Effect of Interplanetary Magnetic Field on Light Trapped Caddisfly (Trichoptera) Species

Puskas J, Kiss M, Hill L, Szentkiráyi F, Nowinszky L and Kiss O

Published on: 2023-09-29

Abstract

In present work were investigated the possible relationship between changes in the interplanetary magnetic field sectors and light trapping of 29 caddisfly (Trichoptera) species, using collection data of Hungarian researchers. Most of the species captured along both the mountain streams and rivers were caught in the light-traps in greater numbers in the case of Inward polarity "-" than in the case of Outward polarity "+". The sector boundaries, -/+ and +/- they occur less often, so it is difficult to establish a real result about them due to the lack of data in such cases.

The fact that caddisflies fly en masse to artificial light and are extremely sensitive to environmental influences made it possible to prove that the interplanetary magnetic field affects the flight activity of these insects.

Keywords

Interplanetary magnetic field; Trichoptera; Light-trap

Introduction

Many researchers seek to prove the relationship between solar activity and changes of climate and weather on Earth. Related climate and weather phenomena were studied by Wilcox and Pittock [1,2]. Climate and weather changes have different durations. The best-known cycles are the 11.2-year solar patch cycle and the 22-year variable Hale magnetic cycle. Roberts and Olson [3] suggested that researchers turn their attention from long-term to short-term phenomena in the atmosphere attributable to changes in solar activity. These include the passage of the Earth across the sectoral boundaries of the interplanetary magnetic field. Research on this in recent decades has convincingly demonstrated that it correlates with changes in the area index of vortex (OTI) [4-6]. Indeed, the OTI correlates with processes in the Earth's magnetism and on the Sun's surface [7].

The magnetic field of the Sun is stretched out by the solar wind to form the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). As the Sun rotates, the IMF twists into a spiral shape called the Parker spiral. The IMF is mostly directed along this spiral either away from or towards the Sun so that positive (Outward polarity) and negative (Inward polarity) IMF polarities occur [8].

The solar wind in the ecliptic plane is organized in such a way that it generally has two or four sectors per solar rotation (27 days) within which the magnetic field is pointed generally towards or away from the Sun. Sectoral boundaries observed on the Earth occur when the polarity of the interplanetary magnetic field reverses. Well defined sectoral boundaries are those boundaries for which there is good data, the reversal takes place cleanly and the intervals on either side of the boundary have a uniform field direction for about four days.

Wilcox [4] applied the method of superimposed epoch analysis to the vortex area index data, taking the day of crossing the sectoral boundaries as day zero. For the period of the winter months (November-March) of the years 1964-1970, a significant decrease of 5-6 days was observed in the vortex area index, the minimum of which was on the first day after the transition. However, the phenomenon is only noticeable in the winter months. In the northern hemisphere, Wilcox [4] also analysed the sectoral effect transitions according to the change in direction of the magnetic polarity sign (from +/- to -/+ and vice versa) and found no significant difference in their effect.

Regarding the relationship between the structure of the interplanetary magnetic field sector and the vortex area index, Arora and Padgaonkar [9] showed that the decrease of OTI at the time of crossing the sectoral boundaries was typical only for the years 1962-1972, before which (1946-1962) it increased at the time of crossing. Williams and Gerety [10] found the same for the years after 1974. The structure of the solar sector, following Ness and Wilcox [11], is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The structure of the solar sector.

Figure 1 shows an example showing the sectors of the interplanetary magnetic field (white fields are the sectors) and their transitions (lines) for the period from 1st December to 20th December.

Interplanetary space is perceived to have a polarity directed toward the Sun for several consecutive days; and in the following days such that its polarity is directed away from the Sun. A magnetic field pointing towards the Sun has a negative sign, and a magnetic field in the opposite direction has a positive sign.

Sector boundaries are the times observed at Earth when the polarity of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) reverses. Well defined sector boundaries are those boundaries for which there is good data, the reversal takes place cleanly, and intervals on either side of the boundary have a uniform field direction for ~4 days.

List of the well-defined sector boundaries identified from the composite polarity (the computed daily polarity plus the inferred daily polarity replacing the missing data) daily polarity distributions by using a modified definition of the "well-defined" sector boundary. Here “+” refers to a day of outward polarity and “-” refers to a day of inward polarity.

Based on light trapping of three moth species, we found in an earlier article [12] that the sectors of the interplanetary magnetic field and their transitions influence the flying activity of three winter moth species. Catch peaks for all three species are found in the positive sector or sector boundary transitions. In the negative sector, the catch is low in all cases. No similar study was found in the literature.

We investigated in present work the possible relationship between changes in the interplanetary magnetic field sectors and light trapping of 29 caddisfly species, using collection data of Hungarian researchers.

Material

In our study we use the data of mean magnetic field of the Sun published by the Wilcox Solar Observatory from 1980 to 2005. The solar mean magnetic field (SMMF) is the average field as observed over the entire visible disk of the Sun. A solar telescope was built in 1975 at Stanford University (Wilcox Solar Observatory - WSO) to study the organization and evolution of large-scale magnetic fields of the Sun. The WSO made daily observations of the mean solar magnetic field using a Babcock-type magnetograph which is connected to a 22.9 m vertical Littrow spectrograph [13].

The collecting sites and its geographical coordinates are presented in the Table 1.

Table 1: The Geographical Coordinates of the Collection Sites and Collection Years.

Collection Sites

Years

Geographical

Latitude

Longitude

Close to mountain streams

 1. Szilvasvarad

1980-81

48°64'N

20°23'E

 2. Eger, Nagy-Eged

1980

47°54'N

20°22'E

 3. Bukk, Vorosko Valley

1982-83

48°34'N

20°27'E

 4. Nagyvisnyo

1984

48°08'N

20°25'E

 5. Dedestapolcsany

1988

48°08'N

20°25'E

 6. Szarvasko

1989

47°59'N

20°51'E

 7. Uppony

1992

48°13'N

20°25'E

 8. Zemplen

1998

48°45'N

21°48'E

Close to Rivers

 9. Duna River at God

1999

47°41'N

19°08'E

10. Tisza River at Szolnok

2000

47°10'N

20°11'E

11. Tiszaroff

2002-04

47°39'N

20°71'E

12. Tiszaszolos

2002-04

47°55'N

20°25'E

13. Tiszakorod

2002-05

48°10'N

22°71'E

14. Csongrád

2002-05

46°71'N

20°14'E

15. Maroslele

2001

46°16'N

20°21'E

Near Lake Kondor

16. Fulophaza

2001-02

46°53'N

19°26'E

Otto Kiss carried out between 1980 and 1989 next to mountain streams in Northern Hungary used Jermy type light-trap and later, in 1999, on the banks of the Danube and in 2000, on the banks of the Tisza River.

Ferenc Szentkiralyi collected at several locations next to the Tisza River, close to the Maros River and in the Kiskunsag National Park, in a sand dune area to which the nearest wetland, Lake Kondor, is located at 3,800 m distance. However, all captured individuals were determined (identified) by Otto Kiss.

In all other locations, the light-traps were no further than 60-160 meters from the water's edge. None of the traps operated within the territory of cities/towns, but only within their administrative borders, in a natural environment. The data of caught species are seen in Table 2.

Table 2: The Name of Species, the Numbers of Catching Years, Individuals, Data and the Nights to Investigate the Relationship between the Solar Indices and Light-Trap Catching.

Examined Species

Serial Number of Traps

Number of Indi-Viduals

Number of Data

Number of Nights

Rhyacophilidae

1. Rhyacophila fasciata Hagen, 1859

6

267

116

116

2. Rhyacophila nubila Zetterstedt, 1840

8

565

100

100

3. Rhyacophila tristis Pictet, 1834

7

461

123

123

Glossosomatidae

4. Agapetus ochripes Curtis, 1834

8

2,485

92

92

5. Glossosoma conformis Neboiss, 1963

8

504

99

99

Hydroptilidae

6. Agraylea sexmaculata Curtis, 1834

10-16

2,804

113

113

Psychomyiidae

7. Psychomyia pusilla Fabricius, 1781

13

566

100

100

Ecnomidae

8. Ecnomus tenellus Rambur, 1842

10-16

26,525

1,149

616

Polycentropodidae

9. Neureclipsis bimaculata Linnaeus, 1758

3, 10-16

13,178

943

740

10. Plectrocnemia conspersa Curtis, 1834

6

136

84

84

Hydropsychidae

11. Hydropsyche instabilis  Curtis, 1834

1, 2, 4, 5, 6

29,405

507

332

12. Hydropsyche contubernalis McLachlan, 1865

7, 10-16

61,637

870

513

13. Hydropsyche bulgaromanorum Malicky, 1977

9-16

39,226

574

516

Brachycentridae

14. Brachycentrus subnubilus Curtis, 1834

9

3,670

132

132

Lepidostomatidae

15. Lepidostoma hirtum Fabricius, 1775

9

2,218

107

107

Limnephilidae

16. Potamophylax nigricornis Pictet 1834

2

9,128

168

168

17. Potamophylax rotondipennis Brauer 1857

5

9,414

174

159

18. Ecclisopteryx madida McLachlan,1867

4, 7

935

185

185

19. Limnephilus affinis Curtis, 1834

10

723

104

104

20. Limnephilus rhombicus Linnaeus, 1758

3

3,710

130

130

21. Halesus digitatus Schrank, 1781

1, 3, 6, 10

3,759

454

374

Goeridae

22. Goera pilosa Fabricius, 1775

7

1,035

118

118

23. Silo pallipes Fabricius, 1781

1, 4, 5, 6, 8

2, 771

953

371

Sericostomatidae

24. Sericostoma personatum Kirby & Spence, 1862

3

2,266

238

222

Odontoceridae

25. Odontocerum albicorne Scopoli, 1763

1, 3, 4

2,294

509

408

Leptoceridae

26. Athripsodes albifrons Linnaeus, 1758

10

814

116

116

27. Ceraclea dissimilis Stephens 1836

10

914

100

100

28. Oecetis ochracea Curtis, 1825

10

571

195

189

29. Setodes punctatus Fabricius, 1793

9-10

5,932

254

232

Methods

Based on the number of specimens caught we calculated the relative catch values for each species and swarming. Relative catch (RC) is the ratio of the number of specimen caught in a given sample unit of time and the average number of specimen caught in the same time unit calculated for the whole brood. The relative catch (RC) values of each species are assigned to the four sectors values of the catching nights. The interplanetary magnetic field sectors and boundaries and the corresponding relative catch values along the four sectors (-,+ and +,- and Inward polarity “-” and Outward polarity “+”) have been categorized. Then the RC values, in all the four categories, were summarized and averaged.

We performed the t-test calculations with our own program. This program can process any number of data. The program distinguishes if the squares of the standard deviations are the same or different. All results are shown in Table 4.1. The most important ones are shown in Figures.

Results And Discussion

Our results are shown in the Table 3 and Figures 2-8.

Table 3(a): Results of Examined Species in Connection with the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (Mountain Streams).

Species

-,+

+,-

Inward “-”

Outward “+”

Rhyacophilidae

1. Rhyacophila fasciata Hagen, 1859

1,136

1,129

1,054

0,875

 2. Rhyacophila tristis Curtis, 1834

1,063

1,420

1,045

0,906

3. Rhyacophila nubila  Zetterstedt, 1840

1,934

1,187

1,070

0,907

Glossosomatidae

4. Agapetus ochripes Curtis, 1834

1,518

0,692

1,372

0,538

5. Glossosoma conformis Neboiss, 1963

0,380

1,288

1,053

0.896

Polycentropodidae

6. Plectrocnemia conspersa

1,240

1,850

1,011

0,926

Hydropsychidae

7. Hydropsyche instabilis Curtis, 1834

0,638

1,622

1,081

0,945

Limnephilidae

8. Potamophylax nigricornis Pictet 1834

1.000

1,230

1,058

0,908

9. Potamophylax rotondipennis Brauer 1857  

0,506

1,080

1,024

0,986

10. Ecclisopteryx madida McLachlan,1867

1,616

0,941

1,003

0,959

11. Limnephilus rhombicus Linnaeus, 1758

0,672

0,768

1,171

0,840

12. Halesus digitatus Schrank, 1781

0,618

0,736

1,132

0,822

Goeridae

13. Goera pilosa  Fabricius, 1775

0,842

0,746

1,012

1,026

14. Silo pallipes Fabricius, 1781

0,978

1,051

0,880

1,145

Sericostomatidae

15. Sericostoma personatum Kirby & Spence, 1862

0,7890

0,791

0,927

1,079

Odontoceridae

16. Odontocerum albicorne Scopoli, 1763

0,884

0,671

0,999

1,043

Table 3(b): Results of Examined Species in Connection with the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (Duna, Tisza, Maros Rivers and Lake Kondor).

Species

-,+

+,-

Inward “-“

Outward “+”

Hydroptilidae

1. Agraylea sexmaculata Curtis, 1834

1,139

0,914

0,718

1,339

Psychomyiidae

 2.Psychomyia pusilla Fabricius, 1781

0,304

0.46

1,075

1,034

Ecnomidae

3. Ecnomus tenellus Rambur, 1842

0,856

1,050

0,790

1,274

Polycentropodidae

4. Neureclipsis bimaculata Linnaeus, 1758

0,919

0,615

1,131

0,924

5. Neureclipsis bimaculata Linnaeus, 1758

1,680

1,003

0,794

1,118

6. Hydropsyche contubernalis McLachlan, 1865

1,465

0,766

1,190

0,866

7. Hydropsyche bulgaromanorum Malicky, 1977

0,698

1,106

1,153

0,889

Brachycentridae

8. Brachycentrus subnubilus Curtis, 1834

1,115

1,229

1,283

0,813

Lepidostomatidae

9. Lepidostoma hirtum Fabricius, 1775

0,847

1,306

0,995

0,990

10. Limnephilus affinis Curtis, 1834

0,899

1,055

1,277

0,987

Leptoceridae

11. Athripsodes albifrons Linnaeus, 1758

1,417

1,042

1,095

0,810

12. Ceraclea dissimilis Stephens 1836

0,763

0,886

1,078

0,859

13. Oecetis ochracea Curtis, 1825

0,991

1,958

0,884

1,037

14. Setodes punctatus Fabricius, 1793

0,815

0,943

0,893

1,106

Figure 2: Light-Trap Catch of Rhyacophila fasciata Hagen, 1859 (A) and Agapetus Orchipes Curts 1834 (B) in Connection with the Interplanetary Magnetic Field.

Figure 3: Light-Trap Catch of Limnephilus rhomboicus Linnaeus, 1758 (A) and Halesus digitatus Schrank, 1781 (B) in Connection with the Interplanetary Magnetic Field.

Figure 4: Light-Trap Catch of Agraylea sexmaculata Curtis, 1834 (A) and Brachycentrus subnubilus Curtis, 1834 (B) in Connection with the Interplanetary Magnetic Field.

Figure 5: Light-Trap Catch of Hydropsyche contubernalis Mclachlan, 1865 in Connection with the Interplanetary Magnetic Field.

Figure 6: Light-Trap Catch of Hydropsyche bulgaromanorum Malicky, 1977 in Connection with the Interplanetary Magnetic Field.

Figure 7: Light-Trap Catch of Ecnomus tenellus Rambur, 1842 in Connection with the Interplanetary Magnetic Field along Rivers (A) and Lake (B).

Figure 8: Light-Trap Catch of Neureclipsis bimaculata Linnaeus, 1758 in Connection with the Interplanetary Magnetic Field along Streams (A) and Rivers (B).

We thought it appropriate to separate this Table, based on whether the collections took place along mountain streams or rivers. It was worth doing this separation, because some important results became noticeable.

Most of the species captured along the mountain streams were caught in the light-traps in greater numbers in the case of Inward polarity "-" than in the case of Outward polarity "+". It is true that a significant result was obtained only in the case of four species, but the non-significant cases also gave the same result with one exception. Only in the case of three species the catch was greater in the Outward polarity "+" case, but none of them was significant even after pooling the data.

Two of the light trapped species along the rivers, Agraylea sexmaculata Curtis, 1834 and Ecnomus tenellus Rambur, 1842, flew to the light in significantly greater numbers with Outward polarity "+".

It is striking that Neureclipsis bimaculata Linnaeus, 1758, which could be collected both near mountain streams and rivers, but with different results. Significantly higher numbers could be collected in mountain streams with Inward polarity "-" and in rivers with Outward polarity "+".

The sector boundaries, -/+ and +/- they occur less often, so it is difficult to establish a real result about them. High and low catches were comparable for both, but these were not significant.

The fact that caddisflies fly en masse to artificial light and are extremely sensitive to environmental influences made it possible to prove that the interplanetary magnetic field affects the flight activity of these insects. We would consider it worthwhile to conduct similar research in relation to other living beings.

The significant results are presented in Figures.

References

  1. Wilcox JM. Solar Activity and the Weather. J Atmos Terr Phys. 1975; 37: 237-256.
  2. Pittock AB. A Critical Look at Long-Term Sun-Weather Relationships. Rev Geophys. 1978; 16: 400-420.
  3. Roberts WO, Olson RH. Geomagnetic Storms and wintertime 300-Mb Trough Development in the North Pacific-North America Area. J Atm Sci. 1973; 30: 135-140.
  4. Wilcox JM, Sherrer PH, Savalgaard L, Roberts WO, Olson RH, Jenne RL. Influence of Solar Magnetic Sector Structure on Terrestrial Atmospheric Vorticity. J Atm Sci. 1974; 31, 581-588.
  5. Hines CO, Halevy I. On the Reality and Nature of a Certain Sun-Weather Correlation. J Atmos Sci. 1977; 34: 382-404.
  6. Olson RH, Roberts WO, Prince HD, Hedeman ER. Solar Plages and the Vorticity of the Earth's Atmosphere. Nature. 1978; 274:140-142.
  7. Borbely E. The Relationship between the Planetary Magnetic Field and Changes in the Earth's Atmosphere. 1986; 90: 282-294.
  8. Vokhmyanin MV, Ponyavin DI. Sector Structure of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field in the Nineteenth Century. Geophys Res Lett. 2013; 40: 3512-3516.
  9. Arora, BR, Padgaonkar AD. Low Latitude Aeronomical Processes. COSPAR Symp Ser. 1980; 8, 241-244.
  10. Williams RG, Gerety EJ. Does The Troposphere Respond To Day-To-Day Changes In Solar Magnetic Field? Nature. 1978; 275: 200-201.
  11. Ness NF, Wilcox JM. Solar Origin of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field. Phys Rev Letters. 1964; 13: 461-464.
  12. Nowinszky L, Puskas J, Kiss M. Connection between Interplanetary Magnetic Field and the Light-Trap Catch Of Moth Species. Trends in Entomol. 2020; 16: 43-47.
  13. Scherrer PH, Wilcox JM, Svalgaard L, Duvall TL, Dittmer PH, Gustafson EK. The Mean Magnetic Field of the Sun: Observations at Stanford. Sol Phys. 1977; 54: 353-361.