Emergent Aquatic Insects of Hubbard Brook

What is Aquatic Insect Emergence and Why is it Important?

In some species of aquatic insects, life cycles are divided between a larval stage in an aquatic environment and the emergence at the adult stage to the terrestrial environment (Nash et al., 2023). Many species of aquatic insects serve as shredders, who are macroinvertebrates that play animportant role in the food system by turning coarse leaf litter from annual leaf fall into finer particulate organic matter (Cummins et al., 1989). Once shredders convert the leaf litter into a mixture of fecal matter and organic material, the macroinvertebrates known as collectors are able to consume the particulate matter through filtration. Other aquatic feeding groups include scrapers, who feed on algae, and predators, who feed on prey (Cummins et al., 1989). When aquatic insects emerge from the water, they act as an important transporter of nutrients from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems (Schindler & Smits, 2017).

Since the emergence of aquatic insects is an essential resource pulse for consumers such as other insects, birds, and mammals, changes in the emergence patterns of aquatic insects can threaten the availability of quality food sources in the ecosystem. Shifts in water temperatures, chemistry, and velocity can all impact the size, quantity, and time frame in which insects emerge (Baranov et al., 2020; Leathers et al., 2024; Shipley et al., 2022). These changes can result in a phenological mismatch between the emergence of aquatic insects and their terrestrial predators, leading to an overall decrease in the transfer of nutrients to the terrestrial ecosystem. One such nutrient is essential fatty acids that are found in much higher concentrations in aquatic insects, who accumulate the fatty acids from their algae rich diets (Shipley et al., 2022). Since these fatty acids can be crucial for the development of some terrestrial predators, the misalignment between insect life cycles and terrestrial predators can lead to an overall decrease in survival fitness for some terrestrial species (Shipley et al., 2022).

Figure 1: This figure demonstrates differences in nutritional content by aquatic vs terrestrial insect emergence. The availability of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), a type of polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), is far greater in aquatic than terrestrial insects. Source: Shipley et al 2022 .

Collecting Aquatic Insects in Hubbard Brook

Figure 2: This map shows the location of watersheds in which sticky traps are set (denoted in yellow) as part of the larger Hubbard Brook watershed. Source: Edwards, 2022, Adapted from Holmes & Likens, 1999 .

Located in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest has been the host site of continuous water chemistry monitoring since 1963 (Holmes & Likens, 1999) . In 2018, researchers began sticky trap records of aquatic insects above eight different streams in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. Five double-sided sticky traps collected weekly are attached to a tree branch in a 20m long section next to a stream. These traps are set in watersheds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and the mainstem of Hubbard Brook (Edwards, 2022). Prior to this aquatic insect study, researchers at Hubbard Brook have carried out numerous treatments to the forest and its watersheds to study the impacts on the overall ecosystem. Watershed 1 was exposed to a calcium treatment in 1999 to counteract decreases in soil pH resulting from acid rain (Likens, 2013) . Watersheds 2, 3, and 4 were exposed to varying levels of deforestation in different time intervals ranging from 1965-1984. Watershed 3 serves as a hydrological control watershed, and watershed 6 serves as a biogeochemical reference site (Likens, 2013) . Watershed 9 has not been exposed to any experiments. Each sticky trap site was located in a different watershed in the forest, and hence exposed to the unique spatial landscapes in each watershed. The data collected by the sticky traps as well as the continuous chemical and physical sampling in Hubbard Brook can help reveal how the distinct environmental traits of each site lead to changes in aquatic insect emergence.

Please see the Works Cited tab for complete references.

Dashboard created by Erin Chen in June 2024.

For questions pertaining to this dataset, contact Heili Lowman at heili.lowman@duke.edu.

In field collection

Insect collection began in April 2018 (Edwards, 2022). Insects are collected weekly on double sided 4” x 7” sticky traps from watersheds labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and Hubbard Brook (Edwards, 2022). At each collection site, five sticky traps are spread across a 20m long section. The traps are attached to tree branches along a stream in each watershed (Figure 3, Edwards, 2022). The sticky traps are set out after snowmelt each year (around March or April), and collection ends when traps are found to be sparsely filled (typically November or December). Once collected, sticky traps are placed inside a plastic page protector and shipped to the Bernhardt Lab at Duke University for identification.

Figure 3: Sticky traps employed in the field. Double-sided traps are laid out in a 20m long strip along the stream to capture emerging insects. Source: Edwards, 2022.

Insect Identification

At the Bernhardt Lab, insects are identified using dissecting microscopes and a color coding system (Figure 4, Edwards, 2022). Insects are labeled into the following categories: Terrestrial Diptera, Aquatic Diptera, Caddisflies, Mayflies, Stoneflies, or Other. Insects are also labeled for their size, with “Small” insects composed of bodies less than 5mm and “Large” insects composed of bodies greater than 5mm. Marks are made directly on the plastic page protector sheet, with different colors representing different orders and different shapes (dash or circle) representing different sizes. Counts of each order and size are tallied up and marked on the side of the paper protector. Information about each trap is then uploaded to the hbwater database.

Figure 4: An example of a sticky trap after annoation. Dashes and circles denote size of insect. Color of annotation represents order. Count of insects by order and size on the right. Photo taken by Erin Chen.

This application utilizes Plotly, an interactive plotting program, to visualize the data. Icons in the top right corner offer users the ability to capture photos of data (camera icon), zoom in (plus icon), and return to the original display (home icon). Other elements on the graph itself, such as legends, can provide further information and displays for the user upon clicking or hovering. To return to the original view, click the home button on the top left corner or double click anywhere.

to
Stoneflies refer to the order Plecoptera. Caddisflies refer to the order Trichoptera. Mayflies refer to the order Ephemeroptera. Dipteran refers to aquatic blackflies. Terrestrial refers to non-aquatic terrestrial flies. Other refers to any insect that does not fall into the categories above, such as Hymenopterans, Neuroptera, Coleoptera, etc.

This application utilizes Plotly, an interactive plotting program, to visualize the data. Icons in the top right corner offer users the ability to capture photos of data (camera icon), zoom in (plus icon), and return to the original display (home icon). Other elements on the graph itself, such as legends, can provide further information and displays for the user upon clicking or hovering. To return to the original view, click the home button on the top left corner or double click anywhere.

Here, points are sized by magnitude of emergence, and legend point size indicates average magnitude.

Stoneflies refer to the order Plecoptera. Caddisflies refer to the order Trichoptera. Mayflies refer to the order Ephemeroptera. Dipteran refers to aquatic blackflies. Terrestrial refers to non-aquatic terrestrial flies. Other refers to any insect that does not follow into the categories above, such as Hymenopterans, Neuroptera, Coleoptera, etc.

What's happening

Beginning in May 2024, the lab is looking into incorporating machine learning into the insect identification process. The limited biodiversity in the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem makes this project an excellent candidate for supervised object oriented machine learning. As of June 2024, a sample training dataset has been composed using a photo annotation software called VGG Image Annotator (VIA).

Stay tuned for further updates!

Screenshot of the photo annotation process using VGG Image Annotator (VIA).

Works Cited

Baranov, V., Jourdan, J., Pilotto, F., Wagner, R., & Haase, P. (2020). Complex and nonlinear climate‐driven changes in freshwater insect communities over 42 years. Conservation Biology, 34(5), 1241–1251. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13477

Cummins, K. W., Wilzbach, M. A., Gates, D. M., Perry, J. B., & Taliaferro, W. B. (1989). Shredders and Riparian Vegetation. BioScience, 39(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310804

Edwards, Tyler. 2022. (2022). Adult Insects and a Baby Record: Assessing Aquatic Insect Emergence at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest [Unpublished undergraduate thesis]. Duke University.

Leathers, K., Herbst, D., De Mendoza, G., Doerschlag, G., & Ruhi, A. (2024). Climate change is poised to alter mountain stream ecosystem processes via organismal phenological shifts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(14), e2310513121 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2310513121

Likens, Gene E.. Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem. United States, Springer New York, 2013.

Nash, L. N., Zorzetti, L. W., Antiqueira, P. A. P., Carbone, C., Romero, G. Q., & Kratina, P. (2023). Latitudinal patterns of aquatic insect emergence driven by climate. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 32(8), 1323–1335. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13700

Schindler, D. E., & Smits, A. P. (2017). Subsidies of Aquatic Resources in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Ecosystems, 20(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-016-0050-7

Shipley, J. R., Twining, C. W., Mathieu-Resuge, M., Parmar, T. P., Kainz, M., Martin-Creuzburg, D., Weber, C., Winkler, D. W., Graham, C. H., & Matthews, B. (2022). Climate change shifts the timing of nutritional flux from aquatic insects. Current Biology, 32(6), 1342-1349.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.01.057