DOCSLIB.ORG

Palo Pinto Creek and Tucker Lake Aquatic Survey; Stephens and Palo Pinto Counties, Texas, Within Palo Pinto Mountains State Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Palo Pinto Creek and Tucker Lake Aquatic Survey; Stephens and Palo Pinto Counties, Texas, Within Palo Pinto Mountains State Park Palo Pinto Creek and Tucker Lake Aquatic Survey; Stephens and Palo Pinto Counties, Texas, within Palo Pinto Mountains State Park Jennifer M. Bronson Warren Water Quality Program Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 March 2019 Water Quality Technical Series WQTS‐2019‐01 Suggested citation for this report: Warren, J.B.M. 2019. Palo Pinto Creek and Tucker Lake Aquatic Survey; Stephens and Palo Pinto Counties, Texas, within Palo Pinto Mountains State Park. Water Quality Technical Series Publication WQTS‐2019‐01. PWD RP V3400‐2725 (5/19). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas. 2 Table of Contents Tables ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figures ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Site Selection ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Palo Pinto Creek .................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Habitat .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Physicochemical Parameters ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Fish Assemblage ............................................................................................................................................................ 14 Mussel Assemblage ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Benthic Macroinvertebrates Assemblage ..................................................................................................................... 15 Results and Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Habitat .......................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Physicochemical Parameters ........................................................................................................................................ 19 Fish Assemblage ............................................................................................................................................................ 20 Mussels ......................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Benthic Macroinvertebrates ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Tucker Lake ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................................ 24 National Lakes Assessment ............................................................................................................................................... 24 Physicochemical Parameters ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Macrophyte Observation .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Physical Habitat Characterization ................................................................................................................................. 24 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Sample Collection .................................................................................................... 25 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 25 Freshwater Mussels ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 Fish Assemblage ............................................................................................................................................................ 26 Results and Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 Physicochemical Parameters ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Macrophyte Observation .............................................................................................................................................. 26 Physical Habitat Characterization ................................................................................................................................. 27 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton .................................................................................................................................. 29 Benthic Macroinvertebrate........................................................................................................................................... 30 Freshwater Mussels ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 Fish Assemblage ............................................................................................................................................................ 32 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 33 References ............................................................................................................................................................................ 34 Appendix A. Data Tables ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 3 Tables Table 1. Station descriptions and locations at Palo Pinto Mountains State Park. ................................................................ 12 Table 2. Tucker Lake physical habitat locations. ................................................................................................................... 12 Table 3. Habitat quality index for station 21730 and 21731, Stephens Palo Pinto counties, July 28, 2015. Scoring criteria; exceptional – 26‐31, high 20‐25, intermediate 14‐19, and limited <14. ................................................................. 16 Table 4. Instantaneous physicochemical data for both stations on Palo Pinto Creek, July 27, 2015. .................................. 19 Table 5. Diel (24‐hr) physicochemical data for both stations on Palo Pinto Creek. The average, minimum and maximum were calculated from the 24‐hr data collected July27‐28, 2015. ............................................................................ 20 Table 6. Fish species collected from North Palo Pinto Creek in Stephens and Palo Pinto Counties (stations 21730 and 21731, respectively), July 28, 2015. ......................................................................................................................... 20 Table 7. Freshwater mussel survey results from Palo Pinto Creek, Palo Pinto and Stephens Counties, July 28, 2015. (Mesohab = mesohabitat, Sub1, 2 &3 = Substrate type) ......................................................................................... 22 Table 8. Benthic macroinvertebrates
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Herpetofauna and Aquatic Macro-Invertebrate Use of the Kino Environmental Restoration Project (KERP)
    Herpetofauna and Aquatic Macro-invertebrate Use of the Kino Environmental Restoration Project (KERP) Tucson, Pima County, Arizona Prepared for Pima County Regional Flood Control District Prepared by EPG, Inc. JANUARY 2007 - Plma County Regional FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM Water Resources Regional Flood Control District DATE: January 5,2007 TO: Distribution FROM: Julia Fonseca SUBJECT: Kino Ecosystem Restoration Project Report The Ed Pastor Environmental Restoration ProjectiKino Ecosystem Restoration Project (KERP) is becoming an extraordinary urban wildlife resource. As such, the Pima County Regional Flood Control District (PCRFCD) contracted with the Environmental Planning Group (EPG) to gather observations of reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic insects at KERP. Water quality was also examined. The purpose of the work was to provide baseline data on current wildlife use of the KERP site, and to assess water quality for post-project aquatic wildlife conditions. I additionally requested sampling of macroinvertebrates at Agua Caliente Park and Sweetwater Wetlands in hopes that the differences in aquatic wildlife among the three sites might provide insights into the different habitats offered by KERF'. The results One of the most important wildlife benefits that KERP provides is aquatic habitat without predatory bullfrogs and non- native fish. Most other constructed ponds and wetlands in Tucson, such as the Sweetwater Wetlands and Agua Caliente pond, are fuIl of non-native predators which devastate native fish, amphibians and aquatic reptiles. The KERP Wetlands may provide an opportunity for reestablishing declining native herpetofauna. Provided that non- native fish, bullfrogs or crayfish are not introduced, KERP appears to provide adequate habitat for Sonoran Mud Turtles (Kinosternon sonoriense), Lowland Leopard Frogs (Rana yavapaiensis), and Mexican Gartersnakes (Tharnnophis eques) and Southwestern Woodhouse Toad (Bufo woodhousii australis).
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Wilderness Stream Ecosystems
    United States Department of Monitoring Agriculture Forest Service Wilderness Stream Rocky Mountain Ecosystems Research Station General Technical Jeffrey C. Davis Report RMRS-GTR-70 G. Wayne Minshall Christopher T. Robinson January 2001 Peter Landres Abstract Davis, Jeffrey C.; Minshall, G. Wayne; Robinson, Christopher T.; Landres, Peter. 2001. Monitoring wilderness stream ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-70. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 137 p. A protocol and methods for monitoring the major physical, chemical, and biological components of stream ecosystems are presented. The monitor- ing protocol is organized into four stages. At stage 1 information is obtained on a basic set of parameters that describe stream ecosystems. Each following stage builds upon stage 1 by increasing the number of parameters and the detail and frequency of the measurements. Stage 4 supplements analyses of stream biotic structure with measurements of stream function: carbon and nutrient processes. Standard methods are presented that were selected or modified through extensive field applica- tion for use in remote settings. Keywords: bioassessment, methods, sampling, macroinvertebrates, production The Authors emphasize aquatic benthic inverte- brates, community dynamics, and Jeffrey C. Davis is an aquatic ecolo- stream ecosystem structure and func- gist currently working in Coastal Man- tion. For the past 19 years he has agement for the State of Alaska. He been conducting research on the received his B.S. from the University long-term effects of wildfires on of Alaska, Anchorage, and his M.S. stream ecosystems. He has authored from Idaho State University. His re- over 100 peer-reviewed journal ar- search has focused on nutrient dy- ticles and 85 technical reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Happy 75Th Birthday, Nick
    ISSN 1061-8503 TheA News Journalrgia of the Dragonfly Society of the Americas Volume 19 12 December 2007 Number 4 Happy 75th Birthday, Nick Published by the Dragonfly Society of the Americas The Dragonfly Society Of The Americas Business address: c/o John Abbott, Section of Integrative Biology, C0930, University of Texas, Austin TX, USA 78712 Executive Council 2007 – 2009 President/Editor in Chief J. Abbott Austin, Texas President Elect B. Mauffray Gainesville, Florida Immediate Past President S. Krotzer Centreville, Alabama Vice President, United States M. May New Brunswick, New Jersey Vice President, Canada C. Jones Lakefield, Ontario Vice President, Latin America R. Novelo G. Jalapa, Veracruz Secretary S. Valley Albany, Oregon Treasurer J. Daigle Tallahassee, Florida Regular Member/Associate Editor J. Johnson Vancouver, Washington Regular Member N. von Ellenrieder Salta, Argentina Regular Member S. Hummel Lake View, Iowa Associate Editor (BAO Editor) K. Tennessen Wautoma, Wisconsin Journals Published By The Society ARGIA, the quarterly news journal of the DSA, is devoted to non-technical papers and news items relating to nearly every aspect of the study of Odonata and the people who are interested in them. The editor especially welcomes reports of studies in progress, news of forthcoming meetings, commentaries on species, habitat conservation, noteworthy occurrences, personal news items, accounts of meetings and collecting trips, and reviews of technical and non-technical publications. Membership in DSA includes a subscription to Argia. Bulletin Of American Odonatology is devoted to studies of Odonata of the New World. This journal considers a wide range of topics for publication, including faunal synopses, behavioral studies, ecological studies, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Wildlife Notebook
    ARIZONA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ARIZONA WILDLIFE NOTEBOOK GARRY ROGERS Praise for Arizona Wildlife Notebook “Arizona Wildlife Notebook” by Garry Rogers is a comprehensive checklist of wildlife species existing in the State of Arizona. This notebook provides a brief description for each of eleven (11) groups of wildlife, conservation status of all extant species within that group in Arizona, alphabetical listing of species by common name, scientific names, and room for notes. “The Notebook is a statewide checklist, intended for use by wildlife watchers all over the state. As various individuals keep track of their personal observations of wildlife in their specific locality, the result will be a more selective checklist specific to that locale. Such information would be vitally useful to the State Wildlife Conservation Department, as well as to other local agencies and private wildlife watching groups. “This is a very well-documented snapshot of the status of wildlife species – from bugs to bats – in the State of Arizona. Much of it should be relevant to neighboring states, as well, with a bit of fine-tuning to accommodate additions and deletions to the list. “As a retired Wildlife Biologist, I have to say Rogers’ book is perhaps the simplest to understand, yet most comprehensive in terms of factual information, that I have ever had occasion to peruse. This book should become the default checklist for Arizona’s various state, federal and local conservation agencies, and the basis for developing accurate local inventories by private enthusiasts as well as public agencies. "Arizona Wildlife Notebook" provides a superb starting point for neighboring states who may wish to emulate Garry Rogers’ excellent handiwork.
    [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]
  • Garrison, Rosser W., Natalia Von Ellenrieder & Jerry A
    Introduction Dragonfly Genera of the New World: An Illustrated and Annotated Key to the Anisoptera was published in 2006 followed by Damselfly Genera of the New World: An Illustrated and Annotated Key to the Zygoptera in 2010. An Appendix of additions and corrections for the dragonfly volume was included on pages 399-404 of the damselfly volume at the time of submission of the manuscript (August 1, 2009). Corrections and further additions published since the publication of both volumes are given below. Corrections and Additions for: Garrison, Rosser W., Natalia von Ellenrieder & Jerry A. Louton. 2006. Dragonfly Genera of the New World - An Illustrated and Annotated Key to the Anisoptera. The Johns Hopkins University Press xi + 368 pp, + 8 color plates: Page 36, add: — L [Novelo Gutiérrez and Tennessen, 2010] for persephone Page 40, change Anax Leach, 1815: 137 to Anax Leach in Brewster, 1815: 137. Page 51, under Gynacantha account replace syn Selysophlebia with syn Selysiophlebia, and add: — L [De Marmels and Neiss, 2011] for auricularis Page 53, for Limnetron antarcticum add: — L [del Palacio and Muzón, 2014] Page 55, for Neuraeschna claviforcipata add: — L [De Marmels and Neiss, 2013] Page 60, under Rhionaeschna account change number of species to 42; add Bota-Sierra, 2014 under references; add caligo Bota-Sierra, 2014; for elsia add: — L [Müller and Schiel, 2012]; for galapagoensis add: — L [Cordero-Rivera, Encalada, Sánchez–Guillén, Santolamazza–Carbone, and von Ellenrieder, 2016], and for vigintipunctata add: — L [Rodríguez and Molineri, 2012] Page 74, couplets 34(33). delete: "vesica spermalis distal segment with 2 long flagella or cornua (Figs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Associations of Epiphytic Macroinvertebrates and Aquatic Macrophytes in Canyon Lake, WA
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Graduate School Collection WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship Summer 2018 The Associations of Epiphytic Macroinvertebrates and Aquatic Macrophytes in Canyon Lake, WA Jesse T. (Jesse Tyler) Klinger Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Klinger, Jesse T. (Jesse Tyler), "The Associations of Epiphytic Macroinvertebrates and Aquatic Macrophytes in Canyon Lake, WA" (2018). WWU Graduate School Collection. 729. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/729 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Graduate School Collection by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Associations of Epiphytic Macroinvertebrates and Aquatic Macrophytes in Canyon Lake, WA By Jesse Tyler Klinger Accepted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Gautam Pillay, Dean of the Graduate School ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chair, Dr. Robin A. Matthews Dr. Leo R. Bodensteiner Dr. James M. Helfield MASTER'S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Western Washington University, I grant to Western Washington University the non-exclusive royalty-free right to archive, reproduce, distribute, and display the thesis in any and all forms, including electronic format, via any digital library mechanisms maintained by WWU. I represent and warrant this is my original work, and does not infringe or violate any rights of others.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Title
    AWWQRP Special Studies Report: Use of the EPA Recalculation Procedure with the Copper Biotic Ligand Model and Relative Role of Sodium and Alkalinity vs. Hardness in Controlling Acute Ammonia Toxicity Prepared for Pima County Wastewater Management 201 N. Stone, 8th Floor Tucson, AZ 85701-1207 Prepared by Parametrix Environmental Research Lab 33972 Texas Street SW Albany, OR 97321-9487 541-791-1667 www.parametrix.com In Collaboration with GEI Consultants, Chadwick Ecological Division 5575 S. Sycamore St., Suite 101 Littleton, CO 80123 303-794-5530 www.geiconsultants.com April 2007 │ 07-03-P-139257-0207 CITATION Pima County Wastewater Management. 2007. AWWQRP Special Studies Report: Use of the EPA Recalculation Procedure with the Copper Biotic Ligand Model, and Relative Role of Sodium and Alkalinity vs. Hardness in Controlling Acute Ammonia Toxicity. Prepared by Parametrix, Albany, Oregon. April 2007. AWWQRP Special Studies Report Pima County Wastewater Management TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.............................................................................................................VII REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. X EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................XI EVALUATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS USING BIOTIC LIGAND MODEL ADJUSTED COPPER AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA/USE OF THE USEPA RECALCULATION PROCEDURE TO DEVELOP SITE-SPECIFIC BLM-BASED COPPER CRITERIA........................XI
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Note 352
    TECHNICAL NOTE 352 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AQUATIC INVENTORY OF THE UPPER BILL WILLIAMS DRAINAGE YAVAPAI AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA by WILLIAM G. KEPNER 1 ... Cove r Drawing: Santa Maria River above Palmerlta Ran<'h hy Lauren M. Porzer, 1981 . • AQUATIC INVENTORY OF THE UPPER BILL' WILLIAMS DRAINAGE, YAVAPAI AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA i. TECHNICAL NOTE 352 by William G. Kepner Aquatic Ecologist U.S. Bureau of Land Management Phoenix District Office August 1979 : I ABSTRACT The upper Bill Williams drainage in Yavapai and Mohave counties, Arizona, supports a diversified fauna of native and introduced fishes. Twenty-two species and two hybrids have been recorded from the upper drainage and Alamo Lake. Museum records were combined with collections from an intensive aquatic survey of the area to outline an account of the fish species that occur there. Patterns of distribution and abundance appear to be relatively stabilized with native fishes (Agosia chrysogaster, Rhinichthys osculus, Gila robusta, Catostomus insignis, and Pantosteus clarki) exclusively occupying the head waters, and introduced forms inhabiting lower reaches. Water quality of the upper basin was, with few exceptions, within levels outlined in federal and state surface water standards and found to support a variety of macroinvertebrates at high standing crop. Sixty-two total taxa were collected, including members of 9 of the 10 aquatic insect orders. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ~ Completion of the aquatic inventory was made possible through the efforts of several individuals to whom I wish to express my sincere appreciation. In particular I wish to acknowledge John D. Burd, who assisted i me in the field collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Vol. 16, No. 2
    r.'. , - ''.7--, 9 . -1 1.11 1 of the FLORIDA STATE MUSEUM Biological Sciences Volume 16 1972 Number 2 THE DAMSELFLIES (Zygoptera) of TEXAS Clifford Johnson -1 - I I 1. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE Numbers of the BULLETIN OF THE FLORIDA STATE MUSEUM, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, are published at irregular intervals. Volumes contain about 300 pages and are not necessarily completed in any one calendar year. OLIVER L. AUSTIN , JR ., Editor FRED G. THOMPSON, Managing Editor Consultants for this issue: HARRY K. CLENCH DENNIS R. PAULSON Communications concerning purchase or exchange of the publication and all manuscripts should be addressed to the Managing Editor of the Bulletin, Florida State Museum, Museum Road, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32601. Publication date: 18 January, 1972 Price: $1.25 THE DAMSELFLIES (ZYGOPTERA) oF TEXAS CLIFFORD JOHNSON , SYNOPSIS: This report presents an identification guide to adult damselflies oc- curring in Texas. Illustrated characters, a guide to morphological terminology, and short text support the diagnostic keys. The text gives geographical range and habitat preferences for each group. Distribution data appear by county for each species and reveal patterns of convergence between east and west faunas. TABLE OF CONTENTS 56 INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 57 METHODS . 57 KEY TO THE FAMILIES 62 LESTIDAE.. 6 Archilestes 63 Lestes 65 CALOPTERYCIDAE 69 Calopteryx 69 71 Hetaerina PROTONEURIDAE 73 COENAGRIONIDAE 74 Argia 78 Enallagma 93 Ischnum 1 ()0 Smaller Genera 107 Di SCUSSION 111 LITERATURE CITED ... 115 APPENDIX 117 The author is Associate Professor in the Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32601. Manuscript accepted 22 March 1971 - Ed. Johnson, Clifford.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Richness and Variety of Life in Arizona's Ponderosa Pine Forest Type
    United States Department of Agriculture Species Richness and Variety of Life in Arizona’s Ponderosa Pine Forest Type David R. Patton, Richard W. Hofstetter, John D. Bailey and Mary Ann Benoit Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-332 December 2014 Patton, David R.; Hofstetter, Richard W.; Bailey, John D.; Benoit, Mary Ann. 2014. Species richness and variety of life in Arizona’s ponderosa pine forest type. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-332. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 44 p. Abstract Species richness (SR) is a tool that managers can use to include diversity in planning and decision-making and is a convenient and useful way to characterize the first level of biological diversity. A richness list derived from existing inventories enhances a manager’s understanding of the complexity of the plant and animal communities they manage. Without a list of species, resource management decisions may have negative or unknown effects on all species occupying a forest type. Without abundance data, a common quantitative index for species diversity cannot be determined. However, SR data can include life his- tory information from published literature to enhance the SR value. This report provides an example of how inventory information can characterize the complexity of biological diversity in the ponderosa pine forest type in Arizona. The SR process broadly categorizes the number of plant and animal life forms to arrive at a composite species richness value. Common sense dictates that plants and animals exist in a biotic community because that community has sufficient resources to sustain life.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Species of Odonata in North America
    ---Guardians of the watershed. Global status of dragonflies: critical species, threat and conservation --- Critical species of Odonata in North America Sidney W. Dunkle Biology Dept., Collin County Community College, Spring Creek Campus, Plano, Texas, USA 75074. <sdunkle®ccccd.edu> Key words: Odonata, dragonfly, IUCN, critical species, conservation, North America. ABSTRACT Of the approximately 439 species of Odonata known from North America, north of Mexico, comments on 25 species (6%) of conservation concern are given. Species deemed to be under the most threat are Ischnura gemina, Gomphus sandrius, Ophiogomphus australis, Stylurus potulentus, and Libellula jesseana. Two other species not under threat, Neurocordulia michaeli and Somatochlora brevicincta, are briefly discussed because of their conservation interest. Some geographical clumping of species under threat is discussed, in southeastern Arizona, coastal New England, and the central Gulf of Mexico Coast. REGIONAL DEFINITION Canada and the United States north of the Mexican border, including Alaska but not Hawaii. This is the Nearctic biogeographic realm exclusive of the Mexican Plateau. STATE OF THE ART The Nearctic Odonata fauna includes approximately 130 species of Zygoptera and 309 of Anisoptera. North Americans are fortunate in having excellent identification guides for both Zygoptera (Westfall & May 1996) and Anisoptera (Westfall & Tennessen 1996; Needham et al. 2000), supplemented by several field guides such as Dunkle (2000). The recent proliferation of field guides and popular magazine articles, along with the activities of the Dragonfly Society of the Americas and numerous websites, has resulted in many more people looking for odonates in North America. The general result has been the location of many more localities, even for rare species.
    [Show full text]