DOCSLIB.ORG

Mapping the Distribution, Habitat, and Threats for Arkansas' Species Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mapping the Distribution, Habitat, and Threats for Arkansas' Species Of Mapping the Distribution, Habitat, and Threats for Arkansas' Species of Greatest Conservation Need Ethan Inlander, Cory Gallipeau, Final report for Ethan Inlander, Cory Gallipeau, and Arkansas State Wildlife Grant and Michael Slay Agreement Number T20-9 Michael Slay The Nature Nature Conservancy Conservancy 3/31/2011 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 2 Biological Information ................................................................................................................ 2 Database Structure and Updates ............................................................................................. 2 Species Range Maps ................................................................................................................... 4 Individual Species ................................................................................................................... 4 Summary Maps ....................................................................................................................... 5 Threat Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 5 Terrestrial Community Group..................................................................................................... 6 Sites and Assessment Areas .................................................................................................... 6 Risk Model: Visitation (RVI) ................................................................................................. 6 Visitation Sub-Model: Population (RVIP).............................................................................. 6 Visitation Sub-Model: Access (RVIA) ................................................................................... 7 Visitation Sub-Model: Proximity (RVIX) .............................................................................. 8 Calculation of the Visitation Risk Model ............................................................................... 8 Calculation of the Terrestrial Community Threat Model ....................................................... 8 Bat Community Group ................................................................................................................ 8 Sites and Assessment Areas .................................................................................................... 8 Risk Model: Visitation (RVI) ................................................................................................. 8 Risk Model: Bat Habitat (RBH) ............................................................................................. 9 Bat Habitat Sub-Model: Forest (RBHF) ................................................................................. 9 Bat Habitat Sub-Model: Riparian (RBHR) ............................................................................. 9 Calculation of the Bat Habitat Risk Model ........................................................................... 10 Calculation of the Bat Community Threat Model ................................................................ 10 Aquatic Community Group ....................................................................................................... 10 Sites and Assessment Areas .................................................................................................. 11 Risk Model: Visitation .......................................................................................................... 11 Risk Model: Surface Water Quality and Quantity (RWQ) ................................................... 12 Surface Water Sub-Model: Sediment (RWQS) .................................................................... 12 Surface Water Sub-Model: Nutrients (RWQN) .................................................................... 13 Surface Water Sub-Model: Pollutants (RWQP) ................................................................... 13 Surface Water Sub-Model: Hydrologic Alteration (RWQH) ............................................... 13 ii Calculation of the Water Quality and Quantity (RWQ) ....................................................... 14 Groundwater Vulnerability Model: DRASTIK .................................................................... 14 Groundwater Vulnerability Model Selection ........................................................................ 14 DRASTIC Model Background ............................................................................................. 15 DRASTIC Model Modifications .......................................................................................... 15 Project Methodology ............................................................................................................. 16 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Depth to Water (D) ......................................................................... 18 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Recharge (R) ................................................................................... 18 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Aquafer Media (A) ......................................................................... 18 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Soil Media (S) ................................................................................ 18 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Topography (T) .............................................................................. 18 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Impact of the Vedose Zone (I)........................................................ 19 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Karst Features (K) .......................................................................... 19 Calculation of the Groundwater Vulnerability Model: DRASTIK ....................................... 19 Calculation of the Groundwater Sensitivity Model: RWQ + DRASTIK ............................. 19 Calculation of the Aquatic Community Threat Model ......................................................... 19 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Biological Information .............................................................................................................. 20 Individual Species ................................................................................................................. 20 Summary Maps ..................................................................................................................... 36 Threat Assessment .................................................................................................................... 45 Terrestrial Community Group................................................................................................... 45 Bat Community Group .............................................................................................................. 46 Aquatic Community Group ....................................................................................................... 47 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 48 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 58 APPENDIX A. Descriptions of risk index variables and calculations. ....................................... 64 APPENDIX B. DRASTIC Parameter ratings. ............................................................................. 70 APPENDIX C. Raw index values and scaled scores for components of the Visitation Risk Model for each terrestrial cave species population at each site. Scaled values are scaled from 0-1, with 1 being the score with the most ecological benefit. Threat scores discussed in the text are generated by subtracting scaled values from 1 (e.g. [1- (RVI Scaled)] equals overall threat from visitation). Descriptions of abbreviations used in this table can be found in Appendix A. ............................................73 APPENDIX D. Raw index values and scaled scores for components of the Visitation Risk Model, Bat Habitat Risk Model, and overall Bat Community Threat Model iii for each bat species population at each site. Scaled values are scaled from 0-1, with 1 being the score with the most ecological benefit. Threat scores discussed in the text are generated by subtracting scaled values from 1 (e.g. [1- (RVI Scaled)] equals overall threat from visitation). Descriptions of abbreviations used in these tables can be found in Appendix A. ....................................................................................76 APPENDIX E. Raw index values and scaled scores for components of the Visitation Risk Model, Water Quality and Quantity Risk Model, Groundwater Vulnerability Model, Groundwater Sensitivity Model, and overall Aquatic Community Threat Model for each aquatic cave species population at each site. Scaled values are scaled from 0-1, with 1 being the score with the most ecological benefit. Threat scores discussed in the text are generated by subtracting scaled values from 1 (e.g. [1- (RVI Scaled)] equals overall threat from visitation). Descriptions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Journal of Cave and Karst Studies
    June 2020 Volume 82, Number 2 JOURNAL OF ISSN 1090-6924 A Publication of the National CAVE AND KARST Speleological Society STUDIES DEDICATED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, EDUCATION, EXPLORATION, AND CONSERVATION Published By BOARD OF EDITORS The National Speleological Society Anthropology George Crothers http://caves.org/pub/journal University of Kentucky Lexington, KY Office [email protected] 6001 Pulaski Pike NW Huntsville, AL 35810 USA Conservation-Life Sciences Julian J. Lewis & Salisa L. Lewis Tel:256-852-1300 Lewis & Associates, LLC. [email protected] Borden, IN [email protected] Editor-in-Chief Earth Sciences Benjamin Schwartz Malcolm S. Field Texas State University National Center of Environmental San Marcos, TX Assessment (8623P) [email protected] Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Leslie A. North 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Western Kentucky University Bowling Green, KY Washington, DC 20460-0001 [email protected] 703-347-8601 Voice 703-347-8692 Fax [email protected] Mario Parise University Aldo Moro Production Editor Bari, Italy [email protected] Scott A. Engel Knoxville, TN Carol Wicks 225-281-3914 Louisiana State University [email protected] Baton Rouge, LA [email protected] Exploration Paul Burger National Park Service Eagle River, Alaska [email protected] Microbiology Kathleen H. Lavoie State University of New York Plattsburgh, NY [email protected] Paleontology Greg McDonald National Park Service Fort Collins, CO The Journal of Cave and Karst Studies , ISSN 1090-6924, CPM [email protected] Number #40065056, is a multi-disciplinary, refereed journal pub- lished four times a year by the National Speleological Society.
    [Show full text]
  • I Llllll Lllll Lllll Lllll Lllll Lllll Lllll Lllll Llll Llll
    Borrower: TXA Call#: QH75.A1 Internet Lending Strin{1: *COD,OKU,IWA,UND,CUI Location: Internet Access (Jan. 01, ~ 1997)- ~ Patron: Bandel, Micaela ;..... 0960-3115 -11) Journal Title: Biodiversity and conservation. ........'"O ;::::s Volume: 12 l~;sue: 3 0 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ~ MonthNear: :W03Pages: 441~ c.oi ~ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ~ 1rj - Article Author: 0 - ODYSSEY ENABLED '"O - crj = Article Title: DC Culver, MC Christman, WR ;..... - 0 Elliot, WR Hobbs et al.; The North American Charge ........ - Obligate Cave 1=auna; regional patterns 0 -;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Maxcost: $501FM u -;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; <.,....; - Shipping Address: 0 - Imprint: London ; Chapman & Hall, c1992- Texas A&M University >-. ..... Sterling C. Evans Library, ILL ~ M r/'J N ILL Number: 85855887 5000 TAMUS ·-;..... N 11) LC) College Station, TX 77843-5000 ~ oq- Illllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll llll llll FEDEX/GWLA ·-~ z ~ I- Fax: 979-458-2032 "C cu Ariel: 128.194.84.50 :J ...J Email: [email protected] Odyssey Address: 165.91.74.104 B'odiversity and Conservation 12: 441-468, 2003. <£ 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. The North American obligate cave fauna: regional patterns 1 2 3 DAVID C. CULVER ·*, MARY C. CHRISTMAN , WILLIAM R. ELLIOTT , HORTON H. HOBBS IIl4 and JAMES R. REDDELL5 1 Department of Biology, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20016, USA; 2 £epartment of Animal and Avian Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA; 3M issouri Department of Conservation, Natural History Section, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65/02-0.'80, USA; 'Department of Biology, Wittenberg University, P.O. Box 720, Springfield, OH 45501-0:'20, USA; 5 Texas Memorial Museum, The University of Texas, 2400 Trinity, Austin, TX 78705, USA; *Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected]; fax: + 1-202-885-2182) Received 7 August 200 I; accepted in revised form 24 February 2002 Key wm ds: Caves, Rank order statistics, Species richness, Stygobites, Troglobites Abstrac1.
    [Show full text]
  • New Faunal and Fungal Records from Caves in Georgia, USA
    Will K. Reeves, John B. Jensen and James C. Ozier - New Faunal and Fungal Records from Caves in Georgia, USA. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 62(3): 169-179. NEW FAUNAL AND FUNGAL RECORDS FROM CAVES IN GEORGIA, USA WILL K. REEVES Department of Entomology, 114 Long Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634 USA, [email protected] JOHN B. JENSEN AND JAMES C. OZIER Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Nongame-Endangered Wildlife Program, 116 Rum Creek Drive, Forsyth, GA 31029 USA Records for 173 cavernicolous invertebrate species of Platyhelminthes, Nematoda, Nemertea, Annelida, Mollusca, and Arthropoda from 47 caves in Georgia are presented. The checklist includes eight species of cave-dwelling cellular slime molds and endosymbiotic trichomycete fungi associated with cave milli- pedes and isopods. The cave fauna of Georgia has attracted less attention than Unless otherwise noted, specimens have been deposited in that of neighboring Alabama and Tennessee, yet Georgia con- the Clemson University Arthropod Collection. Other collec- tains many unique cave systems. Limestone caves are found in tions where specimens were deposited are abbreviated with the two geological regions of the state, the Coastal Plain, and the following four letter codes, which are listed after the species Appalachian Plateau and Valley. Over five hundred caves in name: AMNH-American Museum of Natural History; CAAS- Georgia are known, but biological information has been California Academy of Science; CARL-Carleton University reported for less than 15%. (Canada); CARN-Carnegie Museum of Natural History; Culver et al. (1999) reviewed the distributions of caverni- DEIC-Deutsches Entomologisches Institut (Germany); FSCA- coles in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 8. Appendices
    Section 8. Appendices Appendix 1.1 — Acronyms Terminology AWAP – Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan BMP – Best Management Practice CWCS — Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy EO — Element Occurrence GIS — Geographic Information Systems SGCN — Species of Greatest Conservation Need LIP — Landowner Incentive Program MOA — Memorandum of Agreement ACWCS — Arkansas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy SWG — State Wildlife Grant LTA — Land Type Association WNS — White-nose Syndrome Organizations ADEQ — Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality AGFC — Arkansas Game and Fish Commission AHTD — Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department ANHC — Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission ASU — Arkansas State University ATU — Arkansas Technical University FWS — Fish and Wildlife Service HSU — Henderson State University NRCS — Natural Resources Conservation Service SAU — Southern Arkansas University TNC — The Nature Conservancy UA — University of Arkansas (Fayetteville) UA/Ft. Smith — University of Arkansas at Fort Smith UALR — University of Arkansas at Little Rock UAM — University of Arkansas at Monticello UCA — University of Central Arkansas USFS — United States Forest Service 1581 Appendix 2.1. List of Species of Greatest Conservation Need by Priority Score. List of species of greatest conservation need ranked by Species Priority Score. A higher score implies a greater need for conservation concern and actions. Priority Common Name Scientific Name Taxa Association Score 100 Curtis Pearlymussel Epioblasma florentina curtisii Mussel 100
    [Show full text]
  • Cave Fauna of the Buffalo National River
    G. O. Graening, Michael Slay, and Chuck Bitting. Cave Fauna of the Buffalo National River. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 68, no. 3, p. 153–163. CAVE FAUNA OF THE BUFFALO NATIONAL RIVER G. O. GRAENING The Nature Conservancy, 601 North University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA, [email protected] MICHAEL E. SLAY The Nature Conservancy, 601 North University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA, [email protected] CHUCK BITTING Buffalo National River, 402 North Walnut, Suite 136, Harrison, AR 72601, USA, [email protected] The Buffalo National River (within Baxter, Marion, Newton, and Searcy counties, Arkansas) is completely underlain by karstic topography, and contains approximately 10% of the known caves in Arkansas. Biological inventory and assessment of 67 of the park’s subterranean habi- tats was performed from 1999 to 2006. These data were combined and analyzed with previous studies, creating a database of 2,068 total species occurrences, 301 animal taxa, and 143 total sites. Twenty species obligate to caves or ground water were found, including four new to sci- ence. The species composition was dominated by arthropods. Statistical analyses revealed that site species richness was directly proportional to cave passage length and correlated to habitat factors such as type of water resource and organics present, but not other factors, such as de- gree of public use or presence/absence of vandalism. Sites were ranked for overall biological significance using the metrics of passage length, total and obligate species richness. Fitton Cave ranked highest and is the most biologically rich cave in this National Park and second-most in all of Arkansas with 58 total and 11 obligate species.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Invertebrate Report
    Aquatic Invertebrate Report Caecidotea fonticulus Class: Malacostraca Order: Isopoda Family: Asellidae Priority Score: 23 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown G Rank: G? — Uncertain global ranking S Rank: S1 — Critically imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Boston Mountains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Arkansas Valley South Central Plains Ouachita Mountains Element Occurrence Records Taxa Association Team and Reviewers ANHC Mr. Michael Warriner, AGFC Mr. Brian Wagner Caecidotea fonticulus Page 713 isopod Aquatic Invertebrate Report Ecobasins where the species occurs Ecobasins Ouachita Mountains - Ouachita River Habitats Weight Natural Groundwater: Headwater - Small Data Gap Natural Seep: Headwater - Small Data Gap Natural Spring Run: Headwater - Small Obligate Problems Faced Threat: Habitat destruction or conversion Source: Forestry activities Threat: Toxins/contaminants Source: Municipal/Industrial point source Data Gaps/Research Needs Need to obtain baseline information on distribution and population status. Conservation Actions Importance Category More data is needed to determine conservation actions. Medium Data Gap Monitoring Strategies Surveys to locate additional populations and protection of stream habitats Comments An Arkansas endemic isopod known only from Abernathy Spring in Polk County (Lewis 1983). Caecidotea fonticulus Page 714 isopod Aquatic Invertebrate Report Pyrgulopsis ozarkensis Class: Gastropoda Order: Neotaenioglossa Family: Hydrobiidae Priority Score: 80 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown G Rank: G1 — Critically imperiled species S Rank: S1? — Critically imperiled in Arkansas (inexact numeric rank) Distribution Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Boston Mountains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Arkansas Valley South Central Plains Ouachita Mountains Element Occurrence Records Taxa Association Team and Reviewers ANHC Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports
    DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE REPORTS DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE REPORTS DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE & SCIENCE OF NATURE DENVER MUSEUM NUMBER 3, JULY 2, 2016 WWW.DMNS.ORG/SCIENCE/MUSEUM-PUBLICATIONS 2001 Colorado Boulevard Denver, CO 80205 Frank Krell, PhD, Editor and Production REPORTS • NUMBER 3 • JULY 2, 2016 2, • NUMBER 3 JULY Logo: A solifuge standing on top of South Table Mountain, one of the two table-top mountains anking the city of Golden, Colorado. South Table Mountain with the sun (or moon, for the solifuge) rising in the background is the logo for the city of Golden. The solifuge is in honor of the main focus of research by the host’s lab. Logo designed by Paula Cushing and Eric Parrish. The Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports (ISSN Program and Abstracts 2374-7730 [print], ISSN 2374-7749 [online]) is an open- access, non peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing 20th International Congress of papers about DMNS research, collections, or other Arachnology Museum related topics, generally authored or co-authored by Museum staff or associates. Peer review will only be July 2–9, 2016 arranged on request of the authors. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado The journal is available online at www.dmns.org/Science/ Museum-Publications free of charge. Paper copies are Paula E. Cushing (Ed.) exchanged via the DMNS Library exchange program ([email protected]) or are available for purchase from our print-on-demand publisher Lulu (www.lulu.com). DMNS owns the copyright of the works published in the Schlinger Foundation Reports, which are published under the Creative Commons WWW.DMNS.ORG/SCIENCE/MUSEUM-PUBLICATIONS Attribution Non-Commercial license.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrates
    Terrestrial Invertebrate Report Abacion wilhelminae Milli pede Class: Diplopoda Order: Callipodida Family: Abacionidae Priority Score: 23 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Global Rank: GNR — Not yet ranked State Rank: S1 — Critically imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Arkansas Valley Ouachita Mountains South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plain Abacion wilhelminae Millipede 782 Terrestrial Invertebrate Report Habitat Map Problems Faced Habitat destruction. Threat: Habitat destruction Source: Data Gaps/Research Needs Life history, status surveys and basic biological information needs to be obtained. Conservation Actions Importance Category More data are needed to determine conservation Medium Data Gap actions. Comments Endemic millipede of the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas (Robison and Allen 1995). Taxa Association Team and Peer Reviewers ANHC Mr. Michael Warriner, AGFC Mr. Brian Wagner Abacion wilhelminae Millipede 783 Aquatic/Terrestrial Invertebrate Report Allocrangonyx hubrichti Hubri cht' s Long-t ail ed Amphi pod Class: Malacostraca Order: Amphipoda Family: Crangonyctidae Priority Score: 42 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Global Rank: G2G3 — Imperiled (uncertain rank) State Rank: S1? — Critically imperiled in Arkansas (inexact numeric rank) Distribution Element Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Arkansas Valley Ouachita Mountains South Central Plains
    [Show full text]
  • Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports
    DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE REPORTS NUMBER 3, JULY 2, 2016 Program and Abstracts 20th International Congress of Arachnology July 2–9, 2016, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado Edited by Preface 1 Paula E. Cushing Welcome to the 20th International Congress of Arachnology! This congress is jointly hosted by the International Society of Arachnology, the American Arachnological Society, and the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. A total of 375 participants are in attendance representing 39 different countries. An additional 36 accompanying participants are taking advantage of Colorado’s scenery and charms. Of the registered participants 154 are students. This book contains the schedule of events, the scientific program, and the abstracts. In total, there will be five keynote addresses, nine formal sym- posia, 240 oral presentations (including symposium talks), and 129 poster presentations. The abstracts are arranged in alphabetical order by the surname of the presenting author. Above each abstract is an indication of the type of talk (i.e., keynote address, symposium talk, oral presentation, poster presentation. Student presentations that are part of the student competition are indicated with asterisks (*) in the abstract list and in the schedule. Speakers whose names are under- lined in the program are session moderators charged with keeping the session on time. Thanks to the following foundations and organizations for providing support for this meeting: ISA, AAS, DMNS, Kenneth King Foundation, Laudier Histology, Schlinger Foundation, Golden Chamber 1Department of Zoology of Commerce, Siri Publications, BioQuip, Cricket Science. Denver Museum of Nature & Science 2001 Colorado Boulevard On behalf of the Organizing Committee, Denver, Colorado 80205-5798, U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Faunal Survey of Oklahoma Cave and Springs
    W 2800.7 F293 no. T-16-P-l 6/04-5/08 General biological inventories of caves, springs, and other subterranean habitats were performed in at least 101 sites throughout Oklahoma from 2004 to 2008. Additionally, 50 springs throughout Oklahoma were intensively studied and their biological and physio-chemical properties analyzed from 2003 to 2008. The objectives of these studies were: to describe the biodiversity of animal life in subterranean habitats of Oklahoma; to determine the status and distribution of rare and endangered animals in these habitats; to examine habitat variables to determine zoogeographic patterns in subterranean diversity and to rank the inventoried sites in order of biological importance; to provide this information to ODWC to facilitate conservation planning. Very few cave habitats had a species richness greater than 20 taxa. The most species-rich cave habitats were the cave AD-14 with 80 taxa, and GR-Olland DL-39, both with 63 taxa. Species richness in springs was significantly greater because of their connectivity with surface ecosystems. Numerous rare and endangered species utilize subterranean habitats in Oklahoma. There are at least 40 species that are known to be limited to, or adapted to, groundwater habitats (stygobites) or caves (troglobites), including 8 new species that await taxonomic description. The most common subterranean-obligate was grotto salamander (Eurycea spelaea) and the second was cave isopod (Caecidotea sp.). Overall, arthropods dominated the cave habitats, especially crickets, mosquitoes, spiders, and springtails. The most common invertebrate taxon was cave crickets of the genus Ceuthophilus. The most common vertebrates were eastern pipistrelle bat (Periomyotis subflavus) and cave salamander (EuryCEA lucifuga).
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded Corresponding Sequences, from Genbank, for 12 P
    2016 AAS Abstracts The American Arachnological Society 40th Annual Meeting July 2-9, 2016 Golden, Colorado Paula Cushing Return to Abstracts Return to Meetings AAS Home Presentation Abstracts (Presenters underlined, * denotes participation in student competition) Abstracts of keynote speakers are listed first in order of presentation, followed by other abstracts in alphabetical order by first author. Underlined indicates presenting author, *indicates presentation in student competition. Only students with an * are in the competition. PLENARY presentation – Sunday, July 3 Trans-taxa: Spiders that dress as ants Ximena Nelson School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand [email protected] Batesian mimicry is a classic evolutionary phenomenon whereby animals experience reduced predation as a consequence of their resemblance to noxious, dangerous or unpalatable animals. Jumping spiders (Salticidae) are the largest family of spiders, and the genus Myrmarachne, with over 220 species, is the largest among the salticids. Myrmarachne are all ant-like spiders and appear to be Batesian mimics, using both appearance and behaviour to enhance their resemblance to ants. The interactions of ants, Myrmarachne and non-ant-like salticids provide a framework to thoroughly explore Batesian mimicry theory. In particular, I will discuss the effects of behavioural mimicry and costs associated with Batesian mimicry, including species recognition and effects of sexual selection. Keywords: mimicry, Salticidae, Myrmarachne, ant-like PLENARY presentation – Monday, July 4 Spider phylogenomics: untangling the spider tree of life Jason Bond Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Alabama, USA [email protected] Phylogenomic inference is transforming systematic biology by allowing systematists to confidently resolve many major branches of the Tree of Life, even for ancient groups that may have diversified quickly and are systematically 2016 AAS Abstracts difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • [email protected]
    Jessie Green 8623 Westwood Ave. Little Rock, AR 72204 [email protected] Thursday, 6April2016 [email protected] Ms. Becky Keogh Director Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 5301 Northshore Dr. North Little Rock, AR 72118-5317 Re: Permit 5264-W; AFIN 51-00164; C&H Hog Farms, Inc. Dear Director Keogh: Comments and concerns specific to listed permit conditions NMP states “soil samples are to be taken once every five years or when the nutrient management plan is revised”1. Since addition of fields resulted in the revision of the nutrient management plan, recent soil samples should be available for existing fields as well. Please update this in the Permit Conditions2, otherwise this is not an enforceable condition3. While spreadable acreage on Fields 15 and 17 seem to exclude the limestone outcroppings that were noted during a 2013 inspection4, shouldn’t buffers be added to those areas? The NW corner of Field 15B should be excluded from spreadable acreage, as the September 2013 Inspection report noted that this area had visible limestone outcroppings5. Condition No. 26 requires that the interceptor trenches be sampled quarterly6; however, these data are being collected much more frequently than that by the BCRET team. Please update this condition so that all data collected must be reported, otherwise this obviously opens up an opportunity for data to be cherry picked to only include data with lowest concentrations. Also, it is stated that the monitoring and reporting of the interceptor trenches will provide a method to 1 See NMP on page 5 of Farm Overview, specific language in reference under “Soil and Swine Fertilizer Sampling” https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/downloads/WebDatabases/PermitsOnline/NPDES/PermitInformation/5264- W_Application%20Packet_20160406.pdf 2 Part I on page 4 of Statement of Basis only mentions soil analysis will occur at least once every five years, but makes no mention of when NMP is updated.
    [Show full text]