*
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sladonja, B.; Tlak Gajger, I.; Uzelac, M.; Poljuha, D.; Garau, C.; Landeka, N.; Barták, M.; Bacaro, G. The Impact of Beehive Proximity, Human Activity and Agricultural Intensity on Diptera Diversity in a Mediterranean Mosaic of Agroecosystems, with a Focus on Pest Species. Animals 2023, 13, 1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13061024

AMA Style

Sladonja B, Tlak Gajger I, Uzelac M, Poljuha D, Garau C, Landeka N, Barták M, Bacaro G. The Impact of Beehive Proximity, Human Activity and Agricultural Intensity on Diptera Diversity in a Mediterranean Mosaic of Agroecosystems, with a Focus on Pest Species. Animals. 2023; 13(6):1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13061024

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sladonja, Barbara, Ivana Tlak Gajger, Mirela Uzelac, Danijela Poljuha, Clara Garau, Nediljko Landeka, Miroslav Barták, and Giovanni Bacaro. 2023. "The Impact of Beehive Proximity, Human Activity and Agricultural Intensity on Diptera Diversity in a Mediterranean Mosaic of Agroecosystems, with a Focus on Pest Species" Animals 13, no. 6: 1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13061024

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop