DOCSLIB.ORG

ABSTRACT of DISSERTATION Luke Elden Dodd the Graduate School

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ABSTRACT of DISSERTATION Luke Elden Dodd the Graduate School ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Luke Elden Dodd The Graduate School University of Kentucky 2010 FOREST DISTURBANCE AFFECTS INSECT PREY AND THE ACTIVITY OF BATS IN DECIDUOUS FORESTS ____________________________________ ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION _____________________________________ A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Agriculture at the University of Kentucky By Luke Elden Dodd Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr. Lynne K. Rieske-Kinney, Professor of Entomology Lexington, Kentucky 2010 Copyright © Luke Elden Dodd 2010 ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION FOREST DISTURBANCE AFFECTS INSECT PREY AND THE ACTIVITY OF BATS IN DECIDUOUS FORESTS The use of forest habitats by insectivorous bats and their prey is poorly understood. Further, while the linkage between insects and vegetation is recognized as a foundation for trophic interactions, the mechanisms that govern insect populations are still debated. I investigated the interrelationships between forest disturbance, the insect prey base, and bats in eastern North America. I assessed predator and prey in Central Appalachia across a gradient of forest disturbance (Chapter Two). I conducted acoustic surveys of bat echolocation concurrent with insect surveys. Bat activity and insect occurrence varied regionally, seasonally, and across the disturbance gradient. Bat activity was positively related with disturbance, whereas insects demonstrated a mixed response. While Lepidopteran occurrence was negatively related with disturbance, Dipteran occurrence was positively related with disturbance. Shifts in Coleopteran occurrence were not observed. Myotine bat activity was most correlated with sub-canopy vegetation, whereas lasiurine bat activity was more correlated with canopy-level vegetation, suggesting differences in foraging behavior. Lepidoptera were most correlated with variables describing understory vegetation, whereas Coleoptera and Diptera were more correlated with canopy-level vegetative structure, suggesting differences in host resource utilization. I assessed the food habits of bats captured in mist nets. Morphological identification of prey suggested consumption of insect taxa varies across bat species and, at least for the most commonly-captured species, Myotis septentrionalis, across the region (Chapter Three). Trophic connections were further delineated between M. septentrionalis and its prey by sequencing C OI fragments of insect prey obtained from fecal samples. Prey identities were inferred for C OI fragments using web-based searches (Chapter Four), as well as tree-building analyses (Chapter Five). Lepidoptera were detected most frequently in all prey identification procedures, though prey detection varied with procedure thus suggesting methodological bias. Prey species were identified using the Barcode of Life Database; the wingspan of prey consumed by M. septentrionalis was smaller than that reported for other sympatric species. My research demonstrates regional variation in bat activity, bat foraging, and prey occurrence across a gradient of forest disturbance. Conservation efforts should consider the importance of vegetation structure and plant species richness to sustain populations of both bats and their insect prey. KEYWORDS: foraging ecology, predator-prey interactions, food habits, forest succession, Appalachia _______________________ _______________________ FOREST DISTURBANCE AFFECTS INSECT PREY AND THE ACTIVITY OF BATS IN DECIDUOUS FORESTS By Luke Elden Dodd ________________________________ Director of Dissertation ________________________________ Director of Graduate Studies ________________________________ RULES FOR THE USE OF DISSERTATIONS Unpublished dissertations submitted for the Doctor’s degree and deposited in the University of Kentucky Library are as a rule open for inspection, but are to be used only with due regard to the rights of the authors. Bibliographical references may be noted, but quotations or summaries of part may be published only with the permission of the author, and with the usual scholarly acknowledgments. Extensive copying or publication of the dissertation in whole or in part also required the consent of the Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Kentucky. A library that borrows this dissertation for use by its patrons is expected to secure the signature of each user. Name Date DISSERTATION Luke Elden Dodd The Graduate School University of Kentucky 2010 FOREST DISTURBANCE AFFECTS INSECT PREY AND THE ACTIVITY OF BATS IN DECIDUOUS FORESTS _____________________________________ DISSERTATION _____________________________________ A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Agriculture at the University of Kentucky By Luke Elden Dodd Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr. Lynne K. Rieske-Kinney, Professor of Entomology Lexington, Kentucky 2010 Copyright © Luke Elden Dodd 2010 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would not have been possible without the gracious assistance and cooperation of a number of groups. The National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., provided primary funding for this project, as well as field assistance. The U.S. Forest Service provided invaluable assistance in the field. I would like to further thank the U.S. Forest Service, the state of Tennessee, and Plum Creek Timber Company who gave permission for this research to be conducted on their lands. Additional funding sources for my research included Bat Conservation International, McIntire-Stennis Funding, Sigma Xi, and the University of Kentucky Graduate School. Thank you to all these organizations and agencies for making my research possible. I would like to thank my graduate committee. Dr. Charles Fox and Dr. John Obrycki provided insight and critique regarding the design of this project. Dr. James Harwood was instrumental in my research and his involvement expanded my interests in molecular tools and applications. Dr. Lacki provided critical insight into study design and has continued to be strong mentor. I am particularly grateful to my advisor, Dr. Lynne Rieske-Kinney, whose guidance and academic support was invaluable to this student. I am truly in her debt and thank her for all she has taught me. I would also like to thank Dr. Rodney Cooper, Dr. Eric Britzke, and Dr. Eric Chapman, all of whom contributed to the development of my research. I am grateful for their aid, patience, and tutelage. I would like to thank all the technicians who made this project possible: Josh Adams, Melanie Antonik, Allison Barlows, Elizabeth Carlisle, Drew Chalkley, Spencer Gravitt, Jessica Rasmussen, Rebecca Smith, and Joe Wong. I would particularly like to iv thank both Tracy Culbertson and Matt “Reamer” Ware for jobs well done and all of their leadership and efforts in the field; this project would not have been possible without the efforts of both of them. I would finally like to thank those who provided moral support over the past four years. To my fellow lab mates, Josh Adkins, Melanie Antonik, Paul Ayayee, Dr. Michael Baker, Erin Barding, Josh Clark, Dr. Tom Coleman, Dr. Rodney Cooper, Dan Cox, Joe Johnson, Aerin Land, Rachael Mallis, and Heather Spaulding, I am grateful for your assistance and friendship. To my friends from Arkansas: the late-nighters from Tech and those from Hatfield, thank you for always being there. To all the other friends that I have made in Kentucky over the past few years: the beer club at Marikka’s, the D&D guys, and other grad students in the Entomology and Forestry Departments, thank you for the good times and keeping me sane. Finally, to my girlfriend Liz and my family: Mom, Ronda, Tonya, and my grandparents, thank you for your love and support! v TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv List of tables ....................................................................................................................... ix List of figures ...................................................................................................................... x Chapter one: Introduction.................................................................................................... 1 Statement of issue ............................................................................................................ 1 Objectives and hypotheses............................................................................................... 2 Management implications ............................................................................................... 5 Chapter two: Bat activity and insect occurrence varies along a gradient of disturbance .... 7 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 10 Study areas and disturbance ....................................................................................... 10 Bat activity ................................................................................................................. 11 Insect occurrence ....................................................................................................... 11 Vegetation assessment ..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ANOTHER RECORD for AZALEA AS AFOODPLANT of Satyrilj
    • FOUNDED VOL.7 NO.1 1978 MAY'1985 THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE SOUTHERN LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY, ORGANIZED TO PROMOTE SCIENTIFIC INTEREST AND KNOWLEDGE RELATED TO UNDERSTANDING THE LEPIDOPTERA FAUNA OF THE SOUTHERN REGION OF THE UNITED STATES. ANOTHER RECORD FOR AZALEA AS AFOODPLANT 1985 ANNUAL MEETING SATYRIlJ~1 OF LIPAROPS LIPAROPS CB & U NEAR ST I MARKS NWR, FLOR IDA By Bob Cavanaugh By Dave Baggett ON March 16, 1985 while searching over I AM working towards setting up the 1985 the leaves of a wild azalea bush (Rho­ annual meeting in or near St. Marks NWR dodendron canescens (Michaux)) I found (Inner Big Bend area along the NW Gulf a pale green, slug shaped larva which Coast, about 40 miles south of Tallahassee). reared out to be a male Satyrium ~­ There has been very limited exploration in arops liparops. The description of the the area, and I think it is one that holds larva contained in Klots' A FIELD GUIDE a great deal of promise. The date will be TO THE BUTTERFLIES is accurate for this Labor Day weekend (Aug. 30 - Sept. 1). This subspecies. The larva turned a pretty could be a bit early for the area, but then lavender color three days prior to pu­ again, it might just be right on target. pation. Pupation occurred on April 1st The immediate area adjacent holds a lot of and the adult emerged on the morning of promise for several field trips, especially April 18th. in conjunction with the long holiday week­ end. The azalea plant was in full bloom and the leaves were young and soft.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Hillside Terrain
    ● Soil & Wetland Studies ● Ecology ● Application Reviews ● Listed Species Surveys ● GPS ● Environmental Planning & Management ● Ecological Restoration & Habitat Mitigation ● Expert Testimony ● Permitting January 20, 2021 Town of Farmington Town Plan & Zoning Commission 1 Monteith Drive Farmington CT 06032 RE: Preliminary Review “Proposed Zone Change & Residential Development” 402 Farmington Ave and Quarry Rd REMA Job #21-2357-FAR48 Dear Chair Brenneman & Commissioners: Rema Ecological Services, LLC (REMA), has been engaged to review the development proposal, principally for the Conservation/Inland Wetlands Commission, but there are also important implications for the planning and zoning commission, from a general ecological perspective that we would like to address. We should note that we have read Dr. Michael Klemens’ Report to your commission, dated January 17, 2021, and concur with all the points in his analysis, and we have reviewed the Milone & McBroom, Inc. (MMI) Wetland Delineation and Impacts Assessment, dated November 2nd, with an accompanying plan set. In several regards, it is our professional opinion that the proposed development project is not consistent with the Farmington Plan of Conservation & Development (POCD, updated 2007, adopted 2008) and the 2018 Addendum. Hillside Terrain Section V1 of the POCD, entitled Hillsides/Ridgelines, on p. 22 and 23 describes the four types of geologic formations found in the town, that result in hilly terrain, including the Rema Ecological Services, LLC ● 164 East Center Street, Suite 2, Manchester, CT 06040 ● 860.649-REMA (7362) ● 860.647.8397 (fax) Farmington Town Plan & Zoning Commission RE: Proposed Residential Development, 402 Farmington Av. & Quarry Rd. January 20, 2021 Page 2 eastern traprock ridge system along Talcott Mountain.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats a Symposium
    Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats A Symposium y Edited b Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-145 DISCLAIMER The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. Papers published in these proceedings were submitted by authors in electronic media. Some editing was done to ensure a consistent format. Authors are responsible for content and accuracy of their individual papers and the quality of illustrative materials. Cover photos: Large photo: Craig W. Stihler; small left photo: Joseph S. Johnson; small middle photo: Craig W. Stihler; small right photo: Matthew J. Clement. December 2011 Southern Research Station 200 W.T. Weaver Blvd. Asheville, NC 28804 Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats: A Symposium Athens, Georgia March 9–10, 2010 Edited by: Susan C. Loeb U.S Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station Michael J. Lacki University of Kentucky Darren A. Miller Weyerhaeuser NR Company Sponsored by: Forest Service Bat Conservation International National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Offield Family Foundation ContEntS Preface . v Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats: An Introduction . 1 Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller Distribution and Status of Eastern Big-eared Bats (Corynorhinus Spp .) . 13 Mylea L. Bayless, Mary Kay Clark, Richard C. Stark, Barbara S.
    [Show full text]
  • Zoogeography of the Holarctic Species of the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera): Importance of the Bering Ian Refuge
    © Entomologica Fennica. 8.XI.l991 Zoogeography of the Holarctic species of the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera): importance of the Bering ian refuge Kauri Mikkola, J, D. Lafontaine & V. S. Kononenko Mikkola, K., Lafontaine, J.D. & Kononenko, V. S. 1991 : Zoogeography of the Holarctic species of the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera): importance of the Beringian refuge. - En to mol. Fennica 2: 157- 173. As a result of published and unpublished revisionary work, literature compi­ lation and expeditions to the Beringian area, 98 species of the Noctuidae are listed as Holarctic and grouped according to their taxonomic and distributional history. Of the 44 species considered to be "naturall y" Holarctic before this study, 27 (61 %) are confirmed as Holarctic; 16 species are added on account of range extensions and 29 because of changes in their taxonomic status; 17 taxa are deleted from the Holarctic list. This brings the total of the group to 72 species. Thirteen species are considered to be introduced by man from Europe, a further eight to have been transported by man in the subtropical areas, and five migrant species, three of them of Neotropical origin, may have been assisted by man. The m~jority of the "naturally" Holarctic species are associated with tundra habitats. The species of dry tundra are frequently endemic to Beringia. In the taiga zone, most Holarctic connections consist of Palaearctic/ Nearctic species pairs. The proportion ofHolarctic species decreases from 100 % in the High Arctic to between 40 and 75 % in Beringia and the northern taiga zone, and from between 10 and 20 % in Newfoundland and Finland to between 2 and 4 % in southern Ontario, Central Europe, Spain and Primorye.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Appendix L Natural Resources Technical Report May 2020
    APPENDIX L NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2020 and NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Study Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Alternatives Evaluated .................................................................................................................. 4 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...............................................................9 2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils .................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Regulatory Context and Methods ......................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 10 2.1.3 Environmental Effects ......................................................................................................... 13 2.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Moth Records from Burkes Garden, Virginia
    14 BANISTERIA NO.2,1993 Banis~ria. Number 2, 1993 iCl 1993 by the Virginia Natural History Society Moth Records from Burkes Garden, Virginia Kenneth J. Stein Department of Entomology Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 In contrast to butterflies (Clark & Clark, 1951; Covell, and an average annual rainfall of about 119 cm (47 1972), the species composition and distribution of moths inches) (Cooper, 1944). The region was formerly charac­ have not been well-studied in Virginia. The proceedings terized by oak-chestnut forest, but the chestnut (extirpat­ of a recent (1989) symposium (Terwilliger, 1991) detailed ed in Virginia) is now replaced largely by hickory. the biological and legal status of numerous plants and Remnants of relict boreal forest persist at elevations animals found in the Commonwealth. Nine species of above 1100 m; Beartown Mountain on the western rim Lepidoptera were reported, with only one moth (Cato­ retains a vestige of the red spruce forest that occurred cala herodias gerhardi Barnes & Benjamin) designated there prior to intensive lumbering in the early decades as threatened (Schweitzer, in Hoffman, 1991). Covell of this century. Above 1050 m occurs a northern hard­ (1990) suggested that baseline data are needed to woods forest with a mixture of spruce (Picea rubens understand the diversity and population dynamics of Sarg.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia Erhr.), and both moths and butterflies. He urged that more resourc­ yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britt) (Woodward & es be appropriated in order to develop regional lepidop­ Hoffman, 1991). The valley floor has been largely teran checklists, and to learn how best to preserve these deforested and converted into pastureland.
    [Show full text]
  • A NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY of MIFFLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA June 2007
    A NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY OF MIFFLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA June 2007 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 208 Airport Drive Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Submitted to: Mifflin County Planning Commission 20 North Wayne Street Lewistown, PA 17044 This project was funded in part by a state grant from the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Wild Resource Conservation Program. Additional support was provided by the Department of Community & Economic Development. Additional funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through State Wildlife Grants program grant T-2, administered through the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. ii A Natural Heritage Inventory of Mifflin County, Pennsylvania 2007 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP) Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC) 208 Airport Drive Middletown, PA 17057 Donna Bowers, Administration Lucy Boyce, Seasonal Field Ecologist Anthony F. Davis, Senior Ecologist Jeremy Deeds, Aquatic Zoology Coordinator Alice Doolittle, Conservation Assistant Charlie Eichelberger, Herpetologist Kathy Derge Gipe, Herpetologist William (Rocky) Gleason, County Inventory Coordinator Jim Hart, Mammalogist Rita Hawrot, Terrestrial Zoology Coordinator Denise Johnson, Assistant County Inventory Ecologist Susan Klugman, Conservation Information Manager John Kunsman, Senior Botanist Betsy Ray Leppo, Invertebrate Zoologist Trina Morris, County Inventory Ecologist Betsy Nightingale, Aquatic
    [Show full text]
  • Powell Mountain Karst Preserve: Biological Inventory of Vegetation Communities, Vascular Plants, and Selected Animal Groups
    Powell Mountain Karst Preserve: Biological Inventory of Vegetation Communities, Vascular Plants, and Selected Animal Groups Final Report Prepared by: Christopher S. Hobson For: The Cave Conservancy of the Virginias Date: 15 April 2010 This report may be cited as follows: Hobson, C.S. 2010. Powell Mountain Karst Preserve: Biological Inventory of Vegetation Communities, Vascular Plants, and Selected Animal Groups. Natural Heritage Technical Report 10-12. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia. Unpublished report submitted to The Cave Conservancy of the Virginias. April 2010. 30 pages plus appendices. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Biological Inventory of Vegetation Communities, Vascular Plants, and Selected Animal Groups Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage Natural Heritage Technical Report 10-12 April 2010 Contents List of Tables......................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures........................................................................................................................ iii Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 Geology.................................................................................................................................. 2 Explanation of the Natural Heritage Ranking System..........................................................
    [Show full text]