DOCSLIB.ORG

Rare Animal Status List January 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Rare Animal Status List January 2013 New York Natural Heritage Program A Partnership between the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry 625 Broadway, 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org THE NEW YORK NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM The NY Natural Heritage Program is a partnership NY Natural Heritage has developed two notable between the NYS Department of Environmental online resources: Conservation Guides include the Conservation (NYS DEC) and the State University of New biology, identification, habitat, and management of many York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Our of New York’s rare species and natural community mission is to facilitate conservation of rare animals, rare types; and NY Nature Explorer lists species and plants, and significant ecosystems. We accomplish this communities in a specified area of interest. mission by combining thorough field inventories, scientific NY Natural Heritage also houses iMapInvasives, an analyses, expert interpretation, and the most comprehensive online tool for invasive species reporting and data database on New York's distinctive biodiversity to deliver management. the highest quality information for natural resource In 1990, NY Natural Heritage published Ecological planning, protection, and management. Communities of New York State, an all inclusive NY Natural Heritage was established in 1985 and is a classification of natural and human-influenced contract unit housed within NYS DEC’s Division of communities. From 40,000-acre beech-maple mesic Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources. The program is forests to 40-acre maritime beech forests, sea-level salt staffed by more than 25 scientists and specialists with marshes to alpine meadows, our classification quickly expertise in ecology, zoology, botany, information became the primary source for natural community management, and geographic information systems. classification in New York and a fundamental reference NY Natural Heritage maintains New York’s most for natural community classifications in the northeastern comprehensive database on the status and location of United States and southeastern Canada. This rare species and natural communities. We presently classification, which has been continually updated as we monitor 174 natural community types, 802 rare plant gather new field data, has also been incorporated into species, and 441 rare animal species across New York, the National Vegetation Classification that is being keeping track of more than 12,500 locations where these developed and refined by NatureServe, The Nature species and communities have been recorded. The Conservancy, and Natural Heritage Programs database also includes detailed information on the throughout the United States (including New York). relative rareness of each species and community, the NY Natural Heritage is an active participant in quality of their occurrences, and descriptions of sites. NatureServe – the international network of biodiversity The information is used by public agencies, the data centers. NatureServe’s network of independent data environmental conservation community, developers, and centers collect and analyze data about the plants, others to aid in land-use decisions. Our data are essential animals, and ecological communities of the Western for prioritizing those species and communities in need Hemisphere. Known as natural heritage programs or of protection and for guiding land-use and land- conservation data centers, these programs operate management decisions where these species and throughout all of the United States and Canada, and in communities exist. many countries and territories of Latin America. These In addition to tracking recorded locations, NY programs work with NatureServe to develop biodiversity Natural Heritage has developed models of the areas data, maintain compatible standards for data management, around these locations important for conserving and provide information about rare species and natural biodiversity, and models of the distribution of suitable communities that is consistent across many geographic habitat for rare species across New York State. scales. ii New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Animal Status List January 2013 The most recent version of this list may be found on our website: www.nynhp.org For more information, suggestions, or comments about this list, contact Matthew D. Schlesinger Chief Zoologist New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8939 [email protected] To report sightings of rare species, contact our office. Cover photos (clockwise from upper left): Cobra Clubtail (Gomphus vastus) by Jeffrey Pippen; Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) by Kimberly J. Biasiolli (née Smith); Indiana Bats (Myotis sodalis) by Matthew D. Schlesinger; Wavy-rayed Mussel (Lampsilis fasciola) by Julie A. Lundgren; Eastern Wormsnake (Carphophis amoenus) by Jesse W. Jaycox; Pink Sallow (Psectraglaea carnosa) by Hugh D. McGuinness; newly described species of leopard frog (Rana sp. nov.) by Matthew D. Schlesinger. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction …………………………………………………....................................... v Active Inventory species Mammals …………………………………………………....................................... 1 Birds …………………………………………………....................................... 1 Reptiles …………………………………………………....................................... 3 Turtles …………………………………………………....................................... 3 Amphibians …………………………………………………....................................... 3 Ray-finned fishes …………………………………………………....................................... 3 Lampreys …………………………………………………....................................... 5 Gastropods …………………………………………………....................................... 5 Bivalves …………………………………………………....................................... 5 Malacostracans …………………………………………………....................................... 6 Insects …………………………………………………....................................... 7 Animal assemblages …………………………………………………....................................... 13 Watch-list species Mammals …………………………………………………....................................... 14 Birds …………………………………………………....................................... 14 Reptiles …………………………………………………....................................... 15 Turtles …………………………………………………....................................... 15 Amphibians …………………………………………………....................................... 16 Ray-finned fishes …………………………………………………....................................... 16 Lampreys …………………………………………………....................................... 17 Gastropods …………………………………………………....................................... 17 Bivalves …………………………………………………....................................... 18 Insects …………………………………………………....................................... 18 iv INTRODUCTION The following list is the New York Natural Heritage Program’s current assessment of the status of New York’s rarest and most imperiled animal species. We have developed this list over the years in consultation with the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Endangered Species and Nongame Units, NatureServe (www.natureserve.org), researchers, conservation organizations, and knowledgeable amateur biologists. Population locations in our database are drawn from sources including museum specimens, personal contacts, and the scientific literature, and through extensive field research. This list is dynamic, meaning it changes as new discoveries are made or populations are lost. Check www.nynhp.org for the latest version of this list. TAXONOMY AND NOMENCLATURE Species typically have two sets of names: scientific and common. Scientific names follow standard nomenclatures specific to the different groups of animals. The scientific names of birds, for example, follow the standards set by the American Ornithologists’ Union. Common names are standardized in some cases, such as for birds, but are not as consistent across a species’ geographic range as scientific names. Further, some species have not yet been given common names; in the list below, these species are flagged with general names, such as “A Bluet Damselfy” or “A Noctuid Moth.” In the following lists, major species groups (taxonomic Classes) are sorted in reverse taxonomic order; that is, groups with a longer evolutionary history are listed after groups that have evolved more recently. Thus, mammals (the most recently evolved taxonomic Class) are first, followed by birds, reptiles, turtles1, amphibians, fish, and multiple Classes of invertebrates. Within each of these taxonomic Classes (e.g., birds [Aves]), species are grouped into Orders (e.g., perching birds [Passeriformes]), and then Families (e.g., warblers [Parulidae]), each of which is sorted in taxonomic order. Within Families, species are sorted alphabetically by Genus and Species. STATE & FEDERAL LISTINGS NY Natural Heritage tracks a selected subset of New York’s animals. The species we track are chosen based on their degree of rarity or imperilment within the state, and as new information comes in, new species are sometimes added while others are discontinued. Information on the species and communities tracked by NY Natural Heritage are used for conservation, research, and regulatory purposes. Many of the species tracked by NY Natural Heritage are listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under the state Environmental Conservation Law (E.C.L.). Listing is a legal process that is conducted by the state
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 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.
  • 2015 Summary of Changes to Endangered, Threatened, And

    2015 Summary of Changes to Endangered, Threatened, And

    2015 Update to State Listed Species The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) is required to review, at least every five years, the designation of species as endangered, threatened, or of special concern to determine whether species should be: (1) added or removed from the list; or, if necessary, (2) change the designation from one category to another. The following is a summary of the changes to the State Endangered Species list (DEEP Regulations Sections 26‐306‐4, 26‐306‐5, and 26‐306‐6) that became effective on August 5, 2015. The complete list can be found on the DEEP website. Summary of Amphibian Changes New species added Necturus maculosus, Mudpuppy added as Special Concern Summary of Reptile Changes New species added Clemmys guttata, Spotted turtle added as Special Concern Malaclemys terrapin terrapin, Northern diamondback terrapin added as Special Concern Taxonomic Changes Eumeces fasciatus, Five‐lined skink changed to Plestiodon fasciatus Liochlorophis vernalis, Smooth green snake changed to Opheodrys vernalis Summary of Bird Changes Northern diamondback terrapin Status Changes Falco sparverius, American kestrel downlisted to Special Concern Progne subis, Purple martin downlisted to Special Concern Sturnella magna, Eastern meadowlark uplisted to Threatened New species added Accipiter gentilis, Northern goshawk added as Threatened Setophaga cerulea, Cerulean warbler added as Special Concern Species delisted Anas discors, Blue‐winged teal Laterallus jamaicensis, Black rail Cerulean warbler Taxonomic changes Parula americana, Northern parula changed to Setophaga americana 1 Summary of Mammal Changes Status Changes Myotis leibii, Eastern small‐footed bat uplisted to Endangered New Species Added Myotis lucifugus, Little brown bat added as Endangered Myotis septentrionalis, Northern long‐eared bat added as Endangered (also Federally Threatened) Perimyotis subflavus, Tri‐colored bat added as Endangered Taxonomic Changes Phocoena phocoena, Harbor porpoise changed to Phocoena Northern long‐eared bat phocoena ssp.
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5

    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,
  • Dragonflies (Odonata) of the Northwest Territories Status Ranking And

    Dragonflies (Odonata) of the Northwest Territories Status Ranking And

    DRAGONFLIES (ODONATA) OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES STATUS RANKING AND PRELIMINARY ATLAS PAUL M. CATLING University of Ottawa 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ....................................................................3 Acknowledgements ...........................................................3 Methods ....................................................................3 The database .................................................................4 History .....................................................................5 Rejected taxa ................................................................5 Possible additions ............................................................5 Additional field inventory ......................................................7 Collection an Inventory of dragonflies .............................................8 Literature Cited .............................................................10 Appendix Table 1 - checklist ...................................................13 Appendix Table 2 - Atlas and ranking notes .......................................15 2 ABSTRACT: occurrences was provided by Dr. Rex Thirty-five species of Odonata are given Kenner, Dr. Donna Giberson, Dr. Nick status ranks in the Northwest Territories Donnelly and Dr. Robert Cannings (some based on number of occurrences and details provided below). General distributional area within the territory. Nine information on contacts and locations of species are ranked as S2, may be at risk, collections provided by Dr. Cannings
  • Rare Native Animals of RI

    Rare Native Animals of RI

    RARE NATIVE ANIMALS OF RHODE ISLAND Revised: March, 2006 ABOUT THIS LIST The list is divided by vertebrates and invertebrates and is arranged taxonomically according to the recognized authority cited before each group. Appropriate synonomy is included where names have changed since publication of the cited authority. The Natural Heritage Program's Rare Native Plants of Rhode Island includes an estimate of the number of "extant populations" for each listed plant species, a figure which has been helpful in assessing the health of each species. Because animals are mobile, some exhibiting annual long-distance migrations, it is not possible to derive a population index that can be applied to all animal groups. The status assigned to each species (see definitions below) provides some indication of its range, relative abundance, and vulnerability to decline. More specific and pertinent data is available from the Natural Heritage Program, the Rhode Island Endangered Species Program, and the Rhode Island Natural History Survey. STATUS. The status of each species is designated by letter codes as defined: (FE) Federally Endangered (7 species currently listed) (FT) Federally Threatened (2 species currently listed) (SE) State Endangered Native species in imminent danger of extirpation from Rhode Island. These taxa may meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Formerly considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Federal listing as endangered or threatened. 2. Known from an estimated 1-2 total populations in the state. 3. Apparently globally rare or threatened; estimated at 100 or fewer populations range-wide. Animals listed as State Endangered are protected under the provisions of the Rhode Island State Endangered Species Act, Title 20 of the General Laws of the State of Rhode Island.
  • Volume 12 - Number 1 March 2005

    Volume 12 - Number 1 March 2005

    Utah Lepidopterist Bulletin of the Utah Lepidopterists' Society Volume 12 - Number 1 March 2005 Extreme Southwest Utah Could See Iridescent Greenish-blue Flashes A Little Bit More Frequently by Col. Clyde F. Gillette Battus philenor (blue pipevine swallowtail) flies in the southern two- thirds of Arizona; in the Grand Canyon (especially at such places as Phantom Ranch 8/25 and Indian Gardens 12/38) and at its rims [(N) 23/75 and (S) 21/69]; in the low valleys of Clark Co., Nevada; and infrequently along the Meadow Valley Wash 7/23 which parallels the Utah/Nevada border in Lincoln Co., Nevada. Since this beautiful butterfly occasionally flies to the west, southwest, and south of Utah's southwest corner, one might expect it to turn up now and then in Utah's Mojave Desert physiographic subsection of the Basin and Range province on the lower southwest slopes of the Beaver Dam Mountains, Battus philenor Blue Pipevine Swallowtail Photo courtesy of Randy L. Emmitt www.rlephoto.com or sporadically fly up the "Dixie Corridor" along the lower Virgin River Valley. Even though both of these Lower Sonoran life zone areas reasons why philenor is not a habitual pipevine species.) Arizona's of Utah offer potentially suitable, resident of Utah's Dixie. But I think interesting plant is Aristolochia "nearby" living conditions for Bat. there is basically only one, and that is watsonii (indianroot pipevine), which phi. philenor, such movements have a complete lack of its larval has alternate leaves shaped like a not often taken place. Or, more foodplants in the region.
  • Moths of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

    Moths of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

    MOTHS OF UMATILLA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: Results from 10 sites Sampled May 22-23, 2017 Dana Ross 1005 NW 30th Street Corvallis, OR 97330 (541) 758-3006 [email protected] SUMMARY Macro-moths were sampled from the Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge for a third time 22-23 May, 2017 as part of an ongoing pollinator inventory. Blacklight traps were deployed for a single night at ten sites representative of major plant communities in the McCormack and Paterson Units. A grand total of 331 specimens and 36 moth species were sampled. Of those, 17 species (47%) were documented from the refuge for the first time. In a somewhat larger geographical context, 21 species were recorded for the first (8), second (7) or third (6) time from Morrow County, Oregon while 4 species were documented for the first (1) or second (3) time from Benton County, Washington. INTRODUCTION National Wildlife Refuges protect important habitats for many plant and animal species. Refuge inventories have frequently included plants, birds and mammals, but insects - arguably the most abundant and species-rich group in any terrestrial habitat - have largely been ignored. Small size, high species richness and a lack of identification resources have all likely contributed to their being overlooked. Certain groups such as moths, however, can be easily and inexpensively sampled using light traps and can be identified by regional moth taxonomists. Once identified, many moth species can be tied to known larval hostplant species at a given site, placing both insect and plant within a larger ecological context. Moths along with butterflies belong to the insect Order Lepidoptera.
  • Big Creek Lepidoptera Checklist

    Big Creek Lepidoptera Checklist

    Big Creek Lepidoptera Checklist Prepared by J.A. Powell, Essig Museum of Entomology, UC Berkeley. For a description of the Big Creek Lepidoptera Survey, see Powell, J.A. Big Creek Reserve Lepidoptera Survey: Recovery of Populations after the 1985 Rat Creek Fire. In Views of a Coastal Wilderness: 20 Years of Research at Big Creek Reserve. (copies available at the reserve). family genus species subspecies author Acrolepiidae Acrolepiopsis californica Gaedicke Adelidae Adela flammeusella Chambers Adelidae Adela punctiferella Walsingham Adelidae Adela septentrionella Walsingham Adelidae Adela trigrapha Zeller Alucitidae Alucita hexadactyla Linnaeus Arctiidae Apantesis ornata (Packard) Arctiidae Apantesis proxima (Guerin-Meneville) Arctiidae Arachnis picta Packard Arctiidae Cisthene deserta (Felder) Arctiidae Cisthene faustinula (Boisduval) Arctiidae Cisthene liberomacula (Dyar) Arctiidae Gnophaela latipennis (Boisduval) Arctiidae Hemihyalea edwardsii (Packard) Arctiidae Lophocampa maculata Harris Arctiidae Lycomorpha grotei (Packard) Arctiidae Spilosoma vagans (Boisduval) Arctiidae Spilosoma vestalis Packard Argyresthiidae Argyresthia cupressella Walsingham Argyresthiidae Argyresthia franciscella Busck Argyresthiidae Argyresthia sp. (gray) Blastobasidae ?genus Blastobasidae Blastobasis ?glandulella (Riley) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.1) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.2) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.3) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.4) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.5) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.6) Blastobasidae Holcocera gigantella (Chambers) Blastobasidae
  • Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats a Symposium

    Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats a Symposium

    Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats A Symposium y Edited b Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-145 DISCLAIMER The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. Papers published in these proceedings were submitted by authors in electronic media. Some editing was done to ensure a consistent format. Authors are responsible for content and accuracy of their individual papers and the quality of illustrative materials. Cover photos: Large photo: Craig W. Stihler; small left photo: Joseph S. Johnson; small middle photo: Craig W. Stihler; small right photo: Matthew J. Clement. December 2011 Southern Research Station 200 W.T. Weaver Blvd. Asheville, NC 28804 Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats: A Symposium Athens, Georgia March 9–10, 2010 Edited by: Susan C. Loeb U.S Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station Michael J. Lacki University of Kentucky Darren A. Miller Weyerhaeuser NR Company Sponsored by: Forest Service Bat Conservation International National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Offield Family Foundation ContEntS Preface . v Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats: An Introduction . 1 Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller Distribution and Status of Eastern Big-eared Bats (Corynorhinus Spp .) . 13 Mylea L. Bayless, Mary Kay Clark, Richard C. Stark, Barbara S.
  • Impacts of Invasive Alliaria Petiolata on Two Native Pieridae Butterflies, Anthocharis Midea and Pieris Virginiensis

    Impacts of Invasive Alliaria Petiolata on Two Native Pieridae Butterflies, Anthocharis Midea and Pieris Virginiensis

    Wright State University CORE Scholar Browse all Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2017 Impacts of Invasive Alliaria Petiolata on Two Native Pieridae Butterflies, Anthocharis Midea and Pieris Virginiensis Danielle Marie Thiemann Wright State University Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all Part of the Biology Commons Repository Citation Thiemann, Danielle Marie, "Impacts of Invasive Alliaria Petiolata on Two Native Pieridae Butterflies, Anthocharis Midea and Pieris Virginiensis" (2017). Browse all Theses and Dissertations. 1849. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all/1849 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Browse all Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPACTS OF INVASIVE ALLIARIA PETIOLATA ON TWO NATIVE PERIDAE BUTTERFLIES, ANTHOCHARIS MIDEA AND PIERIS VIRGINIENSIS A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science By DANIELLE MARIE THIEMANN B.S., University of Dayton, 2014 2017 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL April 20, 2017 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Danielle Marie Thiemann ENTITLED Impacts of Invasive Alliaria petiolata on Two Native Pieridae Butterflies, Anthocharis midea and Pieris virginiensis BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Science. ____________________________________ Donald F. Cipollini, Ph.D. Thesis Director ____________________________________ David L. Goldstein, Ph.D., Chair Department of Biological Sciences Committee on Final Examination ___________________________________ Donald F. Cipollini, Ph.D.
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists

    List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists

    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
  • Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R

    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R

    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R. and Zeuss, D. 2016. Colour lightness of dragonfly assemblages across North America and Europe. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.02578 Supplementary material Appendix 1 Figures A1–A12, Table A1 and A2 1 Figure A1. Scatterplots between female and male colour lightness of 44 North American (Needham et al. 2000) and 19 European (Askew 1988) dragonfly species. Note that colour lightness of females and males is highly correlated. 2 Figure A2. Correlation of the average colour lightness of European dragonfly species illustrated in both Askew (1988) and Dijkstra and Lewington (2006). Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Note that the extracted colour values of dorsal dragonfly drawings from both sources are highly correlated. 3 Figure A3. Frequency distribution of the average colour lightness of 152 North American and 74 European dragonfly species. Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Rugs at the abscissa indicate the value of each species. Note that colour values are from different sources (North America: Needham et al. 2000, Europe: Askew 1988), and hence absolute values are not directly comparable. 4 Figure A4. Scatterplots of single ordinary least-squares regressions between average colour lightness of 8,127 North American dragonfly assemblages and mean temperature of the warmest quarter. Red dots represent assemblages that were excluded from the analysis because they contained less than five species. Note that those assemblages that were excluded scatter more than those with more than five species (c.f. the coefficients of determination) due to the inherent effect of very low sampling sizes.