DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands INVENTORY, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES Prepared for Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark System November 2019 Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark System Partners Funding for the preparation of this report was generously provided by the Ontario Trillium Foundation. The Ontario Trillium Foundation is an agency of the Government of Ontario. Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands Management Plan: Inventory, Issues and Opportunities page i Project Study Team North-South Environmental Inc. Mirek Sharp: project manager, report author and editor, natural heritage expertise Melissa Tonge: primary report author, natural heritage research Jennifer Lau Balsdon: editor Issues & Opportunities Report and Classification and Zoning Report, primary author Management Plan Pauline Catling: data management, contributing report author Richard Czok: GIS analysis, mapping Lura Consulting Susan Hall: public consultation, facilitation Ryan Adamson: public consultation Schollen & Company Inc. Markus Hillar: recreation expertise, contributing report author Cecelia Paine: cultural heritage expertise, contributing report author Andlyn Ltd. Ken Dakin: planning and policy expertise, contributing report author Project Steering Committee Tomasz Wiercioch, Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark System Coordinator Nigel Finney, Conservation Halton Lindsay Barr, Royal Botanical Gardens Tys Theysmeyer, Royal Botanical Gardens Ingrid Vanderbrug, City of Burlington Cover Photograph: Hendrie Valley by Markus Hillar, 2019 Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands Management Plan: Inventory, Issues and Opportunities page ii Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Study Context 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work 4 1.2.1 Purpose of the Management Plan 4 1.2.2 Scope of Work 4 1.3 General Overview 6 1.4 Study Methods 6 1.4.1 Project Governance and Study Team 6 1.4.2 Community Engagement 7 1.4.3 Data Collection and Analysis 9 1.4.4 Method for Planning Inventory 9 1.4.5 Method for Recreation Inventory 10 1.4.6 Method for Natural Heritage Inventory 12 1.4.7 Method for Cultural Heritage Inventory 12 1.4.8 Method for Management Issues Inventory 13 2.0 Land Use 13 2.1 Existing Land Uses 13 2.1.1 Utilities Adjacent and Within Current EcoPark System Lands 13 2.2 Future Planned Uses 15 2.2.1 City of Burlington Development Applications 15 2.2.2 Environmental Assessments 15 2.2.3 RBG Masterplan 16 3.0 Planning Policy and Regulatory Framework 16 3.1 Planning Inventory Summary 16 4.0 Recreation Inventory 17 4.1 Study Area Recreational Resources 17 4.1.1 Trails 17 4.1.2 RBG Gardens 23 4.1.3 Parking and Access Points 24 4.1.4 Recreational Uses 25 4.1.5 Existing Infrastructure Summary 28 4.2 Adjacent Recreational Resources 29 4.2.1 Trails 29 4.2.2 Access Points 29 4.2.3 Recreational Uses 29 4.2.4 Existing Infrastructure 30 5.0 Natural Heritage Inventory 30 5.1 Physiography and Surface Geology 30 5.2 Surface Water 30 5.3 Vegetation Communities 31 5.3.1 Inventory 31 5.3.2 Significant Vegetation Communities 38 5.4 Flora 41 5.4.1 Inventory 41 5.4.2 Invasive Flora Species 42 Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands Management Plan: Inventory, Issues and Opportunities page v 5.4.3 Significant Flora 44 5.5 Fauna 46 5.5.1 Inventory 46 5.5.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat 51 5.6 Other Natural Heritage Designations 51 5.7 Natural Heritage Connections and Linkages 52 5.8 Natural Heritage Inventory Summary 53 6.0 Cultural Heritage Inventory 55 6.1 Overview 55 6.1.1 Early Settlement History 55 6.1.2 Twentieth Century Context and Local Cultural History 57 6.2 Lower Grindstone Cultural Heritage Inventory 58 6.2.1 Milling 58 6.2.2 Extraction 58 6.2.3 William Hendrie and Valley Farm – Entrepreneur and Breeder 60 6.2.4 RBG Lands in the Lower Grindstone 61 6.2.5 Royal Botanical Garden Centre Cultural Heritage Resources 62 6.2.6 Hendrie Park Cultural Heritage Resources 62 6.2.7 Laking Garden 63 6.2.8 Other RBG Cultural Heritage Resources 64 6.2.9 Hidden Valley Park 66 6.3 Cultural Heritage Resources on Adjacent Lands 66 6.3.1 National Fireproofing Company 66 6.3.2 “Around the Bay” Marker 66 7.0 Management Issues and Opportunities 66 7.1 Overarching Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark System Management Issues 68 7.1.1 Issues 68 7.1.2 Opportunities 72 7.2 Access, Parking and Infrastructure Issues 73 7.2.1 Issues 73 7.2.2 Opportunities 75 7.3 Recreation Issues 76 7.3.1 Issues 76 7.3.2 Opportunities 81 7.4 Encroachment Issues 83 7.4.1 Issues 83 7.4.2 Opportunities 84 7.5 Hydrologic Impacts 85 7.5.1 Issues 85 7.5.2 Opportunities 87 7.6 Ecosystem Management 88 7.6.1 Issues 89 7.6.2 Opportunities 93 7.7 Cultural Heritage Issues 99 7.7.1 Issues 99 7.7.2 Opportunities 100 8.0 Next Steps 101 Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands Management Plan: Inventory, Issues and Opportunities page vi 9.0 References 102 List of Tables Table 1. Key Engagement Components. ....................................................................................................... 8 Table 2. Fieldwork dates and locations. ........................................................................................................ 9 Table 3. Vegetation communities of Current EcoPark System Lands in Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands ............................................................................................................................................................ 33 Table 4. Vegetation communities of Current EcoPark System Lands in Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands per management unit ........................................................................................................................ 36 Table 5. Floristic Quality of the Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands. ........................................................... 42 Table 6. Major invasive flora species found within Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands.............................. 43 Table 7. Provincially significant flora species in Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands ................................... 44 Table 8. Significant fauna species recorded from Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands ................................ 48 Table 9. Summary of natural heritage inventory findings for Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands. Species considered to be extirpated from Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands have not been included. ....... 53 List of Figures Figure 1. Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark System ......................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Current EcoPark System Lands within Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands .................................... 5 Figure 3. Trails, Parking and Access Locations at Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands ................................ 11 Figure 4. Royal Botanical Gardens’ Hendrie Valley Trails Map .................................................................. 20 Figure 5. Ecological Land Classification of Current EcoPark System Lands in Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands .................................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 6. Distribution of Provincially Rare Flora, Fauna and Vegetation Communities in the Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands ................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 7. Cultural Heritage Locations in Current EcoPark System Lands .................................................... 59 Figure 8. Examples of Management Issues in Current EcoPark System Lands ........................................... 70 List of Appendices Appendix 1: Data Sources ......................................................................................................................... 110 Appendix 2: Planning Characterization Matrix and Detailed Planning Policy and Regulatory Framework .......................................................................................................................................................... 113 Appendix 3: Natural Heritage Data Gap Analysis ..................................................................................... 129 Appendix 4: Information Gathering Session Participants ......................................................................... 132 Appendix 5: Flora Species at Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands .............................................................. 134 Appendix 6: Carolinian, Prairie and Savannah Indicators at Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands .............. 158 Appendix 7: Fauna species at Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands ............................................................. 161 Appendix 8: Summary of Management Issues ......................................................................................... 176 Appendix 9: Recreation Management Issue Photographs and Index ....................................................... 180 Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands Management Plan: Inventory, Issues and Opportunities page vii 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Study Context Between 2007 and 2009, a group of public agencies and organizations consisting of the Royal Botanical Gardens1(RBG), Hamilton Conservation Authority, Conservation Halton, City of Hamilton, City of Burlington, Halton Region, Bruce Trail Conservancy, Hamilton Naturalists’ Club, and Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan, undertook to develop a strategy to protect, connect and restore natural lands and open space between the Niagara Escarpment and Cootes Paradise in Hamilton Harbour2. The initiative resulted in the “Cootes to Escarpment Park System Conservation and Land Management Strategy Phase II Report” (October 2009). This
Recommended publications
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
  • Jacqueline Marie Dennett

    Jacqueline Marie Dennett

    Search and rescue: detection and mitigation of rare vascular plant species by Jacqueline Marie Dennett A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Conservation Biology Department of Renewable Resources University of Alberta © Jacqueline Marie Dennett, 2018 Abstract Understanding where and when populations occur is the first step to conservation and maintenance of biodiversity. Where human land-use overlaps with populations of conservation concern, population loss may occur, potentially reducing long-term persistence of species, particularly for those that are rare. Understanding the relationship between land-use change and extirpation is therefore essential to guiding conservation, but this can only be achieved through well-designed surveys and monitoring programs. One key aspect of surveys that is often overlooked is the ability to accurately and consistently detect populations, while the success of mitigation practices depends on a clear understanding of what techniques will best ensure the longevity of a given population. In this thesis, I examined factors that affect detection, extirpation of historic populations, and the efficacy of mitigative translocations for rare vascular plants in the oil sands region of Alberta. First, I used two field experiments to better understand and test the effects of scale (1 – 2500 m2), abundance (plant density), and observer experience on detection rates of rare plants in forested systems. Scale and abundance were the most important determinants of detection for plot-based surveys, whereas previous experience of the observer had limited influence. Plants at low abundance often went unrecorded in large plots (>1000 m2), even when they were morphologically distinct or flowering.
  • And Lepidoptera Associated with Fraxinus Pennsylvanica Marshall (Oleaceae) in the Red River Valley of Eastern North Dakota

    And Lepidoptera Associated with Fraxinus Pennsylvanica Marshall (Oleaceae) in the Red River Valley of Eastern North Dakota

    A FAUNAL SURVEY OF COLEOPTERA, HEMIPTERA (HETEROPTERA), AND LEPIDOPTERA ASSOCIATED WITH FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA MARSHALL (OLEACEAE) IN THE RED RIVER VALLEY OF EASTERN NORTH DAKOTA A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science By James Samuel Walker In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major Department: Entomology March 2014 Fargo, North Dakota North Dakota State University Graduate School North DakotaTitle State University North DaGkroadtaua Stet Sacteho Uolniversity A FAUNAL SURVEYG rOFad COLEOPTERA,uate School HEMIPTERA (HETEROPTERA), AND LEPIDOPTERA ASSOCIATED WITH Title A FFRAXINUSAUNAL S UPENNSYLVANICARVEY OF COLEO MARSHALLPTERTAitl,e HEM (OLEACEAE)IPTERA (HET INER THEOPTE REDRA), AND LAE FPAIDUONPATLE RSUAR AVSESYO COIFA CTOEDLE WOIPTTHE RFRAA, XHIENMUISP PTENRNAS (YHLEVTAENRICOAP TMEARRAS),H AANLDL RIVER VALLEY OF EASTERN NORTH DAKOTA L(EOPLIDEAOCPTEEAREA) I ANS TSHOEC RIAETDE RDI VWEITRH V FARLALXEIYN UOSF P EEANSNTSEYRLNV ANNOICRAT HM DAARKSHOATALL (OLEACEAE) IN THE RED RIVER VAL LEY OF EASTERN NORTH DAKOTA ByB y By JAMESJAME SSAMUEL SAMUE LWALKER WALKER JAMES SAMUEL WALKER TheThe Su pSupervisoryervisory C oCommitteemmittee c ecertifiesrtifies t hthatat t hthisis ddisquisition isquisition complies complie swith wit hNorth Nor tDakotah Dako ta State State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of University’s regulations and meetMASTERs the acce pOFted SCIENCE standards for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE MASTER OF SCIENCE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: David A. Rider DCoa-­CCo-Chairvhiadi rA.
  • Indicates Non-Native Species

    Indicates Non-Native Species

    ET GULCH NATURAL AREA (TACOMA, PIERCE CO.) The plant list was compiled by Richard D. Van Deman and Mary Fries by on site observation, April 18, 1997. Sup *Indicates non-native species Genus/Species Common Name Family Acer circinatum vine maple Aceraceae Acer macrophyllum big-leafed maple Aceraceae Sambucus racemosa var arborescecoast red elderberry Adoxaceae Oenanthe sarmentosa Pacific water parsley, Pacific water-dropApiaceae Osmorhiza chilensis mountain sweet-cicely Apiaceae Ilex aquifolium* English holly Aquifoliaceae Lysichiton americanum western skunk cabbage, swamp lantern Araceae Hedra helix* English ivy Araliaceae Oplopanax horridus (horridum) Devil's club Araliaceae Lactuca muralis* wall lettuce Asteraceae Lapsana communis* nipplewort Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale* common dandylion Asteraceae Tussilago .farfara* coltsfoot Asteraceae Achlys triphylla (A. californica) Vanilla leaf Berberidaceae Berberis aquifolium(Mahonia aqu tall Oregon-grape, shining Oregon-grapeBerberidaceae Berberis nervosa(Mahonia nervosadull Oregon-grape Berberidaceae Alnus rubra red alder Betulaceae Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut Betulaceae Blechnum spicant deer fern Blechnaceae Cardamine oligosperma little western bittercress Brassicaceae Lunaria annua* annual honesty, money plant Brassicaceae Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (Nawater-cress Brassicaceae Lonicera involucrata twinberry honeysuckle, black twinberry Caprifoliaceae Symphoricarpos albus varvar. Laecommon snowberry Caprifoliaceae Sambucus racemosa red elderberry Caprifoliaceae Calystegia sepium*(Convolvulus
  • Moths of Ohio Guide

    Moths of Ohio Guide

    MOTHS OF OHIO field guide DIVISION OF WILDLIFE This booklet is produced by the ODNR Division of Wildlife as a free publication. This booklet is not for resale. Any unauthorized INTRODUCTION reproduction is prohibited. All images within this booklet are copyrighted by the Division of Wildlife and it’s contributing artists and photographers. For additional information, please call 1-800-WILDLIFE. Text by: David J. Horn Ph.D Moths are one of the most diverse and plentiful HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE groups of insects in Ohio, and the world. An es- Scientific Name timated 160,000 species have thus far been cata- Common Name Group and Family Description: Featured Species logued worldwide, and about 13,000 species have Secondary images 1 Primary Image been found in North America north of Mexico. Secondary images 2 Occurrence We do not yet have a clear picture of the total Size: when at rest number of moth species in Ohio, as new species Visual Index Ohio Distribution are still added annually, but the number of species Current Page Description: Habitat & Host Plant is certainly over 3,000. Although not as popular Credit & Copyright as butterflies, moths are far more numerous than their better known kin. There is at least twenty Compared to many groups of animals, our knowledge of moth distribution is very times the number of species of moths in Ohio as incomplete. Many areas of the state have not been thoroughly surveyed and in some there are butterflies. counties hardly any species have been documented. Accordingly, the distribution maps in this booklet have three levels of shading: 1.
  • Intraspecific Body Size Variation in Macrolepidotera

    Intraspecific Body Size Variation in Macrolepidotera

    7272 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 61(2), 2007, 72–77 INTRASPECIFIC BODY SIZE VARIATION IN MACROLEPIDOPTERA AS RELATED TO ALTITUDE OF CAPTURE SITE AND SEASONAL GENERATION J. BOLLING SULLIVAN 200 Craven St., Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 U. S. A., [email protected] AND WILLIAM E. MILLER Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota 55108 U. S. A., [email protected] Abstract. As a proxy for body size, forewing lengths of individual geometrids and noctuids were measured with respect to altitude of capture site in five species in North Carolina and one in Costa Rica. Number of specimens ranged 48–373 per species, number of capture sites 2–15 per species, and site altitudes ranged 2–2209 m. Forewing length in all six species increased significantly with increasing altitude at rates of ≈ 0.3–≈ 1.1 mm/500 m. These relations held where investigated for both first and second annual generations and for both sexes even though second-generation individuals were smaller-bodied. Thus examples of Geometridae and Noctuidae are added to a list mainly of micromoths previously known to exhibit positive size–altitude relations. Some adaptive and nonadaptive body-size hypotheses are discussed as possible explanatory factors, but thus far no explanation is fully satisfactory. In contrast to measurement results in these six macromoths, other moths known to be widely dispersive appeared to display flat size–altitude relations, and published butterfly size–altitude data varied irregularly. Degree of dispersiveness is hypothesized as a condition to the manifestation of size–altitude phenomena in lepidopterans. Many more minimally dispersive moths will likely be found to increase in body size with increasing altitude.
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)

    CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)

    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
  • Checklist Flora of the Former Carden Township, City of Kawartha Lakes, on 2016

    Checklist Flora of the Former Carden Township, City of Kawartha Lakes, on 2016

    Hairy Beardtongue (Penstemon hirsutus) Checklist Flora of the Former Carden Township, City of Kawartha Lakes, ON 2016 Compiled by Dale Leadbeater and Anne Barbour © 2016 Leadbeater and Barbour All Rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or database, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, without written permission of the authors. Produced with financial assistance from The Couchiching Conservancy. The City of Kawartha Lakes Flora Project is sponsored by the Kawartha Field Naturalists based in Fenelon Falls, Ontario. In 2008, information about plants in CKL was scattered and scarce. At the urging of Michael Oldham, Biologist at the Natural Heritage Information Centre at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Dale Leadbeater and Anne Barbour formed a committee with goals to: • Generate a list of species found in CKL and their distribution, vouchered by specimens to be housed at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, making them available for future study by the scientific community; • Improve understanding of natural heritage systems in the CKL; • Provide insight into changes in the local plant communities as a result of pressures from introduced species, climate change and population growth; and, • Publish the findings of the project . Over eight years, more than 200 volunteers and landowners collected almost 2000 voucher specimens, with the permission of landowners. Over 10,000 observations and literature records have been databased. The project has documented 150 new species of which 60 are introduced, 90 are native and one species that had never been reported in Ontario to date.
  • Beginner S Guide to Moths of the Midwest Geometers

    Beginner S Guide to Moths of the Midwest Geometers

    0LGZHVW5HJLRQ86$ %HJLQQHU V*XLGHWR0RWKVRIWKH0LGZHVW*HRPHWHUV $QJHOOD0RRUHKRXVH ,OOLQRLV1DWXUH3UHVHUYH&RPPLVVLRQ Photos: Angella Moorehouse ([email protected]). Produced by: Angella Moorehouse with the assistance of Alicia Diaz, Field Museum. Identification assistance provided by: multiple sources (inaturalist.org; bugguide.net) )LHOG0XVHXP &&%<1&/LFHQVHGZRUNVDUHIUHHWRXVHVKDUHUHPL[ZLWKDWWULEXWLRQEXWFRPPHUFLDOXVHRIWKHRULJLQDOZRUN LVQRWSHUPLWWHG >ILHOGJXLGHVILHOGPXVHXPRUJ@>@YHUVLRQ $ERXWWKH%(*,11(5¶6027+62)7+(0,':(67*8,'(6 Most photos were taken in west-central and central Illinois; a fewDUH from eastern Iowa and north-central Wisconsin. Nearly all were posted to identification websites: BugGuide.netDQG iNaturalist.org. Identification help was provided by Aaron Hunt, Steve Nanz, John and Jane Balaban, Chris Grinter, Frank Hitchell, Jason Dombroskie, William H. Taft, Jim Wiker,DQGTerry Harrison as well as others contributing to the websites. Attempts were made to obtain expert verifications for all photos to the field identification level, however, there will be errors. Please contact the author with all corrections Additional assistance was provided by longtime Lepidoptera survey partner, Susan Hargrove. The intention of these guides is to provide the means to compare photographs of living specimens of related moths from the Midwest to aid the citizen scientists with identification in the field for Bio Blitz, Moth-ers Day, and other night lighting events. A taxonomic list to all the species featured is provided at the end along with some field identification tips. :(%6,7(63529,',1*,'(17,),&$7,21,1)250$7,21 BugGuide.net LNaturalist.org Mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu Insectsofiowa.org centralillinoisinsects.org/weblog/resources/ :+,&+027+*8,'(7286( The moths were split into 6 groups for the purposes of creating smaller guides focusing on similar features of 1 or more superfamilies.
  • Impacts of Native and Non-Native Plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better Than Non-Natives?

    Impacts of Native and Non-Native Plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better Than Non-Natives?

    Impacts of Native and Non-native plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better than Non-natives? by Carl Scott Clem A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 12, 2015 Key Words: native plants, non-native plants, caterpillars, natural enemies, associational interactions, congeneric plants Copyright 2015 by Carl Scott Clem Approved by David Held, Chair, Associate Professor: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Charles Ray, Research Fellow: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Debbie Folkerts, Assistant Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Robert Boyd, Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Abstract With continued suburban expansion in the southeastern United States, it is increasingly important to understand urbanization and its impacts on sustainability and natural ecosystems. Expansion of suburbia is often coupled with replacement of native plants by alien ornamental plants such as crepe myrtle, Bradford pear, and Japanese maple. Two projects were conducted for this thesis. The purpose of the first project (Chapter 2) was to conduct an analysis of existing larval Lepidoptera and Symphyta hostplant records in the southeastern United States, comparing their species richness on common native and alien woody plants. We found that, in most cases, native plants support more species of eruciform larvae compared to aliens. Alien congener plant species (those in the same genus as native species) supported more species of larvae than alien, non-congeners. Most of the larvae that feed on alien plants are generalist species. However, most of the specialist species feeding on alien plants use congeners of native plants, providing evidence of a spillover, or false spillover, effect.
  • Ecological Checklist of the Missouri Flora for Floristic Quality Assessment

    Ecological Checklist of the Missouri Flora for Floristic Quality Assessment

    Ladd, D. and J.R. Thomas. 2015. Ecological checklist of the Missouri flora for Floristic Quality Assessment. Phytoneuron 2015-12: 1–274. Published 12 February 2015. ISSN 2153 733X ECOLOGICAL CHECKLIST OF THE MISSOURI FLORA FOR FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT DOUGLAS LADD The Nature Conservancy 2800 S. Brentwood Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63144 [email protected] JUSTIN R. THOMAS Institute of Botanical Training, LLC 111 County Road 3260 Salem, Missouri 65560 [email protected] ABSTRACT An annotated checklist of the 2,961 vascular taxa comprising the flora of Missouri is presented, with conservatism rankings for Floristic Quality Assessment. The list also provides standardized acronyms for each taxon and information on nativity, physiognomy, and wetness ratings. Annotated comments for selected taxa provide taxonomic, floristic, and ecological information, particularly for taxa not recognized in recent treatments of the Missouri flora. Synonymy crosswalks are provided for three references commonly used in Missouri. A discussion of the concept and application of Floristic Quality Assessment is presented. To accurately reflect ecological and taxonomic relationships, new combinations are validated for two distinct taxa, Dichanthelium ashei and D. werneri , and problems in application of infraspecific taxon names within Quercus shumardii are clarified. CONTENTS Introduction Species conservatism and floristic quality Application of Floristic Quality Assessment Checklist: Rationale and methods Nomenclature and taxonomic concepts Synonymy Acronyms Physiognomy, nativity, and wetness Summary of the Missouri flora Conclusion Annotated comments for checklist taxa Acknowledgements Literature Cited Ecological checklist of the Missouri flora Table 1. C values, physiognomy, and common names Table 2. Synonymy crosswalk Table 3. Wetness ratings and plant families INTRODUCTION This list was developed as part of a revised and expanded system for Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) in Missouri.
  • Field Checklist

    Field Checklist

    14 September 2020 Cystopteridaceae (Bladder Ferns) __ Cystopteris bulbifera Bulblet Bladder Fern FIELD CHECKLIST OF VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE KOFFLER SCIENTIFIC __ Cystopteris fragilis Fragile Fern RESERVE AT JOKERS HILL __ Gymnocarpium dryopteris CoMMon Oak Fern King Township, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario (second edition) Aspleniaceae (Spleenworts) __ Asplenium platyneuron Ebony Spleenwort Tubba Babar, C. Sean Blaney, and Peter M. Kotanen* Onocleaceae (SensitiVe Ferns) 1Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology 2Atlantic Canada Conservation Data __ Matteuccia struthiopteris Ostrich Fern University of Toronto Mississauga Centre, P.O. Box 6416, Sackville NB, __ Onoclea sensibilis SensitiVe Fern 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, ON Canada E4L 1G6 Canada L5L 1C6 Athyriaceae (Lady Ferns) __ Deparia acrostichoides SilVery Spleenwort *Correspondence author. e-mail: [email protected] Thelypteridaceae (Marsh Ferns) The first edition of this list Was compiled by C. Sean Blaney and Was published as an __ Parathelypteris noveboracensis New York Fern appendix to his M.Sc. thesis (Blaney C.S. 1999. Seed bank dynamics of native and exotic __ Phegopteris connectilis Northern Beech Fern plants in open uplands of southern Ontario. University of Toronto. __ Thelypteris palustris Marsh Fern https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/14382/). It subsequently Was formatted for the web by P.M. Kotanen and made available on the Koffler Scientific Reserve Website Dryopteridaceae (Wood Ferns) (http://ksr.utoronto.ca/), Where it Was revised periodically to reflect additions and taxonomic __ Athyrium filix-femina CoMMon Lady Fern changes. This second edition represents a major revision reflecting recent phylogenetic __ Dryopteris ×boottii Boott's Wood Fern and nomenclatural changes and adding additional species; it will be updated periodically.