DOCSLIB.ORG

C:\My Documents\Rasmussenfiles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
C:\My Documents\Rasmussenfiles IDENTIFICATION MANUAL FOR THE CADDISFLY (TRICHOPTERA) LARVAE OF FLORIDA REVISED EDITION 2004 Manuel L. Pescador Andrew K. Rasmussen Steven C. Harris State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resource Management Tallahassee Development of this document was funded by a grant from the Clean Water Act Section 319 Final Report for DEP Contract Number WM715 December 2004 IDENTIFICATION MANUAL FOR THE CADDISFLY (TRICHOPTERA) LARVAE OF FLORIDA REVISED EDITION 2004 by Manuel L. Pescador, Ph.D. Professor of Entomology Florida A&M University Tallahassee, Florida 32307-4100 and Research Associate Florida State Collection of Arthropods Gainesville, Florida 32611 Andrew K. Rasmussen, Ph.D. Research Associate Entomology, Center for Water Quality Florida A&M University Tallahassee, Florida 32307-4100 and Florida State Collection of Arthropods Gainesville, Florida 32611 Steven C. Harris, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Clarion University Clarion, Pennsylvania 16214-1232 Karen Savage, Project Manager Division of Water Resource Management Florida Department of Environmental Protection Requests for copies of this document should be addressed to: Bureau of Laboratories, Attn: Joy Jackson Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 This document is available at the following web site:http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/library/keys.htm TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1 General overview of the order............................................. 1 About this manual ...................................................... 1 Acknowledgements ..................................................... 3 Working with specimens ................................................. 3 Morphology ........................................................... 4 KEY TO FAMILIES OF FLORIDA TRICHOPTERA .............................. 6 FAMILY BERAEIDAE ....................................................... 19 Genus Beraea Stephens................................................. 19 FAMILY BRACHYCENTRIDAE .............................................. 20 Genus Brachycentrus Curtis: Key to Species ................................ 22 Genus Micrasema MacLachlan: Key to Species.............................. 24 FAMILY CALAMOCERATIDAE .............................................. 26 Genus Anisocentropus MacLachlan........................................ 27 Genus Heteroplectron MacLachlan........................................ 28 FAMILY DIPSEUDOPSIDAE ................................................ 29 Genus Phylocentropus Banks: Key to Species ............................... 30 FAMILY GLOSSOSOMATIDAE .............................................. 32 Genus Protoptila Banks................................................. 32 FAMILY HELICOPSYCHIDAE ............................................... 33 Genus Helicopsyche von Siebold .......................................... 33 FAMILY HYDROPSYCHIDAE ............................................... 34 Genus Cheumatopsyche Wallengren....................................... 37 Genus Diplectrona Westwood: Key to Species ............................... 38 Genus Hydropsyche Pictet: Key to Species.................................. 39 Genus Macrostemum Pictet.............................................. 46 Genus Potamyia Banks ................................................. 47 FAMILY HYDROPTILIDAE .................................................. 48 Genus Hydroptila Dalman............................................... 52 Genus Mayatrichia Mosely.............................................. 52 iii Page HYDROPTILIDAE continued Genus Neotrichia Morton ............................................... 53 Genus Ochrotrichia Mosely.............................................. 53 Genus Orthotrichia Eaton............................................... 53 Genus Oxyethira Eaton ................................................. 54 Genus Stactobiella Martynov............................................. 54 FAMILY LEPIDOSTOMATIDAE .............................................. 55 Genus Lepidostoma Rambur............................................. 55 FAMILY LEPTOCERIDAE ................................................... 56 Genus Ceraclea Stephens: Key to Species .................................. 60 Genus Leptocerus Leach ................................................ 67 Genus Nectopsyche Muller: Key to Species ................................. 68 Genus Oecetis MacLachlan: Key to Species................................. 71 Genus Setodes Rambur: Key to Species .................................... 80 Genus Triaenodes MacLachlan: Key to Species.............................. 82 FAMILY LIMNEPHILIDAE .................................................. 95 Genus Ironoquia Banks................................................. 96 Genus Pycnopsyche Banks............................................... 97 FAMILY MOLANNIDAE ..................................................... 98 Genus Molanna Curtis: Key to Species..................................... 99 FAMILY ODONTOCERIDAE ................................................ 101 Genus Psilotreta Banks: Key to Species................................... 102 FAMILY PHILOPOTAMIDAE ............................................... 103 Genus Chimarra Stephens.............................................. 104 Genus Wormaldia MacLachlan.......................................... 104 FAMILY PHRYGANEIDAE ................................................. 105 Genus Agrypnia Curtis................................................. 107 Genus Banksiola Martynov............................................. 107 Genus Ptilostomis Kolenati............................................. 108 FAMILY POLYCENTROPODIDAE .......................................... 109 Genus Cernotina Ross................................................. 112 Genus Cyrnellus Banks ................................................ 112 Genus Neureclipsis MacLachlan: Key to Species............................ 113 Genus Nyctiophylax Tsuda ............................................. 115 Genus Polycentropus Curtis ............................................ 116 iv Page FAMILY PSYCHOMYIIDAE ................................................ 117 Genus Lype MacLachlan............................................... 118 Genus Psychomyia Latreille ............................................. 119 FAMILY RHYACOPHILIDAE ................................................ 120 Genus Rhyacophila Pictet: Key to Species ................................. 121 FAMILY SERICOSTOMATIDAE ............................................. 122 Genus Agarodes Banks ................................................ 122 FAMILY UENOIDAE ....................................................... 123 Genus Neophylax MacLachlan .......................................... 123 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................... 124 APPENDIX A: CHECKLIST OF FLORIDA CADDISFLIES ...................... 131 v -1- INTRODUCTION Caddisflies (Trichoptera) are a diverse and vital biotic component of freshwater ecosystems, having been able to adapt and succeed in nearly every type of aquatic habitat. Although the greatest species diversity occurs in cool running waters, many species inhabit lakes and ponds, as well as specialized habitats such as marshes, swamps, springs, seeps, and intermittent streams. A few species live on marine shores and some in moist soil as well. The biological roles of caddisflies in freshwater ecosystems have been well documented (Scott and Crossman, 1973; Wallace et al., 1982; Merritt et al., 1984; Irons et al., 1988), and their potential use as biological indicators of water quality is well known (Plafkin et al., 1989; Resh and Jackson, 1993; Johnson et al., 1993; Barbour et al., 1999). Caddisflies are one of the dominant aquatic insect groups in Florida. However, knowledge of the systematics of the caddisfly fauna in the state is still limited, most particularly for the larvae, the life stage that benthologists most often encounter in the field. Caddisflies are excellent indicators of water quality, and to appreciate fully the utility of the group as a bioassessment tool requires a good taxonomic knowledge of the fauna, particularly at the species level (Resh and Unzicker, 1975; Lenat, 1988). The ability to distinguish the larvae provides a better understanding of the patterns of population and production dynamics in freshwater ecosystems (Resh, 1976). The literature dealing with the taxonomy of the caddisflies of Florida is very scattered in various publications, and it is a time-consuming exercise to search these references. This manual represents our attempt to consolidate the available taxonomic information on the larval taxonomy of the caddisfly fauna in the state. The manual is far from being a panacea to the problem of limited taxonomic knowledge of the group but rather serves as a reminder of how much work still needs to be done. Larval-adult associations are available for only approximately 50% of the approximately 192 species represented in the state. The manual leaves plenty of room for improvement in this regard. A group as large as caddisflies requires years to conduct a more thorough and comprehensive taxonomic study. ABOUT THIS MANUAL Area covered: This manual was prepared to aid aquatic biologists in the identification of the caddisfly larvae of Florida. The manual provides keys to the families, genera, and species (where
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freshwater Invertebrate Life History Strategies for Surviving Desiccation
    MURDOCH RESEARCH REPOSITORY This is the author’s final version of the work, as accepted for publication following peer review but without the publisher’s layout or pagination. The definitive version is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40362-015-0031-9 Strachan, S.R., Chester, E.T. and Robson, B.J. (2015) Freshwater invertebrate life history strategies for surviving desiccation. Springer Science Reviews, 3 (1). pp. 57-75. http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/30319/ Copyright: © Springer International Publishing AG 2015. It is posted here for your personal use. No further distribution is permitted. 1 Freshwater invertebrate life history strategies for surviving desiccation 2 Scott R. Strachan, Edwin T. Chester, Belinda J. Robson 3 Environmental and Conservation Science, Murdoch University, South Street, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150 4 5 PhD student: Mr Scott Strachan (affiliation above): [email protected] 6 Supervisors: Dr Ed Chester & Dr Belinda Robson (affiliation above) 7 Start date: 14/02/11 8 Literature review completion date – 2014 9 Word count: 7,453 10 Motivation 11 • Climate change is prolonging dry periods in intermittent rivers and wetlands in many regions across the world, 12 increasing the potential for desiccation stress in the fauna. Invertebrates comprise the greatest proportion of 13 biodiversity in these systems, but there are no recent reviews on the response of invertebrates to desiccation in the 14 context of climate change. 15 • This review elaborates on the idea that the degree of desiccation that fauna experience is likely to be critical for 16 survival as climates dry because this idea has not previously been considered in the literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Fact Sheet for Homoplectra Schuhi
    SPECIES FACT SHEET Common Name: Schuh’s Homoplectran Caddisfly Scientific Name: Homoplectra schuhi Denning 1965 Phylum: Mandibulata Class: Insecta Order: Trichoptera Suborder: Annulipalpia Family: Hydropsychidae Subfamily: Diplectroninae Conservation Status Global Status (2005): G3Q – Vulnerable, but taxonomic questions persist (last reviewed 25 Mar 2005) National Status (United States): N3 - Vulnerable (23 Feb 2005) State Status (Oregon): S3 - Vulnerable (NatureServe 2015) Oregon Biodiversity Information Center: List 3 IUCN Red List: NE – Not evaluated Taxonomic Note This species has been given a global status of G3Q due to the limited number of specimens that have been reviewed to date, and the variability of diagnostic characteristics (NatureServe 2015). This genus is in need of additional collecting and taxonomic review, which may lead to synonymization with older described species (Wisseman 2015, Ruiter 2015). For example, specimens identified as H. luchia Denning 1966 may in fact be synonyms of H. schuhi (Ruiter 2015). Technical Description A microscope is required to identify Homoplectra schuhi, as identifications are based on genitalia anatomy. The advice of a Trichoptera expert is suggested. See Denning (1965) for lateral view drawings of the male and female genitalia. Adult: The adults of this species are small, moth-like insects in the caddisfly family Hydropsychidae. Homoplectra males are recognized by the complexity of the phallic apparatus, which can be complicated by very strong development of several sclerotized branches (Schmid 1998). Holotype male: Length 6 mm. General color of head, thorax and abdomen dark brown, wings tan with no pattern, legs and antennae varying shades of brownish. Pubescence of head, thorax and legs aureous. Fifth sternite with a dorsal filament enlarged distally and curved dorso-caudad.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Need and Reasonableness: August 10, 2012
    CADDISFLIES ONLY Notations Used E Endangered T Threatened SC Special Concern N None (location records maintained by DNR, in most cases) N (X) None, and probably extirpated from Minnesota (location records maintained by DNR, in most cases) -- None (location records not yet maintained by DNR) * Change in scientific name accompanies change in status CHANGE IN STATUS; STATUS SHEET PROVIDED Common Name Scientific Name Current Proposed Status Status A Species of Northern Caddisfly Anabolia ozburni -- SC * A Species of Northern Caddisfly Asynarchus rossi SC T A Species of Long Horned Caddisfly Ceraclea brevis SC N Vertrees's Ceraclean Caddisfly Ceraclea vertreesi SC N Headwaters Chilostigman Caddisfly Chilostigma itascae E T A Species of Caddisfly Goera stylata -- T A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila novicola SC N A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila quinola -- SC A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila rono -- T A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila waskesia -- E A Species of Northern Caddisfly Ironoquia punctatissima -- T A Species of Caddisfly Lepidostoma libum -- T A Species of Northern Caddisfly Limnephilus janus -- E A Species of Northern Caddisfly Limnephilus secludens -- E A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Ochrotrichia spinosa -- E A Species of Long Horned Caddisfly Oecetis ditissa -- T A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Oxyethira ecornuta SC T A Species of Netspinning Caddisfly Parapsyche apicalis -- T A Species of Tube Casemaker Caddisfly Polycentropus glacialis -- T A Species
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Morphometries of Two Californian Populations of Gumaga Nigricula (Mclachlan 1871) (Trichoptera: Sericostomatidae)12
    Morphometries of two Californian populations of Gumaga nigricula (McLachlan 1871) (Trichoptera: Sericostomatidae)12 Jorge A. Santiago-Blay3 J. Agrie, Univ. RR. 80(3):157-167 (1996) ABSTRACT Eighty Gumaga nigricula larvae from Hopland Spring and Big Sulphur Creek, northern California, USA, were studied to quantify possible dissimi­ larities among them. The populations are statistically different in two meris- tic characters: number of setae on the anterior margin of the pronotum and number of pleural sclerites on abdominal segment VIII. They also appear to be different in a continuous character, head width/length ratio. In all cases, specimens from Big Sulphur Creek have statistically significant higher val­ ues. These data are congruent with the hypothesis that there is biologically significant genetic isolation between these populations. Key words: Morphometries, Gumaga, Trichoptera, morphology, systematics, ecological indicator RESUMEN Morfometría en dos poblaciones california ñas de Gumaga nigricula (McLachlan 1871) {Trichoptera: Sericostomatidae) Ochenta larvas de Gumaga nigricula provenientes del Hopland Spring y del Big Sulphur Creek en el norte de California, Estados Unidos, se estudia­ ron para cuantificar las posibles diferencias entre ellas. Estas poblaciones son estadísticamente diferentes en dos características merísticas: el nú­ mero de cerdas en el margen anterior del pronoto y el número de escleritos pleurales en el segmento abdominal VIH. Estas poblaciones también pare­ cen ser diferentes en la característica continua, cociente ancho/largo de la 'Manuscript submitted to Editorial Board 15 February 1995, 2I wish to thank V. R. Resh for providing laboratory facilities, literature, and speci­ mens for this study. J. R. Wood also provided specimens, excellent advice, and a preview of the conclusions of his doctoral dissertation on the taxonomic question addressed in this study.
    [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]
  • (Trichoptera: Limnephilidae) in Western North America By
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Robert W. Wisseman for the degree of Master ofScience in Entomology presented on August 6, 1987 Title: Biology and Distribution of the Dicosmoecinae (Trichoptera: Limnsphilidae) in Western North America Redacted for privacy Abstract approved: N. H. Anderson Literature and museum records have been reviewed to provide a summary on the distribution, habitat associations and biology of six western North American Dicosmoecinae genera and the single eastern North American genus, Ironoquia. Results of this survey are presented and discussed for Allocosmoecus,Amphicosmoecus and Ecclisomvia. Field studies were conducted in western Oregon on the life-histories of four species, Dicosmoecusatripes, D. failvipes, Onocosmoecus unicolor andEcclisocosmoecus scvlla. Although there are similarities between generain the general habitat requirements, the differences or variability is such that we cannot generalize to a "typical" dicosmoecine life-history strategy. A common thread for the subfamily is the association with cool, montane streams. However, within this stream category habitat associations range from semi-aquatic, through first-order specialists, to river inhabitants. In feeding habits most species are omnivorous, but they range from being primarilydetritivorous to algal grazers. The seasonal occurrence of the various life stages and voltinism patterns are also variable. Larvae show inter- and intraspecificsegregation in the utilization of food resources and microhabitatsin streams. Larval life-history patterns appear to be closely linked to seasonal regimes in stream discharge. A functional role for the various types of case architecture seen between and within species is examined. Manipulation of case architecture appears to enable efficient utilization of a changing seasonal pattern of microhabitats and food resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Makrozoobentos Kao Pokazatelj Ekološkog Potencijala Umjetnih Stajaćica
    Makrozoobentos kao pokazatelj ekološkog potencijala umjetnih stajaćica Vučković, Natalija Doctoral thesis / Disertacija 2021 Degree Grantor / Ustanova koja je dodijelila akademski / stručni stupanj: University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science / Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Prirodoslovno-matematički fakultet Permanent link / Trajna poveznica: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:217:251464 Rights / Prava: In copyright Download date / Datum preuzimanja: 2021-10-11 Repository / Repozitorij: Repository of Faculty of Science - University of Zagreb PRIRODOSLOVNO-MATEMATIČKI FAKULTET BIOLOŠKI ODSJEK Natalija Vučković MAKROZOOBENTOS KAO POKAZATELJ EKOLOŠKOG POTENCIJALA UMJETNIH STAJAĆICA DOKTORSKI RAD Zagreb, 2020 PRIRODOSLOVNO-MATEMATIČKI FAKULTET BIOLOŠKI ODSJEK Natalija Vučković MAKROZOOBENTOS KAO POKAZATELJ EKOLOŠKOG POTENCIJALA UMJETNIH STAJAĆICA DOKTORSKI RAD Mentor: Prof. dr. sc. Zlatko Mihaljević Zagreb, 2020 FACULTY OF SCIENCE DIVISION OF BIOLOGY Natalija Vučković MACROZOOBENTHOS AS AN INDICATOR OF THE ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL OF CONSTRUCTED LAKE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION Supervisor: Prof. dr. sc. Zlatko Mihaljević Zagreb, 2020 Ovaj je doktorski rad izrađen na Zoologijskom zavodu Prirodoslovno- matematičkog fakulteta, pod vodstvom Prof. dr. sc. Zlatka Mihaljevića, u sklopu Sveučilišnog poslijediplomskog doktorskog studija Biologije pri Biološkom odsjeku Prirodoslovno-matematičkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. MENTOR DOKTORSKE DISERTACIJE Prof. dr. sc. Zlatko Mihaljević Rođen je 21. siječnja 1966. godine u Varaždinu. Studij biologije (ekologija), upisuje 1986.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Section a Aquatic Macroinvertebrates (Exclusive of Mosquitoes)
    I LLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. \oc iatural History Survey. Library iiAOs (ClSCi;; ILLINOIS - NATURAL HISTORY Ai . .ý . - I-w. Iv mk U16 OL SURVEY CHAPTER 9 AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES SECTION A AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES (EXCLUSIVE OF MOSQUITOES) Final Report October, 1985 Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification Technical Report by Allison R. Brigham, Lawrence M. Page, John D. Unzicker Mark J. Wetzel, Warren U. Brigham, Donald W. Webb, and Liane Suloway Prepared for Wetlands Research, Inc. 53 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 Arjpp, Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification Technical Report 1985 (6) 6'Wa- CHAPTER 9 AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES SECTION A AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES (EXCLUSIVE OF MOSQUITOES) Allison R. Brigham, Lawrence M. Page, John D. Unzicker Mark J. Wetzel, Warren U. Brigham, Donald W. Webb, and Liane Suloway INTRODUCTION Aquatic macroinvertebrates are primary and secondary level consumers that play an important role in transferring energy through the different trophic levels of the food chains of aquatic ecosystems. These animals feed upon submerged and emergent macrophytes, plankton, and organic material suspended in the water column. Burrowing and feeding activities aid in the decomposition of plant and animal matter and the eventual recycling of nutrients. In addition, these organisms prey upon each other and serve as food for fishes, certain birds, and other animals. In general, aquatic macroinvertebrates have not been systematically surveyed in Illinois, and rarely have individual species been studied ecologically. This is due, in part, to the inconspicuous nature of most freshwater inverte- brates and the many taxonomic problems which preclude distributional, ecologi- cal, and other studies.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Characters
    40 Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation: Final Report Leon C. Hinz Jr. and James N. Zahniser Illinois Natural History Survey Prairie Research Institute University of Illinois 30 April 2015 INHS Technical Report 2015 (31) Prepared for: Illinois Department of Natural Resources State Wildlife Grant Program (Project Number T-88-R-001) Unrestricted: for immediate online release. Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Brian D. Anderson, Interim Executive Director Illinois Natural History Survey Geoffrey A. Levin, Acting Director 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 217-333-6830 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation. Project Number: T-88-R-001 Contractor information: University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability Illinois Natural History Survey 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Project Period: 1 October 2013—31 September 2014 Principle Investigator: Leon C. Hinz Jr., Ph.D. Stream Ecologist Illinois Natural History Survey One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL 62702-1271 217-785-8297 [email protected] Prepared by: Leon C. Hinz Jr. & James N. Zahniser Goals/ Objectives: (1) Review all SGNC listing criteria for currently listed non-mollusk invertebrate species using criteria in Illinois Wildlife Action Plan, (2) Assess current status of species populations, (3) Review criteria for additional species for potential listing as SGNC, (4) Assess stressors to species previously reviewed, (5) Complete draft updates and revisions of IWAP Appendix I and Appendix II for non-mollusk invertebrates. T-88 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Ecosystem Services of Trichoptera
    Review Diversity and Ecosystem Services of Trichoptera John C. Morse 1,*, Paul B. Frandsen 2,3, Wolfram Graf 4 and Jessica A. Thomas 5 1 Department of Plant & Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, E-143 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634-0310, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Plant & Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 701 E University Parkway Drive, Provo, UT 84602, USA; [email protected] 3 Data Science Lab, Smithsonian Institution, 600 Maryland Ave SW, Washington, D.C. 20024, USA 4 BOKU, Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecology Management, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendelstr. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] 5 Department of Biology, University of York, Wentworth Way, York Y010 5DD, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-864-656-5049 Received: 2 February 2019; Accepted: 12 April 2019; Published: 1 May 2019 Abstract: The holometabolous insect order Trichoptera (caddisflies) includes more known species than all of the other primarily aquatic orders of insects combined. They are distributed unevenly; with the greatest number and density occurring in the Oriental Biogeographic Region and the smallest in the East Palearctic. Ecosystem services provided by Trichoptera are also very diverse and include their essential roles in food webs, in biological monitoring of water quality, as food for fish and other predators (many of which are of human concern), and as engineers that stabilize gravel bed sediment. They are especially important in capturing and using a wide variety of nutrients in many forms, transforming them for use by other organisms in freshwaters and surrounding riparian areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware's Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    CHAPTER 1 DELAWARE’S WILDLIFE SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED CHAPTER 1: Delaware’s Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Delaware’s Animal Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 10 State of Knowledge of Delaware’s Species ................................................................................................... 10 Delaware’s Wildlife and SGCN - presented by Taxonomic Group .................................................................. 11 Delaware’s 2015 SGCN Status Rank Tier Definitions................................................................................. 12 TIER 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Mammals ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]