Pollinators play a crucial role in ecosystems globally, ensuring the seed production of most flowering plants. They are threatened by global changes and knowledge of their distribution at the national and continental levels is needed to implement efficient conservation actions, but this knowledge is still fragmented and/or difficult to access. As a step forward, we provide an updated list of around 3000 European bee and hoverfly species, reflecting their current distributional status at the national level (in the form of present, absent, regionally extinct, possibly extinct or non‐native). This work was attainable by incorporating both published and unpublished data, as well as knowledge from a large set of taxonomists and ecologists in both groups. After providing the first National species lists for bees and hoverflies for many countries, we examine the current distributional patterns of these species and designate the countries with highest levels of species richness. We also show that many species are recorded in a single European country, highlighting the importance of articulating European and national conservation strategies. Finally, we discuss how the data provided here can be combined with future trait and Red List data to implement research that will further advance pollinator conservation.

This catalog lists all 1226 nominal species introduced by Rondani within Diptera (1174 available and 52 unavailable), providing for each available name data on the type locality, type material, current taxonomic status and with remarks on both the collectors and the specialists who have studied this material. The following new synonymies are proposed: Panops aeneus Philippi, 1865 [Acroceridae] under Lasia aenea Rondani, 1863, n. syn.; Panops nigripes Philippi, 1865 [Acroceridae] under Lasia cuprea Rondani, 1863, n. syn.; Tabanus brasiliensis Rondani, 1850 [Tabanidae] under Dichelacera fasciata Walker, 1850, n. syn.; Petagnia subpetiolata Rondani, 1859 [Tachinidae] under Petagnia occlusa Rondani, 1856, n. syn.; Tephritis siderata Rondani, 1868 [Tephritidae] under Hexacinia radiosa (Rondani, 1868), n. syn. Mallophora macquartii Rondani 1851 [Asilidae] is considered as a senior (but invalid) synonym of Mallophora scopipeda Rondani, 1863, n. syn. Paragus mundus Wollaston, 1858 [Syrphidae] is proposed as the valid name for Paragus coadunatus sensu Goeldlin de Tiefenau (1976); Paragus coadunatus Rondani, 1847 [Syrphidae] is reinstated as a junior synonym of Paragus haemorrhous Meigen 1822. Lectotypes are designated herein for the following nominal species: Domomyza anthracipes Rondani, 1875, Domomyza frontella Rondani, 1875 [both in Agromyzidae]; Chorthophila impudica Rondani, 1866 [Anthomyiidae]; Sephanilla sertulata Rondani, 1875 [Aulacigastridae]; Peratochetus lutescens Rondani, 1856 [Clusiidae]; Myopa punctum Rondani, 1857 [Conopidae]; Culex pulcritarsis Rondani, 1872 [Culicidae]; Ephydra ciligena Rondani, 1868 [Ephydridae]; Lonchea scutellaris Rondani, 1875 [Lonchaeidae]; Geomyza pictipennis Rondani, 1875 [Opomyzidae]; Megaglossa vegetationis Rondani, 1869 [Platystomatidae]; Eumerus tuberculatus Rondani, 1857, Merodon varius Rondani, 1845, Paragus mundus Wollaston, 1858, Pipizella neuphritica Rondani, 1868 [all in Syrphidae]; Exorista noctuicida Rondani, 1859, Phoricheta lacrimans Rondani, 1861 [both in Tachinidae]; Tephritis decipiens Rondani, 1871, Tephritis matutina Rondani, 1871, Urophora lejura Rondani, 1870, Urophora venabulata Rondani, 1870, Urophora veruata Rondani, 1870 [all in Tephritidae]. The following nominal species have lectotypes designated according to Article 74.5 of the I.C.Z.N. Code: Chortophila divergens Rondani, 1866, Chortophila incognita Rondani, 1866 [both in Anthomyiidae]; Habropogon doriae Rondani, 1873, Promacus taeniopus Rondani, 1873 [both in Asilidae]; Chelidomyia melbae Rondani, 1879, Myophthiria lygaeoides Rondani, 1878, Ornithomya gestroi Rondani, 1878, Ornithomya hatamensis Rondani, 1878 [all in Hippoboscidae]; Megaglossa corticarum Rondani, 1869 [Platystomatidae]; Elgiva lateritia Rondani, 1868, Tetanocera nigricosta Rondani, 1868, Tetanocera punctifrons Rondani, 1868 [all in Sciomyzidae]; Tabanus justorius Rondani, 1875 [Tabanidae]. The following lectotypes are designated by inference according to Article 74.6 of I.C.Z.N.: Diopsis aethiopica Rondani, 1873, Diopsis latimana Rondani, 1875, Teleopsis breviscopium Rondani, 1875, Teleopsis longiscopium Rondani, 1875 [all in Diopsidae]; Cyclopodia albertisii Rondani, 1878, Myophthiria reduvioides Rondani, 1875 [both in Hippoboscidae]; Myiodella brachialis Rondani, 1873, Senopterina zonalis Rondani, 1875 [all in Platystomatidae]; Stevenia florentina Rondani, 1861 [Rhinophoridae]; Miltogramma punctatella Rondani, 1868 [Sarcophagidae]; Sargus leoninus Rondani, 1875 [Stratiomyidae]; Chrysops alter Rondani, 1875, Chrysops unizonatus Rondani, 1875, Tabanus dives Rondani, 1875, Tabanus fulvissimus Rondani, 1875, Tabanus ignobilis Rondani, 1875 [all in Tabanidae]; Themara hirtipes Rondani, 1875 [Tephritidae]. The following names are new combinations: Diopsis latimana Rondani, 1875 [Diopsidae] is transferred to Teleopsis and kept as a junior synonym of Teleopsis dalmanni (Wiedemann, 1830), comb. nov.; Diopsis lativola Rondani, 1875 [Diopsidae] is transferred to Teleopsis and kept as a junior synonym of Teleopsis dalmanni (Wiedemann, 1830), comb. nov. The following names, previously deemed unavailable, are determined here to be available: Petagnia occlusa Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Tephritis siderata Rondani, 1868 [Tephritidae]. The following names, previous deemed available, are determined here to be unavailable: Porricondyla albitarsis Rondani, 1840 [Cecidomyiidae], Lucilia cyanicolor Rondani, 1850 [Calliphoridae]; Cephenemya stimulatrix Rondani, 1857 [Oestridae]; Cheilosia nigricornis Rondani, 1844, Cheilosia testacicornis Rondani, 1857, Pelecocera ruficornis Rondani, 1865 [all in Syrphidae]; Cylindrogaster sanguinea Rondani, 1861, Deximorpha cristata Rondani, 1862, Myostoma microcera Rondani, 1856 [all in Tachinidae]; Tripeta exacheta Rondani, 1870 [Tephritidae]. We consider Merodon italicus Rondani 1845 as an unnecessary substitute name for Merodon natans Fabricius, 1794 and confirm it as a junior synonym of Merodon natans Fabricius, 1794. Acting as First Revisers, the following are herein selected as correct original spellings: Trichophthalma philippii Rondani, 1863 [Nemestrinidae]; Sphiximorpha garibaldii Rondani, 1860 [Syrphidae]; Agelanius philippii Rondani, 1863 [Tabanidae]; Exorista achanthina Rondani, 1859, Platychyra brevicauda Rondani, 1865 [Tachinidae]. Species not previously treated in any recent Diptera catalog include the following: Chorthophila limbatella Rondani, 1877, Hylephila melitensis Rondani 1877 [both in Anthomyiidae]; Mya jonicroma Rondani, 1851, Mya versicolor Rondani, 1850, Somomya anulipes Rondani, 1863, Somomyia xanthomera Rondani, 1875 [all in Calliphoridae]; Madiza fabae Rondani, 1876 [Chloropidae]; Psilopus ducalis Rondani, 1850 [Dolichopodidae]; Gymnopa opaca Rondani, 1869 [Ephydridae]; Oedalea bracata Rondani, 1856 [Hybotidae]; Sapromyza albifrons Rondani, 1868, Sapromyza rectinervis Rondani, 1868 [both in Lauxaniidae]; Boletina parmensis Rondani, 1856, Bolithobia lateralis...

The effect of cover plants on arthropod functional biodiversity was investigated in a vineyard in Northern Italy, through a 3-year field experiment. The following six ground cover plants were tested: Sweet Alyssum; Phacelia; Buckwheat; Faba Bean; Vetch and Oat; control. Arthropods were sampled using different techniques, including collection of leaves, vacuum sampling and sweeping net. Ground cover plant management significantly affected arthropod fauna, including beneficial groups providing ecosystem services like biological control against pests. Many beneficial groups were attracted by ground cover treatments in comparison with control, showing an aggregative numerical response in the plots managed with some of the selected plant species. Alyssum, Buckwheat and ‘Vetch and Oat’ mixture showed attractiveness on some Hymenoptera parasitoid families, which represented 72.3% of the insects collected by sweeping net and 45.7 by vacuum sampling. Phytoseiidae mites showed a significant increase on leaves of the vineyard plots managed with ground covers, in comparison with control, although they did not show any difference among the treatments. In general, the tested ground cover treatments did not increase dangerous Homoptera populations in comparison with control, with the exception of Alyssum. The potential of ground cover plant management in Italian vineyards is discussed: the overall lack of potential negative effects of the plants tested, combined with an aggregative numerical response for many beneficials, seems to show a potential for their use in Northern Italy vineyards.

Insects play an essential role as pollinators of wild flowers and crops. At the same time, pollinators in agricultural environments are commonly exposed to pesticides, compromising their survival and the provision of pollination services. Although pollinators include a wide range of species from several insect orders, information on pesticide sensitivity is mostly restricted to bees. In addition, the disparity of methodological procedures used for different insect groups hinders the comparison of toxicity data between bees and other pollinators. Dipterans are a highly diverse insect order that includes some important pollinators. Therefore, in this study, we assessed the sensitivity of two hoverflies (Sphaerophoria rueppellii, Eristalinus aeneus) and one tachinid fly (Exorista larvarum) to a neonicotinoid insecticide (Confidor^®, imidacloprid) following a comparative approach. We adapted the standardized methodology of acute contact exposure in honey bees to build dose–response curves and calculate median lethal doses (LD₅₀) for the three species. The methodology consisted in applying 1 µL of the test solution on the thorax of each insect. Sphaerophoria rueppelli was the most sensitive species (LD₅₀ = 10.23 ng/insect), and E. aeneus (LD₅₀ = 18,176 ng/insect) the least. We then compared our results with those available in the literature for other pollinator species using species sensitivity distribution (SSD). Based on the SSD curve, the 95th percentile of pollinator species would be protected by a safety factor of 100 times the Apis mellifera endpoint. Overall, dipterans were less sensitive to imidacloprid than most bee species. As opposed to most bee species, oviposition and fecundity of many dipteran species can be reliably assessed in the laboratory. We measured the number of eggs laid following exposure to different insecticide doses and assessed the potential trade-off between oviposition and survival through the sublethal sensitivity index (SSI). Exposure to imidacloprid had a significant effect on fecundity, and SSI values indicated that oviposition is a sensitive endpoint for the three dipteran species tested. Future studies should integrate this information related to population dynamics in simulation models for environmental risk assessment.

The role of dipteran predators in biological pest control programs is reviewed and discussed. Diptera encompasses a large number of potentially efficient predators for biological pest control, yet only a few species are routinary used. The families Syrphidae and Cecidomyiidae provide some of the most successful examples of biological control, but other families (e.g., Muscidae, Sarcophagidae, Sciomyzidae) also include species with that potential. Most applications of Diptera as predators involve the conservation biological control approach, while the augmentative approach has involved only a few species, almost exclusively of Syrphidae and Cecidomyiidae. In a few cases, classical biological control has been employed. Commercialization of species mainly to be used in the augmentative approach is discussed, also focusing on the critical issues linked to rearing methods. The dual services performed by Diptera (pollination as adults and biological control as larvae) have been studied in detail for Syrphidae only, but would deserve further study in other families, e.g., Sarcophagidae. This is the first review in which the use of predatory Diptera in biological control programs is investigated for all families and in all types of applications. This review recommends a multi-taxon approach in the use of Diptera in biological control since a large number of taxa have considerable potential, although this has not yet been tested in practical applications.