DOCSLIB.ORG

Management Guidelines: Pelee Island Alvars Western Lake Erie Islands Southwestern Ontario Program Township of Pelee Island, Essex County ON

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Management Guidelines: Pelee Island Alvars Western Lake Erie Islands Southwestern Ontario Program Township of Pelee Island, Essex County ON Management Guidelines: Pelee Island Alvars Western Lake Erie Islands Southwestern Ontario Program Township of Pelee Island, Essex County ON Nature Conservancy of Canada – Southwestern Ontario May 2008 1 Recommended Citation Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC). 2008. Management Guidelines: Pelee Island Alvars. NCC – Southwestern Ontario Region, London, Ontario. 43 pp. Cover Illustration: Stone Road Alvar, Western Lake Erie Islands. Photo by Heather Arnold. © Nature Conservancy of Canada 2008. This report may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. Copies of this report have been distributed to the following partners: • The Government of Canada Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk • Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources • Essex Region Conservation Authority • Ontario Nature • Pelee Island Heritage Centre • Township of Pelee Island For additional information, please contact: Science and Stewardship Co-ordinator Southwestern Ontario Nature Conservancy of Canada Suite 1606 148 Fullarton Street London, Ontario N6A 5P3 Tel: 519 640 6822 or 1 866 281 5331 Fax: 519 640 6816 www.natureconservancy.ca Mission Statement The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) is a non-profit, non-advocacy organization that takes a business-like approach to preserving Canada’s natural heritage. Our focus is on conservation through private action. Our success is based on partnership with individuals, corporations, community groups, conservation groups, foundations and government agencies to create solutions that benefit nature. Since 1962, NCC has protected over 2.0 million acres of ecologically significant lands in Canada. This includes over 121 000 acres within over 600 properties in Ontario. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................4 Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................4 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................4 2.0 Site Context.............................................................................................................................................5 2.1 Geographic Context................................................................................................................5 2.2 Ecological Context .................................................................................................................5 2.3 Socio-Economic Context........................................................................................................6 2.4 Stone Road Alvar ...................................................................................................................7 2.4.1 Shaughnessy Cohen Memorial Savanna (NCC) .............................................................8 2.4.2 Porchuk Property and Pelee Development Interests Property (NCC).............................8 2.4.3 Ontario Nature property ..................................................................................................8 2.4.4 ERCA property................................................................................................................9 2.5 Brown’s Road Alvar...............................................................................................................9 2.6 Red Cedar Savanna ................................................................................................................9 2.7 Verbeek Savanna..................................................................................................................10 3.0 Existing Uses ........................................................................................................................................10 4.0 Conservation Rationale .......................................................................................................................10 5.0 Threats...................................................................................................................................................16 5.1 Invasive Non-Native Species ...............................................................................................19 5.1.1 Garlic Mustard...............................................................................................................19 5.1.2 Cool Season Grasses .....................................................................................................19 5.1.3 Sweet White Clover.......................................................................................................19 5.1.4 Emerald Ash Borer........................................................................................................20 5.2 Succession ............................................................................................................................20 5.3 Tourism and Recreational Areas ..........................................................................................20 5.3.1 Trail Maintenance..........................................................................................................20 6.0 Conservation Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................21 7.0 Management Actions ...........................................................................................................................22 7.1 Fire and Fire Suppression.....................................................................................................22 7.1.1 Beneficial Impacts.........................................................................................................23 7.1.2 Negative Impacts...........................................................................................................24 7.1.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................24 7.2 Mechanical Removal............................................................................................................25 7.2.1 Beneficial Impacts.........................................................................................................25 7.2.2 Negative Impacts...........................................................................................................25 7.2.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................26 7.3 Grazing and Browsing..........................................................................................................26 7.3.1 Beneficial Impacts.........................................................................................................27 7.3.2 Negative Impacts...........................................................................................................27 7.3.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................27 7.4 Herbicide Application ..........................................................................................................28 8.0 Recommended Management Approach.............................................................................................28 8.0.1 Burning..............................................................................................................................28 8.0.2 Thinning ............................................................................................................................29 8.1 Stone Road Alvar .................................................................................................................29 8.2 Brown’s Road Alvar.............................................................................................................29 3 8.3 Red Ceder Savanna (Richard and Beryl Ivey Property).......................................................30 9.0 Monitoring .............................................................................................................................................30 9.1 Target Indicator Species.......................................................................................................30 9.2 Permanent Monitoring Plots.................................................................................................32 10.0 Data Gaps............................................................................................................................................32 11.0 References Cited ................................................................................................................................32 Table 1: ELC definition of alvars, savanna and woodlands.............................................................6 Table 2: Alvar communities...........................................................................................................12 Table 3: Alvar species ....................................................................................................................14 Table 4: Summary of threats by ecosite type: Pelee Island alvars and woodlands........................17 Table 5: Target indicator species....................................................................................................31 Appendix 1: Species Inventory Appendix 2: Discounted Species Rationale Appendix 3: ELC Communities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guidelines and Priorities
    Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guidelines and Priorities ! 2002 ! November 29, 2002 Published by: The Essex Region Conservation Authority Prepared by: Dan Lebedyk, Conservation Biologist - Project Co-ordinator With funding support from: Copies* of this report may be obtained from: Essex Region Conservation Authority 360 Fairview Ave. W. Essex ON N8M 1Y6 * Due to the size and cost of producing this document, some restriction in its distribution may be necessary. This report may be cited as: Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA). 2002. Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy - Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guidelines (Comprehensive Version). Dan Lebedyk, Project Co-ordinator. Essex, Ontario. 181 pp. Acknowledgements Many individuals contributed to the development of this Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for the Essex region. The following individuals and organizations are gratefully acknowledged for their commitment, support, and involvement on the technical steering committee for the project: Terry Anderson Essex County Woodlot Owners Association Jim Boothby Stewardship Co-ordinator, Essex County Stewardship Network Tom Clark Essex County Federation of Agriculture Bob Clay Manager, Western Ontario Field Office, Ducks Unlimited Canada Ken Colthurst Forester, Essex Region Conservation Authority Lee Anne Doyle County Planning Advisor, County of Essex Jodi Dutz EcoServices, Muddy Creek/Two Creeks Implementation Strategy Mark Emery Stewardship Co-ordinator, Essex County
    [Show full text]
  • Experience Southern Öland – Hiking Trails
    HIKING TRAILSHIKING 140 KM Experience southern Öland Hiking trails through the World Heritage MAP SYMBOLS current trail other trails visitors attraction nature reserve CONTENT birdwatching area wildlife area World Heritage 2 bathing place Signature trail Öland: Mörbylångaleden 4 Mörbylångaleden stage 1 6 barbecue area Mörbylångaleden stage 2 8 car park Mörbylångaleden stage 3 10 resting area Mörbylångaleden stage 4 12 Mörbylångaleden stage 5 14 seating Stora alvarleden 16 toilets Nunnedalen 18 wind shelter Ekelundaleden 20 Örnkulleleden 22 Bårby källa 24 Gösslundaleden 26 Gösslunda – Tingstad flisor 28 Penåsa – Tingstad flisor 30 Millersten 32 Penåsa ödeby 34 Eketorpsleden 36 Other trails 38 Allemansrätten 40 iking is like a balm for both body and emerges for all the senses. Presented within this soul. To leave everyday stress behind brochure, are the hiking trails that are looked after for a moment of hiking, whether it is by Mörbylånga municipality with additional tips long or short, whether it is in areas about trails looked after by the County Adminis- Hyou are familiar with or in new terrain, provides trative Board and non-profit associations. an immediate energy boost and peace of mind while your muscles work. When hiking, it is important to keep in mind that you are a guest in nature or on someone’s land. When you also add the landscape of southern A prerequisite for keeping our land open is that Öland to the equation, an unbeatable combination it is respected and used with care. 1 WORLD HERITAGE Stile The agricultural landscape of southern Öland Stiles are placed along the trails. A stile is a type of ladder, over a fence or wall, made so that people can get Southern Öland offers a unique and exceptionally and stone walls to testify to the long history of the over but not livestock.
    [Show full text]
  • Communication on Cultural and Environmental Implications of the Emerald Ash Borer Invasion in Maine
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Honors College Spring 5-2020 Communication on Cultural and Environmental Implications of the Emerald Ash Borer Invasion in Maine Salvatore Magnano III University of Maine, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors Part of the Entomology Commons, and the Indigenous Studies Commons Recommended Citation Magnano, Salvatore III, "Communication on Cultural and Environmental Implications of the Emerald Ash Borer Invasion in Maine" (2020). Honors College. 613. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors/613 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors College by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMUNICATION ON CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE EMERALD ASH BORER INVASION IN MAINE by Salvatore Magnano III A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for a Degree with Honors (Ecology and Environmental Sciences) The Honors College University of Maine May 2020 Advisory Committee: John Daigle, Professor of Forest Recreation Management, Advisor François Amar, Dean of the Honors College and Professor of Chemistry Robert Northington, Lecturer and Post-Doctoral Research Associate in the School of Biology and Ecology Darren Ranco, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Coordinator of Native American Research Abigail Roche, Doctoral Student and Lecturer in Communication and Journalism Kate Ruskin, Lecturer in Ecology and Environmental Sciences ABSTRACT The introduction of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis, in the United States in the early 1990’s, has resulted in a wave of ecological, economic, and cultural impacts that will forever leave a scar in the forests of North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Lilac (Ash) Borer Pupal Skins Extrude from Trunk
    Lilac (Ash) Borer Pupal skins extrude from trunk Name and Description—Podosesia syringae (Harris) [Lepidoptera: Sesiidae] Adult lilac (ash) borers are moths that vary in color from brown to yel- low to orange. They have clear wings with a span of about 1-1 1/8 inches (26-28 mm) and appear wasp-like (fig. 1). Larvae are about 1 inch (2.5 cm) long and are white with brown heads (fig. 2). Hosts—Ash and lilac Life Cycle—There is one generation per year. Mature borer larvae over- winter in tunnels under the bark. Adult moths emerge from March through June to lay eggs on the bark of host trees. The larvae bore into trunks and branches of the sapwood of trees during the summer. Galleries can be up to 6 inches (15 cm) long. Figure 1. Adult ash borer. Photo: Daniel Herms, Ohio State University, Bugwood.org. Damage—The mining of the larvae causes branch dieback (fig. 3). It can also lead to broken branches. The leaves on affected branches turn brown as the branch dies. Extensive mining can also lead to tree death. Entrances to lar- val mines often appear as sunken or cankered areas on the bark of the trunk or branch. Dark, moist sawdust can be found around the Figure 2. Ash borer larva. Photo: James Solomon, USDA Forest gallery entrance (fig. 4). Pupal Service, Bugwood.org. skin remaining in the bark is often also observed (fig. 5). Management—Avoid damaging trees—maintaining trees in good health reduces their susceptibil- ity to attack. There are chemical sprays that are highly effective at Figure 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2017
    Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2017 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2017 Compiled by: • Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Science and Research Branch © 2018, Queen’s Printer for Ontario Printed in Ontario, Canada Find the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry on-line at: <http://www.ontario.ca>. For more information about forest health monitoring in Ontario visit the natural resources website: <http://ontario.ca/page/forest-health-conditions> Some of the information in this document may not be compatible with assistive technologies. If you need any of the information in an alternate format, please contact [email protected]. Cette publication hautement spécialisée Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2017 n'est disponible qu'en anglais en vertu du Règlement 671/92 qui en exempte l’application de la Loi sur les services en français. Pour obtenir de l’aide en français, veuillez communiquer avec le ministère des Richesses naturelles au <[email protected]>. ISSN 1913-617X (Online) ISBN 978-1-4868-2275-1 (2018, pdf) Contents Contributors ........................................................................................................................ 4 État de santé des forêts 2017 ............................................................................................. 5 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 6 Contributors Weather patterns ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Epilobium Brachycarpum a Fast Spreading Species in Central Europe
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Tuexenia - Mitteilungen der Floristisch-soziologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Jahr/Year: 2013 Band/Volume: NS_33 Autor(en)/Author(s): Kasari Liis, Gazol Antonio, Kalwij Jesse M., Helm Aveliina Artikel/Article: Low shrub cover in alvar grasslands increases small-scale diversity by promoting the occurrence of generalist species 293-308 Tuexenia 33: 293–308. Göttingen 2013. available online at www.tuexenia.de Low shrub cover in alvar grasslands increases small-scale diversity by promoting the occurrence of generalist species Leichte Verbuschung von Alvar-Kalkmagerrasen hat einen positiven Effekt auf die Artenvielfalt durch die Förderung generalistischer Arten Liis Kasari1,*, Antonio Gazol1, Jesse M. Kalwij1, 2, Aveliina Helm1 1Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Lai 40, EE-51005 Tartu, Estonia 2Department of Zoology, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa *Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Dry calcareous grasslands in Europe are renowned for their high plant diversity. However, declining habitat areas and highly fragmented distribution threaten the long-term persistence of this valuable habitat type. In Estonia the decline of traditional grassland management and subsequent encroachment of shrubs has resulted in a substantial loss of alvar grasslands – a particularly rare and species-rich type of calcareous grassland. It is known that a shrub cover of more than 70% decreases the alvar grassland species richness. At the same time, a shrub cover of 30% is considered optimal for alvar grasslands and thus a target state for habitat restoration. However, very little is known about the effect of low shrub cover on environmental conditions and species composition of alvar grasslands.
    [Show full text]
  • Studying Alvars in the Land Between
    Studying Alvars in The Land Between For: The Kawartha Heritage Conservancy By: Derek Matheson Date: April 27/07 1 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..2 Methods and Materials…………………………………………………………………….4 Results: ……………………………………………………………………………………6 Characteristic Alvar Communities………………...………………………………6 Rock Types and Formations……………………………………………………..18 Alvar Plant Dependencies………………………………………………………..22 Aggregate Operations……………………………………………………………25 Aggregate Rehabilitation………………………………………………………...26 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..27 References………………………………………………………………………………..31 2 Introduction: Through the Kawartha Heritage Conservancy (KHC) and in partnership with the Couchiching Conservancy (CC) I worked on a project entitled “The Land Between”. The Land Between refers to a limestone plain corridor which is located between two distinct ecoregions (the Boreal Forest to the north and the St. Lawrence Lowlands to the south). This corridor is located approximately from Georgian Bay in the west to Kingston in the east (Fig. 1) (CC and KHC, 2006). The Land Between has a length of about 250 km, and an average north to south corridor width of 35 km (CC and KHC, 2006). Until recently this area has been overlooked as a distinct natural system. Fig. 1: The Land Between primary focus area (CC and KHC, 2006) Since The Land Between has only recently been identified, there is much work to be done in inventorying, classifying and characterizing the abiotic and biotic features of the area. 3 By gathering this information and understanding the relationship between abiotic and biotic elements, the function of the whole system can be assessed. This will also allow for significant areas, species, and characteristics to be highlighted. From this understanding, relevant monitoring activities which help to identify changes and threats will be realized, and possible management implementations can be created.
    [Show full text]
  • Large-Scale Restoration of Estonian Alvar Grasslands: Impact on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Final Report of the Action D.1
    Large-scale restoration of Estonian alvar grasslands: impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services Final report of the Action D.1. Biodiversity monitoring for project LIFE to Alvars (LIFE13NAT/EE/000082) University of Tartu Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences 09/2019 LIFE to Alvars project is implemented with the contribution of the LIFE+ financial instrument of the European Union Editor: Dr. Aveliina Helm Authors and contributors: Aveliina Helm, Anu Tiitsaar, Elisabeth Prangel, Liis Kasari, Triin Reitalu, Mart Meriste, Lena Neuenkamp We would like to thank all people who participated in the different fieldworks, helped to design the study and contributed over the years to collecting the data that exceeds the information presented in this report but is built on the same set of sites selected for this project: Annely Holm, Bert Holm, Ede Oja, Norbertas Noreika, Peeter Tarlap, Reet Karise, Riho Marja, Liis Keerberg, Villu Soon, Tiiu Kupper, Nele Ingerpuu, Iris Reinula, Jaak-Albert Metsoja, Kelli Kärsna, Kaarin Koosa, Luule-Mari Meriste, Maarja Öpik, Marge Thetloff, Mari Ivask, Martin Zobel, Martti Vasar, Meelis Pärtel, Thomas Galland, Tsipe Aavik, Sabrina Träger, Marianne Kaldra, Epp-Maria Lillipuu, Anna Tonevitskaja, Linda Suurmets, Linda Pall. Recommended citation: Report citation: Helm, A. (ed). 2019. Large-scale restoration of Estonian alvar grasslands: impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Final report of the Action D.1. Biodiversity monitoring of LIFE+ programme project LIFE to Alvars (LIFE13NAT/EE/000082). University of Tartu. Chapter citation: Prangel, E. Impact of alvar grassland restoration on the supply of ecosystem services. In Helm, A. (ed). 2019. Large-scale restoration of Estonian alvar grasslands: impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
    [Show full text]
  • Tree Pest Alert
    Tree Pest Alert May 12 Volume 19, Number 13 In This Issue Plant development for the growing Plant Development .................................................................... 1 season Treatments to begin now........................................................... 1 Timely topic ............................................................................... 2 The weather is finally staying warm which is a Emerald ash borer update ..................................................... 2 Tree pollen allergies .............................................................. 2 prerequisite for spring growth, but we are not receiving E-samples ................................................................................. 3 the rains needed to “fuel” this growth. If we do not start Linden galls ........................................................................... 3 receiving our spring rains soon, we may find our trees Planting problems .................................................................. 3 and shrubs severely stressed by this dry spell. We have Samples received/site visits ...................................................... 3 had about 7.4 inches of precipitation in Sioux Falls so far Brookings County (dying spruce) .......................................... 3 in 2021. By this same time in 2019 we were at 14 Grant County (fabric problems) ............................................. 4 inches! Lawrence County (woolly pine aphid).................................... 4 Lincoln County (ash problems) .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Iucn Comments Södra Ölands
    WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL NOMINATION – IUCN COMMENTS SÖDRA ÖLANDS ODLINGSLANDSKAP (THE AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF SOUTHERN ÖLAND) (SWEDEN) 1. FIELD VISIT Peter Ogden, May 2000 2. CONSULTATIONS In addition to the field mission IUCN has also consulted with three external reviewers. 3. IUCN ASSESSMENT i) Natural Values The nominated area of the Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland (ALSO) consists of the southern third of the Baltic island of Öland. The area covers 56,323ha, including 6,069ha of coastal marine area. The bedrock consists mainly of limestone with some clay shales and sandstone. ALSO is dominated by a central limestone plateau, the Stora Alvar covering an area of 250 km2. Dolines ("swallow hole" cavities) and hog's back (dorsal- shaped strings of limestone) form part of the distinctive karst landscape and glacial deposits form fertile plains of glacial clay. Öland has a dry temperate climate which fluctuates quite radically. The Swedish highlands cast a rain shadow on the island and the summers are dry. Spring and autumn can bring rain and inundated soils, and winters are characterised by snow and occasionally violent blizzards. Climatic conditions, geology and traditional low input farming practices have all contributed to the plant diversity of the nominated area. ALSO is part of the “Öland and Gothland” Centre of Plant Diversity identified by IUCN/WWF and is characterised by many southern species at the northern extreme of their range. Four species are endemic to Öland (Alvar wormwood, Öland bedstraw, Öland rockrose and the alpine catchfly) and several other species are found soley in Öland and Gotland. Coastal grasslands and the Alvar communities are particularly important.
    [Show full text]
  • Clearwing Moth PN 7477 Rev2
    CLEARWING MOTHS Integrated Pest Management for Home Gardeners and Landscape Professionals The larvae of several species of clear- wing moths in the insect family Sesiidae are important wood-boring pests in landscapes. Hosts include (actual size) alder, ash, birch, fir, oak, pine, poplar, sycamore, willow, and stone fruit trees such as apricot, cherry, peach, and plum. Larvae that closely re- (actual semble those of clearwing moths in- adult egg size) clude the American plum borer (Euzophera semifuneralis, family (actual Pyralidae), a serious boring pest of size) hosts that include fruit and nut trees, pupa mountain ash, olive, and sycamore. Other common wood-boring pests in landscapes include bark beetles (fam- larvae ily Scolytidae) (for more information, see Pest Notes: Bark Beetles, listed in Suggested Reading), longhorned bor- ers (Cerambycidae), and round- headed borers (Buprestidae). (actual size) IDENTIFICATION Dying limbs, rough or gnarled bark, Figure 1. Clearwing moth stages and life cycle. and sawdustlike frass (insect excre- ment) are good indications that trees wider hind wings. The hind wings, pheromone that attracts males. After are infested with wood-boring in- and in some species the front wings, mating, the female deposits her tiny sects. When clearwing moth larvae are mostly clear. These moths fly dur- reddish to pale pink eggs in cracks, bore beneath tree bark, they push ing the day or at twilight, and their crevices, and rough or wounded areas frass from their tunnels; the frass is yellow and black coloring resembles on bark. Eggs hatch in about 1 to 4 sometimes mixed with gummy tree that of paper wasps or yellowjackets.
    [Show full text]
  • Lilac/Ash Borer: a Common Wood Borer of Colorado’S Street Trees Fact Sheet No
    Lilac/Ash Borer: A Common Wood Borer of Colorado’s Street Trees Fact Sheet No. 5.614 Insect Series|Trees and Shrubs by W.S. Cranshaw* Lilac/ash borer (Podosesia syringae1) is Quick Facts common wood borer associated with ash throughout Colorado and a species that is • Lilac/ash borer is an native to North America. Damage is caused insect native to North by the larvae which tunnel into the trunks America that is common and lower branches of ash trees. These in ash trees, particularly if feeding injuries produce irregular gouging trees are stressed due to wounds under the bark and tunneling drought, injury or that were frequently extends deeply into the heartwood recently transplanted. (Figure 1). Almost all larval feeding activity occurs in the lower trunk, particularly around • Damage is done by the larva; the soil line (Figure 2). Lower scaffold limbs a type of caterpillar that may also be attacked and infestations may tunnels into the trunk and extend about 10 feet up the trunk. Feeding lower branches of ash trees. damage can often be found in the mid and upper crown of trees above areas that were • If necessary, lilac/ash borer treated with contact insecticides. can be easily controlled by External evidence of lilac/ash borer spraying the trunk and lower activity in trees can include irregularly Figure 1. Lilac/ash borer larvae tunneling branches in spring during round exit holes of about 1/4-inch diameter exposed from under the bark. Photograph by the time when adult females David Leatherman. on trunks (Figure 3).
    [Show full text]