DOCSLIB.ORG

Ethylene Glycol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ethylene Glycol Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 PRIORITY SUBSTANCES LIST STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT for ETHYLENE GLYCOL Environment Canada Health Canada December 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS SYNOPSIS.......................................................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................3 2.0 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INFORMATION ....................................................................6 2.1 IDENTITY AND PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIES......................................................................6 2.2 ENTRY CHARACTERIZATION ....................................................................................................6 2.2.1 Production, importation and uses...................................................................................6 2.2.2 Sources and releases .......................................................................................................7 2.2.2.1 Natural sources..........................................................................................................7 2.2.2.2 Anthropogenic sources..............................................................................................8 2.2.2.2.1 Industrial point sources........................................................................................8 2.2.2.2.2 Other sources ...................................................................................................10 2.3 EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION.............................................................................................11 2.3.1 Environmental fate.......................................................................................................11 2.3.1.1 Air..........................................................................................................................11 2.3.1.2 Water.....................................................................................................................11 2.3.1.3 Soil and sediment ....................................................................................................13 2.3.1.4 Environmental partitioning........................................................................................13 2.3.2 Environmental concentrations......................................................................................14 2.3.2.1 Ambient air ..............................................................................................................14 2.3.2.2 Indoor air.................................................................................................................14 2.3.2.3 Drinking water .........................................................................................................15 2.3.2.4 Surface water and groundwater................................................................................15 2.3.2.5 Sediment, soil and biota............................................................................................18 2.3.2.6 Food .......................................................................................................................19 2.3.2.7 Consumer products..................................................................................................20 2.4 EFFECTS CHARACTERIZATION................................................................................................20 2.4.1 Ecotoxicology................................................................................................................20 2.4.1.1 Direct effects............................................................................................................21 2.4.1.1.1 Microorganisms ................................................................................................21 2.4.1.1.2 Plants................................................................................................................21 2.4.1.1.3 Invertebrates.....................................................................................................22 2.4.1.1.4 Fish..................................................................................................................23 2.4.1.1.5 Amphibians.......................................................................................................24 2.4.1.1.6 Mammals and birds...........................................................................................24 2.4.1.2 Indirect effects ........................................................................................................25 2.4.2 Abiotic atmospheric effects...........................................................................................27 2.4.3 Experimental animals and in vitro.................................................................................28 2.4.3.1 Acute toxicity...........................................................................................................28 iii 2.4.3.2 Irritation and sensitization..........................................................................................29 2.4.3.3 Short-term and subchronic repeated dose toxicity.....................................................29 2.4.3.4 Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity..........................................................................32 2.4.3.5 Genotoxicity.............................................................................................................35 2.4.3.6 Reproductive and developmental toxicity..................................................................35 2.4.3.7 Neurological effects and effects on the immune system..............................................39 2.4.3.8 Toxicokinetics and mode of action............................................................................39 2.4.4 Humans .........................................................................................................................42 3.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................44 3.1 ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................................................44 3.1.1 General Considerations ................................................................................................44 3.1.2 Environmental risk characterization ............................................................................45 3.1.2.1 Aquatic biota — direct effects..................................................................................45 3.1.2.1.1 Algae................................................................................................................46 3.1.2.1.2 Amphibians.......................................................................................................48 3.1.2.1.3 Concluding discussion.......................................................................................49 3.1.2.2 Aquatic biota — indirect effects................................................................................49 3.1.2.3 Uncertainty and recommendations ............................................................................54 3.1.2.3.1 Direct effects.....................................................................................................54 3.1.2.3.2 Indirect effects ..................................................................................................55 3.2 ENVIRONMENT UPON WHICH LIFE DEPENDS ............................................................................55 3.3 HUMAN HEALTH....................................................................................................................56 3.3.1 Estimated population exposure.....................................................................................56 3.3.2 Hazard characterization................................................................................................57 3.3.2.1 Carcinogenicity........................................................................................................57 3.3.2.2 Non-neoplastic effects..............................................................................................58 3.3.3 Exposure–response analysis.........................................................................................59 3.3.3.1 Oral exposure..........................................................................................................60 3.3.3.2 Inhalation.................................................................................................................65 3.3.3.3 Dermal exposure......................................................................................................65 3.3.4 Uncertainties and recommendations ............................................................................66 4.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................70 APPENDIX A: SEARCH STRATEGIES EMPLOYED FOR IDENTIFICATION OF RELEVANT DATA....................................................................................................................100 APPENDIX B: JUSTIFICATION FOR GENERIC DILUTION FACTORS.........................102 APPENDIX C: MANAGEMENT OF ETHYLENE GLYCOL AT CANADIAN AIRPORTS105 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Chemical and physical properties of ethylene glycol...........................................................108 Table 2. Estimate of quantities of ethylene glycol
Load more

Recommended publications
  • And an Abiotic Factor (Low Oxygen) As an Influence on Benthic Invertebrate Communities
    Oecologia (1993) 95:210-219 Oecologia Springer-Verlag 1993 Interaction of a biotic factor (predator presence) and an abiotic factor (low oxygen) as an influence on benthic invertebrate communities Cynthia S. Kolar*, Frank J. Rahel Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA Received: 23 October 1992 / Accepted: 7 April 1993 Abstract. We examined the response of benthic in- and beetle larvae). Because invertebrates differ in their vertebrates to hypoxia and predation risk in bioassay and ability to withstand hypoxia, episodes of winter hypoxia behavioral experiments. In the bioassay, four in- could have long-lasting effects on benthic invertebrate vertebrate species differed widely in their tolerance of communities either by direct mortality or selective preda- hypoxia. The mayfly, Callibaetis montanus, and the beetle tion on less tolerant taxa. larva, Hydaticus rnodestus, exhibited a low tolerance of hypoxia, the amphipod, Gammarus lacustris, was inter- Key words: Hypoxia - Benthos - Invertebrates Preda- mediate in its response and the caddisfly, Hesperophylax tor-intimidation - Behavior occidentalis, showed high tolerance of hypoxia. In the behavioral experiments, we observed the response of these benthic invertebrates, which differ in locomotor abilities, to vertical oxygen and temperature gradients Episodic disturbance and predation often interact to similar to those in an ice-covered pond. With adequate influence community structure. Typically, this involves oxygen, invertebrates typically remained on the bottom loss or reductions in predators due to severe abiotic substrate. As benthic oxygen declined in the absence of conditions and a subsequent restructuring of the com- fish, all taxa moved above the benthic refuge to areas munity as species previously held in check by predators with higher oxygen concentrations.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List 4(2): 92–97, 2008
    Check List 4(2): 92–97, 2008. ISSN: 1809-127X NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Insecta, Ephemeroptera, Baetidae: Range extensions and new state records from Kansas, U.S.A. W. Patrick McCafferty 1 Luke M. Jacobus 2 1 Department of Entomology, Purdue University. West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana 47405 USA. The mayfly (Ephemeroptera) fauna of the U.S.A. other central lowland prairie states as well state of Kansas is relatively poorly documented (McCafferty et al. 2001; 2003; Guenther and (McCafferty 2001). With respect to small minnow McCafferty 2005). Some additionally common mayflies (family Baetidae), only 16 species have species will be evident from the new data we been documented with published records from present herein. Kansas. Those involve Acentrella turbida (McDunnough, 1924); Acerpenna pygmaea Our examination of additional unidentified (Hagen, 1861); Apobaetis Etowah (Traver, 1935); material of Kansas Baetidae housed in the Snow A. lakota McCafferty, 2000; Baetis flavistriga Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, McDunnough, 1921; B. intercalaris McDunnough, Kansas, and collected mainly by the State 1921; Callibaetis fluctuans (Walsh, 1862); C. Biological Survey of Kansas, has led to the pictus Eaton, 1871; Centroptilum album discovery of 19 additional species of Baetidae in McDunnough, 1926; C. bifurcatum McDunnough, Kansas, resulting in a new total of 35 species of 1924; Fallceon quilleri (Dodds, 1923); Baetidae now known from the state. The records Paracloeodes minutus (Daggy, 1945); P. given alphabetically below also represent the first dardanum (McDunnough, 1923); P. ephippiatum Kansas records of the genera Camelobaetidius, (Traver, 1935); P.
    [Show full text]
  • TB142: Mayflies of Maine: an Annotated Faunal List
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Technical Bulletins Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 4-1-1991 TB142: Mayflies of aine:M An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian K. Elizabeth Gibbs Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Burian, S.K., and K.E. Gibbs. 1991. Mayflies of Maine: An annotated faunal list. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 142. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Bulletins by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSN 0734-9556 Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Technical Bulletin 142 April 1991 MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian Assistant Professor Department of Biology, Southern Connecticut State University New Haven, CT 06515 and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Associate Professor Department of Entomology University of Maine Orono, Maine 04469 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this project was provided by the State of Maine Departments of Environmental Protection, and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; a University of Maine New England, Atlantic Provinces, and Quebec Fellow­ ship to S. K. Burian; and the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Dr. William L. Peters and Jan Peters, Florida A & M University, pro­ vided support and advice throughout the project and we especially appreci­ ated the opportunity for S.K. Burian to work in their laboratory and stay in their home in Tallahassee, Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of an Aquatic Toxicity Index for Macroinvertebrates
    DEVELOPMENT OF AN AQUATIC TOXICITY INDEX FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES By Lucky Nhlanhla Mnisi (Student Number: 972672) Supervisor: Dr Gavin Snow A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science. School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences of the University of the Witwatersrand DECLARATION I declare that this thesis is my own, unaided work. It is being submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in School of Animal Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in any other university. Signed:……………… ……………………………. Date:……18 May 2018…………………………………………. i ABSTRACT Rapid biomonitoring protocols employing riverine macroinvertebrates in South Africa utilise the South African Scoring System version 5 (SASS5). The SASS5 was developed as part of the then River Health Programme (RHP) [now River Eco-status Monitoring Programme (REMP)]. The SASS5 index is a cost-effective procedure (utilising limited sampling equipment) that enables speedy evaluation of a riverine ecosystem’s health using macroinvertebrates as biological indicators of water quality and ecosystem health. As a result, the SASS5 (including earlier versions) has been widely accepted by water quality practitioners and is increasingly incorporated into Ecological Reserve determinations. However, the SASS is widely criticised for being a ‘red flag’ indicator of water quality and ecosystem health because it has the ability to show only whether a river is polluted (including the extent of pollution) or not, but cannot differentiate between pollutant types (whether chemical or physical). To trace the pollutants responsible for changes in water quality, practitioners are therefore required to conduct chemical-based water quality assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North America
    Insects of Western North America 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America. 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa by Boris C. Kondratieff, Luke Myers, and Whitney S. Cranshaw C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 22, 2011 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 3 Cover Photo Credits: Whitney S. Cranshaw. Females of the blow fly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fab.) laying eggs on an animal carcass on Fort Sill, Oklahoma. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523-1177. Copyrighted 2011 4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • An All-Taxa Biodiversity Inventory of the Huron Mountain Club
    AN ALL-TAXA BIODIVERSITY INVENTORY OF THE HURON MOUNTAIN CLUB Version: August 2016 Cite as: Woods, K.D. (Compiler). 2016. An all-taxa biodiversity inventory of the Huron Mountain Club. Version August 2016. Occasional papers of the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation, No. 5. [http://www.hmwf.org/species_list.php] Introduction and general compilation by: Kerry D. Woods Natural Sciences Bennington College Bennington VT 05201 Kingdom Fungi compiled by: Dana L. Richter School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI 49931 DEDICATION This project is dedicated to Dr. William R. Manierre, who is responsible, directly and indirectly, for documenting a large proportion of the taxa listed here. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 5 SOURCES 7 DOMAIN BACTERIA 11 KINGDOM MONERA 11 DOMAIN EUCARYA 13 KINGDOM EUGLENOZOA 13 KINGDOM RHODOPHYTA 13 KINGDOM DINOFLAGELLATA 14 KINGDOM XANTHOPHYTA 15 KINGDOM CHRYSOPHYTA 15 KINGDOM CHROMISTA 16 KINGDOM VIRIDAEPLANTAE 17 Phylum CHLOROPHYTA 18 Phylum BRYOPHYTA 20 Phylum MARCHANTIOPHYTA 27 Phylum ANTHOCEROTOPHYTA 29 Phylum LYCOPODIOPHYTA 30 Phylum EQUISETOPHYTA 31 Phylum POLYPODIOPHYTA 31 Phylum PINOPHYTA 32 Phylum MAGNOLIOPHYTA 32 Class Magnoliopsida 32 Class Liliopsida 44 KINGDOM FUNGI 50 Phylum DEUTEROMYCOTA 50 Phylum CHYTRIDIOMYCOTA 51 Phylum ZYGOMYCOTA 52 Phylum ASCOMYCOTA 52 Phylum BASIDIOMYCOTA 53 LICHENS 68 KINGDOM ANIMALIA 75 Phylum ANNELIDA 76 Phylum MOLLUSCA 77 Phylum ARTHROPODA 79 Class Insecta 80 Order Ephemeroptera 81 Order Odonata 83 Order Orthoptera 85 Order Coleoptera 88 Order Hymenoptera 96 Class Arachnida 110 Phylum CHORDATA 111 Class Actinopterygii 112 Class Amphibia 114 Class Reptilia 115 Class Aves 115 Class Mammalia 121 INTRODUCTION No complete species inventory exists for any area.
    [Show full text]
  • Éthylène Glycol
    Loi canadienne sur la protection de l’environnement (1999) LISTE DES SUBSTANCES D’INTÉRÊT PRIORITAIRE ÉTAT DE LA SCIENCE ÉTHYLÈNE GLYCOL Environnement Canada Santé Canada Décembre 2000 TABLE DES MATIÈRES SYNOPSIS.......................................................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................3 2.0 SOMMAIRE DES DONNÉES ESSENTIELLES..................................................................6 2.1 IDENTITÉ ET PROPRIÉTÉS PHYSIQUES ET CHIMIQUES...................................................................6 2.2 CARACTÉRISATION DE LA PÉNÉTRATION...................................................................................6 2.2.1 Production, importation et utilisations...........................................................................6 2.2.2 Sources et rejets..............................................................................................................7 2.2.2.1 Sources naturelles ......................................................................................................7 2.2.2.2 Sources anthropiques.................................................................................................8 2.2.2.2.1 Sources industrielles ponctuelles ..........................................................................8 2.2.2.2.2 Autres sources..................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Predator to Prey to Poop: Bats As Microbial Hosts and Insectivorous Hunters
    Predator to Prey to Poop: Bats as Microbial Hosts and Insectivorous Hunters A Thesis SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Miranda Galey IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE Dr. Ron Moen, Dr. Jessica R. Sieber September 2020 Copyright © Miranda Galey 2020 Abstract Bat fecal samples are a rich source of ecological data for bat biologists, entomologists, and microbiologists. Feces collected from individual bats can be used to profile the gut microbiome using microbial DNA and to understand bat foraging strategies using arthropod DNA. We used eDNA collected from bat fecal samples to better understand bats as predators in the context of their unique gut physiology. We used high through- put sequencing of the COI gene and 16S rRNA gene to determine the diet composition and gut microbiome composition of three bat species in Minnesota: Eptesicus fuscus, Myotis lucifugus and M. septentrionalis. In our analysis of insect prey, we found that E. fuscus consistently foraged for a higher diversity of beetle species compared to other insects. We found that the proportional frequency of tympanate samples from M. septentrionalis and M. lucifugus was similar, while M. septentrionalis consistently preyed more often upon non-flying species. We used the same set of COI sequences to determine presence of pest species, rare species, and insects not previously observed in Minnesota. We were able to combine precise arthropod identification and the for- aging areas of individually sampled bats to observe possible range expansion of some insects. The taxonomic composition of the bat gut microbiome in all three species was found to be consistent with the composition of a mammalian small intestine.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 5: Fauna Known to Occur on Fort Drum
    Appendix 5: Fauna Known to Occur on Fort Drum LIST OF FAUNA KNOWN TO OCCUR ON FORT DRUM as of January 2017. Federally listed species are noted with FT (Federal Threatened) and FE (Federal Endangered); state listed species are noted with SSC (Species of Special Concern), ST (State Threatened, and SE (State Endangered); introduced species are noted with I (Introduced). INSECT SPECIES Except where otherwise noted all insect and invertebrate taxonomy based on (1) Arnett, R.H. 2000. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of North America North of Mexico, 2nd edition, CRC Press, 1024 pp; (2) Marshall, S.A. 2013. Insects: Their Natural History and Diversity, Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY, 732 pp.; (3) Bugguide.net, 2003-2017, http://www.bugguide.net/node/view/15740, Iowa State University. ORDER EPHEMEROPTERA--Mayflies Taxonomy based on (1) Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and D.J. Conklin Jr. 1990. Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press. 456 pp; (2) Merritt, R.W., K.W. Cummins, and M.B. Berg 2008. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 4th Edition. Kendall Hunt Publishing. 1158 pp. FAMILY LEPTOPHLEBIIDAE—Pronggillled Mayflies FAMILY BAETIDAE—Small Minnow Mayflies Habrophleboides sp. Acentrella sp. Habrophlebia sp. Acerpenna sp. Leptophlebia sp. Baetis sp. Paraleptophlebia sp. Callibaetis sp. Centroptilum sp. FAMILY CAENIDAE—Small Squaregilled Mayflies Diphetor sp. Brachycercus sp. Heterocloeon sp. Caenis sp. Paracloeodes sp. Plauditus sp. FAMILY EPHEMERELLIDAE—Spiny Crawler Procloeon sp. Mayflies Pseudocentroptiloides sp. Caurinella sp. Pseudocloeon sp. Drunela sp. Ephemerella sp. FAMILY METRETOPODIDAE—Cleftfooted Minnow Eurylophella sp. Mayflies Serratella sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Factors Effecting Algal Consumption in Subarctic Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Simuliidae J.W
    Oecologia (Berl.) 27, 261-273 (1977) Oecologia by Springer-Verlag 1977 Some Factors Effecting Algal Consumption in Subarctic Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Simuliidae J.W. Moore Environmental Protection Service, P.O. Box 2310, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, XOE 1HO, Canada Summary. Some of the factors influencing algal consumption in the mayflies Leptophlebia nebulosa, Cinygrnula tarda, Baetis foernina and B. cf. bicaudatus, the plecopterans Arcynopteryx signata, Nernoura cinctipes and N. oregonensis and in the dipterans Sirnuliurn arcticurn, S. venusturn and S. decorum were investigated between June 1975 and June 1976 in several streams in the Canadian subarctic. Algae represented up to 65% of the gut contents of L. nebulosa but only 0-8% in the other mayflies. They were important in the plecopterans (85-90%) but less so (2-13%) in the simuliids. Most of the interspecies variability in algal consumption could be explained in terms of food availability. This factor was in turn dependent on the density and attachment characteristics of the flora and the strength of their cell wall. Feeding intensity in most species was low between October and April, reaching its peak in July and August. From 51 to 83% of intraspecies feeding variability was due to changing temperature, followed in importance by water velocity in the dipterans and food availability in the mayflies. All species in this latter group ceased feeding in the final instar stages. In~oducfion The importance of algae in the diet of aquatic insects is highly variable. It depends to a large degree on the species of animal (Bengtsson, 1925; Wissmeyer, 1926; Monakov, 1972; Anderson and Grafius, 1975), its age and size (Brown, 1961 ; Winterbourn, 1971 ; Anderson, 1974), habitat (Hall and Pritchard, 1975), time of day (Gerson, 1974) and species of algae (Brown, 1961; Moore, 1975).
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North America
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. Part 3 Chapter 1 Survey of Spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of Fort Sill, Comanche Co., Oklahoma Chapter 2 Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III. Arachnida: Ixodidae, Scorpiones, Hexapoda: Ephemeroptera, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Coleoptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University 1 Cover Photo Credits: The Black and Yellow Argiope, Argiope aurantia Lucas, (Photo by P.E. Cushing), a robber fly Efferia texana (Banks) (Photo by C. Riley Nelson). ISBN 1084-8819 Information about the availability of this publication and others in the series may be obtained from Managing Editor, C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Ddiversity, Department of Bbioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III Edited by Paul A. Opler Chapter 1 Survey of Spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of Fort Sill, Comanche Co., Oklahoma by Paula E. Cushing and Maren Francis Department of Zoology, Denver Museum of Nature and Science Denver, Colorado 80205 Chapter 2 Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III. Arachnida: Ixodidae, Scorpiones, Hexapoda: Ephemeroptera, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Coleoptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera by Boris C. Kondratieff, Jason P. Schmidt, Paul A. Opler, and Matthew C. Garhart C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 January 2005 Contributions of the C.P.
    [Show full text]