DOCSLIB.ORG

Test Herrera Report Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Test Herrera Report Template 1 2 3 4 WHITE PAPER 5 6 7 Fish Screens 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Prepared for 16 17 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 March 2008 Draft (Working Draft – Do Not Cite) 1 2 3 WHITE PAPER 4 5 6 Fish Screens 7 8 9 10 11 12 Prepared for 13 14 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 15 600 Capitol Way North 16 Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 17 18 19 20 21 Prepared by 22 23 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 24 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 25 Seattle, Washington 98121 26 Telephone: 206/441-9080 27 28 29 In collaboration with 30 31 Kozmo Ken Bates 32 33 34 35 March 2008 Draft (Working Draft – Do Not Cite) Contents Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 3.0 Methods............................................................................................................................ 3-1 4.0 Hydraulic Project Description.......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Characteristics, Applications, and Descriptions of Fish Screen Subactivity Types.................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 In-Channel Screens.................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.2 Off-Channel Screens................................................................................ 4-4 4.1.3 Typical Screen Designs............................................................................ 4-5 4.1.4 Screening Systems Not Considered in this Analysis ............................. 4-13 4.2 Statutes and Rules Regulating Fish Screens ...................................................... 4-13 5.0 Potentially Covered Species and Habitat Use.................................................................. 5-1 6.0 Conceptual Framework for Assessing Impacts................................................................ 6-1 7.0 Direct and Indirect Impacts.............................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 In-Channel Screens.............................................................................................. 7-2 7.1.1 Construction and Maintenance ................................................................ 7-2 7.1.2 Operations................................................................................................ 7-2 7.1.3 Water Quality Modifications ................................................................... 7-3 7.1.4 Riparian Vegetation Modifications.......................................................... 7-4 7.1.5 Hydraulic and Geomorphic Modifications .............................................. 7-4 7.1.6 Ecosystem Fragmentation........................................................................ 7-5 7.2 Off-Channel Screens............................................................................................ 7-6 7.2.1 Construction and Maintenance ................................................................ 7-6 7.2.2 Operations................................................................................................ 7-7 7.2.3 Water Quality Modifications ................................................................... 7-8 7.2.4 Riparian Vegetation Modifications.......................................................... 7-9 7.2.5 Hydraulic and Geomorphic Modifications .............................................. 7-9 7.2.6 Ecosystem Fragmentation...................................................................... 7-18 7.3 Effects of Common Impact Mechanisms and Stressors .................................... 7-23 7.3.1 Construction and Maintenance .............................................................. 7-24 7.3.2 Operations.............................................................................................. 7-40 7.3.3 Water Quality Modifications ................................................................. 7-46 7.3.4 Riparian Vegetation Modifications........................................................ 7-59 8.0 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................... 8-1 i 9.0 Potential Risk of Take......................................................................................................9-1 9.1 In-Channel Screens.............................................................................................. 9-2 9.1.1 Construction and Maintenance ................................................................ 9-4 9.1.2 Operations................................................................................................ 9-5 9.1.3 Water Quality Modifications ................................................................... 9-5 9.1.4 Hydraulic and Geomorphic Modifications .............................................. 9-6 9.1.5 Ecosystem Fragmentation........................................................................ 9-6 9.2 Off-Channel Screens............................................................................................ 9-7 9.2.1 Construction and Maintenance ................................................................ 9-8 9.2.2 Operations................................................................................................ 9-9 9.2.3 Hydraulic and Geomorphic Modifications .............................................. 9-9 9.2.4 Ecosystem Fragmentation...................................................................... 9-10 9.3 Risk of Take Associated with Common Impact Mechanisms........................... 9-12 9.3.1 Construction and Maintenance .............................................................. 9-12 9.3.2 Operations.............................................................................................. 9-15 9.3.3 Water Quality Modifications ................................................................. 9-17 9.3.4 Riparian Vegetation Modifications........................................................ 9-19 10.0 Data Gaps....................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 In-Channel Screens............................................................................................ 10-3 10.2 Off-Channel Screens.......................................................................................... 10-3 10.3 Data Gaps for Common Impact Submechanisms and Stressors........................ 10-4 10.3.1 Construction and Maintenance .............................................................. 10-4 10.3.2 Operations.............................................................................................. 10-5 10.3.3 Water Quality Modifications ................................................................. 10-7 10.3.4 Hydraulic and Geomorphic Modifications ............................................ 10-7 11.0 Habitat Protection, Conservation, Mitigation, and Management Strategies.................. 11-1 11.1 Management Strategies...................................................................................... 11-1 11.1.1 Improved Training and Research........................................................... 11-1 11.1.2 Improved Guidance................................................................................ 11-2 11.1.3 Improved Performance and Compliance Monitoring ............................ 11-3 11.2 Subactivity Type Specific Strategies ................................................................. 11-4 11.2.1 In-Channel Screens................................................................................ 11-4 11.2.2 Off-Channel Screens.............................................................................. 11-4 11.3 General Strategies by Common Impact Mechanism ......................................... 11-5 11.3.1 Construction and Maintenance .............................................................. 11-6 11.3.2 Operations.............................................................................................. 11-8 11.3.3 Water Quality Modifications ................................................................. 11-8 11.3.4 Hydraulic and Geomorphic Modifications .......................................... 11-10 12.0 References...................................................................................................................... 12-1 Appendix A Exposure-Response Matrices, by Species Group Appendix B Bibliographical Database (provided under separate cover) ii Tables Table 1-1. The 52 HCP species addressed in this white paper. ................................................. 1-2 Table 4-1. Hydraulic Code sections potentially applicable to the permitting of fish screen construction, maintenance, and operation. .................................................. 4-14 Table 5-1. Range of occurrence of the HCP species and their habitat requirements................. 5-2 Table 6-1. Impact mechanisms and submechanisms associated with fish screen subactivity types. .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Redalyc.Nidification of Polybia Rejecta (Hymenoptera: Vespidae)
    Biota Neotropica ISSN: 1676-0611 [email protected] Instituto Virtual da Biodiversidade Brasil Magalhães de Souza, Marcos; Porfiro Pires, Epifânio; Prezoto, Fábio Nidification of Polybia rejecta (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) associated to Azteca chartifex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a fragment of Atlantic Forest, in the state of Minas Gerais, southeastern Brazil Biota Neotropica, vol. 13, núm. 3, julio-septiembre, 2013, pp. 390-392 Instituto Virtual da Biodiversidade Campinas, Brasil Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=199128991038 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Biota Neotrop., vol. 13, no. 3 Nidification of Polybia rejecta (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) associated to Azteca chartifex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a fragment of Atlantic Forest, in the state of Minas Gerais, southeastern Brazil Marcos Magalhães de Souza1, Epifânio Porfiro Pires2,4 & Fábio Prezoto3 1Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Sul de Minas – IFSULDEMINAS, Campus Inconfidentes, CEP 37576-000, Inconfidentes, MG, Brazil 2Departamento de Entomologia, Universidade Federal de Lavras – UFLA, CEP 37200-000, Lavras, MG, Brazil 3Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora – UFJF, CEP 36036-900, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil 4Corresponding author: Epifânio Porfiro Pires, e-mail: [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • "Evaluation of Submerged Weir to Reduce Fish Impingement at Indian Point." May 25-Jul 29,1977
    wilveveaI, PDR ADOCK 05' p 0 -v EVALUATION OF A SUBMERGED WEIR TO REDUCE FISH IMPINGEMENT AT INDIAN POINT. FOR THE PERIOD 25 MAY - 29 JULY 1977 March 1978 Prepared for CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 .Prepared by TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED Science Services Division P.O. Box 5621 Dallas, Texas 75222 Copyright March 1978 by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. science Services division TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page I INTRODUCTION I-i Ii METHODS AND MATERIALS 'I-i A. INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR PLANT 'I-i B. STUDY DESIGN 11-1 III RESULTS 111-1 IV DISCUSSION IV-l V LITERATURE CITED APPENDIX Appendix Title A IMPINGEMENT DATA COLLECTED AT INDIAN POINT UNIT 1 DURING THE COURSE OF WEIR STUDY, 25 MAY-29 JULY 1977 TABLES Table Title Page 111-1 Taxon List of Fish Collected during Submerged 111-2 Weir Study 111-2 Results of Two-tailed Mann-Whitney U-Tests Comparing 111-3 Number of Fish Collected Daily from Traveling Screens at Indian Point Unit 1 during Periods of Weir and Fixed Screen Operation ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title Page 11-1 Indian Point Plant Layout 11-2 11-2 Cross Section of Unit 1 Forebay with Submerged Weir and 11-4 Back-up Fine N~esh Screen 11-3 Details of Submerged Weir Construction 11-4 science services division SECTION I INTRODUCTION Impingement of fish at power plant intakes is often an unavoidable consequence of withdrawals of large volumes of water from cooling water sources. Frequently, the magnitude of the impingement problem can be re duced by careful design of intake structures and judicious selection of intake location (USEPA, 1973).
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Intake End-Of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline
    Department of Fisheries and Oceans DRAFT Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline Fisheries Pêches and Oceans et Océans DRAFT Department of Fisheries and Oceans Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline Fisheries Pêches and Oceans et Océans Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline Published by: Communications Directorate Department of Fisheries and Oceans Ottawa, Ontario K1A OE6 DFO / 5080 © Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1995 ISBN 0-662-23168-6 Catalogue No. Fs 23-270 / 1995E Printed on recycled paper Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline Table of 1.0 Introduction 1 Contents 2.0 Guideline Objective 1 3.0 Information Requirements for Evaluation of Intake Screens 3 4.0 Design, Installation, and Maintenance of Freshwater intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screens 3 4.1 Fish Screen Criteria 4 4.2 Design of Fixed End-of-Pipe Fish Screens 6 4.3 Installation 8 4.4 Cleaning and Maintenance 15 References 17 Glossary 19 Appendix A: Information Requirements 21 Appendix B: Sample Calculation 23 Appendix C: Units of Conversion 25 Appendix D: DFO Regional Contacts 27 March 1995 Page i Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline List of Figure 1 - Open Screen Areas for End-of-Pipe Water Figures Intake Flows 9 Figure 2 - Common Screen Shapes and Area Formulae 10 Figure 3 - Typical Applications and Features of End-of-Pipe Screens 11 Figure 4 - Examples of Typical Screen and Material Types 12 Figure 5 - Examples of Typical Installations of End-of-Pipe Screens 13 Table 1 - Summary of Common Fish Species and List of Swimming Modes 5 Tables Table 2 - Open Screen Area Required for End-of-Pipe Water Intakes 7 Table 3 - Examples of Screen Material 7 March 1995 Page iii Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has prepared the Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline to 1.0 assist proponents in the design and installation of fish screens |for the protection of anadromous and resident fish where freshwater is extracted from fish-bearing waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria 2019
    FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA 2019 37.2’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region June 2019 Fish and Aquatic Conservation, Fish Passage Engineering Ecological Services, Conservation Planning Assistance United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA June 2019 This manual replaces all previous editions of the Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Suggested citation: USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019. Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria. USFWS, Northeast Region R5, Hadley, Massachusetts. USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Equations ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xii 1 Scope of this Document ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Role of the USFWS Region 5 Fish Passage Engineering ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Azteca Ants Maintain Unique Microbiomes Across Functionally
    Azteca ants maintain unique microbiomes royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb across functionally distinct nest chambers Jane M. Lucas1, Anne A. Madden2, Clint A. Penick3, Mary Jane Epps5, Peter R. Marting4, Julia L. Stevens6, Daniel J. Fergus2, Robert R. Dunn2,7 Research and Emily K. Meineke8 1 Cite this article: Lucas JM, Madden AA, Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA 2Department of Applied Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA Penick CA, Epps MJ, Marting PR, Stevens JL, 3The Biomimicry Center, and 4School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA Fergus DJ, Dunn RR, Meineke EK. 2019 Azteca 5Department of Biology, Mary Baldwin University, Staunton, VA 24401, USA 6 ants maintain unique microbiomes across Bayer Crop Science Division, Saint Louis, MO 63146, USA 7Natural History Museum, University of Copenhagen, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark functionally distinct nest chambers. 8Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191026. JML, 0000-0002-3931-1864; AAM, 0000-0002-7263-5713; CAP, 0000-0002-5368-507X; http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1026 RRD, 0000-0002-6030-4837 The microbiome of built structures has considerable influence over an inhabitant’s well-being, yet the vast majority of research has focused on Received: 2 May 2019 human-built structures. Ants are well-known architects, capable of con- Accepted: 12 July 2019 structing elaborate dwellings, the microbiome of which is underexplored. Here, we explore the bacterial and fungal microbiomes in functionally dis- tinct chambers within and outside the nests of Azteca alfari ants in Cecropia peltata trees.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing Fish Screens for Fish Protection at Water Diversions
    DESIGNING FISH SCREENS FOR FISH PROTECTION AT WATER DIVERSIONS Written By: Bryan Nordlund National Marine Fisheries Service 510 Desmond Drive S.E., Suite 103 Lacey, WA 98503 April 16, 2008 The following paper should be considered a working document, and its contents will be updated as errors are found and as technology progresses. The contents express the opinions of the author, and not necessarily the National Marine Fisheries Service. Consultation with local fisheries authorities is absolutely required to augment and confirm any information used from this paper. 1.0 -- INTRODUCTION Protecting the fisheries resources from hydroelectric, irrigation, municipal water supply and industrial water supply developments created the need for design criteria for the construction of juvenile fish screens to protect the fisheries resource from project impacts. This paper discusses a variety of topics involved in the juvenile fish screen design process, in a manner intended for the novice biologist, manager, planner or design engineer. Screen designs have been improved over the years mostly by the observation and evaluation of existing screens that were constructed based on a little bit of science, a generous dose of intuition and rudimentary understanding of fish behavior. Research in the field of fish passage was historically difficult to finance, and difficult to reach concise conclusions that could lead directly to the establishment of fish passage design criteria. More recently, biological and hydraulic testing of juvenile fish screens, and research specific to the design of juvenile fish screens has lead to further refinement of design criteria. Certain aspects of juvenile fish screen design criteria are now well understood for some species (such as maximum approach velocity and minimum mesh opening for juvenile salmonids), but data for many species is lacking.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Barriers to Fish Passage
    APPENDIX A(1) Definition of Barriers Barriers to fish migration exist in many ways shapes, and forms. The range of salmon and steelhead has always been limited to some extent by natural features, such as sandbars, landslides, waterfalls, and boulder cascades. Man has further truncated their range with an astounding variety of instream features and effects, such as dams, culverts, water diversions, tidegates, and many others. The habitat fragmentation resulting from this expansion of impediments to fish passage has played a major role in the decline of salmon and steelhead populations worldwide. The following explanations provide a more thorough examination of some of the barriers identified and assessed in this report. However, barriers should not be examined in a vacuum. Appendix B(1) provides an overview of the broader range of habitat conditions necessary for the survival and perpetuation of anadromous fish stocks. Fish passage improvement proponents are urged to examine proposed barrier modification or removal projects in the context of all necessary habitat conditions. NATURAL FEATURES Upper Limits to Anadromy Sustained slope can be a useful tool to estimate upper limits to anadromy. The California Department of Fish and Game has conducted a literature review of this subject and selected a sustained slope of >8% as measured off of a topographic map to define the upper limit of anadromy for the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual, Section IX. That guideline is offered with the caveat that field level knowledge is best to use, since slopes from topographical maps often fail to capture important geographic features, such as bedrock falls or chutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Survival on Fine Mesh Traveling Screens
    AR-210 Environmental Science & Policy 3 (2000) S369-S376 www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci Fish survival on fne mesh traveling screens a, b James B. McLaren *, L. Ray Tuttle Jr aBeak Consultants Incorporated, 140 Rotech Drive, Lancaster, NY 14086, USA bPublic Service Electric and Gas Company, 28 W. State Street, Suite 1414, MC-104, Trenton, NJ 08608, USA Abstract The survival of fsh impinged on 1-mm mesh Ristroph-type traveling screens was evaluated at Somerset Station, a 625-MW coal-fred electric generating station located on the south shore of Lake Ontario. Somerset Station was designed and built with an ofshore intake, discharge and fsh return system. Survival testing was conducted over a 4-year period that included all four seasons. Test fsh were diverted from the fsh return and held for 96 h for observation. Following observation, a specially constructed screening table was used to diferentiate test fsh that typically would have been impinged on a standard 9.5-mm mesh screen from smaller individuals that typically would be entrained. Twenty-eight species were tested, and collections were dominated by fve species: alewife, emerald shiner, gizzard shad, rainbow smelt, and spottail shiner. Survival rates commonly approached or exceeded 80%, and were infuenced by species, fsh size or life stage, season and fsh condition. Results are interpreted in terms of survival rates demonstrated elsewhere for entrained fsh and fsh impinged on alternative traveling screen technologies. © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Fine mesh traveling screen; Impingement survival; Ristroph screens; Mitigation; Fish return system; Lake Ontario 1. Introduction Several features were designed into the once-through cooling system for the protection of fsh and other New York State Electric and Gas Corporation aquatic animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-209 Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office Gloucester, Massachusetts February 2008 Recent Issues in This Series: 191. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Northern Shortfin Squid, Illex illecebrosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Lisa C. Hendrickson and Elizabeth M. Holmes. November 2004. v + 36 p., 13 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2005- 101437. [Online publication only.] 192. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By David K. Stevenson and Marcy L. Scott. July 2005. vi + 84 p., 40 figs., 7 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-107567. [Online publication only.] 193. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Longfin Inshore Squid, Loligo pealeii, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Larry D. Jacobson. August 2005. v + 42 p., 20 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-110684. [Online publication only.] 194. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2005. By Gordon T. Waring, Elizabeth Josephson, Carol P. Fairfield, and Katherine Maze-Foley, eds. Dana Belden, Timothy V.N. Cole, Lance P. Garrison, Keith D. Mullin, Christopher Orphanides, Richard M. Pace III, Debra L. Palka, Marjorie C. Rossman, and Fredrick W. Wenzel, contribs. March 2006. v + 392 p., 45 figs, 79 tables, 5 app., index. NTIS Access No. PB 2007-104395. 195. A Large Marine Ecosystem Voluntary Environmental Management System Approach to Fisheries Practices. By Frank J. Gable. December 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Birmingham the Toxicogenome of Hyalella
    University of Birmingham The Toxicogenome of Hyalella azteca Poynton, Helen C.; Colbourne, John K.; Hasenbein, Simone; Benoit, Joshua B.; Sepulveda, Maria S.; Poelchau, Monica F.; Hughes, Daniel S.T.; Murali, Shwetha C.; Chen, Shuai; Glastad, Karl M.; Goodisman, Michael A.D.; Werren, John H.; Vineis, Joseph H.; Bowen, Jennifer L.; Friedrich, Markus; Jones, Jeffery; Robertson, Hugh M.; Feyereisen, René; Mechler-Hickson, Alexandra; Mathers, Nicholas DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b00837 License: None: All rights reserved Document Version Peer reviewed version Citation for published version (Harvard): Poynton, HC, Colbourne, JK, Hasenbein, S, Benoit, JB, Sepulveda, MS, Poelchau, MF, Hughes, DST, Murali, SC, Chen, S, Glastad, KM, Goodisman, MAD, Werren, JH, Vineis, JH, Bowen, JL, Friedrich, M, Jones, J, Robertson, HM, Feyereisen, R, Mechler-Hickson, A, Mathers, N, Lee, CE, Biales, A, Johnston, JS, Wellborn, GA, Rosendale, AJ, Cridge, AG, Munoz-Torres, MC, Bain, PA, Manny, AR, Major, KM, Lambert, FN, Vulpe, CD, Tuck, P, Blalock, BJ, Lin, YY, Smith, ME, Ochoa-Acuña, H, Chen, MJM, Childers, CP, Qu, J, Dugan, S, Lee, SL, Chao, H, Dinh, H, Han, Y, Doddapaneni, H, Worley, KC, Muzny, DM, Gibbs, RA & Richards, S 2018, 'The Toxicogenome of Hyalella azteca: A Model for Sediment Ecotoxicology and Evolutionary Toxicology', Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 6009-6022. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00837 Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal Publisher Rights Statement: This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in Environmental Science and Technology, copyright © American Chemical Society after peer review and technical editing by the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • PARAGUAY. Status As Species: Emery, 1913A: 31; Kempf, 1972A: 29; Shattuck, 1994: 10; Bolton, 1995B: 78; Wild, 2007B: 23
    AZTECA adrepens. Azteca adrepens Forel, 1911e: 284 (w.) PARAGUAY. Status as species: Emery, 1913a: 31; Kempf, 1972a: 29; Shattuck, 1994: 10; Bolton, 1995b: 78; Wild, 2007b: 23. aequalis. Azteca alfari var. aequalis Forel, 1906d: 239 (w.) BRAZIL (Pará). Forel, 1908c: 387 (q.m.). Subspecies of alfari: Forel, 1908c: 386; Forel, 1912h: 51; Emery, 1913a: 31; Borgmeier, 1923: 88; Wheeler, W.M. 1942: 216; Kempf, 1972a: 29. Junior synonym of ovaticeps: Longino, 1989: 8; Brandão, 1991: 329; Bolton, 1995b: 78; Longino, 2007: 42. aequilata. Azteca alfari var. aequilata Forel, 1904e: 691 (w.q.m.) BRAZIL (Amazonas). Subspecies of alfari: Forel, 1906d: 239; Emery, 1913a: 31; Borgmeier, 1923: 89; Wheeler, W.M. 1942: 217; Kempf, 1972a: 29. Junior synonym of ovaticeps: Longino, 1989: 8; Brandão, 1991: 329; Bolton, 1995b: 78; Longino, 2007: 42. aesopus. Azteca aesopus Forel, 1908c: 392 (s.w.) BRAZIL (São Paulo). Status as species: Emery, 1913a: 31; Luederwaldt, 1918: 47; Borgmeier, 1923: 88; Kempf, 1972a: 29; Shattuck, 1994: 11; Bolton, 1995b: 78. alfari. Azteca alfari Emery, 1893b: 138, pl. 2, figs. 48, 49 (s.w.) COSTA RICA. [Misspelled as alfaroi by Emery, 1896c: 4, Forel, 1899c: 112, many others; misspelled as alforoi by Forel, 1908e: 63.] Emery, 1896c: 3 (q.); Wheeler, G.C. & Wheeler, J. 1951: 192 (l.). Status as species: Emery, 1896c: 4; Forel, 1903c: 259; Forel, 1905b: 159; Forel, 1909a: 250; Emery, 1913a: 31; Stitz, 1913: 212; Mann, 1916: 471; Wheeler, W.M. 1922c: 14; Mann, 1922: 51; Borgmeier, 1923: 88; Menozzi, 1927c: 268; Wheeler, W.M. & Darlington, 1930: 114; Santschi, 1939f: 166; Wheeler, W.M. 1942: 215; Kempf, 1972a: 29; Longino, 1989: 5 (redescription); Brandão, 1991: 329; Longino, 1991: 1575; Shattuck, 1994: 11; Bolton, 1995b: 78; Wild, 2007b: 24; Longino, 2007: 15 (redescription); Branstetter & Sáenz, 2012: 253; Bezděčková, et al.
    [Show full text]
  • A Temporary Social Parasite of Tropical Plant-Ants Improves the Fitness of a Myrmecophyte
    A temporary social parasite of tropical plant-ants improves the fitness of a myrmecophyte Alain Dejean & Céline Leroy & Bruno Corbara & Régis Céréghino & Olivier Roux & Bruno Hérault & Vivien Rossi & Roberto J. Guerrero & Jacques H. C. Delabie & Jérôme Orivel & Raphaël Boulay Abstract Myrmecophytes offer plant-ants a nesting place that Azteca andreae, whose colonies build carton nests on in exchange for protection from their enemies, particularly myrmecophytic Cecropia, is not a parasite of Azteca– defoliators. These obligate ant–plant mutualisms are com- Cecropia mutualisms nor is it a temporary social parasite of mon model systems for studying factors that allow A. alfari; it is, however, a temporary social parasite of A. horizontally transmitted mutualisms to persist since para- ovaticeps. Contrarily to the two mutualistic Azteca species sites of ant–myrmecophyte mutualisms exploit the rewards that are only occasional predators feeding mostly on provided by host plants whilst providing no protection in hemipteran honeydew and food bodies provided by the return. In pioneer formations in French Guiana, Azteca host trees, A. andreae workers, which also attend hemi- alfari and Azteca ovaticeps are known to be mutualists of pterans, do not exploit the food bodies. Rather, they employ myrmecophytic Cecropia (Cecropia ants). Here, we show an effective hunting technique where the leaf margins are A. Dejean (*) : C. Leroy : O. Roux : J. Orivel V. Rossi CNRS; Écologie des Forêts de Guyane (UMR-CNRS 8172), CIRAD; Écologie des Forêts de Guyane (UMR-CIRAD 93), Campus Agronomique, Campus Agronomique, 97379 Kourou Cedex, France 97379 KOUROU Cedex, France e-mail: [email protected] B. Corbara R. J.
    [Show full text]