Project Details
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Larval Morphology of Systena Blanda Melsheimer (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Alticinae)
16 July 1998 PROC. ENTOMOL. SOC. WASH. 100(3), 1998, pp. 484-488 LARVAL MORPHOLOGY OF SYSTENA BLANDA MELSHEIMER (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE: ALTICINAE) JONG EUN LEE, STEVEN W. LINGAFELTER, AND ALEXANDERS. KONSTANTINOV (JEL) Department of Biology, College of Natural Sciences, Andong National Univer sity, Andong, Kyungbuk 760-749, South Korea; (SWL, ASK) Systematic Entomology Laboratory, PSI, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, c/o Na tinal Museum of Natural History, MRC-168, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (email: [email protected]; [email protected]). Abstract. -The first detailed morphological description and illustrations are presented for the larva of a species of Systena (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Alticinae), S. blanda (Melsheimer). Compound microscopic examination of the head, antennae, mouthparts, and legs revealed characters typical of other soil dwelling and root feeding alticine genera. Key Words: Systena, Alticinae, Chrysomelidae, larva, morphology, character, system- atic, flea beetle, leaf beetle The morphology and biology of many al acters of the anal plate. Drake and Harris ticine larvae, particularly those including (1931) provided a slightly larger lateral forest and agricultural pests have been stud habitus illustration of the larva but no dis ied by many workers, although much more cussion of characters important in identifi is known for Old World taxa. Notable cation. Peters and Barton (1969) provided works on Old World taxa include those of a brief description of the larva of Systena Ogloblin and Medvedev (1971), Kimoto frontalis Fabricius but did not provide ad and Takizawa (1994) and Steinhausen equate detail to understand unique and (1994) who studied many genera of alticine shared characters of this and related taxa. -
Survey Report on the Leaf Beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) of Cove Point LNG Property and Vicinity, Calvert County, Maryland
Survey Report on the Leaf Beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) of Cove Point LNG Property and Vicinity, Calvert County, Maryland Prepared by Joseph F. Cavey June 2004 Survey Report on the Leaf Beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) of Cove Point LNG Property and Vicinity, Calvert County, Maryland Joseph F. Cavey 6207 Guthrie Court Eldersburg, Maryland 21784 Submitted June 2004 Abstract A survey was funded by the Cove Point Natural Heritage Trust to document the leaf beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) of the Cove Point Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Limited Partnership Site in Calvert County, Maryland. The survey was conducted during periods of seasonal beetle activity from March 2002 to October 2003. The survey detected 92 leaf beetle species, including two species not formerly recorded for the State of Maryland and 55 additional species new to Calvert County. The detection of the rare flea beetle, Glyptina maritima Fall, represents only the third recorded collection of this species and the only recorded collection in the past 32 years. Dichanthelium (Panicum) dichromatum (L.) Gould is reported as the larval host plant of the leaf-mining hispine beetle Glyphuroplata pluto (Newman), representing the first such association for this beetle. Introduction This manuscript summarizes work completed in a two year survey effort begun in March 2002 to document the leaf beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) of the Cove Point Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Limited Partnership Site in Calvert County, Maryland, USA. Fieldwork for this study was conducted under contract with the Cove Point Natural Heritage Trust, dated February 28, 2002. One of the largest insect families, the Chrysomelidae, or leaf beetles, contains more than 37,000 species worldwide, including some 1,700 North American species (Jolivet 1988, Riley et al. -
The Distribution of Insects, Spiders, and Mites in the Air
TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. 673 MAY 1939 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INSECTS, SPIDERS, AND MITES IN THE AIR BY P. A. CLICK Assistant Entomolo^ist Division of Cotton Insect In^^estigations Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREJWAVSHINGTON, D. C. somi )r sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Price 25 ccntt Technical Bulletin No. 673 May 1939 UNJIED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AQRIQULTURE WASHINGTON, D. C n THE DISTRIBUTION OF INSECTS, SPIDERS, AND MITES IN THE AIR ' By P. A. GLICK Assistant entomologist, Division of CMçtn Insect Investigations, Bureau of Ento- mology hndWlant Quarantine 2 CONTENTS Page Pasrt Introduction 1 Meteorological data—Continued Scope of the work '_l_^ Absolute humidity 101 The collecting ground ""' '" g Vapor pressure 102 Airplane insect traps ...... 6 Barometric pressure. _. .1 104 Operation and efläciency of the traps ' 8 Air currents---._._ "" log Seasonal distribution of insects 9 Light intensity "" 122 Altitudinal distribution of insects 12 Cloud conditions _ 126 Day collecting 12 Precipitation . _" 128 Night collecting 16 Electrical state of the atmosphere 129 Notes on the insects collected * 16 Effects of the Mississippi River flood of 1927 \Yinged forms _ 59 on the insect population of the air ISO Size, weight, and buoyancy _ 84 Seeds collected in the upper air __.. 132 Wingless insects 87 Collection of insects in Mexico 133 Immature stages _ 90 Sources of insects and routes of migration 140 Insects taken alive 91 Aircraft as insect carriers.-.-.. 141 Meteorological data _ 93 Collecting insects in the upper air 142 Temperature _.. 93 Summary 143 Dew point _ 98 Literature cited... -
Patterns and Drivers of Terrestrial Arthropod Biodiversity in Northern Canada
Patterns and drivers of terrestrial arthropod biodiversity in northern Canada Crystal M. Ernst Department of Natural Resource Sciences McGill University Montreal, Quebec, Canada April 2015 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy © Crystal M. Ernst 2015 Abstract The overarching goal of this thesis was to describe patterns of terrestrial arthropod biodiversity and community structure in northern Canada, and to explore the underlying drivers and mechanisms that are responsible for these patterns. The term “biodiversity” is used here in a broad sense that includes both taxonomic (TD) and functional (FD) diversity. Ground-dwelling arthropods, especially beetles (Coleoptera), were used as model taxa, and were collected using standardized methods from twelve locations in the three northernmost ecoclimatic zones of Canada. Beetle biodiversity changes over time and space. Over the course of one active season, rapid species and functional turnover were observed in two major habitats in one subarctic location (Kugluktuk, Nunavut). While some functional groups were apparent only for brief periods of time, entomophagous predators consistently dominated the assemblage structure in biomass and abundance. This dominance by carnivores was observed consistently throughout the study, regardless of spatial or taxonomic scope. This inverted trophic structure suggests that predators may rely on alternative, non-epigeic prey items. A natural history study of previously unknown host-parasite interactions between beetles and nematomorphs (Gordionus n. sp.) suggests that beetles use alate insects with aquatic larval stages as an important nutrient subsidy. Across the entire study region, beetle TD and FD, as well as overall assemblage structure, display strong negative relationships with latitude, which conforms to the classical latitudinal gradient of diversity. -
Genus-Group Names of Afrotropical Flea Beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Alticinae): Annotated Catalogue and Biogeographical Notes
Eur. J. Entomol. 107: 401–424, 2010 http://www.eje.cz/scripts/viewabstract.php?abstract=1551 ISSN 1210-5759 (print), 1802-8829 (online) Genus-group names of Afrotropical flea beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Alticinae): Annotated catalogue and biogeographical notes MAURIZIO BIONDI and PAOLA D’ALESSANDRO Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, University of L’Aquila, 67100 Coppito-L’Aquila, Italy; e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected] Key words. Taxonomy, Afrotropical region, Chrysomelidae, Alticinae, Galerucinae, flea beetle genera, catalogue, synonymies, new combinations. Abstract. This paper consists of an up to date annotated catalogue of the Afrotropical genera of Alticinae (Chrysomelidae), with bio- geographical notes on the flea beetle fauna occurring in Sub-Saharan Africa and Madagascar. The following new synonymies are proposed: Eugonotes Jacoby, 1897 (a subgenus of Sanckia Duvivier, 1891) = Brancucciella Medvedev, 1995 syn. n.; Amphimela Chapuis, 1875 = Dibolosoma Jacoby, 1897 syn. n.; Amphimela Chapuis, 1875 = Halticova Fairmaire, 1898 syn. n.; Podagrica Chev- rolat, 1837 = Podagrixena Bechyné, 1968 syn. n.; Aphthona Chevrolat, 1837 = Pseudeugonotes Jacoby, 1899 syn. n.; Nisotra Baly, 1864 = Pseudonisotra Bechyné, 1968 syn. n. The following new combinations are proposed: Afrorestia sjostedti (Weise, 1910) comb. n. (from Crepidodera); Bechuana natalensis (Jacoby, 1906) comb. n. (from Ochrosis); Sesquiphaera natalensis (Jacoby, 1906) comb. n. (from Sphaeroderma). The genus Hildenbrandtina Weise, 1910 is trasferred from Galerucinae to Alticinae. New dis- tributional data for many genera in the Afrotropical region is provided. INTRODUCTION ning as early as 1830, although the first significant contri- The Chrysomelidae is one of the largest phytophagous bution on the Afrotropical (including Madagascar) flea insect families and includes approximately 37,000 to beetle fauna was by the English coleopterist, Joseph 40,000 species (Jolivet & Verma, 2002). -
Biodiversity and Sweep Sampling of Selected Leafhopper and Beetle Species in Wild Blueberries
J. Acad. Entomol. Soc. 11: 17-21 (2015) NOTE Biodiversity and sweep sampling of selected leafhopper and beetle species in wild blueberries Matthew L. Nunn and Neil Kirk Hillier The Canadian blueberry industry is a multi-million dollar commodity and represents the largest fruit crop by area under production in the country (Robichaud 2006). Pest management in lowbush blueberry crops is important to sustain this provincial commodity as the presence of pests through the various stages of production reduces fruit yield and both producers and the government incur economic loss. Froghoppers (Hemiptera: Cercopidae), and leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) are pests that use sucking mouthparts to pierce and feed on plant tissues (Hamilton 1982). Numerous species are considered plant pests that either actively feed on plant tissue or vector disease, inflicting economic loss in agricultural systems. From an economic standpoint, puncturing by piercing mouthparts may deform leaves, produce galls, prevent proper fruit and seed formation, and, vector plant diseases (Hamilton 1982; Deitz 2008). Few studies have documented the direct effect of froghoppers and leafhoppers on blueberry plants (de Leeuw 1975; Tozzi et al. 1993). Blueberry integrated crop management takes into account the standard practices used to manage wild blueberry crops. It aims to minimize pesticide and fertilizer application, yielding the best environmental outcome, while also maximizing the harvest (Yarborough et al. 2001). Early detection of elevated pest populations leads to treating infestations with fewer resources. To determine the damage potential of an infestation, one must take into account the level of infestation required to reach a threshold where the potential economic loss is substantial, i.e., the action threshold (Yarborough et al. -
EDINBVRGH* Report No the CITY of EDINBURGH COUNCIL
Item no *EDINBVRGH* Report no THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL Edinburgh Local Biodiversity Action Plan Phase 3 2010-2015 Planning Committee 3 December 2009 1 Purpose of report 1.1 To report to Committee on the review of the Edinburgh Local Biodiversity Action Plan, and seek approval for the resulting Edinburgh Local Biodiversity ' Action Plan Phase 3, 2010-2015. 2 Summary 2.1 The Council has a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. This is achieved through the Edinburgh Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP). Production of the Edinburgh LBAP is a key action in the Edinburgh Partnership Single Outcome Agreement 2009-2012. The current Edinburgh LBAP details action taken for the period 2004-2009. Over the last six months the Edinburgh Biodiversity Partnership has reviewed achievements from this phase of the LBAP, and outlined the work required for the next five year phase. This work is now complete and the appended document details the action to be taken for 201 0-2015. 2.2 A number of actions within Phase 3 of the plan will be the responsibility of Services for Communities. Therefore it is recommended that the report is referred to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee for information. 3 Main report 3.1 The Edinburgh LBAP was launched in March 2000 as a new initiative to conserve and enhance Edinburgh's natural heritage. The plan was prepared by a partnership of many organisations actively engaged in the conservation of natural heritage. It put forward an ambitious programme of actions to: conserve and enhance natural habitats within the city; address the decline in biodiversity, particularly of priority species; raise awareness of biodiversity issues in the public consciousness. -
Coleoptera Collected Using Three Trapping Methods at Grass River Natural Area, Antrim County, Michigan
The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 53 Numbers 3 & 4 - Fall/Winter 2020 Numbers 3 & Article 9 4 - Fall/Winter 2020 December 2020 Coleoptera Collected Using Three Trapping Methods at Grass River Natural Area, Antrim County, Michigan Robert A. Haack USDA Forest Service, [email protected] Bill Ruesink [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons, and the Forest Biology Commons Recommended Citation Haack, Robert A. and Ruesink, Bill 2020. "Coleoptera Collected Using Three Trapping Methods at Grass River Natural Area, Antrim County, Michigan," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 53 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol53/iss2/9 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Haack and Ruesink: Coleoptera Collected at Grass River Natural Area 138 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Vol. 53, Nos. 3–4 Coleoptera Collected Using Three Trapping Methods at Grass River Natural Area, Antrim County, Michigan Robert A. Haack1, * and William G. Ruesink2 1 USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 3101 Technology Blvd., Suite F, Lansing, MI 48910 (emeritus) 2 Illinois Natural History Survey, 1816 S Oak St, Champaign, IL 61820 (emeritus) * Corresponding author: (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract Overall, 409 Coleoptera species (369 identified to species, 24 to genus only, and 16 to subfamily only), representing 275 genera and 58 beetle families, were collected from late May through late September 2017 at the Grass River Natural Area (GRNA), Antrim Coun- ty, Michigan, using baited multi-funnel traps (210 species), pitfall traps (104 species), and sweep nets (168 species). -
Том 16. Вып. 2 Vol. 16. No. 2
РОССИЙСКАЯ АКАДЕМИЯ НАУК Южный научный центр RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Southern Scientific Centre CAUCASIAN ENTOMOLOGICAL BULLETIN Том 16. Вып. 2 Vol. 16. No. 2 Ростов-на-Дону 2020 Кавказский энтомологический бюллетень 16(2): 335–340 © Caucasian Entomological Bulletin 2020 A brief review of the genus Mantura Stephens, 1831 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae: Alticini) of Russia and some adjacent territories © М.Ye. Sergeev Federal Scientific Center of the East Asia Terrestrial Biodiversity of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 100 let Vladivostoku Av., 159, Vladivostok 690022 Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Seven species of the genus Mantura Stephens, 1831 are reviewed. In total, six species are known in Russia. Mantura rustica (Linnaeus, 1767), M. chrysanthemi (Koch, 1803), M. pallidicornis (Waltl, 1839) and M. cylindrica Miller, 1881 are distributed in the European part of the country. One European species, Mantura obtusata (Gyllenhal, 1813) needs verification for distribution in Russia. Two species, M. japonica Jacoby, 1885 and M. clavareaui Heikertinger, 1912 are recorded for the fauna of Russia for the first time. Both species were collected in the Russian Far East, the first one in Primorsky Region, the latter on Sakhalin. The genus Mantura is newly recorded from Sakhalin Island. Key to species of Mantura of the Russian fauna is given. Key words: Mantura, faunistics, new records, identification key, Palaearctic, Russia, Sakhalin. Краткий обзор рода Mantura Stephens, 1831 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae: Alticini) фауны России и некоторых прилегающих территорий © М.Е. Сергеев Федеральный научный центр биоразнообразия наземной биоты Восточной Азии ДВО РАН, пр. 100 лет Владивостоку, 159, Владивосток 690022 Россия. -
Desktop Biodiversity Report
Desktop Biodiversity Report Land south of Wivelsfield Green + 2km radius ESD/12/349 Prepared for John Feltwell 13th July 2012 This report is not to be passed on to third parties without prior permission of the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre. Please be aware that printing maps from this report requires an appropriate OS licence. Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre report regarding land south of Wivelsfield Green + 2km radius 13/07/2012 Prepared for John Feltwell ESD/12/349 The following information is enclosed within this report: Maps Sussex Protected Species Register Sussex Bat Inventory Sussex Bird Inventory UK BAP Species Inventory Sussex Rare Species Inventory Sussex Invasive Alien Species Full Species List Environmental Survey Directory SNCI L07 - Blackbrook Wood & The Plantation; L19 - Ditchling Common Meadow; L24 - Great Home Wood, Hattons Wood; L36 - Longridge Wood & Sedgebrook Marsh; L48 - Plumpton Wood (North); L50 - Purchase Wood; L57 - St George's Retreat. SSSI Chailey Common; Ditchling Common. Other Designations/Ownership Country Park; Environmental Stewardship Agreement; Local Nature Reserve. Habitats Ancient woodland; Traditional orchard. Important information regarding this report It must not be assumed that this report contains the definitive species information for the site concerned. The species data held by the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre (SxBRC) is collated from the biological recording community in Sussex. However, there are many areas of Sussex where the records held are limited, either spatially or taxonomically. A desktop biodiversity report from the SxBRC will give the user a clear indication of what biological recording has taken place within the area of their enquiry. The information provided is a useful tool for making an assessment of the site, but should be used in conjunction with site visits and appropriate surveys before further judgements on the presence or absence of key species or habitats can be made. -
DNA Barcoding Facilitates a Rapid Biotic Survey of a Temperate Nature Reserve
Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e6313 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e6313 Taxonomic Paper Biodiversity inventories in high gear: DNA barcoding facilitates a rapid biotic survey of a temperate nature reserve Angela C Telfer‡‡§‡‡‡, Monica R Young , Jenna Quinn , Kate Perez , Crystal N Sobel , Jayme E Sones , Valerie Levesque-Beaudin‡, Rachael Derbyshire ‡, Jose Fernandez-Triana |, Rodolphe Rougerie ¶, Abinah Thevanayagam‡‡‡#‡, Adrian Boskovic , Alex V Borisenko , Alex Cadel , Allison Brown , Anais Pages¤, Anibal H Castillo ‡, Annegret Nicolai «, Barb Mockford Glenn Mockford», Belén Bukowski˄, Bill Wilson»§, Brock Trojahn , Carole Ann Lacroix˅, Chris Brimblecombe¦, Christoper Hayˀ, Christmas Ho‡, Claudia Steinke‡‡, Connor P Warne , Cristina Garrido Cortesˁ, Daniel Engelking‡‡, Danielle Wright , Dario A Lijtmaer˄, David Gascoigne», David Hernandez Martich₵, Derek Morningstar ℓ, Dirk Neumann ₰, Dirk Steinke‡, Donna DeBruin Marco DeBruin», Dylan Dobiasˁ, Elizabeth Sears‡, Ellen Richardˁ, Emily Damstra»‡, Evgeny V Zakharov , Frederic Labergeˁ, Gemma E Collins¦, Gergin A Blagoev ‡, Gerrie Grainge»‡, Graham Ansell , Greg Meredith₱, Ian Hogg¦, Jaclyn McKeown ‡, Janet Topan ‡, Jason Bracey»»‡‡‡, Jerry Guenther , Jesse Sills-Gilligan , Joseph Addesi , Joshua Persi , Kara K S Layton₳, Kareina D'Souza‡, Kencho Dorji₴, Kevin Grundy», Kirsti Nghidinwa₣, Kylee Ronnenberg‡, Kyung Min Lee₮, Linxi Xie ₦, Liuqiong Lu‡, Lyubomir Penev₭, Mailyn Gonzalez ₲, Margaret E Rosati ‽, Mari Kekkonen‡‡‡, Maria Kuzmina , Marianne Iskandar , Marko Mutanen₮, Maryam Fatahi‡, Mikko Pentinsaari₮, -
Broads Biodiversity Audit Appendixx
October 2011 Biodiversity Audit and Tolerance Sensitivity Mapping for the Broads Appendices to final report The study is a Broads Authority initiative, undertaken by the University of East Anglia, supported by Natural England and working with the conservation organisations in the Broads area. Project Manager: Andrea Kelly (Broads Authority) Steering group: Andrea Kelly (Broads Authority) Erica Murray (Broads Authority) Dorothy Casey (Suffolk Wildlife Trust) Martin Horlock (Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service) Phil Pearson (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) Scott Perkin (Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership) Martin Sanford (Suffolk Biological Records Centre) Hannah Wallace (Natural England) Stuart Warrington (National Trust) Authors: Christopher J Panter Hannah L Mossman Paul M Dolman Published by: School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Citation: C. J. Panter, H. L. Mossman, P. M. Dolman (2011) Biodiversity Audit and Tolerance Sensitivity Mapping for The Broads. Broads Authority, Norwich ISBN: 978-0-9567812-0-9 © Copyright rests with the Broads Authority. Acknowledgements: We thank the steering group for the advice, guidance and support during this work. We are indebted to the large number of individuals who contributed biological records and ecological information to the Broads Biodiversity Audit, without which the work would not be possible. Furthermore, we acknowledge the amazing contribution of thousands of individual additional recorders and members of the public who have submitted