Displaying items by tag: Science camp

Social Benefits 

Just as with a rural forest, an urban forest provides many benefits. Numerous studies have been done about the social 
and psychological benefits of “green” in urban environments. The findings of the studies make a strong case for the 
importance of urban forests. Urban public housing residents who lived in buildings without trees and grass nearby were 
asked about how they cope with major life issues. They reported more procrastination and assessed their issues as more 
severe than residents with green nearby. 
A study done with children with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) found that children with ADD were better able to focus 
and concentrate after playing in natural, green settings, than in settings where concrete was predominant. 
Apartment buildings with high levels of greenery have been shown to have approximately half the number of crimes 
than those with little or no greenery. The results proved true for both property crimes and violent crimes. A similar study 
found that residents living in areas without nearby nature reported more aggression and violence than those living with 
nearby green. In addition to these specific studies, access to nature also provides humans with other social benefits. 
Parks and other green spaces provide a space for people to play, walk, jog, birdwatch, or just sit quietly. These activities 
are good for our physical health in a society that is increasingly sedentary. It is also good for our mental health by 
providing a place to unwind. Trees also reduce noise levels. 

Economic Benefits 

The economic benefits of urban forests are increasingly being documented. Economics often becomes the language 
used when it comes to urban forest management. Budgets of municipalities must cover an array of services, and the 
benefits of an urban ecosystem must often be proven to secure funding. In a study that considered the costs and 
benefits of municipal forests in five U.S. cities, the researchers found that for every dollar spent on trees, the benefits 
returned were worth from $1.37 to $3.09. A little math tells us this is clearly a good investment. 
Trees save money through reduced energy costs. Cities create what is referred to as a heat island. The concrete, asphalt, 
buildings, and other surfaces absorb and hold heat from the sun. During hot summer days, cities can be five to nine 
degrees warmer than surrounding areas. Shading, evapotranspiration, and wind speed reduction provided by trees help 
conserve energy in buildings. A study conducted in Minneapolis, Minnesota, showed that trees placed in the proper 
location can reduce total heating and cooling costs by eight percent. 
Homeowners not only reduce costs of heating and cooling their homes, but increase the value of their property by 
planting trees. Research suggests that property value can increase three to seven percent when trees are present. Trees 
also make homes and neighborhoods more desirable places to live. One economic benefit that urban trees can provide, 
but often don’t, is one based on products. Municipalities and tree services across the country have come up with ways 
to use the wood that is cut from an urban forest. Products range from specialty furniture, to musical instruments, to 
lumber for park shelters, to artwork. The income from selling products from the wood of trees being removed could be used to defray the cost associated with the removal, making trees an even better investment. 

Trees and Climate Change 

The information about how trees impact climate change is taken from the National Arbor Day website 
http://www.arborday.org/globalwarming/treesHelp.cfm, and the American Forest Foundation website 
www.americanforests.org/resources/climatechange/ 
Deciduous trees, planted on the west, east and south sides, will keep your house cool in the summer and let the sun 
warm your home in the winter, reducing energy use. 
Just three trees, properly placed around a house, can save up to 30% of energy use. 
Trees or shrubs planted to shade air conditioners help cool a building more efficiently, using less electricity. A unit 
operating in the shade uses as much as 10% less electricity than the same one operating in the sun. 
Neighborhoods with well-shaded streets can be up to 6–10° F cooler than neighborhoods without street trees, reducing 
the heat-island effect, and reducing energy needs. 
Shaded parking lots keep automobiles cooler, reducing emissions from fuel tanks and engines, and helping reduce the 
heat-island effect in communities. 
Trees absorb carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary gas causing global climate change. Trees retain the carbon (C) from the 
CO2 molecule and release oxygen (O2) into the atmosphere. The retained carbon makes up half the dry weight of a tree. 
Forests are the world's second largest carbon reservoirs (oceans are the largest). Unlike oceans, however, we can grow 
new forests. One acre of forestland will sequester between 150 - 200 tons of CO2 in its first 40 years. 

Enhanced Self-Esteem

Camp offers children many opportunities to become competent. Practicing both new and old skills on a regular basis, it makes sense that there will be improvement. Novices have chances to learn, while those who are more experienced can improve. Learning new skills and improving on old ones builds self-esteem. Children become more independent and self-reliant at camp with their new-found skills.

Trying New Things

Sending your child to camp is giving them an opportunity to try something new. No matter how many after-school programs or lessons a child takes, its likely they will never have the opportunity to try all that is offered at summer camp. In a supportive environment, the child can try at something new. The interesting twist to these activities is that, since campers often don’t know anyone else at camp before they go, they are more willing to try activities that their friends at home might not expect them to. The athlete can try out for the camp play, while the artist may dabble in sports. At camp, children can try new things and set their own goals for success.

Life Skills

Though years later, your child may not remember capture the flag games or the words to a camp song, the life lessons learned at camp will remain. At camp, a child learns how to take responsibility. The child who has never before made a bed, will learn how to smooth out sheets and blankets and tidy up a cubby. Though counselors will remind and encourage, campers quickly take responsibility for personal hygiene, and for more minor health issues, a camper learns to articulate what hurts and how to get help. All of this personal responsibility further fosters a sense of independence and self-esteem. Camp also improves a child’s social skills by making new friends and learning how to reach out to strangers. At camp, children learn to get along with others, all while living together 24 hours a day, learning about courtesy, compromise, teamwork, and respect.

Hidden Benefits of Camp

The benefits of overnight camp are not limited to children, but extend to parents as well. There is relief in knowing that your child is in a safe, exciting environment for the summer. Even if child care isn’t an issue, it’s often hard to find suitable activities for the summer, as well as finding peers for children to interact with. Camp offers entertainment and constant peer company. For parents that have more than one child, camp can give a younger sibling a chance to shine in the older one’s absence. And if you Homeschool camp is a wonderful way to help your child socialize. For families where all the children go to camp, parents have a chance to do things that would not interest the children. When a child makes it clear how excited he or she to go to camp, these parental excursions are guilt free.

AMY THORSTENSON
FEBRUARY 2012 

Stevens Point, WI 
715/343-6215 
www.goldensandsrcd.org

2 
Introduction 

Biological control studies are currently underway in Wisconsin to improve the 
science of applied biological control of Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM). Many lake groups 
are eagerly awaiting the results of those studies and are interested in applying biological 
control in their lake. However, for many cash-strapped lake groups, purchasing their 
weevils outright would be cost-prohibitive. As we move forward in our understanding of 
the biological control of EWM, this mass rearing pilot study aims to move us forward in 
making milfoil weevils a more practical option for lake groups with more sweat equity 
than cash. The mass rearing method (Thorstenson 2011) is labor intensive and must 
be followed to the letter in order to maximize success. Phase I of this pilot study was 
the first year of evaluating the capability of volunteer groups to successfully produce 
weevils on a mass scale. 

Methods

Study area —Lake Holcombe (Chippewa/Rusk Co) is a 2,881-acre impoundment 
of the Chippewa River, with a maximum depth of 61 ft. Large parcels of the riparian 
properties belong to the State of Wisconsin or paper company holdings and remain in 
natural/wooded condition. The Minong Flowage (Douglas/Washburn Co) is a 1,587- 
acre impoundment of the Totagatic River, with a maximum depth of 21 feet and 
surrounding natural/wooded shoreline. Goose Lake (Adams Co) is an 84-acre seepage 
lake with a maximum depth of 22 ft and surrounding natural/wooded shoreline. 
Study Design — Weevil rearing methods were modeled after Hanson, et al. 
1995, with modifications based graduate work conducted by Amy Thorstenson at UW-

3

Stevens Point (Thorstenson2011). Hanson, et al. reported that an outdoor stock tank 
performed just as well their indoor, controlled 20-gal aquariums, with less management 
time invested. Thorstenson’s studies found similar results, and developed a simplified 
method for outdoor, mass rearing. 
Each lake group set-up and maintained 10, 370-L “Freeland poly-tuf‟ stock tanks 
(79cm W x 132cm L x 63cm H), stationed in an outdoor area where full sun and access 
to a clean water supply was available. The sunniest location available was selected to 
keep the milfoil stems (food stems) healthy, but water temperatures were monitored to 
ensure they did not approach lethal temperatures (34 C / 93 F). Water temperatures 
were monitored with aquarium thermometers and recorded regularly. Fresh water was 
added as needed to top off the tanks. NoSeeUm (0.033 cm mesh) light duty fiberglass 
screening was used to cover the tanks and pools. While the primary use of the 
screening was to exclude predator/competitor insects and birds, it also functioned as 
light shade to reduce peak temperatures in the tanks during sunlight hours. 

EWM stems to be used for food were collected from the same lake that would be 
the recipient of the weevils reared. Stems were collected from the deepest milfoil beds 
available, farthest from shore, where naturally occurring weevils were less likely to be 
present, in order to avoid the inadvertent introduction of unaccounted for weevils. To 
minimize the introduction of predator or competitor insects, the collected food stems 
were laid thinly over a mesh screen and sprayed with a hose and nozzle at a pressure 
sufficient to clean the milfoil but not damage it. Cleaned stems were then be floated in a 
wading pool of clean water, sorted and untangled. Because weevils lay their eggs on 

4

apical meristems, only stems with apical meristems were retained for use; stems that 
had gone to flower or had broken tips were be discarded. Stems were trimmed to a 
length sufficient to reach from the base of the rearing chamber to the surface of the 
chamber’s water (62 cm). Stems were then bundled together in groups of fifteen stems, 
and attached at the base to a rock with a rubber-band to weight the stems down and 
achieve vertical orientation in the rearing chamber. All chambers received an initial 
stocking of milfoil food bundles, with stockings repeated every 21 days to keep the 
weevils supplied with actively growing milfoil (Table 1). 
Table 1 
Weevil feeding schedule. 

# of EWM 
stems to feed 
per tank 
Day 0 
Day 21 
Day 42 
105 
165 
225 

The “starter batch” of weevils were purchased from EnviroScience, Inc., Ohio. 
EnviroScience Inc. provided weevil stock from northern Wisconsin, in order to ensure 
weevils with winter-hardy genetics. Each tank was stocked with 0.19 weevils/L (72 
weevils per 100-gal tank). The purchased weevils arrived as eggs and early instar 
larvae attached to bundles of milfoil stems in sealed plastic bags. The estimated 
number of weevils in each bag was written on the outside of each bag, however the 
number of weevils inside were assumed to be unevenly distributed amongst the milfoil 
stems within. Therefore, the stems were placed into a large tub of water and counted to 
derive an estimated average of weevils per stem. Stems were then selected randomly 

5

to accumulate the number of weevils needed to stock each rearing chamber. Thus, the 
number of weevils initially stocked to each rearing chamber was an estimated average. 

Chambers were maintained for approximately 55 days, allowing enough time for 
producing two generations. Prior to releasing the weevils to their recipient lake, 
subsamples were extracted to estimate total production. A 10% subsample of the 
weevil-containing food stems were extracted from four of the ten tanks (selected at 
random), preserved in 80% isopropyl alcohol, and refrigerated until laboratory 
examination. The preserved subsample stems was examined by Thorstenson by 
floating stems in water in a glass pan over a light table, with 3x magnification goggles. 
Each stem was carefully examined for weevil eggs, larvae, pupae, and adults and the 
total number of weevils recorded. The assistance of a higher power (30x) Carson 
MagniscopeTM was used for identification of specimens when needed. Specimen 
vouchers were preserved in sample vials in 80% isopropyl alcohol. 

Data Analysis

For the each rearing site, average return rate and total estimated 
production was estimated based on the 10% subsamples. Total estimated release (total 
production – subsamples) was also calculated. Temperature records were analysed to 
calculate min, max, mean, and 90% confidence intervals, to evaluate whether volunteers were 
maintaining optimal water temperatures. 

Results

Goose Lake – Expected return rate was 9.6 weevils out per weevil stocked, and 
Goose Lake’s return rate was 0.6. (Table 2) 720 weevils were initially stocked to the10 

6 

rearing tanks, and total production was estimated at 400 weevils. Lab examinations 
observed: low occurrence of miscellaneous insects; substantial mixing of hybrid milfoil, 
M. sibiricum, and M. verticillatum stems; dead or bacteria-engulfed pupa; low 
occurrence of pupation sites; and low evidence of weevil damage on non-M. spicatum
stems. Due to an acute lack of available M. spicatum in Goose Lake, M. sibiricum and 
hybrid milfoil were also collected as an optional food choice when it became necessary. 
Water temperatures were monitored but not recorded. Tank temperatures were 
moderated by adding fresh groundwater as needed. 
Minong Flowage - Expected return rate was 9.6 weevils out per weevil stocked, 
and Minong Flowage’s return rate was 1.8. (Table 3) 720 weevils were initially stocked 
to the10 rearing tanks, and total production was estimated at 1,300 weevils. Lab 
examinations observed: low occurrence of miscellaneous insects; no non-M. spicatum
mixed in; heavy weevil damage to stems in some tanks; and fused, deformed milfoil 
leaflets and hardened, opaque stems (indicative of exposure to herbicides) in some 
tanks. Tank temperatures were moderated by adding fresh groundwater as needed. 
Water temperature ranged from 60 - 80 F, with a mean of 71 F. (Table 4) These 
temperatures were similar to temperatures expected (per Thorstenson 2011), but lower 
than the temperatures optimal for weevil production. (Figure 1) 
Lake Holcombe - Expected return rate was 9.6 weevils out per weevil stocked, 
and Lake Holcombe’s return rate was 3.1. (Table 5) 720 weevils were initially stocked 
to the10 rearing tanks, and total production was estimated at 2,090 weevils. Lab 
examinations observed: low occurrence of miscellaneous insects; no non-M. spicatum
species mixed in; poor stem health; heavy weevil damage to stems in some tanks; 

7

limited available oviposition sites; and fewer eggs than expected. Tank temperatures 
were moderated by adding fresh groundwater as needed. Water temperature ranged 
from 70 - 90 F, with a mean of 82 F. (Table 6) These temperatures were higher than 
temperatures expected (per Thorstenson 2011), and similar to temperatures optimal for 
weevil production. (Figure 1) 

Discussion

Goose Lake production was substantially lower than expected, and the optional 
feeding on non-M. spicatum species was likely the key problem. Temperatures were 
closely monitored (although not recorded), and not believed to be a problem. 
Subsample observations noted few miscellaneous insects, ruling out a predation 
problem. Subsample examinations confirmed several species of milfoil were used in 
feeding, including: M. sibiricum, hybrid milfoil (northern x M. spicatum), M. verticillatum. 
M. heterophyllum is also present in Goose Lake and may also have been fed, although 
subsample examinations did not confirm this. Subsample examinations noted problems 
with pupation (bacteria-laden pupa, dead pupa, few pupal chambers observed), and 
weevil damage observed on M. spicatum but not the other species that were mixed in. 
Weevil developmental time is longer, and developmental performance is poorer, on M. 
sibiricum than on their exotic host, M. spicatum (Newman et al. 1997). Research in the 
Midwest has found that weevil performance on hybrid milfoils was intermediate between 
the native hose (M. sibiricum) and the exotic host (M. spicatum) (Roley & Newman 
2006). Weevil developmental time is significantly longer when reared on M. 
verticillatum than on M. spicatum (37 days versus 21 days) (Solarz & Newman 2001). 

8 

Additionally, oviposition (where they choose to lay their eggs) preference was 
significantly less for M. sibiricum and nearly absent for M. verticillatum in females that 
were reared on M spicatum (Solarz & Newman 2001). Weevil development on or 
preference for M. heterophyllum is unknown. Therefore, the optional feeding of other 
milfoils, although unpreventable due to an acute lack of M. spicatum in 2011, was likely 
the main factor in low production. 
Minong Flowage had lower than expected production, possibly due to a 
combination of factors. One factor may have been food stem quality. The Minong site 
was the shadiest of the three sites, and subsample examinations noted stems in very 
poor condition, some limp, as if they did not get enough sunlight. Additionally, some 
tubs had stems that were deformed (fused leaflets, tough, opaque stems) as if exposed 
to herbicides. Food stem collection was in an area of the Flowage that had not been 
treated with herbicides, but was within the same bay (Serenity Bay). (Appendix B) It 
would be possible that residual herbicides were insufficient to kill the milfoil there, but 
yet sufficient to cause growth deformities. These deformities may have negatively 
affected the plant’s qualities as a host plant for successful weevil development. (Note 
the dead pupa recoded in the same tub that had the deformed stems.) 
Lake Holcombe had lower than expected production, probably due to weevil 
development time being shorter than expected. The rearing site was in open prairie, 
with all-day sun, which allowed the tubs to warm more than expected. Volunteers 
managed the temperatures frequently, adding fresh, cool groundwater twice a day if 
needed to keep tanks from getting too hot during heat waves. Their temperature 
records reflect that effort, with tank temperatures hovering around a mean of 81 F, and 

9 

a tight 90% confidence interval of less than 1 degree. We were expecting tub 
temperatures to average around 71 F, as in Thorstenson 2011, and for the full life cycle 
to take about 21 days. Lake Holcombe’s temperatures were closer to optimal 
temperatures for weevil development (84 F, Mazzei et al. 1999). At this temperature, 
the full life cycle takes only 17 days (Mazzei et al. 1999), which means the weevils 
should have been fed four days sooner, at each feeding cycle. Subsample 
examinations found heavy feeding damage, a shortage of healthy growing buds suitable 
for egg laying, and a shortage of healthy, fat stems suitable for pupation sites, all 
evidence that the weevils were running out of food and habitat, which certainly led to 
reduced production rates. 
Although the results of this study were well below expected, the problems 
encountered can be adjusted for with modifications to the methods. In future studies, it 
is recommended to: 
select rearing sites that have a minimum of 6 hours of sunlight to maintain 
healthy food stems; 
collect food stems well away from potential herbicide residue areas; 
avoid the optional use of other milfoil species; 
and to monitor temperatures regularly and shorten feeding cycle times at very 
sunny sites where optimal temperatures are attained. 

Acknowledgments 

This study was funded by an Aquatic Invasive Species Grant (#AEPP-304-11) 
from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. This study would not have been 

10 

possible without the dedication of team leaders at each site: David Blumer, SEH, Inc., 
Reesa Evans, Adams County Land Conservation Department, and “Doc” Dougherty, 
Lake Holcombe Association; and their dedicated volunteer crews at Goose Lake 
Association, Swift Nature Camp, Minong Flowage Lake Association, and Lake 
Holcombe Association. 

References

Hanson, T., C. Eliopoulos, and A. Walker. 1995. Field Collection, Laboratory Rearing 
and In-lake Introductions of the Herbivorous Aquatic Weevil, Euhrychiopsis 
lecontei, in Vermont. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, 
Waterbury, VT. 
Mazzei, K.C., R.M. Newman, A. Loos, and D.W. Ragsdale. 1999. Developmental rates 
of the native milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei, and damage to Eurasian 
watermilfoil at constant temperatures. Biological Control. 16:139-143. 
Newman, R.M., M.E. Borman, and S.W. Castro. 1997. Developmental performance of 
the weevil Euhrychiopsis lecontei on native and exotic watermilfoil host-plants. J. 
of the North Amer. Benthological Soc. 16:627-634. 
Roley, S.S., and R.M. Newman. 2006. Developmental performant of the milfoil weevil, 
Euhrychiopsis lecontei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), on northern watermilfiol, 
Eurasian watermilfoil, and hybrid (northern x Eurasian) watermilfoil. 
Entomological Soc. of Amer. 

Solarz, S.L. and R.M. Newman. 2001. Variation in hostplant preferences and 
performance by the milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei Dietz, exposed to native 
and exotic watermilfoils. Oecologia 126:66-75.

Thorstenson, A.L. 2011. Biological control of eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum 
spicatum) using the native milfoil weevil (Euhrychiopsis lecontei). M.S. Thesis. 
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI.