Notes from NABS Day 2

meeting logoEvidence for Overland Dispersal in a Flightless Aquatic Insect

Hello again from the NABS/ASLO 2010 meeting!  Today I’m focusing on Day 2 of the conference and my favorite talk of the day.  But first, two things I learned:

— Some aquatic insects are capable of moving a very long distance to get to new or better habitats.
— The person who designed the layout of the Tuesday poster session should be tarred and feathered for coming up with the absolute worst possible layout.  While I feel like my poster went over fairly well (I even had 2 judges tell me that it was very well done , giving me some miniscule glimmer of hope that I might win one of the tiny number of awards at NABS this year), it was a physically miserable experience.  The posters were arranged like this:

poster session

One of the two poster session rooms, the one my poster was in, before the poster session began.

The space was about 8 feet long and about 8 feet wide and each of these little alcoves held 6 posters each.  You could comfortably fit maybe 5 people in this space.  And THIS is what it looked like with 8 people:

poster session

The alcove in which my poster was located during the poster session.

I was forced to stand out in the aisle because I didn’t fit.  Wow that’s bad design!  Still, my scientific experience during the session was great once I got past the bad lighting, the inability of the AC unit to keep up (it was probably 85 or 90 degrees in the room – hotter than outside!), and the cramped quarters.  I got a lot of good feedback.  Considering this poster was the entire reason I came to the meeting, this is a good thing.

But back to my favorite talk of the day.  The title of my Day 2 favorite talk is at the top of the page and is probably easier to understand than yesterday’s if you’re not a scientist.  The talk was given by Kate Boersma, a Ph.D. student in Dr. Dave Lytle’s lab at Oregon State University.  The Lytle lab does some excellent research and Dave has been a star in the aquatics world since he was granted his professorship at OSU, so it’s no surprise that I liked Kate’s talk the best of the ones I heard today.  Plus, she’s a colleague of mine, a fellow giant water bug researcher, so you can’t go wrong.  She works on one of the same water bugs I study, the lovely Abedus herberti:

Abedus herberti mating

Abedus herberti mating.

Kate’s talk was about dispersal of this insect, or the movement from one habitat to another.  But before I get into the presentation, let me say a bit about dispersal in aquatic insects, especially as it pertains to insects in the arid (=dry) southwest.

Aquatic insects living in streams don’t really stay in one place.  They move around a lot, but there is a tendency for them to move downstream.  After all, simply losing your grip on whatever you’re holding onto in the water is enough to sweep you off into the current and far away from your home.  Invertebrates moving downstream by passive means (being swept along by the current), either intentionally or accidentally,  is called invertebrate drift.  Generally, moving downstream is something you want to avoid if you’re an aquatic insect.  Fish eat the insects and other organisms that make up the drift, so there is a high risk of predation for drifting insects.  Streams can also change a lot over their length, so it’s to an aquatic insect’s benefit to stay in the place that is best suited for it.  Insects CAN move upstream though.  They will crawl, or in some cases swim, upstream through the water.  Alternatively, many species with terrestrial adults are known to fly upstream to lay their eggs, thus ensuring that the population at the uppermost portions of a stream (the headwaters) remain stable.  Any movement of an organism from one area to another is called dispersal.

If an area becomes unsuitable for any reason, the insects need to move to another area if they are to survive.  This means dispersing.  This happens frequently in the arid southwest, but how insects move between habitats, the cues they use to signal that a move is necessary, and whether dispersal is limited strictly to up and downstream movements are still poorly understood.  Kate hopes to explain how Abedus herberti chooses to move to a new habitat, how far they can move, and in what direction.  And this brings us to the subject of her talk.

First she described the conditions in the area in which I also do my research.  We have a lot of streams, but many of them are dry most of the year (these are called ephemeral streams because they water only flows for a short time).  Even streams that flow most of the year can mostly dry out during the summer, leaving behind isolated pools of water into which the entire invertebrate population of the stream must go.  As these pools get smaller and smaller, it becomes stressful for the organisms living in them.  Abedus herberti is also flightless, so if the pool dris completely and they can’t find a new source of water, they die.  If they are able to instead move to another habitat nearby by crawling across the land, they might be able to avoid death and prevent the local extinction of populations within the area.  There is some genetic evidence that suggests this is possible, but Kate is the first person to really look into it.

Kate has been interested in which environmental conditions, which cues, prompt A. herberti to move from one habitat in search of a better one.  In her talk, she described a study she did recently.  She expected that pool drying would prompt a water bug to move from one habitat to another, so she set up an experiment.  She set up several opaque tubs filled with water that held smaller tubs inside them.  These inner tubs were assigned one of two treatments: either they were left dry or they were filled with water.  She then placed bugs inside the inner tubs, left them for a period of time (honestly, I didn’t get the time frame down, but it was something on the order of overnight or a week), and then compared the number of bugs that she found in the water-filled outer tubs in each treatment.  She discovered that more bugs moved from a dry tub to the wet outer tub than from a wet tub to the wet outer tub.  This suggests that the insects use pool drying as an excuse to leave the poor quality habitat in search of a better environment.

Kate also presented data on the distance that these bugs are able to move overland, though she did not collect the data herself.  Her labmates collected water bugs from several different pools, marked them, released them back into the pools, and then came back much later and recorded the location of the marked bugs they found.  They discovered that A. herberti prefers to stay in the same area, if not the same pool, in which they were found originally.  However, some had moved.  Of these, the females were found to have moved about 20 meters (just under 65 feet) while the males moved only 12 meters (about 39 feet).  The bugs clearly don’t move very far if they don’t have to.

However, Kate also showed a video that she happened to get through pure serendipity: a rather crispy looking male giant water bug who had left his aquatic habitat, had climbed into a dry streambed, and was hurrying downstream.  This was visual evidence that the bugs are able to move over land if conditions warrant the behavior.  She was also able to calculate a land speed for the bugs of about 4.6 meters (15 feet) per minute.  This is pretty fast for a one inch long animal!  She further calculated the maximum distance the bugs might be able to travel based on some data I had given her regarding they length of time the bugs can remain out of water.  Her calculations suggest that these bugs might be able to move as much as 6624 meters (4.12 miles) before they dry out and die!

So, Kate showed that overland dispersal can occur in Abedus herberti, that they use pool drying as a cue to disperse, and that while the bugs prefer to stay in one place, they occasionally travel across land for some distance in search of a better home.  Pretty neat, eh?  I thought so.  :)

Tune in tomorrow for another edition of Notes from NABS!

_______________

Posts in this series:
Day 0 – Introduction to the Series
Day 1
– Invasive Crayfish
Day 2 – Giant Water Bug Dispersal
Day 3 – Dragonfly Captive Rearing
Day 4 – Integrating Service-Learning Programs into College Courses
Day 5 – Impact of a Small Preserve on Stream Health

_______________

Unless otherwise stated, all text, images, and video are copyright © 2010 DragonflyWoman.wordpress.com.

Advertisements

Notes from NABS Day 1

meeting logoTrophic cascades, detrital dynamics, and invasive crayfish

Welcome to my summary of Day 1 of the NABS/ASLO joint meeting, almost live and definitely on location!  I’ve decided I’m going to start each NABS meeting posts with a short list of things I learned during the previous day.  Here goes!

Things I learned yesterday:

— There are a whole lot of invasive fish species in the world and they can cause massive problems in stream systems.  The round goby is a big problem in the Great Lakes region and the armored catfish dominates some rivers in southern Mexico (and is feared by the locals who think the fish is poisonous).
— Dams and other barriers to fish can cause nitrogen shortages in streams above the barriers.
— Global warming could cause a downward shift in body size in a huge variety of organisms because body size generally goes down as temperature goes up.

My favorite talk at the meeting yesterday was the one titled above.  For my entomological or scientific readers out there, this title likely makes sense.  For the rest of you – don’t worry if it doesn’t!  We scientists use a lot of big words that normal, er, I mean, non-scientific, people wouldn’t ever have a reason to know.  Let’s go over the concepts in the title before I get into the content of the talk.

I’m going to start with detrital dynamics.  Detritus is a fancy word for biological debris or debris made up of organic matter.  In aquatic systems, detritus is typically made up of plants parts (such as leaves that have fallen into the water), dead algae, and the occasional dead animal.  Detritus is an important food source for many aquatic insects, so a lot of aquatic scientists will put mesh bags full of leaves into streams and see what happens to them as part of their studies.  This is what detrital dynamics means: how detritus in a stream or lake is processed and broken down by the organisms living in the water.

Invasive means exactly what you think it might mean.  An invasive species is an organism that has invaded another environment, a habitat in which it has not lived before, either naturally or via human activities.  Most of the time, invasive species are problematic.  For example, yesterday I learned that round gobies were probably transferred from their native habitat to the Great Lakes in the ballast water of tansoceanic ships that entered the Great Lakes.  The species does well in the Great Lakes and is causing problems for native fish.  It is currently expanding its range into the streams that flow into the lakes.

Trophic cascades are a little more complicated.  Most people know about food chains or food webs.  Let’s quickly review the concept.  At the bottom, you have producers, things like plants and bacteria, that convert solar energy or other forms of non-organic energy into body mass.  Then you have the herbivores.  Herbivores eat the producers, converting the energy they get from digesting the producer into their own body mass.  Then you have the predators, the carnivores.  These organisms eat the herbivores to develop their body mass.  The producers, herbivores, and predators form what are known as trophic levels, groups of organisms that have similar feeding requirements and styles.  The suffix “troph” refers to food, so any time you see this term used in biological terms you know you’re supposed to consider food or feeding modes.

In the past, biologists used to think that the relationships between these organisms was a simple chain or a simple web: a predator eats an herbivore that ate a producer.  They didn’t think that a predator had much of an impact on other predators or the herbivores it didn’t eat, and early biologists definitely didn’t expect that the predator would have any impact on the producers.  We now know that this is a considerably oversimplified way to think about the relationship of organisms in nature and that the relationships among and between trophic levels can be incredibly complex.  As an example, consider a bird species that eats grasshoppers.  The birds love grasshoppers and eat as many as they can.  Because the birds are eating the grasshoppers, they are decreasing the number of grasshoppers in the population.  This in turn allows the grasses and other plants the grasshopper consumes to grow better because there are fewer grasshoppers eating them.  So, the bird has an indirect affect on the grasses.  And this is what is known as a trophic cascade: one organism impacts an organism in the next lower trophic level, which in turn impacts the next lowest trophic level, etc.  Everything is kept in a sort of balance, at least until something comes along to change that balance.  And that brings me to the subject of the talk I liked most yesterday: the signal crayfish.

signal crayfish

The signal crayfish. Photo taken from Wikipedia.

The signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) is an American crayfish that has become an invasive species in certain parts of the world.  They’ve been purposefully introduced into streams in Europe on more than one occasion and they’ve been transported beyond their natural range within the United States as well.  They’re omnivores and they eat almost everything they can get their mouthparts on, including several things that other organisms have a hard time eating.  As a result, they can cause major problems if they become established in an area outside of their native range.

Dr. Jonathan Moore of the University of California Santa Cruz studied the species in a stream in northern California, Scott Creek, where the crayfish is an invasive species.  He suggested that biologists still don’t have any means of accurately predicting what will happen if a species is added or removed from a stream because we don’t understand how everything ties together in a system.  He stated that trophic cascades are really more like trophic tangles, masses of interactions that we can’t disentangle from one another.  Some of his work focuses on trophic cascades and what happens when a species is eliminated or introduced into a system.

The study he presented was one in which he looked at the effect of the presence of signal crayfish on the populations of aquatic insects, algae production, and leaf litter processing in Scott Creek.  To do this, he did two different studies, one short term experiment and one long term observational study.  For the short term experiment, he compared the aquatic insects, algae levels, and leaf breakdown in small, isolated pools with various numbers of crayfish in them.  In the long term experiment, he looked at the same factors in pools that had never had crayfish in them compared to pools that had crayfish.

Dr. Moore found that in the short term, signal crayfish decreased the number of aquatic insects in the pools significantly.  This in turn allowed an increase in the amount of algae to occur, likely because the insects were not as abundant and were not able to eat as much of the algae in the pool and the crayfish don’t eat as much of the algae as the insects do.  He also found that leaf breakdown increased with an increase in crayfish abundance in the pools.  The crayfish were eating the leaves, so the more crayfish, the faster the leaves were broken down and consumed.

In the long term, Dr. Moore found similar results.  The number of aquatic insects was higher in pools without crayfish compared to pools containing crayfish.  The algae levels were higher in pools with crayfish than in those without.  He didn’t see the expected result with the leaf litter though: pools with and without crayfish had nearly identical leaf breakdown rates.  He attributed this to the fact that pools with low or no crayfish in them had more insects, particularly caddisflies, that broke the leaves down in the place of the crayfish.  So, the leaf litter being broken down or consumed at similar rates regardless of which organism was doing the work.

The take home message with which Dr. Moore ended his talk was that the impact of an organism on its environment is a combination of direct and indirect effects.  He also suggested that these direct and indirect effects can operate on distinctive timescales as evident from differences the leaf breakdown rates in the short and long term studies.  He then emphasized the importance of these types of studies so that we better understand the relationship between organisms and might someday be able to predict what will happen if a species is added or subtracted from a system with more precision.

And with that, I’m off for another day of talks!  Tonight I am also doing my presentation, a poster on my work on the respiratory behaviors of the giant water bug.  I will not talk about my own work tomorrow and focus instead on another talk I find interesting, but I’ll get back to my own research eventually.  Hope you’ll check back again tomorrow!

_______________

Posts in this series:
Day 0 – Introduction to the Series
Day 1
– Invasive Crayfish
Day 2 – Giant Water Bug Dispersal
Day 3 – Dragonfly Captive Rearing
Day 4 – Integrating Service-Learning Programs into College Courses
Day 5 – Impact of a Small Preserve on Stream Health

_______________

Unless otherwise stated, all text, images, and video are copyright © 2010 DragonflyWoman.wordpress.com.

Notes from NABS

meeting logoGreetings from a new venue for the Dragonfly Woman!  I’m currently in Santa Fe attending the joint meeting of the North American Benthological Society (NABS) and the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO).  I’ve been to NABS meetings in the past and they’re quite fun as far as scientific meetings go.  You spend your days going to scientific talks (and there are TONS, so it’s not hard to find at least one thing you’re interested in during any given time slot) or poster sessions and your evenings socializing with the other members of the society.  The NABS meetings are far and away my favorite meetings to go to of all of the scientific meetings I’ve been to because they’re a reasonable size and really emphasize the social aspects of the society.  As a not-at-all-outgoing person, I appreciate this.  Forced scientific social time is good for me.  :)

This year… well, I can’t say the meeting is going to be quite as fun for me, though I’m sure other people would heartily disagree.  There are double the people at the meeting due to the addition of the ASLO members, and I find the crowds disconcerting.  The social activities are, I’ll admit, a bit overwhelming for me due to the gigantic number of attendees and that makes them far less fun for me.  The meeting is also spread across several buildings for the first time since I’ve been attending the NABS meetings.  This wouldn’t be a problem if the buildings were close together, but some of them are several blocks apart.  This makes scheduling your day a lot more complicated because you can’t just flit from room to room easily like I have in the past.  I feel obligated to sit through talks I’m not as interested in hearing because something better is too far away to get to in time.  And then there are a bunch of little personal touches that the NABS meetings always include that are absent from this meeting, making it feel just a bit less special.  None of these things are the end of the world of course and I’m sure I’ll enjoy the conference anyway, but they do make the meeting marginally less appealing to me than in former years.

The meeting officially started yesterday.  I hadn’t planned to go to the opening ceremonies last night, but even if I had, I wouldn’t have made it to Santa Fe in time.  When estimating how long it would take to get to Santa Fe by car, I stupidly used the time it took to get there from where I used to live in Colorado rather than Tucson, even though I’ve driven both ways a hundred times.  That combined with being hit by an absolutely enormous, blinding storm on the interstate in the dark meant that I arrived much later than planned and completely missed all of the things that happened last night.  But that’s okay.  I did get to see a spectacular sunset shortly before the mother of all storms slammed into my car and that made the drive 100% worth it.  This photo doesn’t even begin to do it justice (it was, after all, taken one handed and out the window of a car going 75 mph on the interstate and I certainly wasn’t taking my eyes off the road long enough to frame the shot properly – not ideal photographic conditions!):

sunset

Sunset in New Mexico

Because I missed the official first evening, I consider today day 1 of the conference.  And this means that, as promised, I am going to try to blog every day this week and highlight my favorite talk or poster of the day.  Just as a warning, I might jump outside of the aquatic insect realm this week.  This isn’t an insect meeting and there are tons and tons of other aquatic related topics covered here that I find fascinating, so one non-insect talk might work its way in.  My favorite talk today did at least deal with another freshwater invertebrate: the crayfish.  It was a very interesting talk and I am very excited to share some of the information that was presented.

However, you won’t get to hear about it until tomorrow.  I am going to have a one day delay in getting things posted (Day 1 will be posted on Day 2, etc).  This is to ensure that I have enough time to get a decent post together rather than throwing something up that doesn’t make sense.  I will have a new post every day through Saturday though, so I hope you’ll check back often.  There will be some very interesting and very new science posted over the next 5 days.  It should be worth your while!

_______________

Posts in this series:
Day 0Introduction to the Series
Day 1
Invasive Crayfish
Day 2Giant Water Bug Dispersal
Day 3 Dragonfly Captive Rearing
Day 4Integrating Service-Learning Programs into College Courses
Day 5Impact of a Small Preserve on Stream Health

_______________

Unless otherwise stated, all text, images, and video are copyright © 2010 DragonflyWoman.wordpress.com.