DOCSLIB.ORG

DE Wildlife Action Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DE Wildlife Action Plan DelawareDelaware WildlifeWildlife ActionAction PlanPlan Keeping Today’s Wildlife from Becoming Tomorrow’s Memory Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Division of Fish and Wildlife 89 King Highway Dover, Delaware 19901 [email protected] Delaware Wildlife Action Plan 2007 - 2017 Submitted to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035-9589 September, 2006 Submitted by: Olin Allen, Biologist Brianna Barkus, Outreach Coordinator Karen Bennett, Program Manager Cover Photos by: Chris Bennett, Chuck Fullmer, Mike Trumabauer, DE Div. of Fish & Wildlife Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 89 Kings Highway Dover DE 19901 Delaware Wildlife Action Plan Acknowledgements This project was funded, in part, through grants from the Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife with funding from the Division of Federal Assistance, United States Fish & Wildlife Service under the State Wildlife Grants Program; and the Delaware Coastal Programs with funding from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under award number NA17OZ2329. We gratefully acknowledge the participation of the following individuals: Jen Adkins Sally Kepfer NV Raman Chris Bennett Gary Kreamer Ken Reynolds Melinda Carl Annie Larson Ellen Roca John Clark Wayne Lehman Bob Rufe Rick Cole Jeff Lerner Tom Saladyga Robert Coxe Rob Line Craig Shirey Janet Dennis Andy Manus Maria Taylor Ellen Dickey Pete Martin Jeff Tinsman Nick DiPasquale Cathy Martin Shelley Tovell-DiBona Sara Donovall Bill McAvoy Maria Trabka Marcia Fox Rick McCorkle Mike Valenti Rob Gano Stew Michels Terry Villanueva Kitt Heckscher Roy Miller Kevina Vulinec Terry Higgins Greg Moore Spencer Waller Rob Hossler Greg Murphy Dawn Webb Jake Jacobini Holly Niederriter Jim White Annie Jacobs Basaran Ozden Bill Whitman Kathleen Jamison Marnie Pepper Tom Whittendale Bill Jones Susan Peterson Steve Williams Kevin Kalasz Mike Polo Jean Woods We wish to extend a special note of appreciation to Bill McAvoy for his patience and persistence with the habitat mapping component of the Plan. Bill generously shared his knowledge, expertise and familiarity with Delaware’s landscape, and we are grateful for the energy he contributed to creating many of the habitat layers found in this Plan. 9/27/2006 Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife i Delaware Wildlife Action Plan Executive Summary Despite its small size Delaware harbors a diversity of wildlife and habitats within its borders from the Atlantic Ocean coastline to the Piedmont border with Pennsylvania. More than 1,000 species of wildlife have been documented in the state, and more than 125 different types of habitat have been identified including coastal marine waters and brackish marshes, tidal and non-tidal freshwater streams and wetlands, and upland forests and meadows. This document, the Delaware Wildlife Action Plan (“Plan”), represents the state’s first attempt to develop a comprehensive strategy for conserving the full array of native wildlife and habitats – common and uncommon – as vital components of the state’s natural resources. It is intended not only to be comprehensive in terms of the species, habitats, issues and actions it addresses, but also comprehensive in terms of those responsible for implementation. Though the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife (“DFW”) will play a lead role in its continued development and in coordinating implementation, the Plan is intended for all who are actively engaged in conservation efforts. Together with conservation partners, we aim to keep species common, and to prevent species from being listed as endangered. The Plan was developed with the participation of key conservation partners and public input was solicited primarily through a website. The Plan identifies more than 450 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and 50 different types of habitat. Because this is a comprehensive plan for all wildlife, large blocks of forest and wetland habitats that support many common species are also identified. Maps depicting habitat for a full array of wildlife (“Key Habitats”) are presented to show areas of the state where conservation efforts can be focused. These maps are also intended to help guide more site-specific conservation planning efforts. A successful site-specific community-based planning effort was conducted in partnership with The Nature Conservancy as a subset of the state’s wildlife strategy development. Recognizing all possible issues that affect species and habitats of conservation concern, whether we fully understand their impacts, is an important step in building a comprehensive plan. Nearly 90 different conservation issues affecting species or habitats of conservation concern were identified, representing 16 different categories of issues. To address this extensive list of issues and impacts on SGCN and Key Habitats, more than 230 different conservation actions were developed. This extensive list of issues and actions were prioritized by reviewing several natural resource plans developed for Delaware over the years. As a result, a clear picture of priorities emerged; among themes represented were habitat loss and degradation, as well as institutional capacity of DFW as the lead agency for the Plan. Implementation of the Plan will be guided by a steering committee that meets regularly and is comprised of key partners including representatives from other state agencies, conservation organizations, and stakeholder and user groups. The Plan will be updated continuously by DFW as soon as new information becomes available about species, habitats, issues or actions, and the first formal review will take place two years after approval, with subsequent reviews every five years. A database is under development to track updates of Plan components in order to facilitate the review process, and an interactive version of the Plan will be posted on the DNREC website and made widely available on CD following the Plan’s acceptance. ii Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife 9/27/2006 Delaware Wildlife Action Plan Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1. Purpose, Goal and Guiding Principles .......................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1. Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2. Goal and Guiding Principles for Conservation Actions ........................................ 1-1 1.2. Road Map to the Eight Elements ................................................................................... 1-4 1.3. Public Involvement, Partnerships and Coordination ..................................................... 1-5 2. Planning Context .................................................................................................................. 2-1 3. Species of Greatest Conservation Need ............................................................................... 3-1 3.1. Selection Criteria ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. Abundance and Distribution .......................................................................................... 3-3 4. Key Wildlife Habitats ..........................................................................................................4-1 4.1. Ecological Framework .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2. Location and Relative Condition................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1. Habitat Mapping .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2. Relative Condition ................................................................................................. 4-2 5. Determining Conservation Issues and Actions .................................................................... 5-1 5.1. Issues .............................................................................................................................5-2 5.1.1. Issues Impacting Key Habitats and SGCN ............................................................ 5-3 5.1.2. Issues Affecting Institutional Capacity ................................................................ 5-13 5.2. Actions ........................................................................................................................5-15 6. Conservation Issues and Actions ......................................................................................... 6-1 6.1. Key Wildlife Habitats: Descriptions and Conservation Issues and Actions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices
    Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices A: Initial List of Important Sites..................................................................................................... 2 B: An Annotated List of the Mammals of Albemarle County........................................................ 5 C: Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 18 An Annotated List of the Birds of Albemarle County.............................................................. 18 Bird Species Status Tables and Charts...................................................................................... 28 Species of Concern in Albemarle County............................................................................ 28 Trends in Observations of Species of Concern..................................................................... 30 D. Fish of Albemarle County........................................................................................................ 37 E. An Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians of Albemarle County.......................................... 41 F. An Annotated Checklist of the Reptiles of Albemarle County, Virginia................................. 45 G. Invertebrate Lists...................................................................................................................... 51 H. Flora of Albemarle County ...................................................................................................... 69 I. Rare
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) by Boris C. Kondratieff, Paul A. Opler, Matthew C. Garhart, and Jason P. Schmidt C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 March 15, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration (top to bottom): Widow Skimmer (Libellula luctuosa) [photo ©Robert Behrstock], Stonefly (Perlesta species) [photo © David H. Funk, White- lined Sphinx (Hyles lineata) [photo © Matthew C. Garhart] ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Copyrighted 2004 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………….…1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..…………………………………………….…3 OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………………………………………….………5 Site Descriptions………………………………………….. METHODS AND MATERIALS…………………………………………………………………………….5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………..…...11 Dragonflies………………………………………………………………………………….……..11
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Gregarine Parasitism in Dragonfly Populations of Central
    ABSTRACT Gregarine Parasitism in Dragonfly Populations of Central Texas with an Assessment of Fitness Costs in Erythemis simplicicollis Jason L. Locklin, Ph.D. Mentor: Darrell S. Vodopich, Ph.D. Dragonfly parasites are widespread and frequently include gregarines (Phylum Apicomplexa) in the gut of the host. Gregarines are ubiquitous protozoan parasites that infect arthropods worldwide. More than 1,600 gregarine species have been described, but only a small percentage of invertebrates have been surveyed for these apicomplexan parasites. Some consider gregarines rather harmless, but recent studies suggest otherwise. Odonate-gregarine studies have more commonly involved damselflies, and some have considered gregarines to rarely infect dragonflies. In this study, dragonfly populations were surveyed for gregarines and an assessment of fitness costs was made in a common and widespread host species, Erythemis simplicicollis. Adult dragonfly populations were surveyed weekly at two reservoirs in close proximity to one another and at a flow-through wetland system. Gregarine prevalences and intensities were compared within host populations between genders, among locations, among wing loads, and through time. Host fitness parameters measured included wing load, egg size, clutch size, and total egg count. Of the 37 dragonfly species surveyed, 14 species (38%) hosted gregarines. Thirteen of those species were previously unreported as hosts. Gregarine prevalences ranged from 2% – 52%. Intensities ranged from 1 – 201. Parasites were aggregated among their hosts. Gregarines were found only in individuals exceeding a minimum wing load, indicating that gregarines are likely not transferred from the naiad to adult during emergence. Prevalence and intensity exhibited strong seasonality during both years at one of the reservoirs, but no seasonal trend was detected at the wetland.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawk Moths of North America Is Richly Illustrated with Larval Images and Contains an Abundance of Life History Information
    08 caterpillars EUSA/pp244-273 3/9/05 6:37 PM Page 244 244 TULIP-TREE MOTH CECROPIA MOTH 245 Callosamia angulifera Hyalophora cecropia RECOGNITION Frosted green with shiny yellow, orange, and blue knobs over top and sides of body. RECOGNITION Much like preceding but paler or Dorsal knobs on T2, T3, and A1 somewhat globular and waxier in color with pale stripe running below set with black spinules. Paired knobs on A2–A7 more spiracles on A1–A10 and black dots on abdomen cylindrical, yellow; knob over A8 unpaired and rounded. lacking contrasting pale rings. Yellow abdominal Larva to 10cm. Caterpillars of larch-feeding Columbia tubercle over A8 short, less than twice as high as broad. Silkmoth (Hyalophora columbia) have yellow-white to Larva to 6cm. Sweetbay Silkmoth (Callosamia securifera) yellow-pink instead of bright yellow knobs over dorsum similar in appearance but a specialist on sweet bay. Its of abdomen and knobs along sides tend to be more white than blue (as in Cecropia) and are yellow abdominal tubercle over A8 is nearly three times as set in black bases (see page 246). long as wide and the red knobs over thorax are cylindrical (see page 246). OCCURRENCE Urban and suburban yards and lots, orchards, fencerows, woodlands, OCCURRENCE Woodlands and forests from Michigan, southern Ontario, and and forests from Canada south to Florida and central Texas. One generation with mature Massachusetts to northern Florida and Mississippi. One principal generation northward; caterpillars from late June through August over most of range. two broods in South with mature caterpillars from early June onward.
    [Show full text]
  • HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island
    HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges October 2017 Habitat Management Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the world's premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants. Since the designation of the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the System has grown to encompass more than 150 million acres, 556 national wildlife refuges and other units of the Refuge System, plus 38 wetland management districts. This page intentionally left blank. Habitat Management Plan for Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Habitat Management Plan (HMP) provides vision and specific guidance on enhancing and managing habitat for the resources of concern (ROC) at the refuge. The contributions of the refuge to ecosystem- and landscape-scale wildlife and biodiversity conservation, specifically migratory waterfowl, are incorporated into this HMP. The HMP is intended to provide habitat management direction for the next 15 years. The HMP is also needed to ensure that the refuge continues to conserve habitat for migratory birds in the context of climate change, which affects all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
    [Show full text]
  • Dragonflies of Northern Virginia
    WILDLIFE OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA Hayhurst’s Scallopwing Southern Broken-Dash Dreamy Duskywing Northern Broken-Dash Sleepy Duskywing Little Glassywing Juvenal’s Duskywing Sachem Horace’s Duskywing Delaware Skipper Wild Indigo Duskywing Hobomok Skipper Common Checkered Skipper Zabulon Skipper Common Sootywing Broad-winged Skipper Swarthy Skipper Dion Skipper Clouded Skipper Dun Skipper Least Skipper Dusted Skipper European Skipper Pepper and Salt Skipper Fiery Skipper Common Roadside Skipper Leonard’s Skipper Ocola Skipper Cobweb Skipper Peck’s Skipper Data Sources: H. Pavulaan, R. Smith, R. Smythe, Tawny-edged Skipper B. Steury (NPS), J. Waggener Crossline Skipper DRAGONFLIES OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA Following is a provisional list of dragonfly species that Other notations: shaded (species you should be able to might be found in appropriate habitats. find in a normal year). PETALTAILS (PETALURIDAE) Midland Clubtail Gray Petaltail Arrow Clubtail Russet-tipped Clubtail DARNERS (AESHNIDAE) Laura’s Clubtail Common Green Darner Elusive Clubtail Comet Darner Black-shouldered Spinyleg Swamp Darner Unicorn Clubtail Cyrano Darner Least Clubtail Harlequin Darner Southern Pygmy Clubtail Taper-tailed Darner Common Sanddragon Occelated Darner Eastern Ringtail Fawn Darner Springtime Darner SPIKETAILS (CORDULEGASTRIDAE) Shadow Darner Tiger Spiketail Twin-spotted Spiketail CLUBTAILS (GOMPHIDAE) Brown Spiketail Dragonhunter Arrowhead Spiketail Ashy Clubtail Lancet Clubtail CRUISERS (MACROMIIDAE) Spine-crowned
    [Show full text]
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 1 Table 1. Current Taxonomic Keys and the Level of Taxonomy Routinely U
    Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Table 1. Current taxonomic keys and the level of taxonomy routinely used by the Ohio EPA in streams and rivers for various macroinvertebrate taxonomic classifications. Genera that are reasonably considered to be monotypic in Ohio are also listed. Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Species Pennak 1989, Thorp & Rogers 2016 Porifera If no gemmules are present identify to family (Spongillidae). Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Cnidaria monotypic genera: Cordylophora caspia and Craspedacusta sowerbii Platyhelminthes Class (Turbellaria) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nemertea Phylum (Nemertea) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Phylum (Nematomorpha) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nematomorpha Paragordius varius monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Ectoprocta monotypic genera: Cristatella mucedo, Hyalinella punctata, Lophopodella carteri, Paludicella articulata, Pectinatella magnifica, Pottsiella erecta Entoprocta Urnatella gracilis monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Polychaeta Class (Polychaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Annelida Oligochaeta Subclass (Oligochaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Hirudinida Species Klemm 1982, Klemm et al. 2015 Anostraca Species Thorp & Rogers 2016 Species (Lynceus Laevicaudata Thorp & Rogers 2016 brachyurus) Spinicaudata Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Williams 1972, Thorp & Rogers Isopoda Genus 2016 Holsinger 1972, Thorp & Rogers Amphipoda Genus 2016 Gammaridae: Gammarus Species Holsinger 1972 Crustacea monotypic genera: Apocorophium lacustre, Echinogammarus ischnus, Synurella dentata Species (Taphromysis Mysida Thorp & Rogers 2016 louisianae) Crocker & Barr 1968; Jezerinac 1993, 1995; Jezerinac & Thoma 1984; Taylor 2000; Thoma et al. Cambaridae Species 2005; Thoma & Stocker 2009; Crandall & De Grave 2017; Glon et al. 2018 Species (Palaemon Pennak 1989, Palaemonidae kadiakensis) Thorp & Rogers 2016 1 Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Informal grouping of the Arachnida Hydrachnidia Smith 2001 water mites Genus Morse et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions Toward a Lepidoptera (Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, Thyrididae, Drepanoidea, Geometro
    Contributions Toward a Lepidoptera (Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, Thyrididae, Drepanoidea, Geometroidea, Mimalonoidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea, & Noctuoidea) Biodiversity Inventory of the University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Lab Hugo L. Kons Jr. Last Update: June 2001 Abstract A systematic check list of 489 species of Lepidoptera collected in the University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Lab is presented, including 464 species in the superfamilies Drepanoidea, Geometroidea, Mimalonoidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea, and Noctuoidea. Taxa recorded in Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, and Thyrididae are also included. Moth taxa were collected at ultraviolet lights, bait, introduced Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), and by netting specimens. A list of taxa recorded feeding on P. notatum is presented. Introduction The University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Laboratory (NATL) contains 40 acres of natural habitats maintained for scientific research, conservation, and teaching purposes. Habitat types present include hammock, upland pine, disturbed open field, cat tail marsh, and shallow pond. An active management plan has been developed for this area, including prescribed burning to restore the upland pine community and establishment of plots to study succession (http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/natl.htm). The site is a popular collecting locality for student and scientific collections. The author has done extensive collecting and field work at NATL, and two previous reports have resulted from this work, including: a biodiversity inventory of the butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea & Papilionoidea) of NATL (Kons 1999), and an ecological study of Hermeuptychia hermes (F.) and Megisto cymela (Cram.) in NATL habitats (Kons 1998). Other workers have posted NATL check lists for Ichneumonidae, Sphecidae, Tettigoniidae, and Gryllidae (http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/insect.htm).
    [Show full text]
  • Dytiscidae and Noteridae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). VI
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 28 Number 1 - Spring 1995 Number 1 - Spring 1995 Article 1 April 1995 Dytiscidae and Noteridae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). VI. Distribution, Habitat, Life Cycle, and Identification of Species of Hydroporus Clairville Sensu Lato (Hydroporinae) William L. Hilsenhoff University of Wisconsin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Hilsenhoff, William L. 1995. "Dytiscidae and Noteridae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). VI. Distribution, Habitat, Life Cycle, and Identification of Species of Hydroporus Clairville Sensu Lato (Hydroporinae)," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 28 (1) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol28/iss1/1 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Hilsenhoff: Dytiscidae and Noteridae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). VI. Distribut 1995 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOlOGIST DYTISCIDAE AND NOTERIDAE OF WISCONSII\J (COLEOPTERA). VI. DISTRIBUTION, HABITAT, LIFE CYCLE, AND IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES OF HYDROPORUS CLAIRVILLE SENSU LATO! (HYDROPORINAE) William L. Hilsenhoff2 ABSTRACT Thirty-four species ofHydroporus s.l. were collected in Wisconsin over the past 32 years, including 20 of Hydroporus s.s., 7 of Neoporus, 4 of Hydroporus oblitus-group, 2 of Heterosternuta, and 1 of Sanfilippodytes. Species keys and notes on identification are provided for adults of species that occur or may occur in Wisconsin. Information on distribution and abundance in Wisconsin, habitat, and life cycle is provided for each species based on a study of 27,310 adults.
    [Show full text]
  • Sugarberry Plant Fact Sheet
    Plant Fact Sheet Wildlife: Many species of songbirds including SUGARBERRY mockingbirds and robins eat the fruit and use the tree for nesting habitat. It is a larval and nectar host for two Celtis laevigata Willd. butterflies: hackberry emperor (Asterocampa celtis) and Plant Symbol = CELA American snout (Libytheana carineta). White-tailed deer browse the leaves and fruit. Contributed by: USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program Other Uses: Sugarberry is used for furniture, athletic goods, firewood, and plywood. It has limited use for flooring, creating, and for wood posts. It is used as an ornamental and as a street tree in residential areas in the lower South Status Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s current status (e.g. threatened or endangered species, state noxious status, and wetland indicator values). Description and Adaptation Sugarberry is a native tree that can grow up to 80 feet in height and up to 3 feet in diameter. It is a short lived tree, probably living not more than 150 years. It has a broad crown formed by spreading branches that are often drooped. The bark is light gray in color and can be smooth or covered with corky warts. The branchlets are covered with short hairs at first and eventually they become smooth. The leaves are alternated, simple, and slightly serrate. The leaves are 2-4 inches long and 1 to 2 Robert H. Mohlenbrock. USDA SCS, 1989. Midwest wetland flora: inches wide. The lance-shaped leaves gradually taper to a Field office illustrated guide to plant species.
    [Show full text]