CONSERVATiON OF SPECIES RICHNESS:
ARE ALL UMBRELLA SPECIES OF SIMILAR QUALITY?
A Thesis
Present ed t O
The Faculty of Graduate Studies
of
The University of Guelph
by
Heather Anne Hager
In partial filfilment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
December, 1997
O Heather A. Hager, 1997 National Libtaiy Bibliothèque nationale I*I of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliogaphic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON KI A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de rnicrofiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protége cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fhrn it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT
CONSERVATION OF SPECIES RICHNESS:
ARE ALL UMBRELLA SPECES OF SIMJLAR QUALITY?
Heather Anne Hager Advisor: University of Guelph, 1997 Professor Thomas D.Nudds
Umbrella species, those whose presence in an area indicates a high kelihood that a majonty of other species in the region wili also be present, codd be indicators for establishing nature reserves. There exists two proposed types of umbrella species: (1) single, large species that requiie large ranges, or (2) speciose groups with scattered distributions. 1 compared the abiiities of these two types of urnbrella species to include areas of high species nchness in resemes selected fiom island archipelagos in the Great
Lakes basin, North Amenca. AU urnbreilas capturecl 70-100% of other species. Of the
30% of species rnissing fkom reserves, umbreila groups captureci more species than did single-species umbrellas @ = 0.0095) but the best of each type of umbrella species
(marnmal single-species umbreilas and woody plant umbrella groups) did not capture signincantly different proportions of the total nurnber of other species. Therefore, use of any umbrella species shouid result in similar reserve selection for species conservation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, and foremost, 1 must th& my advisor, Tom Nudds. 1 am gratefùl for the
oppohty he gave me to do this work and 1 codd not have made it through without his
generous support and encouragement. Thanks aiso to the members of my advisory
cornmittee, Jm Bogart and Peter Yodzis, who were kind enough to read and give helpful
comments on my thesis dr& well within their ailotted two weeks.
1 thank Georgian Bay Islands National Park (Michel Villeneuve) and Fathom Five
National Marine Park (Mark Wiercinski and later, Scott Parker) for the oppominity to
spend a summer in the field, searching for various critters on islands in Georgian Bay. 1
enjoyed the summer I spent with the members of the GBI~(Guelph Biological Inventory
of the Georgian Bay Islands), specificdy, Dave Britton, Derek Potter, Doug Tate and
Erica Whelpdale. 1 leamed many species survey skills (thanks guys!), put to use the
extraordinary powers of duct tape and experienced the 'rattling' of the Massassaugas.
Thanks also to St . Lawrence Islands National Park (Mary- Alice Snet singer) for allowing me to rummage through files and library for data; an entirely new spin on 'field work'.
Thanks go to R.B.King et al. for permission to use theu data before it was published and to Jim Bogart, Jonathan Edrnonds and Leslie Rye for use of their unpublished amphibian and reptile body mass data.
1 want to thank vaxious people for both scholastic and 'extra-cumcular' entertainment: first of ail my 'partner-Ui-scientSc-method-crime',Karen McCoy, who has been my proof-reading buddy for the past two years .....1 think we've entertained (hopefully, not annoyed) the members of the lab with Our fiequent debates; Sheila
MacLeod, the 'science geek': a valuable Eend with interesting and helpfid insights; the past and present members of the lab, Glenn Benoy, Carey Bergman, Daniel Fortin, Brent
Gurd, Chris Henschel, John McKenzie, Chris McLaughlih, Mark Miller, Isabelle
Schmelzer, John Wilmshurst: it's been fun; you're an interesting bunch; sundry members of the mology department and the baseball teams, etc.; rny long-the fiend, Tara Blalock, who has listened to me rant about academic doings and nodded and smiled; and lastly, but not least, my parents, Calvin and Suzanne, and my brothers, Calvin and Sean, who are always there somewhere, especiaiiy when 1 need them most, and my do& Casey, who's aiways happy to take a walk to the river.
This research was made possible by a gant from Parks Canada to Tom Nudds. and an Ontario Graduate Scholarship to myself.
LIST OF TABLES
Page 1 : Taxa for which species occurrences were found on archipelagos in the Great Lakes basin (with abbreviations) are designated with an X. The shaded archipelagos are reference arc hipelagos. ... 16
2: Species selected as single-species umbreiias (accordmg to body mass). X's denote on which archipelagos each species was selected. ... 19
3 : Spearman rank correlation of expected and observeci percentages of species captured by reserves delineated by umbrelia species (GRP = umbrella group, SSP = single-species umbreila). .. -3 3
4: Sign tests for scatter of expected:observed (reference sites:test sites) percentages of species captured by umbrellas about the 1 :1 ratio by umbrella type and taxon, taxon captured and island archipelago. LIST OF FIGURES
Page 1: Location of study archipelagos in the Great Lakes Basin, North Amenca. FF = Fathom Five islands, GB = Georgian Bay islands, LEI = Lake Erie islands, LMI = Lake Michigan islands (Beaver group), SLI = St. Lawrence islands, WLM = Western Lake Michigan islands (Green Bay). ... 14
2: Percentages of species captured by umbrelias on reference (expected) and test (observeci) archipelagos. .. .23
3 : Percentages of species captured by umbrelia groups and single-species umbrellas on reference and test arcipelagos.
4: Frequency of percentages of species caphired by umbrelia groups and single- species umbrelias. Groups captured significantly higher percentages @ = 0.0095).
5: Percentages of species captured by each umbrella type. SmaU letters indicate significant clifferences in percent species captured @ < 0.05). Note: a number of points are hidden by others (abbreviations: GRP = umbrella group, SSP = single-species umbreila, and see Table 1).
6: Percentages of species of each taxon captured. Sdletiers indicate significant diffierences in percent species captured @ < 0.01). Note: a number of points are hidden by others.
7: Frequency of each taon captured, per percentage class, by each umbrella type.
8: Frequency of umbrelia groups and species, per percentage dass, used to capture each taxon.
9: Percentages of species captured by umbrelias on each archipelago. Smd letters indicate significant diff'erences in percent species captured @ < 0.05). Note: a number of points are hidden by others (see Table 1 for abbreviations).
10: Range of island areas in each archipelago. Small letters indicate significant differences in island areas (p < 0.05) (see Table 1 for abbreviations). PROLOGUE
INDICATOR SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DLVERSITY:
REVEW AND SYNTHESIS
Introduction
Currently, there is much concem and debate about the Ioss of biological diversity
(e.g., Sisk et al. 1994, Johnson et ai. 1996). The United States Environmentai Protection
Agency (USEPA), for example, determineci that it "should be as cuncerned about protecting ecosystems as it is about protecting human health" (USEPA 1990:6). Most loss of biological diversity is attributed to an inaeased rate of species extinction, thought to be caused largely by the destruction of habitats by hurnans (Ehrlich and Wdson 1991).
The maintenance of biological diversity is deemed important for three main reasons: ethical and aesthetic; economic, for food, medicine and industry; and ecological, to maintain the functioning of natural systems such as decomposition and nutrient cycling
(Sodé 1985, Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1992, Ehrlich and Wùson 199 1, Kim 1993, Primack
1993, Randall 1991, Reid 1994, Rolston 1985). Concem has led to considerable research into biodiversity issues, and tu the creation of public policy to set guidelines for the conservation of biodiversity.
The Global Biodivenity Assessrnent (UNEP 1995) summarizes our basic knowledge of biodiversity, and the Intemationai Union for the Conservation of Nature's
International Convention on Biological Diversity and Agenda 2 1 set out the need to inventory and monitor biodiversity and raise questions about which species or taxa
should be monitored (UNEP 1995).
It is estimated that there are anywhere f3om 5 million to more than 15 million
species on earth (May 1988, May 1990, Stork 1993) and of these, only 1.4 to 1.8 million
have been identified (Stork 1993). Some people feel th& as the first step towards the
conservation of biological diversity, aii of these unidentifid species need to be classified
to provide a baseline inventory (e.g., Beattie 1994). Taking inventories of species to
establish and use baseline controls is an important part of ecological research but, based
on average species description rates, it is estimated that it would take 90 to 120 years to
'complete' a basehe survey for even the most conservative estirnate of the number of
species (Stork 1993). Ongoing classification of species alone does not address the current
problem of species extinction (Renner and RicWefs 1994% 1994b).
Another strategy might be to conserve areas that d prevent or rninimize
extinctions. Such a stnitegy addresses current conservation problems before necessarily
knowùig the idenîity of every species that exists in an area.
Instead of a single-species approach to conservation, it has been suggested that it
may be more efficient to protect whole areas that support high numbers of species (Walker
1992) especialiy considering, for exarnple, that the United States Endangered Species Act already has a large backlog of individual species that need to be protected (Meese 1989).
At the sale of reserve planning and maintenance, issues such as site, location, and number, are involved in determining how and where reserves should be situated. To choose suitable reserves, it is necessary to have some idea of the diversity of species that are present in the area, as well as to monitor the reserves periodically to ensure their maintenance. It would be advantageous to do this in a quick, reliable and cost-effeaive manner. Hence, 'indicator species' have been proposed for deheating and monitoring conservation resemes (Noss 1990, Hansson and Angelstam 199 1, Pearson and Cassola
1992, Kremen et al. 1993, Pressey et al. 1993, for critique, see Landres et al. 1988 and
Conroy and Noon 1996).
Various types of indicators have been discussed in the literature, with application of different tenns to describe similar concepts, or sUnilar concepts described by dflerent tem, lead'ig to the potential for confusion of terrninology. Generaily, 'indicator species' is a term that applies to aii species thaî, by their response to certain environmental conditions, are thought to be useM to quickly Uifer the effécts of those conditions on other, non-indicator species (Landres et al. 1988, Noss 1990). They are so designated because environmental changes should be detectable by various possible changes in these species before, or more eady, than they could be detected otherwise. A single or a few species that are sensitive to specific environmental factors should dow inferences about the levels of these factors in the systems in which they are found based on mutation levels, species presence, absence or abundance, or the levels of tohs or contaminants in their bodies, and can be used to monitor for changes such as the appearance of environmental toxins, the state of habitat conditions or population trends of other species (Landres et al.
1988).
A number of terrns Merdivide and define Werent types of indicators. Most ternis have not been used exclusively and are easily confitsed or used irnproperly (O'Brien et ai. 1993). To clam the tenninology, 1 bndy define and review various types of
indicators. 1 then specifïcally disniss umbrella species, their potential use for conservation
of other species and possible implications of using dflerent umbrella species for selection
of reserve areas.
Sentinel species
Some hdicator species are thought to be sensitive to particular contaminants,
chemicals, toxins, or disease in their environrnents. For example, cornorants are usefiil for detecting iipophilic toxins (Fox et ai. 1991), diatoms have been used as indicators of water quality (Round 1991) and mammais may be used to detect toxins in the environment
(O'Brien et al. 1993). Such indicators are termed 'sentinel species' because they are sensitive to adverse environmentai conditions and should give an early wamïng to humans that those conditions exist. Changes in the environment are indicated by changes in chernical concentrations in tissues of the sentinel species, mutation rates, or sentinel species abundance. Often, sentinel species are referred to as 'indicators of or speçies
'sensitive to' some condition and are usudy not involveci in the conservation of other species in the sense of detecting areas of bigh species diversity.
Target species
As indicators, groups of species are thought to be more usefûl than single species because they should provide more information about a syaem (Noss 1990, Kremen 1992).
Groups of 'target species' (Kremen 1992) have been proposed for monitoring various conditions in naturd areas. They could be used to monitor environmental changes such as
pollution, habitat modification or fiqpentation (Kremen 1992), as well as other species'
distributions or environmental heterogeneity, and are assumed to be useful for monitoring
areas if the distributions of the species within the group are correlated with patteins of the
factor(s) of interest (Kremen 1992, Kremen 1994). Target groups could alço be useful for
expeditious biological inventories if groups could be identifited whose species distributions
are correlated with those of other species (Krernen 1994, Emberton 1996). However, the
method of choosing target groups of species (Kremen 1992, Kremen 1994) may be
somewhat nimbersome because extensive, time consunhg surveys and multiple
correlation tests are required to iden* useful target groups and then, only for those
environmentai variables that have been measured. The effect of each envkonmental factor
to be monitored may require a different group of target species for detection; dEerent
geographical areas may dso require different groups (Kremen 1994). For example,
Kremen (1992) identifieci a target group of Madagascan buttefies that were correlated
with, and therefore 'indicative' of, a topographidmoisture gradient and sume logguig
disturbance, but were not correlated with, and therefore, not indicative of, plant diversity.
In this case, if an indicator of plant diversity is desired, a different target group must be
identifiai; however, because of the effort required, it might be more advantageous to
simply maure plant diversity. As we& a positive correlation between the levels of some
environmentai factor and the species present may imply indicator properties but, the target group is rendered Iess usefùi if changes in the environmental fmor are detectable more easily than, or before, changes in the group of target species. Keystone species
The term 'keystone species' was coined by Paine (1969) and referred to an
intertidal carnivore (Pisaster, stadïsh). The predator, Pisaster, was a keystone of the
intertidal community because it iimited the density of a primary consumer and, when
removed, the species nchness of the community declined drasticdy because of
cornpetition Ath, or consumption by, the consumer (se review in Milis et al. 1993).
Keystone species could be important for conservation because their removai f?om a
system would cause radical changes in the composition of the cornmunity.
Umbreila species
If the presence of certain species in an area indicates a high iikelihood that rnost
other species in that region will also be found in that area, then it is possible that once
these indicators are identifiai, they can be used to select areas to protect as nature
reserves to maximize conservation of species diversity. These indicators are called
umbreiia species: maintainhg their presence in an area should provide protection for moa
other species in that area (Wiicox 1984, Murphy and Wdcox 1986). However, umbrelia
species should not be confùsed with keystone species. An 'umbreiia species' might also
be a 'keystone species', but each tenn refers to a unique concept. When preserved, an
umbreiia species simply dows many other species to also be preserved. If an umbrella
species is not present, neither will some others be, but the absence of others is not caused by the removai of the umbrella, dess that urnbreila is also a keystone. Three types of species have been hypothesized to be umbrellas which, when protected in an are-should indicate that a rnajority of other species are also present. The first are species that utilize habitats at scales most aEkcted by human disturbance and fiagmentation ('mesoscale species') whde other species in the area are able to persist at habitat scales sufficiently large or sdas to be unaffected by human-imposed changes in habitat (Kitchener et al. 1980, Holiing 1992). If such mesoscale species are consewed, then fiagmentation and disturbance effects are weak enough to allow their persistence, as well as the persistence of other species. Presently, mesoscale species are not useful for conservation or monitoring because £irst, actud specîes have never been identifïed and, second, they are expected to &Ber at various distubance scales. Kitchener et al. (1980) anecdotdy suggested that mid-shed mamds rnay be mesoscale umbrelia species for reserves in the Australian wheatbelt. This hypothesis has not yet been testeci.
The second type is a large-bodied species, possibly fiom a hÏgh trophic level (such as a camivorous rnammal), that requires a large amount of food energy to kveand therefore, requires a large home range or temtory f?om which to aquire this energy
(Wilcox 1984, Peterson 1988). hereafter 'single-species umbreilas' . These species act as umbreilas because if they persist, the area should be large enough to sustain most species with smaiier energy and home range requirements. For example, Beier (1993) niggested that a reserve network designed to conserve cougars may be usefùi for conserving most other species while Wallis de Vries (1995) discussed the possibility ofthe use of large herbivorous mammals as urnbrellas for other animas and plants in Europe. Two tests of single-species umbreilas have actuaiiy been perfonned. Noss et al. (1996) teaed the ability of planned grizziy bear recovery reserve areas in the Rocky Mountains of Idaho to
capture other terrestrial vertebrate species. They found that areas delineated to support viable populations of grizziy bears would capture 15.79% of the totd number of other vertebrates found in the state of Idaho, while reserve networks designed to conserve
grizzly bears, lynx and wolves would capture 99% of the other vertebrates. Berger (1997)
tested the ability of black rhinos to act as single-species umbrellas for other large
herbivores in the Namibian Desert, Afiica. He found that, unlike rhino, other herbivores
wandered among different areas according to seasonal rainfd variation and concluded
that the black rbowas not a good single-species urnbrella for other herbivores.
The third type of umbrella species, introduced by Ryti (1992), is that of a speciose taxon with Little pattern to the occurrences of species, which should act as an effective umbrella due to the scattered nature of the species. He termed these 'focal taxa' (Ryti
1992), which I designate 'umbrella groups' to distinguish them fiom single-species umbrellas. The minimum network of reserve areas required to include ail of the umbreila group should contain most other species found in the region. Ryti (1992) thought this because he found plants to be better umbrelia groups than birds for capturing other species on reserves selected ffom islands in the Gulfof California and from isolated canyons in
San Diego County. Reserves deiineated by the plant umbreila group captured 88400% of other species of vertebrates while the bud umbrella group captured 4578%.
While most tests of umbrelia species have delineated reserves according to the presence of the umbrella species, for practical application, species abundance would have to be taken into consideration to detemine the extent of area needed to support
populations of species in the region (for example, see Noss et al. 1996).
Conclusion
It is helpful to clarify the use of indicator species terminology to better focus
conservation efforts, because confusion of different terms and concepts may occur. By
definition, alI umbrella species should produce similar results when used to select
networks of reserve areas; ail should provide protection for the majority of other species.
That is, if the umbreila species is present, the rnajority of the other species in the region
should also be present. If so, then it should not matter which umbrella species are chosen
for protection; one could choose the most convenient or cost-effective umbrella species to
select and monitor reserve areas. However, ciifferences in both the number and
composition of species captured by umbrelia species might be expected, depending on the
nature of the species chosen as umbrehs. For example, there may exist species that are
only found in sderareas where most other species are not (supertramp species;
Diamond 1975) so that the reserves chosen using large, single-species umbrellas may not
encompass these areas. On the other hand, individual areas chosen using umbrella groups
may be too smail to support various larger organisms. One wodd need to know how
dflerent umbrelia species perform to address particular conservation goals. A
conservation strategy might be to use urnbrelia species as a 'coarse filter' (Noss 1987) for
reserve selection but also to use individual species' conservation programmes as a 'fine filter' for those species missed by the warse fiiter. Further, it may be that no umbreila species are usefùl. Umbrella species may not capture species dflerently fkom what might
be captured by a random selection of potential reserve areas. The consemation strategy
would then be to disregard the urnbreila species as tools for making conservation decisions
and to obtain reserve areas using a difFerent strategy, for example, by conse~ngas much
area in as many different areas as possible.
Although there has been some study of the various types of umbrella species, there has been no direct comparison of the effectiveness of different types of urnbreiIa species.
To attempt to resolve the debate about which umbrella species are best for consenkg the greatest number of other species, some comparison of umbreila types is needed. If umbreila species are indeed usefûl for conservation, they could be used as a coarse-filter tool to select nahiral areas for protection of species (perhaps unnamed), while fùrther inventory and monitoring needs are addresseci as the opportunity arises.
The purpose of the next chapter is to determine whether single-species umbrellas and umbrella groups are both, in fact, umbrella species; that is, whether they both delineate reserves that include areas of high species diversity. CONSERVATION OF SPECIES RICHNESS:
ARE ALL UMBRELLA SPECIES OF SIMILAR QUALITY?
"...certaintaxa are more effeaive at serving as a protective 'umbrella' to organisrns that are found within their ecosystems [than others]." Launer and Murphy 1994:145.
INTRODUCTION
Biological diversity has been deemed important for rasons including: ethical and aesthetic; economic, for food, medicine and industry; and ecological, presumably to maintain the fùnction of nahird systerns such as decomposition and nutrient cycling (Soulé
1985, Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1992, Ehrlich and Wdson 1991, Kim 1993, Primack 1993,
Randail 1991, Reid 1994, Rolston 1985). Much species loss is attributed to habitat destruction by humans (Ehrlich and Wilson 1991). Hence, 'indicator species' have been proposed as usefiii, quick and inexpensive tools for delineating and monitoring conservation reserves Woss 1990, Hansson and Angelstam 199 1, Pearson and Cassola
1992, Kremen et ai. 1393, Pressey et al. 1993, but for critique see Landres et al. 1988 and
Conroy and Noon 1996). A specific type of indicator species umbrella species, are those whose presence are supposed to indicate a high Iikelihood that many other species are also present; maintainhg these species is thought to @ord protection for other species in the same areas (Wilcox 1984, Murphy and Wdwx 1986, Prologue).
To date, the fiterature about umbreiia species consists of proposais and explanations about which species should be good umbrelia species (e-g., Wilcox 1984, Peterson 1988, Beier 1993, Wallis de Vries 1995, Britten and Rust 1996, Noss et al.
1996). Some studies examined specific cases: vertebrates as umbreiIa species for
invertebrates (Murphy and Wdcox 1986); birds, madqreptiles and plants as umbreiia
species for each other (Ryti 1992); butterfly taxa for plant richness and diversity (Kremen
l992), for other butterflies (Kremen 1994) and for grasses (Launer and Murphy 1994);
grizzly bears for other vertebrates (Noss et al. 1996); and rhinos for other desert
herbivores (Berger 1997). These shidies report mixed results about the extent to which
reserves delineated to protect particular umbrelia species also include, or 'capture', other
species.
The comrnon element of these studies is that they reduce to two generd arguments
about the characteristics of 'good' umbreiia species. Some propose that large-bodied
species, for example, cougar (Beier 1993), rhino (Berger 1997) and @y bear (Noss et
al. 1996), should be good umbrella species because they are oRen found at high trophic
levels and require high amounts of energy and therefore, extensive areas (Wilcox 1984,
Peterson 1988). These, 1 designated 'single-species umbrellas'. Others propose that
speciose taxa such as plants (Ryti 1992) and butterflies (Kremen 1994) should be good
urnbrella species because their scattered distributions encompass many different areas.
These, 1 designated 'umbreila groups of species', hereafter, sirnply 'umbreua groups'.
Despite extensive discussion surrounding the abilities of umbrelia species to deheate reserves that would include many other species, the abilities of the two types of umbrelia species have not been directly cornpareci. In fact, Noss et al. (1W6:952) found ". .. no definitive, published studies documenting the level of protection affiorded to other species by a conservation plan focusseci on large carnivores or, for that matter, any other
ostensible urnbrefia species", aithough, since then, Berger (1997) tested whether black
rhino could act as a single-species umbrelia for other desert herbivores. If the claims of
the proponents for each type of umbrelia are correct, then, by definition, nature reserves
delineated by each type of umbrella species should capture similar, high nchness of
species. Here, 1 test the null hypothesis that reserve systems selected using each of the
two types of umbrella species do not capture different proportions of the total numbers of
other species found in an area.
Study system
We compared the two types of umbrella species ushg species occurrences on six
island archipelagos in the Great Lakes Basin, North America (Figure 1). This was appropnate because, first' islands are replicated sets of habitat isolates of varying size;
second, previous surveys of species occurrences on islands were available for several taxa on several archipelagos; third, many of the islands were relatively undisturbed (either because of their inaccessibility or because they belong to Canadian National Parks or
United States' National Lakeshores and as such, are protected fiom extensive development); and fourth, the Great Lakes basin encompasses a relatively large, but discrete, geographic area and many species whose distributions extend to the Great Lakes basin are found wholly across the basin. Figure 1 : Location of study archipelagos in the Great Lakes Basin, North Arnenca. FF = Fathom Five islands, GB = Georgian Bay islands, LEI = Lake Erie islands, LMI = Lake Michigan islands (Beaver group), SLI = St. Lawrence islands WLM = Western Lake Michigan islands (Green Bay). Data collection
1 mined the literahire for records of species occurrences on islands of several
archipelagos in the Great Lakes bash and found pertinent data for arnphibians and reptiles
(herpetofauna), buds, carabid beetles (Famiiy : Carabidae), mammals and woody plants
(Table 1). Survey records ranged f?om 1912 to 1996 and from haphazard observations of
single species on single islands to systematic searches for all species of certain taxa on
many islands of an archipelago. Survey efforts were not quantifiable and were
undoubtedly variable among archipelagos.
Refining the data
Invertebrates have been suggested as possible indicators (Kremen et al. 1993,
Oliver and Beaîtie 1993, New 1994). Unfominately, the carabid beetle data found for the
Great Lakes Basin (Wii et al. 1995, Nudds et al. 1996) were deemed insufEcient and
removed £kom the data set. Of the two archipelagos for which carabid records existe&
Fathom Five (FF) records were considered incomplete because species-accumulation curves failed to reach asymptotes (Nudds et al. 1996).
From the remaining data, al1 questionable species occurrences were eIiminated.
Mammal records were elimhated if the area of the island was srnalier than the average home range of that mammai (Appendu A3). Bird species occurrences were elimùiated from particular islands if birds did not breed on those islands. Bird species were considered to breed on the islands if records indicated possible, probable or confirmed Table 1 : Taxa for which species occurrence records were found on archipelagos in the Great Lakes basin (with abbreviations) are designated with an X (Appendix B). The shaded archipelagos are reference archipelagos.
Archipelago (Abbreviation) Bird Carabidae Herpetofauna Mammal Plant @RD) (CM) (PLN) . Pathom Five National Marine Park islands (FF) X X X X X
Gmrgian Bay Islands National Park (GB) X
Lake Erie islands (LEI) X
Lake Michigan islands, Beaver group (LMI)
St. Lawrence Islands National Park (SLI)
Green Bay islands, Western Lake Michigan (WLM) breeding evidence. Othenvise, bird records were included in the analysis if the same species were seen repeatedly on an island during early sumrner months (i.e., nesting season; Speirs 1985) and if that island occurred within the species' breeding range
(Peterson 1980).
Reserve seIection
Umbrella Grouos: Four general taxonomic groups were selected as umbreifa groups : birds, herpetofauna (an artifid, not t wonomic, groupkg), mammals and woody plants. Reptiles and amphibians were pooled as herpetofauna because of physiologicai similadies that redt in biogeographic similarities (Wilcox 1980, Wright 198 1, Lavigne et al. 1989) and to prevent excessively small group sizes. Each umbreila group included aii species present in that taxonomic group.
For each umbreila group on each archipelago, the minimum subset of islands that contained al species of that group was selected using a reserve selection algorithm simdar to Margules et al. (1988). Step 1: AU islands that supported a species found on only that one island were included in the reserve subset. Step 2: Beginning with the rarest (those with the fewest occurrences) species stili missing fiom the reserve, the island supporting both it and the greatest number of new species was selected. If the greatest number of new species was tied arnong islands, the largest island was added to the reserve. Step 2 was repeated untii di species in the umbrelia group, for a particular archipelago, were found in the reserve; this was the minimum reserve that contained aii of the species fiom the umbrelia group. The number of w-occurring species in each reserve was counted for each of the other taxa present and expressed as a percentage of the total number of other species in each taon, found on the entire archipelago.
Sinde-s~eciesumbrellas: The single, largest-bodied species was selected as the single-species umbrella for each archipelago, fiom each of three groups: birds, herpetofauna and rnamrnals (Table 2). Large size was gauged by average body mass obtained fiom the Iiterature (Appendices Al, A2, and A.3). Woody plants were not included in the analysis of single-species umbrellas as plants have no clear body mass or home range dogue. For each single-species umbrella on each archipelago, ail islands on which the umbreila species occurred were included in the minimum reserve subset and, similady, the proportions of species of each of the other taxa in the minimum reserve were calcuiated.
Statistical analyses
1 first examined the ability of both umbreila types (groups and single-species) to capture similar proportions of other species in the reserves they delmeated. Each island archipelago was a rep licate. For each archipelago where records existed, up to seven umbrellas (four groups and three single-species) were used to delineate reserve areas to capture species fiom each taxon (birds, herpetofauna, mammals and woody plants) in a painwise fashion. Only islands shared by each pair (Le., umbrella and tawon captured) were cowidered each tirne. Each archipelago was used to geneiate proportions of species captured in reserves delineated by each umbreiia. The identities of species absent fkom Table 2: Species selected as single-species umbrellas (accordhg to body mass). X's denote on which archipelagos each species was selected.
Species FF GB EI LM SLI WLM
White-tailed Deer X X X X X
Red Fox
Common Snapping Turtle
Midland Paint ed Turtle
Common bon
Osprey
Bald Eagle reserves selected from each archipelago using umbrella groups and single-species
umbrellas were recorded for cornparison.
For aii of the following analyses, species percentage data remained non-normally
distributeci @NVAFUATE procedure, SAS Institute hc. 1989) &er both arcsine and
modified Freeman and Tukey arcsine transformations on the actual propomons (Zar
1984:24O). Therefore, non-parametric tests were performed.
Three hypotheses about the nature of the variation in the proportions of species
captured by umbrehs were examined to determine the relative abilities of different
umbrellas to delineate reserves to capture other species. First, ifsome umbreilas are better
(or worse) than others, there should be ciifferences in the proportions of species captured
by different umbrellas. Second, ifcertain taxa are captured at consistently higher (or
lower) proportions than others, there should be detectable dinerences. Third, if the
methods are tramferable among archipelagos, similar proportions of species should be
captured among al1 archipelagos.
Ideally, a non-parametnc, three-way factorial analysis of variance with unequal
sample sizes should be used to test for interaction among umbrella type, taxon captured
and archipelago (the independent variables) on the percentages of species captured in reserves (the dependent variable). However, to the best of my knowledge, such a test does not exist. Therefore, 1 Ist examinecl the proportions of species f?om other taxa captured by different umbrellas using a Kniskal-Wallis test and did the same for the proportions of species of each taxon captured, by mon. 1 then examined these two variables for interaction by constmcting a frequency histogram, for each ümbrelia, of the relative proportions of species of each taxon captured. Finaliy, 1 independently exarnined the proportions of species captured (by al1 umbrellas) on each archipelago for dEerences using a Kmskal-Wallis test. For all Kruskai-Wallis tests where dzerences were detected,
1 used a non-parametric, multiple cornparison for unequal sample sizes and tied ranks (Zar
1984: 199) to determine which categories were dEerent.
1 aiso examined whether each umbreiia captured proportions of other species consistently and predictably among archipelagos. Georgian Bay Islands National Park
(GB) and Fathom Five National Marine Park (FF) archipelagos were designated
'reference' archipelagos because they were recently surveyed and records were fairly complete (Nudds et al. 1996). niese two archipelagos were used to generate expected proportions of other species captured in reserves delineated by umbrellas. The remaining four archipelagos (with les consistent survey methods) were considered 'test.' archipelagos and were used to generate obsemed proportions of other species captured in reserves delineated by umbrellas.
1 expected that, ifali umbrellas captured proportions of other species consistently and predictably among archipelagos, the expected and observai percentages of species captured should be positively correlated, with a 1: 1 ratio. Expected and observed values were tested, for each of the seven urnbrellas, using Spearman rank correlation (CORR procedure, SAS Instinite Inc. 1989). however, the umbrellas were inconsistent and unpredictable between reference and test archipelagos, the data might be concentrated above or below the 1: 1 line for three reasons; first, some types of umbreila species may be consistently better (or worse) at caphiring other species than expected; second, proportions of some taxa captured rnay be consistently higher (or lower) than expected;
third, consistently more (or fewer) species rnay be captured on certain archipelagos than
expected because of, for example, diierences in island sizes among archipelagos.
Reserves delineated by umbrellas may include more species on an archipelago with a
larger average island size than on one with a smaller average island size. The dispersion of
points about the 1: 1 LUie was examined using sign tests (Zar 1984).
Finally, because merences in umbrella performance may be due to island area
dflérences arnong archipelagos, the archipelago island areas were compared. Island areas
remained non-normaily distributed after logarithmic transformations, so were compared
with a Kruskal-Wallis test ushg SAS (NPARIWAY procedure, SAS Wtute Inc. 1989).
If differences were detected using the Kruskai-Wallis test, I used a non-parametric,
multiple cornparison for unequa1 sample sizes and tied ranks (Zar 1984) to determine which archipelagos were different.
AU umbrella species captured 70-100% of species on the archipelagos (Figure 2).
Within this top 30%. umbreila groups captured slightly greater proportions of species (76-
100%) than did single-species umbrellas (70-1 0W) (Figure 3). A Wdcoxon two-sample test (NP AR1 WAY, SAS Institute Inc. 1989) estabüshed that the ranks of the percentages of species captured were sigdicantly higher for umbrelia groups than for single-species umbreiias (S = 4225.50, Z = 2.59386, p = 0.0095; Figure 4).
22 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Expected percent species captured by umbrellas
Figure 2: Percentages of species captured in reserves delineated by umbrellas on reference (expected) and test (observed) archi pelagos.
FISINGLE-SPECIES, n = 63
70-75 75.1-80 80.1-85 85.1-90 90.1-95 95.1-100 Percent of species captured by umbrellas
Figure 4: Frequency of percentages of species captured in reserves delineated by umbrella groups and single-species umbrellas. Groups captured significantly higher percentages @ = 0.0095). Examineci independently, there were dflerences in both the ranges of percentages
of species captured by different umbrellas and the ranges of percentages of species
captured among different taxa (X2 = 23.06 1, df = 6, p = 0.0008 and X2 = 19.387, df = 3, p
= 0.0002, respectiveiy). Mammalian umbreila groups and avian single-species umbreUas
captured sigdcantly fewer species than did woody plant umbreila groups @ < 0.05;
Figure 5). Significantly fewer woody plant species were captured by all urnbreIlas
combined than either herpetofauna or mammals @ < 0.01; Figure 6). When separated into
component taxa captured by each of the seven umbreiias, sample sizes became smd
(range of 4-6 per categoty). It is diffinilt to determine, therefore, if taxa were missing
fiom categories of percent species captured because of an interaction effêct, or whether
this was simply due to small samples. However, an interaction might occur for birds;
mamrnalian umbrella groups herpetofaunal single-species umbreilas and mammaiian
single-species umbreilas appeared to capture birds better than did avian single-species
umbrellas, herpetofaunal umbrella groups and woody plant umbrella groups (Figure 7).
ûverall, umbrella groups seemed to capture mammals, and possibly birds, better than did
single-species umbrellas (Figure 8).
DifFerences in proportions of species captured varied among island archipelagos
(X2 = 10.905, df = 5, p = 0.053). Because such a pattern was observed despite the nature
of the data, 1 proceeded with a multiple cornparison. Umbrellas on Fi? captured
significantly fewer species than did umbrellas on LEI @ < 0.05; Figure 9).
A total of 144 and 189 different species, of a maximum total of 528 among all archi pelagos, were absent fiom reserves select ed using urnb reiia groups and single-species MMLGRP BRDSSP HRPSSP MMLSSP HRPGRP BRDGRP PLNGRP
Umbrella species type
Figure 5: Percentages of species capturd in reserves delineated by each umbrella type- Smd Ietters indicate significant differences in percent species captured @ < 0.05). Note: a nurnber of points are hidden by others. PLN BRD HRP MML a ab b b Taxon captured
Figure 6: Percentages of species of each taon captured by ail urnbrelias combined. Smd letters indicate signincant differences in percent species captured @ < 0.01). Note: a number of points are hidden by others. BRDGRP ab
PLNGRP b
70-75 75.1-80 80.1-85 85.1-90 90.1-95 95.1-100 Percent of species captured by umbrellas -1 Figure 7: Frequency of each taxon captured, per percentage class, by each umbrelia type. Srnail letters indicate significant 1 MML 1 dserences in percentages of species captured @ < 0.05). - n=28 20 -, PLN l6
Percent of species captured of each taxon m 1 II SPECIES ( 1 Vm GROUPS 1 Figure 8: Frequency of umbreila groups and species, per percentage class, used to capture each taxon. SdIetters indicate significant merences in percentages of species capnved (p < 0.01). umbrellas, respectively (Appendix C). Both umbrella types missed 142 species in their delineated reserves, two were missed only by umbrefla groups and 47 were missed ody by single-species umbrellas.
For no umbrellas, were expected and observed percentages of species captured significantly correlateci (Table 3). For the most part, the scatter of expected:observed values around the 1: 1 line was random (Table 4). Where dierent, proportions of species captured on test archipelagos were higher than expected for (1) ail species captured by plant umbrella groups; (2) herpetofauna captured by dl umbrella groups combined; (3) birds captured by all single-species umbrellas combined; and (4) all species captured by single-species umbrellas on both LEI and LMI.
Some dxerences in island areas among archipelagos were detected (X2 = 33.175, df = 5, p = 0.0001). Multiple cornparisons revealed that GB and SLI had significantly smaller islands than did LM1 and WLM @ < 0.05; Figure 10). Table 3: Spearman rank correlation of expected and observed percentages of species captured in reserves delineated by umbreiia species (GRP = umbrella group, SSP = single-species umbrella).
Umbreiia Type r n P
BRDGRP 0.053 16 0.85
PLNGRP 0.255 16 0.34
BRDSSP -0.127 22 0.57
MMLSSP 0.260 28 0.18 I I I I I I GB SLI FF LEI LM1 WLM a a ab ab b b Island archipelago
Figure 10: Range of island areas in each archipelago. Small letters indicate sigruficant dzerences in island areas @ < 0.05). Table 4: Sign tests for scatter, about the 1: 1 line, of expected:observed (reference:test archipelagos) percentages of species captured in reserves delineated by umbrellas, by umbrelia type and taxon, taxon captured and island archipelago.
By urnbrella type and taxon Umbrella Umbrella type n P above or below 1 :1 BRD GRP 9 0.59 -- MMI, GRP 20 0.50 -- HRP GRP 18 0.24 -- PLN GRP 10 0.02 above BRD SSP 20 O. 12 -- MML SSP 26 0.56 -- HRP SSP 25 0.23 - By taxon captured Taxon Umbrella type n P above or below 1 : 1 BRD GRP 0.45 - rn GRP 0.06 above MML GRP 0.23 - PLN GRP 0.80 -- BRD SSP 0.03 above HRP SSP 0.08 -- MML SSP 1 .O -- PLN SSP 1 .O -- By island archipelago Archipelago Umbrella type n P above or below 1: 1 LEI GRP 17 O. 14 -- LMI GRP 1I 1 .O -- SLI GRP 19 1.0 -- WLM GW 10 1.O -- LEI SSP 21 0.03 above LM1 SSP 17 0.05 above SLI SSP 22 0.53 -- WLM SSP 1 I 0.55 -- DISCUSSION
When used to delineate nature reserve networks from the naturally fiagrnented habitats of island archipelagos, no umbrella species captured fewer than 70% of other species present. In this system, a maximum of eight marnmal, eight reptile or amphibian,
16 bird or 38 woody plant species were Mssed tiom any one reserve selected ushg umbrella species. Therefore, consistent with the ndhypothesis, the use of dierent umbrella species does not lead to very difrent proportions of species of other taxa in resulting reserve nehvorks; any umbrella species would appear able to capture at least
70% of vertebrates and woody plants in the Great Lakes region. Therefore, claimants for both types of umbrelIa species are correct and any umbrella species should be useful as a
'coarse flter' reserve selection tool for reserve planning (Noss 1987). However, whether capturing 70% of other species constitutes a 'good' umbrella species or not is a value judgement and will depend on the particular conservation goal. Also, whether umbrella species are actually useful conservation tools would depend on whether they delineate reserves with higher species nchness than could be gained by a random selection of reserves, which was not examined here.
When the ability of different umbrella species to deliineate reserves to maximize species nchness are compared within the 30% of species missed from reserves overall, groups are better umbrelias than single-species as they tend to capture higher proportions of dl other species present. Within single-species umbrellas, the order, fiom best to worst was: large-bodied mammal> large-bodied reptile (or perhaps amphibian) > large-bodied bird, although the differences were not significant. If we consider that the characteristic of a single-species umbrella is that it be large, we should expect this outcome because the largest mamrnal in this system was larger than the largest species in the herpetofauna which was larger than the largest bird (Appendix A). WithumbreUa groups, the best to worst were: woody plants > birds > herpetofauna > mammals; reserves selected using mammd groups captureci significantly fewer species than did the other three. This result confims that more speciose groups are better umbrellas; woody plants were most speciose ( ;= 1 19 per archipelago), followed by birds ( = 96), then herpetofauna ( =
25) and rnammals ( = 20). It should be noted that mammalian umbreUa groups captured fewer species than did any single-species umbrella, although not signincantiy so. This is because in many cases, mammal groups only required one or a couple of large islands to contain all species, whereas all islands on which mamrnal single-species umbrellas occurred were incorporated into reserves, often resulting in selection of a greater number of islands. This suggests that some umbreiia species are better than others sirnply because they result in selection of more reserves than others (see e.g., Ryti 1992) and not that each reserve area (island) selected necessarily has more species. Interestingly, the reserves selected using the best umbrella species of each type - a large, single mammal and speciose woody plants -- did not result in significantiy different proportions of other species captured, although the plant umbrelia groups tended to capture more species than single, large mammals.
AU together, umbrelia species generaiiy captured more species nom some taxa than from others. AU umbreUa species combined captured more mammals than herptiies than buds and significantly more mamrnais and herptiles than woody plants. Again, this
follows the trend of diversity of species across taxa: the more speciose the taxon, the
more species there are that are missed by the reserves. This dversity trend cm also be
found in biogeographic, species-area relations: rnamrnals have steeper slopes (Wïdcox
1980, Wright 1981) and lower intercepts (fewer species per unit ma) than herpetofauna.
herpetofauna than birds, and birds than plants (Murphy and Wdcox 1986, Schmiegelow
and Nudds 198 7, McLaughlin 1997). Invertebrates generally possess biogeographic
trends sunilar to plants and have shallower species-area slopes and higher intercepts (i.e.,
more species per unit area) than other taxa (e.g., Murphy and Wdcox 1986, Wdcox et al.
1986, Nilsson et al. 1988). Kad data been available for some invertebrate taxa and if those were indeed the rnost speciose, we might expect that, generdy, umbrella species would capture fewer invertebrates than woody plants. It dso foliows that invertebrate urnbreila groups should be similar, or better umbrellas than, woody plants.
It is unforninate that the dearth of invertebrate nwey data did not ailow a cornparison of their ability as umbrella species, as various invertebrates are ofien suggested as indicators (arthropods: Kremen et al. 1993, beetles: Pearson and Cassola
1992, Britten and Rust 1996, bunerflies: Launer and Murphy 1994, Sparrow et al. 1994, invertebrates: New 1994). If possible, some invertebrate data should be subjected to an analysis to determine whether they can be adequately captureci by other urnbrelias as weli as to test the above inference about their ability as urnbreila groups. However, even if they are the best umbrella group, the effort required to ensure a relatively complete survey of most invertebrates is high, probably prohibitively. As weiI, Beatty (1988) noted that, for spiders on the Lake Erie islands, turnover rates (immigration and extinction) are such that species composition changes yearly, so it is difncult to know what species are there at any given tirne.
It is unclear whether the interactions noted between different umbrella species and the proportions of birds capture& and between umbrella type (groups or single-species) and both proportions of mamrnals and bùds captured, are reai or an artifact of sample size.
DifFerences in proportions of species captured by reserves delineated using different umbrella species might sig* a bias in sampling effort. Nowadays, researchers shodd make records of search efforts available and report estimates of survey completeness using tools such as species accumulation fimctions (Soberon and Llorente 1993, Flather 1996, see for example, Blake 1989) for species nirveys, not oniy so that the surveyor knows when the survey is fairly complete with some level of confidence, but also to give readers some indication of survey effort and robustness of the data.
An examination of the composition of the species that are absent f?om reserves delineated by both umbrella groups and single-species urnbrellas revealed that both types of umbrellas rnissed the same species and single-species umbrellas missed additional species because they tended to capture fewer species than umbrella groups. The same species were consistently absent £kom reserves selected by différent umbrella species on the same archipelago because the same islands were consistentiy not selected for reserves, regardless of the umbrella species. The species that were absent fiorn reserves tended to occur on few islands (Le., one to five or six, depending on the nurnber of islands in the archipelago) and were never found on the largest island. For example, colonial waterbirds were often found on few smd islands with little other fauna or flora. Also, one mi@
expect that amphibians wodd be more iikely to be absent fiom reserves because of their
reliance on pools or ponds for breeding and su~val(Behler 1979, Conant and Collins
1991). In fact, more reptiles than amphibians were absent fkom reserves for islands
selected by both umbrella groups and single-species umbreilas. The Iargest species fiorn
the group of herpetofauna on these islands was the snapping turtle (an aquatic reptile)
which, when selected as a single-species umbreila, would ensure selection of islands with
interna1 pools in the reserve. In many cases, the single-species umbrella (Le., the Iargest
species: common loon, osprey, midland painted turtle) from each group required intemal
aquatic habitat to survive on an island. Species' typical habitat requirements, then, should
be considered when selecting umbreila species. Any missing species that fd through the
'warse filter' would require 'fine filter' individual species consemation programmes (Noss
1987) if- they are desired in reserves.
Although all umbrella species captured 70% or more species in reserves, there is littie consistency in the numbers of species missed by particular umbrelias, among archipelagos, within the top 30%. The lack of a positive correlation between observed and expected percentages of species captured implies inconsistency among test and reference archipelagos, while the degree of scatter about the 1: 1 line suggests that the percentages of species that a particuiar umbreila will capture varies unpredictably among archipelagos (see Figure 4).
Sign tests show that, where observed:expected values were not randomly distributed about the 1: 1 line, the values were always greater than would be expected given the outcomes on the reference archipelagos. This suggests that there might be something dierent about either the reference or test archipelagos that inûuenced underestimation or overestimation, respectively, of the proportions of species that would be captured.
First, all single-species urnbrellas combined captured more species than expected on LMI and LEI. This rnight ocnir if species' occurrences on these two archipelagos were such that most were found on the largest island while on reference and other test archipelaogs, occurrences were more random. This is because reserves selected using single-species umbreüas usudy contained only the largest islands in an archipelago, while reserves selected using umbrella groups were more variable and so would have better captured additional species. The distributions of island areas arnong archipelagos probably had little influence over the outcomes on LM1 and LEI because, although LM1 areas are larger than GB's they are not larger than FF's and LEI are not significantly larger than islands in either of the reference archi pelagos.
Second, it is unclear why woody plant umbrella groups captured more species than expected and why more herpetofauna would be captured by umbrelia groups, and more birds by single-species umbrellas, than expected. However, much of the variability in the observed numbers of species captured could be caused by variable sampling efforts arnong the surveys. For example, for most of the older surveys, it is unknown, especiaiiy for birds and mammals, whether species were breeding and living on the islands where they were recorded or if they were transients. The more recent surveys distinguished between breeding and transient species (Nudds et al. 1996). Also, older surveys tended to be less complete because many were focussed on partiailar species and did not record entire taxa
(e.g., Jones 1912, Campbell et al. 1988, Weseloh et al. 1988). Other archipelagos that
were repeatecily surveyed for the sarne species may have had greater total suwey effom
and M, detected additional species, while it was unknown ifother species had gone locdy
extinct since the first surveys.
It is plausible that, because of the number of sign tests (seven, eight and eight),
some sipflcant results could be obsented due to chance. However, there is less chance
that these would always be in a positive direction, as observed here. With the currently
available data, the outcome of the use of umbrelIas is not always predictable among
archipelagos above the capture of 70% of other species but, at least in this case, was only
ever underestimated by using umbrellas on the reference archipelagos.
The difïerences in the percentages of species captured on reserves in each island
archipelago (see Figure 10) dso indicate that umbreiia species may act unpredictably in
different areas. Generally, umbrellas on FF captured sigdicantly fewer species than on
LEI. Again, this could suggest that there is some fuadamentd dzerence in the FF reference archipelago, or perhaps in LEI. Island areas did not dif5er signiticantly between these two archipelagos; variable survey efforts or sarnpling biases might be implicated in the differences.
Two important caveats of this study must be discussed. First, the island subsets selected for reserves using umbrella species will only be able to conserve species over the long-tenn if the populations of species they support have low probabilities of Iocai extinction and if they contain source, and not sink populations (where local mortality is greater than natality; Pulliam 1988). For example, for terrestrial habitat isolates (Canadian
Parks) it has been estimated that areas of about 500,000 - 600,000 ha are sufncient to
protect marnrnals fiom long-tem insularization effects @.B. Gurd, personal
communication), while Belovsky (1 987) independently estllnated that generally, large
herbivores rnay require up to 10,000 ha and large carnivores, 100,000 ha to survive over
the short-term. Island areas in my study were wefl below these estimates for the largest
species, so we do not know if they could support isolated populations over the long-tem.
Therefore, isolate size should be considered before areas delineated by umbreila species
are designateci as reserves. Second, there were no large carnivores on the islands 1
examinai and the island areas were not large enough to encompass the home range of
either moose (large herbivore) or black bear (large omnivore) - the largest species in the
study region. Howwer, whether black bear would rnake a good single-species umbrelia is
questionable because they can survive in areas altered by human use (Banfield 1974; for
example, garbage dumps), whereas many other species wodd not. Nevertheless, when habits are taken into consideration, it is expected that mammais larger than those
examinecl in this system (Le., larger than white-tailed deer) would be similar, or better, single-species umbrellas for regions where larger mammals exist.
The umbreila species principles discussed here may be transferable among systems because they seem to meet straightforward expectations (e-g., woody plants were most speciose and so, tended to be the best umbrellas). However, umbrella species should £kt be tested in difSerent areas, on different habitat isolates, to determine how similar the outcornes are as they rnay dEer with biogeographic system (Noss et al. 1996). Ryti (1992) compared bird and plant umbreila groups for their ability to capture each other,
mamrnals and reptiles on reserves selected fkom islmds in the Gulf of California and for
their ability to capture each other and marnmais on reserves selected fiom isolated canyons
in San Diego County. Sirnilar to my sîudy, he found that reserves delineated by plant
umbrella groups captured more species (88400%) than those delineated by bird umbrefla
groups (4578%). The only taxon for which fewer than 70% of the species were captured
was plants in San Diego Canyons. As weii, in both of the two archipelagos tested, fewer
plants were captured by umbrella groups than birds, than mammals. Noss et al. (1996)
exarnined the abüity of reserve areas proposed for recovery of grizzly bear (a single-
species umbrella) to capture other vertebrate species in the Rocky Mountains of Idaho.
They found that, of the total nurnber of species in the state of Idaho, 15% of reptiles, 63% of amphibians, 75% of mammals and 79% of birds would be captured. This is opposite to what would be expected according to the results of my analysis; I found that fewer buds than amphibians and reptiles than mammals were captured in reserves selected using single-species mammal umbrellas. Because grizzly bear reserve areas are found mostly in the northem areas of Idaho, perhaps an examination of the ability of their reserves to capture species that occur state-wide is inappropriate, as other species ranges may not extend to the recovery reserve areas. Interestlligly, Noss et al. (1996) estirnated that reserves delineated for a group of three rnammais, gnnly bar, lynx and wolf, would conserve 99% of other terrestrial vertebrate species, although it is not stated whether these reserves aiso inchdeci more southerly parts of Idaho. Finaiiy, Berger (1997) concluded that the black rhino was not a good single-species umbrella for other Large herbivores in the Namibian Desert, eca. He found that, unlike rhino, other herbivores wandered among different areas according to seasonai raiddl variation. These studies suggest that reserve selection using umbreiia species wiii be fairly consistent among some geographic areas, but perhaps different among others, especidy for species who's distributions are highly correlated with seasonal environmental variation.
Although islands and continental habitat fragments undergo similar processes of species exthciion and colonization (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, Patterson 1987)' the two types of isolates may vary considerably. Caution should, therefore, be used when applying inferences f?om the results of reserves delineated by timbrelia species on islands to mainland situations. For example, if species' dispersal abilities were accounted for, dserent outcomes could result on the mainland for species who have Merent abilities to cross agricultural or urban barriers, as opposed to water barriers between habitat fragments (MacArthur and Wilson 1967). As well, in this study 1 assumed that, ifpresent on an island, an umbrelia species' distribution encompassed the entire island. However, this might not aiways occur; for example, one might expect a white-tailed deer to be distributed across an island, whereas a snapping turtle would only be found in intemal water bodies. This is probably of Iesser importance for umbrella groups, but for single- species umbreiias, there are two implications: when applying the method to a mauiland situation, it wül be more ditFcuIt to decide on reserve area boundaries, and, a larger, mammalian, single-species umbreiia rnay in fact capture sigiuficantly more species in mainiand reserves than a sder, herpetofaunal or avian single-species umbrella.
Interestingly. resuits of previous mainland urnbrella group studies (bird and plant umbrelia groups: Ryti 1992, mammai umbrella group: Noss et al. 1996) are sunilar to those
observed here; howwer, previous studies of single-species umbrellas (Noss et ai. 1996,
Berger 1997) have ody examineci large rnammals and so are indicient for cross-taxa
cornparison.
If outcomes are similar among biogeographic regions, the advantages of choosing
particuiar umbreila species rnay become more obvious. A maximum of 30% of species
Mssing f?om reserves in the temperate zone with the use of a coarse filter reserve
selection tool generaiiy does not amount to a large number of species; the trade-off may
be to first use a single, large mammal coarse fiiter to select reserves and conserve any
missing species using fine filter, single species conservation programmes to address
species of special interest. However, tropical zones tend to contain more species per unit
area than do temperate zones (Le., latitudinal effect; Rosenzweig 1995). In the tropics,
30% will amount to a larger absolute number of species missing (although a larger
absolute number of species captured as well), so it may be advantageous to spend the
effort to survey a speciose group, such as plants, for umbreUa purposes.
In difEerent situations it may be more advantageous to choose different umbrella
species, depending on the conservation goal. For example, if the set of reserves is chiefly for conserving a rare species of amphibian or the nesting area of certain birds, but aiso has a secondary goal of mawnizing species diversity, then, the correspoading, respective umbrelia group could be used for reserve planning. If the main goal is for reserves to capture as many species as possible, then plants (or the most speciose group) shouid be the chosen umbrella group. In many cases, knowledge already exists about certain species in certain areas. If survey data has already been coiiected for a certain group, that group could be used as the umbrelia. Trade-offs should be considered when choosing umbrella species because akhough, for example, woody plants (or perhaps a speciose invertebrate group) may capture slightly more species than a single, large mammal, the plants wili take much longer to survey than a single rnamrnal, or group of mamrnals. In ail cases, the advantages of surveying a speciose group, such as plants, and capturing a, perhaps, marginaily larger number of species mut be weighed against the financial cost of the meyand the speed with which a conservation decision must be made, before a decision can be made about which umbreiia species is most appropriate. Depending on the reasons underlying conservation decisions (ethid, economic or ecological), dinerent umbrelia species might be preferred. For conservation for ethical reasons, an umbrella species that could deheate reserves to capture most of the species in the region, most of the tirne, would be desired. For conservation for ecologicai reasons, depending on the relation of species ncbness to ecosystem function (Johnson et ai. 1996), it rnight not matter if some proportion of species is missed fiom the reserve system. Regardless, it is unlikely that the use of umbrella species will eliminate the need for individual species conservation programmes but, it might reduce it. P4lsbrooks, D.W. and M.L.Kennedy. 1987. Movement patterns of raccoons (Procyon lotor) in western Tennessee. Jodof the Tennessee Academy of Science 62: 15- 19.
Anonymous. 1978. A Study of Marnmals of St. Lawrence Islands National Park, Interirn Report II. Ecologistics Limited, Kitchener, Ontario, Unpublished report for Parks Canada on nle do St. Lawrence Islands National Park, Mdoiytown Landing, Ontario.
Anonymous. 1979. A Trilingual Checklist of VdarPlants for St. Lawrence Islands National Park and Adjacent Area. Unpublished report for Parks Canada, do St. Lawrence Islands National Park, Mallorytown Landing, Ontario.
Anonymous. 1987. Resource Description and Analysis St. Lawrence Islands National Park (revised) Volume 2MB: Island Level, Naturd Resource Conservation. Ontario region, Parks Canada, report on file do St. Lawrence Islands National Park, Mallorytown Landing, Ontario.
Arthur, SM., W.B. Krohn and J.R Gilbert. 1989. Home range characteristics of adult fishers. Journal of Wddlife Management 53:674-679.
Banfield, A W.F.1974. The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario.
Beattie, A. J. 1994. Systematics and biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:227-228.
Beatty, J.A. 1988. Spiders of the Lake Erie Islands. Pages 11 1-121 in J.F. Downhower, editor. The Biogeography of the Island Region of Western Lake Erie. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio.
Behler, J.L. 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to Norih Amerkm Reptiles and Amphibians. Med A Knopf, New York.
Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat comdors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7:94- 108.
Belovsky, GE.1 987. Extinction models and mammalian persistence. Pages 35-5 7 in M.E. Soulé, editor. Viable populations for conservation Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Berger, J. 1997. Population constraints associated with the use of Black Rhinos as an umbrella species for desert herbivores. Conservation Biology 11:69-78.
Blake, J.G. 1989. Birds of primary forest undergrowth in Western San Blas, Panama. Journal of Field Omithology 60: 178- 189.
Bradstreet, M.S.W. and J.D. McCracken. 1978. AvifdSwey of St. Lawrence Islands National Park. Unpublished report for Parks Canada, do St. Lawrence Islands National Park, Mailorytown Landing, Ontario, 343 pp.
Brewer, R., G. A McPeek and R J. Adams, Jr. 199 1. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.
Britten, H.B. and RW. Rust. 1996. Population structure of a sand dune-obligate beetle, Eusafhrs muricafus,and its implications for dune management. Conservation Biology 10:647-652.
Brodie, E.D.III. and P.K.hicey. 1989. Allocation of reproductive investment in the RedbelIy Snake Storeria occipitomacuIaia. Amencan Midland Naturalist 122:5 1- 58.
Burt, W.H. and RP. Grossenheider. 1980. Peterson Field Guides: A Field Guide to the Mammds of North America North of Mexico, 3rd ed. Houghton Miftlin Company, New York.
Campbell, C.A., L.B. Needham and S.M. Nevin. 1988. The mamrnals of Pelee Island. Pages 150-162 in J.F. Downhower, editor. The Biogeography of the Island Region of Western Lake Erie. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio.
Case, D. J. and W.C.Scharf. 1985. Additions to the birds and land vertebrates of North Manitou Island. Jack-Pine Warbler 63: 17-23.
Conant, R. and J.T.Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians: Eastern and Central North America. 3rd Edition. Houghton and Mifnin Company, Boston.
Congdon, J.D.,J.L. Greene and J. W. Gibbons. 1986. Biomass of fieshwater turtles: a geographic cornparison. Arnerican Midland Nahuaikt 115: 165- 173.
Conroy, M. J. and B.R Noon. 1996. Mapping of species richness for conservation of biological diversity: conceptual and methodological issues. Ecological Applications 6:763-773.
Diamond, J.M. 1975. Assembly of species communities. Pages 342-444 in M.L.Cody and J.M. Diamond, editon. Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Belknap Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Drew, L.C. and C. J. Phiiiips. 1964. Observations conceniing the birds of Beaver Island, Charlevoix county, Michigan. Jac k-Pine Warbler 42:234-23 8.
Ehrlich, PR.and AH. Ehrlich. 1992. The value of biodiversity. Ambio 21:2 19-226.
Ehriich, P.R and E. O. Wdson. 199 1. Biodiversity studies: science and policy. Science 253:7 5 8-762.
Emberton, K.C. 1996. Conservation priorities for forest-floor invertebrates of the southeastem half of Madagascar: evidence f?om two land-snail clades. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 729-74 1.
Feder, M.E. 1985. Acclimation to constant and variable temperatures in Plethodontid Saiamanders - 1. rates of oxygen consurnption. Comparative Biochernistry and Physiology 81A:673-682.
Frank, N. and E. Ramus. 1995. A Complete Guide to Scientific and Common Names of Reptiles and Arnphibians of the World. NG Publishhg, Inc., Pottsville, PA
Flather, CH.1996. Fitting species-accumulation fiinctions and assessing regional land use impacts on avian diversity. Journal of Biogeography 23: 15 5- 168.
Flowers, M.A. and B.M. Graves. 1995. Prey selectivity and size-specsc diet changes in Bufo cognaius and B. woodbotlsiii during early postmetamorphic ontogeny. Journal of Herpetology 29:608-6 12.
Forzley, K. C., T.A Grmien and J.R Wells. 1993. Comparative fioristics of seven islands in Northwestem Lake Michigan. Michigan Botanist 32:3-21.
Fox, G.A., D.V. Weseloh, T.J. Kubiak and T.C. Erdman. 1991. Reproductive outcornes in colonial fish-eating birds: a biomarker for developrnental toxicants in Great Lakes food chahs. 1. Histoncai and ecotoxicological perspectives. Journal of Great Lakes Research 17:1 53- 157.
Galbraith, D.A, C.A. Bishop, RJ. Brooks, W.L. Sirnson and K.P. Lamprnann. 1988. Factors affecthg the density of populations of common snapping turtles (Che&&a sepntiw sepentiltcl). Canadian Joudof Zoology 66: 123 3 - 1240.
Gillingham, J.C. 1988. The arnphibians and reptiles of Beaver Island. Journal of Beaver Island Histoxy 3:87-115.
GiIlis, J.E. 1979. Adaptive differences in the water econornies of two species of leopard fkogs from eastem Colorado (Amphibia, Anura, Ranidae). Journal of Herpetology 131445450. Gleason, J.A. and A Cronquist. 199 1. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastem United States and Adjacent Canada. 2nd edition. New York Botannical Garden, Bronx, New York.
Hansson, L. and P. Angelstam. 1991. Landscape ecology as a theoretical basis for nature conservation. Landscape Ecology 5: 191-20 1.
Harris, RN., W.W. Hames, LT. Knight, C.A Carreno and T.J. Vess. 1995. An experimental analysis of joint nesting in the salamander HemidQciyIium smtatzim (Caudata: Plethodontidae): the effects of population density. Animal Behaviour 50:1309-1316.
Hatî, RT., J. VanTyne, L.C. Stuart, C.H. Pope and AB. Grobman. 1948. Island Life: a Study of the Land Vertebrates of the Islands of Eastern Lake Michigan. No. 27. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Cranbrook Press, Bloomfield Ws, Michigan.
Hecnar, S.J. 1995. Acute and chronic toxicity of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to amphibians nom southern Ontario. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14913 1-2137.
Hobg, C. S. 1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs 62:447-502.
Jackson, W.B. 1988. Srnd rodents of the Lake Erie islands. Pages 145-149 in J.F. Downhower, editor. The Biogeography of the Island Region of Western Lake Erie. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio.
Johnson, K.H.,K. A Vogt, H.J. Clark, O.J. Schmitz and D.J. Vogt. 1996. Biodiversity and the productivity and stability of ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:372-377.
Jones, L. 1912. A study of the avifauna of the Lake Erie islands. Wilson Bulletin 24:6- 18,95-108, 142-153, 171-186.
Kaiser, J. 1990. A Management Plan for Rare Vadar Plants in St. Lawrence Islands National Park. Report on file c/o St. Lawrence Islands National Park, MaUortown Landing, Ontario.
Kamstra, J. and K. Towle. 1991. A Herpetofaunal Inventory of St. Lawrence Islands National Park 1989-1990. Unpublished report for Parks Canada, merLee Limiteci, c/o St. Lawrence Islands National Park, Mallorytown Landing, Ontario.
Kim, K. C. 1993. Biodiversity, conservation and inventory: why insects matter. Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 191-2 14. King, RB. 1993a. Microgeographic, histoical, and size-correlated variation in water snake diet composition. Journal of Herpetology 27:90-94.
King, R.B. 1993b. Determinants of offspring number and size in the Brown Snake, Sforeria&kay. JoudofHerpetology 27:175-185.
King, RB.,M.J. Oldham, W.F. Welier and D. Wynn. 1997. Historic and current arnphibian and reptile distributions in the island region of Western Lake Erie. American Midland Naturalist 138 :1 5 8- 173.
Kitchener, D.J., A. Chapman, B.G. Muir and M. Palmer. 1980. The conservation value for mamals of reserves in the Western Australian wheatbelt. Biological Conservation 18:179-207.
Klemens, M.W.1993. Amphibians and Reptiles of Connecticut and Adjacent Regions. State Geological and Naturai History Survey of Connecticut, USA
Klinkenberg, B. 1983. The Theory of Island Biogeography Wsth Special Reference to the Lake Erie Islands. M. Sc. thesis, Department of Geography, University of Westem Ontario, London, Ontario.
Kremen, C. 1992. Assessing the indicator properties of species assemblages for natural areas monitoring. Ecological Applications 2:203-217.
Kremen, C. 1994. Biological inventory using target taxa: a case study of the buttefies of Madagascar. Ecological Applications 4:407-422.
Kremen, C., RK. Colwell, T.L. Erwin, D.D. Murphy, RF. Noss and M.A Sanjayan. 1993. Terrestriai arthropod assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conservation Biology 7: 796-808.
Landres, PB.,J. Vemer and J.W. Thomas. 1988. Ecological uses ofvertebrate indicator species: a critique. Conservation Biology 2:3 16-328.
Launer, AE. and D.D. Murphy. 1994. Umbrella species and the conservation of habitat fiagrnents: a case of a threatened buîîedy and a vanishing grassland ecosystem. Biological Conservation 69: 145- 153.
Lavigne, D.M.,RJ. Brooks, D.A. Rosen and D.A Galbraith. 1989. Cold, energetics, and populations. Pages 403-432 in L.C.H.Wang, editor. Advances in Comparative Environmental Phy siology Vol. 4. S pringer-Verlag7 Berlin.
Leptich, D. J. and J.R. Gilbert. 1989. Summer home range and habitat use by moose in northem Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 532380-885. Licht, L.E. and J.P. Bogart. 1989. Growth and sexual maturation in diploid and polyploid salamanders (genus Ambysioma). Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:8 12-8 18.
Linton, M.C., L.B. Kats, RA. Linton and W.C.Scharf. 1988. Update of the salamanden of the Manitou Islands. Jack-Pine Warbler 66: 12 1- 122.
Long, C.A 1978. Mammals of the islands of Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Jack-Pine Warbler, 56, 59-82.
Long, C.A and C.A. Long. 1978. Some amphibians and reptiles collected on islands in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Jack-Pine Warbler 54: 54-5 8.
Long, C.A.,J.E. Long and C.A Long. 1978. Some amphibians and reptiles fiom Chambers Island, Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Jack-Pine Warbler 56:46-47.
Long, C.A., J.E. Long and C.A. Long. 1987. A listing of known amphibians and reptiles fiom Washington Island, Lake Michigan, with new records of the Mùk Snake and Red-bellied Snake. Jack-Pine Warbler 65:3 9.
MacArthur, RH. and E.O.Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Margules, C.R., A. O. Nichols and RL. Pressey. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43: 63-76.
May, R.M. 1988. How many species are there on earth? Science 241:1441-1449.
May, RM. 1990. How many species? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 330:293-304.
McLaughlin, C.G. 1997. Spatial Scale and Variation in Species Richness: Patterns, Parameters, and Predictions. M. Sc. thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.
Meese, G.M. 1989. Saving endangered species: impfementing the Endangered Species Act. Pages 47-62 in G. Mackintosh, editor. In Defence of Wddlife: Preserving Cornmunities and Corridors. Defenders of wildlife, Washington, D.C.
Mills, L.S., M.E. Soulé and D.F. Doak. 1993. The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation. BioScience 43:Z 19-224.
Morton, J.K.and J.M. Vem. 1987. The dora of the Tobermory islands: Bruce Peninsula National Park. Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. Murphy, D.D. and B. A Wdcox. 1986. Butterîly diversity in natural habitat fhgments: a test of the vaiidity of vertebrate-based management. Pages 287-292 in J. Vemer, M.L. Momson and C.J. Ralph, editors. Wddlife 2000: modehg habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin.
New, R.T. 1994. Conservation assessment of invertebrate assemblages: is there a place for global level taxon-focusing? Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 36: 153- 157.
Nilsson, S.G., J. Bengtsson and S. h.1988. Habitat diversity or area per se? Species richness of woody plants, carabid beeties and land snails on islands. Journal of Animal Ewlogy 57:685-704.
Noss, RF. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41: 1 1-3 7.
Noss, RF. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355-364.
Noss, RF., H.B. Quigley, M.G. Homocker, T. Merd and P.C.Paquet. 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:949-963.
Nudds, T.D., J.P.Bogart, D. Britton, H-A Hager, AL.A Middleton, D.N. Potter, D.P. Tate, K.E. Welstead, S.A. Marshail, C.M. Buddle, T. Woodcock, D.W.Larson, E. Whelpdale. 1996. Species-area Relations of Woody Plants, Vertebrates and Seiected Invertebrates on Islands in Georgian Bay: the Role of National Parks in Evaluating Nuli Models of Biodiversity. Final report of the Guelph Biological Inventory of the Georgian Bay Islands. Report on me, Parks Canada, do Fathorn Five National Marine Park, Tobermory, ON.
O'Brien, D.J.,J.B. Kaneene and RH. Poppenga. 1993. The use of mamrnals as sentinels for human exposure to toxic contaminants in the environment. Pages 35 1-368 in H. Bartsch, F. Kadlubar and 1. O'Neill, editors. Biornarkers in human cancer part II. Exposure monitoring and rnoldar dosimetsr. National Institutes of Heaith, Bethesda, Maryland.
Oliver, 1. and A. J. Beattie. 1993. A possible method for the rapid assessment of biodiversity . Conservation Biology 7 :562-568.
Ozoga, J. J. and C. J. Phillips. 1964. Mammals of Beaver Island, Michigan. Publications of the Museum, Michigan State University Biological Senes 2:307-347.
Paine, RT. 1969. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Amencan Naturalist 103:9 1-93. Paterson, R.L., Jr. 1982. Passerine comrnunity structure at the Beech-Maple Coniferous forest interface. Jack-Pine Warbler 60: 15-2 1.
Patterson, B.D. 1987. The principle of nested subsets and its implications for biological consemation. Consetvation Biology 1:323-3 34.
Pearson, D.L. and F. Cassola. 1992. World-wide species richness patterns of Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): indicator taon for biodiversity and conservation studies. Conservation Biology 6: 376-3 9 1 .
Person, D.K. and D.H. Hirth. 1991. Home range and habitat use of coyotes in a fami region of Vermont. Journal of Wddlife Management 55433-44 1.
Peterson, R.O. 1988. The pit or the pendulum: issues in large carnivore management in natural ecosystems. Pages 105-117 in J.K Agee and D.R Johnson, editors. Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wddemess. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Peterson, R T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds ~f Eastern and Central North Arnenca. 4th ed. Houghton Mifilin Company, Boston.
Phillips, C.J., J.J. Ozoga and L.C. Drew. 1965. The land vertebrates of Garden Island, Michigan. Jack-Pine Warbler 43:20-25.
Pressey, RL., C. J. Humphries, C.R Margules, RI. Vane-Wright and P.H.Waams. 1993. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 124- 128.
Primack, RB. 1993. Essentials of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetîs.
Miam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Amencan Naturalist 132:652-661.
Randali, A. 1 99 1. The value of biodiversity. Ambio 20: 64-68.
Reid, W.V. 1994. Fomulating a future for diversity. Amencan Zoology 34: 165- 171.
Renner, S. S. and RE. Ricklefs. 1994a. Systematics and biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:78.
Renner, S. S. and RE.Ricklefs. 1994b. Reply from Renner and Ricklefs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:229-230.
Rolston III, H. 1985. Duties to endangered species. BioScience 35:7 18-726. Rosenzweig, M.L. 1995. Species Diversity Ui Space and The. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Round, F.E. 1991. Diatoms in river water-monitoring stuclies. Journal of Applied Phycology 3: 12%145.
Ryti, RT. 1992. Effm of the focal taxon on the seledon of nature reserves. Ecological Applications 2:4O4-4 10.
SAS hstitute Inc. 1989. The SAS System for Wmdows, Release 6.1 1. Cq,North Carolina.
Scharf, W.C. 1973. Birds and land vertebrates of South Manitou Island. Jack-Pine Warbler 51:2-19.
Scharf, W.C.and M.L. Jorae. 1980. Birds and land vertebrates of North Manitou Island. Jack-Pine Warbler 58:4-1 5.
Schmiegelow, F.K.A and T.D. Nudds. 1987. Island biogeography of vertebrates in Georgian Bay Islands National Park. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65:304 1-3 043.
Siegel, RA. 1986. Ecology and conservation of an endangered Rattlesnake, Si.stmws catenafus, in Missouri, USA Biological Conservation 35: 33 3 -346.
Sisk, T.D., AE. Launer, K.R Switky and P.R Ehrlich. 1994. Identdjing extinction threats. BioScience 44: 592-604.
Soberon, J., and J. Llorente. 1993. The use of species accumulation fbnctions for the prediction of species nchness. Consemation Biology 7:480488.
Soulé, M.E. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35727-734.
Sparrow, H.R.,T.D. Sisk, P.R.Ehrlich and D.D. Murphy. 1994. Techniques and guidelines for monitoring neotropical butterfiies. Conservation BioIogy 8:800- 809.
Speus, J.M.1985. Birds ofOntario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario.
Sredl, M.J. and J.P. Collins. 1992. The interaction of predation, cornpetition, and habitat complexity in stnicturing an amphibian wmrnunity. Copeia l992(3):607-6 14.
Storey, K.B., J.R Layne, Jr., M.M. Cutwa, T.A Churchill and J.M. Storey. 1993. Freezing sunival and metabolism of box turtles, Terrqene uuolim. Copeia 1993(3):628-634. Stark N.E. 1993. How many species are there? Biodiversity and Conservation 2:2 15- 232.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessrnent . V.H. Heywood, editor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
USEPA (United States Department of Health and Human SeMces). 1990. Reduchg Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. USEPA. SAB-EC-90-02 1. Washington, D.C.
Verreli, P.k 1985. Male nute choice for large, fecund fernales in the red-spotted newt, Notophthalms vin'akscens: how is size assessed? Herpetologica 4 1:3 82-3 86.
Vtt, L.J. and W.E. Cooper, Jr. 1986. Skink reproducîion and sexual dimorphism: Eumeces foscidus in the Southeastem United States, with notes on Eumeces in~ctutus.Journal of Herpetology 20: 65-76.
Walker, B.H. 1992. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conservation Biology 6: 18- 23.
Wallis de Vries, M.F. 1995. Large herbivores and the design of large-scale nature reserves in Western Europe. Conservation Biology 9:25-33.
Walton, M., B.C. Jayne and AF. Bemett. 1990. The energetic cost of limbless locomotion. Science 249:524-527.
Weatherhead, P.J. and K. A. Prior. 1992. Preliminary observations of habitat use and movements of the Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake (Sistrurus c. cutena?us). Joumal of Herpetology 26:447452.
Weseloh, D.V.,S.M. Teeple and H. Blokpoel. 1988. The distribution and stahis of colonial waterbirds nesting in Western Lake Erie. Pages 134- 144 in J.F. Downhower, editor. The Biogeography of the Island Region of Western Lake Erie. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio.
Wii K. W., F.F. Purrington and D.J. Hom. 19%. Ground beetles of islands in the western basin of Lake Erie and the adjacent mainland (Coleoptera: Carabidae, including Cicindelini) . Great Lakes Entomologist 28: 5 5-70.
Wilcox, B.A 1980. Insular ecology and consexvation. Pages 95- 11 7 in M.E. Sodé and B.A. Wdcoq edit on. Conservation Biology : an Evolutionary-ecolo@cal Perspective. Sinauer Associates Inc., Massachusetts. Wilcox, B .A 1984. In siru conservation of genetic resowces: detenninants of minimum area requirements. Pages 639-647 in LA McNeely and K.R Miller, editors. National Parks, Conservation, and Developrnent: the Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Srnithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C.
Wdcox, B.A, D.D. Murphy, PREhrlich and G.T.Austin 1986. Insdar biogeography of the montane buttedy faunas in the Great Basin: cornparison with birds and rnammals. Oeçologia 69: 188- 194.
Wdes, G.J. and H.P. Weeks, lr. 1992. Movernents of fedewhite-tailed deer in southem Indiana Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 101 :309-3 17.
Wright, S.J. 198 1. Intra-archipelago vertebrate distniutions: the dope of the species- area relation. American Naturalist 1 18:726-748.
Zani, P.A and D.L. Chussen. 1994. Voluntary and forced terrestriai locomotion in juveniie and adult painted tudes, Chrysmys picta. Copeia l994(2):466-471.
Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatisticd Anaiysis, 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Appendin A: Species Common Names, Scientific Names and Characteristics Appendix Al : Amphibian and Reptile (herpetofauna) names and average body masses (male and female masses averaged where given). Where average body masses were unavailable, size was judged by comparing snout-vent lengths (Behler, 1979; Conant & Collins, 199 1) of similar sized species.
Common Name Scientific Nw(from Frank & Ramus, 1995) Avg. Mass Reference Avg. Snout-vent Mass (g) Length (cm) Blue-spotted Salamander Ambystoma laterale (sp. ), Hallowell, 1856 Licht & Bogart, 1989 Eastern Red-spotted Newt Notophthalmus v. viridescens, Rafinesque, 18 18 Verrell, 1985 Four-toed Salamander Hemidacîyliirm scictatum, Ternminck & Schlegel, 1838 Harrisetal., 1995 Jefferson's Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum, Green, 182 7 Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opactrrn, Gravenhorst, 1807 Redback Salamander Plethodon cinereus, Green, 18 18 Feder, 1985 Srnallmouth Salamander Ambystoma texunum, Matthes, 1855 Licht & Bogart, 1989 Tiger Salamande r O\ Ambystoma tigrinirm, Green, 1825 Sredl& Collins, 1992 0 Yellow-spotted Salamander Ambystoma macrtlaturn, Shaw, 1 802 Amencan Toad Bufo americantrs, Holbrook, 1825 J.P.Bogart, Univ. of Guelph, unpubl. Blanchard's Cricket Frog Acris crepitans blanchardi, Harper, 1947 Bull fi-og Hana catesbeina, Shaw, 1 802 Green Frog Rom clamitans, Latrcillc, 1 80 1 Midland Chorus Frog Pseudacris t. iriseriota, W icd-Neuwied, 183 8 Hecnrir, 1995 Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens, Schreber, 1782 Gillis, 1979 Pickerel Frog Rana palustris, Leconte, 1825 Sp~gPeeper Pseudacris crucijer, W ied-Neuwicd, 183 8 J .P. Bogart, Univ. of Guelph, unpu bl. Tetraploid Gray TreeFsog Hyla versicolor, Leconte, 11125 J .P. Bogart, Univ. of Guelph, unpubl. Wood Frog Rana sylvatica, Leconte, 1825 J.P. Bogart, Univ. of Guelph, unpubl. Woodhouse's Toad Bufo woodhousei, Girard, 1 854 Flowers & Graves, 1995 Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciahq Linnacus, 1 75 8 Vitt & Cooper, 1986 Blanding's Turtle Emydotden blnndingii, Holbrook, 1838 Congdon et nl., 1986 Common Name Scientific Name (from Frank & Ramus, 1995) Avg, Mass Reference Avg. Snout-vent Mass (g) Length (cm) Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina, Linnaeus, 175 8 5984.85 Congdonetal., 1986; Galbraith 34 et al., 1988 &km Box Turtle Terrupene carolina, Linnaeus, 1 758 408 Storey et al., 1993 Map Turtle Grapremys geographica, Lesueur, 18 17 Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata, Agassiz, 1857 269.85 Congdon et al., 1986; Zani & Claussen, 1994 Spiny Softshell Turtle Apalone spnijieru, Lesueur, 1827 Sponed Turtle Clemmys guitata, Schneider, 1792 Stuikpot (Musk Turtle) Siernotherus odoratus, Latreille, 180 1 J. Edrnonds, Univ. of Guelph, unpubl. Eastern Fox Snake Elaphe vulpina gloydi, Conant, 1940 Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis S. sirialis, Linnaeus, 1758 L. Rye, Univ. of Guelph, QI C unpubl. Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon plutirhinos, Latreille, 180 1 Eastern Massassauga Slstnrrtrs c. catenatirs, Rafinesque, 18 18 Siegel, 1986; Weatherhead & Prior, 1992 Eastern Milk Snake Lampropelris I. triangrtlum, Lacepedc, 1 78 8 Eastern Ribbon Snake Thamnophis S. sarrrirus, Linnaeus, 1760 Eastern Smooth Green Snake Opheodrys v. verdis, Harlan, 1827 Northem Brown Snake Sroreria d dekayi, Holbrook, 1836 14.72 King, 1993b Northem Ringneck Snake Dtadophis punciatus eharsi, Mcrreni, 1820 Northern Water Snake Nerodia S. sipedon, Linnaeus, 1758 2 18.79 King, 1993a Queen Snake Regina septemvittato, Say, 1825 Racer (Blue) Coluber consrricior, Linnaeus, 1758 102.11 Wal ton et al., 1990 Rat Snake Elaphe obsoletn, Say, 1823 Redbelly Snake Sioreria occipitornacufata, Storer, 1839 4.39 Brodie & Ducey, 1989 Timber Rattlesnake Crotclllrs horridus, Linnaeus, 1 758 Appendix A2: Bird names and average body masses (g) (Peterson, 1 980; Speirs, 1985).
Common Name Scientific Name Author Avg. Mass (g) Acadian Fiycaîcher Ernpidonm: virescens 13.7 Alder FIycatcher Empidonax traiIIii 12.8 Amencan Bittern Bataunu lentiginos~~s 680.4 Amencan Black Duck Anas rubnpes 1219 American Coot Fulica urnericana 567 Amencan Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 473 American Goldhch Carduelis trislis 13.1 American Kestrel Falco sparverius 115.5 American Redstart Setophaga ruticilh 8.3 American Robin Turdus migrato~us 80.2 American WOOdcock Philohela minor 177 Bdd Eagle Haliueetus leucocephalus 4684 Baltimore/Northern Oriole Ictems galbula 34.5 Bank Swailow Ripana riparia 14.2 Barn Sdow Hirundo mtica 18.6 Barred hl Strix varia 74 1 Belteci Kingfisher Mergaceryle alcyon 164 Black Tern Chlidonias niger 6 1 Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia 10.15 BIack-bille. Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus 37 Bhckcapped Chickadee Pam ahicapillus 10.98 Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorm nycticorax 879 Black-thrd Blue Warbler Dendroica caemlescens 10 Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens 9.2 Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica firsca 9.8 Blackpoii Warbler Dendroica striata 15.1 Blue Jay Cyanacitta cristata 92 Blue-winged TeaI Anas discors 367 Bobolink Dolichonyx o~om 24.5 Broad-winged Hawk Buteo pIutyptencs 455 Brown Creeper Certhiafamilians 8.3 Brown Thrasher Toxostoma mfim 70.5 Brown-headed Cowbird Molothlus ater 44.3 Bufnehead Bucephala albeola 394.5 Canada Goose Branta ca~densis 4990 Canada Warbler Wilsonia c~nadensis IO. 1 Canvas-bac k Ayîhya valisineria 1248 Carolina Wren Thryothorics ludovicianus 17 Caspian Tem Stern caspia 644 Common Name Scientific Name Author Avg. Mass (g) Cedar Waxwing BombyciZIa cedrorum Vieillot Cedean Warbler Dendroica cerulea (Wson) Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendraica peqdvanica (Linnaeus) Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Chipphg Sparrow Spizella passerina (Becbin) Clay-coloured Sparrow SpizeI lu palrida (Swainson) CliESwallow Petrocheiidon pyrrhonota Vieiilot Cornmon Flicker Colaptes auratus (Linnscus) Common GaiIinuie GuZIinuZa chloropus (L-4 Common Goldeneye Bucephaia clangu la (L-s) Common Grackle QuiseaItis quiseula (Lhaeus) Cornmon Laon Gavia irnrner (Bru:~ich) Common Merganser Mergus merganser LinMeus Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Forster) Conunon Pintail Anas acuta Limaeus Common Raven Corvus corax LirYiscus Common Screech Owl Otus asio (Linnaeus) Cornmon Snipe Capella gal Iinago (Linnaeus) Common Tern Stem himndo Lkus Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas (Linnaeus) Cooper's Hawk Accipiter coopeni (Bonaparte) Double-crested Cornorant Phalacrocorax auritus (Lesson) Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens (Linnaeus) Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis (Linnaeus) Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus (Limaeus) Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna (Linnseus) Eastern Pewee Contopus virens (Linnaeus) Eastern Phoebe S.yarnis phaebe (Lahl European StarLing Shrmus vulgaris Linnaeus Evening Grosbeak Hesperiphona vespertina (Cmper) Field Sparrow SpizelIa pusifla (Wiison) Gaddl Anas strepera Limaeus Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapu Lichtenstein Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannamm (Gmelin) Gray Catbird DurneteZZa cardinemis (LinBaeus) Gray-cheeked Thmsh Catharus rninimus (Lafranaye) Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Linnaeus Great Crested Flycatcher M'archus crinitis (Linnacus) Great Horned hl Bubo virginianus (Gmeiin) Greaîer Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleucus (Gmelin) Green Heron Butorides striatus (Linnaeus) Common Name Scientific Name Author Avg. Mass (g) Hairy Woodpaker Picoides villosus (--a Hermit Thrush Catham guttatus (PW) He- Guii Lurus argentaius Pontoppidan Hooded Merganser Lophodyres cucullatus (LWs) Horned Grebe Podiceps aun'tis (L-9 Homed Lark Eremophila alpestris (Linn=ieris) House Finch Carpodacus rnexicunus (Mu: lier) House Sparrow Passer domesticus (LinMeus) House Wren Troglodytes aedon Vieillot Indigo Buntiag Passerina cyanea (Ldus) Junco (Darkeyed) Junco hyemalis (LWUS) Kilideer Charadnus vocferus Linn=raus King Rail Rullus elegans Audubon Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis (Gmelin) Least Ftycaîcher Empidonax minimus (Baird and Least Sandpiper Culidris minutilla (Vieiliot) Lesser Scaup Aythya ufinis (Eytd Lesser Yellowlegs Tringaflavipes (Gmelin) Louisiana Waterthnish Seiunrs motacilla (Vieillot) Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia (Wilson) Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris (Wilson) Merlin Falco columbarius Linnaeus Mouming Dove Zenuida macroura (Ldus) Mouming Warbler Qporornis philadelphia (Wilson) Nashville Warbler Verrnivora mficapilZa (Wilson) Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis (Linnseus) Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis (Linnaeus) Northern Harrier (Marsh Hawk) Circus cyaneus (Linnaeus) Northem Parula Warbler Paru la arnericana (Linnaeus) Northem Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus (Gmelin) Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Linnaeus Northern Waîerthnish Seiunrs noveboracensis (Grnelin) Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis (Limaeus) Olive-sided Flycatcher Nutallornis borealis (Swainson) Orchard Oriole Ictenrs spurius (Linnaeus) Osp rey Pandion haliaetus (Linnaeus) Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus (LinMeus) Palm Warbler Dendroica plmm (Gmeiin) Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Tunstall Philadelphia Vireo Vireophiladelphicus (Cassin) Cornmon Name Scientific Name Author Avg. Mass (g) fied-biiled Grebe Podiymbus podiceps Pileated Woodpecker D~yocopuspileatw Pine Siskin Carduelis pimrs Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus Piping Plover Charadrius rne1odu.s Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Purple Martin Progne subis Red Crossbill Loxiu cuntirostra Red-beliied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Red-eyed Vk Vireo olivaceus Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-necked Grebe (Holboeli's) Podiceps grisegena Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Red-tded Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Red-winged Blackbird Ageraius phoeniceus Redhead Aythya amerkana Ring-billed Guil Lam delawarensis Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Ring-necked Pheasant Phasimus colchicus Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheuctim ludovicianus Rough-winged Sdow Stelgidopteqx ruficollis Rubycrowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Rub y-ttuoated Hurnmingbird Archilochus colubris Ruffed Grouse Born umbellus Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophrhaimus Rusty BIackbird Euphagus carolinus Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Semipalmateci Sandpiper Calidris pilla Sharp-shed Hawk Accipzter striatus Sharp-tded Grouse Pedioecetes phasianellus Short+xued ûwl Asio flammeus Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Song Sparrow Melospiza meloàia Som Pomna carolina Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Swainson's Thmsh Cathamsjiiscescens Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgia~ Common Name Scientific Name Author Avg. Mass (g) Tennessee Warbler Vermivoraperegnha (wiion) 9.3 Tree Sdow Iridoprocne bicolor (Vieillot) Turkey Vdture Cathartes aura (Lm) Upland Sandpiper Bartramia fongtgtcctu& (Becbin) Veery Catharus firscescens (Stephm) Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus (Gmelin) ViaRail Rallus Iirnicola Vieillot Warbhg Vireo Kreo gi2w (Vieillot) Western Meadowlark Stumella neglecta Audubon Whip-poor-wiil CaprimuZgw roc~erous Wilson White-breasted Nuthatch Sirra carofinensis Latham White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia Ieucophrys (Forster) White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis (Gmelin) White-winged Crossbili Loxia leucoptera Grnelin Wild Turkey Meleagris gaf2opavo Limaeus Wiilow Flycatcher Empidonax tra-lli (Audubon) Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla (Wiison) WUiter Wren TrogIodytes iroglodyes (Lbus) Wood Duck Aix spoma (Linnaeus) Wood Thrush @docichla mustefina (Gmelin) Yellow Warbler Dendraica petechiu (Linnaeus) Yeliow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviveniris (Baird and YeUow-beiiied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius (Linnaeus) Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccytus americanus (Linnaeus) Yeiiow-breasted Chat Icteria virens (Linnaeus) Yeliow-rumped WarbIer Dendroica coronata (Luinsaus) Yeliow-thrd Vireo Vireoflmj?ons Vieillot Appendix A3: Mammal names, average body masses (g) and average home range areas (ha).
Common Name Scientific Name Author Avg. Avg. Home Home Range Reference Mass (g) Range (ha) Beave r Castor canadensis Kuhl 20000 Banfield, 1974 Black Bear Ursus americanus Pallas Banfield, 1974 Coyote Canis latrans Say Person & Mirth, 199 1 Deer Mouse Peromyscus manicdattts (Wagner) Banfield, 1974 Eastern Chipmunk Tamais striatus (Linnaeus) Banfield, 1974 Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagusfloridanus (1. A. Allen) Banfield, 1974 Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus n iger Linnaeus Burt & Grossenheider, I 980 Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Gmelin Banfield, 1974; Burt & Grossenheider, 1980 European Hare Lepus europaeus Pallas Banfield, 1974 Fisher Martes pennanti (Endeben) Arthur et ai., 1989 Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenfeus (Schreber) Banfield, 1974 Hairy-tailed Mole Parascalops breweri (Bachman) Burt & Grossenheider, 1980 House Mouse Mirs rnuscultts Linnaeus Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Lichtenstein Burt & Grossenheider, 1980 Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Kerr Banfield, 1974 Meadow Jumping Mouse &pus hudsonius (Zimmermann) Banfield, 1974 Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus (Or4 Burt & Grossenheider, 1980 Mink Mustela vison Schreber Banfield, 1974 Moose A Ices alces (Limaeu s) Leptich & Gilbert, 1989 Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus (Limaeus) Banfield, 1974 Northem Water Shrew Sorex pdusrris Richardson Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout) Banfield, 1974 Nu tria (Coypu) Myocasîor coypzts (Molina) Porcupine Erethizon dorsaturn (Limaeus) Banfield, 1974 Raccoon Procyon lotor (Limaeu s) Allsbrooks & Kennedy, 1987
Appendix A4: Plant names, by Family (Gleason and Cronquist, 199 1).
Common Name Scientific Narne Author Taxaceae (Yew) Canada Yew; Ground-hemlock Tmscanadensis Marsh. Pinaceae (Pine) Balsam Fir Abies balsamea (L.) Miller Tamarack; Larch Larix laricina @uRoi) K. Koch White spmce Picea glauca (Moench) A. Voss Black Spruce Picea mariana (Miller) B SP . Red Pine Pinus resinosa Aiton Pitch Pine Pims rigrgr& Miller Pinus rugosa White Pine Pinus strobus Hemlock Tsuga canadensis Cupressaceae (Cyprus) Common Juniper; Ground Iuniper Junipems cornmunis L. Creeping Juniper Junipems horizontaLis Moench Red Cedar Junipems virginiana L. White Cedar; Arbor Vitae maoccidentalis L. Salicaceae (Willow) White Poplar; Silver Poplar Poplus alba L. Balsam Poplar Populus balsamijera L. Cottonwood Populus deltoides Marsh. Largetooth Aspai; Bigtooth Aspen Populus grandidentata Michaux Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla L. Lambardy Poplar Popdus nigra L. Quaking Aspen PopLus tremuloides Michaux White Willow Salix alba L. Peach-leaved WilIow Salix amygdaloides Andersson Beaked Willow; Bebb's Willow Salix bebbiana Sarg . Sage Willow; Hoary WilIow Salix candida Willd* Sanddune Willow; Furry Wiow Salix cordata Michaux Pussy Willow Salix discolor Muhl. Diarnond Willow Salix eriocephala Michaux Sandbar Willow Salix exigua Nutt . Crack WiUow; Britîie Willow Salix fragilis L. Upland Willow; Prairie Willow Salix humilis Marsh. Salix laurentia~ Shining W illow Salix luci& Muhl. Blueleaf Willow Salix myricoides (Muhi.) J. Carey Black Willow Salix nigra Marsh. Bog Wiliow Salix pedicellaris Pursh Slender Willow; Meadow Willow Salix petiolaris LE. Smith Basket Willow; Purple-osier WiiIow Salix purpurea L. Balsam Willow Sàlix pyrifolia Andersson Sdky Willow Salix sericea Marsh. cornmon Narne Scientific Name Author Autumn WiUow Salix serissirna Myricaceae (Bayberq) Sweet Gaie Myrica gale Sweet fem Myricu asplenifolia hglandaceae (Walnut) Bittemut Hickory Carya cordiformis (Wang.) K. Koch Pignut Hickory Carya gIabra (Miller) Sweet Kingnut Hickoiy; Sheilbark Hickory Carya laciniosa (Michaux f.) G. Don Sweet Piput Hickory; Red Hickory Carya ovalis (Wangenh.) Sarg. SheUbark Hickory; Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata (Milier) K. Koch Common Hickory; White Hickory Carya tomentosa (Poiret) Nutt. Buttemut Juglans cinerea L. Black Wainut Juglans nigra L. Betulaceae (Birch) Speckled Alder Alnus rugosa (Duroi) Sprengei Yellow Birch Betu la alleghaniensis Brition Paper Birch; White Birch Betula papynfera Mars h. Gray Birch Betula populifolia Marsh. Hornbeam; Blue-beech Carpinus caroliniana Walter American klnut Co~lusamericana Walter Beaked Hazehut Corylus comuta Marsh. Ironwood; Hop-hornbeam Ostrya virgrgrniam (Miller) K. Koch Fagaceae (Beech) Chestnut Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh. Beech Fagus grandijiolia EhrIi. White Oak Quemalba L. Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor Willd. Sur Oak Quercus mcrocarpa Michau.. Chinquapin Oak; Yeiiow Chestnut Oak Quercus muehlenbergii Engeh Pin Oak Quermpalunis Muenchh. Dwarf Chestnut Oak; Dwarf Chinquapin Quercus p~noîdes Willd. Oak Rock Chestnut Oak Quercus prinus L. Northem Red Oak Quernis mbra L. BIack Oak Quercus velutina Lam. Hamamelidaceae (W itch Hazel) Witch Hazel Ulmaceae (Elm) Hackbeny Celtis occidentalis Dwarf Hackbeny Celtis teniufoliu Arnerican Eh;White Eh Ulmus amen'cana Evergreen Elm hspamyolia Siippery Eh;Red Elm 111~~~rubra Rock Eh; Cork Elm Ulmus thornasii Moraceae (Mdberry) Common Hops; Hop Hurnulus lupulus L. Osage-orange Maclura porniiyera (Ra€.)Schneider Common Name Scientific Narne Author Russian Mulberry; White MuIberry Morus alba Red Mulberry Berberidaceae (Barberry) Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii DC. Lauraceae (Laurel) Spicebush Lindera benzoin (L.) Blume Sassafias &ssafias albidum (Nutt.) Nees Hydrangeaceae (Hydrangea) Amencan Hydrangea Hydrangea arborescens Grossulariaceae (Gooseberry) Wild Black Cunant Ribes americanum Milier Wild Gooseberry; Pnckly Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati L. Skunk Currant Ribes glandulosurn Grauer Swamp Gooseberry Ribes hirtellum Michaux Swamp Black Currant Ribes lacustre (Pers.) Poiret Bufiklo Currant; Golden Currant Ribes orodatum Wendl. f. Red Currant Ribes mbrum L. Garden Red Currant Ribes sutivum syme Platanaceae (Plane-tree) Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Rosaceae (Rose) Western Se~ceberTy Amelanchier alnifalia Nutî. Downy Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea (Michaux f.) Fern. Mountain Juneberry; Northern Juneberry Amelanchier battramiana (Tausch) M.J. Roemer Shadbush Amelanchier canadensis (L.) Medikus SeMceberry/Shadbush Amelanchier interior Nielsen Sm& Serviceberry Amelanchier laevis Wieg . New England SeMceberry Amelanchier sanguifiea (Pursh) DC. Dwarf Senicebeny Amelanchier spicata (Lam.) K. Koch Black Chokecherry Aronia me lanocarpa (Michaux) El1 . Chokeberry Aronia pmnifolia (Marsh,) Rehder Pear Hawthom Crataegus calpodendron (Ehrh.) Medicus Fireberry Hawthom Crataeps chrysocurpa Ashe Cockspur Thom Crataeps cms-galli L. Fanleaf Hawthorn Crataegusjlabellatu (Bosc) K. Koch Downy Hawthom Crataegus mollis (T.& G.) Scheele English Hawthorn Crataegus rnonogyna Jacq. Frosted Hawthorn Crataegus pnrirtosa (Wendl.) K. Koch Dotted Hawthorn Crataegus punctata Jacq. Ninebark Physocarpui opuZifoolius (L.) Maxim Shmbby Cinquefoil Potentilla jhticosa L. AUeghany Plum Prunus alleghaniensis Porter Wid Plum Prunus americana Marsh. Sweet Cherry Prunus avium (L.)L. Sour Cherry; Pie Cheny Pmscerusus L. Ca& Plum Prunus nigra Aiton Pin Cherry; Fire Cherry Prunus pensylvan ica L. f. -- -- ~~&on~me Scientific Name Author Peach Pmspersica (L.)Batscb Sand Cherry Prunus purnila L. Wiid Black Cherry Prunus serotina Ehrh. Nanking Cheny Prum tomentosa hb. Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana L. Wild Crab Apple; Sweet Crab; Amencan Pym coronaria (L.) Miller Crab APP~~ Pyrus malus Miller Pear Pyrus cornmunis L. Chinese pear mm pynfolia Wid Rose Rosa acicu laris Lindley Wid Rose Rosa b lad Aiton Dog Rose Rosa canina L. Pasture Rose Rosa carolina L. Sweetb riar Rosa eglanteria L. Eglantine; Swedbrier Rosa mzcrantha LE. Smith Muitiflora Rose; Japanese Rose Rosa rnulhflora Thunb. Swamp Rose Rosa palusrris Marsh. Climbing Prairie Rose Rosa setigera Michaux Ciunamon Rose Rosa majalis Hem. Cornmon Blackberry Rubus allegheniensis Porter Smwh Blackberry Rubus canadensis L. Rubus corei Rubus eriensis Southern Dewberry Rubus enslenii Tratt . Northem Dewberry Rubus flageilan's Willd. Swamp Dewberry Rubus hispidus L. Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis L. FIowering Raspberry Rubus odoratus L. ThimbIebeny Rubus pamyonrs Nutî. Dwarf Raspberry Rubus pubescens Raf. Blanchard's Dewbeny Rubus recurvicaulis Blanchard Bristly Blackbeny Rubus setosus Bigelow Wild Red Raspberry Rubus stngosus Michaux Amencan mountain-ash Sorbus americana Marsh. European Mountain-ash; Rowan Sorbus aucuparia L. Showy Mountain-ash Sorbus decora (Sarg.) Schneider Meadowsweet Spiraea alba Duroi Hardhack Spiraea tomentosa L. Caesdpiniaceae (Caesalpinia) Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos L. Kentucky Coffke-tree Gymnocladus dioica (L.) K. Koch Fabaceae (Beaa) Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia L. Clammy Locust Robinia viscosa Vent. Rutaceae (Rue) Wafer-ah; Hop-tree Common Name Scientific Name Simaroubaceae (Quassia) Tree-of-Heaven Ailanthus altissima (Miller) Swingle Anacardiaceae (Cashew) Srnoke-tree Cotinus coggygria Sap. Fragrant Sumac Rhus aromatica Aiton Smooth Sumac Rhus glabra L. Staghom Sumac Rhus typhina L. Poison-ivy Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze Poison Sumac Toxicodendron vernix fi.) Kmtze Aquifoliaceae (Holly) Witerberry Hoiiy; Black-alder Ilex verticillata Mountain Holiy Nemopanthus mucronatus Celastraceae (Bittersweet) Chbiug Bittemeet; Amencan Celastrus scandens Bittemeet Buniing-bush; Wahoo Euonymus atropurpurea Running Strawberry-bush Euonymus obovata Staphyleaceae (Bladder-nut) Bladdemut Aceraceae (Maple) Ash-leaved Maple; Manitoba Maple; Box- Acer negundo elder Black Maple Acer nignm Michaux f. Striped Maple Acer penrylanicurn L. Norway Maple Acer platanoides L. Red Maple Acer rubrum L. Silver Maple Acer saccharinum L. Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Marsh. Mountain Maple Acer spicaîum Lam. Hippocastanaceae (Horse-chestnut) Ohio Buckeye Aescu lus glabra Horse-chestnut A esculus hippocastanum Rhamnaceae (Buckthorn) New Jersey Tea Ceanothus amencanus Prairie Redroot Ceanothus herbaceus Alder-leaved Buckthorn Rhamnus alnzjalia Cornmon Buckthom Rhamnus cathurtica Vitaceae (Grape) Virginia Creeper; Woodbine Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L. ) Planchon Grape Woodbine Parthenocissus vitacea (Knerr) Hitc hc. Summer Grape Vitis aestivalis Michaux Fox Grape Yitis labrusca L. River-bank Grape Vitis riparia Michaux Tiiiaceae (Linden) Basswood; Linden Tilia americana Hypencaceae (St. John's-wo rt) Kalm's St. John's-wort Hypericum kalmianum Common Name Scientific Name Author Tamaricaceae (Tamarisk) Tamarisk; Sdt-cedar Tamarix gailica Thymelaeceae (Maereum) Lestthexwood Elaeagnaceae (Oleaster) Russian-olive Elaeagms angustiifolia L. BUfEbbeny Shepherdia argentea Nuîî. Soapberry Shepherdia cunadensis (L.) Nutt. Comaceae (Dogwood) Altemate-leaved Dogwood; Pagoda Cornus altemlfolia Dogwd Pale Dogwood, Knob-styled Dogwd Comus amomurn Miller Bunchberry; Dwarf Cornel Corncanadensis L. Rough-leaved Dogwood Cornus dnrmmondii C.A. Meyzr Flowering Dogwood Cornusflorida L. Cornus obliqua m. Northem Swamp Dogwood Cornus racemosa Lam. Round-Ieaved Dogwood Cornus rugosa Lam. Red-osier Dogwood Cornus stolonifera Michaux Ericaceae (Heath) Bog Rosemary Andromeh glaucophylIa Link. Wberry A rctos taphyllos ma-ursi (LJ Sprengel Leatherleaf Chmedaphne calyeulata (L.) Moench. Creeping Snowbeny Gaultheria hispidula (L.)MuhI. Wintergreen GauZtheria procumbens L. BIack Huckleberry Gaylussacia baccara (Wangenh.) K. Koch Bog Laurel; Swamp Laurel Ka lrnza polifolia Wangenh. Cornmon Low-bush Blueberry Vacciniurn angustifohm Aiton Highbush Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum L. Cranbeny Vaccinium mucrocarpon Aiton Velvetleaf Blueberry Vaccinium rnyrtilloides Michaux Srnail Cranbeny Vaccinium oxycoccos L. Hillside Blueberry Vacciniumpailidum Aiton Pyrolaceae (Shinleaf) Prince's Pine; Pipsissewa Chimaphila umbelhta (L.)Barton Oleaceae (Olive) White Ash Fraxinus amencana L. Black Ash Frainus nigra Marsh. Red Ash Fraxim pennsyivanica Marsh. Blue Ash Frmimis quadmngulata Michaux Privet - rare escape Ligustrurn amurense Common Privet Lzgustrum vulgare Common Lilac Syringa wlguris Solsnaceae (Nightshade) Matrimony Vine Bittemeet Nightshade Bignoniaceae (Trumpet-creeper) Common Name Scientific Name Author Trumpet-creeper Campsis radicans Southem Catalpa Catalpa bignonioides Rubiaceae (Madder) Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Caprifoliaceae (Honeysuckle) Bush Honeysuckie Diervilla lonicera Miller Twhfiower Linnaea borealis L. Fiy Honeysuckle Lonicera canadensis Marsh. Wild Honeysuckie Lonicera doica L. Hairy Honeysuckle Lonicera hirsuta Eaton Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera japonzca Thunb . Honeysuckle Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Maxim Honey suckle Lonicera mowowi A. Gray Swamp Fly Honeysuckle Lonicera ab Iongtyo lia (Goldie) Hook. Trumpet Honeysuckie Lonicera sempervirens L. Tartarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica L. Cornrnon Elder Sambucus canadensis L. Red-bemed Elder Sambucus racemosa L. Snowberry Symphoricarpos albzrs 6.)S.F. Blake Coraiberry Symphoricarpos orb iculatus Moench. Dockmackie; Maple-Ieaved Viburnum Viburnum acenfoliurn L. Sheepberry; Nannyberry Viburnum lentago L. Withe-rd Yibumum nudum L. American Highbush Cranberry Viburnum opulus L. Downy Arrow-wood Viburnum rafinesquianum Schultes Vibumum dentatum L. Appendix B: Species-by-island Matrices Appendix BI: Fathom Five islands (FF) names, codes, areas and taxa surveyed.
No. Island Area (ha) Taxon 2 Cove 874.66 P BM H C Flowerpot PBMHC B&s Rump PBMHC Russel PBMHC North Otter PBMHC Echo PBMHC Peter's & Williscroft PBMH South Otter PBM C DeviI PBMH Doctor PBMHC Snake P B Tuming PBMHC Middle P B Harbour PBM C 3 1 White Rock 0.09 P B Total 15 15 12 10 10 Appendix B 1 : Fathom Five amphibians and reptiles (Nudds et al., 1996).
ISLANDNO. 2 4 5 7 9 10 11 161722 10 SPECIES TOTAL Spring Peeper XXXXXXX X 8 Green Frog X X X XXXX 7 American Toad XXXX X X X 7 Eastern Garter Snake XXXXX X X 7 Red-backed Sdamander XXX X X X 6 Yellow-spotted Salamander X X X X X X 6 Northern Water Snake X X X X 4 EasternRed-spottedNewt X X X 3 Ringnecked Snake X X X 3 Blue-spotted Salamander X X 2 Midand Painted TurtIe X I Wood Frog X 1 Milk Snake X 1 Brown Snake X 1 Eastern Massassauga X 1 Smooth Green Snake X 1 Red-bellied Snake X 1 TOTAL129 5106 2 8 2 2 4 17 Appendix B 1 : Fathom Five birds (Nudds et al., 1996). A = possible, B = probable and C = codhed breeding species.
ISLANDNO. 2 4 5 7 9 1011 13 16 17 1922272831 15 SPECIES TOTAL Yellow Wdler CACBAAABCCACBB Red-breasted Merganser BAABAAAACBAAAA Tree SwaUow CCBBAAAABB A A American Redstart CCCCBBCBCC B B Yellow-rumped Warbler BBAAAAAA C B A Winter Wren ACAAAAAAAA A VeQ' ACCAAACAAC A Cedar Waxwing BBAAAAAAAA Black-capped Chickadee BBBCAABBBB Song Sparrow C CA A CCAA A Red-eyed Vire0 ABBAAAAAA Common Merganser BBAB B A B A A Red-brieasted Nuthatch BABBAAAAA Black-throated Green WarbIer CAABAAAB A Black-and-white Warbler CAAAAAAA Blue Jay AAAAAAAA Swainson's Thrush CAAAAAAA MaiIard B A B A C B B Spotted Sandpiper CACA C A A American Robin CABBAAA Magnolia Warbler AAAA ABA Ruby-throated Hummingbird AAAA A A A Common Grackle AAAA AAC Eastern Wood Pewee BAA AA A American Crow AAAA A A ûvenbird ACAAA A Canada Warbler AACA A A Duwny Woodpecker C A AABA White-throated Sparrow A A A A A Northern Flicker AA AA A Barn Swailow CAA AC Great Ho& Owl BCAB A Northem Rough-winged Swallow A BA A B Red-winged Blackbird AA B Common Yellowthroat AAAA Great Crested Flycatcher BBAA Eastern Kingbird BABB Gray Caîbird AAB A Blackburnian Warbler AA A A Killdeer C B A A Black-throated Blue Warbler A C A A Twkey Vuiture AAA A American Wocidcock ABAA Amencan Goldnnch AAAA Purple Finch A AA A Common Raven AAA B Chipping Sparrow BAC ISLANDNO. 2 4 5 7 9 10 11 13 16 17 1922272831 15 SPECIES TOTAL Haj. Woodpecker C B Pileated Woodpecker NashvilIe Warbier Swamp Spamw Br&-winged Wawk House Wren Northem Watertbmsh Mourning Dave Merlin Canada Goose Wood Duck Northern Parula Doublexrested Cormorant Red-tailed Hawk Herrkg Gull Mourning Warbler Black-biUed Cuckoo Northem Cardinal Pine Siskin Eastern Ph& Least Flycatcher osprey American Kestrel Rose-breasted Grosbeak Common Loon Ring-billed Gu11 Common Tern Common Nighthawk Whippoor-wil Wood Thnlsh Tenessee Warbler Eastern Meadowlark House Finch Great Blue Heron Hooded Merganser Northem Hiurier Sharp-shinned Hawk Viiginia Rail Common Snipe Northern Saw-whet Owl Alder FIycatcher Evening Grosbeak A 1 TOTAL 73 53 45 50 24 25 30 18 26 15 13 13 5 4 2 89 Appendix B 1 : Fathom Five mamrnals (Nudds et al., 1996).
ISLANDNO. 2 4 5 7 9 10 11 13 16 17 22 28 12 SPECIES TOTAL Meadow Vole XXXXXXXX X x 10 Snowshoe Hare XXXXXXXX X X 10 Racwon XXXX X X XXX 9 Red Squirrel X X XXXXX 7 Deer Mouse X X X X X X 6 Beaver X X X 3 White-footed Mouse X X X 3 Masked Shrew X X 2 River Otter X X 2 White-tded Deer X X 2 Short-tailed Shrew X 1 Muskrat X 1 Long-tailed Weasel X 1. Red Fox X 1 TOTAL11 6 4 9 4 5 7 5 1 2 2 2 14 Appendiu B 1: Fathorn Five woody plants (Morton & Venn, 1987).
ISLANDNO. 2 4 5 7 9 10 11 13 16 17 1922272831 15 SPECIES TOTAL Sambucus racernosa Sorbus decora Rubus s frrfrrgiosus Thuja occidentulis Behrla papynrera Physocarpus opuiifooliiur Cornus stohnijéra Lonicera dioica Salix discolor Linnaea borealis Picea glauca Prunus virginiana Taus canadensis Shepherdia canadensis Populus tremuloides Potentilla fiticosa Salix beb biana Ribes hirtellum Abies baisamea Pmnw pensylvanica bnicera canadensis Populur balsamifera Cornus mgosa Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ribes lacustre Acer spicatum Lonicera hirsuta Larix laricina Solanum du Icamara Rosa acicularis Amelanchier sanguines Juniperus horizontalis Hypennmrnkalmianum Diervella lonicera Cornus canadensis Salix lucida Prunus pumila Junipems cornmunis Toxicodendron radicans Amelanchier interior Rhamnus alnifolia Mixpetiolaris Amelanchier spicata ISLANDNO. 2 4 5 7 9 10 11 13 16 17 1922272831 15 SPECIES TOTAL Rubus pubescens X 4 fibumm opulus Alnus mgosa Gadtheria hispidula Amelanchier laevis Salix humilis Acer saccharum Salix candida Sorbus amencana MyHca gale Poplus gramiidentata Rosa blunakz Lonicera oblongyolia Andromeda glarrcophyl~~ purus malus &bes americanum Vaccinium macrocarpon Vaccinium myrtillides Pinus sirobus Aronia melanocap Rhus typhina Prunus serotina Junipem virginiana Umus americana TiZia americana Coryius cornuta Syringa vulgaris Pinus resinosa Ribes rubrum Salix pynfolia Salix serissima Symphrcarpos albus Vaccinium oxycoccus X TOTAL 62 58 39 54 31 22 33 29 35 21 19 25 32 18 6 77 Append'i B 1: Fathom Five Carabidae (Nudds et al., 1996).
ISLANDNO. 2 4 5 7 9 10 13 172228 10 SPECIES TOTAL Pterostichs pennsyivanzcus XXX Pterostichus coracimrs XXX ~ynchusimpunctafus X X X CaIathus gregms X X Sphaerdzems leconteii XXX Pterostichus melanarus X X Plotymrs ¢is XXX Calathus ingratus X Pterostichus adonus Hbpalus pennsylvanicus Sphaeodems canademis Chlaenius nemoralis Stenolophus comma Amma familanis Agomrm îrigemim Chlaenius tricolor Pterosfisfichsmutus HarpaItîs caliginoss Galeritula aeanous Brdycellus nigrinus Dromius piceus Chlaenius sen'ceus Calosomafngidum Hmpalus bicolour Stendophus ucochuepenrr Calosorna serrahrs TOTAL 12 11 8 22 11 12 12 10 5 9 26 Appendix B2: Georgïan Bay islands (GB)names, codes, areas and taxa surveyed.
No. Island Area (ha) Taxon Beausoleil PBMH Bone PBMH Portage PBMH 95 PBMH 397 PBMH 497 PBMH 92 PBMH Gray B H 93 PBMH 358 PBMH McQuade PBMH 359 PBMH 383 PBMH 356 PBMH 473 BMH 402 PBMH 355 B H 22 1 BMH 371 BMH 3 72 BMH 220 B M 400 PBMH P B H - -- -- Total 16 23 20 22
ISLANDNO. 1 3 6 8 12 14 15 32 18 20 21 23 24 25 33 26 34 40 35 36 29 30 37 23 SPECIES TOTAL Midland Chorus Frog X 1 Pickerel Frog X 1 Spotted Turtle X 1 Ribbon Snake X 1 Eastern Hognose Snake X 1 Blanding's Turtle X 1 TOTAL252018111411 6 16 5 7 4 2 6 4 6 4 2 3 3 4 11 31 Appendix B2: Georgian Bay birds (Nudds et al,, 1996). A = possible, B = probable and C = confirmed breeding species.
ISLANDNO. 1 3 6 8 12 14 15 32 18 20 21 23 24 25 33 26 34 40 35 36 39 29 30 38 24 SPECIES TOTAL Song Sparrow AAAAAAAAAACAAAABABBAAAAA Yellow-mped Warbler AAAAAB AAABAAB A Black-and-white Warbler AABAA AAAA A A Yellow Warbler B A C B A B B B A A Tree Swallow AABAA A AAB A American Redstart AAAABAA AA A Red-winged Blackbird B A AAACCA A B Pine Warbler BAA A A A A AA A Redeyed Vire0 AAAAAAA A A oo 00 Mallard BCA BAAAAA White-throated Sparrow AAAAAA A A Chipping Sparrow ACAAAA AA Cedar Waxwing AAAAA A A Common Merganser BA A A C C A Red-breated Nuthatch BAAAA A A Spotted Sandpiper A A A B AAA Common Yellowthroat AAAAAA A Black-capped Chickadee BAAAA A Black-throated Green Warbler A A A A A A Amencan Robin C AAAAA Magnolia Warbler A A A AA B Eastern Wood Peewee AAAAA A Great C rested FI ycatcher BAAAA A Hai ry W oodpecke r AAAAA A Eastern Phoebee CACAA A Winter Wren A A A A A veer~ ACAAA ISLANDNO, 1 3 6 8 12 14 15 32 18 20 21 23 24 25 33 26 34 40 35 36 39 29 30 38 24 SPECIES TOTAL Ruby-throated Hummingbird A AA A B 5 American Crow AAAAA 5 Ovenbird BCAAC 5 Eastern Kingbird BAA A A 5 Gray Catbird B AAA A 5 Blackburnian Warbler AAAAA 5 Brown-headed Cowbird BAAA A 5 Blue Jay AAA A 4 Canada Warbler A A A A 4 Northem Flicker B A A A 4 Barn Swallow CAAA 4 Pileated Woodpecker B ,4 A A 4 Nashville Warbler AAA A 4 Swamp Spmow A A A A 4 Ruffed Grouse B B B B 4 Warbling Vire0 A A A A 4 Chestnut-sided Warbler A A A A 4 Prairie Warbler BAA 4 Scarlet Tanager AAA A 4 Downy Woodpecker B A A 3 Killdeer C B B 3 Black-throated Blue Warbler A A A 3 Broad-winged Hawk A A A 3 House Wren B AA 3 Northem Watcrthrush A A A 3 Canada Goose C B A 3 Least Flycatcher B A A 3 Hennit Thrush A A A 3 Brown Thrasher B A A 3 European Starling C A A 3 ISLANDNO. 1 3 6 8 12 14 15 32 18 20 21 23 24 25 33 26 34 40 35 36 39 29 30 38 24 SPECIES TOTAL Rufous-sided Towhee ACA 3 Baltimore Oriole Red-breasted Merganser Comrnon Grackle Turkey Vulture Arnerican Woodcock Amencan Goldfinch Mouming Dove Wood Duck Northern Pamla Osprey American Kestrel Red-breasted Grosbeak O Yellow-bellied Sapsucker White-breasted Nuthatch Cerulean Warbler Dark-eyed Junco Purple Finch Merlin Double-crested Cormorant Red-tailed Hawk Hening Gu11 Mouming Warbler Common Loon Ring-billed Gull Cornrnon Tem Common Nighthawk Whip-poor-wil Wood Thnish Tenessee Warbler
* >C *X X >C X X >C X >C X x x XXX X X x x x XXXX XXXXX XX x xx XXXX x XXXX XXXX X XXX xxxXX X XXXX x x x x XXXXX X *XXX XXxxxxXXx Appendk B2: Georgian Bay woody plants (Nudds et al., 1996).
ISLANDNO. 1 3 6 8 12 14 15 18 20 21 23 24 25 26 29 30 16 SPECIES TOTAL Rubus strigiosus XXX xxxx Juniperus cornmunis XXX XXXX Pinus strobus XXX XXXX Acer rubnrm XXX xxxx Myrica gale X X X X X X Vaccinium angustifolium XXX X XX Populus trernuloides XXX XX XX Prunus pensylvanicu XXX X X XX Quercus rubra XXX X X naja occidentalis XXX XX Lonicera doica XXX X XX Almrs mgosa X X XXX Betula papynfera X X X X Physocarpus uplz~olius X X XXX Tom'codendron radicans XXX xxxx Aronia melanocarpu X X X X X X Mus typhina XXX xxxx Spiraea alba X XX Hypericum kolmianum X XX XX IZex verticillata XXX XXX Salix discolor X X X X Purthenocissw vitacea X X X X Cornus stolonz~ra X X XX Prunus serotina XXX X X Ribes giandulosum X X X Potentilla fmticosa XXX X Amelanchier sanguines X X X Rosa palustris X XX X Sàlix pe tioiaris X XXX Junipem virginrana X X X X Amelanchier spicata X X X X Rbes cynosbati X XXX Tsuga canadensis XXX Salix beb biana X X Lonicera canadensis X X Poplus grandidentata XXX Rosa blanda X Juniperus horizontalis X Quernrs alba X Acer pennsylvanica X X Fraxinus amen'cuna X Gaulthena procurnbens X X X Gaylussacia baccata X X Nemopanthus mucronatus Rubus hispidus Viburnum mdum fibumum rafinesquianum Ribes hirtellurn Abies balsamea Poplus balsamifra Arctostaphylos ma-ursi Diervella lonicera Gauitheria hispidula UImus americana Amelanchier arborea Beîula alleghaniensis Fagus grand~yolia Oshya Mrginiana 5àmbucus canadensis Spiraea alba V?bumum lentago Vitis riparia Linnaea borealis Picea glauca Prums virginiana Larix laricina Cornus canadensis Amelanchier laevis Tilia americana Fraxinus nigra Tascanadensis Cornus rugosa Frcz~7~nuspennsyivanica Ribes lacustre Acer spicatum Amelanchier spicata Salix humilis Chimaphila umbellata Ru bus flagellaris Ulmus thomasii Chamaedaphne calynrlata Kalmia polifoZiu Pinus mariam Salix fiagilis Shepherdia cunudensis Lonicera hirsuta Solanum dulcamara Rosa acicularis &dix lucida ISLAND NO. 1 3 6 8 12 14 15 18 20 21 23 24 25 26 29 30 16 SPECIES TOTAL hm& alnifoZia Acer sacchmm Luniceru oblongilolia Corylus comuta Sjmhga vulgans Cornus racernosa Cratuegus chrysocarpa Rubus setosus Salix alba Vaccinium coynbosum Amelanchier aln folia Amelanchier bartramiana Celastrus scandens crutuegus punctata Lonicera tatarica Pym malus Pinus rugosa Salix exrexrgua Spiraea tomentosa - d - TOTAL 89 34 44 38 43 27 32 31 32 32 27 22 27 34 22 16 109 Appendix B3: Lake Erie islands (LEI) names, codes, areas and taxa surveyed.
-- No. Island Ara (ha) Tason 1 Peiee 426 1 PBMHC Keley's P MHC South Bass P MHC Middle Bass PBMHC North Bass PBMHC West Sister P H C Middle P B H Rattlesnake P MHC East Sister PBMHC Sugar PBMHC Green P H C Middle Sister P H Bailast/Lost Ballast P H Gibraltar P H C Mouse P H C Hen P B H North Harbour P B H 18 Starve 0.5 P H C Totd 21 9 8 19 13 Appendix B3: Lake Erie amphibians and reptiles (King et al., 1997).
ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718 18 SPECIES TOTAL Northem Water Snake xxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXX 18 Northem Brown Snake xxxxx xxxxx Eastern Garter Snake xxxxx XXXX X Eastern Fox Snake xxxxx XXXX Bullfiog X XX XXX x American Toad XXXX X X Blanding's Tude xxxxx X Northem Leopard Frog xxxxx X Midland Painted Turtle xxxxx Green Frog XX XX Ambystornu hybrids xxxxx Smallrnouth Salamander xxxxx Comrnon Saapping Turtie X X X X Racer @lue) XXXX Blanchard's Cricket Frog XX XX Eastern Red-spotted Newt X XXX Tiger Salamander X X X X B luespotteci Salamander XX X Map Turtle X X Eastern Hognose Snake XXX Jefferson's Salarnander X X X MU~PUPPY XX X Redback Salamander X X Northem Ringneck Snake X XX Timber Rattlesnake X Woodhouse's Toad X X Eastern Massassauga X X Spring Peeper X Yeilow-spotted Salamander X X Queen Snake X Midland Chorus Frog X Eastern Box Turtle X Tetraploid Gray Treefiog X Rat Snake X Spiny Sofbheli Turtle X 1 TOTAL 26 24 25 20 13 4 9 7 5 3 5 1 1 8 2 1 I 1 35 AppendUc B3: Lake Erie birds (Jones, 1912; Weseloh, et al., 1988).
ISLANDNO. 1 4 5 7 9 10 16 17 8 SPECIES TOTAL Cornmon Grackle XXXXXXXX 8 Eastern Kingbird XXXXXXXX Eastern Pewee XXXXXXXX Bank Sdow XXX XXXX Red-eyed Vireo X X X XXXX Song Sparrow XXXXXXX Spoaed Sandpiper XXX XXXX American Goldhch X X X XXX American Robin XXXXXX -le Martin XXX X X X Red-winged Blackbird X X XXXX Amencan R. XXXXX Cedar Waxwing X X X X X Herring GuU X X X X X Indigo Bunting XXXXX Baltimore Oriole XXX X Belted Kingfïsher XXX X Blue Jay X X X X Brown Thrasher XXX X Carolina Wren X X X X Common Flicker XXX X Yellow-billeci Cuckoo XXX X Great Blue Heron X X X Amencan Crow X X X Bald Eagle X X X Barn Swslllow X X X Chirnney Swift X X X Field Sparrow X X X Gray Catbird XXX Killdeer X X Red-headed Woodpecker X X Tree SwalIow X X X Warblrng Vueo X X X Yeliow Warbler XXX Blackcrowned Night Heron X X X Great Egret X X X Amencan Bitîern X X American Coot X X Chipping Sparrow X X Cornmon Gallinule X X Double-crested Connorant X X Downy Wdpecker X X Eastern Phoebe X X ISLANDNO. 1 4 5 7 9 10 16 17 8 SPECIES TOTAL House Wren v 3 King Rail Least Bittern Lest Flycatcher buisiana Waterthmsh Mourning Dove Northem Cardinal Northern Harrier Pied-billed Grebe Ruby-throated Hwuningbùd Rdous-sided Towhee Sora Arnerican Woodcock Black-billed Cuckoo Biackapped Chickadee Blue-winged TeaI B0boIi.Q.k Brown-headed Cowbird Cliff Swallow Comrnon Nighthawk Common Screech Owl Common Yellowthroat Eastern Bluebird Eastern Meadowlark Hairy Woodpecker Marsh Wren Ovenbird Pine WarbIer Piping Plover Prairie Warbler Red-breasted Nuthatch Red-tailed Hawk Rough-winged Swallow Scarlet Tanager Vesper Sparrow Virginia Rail White-bfea~tedNuthatch X TOTAL78 42 30 13 23 18 13 12 80 Appendix B3 : Lake Ene mammals (Campbell et al., 1988; Jackson, 1988).
- ISLANDNO.1 2 3 4 5 8 910 8 SPECIES TOTAL White-footedMouse X X X X X X X X 8 House Mouse X XXX 4 Norway Rat XXXX 4 Meadow Vole X X 2 Mlnk X 1 Nutria (Coypu) X 1 Muskrat X 1 Raccoon X 1 Eastern Fox SquirreI X 1 Eastern cottontail X 1 Gray Fox X 1 Red fox X 1 TOTAL 12 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 12
ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1% SPECIES TOTAL Ostrya virginiana XXXXX XX XX XX 11 Rubus occidentalis XXXXX XX X X XX 11 Ptelea îrifoliata XXXXXXXX X X X 11 Euonymus atropurpurea XXX X XXX XX X X Il Salix exigua XXXXXX X XX X 10 Platanus occidentalis XXXXX X XX XX 10 Prunus serotina XXXXX XX X X X 10 Rubus eriensis XXXXX XXXX X 10 Acer negundo XXXXX XX XX X 10 Acer saccharinunr XXXXX X X X X X 10 Salix discolor XXXXX X X X X 9 Carya ovata XXXXX X XX X 9 Quercus macrocarpa X X XXXXX X X 9 Quercus ntbra XXXXX X XX X 9 Ulmus thomasii X X X XXXX XX 9 Euonymus obovatus X X X X XX X XX 9 Syringa vulgaris XXX X X X XX X 9 Cephalanthus occidentalis X X X XX X X X X 9 Rosa carolina XXXX XX X X 8 Rosa palustris XXXXX XX X 8 Rhus aronratica XXXXX X X X 8 Lonicera doica X X X X X X XX 8 Salix fragilis XXXXX X X 7 Salix nigra XXXXXX X 7 Juglans nigra XXXXX X X 7 Quercus alba XXXXX XX 7 Amelanchier spicata X X X X X XX 7 Pyrus malus XXXXX X X 7 Robinia pseudo-acacia XXXXX X X 7 Rhus glabra X X X X X X X 7 Parthenocissus quinquefolia X X X X X X X 7 Ribes americanum XXXX X X 6 Pym cornmunis XXXXX X 6 ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213 1415161718 18 SPECIES TOTAL Rosa n~icrantha XXXXX X 6 Rubus enslenii XXXXX X Stnphylea trifolia X X X XX X Campsis radicans XXXXX X Quercus bicolor X X XXX Prunus persica XXXX X Aesculus glabra XXXX X Viburnum lentago X X X X X Populus alba XXXX Populus grandidentata X X X X Salix bebbiana XXX X Salix purpurea XXX X Carya ovalis X X X X Quercus prinoides X X X X Sassafras albidum X XXX Crataegus mollis XXX X Rosa blanda XXX X Rosa multiflora XXX X Rosa se figera X X X X Ailanthus altissima X X X X A esculus hippocustnnum X X X X Hypericum kalmianum XXX X Cornus rugosa XXX X Ligusfrum vulgare X X XX Symphoricarpos alb us X X X X Tmcanndensis X X X Populus nigra XXX Salix lucida X X X Carya cordiformis X XX Quercus velutina XXX Humulus lupulus X X X Maclura pon~ifera X X X Amelanchier sanguineu X X X ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 SPECIES TOTAL Crataegus calpodendron Prunus americana X X Prunus cerasus X X X Sorbus aucuparia X X Zanthoxylum americanuni X X X Cotinus coggygria X X X Acer nigruni X Vitis aestivalis X X Vitis labrusca X X X Catalpa bignonioides XXX Lonicera japonica XXX Lonicera nrorrowi XXX Lonicera tatarica X X Vlburnuni raflnesquianum XXX Pin us strob us X Salix cordata X Carya glabra X Carya laciniosa X Carya tonlentosa X X Fagus grandijiolia X X Ulttius pnrvifolia X X Crataegus crus-galli X X Pyrrrs coronaria X X Rosa canina X X Rubus corei X X Rubus strigosus X Toxicodendron vernix X Acer platanoides X Acer rubrunt X X Tamarix gallica X X Cornusflorida X X Lonicera sempewirens X X Sarnb ucus racernosa X ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12131415161718 18 SPECIES TOTAL Juniperus comntunis Populus balsamifera Populus heterophylla Salix candida Salix myricoides Salix laurentiana Carpinus caroliniana Coryfusamericana Castanea dentata Quercus palustris Quercus prinus Celtis feniufolia Berberis thunbergii Lindera benzoin Ribes orodatum Ribes sativum Arnelanchier sanguines CrataegusJabellata Crataegus monogyna Crataeguspruinosa Crataeguspunctata Prunus alleghaniensis Prunus aviurn Prunus tomentosa Pyrus pyrifolia Rosa majalis Rosa eglanteria Rubus canadensis Ilex verticillata Acer spicatum Ceanothus herbaceus Rhamnus cathartica Shepherdia cmadensis
Appendix B4: Lake Michigan islands (Beaver group) oames, codes, areas and taxa surveyed.
No. Island Area (ha) Taxon 1 Beaver 15129.58 P B MH 2 North Manitou 5980 PBMH 3 South Manitou 2120 PBMH 4 Garden 1988.89 BMH 5 fi& 1494.44 BMH 6 SouthFox 1321 PBMH 8 NorthFox 339 PBMH 9 Gull 109.3 1 BMH 10 Marion 98.66 B M 11 Whiskey 52.29 BMH 12 Trout 46.62 BMH 13 Squaw 30.55 BMH 14 Hat 6.48 B M 15 Fisherman's 4.13 B M Total 5 14 14 11 Appendix £34: Lake Michigan amphibians and reptiles (Hatt et al., 1948; Phillips et al., 1965; Scharf. 1973; Scharf& Jorae, 1980; Case & Scharf, 1985; Gillingham, 1988; Lhton et al., 1988).
ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 11 1213 11 SPECES TOTAL American Toad X X XXXXX XXX 10 Eastern Garter Snake X X XXXXX XXX 10 Redback Salamander X X XX X X X 7 NorthemRingneck Snake X X X X XX 6 Sp~gPeeper XXX X X X 6 Northern Water Snake X X X X X 5 Midland Painted Turtle X X XXX 5 Eastern Milk Snake X X X X 4 Redbeily Snake X X X X 4 Common Snapping Turtle X X X 3 Northem Leopard Frog X X X 3 Yellow-spotted Salarnander X X X 3 BuWog X X 2 Green Frog X X 2 Northem Brown Snake X X 2 Northern Ribbon Snake X X 2 Tetraploid Gray Treefiog X 2 Wood Frog X X 2 Eastern Red-spotted Newt X 2 Jefferson's Salarnander 2 Blue-s~ottedSalamander X 1 ast te; Smooth Green Snake X 1 TOTAL 20 13 11 9 4 4 7 1 5 5 5 22 Appendix B4: Lake Michigan birds (Han et al., 1948; Drew & Phillips, 1964; Scharf, 1973; Scharf & Jorae, 1980; Paterson, 1982; Case & Scharf, 1985; Brewer et al., 199 1).
Cornmon Crow Spotted Sandpiper XXXXXXXXXXXX 14 Amencan Redstart XXXXXXX xxxx 13 Herring Gull X X X X XXXXXXXX 13 Cedar Waxwing xxxx XX XXXX 12 Killdeer XXXXXXX XXX 12 Red-winged Blackbird XXX X X XXXX X 12 Song Sparrow xxxx XX xxxx 12 Black-throated Green Warbler XX XXXX XXX 11 Eastern Kingbird XX X XX xxxx 11 Red-eyed Vue0 XX X XX xxxx 11 Tree Swallow XX X XX xxxx 11 Black-capped Chickadee XXX XX XXX 10 European Starling X X XX X XX X IO Red-breasted Merganser XXXXX X X X IO Veery X X XX XXXX IO House Wren X X XX XXX 9 Common Tern XX X X XX XX 8 Great Cr4Fiycatcher XX X XX X 8 ûvenbird X X XX X X 8 Yellow Warbler X X X XXX 8 American Robin XX X X 7 Bani Swallow XX X X X 7 Arnerican Woodcock XX X X 6 Bald Eagle X X X X 6 Bank Swallow xxxx 6 Blôckburnian Warbler X X X 6 Blue Jay XX X X 6 Caspian Teni X X X XX 6 Chimney Swift XX X 6 Common Merganser X X X X 6 Great Blue Heron X X X 6 Indigo Buating XX X X 6 Ring-billed Guii X X XX 6 Rufous-sided Towhee X X X X 6 Arnerican Gol&ch XX X 5 Baltimore/Northern Oriole XX X 5 Belted Kingfisher X X 5 Black-and-white Warbler XXX 5 Bobolink XX X 5 Brown Thrasher X X 5 Brown-headed Cowbird XX X 5 ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718 18 SPECIES TOTAL .? Chestnut-sided Warbler Chipping Sparrow XX X Common Flicker XXX Cornmon Yellowthroat XX Double-crested Cornorant XXX X Downy Woodpecker X X X Eastern Bluebird X X X Eastern Meadowlark XX X Eastern Phoebe X X Eastern Wood Pewee X X X Grasshopper Sparrow XX X Hairy Woodpecker XX X Piping Plover X XX Purple Finch XX X Purple Martin XX X Ruby-throated Hummingbird X X X Veçpex Sparrow X X X Winter Wren X X American Black Duck X Black-throated BIue Warbler X X Common Grackle XX X Common Loon XX Common Nighthawk X X Hennit Thrush X X House Sparrow XX Magnolia Wdler Mallard Mourning Dove Mou- Warbler Nashae Warbler Northem Goshawk Pileated Woodpecker Red-breasted Nuthatch Red-headed Woodpecker Red-ded Hawk Whip-pr-will Arnericui Bittern Black-bilIed Cuckoo Blue-winged Teal Canada Goose ClifFSwallow Cooper's Hawk FieId Sparrow Gray Catbird Great Homed Owl Horned Lark ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415161718 18 SPECIES TOTAL Lest FIycatcher XXX 3- ~anhWren xxx Northem Harrier (Marsh Hawk) X X X Pine Siskin X X Red-shoddered Hawk X XX Rose-breasted Grosbeak XXX Ruffed Grouse X X X Savannah Sparrow XX X Scarlet Tanager XXX White-breasted Nuthatch XXX Yellow-rumped Warbler X X X Broad-winged Hawk X X Brown Creeper X X Cornmon Snipe X X Evening Grosbeak X X Golden-crowned ]Kinglet X X Northern Panila Warbler X X Olive-sided FIycatcher X X Pine Warbler X X Pintail X Red Crossbill X X Rough-winged Swallow X X Sharpshinned Hawk X X Sora X X Turkey Vulture X X Upland Sandpiper X X Virginia Rail X X White-ttuoated Spanow X X Wild Turkey X X Wood Duck X X Yellow-bellied Sapsucker X X American Coot X Amencan Kestrel X Blackpoii Warbler X Ciuiari. Warbler X Clay-coloured Spanow X Common Goldeneye Gray-cheeked Thmh X Dark-eyd Junco X Least Bittern X Northern Carrlinal X Northern Waterthrush X PaIm Warbler X Philadelphia Vireo X Pied-billed Grebe X Ring-necked Pheasant X -. . ------ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718 18 SPECIES TOTAL Ruby-crowned Kinglet Shp-tailed Grouse Swamp Sparrow X Warbling Vh X White-winged Crossbill X Wiiiow Flycatcher X Wilson's Warbler X Wood Thrush X Yellow-beilied Flycatcher X Yeiiow-billed Cuckoo X 1 TOTAL 119 106 93 69 24 49 15 24 26 5 20 21 30 20 1 2 4 10 144 Appendix B4: Lake Michigan mammals (Ozoga & Phillips, 1964; Phillips et al., 1965; Scharf, 1973; Scharf & Jorae, 1980; Case & Scharf, 1985).
ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 7 SPECIES TOTAL Deer Mouse X X X XXXX 7 Eastern Chipmunk X X XXXX 6 Snowshoe Hare X X XXX 5 Masked Shrew X X XX 4 Red Fox X X XX 4 White-tailed Deer X X XX 4 Beaver X X 2 Eastern Cottontail X X 2 Eastern Fox Squirrel X X 2 House Mouse X X 2 Long-tailed Weasel X X 2 Raccoon X X 2 Northern Redbacked Vole X X 2 River Oner X X 2 Eastern Gray Squirrel X 1 Coyote X 1 Meadow Vole X 1 Mink X 1 Muskrat X 1 Nonvay Rat X 1 Short-tailed Shrew X 1 Short-tailed Weasel X 1 Woodchuck X 1 TOTAL 18 10 7 7 4 3 6 23 Appendix BS: St. Lawrence islands (SLI) names, codes, areas and taxa surveyed.
No. IsIand Area (ha) Taxon 1 Grenadier 437.82 P B M H 2 Hill 400 PBMH 3 Thwartway 36.45 PBMH 4 McDonald 14.17 P M H S Georgïna 9.43 PBMH 6 Camelot 9.47 PBMH 7 Cedar 9.3 1 P M H 8 Gordon 6.27 PBMH 9 Aubrey 5.79 P M H 10 Mulcaster 5.38 PBMH II Adelaide 5.30 PBMH 12 Endymion 4.4 1 P M H 13 Beau Rivage 4.38 PBMH 14 Stovin 4.13 P M H 15 Milton 3 -24 P M H 16 Squaw 3 .O5 P M H 17 Constance 2.95 PBMH 18 Mermaid 1.54 P M H Total 18 10 28 18 Appendix B5: St. Lawrence arnphibians and reptiles (Karnstra & Towle, 199 1).
ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718 18 SPECIES TOTAL Northem Water Snake XXXXXXXXXX XX X XXX 16 Eastern Garter Snake XXXXXXXXX X X XXX14 Amencan Toad XXXXXXXXXX XX X 13 Northem Leopard Frog XXXX XX XXX XX X 12 Midland Painted TurtIe XXXXXX XX X X X 11 Green Frog XX XXX XXXXX X 11 Bullfrog XX XX X X X X 8 Map Turtle X X XXX X X 7 Northern Brown Snake XXX X XX X 7 Yellow-spotted Salamander XX X X X 5 Spring Peeper X X X XX 5 Midland Chorus Frog XXX X X 5 MU~PUPPY XXX X X 5 Snapping Turtle X X X X 4 Stinkpot X X X 4 BIanding's Turtle X X X 4 Northem Ribbon Snake X X XX 4 Eastern Milk Snake X X X 4 Blue-spotted Salamander X X X 4 Redback Salamander XX XX 4 Smooth Green Snake X X 3 Red-spotted Newt X X 3 Northern Redbeliy Snake X X 2 Tetraploid Gray Treefiog X X 2 Northen Ringneck Snake X 1 BIack Rat Snake X 1 Four-toed Salamander X 1 Wood Frog -X - 1 TOTAL2227128 119 5 6 8 8 6 6 8 4 19 7 4 28 Appendix B5: St. Lawrence birds (Bradstreet & McCracken, 1978).
ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 5 6 8 10 11 13 17 10 SPECES TOTAL Eastern Wood Pewee Brown-headed Cowbird Common Flicker Black-capped Chickadee Commoo Grackie Belted KingSsher Blue Jay cedarwaxwing Warbiiug Vie0 Yeilow Warbler Northem Onole Song Sparrow Eastern Klngbird Great Crested Flycatcher Common Crow American Robin Red-winged Blackbird Rose-breasted Gros beak M-eyed Vireo Mous-sided Towhee Rad Grouse House Wm Gray Caîbird veery Starimg Pine Warbler American Redstart White-throated Spmow American Woodcock Bkk-bilied Cuckoo Rub y-throated Humming bird Hairy Wdpecker Downy Wdpecker Tree Swallow Barn Swaiiow White-breasted Nuthaich ûvenbird Common Yeilowthroat Chipping Sparrow Green Heron Mallard Gadwall Red-tailed Hawk Spotted Sandpiper Eastern Phoebe Least Flycatcher Red-breasted Nuthatch Brown Creeper Brown Thrasher Wood Thrush Yellow-throated Vireo Yellow-rumped Warbler Blackpoli Warbler Scarlet Tamger American GoIdfinch Field Sparrow osprey Common Gallinule Screech Owl Great Horned Owl Whip-pr-will Willow Flycatcher Olive-sided Flycatcher Bank Swallow Rough-winged Sdow Marsh Wren Hennit Thrush Cardinal Swamp Sparrow TOTAL 53 26 34 22 22 25 16 20 20 13 69 Appendk B5: St. Lawrence mamds(Anonymous, 1978; Anonymous, 1987).
ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO1112131415161718 18 SPECIES TOTAL Eastern Gray Squirrel XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX 17 Meadow Vole XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX 16 Raccoon XXXXXXXXX X XX 12 Red S-1 XXXXXXX X XXX X 12 Eastern Cottontail XXXXXXXX X X X 11 Beaver XX XXXX X XX X 10 Muskrat XX X XX XX X X X 10 Short-tailed Shrew XXXXX X X X X 9 Eastern Chipmunk X X XXX X X X 8 Snowshoe Hare X X X X X X 6 Star-nosed MoIe XXXX X X 6 Short-tailed Weasel X X XXX 5 Mink XX XX X 5 Porcupine X X X 4 White Footed Mouse X X X X 4 Southern Flying Squirrel X X X 3 striped Skunk XX 3 Woodchuck X X 3 Short-tailed Weasel 3 White-tailed Deer 2 Red Fox 2 River Otter 2 Masked Shrew 2 European Hare 2 Deer Mouse 1 Hairy-tailed Mole 1 Meadow Jumping Mouse 1 Northern Water Shrew A 1 TOTAL20248 1010129 9 5 143 5 9 3 7 4 7 2 28 XXXXXXXXxXXXXxXXXXX X XXXXX xXXXXXxxXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXX KXXKXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX X X X ~XxXXXXXXxXXXXXXXxXXXXXx XX XXXXxXXXXxxxXX XX XXXXXXX xxXXxXXXXXXXXXXXxxXXXXX XXX KXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX *XXXXXxXxXXXXxxXXXXXXX X X xXXXXXXXXXxxXXXxXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXxXXxXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXxXXxXXXXXXxXXx XXXXXX ~XXXXxXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXxXXXXXXxXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXX YXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX xxxXxXXXXXXxxXXXXXXXxXXXxXX xXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXXxXxXX XXxXXxXXXXXX XX X X XXXXXX ~XxXxxXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX X X X XX X X XXX XX XXXXX XXXXXX X XXXXXXX X XXX X XXXX XX XXX XX XXXXxXXXXX X XXxXXXXXX XXXXXX X X X X X X X X XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXX X XXXXXX XXXXXXX X xXxXXXXXXXXXX x XXX XXXXXXX xx X X KXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX X XXX XxXXXXSfXXXXX XxXXXXXxXX XX X KXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX KXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX X XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXxxxXXX XX XXXXX XXXX *SC XXXXXXXX XXXX X x X X X *~XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXSfXXXxXX * X xx XXX X X X X X X X >(XXxXXXxXxXXXxXX X XXXX XXXXX ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 SPECIES TOTAL Rosa blanda X XXX XX X X XX X 11 Salix discolor X XXX XX X X XXX Rosa palustris X X X XXX XXXX Salix bebbiana X X XXXXX X X X 0str-p virginiana XXXXXX X X X Populus deltoides X X X XXX X X X Rubus jlagelluris XXXX XXX X X Ribes cynosbati X X X XXXX X Spiraea alba X X X X X X X X Behrla popultjolia X X X X XXX X Ceanothus americanus XXX X X XX X Corylus cornuta X XXX X X X X Ilex verticillata X X X X X X X X Salix sericea XX X XXXX X Ribes americanum X X X X X X X Fagus grandifolia XXXX X X X Lonicera morrowi XX X X X X X Viburnum dentatum X X X X X X X Aronia prun$dia X X X X X X Lonicera canadensis X XXX X X Rosa acicularis X X X X X X Salix amygdaloides X X X X X X Symphoricarpos albus X X XX X X Ulrnus ntbra X X X XX X Crutuegus sp. X X X X X Acer negundo X X XXX Acer pensylvanicum X X X X X Amelanchier canadensis XXX X X Pym malus X X X X X Quercirs macrocarpa X X X X X ISLANDNO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 SPECIES TOTAL Salix humilis X X X X X 5 Syringa vulgaris Tmscanadensis Amelanchier laevis Amelanchier spicata Beîula alleghaniensis Carya cordijbrmis Hamamelis virginiana Myrica gale Rubus recuwicaulis Sorbus aucuparia Vacciniumpallidum Ribes nrbrum Carpinus caroliniana Gauftheriuprocumbens Juglans cinerea Physocarpus opullfolius Qrtercus bicolor Rhamnus cathartica Rosa carolina Salix lucida Shepherdia canadensis Ulmus thomasii Viburnum opulus Acer spicatum Berberis thunbergii Corylus americana Hydrangea arborescens Nemopanthus mrtcronatus Prunus nigra X XXXXX X X
Y
Appendix B6: Western Lake Michigan islands (WLM) (Green Bay islands) names, codes, areas and taxa surveyed.
No. Island Area (ha) Taxoa 1 Washington 5801.70 P M H 2 Chambers 1118.52 M H 3 (Big) Summer 890.98 P M H 4 St. Martin 523.27 P M H 5 Rock 400.00 M H 6 Little Summer 229.63 M H 7 Poverty 77.70 PMH Total 4 7 7 Appendix B6: Western Lake Michigan amphibians and reptiles (Long & Long, 1976; Long et al., 1978; Long et al., 1987).
SPECIES TOTAL -- Northern Water Snake XXXXXXX 7 Eastern Garter Snake XXXXXXX 7 Eastern Fox Snake XXXXXX 6 American Toad XXX X X 5 Northem Ringneck Snake X XXX 4 Redback Salamander X XXX 4 Cornmon Snapping Turtle X X 2 Midland Painted Turtle X X 2 Eastern Milk Snake X X 2 Spring Peeper X X 2 Green Frog X X 2 Northem Leopard Frog X X 2 Northern Brown Snake X X 2 Redbelly Snake X X 2 Eastern Red-spotted Newt X 1
Wood Frog X- - 1 TOTAL1411 7 7 6 4 2 16 Appendk B6: Western Lake Michigan mammals (Long, 1978; Long et al., 1987).
Snowshoe Hare White-tailed Deer X X XXX Deer Mouse XXXX Red Fox X X X Red Squirrel X X X Northern Red-backed Vole X X Muskrat X X Raccoon X X Coyote X Eastern Gray Squirrel X Masked Shrew X Meadow Vole X X Eastern Cottontail House Mouse Mink Short-tailed Shrew Star-nosed Mole
Striped Skunk - - TOTAL 15 9 7 4 7 3 3 18 Appendix B6: Western Lake Michigan plants (Forzley et al., 1993).
ISLANDNO. 1 3 4 7 8 9 10 SPECIES TOTAL Sambucus racemosa XXXXXXX 7 Taxus canadensis XXXXXX 6 Abies balsameu XXXXXX 6 Juniperus viraniana XXXXXX 6 Betuia pap@ra XXXXXX 6 Pmm virgrgrniana XXXXXX 6 Rubus strigo~ XXXXXX 6 Acer spicaium XXXXXX 6 Comus sto longera X XXXXX 6 Poplus balsamrfera XXXX X Poplus tremuloides XX XX X Ribes amencamm X X XXX Sorbus decora XXXXX Junipem honzontalis X X XX Ribes lacustre XXXX Pmm pensylvanica X XXX Rosa acicu lans X XXX Shepherdia camdensis X X XX Cornus mgosa XXXX Linnaea borealis XXXX Picea ghca X X X Pinus strobus XXX PopuZus deltoides XX X Ostrya Mrginianu xxx Fagus grïmd~j!olia XXX Amelanchier luevis X XX Rosa blah X X X Rosa eglantena X X X Rubus occidentalis X X X Ton'codendron rudicans X X X Acer sacchamrn XXX Hypen'cumkalmiamm X X X Comus canadensis X X X Arctostapkylos wa-ursi X X X Lonicera canadensis X X X Sambucus canadensis X XX Symphorica~osalbus X X X Jmipem cornmunis X X Mxeriocephakt X X SaZix petiolaris X X Myn'ca gale X X Betula alleghuniensis X X Corylus comuta X X Quercus mbra X X ISLANDNO.l 3 4 7 8 9 10 7 SPECIES TOTAL Ummamericunu c. Pyrus malus Physocarpur opul@olim Potentilla fruticosa Rubus paMforus Rhus pphina Tilia amencana Frarinus pennsylvanica Syringa mlgaris Diervilla lonicera Lonicera doica Lonicera hirsuta Larix lancina Picea ntanam Pinus resinosu Tsuga canadensis Populus alba Poplus grandidentata Salix amygdaloides Salix bebbiana Salix candida Sdx discolor Wixexigua Salix myricoides Salix pedicellaris Juglans cinerea Ribes cynosbati Ribes glandulosum Amelanchier interior Amelanchier sanguines Prunus pumila Pmnus serotina Rubus allegheniensis Rubus pubescens Ilex verticillata Acer rubrum Vitis riparia Dirca plustris Shepherdia argentea Cornus altemrfolia Gaultheria procumbens Vibumurn acerifolium Vibumurn lentugo Vîbumurn opulus X TOTAL 66 33 48 42 16 16 3 88 Appendix C: Species absent from island resewes selected using umbreilas Appendk C 1: Species absent fiom reserves selected using umbreila groups.
Archipelago Species missed Taxon Umbrella Grou0 LEI Acer platanoides PLN BRD LEI Acer platanoides PLN MML WLM Acer rubm PLN MML LEI Aescuius glabra PLN MML LEI Aesculus hippocastaoum PLN MML WLM Amelanchier interior PLN MML WLM Amelanchier sanguin= PLN MML LEI Amelanchier spicata PLN MML LMI American Coot BRD MML FF American Kestrel BRD PLN LEI Berberis thunbergii PLN M.. LEI Black Rat Snake HRP MML FF Brown Snake HRP PLN LEI Brown-headed Cowbird BRD MML SLI Cardinal BRI) HRP SLI Cardinal BRD MML LM1 Caspian Tern BRD MML GB Chimaphila umbellata PLN HRP GB Chimaphila umbeilata PLN MM' Lm Clay-coloured Sparrow BRD BRD LMI Clay-coloured Sparrow BRD MML SLI Comrnon Gallinule BRD HRP SLI Cornmon Gailinde BRD MML FF Common Tern BRD PLN GB Common Tern BRD HIRP LM1 Common Tern BRD MML SLI Cornus altedolia PLN MML GB Comus canadensis PLN MML GB Cornus racemosa PLN BRD GB Cornus racemosa PLN HRP GB Cornus racemosa PLN MML FF Corylus cornuta PLN MML GB Crataegus chrysocarpa PLN BRD GB Crataegus chry socarpa PLN HRP GB Crataegus chrysocarpa PLN MML LEI Crataegus monogyna PLN MML GB Darkqed Junco BRD HRP GB Dark-eyed Junco BRD MML GB Dark-eyed Junco BRD PLN FF Double-crested Cormorant BRD PLN GB Double-crested Cormorant BRD HRP LM Eastern Cottontail MML HRP LEI Eastern Massassauga HRP MML 13 1
LEI MU~PUPPY HRP MML SLI Myrica asplenifolia PLN MML SLI Nemopanthus mucronatus PLN MMZ, GB Northern Goshawk BRD HRP GB Northern Goshawk BRD MML GB Ribbon Snake HRP BRD GB Ribbon Snake HRP MML FF Northem Saw-whet Owl BRD MML WLM Physocarpus opulifolius PLN HRP WLM Picea mariana PLN HRP WLM Picea mariana PLN MML GB Pickerel Frog HRP BRD GB Pickerei Frog HRP MML LEI Pinus strobus PLN BRD LEI Pinus strobus PLN MML SLI Populus alba PLN MML WLM Populus alba PLN MML LEI Populus heterophyiia PLN HRP LEI Populus heterophyila PLN MML WLM Potenidla hticosa PLN fiRP LEI Pmus aviurn PLN MML SLI Pym cornmunis PLN MML WLM Pyrus malus PLN MML LEI Pyrus pynfolia PLN HRP LEI Pym pynfolia PLN MML LEI Queen Snake HRP MML GB Quercus alba PLN MML LEI Red-backed Salamander HRP MML SLi Red-breasted Nutbatcfi BRD HRP SLI Red-breasted Nuthatch BRD MML LEI Rhamnus cathartica PLN BRD LEI Rhamnus cathartica PLN HRP FF Rhus typhina PLN MML FF Ribes americanum PLN MML GB Ribes glanduloswn PLN MML GB Ribes hirteUum PLN HRP GB Ribes hirteiium PLN MML GB Ribes lacustre PLN BRD GB Ribes lacustre PLN MML LEI Ribes saîiw PLN MML FF Ring-billed Gull BRD PLN LM Ring-bilIed Guil BRD BRD LM Ring-billed Guii BRD MML GB Ring-biiied Gu11 BR11 HRP LM1 Ring-necked Pheasant BRD MML WLM Rosa acicuiaris PLN HRP LEI Rosa rnajaiis PLN MML FF Rose-breasted Grosbeak BRD HRP 133 FF Rose-breasted Grosbeak BRD MML FF Rose-breasted Grosbeak BRD PLN LMI Rough-winged Swaiiow BRD MML SLI Rough-winged Swallow BRD HRP SLI Rough-winged Sdow BRD MML LEI Rubus canadensis PLN BRD LEI Rubus canadensis PLN HRP LEI Rubus canadensis PLN M. LEI Rubus corei PLN MML GB Rubus flagellaris PLN BRD GB Rubus flagellaris PLN HRP GB Rubus flagellaris PLN MML SLI Rubus hispidus PLN MML GB Rubus setosus PLN BRD GB Rubus setosus PLN HRP GB Rubus setosus PLN MML GB Salix alba PLN BRD GB Saiix dba PLN HRP GB Sahalba PLN MML WLM Saiix arnygdaloides PLN MML WLM Salix bebbiana PLN HRP WLM Salix discolor PLN HRP WLM Salix discolor PLN MML WLM Salk eriocephala PLN HRP WLM Salk exigu PLN HRP WLM Saiix exigua PLN MML GB Saik humilis PLN HRP GB Safix humiiis PLN M'ML LEI Salix laurentiana PLN BRD LEI Salix laurentiana PLN HRP LEI Saîix myrkoides PLN BRD LEI Saiix myricoides PLN HRP WLM Saiix myricoides PLN HRP WLM Saiix myricoids PLN MML WLM Salix petiolaris PLN MML FF Salix serissirna PLN MML SLI Salix serissima PLN MML LEI Sambucus racemosa PLN MML SLI Screech Owl BRD HRP SLI Screech ûwl BRD MM. WLM Shepherdia argentea PLN HRP WLM Shepherdia argentea PLN MML FF Short-tailed Shrew MML PLN LMI Short-tailed Shrew MML BRD WLM Short-tailed Shrew MML HEU' SLI Short-tailed Weasel Mm HRP GB SoLanum dulcamara PLN BRD GB Solanum ddcamara PLN HRP 134 GB Sohum dulcamara PLN MML SLI Spotted Sandpiper BRD HRP SLI Spottd Sandpiper BRD MML GB Spotted Turtle HRP BRD GB Spotted Turtle HRP MML SLI Staphylea trifoikt PLN MML WLM Star-nosed Mole MML HRP GB Stinkpot HRP MML LEI Symphoricarpos orbiCulatus PLN HRP LEI Symphoricarpos orbiculahis PLN Mm WLM Syringadgaris PLN MML LEI Tamarix galica PLN MML LEI Tamis caaadensis PLN MML FF Tia amencana PLN BRD FF Tilia americana PLN MML LEI TirRattlesnake HRP MM. FF Toxicodendrm radicans PLN MML FF üimus americana PLN MML LEI Ulmus parvifoiia PLN MML GB Ulmus thomasii PLN BRD GB husthomasii PLN HRP GB Ulmus thomasü PLN MML GB vaccinium corymbosum FLN BRD GB vaccinium corymbosum PLN HRP GB Vaccinium coryrnùosum PLN MML SLI Vaccinium myrûiîoides PLN MML LEI Vibumum acerifoiium PLN MML SLI Vibumum nudum PLN MML WLM Vibumum opulus PLN MML FF Vuginia Rail BRD MML WLM Vitis riparia PLN MML LM Warbling Vii BRD BRD LMI Warbling V'i BRD MML GB Whip-poor-wif BRD HRP GB Whip-poor-wil BRD MML WLM Wood Frog HRP MML LM1 Wood Thsh BRD BRD LM1 WoodThnish BRD MML SLI Yellow-mped Warbler BRD HRP LEI Yeliow-spotted Salamander HRP MML Appendix C2: Species absent fiom reserves selected using single-species umbrehs.
Archipelago Species missed Taxon Singie-species Umbreila LEI Acer p latanoides PLN WLM Acer mbm PLN HRP WLM Acer mbrum PLN MML SLI Acer saccharinun PLN Brn SLI Acer spicabm PLN BRD LEI Aesculus Wra PLN MML LEI Aescuius hippocastanum PLN BRD LEI AescuIus hippocastanm PLN MML SLI Amelanchier cademis PLN BRD SLI Amelanchier canadensis PLN MML WLM Amelanchier interior PLN HEW WLM Amelanchier interior PLN MML WLM Amelanchier sanguiaea PLN HRP WLM Amelanchier sanguiaea PLN MML LEI Amelanchier spicata PLN MML LM1 American Coot BRD HRP FF American Kestrel BRD BRD FF American Kestrel BRD HRP FF American Kestrei BRD MM' FF Andromeûa giaucophylla PLN BRD FF Andromeda gIaucophylla PLN HRP FF Aronia meianocarpa PLN BRD FF Aronia melanocarpa PLN HRP SLI Bank Swallow BRD BRD LEI Berberis thunbergii PLN MML LEI Black Rat Snake HRP MML SLI Black Rat Snake HRP BRD FF Bkk-billed Cuckoo BRD BRD FF Black-billed Cuckoo BRD HRP FF Black-billed Cuckoo BRD MML SLI Biackpoil Warbler BRD BRD FF Bluespoued Saiamander HRP BRD FF Blue-spa#ed Salamander HRP HRP SLI Brown Creeper BRD BRD FF Brown Snake HRP BRD FF Brown Snake HRP HRP FF Brown Sriake HEU MML LEI Brom-headed Cowbird BRD HRP LEI Brown-headed Cowbird BRD MML SLI Carduial BRD BRD SLI Cardinal BRD HRP SLI cardinal BRD MML SLI Carpinus caroliniana PLN BRD GB Chimaphila umbeilata PLN BRD GB Chimaphila urnbellata PLN HRP GB Chimaphila umbellata PLN MML LM1 Clay-coloured Sparrow BRD MML SLI Comrnm Gailinde BRD BRD SLI Common Gailinde BRD MML LMI Common Goldeneye BRD Brn FF Common Snipe BRD BRD FF Common Sn@ %RD HRP FF Common Tern BRD BRD GB ComnTern BRD BRD GB Comrnon Tem BRD HRP LM1 Common Tem BRD HRl' SLI Cornus aIternifolia PLN BRD SLI Cornus alternifolia PLN HRP SLI Cornus alternifolia PLN MML GB Comus canadensis PLN BRD GB Comus racemosa PLN BRD GB Cornus racemosa PLN HRP GB Comus racemosa PLN MML FF Corylus cornuta PLN BRD FF Corylus cornuta PLN HRP FF Corylus cornuta PLN MML GB C rataegus chrysocarpa PLN BRD GB Crataegus chrysocarpa PLN HRP GB Crataegus chrysocarpa PLN MML LEI Crataegus mono- PLN MML GB Darkeyed Junco BRD HRP GB Dark-eyed Junco BRD BRD GB Darkqed Junco BRD MML SLI Deer Mouse MML BRD FF Double-crested Cormorant BRD BRD GB Dou ble-crested Cormorant BRD BRD GB Double-crested Cormorant BRD HRI' LM1 Eastern Cottontail MML MML LEI Eastern Massassauga HlRP MML FF Eastern Meadowlark BRD BRD FF Eastern Meadowlark BRD HRP FF Eastern Phmbe BRD BRD FF Eastern Phoebe BRD HRP FF Easîern Phoebe BRD MML SLI Eastern Red-spotted Newt HRP BRD SLI Elaeagnus angustifolia PLN BRD SLI Elaeagnus angusMolia PLN HRP SLI Elaeagnus angustifolia PLN MML FF Evening GrosW BRD BRD FF Evening Grosbeak BRD HRP LEI Fagus grandifolk PLN MML 137 SLI Fagus grandifolia PLN BRD SLI Fagus grandifolia PLN HRP SLI Fagus grandifolia PLN MML GB Five-lined Skink m BRD SLI Four-toed Safamander HRP BRD GB Fraxinus nigra PLN BRD GB Fraxiflus nigra PLN HRP GB Fraxiflus nigra PLN MML LEI Ffaxizlus nigra PLN BRD LEI Fraxinus nigra PLN KRP GB Fraxinus pennsylvanica PLN BRD GB Fraxinus pe~sylvanica PLN HRP GB Fraxinus pennsylvanica PLN MML SLI Gadwafl BRD BRD SLI Gad4 BRD MML FF Great Blue Heron BRD BRD FF Great Blue Heron BRD HRP FF Great Blue Heron BRD MML LEI Great Blue Heron BRD MML SLI Hairy-tailed Mole Mm BRD SLI Hennit Thnish BRD BRD FF Herring Gd BRD BRD GB Herring Gd BRD BRD GB HemGull BRD HRP GB Hognose Snake HRJ? BRD GB Hognose Snake HRP MML LEI Hypericum kalmianum PLN MML LM1 Jefferson's Salamander HRP HRP FF Least Flycatcher BRD BRD FF Least Flycatcher BRD HRP FF Least Flycatcher BRD MML LEI Ligustrum amurense PLN MML LEI Ligustrum vulgare PLN MML SLI Lonicera bella PLN HRP SLI Lonicera bella PLN MML SLI Lonicera densis PLN BRD SLI Lonicera canadensis PLN MML WLM Lonicera doica PLN HRP GB Lonicera hirsuta PLN BRD GB Lonicera hirsuta PLN HRP GB Lonicerahirsuta PLN MML SLI Lonicera hirsuta PLN HRP SLI Lonicera hirsuta PLN MML LEI Lonicera maackii PLN MML LEI Lonicera morrowi PLN MML SLI Lonicera morrowi PLN BRD SLI Lonicera morrowi PLN MML GB Lonicera oblongifolia PLN BRD 138 GB Lonicera obIongifoIia PLN MML LEI Lonicera sernpewirens PLN MML LEI Lonicera tatarica PLN MML LEI Maclura pomifera PLN BRD LEI Maclura podera PLN MML FF Masked Shrew MML BRD FF Masked Shrew MML HRP SLI Masked Shrew MML BRD SLI Meadow Jumping Mouse MML BRD LM1 Meadow Vole MML BRD LMI Meadow Vole MML MML LEI Midland Chorus Frog HRP MML FF Milk Snake HRP BRD FF Milk Snake HRP HRP FF Miik Snake HRP MML LMI Mink MML BRD LM? Mink MML MML GB Mourning Dove BRD BRD FF Mourning Warbler BRD BRD FF Mourning Warbler BRD HRP FF Mourning Warbler BRD MML LEI M~~P~PPY HRP MML FF Muskrat MML BRD FF Muskrat MML HRP SLI Myrica aspldolia PLN HRP SLI Myrica aspldolia PLN MML SLI Nemopanthus mucroaatus PLN BRD SLI Nemopanthus mucronatus PLN HRP SLI Nemopanthus mucronatus PLN MML GB Northern ûoshawk BRD BRD GB Northem Goshawk BRD HRP GB Northem Goshawk BRD MML SLI Ribbon Sue HRP BRD GB Ribbon Snake HRP BRD FF Northem Saw-whet Owl BRD BRD FF Northem Saw-whet Owl BRD rn FF Northem Saw-whet Owl BRD MML SLI Northern Waîer Shrew MML BRD SLI 0- virginiana PLN BRD WLM Physocarpus opulifolius PLN HRP WLM Picea mariana PLN HRP GB Pickerel Frog HRP BRD SLI Pine Warbler BRD BRD LEI Pinus strobus PLN BRD LEI Pinus strobus PLN MML SLI Populus alba PLN MML WLM Popuius aiba PLN HRP WLM Populus aiba PLN MML 139 WLM Popuius deltoides PLN HRP FF Popuius grandidentata PLN BRD FF Popuius grandidentata PLN HRP LEI Popuius heterophylla PLN MML SLI Porcupine MML BRD- WLM Potentilla fruticosa PLN HRP LEI Prunus avium PLN MML FF Prunus serotha PLN BRD FF Pmus serotina PLN HRP LEI Prunus tomentosa PLN HRP SLI cornmunis PLN BRD SLI Fyrus cornmunis PLN HRP SLI Pyms cornmunis PLN MML WLM Pyrus malus PLN HRP LEI Pynis pyrifolia PLN MML LEI Queen Snake HRP MML GB Quercus alba PLN BRD GB Quercus aiba PLN MML SLI Quercus velutina PLN BRD LEI Red-backed Salamander HRP MML SLI Red-breasted Nuthatch BRD BRD SLI Red-breasted Nuthatch BRD KRP SLI Red-breasted Nutbatch BRD MML SLI Red-taiied Hawk BRD BRD FF RedbeUy Snake HRP BRD FF Redbeily Snake KRP HRP FF Rhus typhina PLN BRD FF Rhus typhina PLN HRJ? FF Rhus typhina PLN MML FF Ribes americanum PLN BRD FF Ribes amencanun PLN w FF Ribes americanum PLN MML SLI Ribes americanum PLN BRD SLI Ribes amencanun PLN MMI, GB Ribes gianduiosum FLN BRD GB Ribes glanduiosum PLN MML SLI Ribes gianduiosum PLN MML GB Ribes hirteilum PLN BRD GB Ribes hirtellum PLN HRP GB Ribes hirteiium PLN MML GB Ribes lacustre PLN ERD LEI Ribes sativum PLN MML FF Ring-billed Gui1 BRD BRD GB Ring-billed Gull BRD BRD GB Ring-bUed Gu11 BRD HRP LMI Ring-biUed Gull BRD MML LM1 Ring-neckd Pheasant BRD HRP WLM Rosa acicularis PLN HRP 140 LEI Rosa majalis PLN MML FF Rose-breasted Grosbeak BRD BRD FF Rose-breasted Grosbeak BRD HRP FF Rose-breasted Grosbeak Brn MML LM1 Rough-winged Swallow BRD HRP SLI Rough-winged Swaiiow BRD BRD SLI Rough-winged SwaUow BRD HRP SLI Rough-winged Sdow BRD MML LEI Rubus canademis PLN BRD LEI Rubus canademis PLN HRP LEI Rubus canadensis PLN MML LEI Rubus corei PLN BRD LEI Rubus corei PLN MML GB Rubus fiagellaris PLN BRD GB Rubus flagellaris PLN HRP GB Rubus flagellaris PLN MML SLI Rubus hispidus PLN BRD SLI Rubus hispidus PLN MML GE3 Rubus setosus PLN BRD GB Rubus setosus PLN HRP GB Rubus setosus PLN MML GB Salk alba PLN BRD GB Salix alba PLN HRP GB Saiix dba PLN MML WLM Saiix amygddoides PLN HRP WLM Salix amygdaioides PLN MML WLM Salk bebbiana PLN HRP WLM Salk discolor PLN HRP WLM Salk eriocepbaIa PLN HRP WLM SaIix exiw PLN HRP FF Salix humilis PLN BRD FF Salix humilis PLN HRP FF Salix humilis PLN MML GB Salix humilis PLN BRD GB Salix hUmilis PLN HRP GB saik humiiis PLN MML LEI Salix laurentiana PLN BRD LEI Salix 1;uirentiariÉi PLN HRP LEI Salix myricoides PLN BRD LEI Saiix rnyricoides PLN HlRP SLI Salix petiolaris PLN BRD WLM Salix petiolaris PLN HRP FF Salix serissima PLN BRD FF Salùc serissima PLN HRP FF Salix serissima PLN MML SLI Salix serissima PLN BRD SC1 Salix serissk PLN MM. SLI Salix subsericea PLN BRD 141 SLI Saiix subsericea PLN MML LEI Sambucus racernosa PLN MML SLI Scarlet Tanager BRD BRD SLI Screech ûwl BRD BRD SLI Screech ûwl BW HRP SLI Screech ûwl BRD MML WLM Shqherdia argentea PLN HRP FF Short-Wed Shrew MML BRD m Short-tded Sk MML HRP FF Short-Wed Shrew MML Mm LM Short-tailed Shrew AmL BRD LM Short-tailed Shrm MM' MML SLI Short-tailed Shrew MML HRP SLI Short-tailed Shrew MML MML WLM Short-tailed Shrew MML HRP SLI Short-Wed WeaseI MML BRD GB Sohum dulm PLN BRD GB Solanum duicamara PLN HRP GB Solarium dulcamara PLN MML FF Sorbus amencrina PLN BRD FF Sofbus americana PLN HRP FF Sohus mericana PLN M. SLI Sorbus aucuparia PLN BRD SLI Sorbus aucuparia PLN HRP SLI Sorbus aucuparia PLN MML SLI Southem Flying Squirrel MML BRD LEI Spiny Softsheii Tude HRP HRP SLI Spoüed Sandpiper BRD BRD SLI Spotted Sandpiper BRD MML GB Spotted Turtle HRP BRD SLI Staphylea trifolia FLN BRD SLI Staphylea trifolia PLN MML WLM Star-nosed Mole MML mu' GB Strnkpot HRP BRD GB Stinkpot HRP MML FF Symphoricarpos dbus PLN BRD FF Symphoricarpos dbus PLN HRP LEI Symphoricarpos orbiCulatus PLN HRP LEI Symphoricarpos orbiCularus PLN MML WLM Syringavul@ PLN HRP LEI Tamarix galica PLN MML LEI Taxus canadensis PLN MML SLI Taxus txkmhsis PLN BRD SLI Taxus riineriensis PLN MML FF Tiamericana PLN BRD FF Tia americana PLN MML LEI Tirnber RattIesnake KRP MML FF Toxicodendron radicans PLN BRD 142 FF Toxicodenidron radicans PLN HRP FF Toxicodendron radirnns PLN MML FF Ulmus americana PLN BRD FF Ulmus americana PLN HRP FF Ulrnus amerirrina PLN MML LEI Ulmus pardolia PLN MML GB Ulmus thomasii PLN BRD GB ULmus thomasii PLN HRP GB Ulmus thomasii PLN MML GB Vaccinium corymbosum PLN BRD GB Vaccinium corymbosum PLN HRP GB Vaccinium CmyTnbosum PLN MML SLI Vaccinium larnarckü PLN BRD SLI Vaccinium myrtilloides PLN BRD SLI Vaccinium myrûlloides PLN HRP SLI Vaccinium myrtilloides PLN MML FF vaccinium oxycoccus PLN BRD FF Vaccinium oxycoccus PLN HlRP SLI Vaccinium pallidum PLN BRD SLI Vaccinium pallidum PLN MM. SLI vaccinium vacw PLN BRD SLI Vaccinium vacillans PLN MML LEI Vibunium acerifolium PLN MML SLI Vibumum nudum PLN BRD SLI Vibumum nudum PLN HRP SLI Vibumum nudum PLN MML WLM Vibumum opulus PLN HRP WLM Vibumun opulus PLN MML SLI Vibumum rafinesquimum PLN BRD SLI Vibumum rafinesquianum FLN MML FF Viginia Rail BRD BRD FF Virginia Rail BRD HRP FF Virginia Rail BRD MMIL SLI vitis aestivalis PLN BRD WLM Vitis riparia PLN HRP WLM Vitis riparia PLN MML LM1 Warbling vii BRD MML GB Whip-poor-wil BRD BRD GB Whip-poor-wii BRD HRP GB Whip-pr-wil BRD MML SLI Whip-pmr-wil BRD BRD FF WdFrog HRP BRD FF Wood Frog HRP HRP SLI Wood Frog HRP BRD WLM Wood Frog HRP HRP WLM Wood Frog HRP MML LM1 Wood Thrush BRD MML SLI Yeiiow-nunped Warbler BRD BRD 143 SLI Yeliow-nimped Warbler BRD HRP SLI Yellow-nin;ped Warbler BRD MML LEI Yeliow-spatted Salamandef HRP MML SLI YeUow-spotîd Salamander HRP BRD IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3)
APPLIEO 1 IMAGE . lnc 3 1653 East Main Street ,, ,, -.- Rochester. NY 14609 USA ,=-= Phone: 716/4829300 --=-- Fax: 716/288-5989
O 1993. Applied Image. lnc., Ail Rights Reserved