Methods |
Corresponding author: Kelly M. Murray-Stoker ( kmmurray14@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Simon Vitecek
© 2023 Kelly M. Murray-Stoker, Shannon J. McCauley.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Murray-Stoker KM, McCauley SJ (2023) The Caddisfly Collective: Methods of assessing Trichoptera diversity on a continental scale with community scientists. Contributions to Entomology 73(2): 151-160. https://doi.org/10.3897/contrib.entomol.73.e109951
|
Amidst a global biodiversity crisis, collecting data at large spatial scales can illuminate patterns. Community science can be an avenue to reduce costs, broaden the scope of sampling, and, most importantly, connect with members of the public who are interested in and impacted by long-term ecological change. In 2021, we formulated a community science project – The Caddisfly Collective. Our goal was to study the regional influences on the responses of stream caddisfly (Trichoptera) communities to urbanization in the United States and Canada. Community scientists helped us achieve this goal by collecting caddisflies across a wider geographic scale than we could have reached on our own. To build The Caddisfly Collective, we recruited participants through social media and other online forums. We mailed collecting kits with a USB-powered ultraviolet LED light, a collecting container, bottles of preservative, data sheets, and collection labels to each participant; participants mailed back specimens and completed data sheets. There was a 79.7% rate of follow-through from sign-up to collection. During the project, 63 participants set up light-traps near urban and non-urban streams in seven different North American geographic regions, collecting adult caddisflies at 141 sites across the United States and Canada. Most sites were in the Midwest region, while the fewest sites were in the Far North region. Urban areas, classified by land cover data, comprised ~29% of total sites. We hope the details of our project can help other interested scientists implement similar projects in the future, especially focused on ecologically important caddisfly communities.
aquatic entomology, citizen science, community ecology, community science, public participation in scientific research, urban ecology
Reports of insect declines around the world (
There are many types of ecological projects to which community science is well-suited. For example, water quality monitoring is typically of great interest to local communities concerned about their environment (e.g.,
Some researchers may avoid implementing community science projects due to concerns about data quality or to avoid this criticism from colleagues and reviewers (
Entomological research may be viewed as a challenge to adapt to community science methods because of the high diversity of insect species relative to other animal groups and the taxonomic expertise needed to distinguish them. However, this issue can be resolved by either conducting trainings or having community scientists collect and submit specimens to be identified by a taxonomist (or a combination of these methods). These approaches have been implemented with success by the School of Ants Project by
Here, we describe the implementation of a contributory community science project studying Trichoptera diversity in rivers of the United States and Canada: The Caddisfly Collective. We were ultimately interested in how regional contexts can influence differences in Trichoptera community structure in urban and non-urban environments, which would require a wide geographic scale of sampling. However, because research travel was restricted during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, we decided to explore the capacity of community science to address our question. The goal of our broader project is to contribute to our understanding of the importance of the region-specific context in attempts to mitigate detrimental effects of urbanization and preserve the integrity of freshwater ecosystems, though we do not present these results here; however, because we believe the details of the implementation of our community science project also may be useful to caddisfly (or other aquatic insect) researchers looking to both increase sampling area and incorporate public participation in their projects, we focus here on our experience recruiting participants, methods for creating and distributing collecting equipment, combining data from participants and public data repositories, and results of participation by the community scientists of The Caddisfly Collective.
To recruit participants for The Caddisfly Collective, we concentrated on social media (Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook) as a method to spread word of the project to interested people. We used email listservs to a small degree, especially to attract participation in particular underrepresented regions. We also asked those who saw our post to share it, so that even if they were unable to participate, they could help the project reach interested acquaintances. To attract attention, we developed a logo (Fig.
The process of signing up to participate in the project was completed in two parts. First, those interested filled out a form on our website to submit their email address for future communication, their general location (e.g., city or state/province), and their level of interest—for example, whether they were certain they would be able and willing to participate in the project, or if they were presently unsure but still interested. This allowed us to begin estimating the scope of the project and the amount of equipment needed. We responded to each submission and answered any initial questions about the project and procedures. Next, we asked all those who signed up initially to fill out a second form to submit the following information: 1) their mailing address for a collecting kit, and 2) the number of sites (between one and four) at which they planned to collect. To participate, we also asked prospective participants to read and agree to our project Terms and Conditions (Table
List of terms and conditions to which participants agreed prior to receiving their kit materials in the mail.
Participants are volunteers and are not entitled to monetary compensation. |
At least one member of a participating group is over the age of 18 and agrees to be responsible for any children involved in collecting activities. |
Participants are responsible for their own safety. The Caddisfly Collective or any associated individuals or institutions are not responsible for any injury or damage that may be incurred while collecting data for this project. |
Participants agree to follow local, state/provincial, and/or federal laws and regulations, including (but not limited to) abstaining from trespassing on private or public land. Participants agree to check relevant guidelines in their area regarding the collection of insect specimens before collecting occurs. |
Participants’ names, locations, and contact information will not be published or sold. Participants’ names will not be publicly associated with locality data, though names or initials will be published in acknowledgements sections of academic papers and presentations, unless omission is requested by the participant. |
All taxonomic, specimen count, locality, and environmental data will be publicly available on an online repository following appropriate processing and will be associated with any publications resulting from this project. |
All photographs submitted to The Caddisfly Collective by participants may be published online, in academic papers, and in presentations. |
We categorized states and provinces of the United States and Canada into seven regions, generally following typical geographic designations: Far North, Midwest, Northeast, North Plains, Pacific West, Southeast, and Southwest (Fig.
Each participant who filled out the second information form was mailed a caddisfly collecting kit with supplies (Table
Price per collecting kit of all materials sent to participants of The Caddisfly Collective. The listed shipping fee is the average price for each domestically shipped kit.
Item | Price (USD) |
---|---|
LED light strip | 15.00 |
PVC pipe | 0.30 |
USB power bank | 10.00 |
Propylene glycol | 3.75 |
Sample bottle | 2.67 |
Pencil | 0.11 |
Pre-stamped envelope | 8.55 |
Collecting bin | 1.99 |
Shipping box | 1.58 |
Cardstock paper | 0.58 |
Shipping fee | 18.48 |
Total | 63.01 |
Participants were instructed to set up the light trap as close to a river as possible by placing the plastic bin on a flat surface, emptying a bottle of propylene glycol into the bin, and laying the UV light tube across the top of the bin. Once it got dark, participants could plug the light in and wait for adult caddisflies to fly into the preservative. After 30 to 60 minutes, participants could turn off the light and return the contents of the bin back to the plastic bottle. We suggested that participants could cut off the top of plastic drink bottle to use as a funnel on this step. No sorting of insects was necessary; all bycatch was retained along with any caddisflies.
The data sheets we asked participants to fill out included fields for the date, name of collectors, bottle number, location (waterbody, city, state/province, country), GPS coordinates, comments about weather, estimated temperature, the time light turned on and off, wildlife and plant life observations at the site, general comments about the experience of collecting, observations of the river or site, and thoughts about any potential ecological changes or pressures in the area (Suppl. material
Once we received the bottles and data sheets back from participants, we transferred specimens into 95% ethanol for long-term storage; non-Trichopteran bycatch was also preserved. We used the community scientists’ records of GPS coordinates to map sites and quantify levels of urbanization. We classified sites as either “urban” or “non-urban” using the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Land Cover Type Product (MCD12Q1) Version 6 (
Participation in The Caddisfly Collective was higher than we initially expected. Seventy-eight people signed up through our website. Social media was the primary point of first contact that drove potential participants to our site, responsible for 62.8% of sign-ups; 28.2% of individuals reported that they were directed to the site by friends or family, 6.4% came from an email listserv, and 2.6% reported “other” as the reason they found the site. In the two-step sign-up process, 88.9% of people followed up by filling out the second form wherein we solicited their mailing address to send the kits. We also recruited additional participants through direct communication with friends and colleagues in addition to the website.
We distributed 79 caddisfly collecting kits, which included a total of 197 sample bottles, based on the number of sites each participant indicated they wanted to visit. Ultimately, 63 distinct groups of participants completed the collections and returned bottles of specimens, a rate of 79.7% (Fig.
All seven geographic regions of the US and Canada were represented in the community scientists’ collections (Fig.
Photos of collecting sites taken by Caddisfly Collective participants. Top row, left to right: Georgia, Tennessee, Utah, Texas, California. Bottom row, left to right: Washington, Alberta, Montana, Michigan, Ontario. Photo credits: K. Murray-Stoker, S. Racey, A. Eichert, T. Byrs, J. Murray & D. Kim, L. Watkins, A. Hunter, H. Stratton, K. Teeter, G. Dmitriew.
Aerial images of paired sites showing differences in region and urbanization. A. Urban site, Tucson, Arizona; B. Non-urban site, Tucson, Arizona (MODIS classification: Open Shrublands); C. Non-urban site, Whistler, British Columbia (MODIS classification: Evergreen Needleleaf Forests); D. Urban site, Whistler, British Columbia. Scale bar: 100 m. Imagery © 2023 Google / CNES / Airbus Maxar Technologies. Map data © 2023 Google.
Here, we present a method of conducting entomological community science, allowing participants to contribute robust data and specimens without necessitating prior scientific training or access to scientific equipment. This is exciting with respect to Trichoptera, a highly ecologically important aquatic insect order (
Our project focused on collecting adult caddisflies rather than larvae for a few reasons. We expected it would be safer in general for The Caddisfly Collective members to remain on the riverbank rather than entering the water (especially since many participants expressed wanting to involve their children). Additionally, collecting adult caddisflies is much easier to standardize, with less of the outcome depending on individual collecting effort and technique. We also wanted to make this project accessible to those without prior entomological knowledge, so we did not require any preliminary identification or sorting by participants. Sending all the insect specimens collected also has the benefit of bycatch available to museums and other researchers. Finally, many North American Trichoptera species cannot be reliably identified to species in the larval stage, so collecting adults confers more taxonomic information, and in turn, potentially more ecological information (
An ultraviolet light near a body of water is a very effective method of passive collection for adult Trichoptera, though traditional entomological research equipment can be expensive and difficult transport: a fluorescent UV light with a rechargeable 12-volt battery can cost approximately $200 USD. By contrast, the UV LED lights and USB battery packs that we used cost about $25 USD together. LED lights have been shown to be a cheaper, less power-demanding alternative to traditional fluorescent lights (
There are also scientific limitations to consider with the choice of adult collection with UV light. Not all caddisfly species will be attracted to lights and wavelengths in an equal manner, and there may be differences in attractivity between male and female caddisflies (
As in any research project, using a community science project requires a balance of specificity of data collected and feasibility of methods for participants. We prioritized flexibility with our project, especially in allowing The Caddisfly Collective members to choose their sampling dates and site locations. We believed this would maximize the probability of collection completion, and our goal was for community scientists to sample as many sites in different regions as possible, with representation of both urban and non-urban areas. Convenience can be an important factor, but participation in community science projects can also be driven by a strong attachment to a sense of place (
While the results of the caddisfly collections in terms of diversity are not included here, the samples collected by the community scientists will allow us to measure a variety of metrics, including taxonomic richness and community structure. Because the area of the light trap collecting bin and the light source were standardized, and participants recorded the length of time the light was turned on, we can also calculate abundance using a catch per unit effort method. Some data points will have to be excluded due to missing information, but this was not an issue for most of the returned data sheets. Researchers implementing community science projects should expect tradeoffs with flexibility when planning and budgeting, which may include data loss or a lack of follow-through by a few participants. This is understandable, as community scientists are volunteers and even with good intentions, priorities can shift with changing life circumstances. Alternative options for community science studies of Trichoptera and other insect biodiversity include photo-based smart phone applications such as iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/) and ObsIdentify (https://observation.org/apps/obsidentify/,
Ultimately, we found the implementation of The Caddisfly Collective to be extremely successful and rewarding; many community scientists expressed their enjoyment in participating, and asked to be informed if there were more science projects to which they could contribute. We will share all data and results of future analyses with The Caddisfly Collective so that participants can be aware of the fauna they collected in their local areas and how their samples fit into the entire landscape of data. We did not collect data on the public impact of our project, such as on any change in feelings about scientific research, ecology, or entomology; individuals who choose to participate community science projects are often already more engaged with science than average (
Long-term ecological change has been a persistent hallmark of human impact on the environment, manifesting in trends such as biodiversity loss and habitat alteration within freshwaters (
This project received funding from the Entomological Society of Canada, the Toronto Entomologists’ Association, and the University of Toronto Mississauga Centre for Urban Environments. KMS was supported by the University of Toronto Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, a Connaught Graduate Fellowship, and an Ontario Graduate Scholarship. The research was also supported by the University of Toronto Mississauga Department of Biology, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), [RGPIN-2019-06484] to SJM.
We owe sincere gratitude for the diligent and enthusiastic work of the 2021 Caddisfly Collective participants, without whom this project would not have been possible (organized by collecting region and site number): C. & W. Hudson, K. Solomon, G. Cardona-Rivera, D. Batzer, K. & B. Wilbanks, S. Racey & E. Murphy-Racey, A. & C. McNeal, L. Roberson & the Roberson Family, J. Slater, M., J., & G. Reiskind, K. Gross, H. Bloom, H. & R. Vanderbrink, A. Fuller, L. Sellnow, S. & K. Pursel, A. Lazenby, J. & V. Hudson, J. & S. Vonesh, P. Murray, C. Anaya, C. Llamas, A. Eichert, A. Hickey, S. Wheeler, L. Buck, W. Warner, M. Greenhalgh, A. Sheffield, J. Bush, M. & T. Broberg, D. Tsao, C. Frazier, H. Spencer, K. Ward, T. Brys, M. Bogan, A. Kittle, K. Boersma, E. Havarel, C. MacMurray, I. Borgeson, B. Quick, N. Collins, A. Harmsen, E. Kelley, T., E., C., E., & S. Halewood, S. Brown, J. Burke, D. Kim, J. Murray, O. Tertuliano, M. Hamblin, F. Rubottom, W. Stephens, L. Watkins, J. Hessel, V. Hervet, N. Ritokoski, M. Price, T. Hunt, E. & S. Harrison, B. Roy, H. Stratton, C. Brière, J. Lussier, A. Hunter, J. & J, Brys, H. & J. Wilbiks, M. & A. Spritzer, K. Menard, W. Buck, E. Herr, R. Conrow, V. Im, J. Chan, J., K., G., & B. Cielocha, A. Quam, K. Teeter, W. & L. Lindsay, A. & L. Sirot, G. Dmitriew, T. & D. Bloom, C. Geary-Martin, E. Rouget, B. Arrandale, M., L., & R. Martin, T. & S. Drift, J., J., & J. Chung, G. Tjan, S. Scott, K. Mason, L. & C. Shaver, N. FitzGerald, B. Engle, Z. & J. Ogren, K. Morey, S. Myers, J. Keefer, K. Wang, M. Tran, M. Smith, D. Berman, E. Duell, S. Schneider, L. Mengak, and T. Stroud. We also thank: S. Du, K. Kueviakoe, S. Miller, and V. Modi for assisting with data entry; the McCauley Lab (R. Martin, I. Ferzoco, G. Tjan, and R. Murray), D. Currie, M.-J. Fortin, and J. Morse for their input on the planning for this project; A. Lucky and H. Campbell for advice on community science project implementation; R. Marushia for introducing this project to students at York University; and everyone who shared the project website on social media. Thank you to D. Tempelman for comments that improved this manuscript.
The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
Instructions and data sheets distributed to participants of The Caddisfly Collective
Data type: docx
Land cover and region designations for sites sampled by The Caddisfly Collective
Data type: csv