Tag Archives: entomology

A Tribute to Mayflies

For about a week, one of the main buildings at McGill’s Macdonald Campus has been covered with mayflies (Order Ephemeroptera):

Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) on a brick wall

It happens every year, about this time.  It is lovely, and reminds me of why I love entomology.

I decided to write two Haiku about them.  Short poems to honour their short lives (as adults)  Caveat: I claim no real ability in writing Haiku!

Fleeting life on land

Triangle wings on brick wall

Fly into summer

&

Wings unfold and dry

Fragile signals of solstice

Goodbye fish, I’m free

Thanks, by the way, to Three Lines about Six Legs -a post there (about mayflies) inspired this (and I  know that the author of that post walked by the same brick wall…).

P.S.  Later this week I’ll be off for a week’s vacation so there won’t be any new posts for a little while.  I’ll write again in early July.

Why a scientific society needs a blog

I’ve been involved with the Entomological Society of Canada for a long time.  It’s a wonderful community of Canadian entomologists sharing an interest and enthusiasm for arthropods. The ESC’s activities are mostly centered around  its annual conference, its range of publications, and it offers a suite of awards and scholarships.  The society’s website also hosts career opportunities, photo contests, and a range of other rich and varied entomological content. The latest, big news for the society is that on 1 June, the ESC officially launched its own blog.  This blog was the brainchild of a few members of the society, and two great Canadian entomology bloggers, Crystal Ernst and Morgan Jackson, are the administrators of the blog.

The ESC blog: http://escsecblog.com/

So…why does a scientific society need a blog?  What’s the benefit to members of the society, to the society itself, and what’s the benefit for the broader entomological community?  Here are some thoughts about this:

1) Visibility:  it’s a tough time for scientific societies – funding is tight, and for a lot of people, the value of memberships to societies may seem less important than it once was.  Therefore, increased visibility though an on-line presence is important. A static website is essential, but a blog has a fluidity and dynamic presence that is hard to match with a website.  An active blog with well-written and interesting content will do a lot to increase a society’s visibility.  The visibility from an active blog is also global in its reach.

2) Opportunities to contribute:  the ESC blog will have dozens of contributors – means anybody with an interest in entomology (regardless of their profession and educational background) has an opportunity to write something for a broader audience.  Blog posts are often easier to write, they are shorter than research papers, and the content need not be vetted through a peer-review process.  It’s a forum for creative ideas, stories, photographs, and fun facts about insects.  The blog already has a couple of nice examples to illustrate this point.  For example, Chris Cloutier, a naturalist at the Morgan Arboretum on the Island of Montreal, just wrote a lovely post about the Hackberry Emperor.  Chris is an example of a different kind of entomologist – he’s not a research scientist, nor is his primary profession Entomology.  However, he does outreach, has a wealth of expertise and  talent, and he has a lot to offer the entomological community.  These kind of opportunities create an environment of inclusion for a society – members have a voice and can share their ideas and expertise.  Non-members can also contribute and recognize that there is a strong community associated with the ESC (…and perhaps some of the non-members will see the value of the society and join).

Screen shot of Chris Cloutier’s post

3) Economics: more than ever before, scientific societies are struggling to maintain members, and balance their books.  A blog is a cheap and effective way to promote their science to the world and the cost can be as little as a domain name.  I can think of no other method by which a society can promote itself at this cost point.  You could even argue that the time for static websites may be coming to a close since they are costly to host, require people with specific technical skills, and require a lot of back-end support.  The good blog sites can be administered by people with relatively few of these skills (I’m proof of that!!).

The ESC logo

4) Marketing and branding:  a high quality blog helps a society get its brand to a broad audience, and helps to market the society to the world.   The ESC has a long and wonderful history, but its main audience over the years has mostly been academics, research scientists, and students of entomology.   The ESC brand has excellence and quality behind it and that kind of brand should be shared, expanded, and through this process, the society will hopefully gain positive exposure and more members.

5) Communication: At the end of the day, knowledge is something to be shared.  Scientific communication is a fast-changing field and one that is making all of us reconsider how we talk and write about our interests.   I think we all have a responsibility to do outreach.  There is so much mis-information out on the Internet, and people with specialized and well-honed skills must be heard and must have a means to share accurate information in a clear and effective manner – e.g., a society blog. I also think many entomologist are perfectly positioned to do effective outreach (I’ve written about this before).  Part of the ESC’s mandate is dissemination of knowledge about insects and social media is a key piece of any communication strategy.

What do you think?  Can you think of other reasons why scientific societies need to embrace social media?  Please share your ideas!

I will finish with a stronger statement:  scientific societies are perfectly positioned to have the BEST blogs on the Internet.  A scientific society is a community, a community with history, and a community built on high level of expertise.  A scientific society also provides a structure and framework for bringing together high quality knowledge about a particular topic.  A blog can be amazingly strong with this kind of support.  A society is also about people and these people work tirelessly behind the scenes to facilitate the dissemination of high quality content.   These people, structured in committees, and with oversight from an executive committee, can provide tangible support that will help to keep a blog from becoming unidimensional.  The ESC’s blog administrators (Crystal and Morgan) know how to keep the content of high quality, and know how to put all the pieces together – and they know they can do this because they have an entire community behind them.  The society is committed to supporting the blog and for that reason, there is reason to be optimistic about its long-term success.  Please follow the blog!    

Holistic views of ecosystems: linking salmon and butterflies

Beautiful Anchorage, Alaska

I’ve spent most of my week in beautiful Anchorage, Alaska.  I was attending a workshop that brought together scientists from Northern countries to discuss an Arctic Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Plan. The goal of this ambitious plan is to include all key taxa, include all northern countries, and find ways to standardize methods and harmonize data.   There were a half dozen bird experts around the table, numerous experts on Arctic vegetation, a large contingent of mammal experts, and one arthropod expert (me).  This is a situation I have been in before, and will be in again in the future – largely because arthropods are not “charismatic” nor do they typically fall into management plans.  Regardless, I welcomed the opportunity to discuss ways that Arthropods can and should fit into large-scale, and long-term monitoring plans in the Arctic (there are, by the way, some tremendous arthropod monitoring programs underway – the Zackenberg research station in Greenland, for example, has been collecting arthropods using standardized protocols for almost 20 years)

The workshop was exciting, challenging, motivating, and overall a wonderful opportunity to discuss the interdisciplinary concept of biodiversity monitoring.   A great example of an interdisciplinary approach was a presentation we heard about using traditional knowledge to understand the Natural Indicators of the Salmon run in the Yukon River, a river that drains out to the ocean in Alaska. This was organized/facilitated by the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association.  This presentation highlighted a project where Elders were asked about what helped them understand the Salmon run in the river – a critically important process for people living in this part of Alaska.  I was amazed to hear that for some Elders, the appearance and activity of certain species of butterflies (and sometimes biting flies) was one of the indicators that was used to predict when the Salmon would run.

An Arctic Butterfly

Yes, you read correctly: Butterfly activity indicates the Salmon run.   The claim that activity of insects relates to the Salmon run is not a direct connection as the insect activity was considered as a “Correlative indicator”.  The observation is that when certain insects appeared and were active, so were Salmon, hence the correlation.  This does make some biological sense as many of the environmental factors affecting butterflies are probably also important to salmon.

The Yukon River Drainage Association went on help to produce a children’s book titled When Will the Salmon Come?. This is a richly illustrated, beautiful book that discusses all the Natural Indicators that Elders use to know when Salmon will appear on the river, and the insect activity is highlighted.   A children’s book is a wonderful way to connect with a broad audience.

When will the salmon come? (the book cover)

Being a skeptical scientist, I went and searched the literature for anything ‘published’ on the topic of Salmon and butterflies, and I could not find anything.  This does NOT mean it’s not a real and important observation. It means that it is a truly fascinating and curious correlation that was observed by Elders living close to the river, and by people who likely approach nature from a holistic standpoint.  I need to do this more; we all need to do this more. Natural systems are interdisciplinary yet we often study them in silos, defined by a specific taxon or system.

In sum, I was most pleased to be the lone entomologist in a large interdisciplinary workshop  about biodiversity monitoring in the fragile Arctic – my horizons were certainly broadened.  The story of butterflies and salmon made me take a step back and consider how different groups of people can bring different perspectives and all are equally valid.  In other words, keep an open mind, and think of this story when you see some butterflies passing by…they could be telling you an important story - you just have to listen.

Rethinking guild classifications for insect herbivores

This is the start a (somewhat) regular series of blog posts highlighting some of my favourite research papers in the discipline of Arthropod ecology – I’ll call this category “must-read research papers”.  These posts will force me to look critically at some of the great research papers I have read in the past little while, figure out the ‘take home messages’ from these papers, and articulate this message.  I also hope these posts can inspire others to think about the best papers within their discipline and to share their opinions and ideas to a broad audience.  That is what science communication is all about! 

Typical herbivory by a “leaf chewing” insect

For the first in this series, I wanted to highlight a paper by Novotny (and fifteen other co-authors) published in 2010 in the Journal of Animal Ecology.  This work is titled “Guild-specific patterns of species richness and host specialization in plant–herbivore food webs from a tropical forest.”   This paper was discussed in my Insect Diversity class last autumn (co-taught with Terry Wheeler), and was used as an example of assumptions we make when considering what it means to be a herbivore.    From my biassed perspective (working mostly in north-eastern deciduous forests and the Arctic), when I think about herbivores, I automatically classify herbivores into a few pretty obvious categories: leaf chewers, leaf miners, gall-makers, and a suite of ‘piercing-sucking’-type herbivores.  My off-the-cuff estimate of the number of herbivore guilds would be much less than a dozen.

Novotny et al.’s paper really shook up my view of what it means to be a herbivore.  Using their considerable data and expertise from work in Papua New Guinea, the authors refine plant-herbivore food webs and, quite simply, explode the concept.    The authors classified insect herbivores by their main mode of feeding (chewing, sucking), developmental stages (larvae, adult), where they feed (internally, externally), and by the plant part which is fed upon (leaves, flowers, fruits, xylem, phloem, etc).    Their system resulted in 72 classifications – which they reduced down to more manageable 24 – still over double what my initial estimate was.  Their system certainly includes the classic guilds (e.g., leaf chewers) but also included some wonderfully detailed interactions that are easily overlooked (especially by someone who studies spiders…).  For example, fruit chewers, flower chewers, and xylem suckers.   As an aside, and for some eye candy, here’s a nice photo of a caterpillar from The Bug Geek (reproduced here, with permission)

A cryptic caterpillar, (c) C. Ernst

The authors then took their new and detailed classification system and completed a food web analysis for their tropical system in Papua New Guinea, focusing on 11 main guilds.  Their resulting 11 food-web diagrams are a lovely depiction of multivariate data in 2-dimensions, as they show the frequency with which each host plant is consumed by herbivores, the herbivore abundance and the frequency of each interaction – and they present this for 9 standardized plant species, for each of the 11 guilds.   Their research depicts “6818 feeding links between 224 plant species and 1490 herbivore species drawn from 11 distinct feeding guilds”. WOW!  They also show that 251 species of herbivores are associated with each tree species within their study system.  There are clearly a lot of different ways for herbivores to make a living.

This paper represents a major undertaking, and it is a bit sobering to see the results and see that despite the efforts, relatively few ‘generalities’ exist – that is to say, there are examples of extreme host specificity, extreme generalist feeding, and everything in between.   Here’s a quote from that paper to illustrate that point:

“We documented a wide range of host specificity patterns among herbivorous guilds: host specificity measures spanned almost the full range of theoretically possible values from extreme trophic generalization to monophagy. These results demonstrate the importance of taxonomically and ecologically comprehensive studies, as no single guild can be designated as ecologically representative of all herbivores.”

Mealybugs: another type of herbivore. (c) C. Ernst, reproduced with permission

What’s the take-home message?  

For me, this is a strong paper that depicts effectively the complexity of plant-herbivore food-webs and illustrates (once again!) that diversity in tropical forests is stunning. More than that, the work shows this diversity from a functional, food-web perspective, and illustrates how guilds behave differently.   From a more practical perspective, this paper is forcing me to rethink how I view herbivores – i.e., they are more than leaf-chewing caterpillars and aphids.  They are also root-feeders, fruit chewers, flower chewers, and specialized xylem suckers.  Novotny et al. suggest researchers use their 24 guild system for classifying insect herbivores, and I agree – their classification system is still manageable, yet much more comprehensive than what many researchers use.

If the topic of food-webs, plant-insect interactions, and the biodiversity & ecology of tropical forests interests you, this is a must-read paper.

Reference:

Novotny, V., Miller, S., Baje, L., Balagawi, S., Basset, Y., Cizek, L., Craft, K., Dem, F., Drew, R., Hulcr, J., Leps, J., Lewis, O., Pokon, R., Stewart, A., Allan Samuelson, G., & Weiblen, G. (2010). Guild-specific patterns of species richness and host specialization in plant-herbivore food webs from a tropical forest Journal of Animal Ecology, 79 (6), 1193-1203 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01728.x

Is the Emerald Ash Borer in Montreal a real threat?

You may have heard about the latest insect pest to invade Quebec – it’s a small beetle, known as the Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis), that feeds on ash trees.  The species has been detected in about 15 trees on the Island of Montreal, and it has made headlines in the local French and English press.  In this post I wanted to provide some perspectives and context to this invasion, and ask whether this is a real threat, or mass hysteria.

The short answer:  yes, the Emerald Ash Borer is a real threat to Ash trees, and it is VERY important for people to watch for this species.

Emerald Ash Borer, Photo from Forestry Images, Copyright: Debbie Miller, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org

The long answer:  There is a lot of information on the Internet about this species, and I will not repeat it all here.  Instead, I will try to stick to the main facts, and highlight some of the recent research that has been published about the species.  I do recommend people spend time on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) website devoted to the species.

History of Introduction:

The Emerald Ash Borer is native to parts of Asia, and for that reason, it is considered as an Introduced species (or alien, or exotic) in North America.  Many people use the word ‘invasive’ to describe the species -but this term should be paired with the word Introduced, as this species is invasive in the sense of spreading fairly quickly to new regions and introduced in the sense of not being indigenous to North America.

The Emerald Ash Borer probably arrived in North America in the 1990s (or even 1980s) but was not officially detected until the early 2000s, and that detection was in Michigan, and then almost simultaneously in Windsor, Ontario.  It is believed that the species was introduced by accident through wood packing material – this is a very common route of introduction for a host of species, notably wood-boring beetles.  Since the first detection, the species has been found in many regions of Ontario, Gatineau (Quebec), and it has been in Montreal for over a year (the first detection in Quebec was in Carignan, south of Montreal).   It is likely that the introduction to Montreal was a separate (but related) introduction from elsewhere in Ontario or the USA – e.g., via movement of wood debris, firewood.  It is unlikely that the Emerald Ash Borer came to Montreal through its own dispersal – if so, it certainly would have been detected in may regions between Montreal and SW Ontario.

Appearance, Habits, & Hosts:

The adult form of the beetle is quite attractive – the adults are rather small (about 8-14 mm in length – this is about the length of my own pinky finger-nail), metallic green, and its head is somewhat flattened and shield-like.  It is fairly distinctive and I don’t think it is easily confused with any native species.  It is in the family Buprestidae, which have the common name of “metallic wood boring beetles” – many Buprestids share a similar body shape (or habitus) to the Emerald Ash Borer.  The larvae of the species is ‘grub-like’ in some ways (see below), and the larvae are the most active feeding stage -it’s at this stage that they feed underneath the bark of Ash trees, and can slowly kill the tree through their feeding activities (they essentially girdle the tree).  It may take several years for tree mortality to occur.

The different life stages of the Emerald Ash Borer. Photo from Forestry Images, copyright, Debbie Miller, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org

The adults lay eggs on the host tree, and the larvae burrow into the bark, make “feeding galleries” (serpentine shaped), moult, grow, and eventually pupate and exit the tree through a ‘d-shaped’ exit hole – after pupation, the adults will eat leaves, fly around, mate, and the process starts again.   Adults usually appear from mid-May until the early summer.  Although not ‘vigorous’ flyers, the Emerald Ash borer can disperse many kilometres.

Galleries made by the larvae of the Emerald Ash Borer, photo from Forestry Images, (c) Michigan Department of Agriculture, Bugwood.org

The hosts of the Emerald Ash borer, as recorded in North America so far, are trees within the genus Fraxinus – i.e., ash trees.  These are extremely common trees as both an ‘urban’ tree on streets and in parks within the city, but also occur naturally in local forests (e.g., the Morgan Arboretum).   There is sometimes confusion about the “Mountain Ash” trees – this is not a ‘true’ ash, so it is not a host for the Emerald Ash borer.

Many species of wood-feeding beetles generally prefer to feed on, and complete their life cycles, on recently dead, weakened, and/or decaying trees.  However, the Emerald Ash borer is different:  it will feed upon and lay its eggs in healthy trees as well as weakened/damaged trees, and this is certainly one of the reasons why the species is of significant concern.

(Local) Management of the Emerald Ash Borer:

The city of Montreal (together with the CFIA) is taking the threat for the Emerald Ash Borer very seriously, including monitoring, targeted use of a bio-pesticide, and in providing information to the public, especially about movement and disposal of branches / firewood / yard scraps, etc. In some areas, a Ash-tree removal program has been used to stop the spread, with mixed results.

Education is extremely important with this pest: early detection is important to stop the spread, but so is limiting movement of any wood.   Ash trees are not as recognizable as other species, and for that reason, when you have wood debris around, the city is asking you to call 311 for proper wood disposal.  For further details, you can call you local municipally or click here for details.    Again, the ability to detect the species will provide the best chances for limiting further spread and further damage.  You ALL are invited to become an entomologist!  Study the photographs of the Emerald Ash Borer and develop a search image – if you see the species in your yard, call 311, or your local municipal office and have the experts determine the best course of action.

Recent Research on the Emerald Ash Borer:

This has been a rather dramatic increase in the number of papers that have been published on Agrilus planipennis.  Using that species name as a search term, you can see the increase in scientific interest based on the following graph pulled from Web of Science:

Number of publications, by year, on the Emerald Ash Borer, from Web of Science

I am pleased to report that a biological control program has been started in the USA – parasitic wasps that use the Emerald Ash Borer as a host have been released, and are showing some potential at helping to control the pest – some good details are available here.   Duan et al, have just published a paper reporting the incidence of parasitism for many hymenopteran parasitoids, and have also shown that woodpeckers account for a lot of mortality of the Emerald Ash Borer larvae, and ‘undetermined factors’ (includes diseases, potential host plant resistance) can also cause significant mortality (by the way, increased woodpecker activity on Ash trees could be a sign of an infestation).

Sobek-Swant et al. published a paper in January 2012 – they were curious about whether the species might be limited by cold winter temperatures – this is an important mechanism to test, especially at our (relatively) northern latitudes.  However, under laboratory conditions, the authors found that the Emerald Ash Borer will unlikely be limited by ‘climatic’ factors, and instead, the presence of its host trees will be the most important factor.  In other words:  the species may eventually be found throughout the range of its host.

About a year ago, Ryall et al. published a very important paper on the Emerald Ash Borer.  In this work, the researchers point out that the species is difficult to detect at low population levels, mainly because it make take several years before really noticeable mortality of Ash trees occurs.  In other words, the larvae are ‘cryptic’ and may be doing damage before we can fully detect either the species or the damage to the tree.  Detection methods can be destructive (e.g., stripping bark) so the authors propose using a relatively non-destructive branch-clipping technique to do monitoring for the species.  This is something recommended to cities so that they can do broader areas of monitoring without destructive sampling.  This can help significantly in pinpointing where the species is, and can help inform the best management strategy.

In 2011, Mercader et al. also published a paper of practical importance.  In this work, the researchers simulated three management options for the Emerald Ash Borer to see which was most effective.  Their three scenarios were: (i) removing the host tree (ii) girdling (killing) ash trees to attract ovipositing female beetles and destroying the trees before the larvae develop (this is a type of ‘trap tree’, i.e., you attract the species to a location and then trap and kill them) and (iii) applying a systemic insecticide. Their results suggest that the best way to stop or reduce the spread of Emerald Ash Borer is through the use of a systematic insecticide.

Outlook: 

I am pessimistic that we will see success in eradicating the species from Montreal and surrounding areas, but slowing the spread is important and could allow for researchers to develop and fine tune other management options.   Again, please educate yourself and learn what the Emerald Ash Borer looks like, and please do not move around wood and branches from your property to another location.

Emerald Ash Borer, on pin. Image from Forestry Images, (c) Pest and Diseases Image Library, Bugwood.org

References:

Duan, J., Bauer, L., Abell, K., & Driesche, R. (2011). Population responses of hymenopteran parasitoids to the emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in recently invaded areas in north central United States BioControl, 57 (2), 199-209 DOI: 10.1007/s10526-011-9408-0

Sobek-Swant, S., Crosthwaite, J., Lyons, D., & Sinclair, B. (2011). Could phenotypic plasticity limit an invasive species? Incomplete reversibility of mid-winter deacclimation in emerald ash borer Biological Invasions, 14 (1), 115-125 DOI: 10.1007/s10530-011-9988-8

Ryall, K., Fidgen, J., & Turgeon, J. (2011). Detectability of the Emerald Ash Borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Asymptomatic Urban Trees by using Branch Samples Environmental Entomology, 40 (3), 679-688 DOI: 10.1603/EN10310

Mercader, R., Siegert, N., Liebhold, A., & McCullough, D. (2011). Simulating the effectiveness of three potential management options to slow the spread of emerald ash borer populations in localized outlier sites
Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 41 (2), 254-264 DOI: 10.1139/X10-201

(thanks to Chris MacQuarrie for helping me with this post)