Society for Freshwater Science - In the Drift

In the Drift: Issue 40, Spring 2021

ITD — Fri, 25 Jun 2021 18:50:30 +0000

Friday, June 25, 2021

Ross Vander Vorste

In the Drift

In the Drift: Issue 40, Spring 2021

In this issue

FPOM
Scientific Illustration for Freshwater Science
SFS LRPC Request for Proposals
Article Spotlight
Children's Book
Documentary Go Fund Me
Book Review by Amy Rosemond
Annual Meeting Recap

FPOM

SFS news and upcoming events collected from "the drift"

Take the 2021 virtual meeting feedback survey
Read the SFS President's Environment
In Memoriam: David Ernest Ruiter (1948-2021)
SFS Joint Meeting in Grand Rapids, MI (May 16-20, 2022)
SFS Meeting in Brisbane, Australia (June 3-7, 2023)

2021 SFS Annual Meeting

By the numbers:

1140 -Total registrants (new record)
766 - Presentations (536 Oral, 230 Poster)
548 - Student registrants
229 - Registered fun runners
221 - Early career registrants
60 - Coffee breaks (855 Participants)
48 - Moderated discussions
32 - Countries represented
6 - Workshops
2 - Panel discussions

View meeting content until August 15

Scroll to the bottom of this issue for a photo recap.

Scientific illustration for freshwater science - a multi-part series

Part 2: Exposing the murky depths: Producing a scientific illustration

By Barrett Klein

Professor of animal behavior and entomology, University of Wisconsin – La Crosse https://www.uwlax.edu/profile/bklein/; http://www.pupating.org/

For some, science is daunting. For others, creating art can be daunting. Neither needs to be. If you revel in the rigors of conducting science, creating a scientific illustration is well within your grasp, if you give it some practice. For some thoughts as to why it might behoove you to create scientific illustrations, see part 1 of this series. For this installment, let’s consider how you can communicate your science by creating a scientific illustration. A comprehensive tutorial is not possible here, but if we begin with one type of illustration, any future illustration challenge will feel less intimidating. Follow along and try your hand at creating a scientific illustration that represents your research with clarity and visual appeal.

Visually depicting a message is like telling a story. Whether it takes the form of doodling on a board in front of colleagues while brainstorming ideas, or creating a figure for a poster, talk, or peer-reviewed publication, a story is often told best when following certain conventions, or meeting viewers’ sensory biases or expectations (Bang Wong wrote an excellent series of helpful guides in Nature Methods; see Wong 2011 as an example.). There are times to break from convention, but that discussion should not distract us here. I won’t speak of rules, but of guidelines that can help you deal with one common set of visualization challenges. Even if you claim not to be artistic, by practicing and following these guidelines you can render clearer, more accurate, and more effective visuals with practice.

ILLUSTRATION GUIDELINES 1) Observe your subject before you draw it. Know what structures or characteristics to look for and identify them before you pick up a pencil. Continue observing your subject as you create quick observational sketches. This can help ease you into the practice of more technical drawing. 2) Draw what you see. There is room for “artistic license” when interpreting your subject, but avoid compromising at the expense of accuracy. How much interpretation is necessary or acceptable depends on the subject and your audience. For example, if presented with fossilized dinosaur bones, do you draw them exactly as they appear to you, or assembled into an articulated skeleton, or as a fleshed-out, feather-bearing, live dinosaur on the run? It depends on your audience and what message you wish to impart. Here, we will be drawing what is in front of us, but as you’ll see, some flexibility exists (e.g., drawing a missing leg on an insect by creating a mirror image of an intact leg on the opposite side of the insect). 3) Scale your drawing to optimize clarity. Your drawing should fit comfortably within your drawing area – too small and you will not have enough room for detail, and an inability to reproduce your image at a reasonable size; too large and your subject will not fit in the designated area, and either you sacrifice portions of your subject, or force your subject to fit unnaturally into your drawing space. You can reduce the size of an image for reproduction/printing, but you cannot increase the size because it will quickly break down (unless you are creating a vector-based graphic, which is a digital drawing that can be scaled up indefinitely without loss of resolution). 4) If labeling structures, only label those that are visible. A viewer should be able to unambiguously identify each structure you label.

My starting point, to shake people free of their apprehensions, is to challenge them, without warning, to draw a portrait of the person beside them in the grand span of one minute. I keep everyone informed of their dwindling time remaining until it runs out, after which they exchange their drawings, amused and relieved that the challenge is over. There is little pressure here because, as I let them know afterwards, this is an unfair exercise, considering the time I gave them to depict a subject humans have evolutionarily been honed to instantly distinguish – the human face. Along with loosening up the artist-in-training, this exercise allows me to observe a person’s technique, and to highlight ways in which the technique could be improved. I introduce the guidelines, above, prior to the exercise, then return to these guidelines afterward, by presenting absurd and extreme, but instructional, examples of how I might epically fail with each.

CREATING A LINE DRAWING Scientific/technical illustrations are different than other drawings because they require you to make measurements and accurately depict proportions so that the end product accurately reflects reality. There are many ways to create a proportionally accurate illustration. One method is to draw a grid on your paper and place a grid in front of your subject (e.g., an optical grid in one ocular of a stereo/dissecting microscope will appear superimposed over the subject you are drawing) and match, square by square, the contents of what you see with what you draw. Another method is to use a camera lucida, which superimposes an image of your subject onto your drawing surface, allowing you to trace it. How you draw your subject can depend on whether or not the subject is large, alive or dead, asymmetrical, whether you wish to render it in color, etc. To simplify matters, we will create a black and white line drawing of a dead insect using a dissecting microscope, following a method that is different than those mentioned above. If you don’t have access to a dissecting microscope, the same principles and approach can be used when illustrating a large subject without a microscope. Much of what follows is also relevant to digital rendering. You may choose to produce your illustration using digital media from the outset, or simply digitize your hand-drawn work and modify it, as briefly described below.

Find a dead insect and position it with strong lighting under appropriate magnification using a dissecting microscope. Insects are generally bilaterally symmetrical from the anterior (front), posterior (back end), ventral (underside), and dorsal (back) views. Choose one of these views (e.g., dorsal view, as in Figure 1a; I apologize now for not using an aquatic insect as my example!) so that you can take advantage of a technique for achieving proportionally accurate drawings, described below. If selecting a specimen stored in ethanol, you can submerge the specimen in a dish, using a bit of cotton below the specimen to hold it steady and at the right angle, if necessary.
Select a piece of paper that will allow you to render your drawing large enough so that it can show all the detail you’d like, even after you eventually digitally shrink the image for reproduction (which helps tighten the image, reducing the effects of a shaky hand). I use thick, acid-free paper called Bristol board, but almost any paper will do.
Loosen up by making quick pencil sketches of your subject on scrap paper. Draw with light sweeping motions of your hand. These practice sketches will familiarize yourself with your subject and allow for no-stakes practice drawing that subject.
Now it is time to draw your insect with accurate proportions (e.g., width of right eye = width of left eye in a dorsal or anterior view). This requires carefully measuring the length of the insect, and length and width of its component parts, then making sure all of your measurements match up proportionally on paper. If the head is 2 mm long, you may be drawing it 14 mm on your paper, in which case every measurement should be 7x as long as the real thing. One easy way to do this:

Figure 1. Polistes flavus paper wasp (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Depending on how your specimen was preserved (frozen, in ethanol, dried and pinned), you can position it for optimal viewing and measuring. This can include positioning body and legs under alcohol so they are visible and bilaterally symmetrical, or (a) spread-mounting your specimen, as I did here after the wasp died and was frozen. (b) Calipers can be used to measure maximum width of specimen (top), and length of body (bottom). Next step: scale up these measurements for the illustration (Figure 2). Note: I digitally “repaired” this damaged specimen for the purposes of this figure (e.g., by copying and pasting an antenna from another specimen), although damage and asymmetries still exist (e.g., right hindwing is damaged and pretarsi are missing).

(a) Measure the length of your insect. Calipers work well for making small measurements (Figure 1b), but carefully placing a little ruler immediately above or below the insect can also work. (If the insect is submerged in a transparent dish of liquid, the ruler can be seen below the specimen when placed below the dish.)
(b) Use a pencil and ruler to draw a vertical line down the center of your paper.
(c) Take the measurement you made of the insect and multiply that measurement by a whole number so the resulting measurement (and eventual drawing) will be large enough to fit nicely on your paper. Start by placing two dots on the vertical line to indicate the insect’s length (e.g., anterior end of head and posterior end of abdomen). For this specimen, I will scale up measurements by 7x.
(d) Measure lengths of each major segment along the body axis (e.g., length of head, middle section, and hind section of insect) and mark these, scaled up (7x, in our example), along the center line (Figure 2a).
(e) Now pick a few widths of your subject (e.g., widest part of head, widest part of prothorax, point of wing attachment, etc.), and place pairs of dots, equally spaced on either side of the vertical line to represent these widths (scaled up 3.5x to the left and 3.5x to the right of the vertical line, so the sum is 7x the width of whatever you chose to measure on the insect, to stick with the same 7x scaling example; Figure 2b). Each pair of dots should line up with a dot on the vertical line, measured to indicate where along the body axis the features of interest exist (e.g., where the head is widest). The more vertical and horizontal pairs of dots you create, the more your subject will become apparent. A million dots, and you’re done!
(f) Before you get carried away with your careful measurements, draw a light, rough pencil sketch of the outline of your subject to see how it will fit on your paper, leaving space on the edges of the paper (Figure 2c). A soft pencil (e.g., 2B) works best for this, and your hand should move across your paper with just enough force to create a line without embossing the paper.
(g) Start connecting the dots in light, sweeping motions. The left side will generally look like the mirror image of the right side (Figure 2d), so check to make sure what you’ve drawn on one side looks similar to the complementary features on the other side. One way to do this by eye is to cover one feature with your hand, look at the complementary feature as drawn on the other side, then lift your hand and look back at it. If this doesn’t help, you can photocopy, or photograph one side of your drawing, then horizontally flip the image and see how well it resembles the opposite side. If it is noticeably off, check your measurements. Does the head look too big relative to the thorax? Check your measurements.
The leap between steps c and d in Figure 2 might seem ludicrously large. What I omitted is merely the many incremental steps involving the same process of measuring and matching lengths and widths of left and right side until all desired components are positioned symmetrically and accurately. Important note: Some features will not be symmetrical (e.g., the hemelytra of heteropteran true bugs), so don’t make the mistake of simply copying a tracing of one horizontally-flipped side.
5. Only when you are confident with your pencil drawing are you ready to replace pencil with ink or other media (e.g., color pencils, paint, etc.). I recommend starting with a simple, ink line drawing. Ink drawings are not as forgiving as some other media, but can be clean, clear, and easily reproduced. Using smooth strokes, go over your final pencil lines with a pen. I use Zig pens by Millennium (size 005) because they are acid-free, waterproof and alcohol-proof, and don’t smudge. Once finished, erase all pencil marks. Another option is to trace your pencil drawing with ink on tracing paper.
6. Scan your drawing, setting resolution to at least 300 ppi/dpi, and color to black and white (unless your drawing is in color). If the scan looks clean, and the image does not pixelate when zooming in a bit, you can import the scanned image into any number of programs (e.g., Gimp, Adobe Photoshop) to digitally clean the image (brightness, contrast, etc.) so that all that shows is the black and white of your ink on paper. Now is a good time to fix any errors made in ink by either using a digital erase tool or a paint tool. Resize and crop, as desired.
7. Include a labeled scale bar for size reference (scale bar instructions, below; Figure 3).
8. Create a figure legend (see examples, throughout).

Figure 2. Steps that can be used to produce a proportionally-accurate scientific illustration, in this case of a paper wasp. Normally these images would be generated during the creation of the final illustration, but I created this figure using digital tools (Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator) for this newsletter article, long after having created the original illustration. See descriptions of (a) through (d) in text.

SCALE BAR INSTRUCTIONS When you look at an illustration of an organism, how can you tell how large the actual insect is? If the drawing of the insect is going to be 10 cm long (because that fits nicely on the paper, and will show enough detail), then the scale bar can tell a viewer how large the actual insect is that you drew. If the illustration is reproduced at a different size (like on a billboard), a viewer will always have this reference of scale.

First, decide how large you would like your drawing to be on your paper. It’s easiest to scale everything up by a whole number (e.g., 7x bigger than the original, as in our example above and below). The scale bar should be smaller than your drawn subject and a number that will be easy for a viewer to interpret and use; it should also be in metric units (e.g., mm or cm). Below is an example to illustrate this: The real paper wasp was originally only 2.0 cm long. I scaled up the wasp 7x in the drawing, so every part of the wasp should also be 7x longer than in the real wasp. Likewise, the scale bar that represents 1 cm must also be scaled by the same amount. In other words, a scale bar for 1 cm must be 7 cm.

Figure 3. Dorsal view of female paper wasp, Polistes flavus (Order Hymenoptera, Family Vespidae). Illustration by Barrett Klein, 1999. [This image is an example of a line drawing. Line drawings can be more or less detailed than this one.] Modified from: Klein BA. 2003. Signatures of Sleep in the Paper Wasp Polistes flavus. Master’s thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Another way you can think about scale bars is to use this equation:

The length of the real wasp’s body is 2.0 cm, and the length of the wasp’s body in the drawing is 7x greater, or 14.0 cm. If we want a scale bar that we would label as 1 cm long (as in the drawing), we can figure out how long to draw that bar by setting up this equation:

Solve for x and you find that x = 7, so you should draw your scale bar 7 cm long if you want to label it 1 cm.

Figure 4. Dorsal view of two aquatic (finally!) insects. Illustrations by Matthew Sigrist, 2020. [These are two more examples of line drawings. Matthew Sigrist produced these using similar techniques as outlined here, but digitally flipped half of each drawing to achieve symmetry, where symmetry is supposed to exist. “With many of these illustrations of a dorsal view, I focus on fully rendering only one half of the sketch to be digitally mirrored over the animal's line of symmetry later; in the case of these nepid and stonefly illustrations, I varied from this method slightly by drawing the full asymmetrical wings and later mirroring only those other features which are reflected over the insect's line of symmetry.”]

Line drawings are especially useful for clearly showing salient features of your subject, but sometimes other methods are necessary for communicating key features. Below are three alternative approaches to depicting adult insects – with color, with more three-dimensional detail/texture, or produced entirely digitally.

Figure 5. Here is the same wasp as depicted in Figure 3, but now in color, using color pencils instead of pen and ink. The wasp is named Polistes flavus, and “flavus” refers to its yellow coloration, an identifying characteristic absent in the pen and ink version. Illustration by Barrett Klein, 1999.

Figure 6. Lateral view of male Euglossa hugonis orchid bee. Illustration by Barrett Klein, 2003. [This image is an example of a more detailed, stippled drawing in which the (lateral) view does not allow for symmetrical measurements, as outlined above.] Modified from source: Roubik DW. 2004. Sibling species among Glossura and Glossuropoda in the Amazon region (Hymenoptera; Apidae: Euglossini). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society. 77:235-253.

Figure 7. Dorsal and lateral view of Enallagma truncatum, a damselfly endemic to western Cuba and thought to be extinct. Illustrations by Barrett Klein, 2021. [These images were created an entirely different way, by starting with photographs of a dried and dingy dead specimen and digitally resurrecting the specimen by assembling, cleaning, and painting in Adobe Photoshop.] Source: To be published in Libélulas de Cuba, with permission from the author, Adrian Trapero-Quintana.

VOILÀ! YOU’RE A SCIENTIFIC ILLUSTRATOR!
If this lesson merely frustrated you, do not despair! Don’t shy away from practicing and presenting your growing skills as a visual communicator of science. Please explore professional organizations’ online resources (see references) and published guides (e.g., Hodges 2003), and practice using whatever media excites you. Some professional scientific illustrators rarely touch a pencil, preferring to work entirely digitally. Others combine traditional and modern techniques and approaches. Remember, the primary message of this post is for you to advance your science by conveying your message visually. Whether you are using age-old or cutting-edge tools, with practice you will be able to visually entice and educate your audience.

Acknowledgments: Angele Mele, Korinthia Klein, Arno Klein, Danielle VanBrabant, Damond Kyllo, and Dosha Klein offered valuable suggestions to an earlier draft of this post, convincing me that I will need to create an expanded version of this in the future. Pupating Eufinger and Matthew Sigrist graciously supplied images. Thank you to Adrian Trapero-Quintana for allowing me to include images of the Cuban damselfly prior to the publication of his book. Some elements of this introduction to scientific illustration come from an Organismal Biology lab exercise I wrote with Meredith Thomsen and other wonderful colleagues at the University of Wisconsin – La Crosse.

References

Hodges, E.A. 2003. The Guild Handbook of Scientific Illustration, 2nd ed. Wiley & Sons, Inc. NJ, USA.
Wong, B. 2011. Layout. Nature Methods. 8:783. (and all of Bang Wong’s one-page lessons in Nature Methods)

Associations

Guild of Natural Science Illustrators https://www.gnsi.org/ American Society of Botanical Artists https://www.asba-art.org/ Association of Medical Illustrators https://www.ami.org/

Additional online resources

GNSI listserv https://www.gnsi.org/listserv Art & Science Collaborations, Inc. (ASCI) http://www.asci.org/ Sciart Magazine https://www.sciartmagazine.com/

SFS Request for Proposals

The Long-Range Planning Committee (LRPC) is requesting proposals from SFS members for projects that make progress towards achieving the Society’s strategic goals, as detailed in the 2020-2025 SFS Strategic Plan. Proposals will be due by August 20, 2021. Please email proposals as a single PDF file to Todd Royer, LRPC co-chair, troyer@indiana.edu.

Article Spotlight

By Ali Chalberg

Road salts are commonly used in northern climates winter road maintenance. Salts can be washed off of the roads and into our aquatic systems, especially in urban areas. Increasing the salinity of aquatic systemsand can negatively affect the organisms that live in these areas. In this study, the authors looked at the long-term effects that road salts have on zooplankton in Ontario, Canada.

Lead author, Robin Valleau, is a PhD. candidate at Queen’s University in Ontario Canada. Robin’s co-author and advisor, Dr. John P. Smol, is a distinguished university professor as well as the Canada research chair in environmental change at Queen’s University. Along with co-author Andrew Paterson, their research focuses on using paleolimnology to understand how road salt has impacted cladocerans in shallow Precambrian Shield lakes.

Field work sampling on Jevins Lake, Pictured is Robin Valleau, Anna DeSellas, and Andrew Paterson Picture Credit: Mark Gilies

Paleolimnological studies use lake sediment layers to understand the history of lakes. Dr. Smol likens this to that of forensic work, as you have an event that occurred, and you have to go look back in time to see what the cause was. In this case with a sediment core, they are able to section it by time and within those sections, categorize the zooplankton. From this you are able to see changes in a population over time with increasing levels of chloride.

Their study is unique as it is one of the first studies to look at the effect’s chloride concentrations have had on zooplankton over a long-term time scale. They hypothesized that softwater lakes would see a greater impact with an increase in chloride. They found that zooplankton were reacting to chloride well below the water quality guidelines which means zooplankton assemblages were negatively affected.

Studies such as these illustrate the need for region specific guidelines in regard to environmental regulations. As Dr. Smol stated, “Not every lake is the same” so they need to be managed differently. Robin emphasized the need to use regionally specific species when setting water quality guidelines as most guidelines focus on daphnia that are not readily found in many of these lakes. Ecological studies such as this are important as they paint a picture of “where we have come from and where we are going” which is at the heart of management.

Sampling of sediment cores on Jevins Lake in Ontario Canada. Picture credit: Mark Gilies

This study has inspired other research. For example, they observed bosmina were heavily impacted by chloride, so they are currently performing laboratory studies to measure zooplankton's tolerance to road salt.

To conclude I asked Dr. Smol for some advice for up-and-coming scientists. He eagerly “Do what you're interested in and what you love because if you're interested in it, you'll probably be good at it!” Finally, he would like everyone to remember “if you get a lucky break, run with it!”

You can read the journal article in Freshwater Science at: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/711666

Children's Book

Seth and Mattie's Big River Adventure is a giant, underwater escapade that offers readers 8-12 a close-up view of the river's smallest inhabitants, and even includes an illustrated glossary featuring the book's Cast of Characters. Throughout his thrilling and educational tour of the river's ecosystem, Seth encounters the unknown and unexpected with a courage, enthusiasm, and wonder that will inspire other young explorers en route to their next great discovery!

Documentary Go Fund Me

Help fund a documentary: For 30 years, Dr. John Morse has taught Aquatic Entomology at Highlands Field Station in North Carolina. This summer will be year 31. If you took Dr. Morse's EPT course you remember how tough it was: 12-14 hours a day, every day, for two weeks! We want to make a short documentary to tell John's story and capture the adventure of the most popular course the field station has ever seen.

Every donation counts!!

Book Review

By Amy Rosemond

Professor, Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA USA 30622

New textbook to understand & conserve stream ecosystems!

Reading the reviews from J. David Allan’s 1st edition of Stream Ecology (1995) feels downright quaint. At that time, the field of stream ecology had emerged as a discipline from its roots in hydrology, geomorphology, biogeochemistry and bioassessment, coupled with the natural history observations of amateur fly fishers and professional zoologists. Allan’s book was seen as the successor to Hynes’ 1971 text, The Ecology of Running Waters. The science was fledging and Allan’s book did a lot to help launch us all from the nest by describing a quantitative and interdisciplinary approach to understanding streams. It guided us as we pondered the strengths of biotic vs abiotic control, when and where the River Continuum Concept applied to streams, described functional feeding groups of macroinvertebrates, and more. Those steps, along with advances in technologies, modeling, and frameworks that many in our Society have developed in subsequent decades, have given us new tools to understand streams. In the 3rd edition of Stream Ecology, Allan, with co-authors Maria M. Castillo and Krista A Capps, successfully captures not only the scale of these advances, but also the scale of the challenges we still need to address.

The authors have compiled a hefty yet accessible volume, organized into 15 chapters. It opens with the context of Rivers in the Anthropocene, followed by physical-chemical aspects (streamflow, geomorphology, sediment, chemistry, other abiotic characterization), biological structural components (primary producers, detritus, microbial ecology), community and food web interactions (trophic relationships, species interactions, communities) and ecosystem processes (energy flow, nutrient cycling, carbon and stream metabolism). The final chapter is How We Manage Rivers and Why. The organization is logical and the treatment is comprehensive. The authors should be commended for the rich examples from the recent literature, including figures and tables that introduce concepts such as ELOHA (ecological limits of hydrologic alteration) and the freshwater salinization syndrome. Chapters include well-illustrated and up-to-date treatment of topics ranging from emerging contaminants to controls on species and community assembly, and methodologies for measuring nutrient uptake and metabolism.

The difference between the 1st and 3rd editions of Stream Ecology illustrates not only how profoundly the world has changed in the past 25+ years, but also how our science has been motivated and inspired by those challenges. Scientifically, we have not been asleep at the wheel. As individuals, we also recognize the limits to science that have resulted in inadequate and unjust solutions to growing freshwater challenges. The book makes excellent progress on citing new voices and scientific advances. As likely envisioned by the authors, new generations of scientists will ideally use this volume as a guidebook and foundation to broaden the scope and effectiveness of our field.

The book is available in hardback for $139 USD (ISBN 978-3-030-61285-6) and as an ebook for $109 (978-3-030-61286-3). Individual chapters are available to purchase separately. This book is also available for sale at the virtual meeting.

2021 Annual Meeting Recap

Great Faces

Inspiring Plenaries

Watch Parties and Social Media

Awards and Acknowledgments

In the Drift: Issue 39, Winter 2020/21

ITD — Tue, 16 Feb 2021 22:28:28 +0000

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Ross Vander Vorste

In the Drift

In the Drift: Issue 39, Winter 2020/21

FPOM

SFS news and upcoming events collected from "the drift"

Submit abstracts by March 1 for SFS 2021 virtual meeting
SFS contributes to amica brief regarding Clean Water Act
Listen to Freshwater Science audio articles
Apply for SFS Endowed Publication Fund for financial support in publishing
SFS member's COVID support forum (access via member portal)

Important dates and links:

February 22: Registration opens
March 1: Abstracts due EXTENDED
May 23-27: SFS Virtual Annual Meeting

View list of contributed sessions
View list of special sessions

The SFS 2021 logo winning design, now in English and Spanish, was submitted by Robert B. Keast, MLA Student, Knowlton School of Architecture, The Ohio State University.

Article Spotlight

By Ali Chalberg and Brad Morris

Cannabalistic Dragons

Cannibalism is an act most creatures only resort to in times of extreme stress. Eating your own kind, seems like the last resort. However, certain species of insects have been known to cannabalize. A recent Freshwater Science paper focused on cannibalistic behavior (specifically larger individuals preying on smaller) of larval common green darner dragonflies (Anax junius; Family Aeshnidae).

Large and medium sized Anax junius dragonflies used in laboratory mesocosm experiments (Photo credit: Cat Gillespie).

This study was based on Catherine (Cat) Gillespie’s undergraduate work at Allegheny College, and was conducted by her and the late Dr. Scott Wissinger. Due to Scott’s passing, his friend and colleague Dr. Ron Mumme, a professor of Biology at Allegheny College (31 years and counting!) helped Cat publish the work. Cat now works in the attributes department at a renewable energy company. The premise was to determine if pond drying or population density had more of an effect on cannibalism in dragonflies. The idea stemmed from her junior seminar course where Scott opened the world of aquatic biology to Cat. She was excited to get field experience through her senior thesis. Her interest specifically focused on the interaction of aquatic insects and climate change. Scott worked his magic and together they came up with an interesting project looking at how A. junius dragonflies responded to pond drying.

Cat created mesocosms that had perches for the dragonflies to climb on. However, she struggled to keep them standing, but with the quick fix of gluing foam to the bottom to glue them to, she was able to replicate natural perches. After creating the perches in the tanks, Cat got busy finding a suitable substrate. She had to order sand three different times to finally find one that did not make the water murky while still being fairly natural to the dragonflies. Who knew the hardest part about this study would be finding the right sand?

Experimental mesocosms used to test the effects of pond drying on dragonfly cannibalism behavior (Photo credit: Cat Gillespie).

Cat also had to go into the field to collect specimens. One of her fondest memories was collecting damselflies from nearby wetlands. Imagine the thoughts going through your friends' minds (that are not scientists) when you ask “want to go trudge through a wetland with me to collect food for my dragonflies?”

Wetland used for collecting dragonflies for the laboratory experiments (Photo credit: Cat Gillespie).

Cat and her coauthors found that pond drying increased cannibalism in larval dragonflies.The results, although cool, are a little bit shrouded in mystery as they were unable to tease apart what aspects of pond drying specifically led to the cannibalism. They seemed optimistic for future studies to look into the rate of decline and fluctuation of the water to see how they affect the behavior of dragonflies. Not only does this study shine light onto the potential causes of cannibalistic behavior in dragonflies, it demonstrates how undergraduate research can provide some “pretty darn significant” results!
This article was dedicated to the memory of Dr. Scott Wissinger, an active member of NABS and SFS. Cat says Scott was a great mentor and friend and it was very special to see this study published in Freshwater Science because one of his first publications was in Freshwater Science. In the Drift published a tribute to Wissinger in the Winter 2019/20 issue.

Read the journal article in Freshwater Science

DEAR NICK:

I normally present my latest thesis research results at the SFS annual meeting. However, because the conference is now virtual and may offer fewer opportunities for interaction and networking than in-person meetings, I am considering not presenting this year. However, I am worried that this decision will have a negative impact on my career. What should I do?

-- Concerned Student

Dear Concerned:

Your concerns are understandable – we all struggle to adapt during these challenging times. The impacts of this pandemic are significant, and they reach into every corner of our professional and personal lives. I believe the key to successfully navigating these challenges is to recognize and accept them, to adapt to them, and to do the best we can under difficult circumstances.

With respect to virtual conference attendance, I believe the positives far outweigh the negatives. Sure, we will miss some of the camaraderie, social interactions, professional networking, and fun that comes from in-person SFS annual meetings. But, with a little extra effort and creativity, we can make these events worthwhile. For example, it is important for you as a scientist to keep up with current advances in your field, and to advocate for your science. Conference participation fosters the development of your presentation skills (a career-long journey!), builds your professional profile and exposure, and expands your professional network. And, the meeting organizers are making this meeting as interactive as possible, especially for graduate students. You can take advantage of small group discussions during coffee breaks, mixers, and mentor/mixer events. Graduate students are encouraged to lead these moderated discussions (two will be offered each day of the meeting). You can volunteer to do so during abstract submission and registration.

In order to maximize the positives of a virtual setting, please invest a little more commitment of your time and attention than usual. The five-day meeting will include all the regular features of SFS annual meetings, plus additional events made possible by the virtual format. Because of the possibility of online fatigue, take your role in the conference seriously and make the conference your sole focus that week. We draw energy and satisfaction at in-person conferences from personal interactions with friends and colleagues, and will miss that energy. You will have to commit to making your daily attendance a priority. After all, you will spend money for the opportunity and want to get the most for your investment. Be sure to free up your calendar for that entire week, and avoid multi-tasking when online. Be engaged when online. Use the chat feature to ask questions and interact with colleagues. And, perhaps most importantly, work hard on your presentation and practice it before recording.

This pandemic may forever change the way we conduct our meetings, and some virtual component is likely to stay. And, there are some real advantages of virtual conferences. The virtual platform removes some of the networking barriers that exist at an in-person meeting. To talk with someone in person, you have to find them among 1,000 people, arrange a time and place to meet, and work that into your schedule. In a virtual meeting, it is likely that those interactions will be easier to arrange. Keep in mind that virtual meetings are less expensive than in-person meetings, lacking travel, lodging, and meal costs. Lower expenses may increase the number and diversity of those attending, particularly those international attendees who are deterred by the time and cost of travel. Your presentation is likely to be seen by more of a global audience than ever! Finally, virtual meetings clearly reduce the carbon footprint of our scientific interactions.

While there are some downsides to virtual meetings, I hope you can see that there are some significant advantages. Participate, give it your best, and be flexible and understanding when it comes to the inevitable technical glitches that happen during virtual events!

-- Nick Aumen

Remembering

Kyle D. Hoagland

1951 - 2020

By Chris Peterson and Dean DeNicola

Kyle Dean Hoagland, Ph.D., freshwater algal ecologist, passed away on 12 August 2020 at the age of 69 after a long battle with Parkinson’s Disease. Kyle received a B.S. at Michigan State University, an M.S. from Eastern Michigan University and his Ph.D. at the University of Nebraska. He went on to a post-doctoral appointment at the University of Maine and faculty positions at Louisiana State University and Texas Christian University. In 1990, Kyle returned to his native Nebraska, taking a position at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. During his 25-year tenure there he mentored many undergraduate and graduate students, and served as Director of the Nebraska Water Center.

Kyle made impactful research contributions to periphyton ecology. His visual documentation and analysis of periphyton community development in lentic systems using Scanning Electron Microscopy revealed similarities to terrestrial communities, and influenced many future studies of periphyton succession. Over the course of his career, subsequent research foci included the influences of light on periphyton communities in reservoirs and streams, wave disturbance/light interactions, structure and function of diatom extracellular polymeric substances, and a large body of work on algal toxins associated with harmful algal blooms and the effects of herbicides on aquatic systems.

Kyle was in his element during his summers in Western Nebraska. Those fortunate enough to take Kyle’s limnology class or do research with him at Cedar Point Biological Station in the Sand Hills found his enthusiasm in the field and lab contagious. Kyle was so comfortable to work with; he was a mentor but also, immediately, a friend. His droll, sometimes sarcastic, often self-deprecating sense of humor made him approachable to all and a ton of fun to be around. After a long day of field work, he enjoyed nothing more than sharing his love of the culture of Western Nebraska with his graduate students and postdocs, often putting them on with stories of coyotes and tornados, or making them go watch the storms roll in over the lake.

Kyle was extremely generous with his time and always willing to lend assistance to others, without hesitation, regardless of the circumstances. He is fondly remembered by many as an excellent mentor, colleague, friend, and teacher. He made the world a better place through his decency, care for others, humility, and his dedication to forwarding scientific advancement in aquatic ecology.

Read Dr. Hoagland's obituary.

An update from the SFS Policy Committee

The SFS Science & Policy Committee submitted two letters this fall on Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) actions and signed on to an Amici brief filed in the District of MA by the US District Court.

The first letter (11/15/2020) regarding ACE changes to Nationwide Permits (NWP) urged the ACE to withdraw its proposed changes due to insufficient scientific evidence and actions conflicting with our understanding of aquatic science, particularly as relates to the stream loss limit being increased to ⅓ of an acre, which would have irreversible impacts on headwater streams. The NWP changes would also shorten the revision cycle and decreasing environmental impact assessment, in addition to violating the Clean Water Act and National Environmental Protection Act and narrowing the WOTUS definition. This effort would further circumvent the potential for agency coordination and undermine tribes’ and states’ authority on water quality.

The second letter (11/30/2020) urged ACE to not proceed with building the Vicksburg Yazoo pumps on both ecological and financial grounds due to insufficient and/or incorrect assessment of impact, mitigation, and effects on stream ecosystems, in addition to lacking peer review. Alternatively, SFS recommends applying these resources towards environmentally and financially sustainable flood relief for the floodplain community.

SFS is part of the Amici curiae, a group of nine scientific societies involved in aquatic systems in the US. The Amici filed a brief in Massachusetts regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) outlining how changes would be against best scientific understanding and would remove Clean Water Act protections. The Amici argue that the NWPR is not sufficiently or scientifically supported and will have negative downstream consequences, and details specific and data-supported implications of the ruling, and ways in which agency assessment was incomplete, notably a failure to estimate the waters that would be affected.

SFS JEDI Taskforce

An initiative specifically aimed at breaking down barriers for underrepresented groups in SFS through a set of intentional and clear actions.

Please visit the SFS JEDI Task Force webpage to see some ways are breaking down barriers in SFS. If you are interested in participating, please send us a note at jedi@freshwater-science.org.

SFS Headwaters

Headwaters is a space to highlight and celebrate the amazing contributions of SFS student members. Fellow students and professionals alike can now get to know the research, outreach, and mentoring that students are doing within their labs, institutions, and the society. Check out the SFS Student Resource Committee Instagram for our Instagram Takeovers!

In the Drift: Issue 38, Fall 2020

ITD — Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:14:37 +0000

Monday, November 9, 2020

Ross Vander Vorste

In the Drift

In the Drift: Issue 38, Fall 2020

In this issue

FPOM
Article Spotlight
President's Environment
Dear Nick
Rembering Bernard Statzner
Insect Art
Emerge and Instars

FPOM

SFS news and upcoming events collected from "the drift"

Nominate someone for SFS leadership role (due Dec. 11, 2020)
Apply for funds to support activities in association with the 2021 SFS virtual meeting (contact Amy Marcareli (ammarcar@mtu.edu) or Todd Royer(troyer@indiana.edu))
Graduate student conservation research award (due Feb. 19, 2021)
Justice, Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion (JEDI) Task Force launches new webpage
SFS Pacific Northwest Chapter upcoming meeting (Nov. 18-19)
Read the World Aquatic Societies Climate Statement
Listen to Freshwater Science audio articles
Apply for SFS Endowed Publication Fund for financial support in publishing
SFS member's COVID support forum (access via member portal)

Article Spotlight

By Ali Chalberg

Peatbogs of the Puna

The Puna, Altiplano (Spanish for “high plain”) or Andean Plateau located in west-central South America, is the most extensive area of flat highlands on Earth outside Tibet. This area is characterized by its extreme climatic conditions, including low temperatures, strong winds, and little rainfall. Despite little rainfall, the landscape is littered with wetlands that serve as oases for biota. These pockets of wetlands function to support a high proportion of the biodiversity.

One of the streams flowing from The Puna peatbog region in Argentina surveyed for macroinvertebrates (Photo credit: Carolina Nieto).

Dr. Celina Reynaga, an assistant researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET, Argentina), summarized it best, “The Puna can be thought as a vast high desert terrain with oases (peatbogs) scattered throughout it.” This area is very unique in its location and morphology and it’s diversity needed to be explored.

Dr. Reynaga, led the study recently published in Freshwater Science. She regularly conducts research at the Institute of Neotropical Biodiversity (CONICET-UNT, Tucumán). In this study, she and her co-authors, Carolina Nieto, José Rodríguez, and Andrea Izquierdo, explored how environmental factors influence the abundance of macroinvertebrates throughout the peatbog ecosystems. They found that water temperature, specific conductivity, and flow were most strongly associated with variation in invertebrate traits in the bogs.

The Puna peatbog region in Argentina (Photo credit: Carolina Nieto).

While the project stemmed from a grant aimed at surveying biodiversity in the Andean wetlands, when asked about how the project came about Dr. Reynaga replied it was “curiosity itself!” This area is not easy to study and biota such as the invertebrates in this area have not previously been studied in depth.

Some interesting things tend to happen when you are thousands of meters above sea level! Dr. Reynaga talked about her team experiencing bouts of “soroche”, or altitude sickness. As well as electrical storms which left the local camelids bent over to avoid being struck. This landscape is unpredictable yet beautiful.

This project brought not only scientists together, but also local citizens. An environmental education workshop for people from Antofalla, Argentina, headed by Dr. Carolina Nieto saw kids as well as adults learning about their environment. They spent an afternoon, magnifying glass in hand, identifying macroinvertebrates from the peatbogs. As Dr. Reynaga stated: “Mayflies, caddisflies and crustaceans became the stars” as people’s eyes were opened to the critters living in their backyards.

Local children got a chance to view invertebrates from nearby streams in an associated environmental education workshop in Antofalla, Argentina (Photo credit: Carolina Nieto).

Dr. Reynaga finished with some words of wisdom for young freshwater scientists, “remain attentive to the small details revealed by measurement instruments, but never neglect the global view achieved thanks to common sense and continuous dialogue with teammates.” Especially in this time of insecurity, we should continue to work together to improve science.

You can read the journal article in Freshwater Science at: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/707458

SFS President's Environment

By Alonso Ramírez

We have been learning a lot this year. We now know that we can share our science in the absence of in-person meetings, we can even teach from home. It is not ideal; we are facing multiple challenges and limitations by doing so. We are keenly aware of how much we miss interacting with our colleagues in person. However, looking at the bright side, virtual activities remove many barriers and we are now able to reach more people than ever before. Taking advantage of the virtual world, SFS has been busy preparing new and exciting activities for the coming months.

Our 2021 annual meeting committee is designing a unique virtual event. Under the theme of Freshwater Science in a Time of Transformation, the committee is including many of the great components we are used to finding in our regular annual meetings. We recognize that it will not be the same type of meeting without everybody traveling to the same location and without the many connections made in the hallways and outside the actual meeting rooms, but the virtual world has many tools to enrich our interactions and provide a mechanism where meaningful connections can still be achieved. Furthermore, our regional chapters and other groups within SFS are sketching plans to create opportunities to interact in person at smaller gatherings, where appropriate. We are also designing an exciting webinar series that will allow us to share information outside the annual meeting format and to familiarize us with the virtual tools we plan to use during the annual meeting.

We want SFS to be a truly global, diverse, and inclusive society. Our 2021 virtual annual meeting will give us a new opportunity to accomplish this. A virtual meeting will allow all participants to share their science without having to face the many complexities and unknowns of attending an in-person meeting during the current global pandemic. Our JEDI taskforce is engaged with the membership and several committees to develop initiatives centering on best practices that promote diversity and inclusivity. The Emerge team is getting ready to start their new program, a program that is sure to have a positive impact on our Society. Please help us become global, diverse, and inclusive. Wouldn’t it be great to have a Society with members from all continents and a diversity of backgrounds, all sharing their great science? We can all help to make it happen!

We would like to encourage everybody to become involved and invite others to join our Society. SFS is a great family, a place where all those interested in freshwater science share ideas and findings. We need everybody’s help to make sure we remain the premier organization for freshwater science. Let us work together to continue to make SFS the best Society it can be!

Alonso Ramírez & Checo Colón-Gaud

DEAR NICK:

The pandemic is impacting my scientific career, and me personally, longer than I had thought it would and it is wearing me out. What can I do to cope better, both professionally and personally, and to maximize my career progress?

-- Fatigued

Dear Fatigued:

Pandemic fatigue is affecting all of us. As I am writing this, most of the US is experiencing rapid increases in new COVID-19 cases. Because of this widespread scale, all of us are experiencing some degree of challenges and pressures, so understand that you are not alone.

It has taken a lot of our energy and time to quickly learn and effectively utilize new learning and workplace tools in this pandemic. We are beginning to adjust to the virtual meeting and classroom platforms needed for interacting online. Although they do not provide a perfect substitute for face-to-face interactions, these platforms allow us to conduct most of the learning and business interactions needed to move forward.

With respect to the science you conduct, find ways to accomplish your field and lab work that minimizes your risk of exposure to the virus, particularly when new cases are on the upswing in your local area. Wear masks vigilantly and constantly. A friend of mine contracted COVID-19 when he stopped wearing his mask for just a few minutes outdoors while in close proximity to a person who was unaware that they were infected. Don’t let down your guard.

If your research includes field work, utilize measures that create social distancing. Work alone, if safe and feasible. Avoid overnight travel if possible and avoid travel to locations experiencing spikes in new cases. If more than one person has to travel, consider traveling in separate vehicles, or in large vehicles such as vans, with no more than one person per seat row. If in small vehicles or even watercraft, wear your masks and try to maintain your distance from each other.

If your research includes lab work, utilize the same protective measures you would in any indoor environment. Again, try to work alone if safe and feasible. If not, employ all the protective measures that you would use in any enclosed environment. If multiple people must work in the same space, try staggered work schedules to minimize the number of people in the room at the same time.

Some of my colleagues have been shifting their work focus more to data analysis, manuscript writing, and other science activities that minimize the need to be in close proximity with others. Even in the absence of this pandemic, it is good practice to occasionally step back and re-evaluate your research plan. Is it possible to modify your path forward in a way that still accomplishes your goals, but minimizes COVID-19 risks? Is it absolutely necessary to conduct another round of sampling, or run another set of experiments?

In addition to addressing your career issues, find ways to take extra care of yourself personally. Take measures to minimize stress. Follow a healthy diet and minimize alcohol consumption. Decrease screen time, which will help you to get more restful sleep. In fact, you may find it helpful to avoid focusing too much on the news if it increases your stress. Get regular exercise, and make time to relax and recharge, particularly by enjoying time outdoors. Perhaps most importantly, be kind and understanding to those around you. We may not know what they are experiencing – we all are in the same storm, but not necessarily in the same boat.

If you are feeling overwhelmed by stress and challenges, don’t hesitate to seek professional help if needed. We are in this pandemic together for the long haul, and need to take care of ourselves.

Remembering

Bernhard Stazner

1948 - 2020

By Vincent H. Resh, Núria Bonada, Sylvain Dolédec, Alan Hildrew

Bernhard Statzner, a longtime member of the Society for Freshwater Science, died on July 12, 2020. He had one of the most fascinating and diverse careers in freshwater ecology and was in many respects a larger than life character—in his research, lectures, loyalty to his friends, and his love of food, wine, and spirited conversations. His and his wife Monika’s home in Parcieux, France, which overlooked the Saône River and the Beaujolais vineyards, was a gathering spot for freshwater scientists and ecologists from throughout the world. There, an abundance of food and drink, great conversation, and spirited and competitive games of petanque were enjoyed by all. They were a truly unique and caring couple to all of us.

Bernhard was born in Kiel in Northern Germany on June 30, 1948. During his early school years in Kiel, he concentrated on playing team handball and the saxophone, and it was not until his enrollment at the University of Kiel that he became serious as a student, discovering his fascination with biology, chemistry, and physics. After completing his undergraduate degree in 1973, he obtained a position through the Volkswagen Foundation to conduct stream studies in Zaire, the former Belgian Congo and now the Democratic Republic of Congo. There he began a life-long interest in the ecology and systematics of Trichoptera, and the collections that he made there were the basis of many of his early research papers.

Bernhard working by a Black Forest stream in Germany where he developed the concept of hydraulic stream ecology

Returning from Africa, he began his Ph.D. research on Northern German streams but interrupted his studies to work for the World Health Organization on the Onchocerciasis (River Blindness) Programme in West Africa. Based in Bouaké, Ivory Coast, from 1976 to 1978. There he conducted laboratory-, mesocosm-, and field-based experiments on the effects of the programme’s vast, aerial spraying of pesticides to control the black fly vectors of this human disease on the non-target stream fauna. Although he left Africa to complete his degree in 1979, he returned there to work on the effects of the program’s activities, by then expanded to 11 West African countries on several occasions in the late 1990s. He wrote several seminal papers on the ecology of the black fly vectors of this disease, West African streams, and he was a co-author on a synthesis of how monitoring activities were developed to study the effects of applications on fish and benthos with the intriguing title-opener “Monitoring of the unknown…”.

His first position was as an Assistant Professor at the University of Karlsruhe in Germany. There he started a program focusing on what he eventually called hydraulic stream ecology, with many collaborators from Europe and North America. He taught courses in freshwater ecology and stream restoration, and carried out several restoration projects integrating hydrology and biology. He completed his habilitation (which is the equivalent of research for a second Ph.D.) in 1987.

After a short period as a Full Professor in the School of Engineering at the University of Kassel, he went to the Emscher Water Authority in Central Germany as the senior manager in charge of the restoration activities of this major tributary to the Rhine River. There he put into place many of the programs that led to the shift of this river from being one of the most industrially affected rivers in Europe to a restoration success story.

In 1990, Bernhard made a major career shift in becoming a Research Director in the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) based at the University of Lyon in France. His long-time friends and colleagues Louis Roux and Christian Lévêque made this position possible, and this move from Germany to France greatly advanced collaborative efforts in freshwater science in Europe. The University of Lyon and associated government research laboratories in this city lying on the intersection of the Saône and Rhône Rivers had more scientists studying rivers than any other center in the world. Although some of the scientists were well-known as individual researchers, Bernhard coordinated many major projects that brought the group to be recognized as a center of ecological research on rivers that is of worldwide importance today.

Vince Resh, Bernhard Statzner, Louis Roux, and Alan Hildrew at the beginning of their synthesis on the species traits of the biota of the Rhône River for a special issue of Freshwater Biology 1994:31(3).

Bernhard’s research centered on integrating concepts in theoretical ecology, hydrology, and modeling in understanding applied questions as related to flow and the distribution of organisms, river restoration, biomonitoring, and many other topics. He was famous for turning traditional ecological questions around that opened up being the basis for new areas of stream studies. For example, he took a traditional question “How do hydraulics affect organisms?” reversed it to “how do organisms affect hydraulics”, which lead to the now widely studied topic of organisms as ecological engineers in riverine systems.

Because of his fluency in French, English, and German, Bernhard wrote several review articles where he drew on the historical literature and traced the evolution of modern ideas in theoretical and applied ecology. He believed that it was important that the historical basis of many commonly applied concepts be better understood and appreciated, especially by younger scientists.

His writings were prolific and widely cited. He wrote over 150 research articles, many book chapters, and even articles on the sociology of scientific publishing. Some of the latter had a tongue-in-cheek character such as one describing how his collaborators staged a contest to see who could gain the most weight during a month-long regimen of vigorous fieldwork! Another competition he often proposed was to determine authorship through pétanque (a variation of boule) tournaments.

In Germany and France, he had a great influence on the careers of students and postdoctoral researchers, both in his own laboratory and those of others. He served on review committees and funding bodies of over a score of organizations and established links between his laboratory and more than 30 others throughout the world.

Bernhard retired from CNRS and the University of Lyon in 2013 and colleagues from all over the world arrived in Parcieux for the celebrations. There were parties, kayak trips, bike rides, and great dinners, and of course a pétanque competition! Monika, a dentist, joined him in retirement soon after that and they travelled often to see friends and continued their wonderful hospitality to visitors that came to France.

Bernhard doing a favorite pastime, playing petanque.

It is often customary to end an obituary with the statement that the deceased “will be sorely missed”. In the case of Bernhard, this would be a complete understatement. He and Monika opened their lives and homes to more people than anyone we have ever known. He had a great influence not just on colleagues and students, but on their children as well. He was a remarkable man; his scientific and personal contributions will live on long after we are gone.

Insect Art - The Caddisfly's Mirror

A new book by Hubert Duprat

The Caddisfly’s Mirror focusses on the insect’s larvae, whose protective tubes, which they make out of natural materials, have given rise to a wide variety of approaches, from learned studies to detailed notation, and from literary evocations to fantastical parables – a documentary mass that the sculptor Hubert Duprat has been building up almost obsessively over decades, and to which he has now given the dual form of an artist’s book and an encyclopaedic anthology.

This voluminous compilation is a conceptual architectural construct that reflects subtle shifts in the artist’s work. The many striking images include historical scientific and non-scientific engravings, didactic illustrations and humorous representations, fossils and decorative objects. Among them are sparkling sheaths of gold and precious stones created by « trained » larvae. And it was these which, though restricted in scope, brought Duprat international recognition. No hierarchy dominates. Each carefully-recorded discovery contributes to a process of accretion, and thus a quasi-exhaustive totality : « In other words, almost everything about almost nothing. »

Let us be clear that in this case the idea of a constitutive motif is, in the end, of secondary importance. The work may be regarded as a discovery, in the archaeological sense of the term, made by Hubert Duprat. Given the breadth and aesthetic dimension of the enterprise, the result is an oeuvre in itself. Speaking to us of materials and methods, of space and time, taking us on a journey across history and continents, this monument constitutes a diffracted reflection of tiny trichopteran creations. Like their obverse facets, in sum. In a sense, The Caddisfly’s Mirror is Hubert Duprat’s latest sculpture, between monster and marvel.

French / English
Softcover, 23 × 34 cm
628 pages, approximately 1000 illustrations
Published in June 2020
ISBN : 978 2 84975 628 7
Distribution : Harmonia Mundi
45 €

Orders from abroad can be made
directly to the publisher at this address :
contact@fage-editions.com

Emerge and Instars

Emerge & Instars is a mentoring program sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Society for Freshwater Science for undergraduate students from under-represented groups interested in freshwater science. The program provides opportunities for networking among graduate students, faculty, and professionals hoping to encourage diversity in the freshwater discipline. Initially launched in 2011, the program focused on undergraduate participation in the SFS Annual Meeting. As of 2020, Emerge expands the program to include undergraduate students, graduate students, and early career participants in year-round activities. Find the details here.

In short, the program has two ways to participate:
1. Emerge Year-Round Program: Undergraduate students, graduate students, and early career freshwater scientists will participate together to build a scientific and support network, develop skills in science, and collaborate using data from NSF NEON sites.
2. Instars at the SFS Annual Meeting: We hope to inspire and excite students about our science by offering activities with other undergraduates, graduate student mentors, and professional SFS members. The Instars & Emerge program plans to support annual meeting expenses for at least 30 new participants for the 2021 virtual meeting.

An Emerge 'Project Coordinator' position is being advertised here

In the Drift: Issue 37, Spring 2020

ITD — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 18:20:51 +0000

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Ross Vander Vorste

In the Drift

In the Drift: Issue 37, Spring 2020

In this issue

Summer of Science
Exposing the murky depths: The value of scientific illustration for freshwater science - a multi-part series (part 1)
Dear Nick
President's Environment
Rembering Wayne Minshall

Dear Society for Freshwater Science,

Your spring issue of the SFS newsletter is here! We have exciting new content in this issue, including a new series on scientific visualization for freshwater scientists. Thank you Colden Baxter, Barrett Klein, Amy Rosemond, and Steve Thomas for their excellent contributions to this issue.

Take care,

Ross Vander Vorste, newsletter editor
Ali Chalberg, co-editor
Brad Morris, co-editor

In lieu of the in-person annual meeting, SFS is hosting a Summer of Science! With summer as our guide, we hope you will adopt appropriate attire at home or in media presentations – in other words, bright colors, beach imagery, and sunglasses are encouraged! Please note that you must be a current member of SFS to participate. Not a current member? Renew or join SFS here.

View event program from Week 2-4

View Summer of Science Website

Exposing the murky depths: The value of scientific illustration for freshwater science - a multi-part series (part 1)

By Dr. Barrett Klein

Why is it especially important for freshwater scientists to become proficient consumers and producers of visuals related to freshwater science?

It may be obvious why any scientist should be a good consumer. If you cannot critically evaluate visuals that attempt to convey scientific messages, you are left to wallow in ignorance, or are hoodwinked into believing misleading or inaccurate messages. Bad visuals then survive and spread, setting back scientific understanding and progress. It is difficult to remove or supplant visuals once they are released into the world.
Okay, so we, as scientists, should learn to critically consume visuals, but is it really important for us to be good producers of visuals? I argue that it is, and in this first installment I share some thoughts about the challenges and assets of including images in science, and in freshwater science specifically. This is not designed to be comprehensive in any way; it is only meant to prod us to reexamine our contributions to science (past, present, or future) and reflect on what it would mean for us to expand our powers of visual expression. I would greatly value feedback related to your experiences as a freshwater scientist in this context. It is important to begin with the obvious, so that my attempts to persuade are grounded firmly in the benthos. Creating visuals takes time, effort, sometimes money, and requires a degree of visual literacy and practice. An overwhelming array of software applications and programming languages exist for managing data and creating visuals. It takes time and much practice to find the tools that are most appropriate for you. Sometimes these programs cost money, and occasionally publishing houses demand payment for visuals beyond an arbitrary minimum, or for producing visuals in color. The landscape of publishing is changing rapidly, so what rules and restrictions exist today may not exist tomorrow. You have the excellent option of hiring a talented, professional scientific illustrator (for an introduction to the profession, see Hodges 2003), but this costs money and does not release you from needing to have a vision of what is required to convey your message. Scientific and visual literacy can help you to avoid misleading your readers, and some excellent guides exist to navigate potential visual mine fields (e.g., Tufte 1983, https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/).

Text can do the job, right?

Not always. Text alone can be cumbersome and less effective than a visual complement, depending on the content. I frequently stumble upon examples of text that suffer without visuals. Consider the last scientific paper you read. Were all of the methods crystal clear? My guess is that too frequently the methods were perplexing, muddied, and devoid of images that could help. I challenge students in my Animal Behavior course to find a relevant paper that entirely lacks images, then to create an image that they wish had existed in the Methods section because it would have made understanding the study easier. They have the option of sharing their drawing with an author of their chosen paper to find out if they were successful in representing the author’s methods. One of my secret agendas in this exercise is to demonstrate to students that science could benefit from inclusion of more visuals. Another agenda is to influence those authors to reconsider their visually depauperate process. On the flipside, I have also found examples of visuals that detract from a message. Your mission isn’t to create gratuitous visuals, but to create visuals that help to achieve the following:

Clearly communicate your science so that others can understand and appreciate your work
Clearly communicate your science so that others can replicate your research
Excite and inspire others, including prospective, future contributors or colleagues
Enrich the field, either following historical precedent or breaking from it

Clearly communicating your science is paramount. If someone wishing to understand your intent, your methods, or your results fails to grasp your message, you have lost opportunities to effectively disseminate your science. If the message is obtuse, the response will be unsatisfactory. Alternatively, if your execution is lucid, you assist your audience to understand and appreciate your work. This is accomplished by very clearly laying out the organization of your text, but it can also involve visually explaining when words are less effective at conveying information. Among the visual devices available to scientists –tables, charts, graphs, and images— images are the least abstract and, for that reason, can be the most accessible and relatable (Klein & Seeley 2015). Images take many forms, including photographs, drawings, digital renderings, videos, computer animations, interactive media, etc. Each opportunity to include an image comes with its own challenges, but the benefits can make the time, effort, or money worth the investment.

Clarity can invite replication. If someone cannot understand your methods, that person is less able or apt to replicate your research, and your contribution will stagnate and wither rather than blossom into follow-up efforts. The best methods sections include visuals, especially if there is a lack of precedence in the literature that explicitly displays the subjects, including the methods, of choice. I’ve found that reviewers and journals are more willing than not to publish visuals that help to clarify methods.

Just as it is vital to achieve clarity, it is important to make your science engaging and inspiring to others. You were probably drawn to freshwater studies in part because freshwater systems are beautiful and you were inspired by visually alluring elements of the biology. Maybe you watched a spectacular documentary or attended an image-rich science talk. Why not share a hint of this allure in your peer-reviewed publications? Unless your writing is sublime and the material inherently engaging to your intended audience, it can suffer from a lack of visuals. Scratch that. Even if your writing is sublime and inherently engaging, intended and unintended readers alike may read, spend more time reading, and share a paper that includes an effective visual. Humans are, by and large, visual organisms, so it behooves us to exploit this sensory bias.

By creating effective visuals, you can enrich your beloved field of science, whether or not a precedence exists. There is ample evidence of interest in visualizing freshwater subjects (https://www.freshwatersillustrated.org/), and evidence of the highest levels of artistry in the service of freshwater science. Stunning examples can be found in the illustrations by Anker Odum in Caddisflies: The Underwater Architects by Glenn B. Wiggins (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gsFYGVzg4JcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), by Ed Lam (http://www.edlam.net/book.html), and by countless illustrators of fish (Pavid 2020), many freely available through digitization projects (e.g., https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/, https://www.si.edu/openaccess, https://www.amnh.org/research/research-library). The future of a science, I would argue, can depend in part on the power and clarity of its visuals. Your visual contributions could help freshwater science prosper by bringing attention to conservation efforts, to your discoveries, to an ecosystem, and to a vibrant field of study. The best way to build awareness is by disseminating powerful visuals.

Figure 1. One page among many gems published in Wiggins’ work on caddisflies. Contributions to the systematics of the caddisfly family Limnephilidae (Trichoptera), 1973. Wikipedia Commons https://archive.org/stream/contributionstos00wigg/#page/28/mode/1up

How can freshwater science specifically benefit from the production and dissemination of effective visuals?

Humans are not naturally aquatic. What lurks in the murky depths, and how one goes about making discoveries is a mystery to most of the world. Visually depicting those mysteries is your key to inviting strangers in. Visualizing subjects comes with hurdles specific to a given subject or project, however, and freshwater science is saturated with its own intrinsic challenges. It isn’t as easy to access or capture specimens, to photograph them, and many are too often disregarded for their superficial blandness. Rivers and fish of the world are often celebrated, but if your readers were to pay close attention to the undervalued swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, or freshwater fungi, arthropods, molluscs, annelids, cnidarians, rotifers, diatoms, and countless others, they would find forms and physical phenomena awaiting their due adulation. There is beauty waiting to be revealed in every freshwater system and droplet. For the future of your science and your field, consider harnessing the power of visuals to its greatest potential by visually communicating the intricacies of the scientific process, the thrill of discovery, and the inherent beauty of your study subject.

Bring clarity to the benthos:

Below are a few images I have created of freshwater-relevant organisms. I include these not as the best examples of what exists or could exist, but because it was remarkably easy to ask myself for permission to include them here.

Figure 2. Lifecycles of mayfly and endoparasitic nematode. This illustration is a composite of snapshots through time for two symbiotic species. Photographs or text alone might have difficulty cohesively and clearly conveying the same information. Illustration by Barrett Klein, 1993.

Figure 3. Vignettes of natural phenomena in Central Park, New York. This is another composite, but of many stories in a single setting, including several related to freshwater organisms. This was not published in a peer-reviewed science paper, but produced for the public by the American Museum of Natural History in conjunction with the opening of their Hall of Biodiversity. Illustration by Barrett Klein, 1998.

Figure 4. Side-by-side imagery showing salient features of normal vs. parasitized mayflies. When I drew these for the author, she told me very little at the outset so she could see if drawings by a naïve person would reveal the morphological changes she was writing about. She expressed relief when they did. Illustrations by Barrett Klein, 1993. Modified from source: Vance SA. 1996. Morphological and behavioural sex reversal in mermithid-infected mayflies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 263:907-912.

Figure 5. Experimental methods, in this case the process of building the model of a robotic frog. Models and photographs by Barrett Klein, 2012. Source: Klein BA, Stein J, Taylor RC. 2012. Robots in the service of animal behavior. Communicative & Integrative Biology. 5:467-473. doi:10.4161/cib.21304

Figure 6. Digital damselflies composition. Cover illustration by Barrett Klein, 2011. Source: Abbott JC. 2011. Damselflies of Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Figure 7. Example species page from field guide (left), and part of section describing how illustrations were created for this guide (right). Size references and absolute sizes of damselflies are included throughout the field guide. Barrett Klein, 2011. Source: Abbott JC. 2011. Damselflies of Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Barrett Klein
Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin – La Crosse
Faculty profile
Research website

References

Hodges EA. 2003. The Guild Handbook of Scientific Illustration, 2nd ed. Wiley & Sons, Inc. NJ, USA.

Klein BA, Seeley TD. 2015. The declining use of animal and behaviour images in animal behaviour journals. Animal Behaviour. 103:171-177. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.02.004 http://www.pupating.org/docs/science/Klein&Seeley_2015_Declining_visuals-AnimBehav+SOI.pdf

Pavid K. Capturing color: the art of scientific illustration. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-art-of-scientific-illustration.html Accessed 10 June 2020.

Tufte ER. 1983. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT.

DEAR NICK:

The traumatic events of this year, first COVID-19 and then the murder of George Floyd, have felt overwhelming to me. What can I do both to contribute to solutions and to lessen the impact on my personal and professional life?

Overwhelmed

Dear Overwhelmed:
These are indeed difficult times. These events have brought much to the surface that has resulted from previous societal neglect, the lack of progressive and life-affirming attitudes towards each other, unjust policies, and a shortage of care for the common good. We all need to be taking care of ourselves and each other during this time of upheaval and multiple stressors. It is a time that we, particularly people in privileged positions or with privileged identities, need to take anti-racist stances and action where they can have a positive effect – helping transform communities, institutions, and society.

The tragic murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade and other Black Americans in recent months reflect the plague of racism, discrimination, and ongoing violence and oppression against Black Americans. Our Society recognizes that we are not doing enough to make our practices and actions more just, equitable, and inclusive. I am encouraged that SFS has articulated specific actions, including providing Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) training opportunities, developing more relationships with minority-serving institutions, and reducing language, cultural, and visual barriers to our website and publications, as well as other initiatives, to make SFS more inclusive. You can be a part of these changes! An email address has been created for that purpose. Email jedi@freshwater-science.org with your suggestions and how you would like to contribute.

The pandemic is an abrupt and unsettling reminder of the power of biology, the need for science and the use of science in decision-making, and for our world to be better prepared for these inevitable outbreaks, no matter how infrequently they occur. The pandemic also highlights racial inequities in that it has disproportionately affected communities of color. Until there is an effective vaccine that is available in sufficient quantities, we must continue our behavior modifications to lessen the infection rate and extent. The challenge is to maintain social distancing practices over an extended period of time. As I write this, second waves of infection are occurring in states that have relaxed their restrictions, perhaps too soon. The cancellation of this year’s annual meeting and the substitution of our Summer of Science activities are both a reflection of the need to maintain our behavior changes and how our resourcefulness and actions can counteract the negative impacts of the virus.

I would encourage you to reduce your expectations a bit. There is a lot to process and grieve about. But it can be very healing if we can take part in activities that affirm who we and others are, are creative and productive, and contribute to a better society or community. I would encourage you to make a list of things that really excite you in terms of what you would like to accomplish professionally in the next 6-12 months and also what you would like to do for societal change (locally for you or at some other level). Know that all of us are working under ‘new normal’ conditions, including caring for youngsters who are usually in school, or caring for the elderly. Some in SFS have lost family members to COVID, and we need to recognize that all of us are dealing with a lot, physically and emotionally. In the USGS, we are mostly teleworking, maintaining field and laboratory activities that do not require large groups of people working together or overnight travel, and focused more on data analysis, synthesis, and publication activities. For those with loved ones and families in the household, the pandemic has created positive opportunities to spend more time with each other, and less time at work and in outside pursuits. For those living alone, the pandemic offers other ways to safely connect with and help our fellow humans, such as shopping for an elderly neighbor or volunteering at a food bank.

The pandemic eventually will pass, though we will be dealing with this new virus for the foreseeable future. Racism and discrimination have been around for a very long time due to disparities of opportunity and power structures that have been perpetuated and not addressed. We need more than hope – we need action to change society. Please contribute to actions within SFS and work with people in your community on actions there. By engaging in positive work, you WILL make the world a better place, and that will contribute to healing your trauma and that of others. I look forward to seeing us all renew our commitment and passion to see each other as human beings and to treat each other with respect, equality, and love.

Note: I would like to thank Amy Rosemond and other reviewers for their very helpful suggestions and comments on this column.

President's Environment

By Amy Rosemond

SFS wants to be a leader of change in science. As president, and in the other identities I have (mother, white, woman, mentor, and friend), I recognize that among the most important things I can do is center others’ voices who have been minoritized, learn from them, and advocate for them. Continue reading

Remembering

G. Wayne 'Doc' Minshall

1938 - 2020

By Steve Thomas and Colden Baxter

On April 21st, our society lost one of its most prominent members, Dr. G. Wayne Minshall. A giant in stream ecology for the last 50 years, his passion for streams was matched only by his love of wilderness and the students and colleagues with whom he shared it. Though most known for his work on the River Continuum Concept (RCC), Dr. Minshall published groundbreaking papers in many of the sub-disciplines that have come to define stream ecology. He was also among the first stream ecologists to engage in land management and conservation work, bridging the perceived divide between “basic” and “applied” science, and navigating the connections between science and policy. Wayne, or “Doc” to his friends and colleagues, was born in Billings but raised in rural Montana near Lockwood. He received a B.S. in Fisheries Management from Montana State University (1961) and a PhD in Zoology from the University of Louisville (1965) where he met his wife Judy who shared his love of, and academic interest in, lakes and streams. He then completed a NATO postdoctoral fellowship at the Freshwater Biological Association’s Windermere Laboratory in England under the mentorship of Dr. T.T. Macan, the founding editor of Freshwater Biology.

He joined the Idaho State University faculty in 1966 where he spent his entire career, retiring in 2003 but remaining active in research and mentoring graduate students until his passing. Doc received the NABS (now SFS) Award of Excellence in 1994 and was inducted as a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2004. In 2017, he became a member of the inaugural class of SFS Fellows. Doc also helped to establish the Petersen award, the SFS Endowment Award for European scientists, in honor of his colleague R.C. “Bob” Petersen.

Over his career, he authored ~150 peer-reviewed articles, received more than 100 research grants, and produced 130 technical reports. More than 50 students completed their graduate degrees under his direction and many of them remain in the field of freshwater science.

The breadth of Wayne’s contributions to stream ecology is extraordinary (see list of publications here for corresponding numbers referenced below). Doc’s early work included seminal papers on the roles of allochthonous detritus (2) and autochthony (18) in energetics of stream organisms and ecosystems, factors controlling invertebrate community structure (5, 7, 13), invertebrate drift (4), and the feeding behavior, bioenergetics and thermal biology of aquatic insects (10, 16, 21). Much of his early research at ISU focused on cold desert streams under the auspices of the International Biological Program (IBP). Of course, Doc is best known as one of the driving forces behind the development of the RCC (27) and associated studies. With his close friend and colleague, Robin Vannote, Doc helped organize and lead the original RCC workshops, served as lead PI on the awards that funded the RCC research, and led some of its most impactful papers (39, 57, 78). A driven scientist devoted to understanding streams, Doc would go on to make significant contributions to diverse aspects of stream ecology right up until his recent passing. Noteworthy among these were his contributions to understanding the role of natural disturbances in controlling the structure and function of stream-riparian ecosystems (46, 61, 66) with a specific focus on the effects of wildfire (67, 103, 107, 119) and the medium- to longer-term dynamics that follow (120, 126, 131, 133, 139, 143, 145). His decades-long work with students and colleagues in the central Idaho wilderness and Yellowstone National Park revealed how natural wildfire cycles combine with climate regimes, geomorphic forces, and vegetation life histories to create the dynamism essential to maintaining the ecological character of streams and rivers. Throughout his career, he made significant contributions across levels of ecological organization from individuals and populations (especially of stream invertebrates;1, 6, 10, 11, 19, 24, 36, 58, 64, 118), to communities (5, 13, 17, 23, 26, 33, 45, 58, 61, 80, 106, 109), food webs (2, 9, 91, 133), and ecosystem processes like nutrient (110, 125, 147) and organic matter dynamics (22, 83, 112, 116, 121, 122). His work uncovered the natural characteristics and dynamics of wilderness streams, but also tackled many dimensions of human impacts, from water pollution and habitat degradation associated with land uses (9, 88, 130) to consequences of dams (134), invasive species (111, 141) and climate change (142, 143). His long-term study of Yellowstone fires (2014) produced one of the best long-term data sets on aquatic insects, often on a shoe-string budget, and was recently featured in a global meta-analysis of insect abundance (van Klink et al. 2020).

Doc was a pioneer among stream ecologists in his commitment to engaging in emerging problems associated with land management and pollution. He frequently advised conservation groups on applications of aquatic science to address human impacts, bridging the traditional divide between “basic” and “applied” science in various ways including development of bioassessment and long-term monitoring approaches (76, 89, 105, 114, 115, 140). He was active in local and state environmental issues, testified before congressional committees, served on a number of governmental panels addressing environmental issues, and was on the Board of Directors of the Pacific Rivers Council for many years. In 1969, he scripted the documentary film, “The Changing River” (see here), that raised concerns about pollution in the years leading up to the Clean Water Act. Wayne’s commitment to connecting science, policy, conservation, and education is reflected in the advice for young scientists he wrote with his induction as an SFS Fellow (found here) and is demonstrated in the career trajectories of his students, many of whom went on to roles in government management agencies and conservation organizations.

Central themes woven through the entirety of Doc’s life were his love of wilderness and “the old ways.” Nearly every summer since the late 1970’s, Doc spent significant time deep within Idaho’s Frank Church Wilderness with his family, his students, and colleagues. His time in the wilderness fueled much of the science described above, but also fulfilled his deep curiosity and interest in the ways and customs of the people who settled these areas. He was a practitioner and teacher of these ways—he and Judy taught an ISU class in “practical homesteading,” focused on skills needed for living off the land, and they often used their farm for the class. The farm hosted a menagerie of rabbits, sheep, pigs, ducks, goats, chickens (the family supplied eggs to a network of grateful customers for decades), and, Doc’s other passions, Airedale terriers and horses. Over the years, many of his graduate students were exposed to farm life and especially to horses, as horse-packing into the wilderness to maintain long-term studies became an annual event. In “retirement,” Doc continued to return to the central Idaho wilderness, often accompanying ISU class field trips and annual monitoring expeditions that continue to the present. His interest in late 1800’s Idaho wilderness exploration and homesteading resulted in three books published on the subject (2012, 2014, and 2018) that used original diaries and firsthand accounts to explore the forces that link people, landscapes, and rivers through history.

Doc’s impact on our science is rivaled only by the influence he had on his colleagues and students. His early collaborations formed life-long professional and personal relationships. Wayne’s closest colleagues, Robin Vannote and Colbert (Bert) Cushing (who also passed away recently, see remembrance here), were effectively members of his lab group and it was common for his students to spend substantial time in the field with either. In retirement, Doc maintained an office in the Stream Ecology Center, attended weekly lab meetings, and served on numerous student committees—particularly those whose research built on the long-term studies he began. He developed a rich collaboration and friendship with his successor, Colden Baxter, which helped create a “multi-generational” science experience for students.

It has become cliché, but to join the Minshall stream team was to join a family. This family came complete with traditions like memorable holiday parties (at which all were expected to deliver poetry) and annual road trips to NABS/SFS! Doc had an innate ability to draw out the best in his students and colleagues. His welcoming demeanor, ability to laugh heartily and often, and to provide his students complete and undivided attention conveyed how much he cared for those he worked and lived with. Inclusion in this family did not end with graduation. Rather, it continued to grow from those humble beginnings (usually in the middle of the wilderness with a very large horse) and continues to grow through the many lifelong friendships and collaborations that started in Doc’s lab. Beyond his mentorship and example, Doc became and remained a father (even grandfather!) figure to many students and his loss resonates with all who knew him.

Wayne is survived by his wife Judy and his children Jennye, Michele, and Jacob. In his name, in 2004 ISU established the annual G.W. Minshall Lecture Series in Ecology, annually hosting a leader in freshwater ecology. ISU is working to establish the G.W. Minshall Archive in its library, and has created the G. Wayne Minshall Stream Ecology Fund to support student research and long-term studies, and to which contributions can be made in his name (here; or contact Rich Ballou at ballrich@isu.edu or (208) 709-1174).

Doc with Robin Vannote at Loon Creek on Middle Fork of the Salmon River (1978) during the river continuum studies (photograph: Jim Brock), taking photos at long-term study site in the Big Creek drainage, central Idaho wilderness (early 2000’s) photograph: Holly Akenson), and at home on the farm with one of his beloved horses (photograph: Dale McCullough).

In the Drift: Issue 36, Winter 19/20

ITD — Wed, 19 Feb 2020 23:08:54 +0000

Monday, March 9, 2020

Ross Vander Vorste

In the Drift

In the Drift: Issue 36, Winter 2020

In this issue

FPOM - short news and resources
Freshwater Science Article Spotlight
Chuck's Corner: To p or not to p
Tribute to Dr. Scott A. Wissinger
Review: The Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of Virginia
Review: Internal Phosphorus Loading in Lakes

Dear Society for Freshwater Science,

In this new issue of In the Drift, we have filled your drift nets with unique content and the latest news from the Society for Freshwater Science. As always, we thank all those that contributed to this issue. If you have any content you would like to share with the Society, send us an email at pip@freshwater-science.org.

Warm wishes and we hope to see you this spring in Madison, WI!

Ross Vander Vorste, newsletter editor Ali Chalberg, co-editor Brad Morris, co-editor

FPOM

SFS quick links and resources collected from "the drift"

The 2020 SFS Fellows and Career Awards announced!
President's Environment: coping with COVID-19
See the latest issue of Freshwater Science
A new Making Waves podcast hosted by Susan Washko talking with Drs. Howard Whiteman, Sarah Whorley, and Kate Boersma about taking students on field trips.
Stay Fresh! a compilation of new research in freshwater sciences.
Classified Ads - job opportunities and workshops in freshwater science

Article Spotlight

By Ali Chalberg and Brad Morris

Salamander Fight Club A hot topic in freshwater science is climate change, and many scientists are curious about the ecological changes that will occur due to this phenomenon. In this article, we spotlight a study published in FWS that investigated the effects of climate change on salamander behavior. More specifically, the research explores the effects of elevated temperatures and the potential effects of increases interspecific aggression between Appalachian stream salamanders. 156 different stream salamanders consisting of three species: Blackbelly Salamander (Desmognathus quadramaculatus), Ocoee Salamander (Desmognathus ocoee), and Seal Salamander (Desmognathus monticola) were collected in Monroe County, Tennessee.

Figure 1. Bissell and Cecala (2019) recorded video of 156 different stream salamanders comprising three species to assess the effect of increased temperature on salamander behavior. Artist Credit: Maddy Keller

This project was spearheaded by an undergrad, Kailey Bissell. Kailey now works as a School Programs Education Specialist for Mote Marine Laboratory & Aquarium. Her advisor on this project was Dr. Kristen Cecala, an Associate Professor at Sewanee: The University of the South. Here she teaches Ecology and Environmental Science classes along with Herpetology.

Previous studies by Dr. Cecala and her colleagues at the Tennessee Aquarium and Appalachian State University suggested that there was a change in behavior with the change in temperature. “[The climate] is changing in reasonably predictable ways, but when you add these levels of complexity … things start to get very complicated very quickly” stated Dr. Cecala. With these ideas in mind, they decided to carry out this study.

Kailey Bissel holding a Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) Photo Credit: Todd Pierson

Kailey, was in charge of setting up the tanks, cameras, and lighting. These tasks were difficult because salamanders are nocturnal, camera shy, and adept at escaping from enclosed spaces. Therefore, Kailey needed to use red lights instead of bright aquarium lights, which allowed the cameras to work while not disrupting the salamander’s nocturnal behavior. While looking at the recordings they determined what behavior was considered to be aggressive behavior. Another struggle was making the cages salamander proof to prevent them from escaping.

Hours went into observing the salamanders on video. While looking at the recordings they determined what behavior was considered to be aggressive. They even had to pull outside people to watch the videos when they were unsure of how to classify a behavior. Throughout the hours of observation, they saw many behaviors some of which could be described as them “acting like puppies” while they pile on top of one another. The behaviors were not always cut and dry aggression but could be as simple as a head flick. Upon analyzing the data collected from the recordings, Kailey and her colleagues concluded that as temperature increases the aggressive behavior also increased.

Not only was the lab work interesting but Dr. Cecala also described a particular field event. It was beginning to get dark out and her field team was about to head back for the night when they stumbled upon a wet wall full of salamanders. She said that this is still one of her best field experiences. She attributes the sheer number of salamanders that night to the salamanders being nocturnal behavior.

Climate change research is a highly important and complex field for our current day and age. However, projects such as this make a large overwhelming topic more obtainable to students.

In our interview, Dr. Cecala offered some advice to students interested in field studies. She says, “be open to a diversity of opportunities even if it doesn't sound like it is directly related to your goals...those skills are likely to be transferable to many other positions or contexts, and it is hard to identify in advance where a position or opportunity may lead you!”

Many students have worked with Dr. Cecala doing research on various amphibians and reptiles. Their current research can be seen on her website.

To p or not to p, that is the question

Freshwater ecologists have been trained for decades in how to design studies, match research questions with appropriate statistical models, and interpret the results of statistical tests. We have learned how to apply different flavors of analyses of variance (plain vanilla, with covariates, blocked, split, nested, and repeated) when conducting either manipulative or natural experiments and how to partition and report sources of variation. We have learned how to use various types of regression analyses to describe and quantify associations between response variables of interest and predictor variables. We have learned how to ensure that our data meet the assumptions of these parametric tests and use non-parametric equivalents if we cannot meet those assumptions. More recently, we have learned to distinguish random effects from fixed effects when selecting specific model structures. Over my professional life, we have learned to use increasingly sophisticated procedures to conduct these tests. And, we have been blessed with a cornucopia of procedures available in R and other statistical packages.

A basic output from many of these procedures is p, the nearly sacred number that, if small enough, may convince reviewers to recommend publication of our work, but if too large (i.e., larger than the mystical threshold of 0.05), cause the same reviewers to relegate our hard work to the dust bin of never to be read studies. It turns out that p > 0.05, a core criterion applied to nearly all statistical tests, has been vexing statisticians, ecologists, and other scientists for decades (e.g., see Yoccoz 1991). We know, for example, that p is strongly influenced by sample size, and simply reporting p (and whether it is greater or less than 0.05) tells us little about what we really care about - the magnitude of effect an x-variable has on a response variable. Concern over p < 0.05 has been simmering beneath the surface of science like a geyser, and that geyser has finally erupted. In a 2016 statement summarizing concerns regarding the interpretation of p values, the American Statistical Association (ASA) primed the geyser (Wasserstein and Lazar 2016); and last March, the geyser erupted (Wasserstein et al. 2019). That month, the ASA published a series of papers in a special issue of The American Statistician called “Statistical inference in the 21st century: A world beyond p < 0.05”. The lead editorial (Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”) by Wasserstein et al. (2019) lays out the problem, lists several “don’ts”, including the recommendation to stop using the term “statistically significant” and similar terms entirely. Equally important, the editors point to the 43 papers published in the special issue to help guide how we should use p and other statistical output in the future. p, itself, is clearly still useful, but “statistically significant” seems to have been dealt a mortal blow.

As the Editor of Freshwater Science, I think the recommendations laid out by Wasserstein et al. (2019) are spot-on and long overdue. These changes should liberate us from the tyranny of “p < 0.05”, or any other arbitrary level of p for that matter; but by leaving “p < 0.05” behind us, we will need to be more thoughtful, rational, and scientific in how we use statistics to guide our inferences. I look forward to Freshwater Science receiving submissions that use statistical tests as one component of a balanced, weight-of-evidence approach that should lead to more robust and defensible inferences than have often been made in the past. I urge you to read the Wasserstein et al. (2019) editorial and as many of the papers in the special issue as you can. Then, when submitting to Freshwater Science, p freely, but p wisely.

Wasserstein, R. L., and N. A. Lazar. 2016. The ASA’s Statement on p-Values: Context, process, and purpose,” The American Statistician 70:129–133.   Wasserstein, R. L., A. L. Schirm and N. A. Lazar. 2019. Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”, The American Statistician 73:Supplement 1:1-19. Yoccoz, N.G. 1991. Use, overuse, and misuse of significance tests in evolutionary biology and ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 72:106-111.

A Tribute to Dr. Scott A. Wissinger

By Erika Bilger

Dr. Scott Wissinger, Professor Emeritus at Allegheny College, endowed professor, Fulbright Scholar, Erskine Fellow, and long-time NABS/SFS member, passed away at age 65. He chaired both the Biology and Environmental Science departments at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania and was an adjunct fellow in Freshwater Ecology at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. A naturalist with a strong sense of place, Scott invested his time and talents in the world and people around him with intensity.

Scott was a central Pennsylvania native and graduate of Susquehanna University, and he cherished his childhood streams and rivers throughout his life. This, along with his seminal Ph.D. work on dragonfly life histories and ecology at Purdue University, set him on a path in freshwater ecology. In 1988, Scott joined Bobbi Peckarsky at Rocky Mountain Biological Lab (RMBL) for a few weeks, during which they sampled the then unknown benthic invertebrate communities in alpine ponds around the Mexican Cut. In the same visit, Scott collected data on young-of-year Ambystoma salamanders from several ponds. The data from this initial trip inspired a proposal, and he was granted an NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award. Scott returned to RMBL every subsequent summer, maintaining collaborative research on salamander population dynamics, wetland macroinvertebrate communities, and caddisfly life histories and roles in ecosystem function.

Scott grew a successful research program at a private liberal arts college with roughly 2000 students, all undergraduates. Over his 32 years at Allegheny College, he advised nearly 200 “comp” (senior project) students and supported 50 NSF-funded undergraduate researchers at RMBL. His students co-authored publications and presentations, including many in our society’s journal and at NABS/SFS meetings. He relished seeing students excited about ecology, which motivated various research questions, topics, and directions he covered over his career. An outstanding teacher in the classroom, lab, and field, Scott continued teaching seminar courses and advising students after his retirement in 2018. His former students contribute to freshwater science in all levels of government, consulting, non-profit organizations, and academia, and are a significant and lasting embodiment of his legacy.

Scott’s successes in the field of freshwater ecology are matched by his personal connections with students and colleagues (and people in general). His blend of infectious enthusiasm for science and penchant for personal connections made him a unique and adored professor and colleague. He delighted in championing aspiring scientists with practical encouragement and had a way of inciting students to be better. He was known not just for his role as an academic advisor, but also his ability to listen and advise students on life. The connections he formed with students continued long after graduation through career advice, reference letters, research collaborations, visits, and kitchen table conversations. Scott could seamlessly transition from discussion about the evolutionary trade-offs of growth and reproduction in caddisflies to the joys and trials of raising children. For those of us lucky to have him as our advisor, he continued his mentor role in our lives, in some cases decades after leaving Allegheny.

While Scott excelled at making one feel special, it was always clear he absolutely cherished his family and love of his life: wife Sue, son A.J., daughter-in-law Jamie, and new baby granddaughter, Charlotte. He took great care to stay in touch with his 5 younger sisters, nieces and nephews, and his mom. Scott had many interests and talents; he held various service positions, coached baseball, ran, fly fished, biked, and enjoyed theatre and music festivals. He was many things to many people, perhaps only possible because Scott never slept and was always, always late. He could identify mountain wildflowers in the Rockies as well as the fishes of a northwest Pennsylvania stream. And, he had a particular affinity for planting trees, having at least one of every species native to Pennsylvania growing on his property.

At this past SFS meeting in Salt Lake City, former students and colleagues gathered to honor, roast, and congratulate Scott on his retirement from Allegheny College. We are incredibly grateful for this time and immensely sad to have suddenly lost our mentor and friend just a few months later on October 5. We will miss his brilliant mind, proclivity for wearing purple, endless razzing and practical jokes, the reassurance of his smile, and his unfailing loyalty. Yet, his infectious ardor for experiencing the world around him transcends his absence, and his academic tree is truly a forest on the freshwater ecology landscape.

Scott Wissinger with former lab members at #2019SFS (Pictured from l to r: Ben Holcomb, Leslie Rieck, Allison Roy, Erika Bilger, Howard Whiteman, Scott Wissinger, Mike Vlah, Susan Washko, and Jared Balik) Photo credit: E. Bilger.

Book Reviews

The Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of Virginia

Authors: Paul E. Bugas, Jr., Corbin D. Hilling, Val Kells, Michael J. Pinder, Derek A. Wheaton, and Donald J. Orth Illustrated by Val Kells and Joseph R. Tomelleri

-- reviewed by Dr. Stephen McIninch, Virginia Commonwealth University

The Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of Virginia is a welcome addition to the library of field guides that compels us to be outside more and to learn what we can while there. Anyone interested in the fish fauna of the Commonwealth of Virginia would do well to include this in their collection. The guide provides brief and meaningful information on the diversity and methods for observation and handling of fishes. These activities provide the most information and enjoyment when one is able to identify the specific species of interest. Species identification is perhaps the most important role of the field guide.

The Introduction section explains the organization and layout of species accounts and then introduces the reader to the world of freshwater fishes, focused primarily on Virginia. The physiographic composition of the Commonwealth as well as drainage variability and the associated fish faunas are briefly described. The brevity sometimes results in over- extension such as the characterization of the large majority of waters within the Coastal Plain as “acidic, dark, and low in oxygen”. Overviews on the aquatic habitat types and ecological importance of fishes is followed by a section on the contribution of these fishes to Virginia’s economy.

The section on fish watching, photography and keeping of fishes will surely add people to the enjoyable arts of wildlife watching. As the authors point out, one can “make a hobby of watching fishes”. The Guide also includes sections on catching fishes (outside of standard rod and reel angling) and both photography and keeping of fishes. A few of the authors are Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries employees and they do well to mention existing limitations on collection of fishes as well as point to the proper authorities when removing fish, especially protected species, from their habitats.

Management and conservation of fishes is presented with brief subsections that range from angler surveys and tagging methods to genetics and hatchery stockings. Most of these tasks are targeted (what does species X eat?, where does species Y go?, how stable if the population of species z?). One aspect omitted is the role that fishes play in many biomonitoring programs around the world and in Virginia.

Prior to the species accounts, a section on fish anatomy provides readers with explanation of characters used to describe fishes. Description of basic anatomical features are supported with illustrations gleaned from Freshwater Fishes of Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Additional information on diagnostic characteristics not often used in the species accounts (i.e. fin ray and spine counts, scale counts and lateral line variables) are included. A Key to fish families of Virginia follows and directs to the family accounts.

The format of species accounts is an improvement over larger (regional) guides where descriptions, information, pictures, and maps may be separated in different parts of the book. Following a brief introduction of each family, formal scientific and common names are given (as well as some additional colloquial names for some species. Descriptions include general notes on characteristics such as overall body form and fin placement but also include identifying characters related to pigmentation patterns and variation in coloration. Account subsections in addition to Description include, Reproduction (timing and habitats); Food – broad dietary tendencies; and a Notes section where the authors include various interesting aspects of biology, distribution, behavior, management or other items of interest. In some cases the protected status (federal or state-wide) are noted. For the amateur fish observer and/or aquarist this guide would have benefited from a more readily apparent way to denote protected species.

Most of the species accounts are accompanied by an illustration of the species. These illustrations are a major feature of this book. Many of the species illustrations are depicted in the species’ most colorful form, usually during the spawning season. At this time, these fishes are certainly at their most spectacular but this is short-lived for many species and thus not representative of what may be considered a non-breeding coloration pattern. This is most evident in the two largest families Minnows and Darters but less so for the Sunfishes. The size ratios, fin placement, and feature detail in the illustrations are remarkable (in many cases scale counts and fin rays counts are accurate). Overall coloration is more variable. Details of bar placement, stripes, stippling, etc.. is very good to excellent but some background coloration in many of the accounts appears to be washed out or faded. The two species chosen to front the Species Account section, Riverweed Darter and Candy Darter, are also represented by photographs, and indicate color variability. A more uniform treatment among seasonal condition or an indication of stage at coloration would assist an observer out of spawning season. Similarly, lamprey species are only illustrated in adult form but may be encountered more frequently as ammocoetes (especially the brook lampreys).

Some species of fish are difficult to positively identify due to similarities with like species. Because many of these species share similar characteristics and coloration patterns, they are generally not both illustrated. Those like-species that inhabit different drainages will be discernable by place of capture. Others would have benefitted from having comparative illustrations that point out differences.

Range maps and briefs on Size, Habitat, Abundance, and Status complete the species accounts. Size represent the adult size range. Habitat indicates descriptive habitat characters such as temperature, size of water body, and flow lentic versus lotic. Abundance reflect numbers commonly found as Rare, Uncommon, Common, and Abundant. Status is stated as Native to Virginia or Introduced into Virginia. This is an oversimplification of a diverse fish fauna. In many cases (not all), the Notes section contains information on native drainages, otherwise if it is possible that a species is native in any part of any drainage, it is listed as Native. Someone observing a Green Sunfish from any drainage on the Atlantic slope should be able to acknowledge that it is an introduced fish.

My copy of this field guide is already quite dog-eared and I imagine that I will accidently drop it into the water at least once during future field seasons. The wonderful illustrations along with useful descriptions will allow those seeking to build their ‘life-list” of freshwater fishes. I would suggest that the authors add a species checklist in the 2nd edition for just that purpose.

Internal Phosphorus Loading in Lakes: Causes, Case Studies, and Management

Editors Alan D. Steinman and Bryan M. Spears

-- Reviewed by Dr. Gary A. Lamberti, University of Notre Dame

Phosphorus (P) is among the most biologically active yet geologically scarce elements on the planet. Therefore, its release from lake sediments (often called ‘internal P loading’) is of paramount importance for the ecology and management of freshwater lakes. Not only is P often the cause of eutrophication and harmful algal blooms, internal loading can prevent lake water quality from recovering for decades even if external P loading is controlled. Yet, without this essential element of ATP, life would no longer exist. In this book, editors Steinman and Spears bring together an international cast of experts to summarize the state-of-knowledge of P loading and cycling in lakes around the world.

In a well-crafted treatment of the topic, the book first introduces the problem of P loading, its measurement, driving factors, and mathematical modeling. In the second section, 17 chapters are devoted to important case studies of P dynamics in lakes representing 13 different countries and 5 continents. Finally, the book concludes with synthetic chapters summarizing the global knowledge of P loading and recommendations for its management on a changing planet. This comprehensive treatment of P loading in lakes is a welcome, and long overdue, contribution to a critical ecological process that will guide the field of P management for decades to come.

In the Drift: Issue 35, Fall 2019

ITD — Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:35:15 +0000

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Ross Vander Vorste

In the Drift

In the Drift: Issue 35, Fall 2019

In this issue

FPOM - short news and resources
Freshwater Science Article Spotlight
New co-editor profiles
Dear Nick - advice from Nick Aumen
ITD Q&A with SFS media officer Shelli DiFranco
Remembrance of Bert Cushing (1931-2019)
A message from our SFS President
2020 Meeting Announcement
SFS Playing Cards
Student Conservation Award
Highlights SFS and CASS activities
Book Review:An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America
2019 Annual Meeting Recap

Dear Society for Freshwater Science,

Collect the latest news from the Society for Freshwater Science in this issue. We are especially thankful for all those that contributed to this issue! Make sure to scroll to the bottom of the issue to see photos from this years annual conference in the Annual Meeting Recap.

Enjoy,

Ross Vander Vorste, editor

Ali Chalberg, co-editor

Brad Morris, co-editor

FPOM

SFS news and resources collected from "the drift"

Amy Rosemond's President's Environment
A new issue of Freshwater Science has been published
A new Making Waves podcast hosted by Susan Washko talking with Maureen Finnerty, Jennifer Greiser, and Sayoni Dutta about the infamous Cuyahoga River fire
Stay Fresh! a compilation of new research in freshwater sciences
Classifieds: job opportunities and workshops in freshwater science
SFS 2012 Joint ASLO/SFS meeting - call for abstracts January 2020

Article Spotlight

By Ali Chalberg and Brad Morris

What the heck is a Snuffbox? Mussels are an essential part of most riverine ecosystems, yet 70% of species are endangered, including all species from the genus Epioblasma (commonly known as riffleshells). The Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) are found in the Midwest, Great Lakes, and Canada. Although they are classified as endangered, there are stronghold populations in the Great Lakes. This project explained the genetic diversity and structure of Snuffbox, determining if genetic differences exist among the populations.

Caitlin Beaver, lead-author, is a Biologist for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Wetland and Aquatic Research Center in Gainesville Florida, and Dr. Daelyn Woolnough and Dr. Dave Zanatta are faculty in Biology and the Institute for Great Lakes Research at Central Michigan University. Their article “Assessment of genetic diversity and structure among populations of Epioblasma triquetra in the Laurentian Great Lakes drainage.” focuses on Caitlin’s masters research on endangered mussels.

Snuffbox found in the Grand River Photo Credit: Central Michigan University

Both Daelyn and Dave have been working with the Snuffbox for many years now. This project gained funding from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), which allowed them to hire Caitlin to help them with the genetic work. Although some of the field specimens were collected prior to Caitlin starting, she still made her way into the field on numerous trips to collect samples. Field collection comes with its share of fun stories, and this trio had a few to tell! Being a Floridian, Caitlin has a funny recollection of wearing three or more layers in addition to her waders for her field day. What made this such a Floridian story is that it was a warm day in October at about 50°F (warm for Michigan in the fall). To date, this is her coldest field day. In contrast, Dave recalls a field day he had in the Grand River in Ohio where it was over 100°F. He commented on how the mussels “looked so unhappy when we found them.” Throughout the years, they have sampled in all sorts of weather conditions for this and other mussel related projects. Finding endangered mussels is not always easy, Daelyn compared it to a box of chocolates: you know you're going to find something, but when you pick it up you're not sure what it is. The idea being when you're searching for mussels, you will find some unionids, but not necessarily the endangered ones you were searching for.

This project, although conducted in labs at Central Michigan University, was not only an upper Midwest effort to study endangered mussels, but was international. Because the Snuffbox is found in the Great Lakes, they enlisted the help of USFWS as well as Canadian agencies such as Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Daelyn mentions how working internationally is helpful because you can look at more populations than just what is nearby and it can aid in better understanding the species. Caitlin commented on how important international and even national collaboration is because “animals don’t abide by political or state boundaries.”

Caitlin Beaver in the Grand River holding Snuffbox Photo Credit: Central Michigan University

In our interview, the authors discussed the importance of their broad-scale study of the Snuffbox being that no one had compared the genetic structure and diversity across the entire distribution of the species. Past studies only looked at isolated populations. By looking at the genetic makeup of the whole population, the authors found three distinct populations of the Snuffbox across the Great Lakes Drainage. Snuffbox in the lower Great Lake tributaries were genetically similar, while the populations in eastern Wisconsin and western Michigan were more isolated and distinct. This finding was important because it helps managers better understand Snuffbox, and will provide guidance for augmenting and restoring come of its dwindling populations.

One of the many questions that Daelyn gets asked is, “can you take some [mussels] from here and put them there?” After the project was completed, they found that not every species shows the same genetic structure, and this is one thing that managers are starting to realize. In our interview, Dave stated that mussels are “all filter feeders ... but they have their unique niches within the ecosystem; they all use different hosts; they have different patterns of connectivity between populations … mussels should not be grouped as, yeah, it’s a mussel.” By this he means not all mussels are the same, and have different needs for survival. When asked about future projects spawning from this one, they had many ideas. Daelyn’s lab is in the process of building part of a mussel hatchery in Saline, Michigan. To start, they will be working on more common species currently, but have talked to other agencies to start work on rearing the endangered mussels such as the Snuffbox. Dave mentioned that he would like to see more research involving hatchery propagation and hope more research will go into understanding and protecting endangered mussels.

Unlike most mussels, Snuffbox are still fairly widespread. As previously mentioned, there are a few stronghold populations, unlike other endangered mussels. Dave told us they are not worried that the Snuffbox will go extinct tomorrow, but they are hoping with research and future projects “we can work to make this one a success story.”

Dave Zanatta and Daelyn Wollnoagh preparing to enter the Grand River Photo Credit: Central Michigan University

We finished our interview by asking the authors if they had any advice for future field biologists. Daelyn had advice for adding to your curriculum vitae: volunteer in other labs and gain transferable skills. Skills such as data entry and analyses, GIS, and genetics are valuable to employers. Caitlin echoed this by telling us about her work with mussel DNA gave her the skills she needed to work with a diverse group of organisms, including other freshwater mussels, manatees, and birds. Dave’s advice was not to be afraid of moving away as traveling gives way to new opportunities. Caitlin agreed as she had moved from Florida to Michigan for this opportunity. Caitlin stated, “don't be afraid of the unknown” and to get out there and try something new. Dave would also like to add that you should attend conferences and join organizations like SFS!

Meet the new In the Drift co-editors!

Ali Chalberg and Brad Morris

Ali Chalberg is from Cloquet, Minnesota and Brad Morris is from Morristown, Minnesota. They both graduated from Bemidji State University with a B.S. in Aquatic Biology, and are now attending graduate school at University of Wisconsin - La Crosse.

Ali will be using GIS and temperature loggers to identify coldwater streams in the Driftless Region of Northeast Iowa under the direction of Dr. Eric Strauss. Brad will be studying the effects of flooding and drying on insect emergence in the Mississippi River and the surrounding floodplains while working with Dr. Ross Vander Vorste.

Dear Nick - advice from Nick Aumen

DEAR NICK: I have always been interested in conservation. I volunteer with an environmental organization in my spare time, but wonder if SFS offers ways in which my aquatic science training can be more directly and effectively employed to address conservation issues.
– WANTING TO GET INVOLVED
DEAR INVOLVED: It is wonderful that you are interested in conservation issues, and you undoubtedly have much to contribute. Our aquatic ecosystems are under ever-increasing threats from urbanization, a growing population, runoff enriched in nutrients and/or high concentrations of pollutants, and impacts of rising temperatures and other changes. The answer is yes – SFS has a long-standing involvement in conservation issues, and there are ways in which you can get involved. For example, join the the Conservation and Environmental Issues Committee (CEIC). Conservation-oriented society members created the CEIC in the early 1990s. One of its earliest efforts was the creation of a Conservation Resource database – a listing of society members willing to donate their time and expertise to assist environmental organizations in solving environmental problems. Another early effort (1993) was a special series in the journal’s Perspectives section featuring freshwater conservation articles by scientists and activists in the conservation community. For years, the CEIC has funded a graduate student conservation award for conservation-related research. More recently, the CEIC provides a $1,000 travel award to a SFS meeting for undergraduates engaging in conservation research. The members of CEIC raise money for these efforts in various ways, the latest of which is to sell playing card decks featuring photos by SFS members.

In addition to committee activity, the society develops position statements and letters on various topics. Its policy on science and education advocacy (https://freshwater-science.org/about/society-governance/society-statements) states that “It is incumbent upon SFS to make available its collective expertise and knowledge to educate and advocate for the use of science-based insights as a basis for decision-making.” These position statements, approved by the Board and signed by the President, can be proposed by any member or committee, and carry the full weight of all the expertise and knowledge represented by the society. Also, SFS is a founding member of CASS – the Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies – consisting of nine aquatic science societies that can now speak with a much stronger, unified voice on conservation issues than any one society alone. We also are a member of AIBS – the American Institute of Biological Sciences, and can join with them in making policy statements. The SFS provides you with helpful resources to assist in making your voice heard -- https://freshwater-science.org/about/science-policy. This newsletter also features ongoing and newsworthy events within SFS, including news and events related to aquatic conservation topics.

Finally, remember that you can always act locally by taking the time and effort to translate your own science to inform local conservation outcomes via management or policy. For example, say “yes” to an invitation to work on a kids’ STEM event or say “yes” to be the dinner speaker for a local watershed group. There always are opportunities to make your science applicable and informative for those outside the field.

One of the best ways to be effective is to become a more active member of SFS by, for example, volunteering for a committee such as CEIC, or drafting a position statement on a proposed policy or bill for consideration by the SFS Board. Thank you for your interest in protecting our precious aquatic resources!

-- Nick

ITD Q & A with Shelli DiFranco, SFS Media Officer

By Ross Vander Vorste

Shelli DiFranco is our new SFS media officer. Here she is posing with her son next to a picturesque stream in Olympic National Park. She's curious to know if any members work on streams in this area. Contact Shelli at webeditor@freshwater-science.org.

ITD: Could you tell the Society about your background and how it brought you to serve as Media Officer for SFS?

I am honored to serve as your Media Officer. My background is in environmental communications, though I have alternated between working in the environmental field and the private or nonprofit sectors. I most recently served as the Director of Community Engagement for a water quality nonprofit in Michigan. My family just boomeranged back to Dayton, Ohio.

ITD: Tell us about your role as Media Officer? What type of duties will you working on for SFS?

As Media Officer, I help the Society promote it’s strategic plan and key activities with the goal of increasing membership and engagement. In addition to managing the SFS website, I get to work with the members who are leading various communications channels, such as our podcast and enewsletters. I am also beginning to work with some of the committees, like the policy committee, that may have a need to share their work outside the walls of the Society.

ITD: What goals have you set for yourself or has the Society provided you related to your position as Media Officer?

Ooh, goals are a good question. I started my role in September and am still getting the lay of the land. I’m formulating my specific goals, but in general, I would love to see our membership grow by bringing in students, scientists, communicators, and professionals working in the field.

ITD: What impresses you most about SFS and why are you excited to be a part of this Society?

I have been impressed by so much already! Your passion for the field and seeing how it connects to people’s everyday lives has been inspiring. I am excited to be part of the Society because you are an incredible group of people working on critical issues.

Remembrance

Bert Cushing (1931-2019)

By By Arthur Benke, Steve Thomas, G. Wayne Minshall, Christopher Robinson, Eric Snyder, Todd Royer, Denis Newbold and David Allan

Colbert E. (Bert) Cushing, long time NABS-SFS member and former NABS President, passed away September 9, 2019 in Loveland, CO. Bert is survived by his wife of 60 years, Jackie, 3 children and 10 grandchildren. He loved his home state of Colorado, being born in Ft. Collins in 1931, receiving his BSc in Fisheries Management (1952) and MSc in Zoology (1956 ) from Colorado State University and living his retirement years in Estes Park. In between his Colorado years, Bert spent two years with the Montana Fish & Game Department, and then attended the University of Saskatchewan where he received his PhD in Biology (Limnology) in 1961. Shortly thereafter he began the rest of his career (35 years) studying various aspects of stream ecology as a Senior Research Scientist with Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

Bert’s early work at Battelle emphasized the relationship of Columbia River organisms and radioactive elements introduced into the river by the nuclear reactors. After the reactors were closed, his interests broadened to include more theoretical studies on streams throughout North America with professional colleagues from various universities and laboratories. While he published more than 100 papers over a period of at least 5 decades, his best known contributions are his collaborations on the River Continuum Concept (Vannote et al. 1980, Minshall et al. 1983, 1985). But Bert’s published papers are just a part of his many contributions to the science of stream ecology. He edited or co-edited seven books, and wrote five books. Of particular note are “River and stream ecosystems of the world” (edited by C.E. Cushing et al.), “Freshwater ecosystems and climate change” (edited by C. E. Cushing), “Rivers of North America” (edited by A.C. Benke and C.E. Cushing), “Field guide to rivers of North America” (edited by A.C. Benke and C. E. Cushing), “Streams: their ecology and life” (C. E. Cushing and J.D. Allan), and “Streamside: the science and beauty of rivers and fly fishing” (C. E. Cushing). The latter 4 books highlight Bert’s dedication to the importance of informing lay audiences about the beauty and importance of streams and rivers, how they worked and why they need preservation.

Bert continued to lecture and teach in a variety of ways well into his retirement. Along the same lines, Bert published popular articles on stream ecology in Colorado Outdoors, Trout, and The Quill. He taught at Washington State University, the Yellowstone Institute, Rocky Mountain National Park, and held an Affiliate Faculty appointment at Colorado State University and was a beloved and respected member of Idaho State University’s Stream Ecology Center.

In addition, Bert was an avid fly fisherman and the lead content provider for an America On-Line service provided through Trout Unlimited entitled "Ask Dr. Cushing." He was frequently asked all sorts of fly-fishing questions, many of which were answered in his books.

Bert was an active member of several professional societies, but NABS (later SFS) is where Bert was most at home. He was a fixture at our annual meetings well after his retirement. He served NABS most notably as President in 1994-1995 but contributed to the society in many other official and unofficial ways. For many of us, Bert epitomized much of what’s great about our society. He was warm, quick to laugh, and above all else, humble. He was patient and always available to talk to a colleague, or students hoping to become one. Bert was sharp and had the most pleasant way of letting you know you were wrong or headed off the path. Bert’s personality and leadership played an important role in the development of our society and the values we hold dear.

A message from our SFS President

Sad losses from our Society

As you may already be aware, we have lost two beloved benthologists and freshwater ecologists in the past few months, Dr. Bert Cushing and Dr. Scott Wissinger. See Bert's remembrance (above) and his obituary. Scott's obituary is here. Also, sadly, Marcelo Ardon lost his dear wife Erin Linquist to cancer in early August. The families of all these SFS members are in our hearts.

-- Amy Rosemond

Please mark your calendars for our 2020 annual meeting 7-12 June in Madison, WI, which will be held jointly with the Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography. The theme is ‘Sustaining Aquatic Ecosystems Under Global Change.’ Please check out the meeting website and make your plans to attend now! We’ve already had a tremendous response to our call for special sessions earlier this year and organizers are busy planning fun and engaging activities for all attendees! Abstract submission and registration will open in early 2020! Because this is a joint meeting, you will not be able to renew your SFS membership as part of meeting registration; please make sure to renew your SFS membership early so that you can take advantage of the reduced member registration.
This year, abstract submission fees are required to cover the meeting cost. SFS student members will receive a waiver of that fee as part of their paid 2020 SFS membership. Your society is also getting a head start on planning for the 2021 annual meeting in Brisbane, Australia. This will be another joint meeting in conjunction with the Australian Freshwater Sciences Society and the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society..
Our amazing group of SFS Fellows and others have been working hard to raise funds to support travel for students and early career members. Stayed tuned for more information on this amazing opportunity to attend an SFS annual meeting down under, network with fellow freshwater science students and professionals from Australasia and beyond, and experience Australian freshwater systems first-hand.

-- Andy Leidolf (SFS Executive Director)

Society for Freshwater Science Playing Card Deck

This project will celebrate photographers in the SFS community, and selected photos will be used to create a deck of 54 playing cards to be sold as a fundraiser for student travel awards. If approved by the photographer, each winning photographer's name will be printed with the image.

Submissions will be accepted from now until December 31, 2019. Decks of playing cards with the winning images will be sold at the June 2019 SFS-ASLO Joint Meeting in Madison, WI and potentially through other channels to increase the funds available for student travel awards.

Rules:

Only three (3) photos per participant can be submitted
A title or caption must accompany each photograph. Please be descriptive about organisms, environments, and behaviors.
If deemed appropriate, submissions will be automatically included in the SFS image library, and freely distributed through SFS web site for educational non-profit purposes.
Submission of your photograph(s) indicates that you agree to the above terms (Item 3) and the following terms: You are giving SFS a non-exclusive right to use and distribute your image(s) on the web, and everyone the right to use your image(s) for educational non-profit purposes. Each photographer's name will be printed with the image, with their permission.
Submissions, with captions, are to be emailed to Steve Rier (srier@bloomu.edu) before midnight, December 31, 2019.
The photographer of each image selected for inclusion in the card deck will be notified by February, 2019.

Submitted digital photographs must:

Show a freshwater organism
Be in .jpg format
Be in “portrait” orientation
Be in the highest resolution that you have in order to minimize blurring when reproduced
Be in sRGB color format, if possible

Call for Applications: Graduate Conservation Award

The Conservation and Environmental Issues Committee (CEIC) is pleased to announce the annual Graduate Student Conservation Research Award (GSCRA) competition for support of the best graduate student research proposal addressing at least one of the following criteria: 1) advancing knowledge of the biology or ecology of an endangered or threatened species or ecosystem; 2) advancing knowledge of conservation of biodiversity at any or all levels of organization (from genes to ecosystems); 3) developing a plan to conserve an aquatic species or ecosystem; or 4) supporting or implementing the conservation or restoration of an impaired or threatened species or ecosystem. Proposals that do not directly address one or more of these criteria will be ineligible for this competition.

Students who receive one SFS endowment award will NOT be eligible for other endowment awards in the same year. We anticipate awarding one student a $1000 grant for 2020 plus reimbursement of the registration fee (up to $300) to attend the annual SFS meeting within two years. It is also expected that the award winning student will serve on the CEIC for at least one year beginning the year of the award. The award winner will be announced in March.

Eligibility

Applicants must be CURRENT STUDENT members of SFS.
Only graduate students are eligible to apply.
Applicants may receive only one GSCRA award during their student career.
Project must be on-going or to be initiated upon receipt of award.

Click to for the Graduate Conservation Award Page

Highlights of SFS and CASS Activities

As a member of the Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies, SFS has been involved in a number of actions to promote the conservation of aquatic resources in 2019. We began the year by co-signing letters to Congress and the White House to recommend bipartisan actions to reach an agreement on fiscal year 2019 appropriations to end the government shutdown that was negatively affecting federal natural resource agencies, many of whom work collaboratively with the science community at-large.

In February, SFS co-signed a letter sent to both the EPA (Andrew Wheeler) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (R.D. James, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works) requesting a 200 day comment period and additional public hearings on the proposed rule – revising the definition of “Waters of the United States”.

In April, we collaborated with other CASS members to hold congressional briefings to address our concerns with the proposal to revise the definition of “Waters of the US Rule (WOTUS)” because of its elimination of protections for all ephemeral streams and wetlands that do not have a surface connection to navigable streams, and the proposed rule also threatens protections of intermittent streams.

From May through July, CASS members collaborated with lawyers who were writing an amicus brief that was submitted to the US Supreme Court in support of the respondents who brought suit against the County of Maui because wastewater was being injected into groundwater as a means of disposal. A local bay became polluted and various environmental groups sued the county. The EPA has joined the County of Maui arguing that the Clean Water Act identifies point sources as those entering surface waters and as such, discharge into groundwater should not be a regulated release. This case was heard on November 6th by SCOTUS and there should be a decision reached by mid-2020 (reported on NPR: link).

In September, CASS submitted a letter to the EPA (Andrew Wheeler) requesting an extension of the comment period for changes the EPA was proposing that affected the Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification process.

In October, we co-signed a 9 page document (with CASS members as well as the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Ecological Society of America and the Society for Ecological Restoration) that provided comments related to the Clean Water Act Section 401 proposed rule “Updating Regulations on Water Quality Certification”; this was also submitted to the EPA (Andrew Wheeler).

On a somewhat brighter note, CASS members jointly sponsored a booth at the SACNAS (Society for the Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science) conference in Hawaii in late November. There were several SFS members who went to meet and greet undergraduate students at the conference and encourage them to attend our annual meeting. In the past, we have attracted students from this conference to participate in our INSTARS program!

-- submitted by Randy Fuller, SFS representative to CASS

Book Review

An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America

Editors R W Merritt, K W Cummins, M B Berg. Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa. 1480 pp

-- review by David Allan

The fifth edition of An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America shows that it is indeed possible to improve on a very good thing. First published in 1978, this invaluable compendium of identification keys to the immature and adult stages of aquatic and semiaquatic insects is an essential reference for aquatic ecologists in North America and beyond. The need to keep current with advances in taxonomy requires new editions at timely intervals, and the editors are to be complemented for successfully taking on this enormous task. Keys are revised and expanded, with new figures added to the 17 taxonomic chapters. Spiral bound, it is meant to be on the bench, next to the microscope, for frequent consultation.

Although especially valued as a taxonomic guide, this book also includes chapters useful to a class in aquatic entomology, including on respiration, habitat use, life history, general ecology, and an overview of various phylogenies. Aquatic insects are important in bioassessment, and this topic is covered well. The entire volume is replete with tables, typically providing an organized summary of a great deal of information. In the bioassessment chapter, for example, one table classifies dozens of bioassessment studies by aspects of sampling, another lists taxa for which molecular methods have been devised, and a third lists useful statistical packages. Indeed, so much tabular information is included in each taxonomic chapter that a separate chapter serves as a guide to the listings, which include common names, habitat, habit, trophic relationships, North American distribution, pollution tolerance values if known, and references. Not content to simply describe categories, this chapter provides heatmaps that show trophic relationships, habitat, and so on by taxonomic groups – a handy way to show, for example, that most Plecoptera are either shredders of leaf matter or engulfers of prey.

Of all of the categories listed at the end of each taxonomic chapter, probably none has seen more use than the trophic relationships typically associated with each genus. These are the functional feeding groups (FFGs) first developed by Cummins in 1973 based on morphological and behavioral mechanisms of food acquisition, allowing a straightforward translation of relative abundance of taxa into relative importance of feeding roles and, presumably, basal resources. Increasingly, analyses based on stoichiometry, stable isotopes, and fatty acids are providing new insights into flexible feeding and the distinction between what is eaten and what fuels growth. Nonetheless, the ease with which an investigator can translate information on the relative abundance of taxa at a site into a depiction of likely energy pathways within the food web makes the continued availability of tabulated trophic roles extremely useful.

An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America is the standard reference on the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of aquatic insects. I can think of no comparable contribution that provides so much benefit to so many freshwater ecologists in the U.S. and worldwide. Editors Rich Merritt, Ken Cummins and Marty Berg, long-time members of the Society for Freshwater Science, have done us all an enormous service.

Annual Meeting Recap

Salt Lake City, Utah

May 19-23, 2019

By the numbers:

1004 Total Attendees
310 Student Members
119 Early Career Members
12 INSTARS
123 Registered Fun Runners
10 Exhibitors
5 Sponsors

Led by Emily Bernhardt, SFS members perform at the annual karaoke event. Photo credit: Mark Wetzel

SFS members, Michael Paul and Erin Hotchkiss, strategizing for the live auction with SFS President Amy Rosemond and Executive Director Andy Leidolf admiring the event. Photo credit: Mark Wetzel

Mentees and mentors from the 2019 SFS INSTARS program. Photo credit: Mark Wetzel

SFS Presidents past and present. Photo credit: Mark Wetzel

2019 SFS Student Endowment Awardees. Photo credit: Mark Wetzel

Presenters from the Neglected African Freshwater special session

In the Drift: Issue 34, Spring 2019

ITD — Thu, 09 May 2019 19:41:30 +0000

Thursday, May 9, 2019

Ross Vander Vorste

In the Drift

In the Drift: Issue 34, Spring 2019

In this issue

FPOM - short news and resources
Last minute meeting info
Meet a Member - 5 SFS members you might not know
Dear Nick - advice from Nick Aumen
Freshwater Science Article Spotlight
Dr. Nancy Grimm selected to National Academy of Sciences
SFS hosts WOTUS Webinar
Early Career Travel Grants
Obituaries

Dear Society for Freshwater Science,

Spring is here and the SFS annual meeting (#2019SFS) is just around the corner. Catch up today on everything going on in the Society, including last minute meeting info and quick tips to improve your presentation.

I would like to thank Tracey Anderson, Nick Aumen, Mary Freeman, Galen Holt, Michelle Kelly, Stephanie Strachan, and Iain Phillips for contributing to this issue. Charles Riddle, Alan Steinman, Dean DeNicola, Gary Lamberti, Stan Gregory, and J.D. McIntire provided heart-felt obituaries.

Enjoy,
Ross Vander Vorste, editor
VanderVorste.Ross@gmail.com

FPOM

SFS news and resources collected from "the drift"

A new Making Waves podcast hosted by Dr. Erin Larson with Dr. Jake Zwart and Dr. Arial Shogren about the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography
Stay Fresh! a compilation of new research in freshwater sciences
Classifieds: job opportunities and workshops in freshwater science

Last minute meeting info

Meeting Schedule Presenter Info Lodging
Transportation Area Attractions

Meet a Member

Introducing 5 SFS members that you might not know

Dr. Tracey Anderson

Associate Professor
University of Minnesota Morris

Question 1: What is your field or topic of study?

When I am not teaching, I study macroinvertebrates and organic matter processing in prairie pothole lakes and agricultural streams in Minnesota.

Question 2: Summarize your current and past roles.

I did graduate work at the University of Kansas and Oregon State University before joining the biology faculty at the University of Minnesota Morris, where I teach freshwater biology, entomology, introduction to paleontology and other courses for biology and environmental science majors. I also conduct research on macroinvertebrate ecology with undergraduate students.

Question 3: What is something you are passionate about related to freshwater science (or not)?

I value connecting life history information with the macroinvertebrates that occur in my research sites and hope that I pass an appreciation for that knowledge on to my students.

Question 4: Which scientific paper, book or other media has inspired you?

Bill Matthew’s 1988 paper, “North American prairie streams as models for ecological study” was an important paper for me early in my career. It made it clear to me that interesting research in stream ecology could be done anywhere, not just in the mountains or in forested streams.

Question 5: Where can we find out more about your science?

I don’t maintain a website, but you can contact me directly (anderstm@morris.umn.edu) to find out more about what I do.

Question 6: How long have you been a member?

My first NABS meeting was in Tuskaloosa, AL in 1988 and I have been a member and attended most meetings since then.

Question 7: Will you attend the SFS meeting? Where can we expect to find you?

I’ll be at the meeting in Salt Lake City this year. You can find me in sessions on teaching and macroinvertebrate ecology.

Dr. Mary Freeman

Research Ecologist
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

Question 1: What is your field or topic of study?

I study the dynamics of populations – principally fishes – in streams and rivers, with the goal of predicting community changes likely to result from altered land uses, climate, and water management.

Question 2: Summarize your current and past roles.

I am a Research Ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, stationed in Athens GA. In the 1990’s, I worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Auburn, AL, on problems of hydropeaking effects on native fishes.

Question 3: What is something you are passionate about related to freshwater science (or not)?

Like many SFS’ers, I am captivated by the diversity and natural histories of freshwater organisms, and the ecological connections among them.

Question 4: Which scientific paper, book or other media has inspired you?

In my beginnings as an ecology student, J.B. Wallace and Rich Merritt’s “Filter-feeding Ecology of Aquatic Insects” and H.B.N. Hynes’s “The Ecology of Running Waters” inspired my fascination with flowing-water ecosystems. Much more recently, I am inspired by Marc Kéry and Michael Schaub’s book, “Bayesian Population Analysis using WinBUGS” to make better use of hierarchical models.

Question 5: Where can we find out more about your science?

https://www.usgs.gov/staff-profiles/mary-freeman?qt-staff_profile_science_products=0#qt-staff_profile_science_products

Question 6: How long have you been a member?

My first, fondly remembered, NABS meeting was in 1980, Savannah GA.

Question 7: Will you attend the SFS meeting? Where can we expect to find you?

Yes! I will present in the session “The environmental flow and water management nexus…” on Thursday afternoon, hang around posters # 9, 88, 167 and 192 (maybe not all at once), and attend many of the animal ecology sessions.

Michelle Kelley, M.Sc.

Recent Graduate
University of Kansas

Question 1: What is your field or topic of study?

I study nitrogen cycling in freshwater ecosystems, and I'm particularly interested in developing and distributing data science-driven analytical tools to help us better understand nutrient cycling.

Question 2: Summarize your current and past roles.

I'm currently a Masters student working with Amy Burgin in the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department at the University of Kansas, and I'm just on the edge of my thesis defense (one week from when I'm writing this, oof!). Before KU, I completed my BS in Environmental Engineering at Michigan Tech, where I worked with Amy Marcarelli's lab group and was bitten by the biogeochemistry bug.

Question 3: What is something you are passionate about related to freshwater science (or not)?

I've had some really interesting conversations about the political and often colonial underpinnings of conservation & ecology lately - discussions which were catalyzed by a talk at KU from Banu Subramaniam (check out Dr. Subramaniam's book Ghost Stories for Darwin) late last year, and have gotten me thinking about how we can better reflect this history (and present!) in how we teach our classes.

Question 4: Which scientific paper, book or other media has inspired you?

I read Jacques Cousteau and Frederic Dumas' The Silent World as a young kid and it totally blew me away; I think that was the first piece of science writing that really hooked me. I still love nature-y prose and poetry, and I'm totally predictable - my favorites are Mary Oliver and Robert Frost.

Question 5: Where can we find out more about your science?

My twitter handle is @michelleckelly_, and you can check out my website at https://michelleckelly.github.io/

Question 6: How long have you been a member?

My first meeting was in Raleigh, NC in 2017. I was so floored by how friendly, passionate (and downright goofy) all of these scientists were - people who I had built up in my head as very serious, pantsuit-and-heels type personalities!

Question 7: Will you attend the SFS meeting? Where can we expect to find you?

Yes! I'll be talking about my thesis work on coupled nitrate uptake and river metabolism. You'll find me near the coffee table (ha) or in the halls, frantically bouncing between sessions...

Stephanie Strachan, M.Sc.

Environmental Monitoring Scientist
Environment and Climate Change Canada &
Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network

Question 1: What is your field or topic of study?

My field of study is freshwater ecosystem health, biological monitoring and assessment.

Question 2: Summarize your current and past roles.

I work for Environment and Climate Change Canada as the biological monitoring lead in western and northern Canada for the Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network (CABIN).

Question 3: What is something you are passionate about related to freshwater science (or not)?

I am passionate about data-sharing and how government organizations can collaborate with other non-government organizations and indigenous communities with an interest or mandate in freshwater assessment, especially in remote locations.

Question 4: Which scientific paper, book or other media has inspired you?

During my undergraduate degree, my program director pointed me to Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” which sparked my interest in environmental science. More recently, I have been inspired by Paul Hawken’s book “Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming”.

Question 5: Where can we find out more about your science?

Biomonitoring and assessment activities I am involved in can be found on the CABIN website https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/canadian-aquatic-biomonitoring-network.html My government profile can be found here https://profils-profiles.science.gc.ca/en/profile/stephanie-strachan

Question 6: How long have you been a member?

I have been a member since 1996 and part of the SFS TCP Committee since 2003.

Question 7: Will you attend the SFS meeting? Where can we expect to find you?

I am excited to attend the 2019 meeting in Salt Lake City. I plan to attend talks related to bioassessment, environmental stressors, and modeling. You can also find me at the DNA metabarcoding workshop and the TCP committee meeting.

Iain Phillips, M.Sc.

Senior Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Ecologist
Water Security Agency of Saskatchewan
Adjunct Professor - Univ. of Saskatchewan
Director - Troutreach Saskatchewan NGO

Question 1: What is your field or topic of study?

My research focusses on building ecosystem health models and biomonitoring tools for the Northern Great Plains, although I often get distracted with interesting natural history and isotope projects along the way.

Question 2: Summarize your current and past roles.

I am currently the Senior Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Ecologist with the Water Security Agency of Saskatchewan, an Adjunct Professor at the University of Saskatchewan, and the Director of the Troutreach Saskatchewan NGO. I started working for the Water Security Agency right out of my Masters degree 13 years ago and haven’t looked back.

Question 3: What is something you are passionate about related to freshwater science (or not)?

Throughout all my research I am most passionate about studying the wealth of unexplored natural history and basic ecology questions underlying the ecosystem health models and biomonitoring tools in the Northern Great Plains.

Question 4: Which scientific paper, book or other media has inspired you?

I really dove into entomology in the first place after reading Bert Hölldobler and E. O. Wilson’s book The Ants early in my undergrad degree and have held a reverence for the ecology and behavior of insects ever since!

Question 5: Where can we find out more about your science?

Take a look through the Troutreach Saskatchewan website to learn about the projects we have ongoing and where we’re headed in the future! (www.troutreachsk.com)

Question 6: How long have you been a member?

I have been a member since 2009.

Question 7: Will you attend the SFS meeting? Where can we expect to find you?

I will be attending the SFS meeting in Salt Lake this year where you can find me presenting in the crayfish session or taking in some exciting crayfish talks!

Dear Nick - advice from Nick Aumen

DEAR NICK: I am preparing my talk for SFS 2019 and am worried about how to make it the best it can be. I am early in my career and have very little experience in developing an effective Powerpoint presentation and speaking to an audience. Do you have any tips that might help? -- Worried

Dear Worried:
Your concern is a common and important one, not just among early career scientists, but across the career spectrum. This topic is popular and was the subject of my first column in May 2017, and that advice still is relevant. Many undergraduate and graduate science programs still do not include courses on effective communication of science. However, communicating science to other scientists, and at times to non-technical audiences, is likely to be an important facet of your career. Fortunately, there are many good sources of information online about communicating science, and there are more courses available than there used to be, including those outside of the academic environment.

With respect to your slides, remember that your presentation is about you and your science, not about your slides. Your slides should support your conclusions, but not make them. It is easy to fall into the trap of relying on your slides to make your points, rather than you making them directly to the audience. Keep your slides as basic as possible, including only the most essential data and figures. Rely more on photographs and illustrations than extensive text or bullets, and do not ever read from your slides. Reading your slides causes you to face away from your audience and to lose that all-important engagement with them. The most common problem is making each slide way too complex and busy, with too much information presented in small fonts and multiple insets that are impossible to read even from the front of the room. Count how many times you hear a presenter acknowledge to the audience that their slides are hard to read, and ask yourself why they used them in the first place!

Here are my recommendations for making an effective Powerpoint presentation.

Don’t read your slides – speak to your audience, not to the screen.
For a 12-minute talk, use no more than 15 slides, and preferably fewer.
Minimize text and use photographs and illustrations that make your points.
Never place multiple charts/graphs on one slide – that may be fine for print, but it simply does not work for a projected image in a large room (but notice how many times you see this type of slide at the meeting).
Avoid fancy transitions, animations, and complex templates/backgrounds – they are distracting.
Minimize white space – i.e., enlarge your content to use all available space in the slide frame.
Make all text and numbers at least 28-point font.
Use only Helvetica, Arial, or other sans serif fonts.

For your delivery, practice the presentation in front of someone who is not afraid to provide honest and positive criticism. Have them sit at the back of the room to make sure your slides are truly readable. Twelve minutes goes by incredibly fast, and it takes practice to refine your presentation to be concise and effective and to leave time for questions. Try making your practice presentation without slides! That is the true test to insure your slides are not making the presentation for you. Put in enough preparation and practice time before the meeting, and you will arrive in a more confident frame of mind. Good luck and enjoy the meeting!

- Nick

Article Spotlight

By Ross Vander Vorste

Field biologist and theoretical modeler Dr. Galen Holt and the renowned ecologist Dr. Peter Chesson’s recent article in Freshwater Science explores a fundamental question in ecology, “How does the branching structure of river networks influence biodiversity within a watershed?”

When you look at a map, one of the most obvious features on the landscape is the branching network structure of river networks. River branching has long been associated with physical changes along rivers from their headwaters to mainstems. As rivers change in shape, gradient, and substrate, river branching allows dispersal throughout a network of diverse habitats by all types of aquatic organisms, from microbes to fish.

Sixmile River on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Photo Credit: Galen Holt

Galen says that it may seem like the diversity of aquatic communities within an entire watershed is controlled by river branching structure, however, no one has distinguished the effects of branching structure on watershed-scale diversity independently from environmental heterogeneity. To address this issue, Galen and Peter created and built analytical and computer models that represented a river network, complete with thousands of unique habitat units with their own set of environmental characteristics.

Theoretical modeling was not something Galen thought he would be doing after entering the world of freshwater ecology as a field biologist. In the field, Galen noticed some of the obvious differences between biological communities inhabiting headwater streams and larger mainstem rivers. He then became inspired by the metacommunity framework in rivers through studies by Brown and Swan (2010) and Altermatt (2013). Since jumping fully into the field of modeling, Galen has published in The American Naturalist and Theoretical Population Biology on topics including species coexistence and biodiversity maintenance.

Galen and Peter uncovered some important insights using models to determine the role of branching structure in structuring communities. First, changing the branching structure in models while keeping the degree of environmental heterogeneity within a watershed constant did not have a strong influence on species diversity. Second, while branching can control the connectivity of local habitats by facilitating dispersal, these effects are minimal compared to the role of environmental heterogeneity in structuring communities. Although branching is inherently linked to environmental variation, the different ways that branching shapes river networks has little to do with the diversity of species that you will find within a watershed.

Tanque Verde River, Arizona. Photo Credit: Galen Holt

Galen admits that modeling efforts simplify real-life ecosystems, and often ignore important aspects, such as life history strategies of taxa. In his new postdoctoral work in Australia, Galen combines his talents in modeling with his love for natural history to better understand species coexistence of stream invertebrates. With colleagues Wim Bovill, Rebecca Lester and Barbara Downes, Galen is currently investigating how environmental conditions influence competition of caddisflies throughout their egg, larval, and adult life stages.

As advice for budding or seasoned field biologists interested applying models to address their own research questions, Galen suggests starting to read paper introductions and text books to familiarize yourself with terms and techniques. Then he felt jumping in and learning as you go is one approach that was successful for him thanks to the tremendous volume of information available on StackExchange, a virtual library of coding questions and answers.

Congratulations, Dr. Grimm!

Nancy Grimm, long-time SFS member and 2019 SFS Fellow, has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Click here to read the full announcement from the National Academy of Sciences. Nancy was interviewed in a recent article by Arizona State University about her achievement. Click here to read Nancy's SFS fellow page from this year.

SFS responds to proposed changes to Waters of the US (WOTUS) rule

Watch the webinar hosted by SFS President Dr. Jen Tank and Dr. Mazeika Sullivan
Read SFS letter to the US EPA

Early Career Member?

Apply for a Travel Engagement Award by Wednesday, May 15th, at 5:00 p.m. (EDT).

Click for more information

Obituaries

Charles David McIntire (1932-2019)

By Alan Steinman, Dean DeNicola, Gary Lamberti, Stan Gregory, and J.D. McIntire

Ecologist and phycologist Charles David (Dave) McIntire passed away peacefully on January 4, 2019, from complications from leukemia. He was 86 years old.

Dave’s life trajectory was anything but typical for an academic, ecologist, and phycologist. He was born in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1932, but his life’s passions went far beyond diatoms and systems ecology. When he was in sixth grade, he took up the alto saxophone and began his lifelong love of jazz music. In high school, Dave joined the musician’s union and a local professional band, after which he attended Southern Methodist University, receiving a degree in Business Administration, which he jokingly said later was mostly “monkey business.” Dave was a member of the SMU Mustang Band and in the summers began to play with a band at Yellowstone Park, developing a lifelong love affair with Yellowstone. After graduating SMU, Dave volunteered for the draft and eventually was assigned to a radar platoon and stationed with the 7th Army in Karlsruhe, Germany. His military life changed when he joined the 7th Army Jazz Band; Dave’s army stories were definitely not for the faint of heart.

After Dave was discharged, he moved to Corvallis to pursue a degree in Fisheries at Oregon State University. He continued on with a MS degree that involved management of fish ponds at OSU. During this time, he consulted with Dr. Harry Phinney, who helped him identify the pond algae. This was the beginning of Dave’s long relationship with Harry, who had a large impact on Dave’s life and career. A short time after finishing his master’s degree, Dave was informed by Harry that Dr. Charles (Chuck) Warren had just received a grant from the National Science Foundation to set up laboratory streams, and that the project needed Ph.D. students. Dave became Dr. Phinney’s student and was allowed to design his own specific experiments that were compatible with the overall objective of the project. The result was Dave’s pioneering research on how benthic stream metabolism was affected by environmental variables such as light, current, and temperature. It was during this period that Dave met his wife Carol, who worked at OSU.

After completing his Ph.D., Dave accepted a faculty position in the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology at OSU. He quickly developed his own research program and in 1967 obtained an NSF grant to investigate the distribution and abundance of the diatom flora in estuaries along the Oregon coast, which involved both marine mesocosms and field work. During this time, Dave developed a professional relationship with Drs. Ruth Patrick and Charlie Reimer at the Academy of Natural Science in Philadelphia in order to better learn diatom taxonomy. Rumor had it that Dr. Patrick tried to hire Dave during one of his summer visits, but he did not want to leave Oregon for the “urban jungle of Philadelphia”.

In 1970, Dave received a NSF Science Faculty Fellowship to spend a one-year sabbatical at the Center for Quantitative Science at the University of Washington. Here he audited courses on quantitative analysis, which ultimately led him to be one of the first ecologists to examine patterns in ecological communities using multivariate ordination techniques such as Principal Components Analysis. Also during his sabbatical, Dave used General Systems Theory to synthesize the results of his laboratory stream experiments into a mathematical model of periphyton dynamics in lotic systems. Funding from OSU’s involvement in the International Biological Program allowed him to eventually expand this into a larger model of the total stream ecosystem. The model explains fundamental dynamic inter-relationships and dependencies among processes that occur in lotic ecosystems. His publications in Ecological Monographs in the 1970s complemented the nutrient cycling models being developed by Jack Webster and Bernie Patten at Virginia Tech, and led to the nutrient spiraling concept that still permeates the field.

In the mid-1970’s, Dave research interests and funding returned to the sea, where he examined diatom communities and macrophyte productivity in Oregon estuaries with numerous graduate students. Students working on his coastal surveys were always amazed and intimidated to watch him demonstrate the use of water skis to move across the soupy mudflats to take diatom samples. His stories of falling face first into the intertidal mud always resulted in howls of laughter, with the loudest laughs coming from Dave himself. In the 1980’s and 1990’s Dave was involved in new laboratory stream work by the OSU “Stream Team” headed by Dr. Stan Gregory. These experiments were particularly focused on herbivory, and he used some of those data to further develop that aspect of his stream process model. Also during this period, Dave became involved a 10-year study of Crater Lake funded by the Park Service to provide baseline data for management purposes. His work focused on phytoplankton and mosses in the lake, as well as statistical analysis of the entire data set.

Dave’s ability to focus was legendary; the downside of his myopia was that other things tended to get forgotten or overlooked. Two examples spring to mind: on the first day in Corvallis for one of us (DD), Dean showed up at Dave's office door and Dave had no idea who he was, having completely forgotten he was getting a new student. And at a Halloween party one year, Gary Lamberti dressed up as another of the authors (AS), and Dave didn’t even realize it wasn’t Al! Despite these occasional oversights, Dave was a devoted mentor who gave his students his time and knowledge. He had little time for fools and less time for administrators, loved his OSU basketball despite having to sit “asshole to asshole”, and knew when to call it quits, as you “can’t get blood from a turnip”.

Dave had a dry and wry sense of humor. When the Stream Team was heading off to a NABS (at the time) conference on the east coast with a flight from Portland, Dave wisely decided to spend the night in Portland rather than drive early in the morning with the “sometimes unreliable” Stan Gregory and Gary Lamberti. Sure enough, Stan and Gary overslept and were horribly late for departure. Upon seeing Stan and Gary sprinting down the terminal, Dave was dutifully seated right outside the gate and nonchalantly remarked “I was just about to throw myself on the tarmac in front of the plane”.

Dave’s scientific and artistic talents were legendary among his friends and colleagues, and many of us coveted his extensive collection of jazz vinyl albums that was as diverse as his technical interests. Few realized that his art and science did not always blend as easily as it appeared. In his early days as an Assistant Professor at OSU, he also would travel regularly to Portland to play saxophone professionally in jazz clubs. Dave’s high standards for himself as an artist and scientist soon made this double life impossible and he had to choose. Luckily for stream ecology, he chose research and teaching, but art and music always remained a passion for Dave.

During field work, Dave constantly watched for his infamous “photo opportunities”. Dave’s retirement in 1994 freed him to pursue his lifelong love of photography full time. Dave was an accomplished landscape photographer, and his work has been exhibited in several shows, galleries, and books. He claimed that he enjoyed music and photography because they “represent a merger between an impressive technical component and a creative, emotional component.” Dave was a humble human being who never sought the spotlight, but those of us who were fortunate to work with him recognized his unique ability to merge creativity with technical skills, which resulted in his groundbreaking contributions to freshwater ecology.

John Martin Quinn (1957-2018)

By Charles Riddle

Scientist and aquatic ecologist John Quinn, who has died aged 61, sometimes kicked off his presentations with self-penned ballads such as the Migrating Salmon Blues.

John, the Freshwater and Estuaries Chief Scientist at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), dedicated his life’s work to the health of this nation’s rivers. As such, he was pivotal in the drive to clean them up.

As might be expected, at least in the early days, the gifted musician and scientist sometimes could find himself facing an audience of farmers or foresters wary of the implications of his message about the impact of dairy intensification and forest harvesting on waterways.

But John liked to play guitar, write songs, and was an active member with other scientists of a folksy-pop band called the Vadose, named after the subterranean part of a river.

“Logic and Powerpoint can go so far,” he said some years back. “But I’ve found a bit of melody and quirky humour can help win over a tough audience."

In fact, John became well-known in the scientific community both here and overseas for always taking his guitar, and singing, at scientific conferences, son Jacob said.

It is a measure of the success of his work that John, a Niwa scientist for more than 35 years, lived to see a material change in attitudes to rivers.

A man of particular integrity who was, according to Jacob, “bloody-mindedly honest”, John was instrumental in improving the health of NZ rivers and waterways and worked closely with successive governments advising them on freshwater science issues. He had an impressive publication record.

Talking to Dave Hansford of NIWA in 2012, John said farmers, especially now, were much more aware of the impact of their practices. “There’s lots more riparian management, and many fewer dairy shed effluent discharges to streams. Our information gives people confidence to change the way they do things, which is an important part of what scientists do.”

Born in the Waipukurau into a large family, the son of a rural GP, John learned to swim in the Tukituki River. For a while it seemed he might follow in his father, Tony’s, footsteps, but adventurer and marine conservationist Jacques Cousteau intervened.

John, who was a life-long surfer who liked nothing more than to hang at the Otahu surf break at Whangamata, took up diving while completing his BSc Honours degree at the University of Otago and was interested, for a while, in a career in oceanography, but somehow was always drawn back to rivers.

“It seemed to me that fresh water offered more opportunities to interact with people, and I’m fascinated by the land/water interaction – I’ve always been interested in trying to resolve the problems of land use and fresh water.”

During the bullish days of Think Big, John thought small – sometimes microbial. “Unlike others, my interest was not in damming rivers but, in those days, a career as an aquatic ecologist was unheard of.”

John began his scientific career in 1980 with the then Water and Soil Division of the Ministry of Works, before gaining a scholarship to do his PhD at Massey University from 1982 to 1985. He then joined the then Water Quality Centre of the Ministry of Works, which became part of Niwa in 1992. John’s PhD focussed on the waterway that was to become stigmatised as one of New Zealand’s most polluted: the Manawatu River.

In those days, John said, treated sewage, as well as dairy factory and meat works effluent, was piped directly into the river which laboured, brown and sluggish, through vast tracts of sewage fungus. Fish routinely died from oxygen depletion.

In the arcane language of science, John’s research interests included nutrient attenuation within rivers, understanding and mitigating the effects of forestry and pastoral agricultural land uses, and the rehabilitation and restoration of streams and lakes.

Interviewed for NIWA’s website last year, John said people sometimes have rose-tinted glasses when they compared the rivers of their past with the current situation.

“Forty to 50 years ago a lot of rivers had serious pollution from very poorly treated point source sewage and industrial discharges. These are now largely cleaned up.”

His research records, John said, showed general improvement for contaminants such as E. coli, but more streams continued to deteriorate in nitrate levels, which mainly travelled via groundwater.

He was unfazed by the size of the challenge insisting there was a real willingness to get the problem sorted while acknowledging the “juggernaut of development”.

John recognised that while people wanted healthy rivers, no-one was going to close down agriculture or remove hydro-electric dams that interrupt flow and paved cities that flood waterways.

In 2012 John won NIWA’s Applied Science Excellence Award for using freshwater research to guide policy-makers in management of water issues.

The citation noted that his role in helping freshwater policy and resource management was enviable.
“[It] includes applying 20 years of research into forestry impacts on streams to help develop New Zealand’s environmental standards for forestry, being lead author of the Waikato River Scoping Study; and helping work out competing interests in water storage and irrigation in Canterbury, Southland, and Waikato.”

In 2016 John’s team took on the boldest attempt so far in New Zealand to test how well a river meets everything expected of it when Niwa worked with the Waikato River Raupatu Trust to compile a “report card” on the Waikato and Waipa rivers for the Waikato River Authority.

The Report Card project was recognised as internationally unique in being underpinned by indigenous and community values, rather than being purely science driven.

John, who led the project, said assessing catchments holistically was becoming best practice internationally, and he anticipated the process for evaluating the Waikato and Waipa rivers would create a benchmark and a focus for future restoration.

John was diagnosed with leukaemia this year having survived an aggressive prostate cancer in his mid-50s. He spent four months in treatment, still working from his hospital bed. An artist who worked in oils, he spent some of this time sketching each of his five grandchildren.

When the regular treatment options were exhausted, John was put on an experimental drug trial that had had some limited success in the UK. Asked by his doctors at one point whether he would like them to increase the dose earlier than scheduled, John said no. A scientist to the end, he told them to stick to the same regime as that used in the UK so as to provide a robust comparative data point.

When it became clear the cancer would beat him, he took medical retirement.

In his last email to his colleagues he wrote his illness had obviously involved coping with his mortality.

“The things I’ve found useful from my reading and reflection include that the inevitable letting go of life is easier for those who have lived purposefully, had connected relationships, had ‘ripple effects’ on others, and built a legacy that lives beyond them.”

NIWA's General Manager (Strategy) Dr. Bryce Cooper said everyone knew John knew his stuff. “John’s deep knowledge of river systems, his generosity of spirit to share that knowledge, and his skills at communicating complex science to others stand out for me.”

A few weeks before his death the president of the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society, Marc Schellenberg, flew from Dunedin to bestow his organisation’s highest honour, the society medal, on John.

About 100 friends and family gathered on the Waikato River’s Wellington Street beach in Hamilton East last week to celebrate John’s life. A public memorial service will be held at the Gallagher Academy of Performing Arts at the University of Waikato on Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2pm.

John is survived by his wife Shardell; children Jacob, Beth and Gabbie; and grandchildren Ned, Sybil, Allie, Pippa, Priya and her soon-to-be-born sister; and by his siblings Marianne, Jane, Tony, Helen, Cathy and Anna.

In the Drift: Issue 33, Winter 2018/19

ITD — Thu, 07 Feb 2019 17:26:13 +0000

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Ross Vander Vorste

In the Drift

In the Drift: Issue 33, Winter 2018/19

In this issue

FPOM - short news and resources
Freshwater Science Article Spotlight.
Update from SFS LRPC
CA SFS members affected by wildfires
Tribute to SFS member Antoine Morin (1959-2018)
Dear Nick - advice from Nick Aumen
Career Awards announced
New abstract search tool launched
Regional Chapter Updates
Prof. Rick Battarbee reviews: Freshwater Acidification: Natural History, Ecology and Environmental Policy (Ed. Alan Hildrew)
Prof. Steve Ormerod reviews: Freshwater Ecology and Conservation (Ed. Jocelyne M. R. Hughes)

Dear Society for Freshwater Science,

Your winter issue of the SFS newsletter is here! Among the highlights in this issue, is timely advice about federal employement from Nick Aumen in Dear Nick. I want to thank former SFS president Dave Penrose for calling to our attention that several freshwater scientists have been affected by CA wildfires. Let's join together as a Society and donate to their cause!!. As usual, this issue is packed with other relevant news and resources offered by SFS.

Enjoy,

Ross Vander Vorste, editor
VanderVorste.Ross@gmail.com

FPOM

SFS news and resources collected from "the drift"

2019 Salt Lake City meeting - abstract deadline Feb. 18, 2019
Student Endowment Award - application deadline Feb. 14, 2019
Graduate student conservation award - application deadline Feb. 14, 2019
INSTAR fellows (mentee) - application deadline Feb. 14, 2019
A new Making Waves podcast with Krissy Wilson and several Desert Fish Council meeting attendees
Stay Fresh! a compilation of new research in freshwater sciences
Classifieds: job opportunities and workshops in freshwater science

Article Spotlight

By Ross Vander Vorste

Bowen et al. (2018), Issue 37(2):315--329

Some scientists like to tackle big problems. For freshwater scientists, understanding the complex food web of the Great Lakes is arguably the biggest and most ambitious problem to be faced. The Great Lakes – Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario – cover an area as big as Texas and support more than 3,500 species of plants and animals. Despite the huge size and tremendous biodiversity of the Great Lakes, Kelly Bowen and co-authors Amanda Conway and Warren Currie, are finding necessity in quantifying tiny and often ignored aspects of aquatic food webs.

Along with being the largest freshwater ecosystem in the world, the Great Lakes are also the most heavily invaded. At least 187 non-native species have established themselves in the Great Lakes. Some of these invaders, such as the Zebra (Dreissena polymorpha) and Quagga (D. bugensis) mussels, are highly impactful, both environmentally and socio-economically.

Kelly Bowen, a research scientist for the Ontario-based Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, described the motivation behind their recent Freshwater Science paper to me recently. She mentioned that although Dreissenid mussels are among the most studied aquatic species, little is known about certain aspects of their life cycles.

Studies of larval mussels, referred to as veligers, are about as rare as a pair of waders that don’t leak.

Zebra mussel veligers (40x magnification). Photo credits: Kelly Bowen

One reason dreissenid veligers are not being studied is because of their size, or lack thereof. Bowen and colleagues found that typical sampling of veligers in the water column using 153-μm-mesh nets, can miss up to 75 to 88% of veliger abundance that is captured with a smaller, 64-μm-mesh size. In addition to these sampling inefficiencies, the authors also discovered that veliger biomass has been woefully underestimated. Using a new biomass equation, the authors discovered veliger biomass in Lake Ontario and Erie accounts for up to 39% of total zooplankton biomass.

Bowen described how her co-author Amanda Conway designed a new elutriation technique for the veligers based on methods used to quantify microplastics in aquatic systems. This technique allowed the researchers to more accurately quantify veliger biomass from preserved samples dating back to 1993.

Accurately estimating abundance of dreissenid veligers in the massive Great Lakes also requires hard field work. Bowen and colleagues took biweekly sampling trips between May and October up to 15 km (9 mi) off shore and in sometimes rough waters. Combined, these efforts in the field and laboratory helped the team uncover the unseen and often forgotten importance of invasive mussel veligers in the Great Lakes.

Possibly the worlds largest zooplankton net being used to sample the massive Great Lakes. Photo credits: Kelly Bowen

I asked Kelly, “what’s next?” She said now that they have a better understanding of veliger biomass, understanding the veligers importance in aquatic food webs is a justifiable next step. Are dreissenid veligers an important food source for planktonic predators? If so, this could have a big impact on food web models in the Great Lakes and other invaded systems. Furthermore, their future research will explore the fate of veligers to see how many mature into the notorious adults that cover hard substrates in invaded freshwater ecosystems across much of the US and Canada.

Email your recommendations for the FWS Article Spotlight to VanderVorste.Ross@gmail.com.

Strategic times ahead: What’s your vision for SFS?

The Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) has spent the fall engaging in deep conversations about the next iteration of the SFS Strategic Plan. Those conversations have reflected on the progress we’ve made as a society towards implementing our 2009 and 2014 strategic plan goals, and more importantly, where we want to be 10 years from now in 2029. Toward that end, we’ve spent much of the Fall learning and planning to ensure our new strategic plan is produced through an inclusive, well-informed process.

A good strategic plan should not be reactive or tactical, but instead should emerge from a core mission, vision and set of values established by our society. SFS has a mission statement (a very long one you can read on our website https://freshwater-science.org/about; for comparison check out ACS’s (https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/strategicplan.html). SFS is currently lacking a vision – a clear, concise statement of what we want to be – and a clear statement of our core values.

The fact that we haven’t had these hasn’t been an issue in the past, in part because it was quite clear at the time what was needed to grow and strengthen the society. For example, changing the society’s name to better reflect our membership, strengthening our voice on science policy by partnering with other scientific societies, and professionalizing by hiring an executive director were a few of the initiatives that were completed under our past strategic plans. Thanks in large part to those strategic plans we have supported our student and early career members, increased our efforts to become more diverse and inclusive, and maintained our commitment to taxonomic training (we’ll share more history and details on these successful initiatives over the coming months).

But now we’re in a different place – the hard work of many of you has built a strong foundation that allows us to take the time to ask ourselves where do we WANT to go, and who do we WANT to be as a society. Results of the recent survey conducted by the LRPC highlights this conclusion. We had 340 members respond to the survey with good representation from student, early career, non-academic and other groups within the society. Our preliminary analysis of the results showed that the society broadly supported the strategic goals of the past plans, but no single goal currently stands out as uniformly important to address in the near or long-term future. We will continue to analyze these results for insight, but it's clear we need to think more deeply before moving ahead with the strategic planning process.

These are big, deep questions that need input from all of our members, not just the LRPC or Board of Directors (BoD). Therefore, the LRPC has proposed, and BoD has approved, a modified timeline for the ongoing strategic planning effort. Instead of preparing the complete plan for a membership vote at the annual meeting in 2019, we’ll instead spend the spring developing vision and values statements based on discussion with the Board, with committees and delegates, and with input from you gathered via short surveys and/or solicitations for comments. Our goal is to have several draft vision statements for the annual meeting, and for members of the LRPC to conduct listening sessions in Salt Lake City. By the end of the meeting, we plan to have a vision statement ready to present to the society, which will guide the goals and initiatives outlined in the next strategic plan, to be produced in the months following the meeting.

What does this mean for you? First, please think about what SFS is to you, and what you want it to be in the future. Do you think we’re great as we are? Do you see opportunities for growth and improvement? Have you felt distanced from the society because of something that has happened? Please let us know, it’s all helpful! Be prepared to respond to upcoming surveys and to talk to us at the annual meeting, or send suggestions now to the LRPC chairs. If you’re on a committee, think about what you have done in response to the past strategic plan, and where you’d like to see your committee grow in the future. Love strategic planning and want to get involved in reviewing drafts or working behind the scenes? Let us know!

- Amy Marcarelli (ammarcar@mtu.edu) and Steve Thomas (sthomas5@unl.edu)

Wildfires Impact the California Aquatic Bioassessement Lab

By Dave Penrose

The recent fires in California were the most destructive in the State’s history with many lives lost and thousands of structures destroyed. Included in those structures were the houses of five California biologists; Dan Picard, Jen York, Joe Sluzark, John Sandberg and Tracy Morman.

These folks work with the Chico Research Foundation as part of the California Fish and Wildlife Commission. The homes were destroyed as you can see, but there was the loss of memories, taxonomic equipment, reference specimens and much more that insurance reimbursement probably won’t replace.

On a positive note, generous donors have already given over $20,000 to support for the CA Aquatic Bioassessment Lab. The goal for this fund is $30,000. Let's join together to help meet this goal!

Donate to the CA Aquatic Bioassessement Lab Plum Fund

A tribute to Antoine Morin (1959-2018)

By Antonella Cattaneo, Frances Pick, Yves Prairie, Jérôme Marty, Nathalie Bourassa, and Jennifer Lento

Antoine Morin, professor of biology at the University of Ottawa and long-term member and contributor to the North American Benthological Society/Society for Freshwater Science, passed away surrounded by family on Nov. 16, 2018. His family, friends and numerous colleagues gathered for his funeral in Gatineau, Quebec on Sunday Dec. 2, 2018.

Antoine’s passion for stream ecology was first kindled during his MSc under Peter Harper at Université de Montréal and further strengthened during his seminal studies on blackflies supervised by the late Rob Peters of McGill University. His contributions as a PhD student inspired many, including his peers. Several examples from his thesis were used in Peters’ books on body size and science (A critique for ecology 1991; Science and Limnology 1995). As a graduate student at McGill, Antoine was always very kind and generous and had a great sense of humour. He was insistent that one should always taste the organisms they worked on. For those at the field station, his pizzas sprinkled with dried blackfly larvae are difficult to forget.

Antoine joined the Department of Biology at the University of Ottawa in 1989. Throughout his scientific career at U Ottawa, Antoine continued to pursue his passion for stream ecology and rigorous scientific testing of hypotheses, with prediction as the ultimate goal. He worked on the streams in Ontario and Quebec, expanding the framework of body size theory from bacteria all the way up to fish and anchoring predictions for primary and secondary production. He was a much sought after colleague to collaborate on questions in macroecology, systematics, ecotoxicology and stream management. He made important contributions to teaching through the co-development of BIODIDAC, an early digital resources for biology, as part of the Regroupement des universités de la francophonie canadienne. His steadfast and exemplary teaching of biostatistics over almost 30 years will be remembered by numerous students, both undergraduate and graduate. He was a teacher who truly cared about the students and their learning experience. He was constantly looking for innovative ways to improve the students’ understanding and retention of the material, recognizing the diversity of learning styles within the classroom and giving freely of his time to ensure additional help was available to those who needed it.

At a relatively young age, Antoine was promoted to Full professor in 2000 and became Director of the Department in 2008 for eight years. During this time, he hired many new professors, took great interest in improving the curriculum and quality of teaching while expanding French offerings in our bilingual programmes. Remarkably, he was also active in the professor’s association, sitting on the board of directors as well as the executive committee. In 2016, he was appointed vice-dean of graduate studies in the Faculty of Science and, prior to his illness, was analyzing statistics and trends for the faculty to help shape recruitment and support of graduate students. He continued throughout to be our unofficial photographer, capturing us in both serious and joyful times.

Antoine was an amazing mentor to the students he supervised. Students in his lab learned important and fundamental aspects of the scientific method, and he was always available to work closely with them to develop strong hypothesis-driven research projects. He took the time to go out in the field with his students, not just to take pictures (his photography skills were unmatched), but also to teach them how to sample, what to look for, and which data to collect. When the research required new equipment or techniques, Antoine never hesitated to work closely with the students to develop what was needed, helping to ensure the success of their projects. He gave so much of his time to reviewing his students’ work, ensuring that any posters, presentations, or papers were as close to perfection as possible. Through this, he taught his students to strive to create the best possible products, and to always look for ways to improve their work and make sure they were producing strong science. But Antoine was more than a mentor to his students, he was also a friend. He was there for the important life moments, always with his camera ready to capture them, including engagements, weddings (even acting as wedding photographer for one of his students), and expanding families. He imparted perhaps one of the most important lessons to his students: work is not your life. You have to take good care of your family and friends, and take care of yourself too.

Aside from extraordinary service to the university, Antoine was very active in the scientific community, particularly in the North American Benthological Society (NABS) where he was web master for 12 years. Anyone who worked in his lab during this period witnessed the countless hours he spent maintaining the website and managing communications for NABS, working tirelessly to ensure everything ran smoothly. From NABS (now the Society for Freshwater Science)), he received a Distinguished Service Award in 2003 in appreciation of his time as web master and his time on the editorial board of the Journal of the North American Benthological Society (8 years up to that point). The DSA Subcommittee, responsible for awarding this honour, noted the importance of the website to NABS members and the scientific community at large, and stated, “[we] particularly recognized Antoine’s extraordinary efforts on the NABS web site. NABS members are very proud of our web site and use it heavily… It is clear that the success of the web site owes everything to Antoine’s vision and hard work.” (source: NABS 2003 Annual Meeting program). He is still spoken of in the SFS community as a “legend” for his work developing the website and creating and maintaining a NABS listserv.

All through these scientific and academic achievements, Antoine remained a warm collaborator and friend, generous of his time and ready to share statistical insights and good recipes. We like to remember him with a glass of wine, his mischievous smile and characteristic laughter.

Dear Nick - advice from Nick Aumen

DEAR NICK: I am about to graduate, and I am interested in seeking employment as an aquatic scientist with the federal government. I have heard that these jobs are next-to-impossible to get, and that I should not even try. Is this true? If not, what are the best things for me to do in order to get a federal job? – AN ASPIRING FEDERAL SCIENTIST

DEAR ASPIRING: I think it is great that you are aspiring to a science-related career in the federal government. I have worked in academia, state government, and now the federal government, and I find that civil service has been one of the most rewarding phases of my career. I have had the pleasure working with highly qualified, knowledgeable, and committed federal employees, and have been able to make significant contributions to public land management and restoration. As our planet’s population continues to expand and the pressures on our natural resources mount, it is very important that high-quality science is being conducted and applied to decision-making.

These types of jobs are not impossible to get. Although funding for some federal science programs has been reduced in the last decade, such reductions have been offset by the need for new hires to replace our aging workforce and to satisfy the increased need for scientific research to address existing and emerging scientific issues. When I look around my agency, I am struck by the high percentage of retirement-eligible employees and the need to replace that lost expertise and experience with young, motivated scientists to lead us in new directions.

I also urge you to look beyond the recent government shutdowns and see the long-term opportunities that exist in public service. While these shutdowns do affect the work we do, the need remains for good science, and for qualified scientists to fulfill agency missions.

For freshwater aquatic scientists, the federal agencies and their bureaus to target are: Department of Interior (which includes National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey, and Bureau of Land Management), Department of Commerce (which includes National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Department of Agriculture (which includes Agricultural Research Service, Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service), and Environmental Protection Agency.

The only website to apply for federal jobs is www.usajobs.com. Here, you can create a profile, search for all federal jobs for which you are qualified, enable automated searches for jobs that match your desired criteria and request regular emails with search results, and make your resume searchable by federal recruiters. The key to applying through this website is to only apply to jobs for which you have the required education, and to jobs for which you are eligible. In some cases, federal jobs that are temporary in nature or with contractors working for the federal government may be a good way to get your foot in the door for a permanent position. Another route might be through postdoctoral positions that are offered by some agencies.

Finally, I believe it is important to find a way to stand out from the crowd. I suggest that you emphasize your background and experience in similar areas of work, obtain glowing references from previous supervisors, professors, and colleagues, and make personal contact with the person(s) making the hiring decision (usually a different person than the human resources staff actually conducting the search). The hiring authority typically is the person who would supervise the position and make the selection of the best candidate. They should be willing to speak with you and provide you with information related to the position. Also important are a good resume that showcases your fit to the position, a short cover letter that highlights your interest and qualifications, and a well-executed application that matches your knowledge, skills, and abilities with the requirements of the position.

Good luck in your pursuit of a federal scientist job!
- Nick

SFS Career Awards

Congratulations to the following award winners announced in January. Click to see biographies and past winners.

Click for info on how you can nominate next year's award winners.

Abstract Search Tool

Did you know you can now search meeting abstracts dating back to 1997?
Abstracts from 1997-2012 and 2015-2018 are online for your easy searching.
Ever wonder what you submitted at your first NABS/SFS meeting?

Go Search Now!

2018 Pacific Northwest Chapter Meeting Recap

By Chris Zell

Sun Valley is home to the Big Wood River, celebrities, great craft beer, and scientists attending the 2018 Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest Chapter of SFS. Ecologists from eleven organizations engaged in active dialogue throughout the meeting held November 6 – 8, 2018 in Ketchum, Idaho. Conversations were cultivated from over 20 oral presentations (see:shared presentations) and round robin updates organized across five themes including: stressor-response, thermal and habitat regimes, regional projects, harmful algal blooms, and sampling methodologies. Attendees were treated to stunning vistas of the Sawtooth range, upscale accommodations (thank you Knob Hill Inn), the energy and talent of the Idaho State University Stream Ecology Center, and stories about planning sample surveys across celebrity properties (yes, Tom Hanks is a great guy!).

In addition to welcoming new Chapter officers (Bob Danehy-President, Chris Zell-Secretary), our 2018 meeting included discussion of multiple new initiatives. These initiatives include social media engagement (thank you Hannah Harris), newsletter development, creation of annual or career achievement-based awards, and exploring approaches to fund graduate student attendance of annual meetings. Kudos to outgoing officers Dorene MacCoy and Francine Mejia for their leadership, and for planning the 2018 meeting. Thank you to EcoAnalysts, Inc. for sponsoring our breaks. Our 2019 Chapter meeting will be held the week of November 4thin Newport, Oregon.

When renewing your annual SFS membership, make sure to sign up for the Pacific Northwest Chapter. Our meetings are generally FREE, and are great way to network with other professionals in the Northwest. For more information, please contact Bob Danehy at danehy@catchmentae.com.

2018 California Chapter Meeting Recap

By Angela De Palma-Dow

The 25th Annual California Bioassessment Working Group (CABW) and 6th annual meeting of The California Chapter Society of Freshwater Sciences (Cal-SFS) was held at the UC Davis ARC Conference Center on October 23th and 24th, 2018. This was a big year for the CABW because it turned 25!! That’s right, for 25 years in a row the CABW has met and shared information about new and improved bioassessment tools, uses, resources, case studies, protocols, policy, and data in the Golden State—and beyond. This year’s meeting was not only unique in that it remembered a quarter of a century of bioassessment efforts, but it surmised on the future of bioassessment in California, with the anticipated uncertainty of a changing climate, political swings, unknown economic futures, and a shifting workforce. This meeting encapsulated where we have been, where we are, and where we wish to go.

There were over 230 attendees attending the 2-day CABW / Cal-SFS meeting. The workshop drew 29 participants and raised $700 in donations going towards the student travel awards for the 2019 Salt Lake City SFS Meeting. The Cal-SFS mixer, held at The Graduate, raised $100 also for the student travel awards.

Cal-SFS has new leadership and a new logo! Welcome to the new president elect Nicholas Macias. Nick is a PhD student in the Freshwater and Coastal Ecology Lab at UC Santa Cruz. You can connect with Nick via email at niamacia@ucsc.edu. John Olson remains our Secretary/Treasurer and he can be reached at joolson@csumb.edu or Twitter @JohnCSUMB

Passing of the Cal-SFS baton: Former Cal-SFS president Chair Jeanette Howard (right) turned over presidential duties to the new president, Nick Macias (left). Cal-SFS new logo and banner in the background.

Thanks to all those who attended this event!

The 26th CABW / Cal-SFS Meeting will be held Oct 23rd & 24th, 2019 at UC Davis.

Join a regional SFS Chapter near you!

Two new books in freshwater science with reviews!

Alan Hildrew: Freshwater Acidification: Natural history, ecology and environmental policy

Reviewed by Professor Richard W Battarbee

This interesting book by ECI prize-winner Alan Hildrew is a timely reminder of the “acid rain” debate that raged in the 1980s. Acid rain and its effects are no longer in the headlines but freshwater acidification continues to be an issue more than 30 years on. Now is a perfect time to consider whether the ecology of acidified surface lakes and streams has recovered as expected (or at least hoped for) given the major reductions in sulphur and nitrogen gas emissions that have occurred across Europe and North America over recent decades. It is also a perfect time to reflect on lessons learnt from the acid rain debate about the interplay of science and policy in addressing contemporary environmental questions such as climate change.

In setting the scene, Hildrew explains that his interest in acid streams began due to his need to find a relatively simple ecosystem that could serve as a model for studying food webs, his primary research interest at the time. Indeed he admits that in the earliest days of his career he was unaware that the streams he had selected for study in south-east England were not naturally acidic but had become so as a result of acid deposition.

When surface water acidification was recognised as a serious environmental problem in the UK in the 1980s he was well-placed to contribute to the debate. In Chapter 2, History and early evidence he describes the origins of the debate especially the controversy between the UK and its Scandinavian neighbours, Norway and Sweden, over claims that the loss of salmonid fish populations in southern Scandinavia was due to long distance transported air pollutants from the UK and other industrial countries. The UK’s denial at the time earned it the reputation of being the “dirty old man” of Europe. To resolve the dispute a collaborative research project, the Surface Water Acidification Project (SWAP), involving scientists from all three countries was set up. Although the SWAP project fulfilled its scientific objectives and thereby caused the UK to change its policy, he laments that insufficient attention was given to research on ecosystems and ecological processes, especially for streams. This book helps to repair that omission and brings the story up to date.

In Chapter 3, Ecological damage and its ramifications, first the empirical evidence for the impact of acidification on biota on different trophic levels including bacteria, fungi, algae, invertebrates, fish and birds is described. Hildrew then asserts that in explaining the impacts of acidity on invertebrate populations too much emphasis was placed in the literature on physiological mechanisms associated with the direct effects of low pH and aluminium toxicity. He argues that species loss or persistence may just as well be explained by competitive interactions between species and species groups through processes such as the release of pressure on large invertebrate predators by the elimination of top predators and changes in the quality and quantity of food available both for grazers and predators in the benthos.

Chapter 4, Recovery and non-recovery from acidification, addresses the key question: has the release of pressure brought about by the measures taken to mitigate acidification led to an ecological recovery? The evidence from monitoring programmes in the UK and elsewhere is that ecological recovery has been less than expected, in some cases disappointingly so, suggesting that the ecological processes leading to acidification driven by water chemistry cannot simply be run in reverse. Again Hildrew prefers an ecological explanation for muted recovery, and puts forward a “biotic resistance” hypothesis in which community reassembly is influenced not only by the relaxation of the direct toxics effects of acidification but also by interactions amongst species, especially the extent to which resident species inhibit colonisation by returning species.

This biotic resistance hypothesis is supported by data from Broadstone Beck, a highly acidified stream in South-east England that Hildrew and his students have studied since 1973. It is a remarkable time-series tracking food web responses to reduced acidity in real calendar time. The data show how as acidity decreases the stream is sequentially colonised by predator species of progressively larger body size, including the surprise appearance of the dragon-fly Cordulagaster boltonii that held sway for a decade during the 1990s, culminating in the return of brown trout in the early part of this century. Recovery is shown to be a process of increasing diversity and food chain lengthening driven by changes in the community composition of predators high in the food web. But the process is not necessarily characterised by a smoothly continuous species turnover but is punctuated by the impact of apparently chance dispersal events and by the timing of interactions between species.

In Chapter 5, A glance back at science and policy, Hildrew moves away from ecology to consider the nature of the science – policy interface as exemplified by the acid rain debate. It is written as an opinion piece. Although he recognises the contrasting missions of scientists and policy makers he commends the acid rain debate as a good example of the two parties working together. By and large scientists at the time provided the information that was requested and needed by policy makers and, in many cases, the demands of policy makers stimulated advances in science, hugely so in the case of palaeolimnology. Having said that, however, he complains with justification that policy makers, at least those in the UK, suffer from “attention deficit disorder”, moving on from issue to issue too swiftly and withdrawing funding support prematurely from long-term ecosystem monitoring programmes. I’m not entirely sure how chapter 6, Back to Natural History – “food webs of a second kind” fits into the overall theme of the book but it is a fascinating essay in natural history and it is a timely reminder of the importance of curiosity driven research. Hildrew describes differences between the different groups of caddis fly according to their construction of cases, nets and shelters. He explains, for example, how some caddis produce silk and cultivate algae on the walls of the silk, and how others obtain a carbon source from methane by feeding on methane-oxidising bacteria. This mini review elegantly illustrates the diversity of freshwater life and the novel strategies employed by organisms for survival. It also demonstrates (and I think this is the point of the chapter!) the level of knowledge needed to understand the functioning of natural ecosystems and thereby needed to understand how ecosystems might respond to environmental pressures in future.

In the short concluding Chapter 7, Acid Rain – a postscript and prospects, Hildrew restates concerns over the lack of evidence for widespread biological recovery from acidification and wonders whether an economic value can be placed on the ecosystem services lost and not restored. With reference to climate change he worries whether sufficient attention is being and will be paid to the protection of natural ecosystems despite the important role they demonstrably play in increasing resilience to extreme events and regulating important services such as slowing the flow of floodwaters in the UK uplands. And he hopes that the acid rain debate that required a coming together of scientists and policy makers in the past can provide lessons for today’s climate science-policy interface that has so many echoes of the acid rain story.

Overall although I’m not sure it has the coherence that the author intends or hopes for, the book is an important and enjoyable read, the science is authoritative, the opinions are perceptive and sometimes trenchant and the underpinning narrative is at times engagingly personal. I highly recommend it for freshwater ecologists, environmental scientists and environmental policy makers.

Richard W Battarbee
Environmental Change Research Centre
University College London
Jan 29, 2019

Jocelyne M.R. Hughes: Freshwater Ecology and Conservation: Approaches and Techniques

Reviewed by Professor Steve Ormerod

Useful freshwater overview for early career stages

This is an edited volume of 440 pages with contributions from around 50 authors to 19 chapters. The content is divided into three sections offering 1) an overview of the diversity of freshwater ecosystems, approaches to freshwater ecology and sampling strategies; 2) eight discipline-oriented chapters on ‘measuring the component parts’ of freshwater ecosystems (water quantity/hydrology, chemical determinants, physical variables, autotrophic and heterotrophic microorganisms, wetland plants, vertebrates and macroinvertebrates) and 3) ‘ecosystem dynamics, conservation and management’, in which eight chapters address freshwater populations and their interactions, changes through time, using data, ecosystem services, invasive non-native species, freshwater ecosystem security and climate change, restoration, and catchment management.

With its mostly classical structure – and its emphasis on methodological overviews of specific disciplines or taxonomic groups – the book will suit those early in their freshwater career more than established researchers seeking the cutting edge. The authors also send out a signal very early on, also, that standing water wetlands are the biggest focus of interest: in the only colored plate in the entire volume, there is a map that depicts the global distribution of wetland types and 12 beautiful images of low-relief standing waters.

Taking the book section by section, inevitably in an edited volume there are variations in balance, design and depth among chapters. In the three opening chapters (Section 1), Chapter 1 purports to review the diversity of the Earth’s freshwater ecosystems, yet gives only two paragraphs to the remarkable variety of the Earth’s rivers while peatlands are given two pages. Chapter 2 would have benefitted from a clearer articulation of the problems of freshwater conservation and the general aims of freshwater ecological research as ends in themselves as well as in application to problem solving.

Chapter 3 offers an overview of the sampling strategies required for the scale-dependent complexities of freshwater ecosystems but, while intrinsically useful, might arguably have sat more comfortably alongside ‘Measuring the component parts’ in Section 2 given its technical emphasis.

Chapters in Section 2 overall have the greatest utility for those entering the subject as short methodological overviews. Chapters 4, 5 and 6, for example, on water quantity, quality and physical character, are sleek and informative, though in the latter two chapters there is more interest from the authors in standing waters than in the dynamics of running waters. Chapters 7, 8 and 9 on microorganisms and wetland plants are all valuable, though under-represent some of the important, emergent ecosystem processes performed by these groups, for example with respect to allochthony, macro-nutrient dynamics or, in some systems, methanotrophy. Chapter 10 provides and overview of vertebrates in or around freshwater ecosystems, taking a census/sampling perspective rather than a functional perspectives of why the links between vertebrates and rivers, lakes and wetlands are important. Chapter 11, on macroinvertebrates, is too short to get to grips with the challenges of sampling these organisms quantitatively, but has a very innovative section on removal sampling.

The multi-disciplinary and problem-solving thinking in the book’s third section, for example on ecosystem services, catchment management and climate change, is once more of a scale that seems designed for those seeking an introductory perspective rather than in-depth insight. Some of these chapters, for example on restoration, come from internationally recognised authors, and provide mature and carefully constructed summaries of their subjects. Simultaneously, however, there are some unexpected omissions from the book’s integrative sections, particularly on the evidence for biodiversity loss and impairment in freshwater ecosystems, the many challenges of addressing the multiple stressors responsible, or the full array of options available for freshwater conservation. Facets of these issues arise implicitly in the existing chapters, but a book with ‘Conservation’ in the title might have had greater appeal if this topic had been a more explicit and more substantial focus. This struck me as the biggest disappointment in this volume given the current scientific and political emphasis on the rate of degradation of the Earth’s rivers, lakes and wetlands. Having identified the perilous state of freshwater biodiversity, one of the biggest needs is now to find workable solution to the problem, but little here is on offer: the combination of market based instruments, payments for ecosystems services, biodiversity offsetting and water quality trading are despatched in just two and half pages, and the focus is overwhelmingly on wetlands.

Overall, then, a volume that offers introductory, methodological overviews for early-career researchers.

Steve Ormerod
School of Biosciences
Cardiff University
Jan 15, 2019

In the Drift: Issue 32, Fall 2018

ITD — Mon, 22 Oct 2018 20:01:26 +0000

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Ross Vander Vorste

In the Drift

In the Drift: Issue 32, Fall 2018

In this issue

FPOM - short notes and links
Freshwater Science Article Spotlight
Ecological Evidence Exchange
Nominations for SFS awards
SFS Family Tree - new network analysis
New Freshwater Science endowment award
Chuck's Corner - Freshwater Science editor column
SFS on Flickr
2018 SFS Detroit meeting recap

Dear Society for Freshwater Science,

Your fall issue of the SFS newsletter is here! It's packed full of behind-the-scenes stories, publishing advice, and important society information.

Enjoy,
Ross Vander Vorste, editor. VanderVorste.Ross@gmail.com.

FPOM

Short SFS notes and quick links collected from "the drift"

A new Making Waves podcast with Jim Elser, director of the University of Montana Flathead Lake Biological Station.
Stay Fresh! is your source for new papers in the field of freshwater sciences.
SFS 2019 Salt Lake City meeting - abstract submission opens November 12, 2018

Article Spotlight

By Ross Vander Vorste
Curtis et al. (2018), Issue 37(3):618--630

Since its publication in 1980, the River Continuum Concept (RCC) has shaped the way freshwater scientists think about rivers. This keystone paper describing longitudinal changes in the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of rivers has been cited over 800 times since 2017. The RCC paper is now nearing 10k in total citations. Despite continued efforts to refine the RCC, some important aspects of this concept remain untested. In their recent article in Freshwater Science, Will Curtis, Amy Gebhard, and Josh Perkin explored three tenets of the RCC by going inside the stomachs of a tiny insectivorous fish.

Will Curtis, JuJu Wellemeyer, and Amy Gebhard backpack electrofishing for banded sculpin (left). A camouflaged banded sculpin rests on the stream bottom (right). Photo credits: Josh Perkin (l) Amy Gebhard (r).

We spoke about their study of the benthic banded sculpin Cottus carolinae recently on Skype. This ubiquitous fish feeds mainly on invertebrates in first–seventh order streams in the southeastern USA. Will and crew sampled the sculpin each month for a year during rain or shine at four streams (2–5 order) in north-central Tennessee’s Cumberland River basin.

Will, who was an undergraduate at Tennessee Tech University, describes the day he forgot his waders and fashioned some boots from 5-gallon buckets. Conditions in the field were especially tough during the winter months when the crew's seine nets froze in the frigid waters.

Will Curtis occasionally chooses 5-gallon buckets instead of traditional waders for stream research (left). Will and Juju displaying a frozen seine net during a particularly cold winter day in the field (right). Photo credits: Josh Perkin (l) Amy Gebhard (r).

Amy, since graduated with a Master’s from Tennessee Tech, and her advisor Josh told me that they wondered how to incorporate sculpin diet information into their work on the fish’s life history. Amy says “Will picked it up and ran with it. We have been smiling ever since” as she describes how Will used his skills in taxonomy to take over this ambitious project as an undergraduate.

While hovering over a microscope sorting through the gut contents of over 500 banded sculpin, Will started wondering if their diet change as fish feed in small 2nd-order streams to larger 5th-order streams. He was taking aquatic entomology at the time and learning about the RCC. Will wanted to see if the longitudinal organization of invertebrate feeding groups, taxonomic diversity, and temporal changes in invertebrate composition predicted according to the RCC was also apparent in banded sculpin diets.

When describing the diet of banded sculpin Josh reminisces about the day he and the field crew were standing streamside watching a sculpin as it engulfed an innocent stoneroller swimming past. The field crew absolutely erupted with amazement and laughter.

Banded sculpin feeding on a passing fish. Photo credit: Eric Malone.

Despite feeding on the occasional fish or salamander, Will describes how banded sculpin fed on invertebrates according to his RCC-based predictions. He found sculpin feeding on a higher proportion of shredding and lower proportion of collector invertebrates at the upstream sites compared to downstream sites. Several other lines of evidence supported the usefulness of the RCC in predicting this invertebrate predator’s feeding patterns.

For Will, a curiosity for the finer details of stream ecology and love for fishing were what drove him to pursue undergraduate-level research. His efforts to complete a study that incorporated a 38-year old conceptual framework and publish his results are truly impressive. Josh Perkin, now assistant professor in the Texas A&M Wildlife Fisheries & Science Department, admires the dedication and productivity of both Will and Amy.

Will, Amy, and Josh are happy to have shown proof of concept supporting the RCC in their article. However, they remain curious if diet contents of other fish, such as top predator trout, will follow the same patterns as banded sculpin. In the future, Josh hopes that a generalizable pattern in prey consumption by fish in southeastern streams could be found to better understand fish distribution along the river continuum. All this would require looking through hundreds more fish stomachs and, for now, Will is just happy to return home every day not smelling of preserved fish.

Email your recommendations for the FWS Article Spotlight to VanderVorste.Ross@gmail.com

Ecological Evidence Exchange (EcoEvidEx)

By Kate Schofield

Extend the reach of your research results by entering them into EcoEvidEx, an initiative designed to make scientific research more impactful by making it more available, in terms of both timeliness and accessibility, to environmental decision-makers. The term “evidence-based management” highlights the idea that environmental management decisions should be based on the best available science. However, environmental decision-makers often are required to make decisions quickly, leaving little time to thoroughly consider the entire body of evidence relevant to a particular question or decision. The goal of EcoEvidEx is to make this process of evidence evaluation easier in two ways: (1) by translating research results into concise summaries of the key relationships those results provide evidence for or against (i.e., evidence metadata); and (2) by making this evidence metadata publicly accessible, so it can be applied and further built upon in other management contexts.

By contributing to EcoEvidEx, you increase the chances that your work will be used—and used accurately, based on your actual research results—in evidence-based management.

How will EcoEvidEx work?
There are two key phases to the EcoEvidEx rollout:

During the initial test period (currently underway), we will be testing the evidence entry process. Enter research results from one (or more) of your papers into the EcoEvidEx form and provide us feedback on the general process and/or specific fields of information collected. Was the process straightforward and easy to follow? Are relevant types of summary information collected? Do you have suggestions for improvements?
After we refine the evidence entry process based on your feedback, there will be a trial period during which the evidence entry process will be linked to acceptance of papers for publication in Freshwater Science. Look for this trial period to begin in 2019.

Ultimately, research results entered into EcoEvidEx will be stored in publicly accessible evidence databases (e.g., Eco Evidence, CADLink) that environmental scientists, managers, and decision-makers can use to quickly identify evidence directly relevant to their questions and information needs. Evidence collected during the initial test period will not automatically be entered into these databases. The initial test period is intended to test the evidence entry process, and entries will be stored in a test spreadsheet. We are currently working on a more seamless connection between evidence entry and storage in evidence databases for the trial period.

Want to learn more? Additional information on the EcoEvidEx initiative can be found on the EcoEvidEx home page and in an EcoEvidEx editorial in Freshwater Science. If you’re interested in learning more or becoming involved in these efforts, please contact us at EcoEvidEx@freshwater-science.org.

Society Awards Nominations

By Amy Rosemond

Please add to your calendar now and forever more! Fall is now the time to nominate outstanding members of our society for their contributions to freshwater science! These awards include the Award of Excellence (AOE), the Distinguished Service Award, the Environmental Stewardship Award, SFS Fellows, and the Hynes Award for new investigators. The Board of Directors recently approved changing solicitation from spring to fall to follow our meeting cycle.

The 2019 Award winners have already been decided – but you will need to wait until January to hear more about these outstanding members and their contributions! The AOE and Hynes Award winners will additionally be addressing the Society at our 2019 meeting in Salt Lake City.
But wait! The SFS Fellows are soliciting nominations for the selection of two new SFS Fellows in our new awards cycle. Nominations for these are due November 15, with decisions made in mid December. Dr. Steve Hamilton is currently the point of contact for the SFS Fellows nominations (hamilton@msu.edu). The nomination form can be found here.
I hope you are having a wonderful and successful fall season – and that you are motivated to nominate SFS members for their inspiring work for these awards. You can do this now and in the future – at this time of year!

SFS Family Tree

A new network analysis

By Tyler Hampton

I have received a tremendous outpouring of support in the compilation of the SFS Family Tree. I want to acknowledge the help of many other students in the early development of the polls, and to a previous generation of scientists that contributed data to academictree.org. One of the main distinctions of the Tree is that rather than the image of a tree, from trunk to branches, I represent it as a network which emphasizes the lateral connections between society members. It looks more like a web of filamentous algae (Fig.1). By focusing on the connections in the latest generations of society members, I’ve also collected data for 809 individuals that are either students or in their early-career, which I plan to contribute to academictree.org.

Figure 1. A network of 411 SFS members contributed to the Google Survey, from May 10 to August 3, 2018. This produced data for 1,017 unique individuals with 1,489 distinct degrees or mentor-mentee connections (left). Of these connections, 91% were complete entries, meaning data was available for the mentee, mentor, degree, institution, and year. Number of mentor-mentee connections within each degree or postdoc group (top right). Distribution of degrees earned by SFS members over time indicating high number of student and early-career members (bottom right).

I also looked at the distribution of individuals within academic generations (Fig. 2). Generation 1 are current students or individuals who have not yet mentored their own students, generation 2 are individuals who have mentored students, and generation 3 are individuals whose students have gone on to mentor another generation of students, and so on.

Figure 2. Distribution of individuals within academic generations

Survey respondents were also asked about their interests in three categories natural systems, research topics, and study organisms (Fig. 3). Streams and lakes were the most common responses, with strong connections between these, wetlands, and urban systems. Research interests were strongly focused in ecosystem ecology, community ecology, management and conversation, and hydrology. In these systems, research was focused on fish and insects, as well as algae and bacteria.

Figure 3. SFS member interests in natural systems, research topics, and study organisms.

I’m excited to continue analysis of this dataset and provide the SFS community with more interesting insights! The SFS Family Tree is currently housed at Michigan State University and can be accessed at http://bit.ly/SFSfamilytree. Participation is still open, and accessible via the link!

Special thanks to Stephen Plont, Joe Lee-Cullin, Arial Shogren, Ross Vander Vorste, Katherine O’Reilly, and Anna Boegehold.

New Freshwater Science Endowment Award

By Irwin Polls

Over the years, many aquatic scientists have had difficulty funding publication of their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The Endowed Publication Fund for Freshwater Science (EPF) was established in May 2016 as a source of funding dedicated to providing financial support to authors who submit manuscripts for publication in Freshwater Science. The principal in the journal endowment investment fund is structured such that it remains intact while the investment income from the fund is available for awards.

A NEW journal endowment award will become available to authors on January 1, 2019. Funding awards will be available for improving the quality of scientific papers submitted or published in Freshwater Science, including but not limited to editorial assistance to authors whose primary language is not English, page charges, and color figures.

An application for a journal endowment award will be available online at the SFS website. Authors must submit an EPF award application with a manuscript considered for publication in Freshwater Science. Authors eligible for EPF awards include Society for Freshwater Science members and non-members. Undergraduates are also eligible for EPF awards.

Funds will be awarded on the basis of exacting criteria established by the Journal Endowment Committee (JEC). EPF award applications will be submitted by authors during a 3-month period (January-March; April-June; July-September; and October-December). Applications submitted during a 3-month period will be reviewed by members of the JEC in the month following the application period. Three (3) awards up to $800 will be available to authors during each application period for a total of twelve (12) $800 awards annually. Endowed funds not awarded during a 3-month period will be available to authors submitting papers in subsequent application periods. Except for the editorial manuscript assistance award, all other EPF awards will be distributed following acceptance of a manuscript for publication in Freshwater Science.

Members of the Freshwater Science Editorial Board strongly endorse and urge authors submitting manuscripts for publication in Freshwater Science to apply for journal endowment awards.

Getting published in Freshwater Science (or the value of writing well):

Most of you generally know how the science publishing game works: conduct study -> write paper -> submit paper -> journal decides to publish your paper (or not). The reality is that a relatively large percent of authors are informed that the journal is declining (nice word for rejecting) their submission. For Freshwater Science that percent is about 50% and growing.

There are three main reasons papers are rejected: + Topic is outside of the scope of the journal. + Study does not advance the state-of-the-science much. + Writing is so rough the science cannot be evaluated.

The message here is that authors should make sure their study is a good fit with the journal, clearly show how their study is novel and advances the science, and write a paper that is easy to read and understand.

My goal as Editor is to continue to grow the quality of papers the journal publishes. That means rejection rates are likely to increase. What should you do to minimize the chance of rejection? Ultimately, the quality of your science will most strongly affect your chances of being published, but writing well about your science will double (at least) your chances. Good writing cannot substitute for weak science, but it is a shame that papers based on sound science get rejected because editors and reviewers cannot easily comprehend what was done. Even if you luck out and have a roughly written paper accepted, such papers take extra time to edit, which can delay publication. Moreover, a published paper that is difficult to read will almost certainly be cited less frequently than a well written, easily read paper. So, it will always be in your best interest to write as clearly as possible.

Failure to create logical flow throughout a document may be the single biggest issue I encounter. Logical flow means more than just following the IMRD (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) model. It means linking those sections via the ideas that motivated the study. Some have suggested using the ‘hourglass’ model when structuring a manuscript. Brian McGill gives a good example of this model along with other useful tips in his blog. The essential idea is to first establish the broad ideas/theory that motivated the study and informed its research questions (Introduction), then provide details regarding how the research questions were answered (Methods and Results), and finally use the Discussion to consider the implications of the results for the broad ideas that motivated the study. McGill calls this model ‘paper writing 101’, but I see three general failings in following it. First, authors often fail to establish a clear set of objectives that clearly link to a knowledge gap. Second, authors jump into the details of data collection (what data were collected?) without telling readers about the research design (how will the question be answered?). Third, authors often adopt an ‘I found this versus Smith found that’ approach in the Discussion rather than synthesizing how their results inform the motivating questions and theory. Many authors also tend to excessively repeat results in the Discussion rather than focusing on their interpretation and implications.

Writing coherent paragraphs is also an elusive challenge for some authors. Three common problems are failure to write a general topic sentence that telegraphs for the reader what is to follow, failure to provide transitions between details presented in the paragraph, and failure to provide a concluding sentence that transitions to the next paragraph. I recommend visiting this website for an excellent example of how to write effective paragraphs.

Ultimately, all effective writing depends on producing easily understood sentences. There are many ways we can compromise the clarity and readability of individual sentences, but three especially common ways are to write in passive voice, write excessively long and complex sentences, and use weak verbs and nominalizations. Consider these two sentences: (1) “The collection of samples occurred at the river, and the DNA extractions were conducted in the lab.” (2) “We collected samples at the river and later extracted DNA from them in the lab”. Which is better? Also, have you forgotten all that grammar you learned in high school and college? Don’t guess. Ask Grammar Girl instead.

For all practical purposes, being a scientist means being a professional writer. It is therefore in our best professional interests to write well. Before submitting that manuscript, get critical feedback from colleagues who write well and revise accordingly. If you struggle with writing, invest in learning to write better. There are many self help resources out there, and I would be happy to share my suggestions on books to invest in. Otherwise, Duke University provides a good online resource that I have found to be very helpful.

SFS on Flickr

By David Manning

As a society, we are continuing to cultivate our social media presence to better serve our members, and provide snippets of useful and timely information to the public. Beyond some of the more visible social media outlets, like Twitter, we are also beginning to ramp up our presence through outlets like Flickr. Flickr is a portal for sharing photos among users that can be curated and organized into groups with shared themes or interests.

Our Flickr page is in the early stages; for example, our largest group (Freshwater Invertebrates, of course) has eight contributors, and about 51 photos shared so far. We also have created groups for algae, aquatic vertebrates, scenic freshwaters, and SFS meetings. The groups can be great places for discussions to pop up – one last year (as yet unanswered) was started about Tipulid parasites.

We are encouraging anyone who is interested to join us and share their freshwater photos, with the aim to provide and promote content that shows freshwater science in action.

Flickr is also a great way to provide materials that could be used for educational purposes, as contributors can share photos and set guidelines for how they can be used by others (e.g., Creative Commons licenses).
Follow us:

2018 Annual Meeting Recap

Detroit, Michigan
May 20--24, 2018

By the numbers:

1028 attendees (current members and new members)
424 student members
147 early career members
11 INSTARS
29 countries represented (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Columbia, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Puerto Rico, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and United States)
878 presentations (623 oral, 255 poster)
6 workshops with 139 participants
16 different exhibitors
108 registered Fun Runners

The ever popular karaoke event featuring SFS Vice President Amy Marcarelli as lead singer. Photo Credit: Mark Wetzel.

The 2018 SFS endowment student award winners. Photo Credit: Mark Wetzel.

Undergraduate students of the 2018 SFS INSTARS Program. Photo Credit: Mark Wetzel.

SFS President Jen Tank, left, receives the ceremonial coffee cup from past president Colden Baxter and SFS Vice President Amy Marcarelli. Photo Credit: Mark Wetzel.

Presentation Award Winners

Each year at the annual meeting, SFS members judge oral and poster presentations to students to provide feedback and recognize the excellent work done by our student members. This year, the quality of student presentations was as high as ever. We are pleased to announce the winners of the presentation awards listed below. Congratulations to the winners as well as all of the students who contributed presentations at the 2018 meeting!

In the Drift: Issue 31, Spring 2018

ITD — Tue, 08 May 2018 04:28:47 +0000

Monday, May 14, 2018

Ross Vander Vorste

In the Drift

Issue 31, Spring 2018

In this issue

FPOM - short SFS notes and quick links collected from "the drift"
Last minute meeting info
New FWS editor announced
Article Spotlight - behind the scences look at Calhoun et al. 2018 FWS
ITD Q&A - PhD student Brian Kastl mentors
Dear Nick - great advice from Nick Aumen
Meet a member - introducing 5 SFS random members you might not know
SFS members participate at USA Sci. & Eng. Festival
Free data: a global streamflow map for freshwater scientists

Dear Society for Freshwater Science,

Your spring issue of In the Drift is here! That means we are counting the days to the 2018 SFS annual meeting in Detroit, aka the SFS “family reunion.” Take a look at the last minute meeting info for everything you need to be prepared for this big event.

I would like to thank Nick Aumen, Michelle Baker, Anna Boegehold, Amy Burgin, Dana Calhoun, Checo Colón-Gaud, Cliff Dahm, Ted Grantham, Kim Haag, Darrin Hunt, Brian Kastl, and Tiffany Schriever for their contributions. Fellow Public Information and Publicity (PIP) members Ayesha Burdett, Ryan Hill, and Eric Moody continued their support of In the Drift.

Hope you enjoy this issue and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in Detroit!

Ross Vander Vorste, editor

VanderVorste.Ross@gmail.com

FPOM

Short SFS notes and quick links collected from "the drift"

FWS seeks part-time technical editor
A new Making Waves episode with J. Kolby, N. Roach, and M. Whiles discusses neotropical amphibian conservation
Teaching higher-ed? Olden Lab seeks your input by May 17, 2018
Stay Fresh! is your source for new papers in the field of freshwater sciences

Last minute meeting info

Headed to Detroit? Be prepared!

Find your presentation time here [presentation search]
Lodging addresses and phone numbers [nearby hotels]
Food, drink, and entertainment guide by SFS's Anna Boegehold and Darrin Hunt [visitor's guide]
Uploading your presentation [presenter info]
Meeting schedule [agenda]
SFS updates Code of Conduct

Judges are still needed for this year's student presentations and posters. Judges are especially needed for Thursday afternoon and the poster session. Please consider volunteering your time and providing valuable feedback to our student members. To volunteer contact Peggy Morgan - pegrat307@msn.com

New Freshwater Science editor announced

By Michelle Baker

The Society for Freshwater Science is pleased to announce the appointment of Charles "Chuck"" Hawkins as Editor of our journal Freshwater Science. Chuck brings a 40-year personal history with, and commitment to, the society and journal.

He said he is excited about the opportunity to promote content that emphasizes interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and managing freshwater ecosystems and their biodiversity. Chuck takes the helm of our society’s flagship publication immediately and will overlap for a month with Pam Silver who has been Editor for the past 13 years. "We are so grateful for Pam‘s amazing hard work and the dedicated way she has shepherded our journal, especially through the changes in its name and scope in recent years,” said Colden Baxter, President of SFS. “With Chuck Hawkins stepping into this role, we know we have another committed member of our community providing the skills and leadership needed to take the journal where it needs to go."

Chuck mentioned that some behind-the-scenes changes are occurring in journal operations, including the hiring of a technical editor, but authors and readers should expect to see the same level of outstanding service that the editorial staff and the University of Chicago Press provided in the past under Pam’s leadership. He looks forward to working with the Editorial Board to identify and recruit exciting content and grow the quality of the journal. Chuck can be reached at fws.editor@freshwater-science.org.

Article Spotlight

By Ross Vander Vorste

Calhoun et al. (2018), Issue 37(1):134--146

Parasites…Ew!…Dead fish…Ew!! These were my thoughts when I spoke with Dana “Dain” Calhoun about her new FWS paper. Dain and colleagues at the University of Colorado Boulder deserve an episode of “Dirty Jobs” for their work describing parasite communities in invasive fish they collected from California ponds.

Dana Calhoun searching for parasites on an invasive fish

The goal of this study was simple; the work to achieve it was not. Dain and colleagues wanted to shed light onto the prevalence, abundance and richness of parasites infecting the invasive fish species which dominate natural and artificial pond ecosystems in California. Broadly, parasites are organisms that live off of other organisms (i.e. their hosts) and include macroparasites like flukes (Trematoda) and roundworms (Nematoda). Scientists are just beginning to understand the many ways these parasites can affect host behavior and morphology. For fish and other aquatic organisms, parasite infection can alter behavior in ways that increase host susceptibly to predation which, in turn, helps transmit parasites to final hosts including mammals and birds. Growing evidence suggests invasive fish species may be more susceptible to parasites than natives. However, freshwater ecologists have often ignored parasites because of their diversity and the difficulty in their collection and identification.

Processing one fish for parasites can take an experienced parasitologist an entire day. Impressively, Dain and colleagues processed over 700 fish in this study. First, the eyes, nares, internal organs, muscles, and gills were dissected in search for parasites barely visible with the naked eye. Gills were thoroughly washed in test tubes to dislodge parasites and lateral-lines, which allow fish to detect pressure and vibration, were removed and examined. If this process was not involved enough, imagine the added pleasure of doing it with your nose just inches over a decomposing fish carcass. As the hours pass, the smells only get worse.

When Dain mentioned “one tech working in the lab had to wear nose plugs to avoid the smell,” I said to myself, “only one?”

Once parasites are removed the work is not done. Dain and her dedicated technicians identified them on the fly under a microscope. They saved individuals for staining on slides and molecular analysis, which could thankfully be done away from the dead fish. Archiving these pesky parasites was important considering they had not been studied in California fishes this broadly since 1953. Across 27 ponds, Dain and colleagues identified 14 parasite taxa in six fish species ranging in size from tiny mosquito fish to lunker catfish over the course of 3 years. Their work discovered 16 new host records and 5 new geographic records.

Trematode, Posthodiplostomum minimum, was the most common fish parasite in this study, seen here as pale spots in the fish cavity

If you are an invasive fish in California, chances are good that you carry some parasites. Even the family goldfish that was “let free” in the nearby pond was parasitized. Dain and colleagues found that larger fish, such as large-mouth bass, had more parasites, in terms of richness and raw abundance, than smaller fish. This result was consistent with previous studies and Dain and colleagues explained the host size-parasite relationship by larger fish having more surface area, longer lifespans, and more frequent interactions with prey items that may also host parasites. Along with body size, parasite richness was correlated with pond size, water quality, and richness of other free-living fauna, such as amphibians, crustaceans, and insects.

In our conversation, Dain also described challenges during this project in the field. Notably, California’s historic drought dried up seven of their study ponds midway through the project. This was bad news for their data collection but good news in that invasive fish from these ponds were extirpated. Dain and colleagues continue to assess many of the ponds in this study as part of long-term efforts to understand amphibian declines.

Things were not all bad for the field crew in California, led by Travis McDevitt-Galles, considering they got to spend time capturing invasive fish using the rod and reel method. So “dirty job” or “dream job,” you take your pick.

Collecting invasive fish using the ol' rod'n'reel method

Dain and colleagues work has real implications for pond biodiversity in California and throughout the West. The fact that many invasive fish inhabiting these ponds can sometimes have thousands of parasites brings greater importance to understanding their interactions with native species. As discussed in the paper, negative effects of parasites on invasive fish could easily “spillover” onto native populations and the ecosystem functions they support. Despite their tiny size, parasites have been linked to mortality and malformation of native amphibians. Dain is excited about future work in the Pieter Johnson Lab that will continue to investigate parasite-driven spillover effects and changes in host behavior. We at SFS look forward to reading more from them.

If you are interested in reading more you can find the article here [Calhoun et al. 2018], visit the Pieter Johnson Lab website, and see their growing list of parasites and hosts [parasite database].

Email your recommendations for the FWS Article Spotlight to VanderVorste.Ross@gmail.com

ITD Q&A

Brian Kastl - PhD student, UC Berkeley

Brian Kastl is an outdoor educator for National Geographic (Nat Geo) Student Expeditions and a UC Berkeley PhD student in the Grantham Lab. He has taught and mentored emerging conservation leaders from around the world to solve pressing issues in freshwater science. I asked Brian a few questions about his experiences and how they have helped his own research that aims to bring coho salmon from the brink of extinction and into the lives of Californians.

Brian Kastl mentoring students to help solve complex conservation issues.

Tell us about your experience leading outdoor environmental education expeditions

Since I began using the Rocky Mountains as a “classroom” to teach hydrology, I knew that outdoor education offers something special. So I became a National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) instructor to customize teaching approaches to the individual learning styles and conservation passions of my students. I’ve particularly enjoyed mentoring student-driven projects on land-sea connectivity in Belize, as a Nat Geo Student Expedition leader. This summer, I’ll raft the Nenana River in Alaska for Nat Geo with middle school students, so they can experience first-hand the migration of coho salmon: a key species for land-ocean connectivity. I look forward to showing them how I use integrated transponder technology to monitor coho migration to the Pacific Ocean.

What do you enjoy most about mentoring?

I love seeing students’ excitement as they discover their greatest interests in our water-driven world. They are the explorers, and I try to support the incubation of their individualized research projects. I’m thrilled that our Cambodian students, funded by a US State Department Grant with the East-West Center, went on to develop a community-based group that restores hydrologic connectivity in a Cambodian mangrove forest. Our other students went on to develop the Middle East Environmental Leadership Program in Palestine, where I was honored to cut the opening ceremony ribbon and judge the merit of innovative water conservation technologies. One of the winning teams developed a device that extracts drinking water from low-humidity air to reduce diversions from local streams.

How can outdoor education help the field of freshwater science and conservation?

Long-term support and strides in freshwater science can be enhanced through outdoor education of students interested in a range of academic topics. I tell my students that freshwater conservation is a highly interdisciplinary field and that we need more than only natural scientists to protect aquatic habitat. We need psychologists to understand how outdoor experiences improve mental health, lawyers to establish protected areas, and the list goes on. Ultimately these individuals will reach the public and policy makers, whose support is essential in ensuring that our freshwater science findings inform freshwater conservation.

What is most rewarding, as a graduate student, about outdoor education?

Watching our students grow as freshwater science leaders is immensely rewarding. I’ve also enjoyed participating in an innovative field-based course myself. The first UC (University of California) Water Academy explored rivers, lakes, dams, as well as sites of ecological and flood mitigation co-benefits. It takes experiencing the sites to fully understand the gravity of water management impacts on ecological processes. Speaking with a variety of stakeholders – farmers, dam operators, and conservationists – helped me to refine my language to more effectively communicate my own research that uses cutting-edge technology to measure conditions experienced by coho salmon. This field course, much like my experience as an outdoor educator, informed my own PhD research direction, honed my career goals, and connected the public with the freshwater science community in a meaningful and lasting way

Undergraduates from Myanmar, Philippines, and Malaysia learn about wetland restoration near Chesapeake Bay (photo by Brian Kastl).

Dear Nick - Advice from Nick Aumen

DEAR NICK: I am very excited that my first SFS annual meeting is just around the corner, but at the same time, I am feeling nervous. I want to get the most out of this opportunity to network and to learn, but I am an introvert. How do I make the most out of this chance to meet experts in my area of interest and to develop new contacts and professional relationships? – ANXIOUS BUT HOPEFUL.

DEAR ANXIOUS: Your nervousness is completely normal for anyone in your situation – introvert or not. But, you should know that SFS meetings and SFS members are notoriously open and accommodating to students and early career professionals. And, the society has a very active Student Resources Committee (SRC) and several events catering to students, such as the SRC Student/Mentor Mixer, the Early Career Mixer and lunch workshops, and the general mixers each evening. The mixers and the coffee breaks are great opportunities for you to meet and interact with prominent and influential scientists interested in the same topics as you.

For starters, I bet there are well-known and well-published scientists who will be at the meeting that you know through your literature searches and by their reputations. Make a point to find them during the meeting, introduce yourself, ask them questions about your research, and see if they would be willing to communicate with you during the course of your program. If you are too nervous to approach them directly, ask your advisor or another mentor to help make the introduction. Another approach is to attend a talk (or poster) they give, and approach them after the session. I have found that a good way to develop networks is to present a poster instead of a talk. It provides the opportunity for one-on-one conversations with those that are interested in your subject. No matter how famous you think they are, or how accomplished they are, I promise you they will take the time to interact with you – that is one thing that makes our society so special. Perhaps set a simple goal for yourself of meeting at least one such person each day of the meeting.

I remember my hesitation to do this as a student at my first meetings, and the only way I overcame my hesitation was to just do it, despite my nervousness and awkwardness. After the first couple of times, I became more relaxed and realized these folks are just normal human beings, happy to contribute to the development of your career as a scientist. When I was a brand-new faculty member, I garnered enough nerve to introduce myself and speak with a NSF director at a mixer, floated an idea I had, and ended up with seed money to conduct a workshop on stream solutes the following year thanks to this person’s genuine interest and support from that first meeting.

Finally, it may be important for you as an introvert to find ways to stay energized when you are surrounded by 1,000 people over the 4-5 days of the meeting – it can be overwhelming and exhausting. Schedule enough quiet time to recharge your batteries. Perhaps exercise is your thing, or plan for a meal alone in your hotel room. I like to spend a few hours exploring the local area by myself as a way of breaking up the day. Whatever you choose to do, enjoy your time at the meeting, and let that time inspire, motivate, and energize you!

Meet a member

Introducing 5 SFS members you might not know

These 5 SFS members were chosen at random from our membership directory. They highlight the diversity of our membership in terms of backgrounds, research interests and career stages. Feel free to connect with these members and maybe share a drink with them at the next conference.

Amy Burgin -- aquatic ecosystem ecologist/biogeochemist

What is your field or topic of study?

I am an aquatic ecosystem ecologist and biogeochemist with a particular fondness for the nitrogen cycle. I want to understand how climate change and ecosystem restoration impact water quality in agricultural landscapes.

Summarize your current and past roles.

I am currently an Associate Professor/Associate Scientist at the University of Kansas and Kansas Biological Survey; I've been at KU since Jan. 2016. I did my Ph.D. at Michigan State (2007) and a post-doc at the Cary Institute (2009) before taking faculty positions at Wright State University and the University of Nebraska.

What is something you are passionate about related to freshwater science (or not)?

I am passionate about helping others learn how to effectively communicate science. I was a speech and theater nerd in high school and college, so I like being able to combine my love of science and love of communicating. I am also passionate about undergraduate research opportunities; I went to a small liberal arts college and was a first-generation college student. Thus, I had no idea that research was a thing you could do (and get paid for) until I had an REU at Hubbard Brook. Now, I try to open the doors to science for as many undergrads as possible.

Which scientific paper, book or other media has inspired you?

I was an undergraduate when the Lotic Intersite Nitrogen eXperiment paper came out in Science (Peterson et al. 2001 Science). This paper was hugely important in my decision of what to study in grad school. The LINX 1 & 2 collaborators were instrumental in my career; what is the most inspiring is seeing (and being trained to work in) truly collaborative, supportive groups tackling big science that can't be done by a single person.

Where can we find out more about your science?

Twitter is where you can find recent musings and field pictures: @burginam. I try to update my website once a year, found here

How long have you been a member?

My first meeting was in 2003 (Athens, GA). I remember a great peach cobbler and line dancing at the banquet and learning what a "swamp cooler" was from staying in the UGA dorms.

Will you attend the SFS meeting? Where can we expect to find you?

Yes, I'm so excited to be going back to Michigan! You'll find me in the Biogeochemistry sections.

Cliff Dahm -- ecosystem ecologist

What is your field or topic of study?

Depending on the context, I give my field of study as ecosystem ecology, aquatic ecology, or biogeochemistry.

Summarize your current and past roles.

I have been a teacher, a researcher, a mentor, a principal investigator, a program director, and a lead scientist. Currently, I am semi-retired and focusing on completing past research, serving in some advisory and synthesis roles, and being part of our hydrogeoecology group at the University of New Mexico.

What is something you are passionate about related to freshwater science (or not)?

I am passionate about communicating aquatic science to decision makers, politicians, and resource managers so that our science is used in the important decisions of how we allocate and manage water.

Which scientific paper, book or other media has inspired you?

My background is in oceanography before I transitioned to freshwater science so I was inspired by the work of Al Redfield and in particular the Redfield, Ketchum, and Richards 1963 article in the book "The Sea" found on pages 26-77.

Where can we find out more about your science?

I am not maintaining a website anymore, but you can contact me directly at cdahm@unm.edu.

How long have you been a member?

I joined the North American Benthological Society (NABS) in 1984 as I transitioned from the Stream Team at Oregon State University to my faculty position at the University of New Mexico and the Hydrogeoecology Group there.

Will you attend the SFS meeting? Where can we expect to find you?

I will miss the annual meeting in Detroit this year as I will be in Spain serving on a science advisory committee and visiting colleagues in Catalan and the Basque Country. I look forward to the annual meeting in 2019 in Salt Lake City!

Ted Grantham -- ecohydrologist

What is your field or topic of study?

I am interested in how water management affects freshwater ecosystems in the context of climate change. The goal of my research is to identify solutions that allow people and freshwater organisms to coexist in a hotter and more volatile climate future!

Summarize your current and past roles.

I am currently a cooperative extension specialist and assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at U.C. Berkeley, where I also received my PhD. Prior to this position, I was a Mendenhall postdoctoral researcher at the USGS Fort Collins Science Center. I also spent two years as a postdoc at the U.C. Davis Center for Watershed Sciences and one year as a Fulbright Fellow at the University of Barcelona.

What is something you are passionate about related to freshwater science (or not)?

There's no place I'd rather be than on a river (which also happens to be the name of my son).

Which scientific paper, book or other media has inspired you?

Totem Salmon by Freeman House made me realize the inherent connection between people and nature and why it is important to keep wild things alive on our planet.

Where can we find out more about your science?

Check out my website!

How long have you been a member?

The first SFS meeting I attended was in Santa Fe, New Mexico in 2010. I've been a member ever since!

Will you attend the SFS meeting? Where can we expect to find you?

I look forward to the meeting in Detroit! You'll find me catching up with old friends and participating in the climate change sessions.

Kim Haag -- freshwater ecologist

What is your field or topic of study?

My field of study is freshwater ecology, principally streams, rivers, and wetlands.

Summarize your current and past roles.

I work for the U.S. Geological Survey. I began my work in the National Water Quality Assessment Program in Kentucky and in south Florida. I later transitioned to interdisciplinary studies in isolated freshwater wetlands.

What is something you are passionate about related to freshwater science (or not)?

I care deeply about communicating environmental science to the general public in a way that can effectively influence decision-making and public policy.

Which scientific paper, book or other media has inspired you?

The Ecology of Running Waters by Noel Hynes inspired me because it was the foundational text for stream ecology, and because I was fortunate enough to meet the author.

Where can we find out more about your science?

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1342 https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1758/ https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1207

How long have you been a member?

40 years (since 1977)

Will you attend the SFS meeting? Where can we expect to find you?

Yes I will attend; Finance Committee meeting, Board of Directors meeting, annual Business meeting, wetlands sessions.

Tiffany Schriever -- wetland ecologist

What is your field or topic of study?

I am a wetland ecologist that studies community and food-web dynamics of aquatic macroinvertebrates and amphibians in temporary wetlands.

Summarize your current and past roles.

I am an assistant professor in biology at Western Michigan University where I teach, conduct research in rare interdunal wetlands along Lake Michigan’s lakeshore, and supervise four graduate students. My last role was a post-doc in Dr. Dave Lytle’s lab at Oregon State University examining how aquatic insect biodiversity is maintained across desert landscapes..

What is something you are passionate about related to freshwater science (or not)?

I am passionate about understanding all things connected to temporary waters including which organisms live there, how they live there, how they interact within the food web, how diversity and distribution are with changing with climate, and how temporary systems are connected to the terrestrial matrix surrounding them.

Which scientific paper, book or other media has inspired you?

Food Webs: Integration of Patterns and Dynamics co-edited by Gary Polis and Kirk Winemiller. David Post – all of his food-web structure and stable isotope work. Kirk Winemiller's papers are essential reading about integrating natural history, long-term field studies and understanding diversity in food webs. The ecology of temporary waters by D. Dudley Williams

Where can we find out more about your science?

Website needs an overhaul but here it is Or find me in the WMU bio page
Current grant publicity

How long have you been a member?

One year

Will you attend the SFS meeting? Where can we expect to find you?

Yes! I will be co-presenting a poster (Dragonfly and damselfly (Odonata) biodiverisy in interdunal wetlands at Saugatuck Harbor Natural Area, Michigan) with a WMU undergraduate and introducing my graduate student (hopefully with beer in hand) to all the awesome folks of SFS!

SFS members participate at USA Science & Engineering Festival

SFS members teamed up with the Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) to represent the Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies (CASS) at the 2018 USA Science and Engineering Festival in Washington, D.C. held on April 7-8, 2018. According to the ALSO communications office, about 3,300 young, scientists, parents, teachers, and adults attended the festival. A CASS booth, organized by Adrienne Sponberg (ASLO), offered hands-on activities covering key concepts in aquatic sciences. Those that visited the CASS booth left with a greater appreciation for water resources. CASS plans a similar booth at next festival in 2020.

CASS volunteer demonstrates the Secchi disk to students

Free data

Looking for historic streamflow data? Try FLO1K!

The In the Drift newsroom recently came across a global map of annual streamflow data generated at 1 km resolution. The FLO1K map contains information on mean, maximum and minimum annual flows at the global-scale from 1960-2015. Best of all, it is free for your integration. Surely, us freshwater scientists will see tremendous potential here!