DOCSLIB.ORG

Vegetation of Shenandoah National Park in Relation to Environmental Gradients, Version 2.0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vegetation of Shenandoah National Park in Relation to Environmental Gradients, Version 2.0 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Northeast Region Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Vegetation of Shenandoah National Park in Relation to Environmental Gradients, Version 2.0 Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR—2009/142 Cover photo: Forest cover, Shenandoah National Park, 2001. Photograph by: John Young. Vegetation of Shenandoah National Park in Relation to Environmental Gradients, Version 2.0 Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR—2009/142 John Young1, Gary Fleming2, Wendy Cass3, Chris Lea4 1 U.S. Geological Survey Leetown Science Center Kearneysville, West Virginia 2 Virginia Natural Heritage Program Department of Conservation and Recreation Richmond, Virginia 3 National Park Service Shenandoah National Park Luray, Virginia 4 National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Program Denver, Colorado December 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Northeast Region Philadelphia, PA The Northeast Region of the National Park Service (NPS) comprises national parks and related areas in 13 New England and Mid-Atlantic states. The diversity of parks and their resources are reflected in their designations as national parks, seashores, historic sites, recreation areas, military parks, memorials, and rivers and trails. Biological, physical, and social science research results, natural resource inventory and monitoring data, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences related to these park units are disseminated through the NPS/NER Technical Report (NRTR) and Natural Resources Report (NRR) series. The reports are a continuation of series with previous acronyms of NPS/PHSO, NPS/MAR, NPS/BSO-RNR, and NPS/NERBOST. Individual parks may also disseminate information through their own report series. Natural Resources Reports are the designated medium for information on technologies and resource management methods; “how to” resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; and natural resource program descriptions and resource action plans. Technical Reports are the designated medium for initially disseminating data and results of biological, physical, and social science research that addresses natural resource management issues; natural resource inventories and monitoring activities; scientific literature reviews; bibliographies; and peer-reviewed proceedings of technical workshops, conferences, or symposia. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. This report was accomplished with assistance from the NPS. The statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are solely those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Print copies of reports in these series, produced in limited quantity and only available as long as the supply lasts, or preferably, file copies on CD, may be obtained by sending a request to the address on the front cover. Print copies also may be requested from the NPS Technical Information Center (TIC), Denver Service Center, PO Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225-0287. A copy charge may be involved. To order from TIC, refer to document 134/100756. Please cite this publication as: Young, J., G. Fleming, W. Cass, and C. Lea. 2009. Vegetation of Shenandoah National Park in Relation to Environmental Gradients, Version 2.0. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR—2009/142. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA. NPS 134/100756 December 2009 ii Table of Contents Page Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v Tables .......................................................................................................................................... vii Appendixes .................................................................................................................................. ix Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ xi Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................... xiii Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... xv 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................... 2 2 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Environmental Gradient Modeling ................................................................................ 3 2.2 Sample Site Selection ...................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Field Survey Methods .................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Plot Data Analysis and Classification Methods ............................................................. 9 2.5 Image Processing and Classification ............................................................................ 14 2.6 Accuracy Assessment Design ...................................................................................... 19 3 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 23 3.1 Vegetation and Accuracy Assessment Plots ................................................................ 23 3.2 Vegetation Classification Scheme ............................................................................... 23 3.3 Vegetation Map ............................................................................................................ 47 3.4 Accuracy Assessment .................................................................................................. 48 4 Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 61 5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 69 iii Table of Contents (continued) Page 6 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................ 71 iv Figures Page Figure 2.1. Example ASTER imagery and North subdistrict "a" boundary. .............................. 16 Figures 3.1a. Shenandoah National Park vegetation map, v 2.0 output, north district, subdistrict (a). ........................................................................................................ 49 Figure 3.1b. Shenandoah National Park vegetation map, v 2.0 output, north district, subdistrict (b). ........................................................................................................ 50 Figure 3.1c. Shenandoah National Park vegetation map, v 2.0 output, central district, subdistrict (a). ..................................................................................................... 51 Figure 3.1d. Shenandoah National Park vegetation map, v 2.0 output, central district, subdistrict (b). ..................................................................................................... 52 Figure 3.1e. Shenandoah National Park vegetation map, v 2.0 output, south district, subdistrict (a). ........................................................................................................ 53 Figure 3.1f. Shenandoah National Park vegetation map, v 2.0 output, south district, subdistrict (b). ....................................................................................................... 54 Figure 3.1g. Legend for 35 community types mapped in Shenandoah National Park, v 2.0 output. ......................................................................................................... 55 Figure 3.2. Example of issues suggesting consideration of accuracy using “fuzzy” summary methods as described in Congalton and Green. .............................................. 59 Figure 4.1. Example class probability map for map class F23 for a section of Shenandoah National Park near Thomton Gap. ...................................................................... 63 Figure 4.2. Illustration of close proximity of map classes F8, F12, and F24 in both field plots and mapped community boundaries. ....................................................... 66 Figure 4.3. Illustration of close proximity of map classes F14 and F16 in both field plots and mapped community boundaries. .................................................................. 66 Figure 4.4. Illustration of close proximity of map classes F4 and F18 in both field plots and mapped community boundaries. .................................................................. 68 v Tables Page Table 2.1. Aggregate geological classes used as dummy variables in data analysis. .........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Volcanic Fire and Glacial
    For additional reading (technical) Miller, J.M.G., 1994, The Neoproterozoic Konnarock Formation, southwestern Virginia, USA; Glaciolacustrine facies in a continental rift, in Deynoux, M[ax], Miller, J.M.G., Donnack, E.W., Eyles, N., Fairchild, I.J., and Young, G.M., eds., Earth’s glacial record: New York, Cambridge Volcanic Fire University Press, p. 47–59. Rankin, D.W., 1993, The volcanogenic Mount Rogers Formation and the overlying glaciogenic Konnarock and Glacial Ice Formation—Two Late Proterozoic units in southwestern Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2029, 26 p. Rankin, D.W., Miller, J.M.G., and Simpson, E.L., 1994, Geology of the Mt. Rogers area, southwestern Virginia Blue Ridge and Unaka belt, in Schultz, Art, and Henika, Bill, eds., Fieldguides to southern Appalachian structure, stratigraphy, and engineering geology: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Department of Geological Sciences Guidebook no. 10, p. 127–176. Cover: Buzzard Rock, a shoulder of Whitetop Mountain, from near the peak of Whitetop Mountain; volcanic rocks are in the foreground. Photograph by Sandra H.B. Clark, U.S. Geological Survey. For more information online Visit the USGS at http://www.usgs.gov and the Forest Service at http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/ The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of the Interior (DOI) prohibit discrimination in all their programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, Geologic Wonders religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or of the George Washington and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Jefferson National Forests Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for No.
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Some of the Best Vines and Ground Covers for Massachusetts Gardens**
    ARNOLDIA A continuation of the BULLETIN OF POPULAR INFORMATION of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University VOLUME 13 MARCH 6, 1953 NUMBERS 1-2 SOME OF THE BEST VINES AND GROUND COVERS FOR MASSACHUSETTS GARDENS** the past two years, two issues of Arnoldia have dealt with some of DURINGthe best shrubs and trees for Massachusetts gardens. (Arnoldia 11 : No. 1, March 9, 1951 ; Vol. 11 : No. 1, March 7, 195~?~. This issue, dealing with vines and ground covers will complete this series. Everything which was said in those bulletins on what constitutes "the best" and how such plants are chosen, is also applicable here to the vines and ground covers. It should be re-emphasized here however, that nothing is implied in the following discussions of the selected types, that would indicate some of the others listed on pages 18 and 19 are not just as serviceable. The recommended ones might be used considerably more than they are at present. It is especially important to note that each plant in the following list is avail- able from at least one of the listed nurserymen. It was impossible to contact all the nurserymen in the state, so there are undoubtedly many other sources in the state for these plants. Since they are available, your local nurseryman can obtain them for you, if he will. Glowing descriptions of plants that are unobtainable may play on the imagina- tion, but it is useless to become enthusiastic about them until they are obtain- able. Each one of these listed is available in 1953. Consequently, the gardeners of the state are urged to become better acquainted with these vines and ground covers, buy a few that are hardy and in this way increase the beauty and interest of the home grounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Descriptions 2018 4/22/2018
    Tyler Plant Sale - Plant Descriptions 2018 4/22/2018 TypeDesc Botanical Common Season of Exposure Size Description Name Name Interest Woody: Vine Clematis Clematis Summer to Sun to 8-10' Clematis 'Cardinal Wyszynski' dazzles your garden with huge 8" glowing 'Cardinal Fall Partial crimson flowers. The vibrant flowers are accented with darker crimson Wyszynski' Shade anthers and light pink filaments. Blooms in June-July and again in September. Attracts pollinators. Easy to grow in a rich, porous, alkaline soil. Provide shade for the roots with a generous layer of mulch or a shallow-rooted groundcover near the base of the vine. Received the Golden Medal at 'Plantarium' in 1990. Woody: Vine Clematis Hybrid Summer Sun to 6-8’ Fully double white flowers have yellow anthers and green outer petals. 'Duchess of Clematis Partial They are borne on the previous year’s growth and the current season’s Edinburgh' Shade new growth. This clematis does not require heavy pruning, remove only weak or dead stems in late spring. Tolerates most garden soils, needs protection from cold winds. Woody: Vine Clematis Clematis Early Sun to 8-10’ A beautiful, compact vine that covers itself with 5” shell pink flowers in 'Hagley Summer Partial summer. 'Hagley Hybrid' is also know as Pink Chiffon. This is a large- Hybrid' Shade flowering clematis that can be grown as a container plant. It is best keep out of full sun to prevent bleaching of flowers. Prefers moist, well-drained soil and for best results, mulch. TypeDesc Botanical Common Season of Exposure Size Description Name Name Interest Woody: Vine Clematis x Clematis Summer to Sun to 6-10' This deciduous hybrid clematis, has unusual and very striking deep blue durandii Fall Partial flowers with creamy stamens on a non-clinging, scrambling vine.
    [Show full text]
  • China Birding Report Template
    Arunachal Pradesh, India (Eaglenest, Dirang and Nameri) 5-15 April 2007 Graham Talbot, Ramana Athreya, Mike Turnbull, Chris Campion, Bjorn Anderson and Joakim Hammar with the endemic-rich eastern Himalayas in the background Björn Anderson General This is a report from a highly successful trip to the eastern Himalayas together with Hong Kong birding companions Joakim (Jocko) Hammar, Chris Campion, Graham Talbot and Mike Turnbull. CC, GT and MT sneaked away from non-birding duties a few days earlier than Jocko and myself and thereby also squeezed in Kaziranga. Two years ago Eaglenest would have required a full presentation, but with the published discovery of the Bugun Liocichla in 2006 the place is on everyone’s lips. In fact more than 250 Indian and foreign birders made the pilgrimage to Eaglenest in early 2007! If the Bugun people ever doubted that their forest would be of international interest, they are by now proven quite wrong. I and Jocko spent six nights at Eaglenest before moving to Dirang for two nights and finishing off with one morning at Nameri in the Assam lowlands. We were fortunate to enjoy the company and guiding of Ramana Athreya the entire time. Ramana is the birder who first found and described the Bugun Liocichla and made Eaglenest known to the birding community. Highlights This is one of those places on earth where you in a short period of time can see so many good birds that it is difficult to pick out a top five, even a top ten! - The absolutely unconcerned male Ward’s Trogon that gave itself up after 18 hours of
    [Show full text]
  • Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016
    Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016 April 1981 Revised, May 1982 2nd revision, April 1983 3rd revision, December 1999 4th revision, May 2011 Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce Ohio Department of Natural Resources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Division of Wildlife Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 2045 Morse Road, Bldg. G Estuarine Reserves Division Columbus, Ohio 1305 East West Highway 43229-6693 Silver Spring, MD 20910 This management plan has been developed in accordance with NOAA regulations, including all provisions for public involvement. It is consistent with the congressional intent of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the provisions of the Ohio Coastal Management Program. OWC NERR Management Plan, 2011 - 2016 Acknowledgements This management plan was prepared by the staff and Advisory Council of the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve (OWC NERR), in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources-Division of Wildlife. Participants in the planning process included: Manager, Frank Lopez; Research Coordinator, Dr. David Klarer; Coastal Training Program Coordinator, Heather Elmer; Education Coordinator, Ann Keefe; Education Specialist Phoebe Van Zoest; and Office Assistant, Gloria Pasterak. Other Reserve staff including Dick Boyer and Marje Bernhardt contributed their expertise to numerous planning meetings. The Reserve is grateful for the input and recommendations provided by members of the Old Woman Creek NERR Advisory Council. The Reserve is appreciative of the review, guidance, and council of Division of Wildlife Executive Administrator Dave Scott and the mapping expertise of Keith Lott and the late Steve Barry.
    [Show full text]
  • Umbilicariaceae Phylogeny TAXON 66 (6) • December 2017: 1282–1303
    Davydov & al. • Umbilicariaceae phylogeny TAXON 66 (6) • December 2017: 1282–1303 Umbilicariaceae (lichenized Ascomycota) – Trait evolution and a new generic concept Evgeny A. Davydov,1 Derek Peršoh2 & Gerhard Rambold3 1 Altai State University, Lenin Ave. 61, Barnaul, 656049 Russia 2 Ruhr-Universität Bochum, AG Geobotanik, Gebäude ND 03/170, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany 3 University of Bayreuth, Plant Systematics, Mycology Dept., Universitätsstraße 30, NW I, 95445 Bayreuth, Germany Author for correspondence: Evgeny A. Davydov, [email protected] ORCID EAD, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2316-8506; DP, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5561-0189 DOI https://doi.org/10.12705/666.2 Abstract To reconstruct hypotheses on the evolution of Umbilicariaceae, 644 sequences from three independent DNA regions were used, 433 of which were newly produced. The study includes a representative fraction (presumably about 80%) of the known species diversity of the Umbilicariaceae s.str. and is based on the phylograms obtained using maximum likelihood and a Bayesian phylogenetic inference framework. The analyses resulted in the recognition of eight well-supported clades, delimited by a combination of morphological and chemical features. None of the previous classifications within Umbilicariaceae s.str. were supported by the phylogenetic analyses. The distribution of the diagnostic morphological and chemical traits against the molecular phylogenetic topology revealed the following patterns of evolution: (1) Rhizinomorphs were gained at least four times independently and are lacking in most clades grouping in the proximity of Lasallia. (2) Asexual reproductive structures, i.e., thalloconidia and lichenized dispersal units, appear more or less mutually exclusive, being restricted to different clades.
    [Show full text]
  • A Five-Gene Phylogeny of Pezizomycotina
    Mycologia, 98(6), 2006, pp. 1018–1028. # 2006 by The Mycological Society of America, Lawrence, KS 66044-8897 A five-gene phylogeny of Pezizomycotina Joseph W. Spatafora1 Burkhard Bu¨del Gi-Ho Sung Alexandra Rauhut Desiree Johnson Department of Biology, University of Kaiserslautern, Cedar Hesse Kaiserslautern, Germany Benjamin O’Rourke David Hewitt Maryna Serdani Harvard University Herbaria, Harvard University, Robert Spotts Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Wendy A. Untereiner Department of Botany, Brandon University, Brandon, Franc¸ois Lutzoni Manitoba, Canada Vale´rie Hofstetter Jolanta Miadlikowska Mariette S. Cole Vale´rie Reeb 2017 Thure Avenue, St Paul, Minnesota 55116 Ce´cile Gueidan Christoph Scheidegger Emily Fraker Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Research, WSL Zu¨ rcherstr. 111CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Durham, North Carolina 27708 Switzerland Thorsten Lumbsch Matthias Schultz Robert Lu¨cking Biozentrum Klein Flottbek und Botanischer Garten der Imke Schmitt Universita¨t Hamburg, Systematik der Pflanzen Ohnhorststr. 18, D-22609 Hamburg, Germany Kentaro Hosaka Department of Botany, Field Museum of Natural Harrie Sipman History, Chicago, Illinois 60605 Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin- Dahlem, Freie Universita¨t Berlin, Ko¨nigin-Luise-Straße Andre´ Aptroot 6-8, D-14195 Berlin, Germany ABL Herbarium, G.V.D. Veenstraat 107, NL-3762 XK Soest, The Netherlands Conrad L. Schoch Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon Claude Roux State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Chemin des Vignes vieilles, FR - 84120 MIRABEAU, France Andrew N. Miller Abstract: Pezizomycotina is the largest subphylum of Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity, Ascomycota and includes the vast majority of filamen- Champaign, Illinois 61820 tous, ascoma-producing species.
    [Show full text]
  • Signal Knob Northern Massanutten Mountain Catback Mountain Browns Run Southern Massanutten Mountain Five Areas of Around 45,000 Acres on the Lee the West
    Sherman Bamford To: [email protected] <[email protected] cc: Sherman Bamford <[email protected]> > Subject: NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage draft multi-species habitat conservation plan comments - attachments 2 12/13/2011 03:32 PM Sherman Bamford Forests Committee Chair Virginia Chapter – Sierra Club P.O. Box 3102 Roanoke, Va. 24015 [email protected] (540) 343-6359 December 13, 2011 Regional Director, Midwest Region Attn: Lisa Mandell U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990 Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 Email: [email protected] Dear Ms. Mandell: On behalf of the Virginia Chapter of Sierra Club, the following are attachments to our previously submitted comments on the the NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage (“NiSource”) draft multi-species habitat conservation plan (“HCP”) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“Service”) draft environmental impact statement (“EIS”). Draft of Virginia Mountain Treasures For descriptions and maps only. The final version was published in 2008. Some content may have changed between 2007 and 2008. Sherman Bamford Sherman Bamford PO Box 3102 Roanoke, Va. 24015-1102 (540) 343-6359 [email protected] Virginia’s Mountain Treasures ART WORK DRAWING The Unprotected Wildlands of the George Washington National Forest A report by the Wilderness Society Cover Art: First Printing: Copyright by The Wilderness Society 1615 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202)-843-9453 Wilderness Support Center 835 East Second Avenue Durango, CO 81302 (970) 247-8788 Founded in 1935, The Wilderness Society works to protect America’s wilderness and to develop a nation- wide network of wild lands through public education, scientific analysis, and advocacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions Toward a Lepidoptera (Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, Thyrididae, Drepanoidea, Geometro
    Contributions Toward a Lepidoptera (Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, Thyrididae, Drepanoidea, Geometroidea, Mimalonoidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea, & Noctuoidea) Biodiversity Inventory of the University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Lab Hugo L. Kons Jr. Last Update: June 2001 Abstract A systematic check list of 489 species of Lepidoptera collected in the University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Lab is presented, including 464 species in the superfamilies Drepanoidea, Geometroidea, Mimalonoidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea, and Noctuoidea. Taxa recorded in Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, and Thyrididae are also included. Moth taxa were collected at ultraviolet lights, bait, introduced Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), and by netting specimens. A list of taxa recorded feeding on P. notatum is presented. Introduction The University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Laboratory (NATL) contains 40 acres of natural habitats maintained for scientific research, conservation, and teaching purposes. Habitat types present include hammock, upland pine, disturbed open field, cat tail marsh, and shallow pond. An active management plan has been developed for this area, including prescribed burning to restore the upland pine community and establishment of plots to study succession (http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/natl.htm). The site is a popular collecting locality for student and scientific collections. The author has done extensive collecting and field work at NATL, and two previous reports have resulted from this work, including: a biodiversity inventory of the butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea & Papilionoidea) of NATL (Kons 1999), and an ecological study of Hermeuptychia hermes (F.) and Megisto cymela (Cram.) in NATL habitats (Kons 1998). Other workers have posted NATL check lists for Ichneumonidae, Sphecidae, Tettigoniidae, and Gryllidae (http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/insect.htm).
    [Show full text]
  • Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts
    Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts September 15, 2013 This report is the result of several years of field data collection, analyses and IBI development, and consideration of the opportunities for wetland program and policy development in relation to IBIs and CAPS Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI). Contributors include: University of Massachusetts Amherst Kevin McGarigal, Ethan Plunkett, Joanna Grand, Brad Compton, Theresa Portante, Kasey Rolih, and Scott Jackson Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Jan Smith, Marc Carullo, and Adrienne Pappal Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Lisa Rhodes, Lealdon Langley, and Michael Stroman Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts Abstract The purpose of this study was to develop a fully empirically-based method for developing Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs) that does not rely on expert opinion or the arbitrary designation of reference sites and pilot its application in forested wetlands, coastal salt marshes and wadable freshwater streams in Massachusetts. The method we developed involves: 1) using a suite of regression models to estimate the abundance of each taxon across a gradient of stressor levels, 2) using statistical calibration based on the fitted regression models and maximum likelihood methods to predict the value of the stressor metric based on the abundance of the taxon at each site, 3) selecting taxa in a forward stepwise procedure that conditionally improves the concordance between the observed stressor value and the predicted value the most and a stopping rule for selecting taxa based on a conditional alpha derived from comparison to pseudotaxa data, and 4) comparing the coefficient of concordance for the final IBI to the expected distribution derived from randomly permuted data.
    [Show full text]