Department of Entomology Ohio Agricultural ...

The Coleopterists Bulletin, 61(1):41–55. 2007.

AQUATIC BEETLES IN THE RAVENNA TRAINING AND LOGISTICS SITE OF NORTHEASTERN OHIO ROGER N. WILLIAMS Department of Entomology Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center The Ohio State University 1680 Madison Avenue Wooster, OH 44691, U.S.A. ERIC G. CHAPMAN Department of Biological Sciences Kent State University 256 Cunningham Hall Kent, OH 44242, U.S.A. AND

TIMOTHY A. EBERT AND DIANE M. HARTZLER Department of Entomology Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center The Ohio State University 1680 Madison Avenue Wooster, OH 44691, U.S.A. Abstract Aquatic beetles in the families Dryopidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hydrophilidae, Noteridae, Psephenidae, and Scirtidae were sampled at the Ravenna Training and Logistics (RTLS) site in northeast Ohio from 1999 through 2001. The site is a military base with restricted access, but military activities can cause considerable environmental disturbance. The RTLS has many headwater streams that are part of the Mahoning River basin. It is therefore an important resource in maintaining stream quality in this watershed. This survey is the first comprehensive effort at surveying the aquatic beetles at the RTLS. 124 species were collected including three haliplids, three dytiscids, one gyrinid, and three hydrophilids that were new state records for Ohio. We used these capture data to obtain preliminary estimates of biodiversity in different portions of the RTLS, and estimate how many species we missed in our sampling program. We estimated that about 90% of the total species present at the RTLS were recovered in this survey.

The management of the biological resources of our planet is one of the major challenges in the 21st century. Identifying those resources and the influence of our actions on those resources present major challenges in applied ecology. In the United States, military bases provide a unique land-use strategy. Access is limited and the total ‘‘protected’’ area is large, but sites may experience sporadic periods of extreme disturbance due to troop movements, ordinance detonation, or other military activities. This project was the start of a long-term effort describing the biodiversity at the Ravenna Training and Logistics Site (RTLS; a.k.a. the Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant [RVAAP]). While the long-term goal is to address the environmental impact of military activities on RTLS ecosystems, our 41

42

THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 61(1), 2007

Fig. 1. Map of RTLS showing facility boundary, major roads, the four named creeks, watershed boundaries, watershed numbers, and collection sites. The map was modified from Ostheimer and Tertuliani (2002).

goals were to evaluate sampling methods, determine the relative importance of different habitat types as it applies to the aquatic beetles inhabiting the RTLS, and establish a species inventory. RTLS is located in northeastern Ohio in eastern Portage and western Trumbull counties (Fig. 1). Ostheimer and Tertuliani (2002) described the RTLS as ranging in elevation from 372 m above sea level in the northwestern corner to 283 m in the southeastern corner. The land is 87% forested, with the remaining area having a variety of different habitat types. From 1961 to 1991, the site received an average of 137 cm snow per year, and an average of 94 cm precipitation per year (rain + melted snow and ice). The average monthly temperature ranges from 24uC in January to 22uC in July. The RTLS is approximately 17.7 km east-west and 5.6 km north-south, encompassing 8,672 ha. All of the streams in the RTLS are in the Mahoning River basin. In the western, southern, and eastern portions of the RTLS, Hinkley Creek and other small streams flow into the West Branch of the Mahoning River. Sand Creek and the South Fork of Eagle Creek drain the north-central portion, become confluent near the northern border of the RTLS, and eventually flow into the Mahoning River. RTLS was constructed in the early 1940’s to make ordnance for World War II. Before its construction, the land was used for farming. Since its construction, the RTLS has been a secured military compound with restricted access. Consequently, few biological surveys have been conducted on this property. The (U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency 1992) conducted a macroinvertebrate survey in two areas of the RTLS where controlled burning and detonation were conducted, and reported four species of aquatic beetles. From 1995 to 1997, Eric Chapman


43

surveyed the aquatic beetles of northeastern Ohio, including the counties in which the RTLS is located (Chapman 1998, 2000). In this study, only one specimen from each of two species were reported from the RTLS. In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted an aquatic macroinvertebrate study at 24 sites in the RTLS, reporting 15 species of aquatic beetles (Tertuliani 1999). This report also included an additional 17 aquatic beetle genera, none of which were identified to species. As part of a larger project, all of the nearby collections (Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Kent State University, Ohio University, The Ohio State University, and Youngstown State University) were inventoried by Eric Chapman within the past seven years, yielding no additional specimens of aquatic beetles collected at the RTLS, including the years prior to its construction. The purposes of this study were to collect and identify aquatic beetles in as many aquatic habitats as possible in the RTLS, report any new state records, and develop a baseline data set upon which to monitor and manage the natural resources at the RTLS. The beetle families surveyed in this study were the Dryopidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hydrophilidae, Noteridae, Psephenidae, and Scirtidae. Materials and Methods An attempt was made to sample all types of aquatic habitats at the arsenal from 1999 to 2001. Most of the 84 sites were sampled using a D-frame dip net. Each site was sampled for approximately 1.5 h, but no formal attempt was made to sample for a specified period. In small to medium-sized ponds, sampling was often done at various points around the entire perimeter. In larger bodies of water, only the shallower areas were sampled, especially where small streams or seeps were flowing into the waterbody. Riffle areas in streams were kick-sampled, and the margins were dip-netted, especially in areas with vegetation or where roots were hanging into the water. Light trapping, using a 15-watt black-light (BioquipH part no. 2805) with a standard black-light trap (O. B. Enterprises, Inc.), was done at seven aquatic sites, and bottle traps (Hilsenhoff 1987, 1991) were used repeatedly at five sites. Aquatic beetles were also collected in light traps at 13 non-aquatic sites, and a window trap yielded a few specimens at one site. This project involved sampling many different sites using a variety of techniques. Given limited funding and a relatively large geographic area, we had a choice of sampling many locations irregularly, or a few locations very intensively. Both approaches have serious problems when trying to estimate the distribution, abundance, or diversity of organisms. We also decided to use several collection methods. While some methods are more effective at capturing aquatic beetles, no single method is efficient for all species. By using several methods we improve our chance of detecting all species present. This approach introduces an error due to different capture efficiencies for different species using the different collection methods, but without doing behavioral bioassays to estimate collection efficiency we could not address this issue. We chose to sample many sites using one of several different collection methods, with the understanding that our results provide preliminary estimates, not definitive answers. The RTLS can be broken down into about 27 different drainages, of which only Eagle Cr. and Sand Cr. are confluent within the boundaries of the property. The RTLS is dominated by three drainages, of which Sand Creek comprises 41% of the area. While many samples were taken within the Sand Cr. drainage, the number of samples per area within this drainage was low relative to some of the

44


other drainages. A total of 93.4% of the area within the RTLS was in watersheds that were sampled at some time during this project. Percentages were based on a figure in Ostheimer and Tertuliani (2002), that was analyzed by tracing the watershed boundaries in Photoshop (http://www.adobe.com), and using Image Pro Plus (http://www.mediacy.com) to calculate the area of each watershed. The effectiveness of a sampling program can be measured by the number of species that were missed. We first looked at the number of species collected in each year that were not collected in previous years. For each year, this number should decline, and at some point each additional year will have a lower probability of adding another species to the list. The sum of the expected number of species from each year is an estimate of the total species at RTLS. A related approach is to look at the probability of capturing another species to add to the list for each additional sample collected or for each new record collected. The program EstimateS (v 7.5; Colwell 2005) was used to estimate total species richness of aquatic beetles in the RTLS using this type of approach to the problem. Only the specimens that could be identified as originating from one of the 84 sites sampled during the study were used in the calculations. Sixteen of the 1,092 records could not be used because their locality information was not specific enough to identify a particular waterbody. Multiple specimens of a single species at a given site were pooled and treated as one record. The term record in this study refers to the documented collection of a single species from a specific locality. Sites and species were numbered in order to run EstimateS on our data. A total of 985 sample-species-abundance triplets was used in the calculations. The program averaged the results from 1,000 randomizations. All specimens were stored in 70% ethanol, and many were eventually pinned. Specimens were deposited in the RTLS Collection, or The Ohio State University Museum of Biological Diversity, Columbus. Eric Chapman identified all the species except for the Scirtidae, which were all identified by Dan Young (University of Wisconsin-Madison). All new state records were sent to a specialist for confirmation (see acknowledgments). For the classification of the family Hydrophilidae, we follow that of (Lawrence and Newton 1995). Hansen (1991) raised the subfamilies Hydrochinae, Helophorinae, and three terrestrial subfamilies to family status, but (Lawrence and Newton 1995) considered them all to be subfamilies of Hydrophilidae. Results and Discussion A total of 4,010 individuals were collected from which 53 genera and 124 species were identified. Of these, 10 species were new records for Ohio. Table 1 lists the taxa found at the RTLS, along with collection method, number of specimens, number of records with that species, habitat, and where in Fig. 1 the species was found. Survey Evaluation. The survey was focused on developing an inventory of the aquatic beetles at the RTLS. While the sampling methodology was not designed to address questions of biodiversity or habitat quality, we can use these data to provide a preliminary assessment with the understanding that more data will need to be collected to confirm these observations. Survey effectiveness was evaluated by estimating the number of species that were not captured. Table 2 lists the number of species captured in each year that had not been captured in previous years. Using the total number of individuals captured in a year as a means of correcting for yearly differences in sampling effort, we looked at the percentage of species not previously captured to estimate

Hydroporus signatus Mannerheim Hydroporus striola Gyllenhal

B, N B, B, N N N L, N N N L, L, L, L N N B N N L, N N N N L, N

N

N N, H N

N

N N

N

N, H

Dytiscidae (47 species, 1,106 individuals) Acilius fraternus (Harris) Acilius mediatus (Say) Acilius semisulcatus Aube´ Acilius sylvanus Hilsenhoff Agabetes acuductus (Harris) Agabus ambiguus (Say) Agabus anthracinus Mannerheim Agabus gagates Aube´ Agabus punctatus Melsheimer Agabus semivittatus (LeConte) Bidessonotus inconspicuus (LeConte) Celina hubbelli Young Copelatus glyphicus (Say) Coptotomus lenticus Hilsenhoff Coptotomus venustus (Say) Cybister fimbriolatus (Say) Desmopachria convexa (Aube´) Dytiscus verticalis Say Graphoderus liberus (Say) Heterosternuta ohionis (Fall) Heterosternuta wickhami (Zaitzev) Hydroporus dichrous Melsheimer Hydroporus melsheimeri Fall Hydroporus niger Say

CM

Dryopidae (1 species, 9 individuals) Helichus basalis LeConte

Family/Species

9 2

3 9 18 13 1 9 1 2 3 1 23 10 23 21 2 1 14 6 14 1 25 24 23 96

9

S

6 2

1 2 1 8 11 13 27

3 4 11 5 1 6 1 2 2 1 12 4 12 10 1 1

3

R

m,p m,sw

p st p,st,sw m,p m,p,sw d,m,p,st,sw

p,st p,st,sw m,p p,st,sw sw m,p,st,sw p st p,st st m,p p p,st,sw m,p p p m,p

st

H

39,73 11,23,61,81 3,15,25,28,38,59,69,70,78 24,38,39,65 65 11,41,47,51,69,81 69 11,52 55,64 83 3,19,26,34,36,38,42,63,69,73,74,78 7,36,37,74 4,7,22,26,52,59,65,73,77,79 7,15,30,35,36,45,58,64,67,78 7 36 7,26,28,36,64,67,69,78 38 30,78 76 7,13,32,52,59,65,76 19,24,36,47,61,67,69,70,73,74,78 3,15,19,23,26,36,46,47,48,67,69,74,81 4,15,19,24,26,28,32–34,36,40,41,46–48,58, 61–64,67–70,73,78,81 15,34,36,44,61,74 47,65

10,13,76

Site number

Table 1. List of species collected at the RTLS. Collecting methods (CM) are abbreviated as follows: Bottle trap (B), Dip Net (N), Light trap (L), Hand picking (H), and Window trap (W). Included are the number of specimens (S), number of records (R), habitat (H) is coded d 5 ditch, m 5 marsh, p 5 pond, st 5 stream, sw 5 swamp, and w 5 woods, and site numbers (correspond to those on Fig. 1). Hyphens in the site number denote an inclusive range in site number.

THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 61(1), 2007 45

N N N H N N N

5 3 7

N

Neoporus vittatipennis (Gemminger and Harold) Rhantus binotatus (Harris) Thermonectus basillaris (Harris) Uvarus falli Young

Elmidae (6 species, 87 individuals) Ancyronyx variegata (Germar) Dubiraphia minima Hilsenhoff Dubiraphia quadrinotata (Say) Macronychus glabratus Say

2

N N N N L, N L, N N N B, L, N

Laccophilus undatus Aube´ Liodessus affinis (Fall) Liodessus fuscatus (Crotch) Matus bicarinatus (Say) Matus ovatus ovatus Leech Neoporus clypealis (Sharp) Neoporus sp. Neoporus sulcipennis (Fall) Neoporus undulatus (Say)

1 1 13 7

44 17 6 7 3 88 3 29 190

26 13 14 148

L, N N N B, L, N

22 5 10 1 109

S

Ilybius biguttulus (Germar) Ilybius oblitus Sharp Laccophilus fasciatus rufus Melsheimer Laccophilus maculosus maculosus Say

CM N L, N L, N N L, N

Hydrovatus pustulatus (Melsheimer) Hygrotus laccophilinus (LeConte) Hygrotus nubilus (LeConte) Hygrotus picatus (Kirby) Hygrotus sayi Balfour-Browne

Family/Species

Table 1. Continued.

1 1 2 2

4 1 5

12 12 3 2 2 17 1 4 43

18 7 8 43

10 4 6 1 27

R

H

st st st st

d,m,st m m,p

st

m,p m,p,st m,p p d,m d,m,p,st,sw st st d,m,p,st,sw

d,m,p,st,sw m,p d,m,p d,m,p,st,sw

d,p m,p p m,sw m,p,st,sw

Site number

80 10 1,10 10,76

39,48,62,63 70 26,42,63,64,78

3,19,24,36,45,58,64,68,74,78 18,58,64,67 7,58,73,78 48 3,6,15,18,19,23,26,28,30,34,36,37,39,40,42,47, 59,64,66,67,69,70,73,74,77,78,81 5,6,11,17,19,21,23,32,33,35,47,48,52,58,65,66 30,36,47,59,66,69 19,26,28,42,68,70,74,77 2,3,5,6,10,11,15,19,24–26,28,30–33,35–38,42, 44,45,47,48,51,58,62–68,70,73,74,76,78,81,82 3,15,19,24–26,30,36,37,48,74 10,26,42,44,47,48,58,63,64,73,77 44,63,64 36,49 5,70 2,6,11,28,32,33,39,48,55,62,65,68,69,75,81–83 55 10,55,76 2,3,6,7,11,15,18,19,23–26,28,30–32,34,36,37, 40,42,44–48,51,59,62,64,66–71,73,74,77,81,82 55

46 THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 61(1), 2007

CM

N N N N N N L, N B, N, H B, L, N

L, N N N

Haliplus leopardus Roberts Haliplus longulus LeConte Haliplus pantherinus Aube´ Haliplus triopsis Say Peltodytes duodecimpunctatus (Say) Peltodytes edentulus (LeConte) Peltodytes lengi Roberts

Peltodytes muticus (LeConte)

Peltodytes sexmaculatus Roberts

Peltodytes shermani Roberts Peltodytes tortulosus Roberts

N N

Haliplidae (14 species, 1,445 individuals) Haliplus borealis LeConte Haliplus fasciatus Aube´

Haliplus immaculicollis Harris

L, N N N L, N N N N N

N L, N, H

Gyrinidae (8 species, 197 individuals) Dineutus assimilis Kirby Dineutus discolor Aube´ Dineutus emarginatus Say Dineutus nigrior Roberts Gyrinus gibber LeConte Gyrinus lecontei Fall Gyrinus maculiventris LeConte Gyrinus marginellus Fall

Optioservus ovalis (LeConte) Stenelmis crenata (Say)

Family/Species

Table 1. Continued.

49 2

106

280

13 2 21 25 52 29 641

86

37 131

76 7 1 24 47 24 1 17

18 47

S

7 2

22

48

7 1 9 16 12 15 36

23

8 32

12 3 1 5 3 5 1 1

3 6

R

H

d,p p,sw

d,p,st,sw

d,m,p,st,sw

p p d,p,st d,p,st,sw d,p,st m,p d,m,p,st,sw

d,m,p,st,sw

d,p d,m,p,st,sw

7,19,24,25,45,66,71,82 3,4,7,15,19,23,25,26,30–32,36,40,45–47,51,58, 59,62,65–67,69,71,73,75–77,81,82 3,6,15,23–26,28,30,32,34,36,40,44,47,62,66, 68,69,74,75,81 3,36,37,45,59,74,77 34 3,7,30,40,46,58,66,82 2,4,6,7,19,40,45,49,51,58,64,75,82 6,7,10,28,32,33,62,66,76,82 2,3,7,24,31,45,46,48,58,66,74,75 2–4,6,7,10,15,19,23–25,35,36,38,40,45,46,48, 58,59,62,66,69,71,73–75,78,80–82 2–4,6,7,11,19,23,24,28,30,32–34,36–38, 40–42,44–47,51,52,58,59,62,64–71,74,75, 77,78,81,82 4,7,10,19,24,25,32,35,36,40,45,58,66,68,71,73, 74,75,77 3,19,30,37,45,46,82 49,81

30,45,60,64 31,44,64 10,38,42,64,76 64 76

p,* p m,p,st p st

Site number

2,10,31,44,45,48,51,58,64–66,74 53,54

1,12,27 1,4,13,27,55,83

m,p,st,sw st

st st,sw


N N N B, N L, L, L, L L, L, L, N L, N N N L, N L, B, N L,

Enochrus pygmaeus nebulosus (Say) Enochrus sayi Gundersen Helochares maculicollis Mulsant Helocombus bifidus (LeConte) Helophorus linearis LeConte Helophorus lineatus Say Helophorus marginicollis Smetana Hydrobius fuscipes (Linnaeus) Hydrobius melaenus Germar Hydrochara obtusata (Say) Hydrochara soror Smetana Hydrochus neosquamifer Smetana Hydrochus rufipes Melsheimer

N N L, L, L, L,

Crenitis digesta (LeConte) Cymbiodyta chamberlaini Smetana Cymbiodyta vindicata Fall Enochrus cinctus (Say) Enochrus collinus Brown Enochrus consortus Green Enochrus fimbriatus (Melsheimer) Enochrus hamiltoni (Horn) Enochrus horni Leech Enochrus ochraceus (Melsheimer)

Hydrophilidae (40 species, 1,024 individuals) Anacaena limbata (Fabricius) Anacaena suturalis (LeConte) Berosus fraternus LeConte Berosus pantherinus LeConte Berosus peregrinus (Herbst) Berosus striatus (Say)

Family/Species

Table 1. Continued.

N

N L, N

N

N, H

N N

N

N N, W N

L, N

N N N N

CM

6 8 3 13 1 1 41 56 10 11 56 23 16

2 13 7 17 1 27 53 6 1 165

56 1 11 35 11 86

S

5 5 3 10 1 1 7 14 3 9 18 8 6

1 1 5 12 1 13 20 4 1 32

16 1 4 13 6 31

R

m,p,sw p m,p d,p,sw,st p m m,p d,m,p,sw st d,p,sw d,m,p,st,sw,w m,p m,p,sw

st st m,p m,p m m,p,sw d,m,p,sw,w p,sw d m,p,st,sw

m,p,st,sw m m,p m,p,st,sw p m,p,sw

H 11,13,26,28,32,34,41,44,48,61,63,65,73,74,77,79 47 7,63,64 2,6,7,19,25,31,44,48,58,59,73 2,7,44,52,64 2,7,15,19,24–26,28,34,36,37,42,48,52,58,59,63– 66,69,74,77,78 13 11 26,41,47,61,78 7,21,26,34,38,48,52,57,61,66 47 7,26,35,36,48,58,59,65,77 5,7,14,26,28,41,44,59,63–66,73,77,78 7,36,65 5 3,6,11,15,19,24,26,28,34–36,38,41,42,46–48, 58,59,61,63–65,69,70,73,74,77,78,81 7,51,65,70 7,35,36,58,78 15,24,58 5,29,34,35,57,65,77–79 58 67 34,38,48,63,74,77,78 4,5,7,28,35,38,41,48,52,59,65 11,32,55 5,7,28,57,65,78 4,7,16,20,21,29,43,48,50,56,57,62,70,78 26,30,58,63,64,73,77,78 36,48,65,73,77,78

Site number

48 THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 61(1), 2007

L N N N N L N

Scirtidae (5 species, 8 individuals) Cyphon cooperi Schaefer Cyphon nebulosus (LeConte) Cyphon neovaribilis Klausnitzer Prionocyphon discoideus (Say) Prionocyphon limbatus LeConte 1 3 1 1 2

1 5

11

N

Psephenidae (1 species, 6 individuals) Ectopria nervosa (Melsheimer) Ectopria sp.

Suphisellus puncticollis Crotch

11 85

88

B, N N

Tropisternus mixtus (LeConte) Tropisternus natator d’Orchymont

9 34

1 78

4 3 5 1 56

S

N

N L, N

Tropisternus glaber (Herbst) Tropisternus lateralis nimbatus (Say)

Noteridae (2 species, 99 individuals) Hydrocanthus iricolor Say

L L, N

Phaenonotum exstriatum (Say) Tropisternus blatchleyi d’Orchymont

CM N N L, N N L, N

Hydrochus scabratus Mulsant Hydrochus squamifer LeConte Hydrochus subcupreus Randall Laccobius spangleri Cheary Paracymus subcupreus (Say)

Family/Species

Table 1. Continued.

1 2 1 1 1

1 1

3

21

10 33

5 21

1 19

4 2 5 1 24

R

H

p w p st m,p

st

p,sw

m,p,sw

m,p,sw d,m,p,st,sw

d,p m,p,sw,w

sw m,p,sw

d,p,st p m,p,sw p d,m,p,st,sw

Site number

7 14 84 6 47,66

52 12

3,15,23,24,36,37,46,48,49,58,59,65,67,69,70, 73,74,77,78,81 23,36,58

28,40,68,73 26,77 7,48,64,65,78 34 3,6,23,28,31,34–36,41,42,44, 46–48,58,63–66,68,73,74,77,78 65 3,15,24–26,31,36,37,45,48,56,59, 64,65,67,70,74,77,78 19,36,59,62,78 7,15,19,26,28,31,35,58,59,65–67,70,72,73,77, 78,81 3,15,24,25,28,48,59,65,70 2–4,6,9,10,19,23–25,28,32,33,35,40,41,44–48, 51,53,58,61,62,64,66,69,73,74,81,82


50


Table 2. Number of individuals, number of species, and number of genera collected by year. Unique species were collected only in the year sampled. We also enumerate the number of species not collected in previous years but which might be collected in subsequent years. Percentages are the number of new records divided by the total number of captures for that year. In making this table from Table 1, we ignored individuals identified only to genus. Year

Individuals

Species

Unique species

Not previously collected species

1999 2000 2001

646 1,712 1,652

65 102 90

8 20 12

65 (10.1%) 47 (2.7%) 12 (0.7%)

how many we might capture if the study would have been continued. The equation we used was log10(%) 5 1.57 (0.008) 2 0.57 (0.004) 3 year (r2 5 0.99, P . F 5 0.004), with standard error in parentheses. Since the estimated number of new captures is dependent on the sampling effort, we use the actual number of captures in year 1 (651), and either 1,712 or 1,637 as the number of captures for all other years. If our sampling effort for all other years is similar to that in 2000 and 2001, we would expect to find between 127 and 129 total species. Our current total of 124 species is about 96% of these estimated totals. If one estimates abundance using twice the standard error the maximum number of species is only 140. This is close to the 159/164 species reported by Chapman (1998, 2000, respectively) from a broader survey of aquatic Coleoptera in northeast Ohio. For other approaches to estimating the number of species, we used the program EstimateS. The maximum number of species was 167 using the Second-order Jackknife Richness Estimator (Brunham and Overton 1979; Smith and van Belle 1984; Palmer 1991), while the minimum was 132 using the Michaelis-Menten Richness Estimator (Raaijmakers 1987; Colwell et al. 2004). Thus, based on the EstimateS output, we caught between 74 and 94 percent of the species that we can capture using our collection strategy. The average of all approaches calculated in EstimateS was 145, which is close to the number of species reported by Chapman (1998, 2000). Another way to estimate sampling effectiveness is to examine the number of species within a family represented by a single capture. The higher this proportion, the less effective the sampling technique(s). Carlton et al. (2004) Table 3. Genera, species, and abundance compositions by percent for RTLS’s aquatic beetle fauna by family. For example, 43.4% of all genera of aquatic beetles found at RTLS were in the family Dytiscidae. Within each family we show the percentage of species within that group that were represented by only one capture (singletons). Family

Genera

Species

Individuals

% Singletons

Dryopidae Dytiscidae Elmidae Gyrinidae Haliplidae Hydrophilidae Noteridae Psephenidae Scirtidae

1.9 43.4 9.4 3.8 3.8 28.3 3.8 1.9 3.8

0.8 36.4 4.5 6.8 10.6 34.1 1.5 1.5 3.8

0.2 27.4 2.2 4.9 36.5 26.0 2.5 0.1 0.2

0% 13% 33% 33% 0% 18% 0% * 60%

* five of six specimens were identified only to genus.


51

Table 4. Number of species collected by habitat, and the number of those species unique to that habitat. Habitat Type Ditch Field Marsh Pond Stream Swamp Woods

Number

Unique

29 12 56 91 66 56 8

1 0 5 18 21 7 4

used this measure in their survey where singletons accounted for 38 to 43% of their sample. By this measure, our sampling efforts were sufficient for the Dryopidae, Haliplidae, and Noteridae (Table 3), but more work needs to be done in sampling the Elmidae, Gyrinidae, and Scirtidae. The status of the Psephenidae is unclear since 5 of the 6 specimens collected were only identified to genus. In future studies that may have more limited resources, it would be useful to know the distribution of aquatic beetles in the seven different habitat types (Table 4). No species were collected in fields (using black light traps) that were not recovered elsewhere, and only one unique species was recovered from a ditch. More species were recovered from ponds than other lentic habitats, and the number of species unique to ponds was greater than other lentic habitats. The number of unique species recovered from streams was comparable to that recovered from ponds. However, many species require specialized habitats, and failure to sample these habitats will reduce the quality of such studies.

Fig. 2. Species – area plot for RTLS site. Numbers next to points refer to the watershed number in Fig. 1. The line is the regression line relating species to area (n 5 15, r2 5 0.65, P . F , 0.001).

52


Watershed Quality. There is a well documented relationship between the number of species and the area sampled. For aquatic beetles at the RTLS site, the equation is log(number of species) 5 20.47 + 0.83 log(area in ha) (Fig. 2). Based on this equation, watershed 1 had a very large number of species relative to its area. It may be that watershed 1 was less disturbed than other areas that were sampled. In contrast watersheds 8 and 11 appeared to be impoverished. For watershed 8, this was likely due to having only one sample and that sample came from a UV-light trap in a field. For watershed 11, two samples came from a field, while the third site was a stream that was sampled only once. The 8,672 ha encompassed by the RTLS is a relatively diverse landscape with a good variety of both lotic and lentic habitats. This is reflected by the diversity of aquatic beetles collected. Chapman (1998) reported 159 species from 8 northeastern Ohio counties (including Portage), an area encompassing 3,972 square miles. We found 104 of the 159 species reported by Chapman, an additional 10 new state records, and five species that Chapman did not find (Heterosternuta ohionis, Matus bicarinatus, Optioservus ovalis, Phaenonotum exstriatum, and Prionocyphon discoideus). Thus, in an area roughly 10% the size of (Chapman’s 1998) study area, we found 75% of the number of species reported by Chapman. In an area of similar size as the RTLS in southeastern Ohio, Chapman (unpublished) recorded 77 species of aquatic beetles from 76 water bodies (5,967 specimens). Hence, in an area of southeastern Ohio where ,2,000 more specimens were collected from a comparable number of water bodies, 47 fewer species were collected than in the RTLS. New State Records Haliplidae Haliplus leopardus Roberts, 1913 The geographic range of this species extends along the east coast from Massachusetts to Georgia to Louisiana, with an extension westwards through the Great Lakes states to Wisconsin (Hilsenhoff and Brigham 1978). Thirteen specimens were collected from ponds at seven sites in the RTLS. Haliplus longulus LeConte, 1850 This species is known from the northern U.S. and Canada, extending from New York to Oregon and northward to the Northwest Territories and Newfoundland. One collection was taken from a pond in the RTLS (2 specimens; site 34). Most haliplids reach peak adult abundance in late summer or early fall, however (Hilsenhoff and Brigham 1978) reported that H. longulus was collected most often in May and June in Wisconsin, less so after July. The RTLS record was collected May 30, 2001. Peltodytes shermani Roberts, 1913 This species’ geographic range is similar to that of H. leopardus, being known on the East Coast from Massachusetts to Georgia, and west to Alabama. Downie and Arnett (1996) reported that it is ‘‘a coastal species.’’ However, that statement is misleading, as (Matta 1976) reported that it is rare in the southeastern Virginia, being common only in the Appalachian Highlands. Forty-nine specimens were collected from seven sites in the RTLS. Dytiscidae Neoporus sulcipennis (Fall 1917) The geographic range of this species is mostly Appalachian, from New Brunswick and southeastern Ontario south to Tennessee and Virginia (Larson et


53

al. 2000). This species occurs among root masses of terrestrial plants hanging into the water along the banks of small to medium-sized streams. It was collected at three sites (29 specimens; sites 10, 55, & 76) in the RTLS, all small, sandybottomed, woodland streams. This species was collected on two different dates in 2000 both at the same site (76), which is why Table 1 lists 4 collection records, but only 3 collection sites. Neoporus vittatipennis (Gemminger & Harold 1868) This is another species that occurs among root masses of terrestrial plants hanging into small streams. Wolfe (1984) reported that it commonly occurs among root masses along the margins of sloughs and swamps. Its geographic range extends from North Carolina to northern Florida to Arkansas to central Illinois (Larson et al. 2000), being absent (in the literature) from all states surrounding Ohio. Two specimens were collected from a small woodland stream in the southeastern part of the RTLS. Uvarus falli (Young 1940) Until recently (Larson et al., 2000), it was difficult to identify species of Uvarus in North America, and the genus is still in need of revision on a worldwide basis. Larson et al. (2000) reported it from Nova Scotia, Ontario, Florida and Texas. It was collected from five sites (three ponds and two marshes) in the RTLS (seven specimens; sites 26, 42, 63, 64, & 78). Gyrinidae Gyrinus marginellus Fall, 1922 This species is known from New Hampshire to South Carolina with stray records in Alabama (Oygur and Wolfe 1991; Ciegler 2003). Hilsenhoff (1990) found it to be common statewide in Wisconsin. In the RTLS, it was collected among the roots of grasses in the middle of a small woodland stream (17 specimens; site 76). Hydrophilidae Anacaena suturalis (LeConte 1866) This species has a southeastern distribution, being known from Maryland to Florida, and west to Mississippi. It has been reported from lotic (Young 1954; Ciegler 2003) and lentic (Matta 1974; Testa and Lago 1994; Ciegler 2003) habitats. One specimen was collected from a marsh in the RTLS (site 47). Crenitis digesta (LeConte 1855) This is the first time any species in this genus has been reported from Ohio (,12 North American species). Smetana (1988) reported that it is ‘‘widely distributed in eastern North America,’’ but only reported the Canadian records (Nova Scotia to central Alberta). Hilsenhoff (1995) reported it as rare in Wisconsin. It appears to be absent in the southeastern U.S., as it was not reported in surveys of Virginia (Matta 1974), North Carolina (Brigham 1982), South Carolina (Ciegler 2003), Florida (Epler 1996), and Mississippi (Testa and Lago 1994). Smetana (1988) reported that it occurs in both lentic and lotic habitats. Two female specimens were collected from Hinkley Creek (site 13) in the RTLS. Enochrus collinus Brown, 1931 This species was synonymized with E. hamiltoni (Horn 1890) by (Gundersen 1977), but (Hilsenhoff 1995) recognized E. collinus as a valid species. Its geographic range extends from southern Quebec, south to Vermont, southwest to Ohio and northwest to Minnesota and Manitoba. A single specimen was collected from a marsh (site 47) in the RTLS.

54


Acknowledgments We thank David J. Larson (University of Newfoundland, St. Johns, NF) and William L. Hilsenhoff (University of Wisconsin) for confirming our determinations of new state records. We also thank Daniel K. Young (University of Wisconsin-Madison) for identification of Scirtidae. At The Ravenna Training and Logistics Site we wish to thank Timothy Morgan, Natural Resources Manager, and Lt. Col. Thomas A. Tadsen, Deputy Training Site Commander, for their valued cooperation. Also thanks are due to Captain Thomas Daugherty, Environmental Protection Specialist for the Ohio National Guard, for his keen interest in preserving the environment, and his interest in beetles, which made this project possible. Guards Frank Hertig and Emma Lamp at the gate who kept us informed of daily activities at the Arsenal, were extremely helpful with their assistance on directions, and passing along pertinent information to other researchers. Literature Cited Brigham, W. U. 1982. Aquatic Coleoptera [pp. 10. 1–10. 136]. In: Aquatic Insects and Oligochaetes of North and South Carolina (A. R. Brigham, W. U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka, editors). Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, IL. 837 pp. Burnham, K. P., and W. S. Overton. 1979. Robust estimation of population size when capture probabilities vary among animals. Ecology 60:927–936. Carlton, C., M. Dean, and A. Tishechkin. 2004. Diversity of two beetle taxa at a western Amazonian locality (Coleoptera: Histeridae; Staphylinidae, Pselaphinae). Coleopterists Bulletin 58:163–170. Chapman, E. G. 1998. The aquatic beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera) of northeastern Ohio (Haliplidae, Dytiscidae, Noteridae, Gyrinidae, Hydrophilidae, Psephenidae, Dryopidae, Elmidae, and Ptilodactylidae). Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contribution No. 4. vi+117 pp. Chapman, E. G. 2000. A Survey of the Aquatic Beetles of Northeastern Ohio (Haliplidae, Dytiscidae, Noteridae, Gyrinidae, Hydrophilidae, Psephenidae, Dryopidae, Elmidae, Ptilodactylidae). M.S. Thesis, Kent State University. Ciegler, J. C. 2003. Water Beetles of South Carolina (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae, Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae, Hydraenidae, Scirtidae, Elmidae, Dryopidae, Limnichidae, Heteroceridae, Psephenidae, Ptilodactylidae, and Chelonariidae). Biota of South Carolina. Volume 3. Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. 210 pp. Colwell, R. K. 2005. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates. [Persistent URL: http://purl. oclc.org/estimates.] (accessed 15 December 2005) Colwell, R. K., C. X. Mao, and J. Chang. 2004. Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85:2717–2727. Downie, N. M., and R. H. Arnett, Jr. 1996. The Beetles of Northeastern North America Vols I and II. The Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, Florida. 1721 pp. Epler, J. H. 1996. Identification manual for the water beetles of Florida (Coleoptera: Dryopidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hydraenidae, Hydrophilidae, Noteridae, Psephenidae, Ptilodactylidae, Scirtidae). Florida Department Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. iv+253 pp. Gundersen, R. W. 1977. New species and taxonomic changes in the genus Enochrus (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Coleopterists Bulletin 31:251–272. Hansen, M. 1991. The hydrophiloid beetles: Phylogeny, classification and a revision of the genera (Coleoptera: Hydrophiloidea). Biologiske Skrifter 40:1–367. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1987. Effectiveness of bottle traps for collecting Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). Coleopterists Bulletin 41:377–380.


55

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1990. Gyrinidae of Wisconsin, with a key to adults of both sexes and notes on distribution and habitat. Great Lakes Entomologist 23:77–91. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1991. Comparison of bottle traps with a D-frame net for collecting adults and larvae of Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera). Coleopterists Bulletin 45:143–146. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1995. Aquatic Hydrophilidae and Hydraenidae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). II. Distribution, habitat, life cycle and identification of species of Hydrobiini and Hydrophilini (Hydrophilidae: Hydrophilinae). Great Lakes Entomologist 28:97–126. Hilsenhoff, W. L., and W. U. Brigham. 1978. Crawling water beetles of Wisconsin (Coleoptera: Haliplidae). Great Lakes Entomologist 11:11–22. Larson, D. J., Y. Alarie, and R. E. Roughley. 2000. Predaceous diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of the Nearctic Region, with emphasis on the fauna of Canada and Alaska. National Research Council of Canada Research Press, Ottawa. xiv+982 pp. Lawrence, J. F., and A. F. Newton. 1995. Families and subfamilies of Coleoptera (with selected genera, notes, references and data on family-group names). [pp. 779–1006 +48 p. index not in original publication]. In: Biology, phylogeny and classification of Coleoptera. Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson (J. Pakaluk and S. A. Slipinski, editors). Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warsaw. Matta, J. F. 1974. The aquatic Hydrophilidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Polyphaga). The insects of Virginia: No 8. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Research Division Bulletin 94:1–44. Matta, J. F. 1976. The Haliplidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Adephaga). The insects of Virginia. No. 10. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Research Division Bulletin 109:1–26. Ostheimer, C. J., and J. S. Tertuliani. 2002. Watershed inventory, Ravenna Training and Logistics Site, Ohio. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-495. 40 pp. Oygur, S., and G. W. Wolfe. 1991. Classification, distribution, and phylogeny of North American (north of Mexico) species of Gyrinus Mu¨ller (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 207:1–97. Palmer, M. W. 1991. Estimating species richness: The second-order jackknife reconsidered. Ecology 72:1512–1513. Raaijmakers, J. G. W. 1987. Statistical analysis of the Michaelis-Menten equation. Biometrics 43:793–803. Smetana, A. 1988. Review of the family Hydrophilidae of Canada and Alaska (Coleoptera). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada No. 142. 316 pp. Smith, E. P., and G. van Belle. 1984. Nonparametric estimation of species richness. Biometrics 40:119–129. Tertuliani, J. S. 1999. Aquatic macroinvertebrates collected at Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant, Portage and Trumbull counties, Ohio, 1998. Water-Resources Investigations Report No. 99-4202. iv+38 pp. Testa, S. III, and P. K. Lago. 1994. The aquatic Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera) of Mississippi. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experimental Station, Mississippi State University Technical Bulletin No. 193. v+73 pp. U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. 1992. Soils, groundwater, and surface water characterization for the open burning and open detonation areas, Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant: Geohydrologic Study No. 38-26-KF95-92 [variously paged]. Wolfe, G. W. 1984. A revision of the vittatipennis species group of Hydroporus Clairville, subgenus Neoporus Guignot (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 110:389–433. Young, F. N. 1954. The water beetles of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. ix+ 238 pp. (Received 20 December 2004; accepted 12 September 2006. Publication date 30 April 2007.)