Aquatic Insects of the West River and Salt Marshes ... - Yale University

164 INTERDISCIPLINARY RESTORATIONThree salt marshes were selected for identification of potentialinsect species that may be available for colonization of restored saltmarshes in south central Connecticut. Separate collections of insectswere made from the various vegetative zones (e.g. Spartina patens,S. alterniflora, etc.) and distinctive mud pans of the three marshes.The first marsh, Spring Street Marsh, is on the West River betweenthe Helm Street landfill and Spring Street in West Haven 1 km southof West River Memorial Park (Fig. 1). It will probably serve as themajor source for many of the colonizing salt marsh insects in thenew marsh. The relatively small size of this marsh (6.9 ha) and thedegree of encroachment by development may limit its speciesdiversity. One collection was made at this site.The second marsh, Hoadley Marsh, is located at the YalePeabody Field Station in Guilford, Connecticut, 16 km east of theWest River, in New Haven. Hoadley represents a less disturbed saltmarsh environment. The insect community at this site can becompared with the Spring Street Marsh in order to determinewhether Spring Street can supply West River Memorial Park withinsects normally associated with a salt marsh system. Two collectionswere made at Hoadley Marsh.The third marsh, Pine Creek Marsh, is located in FairfieldCounty, Connecticut, 32 km west of the West River. Pine Creek, arestored salt marsh, demonstrates that recolonization by salt marshinsects does occur in restored salt marshes and that a normal saltmarsh community can be reestablished. One collection was made atthis site.At the West River, aquatic collecting consisted of kick samplingwith seines and sweeping of aquatic vegetation with D-frame nets.Shoreline sites were sampled using aspirators. Pitfall traps were setinitially, but the method was abandoned as not sufficiently productive.In the three salt marshes, sampling with aspirators and sweepingwith aerial insect nets accumulated insects living on the grasses,shrubs, and underlying substrate.The inferences drawn from this survey must be carefully delimitedfor two reasons. First, the collecting period was restricted tosummer months, between June 1 and July 27, 1995. A substantialnumber of insect species may not have been collected because oflimited sampling methods, and daily, monthly, or seasonal populationfluctuations.Secondly, not all available insect communities were investigated.In two initial collecting trips during June, aquatic insect communitieswere practically nonexistent south of the Chapel Street bridge(Fig. 1). The largest aquatic insect accumulations were found in anisolated side channel of the river, a short distance below ChapelStreet, and in the submerged rubble beneath the Chapel StreetBULLETIN 100