ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025
Lords of the flies: dipteran migrants are diverse, abundant and ecologically important.
Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Flight of the dragons: a global review of migration in Odonata.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- Surviving in the mountains: temperature and elevation have contrasting physiological effects and no effect on morphology of the hoverfly Eristalis tenax in the Himalayas.Journal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology · 2026Article
- Long-range pollen transport across the North Sea: Insights from migratory hoverflies landing on a remote oil rig.The Journal of animal ecology · 2025Article
- Migrating hoverflies as potential food source for co-migrating insectivorous birds.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Multiple factors contribute to female dominance in migratory bioflows.Open biology · 2025Article
- Enhanced flight performance in hoverfly migrants.iScience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Insect migrants are hugely abundant, with recent studies identifying the megadiverse order Diptera as the major component of many migratory assemblages. Despite this, their migratory behaviour has been widely overlooked in favour of more 'charismatic' migrant insects such as butterflies, dragonflies, and moths. Herein we review the available literature on dipteran migration to determine its prevalence, identify key migratory routes and elucidate areas that may prove fruitful for future research. Using 13 lines of evidence to determine migratory behaviour, we determined that species from 60 out of 130 dipteran families show evidence of migration, with Syrphidae fulfilling 12 of these criteria, followed by the Tephritidae with 10. By contrast, 22 families met just two criteria or fewer, underlining the need for more research into the migratory characteristics of these groups. In total, 592 species of Diptera were identified as potentially migratory, making them the most speciose group of insect migrants yet described. Despite this, only 0.5% of dipteran species were found to be migrants, a figure rising to 3% for the Syrphidae, a percentage mirrored by other migratory taxa such as butterflies, noctuid moths, and bats. Research was biased to locations in Europe (49% of publications) and while vast regions remain understudied, our review identified major flyways used by dipteran migrants across all biogeographic realms. Finally, we highlight an unsurpassed level of ecological diversity within dipteran migrants, including ecological roles of huge economic value. Overall, this review highlights how little is known about dipteran migration and how vital their migratory behaviour may be to the health of global ecosystems.
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.