DOCSLIB.ORG

Starry Goat Northern Region Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2018 Part 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Starry Goat Northern Region Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2018 Part 2 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Starry Goat Northern Region Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2018 Part 2 Three Rivers Ranger District Kootenai National Forest Lincoln County, Montana Table of Contents- Part 2 Table of Contents- Part 2 .............................................................................................................. i Chapter 4. ............................................................................................................ 1 Response to Comments for Starry Goat DEIS ............................................................................ 1 Comment Categories ............................................................................................................... 1 2015 Forest Plan Direction ...................................................................................................... 2 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 3 Aquatics ................................................................................................................................... 3 Climate Change ....................................................................................................................... 8 Costs of Project ..................................................................................................................... 14 Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................ 14 Fire and Fuels Management .................................................................................................. 14 Forest Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 18 Forest Vegetation – Old Growth ............................................................................................ 28 Inventoried Roadless Areas ................................................................................................... 29 NEPA ..................................................................................................................................... 30 Road Effects .......................................................................................................................... 31 Scientific Integrity ................................................................................................................. 31 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 32 Timber Suitability .................................................................................................................. 37 Travel Management ............................................................................................................... 38 Water Resources .................................................................................................................... 45 Wildlife – Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................... 56 Wildlife – Canada Lynx ......................................................................................................... 57 Wildlife – Grizzly Bear ......................................................................................................... 58 Wildlife – Habitat Connectivity ............................................................................................ 63 Wildlife – Other Species ....................................................................................................... 63 Wildlife – Sensitive Species .................................................................................................. 66 Wildlife – Wolverine ............................................................................................................. 69 Wildlife and Recreation ......................................................................................................... 70 Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................... 71 General Reference ................................................................................................................. 71 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 71 Aquatic Habitat and Species.................................................................................................. 72 Economics ............................................................................................................................. 76 Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 76 Forest Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 79 Invasive Plant Species ........................................................................................................... 87 Inventoried Roadless Areas ................................................................................................... 88 Minerals ................................................................................................................................. 89 PTES Plants ........................................................................................................................... 89 Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 90 Scenic Resources ................................................................................................................... 90 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 91 Transportation........................................................................................................................ 96 Water Resources .................................................................................................................... 96 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 100 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ...................................................... 100 Sensitive Species ...................................................................................................... 107 Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 i Other Species of Interest ........................................................................................... 115 Appendix and Maps ............................................................................................ 1 Appendix A: Glossary and Acronyms ......................................................................................... 1 Glossary ................................................................................................................................... 1 Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................ 25 Appendix B: Best Management Practices (BMP) ..................................................................... 29 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 29 BMP Implementation Process ............................................................................................... 29 KNF BMP SELECTION AND DESIGN FORM (KNF-BMP-1) ......................................... 31 Appendix C: Starry Goat Harvest Treatment Summary ............................................................ 46 Alternative 2 – Harvest Treatment Summary ........................................................................ 46 Alternative 3 – Harvest Treatment Summary ........................................................................ 54 Alternative 4 – Harvest Treatment Summary ........................................................................ 61 Appendix D – Starry Goat Access Management Plan Table ..................................................... 71 Appendix D – Starry Goat Access Management Plan Map ...................................................... 74 Appendix E – Past Harvest Activities in the Project Area ........................................................ 75 Appendix F – Starry Goat Monitoring Plan ............................................................................ 105 Appendix G – List of Preparers and Recipients ...................................................................... 107 List of Recipients ................................................................................................................ 109 Local Government and Elected Officials ................................................................. 109 Federal Agencies ...................................................................................................... 109 Organizations ........................................................................................................... 109 State Agencies .......................................................................................................... 109 Native American Tribes and Organizations ............................................................. 109
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO
    Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area August 2015 CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 (970) 491-7331 Report Prepared for: United States Air Force Academy Department of Natural Resources Recommended Citation: Smith, P., S. S. Panjabi, and J. Handwerk. 2015. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Front Cover: Documenting weeds at the US Air Force Academy. Photos courtesy of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program © Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area El Paso County, CO Pam Smith, Susan Spackman Panjabi, and Jill Handwerk Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Various federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, orders, and policies require land managers to control noxious weeds. The purpose of this plan is to provide a guide to manage, in the most efficient and effective manner, the noxious weeds on the US Air Force Academy (Academy) and Farish Recreation Area (Farish) over the next 10 years (through 2025), in accordance with their respective integrated natural resources management plans. This plan pertains to the “natural” portions of the Academy and excludes highly developed areas, such as around buildings, recreation fields, and lawns.
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Morphology of Immature Stages of Coniocleonus Nigrosuturatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Lixinae)
    ACTA ENTOMOLOGICA MUSEI NATIONALIS PRAGAE Published 30.iv.2014 Volume 54(1), pp. 337–354 ISSN 0374-1036 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D1FF3534-A1C8-4B2B-ACDF-69F31ED12BC0 Biology and morphology of immature stages of Coniocleonus nigrosuturatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Lixinae) Robert STEJSKAL1), Filip TRNKA2) & JiĜí SKUHROVEC3) 1) Department of Forest Botany, Dendrology and Geobiocoenology, Mendel University in Brno, ZemČdČlská 1, CZ-613 00 Brno, & Administration of Podyji National Park, Na Vyhlídce 5, CZ-669 02 Znojmo, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected] 2) Department of Ecology & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Palacký University Olomouc, TĜ. Svobody 26, CZ-771 46 Olomouc, Czech Republic; e-mail: ¿ [email protected] 3) Group Function of invertebrate and plant biodiversity in agro-ecosystems, Crop Research Institute, Drnovská 507, CZ-161 06 Praha 6 – RuzynČ, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Mature larvae and pupae of Coniocleonus (Plagiographus) nigrosutura- tus (Goeze, 1777) (Curculionidae: Lixinae: Cleonini) are described and compared with three other cleonine taxa with known larvae. The biology of the species was studied in Romania, Hungary and Slovakia. Common Stork’s-bill (Erodium cicu- tarium) (Geraniaceae) is identi¿ ed as a host plant of both larvae and adults of this weevil. The weevil is very likely monophagous, and previous records of thyme (Thymus sp., Lamiaceae) as the host plant hence appear incorrect. Coniocleonus nigrosuturatus prefers dry, sunny places in grassland habitats, with sparse vegeta- tion, bare ground and patchily growing host plants. Overwintering beetles emerge in early spring (March), feed and mate on the host plants. The highest activity of adults was observed from mid-April to mid-May.
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Biocontrol: Extended Abstracts from the 1997 Interagency Noxious-Weed Symposium
    Weed Biocontrol: Extended Abstracts from the 1997 Interagency Noxious-Weed Symposium Dennis Isaacson Martha H. Brookes Technical Coordinators U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Morgantown, WV and Oregon Department of Agriculture Salem, OR June 1999 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many of the tasks of organizing a symposium such as this — and there are many — are not obvious, and, if they are handled well, the effort that goes into them can easily be overlooked. Sherry Kudna of the Oregon Department of Agriculture Weed Control staff managed most of the arrangements and took care of many, many details, which helped the symposium run smoothly. We truly appreciate her many contributions. We also acknowledge the contributions of the presenters. They not only organized their own presentations and manuscripts, but also assisted with reviewing drafts of each other’s papers in the proceedings. Several of the presenters also covered their own expenses. Such dedication speaks well of their commitment to improving the practice of weed biocontrol. Both the Oregon State Office of the Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service made major contributions to supporting the symposium. Although several individuals from both organizations provided assistance, we especially note the encouragement and advice of Bob Bolton, Oregon Bureau of Land Management Weed Control Coordinator, and the willingness to help and financial support for publishing this document from Richard C. Reardon, Biocontrol/Biopesticides Program Manager, USDA Forest Service's Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV. We thank Tinathan Coger for layout and design and Patricia Dougherty for printing advice and coordination of the manuscript We also thank Barbra Mullin, Montana State Department of Agriculture, who delivered the keynote address; Tami Lowry, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, who helped format the document; and Eric Coombs, who provided the photographs of weeds and agents that convey the concepts of weed biocontrol.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Biological Control of Invasive
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States Roy Van Driesche Bernd Blossey Mark Hoddle Suzanne Lyon Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown, West Virginia United States Forest FHTET-2002-04 Department of Service August 2002 Agriculture BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES Technical Coordinators Roy Van Driesche and Suzanne Lyon Department of Entomology, University of Massachusets, Amherst, MA Bernd Blossey Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Mark Hoddle Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the authors of the individual chap- We would also like to thank the U.S. Depart- ters for their expertise in reviewing and summariz- ment of Agriculture–Forest Service, Forest Health ing the literature and providing current information Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West on biological control of the major invasive plants in Virginia, for providing funding for the preparation the Eastern United States. and printing of this publication. G. Keith Douce, David Moorhead, and Charles Additional copies of this publication can be or- Bargeron of the Bugwood Network, University of dered from the Bulletin Distribution Center, Uni- Georgia (Tifton, Ga.), managed and digitized the pho- versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, (413) tographs and illustrations used in this publication and 545-2717; or Mark Hoddle, Department of Entomol- produced the CD-ROM accompanying this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Biocontrol Field Guide for Utah
    Special Thanks : Many of the pictures in this field guide came from Jerry Caldwell and Morgan Mendenhall. Thank you for the use of your excellent pictures. Also to: Morgan Mendenhall for editing this field guide. Jerry Caldwell, Tooele County Weed Supervisor, for your help and support. Phil McCraley, Salt Lake County Weed Supervisor, for your encouragement and enthusiasm. Sage Fitch for your advice and assistance. Bonneville CWMA 2 Table of Contents : Dalmatian Toadflax ...................................................................................... 7 Mecinus janthinus ................................................................................ 9 Field Bindweed .......................................................................................... 11 Aceria malherbae ............................................................................... 13 Diffuse Knapweed ...................................................................................... 15 Spotted Knapweed ..................................................................................... 17 Squarrose Knapweed ................................................................................ 19 Cyphocleonus achates ....................................................................... 21 Larinus minutus ................................................................................. 23 Sphenoptera jugoslavica ................................................................... 25 Urophora affinis ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Population Dinamic Family Curculionidae( Insecta
    Guşă & Blaga: The population dynamic of the family Curculionidae (Insecta – Coleoptera) in the Piatra Craiului National Park - Romania THE POPULATION DYNAMIC OF THE FAMILY CURCULIONIDAE (INSECTA - COLEOPTERA) IN THE PIATRA CRAIULUI NATIONAL PARK - ROMANIA Delia Nicoleta Guşă1, Tatiana Blaga2 1 “Ion Borcea” Natural Sciences Museum, Bacău, Romania [email protected] 2 Forest Research and Management Institute – Forest Station, Bacău, Romania [email protected] Abstract The biological material (entomofauna) was collected from 16 stationeries, from June to August in the period 2000 - 2006, along the main ridge of Piatra Craiului Massif. There were collected 1521 adults specimens of snout beetles belonging to 42 genera; 30 triburi and 8 subfamily - Entiminae, Curculioninae, Ceutorhynchinae, Cossoninae, Lixinae, Hyperinae, Mesoptiliinae, Molytinae. Keywords: Curculionidae, biodiversity, National Park Piatra Craiului. 1. Introduction Piatra Craiului Massif is a remarkable individualized mountain of Romanian Carpathians. The relationships established among different factors - geological factors, landscape, climate, hydrographical, vegetation and so on, offers to this area a unique character regarding insect fauna. Until the establishment of the park administration, the insect fauna from this region was very poorly known. Piatra Craiului Massif has a length of 25 km from the confluence of the river Dâmbovicioara with Dâmboviţa, near to the village Podul Dâmboviţei, at South to Zărneşti (Barşov County) at North. It is limited by river Dâmboviţa at south and by Rucăr - Bran Pass in South – East. In the North part is bounded by the depression Ţara Bârsei out of which this mountain suddenly rise at a maximum altitude of 2235 m. There are recorded differences regarding the vegetation on those tow main sides, the northwest part, from Bârsa Valley and Dâmboviţei Valley, and the Eastern and southeaster part from the Bran Pass.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyphocleonus Achates (Knapweed Root Weevil) – Operational Field Guide
    RANGE Operational Field Guide to the propagation and establishment of the bioagent Cyphocleonus achates (Knapweed root weevil) March 1998 The contents of this Field Guide may not be cited in whole or in part without the advance written approval of the Director, Forest Practices Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia Information contained in this Field Guide is comprised of fact and field observations as of March 1998. Site specific experiences may vary. Operational Field Guide to the propagation and establishment of the bioagent Cyphocleonus achates (Knapweed root weevil) March 1998 Forest Practices Branch Range Section Noxious Weed Control Program British Columbia Ministry of Forests Cyphocleonus achates (Knapweed root weevil) – Operational Field Guide TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................1 2. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 3. CYPHOCLEONUS ACHATES .......................................................................................1 BIOLOGY ...............................................................................................................1 RANGE ...................................................................................................................3 Native (European) Distribution ...................................................................3 Potential North American Distribution .......................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Beetles Battle Bad Weeds Contributed by Andrea Stephens and Judy Myers
    Beetles battle bad weeds Contributed by Andrea Stephens and Judy Myers Background As humans have moved to all reaches of the earth, plants and animals have accompanied them. Approximately 10% of these introduced species become invasive and detrimental to native plant and animal communities. Diffuse knapweed was introduced from Eurasia to North America with alfalfa seed in the early 1900s. Because it is highly competitive with native grasses, and largely inedible for cattle, it rapidly became a serious grassland weed. Photo: ?? The Research One approach to managing invasive weeds is Photo: ?? biological control – the introduction of insects from the native habitat of the exotic weed that feed solely on that weed. It is predicted that by increasing the level of insect attack to the target weeds, the vigour and density of the weed will decline. Starting in 1972 twelve species of insects were introduced for biological control of knapweed. With funding from the NSERC Discovery grant program, we have monitored the dramatic decline of knapweed following the establishment of the flower head weevil, Larinus minutus and the root weevil, Cyphocleonus achetes (see figure). Experiments using caged populations showed that Larinus damage is sufficient to reduce knapweed density and these two beetle species independently contribute to the overall damage to the plants. We seek to discover what insects are most effective biological control agents and beetles appear to be a good bet in this regard. Why it concerns Canada Approximately 25% of Canadian plants are introduced species. Many of these are invasive and cost millions of dollars each year in terms of agricultural and environmental damage.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States Roy Van Driesche Bernd Blossey Mark Hoddle Suzanne Lyon Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown, West Virginia United States Forest FHTET-2002-04 Department of Service August 2002 Agriculture BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES Technical Coordinators Roy Van Driesche and Suzanne Lyon Department of Entomology, University of Massachusets, Amherst, MA Bernd Blossey Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Mark Hoddle Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the authors of the individual chap- We would also like to thank the U.S. Depart- ters for their expertise in reviewing and summariz- ment of Agriculture–Forest Service, Forest Health ing the literature and providing current information Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West on biological control of the major invasive plants in Virginia, for providing funding for the preparation the Eastern United States. and printing of this publication. G. Keith Douce, David Moorhead, and Charles Additional copies of this publication can be or- Bargeron of the Bugwood Network, University of dered from the Bulletin Distribution Center, Uni- Georgia (Tifton, Ga.), managed and digitized the pho- versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, (413) tographs and illustrations used in this publication and 545-2717; or Mark Hoddle, Department of Entomol- produced the CD-ROM accompanying this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Cleonis Pigra (Scopoli, 1763) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Lixinae): Morphological Re-Description of the Immature Stages, Keys, Tribal Comparisons and Biology
    insects Article Cleonis pigra (Scopoli, 1763) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Lixinae): Morphological Re-Description of the Immature Stages, Keys, Tribal Comparisons and Biology Jiˇrí Skuhrovec 1,* , Semyon Volovnik 2, Rafał Gosik 3, Robert Stejskal 4 and Filip Trnka 5 1 Group Function of Invertebrate and Plant Biodiversity in Agro-Ecosystems, Crop Research Institute, Drnovská 507, CZ-161 06 Praha 6 Ruzynˇe,Czech Republic 2 Independent Researcher, 72311 Melitopol, Ukraine; [email protected] 3 Department of Zoology and Plant Protection, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Akademicka 19, 20-033 Lublin, Poland; [email protected] 4 Administration of Podyji National Park, Na Vyhlídce 5, CZ-669 02 Znojmo, Czech Republic; [email protected] 5 Department of Ecology & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Palacký University Olomouc, Šlechtitel ˚u27, CZ-783 71 Olomouc, Czech Republic; fi[email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +420-702087694 Received: 19 August 2019; Accepted: 24 September 2019; Published: 30 September 2019 Abstract: Mature larvae and pupae of Cleonis pigra (Scopoli, 1763) (Curculionidae: Lixinae: Cleonini) are morphologically described in detail for the first time and compared with known larvae and pupae of other Cleonini species. The results of measurements and characteristics most typical for larvae and pupae of Cleonini are newly extracted and critically discussed, along with some records given previously. Keys for the determination of selected Cleonini species based on their larval and pupal characteristics are attached. Dyar’s law was used for the estimation of a number of larval instars of C. pigra. Descriptions of habitats, adult behavior, host plants, life cycle, and biotic interactions are reported here. Adults and larvae feed on plants from the Asteraceae family only (genera Carduus, Cirsium, Centaurea, and Onopordum).
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide for the Biological Control of Weeds in Eastern North America
    US Department TECHNOLOGY of Agriculture TRANSFER FIELD GUIDE FOR THE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WEEDS IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA Rachel L. Winston, Carol B. Randall, Bernd Blossey, Philip W. Tipping, Ellen C. Lake, and Judy Hough-Goldstein Forest Health Technology FHTET-2016-04 Enterprise Team April 2017 The Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 by the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ Cover photos: Purple loosestrife (Jennifer Andreas, Washington State University Extension), Galerucella calmariensis (David Cappaert, Michigan State University, bugwood.org), tropical soda apple ((J. Jeffrey Mullahey, University of Florida, bugwood.org), Gratiana boliviana (Rodrigo Diaz, Louisiana State University), waterhyacinth (Chris Evans, University of Illinois, bugwood.org), Megamelus scutellaris (Jason D. Stanley, USDA ARS, bugwood.org), mile-a-minute weed (Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut, bugwood.org), Rhinoncomimus latipes (Amy Diercks, bugwood.org) How to cite this publication: Winston, R.L., C.B. Randall, B. Blossey, P.W. Tipping, E.C. Lake, and J. Hough-Goldstein. 2017. Field Guide for the Biological Control of Weeds in Eastern North America. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West Virginia. FHTET-2016-04. In accordance with
    [Show full text]
  • Interactions and Effects of Multiple Biological Control Insects on Diffuse
    Biological Control 42 (2007) 345–354 www.elsevier.com/locate/ybcon Interactions and effects of multiple biological control insects on diffuse and spotted knapweed in the Front Range of Colorado T.R. Seastedt *, D.G. Knochel, M. Garmoe, S.A. Shosky Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0450, USA Received 26 February 2007; accepted 8 June 2007 Available online 15 June 2007 Abstract Abundances and interactions among biological control insects and their effects on target invasive plants were monitored within the flower heads and roots of diffuse knapweed, Centaurea diffusa, and in spotted knapweed, Centaurea stoebe, along the Colorado Front Range. Flower weevils, (Larinus species) and root-feeders (Cyphocleonus achates and Sphenoptera jugoslavica) were released on knapweed that already supported biological control gall flies (Urophora species). At a single monitoring site, seed production by C. diffusa declined from 4400 seeds mÀ2 in 1997 to zero seeds mÀ2 on the monitoring sites in 2006, while the flowering stem density of C. diffusa declined from a peak of almost 30 stems mÀ2 in 2000 to zero stems mÀ2 in 2006. The average abundance of Urophora and Larinus in flower heads fluc- tuated independently during the 2001–2006 interval, while the relative abundance of C. achates and S. jugoslavica in roots exhibited a weak inverse relationship that appeared driven by climate effects. The relative abundance of insects on a population of C. stoebe was monitored for five years as Larinus species and C. achates became established on spotted knapweed that already supported Urophora species.
    [Show full text]