DOCSLIB.ORG

Reference Conditions for Streams in the Grand Prairie Natural Division of Illinois

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reference Conditions for Streams in the Grand Prairie Natural Division of Illinois REFERENCE CONDITIONS FOR STREAMS IN THE GRAND PRAIRIE NATURAL DIVISION OF ILLINOIS BY BRANDI SANGUNETT B.S., Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 2000 B.A., Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 2000 THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2005 Urbana, Illinois © 2005 by Brandi Sangunett. All rights reserved. Abstract As part of the Critical Trends Assessment Program (CTAP) of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 18 potential reference quality stream reaches in the Grand Prairie Natural Division were evaluated in May 2004 and 2005. This agriculturally dominated region, located in east central Illinois, is among the most highly modified in the state. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency high quality fish stations, Illinois Natural History Survey insect collection data, and best professional knowledge were used to choose which streams to evaluate. The quality of these sites was assessed using the species richness of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera insect orders (EPT), a modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), and a 12 parameter Habitat Quality Index (HQI). Reference quality streams were compared to 21 randomly selected meandering and 30 randomly selected channelized streams which were assessed by the Critical Trends Assessment Program between 1997 and 2001. The results from this research indicate that reference streams were consistently of higher quality than random streams, and are representative of the biotic potential of the Grand Prairie. A GLM ANOVA showed that both channel alteration and stream size were significant factors governing stream quality. Streams with meandering courses and a larger wetted width were generally healthier in terms of EPT, HBI, and HQI. However, HBI appeared to be a less sensitive measure of stream quality. The extent of stream channelization, especially in terms of loss of pool variability and sinuosity, appeared to be a major cause of degradation in stream quality. A regionally specific rating scale now exists for the Grand Prairie that puts 51 randomly sampled streams into context. The findings of this research are consistent with iii earlier findings for statewide random sites reported by CTAP. Overall, 31.4% of randomly chosen streams in the region were classified as having fair stream quality, 47.1% were of poor condition, 13.7% were good quality, and 7.8% were excellent quality (Fig. 27). This study has provided additional evidence that stream quality in Illinois is low and is a result of extensive channel alteration. iv To my husband Kumar, whose tireless patience and unyielding support were instrumental in the completion of this project. v Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. R. Edward DeWalt, and my committee members Dr. Edwin E. Herricks, and Dr. Douglas M. Johnston for their advice and guidance. The Illinois Natural History Survey - Center for Biodiversity, University of Illinois - Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Illinois Department of Natural Resources - Critical Trends Assessment Program, and Illinois Chapter of the Nature Conservancy - Mackinaw River Project have all provided financial support. vi Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures......................................................................................................................x Chapter 1: Introduction........................................................................................................1 Chapter 2: Literature Review...............................................................................................3 Illinois Streams: Historical vs. Current Condition...................................................3 Biomonitoring Using Aquatic Macroinvertebrates..................................................8 Stream Reference Conditions ................................................................................11 Description of Study Area .....................................................................................15 Critical Trends Assessment Program.....................................................................17 Comparison of Historic and Contemporary EPT Specimens ................................20 Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................23 Selection of Reference Streams .............................................................................23 Sample Collection and Preservation ......................................................................26 Biological Assessment...........................................................................................26 Habitat Assessment................................................................................................26 Chemical Assessment ............................................................................................27 Functional Feeding Groups....................................................................................28 Watershed Land Cover Analysis ...........................................................................28 Comparison of Reference Streams and Random Streams .....................................29 Development of a Rating Scale..............................................................................30 Chapter 4: Results..............................................................................................................32 Stream Quality Metrics..........................................................................................32 EPT taxa richness ......................................................................................32 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index ..............................................................................35 Habitat Quality Index ................................................................................37 Individual Habitat Parameters................................................................................39 Functional Feeding Groups....................................................................................44 Watershed Land Cover Analysis ...........................................................................46 Conductivity...........................................................................................................49 Percent of Fine Sediment Particles ........................................................................51 Chapter 5: Discussion ........................................................................................................52 Site Selection .........................................................................................................52 Stream Quality Metrics..........................................................................................52 Individual Habitat Parameters................................................................................54 Functional Feeding Groups....................................................................................54 Watershed Land Cover Analysis ...........................................................................55 Conductivity...........................................................................................................56 Percent of Fine Sediment Particles ........................................................................56 vii Ratings Scale..........................................................................................................57 Comparison to Other Areas ...................................................................................60 References..........................................................................................................................62 Appendix 1: EPT taxa and abundance taken at 18 reference streams, May 2004 and 2005 in the Grand Prairie Natural Division of Illinois ................................................68 Appendix 2. Random streams sampled by the Critical Trends Assessment Program, 1997-2001, in the Grand Prairie Natural Division of Illinois ......................................74 Appendix 3: Calculation of multimetric index and overall quality rating for randomly chosen streams in the Grand Prairie Natural Division of Illinois ................................76 Curriculum Vitae ...............................................................................................................78 viii List of Tables Table 1. Comparison land cover between presettlement and contemporary times in the Grand Prairie Natural Division of Illinois. ....................................................................6 Table 2. Land cover of the 10 major river basins in the Grand Prairie Section of the Grand Prairie Natural Division of Illinois ...................................................................17 Table 3. Selected chemical parameters and approximate width of potential reference streams in the Grand Prairie Natural Division of Illinois ............................................25 Table 4. Description of individual habitat parameters used to assess reference and random streams in the Grand Prairie Natural Division of Illinois...............................27 Table 5. Variables in the data matrix for GLM ANOVA of reference and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • TB142: Mayflies of Maine: an Annotated Faunal List
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Technical Bulletins Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 4-1-1991 TB142: Mayflies of aine:M An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian K. Elizabeth Gibbs Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Burian, S.K., and K.E. Gibbs. 1991. Mayflies of Maine: An annotated faunal list. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 142. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Bulletins by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSN 0734-9556 Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Technical Bulletin 142 April 1991 MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian Assistant Professor Department of Biology, Southern Connecticut State University New Haven, CT 06515 and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Associate Professor Department of Entomology University of Maine Orono, Maine 04469 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this project was provided by the State of Maine Departments of Environmental Protection, and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; a University of Maine New England, Atlantic Provinces, and Quebec Fellow­ ship to S. K. Burian; and the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Dr. William L. Peters and Jan Peters, Florida A & M University, pro­ vided support and advice throughout the project and we especially appreci­ ated the opportunity for S.K. Burian to work in their laboratory and stay in their home in Tallahassee, Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005
    MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AIR AND LAND PROTECTION DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROGRAM Standard Operating Procedures SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005 SOP TITLE: Taxonomic Levels for Macroinvertebrate Identifications WRITTEN BY: Randy Sarver, WQMS, ESP APPROVED BY: Earl Pabst, Director, ESP SUMMARY OF REVISIONS: Changes to reflect new taxa and current taxonomy APPLICABILITY: Applies to Water Quality Monitoring Section personnel who perform community level surveys of aquatic macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams of Missouri . DISTRIBUTION: MoDNR Intranet ESP SOP Coordinator RECERTIFICATION RECORD: Date Reviewed Initials Page 1 of 30 MDNR-WQMS-209 Effective Date: 05/31/05 Page 2 of 30 1.0 GENERAL OVERVIEW 1.1 This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is designed to be used as a reference by biologists who analyze aquatic macroinvertebrate samples from Missouri. Its purpose is to establish consistent levels of taxonomic resolution among agency, academic and other biologists. The information in this SOP has been established by researching current taxonomic literature. It should assist an experienced aquatic biologist to identify organisms from aquatic surveys to a consistent and reliable level. The criteria used to set the level of taxonomy beyond the genus level are the systematic treatment of the genus by a professional taxonomist and the availability of a published key. 1.2 The consistency in macroinvertebrate identification allowed by this document is important regardless of whether one person is conducting an aquatic survey over a period of time or multiple investigators wish to compare results. It is especially important to provide guidance on the level of taxonomic identification when calculating metrics that depend upon the number of taxa.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North America
    Insects of Western North America 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America. 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa by Boris C. Kondratieff, Luke Myers, and Whitney S. Cranshaw C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 22, 2011 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 3 Cover Photo Credits: Whitney S. Cranshaw. Females of the blow fly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fab.) laying eggs on an animal carcass on Fort Sill, Oklahoma. 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, Colorado, 80523-1177. Copyrighted 2011 4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Wiscoy Creek, 2015
    WISCOY CREEK Biological Stream Assessment April 1, 2015 STREAM BIOMONITORING UNIT 425 Jordan Rd, Troy, NY 12180 P: (518) 285-5627 | F: (518) 285-5601 | [email protected] www.dec.ny.gov BIOLOGICAL STREAM ASSESSMENT Wiscoy Creek Wyoming and Allegany Counties, New York Genesee River Basin Survey date: June 25-26, 2014 Report date: April 1, 2015 Alexander J. Smith Elizabeth A. Mosher Mirian Calderon Jeff L. Lojpersberger Diana L. Heitzman Brian T. Duffy Margaret A. Novak Stream Biomonitoring Unit Bureau of Water Assessment and Management Division of Water NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, New York www.dec.ny.gov For additional information regarding this report please contact: Alexander J. Smith, PhD New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Stream Biomonitoring Unit 425 Jordan Road, Troy, NY 12180 [email protected] ph 518-285-5627 fx 518-285-5601 Table of Contents Stream ............................................................................................................................................. 1 River Basin...................................................................................................................................... 1 Reach............................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Results and Conclusions ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MWRD 2010 Chicago Waterways Benthic Report
    FINAL A STUDY OF THE BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY IN SELECTED CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA WATERWAYS DURING 2010 Prepared for: Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Monitoring and Research Department Prepared by: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 444 Lake Cook Road, Suite 18 Deerfield, IL 60015 April 2012 EA Project 61755.03 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 2. METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 2010 Results ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Calumet Watershed .................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1.1 Calumet River .......................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1.2 Little Calumet River ................................................................ 3-2 3.1.1.3 Calumet-Sag Channel .............................................................. 3-2 3.1.2 North Branch Chicago River Watershed ................................................. 3-3 3.1.2.1 North Shore Channel ............................................................... 3-3 3.1.2.2 North Branch of the Chicago River ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Tennessee, with a Review of the Possibly Threatened Species Occurring Within the State
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by ValpoScholar The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 29 Number 4 - Summer 1996 Number 4 - Summer Article 1 1996 December 1996 The Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Tennessee, With a Review of the Possibly Threatened Species Occurring Within the State L. S. Long Aquatic Resources Center B. C. Kondratieff Colorado State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Long, L. S. and Kondratieff, B. C. 1996. "The Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Tennessee, With a Review of the Possibly Threatened Species Occurring Within the State," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 29 (4) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol29/iss4/1 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]. Long and Kondratieff: The Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Tennessee, With a Review of the P 1996 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 171 THE MAYFLIES (EPHEMEROPTERA) OF TENNESSEE, WITH A REVIEW OF THE POSSIBLY THREATENED SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE STATE l. S. Long 1 and B. C. Kondratieff2 ABSTRACT One hundred and forty-three species of mayflies are reported from the state of Tennessee. Sixteen species (Ameletus cryptostimuZus, Choroterpes basalis, Baetis virile, Ephemera blanda, E. simulans, Ephemerella berneri, Heterocloeon curiosum, H. petersi, Labiobaetis ephippiatus, Leptophlebia bradleyi, Macdunnoa brunnea, Paraleptophlebia assimilis, P. debilis, P.
    [Show full text]
  • Important Considerations for Establishing a Biological
    Midwest Biodiversity Institute P.O. Box 21561 Columbus, OH 43221-0561 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Great Miami River 2018 Montgomery County, Ohio Midwest Biodiversity Institute P.O. Box 21561 Columbus, OH 43221-0561 Peter A. Precario, Executive Director Jim Lane, Board President Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI). 2019. Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Great Miami River 2018. Montgomery County, Ohio. MBI Technical Report 2019-3-1. Report to University of Dayton. Dayton, OH. 16 pp. + appendices. MBI Great Miami River Biological & Habitat Assessment March 31, 2019 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Great Miami River 2018 Montgomery County, Ohio MBI Technical Report 2019-3-1 March 31, 2019 Submitted by: Midwest Biodiversity Institute P.O. Box 21561 Columbus, Ohio 43221-0561 Chris Yoder, Research Director [email protected] Submitted to: University of Dayton Department of Biology UD Vivarium 300 College Park, 45469-2320 Jeff Kavanaugh, Director [email protected] i MBI Great Miami River Biological & Habitat Assessment March 31, 2019 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................. iii PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES – GREAT MIAMI RIVER BIOASSESSMENT ....................................... 1 Credible Data Requirements .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Check List 2007: 3(1) ISSN: 1809-127X
    Check List 2007: 3(1) ISSN: 1809-127X NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Insecta, Ephemeroptera: Transcontinental (Metretopodidae); Ephoron album (Say) range extensions in western North America. (Polymitarcyidae); and Siphlonurus alternatus (Say) (northern) (Siphlonuridae). In addition to W. P. McCafferty1 these transcontinental species, there are a few M. D. Meyer2 others that are disjunct East and West species that are absent to a considerable extent in central 1Department of Entomology, Purdue University. regions of the continent. West Lafayette, Indiana, USA 47907. E-mail: [email protected] Based on our recent studies of mayflies from the 2Department of Biology, Chemistry, and west coast states of California, Oregon, and Environmental Science. Christopher Newport Washington, and the western intermountain USA University, 1 University Place, Newport, Virginia states (esp. Idaho), we are able to establish eight USA 23606. additional North American species with continuous transcontinental distribution patterns. In keeping Among the 631 valid species of Ephemeroptera with the trend among families shown above, six of (mayflies) that are presently known from North these species are in the family Baetidae, and one is America (McCafferty 2007), relatively few have in the family Caenidae. We also demonstrate this been known as having more or less continuous distribution pattern in the family Pseudironidae (non disjunct) transcontinental distribution patterns for the first time. New western state records that from the east coastal provinces of Canada and or substantiate the transcontinental patterns are given east coastal states of the USA to the west coastal for each of the species treated below, followed by provinces of Canada or the west coastal states of pertinent commentary regarding their distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Predator to Prey to Poop: Bats As Microbial Hosts and Insectivorous Hunters
    Predator to Prey to Poop: Bats as Microbial Hosts and Insectivorous Hunters A Thesis SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Miranda Galey IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE Dr. Ron Moen, Dr. Jessica R. Sieber September 2020 Copyright © Miranda Galey 2020 Abstract Bat fecal samples are a rich source of ecological data for bat biologists, entomologists, and microbiologists. Feces collected from individual bats can be used to profile the gut microbiome using microbial DNA and to understand bat foraging strategies using arthropod DNA. We used eDNA collected from bat fecal samples to better understand bats as predators in the context of their unique gut physiology. We used high through- put sequencing of the COI gene and 16S rRNA gene to determine the diet composition and gut microbiome composition of three bat species in Minnesota: Eptesicus fuscus, Myotis lucifugus and M. septentrionalis. In our analysis of insect prey, we found that E. fuscus consistently foraged for a higher diversity of beetle species compared to other insects. We found that the proportional frequency of tympanate samples from M. septentrionalis and M. lucifugus was similar, while M. septentrionalis consistently preyed more often upon non-flying species. We used the same set of COI sequences to determine presence of pest species, rare species, and insects not previously observed in Minnesota. We were able to combine precise arthropod identification and the for- aging areas of individually sampled bats to observe possible range expansion of some insects. The taxonomic composition of the bat gut microbiome in all three species was found to be consistent with the composition of a mammalian small intestine.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 62 Article 1 2008 Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science - Volume 62 2008 Academy Editors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Recommended Citation Editors, Academy (2008) "Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science - Volume 62 2008," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 62 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol62/iss1/1 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Entire Issue is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 62 [2008], Art. 1 Journal of the CODEN: AKASO ISBN: 0097-4374 ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE VOLUME 62 2008 ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Library Rate ARKANSAS TECH UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCES 1701 N. BOULDER AVE RUSSELLVILLE, AR 72801-2222 Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 2008 3 Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 62 [2008], Art. 1 https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol62/iss1/1 4 Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.
    [Show full text]