DOCSLIB.ORG

A Land Managers Guide to Prairies and Savannas in Michigan: History, Classification, and Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Land Managers Guide to Prairies and Savannas in Michigan: History, Classification, and Management A Land Managers Guide to Prairies and Savannas in Michigan: History, Classification, and Management Prepared by: Ryan P. O’Connor Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944 For: Michigan DNR Wildlife Division Landowner Incentive Program September 30, 2006 Report Number 2006-18 Suggested citation: O’Connor, R. 2006. A Land Manager’s Guide to Prairies and Savannas in Michigan: History, Classification and Management. Report 2006-18. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. Copyright 2006 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photo: Oak barrens in Newaygo County, Susan R. Crispin, MNFI TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction and Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Historical Overview of Prairies and Savannas ............................................................................................................ 2 What was Michigan Like? Distribution of Prairies and Savannas circa 1800s ......................................................... 2 Prairie vs. Savanna: Historical Context ...................................................................................................................... 2 Changes circa 1800s to Present .................................................................................................................................. 5 Ecological Processes........................................................................................................................................................ 8 The landscape context of fire...................................................................................................................................... 8 Extreme soil conditions .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Fire and soil extremes in concert ................................................................................................................................ 8 Altered ecological processes ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Fauna and Flora ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 Fauna ........................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Flora ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Prairie and Savanna Classification in Michigan ....................................................................................................... 13 Rarity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Classification ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 Management Guidelines for Restoring Prairie and Savanna................................................................................... 18 Nature’s tool: Prescribed fire .................................................................................................................................... 18 The rest of the management toolbox: mowing, grazing, disking, and herbicides ....................................................22 What Are Your Goals? ................................................................................................................................................. 27 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................................................ 57 List of Figures Figure 1. Distribution of prairie and savanna communities circa 1800............................................................... 3 Figure 2. Vegetation of Michigan circa 1800....................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. High-quality wet to mesic prairie communities present day .............................................................. 15 Figure 4. High-quality lakeplain savanna and prairie communities present day ............................................... 16 Figure 5. High-quality dry to dry-mesic savanna and prairie communities present day.................................... 17 Figure 6. Typical ignition and burn pattern of a ring fire ................................................................................... 20 Figure 7. Typical ignition and burn pattern of a back fire or back burn ............................................................. 21 Figure 8. Typical ignition and burn pattern of a strip fire .................................................................................. 21 Figure 9. Cut-stump application of herbicides ................................................................................................... 25 Figure 10. Basal bark application of herbicides ................................................................................................. 26 Figure 11. Girdling with a hatchet or chain saw ................................................................................................ 26 Figure 12. Frilling with a hatchet ....................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 13. Application of herbicide onto a girdle .............................................................................................. 27 List of Tables Table 1. List of prairie and savanna community types found in Michigan ........................................................ 13 Table 2. Prairie and savanna community distribution across a moisture gradient ............................................ 14 Table 3. Changes in dominance of different groups of grasses and forbs in response to fire seasonality ......... 19 Table 4. Commonly used herbicides in ecological restoration .......................................................................... 24 Table 5. Comparison of prairie communities in Michigan (listed from wet to dry) .......................................... 48 Table 6. Comparison of savanna communities in Michigan (listed from wet to dry) ....................................... 49 List of Appendices Appendix A. Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need occurring in prairies and savannas .................. 30 Appendix B. Rare plants associated with prairie and savanna communities .................................................... 33 Appendix C. Natural Community Descriptions ................................................................................................. 37 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by the Land- Wildlife Division Private Lands Office, who lent his owner Incentive Program, Michigan Department of vast knowledge of herbicides to the project. This Natural Resources Wildlife Division. I would like to report could not have been completed without the help thank Mark Sargent, Private Lands Biologist with of Suzan Campbell and Kraig Korroch, who both DNR, whose passion for and knowledge of grasslands helped me adjust to the steep learning curves of Adobe helped conceive the idea for this publication, and John software. Numerous individuals also provided images Paskus, Conservation Planner with the Michigan and photos to illustrate concepts and bring to life the Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) who helped crystal- beauty and color of our plants, animals, and land- lize the project. I would also like to thank Susan scapes. They include Christopher Hoving, Brian Tangora, Michigan LIP Coordinator, and Dan Kennedy, Piccolo, and Dan Kennedy of the DNR Landowner Christopher Hoving, Brian Piccolo, Terry McFadden, Incentive Program; Doug Landis of Michigan State and Kevin Swanson, LIP Biologists. Their tireless work University; John M. Randall of The Nature Conser- to improve wildlife habitat for rare and declining vancy; Chris Evans from the University of Georgia, species on both public and private land served as an James R. Allison of the Georgia DNR, and Elizabeth inspiration and provided practical examples of the Czarapata of the Wisconsin DNR, whose photos were successes and trials of on-going ecological restoration. all provided via Invasives.org; Randall Heiligmann In addition, they also provided valuable editorial from Ohio State University Extension, Wayne R. Pauly comments. Glenn Palmgren, Stewardship Ecologist of the Dane County Park Commission, Madison, with
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Key Points for Sustainable Management of Northern Great Plains Grasslands
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange Natural Resource Management Faculty Publications Department of Natural Resource Management 2019 Looking to the Future: Key Points for Sustainable Management of Northern Great Plains Grasslands Lora B. Perkins Marissa Ahlering Diane L. Larson Follow this and additional works at: https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/nrm_pubs Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Environmental Sciences Commons REVIEW ARTICLE Looking to the future: key points for sustainable management of northern Great Plains grasslands Lora B. Perkins1,2 , Marissa Ahlering3, Diane L. Larson4 The grasslands of the northern Great Plains (NGP) region of North America are considered endangered ecosystems and priority conservation areas yet have great ecological and economic importance. Grasslands in the NGP are no longer self-regulating adaptive systems. The challenges to these grasslands are widespread and serious (e.g. climate change, invasive species, fragmentation, altered disturbance regimes, and anthropogenic chemical loads). Because the challenges facing the region are dynamic, complex, and persistent, a paradigm shift in how we approach restoration and management of the grasslands in the NGP is imperative. The goal of this article is to highlight four key points for land managers and restoration practitioners to consider when planning management or restoration actions. First, we discuss the appropriateness of using historical fidelity as a restoration or management target because of changing climate, widespread pervasiveness of invasive species, the high level of fragmentation, and altered disturbance regimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Native Or Suitable Plants City of Mccall
    Native or Suitable Plants City of McCall The following list of plants is presented to assist the developer, business owner, or homeowner in selecting plants for landscaping. The list is by no means complete, but is a recommended selection of plants which are either native or have been successfully introduced to our area. Successful landscaping, however, requires much more than just the selection of plants. Unless you have some experience, it is suggested than you employ the services of a trained or otherwise experienced landscaper, arborist, or forester. For best results it is recommended that careful consideration be made in purchasing the plants from the local nurseries (i.e. Cascade, McCall, and New Meadows). Plants brought in from the Treasure Valley may not survive our local weather conditions, microsites, and higher elevations. Timing can also be a serious consideration as the plants may have already broken dormancy and can be damaged by our late frosts. Appendix B SELECTED IDAHO NATIVE PLANTS SUITABLE FOR VALLEY COUNTY GROWING CONDITIONS Trees & Shrubs Acer circinatum (Vine Maple). Shrub or small tree 15-20' tall, Pacific Northwest native. Bright scarlet-orange fall foliage. Excellent ornamental. Alnus incana (Mountain Alder). A large shrub, useful for mid to high elevation riparian plantings. Good plant for stream bank shelter and stabilization. Nitrogen fixing root system. Alnus sinuata (Sitka Alder). A shrub, 6-1 5' tall. Grows well on moist slopes or stream banks. Excellent shrub for erosion control and riparian restoration. Nitrogen fixing root system. Amelanchier alnifolia (Serviceberry). One of the earlier shrubs to blossom out in the spring.
    [Show full text]
  • (Neonympha M. Mitchellii) in Michigan: Final Report — 2000
    Surveys for the Recovery of Mitchells Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha m. mitchellii) in Michigan: Final Report - 2000 Prepared by: Daria A. Hyde, Mary L. Rabe, David L. Cuthrell, Michael A. Kost Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944 For: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Endangered Species Office Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, MN 55111 Report Number 2001-05 Submitted March 31, 2001 Cover Photo Identification and Credits: Prairie fen habitat photo by: Michael A. Kost Mitchells satyr photo by: Daria A. Hyde Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Mitchells Satyr Surveys and Threat Assessment ......................................................................................................... 4 Surveys for Associated Rare Species ........................................................................................................................... 4 Mitchells Satyr Monitoring ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Michells Satyr Oviposition Observations and Larval Searches .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montana's Glaciated
    Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management Prepared by: Stephen V. Cooper, Catherine Jean and Paul Hendricks December, 2001 Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report 2001 Montana Natural Heritage Program Montana State Library P.O. Box 201800 Helena, Montana 59620-1800 (406) 444-3009 BLM Agreement number 1422E930A960015 Task Order # 25 This document should be cited as: Cooper, S. V., C. Jean and P. Hendricks. 2001. Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Pro- gram, Helena. 24 pp. plus appendices. Executive Summary Throughout much of the Great Plains, grasslands limited number of Black-tailed Prairie Dog have been converted to agricultural production colonies that provide breeding sites for Burrow- and as a result, tall-grass prairie has been ing Owls. Swift Fox now reoccupies some reduced to mere fragments. While more intact, portions of the landscape following releases the loss of mid - and short- grass prairie has lead during the last decade in Canada. Great Plains to a significant reduction of prairie habitat Toad and Northern Leopard Frog, in decline important for grassland obligate species. During elsewhere, still occupy some wetlands and the last few decades, grassland nesting birds permanent streams. Additional surveys will have shown consistently steeper population likely reveal the presence of other vertebrate declines over a wider geographic area than any species, especially amphibians, reptiles, and other group of North American bird species small mammals, of conservation concern in (Knopf 1994), and this alarming trend has been Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Area Requirements and Landscape-Level Factors Influencing
    The Journal of Wildlife Management 81(7):1298–1307; 2017; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21286 Research Article Area Requirements and Landscape-Level Factors Influencing Shrubland Birds H. PATRICK ROBERTS,1 Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, 204 Holdsworth Hall, Amherst, MA 01003, USA DAVID I. KING, U.S. Forest Service Northern Research Station, University of Massachusetts, 201 Holdsworth Hall, Amherst, MA 01003, USA ABSTRACT Declines in populations of birds that breed in disturbance-dependent early-successional forest have largely been ascribed to habitat loss. Clearcutting is an efficient and effective means for creating early- successional vegetation; however, negative public perceptions of clearcutting and the small parcel size typical of private forested land in much of the eastern United States make this practice impractical in many situations. Group selection harvests, where groups of adjacent trees are removed from a mature forest matrix, may be more acceptable to the public and could provide habitat for shrubland birds. Although some shrubland bird species that occupy clearcuts are scarce or absent from smaller patches created by group selection, some of these smaller patches support shrubland species of conservation concern. The specific factors affecting shrubland bird occupancy of these smaller patches, such as habitat structure, patch area, and landscape context, are poorly understood. We sampled birds in forest openings ranging 0.02–1.29 ha to identify species-specific minimum-area habitat requirements and other factors affecting shrubland birds. We modeled bird occurrence in relation to microhabitat-, patch-, and landscape-level variables using occupancy models. The minimum-area requirements for black-and-white warblers (Mniotilta varia), common yellowthroats (Geothlypis trichas), chestnut-sided warblers (Setophaga pensylvanica), eastern towhees (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and gray catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis)were0.23 ha, whereas indigo buntings (Passerina cyanea) and prairie warblers (S.
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Shrubland and Young Forest Habitat Management
    7. SHRUBLAND AND YOUNG FOREST HABITAT MANAGEMENT hrublands” and “Young Forest” are terms that apply to areas Shrubland habitat and that are transitioning to mature forest and are dominated by young forest differ in “Sseedlings, saplings, and shrubs with interspersed grasses and forbs (herbaceous plants). While some sites such as wetlands, sandy sites vegetation types and and ledge areas can support a relatively stable shrub cover, most shrub communities in the northeast are successional and change rapidly to food and cover they mature forest if left unmanaged. Shrub and young forest habitats in Vermont provide important habitat provide, as well as functions for a variety of wildlife including shrubland birds, butterflies and bees, black bear, deer, moose, snowshoe hare, bobcat, as well as a where and how they variety of reptiles and amphibians. Many shrubland species are in decline due to loss of habitat. Shrubland bird species in Vermont include common are maintained on the species such as chestnut-sided warbler, white-throated sparrow, ruffed grouse, Eastern towhee, American woodcock, brown thrasher, Nashville landscape. warbler, and rarer species such as prairie warbler and golden-winged warbler. These habitat types are used by 29 Vermont Species of Greatest Conservation Need. While small areas of shrub and young forest habitat can be important to some wildlife, managing large patches of 5 acres or more provides much greater benefit to the wildlife that rely on the associated habitat conditions to meet their life requirements. Birds such as the chestnut- sided warbler will use smaller areas of young forest, but less common species such as golden-winged warbler require areas of 25 acres or more.
    [Show full text]
  • DE TTK 1949 Taxonomy and Systematics of the Eurasian
    DE TTK 1949 Taxonomy and systematics of the Eurasian Craniophora Snellen, 1867 species (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Acronictinae) Az eurázsiai Craniophora Snellen, 1867 fajok taxonómiája és szisztematikája (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Acronictinae) PhD thesis Egyetemi doktori (PhD) értekezés Kiss Ádám Témavezető: Prof. Dr. Varga Zoltán DEBRECENI EGYETEM Természettudományi Doktori Tanács Juhász-Nagy Pál Doktori Iskola Debrecen, 2017. Ezen értekezést a Debreceni Egyetem Természettudományi Doktori Tanács Juhász-Nagy Pál Doktori Iskola Biodiverzitás programja keretében készítettem a Debreceni Egyetem természettudományi doktori (PhD) fokozatának elnyerése céljából. Debrecen, 2017. ………………………… Kiss Ádám Tanúsítom, hogy Kiss Ádám doktorjelölt 2011 – 2014. között a fent megnevezett Doktori Iskola Biodiverzitás programjának keretében irányításommal végezte munkáját. Az értekezésben foglalt eredményekhez a jelölt önálló alkotó tevékenységével meghatározóan hozzájárult. Az értekezés elfogadását javasolom. Debrecen, 2017. ………………………… Prof. Dr. Varga Zoltán A doktori értekezés betétlapja Taxonomy and systematics of the Eurasian Craniophora Snellen, 1867 species (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Acronictinae) Értekezés a doktori (Ph.D.) fokozat megszerzése érdekében a biológiai tudományágban Írta: Kiss Ádám okleveles biológus Készült a Debreceni Egyetem Juhász-Nagy Pál doktori iskolája (Biodiverzitás programja) keretében Témavezető: Prof. Dr. Varga Zoltán A doktori szigorlati bizottság: elnök: Prof. Dr. Dévai György tagok: Prof. Dr. Bakonyi Gábor Dr. Rácz István András
    [Show full text]
  • NJ Native Plants - USDA
    NJ Native Plants - USDA Scientific Name Common Name N/I Family Category National Wetland Indicator Status Thermopsis villosa Aaron's rod N Fabaceae Dicot Rubus depavitus Aberdeen dewberry N Rosaceae Dicot Artemisia absinthium absinthium I Asteraceae Dicot Aplectrum hyemale Adam and Eve N Orchidaceae Monocot FAC-, FACW Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle N Agavaceae Monocot Gentianella quinquefolia agueweed N Gentianaceae Dicot FAC, FACW- Rhamnus alnifolia alderleaf buckthorn N Rhamnaceae Dicot FACU, OBL Medicago sativa alfalfa I Fabaceae Dicot Ranunculus cymbalaria alkali buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot OBL Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, FACW Hieracium paniculatum Allegheny hawkweed N Asteraceae Dicot Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkeyflower N Scrophulariaceae Dicot OBL Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny Mountain buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot FACU, FAC Prunus alleghaniensis Allegheny plum N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, NI Amelanchier laevis Allegheny serviceberry N Rosaceae Dicot Hylotelephium telephioides Allegheny stonecrop N Crassulaceae Dicot Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine N Fumariaceae Dicot Centaurea transalpina alpine knapweed N Asteraceae Dicot Potamogeton alpinus alpine pondweed N Potamogetonaceae Monocot OBL Viola labradorica alpine violet N Violaceae Dicot FAC Trifolium hybridum alsike clover I Fabaceae Dicot FACU-, FAC Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood N Cornaceae Dicot Strophostyles helvola amberique-bean N Fabaceae Dicot Puccinellia americana American alkaligrass N Poaceae Monocot Heuchera americana
    [Show full text]
  • A Prairie Ecosystem the Kansas Grassland Biome Is Divided Into Tallgrass, Mixed-Grass, and Shortgrass Prairies
    A Prairie Ecosystem The Kansas grassland biome is divided into tallgrass, mixed-grass, and shortgrass prairies. ​ ​Emporia, KS is located in the Tallgrass prairie ecosystem. Before settlement, the tallgrass prairie occupied a north-south strip which encompassed the eastern third of Kansas. The tallgrass prairie exists today since much the land is not farmable due to terrain (slope, rock layers, soil depth, etc.). The grasses can grow in excess of six feet tall during moist years if they reside in deep soils. The annual precipitation, or rainfall, in this region exceeds 30 inches. The original tallgrass prairie spanned almost 250 million acres. Today, about four percent remains with the largest areas being the Flint Hills of Kansas and the Osage Hills of Oklahoma. Examples of grasses found in tallgrass prairies include big bluestem, indian grass, switchgrass, and eastern gamagrass. The sun is the main source of energy for every living thing on earth. An organism that makes its own food from the sun is called a ​producer​. Examples of producers in the prairie are grasses and wildflowers because they use the sun to make their own food through a process called photosynthesis. An organism that depends on others for food is called a ​consumer​. Examples of consumers in the prairie include coyotes, snakes, mice and prairie chickens because they hunt or scavenge for their food. An organism that breaks down materials in dead organisms is called a decomposer​. Examples of decomposers in the prairie are worms. Recycling happens in the prairie through decomposition. Recycling means to reuse something once it has died or has been thrown away.
    [Show full text]
  • Amurian Zoological Journal IV(1), 2012. 32-49 Published: 30.03
    © Амурский зоологический журнал IV(1), 2012. 32-49 Accepted: 11.03. 2012 УДК 595.783 © Amurian zoological journal IV(1), 2012. 32-49 Published: 30.03. 2012 НОВЫЕ НАХОДКИ НОЧНЫХ МАКРОЧЕШУЕКРЫЛЫХ (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA, MACROHETEROCERA) В БОЛЬШЕХЕХЦИРСКОМ ЗАПОВЕДНИКЕ (ОКРЕСТНОСТИ ХАБАРОВСКА) В 2011 ГОДУ В.В. Дубатолов1, А.М. Долгих2, В.С. Платицын2 [Dubatolov V.V., Dolgikh A.M., Platitsyn V.S. New findings of macromoths (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Macroheterocera) in the Nature Reserve Bolshekhekhtsyrskii (Khabarovsk suburbs) in 2011] 1Сибирский зоологический музей, Институт систематики и экологии животных СО РАН, ул. Фрунзе, 11, Ново- сибирск, 630091, Россия. E-mail: [email protected] 1Siberian Zoological Museum, Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Frunze str., 11, Novosibirsk, 630091, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 2Большехехцирский заповедник, ул. Юбилейная, 8, пос. Бычиха, Хабаровский район, Хабаровский край, 680502, Россия. E-mail: [email protected] 2Nature Reserve Bolshekhekhtsyrskii, Yubileinaya street 8, Bychikha, Khabarovsk District, Khabarovsk, Province, 680502, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Ключевые слова: Макрочешуекрылые, Hepialidae, Limacodidae, Cossidae, Thyatiridae, Drepanidae, Geometridae, Lasiocampidae, Endromididae, Saturniidae, Sphingidae, Notodontidae, Lymantriidae, Arctiidae, Noctuidae, Micronoctuidae, Большехехцирский заповедник, Хехцир, Хабаровск Key words: Macroheterocera, Hepialidae, Limacodidae, Cossidae, Thyatiridae, Drepanidae, Geometridae, Lasiocampidae,
    [Show full text]
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24
    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2018-07-24 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff July 24, 2018 2 Cover image: map of 16,213 georeferenced occurrence records included in the checklist. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 55 Vascular Plants........................................................ 91 Bryophytes ..........................................................164 Other Plants .........................................................171 Chromista...........................................................171 Fungi .............................................................173 Protozoans ..........................................................186 Non-native species 187 Vertebrates ..........................................................187 Invertebrates .........................................................187 Vascular Plants........................................................190 Extirpated species 207 Vertebrates ..........................................................207 Vascular Plants........................................................207 Change log 211 References 213 Index 215 3 Introduction Purpose to avoid implying
    [Show full text]