In addition to continuing my research, I have begun finalizing details concerning my

spring action. Specifically, this has involved communicating with a Mr. Farrar Stockton of the
Butterfly Enthusiasts of Southeast Texas and a Ms. Sandy Rushworth of the Houston Museum of
Natural Science. Mr. Farrar Stockton is the president of the Butterfly Enthusiasts of Southeast
Texas and has been very kind in his communication with me. He has told me to simply send him
a confirmation email with my presentation title and topic a month before our planned
presentation date and I will be able to present to his group.
The proposed date for my presentation to the Butterfly Enthusiasts of Southeast Texas in
the first Tuesday of February, that is the 7th, from 7-9pm at the Houston Museum of Natural
Science. The Butterfly Enthusiasts of Southeast Texas are a local group consisting of 10-30
members. They have meetings on the first Tuesday of every other month at the Houston Museum
of Natural Science. Most of their work consists of going on butterfly watch/counting events, but
many of them are also very passionate about these insects. Mr. Stockton has said that the group is
nice and will try what they can do to make me feel as welcomed and comfortable as possible.
During my talks with Ms. Sandy Rushworth, she has said that she would be able to set up
a luncheon for the the docents of the Houston Museum of Natural Science, to whom I can
present my spring action. She has told me the tentatively scheduled date is Friday, March 3 from
11am to roughly 2pm. Of course, this would require me to leave early from school and get
permission from Ms. Beckman in order to do so. Ms. Rushworth has not yet confirmed the
amount of people attending, but she has told me to send her an email with a summary about
myself and my presentation by the third week in February so that she may post the
announcement in her the museum newsletter as means of advertisement. She has been quite kind
in our talks and has even offered to order a lunch for me for the luncheon as well.
The articles below are meant to simply expand my knowledge on my topic. In order to
find these articles, I did a lot of searching before hand on multiple academic databases. In fact, I
still have roughly 5 pages of links to other sources I may or may not read in the future to further
expand my knowledge. However, one of the articles I read for this hour check turned out to be
far less relevant and useful than I had initially thought. Coupled with the difficulty of the
reading, I found that to be quite unfortunate. However, I may or may not use all of these sources
I have read for my third essay as some of them are a bit redundant in the information they
contain. That being said, they were all valuable sources of information and I simply took any
redundancies to simply be a way to reinforce information.
O. Lee, Cheol Min, Jin Wook Park, Tae-Sung Kwon, Jae Won Ryu, Seung Jae Jung,
Sun Kyung Lee. Diversity and Density of Butterfly Communities in Urban Green Areas:
an Analytical Approach Using GIS Zoological Studies, vol. 54, no. 4, Dec. 2015.
Springer Link, doi: 10.1186/s40555-014-0090-7. Accessed Nov. 1 2016
a. This article was published in a reputable journal and is relevant to
pollinators in urban areas, part of my third essays focus.
b. I found this source by doing a search for pollinators and urban
areas via the Springer Link database.

c. The intended audience would be those interested in studying

butterfly ecology, either in rural or urban areas. However, it appears that being
familiar with the Seoul area would enhance understanding of this piece, as some
names and acronyms can be confusing if one does not keep up with them.
d. The study described in this article went to great lengths to describe
and analyze the land types around the green areas studied (dividing them into
multiple categories). This was all done in an effort to directly link various local
features to butterfly species richness. As such, the study found and discussed how
increasing urbanization does cause a decrease in butterfly richness. Interestingly,
they also found that generalist butterfly species richness increased with
urbanization while specialist species richness greatly decreased with increased
urbanization. Interestingly, both urban green areas (parks, etc.) and natural
landscapes were found to be able be refuges for rare species.
e.
i.
Butterfly species richness is negatively correlated
with urban and road area. (p. 11)
ii.
Planting trees and making butterfly gardens in
urban parks can be one way to increase biodiversity. (p.11)
iii.
Urban landscapes often have high species diversity
and can even contain rare and threatened species, making urban green
areas important for species conservation. (p.10)
iv. Specialist butterfly species were found to disappear
2.9-4.5 times faster than generalist species (p. 7).
v. Rare and specialized species were most affected by
urbanization (p. 7)
f. This article was relatively short, taking me about 1.5 hours to read
the four pages. However, there were many times in which I had to continuously
flip to previous pages in order to keep track of some of the abbreviations used in
the article. That being said, this article was useful in providing information related
to my third essay concerning pollinators, urban areas, and gardening.
g. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40555-014-0090-7
P. Ryberg, Karen R., Robert J Gilliom. Trends in Pesticide Concentrations and Use
for Major Rivers of the United States Science of the Total Environment, vol. 538, Dec.
2015, pp. 431-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.06.095 Accessed Nov. 1
2016
a. This article was published by the U.S. Geological Services and is
related to my topic as it discusses agricultural pesticides in local waterways.
b. I found this source by doing a search for pesticides in waterways
on google scholar.
c. The intended audience would be those studying chemicals in
waterways and those relatively familiar with said chemicals, as there is often little
introduction about these chemicals in the article.

d. The main topic this article discussed was the amount of chemical
pesticides in U.S. waterways as a result of agricultural use (both industrial-scale
and urban). Unfortunately though, the article was unable to collect data and
discuss the concentrations of some pesticides, like neonicotinoids, due to lack of
measuring equipment. Interestingly, when possible, this article also attempts to
link agricultural use trends with pesticide concentration trends in nearby
waterways. When the data seems to defy logic (e.g. concentration decreased while
use greatly decreased), the authors also attempted to describe possible ways in
which the data may have been skewed (e.g. certain sources werent accounted
for).
e.
i.
Streamflow trends in agricultural use of pesticides
and urban use of pesticides are important influences on pesticide
concentration trends. (p.443)
ii.
The majority of concentration and use trends were
mostly similar (p. 442)
iii.
10 of the 11 studied sites for metolachlor had
greater declines in use than concentrations (some of which increased).
iv. Datta deficiencies existed for many important
chemicals, including neonicotinoids, glyphosate, and pyrethroids, resulting
in an ability to study their concentrations and trends (p. 432)
v. Pesticides are known to be able to move through the
hydrologic system to streams and groundwater, where they can have
negative effects on humans, aquatic life, and other wildlife (p. 432)
f. This article was quite long and confusing, taking me 4 hours to
read its 7 pages. Even so, the information within turned out to not be particularly
useful and relevant to my third essay. It may, however, prove to be of some use
for revisions to my first essay.
g. https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/MajorRiverTrends.STOTEN.20
15.pdf
Q. Jauker, Birgit, Jochen Krauss, Frank Jauker, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter. Linking
Life History traits to Pollinator Loss in Fragmented Calcareous Grasslands Landscape
Ecology, vol. 28, no. 1, Jan. 2013, pp. 107-120. Springer International Publishing, doi:
10.1007/s10980-012-9820-6. Accessed Nov. 1 2016
a. This article is not only published by a prestigious journal, but the
experimenters went to great to account for and/or explain many potential
variables when accounting for their study.
b. I found this source via the Springer Link database while searching
for free articles about pollinators.
c. The presumed intended audience would be those interested in
environmental ecology, specifically that of bees. However, this article also serves
as a great example of a study that addresses multiple potential variables often

neglected in similar studies and could serve useful to those interested in this type
of research (i.e. ones producing academic articles).
d. The main focus of this article, as the title suggests, is the
accounting for the ways in which pollinator (bee) life-history traits interact with
habitat loss and fragmentation. That is to say, that this article not only talks about
the way pollinators (bees) are affected by habitat loss, but also how the way they
live (e.g. social, cleptoparasitic, etc.) may influence their susceptibility to habitat
fragmentation. One of the key concerns of this article, as is brought up on
multiple occasions, is providing an accurate link between these life traits and their
effects on bee populations. That being said, extra care was taken during the
analysis of data to reduce variables that may skew the data (e.g. data comparison
of bees within the same family Halictidae). Overall, it was found that social bees
are especially vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Also, habitat size was found to
be the single greatest determinant of species richness, with nearby habitat
diversity being the second greatest determinant.
e.
i.
Habitat loss and homogenization are essential
drivers of pollinator loss (p. 113)
ii.
Habitat area and surrounding landscape diversity
were the two greatest determinants of wild bee species richness, with the
latter being the less influential factor (p.113)
iii.
Small bee species were more often found in large
landscapes and in fragments surrounded by a diverse landscape (p. 112)
iv. Solitary bees are more sensitive to area loss (p.
113)
v. Bee body size is closely related to foraging distance
(p. 114)
vi.
Higher sensitivity to habitat fragmentation
witnessed in social bees may be due to the need to provide food for a
larger number of larvae than solitary bees (p. 115)
vii.
The foraging ranges of bees in this study are known
to range from a few hundred meters for smaller, solitary bees to 3,000 m
for larger bumblebees (p. 108)
f. This article was relatively long with a length of 6 pages. As such, it
took me about 2.5 hours to read the text. That being said, it was quite
informational and shall be of great use for my third essay, for which I chose this
article.
g. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-012-98206#enumeration