DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effects of Herbicide Applications on the Animal Populations of Aspen Communities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effects of Herbicide Applications on the Animal Populations of Aspen Communities Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1970-08-01 The effects of herbicide applications on the animal populations of Aspen communities Carl Eugene Wadsworth Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Wadsworth, Carl Eugene, "The effects of herbicide applications on the animal populations of Aspen communities" (1970). Theses and Dissertations. 7911. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/7911 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. THE EFFECTSor HERBICIDEAPPLICATIONS ON THE ANIMALPOPULATIONS or ASPEN cororoUNITIES A Dissertation Presented to the Department of Zooiogy and Entomology Brigham Young University In Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Carl E. Wadsworth August 1970 This dissertation by Carl E. Wadsworth is accepted in its present form by the Department of Zoology and Entomology of Brigham Young University as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Typed by Vanda F. Wadsworth iii ACKNOWLEOGfflENTS To Dr. c. Lynn Hayward, who served as my graduate committee chairman, and Dr. Odell Julander, committee mem- ber, I express sincere appreciation for the valuable assis- tance and advice given during the research and preparation of this dissertation. Gratitude is also extended to Or. Armond T. Whitehead of my graduate committee for his read- ing and criticism of the manuscript. I wish to express appreciation to the u.s. rarest Service, Fishlake National Forest, notably, max E. Robin- son and James L~ Mower, for their support, incouragement, and assistance during this study. Grateful acknowledgment is also expressed to others who contributed to the successful completion of this work: monte Roe for his assistance in handling the computer pro- graming of the data on the mammals and the Brigham Young University Computer Center for its services; Dr. v. m. Tan- ner for identification of the Orthoptera, or. IYI.w. Nielson for identification of the Cicadellidae, Dr. G. E. blallace for identification of the Ptaromalidae, Dr. c. w. Sabrosky, Dr. G. Steyskal, and Mr. w. E. Ma~his for identification of Oiptera, and Parly Winger for identification of the·aq~atic invertebrates. This study was support~d, in part, by a National !· . Defense Education Act fellowship. iv TABLEOf CONTENTS Page ACKNOIAILEDGmENTS• • • • • • • • • • • • • iii LIST Of TABLES • • • • • • • • • • • • • V LIST Of' ILLUSTRATIONS • • • • • • • • • • • vii INTRODUCTION• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 REVIEWOF' LITERATURE • • • • • • • • • • • 3 STUDYAREA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 METHODS• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 12 Weather Data • • • • • • • • • • • 12 Soi 1 Arthropods • • • • • • • • • • 12 foliaga Insects • • • • • • • • • • 13 Aquatic Invertebrates • • • • • • • • 14 Birds • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15 Small Mammals • • • • • • • • • • • 16 Large mammals • • • • • • • • • • • 18 Statistical Test of means • • • • • • • 18 Similarity of Study Plots • • • • • • • 19 RESULTS• • • • • • • • • • • • • . ,, • • 20 Weather Data • • • • • • • • • • • 20 Soil Arthropods • • • • • • • • • • 22 foliage Insects • • • • • • • • • • 25 Aquatic Invertebrates • • • • • • • • 30 Birds • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 34 Small IYlammals • • • • • • • • • • • 55 Large mammals • • • • • • • • • • • 64 DISCUSSION• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 70 SUPIIYIARY• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 87 LITERATURECITED • • • • • • • • • • • • • 92 V LIST or TABLES Table Page 1. monthly weather data from Gooseberry Ranger Station during the summer of 1968 • • • • 20 2. Weekly weather data during the summer of 1969 ••••••••• • • • • 21 3. Average precipitation in inches per month on Sheep Creek Watershed during the summers of 1968 and 1969 •••• • • • 22 4. Average numbers of soil arthropods per sample in aspen study plots •• • • • • 23 s. Average numbers of soil arthropods per sample in meadow study plots •• • • • • 26 6. Average numbers of foliage indicator insects per sample from aspen study plots •• • • 27 7. Average numbers of foliage indicator insects per sample from meadow study plots •• • • 29 a. Analysis of water from rarnsworth Creek and Sheep Creek •••••• • • • • 31 Average numbers of aquatic invertebrates per sample from rarnsworth Creek and Sheep Creek ••••••••••• • • 32 10. Average numbers of the most common birds seen per day on the transects in 1968. • • 36 1 1 • Average numbers of the most common birds seen per day on the transects in 1969 • • • 37 12. Small mammal population estimates on aspen trapping grids in 1968 • •••• • • • 57 13. Small mammal population estimates on aspen trapping grids in 1969 ••••• • • • 58 14. Small mammal population estimates on meadow trapping grids • ••••••• • • 59 vi Table Page 15. Average number of pocket gopher mounds and earth plugs per transact ••••• • • 62 16. Estimates of the summer animal-days use per acre by deer and elk. • • • • • • 69 17. Percent similarity between soil arthropod populations on the aspen study plots • • • 71 18. Percent similarity between soil arthropod populations on the meadow study plots • • 72 19. Percent similarity between foliage indicator insect populations on aspen study plots •· •••••••••• • • 74 20. Percent similarity between foliage indicator insect populations on meadow study plots ••••••••••• • • 75 21. Percent similarity between aquatic invertebrate populations in Farnsworth Creek and Sheep Creek •••••••••••• • 77 22. Percent similarity between bird populations on the transects ••••••• • • 78 23. Percent similarity between small mammal populations on aspen trapping grids • • • 81 vii LIST or ILLUSTRATIONS Page 1. Sheep Creek Watershed ••••••• • • 11 2. Average number of soil arthropods per sample in aspen study plots •• • • • • 24 3. Average number of soil arthropods per sample in meadow study plots • • • • • 24 Average number of foliage indicator insects per sample in aspen study plots •• • • 28 s. Average number of foliage indicator insects par sample in meadow study plots •• • • 28 Average number of aquatic invertebrates per sample from rarnsworth Creek and Sheep Creak ••••••••• • • 34 Avar~ge number of birds seen per day on the transects ••••••• • • • 35 a. Small mammal population estimates on the aspen trapping grids ••••• • • • 56 9. Population estimates of Eutamias minimus on the aspen trapping grids ••• • • • 61 10. Population estimates of Peromyscus maniculatus on the aspen trapping grids • • • • • • 63 11. Population estimates of Migrotus longicaudus on the aspen trapping grids •••• • • 64 12. Population estimates of Zapus princeps on the aspen trapping grids •• • • • • 65 INTRODUCTION man has repeatedly modified his environment by altering the soil systems, introducing new habitats, alter- int those already established, and retarding succession to favor his social and economic needs; the Sheep Creek Water Evaluation Project is a good example of this. The Sheep Creek Water Evaluation Project, located 17 mi southeast of Salina, Sevier Co., Utah, was started in 1957 by the U.S. forest Service to determine what effect manipula- tion of vegetation might have on water yield, stream regimen, and water quality. Approximately one-half of Sheep Creek Watershed has been left untreated, while the vegetation of the remaining portion has been drastically changed from aspen and oak to grass type community as a result of appli- cations of herbicides in June and August 1965 and May 1966. Since the beginning of the Sheep Creek Water Eval- uation Project in 1957, the u.s. forest Service has collected data from stream and precipitation gaging stations, soil moisture plots, and has established and mapped vegetative types, but no extensive investigation of the animal resi- dents was originally planned. The purpose of my study was to determine and compare the animal populations of the treated and untreated areas, and to evaluate the effects that 2 herbicides applied to aspen communities have on the animal populations of these areas. On the Sheep Creek Watershed there were untreated areas of the same community types having similar topogra- phic features as the treated areas. These offered an excellent opportunity to compare, not only the plants, but the animal residents of the two areas, and to establish ecological base lines for a better understanding of both un- disturbed and treated watersheds, The results of this inves. tigation should supplement and add significant basic ecolo• gical data to that collected by the u.s. forest Service to assist in more accurately establishing the complete ecolo- gical picture of the watershed, and should be important in determining the interrelationships of vegetation manipula- tion and the increase or decrease of animal species in tHe treated areas. Also, of fundamental importance in this study, is the added knowledge that can provide valuable assi- stance in future planning of ecological modification to bet- ter manage areas to favor man's economic and social needs, while wisely using renewable natural resources. 3 REVIEWOF LITERATURE The aspen and oak communities in central and eastern Utah have been described by Hayward (1945 and 1948) and the effects of herbicides on plants in aspen communities have been reported by Day, Hammer, and Panshin
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wildlife of the North Hills: Birds, Animals, Butterflies
    Wildlife of the North Hills: Birds, Animals, Butterflies Oakland, California 2005 About this Booklet The idea for this booklet grew out of a suggestion from Anne Seasons, President of the North Hills Phoenix Association, that I compile pictures of local birds in a form that could be made available to residents of the north hills. I expanded on that idea to include other local wildlife. For purposes of this booklet, the “North Hills” is defined as that area on the Berkeley/Oakland border bounded by Claremont Avenue on the north, Tunnel Road on the south, Grizzly Peak Blvd. on the east, and Domingo Avenue on the west. The species shown here are observed, heard or tracked with some regularity in this area. The lists are not a complete record of species found: more than 50 additional bird species have been observed here, smaller rodents were included without visual verification, and the compiler lacks the training to identify reptiles, bats or additional butterflies. We would like to include additional species: advice from local experts is welcome and will speed the process. A few of the species listed fall into the category of pests; but most - whether resident or visitor - are desirable additions to the neighborhood. We hope you will enjoy using this booklet to identify the wildlife you see around you. Kay Loughman November 2005 2 Contents Birds Turkey Vulture Bewick’s Wren Red-tailed Hawk Wrentit American Kestrel Ruby-crowned Kinglet California Quail American Robin Mourning Dove Hermit thrush Rock Pigeon Northern Mockingbird Band-tailed
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of the Great Plains (Revised Edition 2009) by Paul Johnsgard Papers in the Biological Sciences
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Birds of the Great Plains (Revised edition 2009) by Paul Johnsgard Papers in the Biological Sciences 2009 Birds of the Great Plains: Family Thraupidae (Tanagers) Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscibirdsgreatplains Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "Birds of the Great Plains: Family Thraupidae (Tanagers)" (2009). Birds of the Great Plains (Revised edition 2009) by Paul Johnsgard. 59. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscibirdsgreatplains/59 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Birds of the Great Plains (Revised edition 2009) by Paul Johnsgard by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. FAMILY THRAUPIDAE (TANAGERS) Western Tanager Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Breeding Status: Mostly limited to the Black Hills of South Dakota, where it is a common resident. Also breeds uncommonly in the Pine Ridge area of northwestern Nebraska, possibly ex­ tending east in the Niobrara Valley far enough to come into contact with the scarlet tanager (Nebraska Bird Review 29:19). Breeding Habitat: In the Black Hills and Pine Ridge areas this species is primarily associated with pine forests, and it secon­ darily uses deciduous woods along rivers or in gulches and can­ yons. In more mountainous country it extends higher, into the Douglas fir zone, inhabiting relatively dense and mature stands. Nest Location: Nests are 6-50 feet above the ground, usually on horizontal branches of conifers, 3-20 feet out from the trunk.
    [Show full text]
  • Bird Species Checklist
    6 7 8 1 COMMON NAME Sp Su Fa Wi COMMON NAME Sp Su Fa Wi Bank Swallow R White-throated Sparrow R R R Bird Species Barn Swallow C C U O Vesper Sparrow O O Cliff Swallow R R R Savannah Sparrow C C U Song Sparrow C C C C Checklist Chickadees, Nuthataches, Wrens Lincoln’s Sparrow R U R Black-capped Chickadee C C C C Swamp Sparrow O O O Chestnut-backed Chickadee O O O Spotted Towhee C C C C Bushtit C C C C Black-headed Grosbeak C C R Red-breasted Nuthatch C C C C Lazuli Bunting C C R White-breasted Nuthatch U U U U Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, Orioles Brown Creeper U U U U Yellow-headed Blackbird R R O House Wren U U R Western Meadowlark R O R Pacific Wren R R R Bullock’s Oriole U U Marsh Wren R R R U Red-winged Blackbird C C U U Bewick’s Wren C C C C Brown-headed Cowbird C C O Kinglets, Thrushes, Brewer’s Blackbird R R R R Starlings, Waxwings Finches, Old World Sparrows Golden-crowned Kinglet R R R Evening Grosbeak R R R Ruby-crowned Kinglet U R U Common Yellowthroat House Finch C C C C Photo by Dan Pancamo, Wikimedia Commons Western Bluebird O O O Purple Finch U U O R Swainson’s Thrush U C U Red Crossbill O O O O Hermit Thrush R R To Coast Jackson Bottom is 6 Miles South of Exit 57.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of Anchorage Checklist
    ACCIDENTAL, CASUAL, UNSUBSTANTIATED KEY THRUSHES J F M A M J J A S O N D n Casual: Occasionally seen, but not every year Northern Wheatear N n Accidental: Only one or two ever seen here Townsend’s Solitaire N X Unsubstantiated: no photographic or sample evidence to support sighting Gray-cheeked Thrush N W Listed on the Audubon Alaska WatchList of declining or threatened species Birds of Swainson’s Thrush N Hermit Thrush N Spring: March 16–May 31, Summer: June 1–July 31, American Robin N Fall: August 1–November 30, Winter: December 1–March 15 Anchorage, Alaska Varied Thrush N W STARLINGS SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER SPECIES SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER European Starling N CHECKLIST Ross's Goose Vaux's Swift PIPITS Emperor Goose W Anna's Hummingbird The Anchorage area offers a surprising American Pipit N Cinnamon Teal Costa's Hummingbird Tufted Duck Red-breasted Sapsucker WAXWINGS diversity of habitat from tidal mudflats along Steller's Eider W Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Bohemian Waxwing N Common Eider W Willow Flycatcher the coast to alpine habitat in the Chugach BUNTINGS Ruddy Duck Least Flycatcher John Schoen Lapland Longspur Pied-billed Grebe Hammond's Flycatcher Mountains bordering the city. Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel Eastern Kingbird BOHEMIAN WAXWING Snow Bunting N Leach's Storm-Petrel Western Kingbird WARBLERS Pelagic Cormorant Brown Shrike Red-faced Cormorant W Cassin's Vireo Northern Waterthrush N For more information on Alaska bird festivals Orange-crowned Warbler N Great Egret Warbling Vireo Swainson's Hawk Red-eyed Vireo and birding maps for Anchorage, Fairbanks, Yellow Warbler N American Coot Purple Martin and Kodiak, contact Audubon Alaska at Blackpoll Warbler N W Sora Pacific Wren www.AudubonAlaska.org or 907-276-7034.
    [Show full text]
  • Extreme Extralimital Summer Record of Western Tanager Piranga
    Cotinga 18 Extrem e extralim ital sum m er record of W estern Tanager Piranga ludoviciana from Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles Jeffrey V. Wells and Allison Childs Wells Cotinga 18 (2002): 96–97 Un ejemplar de Piranga ludoviciana en plumaje de reproducción fue fotografiado el 5 de julio de 2001, en la Playa Frans, Bonaire, Antillas Holandesas. La distribución normal durante la temporada de reproducción en Norteamérica occidental se extiende desde el noroeste de México hasta el sudoeste de Canadá. Durante el período no reproductivo su distribución abarca desde México hasta el oeste de Costa Rica, aunque hay cinco observaciones del norte del Caribe, y observaciones ocasionales del oeste de Panamá. Esta es la primera observación en las Antillas Holandesas y Sudamérica, a c. 5900 km de su área de reproducción más cercana, en el oeste de Texas, EEUU, y c. 1600 km del límite meridional del área de invernada ocasional, en el oeste de Panamá. Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana breeds in yellow underparts, rump and uppertail-coverts and western North America, from extreme north-west nape; black back and tail; black wings with yellow Mexico (Baja and Sonora), California, Arizona, New shoulder bar; white wingbar, and white outer edges Mexico and extreme south-west Texas to the tertials. There are no other species with such in the south to British Columbia, Mackenzie, plumage that could be confused. Saskatchewan and Alberta in the north1. In winter, During our evening observations, it actively fed it regularly occurs from Mexico south to western on insects in the low thorn scrub common in the Costa Rica1.
    [Show full text]
  • Worcester County Birdlist
    BIRD LIST OF WORCESTER COUNTY, MASSACUSETTS 1931-2019 This list is a revised version of Robert C. Bradbury’s Bird List of Worcester County, Massachusetts (1992) . It contains bird species recorded in Worcester County since the Forbush Bird Club began publishing The Chickadee in 1931. Included in Appendix A, and indicated in bold face on the Master List are bird Species which have been accepted by the Editorial Committee of The Chickadee, and have occurred 10 times or fewer overall, or have appeared fewer than 5 times in the last 20 years in Worcester County. The Editorial Committee has established the following qualifying criteria for any records to be considered of any record not accepted on the Master List: 1) a recognizable specimen 2) a recognizable photograph or video 3) a sight record corroborated by 3 experienced observers In addition, any Review Species with at least one accepted record must pass review of the Editorial Committee of the Chicka dee. Any problematic records which pass review by the Chickadee Editorial Committee, but not meeting the three first record rules above, will be carried into the accepted records of the given species. Included in Appendix B are records considered problematic. Problematic species either do not meet at least one of the qualifying criteria listed above, are considered likely escaped captive birds, have arrived in Worcester County by other than self-powered means, or are species not yet recognized as a count able species by the Editorial Committee of The Chickadee . Species names in English and Latin follow the American Ornithologists’ Union Checklist of North American Birds, 7 th edition, 59th supplement, rev.
    [Show full text]
  • The Practiced Eye
    THE PRACTICED EYE Notes on femaletanagers Kenn Kaufman Photographs by Barth Schorre from VIREO SummerTanager. Photo: Barth Schorre/VIREO (s08/11/151). that the most "typical" tanagersare TmembersWOULD BEof REASONABLEthe genus Tangara,TO SAY nearly fifty speciesof bright multi-col- ored avian gems. In Tangara, the sexes usuallylook the same,young birds seem to attain adult plumage fairly quickly, and the brilliant colorpatterns generally rule out any kinds of problemsin field identification. However,Tangara tanagers (like most other tanagers)inhabit the deeptropics. North of the Mexican border, the breeding tanagersbelong to the genus Piranga, and in this group the sexesare colored differently. Adult males are bright and distinctive enough to spark the interest of the beginning birder, while sorting out the females can pro- vide mental exercise for the more ex- perienced observer. Widespread across the southern United States, the Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra) is the most uniformly coloredof our tanagers:unmarked rose- red in the male, unmarkedgolden yel- low in the female. The overall color of femalesmay vary from brownish-yellow to bright, even with orangeor reddish SummerTanager• Photo: Barth Schorre/VIREO (s08/11/152) Volume42, Number1 3 coverts,unless the plumage is in very worn condition. Bill sizeis an excellent field mark, es- pecially in bad light where color differ- encesmay be questionable.The bill of Scarlet Tanager is visibly shorter than that of Summer Tanager. The Searlet alsousually has pale yellowlores (often, but not always, slightly darkened in SummerTanager), and, in combination with the smaller bill, this creates a no- riceablydifferent facial expression. ScarletTanagers start to get compli- cated in late summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Saving Western Migratory Birds of North America's Conifer and Mixed
    Saving Western Migratory Birds of North America’s Conifer and Mixed Conifer-hardwood Forests and the Sierra Madre Pine-oak and Cloud Forests of Mexico and Northern Central America A Conservation Business Plan to Reverse Bird Populations Declines Birds that breed in North America’s western conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood forests and migrate to over-winter in the Sierra Madre pine-oak and cloud forests of Mexico and northern Central America are imperiled. Their populations have been declining for decades and these declines are worsening (1). The habitats that these birds depend on throughout their entire life- cycle are being lost or degraded due to threats including logging and wood harvest, disruption of natural disturbance regimes (e.g., fire), inadequate restoration, water management and altered hydrology, agriculture, livestock impacts, and other anthropogenic factors. To address these threats an international group of agencies and organizations has developed this conservation business plan. Here we present a strategic framework including projects and specific actions that target western forest birds and the habitats they depend for strategic conservation. This conservation business plan is intended to increase understanding that steepening bird population declines indicate immediate need for large-scaled conservation actions. Such actions will ensure restoration and protection and will result in increased health and resilience of habitats throughout the range of migrant western forest birds. This plan aims to increase interest in and support for specific conservation Many western migratory birds that breed in North America’s opportunities that will benefit the birds and conifer and mixed coniferous-hardwood forests and winter in people that depend on North America’s pine-oak and cloud forests of Mexico and northern Central western conifer and mixed confer-hardwood America; their migration and distribution range defines this conservation business plan’s geographic area of scope (2).
    [Show full text]
  • Western Tanager
    Los Angeles Audubon Society | laaudubon.org Western Tanager Owens River, April 2017 | Photo by Mary Freeman On The Cover CONTENTS Owens River, April 2017 | Photo by Mary Freeman 3 California Condor Los Angeles Audubon Society 6 Birding in Belize P.O. Box 411301 Los Angeles, CA 90041-8301 9 Birds of the Season www.losangelesaudubon.org (323) 876-0202 13 Beautiful Ballona: What’s Next [email protected] 15 In Memory of Howard King BOARD OFFICERS & DIRECTORS President Margot Griswold [email protected] Vice President David De Lange [email protected] Treasurer Robert Jeffers [email protected] 16 Field Trip Listings About the Photo Past President Travis Longcore [email protected] Directors at Large Catherine Rich Brad Rumble [email protected] 19 Bird Walk Listings Photo taken with Sony Point & Shoot, model Cyber‐ COMMITTEES shot DSC RX‐100. The ISO was 400 on Program option Conservation Travis Longcore [email protected] under Picture Effect using the Retro setting. I like this Education Margot Griswold [email protected] 21 Membership Brad Rumble [email protected] Monthly Programs camera as it offers different settings and photo options. I changed from film to 100% digital about 15 years ago after PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES Field Trips Nick Freeman [email protected] Tom Stephenson and Eddie Thomas gave a talk on Bird Walks Eleanor Osgood [email protected] digiscoping. Owens Valley and the Eastern Sierra are the Monthly Programs Position Open Rare Bird Alert Jon Fisher [email protected] perfect playground for stunning photos. Clouds almost Schreiber Grant Program Ryan Harrigan [email protected] always add flavors of texture, complexity, action and STAFF intensity to photos.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Cuba
    ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF CUBA Number 3 2020 Nils Navarro Pacheco www.EdicionesNuevosMundos.com 1 Senior Editor: Nils Navarro Pacheco Editors: Soledad Pagliuca, Kathleen Hennessey and Sharyn Thompson Cover Design: Scott Schiller Cover: Bee Hummingbird/Zunzuncito (Mellisuga helenae), Zapata Swamp, Matanzas, Cuba. Photo courtesy Aslam I. Castellón Maure Back cover Illustrations: Nils Navarro, © Endemic Birds of Cuba. A Comprehensive Field Guide, 2015 Published by Ediciones Nuevos Mundos www.EdicionesNuevosMundos.com [email protected] Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Cuba ©Nils Navarro Pacheco, 2020 ©Ediciones Nuevos Mundos, 2020 ISBN: 978-09909419-6-5 Recommended citation Navarro, N. 2020. Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Cuba. Ediciones Nuevos Mundos 3. 2 To the memory of Jim Wiley, a great friend, extraordinary person and scientist, a guiding light of Caribbean ornithology. He crossed many troubled waters in pursuit of expanding our knowledge of Cuban birds. 3 About the Author Nils Navarro Pacheco was born in Holguín, Cuba. by his own illustrations, creates a personalized He is a freelance naturalist, author and an field guide style that is both practical and useful, internationally acclaimed wildlife artist and with icons as substitutes for texts. It also includes scientific illustrator. A graduate of the Academy of other important features based on his personal Fine Arts with a major in painting, he served as experience and understanding of the needs of field curator of the herpetological collection of the guide users. Nils continues to contribute his Holguín Museum of Natural History, where he artwork and copyrights to BirdsCaribbean, other described several new species of lizards and frogs NGOs, and national and international institutions in for Cuba.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies in Hemiptera in Honour of Pavel Lauterer and Jaroslav L. Stehlík
    Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae biologicae Special issue, 98(2) Studies in Hemiptera in honour of Pavel Lauterer and Jaroslav L. Stehlík PETR KMENT, IGOR MALENOVSKÝ & JIØÍ KOLIBÁÈ (Eds.) ISSN 1211-8788 Moravian Museum, Brno 2013 RNDr. Pavel Lauterer (*1933) was RNDr. Jaroslav L. Stehlík, CSc. (*1923) born in Brno, to a family closely inter- was born in Jihlava. Ever since his ested in natural history. He soon deve- grammar school studies in Brno and loped a passion for nature, and parti- Tøebíè, he has been interested in ento- cularly for insects. He studied biology mology, particularly the true bugs at the Faculty of Science at Masaryk (Heteroptera). He graduated from the University, Brno, going on to work bri- Faculty of Science at Masaryk Univers- efly as an entomologist and parasitolo- ity, Brno in 1950 and defended his gist at the Hygienico-epidemiological CSc. (Ph.D.) thesis at the Institute of Station in Olomouc. From 1962 until Entomology of the Czechoslovak his retirement in 2002, he was Scienti- Academy of Sciences in Prague in fic Associate and Curator at the 1968. Since 1945 he has been profes- Department of Entomology in the sionally associated with the Moravian Moravian Museum, Brno, and still Museum, Brno and was Head of the continues his work there as a retired Department of Entomology there from research associate. Most of his profes- 1948 until his retirement in 1990. sional career has been devoted to the During this time, the insect collections study of psyllids, leafhoppers, plant- flourished and the journal Acta Musei hoppers and their natural enemies.
    [Show full text]
  • Background and General Information 2
    United States Department of National Program 304: Agriculture Agricultural Crop Protection and Research Service Quarantine National Program Staff August 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background and General Information 2 Component I: Identification and Classification of Insects and Mites 5 Component II: Biology of Pests and Natural Enemies (Including Microbes) 8 Component III: Plant, Pest, and Natural Enemy Interactions and Ecology 17 Component IV: Postharvest, Pest Exclusion, and Quarantine Treatment 24 Component V: Pest Control Technologies 30 Component VI: Integrated Pest Management Systems and Areawide Suppression 41 Component VII: Weed Biology and Ecology 48 Component VIII: Chemical Control of Weeds 53 Component IX: Biological Control of Weeds 56 Component X: Weed Management Systems 64 APPENDIXES – Appendix 1: ARS National Program Assessment 70 Appendix 2: Documentation of NP 304 Accomplishments 73 NP 304 Accomplishment Report, 2001-2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the intramural research agency for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and is one of four agencies that make up the Research, Education, and Economics mission area of the Department. ARS research comprises 21 National Programs and is conducted at 108 laboratories spread throughout the United States and overseas by over 2,200 full-time scientists within a total workforce of 8,000 ARS employees. The research in National Program 304, Crop Protection and Quarantine, is organized into 140 projects, conducted by 236 full-time scientists at 41 geographic locations. At $102.8 million, the fiscal year (FY) 2007 net research budget for National Program 304 represents almost 10 percent of ARS’s total FY 2007 net research budget of $1.12 billion.
    [Show full text]