ArticleInsect science2026
Exploring marking methods for the predatory hoverfly Sphaerophoria rueppellii (Diptera: Syrphidae).
Article in Insect science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hoverflies are essential to ecosystems, with adults serving as important pollinators and larvae preying on plant-feeding insects or recycling nutrients. Species like Sphaerophoria rueppellii are used in biocontrol programs to target aphid pests. To enhance these programs, markers can be used in a mark-release-recapture (MRR) method to track hoverfly feeding and oviposition sites. Effective markers must be persistent and not harm the hoverflies' vital functions. This study evaluated three marking methods for S. rueppellii: rubidium (RbCl), fluorescein, and fluorescent dust. Laboratory experiments assessed the effects of these markers on female hoverfly fecundity, mating behavior and marking persistence. Results showed no significant differences in egg-laying or survival time between marked and unmarked females. Rubidium and fluorescein did not affect mating behavior, but dust-treated females mated significantly less than untreated females. In terms of marking persistence, rubidium and fluorescent dusts remained detectable throughout the hoverflies' adult lifespan, while fluorescein markings faded within 24 h. Fluorescent dusts were easy-to-use, durable, and cost-effective, but careful application and further study are needed to avoid potential effects on insect activity and mating ability. Fluorescein showed no adverse effects on insect biology, was economical and quick to apply, but had short persistence, making it unsuitable for long-term field studies. Rubidium was harmless to insects and detectable for long periods, but its detection required financial investment, time, and specialized equipment. This research provides valuable insights into the potential of hoverflies as biocontrol agents and offers new tools for their effective management in agricultural settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.