Ephemeral wetlands as significant habitat for threatened crayfish in Alabama, USA

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-152
Author(s):  
Michael R. Kendrick ◽  
Alexander D. Huryn

Abstract While ephemeral wetlands contribute significantly to regional freshwater biodiversity, their role in supporting threatened and imperiled species of crayfish is not widely recognized. As the center of global crayfish biodiversity, the southeastern United States (US), and the state of Alabama (AL) in particular, are important focal areas where information is needed to develop understanding of habitat constraints determining the distributions of crayfish species. To this end, we documented crayfish species associated with ephemeral wetlands and associated wetland habitats that have been traditionally under sampled. Fifteen species of crayfish were documented among 96 survey sites. This assemblage included three Alabama state-listed Priority 1 species [Cambarellus diminutus Hobbs, Fallicambarus burrisi Fitzpatrick, Procambarus viaeviridis (Faxon)] and five Priority 2 species [Hobbseus prominens (Hobbs), Orconectes lancifer (Hagan), Procambarus evermanni (Faxon), P. leconti (Hagan), P. marthae Hobbs]. An undescribed species of Cambarellus (“sp. A”) was also documented, and will presumably be eventually designated a Priority 1 species in Alabama due to its restricted distribution and apparent endemism. Ten species of crayfish were documented from ephemeral wetlands, including four Priority 1 and 2 species [Cambarellus sp. A (presumed Priority 1 species), H. prominens, P. marthae, P. viaeviridis]. Most populations of Priority 1 and 2 species we documented are within the 100-year floodplain of the Black Warrior River. Ephemeral wetlands and associated wetland habitats within the floodplains of large rivers thus appear to be vital habitat for threatened and imperiled crayfish in Alabama. Our results suggest that future crayfish surveys should include sampling of these important but often overlooked habitats.

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Rugel

Surface water and groundwater catchments rarely align with the boundaries of cities, states, or nations. More often, water runs through, over, and under man-made sociopolitical divisions, making the governance of transboundary waters a formidable task. Although much of the public conversation regarding the availability and management of shared waters may appear to be dire (e.g., reports of “water wars”), there are transboundary basin water management strategies across the globe which offer hope. These include the efforts of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Stakeholders (ACFS) in the southeastern United States, which may serve as a useful template for future conversations around the water sharing table. The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin (ACF Basin) is a vital economic engine in the southeastern United States. The waters of the ACF are shared between three states—Alabama, Florida, and Georgia—and harbor some of the richest freshwater biodiversity in North America, including sturgeon, rock bass, madtom, sculpin, bass, darters, and the highest densities of freshwater mussels in the world. Many of these are species of concern or threatened or endangered species; therefore, water management strategies in multiple portions of the ACF must comply with habitat protection plans under the U.S. Environmental Protection Act of 1970 (https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/en/environmental-protection-act). The ACFS was organized in 2009 in the hopes of overcoming a decades-long stalemate between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, regarding the use of shared waters in the ACF Basin. Despite years of litigious relationships among these three states, the ACFS managed to bring a diverse and previously contentious set of water users to the table and build consensus on a shared water management plan for the entire ACF Basin. While the ACFS holds no regulatory power, they made more progress in breaking through existing distrust and deadlock than any previous efforts in this basin to date. In the end, they developed cooperation, respect, and a sustainable and adaptive water management plan which included input and buy-in from all identified water sectors in the ACF Basin. It is, therefore, a valuable exercise to examine the ACFS model and contemplate whether it contains exportable methodologies for other catchments challenged with managing transboundary waters.


Zootaxa ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4472 (1) ◽  
pp. 127 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS C. MCELRATH ◽  
JOSEPH V. MCHUGH

Studies of the saproxylic and predatory beetle family Monotomidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea) in the southeastern USA increased the known diversity for the family in the state of Georgia by one genus and nine species. Online records of Monotomidae from Georgia increased from 0 to 885. This work highlights the lack of basic diversity information about small beetles that inhabit wood, leaf litter, and other decaying plant matter in this region. 


HortScience ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 821F-821
Author(s):  
T.E. Morelock ◽  
D.R. Motes ◽  
A.R. Gonzalez

Southernpeas (Vigna ungurculata) are a popular crop in the southeastern United States. They are an important crop to Arkansas processors, market gardeners, and home gardeners. While the bulk of the acreage produced in the state is pinkeye purple hull types, there is a demand for other horticultural types. At present, there is not a well-adapted blackeye that is available to producers in the state. For that reason, Arkansas Blackeye #1 is being released. Arkansas Blackeye #1 has been widely tested under the designation Arkansas 91-245. It produces a medium-sized bush plant that is well suited to conventional or narrow row spacing and matures 2 to 3 days earlier than Coronet under Arkansas conditions. Arkansas Blackeye #1 produces yield similar to the best pinkeye purple hull types. Samples have been canned by the Food Science Dept. at the Univ. of Arkansas and the canned samples have compared favorably to the industry standards.


Commonwealth ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennie Sweet-Cushman ◽  
Ashley Harden

For many families across Pennsylvania, child care is an ever-present concern. Since the 1970s, when Richard Nixon vetoed a national childcare program, child care has received little time in the policy spotlight. Instead, funding for child care in the United States now comes from a mixture of federal, state, and local programs that do not help all families. This article explores childcare options available to families in the state of Pennsylvania and highlights gaps in the current system. Specifically, we examine the state of child care available to families in the Commonwealth in terms of quality, accessibility, flexibility, and affordability. We also incorporate survey data from a nonrepresentative sample of registered Pennsylvania voters conducted by the Pennsylvania Center for Women and Politics. As these results support the need for improvements in the current childcare system, we discuss recommendations for the future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document