DOCSLIB.ORG

Calvin Ecosystem Preserve & Native Gardens Land Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Calvin Ecosystem Preserve & Native Gardens Land Management Plan Calvin Ecosystem Preserve & Native Gardens Land Management Plan Updated 2/1/2021 Prepared by Jen Howell Randy Van Dragt Jamie Skillen 1 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 4 PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 6 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 8 EDUCATIONAL IMPORTANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 10 CONSERVATION VISION ................................................................................................................................................. 11 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ......................................................................................................................... 12 SITE HISTORY .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Pre-Calvin Years .................................................................................................................................................. 13 Creating the Calvin College Ecosystem Preserve ................................................................................................. 14 Changes in the Land ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 24 PUBLIC USE ................................................................................................................................................................. 24 ADJACENT LANDS & LANDSCAPE CONNECTIONS ................................................................................................................. 27 ECOLOGICAL & CULTURAL FEATURES ................................................................................................................... 30 GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS, AND CLIMATE .................................................................................................................. 30 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES ................................................................................................................................................. 34 CULTURAL FEATURES .................................................................................................................................................... 36 Vestiges from Agriculture and Other Land Uses ................................................................................................. 36 Trails and Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Buildings .............................................................................................................................................................. 39 NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................... 40 DRY-MESIC SOUTHERN (OAK-HICKORY) FOREST ................................................................................................................. 42 MATURE MESIC SOUTHERN (BEECH-MAPLE) FOREST ......................................................................................................... 45 EARLY SUCCESSIONAL MESIC-SOUTHERN FOREST ............................................................................................................... 49 VERNAL POOLS (EPHEMERAL PONDS) ............................................................................................................................... 52 OPEN WATER .............................................................................................................................................................. 56 INUNDATED SHRUB SWAMP (KETTLE SWAMP) ................................................................................................................... 62 (CONSTRUCTED) DRY-MESIC (TALLGRASS) PRAIRIE ............................................................................................................. 66 DRY SAND PRAIRIE ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 SOUTHERN WET MEADOW (WHISKEY CREEK BIOSWALE) .................................................................................................... 75 (CONSTRUCTED) NATIVE GARDENS .................................................................................................................................. 77 IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................................................................. 80 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 84 APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................... 87 2 APPENDIX A: A BRIEF HISTORICAL TIMELINE OF THE CALVIN ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE & NATIVE GARDENS ................................... 87 APPENDIX B: PUBLIC USE POLICIES OF THE ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE ..................................................................................... 91 APPENDIX C: RESEARCH PROTOCOLS OF THE ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE .................................................................................... 93 APPENDIX D: MAP AND HISTORY OF THE OPEN WATERS OF THE ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE ......................................................... 94 APPENDIX E: MAP OF THE CULTURAL FEATURES OF THE ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE ..................................................................... 96 APPENDIX F: HISTORY OF VESTIGES OF LAND USE BEFORE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE ........................... 97 APPENDIX G: HISTORY OF ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE TRAILS. .................................................................................................. 99 APPENDIX H: HISTORY OF ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE BRIDGES AND OVERLOOKS ...................................................................... 102 APPENDIX I: HISTORY OF ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE BUILDINGS ............................................................................................. 104 APPENDIX J: LEED GOLD CERTIFICATION FOR THE BUNKER INTERPRETIVE CENTER ............................................................... 105 APPENDIX K: LIST OF SPECIES PLANTED IN NATIVE GARDEN BEDS ..................................................................................... 106 APPENDIX L: PLANT SPECIES INVENTORY OF THE ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE ............................................................................. 109 APPENDIX M: VERTEBRATE SPECIES INVENTORY OF THE ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE ................................................................... 128 APPENDIX N: INVERTEBRATE SPECIES INVENTORY OF THE ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE................................................................. 136 APPENDIX O: INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL PRIORITIES OF THE ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE ............................................................. 138 APPENDIX P: GRAPH OF INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL PRIORITIES OF THE ECOSYSTEM PRESERVE ............................................... 141 APPENDIX Q: MAP OF AUTUMN OLIVE, PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE AND SPOTTED KNAPWEED POPULATIONS .................................. 142 APPENDIX R: MAP OF CROWN VETCH, GARLIC MUSTARD AND HONEYSUCKLE POPULATIONS ................................................ 143 APPENDIX S: MAP OF JAPANESE BARBERRY AND COMMON PRIVET POPULATIONS ............................................................... 144 3 List of Figures & Tables Figure 1: Contextual map of the Ecosystem Preserve. ................................................................................. 8 Figure 2: Map of the management units of the Ecosystem Preserve......................................................... 13 Figure 3: Aerial photo of the Ecosystem Preserve area as it appeared in 1938. ........................................ 15 Figure 4: Map of the Ecosystem Preserve's native garden beds .............................................................. 233 Figure 5: The Bunker Interpretive Center surrounded by newly renovated native garden beds ............ 244 Figure 6: The Ecosystem Preserve seen in its larger landscape context ................................................... 288 Figure 7: Topographical map of the Ecosystem Preserve ..........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Panicledleaf Ticktrefoil (Desmodium Paniculatum) Plant Fact Sheet
    Plant Fact Sheet Hairstreak (Strymon melinus) eat the flowers and PANICLEDLEAF developing seedpods. Other insect feeders include many kinds of beetles, and some species of thrips, aphids, moth TICKTREFOIL caterpillars, and stinkbugs. The seeds are eaten by some upland gamebirds (Bobwhite Quail, Wild Turkey) and Desmodium paniculatum (L.) DC. small rodents (White-Footed Mouse, Deer Mouse), while Plant Symbol = DEPA6 the foliage is readily eaten by White-Tailed Deer and other hoofed mammalian herbivores. The Cottontail Contributed by: USDA, NRCS, Norman A. Berg National Rabbit also consumes the foliage. Plant Materials Center, Beltsville, MD Status Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s current status (e.g. threatened or endangered species, state noxious status, and wetland indicator values). Description and Adaptation Panicledleaf Ticktrefoil is a native, perennial, wildflower that grows up to 3 feet tall. The genus Desmodium: originates from Greek meaning "long branch or chain," probably from the shape and attachment of the seedpods. The central stem is green with clover-like, oblong, multiple green leaflets proceeding singly up the stem. The showy purple flowers appear in late summer and grow arranged on a stem maturing from the bottom upwards. In early fall, the flowers produce leguminous seed pods approximately ⅛ inch long. Panicledleaf Photo by Rick Mark [email protected] image used with permission Ticktrefoil plants have a single crown. This wildflower is a pioneer species that prefers some disturbance from Alternate Names wildfires, selective logging, and others causes. The sticky Panicled Tick Trefoil seedpods cling to the fur of animals and the clothing of Uses humans and are carried to new locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollinator–Friendly Parks
    POLLINATOR–FRIENDLY PARKS How to Enhance Parks, Gardens, and Other Greenspaces for Native Pollinator Insects Matthew Shepherd, Mace Vaughan, and Scott Hoffman Black The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation is an international, nonprofit, member–supported organiza- tion dedicated to preserving wildlife and its habitat through the conservation of invertebrates. The Society promotes protection of invertebrates and their habitat through science–based advocacy, conservation, and education projects. Its work focuses on three principal areas—endangered species, watershed health, and pollinator conservation. Copyright © 2008 (2nd Edition) The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 4828 SE Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, OR 97215 Tel (503) 232-6639 Fax (503) 233-6794 www.xerces.org Acknowledgements Thank you to Bruce Barbarasch (Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District, OR) and Lisa Hamerlynck (City of Lake Oswego, OR) for reviewing early drafts. Their guidance and suggestions greatly improved these guide- lines. Thank you to Eric Mader and Jessa Guisse for help with the plant lists, and to Caitlyn Howell and Logan Lauvray for editing assistance. Funding for our pollinator conservation program has been provided by the Bradshaw-Knight Foundation, the Bullitt Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the CS Fund, the Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund, the Dudley Foundation, the Gaia Fund, NRCS Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center, NRCS California, NRCS West National Technical Support Center, the Panta Rhea Foundation, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Founda- tion, the Turner Foundation, the Wildwood Foundation, and Xerces Society members Photographs We are grateful to Jeff Adams, Scott Bauer/USDA–ARS, John Davis/GORGEous Nature, Chris Evans/ www.forestryimages.com, Bruce Newhouse, Jeff Owens/Metalmark Images, and Edward S.
    [Show full text]
  • THE QUARTERLY REVIEW of BIOLOGY
    VOL. 43, NO. I March, 1968 THE QUARTERLY REVIEW of BIOLOGY LIFE CYCLE ORIGINS, SPECIATION, AND RELATED PHENOMENA IN CRICKETS BY RICHARD D. ALEXANDER Museum of Zoology and Departmentof Zoology The Universityof Michigan,Ann Arbor ABSTRACT Seven general kinds of life cycles are known among crickets; they differ chieff,y in overwintering (diapause) stage and number of generations per season, or diapauses per generation. Some species with broad north-south ranges vary in these respects, spanning wholly or in part certain of the gaps between cycles and suggesting how some of the differences originated. Species with a particular cycle have predictable responses to photoperiod and temperature regimes that affect behavior, development time, wing length, bod)• size, and other characteristics. Some polymorphic tendencies also correlate with habitat permanence, and some are influenced by population density. Genera and subfamilies with several kinds of life cycles usually have proportionately more species in temperate regions than those with but one or two cycles, although numbers of species in all widely distributed groups diminish toward the higher lati­ tudes. The tendency of various field cricket species to become double-cycled at certain latitudes appears to have resulted in speciation without geographic isolation in at least one case. Intermediate steps in this allochronic speciation process are illustrated by North American and Japanese species; the possibility that this process has also occurred in other kinds of temperate insects is discussed. INTRODUCTION the Gryllidae at least to the Jurassic Period (Zeuner, 1939), and many of the larger sub­ RICKETS are insects of the Family families and genera have spread across two Gryllidae in the Order Orthoptera, or more continents.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of the Wesleyan Campus
    BUTTERFLIES OF THE WESLEYAN CAMPUS SWALLOWTAILS Hairstreaks (Subfamily - Theclinae) (Family PAPILIONIDAE) Great Purple Hairstreak - Atlides halesus Coral Hairstreak - Satyrium titus True Swallowtails Banded Hairstreak - Satyrium calanus (Subfamily - Papilioninae) Striped Hairstreak - Satyrium liparops Pipevine Swallowtail - Battus philenor Henry’s Elfin - Callophrys henrici Zebra Swallowtail - Eurytides marcellus Eastern Pine Elfin - Callophrys niphon Black Swallowtail - Papilio polyxenes Juniper Hairstreak - Callophrys gryneus Giant Swallowtail - Papilio cresphontes White M Hairstreak - Parrhasius m-album Eastern Tiger Swallowtail - Papilio glaucus Gray Hairstreak - Strymon melinus Spicebush Swallowtail - Papilio troilus Red-banded Hairstreak - Calycopis cecrops Palamedes Swallowtail - Papilio palamedes Blues (Subfamily - Polommatinae) Ceraunus Blue - Hemiargus ceraunus Eastern-Tailed Blue - Everes comyntas WHITES AND SULPHURS Spring Azure - Celastrina ladon (Family PIERIDAE) Whites (Subfamily - Pierinae) BRUSHFOOTS Cabbage White - Pieris rapae (Family NYMPHALIDAE) Falcate Orangetip - Anthocharis midea Snouts (Subfamily - Libytheinae) American Snout - Libytheana carinenta Sulphurs and Yellows (Subfamily - Coliadinae) Clouded Sulphur - Colias philodice Heliconians and Fritillaries Orange Sulphur - Colias eurytheme (Subfamily - Heliconiinae) Southern Dogface - Colias cesonia Gulf Fritillary - Agraulis vanillae Cloudless Sulphur - Phoebis sennae Zebra Heliconian - Heliconius charithonia Barred Yellow - Eurema daira Variegated Fritillary
    [Show full text]
  • Taxon Order Family Scientific Name Common Name Non-Native No. of Individuals/Abundance Notes Bees Hymenoptera Andrenidae Calliop
    Taxon Order Family Scientific Name Common Name Non-native No. of individuals/abundance Notes Bees Hymenoptera Andrenidae Calliopsis andreniformis Mining bee 5 Bees Hymenoptera Apidae Apis millifera European honey bee X 20 Bees Hymenoptera Apidae Bombus griseocollis Brown belted bumble bee 1 Bees Hymenoptera Apidae Bombus impatiens Common eastern bumble bee 12 Bees Hymenoptera Apidae Ceratina calcarata Small carpenter bee 9 Bees Hymenoptera Apidae Ceratina mikmaqi Small carpenter bee 4 Bees Hymenoptera Apidae Ceratina strenua Small carpenter bee 10 Bees Hymenoptera Apidae Melissodes druriella Small carpenter bee 6 Bees Hymenoptera Apidae Xylocopa virginica Eastern carpenter bee 1 Bees Hymenoptera Colletidae Hylaeus affinis masked face bee 6 Bees Hymenoptera Colletidae Hylaeus mesillae masked face bee 3 Bees Hymenoptera Colletidae Hylaeus modestus masked face bee 2 Bees Hymenoptera Halictidae Agapostemon virescens Sweat bee 7 Bees Hymenoptera Halictidae Augochlora pura Sweat bee 1 Bees Hymenoptera Halictidae Augochloropsis metallica metallica Sweat bee 2 Bees Hymenoptera Halictidae Halictus confusus Sweat bee 7 Bees Hymenoptera Halictidae Halictus ligatus Sweat bee 2 Bees Hymenoptera Halictidae Lasioglossum anomalum Sweat bee 1 Bees Hymenoptera Halictidae Lasioglossum ellissiae Sweat bee 1 Bees Hymenoptera Halictidae Lasioglossum laevissimum Sweat bee 1 Bees Hymenoptera Halictidae Lasioglossum platyparium Cuckoo sweat bee 1 Bees Hymenoptera Halictidae Lasioglossum versatum Sweat bee 6 Beetles Coleoptera Carabidae Agonum sp. A ground beetle
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects on Brood Development in the Carpenter Ant Camponotus Vicinus Mayr After Exposure to the Yeast Associate Schwanniomyces Polymorphus Kloecker
    insects Article Effects on Brood Development in the Carpenter Ant Camponotus vicinus Mayr after Exposure to the Yeast Associate Schwanniomyces polymorphus Kloecker Mark E. Mankowski 1,*, Jeffrey J. Morrell 2 and Patricia K. Lebow 3 1 Forest Products Laboratory Starkville, USDA Forest Service, Starkville, MS 39759, USA 2 Centre Timber Durability and Design Life, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD 4102, Australia; [email protected] 3 Forest Products Laboratory Madison, USDA Forest Service, Madison, WI 53726, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Simple Summary: Carpenter ants are important to ecosystem services as they assist in the breakdown of course woody debris when excavating wood for nests. Feeding on a variety of carbohydrate and protein sources, they have an infrabuccal filter that limits passage of large food particles to their gut. A variety of yeasts have been found associated with the infrabuccal pocket and the nests of these ants. The yeast Schwanniomyces polymorphus is associated with the carpenter ant Camponotus vicinus. To examine a possible nutritional association between this yeast and ant, we reared small sub-colonies of defaunated and non-defaunated C. vincus brood on several artificial diets where various nutritional components were removed. Part of the testing involved exposure of brood to these diets and cells of S. polymorphus. Dietary treatments that were augmented with yeast generally had deleterious Citation: Mankowski, M.E.; Morrell, J.J.; effects on brood development compared to diets without yeast. However, increased brood weight Lebow, P.K. Effects on Brood and increased number of adult ants from initial brood was observed in non-defaunated ants fed a Development in the Carpenter Ant diet where B vitamins and sterols were absent, but augmented with live yeast.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of House and Landscape Characteristics on the Abundance and Diversity of Perimeter Pests Principal Investigators: Arthur G
    Project Final Report presented to: The Pest Management Foundation Board of Trustees Project Title: Effects of house and landscape characteristics on the abundance and diversity of perimeter pests Principal Investigators: Arthur G. Appel and Xing Ping Hu, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University Date: June 17, 2019 Executive Summary: The overall goal of this project was to expand and refine our statistical model that estimates Smokybrown cockroach abundance from house and landscape characteristics to include additional species of cockroaches, several species of ants as well as subterranean termites. The model will correlate pest abundance and diversity with house and landscape characteristics. These results could ultimately be used to better treat and prevent perimeter pest infestations. Since the beginning of the period of performance (August 1, 2017), we have hired two new Master’s students, Patrick Thompson and Gökhan Benk, to assist with the project. Both students will obtain degrees in entomology with a specialization in urban entomology with anticipated graduation dates of summer-fall 2019. We have developed and tested several traps designs for rapidly collecting sweet and protein feeding ants, purchased and modified traps for use during a year of trapping, and have identified species of ants, cockroaches, and termites found around homes in Auburn Alabama. House and landscape characteristics have been measured at 62 single-family homes or independent duplexes. These homes range in age from 7 to 61 years and include the most common different types of siding (brick, metal, stone, vinyl, wood), different numbers/types of yard objects (none to >15, including outbuildings, retaining walls, large ornamental rocks, old trees, compost piles, etc.), and different colors.
    [Show full text]
  • Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)
    Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) By Richard Henderson Research Ecologist, WI DNR Bureau of Science Services Summary This is a preliminary list of insects that are either well known, or likely, to be closely associated with Wisconsin’s original native prairie. These species are mostly dependent upon remnants of original prairie, or plantings/restorations of prairie where their hosts have been re-established (see discussion below), and thus are rarely found outside of these settings. The list also includes some species tied to native ecosystems that grade into prairie, such as savannas, sand barrens, fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh. The list is annotated with known host(s) of each insect, and the likelihood of its presence in the state (see key at end of list for specifics). This working list is a byproduct of a prairie invertebrate study I coordinated from1995-2005 that covered 6 Midwestern states and included 14 cooperators. The project surveyed insects on prairie remnants and investigated the effects of fire on those insects. It was funded in part by a series of grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, the list has 475 species. However, this is a partial list at best, representing approximately only ¼ of the prairie-specialist insects likely present in the region (see discussion below). Significant input to this list is needed, as there are major taxa groups missing or greatly under represented. Such absence is not necessarily due to few or no prairie-specialists in those groups, but due more to lack of knowledge about life histories (at least published knowledge), unsettled taxonomy, and lack of taxonomic specialists currently working in those groups.
    [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]
  • Nutritional Ecology of the Carpenter Ant Camponotus Pennsylvanicus (De Geer): Macronutrient Preference and Particle Consumption
    Nutritional Ecology of the Carpenter Ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus (De Geer): Macronutrient Preference and Particle Consumption Colleen A. Cannon Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology Richard D. Fell, Chairman Jeffrey R. Bloomquist Richard E. Keyel Charles Kugler Donald E. Mullins June 12, 1998 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: diet, feeding behavior, food, foraging, Formicidae Copyright 1998, Colleen A. Cannon Nutritional Ecology of the Carpenter Ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus (De Geer): Macronutrient Preference and Particle Consumption Colleen A. Cannon (ABSTRACT) The nutritional ecology of the black carpenter ant, Camponotus pennsylvanicus (De Geer) was investigated by examining macronutrient preference and particle consumption in foraging workers. The crops of foragers collected in the field were analyzed for macronutrient content at two-week intervals through the active season. Choice tests were conducted at similar intervals during the active season to determine preference within and between macronutrient groups. Isolated individuals and small social groups were fed fluorescent microspheres in the laboratory to establish the fate of particles ingested by workers of both castes. Under natural conditions, foragers chiefly collected carbohydrate and nitrogenous material. Carbohydrate predominated in the crop and consisted largely of simple sugars. A small amount of glycogen was present. Carbohydrate levels did not vary with time. Lipid levels in the crop were quite low. The level of nitrogen compounds in the crop was approximately half that of carbohydrate, and exhibited seasonal dependence. Peaks in nitrogen foraging occurred in June and September, months associated with the completion of brood rearing in Camponotus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Linsenmaier Chrysididae Collection Housed in the Natur-Museum Luzern (Switzerland) and the Main Results of the Related GBIF Hymenoptera Project (Insecta)
    Zootaxa 3986 (5): 501–548 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2015 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3986.5.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0BC8E78B-2CB2-4DBD-B036-5BE1AEC4426F The Linsenmaier Chrysididae collection housed in the Natur-Museum Luzern (Switzerland) and the main results of the related GBIF Hymenoptera Project (Insecta) PAOLO ROSA1, 2, 4, MARCO VALERIO BERNASCONI1 & DENISE WYNIGER1, 3 1Natur-Museum Luzern, Kasernenplatz 6, CH-6003 Luzern, Switzerland 2Private address: Via Belvedere 8/d I-20881 Bernareggio (MB), Italy 3present address: Naturhistorisches Museum Basel, Augustinergasse 2, CH-4001 Basel, Switzerland 4Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Table of contents Abstract . 501 Introduction . 502 Linsenmaier's Patrimony . 502 Historical overview . 503 The Linsenmaier Chrysididae collection . 506 Material and methods . 507 GBIF project . 507 The reorganization of the Linsenmaier collection . 508 Manuscripts . 513 Observations on some specimens and labels found in the collection . 515 Type material . 519 New synonymies . 524 Conclusions . 525 Acknowledgements . 525 References . 525 APPENDIX A . 531 Species-group names described by Walter Linsenmaier. 531 Replacement names given by Linsenmaier . 543 Unnecessary replacement names given by Linsenmaier . 543 Genus-group names described by Linsenmaier . 544 Replacement names in the genus-group names . 544 APPENDIX B . 544 List of the types housed in Linsenmaier's
    [Show full text]