DOCSLIB.ORG

Insular Ecosystems of the Southeastern United States: a Regional Synthesis to Support Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Insular Ecosystems of the Southeastern United States: a Regional Synthesis to Support Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Insular Ecosystems of the Southeastern United States: A Regional Synthesis to Support Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate Professional Paper 1828 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photographs, left column, top to bottom: Photographs are by Alan M. Cressler, U.S. Geological Survey, unless noted otherwise. Ambystoma maculatum (spotted salamander) in a Carolina bay on the eastern shore of Maryland. Photograph by Joel Snodgrass, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Geum radiatum, Roan Mountain, Pisgah National Forest, Mitchell County, North Carolina. Dalea gattingeri, Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Catoosa County, Georgia. Round Bald, Pisgah and Cherokee National Forests, Mitchell County, North Carolina, and Carter County, Tennessee. Cover photographs, right column, top to bottom: Habitat monitoring at Leatherwood Ford cobble bar, Big South Fork Cumberland River, Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Tennessee. Photograph by Nora Murdock, National Park Service. Soil island, Davidson-Arabia Mountain Nature Preserve, Dekalb County, Georgia. Photograph by Alan M. Cressler, U.S. Geological Survey. Antioch Bay, Hoke County, North Carolina. Photograph by Lisa Kelly, University of North Carolina at Pembroke. Insular Ecosystems of the Southeastern United States: A Regional Synthesis to Support Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate By Jennifer M. Cartwright and William J. Wolfe U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Professional Paper 1828 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Cartwright, J.M., and Wolfe, W.J., 2016, Insular ecosystems of the southeastern United States—A regional synthesis to support biodiversity conservation in a changing climate: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1828, 162 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1828. http://catalog.loc.gov/ ISSN 1044-9612 (print) ISSN 2330-7102 (online) ISBN 978-1-4113-4067-1 iii Contents Acknowledgments .....................................................................................................................................viii Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Chapter A. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................3 Background............................................................................................................................................4 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................4 Approach ................................................................................................................................................4 References .............................................................................................................................................6 Chapter B. Granite Outcrops of the Piedmont .........................................................................................9 Introduction............................................................................................................................................9 Geographic Range ................................................................................................................................9 Physical Geography............................................................................................................................11 Stress and Disturbance Regimes .....................................................................................................11 Community Types and Vegetation Dynamics .................................................................................12 Contributions to Regional Biodiversity ............................................................................................15 Conservation Considerations ............................................................................................................18 References ...........................................................................................................................................20 Chapter C. Limestone Cedar Glades ........................................................................................................23 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................23 Geographic Range ..............................................................................................................................24 Physical Geography............................................................................................................................25 Stress and Disturbance Regimes .....................................................................................................26 Community Types and Vegetation Dynamics .................................................................................27 Differentiation from Related Ecosystems .......................................................................................28 Contributions to Regional Biodiversity ............................................................................................29 Conservation Considerations ............................................................................................................32 References ...........................................................................................................................................35 Chapter D. Xeric Limestone Prairies .......................................................................................................39 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................39 Geographic Range and Differentiation from Related Ecosystems .............................................39 Physical Geography............................................................................................................................42 Stress and Disturbance Regimes .....................................................................................................42 Community Types and Vegetation Dynamics .................................................................................44 Contributions to Regional Biodiversity ............................................................................................46 Conservation Considerations ............................................................................................................47 References ...........................................................................................................................................50 Chapter E. Mid-Appalachian Shale Barrens ..........................................................................................55 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................55 Geographic Range ..............................................................................................................................55 Physical Geography............................................................................................................................57 Stress and Disturbance Regimes .....................................................................................................58 Community Types and Vegetation Dynamics .................................................................................59 Contributions to Regional Biodiversity ............................................................................................60 Conservation Considerations ............................................................................................................62 References ...........................................................................................................................................64 iv Chapter F. High-Elevation Outcrops and Balds of the Southern Appalachians ...............................67 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................67 Geographic Range ..............................................................................................................................68 Physical Geography............................................................................................................................69
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ecomorph Convergence in Stick Insects (Phasmatodea) with Emphasis on the Lonchodinae of Papua New Guinea
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 2018-07-01 Ecomorph Convergence in Stick Insects (Phasmatodea) with Emphasis on the Lonchodinae of Papua New Guinea Yelena Marlese Pacheco Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Life Sciences Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Pacheco, Yelena Marlese, "Ecomorph Convergence in Stick Insects (Phasmatodea) with Emphasis on the Lonchodinae of Papua New Guinea" (2018). Theses and Dissertations. 7444. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/7444 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Ecomorph Convergence in Stick Insects (Phasmatodea) with Emphasis on the Lonchodinae of Papua New Guinea Yelena Marlese Pacheco A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Michael F. Whiting, Chair Sven Bradler Seth M. Bybee Steven D. Leavitt Department of Biology Brigham Young University Copyright © 2018 Yelena Marlese Pacheco All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Ecomorph Convergence in Stick Insects (Phasmatodea) with Emphasis on the Lonchodinae of Papua New Guinea Yelena Marlese Pacheco Department of Biology, BYU Master of Science Phasmatodea exhibit a variety of cryptic ecomorphs associated with various microhabitats. Multiple ecomorphs are present in the stick insect fauna from Papua New Guinea, including the tree lobster, spiny, and long slender forms. While ecomorphs have long been recognized in phasmids, there has yet to be an attempt to objectively define and study the evolution of these ecomorphs.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. Info
    Scientific Name Common Name Region 6 Habit Scientific Name Common Name Region 6 Habit Abies balsamea FIR,BALSAM FACW NT Amaranthus californicus AMARANTH,CALIFORNIA NI ANF Abutilon theophrasti VELVET-LEAF NI AIF Amaranthus crassipes AMARANTH,TROPICAL FAC+ AIF Acacia greggii ACACIA,CATCLAW UPL NST Amaranthus greggii AMARANTH,GREGGIS FAC ANF Acacia smallii HUISACHE FACU NTS Amaranthus obcordatus AMARANTH,TRANS PECOS NI ANF Acalypha rhomboidea COPPER-LEAF,COMMON UPL* ANF Amaranthus palmeri AMARANTH,PALMER'S FACU- ANF Acalypha virginica MERCURY,THREE-SEEDED UPL* ANF Amaranthus retroflexus AMARANTH,RED-ROOT FACU- ANF Acer negundo BOX-ELDER FACW- NT Amaranthus rudis AMARANTH,TALL FAC ANF Acer rubrum MAPLE,DRUMMOND RED FACW NT Amaranthus spinosus AMARANTH,SPINY FACU- ANF Acer rubrum MAPLE,TRIDENT RED NI NT Amaranthus tuberculatus AMARANTH,ROUGH-FRUIT NI ANF Acer rubrum MAPLE,RED FAC NT Ambrosia artemisiifolia RAGWEED,ANNUAL FACU- ANF Acer saccharinum MAPLE,SILVER FAC NT Ambrosia grayi BURSAGE,WOOLLY-LEAF FACW PNF Acer saccharum MAPLE,SUGAR UPL NT Ambrosia psilostachya RAGWEED,NAKED-SPIKE FAC- PNF Achillea millefolium YARROW,COMMON FACU PNF Ambrosia trifida RAGWEED,GREAT FAC ANF Acorus calamus SWEETFLAG OBL PIEF Amelanchier alnifolia SERVICE-BERRY,SASKATOON FAC- NS Adiantum capillus-veneris FERN,SOUTHERN MAIDEN-HAIR FACW+ PNF3 Amelanchier arborea SERVICE-BERRY,DOWNY FACU NT Adiantum pedatum FERN,NORTHERN MAIDEN-HAIR FAC PNF3 Amianthium muscaetoxicum FLYPOISON FAC PNF Adiantum tricholepis FERN,HAIRY MAIDEN-HAIR FAC PNF3 Ammannia auriculata AMMANNIA,RED-STEM
    [Show full text]
  • Lloyd Shoals
    Southern Company Generation. 241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, NE BIN 10193 Atlanta, GA 30308-3374 404 506 7219 tel July 3, 2018 FERC Project No. 2336 Lloyd Shoals Project Notice of Intent to Relicense Lloyd Shoals Dam, Preliminary Application Document, Request for Designation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Request for Authorization to Initiate Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Ms. Bose: On behalf of Georgia Power Company, Southern Company is filing this letter to indicate our intent to relicense the Lloyd Shoals Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2336 (Lloyd Shoals Project). We will file a complete application for a new license for Lloyd Shoals Project utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) regulations found at 18 CFR Part 5. The proposed Process, Plan and Schedule for the ILP proceeding is provided in Table 1 of the Preliminary Application Document included with this filing. We are also requesting through this filing designation as the Commission’s non-federal representative for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and authorization to initiate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There are four components to this filing: 1) Cover Letter (Public) 2) Notification of Intent (Public) 3) Preliminary Application Document (Public) 4) Preliminary Application Document – Appendix C (CEII) If you require further information, please contact me at 404.506.7219. Sincerely, Courtenay R.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
    Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese
    [Show full text]
  • Phasmida (Stick and Leaf Insects)
    ● Phasmida (Stick and leaf insects) Class Insecta Order Phasmida Number of families 8 Photo: A leaf insect (Phyllium bioculatum) in Japan. (Photo by ©Ron Austing/Photo Researchers, Inc. Reproduced by permission.) Evolution and systematics Anareolatae. The Timematodea has only one family, the The oldest fossil specimens of Phasmida date to the Tri- Timematidae (1 genus, 21 species). These small stick insects assic period—as long ago as 225 million years. Relatively few are not typical phasmids, having the ability to jump, unlike fossil species have been found, and they include doubtful almost all other species in the order. It is questionable whether records. Occasionally a puzzle to entomologists, the Phasmida they are indeed phasmids, and phylogenetic research is not (whose name derives from a Greek word meaning “appari- conclusive. Studies relating to phylogeny are scarce and lim- tion”) comprise stick and leaf insects, generally accepted as ited in scope. The eggs of each phasmid are distinctive and orthopteroid insects. Other alternatives have been proposed, are important in classification of these insects. however. There are about 3,000 species of phasmids, although in this understudied order this number probably includes about 30% as yet unidentified synonyms (repeated descrip- Physical characteristics tions). Numerous species still await formal description. Stick insects range in length from Timema cristinae at 0.46 in (11.6 mm) to Phobaeticus kirbyi at 12.9 in (328 mm), or 21.5 Extant species usually are divided into eight families, in (546 mm) with legs outstretched. Numerous phasmid “gi- though some researchers cite just two, based on a reluctance ants” easily rank as the world’s longest insects.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Bee Declines and Changes in Plant-Pollinator Networks Over 125 Years Revealed Through Museum Collections
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Spring 2018 WILD BEE DECLINES AND CHANGES IN PLANT-POLLINATOR NETWORKS OVER 125 YEARS REVEALED THROUGH MUSEUM COLLECTIONS Minna Mathiasson University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Mathiasson, Minna, "WILD BEE DECLINES AND CHANGES IN PLANT-POLLINATOR NETWORKS OVER 125 YEARS REVEALED THROUGH MUSEUM COLLECTIONS" (2018). Master's Theses and Capstones. 1192. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/1192 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WILD BEE DECLINES AND CHANGES IN PLANT-POLLINATOR NETWORKS OVER 125 YEARS REVEALED THROUGH MUSEUM COLLECTIONS BY MINNA ELIZABETH MATHIASSON BS Botany, University of Maine, 2013 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences: Integrative and Organismal Biology May, 2018 This thesis has been examined and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences: Integrative and Organismal Biology by: Dr. Sandra M. Rehan, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. Carrie Hall, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. Janet Sullivan, Adjunct Associate Professor of Biology On April 18, 2018 Original approval signatures are on file with the University of New Hampshire Graduate School.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Coefficient of Conservatism
    Coefficient of Coefficient of Scientific Name Common Name Nativity Conservatism Wetness Abies balsamea balsam fir native 3 0 Abies concolor white fir non‐native 0 Abutilon theophrasti velvetleaf non‐native 0 3 Acalypha rhomboidea common threeseed mercury native 2 3 Acer ginnala Amur maple non‐native 0 Acer negundo boxelder non‐native 0 0 Acer pensylvanicum striped maple native 5 3 Acer platanoides Norway maple non‐native 0 5 Acer pseudoplatanus sycamore maple non‐native 0 Acer rubrum red maple native 2 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple native 6 ‐3 Acer saccharum sugar maple native 5 3 Acer spicatum mountain maple native 6 3 Acer x freemanii red maple x silver maple native 2 0 Achillea millefolium common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. borealis common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. millefolium common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea ptarmica sneezeweed non‐native 0 3 Acinos arvensis basil thyme non‐native 0 Aconitum napellus Venus' chariot non‐native 0 Acorus americanus sweetflag native 6 ‐5 Acorus calamus calamus native 6 ‐5 Actaea pachypoda white baneberry native 7 5 Actaea racemosa black baneberry non‐native 0 Actaea rubra red baneberry native 7 3 Actinidia arguta tara vine non‐native 0 Adiantum aleuticum Aleutian maidenhair native 9 3 Adiantum pedatum northern maidenhair native 8 3 Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine native 7 Aegopodium podagraria bishop's goutweed non‐native 0 0 Coefficient of Coefficient of Scientific Name Common Name Nativity
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Analysis of 18S Rdna of Freshwater Copepods Neodiaptomus Species and Mesocyclops Species
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313010364 Phylogenetic analysis of 18s rDNA of freshwater copepods neodiaptomus species and mesocyclops species Article in Journal of Advanced Zoology · December 2016 CITATION READS 1 202 5 authors, including: Sivakumar Kandasamy M.R Dhivya Shree Karpaga Vinayaga College of Engineering and Technology KLE Institute of Technology 27 PUBLICATIONS 80 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE P. Muthupriya Kareem Altaff D.G.Vaishnav College AMET DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY 17 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS 66 PUBLICATIONS 350 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Meiofaunal studies of Palk bay sandy beaches View project Copepods View project All content following this page was uploaded by Sivakumar Kandasamy on 28 January 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. J. Adv. Zool. 2016: 37(2): 64-74 ISSN-0253-7214 PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF 18S rDNA OF FRESHWATER COPEPODS NEODIAPTOMUS SPECIES AND MESOCYCLOPS SPECIES K. Sivakumar1, K. Archana1, M. Shree Rama1, P. Muthupriya2 and K. Altaff3 1Department of Biotechnology Karpaga Vinayaga College of Engineering and Technology GST Road, Chinna Kolambakkam, Padalam-603 308, Kanchipuram (Dt.), India 2Department of Biotechnology DG Vaishnav College, Chennai – 600 106 3Department of Zoology The New College, Chennai-600 014 †corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT: The present work is emphasized on analyzing the molecular characteristics of Mesocyclops sp. and Neodiaptomus sp. Molecular markers 18s rDNA region was used to resolve the evolutionary relationship between the species. The Mesocyclops sp.
    [Show full text]
  • MIAMI UNIVERSITY the Graduate School Certificate for Approving The
    MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation We hereby approve the Dissertation of Sandra J. Connelly Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy __________________________________________ Director Dr. Craig E. Williamson __________________________________________ Reader Dr. Maria González __________________________________________ Reader Dr. David L. Mitchell __________________________________________ Graduate School Representative Dr. A. John Bailer ABSTRACT EFFECTS OF ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION (UVR) INDUCED DNA DAMAGE AND OTHER ECOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS ON CRYPTOSPORIDIUM PARVUM, GIARDIA LAMBLIA, AND DAPHNIA SPP. IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS Sandra J. Connelly Freshwater ecosystems are especially susceptible to climatic change, including anthropogenic-induced changes, as they are directly influenced by the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems. A major environmental factor that potentially affects every element of an ecosystem, directly or indirectly, is ultraviolet radiation (UVR). UVR has been shown to negatively affect the DNA of aquatic organisms by the same mechanism, formation of photoproducts (cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers; CPDs), as in humans. First, the induction of CPDs by solar UVR was quantified in four aquatic and terrestrial temperate ecosystems. Data show significant variation in CPD formation not only between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems but also within a single ecosystem and between seasons. Second, there is little quantitative data on UV-induced DNA damage and the effectiveness of DNA repair mechanisms on the damage induced in freshwater invertebrates in the literature. The rate of photoproduct induction (CPDs) and DNA repair (photoenzymatic and nucleotide excision repair) in Daphnia following UVR exposures in artificial as well as two natural temperate lake systems was tested. The effect of temperature on the DNA repair rates, and ultimately the organisms’ survival, was tested under controlled laboratory conditions following artificial UVB exposure.
    [Show full text]