Prioritizing Weed Targets for Biological Control in the Western

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Prioritizing Weed Targets for Biological Control in the Western HEALTH & BIOSECURITY Prioritizing Weed Targets for Biological Control in the Western USA Report on Workshop 1 (Weed Impacts & Desired Management Goals) Report on Workshop 2 (Feasibility & Likelihood of Biological Control) S. Raghu and Louise Morin May 2017 Client: USDA‐ARS Western Regional Research Center Client Contact: Dr Paul Pratt (Exotic & Invasive Weeds Research Unit) Prioritizing Weed Targets for Biological Control in the Western USA | i Sources of photos on cover page Dan Tenaglia (http://www.missouriplants.com); Colorado State University; La Plata Co (Colorado); SEINet (http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/index.php); North Carolina State University; Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board; Wikimedia Commons Citation Raghu, S and Morin, L (2018) Prioritising Weed Targets for Biological Control in the Western USA. CSIRO, Australia. Copyright © Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 2018. To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO. Important disclaimer CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. ii | Prioritizing Weed Targets for Biological Control in the Western USA Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Project scope ......................................................................................................... 6 2 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Initial consultation ................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Workshop 1 (Weed Impacts & Desired Management Goals) ............................. 10 2.3 Workshop 2 (Feasibility of Biological Control & Likelihood of Success) ............. 12 2.4 Integrating Weed Impacts and Biological Control Prospects .............................. 16 3 Results & Discussion ......................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Initial consultation ............................................................................................... 17 3.2 Workshops ........................................................................................................... 19 3.3 Integrating Weed Impacts and Biological Control Prospects .............................. 21 4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 23 5 References ........................................................................................................................ 24 6 Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 25 Appendix 1. the structured assessment of feasibility of biological control and likelihood of success of biological control on weeds of the western USA ........................................ 25 Appendix 2. Detailed dossiers on the structured assessment of feasibility of biological control and likelihood of success of biological control on weeds of the western USA ... 67 Appendix 3. Notes taken during presentations on each weed by participants who performed the assessments (Appendix 1) during Workshop 2, and the resultant group review 173 Appendix 4. Weeds provided for this prioritization exercise that were only present on the lists of one or two states in the western USA. ......................................................... 184 Prioritizing Weed Targets for Biological Control in the Western USA | iii Acknowledgments We thank the state weed management coordinators, survey respondents and participants of Workshop 1, which included representatives from Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The following people attended Workshop 1: Jennifer Andreas; LeRoy Brady; Paul Brusven; Dave Burch; Lara Duran; Aaron Foster; Sean Gephart; Greg Haubrich; Dean Kelch; Alan Martinson; Mark Porter; Paul Pratt; Carol Randall; Rachel Winston; Tom Woolf. Workshop 2 was attended by biological control experts with expertise in developing weed biological control programs in the western USA. The following people attended Workshop 2: Jennifer Andreas; Dan Bean; Massimo Cristofaro; John Gaskin; Jeff Littlefield; Joey Milan; Patrick Moran; Andrew Norton; Mike Pitcairn; Paul Pratt; Carol Randall; Brian Rector; Mark Schwarzländer; Sharlene Sing; Lincoln Smith; Sonja Stutz; David Thompson; Natalie West; Philip Weyl. Hariet Hinz and Urs Schaffner were unable to attend the workshop but provided their inputs in writing in advance of the workshop. The survey undertaken as part of this project was approved by CSIRO’s Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007). This project was funded, in part, by the USDA‐ARS’ Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research Unit by Dr Paul Pratt. iv | Prioritizing Weed Targets for Biological Control in the Western USA Executive Summary Invasive weeds represent significant threats and costs to production (rangelands, croplands) and natural landscapes. Classical biological control programs can yield substantial benefits in the management of invasive weeds and historical programs have high benefit‐cost ratios. However, these programs are typically long‐term investments with significant up‐front costs to develop safe agents, the efficacy of which can be uncertain. Given that resources to manage weeds in any jurisdiction are often limited, there is a need to better prioritize weed targets for biological control to facilitate their management in the most cost‐effective manner possible. Improving on previous prioritization processes developed and applied for weed classical biological control, we have developed a structured framework that achieves this in a consultative and transparent manner. In this study we applied this framework to assist the USDA‐ARS’s Exotic & Invasive Weeds Research Unit to prioritise weeds of ten western states of the continental USA as targets for biological control. Through a combination of online surveys and a face‐to‐face workshop with land managers, the first and second stages elicited, captured and characterized the relative importance of a weed, its impacts and desirable management goals. These stages captured the knowledge of weed scientists and land managers to ensure that those investigating and managing impacts on the ground arrive at a list of weeds for which biological control may be desirable. The third stage subsequently assessed the feasibility of biological control and the likelihood of achieving the desired management goals for these weeds. This stage takes advantage of the collective experience of biological control scientists and practitioners to classify the prospects of biological control contributing to successfully achieving the management goals. The focus of this prioritisation study was on weeds of importance to three or more states (i.e. a regional prioritisation). The resultant matrix of weed impact by biocontrol prospects (appended below) prioritised weeds that have been historical targets (suggesting that their biocontrol may be inadequate or insufficiently widespread), also identified prospective targets for future biocontrol research. This matrix needs to be read in conjunction with detailed annotations elicited from experts on the various weeds and their biological control (provided as Appendices to this report). Prioritizing Weed Targets for Biological Control in the Western USA | v 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Invasive weeds represent significant threats and costs to production (rangelands, croplands) and natural landscapes. Classical biological control can be a powerful tool in the management of invasive weeds and historical investments in biological control programs have returned significant environmental and economic benefits (Page and Lacey 2006; van Driesche et al. 2010). However, these programs are typically long‐term investments with significant up‐front costs to develop safe agents, the future efficacy of which can be uncertain (Briese 2004; van Driesche et al. 2016). Given that resources
Recommended publications
  • Identification of Cereal Remains from Archaeological Sites 2Nd Edition 2006
    Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites 2nd edition 2006 Spikelet fork of the “new glume wheat” (Jones et al. 2000) Stefanie JACOMET and collaborators Archaeobotany Lab IPAS, Basel University English translation partly by James Greig CEREALS: CEREALIA Fam. Poaceae /Gramineae (Grasses) Systematics and Taxonomy All cereal species belong botanically (taxonomically) to the large family of the Gramineae (Poaceae). This is one of the largest Angiosperm families with >10 000 different species. In the following the systematics for some of the most imporant taxa is shown: class: Monocotyledoneae order: Poales familiy: Poaceae (= Gramineae) (Süssgräser) subfamily: Pooideae Tribus: Triticeae Subtribus: Triticinae genera: Triticum (Weizen, wheat); Aegilops ; Hordeum (Gerste; barley); Elymus; Hordelymus; Agropyron; Secale (Roggen, rye) Note : Avena and the millets belong to other Tribus. The identification of prehistoric cereal remains assumes understanding of different subject areas in botany. These are mainly morphology and anatomy, but also phylogeny and evolution (and today, also genetics). Since most of the cereal species are treated as domesticated plants, many different forms such as subspecies, varieties, and forms appear inside the genus and species (see table below). In domesticates the taxonomical category of variety is also called “sort” (lat. cultivar, abbreviated: cv.). This refers to a variety which evolved through breeding. Cultivar is the lowest taxonomic rank in the domesticated plants. Occasionally, cultivars are also called races: e.g. landraces evolved through genetic isolation, under local environmental conditions whereas „high-breed-races“ were breed by strong selection of humans. Anyhow: The morphological delimitation of cultivars is difficult, sometimes even impossible. It needs great experience and very detailed morphological knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • W a S H in G T O N N a T U R a L H E R It
    PROGRAM HERITAGE NATURAL Status of Federally Listed Plant Taxa in Washington State Prepared for WASHINGTON U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 Prepared by Walter Fertig 28 June 2021 Natural Heritage Report 2021-01 1 Status of Federally Listed Plant Taxa in Washington State Award Number F18AF01216 Report Date: June 28, 2021 Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Region 1 Section 6 funding by Walter Fertig Botanist Washington Natural Heritage Program Washington Department of Natural Resources PO Box 47014 Olympia, WA 98504-7014 ii Cover: Ute ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Photo by Walter Fertig, WNHP, 22 August 2018. Acknowledgements: Thanks to the following individuals for sharing data, providing reviews, or otherwise helping with this project: Jane Abel, Keith Abel, Jon Bakker, Susan Ballinger, Molly Boyter, Paula Brooks, Tom Brumbelow, Keyna Bugner, Tara Callaway, Jeff Chan, Alex Chmielewski, Karen Colson, Kelly Cordell, Ernie Crediford, Vicki Demetre, Nate Dietrich, Peter Dunwiddie, Ethan Coggins, Matt Fairbarns, Kim Frymire, John Gamon, Wendy Gibble, Rod Gilbert, Bridgette Glass, Sarah Hammon, Jamie Hanson, Anthony Hatcher, John Hill, Jasa Holt, Molly Jennings, Regina Johnson, Tom Kaye, Stacy Kinsell, Jake Kleinknecht, Hailee Leimbach-Maus, Joe LeMoine, Peter Lesica, Laurie Malmquist, Adam Martin, Heidi Newsome, Robert Pelant, Jenifer Penny, Von Pope, Tynan Ramm-Granberg, James Rebholz, Nathan Reynolds, Randi Riggs, Joe Rocchio, Jenny Roman, Mike Rule, Melissa Scholten, Sarah Shank, Mark Sheehan, Jacques Sirois, Karen Stefanyk, Mike Stefanyk, George Thornton, Sheri Whitfield, David Wilderman, and David Woodall. My apologies (and thanks!) to anyone I may have omitted. i Table of Contents Contents Introduction...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BEMP 2006 Vegetation Transect Summary Report
    BEMP 2006 Vegetation Transect Summary Report Phil Tonne Natural Heritage New Mexico University of New Mexico Department of Biology 167 Castetter Hall Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 (505) 277-3822 ext 224 [email protected] Dena Odell & Steven Yanoff 263 White Oaks Canyon Road White Oaks, NM 88301-9602 [email protected] [email protected] November 30, 2006 Dear BEMP staff, This report from the plant crew is divided into three sections: Section 1 is a discussion of vegetation changes possibly related to the dry spring and wet summer. This should be an interesting year to examine diversity and cover relative to other years. This section discusses some of the changes that were observed in the field that might deserve more attention once the vegetation data has been entered. Section 2 is a “New Taxa” table that lists the plant name, the acronym from the USDA Plants Database, and the site where the plant was recorded within vegetation transect. Section 3 is a table detailing information about site location and maintenance issues that we observed upon our visits. Many sites had missing rebar and need some work. When rebar goes missing from sites where only the south boundary of the vegetation plot is marked it is much more difficult to find or reconstruct the transect. When a full veg. plot is delineated by 4 rebar it is relatively simple to reconstruct the south line from the 2 or three rebar remaining. For this reason we suggest that all sites be upgraded to mark the 4 corners of the full 5 meter by 30 meter vegetation plot with rebar.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribulus Terrestris) and Arizona Poppy (Kallstroemia Grandiflora)
    A comparison of the embryo sac development between puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris) and Arizona poppy (Kallstroemia grandiflora) Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Ho, Barbara Beeyuan, 1940- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 26/09/2021 18:40:03 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/551833 A COMPARISON OF THE EMBRYO SAC DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN PUNCTURE VINE (TRIBULUS TERRESTRIS) AND ARIZONA POPPY (KALLSTRQEMIA GRANDIFLORA) Barbara B. Ho A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 19 6 6 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Euphorbia Subg
    ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ БЮДЖЕТНОЕ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЕ НАУКИ БОТАНИЧЕСКИЙ ИНСТИТУТ ИМ. В.Л. КОМАРОВА РОССИЙСКОЙ АКАДЕМИИ НАУК На правах рукописи Гельтман Дмитрий Викторович ПОДРОД ESULA РОДА EUPHORBIA (EUPHORBIACEAE): СИСТЕМА, ФИЛОГЕНИЯ, ГЕОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ АНАЛИЗ 03.02.01 — ботаника ДИССЕРТАЦИЯ на соискание ученой степени доктора биологических наук САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГ 2015 2 Оглавление Введение ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Глава 1. Род Euphorbia и основные проблемы его систематики ......................................... 9 1.1. Общая характеристика и систематическое положение .......................................... 9 1.2. Краткая история таксономического изучения и формирования системы рода ... 10 1.3. Основные проблемы систематики рода Euphorbia и его подрода Esula на рубеже XX–XXI вв. и пути их решения ..................................................................................... 15 Глава 2. Материал и методы исследования ........................................................................... 17 Глава 3. Построение системы подрода Esula рода Euphorbia на основе молекулярно- филогенетического подхода ...................................................................................................... 24 3.1. Краткая история молекулярно-филогенетического изучения рода Euphorbia и его подрода Esula ......................................................................................................... 24 3.2. Результаты молекулярно-филогенетического
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands
    2011 USFWS Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands BIOLOGICAL OPINION Effects to Listed Species from U.S. Forest Service Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on National Forest System Lands Consultation Conducted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) December 6, 2011 Return to Table of Contents 1 | P a g e 2011 USFWS Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Consultation History ................................................................................................................................... 11 Species not likely to be adversely affected ................................................................................................. 17 BIOLOGICAL OPINION ................................................................................................................................. 27 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 27 Aerial Application of Fire Retardant Direction .................................................................................... 28 Reporting and Monitoring
    [Show full text]
  • Report of a Working Group on Forages: Eighth Meeting
    European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic 2525 Report of a Working Resources Networks ECP GR Group on Forages Eighth Meeting, 10 –12 April 2003, Linz, Austria B. Boller, E. Willner, L. Maggioni and E. Lipman, compilers <www.futureharvest.org> IPGRI is a Future Harvest Centre supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic 2525 Report of a Working Resources Networks ECP GR Group on Forages Eighth Meeting, 10 –12 April 2003, Linz, Austria B. Boller, E. Willner, L. Maggioni and E. Lipman, compilers ii REPORT OF A WORKING GROUP ON FORAGES: EIGHTH MEETING The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is an independent international scientific organization that seeks to improve the well-being of present and future generations of people by enhancing conservation and the deployment of agricultural biodiversity on farms and in forests. It is one of 15 Future Harvest Centres supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an association of public and private members who support efforts to mobilize cutting-edge science to reduce hunger and poverty, improve human nutrition and health, and protect the environment. IPGRI has its headquarters in Maccarese, near Rome, Italy, with offices in more than 20 other countries worldwide. The Institute operates through four programmes: Diversity for Livelihoods, Understanding and Managing Biodiversity, Global Partnerships, and Improving Livelihoods in Commodity-based Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Clover Mite Clover Mite Facts
    BARRIER PEST CONTROL JUNE 14, 2021 Pest Bio Providing All Your Pest Facts Clover Mite Clover Mite Facts: Size: 0.75-0.85 mm Shape: Oval Color: Bright Red to Reddish Brown Legs: 8 Wings: No Antenna: No Scientific Name: These tiny red pests invade homes in the thousands, getting through the tiniest cracks and crevices. Kingdom: Although Clover Mites ate only 1/30th of an inch big they are actually one of the largest mites found. Clover Mites are commonly mistaken as an insect as their -Animalia front legs are very long and look more like antenna. Clover mites are not harmful Pylum: to people and do not bite. Clover Mites are parthenogenetic, which means they develop from unfertilized eggs and are all female. Clover mites are attracted to -Arthropoda water so having a pool, bird bath or even just a well soaked lawn can attract them. Class: Call Barrier for help 208-463-4533 managing Clover Mites! -Arachnida Order: BEHAVIOR HABITAT -Trombidiformes DIET Because of the Clover Clover mites prefer to live Mites love of sunshine Family: Clover mites feed on in well fertilized and they tend to gather on plants. They eat by watered lawns. Adult sunny southern and -Tetranychidae sucking plant juices from Clover mites like to eastern walls of homes clover, grasses and other congregate on walls and and can enter the home Genus: plants common in lawns. vegetation, especially from the smallest of when exposed to sunlight. -Bryobia cracks . 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Revista Botanica 2-2014.Indd
    Journal of Botany, Vol. VI, Nr. 2(9), Chisinau, 2014 1 ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF MOLDOVA BOTANICAL GARDEN (INSTITUTE) JOURNAL OF BOTANY VOL. VI NR. 2(9) Chisinau, 2014 2 Journal of Botany, Vol. VI, Nr. 2(9), Chisinau, 2014 FOUNDER OF THE “JOURNAL OF BOTANY”: BOTANICAL GARDEN (INSTITUTE) OF THE ASM According to the decision of Supreme Council for Sciences and Technological Development of ASM and National Council for Accreditation and Attestation, nr. 288 of 28.11.2013 on the approval of the assessment and Classifi cation of scientifi c journals, “Journal of Botany” was granted the status of scientifi c publication of “B” Category. EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE „JOURNAL OF BOTANY” Ciubotaru Alexandru, acad., editor-in-chief, Botanical Garden (Institute) of the ASM Teleuţă Alexandru, Ph.D., associate editor, Botanical Garden (Institute) of the ASM Cutcovschi-Muştuc Alina, Ph.D., secretary, Botanical Garden (Institute) of the ASM Members: Duca Gheorghe, acad., President of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova Dediu Ion, corresponding member, Institute of Geography and Ecology of the ASM Şalaru Vasile, corresponding member, Moldova State University Tănase Cătălin, university professor, Botanical Garden „A. Fătu” of the „Al. I. Cuza” University, Iaşi, Romania Cristea Vasile, university professor, Botanical Garden „Alexandru Borza” of the „Babeş- Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Toma Constantin, university professor, „Al. I. Cuza” University, Iaşi, Romania Sârbu Anca, university professor, Botanical Garden „D. Brîndza”, Bucharest, Romania Zaimenko Natalia, professor, dr. hab., M. M. Grishko National Botanical Garden of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Colţun Maricica, Ph. D., Botanical Garden (Institute) of the ASM Comanici Ion, university professor, Botanical Garden (Institute) of the ASM Ştefîrţă Ana, dr.
    [Show full text]
  • MOTHS and BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed Distributional Information Has Been J.D
    MOTHS AND BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed distributional information has been J.D. Lafontaine published for only a few groups of Lepidoptera in western Biological Resources Program, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Scott (1986) gives good distribution maps for Canada butterflies in North America but these are generalized shade Central Experimental Farm Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6 maps that give no detail within the Montane Cordillera Ecozone. A series of memoirs on the Inchworms (family and Geometridae) of Canada by McGuffin (1967, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1987) and Bolte (1990) cover about 3/4 of the Canadian J.T. Troubridge fauna and include dot maps for most species. A long term project on the “Forest Lepidoptera of Canada” resulted in a Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre (Agassiz) four volume series on Lepidoptera that feed on trees in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada and these also give dot maps for most species Box 1000, Agassiz, B.C. V0M 1A0 (McGugan, 1958; Prentice, 1962, 1963, 1965). Dot maps for three groups of Cutworm Moths (Family Noctuidae): the subfamily Plusiinae (Lafontaine and Poole, 1991), the subfamilies Cuculliinae and Psaphidinae (Poole, 1995), and ABSTRACT the tribe Noctuini (subfamily Noctuinae) (Lafontaine, 1998) have also been published. Most fascicles in The Moths of The Montane Cordillera Ecozone of British Columbia America North of Mexico series (e.g. Ferguson, 1971-72, and southwestern Alberta supports a diverse fauna with over 1978; Franclemont, 1973; Hodges, 1971, 1986; Lafontaine, 2,000 species of butterflies and moths (Order Lepidoptera) 1987; Munroe, 1972-74, 1976; Neunzig, 1986, 1990, 1997) recorded to date.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTHROPODA Subphylum Hexapoda Protura, Springtails, Diplura, and Insects
    NINE Phylum ARTHROPODA SUBPHYLUM HEXAPODA Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects ROD P. MACFARLANE, PETER A. MADDISON, IAN G. ANDREW, JOCELYN A. BERRY, PETER M. JOHNS, ROBERT J. B. HOARE, MARIE-CLAUDE LARIVIÈRE, PENELOPE GREENSLADE, ROSA C. HENDERSON, COURTenaY N. SMITHERS, RicarDO L. PALMA, JOHN B. WARD, ROBERT L. C. PILGRIM, DaVID R. TOWNS, IAN McLELLAN, DAVID A. J. TEULON, TERRY R. HITCHINGS, VICTOR F. EASTOP, NICHOLAS A. MARTIN, MURRAY J. FLETCHER, MARLON A. W. STUFKENS, PAMELA J. DALE, Daniel BURCKHARDT, THOMAS R. BUCKLEY, STEVEN A. TREWICK defining feature of the Hexapoda, as the name suggests, is six legs. Also, the body comprises a head, thorax, and abdomen. The number A of abdominal segments varies, however; there are only six in the Collembola (springtails), 9–12 in the Protura, and 10 in the Diplura, whereas in all other hexapods there are strictly 11. Insects are now regarded as comprising only those hexapods with 11 abdominal segments. Whereas crustaceans are the dominant group of arthropods in the sea, hexapods prevail on land, in numbers and biomass. Altogether, the Hexapoda constitutes the most diverse group of animals – the estimated number of described species worldwide is just over 900,000, with the beetles (order Coleoptera) comprising more than a third of these. Today, the Hexapoda is considered to contain four classes – the Insecta, and the Protura, Collembola, and Diplura. The latter three classes were formerly allied with the insect orders Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails) and Thysanura (silverfish) as the insect subclass Apterygota (‘wingless’). The Apterygota is now regarded as an artificial assemblage (Bitsch & Bitsch 2000).
    [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]