Lichens and Bryophytes - Aquatic & Terrestrial Resources Inventory

i

TTeerrrreessttrriiaall FFaauunnaa ........................................................................................................... 5555

General Guidelines ............................................................................................. 55

Terrestrial Vertebrates ........................................................................................ 57Collection and Recording Standards ............................................................................ 57

Harvest Estimates (Registration)...................................................... 57Harvest Estimates (Hunter/Trapper Questionnaires) ....................... 57Harvest Pressure/User Statistics (Hunter/Trapper Questionnaires) .. 58Market Values (Questionnaire)....................................................... 58Population Structure (Aging through Parts Collection/Analysis)...... 58Damage Assessment (Complaints and Shooting Permits)................ 59Seasonal Bird Population Estimates (Aerial/Ground Counts)........... 59Seasonal Bird Population Estimates/Indices.................................... 60Bird Breeding Population Estimates (Nest/Brood Observations) ..... 61Mammal Distribution Surveys and Population Estimates/Indices.... 61Endangered/Threatened Species Occurrence/Distribution.............. 62Seasonal Population Estimates and Distributions............................ 62Bird Survival and Productivity (Banding/Marking) .......................... 63Breeding Anuran Calling Surveys................................................... 63Disease and Contaminant Surveillance .......................................... 63Range and Habitat Parameters (Aerial Photo Interpretation) ........... 64

Vouchering Guidelines ................................................................................................ 64Taxonomic Standards................................................................................................... 65

Terrestrial Invertebrates...................................................................................... 66Data Collection and Recording Guidelines .................................................................. 66

Biodiversity Studies........................................................................ 66Species Data .................................................................................. 66Site Data ........................................................................................ 66Data for specific survey methods ................................................... 67

Vouchering Guidelines ................................................................................................ 67Taxonomic Standards................................................................................................... 69

Non-Insect Terrestrial Invertebrates ................................................ 69Terrestrial Insects ........................................................................... 70

Data Structure .................................................................................................... 72Common Elements ....................................................................................................... 72

Required ........................................................................................ 72Conditional .................................................................................... 72

Quality Control ............................................................................................................ 72Taxonomic Format ....................................................................................................... 72Source Codes ............................................................................................................... 73

References .......................................................................................................... 74

Terrestrial Fauna

General GuidelinesData Collection and Reporting – 55

TTeerrrreessttrriiaall FFaauunnaa

GENERAL GUIDELINES

Biological surveys can be time-consuming and expensive and many issues must be addressed tomaximize the reliability of survey data. Sampling and survey techniques that are effective inone region or habitat or for one species may be less so in another area or for a different species.Data collected in poorly designed surveys can be unsuitable for statistical analyses, and maypresent an inaccurate or misleading picture of the distribution, abundance, or habitatrequirements of species surveyed. Efforts should be made to address these and other significantissues during the study design phase.

Issues such as these are dealt with in numerous publications that have documented methods forcollecting data on terrestrial fauna. Given the scope of our present efforts it is not possible todraw all these reports together. Several recently published volumes, however, deal specificallywith surveying and monitoring organisms included in the terrestrial fauna subteam’s charge.Two important works are:

Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals. (Wilson et al., 1996).

Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. (Heyer et al., 1994).

These two publications are part of a series established by the National Biological Service (U.S.Department of the Interior) and the National Museum of Natural History (SmithsonianInstitution) for the publication of manuals detailing standard field methods for qualitative andquantitative sampling of biological diversity. Volumes focus on different groups of organisms,both plant and animals. The goal of the series is to identify or, where necessary, develop thesemethods and promote their adoption world-wide, so that biological diversity information willbe comparable across study sites, geographic areas, and organisms, and at the same site,through time. When conceptualizing and designing studies involving amphibians or mammals,these references should be consulted.

Other works to consult when undertaking amphibian studies, include:

Review: Amphibian surveys in forests and woodlands. (Parris, 1999).

A Standard Protocol for Surveying Aquatic Amphibians. (Fellers and Freel, 1995).

Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity volumes are not yet available for reptiles, birds,or the numerous invertebrate taxa. Until such volumes are published, investigators shouldconsult the following references:

Field Herpetology Methods for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles in Minnesota. (Karns, 1986).

Handbook of field methods for monitoring land birds. (Ralph et al., 1993).

Monitoring bird populations by point counts. (Ralph et al., eds., 1995).

Field Guidelines for Using Transects to Sample Nongame Bird Populations. (Mikol, 1980).

Soil Biology Guide. (Dindal, ed., 1990).

Terrestrial Fauna

General GuidelinesData Collection and Reporting – 56

These publications should be used to describe and document collecting and sampling methodsand results. If other sources are used, they should be cited in full in the resulting dataset’smetadata.

Terrestrial Fauna

Terrestrial VertebratesData Collection and Reporting – 57

TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES

Collection and Recording Standards

The DNR completed a “survey of surveys” in 1989. Appendix K of that document includesdescriptions of sustained-level reoccurring surveys conducted by the department. For eachsurvey, the species included in the survey, the information need being sought, the type ofsurvey, the frequency of survey, the geographic coverage of survey, the report schedule, andthe approximate survey costs were identified. This “survey of surveys” document and the semi-annual “Wisconsin Wildlife Surveys” reports served as the basis for the data standards outlinedbelow. Surveys are grouped by type. Minimum data collection standards apply to surveys for allthe species identified within the descriptions. These minimum data elements are in addition tothe minimum standards for locational data, data structure, and metadata documentationpresented elsewhere in this report. All blanks in standard forms should be filled in/completed.

HARVEST ESTIMATES (REGISTRATION)

Harvest estimate surveys using registration are currently conducted for white-tail deer, blackbear, bobcat, otter, fisher, Canada goose and wild turkey. Sharp-tailed grouse kills are reportedthrough mail-in report cards and/or submission of wings. Canada Goose kills are reportedthrough a toll free telephone number. Beaver harvest was previously registered. Minimuminformation obtained in such registration surveys should include the following:

� Hunter/Trapper Name, Address, Telephone Number, and Customer ID Number(when appropriate)

� License Type and Number� Species Involved (for white-tail deer, type of deer should be reported - e.g., forked

buck, spike buck, antlerless, sex; for wild turkeys, age and sex; for other species,sex should be reported)

� Date of Kill/Trap� County Location of Kill/Trap� Deer Management Unit of Kill/Trap� Hunting Method and Type of Weapon Used

HARVEST ESTIMATES (HUNTER/TRAPPER QUESTIONNAIRES)

Harvest estimate (size and distribution) surveys using hunter/trapper questionnaires arecurrently conducted for beaver, cottontail rabbit, snowshoe hare, gray squirrel, fox squirrel,ruffed grouse, bobwhite quail, gray partridge, ring-necked pheasant, woodcock, raccoon,bobcat, fox, Canada goose, puddle and diving ducks, and mergansers. Minimum informationobtained in such questionnaire surveys should include the following:


� License Type and Number

Terrestrial Fauna


� Species Involved� Date of Kill/Trap� County Location of Kill/Trap� Hunting/Trapping Method and Type of Weapon Used

HARVEST PRESSURE/USER STATISTICS (HUNTER/TRAPPER QUESTIONNAIRES)

Harvest pressure surveys are currently conducted for white-tailed deer, black bear, all huntedand trapped furbearers, and wild turkey. Minimum information obtained in such questionnairesurveys should include the following:


� License Type and Number� Species Involved (for white-tail deer, type of deer should be reported - e.g., forked

buck, spike buck, antlerless; for other species, sex should be reported)� Number of Days/Length of Time Hunted (by Deer Management Unit)� Number of Animals Observed (for deer, general impression of population suffices;

for black bear, age of bear [adult/cub] should be reported)� Date of Kill/Trap (Not needed for species that are registered)� County Location of Kill/Trap (Not needed for species that are registered)� Deer Management Unit of Kill/Trap (Not needed for species that are registered)� Hunting Method and Type of Weapon Used

For some surveys, the following information may also be useful:� Hunter/Trapper Characteristics� Hunter/Trapper Attitudes and Satisfaction

MARKET VALUES (QUESTIONNAIRE)

Market value surveys are currently completed for all hunted and trapped furbearers. Minimuminformation obtained in such questionnaire surveys should include the following:

� Fur Buyer Name, Address and Telephone Number� License Number� Species Involved� Number of Animal Pelts Purchased (by Species)� Price Paid per Pelt

POPULATION STRUCTURE (AGING THROUGH PARTS COLLECTION/ANALYSIS)

Population structure (age-class distribution) is currently estimated for white-tailed deer, blackbear, bobcat, fisher, otter, beaver, Canada geese, puddle and diving ducks, and mergansers.Parts are generally collected at registration stations, and represent only a sample of harvested

Terrestrial Fauna


animals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinates several of these surveys. Minimuminformation obtained in such surveys should include the following:

� Name(s) of Observers� Species Involved (for white-tail deer, type of deer should be reported - e.g., forked

buck, spike buck, antlerless; for other species, sex should be reported)� Date of Kill/Trap� County Location of Kill/Trap� Deer Management Unit of Kill/Trap� Hunting/Trapping Method and Type of Weapon/Trap Used (if Known)

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT (COMPLAINTS AND SHOOTING PERMITS)

Estimates of the amount of damage to agricultural crops, orchards, tree farms, and urbanenvironments caused by white-tailed deer, black bear, Canada geese, and sandhill cranes basedon applications for abatement are currently completed annually. Complaints recorded byCounty Damage Coordinators, shooting permits issued, and translocations are tallied. Minimuminformation obtained in such estimates should include the following:

� Species Involved� County Location of Damage/Abatement Effort� Deer Management Unit of Damage/Abatement Effort� Type and Extent of Damage� Date of Claim� Cost of Claims� Number and Sex Removed (e.g., shooting of deer and geese, relocation of bears, etc.)

SEASONAL BIRD POPULATION ESTIMATES (AERIAL/GROUND COUNTS)

Size and distribution of autumn and breeding population of Canada geese, puddle and divingducks, and mergansers are currently conducted. August and winter population estimates aremade for Canada geese. Semi-annual aerial surveys are conducted to determine bald eagle andosprey breeding population size, recruitment, and geographic distribution. The DNR alsopreviously conducted aerial surveys for mute swans. Minimum information obtained in suchestimates should include the following:

� Species Involved� Number(s) Present� Date(s) and Time of Observations� Name(s) of Observers/Number of Observers� County/Location of Observations� Site Names (Especially for Ground Surveys)� Weather Conditions

Terrestrial Fauna


For Aerial Flight Surveys:� Frequency of Aerial Flights (Daily, Weekly, etc.)� Type of Plane Used� Height and Speed of Flight� Type of Aerial Flight Involved (Pre-determined Transect, Stratified Random Transect,

Timed Random Flight, etc.)

SEASONAL BIRD POPULATION ESTIMATES/INDICES(Auditory Surveys and Direct Observations/Reports)

Many bird species have distinctive, easily observed breeding behaviors and vocalizations.Standardized surveys for such species are often conducted during the breeding season as ameans of estimating populations. Several species of game bird are easily observed. The U. S.Fish and Wildlife Service coordinates surveys of several species.

The following surveys are currently conducted in Wisconsin:* ruffed grouse drumming counts* prairie chicken booming counts* sharp-tailed grouse dancing ground counts* bobwhite quail whistling counts* ring-necked pheasant crowing counts* ring-necked pheasant winter sex-ratio counts* ring-necked pheasant spring brood (mail carrier survey)* gray partridge calling counts* wild turkey gobbling counts* woodcock peenting counts* mourning dove cooing counts* wild turkey hen:poult ratios* Kirtland’s warbler singing counts* barn owl calling counts* nesting loons (done with Project Loon Watch)* breeding cranes (done with Intl. Crane Foundation)

Minimum information obtained in such surveys should include the following: � Species Involved� Name of Observer(s)� Survey Date(s) and Time(s)� County Location of Observation� Site Location (e.g., Location of Leks/Booming Grounds/Dancing Grounds/Etc.),

including Habitat Information� Location and Length of Transects� Species-specific Counts (e.g., Booming Grounds Occupied and Number of Cocks on

Each; Pairs, Singles and Groups of Cranes; etc.)� Weather Conditions� An Indication of Whether or Not a Tape Recording Was Used to Elicit Calls� Number of Young/Poults Observed in Brood, where appropriate� Field Notes, Including Any Special Evidence of Breeding/Non-breeding

Terrestrial Fauna


BIRD BREEDING POPULATION ESTIMATES (NEST/BROOD OBSERVATIONS)

Direct observation of individual nests and broods is a common method of estimating the size ofrelatively small breeding populations. Such surveys are currently conducted for red-neckedgrebe, piping plover, Caspian tern, loggerhead shrike, peregrine falcon, and barn owl. Broodsurveys are also used for common and conspicuous species such as ring-necked pheasants. Ten-week brood surveys are conducted to determine game bird (ruffed grouse, gray partridge, wildturkey, ring-necked pheasant) summer populations.

Minimum information obtained in such surveys should include the following: � Species Involved� Name of Observer(s)� Survey Date(s)� Methods Employed� County Location of Observation� Site Location, Including Description of Habitat (e.g., Location of Nests)� Location and Length of Transects� Species-specific Counts, Including estimate of Completeness of Count� An Indication of Whether or Not a Tape Recording Was Used to Elicit Calls or

Locate Nests� Number of Eggs/Young Observed in Brood (including Stage of Incubation and an

Indication of Whether the Clutch is Complete or Incomplete)

MAMMAL DISTRIBUTION SURVEYS AND POPULATION ESTIMATES/INDICES(Direct Observations, Including Observation Diaries, Track Counts, etc.)

The general geographic distribution of mammals is estimated by mapping the locations ofmammal observations reported by DNR staff. In addition, bow hunters are asked to keep diariesof observations. Currently, the following species are noted: white-tailed deer, raccoon, bobcat,house cat, skunk, badger, fisher, pine marten, river otter, porcupine, red fox, gray fox, coyote,timber wolf, black bear, white-tailed jack rabbit, and snowshoe hare. Aerial surveys for beaversare conducted in two management zones in the North. Summer deer observations are recordedduring daylight hours for the months of July, August and September. Many of Wisconsin’smammals are secretive and it is difficult to make direct observations of them. Winter trackcounts can be used to create reliable population indices for some species. Currently, trackcounts are made for bobcat, coyote, wolf, fisher, pine marten, otter, and red fox. Wolf trackcounts are supplemented with radio telemetry data and howling surveys. Black bears areestimated from bait station surveys. Minimum information obtained in these types of surveysshould include:

� Species Involved� Name of Observer(s)� Survey Date(s)� County Location of Observation(s)� Site Location (e.g., Location of Roadside Tracks) of Observation(s)

Terrestrial Fauna


� Location and Length of Transects/Road Routes� Species-specific Information (e.g., for Beaver, Beaver Management Zone; for White-

tailed Deer, Does without Fawns, Does with 1, 2 or 3 Fawns, Fawns withoutDoes, Bucks, and Unidentified; etc.)

Occasionally, site-specific surveys for small mammals are conducted outside of the standardreporting process. Minimum information obtained in these studies should include all of theitems listed above, as well as:

� Survey Method Employed� Time Survey Began/Ended� Weather Conditions during the Survey

ENDANGERED/THREATENED SPECIES OCCURRENCE/DISTRIBUTION(Direct Observations)

Bewick’s wren, Bell’s vireo, Henslow’s sparrow, yellow-crowned night heron, ornate box turtle,slender glass lizard, massasauga, Blanchard’s cricket frog, northern harrier and short-eared owlhave been identified as specific target species. Minimum information obtained in these types ofsurveys should include:

� Species Involved (Common and Scientific Name)� Name of Observer(s)� Survey Date(s)� County Location of Observation(s)� Site Location of Observation(s) (adequate to locate occurrence on USGS 7.5’

quadrangle map)� Type of Survey and Survey Methods (e.g., Location and Length of Transects)� Field Notes/Observations, including Habitat Information, Weather Conditions, and

Any Evidence of Breeding/Reproduction

SEASONAL POPULATION ESTIMATES AND DISTRIBUTIONS(Inquiries and Questionnaires)

Seasonal populations and distributions are currently estimated for fox, coyote, skunk, white-tailed deer, beaver, wild turkey, ruffed grouse, pheasant, bobwhite quail, and gray partridgethrough annual mail-in questionnaires. Minimum information obtained in such surveys shouldinclude the following:

� Species Involved� (for white-tailed deer, type of deer should be reported - e.g., forked buck, spike

buck, anterless; for other species, sex and age should be reported when possible; forbeavers, amount of time spent clearing plugged culverts should be reported)

� Name(s) of Observer(s)� Date(s) of Observations� County Location of Observations� Deer Management Unit of Observations

Terrestrial Fauna


BIRD SURVIVAL AND PRODUCTIVITY (BANDING/MARKING)

Currently, banding is used to monitor survival and productivity of Canada geese, puddle anddiving ducks, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, trumpeter swan and common and Forster’s terns.Minimum information obtained in such surveys should include the following:

� Species Involved� Band/Neck Collar Number� Color of Leg Bands and Neck Collars� Date(s) of Observations� Name(s) of Observers� County/Location of Observations� Causes of Death (when appropriate)

When band information is gathered as part of nest visits, the following information should alsobe collected:

� Location of Nest, including a Description of the Habitat� Presence/Absence of Young (note Injured or Deformed Individuals)� Causes of Nest Failures (when Appropriate)

BREEDING ANURAN CALLING SURVEYS

Male frogs form breeding choruses each spring. The calls of individual frog species aredistinctive and can be used to create a population index. An annual Wisconsin Frog and ToadSurvey is conducted. Minimum information obtained in such surveys should include thefollowing:

� Species Involved� Date(s) of Observations� Time of Observations/Duration of Observations� Name(s) of Observers� County/Location of Observations (Include Site and Transect Descriptions, Indicate

How Station was Selected)� Calling Index Number (0-3)� Air Temperature� Water Temperature� Weather

DISEASE AND CONTAMINANT SURVEILLANCE

In the past, the department has monitored the types and prevalence of diseases andcontaminants in timber wolf, bald eagle, osprey, peregrine falcon, puddle and diving ducks,mergansers, Canada geese, ring-necked pheasant, trumpeter swan, river otter and mink. Thesespecies-specific surveys have been replaced by a comprehensive wildlife health program.

Terrestrial Fauna


Blood samples are collected from live animals. Necropsies are performed on carcassessubmitted by field staff. Minimum information obtained in such surveys should include thefollowing:

� Species Involved� Date(s) of Observations/Carcass/Sample Collection� Name(s) of Observers/Collector(s)� County/Location of Observations � Site Location of Observation(s) (adequate to locate occurrence on USGS 7.5’

quadrangle map)� Type of Survey and Survey Methods � Field Notes/Observations

RANGE AND HABITAT PARAMETERS (AERIAL PHOTO INTERPRETATION)

The amount and distribution of wildlife habitat is estimated from aerial photography and remotesensing data through GIS interpretation. This information is organized by deer managementunit, county, or other geographic unit. Stand sizes and juxtaposition of habitat types areanalyzed to provide an indication of available habitat. Information included in such studiesshould comply with the minimum locational and metadata standards presented elsewhere inthis document.

Vouchering Guidelines

When:

In general, it is not necessary to voucher vertebrate fauna for DNR studies. An exception iswhen surveying for certain small mammals that are easily misidentified or when retainingspecimens for disease/health monitoring. Investigators should be aware that retention ofvouchers may require permits from state and federal agencies, and special permits are requiredwhen surveying state natural areas or when dealing with endangered and threatened species.

There are several alternative means of vouchering vertebrate specimens. Vouchers foramphibians and birds can include audio tape-recorded breeding calls and songs. Photographswith distinguishing marks/features clearly visible can be used to voucher amphibians, reptilesand many birds. Plaster casts of tracks can be used to voucher mammal occurrences.

Destination of Voucher Specimens:� Mammals: University of Wisconsin-Zoology Museum, University of Wisconsin-Stevens

Point Natural History Museum, or Milwaukee Public Museum, Inc.� Birds: University of Wisconsin-Zoology Museum, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

Richter Museum of Natural History, or Milwaukee Public Museum, Inc.� Amphibians and Reptiles: Milwaukee Public Museum, Inc.

Terrestrial Fauna


Minimum Data Requirements:� Collection Date� County, Site Name and Specific Location (T,R,S)� Collector/Observer� When available, species, identification expert, and taxonomic source used� Standard Measurements (esp. for small mammals: ear, foot, tail, length, etc.)� Field Notes

Taxonomic Standards

The following taxonomic standards should be applied to all terrestrial vertebrate data collectedin department and department-sponsored/supported studies. If a different taxonomic authorityor source is used, it should be documented in the resulting dataset’s metadata and cross-walkedback to one of these sources.

TaxaMinimum ID Level

(TaxonomicResolution)

Source of ScientificNomenclature

Source of VernacularNomenclature

Mammals Species Jones et al., 1997 Jones et al., 1997Birds Species AOU, 1998 AOU, 1998

Reptiles Species Collins, 1990Turtles: Ernst et al., 1994

Collins, 1990Turtles: Ernst et al., 1994

Amphibians Species Collins, 1990Salamanders: Petranka, 1998

Collins, 1990Salamanders: Petranka, 1998

Note: Current scientific and standard common names for vertebrates occurring in Wisconsinare listed in a report published by the Bureau of Integrated Science Services(Watermolen and Murrell 2000).

Terrestrial Fauna

Terrestrial InvertebratesData Collection and Reporting – 66

TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES

Data Collection and Recording Guidelines

BIODIVERSITY STUDIES

There are several types of biodiversity studies. “All taxa” Surveys focus on a given area andsearch by substrate to locate and identify as many species (or groups) as possible. Alternatively,"restricted surveys" may focus on one or more specific types of invertebrate, or specifictaxonomic group(s), and attempt to locate and identify as many of these as possible in the areaof study. An example of this would be a "butterfly survey" in which any species of this generaltype would be surveyed in the area of interest. The methods and strategies of these approacheswill vary greatly. In the first case, an “all taxa survey” will use methods appropriate for samplingall of the various microhabitats in the study area. In the latter case, the restricted survey will beorganized around the specific types (e.g., decomposers, leaf feeders, etc.) or taxa of interest,and the sampling protocols selected will be those most appropriate for those specific organisms.Restricted surveys must be designed to use the procedures that will most effectively sample thetype of invertebrate of interest. All surveys should be based on current methods that are well-documented in the literature. References for methods should be provided as supportingdocumentation and in metadata with every database submitted to ATRI.

In general, data generated by survey studies include (1) species data, (2) site data, and (3)methods data. The following elements should be collected as a minimum:

SPECIES DATA� Species list � Identification experts� Taxonomic authorities being used (i.e. published works) � Abundance Measures; may be included in the species list, method of determining

should be identified� Voucher List: a list of voucher specimens deposited in museum collections, including

both collection number and species when field identifications are possible

SITE DATA

The following data should be included for all surveys:� Date(s)� Location, as specific as possible� Size of survey area, when appropriate (e.g., when conducting a transect survey)� Weather conditions, when appropriate (e.g., for Lepidoptera transects)� Site conditions (wet/dry) , when appropriate (e.g., for Lepidoptera transects)� Total collecting time� Vegetation and/or community type(s)� Substrates and microhabitats examined� Field personnel and identification experts

Terrestrial Fauna


DATA FOR SPECIFIC SURVEY METHODS

Transects� Placement criteria� Number� Spacing� Length� Width� Orientation� Time spent per transect

Subplots� Placement criteria� Distribution� Size� Number� Time spent per subplot

Quadrats� Placement criteria� Number� Size� Time spent per quadrat

Other� Method description (e.g., pitfall, light trap, bait, soil extraction, Lindgren funnel, flight

intercept, hand collecting-day, hand collecting from (specific) substrate at night withheadlamp, etc.) and reference

Vouchering Guidelines

When:

In general, when dealing with invertebrates, vouchering is a standard practice and should beincluded as a part of any study design. This is particularly true for studies involving poorlyknown groups, groups that are difficult to identify to the species level or require specialtechniques to identify specific species, or groups where there is significanttaxonomic/systematic disagreement.

Investigators should be aware that retention of vouchers may require permits from state andfederal agencies. Special permits are required when surveying state natural areas or whendealing with endangered and threatened species.

Terrestrial Fauna


Destination:� Insects: UW-Madison Insect Research Collection, Milwaukee Public Museum, Field

Museum of Natural History, Chicago Academy of Sciences-Museum of Natural History,University of Michigan-Museum of Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, orU.S. National Museum (the UW-Madison Insect Research Collection is the preferreddestination for insect vouchers; an in state or close by museum is preferable).

� Arachnids, Myriapods and Crustaceans: Milwaukee Public Museum, UW-MadisonInsect Research Collection

� Gastropods: Milwaukee Public Museum� Annelids: Illinois Natural History Survey, Milwaukee Public Museum� Platyhelminthes and Nematodes: U.S. National Museum-National Worm Collection,

Milwaukee Public Museum

Data Requirements: See “Biodiversity Studies” above.

Terrestrial Fauna


Taxonomic Standards

The taxonomy of many terrestrial insects and other invertebrates is mostly unknown.Standardized references to the taxonomic and vernacular nomenclature are non-existent formany groups. Investigators should refer to the most recent scientific treatments covering theirarea of expertise/interest for the current taxonomy and phylogenetic hypotheses. Most extantinsect and related hexapod orders have well established and widely accepted common names;this is also the case for many insect families. However, local vernacular nomenclature does varyfrom group to group and region to region. At the species level, widely accepted commonnames are the exception rather than the rule; there is a list of official common names publishedby the Entomological Society of America.

The following taxonomic standards should be applied to all terrestrial invertebrate datacollected in department and department-sponsored/supported studies.

NON-INSECT TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES

Taxa Minimum ID Level(Taxonomic Resolution)


Source ofVernacular

Nomenclature

Arachnida: Opiliones Species Edgar, 1990 NoneArachnida: Aranea Family/SpeciesArachnida:Psaudoscorpiones Species Muchmore, 1990 None

Arachnida: Acarina Family/Species NoneChilopoda Family Summers, 1979 & 1980 NoneDiplopoda Family Hoffman, 1999 NoneSymphyla Family NonePauropoda Family NoneCrustacea: Isopoda SpeciesAnnelida: Oligochaeta Species NoneMollusca: Gastropoda SpeciesPlatyhelminthes:Trematoda Family None

Platyhelminthes:Cestoda Family None

Platyhelminthes:Turbellaria Family None

Nematoda Family/Species None

Terrestrial Fauna


TERRESTRIAL INSECTS

Taxa Minimum ID Level(Taxonomic Resolution)


Proturans (Order Protura) Family & Morphospecies* Bernard 1975a, 1975b; Chandler

1956; Ewing 1940; Nosek 1978;Tuexn 1964

Springtails(Order Collembola) Speices; Family & Morphospecies

Christiansen and Bellinger 1979;Rebek, et al. 1999; Scott 1961;Snider 1967

Diplurans(Order Diplura) Family & Morphospecies Chandler 1956, Conde and

Geeraert 1962, Paclt 1957Jumping Bristletails(OrderArchaeognatha)

Family & Morphospecies Tomlin 1979, Wygodzinsky &Scmidt 1980

Silverfish, etc.(Order Thysanura) Family & Morphospecies/ Genus Paclt 1963, 1967; Wygodzinsky

1972

Mayflies (OrderEphemeroptera) Species/ Family & Morphospecies

Burks 1953; Edmunds, et al. 1976;Leonard and Leonard 1962;Maddison 1995

Odonata Species/ Family & Morphospecies Legler and Westover 1996Stoneflies (OrderPlecoptera) Species/ Genus & Morphospecies Frison 1935; Harden and Mickel

1952Cockroaches (OrderBlattodea) Species/ Genus & Morphospecies Atkinson, et al. 1991; Gurney and

fisk 1986Termites (OrderIsoptera) Species Snyder 1954

Praying Mantids(Order Mantodea) Species Gurney 1948a; Thorne and

Carpenter 1992Earwigs(Order Dermaptera) Species Blatchley 1920; Hebard 1934;

Vickery, et al. 1985Grasshoppers, etc.(Order Orthoptera) Species/ Family & Morphospecies Hebard 1934; Rehn and Grant

1961; Vickery, et al. 1985Walkingsticks(OrderPhasmatodea)

Species Vickery, et al. 1985

Booklice(Order Psocoptera) Family & Morphospecies Mockford 1951, 1993; New 1987

Lice (OrderPhthiraptera) Species/ Family & Morphospecies Durden and Musser 1994; Hopkins

and Clay 1952; Kim, et al. 1986

Order Hemiptera Species/ Family & MorphospeciesCampbell, et al. 1995; Henry andFroeschner 1988; Schuh and Slater1995

Thrips(OrderThysanoptera)

Family & Morphospecies Stannard 1957, 1968

Order Megaloptera SpeciesNew and Theisichinger 1993;Parfin 1952; Penny, et al. 1997;Whiting 1991, 1994

Order Neuroptera Species/Family & Morphospecies Penny, et al. 1997; Thorne 1971a,1971b, 1972

Terrestrial Fauna


Beetles(Order Coleoptera) Species/Family & Morphospecies Lawrence and Newton 1995;

Young 2000Order Strepsiptera Family & Morphospecies Kathirithamby 1989Ants, Bees, etc.(OrderHymenoptera)

Species/ Family & Morphospecies Krombein 1979

Scorpionflies(Order Mecoptera) Species/ Family & Morphospecies Penny 1975, Thornhill and

Johnson 1974, Willman 1987Fleas (OrderSiphonaptera)

Species/ Family & Morphospecies Ewing and Fox 1943

Flies(Order Diptera) Species/Family & Morphospecies McAlpine, et al. 1981-1988

Caddisflies (OrderTricoptera) Species/ Family & Morphospecies Ross 1944, Schmid 1980

Butterflies andMoths(Order Lepidoptera)

Species/ Family & Morphospecies Ebner 1970; Harp, et al. 1999;Opler 1998

Note: In cases where more than one taxonomic level is indicated as the minimum identificationlevel, the first taxonomic level is the preferred level. The second is an acceptable level ofidentification for most DNR purposes.

* In this context, the concept of a “morphospecies” is applied to taxa that can only be identifiedto the species level with certainty by specialists or with special diagnostic techniques. Inmany cases, an investigator will recognize unidentifiable specimens as belonging to apresumably distinct species. In these cases, it is appropriate to indicate that it is likely thatmultiple and distinct species of the same family are present.

Terrestrial Fauna

Data StructureData Collection and Reporting – 72

DATA STRUCTURE

Common Elements

REQUIRED� Date

Month/Day/Year that sampling took place. If data were collected over a range of time, specifythe start and end date in the metadata.

� LocationConsistent with locational data standards policy.

� Land Ownership Type Data from discrete sites must include the appropriate ownership category for that site.Domain: federal, state, county, tribal, private

CONDITIONAL

If database contains species information:� Genus� Species� Common Name� Taxonomic Number – Utilizing IT IS, NHI or DNR ID numbering system

If multiple methodologies are used:� Method Code or Abbreviation

Methodologies must be specified under the Lineage section of the metadata and referenced to amethod code or abbreviation included for each record in the database.

Quality Control

No requirements other than those outlined in the ATRI metadata and locational standards.

Taxonomic Format

Both common and scientific name if available. Scientific names not needed for birds ifAOU common names are used. Method of abbreviation should be included in metadata. Ifa commonly recognized system for abbreviation is not employed or ITIS, NHI or DNR IDnumbers are not included, a lookup table must be provided.

Terrestrial Fauna

Data StructureData Collection and Reporting – 73

Source Codes

Acceptable taxonomic ID numbering systems: ITIS, NHI, or DNR ID numbers. (include linkor citation to systems.)

Terrestrial Fauna

ReferencesData Collection and Reporting – 74

REFERENCES

GENERAL GUIDELINES

Dindal, D.L. (ed.). 1990. Soil Biology Guide. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Fellers, G.M. and K.L. Freel. 1995. A Standard Protocol for Surveying Aquatic Amphibians. Natl. ParkService Technical Report NPS/WRUC/NRTR-95-01. 117p.

Heyer, R.R., M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek, and M.S. Foster. 1994. Measuring andMonitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington.

Karns, D.R. 1986. Field Herpetology Methods for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles in Minnesota.Bell Museum of Natural History Occasional Paper (18).

Mikol, S.A. 1980. Field Guidelines for Using Transects to Sample Nongame Bird Populations. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (FWS/OBS-80/58). 26p.

Parris, K.M. 1999. Review: Amphibian surveys in forests and woodlands. Contemporary Herpetology1999(1):1-20.

Ralph, C.J., G.R. Geupel, P.Pyle, T.E. Martin and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field methods formonitoring land birds. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-144. 41p.

Ralph, C.J., J.R. Sauer and S. Droege (tech. eds.). 1995. Monitoring bird populations by point counts. .U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149. 181p.

Wilson, D.E., F.R. Cole, J.D. Nichols, R. Rudran and M.S. Foster. 1996. Measuring and MonitoringBiological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES

AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union). 1998. Check-list of North American Birds: The Species of Birdsof North America from the Arctic through Panama, Including the West Indies and Hawaiian Islands.7th ed. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington. 829p.

Collins, J.T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians andreptiles. 3rd. ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular (19):1-41.

Ernst, C.H., J.E. Lovich and R.W. Barbour. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington. 578p.

Jones, C., R.S. Hoffman, D.W.Rice, M.D. Engstrom, R.D. Bradley, D.J. Schmidly, C.A. Jones and R.J.Baker. 1997. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1997. OccasionalPapers of the Museum of Texas Tech University 173:1-19.

Petranka, J.W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington. 587p.

Terrestrial Fauna


TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES

Aspock, H. 1986. The Raphidioptera of the world: a review of present knowledge. P. 15-29. In J. Geppet al (eds.), Recent research in Neuropterology. Proceedings of the Second International Symposiumof Neuropterology, 176 p. [Graz: privately published]

Aspöck, H. and U. Aspöck. 1971. Raphidioptera (Kamelhalsfliegen). Handbuch die Zoologie, Berlin. IV.Insecta Lfg. 15: 1-50.

Atkinson, T.H., P.G. Koehler, and R.S. Patterson. 1991. Catalog and Atlas of the Cockroaches(Dictyoptera) of North America North of Mexico. Miscellaneous Publications of the EntomologicalSociety of America, Number 78. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD, 85 p.

Bernard, E.C. 1975a. A new genus, six new species, and records of Protura from Michigan. Great LakesEntomologist 8: 157-182.

Bernard, E.C. 1975b. New species and additional records of Protura from Michigan. Great LakesEntomologist 8: 187-196.

Blatchley, W.S. 1920. The Orthoptera of northeastern America with especial reference to the fauna ofIndiana and Florida. Nature Publishing Co., Indianapolis

Bosik, J.J. 1997. Common Names of Insects & Related Organisms. Entomological Society of America,Lanham, MD, 200 p.

Burks, B.D. 1953. The mayflies, or Ephemeroptera, of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois Natural HistorySurvey 26: 1-216.

Campbell, B.C., J.D. Steffen-Campbell, T. J. Sorensen, and R. J. Gill. 1995. Paraphyly of Homoptera andAuchenorrhyncha inferred from 18S rDNA nucleotide sequences. Systematic Entomology 20: 175-194.

Chandler, L. 1956. The order Protura and Diplura in Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy ofSciences. 66: 112-114.

Christiansen, K.A. and P.F. Bellinger. 1979. The Collembola of North America north of the Rio Grande.Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa

Conde, B. and P. Geeraert, 1962. Campodéidés endogés du centre des États-Unis. Arch. Zool. Exp. Gen.101: 73-160.

Durden, L.A. and G.G. Musser, 1994. The sucking lice (Insecta, Anoplura) of the world: A taxonomicchecklist with records of mammalian hosts and geographic distributions. Bulletin of the BritishMuseum of Natural History 218: 1-90.

Ebner, J.A. 1970. Butterflies of Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Musuem Popular Science HandbookNumber 12.

Edgar, A.L. 1990. Opiliones (Phalangida). Pp. 529-582 In D.L. Dindal (ed). Soil Biology Guide. JohnWiley & Sons, New York.

Edmunds, G.F., Jr., S.L. Jenson, and L. Berner. 1976. The Mayflies of North and Central America.University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 330 p.

Ewing, H.E. 1940. The Protura of North America. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 33:495-551.

Ewing, H.E. and I. Fox. 1943. The fleas of North America. United States Department of Agriculture,Miscellaneous Publication 500: 1~128.

Frison, T.H. 1935. The stoneflies, or Plecoptera, of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois Natural History Survey20: 281-471.

Terrestrial Fauna


Gurney, A.B. 1938. A synopsis of the order Zoraptera, with notes on the biology of Zorotypus hubbardiCaudell. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 40: 57-87.

Gurney, A.B. 1948a. Praying mantids of the United States. Smithsonian Institution Report 1950: 339-362.

Gurney, A.B. 1948b. The taxonomy and distribution of the Grylloblattidae. Proceedings of theEntomological Society of Washington 50: 86-102.

Harden, P.H. and C.E. Mickel. 1952. The stoneflies of Minnesota (Plecoptera). University of MinnesotaAgricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 201: 1-82.

Harp, C.E., P.A. Opler, R.S. Peigler, M. Pogue, J.A. Powell, and M.J. Smith. 1999. Moths of NorthAmerica. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/lepid/moths/mothsusa.htm

Hebard, M. 1934. The Dermaptera and Orthoptera of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois Natural HistorySurvey 20: 159-162.

Henry, T.J. and R.C. Froeschner, eds. 1988. Catalog of the Heteroptera, or True Bugs, of Canada and theContinental United States. E. J. Brill, Leiden.

Hopkins, G. H.E. and T. Clay. 1952. A Checklist of the Genera and Species of Mallophaga. London,British Museum of Natural History.

IRC. 2000. The University of Wisconsin, Department of Entomology, Insect Research Collection (IRC)Home Page. http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/irc/ircpage.html

Kathirithamby, J. 1989. Review of the order Strepsiptera. Systematic Entomology 14: 41- 92.

Kim, K.C., H.D. Pratt, and C.J. Stojanovich. 1986. The Sucking Lice of North America. An IllustratedManual for Identification. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, 241 p.

Krombein, K.V. 1979. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America north of Mexico. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington.

Lawrence J.F. and A.F. Newton, Jr. 1995. Families and subfamilies of Coleoptera (with selected genera,notes, references and data on family-group names), p. 779-1006. In Biology, Phylogeny, andClassification of Coleoptera: Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson. (Eds. J.Pakaluk and S.A. Slipinski), Muzeum i Institut Zoologii, Polska Academia Nauk, Warsaw .

Legler, K. and C. Westover. 1996. Guide to Common Dragonflies of Wisconsin. [privately published byK. Legler, Sauk City, WI]

Leonard, J.W. and F.A. Leonard. 1962. Mayflies of Michigan Trout Streams. Cranbrook lnstitue ScienceBulletin 43: 1-139.

Maddison, D.R. and W.P. Maddison. 1995. The Tree of Life Home Page.http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/phylogeny.html

McAlpine, J.F., B.V. Peterson, G.E. Shewell, H.J. Teskey, J.R. Vockeroth, and D.M. Wood (eds.). 1981-89.Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Agriculture Canada, Quebec; Monograph 27 (Vol. 1) 674 p.;Monograph 28 (Vol. 2) 1332 p.; Monograph 32 (Vol. 3) p. 1334-1581.

Mockford, E.L. 1951 The Psocoptera of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences 60:192-204.

Mockford, E.L. 1993. North American Psocoptera (Insecta). Flora & Fauna Handbook no.10. SandhillCrane Press, Gainesville, FL, 455 p.

Muchmore, W.B. 1990. Pseudoscorpionida. Pp 503-528 In D.L. Dindal (ed). Soil Biology Guide. JohnWiley & Sons, New York.

New, T.R. 1987. Biology of the Psocoptera. Oriental Insects 21: 1-109.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/lepid/moths/mothsusa.htm

http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/irc/ircpage.html

http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/phylogeny.html

Terrestrial Fauna


New, T.R. and G. Theischinger. 1993. Megaloptera (Alderflies, Dobsonflies). Handbuch der Zoologie.Band IV, Arthropoda: Insecta, T. 33. de Gruyter, Berlin. 102 p.

Nosek, 1978. Key and diagnoses of proturan genera of the world. Annot. Zool. Bot. Bratislava 122: 1-54.

Opler, P.A. 1998. A Field Guide to Eastern Butterflies, Revised Format. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

Paclt, J. 1957. Diplura. Genera Insectorum de P. Wytsman, fascicle 212E. 123 p,

Paclt, J. 1963. Thysanura family Nicoletiidae. Genera Insectorum de P. Wytsman, fascicle 216E. 58 p.

Paclt, J. 1967. Thysanura family Lepidotrichidae, Maindroniidae, Lepismatidae. Genera Insectorum de P.Wytsman, fascicle 218E. 86 p.

Parfin, S.I. 1952. The Megaloptera and Neuroptera of Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 47: 421-434.

Penny, N.D. 1975. Evolution of the extant Mecoptera. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 48:331-350.

Penny, N.D, P.A. Adams, L.A. Stange. 1997. Species catalog of the Neuroptera, Megaloptera, andRaphidioptera of America North of Mexico. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 50:39-114.

Rebek, E.J., D.K. Young, and D.B. Hogg. 1999. A list of Wisconsin springtails with new records andassociations (Hexaopda: Parainsecta: Collembola). Great Lakes Entomologist 32: 51-62.

Rehn, J.A.G. and H.J. Grant. 1961. A monograph of the Orthoptera of North America (north of Mexico).Volume 1. Monographs of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences 12: 1-255.

Ross, E.S. 1940. A revision of the Embioptera of North America. Annals of the Entomological Society ofAmerica 33: 629-676.

Ross, E.S. 1984. A synopsis of the Embiidina of the United States. Proceedings of the EntomologicalSociety of Washington 86: 82-93.

Ross, H.H. 1944. The caddis flies or Trichoptera of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois Natural History Survey23: 1-326.

Schuh, R.T. and J.A. Slater. 1995. True Bugs of the World (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Classification andNatural History. Comell University Press, Ithaca, New York xii + 336 p.

Schmid, F. 1980. Genera des Trichoptères de Canada et des Éstats adjacents. Les Insectes et Arachnidesdu Canada, part 7. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Publication 1692.

Scott, H.G. 1961. Collembola: Pictorial key to Nearctic genera. Annals of the Entomological Society ofAmerica 54: 104-113.

Snider, R.J. 1967. An annotated list of the Collembola (springtails) of Michigan. Michigan Entomologist1(6): 179-234.

Snyder, T.E. 1954. Order Isoptera - The Termites of the United States and Canada. National Pest ControlAssociation, New York, 64 p.

Stannard, L.J. 1957. The phylogeny and classification of the North American genera of the suborderTubilifera (Thysanoptera). Illinois Biological Monographs 25: 1-200.

Stannard, L.J. 1968. The thrips, or Thysanoptera, of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois Natural History Survey29: 215-552.

Thornhill, A.R. and J.B. Johnson. 1974. The Mecoptera of Michigan. Great Lakes Entomologist 7: 33-53.

Throne, A.L. 1971a. The Neuroptera - suborder Planipennia of Wisconsin. Part I. Introduction andChrysopidae. Michigan Entomologist 4(3): 65- 78.

Terrestrial Fauna


Throne, A.L. 1971b. The Neuroptera - suborder Planipennia of Wisconsin. Part II. Hemerobiidae,Polystoechotidae and Sisyridae. Michigan Entomologist 4(3): 79-88.

Throne, A.L. 1972. The Neuroptera - suborder Planipennia of Wisconsin. Part III. Mantispidae,Ascalaphidae, Myrmeleontidae, and Coniopterygidae. Great Lakes Entomologist 5: 119-128.

Thome, B.L. and J.M. Carpenter. 1992. Phylogeny of the dictyoptera. Systematic Entomology 17: 253-268.

Tomlin, A.D. 1979. 22. Microcoryphia 23. Thysanura. p. 304-305. In H. V. Danks, ed. Canada and itsinsect fauna. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada. 108.

Tuxen, S.L. 1964. The Protura. A Revision of the Species of the World with Keys for Determination.Hermann, Paris 360 p.

Vickery, V.R., D.K. McE. Kevan. 1985. The insects and arachnids of Canada. Part 14. The grasshoppers,crickets, and related insects of Canada and adjacent regions (Ulonata: Dermaptera, Cheleutoptera,Notoptera, Dictuoptera, Grylloptera, and Orthoptera). Agriculture Canada. Publication Number1777.

Whiting, M.F. 1991. A distributional study of Sialis (Megaloptera: Sialidae) in North America.Entomological News 102: 50-56.

Whiting, M.F. 1994. Cladistic analysis of the alderflies of America north of Mexico (Megaloptera:Sialidae). Systematic Entomology 19: 77-91.

Willman, R. 1987. The phylogenetic system of the Mecoptera. Systematic Entomology 12: 519-524.

Wygodzinsky, P. 1972. A review of the silverfish (Lepismatidae, Thysanura) of the United States andCaribbean area. American Museum Novitiates. 2481: 1-26.

Wygodzinsky, P. and K. Schmidt. 1980. Survey of the Microcoryphia (Insecta) of the northeastern UnitedStates and adjacent provinces of Canada. American Museum Novitiates 2701: 1-17.

Young, D.K. 2000. The Beetles of Wisconsin Home Page. http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/irc/colfamwi.html

http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/irc/colfamwi.html

Lichens and Bryophytes - Aquatic & Terrestrial Resources Inventory

Documents

Transcript of Lichens and Bryophytes - Aquatic & Terrestrial Resources Inventory