DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquatic Biological Resources Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquatic Biological Resources Technical Report Northern Integrated Supply Project Environmental Impact Statement Aquatic Biological Resources Technical Report Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District March 2008 Prepared by: GEI Consultants, Inc. Chadwick Ecological Division 5575 South Sycamore Street, Suite 101 Littleton, CO 80120 CONTENTS 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................1 1.1. Northern Integrated Supply Project ...................................................................1 1.2. No Action Alternative ........................................................................................1 1.3. Group 1—Southern Group .................................................................................2 1.3.1. Erie .........................................................................................................3 1.3.2. Lafayette ................................................................................................3 1.3.3. Lefthand Water District .........................................................................3 1.3.4. No Action Alternative for Southern Group ...........................................3 1.4. Group 2—Northern Group .................................................................................3 1.4.1. Eaton ......................................................................................................4 1.4.2. Severance ...............................................................................................4 1.4.3. Windsor ..................................................................................................4 1.4.4. No Action Alternative for Northern Group ...........................................4 1.5. Group 3—Eastern Group ...................................................................................4 1.5.1. Fort Morgan ...........................................................................................5 1.5.2. Morgan County Quality Water District .................................................5 1.5.3. No Action Alternative for Eastern Group ..............................................5 1.6. Independent Participants ....................................................................................6 1.6.1. CWCWD ................................................................................................6 1.6.2. Evans ......................................................................................................6 1.6.3. Fort Collins-Loveland Water District ....................................................7 1.6.4. Fort Lupton ............................................................................................7 1.7. Action Alternatives—Activities Common to All Alternatives ..........................8 1.7.1. Bureau of Reclamation Subalternatives .................................................8 1.7.2. South Platte Water Conservation Project .............................................13 1.7.3. Diversions from the Cache la Poudre River ........................................13 1.8. Alternative 2—Proposed Action—Glade Reservoir and the SPWCP .............14 1.9. Alternative 3—Cactus Hill Reservoir and the SPWCP ...................................15 1.10. Alternative 4—Glade Reservoir and SPWCP with Agricultural Transfer Lands .................................................................................................16 1.11. Objective ..........................................................................................................17 1.12. Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................18 1.13. Study Area .......................................................................................................20 2. Methods and Analysis ...............................................................................................21 2.1. Existing Environment ......................................................................................21 2.1.1. Existing Data Sources ..........................................................................21 2.1.2. Supplemental Data ...............................................................................25 2.2. Effects Evaluation ............................................................................................30 2.2.1. Approach to Analysis ...........................................................................31 2.2.2. Hydrology ............................................................................................33 i 2.2.3. Instream Flow Incremental Methodology ............................................35 2.2.4. Effects Analysis ...................................................................................41 3. Existing Environment ...............................................................................................44 3.1. Habitat Descriptions.........................................................................................44 3.1.1. Cache la Poudre River .........................................................................44 3.1.2. South Platte River ................................................................................45 3.1.3. Reservoir Sites .....................................................................................45 3.2. Fish Populations ...............................................................................................45 3.2.1. Cache la Poudre River .........................................................................45 3.2.2. South Platte River ................................................................................55 3.3. Macroinvertebrate Populations ........................................................................59 3.3.1. Cache la Poudre River .........................................................................59 3.3.2. South Platte River ................................................................................62 4. Direct Effects Evaluation ..........................................................................................63 4.1. Cache la Poudre River .....................................................................................63 4.1.1. Upstream of Fort Collins .....................................................................63 4.1.2. Near Fort Collins..................................................................................72 4.1.3. Fort Collins to Interstate 25 .................................................................78 4.1.4. Interstate 25 to the Platte River ............................................................84 4.2. South Platte River ............................................................................................91 4.2.1. Cache la Poudre River to the Kersey Gage ..........................................91 4.3. Proposed Reservoirs.........................................................................................97 4.3.1. Glade Reservoir ...................................................................................97 4.3.2. Cactus Hill Reservoir ...........................................................................98 4.3.3. Galeton Reservoir ................................................................................98 4.4. Munroe Canal Diversion ..................................................................................99 5. Cumulative Effects Evaluation .................................................................................99 6. Mitigation ..................................................................................................................99 7. References ...............................................................................................................101 ii TABLES Table 1: Locations and Dates of Supplemental Data Collection on the Cache la Poudre River, Colorado, 2005. .................................................................27 Table 2: Fish Population Data (Presence/Absence) for the Cache la Poudre River 1970-2005. Data from Appendix E, Native Species in Bold. ...........47 Table 3: Fish Density (#/ha) and Other Population Parameters from Supplemental Data Collection Sites on the Cache la Poudre River, 2005. Data from Appendix C, Native Species in Bold. ...............................51 Table 4: Fish Population Data (Presence/Absence) for the South Platte River, 1980-2003. Data from Appendix F, Native Species in Bold. ......................56 Table 5: Summary of Cache la Poudre River Benthic Invertebrate Parameters, 1992-2005. Data from Shieh et al. (1999), USGS (2003), and Appendix D. ..................................................................................................59 Table 6: Benthic Invertebrate Density (Number/m2) and Other Summary Population Parameters for Supplemental Data Collection Sites on the Cache la Poudre River, 2005. Data from Appendix D. X=Present in the Qualitative Sample Only. ........................................................................61 Table 7: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the CANGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River. ......................................................................68 Table 8: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 3 Node on the Cache la Poudre River. ...........................................................................68 Table 9: Direct Effects Summary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Article Genetic Diversity of Freshwater Leeches in Lake Gusinoe (Eastern Siberia, Russia)
    Hindawi Publishing Corporation e Scientific World Journal Volume 2014, Article ID 619127, 11 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/619127 Research Article Genetic Diversity of Freshwater Leeches in Lake Gusinoe (Eastern Siberia, Russia) Irina A. Kaygorodova,1 Nadezhda Mandzyak,1 Ekaterina Petryaeva,1,2 and Nikolay M. Pronin3 1 Limnological Institute, 3 Ulan-Batorskaja Street, Irkutsk 664033, Russia 2 Irkutsk State University, 5 Sukhe-Bator Street, Irkutsk 664003, Russia 3 Institute of General and Experimental Biology, 6 Sakhyanova Street, Ulan-Ude 670047, Russia Correspondence should be addressed to Irina A. Kaygorodova; [email protected] Received 30 July 2014; Revised 7 November 2014; Accepted 7 November 2014; Published 27 November 2014 Academic Editor: Rafael Toledo Copyright © 2014 Irina A. Kaygorodova et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The study of leeches from Lake Gusinoe and its adjacent area offered us the possibility to determine species diversity. Asa result, an updated species list of the Gusinoe Hirudinea fauna (Annelida, Clitellata) has been compiled. There are two orders and three families of leeches in the Gusinoe area: order Rhynchobdellida (families Glossiphoniidae and Piscicolidae) and order Arhynchobdellida (family Erpobdellidae). In total, 6 leech species belonging to 6 genera have been identified. Of these, 3 taxa belonging to the family Glossiphoniidae (Alboglossiphonia heteroclita f. papillosa, Hemiclepsis marginata,andHelobdella stagnalis) and representatives of 3 unidentified species (Glossiphonia sp., Piscicola sp., and Erpobdella sp.) have been recorded. The checklist gives a contemporary overview of the species composition of leeches and information on their hosts or substrates.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Distribution of the Ribbon Leech in North Dakota
    109 Distribution of the Ribbon Leech in North Dakota CHRISTOPHER M. PENNUTOI and MALCOLM G. BUTLER Department of Zoology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105 ABSTRACT-The distribution of the ribbon leech, NepMlopsis obscwra, was examined in the Central Lowland and Missouri Coteau regions of North Dakota. The leech was found in 12 of3S ponds sampled during a two-year period. Leeches were trapped with throated metal cans and burlap sacks baited with frozen fish parts. Leech ocamence was positively correlated with maximum depth, mean conductivity, and percent littoral rock cover. Leech occurrence was not correlated with surface area or latiwde. Ponds containing N. obscwra were characterized by maximum depths greater than or equal to 1.0 m, mean conductivity values between 500 and 2300 uS/em', and some measurable littoral rock cover. Investiga­ tions concerning all life cycle anributes ofleech populations should be pursued in North Dakota to assist resource managers in establishing harvest policy for this important bait source. Key words: NepMlopsis obscwra, conductivity, maximum depth, prairie wetlands, ribbon leech The ribbon leech (Nephelopsis obscura Verrill; Hirudinea: Erpobdellidae) is an importantfish baitin the upper Midwestprizedby walleye and bass anglers. This leech occurs in ponds throughout the North Central and northern Rocky Mountain states in the U.S. and Canada (Herrmann 1970a, Klemm 1985). Collinsetal. (1981) suggested that Type III and IV wetlands with a silty bottom and no sport fish are ideal leech habitats in Minnesota. This leech has a semelparous, but potentially iteroparous, life cycle and attains a maximum fresh weight of 150-1200 mg, depending on geographic region (Davies and Everett 1977, Davies 1978, Linton et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Arhynchobdellida (Annelida: Oligochaeta: Hirudinida): Phylogenetic Relationships and Evolution
    MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 30 (2004) 213–225 www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Arhynchobdellida (Annelida: Oligochaeta: Hirudinida): phylogenetic relationships and evolution Elizabeth Bordaa,b,* and Mark E. Siddallb a Department of Biology, Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA b Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA Received 15 July 2003; revised 29 August 2003 Abstract A remarkable diversity of life history strategies, geographic distributions, and morphological characters provide a rich substrate for investigating the evolutionary relationships of arhynchobdellid leeches. The phylogenetic relationships, using parsimony anal- ysis, of the order Arhynchobdellida were investigated using nuclear 18S and 28S rDNA, mitochondrial 12S rDNA, and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I sequence data, as well as 24 morphological characters. Thirty-nine arhynchobdellid species were selected to represent the seven currently recognized families. Sixteen rhynchobdellid leeches from the families Glossiphoniidae and Piscicolidae were included as outgroup taxa. Analysis of all available data resolved a single most-parsimonious tree. The cladogram conflicted with most of the traditional classification schemes of the Arhynchobdellida. Monophyly of the Erpobdelliformes and Hirudini- formes was supported, whereas the families Haemadipsidae, Haemopidae, and Hirudinidae, as well as the genera Hirudo or Ali- olimnatis, were found not to be monophyletic. The results provide insight on the phylogenetic positions for the taxonomically problematic families Americobdellidae and Cylicobdellidae, the genera Semiscolex, Patagoniobdella, and Mesobdella, as well as genera traditionally classified under Hirudinidae. The evolution of dietary and habitat preferences is examined. Ó 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    [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]
  • Identification of Macroinvertebrate Samples for State E.P.A
    I L L IN 0 I S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. N6c Natural History Survey /9 Sr• Library ILLINOIS _-__ NATURAL HISTORY - SURVEY / "' 7 • womm Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification Technical Report IDENTIFICATION OF MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLES FOR STATE E. P. A. by- Donald W. Webb T^U,.'I, 7 T"T74- , .,a - JUo nL Un UL.,AA.A.=&.. Larry M. Page Mark J. Wetzel Warren U. Brigham LIST OF IDENTIFIERS Dr. W. U. Brigham: Coleoptera. Dr. L. M. Page: Amphipoda, Decapoda, and Isopoda Dr. J. U. Unzicker: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera Dr. D. W. Webb: Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, Megaloptera, Mollusca, and Odonata Mr. M. Wetzel: Hirudinea, Nematoda, Nematomorpha, Oligochaeta, and Turbellaria, i0 LIST OF TAXA TURBELLARIA OLIGOCHAETA Branchiobdellida Branchiobdellidae Lumbricul ida Lumbriculidae Haplotaxida Lumbricidae Naididae Chaetogaster sp. Dero digitata Dero furcata Dero pectinata Nais behningi Nais cacnunis Nais pardalis Ophidonais serpentina Paranais frici Tubificidae Branchiura sowerbyi Ilyodrilus templetoni Limnodrilus sp. Limnodrilus cervix Limnodrilus claparedeianus Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri STul bifex tubifex HIRUDINEA Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Helobdella stagnalis Helobdella triserialis Placobdella montifera Placobdella multilineata Placobdella ornata Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Erpobdella punctata NEM AlDA NEATOMORPHA ISOPODA Asellidae Caecidotea intermedia Lirceus sp. AMPHIPODA Gammaridae
    [Show full text]
  • An All-Taxa Biodiversity Inventory of the Huron Mountain Club
    AN ALL-TAXA BIODIVERSITY INVENTORY OF THE HURON MOUNTAIN CLUB Version: August 2016 Cite as: Woods, K.D. (Compiler). 2016. An all-taxa biodiversity inventory of the Huron Mountain Club. Version August 2016. Occasional papers of the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation, No. 5. [http://www.hmwf.org/species_list.php] Introduction and general compilation by: Kerry D. Woods Natural Sciences Bennington College Bennington VT 05201 Kingdom Fungi compiled by: Dana L. Richter School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI 49931 DEDICATION This project is dedicated to Dr. William R. Manierre, who is responsible, directly and indirectly, for documenting a large proportion of the taxa listed here. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 5 SOURCES 7 DOMAIN BACTERIA 11 KINGDOM MONERA 11 DOMAIN EUCARYA 13 KINGDOM EUGLENOZOA 13 KINGDOM RHODOPHYTA 13 KINGDOM DINOFLAGELLATA 14 KINGDOM XANTHOPHYTA 15 KINGDOM CHRYSOPHYTA 15 KINGDOM CHROMISTA 16 KINGDOM VIRIDAEPLANTAE 17 Phylum CHLOROPHYTA 18 Phylum BRYOPHYTA 20 Phylum MARCHANTIOPHYTA 27 Phylum ANTHOCEROTOPHYTA 29 Phylum LYCOPODIOPHYTA 30 Phylum EQUISETOPHYTA 31 Phylum POLYPODIOPHYTA 31 Phylum PINOPHYTA 32 Phylum MAGNOLIOPHYTA 32 Class Magnoliopsida 32 Class Liliopsida 44 KINGDOM FUNGI 50 Phylum DEUTEROMYCOTA 50 Phylum CHYTRIDIOMYCOTA 51 Phylum ZYGOMYCOTA 52 Phylum ASCOMYCOTA 52 Phylum BASIDIOMYCOTA 53 LICHENS 68 KINGDOM ANIMALIA 75 Phylum ANNELIDA 76 Phylum MOLLUSCA 77 Phylum ARTHROPODA 79 Class Insecta 80 Order Ephemeroptera 81 Order Odonata 83 Order Orthoptera 85 Order Coleoptera 88 Order Hymenoptera 96 Class Arachnida 110 Phylum CHORDATA 111 Class Actinopterygii 112 Class Amphibia 114 Class Reptilia 115 Class Aves 115 Class Mammalia 121 INTRODUCTION No complete species inventory exists for any area.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H: Invertebrates of the Lake Tahoe Basin
    APPENDIX H INVERTEBRATES OF THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN APPENDIX H INVERTEBRATES OF THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN Erik M. Holst and Matthew D. Schlesinger Table H-1—Documented and potential invertebrates of the Lake Tahoe basin. Species endemic to Lake Tahoe are noted with an “X”. Reliability codes: 1 = high-documented occurrence; 2 = moderate-potentially occurring based on at least two sources or identified in areas adjacent to the basin; 3 = low-potentially occurring based on a single source. Sources consulted: Frantz and Cordone (1966, 1996), Kimsey (pers. comm.), Manley and Schlesinger (in prep), NAMC (1999), and Storer and Usinger (1963). Other sources: H = Hampton (1988); S = SFSU (1999a); USFW = USFWS (1999) Basin Storer & Frantz- Manley & Other Phylum Class Order Family Scientific name Common name endemic Reliability Kimsey Usinger Cordone Schlesinger NAMC sources Annelida Clitellata Haplotaxida Haplotaxidae Haplotaxis 1 X Haplotaxida Naididae Arcteonais lomondi 1 X Haplotaxida Naididae Uncinais uncinata 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Ilyodrilus frantzi typica 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Rhyacodrilus brevidentus X 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Rhyacodrilus sodalis 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Spirosperma beetoni X 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Varichaetadrilus minutus X 1 X Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae Kincaidiana freidris 1 X Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae Rhynchelmis rostrata 1 X Hirudinea Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Erpobdella punctata 1 X Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Helobdella stagnalis 1 X Rhynchobdellida
    [Show full text]
  • A Biogeographic Study of Intermountain Leeches
    • ; A BIOGEOGRAPHIC STUDY OF INTERMOUNTAIN LEECHES Preliminary report, 1989 Peter Hovingh • PROLOGUE This work began out of curiosity to determine what , besides fishes occurred in the isolated springs of the Great Basin. The initial pressure was the proposed basing of the MX missile in the Great Basin in which one-third on the springs were :to be depleted. Examination of the literature revealed that most of the work was done before World War II. Big holes appeared in the present distributions of amphibians. Thus initially I chose to inventory the springs for amphibians and mollusks, collecting the mollusks for deposit in Utah Museum of Natural History until interest and expertise could arise to the needs of identification. Dr. Shi-Kuei Wu at the Colorado Museum of Natural History expressed an interest and thus half of the mollusk were deposited in that museum . I express great appreciation to him for assisting in the classification and his interest. I was not going to collect leeches, even though Dr. Donald J. Klemm was very co-operative in the identification of some leeches in the mountains and Tule Valley. However the leeches kept appearing. Thus the second year leeches were collected. I am very greatful to Dr. Klemm for his co-operation, his interest and his patience. It has been a very excellent "mail-order" leech identification school. Likewise conversations with Dr. Donald R. Currey concerning the lake levels of the Bonneville Basin have been very rewarding. It was the beginning of explaining the present observations with the past. The publications of Dr. Dwight W.
    [Show full text]
  • Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinida) of Northern Arkansas William E
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 60 Article 14 2006 Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinida) of Northern Arkansas William E. Moser National Museum of Natural History, [email protected] Donald J. Klemm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dennis J. Richardson Quinnipiac University Benjamin A. Wheeler Arkansas State University Stanley E. Trauth Arkansas State University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Moser, William E.; Klemm, Donald J.; Richardson, Dennis J.; Wheeler, Benjamin A.; Trauth, Stanley E.; and Daniels, Bruce A. (2006) "Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinida) of Northern Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 60 , Article 14. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol60/iss1/14 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 Article 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]. Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinida) of Northern Arkansas Authors William E. Moser, Donald J. Klemm, Dennis J. Richardson, Benjamin A. Wheeler, Stanley E. Trauth, and Bruce A. Daniels This article is available in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol60/iss1/14 Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea) from the Far North of Ontario: Distribution, Diversity, and Diagnostics Sarah V
    141 ARTICLE Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea) from the far north of Ontario: distribution, diversity, and diagnostics Sarah V. Langer, Kathryn A. Vezsenyi, Danielle de Carle, David V. Beresford, and Sebastian Kvist Abstract: Leeches have a worldwide distribution, yet numerous geographical regions remain to be adequately surveyed. Here, we present leech species records for one of these regions: the far north of Ontario, Canada. This region is primarily wetland habitat and includes two of Ontario’s three ecozones. Morphological examinations, as well as a single instance of successful DNA amplification with subsequent molecular identification, allowed us to identify representatives of 12 species from two predatory families (Erpobdellidae and Haemopidae) and one parasitic family (Glossiphoniidae) among samples of 130 individuals. To provide a more inclusive list of species records for this remote region, our data were also augmented by 25 largely unpublished collection records (for 102 individuals) from the Canadian Museum of Nature, which revealed the presence of an additional species. We comment on finds of particular interest in our sampling with comparison to relevant literature and provide new distribution data for these species. Key words: Hirudinea, leeches, northern Ontario, species distribution, specimen records, checklist. Résumé : Si la répartition des sangsues est planétaire, de nombreuses régions géographiques n’ont pas été adéquatement étudiées. Nous documentons des registres d’espèces de sangsues pour une de ces régions, l’extrême-nord de l’Ontario (Canada). Cette région consiste principalement en des habitats de milieu humide et comprend deux des trois écozones de l’Ontario. Des examens morphologiques et un seul cas réussi d’amplification d’ADN avec identification moléculaire subséquente nous per- mettent d’identifier des représentants de 12 espèces de deux familles de sangsues prédatrices (erpobdellidés et hémopidés) et d’une famille de sangsues parasitiques (glossiphoniidés) parmi des échantillons de 130 individus.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLICATIONS on MONTEZUMA WELL, ARIZONA (Compiled by Dean W
    PUBLICATIONS ON MONTEZUMA WELL, ARIZONA (Compiled by Dean W. Blinn, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ) January 1990 Anonymous. 1948. They found bottom ••••••••••• Desert 11:31. Barnett, A. & A. Brazel. 1975. A topoclimatic survey of Montezuma Well, Arizona. Arizona Academy of Sciences. 10:40-41. Batchelder, G.L. 1972. Progress report on limnological investigations at Montezuma's Well. 6 pp. Batchelder, G.L. 1974. Postpluvial ecology in Montezuma Well, Yavapai, Co., Arizona. Final Report to the Arizona Archeological Center., National Park Service, USDI, 19 pp. Batchelder, G.L. & G.A. Cole. 1978. Evidence for post-pluvial water level fluctuation at Montezuma Well, Coconino County, Arizona USA. Unpubl. manuscript. 5 pp. Beckman, J.E. Miscellaneous historical notes on Montezuma -Well. Unpubl. document. Blinn, D.W. & R.W. Davies. 1989. The evolutionary importance of mechanoreception in three erpobdellid leech species. Oecologia 79:6-9. Blinn, D.W. & R.W. Davies. 1989. New distributional records for leeches (Hirudinoidea) in Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 34:431-432. Blinn, D.W., Davies, R.W. & B. Dehdashti. 1987. Specialized pelagic feeding by Erpobdella montezuma (Hirundinea). Holarctic Ecology 10:235-240. Blinn, D.W. & B. Dehdashti. 1984. The nocturnal feeding behavior of Erpobdella punctata (Hirudinoidea) in a near thermally constant environment. 47th Annual Meeting of American Society of Limnology & Oceanography., Vancouver, B.C. Abstr. p. 9. Blinn, D.W., Dehdashti, B., Runck, C. & R.W. Davies. 1989. The importance of prey size and density in an endemic predator-prey couple (leech Erpobdella montezuma - amphipod Hyalella montezuma. Journal of Animal Ecology 59:187-192. Blinn, D.W., Grossnickle, N.
    [Show full text]