DOCSLIB.ORG

Fens Biodiversity Audit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fens Biodiversity Audit Fens Biodiversity Audit Cover photos: Wodwalton Fen, Steven Falk Ouse Washes, Wildlife Trust BCN A rare reed beetle, Plateumaris braccata , Brian Eversham A wetland soldier beetle, Silis ruficollis , Brian Eversham Orb-web Spider, Araneus marmoreus , Brian Eversham Fen Violet, Brian Eversham Fen Ragwort, Brian Eversham A wetland ground beetle, Chlaenius vestitus , Brian Eversham Hoverfly, Tropida scita , Brian Eversham Dactylorhiza incarnata ssp. ochroleucon , Peter Walker Fens Biodiversity Audit Part 1 & 2 - Methodology and Results H.L. Mossman, C.J. Panter, P.M. Dolman School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Acknowledgements This work was carried out in conjunction with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Environmental Records Centre (CPERC) and Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust. The work was funded by Natural England, Environment Agency, National Trust, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership and the Norfolk Biodiveristy Partnership. We are very grateful to the members of the Fens for the Future Steering Group for their advice and support. We are indebted to Charlie Barnes, Rosie Blackman, Jon Cole, Brian Eversham, Annette Faulkner, Ian Dawson, Martin Horlock, Peter Kirby, Nick Millar, Nick Owens, Val Perrin, Ivan Perry, John Showers, David Sheppard, Alan Stubbs and Jon Webb. We are also very grateful to the many other individuals who provided invaluable help, including biological records, autecological information, and information on management outcomes, without these generous contributions this work would not have been possible. In particular we acknowledge the information and expertise provided by site managers critical to preparation of part 3 of the report. We also acknowledge the invaluable contributions of many hundreds of additional recorders and members of the public who over many years have submitted information to the Local Records Centres, county and national taxonomic recording schemes, or NBN. 1 Contents Part 1 - Methodology .................................................................................................................... 4 Study area ................................................................................................................................. 4 Data collation ............................................................................................................................ 6 Database refinement ................................................................................................................ 6 Cut-off date ............................................................................................................................... 7 Data mapping and analysis ....................................................................................................... 7 Definition of conservation priority species ............................................................................... 7 Definition of Fens Specialist species ......................................................................................... 8 Expert stakeholder validation of collated priority taxa .......................................................... 10 Extinct and extirpated taxa ..................................................................................................... 11 Collating and synthesising species habitat associations and ecological requirements .......... 12 Habitat associations ............................................................................................................ 12 Ecological structures and processes ................................................................................... 13 Sources of ecological information ...................................................................................... 13 Part 2 - Results ............................................................................................................................ 14 Biodiversity in the Fens ........................................................................................................... 14 Recording coverage ............................................................................................................ 14 Distribution of biodiversity in the Fens .............................................................................. 15 Fen Regional Specialists .......................................................................................................... 23 Extinctions in the Fens ............................................................................................................ 27 Habitat Associations ............................................................................................................... 31 Key habitats for Priority Biodiversity .................................................................................. 31 Key habitats for Fens Specialists ......................................................................................... 31 Guild Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 34 Successional and hydrological conditions .......................................................................... 34 Classification of management guilds .................................................................................. 35 Management guilds ................................................................................................................ 41 Guild Descriptions ................................................................................................................... 44 1. Broad guild: Open – Fast-flowing Water ........................................................................ 44 2. Broad guild: Open – Aquatic ........................................................................................... 44 6. Broad guild: Open – Submerged margins ....................................................................... 47 11. Broad guild: Open woodland – Aquatic ........................................................................ 48 12. Broad guild: Open – Littoral .......................................................................................... 48 18. Broad guild: Scattered scrub – Littoral – Sward mosaics.............................................. 49 19. Broad guild: Open – Terrestrial littoral ......................................................................... 50 24. Broad guild: Closed-canopywood/scrub – Littoral ....................................................... 53 25. Broad guild: Open to closed-canopy – Littoral ............................................................. 53 26. Broad guild: Open – Wet............................................................................................... 53 Broad guild: Scattered scrub – Wet .................................................................................... 57 36. Broad guild: Carr – Wet................................................................................................. 57 39. Broad guild: Open to closed-canopy – Wet .................................................................. 60 41. Broad guild: Open – Seasonally wet ............................................................................. 60 47. Broad guild: Open – Wet to damp – detritus ............................................................... 63 48. Broad guild: Open woodland – Seasonally wet ............................................................ 63 49. Broad guild: Closed-canopy woodland – Damp ............................................................ 63 50. Broad guild: Open – Shaded ......................................................................................... 63 2 51. Broad guild: Open – Mesic ............................................................................................ 66 64. Broad guild: Scattered scrub – Mesic ........................................................................... 69 65. Broad guild: Open and Scrub – Mesic ........................................................................... 69 66. Broad guild: Trees in open conditions – Mesic ............................................................. 69 74. Broad guild: Closed-canopy woodland – Mesic ............................................................ 71 79. Broad guild: Tree/Shrub cover – Mesic ........................................................................ 72 84. Broad guild: Open to closed-canopy – Mesic ............................................................... 73 Broad guild: Open – Xeric ................................................................................................... 75 88. Broad guild: Open – Wet to dry .................................................................................... 77 90. Broad guild: Tree/Shrub cover – Wet or dry ................................................................ 77 91. Broad guild: Closed-canopy woodland – Wet to dry – Detritus/fungi ......................... 77 92. Broad guild: Open to closed-canopy – Carrion ............................................................. 77 93. Broad guild: Open to closed-canopy – Detritus/fungi .................................................. 78 94. Broad guild: Subterranean ............................................................................................ 78 96. Broad guild: Saltmarsh .................................................................................................. 78 99.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Methods and Work Profile
    REVIEW OF THE KNOWN AND POTENTIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF PHYTOPHTHORA AND THE LIKELY IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES JANUARY 2011 Simon Conyers Kate Somerwill Carmel Ramwell John Hughes Ruth Laybourn Naomi Jones Food and Environment Research Agency Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ 2 CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 15 2. Review of the potential impacts on species of higher trophic groups .................... 16 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 44 3. Review of the potential impacts on ecosystem services .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Catalogue of Coleoptera Specimens with Potential Forensic Interest in the Goulandris Natural History Museum Collection
    ENTOMOLOGIA HELLENICA Vol. 25, 2016 A catalogue of Coleoptera specimens with potential forensic interest in the Goulandris Natural History Museum collection Dimaki Maria Goulandris Natural History Museum, 100 Othonos St. 14562 Kifissia, Greece Anagnou-Veroniki Maria Makariou 13, 15343 Aghia Paraskevi (Athens), Greece Tylianakis Jason Zoology Department, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/eh.11549 Copyright © 2017 Maria Dimaki, Maria Anagnou- Veroniki, Jason Tylianakis To cite this article: Dimaki, M., Anagnou-Veroniki, M., & Tylianakis, J. (2016). A catalogue of Coleoptera specimens with potential forensic interest in the Goulandris Natural History Museum collection. ENTOMOLOGIA HELLENICA, 25(2), 31-38. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/eh.11549 http://epublishing.ekt.gr | e-Publisher: EKT | Downloaded at 27/12/2018 06:22:38 | ENTOMOLOGIA HELLENICA 25 (2016): 31-38 Received 15 March 2016 Accepted 12 December 2016 Available online 3 February 2017 A catalogue of Coleoptera specimens with potential forensic interest in the Goulandris Natural History Museum collection MARIA DIMAKI1’*, MARIA ANAGNOU-VERONIKI2 AND JASON TYLIANAKIS3 1Goulandris Natural History Museum, 100 Othonos St. 14562 Kifissia, Greece 2Makariou 13, 15343 Aghia Paraskevi (Athens), Greece 3Zoology Department, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand ABSTRACT This paper presents a catalogue of the Coleoptera specimens in the Goulandris Natural History Museum collection that have potential forensic interest. Forensic entomology can help to estimate the time elapsed since death by studying the necrophagous insects collected on a cadaver and its surroundings. In this paper forty eight species (369 specimens) are listed that belong to seven families: Silphidae (3 species), Staphylinidae (6 species), Histeridae (11 species), Anobiidae (4 species), Cleridae (6 species), Dermestidae (14 species), and Nitidulidae (4 species).
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Aquatic and Semiaquatic Coleoptera from the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, Cook County, Minnesota
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 46 Numbers 1 & 2 - Spring/Summer 2013 Numbers Article 7 1 & 2 - Spring/Summer 2013 April 2013 Inventory of Aquatic and Semiaquatic Coleoptera from the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, Cook County, Minnesota David B. MacLean Youngstown State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation MacLean, David B. 2013. "Inventory of Aquatic and Semiaquatic Coleoptera from the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, Cook County, Minnesota," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 46 (1) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol46/iss1/7 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]. MacLean: Inventory of Aquatic and Semiaquatic Coleoptera from the Grand Po 104 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Vol. 46, Nos. 1 - 2 Inventory of Aquatic and Semiaquatic Coleoptera from the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, Cook County, Minnesota David B. MacLean1 Abstract Collections of aquatic invertebrates from the Grand Portage Indian Res- ervation (Cook County, Minnesota) during 2001 – 2012 resulted in 9 families, 43 genera and 112 species of aquatic and semiaquatic Coleoptera. The Dytisci- dae had the most species (53), followed by Hydrophilidae (20), Gyrinidae (14), Haliplidae (8), Chrysomelidae (7), Elmidae (3) and Curculionidae (5). The families Helodidae and Heteroceridae were each represented by a single spe- cies. Seventy seven percent of species were considered rare or uncommon (1 - 10 records), twenty percent common (11 - 100 records) and only three percent abundant (more than 100 records).
    [Show full text]
  • Local and Regional Influences on Arthropod Community
    LOCAL AND REGIONAL INFLUENCES ON ARTHROPOD COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND SPECIES COMPOSITION ON METROSIDEROS POLYMORPHA IN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ZOOLOGY (ECOLOGY, EVOLUTION AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGy) AUGUST 2004 By Daniel S. Gruner Dissertation Committee: Andrew D. Taylor, Chairperson John J. Ewel David Foote Leonard H. Freed Robert A. Kinzie Daniel Blaine © Copyright 2004 by Daniel Stephen Gruner All Rights Reserved. 111 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to all the Hawaiian arthropods who gave their lives for the advancement ofscience and conservation. IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Fellowship support was provided through the Science to Achieve Results program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and training grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the National Science Foundation (DGE-9355055 & DUE-9979656) to the Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology (EECB) Program of the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. I was also supported by research assistantships through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (A.D. Taylor) and the Water Resources Research Center (RA. Kay). I am grateful for scholarships from the Watson T. Yoshimoto Foundation and the ARCS Foundation, and research grants from the EECB Program, Sigma Xi, the Hawai'i Audubon Society, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation (through the Secretariat for Conservation Biology), and the NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant program (DEB-0073055). The Environmental Leadership Program provided important training, funds, and community, and I am fortunate to be involved with this network.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from Genome Skimming of Arthropod-Preserving Ethanol Benjamin Linard, P
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Archive Ouverte en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication Lessons from genome skimming of arthropod-preserving ethanol Benjamin Linard, P. Arribas, C. Andújar, A. Crampton-Platt, A. P. Vogler To cite this version: Benjamin Linard, P. Arribas, C. Andújar, A. Crampton-Platt, A. P. Vogler. Lessons from genome skimming of arthropod-preserving ethanol. Molecular Ecology Resources, Wiley/Blackwell, 2016, 16 (6), pp.1365-1377. 10.1111/1755-0998.12539. hal-01636888 HAL Id: hal-01636888 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01636888 Submitted on 17 Jan 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 1 Lessons from genome skimming of arthropod-preserving 2 ethanol 3 Linard B.*1,4, Arribas P.*1,2,5, Andújar C.1,2, Crampton-Platt A.1,3, Vogler A.P. 1,2 4 5 1 Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 6 5BD, UK, 7 2 Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot 8 SL5 7PY, UK, 9 3 Department
    [Show full text]
  • Studies of the Laboulbeniomycetes: Diversity, Evolution, and Patterns of Speciation
    Studies of the Laboulbeniomycetes: Diversity, Evolution, and Patterns of Speciation The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:40049989 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA ! STUDIES OF THE LABOULBENIOMYCETES: DIVERSITY, EVOLUTION, AND PATTERNS OF SPECIATION A dissertation presented by DANNY HAELEWATERS to THE DEPARTMENT OF ORGANISMIC AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Biology HARVARD UNIVERSITY Cambridge, Massachusetts April 2018 ! ! © 2018 – Danny Haelewaters All rights reserved. ! ! Dissertation Advisor: Professor Donald H. Pfister Danny Haelewaters STUDIES OF THE LABOULBENIOMYCETES: DIVERSITY, EVOLUTION, AND PATTERNS OF SPECIATION ABSTRACT CHAPTER 1: Laboulbeniales is one of the most morphologically and ecologically distinct orders of Ascomycota. These microscopic fungi are characterized by an ectoparasitic lifestyle on arthropods, determinate growth, lack of asexual state, high species richness and intractability to culture. DNA extraction and PCR amplification have proven difficult for multiple reasons. DNA isolation techniques and commercially available kits are tested enabling efficient and rapid genetic analysis of Laboulbeniales fungi. Success rates for the different techniques on different taxa are presented and discussed in the light of difficulties with micromanipulation, preservation techniques and negative results. CHAPTER 2: The class Laboulbeniomycetes comprises biotrophic parasites associated with arthropods and fungi.
    [Show full text]
  • Dipterists Forum
    BULLETIN OF THE Dipterists Forum Bulletin No. 76 Autumn 2013 Affiliated to the British Entomological and Natural History Society Bulletin No. 76 Autumn 2013 ISSN 1358-5029 Editorial panel Bulletin Editor Darwyn Sumner Assistant Editor Judy Webb Dipterists Forum Officers Chairman Martin Drake Vice Chairman Stuart Ball Secretary John Kramer Meetings Treasurer Howard Bentley Please use the Booking Form included in this Bulletin or downloaded from our Membership Sec. John Showers website Field Meetings Sec. Roger Morris Field Meetings Indoor Meetings Sec. Duncan Sivell Roger Morris 7 Vine Street, Stamford, Lincolnshire PE9 1QE Publicity Officer Erica McAlister [email protected] Conservation Officer Rob Wolton Workshops & Indoor Meetings Organiser Duncan Sivell Ordinary Members Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD [email protected] Chris Spilling, Malcolm Smart, Mick Parker Nathan Medd, John Ismay, vacancy Bulletin contributions Unelected Members Please refer to guide notes in this Bulletin for details of how to contribute and send your material to both of the following: Dipterists Digest Editor Peter Chandler Dipterists Bulletin Editor Darwyn Sumner Secretary 122, Link Road, Anstey, Charnwood, Leicestershire LE7 7BX. John Kramer Tel. 0116 212 5075 31 Ash Tree Road, Oadby, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE2 5TE. [email protected] [email protected] Assistant Editor Treasurer Judy Webb Howard Bentley 2 Dorchester Court, Blenheim Road, Kidlington, Oxon. OX5 2JT. 37, Biddenden Close, Bearsted, Maidstone, Kent. ME15 8JP Tel. 01865 377487 Tel. 01622 739452 [email protected] [email protected] Conservation Dipterists Digest contributions Robert Wolton Locks Park Farm, Hatherleigh, Oakhampton, Devon EX20 3LZ Dipterists Digest Editor Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • Nitrogen Content in Riparian Arthropods Is Most Dependent on Allometry and Order
    Wiesenborn: Nitrogen Contents in Riparian Arthropods 71 NITROGEN CONTENT IN RIPARIAN ARTHROPODS IS MOST DEPENDENT ON ALLOMETRY AND ORDER WILLIAM D. WIESENBORN U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional Office, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City, NV 89006 ABSTRACT I investigated the contributions of body mass, order, family, and trophic level to nitrogen (N) content in riparian spiders and insects collected near the Colorado River in western Arizona. Most variation (97.2%) in N mass among arthropods was associated with the allometric effects of body mass. Nitrogen mass increased exponentially as body dry-mass increased. Significant variation (20.7%) in N mass adjusted for body mass was explained by arthropod order. Ad- justed N mass was highest in Orthoptera, Hymenoptera, Araneae, and Odonata and lowest in Coleoptera. Classifying arthropods by family compared with order did not explain signifi- cantly more variation (22.1%) in N content. Herbivore, predator, and detritivore trophic-levels across orders explained little variation (4.3%) in N mass adjusted for body mass. Within or- ders, N content differed only among trophic levels of Diptera. Adjusted N mass was highest in predaceous flies, intermediate in detritivorous flies, and lowest in phytophagous flies. Nitro- gen content in riparian spiders and insects is most dependent on allometry and order and least dependent on trophic level. I suggest the effects of allometry and order are due to exoskeleton thickness and composition. Foraging by vertebrate predators, such as insectivorous birds, may be affected by variation in N content among riparian arthropods. Key Words: nutrients, spiders, insects, trophic level, exoskeleton, cuticle RESUMEN Se investiguo las contribuciones de la masa de cuerpo, orden, familia y el nivel trófico al con- tenido de nitógeno (N) en arañas e insectos riparianos (que viven en la orilla del rio u otro cuerpo de agua) recolectadaos cerca del Rio Colorado en el oeste del estado de Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • The Curculionoidea of the Maltese Islands (Central Mediterranean) (Coleoptera)
    BULLETIN OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MALTA (2010) Vol. 3 : 55-143 The Curculionoidea of the Maltese Islands (Central Mediterranean) (Coleoptera) David MIFSUD1 & Enzo COLONNELLI2 ABSTRACT. The Curculionoidea of the families Anthribidae, Rhynchitidae, Apionidae, Nanophyidae, Brachyceridae, Curculionidae, Erirhinidae, Raymondionymidae, Dryophthoridae and Scolytidae from the Maltese islands are reviewed. A total of 182 species are included, of which the following 51 species represent new records for this archipelago: Araecerus fasciculatus and Noxius curtirostris in Anthribidae; Protapion interjectum and Taeniapion rufulum in Apionidae; Corimalia centromaculata and C. tamarisci in Nanophyidae; Amaurorhinus bewickianus, A. sp. nr. paganettii, Brachypera fallax, B. lunata, B. zoilus, Ceutorhynchus leprieuri, Charagmus gressorius, Coniatus tamarisci, Coniocleonus pseudobliquus, Conorhynchus brevirostris, Cosmobaris alboseriata, C. scolopacea, Derelomus chamaeropis, Echinodera sp. nr. variegata, Hypera sp. nr. tenuirostris, Hypurus bertrandi, Larinus scolymi, Leptolepurus meridionalis, Limobius mixtus, Lixus brevirostris, L. punctiventris, L. vilis, Naupactus cervinus, Otiorhynchus armatus, O. liguricus, Rhamphus oxyacanthae, Rhinusa antirrhini, R. herbarum, R. moroderi, Sharpia rubida, Sibinia femoralis, Smicronyx albosquamosus, S. brevicornis, S. rufipennis, Stenocarus ruficornis, Styphloderes exsculptus, Trichosirocalus centrimacula, Tychius argentatus, T. bicolor, T. pauperculus and T. pusillus in Curculionidae; Sitophilus zeamais and
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Diversity Has Contrasting Effects on Herbivore and Parasitoid
    Received: 25 May 2016 | Revised: 1 May 2017 | Accepted: 8 May 2017 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3142 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Plant diversity has contrasting effects on herbivore and parasitoid abundance in Centaurea jacea flower heads Norma Nitschke1 | Eric Allan2 | Helmut Zwölfer3 | Lysett Wagner1 | Sylvia Creutzburg1 | Hannes Baur4,5 | Stefan Schmidt6 | Wolfgang W. Weisser1 1Institute of Ecology, Friedrich-Schiller- University, Jena, Germany Abstract 2Institute of Plant Sciences, University of High biodiversity is known to increase many ecosystem functions, but studies investi- Bern, Bern, Switzerland gating biodiversity effects have more rarely looked at multi- trophic interactions. We 3Department for Animal Ecology I, University studied a tri- trophic system composed of Centaurea jacea (brown knapweed), its flower of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany 4Abteilung Wirbellose Tiere, Naturhistorisches head- infesting tephritid fruit flies and their hymenopteran parasitoids, in a grassland Museum Bern, Bern, Switzerland biodiversity experiment. We aimed to disentangle the importance of direct effects of 5 Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University plant diversity (through changes in apparency and resource availability) from indirect of Bern, Bern, Switzerland effects (mediated by host plant quality and performance). To do this, we compared 6Bavarian State Collection of Zoology (ZSM), Munich, Germany insect communities in C. jacea transplants, whose growth was influenced by the sur- rounding plant communities (and where direct and indirect effects can occur), with Correspondence Norma Nitschke, Institute of Ecology, potted C. jacea plants, which do not compete with the surrounding plant community Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena, Germany. (and where only direct effects are possible). Tephritid infestation rate and insect load, Email: [email protected] mainly of the dominant species Chaetorellia jaceae, decreased with increasing plant Present address species and functional group richness.
    [Show full text]
  • Membership 2005: Year in Review
    ESA Newsletter Information for the Members of the Entomological Society of America MARCH 2006 • VOLUME 29, NUMBER 3 Membership 2005: Year in Review By Chris Stelzig, Director of Membership we get too far into the year, I wanted to fin- not withstanding, this is a great, inexpensive and Marketing ish the update on 2005. way to get general feedback from you on a Sections and Branches—The Pacific wide range of topics. Headquarters uses this For the first time since 1992, ESA posted Branch saw the most growth when we com- data for planning purposes. In the Member- two back-to-back years of membership pare 2004 to 2005 with a 12% increase in ship Toolbox on the website (http://www. growth. This is a milestone, especially when membership. Only the Southeastern Branch entsoc.org/membership/toolbox/support_ coupled with the fact that just five years ago saw an actual decline, and that was merely esa/survey.htm), you will find a list of all our we were losing members by the hundreds by one person (a case in point to say that active surveys and an invitation to partici- every year and our funds were quickly dry- EVERY membership renewal is important!). pate in one. ing up. You’ve heard me say “Strength in Section B saw the largest growth last year, Performance—About 80% of members Numbers” for nearly five years now. The leaping more than 10%. who responded felt that they were satisfied reason for this is that membership is the Membership Types—As I mentioned with performance from ESA headquarters.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Insect Conditions in the United States 1966
    FOREST INSECT CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 1966 FOREST SERVICE ' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreword This report is the 18th annual account of the scope, severity, and trend of the more important forest insect infestations in the United States, and of the programs undertaken to check resulting damage and loss. It is compiled primarily for managers of public and private forest lands, but has become useful to students and others interested in outbreak trends and in the location and extent of pest populations. The report also makes possible n greater awareness of the insect prob­ lem and of losses to the timber resource. The opening section highlights the more important conditions Nationwide, and each section that pertains to a forest region is prefaced by its own brief summary. Under the Federal Forest Pest Control Act, a sharing by Federal and State Governments the costs of surveys and control is resulting in a stronger program of forest insect and disease detection and evaluation surveys on non-Federal lands. As more States avail themselves of this financial assistance from the Federal Government, damage and loss from forest insects will become less. The screening and testing of nonpersistent pesticides for use in suppressing forest defoliators continued in 1966. The carbamate insecticide Zectran in a pilot study of its effectiveness against the spruce budworm in Montana and Idaho appeared both successful and safe. More extensive 'tests are planned for 1967. Since only the smallest of the spray droplets reach the target, plans call for reducing the spray to a fine mist. The course of the fine spray, resulting from diffusion and atmospheric currents, will be tracked by lidar, a radar-laser combination.
    [Show full text]