DOCSLIB.ORG

Programmatic BO on Final 4(D) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Programmatic BO on Final 4(D) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat And Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iii BIOLOGICAL OPINION ............................................................................................................... 1 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................... 2 1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 2 1.2 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ACTION ...................................................... 2 1.3 OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS .................................................................. 4 1.4 ACTION AREA ........................................................................................................... 7 1.5 ACTIVITIES NOT EVALUATED IN THIS BIOLOGICAL OPINION .................... 8 1.6 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION ......................... 9 2 STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT ....................................................... 10 2.1 SPECIES BACKGROUND & HABITAT ................................................................. 10 2.2 DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE ................................................................................ 13 2.3 STATUS AND THREATS ........................................................................................ 14 2.4 POPULATION DYNAMICS ..................................................................................... 17 2.5 ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED .......................................................................................................................... 22 2.6 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR STATUS OF THE SPECIES ................................. 24 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE..................................................................................... 31 4 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ............................................................................................ 31 4.1 EFFECTS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 32 4.2 REMOVAL FROM HUMAN STRUCTURES ......................................................... 33 4.3 TIMBER HARVEST .................................................................................................. 35 4.4 PRESCRIBED FIRE .................................................................................................. 43 4.5 FOREST CONVERSION........................................................................................... 48 4.6 WIND TURBINE OPERATION ............................................................................... 51 4.7 OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT MAY AFFECT THE NLEB ...................................... 57 4.8 CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE 4(D) RULE ............................................. 64 4.9 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF INDIVIDUALS ...................................................... 65 4.10 IMPACTS TO POPULATIONS............................................................................. 66 4.11 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS .................................. 68 4.12 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ............................. 69 5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................... 90 6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 90 7 REINITIATION NOTICE ................................................................................................. 92 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 93 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Endangered Species Act (Act) Biological Opinion (BO) addresses the effects to the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) resulting from the Service’s finalization of a special rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act. It also evaluates activities that the Service proposes to prohibit and except from take prohibitions under the final 4(d) rule. In the request for intra- Service consultation, the Service proposes a framework for streamlined section 7 consultation for other federal actions that may affect the NLEB and are consistent with the provisions of the 4(d) rule. This is a programmatic intra-Service consultation, because it addresses multiple actions on a program basis conducted under the umbrella of the final 4(d) rule. The Service has not designated or proposed critical habitat for the NLEB; therefore, this BO does not address effects to critical habitat. Because we anticipate continued NLEB declines as white-nose syndrome (WNS) spreads, this BO will cover the next 7 years that the disease is minimally expected to spread and impact the NLEB throughout its entire range. The Service will reinitiate consultation by the end of 2022 or earlier if the standard reinitiation criteria are triggered. The final rule addresses both purposeful take and incidental taking of the NLEB, with certain differences distinguished based on the occurrence of WNS as follows: • The final 4(d) rule prohibits purposeful take of NLEBs throughout the species’ range, except when (1) necessary to protect human health; (2) in instances of removal of NLEBs from human structures; or (3) the authorized capture and handling of NLEBs by individuals permitted to conduct these same activities for other bat species until May 3, 2016. • The final 4(d) rule does not prohibit incidental take resulting from otherwise lawful activities in areas not yet affected by WNS (i.e., areas outside of the WNS zone). • Within the WNS zone, the final 4(d) rule prohibits incidental take of NLEBs in their hibernacula, which may be caused by activities that disturb or disrupt hibernating individuals when they are present as well as the physical or other alteration of the hibernaculum’s entrance or environment when bats are not present. • Incidental take of NLEBs outside of hibernacula resulting from activities other than tree removal is not prohibited provided they do not result in the incidental take of NLEBs inside hibernacula. • Incidental take resulting from tree removal is prohibited if it: (1) occurs within 0.25 miles (0.4 km) of known NLEB hibernacula; or (2) cuts or destroys known, occupied maternity roost trees or any other trees within a 150-foot (45-meter) radius around the known, occupied maternity tree during the pup season (June 1 to July 31). • Removal of hazardous trees for the protection of human life and property is not prohibited. iii Federal agencies can rely upon the finding of this BO to fulfill their project-specific section 7(a)(2) responsibilities if they utilize the optional framework as described. The framework requires prior notification of activities that may affect the NLEB, along with a determination that the action would not cause prohibited incidental take. Service concurrence with the action agency determination is not required, but the Service may advise the action agency whether additional information indicates project-level consultation for the NLEB is required. If the Service does not respond within 30 days, the action agency may consider its project responsibilities under section 7(a)(2) with respect to the NLEB fulfilled through this programmatic BO. Action agencies must also report if actions deviate from the determination, along with the surveys of any surveys. The Action Area addressed in this BO includes the entire range of the NLEB within the United States, which includes all or portions of 37 States and the District of Columbia from Maine west to Montana, south to eastern Kansas, eastern Oklahoma, Arkansas, and east to South Carolina. Within the Action Area, the WNS zone currently includes all or most of the states within the species’ range except North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Status of the NLEB The disease WNS is the primary factor affecting the status of the NLEB, which has caused dramatic and rapid declines in abundance. Data support substantial declines in the Eastern range and portions of the Midwest range. We expect further declines as the disease continues to spread across the species’ range. NLEBs continue to be distributed across much of the historical range, but there are many gaps where bats are no longer detected or captured, and in other areas, their occurrence is sparse given local declines and extirpations. Although significant NLEB population declines have only been documented due to the spread of WNS, other sources of mortality could further diminish the species’ ability to persist as it experiences ongoing dramatic declines. We estimate that the range-wide population of NLEBs is comprised of about 6.5 million adults. This population estimate was calculated for the purposes of assessing the potential relative impact of activities contemplated in this BO, and it has limitations and a substantial amount of uncertainty. Effects of the Action The NLEB is likely to be affected by many activities which are not prohibited in the final 4(d) rule. We address the general effects of different activities, which we categorized into 7 general groups: (1) capture and handling of NLEBs by individuals with section 10(a)(1)(A) permits for other listed bats or State permits until May 3, 2016; (2) removal from human structures; (3) iv timber harvest; (4) prescribed fire; (5) forest conversion; (6) wind turbine operation; and (7) other activities that may affect the NLEB. The effects of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alabama Hunter Harvest Annual Report
    ALABAMA HUNTER HARVEST ANNUAL REPORT This study was conducted for the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources by Responsive Management 2019-2020 ALABAMA HUNTER HARVEST 2019-2020 2020 Responsive Management National Office Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director Martin Jones, Senior Research Associate Tom Beppler, Senior Research Associate Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research Associate Amanda Center, Research Associate Andrea Criscione, Senior Research Associate Patrick Doherty, Research Associate Gregory L. Hughes, P.E., Research Associate Caroline Gerken, Survey Center Manager Alison Lanier, Business Manager 130 Franklin Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801 540/432-1888 E-mail: [email protected] www.responsivemanagement.com Acknowledgments Responsive Management would like to thank Amy Silvano of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for her input, support, and guidance on this project. Alabama Hunter Harvest 2019-2020 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Responsive Management conducted this survey for the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as the Department) to determine hunters’ participation in hunting various species, their harvest, their use of game check methods, and other characteristics of their hunting in Alabama in 2019-2020. This follows similar surveys conducted by Responsive Management regarding the 2017-2018 hunting season and 2018-2019 hunting season. The study entailed a scientific, probability-based telephone survey of licensed Alabama hunters. Telephones were selected as the preferred sampling mode. The primary reason is that past experience on harvest surveys by Responsive Management has shown that license holders who do not actively participate in hunting or who do not successfully harvest an animal are more likely to respond to a telephone survey than to a mail or online survey, as there is more effort involved in responding via mail or online.
    [Show full text]
  • Do We Need to Use Bats As Bioindicators?
    biology Perspective Do We Need to Use Bats as Bioindicators? Danilo Russo * , Valeria B. Salinas-Ramos , Luca Cistrone, Sonia Smeraldo, Luciano Bosso * and Leonardo Ancillotto Wildlife Research Unit, Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università, 100, 80055 Portici, Italy; [email protected] (V.B.S.-R.); [email protected] (L.C.); [email protected] (S.S.); [email protected] (L.A.) * Correspondence: [email protected] (D.R.); [email protected] (L.B.) Simple Summary: Bioindicators are organisms that react to the quality or characteristics of the environment and their changes. They are vitally important to track environmental alterations and take action to mitigate them. As choosing the right bioindicators has important policy implications, it is crucial to select them to tackle clear goals rather than selling specific organisms as bioindicators for other reasons, such as for improving their public profile and encourage species conservation. Bats are a species-rich mammal group that provide key services such as pest suppression, pollination of plants of economic importance or seed dispersal. Bats show clear reactions to environmental alterations and as such have been proposed as potentially useful bioindicators. Based on the rel- atively limited number of studies available, bats are likely excellent indicators in habitats such as rivers, forests, and urban sites. However, more testing across broad geographic areas is needed, and establishing research networks is fundamental to reach this goal. Some limitations to using bats as bioindicators exist, such as difficulties in separating cryptic species and identifying bats in flight from their calls.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Distribution, Taxonomy and Karyology of the Genus Plecotus
    TurkJZool 27(2003)293-300 ©TÜB‹TAK OntheDistribution,TaxonomyandKaryologyoftheGenus Plecotus (Chiroptera:Vespertilionidae)inTurkey AhmetKARATAfi DepartmentofBiology,FacultyofScience-Art,Ni¤deUniversity,Ni¤de–TURKEY NuriY‹⁄‹T,ErcümentÇOLAK,TolgaKANKILIÇ DepartmentofBiology,FacultyofScience,AnkaraUniversity,Ankara-TURKEY Received:12.04.2002 Abstract: Plecotusauritus andPlecotusaustriacus wererecordedfrom8and3localitiesintheAsiaticpartofTurkey,respectively. Itwasdeterminedthatthelengthofthefirstpremolar,theshapeofthezygomaticarchesandbaculumdistinguishthesetaxaf rom eachother.Apartfromthesemorphologicalcharacteristics,thetibialengthof P.austriacus wasfoundtobesignificantlygreater thanthatof P.austriacus (P<0.05).Thediploidchromosomenumberswereidenticalinbothtaxa(2n=32).Thenumberof chromosomalarms(FN=54)andthenumberofautosomalchromosomalarms(FNa=50)werethesameasinpreviouslypublished papersonP.austriacus. KeyWords: Plecotusauritus,Plecotusaustriacus,Karyology,Turkey Türkiye’deYay›l›flGösterenPlecotus (Chiroptera:Vespertilionidae)CinsininYay›l›fl›, TaksonomisiveKaryolojisiÜzerineBirÇal›flma Özet: Plecotusauritus sekizvePlecotusaustriacus üçlokalitedenolmaküzereAnadolu’dankaydedildi.‹lkpremolarlar›nuzunlu¤u, zygomatikyay›nvebakulumunfleklininbutaksonlar›birbirindenay›rd›¤›saptand›.Bumorfolojikkarakterlerdenbaflka, P. autriacus’untibiauzunlu¤ununP.austriacus’tanistatistikiolarakdahabüyükoldu¤ubelirlendi(P<0.05).Diploidkromozomsay›s› herikitaksondabenzerbirflekilde2n=32dir. P.austriacus’unkromozomkolsay›lar›n›n(FN=54)veotosomalkromozomkol say›lar›n›n(FNa=50)literatüreuygunoldu¤ubulundu.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Crops Harvest Pilot Report Full-6
    Supporting small-scale farmers to prevent in-field food loss. Hannah M. Semler, Whole Crops, Founder >>>> Introduction Across Maine’s foodshed, an estimated 25 million pounds of edible produce is left unharvested in fields.1 With more than 8,000 farms in Maine, the volume per crop is not easily visible, its value is not quantifiable, and the food systems that could absorb it such as processing for institutional kitchens, and donations programs, are underdeveloped or underincentivized. For more fresh nutritious produce to make it out of the field, a harvest-to-order, glean-to-donate concurrent Whole Crops Harvest (WCH) model is suggested in this pilot project report as an on-farm food loss prevention program. To create a secure market system that will warrant the efforts described in this report, of in-field measurement systems, online platform marketing tools, processing infrastructure and coordinated distribution systems, a larger statewide and regional approach is needed. The WCH Pilot was designed to support the USDA Local Food Promotions Project Grant “Scaling for Growth in the Greater Portland Area” with an opportunity to work with existing surplus production left in fields to de-risk the food systems solutions that were being tested by project partners. In fact, what the pilot illustrated was the need for a student agricultural workforce development effort to emerge statewide, reintroducing farm skills as an essential component of higher education and generational food security as a whole. 2 In Maine 65% of farms earn less than $10,000 per year. Many of these farms are extremely efficient in ​ ​ utilizing almost everything in the field, while others are learning the systems as new and beginning farmers.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix G Final SCR Panther Grove 05152020
    LWEG Tiers 1 and 2 Site Characterization Report Panther Grove Wind Energy Project Woodford County, Illinois May 15, 2020 Prepared for: Panther Grove Wind, LLC 17300 N. Dallas Parkway, Ste. 2020 Dallas Texas 75248 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2300 Swan Lake Blvd., Suite 202 Independence, IA 50644 Phone: (319) 334-3755 Fax: (319) 334-3780 Project #193706902 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 1 1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 2 2.0 METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 PRELIMINARY SITE EVALUATION (TIER 1) ................................................................. 4 2.1.1 Land Cover and Use ...................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Wetlands and Waterways ............................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Migratory Birds ...............................................................................................4 2.1.4 Eagles and Other Raptors .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MAGAZINE ® ISSUE 6 Where Everyone Goes for Scripts and Writers™
    DECEMBER VOLUME 17 2017 MAGAZINE ® ISSUE 6 Where everyone goes for scripts and writers™ Inside the Mind of a Thriller Writer PAGE 8 Q&A with Producer Lauren de Normandie of Status Media & Entertainment PAGE 14 FIND YOUR NEXT SCRIPT HERE! CONTENTS Contest/Festival Winners 4 Feature Scripts – FIND YOUR Grouped by Genre SCRIPTS FAST 5 ON INKTIP! Inside the Mind of a Thriller Writer 8 INKTIP OFFERS: Q&A with Producer Lauren • Listings of Scripts and Writers Updated Daily de Normandie of Status Media • Mandates Catered to Your Needs & Entertainment • Newsletters of the Latest Scripts and Writers 14 • Personalized Customer Service • Comprehensive Film Commissions Directory Scripts Represented by Agents/Managers 40 Teleplays 43 You will find what you need on InkTip Sign up at InkTip.com! Or call 818-951-8811. Note: For your protection, writers are required to sign a comprehensive release form before they place their scripts on our site. 3 WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT INKTIP WRITERS “[InkTip] was the resource that connected “Without InkTip, I wouldn’t be a produced a director/producer with my screenplay screenwriter. I’d like to think I’d have – and quite quickly. I HAVE BEEN gotten there eventually, but INKTIP ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED CERTAINLY MADE IT HAPPEN WITH THE SUPPORT AND FASTER … InkTip puts screenwriters into OPPORTUNITIES I’ve gotten through contact with working producers.” being associated with InkTip.” – ANN KIMBROUGH, GOOD KID/BAD KID – DENNIS BUSH, LOVE OR WHATEVER “InkTip gave me the access that I needed “There is nobody out there doing more to directors that I BELIEVE ARE for writers than InkTip – nobody.
    [Show full text]
  • BAT FIELD TECH WORKSHOP.Pmd
    Gathering evidence of the utility of bats: Training in Field Techniques for Ecological Studies of Chiroptera C. Srinivasulu* and Sally Walker** The Chiroptera Conservation and Information Network of South Asia (CCINSA) and the IUCN SSC Chiroptera Threatened bats of India Specialist Group joined with the College of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur to conduct its second field Fruit bats (Megachiroptera) -- total 5 techniques training workshop, from 28 July – 1 August 2003 Latidens salimalii Thonglongya, 1972 -- EN sponsored by Chester Zoo and Marwell Zoo, U.K at Thrissur. Pteropus faunulus Miller, 1902 -- EN Pteropus hypomelanus Temminck, 1853 -- EN The first such workshop was conducted at Madurai Pteropus melanotus Blyth, 1863 -- VU Kamaraj University, School of Biological Sciences almost Pteropus vampyrus (Linnaeus, 1758) -- EN two years ago, ably led by Dr. Paul Bates from U.K. and author of the definitive book on bats of this region Bats of Insectivorous bats (Microchiroptera) -- total 24 the Indian Subcontinent, (1997). He was assisted by Dr. M. Hipposideros diadema (E. Geoffroy, 1813) -- VU S. Pradhan and Dr. Y. P. Sinha from the Zoological Survey of Hipposideros durgadasi Khajuria, 1970 -- EN India. This workshop focused on general field techniques Hipposideros hypophyllus Kock & Bhat, 1994 -- EN and taxonomy with a day spent on the IUCN Red List Ia io Thomas, 1902 -- EN Criteria and Categories and the C.A.M.P. Workshop Process Miniopterus pusillus Dobson, 1876 -- VU in order to prepare CCINSA members for the impending Murina grisea Peters, 1872 -- CR Chiroptera C.A.M.P. which was held last year in January. Myotis annectans (Dobson, 1871) -- VU Myotis blythii (Tomes, 1857) -- VU The South Asian Chiroptera C.A.M.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Structured Populations by Harvest
    ecological modelling 196 (2006) 462–470 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel Control of structured populations by harvest C.E. Hauser a,∗, E.G. Cooch b, J.-D. Lebreton c a Department of Mathematics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia b Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA c Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionelle et Evolutive, Centre National de la Rechere Scientifique, Montpellier cedex 5, France article info abstract Article history: It has long been recognized that demographic structure within a population can significantly Received 24 February 2005 affect the likely outcomes of harvest. Many studies have focussed on equilibrium dynamics Received in revised form 5 and maximization of the value of the harvest taken. However, in some cases the manage- December 2005 ment objective is to maintain the population at a abundance that is significantly below the Accepted 1 February 2006 carrying capacity. Achieving such an objective by harvest can be complicated by the pres- Published on line 24 March 2006 ence of significant structure (age or stage) in the target population. In such cases, optimal harvest strategies must account for differences among age- or stage-classes of individuals Keywords: in their relative contribution to the demography of the population. In addition, structured Age-structure populations are also characterized by transient non-linear dynamics following perturba- Harvest models tion, such that even under an equilibrium harvest, the population may exhibit significant Matrix models momentum, increasing or decreasing before cessation of growth. Using simple linear time- Population momentum invariant models, we show that if harvest levels are set dynamically (e.g., annually) then Reproductive value transient effects can be as or more important than equilibrium outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats
    Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats A agnella, Kerivoula 901 Anchieta’s Bat 814 aquilus, Glischropus 763 Aba Leaf-nosed Bat 247 aladdin, Pipistrellus pipistrellus 771 Anchieta’s Broad-faced Fruit Bat 94 aquilus, Platyrrhinus 567 Aba Roundleaf Bat 247 alascensis, Myotis lucifugus 927 Anchieta’s Pipistrelle 814 Arabian Barbastelle 861 abae, Hipposideros 247 alaschanicus, Hypsugo 810 anchietae, Plerotes 94 Arabian Horseshoe Bat 296 abae, Rhinolophus fumigatus 290 Alashanian Pipistrelle 810 ancricola, Myotis 957 Arabian Mouse-tailed Bat 164, 170, 176 abbotti, Myotis hasseltii 970 alba, Ectophylla 466, 480, 569 Andaman Horseshoe Bat 314 Arabian Pipistrelle 810 abditum, Megaderma spasma 191 albatus, Myopterus daubentonii 663 Andaman Intermediate Horseshoe Arabian Trident Bat 229 Abo Bat 725, 832 Alberico’s Broad-nosed Bat 565 Bat 321 Arabian Trident Leaf-nosed Bat 229 Abo Butterfly Bat 725, 832 albericoi, Platyrrhinus 565 andamanensis, Rhinolophus 321 arabica, Asellia 229 abramus, Pipistrellus 777 albescens, Myotis 940 Andean Fruit Bat 547 arabicus, Hypsugo 810 abrasus, Cynomops 604, 640 albicollis, Megaerops 64 Andersen’s Bare-backed Fruit Bat 109 arabicus, Rousettus aegyptiacus 87 Abruzzi’s Wrinkle-lipped Bat 645 albipinnis, Taphozous longimanus 353 Andersen’s Flying Fox 158 arabium, Rhinopoma cystops 176 Abyssinian Horseshoe Bat 290 albiventer, Nyctimene 36, 118 Andersen’s Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arafura Large-footed Bat 969 Acerodon albiventris, Noctilio 405, 411 Andersen’s Leaf-nosed Bat 254 Arata Yellow-shouldered Bat 543 Sulawesi 134 albofuscus, Scotoecus 762 Andersen’s Little Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arata-Thomas Yellow-shouldered Talaud 134 alboguttata, Glauconycteris 833 Andersen’s Naked-backed Fruit Bat 109 Bat 543 Acerodon 134 albus, Diclidurus 339, 367 Andersen’s Roundleaf Bat 254 aratathomasi, Sturnira 543 Acerodon mackloti (see A.
    [Show full text]
  • Listeria Monocytogenes Infection of Bat Pipistrellus Nathusii Epithelial Cells Depends on the Invasion Factors Inla and Inlb
    pathogens Article Listeria monocytogenes Infection of Bat Pipistrellus nathusii Epithelial Cells Depends on the Invasion Factors InlA and InlB Olga Povolyaeva 1, Yaroslava Chalenko 2,3,* , Egor Kalinin 3, Olga Kolbasova 1, Elena Pivova 1, Denis Kolbasov 1 , Sergey Yurkov 1 and Svetlana Ermolaeva 2,3 1 Federal Research Center for Virology and Microbiology (FRCVM), 601125 Volginsky, Russia; [email protected] (O.P.); [email protected] (O.K.); [email protected] (E.P.); [email protected] (D.K.); [email protected] (S.Y.) 2 Federal Research Center for Virology and Microbiology (FRCVM), Nizhny Novgorod Research Veterinary Institute Branch, Laboratory of Molecular Microbiology, 603022 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia; [email protected] 3 Gamaleya Research Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology, Laboratory of Ecology of Pathogenic Bacteria, 123098 Moscow, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +7-92-5936-7317 Received: 13 September 2020; Accepted: 21 October 2020; Published: 22 October 2020 Abstract: L. monocytogenes is a widespread facultative intracellular pathogen. The range of natural hosts that supporting L. monocytogenes persistence in the environment has not been fully established yet. In this study, we were interested in the potential of L. monocytogenes to infect cells of bats, which are being increasingly recognized as a reservoir for microorganisms that are pathogenic to humans and domestic animals. A stable epithelial cell line was developed from the kidneys of Pipistrellus nathusii, a small bat widely distributed across Europe. The wild-type L. monocytogenes strain EGDe infected this cell line with an invasion efficiency of 0.0078 0.0009%. Once it entered bat cells, L.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Pre and Post Harvest Losses of Important Crops in India
    Research Report: IX/ADRTC/153A ASSESSMENT OF PRE AND POST HARVEST LOSSES OF IMPORTANT CROPS IN INDIA ELUMALAI KANNAN Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation Centre Institute for Social and Economic Change Bangalore- 560 072 September 2014 CONTENTS List of Tables iv-viii Acknowledgements ix Chapter I Introduction 1-7 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Pre and Post Harvest Losses 2 1.3 Need for the Present Study 4 1.4 Objectives of the Study 5 1.5 Database and Methodology 5 1.6 Organisation of the Report 7 Chapter II Sample Households Characteristics and Cropping Pattern 8-55 2.1 Assam 8 2.2 Gujarat 12 2.3 Karnataka 16 2.4 Madhya Pradesh 22 2.5 Maharashtra 25 2.6 Punjab 30 2.7 Rajasthan 34 2.8 Tamil Nadu 39 2.9 Uttar Pradesh 43 2.10 West Bengal 48 Chapter III Assessment of Pre Harvest Losses 56-106 3.1 Paddy 56 3.2 Wheat 74 3.3 Tur 87 3.4 Soybean 96 Chapter IV Assessment of Post Harvest Losses 107-125 4.1 Paddy 107 4.2 Wheat 113 4.3 Tur 117 4.4 Soybean 120 4.5 Factors Influencing Post Harvest Loss and Control Measures 123 ii Chapter V Summary of Findings and Policy Suggestions 126-135 5.1 Background 126 5.2 Summary of Findings 129 5.3 Policy Suggestions 134 References 136-137 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Distribution of sample households 6 Table 2.1 Demographic profile of the selected farmers in Assam 9 Table 2.2 Size of operational holdings in Assam 9 Table 2.3 Source wise irrigation of net irrigated area in Assam 10 Table 2.4 Cropping pattern of selected farmers in Assam 10 Table 2.5 Percentage of area under HYV seeds in Assam 11 Table 2.6
    [Show full text]
  • Per-Species Spatial-Block Cross-Validation
    Ecography ECOG-03149 El-Gabbas, A. and Dormann, C. F. 2017. Improved species-occurrence predictions in data-poor regions: using large-scale data and bias correction with down- weighted Poisson regression and Maxent. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.03149 Supplementary material Appendix 1: Supplementary figures and tables Table A1: The estimated optimum combination of Maxent’s feature classes (FC) and Regularization Multiplier (RM) for each species and bias model type. Combinations with highest mean testing-AUC on 5-folds spatial-block cross-validation were selected. All the analyses were performed using modified code from the ENMeval package in R (Muscarella et al., 2014). See main text for more information. Environment-only Accessibility Effort Species FC a RM b FC RM FC RM 1 Asellia tridens LQ 0.5 LQ 3 LQHPT 3 2 Barbastella leucomelas LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 LQHPT 3.5 3 Eptesicus bottae LQ 0.5 LQHP 2 LQHP 4 4 Hypsugo ariel LQHPT 2 LQHP 2 L 1 5 Nycteris thebaica LQ 4 LQ 3.5 LQ 4 6 Nycticeinops schlieffeni LQ 1 LQ 0.5 LQ 1.5 7 Otonycteris hemprichii LQ 0.5 LQ 1 LQHPT 0.5 8 Pipistrellus deserti L 2.5 LQ 0.5 L 3 9 Pipistrellus kuhlii LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 10 Pipistrellus rueppellii LQ 4 LQ 0.5 LQ 4 11 Plecotus christii LQ 0.5 LQHPT 0.5 LQHPT 0.5 12 Rhinolophus clivosus LQHP 2.5 LQHPT 2 LQHPT 2.5 13 Rhinolophus hipposideros LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 14 Rhinolophus mehelyi LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 LQ 2.5 15 Rhinopoma cystops LQ 1 LQ 1.5 LQHPT 1 16 Rhinopoma microphyllum LQ 1.5 LQ 2 LQHPT 4 17 Rousettus aegyptiacus LQHPT 2.5 LQ 3 LQ 4 18 Tadarida aegyptiaca LQ 3 LQ 4 LQ 3 19 Tadarida teniotis LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 LQ 0.5 20 Taphozous nudiventris LQ 1 L 2 LQHPT 2.5 21 Taphozous perforatus LQ 1.5 LQ 1 LQ 1.5 a Feature classes (FC): L linear; Q quadratic; H hinge; P product; and T threshold.
    [Show full text]