DOCSLIB.ORG

THE DRAGONFLIES and DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) of HALTON REGION, ONTARIO an Annotated Checklist 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE DRAGONFLIES and DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) of HALTON REGION, ONTARIO an Annotated Checklist 2017 THE DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) OF HALTON REGION, ONTARIO An annotated checklist 2017 First prepared by Carl J. Rothfels for the Halton Natural Areas Inventory 2006 Updated by Brenda Van Ryswyk 2017 INTRODUCTION Jones & Holder 2000); A Preliminary Annotated List of the Odonata of Northern Bruce County The Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) of including Bruce Peninsula National Park (Catling Halton Region have been historically under- et al. 2000b); the surveys of Sandbanks Provincial surveyed, especially when compared with both Park (Catling et al. 2000a; Bree 2001); the surveys odonate work in nearby areas (in 2000 Peel Region of Bon Echo Provincial Park (Bree 2000); and the had 71 documented species, Metropolitan Toronto surveys of Petroglyphs Provincial Park (Bree 2002; had 81, while Halton had only 49 [Catling & Bree 2004b). Brownell 2000]), and with work within Halton on other groups (e.g. birds). Fortunately, Halton was None of these regional and sub-regional works is well positioned to take advantage of the recent within or adjacent to Halton Region, concentrating renaissance in Ontario odonate study, particularly instead on the southern Carolinian Zone and the since 2000. This surge in interest culminated in the southern edge of the Canadian Shield. Since the inclusion of Odonata as one of the fauna groups distribution of odonates can vary significantly surveyed for during the Halton Natural Areas between regions, it is particularly important to fill Inventory (HNAI) in 2003 and 2004. this hole in our current understanding of Ontario odonate distributions. The first version of this checklist was the result of the HNAI field surveys and has since been updated It is hoped that this document will aid in the and expanded. The original checklist was the first understanding of an important component of our annotated work for an Ontario municipality to local biodiversity, promote further study and provide status and occurrence lists for its complete interest in these organisms, and provide a known odonate fauna, with a goal of informing foundation for conservation and planning planning and conservation decisions. As such it decisions. As such, it is strongly modelled upon builds on the tradition of the Dragonflies and The Butterflies of Hamilton, Ontario , by damselflies (Odonata) of Peterborough County Wormington and Lamond (2003). (Jones 1999; Jones et al. 2001), the Odonata of Essex County, Ontario (Pratt 2002a), An Annotated Local knowledge of Odonata is particularly Checklist of the Odonata of Renfrew County, important since this is a relatively unknown group Ontario (Jones et al. 2000) and A Preliminary of organisms with a high proportion of provincially Annotated List of the Odonata of Lanark County, rare species (Oldham et al. 2000). Odonates, being Ontario (Catling et al. 2001). The Essex checklist confined to aquatic habitats for their larval life assigns odonate species a county status of stages, can be particularly sensitive to water common, uncommon, or rare, but is not annotated quality, and thus can be used as indicators of and does not supply occurrence data. The Renfrew aquatic ecosystem health (e.g. Catling 2003). Some and Lanark checklists are well annotated, but do groups in particular require specific conditions, and not present a systematic treatment of regional are very sensitive to habitat alteration (Catling abundance data for non-odonatists. 2000; 2001). It is important to consider these sensitivities in conservation and planning Other important inventories include Pratt’s decisions. Regional Lists of Ontario Odonata (2002b), which contains present/absence lists for the southern Included in this document are the regional, Ontario counties of Essex, Kent, Lambton, Elgin, provincial, and global status for each species, a list Middlesex, Huron, Grey, and Bruce; the of occurrences for locally rare and uncommon Dragonflies and Damselflies of Algonquin Park species, information on flight times, and additional and its subsequent amendments (Holder 1996; annotations. Despite the extensive recent surveys, our knowledge of the dragonflies and damselflies The summer of 2002 marks the beginning of Royal of Halton is may still be incomplete. Additional Botanical Gardens’ (RBG) odonate program. Carl records are always appreciated, and can be sent for Rothfels concentrated on documenting the odonate inclusion in the Ontario Odonata Database via the fauna of RBG properties, with occasionally forays Natural Heritage Information Centre elsewhere in Halton, joined by G. Barrett, K. (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.cfm ): Barrett, A. Kloc, G. Lewer, P.G. O’Hara, S.R. 300 Water Street, 2nd Floor, North Tower Spisani, J.L. Sylvester, I. Vaithilingam, B. Van P.O. Box 7000, Peterborough, ON, K9J 8M5 Ryswyk, and K. VanWyck. The RBG odonate Tel.: (705) 755-2159 Fax: (705) 755-2168 surveys became more systematic with the development of the first Odonate Count for the Significant provincial records and new regional region (Rothfels 2003). records should be documented with a specimen or photograph. For information on the ethical and Additional sources of data utilized in the 2017 effective collection of odonates, see Paulson update include the Ontario Odonata email list, the (2002). Hamilton Odo and leps email list as well as other websites like BugGuide and iNaturalist. Interesting or noteworthy records were gleaned from these INFORMATION SOURCES sources and added to the checklist. There may be, and likely is, additional data that the author is The data used in this checklist come from the unaware of and has not incorporated here. Those Ontario Odonate Database (OOD, 2005) stored at with additional data are encouraged to send records the Natural Heritage Information Centre, from (both noteworthy and common species) to the records generated during the HNAI, and from field Ontario Odonata Database (maintained by Colin surveys since the NAI. The OOD contains most of Jones at the NHIC) to help further our knowledge the HNAI data, except those from the 2004 field of the odonata in both our region and in Ontario. season. The vast majority of the records contained in the NOMENCLATURE HNAI database are the result of the field surveys in 2003 and 2004, conducted by Robert Curry and Nomenclature follows Paulson (2017). The Alan Wormington. These records are common names derive from a standardized list for complimented with select observations from the North American species formulated by the HNAI Ecological Land Classification crew: Dragonfly Society of the Americas (DSA) and K.Cain, L.Dick, A.Garofalo, B.Jamison, and B. published by Paulson (2017). This list is Van Ryswyk. Brenda Van Ryswyk, in particular, occasionally updated through additions to the fauna spent considerable energy photo-documenting of North America, or through decisions of the significant odonate records during the course of the DSA’s Common Names Committee (for example, HNAI. the decision to change Sympetrum vicinum from Yellow-legged Meadowhawk to Autumn The Ontario Odonata Database is more diverse; it Meadowhawk). is the result of an ambitious effort to consolidate all provincial odonate records in a single location. Its Most odonate field workers are comfortable with first Halton records are from specimens collected both the common and scientific names. While by the legendary E.M. Walker (first in 1935), and knowledge of the common names is sufficient for by the likes of P.G. Mason and R.W. Cameron, and communication of records (and odonate common stored in the insect collections of the Royal Ontario names are often very evocative), learning the Museum and the University of Guelph. Bill and scientific names is a worthwhile exercise, for their Irene McIlveen, two of our most significant beauty, clarity, and because they contain contemporary local enthusiasts, start contributing information about species’ relationships often lost records in the early 1990s; their records are soon in the common names. For those reasons, both joined by those of visiting odonatists, including common and scientific names are included in this D.A. Sutherland, N.W. Godfrey, A. Godfrey, M. checklist. King, D.D. Beadle, J.B. Falls, C.D. Jones, M. Oldham, R. Oldham, K. Brodribb and J. Nancekivell. SPECIES ACCOUNTS FORMAT Species are included under the main species accounts if they have been documented in the Each species listed is placed in one or more of the region either with a specimen or a photograph. following residency classes: Species that are reported with only sight records are listed after the main accounts in the “Excluded Permanent Resident Species” section. These species may well occur in These are species with long-term populations in the region, and a special effort should be made to Halton, and which over-winter, locally, as document them. Exceptions to this criterion are larvae. They are thus dependent, year-round, on noted under specific species. local aquatic habitats, although the adults may disperse widely. Additional unreported species, which may occur in the region (due to their documented presence in Breeding Immigrants adjacent municipalities), are listed in the “Potential Species” section. Nonetheless fieldworkers should These are the “lay-and-fly” species – those that always be prepared for surprises! Species not listed breed in Halton, but complete their larval on the Potential Species list may well occur. lifestage in a single summer and do not overwinter as larvae. The adults do not Limiting the main species accounts to well- overwinter
Load more

Recommended publications
  • STARR-DISSERTATION-2018.Pdf (6.554Mb)
    The Effects of Land Use and Climate Change on Playa Wetlands and Their Invertebrate Communities. by Scott McKinley Starr, B.S., M.S. Dissertation In Biology Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved Dr. Nancy E. McIntyre Chair of Committee Dr. Llewellyn D. Densmore Dr. Kerry L. Griffis-Kyle Dr. Stephanie A. Lockwood Dr. Kevin R. Mulligan Dr. Mark A. Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School August, 2018 Copyright 2018, Scott Starr Texas Tech University, Scott Starr, August 2018 Acknowledgments The process of completing this dissertation has been a long road and many people and groups have helped me along the way. I first want to thank my dissertation advisor, Dr. Nancy McIntyre, for all her support and assistance through this degree. Without her guidance this process would have been unachievable. I also want to thank Dr. McIntyre for inviting me into her lab and for allowing me to be part of so many lab research projects that have helped to build my toolbox as a scientist. Second, I would like to thank my committee members Drs. Kerry Griffis-Kyle, Kevin Mulligan, Stephanie Lockwood, Lou Densmore, Richard Strauss, and Ximena Bernal for their guidance and suggestions that have helped to improve the research presented here. Third, I would like to thank my lab mates and undergraduate assistants: Steve Collins, Lucas Heintzman, Joe Drake, Ezra Auerbach, Devin Kilborn, Benjamin Breedlove, Shane Glidewell, Kimbree Knight, and Jennifer Long for their help in the field, lab, and for their support.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices
    Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices A: Initial List of Important Sites..................................................................................................... 2 B: An Annotated List of the Mammals of Albemarle County........................................................ 5 C: Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 18 An Annotated List of the Birds of Albemarle County.............................................................. 18 Bird Species Status Tables and Charts...................................................................................... 28 Species of Concern in Albemarle County............................................................................ 28 Trends in Observations of Species of Concern..................................................................... 30 D. Fish of Albemarle County........................................................................................................ 37 E. An Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians of Albemarle County.......................................... 41 F. An Annotated Checklist of the Reptiles of Albemarle County, Virginia................................. 45 G. Invertebrate Lists...................................................................................................................... 51 H. Flora of Albemarle County ...................................................................................................... 69 I. Rare
    [Show full text]
  • Dragonflies (Odonata) of the Northwest Territories Status Ranking And
    DRAGONFLIES (ODONATA) OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES STATUS RANKING AND PRELIMINARY ATLAS PAUL M. CATLING University of Ottawa 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ....................................................................3 Acknowledgements ...........................................................3 Methods ....................................................................3 The database .................................................................4 History .....................................................................5 Rejected taxa ................................................................5 Possible additions ............................................................5 Additional field inventory ......................................................7 Collection an Inventory of dragonflies .............................................8 Literature Cited .............................................................10 Appendix Table 1 - checklist ...................................................13 Appendix Table 2 - Atlas and ranking notes .......................................15 2 ABSTRACT: occurrences was provided by Dr. Rex Thirty-five species of Odonata are given Kenner, Dr. Donna Giberson, Dr. Nick status ranks in the Northwest Territories Donnelly and Dr. Robert Cannings (some based on number of occurrences and details provided below). General distributional area within the territory. Nine information on contacts and locations of species are ranked as S2, may be at risk, collections provided by Dr. Cannings
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Odonata of the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area
    2012. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 121(1):54–61 A SURVEY OF ODONATA OF THE PATOKA RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND MANAGEMENT AREA Donald L. Batema* and Amanda Bellian: Department of Chemistry, Environmental Studies Program, University of Evansville, 1800 Lincoln Avenue, Evansville, IN 47722 USA Lindsey Landowski: Mingo National Wildlife Refuge, Puxico, MO. 63960 USA ABSTRACT. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area (hereafter Patoka River Refuge or the Refuge) represents one of the largest intact bottomland hardwood forests in southern Indiana, with meandering oxbows, marshes, ponds, managed moist-soil units, and constructed wetlands that provide diverse and suitable habitat for wildlife. Refuge personnel strive to protect, restore, and manage this bottomland hardwood ecosystem and associated habitats for a variety of wildlife. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) lists many species of management priority (McCoy 2008), but Odonata are not included, even though they are known to occur on the Refuge. The absence of Odonata from the CCP is the result of lack of information about this ecologically important group of organisms. Therefore, we conducted a survey, from May to October 2009, to document their presence, with special attention being paid to rare, threatened, and endangered species. A total of 43 dragonfly and damselfly species were collected and identified. No threatened or endangered species were found on the Refuge, but three species were found that are considered imperiled in Indiana based on Nature Serve Ranks (Stein 2002). Additionally, 19 new odonate records were documented for Pike County, Indiana. The results of this survey will be used by Refuge personnel to assist in management decisions and to help establish priorities for the Patoka River Refuge activities and land acquisition goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R
    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R. and Zeuss, D. 2016. Colour lightness of dragonfly assemblages across North America and Europe. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.02578 Supplementary material Appendix 1 Figures A1–A12, Table A1 and A2 1 Figure A1. Scatterplots between female and male colour lightness of 44 North American (Needham et al. 2000) and 19 European (Askew 1988) dragonfly species. Note that colour lightness of females and males is highly correlated. 2 Figure A2. Correlation of the average colour lightness of European dragonfly species illustrated in both Askew (1988) and Dijkstra and Lewington (2006). Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Note that the extracted colour values of dorsal dragonfly drawings from both sources are highly correlated. 3 Figure A3. Frequency distribution of the average colour lightness of 152 North American and 74 European dragonfly species. Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Rugs at the abscissa indicate the value of each species. Note that colour values are from different sources (North America: Needham et al. 2000, Europe: Askew 1988), and hence absolute values are not directly comparable. 4 Figure A4. Scatterplots of single ordinary least-squares regressions between average colour lightness of 8,127 North American dragonfly assemblages and mean temperature of the warmest quarter. Red dots represent assemblages that were excluded from the analysis because they contained less than five species. Note that those assemblages that were excluded scatter more than those with more than five species (c.f. the coefficients of determination) due to the inherent effect of very low sampling sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Urban Ponds for Odonata and Plant Biodiversity
    The Value of Urban Ponds for Odonata and Plant Biodiversity Mary Ann Perron Thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research University of Ottawa In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in the Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5 Thèse soumise à l’École des Études Supérieures et de la Recherche Université d’Ottawa En vue de l’obtention du diplôme de doctorat (Ph.D.) au Département de Biologie, Université d’Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5 Mary Ann Perron, Ottawa, Canada, 2020 I dedicate this thesis to my father, Jules Perron, who is my biggest inspiration. I love you dad. ii Abstract Urbanization involves the conversion of natural areas to impervious surfaces, which can lead to an increase in the frequency and severity of flood events in cities. To mitigate flood risk, stormwater ponds are constructed to manage urban runoff. Stormwater ponds can also be colonized by wildlife, but their suitability as habitat is disputed due to potential toxicological risks. This study assessed the suitability of stormwater ponds as habitat for the bioindicators Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) and determined environmental factors that impact their community structure. Odonata (adults, nymphs and exuviae) were sampled at 41 stormwater ponds and 10 natural reference ponds across the National Capital Region of Canada, with a subset of ponds sampled over four years (2015-2018). Plant communities, water quality and surrounding land cover were analyzed at each pond to determine their impacts on Odonata community structure. Overall, stormwater ponds had lower Odonata abundance and a greater variation in species richness and community structure compared to natural ponds but had comparable dragonfly reproduction rates.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of North American Odonata
    A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) Dennis R. Paulson1 and Sidney W. Dunkle2 Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009. Copyright © 2009 Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 edition published by Jim Johnson Cover photo: Tramea carolina (Carolina Saddlebags), Cabin Lake, Aiken Co., South Carolina, 13 May 2008, Dennis Paulson. 1 1724 NE 98 Street, Seattle, WA 98115 2 8030 Lakeside Parkway, Apt. 8208, Tucson, AZ 85730 ABSTRACT The checklist includes all 457 species of North American Odonata considered valid at this time. For each species the original citation, English name, type locality, etymology of both scientific and English names, and approxi- mate distribution are given. Literature citations for original descriptions of all species are given in the appended list of references. INTRODUCTION Before the first edition of this checklist there was no re- Table 1. The families of North American Odonata, cent checklist of North American Odonata. Muttkows- with number of species. ki (1910) and Needham and Heywood (1929) are long out of date. The Zygoptera and Anisoptera were cov- Family Genera Species ered by Westfall and May (2006) and Needham, West- fall, and May (2000), respectively, but some changes Calopterygidae 2 8 in nomenclature have been made subsequently. Davies Lestidae 2 19 and Tobin (1984, 1985) listed the world odonate fauna Coenagrionidae 15 103 but did not include type localities or details of distri- Platystictidae 1 1 bution.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Animal Species of Concern
    MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Animal Species of Concern Species List Last Updated 08/05/2010 219 Species of Concern 86 Potential Species of Concern All Records (no filtering) A program of the University of Montana and Natural Resource Information Systems, Montana State Library Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for animals, plants, and plant communities with a focus on species and communities that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining trends and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report on Montana Animal Species of Concern is produced jointly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Also included in this report are Potential Animal Species of Concern -- animals for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability or for which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. Over the last 200 years, 5 species with historic breeding ranges in Montana have been extirpated from the state; Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), Pilose Crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii), and Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). Designation as a Montana Animal Species of Concern or Potential Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to avoid additional extirpations.
    [Show full text]
  • THE DRAGONFLIES and DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) of HALTON REGION, ONTARIO an Annotated Checklist 2017
    THE DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) OF HALTON REGION, ONTARIO An annotated checklist 2017 First prepared by Carl J. Rothfels for the Halton NAI 2006 Updated by Brenda Van Ryswyk 2017 INTRODUCTION Jones & Holder 2000); A Preliminary Annotated List of the Odonata of Northern Bruce County The Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) of including Bruce Peninsula National Park (Catling Halton Region have been historically under- et al. 2000b); the surveys of Sandbanks Provincial surveyed, especially when compared with both Park (Catling et al. 2000a; Bree 2001); the surveys odonate work in nearby areas (in 2000 Peel Region of Bon Echo Provincial Park (Bree 2000); and the had 71 documented species, Metropolitan Toronto surveys of Petroglyphs Provincial Park (Bree 2002; had 81, while Halton had only 49 [Catling & Bree 2004b). Brownell 2000]), and with work within Halton on other groups (e.g. birds). Fortunately, Halton was None of these regional and sub-regional works is well positioned to take advantage of the recent within or adjacent to Halton Region, concentrating renaissance in Ontario odonate study, particularly instead on the southern Carolinian Zone and the since 2000. This surge in interest culminated in the southern edge of the Canadian Shield. Since the inclusion of Odonata as one of the fauna groups distribution of odonates can vary significantly surveyed for during the Halton Natural Areas between regions, it is particularly important to fill Inventory (HNAI) in 2003 and 2004. this hole in our current understanding of Ontario odonate distributions. This checklist was first the result of the HNAI field surveys and has since been updated and expanded.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Landmarks in Territory
    Eastern Illinois University The Keep Masters Theses Student Theses & Publications 2014 The Role of Landmarks in Territory Maintenance by the Black Saddlebags Dragonfly, Tramea lacerata Jeffrey Lojewski Eastern Illinois University This research is a product of the graduate program in Biological Sciences at Eastern Illinois University. Find out more about the program. Recommended Citation Lojewski, Jeffrey, "The Role of Landmarks in Territory Maintenance by the Black Saddlebags Dragonfly, Tramea lacerata" (2014). Masters Theses. 1305. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/1305 This is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses & Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thesis Reproduction Certificate Page 1of1 THESIS MAINTENANCE AND REPRODUCTION CERTIFICATE TO: Graduate Degree Candidates (who have written formal theses) SUBJECT: Permission to Reproduce Theses An important part of Booth Library at Eastern Illinois University's ongoing mission is to preserve and provide access to works of scholarship. In order to further this goal, Booth Library makes all theses produced at Eastern Illinois University available for personal study, research, and other not-for-profit educational purposes. Under 17 U.S.C. § 108, the library may reproduce and distribute a copy without infringing on copyright; however, professional courtesy dictates that permission be requested from the author before doing so. By signing this form: • You confirm your authorship of the thesis. • You retain the copyright and intellectual property rights associated with the original research, creative activity, and intellectual or artistic content of the thesis .
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Statewide Seasonal Pool Ecosystem Classification
    Pennsylvania Statewide Seasonal Pool Ecosystem Classification Description, mapping, and classification of seasonal pools, their associated plant and animal communities, and the surrounding landscape April 2009 Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program i Cover photo by: Betsy Leppo, Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program ii Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program is a partnership of: Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and Pennsylvania Game Commission. The project was funded by: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Wild Resource Conservation Program Grant no. WRCP-06187 U.S. EPA State Wetland Protection Development Grant no. CD-973493-01 Suggested report citation: Leppo, B., Zimmerman, E., Ray, S., Podniesinski, G., and Furedi, M. 2009. Pennsylvania Statewide Seasonal Pool Ecosystem Classification: Description, mapping, and classification of seasonal pools, their associated plant and animal communities, and the surrounding landscape. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Pittsburgh, PA. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the following organizations, agencies, and people for their time and support of this project: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Wild Resource Conservation Program (WRCP), who funded this study as part of their effort to encourage protection of wetland resources. Our appreciation to Greg Czarnecki (DCNR-WRCP) and Greg Podniesinski (DCNR-Office of Conservation Science (OCS)), who administered the EPA and WRCP funds for this work. We greatly appreciate the long hours in the field and lab logged by Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC) staff including Kathy Derge Gipe, Ryan Miller, and Amy Myers. To Tim Maret, and Larry Klotz of Shippensburg University, Aura Stauffer of the PA Bureau of Forestry, and Eric Lindquist of Messiah College, we appreciate the advice you provided as we developed this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Section a Aquatic Macroinvertebrates (Exclusive of Mosquitoes)
    I LLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. \oc iatural History Survey. Library iiAOs (ClSCi;; ILLINOIS - NATURAL HISTORY Ai . .ý . - I-w. Iv mk U16 OL SURVEY CHAPTER 9 AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES SECTION A AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES (EXCLUSIVE OF MOSQUITOES) Final Report October, 1985 Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification Technical Report by Allison R. Brigham, Lawrence M. Page, John D. Unzicker Mark J. Wetzel, Warren U. Brigham, Donald W. Webb, and Liane Suloway Prepared for Wetlands Research, Inc. 53 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 Arjpp, Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification Technical Report 1985 (6) 6'Wa- CHAPTER 9 AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES SECTION A AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES (EXCLUSIVE OF MOSQUITOES) Allison R. Brigham, Lawrence M. Page, John D. Unzicker Mark J. Wetzel, Warren U. Brigham, Donald W. Webb, and Liane Suloway INTRODUCTION Aquatic macroinvertebrates are primary and secondary level consumers that play an important role in transferring energy through the different trophic levels of the food chains of aquatic ecosystems. These animals feed upon submerged and emergent macrophytes, plankton, and organic material suspended in the water column. Burrowing and feeding activities aid in the decomposition of plant and animal matter and the eventual recycling of nutrients. In addition, these organisms prey upon each other and serve as food for fishes, certain birds, and other animals. In general, aquatic macroinvertebrates have not been systematically surveyed in Illinois, and rarely have individual species been studied ecologically. This is due, in part, to the inconspicuous nature of most freshwater inverte- brates and the many taxonomic problems which preclude distributional, ecologi- cal, and other studies.
    [Show full text]