DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecological Characterization of the Housatonic River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecological Characterization of the Housatonic River U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Region Boston, Massachusetts Ecological Characterization Of The Housatonic River September 2002 Environmental Remediation Contract General Electric (GE)/Housatonic River Project Pittsfield, Massachusetts Contract No. DACW33-94-D-0009/032 www.woodlotalt.com Ecological Characterization Of The Housatonic River September 2002 Prepared by Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. Topsham, Maine 04086 Prepared under EPA Contract No. DACW33-94-D-0009/032 with Weston Solutions, Inc. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 Boston, Massachusetts TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SECTION I INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ I-0 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................ I-1 1.1 Purpose of Report......................................................................................... I-1 2.0 Report Organization........................................................................................... I-2 3.0 Relationship to Previous and Ongoing Studies.................................................. I-4 3.1 Previous Ecological Investigations .............................................................. I-4 3.1.1 Preliminary Wetland Characterization and FVA ................................. I-4 3.1.2 Preliminary Ecological Characterization ............................................. I-5 3.2 Risk Assessment Support............................................................................. I-6 3.2.1 Amphibian Reproductive Study........................................................... I-6 3.2.2 Wood Frog and Leopard Frog Collections........................................... I-6 3.2.3 Aquatic Macrophyte Sampling............................................................. I-7 3.2.4 Fish Tissue and Biomass Sampling...................................................... I-7 3.2.5 Waterfowl Collection and Tissue Sampling......................................... I-7 3.2.6 Soil Invertebrate Sampling................................................................... I-8 4.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................. I-9 SECTION II STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION................................................................. II-0 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................... II-1 2.0 Land Use Patterns and Population Trends........................................................ II-1 2.1 Historical Land Use Patterns and Population Trends.................................. II-1 2.2 Current Land Use Patterns and Population Trends ..................................... II-4 3.0 Biophysical Setting........................................................................................... II-5 3.1 Climate ........................................................................................................ II-6 3.2 Geology ....................................................................................................... II-6 3.2.1 Regional Geological Setting................................................................ II-6 3.2.2 Bedrock Geology................................................................................. II-7 3.2.3 Glacial Geology................................................................................... II-8 3.2.4 Soils..................................................................................................... II-8 3.3 Hydrology.................................................................................................. II-10 3.3.1 Ground Water.................................................................................... II-10 3.3.2 Surface Waters .................................................................................. II-10 3.4 Natural Communities ................................................................................ II-13 4.0 Reference Areas.............................................................................................. II-15 4.1 Hinsdale Flats State Wildlife Management Area...................................... II-15 4.2 October Mountain State Forest ................................................................. II-16 4.3 Ashley Lake............................................................................................... II-16 4.4 Threemile Pond State Wildlife Management Area ................................... II-17 5.0 Literature Cited ............................................................................................... II-18 SECTION III ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION.................................................III-0 Chapter 1 Natural Communities and Rare Plants .........................................................1-1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................1-1 2.0 Methods .............................................................................................................1-3 2.1 Background ..................................................................................................1-3 2.2 Literature review ..........................................................................................1-4 2.3 Aerial Photograph Interpretation..................................................................1-4 2.4 Field Surveys................................................................................................1-5 3.0 Natural Community Descriptions ......................................................................1-6 3.1 Lacustrine Communities ............................................................................1-17 3.2 Riverine Communities................................................................................1-17 3.3 Palustrine Communities .............................................................................1-18 3.4 Terrestrial Communities.............................................................................1-19 3.5 Rare Natural Communities and Plants .......................................................1-20 3.5.1 Rare Natural Communities.................................................................1-20 3.5.2 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants..........................................1-22 4.0 Developed Communities..................................................................................1-54 4.1 Agricultural Lands......................................................................................1-55 4.2 Residential, Commercial, and Public Development...................................1-55 4.3 Transportation ............................................................................................1-56 4.4 Recreational Facilities................................................................................1-56 5.0 Literature Cited ................................................................................................1-57 Chapter 2 Macroinvertebrates.......................................................................................2-1 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................2-1 2.0 Methods .............................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Incidental Observations................................................................................2-1 2.2 Mussel Survey..............................................................................................2-1 2.3 Dragonfly Surveys........................................................................................2-3 2.3.1 Exuvia Collection.................................................................................2-3 2.3.2 Adult Collection ...................................................................................2-5 2.4 Vernal Pool Invertebrate Survey..................................................................2-6 2.5 Earthworm Sampling....................................................................................2-6 2.6 Terrestrial Litter Invertebrate Survey...........................................................2-6 3.0 Macroinvertebrate Community Descriptions.....................................................2-7 3.1 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates .........................................................................2-7 3.1.1 Mussels.................................................................................................2-7 3.1.2 Dragonflies.........................................................................................2-14 3.1.3 Vernal Pool Invertebrates...................................................................2-21 3.2 Terrestrial Macroinvertebrates ...................................................................2-38 3.2.1 Earthworms ........................................................................................2-38 3.2.2 Litter Invertebrates .............................................................................2-38 4.0 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Macroinvertebrates..................................2-41 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 5.0 Literature Cited ................................................................................................2-47 Chapter 3 Fish...............................................................................................................3-1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ARTHROPOD COMMUNITIES and PASSERINE DIET: EFFECTS of SHRUB EXPANSION in WESTERN ALASKA by Molly Tankersley Mcdermott, B.A./B.S
    Arthropod communities and passerine diet: effects of shrub expansion in Western Alaska Item Type Thesis Authors McDermott, Molly Tankersley Download date 26/09/2021 06:13:39 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/7893 ARTHROPOD COMMUNITIES AND PASSERINE DIET: EFFECTS OF SHRUB EXPANSION IN WESTERN ALASKA By Molly Tankersley McDermott, B.A./B.S. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks August 2017 APPROVED: Pat Doak, Committee Chair Greg Breed, Committee Member Colleen Handel, Committee Member Christa Mulder, Committee Member Kris Hundertmark, Chair Department o f Biology and Wildlife Paul Layer, Dean College o f Natural Science and Mathematics Michael Castellini, Dean of the Graduate School ABSTRACT Across the Arctic, taller woody shrubs, particularly willow (Salix spp.), birch (Betula spp.), and alder (Alnus spp.), have been expanding rapidly onto tundra. Changes in vegetation structure can alter the physical habitat structure, thermal environment, and food available to arthropods, which play an important role in the structure and functioning of Arctic ecosystems. Not only do they provide key ecosystem services such as pollination and nutrient cycling, they are an essential food source for migratory birds. In this study I examined the relationships between the abundance, diversity, and community composition of arthropods and the height and cover of several shrub species across a tundra-shrub gradient in northwestern Alaska. To characterize nestling diet of common passerines that occupy this gradient, I used next-generation sequencing of fecal matter. Willow cover was strongly and consistently associated with abundance and biomass of arthropods and significant shifts in arthropod community composition and diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Strea
    Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Streambed Sediment in the Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins, 1992-94 By Robert F. Breault and Sandra L. Harris Abstract exceed sediment-quality guidelines over a wider geographical area, although usually by lower Streambed-sediment samples were collected ratios of contaminant concentration to sediment- in 1992-94 at selected sites in the Connecticut, quality guideline than the organic compounds. Housatonic, and Thames River Basins to determine the geographical distribution of trace elements and organic compounds and their INTRODUCTION potential for adverse biological effects on aquatic organisms. Chromium, copper, lead, mercury, The Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins study unit is one of 59 National Water-Quality nickel, zinc, chlordane, DDT, PAHs, and PCBs Assessment (NAWQA) study units nationwide. The were detected in samples from throughout the study unit drainage basin comprises an area of almost basins, but concentrations of these constituents 16,000 mi2 and extends through parts of the Province of generally were lowest in the northern forested Quebec, Canada, eastern Vermont, western New Hamp- drainage basins and highest in the southern shire, west-central Massachusetts, nearly all of Connect- urbanized drainage basins of Springfield, icut, and small parts of New York and Rhode Island. Massachusetts, and Hartford, New Haven and The study unit is entirely within the New Bridgeport, Connecticut. Possible anthropogenic England Physiographic Province (Fenneman, 1938), a sources of these contaminants include industrial plateau-like upland that rises gradually from the sea but effluent; municipal wastewater; runoff from includes numerous mountain ranges and individual agricultural, urban and forested areas; and peaks.
    [Show full text]
  • Berkshire National Fish Hatchery Draft Recreational Fishing Plan and EA
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Berkshire National Fish Hatchery Draft Recreational Fishing Plan March 2020 Berkshire National Fish Hatchery Draft Recreational Fishing Plan March 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Berkshire National Fish Hatchery 240 Hatchery Road New Marlborough, MA 01230 Submitted: Project Leader Date Concurrence: Complex Manager Date Approved: Assistant Regional Director, Fish and Aquatic Conservation Date Berkshire National Fish Hatchery Draft Recreational Fishing Plan 2 Recreational Fishing Plan Table of Contents I. Introduction 4 II. Statement Of Objectives 5 III. Description of Fishing Program 6 A. Areas to be Opened to Fishing 6 B. Species to be Taken, Fishing Seasons, Fishing Access 6 C. Fishing Permit Requirements 6 D. Consultation and Coordination with the State 7 E. Law Enforcement 7 F. Funding and Staff Requirements 7 IV. Conduct of the Fishing Program 8 A. Angler Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures 8 B. Hatchery-Specific Fishing Regulations 8 C. Relevant State Regulations 9 D. Other Hatchery Rules and Regulations for Fishing 9 V. Public Engagement 9 A. Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Fishing Program 9 B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Fishing Program 9 C. How Anglers Will Be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations 10 VI. Compatibility Determination 10 VII. References 10 VIII. Figures 11 Environmental Assessment 12 Berkshire National Fish Hatchery Draft Recreational Fishing Plan 3 I. Introduction Berkshire National Fish Hatchery (NFH) is part of the U.S. Fish and
    [Show full text]
  • Final Amendment to the Restoration Plan
    Final Amendment to the Housatonic River Basin Final Natural Resources Restoration Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Impact Evaluation for Connecticut May 2013 State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 7 2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Proposed Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Power Line Marsh Restoration ...................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Long Beach West Tidal Marsh Restoration ................................................................. 10 2.2.3 Pin Shop Pond Dam Removal...................................................................................... 12 2.2.4 Old Papermill Pond Dam Removal Feasibility Study ................................................. 15 2.2.5 Housatonic Watershed Habitat Continuity in Northwest Connecticut ........................ 18 2.2.6 Tingue Dam Fish Passage ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Housatonic River Preliminary Natural Resource Damage Assessment." Multiple Copies Are Included, As Appropriate
    294 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INCORPORATED 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge. Massachusetts 02140 ' l 7/354-0463 MEMORANDUM January 28, 1997 TO: Housatonic River NRD Agency Contacts FROM: John Weiss SUBJECT: Preliminary Natural Resource Damage Assessment Report Enclosed please find lEc's final report entitled "Housatonic River Preliminary Natural Resource Damage Assessment." Multiple copies are included, as appropriate. Please call if you have any questions. Confidential Attorney Work Product HOUSATON1C RIVER PRELIMINARY NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT r i Prepared for: Mark Barash Anton P. Giedt Department of the Interior National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Northeast Region Solicitor's Office Office of General Counsel Matt Brock John Looney Massachusetts Office of the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General Attorney General Prepared by: Robert E. Unsworth, John C. Weiss, Maria A. Markowski Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 001927 Confidential Attorney Work Product TABLE OF CONTENTS WTRODUCTION........................................................^^ ASSESSMENT OF INJURIES TO NATURAL RESOURCES..................................... CHAPTER 2 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES........................................................... CHAPTER 3 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF RESTORATION OPTIONS........................... CHAPTER 4 APPROACH FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES RESULTING FROM INJURY TO GROUNDWATER RESOURCES..................... CHAPTER 5 APPROACH FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES BASED
    [Show full text]
  • New Milford River Trail Alignment Study & Preliminary Engineering Report June 25, 2018 Acknowledgements
    NEW MILFORD RIVER TRAIL ALIGNMENT STUDY & PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT JUNE 25, 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The New Milford River Trail alignment study is the result of planning and outreach with the Town of New Milford. We would like to extend special thanks for the efforts and participation of the following groups: • Office of the Mayor - Mayor Peter Bass • New Milford Bike & Trails Committee Thomas O’Brien - Chairman Former Mayor David Gronbach Lisa Arasim MaryJane Lundgren Seamus McKeon Pam Picheco • New Milford Planning Department - Town Planner Kathy Castagnetta • New Milford Public Works Department - Town Engineer Dan Stanton Prepared by: In Association with: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................................................................................................................2 2.1 Wetlands and Flood Plains................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Archaeological Survey.......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT BY PHASE.........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Acrobat Distiller, Job 11
    USE AND ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE WEST BRANCH OF THE FARMINGTON RIVER American Rivers National Park Service i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................................................... viii I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................3 III. RESEARCH METHODS ......................................................................................................6 Sampling Recreation Users...............................................................................................6 IV. RESULTS: USERS’ CHARACTERISTICS, ATTITUDES, AND OPINIONS .....................8 Users’ Experiences..........................................................................................................19 Users’ Attitudes about River Resources and Management ...............................................25 Attitude Comparisons of Anglers, Tubers and Boaters .....................................................34
    [Show full text]
  • Behavioural Repeatability in Larval Limnephilus Lunatus Curtis, 1834 (Trichoptera) in an Open-Field Test
    Aquatic Insects International Journal of Freshwater Entomology ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/naqi20 Behavioural repeatability in larval Limnephilus lunatus Curtis, 1834 (Trichoptera) in an open-field test Joacim Näslund To cite this article: Joacim Näslund (2021) Behavioural repeatability in larval Limnephilus lunatus Curtis, 1834 (Trichoptera) in an open-field test, Aquatic Insects, 42:1, 62-77, DOI: 10.1080/01650424.2020.1865545 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01650424.2020.1865545 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 01 Feb 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 224 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=naqi20 AQUATIC INSECTS 2021, VOL. 42, NO. 1, 62–77 https://doi.org/10.1080/01650424.2020.1865545 Behavioural repeatability in larval Limnephilus lunatus Curtis, 1834 (Trichoptera) in an open-field test Joacim N€aslunda,b aDepartment of Ecosystem Biology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia in Cesk e Budejovice, Cesk e Budejovice, Czech Republic; bDepartment of Aquatic Resources, Institute of Freshwater Research, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Drottningholm, Sweden ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY This article investigates inter-individual repeatability in distance Received 20 January 2020 moved in an open-field test for larval Limnephilus lunatus Curtis, Accepted 11 December 2020 1834. Repeatability across four trials (two-day trial intervals) was KEYWORDS comparable to previous studies on arthropod species (repeatabil- R ¼ L. lunatus Animal behaviour; ity: 0.37), indicating that is a suitable model species Limnephilidae; in this research field.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Ecosystem Services of Trichoptera
    Review Diversity and Ecosystem Services of Trichoptera John C. Morse 1,*, Paul B. Frandsen 2,3, Wolfram Graf 4 and Jessica A. Thomas 5 1 Department of Plant & Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, E-143 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634-0310, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Plant & Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 701 E University Parkway Drive, Provo, UT 84602, USA; [email protected] 3 Data Science Lab, Smithsonian Institution, 600 Maryland Ave SW, Washington, D.C. 20024, USA 4 BOKU, Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecology Management, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendelstr. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] 5 Department of Biology, University of York, Wentworth Way, York Y010 5DD, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-864-656-5049 Received: 2 February 2019; Accepted: 12 April 2019; Published: 1 May 2019 Abstract: The holometabolous insect order Trichoptera (caddisflies) includes more known species than all of the other primarily aquatic orders of insects combined. They are distributed unevenly; with the greatest number and density occurring in the Oriental Biogeographic Region and the smallest in the East Palearctic. Ecosystem services provided by Trichoptera are also very diverse and include their essential roles in food webs, in biological monitoring of water quality, as food for fish and other predators (many of which are of human concern), and as engineers that stabilize gravel bed sediment. They are especially important in capturing and using a wide variety of nutrients in many forms, transforming them for use by other organisms in freshwaters and surrounding riparian areas.
    [Show full text]
  • This Work Is Licensed Under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License
    This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. GENERA OF THE SUBTRIBE METALLICINA AND CLASSIFICATION, RECONSTRUCTED PHYLOGENY AND GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORY OF THE SPECIES OF EUPROCTINUS LENG AND MUTCHLER (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE: LEBIINI) Danny Shpeley Department of Entomology University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta Quaestiones Entomologicae Canada T6G 2E3 22: 261-349 1986 ABSTRACT The New World lebiine genus Euproctinus Leng & Mutchler (type-species - Euproctus fasciatus Solier) is removed from the subtribe Calleidina and placed in the subtribe Metallicina. A reconstructed phytogeny of this subtribe places the genera in the sequence, Parena-Metallica-Pachycallida-Euproctinus, with the ancestor of Euproctinus and that of the other three genera as sister groups. Adults of Euproctinus are readily distinguished by a ventral sensory pit on each of antennomeres 5-11. These pits also occur in the remaining metallicine genera, as well as the Old World genus Celaenephes Schmidt-Gobel, and some of the New World species o/Coptodera Dejean. Keys distinguish the two subgenera and 16 of 17 species of Euproctinus, and each taxon is characterized in terms of structural features of adults, habitat, geographical distribution, chorological affinities, and phylogenetic relationships. The geographical range of Euproctinus extends from central Chile to southern United States and Cuba. In Mexico, species of Euproctinus live from sea level to moderately high elevation. However, only two (E.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North America
    Insects of Western North America 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America. 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa by Boris C. Kondratieff, Luke Myers, and Whitney S. Cranshaw C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 22, 2011 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 3 Cover Photo Credits: Whitney S. Cranshaw. Females of the blow fly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fab.) laying eggs on an animal carcass on Fort Sill, Oklahoma. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523-1177. Copyrighted 2011 4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • DNA Barcoding Facilitates Associations and Diagnoses For
    Ruiter et al. BMC Ecology 2013, 13:5 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6785/13/5 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access DNA barcoding facilitates associations and diagnoses for Trichoptera larvae of the Churchill (Manitoba, Canada) area David E Ruiter1, Elizabeth E Boyle2 and Xin Zhou3* Abstract Background: The North American Trichoptera larvae are poorly known at the species level, despite their importance in the understanding of freshwater fauna and critical use in biomonitoring. This study focused on morphological diagnoses for larvae occurring in the Churchill, Manitoba area, representing the largest larval association effort for the caddisflies at any given locality thus far. The current DNA barcode reference library of Trichoptera (available on the Barcode of Life Data Systems) was utilized to provide larval-adult associations. Results: The present study collected an additional 23 new species records for the Churchill area, increasing the total Trichoptera richness to 91 species. We were able to associate 62 larval taxa, comprising 68.1% of the Churchill area Trichoptera taxa. This endeavor to identify immature life stage for the caddisflies enabled the development of morphological diagnoses, production of photographs and an appropriate taxonomic key to facilitate larval species analyses in the area. Conclusions: The use of DNA for associations of unknown larvae with known adults proved rapid and successful. This method should accelerate the state-of-knowledge for North American Trichoptera larvae as well as other taxonomic lineages. The morphological analysis should be useful for determination of material from the Churchill area. Keywords: Caddisfly, Freshwater, Life history, Ecology, Biomonitoring, DNA taxonomy, DNA barcoding, Barcoding biotas Background habitats as general indicators of water quality and Trichoptera (caddisflies) are a diverse group of insects habitat.
    [Show full text]