DOCSLIB.ORG

Survey of Adult Damselflies and Dragonflies (Odonates) in Otsego County Elise Iwanyckyj1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Survey of Adult Damselflies and Dragonflies (Odonates) in Otsego County Elise Iwanyckyj1 Survey of adult damselflies and dragonflies (Odonates) in Otsego County Elise Iwanyckyj1 ABSTRACT During the summer of 2017, a survey of adult Odonata in Otsego County was conducted to re-evaluate the diversity of Odonata in Otsego County. This study was aimed to observe any changes that occurred since the New York State Dragonfly and Damselfly Survey (NYSDDS) was conducted in 2007 (Snyder 2008). This report summarizes the survey of adult Odonata in Otsego County during the summer of 2017. During the same summer, a survey of odonatan naiads was conducted by Scott (2018). For the adult survey, a total of four odonatan families were collected and nine genera were found. The most diverse sampling site was Parslow Road, where six genera were found. The Susquehanna River at Compton Bridge was the least diverse site sampled for adult Odonata. INTRODUCTION The Odonata order includes two suborders: Anisoptera (dragonflies) and Zygoptera (damselflies). There are 5,500 species of Odonata described worldwide with 650 species occurring in North America (Tennessen & Westfall 1996). Odonata are considered to be beneficial predators. With their large compound eyes, adults can target a flying insect and capture it with their mouthparts. These mouthparts are equipped to capture prey such as mosquitos and other pests (Tennessen & Westfall 1996). Adult Odonata also benefit from their wing structure. Wing structure is essential for adult Odonata mobility. This feature is important since most adult Odonata spend a majority of their time in flight in search of food, habitat, or mates. Wing venation is also a key character used in identifying major groups of Odonata (Tennessen & Westfall 1996). A previous study conducted in 2007 surveyed species of the Order Odonata at 14 different sampling sites to contribute to the New York State Dragonfly and Damselfly Survey (NYSDDS) (Snyder 2008). To re-evaluate the diversity of Odonata in Otsego County, a new survey was conducted and completed in the summer of 2017. In this survey, some of the sites sampled in the 2007 report were revisited. Also during the summer of 2017, Scott (2018) conducted a survey of Odonatan naiads at the same locations included in this report. 1 Biological Field Station Intern, Summer 2017. METHODS Samples were collected during the summer of 2017, starting on 20 June and ending on 21 July. Sampling typically ranged from morning to early afternoon on warm and sunny days when Odonata species would be more active (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2017). Table 1 displays the sites and coordinates of each sampling session. These sites were selected to include sites previously surveyed in Snyder (2008). Other sites were selected to include areas located on Otsego Land Trust Properties. Sampling for adult Odonata occurred near forest edges and clearings, along edges of water, and within vegetated areas. Odonates were collected using methods similar to those used in the 2007 New York State Dragonfly and Damselfly Survey (Snyder 2008). Individuals were collected via aerial nets. Once caught in the aerial net, the ends were twisted to confirm capture of individuals. Individuals were then placed in a collection jar containing ethyl acetate or acetone. Upon return to the Biological Field Station, collection jars were placed in a freezer until the individuals were pinned. Individuals were pinned on wooden spreading boards and allowed to dry for 3-4 days. Once they were dry, individuals were removed from the spreading boards and placed in a collection box containing a moth ball. Individuals were sorted into morphotypes and identified using Tennessen & Westfall (1996) and Borror, Triplehorn, & Johnson (1989). Further identification of dragonflies down to genus and some species was achieved using Needham & Westfall (1955). The individuals were then labeled with tags containing information such as the name and coordinates of each site in which the individual was collected, the date of collection, the name of the collector and the genus and/or species. Table 1. Site locations and descriptions used during the 2017 sampling period. Site Dates Coordinates Description Sample Size SUCO Biological Field 7/21/2017 42°43'06.7" N, Meso-oligotrophic lake; 4 Station, Otsego Lake (St. 74°55'33.1" W sandy, gravel, & mud Rt. 80) bottom; algaed water Parslow Road Otsego 6/21/2017 42°44'15.0" N, Newly renovated wetland 8 Land Trust Property 75°00'39.0" W area. Grass fields and stream bank. Parslow Road Otsego 6/26/2017 42°44'19.3" N, Open grass field and stream 13 Land Trust Property 75°00'39.8" W bank. Tree coverage and heavy vegetation along streams. Big pond, Thayer 7/21/2017 42°47'44.9" N, Clear water with mucky 9 Homestead (St. Rt. 80) 74°54'30.9" W bottom; mixed woods & agriculture fields Thayer Ponds 1 & 2, 7/21/2017 42°47'35.0" N, Clear water with mucky 3 Thayer Homestead 74°54'18.5" W bottom; mixed woods & agriculture fields Compton Bridge Otsego 7/5/2017 42°39'41.7" N, Fast moving water, mucky 3 Land Trust Property 74°57'02.2" W bottom. Vegetation along stream mostly trees. Near grass fields. Wetland adjacent to Moe 6/20/2017 42°43'00.5" N, Shallow depths with mucky 13 Pond, SUCO Biological 74°56'54.2" W bottom; mixed woods and Field Station Upper Site old fields RESULTS A total of four odonatan families were collected and nine genera were found (a total of 55 individuals were collected). The taxa found at each site are listed in Table 2. The most diverse sampling site was Parslow Road, where six genera were found. The Susquehanna River at Compton Bridge was the least diverse site sampled for adult odonates. Very few individuals were seen in this area and only two genera were found. Table 2. Adult Odonata survey results of 6 sites, Otsego County, NY, summer 2017. O-Observed S-Specimen collected Otsego Parslow Big Pond Chain Pond Compton Wetland Family Genus Lake Road Thayer Farm Thayer Farm Bridge at Upper Site Calopterygidae Calopteryx S S Coenagrionidae Argia S S Chromagrion S S Coenagrion S Enallagma S S S S S S Zygoptera Nehalennia S S Lestidae Lestes S Libellulidae S S S S Libellula pulchella luctuosa pulchella Sympetrum S S Anisoptera Leucorrhinia S S Plathemis O S O DISCUSSION The most common dragonfly genera found in this study were Calopteryx and Enallagma. The ebony jewelwings (Calopteryx maculata) were most common at Parslow Road where a wetland restoration project was being implemented. Dragonfly species such as the common twelve-spotted skimmers (Libellula pulchella), widow skimmers (Libellula luctuosa), and a few meadowhawks (Sympetrum sp.) were collected from various sites. Although most identification occurred in the lab under a dissecting scope, some genera/species were observed in the field. Common whitetails (Plathemis lydia) were observed at Parslow Road and the wetland adjacent to Moe Pond but were not collected. Scott (2018) conducted a survey of odonatan naiads found during the same period in which the adult Odonata survey of 2017 occurred. Both surveys found individuals belonging to genera Enallagma, Chromagrion, Lestes, Calopteryx, Sympetrum, Leucorrhinia, and Libellula.. The naiad survey found 10 genera not found in the adult survey. These genera include Amphiagrion, Ischnura, Gomphaeschna, Ophiogomphus, Pachydiplax, Celithemis, Somatochlora, Neurocordulia, Dorocordulia, and Epitheta (Scott 2018). Except for Amphiagrion and Ischnura, these genera are part of the suborder Anisoptera (dragonflies). These genera may have been observed and collected more easily in the naiad study, whereas the collection technique for the adult odonatan study was not as successful. In 2007, Snyder surveyed 14 sites in Otsego County (Snyder 2008). In 2017, surveys of odonatan naiads and adults were conducted using four of the same sites to re-evaluate the area. After reviewing the results of the 2007 NYSDDS, similar observations were found in both the adult and naiad odonatan surveys of 2017. At Thayer ponds 1 & 2, Snyder found an Ishnura species and two Libellula species (Snyder 2008). In the 2017 naiad study, odonates belonging to the genera Ishnura and Libellula were identified as well (Scott 2018). In the adult study, Libellula pulchella was also found at Thayer ponds 1 & 2. Near Moe Pond, both 2007 and 2017 studies found Leucorrhinia sp., Libellula sp. and Plathemis sp. in the adult odonatan surveys (Snyder 2008). At the same location in the naiad study, Celithemis sp. and Libellula sp. were found (Scott 2018). On Otsego Lake, the only genus found in common between the 2007 and 2017 adult and naiad studies was the genus Enallagma (Scott 2018). At the Big Pond on the Thayer Farm, both the 2007 and 2017 study found adult Leucorrhinia sp., Libellula luctuosa, and Plathemis sp. (Snyder 2008). The naiad study also found species belonging to the genus Epitheca (Scott 2018). In the 2017 Odonata adult and naiad studies, we found some new genera that were not observed at the same sites in 2007 (Snyder 2008). At Thayer Ponds 1 & 2, both the naiad and adult surveys found genera Enallagma and Sympetrum in 2017 (Scott 2018). At Moe Pond, the naiad survey found genera such as Lestes, Pachidplax, and Sympetrum (Scott 2018). At the same location, the 2017 adult study found genera Chromagrion and Enallagma— none of these genera were found at the same site in 2007 (Snyder 2008). On Otsego Lake, both the naiad and adult surveys of 2017 found species belonging to Enallagma (Scott 2018). At this location, the naiad and adult surveys of 2017 observed different genera as well. Individuals belonging to the genus Gomphaeschna were found in the naiad study, whereas the adult study did not see this genus (Scott 2018). Instead, adults in genera Argia and Nehalennia were observed on Otsego Lake in 2017.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE DRAGONFLIES and DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) of HALTON REGION, ONTARIO an Annotated Checklist 2017
    THE DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) OF HALTON REGION, ONTARIO An annotated checklist 2017 First prepared by Carl J. Rothfels for the Halton NAI 2006 Updated by Brenda Van Ryswyk 2017 INTRODUCTION Jones & Holder 2000); A Preliminary Annotated List of the Odonata of Northern Bruce County The Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) of including Bruce Peninsula National Park (Catling Halton Region have been historically under- et al. 2000b); the surveys of Sandbanks Provincial surveyed, especially when compared with both Park (Catling et al. 2000a; Bree 2001); the surveys odonate work in nearby areas (in 2000 Peel Region of Bon Echo Provincial Park (Bree 2000); and the had 71 documented species, Metropolitan Toronto surveys of Petroglyphs Provincial Park (Bree 2002; had 81, while Halton had only 49 [Catling & Bree 2004b). Brownell 2000]), and with work within Halton on other groups (e.g. birds). Fortunately, Halton was None of these regional and sub-regional works is well positioned to take advantage of the recent within or adjacent to Halton Region, concentrating renaissance in Ontario odonate study, particularly instead on the southern Carolinian Zone and the since 2000. This surge in interest culminated in the southern edge of the Canadian Shield. Since the inclusion of Odonata as one of the fauna groups distribution of odonates can vary significantly surveyed for during the Halton Natural Areas between regions, it is particularly important to fill Inventory (HNAI) in 2003 and 2004. this hole in our current understanding of Ontario odonate distributions. This checklist was first the result of the HNAI field surveys and has since been updated and expanded.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Statewide Seasonal Pool Ecosystem Classification
    Pennsylvania Statewide Seasonal Pool Ecosystem Classification Description, mapping, and classification of seasonal pools, their associated plant and animal communities, and the surrounding landscape April 2009 Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program i Cover photo by: Betsy Leppo, Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program ii Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program is a partnership of: Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and Pennsylvania Game Commission. The project was funded by: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Wild Resource Conservation Program Grant no. WRCP-06187 U.S. EPA State Wetland Protection Development Grant no. CD-973493-01 Suggested report citation: Leppo, B., Zimmerman, E., Ray, S., Podniesinski, G., and Furedi, M. 2009. Pennsylvania Statewide Seasonal Pool Ecosystem Classification: Description, mapping, and classification of seasonal pools, their associated plant and animal communities, and the surrounding landscape. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Pittsburgh, PA. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the following organizations, agencies, and people for their time and support of this project: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Wild Resource Conservation Program (WRCP), who funded this study as part of their effort to encourage protection of wetland resources. Our appreciation to Greg Czarnecki (DCNR-WRCP) and Greg Podniesinski (DCNR-Office of Conservation Science (OCS)), who administered the EPA and WRCP funds for this work. We greatly appreciate the long hours in the field and lab logged by Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC) staff including Kathy Derge Gipe, Ryan Miller, and Amy Myers. To Tim Maret, and Larry Klotz of Shippensburg University, Aura Stauffer of the PA Bureau of Forestry, and Eric Lindquist of Messiah College, we appreciate the advice you provided as we developed this project.
    [Show full text]
  • SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005
    MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AIR AND LAND PROTECTION DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROGRAM Standard Operating Procedures SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005 SOP TITLE: Taxonomic Levels for Macroinvertebrate Identifications WRITTEN BY: Randy Sarver, WQMS, ESP APPROVED BY: Earl Pabst, Director, ESP SUMMARY OF REVISIONS: Changes to reflect new taxa and current taxonomy APPLICABILITY: Applies to Water Quality Monitoring Section personnel who perform community level surveys of aquatic macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams of Missouri . DISTRIBUTION: MoDNR Intranet ESP SOP Coordinator RECERTIFICATION RECORD: Date Reviewed Initials Page 1 of 30 MDNR-WQMS-209 Effective Date: 05/31/05 Page 2 of 30 1.0 GENERAL OVERVIEW 1.1 This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is designed to be used as a reference by biologists who analyze aquatic macroinvertebrate samples from Missouri. Its purpose is to establish consistent levels of taxonomic resolution among agency, academic and other biologists. The information in this SOP has been established by researching current taxonomic literature. It should assist an experienced aquatic biologist to identify organisms from aquatic surveys to a consistent and reliable level. The criteria used to set the level of taxonomy beyond the genus level are the systematic treatment of the genus by a professional taxonomist and the availability of a published key. 1.2 The consistency in macroinvertebrate identification allowed by this document is important regardless of whether one person is conducting an aquatic survey over a period of time or multiple investigators wish to compare results. It is especially important to provide guidance on the level of taxonomic identification when calculating metrics that depend upon the number of taxa.
    [Show full text]
  • Scarlet Bluet Enallagma Pictum
    Natural Heritage Scarlet Bluet & Endangered Species Enallagma pictum Program State Status: Threatened www.mass.gov/nhesp Federal Status: None Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife DESCRIPTION OF ADULT: The Scarlet Bluet is a small, semi-aquatic insect of the order Odonata, suborder Zygoptera (the damselflies), and family Coenagrionidae (pond damsels). Like most damselflies, Scarlet Bluets have large eyes on the sides of the head, short antennae, and four heavily veined wings that are held folded together over the back. The eyes are red with a small red spot behind each eye on the back of the head, which is black. The spots are connected by a thin red bar. The Scarlet Bluet has a long, slender abdomen, composed of ten segments. The abdominal segments are orange below and black above. The male’s thorax (winged and legged section behind the head) is red with black stripes on the “shoulders” and top. Females are Photo © Blair Nikula similar in appearance, but have a duller yellow thorax and thicker abdomens than the males. Scarlet Bluets average just over one inch (26 mm to 29 mm) in length. are blue, with the exception of one yellow, one orange, and one red species. The Eastern Red Damsel SIMILAR SPECIES: The Bluets (genus Enallagma) (Amphiagrion saucium) is also red, but is smaller, and comprise a large group of damselflies, with no fewer the abdomen is entirely red, unlike the Scarlet Bluet, than 20 species in Massachusetts. However, this is the whose abdomen is black above and orange below. The only red Bluet in the Northeast; the majority of bluets Orange Bluet (E.
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware's Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    CHAPTER 1 DELAWARE’S WILDLIFE SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED CHAPTER 1: Delaware’s Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Delaware’s Animal Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 10 State of Knowledge of Delaware’s Species ................................................................................................... 10 Delaware’s Wildlife and SGCN - presented by Taxonomic Group .................................................................. 11 Delaware’s 2015 SGCN Status Rank Tier Definitions................................................................................. 12 TIER 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Mammals ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission Seattlenwf
    DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES IN RELATION TO PONDFISH CULTURE, WITH A LIST OF THOSE FOUND NEAR FAIRPORT, IOWA· ,;t. By Charles Branch Wilson, Ph. D. State Normal School, Department oi Science, Westfield, Mass. Contribution from the U. S. Fisheries Biological Station, Fairport, Iowa x8x FOREWORD. The accompanying paper by Prof. Charles Branch Wilson, concerning a group of common insects in relation to fish culture, merits a special comment. The author has not confined himself to a mere list of dragonflies and damselflies or to the recording of observations regarding their distribution, abundance, habits, and life history. He has supplied such necessary information, but, more important from the point of view of the Bureau of Fisheries, he has treated these insects fully and judiciously in their relations to fish, and thus in their relations to the food supply and welfare of man. We know that some insects, through destruction of crops and property or through injurious effect upon public health, are to be classed as insidious enemies of humanity and to be combated in every possible way; but there are others which we have learned to class as allies in the struggle for existence, since they make it possible for us to have useful articles of food and clothing, or are destructive to enemy insects. There are many insects of several orders, including the dragonflies and damselflies, which, before they begin to fly, spend a long period of existence in the water where they have direct or indirect relations to the useful fishes. The attitude assumed toward any of these must depend on whether they are found to beuseful or harmful to fishes and to man.
    [Show full text]
  • Prioritizing Odonata for Conservation Action in the Northeastern USA
    APPLIED ODONATOLOGY Prioritizing Odonata for conservation action in the northeastern USA Erin L. White1,4, Pamela D. Hunt2,5, Matthew D. Schlesinger1,6, Jeffrey D. Corser1,7, and Phillip G. deMaynadier3,8 1New York Natural Heritage Program, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 625 Broadway 5th Floor, Albany, New York 12233-4757 USA 2Audubon Society of New Hampshire, 84 Silk Farm Road, Concord, New Hampshire 03301 USA 3Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 650 State Street, Bangor, Maine 04401 USA Abstract: Odonata are valuable biological indicators of freshwater ecosystem integrity and climate change, and the northeastern USA (Virginia to Maine) is a hotspot of odonate diversity and a region of historical and grow- ing threats to freshwater ecosystems. This duality highlights the urgency of developing a comprehensive conser- vation assessment of the region’s 228 resident odonate species. We offer a prioritization framework modified from NatureServe’s method for assessing conservation status ranks by assigning a single regional vulnerability metric (R-rank) reflecting each species’ degree of relative extinction risk in the northeastern USA. We calculated the R-rank based on 3 rarity factors (range extent, area of occupancy, and habitat specificity), 1 threat factor (vulnerability of occupied habitats), and 1 trend factor (relative change in range size). We combine this R-rank with the degree of endemicity (% of the species’ USA and Canadian range that falls within the region) as a proxy for regional responsibility, thereby deriving a list of species of combined vulnerability and regional management responsibility. Overall, 18% of the region’s odonate fauna is imperiled (R1 and R2), and peatlands, low-gradient streams and seeps, high-gradient headwaters, and larger rivers that harbor a disproportionate number of these species should be considered as priority habitat types for conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Checklist of the Damselflies of Virginia, with Notes on Distribution and Seasonality (Odonata: Zygoptera)
    Banisteria, Number 4, 1994 © 1994 by the Virginia Natural History Society A Preliminary Checklist of the Damselflies of Virginia, with Notes on Distribution and Seasonality (Odonata: Zygoptera) Steven M. Roble Division of Natural Heritage Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 1500. E. Main Street, Suite 312 Richmond, VA 23219 Virginia has a diverse fauna of aquatic insects, ginia's boundaries occurred in 1862 (R. L. Hoffman, pers. although much additional inventory is needed to fully comm.), subsequent authors (e.g., Muttkowski, 1910; catalog this diversity. Species new to science continue to Needham & Heywood, 1929) failed to account for it in be discovered in the state (e.g., Kondratieff & Kirchner, their range descriptions for several species. Valid Virginia 1994). The aquatic groups treated in the "Insects of records have since been published for all but one (Isch- Virginia" series to date are limited to the true bugs and nura prognata) of these species. several families of beetles and flies (Bobb, 1974; Gladney The following annotated checklist of the state's & Turner, 1969; Matta, 1974, 1976; Michael & Matta, damselfly fauna should be considered as preliminary. I 1977; Pechuman, 1973). Species checklists have been have not conducted an exhaustive search of available compiled for the stoneflies (Kondratieff & Voshell, 1979; collections in preparing this list. In addition to published Kondratieff & Kirchner, 1987), mayflies (Kondratieff & records, my sources are primarily limited to the collection Voshell, 1983), caddisflies (Parker & Voshell, 1981), and of the United States National Museum of Natural dragonflies (Carle, 1978, 1979, 1982) of the state. The History, Washington, D.C. (abbreviated as USNM present contribution is the first attempt to publish a hereafter) and specimens collected statewide from 1988- comprehensive list of the damselfly species known from 1994 by the zoological staff of the Division of Natural Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Investigation of the Arthropod Fauna of Quitobaquito Springs Area, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona
    COOPERATIVE NATIONAL PARK RESOURCES STUDIES UNIT UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 125 Biological Sciences (East) Bldg. 43 Tucson, Arizona 85721 R. Roy Johnson, Unit Leader National Park Senior Research Scientist TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 23 A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE ARTHROPOD FAUNA OF QUITOBAQUITO SPRINGS AREA, ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA KENNETH J. KINGSLEY, RICHARD A. BAILOWITZ, and ROBERT L. SMITH July 1987 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE/UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA National Park Service Project Funds CONTRIBUTION NUMBER CPSU/UA 057/01 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 Methods............................................................................................................................................1 Results ............................................................................................................................................2 Discussion......................................................................................................................................20 Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................22 Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................23 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Insects Collected at Quitobaquito Springs ...................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Williamsonia
    WILLIAMSONIA Vol. 2 No. 4 Fall, 1998 A publication of the Michigan Odonata Survey ANOTHER GOOD YEAR! through his property. It was a real eye-opener for _________________________________________________________________me to see the habitat of this seldom-collected Cordulegaster. Mark O'Brien Carl continues to observe, photograph, and collect Collecting season_________________________________________________________________ is over -- but the work is just odonates, and I am sure he will come up with a beginning! Now that fall is finally upon us, it seems bunch of new county records. I also hoping that like summer ran from May 1 to Sept. 30. The red he'll expand his art repertoire to include color in the leaves matched the dashing males of dragonflies! Sympetrum that still held out as reminders of the Enallagma civile glories of summer. Those last The really big addition this year came from added a dash of blue to the edge of ponds, flying Stephen B. Ross in Mecosta Co. Stephen is writing in tandem as if it were the height of the season for a book about the natural history of Mecosta Co., them. What a season it has been! With several and naturally, he started collecting Odonata this collectors in the northern lower peninsula, and a spring and took photos of the living specimens number of great collecting trips in the south, the whenever possible. Stephen has probably added MOS has really made some good progress this year. another 20 species to the list for his county through I think the key point to made from this season is to his efforts, and really extended the known range of not get complacent about what's in your Ischnura kellicotti.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland
    List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland December 2016 Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Larry Hogan, Governor Mark Belton, Secretary Wildlife & Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Tawes State Office Building, E-1 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 410-260-8540 Fax 410-260-8596 dnr.maryland.gov Additional Telephone Contact Information: Toll free in Maryland: 877-620-8DNR ext. 8540 OR Individual unit/program toll-free number Out of state call: 410-260-8540 Text Telephone (TTY) users call via the Maryland Relay The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with disability. Cover photo: A mating pair of the Appalachian Jewelwing (Calopteryx angustipennis), a rare damselfly in Maryland. (Photo credit, James McCann) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Maryland Department of Natural Resources would like to express sincere appreciation to the many scientists and naturalists who willingly share information and provide their expertise to further our mission of conserving Maryland’s natural heritage. Publication of this list is made possible by taxpayer donations to Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay and Endangered Species Fund. Suggested citation: Maryland Natural Heritage Program. 2016. List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401. 03-1272016-633. INTRODUCTION The following list comprises 514 native Maryland animals that are among the least understood, the rarest, and the most in need of conservation efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation Guide to the DRAFT
    2015 Implementation Guide to the DRAFT As Prescribed by The Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the State Wildlife Grant Program Illinois Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Implementation Guide Table of Contents I. Acknowledgments IG 1 II. Foreword IG 2 III. Introduction IG 3 IV. Species in Greatest Conservation Need SGCN 8 a. Table 1. SummaryDRAFT of Illinois’ SGCN by taxonomic group SGCN 10 V. Conservation Opportunity Areas a. Description COA 11 b. What are Conservation Opportunity Areas COA 11 c. Status as of 2015 COA 12 d. Ways to accomplish work COA 13 e. Table 2. Summary of the 2015 status of individual COAs COA 16 f. Table 3. Importance of conditions for planning and implementation COA 17 g. Table 4. Satisfaction of conditions for planning and implementation COA 18 h. Figure 1. COAs currently recognized through Illinois Wildlife Action Plan COA 19 i. Figure 2. Factors that contribute or reduce success of management COA 20 j. Figure 3. Intersection of COAs with Campaign focus areas COA 21 k. References COA 22 VI. Campaign Sections Campaign 23 a. Farmland and Prairie i. Description F&P 23 ii. Goals and Current Status as of 2015 F&P 23 iii. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat F&P 27 iv. Focal Species F&P 30 v. Actions F&P 32 vi. Focus Areas F&P 38 vii. Management Resources F&P 40 viii. Performance Measures F&P 42 ix. References F&P 43 x. Table 5. Breeding Bird Survey Data F&P 45 xi. Figure 4. Amendment to Mason Co. Sands COA F&P 46 xii.
    [Show full text]