DOCSLIB.ORG

Mammoth Cave National Park's 10Th Research Symposium

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mammoth Cave National Park's 10Th Research Symposium Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR® Mammoth Cave Research Symposia 10th Research Symposium 2013 Feb 14th, 8:00 AM - Feb 15th, 7:00 PM Mammoth Cave National Park's 10th Research Symposium: Celebrating Diversity of Research in the Mammoth Cave Region Shannon Trimboli ,editor MCICSL, Mammoth Cave National Park, Western Kentucky University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/mc_reserch_symp Part of the Animal Sciences Commons, Forest Sciences Commons, Geology Commons, Hydrology Commons, Other Earth Sciences Commons, and the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Shannon Trimboli ,editor, "Mammoth Cave National Park's 10th Research Symposium: Celebrating Diversity of Research in the Mammoth Cave Region" (February 14, 2013). Mammoth Cave Research Symposia. Paper 1. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/mc_reserch_symp/10th_Research_Symposium_2013/Complete_Proceedings/1 This is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mammoth Cave Research Symposia by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mammoth Cave National Park’s 10th Research Symposium: Celebrating the Diversity of Research in the Mammoth Cave Region February 14 - 15, 2013 Proceedings Mammoth Cave National Park’s 10th Research Symposium: Celebrating the Diversity of Research in the Mammoth Cave Region Biology and Ecology Assessing the Impact of Mercury Bioaccumulation in Mammoth Cave National Park 1 ~ Cathleen Webb Ozone and Foliar Injury at Mammoth Cave National Park 2 ~ Johnathan Jernigan Establishment of Long-term Forest Vegetation Monitoring Plots within Mammoth 3 Cave National Park ~ Bill Moore, Teresa Leibfreid, Rickie White 2011 Vegetation Map for Mammoth Cave National Park 4 ~ Rick Olson, Lillian Scoggins, Rickard S. Toomey, Jesse Burton Fire Regimes, Buff alo and the Presettlement Landscape of Mammoth Cave National 9 Park ~ Cecil C. Frost, Jesse A. Burton, Lillian Scoggins Remote Sensing of Forest Trends at Mammoth Cave National Park from 2000 to 17 2011 ~ Sean Taylor Hutchison, John All Disjunct Eastern Hemlock Populations of the Central Hardwood Forests: Ancient 18 Relicts or Recent Long Distance Dispersal Events? ~ F. Collin Hobbs, Keith Clay Landscape Genetics of the Marbled Salamander, Ambystoma opacum, in a 22 Nationally Protected Park ~ Kevin Tewell, Jarrett Johnson Infl uences of a Cladophora Bloom on the Diets of Amblema plicata and Elliptio 23 dilatata in the Upper Green River, Kentucky ~ Jennifer Yates, Scott Grubbs, Albert Meier, Michael Collyer Contribution of Freshwater Bivalves to Muskrat Diets in the Green River, Mammoth 24 Cave National Park, Kentucky ~ Kimberly Asmus Hersey, Joseph D. Clark, James B. Layzer Potential Eff ects of Hydrogen Sulfi de and Hydrocarbon Seeps on Mammoth Cave 25 Ecosystems ~ Rick Olson Long-term Monitoring of Aquatic Biota Using Occupancy Modeling 32 ~ Kurt Helf Antibiotic Resistance and Substrate Utilization by Bacteria Affi liated with Cave 33 Streams at Diff erent Levels of Mammoth Cave ~ Petra Byl, Shannon Trimboli, Rick Toomey, Jacob Byl, David Solomon, Tom Byl The Cave Beetle Neaphaenops tellkampfi Erichson: Relationships within and among 40 Related Genera Using Molecular Data ~ T. Keith Philips, Elise Valkanas, Kurt Helf A Functional Visual System in the Cave Beetle Ptomaphagus hirtus 41 ~ Markus Friedrich, Rui Chen, Elke K. Buschbeck, Stewart Peck Seasonal Occurrence and Habitat Affi liations of Trichoptera at Mammoth Cave 44 National Park ~ Luke E. Dodd, Michael A. Floyd, David A. Etnier Using LiDAR to Link Forest Canopy Structure with Bat Activity and Insect 50 Occurrence: Preliminary Findings ~ Luke E. Dodd, Nicholas S. Skowronski, Matthew B. Dickinson, Michael J. Lacki, Lynne K. Rieske Monitoring Cave Bats at Mammoth Cave National Park 58 ~ Steven Thomas Mercury Analysis in Rafi nesque Big Eared Bat Populations 59 ~ Lara van der Heiden, Cathleen J. Webb Inventory of Terrestrial Wild Mammals at Mammoth Cave National Park: 2005-2010 60 ~ Steven Thomas Evaluating Interactions Between River Otters and Muskrats at Bridge Crossings in 61 Kentucky ~ Ryan Williamson, Joseph Clark MAPS (Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship) 62 ~ Brice Leech Breeding Bird Survey Summary from Mammoth Cave National Park, 1995 - 2012 64 ~ Steve Kistler Caving and Cave Survey How Did Max Kämper and Ed Bishop Survey Mammoth Cave? 69 ~ Rick Olson, Bernd Kliebhan, Rickard S. Toomey III The Making of a Connection: Exploration/Survey in Whigpistle Cave System 78 ~ Patricia Kambesis, Joel Despain, Chris Groves In-Cave and Surface Geophysics to Detect a “Lost” River in the Upper Levels of the 82 Mammoth Cave System, Kentucky ~ Timothy D. Bechtel, Chet Hedden, J.D. Mizer, Ute Bellmann, Sarah Truebe, Kenneth Dresang, Ellen Bechtel Sump Diving “River Caves” (presentation will be given at Hamilton Valley) 89 ~ Mark Wenner Geology and Hydrology Paleontology and Paleoecology of Interglacial Guano Deposits in Mammoth Cave, 92 KY ~ Chris Widga, Mona Colburn Using S Isotopes to Identify the Source of Gypsum in Mammoth Cave 93 ~ J. Garrecht Metzger, David A. Fike, Bob Osburn, Aaron Addison Particulate Inorganic Carbon Flux in Karst and its Signifi cance to Karst 94 Development and the Carbon Cycle ~ Randall L. Paylor, Carol M. Wicks Analysis of Kyrock for Leaching of Impurities in Synthetic Rainwater 95 ~ Santhosh Kumar Geophysical Logging of a Park Well, Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky 96 ~ Michael W. Bradley Karst Hydrogeology of the Haney Limestone, South Central Kentucky 97 ~ Sarah Arpin, Chris Groves Mysteries of the Underground River 98 ~ Allyson Copeland, Lane Ryan, Dania Shoiab, Shannon R. Trimboli, Kim Weber, Susan Ryan, Rickard S. Toomey, III An Alternative to the Advection Dispersion Model for Interpreting Dye Tracing 99 Studies in Fractured-Rock and Karst Aquifers ~ Roger Painter, Irucka Embry, Victor Roland, Rick Toomey, Lonnie Sharpe History and Archeology The History and Conservation of Saltpeter Works in Mammoth Cave, Kentucky 103 ~ George M. Crothers, Christina A. Pappas, Christian D. Mittendorf Archaeological Evidence of Historic Mining at Forestville Saltpeter Cave (15Ht94), 109 Hart County, Kentucky ~ Darlene Applegate, Emily L. Duke Archaeological Investigations for Proposed Trail Rehabilitation within Mammoth 118 Cave ~ Steven R. Ahler, George M. Crothers Restoring the Kämper Map for the 21st Century: A Digital Approach 126 ~ Tres Seymour The Mammoth Cave Mushroom Company: A Brief History of a Short-lived Venture 133 ~ Katie Algeo Sable Melodists 134 ~ Janet Bass Smith History of Long Cave 139 ~ Stanley D. Sides, Norman L. Warnell The Mammoth Eagle: The CCC Era at Mammoth Cave 143 ~ David H. Kime First Underground Photograph Taken in America 149 ~ Wm. Gross Magee Mammoth Cave in Poetry: Davis McCombs’ Ultima Thule 150 ~ Judith Hatchett From Board Games to Tobacco Products: U.S. Patents Related to Mammoth Cave 151 ~ Margaret M. Gripshover History of Crawling Tours at Mammoth Cave ~ Janet Bass Smith 152 Science Education and Interpretation Misconceptions Among Us: Evaluating Informal Karst Education in the United 159 States and Abroad ~ Leslie A. North Using Interactive Simulation to Extend Access to Learning Along the Historic Tour 160 Route of Mammoth Cave National Park ~ Christopher L. Atchison, Don Stredney, Karen E. Irving, Rickard S. Toomey, III, Alan Price, Thomas Kerwin, Bradley Hittle, Phillip J. Reed Pre-service Teachers Learn about Karst Geology at Mammoth Cave National Park 161 ~ Jeanine Huss, Cheryl Messenger Resource Management Eff ects of Prescribed Fire on Mammoth Cave National Park’s Oak-Hickory 163 Vegetation ~ Jesse A. Burton LiDAR: A Multi-Application Management Tool 171 ~ John Wall, Hugh Devine, George Crothers, Justin Shedd Correlating NOx levels at Mammoth Cave National Park with Solar Irradiance 173 ~ Matthew Nee Mammoth Cave National Park NPScape 176 ~ Lillian Scoggins, Shepard McAninich Water Quality Monitoring at Mammoth Cave National Park 177 ~ Brenda Wells, Joe Meiman Partners in Water Quality Monitoring at Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky 178 ~ Thomas D. Byl, Rickard Toomey, Shannon Trimboli, Lonnie Sharpe, Jr., Roger Painter Multiple Storm Event Impacts on Epikarst Storage and Transport of Organic Soil 183 Amendments in South-central Kentucky ~ Jason Polk, Sean Vanderhoff , Chris Groves, Benjamin Miller, Carl Bolster Three Examples of Chemical Transport in Storm Runoff at Mammoth Cave 184 National Park, Kentucky ~ Ashley West, David Solomon, Sean McMillan, Hung-Wai Ho, Victor Roland, Irucka Embry, Rick Toomey, Roger Painter, Lonnie Sharpe, Dafeng Hui Evaluation of Stormwater Filters at Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky, 2011- 188 12 ~ Sean McMillan, Ashley West, David Solomon, Roger Diehl, Victor Roland, Irucka Embry, Rick Toomey, III Use of Sorption Isotherms to Improve the Effi cacy of the Storm-water Filters 193 ~ Hung-Wai “Wayman” Ho, Rick Toomey Improvements to the RV Waste-transfer Station Design to Reduce Contaminated 197 Storm Runoff ~ David Solomon, Sean McMillan, Ashley West, and Lonnie Sharpe Spill Retention and Routine Runoff Filtration Structures on Interstate 65 in the 201 Vicinity of Mammoth Cave National Park ~ Rick Olson Mammoth Cave National Park Backcountry Trail and Stream Monitoring, 2009- 203 2012 ~ Larry Johnson White-nose Syndrome at Mammoth Cave National Park: Actions Before and After 206 Its Detection ~ Rickard S. Toomey, III, Steven Thomas, Joel Gillespie, Vickie Carson, Shannon R. Trimboli Assessing the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA
    Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4300 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4300 Taxonomic Paper Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA Thomas P. Simon†, Charles C. Morris‡, Joseph R. Robb§, William McCoy | † Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 46403, United States of America ‡ US National Park Service, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, IN 47468, United States of America § US Fish and Wildlife Service, Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge, Madison, IN 47250, United States of America | US Fish and Wildlife Service, Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, Oakland City, IN 47660, United States of America Corresponding author: Thomas P. Simon ([email protected]) Academic editor: Benjamin Price Received: 08 Dec 2014 | Accepted: 09 Jan 2015 | Published: 12 Jan 2015 Citation: Simon T, Morris C, Robb J, McCoy W (2015) Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA. Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4300. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4300 Abstract The National Wildlife Refuge system is a vital resource for the protection and conservation of biodiversity and biological integrity in the United States. Surveys were conducted to determine the spatial and temporal patterns of fish, macroinvertebrate, and crayfish populations in two watersheds that encompass three refuges in southern Indiana. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge had the highest number of aquatic species with 355 macroinvertebrate taxa, six crayfish species, and 82 fish species, while the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge had 163 macroinvertebrate taxa, seven crayfish species, and 37 fish species. The Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge had the lowest diversity of macroinvertebrates with 96 taxa and six crayfish species, while possessing the second highest fish species richness with 51 species.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Red Flag Summary Environmental Red Flag Summary Us 68X and Us 231X Planning Study Kytc Item No
    APPENDIX E – ENVIRONMENTAL RED FLAG SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL RED FLAG SUMMARY US 68X AND US 231X PLANNING STUDY KYTC ITEM NO. N/A Warren County US 68X from south of Robinson Avenue (MP 1.000) to north of Avenue of Champions (MP 1.626) US 231X from north of Normal Street (MP 2.300) to south of Holly Drive (MP 2.600) Prepared for: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Central Office Division of Environmental Analysis Highway District 3 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. November 1, 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL RED FLAG SUMMARY US 68X AND US 231X PLANNING STUDY KYTC ITEM NO. N/A Executive Summary This Environmental Red Flag Summary has been prepared for the US 68X and US 231X Planning Study in Bowling Green, Warren County, Kentucky (KYTC Item No. not assigned). The purpose of the Planning Study is to evaluate operational and safety improvements at the Russellville Road intersections with Morgantown Road and University Boulevard and options to widen the underpass on Russellville Road. The purpose of this Environmental Red Flag Summary is to identify environmental resources of significance, potential jurisdictional features, and other environmental areas of concern that should be considered during project development. Natural and human environment resources within the study area were identified from secondary sources, as well as a pedestrian survey conducted on August 30, 2017. Based on this information, the key environmental features within the study area include: Surface Streams: None present in the study area or immediate vicinity. Wetlands: None present in the study area or immediate vicinity. Threatened and Endangered Species: Seventeen (17) federal-listed species (14 endangered, 3 threatened) have the potential to occur in the study area, with 10 federal-listed species recorded within 5-miles of the study area.
    [Show full text]
  • SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005
    MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AIR AND LAND PROTECTION DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROGRAM Standard Operating Procedures SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005 SOP TITLE: Taxonomic Levels for Macroinvertebrate Identifications WRITTEN BY: Randy Sarver, WQMS, ESP APPROVED BY: Earl Pabst, Director, ESP SUMMARY OF REVISIONS: Changes to reflect new taxa and current taxonomy APPLICABILITY: Applies to Water Quality Monitoring Section personnel who perform community level surveys of aquatic macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams of Missouri . DISTRIBUTION: MoDNR Intranet ESP SOP Coordinator RECERTIFICATION RECORD: Date Reviewed Initials Page 1 of 30 MDNR-WQMS-209 Effective Date: 05/31/05 Page 2 of 30 1.0 GENERAL OVERVIEW 1.1 This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is designed to be used as a reference by biologists who analyze aquatic macroinvertebrate samples from Missouri. Its purpose is to establish consistent levels of taxonomic resolution among agency, academic and other biologists. The information in this SOP has been established by researching current taxonomic literature. It should assist an experienced aquatic biologist to identify organisms from aquatic surveys to a consistent and reliable level. The criteria used to set the level of taxonomy beyond the genus level are the systematic treatment of the genus by a professional taxonomist and the availability of a published key. 1.2 The consistency in macroinvertebrate identification allowed by this document is important regardless of whether one person is conducting an aquatic survey over a period of time or multiple investigators wish to compare results. It is especially important to provide guidance on the level of taxonomic identification when calculating metrics that depend upon the number of taxa.
    [Show full text]
  • 11Th Research Symposium at Mammoth Cave National Park Shannon R
    Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR® Mammoth Cave Research Symposia 11th Research Symposium 2016 Apr 18th, 8:00 AM - Apr 20th, 7:00 PM Proceedings for Celebrating the Diversity of Research in the Mammoth Cave Region: 11th Research Symposium at Mammoth Cave National Park Shannon R. Trimboli Editor Western Kentucky University, MCICSL, [email protected] Luke E. Dodd, Editor De'Etra Young, Editor Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/mc_reserch_symp Part of the Animal Sciences Commons, Forest Sciences Commons, Geology Commons, Hydrology Commons, Other Earth Sciences Commons, and the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Shannon R. Trimboli Editor; Luke E. Dodd, Editor; and De'Etra Young, Editor, "Proceedings for Celebrating the Diversity of Research in the Mammoth Cave Region: 11th Research Symposium at Mammoth Cave National Park" (April 18, 2016). Mammoth Cave Research Symposia. Paper 1. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/mc_reserch_symp/11th_Research_Symposium_2016/Complete_Proceedings/1 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mammoth Cave Research Symposia by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Celebrating the Diversity of Research in the Mammoth Cave Region 11th Research Symposium at Mammoth Cave National Park Proceedings April 18-20, 2016 Mammoth Cave National Park Training Center Acknowledgements Putting together a research symposium and the corresponding proceedings are more than any one person can do alone. Many people have helped make this year’s symposium and the proceedings you are holding a success. I am extremely grateful to everyone who has helped in any way, even if it was something as seemingly simple as an encouraging smile, a well-timed joke, or being an extra brain when mine was too frazzled to think straight.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Years of Cave Arthropod Sampling: Techniques and Best Practices J
    International Journal of Speleology 48 (1) 33-48 Tampa, FL (USA) January 2019 Available online at scholarcommons.usf.edu/ijs International Journal of Speleology Off icial Journal of Union Internationale de Spéléologie Fifty years of cave arthropod sampling: techniques and best practices J. Judson Wynne1*, Francis G. Howarth2, Stefan Sommer1, and Brett G. Dickson3 1Department of Biological Sciences, Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research, Northern Arizona University, Box 5640, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA 2Department of Natural Sciences, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817, USA 3Conservation Science Partners, 11050 Pioneer Trail, Suite 202, Truckee, CA 96161 and Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology, Landscape Conservation Initiative, Northern Arizona University, Box 5694, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA Abstract: Ever-increasing human pressures on cave biodiversity have amplified the need for systematic, repeatable, and intensive surveys of cave-dwelling arthropods to formulate evidence-based management decisions. We examined 110 papers (from 1967 to 2018) to: (i) understand how cave-dwelling invertebrates have been sampled; (ii) provide a summary of techniques most commonly applied and appropriateness of these techniques, and; (iii) make recommendations for sampling design improvement. Of the studies reviewed, over half (56) were biological inventories, 43 ecologically focused, seven were techniques papers, and four were conservation studies. Nearly one-half (48) of the papers applied systematic techniques. Few papers (24) provided enough information to repeat the study; of these, only 11 studies included cave maps. Most studies (56) used two or more techniques for sampling cave-dwelling invertebrates. Ten studies conducted ≥10 site visits per cave. The use of quantitative techniques was applied in 43 of the studies assessed.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Cave Amphipod (Gammarus Acherondytes) Recovery Plan
    Illinois Cave Amphipod (Gammarus acherondytes) Recovery Plan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region (Region 3) Fort Snelling, Minnesota llIinois Cave Amphipod ( Gammarus acherondytes) Recovery Plan Prepared by Illinois Cave Amphipod Recovery Team Ms. Joan Bade, Recovery Team Leader Dr. Julian J. Lewis Illinois Department of Natural Resources J. Lewis and Associates BioI. Consulting Chester, Illinois Clarksville, Indiana Dr. Steven J. Taylor Ms. Diane Tecic Illinois Natural History Survey Illinois Department of Natural Resources Champaign, Illinois Granite City, Illinois Dr. Donald W. Webb Mr. Dennis Brand Illinois Natural History Survey Waterloo, Illinois Champaign, Illinois Mr. Kenneth Hartman, Jr. Dr. Samuel V. Panno Waterloo, Illinois Illinois State Geological Survey Champaign, Illinois Mr. Philip Moss Ozark Underground Laboratory Protem, Missouri For , Region 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056 ~ Appro~e~:, (;)UQ l ~ - f'"J-"\ Regional Director, U,S. Fish and Wildlir.JService Date: j l2.4.1l () 'L Disclaimer Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the USFWS. They represent the official position of the USFWS only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved.
    [Show full text]
  • THREATENED and ENDANGERED SPECIES in KENTUCKY (42 Species As of June 24, 2010)
    THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN KENTUCKY (42 Species as of June 24, 2010) Animals Mammals Status Gray bat Myotis grisescens E ^ Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E Virginia big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus E Birds Piping plover (migrant only) Charadrius melodus T * Whooping crane (migrant only) Grus americana XN Least tern Sterna antillarum E Fishes Relict darter Etheostoma chienense E Duskytail darter Etheostoma percnurum E Palezone shiner Notropis albizonatus E Blackside dace Phoxinus cumberlandensis T Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus E Crustaceans ^ Kentucky cave shrimp Palaemonias ganteri E Mussels1 ^ Cumberland elktoe Alasmidonta atropurpurea E Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria E + Dromedary pearlymussel Dromus dromas E ^ Cumberlandian combshell Epioblasma brevidens E ^ Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis E Tan riffleshell Epioblasma florentina walkeri E Catspaw Epioblasma obliquata obliquata E Northern riffleshell Epioblasma torulosa rangiana E + Cracking pearlymussel Hemistena lata E Pink mucket Lampsilis abrupta E + Scaleshell Leptodea leptodon E Ring pink Obovaria retusa E Littlewing pearlymussel Pegias fabula E + White wartyback Plethobasus cicatricosus E Orangefoot pimpleback Plethobasus cooperianus E Clubshell Pleurobema clava E Rough pigtoe Pleurobema plenum E Fat pocketbook Potamilus capax E + Winged mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa E Cumberland bean Villosa trabilis E Insects + American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus E Plants Price’s potato-bean Apios priceana T ^ Braun’s rockcress Arabis perstellata E Cumberland sandwort Arenaria cumberlandensis E Cumberland rosemary Conradina verticillata T American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana T White-haired goldenrod Solidago albopilosa T Short’s goldenrod Solidago shortii E Running buffalo clover Trifolium stoloniferum E 1 The Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (http://www.naturepreserves.ky.gov/) includes three additional mussel species on their official list for Kentucky (see below).
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered St
    34696 Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ThE INTERIOR and has fewer dorsal rostra! spines Four comments were received. One (Smalley 1961). Federal agency saw no impact to their Fish and Wildlife Service A search of over 200 caves in north program by the proposal. The proposal Alabama has failed to find the Alabama was supported by the other three 50 CFR Part 17 cave shrimp anywhere but at the two commenters, including a Federal agency. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife localities (J.E. Cooper, pers. comm.). The the national conservation organization and Plants; Endangered Status for the type locality, Shelta Cave, lies within that owns Shelta Cave, and by a Alabama Cave Shrimp, Palaemonias the northwest limits of Huntsville, professional biologist Two of these Alabama. It is located in Warsaw commenters provided additional data. Alabamae limestone of Mississippian age in the After a thorough review and AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior Low Plateau (Cooper 1975). Shelta Cave consists ofthree large consideration of all information Interior. available, the Service has determined ACTION: Final rule. rooms with smaller alcoves. Water is present in all of the cave areas during that the Alabama cave shrimp SUMMARY: The Service determines the wet periods of the year. Water levels (Palaemonias alabamae) should be Alabama cave shrimp, Palaemonias fluctuate several feet during the year classified as an endangered species. alabamae, to be an endangered species and some areas of the cave become Procedures found at section 4(a)(1) of under the authority contained in the seasonally dry.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1. Locations and Events
    Appendix 1. Locations and Events Sampling locations and collection events for Cowpens National Battlefield (COWP), Kings Mountain National Military Park (KIMO), and Ninety Six National Historic Site (NISI) are presented in the tables below. A sampling location is a place on a river or other water body where specimens were collected. Locations are normally represented by a verbal description, geographic coordinates, and an elevation. An event is an occasion on which researchers attempted to collect specimens from a given location. Events have time, method, and collector information. Each location is unique, and each location will have one or more events associated with it. Table 1-1. Sample locations and events for Cowpens National Battlefield. Each sample location is presented with the State and County, followed by the SiteCode as used in the database, a brief description of the location, the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates (all in UTM Zone 16 North), the decimal latitude (Lat) and longitude (Lon), and the elevation in meters above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. All coordinates are based on the North American Datum 83. Beneath each location entry are details for one or more sampling events that occurred at the site. The event information includes the date of the event, the method used to collect specimens, and the collector(s). Location UTMs Lat\Lon Elevation SC:Cherokee Co., COWP unnamed trib Zekial Ck, unnamed trib Zekial Ck, S bndry park upstrm 3886599N 35.11957°N Bonner Rd 426669E 81.80478°W 266 m Event 01: 25-26 Aug 2005, black light trap, CRParker SC:Cherokee Co., COWP 2nd drain under Rt.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations on the Biology of the Endangered Stygobiotic Shrimp Palaemonias Alabamae, with Notes on P. Ganteri (Decapoda: Atyidae)
    Subterranean Biology 8: 9-20, 2010 (2011) Stygobiotic shrimp Palaemonias alabamae 9 doi: 10.3897/subtbiol.8.1226 Observations on the biology of the endangered stygobiotic shrimp Palaemonias alabamae, with notes on P. ganteri (Decapoda: Atyidae) John E. COOPER (1,*), Martha Riser COOPER (2) (1) North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, Research Lab, 4301 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607, U.S.A.; e-mail: [email protected] (2) 209 Lynwood Lane, Raleigh, NC 27609, U.S.A.; e-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author ABSTRACT Palaemonias alabamae is endemic to subterranean waters in northern Alabama. Its type locality is Shelta Cave, Madison County, and ostensibly conspecifi c shrimps have been found in Bobcat and two other caves. Pollution and other factors may have extirpated the shrimp from the type locality. In Shelta Cave the species is smaller than the shrimp in Bobcat Cave and P. ganteri in Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. Adult female P. alabamae (s.s.) and P. ganteri are larger than males. Female P. alabamae with visible oocytes or, rarely, attached ova, were observed from July through January in Shelta Cave. Each female there produces 8 to 12 large ova, whereas females of the population in Bobcat Cave produce 20 to 24 ova, and P. ganteri produces 14 to 33 ova. Plankton samples taken in Shelta and Mammoth caves yielded nothing identifi able as zoea or postlarvae. Palaemonias alabamae and P. ganteri usually feed by fi ltering bottom sediments through their mouthparts, but both sometimes feed upside down at the water’s surface. Although there is some overlap, the compositions of the aquatic communities in Shelta and Mammoth caves differ, and there are some major dif- ferences among the Alabama shrimp caves.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammoth Cave: a Hotspot of Subterranean Biodiversity in the United States
    diversity Article Mammoth Cave: A Hotspot of Subterranean Biodiversity in the United States Matthew L. Niemiller 1,*, Kurt Helf 2 and Rickard S. Toomey 3 1 Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 301 Sparkman Dr NW, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA 2 Cumberland Piedmont Network, National Park Service, Mammoth Cave National Park, 61 Maintenance Rd., Mammoth Cave, KY 42259, USA; [email protected] 3 Division of Science and Resources Management, Mammoth Cave National Park, P.O. Box 7, Mammoth Cave, KY 42259, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] Abstract: The Mammoth Cave System in the Interior Low Plateau karst region in central Kentucky, USA is a global hotspot of cave-limited biodiversity, particularly terrestrial species. We searched the literature, museum accessions, and database records to compile an updated list of troglobiotic and stygobiotic species for the Mammoth Cave System and compare our list with previously published checklists. Our list of cave-limited fauna totals 49 species, with 32 troglobionts and 17 stygobionts. Seven species are endemic to the Mammoth Cave System and other small caves in Mammoth Cave National Park. The Mammoth Cave System is the type locality for 33 cave-limited species. The exceptional diversity at Mammoth Cave is likely related to several factors, such as the high dispersal potential of cave fauna associated with expansive karst exposures, high surface productivity, and a long history of exploration and study. Nearly 80% of the cave-limited fauna is of conservation concern, many of which are at an elevated risk of extinction because of small ranges, few occurrences, Citation: Niemiller, M.L.; Helf, K.; and several potential threats.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama Cave Shrimp (Palaemonias Alabamae) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation
    Alabama Cave Shrimp (Palaemonias alabamae) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo by: Dr. Bernard Kuhajda U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Alabama Ecological Services Field Office Daphne, Alabama January 2016 5-YEAR REVIEW Alabama cave shrimp/Palaemonias alabamae I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology used to complete the review This 5-year review was conducted by the Alabama Field Office’s Aquatics Team (Jennifer Grunewald, Jeff Powell, and Anthony Ford). The specific sources of information used in this analysis were found in the 1988 final listing rule under the Endangered Species Act (53 FR 34696); the final recovery plan (FWS 1997); peer- reviewed scientific publications; unpublished survey data and reports, and personal communication with recognized experts. We announced initiation of this review and requested information on the species in a published Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period (79 FR 16366). Data and additional information were received from Stuart McGregor, Shannon Allen, Dr. Bernard Kuhajda, Randall Blackwood, and Dr. Kevin Roe. Experts who peer reviewed this document include Stuart McGregor, Randall Blackwood, and Shannon Allen. Comments were evaluated and incorporated as appropriate into this 5-year review (see Appendix A). B. Reviewers Lead Region – Southeast Region: Kelly Bibb, (404) 679-7132 Lead Field Office – Alabama Ecological Services Field Office, Daphne, AL: Jennifer Grunewald, (251) 441-6633; Jeff Powell, (251) 441-5858; and Anthony Ford, (251) 441- 5838. C. Background 1. Federal Register Notice citation announcing initiation of this review: (79 FR 16366), March 25, 2014 2. Species status: Stable The Alabama cave shrimp is considered stable due to persisting populations in the known locations of Bobcat, Hering, Glover, and Brazelton caves; the shrimp has not been documented in the type locality, Shelta Cave, since 1973.
    [Show full text]