DOCSLIB.ORG

A Multifaceted Appraisal of a Large-Scale, Multi-Taxon Biodiversity Monitoring Initiative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Alberta A multifaceted appraisal of a large-scale, multi-taxon biodiversity monitoring initiative by Diane Lauren Haughland A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology Department of Biological Sciences ©Diane Lauren Haughland Fall 2012 Edmonton, Alberta Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta Libraries to reproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research purposes only. Where the thesis is converted to, or otherwise made available in digital form, the University of Alberta will advise potential users of the thesis of these terms. The author reserves all other publication and other rights in association with the copyright in the thesis and, except as herein before provided, neither the thesis nor any substantial portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any material form whatsoever without the author's prior written permission. For Alberta's boreal biodiversity Eriophorum growing on a cut line through a Picea mariana stand, Anzac, Alberta ABSTRACT Conservationists have long debated how best to measure and conserve biodiversity. While many scientists called for long-term, large-scale ecological monitoring in the 1990's, the concurrent increased appreciation of statistical power and detectability-related sampling error meant that many programs endeavoring to be more inclusive were contentious. The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) provided a unique opportunity to assess a large- scale, long-term, systematic biodiversity monitoring program, employing largely undergraduate field technicians. Given these design attributes, I examined the sampling error and data quality in select components of ABMI, largely within the boreal forest ecozone of Alberta. Components examined included the collection of bryophyte field samples, identification of lichen samples in the laboratory, and the resultant statistical power and ecological value of these data for assessing changes in multiple taxa. In the first comprehensive assessment of detectability in bryophytes, I showed that while detection error was high for individual bryophyte species, multivariate community composition was highly repeatable between surveys of the same site by different technicians. With quality control and a week of training, technicians accurately detected and identified common lichen species in the laboratory, mitigating some of the field detection error. Preliminary data suggest that ABMI will have high statistical power to detect -3% annual declines in the occurrence of individual species at the scale of natural regions and provincially within 20 years, but smaller-scale assessments will require longer time frames or metrics more robust to detection error such as community composition. To assess the value of monitoring multiple assemblages, I examined the congruence and sensitivity to natural and anthropogenic gradients of soil oribatid mites, breeding birds, bryophytes, and vascular plants. I demonstrated that mites and vascular plants were the most sensitive and complementary set of assemblages, but if funding limited field surveys to one taxon, vascular plants provided the greatest sensitivity to multiple gradients. ABMI provides great ecological value and has been adopted by provincial and federal monitoring agencies, but it remains unclear whether better data will result in better biodiversity conservation given the current economic climate. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Neither this thesis nor I would exist without the varied support, guidance, field assistance, taxonomic expertise or construction skills of the following individuals. Paul Williams David Darwin Barbara, Kelly, Ayla & Parker Wong Scott Coleman Peter, Erin, Mance & Aubrey Dr. Michaela Kadambi & Haughland the Grad Group Trudy & Stephen Haughland Teri Turesof Dr. Stan Boutin Sean Haughian Ainsley Sykes Eleanor Edye Dr. Erin Bayne Dr. Joyce Gould Dr. Heather Proctor Dr. Rene Belland Dr. Jim Schieck Dr. Janet Marsh Jim Herbers Dr. Richard Caners Dr. Scott Nielsen Trevor Goward Dr. Tyler Cobb & Julienne Morissette Kim Perrault Mireille Martel Carrie Dillman Michelle Green John Potter Chesceri Mason Gafuik Ashley Craig Dr. Lisa Mahon Monique Morin Dr. Gillian Holloway Nicole Bohnen Jeff Johnston Fred Noddin Annie, Meanook & Tessa Daiyuan Pan I'm also indebted to the following agencies for either scholarships, funding that supported my research or travel to present research, or in some cases, all three. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute Alberta Conservation Association Alberta Ingenuity Fund Alberta Sport, Recreation, Parks, and Wildlife Foundation Canadian Circumpolar Institute Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Alberta Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Northern Scientific Training Program The Killam Trusts I thank Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia, and the Royal Alberta Museum, Edmonton, Alberta for employment opportunities that enriched the later years of my degree. I thank the passionate people at the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute for inspiration. Finally, I thank my husband Paul for everything that he is, and all he is helping me to be. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE ..................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................1 Biodiversity management and monitoring ...................................................... 1 The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute ................................................ 3 Alberta’s boreal forest ..................................................................................... 4 What does ABMI monitor in the boreal? ........................................................ 5 Detection/non-detection and relative abundance surveys: what are the assumptions? ............................................................................................... 6 Ecological phenomena that degrade index utility ....................................... 6 Evolutionary traps ................................................................................... 7 Habitat selection via social cues ............................................................. 7 Extinction debt ........................................................................................ 7 Detecting the above ecological phenomenon: what can ABMI do? ........... 8 Detection biases that degrade index accuracy ............................................ 8 Dealing with unequal detection: what can ABMI do? ................................ 9 Dissertation objectives and organization ....................................................... 10 Literature cited ............................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................. 22 Can we better our biodiversity monitoring by breaking the rules? ................22 Summary ........................................................................................................ 22 Introduction ................................................................................................... 23 Current approaches aren’t working ........................................................... 24 The alternative .......................................................................................... 25 Long time frames .................................................................................. 26 Large geographic scale ......................................................................... 26 Inclusive of multiple taxa with varying life history traits and ecological roles ....................................................................................................... 27 Systematic design, with consistent, simple methods ............................ 30 Inclusive of landscape and anthropogenic land-use information .......... 30 Statistically powerful at the scale of powerful management ................ 31 How to fund biodiversity monitoring and why it need not come at the cost of research .......................................................................................................... 32 Long-term, stable funding for biodiversity ........................................... 32 Ecological and economical spin-offs of biodiversity monitoring ......... 33 Criticisms ....................................................................................................... 34 Criticism 1: Bad for rare species ........................................................... 35 Criticism 2: Lack of statistical power ................................................... 35 Criticism 3: Not mechanistic or model-based ....................................... 36 Criticism 4: No explicit quantitative a priori hypotheses or models .... 36 Criticism 5: Impractical and wasteful ................................................... 38 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 39 Literature cited ............................................................................................... 40 CHAPTER THREE .............................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Bryophytes As Key Indicators of Ecosystem Function and Structure of Northern Peatlands

    Bryophytes As Key Indicators of Ecosystem Function and Structure of Northern Peatlands

    Bry. Div. Evo. 043 (1): 253–264 ISSN 2381-9677 (print edition) DIVERSITY & https://www.mapress.com/j/bde BRYOPHYTEEVOLUTION Copyright © 2021 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 2381-9685 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/bde.43.1.18 Bryophytes as key indicators of ecosystem function and structure of northern peatlands DALE H. VITT1 & MELISSA HOUSE1 1School of Biological Sciences, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 62901, U.S.A., �[email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7808-3964 �[email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7635-9541 Abstract Bryophytes play a number of important roles in the functioning and structure of northern peatlands where they form the ground layer of fens and bogs. Sphagnum, dominant in bogs and poor fens, and brown mosses, dominant in rich fens, make up a large percentage of the organic matter that is stored as deep deposits of peat. In this paper we review the mechanisms of resistance to decay in these two moss groups. We then document a case study of a rich fen dominated mostly by Hamatocaulis vernicosus, that has remained stable for over 8000 calendar years. At this site, we use macrofossil abundances, including bryophyte habitat positions on water level and chemistry gradients, to infer past environmental conditions. Lastly, we provide a new ecohydrologic framework for wetland classes centered on bryophyte abundances across water level, nutrient, and salinity gradients and argue that bryophyte species are among the most significant indicators for classifying wetland site-types. Key words: Bog, bryophyte, community stability, ecohydrology, fen, Hamatocaulis vernicosus, moss, peatland classification Introduction Bryophytes are small plants that are abundant and dominate in only a few terrestrial ecosystems.
  • Population Ecology of Eriophorum Latifolium, a Clonal Species in Rich Fen Vegetation

    Population Ecology of Eriophorum Latifolium, a Clonal Species in Rich Fen Vegetation

    Anders Lyngstad Population Ecology of Eriophorum latifolium, a Clonal Species in Rich Fen Vegetation Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor Trondheim, October 2010 Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Natural Sciences and Technology Department of Biology NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor Faculty of Natural Sciences and Technology Department of Biology © Anders Lyngstad ISBN 978-82-471-2332-4 (printed ver.) ISBN 978-82-471-2333-1 (electronic ver.) ISSN 1503-8181 Doctoral theses at NTNU, 2010:179 Printed by NTNU-trykk Synopsis PREFACE It was the spring of 2005, and it was the right time to move onwards. A position as a research fellow working with long-term time series at the Museum of Natural History and Archaeology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) was announced, and a PhD-project was developed with the studies of former haymaking lands at Sølendet and Tågdalen nature reserves as a starting point. Work began in earnest in January 2006, and continued at an ever increasing pace until July 2010, when all the parts of the thesis were finally completed and assembled. The study was financed by NTNU, and was carried out at the Museum of Natural History and Archaeology and the Institute of Biology, both NTNU. I am deeply grateful to my main supervisor Professor Asbjørn Moen at the Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, and my co-supervisor Associate Professor Bård Pedersen at the Institute of Biology. This project rests on the long-term studies of rich hayfens that were initiated by Asbjørn 40 years ago, and that are still ongoing, much due to his continuous effort.
  • High Consistency of Trophic Niches in Soil Microarthropod Species

    High Consistency of Trophic Niches in Soil Microarthropod Species

    1 Supplementary materials 2 High consistency of trophic niches in soil microarthropod species 3 (Oribatida, Acari) across soil depth and forest type 4 Authors: Jing-Zhong Lu1*, Peter Cordes1, Mark Maraun1, Stefan Scheu1,2 5 6 Affiliations: 7 1. Johann-Friedrich-Blumenbach Institute of Zoology and Anthropology, Universität Göttingen, 8 Untere Karspüle 2, 37073 Göttingen, Germany 9 2. Center of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use, Universität Göttingen, Büsgenweg 1, 37077 10 Göttingen, Germany 11 * Corresponding author (E-mail: [email protected]) 12 13 Supplementary Tables 14 Table S1 15 Species list Oribatida (n = 40). Trophic guilds were assigned according to litter calibrated δ13C and 16 δ15N values: primary decomposer, secondary decomposer, endophagous Oribatida and 17 scavenger/predator. Total number of animals for each species used for stable isotopes and their 18 ranges (min - max) are given. Total number Trophic Oribatid taxa Family (range) δ13C δ15N guilds Ceratozetes minimus Sellnick, 1928 Ceratozetidae 10 (10-10) 2.95 ± 0.06 11.02 ± 0.17 predator Hypochthonius rufulus C. L. Koch, 1835 Hypochthoniidae 4 (2-7) 3.15 ± 0.77 6.23 ± 0.96 predator Metabelba pulverosa Strenzke, 1953 Damaeidae 3 (3-3) 3.08 ± 0.25 6.29 ± 2.40 predator Microppia minus (Paoli, 1908) Oppiidae 19 (7-25) 2.42 ± 0.28 8.74 ± 2.42 predator Oppiella nova (Oudemans, 1902) Oppiidae 14 (8-17) 2.70 ± 1.84 6.73 ± 2.79 predator Oppiella subpectinata (Oudemans, 1900) Oppiidae 9 (3-16) 2.93 ± 0.93 7.28 ± 1.96 predator Suctobelbella spp Jacot, 1937 Suctobelbidae 22 (18-26) 3.00 ± 0.74 6.69 ± 0.72 predator Acrogalumna longipluma (Berlese, 1904) Galumnidae 4 (3-5) 4.41 ± 0.18 5.06 ± 0.12 endophagous Carabodes ornatus Storkan, 1925 Carabodidae 2 (1-3) 3.26 ± 1.79 0.68 ± 0.52 endophagous Liacarus coracinus (C.
  • Bryoflora of the Great Cypress Swamp Conservation Area, Sussex County, Delaware and Worcester County, Maryland

    Bryoflora of the Great Cypress Swamp Conservation Area, Sussex County, Delaware and Worcester County, Maryland

    The Maryland Naturalist 43 (3-4):9-17 . July/December 1999 The Bryoflora of the Great Cypress Swamp Conservation Area, Sussex County, Delaware and Worcester County, Maryland William A. McAvoy Introduction In 1998 the Delaware Natural Heritage Program (DNHP), with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, completed a biological/ecological survey of the Great Cypress Swamp Conservation Area (GCSCA). The GCSCA is located in the central portion of the Delmarva Peninsula (a land area composed of the coastal plain counties of Delaware and the eastern shore counties of Maryland and Virginia) and lies on the border of Sussex County, Delaware and Worcester County, Maryland (Figure 1). Though the survey included a variety of inventories (avian, amphibian and reptile, natural community, and rare vascular plants), it is the data collected on bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) that are reported here. The study ofbryophytes on the Delmarva Peninsula has attracted very little interest over the years, and a search of the literature revealed only four pertinent papers. Owens (1949), while studying at the University of Maryland, submitted a graduate thesis titled A Preliminary List of Maryland Mosses and their Distribution. This annotated list, containing county distribution data and briefhabitat notes, included 198 taxa of mosses for the state of Maryland, with 65 taxa attributed to the eastern shore counties of Delmarva. Owens's list was based solely on pre-I 949 collections at US and MARY (Herbaria acronyms follow Holmgren et al. 1990). Confirmations and determinations were made by the author, as well as by numerous other authorities in the field ofbryology (Owens 1949).
  • The Armoured Mite Fauna (Acari: Oribatida) from a Long-Term Study in the Scots Pine Forest of the Northern Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve, Latvia

    The Armoured Mite Fauna (Acari: Oribatida) from a Long-Term Study in the Scots Pine Forest of the Northern Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve, Latvia

    FRAGMENTA FAUNISTICA 57 (2): 141–149, 2014 PL ISSN 0015-9301 © MUSEUM AND INSTITUTE OF ZOOLOGY PAS DOI 10.3161/00159301FF2014.57.2.141 The armoured mite fauna (Acari: Oribatida) from a long-term study in the Scots pine forest of the Northern Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve, Latvia 1 2 1 Uģis KAGAINIS , Voldemārs SPUNĢIS and Viesturs MELECIS 1 Institute of Biology, University of Latvia, 3 Miera Street, LV-2169, Salaspils, Latvia; e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author) 2 Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, Faculty of Biology,University of Latvia, 4 Kronvalda Blvd., LV-1586, Riga, Latvia; e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: In 1992–2012, a considerable amount of soil micro-arthropods has been collected annually as a part of a project of the National Long-Term Ecological Research Network of Latvia at the Mazsalaca Scots Pine forest sites of the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve. Until now, the data on oribatid species have not been published. This paper presents a list of oribatid species collected during 21 years of ongoing research in three pine stands of different age. The faunistic records refer to 84 species (including 17 species new to the fauna of Latvia), 1 subspecies, 1 form, 5 morphospecies and 18 unidentified taxa. The most dominant and most frequent oribatid species are Oppiella (Oppiella) nova, Tectocepheus velatus velatus and Suctobelbella falcata. Key words: species list, fauna, stand-age, LTER, Mazsalaca INTRODUCTION Most studies of Oribatida or the so-called armoured mites (Subías 2004) have been relatively short term and/or from different ecosystems simultaneously and do not show long- term changes (Winter et al.
  • An Annotated Checklist of Bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus

    An Annotated Checklist of Bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus

    Journal of Bryology ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjbr20 An annotated checklist of bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus N. G. Hodgetts , L. Söderström , T. L. Blockeel , S. Caspari , M. S. Ignatov , N. A. Konstantinova , N. Lockhart , B. Papp , C. Schröck , M. Sim-Sim , D. Bell , N. E. Bell , H. H. Blom , M. A. Bruggeman-Nannenga , M. Brugués , J. Enroth , K. I. Flatberg , R. Garilleti , L. Hedenäs , D. T. Holyoak , V. Hugonnot , I. Kariyawasam , H. Köckinger , J. Kučera , F. Lara & R. D. Porley To cite this article: N. G. Hodgetts , L. Söderström , T. L. Blockeel , S. Caspari , M. S. Ignatov , N. A. Konstantinova , N. Lockhart , B. Papp , C. Schröck , M. Sim-Sim , D. Bell , N. E. Bell , H. H. Blom , M. A. Bruggeman-Nannenga , M. Brugués , J. Enroth , K. I. Flatberg , R. Garilleti , L. Hedenäs , D. T. Holyoak , V. Hugonnot , I. Kariyawasam , H. Köckinger , J. Kučera , F. Lara & R. D. Porley (2020) An annotated checklist of bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus, Journal of Bryology, 42:1, 1-116, DOI: 10.1080/03736687.2019.1694329 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03736687.2019.1694329 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 28 May 2020. UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2747 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 28 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjbr20 JOURNAL OF BRYOLOGY 2020, VOL. 42, NO. 1, 1–116 https://doi.org/10.1080/03736687.2019.1694329 BRYOLOGICAL MONOGRAPH An annotated checklist of bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus N.
  • Lichens and Associated Fungi from Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska

    Lichens and Associated Fungi from Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska

    The Lichenologist (2020), 52,61–181 doi:10.1017/S0024282920000079 Standard Paper Lichens and associated fungi from Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska Toby Spribille1,2,3 , Alan M. Fryday4 , Sergio Pérez-Ortega5 , Måns Svensson6, Tor Tønsberg7, Stefan Ekman6 , Håkon Holien8,9, Philipp Resl10 , Kevin Schneider11, Edith Stabentheiner2, Holger Thüs12,13 , Jan Vondrák14,15 and Lewis Sharman16 1Department of Biological Sciences, CW405, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R3, Canada; 2Department of Plant Sciences, Institute of Biology, University of Graz, NAWI Graz, Holteigasse 6, 8010 Graz, Austria; 3Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, Montana 59812, USA; 4Herbarium, Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA; 5Real Jardín Botánico (CSIC), Departamento de Micología, Calle Claudio Moyano 1, E-28014 Madrid, Spain; 6Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 16, SE-75236 Uppsala, Sweden; 7Department of Natural History, University Museum of Bergen Allégt. 41, P.O. Box 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway; 8Faculty of Bioscience and Aquaculture, Nord University, Box 2501, NO-7729 Steinkjer, Norway; 9NTNU University Museum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway; 10Faculty of Biology, Department I, Systematic Botany and Mycology, University of Munich (LMU), Menzinger Straße 67, 80638 München, Germany; 11Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK; 12Botany Department, State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart, Rosenstein 1, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany; 13Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK; 14Institute of Botany of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, 252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic; 15Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branišovská 1760, CZ-370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic and 16Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve, P.O.
  • About the Book the Format Acknowledgments

    About the Book the Format Acknowledgments

    About the Book For more than ten years I have been working on a book on bryophyte ecology and was joined by Heinjo During, who has been very helpful in critiquing multiple versions of the chapters. But as the book progressed, the field of bryophyte ecology progressed faster. No chapter ever seemed to stay finished, hence the decision to publish online. Furthermore, rather than being a textbook, it is evolving into an encyclopedia that would be at least three volumes. Having reached the age when I could retire whenever I wanted to, I no longer needed be so concerned with the publish or perish paradigm. In keeping with the sharing nature of bryologists, and the need to educate the non-bryologists about the nature and role of bryophytes in the ecosystem, it seemed my personal goals could best be accomplished by publishing online. This has several advantages for me. I can choose the format I want, I can include lots of color images, and I can post chapters or parts of chapters as I complete them and update later if I find it important. Throughout the book I have posed questions. I have even attempt to offer hypotheses for many of these. It is my hope that these questions and hypotheses will inspire students of all ages to attempt to answer these. Some are simple and could even be done by elementary school children. Others are suitable for undergraduate projects. And some will take lifelong work or a large team of researchers around the world. Have fun with them! The Format The decision to publish Bryophyte Ecology as an ebook occurred after I had a publisher, and I am sure I have not thought of all the complexities of publishing as I complete things, rather than in the order of the planned organization.
  • Lichens and Allied Fungi of the Indiana Forest Alliance

    Lichens and Allied Fungi of the Indiana Forest Alliance

    2017. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 126(2):129–152 LICHENS AND ALLIED FUNGI OF THE INDIANA FOREST ALLIANCE ECOBLITZ AREA, BROWN AND MONROE COUNTIES, INDIANA INCORPORATED INTO A REVISED CHECKLIST FOR THE STATE OF INDIANA James C. Lendemer: Institute of Systematic Botany, The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 USA ABSTRACT. Based upon voucher collections, 108 lichen species are reported from the Indiana Forest Alliance Ecoblitz area, a 900 acre unit in Morgan-Monroe and Yellowwood State Forests, Brown and Monroe Counties, Indiana. The lichen biota of the study area was characterized as: i) dominated by species with green coccoid photobionts (80% of taxa); ii) comprised of 49% species that reproduce primarily with lichenized diaspores vs. 44% that reproduce primarily through sexual ascospores; iii) comprised of 65% crustose taxa, 29% foliose taxa, and 6% fruticose taxa; iv) one wherein many species are rare (e.g., 55% of species were collected fewer than three times) and fruticose lichens other than Cladonia were entirely absent; and v) one wherein cyanolichens were poorly represented, comprising only three species. Taxonomic diversity ranged from 21 to 56 species per site, with the lowest diversity sites concentrated in riparian corridors and the highest diversity sites on ridges. Low Gap Nature Preserve, located within the study area, was found to have comparable species richness to areas outside the nature preserve, although many species rare in the study area were found only outside preserve boundaries. Sets of rare species are delimited and discussed, as are observations as to the overall low abundance of lichens on corticolous substrates and the presence of many unhealthy foliose lichens on mature tree boles.
  • North American H&A Names

    North American H&A Names

    A very tentative and preliminary list of North American liverworts and hornworts, doubtless containing errors and omissions, but forming a basis for updating the spreadsheet of recognized genera and numbers of species, November 2010. Liverworts Blasiales Blasiaceae Blasia L. Blasia pusilla L. Fossombroniales Calyculariaceae Calycularia Mitt. Calycularia crispula Mitt. Calycularia laxa Lindb. & Arnell Fossombroniaceae Fossombronia Raddi Fossombronia alaskana Steere & Inoue Fossombronia brasiliensis Steph. Fossombronia cristula Austin Fossombronia foveolata Lindb. Fossombronia hispidissima Steph. Fossombronia lamellata Steph. Fossombronia macounii Austin Fossombronia marshii J. R. Bray & Stotler Fossombronia pusilla (L.) Dumort. Fossombronia longiseta (Austin) Austin Note: Fossombronia longiseta was based on a mixture of material belonging to three different species of Fossombronia; Schuster (1992a p. 395) lectotypified F. longiseta with the specimen of Austin, Hepaticae Boreali-Americani 118 at H. An SEM of one spore from this specimen was previously published by Scott and Pike (1988 fig. 19) and it is clearly F. pusilla. It is not at all clear why Doyle and Stotler (2006) apply the name to F. hispidissima. Fossombronia texana Lindb. Fossombronia wondraczekii (Corda) Dumort. Fossombronia zygospora R.M. Schust. Petalophyllum Nees & Gottsche ex Lehm. Petalophyllum ralfsii (Wilson) Nees & Gottsche ex Lehm. Moerckiaceae Moerckia Gottsche Moerckia blyttii (Moerch) Brockm. Moerckia hibernica (Hook.) Gottsche Pallaviciniaceae Pallavicinia A. Gray, nom. cons. Pallavicinia lyellii (Hook.) Carruth. Pelliaceae Pellia Raddi, nom. cons. Pellia appalachiana R.M. Schust. (pro hybr.) Pellia endiviifolia (Dicks.) Dumort. Pellia endiviifolia (Dicks.) Dumort. ssp. alpicola R.M. Schust. Pellia endiviifolia (Dicks.) Dumort. ssp. endiviifolia Pellia epiphylla (L.) Corda Pellia megaspora R.M. Schust. Pellia neesiana (Gottsche) Limpr. Pellia neesiana (Gottsche) Limpr.
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24

    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24

    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2018-07-24 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff July 24, 2018 2 Cover image: map of 16,213 georeferenced occurrence records included in the checklist. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 55 Vascular Plants........................................................ 91 Bryophytes ..........................................................164 Other Plants .........................................................171 Chromista...........................................................171 Fungi .............................................................173 Protozoans ..........................................................186 Non-native species 187 Vertebrates ..........................................................187 Invertebrates .........................................................187 Vascular Plants........................................................190 Extirpated species 207 Vertebrates ..........................................................207 Vascular Plants........................................................207 Change log 211 References 213 Index 215 3 Introduction Purpose to avoid implying
  • Mosses: Weber and Wittmann, Electronic Version 11-Mar-00

    Mosses: Weber and Wittmann, Electronic Version 11-Mar-00

    Catalog of the Colorado Flora: a Biodiversity Baseline Mosses: Weber and Wittmann, electronic version 11-Mar-00 Amblystegiaceae Amblystegium Bruch & Schimper, 1853 Amblystegium serpens (Hedwig) Bruch & Schimper var. juratzkanum (Schimper) Rau & Hervey WEBER73B. Amblystegium juratzkanum Schimper. Calliergon (Sullivant) Kindberg, 1894 Calliergon cordifolium (Hedwig) Kindberg WEBER73B; HERMA76. Calliergon giganteum (Schimper) Kindberg Larimer Co.: Pingree Park, 2960 msm, 25 Sept. 1980, [Rolston 80114), !Hermann. Calliergon megalophyllum Mikutowicz COLO specimen so reported is C. richardsonii, fide Crum. Calliergon richardsonii (Mitten) Kindberg WEBER73B. Campyliadelphus (Lindberg) Chopra, 1975 KANDA75 Campyliadelphus chrysophyllus (Bridel) Kanda HEDEN97. Campylium chrysophyllum (Bridel) J. Lange. WEBER63; WEBER73B; HEDEN97. Hypnum chrysophyllum Bridel. HEDEN97. Campyliadelphus stellatus (Hedwig) Kanda KANDA75. Campylium stellatum (Hedwig) C. Jensen. WEBER73B. Hypnum stellatum Hedwig. HEDEN97. Campylophyllum Fleischer, 1914 HEDEN97 Campylophyllum halleri (Hedwig) Fleischer HEDEN97. Nova Guinea 12, Bot. 2:123.1914. Campylium halleri (Hedwig) Lindberg. WEBER73B; HERMA76. Hypnum halleri Hedwig. HEDEN97. Campylophyllum hispidulum (Bridel) Hedenäs HEDEN97. Campylium hispidulum (Bridel) Mitten. WEBER63,73B; HEDEN97. Hypnum hispidulum Bridel. HEDEN97. Cratoneuron (Sullivant) Spruce, 1867 OCHYR89 Cratoneuron filicinum (Hedwig) Spruce WEBER73B. Drepanocladus (C. Müller) Roth, 1899 HEDEN97 Nomen conserv. Drepanocladus aduncus (Hedwig) Warnstorf WEBER73B.