The Bugflow Experiment - Revision history

Cellsworth at 20:53, 8 September 2026

2026-09-08T20:53:06Z

Cellsworth at 19:24, 18 June 2025

2025-06-18T19:24:29Z

Cellsworth at 19:15, 18 June 2025

2025-06-18T19:15:41Z

Cellsworth at 17:24, 18 June 2025

2025-06-18T17:24:30Z

Cellsworth at 17:22, 18 June 2025

2025-06-18T17:22:06Z

Cellsworth at 17:01, 18 June 2025

2025-06-18T17:01:00Z

Cellsworth at 16:39, 18 June 2025

2025-06-18T16:39:15Z

Cellsworth at 22:28, 11 June 2025

2025-06-11T22:28:17Z

Show changes

Cellsworth at 16:56, 7 December 2023

2023-12-07T16:56:35Z

Cellsworth at 16:55, 7 December 2023

2023-12-07T16:55:20Z

@@ Line 218: / Line 218: @@
 |-
 |style="color:#000;"|
 '''2023'''

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 [[File:BugflowsMisdgeSmoothing.png|thumb|center|500px| https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2021-01-22-twg-meeting/20210122-BugFlows-508-UCRO.pdf ]]
-*The abundance of two types of caddisflies (Hydroptilids and Hydropsychids) increased riverwide in three of four years that Bug Flows were conducted compared to the pre-Bug Flow baseline from 2012-2017. Caddisflies have been rare in Grand Canyon and improving conditions for them was a primary objective of the experiment. However, this caddisfly increase is correlated with years with low suspended sediment levels, complicating this response.
+*The abundance of two types of caddisflies (Hydroptilids and Hydropsychids) increased riverwide in three of four years that Bug Flows were conducted compared to the pre-Bug Flow baseline from 2012-2017. Caddisflies have been present but rare in Grand Canyon and improving conditions for them was a primary objective of the experiment. However, this caddisfly increase is correlated with years with low suspended sediment levels, complicating this response.
 *Contrary to predictions, no increases were seen in other EPT species like mayflies or stoneflies. Mayflies in particular are found in many types of rivers and have a broad range of habitat tolerances. Their absence from the mainstem continues to be puzzling.
 *Contrary to predictions, no increases in the abundance or changes in distribution in midges were observed across multiple long-term datasets. Modeling suggested that a ~30% increase and a smoothing of midge distribution riverwide might be realized if Bug Flows was successful.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 |style="color:#000;"|
-Daily flow fluctuations at Glen Canyon Dam dry (desiccate) and kill aquatic insect eggs laid in the evening along the shorelines resulting in population level declines in the abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates (midges and EPT) below the dam and into Grand Canyon. <br>
+Daily flow fluctuations at Glen Canyon Dam dry (desiccate) and kill aquatic insect eggs laid in the evening along the shorelines resulting in population level declines or absence in the abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates (midges and EPT) below the dam and into Grand Canyon. <br>
 *In areas where evening egg laying is out of sync with the daily hydropower wave (Glen Canyon, Upper and Lower Granite Gorge), we should be able to detect increased egg laying and egg survival during the low weekend flow.
@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 [[File:MidgeAbundanceFlow.jpg|thumb|center|400px| [http://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/7/70/Kennedy_2016_HydropowerEPT.pdf BioScience Paper] ]]
-[[File:BugflowsPrediction.JPG|thumb|center|400px| [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-01-25-twg-meeting/AR10.pdf https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-01-25-twg-meeting/AR10.pdf] ]]
+[[File:Figure7_BugflowsDiversity.png|thumb|center|400px| [http://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/7/70/Kennedy_2016_HydropowerEPT.pdf BioScience Paper] ]]
 |-
@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 |style="color:#000;"|
 *See a smoothing of the spatial pattern in midges in Grand Canyon
-*Increase in midges throughout Glen and Grand Canyons
+*See catch distribution of EPT that is less tied to tributary confluences.
 *Increase in a greater variety of aquatic insects in the mainstem including EPT like mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies
@@ Line 68: / Line 71: @@
 [[File:2024Bugflows.png|thumb|center|500px| 2025 Annual Reporting Meeting ]]
-*The abundance of two types of caddisflies (Hydroptilids and Hydropsychids) increased riverwide in two of three years that Bug Flows were conducted compared to the pre-Bug Flow baseline from 2012-2017. Caddisflies have been rare in Grand Canyon and improving conditions for them was a primary objective of the experiment. However, this caddisfly increase is correlated with low suspended sediment levels in these same years, complicating this response. Continued experimentation with Bug Flows may be warranted based on these results.
+*The abundance of two types of caddisflies (Hydroptilids and Hydropsychids) increased riverwide in three of four years that Bug Flows were conducted compared to the pre-Bug Flow baseline from 2012-2017. Caddisflies have been rare in Grand Canyon and improving conditions for them was a primary objective of the experiment. However, this caddisfly increase is correlated with years with low suspended sediment levels, complicating this response.
 *Contrary to predictions, no increases were seen in other EPT species like mayflies or stoneflies. Mayflies in particular are found in many types of rivers and have a broad range of habitat tolerances. Their absence from the mainstem continues to be puzzling.
 *Contrary to predictions, no increases in the abundance or changes in distribution in midges were observed across multiple long-term datasets. Modeling suggested that a ~30% increase and a smoothing of midge distribution riverwide might be realized if Bug Flows was successful.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 |style="color:#000;"|
-Daily flow fluctuations dry (desiccate) and kill eggs laid in the evening along the shorelines resulting in population level declines in the abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates (midges and EPT) below Glen Canyon Dam. <br>
+Daily flow fluctuations at Glen Canyon Dam dry (desiccate) and kill aquatic insect eggs laid in the evening along the shorelines resulting in population level declines in the abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates (midges and EPT) below the dam and into Grand Canyon. <br>
 *In areas where evening egg laying is out of sync with the daily hydropower wave (Glen Canyon, Upper and Lower Granite Gorge), we should be able to detect increased egg laying and egg survival during the low weekend flow.

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 *See a smoothing of the spatial pattern in midges in Grand Canyon
 *Increase in midges throughout Glen and Grand Canyons
-*Increase in caddisflies (and other EPT) throughout Glen and Grand Canyons
+*Increase in a greater variety of aquatic insects in the mainstem including EPT like mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies
-−
 |-
@@ Line 70: / Line 69: @@
 [[File:2024Bugflows.png|thumb|center|500px| 2025 Annual Reporting Meeting ]]
-*The abundance of adult caddisflies increased riverwide in two of three years that Bug Flows were conducted compared to the pre-Bug Flow baseline from 2012-2017. Caddisflies have been rare in Grand Canyon and improving conditions for them was a primary objective of the experiment. However, this caddisfly increase is correlated with low suspended sediment levels in these same years, complicating this response. Continued experimentation with Bug Flows may be warranted based on these results.
+*The abundance of two types of caddisflies (Hydroptilids and Hydropsychids) increased riverwide in two of three years that Bug Flows were conducted compared to the pre-Bug Flow baseline from 2012-2017. Caddisflies have been rare in Grand Canyon and improving conditions for them was a primary objective of the experiment. However, this caddisfly increase is correlated with low suspended sediment levels in these same years, complicating this response. Continued experimentation with Bug Flows may be warranted based on these results.
-*Contrary to predictions, no increases in the abundance or changes in distribution in midges were observed across multiple long-term datasets. Modeling suggested that a ~30% increase in non-biting midges riverwide, a common type of aquatic insect, might be realized if Bug Flows was successful.
+*Contrary to predictions, no increases were seen in other EPT species like mayflies or stoneflies. Mayflies in particular are found in many types of rivers and have a broad range of habitat tolerances. Their absence from the mainstem continues to be puzzling.
-*More adult aquatic insects emerged from the Colorado River riverwide during steady weekend Bug Flows compared to weekday fluctuating releases, suggesting that low steady flows improve conditions for adult insects, an unanticipated benefit.
+*Contrary to predictions, no increases in the abundance or changes in distribution in midges were observed across multiple long-term datasets. Modeling suggested that a ~30% increase and a smoothing of midge distribution riverwide might be realized if Bug Flows was successful.
-*Bug Flows increased algae production by 38% in Marble and Grand Canyon, resulting in an additional 100 metric tons of algae-carbon to sustain food webs. The increase in algae production during Bug Flows was energetically substantial and likely supported increased invertebrate and fish production given that production at these levels is food limited.
+*More adult aquatic insects emerged from the Colorado River riverwide during steady weekend Bug Flows compared to weekday fluctuating releases, suggesting that low steady flows somehow prompt emergence of adult insects.
-*The types of prey eaten by rainbow trout in Glen Canyon varied by flow treatment but overall energy intake was unchanged. Anglers captured more rainbow trout on average during Bug Flows than regular weekday fluctuating flows.
+*Bug Flows increased algae production by 38% in Marble and Grand Canyon, resulting in an additional 100 metric tons of algae-carbon to sustain food webs. The increase in algae production during Bug Flows was energetically substantial and likely supported increased invertebrate and fish production.
 |-
@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 *Drift: every 5 miles in Glen and Grand Canyons
 *Weekday vs weekend drift
 |-

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 |class="MainPageBG" style="width:65%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
 {|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
-! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Updates  </h2>
+! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Hypothesis </h2>
 |-
 |style="color:#000;"|
 [[File:2024Bugflows.png|thumb|center|500px| 2025 Annual Reporting Meeting ]]
@@ Line 52: / Line 79: @@
 |style="color:#000;"|
 |-
-! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> How are Bugflows going to be monitored? </h2>
+! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> How are Bugflows monitored? </h2>
 |-
 |style="color:#000;"|
@@ Line 70: / Line 89: @@
 *Weekday vs weekend drift
 |-

@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 *The cost of the 2018 Bugflow Experiment was $165,000 [https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2019/06/151429.pdf] <br>
 *The cost of the 2019 Bugflow Experiment was $327,000 [https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2020/12/163982.pdf] <br>
-*The cost of the 2020 Bugflow Experiment was $941,000 [[Media:2020BugFlowsFinancials.pdf| (3)]]
+*The cost of the 2020 Bugflow Experiment was $941,000 [[Media:2020BugFlowsFinancials.pdf| (3)]]<br>
 <br>
-−
 The three-year (2018-2020) total of doing the Bugflow Experiment is $1,433,000 <br>

@@ Line 126: / Line 126: @@
 *Sediment transport: beaches
-The cost of the 2018 Bugflow Experiment was $165,000 [https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2019/06/151429.pdf] <br>
+|-
-The cost of the 2019 Bugflow Experiment was $327,000 [https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2020/12/163982.pdf] <br>
+! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Financial costs of the experiment </h2>
-The cost of the 2020 Bugflow Experiment was $941,000 [[Media:2020BugFlowsFinancials.pdf| (3)]]
+|-
 <br>
 The three-year (2018-2020) total of doing the Bugflow Experiment is $1,433,000 <br>
-The cost estimate for doing a Bugflow Experiment in 2021 (which wasn't implemented) was $1,021,000 <br>
+*The cost estimate for doing a Bugflow Experiment in 2021 (which wasn't implemented) was $1,021,000 <br>
-The cost of the 2022 Bugflow Experiment was $1,154,000 [https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2019/06/151429.pdf] <br>
+*The cost of the 2022 Bugflow Experiment was $1,154,000 [https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2019/06/151429.pdf] <br>
 |-