Appendix 1. Locations and Events
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices
Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices A: Initial List of Important Sites..................................................................................................... 2 B: An Annotated List of the Mammals of Albemarle County........................................................ 5 C: Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 18 An Annotated List of the Birds of Albemarle County.............................................................. 18 Bird Species Status Tables and Charts...................................................................................... 28 Species of Concern in Albemarle County............................................................................ 28 Trends in Observations of Species of Concern..................................................................... 30 D. Fish of Albemarle County........................................................................................................ 37 E. An Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians of Albemarle County.......................................... 41 F. An Annotated Checklist of the Reptiles of Albemarle County, Virginia................................. 45 G. Invertebrate Lists...................................................................................................................... 51 H. Flora of Albemarle County ...................................................................................................... 69 I. Rare -
Shadow Darner
Newsletter of the Wisconsin Dragonfly Society Wisconsin Odonata News Vol.3 Issue 2 Winter, 2015 Featured in this issue: WOS (Wisconsin Odonata Survey ) Bug o’ the Week: Shadow Darner Focus on Habitat: Retention Ponds WWBD?* (What Would Birders Do?) Project: Exuviae Collecting Fostering the appreciation, study and enjoyment of Wisconsin’s dragonflies and damselflies and the aquatic habitats on which they depend. Wisconsin Dragonfly Society CONTENTS Reflections and Intentions by Dan Jackson ……………………………...........3 Board Members Have YOU Been Taking Advantage of the Statewide Dragonfly and Damselfly Survey (WOS)? by Bob DuBois……………………………..………………....4 PRESIDENT Dan Jackson Planning your Dragonfly Field Trips? WWBD*? by Joanne Kline…………..5 [email protected] Every Journey Has a Beginning by Ryan Chrouser ………………………………….6 VICE-PRESIDENT Scenes from a field trip in Dunn County………………………………………………8 Ryan Chrouser [email protected] Focus on Habitat: Retention Ponds by Bob DuBois and Dan Jackson….…9 Nymph Identification Workshops by Freda van den Broek…… …………….. 10 RECORDING SECRETARY Carey Chrouser Bug o’the Week: Shadow Darner by Kate Redmond …………………………….11 [email protected] International Odonatological Research News ......................................13 TREASURER Project: Collecting Exuviae……………………………………………………….……..14 Matt Berg [email protected] Membership Matters …………………………………………………………………………… 16 AT LARGE ARGIA - Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………… 17 Robert DuBois Resources: Links, Books, Supplies……………………………………………………………. -
A Survey of Odonata of the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area
2012. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 121(1):54–61 A SURVEY OF ODONATA OF THE PATOKA RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND MANAGEMENT AREA Donald L. Batema* and Amanda Bellian: Department of Chemistry, Environmental Studies Program, University of Evansville, 1800 Lincoln Avenue, Evansville, IN 47722 USA Lindsey Landowski: Mingo National Wildlife Refuge, Puxico, MO. 63960 USA ABSTRACT. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area (hereafter Patoka River Refuge or the Refuge) represents one of the largest intact bottomland hardwood forests in southern Indiana, with meandering oxbows, marshes, ponds, managed moist-soil units, and constructed wetlands that provide diverse and suitable habitat for wildlife. Refuge personnel strive to protect, restore, and manage this bottomland hardwood ecosystem and associated habitats for a variety of wildlife. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) lists many species of management priority (McCoy 2008), but Odonata are not included, even though they are known to occur on the Refuge. The absence of Odonata from the CCP is the result of lack of information about this ecologically important group of organisms. Therefore, we conducted a survey, from May to October 2009, to document their presence, with special attention being paid to rare, threatened, and endangered species. A total of 43 dragonfly and damselfly species were collected and identified. No threatened or endangered species were found on the Refuge, but three species were found that are considered imperiled in Indiana based on Nature Serve Ranks (Stein 2002). Additionally, 19 new odonate records were documented for Pike County, Indiana. The results of this survey will be used by Refuge personnel to assist in management decisions and to help establish priorities for the Patoka River Refuge activities and land acquisition goals. -
Dragonflies of Northern Virginia
WILDLIFE OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA Hayhurst’s Scallopwing Southern Broken-Dash Dreamy Duskywing Northern Broken-Dash Sleepy Duskywing Little Glassywing Juvenal’s Duskywing Sachem Horace’s Duskywing Delaware Skipper Wild Indigo Duskywing Hobomok Skipper Common Checkered Skipper Zabulon Skipper Common Sootywing Broad-winged Skipper Swarthy Skipper Dion Skipper Clouded Skipper Dun Skipper Least Skipper Dusted Skipper European Skipper Pepper and Salt Skipper Fiery Skipper Common Roadside Skipper Leonard’s Skipper Ocola Skipper Cobweb Skipper Peck’s Skipper Data Sources: H. Pavulaan, R. Smith, R. Smythe, Tawny-edged Skipper B. Steury (NPS), J. Waggener Crossline Skipper DRAGONFLIES OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA Following is a provisional list of dragonfly species that Other notations: shaded (species you should be able to might be found in appropriate habitats. find in a normal year). PETALTAILS (PETALURIDAE) Midland Clubtail Gray Petaltail Arrow Clubtail Russet-tipped Clubtail DARNERS (AESHNIDAE) Laura’s Clubtail Common Green Darner Elusive Clubtail Comet Darner Black-shouldered Spinyleg Swamp Darner Unicorn Clubtail Cyrano Darner Least Clubtail Harlequin Darner Southern Pygmy Clubtail Taper-tailed Darner Common Sanddragon Occelated Darner Eastern Ringtail Fawn Darner Springtime Darner SPIKETAILS (CORDULEGASTRIDAE) Shadow Darner Tiger Spiketail Twin-spotted Spiketail CLUBTAILS (GOMPHIDAE) Brown Spiketail Dragonhunter Arrowhead Spiketail Ashy Clubtail Lancet Clubtail CRUISERS (MACROMIIDAE) Spine-crowned -
Life History and Production of Mayflies, Stoneflies, and Caddisflies (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) in a Spring-Fe
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen 1083 Life history and production of mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) in a spring-fed stream in Prince Edward Island, Canada: evidence for population asynchrony in spring habitats? Michelle Dobrin and Donna J. Giberson Abstract: We examined the life history and production of the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) commu- nity along a 500-m stretch of a hydrologically stable cold springbrook in Prince Edward Island during 1997 and 1998. Six mayfly species (Ephemeroptera), 6 stonefly species (Plecoptera), and 11 caddisfly species (Trichoptera) were collected from benthic and emergence samples from five sites in Balsam Hollow Brook. Eleven species were abundant enough for life-history and production analysis: Baetis tricaudatus, Cinygmula subaequalis, Epeorus (Iron) fragilis,andEpeorus (Iron) pleuralis (Ephemeroptera), Paracapnia angulata, Sweltsa naica, Leuctra ferruginea, Amphinemura nigritta,and Nemoura trispinosa (Plecoptera), and Parapsyche apicalis and Rhyacophila brunnea (Trichoptera). Life-cycle timing of EPT taxa in Balsam Hollow Brook was generally similar to other literature reports, but several species showed extended emergence periods when compared with other studies, suggesting a reduction in synchronization of life-cycle timing, pos- sibly as a result of the thermal patterns in the stream. Total EPT secondary production (June 1997 to May 1998) was 2.74–2.80 g·m–2·year–1 dry mass (size-frequency method). Mayflies were dominant, with a production rate of 2.2 g·m–2·year–1 dry mass, followed by caddisflies at 0.41 g·m–2·year–1 dry mass, and stoneflies at 0.19 g·m–2·year–1 dry mass. -
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. -
SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AIR AND LAND PROTECTION DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROGRAM Standard Operating Procedures SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005 SOP TITLE: Taxonomic Levels for Macroinvertebrate Identifications WRITTEN BY: Randy Sarver, WQMS, ESP APPROVED BY: Earl Pabst, Director, ESP SUMMARY OF REVISIONS: Changes to reflect new taxa and current taxonomy APPLICABILITY: Applies to Water Quality Monitoring Section personnel who perform community level surveys of aquatic macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams of Missouri . DISTRIBUTION: MoDNR Intranet ESP SOP Coordinator RECERTIFICATION RECORD: Date Reviewed Initials Page 1 of 30 MDNR-WQMS-209 Effective Date: 05/31/05 Page 2 of 30 1.0 GENERAL OVERVIEW 1.1 This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is designed to be used as a reference by biologists who analyze aquatic macroinvertebrate samples from Missouri. Its purpose is to establish consistent levels of taxonomic resolution among agency, academic and other biologists. The information in this SOP has been established by researching current taxonomic literature. It should assist an experienced aquatic biologist to identify organisms from aquatic surveys to a consistent and reliable level. The criteria used to set the level of taxonomy beyond the genus level are the systematic treatment of the genus by a professional taxonomist and the availability of a published key. 1.2 The consistency in macroinvertebrate identification allowed by this document is important regardless of whether one person is conducting an aquatic survey over a period of time or multiple investigators wish to compare results. It is especially important to provide guidance on the level of taxonomic identification when calculating metrics that depend upon the number of taxa. -
Protocol for Monitoring Aquatic Invertebrates at Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and Buffalo National River, Arkansas
Protocol for Monitoring Aquatic Invertebrates at Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and Buffalo National River, Arkansas. Heartland I&M Network SOP 4: Laboratory Processing and Identification of Invertebrates Version 1.2 (03/11/2021) Revision History Log: Previous Revision Author Changes Made Reason for Change New Version # Date Version # Dec 2, 2016 Bowles References updates References were 1.0 1.1 insufficient 1.1 3/11/2021 HR Dodd QA/QC procedures and Clarify QA procedures and 1.2 certification process increase data integrity of clarified; sample sample processing and processing and identification identification methods clarified This SOP explains procedures for processing and storing samples after field collection as well as identification of specimens. Procedures for storing reference specimens are also described. I. Preparing the Sample for Processing Processing procedures apply to all benthic samples. This is an important and time-consuming step. Particular care should be taken to ensure that samples are being processed thoroughly and efficiently. The purpose of sorting is to remove invertebrates from other material in the sample. Procedure: A. Sample processing begins by pouring the original field sample into a USGS standard sieve (500-µm) placed in a catch pan. The preservative that is drained from the sample should be placed back in the original sample container for eventual rehydration of remaining sample debris that is not sorted during the subsample procedure described below. B. Rinse the sample contents in the sieve with tap water to flush the residual preservative. Large debris material (>2 cm; i.e. leaves, sticks, rocks) should be removed by hand and rinsed into the sieve. -
Butterflies of North America
Insects of Western North America 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America. 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa by Boris C. Kondratieff, Luke Myers, and Whitney S. Cranshaw C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 22, 2011 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 3 Cover Photo Credits: Whitney S. Cranshaw. Females of the blow fly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fab.) laying eggs on an animal carcass on Fort Sill, Oklahoma. 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, Colorado, 80523-1177. Copyrighted 2011 4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS -
Distribution of Mayfly Species in North America List Compiled from Randolph, Robert Patrick
Page 1 of 19 Distribution of mayfly species in North America List compiled from Randolph, Robert Patrick. 2002. Atlas and biogeographic review of the North American mayflies (Ephemeroptera). PhD Dissertation, Department of Entomology, Purdue University. 514 pages and information presented at Xerces Mayfly Festival, Moscow, Idaho June, 9-12 2005 Acanthametropodidae Ameletus ludens Needham Acanthametropus pecatonica (Burks) Canada—ON,NS,PQ. USA—IL,GA,SC,WI. USA—CT,IN,KY,ME,MO,NY,OH,PA,WV. Ameletus majusculus Zloty Analetris eximia Edmunds Canada—AB. Canada—AB ,SA. USA—MT,OR,WA. USA—UT,WY. Ameletus minimus Zloty & Harper USA—OR. Ameletidae Ameletus oregonenesis McDunnough Ameletus amador Mayo Canada—AB ,BC,SA. Canada—AB. USA—ID,MT,OR,UT. USA—CA,OR. Ameletus pritchardi Zloty Ameletus andersoni Mayo Canada—AB,BC. USA—OR,WA. Ameletus quadratus Zloty & Harper Ameletus bellulus Zloty USA—OR. Canada—AB. Ameletus shepherdi Traver USA—MT. Canada—BC. Ameletus browni McDunnough USA—CA,MT,OR. Canada—PQ Ameletus similior McDunnough USA—ME,PA,VT. Canada—AB,BC. Ameletus celer McDunnough USA—CO,ID,MT,OR,UT Canada—AB ,BC. Ameletus sparsatus McDunnough USA—CO,ID,MT,UT Canada—AB,BC,NWT. Ameletus cooki McDunnough USA—AZ,CO,ID,MT,NM,OR Canada—AB,BC. Ameletus subnotatus Eaton USA—CO,ID,MT,OR,WA. Canada—AB,BC,MB,NB,NF,ON,PQ. Ameletus cryptostimulus Carle USA—CO,UT,WY. USA—NC,NY,PA,SC,TN,VA,VT,WV. Ameletus suffusus McDunnough Ameletus dissitus Eaton Canada—AB,BC. USA—CA,OR. USA—ID,OR. Ameletus doddsianus Zloty Ameletus tarteri Burrows USA—AZ,CO,NM,NV,UT. -
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Megaloptera, and Trichoptera of Great Smoky Mountains National Park
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory: A Search for Species in Our Own Backyard 2007 Southeastern Naturalist Special Issue 1:159–174 Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Megaloptera, and Trichoptera of Great Smoky Mountains National Park Charles R. Parker1,*, Oliver S. Flint, Jr.2, Luke M. Jacobus3, Boris C. Kondratieff 4, W. Patrick McCafferty3, and John C. Morse5 Abstract - Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), situated on the moun- tainous border of North Carolina and Tennessee, is recognized as one of the most highly diverse protected areas in the temperate region. In order to provide baseline data for the scientifi c management of GSMNP, an All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory (ATBI) was initiated in 1998. Among the goals of the ATBI are to discover the identity and distribution of as many as possible of the species of life that occur in GSMNP. The authors have concentrated on the orders of completely aquatic insects other than odonates. We examined or utilized others’ records of more than 53,600 adult and 78,000 immature insects from 545 locations. At present, 469 species are known from GSMNP, including 120 species of Ephemeroptera (mayfl ies), 111 spe- cies of Plecoptera (stonefl ies), 7 species of Megaloptera (dobsonfl ies, fi shfl ies, and alderfl ies), and 231 species of Trichoptera (caddisfl ies). Included in this total are 10 species new to science discovered since the ATBI began. Introduction Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) is situated on the border of North Carolina and Tennessee and is comprised of 221,000 ha. GSMNP is recognized as one of the most diverse protected areas in the temperate region (Nichols and Langdon 2007). -
A Cladistic Insight Into the Higher Level Classification Of
Systematic Entomology (2020), DOI: 10.1111/syen.12446 A cladistic insight into the higher level classification of Baetidae (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) PAULO VILELA CRUZ1,2 , CAROLINA NIETO3, JEAN-LUC GATTOLLIAT4, FREDERICO FALCÃO SALLES5 andNEUSA HAMADA2 1Universidade Federal de Rondônia - UNIR, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Ambientais - PPGCA, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ensino de Ciências da Natureza - PPGECN, Laboratório de Biodiversidade e Conservação - LABICON, CEP 76940-000, Rolim de Moura, Rondônia, Brazil, 2Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia - INPA, Coordenação de Pesquisas em Biodiversidade, Laboratório de Citotaxonomia e Insetos Aquáticos, CEP 69067-375, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil, 3Instituto de Biodiversidad Neotropical, CONICeT, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Ciudad Universitaria, 4107, Horco Molle, Tucumán, Argentina, 4Musée Cantonal de Zoologie, Palais de Rumine, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. Department of Ecology and Evolution, Biophore, University of Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland and 5Museu de Entomologia, Departamento de Entomologia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Av. P. H. Rolfs, s/n, Campus Universitário, CEP 36570-900, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil Abstract. Baetidae was one of the first families established for mayflies (Ephemeroptera). After more than 200 years of progressive research, Baetidae is now known as the most species-rich family in the order. Two competing proposals of family division were proposed: Cloeoninae and Baetinae, or Protopatellata and Anteropatellata. Both classifications were established without cladistic support. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the phylogenetic relationships of the family Baeti- dae using morphological evidence and evaluate these classification schemes. The matrix included 245 morphological characters derived from larval and adult stages across 164 species in 98 genera.