DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 4.6 Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 4.6 Contents Section 4.6 Contents 4.6.1 Introduction to Effects Analysis ............................................................................... 4.6-1 4.6.2 Grouping of Species for Discussion of Effects ........................................................ 4.6-2 4.6.3 Summary of Minimization and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.6-4 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4.6-4 Integration of Minimization and Mitigation Measures .......................................... 4.6-6 Summary of Minimization and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 4.6-8 4.6.4 Effects of HCP and Activities Allowed under the HCP .......................................... 4.6-22 Summaries of Effects ....................................................................................... 4.6-22 Late-successional and Old-growth Communities .............................................. 4.6-22 Group #1 – Northern Spotted Owl .............................................................................. 4.6-22 Group #2 – Marbled Murrelet ...................................................................................... 4.6-26 Group #3 – Northern Goshawk ................................................................................... 4.6-29 Group #17 - Three-Toed Woodpecker...................................................................... 4.6-33 Group #18 – Pileated Woodpecker, Vaux’s Swift ....................................................... 4.6-36 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4.6-36 Group #19 – Olive-Sided Flycatcher ........................................................................... 4.6-40 Group #20 – Brown Creeper ....................................................................................... 4.6-45 Group #26 – Hoary Bat, Silver-Haired Bat, Big Brown Bat, Long-Eared Myotis, Long-Legged Myotis, California Myotis, Little Brown Myotis, Keen’s Myotis, Yuma Myotis, Fringed Myotis, Western Big-Eared Bat ......................................................... 4.6-48 Group #27 – Fisher, Marten, Wolverine ..................................................................... 4.6-53 Group #28 – Canada Lynx .......................................................................................... 4.6-60 Group #35 – Western Red-backed Salamander ........................................................ 4.6-68 Group #41 – Johnson’s (Mistletoe) Hairstreak ........................................................... 4.6-71 Group #42 – Blue-gray Taildropper, Puget Oregonian, Oregon ................................. 4.6-74 Megomphix ................................................................................................................. 4.6-74 Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem ...................................................................... 4.6-78 Group #4 – Common Loon ......................................................................................... 4.6-78 Group #5 – Bull Trout ................................................................................................. 4.6-88 Group #6 – Pygmy Whitefish ...................................................................................... 4.6-99 Group #7 – Sockeye Salmon .................................................................................... 4.6-109 Group #8 – Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, and Steelhead Trout .......................... 4.6-119 Group #9 - Bald Eagle ............................................................................................. 4.6-135 Group #13 – Harlequin Duck .................................................................................... 4.6-139 Group #14 – Great Blue Heron ................................................................................. 4.6-143 Group #15 – Osprey ................................................................................................. 4.6-149 Group #16 – Willow Flycatcher ................................................................................. 4.6-153 Group #25 – Northern Water Shrew, Masked Shrew ............................................... 4.6-156 Group #29 – Pacific Lamprey, River Lamprey .......................................................... 4.6-161 Group #30 – Kokanee ............................................................................................... 4.6-169 Group #31 – Sea-run Coastal Cutthroat Trout ......................................................... 4.6-174 Group #32 – Tailed Frog, Pacific Giant Salamander, Cascade Torrent Salamander .............................................................................................................. 4.6-182 Group #33 – Long-Toed Salamander, Roughskin Newt, Northwestern Salamander, Western Toad, Northern Red-Legged Frog, Cascades Frog, Oregon Spotted Frog, Western Pond Turtle .......................................................................... 4.6-187 Group #34 – Van Dyke’s Salamander ...................................................................... 4.6-193 Group #37 – Papillose Taildropper, Fender’s Soliperlan Stonefly, Carabid Beetles (Bembidion gordoni, B. stillaguamish, Nebria kincaidi, N. gebleri cascadensis, N. paradisi, Pterostichus johnsoni) ................................................................................ 4.6-198 Group #38 – Beller’s Ground Beetle, Hatch’s Click Beetle, Long-Horned Leaf Draft Cedar River Watershed HCP Conservation Strategies 4.6- i Beetle ........................................................................................................................ 4.6-203 Group #39 – Carabid Beetles (Omus dejeanii, Bembidion viator, Bradycellus fenderi) ...................................................................................................................... 4.6-206 Group #40 – Snail (Valvata mergella) ....................................................................... 4.6-210 Special Habitats ............................................................................................. 4.6-212 Group #10 – Peregrine Falcon ................................................................................. 4.6-212 Group #11 – Grizzly Bear ......................................................................................... 4.6-215 Group #12 – Gray Wolf ............................................................................................. 4.6-220 Group #21 – Band-tailed Pigeon .............................................................................. 4.6-226 Group #22 – Rufous Hummingbird, Western Bluebird ............................................. 4.6-228 Group #23 – Golden Eagle, Merlin ........................................................................... 4.6-231 Group #24 – Black Swift ........................................................................................... 4.6-234 Group #35 – Western Redback Salamander ........................................................... 4.6-237 Group #36 – Larch Mountain Salamander................................................................ 4.6-240 Determination of Net Benefit .......................................................................... 4.6-243 4.6- ii Conservation Strategies Cedar River Watershed HCP 4.6 Effects of the HCP on Species of Concern 4.6.1 Introduction to Effects Analysis The federal ESA requires that an applicant for an incidental take permit must “. to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking . .” so that the “. taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild . .” (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B)). Previous sections in Chapter 4 of this HCP have presented the conservation and mitigation measures the City proposes to meet the foregoing standards. The granting of an incidental take permit by the Services requires an analysis of the effects of the HCP as the basis for a biological opinion on each species to be covered by the permit. Section 4.6 summarizes information included in this HCP that is relevant to the biological opinions for the species addressed by this HCP. The Services will use the information in Section 4.6, along with other information presented in this HCP and otherwise available to the Services, to determine whether sufficient information exists to issue an incidental take permit for each of the species addressed in the HCP and the level of incidental take to be allowed under the incidental take permit for each covered species. Note that the term “take” technically applies only to those species listed under the ESA as endangered, and the take prohibitions described in Section 9 of the ESA apply to endangered species. Take applies to species listed as threatened only if the respective Service publishes a rule to that effect under Section 4(d) of the ESA. The USFWS has a standing rule that the take prohibitions under Section 9 of the ESA apply to any species listed as threatened. The remaining subsections of Section 4.6 present a description of how the species were grouped for analysis (Section 4.6.2); a tabular summary of the minimization and mitigation measures the City proposes to meet the standards of the ESA (Section 4.6.3); and an analysis of effects of the HCP and activities allowed under the HCP, presented for individual species and groups of species (Section 4.6.4). Cedar River Watershed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wild Species 2010 the GENERAL STATUS of SPECIES in CANADA
    Wild Species 2010 THE GENERAL STATUS OF SPECIES IN CANADA Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council National General Status Working Group This report is a product from the collaboration of all provincial and territorial governments in Canada, and of the federal government. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2011. Wild Species 2010: The General Status of Species in Canada. National General Status Working Group: 302 pp. Available in French under title: Espèces sauvages 2010: La situation générale des espèces au Canada. ii Abstract Wild Species 2010 is the third report of the series after 2000 and 2005. The aim of the Wild Species series is to provide an overview on which species occur in Canada, in which provinces, territories or ocean regions they occur, and what is their status. Each species assessed in this report received a rank among the following categories: Extinct (0.2), Extirpated (0.1), At Risk (1), May Be At Risk (2), Sensitive (3), Secure (4), Undetermined (5), Not Assessed (6), Exotic (7) or Accidental (8). In the 2010 report, 11 950 species were assessed. Many taxonomic groups that were first assessed in the previous Wild Species reports were reassessed, such as vascular plants, freshwater mussels, odonates, butterflies, crayfishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Other taxonomic groups are assessed for the first time in the Wild Species 2010 report, namely lichens, mosses, spiders, predaceous diving beetles, ground beetles (including the reassessment of tiger beetles), lady beetles, bumblebees, black flies, horse flies, mosquitoes, and some selected macromoths. The overall results of this report show that the majority of Canada’s wild species are ranked Secure.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring Within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘I: Synthesis Report
    Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘i: Synthesis Report Prepared by Francis G. Howarth, David J. Preston, and Richard Pyle Honolulu, Hawaii January 2012 Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘i: Synthesis Report Francis G. Howarth, David J. Preston, and Richard Pyle Hawaii Biological Survey Bishop Museum Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817 USA Prepared for EKNA Services Inc. 615 Pi‘ikoi Street, Suite 300 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96814 and State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Airports Division Bishop Museum Technical Report 58 Honolulu, Hawaii January 2012 Bishop Museum Press 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i Copyright 2012 Bishop Museum All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America ISSN 1085-455X Contribution No. 2012 001 to the Hawaii Biological Survey COVER Adult male Hawaiian long-horned wood-borer, Plagithmysus kahului, on its host plant Chenopodium oahuense. This species is endemic to lowland Maui and was discovered during the arthropod surveys. Photograph by Forest and Kim Starr, Makawao, Maui. Used with permission. Hawaii Biological Report on Monitoring Arthropods within Kahului Airport Environs, Synthesis TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents …………….......................................................……………...........……………..…..….i. Executive Summary …….....................................................…………………...........……………..…..….1 Introduction ..................................................................………………………...........……………..…..….4
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity on the Population Dynamics of Four Animal Species in a Danish Landscape
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Valery Forbes Publications Papers in the Biological Sciences 6-23-2009 The effects of spatial and temporal heterogeneity on the population dynamics of four animal species in a Danish landscape Richard M. Sibly University of Reading, [email protected] Jacob Nabe-Nielsen University of Aarhus, Roskilde, Denmark, [email protected] Mads C. Forchhammer University of Aarhus, Roskilde, Denmark, [email protected] Valery E. Forbes University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Christopher J. Topping University of Aarhus, Rønde, Denmark, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciforbes Part of the Pharmacology, Toxicology and Environmental Health Commons Sibly, Richard M.; Nabe-Nielsen, Jacob; Forchhammer, Mads C.; Forbes, Valery E.; and Topping, Christopher J., "The effects of spatial and temporal heterogeneity on the population dynamics of four animal species in a Danish landscape" (2009). Valery Forbes Publications. 12. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciforbes/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valery Forbes Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. BMC Ecology BioMed Central Research article Open Access The effects of spatial and temporal heterogeneity on the population dynamics of four animal species in a Danish landscape
    [Show full text]
  • Proquest Dissertations
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. DM! films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Artxjr, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMT GROUND BEETLE ABUNDANCE AND DrVERSUY PATTERNS \%TTHIN MDŒD-OAK FORESTS SUBJECTED TO PRESCRIBED BURNING IN SOUTHERN OHIO DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Robert Christopher Stanton, B.A., M.S. ***** The Ohio State University 2000 Dissertation Committee: iroyed by Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated List of Insects and Other Arthropods
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. Invertebrates of the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Western Cascade Range, Oregon. V: An Annotated List of Insects and Other Arthropods Gary L Parsons Gerasimos Cassis Andrew R. Moldenke John D. Lattin Norman H. Anderson Jeffrey C. Miller Paul Hammond Timothy D. Schowalter U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon November 1991 Parson, Gary L.; Cassis, Gerasimos; Moldenke, Andrew R.; Lattin, John D.; Anderson, Norman H.; Miller, Jeffrey C; Hammond, Paul; Schowalter, Timothy D. 1991. Invertebrates of the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, western Cascade Range, Oregon. V: An annotated list of insects and other arthropods. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-290. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 168 p. An annotated list of species of insects and other arthropods that have been col- lected and studies on the H.J. Andrews Experimental forest, western Cascade Range, Oregon. The list includes 459 families, 2,096 genera, and 3,402 species. All species have been authoritatively identified by more than 100 specialists. In- formation is included on habitat type, functional group, plant or animal host, relative abundances, collection information, and literature references where available. There is a brief discussion of the Andrews Forest as habitat for arthropods with photo- graphs of representative habitats within the Forest. Illustrations of selected ar- thropods are included as is a bibliography. Keywords: Invertebrates, insects, H.J. Andrews Experimental forest, arthropods, annotated list, forest ecosystem, old-growth forests.
    [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]
  • The Insecticidal Bacterial Toxins in Modern Agriculture
    The Insecticidal Bacterial Toxins in Modern Agriculture Edited by Juan Ferré and Baltasar Escriche Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Toxins www.mdpi.com/journal/toxins The Insecticidal Bacterial Toxins in Modern Agriculture Special Issue Editor Juan Ferré Baltasar Escriche MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade Special Issue Editors Juan Ferré Baltasar Escriche University of Valencia University of Valencia Spain Spain Editorial Office MDPI AG St. Alban‐Anlage 66 Basel, Switzerland This edition is a reprint of the Special Issue published online in the open access journal Toxins (ISSN 2072‐6651) from 2016–2017 (available at: http://www.mdpi.com/journal/toxins/special_issues/Toxins_Modern_Agriculture). For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below: Author 1; Author 2. Article title. Journal Name Year, Article number, page range. First Edition 2018 ISBN 978‐3‐03842‐662‐2 (Pbk) ISBN 978‐3‐03842‐663‐9 (PDF) Cover photo courtesy of Juan Ferré and Baltasar Escriche Articles in this volume are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY), which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles even for commercial purposes, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book taken as a whole is © 2018 MDPI, Basel, Switzerland, distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY‐NC‐ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐nd/4.0/). Table of Contents About the Special Issue Editors ................................................................................................................... v Juan Ferré and Baltasar Escriche Editorial for Special Issue: The Insecticidal Bacterial Toxins in Modern Agriculture Reprinted from: Toxins 2017, 9(12), 396; doi: 10.3390/toxins9120396 ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Light on Historical Specimens Reveals a New Species of Ladybird (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): Morphological, Museomic, and Phylogenetic Analyses
    insects Article New Light on Historical Specimens Reveals a New Species of Ladybird (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): Morphological, Museomic, and Phylogenetic Analyses Karen Salazar 1,2,* and Romain Nattier 1 1 Institut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, 57 rue Cuvier, CP 50, 75005 Paris, France; [email protected] 2 Grupo de Investigación Insectos de Colombia, Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Ciudad Universitaria, Bogotá 111321, Colombia * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 2 October 2020; Accepted: 27 October 2020; Published: 6 November 2020 Simple Summary: Biological collections are a valuable source of genetic information. Museomics in combination with morphological analysis is useful for systematic studies. Eriopis is a genus of ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) that lives in South America. This study presents Eriopis patagonia, a new species of ladybird beetle discovered with two old specimens collected in Patagonia at least 100 years ago and deposited in a natural history collection. DNA was extracted from the specimens by a non-destructive method, allowing the specimens to be preserved again. The total gDNA was sequenced using Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies. The genetic information obtained allows us to reconstruct and describe its mitochondrial genome and examine its phylogenetic position. Abstract: Natural history collections house an important source of genetic data from yet unexplored biological diversity. Molecular data from museum specimens remain underexploited, which is mainly due to the degradation of DNA from specimens over time. However, Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology can now be used to sequence “old” specimens. Indeed, many of these specimens are unique samples of nomenclatural types and can be crucial for resolving systematic or biogeographic scientific questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Climate on Diversity Patterns in Ground Beetles: Case Studies in Macroecology, Phylogeography and Global Change Biology
    EFFECTS OF CLIMATE ON DIVERSITY PATTERNS IN GROUND BEETLES: CASE STUDIES IN MACROECOLOGY, PHYLOGEOGRAPHY AND GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY Der Fakultät Nachhaltigkeit der Leuphana Universität Lüneburg zur Erlangung des Grades Doktorin der Naturwissenschaften – Dr. rer. nat. – vorgelegte Dissertation von Katharina Homburg geb. Schäfer am 16.03.1984 in Stadthagen 2013 Eingereicht am: 15.01.2013 Betreuer und Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Thorsten Assmann Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Tamar Dayan Drittgutachter: Prof. Dr. Achille Casale Tag der Disputation: 20.12.2013 COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Cover picture: Modified photograph of Carabus irregularis. Copyright of the underlying photograph is with O. Bleich, www.eurocarabidae.de. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been either published, submitted for publication or are in preparation for publication in international ecological journals. Copyright of the text and the figures is with the authors. However, the publishers own the exclusive right to publish or use the material for their purposes. Reprint of any of the materials presented in this thesis requires permission of the publishers and the author of this thesis. CONTENTS CONTENTS Zusammenfassung ...................................................................................................................... 1 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 4 1 General introduction and conclusions ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Postglacial North America 275
    BEETLE RECORDS/Postglacial North America 275 Geography Occasional, University of Birmingham, terrestrial and fluvial environment and for climate. Journal of Birmingham, UK. Archaeological Science 15, 715–727. Buckland, P. C. (1981). The early dispersal of insect pests of stored Osborne, P. J. (1997). Insects, man and climate in the British products as indicated by archaeological records. Journal of Holocene. Quaternary Proceedings 5, 193–198. Stored Product Research 17, 1–12. Ponel, P. (1997). Late Pleistocene coleopteran fossil assemblages in Buckland, P. C., and Dinnin, M. J. (1993). Holocene woodlands: high altitude sites: A case study from Prato Spilla (Northern The fossil insect evidence. In Dead Wood Matters: The Italy). Quaternary Proceedings 5, 207–218. Ecology and Conservation of Saproxylic Invertebrates in Ponel, P., and Coope, G. R. (1990). Lateglacial and Early Britain (K. Kirby and C. M. Drake, Eds.), English Nature Flandrian Coleoptera from La Taphanel, Massif Central, Science No. 7, pp. 6–20. English Nature, Peterborough, UK. France: Climatic and ecological implications. Journal of Buckland, P. C., and Wagner, P. E. (2001). Is there an insect signal Quaternary Science 5, 235–249. from the ‘Little Ice Age’? Climatic Change 48, 137–149. Ponel, P., and Jeanne, C. (1997). Un carabique nouveau pour la Coope, G. R. (1986). Coleoptera analysis. In Handbook of Holocene faune franc¸aise: Syntomus fuscomaculatus (Motschoulsky, Palaeoecology and Palaeohydrology (B. E. Berglund, Ed.), pp. 1844) dans les Bouches-du-Rhoneˆ [Coleoptera Lebiidae]. 703–713. Wiley, Chichester, UK. Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie 14, 353–357. Coope, G. R. (1994). The response of insect faunas to glacial– Ponel, P., Andrieu-Ponel, V., Reille, M., and Guiter, F.
    [Show full text]
  • SYNTHESIS and PHYLOGENETIC COMPARATIVE ANALYSES of the CAUSES and CONSEQUENCES of KARYOTYPE EVOLUTION in ARTHROPODS by HEATH B
    SYNTHESIS AND PHYLOGENETIC COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF KARYOTYPE EVOLUTION IN ARTHROPODS by HEATH BLACKMON Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON May 2015 Copyright © by Heath Blackmon 2015 All Rights Reserved ii Acknowledgements I owe a great debt of gratitude to my advisor professor Jeffery Demuth. The example that he has set has shaped the type of scientist that I strive to be. Jeff has given me tremendous intelectual freedom to develop my own research interests and has been a source of sage advice both scientific and personal. I also appreciate the guidance, insight, and encouragement of professors Esther Betrán, Paul Chippindale, John Fondon, and Matthew Fujita. I have been fortunate to have an extended group of collaborators including professors Doris Bachtrog, Nate Hardy, Mark Kirkpatrick, Laura Ross, and members of the Tree of Sex Consortium who have provided opportunities and encouragement over the last five years. Three chapters of this dissertation were the result of collaborative work. My collaborators on Chapter 1 were Laura Ross and Doris Bachtrog; both were involved in data collection and writing. My collaborators for Chapters 4 and 5 were Laura Ross (data collection, analysis, and writing) and Nate Hardy (tree inference and writing). I am also grateful for the group of graduate students that have helped me in this phase of my education. I was fortunate to share an office for four years with Eric Watson.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrates
    Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Invertebrates Version 1.1 Prepared by John E. Rawlins Carnegie Museum of Natural History Section of Invertebrate Zoology January 12, 2007 Cover photographs (top to bottom): Speyeria cybele, great spangled fritillary (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) (Rank: S5G5) Alaus oculatus., eyed elater (Coleoptera: Elateridae)(Rank: S5G5) Calosoma scrutator, fiery caterpillar hunter (Coleoptera: Carabidae) (Rank: S5G5) Brachionycha borealis, boreal sprawler moth (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), last instar larva (Rank: SHG4) Metarranthis sp. near duaria, early metarranthis moth (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) (Rank: S3G4) Psaphida thaxteriana (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Rank: S4G4) Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Invertebrates Version 1.1 Prepared by John E. Rawlins Carnegie Museum of Natural History Section of Invertebrate Zoology January 12, 2007 This report was filed with the Pennsylvania Game Commission on October 31, 2006 as a product of a State Wildlife Grant (SWG) entitled: Rawlins, J.E. 2004-2006. Pennsylvania Invertebrates of Special Concern: Viability, Status, and Recommendations for a Statewide Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan in Pennsylvania. In collaboration with the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (C.W. Bier) and The Nature Conservancy (A. Davis). A Proposal to the State Wildlife Grants Program, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Text portions of this report are an adaptation of an appendix to a statewide conservation strategy prepared as part of federal requirements for the Pennsylvania State Wildlife Grants Program, specifically: Rawlins, J.E. 2005. Pennsylvania Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)-Priority Invertebrates. Appendix 5 (iii + 227 pp) in Williams, L., et al. (eds.). Pennsylvania Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Version 1.0 (October 1, 2005).
    [Show full text]