DOCSLIB.ORG

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (Conservation Species) USDA FOREST SERVICE Kisatchie National Forest Winn Ranger District

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (Conservation Species) USDA FOREST SERVICE Kisatchie National Forest Winn Ranger District BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (Conservation Species) USDA FOREST SERVICE Kisatchie National Forest Winn Ranger District Mendenhause Project Compartments 51, 52, and 56 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to the loss of viability of any native or desirable non-native animal species. This BE documents likely effects of management actions on populations of conservation species of concern as determined by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP). Such species are those, whose viability is most likely to be put at risk from management actions. Information presented here is used to ensure that such species are maintained at, or are moving toward, viable population levels. Populations of other species (those at less risk of losing viability) are maintained by creating and maintaining a diversity of habitat types distributed across the National Forest in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Through this combination of approaches, viable populations of all species are maintained. A review of the Louisiana Rare Animal Species list and the Forest Geographic Information System (GIS) records was conducted to determine which species would possibly occur within the project site. The general biology of the species, personal communication with experts, and literature searches were used to determine the potential effect proposed actions, including the no action, would have on species considered likely to occur within the project area. The aforementioned research was conducted considering the best available science, and the potential effects discovered are discussed in this BE. PURPOSE AND NEED: Differences between current and desired conditions have been identified within the project area. In order to move the project area toward the desired conditions, specific resource management actions were identified and the alternatives were developed. The purpose of this project is to meet the needs of the Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW), reduce risk of Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) attack, restore native longleaf pine, shortleaf pine-oak-hickory, and bottomland hardwood communities; improve forest access, and maintain boundaries between forest and private landowners. This project is needed to: Reduce the risk of Southern Pine Beetle attack The SPB risk rating program, Southern Pine Beetle-Event Monitor (SPB-EM), created by the USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, was used to rate loblolly stands. Stands with a hazard rating of medium or high were selected for first thinning. Data produced by this model projected that approximately 78 percent of the proposed treatment stands have a high southern pine beetle hazard rating; and approximately 9 percent have a medium SPB hazard rating. Restore Native Vegetation Communities: Longleaf Pine, Shortleaf Pine / Oak - Hickory, and Bottomland Hardwood The Forest Plan calls for reforestation of native vegetation communities. Based on current stand exam data, a large percentage of the project area’s forest type is currently loblolly pine. The project would restore approximately 125 acres to longleaf pine ecosystem, 75 acres to shortleaf pine/oak-hickory ecosystem, and 75 acres to hardwood ecosystem. Increase suitable RCW habitat The desired future condition (DFC’s) of Management Area (MA) 5 is the management of RCW habitat and restoration of the historical vegetation. The RCW Recovery Plan recognizes that the fitness of woodpecker groups increases if they have foraging habitat. The RCW Recovery Plan defines quality habitat as substantial amounts of foraging areas that are burned regularly, have some large old pines, low densities of small and medium pines, sparse to no hardwood midstory, and have a bunchgrass and forb groundcover (RCW Recovery Plan, p. 188). Foraging habitat is reduced by the presence of midstory hardwoods. Cavity trees must be in open stands with little hardwood midstory and few overstory hardwoods. Effective midstory control is a prerequisite to the management, conservation, and recovery of red-cockaded woodpeckers throughout their range (RCW Recovery Plan, p. 38). There are approximately 2,812 acres of the project area within the RCW HMA. The project area has not been thinned in several years and many of the stands proposed for treatment have basal areas (BA) greater than 80ft2. Stands located within the RCW HMA have been prescribed burned recently, however prescribed fire may be ineffective in quickly removing midstory due to the size of the trees it contains. The RCW HMA population objective for the Winn Ranger District is 263 active clusters (The Plan, FW-712, pg. 2-61); currently there are 46 active clusters. The project area has numerous recruitment stands that are currently not suitable for nesting. The project would include installation of 4 artificial inserts in each recruitment stand. Maintain Forest Service Boundaries Property boundary marking is inadequate in numerous locations, making it difficult to determine ownership. There are approximately 13 miles of private and NFS land interface in the project area. Boundary lines would be maintained or re- established to prevent ownership issues. Improve road conditions The Forest Plan requires a road system suitable for land and resource management activities and Forest administration (The Plan, p. 2-46, FW-554), and to provide user safety and traffic efficiency (The Plan, p. 2-48, FW-574). Within the Mendenhause Creek project area, several roads require maintenance and improvements. These improvements would involve blading, spot graveling, ditch restoration, and reconstruction of specific roads to prevent degradation of the Figure 1 : road system. Temporary roads used during project Vicinity Map of the USFS, Kisatchie National Forest, Winn Ranger District’s Mendenhause Project located implementation would be obliterated and re-vegetated as part North of U.S. Hwy 84 West in Winn Parish, Louisiana. of the project work, following use. Several closed National Forest Service Roads (NFSRs) are proposed to be designated for administrative use only once project implementation is complete. Roads with Gum Springs Horse Trail crossings would have signs posted near crossings to ensure safety to road and trail users. PROJECT LOCATION: The project area is located in western Winn Parish, approximately 8 miles west of Winnfield, Louisiana in Sections 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, and 28 of Township 11 North and Range 4 West. CONSULTATION HISTORY: The Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Kisatchie National Forest, which this project implements, was concurred upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be requested for this project. A heritage resource survey has been completed in these compartments. The findings of the survey have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and concurrence has been received. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTION: Harvest Treatments: First Thinning on approximately 446 acres in Compartment 51 (in stands 2, 6, 9, and 13), Compartment 52 (in stands 4, 7, 11, 12, 15, 27, 29, 30, and 35), and Compartment 56 (in stands 1 and 16) to an average residual 60 ft2 per BA in the young loblolly pine stands to reduce risk of SPB damage or loss and to improve tree and stand vigor. Intermediate thinning on approximately 3,038 acres in Compartment 51 (in stands 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19), Compartment 52 (in stands 2, 5, 16, 18, 20, 24, and 33), and Compartment 56 (in stands 2-11, 13-15, 18-23, 25, 27, 30, and 31). Thinning in Compartments 51 and 56 would consist of removing some pine pine and some or all hardwood midstory and overstory necessary to achieve an average of 60 ft2 BA per AC (except within the RCW clusters where BA would be reduced to an average 50 ft2 BA per AC). These thinning’s would retain longleaf and shortleaf pine over loblolly and slash pines. Retention priority would be 1) relict trees, 2) potential cavity trees, 3) trees greater than 10 inches diameter at 4.5 feet above ground level, 4) trees less than 10 inches at DBH. Hardwood trees that are in clusters would not be cut. Hardwoods retained, that were not in clumps, would be retained by the following order: 1) Relict trees, 2) wildlife cavity trees, 3) flowering species, and 4) large/super canopy trees Intermediate thinning that occurs in Compartment 52 would consist of pine and hardwood midstory and overstory reduction to an average 100 ft2 BA per AC. Species would be retained in the following order: 1) oaks and hickory, 2) dogwood, 3) black cherry, 4) American beech, 5) blackgum, 6) American holly, 7) elm, 8) maple, 9) sweetgum, and 10) loblolly pine. Retention priority would be 1) relict trees, 2) wildlife cavity trees, 3) large/super canopy trees, and 4) clumps of hardwoods. Longleaf restoration of approximately 125 acres in compartment 52 (stand 6) and Compartment 56 (stands 24, 26, 28, and 29) by artificial regeneration. Restoration would consist of cutting all species except longleaf pine,. Site preparation of these stands would include chopping, burning and/or herbicide. Once seedlings are planted, prescribed burning to control brownspot disease and release, as needed, would be initiated. Release would be accomplished using handtools (chainsaws, brushsaws, etc.), burning, herbicide application, or a combination. Herbicides used would include Triclopyr, Imazapyr, or a combination to control competing vegetation. Herbicide would be applied in spring (usually April and/or May) after the trees have completed full flush by directed foliar spray, hack and squirt, or basal bark treatments. Any burning would occur within a minimum of 30 days after herbicide application. Shortleaf restoration of approximately 75 acres in compartment 51 (stands 11, 20, and 21) by artificial regeneration. Restoration would consist of cutting all species except shortleaf pine. Site preparation of these stands would include chopping, burning and/or herbicide. Once seedlings are planted, they would be released, as needed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Louisiana Waterthrush (Parkesia Motacilla) Christopher N
    Louisiana Waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla) Christopher N. Hull Keweenaw Co., MI 4/6/2008 © Mike Shupe (Click to view a comparison of Atlas I to II) This fascinating southern waterthrush sings its loud, clear, distinctive song over the sound of The species is considered area-sensitive babbling brooks as far north as eastern (Cutright 2006), and large, continuous tracts of Nebraska, lower Michigan, southern Ontario, mature forest, tens to hundreds of acres in size, and New England, and as far south as eastern are required (Eaton 1958, Eaton 1988, Peterjohn Texas, central Louisiana, and northern Florida. and Rice 1991, Robinson 1995, Kleen 2004, It winters from Mexico and southern Florida Cutright 2006, McCracken 2007, Rosenberg south to Central America, northern South 2008). Territories are linear, following America, and the West Indies. (AOU 1983, continuously-forested stream habitat, and range Robinson 1995). 188-1,200 m in length (Eaton 1958, Craig 1981, Robinson 1990, Robinson 1995). Hubbard (1971) suggested that the Louisiana Waterthrush evolved while isolated in the Distribution southern Appalachians during an interglacial Using the newer findings above, which were period of the Pleistocene. It prefers lotic derived using modern knowledge and (flowing-water) upland deciduous forest techniques, the "logical imperative" approach of habitats, for which it exhibits a degree of Brewer (1991) would lead us to predict that the morphological and behavioral specialization Louisiana would have been historically (Barrows 1912, Bent 1953, Craig 1984, Craig distributed throughout the SLP to the tension 1985, Craig 1987). Specifically, the Louisiana zone, and likely beyond somewhat, in suitable Waterthrush avoids moderate and large streams, habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing Suburban Greenways to Provide Habitat for Forest-Breeding Birds
    Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 153–164 Designing suburban greenways to provide habitat for forest-breeding birds Jamie Mason 1, Christopher Moorman ∗, George Hess, Kristen Sinclair 2 Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA Received 6 March 2006; received in revised form 25 May 2006; accepted 10 July 2006 Available online 22 August 2006 Abstract Appropriately designed, greenways may provide habitat for neotropical migrants, insectivores, and forest-interior specialist birds that decrease in diversity and abundance as a result of suburban development. We investigated the effects of width of the forested corridor containing a greenway, adjacent land use and cover, and the composition and vegetation structure within the greenway on breeding bird abundance and community composition in suburban greenways in Raleigh and Cary, North Carolina, USA. Using 50 m fixed-radius point counts, we surveyed breeding bird communities for 2 years at 34 study sites, located at the center of 300-m-long greenway segments. Percent coverage of managed area within the greenway, such as trail and other mowed or maintained surfaces, was a predictor for all development- sensitive bird groupings. Abundance and richness of development-sensitive species were lowest in greenway segments containing more managed area. Richness and abundance of development-sensitive species also decreased as percent cover of pavement and bare earth adjacent to greenways increased. Urban adaptors and edge-dwelling birds, such as Mourning Dove, House Wren, House Finch, and European Starling, were most common in greenways less than 100 m wide. Conversely, forest-interior species were not recorded in greenways narrower than 50 m.
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)
    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) ‐ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals ‐ 2020 MOLLUSKS Common Name Scientific Name G‐Rank S‐Rank Federal Status State Status Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina G5 S1 Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 S2 Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti G2G3Q SH Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata G4G5 S1 Elephant‐ear Elliptio crassidens G5 S3 Spike Elliptio dilatata G5 S2S3 Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi G2G3 S3 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena G4G5 S3 Round Pearlshell Glebula rotundata G4G5 S4 Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium G5 S1 Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata G5 S3 Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea G5 S2 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta G4G5 S1 Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli G1 S1 Threatened Threatened Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G2 S1S2 Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria G4 S1 Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 S1 Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G3 S2 Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2G3 S2 Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus G1G2 SH Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Inflated Heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus G1G2Q S1 Threatened Threatened Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis G3G4 S1 Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica G3G4 S1 Threatened Threatened Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra G4 S1 Southern Creekmussel Strophitus subvexus
    [Show full text]
  • Vulnerability of At-Risk Species to Climate Change in New York (PDF
    Vulnerability of At-risk Species to Climate Change in New York Matthew D. Schlesinger, Jeffrey D. Corser, Kelly A. Perkins, and Erin L. White New York Natural Heritage Program A Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation New York Natural Heritage Program i 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org Vulnerability of At-risk Species to Climate Change in New York Matthew D. Schlesinger Jeffrey D. Corser Kelly A. Perkins Erin L. White New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 March 2011 Please cite this document as follows: Schlesinger, M.D., J.D. Corser, K.A. Perkins, and E.L. White. 2011. Vulnerability of at-risk species to climate change in New York. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. Cover photos: Brook floater (Alismodonta varicosa) by E. Gordon, Spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrookii) by Jesse Jaycox, and Black Skimmers (Rynchops niger) by Steve Young. Climate predictions are from www.climatewizard.org. New York Natural Heritage Program ii Executive summary Vulnerability assessments are rapidly becoming an essential tool in climate change adaptation planning. As states revise their Wildlife Action Plans, the need to integrate climate change considerations drives the adoption of vulnerability assessments as critical components. To help meet this need for New York, we calculated the relative vulnerability of 119 of New York’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) using NatureServe’s Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI). Funding was provided to the New York Natural Heritage Program by New York State Wildlife Grants in cooperation with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Academy of Science
    Journal of the CODEN: AKASO ISBN: 0097-4374 ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE VOLUME 61 2007 Library Rate ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ARKANSAS TECH UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCES 1701 N. BOULDER RUSSELLVILLE. AR 72801-2222 Arkansas Academy ofScience, Dept. of Physical Sciences, Arkansas Tech University PAST PRESIDENTS OF THE ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Charles Brookover, 1917 C. E. Hoffman, 1959 Paul Sharrah, 1984 Dwight M. Moore, 1932-33, 64 N. D. Buffaloe, 1960 William L. Evans, 1985 Flora Haas, 1934 H. L. Bogan, 1961 Gary Heidt, 1986 H. H. Hyman, 1935 Trumann McEver, 1962 Edmond Bacon, 1987 L. B. Ham, 1936 Robert Shideler, 1963 Gary Tucker, 1988 W. C. Muon, 1937 L. F. Bailey, 1965 David Chittenden, 1989 M. J. McHenry, 1938 James H. Fribourgh, 1966 Richard K. Speairs, Jr. 1990 T. L. Smith, 1939 Howard Moore, 1967 Robert Watson, 1991 P. G. Horton, 1940 John J. Chapman, 1968 Michael W. Rapp, 1992 I. A. Willis, 1941-42 Arthur Fry, 1969 Arthur A. Johnson, 1993 L. B. Roberts, 1943-44 M. L. Lawson, 1970 George Harp, 1994 JeffBanks, 1945 R. T. Kirkwood, 1971 James Peck, 1995 H. L. Winburn, 1946-47 George E. Templeton, 1972 Peggy R. Dorris, 1996 E. A. Provine, 1948 E. B. Wittlake, 1973 Richard Kluender, 1997 G. V. Robinette, 1949 Clark McCarty, 1974 James Daly, 1998 John R. Totter, 1950 Edward Dale, 1975 Rose McConnell, 1999 R. H. Austin, 1951 Joe Guenter, 1976 Mostafa Hemmati, 2000 E. A. Spessard, 1952 Jewel Moore, 1977 Mark Draganjac, 2001 Delbert Swartz, 1953 Joe Nix, 1978 John Rickett, 2002 Z.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology, Morphology, and Behavior in the New World Wood Warblers
    Ecology, Morphology, and Behavior in the New World Wood Warblers A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Brandan L. Gray August 2019 © 2019 Brandan L. Gray. All Rights Reserved. 2 This dissertation titled Ecology, Morphology, and Behavior in the New World Wood Warblers by BRANDAN L. GRAY has been approved for the Department of Biological Sciences and the College of Arts and Sciences by Donald B. Miles Professor of Biological Sciences Florenz Plassmann Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT GRAY, BRANDAN L., Ph.D., August 2019, Biological Sciences Ecology, Morphology, and Behavior in the New World Wood Warblers Director of Dissertation: Donald B. Miles In a rapidly changing world, species are faced with habitat alteration, changing climate and weather patterns, changing community interactions, novel resources, novel dangers, and a host of other natural and anthropogenic challenges. Conservationists endeavor to understand how changing ecology will impact local populations and local communities so efforts and funds can be allocated to those taxa/ecosystems exhibiting the greatest need. Ecological morphological and functional morphological research form the foundation of our understanding of selection-driven morphological evolution. Studies which identify and describe ecomorphological or functional morphological relationships will improve our fundamental understanding of how taxa respond to ecological selective pressures and will improve our ability to identify and conserve those aspects of nature unable to cope with rapid change. The New World wood warblers (family Parulidae) exhibit extensive taxonomic, behavioral, ecological, and morphological variation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) for Arkansas with a Synopsis of Previous Records
    Midsouth Entomologist 4: 29–38 ISSN: 1936-6019 www.midsouthentomologist.org.msstate.edu Research Article New Records of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) for Arkansas with a Synopsis of Previous Records Joe. A. MacGown1, 3, JoVonn G. Hill1, and Michael Skvarla2 1Mississippi Entomological Museum, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University, MS 39762 2Department of Entomology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72207 3Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 7-I-2011 Accepted: 7-IV-2011 Abstract: Ten new state records of Formicidae are reported for Arkansas including Camponotus obliquus Smith, Polyergus breviceps Emery, Proceratium crassicorne Emery, Pyramica metazytes Bolton, P. missouriensis (Smith), P. pulchella (Emery), P. talpa (Weber), Stenamma impar Forel, Temnothorax ambiguus (Emery), and T. texanus (Wheeler). A synopsis of previous records of ant species occurring in Arkansas is provided. Keywords: Ants, new state records, Arkansas, southeastern United States Introduction Ecologically and physiographically, Arkansas is quite diverse with seven level III ecoregions and 32 level IV ecoregions (Woods, 2004). Topographically, the state is divided into two major regions on either side of the fall line, which runs northeast to southwest. The northwestern part of the state includes the Interior Highlands, which is further divided into the Ozark Plateau, the Arkansas River Valley, and the Ouachita Mountains. The southern and eastern portions of the state are located in the Gulf Coastal Plain, which is divided into the West Gulf Coastal Plain in the south, the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain in the east, and Crowley’s Ridge, a narrow upland region that bisects the Mississippi Alluvial Plain from north to south (Foti, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation Usda - Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest Catahoula Ranger District
    Catahoula RD – North Gray Creek 2 Aug 19 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION USDA - FOREST SERVICE, KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST CATAHOULA RANGER DISTRICT North Gray Creek I. INTRODUCTION This report documents the findings of the Biological Evaluation (BE) for the proposed silvicultural activities in Compartments 89-93 on the Catahoula Ranger District of the Kisatchie National Forest. It also serves to provide the decision maker with information and determinations of the effects of proposed actions on proposed, endangered, threatened and sensitive (PETS) species and habitats so that the best decisions can be made regarding these species and the proposal. PETS species are species whose viability is most likely to be put at risk from management actions. Through the BE process the proposed management activities were reviewed and their potential effects on PETS species disclosed. Evaluation methods included internal expertise on species' habitat requirements, field surveys, Forest Service inventory and occurrence records, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest, the recovery plans for the the red- cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and Louisiana pearlshell mussel (LPM) and the draft recovery plan and candidate conservation agreement (CCA) for the Louisisana pine snake (LPS). This biological evaluation was prepared in accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2609.23R and regulations set forth in Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. A botanical evaluation was done separately to address impacts on sensitive and conservation plants. PURPOSE AND NEED: Differences between current and desired conditions have been identified within the project area. In order to move the project area toward the desired conditions, specific resource management actions were identified and developed.
    [Show full text]
  • NH Bird Records
    New Hampshire Bird Records Spring 2014 Vol. 33, No. 1 IN CELEBRATION his issue of New Hampshire Bird Records with Tits color cover is sponsored by a friend in celebration of the Concord Bird and Wildlife Club’s more than 100 years of birding and blooming. NEW HAMPSHIRE BIRD RECORDS In This Issue VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1 SPRING 2014 From the Editor .......................................................................................................................1 Photo Quiz ..........................................................................................................................1 MANAGING EDITOR 2014 Goodhue-Elkins Award – Allan Keith and Robert Fox .....................................................2 Rebecca Suomala Spring Season: March 1 through May 31, 2014 .......................................................................3 603-224-9909 X309, [email protected] by Eric Masterson The Inland White-winged Scoter Flight of May 2014 ..............................................................27 TEXT EDITOR by Robert A. Quinn Dan Hubbard Beyond the Sandhill Crane: Birding Hidden Towns of Northwestern Grafton County ............30 SEASON EDITORS by Sandy and Mark Turner, with Phil Brown Eric Masterson, Spring Backyard Birder – Waggle Dance of the Woodpeckers .............................................................32 Tony Vazzano, Summer by Brenda Sens Lauren Kras/Ben Griffith, Fall Field Notes ........................................................................................................................33
    [Show full text]
  • Wood Warblers Wildlife Note
    hooded warbler 47. Wood Warblers Like jewels strewn through the woods, Pennsylvania’s native warblers appear in early spring, the males arrayed in gleaming colors. Twenty-seven warbler species breed commonly in Pennsylvania, another four are rare breeders, and seven migrate through Penn’s Woods headed for breeding grounds farther north. In central Pennsylvania, the first species begin arriving in late March and early April. Louisiana waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla) and black and white warbler (Mniotilta varia) are among the earliest. The great mass of warblers passes through around mid-May, and then the migration trickles off until it ends in late May by which time the trees have leafed out, making it tough to spot canopy-dwelling species. In southern Pennsylvania, look for the migration to begin and end a few days to a week earlier; in northern Pennsylvania, it is somewhat later. As summer progresses and males stop singing on territory, warblers appear less often, making the onset of fall migration difficult to detect. Some species begin moving south as early as mid and late July. In August the majority specific habitat types and show a preference for specific of warblers start moving south again, with migration characteristics within a breeding habitat. They forage from peaking in September and ending in October, although ground level to the treetops and eat mainly small insects stragglers may still come through into November. But by and insect larvae plus a few fruits; some warblers take now most species have molted into cryptic shades of olive flower nectar. When several species inhabit the same area, and brown: the “confusing fall warblers” of field guides.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamuli the Newsletter of the International Society of Hymenopterists
    Hamuli The Newsletter of the International Society of Hymenopterists volume 2, issue 1 20 January 2011 In this issue... Treasurer’s report (Brabant) 1 Figging in South Africa (van Noort) 1 Webmaster’s report (Seltmann) 2 Secretary’s report (Deans) 2 Ideas for ISH membership (Sharanowski) 7 New model for JHR (Woolley) 7 Permits and loans (Austin) 8 Recovery from 7th ICH (Melika) 10 Gall wasp jewelry (Talamas) 11 Gregarious Aleiodes (M. Shaw) 12 White whale wasps (Williams) 13 Dr Michael McLeish and MSc student Frances van der Merwe (University Photoeclector (Talamas) 14 of Stellenbosch) with Dr Simon van Noort (Iziko South African Museum), from left to right respectively, at Ithala Game Reserve in front of a South Where the wild things are (S. Shaw) 14 African near endemic fig species, Ficus burtt-davyi. Missing wasps and bees (Barthélémy) 16 Digitization in Finland (Sääksjärvi et al.) 17 Figging in KwaZulu-Natal Hidden rainbows (Hansson & Shetsova) 19 By: Simon van Noort, Iziko Museums of Cape Town Collecting bears (Schwarzfeld) 20 Five stings in a day (Starr) 21 A combined Iziko Museums of Cape Town and Univer- Sarawak Hymenoptera survey (Darling) 22 sity of Stellenbosch field trip was conducted in October Lessons from fieldwork (Mayo) 24 2010 to sample fig wasps for cuticular hydrocarbons. The Vapor coating for SEM (Dal Molin et al.) 27 focus of the sampling area centered on north-eastern South Tropical ichneumonids (Sääksjärvi) 28 Africa. Fig species have a tropical distribution and the HAO update and report (HAO team) 30 highest concentration and diversity of South African fig Slam traps in Belize (Broad) 32 species occurs in Kwazulu-Natal, hence the targeting of Scanning specimen drawers (Deans) 33 this region to maximize return on sampling effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Colony Characteristics in the Harvester Ant Genus
    Evolution of Colony Characteristics in The Harvester Ant Genus Pogonomyrmex Dissertation zur Erlangung des naturwissenschaftlichen Doktorgrades der Bayerischen Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg vorgelegt von Christoph Strehl Nürnberg Würzburg 2005 - 2 - - 3 - Eingereicht am: ......................................................................................................... Mitglieder der Prüfungskommission: Vorsitzender: ............................................................................................................. Gutachter : ................................................................................................................. Gutachter : ................................................................................................................. Tag des Promotionskolloquiums: .............................................................................. Doktorurkunde ausgehändigt am: ............................................................................. - 4 - - 5 - 1. Index 1. Index................................................................................................................. 5 2. General Introduction and Thesis Outline....................................................... 7 1.1 The characteristics of an ant colony...................................................... 8 1.2 Relatedness as a major component driving the evolution of colony characteristics.................................................................................................10 1.3 The evolution
    [Show full text]