DOCSLIB.ORG

KDFWR Annual Research Highlights 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Annual Research Highlights 2010 Volume IV, Sept. 2011 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Annual Research Highlights 2010 Volume IV, Sept. 2011 Our Mission: To conserve and enhance fish and wildlife resources and provide opportunity for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating and other wildlife related activities. Annual Research Highlights 2010 1 Foreword habitats of conservation concern within Kentucky and to success- fully implement conservation measures for these species and habitats. These two documents are available to the public, and are intended for frequent revision and re-adjustment to incorpo- rate ever changing agency and public needs and interests. The 2010 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Research Summary represents our targeted efforts to fulfill the goals of our State Wildlife Ac- tion Plan as well as the goals of the 2008 – 2012 Strategic Plan. These project summaries serve as a testament to KDFWR’s vig- ilance in the conservation of the fish and wildlife resources that we hold in trust for the public. Funding Sources and Tagging juvenile bald eagle / Ray Stainfield Guidance to Federal Programs The mission of the Kentucky issues as well as agency issues as a The Kentucky Department Department of Fish and Wildlife Re- whole. of Fish and Wildlife Resources receives sources (KDFWR) is to conserve and no general fund taxpayer dollars. As enhance fish and wildlife resources The five primary goals of the a result, the Department relies on and to provide opportunity for hunting, Strategic plan are: hunting and fishing license fees, boat fishing, trapping, boating, and other 1) To conserve and enhance fish and registration fees, and federal programs wildlife related activities. To effec- wildlife populations and their habi- to fund the seven divisions within tively conserve and enhance game and tats; KDFWR. Projects that are entirely non-game fish and wildlife resources 2) To increase opportunity for, and safe funded by the state are labeled “non- in Kentucky, long-term planning is participation in hunting, fishing, federal aid” (NFA); however, most of necessary. Over the past several years, trapping, boating, and other wildlife- the projects included in this document KDFWR has collaborated with multiple related activities; are partially or fully funded by federal outside agencies, non-profit organiza- 3) To foster a more informed and in- programs such as the State and Tribal tions, professionals, and biologists volved public; Wildlife Grant Program, the Wildlife to complete two important planning 4) To expand and diversify our Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson), documents: The 2008 – 2012 Kentucky user base and the Sport Fish Restoration Program Department of Fish and Wildlife Re- 5) To create a more diverse, (Dingell-Johnson), and the Cooperative sources Strategic Plan (http://fw.ky.gov/ effective, and efficient orga- Endangered Species Conservation Fund pdf/strategicplan2008-2012.pdf), and nization. (Section 6). Kentucky’s State Wildlife Action Plan These federal programs serve a va- (completed in 2007; (http://fw.ky.gov/ Complementing the Strategic riety of purposes; however, each has an kfwis/stwg/). Both of these documents Plan, the State Wildlife Action Plan is underlying goal of fish, wildlife, and/ are designed to guide agency decisions; Kentucky’s roadmap for sustaining fish or habitat conservation. Brief descrip- however, they serve two unique pur- and wildlife diversity. The two pri- tions of each of these programs are as poses. The 2008 – 2012 Strategic Plan mary goals of this plan are to identify follows: addresses fish and wildlife management and prioritize important species and These federal programs provided 2 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources FOREWORD Federal Funding Source Program Goal Wildlife Restoration To restore, conserve, manage and Act enhance wild birds and mammals (Pittman-Robertson) and their habitats To fund fishery management Sport Fish Restoration projects, boating access, and aquatic (Dingell-Johnson) Program education Cooperative To fund conservation projects Endangered Species for candidate, proposed, or listed Conservation Fund species (Section 6) To develop and implement programs that benefit wildlife and State Wildlife Grant their habitats, specifically species (SWG) Program and habitats of conservation concern Collaring and tagging elk / Gabe Jenkins approximately 16 million dollars to that have been completed and not yet For projects that began in 2010, a brief KDFWR in 2010 (see Figure 1). For published, a detailed summary will 1-page overview of the project is in- reference, we have included the state be included in the first portion (“com- cluded in the second portion (“project and federal funding sources for each pleted projects”) of the document. highlights”) of the document. For project; however, these proj- select ongoing projects, brief ects may be additionally updates are included in the last supplemented by outside fund- section (“project updates”) of ing provided by non-profit this document. In the table of organizations or universities. contents, an expected date of When possible, we listed these completion, where applicable, sources in addition to the state is listed for each project. This and federal funding sources. $16,037,261.89 will facilitate looking up de- For each project summary, we tailed summaries of completed also identify the specific goals $24,057,801.82 projects in later years. A com- of the strategic plan or State prehensive project reference Wildlife Action Plan, as well guide lists all projects included as the KDFWR contact respon- in Research Highlights docu- sible for each project. ments, beginning with publica- tion year 2007. How to Use This $3,493,912.81 Document Please use the This document is divided $4,869,887.86 following citation into four main sections: pub- when referencing this Hunting and Fishing Licenses lished research, completed document: projects, project highlights, Federal Reimbursement Kentucky Department of and project updates. Citations Boat Registration Fees Fish and Wildlife Resources for all published research Other (e.g. Income Tax Check-o and Interest Income Annual Research Highlights, with Kentucky Department 2010. Volume IV. Publication of Fish and Wildlife involve- Figure 1. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife of the Wildlife and Fisheries ment are included in the Table Resources Funding Sources 2010. Total revenues for Divisions. September, 2011, of Contents. For projects 2010 were $48,458,864.38 114 pp. Annual Research Highlights 2010 3 Table of Contents Published Research Completed Projects Contact SWG Coordinator, Danna Baxley ([email protected]), for reprints of these publications. Fisheries Barding, E.E., M.J. Lacki, and L.L. Patton. 2010. Distribution and Ecology of Thoburnia atripinnis Recovery of the river otter to Kentucky. Proc. Annu. (Bailey), the Blackfin Sucker (Cypriniformes: Conf. S.E. Assoc. Fish and Wildlife Agencies (In Catostomidae), in the Upper Barren River, press). Kentucky......................................................................9 Britzke, E.R., B.A. Slack, M.P. Armstrong, and S.C. Brown Trout Population Response to Trophy Regulations Loeb. Effects of orientation and weatherproofing on in a Southeastern U.S. Tailwater ...............................16 the detection of bat echolocation calls. 2010. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 1(2):136-141. Analysis of the Environmental Requirements for Etheostoma cinereum (Ashy Darter) and Percina Corn, J.L., M.E. Cartwright, K.J. Alexy, T.E. Cornish, (Olive Darter) in the Rockcastle River, E.J.B. Manning, A.N. Cartoceti, and J.R. Fischer. Squamata 2010. Surveys for disease agents in introduced elk in Kentucky....................................................................22 Arkansas and Kentucky. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 46(1):186-194. Wildlife Edmonds, S. T., D. C. Evers, D. A. Cristol, C. Mettke- Hofmann, L. L. Powell, A. J. McGann, J. W. Armiger, Sharp-Shinned Hawks Breeding in Kentucky: Breeding O. P. Lane, D. F. Tessler, P. Newell, K. Heyden, and biology, Nesting Habitat, and Nestling Removal by N. J. O’Driscoll. 2010. Geographic and seasonal Falconers ...................................................................30 variation in mercury exposure of the declining Rusty Blackbird. The Condor 112(4):789-799. Efficacy of Surrogate PropagationTM As a Quail Restoration Technique in Central Kentucky ..............34 Heyden, K.G. 2010. 2010 Barn Owl (Tyto alba) inventory and current management for the species in Kentucky. The Kentucky Warbler 86(4): 79-85. Freshwater Mollusk Monitoring in the South Fork Kentucky River System .............................................40 Heyden, K. G. 2010. Current status of nesting Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in Kentucky. The Role of DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon) in Freshwater Kentucky Warbler 86(4):85-89. Mussel Diets ..............................................................46 Owen C.T., J.E. Alexander, Jr., and M.A. McGregor. 2010. Control of microbial contamination during in vitro culture of larval unionid mussels. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development. 54 (4):187-193 Project Highlights These projects began in 2010 Owen, C.T., M.A. McGregor, G.A. Cobbs, and J.E. Alexander Jr. 2010. Muskrat predation on a diverse Fishes unionid mussel community: Impacts of prey species composition, size and shape. Freshwater Biology Evaluation of a 36-in Minimum Length Limit on
Recommended publications
  • Ambloplites Constellatus, a New Species of Rock Bass from the Ozark Upland of Arkansas and Missouri with a Review of Western Rock Bass Populations

    Ambloplites Constellatus, a New Species of Rock Bass from the Ozark Upland of Arkansas and Missouri with a Review of Western Rock Bass Populations

    Ambloplites constellatus, a New Species of Rock Bass from the Ozark Upland of Arkansas and Missouri with a Review of Western Rock Bass Populations ROBERT C. CASHNER and ROYAL D. SUTTKUS V Reprinted from THE AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST Vol. 98, No. 1, July, 1977, pp. 147-161 University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana Ambloplites constellatus, a New Species of Rock Bass from the Ozark Upland of Arkansas and Missouri with a Review of Western Rock Bass Populations' ROBERT C. CASHNER Department of Biological Sciences, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 and ROYAL D. SUTTKUS Tulane University, Museum of Natural History, Belle Chasse, Louisiana 70037 ABSTRACT: A new species of rock bass, Ambloplites constellatus, is described from the upland section of the White River in Arkansas and Missouri. It is compared with the closely related northern rock bass (A. rupestris) from Missouri and Meramec river populations, the southern rock bass (A. ariommus) from the Ouachita and Little river drainages, and with other western rock bass populations of undetermined status. Ambloplites constellatus is distinguished from its congeners by its freckled color pattern and slender body form. Ambloplites constellatus occurs throughout the upper White River. There are two records of the species from the Osage River drainage in Missouri. INTRODUCTION In his study of Missouri fishes, Pflieger (1971) noted that rock bass from the upper White River system differed strikingly in color pattern from other Missouri populations. Based on our examination of mate- rial from throughout the Ozark Upland province, as well as other western rock bass populations, we describe the upper White River population as a new species, Ambloplites constellatus, the Ozark rock bass.
  • THE NAUTILUS (Quarterly)

    THE NAUTILUS (Quarterly)

    americanmalacologists, inc. PUBLISHERS OF DISTINCTIVE BOOKS ON MOLLUSKS THE NAUTILUS (Quarterly) MONOGRAPHS OF MARINE MOLLUSCA STANDARD CATALOG OF SHELLS INDEXES TO THE NAUTILUS {Geographical, vols 1-90; Scientific Names, vols 61-90) REGISTER OF AMERICAN MALACOLOGISTS JANUARY 30, 1984 THE NAUTILUS ISSN 0028-1344 Vol. 98 No. 1 A quarterly devoted to malacology and the interests of conchologists Founded 1889 by Henry A. Pilsbry. Continued by H. Burrington Baker. Editor-in-Chief: R. Tucker Abbott EDITORIAL COMMITTEE CONSULTING EDITORS Dr. William J. Clench Dr. Donald R. Moore Curator Emeritus Division of Marine Geology Museum of Comparative Zoology School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Cambridge, MA 02138 10 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, FL 33149 Dr. William K. Emerson Department of Living Invertebrates Dr. Joseph Rosewater The American Museum of Natural History Division of Mollusks New York, NY 10024 U.S. National Museum Washington, D.C. 20560 Dr. M. G. Harasewych 363 Crescendo Way Dr. G. Alan Solem Silver Spring, MD 20901 Department of Invertebrates Field Museum of Natural History Dr. Aurele La Rocque Chicago, IL 60605 Department of Geology The Ohio State University Dr. David H. Stansbery Columbus, OH 43210 Museum of Zoology The Ohio State University Dr. James H. McLean Columbus, OH 43210 Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History 900 Exposition Boulevard Dr. Ruth D. Turner Los Angeles, CA 90007 Department of Mollusks Museum of Comparative Zoology Dr. Arthur S. Merrill Cambridge, MA 02138 c/o Department of Mollusks Museum of Comparative Zoology Dr. Gilbert L. Voss Cambridge, MA 02138 Division of Biology School of Marine and Atmospheric Science 10 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, FL 33149 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF The Nautilus (USPS 374-980) ISSN 0028-1344 Dr.
  • Endangered Species

    Endangered Species

    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
  • Helmond Erika MSC BIOL Fall

    Helmond Erika MSC BIOL Fall

    THERMAL TOLERANCES OF AN ENDEMIC HOT SPRING SNAIL PHYSELLA WRIGHTI TE AND CLARKE (MOLLUSCA: PHYSIDAE) A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science in Biology University of Regina By Erika Kirsten Helmond Regina, Saskatchewan July 2020 Copyright 2020: Erika Helmond UNIVERSITY OF REGINA FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINING COMMITTEE Erika Kirsten Helmond, candidate for the degree of Master of Science in Biology, has presented a thesis titled, Thermal Tolerances of an Endemic Hot Spring Snail Physella wrighti Te and Clarke (Mollusca: Physidae), in an oral examination held on July 28, 2020. The following committee members have found the thesis acceptable in form and content, and that the candidate demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the subject material. External Examiner: *Prof. Bruce Leighton, Simon Fraser University Co-Supervisor: *Dr. Kerri FInlay, Department of Biology Co-Supervisor: *Dr. Cory Sheffield, Adjunct Committee Member: *Dr. Mel Hart, Department of BIology Committee Member: *Jennifer Heron, Adjunct Chair of Defense: *Dr. Maria Velez, Department of Geology *All present via Zoom ABSTRACT Physella wrighti (Te and Clarke, 1985) is an Endangered freshwater snail endemic to the Liard Hot Springs in northern British Columbia. It inhabits water temperatures from 23.5oC to 36oC and is active year-round. Despite its conservation status, little else is known about this species. To advance our understanding of P. wrighti in its environment, I investigated how water temperature affects aspects of its life history in a lab setting. I first investigated if P.
  • Conservation Guidelines for Michigan Lakes and Associated Natural Resources

    Conservation Guidelines for Michigan Lakes and Associated Natural Resources

    ATUR F N AL O R T E N S E O U M R T C R E A S STATE OF MICHIGAN P E DNR D M ICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SR38 March 2006 Conservation Guidelines for Michigan Lakes and Associated Natural Resources Richard P. O’Neal and Gregory J. Soulliere www.michigan.gov/dnr/ FISHERIES DIVISION SPECIAL REPORT 38 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FISHERIES DIVISION Special Report 38 March 2006 Conservation Guidelines for Michigan Lakes and Associated Natural Resources Richard P. O’Neal and Gregory J. Soulliere MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) MISSION STATEMENT “The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the State’s natural resources for current and future generations.” NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION (NRC) STATEMENT The Natural Resources Commission, as the governing body for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, provides a strategic framework for the DNR to effectively manage your resources. The NRC holds monthly, public meetings throughout Michigan, working closely with its constituencies in establishing and improving natural resources management policy. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NON DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) provides equal opportunities for employment and access to Michigan’s natural resources. Both State and Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, height, weight or marital status under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 as amended (MI PA 453 and MI PA 220, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act).
  • The Hoosier- Shawnee Ecological Assessment Area

    The Hoosier- Shawnee Ecological Assessment Area

    United States Department of Agriculture The Hoosier- Forest Service Shawnee Ecological North Central Assessment Research Station General Frank R. Thompson, III, Editor Technical Report NC-244 Thompson, Frank R., III, ed 2004. The Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-244. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 267 p. This report is a scientific assessment of the characteristic composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems in the southern one-third of Illinois and Indiana and a small part of western Kentucky. It includes chapters on ecological sections and soils, water resources, forest, plants and communities, aquatic animals, terrestrial animals, forest diseases and pests, and exotic animals. The information presented provides a context for land and resource management planning on the Hoosier and Shawnee National Forests. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Key Words: crayfish, current conditions, communities, exotics, fish, forests, Hoosier National Forest, mussels, plants, Shawnee National Forest, soils, water resources, wildlife. Cover photograph: Camel Rock in Garden of the Gods Recreation Area, with Shawnee Hills and Garden of the Gods Wilderness in the back- ground, Shawnee National Forest, Illinois. Contents Preface....................................................................................................................... II North Central Research Station USDA Forest Service Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................
  • Mussel Survivorship, Growth Rate and Shell Decay Rate in the New River Basin of Tennessee: an Experimental Approach Using Corbicula Fluminea

    Mussel Survivorship, Growth Rate and Shell Decay Rate in the New River Basin of Tennessee: an Experimental Approach Using Corbicula Fluminea

    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 8-2012 Mussel Survivorship, Growth Rate and Shell Decay Rate in the New River Basin of Tennessee: an Experimental Approach Using Corbicula fluminea Grant Andrew Mincy [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Geology Commons, Multivariate Analysis Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Paleontology Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Recommended Citation Mincy, Grant Andrew, "Mussel Survivorship, Growth Rate and Shell Decay Rate in the New River Basin of Tennessee: an Experimental Approach Using Corbicula fluminea. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2012. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1304 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Grant Andrew Mincy entitled "Mussel Survivorship, Growth Rate and Shell Decay Rate in the New River Basin of Tennessee: an Experimental Approach Using Corbicula fluminea." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Geology. Michael L. McKinney, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Colin D.
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf

    Kyfishid[1].Pdf

    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
  • And the Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta Pellucida) in the Elk River, West Virginia

    And the Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta Pellucida) in the Elk River, West Virginia

    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2016 Distribution and habitat use of the western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara) and the eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) in the Elk River, West Virginia Patricia A. Thompson Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Thompson, Patricia A., "Distribution and habitat use of the western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara) and the eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) in the Elk River, West Virginia" (2016). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 6800. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/6800 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Distribution and habitat use of the western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara) and the eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) in the Elk River, West Virginia Patricia A. Thompson Thesis submitted to the Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Design at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Wildlife and Fisheries Resources Stuart A.
  • Aquatic Species Mapping in North Carolina Using Maxent

    Aquatic Species Mapping in North Carolina Using Maxent

    Aquatic Species Mapping in North Carolina Using Maxent Mark Endries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville North Carolina INTRODUCTION The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the lead governmental agency involved in the recovery of federally endangered and threatened species in freshwater and terrestrial habitats. To meet its recovery and protection goals, the Service: (1) works with other federal agencies to minimize or eliminate impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants from projects they authorize, fund, or carry out; (2) supports the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat on private land through technical and financial assistance; and (3) provides scientific knowledge and analyses to help guide the conservation, development, and management of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources. Freshwater ecosystems present unique management challenges due to their linear spatial orientation and their association with upland habitat variables. On broad scales, the movement of aquatic species within the stream environment is limited to upstream and downstream migration. The inability of aquatic species to circumnavigate man-made obstacles causes them to be particularly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation has a major influence on species distribution and complicates distribution mapping. To better understand the spatial distributions of freshwater aquatic species in North Carolina, the Service created predictive habitat maps for 226 different aquatic species using geographic information systems (GIS) and maximum entropy (Maxent) modeling. These maps were derived by comparing known species occurrences with a suite of stream- or land-cover-derived environmental variables.
  • Freshwater Mollusca of Plummers Island, Maryland Author(S): Timothy A

    Freshwater Mollusca of Plummers Island, Maryland Author(S): Timothy A

    Freshwater Mollusca of Plummers Island, Maryland Author(s): Timothy A. Pearce and Ryan Evans Source: Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington, 15(1):20-30. Published By: Biological Society of Washington DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2988/0097-0298(2008)15[20:FMOPIM]2.0.CO;2 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2988/0097-0298%282008%2915%5B20%3AFMOPIM %5D2.0.CO%3B2 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Freshwater Mollusca of Plummers Island, Maryland Timothy A. Pearce and Ryan Evans (TAP) Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Section of Mollusks, 4400 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, U.S.A., e-mail: [email protected]; (RE) Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Pittsburgh Office, 209 Fourth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, U.S.A. Abstract.—We found 19 species of freshwater mollusks (seven bivalves, 12 gastropods) in the Plummers Island area, Maryland, bringing the total known for the Middle Potomac River to 42 species.