DOCSLIB.ORG

Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) By Richard Henderson Research Ecologist, WI DNR Bureau of Science Services Summary This is a preliminary list of insects that are either well known, or likely, to be closely associated with Wisconsin’s original native prairie. These species are mostly dependent upon remnants of original prairie, or plantings/restorations of prairie where their hosts have been re-established (see discussion below), and thus are rarely found outside of these settings. The list also includes some species tied to native ecosystems that grade into prairie, such as savannas, sand barrens, fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh. The list is annotated with known host(s) of each insect, and the likelihood of its presence in the state (see key at end of list for specifics). This working list is a byproduct of a prairie invertebrate study I coordinated from1995-2005 that covered 6 Midwestern states and included 14 cooperators. The project surveyed insects on prairie remnants and investigated the effects of fire on those insects. It was funded in part by a series of grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, the list has 475 species. However, this is a partial list at best, representing approximately only ¼ of the prairie-specialist insects likely present in the region (see discussion below). Significant input to this list is needed, as there are major taxa groups missing or greatly under represented. Such absence is not necessarily due to few or no prairie-specialists in those groups, but due more to lack of knowledge about life histories (at least published knowledge), unsettled taxonomy, and lack of taxonomic specialists currently working in those groups. Likely underrepresented groups include many families of flies, micro-lepidoptera (families of moths with wingspans generally under 20 mm), some beetle families (such as weevils and leaf-beetles), parasitic and gall forming wasps, aphids, plant-lice, and more. Purpose of List The purpose of this list is to stimulate interest, among professional and amateurs alike, into looking for these species, so we may obtain a better understanding of their status and distribution, level of remnant-dependency, and host specificity. I also hope it will stimulate specialists and experienced amateurs to submit nominations for additions to the list. Over time, I anticipate species will not only be added, but some dropped, as we learn more about their ecology and habits. What are Prairie-dependent/specialist/restricted Insects? In conservation of prairies in the Midwest, there is often consideration given to prairie-dependent or remnant-dependent insects (or other invertebrates). Sometimes other terms are used to describe them, such as conservative, specialist, or restricted, but they all refer to the same general concept - a group of insects with a very tight, even dependent, relationship with native prairie. Sometimes the term “remnant” is used instead of “prairie” so as to include savanna, sedge meadows, and other communities closely associated with prairie. This is because there is frequent overlap in species among these linked natural area types. Specialist insects depend upon, and thus are rarely found outside of, remnants, or at least good quality restorations. Most often they are species that require a specific plant species, genus, or family at some point in their life cycle (they are host-specific or host- restricted) and in turn their host plants are primarily limited to remnants or restoration plantings. The group may also include specialized predatory or parasitic insects that require certain prey or hosts which are in turn associated with prairie vegetation. It may also include insects dependent upon other characteristics of the remnant prairie community, such as soil or substrate, which we do not yet understand. Unfortunately, for many insects we do not yet fully know what they eat or how host-specific they are in their needs. Assigning species, for which we have little or no host specificity information, to the prairie-dependent category is done based on survey work that has so far found them only on prairie remnants, or they have only been found within the former prairie region of the continent (per Metzler et al. 2005). Given our limited knowledge, classifying species as prairie-dependent can be difficult and subjective - it is certainly a work in progress. Following are a few examples that may help you better understand the concept. The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), for example, is a well-documented host-specific insect. Its larvae, along with the larvae, adults, or both of a dozen other insect species, feed exclusively upon milkweed (Asclepias spp.), and most milkweed species are primarily limited to remnants and restorations. Thus, at first glance, milkweed feeders are seemingly good candidates for remnant-dependence classification. However, because there are two milkweed species, common and whorled milkweed, that regularly grow in abundance in non-remnant or non- restoration settings, such as roadsides, old fields, cropland, disturbed ground, etc., monarch butterflies, and the other milkweed specialist, do not fully qualify as remnant-dependent, even though they are very host specific. The Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), on the other hand, is a good example of remnant dependence. Its larvae require wild lupine, a species highly associated with remnant sand savanna. Even though lupine may be found in sandy roadsides and sandy old fields, these are generally settings where native sand savanna or prairie vegetation is reestablishing from nearby remnant seed sources (much like a restoration). Therefore, unlike common or whorled milkweed, lupine are not widespread on the landscape. Therefore, most ecologists include the Karner blue in the restricted/specialist category. An even better example of prairie-dependency is the red-tailed leafhopper (Aflexia rubranura), which requires prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) (as do five other prairie- restricted insects). This conservative grass is exclusively found in remnant prairie sod or restoration plantings. In another example, there are 9 species of moths that appear to only live on leadplant. Because of leadplant’s conservative nature (limited to remnants and plantings), these are all considered prairie-dependent insects. Of course not everything is so clear cut. For example, the tumbling flower beetle Mordellina impatiens, for which we know nothing about its host(s), so far has only been found in prairie and savanna remnants, thus it is currently catalogued as likely remnant- dependent. We also do not know what the moth Eoreuma crawfordi eats, but so far it is has only been found in prairie remnants, and all known locations are within the heart of the continent’s prairie region, so it is also considered a remnant-specialist for now. These are just a few examples as to why and how species were placed on to this working list. Why does it Matter? There are at least two useful applications for the concept of prairie-dependency. First, it has direct use in setting priorities for conservation actions. These restricted insects are now limited on the landscape and thus at greater risk of disappearing than most other species. Thus, knowing that such species are present on a site heightens its conservation significance beyond just the vegetation and rare plants that may be present. Even small remnant patches (1 acre or less) have proven themselves to be viable refuges for prairie- dependent insects. Second, some of the insects found on prairies (current estimate is 40%) have some level of sensitivity to fire (and other management activities). Although most of these do recover within one year, a small portion takes 2 or more years to rebound. Knowing which of these most sensitive of species are also remnant-dependent, and thus may have trouble recolonizing if lost from an isolated remnant, helps guide management decisions about how much to burn and how often. Just how many insects are prairie-dependent? Ron Panzer et al. (2010) estimated from their work in the Chicago area that approximately 15% of the insects using prairie remnants may be remnant-restricted. This translates into a conservative estimate of approximately 2,000 prairie-dependent insects in our region (WI, northern IL, eastern IA, and southeastern MN). Some of these species are highly mobile and produce many offspring each year and thus can find and colonize new prairie plantings or remnants within a year or two. Examples are the rosinweed metalmark moth Tebenna silphiella and most Silphium gall-wasp species (Antistrophus spp.). In fact, the widespread planting of prairie vegetation over the past 40 years in the upper Midwest has likely resulted in the resurgence of many of the more mobile prairie-dependent species. Other prairie-dependent insects, however, are more conservative, less mobile and slower to reproduce, and thus still remain quite rare on the landscape. These species may take decades to find new areas of habitat, such as restorations, and thus are the ones in greatest need of attention. As pointed out, our knowledge as to what species are truly prairie-restricted is limited. For some species, we have confidence in their host-specificity, and for others far less so, at least until more investigation and observation is done. For many of these species our knowledge of their status (population levels) and distribution is very limited. Needless to say, there is ample
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AEXT Ucsu2062256012007.Pdf (677.1Kb)
    I N S E C T S E R I E S HOME & GARDEN Japanese Beetle no. 5.601 by W. Cranshaw1 The Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica, can be a very damaging insect in both the adult and larval stages. Larvae Quick Facts... chew roots of turfgrasses and it is the most important white grub pest of turfgrass in much of the northeastern quadrant Adult Japanese beetles cause of the United States. Adults also cause serious injury to leaves and serious injuries as they feed on the leaves flowers of many ornamentals, and flowers of many ornamentals, fruits, fruits, and vegetables. Among and vegetables. Among the plants most Figure 1. Japanese beetle. Photo the plants most commonly commonly damaged are rose, grape, courtesy of David Cappaert. damaged are rose, grape, crabapple, and beans. crabapple, and beans. Japanese beetle is also a regulated insect subject to internal quarantines in the United States. The presence of established Japanese beetle populations There are many insects in in Colorado restricts trade. Nursery products originating from Japanese beetle- Colorado that may be mistaken infested states require special treatment or are outright banned from shipment to for Japanese beetle. areas where this insect does not occur. To identify Japanese beetle Current Distribution of the Japanese Beetle consider differences in size, From its original introduction in New Jersey in 1919, Japanese beetle has shape and patterning. greatly expanded its range. It is now generally distributed throughout the country, excluding the extreme southeast. It is also found in parts of Ontario, Canada. Japanese beetle is most commonly transported to new locations with soil surrounding nursery plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) by Boris C. Kondratieff, Paul A. Opler, Matthew C. Garhart, and Jason P. Schmidt C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 March 15, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration (top to bottom): Widow Skimmer (Libellula luctuosa) [photo ©Robert Behrstock], Stonefly (Perlesta species) [photo © David H. Funk, White- lined Sphinx (Hyles lineata) [photo © Matthew C. Garhart] ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Copyrighted 2004 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………….…1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..…………………………………………….…3 OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………………………………………….………5 Site Descriptions………………………………………….. METHODS AND MATERIALS…………………………………………………………………………….5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………..…...11 Dragonflies………………………………………………………………………………….……..11
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves
    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
    [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]
  • Florida Predatory Stink Bug (Unofficial Common Name), Euthyrhynchus Floridanus(Linnaeus) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)1 Frank W
    EENY157 Florida Predatory Stink Bug (unofficial common name), Euthyrhynchus floridanus (Linnaeus) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)1 Frank W. Mead and David B. Richman2 Introduction Distribution The predatory stink bug, Euthyrhynchus floridanus (Lin- Euthyrhynchus floridanus is primarily a Neotropical species naeus) (Figure 1), is considered a beneficial insect because that ranges within the southeastern quarter of the United most of its prey consists of plant-damaging bugs, beetles, States. and caterpillars. It seldom plays a major role in the natural control of insects in Florida, but its prey includes a number Description of economically important species. Adults The length of males is approximately 12 mm, with a head width of 2.3 mm and a humeral width of 6.4 mm. The length of females is 12 to 17 mm, with a head width of 2.4 mm and a humeral width of 7.2 mm. Euthyrhynchus floridanus (Figure 2) normally can be distinguished from all other stink bugs in the southeastern United States by a red- dish spot at each corner of the scutellum outlined against a blue-black to purplish-brown ground color. Variations occur that might cause confusion with somewhat similar stink bugs in several genera, such as Stiretrus, Oplomus, and Perillus, but these other bugs have obtuse humeri, or at least lack the distinct humeral spine that is present in adults of Euthyrhynchus. In addition, species of these genera Figure 1. Adult of the Florida predatory stink bug, Euthyrhynchus known to occur in Florida have a short spine or tubercle floridanus (L.), feeding on a beetle. situated on the lower surface of the front femur behind the Credits: Lyle J.
    [Show full text]
  • Boyne Valley Provincial Park
    BOYNE VALLEY PROVINCIAL PARK One Malaise trap was deployed at Boyne Valley Provincial Park in 2014 (44.11563, -80.12777, 468m ASL; Figure 1). This trap collected arthropods for twenty weeks from April 28 – September 19, 2014. All 10 Malaise trap samples were processed; every other sample was analyzed using the individual specimen protocol while the second half was analyzed via bulk analysis. A total of 1571 BINs were obtained. Over half the BINs captured were flies (Diptera), followed by bees, ants and wasps (Hymenoptera), moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera), and beetles (Coleoptera; Figure 2). In total, 427 arthropod species were named, representing 29% of the BINs from the site (Appendix 1). All BINs were assigned at least to Figure 1. Malaise trap deployed at Boyne Valley family, and 66.6% were assigned to a genus (Appendix Provincial Park in 2014. 2). Specimens collected from Boyne Valley represent 183 different families and 558 genera. Figure 2. Taxonomy breakdown of BINs captured in the Malaise trap at Boyne Valley. APPENDIX 1. TAXONOMY REPORT Class Order Family Genus Species Arachnida Araneae Clubionidae Clubiona Clubiona obesa Philodromidae Philodromus Philodromus rufus Theridiidae Mesostigmata Digamasellidae Dinychidae Halolaelapidae Parasitidae Phytoseiidae Opiliones Phalangiidae Sclerosomatidae Leiobunum Sarcoptiformes Acaridae Oribatulidae Phenopelopidae Scheloribatidae Trombidiformes Anystidae Cunaxidae Cunaxoides Erythraeidae Leptus Hygrobatidae Atractides Scutacaridae Tarsonemidae Tetranychidae Tetranychus Trombidiidae
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Morphology of the Female Genitalia and Some Abdominal Structures of Neotropical Cryptocephalini (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cryptocephalinae)
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by UNL | Libraries University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska 7-19-2006 COMPARATIVE MORPHOLOGY OF THE FEMALE GENITALIA AND SOME ABDOMINAL STRUCTURES OF NEOTROPICAL CRYPTOCEPHALINI (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE: CRYPTOCEPHALINAE) M. Lourdes Chamorro-Lacayo University of Minnesota Saint-Paul, [email protected] Alexander S. Konstantinov U.S. Department of Agriculture, c/o Smithsonian Institution, [email protected] Alexey G. Moseyko Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences Universitetskaya Naberezhnaya, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub Chamorro-Lacayo, M. Lourdes; Konstantinov, Alexander S.; and Moseyko, Alexey G., "COMPARATIVE MORPHOLOGY OF THE FEMALE GENITALIA AND SOME ABDOMINAL STRUCTURES OF NEOTROPICAL CRYPTOCEPHALINI (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE: CRYPTOCEPHALINAE)" (2006). Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty. 2281. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/2281 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 60(2):113–134. 2006. COMPARATIVE MORPHOLOGY OF THE FEMALE GENITALIA AND SOME ABDOMINAL STRUCTURES OF NEOTROPICAL CRYPTOCEPHALINI (COLEOPTERA:CHRYSOMELIDAE:CRYPTOCEPHALINAE) M. LOURDES CHAMORRO-LACAYO Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota Saint-Paul, MN 55108, U.S.A. [email protected] ALEXANDER S. KONSTANTINOV Systematic Entomology Laboratory, PSI, Agricultural Research Service U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated Checklist of the Coleoptera of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Maryland
    B A N I S T E R I A A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA ISSN 1066-0712 Published by the Virginia Natural History Society The Virginia Natural History Society (VNHS) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the dissemination of scientific information on all aspects of natural history in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including botany, zoology, ecology, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, geology, geography, and climatology. The society’s periodical Banisteria is a peer-reviewed, open access, online-only journal. Submitted manuscripts are published individually immediately after acceptance. A single volume is compiled at the end of each year and published online. The Editor will consider manuscripts on any aspect of natural history in Virginia or neighboring states if the information concerns a species native to Virginia or if the topic is directly related to regional natural history (as defined above). Biographies and historical accounts of relevance to natural history in Virginia also are suitable for publication in Banisteria. Membership dues and inquiries about back issues should be directed to the Co-Treasurers, and correspondence regarding Banisteria to the Editor. For additional information regarding the VNHS, including other membership categories, annual meetings, field events, pdf copies of papers from past issues of Banisteria, and instructions for prospective authors visit http://virginianaturalhistorysociety.com/ Editorial Staff: Banisteria Editor Todd Fredericksen, Ferrum College 215 Ferrum Mountain Road Ferrum, Virginia 24088 Associate Editors Philip Coulling, Nature Camp Incorporated Clyde Kessler, Virginia Tech Nancy Moncrief, Virginia Museum of Natural History Karen Powers, Radford University Stephen Powers, Roanoke College C. L. Staines, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Copy Editor Kal Ivanov, Virginia Museum of Natural History Copyright held by the author(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Testing DNA Barcode Performance in 1000 Species of European Lepidoptera: Large Geographic Distances Have Small Genetic Impacts
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Testing DNA Barcode Performance in 1000 Species of European Lepidoptera: Large Geographic Distances Have Small Genetic Impacts Peter Huemer1*, Marko Mutanen2, Kristina M. Sefc3, Paul D. N. Hebert4 1. Tiroler Landesmuseen-Betriebsges.m.b.H., Naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen, Innsbruck, Austria, 2. Biodiversity Unit, Department of Biology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, 3. University of Graz, Institute of Zoology, Graz, Austria, 4. Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada OPEN ACCESS *[email protected] Citation: Huemer P, Mutanen M, Sefc KM, Hebert PDN (2014) Testing DNA Barcode Performance in 1000 Species of European Lepidoptera: Large Geographic Distances Have Small Genetic Impacts. PLoS ONE 9(12): e115774. doi:10.1371/ Abstract journal.pone.0115774 Editor: Bernd Schierwater, University of Veterinary This study examines the performance of DNA barcodes (mt cytochrome c oxidase Medicine Hanover, Germany 1 gene) in the identification of 1004 species of Lepidoptera shared by two localities Received: September 3, 2014 (Finland, Austria) that are 1600 km apart. Maximum intraspecific distances for the Accepted: November 20, 2014 pooled data were less than 2% for 880 species (87.6%), while deeper divergence Published: December 26, 2014 was detected in 124 species. Despite such variation, the overall DNA barcode Copyright: ß 2014 Huemer et al. This is an open- library possessed diagnostic COI sequences for 98.8% of the taxa. Because a access article distributed under the terms of the reference library based on Finnish specimens was highly effective in identifying Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro- specimens from Austria, we conclude that barcode libraries based on regional duction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
    [Show full text]