The addition of floral resources is a common intervention to support the adult life stages of key crop pollinators. Fly (Diptera) crop pollinators, however, typically do not require floral resources in their immature life stages and are likely not supported by this management intervention. Here, we deployed portable pools filled with habitat (decaying plant materials, soil, water) in seed carrot agroecosystems with the intention of providing reproduction sites for beneficial syrphid (tribe Eristalini) fly pollinators. Within 12 to 21 days after the pools were deployed, we found that the habitat pools supported the oviposition and larval development of two species of eristaline syrphid flies, Eristalis tenax (Linnaeus, 1758) and Eristalinus punctulatus (Macquart, 1847). Each habitat pool contained an average (±S.E.) of 547 ± 117 eristaline fly eggs and 50 ± 17 eristaline fly larvae. Additionally, we found significantly more eggs were laid on decaying plant stems and carrot roots compared to other locations within the pool habitat (e.g., on decaying carrot umbels, leaves, etc.). These results suggest that deploying habitat pools in agroecosystems can be a successful management intervention that rapidly facilitates fly pollinator reproduction. This method can be used to support future studies to determine if the addition of habitat resources on intensively cultivated farms increases flower visitation and crop pollination success by flies.

We observed the brown honeyeater, Lichmera indistincta, visiting blueberry orchards in eastern Australia. L. indistincta is considered to be a nectarivorous bird, feeding almost entirely on nectar. However, we report observations of this species as both a nectarivore and insectivore in blue-berry crops and as an insectivore in raspberry crops. Brown honeyeaters may be acting as biological control agents when feeding on leaf-roller caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in blueberry orchards and on brown blow-flies (Calliphora stygia) in raspberry orchards. Although most blueberry growing regions use managed honey bees as the main pollinator, more studies on the complex tritrophic interactions occurring in these crops are needed to better understand the costs and benefits of different farm management practices upon alternative pollinators.

Insects are important pollinators of global food crops and wild plants. The adult and larval diet and habitat needs are well known for many bee taxa, but poorly understood for other pollinating taxa. Non-bee pollinators often feed on different substrates in their larval and adult life stages, and this diet and habitat diversity has important implications for their conservation and management. We reviewed the global literature on crop pollinating Diptera (the true flies) to identify both larval and adult fly diet and habitat needs. We then assembled the published larval and adult diets and habitat needs of beneficial fly pollinators found globally into a freely accessible database. Of the 405 fly species known to visit global food crops, we found relevant published evidence regarding larval and adult diet and habitat information for 254 species, which inhabited all eight global biogeographic regions. We found the larvae of these species lived in 35 different natural habitats and belong to 10 different feeding guilds. Additionally, differences between adult Diptera sexes also impacted diet needs; females from 14 species across five families fed on protein sources other than pollen to start the reproductive process of oogenesis (egg development) while males of the same species fed exclusively on pollen and nectar. While all adult species fed at least partially on floral nectar and/or pollen, only five species were recorded feeding on pollen and no fly larvae fed on nectar. Of the 242 species of larvae with established diet information, 33% were predators (n = 79) and 30% were detritivores (n = 73). Detritivores were the most generalist taxa and utilized 17 different habitats and 12 different feeding substrates. Of all fly taxa, only 2% belonged to the same feeding guild in both active life stages. Our results show that many floral management schemes may be insufficient to support pollinating Diptera. Pollinator conservation strategies in agroecosystems should consider other non-floral resources, such as wet organic materials and dung, as habitats for beneficial fly larvae.

1. Native insect flower visitors can be important contributors to crop pollination, yet little is known of their pollination abilities and the resources (habitat) they need to be supported within crop agroecosystems.

2. Here, we compared the abundance and pollination abilities of the golden drone fly (Eristalinus punctulatus) to the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) in hybrid carrot crop fields known to produce variable seed yields in regional New South Wales, Australia. We further observed the egg-laying behaviours of female golden drone flies at a commercial berry orchard to provide insight into the habitat needs of this species.

3. In hybrid carrot crop fields, golden drone flies were far less abundant flower visitors than European honey bees" however, these flies deposited more carrot pollen grains on average (8.21±3.04SE) onto carrot flowers than European honey bees (3.45±1.06SE). Both insects also deposited pollen onto a similar number of carrot flowers (pollinated) per visit (about 2 out of 18).

4. Golden drone flies were observed laying eggs within masses of discarded red raspberry plant roots and soil (root balls) at a commercial berry orchard. The natural habitat utilised by these flies, as well as their egg-laying behaviours, were described for the first time.

5. Our results indicate that golden drone flies are effective pollinators of hybrid carrot crop plants. The habitat that these flies utilised to lay eggs (discarded plants and water) is cheap and commonly found in crop agroecosystems. Therefore, we recommend placing this low-cost habitat within, or nearby, crop fields as a potential management practice to support the lifecycle needs of golden drone flies and other non-bee pollinators.

Exploitation of insects and spiders through commercialization represents a serious threat to rare species and to common species that provide valuable ecological services. The speed, scope, and anonymity, of online commerce places full monitoring and managing of exploitation beyond the resources available to regulatory agencies. To assess the level of online commerce of insect and spider species and services and to test the feasibility of focused searches by student-specialists to generate "leads" for regulatory agencies to pursue, a group of entomology students lead by entomologists and wildlife biologists performed a directed search for sales of insect and spider species listed on CITES Appendices, the IUCN Red List, and the U.S. Endangered Species List, and species that provide services. Focused searches by student-specialists proved effective, locating sales of 79 listed species across all lists. The proportion of listed species discovered for sale varied from 2% to 55% across protected lists and the sale prices of species varied from 2 to 3850 USD. The number of listed species for sale also varied across platforms with less than 6 found on either Amazon or Alibaba and more than 30 found on Etsy and Ebay. In contrast to the listed species, numbers of insects and spiders sold to provide services can range in the billions of individuals and total sales can range in the millions USD. While all species for this purpose do provide a service, they each present unique risks to other species in their genera, guild, and to the larger ecological community, in some cases threatening ecological functions. To effectively monitor the impact of invertebrate service species, we propose incorporating these "livestock" into the existing regulatory framework used for vertebrates.

Parasites are commonly cited as one of the causes of population declines for both managed and wild bees. Epidemiological models sometimes assume that increasing the proportion of infected individuals in a group should increase transmission. However, social insects exhibit behaviors and traits which can dampen the link between parasite pressure and disease spread. Understanding patterns of parasite transmission within colonies of social bees has important implications for how to control diseases within those colonies, and potentially the broader pollinator community. We used bumble bees (Bombus impatiens Cresson) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and western honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) infected with the gut parasites Crithidia bombi (Lipa & Triggiani) (Trypanosomatida: Trypanosomatidae) and Nosema ceranae (Fries et al.) (Dissociodihaplophasida: Nosematidae), respectively, to understand how the initial proportion of infected individuals impacts within-colony spread and intensity of infection of the parasites. In bumble bees, we found that higher initial parasite prevalence increased both the final prevalence and intensity of infection of C. bombi. In honey bees, higher initial prevalence increased the intensity of infection in individual bees, but not the final prevalence of N. ceranae. Measures that reduce the probability of workers bringing parasites back to the nest may have implications for how to control transmission and/or severity of infection and disease outbreaks, which could also have important consequences for controlling disease spread back into the broader bee community.

A popular field guide among amateur and expert naturalists alike, the first edition of ‘The Complete Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Australia’ was reprinted three times without substantial revisions to dragonfly systematics and geographical distributions. Fourteen years later, Theischinger and Hawking are back with a revised second edition of their comprehensive field guide, and they do not disappoint.

The purpose and layout of the second edition is similar to the first. There are three distinct sections of the book: an introduction, a species guide, and information on identification and resources. The introduction provides an overview of the unique nature of Australian endemic odonates, including the life cycle, ecology, habitat and conservation of species. This brief section is helpful to the hobbyist but is a review for the entomologist.