Insecta: Trichoptera) from the Ecoregion Hellenic Western Balkans
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Aquatic Insects Are Dramatically Underrepresented in Genomic Research
insects Communication Aquatic Insects Are Dramatically Underrepresented in Genomic Research Scott Hotaling 1,* , Joanna L. Kelley 1 and Paul B. Frandsen 2,3,* 1 School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84062, USA 3 Data Science Lab, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20002, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] (S.H.); [email protected] (P.B.F.); Tel.: +1-(828)-507-9950 (S.H.); +1-(801)-422-2283 (P.B.F.) Received: 20 August 2020; Accepted: 3 September 2020; Published: 5 September 2020 Simple Summary: The genome is the basic evolutionary unit underpinning life on Earth. Knowing its sequence, including the many thousands of genes coding for proteins in an organism, empowers scientific discovery for both the focal organism and related species. Aquatic insects represent 10% of all insect diversity, can be found on every continent except Antarctica, and are key components of freshwater ecosystems. However, aquatic insect genome biology lags dramatically behind that of terrestrial insects. If genomic effort was spread evenly, one aquatic insect genome would be sequenced for every ~9 terrestrial insect genomes. Instead, ~24 terrestrial insect genomes have been sequenced for every aquatic insect genome. A lack of aquatic genomes is limiting research progress in the field at both fundamental and applied scales. We argue that the limited availability of aquatic insect genomes is not due to practical limitations—small body sizes or overly complex genomes—but instead reflects a lack of research interest. We call for targeted efforts to expand the availability of aquatic insect genomic resources to empower future research. -
Species Fact Sheet for Homoplectra Schuhi
SPECIES FACT SHEET Common Name: Schuh’s Homoplectran Caddisfly Scientific Name: Homoplectra schuhi Denning 1965 Phylum: Mandibulata Class: Insecta Order: Trichoptera Suborder: Annulipalpia Family: Hydropsychidae Subfamily: Diplectroninae Conservation Status Global Status (2005): G3Q – Vulnerable, but taxonomic questions persist (last reviewed 25 Mar 2005) National Status (United States): N3 - Vulnerable (23 Feb 2005) State Status (Oregon): S3 - Vulnerable (NatureServe 2015) Oregon Biodiversity Information Center: List 3 IUCN Red List: NE – Not evaluated Taxonomic Note This species has been given a global status of G3Q due to the limited number of specimens that have been reviewed to date, and the variability of diagnostic characteristics (NatureServe 2015). This genus is in need of additional collecting and taxonomic review, which may lead to synonymization with older described species (Wisseman 2015, Ruiter 2015). For example, specimens identified as H. luchia Denning 1966 may in fact be synonyms of H. schuhi (Ruiter 2015). Technical Description A microscope is required to identify Homoplectra schuhi, as identifications are based on genitalia anatomy. The advice of a Trichoptera expert is suggested. See Denning (1965) for lateral view drawings of the male and female genitalia. Adult: The adults of this species are small, moth-like insects in the caddisfly family Hydropsychidae. Homoplectra males are recognized by the complexity of the phallic apparatus, which can be complicated by very strong development of several sclerotized branches (Schmid 1998). Holotype male: Length 6 mm. General color of head, thorax and abdomen dark brown, wings tan with no pattern, legs and antennae varying shades of brownish. Pubescence of head, thorax and legs aureous. Fifth sternite with a dorsal filament enlarged distally and curved dorso-caudad. -
Publications of Glenn B
Publications: Glenn B. Wiggins, Curator Emeritus, Entomology 2010 Wiggins, G.B. “No small matters. Introducing Biological Notes on an Old Farm: Exploring Common Things in the Kingdoms of Life.” ROM Magazine, 42(2): 29- 31. * 2009 Wiggins, G.B. Biological Notes on an Old Farm: Exploring Common Things in the Kingdoms of Life. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. 2008 Wiggins, G.B. and D.C. Currie. “Trichoptera Families.” In An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, edited by R.W. Merritt, K.W. Cummins, and M.B. Berg. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa (4th edition, revised). 2007 Wiggins, G.B. “Architects under water.” American Entomologist, 53(2): 78-85. 2005b Wiggins, G.B. “Review: Vernal pools, natural history and conservation by Elizabeth A. Colburn.” Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24(4): 1009-1013. 2005a Vineyard, R.N., G.B. Wiggins, H.E. Frania, and P.W. Schefter. “The caddisfly genus Neophylax (Trichoptera: Uenoidae).” Royal Ontario Museum Contributions in Science, 2: 1-141. * 2004b Wiggins, G.B. Caddisflies: The Underwater Architects. University of Toronto Press. 2004a Wiggins, G.B. “Caddisflies: glimpses into evolutionary history.” Rotunda, 38(2): 32-39. 2002 Wiggins, G.B. “Biogeography of amphipolar caddisflies in the subfamily Dicosmoecinae (Trichoptera, Limnephilidae).” Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 49(2002) 2: 227- 259. 2001 Wiggins, G.B. “Construction behavior for new pupal cases by case-making caddis larvae: Further comment. (Trichoptera: Integripalpia).” Braueria, 28: 7-9. 1999b Gall, W.K. and G.B. Wiggins. “Evidence bearing on a sister-group relationship between the families Phryganeidae and Plectrotarsidae (Trichoptera).” Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Trichoptera, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 1998, edited by H. -
Ours to Save: the Distribution, Status & Conservation Needs of Canada's Endemic Species
Ours to Save The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species June 4, 2020 Version 1.0 Ours to Save: The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species Additional information and updates to the report can be found at the project website: natureconservancy.ca/ourstosave Suggested citation: Enns, Amie, Dan Kraus and Andrea Hebb. 2020. Ours to save: the distribution, status and conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species. NatureServe Canada and Nature Conservancy of Canada. Report prepared by Amie Enns (NatureServe Canada) and Dan Kraus (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Mapping and analysis by Andrea Hebb (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Cover photo credits (l-r): Wood Bison, canadianosprey, iNaturalist; Yukon Draba, Sean Blaney, iNaturalist; Salt Marsh Copper, Colin Jones, iNaturalist About NatureServe Canada A registered Canadian charity, NatureServe Canada and its network of Canadian Conservation Data Centres (CDCs) work together and with other government and non-government organizations to develop, manage, and distribute authoritative knowledge regarding Canada’s plants, animals, and ecosystems. NatureServe Canada and the Canadian CDCs are members of the international NatureServe Network, spanning over 80 CDCs in the Americas. NatureServe Canada is the Canadian affiliate of NatureServe, based in Arlington, Virginia, which provides scientific and technical support to the international network. About the Nature Conservancy of Canada The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) works to protect our country’s most precious natural places. Proudly Canadian, we empower people to safeguard the lands and waters that sustain life. Since 1962, NCC and its partners have helped to protect 14 million hectares (35 million acres), coast to coast to coast. -
Diversity and Ecosystem Services of Trichoptera
Review Diversity and Ecosystem Services of Trichoptera John C. Morse 1,*, Paul B. Frandsen 2,3, Wolfram Graf 4 and Jessica A. Thomas 5 1 Department of Plant & Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, E-143 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634-0310, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Plant & Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 701 E University Parkway Drive, Provo, UT 84602, USA; [email protected] 3 Data Science Lab, Smithsonian Institution, 600 Maryland Ave SW, Washington, D.C. 20024, USA 4 BOKU, Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecology Management, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendelstr. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] 5 Department of Biology, University of York, Wentworth Way, York Y010 5DD, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-864-656-5049 Received: 2 February 2019; Accepted: 12 April 2019; Published: 1 May 2019 Abstract: The holometabolous insect order Trichoptera (caddisflies) includes more known species than all of the other primarily aquatic orders of insects combined. They are distributed unevenly; with the greatest number and density occurring in the Oriental Biogeographic Region and the smallest in the East Palearctic. Ecosystem services provided by Trichoptera are also very diverse and include their essential roles in food webs, in biological monitoring of water quality, as food for fish and other predators (many of which are of human concern), and as engineers that stabilize gravel bed sediment. They are especially important in capturing and using a wide variety of nutrients in many forms, transforming them for use by other organisms in freshwaters and surrounding riparian areas. -
Appendix 11.3
APPENDIX 11.3: Macro-invertebrate diversity in Maine and northeastern U.S., by family. Maine data are from MABP database, from multiple sources. New England data (6 states, excluding New York) are from a compilation of data by Chandler and Loose (2001) that includes information for all states, but appears to focus on Massachusetts. Species totals include taxa that are identified only to genus level (i.e. genera without any species indicated). Appendices 15 Appendix 11.3 New England Taxa MABP records records Phylum Class Order Family # Genera # Spp %"Orphan" Genera *** # Genera # Spp Annelida Polychaeta Sabellida Sabellidae 00 00 Annelida Polychaeta Sabellida Aeolosomatidae 22 100 -- -- Annelida Clitellata Lumbiculida Lubriculidae 44 75 2 3 Annelida Clitellata Enchytraeida Enchytraeidae ? ? Annelida Clitellata Haplotoxida Naididae 14 35 71018 Annelida Clitellata Haplotoxida Tubificidae 612 17 5 10 Annelida Clitellata Lumbricida Glossoscolecidae -- -- Annelida Clitellata Branchiobdellida Bdellodrilidae 11 011 Annelida Clitellata Branchiobdellida Branchiobdellidae 11 011 Annelida Clitellata Branchiobdellida Cambarincolidae 24 024 Annelida Clitellata Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae 77 0616 Annelida Clitellata Rhynchobdellida Piscicolidae 44 044 Annelida Clitellata Arhynchobdellida Hirudinididae 22 024 Annelida Clitellata Arhynchobdellida Erpobdellidae 45 048 Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae 24 50 2 4 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Gammaridae 11 014 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae 22 027 Arthropoda Malacostraca -
THE CONTRIBUTION of HEADWATER STREAMS to BIODIVERSITY in RIVER Networksl
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION Vol. 43, No.1 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION February 2007 THE CONTRIBUTION OF HEADWATER STREAMS TO BIODIVERSITY IN RIVER NETWORKSl Judy L. Meyer, David L. Strayer, J. Bruce Wallace, Sue L. Eggert, Gene S. Helfman, and Norman E. Leonard2 ABSTRACT: The diversity of life in headwater streams (intermittent, first and second order) contributes to the biodiversity of a river system and its riparian network. Small streams differ widely in physical, chemical, and biotic attributes, thus providing habitats for a range of unique species. Headwater species include permanent residents as well as migrants that travel to headwaters at particular seasons or life stages. Movement by migrants links headwaters with downstream and terrestrial ecosystems, as do exports such as emerging and drifting insects. We review the diversity of taxa dependent on headwaters. Exemplifying this diversity are three unmapped headwaters that support over 290 taxa. Even intermittent streams may support rich and distinctive biological communities, in part because of the predictability of dry periods. The influence of headwaters on downstream systems emerges from their attributes that meet unique habitat requirements of residents and migrants by: offering a refuge from temperature and flow extremes, competitors, predators, and introduced spe cies; serving as a source of colonists; providing spawning sites and rearing areas; being a rich source of food; and creating migration corridors throughout the landscape. Degradation and loss of headwaters and their con nectivity to ecosystems downstream threaten the biological integrity of entire river networks. (KEY TERMS: biotic integrity; intermittent; first-order streams; small streams; invertebrates; fish.) Meyer, Judy L., David L. -
Emergence Trap Collections of Lotic Trichoptera in the Cascade Range of Oregon, U.S.A
13 EMERGENCE TRAP COLLECTIONS OF LOTIC TRICHOPTERA IN THE CASCADE RANGE OF OREGON, U.S.A. N. H. ANDERSON, R. W. WISSEMAN AND G. W. COURTNEY SUMMARY Emergence of caddisflies in three 3rd-order streams was monitored in 1982-83 using four traps, (each 3.34 m 2 ) per stream. Traps were placed over both riffle and depositional areas. A range of habitats was sampled because sites extended from 490 to 880 m in elevation and included areas with old-growth coniferous canopy, regrowth deciduous canopy and clearcut with no canopy. Although trapping efforts censused only limited reaches within each stream system, 65% of all caddis species known from the drainage were obtained. More than 5200 specimens were collected. Rhyacophilidae (23 species) and Limnephilidae (14 species) were the most diverse families, but Lepidostomatidae accounted for 46% of the individuals, followed by Philopotamidae (14%), and Rhyacophilidae (13%). When partitioned into functional feeding groups, scrapers were the most diverse group; whereas collectors were poorly represented. INTRODUCTION This project is part of a comprehensive study of the impact of riparian vegetation on the structure and function of stream ecosystems in the Western Coniferous Forest Biome. Emergence trap collections of aquatic insects are being used as an index of secondary production to compare the biota of streams flowing through old-growth coniferous forest, a recent clearcut, and a regrowth deciduous forest. We present data for one flight season (1982-83) on species composition, abundance, functional feeding groups and seasonal occurrence of caddisflies. In a subsequent paper, we will analyze differences among sites for the entire insect community. -
Macroinvertebrate Inventory of the Caspar Creek Watershed
FINAL REPORT: Macroinvertebrate Inventory of the Caspar Creek Watershed Kenneth W. Cummins1 and David Malkauskas2 1. California Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit, Humboldt State University 2. Department of Entomology, Michigan State University 1 Introduction A macroinvertebrate assessment was conducted on the Caspar Creek Experimental Watershed in northwestern California using a functional feeding group (FFG) classification. The approach, developed over 30 years ago (Cummins 1973), has been tested, modified, and employed in many studies (e.g. Cummins and Klug 1979, Cummins and Wilzbach 1985), Merritt and Cummins 2006). The approach categorizes macroinvertebrates based on their morphological and behavioral mechanisms by which they acquire one or more of six general food types: coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM), fine particulate organic matter (FPOM), periphytic, non-filamentous algae and associated bio-film, invertebrate prey organisms, and filamentous algae (Table 1). The morpho-behavioral adaptations of stream macroinvertebrates for acquiring food are easily observed in the field on live specimens. An example is the large eyes, bright color patterns, and active movement that characterize the three predaceous stonefly families (setipalpian Plecoptera). The abundance (especially expressed as biomass) of any FFG is an indicator of the relative availability of its food resource category. The method has the advantage that the survey crew leaves the field with the data as well as with preserved samples that can be analyzed in taxonomic data, and measured for biomass conversion calculations in the lab, if (and this is almost always the problem) funds are available for the very time-consuming process of microscope analysis. The point is, that a great deal of information about the status of a stream ecosystem can be obtained in the field using the FFG approach, but it does not for close the ability to analyze the samples in the lab. -
The Trichoptera of North Carolina
Families and genera within Trichoptera in North Carolina Spicipalpia (closed-cocoon makers) Integripalpia (portable-case makers) RHYACOPHILIDAE .................................................60 PHRYGANEIDAE .....................................................78 Rhyacophila (Agrypnia) HYDROPTILIDAE ...................................................62 (Banksiola) Oligostomis (Agraylea) (Phryganea) Dibusa Ptilostomis Hydroptila Leucotrichia BRACHYCENTRIDAE .............................................79 Mayatrichia Brachycentrus Neotrichia Micrasema Ochrotrichia LEPIDOSTOMATIDAE ............................................81 Orthotrichia Lepidostoma Oxyethira (Theliopsyche) Palaeagapetus LIMNEPHILIDAE .....................................................81 Stactobiella (Anabolia) GLOSSOSOMATIDAE ..............................................65 (Frenesia) Agapetus Hydatophylax Culoptila Ironoquia Glossosoma (Limnephilus) Matrioptila Platycentropus Protoptila Pseudostenophylax Pycnopsyche APATANIIDAE ..........................................................85 (fixed-retreat makers) Apatania Annulipalpia (Manophylax) PHILOPOTAMIDAE .................................................67 UENOIDAE .................................................................86 Chimarra Neophylax Dolophilodes GOERIDAE .................................................................87 (Fumanta) Goera (Sisko) (Goerita) Wormaldia LEPTOCERIDAE .......................................................88 PSYCHOMYIIDAE ....................................................68 -
Of the Korean Peninsula
Journal288 of Species Research 9(3):288-323, 2020JOURNAL OF SPECIES RESEARCH Vol. 9, No. 3 A checklist of Trichoptera (Insecta) of the Korean Peninsula Sun-Jin Park and Dongsoo Kong* Department of Life Science, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, Republic of Korea *Correspondent: [email protected] A revised checklist of Korean Trichoptera is provided for the species recorded from the Korean Peninsula, including both North and South Korea. The checklist includes bibliographic research as well as results after reexamination of some specimens. For each species, we provide the taxonomic literature that examined Korean Trichoptera materials or mentioned significant taxonomic treatments regarding to Korean species. We also provide the records of unnamed species based on larval identification for further study. Based on taxonomic considerations, 20 species among the previously known nominal species in Korea are deleted or synonymized, and three species omitted from the previous lists, Hydropsyche athene Malicky and Chantaramongkol, 2000, H. simulata Mosely, 1942 and Helicopsyche coreana Mey, 1991 are newly added to the checklist. Hydropsyche formosana Ulmer, 1911 is recorded from the Korean Peninsula for the first time by the identification of Hydropsyche KD. In addition, we recognized 14 species of larvae separated with only tentative alphabetic designations. As a result, this new Korean Trichoptera checklist includes 218 currently recognized species in 66 genera and 25 families from the Korean Peninsula. Keywords: caddisflies, catalogue, history, North Korea, South Korea Ⓒ 2020 National Institute of Biological Resources DOI:10.12651/JSR.2020.9.3.288 INTRODUCTION Democratic Republic (North Korea). Since the mid 1970s, several scientists within the Republic of Korea (South Trichoptera is the seventh-largest order among Insecta, Korea) have studied Trichoptera. -
Arthropod Prey for Riparian Associated Birds in Headwater Forests of the Oregon Coast Range ⇑ Joan C
Forest Ecology and Management 285 (2012) 213–226 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco Arthropod prey for riparian associated birds in headwater forests of the Oregon Coast Range ⇑ Joan C. Hagar a, , Judith Li b,1, Janel Sobota b,1, Stephanie Jenkins c,2 a US Geological Survey Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States b Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, Nash Hall, Room #104, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-3803, United States c Oregon State University, Department of Forest Ecosystems & Society, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States article info abstract Article history: Headwater riparian areas occupy a large proportion of the land base in Pacific Northwest forests, and thus Received 11 May 2012 are ecologically and economically important. Although a primary goal of management along small head- Received in revised form 16 August 2012 water streams is the protection of aquatic resources, streamside habitat also is important for many ter- Accepted 19 August 2012 restrial wildlife species. However, mechanisms underlying the riparian associations of some terrestrial Available online 21 September 2012 species have not been well studied, particularly for headwater drainages. We investigated the diets of and food availability for four bird species associated with riparian habitats in montane coastal forests Keywords: of western Oregon, USA. We examined variation in the availability of arthropod prey as a function of dis- Aquatic-terrestrial interface tance from stream. Specifically, we tested the hypotheses that (1) emergent aquatic insects were a food Arthropod prey Forest birds source for insectivorous birds in headwater riparian areas, and (2) the abundances of aquatic and terres- Headwater streams trial arthropod prey did not differ between streamside and upland areas during the bird breeding season.