DOCSLIB.ORG

Fire Management Plan for Montague Plain Wildlife Management Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fire Management Plan for Montague Plain Wildlife Management Area FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MONTAGUE PLAIN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA Fire Management Plan for Montague Plain Wildlife Management Area prepared for Massachusetts Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Route 135 Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 prepared by Kennedy H. Clark and William A. Patterson III University of Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources Conservation Holdsworth Hall Post Office Box 34210 Amherst, Massachusetts 01003 July, 2003 suggested citation: Clark, K.H. and W.A. Patterson III. 2003. Fire Management Plan for Montague Plain Wildlife Management Area. Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 48 pages plus 2 appendices. Fire Management Plan for Montague Plain Wildlife Management Area, July 2003, Page i CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................iv SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE OF THE SITE .................................................................................................................. 1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN................................................................................................................. 1 JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................. 1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND RESOURCES..............................................................................................2 LOCATION.................................................................................................................................... 2 BOUNDARIES................................................................................................................................2 FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................... 2 HISTORICAL, DEMOGRAPHIC, AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT............................................................. 6 LAND USE.................................................................................................................................... 6 Historical Land Use................................................................................................................ 6 Current Land Use ................................................................................................................... 7 PHYSICAL FEATURES ................................................................................................................... 7 Topography............................................................................................................................. 7 Geology................................................................................................................................... 8 Soils......................................................................................................................................... 8 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................... 8 Climate and Weather .............................................................................................................. 9 VEGETATION.............................................................................................................................. 10 Grassland.............................................................................................................................. 10 Pitch Pine Forest .................................................................................................................. 10 Hardwood Forest.................................................................................................................. 12 Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest .............................................................................................. 12 Scrub Oak Thicket................................................................................................................. 12 Barrens Successional Patterns ............................................................................................. 13 RARE SPECIES AND COMMUNITIES............................................................................................. 13 Pitch Pine - Scrub Oak Community...................................................................................... 13 Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina)............................................................... 14 Barrens Buck Moth (Hemileuca maia) ................................................................................. 14 Spreading Tick Trefoil (Desmodium humifusum)................................................................. 15 HISTORIC RESOURCES................................................................................................................ 16 FIRE HISTORY ............................................................................................................................ 16 FUELS ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Grassland.............................................................................................................................. 17 Pitch Pine Forest .................................................................................................................. 18 Hardwood Forest.................................................................................................................. 19 Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest .............................................................................................. 19 Fire Management Plan for Montague Plain Wildlife Management Area, July 2003, Page ii Scrub Oak Thicket................................................................................................................. 19 SENSITIVE AREAS ...................................................................................................................... 20 Fire Sensitive Areas .............................................................................................................. 20 Smoke Sensitive Areas...........................................................................................................22 MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................24 FIRE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................... 24 Goal 1.................................................................................................................................... 24 Goal 2.................................................................................................................................... 25 Goal 3.................................................................................................................................... 26 FIRE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ................................................................................................ 26 Wildfire Control.................................................................................................................... 26 Prescribed Fire Use.............................................................................................................. 33 Mechanical Fuel Reduction .................................................................................................. 34 Cooperative Relationships.................................................................................................... 35 Fire Ecology Research.......................................................................................................... 35 FIRE MANAGEMENT ZONES ....................................................................................................... 36 FMZ 1.................................................................................................................................... 36 FMZ 2.................................................................................................................................... 38 FMZ 3.................................................................................................................................... 40 FMZ 4.................................................................................................................................... 42 FMZ 5.................................................................................................................................... 43 FMP AMENDMENTS, REVIEW, AND REVISION ........................................................................... 45 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................46
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scope: Munis Entomology & Zoology Publishes a Wide Variety of Papers
    732 _____________Mun. Ent. Zool. Vol. 7, No. 2, June 2012__________ STRUCTURE OF LEPIDOPTEROCENOSES ON OAKS QUERCUS DALECHAMPII AND Q. CERRIS IN CENTRAL EUROPE AND ESTIMATION OF THE MOST IMPORTANT SPECIES Miroslav Kulfan* * Department of Ecology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Mlynská dolina B-1, SK-84215 Bratislava, SLOVAKIA. E-mail: [email protected] [Kulfan, M. 2012. Structure of lepidopterocenoses on oaks Quercus dalechampii and Q. cerris in Central Europe and estimation of the most important species. Munis Entomology & Zoology, 7 (2): 732-741] ABSTRACT: On the basis of lepidopterous larvae a total of 96 species on Quercus dalechampii and 58 species on Q. cerris were recorded in 10 study plots of Malé Karpaty and Trnavská pahorkatina hills. The families Geometridae, Noctuidae and Tortricidae encompassed the highest number of found species. The most recorded species belonged to the trophic group of generalists. On the basis of total abundance of lepidopterous larvae found on Q. dalechampii from all the study plots the most abundant species was evidently Operophtera brumata. The most abundant species on Q. cerris was Cyclophora ruficiliaria. Based on estimated oak leaf area consumed by a larva it is shown that Lymantria dispar was the most important leaf-chewing species of both Q. dalechampii and Q. cerris. KEY WORDS: Slovakia, Quercus dalechampii, Q. cerris, the most important species. About 300 Lepidoptera species are known to damage the assimilation tissue of oaks in Central Europe (Patočka, 1954, 1980; Patočka et al.1999; Reiprich, 2001). Lepidoptera larvae are shown to be the most important group of oak defoliators (Patočka et al., 1962, 1999).
    [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]
  • Prairie Ridge Species Checklist 2018
    Prairie Ridge Species Checklist Genus species Common Name Snails Philomycus carolinianus Carolina Mantleslug Gastrocopta contracta Bottleneck Snaggletooth Glyphalinia wheatleyi Bright Glyph Triodopsis hopetonensis Magnolia Threetooth Triodopsis juxtidens Atlantic Threetooth Triodopsis fallax Mimic Threetooth Ventridens cerinoideus Wax Dome Ventridens gularis Throaty Dome Anguispira fergusoni Tiger Snail Zonitoides arboreus Quick Gloss Deroceras reticulatum Gray Garden Slug Mesodon thyroidus White-lip Globe Slug Stenotrema stenotrema Inland Stiltmouth Melanoides tuberculatus Red-rim Melania Spiders Argiope aurantia Garden Spider Peucetia viridans Green Lynx Spider Phidippus putnami Jumping Spider Phidippus audax Jumping Spider Phidippus otiosus Jumping Spider Centipedes Hemiscolopendra marginata Scolopocryptops sexspinosus Scutigera coleoptrata Geophilomorpha Millipedes Pseudopolydesmus serratus Narceus americanus Oxidus gracilis Greenhouse Millipede Polydesmidae Crayfishes Cambarus “acuminatus complex” (= “species C”) Cambarus (Depressicambarus) latimanus Cambarus (Puncticambarus) (="species C) Damselflies Calopteryx maculata Ebony Jewelwing Lestes australis Southern Spreadwing Lestes rectangularis Slender Spreadwing Lestes vigilax Swamp Spreadwing Lestes inaequalis Elegant Spreadwing Enallagma doubledayi Atlantic Bluet Enallagma civile Familiar Bluet Enallagma aspersum Azure Bluet Enallagma exsulans Stream Bluet Enallegma signatum Orange Bluet Ischnura verticalis Eastern Forktail Ischnura posita Fragile Forktail Ischnura hastata Citrine
    [Show full text]
  • Milam County Texas Master Naturalist Fall 2012
    Celebrating and sharing our experiences The Texas Master Naturalist program ac- tivities are coordinated by Texas A&M along “the roads” we take through nature. AgriLife Extension Service and Texas Parks and Wildlife. Texas Master Naturalist and Extension programs serve all people regard- Award Winning Newsletter of the El Camino Real Chapter less of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin. Milam County Texas Master Naturalist Fall 2012 Table of Contents Prairie Tracks by Katherine Bedrich Prairie Tracks 1 By Katherine Bedrich Watching and learning about Moths ginea percara, entertain us. It stayed around for awhile and at one time we saw it do a wig- Moth Watch—A Diary of My 2 The El Camino Real Chapter of Texas gly dance. Not sure if this movement had Learning Process, by Linda Jo Conn Master Naturalist Program participated in anything to do with mat- A Pointed Question—How do Por- 2 the First National Moth Week ; July 23-29, ing, but we sure enjoyed cupines mate? by eNature.com 2012; by holding public events throughout watching. A pretty olive the county. green moth, Parachma Thoughts of a 2012 Trainee, by 3 Linda Jo Conn Black lights and white sheets were set- ochracealis, showed up at up at Wilson-Ledbetter Park in Cameron and both parks. Observing Nature Project, by 4 Fair Park in Rockdale on two separate nights. On Friday night we were at the Perry Katherine Bedrich The lights attracted an array of moths and Pecan Patch on the San Gabriel River. John Scary Creatures of Halloween, by 4 insects.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Habitat and Bat Activity on Moth Community Composition and Seasonal Phenology Across Habitat Types
    INFLUENCE OF HABITAT AND BAT ACTIVITY ON MOTH COMMUNITY COMPOSITION AND SEASONAL PHENOLOGY ACROSS HABITAT TYPES BY MATTHEW SAFFORD THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Entomology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2018 Urbana, Illinois Advisor: Assistant Professor Alexandra Harmon-Threatt, Chair and Director of Research ABSTRACT Understanding the factors that influence moth diversity and abundance is important for monitoring moth biodiversity and developing conservation strategies. Studies of moth habitat use have primarily focused on access to host plants used by specific moth species. How vegetation structure influences moth communities within and between habitats and mediates the activity of insectivorous bats is understudied. Previous research into the impact of bat activity on moths has primarily focused on interactions in a single habitat type or a single moth species of interest, leaving a large knowledge gap on how habitat structure and bat activity influence the composition of moth communities across habitat types. I conducted monthly surveys at sites in two habitat types, restoration prairie and forest. Moths were collected using black light bucket traps and identified to species. Bat echolocation calls were recorded using ultrasonic detectors and classified into phonic groups to understand how moth community responds to the presence of these predators. Plant diversity and habitat structure variables, including tree diameter at breast height, ground cover, and vegetation height were measured during summer surveys to document how differences in habitat structure between and within habitats influences moth diversity. I found that moth communities vary significantly between habitat types.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Summary of Public Comments Explanatory Statement for Final Regulations
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT 4/15/2015 Page 1 of 22 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS EXPLANATORY STATEMENT FOR FINAL REGULATIONS Proposed amendments to sections 26-306-4, 26-306-5, and 26-306-6 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Proposed Amendments to Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Special Concern STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: As authorized pursuant to CGS section 26-306, the proposed amendments are to update the lists of species which are endangered, threatened or of special concern. Pursuant to CGS 26-307, the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEEP) is required to review, at least every five years, the designation of species to determine whether species should be: (1) Added or removed from the list; or, if necessary, (2) change the designation. The Department held a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed amendment on March 31, 2015. The hearing record was open until April 14, 2015 at 4:30 pm for submission of written comments. Following is the wording of the proposed amendment as presented at the public hearing, a summary of comments received and the Department’s responses, and the recommended final wording for the amendment. Proposed Amendments at Time of Public Hearing of March 31, 2015 Section 1. Section 26-306-4 of the Regulations of State Agencies is amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-306-4. List of endangered species (a) The following mammal species are determined to be endangered: Cryptotis parva Least shrew Myotis leibii Eastern
    [Show full text]
  • Olfactory Prey Attraction in Drosera?
    Technical Refereed Contribution Olfactory prey attraction in Drosera? Andreas Fleischmann • Botanische Staatssammlung München • Menzinger Strasse 67 • D-80638 Munich • Germany • [email protected] Keywords: trap scent, prey attraction, prey analysis, Lepidoptera, ecology, Drosera fragrans, Drosera finlaysoniana, Drosera slackii. The use of scented traps for prey attraction has been reported from a few genera of carnivorous plants: most prominently in the pitcher plant genera, where a sweet honey- or fruit-like scent is detectable to the human nose from the pitchers of some populations of Sarracenia flava, S. alata, S. rubra, S. oreophila, S. leucophylla, and S. minor (Miles et al. 1975; Slack 1979; Juniper et al. 1989; Jürgens et al. 2009; pers. obs.), certain species of Heliamphora (a sweet, honey-like scent is produced from the nectar-spoons of H. tatei, H. neblinae, and H. chimantensis, while the pitchers of H. sarracenioides produce a notable chocolate-like odor when growing under natural or favorable conditions; Fleischmann & McPherson 2010), and the pitchers of some species of Nepenthes (e.g. N. rafflesiana; Moran 1996; Di Giusto et al. 2008). Interestingly, the Venus Flytrap Dionaea also has been discovered to attract prey to its traps not only by the vivid coloration, but also by producing scented volatiles (Kreuzwieser et al. 2014). Furthermore, a weak, musty, fungus-like fragrance is emitted from the leaves of several Pinguicula species such as the five species from the southeastern United States (e.g. P. primuliflora and P. lutea, pers. obs.) and P. vallisneriifolia (Zamora 1995), and was even generalized to be true for the whole genus (Lloyd 1942; Slack 1979).
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Native and Non-Native Plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better Than Non-Natives?
    Impacts of Native and Non-native plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better than Non-natives? by Carl Scott Clem A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 12, 2015 Key Words: native plants, non-native plants, caterpillars, natural enemies, associational interactions, congeneric plants Copyright 2015 by Carl Scott Clem Approved by David Held, Chair, Associate Professor: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Charles Ray, Research Fellow: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Debbie Folkerts, Assistant Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Robert Boyd, Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Abstract With continued suburban expansion in the southeastern United States, it is increasingly important to understand urbanization and its impacts on sustainability and natural ecosystems. Expansion of suburbia is often coupled with replacement of native plants by alien ornamental plants such as crepe myrtle, Bradford pear, and Japanese maple. Two projects were conducted for this thesis. The purpose of the first project (Chapter 2) was to conduct an analysis of existing larval Lepidoptera and Symphyta hostplant records in the southeastern United States, comparing their species richness on common native and alien woody plants. We found that, in most cases, native plants support more species of eruciform larvae compared to aliens. Alien congener plant species (those in the same genus as native species) supported more species of larvae than alien, non-congeners. Most of the larvae that feed on alien plants are generalist species. However, most of the specialist species feeding on alien plants use congeners of native plants, providing evidence of a spillover, or false spillover, effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Montague Plains Wildlife Management Area Montague, Massachusetts
    January 2014 BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE SITE PLAN PITCH PINE/SCRUB OAK HABITAT RESTORATION Tim Simmons, NHESP Ecological Restoration Program Brian Hawthorne, Habitat Biologist MONTAGUE PLAINS WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA MONTAGUE, MASSACHUSETTS Introduction The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) Biodiversity Initiative plans to maintain and restore fire-adapted pitch pine/scrub oak habitat on 700 acres of the Montague Plains Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in Montague, MA. This site occurs on a glacial lake delta that supports a pitch pine scrub oak community that due to fire exclusion over the past several decades, has become overstocked by pitch pine and mixed white pine/oak forest that is currently 60-75 years old. Prior to agricultural practices the site was an oak dominated system with occasional pitch pine. After agricultural abandonment the previously plowed areas became overstocked with pitch pine over a low diversity understory. This creates conditions prone to dangerous high intensity fires (Clark & Patterson 2003). Returning the barrens portion to an oak dominated condition will increase public safety while improving habitat for many rare species. DFW will retain 40-50% of the existing forest canopy including most remnant tree oaks, as well as some pitch pines. About 50-60% of the existing forest canopy will be removed to re-establish the open-canopy pitch pine/oak-scrub oak community that supports high concentrations of conservation target species. Harvested trees will primarily include white pine, pitch pine and oak spp. The desired future condition for this site is a fire-adapted community of scattered overstory trees with a dense shrub-dominated understory that will support rare species such as the highly specialized barrens buck moth, as well as various declining wildlife species, especially shrubland birds such as Eastern towhee, brown thrasher, prairie warbler, and whip-poor- will.
    [Show full text]
  • Prairie Ridge Species Checklist
    Prairie Ridge Species Checklist Genus species Common Name Snails Philomycus carolinianus Carolina Mantleslug Gastrocopta contracta Bottleneck Snaggletooth Glyphalinia wheatleyi Bright Glyph Triodopsis hopetonensis Magnolia Threetooth Triodopsis juxtidens Atlantic Threetooth Triodopsis fallax Mimic Threetooth Ventridens cerinoideus Wax Dome Ventridens gularis Throaty Dome Zonitoides arboreus Quick Gloss Deroceras reticulatum Gray Garden Slug Mesodon thyroidus White-lip Globe Slug Stenotrema stenotrema Inland Stiltmouth Melanoides tuberculatus Red-rim Melania Spiders Argiope aurantia Garden Spider Peucetia viridans Green Lynx Spider Phidippus putnami Jumping Spider Phidippus audaz Jumping Spider Phidippus otiosus Jumping Spider Centipedes Hemiscolopendra marginata Scolopocryptops sexspinosus Scutigera coleoptrata Geophilomorpha Millipedes Pseudopolydesmus serratus Narceus americanus Oxidus gracilis Greenhouse Millipede Polydesmidae Crayfishes Cambarus “acuminatus complex” (= “species C”) Cambarus (Depressicambarus) latimanus Cambarus (Puncticambarus) (="species C) Damselflies Calopteryx maculata Ebony Jewelwing Lestes australis Southern Spreadwing Lestes rectangularis Slender Spreadwing Lestes vigilax Swamp Spreadwing Lestes inaequalis Elegant Spreadwing Enallagma doubledayi Atlantic Bluet Enallagma civile Familiar Bluet Enallagma aspersum Azure Bluet Enallagma exsulans Stream Bluet Enallegma signatum Orange Bluet Ischnura verticalis Eastern Forktail Ischnura posita Fragile Forktail Ischnura hastata Citrine Forktail Argia fumipennis Variable
    [Show full text]
  • Suspected Or Known Species on Patuxent Research Refuge
    Appendix A. USFWS USFWS Tree Swallow Suspected or Known Species on Patuxent Research Refuge Appendix A. Suspected or Known Species on Patuxent Research Refuge Table A-1. Suspected or Known Bird Species on Patuxent Research Refuge 1 2 Rank Rank 3 6 5 4 Heritage Heritage Status Refuge E Refuge Status & E on on T & Natural 7 Natural T 30 Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Seasons State BCR Global State Federal WATERBIRDS American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus G4 S1 S2B I Yr M S1N Anhinga Anhinga anhinga Sp Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Yr B Black‐crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax G5 S3B S2N SpSF M Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis SpF Common Loon Gavia immer G5 S4N SpF Double‐crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Yr Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus G5 S4B SpSF H Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias G5 S4B S3 Yr B S4N Great Egret Ardea alba G5 S4B SpSF Green Heron Butorides virescens Yr B Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus G5 S4N SpF H Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis G5 S2 S3B I SpS B M Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea G5 S3B SpSF M Pied‐billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps G5 S2B S3N Yr B Red‐necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Sp Snowy Egret Egretta thula G5 S3 S4B SpSF M White Ibis Eudocimus albus SF Yellow‐crowned Night Nyctanassa violacea G5 S2B SpF M Heron WATERFOWL American Black Duck Anas rubripes G5 S4B S5N Yr B HH American Coot Fulica americana SpFW American Wigeon Anas americana SpFW M Blue‐winged Teal Anas discors SpSF Bufflehead Bucephala albeola SpFW H Canada Goose Branta canadensis Yr ? Canvasback Aythya valisineria G5 S3 S4N SpF
    [Show full text]
  • A Molecular Phylogeny of the Palaearctic and O.Pdf
    CSIRO PUBLISHING Invertebrate Systematics, 2017, 31, 427–441 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/IS17005 A molecular phylogeny of the Palaearctic and Oriental members of the tribe Boarmiini (Lepidoptera : Geometridae : Ennominae) Nan Jiang A,D, Xinxin Li A,B,D, Axel Hausmann C, Rui Cheng A, Dayong Xue A and Hongxiang Han A,E AKey Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 1 Beichen West Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China. BUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19A Yuquan Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing 100049 China. CSNSB – Zoologische Staatssammlung München, Münchhausenstraße 21, Munich 81247, Germany. DThese authors contributed equally to this work. ECorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Abstract. Owing to the high species diversity and the lack of a modern revision, the phylogenetic relationships within the tribe Boarmiini remain largely unexplored. In this study, we reconstruct the first molecular phylogeny of the Palaearctic and Oriental members of Boarmiini, and infer the relationships among tribes within the ‘boarmiine’ lineage. One mitochondrial (COI) and four nuclear (EF-1a, CAD, RpS5, GAPDH) genes for 56 genera and 96 species of Boarmiini mostly from the Palaearctic and Oriental regions were included in the study. Analyses of Bayesian inference and maximum likelihood recovered largely congruent results. The monophyly of Boarmiini is supported by our results. Seven clades and seven subclades within Boarmiini were found. The molecular results coupled with morphological studies suggested the synonymisation of Zanclopera Warren, 1894, syn. nov. with Krananda Moore, 1868. The following new combinations are proposed: Krananda straminearia (Leech, 1897) (comb. nov.), Krananda falcata (Warren, 1894) (comb.
    [Show full text]