DOCSLIB.ORG

The Role of Habitat and Dispersal in Shaping the Biodiversity of Riverine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Role of Habitat and Dispersal in Shaping the Biodiversity of Riverine THE ROLE OF HABITAT AND DISPERSAL IN SHAPING THE BIODIVERSITY OF RIVERINE INSECT ASSEMBLAGES by Colin Curry B.Sc., University of Calgacy, 2002 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirei:rents for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Academic Unit of Biology Supervisor: Donald J. Baird, Ph.D., Environi:rent Canada, Biology R Allen Curry, Ph.D., Canadian Rivers Institute, Biology Examining Board: Serban Danielescu, Ph.D., Civil Engineering Richard Cuajak, Ph.D., Canadian Rivers Institute, Biology Steven Heard, Ph.D., Biology External Examiner: Sandra Walde, Ph.D., Biology, Dafuousie University This dissertation is accepted by the Dean of Graduate Studies THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK November, 2013 © Colin Curry, 2014 ABSTRACT Given limited resources, biomonitoring progrrum are touted as a source of biodiversity information for conservation p1anning in riverine ecosyste~. However, the degree to which patterns revealed by biomonitoring are reflected in llllSampled mesohabitats and undersampled taxonomic groups has not been fully addressed. Differences in dispersal capacity among taxonomic groups, in particu1ar, may result in divergent patterns of biodiversity at landscape and regional scales. I sought to address the suitability of biological monitoring data in freshwater biodiversity assessment, and to test the prediction that the degree of spatial structuring in aquatic insect assemb1ages is inversely re1ated to their dispersal capacity. My thesis comprises four articles. 1be first addresses whether macroinvertebrate biodiversity patterns in riffles, the target mesohabitat of Canada's national aquatic biomonitoring program, are reflective of those in riverine wetlands. The second addresses whether biodiversity in a group of insects that is abundant in biomonitoring samples (Trichoptera) reflects that of an tlllderrepresented group (Odonata). The third tests the above prediction by comparing the degree of spatial structuring in the weakJy dispersing Trichoptera and the stronger dispersing Odonata. The final article investigates regional and national aquatic insect biodiversity patterns utilizing the national biomonitoring dataset, and seeks to evaluate the influence of scale on the observation of spatial structuring aquatic insect assemb1ages. Several key findings emerged from this work: 1) Patterns of invertebrate taxon richness and beta diversity in riftles poorly reflect those in riverine wetlands. 2) Odonata and Trichoptera biodiversity were not always congruent, however, differences in abundance among groups may account for weak corre1ations. 3) Both Odonata and Trichoptera assemb1ages ll demonstrate relatively weak spatial structuring at a Jandscape (ie. 5th order catclnrent) scale. The weak exp1amtory ability of spatial variables was also apparent at a regional scale, as just one of the Water Survey of Canada sub drainages within the Pacific drainage demonstrated a significant spatial component in aquatic insect assemblage variation These findings suggest caution in the application ofbiomonitoring data to conservation pJamring. Although landscape and regional scale structuring of aquatic insect communities may be weak, it does not preclude the existence of smaller scale spatial structuring driven by local dispersal processes. m DEDICATION For my colleague and wife Wendy, who always believed in me when the going got tough. IV Table of Contents ABS TRA.C T ......................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... iv Table ofContents ................................................................................................................. v List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 'Viii List ofFigures ...................................................................................................................... x 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 14 Refure11Ces ......................................................................................................................... 17 2. The contnbution of riffles and riverine wet1ands to benthic macroinvertebrate diversity ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 23 Materials and Metoods .................................................................................................. 29 Study Area and Sites ................................................................................................. 29 Macroinvertebrate Sampling ..................................................................................... 30 Habitat Assesslllent ................................................................................................... 32 Geospatial Data ......................................................................................................... 32 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 33 Results ........................................................................................................................... 36 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 39 Acknowledgelllents ....................................................................................................... 45 Refure11Ces ......................................................................................................................... 47 3. Congruence of biodiversity llleasures among larval dragonflies and caddisflies from three Camdian rivers ........................................................................................................ 62 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 63 Metoods ......................................................................................................................... 68 Study Orga.nisms ....................................................................................................... 68 Study Areas ............................................................................................................... 70 Larval Salll_l)ling ........................................................................................................ 71 Ad ult Sampling ......................................................................................................... 73 Data amlysis ............................................................................................................. 74 Results ........................................................................................................................... 76 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 79 V Acknowledgelllents ....................................................................................................... 85 Refere11Ces ......................................................................................................................... 87 4. Limited evide11Ce for dispersal-driven differences in the composition of caddisfly and dragonfly assemblages in At1antic Canadian streams ....................................................... 97 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 99 Methods ....................................................................................................................... 103 Study Orga.nisms ..................................................................................................... 103 Envirolllllental varia.bles ......................................................................................... 105 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 108 Results ......................................................................................................................... 110 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 111 Acknowledgelllents ..................................................................................................... 117 Refere11Ces ....................................................................................................................... 119 5. Scale-re1ated patterns of biodiversity in riverine insect assemb1ages: observations from the Canadian national biomonitoringprogram ............................................................... 131 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 133 Methods ......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No
    SERA TR 02-43-13-03b Triclopyr - Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Final Report Prepared for: USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0082F USDA Forest Service BPA: WO-01-3187-0150 USDA Purchase Order No.: 43-1387-2-0245 Task No. 13 Submitted to: Dave Thomas, COTR Forest Health Protection Staff USDA Forest Service Rosslyn Plaza Building C, Room 7129C 1601 North Kent Street Arlington, VA 22209 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Telephone: (315) 637-9560 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com March 15, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................... iv LIST OF WORKSHEETS ...................................................... v LIST OF ATTACHMENTS .................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... viii ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS .............................. ix COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................... xi CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION .................................... xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... xiii 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1-1 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................ 2-1 2.1. OVERVIEW
    [Show full text]
  • Pisciforma, Setisura, and Furcatergalia (Order: Ephemeroptera) Are Not Monophyletic Based on 18S Rdna Sequences: a Reply to Sun Et Al
    Utah Valley University From the SelectedWorks of T. Heath Ogden 2008 Pisciforma, Setisura, and Furcatergalia (Order: Ephemeroptera) are not monophyletic based on 18S rDNA sequences: A Reply to Sun et al. (2006) T. Heath Ogden, Utah Valley University Available at: https://works.bepress.com/heath_ogden/9/ LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Pisciforma, Setisura, and Furcatergalia (Order: Ephemeroptera) Are Not Monophyletic Based on 18S rDNA Sequences: A Response to Sun et al. (2006) 1 2 3 T. HEATH OGDEN, MICHEL SARTORI, AND MICHAEL F. WHITING Sun et al. (2006) recently published an analysis of able on GenBank October 2003. However, they chose phylogenetic relationships of the major lineages of not to include 34 other mayßy 18S rDNA sequences mayßies (Ephemeroptera). Their study used partial that were available 18 mo before submission of their 18S rDNA sequences (Ϸ583 nucleotides), which were manuscript (sequences available October 2003; their analyzed via parsimony to obtain a molecular phylo- manuscript was submitted 1 March 2005). If the au- genetic hypothesis. Their study included 23 mayßy thors had included these additional taxa, they would species, representing 20 families. They aligned the have increased their generic and familial level sam- DNA sequences via default settings in Clustal and pling to include lineages such as Leptohyphidae, Pota- reconstructed a tree by using parsimony in PAUP*. manthidae, Behningiidae, Neoephemeridae, Epheme- However, this tree was not presented in the article, rellidae, and Euthyplociidae. Additionally, there were nor have they made the topology or alignment avail- 194 sequences available (as of 1 March 2005) for other able despite multiple requests. This molecular tree molecular markers, aside from 18S, that could have was compared with previous hypotheses based on been used to investigate higher level relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • Arctic Biodiversity of Stream Macroinvertebrates Declines in Response to Latitudinal Change in the Abiotic Template
    Arctic biodiversity of stream macroinvertebrates declines in response to latitudinal change in the abiotic template Joseph M. Culp1,2,5, Jennifer Lento2,6, R. Allen Curry2,7, Eric Luiker3,8, and Daryl Halliwell4,9 1Environment and Climate Change Canada and Wilfrid Laurier University, Department Biology and Department Geography and Environmental Studies, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L3C5 Canada 2Canadian Rivers Institute, Department Biology, University of New Brunswick, 10 Bailey Drive, PO Box 4400, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 6E1 Canada 3Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 6E1 Canada 4National Hydrology Research Centre, Environment and Climate Change Canada, 11 Innovation Boulevard, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 3H5 Canada Abstract: We aimed to determine which processes drive patterns of a and b diversity in Arctic river benthic macrofauna across a broad latitudinal gradient spanning the low to high Arctic of eastern Canada (58 to 81oN). Further, we examined whether latitudinal differences in taxonomic composition resulted from species replacement with organisms better adapted to northerly conditions or from the loss of taxa unable to tolerate the harsh envi- ronments of higher latitudes. We used the bioclimatic envelope concept to provide a first approximation forecast of how climate warming may modify a and b diversity of Arctic rivers and to identify potential changes in envi- ronmental variables that will drive future assemblage structure. Benthic macroinvertebrates, environmental sup- porting variables, and geospatial catchment data were collected to assess drivers of ecological pattern. We compared a diversity (i.e., taxonomic richness) across latitudes and partitioned b diversity into components of nestedness and species turnover to assess their relative contributions to compositional differences.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Dossier: Hagenella Clathrata
    Species dossier: Hagenella clathrata Window winged sedge July 2011 Mating adult pair Hagenella clathata Contact details Ian Wallace, Curator of Conchology & Aquatic Biology World Museum William Brown Street, Liverpool, L3 8EN Tel: 0151 478 4385 Email: [email protected] Species dossier: Hagenella clathrata Contents Introduction ................................................................................... 3 Summary....................................................................................... 3 Ecology ......................................................................................... 3 History in Britain ............................................................................ 6 European distribution .................................................................... 9 Recent Survey Work ..................................................................... 9 Survey methods ............................................................................ 9 Identification.................................................................................. 9 Threats........................................................................................ 10 Action plan for the Window Winged Sedge ( Hagenella clathrata ) 11 List of references......................................................................... 12 Appendix 2 Records of ( Hagenella clathrata ) from the UK ......... 15 Cover image © Matthew Wallace (2009) Hagenella clathrata (Kolenati, 1848) Window winged sedge (Trichoptera: Phryganeidae) Genus
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • CT DEEP Family-Level Identification Guide for Riffle-Dwelling Macroinvertebrates of Connecticut
    CT DEEP Family-Level Identification Guide for Riffle-Dwelling Macroinvertebrates of Connecticut Seventh Edition Spring 2013 Authors and Acknowledgements Michael Beauchene produced the First Edition and revised the Second and Third Editions. Christopher Sullivan revised the Fourth and Fifth Editions. Erin McCollum developed the Sixth Edition with editorial assistance from Michael Beauchene. The First through Sixth Editions were developed and revised for use with Project SEARCH, a program formerly coordinated by CTDEEP but presently inactive. This Seventh Edition has been slightly modified for use by Connecticut high school students participating in the Connecticut Envirothon Aquatic Ecology workshop. Original drawings provided by Michael Beauchene and by the Volunteer Stream Monitoring Partnership at the University of Minnesota’s Water Resources Center. This page intentionally left blank. About the Key Scope of the Key This key is intended to assist Connecticut Envirothon students in the identification of aquatic benthic macroinvertebrates. As such, it is targeted toward organisms that are most commonly found in the riffle microhabitats of Connecticut streams. When conducting an actual field study of riffle dwelling macroinvertebrates, there may be an organism collected at a site in Connecticut that will not be found in this key. In this case, you should utilize another reference guide to identify the organism. Several useful guides are listed below. AQUATIC ENTOMOLOGY by Patrick McCafferty A GUIDE TO COMMON FRESHWATER INVERTEBRATES OF NORTH AMERICA by J. Reese Voshell, Jr. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE AQUATIC INSECTS OF NORTH AMERICA by R.W. Merritt and K.W. Cummins Most organisms will be keyed to the family level, however several will not be identified beyond the Kingdom Animalia phylum, class, or order.
    [Show full text]
  • Lazare Botosaneanu ‘Naturalist’ 61 Doi: 10.3897/Subtbiol.10.4760
    Subterranean Biology 10: 61-73, 2012 (2013) Lazare Botosaneanu ‘Naturalist’ 61 doi: 10.3897/subtbiol.10.4760 Lazare Botosaneanu ‘Naturalist’ 1927 – 2012 demic training shortly after the Second World War at the Faculty of Biology of the University of Bucharest, the same city where he was born and raised. At a young age he had already showed interest in Zoology. He wrote his first publication –about a new caddisfly species– at the age of 20. As Botosaneanu himself wanted to remark, the prominent Romanian zoologist and man of culture Constantin Motaş had great influence on him. A small portrait of Motaş was one of the few objects adorning his ascetic office in the Amsterdam Museum. Later on, the geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky and the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr greatly influenced his thinking. In 1956, he was appoint- ed as a senior researcher at the Institute of Speleology belonging to the Rumanian Academy of Sciences. Lazare Botosaneanu began his career as an entomologist, and in particular he studied Trichoptera. Until the end of his life he would remain studying this group of insects and most of his publications are dedicated to the Trichoptera and their environment. His colleague and friend Prof. Mar- cos Gonzalez, of University of Santiago de Compostella (Spain) recently described his contribution to Entomolo- gy in an obituary published in the Trichoptera newsletter2 Lazare Botosaneanu’s first contribution to the study of Subterranean Biology took place in 1954, when he co-authored with the Romanian carcinologist Adriana Damian-Georgescu a paper on animals discovered in the drinking water conduits of the city of Bucharest.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Article
    Ecologica Montenegrina 44: 69-95 (2021) This journal is available online at: www.biotaxa.org/em http://dx.doi.org/10.37828/em.2021.44.10 Biodiversity, DNA barcoding data and ecological traits of caddisflies (Insecta, Trichoptera) in the catchment area of the Mediterranean karst River Cetina (Croatia) IVAN VUČKOVIĆ1*, MLADEN KUČINIĆ2**, ANĐELA ĆUKUŠIĆ3, MARIJANA VUKOVIĆ4, RENATA ĆUK5, SVJETLANA STANIĆ-KOŠTROMAN6, DARKO CERJANEC7 & MLADEN PLANTAK1 1Elektroprojekt d.d., Civil and Architectural Engineering Department, Section of Ecology, Alexandera von Humboldta 4, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia. E-mails:[email protected]; [email protected] 2Department of Biology (Laboratory for Entomology), Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia. E-mail: [email protected] 3Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development, Radnička cesta 80/7, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. E-mail: [email protected] 4Croatian Natural History Museum, Demetrova 1, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia. E-mail: [email protected] 5Hrvatske vode, Central Water Management Laboratory, Ulica grada Vukovara 220, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia. E-mail:[email protected] 6Faculty of Science and Education, University of Mostar, Matice hrvatske bb, 88000 Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina. E-mail: [email protected] 7Primary School Barilović, Barilović 96, 47252 Barilović and Primary School Netretić, Netretić 1, 47271 E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author: [email protected] **Equally contributing author Received 2 June 2021 │ Accepted by V. Pešić: 19 July 2021 │ Published online 2 August 2021. Abstract The environmental and faunistic research conducted included defining the composition and distribution of caddisflies collected using ultraviolet (UV) light trap at 11 stations along the Cetina River, from the spring to the mouth, and also along its tributaries the Ruda River and the Grab River with two sampling stations each, and the Rumin River with one station.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 1 Table 1. Current Taxonomic Keys and the Level of Taxonomy Routinely U
    Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Table 1. Current taxonomic keys and the level of taxonomy routinely used by the Ohio EPA in streams and rivers for various macroinvertebrate taxonomic classifications. Genera that are reasonably considered to be monotypic in Ohio are also listed. Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Species Pennak 1989, Thorp & Rogers 2016 Porifera If no gemmules are present identify to family (Spongillidae). Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Cnidaria monotypic genera: Cordylophora caspia and Craspedacusta sowerbii Platyhelminthes Class (Turbellaria) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nemertea Phylum (Nemertea) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Phylum (Nematomorpha) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nematomorpha Paragordius varius monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Ectoprocta monotypic genera: Cristatella mucedo, Hyalinella punctata, Lophopodella carteri, Paludicella articulata, Pectinatella magnifica, Pottsiella erecta Entoprocta Urnatella gracilis monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Polychaeta Class (Polychaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Annelida Oligochaeta Subclass (Oligochaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Hirudinida Species Klemm 1982, Klemm et al. 2015 Anostraca Species Thorp & Rogers 2016 Species (Lynceus Laevicaudata Thorp & Rogers 2016 brachyurus) Spinicaudata Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Williams 1972, Thorp & Rogers Isopoda Genus 2016 Holsinger 1972, Thorp & Rogers Amphipoda Genus 2016 Gammaridae: Gammarus Species Holsinger 1972 Crustacea monotypic genera: Apocorophium lacustre, Echinogammarus ischnus, Synurella dentata Species (Taphromysis Mysida Thorp & Rogers 2016 louisianae) Crocker & Barr 1968; Jezerinac 1993, 1995; Jezerinac & Thoma 1984; Taylor 2000; Thoma et al. Cambaridae Species 2005; Thoma & Stocker 2009; Crandall & De Grave 2017; Glon et al. 2018 Species (Palaemon Pennak 1989, Palaemonidae kadiakensis) Thorp & Rogers 2016 1 Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Informal grouping of the Arachnida Hydrachnidia Smith 2001 water mites Genus Morse et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report on Field Surveys
    Ecological Surveys and Assessments to Facilitate Restoration Activities at the Salt River Marsh: Final Report on Field Surveys Prepared by: Peter J. Badra, Tyler J. Bassett, and Yu Man Lee Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901 For: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, Water Resources Division February 4, 2020 Report Number 2020-05 Suggested Citation: Badra, P.J., T.J. Basset, Y.M. Lee. 2020. Ecological Surveys and Assessments to Facilitate Restoration Activities at the Salt River Marsh: Final Report on Field Surveys. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report Number 2020-05, Lansing, MI. 97pp. Cover Photos: Background - Looking northwest at Stand 4, from edge of Stand 5, at cattails and common reed in the Salt River Marsh State Wildlife Area. Photo by Tyler J. Basset; Inset, left - Painted turtle hatchling. Photo by Yu Man Lee; Inset, right - American bluet damselfly larvae. Photo by Peter J. Badra. MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, religion, age, height, weight, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, family status or veteran status. Copyright 2020 MSU Board of Trustees Acknowledgments Financial support for this project was provided by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative via the Water Resources Division of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. Daria Hyde and Ashley Cole-Wick provided essential assistance with the field component of this project. Thank you to the landowners who kindly allowed us to access the Salt River and marsh through their properties, especially during difficult times with high water.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Characters
    40 Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation: Final Report Leon C. Hinz Jr. and James N. Zahniser Illinois Natural History Survey Prairie Research Institute University of Illinois 30 April 2015 INHS Technical Report 2015 (31) Prepared for: Illinois Department of Natural Resources State Wildlife Grant Program (Project Number T-88-R-001) Unrestricted: for immediate online release. Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Brian D. Anderson, Interim Executive Director Illinois Natural History Survey Geoffrey A. Levin, Acting Director 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 217-333-6830 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation. Project Number: T-88-R-001 Contractor information: University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability Illinois Natural History Survey 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Project Period: 1 October 2013—31 September 2014 Principle Investigator: Leon C. Hinz Jr., Ph.D. Stream Ecologist Illinois Natural History Survey One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL 62702-1271 217-785-8297 [email protected] Prepared by: Leon C. Hinz Jr. & James N. Zahniser Goals/ Objectives: (1) Review all SGNC listing criteria for currently listed non-mollusk invertebrate species using criteria in Illinois Wildlife Action Plan, (2) Assess current status of species populations, (3) Review criteria for additional species for potential listing as SGNC, (4) Assess stressors to species previously reviewed, (5) Complete draft updates and revisions of IWAP Appendix I and Appendix II for non-mollusk invertebrates. T-88 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Ecosystem Services of Trichoptera
    Review Diversity and Ecosystem Services of Trichoptera John C. Morse 1,*, Paul B. Frandsen 2,3, Wolfram Graf 4 and Jessica A. Thomas 5 1 Department of Plant & Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, E-143 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634-0310, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Plant & Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 701 E University Parkway Drive, Provo, UT 84602, USA; [email protected] 3 Data Science Lab, Smithsonian Institution, 600 Maryland Ave SW, Washington, D.C. 20024, USA 4 BOKU, Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecology Management, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendelstr. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] 5 Department of Biology, University of York, Wentworth Way, York Y010 5DD, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-864-656-5049 Received: 2 February 2019; Accepted: 12 April 2019; Published: 1 May 2019 Abstract: The holometabolous insect order Trichoptera (caddisflies) includes more known species than all of the other primarily aquatic orders of insects combined. They are distributed unevenly; with the greatest number and density occurring in the Oriental Biogeographic Region and the smallest in the East Palearctic. Ecosystem services provided by Trichoptera are also very diverse and include their essential roles in food webs, in biological monitoring of water quality, as food for fish and other predators (many of which are of human concern), and as engineers that stabilize gravel bed sediment. They are especially important in capturing and using a wide variety of nutrients in many forms, transforming them for use by other organisms in freshwaters and surrounding riparian areas.
    [Show full text]