DOCSLIB.ORG

United D States En 7 Nvironmen 77 West Ja

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United D States En 7 Nvironmen 77 West Ja ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF CREATED WETLANDS IN ILLINOIS Report Prepared by John A. Crawford1, Andrew R. Kuhns2, annd Paige Mettler‐Cherry3 1. Department of Biological Sciences, Lindenwood U,iversity, St. Charles, Mo 2. Illinois Natural History Survey, 1816 South Oak St., Champaign, IL 61820 3. Department of Biological Sciences, Lindenwood Universtiy, Belleville, IL Report Prepared For Contract: CD00E00730 United States Environmental Proteection Agency Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604‐3590 Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report 2014 (20): 1‐200 30 June 2014 Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign William Shilts, Executive Director Illinois Natural History Survey Brian D. Anderson, Director 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 217‐333‐6830 Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 2 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Amphibian Sampling ...................................................................................................................... 10 Plant Sampling .................................................................................................................................. 10 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Amphibian Sampling ...................................................................................................................... 14 Plant Sampling .................................................................................................................................. 17 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 20 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 81 Appendix 1. Site localities for sampled wetlands .............................................................. 82 Appendix 2. Environmental metrics of sampled wetlands. ........................................... 95 Appendix 3. Anuran occupancy of wetlands ........................................................................ 98 Appendix 4. Salamander occupancy of wetlands ............................................................. 101 Appendix 5. Plant species lists for 80 wetlands ............................................................... 104 Appendix 6. Plant richness, type and wetland indicator status for wetlands ..... 200 1 List of Tables Table 1. Conservation coefficients for the amphibian assemblage across the study area ............................................................................................................................ 24 Table 2. Ecological assessment of amphibians encountered in east-central Illinois (PI assessment – J.A. Crawford) ....................................................................25 Table 3. Ecological assessment of amphibians encountered in east-central Illinois (PI assessment – A.R. Kuhns). .......................................................................26 Table 4. Ecological assessment methodology for water quality using nitrate (NO3-N) and nitrite (NO2-N) levels ...............................................................27 Table 5. Occupancy rates of the amphibian assemblage across the study area ..............28 Table 6. Estimated detection rates of the amphibian assemblage across the study area .................................................................................................................29 Table 7. Model selection results of A. crepitans occupancy in breeding ponds .............30 Table 8. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for A. crepitans ......................................................31 Table 9. Model selection results of A. jeffersonianum occupancy in breeding ponds in east-central Illinois ....................................................................................32 Table 10. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for A. jeffersonianum .............................................33 Table 11. Model selection results of A. maculatum occupancy in breeding ponds in east-central Illinois. ...................................................................................34 Table 12. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for A. maculatum. ..................................................35 Table 13. Model selection results of A. opacum occupancy in breeding ponds in east-central Illinois .....................................................................................36 Table 14. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for A. opacum. ........................................................37 Table 15. Model selection results of A. platineum occupancy in breeding ponds in east-central Illinois .....................................................................................38 Table 16. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for A. platineum .....................................................39 2 Table 17. Model selection results of Ambystoma polyploid complex occupancy in breeding ponds in east-central Illinois ............................................................40 Table 18. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for Ambystoma polyploidy complex ......................41 Table 19. Model selection results of A. texanum occupancy in breeding ponds in east-central Illinois .....................................................................................42 Table 20. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for A. texanum ........................................................43 Table 21. Model selection results of A. tigrinum occupancy in breeding ponds in east-central Illinois ......................................................................................................44 Table 22. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for A. tigrinum .......................................................45 Table 23. Model selection results of B. americanus occupancy in breeding ponds in east-central Illinois ....................................................................................46 Table 24. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for B. americanus ...................................................47 Table 25. Model selection results of P. crucifer occupancy in breeding ponds in east-central Illinois .....................................................................................48 Table 26. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for P. crucifer .........................................................49 Table 27. Model selection results of R. catesbeiana occupancy in breeding ponds in east-central Illinois .....................................................................................50 Table 28. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for R. catesbeiana ..................................................51 Table 29. Model selection results of R. clamitans occupancy in breeding ponds in east-central Illinois .....................................................................................52 Table 30. Model-averaged β estimates and 95% confidence intervals for parameters in the occupancy models for R. clamitans ......................................................53
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]
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [Show full text]
  • Shiloh National Military Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Shiloh National Military Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/SHIL/NRR—2017/1387 ON THE COVER Bridge over the Shiloh Branch in SHIL. Photo courtesy of Robert Bird. Shiloh National Military Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/SHIL/NRR—2017/1387 Andy J. Nadeau Kevin Benck Kathy Allen Hannah Hutchins Anna Davis Andrew Robertson GeoSpatial Services Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota 890 Prairie Island Road Winona, Minnesota 55987 February 2017 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Native Plant Society 2019 Plant List Herbaceous Plants
    Illinois Native Plant Society 2019 Plant List Plant Sale: Saturday, May 11, 9:00am – 1:00pm Illinois State Fairgrounds Commodity Pavilion (Across from Grandstand) Herbaceous Plants Scientific Name Common Name Description Growing Conditions Comment Dry to moist, Sun to part Blooms mid-late summer Butterfly, bee. Agastache foeniculum Anise Hyssop 2-4', Lavender to purple flowers shade AKA Blue Giant Hyssop Allium cernuum var. Moist to dry, Sun to part Nodding Onion 12-18", Showy white flowers Blooms mid summer Bee. Mammals avoid cernuum shade 18", White flowers after leaves die Allium tricoccum Ramp (Wild Leek) Moist, Shade Blooms summer Bee. Edible back Moist to dry, Part shade to Blooms late spring-early summer Aquilegia canadensis Red Columbine 30", Scarlet and yellow flowers shade Hummingbird, bee Moist to wet, Part to full Blooms late spring-early summer Showy red Arisaema dracontium Green Dragon 1-3', Narrow greenish spadix shade fruits. Mammals avoid 1-2', Green-purple spadix, striped Moist to wet, Part to full Blooms mid-late spring Showy red fruits. Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-Pulpit inside shade Mammals avoid Wet to moist, Part shade to Blooms late spring-early summer Bee. AKA Aruncus dioicus Goatsbeard 2-4', White fluffy panicles in spring shade Brides Feathers Wet to moist, Light to full Blooms mid-late spring Mammals avoid. Asarum canadense Canadian Wildginger 6-12", Purplish brown flowers shade Attractive groundcover 3-5', White flowers with Moist, Dappled sun to part Blooms summer Monarch larval food. Bee, Asclepias exaltata Poke Milkweed purple/green tint shade butterfly. Uncommon Blooms mid-late summer Monarch larval Asclepias hirtella (Tall) Green Milkweed To 3', Showy white flowers Dry to moist, Sun food.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Community Responses to the Removal of Lonicera Maackii from an Urban Woodland Park
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 12-2016 Plant community responses to the removal of Lonicera maackii from an urban woodland park. Elihu H. Levine University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the Forest Biology Commons Recommended Citation Levine, Elihu H., "Plant community responses to the removal of Lonicera maackii from an urban woodland park." (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2613. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/2613 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PLANT COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO THE REMOVAL OF LONICERA MAACKII FROM AN URBAN WOODLAND PARK By Elihu H. Levine B. A., Earlham College, 2005 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Biology Department of Biology University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky December 2016 PLANT COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO THE REMOVAL OF LONICERA MAACKII FROM AN URBAN WOODLAND PARK By Elihu H. Levine B.A., Earlham College, 2005 A Thesis Approved on November 16, 2016 By the following Thesis Committee: __________________________ Dr. Margaret Carreiro, Director __________________________ Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Blue-Spotted Salamander
    Species Status Assessment Class: Amphibia Family: Ambystomatidae Scientific Name: Ambystoma laterale Common Name: Blue-spotted salamander Species synopsis: The blue-spotted salamander has the northernmost distribution of any Ambystoma species, occurring in east-central North America as far north as Labrador, with its distribution dipping southward into the northeastern United States only as far as northern New Jersey. In New York, this salamander occurs in a patchy distribution outside of high elevation areas; its occurrence on Long Island is only in the farthest eastern reaches. Blue-spotted salamander habitat is the moist forest floor of deciduous or mixed woodlands near ephemeral bodies of water. Reliable population trends are not available for this salamander. Hybridization occurs between blue-spotted salamander and Jefferson salamander (A. jeffersonianum). Broadly referred to as the Jefferson complex, the variety of hybrids includes up to five different chromosomal combinations. Some of the hybrids have been called Tremblay’s salamander or silvery salamander, but most references are to “Jefferson complex.” This unusual situation has lead to difficulty in defining the distribution of blue-spotted salamander and Jefferson salamander, the hybrids of which are very difficult to distinguish, typically, without genetic testing in conjunction with their appearance. In Connecticut, the blue-spotted diploid and the blue-spotted complex have been listed individually, as Threatened and Special Concern respectively but no other state or province has made this distinction in listing status. 1 I. Status a. Current and Legal Protected Status i. Federal ___Not Listed_______________________ Candidate? ___No____ ii. New York ___Special Concern; SGCN_____________________________________ b. Natural Heritage Program Rank i. Global _____G5__________________________________________________________ ii.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Plant List Index: Trees & Shrubs Pg
    2020 Plant List Index: Trees & Shrubs pg. 2-7 Perennials pg. 7-13 Grasses pg. 14 Ferns pg. 14-15 Vines pg. 15 Hours: May 1 – June 30: Tues.- Sat. 10 am - 6 pm Sun.11 am - 5 pm 3351 State Route 37 West www.sciotogardens.com On Mondays by appointment Delaware, OH 43015 Phone/fax: 740-363-8264 Email: [email protected] Sustainable, earth-friendly growth and maintenance practices: Real Soil = Real Difference. All plants are container-grown in a blend of local soil and compost. Plants are grown outside year-round. They are always in step with the seasons. Minimal pruning ensures a well-rooted, healthy plant. Use degradableRoot Pouch andcontainers. recycled containers to reduce waste. Use of controlled-release fertilizers minimizes leaching into the environment. Our primary focus is on native plants. However, non-invasive exotics are an equally important part of the choices we offer you. There is great creative opportunity using natives in combination with exotics. Adding more native plants into our landscapes provides food and habitat for wildlife and connections to larger natural areas. AdditionalAdditional species species may may be be available. available. Email Email oror call for currentcurrent availability, availability, sizes, sizes, and and prices. prices. «BOT_NAME» «BOT_NAME»Wetland Indicator Status—This is listed in parentheses after the common name when a status is known. All species «COM_NAM» «COM_NAM» «DESCRIP»have not been evaluated. The indicator code is helpful in evaluating«DESCRIP» the appropriate habitat for a
    [Show full text]
  • Species List For: Labarque Creek CA 750 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location 4/19/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey
    Species List for: LaBarque Creek CA 750 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location 4/19/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey 5/15/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey 5/16/2006 Nels Holmberg, George Yatskievych, and Rex Plant Survey Hill 5/22/2006 Nels Holmberg and WGNSS Botany Group Plant Survey 5/6/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey Multiple Visits Nels Holmberg, John Atwood and Others LaBarque Creek Watershed - Bryophytes Bryophte List compiled by Nels Holmberg Multiple Visits Nels Holmberg and Many WGNSS and MONPS LaBarque Creek Watershed - Vascular Plants visits from 2005 to 2016 Vascular Plant List compiled by Nels Holmberg Species Name (Synonym) Common Name Family COFC COFW Acalypha monococca (A. gracilescens var. monococca) one-seeded mercury Euphorbiaceae 3 5 Acalypha rhomboidea rhombic copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 1 3 Acalypha virginica Virginia copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 2 3 Acer negundo var. undetermined box elder Sapindaceae 1 0 Acer rubrum var. undetermined red maple Sapindaceae 5 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple Sapindaceae 2 -3 Acer saccharum var. undetermined sugar maple Sapindaceae 5 3 Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae/Anthemideae 1 3 Actaea pachypoda white baneberry Ranunculaceae 8 5 Adiantum pedatum var. pedatum northern maidenhair fern Pteridaceae Fern/Ally 6 1 Agalinis gattingeri (Gerardia) rough-stemmed gerardia Orobanchaceae 7 5 Agalinis tenuifolia (Gerardia, A. tenuifolia var. common gerardia Orobanchaceae 4 -3 macrophylla) Ageratina altissima var. altissima (Eupatorium rugosum) white snakeroot Asteraceae/Eupatorieae 2 3 Agrimonia parviflora swamp agrimony Rosaceae 5 -1 Agrimonia pubescens downy agrimony Rosaceae 4 5 Agrimonia rostellata woodland agrimony Rosaceae 4 3 Agrostis elliottiana awned bent grass Poaceae/Aveneae 3 5 * Agrostis gigantea redtop Poaceae/Aveneae 0 -3 Agrostis perennans upland bent Poaceae/Aveneae 3 1 Allium canadense var.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Note: Trillium Recurvatum Beck (Liliaceae): a New Station for the Prairie Trillium in Ohio
    Copyright © 1980 Ohio Acad. Sci. 0030-0950/80/0001-004611.00/0 BRIEF NOTE TRILLIUM RECURVATUM BECK (LILIACEAE): A NEW STATION FOR THE PRAIRIE TRILLIUM IN OHIO1 VICTOR G. SOUKUP, Herbarium, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221 OHIO J. SCI. 80(1): 46, 1980 Trillium recurvalum is essentially a mans have been deposited in the Uni- mid-western species and has a wide dis- versity of Cincinnati herbarium (CINC). tribution (Freeman 1975). It gen- Trillium sessile L., also very abundant, erally ranges west of the Indiana-Ohio and Trillium flexipes Raf., much less boundary and the southward extension of abundant, occurred in the same associa- that boundary through Kentucky and tion. Tennessee, and generally east of the east- This new station lies along the south ern edge of Iowa, the eastern half of Mis- edge of the East Fork (Little Miami souri, across Arkansas, and into extreme River) Reservoir and may be flooded by east-central Texas. In the north, the the filling of the reservoir. The station prairie trillium enters southwestern is also the farthest east known advance of Michigan and southern Wisconsin, while the species in the north or north-central in the south it ranges through the north- part of its range and possibly its entire ern halves of Louisiana and Mississippi range. The nearest known station is in and across northwestern Alabama. The Indiana about 45 miles to the northwest. species appears to be most abundant in Other extensive colonies exist to the west Indiana and Illinois. and northwest in Indiana and at greater There are old, valid records with speci- distances to the southwest in Kentucky.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Assessment
    Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Final EA Project Name: Cumberland Solar Project Project Number: 2017-11 CUMBERLAND SOLAR PROJECT Limestone County, Alabama FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee Submitted By: Silicon Ranch Corporation Prepared By: HDR, Inc. January 2018 For Information, contact: Ashley A. Pilakowski NEPA Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499 Phone: 865-632-2256 Email: [email protected] Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................... 1-1 1.2 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .............................................. 1-3 1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 PERMITS AND APPROVALS ................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SOLAR PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVEs ....... 2-1 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Solar Facility .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Species Assessment for Jefferson Salamander
    Species Status Assessment Class: Amphibia Family: Ambystomidae Scientific Name: Ambystoma jeffersonianum Common Name: Jefferson salamander Species synopsis: The distribution of the Jefferson salamander is restricted to the northeastern quarter of the United States extending as far to the southwest as Illinois and Kentucky; the species is represented in Canada only in a small area of southern Ontario. The habitat includes upland deciduous or mixed woodlands as well as bottomland forests adjacent to disturbed and agricultural lands. Breeding occurs in temporary ponds or semi-permanent wetlands (Gibbs et al. 2007). Hybridization occurs between the Jefferson salamander and the blue-spotted salamander (A. laterale). Broadly referred to as the Jefferson complex, the variety of hybrids includes up to five different chromosomal combinations. Some of the hybrids have been called Tremblay’s salamander or silvery salamander, but most references are to “Jefferson complex.” This unusual situation has lead to difficulty in defining the distribution of blue-spotted salamander and Jefferson salamander, the hybrids of which are very difficult to distinguish, typically, without genetic testing in conjunction with their appearance. I. Status a. Current and Legal Protected Status i. Federal ____ Not Listed_____________________ Candidate? __No_____ ii. New York ____Special Concern; SGCN___________________________________ b. Natural Heritage Program Rank i. Global ____G4____________________________________________________________ ii. New York ____S4_____________________ Tracked by NYNHP? ___No____ Other Rank: Species of Northeast Regional Conservation Concern (Therres 1999) Species of Severe Concern and High Responsibility (NEPARC 2010) 1 Status Discussion: Jefferson salamander is considered to be locally abundant in suitable habitat across New York. It has been designated as a Species of Regional Conservation in the Northeast due to its unknown population status and taxonomic uncertainty (Therres 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Wildflowers
    BLUE / VIOLET (CONTINUED) GLOSSARY (CONTINUED) Lindenwood Wildflowers Phlox (Polemoniaceae) • Corolla : the showy inner floral envelope; the segments (called • Greek Valerian (Polemonium reptans ): similar to Jacob’s-ladder petals) may be separate or joined. The wildflowers listed below are those that are most common and but stem weaker and fewer leaflets; stamens do not project • Disk (in composites): the round or button-like center (like in a daisy) Spring most-likely to be seen by park visitors; all species listed have been beyond flower. Native. April – June composed of numerous tubular disk flowers, usually surrounded by observed at the preserve in the past. Species are arranged by a circle of ray flowers. prominent flower color and then by Family. The months that are listed are the average blooming periods in this region for the flower. Snapdragon (Scrophulariaceae) • Floweret : the individual flowers of a composite/aster flower head. See the glossary for any obscure technical vocabulary included in • Thyme-leaved Speedwell (Veronica serpyllifolia ): creeping with • Head : a crowded cluster of stalk-less, or nearly stalk-less, flowers. the descriptions. A (*) located after the Family name indicates that small, 4-petaled flowers; leaves are small, opposite, toothless, • Leaflets : the smaller, individual parts of a compound leaf. Wildflowers certain general family characteristics were given in a previous color short-stalked and oval. Alien. May – Sept. • Lobed (leaf): Indented, with outer projections rounded. section. Note: edibility is not included; for your own benefit, DO • Native : originally from this area; not introduced. Violet (Violaceae) NOT ATTEMPT TO INGEST ANY WILD PLANT. • Opposite (leaves, etc.): arranged directly across from each other.
    [Show full text]