DOCSLIB.ORG

Pennsylvania Statewide Seasonal Pool Ecosystem Classification

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pennsylvania Statewide Seasonal Pool Ecosystem Classification Pennsylvania Statewide Seasonal Pool Ecosystem Classification Description, mapping, and classification of seasonal pools, their associated plant and animal communities, and the surrounding landscape April 2009 Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program i Cover photo by: Betsy Leppo, Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program ii Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program is a partnership of: Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and Pennsylvania Game Commission. The project was funded by: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Wild Resource Conservation Program Grant no. WRCP-06187 U.S. EPA State Wetland Protection Development Grant no. CD-973493-01 Suggested report citation: Leppo, B., Zimmerman, E., Ray, S., Podniesinski, G., and Furedi, M. 2009. Pennsylvania Statewide Seasonal Pool Ecosystem Classification: Description, mapping, and classification of seasonal pools, their associated plant and animal communities, and the surrounding landscape. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Pittsburgh, PA. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the following organizations, agencies, and people for their time and support of this project: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Wild Resource Conservation Program (WRCP), who funded this study as part of their effort to encourage protection of wetland resources. Our appreciation to Greg Czarnecki (DCNR-WRCP) and Greg Podniesinski (DCNR-Office of Conservation Science (OCS)), who administered the EPA and WRCP funds for this work. We greatly appreciate the long hours in the field and lab logged by Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC) staff including Kathy Derge Gipe, Ryan Miller, and Amy Myers. To Tim Maret, and Larry Klotz of Shippensburg University, Aura Stauffer of the PA Bureau of Forestry, and Eric Lindquist of Messiah College, we appreciate the advice you provided as we developed this project. Thanks to Al Spoo of the Lancaster County Entomological Society for his identification of fingernail clam specimens and Christopher Rogers of EcoAnalysts, Inc. for identifying fairy shrimp specimens. We appreciate the botanical expertise of John Kunsman and Steve Grund of WPC, Bonnie Isaac of the Section of Botany and the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, and of Larry Klotz of Shippensburg University. Many thanks to John Atwood of the Bryophyte Herbarium at the Missouri Botanical Garden for his excellent review and identification of the moss specimens collected during this study. To all the folks who submitted data to the Pennsylvania Seasonal Pool Registry, we thank you for submitting the data that allowed us to find enough pools to use in this study. Many thanks to the Pennsylvania Game Commission, DCNR Bureau of State Parks, DCNR Bureau of Forestry for their cooperation in allowing data to be collected on land under their jurisdiction and providing access, and to the other landowners, conservancies, and municipalities who granted us access to their property. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ v FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii List of Figures........................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................viii I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1 Study Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1 Study Goals................................................................................................................................. 2 Seasonal Pool Ecosystems .......................................................................................................... 3 Seasonal pool definition.......................................................................................................... 3 Factors shaping seasonal pool animal assemblages................................................................ 3 Physiochemistry...................................................................................................................... 4 Hydroperiod ............................................................................................................................ 4 Pool Size ................................................................................................................................. 5 Temperature ............................................................................................................................ 6 Seasonality .............................................................................................................................. 6 Oxygen.................................................................................................................................... 6 pH............................................................................................................................................ 7 Nutrients.................................................................................................................................. 7 Vegetation............................................................................................................................... 8 Landscape condition ............................................................................................................... 9 II. METHODS.............................................................................................................................. 10 Site Selection ............................................................................................................................ 10 Water Chemistry and Pool Dimension Measurements ............................................................. 11 Invertebrate and Herptile Surveys ............................................................................................ 11 Vegetation and Physical Site Surveys....................................................................................... 14 Landscape Analyses.................................................................................................................. 15 Invertebrate and Herptile Data Analyses .................................................................................. 16 Vegetation Data Analyses......................................................................................................... 18 III. RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 20 Site Selection ............................................................................................................................ 20 Landscape, Physical, and Chemical Characteristics................................................................. 21 Invertebrate Sampling............................................................................................................... 35 Herptile Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 38 Invertebrate and Amphibian Community Classification .......................................................... 40 Vegetation Sampling................................................................................................................. 63 Vegetation Community Classification...................................................................................... 64 IV. PLANT COMMUNITIES OF SEASONAL POOLS IN PENNSYLVANIA ...................... 72 Dichotomous Key ..................................................................................................................... 72 How to use the key................................................................................................................ 72 Season of use......................................................................................................................... 72 Survey area............................................................................................................................ 72 Terminology.......................................................................................................................... 73 Vegetation structure.............................................................................................................. 73 v Key to the Plant Communities .................................................................................................. 74 Seasonal Pool Plant Community Descriptions ......................................................................... 76 V. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 85 Vegetation community classification........................................................................................ 85
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unexpected Diversity in Neelipleona Revealed by Molecular Phylogeny Approach (Hexapoda, Collembola)
    S O I L O R G A N I S M S Volume 83 (3) 2011 pp. 383–398 ISSN: 1864-6417 Unexpected diversity in Neelipleona revealed by molecular phylogeny approach (Hexapoda, Collembola) Clément Schneider1, 3, Corinne Cruaud2 and Cyrille A. D’Haese1 1 UMR7205 CNRS, Département Systématique et Évolution, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, CP50 Entomology, 45 rue Buffon, 75231 Paris cedex 05, France 2 Genoscope, Centre National de Sequençage, 2 rue G. Crémieux, CP5706, 91057 Evry cedex, France 3 Corresponding author: Clément Schneider (email: [email protected]) Abstract Neelipleona are the smallest of the four Collembola orders in term of species number with 35 species described worldwide (out of around 8000 known Collembola). Despite this apparent poor diversity, Neelipleona have a worldwide repartition. The fact that the most commonly observed species, Neelus murinus Folsom, 1896 and Megalothorax minimus Willem, 1900, display cosmopolitan repartition is striking. A cladistic analysis based on 16S rDNA, COX1 and 28S rDNA D1 and D2 regions, for a broad collembolan sampling was performed. This analysis included 24 representatives of the Neelipleona genera Neelus Folsom, 1896 and Megalothorax Willem, 1900 from various regions. The interpretation of the phylogenetic pattern and number of transformations (branch length) indicates that Neelipleona are more diverse than previously thought, with probably many species yet to be discovered. These results buttress the rank of Neelipleona as a whole order instead of a Symphypleona family. Keywords: Collembola, Neelidae, Megalothorax, Neelus, COX1, 16S, 28S 1. Introduction 1.1. Brief history of Neelipleona classification The Neelidae family was established by Folsom (1896), who described Neelus murinus from Cambridge (USA).
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Analysis of Anostracans (Branchiopoda: Anostraca) Inferred from Nuclear 18S Ribosomal DNA (18S Rdna) Sequences
    MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 25 (2002) 535–544 www.academicpress.com Phylogenetic analysis of anostracans (Branchiopoda: Anostraca) inferred from nuclear 18S ribosomal DNA (18S rDNA) sequences Peter H.H. Weekers,a,* Gopal Murugan,a,1 Jacques R. Vanfleteren,a Denton Belk,b and Henri J. Dumonta a Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ledeganckstraat 35, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium b Biology Department, Our Lady of the Lake University of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78207, USA Received 20 February 2001; received in revised form 18 June 2002 Abstract The nuclear small subunit ribosomal DNA (18S rDNA) of 27 anostracans (Branchiopoda: Anostraca) belonging to 14 genera and eight out of nine traditionally recognized families has been sequenced and used for phylogenetic analysis. The 18S rDNA phylogeny shows that the anostracans are monophyletic. The taxa under examination form two clades of subordinal level and eight clades of family level. Two families the Polyartemiidae and Linderiellidae are suppressed and merged with the Chirocephalidae, of which together they form a subfamily. In contrast, the Parartemiinae are removed from the Branchipodidae, raised to family level (Parartemiidae) and cluster as a sister group to the Artemiidae in a clade defined here as the Artemiina (new suborder). A number of morphological traits support this new suborder. The Branchipodidae are separated into two families, the Branchipodidae and Ta- nymastigidae (new family). The relationship between Dendrocephalus and Thamnocephalus requires further study and needs the addition of Branchinella sequences to decide whether the Thamnocephalidae are monophyletic. Surprisingly, Polyartemiella hazeni and Polyartemia forcipata (‘‘Family’’ Polyartemiidae), with 17 and 19 thoracic segments and pairs of trunk limb as opposed to all other anostracans with only 11 pairs, do not cluster but are separated by Linderiella santarosae (‘‘Family’’ Linderiellidae), which has 11 pairs of trunk limbs.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taxonomic Revision of Rhododendron L. Section Pentanthera G
    A TAXONOMIC REVISION OF RHODODENDRON L. SECTION PENTANTHERA G. DON (ERICACEAE) BY KATHLEEN ANNE KRON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1987 , ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the supervision and encouragement given to me by Dr. Walter S. Judd. I thoroughly enjoyed my work under his direction. I would also like to thank the members of my advisory committee, Dr. Bijan Dehgan, Dr. Dana G. Griffin, III, Dr. James W. Kimbrough, Dr. Jonathon Reiskind, Dr. William Louis Stern, and Dr. Norris H. Williams for their critical comments and suggestions. The National Science Foundation generously supported this project in the form of a Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant;* field work in 1985 was supported by a grant from the Highlands Biological Station, Highlands, North Carolina. I thank the curators of the following herbaria for the loan of their material: A, AUA, BHA, DUKE, E, FSU, GA, GH, ISTE, JEPS , KW, KY, LAF, LE NCSC, NCU, NLU NO, OSC, PE, PH, LSU , M, MAK, MOAR, NA, , RSA/POM, SMU, SZ, TENN, TEX, TI, UARK, UC, UNA, USF, VDB, VPI, W, WA, WVA. My appreciation also is offered to the illustrators, Gerald Masters, Elizabeth Hall, Rosa Lee, Lisa Modola, and Virginia Tomat. I thank Dr. R. Howard * BSR-8601236 ii Berg for the scanning electron micrographs. Mr. Bart Schutzman graciously made available his computer program to plot the results of the principal components analyses. The herbarium staff, especially Mr. Kent D. Perkins, was always helpful and their service is greatly appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Festival of Fountains May 9 Through September 29, 2019
    Longwood Gardens’ Festival of Fountains May 9 through September 29, 2019. Fountains dance and soar up to 175 feet and Illuminated Fountain Performances take 2019 SE ASONAL center stage on Thursday HIGHLIGHTS through Saturday evenings. AND MA P #BrandywineValley Six spectacular evenings when fireworks light the skies above Longwood Gardens: May 26, July 3, July 20, August 10, September 1 and September 28 Costiming THE CROWN March 30, 2019–January 5th, 2020 • Winterthur Museum, Garden & Library Evening events call for local accommodations, so plan today as rooms and tickets go quickly. Visit BrandywineValley.com. SEASONAL HIGHLIGHTS Visitors to the Brandywine Valley appreciate the unique attractions Learn about all of Chester County’s and lively annual events that take place throughout the rolling hills events by visiting: of our charming destination in the countryside of Philadelphia. BrandywineValley.com/events Events listed are for 2019, and most are held annually. SPRING SUMMER AUTUMN WINTER The season launches a Skies fill with balloons, Adventures feature Holiday magic and a slate of world-class helicopters, and fireworks, mushrooms, pumpkins, and wonderland of orchids equestrian events, a and The Blob makes an a thousand-bloom mum, all highlight this sparkling vibrant art scene, and a annual visit to Phoenixville’s set against fall's spectacular season. blooming landscape. Colonial Theatre! color palate. May 5 May 9 – Sept. 29 Sept. 7 & 8 Nov. 23 Winterthur Point-to-Point Festival of Fountains, Mushroom Festival Christmas at Nemours through Dec. 29 May 12 Longwood Gardens Sept. 28 The Willowdale June 16 Bike the Brandywine Holidays at Hagley Steeplechase Fatherfest, American Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Wood Frog (Rana Sylvatica): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project March 24, 2005 Erin Muths1, Suzanne Rittmann1, Jason Irwin2, Doug Keinath3, Rick Scherer4 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg C, Fort Collins, CO 80526 2 Department of Biology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837 3 Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, P.O. Box 3381, Laramie, WY 82072 4 Colorado State University, GDPE, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Muths, E., S. Rittman, J. Irwin, D. Keinath, and R. Scherer. (2005, March 24). Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/woodfrog.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the help of the many people who contributed time and answered questions during our review of the literature. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Dr. Erin Muths is a Zoologist with the U.S. Geological Survey – Fort Collins Science Center. She has been studying amphibians in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Region for the last 10 years. Her research focuses on demographics of boreal toads, wood frogs and chorus frogs and methods research. She is a principle investigator for the USDOI Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative and is an Associate Editor for the Northwestern Naturalist. Dr. Muths earned a B.S. in Wildlife Ecology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1986); a M.S. in Biology (Systematics and Ecology) from Kansas State University (1990) and a Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleópteros Saproxílicos De Los Bosques De Montaña En El Norte De La Comunidad De Madrid
    Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos Coleópteros Saproxílicos de los Bosques de Montaña en el Norte de la Comunidad de Madrid T e s i s D o c t o r a l Juan Jesús de la Rosa Maldonado Licenciado en Ciencias Ambientales 2014 Departamento de Producción Vegetal: Botánica y Protección Vegetal Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos Coleópteros Saproxílicos de los Bosques de Montaña en el Norte de la Comunidad de Madrid Juan Jesús de la Rosa Maldonado Licenciado en Ciencias Ambientales Directores: D. Pedro del Estal Padillo, Doctor Ingeniero Agrónomo D. Marcos Méndez Iglesias, Doctor en Biología 2014 Tribunal nombrado por el Magfco. y Excmo. Sr. Rector de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid el día de de 2014. Presidente D. Vocal D. Vocal D. Vocal D. Secretario D. Suplente D. Suplente D. Realizada la lectura y defensa de la Tesis el día de de 2014 en Madrid, en la Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos. Calificación: El Presidente Los Vocales El Secretario AGRADECIMIENTOS A Ángel Quirós, Diego Marín Armijos, Isabel López, Marga López, José Luis Gómez Grande, María José Morales, Alba López, Jorge Martínez Huelves, Miguel Corra, Adriana García, Natalia Rojas, Rafa Castro, Ana Busto, Enrique Gorroño y resto de amigos que puntualmente colaboraron en los trabajos de campo o de gabinete. A la Guardería Forestal de la comarca de Buitrago de Lozoya, por su permanente apoyo logístico. A los especialistas en taxonomía que participaron en la identificación del material recolectado, pues sin su asistencia hubiera sido mucho más difícil finalizar este trabajo.
    [Show full text]
  • Somerset's Ecological Network
    Somerset’s Ecological Network Mapping the components of the ecological network in Somerset 2015 Report This report was produced by Michele Bowe, Eleanor Higginson, Jake Chant and Michelle Osbourn of Somerset Wildlife Trust, and Larry Burrows of Somerset County Council, with the support of Dr Kevin Watts of Forest Research. The BEETLE least-cost network model used to produce Somerset’s Ecological Network was developed by Forest Research (Watts et al, 2010). GIS data and mapping was produced with the support of Somerset Environmental Records Centre and First Ecology Somerset Wildlife Trust 34 Wellington Road Taunton TA1 5AW 01823 652 400 Email: [email protected] somersetwildlife.org Front Cover: Broadleaved woodland ecological network in East Mendip Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 2. Policy and Legislative Background to Ecological Networks ............................................ 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 Government White Paper on the Natural Environment .............................................. 3 National Planning Policy Framework ......................................................................... 3 The Habitats and Birds Directives ............................................................................. 4 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 ..................................
    [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]
  • Chapter 3.5 Southern Highlands Region 3.5 Southern Highlands Region
    Chapter 3.5 Southern Highlands Region 3.5 Southern Highlands Region 3.5 Southern Highlands Region mentioned are large resources there are also many smaller recreational opportunities scattered throughout the region. When The Southern Highlands Region is located within the southern totaled, the Southern Highlands Region as a whole has more portion of Berks County and bordered by the Metro Region to the than twice the existing recreational acreage recommended by the north and Lancaster and Chester Counties to the southwest and National Recreation & Park Association. southeast. Throughout this region is an abundance of recreational, ecological and historical resources. This region is Recreation considered to be one area of the County that is going to see a steady rise in population as more and more people move into the Recreation is mainly of the passive type in this region. There are area along the US 422 and Pennsylvania Turnpike corridors. large State and Federally-owned parks within the Southern New Morgan Borough has been the site of a number of ambitious Highlands and they provide much of the recreational development proposals that could contribute significantly to the opportunities to not only the citizens of the region but the citizens region’s population. of neighboring Counties as well as all of Berks County. School districts, municipalities and privately-owned facilities cater mainly The Southern Highlands Region has a multitude of recreational, to the local need of residents. Although there seems to be a ecological and historical resources with the majority being geared toward passive recreation. The Schuylkill River Greenway/Trail extends through this region ultimately winding its way to Philadelphia.
    [Show full text]
  • A Genus-Level Supertree of Adephaga (Coleoptera) Rolf G
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 7 (2008) 255–269 www.elsevier.de/ode A genus-level supertree of Adephaga (Coleoptera) Rolf G. Beutela,Ã, Ignacio Riberab, Olaf R.P. Bininda-Emondsa aInstitut fu¨r Spezielle Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie, FSU Jena, Germany bMuseo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain Received 14 October 2005; accepted 17 May 2006 Abstract A supertree for Adephaga was reconstructed based on 43 independent source trees – including cladograms based on Hennigian and numerical cladistic analyses of morphological and molecular data – and on a backbone taxonomy. To overcome problems associated with both the size of the group and the comparative paucity of available information, our analysis was made at the genus level (requiring synonymizing taxa at different levels across the trees) and used Safe Taxonomic Reduction to remove especially poorly known species. The final supertree contained 401 genera, making it the most comprehensive phylogenetic estimate yet published for the group. Interrelationships among the families are well resolved. Gyrinidae constitute the basal sister group, Haliplidae appear as the sister taxon of Geadephaga+ Dytiscoidea, Noteridae are the sister group of the remaining Dytiscoidea, Amphizoidae and Aspidytidae are sister groups, and Hygrobiidae forms a clade with Dytiscidae. Resolution within the species-rich Dytiscidae is generally high, but some relations remain unclear. Trachypachidae are the sister group of Carabidae (including Rhysodidae), in contrast to a proposed sister-group relationship between Trachypachidae and Dytiscoidea. Carabidae are only monophyletic with the inclusion of a non-monophyletic Rhysodidae, but resolution within this megadiverse group is generally low. Non-monophyly of Rhysodidae is extremely unlikely from a morphological point of view, and this group remains the greatest enigma in adephagan systematics.
    [Show full text]
  • THE DRAGONFLIES and DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) of HALTON REGION, ONTARIO an Annotated Checklist 2017
    THE DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) OF HALTON REGION, ONTARIO An annotated checklist 2017 First prepared by Carl J. Rothfels for the Halton NAI 2006 Updated by Brenda Van Ryswyk 2017 INTRODUCTION Jones & Holder 2000); A Preliminary Annotated List of the Odonata of Northern Bruce County The Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) of including Bruce Peninsula National Park (Catling Halton Region have been historically under- et al. 2000b); the surveys of Sandbanks Provincial surveyed, especially when compared with both Park (Catling et al. 2000a; Bree 2001); the surveys odonate work in nearby areas (in 2000 Peel Region of Bon Echo Provincial Park (Bree 2000); and the had 71 documented species, Metropolitan Toronto surveys of Petroglyphs Provincial Park (Bree 2002; had 81, while Halton had only 49 [Catling & Bree 2004b). Brownell 2000]), and with work within Halton on other groups (e.g. birds). Fortunately, Halton was None of these regional and sub-regional works is well positioned to take advantage of the recent within or adjacent to Halton Region, concentrating renaissance in Ontario odonate study, particularly instead on the southern Carolinian Zone and the since 2000. This surge in interest culminated in the southern edge of the Canadian Shield. Since the inclusion of Odonata as one of the fauna groups distribution of odonates can vary significantly surveyed for during the Halton Natural Areas between regions, it is particularly important to fill Inventory (HNAI) in 2003 and 2004. this hole in our current understanding of Ontario odonate distributions. This checklist was first the result of the HNAI field surveys and has since been updated and expanded.
    [Show full text]
  • And Lepidoptera Associated with Fraxinus Pennsylvanica Marshall (Oleaceae) in the Red River Valley of Eastern North Dakota
    A FAUNAL SURVEY OF COLEOPTERA, HEMIPTERA (HETEROPTERA), AND LEPIDOPTERA ASSOCIATED WITH FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA MARSHALL (OLEACEAE) IN THE RED RIVER VALLEY OF EASTERN NORTH DAKOTA A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science By James Samuel Walker In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major Department: Entomology March 2014 Fargo, North Dakota North Dakota State University Graduate School North DakotaTitle State University North DaGkroadtaua Stet Sacteho Uolniversity A FAUNAL SURVEYG rOFad COLEOPTERA,uate School HEMIPTERA (HETEROPTERA), AND LEPIDOPTERA ASSOCIATED WITH Title A FFRAXINUSAUNAL S UPENNSYLVANICARVEY OF COLEO MARSHALLPTERTAitl,e HEM (OLEACEAE)IPTERA (HET INER THEOPTE REDRA), AND LAE FPAIDUONPATLE RSUAR AVSESYO COIFA CTOEDLE WOIPTTHE RFRAA, XHIENMUISP PTENRNAS (YHLEVTAENRICOAP TMEARRAS),H AANLDL RIVER VALLEY OF EASTERN NORTH DAKOTA L(EOPLIDEAOCPTEEAREA) I ANS TSHOEC RIAETDE RDI VWEITRH V FARLALXEIYN UOSF P EEANSNTSEYRLNV ANNOICRAT HM DAARKSHOATALL (OLEACEAE) IN THE RED RIVER VAL LEY OF EASTERN NORTH DAKOTA ByB y By JAMESJAME SSAMUEL SAMUE LWALKER WALKER JAMES SAMUEL WALKER TheThe Su pSupervisoryervisory C oCommitteemmittee c ecertifiesrtifies t hthatat t hthisis ddisquisition isquisition complies complie swith wit hNorth Nor tDakotah Dako ta State State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of University’s regulations and meetMASTERs the acce pOFted SCIENCE standards for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE MASTER OF SCIENCE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: David A. Rider DCoa-­CCo-Chairvhiadi rA.
    [Show full text]