DOCSLIB.ORG

2015 Illinois Wildlife Action Plan Implementation Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2015 Implementation Guide to the As Prescribed by The Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the State Wildlife Grant Program Illinois Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Implementation Guide Table of Contents I. Acknowledgments IG vi II. Foreword IG vii III. Introduction IG 1 IV. Species in Greatest Conservation Need SGCN 6 a. Table 1. Summary of Illinois’ SGCN by taxonomic group SGCN 8 V. Conservation Opportunity Areas a. Description COA 9 b. What are Conservation Opportunity Areas COA 9 c. Status as of 2015 COA 10 d. Ways to accomplish work COA 11 e. Table 2. Summary of the 2015 status of individual COAs COA 14 f. Table 3. Importance of conditions for planning and implementation COA 15 g. Table 4. Satisfaction of conditions for planning and implementation COA 16 h. Figure 1. COAs currently recognized through Illinois Wildlife Action Plan COA 17 i. Figure 2. Factors that contribute or reduce success of management COA 18 j. Figure 3. Intersection of COAs with Campaign focus areas COA 19 k. References COA 20 VI. Campaigns Campaign 21 a. Farmland and Prairie i. Description F&P 22 ii. Goals and Current Status as of 2015 F&P 22 iii. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat F&P 26 iv. Focal Species F&P 30 v. Actions F&P 31 vi. Focus Areas F&P 37 vii. Management Resources F&P 39 viii. Performance Measures F&P 41 ix. References F&P 42 x. Table 5. Breeding Bird Survey Data F&P 44 xi. Figure 4. Amendment to Mason Co. Sands COA F&P 45 xii. Figure 5. Focus areas and sites in Farmland and Prairie Campaign F&P 46 xiii. Appendix 4. SGCN addressed by Farmland and Prairie Campaign F&P 47 b. Forest and Woodland i. Description F&W 51 ii. Goals F&W 51 i | Table of Contents iii. Status as of 2015 F&W 52 iv. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat F&W 60 v. Focal Species F&W 61 vi. Actions F&W 63 vii. Focus Areas F&W 65 viii. Management Resources F&W 66 ix. Performance Measures F&W 67 x. Figure 6. Focus areas for the Forest and Woodland Campaign F&W 68 xi. Appendix 5. SGCN addressed by Forest and Woodland Campaign F&W 69 c. Green Cities i. Description GC 72 ii. Goals GC 74 iii. Status as of 2015 GC 75 iv. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat GC 80 v. Focal Species and Associated Actions GC 83 vi. Focus Areas and Associated Actions GC 86 vii. Actions GC 97 viii. Management Resources GC 104 ix. Performance Measures GC 106 x. References GC 108 xi. Table 6. Definition of terms used in Green Cities Campaign GC 109 xii. Table 7. IL Metropolitan Statistical Area counties and population GC 110 xiii. Table 8. Population levels in Metropolitan Statistical Areas GC 110 xiv. Table 9. Percent change in total population in metropolitan areas GC 111 xv. Table 10. Total number of natural communities by metropolitan area GC 111 xvi. Table 11. Conservation Opportunity Areas in each metropolitan area GC 112 xvii. Table 12. Total IL Nature Preserve acreage in each metropolitan area GC 113 xviii. Table 13. Ranking of migratory bird species that utilize urban areas GC 114 xix. Table 14. 1928 pollinator study by Charles Robertson in Carlinville, IL GC 115 xx. Figure 7. Urban areas in IL based on population density GC 116 xxi. Figure 8. Metropolitan statistical areas in Illinois GC 117 xxii. Figure 9. Metropolitan/urban focus areas in Green Cities Campaign GC 118 xxiii. Figure 10. Conservation Opportunity Areas and metropolitan areas GC 119 xxiv. Figure 11. Illinois Natural Area Inventory sites by metropolitan area GC 120 xxv. Figure 12. T&E and IL Breading Bird Areas by metropolitan area GC 121 xxvi. Figure 13. Illinois cropland data from 2012 GC 122 xxvii. Appendix 6. SGCN addressed by Green Cities Campaign GC 123 d. Invasive Species i. Description Invasives 126 ii. Goals Invasives 126 iii. Status as of 2015 Invasives 127 iv. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat Invasives 129 ii | Table of Contents v. Focal Species Invasives 133 vi. Actions Invasives 134 vii. Management Resources Invasives 142 viii. Performance Measures Invasives 144 ix. Table 15. Early detection priority species Invasives 145 x. Table 16: SGCN threatened or stressed from Invasives Invasives 146 e. Lake Michigan and Coastal Area i. Description LM 149 ii. Guiding Principles and Goals LM 150 iii. Status as of 2015 LM 151 iv. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat LM 160 v. Focal Species LM 162 vi. Actions LM 163 vii. Management Resources LM 175 viii. Performance Measures LM 177 ix. Figure 14. Campaign boundary and focus areas LM 178 x. Appendix 7. SGCN addressed by Lake Michigan Coastal Campaign LM 179 f. Streams i. Description Streams 182 ii. Goals Streams 182 iii. Status as of 2015 Streams 183 iv. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat Streams 187 v. Focal Species Streams 189 vi. Focus Areas Streams 191 vii. Actions Streams 193 viii. Management Resources Streams 196 ix. Performance Measures Streams 197 x. References Streams 199 xi. Table 17. Activities in support of the Streams Campaign goals Streams 201 xii. Table 18. Focal species in nutrient management priority areas Streams 202 xiii. Figure 15. Streams Campaign focus areas Streams 203 xiv. Appendix 8. SGCN addressed by the Streams Campaign Streams 204 g. Wetlands i. Description Wetlands 212 ii. Goals Wetlands 213 iii. Status as of 2015 Wetlands 215 iv. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat Wetlands 219 v. Focal Species Wetlands 221 vi. Focus Areas Wetlands 223 vii. Actions Wetlands 223 viii. Management Resources Wetlands 233 ix. Performance Measures Wetlands 234 iii | Table of Contents x. References Wetlands 235 xi. Figure 16. Wetlands Campaign priority natural divisions Wetlands 238 xii. Figure 17. Wetlands Campaign priority areas and sites Wetlands 239 xiii. Appendix 9. SGCN addressed by the Wetlands Campaign Wetlands 240 xiv. Appendix 10. Wetlands Campaign priority tiers in Illinois. Wetlands 245 VII. Review and Revision Review 248 VIII. References References 249 IX. Tables a. Table 1. Summary of Illinois’ SGCN by taxonomic group SGCN 8 b. Table 2. Summary of the 2015 status of individual COAs COA 14 c. Table 3. Importance of conditions for planning and implementation COA 15 d. Table 4. Satisfaction of conditions for planning and implementation COA 16 e. Table 5. Breeding Bird Survey Data F&P 44 f. Table 6. Definition of terms used in Green Cities Campaign GC 109 g. Table 7. IL Metropolitan Statistical Area counties and population GC 110 h. Table 8. Population levels in Metropolitan Statistical Areas GC 110 i. Table 9. Percent change in total population in metropolitan areas GC 111 j. Table 10. Total number of natural communities by metropolitan area GC 111 k. Table 11. Conservation Opportunity Areas in each metropolitan area GC 112 l. Table 12. Total IL Nature Preserve acreage in each metropolitan area GC 113 m. Table 13. Ranking of migratory bird species that utilize urban areas GC 114 n. Table 14. 1928 pollinator study by Charles Robertson in Carlinville, IL GC 115 o. Table 15. Early detection priority species Invasives 145 p. Table 16: SGCN threatened or stressed from Invasives Invasives 146 q. Table 17. Activities in support of the Streams Campaign goals Streams 201 r. Table 18. Focal species in nutrient management priority areas Streams 202 X. Figures a. Figure 1. COAs currently recognized through Illinois Wildlife Action Plan COA 17 b. Figure 2. Factors that contribute or reduce success of management COA 18 c. Figure 3. Intersection of COAs with Campaign focus areas COA 19 d. Figure 4. Amendment to Mason Co. Sands COA F&P 45 e. Figure 5. Focus areas and sites in Farmland and Prairie Campaign F&P 46 f. Figure 6. Focus areas for the Forest and Woodland Campaign F&W 69 g. Figure 7. Urban areas in IL based on population density GC 116 h. Figure 8. Metropolitan statistical areas in Illinois GC 117 i. Figure 9. Metropolitan/urban focus areas in Green Cities Campaign GC 118 j. Figure 10. Conservation Opportunity Areas and metropolitan areas GC 119 k. Figure 11. Illinois Natural Area Inventory sites by metropolitan area GC 120 l. Figure 12. T&E and IL Breading Bird Areas by metropolitan area GC 121 m. Figure 13. Illinois cropland data from 2012 GC 122 n. Figure 14. Lake Michigan campaign boundary and focus areas LM 178 o. Figure 15. Streams Campaign focus areas Streams 203 iv | Table of Contents p. Figure 16. Wetlands Campaign priority natural divisions Wetlands 238 q. Figure 17. Wetlands Campaign priority areas and sites Wetlands 239 XI. Appendixes a. Appendix 1. Species in Greatest Conservation Need in Illinois Appendix 1 255 b. Appendix 2. Watch list of vulnerable species Appendix 2 272 c. Appendix 3. Contributors to Illinois Wildlife Action Plan implementation and 2015 Implementation Guide development Appendix 3 283 d. Appendix 4. SGCN addressed by Farmland and Prairie Campaign F&P 47 e. Appendix 5. SGCN addressed by Forest and Woodland Campaign F&W 69 f. Appendix 6. SGCN addressed by Green Cities Campaign GC 123 g. Appendix 7. SGCN addressed by Lake Michigan Coastal Campaign LM 179 h. Appendix 8. SGCN addressed by the Streams Campaign Streams 204 i. Appendix 9. SGCN addressed by the Wetlands Campaign Wetlands 240 j. Appendix 10. Wetlands Campaign priority tiers in Illinois. Wetlands 245 v | Table of Contents Acknowledgments Illinois’ Wildlife Action Plan has been implemented over the past ten years through the tremendous cooperation and collaboration among many agencies, organizations and individuals.
Recommended publications
  • Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 PBRIA a Newsletter for Plecopterologists

    Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 PBRIA a Newsletter for Plecopterologists

    No. 10 1990/1991 Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 PBRIA A Newsletter for Plecopterologists EDITORS: Richard W, Baumann Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 Peter Zwick Limnologische Flußstation Max-Planck-Institut für Limnologie, Postfach 260, D-6407, Schlitz, West Germany EDITORIAL ASSISTANT: Bonnie Snow REPORT 3rd N orth A merican Stonefly S ymposium Boris Kondratieff hosted an enthusiastic group of plecopterologists in Fort Collins, Colorado during May 17-19, 1991. More than 30 papers and posters were presented and much fruitful discussion occurred. An enjoyable field trip to the Colorado Rockies took place on Sunday, May 19th, and the weather was excellent. Boris was such a good host that it was difficult to leave, but many participants traveled to Santa Fe, New Mexico to attend the annual meetings of the North American Benthological Society. Bill Stark gave us a way to remember this meeting by producing a T-shirt with a unique “Spirit Fly” design. ANNOUNCEMENT 11th International Stonefly Symposium Stan Szczytko has planned and organized an excellent symposium that will be held at the Tree Haven Biological Station, University of Wisconsin in Tomahawk, Wisconsin, USA. The registration cost of $300 includes lodging, meals, field trip and a T- Shirt. This is a real bargain so hopefully many colleagues and friends will come and participate in the symposium August 17-20, 1992. Stan has promised good weather and good friends even though he will not guarantee that stonefly adults will be collected during the field trip. Printed August 1992 1 OBITUARIES RODNEY L.
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves

    Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves

    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
  • New Records of Stoneflies (Plecoptera) with an Annotated Checklist of the Species for Pennsylvania

    New Records of Stoneflies (Plecoptera) with an Annotated Checklist of the Species for Pennsylvania

    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 29 Number 3 - Fall 1996 Number 3 - Fall 1996 Article 2 October 1996 New Records of Stoneflies (Plecoptera) With an Annotated Checklist of the Species for Pennsylvania E. C. Masteller Behrend College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Masteller, E. C. 1996. "New Records of Stoneflies (Plecoptera) With an Annotated Checklist of the Species for Pennsylvania," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 29 (3) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol29/iss3/2 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]. Masteller: New Records of Stoneflies (Plecoptera) With an Annotated Checklis 1996 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOlOGIST 107 NEW RECORDS OF STONEFLIES IPLECOPTERA} WITH AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE SPECIES FOR PENNSYLVANIA E.C. Masteller1 ABSTRACT Original collections now record 134 species in nine families and 42 gen­ era. Seventeen new state records include, Allocapnia wrayi, Alloperla cau­ data, Leuctra maria, Soyedina carolinensis, Tallaperla elisa, Perlesta decipi· ens, P. placida, Neoperla catharae, N. occipitalis, N. stewarti, Cult us decisus decisus, Isoperla francesca, 1. frisoni, 1. lata,1. nana, 1. slossonae, Malirekus hastatus. Five species are removed from the list ofspecies for Pennsylvania. Surdick and Kim (1976) originally recorded 90 species of stoneflies in nine families and 32 genera from Pennsylvania. Since that time, Stark et al.
  • Macrolepidoptera Inventory of the Chilcotin District

    Macrolepidoptera Inventory of the Chilcotin District

    Macrolepidoptera Inventory of the Chilcotin District Aud I. Fischer – Biologist Jon H. Shepard - Research Scientist and Crispin S. Guppy – Research Scientist January 31, 2000 2 Abstract This study was undertaken to learn more of the distribution, status and habitat requirements of B.C. macrolepidoptera (butterflies and the larger moths), the group of insects given the highest priority by the BC Environment Conservation Center. The study was conducted in the Chilcotin District near Williams Lake and Riske Creek in central B.C. The study area contains a wide variety of habitats, including rare habitat types that elsewhere occur only in the Lillooet-Lytton area of the Fraser Canyon and, in some cases, the Southern Interior. Specimens were collected with light traps and by aerial net. A total of 538 species of macrolepidoptera were identified during the two years of the project, which is 96% of the estimated total number of species in the study area. There were 29,689 specimens collected, and 9,988 records of the number of specimens of each species captured on each date at each sample site. A list of the species recorded from the Chilcotin is provided, with a summary of provincial and global distributions. The habitats, at site series level as TEM mapped, are provided for each sample. A subset of the data was provided to the Ministry of Forests (Research Section, Williams Lake) for use in a Flamulated Owl study. A voucher collection of 2,526 moth and butterfly specimens was deposited in the Royal BC Museum. There were 25 species that are rare in BC, with most known only from the Riske Creek area.
  • The Mayfly Newsletter: Vol

    The Mayfly Newsletter: Vol

    Volume 20 | Issue 2 Article 1 1-9-2018 The aM yfly Newsletter Donna J. Giberson The Permanent Committee of the International Conferences on Ephemeroptera, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mayfly Part of the Biology Commons, Entomology Commons, Systems Biology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Giberson, Donna J. (2018) "The aM yfly eN wsletter," The Mayfly Newsletter: Vol. 20 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mayfly/vol20/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Newsletters at SWOSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Mayfly eN wsletter by an authorized editor of SWOSU Digital Commons. An ADA compliant document is available upon request. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Mayfly Newsletter Vol. 20(2) Winter 2017 The Mayfly Newsletter is the official newsletter of the Permanent Committee of the International Conferences on Ephemeroptera In this issue Project Updates: Development of new phylo- Project Updates genetic markers..................1 A new study of Ephemeroptera Development of new phylogenetic markers to uncover island in North West Algeria...........3 colonization histories by mayflies Sereina Rutschmann1, Harald Detering1 & Michael T. Monaghan2,3 Quest for a western mayfly to culture...............................4 1Department of Biochemistry, Genetics and Immunology, University of Vigo, Spain 2Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany 3 Joint International Conf. Berlin Center for Genomics in Biodiversity Research, Berlin, Germany Items for the silent auction at Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] the Aracruz meeting (to sup- port the scholarship fund).....6 The diversification of evolutionary young species (<20 million years) is often poorly under- stood because standard molecular markers may not accurately reconstruct their evolutionary How to donate to the histories.
  • Missouri State Wildlife Action Plan Missouri Department of Conservation Conserving Healthy Fish, Forests, and Wildlife 2015

    Missouri State Wildlife Action Plan Missouri Department of Conservation Conserving Healthy Fish, Forests, and Wildlife 2015

    Missouri State Wildlife Action Plan Missouri Department of Conservation CONSERVING HEALTHY FISH, FORESTS, AND WILDLIFE 2015 Missouri State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Missouri is a national leader in fish, forest, and wildlife conservation due to Missouri citizens’ unique and proactive support of conservation efforts. The Conservation Department continues to build on our 79- year legacy of citizen-led conservation by outlining strategic priorities for the future to help us successfully manage fish, forest, and wildlife. Each of these priorities ties directly back to the heart of our mission: to manage and protect the fish, forest, and wildlife resources of the state and to provide opportunities for all citizens to use, enjoy, and learn about those resources. - Robert L. Ziehmer, Director Missouri Department of Conservation Missouri State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 FOREWORD issouri supports an abundant natural heri- examples of the state’s original natural communities tage, ranking 21st in the nation in terms of and outstanding biological diversity. The Depart- Mits numbers of native animal and plant spe- ment’s science-based efforts, aimed at understand- cies. There are over 180 native fish species, includ- ing life-history needs and habitat system dynamics, ing the endemic Niangua darter, that ply the state’s have benefited a variety of Missouri species, includ- aquatic habitats. More than 100 species of native ing recovery efforts of the American burying beetle, amphibians and reptiles occur in a myriad of habitats Ozark hellbender, eastern hellbender, eastern collared from mountain-top glades to lowland swamps. Mis- lizard, prairie massasauga rattlesnake, greater prai- souri supports nationally significant river and stream rie-chicken, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, pallid and systems, some of the largest forested tracts left in the lake sturgeons, Niangua darter, Topeka shiner, Virgin- Midwest, a high density of cave and karst features, ia sneezeweed, geocarpon, and Missouri bladderpod.
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists

    List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists

    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
  • Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R

    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.
  • 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 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.
  • Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts

    Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts

    Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts September 15, 2013 This report is the result of several years of field data collection, analyses and IBI development, and consideration of the opportunities for wetland program and policy development in relation to IBIs and CAPS Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI). Contributors include: University of Massachusetts Amherst Kevin McGarigal, Ethan Plunkett, Joanna Grand, Brad Compton, Theresa Portante, Kasey Rolih, and Scott Jackson Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Jan Smith, Marc Carullo, and Adrienne Pappal Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Lisa Rhodes, Lealdon Langley, and Michael Stroman Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts Abstract The purpose of this study was to develop a fully empirically-based method for developing Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs) that does not rely on expert opinion or the arbitrary designation of reference sites and pilot its application in forested wetlands, coastal salt marshes and wadable freshwater streams in Massachusetts. The method we developed involves: 1) using a suite of regression models to estimate the abundance of each taxon across a gradient of stressor levels, 2) using statistical calibration based on the fitted regression models and maximum likelihood methods to predict the value of the stressor metric based on the abundance of the taxon at each site, 3) selecting taxa in a forward stepwise procedure that conditionally improves the concordance between the observed stressor value and the predicted value the most and a stopping rule for selecting taxa based on a conditional alpha derived from comparison to pseudotaxa data, and 4) comparing the coefficient of concordance for the final IBI to the expected distribution derived from randomly permuted data.
  • Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA

    Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA

    Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4300 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4300 Taxonomic Paper Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA Thomas P. Simon†, Charles C. Morris‡, Joseph R. Robb§, William McCoy | † Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 46403, United States of America ‡ US National Park Service, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, IN 47468, United States of America § US Fish and Wildlife Service, Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge, Madison, IN 47250, United States of America | US Fish and Wildlife Service, Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, Oakland City, IN 47660, United States of America Corresponding author: Thomas P. Simon ([email protected]) Academic editor: Benjamin Price Received: 08 Dec 2014 | Accepted: 09 Jan 2015 | Published: 12 Jan 2015 Citation: Simon T, Morris C, Robb J, McCoy W (2015) Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA. Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4300. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4300 Abstract The National Wildlife Refuge system is a vital resource for the protection and conservation of biodiversity and biological integrity in the United States. Surveys were conducted to determine the spatial and temporal patterns of fish, macroinvertebrate, and crayfish populations in two watersheds that encompass three refuges in southern Indiana. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge had the highest number of aquatic species with 355 macroinvertebrate taxa, six crayfish species, and 82 fish species, while the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge had 163 macroinvertebrate taxa, seven crayfish species, and 37 fish species. The Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge had the lowest diversity of macroinvertebrates with 96 taxa and six crayfish species, while possessing the second highest fish species richness with 51 species.