DOCSLIB.ORG

Union Slough NWR Habitat Management Plan January 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Union Slough NWR Habitat Management Plan January 2016 Union Slough NWR Habitat Management Plan January 2016 Habitat Management Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions, set 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 habitats. Since the designation of the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the System has grown to encompass more than 150 million acres, 550 national wildlife refuges and other units of the Refuge System, plus 38 wetland management districts. Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan i Executive Summary Located in north-central Iowa in the southeast corner of the Prairie Pothole Region, Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) provides critical habitat for native prairie and wetland wildlife in a landscape dominated by intensive agriculture. Union Slough NWR, which includes seven adjacent Union Slough Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs), contains a diverse mixture of habitats including marshes, river bottomlands, and prairies/grasslands. Together, these areas total approximately 3,334 acres that follow a nine-mile stretch of Union Slough, a relict pre-glacial riverbed. The habitats of the Refuge function as a regionally significant nesting and stopover site for migratory waterfowl and birds and support unique assemblages of resident plants and wildlife. The Refuge’s Resources of Concern (ROC) were identified by reviewing the species known to occur within Union Slough NWR, as well as those identified in local and regional conservation plans, and analyzing their relation to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) of the habitats present on the Refuge. Based on this analysis, the Refuge identified 36 priority ROCs, which includes several birds, a plant, two insects, and a natural community. Focal ROCs serve as indicators and representatives for other species and groups that may utilize similar habitats. As part of the ROC identification process, habitats were also prioritized for future management. Marsh and prairie/ grassland habitats are the two highest priority habitats because they help to meet the Refuge’s designated purpose for migratory waterfowl. This prioritization was also balanced with the Refuge’s overall strategy of implementing management on one quarter of the Refuge annually on a rotating basis. The three most important issues that impact the ecological integrity of the Refuge and influence Refuge management are: • Invasive plant species reduce native plant diversity and vegetative structure and threaten the federally-threatened prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptostachya). • Increased tile drainage in the agriculturally-dominated watersheds increases the frequency of flooding on the Refuge and reduces the ability to provide suitable habitats for some waterfowl and waterbirds. • Sediments, nutrients and chemicals from surrounding agricultural land uses accumulate on the refuge to the detriment of refuge habitats and wildlife. Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan iii Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... iii Acronyms ................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1. ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Scope and Rationale......................................................................................... 2 1.2 Legal Mandates ................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Relation to Service Policy ................................................................................. 4 1.4 Relation to Other Plans ..................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2. ..................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Refuge Location and Description .................................................................... 12 2.2 Management Units .......................................................................................... 16 2.3 Physical/Geographic Setting and Historic Condition ........................................ 17 2.4 Current Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbances ........................................... 22 2.5 Current Refuge Conditions and Resources ..................................................... 24 Chapter 3. ..................................................................................................................... 30 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 31 3.2 Identification of Refuge Resources of Concern ............................................... 31 3.3 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health ................................. 33 3.4 Priority Refuge Resources of Concern ............................................................ 39 3.5 Priority Habitat Types and Associated Priority Species ................................... 52 3.6 Conflicting Habitat Needs ................................................................................ 53 3.7 Adaptive Management .................................................................................... 53 Chapter 4. ..................................................................................................................... 54 4.1 Background ..................................................................................................... 55 4.2 Habitat Goals and Objectives .......................................................................... 57 Chapter 5. ..................................................................................................................... 67 5.1 Development of Management Strategies and Prescriptions ............................ 68 5.2 Annual Management Decision Making and Prioritization ................................. 68 5.3 Management Strategies by Habitat Objective .................................................. 69 References .................................................................................................................... 75 Appendix A .................................................................................................................... 83 Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan iv Appendix B .................................................................................................................... 91 Appendix C ................................................................................................................... 92 Appendix D ................................................................................................................... 94 Figures Figure 1-1 Union Slough NWR within BCR 11 and PIF 40 Figure 2-1 Location of Union Slough NWR Figure 2-2 Union Slough NWR within major watersheds Figure 2-3 Union Slough NWR and Nearby WPAs Figure 2-4 Prairie Pothole Region of North America Figure 2-5 Presettlement Vegetation in the Vicinity of Union Slough NWR Figure 2-6 Union Slough NWR within the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC Figure 2-7 1992 Vegetation in the Vicinity of Union Slough NWR Figure 4-1 Union Slough NWR Management Units/Subunits Tables Table 3-1 Summary of Habitats that Represent Existing BIDEH on Union Slough NWR Table 3-2 Habitat Requirements for Union Slough Priority ROCs Table 3-3 Priority ROCs and Other Benefitting Species on Union Slough NWR Table 3-4 Priority Habitats and their Limiting Factors on Union Slough NWR Table 4-1 Union Slough NWR Unit/Subunit Management Treatment Schedule Table 5-1 Distribution of Refuge Habitats Across Management Units at Union Slough NWR Appendices Appendix A Potential Resources of Concern Appendix B ROCSTAR Scoring Evaluations Appendix C HMP Development Team Appendix D Grazing/Haying Program Management Plan Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan v Acronyms AHWP Annual Habitat Work Plan BCR Bird Conservation Region BIDEH Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan CFA Cooperative Farming Agreement CMP Comprehensive Management Plan DNR Department of Natural Resources GMGT Genetically-modified, Glyphosate-tolerant HMP Habitat Management Plan LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperative MSIM Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NVCS National Vegetation Classification System NWR National Wildlife Refuge NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System PIF Partners In Flight PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture PPR Prairie Pothole Region PUP Pesticide Use Proposal ROC Resources of Concern SUP Special Use Permit USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • STARR-DISSERTATION-2018.Pdf (6.554Mb)
    The Effects of Land Use and Climate Change on Playa Wetlands and Their Invertebrate Communities. by Scott McKinley Starr, B.S., M.S. Dissertation In Biology Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved Dr. Nancy E. McIntyre Chair of Committee Dr. Llewellyn D. Densmore Dr. Kerry L. Griffis-Kyle Dr. Stephanie A. Lockwood Dr. Kevin R. Mulligan Dr. Mark A. Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School August, 2018 Copyright 2018, Scott Starr Texas Tech University, Scott Starr, August 2018 Acknowledgments The process of completing this dissertation has been a long road and many people and groups have helped me along the way. I first want to thank my dissertation advisor, Dr. Nancy McIntyre, for all her support and assistance through this degree. Without her guidance this process would have been unachievable. I also want to thank Dr. McIntyre for inviting me into her lab and for allowing me to be part of so many lab research projects that have helped to build my toolbox as a scientist. Second, I would like to thank my committee members Drs. Kerry Griffis-Kyle, Kevin Mulligan, Stephanie Lockwood, Lou Densmore, Richard Strauss, and Ximena Bernal for their guidance and suggestions that have helped to improve the research presented here. Third, I would like to thank my lab mates and undergraduate assistants: Steve Collins, Lucas Heintzman, Joe Drake, Ezra Auerbach, Devin Kilborn, Benjamin Breedlove, Shane Glidewell, Kimbree Knight, and Jennifer Long for their help in the field, lab, and for their support.
    [Show full text]
  • Dragonflies (Odonata) of the Northwest Territories Status Ranking And
    DRAGONFLIES (ODONATA) OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES STATUS RANKING AND PRELIMINARY ATLAS PAUL M. CATLING University of Ottawa 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ....................................................................3 Acknowledgements ...........................................................3 Methods ....................................................................3 The database .................................................................4 History .....................................................................5 Rejected taxa ................................................................5 Possible additions ............................................................5 Additional field inventory ......................................................7 Collection an Inventory of dragonflies .............................................8 Literature Cited .............................................................10 Appendix Table 1 - checklist ...................................................13 Appendix Table 2 - Atlas and ranking notes .......................................15 2 ABSTRACT: occurrences was provided by Dr. Rex Thirty-five species of Odonata are given Kenner, Dr. Donna Giberson, Dr. Nick status ranks in the Northwest Territories Donnelly and Dr. Robert Cannings (some based on number of occurrences and details provided below). General distributional area within the territory. Nine information on contacts and locations of species are ranked as S2, may be at risk, collections provided by Dr. Cannings
    [Show full text]
  • C10 Beano2.Gen-Wis
    LEGUMINOSAE PART DEUX Papilionoideae, Genista to Wisteria Revised May the 4th 2015 BEAN FAMILY 2 Pediomelum PAPILIONACEAE cont. Genista Petalostemum Glycine Pisum Glycyrrhiza Psoralea Hylodesmum Psoralidium Lathyrus Robinia Lespedeza Securigera Lotus Strophostyles Lupinus Tephrosia Medicago Thermopsis Melilotus Trifolium Onobrychis Vicia Orbexilum Wisteria Oxytropis Copyrighted Draft GENISTA Linnaeus DYER’S GREENWEED Fabaceae Genista Genis'ta (jen-IS-ta or gen-IS-ta) from a Latin name, the Plantagenet kings & queens of England took their name, planta genesta, from story of William the Conqueror, as setting sail for England, plucked a plant holding tenaciously to a rock on the shore, stuck it in his helmet as symbol to hold fast in risky undertaking; from Latin genista (genesta) -ae f, the plant broom. Alternately from Celtic gen, or French genet, a small shrub (w73). A genus of 80-90 spp of small trees, shrubs, & herbs native of Eurasia. Genista tinctoria Linnaeus 1753 DYER’S GREENWEED, aka DYER’S BROOM, WOADWAXEN, WOODWAXEN, (tinctorius -a -um tinctor'ius (tink-TORE-ee-us or tink-TO-ree-us) New Latin, of or pertaining to dyes or able to dye, used in dyes or in dyeing, from Latin tingo, tingere, tinxi, tinctus, to wet, to soak in color; to dye, & -orius, capability, functionality, or resulting action, as in tincture; alternately Latin tinctōrius used by Pliny, from tinctōrem, dyer; at times, referring to a plant that exudes some kind of stain when broken.) An escaped shrub introduced from Europe. Shrubby, from long, woody roots. The whole plant dyes yellow, & when mixed with Woad, green. Blooms August. Now, where did I put that woad? Sow at 18-22ºC (64-71ºF) for 2-4 wks, move to -4 to +4ºC (34-39ºF) for 4-6 wks, move to 5-12ºC (41- 53ºF) for germination (tchn).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names for Fish and Wildlife Species Found in Idaho
    APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN IDAHO. How to Read the Lists. Within these lists, species are listed phylogenetically by class. In cases where phylogeny is incompletely understood, taxonomic units are arranged alphabetically. Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks (GRanks and SRanks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species rangewide (GRank) and statewide (SRank). Rangewide ranks are assigned by NatureServe and statewide ranks are assigned by the Idaho Conservation Data Center. GX or SX Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH or SH Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20–40 years. A species could become SH without such a 20–40 year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The SH rank is reserved for species for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. G1 or S1 Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G2 or S2 Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G3 or S3 Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants
    PNNL-14468 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants M. R. Sackschewsky January 2004 Prepared for the License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 PNNL-14468 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants M. R. Sackschewsky January 2004 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and related implementing regulations of the jurisdictional federal agencies, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Animal Species of Concern
    MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Animal Species of Concern Species List Last Updated 08/05/2010 219 Species of Concern 86 Potential Species of Concern All Records (no filtering) A program of the University of Montana and Natural Resource Information Systems, Montana State Library Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for animals, plants, and plant communities with a focus on species and communities that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining trends and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report on Montana Animal Species of Concern is produced jointly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Also included in this report are Potential Animal Species of Concern -- animals for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability or for which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. Over the last 200 years, 5 species with historic breeding ranges in Montana have been extirpated from the state; Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), Pilose Crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii), and Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). Designation as a Montana Animal Species of Concern or Potential Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to avoid additional extirpations.
    [Show full text]
  • Applicant's Environmental Report –
    Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal Stage Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306 License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60 April 2008 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................... xi 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction and Background........................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Statement of Purpose and Need .................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Environmental Report Scope and Methodology ........................................... 1-3 1.4 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Licensee and Ownership ............... 1-4 1.5 References ................................................................................................ 1-7 2.0 SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES............................................. 2-1 2.1 General Site Description............................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Regional Features and General Features in the 6-Mile Vicinity............................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.2 PINGP Site Features......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Establishment of Prairie Species in Iowa by Seeding and Transplanting Paul Arthur Christiansen Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1967 Establishment of prairie species in Iowa by seeding and transplanting Paul Arthur Christiansen Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Christiansen, Paul Arthur, "Establishment of prairie species in Iowa by seeding and transplanting " (1967). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 4000. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/4000 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This dissertation has been microfihned exactly as received 68-2808 CHRKTIA.NSEN, Paul Arthur, 1932- ESTABLISHMENT OF PRAIRIE SPECIES IN IOWA BY SEEDING AND TRANSPLANTING. Iowa State University, Ph.D., 1967 Botany University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan ESTABLISHMENT OF PRAIRIE SPECIES IK IOWA BY SEEDING AKD TRANSPLANTING by Paul Arthur Christiansen A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Subject: Botany (Plant Ecology) Signature was redacted for privacy. In Charge of Major Work Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of North American Odonata, 2021 1 Each Species Entry in the Checklist Is a Paragraph In- Table 2
    A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2021 Edition (updated 12 February 2021) A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution 2021 Edition (updated 12 February 2021) Dennis R. Paulson1 and Sidney W. Dunkle2 Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009; updated February 2011, February 2012, October 2016, November 2018, and February 2021. Copyright © 2021 Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2018, and 2021 editions published by Jim Johnson Cover photo: Male Calopteryx aequabilis, River Jewelwing, from Crab Creek, Grant County, Washington, 27 May 2020. Photo by Netta Smith. 1 1724 NE 98th Street, Seattle, WA 98115 2 8030 Lakeside Parkway, Apt. 8208, Tucson, AZ 85730 ABSTRACT The checklist includes all 471 species of North American Odonata (Canada and the continental United States) considered valid at this time. For each species the original citation, English name, type locality, etymology of both scientific and English names, and approximate distribution are given. Literature citations for original descriptions of all species are given in the appended list of references. INTRODUCTION We publish this as the most comprehensive checklist Table 1. The families of North American Odonata, of all of the North American Odonata. Muttkowski with number of species. (1910) and Needham and Heywood (1929) are long out of date. The Anisoptera and Zygoptera were cov- Family Genera Species ered by Needham, Westfall, and May (2014) and West- fall and May (2006), respectively.
    [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]
  • Simultaneous Quaternary Radiations of Three Damselfly Clades Across
    vol. 165, no. 4 the american naturalist april 2005 E-Article Simultaneous Quaternary Radiations of Three Damselfly Clades across the Holarctic Julie Turgeon,1,2,* Robby Stoks,1,3,† Ryan A. Thum,1,4,‡ Jonathan M. Brown,5,§ and Mark A. McPeek1,k 1. Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College, the evolution of mate choice in generating reproductive isolation as Hanover, New Hampshire 03755; species recolonized the landscape following deglaciation. These anal- 2. De´partement de Biologie, Universite´ Laval, Que´bec, Que´bec yses suggest that recent climate fluctuations resulted in radiations G1K 7P4, Canada; driven by similar combinations of speciation processes acting in dif- 3. Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology, University of Leuven, Chemin ferent lineages. de Be´riotstraat 32, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium; 4. Department of Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, Keywords: Enallagma, speciation, radiation, amplified fragment Ithaca, New York 14850; length polymorphism (AFLP), mtDNA, phylogeny. 5. Department of Biology, Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa 50112 Submitted October 22, 2004; Accepted December 27, 2004; The fossil record recounts recurrent cycles of mass ex- Electronically published February 9, 2005 tinction immediately followed by rebounds in biodiversity throughout Earth’s history (Jablonski 1986, 1994; Benton 1987; Raup 1991; Sepkoski 1991). A few of these events profoundly reshaped global biodiversity (e.g., the end- abstract: If climate change during the Quaternary shaped the Permian mass extinction erased up to 96% of the world’s macroevolutionary dynamics of a taxon, we expect to see three fea- species; Raup 1979; Jablonski 1994; but see Raup 1991), tures in its history: elevated speciation or extinction rates should date but most of these have been more limited in their taxo- to this time, more northerly distributed clades should show greater nomic scope (Raup 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Butterfly Inventories in Boulder County Open Space Properties
    2010 Butterfly Inventories In Boulder County Open Space Properties By Janet Chu October 2, 2010 1 Table of Contents I. Acknowledgments …………………… 3 II. Abstract …………………………… 4 II. Introduction……………………………… 5 IV. Objectives ………………………….. 6 V. Research Methods ………………….. 7 VI. Results and Discussion ………………... 8 VII. Weather ………………………………… 12 VIII. Conclusions …………………………….. 13 VIII. Recommendations …………………….. 15 IX. References …………………………. 16 X. Butterfly Survey Data Tables …………. 17 Table I. Survey Dates and Locations ……………. 17 Table II. Southeast Buffer …………………. 18 Table III. Anne U. White – Fourmile Trail …… 21 Table IV. Heil Valley Open Space –Geer Watershed... 24 Table V. Heil Valley Open Space –Plumely Canyon 27 Table VI. Heil Valley Open Space – North ………… 30 Table VII. Walker Ranch - Meyer’s Gulch ………… 34 Table VIII. Caribou Ranch Open Space ……………… 37 Table IX. Compilation of Species and Locations …… 38 2 I. Acknowledgments Our research team has conducted butterfly surveys for nine consecutive years, from 2002 through 2010, with 2002-2004 introductory to the lands and species, and 2005-2010 in more depth. My valuable field team this year was composed of friends with sharp eyes and ready binoculars Larry Crowley who recorded not only the butterflies but blossoming plants and wildlife joined by Jean Morgan and Amy Chu both joined enthusiastic butterfly chasers. Venice Kelley and John Barr, professional photographers, joined us on many surveys. With their digital photos we are often able to classify the hard-to-identify butterflies later on at the desk. The surveys have been within Boulder County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS) lands. Therese Glowacki, Manager-Resource Manager, issued a Special Collection Permit for access into the Open Spaces; Susan Spaulding, Wildlife Specialist, oversaw research, maintained records of our monographs and organized seminars for presentation of data.
    [Show full text]