DOCSLIB.ORG

North Fork Crow River Watershed Stressor Identification Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Fork Crow River Watershed Stressor Identification Report Stressor identification December 2020 North Fork Crow River Watershed Stressor Identification Report Assessment of stress factors affecting aquatic biological communities and other aspects of streams and rivers [Picture(s) can be inserted into this space. Right click on this picture, choose change picture, click on the picture you want and then insert. Resize/Crop the picture to fit this area.] 1 Author Kevin Stroom (MPCA) Contributors/acknowledgements Brooke Hacker (DNR) - Geomorphology study Jon Lore (DNR) - Geomorphology study Brady Swanson (DNR) - Geomorphology study Ethan Jenzen (DNR) - Geomorphology study Chuck Johnson (MPCA) - SID fieldwork lead Scott Lucas (MPCA) - SID fieldwork Greg VanEeckhout (MPCA) - SID fieldwork Manuscript reviewers Jonathon Newkirk (MPCA) Chuck Johnson (MPCA) Andy Johnson (Middle Fork Crow River Watershed District) Chris Lundeen (North Fork Crow River Watershed District) Joe Norman (Meeker County SWCD) Cover photo: North Fork Crow River at 328th Street, Meeker County, MN - MPCA photo Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | 651-296-6300 | 800-657-3864 | Or use your preferred relay service. | [email protected] This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us. Document number: wq-ws5-07010204d Contents List of figures ..................................................................................................................................................... iv List of tables ..................................................................................................................................................... vii List of photos ...................................................................................................................................................... x Acronyms and term definitions .......................................................................................................................... xi Executive summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Mechanisms of candidate stressors and applicable standards ................................................................................. 2 Notes on analysis of biological data .......................................................................................................................... 3 Use attainability analysis notes on analysis of physical and hydrological data .................................................... 3 Biologically-impaired streams ............................................................................................................................ 4 Middle Fork Crow River (AUID 07010204-511) ......................................................................................................... 4 Sub-watershed characteristics .............................................................................................................................. 4 Data and analyses ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Conclusions about stressors ............................................................................................................................... 15 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Judicial Ditch 17 (AUID 07010204-532) ................................................................................................................... 15 Sub-watershed characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 16 Data and analyses ............................................................................................................................................... 16 Conclusions about stressors ............................................................................................................................... 21 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 22 County Ditch 37 (AUID 07010204-536) ................................................................................................................... 22 Sub-watershed characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 22 Data and analyses ............................................................................................................................................... 23 Conclusions about stressors ............................................................................................................................... 26 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 27 Middle Fork Crow River (AUID 07010204-539) ....................................................................................................... 27 Sub-watershed characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 27 Data and analyses ............................................................................................................................................... 28 Conclusions about stressors ............................................................................................................................... 32 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 33 Tributary to Lake Koronis (AUID 07010204-553) .................................................................................................... 33 Sub-watershed characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 33 Data and analyses ............................................................................................................................................... 34 Conclusions about stressors ............................................................................................................................... 43 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 44 Silver Creek (AUID 07010204-557) .......................................................................................................................... 44 Sub-watershed characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 44 North Fork Crow River Watershed Stressor Identification Report • December 2020 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency i Data and analyses ............................................................................................................................................... 45 Conclusions about stressors ............................................................................................................................... 52 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 52 Stag Brook (AUID 07010204-572)............................................................................................................................ 53 Sub-watershed characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 54 Data and analyses ............................................................................................................................................... 54 Conclusions about stressors ............................................................................................................................... 62 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 62 Collinwood Creek (AUID 07010204-604) ................................................................................................................. 63 Sub-watershed characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 63 Data and analyses ............................................................................................................................................... 64 Conclusions about stressors ............................................................................................................................... 70 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 71 County Ditch 26 (AUID 07010204-643) ................................................................................................................... 71 Sub-watershed characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 71 Data and analyses
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TB142: Mayflies of Maine: an Annotated Faunal List
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Technical Bulletins Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 4-1-1991 TB142: Mayflies of aine:M An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian K. Elizabeth Gibbs Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Burian, S.K., and K.E. Gibbs. 1991. Mayflies of Maine: An annotated faunal list. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 142. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Bulletins by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSN 0734-9556 Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Technical Bulletin 142 April 1991 MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian Assistant Professor Department of Biology, Southern Connecticut State University New Haven, CT 06515 and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Associate Professor Department of Entomology University of Maine Orono, Maine 04469 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this project was provided by the State of Maine Departments of Environmental Protection, and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; a University of Maine New England, Atlantic Provinces, and Quebec Fellow­ ship to S. K. Burian; and the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Dr. William L. Peters and Jan Peters, Florida A & M University, pro­ vided support and advice throughout the project and we especially appreci­ ated the opportunity for S.K. Burian to work in their laboratory and stay in their home in Tallahassee, Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Wisconsin Wildlife Areas Property Group
    Rapid Ecological Assessment for Central Wisconsin Wildlife Areas Property Group A Rapid Ecological Assessment Focusing on Rare Plants, Selected Rare Animals, and High-quality Natural Communities Properties included in this report are: Dewey Marsh State Wildlife Area (Portage Co.) Mead Conifer Bogs State Natural Area Dewey Marsh State Natural Area (Portage Co.) (Portage and Wood Co.) George W. Mead State Wildlife Area McMillan Marsh State Wildlife Area (Marathon, Portage, and Wood Co.) (Marathon Co.) Wisconsin’s Natural Heritage Inventory Program Bureau of Endangered Resources Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 June 2012 PUB-ER-841 2012 Acknowledgments We extend special thanks to Tom Meier, Brian Peters, Matthew Slater, Greg Dahl, Lesa Kardash, and Patrice Eyers for their assistance in compiling this report and assisting with property access and field surveys. We are also grateful for support from the Ecosystem Management Planning Team, Diane Brusoe, Joanne Farnsworth, Alan Crossley, Kate Fitzgerald, Rebecca Schroeder, and Lance Potter. Funding for this project was provided by the Wisconsin DNR Bureau of Wildlife Management. Primary Authors: Ryan O’Connor, Amy Staffen, Richard Staffen Contributors: Noah Anderson – herptile surveys Julie Bleser – data management Andy Clark – plant and natural community surveys Terrell Hyde – data processing Christina Isenring – inventory coordination Kathy Kirk – terrestrial invertebrate surveys Sumner Matteson – black tern surveys Ryan O’Connor – plant and natural community surveys, data processing Brian Peters – bird surveys Stacy Rowe – data processing Kurt Schmude – aquatic invertebrate surveys William Smith – inventory coordination Amy Staffen – breeding bird and natural community surveys, data processing Rich Staffen – breeding bird surveys, data processing, inventory coordination Ryan Stephens – small mammal surveys Cover Photos: Top (left to right): Muskeg at Dewey Marsh State Wildlife Area by Ryan P.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources with Assistance from Conservation Partners Natural Resources Board Approved August 2005 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Acceptance September 2005 Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Governor Jim Doyle Natural Resources Board Gerald M. O’Brien, Chair Howard D. Poulson, Vice-Chair Jonathan P Ela, Secretary Herbert F. Behnke Christine L. Thomas John W. Welter Stephen D. Willet Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Scott Hassett, Secretary Laurie Osterndorf, Division Administrator, Land Paul DeLong, Division Administrator, Forestry Todd Ambs, Division Administrator, Water Amy Smith, Division Administrator, Enforcement and Science Recommended Citation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Madison, WI. “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” – John Muir The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to Equal Opportunity Office, Department of Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. This publication can be made available in alternative formats (large print, Braille, audio-tape, etc.) upon request. Please contact the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or call (608) 266-7012 for copies of this report. Pub-ER-641 2005
    [Show full text]
  • Benthic Invertebrate Species Richness & Diversity At
    BBEENNTTHHIICC INVVEERTTEEBBRRAATTEE SPPEECCIIEESSRRIICCHHNNEESSSS && DDIIVVEERRSSIITTYYAATT DIIFFFFEERRENNTTHHAABBIITTAATTSS IINN TTHHEEGGRREEAATEERR CCHHAARRLLOOTTTTEE HAARRBBOORRSSYYSSTTEEMM Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 1926 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 March 2007 Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 1169 The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program is a partnership of citizens, elected officials, resource managers and commercial and recreational resource users working to improve the water quality and ecological integrity of the greater Charlotte Harbor watershed. A cooperative decision-making process is used within the program to address diverse resource management concerns in the 4,400 square mile study area. Many of these partners also financially support the Program, which, in turn, affords the Program opportunities to fund projects such as this. The entities that have financially supported the program include the following: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Southwest Florida Water Management District South Florida Water Management District Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Coastal Zone Management Program Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Polk, Sarasota, Manatee, Lee, Charlotte, DeSoto and Hardee Counties Cities of Sanibel, Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Punta Gorda, North Port, Venice and Fort Myers Beach and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document was prepared with support from the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program with supplemental support from Mote Marine Laboratory. The project was conducted through the Benthic Ecology Program of Mote's Center for Coastal Ecology. Mote staff project participants included: Principal Investigator James K. Culter; Field Biologists and Invertebrate Taxonomists, Jay R. Leverone, Debi Ingrao, Anamari Boyes, Bernadette Hohmann and Lucas Jennings; Data Management, Jay Sprinkel and Janet Gannon; Sediment Analysis, Jon Perry and Ari Nissanka.
    [Show full text]
  • Other Arthropod Species
    Queen’s University Biological Station Species List: Other Arthropods The current list has been compiled by Dr. Ivy Schoepf, QUBS Research Coordinator, in 2018 and includes data gathered by direct observation, collected by researchers at the station and/or assembled using digital distribution maps. The list has been put together using resources from The Natural Heritage Information Centre (April 2018); The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (February 2018); iNaturalist and GBIF. Contact Ivy to report any errors, omissions and/or new sightings. Because arthropods comprise an Figure 1. Northern walkingsticks (Diapheromera incredibly diverse phylum, which includes femorata) can be quite large and measure up to 95 thousands of species, to help the reader navigate mm, with females typically being larger than males. their staggering diversity, I have broken down The one pictured here from QUBS is a rather small the entire phylum into several order- and class- individual, only measuring 50 mm. Photo courtesy of based sub-lists. The current list is, therefore, not Dr. Ivy Schoepf comprehensive and focuses only on a subset of arthropods. For information regarding arachnids; beetles; crickets & grasshoppers; crustaceans; dragonflies; flies; hymenopterans; and moths & butterflies, please consult their very own lists published on our website. Based on the aforementioned criteria we can expect to find 84 additional arthropod species (phylum: Arthropoda) present at QUBS. These include 68 insects (class: Insecta); eight millipedes (class: Diplopoda); five springtails (class: Entognatha); two centipedes (class: Chilopoda); and one hexanauplian (class: Hexanauplia). Five species are considered as introduced (i). Species are reported using their full taxonomy; common name and status, based on whether the species is of global or provincial concern (see Table 1 for details).
    [Show full text]
  • Qt2cd0m6cp Nosplash 6A8244
    International Advances in the Ecology, Zoogeography, and Systematics of Mayflies and Stoneflies Edited by F. R. Hauer, J. A. Stanford and, R. L. Newell International Advances in the Ecology, Zoogeography, and Systematics of Mayflies and Stoneflies Edited by F. R. Hauer, J. A. Stanford, and R. L. Newell University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London University of California Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu. University of California Publications in Entomology, Volume 128 Editorial Board: Rosemary Gillespie, Penny Gullan, Bradford A. Hawkins, John Heraty, Lynn S. Kimsey, Serguei V. Triapitsyn, Philip S. Ward, Kipling Will University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2008 by The Regents of the University of California Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data International Conference on Ephemeroptera (11th : 2004 : Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana) International advances in the ecology, zoogeography, and systematics of mayflies and stoneflies / edited by F.R. Hauer, J.A. Stanford, and R.L. Newell. p. cm. – (University of California publications in entomology ; 128) "Triennial Joint Meeting of the XI International Conference on Ephemeroptera and XV International Symposium on Plecoptera held August 22-29, 2004 at Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana, USA." – Pref. Includes bibliographical references and index.
    [Show full text]
  • Predator to Prey to Poop: Bats As Microbial Hosts and Insectivorous Hunters
    Predator to Prey to Poop: Bats as Microbial Hosts and Insectivorous Hunters A Thesis SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Miranda Galey IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE Dr. Ron Moen, Dr. Jessica R. Sieber September 2020 Copyright © Miranda Galey 2020 Abstract Bat fecal samples are a rich source of ecological data for bat biologists, entomologists, and microbiologists. Feces collected from individual bats can be used to profile the gut microbiome using microbial DNA and to understand bat foraging strategies using arthropod DNA. We used eDNA collected from bat fecal samples to better understand bats as predators in the context of their unique gut physiology. We used high through- put sequencing of the COI gene and 16S rRNA gene to determine the diet composition and gut microbiome composition of three bat species in Minnesota: Eptesicus fuscus, Myotis lucifugus and M. septentrionalis. In our analysis of insect prey, we found that E. fuscus consistently foraged for a higher diversity of beetle species compared to other insects. We found that the proportional frequency of tympanate samples from M. septentrionalis and M. lucifugus was similar, while M. septentrionalis consistently preyed more often upon non-flying species. We used the same set of COI sequences to determine presence of pest species, rare species, and insects not previously observed in Minnesota. We were able to combine precise arthropod identification and the for- aging areas of individually sampled bats to observe possible range expansion of some insects. The taxonomic composition of the bat gut microbiome in all three species was found to be consistent with the composition of a mammalian small intestine.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Tennessee, with a Review of the Possibly Threatened Species Occurring Within the State
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 29 Number 4 - Summer 1996 Number 4 - Summer Article 1 1996 December 1996 The Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Tennessee, With a Review of the Possibly Threatened Species Occurring Within the State L. S. Long Aquatic Resources Center B. C. Kondratieff Colorado State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Long, L. S. and Kondratieff, B. C. 1996. "The Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Tennessee, With a Review of the Possibly Threatened Species Occurring Within the State," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 29 (4) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol29/iss4/1 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Long and Kondratieff: The Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Tennessee, With a Review of the P 1996 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 171 THE MAYFLIES (EPHEMEROPTERA) OF TENNESSEE, WITH A REVIEW OF THE POSSIBLY THREATENED SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE STATE l. S. Long 1 and B. C. Kondratieff2 ABSTRACT One hundred and forty-three species of mayflies are reported from the state of Tennessee. Sixteen species (Ameletus cryptostimuZus, Choroterpes basalis, Baetis virile, Ephemera blanda, E. simulans, Ephemerella berneri, Heterocloeon curiosum, H. petersi, Labiobaetis ephippiatus, Leptophlebia bradleyi, Macdunnoa brunnea, Paraleptophlebia assimilis, P. debilis, P. mal­ lis, Rhithrogenia pellucida and Siphlonurus mirus) are reported for the first time.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing the Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera Specimen Databases at the Illinois Natural History Survey and Using Them to Document Changes in the Illinois Fauna
    SYSTEMATICS Comparing the Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera Specimen Databases at the Illinois Natural History Survey and Using Them to Document Changes in the Illinois Fauna 1 C. FAVRET AND R. E. DEWALT Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity, 607 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820Ð6970 Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 95(1): 35Ð40 (2002) ABSTRACT Databasing of all Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera specimens in the Illinois Natural History Survey Insect Collection has recently been completed. Both databases are Internet-searchable in a simpliÞed format (http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/EPT/index.html). Analysis of the databases shows that the Plecoptera are at a much better level of determination than the Ephemeroptera, with 88% of the specimens determined to the species level. Only 22% of Ephemeroptera specimens have been determined to species. The Ephemeroptera collection is also much more narrow in geographic scope, with 74% of determined specimens from Illinois. In contrast, only 30% of determined Plecoptera specimens are from Illinois, with most of the remainder being from across the United States. Four new Illinois records were uncovered in the Ephemeroptera database: Caenis diminuta Walker, C. punctata McDunnough, Pseudocloeon ephippiatum (Traver), and Serratella deficiens (Morgan). Analyses of the data document range reductions in Illinois of the stoneßy Neoperla clymene (Newman) and the mayßy Pseudiron centralis McDunnough, range expansion in the stoneßy Perlesta nelsoni Stark, and a shift in the prevalence of perlid stoneßy species assemblages from Acroneuria in the Þrst half of the 20th century to Perlesta in the second half. We also discuss the change in Plecoptera diversity between historic and modern records from Illinois, and compare the relative stability of Plecoptera species assemblages from the major ecological regions of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Hydrology, Water Quality, and Ecology of Selected Natural and Augmented Freshwater Wetlands in West-Central Florida
    Comparative Hydrology, Water Quality, and Ecology of Selected Natural and Augmented Freshwater Wetlands in West-Central Florida By T.M. Lee, K.H. Haag, P.A. Metz, and L.A. Sacks Prepared in cooperation with Pinellas County Southwest Florida Water Management District Tampa Bay Water Professional Paper 1758 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Lee, T.M., Haag, K.H., Metz, P.A., Sacks, L.A., 2009, Comparative Hydrology, Water Quality, and Ecology of Selected Natural and Augmented Freshwater Wetlands in West-Central Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1758, 152 p. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Comparative hydrology, water quality, and ecology of selected natural and augmented freshwater wetlands in west-central Florida / by T.M. Lee ... [et al.] ; prepared in cooperation with Pinellas County, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa Bay Water.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrates
    Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Invertebrates Version 1.1 Prepared by John E. Rawlins Carnegie Museum of Natural History Section of Invertebrate Zoology January 12, 2007 Cover photographs (top to bottom): Speyeria cybele, great spangled fritillary (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) (Rank: S5G5) Alaus oculatus., eyed elater (Coleoptera: Elateridae)(Rank: S5G5) Calosoma scrutator, fiery caterpillar hunter (Coleoptera: Carabidae) (Rank: S5G5) Brachionycha borealis, boreal sprawler moth (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), last instar larva (Rank: SHG4) Metarranthis sp. near duaria, early metarranthis moth (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) (Rank: S3G4) Psaphida thaxteriana (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Rank: S4G4) Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Invertebrates Version 1.1 Prepared by John E. Rawlins Carnegie Museum of Natural History Section of Invertebrate Zoology January 12, 2007 This report was filed with the Pennsylvania Game Commission on October 31, 2006 as a product of a State Wildlife Grant (SWG) entitled: Rawlins, J.E. 2004-2006. Pennsylvania Invertebrates of Special Concern: Viability, Status, and Recommendations for a Statewide Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan in Pennsylvania. In collaboration with the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (C.W. Bier) and The Nature Conservancy (A. Davis). A Proposal to the State Wildlife Grants Program, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Text portions of this report are an adaptation of an appendix to a statewide conservation strategy prepared as part of federal requirements for the Pennsylvania State Wildlife Grants Program, specifically: Rawlins, J.E. 2005. Pennsylvania Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)-Priority Invertebrates. Appendix 5 (iii + 227 pp) in Williams, L., et al. (eds.). Pennsylvania Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Version 1.0 (October 1, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Ephemeroptera: Caenidae) in Honey Creek, Oklahoma
    LIFE HISTORY AND SECONDARY PRODUCTION OF CAENIS LATIPENNIS BANKS (EPHEMEROPTERA: CAENIDAE) IN HONEY CREEK, OKLAHOMA Jason M. T aylor, B.A. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2001 APPROVED: James H. Kennedy, Major Professor William T. Waller, Committee Member Earl G. Zimmerman, Chair of the Department of Biological Sciences, Committee Member Warren W. Burggren, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences C. Neal Tate, Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies Taylor, Jason M., Life History and Secondary Production of Caenis latipennis Banks (Ephemeroptera: Caenidae) in Honey Creek, Oklahoma. Masters of Science (Biology), August 2001, 89 pp., 8 tables, 22 figures, references, 71 titles. A study of the life history and secondary production of Caenis latipennis, a caenid mayfly, was conducted on Honey Creek, OK. from August 1999 through September 2000. The first instar nymph was described. Nymphs were separated into five development classes. Laboratory egg and nymph development rates, emergence, fecundity, voltinism, and secondary production were analyzed. C. latipennis eggs and nymphs take 132 and 1709 degree days to develop. C. latipennis had an extended emergence with five peaks. Females emerged, molted, mated, and oviposited in an estimated 37 minutes. Mean fecundity was 888.4 ± 291.9 eggs per individual (range 239 –1576). C. latipennis exhibited a multivoltine life cycle with four overlapping generations. Secondary production was 6,052.57 mg/m2/yr. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. J. H. Kennedy for his whole-hearted interest and support in this project and my career. His enthusiasm as a teacher and field biologist has taught me much more than just biology.
    [Show full text]