The Virginia landscape supports a remarkable diversity of forests, from maritime dunes, swamp forests, and pine savannas of the Atlantic coastal plain, to post-agricultural pine-hardwood forests of the piedmont, to mixed oak, mixed-mesophytic, northern hardwood, and high elevation conifer forests in Appalachian mountain provinces. Virginia’s forests also have been profoundly shaped by disturbance. Chestnut blight, hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, and other pests have caused declines or functional extirpation of foundation species. Invasive plants like multiflora rose, Oriental bittersweet, and Japanese stiltgrass threaten both disturbed and intact forests. Oaks and other fire-dependent species have declined with prolonged fire suppression, encouraging compositional shifts to maple, beech, and other mesophytic species. Agriculture has left lasting impacts on soil and microsite variations, and atmospheric nitrogen deposition has led to soil acidification, nutrient loss, and diversity declines. And, future changes associated with climate warming are expected to influence species distributions and habitat quality, particularly for hemlock-northern hardwood and spruce-fir forests. These and other disturbances will continue to shape Virginia’s forests, influencing species interactions, successional trajectories, and susceptibility to invasive plants and secondary stressors, and initiating broader impacts on forest diversity, ecosystem processes, and habitat resources for associated species and neighboring ecosystems.
{"title":"Forest diversity and disturbance: changing influences and the future of Virginia's Forests","authors":"Christine J. Small, J. Chamberlain","doi":"10.25778/6GVJ-RY68","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25778/6GVJ-RY68","url":null,"abstract":"The Virginia landscape supports a remarkable diversity of forests, from maritime dunes, swamp forests, and pine savannas of the Atlantic coastal plain, to post-agricultural pine-hardwood forests of the piedmont, to mixed oak, mixed-mesophytic, northern hardwood, and high elevation conifer forests in Appalachian mountain provinces. Virginia’s forests also have been profoundly shaped by disturbance. Chestnut blight, hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, and other pests have caused declines or functional extirpation of foundation species. Invasive plants like multiflora rose, Oriental bittersweet, and Japanese stiltgrass threaten both disturbed and intact forests. Oaks and other fire-dependent species have declined with prolonged fire suppression, encouraging compositional shifts to maple, beech, and other mesophytic species. Agriculture has left lasting impacts on soil and microsite variations, and atmospheric nitrogen deposition has led to soil acidification, nutrient loss, and diversity declines. And, future changes associated with climate warming are expected to influence species distributions and habitat quality, particularly for hemlock-northern hardwood and spruce-fir forests. These and other disturbances will continue to shape Virginia’s forests, influencing species interactions, successional trajectories, and susceptibility to invasive plants and secondary stressors, and initiating broader impacts on forest diversity, ecosystem processes, and habitat resources for associated species and neighboring ecosystems.","PeriodicalId":23516,"journal":{"name":"Virginia journal of science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78304635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mammals encountered today in Virginia’s forests and fields include native and nonnative species, feral populations, and free-ranging pets. We examine factors that have influenced Virginia’s terrestrial mammal fauna since the arrival of European colonists in the 1600s and some of the factors that are shaping the fauna today. We look in depth at changes since Handley and Patton’s (1947) first complete monograph on Virginia mammals and augment Linzey’s (1998) book, The Mammals of Virginia. We include current nomenclature, baseline information, and references to comprehensive literature. We discuss some of the current and developing anthropogenic factors that have impacted, or that likely will impact, our native land mammals as well as factors that bode well for many species, especially in areas of conservation of habitat. BACKGROUND Approximately 115 species of mammals live in or frequent Virginia; of these, about 28 are marine mammals (e.g., porpoises, whales, seals, and manatees) that are known from its shores, bays, and tidal rivers (Handley and Patton 1947; Linzey 1998). Including extirpated species, 77 species of native land mammals (those species that occurred here or reached here without purposeful or accidental introduction by humans) have been recorded since Europeans arrived in Virginia (Table 1). The diversity of Virginia’s land mammals reflects a complex history of evolution, adaptation, and migration that has occurred over millions of years on a varied land surface and under changing climatic conditions (Woodward and Hoffman 1991). With elevations ranging from sea level to more than 1,500 m, the east-west orientation of the long axis of the state intersects five physiographic regions (Fig. 1), which results in a wide variety of habitats. As detailed by Handley (1992), most (42 of 74 extant species) Virginia land mammals have boreal (northern) affinities and the rest have austral (southern) affinities (Table 1). As a general rule, boreal species either occur statewide or in the west. By contrast, austral species tend to occur only in the east or south if their distributions are not statewide. As a result of its latitudinal position, Virginia is near the northern edge of the distributions of about a dozen austral species and the southern edge of * Corresponding author -nancy.moncrief@vmnh.virginia.gov Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 172 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE T A B L E 1 . L an d m am m al s n at iv e to V ir g in ia , i nc lu d in g s p ec ie s p es en t a t t h e ti m e o f E u ro p ea n c o n ta ct a n d th o se th at h av e n at u ra ll y co lo n iz ed V ir g in ia s in ce t ha t ti m e. C o m m o n o r v er n ac u la r n am e (a s su g g es te d b y W il so n a n d R ee d er 2 0 5 ) is i n d ic at ed f o r ea ch sp ec ie s, a lo n g w it h c u rr en t c la ss if ic at io n c u rr en t d is tr ib u io n , d is tr ib u ti o n al a ff in it y ( d is tr ib . a ff in it y
今天在弗吉尼亚的森林和田野中遇到的哺乳动物包括本地和非本地物种、野生种群和自由放养的宠物。我们研究了自17世纪欧洲殖民者到来以来影响弗吉尼亚陆生哺乳动物动物群的因素，以及今天正在塑造动物群的一些因素。我们深入研究了自Handley和Patton(1947)第一部关于弗吉尼亚哺乳动物的完整专著以来的变化，并补充了Linzey(1998)的书《弗吉尼亚哺乳动物》。我们包括当前的命名法，基线信息，并参考综合文献。我们讨论了一些当前和发展中的人为因素，这些因素已经或可能会影响我们的本土陆地哺乳动物，以及对许多物种来说是好兆头的因素，特别是在栖息地保护领域。大约有115种哺乳动物生活在弗吉尼亚州或经常出没于弗吉尼亚州;其中，约有28种是海洋哺乳动物(如鼠海豚、鲸鱼、海豹和海牛)，这些动物以其海岸、海湾和潮汐河而闻名(Handley and Patton 1947;林基1998)。包括灭绝的物种在内，自欧洲人到达弗吉尼亚以来，已经记录了77种本地陆地哺乳动物(那些在这里发生或没有被人类有意或偶然引入的物种)(表1)。弗吉尼亚陆地哺乳动物的多样性反映了数百万年来在不同的陆地表面和不断变化的气候条件下发生的复杂的进化、适应和迁徙历史(Woodward and Hoffman 1991)。海拔高度从海平面到1500米以上，该州长轴的东西方向与五个地理区域相交(图1)，这导致了各种各样的栖息地。正如Handley(1992)所详述的那样，大多数(现存74种中的42种)弗吉尼亚陆地哺乳动物与北方(北部)有亲缘关系，其余的与南方(南部)有亲缘关系(表1)。一般来说，北方物种要么在全州范围内出现，要么在西部出现。相比之下，南方物种往往只出现在东部或南部，如果他们的分布不是全州。由于其纬度位置，弗吉尼亚州位于大约十几个南方物种分布的北部边缘和南部边缘*通讯作者-nancy.moncrief@vmnh.virginia.gov Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 172 Virginia Journal of Science T a B L E 1。L一个d m m al s n在ia iv e V红外g,我陆数控d g s p ec即s p es en t t t h e ti m e o f e u p ro ea n c o n ta ct n d o se, h av e n u ra对y公司lo工业区ed V红外g在ce ia s t t ti m e。c o m m o n o r u V er n ac la r n是e (a s苏g g es te d b y W il n n d r ee d er 2 0 5)是i n d ic在ed f o r ea ch sp ec ie年代,lo n g W h c u rr en t c la党卫军如果ic io n c u tr ib rr en t d u io n、d u tr ib ti o n al ff y (d tr ib。一个ff y,英尺er H d是1 9 9 2),H ab ia在V红外g, a n d t H e ci ta ti o n o f r公司m p H en如果V e m o n o g ra p H o r再保险V即w o f th e b io lo g y o f, s g p s ec ie。V红外ia的年代e te rn s H o再保险is co m p ri se d o f cc o m ac k d n o H rt是p n c o u n ti, t t H e u H er n e, n d o f e d el m V ar在苏la p。如果你把它看成是(C，它是)，它把它看成是(C，它是)，它把它看成是(C，它是)，它把它看成是(C，它是)，它把它看成是(C，它是)，它把它看成是(C，它是)。这是所有的人都在做的事情，他们在做的事情，他们在做的事情，他们在做的事情，他们在做的事情，他们在做的事情，他们在做的事情。E R = E x ti rp在ed (o R n y ea rl s o), R es ra ti o n tt em p ed;E E = E x ti rp在ed (o r n y ea rl s o), r g E p交货如果o n f ro mn ea rb y ta te年代;= u g m en te d t o i n cr ea se p o p u la ti圣o o n n d o r再保险再保险r比如io n y。
{"title":"Virginia’s Land Mammals: Past and Present, With Some Thoughts About Their Possible Future","authors":"J. F. Pagels, N. Moncrief","doi":"10.25778/FCFH-4Y76","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25778/FCFH-4Y76","url":null,"abstract":"Mammals encountered today in Virginia’s forests and fields include native and nonnative species, feral populations, and free-ranging pets. We examine factors that have influenced Virginia’s terrestrial mammal fauna since the arrival of European colonists in the 1600s and some of the factors that are shaping the fauna today. We look in depth at changes since Handley and Patton’s (1947) first complete monograph on Virginia mammals and augment Linzey’s (1998) book, The Mammals of Virginia. We include current nomenclature, baseline information, and references to comprehensive literature. We discuss some of the current and developing anthropogenic factors that have impacted, or that likely will impact, our native land mammals as well as factors that bode well for many species, especially in areas of conservation of habitat. BACKGROUND Approximately 115 species of mammals live in or frequent Virginia; of these, about 28 are marine mammals (e.g., porpoises, whales, seals, and manatees) that are known from its shores, bays, and tidal rivers (Handley and Patton 1947; Linzey 1998). Including extirpated species, 77 species of native land mammals (those species that occurred here or reached here without purposeful or accidental introduction by humans) have been recorded since Europeans arrived in Virginia (Table 1). The diversity of Virginia’s land mammals reflects a complex history of evolution, adaptation, and migration that has occurred over millions of years on a varied land surface and under changing climatic conditions (Woodward and Hoffman 1991). With elevations ranging from sea level to more than 1,500 m, the east-west orientation of the long axis of the state intersects five physiographic regions (Fig. 1), which results in a wide variety of habitats. As detailed by Handley (1992), most (42 of 74 extant species) Virginia land mammals have boreal (northern) affinities and the rest have austral (southern) affinities (Table 1). As a general rule, boreal species either occur statewide or in the west. By contrast, austral species tend to occur only in the east or south if their distributions are not statewide. As a result of its latitudinal position, Virginia is near the northern edge of the distributions of about a dozen austral species and the southern edge of * Corresponding author -nancy.moncrief@vmnh.virginia.gov Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 172 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE T A B L E 1 . L an d m am m al s n at iv e to V ir g in ia , i nc lu d in g s p ec ie s p es en t a t t h e ti m e o f E u ro p ea n c o n ta ct a n d th o se th at h av e n at u ra ll y co lo n iz ed V ir g in ia s in ce t ha t ti m e. C o m m o n o r v er n ac u la r n am e (a s su g g es te d b y W il so n a n d R ee d er 2 0 5 ) is i n d ic at ed f o r ea ch sp ec ie s, a lo n g w it h c u rr en t c la ss if ic at io n c u rr en t d is tr ib u io n , d is tr ib u ti o n al a ff in it y ( d is tr ib . a ff in it y","PeriodicalId":23516,"journal":{"name":"Virginia journal of science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73101043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We summarize a range of topics related to the status of Virginia’s freshwater fishes, their reflection of environmental quality, and their contribution to human wellbeing. Since 1994 the list of extant Virginia fishes has lengthened from 210 species to 227 species, mostly due to taxonomic reorganizations. Virginia’s list of Species of Greatest Conservation Need currently contains 96 fish species, predominated by darters (32 species) and minnows (28 species). Increasing trends in species rarity and threats to fishes suggest that Virginia’s aquatic environment is becoming less hospitable for fishes. Prevailing anthropogenic threats to fishes include agriculture, urban development, mineral extraction, forestry, and power generation; emerging threats include introduction of nonnative species and climate change. Agency assessments of Virginia’s streams, rivers, and lakes indicate that over 40% of them are impaired and that dozens of these waterbodies have fishes that, if consumed by people, contain harmful levels of mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls. Multiple state agencies are responsible for managing Virginia’s freshwaters and fishes to achieve objectives related to recreation, conservation, and environmental health. We close with a discussion of the challenges and opportunities associated with conserving Virginia’s diverse fish fauna and identify several research, management, and outreach actions that may enhance conservation effectiveness. INTRODUCTION Freshwater fishes represent a substantial component of Virginia’s rich natural heritage and are tightly interwoven into our economic, environmental, and cultural fabrics. With over 200 native species, Virginia’s fish fauna far exceeds the average diversity among other states in the United States. One reason for this remarkable diversity is that the state is uniquely situated at the distributional crossroads of many southern, northern, eastern and western fish species. The importance of fishes to * Corresponding Author: Paul L. Angermeier Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 148 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Virginians goes back centuries to connect with Native Americans and European colonists (McPhee 2002) but still holds true today, albeit in different ways. Whereas most early Virginians were connected to fishes primarily as a major source of food, most Virginians today are not. Instead, our main uses of freshwater fishes are related to recreation (e.g., sportfishing) and environmental monitoring. Of course, fishes are also an important source of natural beauty and knowledge for those who take the time to study them. In this paper, we focus on the insights that fishes offer regarding the condition of our precious water resources. Fishes are excellent environmental monitors because they reflect conditions in the water bodies where they live; those conditions are strongly affected by how people use water and land nearby. Water bodies integra
学名后面跟着普通名。括号中的数字表示物种数量。“*”表示spe
{"title":"Viewing the status of Virginia’s environment through the lens of freshwater fishes","authors":"P. Angermeier, M. Pinder","doi":"10.25778/YYY2-G953","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25778/YYY2-G953","url":null,"abstract":"We summarize a range of topics related to the status of Virginia’s freshwater fishes, their reflection of environmental quality, and their contribution to human wellbeing. Since 1994 the list of extant Virginia fishes has lengthened from 210 species to 227 species, mostly due to taxonomic reorganizations. Virginia’s list of Species of Greatest Conservation Need currently contains 96 fish species, predominated by darters (32 species) and minnows (28 species). Increasing trends in species rarity and threats to fishes suggest that Virginia’s aquatic environment is becoming less hospitable for fishes. Prevailing anthropogenic threats to fishes include agriculture, urban development, mineral extraction, forestry, and power generation; emerging threats include introduction of nonnative species and climate change. Agency assessments of Virginia’s streams, rivers, and lakes indicate that over 40% of them are impaired and that dozens of these waterbodies have fishes that, if consumed by people, contain harmful levels of mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls. Multiple state agencies are responsible for managing Virginia’s freshwaters and fishes to achieve objectives related to recreation, conservation, and environmental health. We close with a discussion of the challenges and opportunities associated with conserving Virginia’s diverse fish fauna and identify several research, management, and outreach actions that may enhance conservation effectiveness. INTRODUCTION Freshwater fishes represent a substantial component of Virginia’s rich natural heritage and are tightly interwoven into our economic, environmental, and cultural fabrics. With over 200 native species, Virginia’s fish fauna far exceeds the average diversity among other states in the United States. One reason for this remarkable diversity is that the state is uniquely situated at the distributional crossroads of many southern, northern, eastern and western fish species. The importance of fishes to * Corresponding Author: Paul L. Angermeier Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 148 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Virginians goes back centuries to connect with Native Americans and European colonists (McPhee 2002) but still holds true today, albeit in different ways. Whereas most early Virginians were connected to fishes primarily as a major source of food, most Virginians today are not. Instead, our main uses of freshwater fishes are related to recreation (e.g., sportfishing) and environmental monitoring. Of course, fishes are also an important source of natural beauty and knowledge for those who take the time to study them. In this paper, we focus on the insights that fishes offer regarding the condition of our precious water resources. Fishes are excellent environmental monitors because they reflect conditions in the water bodies where they live; those conditions are strongly affected by how people use water and land nearby. Water bodies integra","PeriodicalId":23516,"journal":{"name":"Virginia journal of science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85333885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Blando, M. N. Nguyen, Manasi Sheth-Chandra, M. Akpinar-Elci
Air quality is an important determinant of public health and quality of life. A secondary data analysis was carried out to investigate trends and air quality in Virginia. The analysis included an evaluation of two major air pollution source categories, emission of criteria and hazardous air pollutants, ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants, ozone standard violations and associated meteorology, and hospital admissions for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Virginia. Comparisons were also made to national trends and statistics. Data was gathered from many open reputable on-line sources available through various state and federal agencies. Virginia routinely meets 5 of the 6 criteria air pollutant ambient standards. Ozone does continue to represent a challenge for Virginia, as it does for many other states. Potential focus on further production and consumption of renewable energy, improvement in fuel efficiency among SUV’s and light trucks, reduction of the metals content in fuels burned by electric utilities, utilization of emissions inspections for automobiles, utilization of vapor recovery systems at gas stations, and continued emphasis on ozone precursors all have the potential to further improve air quality within Virginia. This is important because the very young and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of poor air quality. INTRODUCTION Poor air quality has long been associated with adverse human and ecological health impacts. For example, poor air quality led King Edward I in 1273 to prohibit the burning of coal due to noxious air emissions (Beck 2007). Although we have made significant progress in controlling air pollution in many developed countries today, concern still exists regarding the impact of air quality on health. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, several epidemiologic research studies showed that in the United States both particulate matter (Wilson and Spengler 1996) and ozone (Lippmann 1989) were associated with adverse human health effects at levels typical of that time. Additional * Corresponding author: jblando@odu.edu Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 372 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE studies were conducted and this body of research is now reflected in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Criteria Documents required under Title I of the Clean Air Act (USEPA 2014a; USEPA 2010). These Criteria Documents form the basis for the compliance levels set under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Today in the Unites States, the USEPA regulates ambient air quality through six NAAQS. The Criteria Air Pollutants regulated under Title I of the Clean Air Act are particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), oxides of sulfur (SOx), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and lead (Pb). The particulate matter standards include both particles under 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) and particles un
{"title":"Virginia Air Quality: Trends, Exposure, and Respiratory Health Impacts","authors":"J. Blando, M. N. Nguyen, Manasi Sheth-Chandra, M. Akpinar-Elci","doi":"10.25778/ZB5N-GK17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25778/ZB5N-GK17","url":null,"abstract":"Air quality is an important determinant of public health and quality of life. A secondary data analysis was carried out to investigate trends and air quality in Virginia. The analysis included an evaluation of two major air pollution source categories, emission of criteria and hazardous air pollutants, ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants, ozone standard violations and associated meteorology, and hospital admissions for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Virginia. Comparisons were also made to national trends and statistics. Data was gathered from many open reputable on-line sources available through various state and federal agencies. Virginia routinely meets 5 of the 6 criteria air pollutant ambient standards. Ozone does continue to represent a challenge for Virginia, as it does for many other states. Potential focus on further production and consumption of renewable energy, improvement in fuel efficiency among SUV’s and light trucks, reduction of the metals content in fuels burned by electric utilities, utilization of emissions inspections for automobiles, utilization of vapor recovery systems at gas stations, and continued emphasis on ozone precursors all have the potential to further improve air quality within Virginia. This is important because the very young and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of poor air quality. INTRODUCTION Poor air quality has long been associated with adverse human and ecological health impacts. For example, poor air quality led King Edward I in 1273 to prohibit the burning of coal due to noxious air emissions (Beck 2007). Although we have made significant progress in controlling air pollution in many developed countries today, concern still exists regarding the impact of air quality on health. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, several epidemiologic research studies showed that in the United States both particulate matter (Wilson and Spengler 1996) and ozone (Lippmann 1989) were associated with adverse human health effects at levels typical of that time. Additional * Corresponding author: jblando@odu.edu Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 372 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE studies were conducted and this body of research is now reflected in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Criteria Documents required under Title I of the Clean Air Act (USEPA 2014a; USEPA 2010). These Criteria Documents form the basis for the compliance levels set under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Today in the Unites States, the USEPA regulates ambient air quality through six NAAQS. The Criteria Air Pollutants regulated under Title I of the Clean Air Act are particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), oxides of sulfur (SOx), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and lead (Pb). The particulate matter standards include both particles under 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) and particles un","PeriodicalId":23516,"journal":{"name":"Virginia journal of science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84642669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
OVERVIEW OF BOTANICAL DIVERSITY Virginia possesses a unique and varied assemblage of plant life. There are 3,164 species, subspecies and varieties of plants in Virginia (Weakley et al. 2012). As classified by the Virginia Departmentof Conservation and Recreation’s Division of Natural Heritage (DCR-DNH), they form some 94 ecological groups and 317 community types across five distinct physiographic provinces: Coastal Plain, Piedmont, Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley, and Appalachian Plateau. The state extends 469 miles from east to west and 201 miles north to south at the widest points, enclosing 42,326 square miles of territory. This diverse range of environmental conditions supports the wide diversity of plant life found within the state. Virginia is on the northern boundary of many southern plant species and on the southern boundary of many northern plant species. This range overlap combined with seashore to mountain variation leads to one of the richer diversities of plant life within the continental United States. Virginia was the source of some of the earlier plant collections by European botanists (Berkeley and Berkeley 1963).Europeans started observing and documenting Virginia’s flora as early as the 1500s (Hugo and Ware 2012). Over the next two centuries, there were various explorations and reports by laypersons and scientifically trained individuals. In the eighteenth century, there were significant contributions to the documentation and descriptions of plants in Virginia. In 1739 J. F. Gronovius published John Clayton’s work titled Flora Virginica describing some 500 or so plant species (Hugo and Ware 2012). John Mitchell, James Greenway, and prominently, John Bartram wrote extensively about plants of Virginia. Later, such botanists as Andre Michaux, Asa Gray, and John Torrey published work that included plants of Virginia (Hugo and Ware 2012). Work toward a new Flora of Virginia began in earnest in 1926 when the Virginia Academy of Science established a flora committee through the leadership of A.B. Massey of Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Hugo and Ware 2012). Through Massey’s vision and the efforts of many subsequent scientists, a new Flora of Virginia was finally published in 2012 documenting 3,164 plant species, subspecies, and varieties in 189 families in the commonwealth of Virginia (Weakley et al. 2012). The public charge to inventory and protect this wealth of plant biodiversity is given to the Office of Plant Protection within the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which under the Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act has responsibility to list and protect Virginia’s endangered and threatened plant species. There were 26 species listed in 2013, whereas there were 17 species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Townsend 2014). The Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act also contains provisions for the recovery of endangered and threatened species in Virginia. The VDCR,
弗吉尼亚拥有独特而多样的植物群落。弗吉尼亚州有3164种、亚种和植物变种(Weakley et al. 2012)。根据弗吉尼亚州自然遗产保护和娱乐部门(DCR-DNH)的分类，它们形成了大约94个生态群和317个社区类型，分布在五个不同的地理省份:沿海平原、皮埃蒙特、蓝岭、山脊和山谷以及阿巴拉契亚高原。该州东西延伸469英里，南北延伸201英里，最宽处是42,326平方英里的领土。这种多样化的环境条件支持了该州植物生命的广泛多样性。弗吉尼亚州位于许多南方植物物种的北部边界上，也位于许多北方植物物种的南部边界上。这种范围的重叠，加上海岸到山区的变化，导致了美国大陆植物生活的最丰富的多样性之一。弗吉尼亚是欧洲植物学家早期植物收集的一些来源(Berkeley and Berkeley 1963)。早在16世纪，欧洲人就开始观察和记录弗吉尼亚的植物群(Hugo和Ware, 2012)。在接下来的两个世纪里，外行人和受过科学训练的个人进行了各种各样的探索和报告。在18世纪，对弗吉尼亚植物的文献和描述做出了重大贡献。1739年，j.f. Gronovius出版了John Clayton的作品《Flora Virginica》，描述了大约500种植物(Hugo and Ware 2012)。约翰·米切尔，詹姆斯·格林威，以及著名的约翰·巴特拉姆写了大量关于弗吉尼亚植物的文章。后来，诸如Andre Michaux, Asa Gray和John Torrey等植物学家发表了包括弗吉尼亚植物的作品(Hugo and Ware 2012)。1926年，弗吉尼亚科学院在弗吉尼亚理工学院A.B. Massey的领导下成立了一个植物区系委员会(Hugo and Ware 2012)，正式开始着手编纂新的弗吉尼亚植物区系。通过Massey的远见和后来许多科学家的努力，2012年终于出版了一本新的《弗吉尼亚植物区系》，记录了弗吉尼亚州189科的3164种植物、亚种和变种(Weakley et al. 2012)。清点和保护这些丰富的植物生物多样性的公共责任交给了弗吉尼亚州农业和消费者服务部下属的植物保护办公室，根据弗吉尼亚州濒危植物和昆虫物种法案，该办公室有责任列出和保护弗吉尼亚州濒危和受威胁的植物物种。2013年有26个物种被列入名单，而根据1973年的联邦濒危物种法案，有17个物种被列入名单(Townsend 2014)。《弗吉尼亚濒危植物和昆虫物种法案》也包含了恢复弗吉尼亚濒危和受威胁物种的条款。VDCR, DNH和弗吉尼亚州
{"title":"Status of Plants in Virginia","authors":"M. H. Renfroe","doi":"10.25778/GC3E-YA06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25778/GC3E-YA06","url":null,"abstract":"OVERVIEW OF BOTANICAL DIVERSITY Virginia possesses a unique and varied assemblage of plant life. There are 3,164 species, subspecies and varieties of plants in Virginia (Weakley et al. 2012). As classified by the Virginia Departmentof Conservation and Recreation’s Division of Natural Heritage (DCR-DNH), they form some 94 ecological groups and 317 community types across five distinct physiographic provinces: Coastal Plain, Piedmont, Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley, and Appalachian Plateau. The state extends 469 miles from east to west and 201 miles north to south at the widest points, enclosing 42,326 square miles of territory. This diverse range of environmental conditions supports the wide diversity of plant life found within the state. Virginia is on the northern boundary of many southern plant species and on the southern boundary of many northern plant species. This range overlap combined with seashore to mountain variation leads to one of the richer diversities of plant life within the continental United States. Virginia was the source of some of the earlier plant collections by European botanists (Berkeley and Berkeley 1963).Europeans started observing and documenting Virginia’s flora as early as the 1500s (Hugo and Ware 2012). Over the next two centuries, there were various explorations and reports by laypersons and scientifically trained individuals. In the eighteenth century, there were significant contributions to the documentation and descriptions of plants in Virginia. In 1739 J. F. Gronovius published John Clayton’s work titled Flora Virginica describing some 500 or so plant species (Hugo and Ware 2012). John Mitchell, James Greenway, and prominently, John Bartram wrote extensively about plants of Virginia. Later, such botanists as Andre Michaux, Asa Gray, and John Torrey published work that included plants of Virginia (Hugo and Ware 2012). Work toward a new Flora of Virginia began in earnest in 1926 when the Virginia Academy of Science established a flora committee through the leadership of A.B. Massey of Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Hugo and Ware 2012). Through Massey’s vision and the efforts of many subsequent scientists, a new Flora of Virginia was finally published in 2012 documenting 3,164 plant species, subspecies, and varieties in 189 families in the commonwealth of Virginia (Weakley et al. 2012). The public charge to inventory and protect this wealth of plant biodiversity is given to the Office of Plant Protection within the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which under the Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act has responsibility to list and protect Virginia’s endangered and threatened plant species. There were 26 species listed in 2013, whereas there were 17 species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Townsend 2014). The Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act also contains provisions for the recovery of endangered and threatened species in Virginia. The VDCR, ","PeriodicalId":23516,"journal":{"name":"Virginia journal of science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85518905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sea level rise (SLR) along Virginia’s coasts and around the Chesapeake Bay as measured by tide gauges is analyzed and discussed. It is shown that the SLR rates vary between one location to another and in most locations the rates increase over time (i.e., SLR is accelerating). The latest science of SLR is reviewed and the causes of the high SLR rates in Virginia are discussed. The impacts of land subsidence and ocean currents (changes in the Gulf Stream in particular) on sea level are especially notable and important for predicting future SLR in Virginia. The consequences of SLR on increased duration and severity of floods are demonstrated and potential responses are discussed. INTRODUCTION One of the environmental consequences of climate change that have been the most visible in Virginia is sea level rise (SLR). While sea level along the coasts of Virginia is slowly rising, the impacts of waves and storm surges increase as waters are pushed farther into previously unaffected coastal areas and low-lying streets. Both natural features such as marshes and barrier islands and also the built features such as docks, shipyards, tunnels, homes and hotels constructed along the shoreline are all affected. People living on the coast do not always recognize sea level rise itself, but they clearly see that there is more frequent flooding and that areas that were not flooded in the past are now becoming new flood-prone areas (Atkinson et al. 2013, Mitchell et al. 2013, Ezer and Atkinson 2014, Sweet and Park 2014). The relative SLR rate (i.e., local water level relative to land) on Virginia’s coasts is one of the highest of all U.S. coasts and the rate appears to be accelerating (Boon 2012, Ezer and Corlett 2012, Ezer 2013, Sallenger et al. 2012, Kopp 2013). SLR rates from tide gauges in Virginia over the past 10-30 years are ~4-6 mm/year, which are higher than the global mean SLR rate of ~1.7 mm/year over the past century as seen from tide gauges and even higher than the ~3.2 mm/year over the past 20 years as seen from satellite altimeter data (Church and White 2011, Ezer 2013). Note that SLR of 3 mm/yr is equivalent to about 1 foot/century. Relative SLR is primarily the result of 1 Corresponding author: tezer@odu.edu, latkinso@odu.edu 356 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE three processes: 1. global SLR due to warming ocean temperatures and melting land ice, 2. local land subsidence (sinking) and 3. ocean dynamics. The impact of land subsidence and ocean dynamics is especially evident in Virginia. The Virginia coast is experiencing subsidence due to human activities such as groundwater extraction and historic geological processes (Boon et al. 2010, Eggleston and Pope 2013). Changes in the flow of offshore currents and the Gulf Stream in particular can result in water level anomalies and flooding (Sweet et al. 2009, Ezer and Atkinson 2014). Since much of Virginia’s coastal areas are flat, small amounts of SLR can have dramatic impactsincreased flooding and coastal er
分析和讨论了潮汐计测量的弗吉尼亚海岸和切萨皮克湾周围的海平面上升(SLR)。结果表明，单反速率在不同位置之间有所不同，并且在大多数位置，单反速率随时间增加(即单反正在加速)。综述了最新的单反研究进展，并讨论了弗吉尼亚州单反率高的原因。地面沉降和洋流(特别是墨西哥湾流的变化)对海平面的影响对于预测弗吉尼亚州未来的SLR尤为显著和重要。论证了SLR对洪水持续时间和严重程度增加的影响，并讨论了潜在的应对措施。气候变化造成的环境后果之一是海平面上升(SLR)，这在弗吉尼亚最为明显。随着弗吉尼亚海岸的海平面缓慢上升，海浪和风暴潮的影响也在增加，因为海水被推到以前未受影响的沿海地区和低洼的街道。湿地和堰洲岛等自然景观，以及沿海岸线建造的码头、造船厂、隧道、住宅和酒店等人工建筑都受到了影响。生活在沿海地区的人们并不总是意识到海平面上升本身，但他们清楚地看到，洪水越来越频繁，过去没有被洪水淹没的地区现在正成为新的洪水易发地区(Atkinson等人，2013年，Mitchell等人，2013年，Ezer和Atkinson 2014年，Sweet和Park 2014年)。弗吉尼亚州海岸的相对SLR率(即当地水位相对于陆地)是美国所有海岸中最高的，而且这一速度似乎还在加速(Boon 2012, Ezer and Corlett 2012, Ezer 2013, Sallenger et al. 2012, Kopp 2013)。在过去的10-30年里，维吉尼亚的潮汐计的单反率为~4-6毫米/年，高于过去一个世纪的全球平均单反率~1.7毫米/年，甚至高于过去20年的卫星高度计数据显示的~3.2毫米/年(Church and White 2011, Ezer 2013)。请注意，3毫米/年的单反相当于1英尺/世纪。相对单反主要是1的结果通讯作者:tezer@odu.edu, latkinso@odu.edu 356弗吉尼亚科学杂志三个过程:1。2.海洋温度升高和陆地冰融化导致的全球单反;3.局部地面沉降(下沉);海洋动力学。地面沉降和海洋动力的影响在弗吉尼亚尤为明显。由于地下水开采和历史地质过程等人类活动，弗吉尼亚海岸正在经历下沉(Boon et al. 2010, Eggleston and Pope 2013)。近海洋流，特别是墨西哥湾流的变化会导致水位异常和洪水(Sweet et al. 2009, Ezer and Atkinson 2014)。由于弗吉尼亚州的大部分沿海地区都是平坦的，少量的单反会产生巨大的影响——增加洪水和海岸侵蚀，改变沼泽。处理这些问题需要了解未来的单反设计和计划。对切萨皮克湾和弗吉尼亚海岸周围13个地点的水位测量结果进行了分析(图1)，其中8个站点具有较长的记录(~40-110年)，5个站点具有较短的记录(10-20年)。美国沿海的水位由国家海洋和大气管理局(NOAA)维护的潮汐计测量(Zervas 2009)。每小时的数据来自NOAA网站(www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov);这些数据用于计算潜在的洪水和风暴潮影响(Atkinson et al. 2013, Ezer and Atkinson 2014, Sweet and Park 2014)。全球站点的月平均数据由平均海平面常设服务(PSMSL, www.psmsl.org, Woodworth and Player 2003)存档。记录较长的台站采用PSMSL月度数据，记录较短的台站采用NOAA数据(图1);在计算单反率之前，按小时数据计算月平均值。请注意，从线性回归(用直线拟合数据，其斜率表示平均率)计算单反率的统计精度取决于记录长度。例如，60年的单反误差小于±0.5毫米/年(95%置信水平)，而30年的单反误差小于±1.5毫米/年(Zervas 2009, Boon et al. 2010)。然而，维吉尼亚只有两个潮汐测量站，观测时间超过60年(诺福克的Sewells Point有86年，东海岸的Kiptopeake有62年)。因此，马里兰州的长记录和弗吉尼亚州的短记录也被分析。图2显示了长记录的分析，图3显示了短记录的分析。 同样显示的(图2中光滑的黑线)是使用经验模态分解(EMD, Huang et al. 1998, Ezer and Corlett 2012)去除高频变化后的年际变化。计算过去30年以及之前30年的单反利率，以查看利率是不变还是变化。我们的研究结果表明，在该区域内，海平面的上升速度都快于全球的上升速度。然而，单反速率不是恒定的，它们随时间(由于海洋的气候变化)和地点(由于局部和区域的地面沉降，见后面的讨论)而变化。SLR在切萨皮克湾下部(切萨皮克湾大桥隧道(CBBT)和诺福克)最大，在弗吉尼亚州海平面上升的北部略低357图1。切萨皮克湾地区地图及潮汐测量站位置。长记录和短记录分别在图2和图3中表示和分析。358弗吉尼亚科学杂志图2。切萨皮克湾有长期记录站的月海平面(从切萨皮克湾大桥隧道的40年到巴尔的摩的110年)。年际变化用黑色粗线表示，线性趋势用虚线表示。单反率(毫米/年)显示了两个30年期间的单反率。图3:维吉尼亚州海平面上升的回顾。月海平面和趋势如图2所示，但弗吉尼亚的潮汐测量站记录相对较短。单反相机的单反速率(毫米/年)列在
{"title":"Sea Level Rise in Virginia – Causes, Effects and Response","authors":"T. Ezer, L. Atkinson","doi":"10.25778/8W61-QE76","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25778/8W61-QE76","url":null,"abstract":"Sea level rise (SLR) along Virginia’s coasts and around the Chesapeake Bay as measured by tide gauges is analyzed and discussed. It is shown that the SLR rates vary between one location to another and in most locations the rates increase over time (i.e., SLR is accelerating). The latest science of SLR is reviewed and the causes of the high SLR rates in Virginia are discussed. The impacts of land subsidence and ocean currents (changes in the Gulf Stream in particular) on sea level are especially notable and important for predicting future SLR in Virginia. The consequences of SLR on increased duration and severity of floods are demonstrated and potential responses are discussed. INTRODUCTION One of the environmental consequences of climate change that have been the most visible in Virginia is sea level rise (SLR). While sea level along the coasts of Virginia is slowly rising, the impacts of waves and storm surges increase as waters are pushed farther into previously unaffected coastal areas and low-lying streets. Both natural features such as marshes and barrier islands and also the built features such as docks, shipyards, tunnels, homes and hotels constructed along the shoreline are all affected. People living on the coast do not always recognize sea level rise itself, but they clearly see that there is more frequent flooding and that areas that were not flooded in the past are now becoming new flood-prone areas (Atkinson et al. 2013, Mitchell et al. 2013, Ezer and Atkinson 2014, Sweet and Park 2014). The relative SLR rate (i.e., local water level relative to land) on Virginia’s coasts is one of the highest of all U.S. coasts and the rate appears to be accelerating (Boon 2012, Ezer and Corlett 2012, Ezer 2013, Sallenger et al. 2012, Kopp 2013). SLR rates from tide gauges in Virginia over the past 10-30 years are ~4-6 mm/year, which are higher than the global mean SLR rate of ~1.7 mm/year over the past century as seen from tide gauges and even higher than the ~3.2 mm/year over the past 20 years as seen from satellite altimeter data (Church and White 2011, Ezer 2013). Note that SLR of 3 mm/yr is equivalent to about 1 foot/century. Relative SLR is primarily the result of 1 Corresponding author: tezer@odu.edu, latkinso@odu.edu 356 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE three processes: 1. global SLR due to warming ocean temperatures and melting land ice, 2. local land subsidence (sinking) and 3. ocean dynamics. The impact of land subsidence and ocean dynamics is especially evident in Virginia. The Virginia coast is experiencing subsidence due to human activities such as groundwater extraction and historic geological processes (Boon et al. 2010, Eggleston and Pope 2013). Changes in the flow of offshore currents and the Gulf Stream in particular can result in water level anomalies and flooding (Sweet et al. 2009, Ezer and Atkinson 2014). Since much of Virginia’s coastal areas are flat, small amounts of SLR can have dramatic impactsincreased flooding and coastal er","PeriodicalId":23516,"journal":{"name":"Virginia journal of science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85514304","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The introduced European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) caused substantial defoliation and mortality of oak trees along the North Fork of Quantico Creek in Prince William Forest Park, Prince William County, Virginia, U.S.A., in 1989 and the early 1990s. Results of a drift fence/pitfall study conducted in 1988 were compared to those obtained from the same technique in the same areas in 1993 to elucidate whether the amphibian and small mammal assemblages had changed over time. Number of Lithobates sylvaticus increased significantly in 1993, but the numbers of Lithobates clamitans and Plethodon cinereus were significantly higher in 1988. Total numbers of amphibians caught in both years was similar. Two species of salamanders caught in 1988 were not caught in 1993, and one salamander and one frog caught in 1993 were absent in 1988. Total numbers of small mammals caught in 1993 were significantly greater than in 1988. The increase was due to greater numbers of Blarina brevicauda and Sorex longirostris. The hypothesis that no significant differences in amphibian and small mammal species richness and relative abundance before and after gypsy moth defoliation hypothesis was not supported by the results of this study.
{"title":"Amphibian and Small Mammal Assemblages in a Northern Virginia Forest Before and After Defoliation by Gypsy Moths (Lymantria dispar)","authors":"J. Mitchell","doi":"10.25778/FAHY-HP91","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25778/FAHY-HP91","url":null,"abstract":"The introduced European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) caused substantial defoliation and mortality of oak trees along the North Fork of Quantico Creek in Prince William Forest Park, Prince William County, Virginia, U.S.A., in 1989 and the early 1990s. Results of a drift fence/pitfall study conducted in 1988 were compared to those obtained from the same technique in the same areas in 1993 to elucidate whether the amphibian and small mammal assemblages had changed over time. Number of Lithobates sylvaticus increased significantly in 1993, but the numbers of Lithobates clamitans and Plethodon cinereus were significantly higher in 1988. Total numbers of amphibians caught in both years was similar. Two species of salamanders caught in 1988 were not caught in 1993, and one salamander and one frog caught in 1993 were absent in 1988. Total numbers of small mammals caught in 1993 were significantly greater than in 1988. The increase was due to greater numbers of Blarina brevicauda and Sorex longirostris. The hypothesis that no significant differences in amphibian and small mammal species richness and relative abundance before and after gypsy moth defoliation hypothesis was not supported by the results of this study.","PeriodicalId":23516,"journal":{"name":"Virginia journal of science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88818458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Huth, A. Silvis, Paul R. Moosman, W. Ford, S. Sweeten
Many aspects of foraging and roosting habitat of Myotis leibii (Eastern Small-Footed Bat), an emergent rock roosting-obligate, are poorly described. Previous comparisons of effectiveness of acoustic sampling and mist-net captures have not included Eastern Small-Footed Bat. Habitat requirements of this species differ from congeners in the region, and it is unclear whether survey protocols developed for other species are applicable. Using data from three overlapping studies at two sampling sites in western Virginia’s central Appalachian Mountains, detection probabilities were examined for three survey methods (acoustic surveys with automated identification of calls, visual searches of rock crevices, and mist-netting) for use in the development of “best practices” for future surveys and monitoring. Observer effects were investigated using an expanded version of visual search data. Results suggested that acoustic surveys with automated call identification are not effective for documenting presence of Eastern Small-Footed Bats on talus slopes (basal detection rate of 0%) even when the species is known to be present. The broadband, high frequency echolocation calls emitted by Eastern Small-Footed Bat may be prone to attenuation by virtue of their high frequencies, and these factors, along with signal reflection, lower echolocation rates or possible misidentification to other bat species over talus slopes may all have contributed to poor acoustic survey success. Visual searches and mist-netting of emergent rock had basal detection probabilities of 91% and 75%, respectively. Success of visual searches varied among observers, but * Corresponding author: jhuth@VT.edu Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss4 414 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE detection probability improved with practice. Additionally, visual searches were considerably more economical than mist-netting. INTRODUCTION There has been an estimated mortality of more than 6 million bats in the genus Myotis in White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) affected areas (Blehert et al. 2009; Ford et al. 2011; Francl et al. 2011; Minnis and Lindner 2013; Puechmaille et al. 2011). This disease has continued to spread across the Northeast into the Appalachians, Midwest and mid-South (Francl et al. 2012), and now is present throughout much of the eastern United States and Canada (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2016a). Undoubtedly, this increased geographic footprint has led to higher overall mortality than original estimates. Biologists have long relied on capture methods such as mist-netting near roosts or water sources and along flyways to document presence of bats (Kunz et al. 2009). Declines in bat populations due to WNS have made previous standard capture methods largely ineffective for some bat species of conservation concern in WNS-impacted areas (Coleman et al. 2014; Ford et al. 2011). As early as 1994, long before the WNS emergence, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS
雾网垂直于森林边缘，向森林中心延伸
{"title":"A Comparison of Survey Methods for Documenting Presence of Myotis leibii (Eastern Small-Footed Bats) at Roosting Areas in Western Virginia","authors":"J. Huth, A. Silvis, Paul R. Moosman, W. Ford, S. Sweeten","doi":"10.25778/ZYFX-3321","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25778/ZYFX-3321","url":null,"abstract":"Many aspects of foraging and roosting habitat of Myotis leibii (Eastern Small-Footed Bat), an emergent rock roosting-obligate, are poorly described. Previous comparisons of effectiveness of acoustic sampling and mist-net captures have not included Eastern Small-Footed Bat. Habitat requirements of this species differ from congeners in the region, and it is unclear whether survey protocols developed for other species are applicable. Using data from three overlapping studies at two sampling sites in western Virginia’s central Appalachian Mountains, detection probabilities were examined for three survey methods (acoustic surveys with automated identification of calls, visual searches of rock crevices, and mist-netting) for use in the development of “best practices” for future surveys and monitoring. Observer effects were investigated using an expanded version of visual search data. Results suggested that acoustic surveys with automated call identification are not effective for documenting presence of Eastern Small-Footed Bats on talus slopes (basal detection rate of 0%) even when the species is known to be present. The broadband, high frequency echolocation calls emitted by Eastern Small-Footed Bat may be prone to attenuation by virtue of their high frequencies, and these factors, along with signal reflection, lower echolocation rates or possible misidentification to other bat species over talus slopes may all have contributed to poor acoustic survey success. Visual searches and mist-netting of emergent rock had basal detection probabilities of 91% and 75%, respectively. Success of visual searches varied among observers, but * Corresponding author: jhuth@VT.edu Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss4 414 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE detection probability improved with practice. Additionally, visual searches were considerably more economical than mist-netting. INTRODUCTION There has been an estimated mortality of more than 6 million bats in the genus Myotis in White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) affected areas (Blehert et al. 2009; Ford et al. 2011; Francl et al. 2011; Minnis and Lindner 2013; Puechmaille et al. 2011). This disease has continued to spread across the Northeast into the Appalachians, Midwest and mid-South (Francl et al. 2012), and now is present throughout much of the eastern United States and Canada (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2016a). Undoubtedly, this increased geographic footprint has led to higher overall mortality than original estimates. Biologists have long relied on capture methods such as mist-netting near roosts or water sources and along flyways to document presence of bats (Kunz et al. 2009). Declines in bat populations due to WNS have made previous standard capture methods largely ineffective for some bat species of conservation concern in WNS-impacted areas (Coleman et al. 2014; Ford et al. 2011). As early as 1994, long before the WNS emergence, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS","PeriodicalId":23516,"journal":{"name":"Virginia journal of science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86718934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Life-history aspects of Moxostoma cervinum (Blacktip Jumprock) were identified using specimens from recent collections and the Roanoke College Ichthyological Collection. The largest specimen examined was a female 161.27 mm SL and 66 months of age. Spawning appears to occur in May, with a mean of 2477.6 oocytes (SD = 2825.3) up to 1.54 mm diameter in gravid females. Sexual maturity appears to occur by 1-2 years of age in males and 2-3 years of age in females. Male to female ratio was not significantly different from 1:1. Chironomidae composed the bulk of the diet; while detritus, Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Acari were important food items in multiple months. Weight of gut contents and proportion of Chironomidae as food items increased with size of specimens examined. INTRODUCTION Moxostoma cervinum (Cope) (Blacktip Jumprock) inhabits upland streams in the James, New, Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse river systems of Virginia and North Carolina (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Jenkins (1970), Buth (1978), and Smith (1992) all placed the species in the genus Scartomyzon with other small suckers inhabiting faster, shallower waters. However, most recent analyses embed the species within the genus Moxostoma (Harris et al. 2002, Doosey et al. 2010, Chen and Mayden 2012) with larger suckers often found in very different habitats. This phylogenetic placement means that understanding the biology and life-history of M. cervinum is important in identifying derived and ancestral character states, thus helping to interpret the substantial variation in the biology and life-history of the Moxostoma. Despite this importance, our understanding of this species’ life history is restricted to three paragraphs in the species account in Freshwater Fishes of Virginia, which gives limited details on aspects of diet, size and age at maturity, and timing of spawning (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). The objective of this study is to document more detailed life-history aspects of M. cervinum from specimens collected throughout the year employing methods utilized in similar studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS Moxostoma cervinum were collected from the Roanoke River near Salem, VA (Roanoke County) between September 2010 and August 2011 by sampling daylight 1 Corresponding author: powers@roanoke.edu Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss4 392 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE hours near the end of each month using a Smith-Root LR-24 electrofisher and a 3.3-m x 1.3-m seine with 9.5-mm mesh. We supplemented our collections with specimens from the Roanoke College Ichthyological Collection (RC) for months when we collected few specimens (n < 15). Specimens were collected following Nickum et al. (2004) protocols, fixed in 10% formalin, rinsed with water and then stored in 45% isopropyl alcohol. A total of 154 specimens were examined in this study. Details on specimens examined (collection sites, collection dates, numbers of specimens taken, collector f
弗吉尼亚科学杂志图1。标准长度
{"title":"Life-history Aspects of Moxostoma cervinum (Blacktip Jumprock) in the Roanoke River, Virginia","authors":"D. Thompson, J. Bentley, Steven L. Powers","doi":"10.25778/B21F-BS16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25778/B21F-BS16","url":null,"abstract":"Life-history aspects of Moxostoma cervinum (Blacktip Jumprock) were identified using specimens from recent collections and the Roanoke College Ichthyological Collection. The largest specimen examined was a female 161.27 mm SL and 66 months of age. Spawning appears to occur in May, with a mean of 2477.6 oocytes (SD = 2825.3) up to 1.54 mm diameter in gravid females. Sexual maturity appears to occur by 1-2 years of age in males and 2-3 years of age in females. Male to female ratio was not significantly different from 1:1. Chironomidae composed the bulk of the diet; while detritus, Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Acari were important food items in multiple months. Weight of gut contents and proportion of Chironomidae as food items increased with size of specimens examined. INTRODUCTION Moxostoma cervinum (Cope) (Blacktip Jumprock) inhabits upland streams in the James, New, Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse river systems of Virginia and North Carolina (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Jenkins (1970), Buth (1978), and Smith (1992) all placed the species in the genus Scartomyzon with other small suckers inhabiting faster, shallower waters. However, most recent analyses embed the species within the genus Moxostoma (Harris et al. 2002, Doosey et al. 2010, Chen and Mayden 2012) with larger suckers often found in very different habitats. This phylogenetic placement means that understanding the biology and life-history of M. cervinum is important in identifying derived and ancestral character states, thus helping to interpret the substantial variation in the biology and life-history of the Moxostoma. Despite this importance, our understanding of this species’ life history is restricted to three paragraphs in the species account in Freshwater Fishes of Virginia, which gives limited details on aspects of diet, size and age at maturity, and timing of spawning (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). The objective of this study is to document more detailed life-history aspects of M. cervinum from specimens collected throughout the year employing methods utilized in similar studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS Moxostoma cervinum were collected from the Roanoke River near Salem, VA (Roanoke County) between September 2010 and August 2011 by sampling daylight 1 Corresponding author: powers@roanoke.edu Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss4 392 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE hours near the end of each month using a Smith-Root LR-24 electrofisher and a 3.3-m x 1.3-m seine with 9.5-mm mesh. We supplemented our collections with specimens from the Roanoke College Ichthyological Collection (RC) for months when we collected few specimens (n < 15). Specimens were collected following Nickum et al. (2004) protocols, fixed in 10% formalin, rinsed with water and then stored in 45% isopropyl alcohol. A total of 154 specimens were examined in this study. Details on specimens examined (collection sites, collection dates, numbers of specimens taken, collector f","PeriodicalId":23516,"journal":{"name":"Virginia journal of science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74634050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A novel combination of extraction and detection methods is demonstrated for pesticide residue analysis in vegetable samples. Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition was used as a simple colorimetric test for organophosphates/carbamates (OP/C), and was tested with extracts from the widely-used QuEChERS extraction method. In the absence of pesticide, diluted (50% with water) acetonitrile did not inhibit enzyme activity, demonstrating the compatibility of this extraction solvent with the AChE inhibition test. QuEChERS extraction of chlorpyrifos-spiked tomato, spinach and lettuce samples indicated a high sensitivity to OP/C, with AChE inhibition occurring in the ppb range. The applicability of this method combination was tested by screening tomatoes from 18 different sources, including private gardens, farmer’s market venders, and local supermarkets. Tomatoes from one private garden, three “certified naturally grown” farmer’s market venders and two “organic” supermarket source had AChE inhibition significantly above nominally pesticide-free controls, suggesting the presence of OP/C residue. These residues were likely below levels of health concern, as indicated by lack of complete AChE inhibition, and the absence of inhibition upon sample dilution. This study demonstrates that the combination of QuEChERS extraction and AChE-inhibition detection provides a relatively simple and inexpensive alternative for detection of OP/C in vegetable samples.
{"title":"Pesticide Analysis in Vegetables Using QuEChERS Extraction and Colorimetric Detection","authors":"D. Neufeld, N. Åkerson, D. Barahona","doi":"10.25778/8RZD-1Z63","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25778/8RZD-1Z63","url":null,"abstract":"A novel combination of extraction and detection methods is demonstrated for pesticide residue analysis in vegetable samples. Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition was used as a simple colorimetric test for organophosphates/carbamates (OP/C), and was tested with extracts from the widely-used QuEChERS extraction method. In the absence of pesticide, diluted (50% with water) acetonitrile did not inhibit enzyme activity, demonstrating the compatibility of this extraction solvent with the AChE inhibition test. QuEChERS extraction of chlorpyrifos-spiked tomato, spinach and lettuce samples indicated a high sensitivity to OP/C, with AChE inhibition occurring in the ppb range. The applicability of this method combination was tested by screening tomatoes from 18 different sources, including private gardens, farmer’s market venders, and local supermarkets. Tomatoes from one private garden, three “certified naturally grown” farmer’s market venders and two “organic” supermarket source had AChE inhibition significantly above nominally pesticide-free controls, suggesting the presence of OP/C residue. These residues were likely below levels of health concern, as indicated by lack of complete AChE inhibition, and the absence of inhibition upon sample dilution. This study demonstrates that the combination of QuEChERS extraction and AChE-inhibition detection provides a relatively simple and inexpensive alternative for detection of OP/C in vegetable samples.","PeriodicalId":23516,"journal":{"name":"Virginia journal of science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91060128","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：