Syrphidae are pollinators, pest predators and decomposers in European ecosystems. Camprodon (Girona province, Spain) is a valley with rich vegetation and high habitat diversity in the eastern Pyrenees. However, hoverfly biodiversity in this valley was poorly known. To explore the high potential of this area for Syrphidae, a survey with hand-net was undertaken in July/August 2020 in the valley. The list of Syrphidae species from the valley increases to 88, whilst that of the Girona province now extends to 119 species. Chrysotoxum lessonae is reported for the first time from the Iberian Peninsula. The specimens of Xylota tarda and Cheilosia hypena () represent the first documented records of these species for the Iberian Peninsula and Spain, respectively; i.e. these two species were known to occur in the Iberian Peninsula and Spain but without further locality details. A total of 19 species were new to the region of Catalonia and 23 to the Girona province. Cheilosia was the genus with the highest number of species recorded, as expected from the combination of mountains, diversity of forest vegetation, and presence of rivers/streams of the Camprodon valley. Faunistic results from this fieldwork are relevant to knowledge of Diptera from Catalonia, a region of Spain where this insect family is understudied.
As popular pollinators and pest predators (Rojo et al., 2003; Marshall, 2012; Doyle et al., 2020), Syrphidae are often surveyed at the local scale (e.g. Sommaggio & Corazza, 2006; Sánchez-Heredia et al., 2017; Miličić et al., 2018; Lorenzo et al., 2020). Local surveys are relevant to the understanding of biodiversity in complex ecosystems and contribute to knowledge of regional species lists. Regional lists provide a framework for expert systems to assess the conservation of habitats (Speight & Castella, 2001; Monteil, 2010; Speight et al., 2020).
The massif of the Pyrenees extends east-west over 440 km, forming a natural border between France and Spain, in southwestern Europe. With 19 000 km2 and a maximum altitude of 3404 m, the Pyrenees are a complex ecosystem with many mountains, U-shaped glaciated valleys, rivers, lakes and a diverse flora and fauna. The Pyrenees can be divided into three parts, Eastern, Central, and Western. North to south, they are divided into the axial or medial Pyrenees, and the pre-Pyrenean or external mountains (Guixé & Llobet, 2016). The north slope of the Pyrenees (France, and the ‘Vall d’Aran’ in Spain) is more humid, less continental, and with typically Eurosiberian forest, whilst the south slope (Spain) has a Mediterranean influence, with less diverse and more reduced forest (Vázquez & Fernández-Prieto, 2002). In Spain, the Pyrenees are divided into five provinces, with the easternmost part in the Girona province, Catalonia (Ricarte & Marcos-García, 2017).
The studies of Diptera in Catalonia are scattered, both temporally and geographically, and Pyrenean hoverflies are not an exception. Apart from the consequences for our ecological understanding of the Pyrenees, this scattered knowledge has also prevented the popularisation of hoverflies, as shown by their absence from field guides to the regional fauna (Guixé & Llobet, 2016). Cuní (1881) was the first to record hoverflies from the Catalonian Pyrenees. Diptera were poorly studied in Catalonia throughout the 20th century (Pujade-Villar, 2011), with only a little fieldwork undertaken in the Pyrenees to collect hoverflies (van Doesburg, 1951; Leclercq, 1971; Lucas, 1976). The 21st century brought new hoverfly records to light from the Catalonian Pyrenees, but most of these were based on specimens collected earlier, usually in the 1970s (Marcos-García et al., 2007, 2011; van Steenis & Lucas, 2011; Ricarte & Nedeljković, 2020). Camprodon is one of the most popular valleys of the eastern Pyrenees, with diverse vegetation and habitats (Sacasas-i-Lluís, 2009). The first hoverfly records from this valley are those of the Rev. José Andreu from 1926. However, just over a dozen species were reported from this valley prior to the present sampling (Andreu, 1926; Gil Collado, 1930; Lucas, 1976; Barkalov & Ståhls, 1997; Marcos-García et al., 2007, 2011; van Steenis & Lucas, 2011; Ricarte & Nedeljković, 2020). The aim of the present study was to improve our knowledge of the hoverflies from the Girona province by undertaking an exploratory survey and faunistic assessment in its Pyrenean part (Camprodon valley) and reviewing all the available literature.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Camprodon valley (‘Valle de Camprodón’ in Spanish) is located in the axial eastern Pyrenees. This hilly valley is in the eastern part of the Ripollès region, Girona province (abbreviated as ‘GI’ hereinafter), Spain. The climate is typical Pyrenean, humid and rainy. The Ter river, which rises at high altitudes in this valley, is also the main water course in it. All along the valley, there are some scattered small villages and there is a ski resort at about 2000 m asl. The diverse vegetation of the Camprodon valley is dominated by a mosaic of woodlands and grasslands as a result of a long history of human use. The montane and subalpine altitudinal zones are represented in the valley. Montane vegetation (700-1600 m asl) consists mainly of deciduous forest of Quercus spp. and Fagus sylvestris L., as well as forest of red pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). The dominant species in the understory of the montane forest is the common box (Buxus sempervirens L.). Montane vegetation of riversides includes Salix, Populus and Alnus trees. Subalpine vegetation (1600-2300 m asl) is dominated by forests of black pine (Pinus uncinata Ramond ex A. DC.) that are usually more open at higher altitudes, with alpenrose (Rhododendron ferrugineum L.) in the understory. Grasslands are also typical of the subalpine zone (Sacasas-i-Lluís, 2009). The sampling sites of the present study within the Camprodon valley are detailed in Table 1. Sites belong to four different villages, Camprodon, Llanars, Setcases, and Vilallonga de Ter.
Fieldwork and hoverfly identification
Adult hoverflies were collected by Antonio Ricarte and Zorica Nedeljković using hand-nets, from 29 July to 3 August 2020. Vegetation and especially flowers (e.g. Heracleum sphondylium L., Hypericum sp., Eupatorium cannabinum L., Knautia sp., Pastinaca sp.) were inspected for hoverflies in sunny areas, and also on some hilltops (S3, S14). Specimens were kept in tubes in the freezer until defrosting in the lab for preparation. Specimens were pinned and labelled following the usual techniques (Galante & Marcos-García, 2004). A bar code label was assigned to each specimen and the information databased in an Excel file. Bar code numbers were written for each specimen (as a single code) or series of specimens (as a range of codes) in the examined material. Every code starts with ‘CEUA’ plus a number of zeros and then the actual code number (e.g. CEUA00050300), but only the number is indicated in the list of examined material.
Specimens were identified to the species level by Antonio Ricarte and Zorica Nedeljković, except otherwise stated. The literature used for identification is Nielsen (1970), Violovitsh (1974), Dušek & Láska (1976), Goeldlin de Tiefenau (1976), Marcos-García & Láska (1983), Vujić (1992), Vujić & Šimić (1995-1998), Goeldlin de Tiefenau (1996), Barkalov & Ståhls (1997), Verlinden (1999), Vujić (1999), van Steenis (2000), Hippa et al. (2001), Sommaggio (2001), Claussen & Ståhls (2007), Ståhls et al. (2008), Barkalov (2009), Bartsch et al. (2009a, b), Ricarte et al. (2010), van Veen (2010), van Steenis & Lucas (2011), Nedeljković et al. (2013), Vujić et al. (2013), Haarto & Ståhls (2014), van Steenis et al. (2016), Speight & Sarthou (2017), Vujić et al. (2017), Nedeljković et al. (2018), and van Steenis et al. (2020). When it was necessary to confirm the species identification, male genitalia were dissected with entomological pins. They were cleared in a hot solution of KOH for up to 5 min, immersed in acetic acid to remove excess KOH, washed in 70% alcohol, and stored in microvials containing glycerine. When specimens were dry, they were first relaxed in a humid chamber before genitalia removal. All specimens are deposited in the CEUA-CIBIO collection, University of Alicante, Spain. Hoverflies were photographed in the field by Antonio Ricarte (except where otherwise stated) with a camera Canon® PowerShot SX730 HS. A pinned specimen of Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803 was illustrated (Fig. 1) with photos produced as stacks of individual images made with a camera (Leica DFC 450) attached to a binocular stereomicroscope (Leica M205 C). Stacks were made in Leica Application Suite X (LAS X) ®, v. 184.108.40.20629.
Taxonomic and faunistic assessments
For the collected hoverflies, the faunistic novelty of each species (Appendix) was assessed on the basis of Ricarte & Marcos-García (2017) plus all other subsequent faunistic references. The Iberian Peninsula is here interpreted as the unit encompassing the mainland parts of Spain and Portugal together, plus Andorra. First documented records are also indicated in order to make locality details available for those species that had imprecise records in previous literature. A full list of material examined is provided for each species by using the site codes of Table 1. Collection dates are written in the examined material lists only for the specimens caught in S6 and S12, because these sites were visited on more than one day. For the taxonomic classification of the species collected, the arrangement of subfamilies used – indicated after each species name – follows Mengual et al. (2015). Genus and species names generally follow Speight (2020).
Sampling sites in the eastern Pyrenees of Girona province (Spain) during July/August 2020 field work. The dates when each site was visited is also presented.
Checklist of Girona hoverflies
The species collected in this study are also presented in the broader frame of an updated checklist of the hoverflies from Girona province. Localities and references are provided for every species in the checklist. The following localities are listed, based on both literature and the present study: L1, Arbucias; L2, Blanes; L3, Caldes de Malavella; L4, Camprodon; L5, Caralps; L6, Cerdaña; L7, Empalme; L8, Figueras; L9, Flassa; L10, La Bisbal; L11, La Molina; L12, Llanars; L13, Massanas; L14, Massanet de la Selva ‘Maçanet-Massanes station’; L15, Mollo; L16, Nuria; L17, Pals; L18, Puigcerdà; L19, Ribas; L20, Ribas de Freser; L21, Rosas; L22, San Cristóbal de Tosas; L23, San Juan de las Abadesas; L24, San Marsal; L25, Sant Ilari de Sacalm; L26, Sarriá; L27, Setcases; L28, Sils; L29, Torroella; L30, Viladrau; L31, Vilallonga de Ter; L32, ‘Between Campodron and Setcases’; L33, 13 km south to Girona city. Locality L4 includes the sampling site S1 of the present study; L12 includes S2, S3, S4, S5; L27 includes S6, S7, S8; L31 includes S10, S11, S12, S13, S14 (Table 1).
The following references were reviewed (numbers are used in the checklist to identify each individual reference): 1, Cuní (1880); 2, Cuní (1881); 3, Cuní (1885); 4, Antiga, 1888; 5, Andreu (1926); 6, Gil Collado (1930); 7, Leclercq (1963); 8, Leclercq (1971); 9, Lucas (1974); 10, Lucas (1976); 11, Goeldlin de Tiefenau (1989); 12, Barkalov & Ståhls (1997); 13, Marcos-García et al. (2002); 14, Marcos-García et al. (2007); 15, van Eck (2010); 16, Marcos-García et al. (2011); 17, van Steenis & Lucas (2011); 18, Álvarez-Fidalgo et al., 2018; 19, van Steenis et al. (2020); 20, Ricarte & Nedeljković (2020). Marcos-García et al. (1998) is not included in the list of references because it does not provide information on the localities within provinces. Dirickx (1994) also omits locality details for species but does provide maps with distribution points, so is not cited in this checklist, except for comments on the distribution of certain species.
Regarding specific references, the following questions should be noted: a) Cuní (1881) reported hoverflies from the Spanish Cerdaña, which is divided between the Lleida and Girona provinces and he did not specify where each species was collected. Since he was based on Puigcerdà (Girona) for fieldwork, we assume here that all species belong to GI. b) Gil Collado (1930) reports hoverflies from ‘Ribas’ and ‘Rivas’, one from Madrid (Rivas?) and other from GI (Ribas? i.e. Ribas de Freser? Ribas valley?), however both names are written as ‘Ribas’ in the locality index of Gil Collado (1930), and Ribas/ Rivas also appear to be inconsistently used throughout his monograph. Thus, we include Ribas in the present checklist when there were enough grounds to believe that the species was collected in the Ribas of GI.
All species are numbered and presented in alphabetical order, including the species reported in the present work (indicated as ‘present study’). Genus and species names in the checklist follow Speight (2020), which can be consulted together with Peck (1988) for authority and year of each taxon. Where species names used in the historical literature under review have been superceded, those are given after the current name and are preceded by (=).
New hoverfly records from the Camprodon valley
Baccha elongata (Fabricius, 1775) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108852; 1 male; S5. – 108851; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020.
Ceriana conopsoides (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108188; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondylium.
Cheilosia aerea Dufour, 1848 (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108792; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020.
Cheilosia barbata Loew, 1857 (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108791, 108790, 108809; 3 males; 108801, 108814, 108816-108818; 5 females; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108804-108808; 5 males; 108800, 108820; 2 females; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108803; 1 male; 108813; female; 02.08.2020. – 108812, 108819; 2 females; S9. – 108811; 1 female; S10.
Cheilosia hypena Becker, 1894 (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108320; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108325-108328; 4 males; S6; 108321-108324; 4 females; S6; 31.07.2020; 108778, 108779; 2 males; S6; 02.08.2020. – 108310; 1 male; 108329; 1 female; S5. – 108777; 1 female; S1. – 108776 (1 female); S11.
Cheilosia illustrata (Harris, 1776) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108770; 1 male; 108772, 108789; 2 females; S6; 30.07.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondilium. – 108771; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondylium.
Cheilosia laticornis Rondani, 1857 (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108785; 1 male; 108784; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020.
Cheilosia latifrons (Zetterstedt, 1843) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108810; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108829; 1 female; S6; 02.08.2020; 108828; 1 female; S9. – 108802; 1 female; S1.
Cheilosia longula (Zetterstedt, 1838) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 08773; 1 male; S11; det. I. Ballester.
Cheilosia proxima (Zetterstedt, 1843) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108788; 1 male; S3.
Cheilosia scutellata (Fallén, 1817) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108826; 1 male; 108824; 1 female; S5. – 108827, 1 male; S4. – 108825; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020.
Cheilosia variabilis (Panzer, 1798) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108787; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108786; 1 female; S7.
Cheilosia vernalis (Fallén, 1817) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108794, 108795; 2 males; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108793; 1 female; S12.
Cheilosia vicina (Zetterstedt, 1849) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108775; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108774; 1 female; S7.
Cheilosia vulpina (Meigen, 1822) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108780; 1 male; S3. – 108798; 1 male; S5. – 108797; 1 female; S4. – 108799; 1 male; 108796; 1 female; S13.– 108783, 108782; 2 males; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108781; 1 male; 108802; 1 female; S1; 01.08.2020.
Chrysogaster solstitialis (Fallén, 1817) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108234; 1 male; 108269, 108268; 2 females; S3. – 108236; 1 male; 10830-108232, 108240; 4 females; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108237, 108233; 2 males; 10841-108244; 4 females; S6; 31.07.2020; 108235; 1 male; S10. – 108267; 1 female; S9.
Chrysotoxum arcuatum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae) = Chrysotoxum fasciatum (Müller, 1764)
Examined material: 108548; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020.
Chrysotoxum bicinctum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108549; 1 male; S11. – 108530; 1 female; S9.
Chrysotoxum elegans Loew, 1841 (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108546; 1 male; S4; 108547; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108545; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108544; 1 male; S13.
Chrysotoxum festivum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108295; 1 female; S9.
Chrysotoxum lessonae Giglio Tos, 1890 (Syrphinae) (Fig. 1)
Examined material: 108296-108298; 3 males; S12.
Chrysotoxum volaticum Séguy, 1961 (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108531; 1 female; S14.
Dasysyrphus albostriatus (Fallén, 1817) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108887; 1 female; S11; 108888; 1 male; S12. – 108885; 1 male; 108886; 1 female; S9.
Episyrphus balteatus (de Geer, 1776) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108834; 1 female; S5. – 108833; 1 male; S11.
Eristalinus sepulchralis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108208; 1 female; S1.
Eristalinus taeniops (Wiedemann, 1818) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108206; 1 male; S9.
Eristalis arbustorum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108170; 1 male; S13.
Eristalis interrupta (Poda, 1761) (Eristalinae) = Eristalis nemorum Linnaeus, 1758
Examined material: 108211; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020; 108212; 1 male; 01.08.2020. – 108149; 1 female; S5. – 108210; 1 female; S11. – 108142; 1 female; S12.
Eristalis jugorum Egger, 1858 (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108152; 1 female; S8. – 108167; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108311; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020. – 108141, 108312, 108313; 3 females; S10.
Eristalis lineata (Harris, 1776) (Eristalinae) = Eristalis horticola (de Geer, 1776)
Examined material: 108133; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020.
Eristalis pertinax (Scopoli, 1763) (Eristalinae) (Fig. 2A)
Examined material: 108143, 108144, 108148; 3 males; 108147; 1 female; S4. – 108150, 108216, 108215; 3 males; S1. – 108169; 1 male; S10. – 108158, 108214; 2 males; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108213; 1 male; 108140; 1 female; S6; 02.08.2020.
Eristalis similis (Fallén, 1817) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108131; 1 male; S3. – 108130; 1 female; S5. – 108145, 108146; 2 males; S4. – 108156; 1 male; 108137; 1 female; S7. – 108134, 108135, 108153, 108157, 108159; 5 males; 108136; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108155; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108151; 1 female; S1. – 108168; 1 male; S12; 01.08.2020. – 108543; 1 male; S14.
Eristalis tenax (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108132, 108120; 2 males; S3; 108138; 1 male; 108154; 1 female; S7. – 108139; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020.
Eumerus grandis Meigen, 1822 (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108275; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108274; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020.
Eumerus ornatus Meigen, 1822 (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108229; 1 male; 108222, 108223; 2 females; S12. – 108227; 1 male; 08221; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108224-108226, 108228; 4 males; S6; 31.07.2020.
Eupeodes corollae (Fabricius, 1794) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108832; 1 male; S7. – 108830, 108831; 2 females; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108849; 1 female; S11. – 108848; 1 female; S9.
Eupeodes luniger (Meigen, 1822) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108844; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108842, 108843; 2 males; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108841; 1 female; S11. – 108840; 1 male; S9.
Eupeodes latifasciatus (Macquart, 1829) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108847; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020.
Ferdinandea cuprea (Scopoli, 1763) (Eristalinae) (Fig. 2B)
Examined material: 108204, 108200; 2 males; 108218; 1 female; S12; 02.08.2020. – 108202; 1 female; S1; 01.08.2020; 108201; 1 male; S10. – 108219, 108217; 2 females; S9. – 108203; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020.
Helophilus pendulus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108162; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108161; 1 male; S4. – 108160, 108179; 2 males; 108178; 1 female; S5. – 108178; 1 female; S11.
Lapposyrphus lapponicus (Zetterstedt, 1838) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108845; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108846; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020.
Leucozona glaucia (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108884; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondylium. – 108883; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondylium.
Melangyna compositarum (Verrall, 1873) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108869; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020.
Melangyna umbellatarum (Fabricius, 1794) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108850; 1 female; S10.
Melanostoma mellinum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108520; 1 male; S3. – 108523, 108522; 2 females; S2. – 108539; 1 male; 108521; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020.
Melanostoma scalare (Fabricius, 1794) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108538; 1 male; 108533; 1 female; S3. – 108535; 1 male; 108534; 1 female; S5. – 108536, 108537; 2 males; 108532; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020.
Meligramma cincta (Fallén, 1817) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108868; 1 female; S7; 30.07.2020. – 108867; 1 female; S8. – 1088661; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020.
Meliscaeva auricollis (Meigen, 1822) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108863; 1 male; S2. – 108860, 108870, 108878; 3 males; 108861, 108862, 108871, 108876, 108879; 5 females; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108874; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108875; 1 female; S6; 01.08.2020. – 108877, 108889; 2 males; S7. – 108873, 108872; 2 females; S8.
Meliscaeva cinctella (Zetterstedt, 1843) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108865; 1 female; S7. – 108864; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020.
Myathropa florea (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108165; 1 male; 108166, 108164; 2 females; S4. – 108163; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108205; 1 male; S1.
Orthonevra nobilis (Fallén, 1817) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108263; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108265, 108264; 2 males; S6; 31.07.2020.
Paragus haemorrhous Meigen, 1822 (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108836; 1 male; S12; 02.08.2020. – 108835; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020.
Paragus pecchiolii Rondani, 1857 (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108837; 1 male; S12; 02.08.2020.
Paragus tibialis (Fallén, 1817) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108821-108823, 108838, 108839; 5 males; S3.
Parasyrphus vittiger (Zetterstedt, 1843) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108510, 108524; 2 males; 108525-108529; 5 females; S7.
Pipiza festiva Meigen, 1822 (Pipizinae)
Examined material: 108273; 1 male; S9.
Pipiza noctiluca (Linnaeus, 1758) (Pipizinae)
Examined material: 108272; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020.
Pipizella viduata (Linnaeus, 1758) (Pipizinae)
Examined material: 108288; 1 male; 108287, 108285, 108284; 3 females; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108286; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108282, 108281; 2 males; 108283, 108280, 108299; 3 females; S10.
Platycheirus albimanus (Fabricius, 1781) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108515; 1 male; S7. – 108514; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108513; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020. – 108511; 1 female; S13. – 108512; 1 male; S9.
Scaeva dignota (Rondani, 1857) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108882; 1 male; S9.
Scaeva pyrastri (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108516; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108518; 1 female; S14. – 108517; 1 female; S9.
Scaeva selenitica (Meigen, 1822) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108519; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108880; 1 female; S6; 02.08.2020. – 108881; 1 female; S9.
Sericomyia bombiforme (Fallén, 1810) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108172, 108171; 2 males; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108180; 1 male; 108181; 1 female; S12, on flowers of Knautia sp.; 02.08.2020.
Sphaerophoria scripta (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108854; 1 female; S2. – 108853; 1 male; S5.
Sphegina elegans Schummel, 1843 (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108266; 1 male; S10; 01.08.2020.
Spilomyia manicata (Rondani, 1865) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108189; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondilium.
Syritta pipiens (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108198, 108199; 2 males; S3; 108197; 1 male; S5.
Syrphus ribesii (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108315; 1 male; S3; 108316; 1 female; S7. – 108314; 1 female; S6; 02.08.2020.
Syrphus torvus Osten-Sacken, 1875 (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108302, 108301; 2 males; 108304-108306; 3 females; S7. – 108300, 108317, 108318; 3 males; 108303, 108319; 2 females; S6; 30.07.2020.
Syrphus vitripennis Meigen, 1822 (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108307; 1 male; S4. – 108308; 1 female; S7. – 108309; 1 female; S13.
Volucella bombylans (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108177; 1 female; S3.
Volucella inanis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108176; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108187; 1 male; S6; 01.08.2020. – 108185, 108184; 2 males; S10. – 108186; 1 male; S12; 02.08.2020.
Volucella pellucens (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108173; 1 male; 108175; 1 female; S8; 108174; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108182; 1 female; S12; 02.08.2020.
Volucella zonaria (Poda, 1761) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108183; 1 male; S6; 01.08.2020.
Xanthandrus comtus (Harris, 1776) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108858, 108859; 2 females; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108857; 1 female; S6; 02.08.2020.–108856; 1 male; 108855; 1 female; S12; 02.08.2020.
Xanthogramma citrofasciatum (de Geer, 1776) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108292; 1 female; S12; 02.08.2020. – 108294, 108293; 2 males; S14.
Xanthogramma dives (Rondani, 1857) (Syrphinae)
Examined material: 108290; 1 male; S10. – 108291; 1 male; S9.
Xylota segnis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108191, 108195; 2 males; 108194; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108192, 108193; 2 males; S6; 02.08.2020.
Xylota sylvarum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108196; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020.
Xylota tarda Meigen, 1822 (Eristalinae)
Examined material: 108190; 1 female; S9. – 108209; 1 male; S12; 02.08.2020.
Taxonomic and faunistic assessment of the new hoverfly records from Camprodon valley
Excluding the records of Triglyphus primus Loew, 1840, which represented the first finding of this genus from Spain (Ricarte & Nedeljković, 2020), one (Chrysotoxum lessonae) species is new to the Iberian Peninsula, 19 are new to Catalonia, and 23 to GI. First documented records from Spain and the Iberian Peninsula are given for Cheilosia hypena and Xylota tarda, respectively, meaning that their presence in Spain and the Iberian Peninsula was previously reported in the literature, but without locality details (Appendix).
A total of 81 hoverfly species of 38 genera were identified. The two main subfamilies (Eristalinae and Syrphinae) had a similar number of genera recorded (16 and 19 respectively). Of all genera, 34 were represented by only 1-3 species, while the genus Cheilosia Meigen, 1822 had the highest number of species in the study (13 spp.), followed by Eristalis Latreille, 1804 (7 spp.) and Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803 (6 spp.).
Taking into consideration the altitudinal zoning indicated in the study area section and Table 1, most species represented in the study were absent from the subalpine zone, where the only exclusive species was Parasyrphus vittiger. All species except P. vittiger were found in the montane zone. Twelve species were shared between the two sampled altitudinal zones (Fig. 3).
Hoverfly checklist of the Girona province (Table 2)
See the meaning of the locality and reference codes in the Material and Methods section.
Platycheirus europaeus Goeldlin de Tiefenau, Maibach & Speight, 1990
Notes. Speight (2020) states that P. europaeus is present in Spain, without further precision. Dirickx (1994) provides a distribution map for this species with a presence dot in Catalonia, but the position of this dot is also imprecise.
Sphegina clavata (Scopoli, 1763) & Sphegina clunipes (Fallén, 1816)
Notes. Thompson & Torp (1986) and Dirickx (1994) each provide a distribution map with a presence dot in Catalonia for these two species. The position of this dot is imprecise, but is likely to be within the province of Girona.
Notes. Thompson & Torp (1986) provide a distribution map with a presence dot in Catalonia, very close to the French/ Spanish border, and apparently in the Girona province. However, Dirickx (1994) provides a different map without the above-mentioned dot, but with another dot clearly placed on the French side of the Pyrenees. Provenance data for examined material would be necessary to discern whether the dots in Thompson & Torp (1986) and Dirickx (1994) are the same or not.
As a result of this short survey in the Camprodon valley, 81 hoverfly species were identified, including T. primus, the discovery of which was reported by Ricarte & Nedeljković (2020). The number of known species to this valley now stands at 85, plus Milesia crabroniformis (Fabricius, 1775), which is known to the authors of the present paper by a photo taken in Camprodon, on 4 October 2020, by M. Carbonell (Fig. 2C). In addition, there are also records of a species of Merodon Meigen, 1803 and a species of Rhingia Scopoli, 1763 collected in the course of this fieldwork but not included in the Results because they are still under taxonomic scrutiny (Ricarte et al., in prep.). In total, 88 species are known for the Camprodon valley. The checklist of hoverflies from the Girona province expands from 73 to 119 species as a result of the new records from Camprodon valley. Girona is now one of the best-known Spanish provinces in terms of number of hoverfly species recorded (Ricarte & Marcos-García, 2017).
Leclercq (1971) provided records of 49 hoverflies collected in the Pyrenees, mainly of the Huesca province, from July/August, i.e. the same period of the year when our sampling took place. More than half (55%) of the species reported by Leclercq (1971) and all genera were shared with our 2020 list. Cheilosia was the genus with the highest number of species reported by Leclercq (1971). From the seven Cheilosia species reported by him, just one was shared with the 2020 sampling in Camprodon. On the one hand, differences in species composition might be due to the fact that many species of Leclercq (1971) were collected in early July, whilst the 2020 sampling was in late July. On the other hand, detected differences in species composition may actually respond to differences between the surveyed Pyrenean valleys and habitats of Huesca and Girona. Specifically, Cheilosia hoverflies are known to be sensible to changes in the woodland landscape (Popov et al., 2017), in part because their larvae, according to species, feed on different plants and fungi (Rotheray, 1993).
From the 81 species reported from the Camprodon valley in 2020, eight were saproxylic, i.e. with larvae dependent on trees (Ceriana Rafinesque, 1815, Ferdinandea Rondani, 1844, Myathropa Rondani, 1845, Sphegina Sack, 1928, Spilomyia Meigen, 1803, and Xylota Meigen, 1822). The proportion of saproxylic species (11%) is unexpectedly low from the Camprodon valley, where forests form a significant element of the vegetation. Although the present study only provides a partial overview of the hoverfly biodiversity of the Camprodon valley, we suggest that land use changes due to the expansion of urban areas and the road network, as well as promotion of agricultural and tourism activities may have had an effect in the woodlands of this popular valley, with reduction of forest cover (mainly in the lower parts of the valley, and around the ski resort), and mature trees becoming scarcer and more isolated; mature trees are crucial for the development of a rich saproxylic community (Micó, 2018).
Hoverfly genera with aquatic larvae such as Eristalis Latreille, 1804 (Rotheray, 1993) appear to flourish in the montane ecosystem of the valley (e.g. 7 species of Eristalis), where water courses are abundant and water flow is slower than at higher altitudes. In these conditions, breeding sites for Eristalis are abundant. However, in the subalpine zone, only Eristalis similis and the cosmopolitan Eristalis tenax were reported, possibly due to the lower availability of breeding sites in this altitudinal zone of the valley. In the subalpine zone, water courses are smaller and their water flow is faster, due to steeper slopes (pers. obs. of Antonio Ricarte). The only hoverfly species found exclusively in the subalpine was P. vittiger (Fig. 3), being in accordance with its preferred environment, the conifer forest, which is dominant at these altitudes (Sacasas-i-Lluís, 2009). The larva of P. vittiger feeds mainly on conifer aphids and this is why its presence is correlated with conifers. Nonetheless, P. vittiger can occasionally be found in deciduous forest (Speight, 2020).
The genus with the highest number of species found was Cheilosia. Hoverflies of this genus prefer mountains, forests and the proximity of rivers and streams (Vujić, 1996), just as in the Camprodon valley. The only species of Cheilosia found in the subalpine zone were C. variabilis and C. vicina, both already recorded from the Pyrenees of Huesca province (Leclercq, 1971; Marcos-García, 1985). The species C. vicina belongs to the subgenus Nigrocheilosia Shatalkin, 1975, which is typical of high altitudes (Vujić, 1996). Cheilosia variabilis is an abundant species in southern parts of its range and occurs in a wide variety of forest types (Vujić, 1996). In addition, the presence of Cheilosia hypena is here confirmed from the Spanish Pyrenees. Speight (2020) mentioned that this species was present in this massif but there was no published record from Spain known to us. The finding of Cheilosia proxima is also important from a faunistic point of view. Séguy (1961) indicated that this species was present in Catalonia, but without further precision. Apart from this, the only published records of C. proxima known to us are from the León and Guipúzcoa provinces (Marcos-García, 1989, 1990a, b; Kehlmaier, 2002). Records of other Cheilosia species such as C. vulpina, which were previously reported only from 4-5 provinces of Spain (Ricarte & Marcos-García, 2017), are also important to better understand the true distribution of these species in the Iberian Peninsula.
Even though the 2020 sampling was short, faunistic results were remarkable in comparison with studies using longer periods of hand-net sampling in other parts of Spain. For example, in Cabañeros National Park, 82 species were collected by hand-netting during 468 hours of sampling in 13 months (Ricarte & Marcos-García, 2008). The reasons for such a similar result after such different sampling efforts might be due to the sampling designs, which resulted from different research aims, but could also be due to an effect of the diversity of the hoverfly community in each study area. Nonetheless, the results presented here suggest that short surveys conducted by experienced collectors during periods of high insect activity may suffice in the purpose of rapidly evaluating the biodiversity interest of a poorly studied area and/or for taking quick conservation decisions in threatened ecosystems or insect groups with well known requirements. Further fieldwork in other periods of the year are necessary to complete the inventory of species present in the biodiverse Camprodon valley.
We are grateful to Mercè Navarro Heras and Gitti Bahl Zemsauer for guiding us into the Camprodon valley of Girona. We would also like to thank Ante Vujić for loaning specimens of Cheilosia that were useful for identification of the Pyrenean material. Thanks also to Iván Ballester for interesting discussions about the identity of some Cheilosia species. Segundo Ríos assisted in plant identification from photos taken on-site. English was kindly revised by Stephen Hewitt. Antonio Ricarte's position (Ref. UATALENTO17-08) at the University of Alicante is funded by the “Vicerrectorado de Investigación y Transferencia del Conocimiento”. This research was funded by the Fauna Iberica Project PGC2018-095851-A-C65 of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities.
First faunistic data on the hoverflies from the eastern Pyrenees of Girona province (Spain) collected in July/August 2020. (*) indicates the first documented record of a species for a geographical unit, i.e. the species was known from a geographical unit but without further locality details and this is the first time that locality details are provided. Triglyphus primus is omitted from this list because its records were advanced in a different publication.