DOCSLIB.ORG

Aa Natu R Ural H Roano N Herita Oke Riv North Age

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aa Natu R Ural H Roano N Herita Oke Riv North Age A NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY OF THE ROANOKE RIVER FLOODPLAIN, NORTH CAROLINA Harry E. LeGrand, Jr. and Stephen P. Hall North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Land and Water Stewardship Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, N.C. Funding provided by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund and the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Partnership February, 2014 Cover photo: Aerial photo of the Roanoke River floodplain forest taken by Merrill Lynch A NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY OF THE ROANOKE RIVER FLOODPLAIN, NORTH CAROLINA Harry E. LeGrand, Jr. and Stephen P. Hall North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Land and Water Stewardship Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC Funding provided by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund and the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Partnership February, 2014 ABSTRACT The floodplain of the Lower Roanoke River – from the Fall Line at Roanoke Rapids to the Albemarle Sound – contains some of the finest examples of brownwater forest ecosystems in the state. A large number of high quality natural communities exist within this area, including mature stands of Brownwater Levee Forests, Bottomland Hardwoods, and Cypress-Gum Swamps in the floodplain itself and Basic Mesic Forests on the adjoining slopes and bluffs. For each of these habitats, landscape integrity is also very high, with each community type occupying well-connected units covering large expanses of the floodplain. Due to the combined ecological integrity of the floodplain, rare species, such as the Cerulean Warbler, are found there that are now rare-to-absent over most of the rest of the Coastal Plain. For the same reasons, many species typical of floodplains more generally reach their greatest abundance along the Lower Roanoke River. This inventory, funded by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund and by the Albemarle- Pamlico National Estuary Partnership, focused particularly on the rich alluvial habitats located in the upper part of the floodplain. In addition to updating previous North Carolina Natural Heritage Program inventories conducted in this area, this survey also covered species that have been poorly represented in past inventories, especially animals (mainly insects) associated with brownwater habitats. A landscape-focused component was also included. This component complements our traditional approach centered on individual sites and Natural Heritage Elements, focusing more on the interconnections between sites and how well species are able to move freely about large areas in the entire floodplain of the Lower Roanoke. Part I identifies and briefly describes 31 of the most significant natural areas in the floodplain with emphasis placed on sites that are not included within the boundaries of existing natural areas. This section also documents all natural communities and rare species of plants and animals – Natural Heritage Elements – associated with the floodplain. The individual sites are rated based on these Elements, both in terms of their contribution to protecting individual Elements within the state, and in terms of the combined conservation value represented by all Elements found within a given site. Part II describes the results of the landscape assessment. Again, specific areas are described and evaluated in terms of their conservation significance, but in this section relative to their landscape integrity, i.e., how well they are functioning to support species’ movements. As in Part I, the presence of individual species recorded during the inventory is used in this evaluation. A total of 12 landscape units were evaluated, representing 11 different habitat types. Both parts of this inventory are intended to provide guidance for land use decisions by county governments, conservation and land management organizations, and private landowners. Conservation measures that include both individual sites as well as natural connections between sites would enhance the protection of the rich biodiversity of the Lower Roanoke River Floodplain. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of individuals and agencies contributed to the planning, progress, and completion of this inventory. Jame Amoroso of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program contacted landowners for permission to survey their lands, prior to the visitation of the private tracts for the inventory. The Program’s John Finnegan assisted with production of maps for this report. Janine Nicholson, Linda Rudd, Jame Amoroso, and Misty Buchanan reviewed the draft report and maps and assisted in the production of the final copy. Buchanan also assisted with some field work, as did Laura Gadd Robinson and Judy Ratcliffe, also with the Program. James Hawhee, of the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Partnership, assisted on one field visit and provided the Program with a number of photographs. Several staff members of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission were helpful in the project. Andrew Mynatt, a wildlife forester based at the Tillery Depot, assisted with many of the field visits, including providing and piloting a boat on several water-based site visits. Dale Davis at the Williamston office provided critical access to several of the Wildlife tracts in the lower part of the floodplain. Chuck Peoples, the director of The Nature Conservancy’s Roanoke River office, was helpful in many ways. He provided shapefiles of that organization’s landholdings, plus their target areas for protection. He assisted with access to several sites, and he piloted a boat along the river that assisted identification of important tracts along the upper quarter of the floodplain. Jean Richter, Superintendent of the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge, assisted LeGrand with access information about several of the tracts on the refuge. Dr. J. Bolling Sullivan, a consulting entomologist, joined us on several of the moth sampling trips and contributed greatly to the list of species we recorded, adding several species that had not been previously recorded in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. J. Merrill Lynch, Parker Backstrom, and Jeff Lepore also assisted on one of the moth sampling trips. Lynch provided lodging for that visit and Lepore provided his mercury vapor set-ups for that evening’s field work. For snail identifications, we wish to thank Amy Van Devender, particularly for her help in identifying a rare species of Succinea we found in Bertie County. The inventory could not have been conducted without the assistance of the many landowners who allowed access to visit their lands in the floodplain. The region’s natural heritage would not have been adequately or accurately portrayed in this document without inclusion of numerous private lands that were allowed visitation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I. Inventory of Significant Natural Heritage Areas ................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 3 Inventory Preparation and Landowner Contact .......................................................................... 3 Field Surveys .............................................................................................................................. 3 Evaluation of Site Significance ................................................................................................... 4 Element Representational Value ............................................................................................................................ 5 Element Collective Value ...................................................................................................................................... 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ..................................................................................... 8 General Overview ....................................................................................................................... 8 Topography and Physiography ................................................................................................. 10 General Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 10 Summary Of Results ..................................................................................................................... 13 Natural Areas ............................................................................................................................ 13 Natural Communities ................................................................................................................ 18 General Comments .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Wetland Communities ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Terrestrial Communities ...................................................................................................................................... 28 Flora .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Study Guide Entomology & Nematology Department
    STUDY GUIDE ENTOMOLOGY & NEMATOLOGY DEPARTMENT DPM COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATIONS The Entomology & Nematology Comprehensive Examinations consist of 3 sections: pest identification (30%), pest biology and management (40%), and core concepts and synthesis (30%). These examinations are limited to information about invertebrate animal pests, principally insects and nematodes, but also plant feeding mites and terrestrial molluscs. A. Pest identification Students will be presented with insects, mites, molluscs, and nematodes that they must identify. Some may be recognizable by sight, but others may require keys for identification. Students will be provided with identification aids (keys), where necessary, and be expected to use them to identify the subjects accurately. The unknowns will be selected from the list of important insect, mite, mollusc, and nematode pests (Table 1) though we will emphasize those with a single or double asterisk [* or **]), as these normally are the more important pests. Included in this list are some that pose a threat but are not currently found in Florida. B. Pest biology and management Students will answer 8-10 questions on insect, mite, mollusc, and nematode pest biology (sampling, distribution, life cycle, damage) and management. The animals for which students are responsible to know biology and management are listed in Table 1 (preceded by double asterisk [**]). C. Core Concepts and Synthesis Section: Students will answer 3 or 4 questions that cover core areas of Entomology/Nematology and demonstrate knowledge of core areas, but also analysis and problem solving. Suggested reference/reading material is listed in Table 2. You might want to read through these in preparation for the Comprehensive Examinations.
    [Show full text]
  • HEEP Wetland Monitoring Report .Pdf
    Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report 10 CT DEEP Permits IW-2003-112 and WQC-200302988 2017 Landfill Closure Project # 900748 University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut View Northwest, October 3, 2017 MASON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Consulting & Projects 771 Plainfield Pike, NorthScituate, Rhode Island02857 Telephone (401)647-3835 In association with HALEY & ALDRICH, INC. 100 Corporate Place, Suite 105 Telephone Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067 (860) 290-3131 WETLAND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT 10 ‐ 2017 LANDFILL CLOSURE PROJECT #900748 UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, STORRS, CT CT DEEP Permits IW‐2003‐112 and WQC‐200302988 June 2018 Submitted to: CT Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Submitted by: University of Connecticut Prepared by: Mason & Associates, Inc. 771 Plainfield Pike North Scituate, Rhode Island 02857 WETLAND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT 10 ‐ 2017 CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Site Photographs .................................................................................................................. 1 3.0 Mitigation Success ............................................................................................................... 1 3.1 Plantings ........................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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,
    [Show full text]
  • Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) by Boris C. Kondratieff, Paul A. Opler, Matthew C. Garhart, and Jason P. Schmidt C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 March 15, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration (top to bottom): Widow Skimmer (Libellula luctuosa) [photo ©Robert Behrstock], Stonefly (Perlesta species) [photo © David H. Funk, White- lined Sphinx (Hyles lineata) [photo © Matthew C. Garhart] 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, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Copyrighted 2004 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………….…1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..…………………………………………….…3 OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………………………………………….………5 Site Descriptions………………………………………….. METHODS AND MATERIALS…………………………………………………………………………….5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………..…...11 Dragonflies………………………………………………………………………………….……..11
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactions Between Migrating Birds and Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
    OCS Study MMS 2005-009 Coastal Marine Institute Interactions Between Migrating Birds and Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Final Report U.S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Agreement Minerals Management Service Coastal Marine Institute Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Louisiana State University OCS Study MMS 2005-009 Coastal Marine Institute Interactions Between Migrating Birds and Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Final Report Editor Robert W. Russell February 2005 Prepared under MMS Contract 1435-01-99-CA-30951-16808 by The Migration Over the Gulf Project School of the Coast and Environment Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 Published by U.S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Agreement Minerals Management Service Coastal Marine Institute Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Louisiana State University DISCLAIMER This report was prepared under contract between the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and Louisiana State University. This report has been technically reviewed by the MMS, and it has been approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the MMS, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt from review and compliance with the MMS editorial standards. REPORT AVAILABILITY Extra copies of this report may be obtained from the Public Information Office at the following address: U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Public Information Office (MS 5034) 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70123-2394 Telephone: (504) 736-2519 or (800) 200-GULF CITATION Suggested citation: Russell, R.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions Toward a Lepidoptera (Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, Thyrididae, Drepanoidea, Geometro
    Contributions Toward a Lepidoptera (Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, Thyrididae, Drepanoidea, Geometroidea, Mimalonoidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea, & Noctuoidea) Biodiversity Inventory of the University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Lab Hugo L. Kons Jr. Last Update: June 2001 Abstract A systematic check list of 489 species of Lepidoptera collected in the University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Lab is presented, including 464 species in the superfamilies Drepanoidea, Geometroidea, Mimalonoidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea, and Noctuoidea. Taxa recorded in Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, and Thyrididae are also included. Moth taxa were collected at ultraviolet lights, bait, introduced Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), and by netting specimens. A list of taxa recorded feeding on P. notatum is presented. Introduction The University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Laboratory (NATL) contains 40 acres of natural habitats maintained for scientific research, conservation, and teaching purposes. Habitat types present include hammock, upland pine, disturbed open field, cat tail marsh, and shallow pond. An active management plan has been developed for this area, including prescribed burning to restore the upland pine community and establishment of plots to study succession (http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/natl.htm). The site is a popular collecting locality for student and scientific collections. The author has done extensive collecting and field work at NATL, and two previous reports have resulted from this work, including: a biodiversity inventory of the butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea & Papilionoidea) of NATL (Kons 1999), and an ecological study of Hermeuptychia hermes (F.) and Megisto cymela (Cram.) in NATL habitats (Kons 1998). Other workers have posted NATL check lists for Ichneumonidae, Sphecidae, Tettigoniidae, and Gryllidae (http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/insect.htm).
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory
    2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory ........................................................................................... 3 Alaska ... ........................................ ............................................................... 3 LEPIDOPTERISTS Zone 2: British Columbia .................................................... ........................ ............ 6 Idaho .. ... ....................................... ................................................................ 6 Oregon ........ ... .... ........................ .. .. ............................................................ 10 SOCIETY Volume 53 Supplement Sl Washington ................................................................................................ 14 Zone 3: Arizona ............................................................ .................................... ...... 19 The Lepidopterists' Society is a non-profo California ............... ................................................. .............. .. ................... 2 2 educational and scientific organization. The Nevada ..................................................................... ................................ 28 object of the Society, which was formed in Zone 4: Colorado ................................ ... ............... ... ...... ......................................... 2 9 May 1947 and formally constituted in De­ Montana .................................................................................................... 51 cember
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Piedmont Forests
    Spring 2009 Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities Robert Coxe Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities-Spring 2009 Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the contributions and help from the following people for this edition of the Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities. Karen Bennett, Greg Moore and Janet Dennis of the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife Bill McAvoy of the Delaware Natural Heritage Program Dr. John Kartesz of the Biota of North America Program Dr. Keith Clancy and Pete Bowman, Ecologists, formerly of the Delaware Natural Heritage Program Ery Largay and Leslie Sneddon of Natureserve All people unmentioned who made countless contributions to this document. -Take me to the vegetation community keys- Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities-Spring 2009 Introduction The Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities is intended to provide a Delaware flavor to the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS). All common names of communities, except for those not in the NVCS, follow the NVCS. This document is designed for the web and CD only, but desired sections can be printed by users. In this matter, paper and therefore trees can be preserved and impacts to the communities discussed within can be minimized. In spirit of saving these communities please only print those community descriptions that you will use or print none at all. The State of Delaware covers 1,524,863.4 acres of which 1,231,393.6 acres are terrestrial and 293,469.8 acres are water (Table 1). Currently 130 vegetation communities are known to occur in Delaware. Some of the largest vegetation communities/land covers in the state include: Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Actions
    CHAPTER 4 Conservation Actions Table of Contents Take Action! Get Involved! ................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Background and Rationale ................................................................................................................. 9 Conservation Action Classification System .................................................................................... 11 Conservation Action Description ........................................................................................................ 12 Best Practices for Conservation Actions ............................................................................................. 15 International Conservation Actions ................................................................................................ 15 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Regional Conservation Actions ........................................................................................................ 19 Regional Conservation Needs Program .............................................................................................. 19 Regional Action .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 34 Number 2 - Fall/Winter 2001 Number 2 - Fall/ Article 3 Winter 2001 October 2001 Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio Roy W. Rings Ohio State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Rings, Roy W. 2001. "Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 34 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol34/iss2/3 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]. Rings: Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State 2001 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 9 CHECK LIST OF IDENTIFIED LEPIDOPTERA COLLECTED AT MUD LAKE STATE NATURE PRESERVE, WILLIAMS COUNTY, OHIO Roy W, Rings 1 ABSTRACT A total of696 species ofLepidoptera is reported from the Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio. This preserve is only a few miles from both the Indiana and Michigan state borders. The great biodiversity of moths is reflected in the bog, fen, shrub swamp, and marsh communities bor­ dering the lake. A check list of species summarizes identified collections for 1988,1992,1995 and 1996 and includes the Hodges et al (1983) species num­ bers, the scientific name, and the numbers collected by different collecting methods.
    [Show full text]