DOCSLIB.ORG

MEDIATORS of FINE-SCALE POPULATION GENETIC STRUCTURE in the BLACK BLOW FLY, PHORMIA REGINA (MEIGEN) (DIPTERA: CALLIPHORIDAE) by Charity Grace Owings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MEDIATORS of FINE-SCALE POPULATION GENETIC STRUCTURE in the BLACK BLOW FLY, PHORMIA REGINA (MEIGEN) (DIPTERA: CALLIPHORIDAE) by Charity Grace Owings MEDIATORS OF FINE-SCALE POPULATION GENETIC STRUCTURE IN THE BLACK BLOW FLY, PHORMIA REGINA (MEIGEN) (DIPTERA: CALLIPHORIDAE) by Charity Grace Owings A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Biological Sciences Indianapolis, Indiana August 2019 2 THE PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE APPROVAL Dr. Christine Picard, Chair Department of Biology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Dr. Susan Walsh Department of Biology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Dr. Xianzhong Wang Department of Biology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Dr. William Gilhooly, III Department of Earth Sciences, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Dr. Jeffrey Holland Department of Entomology, Purdue University Approved by: Dr. Theodore Cummins Head of the Graduate Program 3 This dissertation is dedicated to Mims and Granny. Thank you both for being bad-ass grandmothers. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my parents, Dr. Keith and Traci Owings, brothers, Amos and Elijah Owings, sister-in-law, Taylor Owings, and nephew, Cain Griffin Owings, for their continuous support over the last (seemingly endless) 12 years of school. I could not have done it without all of you and I would not be here today without your selfless love and moral support. Thank you also to Mike Hopkins for being by my side during the most stressful times of my graduate life and for constantly lifting me up and reassuring me when I doubted myself during my studies. Thank you to Anne Andere for being my dearest friend throughout school. Thank you to all of the Picard and Kusmierczyk Labs for your help, guidance, and friendship: Gina Dembinski, Sarah Lewis, Ioanna Koltsidou, Laura Doll, Annie Ullyot, Hillary Veron, Abeer Mohsen, John Whale, Dilraj Panfair, and Lindsay Hammack. Thank you especially to Anais Tuceryan and Mary Huffine for working tirelessly on fly dissections, DNA extractions, and PCRs. I literally could not have finished my PhD without you. Thank you to Christine Picard for giving me a chance as a PhD student when I was down and out. I am so grateful for all of the opportunities you have given me. Thank you to all of the other members of my committee for your guidance and mentorship over the past 5 years: Susan Walsh, Bill Gilhooly, Xianzhong Wang, and Jeff Holland. Thank you to all of my collaborators who have helped mold this project into something that is truly special: Christine Skaggs, Nick Manicke, Rudy Banerjee, and Travis Asher. Thank you to Patricia Clark for being a friend and mentor. Thank you to my friends at the national parks, Rangers Paul Super and Annie Carlson and interns Rudi Boekschoten and Elgin Akin, for helping Dr. Picard and I find the best places to collect flies and for allowing us to experience the beauty of these protected lands. Thank you to Meaghan Pimsler for your undying friendship, moral support, and random arthropod facts that always put a smile on my face. Thank you to all of the friends and mentors that I did not have room to mention here, for there are so many of you who have deeply impacted my life. And finally, thank you to all of the flies that died in order for this research to be possible. You are truly extraordinary creatures and your significance to this planet cannot be understated. Again, thank you ALL. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 11 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. 15 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 17 1.1 Blow Fly Biology ................................................................................................................ 17 1.2 Carrion Ecology .................................................................................................................. 18 1.3 Identifying Vertebrate Resources ....................................................................................... 19 1.4 Population Genetics ............................................................................................................ 21 1.5 Research Organism ............................................................................................................. 22 1.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 22 1.7 References ........................................................................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 2. CHEMICAL ASSAY FOR THE DETECTION OF VERTEBRATE FECAL METABOLITES IN ADULT BLOW FLIES (DIPTERA: CALLIPHORIDAE) ........................ 28 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 28 2.2 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 31 2.2.1 Feeding Experiment ..................................................................................................... 31 2.2.2 Wild Blow Fly Collections .......................................................................................... 33 2.2.3 Gut Dissections and DNA Extractions ........................................................................ 33 2.2.4 Preliminary Presumptive Fecal Test ............................................................................ 34 2.2.5 Qualitative LC MS/MS Analyses ................................................................................ 34 2.2.6 Statistical Analyses ...................................................................................................... 35 2.3 Results ................................................................................................................................. 35 2.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 39 2.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 44 2.6 References ........................................................................................................................... 45 CHAPTER 3. FEMALE BLOW FLIES AS VERTEBRATE RESOURCE INDICATORS ....... 51 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 51 3.2 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 52 6 3.2.1 Blow Fly Collections ................................................................................................... 52 3.2.2 Vertebrate Diversity Analyses ..................................................................................... 57 3.2.3 Statistical Analyses ...................................................................................................... 57 3.3 Results ................................................................................................................................. 58 3.3.1 Effect of Subsampling .................................................................................................. 58 3.3.2 Wild Sampling ............................................................................................................. 59 3.3.3 Parameters Affecting Vertebrate Resource Detection ................................................. 63 3.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 64 3.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 68 3.6 References ........................................................................................................................... 69 CHAPTER 4. STABLE ISOTOPE ANALYSIS REVEALS LARVAL RESOURCE OF ADULT PHORMIA REGINA...................................................................................................................... 73 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 73 4.2 Materials and Methods ........................................................................................................ 76 4.2.1 General Procedure for Feeding Experiments ............................................................... 76 4.2.2 Experiment 1: Effects of Preservation ......................................................................... 76 4.2.3 Experiment 2: Persistence of Larval Diet Isotopic Signature ...................................... 77 4.2.4 Experiment 3: Effect of Single Adult Feeding Event .................................................. 77 4.2.5 Wild Sample Validation ............................................................................................... 77 4.2.6 Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry ...............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Malelane Safari Lodge, Kruger National Park
    INVERTEBRATE SPECIALIST REPORT Prepared For: Malelane Safari Lodge, Kruger National Park Dalerwa Ventures for Wildlife cc P. O. Box 1424 Hoedspruit 1380 Fax: 086 212 6424 Cell (Elize) 074 834 1977 Cell (Ian): 084 722 1988 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 3 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Safari Lodge Development .................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Invertebrate Specialist Report ............................................................................................................... 5 2.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 8 3. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Zerm-Et-Al2007online
    This article was downloaded by:[Max Planck Inst & Research Groups Consortium] [Max Planck Inst & Research Groups Consortium] On: 17 June 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 770286779] Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713817190 Molecular phylogeny of Megacephalina Horn, 1910 tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) First Published on: 13 June 2007 To cite this Article: Zerm, Matthias, Wiesner, Jürgen, Ledezma, Julieta, Brzoska, Dave, Drechsel, Ulf, Cicchino, Armando C., Rodríguez, Jon Paul, Martinsen, Lene, Adis, Joachim and Bachmann, Lutz , 'Molecular phylogeny of Megacephalina Horn, 1910 tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae)', Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 1 - 9 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/01650520701409235 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01650520701409235 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Conservation of an Imperiled Tiger Beetle Fauna in New York State, USA
    J Insect Conserv (2011) 15:839–852 DOI 10.1007/s10841-011-9382-y ORIGINAL PAPER Status and conservation of an imperiled tiger beetle fauna in New York State, USA Matthew D. Schlesinger • Paul G. Novak Received: 29 October 2010 / Accepted: 17 January 2011 / Published online: 15 February 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract New York has 22 documented species of tiger Introduction beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Over half of these species are considered rare, at risk, or potentially extirpated Tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) are strikingly from the state. These rare species specialize on three sandy patterned, predatory insects that have captured the attention habitat types under threat from human disturbance: bea- of entomologists and collectors for centuries. Beyond their ches, pine barrens, and riparian cobble bars. In 2005, we intrinsic interest, tiger beetles can serve as model organ- began a status assessment of eight of New York’s rarest isms or indicator species to enable broad conclusions about tiger beetles, examining museum records, searching the a region or ecosystem’s biodiversity (Pearson and Cassola literature, and conducting over 130 field surveys of his- 1992; Pearson and Vogler 2001). Tiger beetles are threa- torical and new locations. Significant findings included (1) tened by habitat destruction and modification, alteration of no detections of four of the eight taxa; (2) no vehicle-free natural processes like fire and flooding, and overcollection; beach habitat suitable for reintroducing Cicindela dorsalis across the United States, approximately 15% of taxa are dorsalis; (3) C. hirticollis at only 4 of 26 historical loca- threatened with extinction (Pearson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Carabidae) Peter W
    30 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Vol. 42, Nos. 1 & 2 An Annotated Checklist of Wisconsin Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Peter W. Messer1 Abstract A survey of Carabidae in the state of Wisconsin, U.S.A. yielded 87 species new to the state and incorporated 34 species previously reported from the state but that were not included in an earlier catalogue, bringing the total number of species to 489 in an annotated checklist. Collection data are provided in full for the 87 species new to Wisconsin but are limited to county occurrences for 187 rare species previously known in the state. Recent changes in nomenclature pertinent to the Wisconsin fauna are cited. ____________________ The Carabidae, commonly known as ‘ground beetles’, with 34, 275 described species worldwide is one of the three most species-rich families of extant beetles (Lorenz 2005). Ground beetles are often chosen for study because they are abun- dant in most terrestrial habitats, diverse, taxonomically well known, serve as sensitive bioindicators of habitat change, easy to capture, and morphologically pleasing to the collector. North America north of Mexico accounts for 2635 species which were listed with their geographic distributions (states and provinces) in the catalogue by Bousquet and Larochelle (1993). In Table 4 of the latter refer- ence, the state of Wisconsin was associated with 374 ground beetle species. That is more than the surrounding states of Iowa (327) and Minnesota (323), but less than states of Illinois (452) and Michigan (466). The total count for Minnesota was subsequently increased to 433 species (Gandhi et al. 2005). Wisconsin county distributions are known for 15 species of tiger beetles (subfamily Cicindelinae) (Brust 2003) with collection records documented for Tetracha virginica (Grimek 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Bigheaded Ant, Pheidole Megacephala (Fabricius) (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Myrmicinae)1 John Warner and Rudolf H
    EENY-369 Bigheaded Ant, Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius) (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Myrmicinae)1 John Warner and Rudolf H. Scheffrahn2 Introduction The bigheaded ant (BHA), Pheidole megacephala (Fabri- cius), is a very successful invasive species that is sometimes considered a danger to native ants and has been nominated as among 100 of the “World’s Worst” invaders (Hoffman 2006). The BHA has been a pest in southern Florida for many years, and according to reports by pest control operators, has become the most pervasive nuisance as it has replaced other ants such as the red imported fire ant (RIFA), Solenopsis invicta Buren, and the white-footed ant Tech- nomyrmex difficilis (Fr. Smith) in most areas. It is possible that the increase in BHA infestations was augmented by several years of excessive hurricane activity (2003 to 2005) Figure 1. Bigheaded ant, Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius), foraging tubes on a palm tree. Arrows indicate two of the foraging tubes. in Florida that damaged lawns and killed trees, which Credits: R. H. Scheffrahn, UF/IFAS necessitated the use of increased amounts of sod and other The BHA, a soil-nesting ant, is sometimes confused with replacement vegetation that may have been infested with subterranean termites because it may create debris-covered this ant (Warner, unpublished observation). In addition, it foraging tubes that are somewhat similar, albeit much more is thought that the BHA usually out-competes most other fragile, than termite tubes. More often these ants leave piles established ants, thereby dominating new areas. The BHA of loose sandy soil. Homeowners are annoyed by these “dirt does not sting or cause any structural damage and usually piles” and by ants foraging in bathrooms and kitchens and does not bite unless the nest is disturbed, and even then, around doors and windows, as well as on exterior paved or the bite is not painful.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Neotropical Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae
    Biota Colombiana ISSN: 0124-5376 [email protected] Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos "Alexander von Humboldt" Colombia Cassola, Fabio; Pearson, David L. Neotropical Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): Checklist and Biogeography Biota Colombiana, vol. 2, núm. 1, septiembre, 2001, pp. 3- 24 Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos "Alexander von Humboldt" Bogotá, Colombia Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=49120101 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative CassolaBiota Colombiana & Pearson 2 (1) 3 - 24, 2001 Escarabajos Tigre del Neotropico -3 Neotropical Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): Checklist and Biogeography Fabio Cassola1 and David L. Pearson2 1 Via Fulvio Tomassucci 12/20, 00144 Roma, Italy (Studies of Tiger Beetles. CXVII). [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-1510, U.S.A. [email protected] Key words: Coleoptera, Cicindelidae, Tiger Beetles, Neotropical Region, Species List The taxonomy and general biology of the Neotropical Systematics tiger beetle fauna is relatively well-known. We provide here a short review of the family, with a bibliography for the The family of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) beginner student. includes nearly 2500 species, and they occur worldwide
    [Show full text]
  • A Description of the Larval Stages of Megacephala (Grammognatha) Euphratica Armeniaca CASTELNAU (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae)
    ©Arbeitsgemeinschaft Österreichischer Entomologen, Wien, download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Zeitschrift der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Österreichischer Entomologen, 47. Jg., 1/2. Wien, 30.4.1995 A description of the larval stages of Megacephala (Grammognatha) euphratica armeniaca CASTELNAU (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) from A.V. PUTCHKOV, Kiev Key words: Description, larval taxonomy., Coleoptera, Cicindelidae, Asia. Abstract Larvae of all instars of M. (G) euphratica armeniaca are described. Short ecological data and morphological discussion in comparision with other known larvae of the genus Megacephala are given. The tiger beetle Megacephala (Grammognatha) euphratica LATR. & DEL is unique species of subgenus and occur in south part of Palearctic. HAMILTON (1925) described its larva but third instar only and without indication of the subspecies status. Moreover in this description have not been presented some of characters which are using now in larval taxonomy of Cincindelidae. The aim of this paper is to describe all larval instars of M.(G.) euphratica armeniaca CASTELNAU. The description is based on series of larvae collected during the years 1988, 1989 and 1992 in South and West Turkmema (Central Asia). Terms of morphology and chaetotaxv as defined by KNISLEY & PEARSON (1984) and additionally by PUTCHKOV & CASSSOLA (1994), PUTCHKOV & ARNDT (1994) have been used in this study. Besides larval materials of other subgenera of Megacephala from collections of German Entomological Institute (Eberswalde) were also studied. The following abbreviations have been used: TL = total length (mm) PNL = length of pronotum (mm) FL = length of fronto-clypeal-labral area (mm) PNW = width of pronotum (mm) FW = width of fronto-clypeal-labral area (mm) Materials: South Turkmenia - 30km south of Tedzhen, October 1988, 5L3; 30 km east of Ashkhabad, Gijaurs, October 1988, 4L3; East Kara-Kum, Repetek, November 1988, 2L3; Kugitang, Charshanga, Karljuk, May 1989, 2L2; West Turkmenia - Kzyl-Atrek, Deleli, May 1992, 3L3,2L2, ILI; Kzyl-Atrek, Chatly, May 1992,2L2.
    [Show full text]
  • Larval Morphology of Genus Megacephalalatreille, 1802
    Beitr. Ent. Berlin ISSN 0005-805X 47(1997)1 S. 55-62 20.05.1997 Larval morphology of genus Megacephala LATREILLE, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) With 18 figures and 1 table ALEXANDER V. PUTCHKOV & ERIK ARNDT Zusammenfassung Die Larvalmerkmale der Gattung Megacephala LATREILLE werden beschrieben und ein Larvenbestim­ mungsschlüssel für 5 der 6 Untergattungen vorgelegt. Larven von Megacephala sind durch die Y-förmig Gularsutur (ein Merkmal aller Megacephalini) und das fehlende Doppelsklerit ventral am Prämentum charakterisiert. Nur die Untergattung Phaeoxantha besitzt einen gezähnelten Clypeus, den wahrscheinlich plesiomorphen Zustand dieses Merkmals im Verwandtschaftskreis. Die Untergattung Tetracha umfaßt mindestens zwei verschiedene Artengruppen, die sich durch ihre Chaetotaxie am Pronotum und Abdomen deutlich unterscheiden. Summary A description of larval characters of the genus Megacephala LATREILLE and a larval key to five of the six subgenera are given. The most characteristic larval characters of Megacephala are the Y-shaped gular suture (known from all Megacephalini) and the lack of an oval double sclerite on the prementum. The anterior margin of the clypeus of the subgenus Phaeoxantha is serrated, which is probably the plesiomor- phic character state. The subgenus Tetracha includes at least two distinct species groups, which are distinguished by the chaetotaxy of the pronotum and abdomen. Introduction Genus Megacephala LATREILLE is one of the distinctive tiger beetle groups in the tribe Megacephalini (see HUBER, 1994 for the detailed history of the nomenclature of this group). About 90 species from 6 subgenera of genus Megacephala are now known (WIESNER, 1992). The classification of this taxon, however, is based on adult characters only. The knowledge of Megacephala larvae is limited.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Invasive Species & Native Arthropod Monitoring Report
    2013 Invasive Species & Native Arthropod Monitoring Report Includes Results for Alien Arthropods and Wēkiu bug Monitoring, Early Detection, Prevention, Rapid Response, & Control OFFICE OF MAUNA KEA MANAGEMENT Prepared By: Jessica Kirkpatrick, Fritz Klasner May 21st, 2015 Page 1 of 66 Office of Mauna Kea Management Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 5 PREVENTION ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Inspections ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 6 2013 Invasive Species Inspections ....................................................................................................... 7 EARLY DETECTION ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Facility
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropod Pests of Conservation Significance in the Pacific: a Preliminary Assessment of Selected Groups
    Nishida and Evenhuis: Arthropod pests of conservation significance Arthropod pests of conservation significance in the Pacific: A preliminary assessment of selected groups Gordon M. Nishida and Neal L. Evenhuis Pacific Biological Survey, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704, USA Abstract oceanic havens have become easy targets for inva- sive pest organisms in the last half of this century. Arthropod species are by far the most numerous in- Arthropods are by far the largest group (in numbers) vasive organisms on islands, but those of conserva- of organisms that invade islands each year, e.g. an tion significance in the Pacific, except for Hawaii estimated 20 per year in Hawaii—of which four are and the Galapagos, are not well documented. Ants considered pests (Beardsley 1979). Therefore, a re- may pose the greatest arthropod threat to conserva- tion in the Pacific, by predation, direct competition, view of existing knowledge of arthropod pests in the and creating favourable conditions for other invasive Pacific is a necessary preliminary to larger, more com- biota. Information is given on some of the potentially prehensive surveys and detailed reviews of the fauna. most damaging: bigheaded ant Pheidole This study only scratches the surface of the amount megacephala, long-legged or crazy ant Anoplolepis of research that will be necessary to provide adequate longipes, Argentine ant Linepithema humile, little fire knowledge to deal with the alien arthropod pests that ant Wasmannia auropunctata, and others. Vespid threaten native ecosystems throughout the Pacific. wasps pose another critical threat; an outline is given Arthropods of conservation significance in the Pa- of the yellowjacket wasp Vespula pensylvanica, re- cific, except for Hawaii and the Galapagos, are not corded only from Hawaii in the Pacific, but with se- well documented.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution, Status & Conservation Needs of Canada's Endemic Species
    Ours to Save The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species June 4, 2020 Version 1.0 Ours to Save: The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species Additional information and updates to the report can be found at the project website: natureconservancy.ca/ourstosave Citation Enns, Amie, Dan Kraus and Andrea Hebb. 2020. Ours to save: the distribution, status and conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species. NatureServe Canada and Nature Conservancy of Canada. Report prepared by Amie Enns (NatureServe Canada) and Dan Kraus (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Mapping and analysis by Andrea Hebb (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Cover photo credits (l-r): Wood Bison, canadianosprey, iNaturalist; Yukon Draba, Sean Blaney, iNaturalist; Salt Marsh Copper, Colin Jones, iNaturalist About NatureServe Canada A registered Canadian charity, NatureServe Canada and its network of Canadian Conservation Data Centres (CDCs) work together and with other government and non-government organizations to develop, manage, and distribute authoritative knowledge regarding Canada’s plants, animals, and ecosystems. NatureServe Canada and the Canadian CDCs are members of the international NatureServe Network, spanning over 80 CDCs in the Americas. NatureServe Canada is the Canadian affiliate of NatureServe, based in Arlington, Virginia, which provides scientific and technical support to the international network. About the Nature Conservancy of Canada The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) works to protect our country’s most precious natural places. Proudly Canadian, we empower people to safeguard the lands and waters that sustain life. Since 1962, NCC and its partners have helped to protect 14 million hectares (35 million acres), coast to coast to coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Cephala (Grammognatha)
    African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 10(42), pp. 8529-8532, 8 August, 2011 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB DOI: 10.5897/AJB11.482 ISSN 1684–5315 © 2011 Academic Journals Full Length Research Paper Some morphological and biological features of Mega- cephala (Grammognatha ) euphratica euphratica La- treille and Dejean, 1822 (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) Gökhan Aydin Atabey Vocational School, Suleyman Demirel University, Atabey 32670, Isparta, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]. Accepted 25 April, 2011 Some morphological and biological features of Megacephala euphratica euphratica were examined. The life table of M. euphratica euphratica was investigated and the net reproduction rate (R 0), length of generation (T 0) and intrinsic rate of natural increase” (r m) were calculated in 2004 under labarotory conditions. The net reproduction rate (R 0) of M. euphratica euphratica (6.02), representing the total fe- male birth rate with a mean length of generation (T0) as 18.87 days, was determined, and the “intrinsic rate of natural increase” (r m) was calculated as 0.0981. The duration of pre-oviposition, oviposition and post-oviposition of the species, the shortest life span of both male and female, and the lowest and highest total eggs of female were also investigated. Some morphological features, like adult descrip- tion and body size of the species, collected from Izmir, Mersin and Adana provinces, in 2001 and 2010, was given. Key words: Tiger beetle, life table, morphology, adult, Turkey. INTRODUCTION Members of the Cicindelidae family are one of the most relation, have been given an indicator value (Franzen, widely examined insects (Pearson and Vogler, 2001).
    [Show full text]