Print

Print


The Ecosphere paper on NEON's pitfall trapping is also a good intro to the overall design of the NEON project, for those not familiar.
All of NEON's sampling protocols could be described as "modular", since they have to be applied to dozens of field sites in a variety of habitats. They could serve as a model for monitoring protocols using other collecting methods, and of course the existing protocols can be followed by anyone wishing to collect comparable data.

NEON was also designed with the idea that it can serve as a framework for researchers to add on to, so something like the malaise trap idea could be applied at every NEON site if someone had the funding to do it.
Each site is already equipped with flux towers taking constant measurements of temperature, light, wind, precipitation, CO2 concentrations, etc, in addition to the data collected by all the other NEON sampling protocols.
Servicing malaise traps and weighing the samples would be straightforward for technicians, so there wouldn't be a need for automation. Plus, each NEON site has technicians already capable of identifying ground beetles, so rather than being discarded the samples could provide additional data on carabids that don't often show up in the pitfalls. The remaining sample could then be archived, like the bycatch from pitfalls, so the biodiversity data would at least be retrievable someday/somehow.

Some other relevant NEON links:
-Dr. Weiser's lab at University of Oklahoma, using NEON's invertebrate bycatch to develop tools for identifying and measuring biomass/abundance of arthropods in raw samples: http://weiser.ou.edu/research.html
-main NEON website: https://www.neonscience.org/
-NEON data portal: http://data.neonscience.org/home


On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Cara Gibson wrote:
NEON is doing this with a focus on carabids and mosquitoes on the terrestrial side.
The by-catch is also meant to be archived so in folks should be able to look at whatever fell into the pitfall traps or flew into the CO2 light traps. (At least that's how it worked when I wrote all of the original protocols and documentation).

ASU is the archive so perhaps Nico has more detail?

Cheers,
Cara
______________________________

Cara Gibson, Ph.D.

Science Graphics & Visual Translation

520.891.6605


On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:22 AM Karen Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The LTER network has talked for years about making repeatable, comparable insect trapping surveys, but they have never gotten everyone to do it in the same way at each site. Many of the sites have long-term pitfall data but then they have reduced the taxonomic resolution because they don’t have the expertise to identify them. I have a 16 year, monthly bee survey that is still going on at the Sevilleta LTER in New Mexico, but not everyone is interested in native bees and it takes A LOT of work to keep things at the species level.

 

One major problem has been that no one wants to keep the thousands and thousands of super abundant species, just the time to pin and label these is prohibitive to most collections without support.

 

Since working here in Texas, I have had three retired professors approach me on separate occasions asking why there are no more bugs in their back yards or ranches like there used to be in the 80s. I tell them I have only lived here for three years and I don’t know what is ‘normal’ here. I am definitely a proponent for long-term repeatable surveys. But you have to get the institutions interested, not just the individuals. People move, lose interest or have other work priorities. Having collections committed to continuing these surveys might be a great way to do this.

 

I am interested in continuing this conversation.

 

Cheers, Karen

 

 

 

From: Entomological Collections Network Listserve <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Robert Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 12:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Insect Apocalypse: The Role of Museums in the Future Monitoring

 

Doesn't the NEON program do this or something similar already???  Bob



From: Entomological Collections Network Listserve <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Antonio Gomez <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: November 28, 2018 1:21:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Insect Apocalypse: The Role of Museums in the Future Monitoring

 

Thanks for the thoughtful email Mike!! I think it’ll give us a lot to stew on.

 

To ease the permitting process, we (ECN?) should develop a general “statement” that outlines monitoring procedures, protocols, responsibilities of the collectors, methods of specimen deposition, etc. that could be used when applying for permits. It would save countless hours of reinventing the wheel on our end and if done correctly would make the permitting process more streamlined for the permitting agencies. 

 

^^^^This would be wonderful!! 

 

Cheers,

Antonio

 

 

 

 

 

On Nov 28, 2018, at 8:23 AM, Mike Ferro <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

The New York Times wrote a nice story summarizing the “Insect Apocalypse” <https://nyti.ms/2DMT70v>. A couple thoughts about the role of the Museum concerning that issue. 

 

I was having a conversation with an imaginary person a while back about restoring pollinator habitat. It dawned on me that not only should the restored area be monitored for restoration efficacy, but monitoring really should proceed indefinitely. 

 

We monitor the weather constantly, in more and more places, more and more ways, higher and higher accuracy and precision. We will continue to do this into the foreseeable future because it tells us: 1) what’s happening now; 2) what will happen in the immediate future; 3) what will happen in the far future. 

 

We are already monitoring specific insects (pests, invasives, some butterflies and bees, etc.), but insects in general need to be monitored quantitatively in various ways across the landscape. The same way that we monitor the weather. Museums are IN SOME WAYS “preadapted” to deal with this issue. We can get money, set up studies, collect, preserve, ID, and report. But we can’t do any of those things quickly or easily. Most museums do not operate on a business model, but an academic one. Citizen science and private companies can provide a quick and cheap service, but not high quality. Information can be gleaned from photographs and yellow sticky cards. But consider all the resources that go into gathering those data, but the enormous loss of efficiency (potential) when good specimens aren’t recovered. 

 

A few things we could do: 

 

A. Develop a “modular” standard monitoring protocol so that studies can be compared across time and space. For example: protocols for FIT, Malaise, pitfall, sifting, UV light trap, etc. (not just how to set them up, but when to deploy and for how long, etc.). One or more monitoring types could be employed (the “modular” part) as is appropriate to the site, budget, etc. 

 

B. We need to be able to process and ID specimens faster. Whereas insect mass was used previously to study changes over time, we’ll want to be able to track taxa over time (there will be a trend toward increased accuracy and precision). To revisit the weather analogy, in the old days we only recorded temperature at a given time every day, now we record temperature continuously, plus humidity, windspeed, pollen, latex, etc. I’ve jabbered about my mass ID idea before: https://listserv.unl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ECN-L;3743ad37.1709E

 

C. Business models. Working through academic institutions can be difficult. Creation of a private company that acts as an intermediary between the “client” and the institution a museum is associated with might help remove bureaucracy and create an easier experience for the client. We would only need one such “company” in the US. In future, monitoring will not just be funded by NSF grants. Cities, private organizations, companies, states, friend’s groups of parks, private citizens, etc., etc. will want to establish long term monitoring at their sites. Creating a system where an agency or individual can order a monitoring service online as easily as ordering something from Amazon should be a priority!

 

D. Permits. I was in northern Missouri last week and the little bit of land (~good habitat) that isn’t a corn or soybean field requires a permit. At least three different agencies would have to be contacted (Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri State Parks, and a National Wildlife Refuge) to collect from nice sites that are less than 20 miles apart. I fully appreciate that all the agencies have mandates, duties, should be aware of what’s happening on their land, etc. 

 

To ease the permitting process, we (ECN?) should develop a general “statement” that outlines monitoring procedures, protocols, responsibilities of the collectors, methods of specimen deposition, etc. that could be used when applying for permits. It would save countless hours of reinventing the wheel on our end and if done correctly would make the permitting process more streamlined for the permitting agencies. 

 

For example the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, application for scientific collecting permit asks for: 

 

“A detailed narrative of the project for which the permit is being applied for. Narrative must include: the reason the project is being undertaken, the expected outcome and/or conservation benefit for Iowa, list of the species or the groups of plants or animals and the number of each species or group to be studied and collected, and a description of collection methods to be used.”

 

Missouri Department of Conservation wildlife collectors permit asks for the following: 

 

“Copy of research proposal must accompany requests for Biomonitoring/Environmental Assessment and Scientific Research activities.”

 

There is no reason two different research proposals should be written to get the two permits, nor any reason two different researchers should submit different proposals to one of those agencies. A single statement, lightly edited, would work for multiple researchers across both of those agencies. 

 

I fully appreciate that the above seems like a pipedream, but forms are updated, committees accept changes, etc. Most places are not interested in making more work for themselves, so if they can include a check box on the collecting permit form that says “Biomonitoring under ECN-201903” and NOT have to read, evaluate, and edit another collecting proposal, some will be willing to do that, especially if other places are doing the same. 

 

E. All of the above lends itself to the idea of creating a national-wide insect biomonitoring organization that helps to coordinate activities of various independent groups: museums and academia, citizen scientists, businesses, independent monitors at various parks, refuges, cities, etc. 

 

There is a great potential to increasing funding and specimen accrual for museums in the near future. In order to maximize that potential we will have to be proactive and willing to change or work around some of our (stodgy) ways.  

 

If you made it all the way to here, congrats. 

 

Cheers, 

 

Mike

 

 

 

--


Michael L. Ferro
Collection Manager, Clemson University Arthropod Collection (CUAC)
Dept. of Plant and Environmental Sciences
277 Poole Agricultural Center
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0310


OFFICE: 307 Long Hall

Subject Editor: The Coleopterists Bulletin; Insecta Mundi

 


Curt Harden
1500 Remount Rd
Front Royal, VA 22630
434.251.6779 (cell)
[log in to unmask]