DOCSLIB.ORG

Missouri Natural Areas Newsletter 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Missouri Natural Areas Newsletter 2015 2015 NaMItuSSOURIral AreVolume 15,as Number 1 N E W S L E T T E R “…identifying, designating, managing and restoring the best remaining examples of natural communities and geological sites encompassing the full spectrum of Missouri’s natural heritage” Missouri, but not overwhelming to someone with- Editor’s Note out academic training in entomology. I wanted to Missouri’s Insect Diversity know about the leafhoppers in my yard, about all the different sweat bees that visit my bright yellow everal years ago, in the spring following a cup plant flowers in August, and the cicadas and December prescribed fire event in my urban katydids whose choruses I hear around my bun- Swoods, we discovered a motley assortment of galow in summer months. I recall Ted’s response, highly charismatic leafhoppers that we wanted to always professional and friendly, and it was volu- identify. Rather than visiting random internet sites minous. According to The Terrestrial Natural Com- of questionable scholarship and accuracy, I asked munities of Missouri (Nelson, 2010), in 2000, 87,107 esteemed entomologist and tiger beetle expert Ted native species and subspecies of insects existed in MacRae for a field guide for insects appropriate for Missouri. Asking an expert in this highly special- Pink-striped oakworm moths in the Elk River Breaks Woodland Natural Area. The caterpillars of this moth feed on oaks (Quercus spp.), the dominant canopy tree in the natural area at Big Sugar Creek State Park. While some consider this species a forest pest, it has been well-documented that oak-specific caterpillars provide an important food source for breeding songbirds. Photo by Allison J. Vaughn Vol. 15, No. 1, 2015 • Missouri Natural Areas Newsletter 1 Photo by Douglas Miller Even in an urban setting, charismatic insects such as this candy-striped leafhopper (Graphocephala coccinea) can persist in a dense thicket of cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum). ized field for a basic pictorial guide to insects was Much has been written in recent months about probably a bit naïve on my part. But Ted deliv- the importance of pollinators on the landscape, ered with a reference to Eric R. Eaton and Kenn fueling an interest in creating pollinator habitats Kaufman’s Field Guide to Insects of North America, through gardening. The mission of the Missouri a wonderful and user-friendly identification book Natural Areas Program involves the recognition for the general user such as myself. I am not an and preservation of our state’s best remaining entomologist by any stretch, but I have an interest examples of natural communities with all facets of in our state’s rich insect diversity, and the role of a biodiversity represented. While pollinator gardens biodiverse insect population in all of the systematic have been proven to provide nectar and nesting ecological functioning of our native landscapes. sites for suites of pollinating insects, it would be Missouri is fortunately home to a range of experts remiss to disregard the role of Missouri’s intact na- in ants, bees, tiger beetles, dragonflies and damsel- tive landscapes, especially our designated natural flies, katydids and the myriad of other insects that areas, in the protection and sustainability of insect inhabit our natural landscapes. For the 2015 issue diversity. The historic natural setting throughout of the Missouri Natural Areas Newsletter, we have much of the state, a landscape that existed before invited several leaders in the field of entomology to the age of extraction began, included thousands discuss their areas of interest and research, and to of acres of a grass-forb matrix that hosted not just share their thoughts on specialized biota and insect monarch butterflies but an entire suite of insects diversity in Missouri. This is a large topic to cover, and other biota that have been largely extirpated, and I recognize that we have only scratched the barring populations that persist in remnants of proverbial surface of knowledge in Missouri. high quality landscapes today. The restoration of 2 Missouri Natural Areas Newsletter • Vol. 15, No. 1, 2015 natural landscapes with a heterogeneous NATURAL AREAS FEATURED IN THIS ISSUE mix of native flora should be tantamount in conservation planning for pollinating in- Star School Hill Prairie sects, but restoration methods must be carefully Brickyard Hill Loess Mound implemented. Our highly fragmented, disturbed, McCormack Loess Mounds and out-of-context landscapes may harbor some Meramec Mosaic of the last remaining populations of rare species, Johnson's Shut-Ins Fen both plant and animal. St. Francois Mountains With the 2005 publication of Paul Nelson’s The Grasshopper Hollow Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri, the Mis- Mingo souri Natural Areas Committee endorsed the use of carefully applied prescribed fire for the restora- Contents tion and maintenance of Missouri’s fire-mediated The Role of Missouri’s Natural Areas and Other systems. Since that time, fire management has Conservation Lands in Preserving Tiger Beetle Diversity been used on a larger, landscape-sized scale, invit- Ted C. MacRae ................................................................. 4 ing a series of questions and concern regarding the Contributions of Designated Natural Areas to Recovery sustainability of relictual populations of insects Efforts of Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly in Missouri Dr. Paul M. McKenzie........................................................ 8 and other biota. Without fire, the landscape will Searching for Potential Prairie Orchid Pollinators no longer provide the necessary facets for the sus- Dr. David Ashley ................................................................. 12 tainability of a given species, but with improperly Native Bees of Meramec Mosaic Natural Area applied fire, the very disturbance that certain in- Dr. Alexandra Harmon-Threatt. .......................................... 16 sects depend on may be the cause of their demise Ant Diversity in Fire-mediated Systems in the Ozarks Lizzie W. Wright ..............................................................20 or, worse, extirpation. Emulating natural distur- Butterfly Species as Habitat Indicators bance processes on a landscape scale will naturally Brett Budach ...................................................................24 allow for refugia, if the process is properly imple- St. Francois Mountains Natural Area Highlights mented. This issue of the Missouri Natural Areas Ron Colatskie .................................................................. 27 Newsletter highlights research on native bees, rare Mingo Natural Area Ben Mense .......................................................................31 orchid pollinators, and other insects that serve as 2014–2015 Calendar of Events ............................................ 32 lynchpins for functioning ecosystem health. Con- tact the authors of the respective articles for more The Missouri Natural Areas Newsletter is an annual journal published by the Missouri Natural Areas Committee, whose information and to continue the dialogue. mission is identifying, designating, managing and restoring the — Allison J. Vaughn, editor best remaining examples of natural communities and geological sites encompassing the full spectrum of Missouri’s natural heritage. Allison Vaughn is the Ozark District Natural Resource Steward with The Missouri Natural Areas Committee consists of the Missouri the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Department of Natural Resources, the Missouri Department of Contact: [email protected] Conservation, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service and the Nature Conservancy. Ø To receive notification when new issues of the Missouri Natural Areas Newsletter are posted, e-mail [email protected]. This list-serve is only used to notify people of the link to the current natural areas newsletter web posting. Vol. 15, No. 1, 2015 • Missouri Natural Areas Newsletter 3 Photo by Christopher R. Brown Saline Springs Tiger Beetle (Habroscelimorpha circumpicta johnsonii) The Role of Missouri’s Natural Areas and Other Conservation Lands in Preserving Tiger Beetle Diversity By Ted C. MacRae slightest movement, long thin legs for running down prey, and large, toothy jaws for grabbing and hen Missourians think about wild- promptly dispatching their hapless victims. While life diversity, usually the state’s 800+ representing only a tiny fraction of the total insect W species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, fauna in Missouri, the 24 species of tiger beetle birds, and mammals come to mind. In reality, the that live in the state still represent a level of diver- diversity title belongs to the perhaps 25,000 spe- sity worthy of study and protection. cies of insects that share habitats with vertebrates, Tiger beetles frequently live in disturbed habi- ranging from the microscopic (springtails) to the tats with sparse vegetation, such as sandbars and annoying (mosquitoes) to the revered (monarch erosion cuts, as well as along muddy banks, on butterfly). Among the most charismatic insects in glades and in forest litter. European settlement Missouri are the tiger beetles, predaceous insects resulted in drastic alterations in the abundance that favor open ground in a variety of lowland and distribution of these habitats, and tiger beetle and upland habitats. Like their big cat namesakes, populations have been affected as a result. Dredg- tiger beetles have huge eyes that can detect the ing and straightening
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Odonata: Corduliidae)
    International Journal ofOdonatology 4 (2): 93-105,2001 © 2001 Backhuys Publishers. 93 Description of the larva of Somatochlora hineana with a key to the larvae of the North American species of Somatochlora (Odonata: Corduliidae) Everett D. Cashatt & Timothy E. Vogt Zoology Section, Illinois State Museum Research and Collection Center, 1011 East Ash, Springfield, IL 62703 <cashatt@ museum. state.il. us> Received 06 March 200 I ; revised and accepted 28 April 200 I. Key words: Odonata, dragonfly, Somatochlora hineana, larva, description, key, North America. Abstract A detailed description of the final stadium of Somatochlora hineana, with brief notes on the penultimate stadium, is presented. An illustration of the entire larva and separate line drawings of the labium and dorsal and lateral views of the abdomen are also included. The habitat of the larva is discussed briefly. Combinations of diagnostic characters are used for distinguishing the S. hineana larva from its allied congeners. A key to the known Somatochlora larvae of North American species is given. Introduction Somatochlora hineana was described by Williamson (1931) from a series of adults from Logan Co., Ohio, USA. Subsequently, this species has been documented from the following states and counties: Alabama: Jackson; Illinois: Cook, DuPage, Will; Indiana: Lake; Michigan: Alpena, Mackinac, Presque Isle; Missouri: Reynolds; Ohio: Lucus, Williams; and Wisconsin: Door, Ozaukee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in prep). Recent attempts to confirm the presence of this species in Alabama, Indiana, and Ohio have been unsuccessful. Habitat and behavior were discussed briefly by Vogt & Cashatt (1994). It was listed as Endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1995 (Federal Register 60# [ 17]: 5267 -5272) because of its narrow ecological requirements and vulnerability to habitat degradation and destruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Index of ARGIA and Bulletin of American Odonatology
    Cumulative Index of ARGIA and Bulletin of American Odonatology Compiled by Jim Johnson PDF available at http://odonata.bogfoot.net/docs/Argia-BAO_Cumulative_Index.pdf Last updated: 14 February 2021 Below are titles from all issues of ARGIA and Bulletin of American Odonatology (BAO) published to date by the Dragonfly Society of the Americas. The purpose of this listing is to facilitate the searching of authors and title keywords across all issues in both journals, and to make browsing of the titles more convenient. PDFs of ARGIA and BAO can be downloaded from https://www.dragonflysocietyamericas.org/en/publications. The most recent three years of issues for both publications are only available to current members of the Dragonfly Society of the Americas. Contact Jim Johnson at [email protected] if you find any errors. ARGIA 1 (1–4), 1989 Welcome to the Dragonfly Society of America Cook, C. 1 Society's Name Revised Cook, C. 2 DSA Receives Grant from SIO Cook, C. 2 North and Central American Catalogue of Odonata—A Proposal Donnelly, T.W. 3 US Endangered Species—A Request for Information Donnelly, T.W. 4 Odonate Collecting in the Peruvian Amazon Dunkle, S.W. 5 Collecting in Costa Rica Dunkle, S.W. 6 Research in Progress Garrison, R.W. 8 Season Summary Project Cook, C. 9 Membership List 10 Survey of Ohio Odonata Planned Glotzhober, R.C. 11 Book Review: The Dragonflies of Europe Cook, C. 12 Book Review: Dragonflies of the Florida Peninsula, Bermuda and the Bahamas Cook, C. 12 Constitution of the Dragonfly Society of America 13 Exchanges and Notices 15 General Information About the Dragonfly Society of America (DSA) Cook, C.
    [Show full text]
  • Dragonflies of A( Nisoptera) Arkansas George L
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 31 Article 17 1977 Dragonflies of A( nisoptera) Arkansas George L. Harp Arkansas State University John D. Rickett University of Arkansas at Little Rock Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Entomology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Harp, George L. and Rickett, John D. (1977) "Dragonflies of (Anisoptera) Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 31 , Article 17. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol31/iss1/17 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 31 [1977], Art. 17 The Dragonflies (Anisoptera) of Arkansas GEORGE L.HARP Division of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University State University, Arkansas 72467 JOHND. RICKETT Department of Biology, University of Arkansas at LittleRock LittleRock, Arkansas 72204 ABSTRACT Previous publications have recorded 69 species of dragonflies for Arkansas. Three of these are deleted, but state records for 21 new species are reported herein, bringing the list to 87 species.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 8. Appendices
    Section 8. Appendices Appendix 1.1 — Acronyms Terminology AWAP – Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan BMP – Best Management Practice CWCS — Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy EO — Element Occurrence GIS — Geographic Information Systems SGCN — Species of Greatest Conservation Need LIP — Landowner Incentive Program MOA — Memorandum of Agreement ACWCS — Arkansas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy SWG — State Wildlife Grant LTA — Land Type Association WNS — White-nose Syndrome Organizations ADEQ — Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality AGFC — Arkansas Game and Fish Commission AHTD — Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department ANHC — Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission ASU — Arkansas State University ATU — Arkansas Technical University FWS — Fish and Wildlife Service HSU — Henderson State University NRCS — Natural Resources Conservation Service SAU — Southern Arkansas University TNC — The Nature Conservancy UA — University of Arkansas (Fayetteville) UA/Ft. Smith — University of Arkansas at Fort Smith UALR — University of Arkansas at Little Rock UAM — University of Arkansas at Monticello UCA — University of Central Arkansas USFS — United States Forest Service 1581 Appendix 2.1. List of Species of Greatest Conservation Need by Priority Score. List of species of greatest conservation need ranked by Species Priority Score. A higher score implies a greater need for conservation concern and actions. Priority Common Name Scientific Name Taxa Association Score 100 Curtis Pearlymussel Epioblasma florentina curtisii Mussel 100
    [Show full text]
  • The News Journal of the Dragonfly
    ISSN 1061-8503 TheA News Journalrgia of the Dragonfly Society of the Americas Volume 21 20 March 2009 Number 1 Published by the Dragonfly Society of the Americas ARGIA Vol. 21, No. 1, 20 March 2009 In This Issue .................................................................................................................................................................1 Calendar of Events ......................................................................................................................................................1 DSA Members, the Missouri Ozarks Beckon, by Jane Walker and Paul McKenzie ..................................................1 Nick and Ailsa Donnelly Fellowship for 2009 ............................................................................................................3 Northeast DSA Meeting Announcement, by Bryan Pfeiffer and Pam Hunt .............................................................3 7th Annual Dragonfly Festival at Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Roswell, New Mexico, by Robert Larsen and Jerry K. Hatfield ...............................................................................................................................4 “Dragonfly Days”, 21–24 May 2009, Chasing Bugs for Ten Years! ............................................................................6 The Everglades Plus, by Walter Chadwick ..................................................................................................................7 GLOM—Great Lakes Odonata Meeting ..................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Species of Odonata in North America
    ---Guardians of the watershed. Global status of dragonflies: critical species, threat and conservation --- Critical species of Odonata in North America Sidney W. Dunkle Biology Dept., Collin County Community College, Spring Creek Campus, Plano, Texas, USA 75074. <sdunkle®ccccd.edu> Key words: Odonata, dragonfly, IUCN, critical species, conservation, North America. ABSTRACT Of the approximately 439 species of Odonata known from North America, north of Mexico, comments on 25 species (6%) of conservation concern are given. Species deemed to be under the most threat are Ischnura gemina, Gomphus sandrius, Ophiogomphus australis, Stylurus potulentus, and Libellula jesseana. Two other species not under threat, Neurocordulia michaeli and Somatochlora brevicincta, are briefly discussed because of their conservation interest. Some geographical clumping of species under threat is discussed, in southeastern Arizona, coastal New England, and the central Gulf of Mexico Coast. REGIONAL DEFINITION Canada and the United States north of the Mexican border, including Alaska but not Hawaii. This is the Nearctic biogeographic realm exclusive of the Mexican Plateau. STATE OF THE ART The Nearctic Odonata fauna includes approximately 130 species of Zygoptera and 309 of Anisoptera. North Americans are fortunate in having excellent identification guides for both Zygoptera (Westfall & May 1996) and Anisoptera (Westfall & Tennessen 1996; Needham et al. 2000), supplemented by several field guides such as Dunkle (2000). The recent proliferation of field guides and popular magazine articles, along with the activities of the Dragonfly Society of the Americas and numerous websites, has resulted in many more people looking for odonates in North America. The general result has been the location of many more localities, even for rare species.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Mountains (Ecoregion 38)
    Boston Mountains (Ecoregion 38) Ecoregion 38 is mountainous, forested and underlain by Pennsylvanian sandstone, shale and siltstone. It is one of the Ozark Plateaus; some folding and faulting has occurred but, in general, strata are much less deformed than in the Ouachita Mountains (36). Maximum elevations are higher, soils have a warmer temperature regime and carbonate rocks are much less extensive than in the Ozark Highlands (39). Physiography is distinct from the Arkansas Valley (37). Upland soils are mostly Ultisols that developed under oak–hickory and oak–hickory– pine forests. Today, forests are still widespread; northern red oak, southern red oak, white oak and hickories usually dominate the uplands, but shortleaf pine grows on drier, south- and west-facing slopes underlain by sandstone. Figure 3.7. Boston Mountains ecoregion. 1138 C N H A by Upper Boston Mountains Pastureland or hayland occur on nearly level ridgetops, benches and valley floors. Population density is low; recreation, logging and livestock farming are the primary land uses. Water quality in streams is generally exceptional; biochemical, nutrient and min- eral water quality parameter concentrations all tend to be very low. Fish communi- ties are mostly composed of sensitive species; a diverse, often darter-dominated community occurs along with nearly equal proportions of minnows and sunfishes. During low flows, streams in both Ecoregions 38 and 36 usually run clear but, during high flow conditions, turbidity in Ecoregion 38 tends to be greater than in Ecoregion 36. Summer flow in many small streams is limited or nonexistent but isolated, enduring pools may occur. Upper Boston Mountains 38a.
    [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 2018 Edition A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution 2018 Edition 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; updated February 2011, February 2012, October 2016, and November 2018. Copyright © 2018 Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009, 2011, 2012, 2016, and 2018 editions published by Jim Johnson Cover photo: Male Hesperagrion heterodoxum, Painted Damsel, from Bear Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 30 August 2018. Photo by Dennis Paulson. 1 1724 NE 98th Street, Seattle, WA 98115 2 8030 Lakeside Parkway, Apt. 8208, Tucson, AZ 85730 ABSTRACT The checklist includes all 468 species of North American Odonata (Canada and the continental United States) considered valid at this time. For each species the original citation, English name, type locality, etymology of both scientific and English names, and approximate distribution are given. Literature citations for original descriptions of all species are given in the appended list of references. INTRODUCTION We publish this as the most comprehensive checklist Table 1. The families of North American Odonata, of all of the North American Odonata. Muttkowski with number of species. (1910) and Needham and Heywood (1929) are long out of date. The Anisoptera and Zygoptera were cov- Family Genera Species ered by Needham, Westfall, and May (2014) and West- fall and May (2006), respectively. Davies and Tobin Lestidae 2 19 (1984, 1985) listed the world odonate fauna but did Platystictidae 1 1 not include type localities or details of distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Odonata: Corduliidae)
    ----- Received 11 September 2006; revised 24 january 2007; accepted 01 February 2007 ----- Description of the larva of Somatoch/ora margarita (Odonata: Corduliidae) John C. Abbott 1 & Clem~ Mynhardt 2 1 Section of Integrative Biology, Brackenridge Field Laboratory, University Station #C7000, The University ofTexas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA. <[email protected]> 2 Department of Entomology & Museum of Biological Diversity, The Ohio State University, 1315 Kinnear Rd., Columbus, OH 43212, USA. <[email protected]> Key words: Odonata, dragonfly, 5omatochlora margarita, 5. Filosa, 5. provocans, larva, description. ABSTRACT The larva of Somatochlora margarita is described from a specimen reared from the egg to the final stadium. The larva, previously unknown, is morphologically similar to the larvae of S. calverti, S. filosa, S. ozarkensis, and S. provocans. Combinations of diagnostic characters are given for distinguishing these species. Growth of this species is discussed with respect to other species of Somatochlora and Odonata. INTRODUCTION Somatochlora margarita Donnelly has arguably the most restricted distribution of all the North American Somatochlora. It is known from the long-leaf and loblolly pine forests of southeast Texas and northern Louisiana. For nearly 30 years this species was only known from its type locality in the Sam Houston National Forest (San Jac­ into Co., Texas), but Price et al. (1989) expanded its initial range to a now estimated 16,000 km2 area in east Texas. It has also now been found in northern Louisiana (Abbott 2001, 2005). Adults can be locally abundant, but are generally not well rep­ resented in collections. The larva has remained undescribed until now.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation Concern Checklist (Checklist) and the Wildlife Code of Missouri (Code)
    MISSOURI SPECIES AND COMMUNITIES* OF CONSERVATION CONCERN Checklist Longnose Darter Topeka Shiner Goldstripe Darter Arkansas Darter Swamp Darter Redfin Darter Taillight Shiner Crystal Darter Sabine Shiner Illustrations from Fishes of Missouri, 3rd ed (in prep), by David A. Neely, Ph.D. JANUARY 2020 *Terrestrial Natural Communities. Does not include aquatic, geologic, or cave communities. SCI077 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.........................................................................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................................................3 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................4 SPECIES CHANGES ................................................................................................................................................................8 TERRESTRIAL NATURAL COMMUNITIES .....................................................................................................................9 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN MISSOURI....................................................................................12 SPECIES AND STATUSES LICHENS...................................................................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Animals and Their Habitats Jim Herrig and Peggy Shute
    Southern Forest Resource Assessment Draft Report www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain AQUA-5: Aquatic Animals and their Habitats Jim Herrig and Peggy Shute Southern Region, USDA Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority respectively What are the history, status, and likely future of aquatic habitats and species in the South? 1 Key Findings • Sediments, introduced into aquatic systems above natural, background levels, have adverse impacts on animal species in all seven taxonomic groups considered in this Assessment • The aquatic communities of southeastern United States are globally significant. Many are very narrow endemics and subject to extinction from relatively minor habitat losses. • Habitat barriers created by dams on major rivers have produced isolated populations of many southern aquatic animals. Some species occupy so little of their former range that they are vulnerable to extinction as described for the narrowly endemic species. Some others, mainly larger river animals, have become extinct because of habitat alterations. Current programs have improved conditions in some of the tailwaters. • In some areas aquatic habitats have improved and reintroduction or augmentation supported by captive breeding programs may improve the recovery potential for some species. • Some groundwater systems are being dewatered, threatening unique aquatic communities. Careful aquifer management will be necessary for these aquatic communities. • Certain aquatic species (for example, the flatwoods salamander) require ephemeral ponds to complete their life cycles. Restoration and protection of ephemeral ponds is essential to the conservation of these animals. • Gaps in our scientific knowledge about southern aquatic species are monumental. Research of many types is urgently needed. • In the South, much of the habitat for rare aquatic species is not controlled by Federal or State governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas CWCP Report Format
    This program receives federal financial assistance from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U. S. Department of Interior and its bureaus prohibit discrinination on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex (in educational programs). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility, or if you desire further information please write to: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Officer for Diversity and Civil Rights Programs, External Programs, 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 130, Arlington, VA 22203. This document was prepared under contract with Dynamic Solutions Group. Lead Author - Tom Wasson Parts authored and edited - Spencer Amend, Verlyn Ebert, Ken Brunson and Laurie Yasui. July 22, 2005. Foreword It is fitting that in this year, the 100th anniversary of our agency, that we are also developing a plan for our future. Much has changed since 1905, when state laws were enacted to create what was known as the Kansas Fish and Game Department. However, much has also remained the same. We still fund most of our fish and wildlife programs through sales of hunting and fishing licenses. This money has supported the recovery of many game species, and numerous important environmental and sensitive species conservation efforts. What is changing is the ability of anglers and hunters to support all of these great efforts along with mounting concerns about all species the agency is charged to conserve.
    [Show full text]