DOCSLIB.ORG

Berks County Natural Heritage Inventory Update 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Berks County Natural Heritage Inventory Update 2014 Berks County Natural Heritage Inventory Update 2014 Berks County Natural Heritage Inventory Update 2014 Prepared for: Berks County Planning Commission Berks County Services Center 14th Floor 633 Court Street Reading, PA 19601 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 800 Waterfront Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15222 The Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP)is a partnership between the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC), the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC), and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). PNHP is a member of NatureServe, which coordinates natural heritage efforts through an international network of member programs—known as natural heritage programs or conservation data centers—operating in all 50 U.S. states, Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean. This project was funded through grants provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Wild Resources Conservation Program. Additional funding was provided by the Wyomissing Foundation. This reference may be cited as: Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program. 2014. Berks County Natural Heritage Inventory Update 2014. Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. Pittsburgh, PA. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge the citizens and landowners of Berks County and surrounding areas who volunteered information, time, and effort to the inventory and granted permission to access land. A big thank you goes to those who suggested areas of interest and assisted with field surveys, including Mike Slater, Susan Munch, Laurie Goodrich, Larry Lloyd, Risa Marmontello, Jim Thorne, Ken Lebo, Karl Gardner, Steve Johnson and Catherine Elwell. Additional thanks goes to Cheryl Auchenbach and Glenn Knoblauch of the Berks County Planning Commission for providing support for this project. We want to recognize the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program and NatureServe for providing the foundation for the work that we perform for these studies. Current and former PNHP staff that contributed to this report include JoAnn Albert, Tony Davis, Charlie Eichelberger, Kristen Erath, Mary Ann Furedi, Rocky Gleason, Tyson Johnston, Susan Klugman, John Kunsman, Betsy Leppo, Michael Maret, Jenni Mumper, Benjamin Plunkett, Sally Ray, Erika Schoen, Scott Schuette, Stephanie Seymour, Christopher Tracey, Jeff Wagner, Mary Walsh, Denise Watts, Joseph Wisgo, David Yeany, and Ephraim Zimmerman. The species information utilized in the inventory came from many sources as well as our own field surveys. We wish to acknowledge all of those who carried out botanical and zoological survey work over the years. Biologists, both on their own and from institutions and agencies such as the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania, Albright College, Shippensburg University, Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, Natural Lands Trust, Berks County Conservancy, Muhlenberg Botanical Society, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission have contributed numerous plant and animal records over the years. The task of inventorying the natural heritage of the county would have been much more difficult and incomplete without this tremendous pool of information gathered by many people over many years. Finally, we especially wish to thank the landowners who granted us permission to conduct inventories on their lands. Without their support, this report would have been far less complete. This project was funded through grants provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Wild Resources Conservation Program. Additional funding was provided by the Wyomissing Foundation. We encourage comments and questions. The success of the report will be measured by the use it receives and the utility it serves to those making decisions about resources and land use throughout the county. Thank you for your interest. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Berks County Natural Heritage Inventory Update 2014 – Acknowledgements / iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................1 THE PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ........................................2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................3 Berks CNHI Update Changes ..........................................................................................4 Natural Heritage Area (NHA) Name Changes .................................................. 4 Changes in number of significant ecological features and shape of NHA mapping ........................................................................................................... 4 Document layout ............................................................................................. 5 Statewide Coverage ............................................................................................................6 Biodiversity in Pennsylvania ........................................................................... 7 NATURAL HISTORY OVERVIEW OF BERKS COUNTY ...........................................9 Physiography & Geology ....................................................................................................9 Valley and Ridge Province .............................................................................. 10 Piedmont Province ......................................................................................... 10 Watersheds ....................................................................................................................... 10 Natural Communities ...................................................................................................... 12 Regional Disturbances ..................................................................................................... 13 Forest Fragmentation ...................................................................................................... 13 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................. 16 Invasive Plants ............................................................................................... 16 Invasive Animal Species ................................................................................. 16 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 19 Mapping Of Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) ............................................................ 19 Mapping and Conservation Planning for Sensitive Species ..................................... 20 Site Descriptions .............................................................................................................. 21 Site Ranking ....................................................................................................................... 23 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 25 Species and Communities of Concern in Berks County ........................................ 25 Natural Heritage Areas of Berks County................................................................... 27 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 40 Future natural resource research in the region ....................................................... 40 A Final Note on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species................................ 40 Using the Natural Heritage Inventory in the Planning Process ............................. 40 General Recommendations ........................................................................................... 41 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................... 44 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Berks County Natural Heritage Inventory Update 2014 – Table of Contents / 1 THE PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM The Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP) is a partnership between the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC), the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC), and the NatureServe, the natural heritage network, was Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). Founded originally founded by The Nature Conservancy in in 1982, PNHP is part of a network of Natural Heritage the early 1970s, with the first program established in Programs that utilizes common methodology developed by South Carolina in 1974. The concept was to create a federation of programs in all 50 U.S. states, using a Heritage Programs and The Nature Conservancy, and common database and data management refined through NatureServe – the organization that methodology to document the extent of biodiversity represents the network of Natural Heritage Programs throughout the country, with an emphasis on rare (see the box at right). and threatened species and natural communities. Many programs were established
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Id Guide Gomphus.Indd
    Identifi cation Guide Common Clubtail Dragonfl y Gomphus vulgatissimus The Common Clubtail is a distinctive and extremely local insect, although in suitable habitats it can be found in large numbers. The main threats to the species are pollution, excessive dredging, vegetation removal, silt deposition, river improvement schemes and recreational use of rivers. Habitat The species relies upon large, slow to medium fl ow, meandering rivers with high quality water. The species avoids high velocity areas and requires a silty river bed to burrow into. Adult pairing occurs around trees, such as woods, orchards and hedgerows. The female returns alone to the river to lay eggs. It is diffi cult to see adults in the trees so sightings are usually of emerging or newly emerged adults near the river. © Claire Install Very few other dragonfl ies live in the same habitat as the Surveyors searching for the Common Clubtail Common Clubtail making it easier to identify. on the River Severn. Identifi cation of Larvae/ Exuviae When dragonfl ies are ready to become adults, they climb out of the water and the adult body bursts out of the larval skin. This is called emergence. The larval skin is left behind and this is called an exuvia. The larvae/exuviae of the Common Clubtail are very distinctive. Unlike any other dragonfl y larvae, the species has short, bulbous antennae. These come together at the front of the head, giving the exuviae their unmistakable triangular head shape. The majority of dragonfl y larvae emerge on supports (such as reeds) in an upright, vertical position.
    [Show full text]
  • Callophrys Gryneus (Juniper Hairstreak)
    Maine 2015 Wildlife Action Plan Revision Report Date: January 13, 2016 Callophrys gryneus (Juniper Hairstreak) Priority 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) Class: Insecta (Insects) Order: Lepidoptera (Butterflies, Skippers, And Moths) Family: Lycaenidae (Gossamer-winged Butterflies) General comments: Only 2-3 populations – previously historic; specialized host plant; declining and vulnerable habitat. Species Conservation Range Maps for Juniper Hairstreak: Town Map: Callophrys gryneus_Towns.pdf Subwatershed Map: Callophrys gryneus_HUC12.pdf SGCN Priority Ranking - Designation Criteria: Risk of Extirpation: Maine Status: Endangered State Special Concern or NMFS Species of Concern: NA Recent Significant Declines: NA Regional Endemic: NA High Regional Conservation Priority: NA High Climate Change Vulnerability: NA Understudied rare taxa: Recently documented or poorly surveyed rare species for which risk of extirpation is potentially high (e.g. few known occurrences) but insufficient data exist to conclusively assess distribution and status. *criteria only qualifies for Priority 3 level SGCN* Notes: Historical: NA Culturally Significant: NA Habitats Assigned to Juniper Hairstreak: Formation Name Cliff & Rock Macrogroup Name Cliff and Talus Habitat System Name: North-Central Appalachian Acidic Cliff and Talus **Primary Habitat** Notes: where host plant (red cedar) present Habitat System Name: North-Central Appalachian Circumneutral Cliff and Talus Notes: where host plant (red cedar) present Formation Name Grassland & Shrubland Macrogroup
    [Show full text]
  • ANTHRACITE Downloaded from COAL CANALS and the ROOTS of AMERICAN FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCE, 1820–1860 Envhis.Oxfordjournals.Org
    CHRISTOPHER F. JONES a landscape of energy abundance: ANTHRACITE Downloaded from COAL CANALS AND THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCE, 1820–1860 envhis.oxfordjournals.org ABSTRACT Between 1820 and 1860, the construction of a network of coal-carrying canals transformed the society, economy, and environment of the eastern mid- Atlantic. Artificial waterways created a new built environment for the region, an energy landscape in which anthracite coal could be transported cheaply, reliably, at Harvard University Library on October 26, 2010 and in ever-increasing quantities. Flush with fossil fuel energy for the first time, mid-Atlantic residents experimented with new uses of coal in homes, iron forges, steam engines, and factories. Their efforts exceeded practically all expec- tations. Over the course of four decades, shipments of anthracite coal increased exponentially, helping turn a rural and commercial economy into an urban and industrial one. This article examines the development of coal canals in the ante- bellum period to provide new insights into how and why Americans came to adopt fossil fuels, when and where this happened, and the social consequences of these developments. IN THE FIRST DECADES of the nineteenth century, Philadelphians had little use for anthracite coal.1 It was expensive, difficult to light, and considered more trouble than it was worth. When William Turnbull sold a few tons of anthracite to the city’s waterworks in 1806, the coal was tossed into the streets to be used as gravel because it would not ignite.2 In 1820, the delivery © 2010 The Author. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Environmental History and the Forest History Society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Schuylkill Navigation and the Girard Canal
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Theses (Historic Preservation) Graduate Program in Historic Preservation 1989 The Schuylkill Navigation and the Girard Canal Stuart William Wells University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Wells, Stuart William, "The Schuylkill Navigation and the Girard Canal" (1989). Theses (Historic Preservation). 350. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/350 Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Wells, Stuart William (1989). The Schuylkill Navigation and the Girard Canal. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/350 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Schuylkill Navigation and the Girard Canal Disciplines Historic Preservation and Conservation Comments Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Wells, Stuart William (1989). The Schuylkill Navigation and the Girard Canal. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This thesis or dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/350 UNIVERSITY^ PENNSYLVANIA. LIBRARIES THE SCHUYLKILL NAVIGATION AND THE GIRARD CANAL Stuart William
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist Reptile and Amphibian
    To report sightings, contact: Natural Resources Coordinator 980-314-1119 www.parkandrec.com REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN CHECKLIST Mecklenburg County, NC: 66 species Mole Salamanders ☐ Pickerel Frog ☐ Ground Skink (Scincella lateralis) ☐ Spotted Salamander (Rana (Lithobates) palustris) Whiptails (Ambystoma maculatum) ☐ Southern Leopard Frog ☐ Six-lined Racerunner ☐ Marbled Salamander (Rana (Lithobates) sphenocephala (Aspidoscelis sexlineata) (Ambystoma opacum) (sphenocephalus)) Nonvenomous Snakes Lungless Salamanders Snapping Turtles ☐ Eastern Worm Snake ☐ Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus fuscus) ☐ Common Snapping Turtle (Carphophis amoenus) ☐ Southern Two-lined Salamander (Chelydra serpentina) ☐ Scarlet Snake1 (Cemophora coccinea) (Eurycea cirrigera) Box and Water Turtles ☐ Black Racer (Coluber constrictor) ☐ Three-lined Salamander ☐ Northern Painted Turtle ☐ Ring-necked Snake (Eurycea guttolineata) (Chrysemys picta) (Diadophis punctatus) ☐ Spring Salamander ☐ Spotted Turtle2, 6 (Clemmys guttata) ☐ Corn Snake (Pantherophis guttatus) (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus) ☐ River Cooter (Pseudemys concinna) ☐ Rat Snake (Pantherophis alleghaniensis) ☐ Slimy Salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) ☐ Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina) ☐ Eastern Hognose Snake ☐ Mud Salamander (Pseudotriton montanus) ☐ Yellow-bellied Slider (Trachemys scripta) (Heterodon platirhinos) ☐ Red Salamander (Pseudotriton ruber) ☐ Red-eared Slider3 ☐ Mole Kingsnake Newts (Trachemys scripta elegans) (Lampropeltis calligaster) ☐ Red-spotted Newt Mud and Musk Turtles ☐ Eastern Kingsnake
    [Show full text]
  • Boxwood Blight
    PLANT AND PEST BP-203-W DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY ppdl.purdue.edu Boxwood Blight Gail Ruhl Purdue Botany and Plant Pathology - ag.purdue.edu/BTNY Tom Creswell Janna Beckerman Introduction Boxwood blight is a fungal disease caused by Calonectria pseudonaviculata (previously called Cylindrocladium pseudonaviculatum or Cylindrocladium buxicola). This fungus is easily transported in the nursery industry and can be moved on infected plants that do not show any symptoms at the time of shipment as well as on shoots of infected boxwood greenery tucked into evergreen Christmas wreaths. Boxwood blight has become a serious threat to nursery production and to boxwoods in the landscape, which has prompted several states to take regulatory action. This publication provides information about boxwood blight and management options. Disease Distribution Boxwood blight was first reported in the United Kingdom in the mid 1990s. It is now widespread throughout most of Europe and was also discovered in New Zealand in 1998. Boxwood blight was confirmed for the first time in North America in October 2011 on samples collected in North Carolina and Connecticut. Since this first U.S. detection, boxwood blight has been reported in more than 20 states and three Canadian provinces. Symptoms and Signs The fungus that causes boxwood blight can infect all aboveground portions of the shrub. Symptoms begin as dark leaf spots that coalesce to form brown blotches (Figure 1). The undersides of infected leaves will show white sporulation of the boxwood blight Boxwood Blight BP-203-W fungus following periods of high humidity (Figure 2). Boxwood blight causes rapid defoliation, which usually starts on the lower branches and moves upward in the canopy (Figure 3).
    [Show full text]
  • Dragonf Lies and Damself Lies of Europe
    Dragonf lies and Damself lies of Europe A scientific approach to the identification of European Odonata without capture A simple yet detailed guide suitable both for beginners and more expert readers who wish to improve their knowledge of the order Odonata. This book contains images and photographs of all the European species having a stable population, with chapters about their anatomy, biology, behaviour, distribution range and period of flight, plus basic information about the vagrants with only a few sightings reported. On the whole, 143 reported species and over lies of Europe lies and Damself Dragonf 600 photographs are included. Published by WBA Project Srl CARLO GALLIANI, ROBERTO SCHERINI, ALIDA PIGLIA © 2017 Verona - Italy WBA Books ISSN 1973-7815 ISBN 97888903323-6-4 Supporting Institutions CONTENTS Preface 5 © WBA Project - Verona (Italy) Odonates: an introduction to the order 6 WBA HANDBOOKS 7 Dragonflies and Damselflies of Europe Systematics 7 ISSN 1973-7815 Anatomy of Odonates 9 ISBN 97888903323-6-4 Biology 14 Editorial Board: Ludivina Barrientos-Lozano, Ciudad Victoria (Mexico), Achille Casale, Sassari Mating and oviposition 23 (Italy), Mauro Daccordi, Verona (Italy), Pier Mauro Giachino, Torino (Italy), Laura Guidolin, Oviposition 34 Padova (Italy), Roy Kleukers, Leiden (Holland), Bruno Massa, Palermo (Italy), Giovanni Onore, Quito (Ecuador), Giuseppe Bartolomeo Osella, l’Aquila (Italy), Stewart B. Peck, Ottawa (Cana- Predators and preys 41 da), Fidel Alejandro Roig, Mendoza (Argentina), Jose Maria Salgado Costas, Leon (Spain), Fabio Pathogens and parasites 45 Stoch, Roma (Italy), Mauro Tretiach, Trieste (Italy), Dante Vailati, Brescia (Italy). Dichromism, androchromy and secondary homochromy 47 Editor-in-chief: Pier Mauro Giachino Particular situations in the daily life of a dragonfly 48 Managing Editor: Gianfranco Caoduro Warming up the wings 50 Translation: Alida Piglia Text revision: Michael L.
    [Show full text]
  • Skillet Clubtail
    Species Status Assessment Class: Insecta Family: Gomphidae Scientific Name: Gomphus ventricosus Common Name: Skillet clubtail Species synopsis: The distribution center of G. ventricosus lies along the Lake Erie shoreline in northeast Ohio in the southern Great Lakes forest ecoregion, extending northwest to northern Minnesota, east to Nova Scotia, and south to central Tennessee (Donnelly 2004). G. ventricosus is rare and spottily distributed throughout its range, particularly in the east (Walker 1958). Although extensive searches during the New York State Dragonfly and Damselfly Survey (NYSDDS) failed to detect the species in eastern New York, recent records suggest that it should occur there. These records include occurrences from the Connecticut River in Massachusetts and Connecticut, as well as smaller rivers near the NY border, such as the Housatonic (Massachusetts NHESP 2003). G. ventricosus was formerly known in New York State from two pre-1926 records— one from Pine Island, probably the upper Wallkill River (where the species still occurs in New Jersey), and another from Old Forge (likely on the Moose River). A 2009 survey of the Moose River was not successful in locating any individuals. However, a new population was documented in New York along the Raquette River between Potsdam and Massena on the northeast Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Plain in both 1997 and 1998 (White et al. 2010). Throughout its range, G. ventricosus prefers small to large turbid rivers with partial mud bottoms, but good water quality. An older locale in Pine Island of Orange County, presumably along the upper Wallkill River, was a slow moving creek with a muddy/muck bottom and stained/turbid water.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies and Moths of Pinal County, Arizona, United States
    Heliothis ononis Flax Bollworm Moth Coptotriche aenea Blackberry Leafminer Argyresthia canadensis Apyrrothrix araxes Dull Firetip Phocides pigmalion Mangrove Skipper Phocides belus Belus Skipper Phocides palemon Guava Skipper Phocides urania Urania skipper Proteides mercurius Mercurial Skipper Epargyreus zestos Zestos Skipper Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus spanna Hispaniolan Silverdrop Epargyreus exadeus Broken Silverdrop Polygonus leo Hammock Skipper Polygonus savigny Manuel's Skipper Chioides albofasciatus White-striped Longtail Chioides zilpa Zilpa Longtail Chioides ixion Hispaniolan Longtail Aguna asander Gold-spotted Aguna Aguna claxon Emerald Aguna Aguna metophis Tailed Aguna Typhedanus undulatus Mottled Longtail Typhedanus ampyx Gold-tufted Skipper Polythrix octomaculata Eight-spotted Longtail Polythrix mexicanus Mexican Longtail Polythrix asine Asine Longtail Polythrix caunus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) Zestusa dorus Short-tailed Skipper Codatractus carlos Carlos' Mottled-Skipper Codatractus alcaeus White-crescent Longtail Codatractus yucatanus Yucatan Mottled-Skipper Codatractus arizonensis Arizona Skipper Codatractus valeriana Valeriana Skipper Urbanus proteus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus viterboana Bluish Longtail Urbanus belli Double-striped Longtail Urbanus pronus Pronus Longtail Urbanus esmeraldus Esmeralda Longtail Urbanus evona Turquoise Longtail Urbanus dorantes Dorantes Longtail Urbanus teleus Teleus Longtail Urbanus tanna Tanna Longtail Urbanus simplicius Plain Longtail Urbanus procne Brown Longtail
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstructing the Basal Angiosperm Phylogeny: Evaluating Information Content of Mitochondrial Genes
    55 (4) • November 2006: 837–856 Qiu & al. • Basal angiosperm phylogeny Reconstructing the basal angiosperm phylogeny: evaluating information content of mitochondrial genes Yin-Long Qiu1, Libo Li, Tory A. Hendry, Ruiqi Li, David W. Taylor, Michael J. Issa, Alexander J. Ronen, Mona L. Vekaria & Adam M. White 1Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, The University Herbarium, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1048, U.S.A. [email protected] (author for correspondence). Three mitochondrial (atp1, matR, nad5), four chloroplast (atpB, matK, rbcL, rpoC2), and one nuclear (18S) genes from 162 seed plants, representing all major lineages of gymnosperms and angiosperms, were analyzed together in a supermatrix or in various partitions using likelihood and parsimony methods. The results show that Amborella + Nymphaeales together constitute the first diverging lineage of angiosperms, and that the topology of Amborella alone being sister to all other angiosperms likely represents a local long branch attrac- tion artifact. The monophyly of magnoliids, as well as sister relationships between Magnoliales and Laurales, and between Canellales and Piperales, are all strongly supported. The sister relationship to eudicots of Ceratophyllum is not strongly supported by this study; instead a placement of the genus with Chloranthaceae receives moderate support in the mitochondrial gene analyses. Relationships among magnoliids, monocots, and eudicots remain unresolved. Direct comparisons of analytic results from several data partitions with or without RNA editing sites show that in multigene analyses, RNA editing has no effect on well supported rela- tionships, but minor effect on weakly supported ones. Finally, comparisons of results from separate analyses of mitochondrial and chloroplast genes demonstrate that mitochondrial genes, with overall slower rates of sub- stitution than chloroplast genes, are informative phylogenetic markers, and are particularly suitable for resolv- ing deep relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North Carolina - Twenty-Eighth Approximation 159
    Crystal Skipper Atrytonopsis quinteri 40 n=0 30 M N 20 u m 10 b e 0 r 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • o 40 • f n=0 = Sighting or Collection 30 P x• = Not seen nor collected F since 1980 l 20 i 5 records / 32 individuals added g 10 to 28th h 0 t 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 NC counties: 2 or 2% High counts of: 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 SC counties: 0 or 0% 414 - Carteret - 2019-04-14 D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec a 40 100 - Carteret - 2001-05-02 t n=123 100 - Carteret - 2003-04-17 e 30 C s 20 10 Status and Rank Earliest date: Carteret 1 Apr 2008 State Global 0 Latest date: Carteret 31 Aug 2004 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 SR - S1 G1 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Synonym: Atrytonopsis hianna loammi, Atrytonopsis loammi, Atrytonopsis sp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hognose Snake: a Prairie Survivor for Ten Million Years
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Programs Information: Nebraska State Museum Museum, University of Nebraska State 1977 The Hognose Snake: A Prairie Survivor for Ten Million Years M. R. Voorhies University of Nebraska State Museum, [email protected] R. G. Corner University of Nebraska State Museum Harvey L. Gunderson University of Nebraska State Museum Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/museumprogram Part of the Higher Education Administration Commons Voorhies, M. R.; Corner, R. G.; and Gunderson, Harvey L., "The Hognose Snake: A Prairie Survivor for Ten Million Years" (1977). Programs Information: Nebraska State Museum. 8. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/museumprogram/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Museum, University of Nebraska State at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Programs Information: Nebraska State Museum by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. University of Nebraska State Museum and Planetarium 14th and U Sts. NUMBER 15JAN 12, 1977 ognose snake hunting in sand. The snake uses its shovel-like snout to loosen the soil. Hognose snakes spend most of their time above ground, but burrow in search of food, primarily toads. Even when toads are buried a foot or more in sand, hog­ nose snakes can detect them and dig them out. (Photos by Harvey L. Gunderson) Heterodon platyrhinos. The snout is used in digging; :tivities THE HOG NOSE SNAKE hognose snakes are expert burrowers, the western species being nicknamed the "prairie rooter" by Sand­ hills ranchers. The snakes burrow in pursuit of food which consists Prairie Survivor for almost entirely of toads, although occasionally frogs or small birds and mammals may be eaten.
    [Show full text]