DOCSLIB.ORG

Moths of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Moths of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge MOTHS OF CONBOY LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: Results from 15 sites sampled 28-30 August 2014 Dana Ross 1005 NW 30th Street Corvallis, OR 97330 (541) 758-3006 [email protected] SUMMARY Macro-moths were sampled from Conboy National Wildlife Refuge in Klickitat County, Washington, 28-30 August, 2014. Blacklight traps were deployed for a single night at fifteen sites representative of plant communities throughout the refuge and captured a total of 407 individuals representing 70 moth species. Of these, 40 species were documented for the first (17), second (12) or third (11) time from Klickitat County. With sufficient additional sampling, the total macro-moth fauna of the refuge would likely be shown to include more than 300 species. 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 biodiversity 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 and can be identified by regional moth taxonomists. Once identified, many moth species can be tied to known larval host plant species at a given site, placing both moth and plant within a larger ecological context. Moths along with butterflies belong to the insect Order Lepidoptera. The larvae (caterpillars) are consumers of enormous quantities of plant biomass and help to recycle plant nutrients back into the soil. Most adult moths feed on nocturnally available flower nectar and in doing so pollinate many flowering plant species. As egg, larva, pupa or adult, moths are an abundant and essential food resource for myriad species of birds (especially nestlings), bats, rodents, reptiles, amphibians and other insects. Moths are, therefore, an essential component of a healthy and productive ecosystem. Sampling that includes the physical collection of moth voucher specimens is necessary as part of any meaningful inventory. Vouchers added to regional collections serve as indisputable evidence of a study’s findings and contribute to a greater knowledge about wing pattern and general morphological variability. When moth information (species, date, location, etc.) is data- based and combined with existing data-sets it can lead to a more resolute understanding of each species range, distribution, flight period and relative abundance. Each refuge has a unique assemblage of insects where each species serves one or more ecological roles. Moths are a particularly rich insect group that remains largely unknown for most important wildlife areas including our national wildlife refuges. This study is an important first step towards documenting these less conspicuous yet vitally important life forms at Conboy Lake NWR. 1 METHODS Fifteen trap sites were selected to capture macro-moth diversity by targeting a variety of plant communities and habitat types across a broad portion of the refuge. Sample sites representative of quaking aspen, emergent marsh, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, Oregon white oak, upland meadow and wet prairie habitats were selected based on a Conboy Lake Wildlife Refuge habitat map, with specific locations chosen during on-site visits prior to sampling (Figures 1 & 2, Tables 1 & 2, Photos 1-4). For each site sampled, a 12 volt battery-powered light trap unit was run continuously over one full night (from dusk until dawn) with a 22 watt circular UV-blacklight bulb as a visual attractant. Moths hitting clear acrylic vanes mounted above the trap fall down through a funnel and into a collection bucket charged with a fumigant (“No Pest Strip”) which kills them in short order. The sample period was chosen to coincide with the new moon, a time when interference from ambient moon light is minimal and the effectiveness of light traps is, therefore, optimal. While warm, calm nights with cloud cover are preferable to cold, rainy or windy nights, most moth species are capable of flying during adverse conditions, thus weather conditions were considered somewhat secondary in importance. Samples from traps were collected early the following morning, placed in plastic baggies and labeled with location and date using a permanent marker pen. Samples were then transferred to a freezer until all refuge sampling was finished for the sample period. After transfer to the lab in Corvallis, samples were placed again in a freezer until they could be processed. Processing entailed thawing moths on a large white sheet of paper and sorting/counting all macro-moths to species. Identifications of most moths were determined immediately. Less familiar moths were identified using the Oregon State Arthropod Collection (OSAC, Dept. of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis) and web-based resources such as the PNW Moths (pnwmoths.biol.wwu.edu) and Moth Photographers Group (mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu). The most difficult identifications required assistance from other moth experts. One or more voucher specimens for each moth species sampled were retained, mounted and labeled. Each first voucher specimen was deposited in the OSAC collection. Additional specimens will be placed in the Conboy Lake NWR headquarters collection. 2 Figure 1 - Map of north Conboy Lake NWR moth trap locations. 3 Figure 2 - Map of south Conboy Lake NWR moth trap locations. 4 Table 1. Moth site GIS attributes I. Trap # Trap Code Habitat Type Date Sampled 1 Ponderosa 1 Ponderosa Pine 8/28/2014 2 Upland Meadow 1 Upland Meadow 8/28/2014 3 Aspen 1 Aspen 8/28/2014 4 Oak 1 Oregon White Oak 8/28/2014 5 Mixed Conifer 1 Mixed Conifer 8/28/2014 6 Wet Meadow 1 Wet Meadow 8/29/2014 7 Emergent Marsh 1 Emergent Marsh 8/29/2014 8 Upland/Wet Meadow Mix 1 Upland/Wet Meadow 8/29/2014 9 Upland Meadow 2 Upland Meadow 8/29/2014 10 Aspen 2 Aspen 8/29/2014 11 Aspen-Conifer Mix 1 Mixed Aspen-Conifer 8/30/2014 12 Wet Meadow 2 Wet Meadow 8/30/2014 13 Mixed Conifer 2 Mixed Conifer 8/30/2014 14 Ponderosa 2 Ponderosa Pine 8/30/2014 15 Oak 2 Oregon White Oak 8/30/2014 Table 2. Moth site GIS attributes II. GPS Coordinates (10T) Elevation Trap # Northing Easting (feet) 1 627657 5091913 1900 2 625446 5088181 1840 3 625825 5087223 1895 4 628080 5087541 1875 5 629917 5088673 1940 6 629629 5093316 1820 7 628946 5093395 1820 8 631566 5092658 1825 9 632517 5091345 1825 10 632322 5091134 1835 11 631954 5091968 1825 12 634239 5093071 1820 13 635001 5093756 1900 14 633773 5091012 1960 15 631860 5090258 1880 5 Photo 1. Blacklight trap in aspen understory (Aspen 1 site). 6 Photo 2. Blacklight trap in Oregon white oak habitat (Oak 1 site). Photo 3. Ponderosa pine/bitterbrush habitat (Ponderosa 1 site). 7 Photo 4. Blacklight trap in upland meadow habitat (Upland Meadow 2 site). Photo 5. Nocturnal moth sampling set-up: blacklight trap and 12 volt battery. 8 RESULTS & DISCUSSION A total of 407 individual macro-moths representing 70 species (Table 4) were sampled from all refuge moth sites combined during the August 28-30, 2014 sample period. A total of 29 moths (7%) could not be identified to species due to wing damage and no identifiable wing pattern. Individual samples (Table 3) ranged in size from 4 to 67 moths and included from 4 to 28 species. Habitats with at least some forest overstory (N=9) scored higher than open, non- canopied sites (N=6) for both average moth abundance (37 versus 12) and moth species richness (13 versus 6). In general, sites with a more complex, 3-dimensional structure that host more plant species and more plant biomass will support more moths and moth species per unit area. The greatest numbers of moths were sampled from the Oak 1 (67), Mixed Conifer 1 (54) and Aspen 2 (54) sites. Similarly, the most moth species were sampled from Mixed Conifer 1 (28), Oak 1 (26) and Aspen 1 (17) sites. The fewest moths were sampled from Upland Meadow 1 (9), Wet Meadow 1 (8) and Emergent Marsh 1 (4). The fewest moth species were sampled from Upland/Wet Meadow Mix 1 (4), Wet Meadow 1 (4) and Emergent Marsh 1 (4). This study provided important distributional data (1st, 2nd or 3rd Klickitat County records) for at least 40 moth species (Table 4) in the families Erebidae, Lasiocampidae, Lymantriidae and Noctuidae based on the Pacific Northwest Moths website (http://pnwmoths.biol.wwu.edu/). This same level of comprehensive regional knowledge is not yet available for the family Geometridae, thus no distributional statements are made for that family of moths at this time. Table 3. Numbers of moths and moth species by trap (code). # of # of Trap Code Moths Species Ponderosa 1 39 12 Ponderosa 2 12 7 Mixed Conifer 1 54 28 Mixed Conifer 2 28 14 Aspen-Conifer Mix 1 19 8 Aspen 1 40 17 Aspen 2 54 16 Oak 1 67 26 Oak 2 24 12 Upland Meadow 1 9 9 Upland Meadow 2 22 9 Upland/Wet Meadow Mix 1 11 4 Wet Meadow 1 8 4 Wet Meadow 2 16 8 Emergent Marsh 1 4 4 9 Table 3. Macro-moth abundance by trap site (*Micro-moth. County Records: 1= 1st, 2= 2nd, 3= 3rd). Family Taxon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Crambidae *Microtheoris ophionalis P n/a Caenurgina erechtea 2 2 2Catocala relicta 2 2 Erebidae 1Cisseps fulvicollis 4 4 Idia americalis 2 1 4 7 Aplocera plagiata 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 16 Chlorochlamys triangularis 1 1 Coryphista meadii 1 1 Cyclophora dataria 1 2 1 4 Drepanulatrix unicalcararia 4 5 1 4 14 Lambdina fiscellaria 1 1 Neoalcis californiaria 1 4 5 10 Nepytia umbrosaria 8 2 4 14 Geometridae Perizoma curvilinea
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research of Lepidoptera Fauna As One of the Basis for the Biodiversity Management in the Kozjanski Park
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Nationalpark Hohe Tauern - Conference Volume Jahr/Year: 2013 Band/Volume: 5 Autor(en)/Author(s): Gomboc Stanislav, Klenovsek Dusan, Orsanic Teo Hrvoje Artikel/Article: Research of Lepidoptera fauna as one of the basis for the biodiversity management in the Kozjanski Park. 231-235 5th Symposium Conference Volume for Research in Protected Areas pages 231 - 235 10 to 12 June 2013, Mittersill Research of Lepidoptera fauna as one of the basis for the biodiversity management in the Kozjanski Park Stanislav Gomboc1, Dušan Klenovšek2, Teo Hrvoje Oršanič2 1 EGEA, Institution for nature, Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 Kozjanski Park, Podsreda, Slovenia Abstract In the Kozjanski Park, a total of 1027 Lepidoptera species, including 25 protected species, 38 red list species and 7 Natura 2000 species have been recorded since 2003. As these were more or less just occasional observations we estimate that the Lepidoptera fauna is presented here with more than 1.500 Species. Already this number indicates the importance of Kozjanski Park for the protection of rare and protected species, although their scope is relatively small protected area of 260 km2, but very important and rich on the biodiversity. The area is a kind of refugee for many rare and endangered species of plants and animals. Park is also a part of Unesco Biosphere Areas (Kozjansko and Obsotelje). As many butterflies and moths species are strictly seasonal and prefer only a particular set of habitats, they are good indicators in terms of anthropogenic disturbance and habitat quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves
    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of the Lepidoptera Fauna in Birch Mountains Wildland Provincial Park
    Survey of the Lepidoptera Fauna in Birch Mountains Wildland Provincial Park Platarctia parthenos Photo: D. Vujnovic Prepared for: Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre, Parks and Protected Areas Division, Alberta Community Development Prepared by: Doug Macaulay and Greg Pohl Alberta Lepidopterists' Guild May 10, 2005 Figure 1. Doug Macaulay and Gerald Hilchie walking on a cutline near site 26. (Photo by Stacy Macaulay) Figure 2. Stacey Macaulay crossing a beaver dam at site 33. (Photo by Doug Macaulay) I TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 1 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 3 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 4 I. Factors affecting the Survey...........................................................................................4 II. Taxa of particular interest.............................................................................................5 A. Butterflies:...................................................................................................................... 5 B. Macro-moths ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)
    Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) By Richard Henderson Research Ecologist, WI DNR Bureau of Science Services Summary This is a preliminary list of insects that are either well known, or likely, to be closely associated with Wisconsin’s original native prairie. These species are mostly dependent upon remnants of original prairie, or plantings/restorations of prairie where their hosts have been re-established (see discussion below), and thus are rarely found outside of these settings. The list also includes some species tied to native ecosystems that grade into prairie, such as savannas, sand barrens, fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh. The list is annotated with known host(s) of each insect, and the likelihood of its presence in the state (see key at end of list for specifics). This working list is a byproduct of a prairie invertebrate study I coordinated from1995-2005 that covered 6 Midwestern states and included 14 cooperators. The project surveyed insects on prairie remnants and investigated the effects of fire on those insects. It was funded in part by a series of grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, the list has 475 species. However, this is a partial list at best, representing approximately only ¼ of the prairie-specialist insects likely present in the region (see discussion below). Significant input to this list is needed, as there are major taxa groups missing or greatly under represented. Such absence is not necessarily due to few or no prairie-specialists in those groups, but due more to lack of knowledge about life histories (at least published knowledge), unsettled taxonomy, and lack of taxonomic specialists currently working in those groups.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Bioblitz! OK 2019 - Cherokee County Moth List
    BioBlitz! OK 2019 - Cherokee County Moth List Sort Family Species 00366 Tineidae Acrolophus mortipennella 00372 Tineidae Acrolophus plumifrontella Eastern Grass Tubeworm Moth 00373 Tineidae Acrolophus popeanella 00383 Tineidae Acrolophus texanella 00457 Psychidae Thyridopteryx ephemeraeformis Evergreen Bagworm Moth 01011 Oecophoridae Antaeotricha schlaegeri Schlaeger's Fruitworm 01014 Oecophoridae Antaeotricha leucillana 02047 Gelechiidae Keiferia lycopersicella Tomato Pinworm 02204 Gelechiidae Fascista cercerisella 02301.2 Gelechiidae Dichomeris isa 02401 Yponomeutidae Atteva aurea 02401 Yponomeutidae Atteva aurea Ailanthus Webworm Moth 02583 Sesiidae Synanthedon exitiosa 02691 Cossidae Fania nanus 02694 Cossidae Prionoxystus macmurtrei Little Carpenterworm Moth 02837 Tortricidae Olethreutes astrologana The Astrologer 03172 Tortricidae Epiblema strenuana 03202 Tortricidae Epiblema otiosana 03494 Tortricidae Cydia latiferreanus Filbert Worm 03573 Tortricidae Decodes basiplaganus 03632 Tortricidae Choristoneura fractittana 03635 Tortricidae Choristoneura rosaceana Oblique-banded Leafroller moth 03688 Tortricidae Clepsis peritana 03695 Tortricidae Sparganothis sulfureana Sparganothis Fruitworm Moth 03732 Tortricidae Platynota flavedana 03768.99 Tortricidae Cochylis ringsi 04639 Zygaenidae Pyromorpha dimidiata Orange-patched Smoky Moth 04644 Megalopygidae Lagoa crispata Black Waved Flannel Moth 04647 Megalopygidae Megalopyge opercularis 04665 Limacodidae Lithacodes fasciola 04677 Limacodidae Phobetron pithecium Hag Moth 04691 Limacodidae
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Macrolepidoptera Inventory of the Chilcotin District
    Macrolepidoptera Inventory of the Chilcotin District Aud I. Fischer – Biologist Jon H. Shepard - Research Scientist and Crispin S. Guppy – Research Scientist January 31, 2000 2 Abstract This study was undertaken to learn more of the distribution, status and habitat requirements of B.C. macrolepidoptera (butterflies and the larger moths), the group of insects given the highest priority by the BC Environment Conservation Center. The study was conducted in the Chilcotin District near Williams Lake and Riske Creek in central B.C. The study area contains a wide variety of habitats, including rare habitat types that elsewhere occur only in the Lillooet-Lytton area of the Fraser Canyon and, in some cases, the Southern Interior. Specimens were collected with light traps and by aerial net. A total of 538 species of macrolepidoptera were identified during the two years of the project, which is 96% of the estimated total number of species in the study area. There were 29,689 specimens collected, and 9,988 records of the number of specimens of each species captured on each date at each sample site. A list of the species recorded from the Chilcotin is provided, with a summary of provincial and global distributions. The habitats, at site series level as TEM mapped, are provided for each sample. A subset of the data was provided to the Ministry of Forests (Research Section, Williams Lake) for use in a Flamulated Owl study. A voucher collection of 2,526 moth and butterfly specimens was deposited in the Royal BC Museum. There were 25 species that are rare in BC, with most known only from the Riske Creek area.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Lepidoptera of the Wainwright Dunes Ecological Reserve
    SURVEY OF LEPIDOPTERA OF THE WAINWRIGHT DUNES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 159 SURVEY OF LEPIDOPTERA OF THE WAINWRIGHT DUNES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Doug Macaulay Alberta Species at Risk Report No.159 Project Partners: i ISBN 978-1-4601-3449-8 ISSN 1496-7146 Photo: Doug Macaulay of Pale Yellow Dune Moth ( Copablepharon grandis ) For copies of this report, visit our website at: http://www.aep.gov.ab.ca/fw/speciesatrisk/index.html This publication may be cited as: Macaulay, A. D. 2016. Survey of Lepidoptera of the Wainwright Dunes Ecological Reserve. Alberta Species at Risk Report No.159. Alberta Environment and Parks, Edmonton, AB. 31 pp. ii DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the policies of the Department or the Alberta Government. iii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... vi 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................. 2 3.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Moths & Butterflies of Grizzly Peak Preserve
    2018 ANNUAL REPORT MOTHS & BUTTERFLIES OF GRIZZLY PEAK PRESERVE: Inventory Results from 2018 Prepared and Submi�ed by: DANA ROSS (Entomologist/Lepidoptera Specialist) Corvallis, Oregon SUMMARY The Grizzly Peak Preserve was sampled for butterflies and moths during May, June and October, 2018. A grand total of 218 species were documented and included 170 moths and 48 butterflies. These are presented as an annotated checklist in the appendix of this report. Butterflies and day-flying moths were sampled during daylight hours with an insect net. Nocturnal moths were collected using battery-powered backlight traps over single night periods at 10 locations during each monthly visit. While many of the documented butterflies and moths are common and widespread species, others - that include the Western Sulphur (Colias occidentalis primordialis) and the noctuid moth Eupsilia fringata - represent more locally endemic and/or rare taxa. One geometrid moth has yet to be identified and may represent an undescribed (“new”) species. Future sampling during March, April, July, August and September will capture many more Lepidoptera that have not been recorded. Once the site is more thoroughly sampled, the combined Grizzly Peak butterfly-moth fauna should total at least 450-500 species. INTRODUCTION The Order Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) is an abundant and diverse insect group that performs essential ecological functions within terrestrial environments. As a group, these insects are major herbivores (caterpillars) and pollinators (adults), and are a critical food source for many species of birds, mammals (including bats) and predacious and parasitoid insects. With hundreds of species of butterflies and moths combined occurring at sites with ample habitat heterogeneity, a Lepidoptera inventory can provide a valuable baseline for biodiversity studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List of Noctuid Moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae And
    Бiологiчний вiсник МДПУ імені Богдана Хмельницького 6 (2), стор. 87–97, 2016 Biological Bulletin of Bogdan Chmelnitskiy Melitopol State Pedagogical University, 6 (2), pp. 87–97, 2016 ARTICLE UDC 595.786 CHECK LIST OF NOCTUID MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE AND EREBIDAE EXCLUDING LYMANTRIINAE AND ARCTIINAE) FROM THE SAUR MOUNTAINS (EAST KAZAKHSTAN AND NORTH-EAST CHINA) A.V. Volynkin1, 2, S.V. Titov3, M. Černila4 1 Altai State University, South Siberian Botanical Garden, Lenina pr. 61, Barnaul, 656049, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Tomsk State University, Laboratory of Biodiversity and Ecology, Lenina pr. 36, 634050, Tomsk, Russia 3 The Research Centre for Environmental ‘Monitoring’, S. Toraighyrov Pavlodar State University, Lomova str. 64, KZ-140008, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan. E-mail: [email protected] 4 The Slovenian Museum of Natural History, Prešernova 20, SI-1001, Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: [email protected] The paper contains data on the fauna of the Lepidoptera families Erebidae (excluding subfamilies Lymantriinae and Arctiinae) and Noctuidae of the Saur Mountains (East Kazakhstan). The check list includes 216 species. The map of collecting localities is presented. Key words: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Erebidae, Asia, Kazakhstan, Saur, fauna. INTRODUCTION The fauna of noctuoid moths (the families Erebidae and Noctuidae) of Kazakhstan is still poorly studied. Only the fauna of West Kazakhstan has been studied satisfactorily (Gorbunov 2011). On the faunas of other parts of the country, only fragmentary data are published (Lederer, 1853; 1855; Aibasov & Zhdanko 1982; Hacker & Peks 1990; Lehmann et al. 1998; Benedek & Bálint 2009; 2013; Korb 2013). In contrast to the West Kazakhstan, the fauna of noctuid moths of East Kazakhstan was studied inadequately.
    [Show full text]