DOCSLIB.ORG

Hippodamia Convergens

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Species composition and seasonality of the natural enemies of sugarcane aphid on susceptible and resistant sorghum Erin Maxson ([email protected])1, Michael Brewer2 and James Woolley1 1Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2Texas A&M Agrilife Research, Corpus Christi, TX Introduction The sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari) is an emergent sorghum pest in the southern United States. The aphid was first reported on sorghum in 2013 in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. As of September 2015, the aphid has spread to a total of 17 states (Bowling et al. 2015a). Heavy infestation by the sugarcane aphid causes delayed seed head development, chlorosis, leaf necrosis, a buildup of honeydew and sooty mold on leaves, and reduced quantity and quality of yield (Singh et al. 2004). To develop efficient sugarcane aphid management strategies, it is necessary to evaluate the response of established aphid predators and parasitoids to this newly-invasive aphid species. The objectives of this study were twofold: first, to identify which species are feeding on the aphid, and second, to track the seasonal population trends of the aphid and its natural enemies on sorghum hybrids susceptible and resistant to the aphid. Methods Sorghum was sampled at two field sites: The Texas A&M Agrilife Research & Extension Center at Corpus Christi, Nueces County, TX (May-August 2015); and the Texas A&M University Farm, College Station, Brazos County, TX (August-October 2015). Each field site had eight plots in a randomized complete block design. Four of these plots were aphid-susceptible (Dekalb DKS 53-67 hybrid), and four were partially aphid-resistant (Dekalb DKS 37-07 hybrid). Sugarcane aphid and natural enemy populations were recorded weekly by randomly sampling 10 plants per plot. Aphids and natural enemies were counted on one upper leaf and one lower leaf of each plant, for a total of 160 leaves (8 plots x 10 plants x 2 leaves) per week. For leaves with >25 aphids, aphid counts were estimated using the Quick Aphid Checker (Bowling et al. 2015b). Adult and juvenile natural enemies were collected, and the latter were reared to adulthood. Figs 20-23: Aphid and natural enemy counts per sorghum leaf in Nueces County, 2015, showing approximately tenfold difference in population sizes between susceptible (Sus) and resistant (Res) hybrids. Peak aphid abundance: 71.1/leaf (Sus) Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess differences in insect abundance between hybrids through time. versus 7.8 (Res). Results Species Composition The natural enemy communities in both counties had nearly-identical species composition. For each taxonomic group, the following species diversity was observed (Figs 1-19). Coleoptera: Coccinellidae (lady beetles): Coccinella septempunctata, Coleomegilla maculata, Cycloneda sanguinea, Harmonia axyridis, Hippodamia convergens, Olla v-nigrum, and three dusky lady beetle (subfamily Scymninae) morphospecies Diptera: Chamaemyiidae (aphid flies): a single Leucopis argentata reared from a pupa in Brazos County Diptera: Syrphidae (hoverflies): Allograpta obliqua, Eupeodes americanus, and Pseudodorus clavatus Hemiptera: Anthocoridae: Orius insidiosus (minute pirate bug), present in trace numbers Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae: Aphelinus nigritus, an aphid-mummifying parasitoid Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Lysiphlebus testaceipes, an aphid-mummifying parasitoid Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae Syrphophagus aphidivorus, a hyperparasitoid of Aphelinus nigritus Neuroptera: Chrysopidae (green lacewings): Ceraeochrysa valida, Chrysopa quadripunctata, Chrysoperla externa, Chrysoperla rufilabris, and Chrysoperla plorabunda species group Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae (brown lacewings): Hemerobius sp. Figs 24-27: Aphid and natural enemy counts per sorghum leaf in Brazos County, 2015. Natural enemy populations on susceptible (Sus) nearly double those of resistant (Res). Peak aphid abundance: 517.2/leaf (Sus) versus 340.9/leaf (Res). Conclusions The existing community of aphid-feeding insects in Texas has responded rapidly to the introduction of the sugarcane aphid on sorghum. All natural enemies except Braconidae and Chamaemyiidae were observed on aphid-infested sorghum in both juvenile and adult life stages. This suggests that these species are successful not only at locating sugarcane aphid outbreaks, but also at exploiting aphids across multiple generations. The continuity of species composition and population trends observed across two counties is evidence that this response is not an isolated event. The capacity of natural enemies to maintain activity on the resistant hybrid at levels proportionate © Jim Woolley © Travis Ahrens to aphid densities suggests that they may complement host plant resistance. Figs 1-19: Some of the aphid-feeding species observed on sorghum. Top row: 1) Coccinella septempunctata; 2) Coleomegilla maculata; 3-4) Cycloneda sanguinea; 5) Harmonia axyridis; 6) Hippodamia convergens. Middle row: 7) Olla v-nigrum; 8) Scymninae; 9-10) Allograpta obliqua; 11-12) Eupeodes americanus; 13) Pseudodorus clavatus. Bottom row: 14) Aphelinus nigritus; 15) aphid mummies (black arrows) parasitized by A. nigritus; 16) Acknowledgments Syrphophagus aphidivorus; 17-18) Chrysopidae; 19) Hemerobius sp. Figs 1-13 and 16-19 © Erin Maxson. Fig 14 © Jim Woolley. Fig 15 © Travis Ahrens. We thank Darwin Anderson, Robert Bowling, Cesar Valencia, and everyone else from Texas A&M University and Seasonal Population Trends Texas A&M Agrilife Research who assisted with sorghum planting and management. We are grateful for species In both Brazos County and Nueces County, peak abundance of sugarcane aphids and natural enemies was much higher on identifications provided by Dr. John Oswald and Ed Riley of Texas A&M University, and Dr. Stephen Giamari and susceptible sorghum than on resistant (P<0.05, Figs 20-27). Aphid populations in Nueces County peaked June 10-11 (aphid- Dr. Martin Hauser of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. This research was supported by USDA- resistant hybrid) and June 30-July 1 (susceptible). In Brazos County, aphid populations peaked September 26-27 (resistant) NIFA-CPPM-ARDP 2014-700622528. and September 20-22 (susceptible). Peak abundance of most natural enemies lagged behind by one to two weeks, with the exception of resistant sorghum in Brazos County, where both aphids and most natural enemies peaked on September 26-27. References Aphid and natural enemy populations showed similar trends at both field sites, though their numbers were much higher overall in the Brazos County site. Among natural enemies, Aphelinus nigritus and Coccinellidae were numerically predominant across Bowling, R., M. Brewer, S. Biles, and J. Gordy. 2015. 2015 Occurrence of sugarcane aphid in the U.S. and Mexico with reference to occurrence in 2013 and 2014. Texas Plant Protection Conference, Bryan, TX. all treatments, and lacewings (Chrysopidae and Hemerobiidae) were predominant except in susceptible Nueces County plots. Bowling, R., M. Brewer, and S. Biles. 2015. The sugarcane aphid: a review and scouting recommendations. Texas A&M AgriLife Some natural enemies, such as Aphelinus in Nueces County and the Coccinellidae in Brazos County, maintained relatively high Extension, Corpus Christi, Texas. activity on the resistant hybrid for a longer time period than on the susceptible hybrid (a hybrid by time period interaction Singh, B. U., P. G. Padmaja, and N. Seetharama. 2004. Biology and management of the sugarcane aphid, Melanaphis sacchari was detected, P<0.05). (Zehntner) (Homoptera: Aphididae), in sorghum: a review. Crop Protection 23: 739-755 .
Recommended publications
  • Diptera: Syrphidae

    Diptera: Syrphidae

    This is a repository copy of The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae).. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/80035/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Penney, HD, Hassall, C orcid.org/0000-0002-3510-0728, Skevington, JH et al. (2 more authors) (2014) The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae). The American Naturalist, 183 (2). pp. 281-289. ISSN 0003-0147 https://doi.org/10.1086/674612 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae)1 Heather D. Penney, Christopher Hassall, Jeffrey H. Skevington, Brent Lamborn & Thomas N. Sherratt Abstract Palatable (Batesian) mimics of unprofitable models could use behavioral mimicry to compensate for the ease with which they can be visually discriminated, or to augment an already close morphological resemblance.
  • Conservation Biological Control of Rosy Apple Aphid, Dysaphis Plantaginea (Passerini), in Eastern North America

    Conservation Biological Control of Rosy Apple Aphid, Dysaphis Plantaginea (Passerini), in Eastern North America

    COMMUNITY AND ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGY Conservation Biological Control of Rosy Apple Aphid, Dysaphis plantaginea (Passerini), in Eastern North America 1 2 M. W. BROWN AND CLARISSA R. MATHEWS Environ. Entomol. 36(5): 1131Ð1139 (2007) ABSTRACT Because of the potentially serious damage rosy apple aphid, Dysaphis plantaginea (Passerini) (Homoptera: Aphididae), can cause to apple fruit and branch development, prophylactic insecticides are often used for control. If biological control could be relied on, the amount of pesticide applied in orchards could be reduced. This study examined biological control of rosy apple aphid in eastern West Virginia and the potential for enhancement through conservation biological control, in particular, the effect of interplanting extraßoral nectar-bearing peach trees. By 20 d after Þrst bloom, only 2% of fundatrices initially present survived to form colonies based on regression of data from 687 colonies. Exclusion studies showed that many of the early colonies were probably destroyed by predation; the major predator responsible seemed to be adult Harmonia axyridis (Pallas) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Mortality before apple bloom was most important in controlling rosy apple aphid population growth but by itself is not sufÞciently reliable to prevent economic injury. Interplanting of extraßoral nectar-bearing trees did not increase biological control, and interplanting with 50% trees with extraßoral nectar glands reduced biological control. The number of leaf curl colonies in the 50% interplanted orchards was lower than in monoculture orchards, suggesting a preference of alate oviparae for more diverse habitats, supporting the resource concentration hypothesis but not at a level sufÞcient to prevent injury. Predation and parasitism after the formation of leaf curl colonies was not adequate to control rosy apple aphid populations.
  • Articles & Book Reviews

    Articles & Book Reviews

    Newsletter of the Colorado Native Plant Society ARTICLES & BOOK REVIEWS Marr Steinkamp Research: Pollination Biology of the Stream Orchid Alpine Cushion Plants in New Zealand Interview with Barbara Fahey, Native Plant Master® Program Founder Conservation Corner: White River Beardtongue How Lupines Talk to Bees Volume 38, No. 2 Summer 2014 Aquilegia: Newsletter of the Colorado Native Plant Society Dedicated to furthering the knowledge, appreciation, and conservation of native plants and habitats of Colorado through education, stewardship, and advocacy Volume 38 Number 2 Summer 2014 ISSN 2161-7317 (Online) - ISSN 2162-0865 (Print) Inside this issue News & Announcements................................................................................................ 3 Field Trips........................................................................................................................6 Articles Marr/Steinkamp Research: Pollination Biology of Epipactis gigantea........................9 How Lupines Talk to Bees...........................................................................................11 The Other Down Under: Exploring Alpine Cushion Plants in New Zealand...........14 The Native Plant Master® Program: An Interview with Barbara Fahey.....................16 Conservation Corner: White River Beardtongue......................................................... 13 Book & Media Reviews, Song........................................................................................19 Calendar......................................................................................................................
  • Université Du Québec À Montréal Évaluation De

    Université Du Québec À Montréal Évaluation De

    UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL ÉVALUATION DE DEUX NOUVEAUX AGENTS DE LUTTE BIOLOGIQUE CONTRE LE PUCERON DE LA DIGITALE À BASSE TEMPÉRATURE MÉMOIRE PRÉSENTÉ COMME EXIGENCE PARTIELLE MAÎTRISE EN BIOLOGIE PAR YMILIE FRANCOEUR-PIN MAI 2019 UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL Service des bibliothèques Avertissement La diffusion de ce mémoire se fait dans le respect des droits de son auteur, qui a signé le formulaire Autorisation de reproduire et de diffuser un travail de recherche de cycles supérieurs (SDU-522 - Rév.07-2011). Cette autorisation stipule que «conformément à l'article 11 du Règlement no 8 des études de cycles supérieurs, [l'auteur] concède à l'Université du Québec à Montréal une licence non exclusive d'utilisation et de publication de la totalité ou d'une partie importante de [son] travail de recherche pour des fins pédagogiques et non commerciales. Plus précisément, [l'auteur] autorise l'Université du Québec à Montréal à reproduire,· diffuser, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies· de [son] travail de recherche à des fins non commerciales sur quelque support que ce soit, y compris l'Internet. Cette licence et cette autorisation n'entraînent pas une renonciation de [la] part [de l'auteur] à [ses] droits moraux ni à [ses] droits de propriété intellectuelle. Sauf entente contraire, [l'auteur] conserve la· liberté de diffuser et de commercialiser ou non ce travail dont [il] possède un exemplaire.» REMERCIEMENTS Je tiens à débuter mon mémoire en remerciant ceux et celles qui ont contribué à mon cheminement durant ma maîtrise. Quand j'ai débuté mon projet de recherche, je ne savais pas du tout ce qui m'attendais.
  • HOVERFLY NEWSLETTER Dipterists

    HOVERFLY NEWSLETTER Dipterists

    HOVERFLY NUMBER 41 NEWSLETTER SPRING 2006 Dipterists Forum ISSN 1358-5029 As a new season begins, no doubt we are all hoping for a more productive recording year than we have had in the last three or so. Despite the frustration of recent seasons it is clear that national and international study of hoverflies is in good health, as witnessed by the success of the Leiden symposium and the Recording Scheme’s report (though the conundrum of the decline in UK records of difficult species is mystifying). New readers may wonder why the list of literature references from page 15 onwards covers publications for the year 2000 only. The reason for this is that for several issues nobody was available to compile these lists. Roger Morris kindly agreed to take on this task and to catch up for the missing years. Each newsletter for the present will include a list covering one complete year of the backlog, and since there are two newsletters per year the backlog will gradually be eliminated. Once again I thank all contributors and I welcome articles for future newsletters; these may be sent as email attachments, typed hard copy, manuscript or even dictated by phone, if you wish. Please do not forget the “Interesting Recent Records” feature, which is rather sparse in this issue. Copy for Hoverfly Newsletter No. 42 (which is expected to be issued with the Autumn 2006 Dipterists Forum Bulletin) should be sent to me: David Iliff, Green Willows, Station Road, Woodmancote, Cheltenham, Glos, GL52 9HN, (telephone 01242 674398), email: [email protected], to reach me by 20 June 2006.
  • Man Ual Ofnearctic Diptera Volume 2

    Man Ual Ofnearctic Diptera Volume 2

    Man ual ofNearctic Diptera volume 2 Coordinated by J. F. McAlpine (Editor) B. V. Peterson G. E. Shewell H. J. Teskey J. R. Vockeroth D„ M. Wood Biosystematics Research Centre (formerly Institute) Ottawa, Ontario Research Branch Agriculture Canada Monograph No. 28 1987 M M \ SYRPHIDAE 52 J. R. VOCKEROTH AND F. C. THOMPSON Fig. 52.1. Adult male of Syrphus torvus Osten Sacken. Small to large, very slender to robust flies (Figs. 1-3), Mouthparts variable in length, usually correlated with length 4-25 mm long. Body usually black, very often with yellow of subcranial cavity; taxonomic significance of variation or orange markings on head and thorax and particularly on unknown. Antenna sometimes borne on a short or long fron- abdomen, more rarely predominantly brown, yellow, tal prominence (Figs. 12, 13); scape and pedicel subcylin- metallic green, or blue, or with various combinations of these drical but varying greatly in length, with hairs or setae; first or other colors. Integument usually smooth but sometimes flagellomere varying greatly in shape, and often with a partly or totally punctate, sculptured, or rugose, usually near- distinct sensory pit on lower part of inner surface; arista ly covered with dense short hairs, rarely with long hairs or usually with two aristomeres but sometimes with three, usual- nearly bare; some hairs sometimes flattened or scale-like and ly dorsal but sometimes subapical or apical, usually longer forming dense tomentum, or on thorax strong and bristle- than first flagellomere but very short in some Microdontinae like; both haired and bare portions shining, slightly to densely and in some groups with apical arista, usually bare or with pruinose, or with very short dense pile.
  • Program Book

    Program Book

    SEPTEMBER 16-20, 2019 MONTRÉAL, QUÉBEC, CANADA PROGRAM BOOK Share your experience with us! @Aphidophaga14 #aphidophaga14 Aphidophaga XIV, Montreal 2019, Program book | 1 WELCOME MESSAGE Dear colleagues, It is a great pleasure for us to receive all of you in Montreal for the 14th Symposium on “Ecology of Aphidophaga”. It is our turn to organize the symposium, twenty years after the Bromont venue for Aphidophaga 7 (1999). Welcome at UQAM. Welcome in Montreal, in Quebec, and Canada! Since it is only the second time the symposium is held outside Europe, we decided to invite nearctical and neotropical research scientists (Americans) for plenary conferences. We would like to acknowledge the scientific committee of the group for selecting our institution/country for hosting the symposium, during the previous Aphidophaga in Germany. We would like also to acknowledge all the private sponsors that provide financial support (see later). We also received support from the Ministry of Agriculture of Quebec (MAPAQ) and from the entomological societies of Quebec and Canada. We will have about 80 participants from all over the world. With 42 oral communication and 14 posters, attesting the vitality of the research on Aphidophagous natural enemies. Topics covered during the symposium include taxonomy, biology and behaviour of aphidophagous natural enemies, aphid control, non-target effects of agricultural practices on predators and parasitoids, ecological interactions and a session on invasive aphidophagous natural enemies. The world is rapidly changing. Most aphidophagous guilds of the world are now facing new challenges generated by the global climatic change and by invasion by foreign aphidophagous species. Furthermore, in the ultimate years, several studies pointed toward a drastic reduction of insect biomass in several areas.
  • Beneficial and Pest Larval Species Common to Broccoli on the California Central Coast

    Beneficial and Pest Larval Species Common to Broccoli on the California Central Coast

    Beneficial and Pest Larval Species Common to Broccoli on the California Central Coast Diego J. Nieto1, Janet A. Bryer1, Caitlin Slay1, Carol Shennan1, Joji Muramoto1 and Jeffrey Y. Honda2 1Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz 2Department of Biological Sciences, San José State University Common Beneficial Syrphid Larvae in Broccoli Syrphid flies (Diptera: Syrphidae), which are also known as flower flies or hover flies, are widely considered to be the most economically important aphid predators in vegetable cropping systems (Hughes 1963, Colfer 2004, Smith et al. 2008). These bee-mimicking flies lay eggs that hatch into predacious larvae (or maggots), each of which can consume hundreds of aphids (Hopper et al. 2011). Nieto et al. (In Prep.) documented these predators reducing pest pressure in broccoli by 72-190 aphids/plant and increasing marketable (i.e. aphid-free) yield by 10-47%, when compared with broccoli that experimentally “excluded” syrphid larvae by using the larvicide Entrust® (Smith et al. 2008). Syrphid larvae similarly reduced lettuce aphid densities by 91%, relative to aphid densities on Entrust®-applied lettuce (Smith et al. 2008). Reliance on this naturally-occurring predation is especially relevant to organic vegetable production, where beneficial insectaries are often used to facilitate syrphid-driven aphid management (Hogg et al. 2011, Brennan 2013). Growers have long observed, however, that the predation services offered by syrphid flies can be inconsistent or unpredictable; these predators may colonize a field either in insufficient densities or too late in a growing season to adequately control aphid densities in time for harvest. Subsequent research confirmed that the timing of aphid and syrphid establishment during a broccoli growing season strongly influences the likelihood of successful 1 (i.e.
  • NE Guide-Field Day Workshop

    NE Guide-Field Day Workshop

    Natural Enemies in the Orchard Guide: Key features to focus on for identification Green Lacewings (Chrysopids) Genera: Chrysoperla and Chrysopa Prey: aphid, mealybugs and other so bodied insects including caterpillars Eggs: Eggs are oval and are attached to the plant by a thin stalk. ey are pale green in color when #rst laid but may become greyish with age. ey may be found alone 1. Lacewing eggs or in groups. Larvae: Lacewing larvae have an elongate “alligator-like” body. Newly hatched larvae are only about 1 mm in length, but grow to 8 mm long before spinnning a spherical cocoon and pupating. e key distinguishing feaature separating these from other larvae is the large pincher-like mouthparts used for piercing their prey. piercing mouthparts piercing mouthparts 2. 1st instar larva 3. 4th instar larva Adults: Adults are pale green with lace-like wings and long slender antenae. e two 4. Adult green lacewing predominate green lacewing in North America are Chrysoperla spp. and Chrysopa spp. In general, Chrysoperla species are smaller than Chrysopa species found in western orchards and have markings such as a yellow strip on their upper body just behind their head. 5. Lacewing pupa (adult already emerged) Syrphid Flies (Syrphidae) AKA: Hover !y, Flower !y, Bee !y Prey: aphids and small, so-bodied insects Eggs: (#6) Eggs are laid singly on their side near aphids or within aphid colonies. Each whitish to gray oblong egg is about 1 mm in length. Larvae: (#7) ere are 3 larval stages, all of which are predateous. 6. Syrphid eggs with aphids Syrphids are $ies so the larvae are legles and maggot shaped.
  • Prevalence Pattern and Susceptible Strains of Order Diptera

    Prevalence Pattern and Susceptible Strains of Order Diptera

    Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2018; 6(1): 33-40 E-ISSN: 2320-7078 P-ISSN: 2349-6800 JEZS 2018; 6(1): 33-40 Prevalence pattern and susceptible strains of © 2018 JEZS order Diptera, Lepidoptera and Coleoptera Received: 18-11-2017 Accepted: 21-12-2017 among Sarson (Brassica campestris) fields under Naureen Rana Department of Zoology, different ecological conditions Wildlife & Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan Naureen Rana, Muhammad Imran, Tahira Bakhat, Ahmad Saeed Khan, Muhammad Imran Komal Fatima, Saira Javed, Saira Fatima, Sumia Bibi and Muhammad Department of Zoology, Zafar Iqbal Wildlife & Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan Abstract The present study was conducted at Ayub Agriculture Research Institute (AARI) and village Pansera, Tahira Bakhat district Faisalabad from November, 2014 through March, 2015. Maximum population was recorded from Department of Zoology, AARI fields 51.89% (N=274) and least from Pansera fields i.e. 48.11% (N=254). Overall, significant Wildlife & Fisheries, University of Agriculture, results were recorded from AARI fields and among them, higher relative abundance (67.15%; N=184) Faisalabad, Pakistan was recorded for order Diptera. From Pensera Sarson fields, higher relative abundance (71.26%; N=181) was recorded again for order Diptera, followed by Lepidoptera (25.98%; N=66); however, least relative Ahmad Saeed Khan abundance (2.76%; N=7) was recorded for order Coleoptera. Diversity (H) was recorded maximum Department of Continuing among AARI fields (0.0685) and least was recorded among Pansera fields (0.0635). Evenness ratio was Education, University of also recorded in same context (0.0281 and 0.0264, respectively); and richness was a little bit recorded Agriculture, Faisalabad, high among Pansera fields (17.7080) and least among AARI (15.1036).
  • Appendix 5: Fauna Known to Occur on Fort Drum

    Appendix 5: Fauna Known to Occur on Fort Drum

    Appendix 5: Fauna Known to Occur on Fort Drum LIST OF FAUNA KNOWN TO OCCUR ON FORT DRUM as of January 2017. Federally listed species are noted with FT (Federal Threatened) and FE (Federal Endangered); state listed species are noted with SSC (Species of Special Concern), ST (State Threatened, and SE (State Endangered); introduced species are noted with I (Introduced). INSECT SPECIES Except where otherwise noted all insect and invertebrate taxonomy based on (1) Arnett, R.H. 2000. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of North America North of Mexico, 2nd edition, CRC Press, 1024 pp; (2) Marshall, S.A. 2013. Insects: Their Natural History and Diversity, Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY, 732 pp.; (3) Bugguide.net, 2003-2017, http://www.bugguide.net/node/view/15740, Iowa State University. ORDER EPHEMEROPTERA--Mayflies Taxonomy based on (1) Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and D.J. Conklin Jr. 1990. Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press. 456 pp; (2) Merritt, R.W., K.W. Cummins, and M.B. Berg 2008. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 4th Edition. Kendall Hunt Publishing. 1158 pp. FAMILY LEPTOPHLEBIIDAE—Pronggillled Mayflies FAMILY BAETIDAE—Small Minnow Mayflies Habrophleboides sp. Acentrella sp. Habrophlebia sp. Acerpenna sp. Leptophlebia sp. Baetis sp. Paraleptophlebia sp. Callibaetis sp. Centroptilum sp. FAMILY CAENIDAE—Small Squaregilled Mayflies Diphetor sp. Brachycercus sp. Heterocloeon sp. Caenis sp. Paracloeodes sp. Plauditus sp. FAMILY EPHEMERELLIDAE—Spiny Crawler Procloeon sp. Mayflies Pseudocentroptiloides sp. Caurinella sp. Pseudocloeon sp. Drunela sp. Ephemerella sp. FAMILY METRETOPODIDAE—Cleftfooted Minnow Eurylophella sp. Mayflies Serratella sp.
  • (Syrphidae) Communities Respond to Varying Structural Retention After Harvesting in Canadian Peatland Black Spruce Forests Author(S): A

    (Syrphidae) Communities Respond to Varying Structural Retention After Harvesting in Canadian Peatland Black Spruce Forests Author(S): A

    Hoverfly (Syrphidae) Communities Respond to Varying Structural Retention After Harvesting in Canadian Peatland Black Spruce Forests Author(s): A. M. Deans, S. M. Smith, J. R. Malcolm, W. J. Crins, and M. I. Bellocq Source: Environmental Entomology, 36(2):308-318. Published By: Entomological Society of America DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X(2007)36[308:HSCRTV]2.0.CO;2 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1603/0046-225X %282007%2936%5B308%3AHSCRTV%5D2.0.CO%3B2 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. COMMUNITY AND ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGY Hoverfly (Syrphidae) Communities Respond to Varying Structural Retention After Harvesting in Canadian Peatland Black Spruce Forests 1 1,2 1 3 4 A. M. DEANS, S. M. SMITH, J. R. MALCOLM, W. J. CRINS, AND M. I. BELLOCQ Environ. Entomol.