Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) Neal J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
St. Cloud State University theRepository at St. Cloud State Culminating Projects in Biology Department of Biology 11-1983 Observations on the Life Cycles of Hydropsyche bifida Banks and Hydropsyche morosa Hagen (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) Neal J. Voelz St. Cloud State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/biol_etds Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Voelz, Neal J., "Observations on the Life Cycles of Hydropsyche bifida Banks and Hydropsyche morosa Hagen (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae)" (1983). Culminating Projects in Biology. 3. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/biol_etds/3 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at theRepository at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Culminating Projects in Biology by an authorized administrator of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OBSERVATIONS ON THE LIFE CY~LES OF HYDROPSYCHE BIFIDA BANKS. AND HYDROPSYCHE MOROS!}: HAGEN (TIU.CHOPTERA:HYDROPSYCHIDAE) by Neal J. Voelz B.A., St. Olaf College, 1980 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of St. Cloud State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts St. Cloud, Minnesota !Vo vembe r, 1983 This thesis submitted by Neal J. Voelz in pa.rtial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts at St. Cloud State University is hereby approved by the final evaluation committee. Chairperson Dean School of Graduate Studies OBSERVATIONS ON THE LIFE CYCLES OF HYDROPSYCHE BIPIDA BANKS AND HYDROPSYCHE MOROSA HAGEN (TRICHOPTERA:HYDROPSYCHIDAE) Neal J. Voelz Two different laboratory streams were.used to examine the life cycles of Hydropsyche bifida and H. morosa (Trichoptera:Hydropsychidae). Effectiveness of the artificial streams was determined. Hydropsyche bifida and H. morosa were shown to be useful bioassay organisms. Variations of the species-specific larval head patterns were drawn for both H. oifida and H. morosa • . Field studies were used to determine niche·separations for H. bifida and H. morosa in riffle areas of the Sauk River, St. Cloud, Minnesota. Physical-spatial factors such as retreat material, sub strate preference, area of riffle and location on substrate were used to evaluate thi's separation. Eggs found in the river were indistin-· guishable from laboratory eggs obtained. The river eggs developed and photographs were made of the first instar, tentatively identified as Hydropsyche sp. Approved by Research Committee: , Chairperson ~~fred . Hop ad iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Alfred J. Hopwood for the idea that started this whole thing and for his encouragement and critique of my manuscript. Dr. Ralph W. Gundersen provided invaluable taxonomic help, especially on adult caddisflies and indirectly convinced me to remain an ecologist. He also helped me with difficult spots in this paper. I thank Dr. Chester W. Buckley for venturing from the Physical Education Department to review my thesis and participate on my commtttee. Stan Ross deserves credit for Figure 1. His incredible artistic talents are greatly needed in biology, but I am afraid he will not make h.i's first million dollars there. I appreciated the sampling help from Tim Chmielewski. I would like to thank Stephen Thrune and Dennis Sjogren for help and providing equipment. Steve Thrune also assisted in easfog my monetary crunch for summer 83. Thanks to Elaine Thrune for typing the final draft of this paper. A much deserved recognition goes to Barbara Raymond and Ann Miller for the inspiration they give us a, 11 • Finally I thank my fellow graduate students, most of whom still do not believe stream insects are important, for psychological reassurance. This came from frequent trips to the cultural spots of Stearns County: Kay's B-Kitchen, The Skidway, The La and Hamburger Nirvana (The Flat Iron). iv. j i Nature will bear the closest inspection. She invites us to lay our eye level with her smallest leaf, and take an insect view of its plain. Henry David Thoreau v TABLE OF CONTENTS Text Page INTRODUCTION . 1 A NOTE ON TAXONOMY 4 METHODS AND MATERIALS 10 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 10 EQUIPMENT 10 LABORATORY STREAMS 1.0 FIELD STUDIES 15 PRESERVATION 15 RESULTS .... 17 LABORATORY STREAMS 17 FIELD STUDIES 19 EGGS . 20 LARVAE 23 PUPAE 27 ADULTS 27 DISCUSSION 30 USEFULNESS OF ARTIFICIAL STREAMS 30 HYDROPSYCHE BIFIDA VS. HYDROPSYCHE MOROSA 30 USABILITY AS BIOASSAY ORGANISMS 31 LIFE HISTORIES 33 REFERENCES 35 APPENDIX . 38 vi \ < \ -'· Figure 1. Partial view of Hydropsyche morosa larva. INTRODUCTION ' ' The study of aquatic insect larval stages is an important, yet overlooked area of biology (·Elkins, 1936; Denning, 1943; Etnier, 1965; Anderson, 1974; Mackay, 1979; Parker and Voshell; 1982). This is especially true for the Trichoptera (caddisflies), of which two poorly known members of the Hydropsyche bifida group, H. bifida and H. morosa are considered here. Understanding the ecology and life cycles .of these organisms is essential because of their location in the food. chain, wide distribution and abundance in streams. 1he Hyoropsychidae are often the most abundant insects in a river (Fremling, 1960; Gordon and Wallace, 1975; Parker and Voshell, 1982). Elkins (1936) points- out that the economic importance of Trichop tera is directly related to the immature stages. The bulk of informa tion however, is on the adu~ts which to some extent is still true today. There have been an increasing number of ecological studies on lar val Hydropsyche (Badcock, 1953; Fremling, 1960; Elliott, 1968; Mecom, 1972; Williams and Hynes, 1973; Philipson and Moorhouse, 1974; Wallace, 1975; Oswood, 1976; Rhame and Stewart, 1976; Hildrew and Edington, 1979; Cudney and Wallace, 1980; Parker and Voshell, 1982). Some taxo nomic work is also available on Hydropsyche (Denning, 1943; Ross, 1944; Hildrew and Morgan, 1974; Wiggins, 1977; Mackay, 1978; Schuster and Etnier, 1978; Flint, Voshell and Parker, 1979; Smith and Lehmkuhl, 1980) 1 2 but little has been done.specifically with the bifida group. Only three papers were found on the ecology of the bifida group (Gordon and Wallace, 1975; Mackay, 1979; Parker and Voshell, 1982). The remaining publications.were taxonomic (Ross, 1944; Schuster, 1977; Schuster and Etnier, 1977;·Mackay, 1978; Schuster and Etnier, 1978; Smith and Lehmkuhl, 1980). No eco1ogica1 references were found for either H. bifida or H. morosa. Any reference to these species is. taxonomic or in distributional listings. The lack of studies is attri buted to the difficulty of larval identification. The aqult Hydropsyche bifida was first deseribed by Banks (1905). Betten (1934) listed H. chlorotica in his work on the Caddisflies of New York State. Milne (1936) reidentified Betten's .specimens as H. bifida. The adult H. morosa was described by Hagen in 1861. Ross (1938) i·' . determined that H. chlorotica Hag. '61 and H. morosa Hag. '61 were the same species, making H. morosa the correct name. This illustrates the taxonomic confusion that plagues the bifida group. Ross (1938) made the first la~val description of Hydropsyche bifida r, and greatly improved on it in 1944. The first pupal description was by !' Denning (1943). Hydropsyche bifid.a is found in the U.S. from the East Coast to the Rockies. It is common in Minnesota and has the broadest distribution of any Hydropsyche (Denning, 1943). Hydropsyche bifida is found in most running water from large rivers to small streams, where it is a net spinner with a fixed retreat (Merritt and Cummins, 1978). If 1 3 Ross (1944) does not describe or illustrate a larva for·Hydro psyahe morosa. The first larval description is found in Wiggins (1977). He uses H. morosa as an example for the genus Hydropsyahe. Schuster and Etnier (1978) provide the best taxonomic and ecological information on H. morosa larvae. No pupal description was found. 'uydropsyahe morosa is ecologically similar to H. bifida, but it is usually collected in medium-sized rivers. Hydropsyahe morosa is common in the eastern U.S. and southeastern Canada, but can be collected·as far wes't as Minnesota and Manitoba. The bifida grouping was first presented by Ross (1944). He placed ten Hydropsyahe species into the group.because of similar morphology in both larvae and adults. Current morphological discoveries substantiate this classification for the larvae (Schuster, 1977; Schuster and Etnier,, 1977). Hydropsyahe bifida and H. morosa. adult males differ only slightly in genitalia (see Ross, 1944, p. 98). Slight morphological I variations are common in the bifida group. I Several bifida group larval species have a dorsal checkerboard head pattern which is often hard to differentiate. The bifida group presents the greatest difficulty for species separation of any Hydro psyahe group. There is a proposal to place this group into a new genus, ' l Symphitopsyche (Schuster and Etnier, 1978), but this has not been followed in recent literature. Current bifida group larval taxonomic literature is confusing (Mackay, 1978; Smith and Lehmkuhl, 1980). J Mackay (1978) does provide useful characteristics for separating i' Chewnatopsyche instars I and II from'Hydropsyche instars I and II. 4 Despite the difficult¥ in identification of larvae, it is neces sary to begin ecological studies on the bifida group. Little is known about the groups life histories, specific community contribu tions or usability in bioassay work. To my knowledge, diagrams or pictures of Hyilropsyche eggs have not been published. Hinton's (1981) excellent work on insect ·eggs has only a few pages on Trichoptera eggs, but no illustrations or photographs. Besides determining the eco1ogy of these organisms, studies such as this can contribute to taxonomic knowledge. _, Labo~qtory streams and field studies were used to observe the life cycles of H. bifida and-H. _morosa. This is a superior method to using field data alone because most field studies do nqt include eggs qr first larval instars.