DOCSLIB.ORG

Evects of Spatial Heterogeneity on Butterxy Species Richness in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO, USA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evects of Spatial Heterogeneity on Butterxy Species Richness in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO, USA See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225842575 Effects of spatial heterogeneity on butterfly species richness in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO, USA Article in Biodiversity and Conservation · March 2008 DOI: 10.1007/s10531-008-9536-8 CITATIONS READS 51 285 3 authors: Sunil Kumar Sara E. Simonson United States Department of Agriculture Colorado State University 107 PUBLICATIONS 2,969 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 250 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Thomas J. Stohlgren Colorado State University 243 PUBLICATIONS 13,198 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Semi-retirement! View project The Entomologist's Monthly Magazine Volume 154, pg: 65-78. Published January 26 2018 View project All content following this page was uploaded by Sunil Kumar on 02 June 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Biodivers Conserv (2009) 18:739–763 DOI 10.1007/s10531-008-9536-8 ORIGINAL PAPER EVects of spatial heterogeneity on butterXy species richness in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO, USA Sunil Kumar · Sara E. Simonson · Thomas J. Stohlgren Received: 14 May 2008 / Accepted: 17 November 2008 / Published online: 11 December 2008 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract We investigated butterXy responses to plot-level characteristics (plant species richness, vegetation height, and range in NDVI [normalized diVerence vegetation index]) and spatial heterogeneity in topography and landscape patterns (composition and conWgu- ration) at multiple spatial scales. StratiWed random sampling was used to collect data on butterXy species richness from seventy-six 20 £ 50 m plots. The plant species richness and average vegetation height data were collected from 76 modiWed-Whittaker plots overlaid on 76 butterXy plots. Spatial heterogeneity around sample plots was quantiWed by measur- ing topographic variables and landscape metrics at eight spatial extents (radii of 300, 600 to 2,400 m). The number of butterXy species recorded was strongly positively correlated with plant species richness, proportion of shrubland and mean patch size of shrubland. Patterns in butterXy species richness were negatively correlated with other variables including mean patch size, average vegetation height, elevation, and range in NDVI. The best predictive model selected using Akaike’s Information Criterion corrected for small sample size X (AICc), explained 62% of the variation in butter y species richness at the 2,100 m spatial extent. Average vegetation height and mean patch size were among the best predictors of butterXy species richness. The models that included plot-level information and topographic variables explained relatively less variation in butterXy species richness, and were improved signiWcantly after including landscape metrics. Our results suggest that spatial heterogeneity greatly inXuences patterns in butterXy species richness, and that it should be explicitly considered in conservation and management actions. Keywords Akaike’s information criterion · ButterXy species richness · FRAGSTATS · Landscape context · Landscape metrics · Model selection · Plant species richness · Spatial autocorrelation · Spatial heterogeneity · Spatial scale S. Kumar (&) · S. E. Simonson Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, 1499 Campus Delivery, A204 NESB Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1499, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] T. J. Stohlgren U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118, USA 1 C 740 Biodivers Conserv (2009) 18:739–763 Abbreviations AICc Akaike’s information criterion corrected for small sample size DEM Digital elevation model ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute GIS Geographical information system GPS Global positioning system MODIS Moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer NAD North American datum NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NDVI Normalized diVerence vegetation index NLCD National land cover dataset USGS United States Geological Survey Introduction Understanding how spatial heterogeneity aVects ecological patterns and processes is one of the major focuses of landscape ecology (Risser et al. 1984; Pickett and Cadenasso 1995; Turner et al. 2001; Fortin and Agrawal 2005; Turner 2005). Spatial heterogeneity can be deWned as the complexity and variability in ecological systems’ properties of interest in space (Li and Reynolds 1994). Quantifying spatial heterogeneity is needed to understand its eVects on the diversity and distributions of diVerent organisms and their species-speciWc responses (Gustafson 1998; Turner et al. 2001; Thies et al. 2003; Kumar et al. 2006). However, the decision at which scale to quantify spatial heterogeneity is one of the challenging questions that ecologists face because spatial heterogeneity is a complex phenomenon and is highly scale dependent (Kolasa and Rollo 1991; Gustafson 1998; Fortin and Agrawal 2005; Wagner and Fortin 2005). Spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems is caused by spatial interactions between many biotic and abiotic factors and the diVerential responses of organisms to these factors (Milne 1991) and the organisms themselves (Huston 1994). DiVerent organisms may have diVerential responses to spatial heterogeneity at multiple scales depending on their grain of perception (Levins 1968), the grain of the landscape (Forman and Godron 1986) and their natural history. Therefore, identiWcation of the factors that most inXuence species diversity, and the dominant scale (i.e., the scale that explains highest variation in the diversity and abundance of organisms) of response of species to these factors is important (Turner 2005) for maintaining and managing biodiversity. ButterXies and plants are generally predicted to show congruent patterns in species diversity due to ecological interactions involving herbivory and pollination (Opler and Krizek 1984; Scoble 1992), and their long history of mutual evolutionary inXuence (Ehrlich and Raven 1964). At local scales, many species of butterXies are restricted to one or a few closely related species of host plants that provide suitable food resources for the larvae (caterpillar; Opler 1999). Although butterXies require the suitable host plants as larval food resources, the geo- graphic distribution of a given butterXy is typically less extensive than the distribution of its potential host plants. A butterXy species may often be found near certain species of plants, but a butterXy will rarely be present in every area that the plant occurs. Across their ranges, butterXy species can show dramatic diVerences in breadth of host plant use and preferences for host plant species. The relative importance of individual plant species as butterXy host plants can vary in space, time, and even among individuals in the same population. 1 C Biodivers Conserv (2009) 18:739–763 741 The availability of Xoral nectar plant resources for adult butterXies can also be an impor- tant characteristic of the local vegetation. In a given area there is generally a greater variety of plant species that can potentially be used by butterXies as larval host plants than as nectar plants (Opler 1999). Nectar plants used by adult butterXies tend to be less speciWc than the host plants required by their larvae. A showy display of abundant nectar Xowers can be an attractive food resource for the adults of many diVerent butterXy species. However, there are examples of butterXy species that are linked closely with particular species of plants that they frequently visit for nectar resources. The diversity and distribution of plant species and characteristics of the vegetation may also inXuence patterns of butterXy species diversity by aVecting their movement and searching behavior (Kareiva 1983; Ricketts 2001). ButterXies can be sensitive to changes in environmental conditions such as vegetation structure, solar radiation, climate variabil- ity, weather events, and patterns in land-use (Wood and Samways 1991; Parmesan 1996; Fleishman et al. 2002; Luoto et al. 2006). Although it can be diYcult to determine the causal mechanisms underlying observed Xuctuations in butterXy populations, the rapid response of butterXies to changes in local vegetation and climate conditions suggests that they may be useful as indicators to monitor ecosystem properties and local habitats (Murphy and Weiss 1992; Kremen 1992; Pollard and Yates 1993; Parmesan 1996). For both practical and ecological reasons, butterXies have been suggested as potential indicator taxa to monitor ecosystems, habitat loss, non-native species invasion, fragmenta- tion, and climate change. Among insects, butterXies are well-studied, relatively easy to monitor, and have relatively short generation periods (Fleishman et al. 2002; Thomas 2005). For example, butterXies may exhibit rapid responses to disturbance events such as Wre and management activities such as logging because of their short generation time (Fleishman et al. 2002). ButterXy resources and their habitats often co-occur with other ecosystem properties of management interest, thus butterXies have also been proposed as indicator species for other taxa (Kremen 1992; Fleishman et al. 2002; Thomas 2005). Habitats used by butterXies may also support other lesser-known insect groups of conservation interest, including valuable plant pollinators such as moths, bees, ants, and Xies. ButterXies can also have important and diverse
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Lodgepole Pine Dwarf Mistletoe in Taylor Park, Colorado Report for the Taylor Park Environmental Assessment
    Lodgepole Pine Dwarf Mistletoe in Taylor Park, Colorado Report for the Taylor Park Environmental Assessment Jim Worrall, Ph.D. Gunnison Service Center Forest Health Protection Rocky Mountain Region USDA Forest Service 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 2 2. DESCRIPTION, DISTRIBUTION, HOSTS ..................................................................................... 2 3. LIFE CYCLE....................................................................................................................................... 3 4. SCOPE OF TREATMENTS RELATIVE TO INFESTED AREA ................................................. 4 5. IMPACTS ON TREES AND FORESTS ........................................................................................... 4 5.1 TREE GROWTH AND LONGEVITY .................................................................................................... 4 5.2 EFFECTS OF DWARF MISTLETOE ON FOREST DYNAMICS ............................................................... 6 5.3 RATE OF SPREAD AND INTENSIFICATION ........................................................................................ 6 6. IMPACTS OF DWARF MISTLETOES ON ANIMALS ................................................................ 6 6.1 DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF VERTEBRATES ............................................................................ 7 6.2 EFFECT OF MISTLETOE-CAUSED SNAGS ON VERTEBRATES ............................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • MOTHS and BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed Distributional Information Has Been J.D
    MOTHS AND BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed distributional information has been J.D. Lafontaine published for only a few groups of Lepidoptera in western Biological Resources Program, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Scott (1986) gives good distribution maps for Canada butterflies in North America but these are generalized shade Central Experimental Farm Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6 maps that give no detail within the Montane Cordillera Ecozone. A series of memoirs on the Inchworms (family and Geometridae) of Canada by McGuffin (1967, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1987) and Bolte (1990) cover about 3/4 of the Canadian J.T. Troubridge fauna and include dot maps for most species. A long term project on the “Forest Lepidoptera of Canada” resulted in a Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre (Agassiz) four volume series on Lepidoptera that feed on trees in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada and these also give dot maps for most species Box 1000, Agassiz, B.C. V0M 1A0 (McGugan, 1958; Prentice, 1962, 1963, 1965). Dot maps for three groups of Cutworm Moths (Family Noctuidae): the subfamily Plusiinae (Lafontaine and Poole, 1991), the subfamilies Cuculliinae and Psaphidinae (Poole, 1995), and ABSTRACT the tribe Noctuini (subfamily Noctuinae) (Lafontaine, 1998) have also been published. Most fascicles in The Moths of The Montane Cordillera Ecozone of British Columbia America North of Mexico series (e.g. Ferguson, 1971-72, and southwestern Alberta supports a diverse fauna with over 1978; Franclemont, 1973; Hodges, 1971, 1986; Lafontaine, 2,000 species of butterflies and moths (Order Lepidoptera) 1987; Munroe, 1972-74, 1976; Neunzig, 1986, 1990, 1997) recorded to date.
    [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]
  • Papilio (New Series) # 25 2016 Issn 2372-9449
    PAPILIO (NEW SERIES) # 25 2016 ISSN 2372-9449 ERNEST J. OSLAR, 1858-1944: HIS TRAVEL AND COLLECTION ITINERARY, AND HIS BUTTERFLIES by James A. Scott, Ph.D. in entomology University of California Berkeley, 1972 (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract. Ernest John Oslar collected more than 50,000 butterflies and moths and other insects and sold them to many taxonomists and museums throughout the world. This paper attempts to determine his travels in America to collect those specimens, by using data from labeled specimens (most in his remaining collection but some from published papers) plus information from correspondence etc. and a few small field diaries preserved by his descendants. The butterfly specimens and their localities/dates in his collection in the C. P. Gillette Museum (Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado) are detailed. This information will help determine the possible collection locations of Oslar specimens that lack accurate collection data. Many more biographical details of Oslar are revealed, and the 26 insects named for Oslar are detailed. Introduction The last collection of Ernest J. Oslar, ~2159 papered butterfly specimens and several moths, was found in the C. P. Gillette Museum, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado by Paul A. Opler, providing the opportunity to study his travels and collections. Scott & Fisher (2014) documented specimens sent by Ernest J. Oslar of about 100 Argynnis (Speyeria) nokomis nokomis Edwards labeled from the San Juan Mts. and Hall Valley of Colorado, which were collected by Wilmatte Cockerell at Beulah New Mexico, and documented Oslar’s specimens of Oeneis alberta oslari Skinner labeled from Deer Creek Canyon, [Jefferson County] Colorado, September 25, 1909, which were collected in South Park, Park Co.
    [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]
  • Watching Western Colorado Butterflies
    Watching Western Colorado Butterflies Dr. Warren H. “Herb” Wagner Why? • Enhance the outdoor experience • Intro to butterfly conservation • Fun Three Steps to Conservation Xerxes Society for Invertebrate Conservation 1) Identify the resources The butterflies Their larval host plants The adult food sources floral & other 2) Protect the resources The landscape & nectar, host plants 3) Enhance the resources Larval & adult host plants Gardens What are the threats? Invasive weeds Knapweeds, bindweed, cheatgrasses, spurges, … Large scale hot-burning fire More frequent, smaller fires not a threat People Serious collecting benefits long term conservation efforts A few rare species are threatened by over-collecting Habitat destruction is a real and serious threat to many butterfly populations Collecting Butterflies With proper labeling & care COLO Mesa Co • Indisputable historical records Black Ridge Rd • Essential for proper ID 6 Apr 1996 • Genetic records JA & RW Hammon • Fun! • Pretty Paonia Colo 7/23/1932 If you are going to use a field guide, this is the one Colorado Butterflies 289 Species West slope - > 200 species Gunnison County 159 species Mesa County 155 species • Skippers 36 species • Skippers 36 species • Swallowtails 6 species • Swallowtails 7 species • Lycaenids 40 species • Lycaenids 39 species • Pierids 20 species • Pierids 16 species • Metalmarks 1 species • Metalmarks 1 species • Nymphalids 56 species • Nymphalids 56 species Metamorphosis naturallycuriouswithmaryholland Lepidoptera = Scale wing The proboscis, clubbed antenna
    [Show full text]
  • Sentinels on the Wing: the Status and Conservation of Butterflies in Canada
    Sentinels on the Wing The Status and Conservation of Butterflies in Canada Peter W. Hall Foreword In Canada, our ties to the land are strong and deep. Whether we have viewed the coasts of British Columbia or Cape Breton, experienced the beauty of the Arctic tundra, paddled on rivers through our sweeping boreal forests, heard the wind in the prairies, watched caribou swim the rivers of northern Labrador, or searched for song birds in the hardwood forests of south eastern Canada, we all call Canada our home and native land. Perhaps because Canada’s landscapes are extensive and cover a broad range of diverse natural systems, it is easy for us to assume the health of our important natural spaces and the species they contain. Our country seems so vast compared to the number of Canadians that it is difficult for us to imagine humans could have any lasting effect on nature. Yet emerging science demonstrates that our natural systems and the species they contain are increas- ingly at risk. While the story is by no means complete, key indicator species demonstrate that Canada’s natural legacy is under pressure from a number of sources, such as the conversion of lands for human uses, the release of toxic chemicals, the introduction of new, invasive species or the further spread of natural pests, and a rapidly changing climate. These changes are hitting home and, with the globalization and expansion of human activities, it is clear the pace of change is accelerating. While their flights of fancy may seem insignificant, butterflies are sentinels or early indicators of this change, and can act as important messengers to raise awareness.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventories of Butterflies 2009
    2009 Report Inventories of Butterflies in Boulder County By Janet Chu November 7, 2009 Table of Contents I. Acknowledgments …………………… 3 II. Abstract …………………………… 4 II. Introduction……………………………… 4 IV. Objectives ………………………….. 5 V. Research Methods ………………….. 6 VI. Results and Discussion ………………... 6 A. Boulder County Open Spaces ... 7 B. City of Boulder Properties …. 9 VII. Conclusions …………………………….. 13 VIII. Recommendations …………………….. 13 IX. References …………………………. 14 X. Butterfly Survey Data Tables …………. 15 Table I. Survey Dates and Locations ……………. 15 Sites belonging to Boulder County … 15 Table II. Southeast Buffer …………………. 16 Table III. Anne U. White Trail ………………. 18 Table IV. Heil Valley Open Space –Geer Watershed... 21 Table V. Heil Valley Open Space –Plumely Canyon 24 Table VI. Heil Valley Open Space – North ………… 27 Table VII. Walker Ranch - Meyer‟s Gulch ………… 30 Table VIII. Caribou Ranch Open Space ………………33 Sites belonging to City of Boulder …… 36 Table IX. Left Hand Valley Reservoir …………… 36 Table X. Hoover Hill, Westview Road ……………. 37 Table XI. Marshall Mesa …………………….…… 38 2 I. Acknowledgments Our research team has conducted butterfly surveys for eight consecutive years, from 2002 through 2009, with 2002-2004 being introductory to the lands and species, and 2005-2009 more in depth. Larry Crowley, Jean Morgan, and Amy Chu have been valuable team members, joined at times by the author‟s grandsons Asa and Jeremy Hurst and associates Mike Sportiello and Cathy Cook. Ruth Carol Cushman and Joyce Gellhorn added expertise on plant life. The majority of the surveys have been in Boulder County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS) lands. Therese Glowacki issued a Special Collection Permit for access into the Open Spaces; Mark Brennan oversaw research, maintained records of our monographs and organized seminars for presentation of data.
    [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]
  • Faunal Characteristics of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico: Implications for Biodiversity Analysis and Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Faunal Characteristics of the Forest Service Southern Rocky Mountains of Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical New Mexico: Implications for Report RMRS-GTR-58 August 2000 Biodiversity Analysis and Assessment Rosamonde R. Cook, Curtis H. Flather, and Kenneth R. Wilson Abstract Cook, Rosamonde R.; Flather, Curtis H.; Wilson, Kenneth R. 2000. Faunal characteristics of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico: implications for biodiversity analysis and assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agricul- ture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 55 p. To define the faunal context within which local and regional resource management decisions are made, conservation of biological diversity requires an understanding of regional species occurrence patterns. Our study focused on the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico and included the San Juan, the Sangre de Cristo, and the Jemez Mountains. Across this region, we quantified patterns of species richness and faunal diversity based on reported and predicted occurrences for birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and butterflies across this region. Specific hypotheses related to the origin and maintenance of observed diversity patterns were tested and interpreted based on their implication for biodiversity assessment and management. Our results suggest that species richness for any one of the taxonomic groups does not indicate species distributions of other taxa. For terrestrial vertebrates, variation in faunal differentiation among mountain ranges was associated more strongly with differences in dispersal ability than with differences in habitat composition. Those butterflies classified as montane specialists exhibited a higher degree of faunal differentiation than did all other montane specialist species.
    [Show full text]
  • The1912field Season Summary
    .- \ Number 2 NEWS 15 March, 1973 of the LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY Editorial Committee of the NEWS . .... EDITOR: Dr. Charles V. Covell, Jr., Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Louisville, Louisville, Ky., USA, 40208 ASSOC. EDITOR: Dr. Paul A. Opler, Div. of Entomology, 201 Wellman Hall, Univ. of California, Berkeley, California, USA, 94720 Jo Brewer John Heath K. W. Philip J. Donald Eft G. Hesselbarth F. W. Preston Robert L. Langston Thomas C. Emmel Lloyd M. Martin G. W. Rawson H. A. Freeman F. Bryant Mather Mike Van Buskirk L. Paul Grey M. C. Nielsen E. C. Welling M. The 1912 Field Season Summary Introduce some young people to Lepidoptera this year. Once again we present a summary of collections, observations, and rearing work done during the 1972 season. I wish to thank the zone coordinators for a splendid job this time; the editing was a breeze. And to those rvho contributed, many thanks to you all. I hope those of you who did not participate in 1972 will consider sending at least a few sentences to your zone co­ ordinator this coming winter, especially with information you feel is most important and useful. I will not try to "summarize the summaries," except to say that the climatic conditions seem to have varied from one general area to the next, and that, while some areas suffered retardation or stifling of normal populations, collecting was gener­ ally fairly good. A number of new state or provincial records are included, so be on the lookout for these. Finally, Langston reports for an area--not included in the past: Hawaii.
    [Show full text]