DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Resource Condition Assessment, John Day Fossil Beds National Monument

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Resource Condition Assessment, John Day Fossil Beds National Monument National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Natural Resource Condition Assessment John Day Fossil Beds National Monument Natural Resource Report NPS/UCBN/NRR—2010/174 ON THE COVER Map of three park units in the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument located in north-central Oregon with insets of pictures from the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument website. Natural Resource Condition Assessment John Day Fossil Beds National Monument Natural Resource Report NPS/UCBN/NRR—2010/174 Jack Bell Northwest Management, Inc. PO Box 9748 Moscow, ID 83843 Dustin Hinson AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. 11810 North Creek Parkway N Bothell, WA 98011 January 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Data in this report were collected and analyzed using methods based on established, peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed and interpreted within the guidelines of the protocols. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. This report is available from the Upper Columbia Basin Network website (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ucbn/reports/) and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). Please cite this publication as: Bell, J. and D. Hinson. 2010. Natural resource condition assessment: John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. Natural Resource Report NPS/UCBN/NRR—2010/174. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 177/100904, December 2010 ii Contents Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii Tables ............................................................................................................................................ xi Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... xiii Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... xv Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope ..................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 2 Park Setting ......................................................................................................................... 2 Land Cover.......................................................................................................................... 6 Upland Habitats/Species ................................................................................................... 15 Watersheds ........................................................................................................................ 15 Aquatic Habitats/Species .................................................................................................. 20 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 21 Methods......................................................................................................................................... 25 GIS and Geodatabases.............................................................................................................. 25 NPS Data Sources .................................................................................................................... 27 Upland Assessment .................................................................................................................. 28 Aquatic Assessments ................................................................................................................ 29 Fire ........................................................................................................................................... 33 Noxious Weeds ........................................................................................................................ 34 Upland Assessment Results .......................................................................................................... 35 GIS and Geodatabase ............................................................................................................... 35 Unit Specific Assessments ....................................................................................................... 35 Sheep Rock Unit ............................................................................................................... 36 Painted Hills Unit .............................................................................................................. 54 Clarno Unit........................................................................................................................ 62 Aquatic Assessment Results ......................................................................................................... 71 John Day River ......................................................................................................................... 72 iii John Day River R14A ....................................................................................................... 72 John Day River R14B ....................................................................................................... 75 John Day River R14C ....................................................................................................... 75 Rock Creek ............................................................................................................................... 76 Rock Creek R08 ................................................................................................................ 76 Rock Creek R15 ................................................................................................................ 78 Bridge Creek ............................................................................................................................ 78 Bridge Creek R11 ............................................................................................................. 78 Threats and Stressors .................................................................................................................... 81 Upland Resources..................................................................................................................... 81 Fire .................................................................................................................................... 81 Noxious Weeds ............................................................................................................... 103 Aquatic Resources .................................................................................................................. 109 Flow Diversions .............................................................................................................. 109 Recreational Land Use .................................................................................................... 109 Agricultural Land Use..................................................................................................... 110 Fine Sediments ................................................................................................................ 110 Climate Change ...................................................................................................................... 110 Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 115 Upland Assessment ................................................................................................................ 115 Aquatic Assessment ............................................................................................................... 115 Threats and Stressors.............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Species and Records of Chimarra (Trichoptera, Philopotamidae) from Northeastern Brazil, and an Updated Key to Subgenus Ch
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 491: 119–142 (2015) New species of Chimarra from Northeastern Brazil 119 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.491.8553 RESEARCH ARTICLE http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research New species and records of Chimarra (Trichoptera, Philopotamidae) from Northeastern Brazil, and an updated key to subgenus Chimarra (Chimarrita) Albane Vilarino1, Adolfo Ricardo Calor1 1 Universidade Federal da Bahia, Instituto de Biologia, Departamento de Zoologia, PPG Diversidade Animal, Laboratório de Entomologia Aquática - LEAq. Rua Barão de Jeremoabo, 147, campus Ondina, Ondina, CEP 40170-115, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil Corresponding authors: Albane Vilarino ([email protected]); Adolfo Ricardo Calor ([email protected]) Academic editor: R. Holzenthal | Received 4 September 2014 | Accepted 12 February 2015 | Published 26 March 2015 http://zoobank.org/E6E62707-9A0F-477D-ACE9-B02553171FBD Citation: Vilarino A, Calor AR (2015) New species and records of Chimarra (Trichoptera, Philopotamidae) from Northeastern Brazil, and an updated key to subgenus Chimarra (Chimarrita). ZooKeys 491: 119–142. doi: 10.3897/ zookeys.491.8553 Abstract Two new species of Chimarra (Chimarrita) are described and illustrated, Chimarra (Chimarrita) mesodonta sp. n. and Chimarra (Chimarrita) anticheira sp. n. from the Chimarra (Chimarrita) rosalesi and Chimarra (Chimarrita) simpliciforma species groups, respectively. The morphological variation ofChimarra (Curgia) morio is also illustrated. Chimarra (Otarrha) odonta and Chimarra (Chimarrita) kontilos are reported to occur in the northeast region of Brazil for the first time. An updated key is provided for males and females of the all species in the subgenus Chimarrita. Keywords Biodiversity, caddisflies, Curgia, description, Neotropics, phylogenetic relationships, taxonomy Introduction Philopotamidae Stephens, 1829 is a cosmopolitan family with approximately 1,270 de- scribed species in 19 extant genera.
    [Show full text]
  • Genomanalyse Von Prodiamesa Olivacea
    Genomanalyse von Prodiamesa olivacea Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades Doktor der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) am Fachbereich Biologie der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität in Mainz Sarah Brunck geb. 08.08.1987 in Mainz Mainz, 2016 Dekan: 1. Berichterstatter: 2. Berichterstatter: Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: ii Inhaltsverzeichnis Inhaltsverzeichnis ................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Einleitung ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Die Familie der Chironomiden ................................................................................................. 1 1.1.1 Die Gattung Chironomus ..................................................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Die Gattung Prodiamesa ....................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Die Struktur von Insekten-Genomen am Beispiel der Chironomiden ............................... 9 1.2.1 Hochrepetitive DNA-Sequenzen ..................................................................................... 11 1.2.2 Mittelrepetitive DNA-Sequenzen bzw. Gen-Familien ................................................. 13 1.2.3 Gene und genregulatorische Sequenzen ........................................................................ 17 1.3 Zielsetzung ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Native Habitat Restoration in Eastern Washington Wine Vineyards
    NATIVE HABITAT RESTORATION IN EASTERN WASHINGTON WINE VINEYARDS AS A PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY By KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Entomology MAY 2019 © Copyright by KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY, 2019 All Rights Reserved © Copyright by KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY, 2019 All Rights Reserved To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. _______________________________ David James, Ph.D., Chair _______________________________ Elizabeth Beers, Ph.D. _______________________________ Joan Davenport, Ph.D. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Lorraine Seymour and Gerry Lauby for their expertise, their organizational skills, their excellence as sounding boards, and hopefully their ability to pass some of that on to me. I thank Cole Provence and my family who were always supportive. I thank all the people who helped me with my statistics, especially Bernardo Chaves. I thank the computer technician who saved my computer’s data and my life. I thank Michael Aquilino. He knows what he did. Finally, I’d like to thank everyone who served on my committee, as well as Laura Lavine, for their guidance along the way. iii NATIVE HABITAT RESTORATION IN EASTERN WASHINGTON WINE VINEYARDS AS A PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Abstract by Katharine Denise Buckley, Ph.D. Washington State University May 2019 Chair: David James Perennial crop systems such as wine grapes have begun using cover crops and hedgerows to increase beneficial insects and promote sustainable vineyard management in areas such as New Zealand and California.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Quality, Performance, and Uncertainty in Taxonomic Identification for Biological Assessments
    J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2008, 27(4):906–919 Ó 2008 by The North American Benthological Society DOI: 10.1899/07-175.1 Published online: 28 October 2008 Data quality, performance, and uncertainty in taxonomic identification for biological assessments 1 2 James B. Stribling AND Kristen L. Pavlik Tetra Tech, Inc., 400 Red Brook Blvd., Suite 200, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117-5159 USA Susan M. Holdsworth3 Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Mail Code 4503T, Washington, DC 20460 USA Erik W. Leppo4 Tetra Tech, Inc., 400 Red Brook Blvd., Suite 200, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117-5159 USA Abstract. Taxonomic identifications are central to biological assessment; thus, documenting and reporting uncertainty associated with identifications is critical. The presumption that comparable results would be obtained, regardless of which or how many taxonomists were used to identify samples, lies at the core of any assessment. As part of a national survey of streams, 741 benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected throughout the eastern USA, subsampled in laboratories to ;500 organisms/sample, and sent to taxonomists for identification and enumeration. Primary identifications were done by 25 taxonomists in 8 laboratories. For each laboratory, ;10% of the samples were randomly selected for quality control (QC) reidentification and sent to an independent taxonomist in a separate laboratory (total n ¼ 74), and the 2 sets of results were compared directly. The results of the sample-based comparisons were summarized as % taxonomic disagreement (PTD) and % difference in enumeration (PDE). Across the set of QC samples, mean values of PTD and PDE were ;21 and 2.6%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho PM Technical Note 2B (Revise): Plants for Pollinators in the Inland Northwest
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho - Spokane, Washington ______________________________________________________________________________ TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 2B OCTOBER 2011 REVISION Plants for Pollinators in the Inland Northwest Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Pamela Pavek, Agronomist, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Pullman, Washington Richard Fleenor, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Mark Stannard, Manager, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Pullman, Washington Tim Dring, State Biologist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Jim Cane, Bee Biology and Systematics Lab, ARS, Logan, Utah Karen Fullen, State Biologist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Loren St. John, Manager, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho Brownbelted bumble bee (Bombus griseocollis) visiting a blanketflower (Gaillardia aristata). Pamela Pavek The purpose of this Technical Note is to provide guidance for the design and implementation of conservation plantings to enhance habitat for pollinators including: bees, wasps, butterflies, moths and hummingbirds. Plant species included in this document are adapted to the Inland Northwest, which encompasses northern Idaho, northeastern Oregon and eastern Washington. For species adapted to southern Idaho, southeastern Oregon, northern Nevada and northern Utah, refer to Idaho Plant Materials Technical Note 2A. For lists of species adapted to western Washington and western Oregon, refer to the Oregon
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 1 Table 1. Current Taxonomic Keys and the Level of Taxonomy Routinely U
    Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Table 1. Current taxonomic keys and the level of taxonomy routinely used by the Ohio EPA in streams and rivers for various macroinvertebrate taxonomic classifications. Genera that are reasonably considered to be monotypic in Ohio are also listed. Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Species Pennak 1989, Thorp & Rogers 2016 Porifera If no gemmules are present identify to family (Spongillidae). Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Cnidaria monotypic genera: Cordylophora caspia and Craspedacusta sowerbii Platyhelminthes Class (Turbellaria) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nemertea Phylum (Nemertea) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Phylum (Nematomorpha) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nematomorpha Paragordius varius monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Ectoprocta monotypic genera: Cristatella mucedo, Hyalinella punctata, Lophopodella carteri, Paludicella articulata, Pectinatella magnifica, Pottsiella erecta Entoprocta Urnatella gracilis monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Polychaeta Class (Polychaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Annelida Oligochaeta Subclass (Oligochaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Hirudinida Species Klemm 1982, Klemm et al. 2015 Anostraca Species Thorp & Rogers 2016 Species (Lynceus Laevicaudata Thorp & Rogers 2016 brachyurus) Spinicaudata Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Williams 1972, Thorp & Rogers Isopoda Genus 2016 Holsinger 1972, Thorp & Rogers Amphipoda Genus 2016 Gammaridae: Gammarus Species Holsinger 1972 Crustacea monotypic genera: Apocorophium lacustre, Echinogammarus ischnus, Synurella dentata Species (Taphromysis Mysida Thorp & Rogers 2016 louisianae) Crocker & Barr 1968; Jezerinac 1993, 1995; Jezerinac & Thoma 1984; Taylor 2000; Thoma et al. Cambaridae Species 2005; Thoma & Stocker 2009; Crandall & De Grave 2017; Glon et al. 2018 Species (Palaemon Pennak 1989, Palaemonidae kadiakensis) Thorp & Rogers 2016 1 Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Informal grouping of the Arachnida Hydrachnidia Smith 2001 water mites Genus Morse et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Family Chironomidae (Diptera) of Finland
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 441: 63–90 (2014)Checklist of the family Chironomidae (Diptera) of Finland 63 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.441.7461 CHECKLIST www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Checklist of the family Chironomidae (Diptera) of Finland Lauri Paasivirta1 1 Ruuhikoskenkatu 17 B 5, FI-24240 Salo, Finland Corresponding author: Lauri Paasivirta ([email protected]) Academic editor: J. Kahanpää | Received 10 March 2014 | Accepted 26 August 2014 | Published 19 September 2014 http://zoobank.org/F3343ED1-AE2C-43B4-9BA1-029B5EC32763 Citation: Paasivirta L (2014) Checklist of the family Chironomidae (Diptera) of Finland. In: Kahanpää J, Salmela J (Eds) Checklist of the Diptera of Finland. ZooKeys 441: 63–90. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.441.7461 Abstract A checklist of the family Chironomidae (Diptera) recorded from Finland is presented. Keywords Finland, Chironomidae, species list, biodiversity, faunistics Introduction There are supposedly at least 15 000 species of chironomid midges in the world (Armitage et al. 1995, but see Pape et al. 2011) making it the largest family among the aquatic insects. The European chironomid fauna consists of 1262 species (Sæther and Spies 2013). In Finland, 780 species can be found, of which 37 are still undescribed (Paasivirta 2012). The species checklist written by B. Lindeberg on 23.10.1979 (Hackman 1980) included 409 chironomid species. Twenty of those species have been removed from the checklist due to various reasons. The total number of species increased in the 1980s to 570, mainly due to the identification work by me and J. Tuiskunen (Bergman and Jansson 1983, Tuiskunen and Lindeberg 1986).
    [Show full text]
  • Zootaxa, Empidoidea (Diptera)
    ZOOTAXA 1180 The morphology, higher-level phylogeny and classification of the Empidoidea (Diptera) BRADLEY J. SINCLAIR & JEFFREY M. CUMMING Magnolia Press Auckland, New Zealand BRADLEY J. SINCLAIR & JEFFREY M. CUMMING The morphology, higher-level phylogeny and classification of the Empidoidea (Diptera) (Zootaxa 1180) 172 pp.; 30 cm. 21 Apr. 2006 ISBN 1-877407-79-8 (paperback) ISBN 1-877407-80-1 (Online edition) FIRST PUBLISHED IN 2006 BY Magnolia Press P.O. Box 41383 Auckland 1030 New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ © 2006 Magnolia Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, transmitted or disseminated, in any form, or by any means, without prior written permission from the publisher, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed in writing. This authorization does not extend to any other kind of copying, by any means, in any form, and for any purpose other than private research use. ISSN 1175-5326 (Print edition) ISSN 1175-5334 (Online edition) Zootaxa 1180: 1–172 (2006) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA 1180 Copyright © 2006 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) The morphology, higher-level phylogeny and classification of the Empidoidea (Diptera) BRADLEY J. SINCLAIR1 & JEFFREY M. CUMMING2 1 Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, 53113 Bonn, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Invertebrate Biodiversity, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, C.E.F., Ottawa, ON, Canada
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Arthropods)
    Spring 2001 Vol. 20, No. 1 NEWSLETTER OF THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA (TERRESTRIAL ARTHROPODS) Table of Contents General Information and Editorial Notes ............(inside front cover) News and Notes Activities at the Entomological Societies’ Meeting ...............1 Summary of the Scientific Committee Meeting.................5 Canadian Biodiversity Network Conference .................12 Biological Survey Website Update ......................12 The E.H. Strickland Entomological Museum .................13 Project Update: Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands .............14 The Quiz Page..................................16 Arctic Corner Introduction .................................17 Arctic Insects, Global Warming and the ITEX Program ............17 Selected Future Conferences ..........................24 Answers to Faunal Quiz.............................26 Quips and Quotes ................................27 List of Requests for Material or Information ..................28 Cooperation Offered ..............................34 List of Email Addresses.............................34 List of Addresses ................................36 Index to Taxa ..................................38 General Information The Newsletter of the Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods) appears twice yearly. All material without other accreditation is prepared by the Secretariat for the Biological Survey. Editor: H.V. Danks Head, Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods) Canadian Museum of Nature P.O. Box 3443, Station “D” Ottawa, Ontario
    [Show full text]
  • Riverside State Park
    Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Pacific Biodiversity Institute 2 Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Peter H. Morrison [email protected] George Wooten [email protected] Juliet Rhodes [email protected] Robin O’Quinn, Ph.D. [email protected] Hans M. Smith IV [email protected] January 2009 Pacific Biodiversity Institute P.O. Box 298 Winthrop, Washington 98862 509-996-2490 Recommended Citation Morrison, P.H., G. Wooten, J. Rhodes, R. O’Quinn and H.M. Smith IV, 2008. Provisional Report: Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 433 p. Acknowledgements Diana Hackenburg and Alexis Monetta assisted with entering and checking the data we collected into databases. The photographs in this report were taken by Peter Morrison, Robin O’Quinn, Geroge Wooten, and Diana Hackenburg. Project Funding This project was funded by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 3 Executive Summary Pacific Biodiversity Institute (PBI) conducted a rare plant and vegetation survey of Riverside State Park (RSP) for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC). RSP is located in Spokane County, Washington. A large portion of the park is located within the City of Spokane. RSP extends along both sides of the Spokane River and includes upland areas on the basalt plateau above the river terraces. The park also includes the lower portion of the Little Spokane River and adjacent uplands. The park contains numerous trails, campgrounds and other recreational facilities. The park receives a tremendous amount of recreational use from the nearby population.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 2 – Fruticose Species
    Appendix 5.2-1 Vegetation Technical Appendix APPENDIX 5.2‐1 Vegetation Technical Appendix Contents Section Page Ecological Land Classification ............................................................................................................ A5.2‐1‐1 Geodatabase Development .............................................................................................. A5.2‐1‐1 Vegetation Community Mapping ..................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐1 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ............................................................................ A5.2‐1‐3 Limitations of Ecological Land Classification .................................................................... A5.2‐1‐3 Field Data Collection ......................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐3 Supplementary Results ..................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐4 Rare Vegetation Species and Rare Ecological Communities ........................................................... A5.2‐1‐10 Supplementary Desktop Results ..................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐10 Field Methods ................................................................................................................. A5.2‐1‐16 Supplementary Results ................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐17 Weed Species
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera) Along an Elevational Diversity Gradient in a Low Mountain Range: an Example from Central Europe
    insects Article Distributional Patterns of Aquatic Empididae (Diptera) along an Elevational Diversity Gradient in a Low Mountain Range: An Example from Central Europe Iwona Słowi ´nska* and Radomir Jaskuła Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz, Banacha 12/16, 90-237 Łód´z,Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Simple Summary: The insect distribution and diversity depend on many different abiotic and biotic factors, which is especially well documented in the high mountains but has not been studied in detail in the low mountain massifs. We studied 17 different macro and microhabitat factors that influence the altitudinal distribution of 40 Hemerodromiinae and Clinocerinae species in the Pieniny Mts., Poland. This is the first such study in Central Europe and one of only a few in the world. The results clearly show that species richness and distribution of Hemerodromiinae and Clinocerinae species are changing with the elevational gradient, with a monotonic decline in species richness with increasing elevation observed for the first subfamily and the hump-shaped distribution pattern noted for the second subfamily, as well as the size of the stream/river and the surrounding area in species distribution in the Pieniny Mts. Abstract: The two subfamilies Hemerodromiinae and Clinocerinae, also known as aquatic dance Citation: Słowi´nska,I.; Jaskuła, R. flies, are a group of small predatory insects occurring mainly in mountainous areas and the northern Distributional Patterns of Aquatic temperate. However, very little is known about distribution patterns for most of the species.
    [Show full text]