Download - Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need 2. The status of most of the other herptile species for which additional inventory and monitoring activities could be undertaken are clearly secure due to known range and abundance information despite a lack of baseline data to evaluate trends. 3. There are a few herptile species (e.g., central newt and northern water snake) for which it is hypothesized that declines have occurred, but additional information is not warranted at this time as these species are still known to be relatively abundant. The second group of vertebrate species for which research/conservation attention may be directed are those species that are not currently considered to be at risk but for which Wisconsin is important to their future existence because it contains a large part of the population or continental range of these species. These are species that were assigned an Area of Importance value of 5; they are listed in Appendix B. Although these are not vertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need and their populations may not be at immediate risk, it is important for Wisconsin to consider these “responsibility” species in any management plan. A final vertebrate species list (Appendix B) contains a collection of those vertebrate species that did not meet any of the selection criteria for the three previously mentioned lists: 1) vertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need, 2) vertebrate species not identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need for which additional information is needed, and 3) vertebrate species not identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need that are not currently considered to be at risk for which Wisconsin contains a large part of the population or continental range. Similar to lists 2 and 3 discussed directly above, these vertebrate species are not the focus of Wisconsin’s Strategy for Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The four lists of vertebrate species that resulted from this process should be viewed as dynamic. A strategy for reviewing and revising these lists has been developed and is presented in Chapter 7. The species lists will be adjusted as additional data become available or state rarity, state threats, state population trends, global relative abundance, global distributions, global threats, or global population trends of species change in response to natural or non-natural influences. Page 2-64
Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need 2.3.2 Methodology for Determining Invertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need 2.3.2.1 General Introduction Almost 97 percent of all described animal species and more than three out of four species of all living plants and animals combined are invertebrates. Yet, with the exception of a few basic qualities shared by all living things, invertebrates fail to demonstrate a single trait in common. Rather, invertebrates are characterized by what they are not (e.g., they are not vertebrates) and thus are lumped into one vast and heterogeneous assemblage of organisms (Barth and Broshears 1982). This enormous invertebrate diversity is clearly and dramatically reflected in their numerical preponderance, innumerable adaptations, and ecological variability and opportunism (Lutz 1986). Approximately 950,000 of the described invertebrate species are insects. The remainder fall into a variety of phyla encompassing the range of diversity from sponges to mollusks to echinoderms. A basic understanding of ecosystems and their component parts (e.g., species, communities, etc.) forms the foundation for dealing with practical natural resource problems. Although often overlooked and misunderstood, invertebrates play integral roles in every biotic community. Without invertebrates, all ecosystem-level biological processes (e.g., energy flow, decomposition, pollination, trophic organization, biological control) would collapse rapidly (Wilson 1987). Indeed, it has been argued that if invertebrates disappeared, loss of all other life forms would soon follow (Wilson 1987, 1992). Attempts to ensure ecosystem sustainability across a wide range of temporal and spatial scales will not be successful if they do not rely heavily on conservation and protection of invertebrate communities. The remainder of this section is divided into five sections. The first section (2.3.2.2) discusses what is currently known (and not known) about invertebrates in Wisconsin. The following section (2.3.2.3) identifies those invertebrate species groups considered and not considered in the current Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan planning effort. The third section (2.3.2.4) identifies some of the principal data sources used in preparing the list of invertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The next section (2.3.2.5) details how invertebrate species were categorized for conservation planning during preparation of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan. The fifth section (2.3.2.6) details the rationale for inclusion of taxa on the list of invertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need. References cited in the text are listed in the Bibliography. 2.3.3.2 State of Scientific Knowledge and Process Used to Identify Invertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need In order to effectively encompass the tremendous diversity of invertebrates (and the range of experts that work with invertebrates), invertebrate taxa were divided into three categories to simplify review and discussion. The three categories are: 1. Nonarthropod invertebrates. 2. Noninsect arthropods. 3. Insects. While biologically these categories are somewhat artificial, they were chosen for practical reasons. First, in the case of the insects and the noninsect arthropods, the included taxa are biologically related and often studied together. Second, experts that work on a particular taxon often maintain at least a general familiarity with related or similar taxa (e.g., scientists working with spiders often are familiar with other arachnid groups, those working with cladocerans often are familiar with copepods and clam shrimp, etc.). Page 2-65
Page 1 and 2:
Prepared by Wisconsin Department of
Page 3 and 4:
Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70: Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife
Page 119: Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
show all

Download - Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?