1 Appendix S2 Experimental treatments and the evaluation of their efficacy
2
3 Fig. S1 shows the experimental treatments. To evaluate the efficacy of the treatments,
4 we measured the biomass of falling (n = 4 in each reach) and drifting (n = 1 at the
5 entrance of each reach) terrestrial hosts and non-hosts, and aquatic invertebrates in each
6 treatment reach at the midpoint of the study (20–27 September 2010) based on standard
7 methods (Nakano et al.
1999; Baxter et al.
2004).
8 We determined that the cricket removal treatment was effective at reducing the
9 natural input of crickets 11-fold (Mean ± SE: 28.7 ± 18.0 and 2.6 ± 3.0 mg/m
2
/day in
10 the cricket addition and cricket removal treatments, respectively; Fig. S2), while
11 keeping the input of other terrestrial invertebrates at the same level of the cricket
12 addition treatment (31.2 ± 18.6 and 28.2 ± 9.7 mg/m
2
/day in the cricket addition and
13 cricket removal treatments, respectively). In the terrestrial removal treatment reaches,
14 both cricket and other terrestrial invertebrate inputs were reduced to almost zero (0.6 ±
15 1.3 and 0.7 ± 0.2 mg/m 2
/day in crickets and other terrestrials, respectively). No crickets
16 were found in drift samples. The drift rate of other terrestrial invertebrates was only
17 reduced in the terrestrial removal treatments (0.02 ± 0.01, 0.02 ± 0.01 and 0.002 ± 0.01
18 mg/m
3
/sec in the cricket addition, cricket removal and terrestrial removal treatments,
1

19 respectively), while drift rates of benthic invertebrates were very low (< 0.003
20 mg/m
3
/sec on averages) and did not differ significantly among treatments (Fig. S2).
21
22
23 Fig. S1 Photographs of the experimental treatments. a–c , Plastic mesh fences ( a )
24 were built parallel to both stream banks to exclude crickets (but not other terrestrial
25 insects) from entering four reaches (cricket removal treatment). Ten large water-filled
26 pans ( b ) were placed on both forest sides of a fence to trap infected crickets. Because
27 cricket don’t have wings, the mesh fences prevented the crickets from walking into the
28 stream. Hence, the crickets often jumped into a pan instead and released nematomorphs
29 ( c ). Mesh greenhouse covers ( d ) were built to exclude crickets and other terrestrial
30 insects from 4 reaches (terrestrial removal treatment).
2

31
32 Fig. S2 Input rates of invertebrates in each treatment, by source and type.
The top
33 row ( a ) indicates terrestrial invertebrates that have fallen into a unit area of stream (pan
34 trap) per day, and the bottom row ( b ) indicates invertebrates that have drifted in from
35 upstream per second. Mean ± SE are shown. CA, CR and TR represent the cricket
36 addition, cricket removal and terrestrial removal treatments, respectively. Crickets were
37 not found in drift samples. Among terrestrial inputs, significant treatment effects were
38 detected for crickets ( F
2,42
= 18.41, P < 0.0001; CA > CR > TR in the post hoc,
39 log-likelihood ratio test) and other terrestrial invertebrates ( F
2,42
= 35.56, P < 0.0001;
40 CA ≈ CR < TR). Among drift inputs, significant treatment effects were found for other
3

41 terrestrial invertebrates ( F
2,5
= 3.57, P = 0.045; CA ≈ CR > TR), but not for benthic
42 invertebrates ( F
2,5
= 1.38, P = 0.22). Different letters show that the significant
43 differences were detected in the post hoc, log-likelihood ratio test if the treatment was
44 combined with other treatments. Note that additional camel crickets Diestrammena spp.
45 (9–15 crickets in each cricket addition reach resulted in 27.2 mg/m
2
/day) were
46 experimentally added to the cricket addition treatment reaches (see Text and Method 1
47 in Appendix S1).
4