University of Nebraska at Omaha DigitalCommons@UNO

Student Work

8-1-2003

Insect Communities of Native and Restored Wet-Mesic Tallgrass Prairies in Central Nebraska: Leafhoppers, Planthoppers, Treehoppers, and Ants.

Kristine Trinette Nemec

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork

Recommended Citation Nemec, Kristine Trinette, "Insect Communities of Native and Restored Wet-Mesic Tallgrass Prairies in Central Nebraska: Leafhoppers, Planthoppers, Treehoppers, and Ants." (2003). Student Work. 3331. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork/3331

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Work by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Insect Communities of Native and Restored Wet-Mesic Tallgrass Prairies in Central Nebraska: Leafhoppers, Planthoppers, Treehoppers? and Ants

A Thesis

Presented to the

Department of Biology

and the

Faculty of the Graduate College

University of Nebraska

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Biology

University of Nebraska at Omaha

by

Kristine Trinette Nemec

August 2003 l.IMI Number: EP74933

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertatteni FUMlsMng

UMI EP74933 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest'

ProQ uest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 THESIS ACCEPTANCE

Acceptance for the faculty of the Graduate College, University of Nebraska, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts, University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Committee

.1 / / / _

Chairperson

Date 3o A c t, 3 . I/O ABSTRACT

Insect Communities of Native and Restored Wet-Mesic Tallgrass Prairies in Central Nebraska: Leafhoppers, Planthoppers, Treehoppers, and Ants

Kristine T. Nemec, MA

University of Nebraska, 2003

Advisor: Dr. Thomas B. Bragg

Insect diversity was compared between and among three native and three restored wet-mesic tallgrass prairies along the Platte River in central Nebraska in order to assess both the relative success of restorations and the relationship between insect and plant diversity. Insects were sampled using sweep nets from two transects within each prairie during early June, mid-July, and mid-August 2000. Plant species composition was assessed along each transect in early June and mid-August. A total of 71 leafhopper, 12 planthopper, 3 treehopper, and 11 ant taxa were identified, of which 20 were prairie- endemic and 16 were highly remnant-dependent. Eighty-five plant taxa were also identified. For leafhoppers and treehoppers, both Species Richness and Shannon diversity were higher for restorations (for leafhoppers, S = 17.1 ± 0.98 taxa/400 sweeps and H' = 1.38; for treehoppers, S = 0.7 ± 0.18 taxa/400 sweeps and H' = 0.290) than for native prairies (for leafhoppers, S= 13.6 ± 0.75 taxa/400 sweeps and H'= 1.24; for treehoppers, S = 0.06 ± 0.056 taxa/400 sweeps and H r = 0) and the differences were significant (P < 0.05). Similar trends were observed for planthoppers although differences were significant only for Shannon diversity. As with all three insect groups, both Species Richness and Shannon diversity of plants were higher at restored prairies (S = 15.6 ± 1.57 taxa/20-m transect, H '~ 1.07) than at native prairies (5*= 14.3 ± 1.27 taxa/20-m transect, H’ = 1.04) although differences were not significant. The difference in plant diversity between restored and native prairies most likely reflects the combined effects of the high-diversity seed mix used in prairie restorations and the effects of long­ term management or fragmentation that may have reduced plant diversity in native prairie remnants. That insect diversity paralleled plant diversity, however, emphasizes both the relationship between the two and the importance of restoring or managing prairies to maximize plant diversity. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank the agencies that helped cover insect identification

expenses. Funding for this study was provided by a Nebraska Chapter of The Nature

Conservancy J.E. Weaver Competitive Grant , a Center for Great Plains Studies grant,

and U.N.O. Biology Department research funds. I also thank the U.N.O. Biology

Department for supporting me as a Graduate Teaching Assistant for three years. Being a teaching assistant was a valuable experience and I enjoyed working with the U.N.O. biology faculty and students. I am thankful for receiving a Kate Field Grant-in-Aid and a

Summer Scholarship from the U.N.O. Graduate Scholarship and Fellowship Committee, which allowed me to focus time and energy on sorting insects and writing my thesis.

I am very grateful to the individuals who identified my insects, as this study would have been impossible without their help. Dr. Andy Hamilton (leafhoppers and planthoppers), Dr. Stephen Wilson (planthoppers), Dr. Chris Dietrich (treehoppers), Dr.

James Trager (ants), and Bradford Danner (grasshoppers and katydids) not only provided their taxonomic expertise but were helpful and responsive to my questions about prairie insect ecology. I would also like to thank Dr. Ron Panzer and Dr. Robert Whitcomb for providing me with information about remnant-dependent insects and the distribution of

Great Plains leafhoppers.

Next, I thank those agencies and individuals that helped with other aspects of this project. The Nebraska Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, and Platte

River Whooping Crane Trust allowed me to access their land and collect insects, I spent a large portion of my research time searching through jars of preserved insects and debris for the leafhopper, planthopper, and treehopper specimens but two interns for The Nature

Conservancy, Jon Groelz and Amber Regier, reduced my workload by going through

some jars for me. I also thank Dr. James Platz for showing me how to take pictures of my leafhopper specimens.

My thesis committee was very helpful throughout this project and I owe them many thanks. I thank Chris Helzer for proposing the initial research question and collecting the plant community data. I thank Dr. Ted Burk for counseling me on insect collection methods and Nebraska insect communities. I thank Dr. Dave Sutherland for his help with plant taxonomy. Last, but not least, I thank my major advisor, Dr. Tom

Bragg, whose dedication to teaching and research is unsurpassed. I have been fortunate to learn from him and benefit from his extensive knowledge of ecology. In addition, he is one of the most energetic, positive people I have ever known, inspiring me to give 110% towards my thesis and take on challenges such as delivering a presentation at a national conference.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family. I thank the graduate students for their friendship and making graduate school as much fun as it was educational. In particular, I thank my officemates Melanie Trecek-King, Julie

Godberson, and Emily Wise for their conversation and help. I also thank Melanie, Dena

Quigley, and Tiffani Herfordt for the movie and game nights. I thank my parents, Phil and Cathy Phipps, for instilling an appreciation for nature in me and for keeping my first insect project, “My Own Insect Notebook” (written in 2nd grade and featuring lines such as “Insects grow and help make insects like themselves”). During the three years I spent working on this larger insect project my husband John patiently endured the many hours I spent either in front of the computer or at a table examining insect specimens. I thank him for his love, sense of humor, and understanding. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page ...... i

Thesis acceptance page ...... ii

Abstract ...... iii

Acknowledgements ...... v / List of tables and figures ...... x

Introduction ...... 1

Methods ...... 7

Study Sites...... 7

Field collections ...... 9

Aboveground insect sampling ...... 12

Plant sampling ...... 13

Data analysis ...... 13

Results...... 17

Leafhopper community ...... 17

Planthopper community ...... 37

Treehopper community ...... 40

Ant community ...... 41

Plant community ...... 42

Discussion ...... 46

Insect communities of native and restored prairie ...... 46

Prairie-endemic and remnant-dependent insects of native and restored prairie ....49 Plant communities of native and restored prairie ...... 51

Conclusion ...... 54

Literature Cited...... 56

Appendix Table 1. Contact information for insect specialists ...... 66

Appendix Table 2. Leafhopper taxa at the study sites ...... 67

Appendix Table 3. Planthopper taxa at the study sites ...... 103

Appendix Table 4. Treehopper taxa at the study sites ...... I l l

Appendix Table 5. Ant taxa at the study sites ...... 113

Appendix Table 6. Plant taxa at the study sites ...... 116

Appendix Table 7. Indicator values for all insect and plant taxa ...... 128

Appendix Table 8. Host plants of leafhopper, planthopper, and treehopper taxa 134

Appendix Table 9. Plant taxa by plant guild ...... 136 X

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES

Table 1. Ownership, size, and location of study sites ...... 10

Fable 2. Management history of study sites ...... 11

Table 3. Number of individual insect taxa by size group ...... 21

Table 4. Insect taxa of native and restored prairie ...... 22

Table 5. Ant taxa of native and restored prairie ...... 26

Table 6. Insect diversity and density by site and groups ...... 30

Table 7. Indicator values for insect and plant taxa ...... 33

Table 8. Dominant plant taxa of native and restored prairie ...... 43

Table 9. Plant diversity and cover by site ...... 45

FIGURES

Figure 1. Study sites in central Nebraska...... 8

Figure 2. Examples of leafhoppers ...... 18

Figure 3. Examples of planthoppers ...... 19

Figure 4. Examples of treehoppers ...... 20

Figure 5. DCA ordination plot of leafhopper density by transect ...... 28

Figure 6. Athysanus argentarius density and Bromus inermis cover ...... 34

Figure 7. Commellus comma density and Elymus canadensis cover ...... 35

Figure 8. Graphocephala dolobrata and Graphocephala sp. nov ...... 36 Figure 9. DCA ordination plot of planthopper density by transect ...... 39

Figure 10. DCA ordination plot of plant density by transect ...... 44 1

INTRODUCTION

The Tallgrass Prairie ( Andropogon-Panicum-Sorghastrum) (Kiichler 1964) once covered over 64 million ha of central North America, extending from southern Manitoba to southern Texas (Transeau 1935, Reichman 1987). Since European settlement, however, more than 99% of the ecosystem has been lost, primarily from conversion to cropland (Klopatek et al. 1979, Samson and Knopf 1994). The amount of the loss, however, varies across its historic range. In Nebraska, for example, this ecosystem has declined 98%, from an estimated 6.1 million ha to 123,000 ha (Samson and Knopf 1994).

The magnitude of this decline makes the tallgrass prairie one of the most critically endangered ecosystems of the United States (Noss et al. 1995). Further, the remaining prairie occurs in scattered remnants often vulnerable to invasion by exotic or woody species or too small to apply management suitable to maintain the biotic characteristics of the historic prairie (Risser 1988). This alteration of the Great Plains landscape not only threatens regional biodiversity but also effects ecosystem services such as reduced soil erosion and improved water quality (Ostlie et al 1997). In the mid- to late-1900s private and public conservation-focused organizations initiated various efforts to restore tallgrass prairie in suitable locations that included efforts to convert agricultural fields to prairie by planting native plants. While conceptually, such restorations are intended to offset some of the effects of the loss of tallgrass prairie, their ability to do so effectively is still being evaluated. Currently, these evaluations focus on various ecosystem attributes including floral and faunal diversity and composition and soil characteristics.

In general, prairie restoration is a slow process with recovery of some soil 2 characteristics requiring 5-10 years (e.g., soil aggregation, Jastrow 1987) and that of plant communities even longer. For example, 15-35 years after prairie restorations in Illinois and Kansas, plant community composition was only beginning to approximate the composition of native prairie (Corbett et al. 1996, Kindscher and Tieszen 1998).

Extrapolations from these and other studies suggest that it may require several hundred years for the plant communities of tallgrass restorations to approximate the composition of native prairies (Schramm 1990, Kindscher and Tieszen 1998). For the invertebrate community, however, native composition may return more quickly (Ahlering et al. 1999)

(personal communication, Dr. Ted Burk).

Invertebrates may be important in assessing the overall success of prairie restorations (Arenz and Joem 1996) since they fill a variety of ecological niches (Morris et al. 1991, Miller 1993). Several studies have described invertebrates of native tallgrass prairies (Kopp and Yonke 1970, Blocker and Reed 1976, Cwikla and Blocker 1981,

Evans et al. 1983, Whitcomb et al. 1987a, 1987b, Wilson et al. 1993, Brand and Dunn

1998, Foster and Kettle 1999, Henderson et al. 2002) while others have evaluated restored tallgrass prairies (Henderson et al. 2002). However, only a few studies have evaluated the success of prairie restorations by comparing invertebrate communities

(Sesler and Schramm 1990, Reed 1995a, 1995b, Debinski and Babbit 1997, Brand and

Dunn 1998, Ahlering et al. 1999, Foster and Kettle 1999, Bomar 2001). These various studies may be divided into those studying below-ground invertebrates and those focusing on above-ground invertebrates.

In contrast to the more rapid recovery of their soil habitat to natural conditions 3

(Jastrow 1987), soil invertebrate recovery following restoration is slow, although the rates may vary among groups. For example, 16 years following restoration, the abundance of springtails (Order Collembola; a common soil detritivore) differed significantly between native tallgrass prairie and 16-year-old restorations in both southwestern Michigan and northeastern Illinois (Brand and Dunn 1998).

Studies contrasting above-ground invertebrates of native and restored grasslands often focus on butterflies (Order Lepidoptera), of which many are either prairie- dependent or are found only on high-quality native prairie (Panzer et al. 19 9 5 ). The results of such comparisons, however, are not always consistent. For example, Sesler and

Schramm (1 9 9 0 ) found butterfly Species Richness to be higher on a restored site (S = 2 8 ) than on any of four native sites (S = 10-19). In contrast, however, Debinski and Babbit

(1 9 9 7 ) found Species Richness of butterflies on a native prairie in Kansas (S- 18) to be equally as high as on one of four restored areas (S = 18) although richness was lower on the rest and there were no statistically significant differences among native and restored areas. In addition to differences attributable to the diversity of plants introduced in restorations, these different responses may be more a function of different types of management than whether sites were restored or native. For example, in the study by

Sesler and Schramm, the restored site (S = 2 8 ) had been burned the previous spring while the native sites (S = 10-19) had been managed by mowing. In another example, but with opposite effects on richness, Debinski and Babbit (1 9 9 7 ) found Species Richness to be lowest (S = 14) at a restoration managed with axspring bum one year prior to the study and highest (S = 18) at a native site that had been burned a few months prior. In the same 4

study Species Richness was equally as high (S = 18) at a restoration that had never been

burned, mowed, or grazed. While the effects of fire vary, the persistence of these effects

is temporary varying from 1-2 years (Panzer 2002) to 3-5+ years (Swengel 1996). The persistence of butterfly populations, however, suggests their ability to withstand a variety

of treatments and seasons of application when viewed over time rather than when focused

at one point in time (Huebschman and Bragg 2000).

As for other variables affecting butterflies, a significant correlation was found between prairie size and both butterfly density and butterfly Species Richness (Sesler and

Schramm 1990). Debinski and Babbit (1997), however, observed that vascular plant species richness, logically expected to parallel butterfly diversity (Strong et al. 1984), was not a good predictor of butterfly species richness.

A few comparative studies have focused on other above-ground invertebrates of native and restored prairie, all of which indicated higher diversity on native sites. For example, in southeastern Minnesota, Species Richness of flower-visiting insects, including bees, wasps, flies, butterflies, and moths, was higher in native prairie remnants than in prairie reconstructions, although the difference was not significant (Reed 1995a,

1995b). Further, no obvious relationship was found between insect species richness and forb species richness, site size, age of restoration, or number of individual flowers, although these relationships were not statistically tested. In another study, grasshopper species richness was also generally higher on native prairies than on reconstructed prairies in western and south-central Wisconsin (Bomar 2001). In that study, the largest native and largest reconstructed prairies were the most species-rich. In Kansas, the 5 mound-building ant Formica subsericea of native prairie was still absent 41 years after restoration (Foster and Kettle 1999) suggesting that ant diversity may also be lower in restorations. The degraded soil quality and low plant diversity of the restorations were given as likely factors preventing F. subsericea from becoming established at these prairies.

Rather than directly compare native and restored prairies, some studies have attempted to identify indicator species that can be used to assess prairie quality and thus provide an alternate means by which to compare native prairies with prairie restorations.

Two categories of indicator species have been proposed: remnant-dependent and prairie- endemic. Panzer et al. (1995) consulted entomological publications, amateur and professional entomologists, and specimen labels to create a list of remnant-dependent insect species for prairies in the Chicago, Illinois region. This general approach was based on the assumption that remnant-dependent species make the best indicators of prairie quality since these species should be most vulnerable to habitat disturbance.

Remnant-dependency was based on a species’ occurrence only in native prairie remnants.

In that study, 31% of leafhopper species (n = 291) and 13% of planthopper species ( n =

15) were found to be remnant-dependent. From these results they concluded that attempts to select and assess the adequacy of preserves should focus on remnant- dependent species.

An alternative approach to identifying indicator species was proposed by

Hamilton (1995a), who used species endemic to prairies as indicator species. Prairie- endemics are those species having host plants found only on native prairie or closely 6 associated habitats (e.g. savanna) (personal communication, Andy Hamilton). In his survey of 100 northern tallgrass prairies (located in Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North

Dakota, South Dakota, and Manitoba), Hamilton focused on leafhoppers and caliscelid planthoppers determining 72 leafhopper and 7 caliscelid planthopper species to be prairie-endemics. By quantifying the presence of prairie-endemic caliscelid planthopper and leafhopper species, Hamilton (1995a) then classified prairies as being depauperate

(0-1 endemic leafhopper and caliscelid planthopper species), poor (2-3 endemic species), fair (4-5 endemic species), good (6-8 endemic species), very good (9-11 endemic species), or excellent (12-24 endemic species).

Although many prairie restoration studies have been conducted in Wisconsin,

Minnesota, Kansas, and Illinois, fewer have been conducted elsewhere. One area of particular interest to this study is the success of restoration efforts along the Big Bend

Reach of the Platte River in the south-central portion of Nebraska, an area well known as an important habitat for migrating birds (Krapu 1987, LaGrange 1997). Assessments of the success of these restorations, however, have primarily focused on waterfowl since they are the principal impetus for these efforts. Aside from a study on benthic wetland invertebrates (Gordon et al. 1990), a broad inventory of insects at Mormon Island Refuge

(Ratcliffe 1981), and aquatic and terrestrial insect surveys currently being conducted by the Platte River Whooping Crane Trust, little research has been conducted on invertebrates in the region and no studies have compared native and restored sites. This study was designed to fill some of these gaps in knowledge about above-ground insect community composition in native and restored lowland prairies along the Platte River. 7

Specifically, this study tests the hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between plant and insect diversity. This study will also expand on the limited understanding of invertebrates in prairie restorations while also providing a descriptive base for future comparisons. Specifically, I tested three null hypotheses:

1. Ho: Insect diversity will not differ between native and restored sites.

2. Ho: The proportion of prairie-endemic and highly remnant-dependent insect

species will not differ between native and restored sites.

3. Ho: Plant diversity will not differ between native and restored sites.

METHODS

Study Sites

The study was conducted in central Nebraska along the western edge of the tallgrass prairie region in central North America (Fig. 1). A continental climate prevails in the region with mean monthly temperature varying from -3.7°C in the winter to 23.4°C in the summer (Owenby and Ezell 1992). Annual precipitation averages 629-632 mm with most (ca. 75%) occurring from April through September in the form of rain from thunderstorms (Owenby and Ezell 1992). Soils of the study area belong to either the

Entisol or the Mollisol Soil Order and consist of a surface layer of silty clay loam or sandy loam over sand and gravel (Yost et al. 1962, Buller et al. 1974).

After an initial survey of several potential sites, three native and three restored prairies, established on previously cultivated land, were selected for study. All sites were located in central Nebraska along a 55-km stretch of the Platte River between the towns 8

-o

o-* -a Fig. Fig. 1. Study sites in central Nebraska. 9 of Keamey and Alda (Fig. 1). All sites had been classified as wet-mesic tallgrass prairies

(Steinauer and Rolfsmeier 2000) which occur in floodplains and may have standing water during the spring or after heavy rains. Characteristic plant species include Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), Helianthus maximilianii (Maximilian sunflower), Hypoxis hirsuta (yellow stargrass), Liatris pycnostachya (prairie blazing star), Panicum virgatum

(switchgrass), Silphium integrifolium (rosinweed), and Sorghastrum nutans (Indiangrass).

In addition to comparable surface hydro-geology, restored prairies were selected to be of similar age and size (Tables 1 and 2). Comparably sized native prairies were sought although, in the end, the most suitable choices included one native site (Rowe Prairie) that was much larger than the others. All sites were located in similar proximity to the

Platte River and all restorations were adjacent to native, although mostly degraded, prairie remnants. Due to the limited number of wet-mesic tallgrass prairies from which to choose, the sites unavoidably differed in past management (Table 2).

Field Collections

At each site, sampling was conducted along two parallel, centrally-located 20-m- long transects. End-points of the transect were marked with 1-m-tall metal poles to facilitate subsequent relocation and sampling. Transects were oriented from west to east and separated by 40 m. This procedure was intended to minimize the effect of different prairie sizes by sampling the same sized area within each site. To minimize edge effect, transects were a minimum of 24 m within each study site. Both insects and plants were sampled since some studies indicate a close association between insect and plant diversity Table 1. Ownership, size, and location of study sites. J o TJ O W CO 45 45 P3 CJ O '5b13 H H hJ -t—< c 3 p N

cp p- 5*3 O p- CN 5 4 P p- ON oo p- CN E—11 ^ fi f i s a H CJ m £ 3 o 'S *P ON CP CO p- o ON oo p u o ffif—1 ffif—1 ffiE—1 EC E-* CQ H , 3 CJ CO £ .2 & < 4 > -4— - 4 cd o 2 p p oo £ CO oo p- £ £ ^ CJ CJ £ NO NO ON oo CN ON • .2 2 2 .2 UP P p- o - P X3 . 5 (S 3 2 2 3 -*—» c d 4 - C p o >4 oo 00 p 0 O O 55 S5 D o

CO on p4 H

£ ^ ’S p-‘ ON NO ON ON P3 CJ CJ E p- o - P ON OO CN O CP & 5 4 (S -4-J P 3 ON P D cn

* ^ 5 4 CJ ON, CJ p- p- O H p- o ON oo cp p- CP a ON - P P3 £ -4-J 2 3 P O O O o >■» ^ h h Os P^ CO o p V cn S5 J5 p h > P^ CO

Table 2. Management history of study sites (Whitney 1998; personal communication, Chris Helzer, Bill Taddicken, and Kent Pfeiffer).

Site Management History

Brooks Prairie (Native) Historically, the prairie was hayed once a year through 1997 but rested in 1998 and 1999. The prairie has not been burned in recent history.

Rowe Sanctuary (Native) Since 1985, portions of the prairie have been hayed on a rotation basis with one-fourth rested and one- fourth burned each spring. Three-fourths of the prairie, including the burned area, is hayed annually after August 15. The portion of the prairie used in this study was rested in 2000 and last burned in the spring of 1998.

Ruge Prairie (Native) Before 1995, half of the meadow was hayed each year and the remaining, unhayed half was burned. The entire prairie was hayed from 1995-1997 and rested from 1998-2000. All of the prairie was burned in the spring of 1997 and again in 1999.

Ruge 1993 (Restored) Historically, the restoration site had been farmed until seeded on April 9, 1993 by hand-broadcasting a high- diversity seed mix. Since then the site has neither been hayed nor grazed but was mowed for weed control in 1993. The entire site was burned in the spring of 1997 and again in 1999.

Dahms 1994 (Restored) Historically, the restoration site had been farmed until seeded on April 23, 1994 by hand-broadcasting a high-diversity seed mix. The restoration was briefly grazed the same year by accident when some cattle escaped. The entire prairie was burned in 1998 but left idle in 1999 and 2000.

Dahms 1995 (Restored) Historically, the restoration site had been farmed and never intentionally grazed. It was planted on April 15, 1995 by hand-broadcasting a high-diversity seed mix. The entire restoration was burned for the first time in the spring of 1999. 12

(Panzer and Schwartz 1998).

Aboveground Insect Sampling. - Aboveground insects were sampled June 5-7,

July 14-18, and August 9-11, 2000. These dates were selected to ensure sampling the greatest number of species irrespective of seasonal presence. To minimize climatic effects, I sampled only on sunny days when the temperature exceeded 16°C and only between 0900 and 1900 hours. Sampling was conducted using a 38-cm diameter, standard canvas sweep net. I took 400 sweeps in 40 sweep sets. After each set, insects in the net were placed in a 3,018-ml collection container consisting of a 15.5-cm diameter x

16.0-cm high coffee can half filled with 70% ethyl alcohol. All 400 sweeps along a transect were placed in the same container. Once all of the sweeps for a transect had been completed, the contents of the container were transferred to a 947-ml glass jar for storage until sorting. Insect specimens were sorted by placing the contents of the jar on a white dissecting pan. Forceps were used to remove insects from vegetation and other debris. Specimens were separated by family (leafhoppers, treehoppers, ants) or superfamily (planthoppers), placed into 1.5-ml plastic containers and sent to entomological specialists for identification (Appendix Table 1).

My study focused specifically on leafhoppers (Order Homoptera: Cicadellidae), planthoppers (Order Homoptera: Fulgoroidea), and treehoppers (Order Homoptera:

Membracidae) since these insect taxa fulfill'two criteria for good indicator assemblages:

(1) they arc abundant, making them easy to find in the field and (2) they fill a range of ecological niches (Brown 1991). In addition, a high proportion of leafhopper species are 13

either remnant-dependent or found exclusively in high-quality prairie (Panzer et al.

1995). Other insect groups that are good indicators, such as grasshoppers (Order

Orthoptera: Acrididae), katydids (Order Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae), and ants (Order

Hymenoptera: Formicidae) (Panzer et al. 1995, Foster and Kettle 1999), were collected

but only ants were sent out for identification because of time and budget constraints.

Invertebrate specimens other than leafhoppers, planthoppers, treehoppers, or ants were

preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol in 236-ml glass jars and stored in the University of

Nebraska at Omaha Plant Ecology lab.

Plant Sampling. - Plant communities were sampled from June 5-6 and August

14-18, 2000 by employees of The Nature Conservancy’s Platte/Rainwater Basin Office.

At each site, sampling was conducted in each of five, 1-m -radius plots systematically

placed at 3-m intervals along each 20-m transect. The canopy cover of all plant species

within each plot was estimated using procedures modified from Daubenmire (1959).

Canopy cover categories used were: 1 = < 1%, 2 = 1-5%, 3 = 5-25%, 4 = 25-50%, 5 = 50-

75%, 6 = 75-95%, 7 = 95-99%, and 8 = > 99%. Midpoints of the categories were used in

data analysis. In addition, all plants observed to be flowering along each transect were

listed.

Data Analysis

Community-level. - Because temporal variation was not a consideration in this

study, data from each sampling period were pooled for analysis. Species diversity was 14 measured using either Species Richness (S = the number of species) or the Shannon-

Wiener Diversity Index ( H *) (Shannon 1948) for all plants and for each insect group

(leafhoppers, planthoppers, and treehoppers).

Differences in Species Richness among sites were based on the mean number of species from six samples for insects (2 transects per site x 3 sampling periods) and four samples for plants (2 transects per site x 2 sampling periods). Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA) and the Student-Newman-Keuls (SNK) (Keuls 1952) multicomparison test were used to test for statistical differences in richness among the sites (SAS 1999). The

ANOVA was used because it is sufficiently robust to accommodate some considerable departures from its theoretical assumptions, particularly when sample size is equal (Zar

1984). The non-parametric SNK test was used since it is not dependent on parametric assumptions.

Differences in Species Richness of insects between native and restored prairie were based on the mean of 18 combined samples (3 sites per treatment x 2 transects per site x 3 sampling periods). Plant Species Richness was compared by treatment by combining the 12 samples (3 sites per treatment x 2 transects per site x 2 sampling periods). A Two-Sample /-Test was used to test for significant differences in Species

Richness between native and restored prairies (SAS 1999). While sample size was small

(n = 12 or 18), the Two-Sample /-Test, like the ANOVA, is sufficiently robust to accommodate departures from theoretical assumptions.

Differences in equitability measures of diversity were tested using the Shannon-

Weiner Diversity Index (Hr). For insects, among-site comparisons of Shannon diversity 15

were based on the sum of the number of individuals of each species found in each of 6

samples per site (data from each of 2 transects per site x 3 sampling periods).

Differences in Shannon diversity between restored and native prairie were based on the sum of the number of individuals of each species found in each of 18 samples for each treatment (3 sites per treatment x 2 transects per site x 3 sampling periods).

For plants, the quantitative measure used to calculate Shannon diversity at each site was the mean canopy cover of each species which was calculated by summing each species’ canopy cover in each plot sampled at a site in each sampling period and dividing by 10 (5 plots/transect x 2 transects per site x 1 sampling period). Among-site differences in Shannon diversity were based on calculations using the highest of the June or August average canopy cover of each species at each site. The highest canopy cover was used to accommodate different plant phenologies. To compare Shannon diversity between native and restored plant communities, each species’ average canopy cover was obtained by summing its canopy cover in each plot sampled at a treatment (native or restored) in each sampling period and dividing by 30 (5 plots/transect x 2 transects per site x 3 sites per treatment). Again, the higher canopy cover, June or August, was used for calculating

Shannon diversity. As with insects, significant differences in Shannon diversity between treatments were based on procedures described in Zar (1999).

Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) (Hill and Gauch 1980), commonly used in invertebrate studies (e.g. Evans 1988, Kemp et al. 1990, Quinn et al. 1991,

Brown el al. 1992, Asteraki et al. 1995, Jonas 2000), was applied to detect trends in • insect and plant communities using PC-ORD (McCune and Mefford 1999). The distance 16 between points in a DCA ordination reflects variability among the transects with similar transects being plotted close together and dissimilar transects being plotted farther apart in ordination space. While the number of samples was marginal for ordination, the ability to summarize community-level information was felt to outweigh qualifications that would be required to extrapolate results beyond the present study. In order to generate enough points for ordination, transect data rather than site data were used. Insect density

(mean number of individuals/400 sweeps) and a plant species’ canopy cover from the sampling period with the highest average canopy cover were used in ordinations comparing transects of native and restored communities.

Species-level. - PC-ORD (McCune and Mefford 1999) was used to conduct

Indicator Species Analysis to detect insect and plant species most closely associated with a particular habitat (Dufrene and Legendre 1997). Because it was based on data from only one season, the purpose of this analysis was not to create a definitive list of

“indicator species” that can be applied to prairies in general but rather to identify the habitat with which each species was most associated in this study. Insect density or plant canopy cover were used as the main data matrix to calculate relative abundance and relative frequency of occurrence from which was calculated an indicator value for each species in each group of the secondary data matrix (native or restored prairie). The highest indicator value ( IVmax ) for a species from either native or restored prairie was saved as the overall indicator value for that species. Values ranged from 0 (not dependent) to 100 (highly dependent). The statistical significance of IVmax for each 17 species was based on the Monte Carlo test, a procedure that randomly reassigns sample units (species) to groups for 1,000 iterations, calculating IVmax each time. In this procedure, the probability of a Type I error is based on the proportion of times that the

IVmax from the randomized data equals or exceeds the IVmax from the actual data set, testing the null hypothesis that the species has no indicator value (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

One hundred invertebrate taxa (Appendix Tables 2-5) and 85 plant taxa

(Appendix Table 6) were identified in this study. Among the insect groups that were the focus of this study, leafhoppers (Fig. 2) were the most common (71 of 89 taxa), followed by planthoppers (Fig. 3) (15 of 89 taxa), with treehoppers (Fig. 4) the least common (3 of

89 taxa) (Tables 3 and 4). In addition, eleven ant taxa were identified (Table 5, Appendix

Table 5). Seventeen insect taxa (17% of the total number sampled) and 26 plant taxa

(31% of the total number sampled) were found only at native prairie. Thirty-one insect taxa (31%) and 36 plant taxa (44%) were found only at restored prairie. Differences between restored and native sites could be seen both at the community and at the individual-taxa level.

Leafhopper Community

Community-level. - A total of 3,067 individual leafhoppers representing 71 different taxa were collected at the study sites, including 18 prairie-endemic and 15 highly remnant-dependent species (Table 4, Appendix Table 2). A greater number of 18

Fig. 2. Examples o f leafhoppers — a) Diplocolerms configuratm . b) Commellus comma, and c) Athysanus argentarius (photos courtesy Cedar Creek Natural History Area, Minnesota). 19

Fig. 3. Examples of planthoppers - a) Delphacodes campestris, b) Scolops sulcipes. and c) Stobaera tricarinata (photos courtesy Cedar Creek Natural History Area, Minnesota). 20

Fig. 4. Camplyenchia latipes , example of a treehopper (photo courtesy Cedar Creek Natural History Area, Minnesota). 21

Table 3. Number of individual leafhopper, planthopper, and treehopper taxa in each of seven size groupings. Taxa groupings range from 1 = 1 individual to > 100 = more than 100 individuals. The total number of individuals in each taxonomic group is indicated parenthetically.

Number of Taxa by Size Grouping Category

Taxa 1 2-5 6-12 13-25 26-50 51-100 > 100

Leafhoppers 9 15 12 10 9 6 10 (3,067 individuals)

Planthoppers 4 2 0 2 2 2 2 (486 individuals)

Treehoppers 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 (80 individuals) 22

Table 4. Insect taxa collected at native and restored prairie, by insect group. Detailed data are in Appendix Tables 2-4. Prairie-endemic species (personal communication, Dr. Andy Hamilton, Dr. Stephen Wilson) are followed by the superscript letter p , highly remnant-dependent species (Panzer et al. 1995) are followed by the superscript letter r, and new state records are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Density (Mean number of individuals/400 sweeps)

Native Restored

Mean Standard Mean Standard Error Error

Leafhoppers Agallia quadripunctata 0.056 0.0556 0.11 0.0762

Amplicephalus inimicus 0.94 0.286 oo 0.797 Amplicephalus kansiensispT* 4.11 2.889 0.17 0.167 Athysanus argentarius* 21.39 6.745 0 0 Attenuipyga minorp* 0.44 0.232 1.44 0.894 Balclutha sp. 0.056 0.0556 0.17 0.0904 Balclutha neglecta 4.17 1.033 4.33 1.480 Ceratagallia sp. 0.44 0.202 1.22 0.392 Ceratagallia humilis 0 0 1.50 0.894 Ceratagallia uhleri 1.56 0.809 2.50 1.033 Ceratagallia viator 0 0 0.50 0.500 Chlorotettix sp. 1.06 0.400 0.22 0.101 Chlorotettix fallax r* 0.61 0.436 0.67 0.291 Chlorotettix spatulatus9 0.44 0.271 2.06 0.782 Cicadula ciliatar 0.11 0.111 0 0 Commellus comma9 0 0 18.56 3.815 Cuerna sp. 0 0 0.056 0.0556 Cuerna sayi * 0.33 0.198 0 0 Deltocephalus flavicostatus * 0 0 0.056 0.0556 Dikraneura angustata * 0.056 0.0556 0.22 0.101 Dikranenra mali * 0.83 0.345 0.11 0.0762 Diplocolenus configuratus 0.39 0.293 0.056 0.0556 Draeculacephala sp. 0.056 0.0556 0.78 0.521 Draeculacephala constricta 2.83 0.519 1.44 0.437 Draeculacephala noveboracensis 0.22 0.173 0 0 Driotura gammaroides 0 0 0.28 0.177 Elymana sp. 0 0 0.11 0.111 Empoasca sp. 0.17 0.121 1.56 0.550 23

Table 4 (continued). Insect taxa collected at native and restored prairie, by insect group. Detailed data are in Appendix Tables 2-4. Prairie-endemic species (personal communication, Dr. Andy Hamilton, Dr. Stephen Wilson) are followed by the superscript letterp, highly remnant-dependent species (Panzer et al. 1995) are followed by the superscript letter r, and new state records are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Density (Mean number of individuals/400 sweeps)

Native Restored

Mean Standard Mean Standard Error Error

Leafhoppers (continued) Erythroneura sp. 0 0 0.17 0.121 Erythroneura tricincta 0 0 0.11 0.111 Exitianus exitiosus 5.94 2.741 3.17 0.978 Extrusanus oryssusp 0.33 0.198 0 0 Extrusanus ovatus p* 0.056 0.0556 0.50 0.218 Flexamia sp. 0.50 0.259 0.33 0.181 Flexamia albidapT 0 0 0.056 0.0556 Flexamia inflat a 0.33 0.198 0.056 0.0556 Flexamia prairianapx* 4.50 1.415 1.22 0.482 Flexamia reflexapx 0 0 0.11 0.111 Graminella mohripx 4.00 1.291 3.22 0.803 Graminella nigrifrons 0 0 0.056 0.0556 Graphocephala sp. nov. 0.056 0.0556 0.056 0.0556 Graphocephala dolobrata 0 0 2.33 1.234 Gyponana sp. 0.056 0.0556 0.056 0.0556 Gyponana serpent a* 0 0 0.056 0.0556 Hecalus sp. 0.72 0.360 0.39 0.143 Hecalus major * 5.78 1.911 0.22 0.222 Hecalus viridis 0 0 0.67 0.667 Laevicephalus minimuspx 0.11 0.0762 0.28 0.226 Laevicephalus unicoloratuspx 7.11 2.409 1.89 0.863 Latalus sayii 0 0 1.50 0.601 Limotettix ferganiensis 0.22 0.129 0 0 Limotettix osborni 0 0 2.22 0.948 Macrosteles quadrilineatus 3.28 1.171 1.22 0.401 Macrosteles wilburi p* 0 0 1.00 0.530 Memnonia flavida * 1.44 0.853 1.28 0.490 Mesamia stramineapx 0.056 0.0556 1.28 0.547 24

Table 4 (continued). Insect taxa collected at native and restored prairie, by insect group. Detailed data are in Appendix Tables 2-4. Prairie-endemic species (personal communication, Dr. Andy Hamilton, Dr. Stephen Wilson) are followed by the superscript letter p, highly remnant-dependent species (Panzer et al. 1995) are followed by the superscript letter r, and new state records are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Density (Mean number of individuals/400 sweeps)

Native Restored

Taxa Mean Standard Mean Standard Error Error

Leafhoppers (continued) Mocuellus caprillus * 0 0 0.056 0.0556 Neocoelidia tumidifrons* 0 0 0.39 0.335 Neohecalus magnificus 1.39 1.020 0 0 Paraphlepsius sp. 0.17 0.167 0.22 0.129 Paraphlepsius irroratus 0.11 0.0762 0.22 0.129 Paraphlepsius nebulosuspx 0 0 0.056 0.0556 Pendarus magnusT 0.28 0.158 0.11 0.0762 Polyamia caper ataP 0.61 0.270 0.17 0.0904 Polyamia dilatapx 0.056 0.0556 0 0 Prairiana sp. 0 0 0.056 0.0556 Psammotettix sp. 0.056 0.0556 0.056 0.0556 Psammotettix lividellus 7.17 2.320 1.39 0.555 Scaphytopius cinereusx 0.11 0.0762 3.22 0.807 Stirellus bicolor 10.39 5.086 3.56 1.307 Xerophloea peltatapx 0.11 0.0762 0 0

Planthoppers Acanalonia bivittata* 0 0 1.39 0.578 Cedusa sp. 0.056 0.0556 0 0 Delphacodes campestris 2.28 0.609 3.83 1.079 Delphacodes megadontcP* 0 0 0.94 0.944 Delphacodes nr. megadonta 0.94 0.654 0.056 0.0556 Delphacodes parvulapx* 1.17 0.422 2.56 1.141 Myndus sp. 0 0 0.056 0.0556 Pentagramma longistylata * 7.94 3.448 0 0 Prokelisia crocea * 1.44 0.781 0.11 0.0762 Scolops sp. 0 0 0.056 0.0556 Scolops angustatus 0 0 0.11 0.0762 25

Table 4 (continued). Insect taxa collected at native and restored prairie, by insect group. Detailed data are in Appendix Tables 2-4. Prairie-endemic species (personal communication, Dr. Andy Hamilton, Dr. Stephen Wilson) are followed by the superscript letterp, highly remnant-dependent species (Panzer et al. 1995) are followed by the superscript letter r, and new state records are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Density (Mean number of individuals/400 sweeps)

Native Restored

Taxa Mean Standard Mean Standard Error Error

Planthoppers (continued) Scolops perdix* 0 0 0.11 0.111 Scolops sulcipes * 0.50 0.218 2.56 0.764 Stenocranus sp. 0.056 0.0556 0 0 Stobaera tricarinata 0.72 0.609 1.00 0.566

Treehoppers Campylenchia latipes 0 0 3.17 1.507 Micrutalls sp. 0.22 0.222 1.06 0.834 Stictocephala bisonia 0 0 0.11 0.0762 26

Table 5. Ant taxa collected at the study sites. An X indicates the presence of the taxa at either native or restored prairie; the number of individuals was not determined. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity.

Species Native Restored

Formica sp. X

Formica incerta X X

Formica montana XX

Formica nitidiventris XX

Formica schaufussi X

Lasius neoniger X

Myrmica sp. X

Myrmica americana XX

Myrmica emery ana X

Tapinoma sp. X • 27

leafhopper taxa were collected at restored prairies (62 taxa) than at native prairies (49 taxa), although a greater proportion of the total individuals collected at the native sites

(27%) were prairie endemics than at the restorations (19%).

Ordination resulted in distinctly separate clustering of the leafhopper community of native and of restored prairie (Fig. 5). Specifically, differences in the spatial distribution of transects indicated (1) that leafhopper density among native prairies differed more than it did within, (2) that leafhopper density of restored prairie differed substantially from native prairie, and (3) that leafhopper density in restored prairies was comparatively more homogenous than in native prairies.

With respect to species composition, Species Richness of leafhoppers was found to be significantly higher for restored prairies (mean S = 17.1 ± 0.98 taxa/400 sweeps) than for native prairies (mean S= 13.6 ± 0.75 taxa/400 sweeps) (P = 0.0087; Two-

Sample 7-Test). Similarly, Shannon diversity was significantly higher for restored prairies (H'= 1.38) than for native prairies (H'= 1.24) (P < 0.05, Two-Sample 7-Test).

Similar results were also obtained when considering only remnant-dependent leafhopper species. Shannon diversity for remnant-dependent leafhopper species, for example, was significantly higher for combined restored prairies (H' = 0.822) than for combined native prairies (Hr = 0.708) (P = 0.0002). Species Richness of remnant-dependent species also was higher for restored prairies (mean S = 3.5 ± 0.33 taxa/400 sweeps) than for native prairies (mean S= 2.8 ± 0.25 taxa/400 sweeps), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.0883, Two-Sample 7-test). For prairie-endemic species, Species

Richness also was significantly higher for restored prairies (mean S — 4.6 ± 0.38 taxa/400 28

rowt2 A rowtl A

d 9 4 t 1 A

d94t2 A

rugtl A rugt2 A Axis 1

Fig. 5. Detrended Correspondence Analysis ordination plot of leafhopper density (number of individuals/400 sweeps) by transect for Brooks Prairie (brk), Rowe Sanctuary (row), Ruge Prairie (rug), Ruge 1993 Restoration (r93), Dahms 1994 Restoration (d94), and Dahms 1995 Restoration (d95). Open triangles are native prairie transects and shaded triangles are restored prairie transects: T1 = transect 1, T2 = transect 2. The Eigenvalue of Axis 1 is 0.5411; the Eigenvalue of Axis 2 is 0.2953. 29

sweeps) than for combined native prairies (mean S= 3.2 ±0.32 taxa/400 sweeps) ( P =

0.0047, Two-Sample t-Test). The opposite result was found, however, for Shannon diversity which was significantly higher for native prairie (H' = 0.753) than for restored prairie sites (//' = 0.693) (P = 0.0483, Two-Sample r-Test)

While richness and diversity of all leafhopper taxa were higher at the restorations, leafhopper density was higher at the native sites (mean = 95.2 ± 14.36 individuals/400 sweeps) than at the restorations (mean = 75.2±6.57 individuals/400 sweeps), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.2163, Two-Sample r-Test). In contrast, the density of prairie-endemic leafhoppers was found to be significantly higher at the restorations (mean = 32.0 ± 3.57 individuals/400 sweeps) than at the native sites (mean =

21.9 ± 3.21 individuals/400 sweeps) (P = 0.0439, Two-Sample r-Test). This difference, however, was largely due to the abundance of one species, Commellus comma, (334 of

576 prairie-endemic leafhoppers), at the restorations.

Multiple comparison testing, with but one exception, found no significant differences among individual sites for any of total leafhopper density, number of prairie- endemic species, or number of remnant-dependent species (Table 6). The exception was one restored site (Dahms 1995) that was significantly higher than one native site (Rowe

Prairie) (Table 6).

Species-level. - Indicator Species Analysis classified two of the 71 species of leafhoppers (3%), Athysanus argentarius and Psammotettix lividellus, as being significantly associated with native prairie and five species (7%), Amplicephalus 30

*

C 0 OO 0 CN of OOCO NO Of OO NO Of -I co OO H-H of Z -q O CO CN O — | z of Of CO p of co £ PH 0 O 0 O OO 0 o ’ o 0 'S < °c s 0 0 < 00 NO 00 of co ON Ol C5C1 1— NO I/O ONCO 00 of 8 8 O « * —’ o' 0 ON NOCN 00 o ’ /-v CO 0 of CO O h hQ <> ON CN -H r-f GN +1 -H -H +1 -H +1 NO O ^ -H +1 s — O COCN CO 0 O O 0 r- OO of CO CO cri CN CO S P d S *c/S 0 Of o 2 ° d cp 03 O 0 CN . S CO CO _ OO CN 0 0 0 IN of CN 0 O o ’ CN CN — CNCN CO CO CN N o ’ CO CN OO CO iV CO CO 0 \Q CO CO O r— CO CN CO s g > < '— 1 CN “ o o ■ > o S 3 ° 0 5 r— CO N NO < ON NO OO 00 OO CN CN 00 01 a s N CN CN 22 <8 ON P j C O 5-h NO CN 0 O CO of — of 0 /-v o ’ O c o P ON CN +1 -H -H -H -H +1 0 +1 H-1- CN +1 NO -H 0 -H d ^ 0 CN CO CO , 0 5-h y O 00 p CO 00 O N CO NO of of ON ^ d 3 of o i 0 CO cvl £ S

^ ^ CN CN CN — ’ — o

2

• g g " of ca < • ON -H -H -H -H -H -H -H ON ^ +1 +1 O h ON __ in 00 co (Nco O fVj o of CO CN NO NO cri O h O CO O < ^ CoP s > o O h C VI , -c O h 03 T 3 C 5E C o o _ o 0 £ _ o £ • t 3 u o P O CO

>o > M <£ co < OO § > z o o OD < ^ G G O co O G S i/o cn CD G O n CO IT) O'. _ CO 'O OJD <*> G*^ ° —C o ^ ^ S' ^ o o G OD co cn o O h^C O n CG -H +1 DO O in g o - 5 o (N o G £ i : 8 . 1 1 CO G > £ g S ON g O i £ ^ £ o o o o O o O ^ 2 S_ - to Oh <0 < o & II > £ - s' Z9 S w < T3 ZO >— ,— OO G ^ ~ ^ o o o o o o -H c'l o \ G S ' S" O CN , _ „ DO O O C 03 "l_.22 (U r- o H CO G C O C h ^ C O ■C ° s ? | _ J . - H O C 2 ^ (TJ t o S c £ G: 0> C c "O C qG c (D G 5 ’ s C. S CL H—> 03 5 G (L> o tC (U L- C uu 2 ”0 c D- (L> G C C O O co 03 G S QJ _ C o (G0 ^ 0 CU 0 ^ CD

inimicus, Chlorotettix spatulatus , Commellus comma , Limotettix osborni, and

Scaphytopius cinereus, as being significantly associated with restored prairie (P < 0.05)

(Table 7). While not calculated to be indicator species, eight leafhopper taxa (11%)

were found only at native prairies while twenty-two others (31%) were observed only at

restored prairies (Table 4). Twelve taxa (17%) were found at all six sites whereas twenty

(28%) were collected at only one site.

In addition to some site-specificity, large differences in leafhopper abundance

were observed between native and restored sites for some species. For example,

Athysanus argentarius, an introduced European species, was abundant at all three native

sites (mean = 21.4 ± 28.62 individiuals/400 sweeps) but scarce at the restorations (mean

= 0.2 ± 0.55 individuals/400 sweeps) (Table 4, Fig. 6). In contrast, Commellus comma , a

prairie-endemic species, was abundant at the restorations (mean = 18.6 ± 3.81

individuals/400 sweeps) but no individuals were collected at the native sites (Fig. 7).

New state insect records were determined by searching for each species in A

Bibliography o f the Cicadoidea (Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha) (Metcalf 1962) and in

Volumes 93-136 of the Zoological Record (Zoological Society of London 1956-

1999/2000). Species not listed for Nebraska in these publications and considered to be new state records were - Amplicephalus kansiensis, Athysanus argentarius , Attenuipyga minor, Chlorotettix fallax , Cuerna sayi, Deltocephalus flavicostatus, Dikraneura angustata , Dikraneura mali , Extrusanus ovatus , Flexamia prairiana, Gyponana serpenta,

Hecalus major , Macrosteles wilburi , Memnonia flavida, Mocuellus caprillus , and

Neocoelidia tumidirons (Table 4). In addition, two female specimens were collected that 33

Table 7. Insect and plant taxa significantly (P < 0.05) associated with native or restored prairie based on Indicator Species Analysis. IVmax = indicator value; varies from 0 = not dependent to 100 = highly dependent. Statistical significance of species indicator values was based on the Monte Carlo test. P = proportion of randomized trials with IVmax equal to or exceeding the actual IVmax; low P values indicate significant dependence on a particular habitat type (P < 0.05). Indicator values for all species are in Appendix Table 7.

Species Habitat Type IVmax P

Leafhoppers Athysanus argentarius Native Prairie 99.0 0.005 Psammotettix lividellus Native Prairie 83.8 0.026 Amplicephalus inimicus Restored Prairie 80.3 0.005 Chlorotettix spatulatus Restored Prairie 82.3 0.031 Commellus comma Restored Prairie 100.0 0.005 Limotettix osborni Restored Prairie 100.0 0.005 Scaphytopius cinereus Restored Prairie 96.7 0.008

Planthoppers Acanalonia bivitatta Restored Prairie 83.3 0.020 Scolops sulcipes Restored Prairie 83.6 0.037

Treehoppers Campylenchia latipes Restored Prairie 100.0 0.003

Plants Agrostis stolonifera Native Prairie 100.0 0.004 Calamagrostis sp. Native Prairie 100.0 0.004 Car ex sp. Native Prairie 82.6 0.032 Eleocharis sp. Native Prairie 100.0 0.004 Equisteum sp. Native Prairie 100.0 0.002 Spartina pectinata Native Prairie 83.0 0.025 Desmanthes illinoensis Restored Prairie 80.9 0.017 Elymus canadensis Restored Prairie 83.3 0.004 34

Athysanus argentarius

5 0 V 3 £J | 4 0 ■X O ® 3 0 o | 20

= 10 0 ■ I Brooks Prairie Rowe Prairie Ruge Prairie Ruge 1993 Dahms 1994 Dahms 1995 (N) (N) (N) (R) (R) (R)

Bromus inermis

a > 20 1

£ 15

(J 10

0 0 1

Brooks Prairie Rowe Prairie Ruge Prairie Ruge 1993 Dahms 1994 Dahms 1995 (N) (N) (N) (R) (R) (R)

Fig. 6. Density ( n = 6) of the leafhopper Athysanus argentarius and canopy cover (n = 4) of one of its host plants, Bromus inermis, at native (N) and restored (R) sites for combined June and August data. combined June and August data. August and June combined plants, host its of one Fig. 7. Density Density 7. Fig.

Mean Canopy Cover (%) Mean Number / 400 Sweeps 20 0 3 0 4 50 20 10 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 -I 0 8 10 I ok Pare we rii Rue rii Rue 93 ams 94 ams 1995 s Dahm 1994 s Dahm 1993 uge R Prairie uge R Prairie e ow R Prairie rooks B ok Pare we rii Rg Pare g 19 Dams 94 h 1995 s ahm D 1994 s ahm D 1993 uge R Prairie Ruge Prairie e ow R Prairie rooks B (n = (n N) N) N) R ( (R) ) (R (R) ) (N ) (N ) (N N) N) N) R) R) (R) ) (R ) (R ) (N ) (N ) (N 0 0 6) of the leafhopper leafhopper the of 6)

Elymus canadensis, Elymus 0 O Elymus canadensis Elymus Commellus comma Commellus Commellus comma Commellus at native (N) and restored (R) sites for for sites (R) restored and (N) native at 0 0 ■ and canopy cover cover canopy and I _ 1 (n = 4) of of 4) =

35 36

fi§ili§gfc®88

Fig. 8. Dorsal and head views of Graphocephala sp nov. (a), and Graphocephala dolohrata (b). 37

either belong to a new species of Graphocephala or are a newly discovered color

variation of Graphocephala dolobrata (Fig. 8). Both specimens were collected in July,

one at Brooks Prairie and the other at Ruge 1993. Male specimens need to be collected to

determine if the specimens belong to a new species since leafhopper species are

identified primarily by male genitalia (personal communication, Dr. Andy Hamilton).

Planthopper Community

Community-level. - A total of 486 individual plarithoppers representing 15 different taxa were collected at the study sites including 2 prairie-endemic and 1 highly remnant-dependent species (Table 4, Appendix Table 3). A greater number of planthopper taxa were collected at restored prairie (12 taxa) than at native prairie (9 taxa).

/ Unlike leafhoppers, a greater proportion (17%) of individuals collected at restored sites were prairie endemics compared to only 11 % .at the native sites. Two species,

Delphacodes megadonta and Delphacodes parvula , were of particular interest. D. parvula is considered to be highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) and also is considered a prairie endemic because it has only been collected at native prairies

(personal communication, Dr. Stephen Wilson). In the present study, this species was found at all six sites although in low numbers. D. megadonta is also considered to be a prairie endemic because it has only been collected at native prairies (personal communication, Dr. Stephen Wilson) but was only observed at one restored site (Dahms

1994).

Planthoppers were not as clearly separated in ordination space as were 38

leafhoppers although, like leafhoppers, planthopper density appears more heterogeneous

among native than among restored sites (Fig. 9). One noticeable difference between

leafhopper and planthopper ordinations is the substantially different placement in

ordination space of transects of two of the three native prairie sites, Brooks and Ruge

Prairie.

With regards to species composition, Species Richness of planthoppers (mean S =

3.0 ± 0.37 taxa/400 sweeps) was higher at restored prairie than at native prairie (mean S

— 2.4 ± 0.34 taxa/400 sweeps) but unlike leafhoppers, the difference was not significant

(P = 0.2353; Two-Sample r-Test). Shannon diversity was significantly higher at combined restored sites (Hf = 0.796) than at native sites (H' = 0.659) (P = 0.0001).

Considering only remnant-dependent planthoppers, Species Richness was found to be the same at both restored prairie and native prairie (mean S = 0.5 ±0.12 taxa/400 sweeps).

For prairie endemics, however, Species Richness was higher at restored sites (mean S =

0.6 ± 0.12 taxa/400 sweeps) than at native sites (mean S = 0.5 ± 0.12 taxa/400 sweeps) although the difference was not significant (P = 0.7472, Two-Sample r-Test). In contrast,

Shannon diversity of prairie-endemics was significantly higher for restored prairie (H' =

0.253) than for native prairie (H'= 0) (P < 0.0001, Two-Sample r-Test).

Planthopper density as a whole (486 individuals collected) was substantially lower than leafhopper density (3,067 individuals collected). Like the leafhoppers, however, density was higher at native sites (14.3 ±3.61 individuals/400 sweeps) than at restorations (12.7 ±2.17 individuals/400 sweeps) although, unlike leafhoppers, this difference was not significant (P = 0.6948, Two-Sample r-Test). Among treatments, only 39

brkt 1 A

rugt2 A rowt2 rowtl AA

r93t2 A CN C/3 <

r93t1 a d95t1 brkt2 d94t 1 A A A A d95t2 A rugtl A d94t2 A Axis 1

Fig. 9. Detrended Correspondence Analysis ordination plot of planthopper density (number of individuals/400 sweeps) by transect for Brooks Prairie (brk), Rowe Sanctuary (row), Ruge Prairie (rug), Ruge 1993 Restoration (r93), Dahms 1994 Restoration (d94), and Dahms 1995 Restoration (d95). Open triangles are native prairie transects and shaded triangles are restored prairie transects: T1 = transect 1,T2 = transect 2. The Eigenvalue of Axis 1 is 0.7576; the Eigenvalue of Axis 2 is 0.3651. 40

Rowe Prairie (native) had a significantly higher planthopper density than the other sites

(31.3 ± 5.66 individuals/400 sweeps) (P = 0.0008) (Table 6).

Species-level. - Two of the fifteen planthopper taxa, Acanalonia bivitatta and

Scolops Sulcipes, were determined to be indicator species. Both were significantly

associated with restored prairie (P < 0.05, Indicator Species Analysis) (Table 7). While

not significantly associated with a particular habitat by Indicator Species Analysis, three

other taxa (20% of the total number of planthopper taxa collected) were collected only at the native prairies while six taxa (40%) were observed only at the restored prairies (Table

4). Three taxa were found at all six sites and seven taxa were collected at only one site.

Seven planthopper species were new state records - Acanolinia bivittata, Delphacodes megadonta, Delphacodes parvula , Pentagramma longistylata, Prokelisia crocea, Scolops perdix, and Scolops sulcipes (Table 4).

Treehopper Community

Community-level. — Eighty individual treehoppers, representing three taxa, were collected, of which none was determined to be prairie-endemic or highly remnant- dependant (personal communication, Dr. Chris Dietrich). Further, these species occurred primarily in restored sites (Table 4). The number of sites containing the species and the small number of individuals did not allow ordination analysis.

As with leafhoppers, Species Richness was significantly higher for treehoppers at restored prairie (mean S = 0.7 ± 0.18 taxa/400 sweeps) than at native prairie (mean S = 41

0.06 ± 0.056 taxa/400 sweeps) (P = 0.0027, Two-Sample /-test). Shannon diversity was also significantly higher at restored prairie ( H' = 0.290) than at native prairie ( H ' = 0) (P

< 0.0001; Two-Sample /-Test).

In contrast to leafhoppers and planthoppers, density for treehoppers was significantly higher in the restorations (4.2 ±1.71 individuals/400 sweeps) than the native prairies (0.2 ± 0.22 individuals/400 sweeps) (P = 0.0262, Two-Sample /-Test). Among treatments, however, density was significantly higher than other sites only at Dahms 1994

(restored) (10.3 ±4.17 individuals/400 sweeps) (P = 0.0007) (Table 6).

Species-level. One of the three taxa of treehoppers collected, Campylenchia latipes, was significantly associated with restored prairie (Table 7). Two taxa,

Camplyenchia latipes and Stictocephala bisonia, were found only at restorations and one,

Micrutalis spp., was collected at both native and restored prairies. Camplyenchia latipes , which does not require a woody host for oviposition, is often collected in prairies. It is not considered a true prairie insect because it is also abundant in old fields and forest edges (personal communication, Dr. Chris Dietrich). Stictocephala bisonia and

Micrutalis spp. require woody hosts for oviposition (personal communication, Dr. Chris

Dietrich) and have been recorded from a variety of host plants (Appendix Table 8).

Ant Community

Eleven ant taxa were collected at the study sites of which five were collected only at native prairie and one was collected only at restored prairie (Table 5, Appendix

Table 5). Ant density was not recorded so quantitative statistical analysis was not 42

conducted on this taxonomic group. There is presently no list of ant species for Nebraska

(personal communication, Dr. James Trager, Dr. Mike Kaspari, Dr. Marc Albrecht).

Plant Community

Community-level. — A total of 85 plant taxa were identified within plots along the transects at the study sites during the sampling period (Table 8, Appendix Table 6). Five

additional species, observed flowering along the transects but outside of the plots, were not included in analyses: Achillea millefolium (yarrow), Desmodium canadense (Canada tick clover), Erigeron philadelphicus (Philadelphia fleabane), Heliopsis helianthoides

(false sunflower), and Sphenopholis obtusata (wedgegrass). Native and restored prairie were separated in ordination space and restored prairie showed greater within-site heterogeneity (Fig. 10).

As with all three insect groups, Species Richness for plants was higher at restored prairies (mean S= 15.6 ± 1.57) than at native prairies (mean S = 14.3 ± 1.27) but not significantly so (P = 0.5420, Two-Sample /-test). Similarly, Shannon diversity was higher at restored sites (H f = 1.07) than at native sites ( H ' = 1.04) although this difference also was not significant (P = 0.5623; Two-Sample /-Test).

In addition to differences in total plant diversity, significant differences were noted in species richness of some plant guilds of native and restored prairie (Table 9).

For example, while not indicated so by multiple comparison analysis, the diversity of native C4 and exotic C3 grasses differed significantly among the sites (P = 0.0421 and

0.0105 respectively), being generally higher at native than at restored prairie. In addition, 43

Table 8. Plant species calculated to be indicator species or with >5% canopy cover for at least two of the three native sites or two of the three restorations, trace = canopy cover < 0.5%; * = indicator species based on Indicator Species Analysis. Data for all plant species may be found in Appendix Tables 6 and 9.

Canopy Cover

Native Restored

Taxa Mean Standard Mean Standard Error Error

Poa pratensis 15 4.5 0 0 Agrostis stolonifera* 12 3.2 0 0 Calamagrostis sp.* 12 3.3 0 0 Eleocharis sp.* 6 2.2 0 0

Equisetum sp.* trace - 0 0 Elymus canadensis* 0 0 30 5.3 Astragalus canadensis 0 0 8 4.3 Helianthus rigidus 0 0 4 1.9 Andropogon gerardii 50 6.6 48 6.3 Sorghastrum nutans 39 5.5 16 3.8 Panicum virgatum 33 6 ' 9 3.3

Spartina pectinata * 22 4.9 trace -

Desmanthus illinoensis* trace - 17 4.1 Bromus inermis 21 6.1 trace - Helianthus maximilianii 5 3.3 16 4.9

Car ex sp.* 11 2.7 trace - Solidago canadensis trace - 8 3.0 44

d95tl A

d95t2 rowtl a aA A brk£2 rowt2 A brktl r93tl < < d94tl rugtl A A rugt2 A d94t2

r93t2 A Axis 1

Figure 10. Detrended Correspondence Analysis ordination plot of plant mean canopy cover by transect for Brooks Prairie (brk), Rowe Sanctuary (row), Ruge Prairie (rug), Ruge 1993 Restoration (r93), Dahms 1994 Restoration (d94), and Dahms 1995 Restoration (d95). Open triangles are native prairie transects and shaded triangles are restored prairie transects (transect 1 = Tl, transect 2 = T2). The Eigenvalue of Axis 1 is 0.5848; the Eigenvalue of Axis 2 is 0.2398. Table 9. Plant diversity (. H' and S) by site and guild. Species Richness (S) is shown as a mean value ± S.E. (n = 4). Only those guilds with significant differences among sites include superscript letters. Different letters indicate statistically different values (P<0 .05, SNK). * = significant difference among sites. ANOVA P-values = results from single factor ANOVA tests among sites. cci £ O «■. < -g > a < z to >

NO NO ;z o NO ON ON 05 oo 00 3 - ON m 3" ON 3 o r— cn o Q O 3* c/5 c c o c > /5 i C/5 C/5 C/5 c < < < ^ < <

' o ' o m ' o NO ON CN _ 0 CN © 3^ ^-H CN m 1—5 o OO CN n i O o n p yo *"1 o y p H-H -H -H -H -H -H — ' < 3 3 OH < 3 ■S * 33 O — ON NO CN © o n i o O 0 n i n i in o CN o O m * m 0 n i © 3" n i O o -H H-H -H S) .> P 3 C/5 ° s H ' 11 p m o CN oo 00 00 r-i 0 CN I — OO CN 1—5 O ON n c oo en O e'­ o o o p—. n i 00 n i CN >n -H -H -H -H P j -a ON ° 3 M ■3" 00 m o 45 46

the diversity of sedges and rushes was significantly higher (P = 0.0003) at one native site

(Rowe Prairie) than at the other sites. Further, woody plants, absent from all native

prairie sites, were significantly higher at restored areas (P = 0.0003).

Species-level. - According to Indicator Species Analysis, six of the 85 plant taxa

(7%) were significantly associated with native prairie and two taxa (2%) significantly associated with restored prairie (Table 7). Of the taxa identified within plots, 26 (31%) were observed only at native prairie and 36 (42%) only at restorations (Appendix Table

5). Andropogon gerardii and Sorghastrum nutans, both warm-season (C4) grasses, dominated the canopy cover at both native and restored sites. These species are important host plants for several leafhopper species, especially generalists (Whitcomb et al. 1987b). Some host plants of insect specialists were also present at the study sites. For instance, both Solidago sp. and its leafhopper specialist Driotura gammaroides were more common at restorations than at native prairies while both Spartina pectinata and its planthopper specialist Prokelisia crocea were more common at native prairie sites than at restored sites.

DISCUSSION

Insect Communities of Native and Restored Prairie

Hq: Insect diversity will not differ between native and restored sites

Shannon diversity was significantly higher in restored than in native prairie for leafhoppers, planthoppers, and treehoppers. Overall, Species Richness and density also were significantly higher in restored than in native prairie, but only for leafhoppers and treehoppers. Planthoppers were more diverse in restored than native sites but not significantly so. These general results are in contrast to studies showing diversity of native prairie to be higher than restored sites, at least for butterflies (Debinski and Babbit

1997), flower-visiting insects including bees, wasps, flies, butterflies, moths (Reed

1995a, 1995b), and grasshoppers (Bomar 2001). These studies focused on comparing native and restored prairies but the basic explanation, and one supported by this study, is that the principal explanation is directly related to plant diversity. A successful, high- diversity restoration, for example, can support a more diverse insect community than can a poor quality native prairie, for example one at which poor management has caused the local extirpation of a suite of native host plants. Conversely, a poor quality restoration will support fewer insects than a high diversity prairie. While some studies on butterflies do not support this conclusion (e.g., Debinski and Babbit 1997), my study was consistent in supporting this relationship. The details of this relationship may be explained further by differences in host plant distribution and plant architecture rather than whether a site is, for example, restored or native.

Host Plant Distribution. — The distribution of leafhoppers, treehoppers, and planthoppers primarily depends on the presence of their host plants, which provide nutrition and shelter for eggs (Biedermann 2002). Several examples come from this study. For example, the largest population of Athysanus argentarius occurred at Brooks 48

Prairie, where the canopy cover of Bromus inermis (smooth brome) was higher than at any other site (Fig. 6). A. argentarius feeds on B. inermis (Hamilton 1983) and has been observed in large numbers in fields within which B. inermis is common (personal communication, Dr. John Haarstad). Bromus inermis, however, is an aggressive, rhizomatous but non-native grass that is common in many native prairies. In this instance, the diversity of insects of the native prairie was enhanced by the presence of a non-native grass further supporting the positive relationship between plant diversity and insect diversity. In another example, C. comma, which feeds on species of Agropyron and Elymus (wheatgrass and wild rye) (Whitcomb 1987b), was collected from sites with a high cover of Elymus candensis (Canada wild rye) (which happened to be restored sites;

Fig. 7), a native grass, thereby enhancing the diversity of the restorations. In yet another example, treehoppers were more dense at restorations where species richness of woody plants was highest. Treehoppers require woody and herbaceous plants as hosts for oviposition or feeding (Dietrich et al. 1999). These various relationships suggest that host plant specificity is one factor, if not an overriding factor, in explaining the distribution of insects. Thus, it seems-to be the presence of a host plant species, and not whether the site is restored or native, that may determine the presence of an insect species, at least those that are relatively mobile. The successful establishment of a high diversity seed mix in the restoration sites of this study, thus, is one likely explanation for the higher diversity of plants, and hence, leafhoppers, planthoppers, and treehoppers, identified in this study compared to native sites. 49

Plant Architecture. — Integrated within the presence of a diversity of plant species is a diversity of plant shapes and sizes - e.g. plant architecture. Plant architecture may also affect insect diversity. A structurally complex plant community, such as one containing abundant forbs, will provide a greater array of structures for feeding, resting, overwintering, and oviposition than will those with less structure, such as those in which grass species dominate (Lawton and Schroder 1977). In this study, higher insect diversity at restored areas, where forb species richness was high, and lower insect diversity at native prairies where forb species richness was low, is consistent with this concept.

Prairie-Endemic and Remnant-Dependent Insects of Native and Restored Prairie

Ho: The proportion o f prairie-endemic and highly remnant-dependent insect

species will not differ between native and restored sites.

Of the 20 prairie-endemic species of leafhoppers and planthoppers collected in this study, a higher proportion were found in native than in restored prairie, although the difference was less than expected. For example, of the 49 leafhopper species collected at native prairies, 27% (13) were prairie-endemic, compared to 19% (12 of 64) of leafhopper species collected at restored sites (Table 4). Only two prairie-endemic planthopper species were collected, one at each of the native and restored sites, thus results from this insect group are inconclusive.

While a higher number of “prairie-endemic” leafhopper and planthopper species 50

was found in native prairies, the occurrence of those species classified as “remnant- dependent” did not yield the same result. For example, of an estimated 68 species classified as highly remnant-dependent in the Chicago area (Panzer et al. 1995), fifteen were collected in this study. Of these, some were found in both native and restored sites but none were significantly associated with native prairies (Tables 4 and 7). In fact, in this study, Scaphytopius cinereus, a highly remnant-dependent leafhopper, was significantly associated with restorations, not native sites. These apparent inconsistencies may be logically explained as a consequence of the positive relationship between insects and their host plants, as discussed previously. Insect endemism or remnant-dependence is highly likely to be a function of whether or not management or restoration has resulted in the establishment or persistence of host plants rather than whether we classify a site as

“native” or “restored.” Additional explanations, however, have been proposed, including that levels of remnant-dependence may vary geographically or that they are affected by conditions of the surrounding landscape (Panzer et al. 1995). Panzer et al. (1995) proposed, for example, that there would be comparatively more remnant-dependent species in areas with pastures and hay meadows where conditions are more hospitable to insects (e.g. the present study area) than in an area surrounded by highly developed, paved landscapes (e.g. the Chicago area, where the remnant-dependent classification was developed).

Overall, the results from this study concluded that neither remnant-dependence nor prairie-endemism adequately separated native from restored sites, although each provided additional insight on insect populations. These classifications, then, may not be 51 reflecting the same environmental requirements of a species. The high-diversity mix of native forb seedings most likely accounts for the higher leafhopper and planthopper diversity at restored sites because of host-specificity, but different environmental conditions, perhaps associated with a relatively undisturbed substrate but more stable plant community composition, may account for the higher density and the presence of more prairie endemics of these insect groups on native prairies. Despite these inconsistencies, using remnant-dependence or prairie-endemism to rate prairie quality, whether native or restored, is a useful means of comparing sites. For example, the number of prairie-endemic species has been used to characterize the quality of prairies

(Hamilton 1995a). Based on this classification, all sites in this study, whether native or restored, were at least ranked as being in good quality. Specifically, Ruge Prairie (native) is of good quality ( 6-8 prairie-endemic leafhopper and caliscelid planthopper species),

Rowe Prairie (native) is of very good quality (9-11 prairie-endemic species) and the remaining, including all the restored sites, are of excellent quality (12-24 prairie-endemic species). These overall classifications are consistent with results shown with diversity being higher in restored than in native sites.

Plant Communities of Native and Restored Prairies

Ho: Plant diversity will not differ between native and restored sites.

As was found from insect data, plant Species Richness was higher at the restorations than at native sites, although, unlike leafhoppers and treehoppers, the 52

difference was not significant. Similarly, Shannon diversity was higher at restored than

at native sites, although, unlike leafhoppers and treehoppers, the difference was not

significant. These results are consistent with recent evaluations of central Nebraska wet

meadows in which 2-4 year old restorations planted with high diversity seed mixes (100-

200 species) had plant Species Richness similar to good quality native prairies (120-150 plant species) (Currier 1995, Pfeiffer 1998). The relationship between leafhopper and planthopper diversity and plant community diversity is not unexpected given that many

of these insects’ life histories are closely associated with individual plant species or plant

species groups.

Although the diversity of native and restored sites was similar, plant composition differed. For example, only 27% of the 85 plant species were found at both native and restored sites. Further, those species found in both sites were not necessarily in the proportion expected. For example, Desmanthes illinoensis (Illinois bundleflower) was scarce at the native prairie sites but in sufficient numbers at restorations to be considered an Indicator Species (Table 7). This result is consistent with observations by Whitney

(1997) who noted that many plant species that may have occurred in the historic prairie presently occur only in prairie remnants where they have been seeded. Long-term management, while retaining the physiognomy of the native prairie, may have eliminated some suite of species thereby reducing plant diversity at native sites. This loss may also account for some of the differences in insect diversity.

Haying and burning are among the types of management that may have affected plant species diversity at the native sites used in this study. Haying usually occurs in 53

mid- to late-summer but may occur more than once a year, particularly in more mesic

lowland prairies along the Platte River. In general, haying is believed to control woody plant invasion and maintain a high diversity of grassland species (Mooberry 1984,

Solecki and Toney 1986), although the impact can vary depending on the frequency and season of application (Bragg et al. 1999). In general, the greatest diversity of prairie grasses and forbs in tallgrass prairies appear to result from periodic haying in mid-July

(Launchbaugh and Owensby 1978, Solecki et al. 1986, Solecki and Toney 1986) and early August (Solecki and Toney 1986), with annual fall mowing reducing species diversity (Boettcher and Bragg 1989). Annual summer mowing decreases long-term productivity (Ehrenreich and Aikman 1963) and increases the number of aggressive and introduced species such as Poa pratensis and Bromus inermis (Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome) (Hayden and Aikman 1949, Launchbaugh and Owensby 1978, Boettcher and Bragg 1989, Gibson et al. 1993). Given that all native prairie sites used in this study have a varied history of mowing, a loss of species, reflected in reduced diversity, is not unexpected.

With respect to burning, fire suppression efforts, along with barriers to free fire movement, such as roads, agricultural fields, and urban areas, have eliminated fire as a natural component of native prairies in the region of the study sites. This, in turn, has the potential to affect species diversity. For example, Leach and Givnish (1996) proposed that fire suppression is the major reason that 8-60% of the original plant species, mostly short-statured, nitrogen-fixing, and small-seeded species, were lost or have declined from

Wisconsin prairie remnants over a 32- to 52-year period. Thus the lower species 54

richness and lower proportion of canopy cover for forbs and legumes at native prairies in the present study may be due, at least in part, to fire suppression since European settlement of the region.

In addition to fire and haying, differences in diversity between and among native and restored prairie plant communities may be explained by a variety of other factors including the long-term effects of grazing, drought, and fragmentation. Fragmentation, for example, makes remnants vulnerable to edge effects, such as invasion by exotic species, that may result in local extinctions (Saunders et al. 1991). Differences between native and restored prairie also results from differences in seed mixes used in the restoration, differences in the seed bank and seed rain, and differences in site hydrology.

In addition, there may be some effect of the age of restoration (Schramm 1990, Kindscher and Tieszen 1998). In the present study, for example, restored sites are in an early-mid successional stage so that some species may not appear for several years (Betz 1986,

Schramm 1990). Finally, higher diversity in restored sites may be attributable to some combination of the long-term effects of fire suppression, haying, grazing, drought, and fragmentation, which may have reduced the plant diversity of the native prairies. These results are consistent with other studies that have found higher plant diversity in young restorations planted with high-diversity seed mixes than in native prairies from which plant species have been lost or have declined (Currier 1995, Pfeiffer 1998).

CONCLUSION

Overall, this study suggests that, at least in central Nebraska wet-mesic tallgrass 55 prairie, leafhopper, planthopper, and treehopper diversity is higher at recently restored areas, where plant diversity is also higher, than at native remnants. This unexpected difference between restored and native prairies may be explained by some combination of a high-diversity seed mix used in the prairie restorations and long-term management or fragmentation that may have reduced plant diversity in native prairies. That insect diversity paralleled plant diversity, however, emphasizes both the relationship between the two and the importance of managing prairies to maximize plant diversity.

Because the insects in this study are all sap-feeding members of the Order

Homoptera, future studies should focus on other indicator insect groups (e.g. butterflies, grasshoppers, and katydids) if the objective is to determine whether restorations are successful at maintaining the diversity of insects that fill other niches. Furthermore, long-term monitoring of the insect and plant communities would provide valuable information on the responses of insects to various management strategies, to successional changes in the plant community, and to different climatic conditions that may occur across time. Monitoring of isolated prairies eventually will also assess the effects of fragmentation on insect and plant diversity in both restored and native prairies.

Similarly, long-term monitoring will assess the degree to which certain management may minimize fragmentation effects and maintain high levels of diversity. Importantly, the difficulty and expense involved in restoring tallgrass prairie should make preservation and maintenance of high diversity at prairie remnants, particularly large sites, a high priority for conservationists. 56

LITERATURE CITED

Ahlering, M., D. L. Ratajezak, and T. Burk 1999. Butterflies of an eastern Nebraska prairie remnant (Bauermeister Prairie) and a restored prairie (Allwine Prairie). P. 38 In: Proceedings o f the 119th Annual Meeting o f the Nebraska Academy of Sciences. April 1999. Lincoln, Nebraska.

Arenz, C. L., and A. Joem. 1996. Prairie legacies - invertebrates. P. 91-109 In: F.B. Samson and F.L. Knopf, (eds.). Prairie conservation: preserving North America’s most endangered ecosystem. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Asteraki, E. J., Hanks, C. B., and R. O. Clements. 1995. The influence of different types of grassland field margin on carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) communities. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 54(3): 195-202.

Betz, R. F. 1986. One decade of research in prairie restoration at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), Batavia, Illinois. P. 179-185 In: G.K. Clambey and R.H. Pemble, (eds.). The prairie - past, present, and future: Proceedings of the Ninth North American Prairie Conference. Tricollege University Center For Environmental Study, Fargo, ND.

Biedermann, R. 2002. Leafhoppers (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha) in fragmented habitats. Denisia 4: 523-530.

Blocker, H. D., and R. Reed. 1976. Leafhopper populations of a tallgrass prairie (Homoptera: Cicadellidae): collecting procedures and population estimates. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 49: 145-154.

Boettcher, J. F. and T. B. Bragg. 1989. Tallgrass prairie remnants of eastern Nebraska. P. 1-7 In: T. Bragg and J. Stubbendieck (Eds.). Proceedings o f the Eleventh North American Prairie Conference. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Bomar, C. R. 2001. Comparison of grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acrididae) communities on remnant and reconstructed prairies in western Wisconsin. Journal o f Orthoptera Research 10(1): 105-112.

Bragg, T. B., J. Stubbendieck, and C. Butterfield. 1999. Effects of seasonal fire and mowing on an ungrazed, restored tallgrass prairie. P. 219-220 In: D. Eldridge and D. Freudenberger (Eds.) People and Rangelands: Building the Future. Proceedings IV International Rangeland Congress, Townsville, July 19-23. International Rangeland Congress, Inc., Townsville, Australia. 57

Brand, R. H., and C. P. Dunn. 1998. Diversity and abundance of springtails (Insecta: Collembola) in native and restored tallgrass prairies. The American Midland Naturalist 139: 235-242.

Brown, K. S., Jr. 1991. Conservation of neotropical environments: insects as indicators. P. 349-404 In: N.M. Collin 3 and J.A. Thoma 3, (cd3.). The conservation o f insects and their habitats . Fifteenth symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London. Academic Press, London.

Brown, V. K., C. W. D. Gibson, and J. Kathirithamby. 1992. Community organization in leafhoppers. Oikos 65:91-\06.

Buller, L. L., R. S. Pollock, R. A. Boccheciamp, C.L. Hammond, H. Hill, and J.A. Elder. 1974. Soil survey o f Buffalo County, Nebraska . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and University of Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 86 pp.

Corbett, E. A., R. C. Anderson, and C. S. Rodgers. 1996. Prairie revegetation of a strip mine in Illinois: fifteen years after establishment. Restoration Ecology 4(4): 346- 354.

Currier, P. J. 1995. Restoration of functioning wet meadows on the Platte River - experimentation with reseeding, constructed wetlands, and hydrology. P. 179- 200 In: Proceedings o f the Platte River Basin Ecosystem System Symposium. February 28 and March 1, 1995, Kearney, NE. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension, Lincoln, NE.

Cwikla, P. D., and H. D. Blocker. 1981. An annotated list of the leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) from tallgrass prairies of Kansas and Oklahoma. Transactions o f the Kansas Academy of Science 84(2): 89-97.

Daubenmire, R. F. 1959. Canopy cover method of vegetation analysis. Northwestern Scientist 33: 43-64.

Debinski, D. M., and A. M. Babbit. 1997. Butterfly species in native prairie and restored prairie. The Prairie Naturalist 29(4): 219-227.

Dietrich, C. H., M. J. Rothschild, and L. L. Deitz. 1999. Checklist and host plants of the Treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae) of North Carolina. Proceedings o f the Entomological Society o f Washington 101(2): 242-262.

Dufrene, M., and P. Legendre. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67: 345-366. 58

Ehrenreich, J. H. and J. M. Aikman. 1963. An ecological study of the effect of certain management practices on native prairie in Iowa. Ecological Monographs 33(2): 113-130.

Evans, E. W. 1988. Grasshopper (Insecta: Orthoptera: Acrididae) assemblages of tallgrass prairie: influences of fire frequency, topography, and vegetation. Canadian Journal o f Zoology 66: 1495-1501.

Evans, E. W., R. A. Rogers, and D. J. Opfermann. 1983. Sampling grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) on burned and unbumed tallgrass prairie: night trapping vs. sweeping. Environmental Entomology 12: 1449-1554.

Foster, J., and W. D. Kettle. 1999. Distribution of a mound-building ant on native and restored prairies in northeastern Kansas. Prairie Naturalist 31(1): 21-31.

Gibson, D. J., T. R. Seastedt, and J. M. Briggs. 1993. Management practices in tallgrass prairie: large- and small-scale experimental effects on species composition. Journal o f Applied Ecology 30: 247-255.

Gordon, C. C., L. D. Flake, and K. F. Higgins. 1990. Aquatic invertebrates in the Rainwater Basin area of Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 22(3): 191-200.

Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora o f the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence. 1392 pp.

Hamilton, K. G. A. 1995a. Evaluation of leafhoppers and their relatives (Insecta: Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha) as indicators of prairie preserve quality. P. 211-226 In: D.C. Hartnett (ed.). Proceedings o f the Fourteenth North American Prairie Conference: Prairie Biodiversity. Kansas State University. Manhattan, Kansas.

Hamilton, K. G. A. 1995b. New species and diagnostic characters from the nearctic leafhopper genera Commellus and Extrusanus (Rhynchota: Homoptera: Cicadellidae. The Canadian Entomologist 127: 93-102.

Hamilton, K. G. A. 1983. Introduced and native leafhoppers common to the old and new Worlds (Rhynchota: Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Canadian Entomologist 115:473-511.

Hayden, A. and J. M. Aikman. 1949. Considerations involved in the management of prairie reserves. Iowa Academy of Science 56: 133-142. 59

Henderson, R. A., R. A. Bautz, E. D. Maurer, and S.B. Sauer. 2002. The prairie invertebrate biodiversity inventory, [poster] P. 31 In: 18th North American Prairie Conference meeting program, June 23-27, 2002. Truman State University, Kirksville, MO.

Hicks, A. L., and R. F. Whitcomb. 1993. The genus Laevicephalus (Homoptera: Cicadellidae): Hosts, biogeography, and three new species. Proceedings o f the Entomological Society o f Washington 95(3): 481-487.

Hill, M. O., and H. G. Gauch. 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42: 47-58.

Holder, M. D., and S. W. Wilson. 1992. Life history and descriptions of the immature stages of the planthopper Prokelisia crocea (Van Duzee) (Homoptera: Delphacidae). Journal o f the New York Entomological Society 100: 491-497.

Huebschman, J. J. and T. B. Bragg. 2000. Response of a Regal Fritillary ( Speyeria idalia Drury) to spring burning in an eastern Nebraska tallgrass prairie, USA. Natural Areas Journal 20(4): 386-388.

Jastrow, J. D. 1987. Changes in soil aggregation associated with tallgrass prairie restoration. American Journal o f Botany 74(11): 1656-1664.

Jonas, J. L. 2000. Effects of land management on terrestrial invertebrates in a central Kansas grassland. M.S. Thesis. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.

Kemp, W. P., Harvey, S. J., and K. M. O’Neill. 1990. Patterns of vegetation and grasshopper community composition. Oecologia 83(3): 299-308.

Keuls, M. 1952. The use of the “studentized range” in connection with an analysis of variance. Euphytica 1:112-122.

Kindscher, K., and L. L. Tieszen. 1998. Floristic and soil organic matter changes after five and thirty-five years of native tallgrass prairie restoration. Restoration Ecology 6(2): 181-196.

Klopatek, J. M., R. J. Olson, C. J. Emerson, and J. L. Jones. 1979. Land-use conflicts with natural vegetation in the U.S. Environmental Conservation 6: 191-199.

Kopp, D.D., and T.R. Yonke. 1970. Treehoppers (Homoptera: Membracidae) of Tucker Prairie. Transactions of the Missouri Academy o f Science 4: 72-75. 60

Kramer, J. P. 1973. Revision of the American planthoppers of the genus Stobaera (Homoptera: Delphacidae) with new distributional data and host plant records. Proceedings o f the Entomological Society of Washington 75: 379-402.

Krapu? G. L. 1987. Use of staging areas by sandhill cranes in the midcontinent region of North America. P. 451-462 In: G.W. Archibald and R.F. Pasquier, (eds.) Proceedings o f the 1983 International Crane Workshop. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin.

Kiichler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. Manual to accompany the map. American Geographical Society Special Publication 36 (With map, rev. ed., 1965, 1966).

LaGrange, T. 1997. Guide to Nebraska’s wetlands and their conservation needs. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Lincoln, Nebraska. 34 p.

Launchbaugh, J. L. and C. E. Owensby. 1978. Kansas rangelands: their management based on a half century o f research . Kansas Agriculture Experiment Station 622. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.

Lawton, J. H., and D. Schroder. 1977. Effects of plant type, size of geographical range and taxonomic isolation on the number of insect species associated with British plants. Nature 265: 137-140.

Leach, M. K., and T. J. Givnish. 1996. Ecological determinants of species loss in prairie remnants. Science 273: 1555-1558.

McCune, B., and M. J. Mefford. 1999. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 4.17. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.

Metcalf, Z. P. 1962. A bibliography of the Cicadoidea (Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha). Paper Number 1373. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Miller, J. C. 1993. Insect natural history, multi-species interactions, and biodiversity in ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 33-41.

Mooberry, F. M. 1984. Meadow reponse to April, June, July mowing (Pennsylvania). Restoration and Management Notes 2: 27-28. 61

Morris, M. G., N. M. Collins, R. I. Vane-Wright, and J. Waage. 1991. The utilization and values of non-domesticated insects. P. 319-349 In: N.M. Collins and J.A. Thomas, (eds.). The conservation of insects and their habitats. Fifteenth symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London. Academic Press. London.

Noss, R. F., E. T. LaRoe III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems o f the United States: a preliminary assessment o f loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C. 58 p.

Ostlie, W. R., R. E. Schneider, J. M. Aldrich, T. M. Faust, R. L. B. McKim, and S. J. Chaplin. 1997. The status o f biodiversity in the Great Plains. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 326 pp.

Owenby, J. R., and D. S. Ezell. 1992. Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree Days, 1961-1990, Nebraska. Climatography o f the United States. Number 81. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration; National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service; National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N.C.

Panzer, R. 2002. Compatibility of prescribed burning with the conservation of insects in small, isolated prairie reserves. Conservation Biology 16(5): 1296-1307.

Panzer, R. 2000. Survey methods and rarity coefficients for 384 remnant-dependent (conservative) prairie and savanna insects in the Chicago region. Chicago Academy of Sciences web site, Chicago, IL www.chias.org/biology/insect 2000.pdf

Panzer, R., and M.W. Schwartz. 1998. Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservation. Conservation Biology. 12(3): 693-702.

Panzer, R., D. Stillwaugh, R. Gnaedinger, and G. Derkovitz. 1995. Prevalence of remnant-dependence among the prairie- and savanna-inhabiting insects of the Chicago region. Natural Areas Journal 15(2): 101-116. * Pfeiffer, K. 1998. Evaluation of wet meadow restorations in the Platte River Valley. In: Proceedings o f the North American Prairie Conference 16: 202-206.

Quinn, M. A., Kepner, R. L., Walgenbach, D. D., Bohls, R. A., Pooler, P. D., Foster, R. N., Reuter, K. C., and J. L. Swain. 1991. Canadian Entomologist 123(1): 89- 105. 62

Ratcliffe, B. C. 1981. A preliminary inventory of the insects of Mormon Island Refuge. The Platte River Whooping Crane Trust, Wood River, NE.

Reed, C. C. 1995a. Species richness of insects on prairie flowers in southeastern Minnesota. P. 103-115 In: D.C. Hartnett (ed.). Proceedings o f the Fourteenth North American Prairie Conference: Prairie Biodiversity. Kansas State University. Manhattan, Kansas.

Reed, C. C. 1995b. Insects surveyed on flowers in native and reconstructed prairies (Minnesota). Restoration and Management Notes 13(2): 210-213.

Reichman, O. J. 1987. Konza prairie: a tallgrass natural history. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. 226 p.

Risser, P. G. 1988. Diversity in and among grasslands. P. 176-180 In: E.O. Wilson, (ed.). Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Samson, F. B., and F. L. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. Bioscience 44(6): 418-421.

SAS Institute, Inc. 1999. SAS System for Windows Version 8 . Cary, North Carolina.

Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J. and Margules, C. R. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 51: 18-32.

Schramm, P. 1990. Prairie restoration: a twenty-five year perspective on establishment and management. P. 169-177 In: D.D. Smith and C.A. Jacobs, (eds.). Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conference. University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa.

Sesler, E. J., and P. Schramm. 1990. Comparative species diversity and distribution of n butterflies in remnant and restored tallgrass prairie sites. P. 63-65 In: D.D. Smith and C.A. Jacobs, (eds.). Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conference. University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa.

Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379-423, 623-656.

Solecki, M. K., J. B. Taft, L. A. Cook, and P. S. Haverland. 1986. Vegetational composition of three Missouri tallgrass prairies with reference to past management. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 63

Solecki, M. K. and T. Toney. 1986. Characteristics and management of Missouri’s public prairies. P. 168-171 In: G.K. Clambey and R.H. Pemble (eds.). Proceedings of the Ninth North American Prairie Conference. Tri-College University Center for Environmental Studies, Fargo, North Dakota.

Steinauer, G., and S. Rolfsmeier. 2000. Terrestrial natural communities of Nebraska. Nebraska Natural Heritage Program and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Lincoln, Nebraska. 143 p.

Strong, D. R., J. H. Lawton, and R. Southwood. 1984. Insects on plants: community patterns and mechanisms. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Swengel, A. B. 1996. Effects of fire and hay management on abundance of prairie butterflies. Biological Conservation 16: 73-85.

Transeau, E. N. 1935. The prairie peninsula. Ecology 16: 423-437

Whitcomb, R. F., A. L. Hicks, D. E. Lynn, K. Allred, and H. D. Blocker. 1987a. Geographic variation in host relationships of leafhoppers (Homoperea: Cicadellidae) in North American grasslands. P. 293-325 In: M.R. Wilson and L.R. Nault, (eds.). Proceedings o f 2nd International Workshop o f Leafhoppers and Planthoppers o f Economic Importance. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Whitcomb, R. F., J. Kramer, M. E. Coan, and A. L. Hicks. 1987b. Ecology and evolution of leafhopper-grass host relationships in North American grasslands. P. 121-178 In: K.F. Harris (ed.). Current Topics in Vector Research 4. Springer- Verlag, New York, New York.

Whitney, W. S. 1998. Prairie and wetland restoration along the central Platte River, 1991-1998. P. 207-215 In: J.T. Springer (ed.). Proceedings of the Sixteenth North American Prairie Conference. University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney, Nebraska.

Whitney, W. S. 1997. Platte River Country Restoration: Part II. At work on the plains. Restoration and Management Notes 15(2): 126-137.

Wilson, S. W., C. Mitter, R. F. Denno, and M. R. Wilson. 1994. Evolutionary patterns of host plant use by delphacid planthoppers and their relatives. P. 7-113 In: R.F. Denno and T.J. Perfect (eds.). Planthoppers: Their Ecology and Management. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York. 64

Wilson, S. W., J. L. Smith, and P. D. Calvert. 1993. Planthoppers of a Missouri tallgrass prairie (Homoptera: Fulgoroidea). Journal o f the Kansas Entomological Society 66(1): 75-80.

Wilson, S. W., and A. J. Wheeler, Jr. 1986. Pentagramma Inngistylata (Homoptera: Delphacidae): Descriptions of immature stages. Journal o f the New York Entomological Society 94: 126-133.

Wilson, S. W., and J. E. McPherson. 1981. A list of the host plants of the Illinois Acanaloniidae and Flatidae (Homoptera: Fulgoroidea). Transactions o f the Illinois State Academy o f Science 73(4): 21-29.

Yost, D. A., H. E. Paden, F. Matanzo, F. L. Bean, H. L. Hill, and R. S. Pollock. 1962. Soil survey of Hall County, Nebraska. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and University of Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 141 p.

Zar, J. H. 1999. Bio statistical Analysis. 4th edition. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 662 p.

Zar, J. H. 1984. Bio statistical Analysis. 2nd edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 718 p.

Zoological Record. 1956-1999/2000. Section 13, Insecta. Zoological Society of London, London, England. 65

APPENDIX Appendix Table 1. Contact information for insect specialists. P T *d O £ w P o CD 03 a cd CD c/3 C/3 a 03

oo oo W d _< *G *d 3 7 ffi c/3 a o '3 -d £ £ CN '=3''=3' o- oo -d "0 Q CN Q H 3 % d S-i >

*d '3 i 3 — 03 a t f op a oo 1 CD £3 NO en ON m d3 e'­ CO cn —3 i— -4—> 03 0 0 CD 03 d q 03 CD o t f t f

• s-i d op

oo o cn ' S NO £—• P 00 P^ rH cn cr> rH t cr> CN Q 73 * - 4 - ed C/3 CD C/3 03 C/3 CD CD CD CD V 03 OA CD 03 £ d CD OA V a O o o ) W 5 > V CD V 3" 03 V h i h h h h h w m X d w h ON o O NO cn o m 03 V a a h g s •g "d n a : D 00 o 2 § ^ d5 ”o Q & — > - 4 - 4 * -4— t ^ ti o O C/3 V C/3 d O & V d CD Pin d 03 h h h ^ 3 C ^ J2 R^O O 00 ‘ NO ON m o § S C/3 d OD S-( nd 'O ra 73 ^d 'O 'O P4 o3 CD o cn

.2 .2 cn ON N O ON lO P* a

,5 _(D 2 H H H H oo H o c o cn a, h £ O S h 3 3 £ < H 3 cn C 2 3 8 S322 - I .© CN CN oo o & -C £ O cn s h T3 < CN (N O .fa O cn h c fa! ^ oo 3 tn 03 3 < S3 CN CN CN CN cn cn cn fa £ O cn S 67 h Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 £ -i—> 3 on S-i 22 J * £ c* a Jr. & Pi a . g 3 00 3 o C/3 £3 O -a ^

.*3 Os cn V O 'sf 2 u a

H H H H H H C/D

^ c _ O O T3 rC . O

-s; •2 <3 O " < § a s: 28 3 T vo vn v O 'sf CN vo CN < ^ 2 on B < - 2 £ < 3 3 £ CN ov r-> CN - I S 8 6

Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl ) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______* -a £ —> H— 03 > c o 0 n ) * S g iS 0 | a £ ON -2 -2 CQ M O ON ON O O n c n n 1

3 00 H H H H H

H (N GO < -t-» PS e P

X* < £2 p £ n NO (N CO E h

cq

August Adults

Nymphs 69 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl ) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 £ & 3

.g .2 a s O m s O s O s O h s

*o H 00 H H H H tzi O o ^ S) r g < z O a /1 h S 3

August Adults Nymphs 70 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______-o £ •+-» c3 >

H H H H H • C/3 O V eu

< & - Z < ^ 3 -0 3 3 S 3 3 O O C/3 -C C/3

U S s ■S 3

August Adults

Nymphs 71 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______04 Z T3 3 >

H H H CN oo CN H CN

8 o s < z O 1^

T3 3a -£2 ’n, - T >-» T3 - 3a < i. H “ ■ Z CN on

August Adults Nymphs 72 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______£ -a 73 -t— > > m O 5 00 cs 5 ^ o C/3 £ N" O -a n-1 — cc3 3 n n H H H H H CN £■—H H ‘o H CZ3 r-H H CN CN O -■? S>3 2 H, O G ►5; c/3 *2 g< ■* a -a 3 '■n CN z < 'O 3 C/3 h < s §• is - §o a as CN so 73 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______TO 04 z 3 -»—>

-3 - E - E E-H - E E- - E CN 3 - E CN i _ - E CN p C +-» /1 o c -» TO < 2 o. Z m B < f3 ^ ^ 3 If m 3 m O §% T3 O SO SO OS O S OO m m CM m ■3- Q > N -» z C /2

August Adults cn OS Nymphs 74 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 £ 3 -t-H O >

E- E- CN E- CN E- H E- E- CN E- E- E- CN CN CX2 CN E- s— 2 §>3 £ o ■J 2 "Eh C/5 3 O C/5 o V. s: cs 05 o < Z < 9 a £ 3 CO 43 CO O

h £ T 3 CN < £2 3 £ V > fL (75

August Adults Nymphs 75 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et ai 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______£ *T3 3

"o .22 H (N H H H GO H (N (N (N H H (N H (N C/3 cu Q on a 03 O ( § % < £ 3 2 a. n c <>3 z c § s T ^ T3U & ^ £ Q 0 % S a,

August Adults Nymphs 76 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. Comm., Andy Hamilton) arid highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 e> £ -i— >

H H H GO O G h co cn cn < < 3 3 < o S 3 § CO 3 , 3 3 3 3 3 CJ ■ o < Z < § jy o Cli 03 55 >1 (U R 55 s' 55 S g 3 CN un _ >» 3 H 3 B CO

August Adults

Nymphs 77 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______P4 T3 CD cn

H 00 ’o H H H CN H CN ^H H CN H H H (U cn CD O h Q cj s cn G <3 o h 3 is* CN Os cn C G, _ S 3 2 cn cn ^ J '• U T (U <3 <3 ^ ^ ^ G y o &Q

e £ 3 M C CN H 3 GO 1 O o § 3 >~>

un cn < - P +-* 2 S3 S vo VO n c CN 5 H -52 h rG CN cn 78 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl ) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______• T3 Z & ■4—> > .a — .*5 S O s a -■vl- S O ir-i

H H • H H CN CN H H H CN H CN E- H H CN C/D CN CD O CD C/3 O h h ° A < 2 < g 2 a a .S3Q » o o » Q- R S 3 £ ^ n c S 3 4 5-^4■4— * n c 8 - s a co CN n c < 3 s S3 3 ££ 3 1 n c 3 Q •2 •4—. O § § X TJ u a Q cn s Q > Z < co CCS a 3 S a CO on O h Z C 3 -3 a. 3 a n c

August Adults

Nymphs 79 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______e> T3 £ 04 3 4 > ■4—

2 .ja J2 Q cs o .fcs ^ o o

cn Si a\

.H 'o .sa 00 H H H H 04 H 04 H H H 04 04 H 04 CD C/3 cu C/3 dj ■ O Q <3 O < Z < § s S 3 S - 3 h •§, a C/3 < ^ ^ S 3 a >-»-a H a £ C/3 C 6 3 1 ^ c “ H 2 2 C/3 rS a ‘Cl *3 C/3 o O O h -C! 2 I. a. oo 04 p £ CS C/3 S a.

August Adults 04 Nymphs 80 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______£ T3 CO

'o H H CN CN CN H CN C/3 CN H CN 2 CO M-i +-> , CO £ S -c ’S QkQ '£ •5 o a < £ < § sc a D .ti S 3 P H £ h CO •§*< •§*< - 3 CN £ 2 Sn B , a ;

August Adults Nymphs 81 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______P4 3 T3 3 ■+-> PL. CO ON ON o> * o o> -cj 'a H H CN oo H H H H H CN H CN —> H— a> 00 o 3 03 S-H J o 3 oo £ fX 00

3 o\ S 3 m I/O CN 'cjr < J U -J— » oo 3 £ 00 h S 3 1 O / I CO CO O / I uo co 00 < £ < g <>3 « 03 & 03 2S K 2S O ss £ 3 CO CN 2 H -2 00 T3 C < s l > 3 a >~»03 3 £ C H 2

August Adults

Nymphs 82 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______"0 04 £ 3 2 3 ^ 3 Q pci ^ Q * & * C/3 OX) ON 3 * ON S in c3 a ON 5 N* C3 C/3 O a> 2 CxO .*ri C/3 s-l o o a £ on m ^ CD a

H 3 H CN H CN H H CN H H — _ 00 H 3 _ CD & CD C/3 , to Q to o a a to a a a CN 3 2 'Sh C/5 5: < ^ < g C3 C/3 3 S *3 10 H M ^ w 3 C/5 £ e a C/5

August Adults (N (N Nymphs 83 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 cz; £ —> H— CD C/3 o S-i CD 03 > CD : 2 3 n Pi PQ £ * £ * Q f 5 r P cn P£> 03 C3 O e3 P 03 5 P cn 3 2 c3 O 3 - S-H S-H

H CN H H -a H CN H CZ5 • H H T—1 H CN —> H— o O CD O CD cn p h s s g g ■g §« ■ 5 Q c« Q ^ a £ < HD >» g ~ H. -2 C/3 !S "O Ph cd 3 2 £ 9- C/3

k. .3 -2 a <3 £T‘ q < ;z; < c 3 T CD

O - T3 o 3 S 3 co CN - P 4-^ cn o 03 cn 3 a

C/3 h 3 T3 < cn -a £ S O h

August Adults

Nymphs 84 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______x? Pd £ _> —> s— 3 o CD CD OO £

M — d o Q § • PQ * ^ Q £ * rs c 5 - cn c $-> \ a* 5 o C/3 CD CD .2d o o ^ C3 C/3 - 5-1 5-1 O C3 o .tS ^

cc3 > T3 £ 3 O £ < * » t f -*-» 00 '5 n OO

< 3 £ 3 § £ 5 | CN n c 00 -5 C/3 S £ < * % > < § o ’■ D C 3 03 <3 GO

August Adults

Nymphs 85 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 cd £ h 3 O cn S-i > — — d c Cd £ Q P CQ ^ Q ^ Q £ * fH-) D < cd O v o p o cd cd B Cd O >

^ OV

cn B

< = - f •= ~ ov ov m oo n i m cn £ •I? © R =n © R 5 x> o S-H CD Jp cn s O h 3 TO < p ■Jp £ a P h

August Adults

Nymphs 86 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______C4 T3 £ 3

.£3 .2 Os OS Os Os 0>

H H H H H CN CN H (N CN (N CN -s: ,3 -s: o o CJ e- C/3 o > § O QT 5 h . h 3 ' O & a C/3 B £ 3 Z < C/1 Q-l » 3 C/1 < £ < l C/3 3 >> T3 £ 3 C/3 O C/3

h -Q J3 1 $ -s: -s: 3 O ^ o ss. < Z & < "OO o CJ <5T Q PS cc3 £ 3 s ^ C/3

T3 CN £ < O 43 O C/3 h C £ < l C/3 so £ 3 3 T C/3 oo -O CN C/1 O 87 h Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______PM rt3 £ "cO h ■ > — - h

Q 'S ON S _ £ * PQ A & cw ON p o o o (D .« 00 .*=j .2 o ON A & - s-h cO s-h o .b o •§ £ cOP ^ Si C\ ON .g uo CO h

H H H CN H H 3 .3 §>3 m p 2 £ < & ii s p O A - CO CO Q & £ < I § § 1 QJ &• 5? CO 53 <>> S3 £ ■ 3 o h & a O < Q d CO TO p £ -O CO cw

August Adults

Nymphs 88 Appendix Taole 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______m> T3 & £ 3 C/3 CD CD ^ 3 Ov _§ (X cu ^ Q cB — 2 s f Q O O C5j O OX) .*3 £ o 2 2 . CD m cu C/3 ^ cd vn O C/3 C/3 B ov 5 f r O £ v O v O P cd CD h 3 OJ H 04 H H H i—i H 04 H H 00 C/3 O CD h ' >-»D 'O 5S C/3 O ss 03 O h £ 3 04 co o. a C/3 ^ S TD 3 ill 04 4 0 / 3 C/3 C/3 o X) cu "O C/3 o «3 oa Cj 3 < § O V o .rS z a O h 3 4 0 ov T3 m < o .rS B O h

August Adults (N VO Nymphs 89 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 • 3 Pi •*-> 3 >

m -S .Si ON r?. ) 2 ^ 3

• H H H H C/0 H H 3 < 3 < § u a 03 £ j qq a 5S c «>3 52 (3 35 o D - , T3 < C/3 o cd p a 3 . ^ a C/3 CL. ■a 0-

August Adults

Nymphs 90 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 £ P4 C/3 ON cn 2 .a o o * ONP t 5-i -t * o >o £ -a ON .2 on P

C/3 H H H H H H O D < 173 O D < h s cd -s* & ^ 1 ■=■.1 -*«* < §

£ S O C/3 h 5 2P‘5 3 T <£ K C ■a 3 T +-> ca S i S 3 o >> no m < & 3 Z 173 < - 3 S a S3 , s N < N < VO N < N ( ON & 173 -C o 3 03 3 0 & < a £ a O 173 h

August oo N < Adults co

Nymphs 91 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl ) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______ GO O 3 GO d 3 £ < GO £ < l GO t3 d 3 (N GO J3 O

h -o pp C3 U ( O Co o St < z < § d 3 £ o n ^ CO N© JO £ S O CO h

August Adults

Nymphs 92 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______& T3 £ od

H GO >3 Q 3 S 3 CN s / CN o o c CN wo CN ° r wo O £ GO h 3 Jo £ T3 3 o r o r Z < O 3 CO h < +-> ,±3 & S3 3 3 <>3 £ < g < 1 T Jo T3 > S 3 O 3 O CO !-i CO h -a Z s O CO Jo 93 h Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______PH 03 -t— > c3 O0

H ‘o H 00 2 C/3 C/3 P-i

< - 3 £ S3 3 < Z < 3 m ^ 3 x 0's o r (N §• C/3 t I g dj J o CO cs ° w 5^ £ 3 (N 'Z < C/3 X3 u becu <1> 7 5P 5 <73 c <1> X3 X3 C 0) £ C6

August Adults Nymphs 94 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______*0 Z Pi 3 (D JS.g CQ O b £ cb £ * .b o OX) .*2 - S-H P S-H O p o .b £

.2 O O n o ON ON h n n H • H H H OQ ->'O (73 B S 3 1 3 ^ (73 O h o ^

(73 3 NO Z < O 3 B

h 3 ^ < £ < p (73 e O 95 h Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 (3 £ cd .2a 8 cd P 3 0 < £ < § <50 o § Q 1 a I § s CN S 3 ■§. 2 3 C/3 3 £ < 2 ■§,-2 C/3 B < o ^ oo3 O 3 ^ ^ 3 O oo C/3 C/3 C/3 O h -s: O

< o. 2 3

2 C/3 £

August CN • Adults m • Nymphs 96 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-eridemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et cd. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 P 3 CD CD > CD c/3 O S-i i P* n* 03 P £ * <

.*3 0 O'N CD cd h >

JC3 H 'o H H GO h o C o< < 2 C/3 < - d •iT ft3 CZ3 •*»«* < 2 < S o 03 cd « 5 o SS £? 5 05 h h . . S 3 C/3

JCS & C/3

July 3 T 3 £ < H-H C/3 O C/3 a h C 3 S O b 3 0 3 T3 CN —> O >H— / ^ ^ C/3 B h S 3 ■ST 0 o | *SS < > Q S 03 s: a O 03 S5 £ < § cd b C O < , i C d h O , . ’■a 3 N - x / ^ C/3 g d

<-!03 B O h >T3 3 < —> O >H— / ^ ^ C/3 5S B h

August Adults

Nymphs 97 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______£ T3 Pd 3 > C/3 CQ P C* £ & O .3 .3 O •§ * - 5-1 ccJ »-H O 3 O S3 GO .Ja

H H H C/D H O -» 3 T (D S-H ^ c c ^ -CJ 3 3 1 S 3 CN £ < C/3 -3 C/3 O h

3 T 3 T C - . a

c o, a „ E 3 3 2 CN < Z C/3 OQ P, * < s Cj ccJ (1^ T3 O Q r o . v Q !P h S 3 / ^ C/3 a -

August m Adults m Nymphs 98 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 £ 3

H H ‘o H H H GO c/3 eu > J 3 < oJ 0 6 c

August Adults

Nymphs 99 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 £ & 3 > H— O >

£ Ot Q ^ PQ & 3 «L) -a O ^ cu bJD .a c op - S-H cd S-H O .£3O 3 £ -g .£3 on m N C ON cn

H H E-1 H H 00 a> o a> oo O h cu on g g J Q on O ' O h £ 3 < z. HL a T3 £ < 6 o -g. « i^ ^ Si ^ Z < 3 £ o § n ^ on ^3 ■V T3 3 on OS on h CLJ . N oo ON CN —* H— * H—

£ T3 3 £ < CN m oo m ON CN ON m

on < £ 3 i ^ TD >>3 £ < 3 CN CN CN & "cl 100

Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______H3 £ ■+-» O CD CD C/5 OS CD CQ ^ $ P4 £ * P4 — OD .b ; ; .b OD op os CCS o g . g 0 S3 3 SO cs oo Os CN < CN OO oo CN CN CN us 2 j £ O h CN OS cs cs CN CN Pi H P C/5 101 Appendix Table 2 (continued). Number of individuals of leafhopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Andy Hamilton) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______• Z 3 24 cd J O cd o 2

H H C/D C/3 O S-H C/5 JP a O C/5 h c E 3 » ■ >3 i> f 4 ft f *4— > NO oo ‘O m / -3 3 - c/5 C/5 C/5 JO £ S O h 3 T3 C 3 Jp £ c/5 a O h

August Adults

Nymphs 103 Appendix Table 3 (continued). Number of individuals of planthopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Dr. Stephen Wilson) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______■Z T3 Pi 3 h CO — 2 .g J2 Pi £ * Q Pi o o CCS o a o ^ ^ P 2-> m cS P 00

H C/3 CO CX s 3 T u <3 cj O CJ <3 CD 03 CD ^ CO

£ 3 CN O CN Q CN o s i> a 3 zs N

< +-» P PS o C ^ co ° Z 2°% 3 o o CN SO (N SO O , & CO -C l f C "§ -S3 PQ Q 0^ ’ o cs §) s: JC < § £ 3 ’O 3

Appendix Table 3 (continued). Number of individuals of planthopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Dr. Stephen Wilson) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______O " P4 £ 3

H H H CZ2 o >T3 3 H £ > -g 3 3 C ^3 -3 VI

c .s 43 4 .is «c* PQ z < § D Q cd C 2 . C3 1O c r\ « CO S 2 i l >• l .5P 2 X3 rX 3 .3 P CN ■* ^ ~ 3 T 3 T

a ^ -a 3 £ < m CN CN cn a. S B V3 < S )3 S 3 § < Z Z < 3 CN in CN C/3 -O C/3 O 105 h Appendix Table 3 (continued). Number of individuals of planthopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Dr. Stephen Wilson) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 e> & £ i V *-l o OS 3 CS o

- • .2 s O s O OS ot* h

"o .a ^0 H H CN H CZ5 H H H CN H CN —> H— 3 T3U s 03 i V CL sc < i V 3 O z O i V h O Jo. 3 'O 3 £ < -p, a on < < o £ o 2 O 3 i V h

& § a o £ <33 2 s:

August ro CN Adults ro

Nymphs 106 Appendix Table 3 (continued). Number of individuals of planthopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Dr. Stephen Wilson) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 & 3 C/3 O H - S > 13 Q CQ i P £ *

1 H H H H CO o O O. ^ 3 *T3 £ < £ a .£3 C/3 £ < l C/3 d >~»"d C/3 3 3 t f C/3 107 Appendix Table 3 (continued). Number of individuals of planthopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Dr. Stephen Wilson) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______T3 * pi O CD oo p > CD

3 J a .g ja r~l K ^ Q PQ P o 00.b

• H H H CO O CD- 00 i P < p d - i 3 D CO CD §■ &o £? 510 § Si Q 3 3 T3 < 3 S p L c oo B 3 S 3 3 ?>~>T3 < & 3 3 00 < -> 4 CO p 00 6 3 . > 3 T 3 < ’Si 3 tn

"S Co 3 —5 >— P 3 §> P CD P O Pi OJ s-i co k 3 T 3 < C/3 -C tn 3 3 >% S T3 3 S3 a 00

August Adults CN

Nymphs 108 Appendix Table 3 (continued). Number of individuals of planthopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Dr. Stephen Wilson) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______£ "cd -(— »

P CL, PP & & ol ) o c a) O O sp.b

• H H H C/1 H H O a> O a) on h Co CO

August Adults

Nymphs 109 Appendix Table 3 (continued). Number of individuals of planthopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Prairie-endemic (pers. comm., Dr. Stephen Wilson) and highly remnant-dependent (Panzer et al. 1995) species are indicated beneath the species name. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. ______£ P4 £ 3 —< H— — rn 0 h *o H H H H H C/3 CO S o a >% o a h . 3 T 3 £ < H—> C/3 S O C/3 h 3 T ^ 3 H—> C/3 a - £ S O C/3 h < 0 00 =>--a ro CN : 2 < ® 3 & & 110 Appendix Table 4. Number of individuals of treehopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. £ P4 T3 3 CD g - 2 J CQ O £ * .*3O DO DOOs H - S cd H - S O cd 3 O £ (D 2 cd O < OsP &^ d .92 Os Os tn h • 3 4 OQ H H H H H H 3 O CD O O CD h S u D O ' (D £ < g ?5 &* s <13H <4 cd S 3 4 M » -4— C/3 h CN m to s 5 o. a £ C/3 < a 3 H 1 2 ^ < £ £ < o CN C/3 •S3 D 'O § S3 3 3 CN tn Q ^ iQ 3 4 CN C/3 l l i Appendix Table 4 (continued). Number of individuals of treehopper taxa collected along the west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. £ rT3 "cd -t— > c/3 O

CQ Ph 3 on O •- 0 2 .’t3 £

’o H E- CN H' CN CN H H CN H GO CN H CN o C Q •52 o c £ c g o o Q s: CJ "T3 3 >-• ■a •§, 2 § o o CU C l , C/3 £ 3 ^ T3 2 < H £ £ * C/3 < S 2 CS < a sa E C/3

112 Appendix Table 5. Ant species collected along west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects within the study sites. An X indicates the presence of the species at a transect; the number of individuals was not determined. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. * -o £ ei O 5-1 CQ P & P an o O O .5£

• H H 00 O 00 D OS h an X X X • X X X X X • X X •X X • X £ •S o> cu - 3 3 >> £? £ 0) OS • X X X X • • X X X • X •X • • X • < an ^3 an X X £ •S3 CJ o> op >> X o an X X X X X X X X X £ 3 c o • X op o w 113 Appendix Table 5 (continued). Ant species collected along west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects within the study sites. An X indicates the presence of the species at a transect; the number of individuals was not determined. Decimal points are used in place of zeros for visual clarity. T3 X 4 • -4—

H H H C/5 H H &, SP P 3 § § a, S*. < p •X X •—s >“-» $ X X X ■* < p co P

•X X t—s * p p CJ CD CD > C/5 o 3-4 & J m & ^ Q £P ca ^ O O £ 5P crs 3 CCSS3

n .tt Its N" ON ON ON h p P NO H - d c CD -4

• H H C H H H P 4—» O o c CD C/5 O CD /3 h 3 O P3 ^ 'S, ^ § § ^ ^ >< ^ j Cd Cj >

* * m m ±3 ±3 O s? s SC Q ss .. cj R R I fecia - I X C/3 "cd & zn c/5 C/5 u 00 cd o c3 £ s Oc 3 Cj C3 R T3 • < C/5 o o d d & -R •2 :3 -s -s :3 SP ^ cu r o 05 a s O R CJ ^ c/5 a a o c C c -Cs J ■§ 5 0 1 S S) •S i 2? S +H ^ R 0 &n cd Si -o

^3 N: < 3 NO ^ 1—I * CN OO NO NO OO ° O IN OO m O IN NO ^ NO o ^rcn Tf NO CN N" O O N N N O IN NOCN 3 S 60 g> s -3 ^ &0 cu <3 r o .. R sc OO O <

£2 * no q n 00 CQ CN B C/5 00 CD a h

00 < S •S' Q 2 | S J C O R Q a R a R C54 O 4 R * CN * O - 3 t * 3 " ^ • L P d c C/5 CD 0 0 0 3—1 fi CD 3-4 116 4

Appendix Table 6 (continued). Mean canopy cover of plant species located along west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site, tr = < 0.5% cover. Decimal points replace zeros for visual clarity. * = Transects along which plant species were flowering. Plant nomenclature is from Great Plains Flora Association (1986). ______TP • £ 4 CO O 4> 4) S-i 4) > — 2.2 J2 P3 p Q Q CQ ^ * i - f .£3O c/a 03 03O g o 03 B B - Ih S-i S s O 4) c/a | c/a O

h N* OQ .8 g? S g O 4) O Q O =n Pi O

C/5 5

i ^ a ^ •2 •2 o o •2 * g W) 2 > O 4) C3 B % o O Co ^

TD 5 < 4) c/a P B

< 5 i o Si gp s C3 'O PS o

a ^ M ^3 co CN ro cr> O CN O- < £ CJ ^ s ^ P 3 OS COop 3 2a -a co i 05 ^ 2 zn O C3 C o C > ^ s: rp PS zn

23 JX> o o — (N i—t •2 - H 4-> -*»• o s*. 4> zn zn 4> t*- i P • < £ 4—> 4—> -2 000 00 zn P 4) 03 zn P l-H

i—» § ^ .§ * » H '*-» 4) P fi ^ 2 2 ^ D J ^ > CS >> ’P 4> P ^ < CP 4—> P P zn *-i 4)

Bouteloua curtipendula June

Sideoats grama August 117 Appendix Table 6 (continued). Mean canopy cover of plant species located along west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site, tr = < 0.5% cover. Decimal points replace zeros for visual clarity. * = Transects along which plant species were flowering. Plant nomenclature is from Great Plains Flora Association (1986). ______T3 £ & h d C* oT PQ O CD ON fi O cd

* * Op £ CN s a 's 'N CD N ‘' g>G S G g ? | o o * •co g 3 o

h

O o a op g "a G o G CD O G CO G , G £ h h h * Ga o CN * OO CN t n .Sh on a sa 3

h 0 O 0 7 O 00 O 73 O 00 O 00 O < £ 43 m 5s T3 sp s

"G * 5 •2 sp8 CU CJO 2 Ss. 5- H G - h

DO < 5 8 | 3 T CD OD

* < 5 2 2 $-1 X <3 g> 8 . G .. CD 3 T 2 cd 3 OO 6 Vi B v> O OS OO

'o 00 H H H H H cu o o oo C 2 <3 ^ SJ <3 ! H h < 0 0 o C/3 GO o ’S H on •Hi a J ■ SJ c <3 5< * o n o ' < OO Vi | 2 bX)

J2

on & o a o <3 ^ o ^ ^ o s-isi on o jo ^ d. T> June < bX) o ■ § s -§ II 5= o on bX) 3 3 o >

Appendix Table 6 (continued). Mean canopy cover of plant species located along west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site, tr - < 0.5% cover. Decimal points replace zeros for visual clarity. * = Transects along which plant species were flowering. Plant nomenclature is from Great Plains Flora Association (1986). _____ T3 £ co CQ £ a l Q CO OX) ON O O o a> .22

C/3 -C • H H H H H H 1c O (1) Q<

^3 -Si * 1 a q cd ^ ^ s O 3 3 R SP £ H S § R .22

B q oo O cd S-i O R sO -R oo oo OO VO < 5 cn VO q oo tq 2 ^ ‘2 co I £ O

N- 'X3 cn m § ^ ^ S-i

q ffikq .3-1 -t—> H CO . a »- *L S * 4-> O co :§ •Si

5 q Q tq .So .53 I to g> £ cd v O tvo CN a to R jo < cd O S-H - j 2 .g J2 OQ P £ * * N O p G cd S- 3 . O o 5 ) « e) I g 5 N N" CN a-s co co .§<§ S’ s o Co o * § 2 § aS § - 3 - - r a * CN CN co oo CO H—* S-H n c cd 3

«s: q t £ CO CN .Oo a3 •2 -K s & •-H • - <&) ) i s S3 S s S oo 3 o o - h h h ­

* CO oo 53 < go •4—> n c £ s 3 3 o - h ’"P* ^ •5 *>H 03 O ^ ^2 < £ •S2 C ’o 3 S S ox)S3 o> o 3 £ oo OS 4> - 3 3 - - H - S 3 - q fiH n c co

O ^ 5 < >5 T 2 • ’ S 3 1 o d 2 x x 2 cu *3 x> 2 S s? 2 —. 3 fiH -+-> n c o h cd/ = s cd tsj | o 00 =o - 0/3 I- n c S O I _© o * n c _ c < -J—> /) < ’ S CN —» •— a ^ JS?* -3 - 3 ^ Q ^ 3 3 §• 3 I -a 2 * < H—* OX) S-H 3 3 n c 121 Appendix Table 6 (continued). Mean canopy cover of plant species located along west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site, tr = < 0.5% cover. Decimal points replace zeros for visual clarity. * = Transects along which plant species were flowering. Plant nomenclature is from Great Plains Flora Association (1986). ______* £ T3 td cn o

t - 4 • E- 00 H H H O cn g S

< 5 S * 'Ti­ I en CO 2? 8 3 cn cn ft

3 2 ^ p n ^ cn

Appendix Table 6 (continued). Mean canopy cover of plant species located along west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site, tr = < 0.5% cover. Decimal points replace zeros for visual clarity. * = Transects along which plant species were flowering. Plant nomenclature is from Great Plains Flora Association (1986). ______Td ,> £ P4 cn cd 2 -g J2 CQ £ * o la Q £ * cd O cd o m cd - S-i S-i .b o .b £ .2 o ON 3 M < B B C/3 cn cd 3 d m b on ON CN ON ON Tf

• OO H H H H H H on a> OO 6 O Si cd -SJ -c> cn s; bo CL CD !L June Sb * CO C cn b So b 00 b <3 ***»»* •S3 s »3 June 'o Td < ~b-> cn o cn O

bs C 33 cl ^ t ,00• £ ^ ^ cu b B O K , oo June M C -> + cn B o o cn — C ^ •S2 cd S - J 5b £ .s Q ?*. 60 -b S - f S3 ^ June *b < +->■ C/3 2 b oo (O b b b * * * CO CO Tf vn

Appendix Table 6 (continued). Mean canopy cover of plant species located along west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site, tr = < 0.5% cover. Decimal points replace zeros for visual clarity. * = Transects along which plant species were flowering. Plant nomenclature is from Great Plains Flora Association (1986). ______T3 £ £ & « .2aO OsO .is £ 3 OO .Jh a a

s a s a Os s a ,-H cO a . < H— OO 00 a i V cS 3 c S-H >

S—H i V q q O Oh cn • S-I June r3 '-a H-» 3 cn

Aug 3 O 43 8 ^ s= £ *-■O 8 ° ° 8 o a T3 ^ cn> June .. H— cn 3

Aug > cn ^ aa3 s « .s 3 > cn 5 O o June < H— 00 cn 3 3 *

f c -fe o 00 Co OO •S •3 § j h Aug > OQ £ cn 3 = = 3 &• 2 1 § O

h June * < H— 00 3 cn 3 S-H >

Scirpus pungens June

Three-square bulrush August 124 Appendix Table 6 (continued). Mean canopy cover of plant species located along west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site, tr = < 0.5% cover. Decimal points replace zeros for visual clarity. * = Transects along which plant species were flowering. Plant nomenclature is from Great Plains Flora Association (1986). ______-o P^ £ H—» td CD C/5 O > CD fT» S h a .g ja * n"! P* PQ r ( r— j r p Cd o S> *2 sp*.- cd S-H S-I O o cd ^ (u .a O' 3 00 n r

s O P P* Os os Os Os IT5 h h H H H H H GO H—> O -*H* O CD o cn O s cu h < H-> cn 00 O >—J SP ^ o C O CD CS 5-1 O £ a tJ ? cn C55C55 o R C P < OO cn O cd o O d h < £ m Co •S ■S cn g> s P sc h 7 "cd H p — cn o *

& o c ^ .s: •S 2 H £2 s §0 g> s ... s_ * n3 P* cn £ (D (D O g g O O P CO CN 5 3 cn •32 ° •S S3 co g 5 O 6 & 60 Q n b 13 S a o ^ ^ 5 S | < cn cd h ^3 o a co Cd "3S S <50OS o cd Oo o Cj C3 S <> ^ O s: d no 2 OO O Si S-i C < C d h CD "o ^ CO o o 5 s a •s? H--» oo a 2 bo o £ bo o 3 < 2 no S2 a g> § d h < < cn d J

Solidago missouriensis June

Missouri goldenrod August 125 Appendix Table 6 (continued). Mean canopy cover of plant species located along west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site, tr = < 0.5% cover. Decimal points replace zeros for visual clarity. * = Transects along which plant species were flowering. Plant nomenclature is from Great Plains Flora Association (1986). ______• £ t O S-H .a u opos P (U cn 1} .2 .2 Os s a d- Os un s a

*o .2 -a H C/3 -*—>

h n * cn S t CN 3 5 3 g S HI 3 ’o Op 3 *6 v. m 2 T3 c/i O O h Q o d~ oo cn O - d cn oo CN OO -—i CN O r- ^ un - d CN Co cn ^ CN o r-1 - d (N cn r-" r- r-" r- i H n Oo 5 C3 =>1 53 s K K h h - oo ao O ' cn »—H to cd C/1 C cd 0 0 &o c S-H

N cn CN * O Co"Ck d- OO - d- CN d- * cn - vo d- •5 •5 •3* A) 2 § a 3 a <11 3 s-h s-h * -ri »- CN as CN < CO OO cd VI S-H

h

-s: '"’•’•a -o •S3 -*«H o £ Hi o o o 3 =>r cd L C Js. Js. T3 I V 5 3 . ^ s. § s o O S' s- 3 3 § §> s VI % CN CN S ;§ •S Q1 g ^ ^ 5 C 3 3 g S c s T3 o B B o VI 8 ^ £ £ e 1 c "S " -c 5:3 n £ £ 3 to 3 * (U O S-H 126

Appendix Table 6 (continued). Mean canopy cover of plant species located along west (Tl) and east (T2) 20-m transects, by study site, tr = < 0.5% cover. Decimal points replace zeros for visual clarity. * = Transects along which plant species were flowering. Plant nomenclature is from Great Plains Flora Association (1986). ______T3 £ & —> H— 03 > CD VI O S-H VI S-H > cd o O "o > s I ^ I a JUQ P h VI 127 128

Appendix Table 7. Indicator values ( IVmax ) for all insect and plant taxa associated with native or restored prairie (0 = not dependent, 100 = highly dependent). Statistical significance of species indicator values was based on the Monte Carlo test. P = proportion of randomized trials with IVmax equal to or exceeding the actual IVmax; low P values indicate significant dependence on a particular habitat type (P < 0.05).

Species Habitat Type IVmax P

Leafhoppers Agallia quadripunctata Restored Prairie 22.2 1.000 Amplicephalus inimicus Restored Prairie 80.3 0.005 Amplicephalus kansiensis Native Prairie 48.1 0.185 Athysanus argentarius Native Prairie 99.0 0.005 Attenuipyga minor Restored Prairie 76.5 0.100 Balclutha sp. Restored Prairie 37.5 0.569 Balclutha neglecta Restored Prairie 51.0 0.908 Cer at agallia sp. Restored Prairie 74.2 0.075 Ceratagallia humilis Restored Prairie 33.3 0.451 Cer at agallia uhleri Restored Prairie 61.6 0.358 Ceratagallia viator Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Chlorotettix sp. Native Prairie 55.2 0.324 Chlorotettix fallax Restored Prairie 52.2 0.301 Chlorotettix spatulatus Restored Prairie 82.3 0.031 Cicadula ciliata Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Commellus comma Restored Prairie 100.0 0.005 Cuerna sp. Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Cuerna sayi Native Prairie 50.0 0.179 Deltocephalus flavicostatus Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Dikraneura angustata Restored Prairie 40.1 0.419 Dikraneura mali Native Prairie 56.5 0.244 Diplocolenus configuratus Native Prairie 29.2 0.451 Draeculacephala sp. Restored Prairie 46.5 0.281 Draeculacephala constricta Native Prairie 66.2 0.228 Draeculacephala noveboracensis Native Prairie 33.3 0.437 Driotura gammaroides Restored Prairie 33.3 0.437 Elymana sp. Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Empoasca sp. Restored Prairie 60.2 0.158 Erythroneura sp. Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Erythroneura tricincta Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Exitianus exitiosus Native Prairie 65.3 0.319 Extrusanus oryssus Native Prairie 50.0 0.188 129

Appendix Table 7 (continued). Indicator values {IVmax) for all insect and plant taxa associated with native or restored prairie (0 = not dependent, 100 = highly dependent). Statistical significance of species indicator values was based on the Monte Carlo test. P = proportion of randomized trials with IVmax equal to or exceeding the actual IVmax; low P values indicate significant dependence on a particular habitat type {P < 0.05).

Species Habitat Type IVmax P

Leafhoppers (continued) Extrusanus ovatus Restored Prairie 60.1 0.050 Flexamia sp. Native Prairie 40.1 0.520 Flexamia albida Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Flexamia inflata Native Prairie 28.6 0.437 Flexamia prairiana Native Prairie 78.6 0.166 Flexamia reflexa Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Graminella mohri Restored Prairie 44.6 0.820 Graminella nigrifrons ' Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Graphocephala do lo brata Restored Prairie 66.7 0.054 Graphocephala sp. nov. Native Prairie 8.3 1.000 Gyponana sp. Native Prairie 8.3 1.000 Gyponana serpent a Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Hecalus sp. Native Prairie 32.5 1.000 Hecalus major Native Prairie 64.2 0.053 Hecalus viridis Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Laevicephalus minimus Restored Prairie 23.9 0.879 Laevicephalus unicoloratus Native Prairie 65.8 0.391 Latalus sayii Restored Prairie 66.7 0.063 Limotettix ferganiensis Native Prairie 50.0 0.196 Limotettix osborni Restored Prairie 100.0 0.005 Macrosteles quadrilineatus Native Prairie 72.9 0.135 Macrosteles wilburi Restored Prairie 50.0 0.176 Memnonia flavida Restored Prairie 39.1 0.578 Mesamia straminea Restored Prairie 32.0 0.444 Mocuellus caprillus Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Neocoelidia magnificus Native Prairie 50.0 0.173 Neocoelidia tumidifrons Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Paraphlepsius sp. Restored Prairie 19.0 1.000 Paraphlepsius irroratus Restored Prairie 22.3 1.000 Paraphlepsius nebulosus Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Pendarus magnus Native Prairie 23.9 0.873 Poly ami a caper at a Native Prairie 39.4 0.586 130

Appendix Table 7 (continued). Indicator values (IVmax) for all insect and plant taxa associated with native or restored prairie (0 = not dependent, 100 = highly dependent). Statistical significance of species indicator values was based on the Monte Carlo test. P = proportion of randomized trials with IVmax equal to or exceeding the actual IVmax; low P values indicate significant dependence on a particular habitat type (P < 0.05).

Species Habitat Type IVmax P

Leafhoppers (continued) Polyamia dilata Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Prairiana sp. Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Psammotettix sp. Native Prairie 8.3 1.000 Psammotettix lividellus Native Prairie 83.8 0.026 Scaphytopius cinereus Restored Prairie 96.7 0.008 Stirellus bicolor Native Prairie 74.5 0.201 Xerophloea peltata Native Prairie 33.3 0.479

Planthoppers Acanalonia bivittata Restored Prairie 83.3 0.020 Cedusa sp. Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Delphacodes campestris Restored Prairie 62.7 0.329 Delphacodes megadonta Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Delphacodes nr. megadonta Native Prairie 47.2 0.308 Delphacodes parvula Restored Prairie 68.7 0.214 Myndus sp. Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Pentagramma longistylata Native Prairie 33.3 0.448 Prokelisia crocea Native Prairie 61.9 0.262 Scolops sp. Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Scolops angustatus Restored Prairie 33.3 0.453 Scolops perdix Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Scolops sulcipes Restored Prairie 83.6 0.037 Stenocranus sp. Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Stobaera tricarinata Restored Prairie 48.4 0.418

reehoppers Campylenchia latipes Restored Prairie 100.0 0.003 Micrutalis sp. Restored Prairie 41.3 0.416 Stictocephala bisonia Restored Prairie 33.3 0.464 131

Appendix Table 7 (continued). Indicator values {IVmax) for all insect and plant taxa associated with native or restored prairie (0 = not dependent, 100 = highly dependent). Statistical significance of species indicator values was based on the Monte Carlo test. P = proportion of randomized trials with IVmax equal to or exceeding the actual IVmax\ low P values indicate significant dependence on a particular habitat type (P < 0.05).

Species Habitat Type IVmax P

Plants Agropyron caninum Native Prairie 29.2 0.728 Agrostis stolonifera Native Prairie 100.0 0.004 Allium canadense Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Ambrosia artemisiifolia Restored Prairie 33.3 0.481 Ambrosia trifida Restored Prairie 33.3 0.460 Andropogon gerardii Native Prairie 51.4 0.851 Apocynum cannabinum Native Prairie 66.7 0.056 Asclepias sp. Restored Prairie 29.4 0.721 Asclepias speciosa Restored Prairie 49.0 0.285 Asclepias syriaca Native Prairie 8.3 1.000 Asclepias verticillata Restored Prairie 33.3 0.438 Astragalus canadensis Restored Prairie 50.0 0.185 Aster ericoides Restored Prairie 79.4 0.077 Aster simplex Native Prairie 14.8 0.727 Bouteloua curtipendula Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Bromus inermis Native Prairie 49.8 0.190 Bromus japonicus Restored Prairie 50.0 0.166 Callirhoe involucrata Native Prairie 15.2 1.000 Calamagrostis sp. Native Prairie 100.0 0.004 Car ex sp. Native Prairie 82.6 0.032 Carex brevior Restored Prairie 50.0 0.185 Car ex crawei Native Prairie 30.6 0.736 Carex gravida Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Carex pellida Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Carex tetanica Native Prairie 33.3 0.455 Cirsium altissimum Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Cirsiumflodmanii Native Prairie 33.3 0.456 Conyza sp. Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Cornus drummondii Restored Prairie 66.7 0.058 Daleu Candida Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Dale a purpurea Restored Prairie 49.8 0.174 Desmodium canadense Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 132

Appendix Table 7 (continued). Indicator values (IVmax) for all insect and plant taxa associated with native or restored prairie (0 = not dependent, 100 = highly dependent). Statistical significance of species indicator values was based on the Monte Carlo test. P = proportion of randomized trials with IVmax equal to or exceeding the actual IVmax; low P values indicate significant dependence on a particular habitat type (P < 0.05).

Species Habitat Type IVmax

Plants (continued) Desmanthus illinoensis Restored Prairie 80.9 0.017 Eleocharis sp. Native Prairie 100.0 0.004 Elymus canadensis Restored Prairie 83.3 0.009 Equisetum sp. Native Prairie 100.0 0.004 Erigeron strigosus Native Prairie 22.2 1.000 Eupatorium altissimum Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Galium sp. Restored Prairie 33.3 0.460 Helianthus maximilianii Restored Prairie 64.9 0.146 Helianthus rigidus Restored Prairie 66.7 0.056 Hordeum jubatum Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Hypoxis hirsuta Native Prairie 33.3 0.458 Juncus dudleyi Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Juncus torreyi Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Lespedeza capitata Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Lippia sp. Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Lycopus sp. Native Prairie 33.3 0.455 Lycopus americanus Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Medicago lupulina Restored Prairie 50.0 0.200 Melilotus sp. Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Melilotus officinalis Restored Prairie 33.3 0.443 Monarda fistulosa Restored Prairie 50.0 0.192 Muhlenbergia sp. Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Oxalis stricta Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Panicum virgatum Native Prairie 65.7 0.185 Penstemon digitalis Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Physalis virginiana Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Poa pratensis Native Prairie 66.7 0.057 Populus deltoides Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Pycnanthemum virginianum Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Ratibida columnifera Restored Prairie 16.7 i.ooo 133

Appendix Table 7 (continued). Indicator values (IVmax) for all insect and plant taxa associated with native or restored prairie (0 = not dependent, 100 = highly dependent). Statistical significance of species indicator values was based on the Monte Carlo test. P = proportion of randomized trials with IVmax equal to or exceeding the actual IVmax; low P values indicate significant dependence on a particular habitat type (P < 0.05).

Species Habitat Type IVmax P

Plants (continued) Rosa sp. Restored Prairie 33.3 0.438 Rosa woodsii Restored Prairie 50.0 0.180 Rudbeckia hirta Restored Prairie 13.1 1.000 Schrankia nuttallii Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Scirpus sp. Native Prairie 33.3 0.455 Scirpus pungens Native Prairie 33.3 0.455 Scutellaria sp. Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Senecio plattensis Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Setaria sp. Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Silphium integrifolium Restored Prairie 33.3 0.467 Smilacina racemosa Native Prairie 33.3 0.455 Solidago canadensis Restored Prairie 49.9 0.180 Solidago gigantea Restored Prairie 33.3 0.467 Solidago missouriensis Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Solidago rigida Restored Prairie 50.0 0.192 Sorghastrum nutans Native Prairie 59.4 0.334 Spartina pectinata Native Prairie 83.0 0.025 Sporobolus asper Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Taraxacum officinale Restored Prairie 65.2 0.102 Vernonia baldwinii Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Verbena stricta Restored Prairie 16.7 1.000 Viola sp. Native Prairie 16.7 1.000 Appendix Table 8. Known host plants of leafhopper, planthopper, and treehopper species collected. Host plants may vary regionally and records are incomplete for many insects. 00 X p a 00 ‘o o . b -*-» ->—> o cd Q, D cd CD CD C/3 O a cd a a Cu D H cS ^ Id H-I S ii X 3 T P oo X oq N O m I iT cd £ cd O cd CD cd o o £ £ o a D I. o s cd cd O a 00 o § a £? h C '3 cn o o £ S -P £ P o 9 l . > -a b^ & "bo^ ON oo X 3 T »2 P r- cq Cj O ^ a 5 cd D cd CD o cd g 8 o o a 00 D D J .3 . .JS a ^ ^ ^ Q ^ h P o o o ■ CN cd 3 N S-i Q) Q> C> P CD D CD CD h -O -a a - "-C 5 X > x Oo Oo oo ON oo < p - r '—1 5 ^ •5 : a <: i— 3 3 i§ •**» S Cj o o s CD o 5D CD q>o ** •§ a S a § 8) ° § = a cd vr -a a CL) 5 < ^ s - p 5 a. g Q ,

N

' •— a b 4 b 4 -O ’ ^ ON s & 81 1 d 0 O ^ p - r - r q Q. O •**» 5 p a a §■ s §• P p p C . Q cn a a § cn £ S3 a 5 a a "SS § a 1? 3 ^ a § ^ a S » S3 o ^ O ^ 5 l ' , -2 C—5 O O * P CN cd CD 3 S-i .O' ', O ', O '. O oo 5 X ’- £ < X> 5 X X> q q '—l .&•§ -l-J i«. CL. o o cn £ . Q O O a § a^ bqS •§ ^ W S a o o C3 o CD > a o -a OX) X -O ’ — CD c 3 3 3 .2 ~ p oo * * »^■^1* ^****» 3 ^ •3 Co cd 0 0 C§ .£ - r - r •— n .§>tn —t-(-» 4— t 5 cd s. & *§« 72 ° o O CD C/3 bo o £ Q o a. a. Q T D cd p <3 a CD CD a §3 Q C d CD 2 C/3 c*j a " l a Q . v. a x 2 (D a p c

.12 3 3 S I ? m ;? - cn -a : x ^ ’> .£ - D SQ D P-c o° q q a -a -a ■2 1 oo oo oo ’ i i 0 0 -i_i — _ •«-» O O n n Tj cn cn . D s-iz' a s- a g>gia ij cn cd og 2 p. CD -2 « D -a D CD CD d > | 3 "2 a o o co cn o- £ C3 C3 o o a a cd a s - s o **■ 1 1 o P "o J2 x X X ', O X - r qj m d 00 8 a £ 3 CD a o x a tn q S w

JS u c 1— H O'N O 3 _ c o X — CN q q q _ wo »■» 5*»» a 0 Urn

O 3 -O a > a - X ', O Q CD ^ ^ q ° a a - X X '^l> w ^ ^-r- r - r^ o q o ' «i 5 •**» — c n ° cn ° cd Oo _>T“ o c? § ^ ,S cd a =n cn a a £ C3 o cn a p g Q "O 5 a ^ CD 03 a 1/3 s > p . p H H a a a Q, c- CD o «. -(-» • ' ^ X N X ^****» , o X X oo •**» a a a CN £ o du o CD 2

o o o o —3 f— P o o - Q O cd g? 8 s-2 c a a a 2?ja o ^ -a a 3 ^ ^ a a a D s— h .2 O X X ~«C oo £ ,CD - r •**» & £ £ a 5 o o o CD n 1 S q I 4 ’cd 2 . •IP X P< X X oo "^1 ON {— ' — CD a D o a O cd D C ^ a 00 - a -2 a p o a ^ a 1 ^ CD C3 '

s "o P^ o CU O O CN o a O D cd D cd N

. 1

in tallgrass prairie

Laevicephalus unicoloratus Andropogon spp. or related warm-season grasses Hicks and Whitcomb 1993

Mesamia straminea Helianthus spp. Hamilton 1995a

Paraphlepsius irroratus Uses both woody and nonwoody plants Whitcomb e t a l . 1 9 8 7 b 134 135

V i O CD X N <= CJCJ E E c d o \ v o £ £ E - d O h 03 o o CN £ £ £ -t—i C33 0 's CD x> xj i d G o o o O 0 's C3 CD C3 c o r - T T O. O . 'c f 03 c d S t O o CD CD CU O"' 0's r - od -O S3 S3 " P ’C ’tl *iP -O-O -O 0 3 O h CD C -^H -h* G ■ § > D 03 03 CO CD c d c u c u c d c u c e £ J-h o o G G G G -C p -C O CD o on >4 h O P ^ ^ ^ ^

TO S3 C cd 5 S3 S3 CX h cu c u R O h O h •& O -O b o O - i R S3*' o $ CO S3 .R 0 3 c o O. 1 ***«> 2 §• O h O. O p S3 co CD o G > % S3 & C o *-T OT O h CD I 00 T 3 S3 S 3 JO R R O -R c d S3 H*h R O t ° o CO - e s o a £ r CD c b £ ) S3 R P > S § p G cd o R • 3 c c G O CD 5 O h 5 q O CD O I T 3 O h • S ^ O S+-H O p »H^> s b ^ IS o c d 2 R as T d Rh r G h 3 R 2 _o T 3 o . O 0 s R < 0 c d h S3 S3 G O ^ O O, O 0 .R ,R £ CO £ C o ,r^H a ^ cd cu Sh H h O h c d O CO * *^ -+— * S 3 b O | S 3 O h P h R R ^ O h £ R p CU H— I CD O R ? 5 C ^ H R P 2 ^ I 5 0 § ^ CD CD K O h G 0 0 O H-> • S S 3 c d I G R -H O ^ c d P o o I cn c o 60 SJ | £ ^ ► R o CD R d > "S3 •IS3 -b ^ s R £ O b o o ' o ™ R CD R 'O r S S 3 R h “ d o 2 < P h & o CD X 00 PH ^ to &r U C O c d £ V i TO

T 3 O CD CD P CD C *-« 5 •O TO . C O § - 3 c g ►Hi £ O cd T3 60 .R § d > 0 3 S3 - 5 ■ 2 5h CU R 2 P R CO • S h R S3 R So R R 5h a & ^ s . R -K* <*> I d R 5h . •2 CD O I— 1 5 f R I c u S 3 o S 3 ► H H C ^ H C u O 52 § ■ & • 3 .2 cd .<3 R h co o "R CO c o 0 , ^ 3 cd o o CO H h b p ^ -R CO ^ w co .CD f—i (D 5 2 - S "■ R R R 3 L J-h 52 ^ § ’I i - Q 52 r ■ 2 ’o . * 3 & o C "S3 S3 R § ? S 3 CD CU ~HH R, CD S 3 » qT S3 CO 60 5h r o . r : b — 5r O h R R b / j ,~^ i c u °- X ■ R S 3 o - r S S £ S ’~- H R h ^ 00 ► > H ■R -R R ^ R R ? R 12 c3 o S l 3 **•«* O CU R h ► R _ p 5 h - O ■h T R R . S 3 s > o • £ : - P C^J R ^cd s O h > n G ^ r S3 S3 R CD S 3 o ° _cd Q q^ a § , R h 2 b ? O h g D on on s o 5 < £ J H 136

Appendix Table 9. Plant species collected at native and restored prairies and ordered by plant guild. Canopy cover values are from the sampling period (June or August) with the highest average canopy cover.

Species ______Native Prairie______Restored Prairie

Native C4 Grasses Mean S.E. Mean S.E, Andropogon gerardii 50 6.6 48 6.3

Bouteloua curtipendula 0 0 trace - Muhlenbergia sp. trace - 0 0 Panicum virgatum 33 6.4 9 3.3

Setaria sp. 0 0 trace - Sorghastrum nutans 39 5.5 16 3.8

Spartina pectinata . 22 4.9 trace -

Sporobolus asper trace - 0 0

Native C3 Grasses

Agropyron caninum trace - trace - Calamagrostis sp. 12 3.3 0 0 Elymus canadensis 0 0 30 5.3 Hordeum jubatum 0.042 0.042 0 0

Exotic C3 Grasses Agrostis stolonifera 13 3.2 0 0

Bromus inermis 21 6.1 trace - Bromus japonicus 0 0 1 0.5 Poa pratensis 15 4.5 0 0

Sedges and Rushes

Carex sp. 11 2.7 trace -

Carex brevoir 0 0 trace -

Carex crawei 1 ' 0.5 trace -

Carex gravida 0 0 trace -

Carex pellita trace - 0 0

Carex tetanic a trace - 0 0 Eleocharis sp. 6 2.2 0 0

Juncus dudleyi trace - 0 0

Juncus torreyi trace - 0 0

Scirpus sp. trace - 0 0

Scirpus pungens trace = 0 0 137

Appendix Table 9 (continued). Plant species collected at native and restored prairies and ordered by plant guild. Canopy cover values are from the sampling period (June or August) with the highest average canopy cover.

Species Native Prairie Restored Prairie

Woody Plants Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Cornus drummondii 0 0 trace -

Populus deltoides 0 0 trace -

Rosa sp. 0 0 trace - Rosa woodsii 0 0 trace -

Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 0 0 trace -

Native Forbs Allium canadense 0 0 trace -

Ambrosia artemisiifolia 0 0 trace -

Ambrosia trifida 0 0 trace -

Apocynum cannabinum 3 1.0 trace -

Asclepias sp. trace - trace - Asclepias sped os a trace - trace -

Asclepias syriaca . trace - trace - Asclepias verticillata 0 0 trace - Astragalus canadensis 0 0 8 4.3 Aster ericoides trace - 5 2.2 Aster simplex trace - trace -

Callirhoe involucrata trace - trace - Cirsium altissimum 0 0 trace -

Cirsium flodmanii trace - 0 0

Conyza sp. trace - 0 0

Dalea Candida trace trace -

Dalea purpurea trace - 4 2.1 Desmodium canescens 0 0 1 1.2 Desmanthus illinoensis trace - 16 4.1

Equisetum sp. trace - 0 0

Erigeron strigosus trace - trace -

Eupatorium altissimum 0 0 trace -

Galium sp. 0 0 trace - Helianthus maximilianii 4 3.3 16 4.9 Helianthus rigidus 0 0 4 1.8

Hypoxis hirsuta trace - 0 0

Lespedeza capitata 0 0 trace -

Lippia sp. trace - 0 0 138

Appendix Table 9 (continued). Plant species collected at native and restored prairies and ordered by plant guild. Canopy cover values are from the sampling period (June or August) with the highest average canopy cover.

Species Native Prairie Restored Prairie

Native Forbs (continued) Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Lycopus sp. trace - 0 0 Lycopus americanus trace - 0 0 Medicago lupulina 0 0 trace -

Monarda fistulosa 0 0 trace - Oxalis strict a 0 0 trace -

Penstemon digitalis 0 0 trace - Physalis virginiana trace - 0 0

Pycnanthemum virginianum 0 0 trace - Ratibida columnifera 0 0 trace - Rudbeckia hirta trace - trace - Schrankia nuttallii 0 0 1 1.2

Scutellaria sp. trace - 0 0 Senecio plattensis trace - 0 0

Silphium integrifolium 0 0 trace - Smilacina racemosa 2 0.7 0 0

Solidago canadensis trace - 8 3.0 Solidago gigantea 0 0 1 1.2

Solidago missouriensis 0 0 trace - Solidago rigida 0 0 3 2.1

Vernonia baldwinii trace - 0 0

Verbena stricta 0 0 trace - Viola sp. trace - 0 0

Exotic Forbs Melilotus sp. 0 0 trace - Melilotus officinalis 0 0 1 0.5

Taraxacum officinale trace - trace -