CAVE FAUNA SURVEY AND MONITORING AT FORT LEONARD WOOD, MISSOURI Submitted by: Steven J. Taylor1, Michael E. Slay2 and William C. Handel3 1Center for Biodiversity, Illinois Natural History Survey 1816 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820 (217) 333-5702 [email protected] 2The Nature Conservancy, Ozark Highlands Office 675 North Lollar Lane, Fayetteville, AR 72701 3Center for Wildlife and Plant Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey 1816 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820 24 April 2006 Illinois Natural History Survey Center for Biodiversity Technical Report 2006(7) Prepared for Illinois State Museum Society, Attn: Steven R. Ahler Illinois State Museum Research and Collections Center 1011 E. Ash Street, Springfield IL 62703 Cover: Visitors at the entrance of Miller Cave, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Based on photo by Steve Taylor, 20 April 2003. Executive Summary Using a variety of sampling methods (hand collections, Berlese funnel extraction, sight records, baited pitfall trapping, vacuum sampling, baited aquatic traps, quadrat sampling, and timed area searches) we recorded the presence of 155 taxa at 64 sites (primarily caves, with a few shelters and springs) at Fort Leonard Wood, a 71,000 hectare military installation in the Upper Ozark section of the Ozark Natural Division, Pulaski County, Missouri. More than 2,250 cave fauna observations over 108 site visits to these features documented the presence of more than 13,900 individual animals belonging to 89 families, 42 orders, and 13 classes of organisms. 64% of the taxa occurred at five or fewer sites, 8.4% at 25 or more sites. In addition, plant surveys were conducted around the entrances of 19 caves, recording a total of 229 plant taxa from 67 families. About 29% of the animals were accidentals, 27% trogloxenes, 23% troglophiles, and 16% troglobites. In general, diversity (H’) was higher in larger caves (i.e., cave length), which also tended to have more cavernicoles. Based on clustering of taxon presence/absence data, cave faunas were generally more similar within size classes of caves than among them. Sampling effort (number of samples) was also well-correlated with cave length, indicating that sampling effort overall was relatively uniform when adjusted for size of the caves. Using a selection of richness estimators (i.e., Chao 1, ICE, Jackknife, and Bootstrap) we were able to estimate the percentage of actual taxa occurring in the caves which we recovered during our sampling. Estimates of percent of taxa recovered ranged from just under 80% to more than 98% when all sample methods are included. Taxon accumulation curves (derived by randomly resampling the dataset 1000 times) also indicate that some taxa remain to be discovered. Evaluation of timed area searchin and pitfall trapping as potential methods of monitoring cave invertebrates in future cave monitoring at Fort Leonard Wood showed that the two techniques emphasized different dominant taxa, but that a combination of these methods would provide useful data in long-term monitoring. More taxa were associated with cave floors than with walls and ceilings, and animal scat was the most common organic substrate with which invertebrates were ii associated. Hoever, different invertebrate taxa varied considerably in microhabitat use (e.g., organic substrate associations, region of cave, humidity, temperature, inorganic substrate type [clay, bedrock, etc.]). Important invertebrate groups recorded from the caves include: orobatid and troglobitic rhagidiid mites, some spider taxa (especially troglophilic Cicurina sp.), troglobitic terrestrial trichoniscid isopods, the troglobitic millipede Tingupa pallida, the troglophilic leiodid beetle Ptomophagus sp., springtails (especially Arrhopalidae [troglobiteic] and Tomoceridae [troglophilic]), troglobitic campodeid diplurans, several families of flies (Heleomyzidae, Mycetophilidae, Sphaeroceridae, Sciaridae, and Phoridae), trogloxenic cave crickets (Rhaphidophoridae: Ceuthophilus spp.), pickerel frogs (Rana palustris), the grotto salamander Typholotriton spelaeus (a troglobite), Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe, a facultative troglophile), several bats (trogloxenes) – especially the eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) and the Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) and the raccoon (Procyon lotor). Most abundant in terms of numbers of individuals were small dung flies (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae), round fungus beetles (Coleoptera: Leiodidae), and cave-adapted campodeid diplurans (Insecta: Diplura). Among the most exciting species found in Fort Leonard Wood caves are at least two (probably more) undescribed species. Diacyclops sp. is a tiny aquatic crustacean (Copepod) is new to science, and is presently being described by a taxonomic expert on this group. An undescribed new species of Campodeiidae (Insecta: Diplura) has been encountered at several of the caves, sometimes in surprisingly large numbers. Specimens of the genus Arrhopalites are tiny, cave adapted globular springtails (Insecta: Collembola: Arrhopalitidae) which are potentially new to science, and await examination by a taxonomic expert later this year. Cave adapted mites of the family Rhagididae collected from several of the caves have been sent to the taxonomic expert in the Czech Republic, where they are currently undergoing study and have the potential to be new to science. Other taxa, including spiders and springtails, are currently being shipped to various taxonomic experts and there is a possibility of finding additional new species in this material. A combination of two monitoring methods (timed area search and pitfall trapping) is recommended for future monitoring of the biota of Fort Leonard Wood caves. This study greatly increases knowledge about cave fauna at Fort Leonard Wood, and allows for more informed management of cave resources, as well as providing a baseline for any future studies. As the study is larger and more detailed than comparably intensive studies in the Ozarks, it also provides a basis for comparison within this region and across the United States. iii Table of Contents Executive Summary .........................................................................................................ii Table of Contents............................................................................................................iv List of Tables...................................................................................................................vi List of Figures.................................................................................................................vii List of Appendicies ..........................................................................................................xi Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Previous Work ............................................................................................................. 2 Objectives.................................................................................................................... 3 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 3 Site selection ............................................................................................................... 3 Field methods .............................................................................................................. 3 Qualitative faunal sampling ...................................................................................... 6 Sight records ........................................................................................................ 6 Hand collection..................................................................................................... 6 Berlese funnel extraction ...................................................................................... 6 Quantitative faunal sampling.................................................................................... 6 Baited pitfall trapping ............................................................................................ 6 Vacuum sampling ............................................................................................... 13 Baited aquatic trapping....................................................................................... 13 Quadrat sampling ............................................................................................... 13 Timed area search.............................................................................................. 16 Environmental variables and habitat characterization................................................ 17 Identification .............................................................................................................. 17 Ecological Classification of Taxa ............................................................................... 19 Qualitative floral sampling.......................................................................................... 20 Statistical analyses .................................................................................................... 20 Results .......................................................................................................................... 21 Cave Taxa ................................................................................................................. 21 Ecological Classification of Taxa...........................................................................