DOCSLIB.ORG

Forest Openings Maintenance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forest Openings Maintenance BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION for Activities Related to Wildlife Habitat, Utilities, and Overlooks Forest Openings Maintenance Environmental Assessment USDA-Forest Service Cherokee National Forest Prepared by Mary Miller Forest Wildlife Biologist 2800 Ocoee Street North Cleveland, TN 37312 423-476-9756 [email protected] With input from Mark Pistrang, Botanist/Ecologist Jim Herrig, Fisheries Biologist January 8, 2016 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 AFFECTED AREA AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS ........................................................ 1 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 3 1.3 DESIGN CRITERIA TO BE EMPLOYED..................................................................... 5 1.4 CONSULTATION HISTORY ......................................................................................... 5 2.0 SPECIES EVALUATED AND METHODS USED ........................................................ 5 3.0 HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS, EFFECTS ANALYSIS, AND DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECTS ................................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) ................................................................................. 7 3.2 Migrant loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus migrans).............................................. 8 3.3 Diana fritillary (Speyeria diana) ..................................................................................... 13 3.4 Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) ................................................. 14 3.5 Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) ........................................................................ 14 3.6 Pirate bush (Buckleya distichophylla)........................................................................... 16 3.7 Roan Mountain sedge (Carex roanesis) ......................................................................... 17 3.8 Riverbank bush honeysuckle (Diervilla rivularis) ......................................................... 17 3.9 Bent avens (Geum geniculatum) .................................................................................... 17 3.10 White-leaved sunflower (Helianthus glaucophyllus) ................................................. 18 3.11 Maple-leaf alumroot (Heuchera longifolia var. aceroides) ........................................ 18 3.12 Mountain St. John’s wort (Hypericum graveolens).................................................... 18 3.13 Blue-Ridge St. John’s wort (Hypericum mitchellianum) ........................................... 19 3.14 Gray’s lily (Lilium grayi) ........................................................................................... 19 3.15 Fraser’s loosestrife (Lysimachia fraseri) .................................................................... 19 3.16 Pigmy pipes (Monotropsis odorata) ........................................................................... 20 3.17 Nevius’ stonecrop (Sedum nevii) ............................................................................... 20 3.18 Clingman’s hedge-nettle (Stachys clingmanii) ........................................................... 21 3.19 Ash-leaved bush pea (Thermopsis fraxinifolia ) ........................................................ 21 3.20 Southern nodding trillium (Trillium rugelii ) ............................................................. 22 3.21 Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana) ....................................................................... 22 3.22 Carolina mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus carolinensis) ............................ 25 3.23 Santeetlah dusky salamander (Desmognathus santeetlah) ......................................... 25 3.24 Junaluska salamander (Eurycea junaluska) ................................................................ 25 3.25 Sharphead darter (Etheostoma acuticeps) ...................................................................... 25 3.26 Holiday darter (Etheostoma brevirostrum) ..................................................................... 26 3.27 Wounded darter (Etheostoma vulneratum) .................................................................... 26 3.28 Mountain brook lamprey (Ichthyomyzon greeleyi) ........................................................ 26 3.29 Blotchside logperch (Percina burtoni) ............................................................................ 26 3.30 Bronze darter (Percina palmaris) .................................................................................... 27 3.31 Olive darter (Percina squamata) ...................................................................................... 27 3.32 Sickle darter (Percina williamsi) ..................................................................................... 27 3.33 Fatlips minnow (Phenacobius crassilabrum) .................................................................. 27 3.34 Tennessee dace (Chrosomus tennesseensis) ............................................................... 27 3.35 Helma's net-spinning caddisfly (Cheumatopsyche helma) ......................................... 28 3.36 Cherokee clubtail (Gomphus conasanguis) ................................................................ 28 3.37 Green-faced clubtail (Gomphus viridifrons) .................................................................. 28 3.38 Mountain river cruiser (Macromia margarita) ........................................................... 28 3.39 Smokies needlefly (Megaleuctra williamsae) ............................................................. 29 3.40 Allegheny snaketail (Omphiogomphus incurvatus alleghaniensis) ............................ 29 3.41 Edmund's snaketail (Ophiogomphus edmundo) ............................................................. 29 3.42 Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia) ................................................................ 29 3.43 Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis ) ............................................................................ 29 3.44 Tennessee clubshell (Pleurobema oviforme) .................................................................. 29 3.45 Tennessee pigtoe (Pleuronaia barnesian) ........................................................................ 30 3.46 Alabama creekmussel (Strophitus connasaugaensis)...................................................... 30 3.47 Alabama rainbow (Villosa nebulosi) .............................................................................. 30 3.48 Coosa creekshell (Villosa umbrans) ............................................................................... 30 4.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS ...................................................... 32 5.0 SIGNATURE(S) OF PREPARER(S) ............................................................................. 33 6.0 REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES ....................................................................... 34 PRC* .......................................................................................................................................... 1 4a ................................................................................................................................................. 2 4a ................................................................................................................................................. 2 4a ................................................................................................................................................. 3 4a ................................................................................................................................................. 3 ATTACHMENT A: TES LIST PROJECT REVIEW FORM ATTACHMENT B: LIST OF PROJECT REVIEW CODES 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this biological evaluation (BE) is to document any potential effects of the project on Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species or their habitat, and to ensure land management decisions are made with the benefit of such knowledge. Effects to federally listed (T&E) species are described separately in the project Biological Assessment. The objectives of this evaluation are to: 1) Ensure Forest Service actions do not contribute to a loss of viability of any plant or animal species or cause a trend toward federal listing of any species. 2) Provide a process and a standard by which sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision-making process. In order to comply with the above, the Forest Service has set forth guidance in FSM 2670 which is designed to ensure that Forest Service actions (1) do not contribute to the loss of viability of any native or desired non-native species or cause a trend toward federal listing for any species; (2) comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act; and (3) provide a process and standard which ensures that Sensitive Species receive full consideration in the decision making process. 1.1 AFFECTED AREA AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS The action area (Figure 1) for available habitat, direct effects, and indirect effects on Sensitive Species includes managed wildlife spot and linear openings, utility corridors and overlooks across the Cherokee National Forest. The CNF covers approximately 656,070 acres and is located in ten east Tennessee counties along the border with North Carolina. The CNF generally lies within
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]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • North Carolina Register
    NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER VOLUME 35 ● ISSUE 23 ● Pages 2465 – 2648 June 1, 2021 I. EXECUTIVE ORDERS Executive Orders No. 209-213 ........................................................................ 2465 – 2515 II. PROPOSED RULES Health and Human Services, Department of Child Care Commission .................................................................................. 2516 – 2517 Health Benefits, Division of ........................................................................... 2517 – 2519 Public Health, Commission for ....................................................................... 2519 – 2522 Insurance, Department of Code Officials Qualification Board ................................................................ 2522 – 2524 Public Safety, Department of Private Protective Services Board ................................................................... 2524 – 2526 Environmental Quality, Department of Public Health, Commission for ....................................................................... 2526 – 2535 Occupational Licensing Boards and Commissions Chiropractic Examiners, Board of .................................................................. 2535 – 2541 Funeral Service, Board of ............................................................................... 2541 – 2543 III. APPROVED RULES ........................................................................................ 2544 – 2637 Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of Plant Conservation Board Commerce, Department of Commerce - Employment
    [Show full text]
  • THE NAUTILUS (Quarterly)
    americanmalacologists, inc. PUBLISHERS OF DISTINCTIVE BOOKS ON MOLLUSKS THE NAUTILUS (Quarterly) MONOGRAPHS OF MARINE MOLLUSCA STANDARD CATALOG OF SHELLS INDEXES TO THE NAUTILUS {Geographical, vols 1-90; Scientific Names, vols 61-90) REGISTER OF AMERICAN MALACOLOGISTS JANUARY 30, 1984 THE NAUTILUS ISSN 0028-1344 Vol. 98 No. 1 A quarterly devoted to malacology and the interests of conchologists Founded 1889 by Henry A. Pilsbry. Continued by H. Burrington Baker. Editor-in-Chief: R. Tucker Abbott EDITORIAL COMMITTEE CONSULTING EDITORS Dr. William J. Clench Dr. Donald R. Moore Curator Emeritus Division of Marine Geology Museum of Comparative Zoology School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Cambridge, MA 02138 10 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, FL 33149 Dr. William K. Emerson Department of Living Invertebrates Dr. Joseph Rosewater The American Museum of Natural History Division of Mollusks New York, NY 10024 U.S. National Museum Washington, D.C. 20560 Dr. M. G. Harasewych 363 Crescendo Way Dr. G. Alan Solem Silver Spring, MD 20901 Department of Invertebrates Field Museum of Natural History Dr. Aurele La Rocque Chicago, IL 60605 Department of Geology The Ohio State University Dr. David H. Stansbery Columbus, OH 43210 Museum of Zoology The Ohio State University Dr. James H. McLean Columbus, OH 43210 Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History 900 Exposition Boulevard Dr. Ruth D. Turner Los Angeles, CA 90007 Department of Mollusks Museum of Comparative Zoology Dr. Arthur S. Merrill Cambridge, MA 02138 c/o Department of Mollusks Museum of Comparative Zoology Dr. Gilbert L. Voss Cambridge, MA 02138 Division of Biology School of Marine and Atmospheric Science 10 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, FL 33149 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF The Nautilus (USPS 374-980) ISSN 0028-1344 Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Edition Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist and John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents LIST FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 NORTH CAROLINA RARE PLANT LIST ......................................................................................................................... 10 NORTH CAROLINA PLANT WATCH LIST ..................................................................................................................... 71 Watch Category
    [Show full text]
  • Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R
    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R. and Zeuss, D. 2016. Colour lightness of dragonfly assemblages across North America and Europe. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.02578 Supplementary material Appendix 1 Figures A1–A12, Table A1 and A2 1 Figure A1. Scatterplots between female and male colour lightness of 44 North American (Needham et al. 2000) and 19 European (Askew 1988) dragonfly species. Note that colour lightness of females and males is highly correlated. 2 Figure A2. Correlation of the average colour lightness of European dragonfly species illustrated in both Askew (1988) and Dijkstra and Lewington (2006). Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Note that the extracted colour values of dorsal dragonfly drawings from both sources are highly correlated. 3 Figure A3. Frequency distribution of the average colour lightness of 152 North American and 74 European dragonfly species. Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Rugs at the abscissa indicate the value of each species. Note that colour values are from different sources (North America: Needham et al. 2000, Europe: Askew 1988), and hence absolute values are not directly comparable. 4 Figure A4. Scatterplots of single ordinary least-squares regressions between average colour lightness of 8,127 North American dragonfly assemblages and mean temperature of the warmest quarter. Red dots represent assemblages that were excluded from the analysis because they contained less than five species. Note that those assemblages that were excluded scatter more than those with more than five species (c.f. the coefficients of determination) due to the inherent effect of very low sampling sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, And
    REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, and Conservation Status of Species of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas Principle Investigators: Alan D. Christian Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467; [email protected]; Phone: (870)972-3082; Fax: (870)972-2638 John L. Harris Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467 Jeanne Serb Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, 251 Bessey Hall, Ames, Iowa 50011 Graduate Research Assistant: David M. Hayes, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Kentaro Inoue, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Submitted to: William R. Posey Malacologist and Commercial Fisheries Biologist, AGFC P.O. Box 6740 Perrytown, Arkansas 71801 April 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are currently 13 species of Fusconaia and 32 species of Pleurobema recognized in the United States and Canada. Twelve species of Pleurobema and two species of Fusconaia are listed as Threatened or Endangered. There are 75 recognized species of Unionidae in Arkansas; however this number may be much higher due to the presence of cryptic species, many which may reside within the Fusconaia /Pleurobema complex. Currently, three species of Fusconaia and three species of Pleurobema are recognized from Arkansas. The true conservation status of species within these genera cannot be determined until the taxonomic identity of populations is confirmed. The purpose of this study was to begin preliminary analysis of the species composition of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas and to determine the phylogeographic relationships within these genera through mitochondrial DNA sequencing and conchological analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • * This Is an Excerpt from Protected Animals of Georgia Published By
    Common Name: STARGAZING MINNOW Scientific Name: Phenacobius uranops Cope Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: none Family: Cyprinidae Rarity Ranks: G4/S1 State Legal Status: Threatened Federal Legal Status: none Description: The stargazing minnow is a very long, slender, silvery fish with small scales and a prominent snout overhanging a sucker-like mouth. It attains a maximum total length of about 120 mm (4.7 in). There are five species in this distinctive genus, which also includes the fatlips minnow (P. crassilabrum) and the riffle minnow (P. catostomus) in Georgia. The stargazing minnow is olive dorsally with a brassy mid-dorsal stripe. The prominent mid-lateral stripe is variously flecked with silver to metallic blue and is narrower than that of the fatlips minnow. The lower portion of the body is white, and the pelvic and anal fins are yellowish-olive to white. The dorsal, caudal, and pectoral fins are light olive. The stargazing minnow exhibits no sexually dimorphic coloration. The name "stargazing" refers to the upward tilt of the eyes. Similar Species: This species is very similar to other members of Phenacobius, but none of these co-occur with the stargazing minnow in Georgia. The bigeye chub (Hybopsis amblops) may appear similar and is often co-occurring. In contrast to the stargazing minnow, the bigeye chub has a less-elongated body and does not have fleshy, sucker-like lips. The stargazing minnow can be separated from members of the sucker family (Catostomidae) by having an anal fin that is located closer to the pelvic fins than the caudal fin (vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation
    BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION WILDLIFE FOOD PLOT RENOVATION ON GEORGIA DNR WILDLFE MANAGEMENT AREAS BRASSTOWN, TOCCOA, CHATTOOGA, AND TALLULAH RANGER DISTRICTS CHATTAHOOCHEE NATIONAL FOREST I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this biological evaluation is to document any potential effects of management activities on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) species and their habitats, and to ensure that land management decisions are made with the benefit of such knowledge. This BE is also written to ensure actions taken on Forest Service lands do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired nonnative plant or animal species. The BE contributes to meeting viability objectives by focusing analysis on those species most at risk of losing viability, namely proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species, and ensuring their habitat needs are met. Habitat to support viable populations of other more common species is provided through Forest Plan requirements related to habitat diversity. II. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The project evaluated is the proposed wildlife food plot renovation on Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s) on the Brasstown, Toccoa, Chattooga, and Tallulah Ranger Districts. This includes the Blue Ridge, Chattahoochee, Chestatee, Coopers Creek, Lake Burton, Lake Russell, Swallow Creek, and Warwoman WMA’s. These WMA’s are located on National Forest lands in Fannin, Union, Lumpkin, White, Habersham, Towns, Rabun, and Stephens counties. There are approximately 500 individual openings totaling 700 acres on these 8 WMA’s. All are established openings that have received routine maintenance for many years. Most are mowed at least once annually. Many are planted in high quality grass-clover mixtures, which include combinations of white and red clovers along with wheat, rye, oats, orchard grass, and ryegrass.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of North American Odonata
    A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) Dennis R. Paulson1 and Sidney W. Dunkle2 Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009. Copyright © 2009 Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 edition published by Jim Johnson Cover photo: Tramea carolina (Carolina Saddlebags), Cabin Lake, Aiken Co., South Carolina, 13 May 2008, Dennis Paulson. 1 1724 NE 98 Street, Seattle, WA 98115 2 8030 Lakeside Parkway, Apt. 8208, Tucson, AZ 85730 ABSTRACT The checklist includes all 457 species of North American Odonata considered valid at this time. For each species the original citation, English name, type locality, etymology of both scientific and English names, and approxi- mate distribution are given. Literature citations for original descriptions of all species are given in the appended list of references. INTRODUCTION Before the first edition of this checklist there was no re- Table 1. The families of North American Odonata, cent checklist of North American Odonata. Muttkows- with number of species. ki (1910) and Needham and Heywood (1929) are long out of date. The Zygoptera and Anisoptera were cov- Family Genera Species ered by Westfall and May (2006) and Needham, West- fall, and May (2000), respectively, but some changes Calopterygidae 2 8 in nomenclature have been made subsequently. Davies Lestidae 2 19 and Tobin (1984, 1985) listed the world odonate fauna Coenagrionidae 15 103 but did not include type localities or details of distri- Platystictidae 1 1 bution.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomová Práce
    UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE FARMACEUTICKÁ FAKULTA V HRADCI KRÁLOVÉ KATEDRA FARMACEUTICKÉ BOTANIKY A EKOLOGIE DIPLOMOVÁ PRÁCE Fytochemický výzkum Helianthus annuus L. IV Phytochemical study of Helianthus annuus L. IV Hradec Králové 2008 Jana Podlipná Ráda bych touto cestou podkovala PharmDr. Jan Karlíkové, Ph.D. za odborné vedení, poskytnutí cenných rad a za všestrannou pomoc pi vypracování této diplomové práce. Dkuji PharmDr. Zuzan ehákové, Ing. Katein Macákové a Mgr. Jitce Vytlailové za pomoc pi testování extrakt a jednotlivých frakcí a také všem ostatním pracovníkm katedry farmaceutické botaniky a ekologie za vytvoení dobrých podmínek pro práci. Také bych chtla podkovat RNDr. Alen Tiché, Ph.D. z Geronto-metabolické kliniky Fakultní nemocnice v Hradci Králové za provedení GC/MS analýzy. 2 Tato práce vznikla za finanní podpory grantové agentury Univerzity Karlovy GA UK 118/2006/ B BIO. Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci na téma „Fytochemický výzkum Helianthus annuus L. IV“ vypracovala samostatn a použila jsem jen pramen, které uvádím v piloženém seznamu literatury. 3 OBSAH: I. ÚVOD............................................................................................................................ 8 II. CÍL PRÁCE.................................................................................................................. 11 III. TEORETICKÁ ÁST.................................................................................................... 13 1. Botanická charakteristika ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]