DOCSLIB.ORG

App B APB Pine Barrens Viability Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
App B APB Pine Barrens Viability Assessment Appendix B. Albany Pine Bush Pine Barrens Viability Assessment Albany Pine Bush Pine Barrens Viability Assessment Quantifiable indicators of pine barrens size and extent, fragmentation and edge effects, prescribed fire regime, and biotic patterns Prepared for: Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission Prepared by: Jason Bried Preserve Ecologist And Neil Gifford Conservation Director November 2008 Albany Pine Bush Pine Barrens Viability Assessment November 2008 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 3 I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 4 Planning & Conservation Target .......................................................................... 4 Albany Pine Bush .................................................................................................. 6 Coarse vs. Fine Filter Monitoring ........................................................................ 8 Assessment Framework ......................................................................................... 8 Literature Cited................................................................................................................. 12 II. Size & Extent .............................................................................................................. 17 Habitat amount .................................................................................................... 18 Patch size ............................................................................................................. 20 Core area ............................................................................................................. 22 Suitable Karner blue butterfly habitat ................................................................. 24 Summary Table ................................................................................................................ 26 Literature Cited................................................................................................................. 27 III. Fragmentation & Edge Effects................................................................................ 33 Patchiness ............................................................................................................ 34 Patch isolation distance ...................................................................................... 35 Perimeter/area ratio ............................................................................................ 36 Edge effects ......................................................................................................... 37 Summary Table ................................................................................................................ 41 Literature Cited................................................................................................................. 42 IV. Prescribed Fire Regime ............................................................................................ 48 Refugia ................................................................................................................ 49 Individual fire size ............................................................................................... 50 Return interval ..................................................................................................... 53 Seasonality .......................................................................................................... 57 Summary Table ................................................................................................................ 59 Literature Cited................................................................................................................. 60 V. Biotic Patterns ............................................................................................................ 67 Cover of pitch pine and scrub oaks ..................................................................... 67 Floristic tolerance of human activity .................................................................. 69 Invasive plant impact........................................................................................... 71 Reduction of priority invasive vegetation ............................................................ 72 Characteristic rare Lepidoptera ......................................................................... 73 Shrubland birds ................................................................................................... 75 Summary Table ................................................................................................................ 78 Literature Cited................................................................................................................. 79 VI. Other Potential Attributes ....................................................................................... 88 Ants ...................................................................................................................... 88 Fire severity ......................................................................................................... 88 Frost pockets ....................................................................................................... 89 Herpetofauna ....................................................................................................... 89 Mammals ............................................................................................................. 89 Robber flies ......................................................................................................... 89 Literature Cited................................................................................................................. 90 2 Albany Pine Bush Pine Barrens Viability Assessment November 2008 Acknowledgements Participants of the November 2004 planning workshop (see p. 5) la id the foundation for this project. The workshop was organized by Stephanie Gifford and funded by the New York State Biodiversity Research Institute and the Northeast Fire Learning Network. Bob Collin did the artwork that graces the cover. 3 Albany Pine Bush Pine Barrens Viability Assessment November 2008 I. INTRODUCTION Temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands form the most highly altered and least protected terrestrial biome (Hoekstra et al. 2005). In the northeastern U.S., shrublands dominated by pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and scrub oaks (Quercus ilicifolia, Q. prinoides) are in rapid decline and among the highest priorities for conservation (Noss et al. 1995, Neill 2007). A motley assortment of inland pine barrens are scattered from Pennsylvania to Maine on coarse sand deposits or bare rock outcrops (Seischab & Bernard 1991). Prime examples include the Pocono Plateau of Pennsylvania, Albany Pine Bush in New York, Montague Sand Plain in Massachusetts, Concord and Ossipee barrens of New Hampshire, and Waterboro barrens in Maine (Forman 1979, Latham et al. 1996, Motzkin et al. 1996, Finton 1998, Copenheaver et al. 2000). Many rare, threatened or endangered species depend on the region‟s shrublands and barrens (Dettmers 2003, Latham 2003, Wagner et al. 2003). The primary threat to these early successional communities is repression of frequent disturbances such as fire and land clearing for agriculture (Lorimer & White 2003). In human dominated regions like the northeastern U.S., active management is often necessary to maintain natural systems and taxa dependent on disturbance (DeGraaf & Yamasaki 2003, Scott et al. 2005). The science and practice of simulating disturbance for restoring northeastern U.S. shrublands has greatly matured [see Biological Conservation 136(1) and Forest Ecology and Management 185(1-2)], but far less is known or documented about measuring the resulting trajectories. This is despite general recognition that monitoring assessments may link restoration activity to more effective conservation decisions (Stem et al. 2005, Nichols & Williams 2006, Lovett et al. 2007). The Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission is interested in creating a biological monitoring system scaled to its pine barrens landscape management. To do this, Commission scientists have proposed quantifiable indicators of pine barrens size and extent, fragmentation and edge effects, prescribed fire regime, and biodiversity patterns. Together these indicators offer a viability assessment framework for estimating ambient status and restoration progress in the globally rare pitch pine-scrub oak community type. The Albany Pine Bush is the focal site for the proposed assessment, but the general model and much of the specifics are applicable to other northeastern U.S. pine barrens and sand plains. Planning & Conservation Target The project was enabled by funding from the New York State Biodiversity Research Institute awarded to the Eastern New York Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, and by funding from the Northeast Fire Learning Network awarded to the Conservancy‟s Shawangunk Ridge Program. The North American Fire Learning Network is a cooperative project of The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. 4 Albany Pine Bush Pine Barrens Viability Assessment November 2008 Department of Interior, and tries to promote ecologically appropriate fuels reduction and restoration projects at local and national levels. An initial planning workshop, “Preparing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bogbean Buckmoth (Hemileuca Sp.) in Canada
    PROPOSED Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series Adopted under Section 44 of SARA Recovery Strategy for the Bogbean Buckmoth (Hemileuca sp.) in Canada Bogbean Buckmoth 2015 1 Recommended citation: Environment Canada. 2015. Recovery Strategy for the Bogbean Buckmoth (Hemileuca sp.) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. 18 pp. + Appendix. For copies of the recovery strategy, or for additional information on species at risk, including COSEWIC Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk Public Registry1. Cover illustration: © Don Cuddy Également disponible en français sous le titre « Programme de rétablissement de l’hémileucin du ményanthe (Hemileuca sp.) au Canada [Proposition] » © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment, 2015. All rights reserved. ISBN Catalogue no. Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. 1 http://sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=24F7211B-1 RECOVERY STRATEGY FOR THE BOGBEAN BUCKMOTH (Hemileuca sp.) IN CANADA 2015 Under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996), the federal, provincial, and territorial governments agreed to work together on legislation, programs, and policies to protect wildlife species at risk throughout Canada. In the spirit of cooperation of the Accord, the Government of Ontario has given permission to the Government of Canada to adopt the Recovery Strategy for Bogbean Buckmoth (Hemileuca sp.) in Ontario (Part 2) under Section 44 of the Species at Risk Act. Environment Canada has included an addition (Part 1) which completes the SARA requirements for this recovery strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Orange Garden Club Records, 1923-2007, MG
    MG 237 Page 1 A Guide to the Fort Orange Garden Club Records Collection Summary Collection Title: Fort Orange Garden Club Records Call Number: MG 237 Creator: Fort Orange Garden Club Inclusive Dates: 1923-2007 Bulk Dates: Abstract: Contains material regarding the Fort Orange Garden Club such as minutes and reports from meetings, genealogies, general histories, personal histories, membership lists, projects, flower shows, public works, newspaper articles, awards, magazines, scrapbooks, maps, memorabilia, photographs, and slides. Quantity: 21 boxes (Boxes 1-12 files, 13-15 photos, 16 slim file, 17-19 slides, 20 & 21 oversized) Administrative Information Custodial History: Preferred Citation: Fort Orange Garden Club Records Albany Institute of History & Art Library, New York. Acquisition Information: Accession #: Accession Date: Processing Information: Processed by Daniel M. Hart; completed on November 23, 2013 Restrictions Restrictions on Access: None MG 237 Page 2 Restrictions on Use: Permission to publish material must be obtained in writing prior to publication from the Chief Librarian & Archivist, Albany Institute of History & Art, 125 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12210. Index Term Persons Becker, John A., Mrs. (see Thompson, Lenden, Joanne Martha, Ms.) Lehman, Orin Beebe, Richard T., Mrs. (Jean) Mahar, Edward F., Mrs. (Christie) Bourdillon, Jacques, Mrs. (Margaret) McKinney, Laurence, Mrs. (Alice) Corning, Betty Meserve, Kathleen K. Corning II, Erastus, Mrs. (Elizabeth Platt Mosher, John Fayette, Mrs. (Helen) Corning) Oberting, Suzanne Crary, Grace Palmer, Edward DeLancy, Mrs. Crummey, Edward J., Mrs. (Betty) (Melissa) Darling, A. Graeme, Mrs. (Marie) Pruyn, Robert C., Mrs. (Anna) DeGraff, John T., Mrs. (Harriett) Reynolds, Nancy Devitt, Robert, Mrs. (Carol) Rockwell, Richard C., Mrs. (Marge) Douglas, Richard A., Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Kings Highway Barrens # K
    Barrens Kings Highway Pine Bush Preserve Albany Green Trail – 2.1 miles –2.1 Trail Green miles –1.2 Red Trail adjacent tothispartofthepreserve. linked AlbanyandSchenectadyislocated beyond. ThehistoricKingsHighwaythat stateand habitattypeinNewYork a rare high quality pine barrens vernal ponds, severalsmallbut trailare east ofthered Well native prairiesfoundinthisregion. aswellthe invasive blacklocustforests native pitchpine-oak andhighly forests A looptrailallowsvisitorstoenjoyboth Kings Barrens Highway Trailhead #9 Trailhead Photo by Kirstin Russell This gently rolling sand-plain is home to a unique variety of rare plants and animals including the federally endangered Karner plants and animalsincludingthefederallyendangered bluebutterfly. sand-plainishometoauniquevarietyofrare This gentlyrolling intheworld. examplesofaninlandpinebarrens The AlbanyPineBushisoneofthebestremaining totheAlbanyPineBushPreserve Welcome Great Blue Heron # # # # # # # # little # 0.96# # brown bat # # 81 # # # # # # # # # # Kings Rd # # 80 # # # # # # # # # # # # # three way # sedge # # # # 82 # # # # # hognose snake # # D# # # # # 9 # # 0.24 # Kings Highway # # 84 # # # Barrens # # # # # D 83 k k k k k Curry Rd Ex k k t Gilmore k Te fisher r k k k k k 85 r k Te Ryan Pl k N Dennis k k k k k 86 W E k k k S k k LEGEND k Rifle Range Rd k Albany Pine Bush Trails k Red k k 1.18 big bluestem k Green k k Indian grass k k & Trailhead 87 k k Trail Segment Distances (miles) k k Numbered Trail Locations k Interstate Highway 90 k k Other Roads k k 88 Railroads k Kings Rd Power Lines k I 90 Albany Pine Bush Lands k k Wetlands Oak eeTr Ln k Lakes, Ponds k 5 Foot Contours k k E Old State Rd k Kings Ct Truax Trail 89 k k Barrens k E k k Ly dius St k k k 12 D k k k k k k k k.
    [Show full text]
  • State Overview and Ecological Framework Table IN2. Oklahoma's
    24 Table IN2. Oklahoma's Species of Greatest Conservation Need Cross-referenced by Region grass - Cross Prairie Prairie Prairie WGCP Ozarks Timbers Tallgrass Taxonomic Ouachita Mountains Shortgrass Mixed Common Name Group Large Rivers Bird-voiced Treefrog Amphibian X (Hyla avivoca) Crawfish Frog Amphibian X X X X (Lithobates areolata) Four-toed Salamander Amphibian X (Hemidactylium scutatum) Green Toad Amphibian X X X (Anaxyrus debilis) Grotto Salamander Amphibian X (Eurycea spelaeus) Hurter's Spadefoot Amphibian X X (Scaphiopus hurterii) Kiamichi Slimy Salamander Amphibian X (Plethodon kiamichi) Lesser Siren Amphibian X X (Siren intermedia) Many-ribbed Salamander Amphibian X (Eurycea multiplicata) Mole Salamander Amphibian X (Ambystoma talpoideum) Oklahoma Salamander Amphibian X (Eurycea tynerensis) Ouachita Dusky Salamander Amphibian X (Desmognathus brimleyorum) Ozark Zigzag Salamander Amphibian X (Plethodon angusticlavius) Rich Mountain Salamander Amphibian X (Plethodon ouachitae) Ringed Salamander Amphibian X X (Ambystoma annulatum) Sequoyah Slimy Salamander Amphibian X (Plethodon sequoyah) Southern Red-backed Amphibian X Salamander (Plethodon serratus) Texas Toad Amphibian X (Anaxyrus speciosus) Three-toed Amphiuma Amphibian X (Amphiuma tridactylum) American Golden Plover Bird X X X X X X X (Pluvialis dominica) American Woodcock Bird X X X X X (Scolopax minor) Bachman's Sparrow Bird X X X X (Aimophila aestivalis) Baird's Sparrow Bird X X (Ammodramus bairdii) State Overview and Ecological Framework 25 grass - ntains Cross Large Rivers
    [Show full text]
  • Here It Gradually Loses Elevation Approaching Lake Awosting
    DRAFT Sam’s Point Preserve Master Plan May 30, 2009 Draft Master Plan Sam’s Point Preserve Cragsmoor, New York Prepared by: The Nature Conservancy Open Space Institute Sam’s Point Advisory Council Completed: (May 30, 2009) Contacts: Cara Lee, Shawangunk Ridge Program Director ([email protected] ) Heidi Wagner, Preserve Manager ([email protected] ) Gabriel Chapin, Forest and Fire Ecologist ([email protected] ) The Nature Conservancy Eastern New York Chapter Sam’s Point Preserve PO Box 86 Cragsmoor, NY 12420 Phone: 845-647-7989 or 845-255-9051 Fax: 845-255-9623 Paul Elconin ([email protected]) Open Space Institute 1350 Broadway, Suite 201 New York, NY 10018 Phone: 212-629-3981 Fax: 212-244-3441 ii Table of Contents Table of Contents ii List of Tables iii List of Figures and Maps iv List of Appendices v Acknowledgments vi Executive Summary vii Introduction A. The Northern Shawangunk Mountains 1 B. A Community Based Conservation Approach 4 C. History of Sam’s Point Preserve 4 D. Regional Context - Open Space Protection and Local Government 7 I. Natural Resource Information A. Geology and Soils 10 B. Vegetation and Natural Communities 11 C. Wildlife and Rare Species 15 II. Mission and Goals A. Mission Statement 18 B. Conservation Goals 19 C. Programmatic Goals 20 D. Land Protection Goals 20 III. Infrastructure A. Facilities Plan 26 B. Roads and Parking Areas 27 C. Trails 32 D. Signage, Kiosks and Access Points 35 E. Ice Caves Trail 36 iii IV. Ecological Management and Research A. Fire Management 38 B. Exotic and Invasive Species Control 42 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinus Echinata Shortleaf Pine
    PinusPinus echinataechinata shortleafshortleaf pinepine by Dr. Kim D. Coder, Professor of Tree Biology & Health Care Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia One of the most widespread pines of the Eastern United Sates is Pinus echinata, shortleaf pine. Shortleaf pine was identified and named in 1768. The scientific name means a “prickly pine cone tree.” Other common names for shortleaf pine include shortstraw pine, yellow pine, Southern yellow pine, shortleaf yellow pine, Arkansas soft pine, Arkansas pine, and old field pine. Among all the Southern yellow pines it has the greatest range and is most tolerant of a variety of sites. Shortleaf pine grows Southeast of a line between New York and Texas. It is widespread in Georgia except for coastal coun- ties. Note the Georgia range map figure. Pinus echinata is found growing in many mixtures with other pines and hardwoods. It tends to grow on medium to dry, well-drained, infertile sites, as compared with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). It grows quickly in deep, well-drained areas of floodplains, but cannot tolerate high pH and high calcium concentrations. Compared with other Southern yellow pines, shortleaf is less demanding of soil oxygen content and essential element availability. It grows in Hardiness Zone 6a - 8b and Heat Zone 6-9. The lowest number of Hardiness Zone tends to delineate the Northern range limit and the largest Heat Zone number tends to define the South- ern edge of the range. This native Georgia pine grows in Coder Tree Grow Zone (CTGZ) A-D (a mul- tiple climatic attribute based map), and in the temperature and precipitation cluster based Coder Tree Planting Zone 1-6.
    [Show full text]
  • Acronicta Euphorbiae ([Den. & Schiff.], 1775) Beobachtung, Kenntnisstand Und Zucht (Insecta: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae)
    ©Kreis Nürnberger Entomologen; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Acronicta euphorbiae ([Den. & Schiff.], 1775) Beobachtung, Kenntnisstand und Zucht (Insecta: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) R u d o l f F r ie d r ic h T a n n e r t Zusammenfassung: Der Verfasser schildert seine Erfahrungen mit Acronicta euphorbiae ([Den. & Schiff.], 1775). Angesprochen werden auch die aus ein­ schlägiger Literatur gewonnenen Kenntnisse, sowie Erfahrungen mit verschiedenen erfolgreichen aber auch weniger erfolgreichen Zuchten der Art. Abstract: The author informs about his experiences in raising Acronicta euphorbiae ([Den. & Schiff.], 1775), especially about the problem to find the right feeding plant for the Caterpillars. Advices in the basic literature proved to be wrong. Key Words: Noctuidae, Acronicta euphorbiae Namen und Verbreitung Nach neuerer Nomenklatur (K a rsholt & Ra zo w sk i , 1996) trägt die Art den im Titel genannten Namen Acronicta euphorbiae ([Den. & Schiff.], 1775.) In K o ch , 1991 heißt sieAcronycta euphorbiae F., in FÖRSTER & W ohlfah rt , 1979, Pharetra euphorbiae Schiff., weitere frühere Benennungen lauteten Apatele euphorbiae Schiff., Acronycta euphrasiae Brahm, Chamaepora euphorbiae F.. Sicher fanden sich noch einige andere. In „Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs“, Band 6, Nachtfalter IV, 1997, lautet der deutsche Name „Wolfsmilch-Rindeneule“ A. euphorbiae ist west-palaearktisch verbreitet. In Europa ist sie nach K. & R. aus nahezu allen Ländern gemeldet. Ob sie in Luxemburg, Ungarn und Griechenland vorkommt ist unbekannt. Allerdings liegen Meldungen aus Belgien und den Niederlanden, sowie aus den Ungarn und Griechenland umgebenden Ländern vor. Daher kann angenommen werden, dass die Art in 31 Luxemburg wie auch©Kreis NürnbergerUngarn Entomologen; und Griechenland download unter www.biologiezentrum.at verbreitet ist.
    [Show full text]
  • Important Food Plants for Backyard Songbirds of the Catskills
    Important Food Plants for Backyard Songbirds of the Catskills Woody Plants ****25-50%, ***10-25% of diet **5-10%, *2-5&% of diet 0.5-2% of diet Maples Box-elder Acer negundo Evening Grosbeak **** Coccothraustes vespertinus American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Moosewood Acer pensylvanicum Purple Finch * Carpodacus purpureus Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (sap) Sphyrapicus varius Red Maple Acer rubrum Rose-breasted Grosbeak * Pheucticus ludovicianus Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Red-breasted Nuthatch * Sitta canadensis Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Mountain Maple Acer spicatum Serviceberries Downy Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea Cedar Waxwing * Bombicilla cedrorum Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Shadblow Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis Veery * Catharus fuscescens Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Smooth Serviceberry Amelanchier laevis Hermit Thrush * Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Running Serviceberry Amelanchier stolonifera Gray Catbird * Dumetella carolinensis Northern Flicker Coraptes auratus Baltimore Oriole * Icterus galbula American Crow Corvus brachyrhyncos Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottus Eastern Towhee Papilo erythrophthalmus Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufin American Robin Turdus migratorius Aralias Bristly Sarsparilla
    [Show full text]
  • February/March 2021 NYS Conservationist Magazine
    NEW YORK STATE $3.50 FEBRUARY/MARCH 2021 MovingMa\,inga a MMOOSEQOSE Getting Outdoors in Winter Counting the Fish in the Sea Winter’s Beauty CONSERVATIONIST Dear Readers, Volume 75, Number 4 | February/March 2021 During these challenging times, Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York State I encourage you to take advantage DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION of the opportunities we have to Basil Seggos, Commissioner enjoy nature. For some people, Erica Ringewald, Deputy Commissioner for Public Affairs Harold Evans, Director of Office of Communication Services this time of year provides a THE CONSERVATIONIST STAFF chance to enjoy various outdoor Eileen C. Stegemann, Managing Editor winter adventures, while others Peter Constantakes, Assistant Editor look forward to the coming Tony Colyer-Pendas, Assistant Editor Megan Ciotti, Business Manager change of season, with warming Jeremy J. Taylor, Editor, Conservationist for Kids temperatures, the disappearance Rick Georgeson, Contributing Editor of snow, and di˜erent ways to get outside. DESIGN TEAM In this issue, we highlight some amazing photos of Andy Breedlove, Photographer/Designer Jim Clayton, Chief, Multimedia Services New°York’s winter beauty and celebrate a great winter Mark Kerwin, Art Director/Graphic Designer sport—snowmobiling—which can be enjoyed on more than Robin-Lucie Kuiper, Photographer/Designer 10,000 miles of trails throughout the state (pg. 12). You can Mary Elizabeth Maguire, Graphic Designer Jennifer Peyser, Graphic Designer also read about a native Floridian who moved to New York Maria VanWie, Graphic Designer and learned to cross country ski – and how that changed his EDITORIAL OFFICES view of the heavy snowfall we experienced this winter.
    [Show full text]
  • The Taxonomic Report of the INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY
    Volume 8 Number 5 1 April, 2020 The Taxonomic Report OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY ISSN 2643-4776 (print) / ISSN 2643-4806 (online) A phenotypic comparison of regional populations of Hemileuca maia (Drury, 1773) with designations of new subspecies (Bombycoidea, Saturniidae, Hemileucinae). Harry Pavulaan 606 Hunton Place NE Leesburg, VA. 20176 [email protected] ABSTRACT. Following refinement of the type locality of Hemileuca maia to the Long Island Pine Barrens of New York State by the author (Pavulaan, 2020), an evaluation of phenotypic characters of regional populations of H. maia is presented. The Long Island population is the nominotypical subspecies. Populations in southeastern coastal New England and offshore islands are presently considered nominotypical maia. However, several continental inland populations show evidence of subspecific variation. Four new subspecies are designated. Detailed phenotypic information of other interior regions is lacking. Additional key words: Pitch Pine Barrens, Scrub Oak Plains, isolate, Menyanthes trifoliata. ZooBank registration: urn:1sid:zoobank.org:pub:3595D21C-4FDE-4336-A588-4E68195E1118 INTRODUCTION The Buckmoths of North America are a bewildering blend of intergrading phenotypes that have been the subject of numerous studies (Ferguson, 1971; Tuskeset al., 1996; Rubinoffet al., 2017; Dupuiset al., 2018). Results of these studies are inconclusive over where to draw taxonomc limits. Michener (1952) proposed a subdivision of genus Hemileuca into four subgenera: Hemileuca (Walker, 1855), Pseudohazis (Grote & Robinson, 1866), Euleucophaeus (Packard, 1872) and Argyrauges (Grote, 1882). Nestled within subgenus Hemileuca is the Hemileuca maia complex, presently considered to be a closely- related group of species and unnamed populations of species H. maia. This group is characterized by variation in ground color (gray to black), bold median bands (white to yellow), and scale translucence.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE ERICACEAE (Heath Family) A family of about 107 genera and 3400 species, primarily shrubs, small trees, and subshrubs, nearly cosmopolitan. The Ericaceae is very important in our area, with a great diversity of genera and species, many of them rather narrowly endemic. Our area is one of the north temperate centers of diversity for the Ericaceae. Along with Quercus and Pinus, various members of this family are dominant in much of our landscape. References: Kron et al. (2002); Wood (1961); Judd & Kron (1993); Kron & Chase (1993); Luteyn et al. (1996)=L; Dorr & Barrie (1993); Cullings & Hileman (1997). Main Key, for use with flowering or fruiting material 1 Plant an herb, subshrub, or sprawling shrub, not clonal by underground rhizomes (except Gaultheria procumbens and Epigaea repens), rarely more than 3 dm tall; plants mycotrophic or hemi-mycotrophic (except Epigaea, Gaultheria, and Arctostaphylos). 2 Plants without chlorophyll (fully mycotrophic); stems fleshy; leaves represented by bract-like scales, white or variously colored, but not green; pollen grains single; [subfamily Monotropoideae; section Monotropeae]. 3 Petals united; fruit nodding, a berry; flower and fruit several per stem . Monotropsis 3 Petals separate; fruit erect, a capsule; flower and fruit 1-several per stem. 4 Flowers few to many, racemose; stem pubescent, at least in the inflorescence; plant yellow, orange, or red when fresh, aging or drying dark brown ...............................................Hypopitys 4 Flower solitary; stem glabrous; plant white (rarely pink) when fresh, aging or drying black . Monotropa 2 Plants with chlorophyll (hemi-mycotrophic or autotrophic); stems woody; leaves present and well-developed, green; pollen grains in tetrads (single in Orthilia).
    [Show full text]
  • TWO NEW SPECIES of MOTHS (NOCTUIDAE: ACRONICTINAE, CUCULLIINAE) from MIDLAND UNITED STATES Since Their Origins, the Ohio Lepidop
    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 46(3), 1992, 220-232 TWO NEW SPECIES OF MOTHS (NOCTUIDAE: ACRONICTINAE, CUCULLIINAE) FROM MIDLAND UNITED STATES CHARLES y, COVELL JR. Department of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292 AND ERIC H. METZLER Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1952 Belcher Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43224 ABSTRACT. Two new species of noctuid moths are described and illustrated. Ac­ ronicta heitzmani, new species, in the subfamily Acronictinae, is known from Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois and Ohio. Lithophane joannis, new species, in the subfamily Cucul­ Iiinae, is known from Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan. Both species are compared with morphologically similar congeners. Additional key words: Acronicta heitzmani, Lithophane joannis, faunal survey. Since their origins, the Ohio Lepidopterists and the Society of Ken­ tucky Lepidopterists ha ve promoted regional surveys of the Lepidoptera fauna of midland United States. These efforts have resulted in numerous new records and range extensions and in the discovery of several new taxa, The purpose of this paper is to describe and illustrate two recently discovered species of the family Noctuidae. Both apparently are re­ stricted to midland United States, Acronicta heitzmani, new species, is known from Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois and Ohio. Lithophane joan­ nis, new species, is known from Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan. Both species are morphologically distinct from, and sympatric with, con­ geners, In 1964, J. R, Heitzman collected a series of an unusual Acronicta species in Missouri. The specimens superficially resembled A. fragilis (Guenee) which was not recorded from Missouri. In 1967, the first author collected a specimen of the same species in Kentucky; the second author took the first Ohio specimen in 1975, The specimens were de­ termined as a possibly undescribed species near A.
    [Show full text]