DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Integrity of Streams in the Tongue River Basin and Rosebud Creek and Implications for Coalbed Natural Gas Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Integrity of Streams in the Tongue River Basin and Rosebud Creek and Implications for Coalbed Natural Gas Development Biological Integrity of Streams in the Tongue River Basin and Rosebud Creek and Implications for Coalbed Natural Gas Development January 18, 2006 Prepared for: Joseph Platz Bureau of Land Management 111 Garryowen Rd Miles City, MT 59301 Prepared by: Biological Integrity of Streams in the Tongue River Basin Confluence Consulting, Inc. Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................... i List of Tables ................................................................................................iii List of Figures.............................................................................................. vii 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 2.0 Literature Review............................................................................... 2 2.1 Streambed Substrate and Associated Physiochemical Processes ....................... 2 2.2 Recent Reports Pertinent to CBNG Product Water and Its Effects on Aquatic Ecology ........................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 Study Area........................................................................................... 8 3.1 Tongue River Main Stem.................................................................................... 8 3.2 Badger Creek...................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Coal Creek.......................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Corral Creek........................................................................................................ 9 3.5 Hanging Woman Creek.....................................................................................10 3.6 Otter Creek........................................................................................................ 10 3.7 Prairie Dog Creek ............................................................................................. 10 3.8 Rosebud Creek.................................................................................................. 11 3.9 Spring Creek..................................................................................................... 11 3.10 Squirrel Creek................................................................................................... 12 3.11 Youngs Creek....................................................................................................12 4.0 Methods ............................................................................................. 16 4.1 Physical and Chemical Water Quality Parameters ........................................... 18 4.2 Chemical Sediment Parameters ........................................................................ 21 4.3 Physical Habitat................................................................................................ 23 4.4 Periphyton......................................................................................................... 23 4.5 Macroinvertebrates ........................................................................................... 26 4.6 Fish.................................................................................................................... 30 4.7 Wildlife ............................................................................................................. 32 5.0 Results................................................................................................ 33 5.1 Physical and Chemical Water Quality Parameters ........................................... 33 5.1.1 Tributaries................................................................................................. 33 5.1.2 Tongue River Main Stem.......................................................................... 36 5.2 Sediment Chemistry.......................................................................................... 46 5.3 Physical Habitat................................................................................................ 48 5.3.1 Badger Creek............................................................................................ 49 5.3.2 Coal Creek................................................................................................ 49 5.3.3 Corral Creek.............................................................................................. 49 5.3.4 Hanging Woman Creek.............................................................................49 5.3.5 Otter Creek................................................................................................ 49 5.3.6 Prairie Dog Creek - Lower........................................................................ 50 5.3.7 Prairie Dog Creek - Upper ........................................................................ 50 5.3.8 Rosebud Creek.......................................................................................... 51 5.3.9 Spring Creek............................................................................................. 51 5.3.10 Squirrel Creek - Lower ............................................................................. 51 i Biological Integrity of Streams in the Tongue River Basin Confluence Consulting, Inc. 5.3.11 Squirrel Creek - Upper.............................................................................. 51 5.3.12 Youngs Creek - Lower.............................................................................. 52 5.3.13 Youngs Creek - Upper .............................................................................. 52 5.3.14 Tongue River - Hanging Woman Creek ................................................... 52 5.3.15 Tongue River - below dam ....................................................................... 53 5.3.16 Tongue River - Badger Creek................................................................... 53 5.3.17 Tongue River - state line........................................................................... 53 5.4 Periphyton......................................................................................................... 61 5.4.1 Corral Creek.............................................................................................. 61 5.4.2 Hanging Woman Creek.............................................................................61 5.4.3 Otter Creek................................................................................................ 62 5.4.4 Prairie Dog Creek - Lower........................................................................ 62 5.4.5 Prairie Dog Creek - Upper ........................................................................ 62 5.4.6 Rosebud Creek.......................................................................................... 63 5.4.7 Spring Creek............................................................................................. 63 5.4.8 Squirrel Creek - Lower ............................................................................. 63 5.4.9 Squirrel Creek - Upper.............................................................................. 64 5.4.10 Youngs Creek - Lower.............................................................................. 64 5.4.11 Youngs Creek - Upper .............................................................................. 64 5.4.12 Tongue River - Hanging Woman Creek ................................................... 65 5.4.13 Tongue River - below dam ....................................................................... 65 5.4.14 Tongue River - Badger Creek................................................................... 65 5.4.15 Tongue River - state line........................................................................... 65 5.5 Macroinvertebrates ........................................................................................... 72 5.5.1 Corral Creek.............................................................................................. 73 5.5.2 Hanging Woman ....................................................................................... 74 5.5.3 Otter Creek................................................................................................ 74 5.5.4 Prairie Dog Creek - Lower........................................................................ 74 5.5.5 Prairie Dog Creek - Upper ........................................................................ 75 5.5.6 Rosebud Creek.......................................................................................... 75 5.5.7 Spring Creek............................................................................................. 76 5.5.8 Squirrel Creek - Lower ............................................................................. 76 5.5.9 Squirrel Creek - Upper.............................................................................. 77 5.5.10 Youngs Creek - Lower.............................................................................. 77 5.5.11 Youngs Creek - Upper .............................................................................. 78 5.5.12 Tongue River - Hanging Woman Creek ................................................... 78 5.5.13 Tongue River - below dam ....................................................................... 78 5.5.14 Tongue River - Badger Creek..................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis Gelida): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project August 31, 2004 Frank J. Rahel and Laura A. Thel Department of Zoology and Physiology University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rahel, F.J. and L.A. Thel. (2004, August 31). Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ projects/scp/assessments/sturgeonchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank biologists from Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming, and from the national forests and national grasslands within Region 2 who provided information about sturgeon chub within their jurisdictions. We especially thank Gregory Hayward and Richard Vacirca of the USDA Forest Service for their review of this species assessment. Comments also were provided by two anonymous reviewers. David B. McDonald of the University of Wyoming provided the population demographic matrix analysis. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Frank J. Rahel is a professor in the Department of Zoology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming where he teaches courses in fi sheries management, ichthyology, and conservation biology. His research interests are centered around fi sh ecology and the infl uence of anthropogenic disturbances on fi sh assemblages. Laura A. Thel is a graduate research assistant in the Department of Zoology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming with research interests involving stream ecology, hydrology, and landscape ecology, especially as these are related to the management of native fi shes. COVER PHOTO CREDIT Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida).
    [Show full text]
  • The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks Bioblitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 ON THIS PAGE Photograph of BioBlitz participants conducting data entry into iNaturalist. Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service. ON THE COVER Photograph of BioBlitz participants collecting aquatic species data in the Presidio of San Francisco. Photograph courtesy of National Park Service. The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 Elizabeth Edson1, Michelle O’Herron1, Alison Forrestel2, Daniel George3 1Golden Gate Parks Conservancy Building 201 Fort Mason San Francisco, CA 94129 2National Park Service. Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1061 Sausalito, CA 94965 3National Park Service. San Francisco Bay Area Network Inventory & Monitoring Program Manager Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1063 Sausalito, CA 94965 March 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Workgroup Annual Report
    UPPER BASIN PALLID STURGEON RECOVERY WORKGROUP 2004 ANNUAL REPORT Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Workgroup c/o Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 1420 East Sixth Helena MT 59620 August 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION WORKGROUP MEETING NOTES 2004 Annual Meeting Notes – December 1-2, 2004 .............................................................5 March 9, 2005 Meeting Notes ...............................................................................................21 WORKGROUP LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS Intake BOR Letter..................................................................................................................29 Garrison Review Team Report Submission Letter to USFWS..............................................31 Review of pallid sturgeon culture at Garrison Dam NFH by the Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Review Team, March, 2005 ..............................................................36 RESEARCH AND MONITORING 2004 Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Efforts in the Upper Missouri River, Montana (RPMA #1), Bill Gardner, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Lewistown, MT...................49 Habitat Use, Diet, and Growth of Hatchery-reared Juvenile Pallid Sturgeon And Indigenous shovelnose sturgeon in the Missouri River avove Fort Peck Reservoir, Montana, Paul C. Gerrity, Christopher S. Guy, and William M. Gardner, Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Montana State University.............................65 Lower Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers Pallid Sturgeon Study, 2004 Report, Mtthew M. Klungle and Matthew W. Baxter, Montana
    [Show full text]
  • Streamflow Depletion Investigations in the Republican River Basin: Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas
    J. ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, Vol. 27(3) 251-263, 1999 STREAMFLOW DEPLETION INVESTIGATIONS IN THE REPUBLICAN RIVER BASIN: COLORADO, NEBRASKA, AND KANSAS JOZSEF SZILAGYI University of Nebraska–Lincoln ABSTRACT Water is a critical resource in the Great Plains. This study examines the changes in long-term mean annual streamflow in the Republican River basin. In the past decades this basin, shared by three states, Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas, displayed decreased streamflow volumes as the river enters Kansas across the Nebraska-Kansas border compared to values preceding the 1950s. A recent lawsuit filed by Kansas challenges water appropriations in Nebraska. More than half of the source area for this water, however, lies outside of Nebraska. Today a higher percentage of the annual flow is generated within Nebraska (i.e., 75% of the observed mean annual stream- flow at the NE-KS border) than before the 1950s (i.e., 66% of the observed mean annual streamflow) indicating annual streamflow has decreased more dramatically outside of Nebraska than within the state in the past fifty years. INTRODUCTION The Republican River basin’s 64,796 km2 drainage area is shared by three states: Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas (see Figure 1). Nebraska has the largest single share of the drainage area, 25,154 km2 (39% of total); Colorado can claim about 20,000 km2 (31%), while the rest, about 19,583 km2 (30%), belongs to Kansas [1], from which about 12,800 km2 (20%) lies upstream of Hardy, near the Nebraska-Kansas border. Exact figures for the contributing drainage areas (portions of the drainage areas that actually contribute water to the stream) are hard to obtain because these areas in the headwater sections of the basin have been shrinking constantly in the past fifty years.
    [Show full text]
  • Norton Lake (Keith Sebelius Lake) Water Quality Impairment: Eutrophication Bundled with Ph and Dissolved Oxygen
    UPPER REPUBLICAN RIVER BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Water Body: Norton Lake (Keith Sebelius Lake) Water Quality Impairment: Eutrophication bundled with pH and Dissolved Oxygen Subbasin: Prairie Dog Counties: Decatur, Graham, Norton, Rawlins, Sheridan, and Thomas HUC 8: 10250015 HUC 11 (HUC 14): 010 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070) (Figure 1) 020 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070) Ecoregion: Western High Plains, Flat to Rolling Cropland (25d) Central Great Plains, Rolling Plains and Breaks (27b) Drainage Area: Approximately 687 square miles Conservation Pool: Area = 2,055 acres Watershed Area: Lake Surface Area = 214:1 Maximum Depth = 12.0 meters (39.4 feet) Mean Depth = 4.9 meters (16 feet) Retention Time = 0.61 years (7.3 months) Designated Uses: Primary and Secondary Contact Recreation; Expected Aquatic Life Support, Drinking Water, Food Procurement, Industrial Water Supply, Irrigation Authority: Federal (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), State (Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks) 2002 303(d) Listing: Upper Republican River Basin Lakes Impaired Use: All uses are impaired to a degree by eutrophication Water Quality Standard: Nutrients - Narrative: The introduction of plant nutrients into streams, lakes, or wetlands from artificial sources shall be controlled to prevent the accelerated succession or replacement of aquatic biota or the production of undesirable quantities or kinds of aquatic life. (KAR 28-16-28e(c)(2)(B)). The introduction of plant nutrients into surface waters designated for primary or secondary contact recreational use shall be controlled to 1 prevent the development of objectionable concentrations of algae or algal by-products or nuisance growths of submersed, floating, or emergent aquatic vegetation.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State, 2019
    NYSDEC SOP #208-19 Title: Stream Biomonitoring Rev: 1.2 Date: 03/29/19 Page 1 of 188 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State March 2019 Note: Division of Water (DOW) SOP revisions from year 2016 forward will only capture the current year parties involved with drafting/revising/approving the SOP on the cover page. The dated signatures of those parties will be captured here as well. The historical log of all SOP updates and revisions (past & present) will immediately follow the cover page. NYSDEC SOP 208-19 Stream Biomonitoring Rev. 1.2 Date: 03/29/2019 Page 3 of 188 SOP #208 Update Log 1 Prepared/ Revision Revised by Approved by Number Date Summary of Changes DOW Staff Rose Ann Garry 7/25/2007 Alexander J. Smith Rose Ann Garry 11/25/2009 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 1.0 3/29/2012 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 2.0 4/18/2014 • Definition of a reference site clarified (Sect. 8.2.3) • WAVE results added as a factor Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 3.0 4/1/2016 in site selection (Sect. 8.2.2 & 8.2.6) • HMA details added (Sect. 8.10) • Nonsubstantive changes 2 • Disinfection procedures (Sect. 8) • Headwater (Sect. 9.4.1 & 10.2.7) assessment methods added • Benthic multiplate method added (Sect, 9.4.3) Brian Duffy Rose Ann Garry 1.0 5/01/2018 • Lake (Sect. 9.4.5 & Sect. 10.) assessment methods added • Detail on biological impairment sampling (Sect.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of SDAS 1997
    Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science Volume 76 1997 Published by the South Dakota Academy of Science Academy Founded November 22, 1915 Editor Kenneth F. Higgins Terri Symens, Wildlife & Fisheries, SDSU provided secretarial assistance Tom Holmlund, Graphic Designer We thank former editor Emil Knapp for compiling the articles contained in this volume. TABLE OF CONTENTS Minutes of the Eighty-Second Annual Meeting of the South Dakota Academy of Science........................................................................................1 Presidential Address: Can we live with our paradigms? Sharon A. Clay ..........5 Complete Senior Research Papers presented at The 82nd Annual Meeting of the South Dakota Academy of Science Fishes of the Mainstem Cheyenne River in South Dakota. Douglas R. Hampton and Charles R. Berry, Jr. ...........................................11 Impacts of the John Morrell Meat Packing Plant on Macroinvertebrates in the Big Sioux River in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Craig N. Spencer, Gwen Warkenthien, Steven F. Lehtinen, Elizabeth A. Ring, and Cullen R. Robbins ...................................................27 Winter Survival and Overwintering Behavior in South Dakota Oniscidea (Crustacea, Isopoda). Jonathan C. Wright ................................45 Fluctuations in Daily Activity of Muskrates in Eastern South Dakota. Joel F. Lyons, Craig D. Kost, and Jonathan A. Jenks..................................57 Occurrence of Small, Nongame Mammals in South Dakota’s Eastern Border Counties, 1994-1995. Kenneth F. Higgins, Rex R. Johnson, Mark R. Dorhout, and William A. Meeks ....................................................65 Use of a Mail Survey to Present Mammal Distributions in South Dakota. Carmen A. Blumberg, Jonathan A. Jenks, and Kenneth F. Higgins ................................................................................75 A Survey of Natural Resource Professionals Participating in Waterfowl Hunting in South Dakota. Jeffrey S. Gleason and Jonathan A.
    [Show full text]
  • Republican River Valley and Adjacent Areas, Nebraska
    A, Economic Geology, 97 B, Descriptive Geology 119 M, General Hydrograpmc investigations, 26 (0, Underground Waters, 72 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES I>. WALOOTT, DIKECTOR GEOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES OF THE REPUBLICAN RIVER VALLEY AND ADJACENT AREAS, NEBRASKA G. E. CONDRA -FERTY OF -LOGICAL Sl'». WASHINGTON (GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1907 CONTENTS. Page. Introduction __'___________________________________ 7 Geography _____________________________________ 8 Topography______________________.._ 8 Drainage _____________________________.____ 8 Climate "_________________________ _ _________ ._..__ 9 Temperature_______l_____________________ 9 Rainfall _____________________________________ 9 Winds_____________________________________ 10 Descriptive geology ________________________________ 10 General relations _____ _________ ___ ________ 10 Structure____________________________ 11 Description of the rocks____ ______________________ 11 Carboniferous system_______________________ 11 Cretaceous system.__________________________ 12 Dakota formation_________________________ 12 Character and thickness______________ 12 Distribution_________________ 13 Benton group________________________ 13 Members represented________________ 13 Graneros shale_ ________________________ 14 Character and thickness_________________ 14 Exposures,_________ _______ _-_________ 14 Greenhorn limestone_____________________ 14 Character and thickness___________________ 14 Fossils_________________________ 16 Carlile shale______.___________________
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Conservation Plan Benton Lake National Wildlife
    Glossary accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas breeding habitat—Environment used by migratory and activities for people of different abilities, es- birds or other animals during the breeding sea- pecially those with physical impairments. son. A.D.—Anno Domini, “in the year of the Lord.” canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost adaptive resource management (ARM)—The rigorous layer, in a vegetative stand; mid-level or under- application of management, research, and moni- story vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy toring to gain information and experience neces- closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the sary to assess and change management activities. amount of overhead vegetative cover. It is a process that uses feedback from research, CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. monitoring, and evaluation of management ac- CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. tions to support or change objectives and strate- CO2—Carbon dioxide. gies at all planning levels. It is also a process in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of which the Service carries out policy decisions the general and permanent rules published in the within a framework of scientifically driven ex- Federal Register by the Executive departments periments to test predictions and assumptions and agencies of the Federal Government. Each inherent in management plans. Analysis of re- volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar sults helps managers decide whether current year. management should continue as is or whether it compact—Montana House bill 717–Bill to Ratify should be modified to achieve desired conditions. Water Rights Compact. alternative—Reasonable way to solve an identi- compatibility determination—See compatible use.
    [Show full text]
  • Including Synonyms & Species Reported in Error
    Aquatic Invertebrates of Texas 1.2Complete List *=Texas species endangered, imperiled or of concern (171 species; 2011) (E)=Endemic to Texas (102 species; 2011) (F)=known in Texas as fossil only (I)=Introduced species (25 species; 2011) (Br)=marine or brackish but collected in freshwaters (X)=Texas record reported in error ?=taxonomy uncertain Porifera [sponges] SPONGILLIDAE Anheteromeyenia sp. Anheteromeyenia ryderi (Potts) Asteromeyenia plumosa (Weltner)see Dosilia plumosa Asteromeromeyenia radiospiculata (Mills) see Dosilia radiospiculata Dosilia sp. Dosilia plumosa (Weltner) Dosilia radiospiculata (Mills) Ephydatia crateriformis (Potts) see Radiospongilla crateriformis Eunapius sp. Eunapius fragilis (Leidy) Eunapius ingloviformis (Potts) Eunapius mackayi (Potts) Heteromeyenia sp. Heteromeyenia baileyi (Bowerbank) Heteromyenia ryderi Potts Meyenia sp. Radiospongilla sp. Radiospongilla cerebellata (Bowerbank) Radiospongilla crateriformis (Potts) Spongilla sp. Spongilla fragilis see Eunapius fragilis Spongilla ingloviformis see Eunapius ingloviformis Spongilla lacustris (Linnaeus) Trochospongilla sp. Trochospongilla horrida Weltner Trochospongilla leidyi (Bowerbank) Cnidaria [hydras & jellyfish] CLAVIDAE Cordilophora sp. Cordylophora lacustris Allman The Aquatic Invertebrates of Texas; working list Stephen W. Ziser 2011 1 HYDRIDAE Chlorohydra sp. Chlorohydra viridissima (Pallas) Hydra sp. Hydra americana Hyman [white hydra] Hydra fusca (Pallas) [brown hydra] Hydra viridis Linnaeus PETASIDAE Craspedacusta sp. Craspedacusta ryderi
    [Show full text]
  • The Dina Species Flock in Lake Ohrid
    Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Biogeosciences Discuss., 7, 5011–5045, 2010 Biogeosciences www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/7/5011/2010/ Discussions BGD doi:10.5194/bgd-7-5011-2010 7, 5011–5045, 2010 © Author(s) 2010. CC Attribution 3.0 License. The Dina species This discussion paper is/has been under review for the journal Biogeosciences (BG). flock in Lake Ohrid Please refer to the corresponding final paper in BG if available. Testing the spatial and temporal S. Trajanovski et al. framework of speciation in an ancient lake Title Page species flock: the leech genus Dina Abstract Introduction (Hirudinea: Erpobdellidae) in Lake Ohrid Conclusions References Tables Figures S. Trajanovski1, C. Albrecht2, K. Schreiber2, R. Schultheiß2, T. Stadler3, 2 2 M. Benke , and T. Wilke J I 1 Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid, Naum Ohridski 50, 6000 Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia J I 2Department of Animal Ecology & Systematics, Justus Liebig University, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32 IFZ, 35392 Giessen, Germany Back Close 3Institute of Integrative Biology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Universitatsstrasse¨ 16, Full Screen / Esc 8092 Zurich,¨ Switzerland Received: 21 May 2010 – Accepted: 7 June 2010 – Published: 1 July 2010 Printer-friendly Version Correspondence to: T. Wilke ([email protected]) Interactive Discussion Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 5011 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Abstract BGD Ancient Lake Ohrid on the Balkan Peninsula is considered to be the oldest ancient lake in Europe with a suggested Plio-Pleistocene age. Its exact geological age, however, 7, 5011–5045, 2010 remains unknown.
    [Show full text]