DOCSLIB.ORG

2006-2007 Wildlife Inventory in the Jarbidge Field Office

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2006-2007 Wildlife Inventory in the Jarbidge Field Office Jarbid Technical Bulletin 2007-03 g e Field Office 2006-2007 Wildlife Inventory in the Jarbidge Field Office BLM/ID/GI-08/002+1150 December 2007 It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Technical Bulletin: 2006 - 2007 Wildlife Inventory in The Jarbidge Field Office BLM Jarbidge Field Office Twin Falls, Idaho December 05, 2007 Prepared by Jim Klott, Sheri Whitfield, Melanie Cota, and Emily McTavish Acknowledgements. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Gary Wright, Shoshone Field Office, BLM and Peggy Bartells, formerly of the Burley Field Office, BLM for the long hours they spent with field crews from June through September in 2006 field season. We also acknowledge Isaac Ashby and Holly McCready, field crew members in the 2006 field season. Special thanks goes to Alexis Carroll, from the BLM state office, who assisted with field work several times over the summer and to Signe Sather-Blair for offering to let Alexis spend more time in the field. Several BLM staff in the Twin Falls District Office provided assistance as needed in the summer of 2006 including Kimberly Greeley, Amanda Hoffman, Beckie Wagoner, and Eric Kurkowski. Tara Graham assisted with field work, data entry and data analysis. 1 Abstract Large scale habitat alterations within the Jarbidge Field Office (JFO) created concern for special status species and wildlife in general. In September 2005, BLM agreed to a Stipulated Settlement Agreement to a lawsuit filed by Western Watersheds Project. One of the settlement points of litigation was to conduct a wildlife inventory on a number of wildlife species. The focus of the inventory was to sample for a variety of lesser known wildlife species within the JFO, presently categorized by Idaho BLM as sensitive species. While inventorying for the focus species, BLM collected data on all wildlife captured. In January 2006, JFO held a meeting inviting biologists from Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), BLM, the Nature Conservancy, Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW), the Conservation Data Center, and Idaho Power Company. The specialists reviewed the existing data as well as some of the scientific information and made recommendations for wildlife inventory in the JFO (Sather-Blair 2006). Based upon these recommendations, BLM attempted to inventory for a variety of small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Additionally, we noted the condition of habitat in general and big game winter range. Wildlife target species included the following – mammals: pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), Piute (Great Basin) ground squirrel (Spermophilus mollis), cliff chipmunk (Neotamias dorsalis), little pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris), pinyon mouse (Peromyscus truei), and Merriam’s shrew (Sorex merriami ); – reptiles: longnose snake (Rhinocheilus leconti), Western groundsnake (Sonora semiannulata), Great Basin collared lizard (Crotaphytus bicinctores); – amphibians: Woodhouse toad (Bufo woodhousei), western toad (B. boreas), northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) and Columbia spotted frog (R. luteiventris). In May into July 2006 BLM inventoried several wetlands in daylight surveys. From early May into June 2007 night-time amphibian call surveys were conducted. Surveys in 2007 did not result in any new locations for BLM sensitive amphibians being found. Columbia spotted frogs were confirmed in Rocky Canyon, but found in no other drainages. Pacific chorus frogs were the most widespread of the amphibians. They were found in beaver ponds along creeks, springs and wet meadows, and some livestock ponds. No Woodhouse toads or northern leopard frogs were documented within the JFO. We collected information on plant communities as they may influence the diversity, abundance, and species composition of reptiles, birds, and small mammals in the planning area. Along reptile visual observation transects the most frequently observed lizard was the short horned lizard (Phrynosma douglasii). Areas with sandy soils had more leopard lizards (Gambelia wislizenii) and western whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus tigris). Reptiles trapped differed from reptiles encountered on observation transects. Western whiptails were caught relatively frequently, whereas the more frequently observed horned lizards were trapped infrequently. The gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) was the most frequently observed and trapped snake. Gopher snakes were present in most of plant communities at a variety of elevations from 3200 to 6500 feet. Bird species generally reflected the habitat type being sampled. Horned larks (Ermophila alpestris) and vesper sparrows (Pooecetes gramineus) were found in several habitats including 2 sagebrush steppe and grassland types. Sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) and Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) were generally associated with sagebrush steppe communities. Small mammals and reptiles were inventoried in 40 study plots of public land in 23 vegetation communities within the JFO. Our overall mean captures per 100 trap nights were 15.71 across all plant communities, higher than those reported by either Reynolds (1980) in ungrazed big sagebrush or Hanser and Huntly (2006) in big sagebrush. However, Johnson (1961) did not report capture rates by habitat. Our rates of capture were similar to those reported by McAdoo et al. (2006) in northeastern Nevada. Given that 2006 was a one year inventory, it is not known if the relatively high number of small mammals caught was normal or due to there being a peak in the rodent population cycle. Other researchers have found that rodent populations shift substantially between years (Larrison and Johnson 1973, Feldhamer 1979, McAdoo et al. 2006). Although Reynolds (1980) and Johnson (1961) used snap-traps, Hanser and Huntly (2006) and McAdoo et al. (2006), like our study, used baited Sherman live traps. In their studies, as well as in ours, deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) were the most common small mammal species captured and were dominant or co-dominant in all habitats sampled. In sagebrush habitats other small mammals trapped included sagebrush voles (Lemmiscus curtatus), Great Basin pocket mouse (Perognathus parvus), and least chipmunk (Neotamius minimus). Visual surveys for ground squirrels were conducted from mid-April through mid-May 2007 to document the approximate distribution of the Piute ground squirrel. This ground squirrel species was generally found in a broad east-west belt through the central portion of the field office area. Belding ground squirrels (Spermophilus beldingi) were generally found at the higher elevations (5,500 feet) in the southern part of the planning area. Whereas, antelope ground squirrels (Ammospermophilus leucurus) were found in the northern portion of the planning area, generally within a few miles of the Snake River Canyon at 3800 feet or less in elevation. 3 INTRODUCTION In September 2005, BLM agreed to a Stipulated Settlement Agreement to a lawsuit filed by Western Watersheds Project. In the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, BLM agreed to inventory for Idaho BLM sensitive species and include the data in a new planning effort. To make the most efficient use of staff and funding BLM held a data workshop in January 2006 with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), IDFG, the Idaho Conservation Data Center, and non-government organizations to determine which species or groups of species were in highest priority for inventory. At the data fair both biologists and botanists reviewed data on species presence in or adjacent to JFO, documented and suspected distribution, prior inventory efforts, and where inventories had been conducted. Another consideration was the amount of peer reviewed scientific information on species of concern from other portions of the species range. Biologists and botanists then identified the data gaps for groups of species and prioritized species for inventory in the Jarbidge Field Office. The biologists’ priorities for inventory were for species which had not been inventoried within the planning area, species which are generally uncommon, and species for which inventory data were more than 12 years old. Species, such as northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and Lewis woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), for which there is naturally very limited habitat were a lower priority compared to species such as pygmy rabbit and Piute ground squirrel for which there is a substantial amount of suitable habitat. Priority species for inventory were amphibians emphasizing the Columbia spotted frog, but recording information on western toad, northern leopard frog, and Woodhouse toad; reptiles [long-nose snake, western groundsnake, and Great Basin black-collared lizard], and small mammals [pygmy rabbit, Piute ground squirrel, cliff chipmunk, dark kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops megachephalus), little pocket mouse, pinyon mouse, and Merriam’s shrew. The various biologists determined that additional inventory efforts on bats would not likely provide much new information in part because of existing presence data in Bruneau and Jarbidge River Canyons and the Clover and Salmon Falls Creek Canyons collected in the mid-1990’s. Existing information on ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) were deemed adequate. Specialists at the data fair determined scientific information on sagebrush songbirds (sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus))
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Body Size, Not Phylogenetic Relationship Or Residency, Drives Interspecific Dominance in a Little Pocket Mouse Community
    Animal Behaviour 137 (2018) 197e204 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Animal Behaviour journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anbehav Body size, not phylogenetic relationship or residency, drives interspecific dominance in a little pocket mouse community * Rachel Y. Chock a, , Debra M. Shier a, b, Gregory F. Grether a a Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A. b Recovery Ecology, San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, Escondido, CA, U.S.A. article info The role of interspecific aggression in structuring ecological communities can be important to consider Article history: when reintroducing endangered species to areas of their historic range that are occupied by competitors. Received 6 September 2017 We sought to determine which species is the most serious interference competitor of the endangered Initial acceptance 6 November 2017 Pacific pocket mouse, Perognathus longimembris pacificus, and more generally, whether interspecific Final acceptance 1 December 2017 aggression in rodents is predicted by body size, residency status or phylogenetic relatedness. We carried out simulated territory intrusion experiments between P. longimembris and four sympatric species of MS. number: A17-00719 rodents (Chaetodipus fallax, Dipodomys simulans, Peromyscus maniculatus, Reithrodontomys megalotis)ina field enclosure in southern California sage scrub habitat. We found that body size asymmetries strongly Keywords: predicted dominance, regardless of phylogenetic relatedness or the residency status of the individuals. aggression The largest species, D. simulans, was the most dominant while the smallest species, R. megalotis, was the dominance least dominant to P. longimembris. Furthermore, P. longimembris actively avoided encounters with all interference competition Perognathus longimembris species, except R.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and Phylogenetic Taxonomy of Dipsacales, with Special Reference to Sinadoxa and Tetradoxa (Adoxaceae)
    PHYLOGENY AND PHYLOGENETIC TAXONOMY OF DIPSACALES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SINADOXA AND TETRADOXA (ADOXACEAE) MICHAEL J. DONOGHUE,1 TORSTEN ERIKSSON,2 PATRICK A. REEVES,3 AND RICHARD G. OLMSTEAD 3 Abstract. To further clarify phylogenetic relationships within Dipsacales,we analyzed new and previously pub- lished rbcL sequences, alone and in combination with morphological data. We also examined relationships within Adoxaceae using rbcL and nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences. We conclude from these analyses that Dipsacales comprise two major lineages:Adoxaceae and Caprifoliaceae (sensu Judd et al.,1994), which both contain elements of traditional Caprifoliaceae.Within Adoxaceae, the following relation- ships are strongly supported: (Viburnum (Sambucus (Sinadoxa (Tetradoxa, Adoxa)))). Combined analyses of C ap ri foliaceae yield the fo l l ow i n g : ( C ap ri folieae (Diervilleae (Linnaeeae (Morinaceae (Dipsacaceae (Triplostegia,Valerianaceae)))))). On the basis of these results we provide phylogenetic definitions for the names of several major clades. Within Adoxaceae, Adoxina refers to the clade including Sinadoxa, Tetradoxa, and Adoxa.This lineage is marked by herbaceous habit, reduction in the number of perianth parts,nectaries of mul- ticellular hairs on the perianth,and bifid stamens. The clade including Morinaceae,Valerianaceae, Triplostegia, and Dipsacaceae is here named Valerina. Probable synapomorphies include herbaceousness,presence of an epi- calyx (lost or modified in Valerianaceae), reduced endosperm,and distinctive chemistry, including production of monoterpenoids. The clade containing Valerina plus Linnaeeae we name Linnina. This lineage is distinguished by reduction to four (or fewer) stamens, by abortion of two of the three carpels,and possibly by supernumerary inflorescences bracts. Keywords: Adoxaceae, Caprifoliaceae, Dipsacales, ITS, morphological characters, phylogeny, phylogenetic taxonomy, phylogenetic nomenclature, rbcL, Sinadoxa, Tetradoxa.
    [Show full text]
  • LOS ANGELES POCKET MOUSE Perognathus Longimembris Brevinasus
    Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California, Bolster, B.C., Ed., 1998 111 Los Angeles pocket mouse, Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Philip V. Brylski Description: This is a small heteromyid rodent, averaging about 113 mm TL with weight from 8 to 11 g. The Los Angeles pocket mouse can be potentially confused only with juveniles of the sympatric California pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus), from which it can be distinguished by the absence of spiny hairs in the dorsal pelage and the absence of a distinct crest on the tail. Pelage is buff above and white below. Many of the dorsal hairs are black-tipped, giving the pelage a "salt and pepper" appearance, similar to but lighter than that of the Pacific pocket mouse (P. l. pacificus). Like all silky pocket mice, there is usually a small white spot at the anterior base of the ear, and an indistinct larger buff spot behind the ear, the plantar surface of the hindfeet are naked or lightly haired, and the lateral hairs of the hind toes project anteriorly and laterally, resulting in a "fringed-toed" effect, which may enhance locomotor efficiency on sandy substrates. Taxonomic Remarks: This is one of eight subspecies of the little pocket mouse (P. longimembris) in California (Hall 1981). P. l. brevinasus was first described by Osgood (1900) as a race of the Panamint pocket mouse (P. panamintinus). Both brevinasus and panamintinus were arranged as subspecies of P. longimembris by Huey (1928). An important taxonomic character of brevinasus is its short rostrum, a character also shared by pacificus. P.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Research for the Endangered Pacific Pocket Mouse: an Overview of Collaborative Studies1
    Recovery Research for the Endangered Pacific Pocket Mouse: An Overview of Collaborative Studies1 Wayne D. Spencer2 Abstract The critically endangered Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus), feared extinct for over 20 years, was “rediscovered” in 1993 and is now documented at four sites in Orange and San Diego Counties, California. Only one of these sites is considered large enough to be potentially self-sustaining without active intervention. In 1998, I gathered a team of biologists to initiate several research tasks in support of recovery planning for the species. The PPM Studies Team quickly determined that species recovery would require active trans- locations or reintroductions to establish new populations, but that we knew too little about the biology of P. l. pacificus and the availability of translocation receiver sites to design such a program. Recovery research from 1998 to 2000 therefore focused on (1) a systematic search for potential translocation receiver sites; (2) laboratory and field studies on non-listed, surro- gate subspecies (P. l. longimembris and P. l. bangsi) to gain biological insights and perfect study methods; (3) studies on the historic and extant genetic diversity of P. l. pacificus; and (4) experimental habitat manipulations to increase P. l. pacificus populations. Using existing geographic information system (GIS) data, we identified sites throughout the historic range that might have appropriate soils and vegetation to support translocated P. l. pacificus. Re- connaissance surveys of habitat value were completed in all large areas of potential habitat identified by the model. Those sites having the highest habitat potential are being studied with more detailed and quantitative field analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Mistaken Identity? Invasive Plants and Their Native Look-Alikes: an Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic
    Mistaken Identity ? Invasive Plants and their Native Look-alikes an Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic Matthew Sarver Amanda Treher Lenny Wilson Robert Naczi Faith B. Kuehn www.nrcs.usda.gov http://dda.delaware.gov www.dsu.edu www.dehort.org www.delawareinvasives.net Published by: Delaware Department Agriculture • November 2008 In collaboration with: Claude E. Phillips Herbarium at Delaware State University • Delaware Center for Horticulture Funded by: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Cover Photos: Front: Aralia elata leaf (Inset, l-r: Aralia elata habit; Aralia spinosa infloresence, Aralia elata stem) Back: Aralia spinosa habit TABLE OF CONTENTS About this Guide ............................1 Introduction What Exactly is an Invasive Plant? ..................................................................................................................2 What Impacts do Invasives Have? ..................................................................................................................2 The Mid-Atlantic Invasive Flora......................................................................................................................3 Identification of Invasives ..............................................................................................................................4 You Can Make a Difference..............................................................................................................................5 Plant Profiles Trees Norway Maple vs. Sugar
    [Show full text]
  • Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas
    Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Texas Parks and Wildlife Department • 4200 Smith School Road • Austin, Texas 78744 • (512) 389-4800 Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Developed by Michael Warriner and Ben Hutchins Nongame and Rare Species Program Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Acknowledgements Critical content review was provided by Mace Vaughn, Anne Stine, and Jennifer Hopwood, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Shalene Jha Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin. Texas Master Naturalists, Carol Clark and Jessica Womack, provided the early impetus for development of management protocols geared towards native pollinators. Cover photos: Left top to bottom: Ben Hutchins, Cullen Hanks, Eric Isley, Right: Eric Isley Design and layout by Elishea Smith © 2016 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department PWD BK W7000-1813 (04/16) In accordance with Texas State Depository Law, this publication is available at the Texas State Publications Clearinghouse and/or Texas Depository Libraries. TPWD receives federal assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies and is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and state anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any TPWD program, activity or facility, or need more information, please contact Office of Diversity and Inclusive Workforce Management, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Alien Flora of Europe: Species Diversity, Temporal Trends, Geographical Patterns and Research Needs
    Preslia 80: 101–149, 2008 101 Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs Zavlečená flóra Evropy: druhová diverzita, časové trendy, zákonitosti geografického rozšíření a oblasti budoucího výzkumu Philip W. L a m b d o n1,2#, Petr P y š e k3,4*, Corina B a s n o u5, Martin H e j d a3,4, Margari- taArianoutsou6, Franz E s s l7, Vojtěch J a r o š í k4,3, Jan P e r g l3, Marten W i n t e r8, Paulina A n a s t a s i u9, Pavlos A n d r i opoulos6, Ioannis B a z o s6, Giuseppe Brundu10, Laura C e l e s t i - G r a p o w11, Philippe C h a s s o t12, Pinelopi D e l i p e t - rou13, Melanie J o s e f s s o n14, Salit K a r k15, Stefan K l o t z8, Yannis K o k k o r i s6, Ingolf K ü h n8, Hélia M a r c h a n t e16, Irena P e r g l o v á3, Joan P i n o5, Montserrat Vilà17, Andreas Z i k o s6, David R o y1 & Philip E. H u l m e18 1Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Hill of Brathens, Banchory, Aberdeenshire AB31 4BW, Scotland, e-mail; [email protected], [email protected]; 2Kew Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, United Kingdom; 3Institute of Bot- any, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic, e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]; 4Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 01 Praha 2, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected]; 5Center for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain, e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]; 6University of Athens, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology & Systematics, 15784 Athens, Greece, e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]; 7Federal Environment Agency, Department of Nature Conservation, Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria, e-mail: [email protected]; 8Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Community Ecology, Theodor-Lieser- Str.
    [Show full text]
  • Nocturnal Rodents
    Nocturnal Rodents Peter Holm Objectives (Chaetodipus spp. and Perognathus spp.) and The monitoring protocol handbook (Petryszyn kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp.) belong to the 1995) states: “to document general trends in family Heteromyidae (heteromyids), while the nocturnal rodent population size on an annual white-throated woodrats (Neotoma albigula), basis across a representative sample of habitat Arizona cotton rat (Sigmodon arizonae), cactus types present in the monument”. mouse (Peromyscus eremicus), and grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus), belong to the family Introduction Muridae. Sigmodon arizonae, a native riparian Nocturnal rodents constitute the prey base for species relatively new to OPCNM, has been many snakes, owls, and carnivorous mammals. recorded at the Dos Lomitas and Salsola EMP All nocturnal rodents, except for the grasshopper sites, adjacent to Mexican agricultural fields. mouse, are primary consumers. Whereas Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) is the heteromyids constitute an important guild lone representative of the family Geomyidae. See of granivores, murids feed primarily on fruit Petryszyn and Russ (1996), Hoffmeister (1986), and foliage. Rodents are also responsible for Petterson (1999), Rosen (2000), and references considerable excavation and mixing of soil layers therein, for a thorough review. (bioturbation), “predation” on plants and seeds, as well as the dispersal and caching of plant seeds. As part of the Sensitive Ecosystems Project, Petryszyn and Russ (1996) conducted a baseline Rodents are common in all monument habitats, study originally titled, Special Status Mammals are easily captured and identified, have small of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. They home ranges, have high fecundity, and respond surveyed for nocturnal rodents and other quickly to changes in primary productivity and mammals in various habitats throughout the disturbance (Petryszyn 1995, Petryszyn and Russ monument and found that murids dominated 1996, Petterson 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Mammalian Species Surveys in the Acquisition Areas on the Tejon Ranch, California
    MAMMALIAN SPECIES SURVEYS IN THE ACQUISITION AREAS ON THE TEJON RANCH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE TEJON RANCH CONSERVANCY Prepared by: Brian L. Cypher, Christine L. Van Horn Job, Erin N. Tennant, and Scott E. Phillips California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program One University Circle Turlock, CA 95382 August 16, 2010 esrp_2010_TejonRanchsurvey.doc MAMMALIAN SPECIES SURVEYS IN THE ACQUISITION AREAS ON THE TEJON RANCH, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Study Areas ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods............................................................................................................................... 4 Target Special Status Species .................................................................................................................... 4 Camera Station Surveys ............................................................................................................................. 4 Live-Trapping ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Spotlight Surveys ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Opportunistic Observations ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetics of the Caprifolieae and Lonicera (Dipsacales)
    Systematic Botany (2008), 33(4): pp. 776–783 © Copyright 2008 by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists Phylogenetics of the Caprifolieae and Lonicera (Dipsacales) Based on Nuclear and Chloroplast DNA Sequences Nina Theis,1,3,4 Michael J. Donoghue,2 and Jianhua Li1,4 1Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, 22 Divinity Ave, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 U.S.A. 2Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, P.O. Box 208106, New Haven, Conneticut 06520-8106 U.S.A. 3Current Address: Plant Soil, and Insect Sciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003 U.S.A. 4Authors for correspondence ([email protected]; [email protected]) Communicating Editor: Lena Struwe Abstract—Recent phylogenetic analyses of the Dipsacales strongly support a Caprifolieae clade within Caprifoliaceae including Leycesteria, Triosteum, Symphoricarpos, and Lonicera. Relationships within Caprifolieae, however, remain quite uncertain, and the monophyly of Lonicera, the most species-rich of the traditional genera, and its subdivisions, need to be evaluated. In this study we used sequences of the ITS region of nuclear ribosomal DNA and five chloroplast non-coding regions (rpoB–trnC spacer, atpB–rbcL spacer, trnS–trnG spacer, petN–psbM spacer, and psbM–trnD spacer) to address these problems. Our results indicate that Heptacodium is sister to Caprifolieae, Triosteum is sister to the remaining genera within the tribe, and Leycesteria and Symphoricarpos form a clade that is sister to a monophyletic Lonicera. Within Lonicera, the major split is between subgenus Caprifolium and subgenus Lonicera. Within subgenus Lonicera, sections Coeloxylosteum, Isoxylosteum, and Nintooa are nested within the paraphyletic section Isika. Section Nintooa may also be non-monophyletic.
    [Show full text]
  • 31762100213881.Pdf
    Wildlife use of fire-disturbed areas in sagebrush steppe on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory by William Edward Moritz A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fish and Wildlife Management Montana State University © Copyright by William Edward Moritz (1988) Abstract: From June, 1984 through June, 1987, a study was conducted on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) in southeast Idaho to collect data on sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and small mammal use of nine burned areas (fire s cars) of various ages in sagebrush steppe- Information on plant community composition of burned areas and adjacent nonburned (control) areas was reported. Fire scars were characterized by an absence of sagebrush, although revegetation was not clearly directional or predictable. Two years of seasonal use by sage grouse and pronghorn of fire scars and control areas were determined. Sage grouse use of a newly burned area was significantly greater (p<0.05) than controls. Fire scars dominated by cheatgras s (Bromus textorurn) were used by sage grouse significantly less than controls. Incomplete burns created a mosiac pattern of vegetation which sage grouse used significantly more than adjacent controls. Significant trends in use by sage grouse of older burned areas, dominated by perennial grasses/rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) were not detected. The lush growth of grasses and forbs following disturbance attracted pronghorn, as use of the fire scar was significantly higher than controls. Pronghorn use of cheatgrass-dominated fire scars was significantly greater than controls. Overall use of incompletely-burned areas was not significantly different than controls, although seasonal- differences existed.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Snowberry (Symphoricarpos Albus)
    California Phenology Project: species profile for Common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) CPP site(s) where this species is monitored: John Muir Naonal Historic Site What does this species look like? This deciduous shrub or tree is densely branched and grows between 0.6 to 1.8 meters tall. It can form thickets with creeping underground stems. The small but showy flowers are white to pink and have both male and female parts. These flowers occur in small clusters of 8 to 16 along the stems and are insect- pollinated. The round fruit is 8 to 12 mm long. When monitoring this species, use the USA-NPN deciduous trees and shrubs datasheet. Photo credit Gertrud K (flickr) Species facts! • The CPP four leOer code for this species is SYAL. • Nave Americans used this species medicinally and for arrowshas, brooms, and shampoo. • The berries can be toxic to humans, causing vomi+ng and dizziness. • The berries are an important food source for birds and mammals. The floral nectar is an important resource for buOerflies and moths. • Re-sprouts from spreading rhizomes easily aer fires. Photo credit: onok (flickr) Where is this species found? • Favors well-drained, moist, fer+le soils but also will grow on dry or rocky soils. • Found in shady woods, streambanks, and northern slopes. • Occurs at elevaons less than 1200 meters. • Naturally distributed throughout northwest, central-western, and southwestern California as well as north through Alaska and throughout Western U.S. • Naturalized species in the Eastern U.S. Photo credit: Lil worlf (flickr) For more informaon
    [Show full text]