State Overview and Ecological Framework Table IN2. Oklahoma's
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Bogbean Buckmoth (Hemileuca Sp.) in Canada
PROPOSED Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series Adopted under Section 44 of SARA Recovery Strategy for the Bogbean Buckmoth (Hemileuca sp.) in Canada Bogbean Buckmoth 2015 1 Recommended citation: Environment Canada. 2015. Recovery Strategy for the Bogbean Buckmoth (Hemileuca sp.) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. 18 pp. + Appendix. For copies of the recovery strategy, or for additional information on species at risk, including COSEWIC Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk Public Registry1. Cover illustration: © Don Cuddy Également disponible en français sous le titre « Programme de rétablissement de l’hémileucin du ményanthe (Hemileuca sp.) au Canada [Proposition] » © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment, 2015. All rights reserved. ISBN Catalogue no. Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. 1 http://sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=24F7211B-1 RECOVERY STRATEGY FOR THE BOGBEAN BUCKMOTH (Hemileuca sp.) IN CANADA 2015 Under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996), the federal, provincial, and territorial governments agreed to work together on legislation, programs, and policies to protect wildlife species at risk throughout Canada. In the spirit of cooperation of the Accord, the Government of Ontario has given permission to the Government of Canada to adopt the Recovery Strategy for Bogbean Buckmoth (Hemileuca sp.) in Ontario (Part 2) under Section 44 of the Species at Risk Act. Environment Canada has included an addition (Part 1) which completes the SARA requirements for this recovery strategy. -
The Taxonomic Report of the INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY
Volume 8 Number 5 1 April, 2020 The Taxonomic Report OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY ISSN 2643-4776 (print) / ISSN 2643-4806 (online) A phenotypic comparison of regional populations of Hemileuca maia (Drury, 1773) with designations of new subspecies (Bombycoidea, Saturniidae, Hemileucinae). Harry Pavulaan 606 Hunton Place NE Leesburg, VA. 20176 [email protected] ABSTRACT. Following refinement of the type locality of Hemileuca maia to the Long Island Pine Barrens of New York State by the author (Pavulaan, 2020), an evaluation of phenotypic characters of regional populations of H. maia is presented. The Long Island population is the nominotypical subspecies. Populations in southeastern coastal New England and offshore islands are presently considered nominotypical maia. However, several continental inland populations show evidence of subspecific variation. Four new subspecies are designated. Detailed phenotypic information of other interior regions is lacking. Additional key words: Pitch Pine Barrens, Scrub Oak Plains, isolate, Menyanthes trifoliata. ZooBank registration: urn:1sid:zoobank.org:pub:3595D21C-4FDE-4336-A588-4E68195E1118 INTRODUCTION The Buckmoths of North America are a bewildering blend of intergrading phenotypes that have been the subject of numerous studies (Ferguson, 1971; Tuskeset al., 1996; Rubinoffet al., 2017; Dupuiset al., 2018). Results of these studies are inconclusive over where to draw taxonomc limits. Michener (1952) proposed a subdivision of genus Hemileuca into four subgenera: Hemileuca (Walker, 1855), Pseudohazis (Grote & Robinson, 1866), Euleucophaeus (Packard, 1872) and Argyrauges (Grote, 1882). Nestled within subgenus Hemileuca is the Hemileuca maia complex, presently considered to be a closely- related group of species and unnamed populations of species H. maia. This group is characterized by variation in ground color (gray to black), bold median bands (white to yellow), and scale translucence. -
Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6 -
Moths of Ohio Guide
MOTHS OF OHIO field guide DIVISION OF WILDLIFE This booklet is produced by the ODNR Division of Wildlife as a free publication. This booklet is not for resale. Any unauthorized INTRODUCTION reproduction is prohibited. All images within this booklet are copyrighted by the Division of Wildlife and it’s contributing artists and photographers. For additional information, please call 1-800-WILDLIFE. Text by: David J. Horn Ph.D Moths are one of the most diverse and plentiful HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE groups of insects in Ohio, and the world. An es- Scientific Name timated 160,000 species have thus far been cata- Common Name Group and Family Description: Featured Species logued worldwide, and about 13,000 species have Secondary images 1 Primary Image been found in North America north of Mexico. Secondary images 2 Occurrence We do not yet have a clear picture of the total Size: when at rest number of moth species in Ohio, as new species Visual Index Ohio Distribution are still added annually, but the number of species Current Page Description: Habitat & Host Plant is certainly over 3,000. Although not as popular Credit & Copyright as butterflies, moths are far more numerous than their better known kin. There is at least twenty Compared to many groups of animals, our knowledge of moth distribution is very times the number of species of moths in Ohio as incomplete. Many areas of the state have not been thoroughly surveyed and in some there are butterflies. counties hardly any species have been documented. Accordingly, the distribution maps in this booklet have three levels of shading: 1. -
Terrestrial Insect Report Acalypta Lillianus Lace Bug
Terrestrial Insect Report Acalypta lillianus Lace Bug Class: Insecta Order: Heteroptera Family: Tingidae Priority Score: 19 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Global Rank: G3 — Vulnerable species State Rank: SNR — Species not ranked in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Arkansas Valley Ouachita Mountains South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plain Acalypta lillianus Lace Bug 538 Terrestrial Insect Report Habitat Map Habitats Weight Ozark-Ouachita Prairie and Woodland Optimal Problems Faced Forestry practices that disturb litter layer and create Threat: Habitat disturbance xeric conditions. Source: Forestry activities Loss of habitat to development. Threat: Habitat destruction or conversion Source: Urban development Data Gaps/Research Needs Need to obtain baseline information on distribution and population status. Conservation Actions Importance Category More data are needed to determine conservation Medium Data Gap actions. Monitoring Strategies Survey areas near known occurrences to locate additional populations. Acalypta lillianus Lace Bug 539 Terrestrial Insect Report Comments An Arkansas endemic insect limited to the Arkansas Valley (Robison and Allen 1995). Taxa Association Team and Peer Reviewers ANHC Mr. Michael Warriner Acalypta lillianus Lace Bug 540 Terrestrial Insect Report Acalypta susanae Lace Bug Class: Insecta Order: Heteroptera Family: Tingidae Priority Score: 23 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Global Rank: GNR — Not yet ranked State Rank: S1 — Critically imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Arkansas Valley Ouachita Mountains South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plain Acalypta susanae Lace Bug 541 Terrestrial Insect Report Habitat Map Habitats Weight Ozark-Ouachita Mesic Hardwood Forest Optimal Problems Faced Forestry practices that disturb litter layer and create Threat: Habitat disturbance xeric conditions. -
Io Moth (Automeris Io)
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS WITH THE ENVIRONMENT What’s Eating You? Io Moth (Automeris io) Eric W. Hossler, MD; Dirk M. Elston, MD; David L. Wagner, PhD f the 7 species of Automeris moths (order, About 10 days after being deposited, minute 2- to Lepidoptera; family, Saturniidae) found in the 3-mm larvae emerge from the ova and feed gregari- O United States, Automeris io often is the most ously upon their host plant. Favorite foods of the Io common and familiar. Its range extends as far north caterpillars include azaleas, birch, blackberry, cherry, as Quebec, Ontario, and southern Manitoba, Canada; clover, cotton, currant, elm, hackberry, hibiscus, west to Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas; and mesquite, oak, pear, poplar, redbud, rose, sassafras, south to Florida, eastern Mexico, and Costa Rica.1-3 and willow.1,2,4 In addition, larvae frequently feed on Across much of its range, the moths and their lar- grasses such as corn or Bermuda grass.2,4 Io moths are vae are among the most common giant silk moths around in deciduous woodlands, forests, and fields; encountered by the public. In Louisiana, the closely along power line rights-of-way; and in orchards, related Automeris louisiana largely replaces the Io parks, and suburban yards.2,5 moth in coastal areas.2 The sexually dimorphic adults have a wingspan The Io moth has 4 life stages: egg, larva (or cat- of 2.0 to 3.5 in and are easily recognized by the pres- erpillar), pupa, and adult. Eclosion of Io moths from ence of prominent black to blue eyespots with white cocoons occurs during late morning or early evening. -
June Preston, Editor 832 Sunset Drive USA No.2 Mar/Apr
No.2 Mar/Apr 1983 of the LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY June Preston, Editor 832 Sunset Drive Lawrenc~KS 66044 USA ======================================================================================= ASSOCIATE EDITORS ART: Les Sielski RIPPLES: Jo Brewer ZONE COORDINATORS 1 Robert Langston 8 Kene1m Philip 2 Jon Shepard 5 Mo Nielsen 9 Eduardo Welling M. 3 Ray Stanford 6 Dave Baggett 10 Boyce Drummond 4 Hugh Freeman 7 Dave Winter 11 Quimby Hess =============================================================:========================= ZONE 1 SOUTHWEST: ARIZONA, NEVADA, CALIFORNIA. Coordinator: R. L. Langston (RLL). Contributors: R. L. Allen (RA), R. A. Bailowitz (RB), R. M. Brown (RMW), Jim and Joan Coleman (J-JC), K. Davenport (KD), J. F. Emmel (JE), C. D. Ferris (CDF), G. A. Gorelick (GG), C. Hageman (CH), K. Hansen (KH), R. V. Kelson (RK), T. W. Koerber (TK), R. H. Leuschner (RHL), D. Marion (DM), Eileen and S. O. Mattoon (E-SM), R. O'Donnell (RO), D. Parkinson (DP), F. P. Sala (FS), A. M. Shapiro (AS), o. Shields (OS), R. J. Skalski (RS) and W. L. Swisher (WS). COUNTY, STATE (in caps.) = new county, state records. NORTH, SOUTH, HIGH, LOW, EARLY, LATE, etc. (in caps.) are also considered records by the contributors and/or the coordinator. ARIZONA. No new COUNTY records or range extension for 1982. Most data was from the well-collected southeastern part of the state. Transients were hampered by cold, wet weather in Apache Co., Coconico Co., Cochise Co., Aug. (CDF), with heavy rains in Cochise Co., Sept. (RHL). Windy, cold and rainy in Pima Co., Sept. (RHL). No migrations were reported from Arizona. MOTHS: Sphingidae: Xylophanes falco, Cave Creek area, Chiricahua Mtns., Cochise Co., 9-11 Aug. -
Chapter 14. Wildlife and Forest Communities 341
chapteR 14. Wildlife and Forest Communities 341 Chapter 14. Wildlife and Forest communities Margaret Trani Griep and Beverly Collins1 key FindingS • Hotspot areas for plants of concern are Big Bend National Park; the Apalachicola area of the Southern Gulf Coast; • The South has 1,076 native terrestrial vertebrates: 179 Lake Wales Ridge and the area south of Lake Okeechobee amphibians, 525 birds, 176 mammals, and 196 reptiles. in Peninsular Florida; and coastal counties of North Species richness is highest in the Mid-South (856) and Carolina in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The Appalachian- Coastal Plain (733), reflecting both the large area of these Cumberland highlands also contain plants identified by subregions and the diversity of habitats within them. States as species of concern. • The geography of species richness varies by taxa. • Species, including those of conservation concern, are Amphibians flourish in portions of the Piedmont and imperiled by habitat alteration, isolation, introduction of Appalachian-Cumberland highlands and across the Coastal invasive species, environmental pollutants, commercial Plain. Bird richness is highest along the coastal wetlands of development, human disturbance, and exploitation. the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, mammal richness Conditions predicted by the forecasts will magnify these is highest in the Mid-South and Appalachian-Cumberland stressors. Each species varies in its vulnerability to highlands, and reptile richness is highest across the forecasted threats, and these threats vary by subregion. Key southern portion of the region. areas of concern arise where hotspots of vulnerable species • The South has 142 terrestrial vertebrate species coincide with forecasted stressors. considered to be of conservation concern (e.g., global • There are 614 species that are presumed extirpated from conservation status rank of critically imperiled, imperiled, selected States in the South; 64 are terrestrial vertebrates or vulnerable), 77 of which are listed as threatened or and 550 are vascular plants. -
Illustration Sources
APPENDIX ONE ILLUSTRATION SOURCES REF. CODE ABR Abrams, L. 1923–1960. Illustrated flora of the Pacific states. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. ADD Addisonia. 1916–1964. New York Botanical Garden, New York. Reprinted with permission from Addisonia, vol. 18, plate 579, Copyright © 1933, The New York Botanical Garden. ANDAnderson, E. and Woodson, R.E. 1935. The species of Tradescantia indigenous to the United States. Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Reprinted with permission of the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University. ANN Hollingworth A. 2005. Original illustrations. Published herein by the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth. Artist: Anne Hollingworth. ANO Anonymous. 1821. Medical botany. E. Cox and Sons, London. ARM Annual Rep. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1889–1912. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis. BA1 Bailey, L.H. 1914–1917. The standard cyclopedia of horticulture. The Macmillan Company, New York. BA2 Bailey, L.H. and Bailey, E.Z. 1976. Hortus third: A concise dictionary of plants cultivated in the United States and Canada. Revised and expanded by the staff of the Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Reprinted with permission from William Crepet and the L.H. Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. BA3 Bailey, L.H. 1900–1902. Cyclopedia of American horticulture. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. BB2 Britton, N.L. and Brown, A. 1913. An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British posses- sions. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. BEA Beal, E.O. and Thieret, J.W. 1986. Aquatic and wetland plants of Kentucky. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort. Reprinted with permission of Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. -
Identifying Priority Ecoregions for Amphibian Conservation in the U.S. and Canada
Acknowledgements This assessment was conducted as part of a priority setting effort for Operation Frog Pond, a project of Tree Walkers International. Operation Frog Pond is designed to encourage private individuals and community groups to become involved in amphibian conservation around their homes and communities. Funding for this assessment was provided by The Lawrence Foundation, Northwest Frog Fest, and members of Tree Walkers International. This assessment would not be possible without data provided by The Global Amphibian Assessment, NatureServe, and the International Conservation Union. We are indebted to their foresight in compiling basic scientific information about species’ distributions, ecology, and conservation status; and making these data available to the public, so that we can provide informed stewardship for our natural resources. I would also like to extend a special thank you to Aaron Bloch for compiling conservation status data for amphibians in the United States and to Joe Milmoe and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program for supporting Operation Frog Pond. Photo Credits Photographs are credited to each photographer on the pages where they appear. All rights are reserved by individual photographers. All photos on the front and back cover are copyright Tim Paine. Suggested Citation Brock, B.L. 2007. Identifying priority ecoregions for amphibian conservation in the U.S. and Canada. Tree Walkers International Special Report. Tree Walkers International, USA. Text © 2007 by Brent L. Brock and Tree Walkers International Tree Walkers International, 3025 Woodchuck Road, Bozeman, MT 59715-1702 Layout and design: Elizabeth K. Brock Photographs: as noted, all rights reserved by individual photographers. -
South Central Plains Ecoregion
South Central Plains (Ecoregion 35) Ecoregion 35 is composed of rolling plains that are broken by nearly flat fluvial ter- races, bottomlands, sandy low hills and low cuestas; its terrain is unlike the much more rugged Ouachita Mountains (36) or the flatter, less dissected Mississippi Alluvial Plain (73). Uplands are underlain by poorly-consolidated, Tertiary- through Cretaceous-age, coastal plain deposits and marginal marine sediments (laid down as the Gulf of Mexico opened and North America’s southern continental margin subsided). Bottomlands and terraces are veneered with Quaternary alluvium or windblown silt deposits (loess). The lithologic mosaic is distinct from the Paleozoic rocks of Ecoregion 36 and the strictly Quaternary deposits of Ecoregion 73. Potential natural vegetation is oak–hickory–pine forest on uplands and southern floodplain forest on bottomlands. Today, more than 75 percent of Ecoregion 35 remains wooded. Figure 3.16. South Central Plains Ecoregion 1183 South Central Plains - Blackland Prairie Extensive commercial loblolly pine–shortleaf pine plantations occur. Lumber and pulpwood production, livestock grazing and crawfish farming are major land uses. Cropland dominates the drained bottomlands of the Red River. Turbidity and total suspended solid concentrations are usually low except in the Red River. Summer flow in many small streams is limited or nonexistent but enduring pools may occur. Fish communities typically have a limited proportion of sensitive species; sunfishes are dominant and darters and minnows are common. Tertiary Uplands 35a. The rolling Tertiary Uplands are dominated by commercial pine plantations that have replaced the native oak– hickory–pine forest. Ecoregion 35a is underlain by poorly-consolidated Tertiary sand, silt and gravel; it lacks the Cretaceous, often calcareous rocks of Ecoregion 35d and the extensive Quaternary alluvium of Ecoregions 35b, 35g and 73. -
Southeast Priority Species (RSGCN): Amphibians
Southeast Priority Species (RSGCN): Amphibians Updated as of February 3, 2021 The following amphibian species were identified as Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (RSGCN) through a collaborative assessment process carried out by the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA) Wildlife Diversity Committee. “Regional Stewardship Responsibility" refers to the portion of a species' range in the Southeast relative to North America as a whole. Additional details of this assessment can be found at: http://secassoutheast.org/2019/09/30/Priorities-for-Conservation-in-Southeastern-States.html Very High Concern Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Southeast State Range Regional Stewardship Status* Responsibility Eurycea waterlooensis Austin blind salamander LE TX SEAFWA Endemic Eurycea sosorum Barton Springs Salamander LE TX SEAFWA Endemic Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Berry Cave Salamander TN SEAFWA Endemic Necturus alabamensis Black Warrior Waterdog LE AL SEAFWA Endemic Eurycea robusta Blanco blind Salamander TX SEAFWA Endemic Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods Salamander (Frosted) LT FL GA SC SEAFWA Endemic Lithobates okaloosae Florida Bog Frog At-risk FL SEAFWA Endemic Plethodon fourchensis Fourche Mountain Salamander AL AR SEAFWA Endemic Eurycea naufragia Georgetown Salamander LT TX SEAFWA Endemic Lithobates capito Gopher Frog At-risk AL FL GA MS NC SC TN 75-100% of Range Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender (including Eastern AL AR GA KY MO MS NC TN VA WV 50-75% of Range (including alleganiensis and and Ozark)