Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine: Guidelines for Land Management

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine: Guidelines for Land Management Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine: Guidelines for Land Management Authors: Gro Flatebo, Ash Cove Consulting Carol R. Foss, Consulting Biologist Steven K. Pelletier, Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. ISBN: 0-9673707-0-1 UMCE Bulletin #7147 Editor: Published and distributed in Catherine A. Elliott, furtherance of Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914, by the University of Maine University of Maine Cooperative Extension, the Land Grant Cooperative Extension University of the state of Maine and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Cooperative Extension and other agencies of the U.S.D.A. provide Illustrator: equal opportunities in programs and employment. Andrea Sulzer 1999 Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine: Guidelines for Land Management 1 Table of Contents Overview Land-Use Issues Introduction . 5 Public Access and Roads . 125 The Maine Forest Biodiversity Project . 7 Conversion to Non-Forest Use . 131 Managed Forests and Biodiversity . 9 Key Concepts . 13 Appendices Site-Specific Considerations Appendix A Agencies and organizations in Maine that offer landowner information or assistance . 137 Introduction . 15 Appendix B Stand Characteristics Relative abundance and distribution of tree species in Maine . 141 Vertical Structure and Crown Closure . 17 Appendix C Native Tree Species Composition . 23 Birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles that use downed woody material, snags, Downed Woody Material, Snags, and cavity trees in Maine . 143 and Cavity Trees . 27 Appendix D Mast . 33 Snag requirements of primary cavity Forest Soils, Forest Floor, excavators in Maine . 146 and Site Productivity . 37 Appendix E Special Habitats and Ecosystems . 45 Trees and shrubs that bear nuts, fruits, and berries in Maine . 147 Riparian and Stream Ecosystems . 47 Appendix F Vernal Pools . 57 Nutritional value of selected hard mast . 149 Beaver-Influenced Ecosystems . 61 Appendix G Amphibians and reptiles of vernal Woodland Seeps and Springs . 65 pools in Maine . 150 Nesting Areas for Colonial Wading Birds . 67 Appendix H Deer Wintering Areas . 71 Pathological and maximum ages of late-successional forest trees in Maine . 151 Nest Sites for Woodland Raptors . 75 Appendix I Old-Growth and Primary Forests . 79 Rare animal species of Maine forests . 152 Rare Plant or Animal Sites . 83 Appendix J Rare plant species of Maine forests . 157 Rare Natural Communities . 87 Appendix K Rare forest-community types in Maine . 160 Landscape-Level Considerations Appendix L Forested natural communities in Maine . 163 Appendix M Introduction . 91 Changes in age-class and size-class composition of forestland in Maine, Managing at the Landscape Level: How to Begin . 93 pre-settlement to present . 164 Forest Management Issues Appendix N Distribution of Native Forest Communities . 97 Important avian predators of spruce budworm . 165 Age Structure of the Landscape . 101 Appendix O Habitat Patch Size . 107 Changes in area and proportion of forest types in Maine, 1982 to 1995 . 166 Habitat Connectivity . 113 Appendix P Disease Agents, Insect Pests, and Weeds . 119 Literature cited in appendices . 167 2 Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine: Guidelines for Land Management Acknowledgements There are two groups of people whose Several additional people provided comment contributions to this manual were vital and on specific sections of the manual or provided invaluable. The members of the Working Forest data — Brad Allen, Aram Calhoun, Charles Committee, listed on the next page, persevered Cogbill, Mark McCollough, Kim Morrison, and through many long, difficult discussions to Mark Stadler. I am sure that there were others come to agreement about the subject matter who were consulted throughout this process, for the manual, and the initial definition, goal, by the authors or by committee members. All and importance to biodiversity statements. The of your contributions are greatly appreciated and authors took on the daunting task of filling in have contributed to the quality of the manual. the details, including recommended practices. Meeting with a committee to hear comment Through all four drafts, Tracey Nelson on and criticism of one’s writing is never easy, incorporated changes in the text, and managed but the authors took it all in good humor. The to maintain her sense of humor. Andrea Working Forest Committee continued their Sulzer’s expert rendering with pen and ink work through two more drafts, working added greatly to the manual. Melanie Spencer towards agreement whenever possible, agreeing contributed her editing expertise and shepherded to disagree when necessary, and taking on the the manual through the publication process. ultimate responsibility for the content of the Beth Goodnight’s layout design transformed manual. The result, this manual, is a testament the manual from dense text to readability. to the dedication, expertise, and tenacity of the Brenda Chandler provided a very thorough committee and the authors. It was a privilege copy editing of the final proof, courtesy of to work with them. Baskahegan Company. To each of these folks go much appreciation and thanks. Philip Gerard, director of the Maine Forest Biodiversity Project, served as facilitator for the The Maine Forest Biodiversity Project and the many committee meetings, as well as provided University of Maine Cooperative Extension thoughtful comment and suggested rewriting supported the development and production for each draft of the manual. His good humor of this manual. We are grateful to the Maine and gentle manner were greatly appreciated. Outdoor Heritage Fund, the Ben and Jerry’s Former project director Leslie Hudson Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, the facilitated the early stages of this effort. Kendall Foundation, the Cabot Foundation, and the Davis Foundation for their generous financial support. Catherine A. Elliott, Editor Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine: Guidelines for Land Management 3 Members of the Working Forest Committee of the Maine Forest Biodiversity Project: Linda Alverson, Ken Elowe, Forest Resource Consultant Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Si Balch, Mead Paper Philip Gerard, Maine Forest Biodiversity Project Bob Barr, Georgia Pacific/The Timber Company Carl Haag, Plum Creek Maine Timberlands, L.L.C. Ernest Bowling, Bowater/Great Northern Paper, Inc. Malcolm Hunter, University of Maine Barrie Brusila, Mid-Maine Forestry, SWOAM Bill Krohn, Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Rob Bryan, Research Unit Maine Audubon Society Mitch Lansky, Barry Burgason, Maine Low-Impact Forestry Project Huber Resources Coporation Joachim Maier, Andy Cutko, Consulting Forester Maine Natural Areas Program Wayne Millen, Phillip deMaynadier, White Mountains National Forest Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Dave Publicover, Appalachian Mountain Club Gary Donovan, Champion International Corporation Bob Seymour, University of Maine Catherine A. Elliott, University of Maine Cooperative Extension Steve Young, Fraser Papers Inc. 4 Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine: Guidelines for Land Management Overview: Introduction THE EFFECTS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT practices on both site-specific and landscape- By Catherine A. Elliott, Gro Flatebo, level characteristics influence biological diversity Carol R. Foss, and Philip Gerard in Maine’s managed forest. This manual provides descriptions of those characteristics and recommends voluntary forestry practices that can help maintain forest biodiversity in landowner advice or assistance related to forest Maine. The recommendations apply to private biodiversity is included in Appendix A. and public forestlands that are actively managed to produce timber and other forest Each chapter is organized using these headings: products. The suggested practices are intended • Definition: A concise description of the to maintain current biodiversity, but they characteristic being addressed. can also be used to enhance components • Importance to Biodiversity: A statement of biodiversity that have become locally or of how the characteristic supports regionally uncommon. These recommendations biodiversity. contribute to the growing body of knowledge about managing forest resources but are not • Goal: The desired outcome of the recommended practices. intended to be considered a comprehensive guide to forest management. Best Management • Background and Rationale: A summary Practices (BMPs) for erosion control and of available information about the protection of water quality, silvicultural characteristic, outlining reasons for guidelines, species-specific habitat management concern, relevance of the topic to forest management and biodiversity practices, and techniques for addressing conservation, and justification for the aesthetics, recreational, and non-timber recommended actions. income-producing activities are addressed in other publications. • Considerations: Factors that may influence implementation of the By focusing on the potential influences of recommended practices. forest management on biological diversity this • Recommended Practices: Specific publication complements and expands on actions that landowners can implement “A Forester’s Guide to Managing Wildlife to maintain biodiversity while conducting Habitats in Maine” (Elliott 1988), while adding forest management. Look for the R a set of broad, landscape-level considerations symbol to find pages where Recommended Practices are listed. and recommendations that have been absent from most previously published guidelines. • Cross References: A list of other chapters
Recommended publications
  • The Biology and Distribution of California Hemileucinae (Saturniidae)
    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 38(4), 1984,281-309 THE BIOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF CALIFORNIA HEMILEUCINAE (SATURNIIDAE) PAUL M. TUSKES 7900 Cambridge 141G, Houston, Texas 77054 ABSTRACT. The distribution, biology, and larval host plants for the 14 species and subspecies of California Hemileucinae are discussed in detail. In addition, the immature stages of Hemileuca neumogeni and Coloradia velda are described for the first time. The relationships among the Hemileuca are examined with respect to six species groups, based on adult and larval characters, host plant relationships and pheromone interactions. The tricolor, eglanterina, and nevadensis groups are more distinctive than the electra, burnsi, or diana groups, but all are closely related. Species groups are used to exemplify evolutionary trends within this large but cohesive genus. The saturniid fauna of the western United States is dominated by moths of the tribe Hemileucinae. Three genera in this tribe commonly occur north of Mexico: Hemileuca, Coloradia, and Automeris. Al­ though no Automeris are native to California about 50% of the Hemi­ leuca and Coloradia species in the United States occur in the state. The absence of Automeris and other species from California is due to the state's effective isolation from southern Arizona and mainland Mex­ ico by harsh mountains, deserts, the Gulf of California, and climatic differences. The Hemileuca of northern Arizona, Nevada, and Utah are very similar to that of California, while those of Oregon, Washing­ ton, and Idaho represent subsets of the northern California fauna. The majority of the saturniid species in the United States have had little or no impact on man, but some Hemileucinae have been of eco­ nomic importance.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods and Work Profile
    REVIEW OF THE KNOWN AND POTENTIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF PHYTOPHTHORA AND THE LIKELY IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES JANUARY 2011 Simon Conyers Kate Somerwill Carmel Ramwell John Hughes Ruth Laybourn Naomi Jones Food and Environment Research Agency Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ 2 CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 15 2. Review of the potential impacts on species of higher trophic groups .................... 16 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 44 3. Review of the potential impacts on ecosystem services .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • City of Keene, New Hampshire CONSERVATION COMMISSION
    City of Keene, New Hampshire CONSERVATION COMMISSION Monday, April 19, 2021 4:30 PM ZOOM Commission Members Alexander Von Plinsky, IV, Chair Councilor Robert Williams Eloise Clark, Vice Chair Brian Reilly, Alternate Kenneth Bergman Thomas P. Haynes, Alternate Art Walker Steven Bill, Alternate Andrew Madison John Therriault, Alternate This meeting will be conducted using the online meeting platform, Zoom. The public may view the meeting online by visiting www.zoom.us/join and enter the Meeting ID: 868 3840 7352.* More info on how to access this meeting is available on the Conservation Commission webpage at https://ci.keene.nh.us/conservation-commission If you encounter any issues accessing this meeting, please call (603) 209-4697 during the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes – March 15, 2020 3. Communication and Notifications a. National Grid – Herbicide Use Notification b. Antioch University New England Proposal – Michael Akresh, PhD. Wild bee assemblages of New Hampshire peatland ecosystems 4. Informational a. Subcommittee reports Outreach Subcommittee Arm Fund Subcommittee 5. Discussion Items a. Greater Goose Pond Forest Management Stewardship Committee – Mayor Hansel b. Garlic Mustard Challenge c. Old Gilsum Rd – Goose Pond Forest 6. New or Other Business *In Emergency7. Adjournment Order #12,– Next issued meeting by the date Governor Monday, pursuant May 17,to Executive 2021 Order #2020-04, which declared a COVID-19 State of Emergency, the requirement that a quorum of a public body be physically present at the meeting location under RSA 91-A:2, III(b), and the requirement that each part of a meeting of a public body be audible or otherwise discernible to the public at the meeting location under RSA 91-A:2, III(c), have been waived.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Native Animals of RI
    RARE NATIVE ANIMALS OF RHODE ISLAND Revised: March, 2006 ABOUT THIS LIST The list is divided by vertebrates and invertebrates and is arranged taxonomically according to the recognized authority cited before each group. Appropriate synonomy is included where names have changed since publication of the cited authority. The Natural Heritage Program's Rare Native Plants of Rhode Island includes an estimate of the number of "extant populations" for each listed plant species, a figure which has been helpful in assessing the health of each species. Because animals are mobile, some exhibiting annual long-distance migrations, it is not possible to derive a population index that can be applied to all animal groups. The status assigned to each species (see definitions below) provides some indication of its range, relative abundance, and vulnerability to decline. More specific and pertinent data is available from the Natural Heritage Program, the Rhode Island Endangered Species Program, and the Rhode Island Natural History Survey. STATUS. The status of each species is designated by letter codes as defined: (FE) Federally Endangered (7 species currently listed) (FT) Federally Threatened (2 species currently listed) (SE) State Endangered Native species in imminent danger of extirpation from Rhode Island. These taxa may meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Formerly considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Federal listing as endangered or threatened. 2. Known from an estimated 1-2 total populations in the state. 3. Apparently globally rare or threatened; estimated at 100 or fewer populations range-wide. Animals listed as State Endangered are protected under the provisions of the Rhode Island State Endangered Species Act, Title 20 of the General Laws of the State of Rhode Island.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEW of the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION's INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN for SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus Acanthias)
    REVIEW OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION'S INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus acanthias) May 2004 – April 2005 FISHING YEAR Board Approved: February 2006 Prepared by the Spiny Dogfish Plan Review Team: Ruth Christiansen, ASMFC, Chair I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: November 2002 Date of Addendum I Approval: November 2005 Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine - Florida Active Boards/Committees: Spiny Dogfish and Coastal Shark Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Subcommittee, and Plan Review Team In April 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) declared spiny dogfish overfished. The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils jointly manage the federal spiny dogfish fishery. NMFS partially approved the federal FMP in September 1999, but implementation did not begin until the May 2000, the start of the 2000-2001 fishing year. The federal FMP uses a target fishing mortality to specify a coastwide commercial quota and splits this quota into two seasonal periods (Period 1: May 1 to October 31 and Period 2: November 1 to April 30). The seasonal periods also have separate possession limits that are specified on an annual basis. In August 2000, ASMFC took emergency action to close state waters to the commercial harvest, landing, and possession of spiny dogfish when federal waters closed because the quota was fully harvested. With the emergency action in place, the Commission had time to develop an interstate FMP, which prevented the undermining of the federal FMP and prevented further overharvest of the coastwide spiny dogfish population.
    [Show full text]
  • Saturniidae) of Rio Grande Do Sul State, Brazil
    214214 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 63(4), 2009, 214-232 ARSENURINAE AND CERATOCAMPINAE (SATURNIIDAE) OF RIO GRANDE DO SUL STATE, BRAZIL ANDERSONN SILVEIRA PRESTES Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] FABRÍCIO GUERREIRO NUNES Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] ELIO CORSEUIL Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] AND ALFRED MOSER Avenida Rotermund 1045, 93030-000 São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] ABSTRACT. The present work aims to offer a list of Arsenurinae and Ceratocampinae species known to occur in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The list is based on bibliographical data, newly collected specimens, and previously existing museum collections. The Arsenurinae are listed in the following genera (followed by number of species): Arsenura Duncan, 1841 (4), Caio Travassos & Noronha, 1968 (1), Dysdaemonia Hübner, [1819] (1), Titaea Hübner, [1823] (1), Paradaemonia Bouvier, 1925 (2), Rhescyntis Hübner, [1819] (1), Copiopteryx Duncan, 1841 (2). Cerato- campinae are listed in Adeloneivaia Travassos, 1940 (3), Adelowalkeria Travassos, 1941 (2), Almeidella Oiticica, 1946 (2), Cicia Oiticica, 1964 (2), Citheronia Hübner, [1819] (4), Citioica Travassos & Noronha, 1965 (1), Eacles Hübner, [1819] (4), Mielkesia Lemaire, 1988 (1), Neocarne- gia Draudt, 1930 (1), Oiticella Travassos & Noronha, 1965 (1), Othorene Boisduval, 1872 (2), Procitheronia Michener, 1949 (1), Psilopygida Michener, 1949 (2), Scolesa Michener, 1949 (3) and Syssphinx Hübner, [1819] (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Pittsfield Produced in 2012
    BioMap2 CONSERVING THE BIODIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS IN A CHANGING WORLD Pittsfield Produced in 2012 This report and associated map provide information about important sites for biodiversity conservation in your area. This information is intended for conservation planning, and is not intended for use in state regulations. BioMap2 Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World Table of Contents Introduction What is BioMap2 Ȯ Purpose and applications One plan, two components Understanding Core Habitat and its components Understanding Critical Natural Landscape and its components Understanding Core Habitat and Critical Natural Landscape Summaries Sources of Additional Information Pittsfield Overview Core Habitat and Critical Natural Landscape Summaries Elements of BioMap2 Cores Core Habitat Summaries Elements of BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscapes Critical Natural Landscape Summaries Natural Heritage Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 015813 & Endangered phone: 508-389-6360 fax: 508-389-7890 Species Program For more information on rare species and natural communities, please see our fact sheets online at www.mass.gov/nhesp. BioMap2 Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World Introduction The Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game, ɳɧɱɮɴɦɧ ɳɧɤ Dɨɵɨɲɨɮɭ ɮɥ Fɨɲɧɤɱɨɤɲ ɠɭɣ Wɨɫɣɫɨɥɤ˘ɲ Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), and The Nature Cɮɭɲɤɱɵɠɭɢɸ˘ɲ Mɠɲɲɠɢɧɴɲɤɳɳɲ Pɱɮɦɱɠɬ developed BioMap2 ɳɮ ɯɱɮɳɤɢɳ ɳɧɤ ɲɳɠɳɤ˘ɲ biodiversity in the context of climate change. BioMap2 ɢɮɬɡɨɭɤɲ NHESP˘ɲ ȯȬ ɸɤɠɱɲ ɮɥ rigorously documented rare species and natural community data with spatial data identifying wildlife species and habitats that were the focus ɮɥ ɳɧɤ Dɨɵɨɲɨɮɭ ɮɥ Fɨɲɧɤɱɨɤɲ ɠɭɣ Wɨɫɣɫɨɥɤ˘ɲ ȮȬȬȱ State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP).
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) Under the Endangered Species Act
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act December 2004 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue infor- mal scientific and technical publications when com- plete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Docu- ments published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Krahn, M.M., M.J. Ford, W.F. Perrin, P.R. Wade, R.P. Angliss, M.B. Hanson, B.L. Taylor, G.M. Ylitalo, M.E. Dahlheim, J.E. Stein, and R.S. Waples. 2004. 2004 Status review of Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-62, 73 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act Margaret M.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter+Spring
    SWinter/SpringE 2020 ASONVolume 49 NumberS 1 SEASONS Winter/Spring 2020 | A Contents A Note from the Executive Director SEASONS BILL CULLINA, The F. Otto Haas Executive Director 1 A Note from the Executive Director Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania 2 Winter Pruning Techniques ecently, I attended the annual Penn Class Tree Planting during homecoming weekend at the University of Pennsylvania. Thanks to the generosity of Published three times a year as a benefit of 3 What to Prune and When membership. Inquiries concerning back issues, Arboretum board member Bill Hohns and his wife Kathie, this endowed Ornamental Cherries - The Highlight of Spring missing issues, or subscriptions should be addressed 4 Rprogram funds the annual planting and care of a tree on College Green to honor each to the editor. 5 Remembering Jane Korman freshman class. The ceremony was especially meaningful to me as my son, Liam, is in USPS: 349-830. ISSN: 0893-0546 the freshman class this year. The class of 2023 chose the venerable American beech POSTMASTER: Send form 3759 to Newsletter, 6 The Fountain in the Park 100 East Northwestern Avenue, Philadelphia, PA (Fagus grandifolia) from a short list of possibilities. As I was standing next to it, shovel 19118. 7 Restoring the Step Fountain in hand, I started thinking. Trees, like all living things, are mostly carbon; carbon Christine Pape, Graphic Designer/Editor 8 Ever Green Campaign Update that they sequester from the air through photosynthesis. As this grows, from a sapling beech to mature tree, it will remove about 7-8 tons of CO out of the atmosphere and Public Garden Hours: 9 Penn Homecoming Weekend 2019 2 Mon-Fri, 10am-4pm sequester it in its silver trunk and roots.
    [Show full text]
  • HIGH ALLEGHENY PLATEAU ECOREGIONAL PLAN: FIRST ITERATION Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean
    HIGH ALLEGHENY PLATEAU ECOREGIONAL PLAN: FIRST ITERATION Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean The High Allegheny Plan is a first iteration, a scientific assessment of the ecoregion. As part of the planning process, other aspects of the plan will be developed in future iterations, along with updates to the ecological assessment itself. These include fuller evaluations of threats to the ecoregion, constraints on conservation activities, and implementation strategies. CSS is now developing a standard template for ecoregional plans, which we have applied to the HAL first iteration draft report, distributed in 2002. Some of the HAL results have been edited or updated for this version. Click on the navigation pane to browse the report sections. What is the purpose of the report template? The purpose of creating a standard template for ecoregional plans in the Northeast is twofold: — to compile concise descriptions of methodologies developed and used for ecoregional assessment in the Northeast. These descriptions are meant to meet the needs of planning team members who need authoritative text to include in future plan documents, of science staff who need to respond to questions of methodology, and of program and state directors looking for material for general audience publications. — to create a modular resource whose pieces can be selected, incorporated in various formats, linked to in other documents, and updated easily. How does the template work? Methods are separated from results in this format, and the bulk of our work has gone into the standard methods sections. We have tried to make each methods section stand alone. Every section includes its own citation on the first page.
    [Show full text]
  • The Taxonomic Report of the INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY
    Volume 8 Number 5 1 April, 2020 The Taxonomic Report OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY ISSN 2643-4776 (print) / ISSN 2643-4806 (online) A phenotypic comparison of regional populations of Hemileuca maia (Drury, 1773) with designations of new subspecies (Bombycoidea, Saturniidae, Hemileucinae). Harry Pavulaan 606 Hunton Place NE Leesburg, VA. 20176 [email protected] ABSTRACT. Following refinement of the type locality of Hemileuca maia to the Long Island Pine Barrens of New York State by the author (Pavulaan, 2020), an evaluation of phenotypic characters of regional populations of H. maia is presented. The Long Island population is the nominotypical subspecies. Populations in southeastern coastal New England and offshore islands are presently considered nominotypical maia. However, several continental inland populations show evidence of subspecific variation. Four new subspecies are designated. Detailed phenotypic information of other interior regions is lacking. Additional key words: Pitch Pine Barrens, Scrub Oak Plains, isolate, Menyanthes trifoliata. ZooBank registration: urn:1sid:zoobank.org:pub:3595D21C-4FDE-4336-A588-4E68195E1118 INTRODUCTION The Buckmoths of North America are a bewildering blend of intergrading phenotypes that have been the subject of numerous studies (Ferguson, 1971; Tuskeset al., 1996; Rubinoffet al., 2017; Dupuiset al., 2018). Results of these studies are inconclusive over where to draw taxonomc limits. Michener (1952) proposed a subdivision of genus Hemileuca into four subgenera: Hemileuca (Walker, 1855), Pseudohazis (Grote & Robinson, 1866), Euleucophaeus (Packard, 1872) and Argyrauges (Grote, 1882). Nestled within subgenus Hemileuca is the Hemileuca maia complex, presently considered to be a closely- related group of species and unnamed populations of species H. maia. This group is characterized by variation in ground color (gray to black), bold median bands (white to yellow), and scale translucence.
    [Show full text]
  • Xyleninae 73.087 2385 Small Mottled Willow
    Xyleninae 73.087 2385 Small Mottled Willow (Spodoptera exigua) 73.089 2386 Mediterranean Brocade (Spodoptera littoralis) 73.091 2396 Rosy Marbled (Elaphria venustula) 73.092 2387 Mottled Rustic (Caradrina morpheus) 73.093 2387a Clancy's Rustic (Caradrina kadenii) 73.095 2389 Pale Mottled Willow (Caradrina clavipalpis) 73.096 2381 Uncertain (Hoplodrina octogenaria) 73.0961 2381x Uncertain/Rustic agg. (Hoplodrina octogenaria/blanda) 73.097 2382 Rustic (Hoplodrina blanda) 73.099 2384 Vine's Rustic (Hoplodrina ambigua) 73.100 2391 Silky Wainscot (Chilodes maritima) 73.101 2380 Treble Lines (Charanyca trigrammica) 73.102 2302 Brown Rustic (Rusina ferruginea) 73.103 2392 Marsh Moth (Athetis pallustris) 73.104 2392a Porter's Rustic (Athetis hospes) 73.105 2301 Bird's Wing (Dypterygia scabriuscula) 73.106 2304 Orache Moth (Trachea atriplicis) 73.107 2300 Old Lady (Mormo maura) 73.109 2303 Straw Underwing (Thalpophila matura) 73.111 2097 Purple Cloud (Actinotia polyodon) 73.113 2306 Angle Shades (Phlogophora meticulosa) 73.114 2305 Small Angle Shades (Euplexia lucipara) 73.118 2367 Haworth's Minor (Celaena haworthii) 73.119 2368 Crescent (Helotropha leucostigma) 73.120 2352 Dusky Sallow (Eremobia ochroleuca) 73.121 2364 Frosted Orange (Gortyna flavago) 73.123 2361 Rosy Rustic (Hydraecia micacea) 73.124 2362 Butterbur (Hydraecia petasitis) 73.126 2358 Saltern Ear (Amphipoea fucosa) 73.127 2357 Large Ear (Amphipoea lucens) 73.128 2360 Ear Moth (Amphipoea oculea) 73.1281 2360x Ear Moth agg. (Amphipoea oculea agg.) 73.131 2353 Flounced Rustic (Luperina
    [Show full text]