DOCSLIB.ORG

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS the Michigan Department of Natural Resources ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Michigan Department of Natural Resources appreciates the valuable contributions made by many agencies, organizations and individuals during the development of this plan. In particular, we thank the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for providing funding and technical support. We also thank the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, who helped draft this Habitat Conservation Plan. Finally, we thank the members of the public who helped shape the content of this plan by offering input during public meetings and public-comment periods. lll A contribution of the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund Grants Program, Michigan Project E-17-HCP and State Wildlife Grant F12AF01114. Equal Rights for Natural Resource Users The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) provides equal opportunities for employment and access to Michigan’s natural resources. Both State and Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, height, weight or marital status under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended (MI PA 453 and MI PA 220, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire additional information, please write the MDNR, HUMAN RESOURCES, PO BOX 30028, LANSING MI 48909-7528, or the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS, STATE OF MICHIGAN PLAZA BUILDING, 1200 6TH STREET, DETROIT MI 48226, or the OFFICE FOR DIVERSITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS, US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 4040 NORTH FAIRFAX DRIVE, ARLINGTON VA 22203. For information or assistance on this publication, contact: MDNR, WILDLIFE DIVISION, P.O. BOX 30444, LANSING, MI 48909-7944, -or- through the internet at “ http://www.michigan.gov/dnr “. This publication is available in alternative formats upon request. TTY/TTD (teletype): 711 (Michigan Relay Center). 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Permit Duration ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Regulatory/Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Covered Lands ........................................................................................................................ 10 1.5 Covered Species ...................................................................................................................... 11 2. Biological Resources .................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Mitchell’s Satyr ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.2 Physical Description ......................................................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Habitat Requirements ....................................................................................................... 12 2.1.4 Food Habits ...................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.5 Life Cycle ......................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.6 Dispersal ........................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.7 Distribution and Abundance ............................................................................................. 14 2.2 Poweshiek Skipperling Biology and Status............................................................................. 14 2.2.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Physical Description ......................................................................................................... 14 2.2.3 Habitat Requirements ....................................................................................................... 15 2.2.4 Food Habits ...................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.5 Life Cycle ......................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.6 Dispersal ........................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.7 Distribution and Abundance ............................................................................................. 16 2.3 Threats..................................................................................................................................... 16 3. Covered Activities ........................................................................................................................ 17 3.1 Restore Hydrology .................................................................................................................. 17 3.2 Prescribed Burning.................................................................................................................. 17 3.3 Mowing/Hydro-axing ............................................................................................................. 18 3.4 Vegetation Removal................................................................................................................ 19 3.5 Biological Control of Invasive Species................................................................................... 19 3.6 Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................... 19 3.8 Surveys .................................................................................................................................... 20 4. Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment ............................................................................ 20 4.1 Direct Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 21 4.2 Indirect Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 21 4.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................ 21 4.4 Anticipated Take: Wildlife Species ........................................................................................ 22 4.4.1 Mitchell’s Satyr ................................................................................................................ 22 4.4.2 Poweshiek Skipperling ..................................................................................................... 22 4.4.3 Other Federally Listed and Candidate Wildlife ............................................................... 22 4.4.4 State-listed Wildlife .......................................................................................................... 23 4.5 Anticipated Impacts: Plants .................................................................................................... 23 4.5.1 Federally Listed Plants ..................................................................................................... 23 4.5.2 State-listed Plants ............................................................................................................. 23 5. Conservation Plan ......................................................................................................................... 24 5.1 Mitchell’s Satyr Biological Goals and Objectives .................................................................. 24 5.2 Poweshiek Skipperling Biological Goals and Objectives ....................................................... 25 5.3 Measures to Minimize Adverse Impacts ................................................................................. 27 5.3.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 27 5.3.2 Restore Hydrology ........................................................................................................... 28 5.3.3 Prescribed Burning ........................................................................................................... 28 5.3.4 Mowing/Hydro-axing ....................................................................................................... 28 5.3.5 Vegetation Removal ......................................................................................................... 29 5.3.6 Biological Control ............................................................................................................ 29 5.3.7 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................ 30 5.3.8 Seeding and Planting .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Appendix 3. Thousand Islands National Park Taxonomy Report
    Appendix 3. Thousand Islands National Park Taxonomy Report Class Order Family Genus Species Arachnida Araneae Agelenidae Agelenopsis Agelenopsis potteri Agelenopsis utahana Anyphaenidae Anyphaena Anyphaena celer Hibana Hibana gracilis Araneidae Araneus Araneus bicentenarius Larinioides Larinioides cornutus Larinioides patagiatus Clubionidae Clubiona Clubiona abboti Clubiona bishopi Clubiona canadensis Clubiona kastoni Clubiona obesa Clubiona pygmaea Elaver Elaver excepta Corinnidae Castianeira Castianeira cingulata Phrurolithus Phrurolithus festivus Dictynidae Emblyna Emblyna cruciata Emblyna sublata Eutichuridae Strotarchus Strotarchus piscatorius Gnaphosidae Herpyllus Herpyllus ecclesiasticus Zelotes Zelotes hentzi Linyphiidae Ceraticelus Ceraticelus atriceps 1 Collinsia Collinsia plumosa Erigone Erigone atra Hypselistes Hypselistes florens Microlinyphia Microlinyphia mandibulata Neriene Neriene radiata Soulgas Soulgas corticarius Spirembolus Lycosidae Pardosa Pardosa milvina Pardosa moesta Piratula Piratula canadensis Mimetidae Mimetus Mimetus notius Philodromidae Philodromus Philodromus peninsulanus Philodromus rufus vibrans Philodromus validus Philodromus vulgaris Thanatus Thanatus striatus Phrurolithidae Phrurotimpus Phrurotimpus borealis Pisauridae Dolomedes Dolomedes tenebrosus Dolomedes triton Pisaurina Pisaurina mira Salticidae Eris Eris militaris Hentzia Hentzia mitrata Naphrys Naphrys pulex Pelegrina Pelegrina proterva Tetragnathidae Tetragnatha 2 Tetragnatha caudata Tetragnatha shoshone Tetragnatha straminea Tetragnatha viridis
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves
    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Plant Propagation Protocol
    Plant Propagation Protocol for Zigadenus elegans ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production TAXONOMY Family Names Family Scientific Name: Liliaceae Family Common Name: Lily family Scientific Names Genus: Zigadenus Michx. Species: Zigadenus elegans Species Authority: Pursh Variety: Sub-species: Zigadenus elegans ssp. elegans Zigadenus elegans ssp. glaucus Cultivar: Authority for Variety/Sub-species: Common Synonym(s) Anticlea coloradensis (Rydb.) Rydb. Anticlea elegans (Pursh) Rydb. Zigadenus alpinus Blank. Zigadenus elegans Pursh ssp. elegans 2 Common Name(s): Glaucous death camas, Mountain death camas, White camas 2 Species Code : ZIEL2 GENERAL INFORMATION Geographical range See above 1 Ecological distribution : Occurs in meadows, open forests and rocky slopes, at middle to high elevations in the mountains 2 Other sources indicate it can also be found in moist grasslands, river and lake shores, and bogs in coniferous forests. 6 9 It has also been listed as an indicator species for areas that have been former savanna's/woodlands. Climate and elevation range Subalpine meadows and moist screes at high elevations in the Rockies and Pacific Coast states. 12 Local habitat and abundance; may Occurs in sandy, moist soils. It can tolerate partial include commonly associated shade but also needs sunlight. 5 species It and other indicator species tend to be strongly limited to partial canopy conditions. In more heavily-wooded sites, these species are usually in a state of decline due to the increasing canopy closure above. They are therefore dependent on canopy gaps, edges, roadsides etc. in densely-wooded areas. 9 In Missouri it cam be found on the crevices and ledges of north-facing dolomite bluffs.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
    [Show full text]
  • Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R
    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R. and Zeuss, D. 2016. Colour lightness of dragonfly assemblages across North America and Europe. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.02578 Supplementary material Appendix 1 Figures A1–A12, Table A1 and A2 1 Figure A1. Scatterplots between female and male colour lightness of 44 North American (Needham et al. 2000) and 19 European (Askew 1988) dragonfly species. Note that colour lightness of females and males is highly correlated. 2 Figure A2. Correlation of the average colour lightness of European dragonfly species illustrated in both Askew (1988) and Dijkstra and Lewington (2006). Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Note that the extracted colour values of dorsal dragonfly drawings from both sources are highly correlated. 3 Figure A3. Frequency distribution of the average colour lightness of 152 North American and 74 European dragonfly species. Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Rugs at the abscissa indicate the value of each species. Note that colour values are from different sources (North America: Needham et al. 2000, Europe: Askew 1988), and hence absolute values are not directly comparable. 4 Figure A4. Scatterplots of single ordinary least-squares regressions between average colour lightness of 8,127 North American dragonfly assemblages and mean temperature of the warmest quarter. Red dots represent assemblages that were excluded from the analysis because they contained less than five species. Note that those assemblages that were excluded scatter more than those with more than five species (c.f. the coefficients of determination) due to the inherent effect of very low sampling sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpine Flora
    ALPINE FLORA -- PLACER GULCH Scientific and common names mostly conform to those given by John Kartesz at bonap.net/TDC FERNS & FERN ALLIES CYSTOPTERIDACEAE -- Bladder Fern Family Cystopteris fragilis Brittle Bladder Fern delicate feathery fronds hiding next to rocks and cliffs PTERIDACEAE -- Maidenhair Fern Family Cryptogramma acrostichoides American Rockbrake two different types of fronds; talus & rocky areas GYMNOSPERMS PINACEAE -- Pine Family Picea englemannii Englemann's Spruce ANGIOSPERMS -- MONOCOTS CYPERACEAE -- Sedge Family Carex haydeniana Hayden's Sedge very common alpine sedge; compact, dark, almost triangular inflorescence Eriophorum chamissonis Chamisso's Cotton-Grass Cottony head; no leaves on culm ALLIACEAE -- Onion Family Allium geyeri Geyer's Onion pinkish; onion smell LILIACEAE -- Lily Family Llyodia serotina Alp Lily white; small plant in alpine turf MELANTHIACEAE -- False Hellebore Family Anticlea elegans False Deathcamas greenish white; showy raceme above basal grass-like leaves Veratrum californicum Cornhusk Lily; CA False Hellebore greenish; huge lvs; huge plant; mostly subalpine ORCHIDACEAE -- Orchid Family Plantanthera aquilonis Green Bog Orchid greenish, in bracteate spike, spur about as long as or a bit shorter than lip POACEAE -- Grass Family Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted Hair Grass open inflorescence; thin, wiry leaves; 2 florets/spikelet; glumes longer than low floret Festuca brachyphylla ssp. coloradoensis Short-leaf Fescue dark; narrow inflorescence; thin, wiry leaves Phleum alpinum Mountain Timothy dark;
    [Show full text]
  • The Taxonomy, Larva and Ecology of Agrotis Buchholzi (Noctuidae) with a New Sibling Species from North Carolina
    JOURNAL OF LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY Volume 58 2004 Number 2 JOlt rnal of the Lepidopterists' Society 51> (2 ), 2004, 0.5-74 THE TAXONOMY, LARVA AND ECOLOGY OF AGROTIS BUCHHOLZI (NOCTUIDAE) WITH A NEW SIBLING SPECIES FROM NORTH CAROLINA D ALE F. SCHWEITZER NalureServe & The Nature Conselvency, 1761 Main Street, POJi Norris, New Jersey 08349, USA AND TIMOTHY L. MCCABE New York State Museum, Albany, New York 12230, USA ABSTRACT. Agrotis huchholz.i is one of four Lepidoptera species believed to be endemic to the New Jersey Pine Barrens. It occurs primarily in recently burned or exceptionally xelic or sterile areas where its sole hl1val foodplant, Pyxidanthera barbu/ata (Diapensiaceae), occurs in open­ ings in the shrub layer. Adults can be quite common locally. There are two broods approximately two months apart with the first staliing about late May. Hibernation is as prepupal larvae in the sand. The la,va is similar to that of other species of Agrotis. Adults are very active and feed hut their natural f()od sourees are not known. A sibling species, Agrotis carolina, new species, is closely associated with P. barbu/ata in south­ eastern North Carolina. Its range resembles that 0[' another ende mic, Hemipachnobia subporphyrea. The combined ranges of thcse two Agro­ tis an, veIl similar to those of an unnamed C"clophora (Geometridae) and Spartiniphaga carterae Sehweitzer (Noduidae) and their habitats commonly overlap in both states. Fire is a crucial factor in forming and maintaining habitat f,)r all of these species. A buchho/zi may become imperiled hecause of a decline of wildfires.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of North American Odonata
    A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) Dennis R. Paulson1 and Sidney W. Dunkle2 Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009. Copyright © 2009 Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 edition published by Jim Johnson Cover photo: Tramea carolina (Carolina Saddlebags), Cabin Lake, Aiken Co., South Carolina, 13 May 2008, Dennis Paulson. 1 1724 NE 98 Street, Seattle, WA 98115 2 8030 Lakeside Parkway, Apt. 8208, Tucson, AZ 85730 ABSTRACT The checklist includes all 457 species of North American Odonata considered valid at this time. For each species the original citation, English name, type locality, etymology of both scientific and English names, and approxi- mate distribution are given. Literature citations for original descriptions of all species are given in the appended list of references. INTRODUCTION Before the first edition of this checklist there was no re- Table 1. The families of North American Odonata, cent checklist of North American Odonata. Muttkows- with number of species. ki (1910) and Needham and Heywood (1929) are long out of date. The Zygoptera and Anisoptera were cov- Family Genera Species ered by Westfall and May (2006) and Needham, West- fall, and May (2000), respectively, but some changes Calopterygidae 2 8 in nomenclature have been made subsequently. Davies Lestidae 2 19 and Tobin (1984, 1985) listed the world odonate fauna Coenagrionidae 15 103 but did not include type localities or details of distri- Platystictidae 1 1 bution.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Different Mowing Regimes on Butterflies and Diurnal Moths on Road Verges A
    Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 29.2 (2006) 133 Effect of different mowing regimes on butterflies and diurnal moths on road verges A. Valtonen, K. Saarinen & J. Jantunen Valtonen, A., Saarinen, K. & Jantunen, J., 2006. Effect of different mowing regimes on butterflies and diurnal moths on road verges. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 29.2: 133–148. Abstract Effect of different mowing regimes on butterflies and diurnal moths on road verges.— In northern and central Europe road verges offer alternative habitats for declining plant and invertebrate species of semi– natural grasslands. The quality of road verges as habitats depends on several factors, of which the mowing regime is one of the easiest to modify. In this study we compared the Lepidoptera communities on road verges that underwent three different mowing regimes regarding the timing and intensity of mowing; mowing in mid–summer, mowing in late summer, and partial mowing (a narrow strip next to the road). A total of 12,174 individuals and 107 species of Lepidoptera were recorded. The mid–summer mown verges had lower species richness and abundance of butterflies and lower species richness and diversity of diurnal moths compared to the late summer and partially mown verges. By delaying the annual mowing until late summer or promoting mosaic–like mowing regimes, such as partial mowing, the quality of road verges as habitats for butterflies and diurnal moths can be improved. Key words: Mowing management, Road verge, Butterfly, Diurnal moth, Alternative habitat, Mowing intensity. Resumen Efecto de los distintos regímenes de siega de los márgenes de las carreteras sobre las polillas diurnas y las mariposas.— En Europa central y septentrional los márgenes de las carreteras constituyen hábitats alternativos para especies de invertebrados y plantas de los prados semi–naturales cuyas poblaciones se están reduciendo.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List of Noctuid Moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae And
    Бiологiчний вiсник МДПУ імені Богдана Хмельницького 6 (2), стор. 87–97, 2016 Biological Bulletin of Bogdan Chmelnitskiy Melitopol State Pedagogical University, 6 (2), pp. 87–97, 2016 ARTICLE UDC 595.786 CHECK LIST OF NOCTUID MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE AND EREBIDAE EXCLUDING LYMANTRIINAE AND ARCTIINAE) FROM THE SAUR MOUNTAINS (EAST KAZAKHSTAN AND NORTH-EAST CHINA) A.V. Volynkin1, 2, S.V. Titov3, M. Černila4 1 Altai State University, South Siberian Botanical Garden, Lenina pr. 61, Barnaul, 656049, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Tomsk State University, Laboratory of Biodiversity and Ecology, Lenina pr. 36, 634050, Tomsk, Russia 3 The Research Centre for Environmental ‘Monitoring’, S. Toraighyrov Pavlodar State University, Lomova str. 64, KZ-140008, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan. E-mail: [email protected] 4 The Slovenian Museum of Natural History, Prešernova 20, SI-1001, Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: [email protected] The paper contains data on the fauna of the Lepidoptera families Erebidae (excluding subfamilies Lymantriinae and Arctiinae) and Noctuidae of the Saur Mountains (East Kazakhstan). The check list includes 216 species. The map of collecting localities is presented. Key words: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Erebidae, Asia, Kazakhstan, Saur, fauna. INTRODUCTION The fauna of noctuoid moths (the families Erebidae and Noctuidae) of Kazakhstan is still poorly studied. Only the fauna of West Kazakhstan has been studied satisfactorily (Gorbunov 2011). On the faunas of other parts of the country, only fragmentary data are published (Lederer, 1853; 1855; Aibasov & Zhdanko 1982; Hacker & Peks 1990; Lehmann et al. 1998; Benedek & Bálint 2009; 2013; Korb 2013). In contrast to the West Kazakhstan, the fauna of noctuid moths of East Kazakhstan was studied inadequately.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of the Tolman Bridge Area (2000-2011)
    LEPIDOPTERA OF THE TOLMAN BRIDGE AREA, ALBERTA, 2000-2011 Charles Bird, 8 March 2012 Box 22, Erskine, AB T0C 1G0 [email protected] The present paper includes a number of redeterminations and additions to the information in earlier reports. It also follows the up-to-date order and taxonomy of Pohl et al. (2010), rather than that of Hodges et al. (1983). Brian Scholtens, Greg Pohl and Jean-François Landry collecting moths at a sheet illuminated by a mercury vapor (MV) light, Tolman Bridge, 24 July 2003, during the 2003 Olds meetings of the Lepidopterist’s Society (C.D. Bird image). Tolman Bridge, is located in the valley of the Red Deer River, 18 km (10 miles) east of the town of Trochu. The bridge and adjoining Park land are in the north half of section 14, range 22, township 34, west of the Fourth Meridian. The coordinates at the bridge are 51.503N and 113.009W. The elevation ranges from around 600 m at the river to 800 m or so near the top of the river breaks. In a Natural Area Inspection Report dated 25 June 1982 and in the 1989 Trochu 82 P/14, 1:50,000 topographic map, the land southwest of the bridge was designated as the “Tolman Bridge Municipal Park” while that southeast of the bridge was referred to as the “Tolman Bridge Recreation Area”. In an Alberta, Department of the Environment, Parks and Protected Areas Division paper dated 9 May 2000, the areas on both sides of the river are included in “Dry Island Buffalo Jump Provincial Park”.
    [Show full text]