How to Photograph a Wolf Spider in a Wheelbarrow

Last week, I spent two days working with local school kids at Griffith Prairie north of Aurora.  On both days, my job was to get the kids excited about insects and spiders, teach them a few things, and let them catch and inspect as many things as they could.  It was a great couple of days, with excellent weather and enthusiastic kids.  Quite a few of the kids had never had any real positive exposure to insects or spiders, so it was rewarding to see them smiling as they held little creatures they would have stepped on or run from the day before.  (By the way, my experience is that kids who say they won’t touch an insect or spider can be often be talked into holding an inchworm, or even a cute little jumping spider.  Once they’ve done that, other species come pretty easily.  In fact, you might say inchworms and jumping spiders are “gateway bugs”…)

Anyway, during lunch on one of the days, Jan Whitney from Prairie Plains Resource Institute found a gigantic wolf spider on the ground, and I scooped it up and put it in a ziplock bag to show the kids.  It was the biggest spider I’ve ever seen in Nebraska, and the kids were duly impressed.  At the end of the day, I took the spider home to get some photos of it before releasing it.

A face-to-face look at the big wolf spider found at Griffith Prairie, north of Aurora, Nebraska. Click on the photo for a bigger image.

This is the part of the blog post where I’m going to risk both ridicule and a fairly substantial loss of credibility by sharing a few of my secret techniques for getting fabulous photos of small creatures.  I’m banking on the fact that most of you have been reading this blog long enough that you’ll put up with a few oddities and gimmicks and keep reading even after you’ve seen how the sausage is made, so to speak.  At the same time, a few of you might actually decide to steal a few of my secrets, and that’s ok too.  Now, before you get the wrong idea, the vast majority of my photos of insects and such are taken in the wild, and the subjects are photographed doing whatever they would have been doing even if I wasn’t peering through my camera at them.  In some cases, however, it’s not possible to get a photo of a particular animal under those circumstances (have you ever tried chasing a wolf spider through tall grass??) and an alternative plan is needed.

So, my first step when I got home with my spider-in-a-bag was to find my wheelbarrow.  Yes, that’s right – after extensive testing, I’ve determined that my old rusty wheelbarrow has all of the characteristics of a perfect backyard photo studio.   Here’s how it works.  First, I fill the bottom of the wheelbarrow with some appropriate looking habitat.  In the case of the wolf spider, I put in some old leaves laying around near our compost pile.  I patted them down into a nice natural-looking layer on the bottom of the wheelbarrow.  Next, I push the wheelbarrow into a place in the yard where the bright sunlight is partially diffused by the leaves of my tall tree.  Not complete shade, and not open sun, but something in-between, where the light is almost bright enough to make shadows.  Once I’ve got my habitat and light arranged, I set up my camera and tripod, and I’m ready to introduce the photo subject.

The wheelbarrow photo studio works best with animals (or plants!) that are not incredibly quick, can’t fly or jump long distances, and that are small enough to fit comfortably into a wheelbarrow.  Spiders, small turtles, lizards, and such work very well.  Sandhill cranes?  Not so much.  In this case, the wolf spider was a good runner, but I was banking on the fact that it’d have to scrabble up and over the metal sides of my old wheelbarrow before escaping, and that my own cat-like reflexes would be sufficient to (gently) nudge it back inside the wheelbarrow before it got away completely.

This is probably a good time to say that while just about any wheelbarrow will probably work for a wildlife photo studio, there are a few specific design characteristics that are worth shopping around for.  The most important of these is sides that are steep enough to slow down a quick spider, but not tall enough to create shadows across the habitat on the floor of the studio.  It turns out that the 50-year-old barrow I inherited from my grandparents has the perfect mix of those characteristics.  No, it’s not for sale.

Ok, anyway, I opened up the ziplock bag and let the big wolf spider run out into its new temporary habitat.  Of course, it immediately shot off toward the edge and leaped out of the wheelbarrow into the yard.  My cat-like reflexes notwithstanding, I managed to recapture it and try again.  This time, I was able to keep it corralled and to turn it back every time it tried to get out, and after about 10 or 15 tries, it finally paused to assess the situation.  This is known among wheelbarrow photographers as “The Moment of Opportunity”.  I grabbed the camera, focused in on the spider, and squeezed off a couple shots before the spider caught its breath and shot off toward the side of the barrow again.

After a certain number (trade secret) of chasing/pausing/photographing sequences, I finally had enough photos that both the spider and I were satisfied with the shoot, and were ready to call it a day.  During the amount of time (trade secret) it took to finish the shoot, however, I gladly took advantage of one of the other great attributes of a wheelbarrow studio, namely its mobility.  Often, when the spider would pause, it would be facing away from the best light direction.  In that case, I just moved the wheelbarrow around so that spider was lit more photographically.  In addition, I had to move the wheelbarrow’s location several times to keep up with the pattern of dappled light that was shifting across my yard as  the sun kept moving.  (Yes, I know it’s the earth that’s actually moving, but that just confuses the story, doesn’t it?)

For those who are thinking about trying this at home, here’s a good tip for successfully photographing wildlife in a wheelbarrow…  It’s often good to get the camera down to the same level as the creature you’re photographing, so you can look the subject right in the eyes when you take its picture.  My wife will read this and snort (attractively) because she frequently has to remind me to do the same thing when I’m photographing our kids.  (My only excuse is that it’s hard enough to keep the kids in the wheelbarrow that I sometimes forget to think about camera angles.)  Anyway, the fact that the wheelbarrow studio is off the ground a couple feet makes it even easier to arrange the tripod in such a way that you can get good face-to-face photographs of spiders, turtles, or other cute little creatures.  That up-close-and-personal perspective usually creates a more interesting photograph than a more “aerial view”.

Moving both the wheelbarrow and my tripod helped me find camera and light angles that made interesting photographs of the spider.

I took this "aerial view" to help identify the spider later by documenting color patterns on its carapace and abdomen. A big thank you to Professor Bill Beachly at Hastings College, who identified it as a big female Rabidosa rabida.

.

The use of this universal scale tool helped to document the actual size of the spider.

Well, there you go.  I hope this has given you a peek behind the curtain and that you’re not too unsettled by what you’ve learned.  I also hope the local hardware stores (or antique stores) will be able to handle the run on wheelbarrows over the next week or so as all of you rush out to build your own portable wildlife photography studios!

No spiders or humans were injured during the shooting for this blog post.  Both the spider and human involved experienced some degree of temporary exasperation, but appeared to recover.  The spider was released unharmed.

Sweet Clover: Ugly but Harmless? Or Dangerous Invasive Species?

Why is sweet clover the target of aggressive control by some prairie managers and largely ignored by others?  After talking to a number of people across the Midwest and Great Plains, I think there are a couple of things happening.  First, the usually biennial sweet clover can be very abundant and showy in the years it blooms, but is harder to find in other years.  I think some prairie managers see those big flushes and mistake abundance for aggressiveness.  However, I also think that some soil/precipitation/latitude(?) conditions may lead to real negative impacts from sweet clover on plant diversity.

One of the lessons that’s been strongly reinforced for me this summer is that it can be difficult to extrapolate successful prairie management/restoration strategies from one region to another.  Just during the last several months, I’ve visited prairie managers in Nebraska, Indiana, Missouri, and South Dakota and I’ve seen tremendous variation between (and even within) those states in terms of which species are invasive and which are not.  It’s dangerous to assume that just because a species like sweet clover isn’t causing problems in one prairie, it won’t cause problems in another.  I hope we’ll eventually learn enough to accurately predict when to worry and when not to, but in the meantime, it behooves prairie managers to carefully evaluate species at their own sites.

Yellow sweet clover. This exotic species is still planted in some wildlife and ground cover grassland plantings because of its purported wildlife value and cheap seed. However, it appears to be invasive in some places and/or situations.

I’ve been working with prairies along Nebraska’s Platte River for nearly 20 years now, and my observations have led me to conclude that sweet clover is more of a big ugly plant than a true invasive species in those prairies.  Years of data collection on my plant communities support those observations.  That annual monitoring work entails listing the plant species I find in each of about 100 1m2 plots across a prairie.  Those plots are stratified across the prairie so the site is evenly sampled.  Once I have those plotwise species lists, I calculate the floristic quality  (FQI) inside each plot, a calculation that takes into account both the number of species present and the average “conservatism” value of those species.  I can then look at changes in mean floristic quality over time to help me see how the plant community changes over time.  I monitor a few prairies annually, and others on a periodic basis.

Those data show the same thing I’ve seen observationally – sweet clover changes in abundance from year to year (though not as much as it appears visually), but the species doesn’t increase in abundance over the long term and doesn’t appear to negatively impact floristic quality.  Below are graphs from three sites that show both sweet clover frequency (% of plots occupied by sweet clover) and mean floristic quality.  Two of those sites were annually grazed during the data collection period, and the other was only grazed once – toward the end of the sampling period.  Cattle grazing almost certainly helps control sweet clover because it is one of their favorite plants to eat, but I don’t think sweet clover is causing me problems where I don’t graze either.

What my data don’t show is the flush of tall blooming plants that happens every other year or so.  I’m just counting whether at least once sweet clover plant is present in each of my small plots – not how big it is, or whether or not it’s blooming.  Nevertheless, sweet clover frequency changes from year to year but doesn’t appear to correlate at all with changes in mean floristic quality.

Nine of years of annual data from a 1995 prairie restoration seeding. The site has been under patch-burn grazing during each of the nine years of data collection. Sweet clover is never abundant at this site, but has also not increased over time, even through years of drought and heavy grazing. Error bars for floristic quality indicate 95% confidence intervals.

.

Sweet clover was present in between 22% and 42% of 1m plots in this restored crop field, planted in 2002. Though the sweet clover frequency varied from year to year, the mean floristic quality of the plant community increased between 2004 and 2008 before leveling off after that - apparently independent of sweet clover. Sweet clover data from 2008 was eliminated from this graph because I later questioned whether I'd confused black medick and sweet clover in some plots. This site was not grazed except in 2009.

.

These data are from a remnant mesic prairie under patch-burn grazing. Instead of being stratified across the entire prairie, these data are from a single patch that was burned in 2008, and that same patch was sampled again in 2009 and 2010. It was grazed very hard in 2008. In 2009, no new patch was burned, so it was grazed hard again, but then fenced out in early June. In 2010, the site was not fenced out, but received only light grazing while cattle focused on another portion of the site that was burned. These data are from only about 30 plots per year.

I feel pretty good about ignoring sweet clover and focusing on more invasive species on our prairies.  Both my observations and data support that strategy.  However, as I said earlier, just because the species doesn’t appear to be problematic for me doesn’t mean it isn’t an invasive species in other prairies.  It’d be great if we could compare data similar to what I’m presenting here from a number of sites to see if sweet clover is acting differently in different places.  Without data, it’s hard to know whether or not people are just interpreting the “invasiveness” of sweet clover in different ways.  For now, my answer to the question,  “Is sweet clover really invasive?” is still the same…

Maybe.