DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix F Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix F Bibliography APPENDIX F BIBLIOGRAPHY Organization of References References are organized first by chapter, and then alphabetically. The “CODE” column indicates the appropriate source category for the reference, as identified and required by RCW 34.05.271. These codes are as follows: i. independent peer review; review is overseen by an independent third party ii. internal peer review; review by staff internal to WDFW iii. external peer review; review by persons that are external to and selected by WDFW iv. Open review; documented open public review process that is not limited to invited organizations or individuals v. Legal and policy document; documents related to the legal framework for WDFW, including but not limited to: (A) federal and state statutes, (B) court and hearings board decisions, (C) federal and state administrative rules and regulations; and (D) policy and regulatory documents adopted by local governments. vi. Data from pimary research, monitoring activities or other sources. vii. Records of best professional judgement of WDFW employees or other inidividuals viii. Other: sources of information that do not fit into one of the categories identified above. REFERENCE CHAPTER CODE Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States: second edition. United Chapter 2 i States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Miscellaneous Publications No. 1391, Washington DC USA. 108 pp plus map (1:7,500,000). Bailey, R. G. 1998. Ecoregions map of North America: explanatory note. Misc. Pub. No. 1548. Chapter 2 i Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 10 pp., with separate map at 1:15,000,000, in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy and the US Geological Survey. Chappell, C., R. Crawford, J. Kagan and P. J. Doran. 1997. A vegetation, land use and habitat Chapter 2 i classification system for the terrestrial and aquatic systems of Oregon and Washington. Prepared for: Wildlife Habitats and Species Associations in Oregon and Washington – Building a Common Understanding for Management. Progress Report #3. Olympia, WA. Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon Chapter 2 i State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon. Glick P., L. Helbrecht, J. Lawler and M. Case, 2013. Safeguarding Washington’s Fish and Chapter 2 i,ii Wildlife in an Era of Climate Change; A case study of partnerships in action, National Wildlife Federation, Seattle, WA. NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Chapter 2 vi Version 4.4. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Washington Biodiversity Council. 2007. Washington’s Biodiversity Status and Threats. Chapter 2 i Washington Recreation and Conservation Office. Olympia, Washington Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2014. Game management plan: 2015- Chapter 2 ii,iii,iv 2021. Wildlife Program. Olympia, WA. 2015 STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN F-1 REFERENCE CHAPTER CODE Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1988. Draft nongame strategic plan. Chapter 2 ii,iii Wildlife Division Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1998. Our changing nature: Natural Chapter 2 i resource trends in Washington State. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2000. Changing our water ways: Chapter 2 i Trends in Washington’s water systems. Olympia, WA. Washington State Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification (2012): Ocean Acidification: Chapter 2 i From Knowledge to Action, Washington State’s Strategic Response. H. Adelsman and L. Whitely Binder (eds). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Publication no. 12-01-015. Altman, B., M. Hayes, S. Janes and R. Forbes. 2001. Wildlife of westside grassland and Chapter 4 i chaparral habitats. Pages 261-291 in D. H. Johnson and T. A. O’Neil, Managing Directors. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Block, W. M. and L. A. Brennan. 1993. The habitat concept in ornithology: theory and Chapter 4 i applications. Current Ornithology 11:35-91. Caplow, F. and J. Miller. 2004. Southwestern Washington prairies: using GIS to find rare plant Chapter 4 i habitat in historic prairies. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. Chappell, C. B. 2006. Plant Associations of Balds and Bluffs of western Washington. Chapter 4 vi Washington Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. Online: http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/communities/index.html Chappell, C. B. and J. Kagan. 2001. Westside riparian-wetlands. Pages 94-96 in D. H. Johnson Chapter 4 i and T. A. O’Neil, Managing Directors. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Chappell, C. B., E. A. Alverson and W. R. Erickson. 2004. Ecologic and geographic variation in Chapter 4 vi species composition of prairies, herbaceous balds and oak woodlands of the Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin Ecoregion. Abstract: Ecological Society of America, August 1 - 6, 2004, Portland Convention Center, Oregon. Crawford, R. C. and H. Hall. 1997. In Dunn, P.V. and K. Ewing. Ecology and Conservation of Chapter 4 i the South Puget Sound Prairie Landscape. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA. Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Chapter 4 i Service, Washington, DC, USA. Easterly, R. T., D. L. Salstrom and C. B. Chappell. 2005. Wet prairie swales of the South Puget Chapter 4 vi Sound, Washington. Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy, South Sound Office, Olympia, Washington. Edelman, A. J. 2003. Marmota olympus. Mammalian Species 736: 1-5. Chapter 4 i Edge, W. D. 2001. Wildlife of Agriculture, Pastures and Mixed Environs. Pages 342-360 in D. Chapter 4 i H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, editors. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Nichols, L. Master, K. Snow, A. Tomaino, R. Bittman, G. Hammerson, Chapter 4 i B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, A. Teucher and B. Young. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Methodology for Assigning Ranks. NatureServe, Arlington VA. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Chapter 4 i Version 2. FGDC-STD-005-2008. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2012. Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Chapter 4 i Standard. FGDC-STD-018-2012. Ferguson, H. L., K. Robinette, K. Stenberg. 2001. Wildlife of urban habitats. Pages 317-341 in Chapter 4 i D. H. Johnson and T. A. O’Neil, Managing Directors. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 2015 STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN F-2 REFERENCE CHAPTER CODE Fresh K., M. Dethier, C. Simenstad, M. Logsdon, H. Shipman, C. Tanner, T. Leschine, T. Chapter 4 i Mumford, G. Gelfenbaum, R. Shuman and J. Newton. 2011. Implications of Observed Anthropogenic Changes to the Nearshore Ecosystems in Puget Sound. Prepared for the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project. Technical Report 2011-03. Hallock, L. A. and K. R. McAllister. 2009. American Bullfrog. Washington Herp Atlas. Chapter 4 vi http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/ Hallock, L. A., R. D. Haugo and R. Crawford. 2007. Conservation strategy for Washington Chapter 4 i State inland sand dunes. Natural Heritage Report 2007-05. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, Washington. Hultine, K. R., S. E. Bush and J. R. Ehleringer. 2010. Ecophysiology of riparian cottonwood and Chapter 4 i willow before, during and after two years of soil water removal. Ecological Applications 20:347-361. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, editors. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Chapter 4 i Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Johnson, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating Chapter 4 i resource preference. Ecology 61:65-71. Kauffman, J. B., A. S. Thorpe and E. N. J. Brookshire. 2004. Livestock exclusion and Chapter 4 i belowground ecosystem responses in riparian meadows of Eastern Oregon. Ecological Applications 14: 1671-1679. Kauffman, J. B., M. Mahrt, L. A. Mahrt and W. D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. Chapter 4 i Pages 361-388 in D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, editors. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Knutson, K. L. and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority Chapter 4 ii,iii habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Kovalchik, B. L. and R. R. Clausnitzer. 2004. Classification and management of aquatic, riparian Chapter 4 i and wetland sites on the national forests of eastern Washington: series description. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-593. Portland, Oregon. Linders, M. J., W. M. Vander Haegen, J. M. Azerrad, R. Dobson and T. Labbe. 2010. Chapter 4 ii,iii Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species: Western Gray Squirrel. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. MacKenzie, W. H. and J. R. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: a guide to Chapter 4 i identification. Research Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forestry, Victoria, British Columbia. Marcoe, K. and S. Pilson. 2012. Land cover change in the Lower Columbia River Estuary, 1880 Chapter 4 vi – 2011. Poster presented at The Columbia River Estuary Conference. May 15 to 17, 2012, Astoria, Oregon. Master, L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G. A. Hammerson, B. Heidel, J. Nichols, L. Chapter 4 i Ramsay and A. Tomaino (2009). NatureServe conservation status assessments: factors for assessing extinction risk. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Mayor, S. J., D. C. Schneider, J.A. Schaefer and S.P. Mahoney. 2009. Habitat selection at Chapter 4 i multiple scales. Ecoscience 16:238-247. Perry, L. G., D. C. Andersen, L. V. Reynolds, S. M. Nelson and P. B. Shafroth. 2012. Chapter 4 i Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Petition to Protect the Pinto Abalone
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE PETITION TO LIST THE PINTO ABALONE (HALIOTIS KAMTSCHATKANA) UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Center for Biological Diversity August 1, 2013 NOTICE OF PETITION Penny Pritzker Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Email: [email protected] Samuel Rauch Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Ph: (301) 427-8000 Email: [email protected] PETITIONER The Center for Biological Diversity PO Box 100599 Anchorage, AK 99510-0599 Ph: (907) 793-8691 Date: August 1, 2013 Kiersten Lippmann Center for Biological Diversity Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b), Section 553(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 533(e), and 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(a), the Center for Biological Diversity (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions the Secretary of Commerce and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), through the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS” or “NOAA Fisheries”), to list the pinto abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) as a threatened or endangered species and to designate critical habitat to ensure its survival and recovery. The Center for Biological Diversity (Center) is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has nearly 475,000 members and online activists in Alaska, throughout the United States and internationally. The Center and its members are concerned with the conservation of endangered species and the effective implementation of the ESA.
    [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]
  • Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Surveys and Stewardship Activities, 2013
    Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Surveys and Stewardship Activities, 2013 Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Colin Murray Report No. 2014-01 Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Box 24, 200 Saulteaux Crescent Winnipeg, Manitoba R3J 3W3 www.manitoba.ca/conservation/cdc Recommended Citation: Murray, C. 2014. Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Surveys and Stewardship Activities, 2013. Report No. 2014-01. Manitoba Conservation Data Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba. v+41 pp. Images: Unless otherwise noted, all images are ©Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. Cover image: View of the Assiniboine River and Beaver Creek valleys looking south from a top the valley plateau. Inset is a White Flower Moth (Schinia bimatris) at rest. Photographed at Spruce Woods Provincial Park. Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Surveys and Stewardship Activities, 2013 By Colin Murray Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Wildlife Branch Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Winnipeg, Manitoba Executive Summary In 2013, the Manitoba Conservation Data Center (MBCDC) added nearly 1,240 new occurrences to its Biodiversity Geospatial Database. This represents thousands of species at risk (SAR) observations including 27 plant and 51 animal species. Observations were gathered by MBCDC staff and also submitted to the MBCDC by individuals and other organisations. This information will further enhance our understanding of biodiversity in Manitoba and guide research, development, and educational efforts. This year MBCDC field surveys targeted 21 species which are listed under the federal Species at Risk Act, assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), and listed under Manitoba’s Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act, and especially occurring in the mixed-grass prairie and sandhill areas of southwestern Manitoba.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Lepidoptera of the Wainwright Dunes Ecological Reserve
    SURVEY OF LEPIDOPTERA OF THE WAINWRIGHT DUNES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 159 SURVEY OF LEPIDOPTERA OF THE WAINWRIGHT DUNES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Doug Macaulay Alberta Species at Risk Report No.159 Project Partners: i ISBN 978-1-4601-3449-8 ISSN 1496-7146 Photo: Doug Macaulay of Pale Yellow Dune Moth ( Copablepharon grandis ) For copies of this report, visit our website at: http://www.aep.gov.ab.ca/fw/speciesatrisk/index.html This publication may be cited as: Macaulay, A. D. 2016. Survey of Lepidoptera of the Wainwright Dunes Ecological Reserve. Alberta Species at Risk Report No.159. Alberta Environment and Parks, Edmonton, AB. 31 pp. ii DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the policies of the Department or the Alberta Government. iii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... vi 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................. 2 3.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R
    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R. and Zeuss, D. 2016. Colour lightness of dragonfly assemblages across North America and Europe. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.02578 Supplementary material Appendix 1 Figures A1–A12, Table A1 and A2 1 Figure A1. Scatterplots between female and male colour lightness of 44 North American (Needham et al. 2000) and 19 European (Askew 1988) dragonfly species. Note that colour lightness of females and males is highly correlated. 2 Figure A2. Correlation of the average colour lightness of European dragonfly species illustrated in both Askew (1988) and Dijkstra and Lewington (2006). Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Note that the extracted colour values of dorsal dragonfly drawings from both sources are highly correlated. 3 Figure A3. Frequency distribution of the average colour lightness of 152 North American and 74 European dragonfly species. Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Rugs at the abscissa indicate the value of each species. Note that colour values are from different sources (North America: Needham et al. 2000, Europe: Askew 1988), and hence absolute values are not directly comparable. 4 Figure A4. Scatterplots of single ordinary least-squares regressions between average colour lightness of 8,127 North American dragonfly assemblages and mean temperature of the warmest quarter. Red dots represent assemblages that were excluded from the analysis because they contained less than five species. Note that those assemblages that were excluded scatter more than those with more than five species (c.f. the coefficients of determination) due to the inherent effect of very low sampling sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • (Anisoptera: Gomphidae) Erpetogomphus Includes 22
    Odonatologica 31(1): 35-46 March 1, 2002 Larvae of theophibolus-species group of ErpetogomphusHagenin Selys from Mexico and Central America (Anisoptera: Gomphidae) R. Novelo-Gutiérrez Departamentode Entomología, Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Apartado Postal 63, MX-91000 Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] Received February 26, 2001 / Revised and Accepted May 30, 2001 Detailed descriptions and illustrations of Erpetogomphusagkistrodon Garrison, E. erici Novelo and E. and ophibolus Calvert are provided a comparisonwith other larvae ofthe subgenus Erpetocyclops Carle is also included. Larvae of E. agkistrodon and E. erici show the closest resemblance, while E. ophibolusis more similar to E. constrictor. INTRODUCTION includes 22 Erpetogomphus species, 17 of which occur in Mexico (GARRISON, NOVELO-GUTIERREZ 1994; & GARRISON, 1999). Larvae of seven species have been described: (32%) Erpetogomphus compositus Hagen in Selys, 1858 (HAGEN, 1885), E. constrictorRis, 1917(RAMIREZ, 1996), E. crotalinus{Hagen in Selys, 1854) (NOVELO-GUTIERREZ& GONZALEZ-SORIANO, 1991), E. designatus Hagen in Selys, 1858(HAGEN, 1885), E. lampropeltis natrix Williamson & Williamson, 1930 (NEEDHAM & WESTFALL 1955 [keyed]; NOVELO- -GUTIERREZ & GONZALEZ-SORIANO, 1991), E. sabaleticus Williamson, 1918 (BELLE, 1992) and E. tristaniCalvert, 1912 (RAMIREZ, 1996). Of these, the first five occur in Mexico. CARLE erected the (1992) subgenus Erpetocyclops with type species E. ophibolus. His diagnosis (“Metepimera eachwith posterior brownband; postocellar ridge and prepuce well developed; 4th penile segment slightly longer than wide; penile flagella lobate; male cerci each typically with laterally compressed dorsal female process; with anterior margin ofmedian ocellus typically posterior to lateral 36 R. Novelo-Gutierrez ocelli”), limited to a few key characters separating it fromother subgenera, did not mention what other if species, any, were to be included, nor did he provide any synapomorphies for this taxon.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Animal Species of Concern
    MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Animal Species of Concern Species List Last Updated 08/05/2010 219 Species of Concern 86 Potential Species of Concern All Records (no filtering) A program of the University of Montana and Natural Resource Information Systems, Montana State Library Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for animals, plants, and plant communities with a focus on species and communities that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining trends and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report on Montana Animal Species of Concern is produced jointly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Also included in this report are Potential Animal Species of Concern -- animals for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability or for which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. Over the last 200 years, 5 species with historic breeding ranges in Montana have been extirpated from the state; Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), Pilose Crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii), and Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). Designation as a Montana Animal Species of Concern or Potential Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to avoid additional extirpations.
    [Show full text]
  • Vespas Spheciformes (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) Do Mato Grosso Do Sul, Brasil
    Iheringia Série Zoologia Museu de Ciências Naturais e-ISSN 1678-4766 www.scielo.br/isz Fundação Zoobotânica do Rio Grande do Sul Vespas Spheciformes (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Bhrenno Maykon Trad & Rogério Silvestre Laboratório de Ecologia de Hymenoptera, Faculdade de Ciências Biológicas e Ambientais, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Rod. Dourados-Itahum, Km 12, Cidade Universitária, 79804-970 Dourados, MS, Brasil. [email protected] Recebido 22 dezembro 2016 Aceito 6 fevereiro 2017 DOI: 10.1590/1678-4766e2017122 ABSTRACT. Spheciformes Wasps (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) from Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Here we present a species list of spheciformes wasps of the families Ampulicidae, Sphecidae and Crabronidae, registered in west and southwest of the Mato Grosso do Sul state, Brazil. The surveys were conducted in 22 sampling points, with emphasis on Serra da Bodoquena region, covering the biomes: Cerrado, Atlantic Forest and Chaco. We recorded 506 individuals distributed in 47 genera and 109 species. Trypoxylon Latreille was the most diverse genus with 155 individuals collected and 12 morphospecies, being the only genus sampled in all methodologies. Eremnophila binodis (Fabricius, 1798) was the most abundant species recorded from these wasps with 35 individuals collected. This list adds 83 new records to this wasp’s distribution in the state, expanding to 139 species of wasps spheciformes known to the state. KEYWORDS. Crabronidae, Neotropical Region, solitary wasps, Sphecidae, Biota-MS Program. RESUMO. Apresentamos aqui uma lista de espécies de vespas esfeciformes das famílias Ampulicidae, Sphecidae e Crabronidae registradas para o oeste e sudoeste do estado de Mato Grosso do Sul em inventários recentes realizados em 22 pontos amostrais, com principal ênfase na Serra da Bodoquena, contemplando os principais biomas do estado como o Cerrado, a Mata Atlântica e o Chaco Brasileiro.
    [Show full text]
  • Arquivos De Zoologia MUSEU DE ZOOLOGIA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO
    Arquivos de Zoologia MUSEU DE ZOOLOGIA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO ISSN 0066-7870 ARQ. ZOOL. S. PAULO 37(1):1-139 12.11.2002 A SYNONYMIC CATALOG OF THE NEOTROPICAL CRABRONIDAE AND SPHECIDAE (HYMENOPTERA: APOIDEA) SÉRVIO TÚLIO P. A MARANTE Abstract A synonymyc catalogue for the species of Neotropical Crabronidae and Sphecidae is presented, including all synonyms, geographical distribution and pertinent references. The catalogue includes 152 genera and 1834 species (1640 spp. in Crabronidae, 194 spp. in Sphecidae), plus 190 species recorded from Nearctic Mexico (168 spp. in Crabronidae, 22 spp. in Sphecidae). The former Sphecidae (sensu Menke, 1997 and auct.) is divided in two families: Crabronidae (Astatinae, Bembicinae, Crabroninae, Pemphredoninae and Philanthinae) and Sphecidae (Ampulicinae and Sphecinae). The following subspecies are elevated to species: Podium aureosericeum Kohl, 1902; Podium bugabense Cameron, 1888. New names are proposed for the following junior homonyms: Cerceris modica new name for Cerceris modesta Smith, 1873, non Smith, 1856; Liris formosus new name for Liris bellus Rohwer, 1911, non Lepeletier, 1845; Liris inca new name for Liris peruanus Brèthes, 1926 non Brèthes, 1924; and Trypoxylon guassu new name for Trypoxylon majus Richards, 1934 non Trypoxylon figulus var. majus Kohl, 1883. KEYWORDS: Hymenoptera, Sphecidae, Crabronidae, Catalog, Taxonomy, Systematics, Nomenclature, New Name, Distribution. INTRODUCTION years ago and it is badly outdated now. Bohart and Menke (1976) cleared and updated most of the This catalog arose from the necessity to taxonomy of the spheciform wasps, complemented assess the present taxonomical knowledge of the by a series of errata sheets started by Menke and Neotropical spheciform wasps1, the Crabronidae Bohart (1979) and continued by Menke in the and Sphecidae.
    [Show full text]
  • US Air Force Pollinator Conservation
    U.S. Air Force Pollinator Conservation Reference Guide - Appendix A: Species maps and profiles Photo: Jim Hudgins/USFWS CC BY 2.0 2017 U.S. Air Force Pollinator Conservation Reference Guide Appendix A: Species maps and profiles Prepared for U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recommended citation: USFWS. 2017. U.S. Air Force Pollinator Conservation Reference Guide, Appendix A: Species information maps and profiles, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, San Antonio, TX, 88 pp. Page i ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY AFB = Air Force Base AFR = Air Force Range AGFD = Arizona Game and Fish Department ATV = all-terrain vehicle Bivoltine = two generations per year BLM = Bureau of Land Management BoR = Bureau of Reclamation CABI = Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International Caterpillar = larva of a butterfly, skipper or moth Chrysalis = pupa of a butterfly, skipper or moth Diapause = a dormant phase DoD = Department of Defense Eclose = emerge from a pupa ECOS = Environmental Conservation Online System ESBB = El Segundo blue butterfly FR = Federal Register FS (in text) or USFS(on maps)= Forest Service Gynes = reproductive females Half-life = estimated number of years until an additional 50% of the population is lost Host plant = food plant for larval butterflies, skippers and moths Instar = time between larval molts (larval stage) LLNB = lesser long-nosed bat NPS = National Park Service Oviposit = lay an egg or multiple eggs PIF = Partners in Flight PIF Yellow Watch List = Bird species that have restricted ranges and small populations. These species require constant care and long-term assessment to prevent population declines. Senesce = age and wither Univoltine = one generation per year USDA = U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptation to Host Plants May Prevent Rapid Insect Responses to Climate Change
    Global Change Biology (2010) 16, 2923–2929, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02177.x Adaptation to host plants may prevent rapid insect responses to climate change SHANNON L. PELINI1 , JESSICA A. KEPPEL2 , ANN E. KELLEY3 and JESSICA. J. HELLMANN Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA Abstract We must consider the role of multitrophic interactions when examining species’ responses to climate change. Many plant species, particularly trees, are limited in their ability to shift their geographic ranges quickly under climate change. Consequently, for herbivorous insects, geographic mosaics of host plant specialization could prohibit range shifts and adaptation when insects become separated from suitable host plants. In this study, we examined larval growth and survival of an oak specialist butterfly (Erynnis propertius) on different oaks (Quercus spp.) that occur across its range to determine if individuals can switch host plants if they move into new areas under climate change. Individuals from Oregon and northern California, USA that feed on Q. garryana and Q. kelloggii in the field experienced increased mortality on Q. agrifolia, a southern species with low nutrient content. In contrast, populations from southern California that normally feed on Q. agrifolia performed well on Q. agrifolia and Q. garryana and poorly on the northern, high elevation Q. kelloggii. Therefore, colonization of southern E. propertius in higher elevations and some northern locales may be prohibited under climate change but latitudinal shifts to Q. garryana may be possible. Where shifts are precluded due to maladaptation to hosts, populations may not accrue warm-adapted genotypes.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrates
    State Wildlife Action Plan Update Appendix A-5 Species of Greatest Conservation Need Fact Sheets INVERTEBRATES Conservation Status and Concern Biology and Life History Distribution and Abundance Habitat Needs Stressors Conservation Actions Needed Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015 Appendix A-5 SGCN Invertebrates – Fact Sheets Table of Contents What is Included in Appendix A-5 1 MILLIPEDE 2 LESCHI’S MILLIPEDE (Leschius mcallisteri)........................................................................................................... 2 MAYFLIES 4 MAYFLIES (Ephemeroptera) ................................................................................................................................ 4 [unnamed] (Cinygmula gartrelli) .................................................................................................................... 4 [unnamed] (Paraleptophlebia falcula) ............................................................................................................ 4 [unnamed] (Paraleptophlebia jenseni) ............................................................................................................ 4 [unnamed] (Siphlonurus autumnalis) .............................................................................................................. 4 [unnamed] (Cinygmula gartrelli) .................................................................................................................... 4 [unnamed] (Paraleptophlebia falcula) ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]