DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparison of Adult Butterfly Communities on Remnant and Planted Prairies in Northeast Iowa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparison of Adult Butterfly Communities on Remnant and Planted Prairies in Northeast Iowa 268 268 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS ’ S OCIETY Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 73(4), 2019, 268 –274 A COMPARISON OF ADULT BUTTERFLY COMMUNITIES ON REMNANT AND PLANTED PRAIRIES IN NORTHEAST IOWA EMMA K. S TIVERS , J ACOB T. W ITTMAN AND KIRK J. L ARSEN Department of Biology, Luther College, 700 College Drive, Decorah, IA 52101 Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT. Adult butterfly abundance and diversity was compared in four remnant and four planted tallgrass prairies in North - east Iowa. Butterfly surveys were conducted at approximately three week intervals over the summer of 2015. Researchers used a modified “Pollard Walk” technique following a meandering transect, and butterfly sightings recorded using the Unified Butterfly Recorder (UBR) Android app. If a butterfly was observed nectaring on a flower, the species of flower was recorded. Floral resource availability, plant species richness and percent cover were measured in each prairie. Although planted prairies contained signifi - cantly greater floral resources than remnant prairies, there was no significant difference in floral plant species richness between remnants and plantings. Remnant and planted prairies did not differ in butterfly abundance, but remnant prairies had significantly greater butterfly species richness than planted prairies. These results provide valuable information on the current status of butterflies in each prairie type in northeast Iowa, and can be used in directing future land management and conservation work. Additional key words: tallgrass prairie, unified butterfly recorder The tallgrass prairie is one of North America’s most To slow species loss and conserve native habitats endangered landscapes. Over 80% of Iowa was covered such as tallgrass prairies, conservation biologists have by tallgrass prairie pre-European settlement, but now restored natural areas through habitat reconstruction less than 0.01% of its original tallgrass prairie remains (Shepherd & Debinski 2005). Habitat reconstruction (Smith 1998). The few small fragments of remnant repairs damaged plant communities as opposed to prairie are often miles from each other (Ries & restoring faltering animal communities, but the effects Debinsky 2001) isolated among predominantly of this plant-based approach are beneficial in that they agricultural landscapes. Fragmentation of these prairies often support the rehabilitation of animal communities has reduced species abundance and diversity, (Debinski & Babbit 1997). Prairie plantings containing particularly for populations of specialist plants and appropriate host plants are particularly important as animals native to prairies (Collinge et al. 2003; Panzer potential habitat for imperiled butterfly populations, 2002). Some prairie specialist organisms, such as such as Species of Greatest Conservation Need smaller species of insects, are often unable to move (SGCN), as prairie remnants are usually too small or freely among these isolated prairie fragments and are too far apart to support some butterfly species (Iowa often extirpated while these remaining fragments DNR 2012, Smith & Cherry 2014). become dominated by generalist and invasive species It is often difficult to tell if planted prairies are (Ries & Debinski 2001). functionally similar to remnant prairies in terms of their Prairie specialist insects provide many important ability to provide suitable habitat for butterflies. One ecosystem services vital to the overall health and way to determine the quality of a planted prairie is to productivity of prairie ecosystems, such as pollination, analyze the plant and butterfly community of the and serving as food for birds and small mammals that prairie relative to the community composition in share their habitat (Powers & Larsen 2014). Without remnant prairies. Butterfly surveys are of critical the services these insects provide, the prairie could lose importance when documenting butterfly community flowering plant species from lack of pollination and lose profiles, and can suggest the quality of a prairie based more of its native fauna from lack of food, disrupting on the proportion of specialist to generalist species the ecosystem. Specialist butterfly populations have present. The goal of this study was to compare butterfly been negatively affected by habitat loss (Swengel et al. abundance and species richness of eight tallgrass 2011), and many species have been extirpated from prairies in Northeast Iowa to determine if planted their historic range (Larsen and Bovee 2001). Some prairies are similar to remnant prairies in their butterfly species, such as the regal fritillary, Speyeria idalia community composition and abundance. (Drury), have not been observed in Winneshiek County in Northeast Iowa since 1994 (Larsen, personal MATERIALS AND METHODS observation), although they have been observed in Tallgrass Prairie Sites. Eight tallgrass prairies in Howard County as recently as 2007 and Floyd County Winneshiek County or Howard County, Iowa were as recently as 2017 (www.insectsofiowa.org). surveyed in this study, including four remnant prairies VOLUME 73, N UMBER 4 269 and four planted prairies (Table 1). Planted prairies to butterflies per kilometer due to the different lengths ranged in age from 8 to 25 years old and varied in size, of the survey transect in each prairie. the plant species seeded, quality, management history, Plant Surveys. During butterfly surveys all and level of human disruption. Remnant prairies also flowering plant species in bloom observed along each varied in size, management history, and level of human butterfly survey transect were recorded at each site, disruption. and over the five survey dates the cumulative species Butterfly Surveys. Butterfly surveys were list was used to conservatively estimate plant species conducted at each prairie site approximately every richness for each prairie. We used floral percent cover three weeks throughout the summer of 2015 when to estimate floral resource (i.e. nectar) availability in conditions were appropriate for maximum butterfly each prairie. During each sampling period, the surface activity: between 1000 and 1600h CDT, winds less than area of all floral blooms in ten random 1 × 0.5 meter 20 km/h, temperatures of 20 –30°C, and cloud cover quadrats along each survey transect was determined. less than 90%. A modified Pollard walk technique was Each 0.5 m 2 quadrat was delineated by a 1 × 0.5 m PVC used walking at a slow steady pace following a frame with reference marks at 10 cm intervals, and a meandering transect established within each site digital photograph taken of the quadrat from (Pollard 1977). Butterfly survey transects ranged from approximately 1 m above the canopy of each quadrat 435 to 2500 m in length (Table 1) and crossed and flowers blooming in the quadrat recorded. Each representative burned or unburned remnant or planted photograph was then analyzed using ImageJ software areas within each site. All butterflies observed within (Rasband 2015) to estimate the surface area (cm 2) of 10 m of the observers were recorded (Pollard 1977) flower heads for each species of flower in bloom in using the Unified Butterfly Recorder (UBR) Android each quadrat. Floral surface area (cm 2/m 2) was app (http://www.reimangardens.com/collections%20/ converted to floral percent cover as a proxy of nectar insects/unified-butterfly-recorder-app/). Each butterfly resource availability of each species of flower, and floral observed was counted only once with reasonable percent cover averaged over the course of the summer confidence. Photographs of butterflies were taken for each prairie. Every species of blooming forb at the regularly to aid in identification. Butterflies not site was documented, regardless of whether or not it identified in flight were netted for closer examination was represented in a quadrat image. and released in the field if possible. Butterflies unable Using Iowa Coefficient of Conservatism (CoC) to be identified in the field were collected and values (Drobney et al. 2001) for each species of flower identified in the lab. Identifications were made observed blooming at each site, a Floristic Quality primarily using Schlicht et al. (2007). Voucher Assessment (FQA) was performed, generating a specimens from this survey are housed in the Research Floristic Quality Index (FQI) for that site (Swink & Insect Collection in the Hoslett Museum of Natural Wilhelm 1994). The FQI is a measure of the quality of History, Department of Biology, Luther College, habitat present at a site, with higher values Decorah, Iowa. Butterfly abundance was standardized corresponding to higher habitat quality. TABLE 1. Prairie status, location, size, management agency, and butterfly survey transect length of each of the four remnant and four planted tallgrass prairies surveyed during the summer of 2015. Area Transect Latitude Longitude (acres) Land Manager/Owner Length (m) Remnant Prairies Chipera 43° 7.89 'N 92° 0.49 'W 81 Winneshiek County Conservation Board 2500 Crossman 43° 24.48 'N 92° 28.49 'W 11 Iowa Nature Conservancy 925 Hayden 43° 26.51 'N 92° 23.02 'W 240 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 1440 Ludwig 43° 11.64 'N 92° 58.74 'W 2.6 Winneshiek County Conservation Board 435 Planted Prairies Anderson 43° 18.90 'N 92° 47.95 'W 27 Luther College 980 Decorah Community 43° 18.09 'N 92° 48.15 'W 39 Decorah Parks and Recreation 1445 Gateway 43° 19.07 'N 92° 48.74 'W 38.6 Luther College 1625 Plymouth Rock 43° 26.26 'N 92° 0.35 'W 33.8 private landowner
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rare Native Animals of RI
    RARE NATIVE ANIMALS OF RHODE ISLAND Revised: March, 2006 ABOUT THIS LIST The list is divided by vertebrates and invertebrates and is arranged taxonomically according to the recognized authority cited before each group. Appropriate synonomy is included where names have changed since publication of the cited authority. The Natural Heritage Program's Rare Native Plants of Rhode Island includes an estimate of the number of "extant populations" for each listed plant species, a figure which has been helpful in assessing the health of each species. Because animals are mobile, some exhibiting annual long-distance migrations, it is not possible to derive a population index that can be applied to all animal groups. The status assigned to each species (see definitions below) provides some indication of its range, relative abundance, and vulnerability to decline. More specific and pertinent data is available from the Natural Heritage Program, the Rhode Island Endangered Species Program, and the Rhode Island Natural History Survey. STATUS. The status of each species is designated by letter codes as defined: (FE) Federally Endangered (7 species currently listed) (FT) Federally Threatened (2 species currently listed) (SE) State Endangered Native species in imminent danger of extirpation from Rhode Island. These taxa may meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Formerly considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Federal listing as endangered or threatened. 2. Known from an estimated 1-2 total populations in the state. 3. Apparently globally rare or threatened; estimated at 100 or fewer populations range-wide. Animals listed as State Endangered are protected under the provisions of the Rhode Island State Endangered Species Act, Title 20 of the General Laws of the State of Rhode Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Orange Sulphur, Colias Eurytheme, on Boneset
    Orange Sulphur, Colias eurytheme, on Boneset, Eupatorium perfoliatum, In OMC flitrh Insect Survey of Waukegan Dunes, Summer 2002 Including Butterflies, Dragonflies & Beetles Prepared for the Waukegan Harbor Citizens' Advisory Group Jean B . Schreiber (Susie), Chair Principal Investigator : John A. Wagner, Ph . D . Associate, Department of Zoology - Insects Field Museum of Natural History 1400 South Lake Shore Drive Chicago, Illinois 60605 Telephone (708) 485 7358 home (312) 665 7016 museum Email jwdw440(q-), m indsprinq .co m > home wagner@,fmnh .orq> museum Abstract: From May 10, 2002 through September 13, 2002, eight field trips were made to the Harbor at Waukegan, Illinois to survey the beach - dunes and swales for Odonata [dragonfly], Lepidoptera [butterfly] and Coleoptera [beetles] faunas between Midwest Generation Plant on the North and the Outboard Marine Corporation ditch at the South . Eight species of Dragonflies, fourteen species of Butterflies, and eighteen species of beetles are identified . No threatened or endangered species were found in this survey during twenty-four hours of field observations . The area is undoubtedly home to many more species than those listed in this report. Of note, the endangered Karner Blue butterfly, Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabakov was not seen even though it has been reported from Illinois Beach State Park, Lake County . The larval food plant, Lupinus perennis, for the blue was not observed at Waukegan. The limestone seeps habitat of the endangered Hines Emerald dragonfly, Somatochlora hineana, is not part of the ecology here . One surprise is the. breeding population of Buckeye butterflies, Junonia coenid (Hubner) which may be feeding on Purple Loosestrife . The specimens collected in this study are deposited in the insect collection at the Field Museum .
    [Show full text]
  • How to Use This Checklist
    How To Use This Checklist Swallowtails: Family Papilionidae Special Note: Spring and Summer Azures have recently The information presented in this checklist reflects our __ Pipevine Swallowtail Battus philenor R; May - Sep. been recognized as separate species. Azure taxonomy has not current understanding of the butterflies found within __ Zebra Swallowtail Eurytides marcellus R; May - Aug. been completely sorted out by the experts. Cleveland Metroparks. (This list includes all species that have __ Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes C; May - Sep. __ Appalachian Azure Celastrina neglecta-major h; mid - late been recorded in Cuyahoga County, and a few additional __ Giant Swallowtail Papilio cresphontes h; rare in Cleveland May; not recorded in Cuy. Co. species that may occur here.) Record you observations and area; July - Aug. Brush-footed Butterflies: Family Nymphalidae contact a naturalist if you find something that may be of __ Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus C; May - Oct.; __ American Snout Libytheana carinenta R; June - Oct. interest. females occur as yellow or dark morphs __ Variegated Fritillary Euptoieta claudia R; June - Oct. __ Spicebush Swallowtail Papilio troilus C; May - Oct. __ Great Spangled Fritillary Speyeria cybele C; May - Oct. Species are listed taxonomically, with a common name, a Whites and Sulphurs: Family Pieridae __ Aphrodite Fritillary Speyeria aphrodite O; June - Sep. scientific name, a note about its relative abundance and flight __ Checkered White Pontia protodice h; rare in Cleveland area; __ Regal Fritillary Speyeria idalia X; no recent Ohio records; period. Check off species that you identify within Cleveland May - Oct. formerly in Cleveland Metroparks Metroparks. __ West Virginia White Pieris virginiensis O; late Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • Specimen Records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895
    Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 2019 Vol 3(2) Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895 Jon H. Shepard Paul C. Hammond Christopher J. Marshall Oregon State Arthropod Collection, Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR 97331 Cite this work, including the attached dataset, as: Shepard, J. S, P. C. Hammond, C. J. Marshall. 2019. Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895. Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 3(2). (beta version). http://dx.doi.org/10.5399/osu/cat_osac.3.2.4594 Introduction These records were generated using funds from the LepNet project (Seltmann) - a national effort to create digital records for North American Lepidoptera. The dataset published herein contains the label data for all North American specimens of Lycaenidae and Riodinidae residing at the Oregon State Arthropod Collection as of March 2019. A beta version of these data records will be made available on the OSAC server (http://osac.oregonstate.edu/IPT) at the time of this publication. The beta version will be replaced in the near future with an official release (version 1.0), which will be archived as a supplemental file to this paper. Methods Basic digitization protocols and metadata standards can be found in (Shepard et al. 2018). Identifications were confirmed by Jon Shepard and Paul Hammond prior to digitization. Nomenclature follows that of (Pelham 2008). Results The holdings in these two families are extensive. Combined, they make up 25,743 specimens (24,598 Lycanidae and 1145 Riodinidae).
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Satyrium Acadica and Other Unusual Hairstreak Records (Lycjenidje) in Southeastern Pennsylvania
    1962 Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 199 NOTES ON SATYRIUM ACADICA AND OTHER UNUSUAL HAIRSTREAK RECORDS (LYCJENIDJE) IN SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA During the summer of 1961 I had the unexpected pleasure of discover­ ing a colony of Satyrium acadica (Edwards) in Cheltenham Township, just north of Philadelphia, Pa. Shortly afterwards information was communicated to me of a similar discovery along the Wissahickon Creek, about eight miles to the southwest of the aforementioned locality. S. acadica is a northern species and its occurrence this far south as a breeding resident is rather exceptional. Mr. GEORGE EHLE mentions that he had not heard of it south of the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania. This may be a new southern record for acadica as a breeding resident. Records are from July 4-11. The species is not numerous. I took only one but saw several (5 or 6) more. My specimen is a very large female, expanding 33.4 mm. A male caught along the Wissahickon Creek measured 27.5 mm. These dates are somewhat after the common S. falacer and edwardsii hit their peak. Both localities are damp and the butterfly seems to be associated with the willow Salix sericea. It visits blossoms of Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) freely but does not seem to wander far from the willows, and is quite wary. Several good Hairstreak records for Philadelphia are based on strays of southern species. On Sept. 10, 1960, I had the fantastic luck to catch one each of Eupsyche m-album (Boisduval & LeConte) and Calycopis cecrops within one hour's time. The cecrops seemed fresh but the m-album was very worn.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan
    2 0 1 5 – 2 0 2 5 Species Assessments Appendix 1.1A – Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Jason Hill, PhD) Assessment of eBird data for the importance of Pennsylvania as a bird migratory corridor (Andy Wilson, PhD) Appendix 1.1B – Mammals A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Mammals, Utilizing NatureServe Ranking Methodology and Rank Calculator Version 3.1 for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Charlie Eichelberger and Joe Wisgo) Appendix 1.1C – Reptiles and Amphibians A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Herpetofauna Appendix 1.1D – Fishes A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Fishes Appendix 1.1E – Invertebrates Invertebrate Assessment for the 2015 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Revision 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Appendix 1.1A - Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 Jason M. Hill, PhD. Table of Contents Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Species Selection ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Papilio (New Series) #1, P
    NEW c;/;::{J:, 11 Feb. 20, 1998 PAPILIO SERIES qj::f? $1.00 NEWWESTERN NORTH AMERICAN BUTT£RFLl£S BY DR, JAMES A, SCOTT 60 Estes Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80226, and one taxon by MICHAEL S, FISHER 6521 S. Logan Street, Littleton, Colorado 80121 Abstract. New subspecies and other geographic tax.a from western U.S. are described and named. INTRODUCTION Scott (1981) named various new subspecies of butterflies from western U.S. Since then a few other butterflies have come to my attention that deserve to be named. They are named below. NEWTAXA HIPPARCHIA (NEOMINOIS) RIDINfiSII WYOMIN60 SCOTI 1998, NEW SUBSPECIES (OR SPECIES?) (Figs 1-2) DIAGNOSIS. This subspecies is distinguished by its very late flight, L Aug. to M Sept., versus June fer ordinary ridingsii (Edwards), and by its mate-locating behavior (at least in central Wyoming including the type locality), in which males perch in swales in early morning to await females, versus ridgetops for ordinary ridingsii. This butterfly is not a freak late-season occurrence; it flies every year, is very widespread in distribution, and around the end of August it is the commonest butterfly in Wyoming (except perhaps Hesperia comma). I examined valvae of this ssp. and June ridingsii, and the first few comparison pairs of examined males had a different curl on one dorsal shoulder of the valva, but as more additional males were examined, some were found to have the shape of the other, and after a dozen males of wyomingo were examined and compared to a dozen June ridingsii, it appeared that this trait was sufficiently variable that it is not a consistent difference.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY ASSOCIATION 4 Delaware Road, Morristown, NJ 07960
    NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY ASSOCIATION 4 Delaware Road, Morristown, NJ 07960 tel. 973-285-0907 fax 973-285-0936 web: www.naba.org 41st ANNUAL NABA BUTTERFLY COUNT - 2015 INSTRUCTIONS (CANADA) COUNTERS & COUNT CIRCLES Please report your 2015 count results directly to NABA through Unless your count is an existing 1st of July count started before our online count form at www.naba.org. The online form 2008, at least 4 adult observers must participate. One or more allows compilers to enter all data for their counts through the groups of counters always produce better results. It is usually Web and also allows the regional editors to review and edit the desirable to visit several habitats and areas within a count circle, reports more efficiently. Most importantly, Butterfly Count which may be done best by several parties. Since counts are information will be entered and stored in a database which in the open for public participation, we encourage you to publicize future will allow it to be available online to NABA members your count plans! and the public. All compilers are now requested to enter the data A count is held at one or more selected sites within a for their counts through the online count form. If this presents 15-mile diameter CIRCLE. Groups starting a new count MUST any difficulty, please contact NABA for assistance. designate this 15-mile diameter circle. No count circles may overlap—that is, count centers must be a minimum of 15 miles COUNT PROGRAM OVERVIEW apart. Groups repeating a count held a previous year MUST use In order to encourage increased participation in the NABA the same circle, and count the same sites and habitats as before Butterfly Count Program and to encourage even more so far as practical.
    [Show full text]
  • North American Butterfly Association
    NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY ASSOCIATION 4 Delaware Road, Morristown, NJ 07960 tel. 973-285-0907 fax 973-285-0936 web: www.naba.org ANNUAL NABA BUTTERFLY COUNT - INSTRUCTIONS (USA) This printed count forms is for field use only. All counts must submit their results using the online data entry system. Please contact the NABA Count Program if you have questions or concerns. Please report your count results directly to NABA Timing/Requirements for United through our online count form at www.butterflycounts.org. Stated Counts The online form allows compilers to enter all data for their Count NABA 4th of July Butterfly Count: A minimum of four counts through the Web and also allows the regional editors adult observers AND 6 party-hours per count are Date of REQUIRED for all counts started after 2008; and, to review and edit the reports efficiently. Most importantly, June or except in extenuating circumstances, ALL counts should Butterfly Count information will be entered and stored in a July expend at least 6 party-hours of effort. database which in the future will allow it to be available Count online to NABA members and the public. If entering your Date other NABA Seasonal Butterfly Count: A minimum of four adult observers AND 6 party-hours per count is data through the online count form presents any difficulty, than June REQUIRED. please contact NABA for assistance. or July COUNT PROGRAM OVERVIEW DATE OF NEXT YEAR'S COUNT In order to encourage increased participation in the Please contact NABA (at address/phone above, or e-mail NABA Butterfly Count Program and to encourage even more to ) with the date of your next year's monitoring possibilities, the NABA Board of Directors [email protected] authorized the introduction of Seasonal Butterfly Counts in count and information on how to contact the compiler.
    [Show full text]
  • Seed and Plant Recommendations
    May 6, 2020 Recommended Modifications to Proposed Seed Mixes, Seeding Schedule and Plant List to Benefit At-Risk Pollinator Species Project Location: Reuben Hoar Public Library Littleton, Massachusetts Prepared by: Evan Abramson, M.S.E.D. Principal, Landscape Interactions Pollinator species at risk in eastern Massachusetts that are supported by the following recommendations: Bees: • Bombus fervidus Golden northern bumblebee • Bombus vagans Half-black bumblebee Lepidoptera: • Callophrys gryneus Juniper hairstreak • Callophrys irus Frosted elfin • Euphyes conspicua Black dash • Hesperia leonardus Leonard’s skipper • Hesperia metea Cobweb skipper • Hesperia sassacus Indian skipper • Poanes massasoit Mulberry wing • Satyrium acadica Acadian hairstreak • Satyrium favonius Oak hairstreak • Speyeria aphrodite Aphrodite fritillary FOR ALL SEEDS AND PLANTS TO BE SOURCED: 1. All seeds and plants shall be supplied by Prairie Moon Nursery, New England Wetland Plants, Ernst Seed or another nursery/seed supplier that is verified to be neonicotinoid and pesticide-free. 2. With regards to certain species, recommended source and contact information are included. Recommended Changes to Proposed Turf Grass Seed Mix: Landscape Interactions | 16 Center Street #426 Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 | www.landscapeinteractions.com 1 20% Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis). 20% Common selfheal (Prunella vulgaris ssp. lanceolata) | Source: Pacific NW Natives http://www.pacificnwnatives.com/ 20% Common wood sedge (Carex blanda) | Source: Prairie Moon Nursery https://www.prairiemoon.com 20% Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) | Source: New England Wetland Plants https://newp.com, Ernst Seed https://www.ernstseed.com/, or Prairie Moon Nursery 5% Violet (Viola ssp.) | Source: Prairie Moon Nursery https://www.prairiemoon.com 5% Chewings Red fescue (Festuca rubra variety). 5% Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne).
    [Show full text]
  • ITC Iowa Environmental Overview: Rare Species and Habitats Linn County, IA June 8Th, 2016 SCHEDULE
    ITC IOWA ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW: RARE SPecies AND HABITAts Linn County, IA June 8th, 2016 SCHEDULE MEETING PLACE: Days Inn and Suites of Cedar Rapids (Depart at 7:00 am) • 2215 Blairs Ferry Rd NE, Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 STOP 1: Highway 100 Extension Project and Rock Island Botanical Preserve (7:15 am-10:45 am) • Ecosystems: Emergent Wetland, Dry Sand Prairie, Sand Oak Savanna, River Floodplain Forest • T&E Species : Northern long-eared bat, Prairie vole, Western harvest mouse, Southern flying squirrel, Blanding’s turtle, Bullsnake, Ornate box turtle, Blue racer, Byssus skipper, Zabulon skipper, Wild Indigo duskywing, Acadian hairstreak, Woodland horsetail, Prairie moonwort, Northern Adder’s-tongue, Soft rush, Northern panic-grass, Great Plains Ladies’-tresses, Glomerate sedge, Goats-rue, Field sedge, Flat top white aster • Invasive Species: Garlic mustard, Common buckthorn, Eurasian honeysuckles, Autumn-olive, Yellow & White sweet-clover, Common mullein, Bouncing bet, Kentucky bluegrass, Siberian elm, Japanese barberry, White mulberry, Smooth brome LUNCH: BurgerFeen (11:00 am – 12:00 pm) • 3980 Center Point Rd NE, Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 STOP 2: McLoud Run (12:15 pm – 2:45 pm) • Current Ecosystems: Disturbed Floodplain Forest • T&E Species: none • Invasive Species: Black locust, Bird’s-foot trefoil, Bouncing bet, Crown vetch, Cut-leaved teasel, Eurasian Honeysuckles, Garlic mustard, Japanese knotweed, Reed canary grass, Siberian elm, Tree-of-heaven, White mulberry, Wild parsnip RETURN TO HOTEL (3:00 pm) Martha Holzheuer, LLA, CE, CA Matt
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Butterflies and Their Biology to Forward Such for Inclusion in the Larger Study
    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 39(2). 1985. 95-118 NEV ADA BUTTERFLIES: PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST AND DISTRIBUTION GEORGE T. AUSTIN Nevada State Museum and Historical Society, 700 Twin Lakes Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 ABSTRACT. The distribution by county of the 189 species (over 300 taxa) of but­ terflies occurring in Nevada is presented along with a list of species incorrectly recorded for the state. There are still large areas which are poorly or not collected. Nevada continues as one of the remaining unknown areas in our knowledge of butterfly distribution in North America. Although a com­ prehensive work on the state's butterflies is in preparation, there is sufficient demand for a preliminary checklist to justify the following. It is hoped this will stimulate those who have any data on Nevada butterflies and their biology to forward such for inclusion in the larger study. Studies of Nevada butterflies are hampered by a paucity of resident collectors, a large number of mountain and valley systems and vast areas with little or no access. Non-resident collectors usually funnel into known and well worked areas, and, although their data are valu­ able, large areas of the state remain uncollected. Intensive collecting, with emphasis on poorly known areas, over the past seven years by Nevada State Museum personnel and associates has gone far to clarify butterfly distribution within the state. The gaps in knowledge are now more narrowly identifiable and will be filled during the next few sea­ sons. There is no all encompassing treatment of Nevada's butterfly fauna. The only state list is an informal recent checklist of species (Harjes, 1980).
    [Show full text]