DOCSLIB.ORG

Phillips Thesis Draft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Ecological Impacts of Non-Native Annual and Native Perennial Floral Insectaries on Beneficial Insect Activity Density and Arthropod-Mediated Ecosystem Services Within Ohio Pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) Agroecosystems Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Benjamin W. Phillips, B.S. Graduate Program in Department of Entomology The Ohio State University 2013 Thesis Committee: Mary Gardiner, Advisor – The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH Karen Goodell – The Ohio State University, Newark, OH Robin Taylor –Texas A&M University, Temple, TX Celeste Welty – The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH Copyright by Benjamin Walter Phillips 2013 Abstract Pumpkins (Cucurbita pepo) rely on insect-mediated pollination, and host a distinct community of pests, natural enemies and pollinators. My goal was to determine if biocontrol and pollination services in pumpkins were affected by local habitat management and landscape composition in Ohio. I measured biocontrol through predation and parasitism rates of sentinel egg cards of squash bug (Anasa tristis) and the spotted cucumber beetle (Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardii), and collected adults of striped cucumber beetle (Acalymma vittatum) to determine parasitism activity in 2011- 2012. I used pitfall traps to determine the activity density of ground-dwelling predators per field per sample period, and video cameras to determine the taxa responsible for egg mortality. I measured visitation frequency and duration of Apis mellifera, Bombus spp., and Peponapis pruinosa in male and female flowers of pumpkins in 2011-2012, and pollen deposition across the pollination window (0600-1200 hr) in 2012. I tested the Intermediate Landscape-Complexity Hypothesis in one year by determining the combined effects of surrounding landscape composition and local habitat management on the relative visit frequency of pollinators, activity density of predators, and rates of predation and parasitism services by ranking general linear mixed models. I found that only D. undecimpunctata experienced a significant amount of egg predation, which was positively correlated to the percentage of field crops within a 1500 m radius of pumpkin fields. The parasitism of A. vittatum and the visitation frequency of A. mellifera was ii diluted in the presence of fruit and vegetable habitats within a 1500 m radius, and P. pruinosa visit frequency was diluted within a 500 m radius. Parasitism of A. vittatum was positively associated with urban habitats within a 500 m radius, and the visit frequency of P. pruinosa was positively associated with urban habitats within a 1500 m radii. Predation of A. tristis and D. undecimpunctata eggs and parasitism of A. vittatum adults were not significantly affected by the addition of annual non-native floral insectaries of sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima) or a perennial native insectary planted adjacent to the crop. Formicidae were the largest contributor to egg predation, and also responded positively to urban habitats. Activity density of Carabidae and Orthoptera captured in pitfalls located in alyssum insectaries increased with higher percentages of mowed turfgrass habitats. In 2011 A. mellifera was more abundant in flowers than other bees, and in 2012 Bombus spp. was the most abundant. A. mellifera spent more time in flowers, and had a higher visit frequency in female flowers. In both years, Bombus spp. had a significantly higher visit frequency after 0700 hr, and both Bombus spp. and P. pruinosa spent less time in flowers after 0800 hr. Pollen loads on female flowers indicated that the majority of pollen deposited across the 6 hr window was transferred between 0600-0800 hr, which is when all three bee species foraged with equal frequency and similar visit duration, though Bombus spp. was the largest contributor. Alyssum and perennial floral insectaries did not have an effect on the foraging activity of bees. However, visits to pumpkins by A. mellifera showed that pumpkin fields close to an increased percentage of forest habitats supported higher visit frequencies to pumpkins with alyssum floral insectaries. iii Dedication To Albert Reading (1944 - 2013), who abstained advanced treatment of mesothelioma, and instead donated much of the compensation money he was receiving to his nieces and nephews so we could pay off our college debts. iv Acknowledgments Alphabetical order by contribution, which unfortunately does not emphasize the substantial overlap between these categories… Lab and Professional Supporters: Caitlin Burkman, Brenda Franks, Mary Gardiner, Karen Goodell, Matt Grieshop, Jim Jasinski, Lori Jones, Andrea Kautz, Scott Prazjner, Ian McIlvaine, Chelsea Smith, Rebecca Smyth, Robin Taylor, and Celeste Welty Farmers and Collaborators on the Project: Jim Badger, Brad Bergefurd, Jon Branstrator, Steve Cory, Steve Finney, Lee French, Thom Harker, Mark Hoverstock, Lloyd King, Carmella Massaro, The Pollinator Partnership, Ben Richardson, Norm Staufer, Randy Tegtmeier, Cameron Way, Fred Weaver, Brandon Weber, and Chris Vodraska Statistical Help: Larry Phelan, Diego Rincon, and Alain Zuur Family & Friends: Teresa Campton, Sarah Esralew, Marla Greanya, Tony Gregorc, J. Randall Hicks, Jason Hudson, Kyle Hutson, Liz Kolbe, Mitch Lettow, Larry Long, Kayla Perry, Bob/Mary/Jackie Phillips, Rob Stuckert, Laura Willis v Vita 20 December 1985……………………………...Born a gentleman 2004…………………………………………… East Kentwood High School 2009…………………………………………… B.S. in Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University 2010-Present……………………………………Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Entomology, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Entomology vi Table of Contents ABSTRACT!.............................................................................................................................................!II! DEDICATION!..........................................................................................................................................!IV! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS!...........................................................................................................................!V! LIST OF TABLES!..............................................................................................................................!VIII! LIST OF FIGURES!...............................................................................................................................!IX! CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION!.........................................................................................................!1! BACKGROUND ON PUMPKIN (CUCURBITA PEPO) AGROECOSYSTEMS!..........................!1! HABITAT MANAGEMENT TO CONSERVE WILDLIFE, INCLUDING BENEFICIAL INSECTS!...................................................................................................................................................................!6! LANDSCAPE EFFECTS ON INSECTS IN AGROECOSYSTEMS!................................................!14! THIS STUDY!........................................................................................................................................................!17! OBJECTIVES!.......................................................................................................................................................!18! CHAPTER 2. PREDATION AND PARASITISM OF CUCURBITA PEPO PESTS IN OHIO AGROECOSYSTEMS IN THE PRESENCE OF AN NON-NATIVE ANNUAL FLORAL INSECTARY (LOBULARIA MARITIMA) AND A NATIVE PERENNIAL FLORAL INSECTARY MIX!................................................................................................................................!22! ABSTRACT!..........................................................................................................................................................!22! INTRODUCTION!...............................................................................................................................................!23! METHODS!............................................................................................................................................................!31! RESULTS!..............................................................................................................................................................!41! DISCUSSION!.......................................................................................................................................................!49! TABLES!.................................................................................................................................................................!59! FIGURES!...............................................................................................................................................................!65! CHAPTER 3. POLLINATION OF CUCURBITA PEPO IN OHIO AGROECOSYSTEMS BY NATIVE AND MANAGED BEES IN THE PRESENCE OF A NON-NATIVE ANNUAL FLORAL INSECTARY (LOBULARIA MARITIMA)!...............................................!72! ABSTRACT!..........................................................................................................................................................!72! INTRODUCTION!...............................................................................................................................................!73! METHODS!............................................................................................................................................................!79!
Recommended publications
  • 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
  • Coleoptera: Carabidae) Diversity

    Coleoptera: Carabidae) Diversity

    VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES AS INDICATORS OF GROUND BEETLE (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE) DIVERSITY BY ALAN D. YANAHAN THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Entomology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2013 Urbana, Illinois Master’s Committee: Dr. Steven J. Taylor, Chair, Director of Research Adjunct Assistant Professor Sam W. Heads Associate Professor Andrew V. Suarez ABSTRACT Formally assessing biodiversity can be a daunting if not impossible task. Subsequently, specific taxa are often chosen as indicators of patterns of diversity as a whole. Mapping the locations of indicator taxa can inform conservation planning by identifying land units for management strategies. For this approach to be successful, though, land units must be effective spatial representations of the species assemblages present on the landscape. In this study, I determined whether land units classified by vegetative communities predicted the community structure of a diverse group of invertebrates—the ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Specifically, that (1) land units of the same classification contained similar carabid species assemblages and that (2) differences in species structure were correlated with variation in land unit characteristics, including canopy and ground cover, vegetation structure, tree density, leaf litter depth, and soil moisture. The study site, the Braidwood Dunes and Savanna Nature Preserve in Will County, Illinois is a mosaic of differing land units. Beetles were sampled continuously via pitfall trapping across an entire active season from 2011–2012. Land unit characteristics were measured in July 2012. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordinated the land units by their carabid assemblages into five ecologically meaningful clusters: disturbed, marsh, prairie, restoration, and savanna.
  • Carabidae (Coleoptera) and Other Arthropods Collected in Pitfall Traps in Iowa Cornfields, Fencerows and Prairies Kenneth Lloyd Esau Iowa State University

    Carabidae (Coleoptera) and Other Arthropods Collected in Pitfall Traps in Iowa Cornfields, Fencerows and Prairies Kenneth Lloyd Esau Iowa State University

    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1968 Carabidae (Coleoptera) and other arthropods collected in pitfall traps in Iowa cornfields, fencerows and prairies Kenneth Lloyd Esau Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Esau, Kenneth Lloyd, "Carabidae (Coleoptera) and other arthropods collected in pitfall traps in Iowa cornfields, fencerows and prairies " (1968). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 3734. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/3734 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 69-4232 ESAU, Kenneth Lloyd, 1934- CARABIDAE (COLEOPTERA) AND OTHER ARTHROPODS COLLECTED IN PITFALL TRAPS IN IOWA CORNFIELDS, FENCEROWS, AND PRAIRIES. Iowa State University, Ph.D., 1968 Entomology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan CARABIDAE (COLEOPTERA) AND OTHER ARTHROPODS COLLECTED IN PITFALL TRAPS IN IOWA CORNFIELDS, PENCEROWS, AND PRAIRIES by Kenneth Lloyd Esau A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Pkrtial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
  • 1 the RESTRUCTURING of ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS in RESPONSE to PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell a Dissertation Submitt

    1 the RESTRUCTURING of ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS in RESPONSE to PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell a Dissertation Submitt

    THE RESTRUCTURING OF ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS IN RESPONSE TO PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell 1 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology and Wildlife Ecology Winter 2019 © Adam B. Mitchell All Rights Reserved THE RESTRUCTURING OF ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS IN RESPONSE TO PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell Approved: ______________________________________________________ Jacob L. Bowman, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology Approved: ______________________________________________________ Mark W. Rieger, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Approved: ______________________________________________________ Douglas J. Doren, Ph.D. Interim Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Douglas W. Tallamy, Ph.D. Professor in charge of dissertation I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Charles R. Bartlett, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Jeffery J. Buler, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
  • Invertebrate SGCN Conservation Reports Vermont’S Wildlife Action Plan 2015

    Invertebrate SGCN Conservation Reports Vermont’S Wildlife Action Plan 2015

    Appendix A4 Invertebrate SGCN Conservation Reports Vermont’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Species ............................................................ page Ant Group ................................................................ 2 Bumble Bee Group ................................................... 6 Beetles-Carabid Group ............................................ 11 Beetles-Tiger Beetle Group ..................................... 23 Butterflies-Grassland Group .................................... 28 Butterflies-Hardwood Forest Group .......................... 32 Butterflies-Wetland Group ....................................... 36 Moths Group .......................................................... 40 Mayflies/Stoneflies/Caddisflies Group ....................... 47 Odonates-Bog/Fen/Swamp/Marshy Pond Group ....... 50 Odonates-Lakes/Ponds Group ................................. 56 Odonates-River/Stream Group ................................ 61 Crustaceans Group ................................................. 66 Freshwater Mussels Group ...................................... 70 Freshwater Snails Group ......................................... 82 Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Action Plan - Revision 2015 Species Conservation Report Common Name: Ant Group Scientific Name: Ant Group Species Group: Invert Conservation Assessment Final Assessment: High Priority Global Rank: Global Trend: State Rank: State Trend: Unknown Extirpated in VT? No Regional SGCN? Assessment Narrative: This group consists of the following
  • Barcoding Generalist Predators by Polymerase Chain Reaction

    Barcoding Generalist Predators by Polymerase Chain Reaction

    Molecular Ecology (2005) 14, 3247–3266 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02628.x BarcodingBlackwell Publishing, Ltd. generalist predators by polymerase chain reaction: carabids and spiders M. H. GREENSTONE,* D. L. ROWLEY,* U. HEIMBACH,† J. G. LUNDGREN,‡§ R. S. PFANNENSTIEL¶ and S. A. REHNER* *USDA-ARS, Insect Biocontrol Laboratory, BARC-West, Beltsville, Maryland 20705, USA, †BBA, Institute for Plant Protection of Field Crops and Grassland, Braunschweig, Germany, ‡Center for Ecological Entomology, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA, ¶USDA-ARS, Beneficial Insects Research Unit, Weslaco, Texas 78596, USA Abstract Identification of arthropod predators is challenging when closely related species are found at a given locality. Identification of the immature stages is especially problematic, because dis- tinguishing morphological features are difficult to use or have not been described. We used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to distinguish closely related carabids and spiders, and to match eggs and larvae (or nymphs) with identified adult parents. Within the Carabidae, we amplified species-specific mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI) fragments for three species each in the genera Poecilus and Harpalus, and two each in Chlaenius and Bembidion. Within the Araneae, we amplified species-specific COI fragments for two Hibana species (Anyphaenidae), Pardosa milvina and Rabidosa rabida (Lycosidae), Frontinella communis and Grammonota texana (Linyphiidae), and Cheiracanthium inclusum (Miturgidae). We are able to correctly identify all immature stages tested — eggs, larvae (or nymphs) and pupae — by comparison of the amplified fragments with those of the adults. Using COI markers as species identifiers is a tenet of the Barcode of Life initiative, an international consortium to provide a molecular identifier for every animal species.
  • Use of the Prey Detectability Halflife to Rank Key Predators of Co

    Use of the Prey Detectability Halflife to Rank Key Predators of Co

    DOI: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2010.01006.x Choosing natural enemies for conservation biological control: use of the prey detectability half-life to rank key predators of Colorado potato beetle Matthew H. Greenstone1*, Zsofia Szendrei1§, Mark E. Payton2, Daniel L. Rowley1, Thomas C. Coudron3 & Donald C. Weber1 1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Insect Biocontrol and Behavior Laboratory, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA, 2Department of Statistics, 301 MSCS Building, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA, and 3U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Biological Control of Insects Research Laboratory, 1503 S. Providence, Research Park, Columbia, MO 65203, USA Accepted: 20 April 2010 Key words: Carabidae, Coccinellidae, DNA half-life, molecular gut-content analysis, PCR, Pentatomidae, predation, trophic links, Leptinotarsa decemlineata, Chrysomelidae, Coleoptera Abstract Determining relative strengths of trophic links is critical for ranking predators for conservation bio- logical control. Molecular gut-content analysis enables ranking by incidence of prey remains in the gut, but differential digestive rates bias such rankings toward predators with slower rates. This bias can be reduced by indexing each predator’s half-life to that of the middle-most half-life in a predator complex. We demonstrate this with data from key species in the predator complex of Colorado potato beetle (CPB), Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), comprising adults and immatures of four taxonomically diverse species. These animals display order-of-magni- tude variation in detectability half-life for the cytochrome oxidase I DNA sequence of a single CPB egg: from 7.0 h in larval Coleomegilla maculata (DeGeer) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to 84.4 h in nymphal Perillus bioculatus (Fabricius) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae).
  • Invertebrates

    Invertebrates

    Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Invertebrates Version 1.1 Prepared by John E. Rawlins Carnegie Museum of Natural History Section of Invertebrate Zoology January 12, 2007 Cover photographs (top to bottom): Speyeria cybele, great spangled fritillary (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) (Rank: S5G5) Alaus oculatus., eyed elater (Coleoptera: Elateridae)(Rank: S5G5) Calosoma scrutator, fiery caterpillar hunter (Coleoptera: Carabidae) (Rank: S5G5) Brachionycha borealis, boreal sprawler moth (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), last instar larva (Rank: SHG4) Metarranthis sp. near duaria, early metarranthis moth (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) (Rank: S3G4) Psaphida thaxteriana (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Rank: S4G4) Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Invertebrates Version 1.1 Prepared by John E. Rawlins Carnegie Museum of Natural History Section of Invertebrate Zoology January 12, 2007 This report was filed with the Pennsylvania Game Commission on October 31, 2006 as a product of a State Wildlife Grant (SWG) entitled: Rawlins, J.E. 2004-2006. Pennsylvania Invertebrates of Special Concern: Viability, Status, and Recommendations for a Statewide Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan in Pennsylvania. In collaboration with the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (C.W. Bier) and The Nature Conservancy (A. Davis). A Proposal to the State Wildlife Grants Program, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Text portions of this report are an adaptation of an appendix to a statewide conservation strategy prepared as part of federal requirements for the Pennsylvania State Wildlife Grants Program, specifically: Rawlins, J.E. 2005. Pennsylvania Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)-Priority Invertebrates. Appendix 5 (iii + 227 pp) in Williams, L., et al. (eds.). Pennsylvania Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Version 1.0 (October 1, 2005).
  • 1 Ecological Structure and Function of Bioretention Cells Dissertation

    1 Ecological Structure and Function of Bioretention Cells Dissertation

    Ecological Structure and Function of Bioretention Cells Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By David M. Wituszynski Graduate Program in Food, Agricultural & Biological Engineering The Ohio State University 2020 Dissertation Committee Dr. Jay Martin, Advisor Dr. Mary Gardiner Dr. Stephen Matthews Dr. Ryan Winston 1 Copyrighted by David M. Wituszynski 2020 2 Abstract There is an urgent need to increase the habitat value of cities, both for human health and for conservation. Constructed Green Infrastructure (GI), which uses vegetated areas to solve engineering problems such as stormwater mitigation, is an attractive option for habitat creation, and ecological engineers, with their stated goal to design for both human and natural benefit, should be key players in its design and implementation. However, ecological engineers are hampered by the lack of a suitable reference by which to evaluate the ecological goals of the GI which they design. They are further hampered by the lack of information about the ecology of many common GI practices. Bioretention cells (BRCs) are the most common form of green infrastructure used for stormwater management. Much work has been done to evaluate the hydrological and pollutant-removal capabilities of BRCs, but there has been comparatively little investigation of the ecological properties of these systems. This is a critical gap in knowledge, as ecological design of BRCs could not only increase their functioning as stormwater infrastructure but could also contribute ecological value to urban areas. Investigation of the habitat value of BRCs could lead to design techniques that subsidize and/or prioritize habitat creation in tandem with stormwater management, allowing ecological engineers to capitalize on the current popularity of this practice to improve urban habitat for both humans and non-humans.
  • Forest Insect & Disease Laboratory, Maine Dept. Of

    Forest Insect & Disease Laboratory, Maine Dept. Of

    The Coleopterists Bulletin, 68(3): 441–599. 2014. THE GROUND BEETLE (COLEOPTERA:CARABIDAE)FAUNA OF MAINE, USA RICHARD G. DEARBORN Forest Insect & Disease Laboratory, Maine Dept. of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry 168 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0168, U.S.A. ROBERT E. NELSON Department of Geology, Colby College 5804 Mayflower Hill, Waterville, ME 04901-8858, U.S.A. [email protected] CHARLENE DONAHUE Forest Insect & Disease Laboratory, Maine Dept. of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry 168 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0168, U.S.A. ROSS T. BELL Department of Biology, Marsh Life Science Building, University of Vermont Burlington, VT 05405-0086, U.S.A. AND REGINALD P. W EBSTER 24 Mill Stream Drive, Charters Settlement, NB E3C 1X1, CANADA ABSTRACT A survey of the modern carabid fauna of Maine has shown that the fauna consists of 425 documented species, 14 more than previously documented for the Maine fauna in the latest catalog for the family in North America or in the most recent checklist on the state beetle fauna. New state records are Agonum cupreum Dejean, Amara anthobia Villa and Villa, Anisodactylus laetus Dejean, Bembidion intermedium Kirby, Bembidion sejunctum sejunctum Casey, Brachinus vulcanoides Erwin, Diplocheila impressicollis Dejean, Elaphropus dolosus LeConte, Lebia grandis Hentz, Myas coracinus Say, Olisthopus micans LeConte, Panagaeus fasciatus Say, Pentagonica picticornis Bates, and Tachyta parvicornis Notman. The record for B. sejunctum sejunctum is the first for the species in the eastern United States. A recent record for Omophron labiatum (F.) in the state could not be substantiated by any specimen. Notes on biology are presented for species for which that knowledge exists.
  • Book of Abstracts

    Book of Abstracts

    Book of Abstracts 11th International Conference on Biological Invasions: The Human Role in Biological Invasions - a case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? NEOBIOTA2020 15 - 18 September 2020 Vodice, Croatia Croatian Ecological Society 2020 BOOK OF ABSTRACTS with Programme 11th International Conference on Biological Invasions The Human Role in Biological Invasions - a case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? Vodice, 15 – 18 September, 2020 Editor Sven D. Jelaska Technical Editor in Chief Sven D. Jelaska Publisher Hrvatsko ekološko društvo / Croatian Ecological Society Rooseveltov trg 6, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia, URL: http://www.ekolosko-drustvo.hr/ Zagreb, 2020. Print ITG d.o.o., Zagreb, Croatia ISBN 978-953-6202-15-7 i Organisers of the Conference Croatian Ecological Society and University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Department of Biology, Rooseveltov trg 6, HR- 10000, Zagreb, Croatia Local Organising Committee (in alphabetical order): Sanja Gottstein, University of Zagreb Sandra Hudina, University of Zagreb Nenad Jasprica, University of Dubrovnik Sven Jelaska, University of Zagreb - Chair Ivana Maguire, University of Zagreb Dinka Matošević, Croatian Forest Research Institute, Jastrebarsko Marina Piria, University of Zagreb Lucija Šerić Jelaska, University of Zagreb Ante Žuljević, Institute of Oceanography, Split Scientific Committee (in alphabetical order): Sven Bacher, University of Fribourg (CH) Giuseppe Brundu, University of Sassari (IT) Martina Carrete, University Pablo de Olavide (ES) Franz Essl, University of Vienna (AT) Belinda Gallardo Armas,
  • Rare and Uncommon Animals of Vermont Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department 22 March 2017

    Rare and Uncommon Animals of Vermont Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department 22 March 2017

    Rare and Uncommon Animals of Vermont Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department 22 March 2017 This list of Vermont's rare and uncommon animals is produced by the Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory, a unit of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. The Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory is the state’s official repository for records of rare, threatened, and endangered species. Information in the Vermont Natural Heritage database is the result of work of zoologists, natural resource professionals and interested amateurs. This list is intended to inform naturalists, biologists, planners, developers and the general public about our rare native fauna. These species may be rare because they have very particular habitat requirements, are at the edge of their range, are vulnerable to disturbance or collection, or have difficulty reproducing. The listing of uncommon species may be incomplete. Species with a state status of Threatened or Endangered (T or E) are protected by Vermont’s Endangered Species Law (10 V.S.A. Chap. 123). Those with a federal status of Threatened or Endangered (LT or LE) are protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205). The state and global ranks are informational categories regarding the rarity and extirpation/extinction risk of the species. A brief explanation of legal status and informational ranks is attached to the end of this list. Members of the Scientific Advisory Groups (to the Vermont Endangered Species Committee) for Birds, Mammals, Fishes, Reptiles and Amphibians, and Invertebrates review the state ranks periodically for changes. Global ranks are developed and reviewed by NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/) and its international network of natural heritage data centers.