DOCSLIB.ORG

The Biological Resources of Illinois Caves and Other

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Biological Resources of Illinois Caves and Other I LLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. EioD THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF ILLINOIS CAVES AND OTHER SUBTERRANEAN ENVIRONMENTS Determination of the Diversity, Distribution, and Status of the Subterranean Faunas of Illinois Caves and How These Faunas are Related to Groundwater Quality Donald W. Webb, Steven J. Taylor, and Jean K. Krejca Center for Biodiversity Illinois Natural History Survey 607 East Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 (217) 333-6846 TECHNICAL REPORT 1993 (8) ILLINOIS NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY CENTER FOR BIODIVERSITY Prepared for: The Environmental Protection Trust Fund Commission and Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Office of Research and Planning 325 W. Adams, Room 300 Springfield, IL 62704-1892 Jim Edgar, Governor John Moore, Director State of Illinois Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided through Grant EPTF23 from the Environmental Protection Trust Fund Commission, administered by the Department of Energy and Natural Resources (ENR). Our thanks to Doug Wagner and Harry Hendrickson (ENR) for their assistance. Other agencies that contributed financial support include the Shawnee National Forest (SNF) and the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Many thanks to Mike Spanel (SNF) and Rich Nowack (IDOT) for their assistance. Several agencies cooperated in other ways; we are. grateful to: Illinois Department of Conservation (IDOC); Joan Bade of the Monroe-Randolph Bi- County Health Department; Russell Graham and Jim Oliver, Illinois State Museum (ISM); Dr. J. E. McPherson, Zoology Department, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Further contributions were made by the National Speleological Society, Little Egypt and Mark Twain Grottoes of the National Speleological Society, and the Missouri Speleological Survey. This report is built upon the contributions of many people for whom we are eternally grateful. Most important among these are landowners (too numerous to mention) who allowed us access to their caves or permission to cross their land. Cavers who have helped us with field work at various times include Aaron Addison, Charles Albert, Don Bittle, Kent Buckles, Don Coons, Amy Driskell, Justin Lassy, John Lloyd, Dave Mahon, Philip Moss, Myron Mugele, Carl Pierce, Jim Rodemaker, Brian Schaffner, Mark Stamborski, Terri Treacy, and Father Paul Wightman. Other individuals that provided assistance with field work included Ed Anderson (IDOC), Randy Nyboer (IDOC), Bill Handel, Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS), Ken Barker (Mine Reclamation) and Armin Kreuger. Many other people assisted us in various ways, and we are grateful for their help. Philip Moss, Don Paquette (National Cave Rescue Commission) and others provided useful safety training. Mark J. Wetzel for the loan of an oxygen meter. Sue Wood (INHS) analyzed water samples during 1992. John Meister and John Hicks provided laboratory space for water analysis at SIUC Pollution Control and Shirley Irland (Irland Laboratories, Metropolis, IL) analyzed water samples during 1993. Discussions with Mary Ann Ryan, Steve Varsa (SIUC Pollution Control), and Anna Maxwell-Dennis, Illinois Basin Environmental, Inc. (Carbondale) aided us in our understanding of karst geology, hydrology and water quality. Bill Elliot, Texas Memorial Museum (Austin, TX) provided the results of a literature search. Drs. Horton Hobbs III (Wittenberg University, Springfield, OH), David Culver (Department of Biology, American University, Washington, D. C.), Brooks M. Burr, Donald R. Tindall, J. E. McPherson, Joseph A. Beatty, George Feldhamer (SIUC), and David Ashley (Western Missouri University, MO) provided helpful discussions and advice. Diane Wood (SIUC) aided in initial sorting of macroinvertebrate specimens, and Holly Mcllrath (SNF) assisted in data entry. We would like to sincerely thank those individuals that identified the various terrestrial and aquatic organisms: Dr. J. A. Beatty, Department of Zoology, SIUC (Arachnida); M. A. Harris, Center For Biodiversity, INHS (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera); J. A. Krejca (Mammalia: Chiroptera); Dr. L. M. Page, Center For Biodiversity, INHS (Amphipoda and Decapoda); TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS......................................................................... ....... i LIST O F FIG U RE S.............................................. ................... ................ vi LIST O F TA BLES............................................................................................vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................vii CHAPTER 1 IN TROD U CTIO N .................................................. ................................... 1 THE CAVE ENVIRONMENT........................................................... 1 CLASSIFICATION OF CAVERNICOLES....................................................... 4 CA VE CO M M U N ITIES.................................................................................... .5 FAUNAL INVENTORIES........................................................................ .6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SUBTERRANEAN FAUNA IN ILLINOIS............. 7 ENDEMIC CAVE INVERTEBRATES IN ILLINOIS................................................ 8 GROUNDWATER: THE ROLE OF CAVES AND KARST AQUIFERS IN GROUND W ATER ................................................................. .......... .. 8 STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS........................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS..........................................................................11 CA V IN G SA FETY .................................................................................... 11 CAVE LOCATIONS...........................................................................11 BIOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES ......................................... 11 FIELD COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT................................... 11 LABORATORY CURATION TECHNIQUES................................................. ...... 12 WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AND EQUIPMENT........................... .......... 13 CAVE M APPING ................... ....................................................... ..... ....... 13 CHAPTER 3. RESU LT S ........................................................................................... 13 D A TA B A SE S ................ ...................................................................... 19 BIOLOGICA L RESULTS........................................................................... .... 19 PLATYHELMINTHES................................................................. ..... 30 NEMATOMORPHA.............................................................................. 30 ANNELIDA.......................................................................................30 BRANCHIOBDELLIDA......................... ................................................ 30 H IR U D IN EA .......................................................................................... 30 O LIG OCHA ETA ..................................... ............................................... 31 HAPLOTAXIDA ............................................................. .................. 31 ARTHROPODA ............................................................... ...... ................. 31 A RA CH N ID A ....................................................................................... 32 A CA R I.[A CA RIN A ] .............................................................................. 32 ARANEAE....................................................................................... 33 OPILIONES [PHALANGIDA] ................................... .................... 22 PSEUDOSCORPIONES........................................................................... 34 M ALACOSTRACA ................................................................................. 34 EUMALACOSTRACA............................................................................. 34 A M PH IPO D A ....................................................................................... 34 ISO PO D A ............................................................................................ 38 D ECA PO D A ........................................................................................ 39 CO PEPO D A ......................................................................................... 40 HARPACTICO IDA ................................................................................. 40 CA LA N O ID A ........................................................................................ 40 iii CYCLOPOIDA........................................................................................ 40 OSTRACODA............ ........................................................................ 41 MYRIAPODA....................................................................................... 41 CHILOPODA.......... .......................................................................... 41 DIPLOPODA........................................................................................ 42 POLYDESMIDA.............................................................................. 42 JULIDA................................................................................... ..... 42 SPIROBOLIDA....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Zoogeography of Epigean Freshwater Amphipoda (Crustacea) in Romania: Fragmented Distributions and Wide Altitudinal Variability
    Zootaxa 3893 (2): 243–260 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3893.2.5 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8336FFDA-F1A5-4026-A5B6-CCEBFF84F40A Zoogeography of epigean freshwater Amphipoda (Crustacea) in Romania: fragmented distributions and wide altitudinal variability DENIS COPILAȘ-CIOCIANU1, MICHAŁ GRABOWSKI2, LUCIAN PÂRVULESCU3 & ADAM PETRUSEK1 1Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Science, Department of Ecology, Viničná 7, 12844, Prague, Czech Republic. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 2University of Łódź, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, Department of Invertebrate Zoology & Hydrobiology, Banacha 12/16, 90-237, Łódź, Poland. E-mail: [email protected] 3West University of Timișoara, Faculty of Chemistry, Biology, Geography, Department of Biology and Chemistry, Pestalozzi 16A, 300115, Timișoara, Romania. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Inland epigean freshwater amphipods of Romania are diverse and abundant for this region has a favourable geographical position between the Balkans and the Black Sea. Excluding Ponto-Caspian species originating in brackish waters and freshwater subterranean taxa, there are 11 formally recognized epigean freshwater species recorded from this country. They belong to 3 genera, each representing a different family: Gammarus (Gammaridae, 8 species or species complexes), Niphargus (Niphargidae, 2 epigean species) and Synurella (Crangonyctidae, one species). Their large-scale distribution patterns nevertheless remain obscure due to insufficient data, consequently limiting biogeographical interpretations. We provide extensive new data with high resolution distribution maps, thus improving the knowledge of the ranges of these taxa.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conservation Focused Inventory of Subterranean Invertebrates of the Southwest Illinois Karst
    Julian J. Lewis, Philip Moss, Diane Tecic, and Matthew E. Nelson - A conservation focused inventory of subterranean invertebrates of the southwest Illinois Karst. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 65, n. 1, p. 9-21. A CONSERVATION FOCUSED INVENTORY OF SUBTERRANEAN INVERTEBRATES OF THE SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS KARST JULIAN J. LEWIS J. Lewis and Associates, Biological Consulting, 217 W. Carter Avenue, Clarksville, IN 47129 USA PHILIP MOSS Ozark Underground Laboratory, 1572 Aley Lane, Protem, MO 65733 USA DIANE TECIC Natural Heritage Regional Administrator, 4521 Alton Commerce Parkwary, Alton, IL 62025 USA MATTHEW E. NELSON formerly The Nature Conservancy; current 7401 Placer Run, Fort Wayne, IN 46815 USA In 1998-1999 The Nature Conservancy conducted a bioinventory of caves in Monroe and St. Clair coun- ties in southwestern Illinois. This karst area comprises a small section of the Ozark Plateau isolated from the Missouri Ozarks by the Mississippi River. In the 71 sites that were sampled, 41 species thought to be globally rare were found and were assigned state (S) and global (G) ranks of rarity for conservation use. The list includes 10 species considered to be new to science and 12 species previously unreported from Illinois. Twenty four taxa were classified as obligate subterranean species, including four endemic species: the pseudoscorpion Mundochthonius cavernicolus, the amphipod Gammarus acherondytes, the milliped Chaetaspis sp. (undescribed), and the dipluran Eumesocampa sp. (undescribed). Gammarus acherondytes, recently listed as an endangered species, was found in six previously unsampled caves. All sites were rank-ordered according to the number of global and state rare species. The greatest single site diversity was found in Fogelpole Cave with 18 global and 20 state rare species.
    [Show full text]
  • Arachnids (Excluding Acarina and Pseudoscorpionida) of the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma
    OCCASIONAL PAPERS THE MUSEUM TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY NUMBER 67 5 SEPTEMBER 1980 ARACHNIDS (EXCLUDING ACARINA AND PSEUDOSCORPIONIDA) OF THE WICHITA MOUNTAINS WILDLIFE REFUGE, OKLAHOMA JAMES C. COKENDOLPHER AND FRANK D. BRYCE The Wichita Mountains are located in eastern Greer, southern Kiowa, and northwestern Comanche counties in Oklahoma. Since their formation more than 300 million years ago, these rugged mountains have been fragmented and weathered, until today the highest peak (Mount Pinchot) stands only 756 meters above sea level (Tyler, 1977). The mountains are composed predominantly of granite and gabbro. Forests of oak, elm, and walnut border most waterways, while at elevations from 153 to 427 meters prair­ ies are the predominant vegetation type. A more detailed sum­ mary of the climatic and biotic features of the Wichitas has been presented by Blair and Hubbell (1938). A large tract of land in the eastern range of the Wichita Moun­ tains (now northeastern Comanche County) was set aside as the Wichita National Forest by President McKinley during 1901. In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt created a game preserve on those lands managed by the Forest Service. Since 1935, this pre­ serve has been known as the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. Numerous papers on Oklahoma spiders have been published (Bailey and Chada, 1968; Bailey et al., 1968; Banks et al, 1932; Branson, 1958, 1959, 1966, 1968; Branson and Drew, 1972; Gro- thaus, 1968; Harrel, 1962, 1965; Horner, 1975; Rogers and Horner, 1977), but only a single, comprehensive work (Banks et al., 1932) exists covering all arachnid orders in the state. Further additions and annotations to the arachnid fauna of Oklahoma can be found 2 OCCASIONAL PAPERS MUSEUM TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY in recent revisionary studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016
    Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016 April 1981 Revised, May 1982 2nd revision, April 1983 3rd revision, December 1999 4th revision, May 2011 Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce Ohio Department of Natural Resources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Division of Wildlife Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 2045 Morse Road, Bldg. G Estuarine Reserves Division Columbus, Ohio 1305 East West Highway 43229-6693 Silver Spring, MD 20910 This management plan has been developed in accordance with NOAA regulations, including all provisions for public involvement. It is consistent with the congressional intent of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the provisions of the Ohio Coastal Management Program. OWC NERR Management Plan, 2011 - 2016 Acknowledgements This management plan was prepared by the staff and Advisory Council of the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve (OWC NERR), in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources-Division of Wildlife. Participants in the planning process included: Manager, Frank Lopez; Research Coordinator, Dr. David Klarer; Coastal Training Program Coordinator, Heather Elmer; Education Coordinator, Ann Keefe; Education Specialist Phoebe Van Zoest; and Office Assistant, Gloria Pasterak. Other Reserve staff including Dick Boyer and Marje Bernhardt contributed their expertise to numerous planning meetings. The Reserve is grateful for the input and recommendations provided by members of the Old Woman Creek NERR Advisory Council. The Reserve is appreciative of the review, guidance, and council of Division of Wildlife Executive Administrator Dave Scott and the mapping expertise of Keith Lott and the late Steve Barry.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive List of the Ants of Romania (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 1
    Myrmecologische Nachrichten 9 65 - 76 Wien, Dezember 2006 A comprehensive list of the ants of Romania (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 1 Bálint MARKÓ, Botond SIPOS, Sándor CSŐSZ, Klára KISS, István BOROS & László GALLÉ Abstract In the last decades the ant checklists of most Central and Eastern European countries were updated, with the exception of Romania. The last Romanian checklist was published in 1978 and contained only 76 species. The present work lists all species mentioned in publications until 2006. Up to now, altogether 103 valid species were recorded in the Romanian fauna (102 outdoor species), besides these there are eleven species of uncertain occurrence in Romania and two names which cannot be assigned to existing valid species. The comparison of Romanian and other Central and Eastern Euro- pean myrmecofaunas reveals that the Romanian fauna is insufficiently known and that a considerable number of spe- cies (mostly parasitic and Mediterranean) remains to be detected. Key words: Ants, Romania, check-list, faunistics, new records, comparison, Central and Eastern Europe. Dr. Bálint Markó (contact author), Botond Sipos & István Boros, Department of Taxonomy and Ecology, Babeş-Bolyai University, str. Clinicilor nr. 5-7, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Dr. Sándor Csősz, Department of Zoology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, Baross u. 13, 1088 Budapest, Hun- gary. E-mail: [email protected] Klára Kiss & Prof. Dr. László Gallé, Department of Ecology, University of Szeged, 6701 Szeged, P.O.Box 51, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected] Klára Kiss, Department of Horticulture, Sapientia University, Sighişoarei 1C, jud.
    [Show full text]
  • Collembola, Entomobryomorpha) and Presence of Arrhopalites Caecus (Tullberg, 1871) from Ana Roiho Cave (Maunga Hiva Hiva), Rapa Nui-Easter Island
    Euryale (Revista de ciencias - Zientziak aldizkaria) Nº 2 68-75 BILBAO 2008 ISSN 1886-4309 Coecobrya kennethi n. sp. (Collembola, Entomobryomorpha) and presence of Arrhopalites caecus (Tullberg, 1871) from Ana Roiho cave (Maunga Hiva Hiva), Rapa Nui-Easter Island. RAFAEL JORDANA 1 & ENRIQUE BAQUERO 1 1 Department of Zoology and Ecology, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain. Correspondence: Enrique Baquero, Department of Zoology and Ecology, University of Navarra. PO Box 177, 31080 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] GAKO-HITZAK: Entomobryidae, Arrhopalitidae, colembolo, espezie berria. PALABRAS CLAVE: Entomobryidae, Arrhopalitidae, colémbolo, nueva especie, Isla de Pascua. KEY WORDS: Entomobryidae, Arrhopalitidae, springtail, new species. LABURPENA Coecobrya Yosii espezie barri bat deskribatzen da, 1956 (Collembola, Entomobryomorpha, Entomobryidae), Pazko Uhartean (Rapa Nui) aurkitua. Generoko gainontzeko espezieengandik honako ezaugarriegatik bereizten da: antena nahiko laburra, buruaren diametroa baino 4 bider txikiagoa; Tibiotartsoaren sabelaldean zeta leunen absentzia; atzazkalaren barruko hagina sabelaldeko oinaldeko ertzaren 1/3a baino distantzia handiagora dago; Enpodioren kanpoaldeko hagina gainontzeko enpodioa baino txikiagoa; bularraldeko II terkitoko 6 taldean makroketen absentzia; IV. abdominalaren atze- erdialdean 4 makroketa; Manubrioaren atzealdean zeta leunak; eta 1+1 zeta leun sabeladeko hodiaren atzealdeko aurpegian; ACaecus espeziea sarri izan da aipatua Ipar Hemisferioan,
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Climate Change on Arctic Arthropod Assemblages and Distribution Phd Thesis
    Effects of climate change on Arctic arthropod assemblages and distribution PhD thesis Rikke Reisner Hansen Academic advisors: Main supervisor Toke Thomas Høye and co-supervisor Signe Normand Submitted 29/08/2016 Data sheet Title: Effects of climate change on Arctic arthropod assemblages and distribution Author University: Aarhus University Publisher: Aarhus University – Denmark URL: www.au.dk Supervisors: Assessment committee: Arctic arthropods, climate change, community composition, distribution, diversity, life history traits, monitoring, species richness, spatial variation, temporal variation Date of publication: August 2016 Please cite as: Hansen, R. R. (2016) Effects of climate change on Arctic arthropod assemblages and distribution. PhD thesis, Aarhus University, Denmark, 144 pp. Keywords: Number of pages: 144 PREFACE………………………………………………………………………………………..5 LIST OF PAPERS……………………………………………………………………………….6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………...7 SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………...8 RESUMÉ (Danish summary)…………………………………………………………………....9 SYNOPSIS……………………………………………………………………………………....10 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………...10 Study sites and approaches……………………………………………………………………...11 Arctic arthropod community composition…………………………………………………….....13 Potential climate change effects on arthropod composition…………………………………….15 Arctic arthropod responses to climate change…………………………………………………..16 Future recommendations and perspectives……………………………………………………...20 References………………………………………………………………………………………..21 PAPER I: High spatial
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40319
    Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40319 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), (egg-bearing) females have been COMMISSION for the Illinois cave amphipod, observed in summer and fall. Gammarus acherondytes, Historically, This species is best differentiated 47 CFR Chapter I the amphipod was known from six cave from other amphipods in the field, [CC Docket No. 97±146, FCC 97±219] streams in Monroe and St. Clair especially from G. fasciatus, which it counties, Illinois. Recent surveys have resembles, by its color, small degenerate Complete Detariffing for Competitive found the species at only three of the eyes, and a much longer first antenna. Access Providers and Competitive original six sites. This species is It is usually associated with the larger Local Exchange Carriers; Correction believed to be threatened primarily by G. troglophilus (Hubricht and Mackin groundwater pollution which is likely 1940) but is much less common AGENCY: Federal Communications due to the application of pesticides in (Holsinger 1972). Commission. cave stream recharge areas (the area of This species is a troglobitic (cave ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. land surface from which water drains dependent) species inhabiting the dark into a particular cave stream). A zone of cave streams. As a group, SUMMARY: The Federal Communications possible secondary threat is amphipods require cold water and are Commission published in the Federal contamination of subsurface water by intolerant of wide ranges in Register of July 17, 1997, a document human and animal wastes from sewage temperature. They are strongly sensitive concerning a Notice of Proposed and septic systems and livestock to touch and react negatively to light.
    [Show full text]
  • Colonization Dynamics of Agroecosystem Spider Assemblages After Snow-Melt in Quebec (Canada)
    2012. The Journal of Arachnology 40:48–58 Colonization dynamics of agroecosystem spider assemblages after snow-melt in Quebec (Canada) Raphae¨l Royaute´ and Christopher M. Buddle1: Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Macdonald Campus, 21, 111 Lakeshore Road, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, H9X 3V9, Canada Abstract. Spiders are important generalist predators in agroecosystems, yet early season colonization is poorly understood, especially in northern regions. We investigated colonization patterns of spiders in agricultural fields after snow-melt in four cornfields in southwestern Quebec (Canada). Paired pitfall traps were associated with two drift fences to obtain data about immigration to and emigration from the fields and were placed at increasing distances from a deciduous forest border. Control traps were placed four meters inside the forest. Seventy-four species were collected, dominated by Linyphiidae and Lycosidae. Most of the fauna was already active during the first weeks of collection, and early season assemblages differed from late season assemblages. A significant ecotone effect was found for spider abundance, species richness and species composition. This study stresses the importance of early season spider activity in agroecosystems, and this context is relevant to a period of colonization by the dominant, active spider species. Keywords: Agroecosystems, early season assemblage composition, dispersal, Linyphiidae, Lycosidae Generalist arthropod predators, including spiders, are season, when spider abundance is high (e.g., Hibbert & important biocontrol agents in agroecosystems (Riechert & Buddle 2008; Sackett et al. 2008, 2009). This can bias our Lawrence 1997; Symondson et al. 2002; Stiling & Cornelissen understanding of the way colonization proceeds in northern 2005) and, when seen as a species assemblage, can exert top- countries where certain taxa remain active and forage under down effects on many agricultural pests (Riechert & Bishop the snow layer (e.g., Lycosidae and Lyniphiidae, Aitchison 1990; Carter & Rypstra 1995).
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Biodiversidad De Collembola (Hexapoda: Entognatha) En México
    Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad ISSN: 1870-3453 [email protected] Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México México Palacios-Vargas, José G. Biodiversidad de Collembola (Hexapoda: Entognatha) en México Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, vol. 85, 2014, pp. 220-231 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Distrito Federal, México Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=42529679040 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, Supl. 85: S220-S231, 2014 220 Palacios-Vargas.- BiodiversidadDOI: 10.7550/rmb.32713 de Collembola Biodiversidad de Collembola (Hexapoda: Entognatha) en México Biodiversity of Collembola (Hexapoda: Entognatha) in Mexico José G. Palacios-Vargas Laboratorio de Ecología y Sistemática de Microartrópodos, Departamento de Ecología y Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito exterior s/n, Cd. Universitaria, 04510 México, D. F. [email protected] Resumen. Se hace una breve evaluación de la importancia del grupo en los distintos ecosistemas. Se describen los caracteres morfológicos más distintivos, así como los biotopos donde se encuentran y su tipo de alimentación. Se hace una evaluación de la biodiversidad, encontrando que existen citados más de 700 taxa, muchos de ellos a nivel genérico, de 24 familias. Se discute su distribución geográfica por provincias biogeográficas, así como la diversidad de cada estado. Se presentan cuadros con la clasificación ecológica con ejemplos mexicanos; se indican las familias y su riqueza a nivel mundial y nacional, así como la curva acumulativa de especies mexicanas por quinquenio.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Ridgway 1850-1929
    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BIOGRAPHICAL MEMOIRS VOLUME XV SECOND MEMOIR BIOGRAPHICAL MEMOIR OF ROBERT RIDGWAY 1850-1929 BY ALEXANDER WETMORE PRESENTED TO THE ACADEMY AT THE ANNUAL MEETING, 1931 ROBERT RIDGWAY 1850-1929 BY ALEXANDER WETMORE Robert Ridgway, member of the National Academy of Science, for many years Curator of Birds in the United States National Museum, was born at Mount Carmel, Illinois, on July 2, 1850. His death came on March 25, 1929, at his home in Olney, Illinois.1 The ancestry of Robert Ridgway traces back to Richard Ridg- way of Wallingford, Berkshire, England, who with his family came to America in January, 1679, as a member of William Penn's Colony, to locate at Burlington, New Jersey. In a short time he removed to Crewcorne, Falls Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, where he engaged in farming and cattle raising. David Ridgway, father of Robert, was born March 11, 1819, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. During his infancy his family re- moved for a time to Mansfield, Ohio, later, about 1840, settling near Mount Carmel, Illinois, then considered the rising city of the west through its prominence as a shipping center on the Wabash River. Little is known of the maternal ancestry of Robert Ridgway except that his mother's family emigrated from New Jersey to Mansfield, Ohio, where Robert's mother, Henrietta James Reed, was born in 1833, and then removed in 1838 to Calhoun Praifle, Wabash County, Illinois. Here David Ridgway was married on August 30, 1849. Robert Ridgway was the eldest of ten children.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]