DOCSLIB.ORG

(Neonympha M. Mitchellii) in Michigan: Final Report — 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Neonympha M. Mitchellii) in Michigan: Final Report — 2000 Surveys for the Recovery of Mitchells Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha m. mitchellii) in Michigan: Final Report - 2000 Prepared by: Daria A. Hyde, Mary L. Rabe, David L. Cuthrell, Michael A. Kost Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944 For: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Endangered Species Office Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, MN 55111 Report Number 2001-05 Submitted March 31, 2001 Cover Photo Identification and Credits: Prairie fen habitat photo by: Michael A. Kost Mitchells satyr photo by: Daria A. Hyde Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Mitchells Satyr Surveys and Threat Assessment ......................................................................................................... 4 Surveys for Associated Rare Species ........................................................................................................................... 4 Mitchells Satyr Monitoring ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Michells Satyr Oviposition Observations and Larval Searches .................................................................................. 6 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Landowner Contact ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Mitchells Satyr Surveys and Threat Assessment ......................................................................................................... 7 Surveys for Associated Rare Species ......................................................................................................................... 10 Mitchells Satyr Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Mitchells Satyr Oviposition Observations and Larval Searches ............................................................................... 15 Conservation Planning ................................................................................................................................................. 16 Threats Identified at Mitchells Satyr Sites ................................................................................................................ 16 Historical Changes at Mitchells Satyr Sites .............................................................................................................. 18 Vegetative Characteristics and Succession at Mitchells Satyr Sites .......................................................................... 22 Management Considerations for Prairie Fens and Mitchells Satyr Sites .................................................................. 22 Working With Partners.............................................................................................................................................. 24 Site Summaries .......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Barry County South ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Barry County Southwest .................................................................................................................................... 25 Berrien County North ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Berrien County South ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Branch County Site ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Cass County East ............................................................................................................................................... 27 Cass County Northwest ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Cass County Southwest ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Jackson County Central ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Jackson County East .......................................................................................................................................... 29 Jackson County West ......................................................................................................................................... 29 Kalamazoo County East .................................................................................................................................... 29 Kalamazoo County North .................................................................................................................................. 30 Kalamazoo County West.................................................................................................................................... 30 Lenawee County Site ......................................................................................................................................... 30 St. Joseph County East ...................................................................................................................................... 31 St. Joseph County West ...................................................................................................................................... 31 Van Buren County Northeast )........................................................................................................................... 32 Van Buren County Site ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Washtenaw County West ................................................................................................................................... 32 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................................... 33 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................................................ 34 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix 1. MNFI Mitchells Satyr Survey Form .................................................................................................... 39 Appendix 1. Species Abstracts ................................................................................................................................. 39 PrairieFen .......................................................................................................................................................... 43 Mat muhley grass .............................................................................................................................................. 47 Prairie dropseed ................................................................................................................................................. 49 Prairie Indian plaintain....................................................................................................................................... 51 Small white ladys-slipper .................................................................................................................................. 55 Blanchards cricket frog ...................................................................................................................................... 59 Blandings turtle ................................................................................................................................................. 63 Blazing star borer moth ...................................................................................................................................... 67 Culvers root borer moth .................................................................................................................................... 71 Eastern box turtle ................................................................................................................................................ 75 Eastern massasauga ............................................................................................................................................ 79 Mitchells satyr ..................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Assessment for the Kansan Spikerush Leafhopper (Dorydiella Kansana Beamer)
    Conservation Assessment For The Kansan spikerush leafhopper (Dorydiella kansana Beamer) USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region January 11, 2005 James Bess OTIS Enterprises 13501 south 750 west Wanatah, Indiana 46390 This document is undergoing peer review, comments welcome This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service - Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ 1 NOMENCLATURE AND TAXONOMY ..................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES.......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montana's Glaciated
    Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management Prepared by: Stephen V. Cooper, Catherine Jean and Paul Hendricks December, 2001 Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report 2001 Montana Natural Heritage Program Montana State Library P.O. Box 201800 Helena, Montana 59620-1800 (406) 444-3009 BLM Agreement number 1422E930A960015 Task Order # 25 This document should be cited as: Cooper, S. V., C. Jean and P. Hendricks. 2001. Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Pro- gram, Helena. 24 pp. plus appendices. Executive Summary Throughout much of the Great Plains, grasslands limited number of Black-tailed Prairie Dog have been converted to agricultural production colonies that provide breeding sites for Burrow- and as a result, tall-grass prairie has been ing Owls. Swift Fox now reoccupies some reduced to mere fragments. While more intact, portions of the landscape following releases the loss of mid - and short- grass prairie has lead during the last decade in Canada. Great Plains to a significant reduction of prairie habitat Toad and Northern Leopard Frog, in decline important for grassland obligate species. During elsewhere, still occupy some wetlands and the last few decades, grassland nesting birds permanent streams. Additional surveys will have shown consistently steeper population likely reveal the presence of other vertebrate declines over a wider geographic area than any species, especially amphibians, reptiles, and other group of North American bird species small mammals, of conservation concern in (Knopf 1994), and this alarming trend has been Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Wet-Mesic Flatwoods Communitywet-Mesic Flatwoods, Abstract Page 1
    Wet-mesic Flatwoods CommunityWet-mesic Flatwoods, Abstract Page 1 Historical Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Infrequent or likely infrequent Absent or likely absent Photo by Suzan L. Campbell Overview: Wet-mesic flatwoods is a somewhat Rank Justification: The acreage of wet-mesic poorly drained to poorly drained forest on mineral flatwoods present in Michigan circa 1800 is difficult soils dominated by a mixture of lowland and upland to determine because the community type has hardwoods. The community occurs exclusively on characteristics that overlap those of several of the glacial lakeplain in southeastern Lower Michigan, forest types mapped based on General Land Office where an impermeable clay layer in the soil profile (GLO) survey notes, primarily hardwood swamp and contributes to poor internal drainage. Seasonal beech-sugar maple forest (Comer et al. 1995a, Kost hydrologic fluctuations and windthrow are important et al. 2007). Analysis of GLO survey notes reveals natural disturbances that influence community structure, that lowland forest dominated by hardwoods covered species composition, and successional trajectory of wet- approximately 570,000 ha (1,400,000 ac) of southern mesic flatwoods. Lower Michigan circa 1800 (Comer et al. 1995a). These stands were characterized by mixed hardwoods Global and State Rank: G2G3/S2 (490,000 ha or 1,200,000 ac), black ash (77,000 ha or 190,000 ac), elm (5,300 ha or 13,000 ac), and silver Range: Flatwoods communities characterized by maple-red maple (4,000 ha or 10,000 ac). The majority relatively flat topography, slowly permeable to of lowland forest acreage in southern Lower Michigan impermeable subsurface soil layers, and seasonal was associated with stream and river floodplains, hydrologic fluctuation occur scattered throughout the and is classified as floodplain forest (Tepley et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Wetland Assessment for Michigan: Section 1 Biological
    RAPID WETLAND ASSESSMENT FOR MICHIGAN SECTION 1: BIOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Prepared by: Dennis A. Albert, Paul Adamus, David Campbell, John Christy, Joshua G. Cohen, Theadore Cook, Helen Enander, Linda Hardison, Michael A. Kost, Katie Mitchell, Jennifer Sackinger, and Bradford S. Slaughter Of: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Oregon State University, and Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. For: Michigan Department of Transportation September 2008 Report Number 2008-06 Cover image taken by: D. Albert Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Literature Review........................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Field Sampling ............................................................................................................................................ 2 4.0 Plant Community Classification and Distribution Map Development ........................................................ 4 5.0 Quantitative Metrics for Wetland Quality, Function, and Value ................................................................. 5 6.0 Hydrologic Metric - Relationship to Plant Communities and Species ........................................................ 5 7.0 Characteristic Plant Species for Each Wetland Type ................................................................................ 10 8.0 Photos and Diagrams of Plant
    [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]
  • NJ Native Plants - USDA
    NJ Native Plants - USDA Scientific Name Common Name N/I Family Category National Wetland Indicator Status Thermopsis villosa Aaron's rod N Fabaceae Dicot Rubus depavitus Aberdeen dewberry N Rosaceae Dicot Artemisia absinthium absinthium I Asteraceae Dicot Aplectrum hyemale Adam and Eve N Orchidaceae Monocot FAC-, FACW Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle N Agavaceae Monocot Gentianella quinquefolia agueweed N Gentianaceae Dicot FAC, FACW- Rhamnus alnifolia alderleaf buckthorn N Rhamnaceae Dicot FACU, OBL Medicago sativa alfalfa I Fabaceae Dicot Ranunculus cymbalaria alkali buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot OBL Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, FACW Hieracium paniculatum Allegheny hawkweed N Asteraceae Dicot Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkeyflower N Scrophulariaceae Dicot OBL Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny Mountain buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot FACU, FAC Prunus alleghaniensis Allegheny plum N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, NI Amelanchier laevis Allegheny serviceberry N Rosaceae Dicot Hylotelephium telephioides Allegheny stonecrop N Crassulaceae Dicot Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine N Fumariaceae Dicot Centaurea transalpina alpine knapweed N Asteraceae Dicot Potamogeton alpinus alpine pondweed N Potamogetonaceae Monocot OBL Viola labradorica alpine violet N Violaceae Dicot FAC Trifolium hybridum alsike clover I Fabaceae Dicot FACU-, FAC Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood N Cornaceae Dicot Strophostyles helvola amberique-bean N Fabaceae Dicot Puccinellia americana American alkaligrass N Poaceae Monocot Heuchera americana
    [Show full text]
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24
    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2018-07-24 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff July 24, 2018 2 Cover image: map of 16,213 georeferenced occurrence records included in the checklist. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 55 Vascular Plants........................................................ 91 Bryophytes ..........................................................164 Other Plants .........................................................171 Chromista...........................................................171 Fungi .............................................................173 Protozoans ..........................................................186 Non-native species 187 Vertebrates ..........................................................187 Invertebrates .........................................................187 Vascular Plants........................................................190 Extirpated species 207 Vertebrates ..........................................................207 Vascular Plants........................................................207 Change log 211 References 213 Index 215 3 Introduction Purpose to avoid implying
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1- Species of Greatest Conservation Need Michigan’S Wildlife Action Plan 2015- 2025
    Appendix 1- Species of Greatest Conservation Need Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015- 2025 Cover Photos Credits Habitat – MNFI, Yu Man Lee Cerulean Warbler – Roger Eriksson Category Common Name Scientific Name Inclusion Rationale Amphibians Blanchard’s cricket frog Acris crepitans Expert review (2005); blanchardi Technical Advisory Committee for the T&E list revision recommended this species to remain listed as Threatened (2014). There are current records across the species historical range, the southern third of the Lower Peninsula, but abundance is unknown and only historical records exist for several central counties. This species should stay listed as state threatened due to limited area of occupancy and declines. (TAC 2014) Amphibians Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata Expert review (2005); maculata Technical Advisory Committee for the T&E list revision recommended this species to remain listed as Special Concern (2014). The historical range of this species was restricted to Isle Royale; although the species appears to remain intact, abundance is unknown. Amphibians Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum Expert review (2005); Technical Advisory Committee for the T&E list revision recommended this species to be delisted from Endangered to Special Concern (2014). The historical range is limited to a small portion of the southwest Lower Peninsula and represents the northernmost extent of the species' range. The current distribution and abundance are not known, and no observations have been reported since the 1980s. It is unknown if this species is still present in Michigan as field research has been extremely limited in the small area of Category Common Name Scientific Name Inclusion Rationale known occupancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 34 Number 2 - Fall/Winter 2001 Number 2 - Fall/ Article 3 Winter 2001 October 2001 Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio Roy W. Rings Ohio State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Rings, Roy W. 2001. "Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 34 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol34/iss2/3 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Rings: Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State 2001 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 9 CHECK LIST OF IDENTIFIED LEPIDOPTERA COLLECTED AT MUD LAKE STATE NATURE PRESERVE, WILLIAMS COUNTY, OHIO Roy W, Rings 1 ABSTRACT A total of696 species ofLepidoptera is reported from the Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio. This preserve is only a few miles from both the Indiana and Michigan state borders. The great biodiversity of moths is reflected in the bog, fen, shrub swamp, and marsh communities bor­ dering the lake. A check list of species summarizes identified collections for 1988,1992,1995 and 1996 and includes the Hodges et al (1983) species num­ bers, the scientific name, and the numbers collected by different collecting methods.
    [Show full text]