DOCSLIB.ORG

Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources with Assistance from Conservation Partners Natural Resources Board Approved August 2005 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Acceptance September 2005 Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Governor Jim Doyle Natural Resources Board Gerald M. O’Brien, Chair Howard D. Poulson, Vice-Chair Jonathan P Ela, Secretary Herbert F. Behnke Christine L. Thomas John W. Welter Stephen D. Willet Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Scott Hassett, Secretary Laurie Osterndorf, Division Administrator, Land Paul DeLong, Division Administrator, Forestry Todd Ambs, Division Administrator, Water Amy Smith, Division Administrator, Enforcement and Science Recommended Citation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Madison, WI. “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” – John Muir The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to Equal Opportunity Office, Department of Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. This publication can be made available in alternative formats (large print, Braille, audio-tape, etc.) upon request. Please contact the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or call (608) 266-7012 for copies of this report. Pub-ER-641 2005 Cover Photos Western Meadowlark , John and Karen Hollingsworth Blanding’s Turtle, ÓA.B. Sheldon Karner Blue Butterfly, John and Karen Hollingsworth Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Foreword ...............................................................................................................................i Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................ii Executive Summary .............................................................................................................iii Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose 1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Overview of Wisconsin’s Strategy .........................................................................1-3 1.3 The Results and Benefits of Wisconsin’s Strategy ...................................................1-4 Chapter 2. Approach and Methods 2.1 Organizational Structure .........................................................................................2-1 2.2 Ecological Framework............................................................................................2-5 2.2.1 Overview of the Ecological Landscapes of Wisconsin ........................................2-5 2.2.2 Overview of the Natural Communities in Wisconsin ..........................................2-6 2.2.3 Ecological Landscape Descriptions ...................................................................2-7 2.2.3.1 Superior Coastal Plain Ecological Landscape.........................................2-11 2.2.3.2 Northwest Lowlands Ecological Landscape ...........................................2-14 2.2.3.3 Northwest Sands Ecological Landscape.................................................2-17 2.2.3.4 North Central Forest Ecological Landscape ...........................................2-19 2.2.3.5 Northern Highlands Ecological Landscape ............................................2-22 2.2.3.6 Forest Transition Ecological Landscape.................................................2-24 2.2.3.7 Northeast Sands Ecological Landscape..................................................2-27 2.2.3.8 Northern Lake Michigan Coastal Ecological Landscape .........................2-29 2.2.3.9 Central Lake Michigan Coastal Ecological Landscape............................2-32 2.2.3.10 Western Prairie Ecological Landscape .................................................2-35 2.2.3.11 Western Coulee and Ridges Ecological Landscape ...............................2-37 2.2.3.12 Southwest Savanna Ecological Landscape ...........................................2-40 2.2.3.13 Central Sand Plains Ecological Landscape ...........................................2-43 2.2.3.14 Central Sand Hills Ecological Landscape.............................................2-46 2.2.3.15 Southeast Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape ....................................2-49 2.2.3.16 Southern Lake Michigan Coastal Ecological Landscape .......................2-52 2.3 Methodology for Determining Species of Greatest Conservation Need.....................2-55 2.3.1 Methodology for Determining Vertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need ................................................................................................................2-56 2.3.1.1 General Introduction ............................................................................2-56 2.3.1.2 Method Used to Identify Vertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Wisconsin .............................................................................................2-56 2.3.1.3 Selected Method for Categorizing Vertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Wisconsin ................................................................................2-61 Table of Contents Page xiii Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Page 2.3.1.4 Vertebrate Species Not Identified as Vertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Wisconsin............................................................2-62 2.3.2 Methodology for Determinin g Invertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need ....................................................................................................................2-65 2.3.2.1 General Introduction ............................................................................2-65 2.3.2.2 State of Scientific Knowledge and Process Used to Identify Invertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need...................................................2-65 2.3.2.3 Invertebrate Taxa Considered/Not Considered in the Current Strategy.....2-70 2.3.2.4 Important Invertebrate Data Sources .....................................................2-71 2.3.2.5 Categorizing Invertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need...........2-72 2.3.2.6 Rationale for Inclusion of Invertebrate Species as Species of Greatest Conservation Need................................................................................2-74 2.4 Methodology for Identifying Habitat Associations of Species of Greatest Conservation Need....................................................................................................................2-80 2.5 Methodology for Identifying Habitat and Species Threats, Issues, and Conservation Actions ................................................................................................................2-85 Chapter 3. Vertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need: Assessments and Conservation Strategies 3.1 Vertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need....................................................3-1 3.1.1 Description of Vertebrate Species Summaries ...................................................3-3 3.1.1.1 Species Ranking Criteria Scores..............................................................3-3 3.1.1.2 Ecological Landscape Association Scores................................................3-6 3.1.1.3 Landscape-community Combinations of Highest Ecological Priority.........3-7 3.1.1.4 Threats, Issues, and Priority Conservation Actions ...................................3-7 3.1.2 Bird Species of Greatest Conservation Need .....................................................3-9 3.1.2.1 Overview ..............................................................................................3-9 3.1.2.2 General Threats, Issues and Conservation Actions..................................3-11 3.1.2.3 Individual Bird Species of Greatest Conservation Need Summaries.........3-15 3.1.3 Fish Species of Greatest Conservation Need.................................................. 3-172 3.1.3.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 3-172 3.1.3.2 General Threats, Issues and Conservation Actions................................ 3-173 3.1.3.3 Individual Fish Species of Greatest Conservation Need Summaries....... 3-175 3.1.4 Herptile Species of Greatest Conservation Need............................................ 3-217 3.1.4.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 3-217 3.1.4.2 General Threats, Issues and Conservation Actions................................ 3-217 3.1.4.3 Individual Herptile Species of Greatest Conservation Need Summaries . 3-222 3.1.5 Mammal Species of Greatest Conservation Need........................................... 3-269 3.1.5.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 3-269 3.1.5.2 General Threats, Issues and Conservation Actions................................ 3-269 3.1.5.3 Individual Mammal Species of Greatest Conservation Need Summaries ......................................................................................................... 3-274 3.2 Vertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need by Ecological
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Report110
    ~ ~ WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected RESEARCH Rivers of Wisconsin by Richard A. Lillie REPORT110 Bureau of Research, Monona December 1995 ~ Abstract The mayfly fauna of 25 rivers and streams in Wisconsin were surveyed during 1991-93 to document the temporal and spatial occurrence patterns of two state endangered mayflies, Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex. Both species are candidates under review for addition to the federal List of Endang­ ered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on previous records of occur­ rence in Wisconsin, sampling was conducted during the period May-July using a combination of sampling methods, including dredges, air-lift pumps, kick-nets, and hand-picking of substrates. No specimens of Anepeorus simplex were collected. Three specimens (nymphs or larvae) of Acanthametropus pecatonica were found in the Black River, one nymph was collected from the lower Wisconsin River, and a partial exuviae was collected from the Chippewa River. Homoeoneuria ammophila was recorded from Wisconsin waters for the first time from the Black River and Sugar River. New site distribution records for the following Wiscon­ sin special concern species include: Macdunnoa persimplex, Metretopus borealis, Paracloeodes minutus, Parameletus chelifer, Pentagenia vittigera, Cercobrachys sp., and Pseudiron centra/is. Collection of many of the aforementioned species from large rivers appears to be dependent upon sampling sand-bottomed substrates at frequent intervals, as several species were relatively abundant during only very short time spans. Most species were associated with sand substrates in water < 2 m deep. Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex should continue to be listed as endangered for state purposes and receive a biological rarity ranking of critically imperiled (S1 ranking), and both species should be considered as candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act.
    [Show full text]
  • HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island
    HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges October 2017 Habitat Management Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the world's premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants. Since the designation of the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the System has grown to encompass more than 150 million acres, 556 national wildlife refuges and other units of the Refuge System, plus 38 wetland management districts. This page intentionally left blank. Habitat Management Plan for Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Habitat Management Plan (HMP) provides vision and specific guidance on enhancing and managing habitat for the resources of concern (ROC) at the refuge. The contributions of the refuge to ecosystem- and landscape-scale wildlife and biodiversity conservation, specifically migratory waterfowl, are incorporated into this HMP. The HMP is intended to provide habitat management direction for the next 15 years. The HMP is also needed to ensure that the refuge continues to conserve habitat for migratory birds in the context of climate change, which affects all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
    [Show full text]
  • Dytiscid Water Beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of the Yukon
    Dytiscid water beetles of the Yukon FRONTISPIECE. Neoscutopterus horni (Crotch), a large, black species of dytiscid beetle that is common in sphagnum bog pools throughout the Yukon Territory. 491 Dytiscid Water Beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of the Yukon DAVID J. LARSON Department of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X9 Abstract. One hundred and thirteen species of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) are recorded from the Yukon Territory. The Yukon distribution, total geographical range and habitat of each of these species is described and multi-species patterns are summarized in tabular form. Several different range patterns are recognized with most species being Holarctic or transcontinental Nearctic boreal (73%) in lentic habitats. Other major range patterns are Arctic (20 species) and Cordilleran (12 species), while a few species are considered to have Grassland (7), Deciduous forest (2) or Southern (5) distributions. Sixteen species have a Beringian and glaciated western Nearctic distribution, i.e. the only Nearctic Wisconsinan refugial area encompassed by their present range is the Alaskan/Central Yukon refugium; 5 of these species are closely confined to this area while 11 have wide ranges that extend in the arctic and/or boreal zones east to Hudson Bay. Résumé. Les dytiques (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) du Yukon. Cent treize espèces de dytiques (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) sont connues au Yukon. Leur répartition au Yukon, leur répartition globale et leur habitat sont décrits et un tableau résume les regroupements d’espèces. La répartition permet de reconnaître plusieurs éléments: la majorité des espèces sont holarctiques ou transcontinentales-néarctiques-boréales (73%) dans des habitats lénitiques. Vingt espèces sont arctiques, 12 sont cordillériennes, alors qu’un petit nombre sont de la prairie herbeuse (7), ou de la forêt décidue (2), ou sont australes (5).
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Areas Inventory of Bradford County, Pennsylvania 2005
    A NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY OF BRADFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2005 Submitted to: Bradford County Office of Community Planning and Grants Bradford County Planning Commission North Towanda Annex No. 1 RR1 Box 179A Towanda, PA 18848 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Science Office The Nature Conservancy 208 Airport Drive Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 This project was funded in part by a state grant from the DCNR Wild Resource Conservation Program. Additional support was provided by the Department of Community & Economic Development and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through State Wildlife Grants program grant T-2, administered through the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. ii Site Index by Township SOUTH CREEK # 1 # LITCHFIELD RIDGEBURY 4 WINDHAM # 3 # 7 8 # WELLS ATHENS # 6 WARREN # # 2 # 5 9 10 # # 15 13 11 # 17 SHESHEQUIN # COLUMBIA # # 16 ROME OR WELL SMITHFI ELD ULSTER # SPRINGFIELD 12 # PIKE 19 18 14 # 29 # # 20 WYSOX 30 WEST NORTH # # 21 27 STANDING BURLINGTON BURLINGTON TOWANDA # # 22 TROY STONE # 25 28 STEVENS # ARMENIA HERRICK # 24 # # TOWANDA 34 26 # 31 # GRANVI LLE 48 # # ASYLUM 33 FRANKLIN 35 # 32 55 # # 56 MONROE WYALUSING 23 57 53 TUSCARORA 61 59 58 # LEROY # 37 # # # # 43 36 71 66 # # # # # # # # # 44 67 54 49 # # 52 # # # # 60 62 CANTON OVERTON 39 69 # # # 42 TERRY # # # # 68 41 40 72 63 # ALBANY 47 # # # 45 # 50 46 WILMOT 70 65 # 64 # 51 Site Index by USGS Quadrangle # 1 # 4 GILLETT # 3 # LITCHFIELD 8 # MILLERTON 7 BENTLEY CREEK # 6 # FRIENDSVILLE # 2 SAYRE # WINDHAM 5 LITTLE MEADOWS 9
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrate Distribution and Diversity Assessment at the U. S. Army Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site a Report to the U
    Invertebrate Distribution and Diversity Assessment at the U. S. Army Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site A report to the U. S. Army and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service G. J. Michels, Jr., J. L. Newton, H. L. Lindon, and J. A. Brazille Texas AgriLife Research 2301 Experiment Station Road Bushland, TX 79012 2008 Report Introductory Notes The invertebrate survey in 2008 presented an interesting challenge. Extremely dry conditions prevailed throughout most of the adult activity period for the invertebrates and grass fires occurred several times throughout the summer. By visual assessment, plant resources were scarce compared to last year, with few green plants and almost no flowering plants. Eight habitats and nine sites continued to be sampled in 2008. The Ponderosa pine/ yellow indiangrass site was removed from the study after the low numbers of species and individuals collected there in 2007. All other sites from the 2007 survey were included in the 2008 survey. We also discontinued the collection of Coccinellidae in the 2008 survey, as only 98 individuals from four species were collected in 2007. Pitfall and malaise trapping were continued in the same way as the 2007 survey. Sweep net sampling was discontinued to allow time for Asilidae and Orthoptera timed surveys consisting of direct collection of individuals with a net. These surveys were conducted in the same way as the time constrained butterfly (Papilionidea and Hesperoidea) surveys, with 15-minute intervals for each taxanomic group. This was sucessful when individuals were present, but the dry summer made it difficult to assess the utility of these techniques because of overall low abundance of insects.
    [Show full text]
  • National Federation for Biological Recording
    NFBR Newsletter 42 NATIONAL FEDERATION FOR BIOLOGICAL RECORDING NEWSLETTER 42 July 2011 The future of biological recording? Report from the 2011 NFBR conference included NFBR Honorary Officers and Council Members following 2011 AGM Chair: Trevor James Martin Harvey 56 Back Street, Ashwell, Baldock, Herts., SG7 5PE Life Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall Tel: 01462 742684 Email: Milton Keynes. MK7 6AA [email protected] Tel: 07816 963576 Email: [email protected] Vice-Chair: Steve Whitbread Martin Hicks 20 Merryfield House, Grove Park Road, London. Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre, County SE9 4PR Tel: 020 8851 9601 Hall, Pegs Lane, Hertford, Hertfordshire, SG13 8DN. Email: [email protected] Tel: 01992 555220 Email: [email protected] Membership Secretary & Treasurer: Claire Richard Fox (co-opted) Langrick Butterfly Conservation, Manor Yard, East Lulworth, 47 Sunningdale Road, Hessle, East Yorks HU13 Dorset BH20 5QP Tel: 01626 368385 9AN Email: [email protected] Tel. 01482 648138 Email: [email protected] Secretary: John Newbould Gary Lewis ALERC Chair (co-opted) Stonecroft, 3 Brookmead Close, Sutton Poyntz, ERCCIS, Five Acres, Allet, Truro, Cornwall. TR4 Weymouth, DT3 6RS. Tel: 01305 837384 9DJ Email: [email protected] Tel: 01872 273939 Email: [email protected] Newsletter Editor: Carolyn Steele Damian McFerran (co-opted) Dorset Environmental Records Centre, Library CEDaR, Department of Natural Sciences Headquarters, Colliton Park, Dorchester,
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 1 Table 1. Current Taxonomic Keys and the Level of Taxonomy Routinely U
    Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Table 1. Current taxonomic keys and the level of taxonomy routinely used by the Ohio EPA in streams and rivers for various macroinvertebrate taxonomic classifications. Genera that are reasonably considered to be monotypic in Ohio are also listed. Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Species Pennak 1989, Thorp & Rogers 2016 Porifera If no gemmules are present identify to family (Spongillidae). Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Cnidaria monotypic genera: Cordylophora caspia and Craspedacusta sowerbii Platyhelminthes Class (Turbellaria) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nemertea Phylum (Nemertea) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Phylum (Nematomorpha) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nematomorpha Paragordius varius monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Ectoprocta monotypic genera: Cristatella mucedo, Hyalinella punctata, Lophopodella carteri, Paludicella articulata, Pectinatella magnifica, Pottsiella erecta Entoprocta Urnatella gracilis monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Polychaeta Class (Polychaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Annelida Oligochaeta Subclass (Oligochaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Hirudinida Species Klemm 1982, Klemm et al. 2015 Anostraca Species Thorp & Rogers 2016 Species (Lynceus Laevicaudata Thorp & Rogers 2016 brachyurus) Spinicaudata Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Williams 1972, Thorp & Rogers Isopoda Genus 2016 Holsinger 1972, Thorp & Rogers Amphipoda Genus 2016 Gammaridae: Gammarus Species Holsinger 1972 Crustacea monotypic genera: Apocorophium lacustre, Echinogammarus ischnus, Synurella dentata Species (Taphromysis Mysida Thorp & Rogers 2016 louisianae) Crocker & Barr 1968; Jezerinac 1993, 1995; Jezerinac & Thoma 1984; Taylor 2000; Thoma et al. Cambaridae Species 2005; Thoma & Stocker 2009; Crandall & De Grave 2017; Glon et al. 2018 Species (Palaemon Pennak 1989, Palaemonidae kadiakensis) Thorp & Rogers 2016 1 Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Informal grouping of the Arachnida Hydrachnidia Smith 2001 water mites Genus Morse et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Jepice Hotovo S Opravou
    MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA PŘÍRODOV ĚDECKÁ FAKULTA ÚSTAV BOTANIKY A ZOOLOGIE Parthenogeneze jako rozmnožovací strategie u jepic (Ephemeroptera) Bakalá řská práce Jan Šupina Vedoucí práce: doc. RNDr. Sv ětlana Zahrádková, Ph.D. BRNO 2012 Bibliografický záznam Autor: Jan Šupina Přírodov ědecká fakulta, Masarykova univerzita Ústav botaniky a zoologie Název práce: Parthenogeneze jako rozmnožovací strategie u jepic (Ephemeroptera) Studijní program: Bakalá řský studijní program Studijní obor: Systematická biologie a ekologie Vedoucí práce: doc. RNDr. Sv ětlana Zahrádková, Ph.D. Akademický rok: 2011/2012 Po čet stran: 51 Klí čová slova: nepohlavní rozmnožování, chov, embryonální vývoj, geografická parthenogeneze Bibliographic Entry Author: Jan Šupina Faculty of Science, Masaryk Univeristy Department of Botany and Zoology Title of thesis: Parthenogenesis as reproductive stategy of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) Degree programme: Bachelor's degree programme Field of study: Systematic Biology and Ecology Supervisor: doc. RNDr. Sv ětlana Zahrádková, Ph.D. Academic Year: 2011/2012 Number of Pages: 51 Keywords: asexual reproduction, rearing, embryonic development, geographic parthenogenesis Abstrakt V práci se zabývám jepicemi (Ephemeroptera), které se rozmnožují nepohlavn ě pomocí parthenogeneze (tychoparthenogeneze a obligátní parthenogeneze). Sou částí práce je literární rešerše, v ěnovaná shrnutí informací o tomto jevu, zejména pro druhy jepic uvád ěných z České republiky. Druhá část práce je zam ěř ena na metody studia partenogeneze a shrnuje publikované zkušenosti v této oblasti. Tato práce se dále zabývá publikovanými poznatky z laboratorního chovu jepic, a také poznatky mého experimentu-chovu druhu Baetis rhodani . Seznam jepic druh ů po celém sv ětě s výskytem partenogeneze je uveden vp říloze. Abstract In the present thesis I deal with mayflies (Ephemeroptera), which reproduce asexually by parthenogenesis (both tychoparthenogenesis and obligate parthenogenesis).
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Analysis of 18S Rdna of Freshwater Copepods Neodiaptomus Species and Mesocyclops Species
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313010364 Phylogenetic analysis of 18s rDNA of freshwater copepods neodiaptomus species and mesocyclops species Article in Journal of Advanced Zoology · December 2016 CITATION READS 1 202 5 authors, including: Sivakumar Kandasamy M.R Dhivya Shree Karpaga Vinayaga College of Engineering and Technology KLE Institute of Technology 27 PUBLICATIONS 80 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE P. Muthupriya Kareem Altaff D.G.Vaishnav College AMET DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY 17 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS 66 PUBLICATIONS 350 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Meiofaunal studies of Palk bay sandy beaches View project Copepods View project All content following this page was uploaded by Sivakumar Kandasamy on 28 January 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. J. Adv. Zool. 2016: 37(2): 64-74 ISSN-0253-7214 PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF 18S rDNA OF FRESHWATER COPEPODS NEODIAPTOMUS SPECIES AND MESOCYCLOPS SPECIES K. Sivakumar1, K. Archana1, M. Shree Rama1, P. Muthupriya2 and K. Altaff3 1Department of Biotechnology Karpaga Vinayaga College of Engineering and Technology GST Road, Chinna Kolambakkam, Padalam-603 308, Kanchipuram (Dt.), India 2Department of Biotechnology DG Vaishnav College, Chennai – 600 106 3Department of Zoology The New College, Chennai-600 014 †corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT: The present work is emphasized on analyzing the molecular characteristics of Mesocyclops sp. and Neodiaptomus sp. Molecular markers 18s rDNA region was used to resolve the evolutionary relationship between the species. The Mesocyclops sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Elements for the Sustainable Management of Acridoids of Importance in Agriculture
    African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 7(2), pp. 142-152, 12 January, 2012 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR DOI: 10.5897/AJAR11.912 ISSN 1991-637X ©2012 Academic Journals Review Elements for the sustainable management of acridoids of importance in agriculture María Irene Hernández-Zul 1, Juan Angel Quijano-Carranza 1, Ricardo Yañez-López 1, Irineo Torres-Pacheco 1, Ramón Guevara-Gónzalez 1, Enrique Rico-García 1, Adriana Elena Castro- Ramírez 2 and Rosalía Virginia Ocampo-Velázquez 1* 1Department of Biosystems, School of Engineering, Queretaro State University, C.U. Cerro de las Campanas, Querétaro, México. 2Department of Agroecology, Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México. Accepted 16 December, 2011 Acridoidea is a superfamily within the Orthoptera order that comprises a group of short-horned insects commonly called grasshoppers. Grasshopper and locust species are major pests of grasslands and crops in all continents except Antarctica. Economically and historically, locusts and grasshoppers are two of the most destructive agricultural pests. The most important locust species belong to the genus Schistocerca and populate America, Africa, and Asia. Some grasshoppers considered to be important pests are the Melanoplus species, Camnula pellucida in North America, Brachystola magna and Sphenarium purpurascens in northern and central Mexico, and Oedaleus senegalensis and Zonocerus variegatus in Africa. Previous studies have classified these species based on specific characteristics. This review includes six headings. The first discusses the main species of grasshoppers and locusts; the second focuses on their worldwide distribution; the third describes their biology and life cycle; the fourth refers to climatic factors that facilitate the development of grasshoppers and locusts; the fifth discusses the action or reaction of grasshoppers and locusts to external or internal stimuli and the sixth refers to elements to design management strategies with emphasis on prevention.
    [Show full text]
  • MIAMI UNIVERSITY the Graduate School Certificate for Approving The
    MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation We hereby approve the Dissertation of Sandra J. Connelly Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy __________________________________________ Director Dr. Craig E. Williamson __________________________________________ Reader Dr. Maria González __________________________________________ Reader Dr. David L. Mitchell __________________________________________ Graduate School Representative Dr. A. John Bailer ABSTRACT EFFECTS OF ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION (UVR) INDUCED DNA DAMAGE AND OTHER ECOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS ON CRYPTOSPORIDIUM PARVUM, GIARDIA LAMBLIA, AND DAPHNIA SPP. IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS Sandra J. Connelly Freshwater ecosystems are especially susceptible to climatic change, including anthropogenic-induced changes, as they are directly influenced by the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems. A major environmental factor that potentially affects every element of an ecosystem, directly or indirectly, is ultraviolet radiation (UVR). UVR has been shown to negatively affect the DNA of aquatic organisms by the same mechanism, formation of photoproducts (cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers; CPDs), as in humans. First, the induction of CPDs by solar UVR was quantified in four aquatic and terrestrial temperate ecosystems. Data show significant variation in CPD formation not only between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems but also within a single ecosystem and between seasons. Second, there is little quantitative data on UV-induced DNA damage and the effectiveness of DNA repair mechanisms on the damage induced in freshwater invertebrates in the literature. The rate of photoproduct induction (CPDs) and DNA repair (photoenzymatic and nucleotide excision repair) in Daphnia following UVR exposures in artificial as well as two natural temperate lake systems was tested. The effect of temperature on the DNA repair rates, and ultimately the organisms’ survival, was tested under controlled laboratory conditions following artificial UVB exposure.
    [Show full text]
  • Dytiscidae and Noteridae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). VI
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 28 Number 1 - Spring 1995 Number 1 - Spring 1995 Article 1 April 1995 Dytiscidae and Noteridae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). VI. Distribution, Habitat, Life Cycle, and Identification of Species of Hydroporus Clairville Sensu Lato (Hydroporinae) William L. Hilsenhoff University of Wisconsin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Hilsenhoff, William L. 1995. "Dytiscidae and Noteridae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). VI. Distribution, Habitat, Life Cycle, and Identification of Species of Hydroporus Clairville Sensu Lato (Hydroporinae)," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 28 (1) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol28/iss1/1 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Hilsenhoff: Dytiscidae and Noteridae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). VI. Distribut 1995 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOlOGIST DYTISCIDAE AND NOTERIDAE OF WISCONSII\J (COLEOPTERA). VI. DISTRIBUTION, HABITAT, LIFE CYCLE, AND IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES OF HYDROPORUS CLAIRVILLE SENSU LATO! (HYDROPORINAE) William L. Hilsenhoff2 ABSTRACT Thirty-four species ofHydroporus s.l. were collected in Wisconsin over the past 32 years, including 20 of Hydroporus s.s., 7 of Neoporus, 4 of Hydroporus oblitus-group, 2 of Heterosternuta, and 1 of Sanfilippodytes. Species keys and notes on identification are provided for adults of species that occur or may occur in Wisconsin. Information on distribution and abundance in Wisconsin, habitat, and life cycle is provided for each species based on a study of 27,310 adults.
    [Show full text]