JOURNAL ll .K.W2.X. Mtf OF THE KENTUCKY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Official Publication of the Academy Volume 71 Numbers 1 and 2 Spring and Fall 2010 The Kentucky Academy of Science Founded 8 May 1914 Governing Board 2010 Elected Officers President : Nancy Martin, University of Louisville, nancymartin@louisville.edu President Elect: Barbara Ramey, Eastern Kentucky University, barbara.ramey@eku.edu Vice President: Dawn Anderson, Berea College, Dawn_Anderson@berea.edu Past President: Robin Cooper, University of Kentucky, RLCOOPl@pop.uky.edu Secretary: Robert Kingsolver, Bellarmine University, kingsolver@bellarmine.edu Treasurer: Ken Crawford, Western Kentucky University, kenneth.crawford@wku.edu Division and At-Large Representatives Biological Sciences: Ronald Jones, Eastern Kentucky University, ron.jones@eku.edu Biological Sciences: Richard Durtsche, Northern Kentucky University, durtsche@nku.edu Physical Sciences: Eric Jerde, Morehead State University, e.jerde@moreheadstate.edu Physical Sciences: KC Russell, Northern Kentucky University, russellk@nku.edu Social ir Behavioral Sciences: Judy Voelker , Northern Kentucky University , voelkerjl@nku.edu Social ir Behavioral Sciences: Sean Reilley, Morehead State University, s.reilley@morehead-st.edu At-Large: Mary Janssen, KCTCS, marye.janssen@kctcs.edu At-Large: Cheryl Davis, Western Kentucky University, cheryl.davis@wku.edu Ex-Officio Officers Journal Editor: David White, Murray State University, david.white@murraystate.edu Program Coordinator: Bob Creek, Eastern Kentucky, University, robertcreek@bellsouth.net Director Junior KAS: Ruth Beattie, University of Kentucky, rebeatl@email.uky.edu Newsletter Editor: Susan Templeton, Kentucky State University, susan.templeton@kysu.edu Executive Director: Jeanne Harris, KAS, executivedirector@kyscience.org Webpage Editor: Claire Rinehart, Western Kentucky University, claire.rinehart@wku.edu Executive Secretary Emeritus: Don Frasier, University of Kentucky, dfrazie@uky.edu All manuscripts and correspondence concerning manuscripts should be addressed to the Editor (david.white@ murray state .edu) . The JOURNAL is indexed in BioOne, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Selected Water Resource Abstracts, State Acad- emies of Science Abstracts, and Zoological Record. Membership in the Academy is open to anyone with an interest in science. Interested parties can join online at www. kyscience.org where membership options and benefits are listed. Please contact the executive director at executivedirector@ kyscience.org for additional information. The JOURNAL is made available as a PDF to all active members of the Academy (go to www.kentuckyscience.org). Hard copy subscriptions are available. Subscription rates for nonmembers are $50. 00/year domestic, $60. 00/year for- eign. Back issues are $30.00 per volume. The JOURNAL is issued in spring and fall. Two issues comprise a volume. All other correspondence concerning memberships or subscriptions may be addressed to the Executive Director, Ken- tucky Academy of Science, P.O. Box 22579, Lexington, KY 40522-2579 or executivedirector@kyscience.org. ® This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper). INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATES APR 13 2011 1«RAR\|§, Berea College Brescia University Centre College Eastern Kentucky University Georgetown College Kentucky State University Midway College Enhanced Members Bellarmine University Murray State University Northern Kentucky University Spalding University Transylvania University University of Kentucky University of Louisville Morehead State University Western Kentucky University Kentucky Community and Technical College System ; Sustaining Member Campbellsville University Members Asbury University Thomas More College Pikeville College Lindsey Wilson College Kentucky Wesleyan College University of the Cumberlands INDUSTBIAL AFFILIATES Honorary Patron- Lumins Associates Members Kentucky American Water Wood Hudson Cancer Besearch Laboratory Associate Members Hoffman Environmental Besearch Institute 1 J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 71(l-2):3-18. 2010. Annotated List of the Leaf Beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) of Kentucky: Subfamily Eumolpinae Robert J. Barney12 Community Research Service, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Shawn M. Clark Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602 and Edward G. Riley Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843 ABSTRACT An examination of leaf beetle specimens (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in the largest beetle collections in Kentucky, recent inventory work in state nature preserves and other protected areas, and a review of the literature revealed forty-six species of the subfamily Eumolpinae present in Kentucky, twenty of which previously were unreported for the state. Distribution maps and label data are presented for the forty-six Kentucky species, including spatial (state and Kentucky county records), temporal (years and months of collection in Kentucky), and plant association information. The following species are reported from Kentucky for the first time: Metachroma carolinense Blake, Metachroma laterale Crotch, Metachroma orientale Blake, Graphops curtipennis curtipennis (F. E. Melsheimer), Graphops marcassita marcassita (Crotch), Graphops simplex J. L. LeConte, Graphops varians J. L. LeConte, Paria fragariae Wilcox, Paria pratensis Balsbaugh, Paria sellata (Horn), Colaspis favosa Say, Colaspis suilla suilla F., Glyptoscelis pubescens (F.), Spintherophyta globosa (Olivier), Tymnes metastemalis (Crotch), Tymnes violaceus Horn, Demotina modesta Baly, Fidia longipes (F. E. Melsheimer), Xanthonia angulata Staines & Weisman, and Xanthonia serrata Staines & Weisman. KEY WORDS: Kentucky, leaf beetles, Chrysomelidae, Eumolpinae, biodiversity, new state records INTRODUCTION This paper is the sixth in a series intended to present a synopsis of the historical collec- tion data on leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chry- somelidae) from the major Coleoptera collec- tions in Kentucky and augment these data with new information gained from recent monitoring in state preserves and other protected locations. The first five papers presented information on the subfamilies Cassidinae (Barney et al. 2007), Donaciinae and Criocerinae (Barney et al. 2008a), Chry- somelinae (Barney et al. 2008b), tribes Gale- rucini and Luperini (Galerucinae) (Barney et al. 2009a), and Alticini (Galerucinae) (Barney et al. 2009b). Many of the genera have been revised, including Xanthonia (Staines and Weisman 1 Corresponding author e-mail: rbamey@wvstateu.edu 2 Current address: GRDI Land-Grant Institute, West Virginia State University, Institute, WV 25112-1000 2001), Fidia (Strother and Staines 2008), Faria (Wilcox 1957; Balsbaugh 1970), Glyp- toscelis (Blake 1967), Metachroma (Blake 1970), and Colaspis (in part, Blake 1974). The purpose of this study is to present historical and current knowledge of the distribution, abundance, and plant associa- tions of eumolpine leaf beetles in Kentucky. MATERIALS AND METHODS To establish a historical perspective, leaf beetle specimens from the major insect collections in Kentucky (and from collections located in other states but known to contain Kentucky specimens) were examined, re- identified, and their label data recorded. The following collections were studied with the timeframe of their Kentucky specimens listed: CMC Cincinnati Museum Center, Cincin- nati, OH 1871-1931 3 4 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) UKIC University of Kentucky Insect Collec- tion, Lexington, KY 1889-1993 WKUC Western Kentucky University Collec- tion, Bowling Green, KY 1958-2006 RJBC Robert J. Barney Collection, Frank- fort, KY (private) 1983-2009 BYUC Brigham Young University Collec- tion, Provo, UT 1988-1999 CWC Charles Wright Collection, Frank- fort, KY (private) 1991-2009 KYSU Kentucky State University Collec- tion, Frankfort, KY 2004-2009 The Cincinnati Museum Collection, for- merly known as the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, houses the Charles Dury Collection, comprising approximately 75,000 insect specimens primarily collected in the Cincinnati/northem Kentucky area (Vulinec and Davis 1984). Specimens from this collec- tion are usually labeled as “Ky. near Cin. O.” with no county or date information provided. We designate these specimens as “ca. 1900” because most of the collecting was done around the turn of the century. The Kentucky State University Insect Col- lection is primarily the specimens generated by the Kentucky Leaf Beetle Biodiversity Project. We currently are conducting exten- sive collecting in many grass -dominated bar- rens and rock outcrop (glade) communities that are known for possessing uncommon plants and plant associations (Jones 2005) and have never been surveyed for leaf beetles. These sites are managed by the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, The Nature Conservancy, and the United States Army at Fort Campbell Military Reservation (Baskin et al. 1994). Most specimens were collected via sweep net by the senior author within five state nature preserves in 2004- 2009 and Fort Campbell in 2008-2009: Crooked Creek Barrens (Lewis County) and Blue Licks Battlefield (Robertson County) in northeastern Kentucky, Eastview Barrens (Hardin County) and Thompson Creek Glades (LaRue County) in central Kentucky, and Raymond Athey Barrens (Logan County) and Fort Campbell (Christian and Trigg Counties) in western Kentucky. For each eumolpine species documented for Kentucky, the following data are present- ed: state-level distribution in the United States (from Riley et al. 2003), Kentucky county records, abundance by year and month in Kentucky, and specimens per collection. Other pertinent information present on spec- imen labels, such as the method of collection and plant association information, is presented in the “Comments” section for each species. This information provides the opportunity to help determine abundance, seasonality, and distribution from a historical perspective. One should note that plant collection records taken from specimen labels are notoriously inaccu- rate and may not reflect true host plants (Clark et al. 2004). RESULTS According to the “Catalog of Leaf Beetles of America North of Mexico” (Riley et al. 2003), there are 75 species of Eumolpinae recorded in at least one of the seven states contiguous to Kentucky, and Strother and Staines (2008) described an additional Fidia species. However, only 25 species were reported from Kentucky. An examination of over 2700 eumolpine leaf beetle specimens from the major collections in the state and others known to contain Kentucky specimens, plus a review of certain publications, revealed 46 species (42 observed and four additional documented from the literature) of the 76 recorded in Riley et al. (2003) and Strother and Staines (2008), including 20 new state records (Table 1). A breakdown of specimens, species and records by collection examined is presented in Table 2. Metachroma carolinense Blake (Figure 1A) (new state record) Kentucky County: Nelson Year: 2009 (1) Month: July (1) Abundance: 1 specimen: 1-KYSU Comments: One specimen was collected on Golden Eagle Ridge at Bernheim Forest. Metachroma laterale Crotch (Figure IB) (new state record) Kentucky County: Trigg Year: 2009 (1) Month: May (1) Abundance: 1 specimen: 1-KYSU Comments: One specimen was collected at Fort Campbell. Clark et al. (2004) reported Kentucky Eumolpinae Leaf Beetles — Barney et al. 5 Table 1. List of Eumolpinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) recorded from Kentucky, with number of Kentucky specimens examined, number of Kentucky county records, range of years of collection in Kentucky, and new state records. Species Specimens Examined Metachroma carolinense Blake Metachroma laterale Crotch Metachroma magnipunctatum Blake Metachroma orientale Blake Metachroma pallidum (Say) Graphops curtipennis curtipennis (F. E. Melsheimer) Graphops marcassita marcassita (Crotch) Graphops pubescens (F. E. Melsheimer) Graphops simplex J. L. LeConte Graphops varians J. L. LeConte Paria fragariae/pratensis complex Paria quadrinotata (Say) Paria scutellaris (Notman) Paria sellata (Horn) Paria sexnotata (Say) Paria thoracica (F. E. Melsheimer) Typophorus nigritus viridicyaneus (Crotch) Brachypnoea clypealis (Horn) Brachypnoea convexa (Say) Brachypnoea margaretae (Schultz) Brachypnoea puncticollis (Say) Brachypnoea tristis (Olivier) Colaspis brunnea (F.) Colaspis favosa Say Colaspis suilla suilla F. Glyptoscelis barbata (Say) Glyptoscelis pubescens (F.) Myochrous denticollis (Say) Rhabdopterus deceptor Barber Rhabdopterus praetextus (Say) Spintherophyta globosa (Olivier) Tymnes metastemalis (Crotch) Tymnes tricolor (F.) Tymnes violaceus Horn Chrysochus auratus (F.) Demotina modesta Baly Fidia confusa Strother Fidia longipes (F. E. Melsheimer) Fidia rileyorum Strother Fidia viticida Walsh Xanthonia angulata Staines & Weisman Xanthonia decemnotata (Say) Xanthonia serrata Staines & Weisman Xanthonia striata Staines & Weisman Xanthonia villosula (F. E. Melsheimer) 1 specimen: 1 county, 2009 (new state record) 1 specimen: 1 county, 2009 (new state record) unknown 2 specimens: 2 counties, 2005-2008 (new state record) 14 specimens: 3 counties, 2004—2009 59 specimens: 6 counties, 1892-2009 (new state record) 21 specimens: 8 counties, ca. 1900-2009 (new state record) 4 specimens: 3 counties, 1937-2008 7 specimens: 2 counties, 2005-2008 (new state record) 28 specimens: 5 counties, 2005-2009 (new state record) 232 specimens: 19 counties, 1890-2009 (new state records) 95 specimens: 10 counties, 1894—2008 15 specimens: 9 counties, 1976-2006 94 specimens: 10 counties, 1889-2009 (new state record) 71 specimens: 17 counties, 1971-2009 309 specimens: 25 counties, 1893-2008 45 specimens: 6 counties, 1967-2008 199 specimens: 22 counties, 1889-2008 6 specimens: 3 counties, 1996-2007 684 specimens: 41 counties, 1889-2008 208 specimens: 7 counties, 1944-2009 47 specimens: 20 counties, 1952-2008 346 specimens: 27 counties, 1949-2008 1 specimen: 1 county, 2008 (new state record) 1 specimen: 1 county, 2005 (new state record) unknown 4 specimens: 4 counties, 1892-2005 (new state record) 42 specimens: 10 counties, ca. 1900-2006 1 specimen: 1 county, 2005 6 specimens: 4 counties, 1995-2008 2 specimens: 2 counties, 1988-1990 (new state record) 5 specimens: 2 counties, 1971-2009 (new state record) 6 specimens: 4 counties, ca. 1900-2004 2 specimens: 1 county, 2004-2005 (new state record) 105 specimens: 26 counties, 1892-2009 16 specimens: 2 counties, 2007-2008 (new state record) unknown 6 specimens: 4 counties, 1971-2005 (new state record) 2 specimens: 1 county, 2006 2 specimens: 1 county, 1998 1 specimen: 1 county, 2005 (new state record) 4 specimens: 3 counties, 1982-2003 1 specimen: 1 county, 2009 (new state record) unknown 7 specimens: 3 counties, 1907-2009 Table 2. The number of specimens, species and new Kentucky state records of eumolpinae beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) found in the largest leaf beetle collections from Kentucky. Collection Specimens Species Records Kentucky State University Collection 1605 37 10 University of Kentucky Insect Collection 856 21 7 Charles Wright Collection 90 15 0 Brigham Young University Collection 83 16 2 Robert J. Barney Collection 48 11 0 Western Kentucky University Collection 12 6 0 Cincinnati Museum Center 9 4 1 Totals 2703 42 20 6 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Figure 1. The known distribution of Eumolpinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) illustrated in grey shading for Kentucky counties and states of the United States. New state records reported herein are shown in cross-hatch. this species associated with Quercus (Faga- ceae). Metachroma magnipunctatum Blake (Fig- ure 1C) Kentucky Counties: unknown Years: unknown Months: unknown Abundance: unknown Comments: Blake (1970) reported the type-locality for this species as Kentucky, and stated that there are no other specimens like the two in the G. Frey Museum (Tutzing, Germany) known from the United States. Metachroma orientale Blake (Figure ID) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Hardin, Logan Years: 2005 (1), 2008 (1) Months: June (2) Abundance: 2 specimens: 2-KYSU Comments: Both specimens were collected in barren areas of state nature preserves. Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Quercus (Fagaceae). Kentucky Eumolpinae Leaf Beetles — Barney et al. 7 Graphops curtipennis curtipennh (F. E. Mclsheimer) Graphops pubescem (F. E. Melsheimer) Graphops marcassita marcassita Crotch Figure 2. The known distribution of Eumolpinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) illustrated in grey shading for Kentucky counties and states of the United States. New state records reported herein are shown in cross-hatch. Metachroma pallidum (Say) (Figure IE) Kentucky Counties: Grayson, Hardin, Logan Years: 2004 (7), 2005 (5), 2007 (1), 2009 (1) Months: July (13), August (1) Abundance: 14 specimens: 14-KYSU Comments: The KYSU specimens were all collected in native barren preserves. Blake (1970) reported this species from Benton (Marshall County). Graphops curtipennis curtipennis (F. E. Melsheimer) (Figure 2A) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Bullitt, Christian, Hardin, Lewis, Logan, Trigg Years: 1892 (1), 1975 (1), 2004 (2), 2005 (8), 2006 (9), 2007 (5), 2008 (24), 2009 (9) Months: May (12), June (34), July (13) Abundance: 59 specimens: 57-KYSU, 2- UKIC Comments: Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Hypericum (Clusia- ceae). Graphops marcassita marcassita (Crotch) (Figure 2B) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Bullitt, Caldwell, Christian, Jefferson, Lewis, Logan, Robertson, Trigg 8 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Years: ca. 1900 (1), 1937 (2), 1938 (1), 1940 (3), 2005 (1), 2006 (4), 2007 (1), 2008 (7), 2009 (1) Months: February (1), March (2), May (2), June (6), July (6), October (3) Abundance: 21 specimens: 1-CMC, 14- KYSU, 6-UKIC Comments: A Dury Collection specimen was labeled “Ky. near Cin. O.” Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Fragaria (Rosaceae). Graphops pubescens (F. E. Melsheimer) (Figure 2C) Kentucky Counties: Caldwell, Christian, Robertson Years: 1937 (1), 2008 (3) Months: February (1), July (3) Abundance: 4 specimens: 3-KYSU, 1-UKIC Comments: Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Oenothera (Onagra- ceae). Graphops smiplex J. L. LeConte (Figure 2D) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Breckinridge, Logan Years: 2005 (1), 2006 (4), 2008 (2) Months: May (3), June (4) Abundance: 7 specimens: 7-KYSU Comments: All but one specimen was col- lected at Raymond Athey Barrens State Nature Preserve. Clark et al. (2004) reported this spe- cies associated with Oenothera (Onagraceae). Graphops varians J. L. LeConte (Figure 2E) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Bullitt, Christian, LaRue, Logan, Trigg Years: 2005 (7), 2006 (6), 2007 (3), 2008 (11), 2009 (1) Months: May (2), June (9), July (15), August (2) Abundance: 28 specimens: 28-KYSU Comments: All specimens were collected in preserved barren habitats. Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Oe- nothera (Onagraceae). P aria fragariae /prat ensis complex (Figure 3 A) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Breckinridge, Bullitt, Caldwell, Carter, Fayette, Franklin, Grayson, Hardin, Henderson, Henry, Jessamine, LaRue, Lewis, Lincoln, Logan, Pulaski, Rob- ertson, Trigg, Warren Years: 1890 (32), 1891 (45), 1892 (1), 1903 (1), 1916 (4), 1922 (6), 1929 (1), 1937 (1), 1971 (3), 1973 (1), 1975 (1), 1993 (1), 2003 (3), 2004 (1), 2005 (17), 2006 (50), 2007 (9), 2008 (53), 2009 (2) Months: February (1), April (14), May (79), June (63), July (38), August (19), September (8), October (2), November (8) Abundance: 232 specimens: 5-CWC, 131- KYSU, 96-UKIC Comments: This complex is composed of P. fragariae Wilcox and P. pratensis Balsbaugh, both of which are state records. Some of the specimens examined are clearly P. fragariae, while others are clearly P. pratensis, but still others are intermediate or otherwise difficult to assign to one or the other species. Many of the 1890-1891 specimens were labeled as from strawberry beds. Some specimens were col- lected via Malaise trap. Clark et al. (2004) reported these species associated with Rosa- ceae. Paria quadrinotata (Say) (Figure 3B) Kentucky Counties: Caldwell, Fayette, Hart, Jefferson, Laurel, Marion, Owen, Po- well, Rowan, Webster Years: 1894 (2), 1895 (1), 1912 (1), 1913 (1), 1914 (1), 1937 (1), 1940 (9), 1971 (26), 1975 (3), 1981 (4), 1982 (7), 1988 (29), 1994 (1), 1996 (1), 2003 (1), 2004 (1), 2005 (2), 2008 (4) Months: February (1), March (1), April (49), May (31), June (3), October (9), December (1) Abundance: 95 specimens: 8-BYUC, 4- CWC, 5-KYSU, 4-RJBC, 74-UKIC Comments: Many specimens were collected via Malaise trap. Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Juglans (Juglanda- ceae). Paria scutellaris (Notman) (Figure 3C) Kentucky Counties: Franklin, Grayson, Hancock, Henry, Jefferson, Menifee, Owsley, Pike, Powell Years: 1976 (2), 1994 (1), 1996 (2), 2002 (1), 2003 (6), 2004 (2), 2006 (1) Months: March (2), May (5), June (7), August (1) Abundance: 15 specimens: 1-BYUC, 10- CWC, 1-KYSU, 3-RJBC Kentucky Eumolpinae Leaf Beetles — Barney et al. 9 Paria fraguriae/prutensis Paria quadrinotata (Say) ^ ■^3®^ b Paria scutellaris (Notman^ Paria sellata (Horn) . Paria sexnotata (Sav) Paria thoracica (F. E. Melsheimer) ^ r&rV ' J> F Figure 3. The known distribution of Eumolpinae (Coleoptera: Chiysomelidae) illustrated in grey shading for Kentucky counties and states of the United States. New state records reported herein are shown in cross-hatch. Comments: Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Cornus (Cornaceae). Faria sellata (Horn) (Figure 3D) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Bullitt, Fayette, Hardin, Henry, LaRue, Lewis, Lincoln, Lo- gan, Robertson, Trigg Years: 1889 (1), 1983 (1), 2003 (1), 2004 (7), 2005 (20), 2006 (8), 2007 (12), 2008 (32), 2009 (12) Months: May (23), Tune (54), fuly (16), August (1) Abundance: 94 specimens: 1-CWC, 91- KYSU, 1-RJBC, 1-UKIC Comments: Several long series of speci- mens were taken on Hypericum dolabriforme (Clusiaceae). Faria sexnotata (Say) (Figure 3E) Kentucky Counties: Boone, Breckinridge, Bullitt, Carroll, Christian, Franklin, Hardin, Harlan, Henry, LaRue, Lewis, Lincoln, Lo- gan, Meade, Owen, Trigg, Wayne Years: 1971 (1), 1972 (1), 1974 (3), 1989 (1), 1993 (1), 1994 (1), 1996 (2), 2001 (1), 2003 10 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) (2) , 2004 (4), 2005 (12), 2006 (16), 2007 (7), 2008 (17), 2009 (2) Months: April (6), May (33), June (17), July (7), August (7), September (1) Abundance: 71 specimens: 1-BYUC, 10- CWC, 55-KYSU, 5-UKIC Comments: Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Juniperus (Cupressa- ceae). Faria thoracica (F. E. Melsheimer) (Fig- ure 3F) Kentucky Counties: Bath, Boyd, Bracken, Butler, Fayette, Franklin, Grayson, Green, Greenup, Harrison, Jefferson, Jessamine, Ken- ton, Lewis, Martin, Mercer, Nelson, Nicholas, Owsley, Pendleton, Robertson, Rowan, Scott, Trigg, Webster Years: 1893 (1), 1916 (4), 1917 (2), 1918 (1), 1920 (3), 1924 (3), 1945 (1), 1948 (1), 1959 (4), 1970 (1), 1971 (7), 1972 (1), 1976 (5), 1979 (2), 1983 (7), 1985 (2), 1992 (1), 1994 (1), 1995 (2), 1996 (1), 1998 (5), 1999 (1), 2001 (1), 2003 (5), 2004 (6), 2005 (48), 2006 (78), 2007 (53), 2008 (62) Months: March (3), May (57), June (165), July (79), August (5) Abundance: 309 specimens: 8-BYUC, 12- CWC, 242-KYSU, 15-RJBC, 32-UKIC Comments: Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Asteraceae. Typophorus nigritus viridicyaneus (Crotch) (Figure 4A) Kentucky Counties: Ballard, Bullitt, Frank- lin, Logan, Monroe, Trigg Years: 1967 (1), 1976 (1), 2005 (13), 2006 (13), 2007 (7), 2008 (10) Months: May (1), June (23), July (20), August (1) Abundance: 45 specimens: 1-CWC, 41- KYSU, 1-RJBC, 2-WKUC Comments: Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Convolvulaceae. Brachypnoea clypealis (Horn) (Figure 4B) Kentucky Counties: Boyd, Bracken, Breathitt, Bullitt, Carter, Casey, Clark, Franklin, Green, Greenup, Hardin, Henry, Jessamine, LaRue, Lee, Lewis, Logan, Madi- son, Ohio, Pulaski, Robertson, Russell Years: 1889 (12), 1890 (1), 1891 (17), 1892 (3) , 1893 (11), 1894 (11), 1917 (7), 1942 (2), 1944 (3), 1945 (2), 1946 (2), 1970 (2), 1971 (3), 1972 (1), 1988 (1), 1993 (4), 1994 (1), 1995 (3), 1998 (8), 2001 (1), 2003 (12), 2004 (5), 2005 (43), 2006 (19), 2007 (24), 2008 (1) Months: June (67), July (109), August (17), September (5), October (1) Abundance: 199 specimens: 16-BYUC, 14- CWC, 84-KYSU, 8-RJBC, 77-UKIC Comments: Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Asteraceae. Brachypnoea convexa (Say) (Figure 4C) Kentucky Counties: Franklin, Henry, Logan Years: 1996 (3), 2006 (2), 2007 (1) Months: June (2), July (4) Abundance: 6 specimens: 3-CWC, 3-KYSU Brachypnoea margaretae (Schultz) (Fig- ure 4D) Kentucky Counties: Ballard, Bourbon, Boyd, Breathitt, Bullitt, Calloway, Clay, Crittenden, Daviess, Fayette, Fulton, Garrard, Graves, Gray- son, Hardin, Henderson, Henry, Jessamine, LaRue, Lee, Lewis, Lincoln, Lyon, McLean, Meade, Mercer, Ohio, Owsley, Pendleton, Perry, Pike, Pulaski, Robertson, Rowan, Scott, Simpson, Spencer, Trigg, Warren, Webster, Woodford Years: 1889 (6), 1890 (5), 1891 (19), 1892 (10), 1893 (16), 1894 (28), 1895 (8), 1912 (4), 1920 (2), 1924 (2), 1926 (1), 1941 (2), 1945 (1), 1947 (5), 1968 (3), 1969 (1), 1970 (59), 1971 (40), 1972 (77), 1974 (4), 1975 (1), 1976 (1), 1983 (3), 1995 (4), 1997 (1), 2003 (7), 2004 (22), 2005 (50), 2006 (152), 2007 (106), 2008 (44) Months: April (4), May (26), June (375), July (262), August (16), October (1) Abundance: 684 specimens: 5-BYUC, 8- CWC, 373-KYSU, 3-RJBC, 292-UKIC, 3- WKUC Comments: Many specimens were collected via Malaise trap. Brachijpnoea puncticollis (Say) (Figure 4E) Kentucky Counties: Bullitt, Hardin, LaRue, Lincoln, Logan, Marion, Muhlenburg Years: 1944 (38), 1993 (1), 2005 (45), 2006 (43), 2007 (57), 2008 (23), 2009 (1) Months: May (169), June (38), July (1) Abundance: 208 specimens: 1-CWC, 169- KYSU, 38-UKIC Brachypnoea tristis (Olivier) (Figure 4F) Kentucky Counties: Barren, Bracken, Car- ter, Christian, Clark, Franklin, Grayson, Green, Greenup, Hardin, Henry, Lewis, Kentucky Eumolpinae Leaf Beetles — Barney et al. 11 Typophorus nigritus viridicyaneus (Crotch) Brachypnoea clypealis (Horn) XV. r^!V5> a fUf . Brachypnoea convexa (Say)^^^ Brachypnoea margaretae (Schultz) D Brachypnoea pimetimllis (Say) c-% X A X Brachypnoea tristis (Olivier) XV Iflf - Figure 4. The known distribution of Eumolpinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) illustrated in grey shading for Kentucky counties and states of the United States. New state records reported herein are shown in cross-hatch. Logan, Ohio, Powell, Robertson, Russell, Trigg, Warren, Wayne Years: 1952 (1), 1968 (1), 1987 (7), 1993 (2), 1994 (1), 1995 (1), 1998 (3), 2003 (6), 2005 (12), 2006 (2), 2007 (6), 2008 (5) Months: June (18), July (28), August (1) Abundance: 47 specimens: 13-BYUC, 7- CWC, 25-KYSU, 1-UKIC, 1-WKUC Comments: Many specimens were collected on Salix (Salicaceae). Colaspis brunnea (F.) (Figure 5A) Kentucky Counties: Bracken, Breathitt, Breckinridge, Carlisle, Casey, Clay, Critten- den, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Grant, Graves, Grayson, Hardin, Hart, Henry, LaRue, Lewis, Logan, Morgan, Nelson, Robertson, Rockcastle, Russell, Simpson, Taylor, Trigg Years: 1949 (9), 1962 (1), 1970 (2), 1971 (127), 1972 (15), 1974 (7), 1998 (3), 2004 (14), 2005 (27), 2006 (95), 2007 (31), 2008 (15) Months: May (1), June (64), July (245), August (35), September (1) Abundance: 346 specimens: 3-BYUC, 181- KYSU, 160-UKIC, 2-WKUC Comments: Many specimens were collected via Malaise trap in the 1970s. Clark et al. 12 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Figure 5. The known distribution of Eumolpinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) illustrated in grey shading for Kentucky counties and states of the United States. New state records reported herein are shown in cross-hatch. (2004) reported this species associated with Fabaceae. Colaspis favosa Say (Figure 5B) (new state record) Kentucky County: Trigg Year: 2008 (1) Month: June (1) Abundance: 1 specimen: 1-KYSU Comments: One specimen was collected at Fort Campbell on June 18, 2008. Colaspis suilla suilla F. (Figure 5C) (new state record) Kentucky County: Hardin Year: 2005 (1) Month: July (1) Abundance: 1 specimen: 1-KYSU Comments: One specimen was collected at Eastview Barrens State Nature Preserve on July 7, 2005. Glyptoscelis barbata (Say) (Figure 5D) Kentucky County: Edmonson Year: 1900 Month: July Abundance: unknown 13 Kentucky Eumolpinae Leaf Beetles — Barney et al. Comments: Blake (1967) reported this spe- cies from Edmonson County (July 17, 1900). Glyptoscelis pubescens (F.) (Figure 5E) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Bell, LaRue, Lee, Warren Years: 1892 (1), 1964 (1), 2002 (1), 2005 (1) Months: May (2), June (1), July (1) Abundance: 4 specimens: 1-CWC, 1-KYSU, 1-UKIC, 1-WKUC Myochrous denticollis (Say) (Figure 5F) Kentucky Counties: Caldwell, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Grayson, Logan, McCracken, Muhlenburg, Nelson, Todd Years: ca. 1900 (3), 1930 (19), 1937 (4), 1948 (7), 1959 (1), 1981 (1), 1983 (1), 1987 (1), 1988 (4), 2006 (1) Months: March (4), April (1), May (30), June (3), July (1) Abundance: 42 specimens: 3-CMC, 1- KYSU, 2-RJBC, 36-UKIC Comments: Three specimens in the Dury collection are labeled “Ky.,” with “Lee.” as collector. Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Pinaceae. Rhabdoptems deceptor Barber (Figure 6 A) Kentucky County: Franklin Year: 2005 (1) Month: June (1) Abundance: 1 specimen: 1-RJBC Rhabdoptems praetextus (Say) (Figure 6B) Kentucky Counties: Carter, LaRue, Lin- coln, Logan Years: 1995 (1), 2007 (4), 2008 (1) Months: May (4), June (1), August (1) Abundance: 6 specimens: 1-BYUC, 5-KYSU Spintherophyta globosa (Olivier) (Figure 6C) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Rowan, Whitley Years: 1988 (1), 1990 (1) Months: May (2) Abundance: 2 specimens: 2-BYUC Tymnes metasternalis (Crotch) (Figure 6D) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Jefferson, Logan Years: 1971 (1), 2005 (1), 2006 (1), 2007 (1), 2009 (1) Months: May (2), June (3) Abundance: 5 specimens: 4-KYSU, 1-UKIC Tymnes tricolor (F.) (Figure 6E) Kentucky Counties: Bullitt, Hardin, Jeffer- son, Rowan Years: ca. 1900 (1), 1945 (1), 1971 (1), 1976 (1), 1995 (1), 2004 (1) Months: March (1), June (3), August (1) Abundance: 6 specimens: 1-BYUC, 1- CMC, 1-KYSU, 1-RJBC, 2-UKIC Comments: One specimen in Dury collec- tion is labeled “Ky. near Cin. O.” Tymnes violaceus Horn (Figure 6F) (new state record) Kentucky County: Hardin Years: 2004 (1), 2005 (1) Months: May (1), June (1) Abundance: 2 specimens: 2-KYSU Comments: Both specimens were collected in Jim Scudder State Nature Preserve. Chrysochus auratus (F.) (Figure 7A) Kentucky Counties: Ballard, Bath, Boyd, Bullitt, Christian, Clark, Fayette, Franklin, Grant, Grayson, Hardin, Hopkins, LaRue, Lawrence, Lewis, Logan, Nelson, Pendleton, Pulaski, Robertson, Rowan, Scott, Simpson, Warren, Wayne, Whitley Years: 1892 (1), 1963 (1), 1967 (1), 1970 (1), 1971 (19), 1972 (1), 1983 (7), 1985 (5), 1987 (1), 1992 (1), 1993 (3), 1994 (1), 1995 (5), 2000 (1), 2002 (2), 2003 (4), 2004 (2), 2005 (32), 2006 (7), 2007 (3), 2008 (5), 2009 (2) Months: May (3), June (57), July (37), August (7), September (1) Abundance: 105 specimens: 6-BYUC, 12- CWC, 49-KYSU, 9-RJBC, 26-UKIC, 3- WKUC Comments: Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Apocynum (Apocyna- ceae). Demotina modesta Baly (Figure 7B) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Ohio, Trigg Years: 2007 (13), 2008 (3) Months: May (13), June (3) Abundance: 16 specimens: 13-BYUC, 3- KYSU Comments: All specimens were found in two recent collection events. This species is an 14 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Figure 6. The known distribution of Eumolpinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) illustrated in grey shading for Kentucky counties and states of the United States. New state records reported herein are shown in cross-hatch. established immigrant to North America. Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Quercus (Fagaceae). Fidia confusa Strother (Figure 7C) Kentucky Counties: unknown Years: unknown Months: unknown Abundance: unknown Comments: Strother and Staines (2008) ref- erenced eight specimens from Kentucky with no further label data. Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Vitis (Vitaceae). Fidia longipes (F. E. Melsheimer) (Fig- ure 7D) (new state record) Kentucky Counties: Fayette, Pendleton, Pulaski, Russell Years: 1971 (4), 1989 (1), 2005 (1) Months: June (3), July (2), August (1) Abundance: 6 specimens: 1-BYUC, 1- KYSU, 4-UKIC Comments: Several specimens were collected via Malaise trap. Strother and Staines (2008) did not examine any Kentucky specimens but their distribution map showed the eastern F. longipes meeting the western F. rileijorwn in the state. Kentucky Eumolpinae Leaf Beetles — Barney et at. 15 Figure 7. The known distribution of Eumolpinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) illustrated in grey shading for Kentucky counties and states of the United States. New state records reported herein are shown in cross-hatch. Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Vitis (Vitaceae). Fidia rileyorum Strother (Figure 7E) Kentucky Counties: Christian, Franklin, Henderson, Jefferson, LaRue Year: 2006 (2) Month: June (2) Abundance: 2 specimens: 2-KYSU Comments: Two specimens were collected at Thompson Creek Glades State Nature Preserve along the road. Strother and Staines (2008) reported this species from Christian, Franklin, Henderson and Jefferson Counties and the distribution map (Figure 7E) is based upon their data. Fidia viticida Walsh (Figure 7F) Kentucky Counties: Bracken, Henderson, Powell Year: 1998 (2) Month: July (2) Abundance: 2 specimens: 2-BYUC Comments: Two specimens were collected near the Ohio River. Strother and Staines (2008) reported this species from Henderson and Powell counties. Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Vitis (Vitaceae). 16 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Xanthonia angulata Xanthonia decemnotata (Say) ^ ■ Xanthonia serrata Staines & Weisman Xanthonia striata Staines^iW c D Xanthonia villosuht (F. E. Melsheimer) Figure 8. The known distribution of Eumolpinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) illustrated in grey shading for Kentucky counties and states of the United States. New state records reported herein are shown in cross-hatch. Xanthonia angulata Staines & Weisman (Fig- ure 8A) (new state record) Kentucky County: Logan Year: 2005 (1) Month: May (1) Abundance: 1 specimen: 1-KYSU Comments: One specimen was collected at Raymond Athey State Nature Preserve. Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Quercus (Fagaceae). Xanthonia decemnotata (Say) (Figure 8B) Kentucky Counties: Breathitt, Fulton, Mar- tin, Rowan Years: 1982 (1), 1994 (2), 2003 (1) Months: April (1), May (2), June (1) Abundance: 4 specimens: 2-BYUC, 1- CWC, 1-UKIC Comments: Staines and Weisman (2001) reported this species from Fulton (Fulton County) based upon material in the United States National Museum. Xanthonia serrata Staines & Weisman (Fig- ure 8C) (new state record) Kentucky County: Nelson Year: 2009 (1) Month: June (1) Kentucky Eumolpinae Leaf Beetles — Barney et al. 17 Abundance: 1 specimen: 1-KYSU Comments: One specimen was collected at Berheim Forest. Xanthonia striata Staines & Weisman (Fig- ure 8D) Kentucky County: Meade Year: unknown Month: unknown Abundance: unknown Comments: Staines and Weisman (2001) reported this species from Fort Knox (Meade County). Clark et al. (2004) reported this species associated with Quercus (Fagaceae). Xanthonia villosula (F. E. Meslheimer) (Fig- ure 8E) Kentucky Counties: Bullitt, LaRue, Logan, Trigg Years: 1907 (4), 2006 (2), 2009 (1) Months: June (5), July (2) Abundance: 7 specimens: 4-CMC, 3-KYSU Comments: Four specimens in the Dury collection are labeled “Ky. near Cin. O., June 21, 1907.” Staines and Weisman (2001) report- ed this species from Cadiz (Trigg County; June 30, 1939) in the Snow Entomological Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence. DISCUSSION We believe the data presented here are the most complete representation of eumolpine leaf beetles known from Kentucky. The large number of new state records documented here (20 of 46 species, or 43%) reflects a historical lack of leaf beetle collecting in Kentucky. Fourteen species (31% of total) were found as a result of the recent (2004- 2009) extensive collecting effort, including ten of the new state records. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are extended to Michael Sharkey and Martha Potts (UKIC), Keith Philips (WKUC), Greg Dahlem (CMC), and Charles Wright (CWC) for access to their collections. We thank the following people for granting access to the protected habitats they manage: Joyce Bender, Lane Linnenkohl and Zeb Weese, Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission; Jeff Sole and John Burnett, The Nature Conservancy Kentucky Chapter; Steve McMillen, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife; Andrew Leonard, Fort Campbell Fisheries and Wildlife Program; Andrew Berry, Bernheim Forest; and Steve Bloemer, USDA Forest Service. We also thank Joyce Owens (formerly of KYSU) for sorting, organizing and transcribing, and Sarah Hall (KYSU) for creation of the distribution maps. This research was supported by USDA- CSREES Project KYX-10-05-39P. LITERATURE CITED Balsbaugh, E. U. 1970. Review of the genus Paria (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) of North America. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 63:453-460. Barney, R. J., S. M. Clark, and E. G. Riley. 2007. Annotated list of the leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chry- somelidae) of Kentucky: subfamily Cassidinae. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 68:132-144. Barney, R. J., S. M. Clark, and E. G. Riley. 2008a. Annotated list of the subfamilies Donaciinae and Criocerinae. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 69:29-36. Barney, R. J., S. M. Clark, and E. G. Riley. 2008b. Annotated list of the leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysome- lidae) of Kentucky: subfamily Chrysomelinae. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 69:91-100. Barney, R. J., S. M. Clark, and E. G. Riley. 2009a. Annotated list of the leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chry- somelidae) of Kentucky: subfamily Galerucinae, tribes Galerucini and Luperini. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 70:17-28. Barney, R. J., S. M. Clark, and E. G. Riley. 2009b. Annotated list of the leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chry- somelidae) of Kentucky: subfamily Galerucinae, tribe Alticini. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 70(l):29-55. Baskin, J. M., C. C. Baskin, and E. W. Chester. 1994. The Big Barrens Region of Kentucky and Tennessee: further observations and considerations. Castanea 59:226-254. Blake, D. H. 1967. A revision of the chrysomelid genus Glyptoscelis (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Proceedings of the United States National Museum 123(no. 3604): 1-53. Blake, D. H. 1970. A review of the beetles of the genus Metachroma Chevrolat (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology No. 57:1-111. Blake, D. H. 1974. The costate species of Colaspis in the United States (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Smithso- nian Contributions to Zoology 181:iii + 1-24. Clark, S. M„ D. G. LeDoux, T. N. Seeno, E. G. Riley, A. J. Gilbert, and J. M. Sullivan. 2004. Host plants of leaf beetle species occurring in the United States and Canada. The Coleopterists Society, Special Publication No. 2. 476 pp. Jones, R. L. 2005. Plant Life of Kentucky. University Press of Kentucky. 834 pp. 18 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Riley, E. G., S. M. Clark, and T. N. Seeno. 2003. Catalog of the leaf beetles of America north of Mexico. The Coleopterists Society, Special Publication No. 1. 290 pp. Staines, C. L., and D. M. Weisman. 2001. The species of Xanthonia Baly 1863 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Eumolpinae) in North America east of the Mississippi River. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 103:157-183. Strother, M. S., and C. L. Staines. 2008. A revision of the New World genus Fidia Baly 1863 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Eumolpinae: Adoxini). Zootaxa 1798: 1-100. Vulinec, K., and R. A. Davis. 1984. Coleoptera types in the Charles Dury Collection of the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History. The Coleopterists Bulletin 38:232- 239. Wilcox, J. A. 1957. A revision of the North America species of Paria Lee. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin no. 365:1-45. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 71(l-2):19-25. 2010. Eastern Mistletoe (Phoradendron leucarpum, Viscaceae) Infestation of Host Trees in Jessamine County, Kentucky Ralph L. Thompson1 Hancock Biological Station, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky 42701, and Berea College Herbarium, Department of Biology, Berea College, Berea, Kentucky 40404 and Christopher A. Evans Department of Biological Sciences, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky 42701 ABSTRACT Eastern mistletoe [ Phoradendron leucarpum (Raf.) Reveal & M.C. Johnston] was observed on 1104 host trees from 10 species and 8 families in Jessamine County, east-central Kentucky within the Inner Bluegrass and Hills of the Bluegrass Ecoregions. Juglans nigra was the major host tree (609 trees) followed by Primus serotina (259 trees), Ulmus americana (116 trees), Robinia pseudoacacia (43 trees) and Celtis occidentalis (39 trees). The top three host species accounted for 89.1% of the infested trees. Eastern mistletoe exhibits an aggregated or clumped spatial distribution pattern among host trees characteristic of its life history and avian fruit and seed dispersal. KEY WORDS: Eastern mistletoe, Phoradendron leucarpum, Viscaceae, host trees. Jessamine County, Kentucky INTRODUCTION Eastern mistletoe or American mistletoe [Phoradendron leucarpum (Raf.) Reveal & M.C. Johnston, Viscaceae] is an evergreen, epiphytic, dioecious hemiparasitic shrub of various deciduous woody taxa throughout the eastern United States. The distribution range of eastern mistletoe (hereafter, mistletoe) is Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, northward from southeastern Missouri to southern Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia, eastward to southern Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland, southward through the Atlantic coastal states, the Gulf Coastal States, and westward to eastern Texas and Oklahoma (Kuijt 2003). We conducted an inventory of host trees infested with Phoradendron leucarpum in Jessamine County, located in east-central Kentucky within the Inner Bluegrass and Hills of the Bluegrass Regions (Figure 1). These two physiographic regions are charac- terized by soils developed over Ordovician limestone bedrock. Seven Kentucky mistletoe studies have been published (Reed and Reed 1 Corresponding author e-mail: ralph_thompson@berea. edu 1951; Thompson 1992; Thompson and Noe, Jr. 2003; Thompson 2005; Thompson and Poindexter 2005; Thompson et al. 2008; Thompson and Rivers Thompson 2009). Our survey is an ongoing project to deter- mine host tree specificity in selected eco- regions of Kentucky. Braun (1943) reported that eastern mistle- toe was especially abundant in the Bluegrass Region (Inner and Outer) and widely distrib- uted throughout Kentucky on several tree species. Schneck (1884) found mistletoe to be common on black walnut ( Juglans nigra L.) and black cherry ( Prunus serotina Ehrh.) in the Kentucky Bluegrass Region. Garman (1913) noted that mistletoe was restricted mainly to black walnut in the Bluegrass Region and occurred less frequently on black locust ( Robinia pseudoacacia L.), American elm ( Ulmus americana L.), and other trees. Wharton and Barbour (1991) stated that mistletoe was present on several tree species in the Inner Bluegrass, with black walnut the most frequent, but it occurred occasionally on elms ( Ulmus spp.) and common hackberry ( Celtis occidentalis L.). Reed and Reed (1951) reported that mistletoe in the Bluegrass Region of Ordovician limestone hemiparasitic 19 20 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Figure 1. Jessamine County, Kentucky. (1) Inner Bluegrass and (2) Hills of the Bluegrass Ecoregions (Woods et al. 2002). Figure adapted from General Highway Map, Jessamine County (Kentucky Department of Transportation 1999). on black walnut, elms, black locust, honey locust ( Gleditsia tricanthos L.), common hackberry, maples (Acer spp.), Osage orange [Maclura pomifera (Raf.) Schnneid.], white ash ( Fraxinus americana L.), and black cherry in descending order of frequency. In Jessa- mine County, Reed and Reed (1951) collected mistletoe from Prunus serotina (18665 A US), Maclura pomifera (18665 US), and Juglans nigra (18666 US) near High Bridge on limestone substrate. They also observed it on Celtis occidentalis in the vicinity but made no collections. STUDY SITE OVERVIEW Location In east-central Kentucky, Jessamine County is contiguous to Fayette County to the north, Madison County to the east, Garrard County Eastern Mistletoe in Jessamine County, KY — Thompson and Evans 21 to the south, Mercer County to the southwest, and Woodford County to the west. The Kentucky River delineates the eastern, south- ern, and southwestern boundaries of Jessa- mine County adjoining Madison, Garrard, and Mercer Counties The county is bisected by the north-trending four-lane highway, U.S. 27 (Figure 1). Jessamine County is comprised of an area of 458 km2 (45,844 hectares) of land surface (McDonald et al. 1983). Nicholasville is the county seat and largest city with a population of over 27,000 people. The city lies almost directiy in the middle of the county at latitude 37°52'58" (37.882778) N and longitude 84°34'36" (84.576667) W. Wilmore, the second largest city with a population of over 6000 people, is located in the western part of the county at 37°51'47" (37.863056) N latitude and 84°39'28" (84.657778) W longitude. Physiography and Geology Keys et al. (1995) classified east-central Kentucky into the Interior Low Plateau, Bluegrass Section, Inner Bluegrass Subsection of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest. Woods et al. (2002) subdivided Jessamine County into the Inner Bluegrass and Hills of the Bluegrass Ecoregions within the Interior Plateau Region based on geology, soils, topography, and vegetation (Figure 1). The Inner Bluegrass is underlain by Middle Ordovician limestone of the Lexington Formation and High Bridge Group above the Kentucky River Fault System. The Lexington Formation occurs throughout most of central, western, and northern Jessamine County. The High Bridge Group limestones form a narrow border or band along the Kentucky River, Jessamine Creek, Hickman Creek, and other smaller tributaries in the southwest part of the county. The Hills of the Bluegrass are composed of Upper Ordovician limestone and embedded calcareous shale and siltstones of the Garrard Siltstone and Clays Ferry Limestone Forma- tions. The Hills of the Bluegrass borderline approximates the Kentucky River Fault Zone in the mid-eastern and southeastern portions of Jessamine County (Figure 1). Quaternary alluvium is found along Kentucky River, Jessamine Creek, Hickman Creek, Town Fork, Sinking Creek, Clear Creek East, and other small creeks (McDowell et al. 1981). In Jessamine County, elevations at sea level range from 152 m at the Kentucky River below High Bridge at 292 m to 270 m at Wilmore, 290 m at Nicholasville and reach the highest point at 327 m near Brannon in the Inner Bluegrass. In the Hills of the Bluegrass, elevations range from 155 m at the Kentucky River to 274 m at Pink and peak around 286 m at Sulfur Well (Figure 1). Soils Major soil associations of Jessamine County are the Maury- McAfee, McAfee-Maury- Fairmont, Fairmont-Rock Outcrop, and the Eden-Culleoka Associations (McDonald et al. 1983). These four soil associations consist of well-drained, residual soils derived from predominantly limestone parent materials within both ecoregions. The Maury-McAfee Association is moderately deep to deep, alkaline to slightly acid loamy soils on level to undulating Inner Bluegrass uplands in the central and northern part of the Jessamine County. The McAfee-Maury-Fairmont Asso- ciation is shallow to deep, alkaline to slightly acid loamy and clayey soils on rolling to hilly Inner Bluegrass uplands on the eastern and western part of the county. The Fairmont- Rock Outcrop Association is comprised of shallow, surficial, alkaline clayey soils and limestone outcrops on the precipices and cliffs of the Kentucky River Palisades. The Eden- Culleoka Association is moderately deep, neutral to acid droughty loamy and clayey soils on upland hilly ridges and steep valleys of the Hills of the Bluegrass in southeastern Jessamine County (McDonald et al. 1983). Vegetation Braun (1950) classified the vegetation of the Interior Low Plateau of Kentucky as belong- ing to the Western Mesophytic Forest Region, a transitional mosaic of mixed oak-hickory ( Quercus-Carya ) Forest and Mixed Meso- phytic Forest. Kiichler (1964) classified the potential natural vegetation of this part of Kentucky in the eastern deciduous forest region as Quercus-Carya forest. Upland communities in the two ecoregions of Jessa- mine County are represented by a scattered assortment of agricultural croplands, pastures, woodlands, forests, and developed land. The 22 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Inner Bluegrass is mainly comprised of the oak-ash-red cedar ( Quercus-Fraxinus-Juni - penis) association on xeric rolling terrain and the oak-black locust-elm ( Quercus-Robinia - Ulmus) association on more mesic undulating sites (Campbell 1987). The Hills of the Bluegrass are dominated by the Quercus- Carya-Junipems association on xeric, hilly terrain and the oak-ash-elm ( Quercus-Frax - inus-Ulmus) association or mixed hardwoods on mesic steep terrain (Woods et al. 2002). Climate The climate of Kentucky is humid mesother- mal usually without water deficiency through- out the year and characterized by cool to cold winters and warm to hot summers (Trewartha and Horn 1980). Kentucky climatic data (1971-2000) are from the weather station at Dix River Dam, Mercer County, 7.3 km southwest of Jessamine County. Mean annual precipitation is 116.2 cm with October the lowest at 7.9 cm and May the highest at 12.4 cm. A mean annual snowfall of 14.2 cm occurs mainly in January. Mean annual tem- perature is 13.9°C with January the coldest month at 1.3°C and July the warmest month at 25.1°C. Mean length of the growing season is 203 days with the median first fall frost on 29 October, and the median last spring frost on 10 April (Kentucky Climate Center 2009). METHODS AND MATERIALS We conducted a survey of eastern mistletoe host trees within Jessamine County, Ken- tucky, from 9-13 February, and 14-16 March 2008, when tree leaves were not present. A Jessamine County General Highway Map was used for reference to all paved and unpaved county roads (Kentucky Department of Trans- portation 1999). Nikon Monarch™ binoculars (8 X 42 power) were used to spot visible signs of mistletoe infestation. Mistletoe-infested trees were identified, recorded by species, visible signs of mistletoe noted, and clumps/ clusters counted. Representative mistletoe vouchers and accompanying host twigs were collected from host trees using a 12-m extendable fiberglass linesman pole with an attached hook. Specimens were dried, mount- ed, labeled, and deposited in the Berea Table 1. Host trees of Phoradendron leucarpum in Jessamine County, Kentucky. Tree species Number of host trees Percentage of host trees Juglans nigra L. 609 55.16 Pninus serotina Ehrh. 259 23.46 Ulmus americana L. 116 10.51 Robinia pseudoacacia L. 43 3.90 Celtis occidentalis L. 39 3.53 Gleditsia triacanthos L. 16 1.45 Fraxinus americana L. 10 0.91 Maclura pomifera (Raf.) Schneid 7 0.63 Acer saccharinum L. 3 0.27 Acer saccharum Marsh. 2 0.18 Total: 10 1104 100.00 College Herbarium (BEREA). Plant nomen- clature followed Jones (2005). RESULTS Phoradendron leucarpum was observed on 1104 trees from 10 host tree species and 8 families within Jessamine County. The pre- dominant host tree species were black walnut with 609 trees (55.16%) followed by black cherry with 259 trees (23.46%), American elm with 116 trees (10.51%), black locust with 43 trees (3.90%), and common hackberry with 39 trees (3.53%) (Table 1). The most abundant species accounted for 89.13% of the mistletoe- infested trees. Other trees in decreasing order of occurrence were honey locust ( Gleditsia triacanthos L.), white ash, Osage orange, silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.), and sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.) (Table 1). A majority of these calciphilous host taxa, 868 host trees, were found in the larger, open- canopy forested Inner Bluegrass E coregion and 236 host trees were recorded in the smaller area of the more closed-canopy forested Hills of the Bluegrass Ecoregion. DISCUSSION Black walnut, and black cherry were the two most important host trees in other eastern mistletoe surveys in east-central Kentucky (Thompson 1992; Thompson and Poindexter 2005; Thompson et al. 2008; Thompson and Rivers Thompson 2009). Schneck (1884) was accurate in his observations and assessment of mistletoe infesting mostly black walnut and black cherry in the Kentucky Bluegrass Region. Black cherry was not even noted as a host tree by Garman (1913), Braun (1943), Eastern Mistletoe in Jessamine County, KY — Thompson and Evans and Wharton and Barbour (1991), while Reed and Reed (1951) referred to it as an infre- quent host tree in the Bluegrass Region. All 10 host tree species in Jessamine County were present in a contiguous Garrard County mistletoe survey (Thompson and Poindexter 2005). The order of occurrence in Jessamine County is the same as for Garrard County for the first four host trees: black walnut, black cherry, American elm, and black locust. Jessa- mine County had considerably fewer mistletoe- infested trees (1104) than two nearby east- central Kentucky counties. Adjacent Garrard County had 1740 mistletoe-infested trees (Thompson and Poindexter 2005) and Rock- castie County had 3502 trees infested with mistietoe (Thompson and Noe, Jr. 2003). Fewer mistletoe-infested trees in Jessamine County may be partly correlated with it being a considerably smaller county for host tree presence and with a larger proportion agricul- tural cropland and urban residential, commer- cial and industrial-developed land. Jessamine County is also comprised of two ecoregions, the Inner Bluegrass and the Hills of the Bluegrass. Garrard County lies primarily in the Ordovician Inner Bluegrass and Hills of the Bluegrass Ecoregions with Ordovician Outer Bluegrass and a small portion of Devonian- Missis sippian Knobs-Norman Uplands. Both Jessamine and Garrard Counties are characterized by Ordovi- cian limestone geology, calcareous soils, forest vegetation of calciphilous hardwood and red cedar stands, and similar topographic- moisture relief and physiographic terrain. The major portion of Jessamine County is open, undulating Inner Bluegrass with mainly upland open-canopied forest, while the eastern Hills of the Bluegrass are largely composed of steeper, hilly topography occu- pied by both lowland and upland closed- canopied forest. Mistletoe-infested trees tend to be solitary or scattered calciphilous species of pastures, fields, woodlots, groves, fencerows, and forest edges throughout the level, rolling, and hilly topography. The availability of tall, mature open-canopied trees in upland terrain, rather than lowland forest terrain or closed-canopy upland for- ests, is an important factor in mistletoe infestation (Thompson and Noe, Jr. 2003; Thompson and Poindexter 2005; Thompson and Rivers Thompson 2009). 23 The small and older unincorporated towns, e.g., Bethel, Black Bridge, Brannon, Camp Nelson, Dixon Town, High Bridge, Keene, Sulfur Well, Union Mills, and Vineyard, had more mistletoe-infested trees than the faster- growing, urban-developed cities of Nicholas- ville and Wilmore. This observation is in contrast with other eastern mistletoe studies in east-central Kentucky that showed larger urban towns or cities with an overall greater mistletoe infestation (Thompson and Noe, Jr. 2003; Thompson and Poindexter 2005; Thompson et al. 2008). The greater distribu- tion of mistletoe in unincorporated towns could be partly because these towns have taller, older open-crowned trees in close proximity to each other which are preferred sites for birds to perch, feed, and roost. Eastern mistletoe exhibits an aggregated spatial distribution pattern among its host trees. This clumped spatial pattern is a function of mistletoe dioecious life history, avian dispersal of viscous mistletoe seeds, subsequent seed germination and establish- ment in suitable host trees, and the distribu- tion and availability of host trees for infesta- tion (Panvini and Eickmeier 1993; Thompson and Noe, Jr. 2003; Thompson and Rivers Thompson 2009). It is well documented that eastern mistletoe has a considerable host tree specificity in certain geographical regions over others. In addition, the same tree species over a large geological or physiographic region may have infestation in one area and non-infestation in another area. Infestation or non-infestation of trees has been connected to physiography, geological substrates, soils, existing vegetation, and host tree availability (Panvini 1991; Panvini and Eickmeier 1993; Reed and Reed 1951; Thompson and Noe, Jr. 2003). All abiotic and biotic factors in conjunction with climate over time determine the vegetation for any given geographical region. Moreover, through- out the Kentucky counties of the Inner Low Plateau, the Oak-Hickory Forest Region is comprised of certain calciphilous hardwood trees that are more susceptible to mistletoe- infestation than others. Mistletoe infestation of certain host trees and not others when host trees are readily present in a geographical region must be highly correlated to the genetics of eastern 24 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) mistletoe, i.e., the presence of mistletoe host races. Dres and Mallet (2002) defined host races as “genetically differentiated sympatric populations of parasites that use different hosts, and between which there is appreciable gene flow.” Panvini (1991) found genetic variation from allozyme studies as evidence for host races within and among populations of Phoradendron leucarpum. Ample evidence for host races in species of the Viscaceae is supported from numerous studies; e.g., a molecular genetic study of the European mistletoe ( Viscum album L.) has provided reliable evidence for three host races (sub- species) for host specificity (Zuber and Widmer 2000). Further molecular genetic studies of Phoradendron leucarpum are need- ed to further elucidate genetic relationships between host races and host specificity. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We extend our appreciation to Derick B. Poindexter, Appalachian State University, for a critical review of the original manuscript, and Melanie G. Bentley, Eastern Kentucky University, for the Jessamine County map. LITERATURE CITED Braun, E. L. 1943. An annotated catalog of sperm atophytes of Kentucky. John S. Swiff & Co., Inc., Cincinnati, OH. Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press, New York, NY. Campbell, J. J. N. 1987. Gradients of tree composition in the central hardwood region. Pages 325-346 in R. L. Hay, F. W. Woods, and H. DeSelm (eds). Proceedings of the 6th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Dres, M., and J. Mallet. 2002. Host races in plant-feeding insects and their importance in sympatric speciation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 357:471-492. Garman, H. 1913. The woody plants of Kentucky. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 169:3-62. Jones, R. L. 2005. Plant life of Kentucky: an illustrated guide to the vascular flora. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. Kentucky Climate Center. 2009. The Kentucky Climate Center at Western Kentucky University. Historical climate data: station climate summaries — Dix Dam, Kentucky. ( http ://kyclim . wku . edu/climate/s tations_viewer . html). Accessed (15 January 2010). Kentucky Department of Transportation. 1999. General highway map 1999 edition, Jessamine County, Ken- tucky. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Department of Highways, Division of Planning, Frankfort, KY. Keys, Jr., J. E., C. A. Carpenter, S. L. Hooks, F. G. Koenig, W. H. McNab, W. E. Russell, and M.-L. Smith. 1995. Ecological units of the eastern U.S. — first approximation (colored map and booklet of map unit table. (Map scale 3,500,000 scale) United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Atlanta, GA. Kiichler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States (map and accompanying manual). American Geographic Society, Special Publi- cation No. 36. New York, NY. Kuijt, J. 2003. Monograph of Phoradendron (Viscaceae). Systematic Botany Monographs 66:1-643. McDonald, H. P., R. P. Sims, D. Isgrig, and R. L. Blevins. 1983. Soil survey of Jessamine and Woodford counties, Kentucky. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Washington, DC. McDowell, R. C., G. J. Grabowski, Jr., and S. L. Moore. 1981. Geologic map of Kentucky. (Map scale 1:250,000) United States Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Panvini, A. D. 1991. The physiological ecology and population genetics of Phoradendron leucarpum (Raf.) Rev. & M.C. Johnston, a hemiparasitic mistletoe. Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Panvini, A. D., and W. G. Eickmeier. 1993. Nutrient and water relations of the mistletoe Phoradendron leucar- pum (Viscaceae): How tightly are they integrated? American Journal of Botany 80:872-878. Reed, C. F., and P. G. Reed. 1951. Host distribution of mistletoe in Kentucky. Castanea 16:7-15. Schneck, J. 1884. Notes on Phoradendron flavescens, Nutt. II. Botanical Gazette 9:101-103. Thompson, R. L. 1992. Host occurrence of Phoradendron leucarpum in the Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot, Blue Grass Facility, Madison County, Kentucky. Trans- actions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 53:170-171. Thompson, R. L. 2005. Host occurrence of eastern mistletoe ( Phoradendron leucarpum, Viscaceae) in Robertson County, Kentucky. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 66:137-138. Thompson, R. L., and F. D. Noe, Jr. 2003. American mistletoe ( Phoradendron leucarpum, Viscaceae) in Rockcastle County, Kentucky. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 64:29-35. Thompson, R. L., and D. B. Poindexter. 2005. Host specificity of American mistletoe ( Phoradendron leu- carpum, Viscaceae) in Garrard County. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 66:40^43. Thompson, R. L., and K. Rivers Thompson. 2009. Incidence of Phoradendron leucarpum (Viscaceae) at General Burnside State Park, Pulaski County, Ken- tucky. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 70:12-16. Thompson, R. L., K. Rivers Thompson, E. A. Fleming, R. D. Cooks, J. R. Price, M. N. Naseman, and A. J. Oles. 2008. Eastern mistletoe ( Phoradendron leucar- pum, Viscaceae) in the city of Berea, Kentucky: a high incidence of infestation and eight new host species for Eastern Mistletoe in Jessamine County, KY — Thompson and Evans 25 Kentucky. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 69:3-10. Trewartha, G. T., and L. H. Horn. 1980. An introduction to climate. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY. Wharton, M. E., and R. W. Barbour. 1991. Bluegrass land & life: land character, plants, and animals of the Inner Bluegrass Region of Kentucky. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. Woods, A. J., J. M. Omemik, W. H. Martin, G. J. Pond, W. M. Andrews, S. M. Call, J. A. Comstock, and D. D. Taylor. 2002. Ecoregions of Kentucky (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photo- graphs). United States Geological Survey, (Map scale 1:000,000). Reston, VA. Zuber, D., and A. Widmer. 2000. Genetic evidence for host specificity in the hemi-parasitic Viscum album L. (Viscaceae). Molecular Ecology 9:1069-1073. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 71(l-2):26-35. 2010. An Evaluation of the Fishes of Obion Creek with the Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity W. Grady Wells1 2112 Biology Building, Department of Biological Sciences, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky 42071 ABSTRACT Nineteen locations were sampled in the Obion Creek drainage from July 2007 until May 2008 to determine species composition of fishes in the channelized drainage in western Kentucky and evaluate anthropogenic disturbances with the Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity. The Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity (KIBI) was used to evaluate 17 of the 19 locations. Survey results of the Obion Creek drainage listsl8 families represented by 65 species. The Obion Creek drainage is in the Jackson Purchase area of western Kentucky; an area where a majority of the land is in heavy agricultural use. Five species collected were considered rare by the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission: blacktail shiner ( Cyprinella venusta), taillight shiner ( Notropis maculatus ), lake chubsucker ( Erimyzon succeta), chain pickerel ( Esox niger), and central mudminnow ( Umbra limi). Three species collected were considered exotic and highly invasive: grass carp ( Ctenopharyngodon idella), silver carp ( Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), and the common carp ( Cyprinus carpio). Species richness has increased over previous collections in a 40 year period. Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity scores ranged from fair to poor in the Obion Creek drainage. KEY WORDS: Obion Creek, channelized, Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity, Jackson Purchase area INTRODUCTION The Jackson Purchase area is a unique and definable area in Kentucky and is the only portion of the state that is in the Gulf Coastal Plain (Webb 1974). There are four major streams draining the Purchase region: Obion Creek, Bayou de Chien, Clarks River, and Mayfield Creek. All four streams have expe- rienced major hydromodification and habitat change throughout the 20th century (Table 1). Obion Creek originates in Graves County and flows approximately 67 km (42 mi) westward to its confluence with the Mississippi River near Hickman, Kentucky (Smith 1968). The Obion Creek watershed is in agricultural area and comprises an area of 83,409 ha (206,108 ac) in the following counties: Graves, Hick- man, Carlisle, and Fulton (Smith 1968). Murphy’s Pond lies in the Obion Creek floodplain and is a natural cypress swamp that is located adjacent to the mainstem of Obion Creek in the northeast corner of Hickman County and may have a species composition similar to when it was formed (Timmons 1988). Obion Creek is spring-fed and is a low gradient, fifth order stream presently with few riffles (McMurray 2004). The stream charac- teristics found by Smith in 1968 were an 1 Corresponding author e-mail: gwells@mscc.edu alternating series of deep, sluggish pools and swift, well defined riffles. The majority of the stream substrates are comprised of clay-like mud situated beneath sand, gravel, and woody debris (McMurray 2004). Natural streams meander and have pool- riffles patterns (Orth and White 1999). Channelization destroys natural stream habi- tat by straightening the channel and reducing the length of the stream. Continual sedimen- tation may cause gradual depletion of fish habitat (Larsen 1999). Channelization can have devastating effects on resident fish fauna and can reduce numbers and biomass of sport fishes by 90% in warm water streams (Rabeni and Jacobson 1999). It is potentially the most comprehensively destructive activity that hu- mans can impose on a stream (Hubbard et al. 1993). Paul L. Smith (1968) was the first to thoroughly sample the fishes of Obion Creek. His survey was conducted in 1968 prior to several major flood and silt control measures and resulted in 54 species. He used gill nets, rotenone, and three different types of seines. Previously, the only published data on Obion Creek was that of Albert J. Woolman, who collected fishes in the summer of 1890. He sampled for two days and collected thirty species near Cypress in Hickman County, Kentucky, an area near the present-day 26 Fishes of Obion Creek — Wells 27 Table 1. History of hydromodification events in the Obion Creek drainage (Rundle and Spencer 1997). Date Event 1916 10 mile stretch of Obion Creek in upper drainage cleared. 1924 First attempt at channelization of Obion, Mayfield, and Bayou de Chien unsuccessful. 1920s Obion Creek and Bayou de Chien channelization began by using a floating dredge. 1927 First reaches of Mayfield Creek channelized. 1937 Channelization completed at Mayfield Creek. 1940s Kentucky Highway 307 built. 1965 Congress authorizes Obion Creek flood control improvement project in the Flood Control Act of 1965. 1960s Soil Conservation Service channelized Little Creek. 1980 Obion Creek cleared out from Pryorsburg to a very short distance west of Kentucky highway 307. 1990 Obion Creek cleared out from Kentucky Highway 307 for a distance past the powerline that runs adjacent to Kentucky Highway 307 to the east. Wallace Tract of the Obion Creek Wildlife Management Area. Woolman (1890) de- scribed the stream as narrow and deep. The bottom was characterized as mud that was 61 cm to 122 cm (2 to 4 ft) deep, lying on a stratum of “quicksand” making fish collections difficult (Woolman 1890). Timmons (1988) collected 31 species during 1984— 1986 in Murphy’s Pond and Obion Creek adjacent to the cypress swamp. The most recent sampling efforts on Obion Creek occurred in the summer of 1987 by the Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources. Thirty-six species were collected at 11 sites (McLemore and Mattucks 1988). Backpack electro fishers and boat elec- trofishers were used. Also, the toxicant rote- none was used in their sampling efforts. My objectives were to compare fish species composition and distributions in Obion Creek after 40 years of modification since Smith’s study (1968) and to evaluate each site with the Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity (KIBI). The Kentucky Index is an adaptation of the original Index of Biotic Integrity created by Karr (1981). MATERIALS AND METHODS Twelve of Smith’s 1968 collection sites were selected in the Obion Creek drainage, and additional sampling locations were based on accessibility using regional USGS 1:24,000 scale maps. Sites were sampled in late summer and early fall 2007 and spring 2008 using a Smith-Root Inc. LR-24 (24 volt) backpack electrofishing unit and 3.4 X 1.8 m seines. The mouth of Obion Creek was sampled with an electrofishing boat provided and operated by the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. Because 17 of the 19 locations were scored with the Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity (KIBI-see below), sites sampled with backpack electro- fishing unit were shocked for 600-1800 sec and seines were used for 30-60 min for standardized techniques (Kentucky Division of Water 2002). GPS coordinates were determined for each site and the Mid-America Remote Sensing Center (MARC) at Murray State University mapped the sampling sites for the drainage. All fish collected were preserved in 10% buffered formalin in the field and later stored in 45% isopropyl alcohol and placed in the fish collection in the Biology Building, Murray State University. Fish were identified using Etnier and Starnes (1993). Collections were used in determining KIBI scores that assesses stream health by analyzing fish communities at each site. Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity uses seven metrics: native species richness; darter, madtom, and sculpin richness; intoler- ant species richness; simple lithophilic spawn- ing species richness; relative abundance of insectivorous individuals; relative abundance of tolerant individuals; and relative abundance of facultative headwater individuals (Compton et al. 2003). Values for each site were obtained from an Excel 2003 KIBI template that simplified the calculation process. RESULTS Survey results (Table 2) of the Obion Creek drainage lists 18 families represented by 65 species. Five species collected are considered rare by the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (2000). The rare species are the blacktail shiner ( Cyprinella venusta), a species of special concern because it exists in a limited geographic area; taillight shiner ( Notropis maculatus), a species considered threatened; central mudminnow ( Umbra limi), a species considered threatened; lake chubsucker (Eri- myzon sucetta), also a species considered threatened, and the chain pickerel (Esox niger), a species of special concern that should 28 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Table 2. Fishes of the Obion Creek drainage. Spe 10, 17 Amiidae Amia calva Linnaeus Lepisostidae Lepisosteus oculatus Winchell Lepisosteus platostomus Rafinesque Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula (Walbaum) Esocidae Esox americanus Gmelin Esox niger Lesueur Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris (Rafinesque) Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur) Dorosoma petenense (Guenther) Cyprinidae Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes) Cyprinella lutrensis (Baird & Girard) Cyprinella venusta Girard Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus Hybognathus nuchalis Agassiz Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes) Lythrurus fumeus (Evermann) Lythrurus umbratilis (Girard) Notemigonus crysoleucas (Mitchill) Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque Notropis buchanani Meek Notropis maculatus (Hay) Phenacobius mirabilis (Girard) Pimephales promelas Rafinesque Pimephales vigilax (Baird & Girard) Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill) Catostomidae Carpoides carpio (Rafinesque) Catostomus commersonii (Lacepede) Erimyzon oblongus (Mitchill) Erimyzon succeta (Lacepede) Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque) Minytrema melanops (Rafinesque) Atherinopsidae Labidesthes sicculus (Cope) Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas (Rafinesque) Ameiurus natalis (Lesueur) Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque) Noturus miurus Jordan Noturus gyrinus (Mitchill) Noturus noctumus Jordan & Gilbert Pylodictus olivaris (Rafinesque) Fundulidae Fundulus olivaceous (Storer) Fundulus notatus (Rafinesque) Poeciliidae Gambusia ajfinis (Baird & Girard) 17 17 17 6 19 17 17 17 17 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 19 7, 10, 14, 15 17 10, 11 17 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 19 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 18, 19 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 17 17 4 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, 19 11 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, 15 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19 17 6 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 18 17 2, 3, 7 4 8, 16, 18 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 15, 18, 19 7, 10, 17 7, 14 4, 6, 10, 18 7, 10, 14, 15 7, 17 all sites except 17 18 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19 Fishes of Obion Creek — Wells 29 Table 2. Continued. Species Sites Aphredoderidae Aphredoderus sayanus (Gilliams) Moronidae Morone chrysops (Rafinesque) Morone mississippiensis Jordan & Eigenmann Centrarchidae Centrarchus macropterus (Lacepede) Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier) Lepomis humilis (Girard) Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque) Lepomis symmetricus Forbes Micropterus punctulatus (Rafinesque) Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede) Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur) Elassomatidae Elassoma zonatum Jordan Umbridae Umbra limi (Kirtland) Percidae Etheostoma asprigene (Forbes) Etheostoma chlorosomum (Hay) Etheostoma gracile (Girard) Etheostoma histrio Jordan & Gilbert Percina sciera (Swain) Percina vigil (Hay) Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19 17 17 4, 16, 19 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 3, 6, 15, 16, 18, 19 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 10 3, 7, 10, 15 4, 10, 18 4, 5, 17, 19 4 6 11 7, 10 2, 4, 6, 10, 19 7, 8, 10, 14, 18 10, 14 6, 7, 14, 15 6, 7, 14, 15 17 be monitored (Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission 2000). A total of 19 locations (Figure 1) was sampled. Nine of the sites were in the mainstem of Obion Creek. The other locations were at tributaries of Obion Creek. The tributaries are Bowles Creek, Brush Creek, Cane Creek, Guess Creek, Hopewell Creek, Little Creek, and Little Cypress Creek. Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity (KIBI) scores (Table 3) for the Obion Creek drain- age sites ranged from poor, to fair. Most sites scored poor. All sites used the KIBI Mississippi Valley- Interior River (MVIR) Ichthyoregion criteria (Table 4). DISCUSSION Sixty-five species from 18 families were found in the Obion Creek drainage compared to 40 years ago when only 54 species from 17 families were found in the Obion Creek drainage. The fishes not found by Smith’s (1968) study include 19 species: spotted gar ( Lepisosteus oculatus), paddlefish (Polyodon spathula), skipjack herring ( Alosa chryso- chloris ), threadfin shad (Dorosoma pete- nense), white sucker ( Catostomus commerso- nii ), lake chubsucker ( Erimyzon succeta), grass carp ( Ctenopharyngodon idella), black- tail shiner ( Cyprinella venusta ), silver carp ( Hijpophthalmichthys molitrix), ribbon shin- er (Ly thrums fumeus), ghost shiner ( Notro - pis buchanani), taillight shiner ( Notropis maculatus ), bullhead minnow (Pimephales vigilax), brook silverside ( Labidesthes siccu- lus), freckled madtom ( Noturus noctumus ), yellow bass ( Morone mississippiensis), spot- ted bass ( Micropterus punctulatus), chain pickerel ( Esox niger), and central mudmin- now (Umbra limi). 30 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Figure 1. Sampled locations in the Obion Creek drainage. Eight species found in Smith’s (1968) collection were not collected in my efforts: goldeye ( Hiodon alosoides ), bigmouth buffalo ( Ictiobus cyprinellus) , golden redhorse ( Mox - ostoma erythnirum), shorthead redhorse (. Moxostoma macrolepidotum ), cypress min- now ( Hybognathus haiji), steelcolor shiner (. Notropis whipplei ), pugnose minnow ( Opso - Fishes of Obion Creek — Wells 31 Table 3. Collection sites in the Obion Creek drainage with KIBI scores. Locality Species richness KIBI Site 1. Obion Creek 36 38.206N 088 40.898W Site 2. Brush Creek 36 38.083N 088 45.742W Site 3. Obion Creek 36 41.084N 088 43.591W Site 4. Obion Creek 36 44.296N 088 52.102W Site 5. Obion Creek N/A Site 6. Little Creek 36 46.951N 088 51.813W Site 7. Obion Creek 36 43.519N 089 02.595W Site 8. Guess Creek 36 47.201N 088 56.742W Site 9. Hopewell Creek 36 47.317N 088 58.150W Site 10. Obion Creek 36 40.183N 089 05.682W Site 11. Cane Creek 36 41.469N 089 01.445W Site 12. Brush Creek 36 35.919N 088 44.637W Site 13. Brush Creek 36 36.820N 088 44.663W Site 14. Obion Creek 36 46.489N 088 57.419W Site 15. Obion Creek 36 45.225N 088 00.737W Site 16. Bowles Creek 36 44.889N 089 02.503W Site 17. Obion Creek 36 34.995N 089 11.107W Site 18. Little Cypress Creek 36 42.496N 088 52.605W Site 19. Obion Creek 36 41.606N 088 47.383W 12 23.9 poor 15 20.4 poor 16 26.9 poor 17 15.8 poor 07 N/A 12 34.4, 35.1 fair 20 34.3 fair 09 38.0 fair 05 33.4 fair 22 31.4 poor 12 17.9 poor 08 40.5 fair 05 33.0 fair 13 35.3 fair 17 24.3 poor 10 25.7 poor 19 N/A 18 39.3 fair 19 22.6 poor poeodus emiliae), and American eel ( Anguilla rostrata ). Very common species found in both surveys include; creek chubsucker ( Erimyzon oblon- gus), golden shiner ( Notemigonus crysoleucas) , creek chub ( Semotilus atromaculatus) , yellow bullhead ( Ameiurus natalis), blackspotted top- minnow ( Fundulus olivaceous), western mos- quitofish ( Gambusia affinis), pirate perch ( Aphredoderus say anus), green sunfish ( Lepo - mis cyanellus), and bluegill ( Lepomis macro- chirus). The most widespread fish in Smith’s (1968) survey was the green sunfish that is also common in my results. The most widespread fish in my survey was blackspotted topminnow that was found at every site except site 17. All of these fish are considered tolerant according to the KIBI except the blackspotted topminnow, creek chubsucker, and pirate perch. All but 5 species of fishes collected by the Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) in 1987 were collected in my survey with the exception of 5 species. The species not collected were the bluntface Table 4. KIBI Ichthyoregion criteria for Mississippi Valley-Interior River (MVIR). Classification Score Excellent >67 Good 48-66 Fair 32-47 Poor 16-31 Very Poor 0-15 shiner ( Notropis camurus), longnose gar ( Lepisosteus oculatus), largemouth buffalo ( Ictiobus cyprinellus) , rainbow darter ( Etheo - sioma caeruleum), and goldeye ( Hiodon alo- soides). The bluntface shiner is considered rare and sporadic in Obion Creek (Burr and Warren 1986). The KDFWR collected one rainbow darter; however this species does not occur west of the Land between the Lakes region, and therefore this individual may be a misidentified mud darter. All of the species Smith collected at Mur- phy’s pond were in my collection except the bigmouth buffalo. The collection by Timmons (1988) was more comprehensive and complete at Murphy’s Pond. The species he collected that I did not include bigmouth buffalo, black buffalo ( Ictiobus niger), brown bullhead (Icta- lurus nebulosus), and dollar sunfish ( Lepomis marginatus). Branson (1972) collected the northern starhead topminnow ( Fundulus dis- par) near Murphy’s Pond in a channel that drained into the cypress swamp. The northern starhead topminnow was not collected in my survey, and Branson’s record was the only collection of the northern starhead other than from Reelfoot Lake drainage in Kentucky. Smith (1968) suggested that the harlequin darter ( Etheostoma histrio ) and mud darter (Etheostoma asprigene) may be eliminated from the Obion Creek drainage due to hydro- modification and habitat change, but both species still persist in the drainage. However, 32 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Smith (1968) was correct when he predicted that the species composition of the Obion Creek drainage would change, although he was unable to predict to what extent. Smith suggested a survey be done 4-5 years after his project. Unfortunately, changes have not been documented until recently. Possibly, fishes that were collected by Smith (1968) that were not collected in my study could be due to sampling techniques. Smith (1968) used rotenone which is a highly effective toxicant that is not commonly used today. Rotenone is very toxic to fish; a 1.0-mg/L concentration of 5% rotenone solution usu- ally kills all fishes with exception of the most resistant species of fish such as gars, bull- heads, and bowfin (Bettoli and Macenia 1996). Deeper water sampling in the lower Obion Creek may have yielded some addi- tional species such as the American eel, goldeye, pugnose minnow, and bigmouth buffalo. I only sampled once near the Mississippi River. It is doubtful that the golden redhorse and shorthead redhorse occur in the Obion Creek drainage because, according to Burr and Warren (1986), the only record was from Smith (1968), and it is unsubstantiated. Finding the steelcolor shin- er would have been unlikely because only one site has produced this species in the Obion Creek (Burr and Warren 1986). Burr and Warren (1986) mention that the steelcolor shiner is sporadic and rare in extreme western Kentucky. The eight species that only Smith (1968) collected were uncommon in his survey and localized, with the exception of the bigmouth buffalo, and it was common in his survey. It is doubtful that poor land use has led to not finding these species except potentially for the cypress minnow. Eight of the nineteen new species found in my survey could be due to the use of an electrofishing boat near the mouth of Obion Creek into the Mississippi River. The eight species found near the Mississippi River are associated with large rivers: spotted gar, paddlefish, skipjack herring, threadfin shad, grass carp, silver carp, ghost shiner, and yellow bass (Etnier and Starnes 1993). The remaining eleven species not found by Smith (1968) were found throughout the drainage: white sucker, lake chubsucker, blacktail shin- er, ribbon shiner, taillight shiner, bullhead minnow, brook silverside, freckled madtom, spotted bass, chain pickerel, and central mudminnow. With the exception of the two additional exotic species, the increased species richness could be a sign of an improving watershed with some improved agricultural practices, but Obion Creek is still imperiled as shown by the low KIBI scores. Several sites in my study area had clear water and were surrounded by hardwoods. Characteristics such as these were mentioned by Woolman (1890) before major habitat changes occurred. It is impossible to compare habitats with Smith’s (1968) findings because he did not describe habitats in his paper. Site 4 in my survey was the area modified in the channelized portion of Obion Creek to recreate meanders. Site 4 is directly off of Highway 307 in the Wallace tract of the Obion Creek Wildlife Management Area. This site is presumably near Woolman’s collection site in the late 19th century. One of the species he collected there that Smith did not was present in my collection, the brook silverside. Although site 4 was very turbid and had a poor KIBI score, this modification could have led to this finding. Three exotic species were collected; the silver carp, common carp, and the grass carp. Common carp were introduced to North America in the 1800s and were found in Smith’s (1968) study. Silver carp were first introduced into the United States in the 1970s for research projects and were also stocked into wastewater lagoons and fish culture ponds in several states (Kolar et al. 2005). After the silver carp escaped confinement during flooding they have become well established and highly invasive with repro- ducing populations in a majority of the Mis- sissippi river basin (Kolar et al. 2005.) Because silver carp feed by filtering phytoplankton and zooplankton, silver carp compete directly with paddlefish, a North-American native filter- feeding fish and other species that target zooplankton (Chapman 2003). Recently, silver carp have gained attention by literally impacting boaters because silver carp react to the sound of boat engines by jumping out of the water and have the potential to strike and injure boaters (Chapman 2003). Grass carp were first suggest- ed by Swingle (1957) for stocking in the United States for weed control. Later the grass carp was introduced into the country from Malaysia in 1963 in Arkansas and Alabama (Guillory and Fishes of Obion Creek — Wells 33 Gasaway 1978). Since 1963 grass carp have spread along the main channel of the Mississippi River and into its various tributaries in the South and Midwest. Grass carp have direct effects on plant communities which then disrupt other organisms such as invertebrates, fishes, and waterfowl that feed and live within target plants consumed by the grass carp (Bain 1993). In addition to examining the species com- position and distribution of the fishes of the Obion Creek drainage, I evaluated most of the sampled sites with the Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity (KIBI). The multimetric index determines the health of a stream by examin- ing the fish communities present. It was designed to show changes in the environment due to anthropogenic disturbances (Compton et al. 2003). The sites sampled and evaluated with the KIBI ranged from fair to poor (Figure 2). Most poor sites were in the mainstem of Obion Creek. According to Karr (1981) sites classified as poor suggest that the site is dominated by omnivores, pollution- tolerant species, and habitat generalists; also there are few top carnivores. Hybrids and diseased fish may be present that are nega- tively scored. The classification of fair suggests signs of deterioration that include fewer intolerant species and a more skewed trophic structure (Karr 1981). Unfortunately, I cannot make comparisons between my survey and Smith’s (1968) based on the KIBI because Smith did not report the number of individ- uals with the species. Also, he did not report habitat conditions per site. I can only specu- late that if the KIBI was in existence 40 years ago, Smith’s (1968) findings perhaps would have been poor because the species richness was much less 40 years ago. Finally, due to similarities and closeness of the Obion Creek drainage to that of the Bayou de Chien drainage there was concern that the relict darter ( Etheostoma chienense) may possibly be found in the upper sites of the survey. The relict darter is an endangered species considered endemic to the Bayou de Chien drainage of Graves and Hickman County in western Kentucky (USFWS 1995). Population estimates for the entire Bayou de Chien drainage range from 9,533 to 31,293 individuals (Piller and Burr 1998). However, the relict darter was not collected in my survey nor has it been collected in any previous surveys (Woolman 1890; Smith 1968). Results by Warren et al. (1994) mention creek chub ( Semotilus atromacula- tus), black spotted topminnow ( Funclulus olivaceous), saddleback darter ( Percina vigil), suckermouth minnow ( Phenacobius mir- abilis), and freckled madtom ( Noturus noc- turnus) were associated with the relict darter. All species mentioned have been collected in my results (Table 2). Warren et al. (1994) concluded that finding additional populations of the relict darter outside of the Bayou de Chien drainage was highly unlikely given the following: habitat affinities of the relict darter, the complete allopatry between the relict darter and its closest relatives, the complete absence of any other species in the Etheo- stoma squamiceps complex in the Mississippi River tributaries in Kentucky, and the previ- ous surveys that did not record the relict darter outside of the Bayou de Chien drainage. Because the relict was not discov- ered in the upper Obion Creek drainage its endemism seems to be unique to Bayou de Chien (Warren et al. 1994). SUMMARY The results of my survey serve as an updated, comprehensive list and distribution of the fishes of the Obion Creek drainage in Western, Kentucky. My findings show an increase in species richness over the last 40 years and two additional exotic, highly invasive carp species. Hopefully, the updated list will serve as a starting point for further stream fisheries research in the Jackson Purchase area. The scores obtained from the Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity on the Obion Creek drainage show the fair to poor health of the drainage that was determined by assessing fish communities. The fair to poor conditions of the drainage reflect a century’s worth of poor land use and watershed management in the Jackson Pur- chase area. However, the results of this survey did show an increase in diversity over past surveys. I recommend a project similar to this one be done on the other major drainages of the Jackson Purchase area. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this study was provided by the Murray State University Committee on Insti- 34 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Figure 2. Sampled locations in the Obion Creek drainage with fair-poor KIBI ratings. tutional Studies and Research and the De- partment of Biological Sciences. I would like to thank Dr. Tom Timmons and the students of the biology department who assisted in this project: Brittney Viers, Craig Roberts, and Philip Lappe. I would also like to thank Paul Rister of the Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources for providing an electro- Fishes of Obion Creek — Wells 35 fishing boat. I would like to thank the Han- cock Biological Station for providing a vehicle to get to the many sites I sampled on the Obion Creek. Other people I would like to think include my friends, family and someone very dear who supported me, Rachel Alford. LITERATURE CITED Bain, M. 1993. Assessing impacts of introduced aquatic species: grass carp in large systems. Journal of Environmental Management 17:211-224. Bettoli, P. W., and M. J. Maceina. 1996. Sampling with toxicants. Pages 303-333 in B. R. Murphy, and D. W. Willis (2nd ed). Fisheries techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Branson, B. A. 1972. Fundulus notti in Kentucky. Transactions Kentucky Academy of Science 32:76. Burr, B. M., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserve Commission, Frankfort, KY. Chapman, D. 2003. Bighead and silver carp in the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia Missouri. Available: www.infolink.cr.usgs.gov/ Science/Documents/invasive_carp.pdf. (May 2008). Compton, M. C., G. J. Pond, and J. F. Brumley. 2003. Development and application of the Kentucky index of biotic integrity. Kentucky Department for Environ- mental Protection, Frankfort, KY. Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. Guillory, V., and R. D. Gasaway. 1978. Zoogeography of the grass carp in the United States. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107:105-112. Hubbard, W. D., D. C. Jackson, and D. J. Ebert. 1993. Channelization. Pages 135-136 in C. F. Bryan, and D. A. Rutherford (2nd ed). Impacts on warmwater streams: guidelines for evaluation. Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Little Rock, AR. Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2000. Rare and extirpated biota of Kentucky. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61:115—132. Kentucky Division of Water. 2002. Methods for assessing biological integrity of surface waters in Kentucky. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Frankfort, KY. Kolar, C. S., D. C. Chapman, W. R. Courtenay, Jr., C. M. Housel, J. D. Williams, and D. P. Jennings. 2005. Asian carps of the genus Hypophthalmichthys (Pisces, Cyprinidae) — a biological synopsis and environmental risk assessment. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Larsen, R. E. 1999. Fishery habitat: sediment and pollutants. Fact sheet no 28. UC Cooperative Exten- sion, San Bernardino County, CA. McLemore, W., and B. Mattucks. 1988. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, annual performance report for district fisheries management. Part II of III. Subsection II: stream research and management. D-J project No. F-50, segment 10. 25-36. McMurray, S. E. 2004. Biological evaluation of the Obion Creek corridor restoration demonstration project: pre- restoration monitoring final report. Final report sub- mitted to Kentucky Environmental and Public Cabinet, Department for Environmental protection, Division of Water, Watershed Management Branch, Nonpoint Source Section, Frankfort, KY. Orth, D. J., and R. J. White. 1999. Stream habitat management. Pages 249-284 in C. C. Kohler, and W. A. Hubert (2nd ed). Inland fisheries manage- ment in North America, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Piller, K. R., and B. M. Burr. 1998. Distribution and population estimates of the federally endangered relict darter, Etheostoma chienense , Bayou de Chien, Ken- tucky. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59:64-75. Rabeni, C. F., and R. B. Jacobson. 1999. Warmwater streams. Pages 505-525 in C. C. Kohler, and W. A. Hubert (2nd ed). Inland fisheries management in North America, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Rundle, J. G., and W. E. Spencer. 1997. Status, problems, and future projections for the Obion Creek floodplain, Hickman County, Kentucky. Proceedings of the Sev- enth symposium on the natural history of the lower Tennessee and Cumberland River valleys, Austin Peay State University Center for Field Biology and Murray State University Center for Reservoir Research 7:121-132. Smith, P. L. 1968. A survey of the fishes of the Obion Creek drainage system in West Kentucky. Master’s Thesis, Murray State University, Murray, KY. Swingle, H. S. 1957. Control of ponds weeds by use of herbivorous fishes. Pages 11-17 in Proc. 10th Annual Meeting of Southern Week Conference, Augusta Georgia. Timmons, T. J. 1988. Fishes of Murphy’s Pond, a cypress swamp in Western Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 49:21-25. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Relict darter. Available: www.Rvs.gov/endangered/i/e/ sae38.html. (January 2008) Warren, M. L., B. M. Burr, and C. A. Taylor. 1994. The relict darter, Etheostoma chienense (Percidiae): status review of a Kentucky endemic 1. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 55:20-27. Webb, D. 1974. A survey of the fishes of Bayou de Chien Creek. Master’s. Thesis, Murray State University, Murray, KY. Woolman, A. J. 1890. Report of the examination of the rivers of Kentucky with lists of the fishes obtained. Bulletin U.S. Fish Commission X:249-288. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 71(l-2):36-46. 2010. Teleconnective relationships to the Kentucky Snowfall Impact Scale Ronnie D. Leeper, John M. Walker, and Gregory B. Goodrich1 Department of Geography and Geology, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101 ABSTRACT Heavy snowstorms in Kentucky, while uncommon, often shut down commerce and transportation networks while threatening public safety. An understanding of the teleconnection patterns associated with these storms could benefit many people in the state. In this study, we adapted a snowstorm ranking methodology originally developed for the northeastern United States and applied it to Kentucky. Transportation and population data were used along with snowfall data to rank 26 significant Kentucky snowstorms from 1960-2010. Our results showed that the snowstorm of 6 January 1996 barely edged out the storm of 9 March 1960 to rank as the worst storm in the past 51 winters. Heavy snowstorms in Kentucky tend to be clustered through time and often associated with the warm phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the negative phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation and Eastern Pacific Oscillation. However, analysis also suggests that several other teleconnection patterns can lead to heavy snowstorms in Kentucky. KEY WORDS: Teleconnections, snowstorm, Kentucky Snowfall Impact Scale (KYSIS), El Nino - Southern Oscillation (ENSO), winter, Kentucky INTRODUCTION Winter snowstorms in the United States often wreak havoc on transportation networks and public safety to the point where the most extreme snowstorms cause damage in excess of $1 billion (Ross and Lott 2003; Changnon 2007). Heavy winter snowstorms occur with the greatest frequency in the northern-tier states stretching from the Plains into New England (Schwartz and Schmidlin 2002; Changnon et al. 2006). As expected, these northern-tier states easily cope with all but the largest of winter snowstorms because their cities are experienced and equipped for rapidly clearing transportation networks and have snow removal budgets in the millions of dollars. While large Kentucky cities such as Lexington and Louisville have comprehensive snow removal plans and are well equipped with numerous snowplows, most other regions of the state have a small number of snow- plows, if any at all. Heavy snowstorms have been known to shut down even state highways in rural counties for up to a week. Thus, the infrequent nature of heavy snowfall events in Kentucky combined with minimal preparation can have devastating effects to commerce and transportation in the Commonwealth. Clearly research that could help forecasters develop a better understanding of the teleconnections ' Corresponding author e-mail: gregory.goodrich@ wku.edu patterns associated with major snowstorms in Kentucky would be of great benefit. There have been few attempts to under- stand which teleconnections patterns are associated with heavy snowstorms in Ken- tucky and surrounding Mid-South states. Mote et al. (1997) conducted a snowfall climatology of the Southeast but did not include Kentucky. Hartley (1999) provided an overview of winter climate over the southern and central Appalachians, but made no attempt to categorize or rank heavy snow events. The National Weather Service office in Louisville posted preliminary results of a 15-year heavy snowfall climatology for Ken- tucky and southern Indiana on its website. They used composites of the storms in the 15-year study to discuss the synoptic features necessary to produce heavy snowfall in the region but did not attempt to rank or categorize the storms (Cox et al. 2004). Their research focused on two primary synoptic patterns. Pattern A was associated with weak surface and mid-level features along with strong isentropic lifting forced by a low-level jet, typically along a warm-frontal boundary. A polar jet streak centered over the Great Lakes with the right entrance region located over Kentucky allows for divergence aloft while maintaining arctic air at the surface. Pattern B was associated with strong surface and mid-level development. These storms typically feature slow moving closed-off lows 36 KYSIS Teleconnections — Leeper et al. 37 in the upper levels of the atmosphere and an easterly flow at the surface. Mesoscale convective banding can occur during both patterns in the most extreme events. These two very different snowstorm patterns sug- gest that any number of atmospheric tele- connection patterns may possibly occur during a heavy snowstorm in Kentucky. A teleconnection represents a low-frequency preferred mean state of the atmosphere with known relationships to temperature and precipitation patterns in a particular region (Barnston and Livezey 1987). Teleconnec- tions, which includes the well-known El Nino - Southern Oscillation (ENSO), have tempo- ral scales from weeks to decades and spatial scales that are regional to global. What is presently unknown, however, is which com- bination of teleconnections occurs most frequently during significant snowstorms in Kentucky. To properly assess the climate teleconnections that influence heavy snow- storms in Kentucky, a time-scale longer than the 15-year climatology used by Cox et al. (2004) must first be developed. Therefore, this research first expanded upon the Cox et al. (2004) study by lengthening the historical snowfall climatology for Kentucky from 15 to over 50 years. Walker et al. (2008) was a preliminary study that outlined a method for creating an historical snowfall climatology for Kentucky since 1960 as well as a method for objectively ranking the historical snowstorms. The Ken- tucky Snowfall Impact Scale (KYSIS) was adapted from Kocin and Uccellini (2004) who ranked historical snowstorms in the northeastern United States using the North- east Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS). The NESIS score is based on the population density affected by snowfall contours from each storm. This analysis first briefly sum- marized the updated historical snowfall climatology for Kentucky and the KYSIS methodology used in Walker et al. (2008). With the new KYSIS rankings, we used climate teleconnections of various spatial and temporal scales to ascertain which teleconnections were associated with major snowstorms in Kentucky from 1960-2010. While the analysis used only Kentucky snowfall data, the results should be applica- ble to the entire Mid-South region. MATERIALS AND METHODS Kentucky Historical Snowfall Climatology Walker et al. (2008) described in detail the development of the Kentucky historical snow- fall climatology. Heavy snow events were found using the Storm Data database maintained by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Storm Data is a repository for climatic infor- mation that includes information on events including snowstorms, tornadoes, lightning, wildfires and droughts and is available online at http :/Avww4 . ncdc . no aa . gov/ cgi- win/wwcgi . dll?wwEvent~ Storms as well in hardcopy form. Numerous sources gather data for Storm Data including storm spotters, emergency manage- ment, local National Weather Service offices, and the media. While Storm Data has a flaw in that it is a voluntary compilation of weather data, it is useful for the purpose of finding major events (Branick 1997; Dixon et al. 2005). Snowfall information from both the online and hardcopy versions of Storm Data were investigated to find winter storms that pro- duced more than 10 cm of snow over at least one-half of Kentucky because that represents the criteria for a winter storm watch issued by the National Weather Service in Kentucky. Additionally, solar heating often will melt snow on road surfaces less than this amount within a few hours in Kentucky, even on days when temperatures remain below freezing. Storm Data provides only a general de- scription of each heavy snowfall with the dates of occurrence. To create detailed maps of each heavy snowfall, we then used the Mid- west Climate Information System (MICIS) an online tool from the Midwestern Regional Climate Center (MRCC). Search functions in the MICIS database allowed us to aggregate snowfall totals for over 400 cooperative weather stations for each storm we found from Storm Data. Snowfall contour maps were created with GIS by using location information for each weather station. The original historical heavy snow climatology from Walker et al. (2008) contained 21 storms from 1960-2006. To account for any storms that pre-dated or otherwise were not included in Storm Data, we used additional searching capabilities within MICIS that allowed this updated climatology to contain 26 storms and to extend to 2010 (Table 1). 38 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Table 1. Significant Kentucky snowstorms since 1960. Because some storms persisted over more than one day, the last day of recorded snowfall was used. Snow event 14 February 1960 7 January 1979 6 January 1996 2 March 1960 5 December 1984 1 February 1996 9 March 1960 5 January 1985 19 March 1996 23 January 1966 3 February 1985 3 February 1998 2 November 1966 13 February 1985 4 December 2002 29 December 1967 31 March 1987 23 December 2004 22 March 1968 25 February 1993 9 March 2008 9 February 1971 12 March 1993 30 January 2010 26 January 1978 18 January 1994 KYSIS In order to objectively rank the 26 snow- storms in the historical climatology, the next step was to modify the NESIS methodology used by Kocin and Uccellini (2004) and apply it to Kentucky. NESIS uses snowfall data mapped onto the population density of the Northeast urban corridor to objectively rank the impact of a storm on a population (Kocin and Uccellini 2004). Because Kentucky is a rural state with major population centers concentrated along the 1-64 corridor between Louisville and Lexington, we also use length of highway impacted in addition to population density to help determine the KYSIS rankings. This allowed us to quantify the impact of a snow- storm on Kentucky’s transportation network. Contour maps of snowfall were created for each storm by spatially interpolating snowfall totals from each of the 400+ stations using ordinary kriging. Snowfall data from counties in states surrounding Kentucky were used in the interpolation to produce more realistic contour maps. The interpolated snowfall totals were classified into 0-10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20- 30 cm, 30-40 cm, 40-50 cm, 50-60 cm, and >60 cm categories to aid in storm impact assessment. The formula to determine KYSIS takes the following form: KYSIS = fy ^ Amean +- Pn/ P mean + HWn/HWn)} (1) In (1), n represented minimum snowfall amounts divided by 20 cm. Therefore, n = 0.5 was used for areas inclusive of the 10 cm contour, n = 1 was used for the 20 cm contour, n = 1.5 was used for the 30 cm contour, etc. The variable An, represented the estimated area (km2) within each snowfall contour, and Pn and HWn represented the population and length of highway (km) found in that area. Values of Amean, Pmean, and HWmean represent mean area, population, and length of highway found within the 20-cm contour. GIS estimated the area, population, and length of highway found within each contour by selecting all counties in which at least half of the county was analyzed to lie within the given contour line. Population values from the 2000 census and the 2005 length of highways from the Arc-GIS database were used to standardize the results to current values. The primary difference between the KYSIS and NESIS equations has to do with differences in what constitutes a winter storm watch between Kentucky and the Northeast. We use a smaller value for n = 1 (20 cm vs. 25 cm for NESIS) to account for lesser snowfall amounts in Kentucky and restrict the analysis to a single state (NESIS uses the total snowfall distribution east of the Rockies to compute values). KYSIS also includes the length of highways to account for impacts to Kentucky’s transportation networks. As in Kocin and Uccellini (2004), categories were created to group storms of similar impact (Table 2). The 26 storms were ranked using KYSIS methodology (Table 3). Table 2. KYSIS categories. Category KYSIS values Cases Description 5 >20.00 3 Extreme 4 12.00-19.99 2 Crippling 3 8.00-11.99 7 Major 2 4.00-7.99 6 Significant 1 <4.00 8 Notable KYSIS Teleconnections — Leeper et al. 39 Table 3. KYSIS rankings and category since 1960. Event KYSIS Category Event KYSIS Category 6 January 1996 25.43 5 9 February 1971 5.73 2 9 March 1960 25.14 5 19 March 1996 5.51 2 18 January 1994 22.97 5 9 March 2008 5.12 2 12 March 1993 16.68 4 7 January 1979 4.53 2 3 February 1998 14.10 4 25 February 1993 4.28 2 22 March 1968 10.93 3 29 December 1967 3.90 1 3 February 1985 10.53 3 30 January 2010 3.71 1 14 February 1960 9.05 3 31 March 1987 3.33 1 2 March 1960 8.83 3 5 December 1984 3.09 1 2 November 1966 8.62 3 1 February 1996 1.97 1 13 February 1985 8.59 3 4 December 2002 1.80 1 23 December 2004 8.22 3 26 January 1978 1.60 1 23 January 1966 6.49 2 5 January 1985 0.54 1 Teleconnections Seven teleconnection indices with temporal scales ranging from low to very low frequency were used to determine synoptic relationships with KYSIS events. These seven teleconnec- tions have been linked to variations in snowfall or winter precipitation in the United States (Table 4). Low frequency teleconnections such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Pacific North American pattern (PNA), and the Eastern Pacific Oscillation (EPO) vary inter- weekly to inter-monthly and often are associated with week-to-week chang- es in weather patterns (Barnston and Livezey 1987). All three have predictability limited to the scope of 1-15 day medium range weather forecast models. The NAO represents a dipole of geopotential height anomalies over the North Atlantic with the positive phase featur- ing above-average anomalies over the Azores and below-average anomalies over Greenland centered on 40 °W. The PNA represents a quadripole of geopotential height anomalies with the positive phase featuring above- average anomalies over Hawaii and the northern Rockies and below-average anoma- lies over the Aleutians and the southeastern United States. The EPO represents a dipole of geopotential height anomalies over the east- ern Pacific with below-average anomalies over the Gulf of Alaska and above-average anom- alies over the tropical Pacific centered on 150°W. The Nino3.4 index and the Southern Oscillation index (SOI) were used to represent ENSO, which varies inter-annually. The Nino3.4 index is calculated as the average of monthly SST anomalies for the area 5°N-5°S, 120°-170°W. Years of El Nino, La Nina, and neutral ENSO were calculated using the NOAA method to determine various ENSO events. This states that when the three-month moving average of Nino3.4 anomalies exceeds +0.5 (—0.5) for three consecutive months, an El Nino (La Nina) event is said to occur. All other periods were considered neutral ENSO. The SOI, which is negatively correlated with Nino3.4, represents the standardized differ- ences of standardized sea-level pressure differences between Tahiti and Darwin, Aus- tralia. Finally, two very low-frequency tele- connections were used to represent multi- decadal changes in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Table 4. Teleconnections with links to variations in snowfall or winter precipitation. Teleconnection Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) Goodrich and Ellis 2008 East Pacific Oscillation (EPO) Miller and Goodrich 2007 El Nino - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Kunkel and Angel 1999 North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) Seager et al. 2009 Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Ge and Gong 2009 Pacific North American Pattern (PNA) Morin et al. 2008 40 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) (AMO) is a mode of natural variability occurring primarily in sea surface tempera- tures in the northern Atlantic Ocean with a periodicity of 60-80 years. The Pacific De- cadal Oscillation (PDO) is an ENSO-like pattern of northern Pacific Ocean sea surface temperature variability with a periodicity of around 50 years. The PDO index is defined as the leading principal component of northern Pacific Ocean monthly sea surface tempera- ture variability poleward of 20° N latitude. Monthly PDO data are available from the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmo- sphere and Ocean at the University of Washington (http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ PDO.latest). Monthly AMO data are available from the NOAA Environmental Research Lab- oratory (http ://www. cdc . noaa.gov/Timeseries/ AMO/), and in this case they represented unsmoothed, de-trended sea surface tempera- tures generated from the Kaplan sea surface temperature data base, version two. The monthly Kaplan extended Nino3.4 dataset was obtained from the International Research Institute for Climate prediction (IRI) data library and is available online at http://iridl. ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCE S/.Indices/.nino/. EXTENDED/. NIN034/. A small adjustment was made to the time series to change the base period climatology from 1951-1980 to 1971- 2000. Monthly SOI data were obtained from the Climate Prediction Center and are available at h ttp ://www. cpc . ncep . noaa. gov/ data/indices/ soi. Daily data for the EPO, PNA, and NAO were obtained from the Climate Diagnostics Center but are not presendy available online. Monthly data for the PNA and NAO were obtained from the Climate Prediction Center at ftp ://: ftp . cpc. ncep .noaa. gov/wd52dg/data/indices/ tele_index.nh. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION KYSIS Rankings KYSIS represents a measure of the inte- grated impact of a snowstorm on transporta- tion and population densities in Kentucky. With the increased weight given to higher snowfall amounts, the greatest KYSIS values should involve a statewide snow event with maximum snowfall values on the 1-64 corridor between Louisville and Lexington. The same amount of snow over less densely populated areas should result in a lower score. The snowfall maps from the two top-ranked storms bear this out (Figure 1). The storms that occurred on 6 January 1996 (25.43) and 9 March 1960 (25.14) had nearly identical scores and together ranked as the worst snowstorms to affect Kentucky since 1960. Because KYSIS scores were dependent on GIS interpolation and other data assumptions, the two storms can be said to be in a statistical dead heat with regards to the title of “worst snowstorm.” While the 9 March 1960 snow- storm had greater absolute snowfall totals (>75 cm in some areas) and easily was the worst snowstorm in southern Kentucky, the 6 January 1996 storm scored high due to heavy snow (>30 cm) along the 1-64 corridor. These two storms along with the 18 January 1994 storm (22.97) that primarily affected areas along the Ohio river rank as the only Category 5 (Extreme) snowstorms since 1960 (Figure 2). All three snowstorms had over a million people and 16,000 km of highways impacted by at least 30 cm of snow. Each storm brought transportation and commerce to a standstill throughout the state for several days. Only one of the three Category 5 “extreme” storms (January 1996) ranked second overall behind the March 1993 Storm of the Century in Kocin and Uccellini (2004). The other two Category 5 storms had minimal impact on the Northeast urban corridor. The famous “Storm of the Century” March 1993 blizzard (16.68) that ranked highest using NESIS was only the fourth ranked storm using KYSIS and was one of only two Category 4 (Crippling) storms (Figure 2). This lower ranking for the “Storm of the Century” is an example of how the KYSIS methodology emphasizes storms that impact population centers versus more rural areas. The nine storms considered to be Category 4 (Crippling) or 3 (Major) were all either widespread with lower maximum snow- fall amounts or had high maximum amounts that fell in less populated areas. The remain- ing 14 storms considered Category 2 (Signif- icant) or 1 (Notable) all had snowfall generally in the 10-20 cm range and are considered nuisance events. Frequency of KYSIS Events The list of KYSIS events (Table 1) showed that heavy snowstorms in Kentucky tend to be KYSIS Teleconnections — Leeper et al. 41 Snowfall Ocm 0- 10 era gg| 10 -20 cm gf 20 -30 cm 1 30 -40 cm mi 40 - 50 cm m 50 - 60 cm mmm >60 cm 6 Jan 1996 KYSIS Value: 25.43 Rank 1 t m m m m m Snowfall 0 cm 0- 10 cm 10-20 cm 20 - 30 cm 30 - 40 cm 40 - 50 cm 50 -60 cm > 60 cm 9 Mar 1960 KYSIS Value: 25.14 Rank 2 § m m m i m m wm Figure 1. Snowfall contours and KYSIS values for the 6 January 1996 and 9 March 1960 snowstorms, the first and second ranked snowstorms in Kentucky since 1960. clustered through time. This is confirmed by a chart of KYSIS events through time (Figure 3). Fourteen of the 26 storms (54%) occured during only five of 51 winters (10%). The winter of 1984-1985 experienced four storms, the winters of 1959-1960 and 1995-1996 each experienced three storms, and the winters of 1967-1968 and 1992-1993 each had two. Nearly half of the storms (12) occurred during the 14 winters from 1984-1985 to 1997-1998, which accounted for just 27% of the period of record and averaged close to a storm per year. That is in contrast with the previous 14 winters from 1969-1970 to 1983-1984 where only three storms occurred, none stronger than a Category 2. This marked an increase in 42 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) m Snowfall 0 cm 0-10 cm 10 -20 cm 20 -30 cm 30 - 40 cm 40 *50 cm 50 -60 tm > 60 cm 18 Jan 1994 KYSIS Value: 22.97 Rank 3 :» Snowfall Ocm 0- 10cm 10-20 cm — 20-30 cm IBM 30 - 40 cm — M 40 -50 cm — 50 - 60 cm ■H >60 cm 12 Mar 1993 KYSIS Value: 16.68 ]Rgfik4 mis Figure 2. Snowfall contours and KYSIS values for the 18 January 1994 and 12 March 1993 snowstorms, the third and fourth ranked snowstorms in Kentucky since 1960. the return frequency of KYSIS events from once nearly every five years in the 1970s and early 1980s to almost once a year to close out the century. Perhaps most notable is that four of the five “extreme” and “crippling” storms to affect Kentucky in the past 51 years occurred within a six-year period from 1993- 1998. However, the past decade since 1998 has been relatively quiescent with only the 23 December 2004 and 9 March 2008 storms standing out as major events. Teleconnective Relationship to KYSIS The preliminary work of Cox et al. (2004) suggested there were at least two important patterns related to heavy snowfall in Ken- KYSIS Teleconnections — Leeper et al. 43 Figure 3. Time series of KYSIS values. Note: The 14 February 1960 (9.05) and 2 March 1960 (8.83) storms show up as one storm due to time scale resolution. tucky, which implies there could be several different combinations of teleconnection phases. Therefore, we wanted to use several teleconnections that are known to impact winter weather in the eastern United States of various spatial and temporal scales (Ta- ble 4). The seven teleconnections included in this study have temporal variability that ranges from inter-weekly (NAO, PNA, EPO) to inter- annual (Nino3.4, SOI) to multi-decadal (PDO, AMO) and spatial variability that ranges from the tropical Pacific (Nino3.4, SOI) to the extratropical Pacific (PDO, EPO, PNA) to the extratropical Atlantic (NAO, AMO). Because it already has been established that KYSIS events tend to be clustered through time (Figure 3), the first step in the analysis was to compare the mean values for each teleconnec- tion during winters with a KYSIS event (15 winters) with those without (32 winters). Because nearly all (25 of 26) of the KYSIS events occurred during the months of De- cember-March (DJFM), seasonal teleconnec- tion values were averaged over this 4-month period. None of the seven teleconnections had difference of means values that approached standard thresholds of statistical significance (a = 0.05) (Table 5). Most teleconnections on a seasonal basis averaged close to zero regardless of whether or not a KYSIS event occurred. The main exceptions were the PDO (p = 0.09) and NAO (p = 0.11) that displayed non-significant tendencies to be in the warm phase and negative phase respectively during KYSIS winters compared with non- KYSIS winters. Thus, the increase of KYSIS events during the 1980s and 1990s may be partially explained by the warm phase of the PDO that occurred from 1977 to at least 1998 (Hare and Mantua 2000). While it was expected that the other inter- weekly teleconnections (PNA, EPO) were not important on a seasonal basis, it was somewhat surprising that none of the ENSO phases were favored. ENSO phases during KYSIS winters occurred with roughly the same frequency as during non-KYSIS winters. When the seasonal analysis was repeated using only the teleconnection aver- ages during the core winter months of January-February for KYSIS and non-KYSIS winters, the negative phases of both the NAO (p = 0.01) and the EPO (p = 0.12) emerged as common during KYSIS winters. Because the seasonal analysis did not provide much insight, we repeated the anal- ysis using monthly averages of the seven teleconnections during winter (DJFM) months of KYSIS and winter months without KYSIS (Table 5). The multidecadal (PDO, AMO) and inter-annual (Nino3.4, SOI) results did not change much from the seasonal analysis because by nature these teleconnec- 44 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Table 5. Mean teleconnection values during seasons, months, and days (five days surrounding) with KYSIS events compared with winter (DJFM) seasons, months, and days without KYSIS events. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference of means by t-test are italicized. Season NAO PNA EPO SOI Nino34 PDO AMO mean -0.17 0.14 -0.05 -0.44 0.21 0.32 -0.02 KYSIS SD 0.64 0.57 0.37 1.21 1.07 0.94 0.19 N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 mean 0.16 0.16 0.10 -0.05 -0.02 -0.16 -0.04 No KYSIS SD 0.71 0.68 0.35 1.13 0.93 0.94 0.18 N 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 P 0.11 0.92 0.19 0.16 0.43 0.09* 0.99 Monthly NAO PNA EPO SOI Nino34 PDO AMO mean -0.24 0.12 -0.27 -0.44 0.12 0.37 -0.04 KYSIS SD 0.85 0.93 0.66 1.10 1.02 0.99 0.18 N 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 mean 0.09 0.15 0.09 -0.14 0.05 -0.02 -0.03 No KYSIS SD 1.03 0.97 0.67 1.41 1.00 1.05 0.19 N 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 P 0.13 0.89 0.02 0.32 0.75 0.09* 0.99 Daily NAO PNA EPO mean -0.16 17 < 0 0.20 10 < 0 -0.70 18 < 0 KYSIS SD 0.71 9 > 0 0.60 16 > 0 1.40 8 > 0 N 130 130 130 mean 0.11 0.13 0.06 No KYSIS SD 0.80 0.76 1.44 N 6029 6029 6029 t 3.8 1.0 5.7 P 0.0001 0.29 0.0001 * denotes p < 0.10 but >0.05. tions have high month-to-month persistence. Of the inter-weekly teleconnections, the PNA once again had no relationship to KYSIS using monthly averages, but the NAO (p = 0.13) and especially the EPO (p = 0.02) favored the negative phase, both of which translated to an East Coast trough. Because monthly averages of inter-weekly teleconnections did not fully capture the state of the atmosphere in the days surrounding a heavy snowstorm, the analysis was repeated a final time using daily data for the NAO, PNA, and EPO. The daily teleconnection values averaged over the five days surrounding each KYSIS event (two days before and after the event) were calculated and then compared with all other winter days (DJFM) with no KYSIS events (Table 5). Once again, both the NAO (—0.16 with KYSIS and 0.11 without KYSIS; p < 0.0001) and EPO (—0.70 with KYSIS and 0.06 without KYSIS; p < 0.0001) were most commonly in the negative phase (East Coast trough) during KYSIS events. However, there have been several KYSIS events where at least one of the two teleconnections and sometimes both were in the positive phase (20 March 1968 and 23 February 1993). The NAO was negative during 17 of 26 of KYSIS events, and the EPO was negative during 18 of 26 events; both were negative at the same time only 50% of the time. The teleconnection values for the five highest scoring storms showed that there are many different ways to get heavy snow in Kentucky (Table 6). This shows that while teleconnections appear to provide some guidance as to when a heavy snowstorm may occur, they cannot predict the intensity of the snowstorm. While the majority Table 6. Daily averaged (five days surrounding) tele- connection values for five highest KYSIS storms. Date KYSIS NAO EPO PNA 6 January 1996 25.43 -0.65 0.66 0.20 9 March 1960 25.14 -0.06 0.90 -0.28 18 January 1994 22.97 0.74 -1.31 -0.18 12 March 1993 16.68 0.19 -2.18 -0.26 3 February 1998 14.10 -0.30 -0.71 0.76 KYSIS Teleconnections — Leeper et al. 45 of the 26 KYSIS events occurred with an East Coast trough related to the negative phase of either the NAO or EPO, heavy snow in Kentucky is possible in a zonal flow due to isentropic lift along a warm front if boundary layer conditions are just right (Cox et al. 2004). Finally, while the PNA was not a significant factor in the daily analysis, it should be noted that 16 of 26 KYSIS events occurred during positive PNA, which, like the negative phases of the NAO and EPO, teleconnects to an East Coast trough. CONCLUSIONS This research represented an attempt to create a climatology and methodology to rank historical snowstorms in Kentucky as well as to identify teleconnection patterns associated with the storms. The Kentucky Snowfall Impact Scale (KYSIS) is updated from Walker et al. (2008) to rank and categorize 26 heavy snow events from an historical snowstorm climatology. Using the area, pop- ulation, and length of highways impacted by weighted snowfall contours, KYSIS objective- ly determined the worst snowstorms in Kentucky since 1960. The storms of 6 January 1996, 9 March 1960, and 18 January 1994, all rank as the worst snowstorms since 1960. The March 1993 blizzard, considered the “Storm of the Century,” ranked only fourth in the analysis because that the heavy snowfall occurred primarily in the less populated eastern one-third of the state. KYSIS events tend to occur in clusters through time; nearly half of the 26 snowstorms occurred during only 27% of the period of record (1985- 1998). In addition, nearly 55% of the 26 snowstorms occurred during only five of the 51 winters with the winter of 1984-1985 experiencing four major snowstorms. Of the five worst snowstorms in the rankings, four occurred during a six-year period from 1993- 1998. On seasonal scales, the warm phase of the PDO and the negative phase of the NAO were non-significantly compared with KYSIS events. On monthly and especially daily scales, both the negative phases of the NAO and the EPO, which teleconnects to an East Coast trough, were significantly related to KYSIS events. However, there are several KYSIS storms that do not fit this pattern and occurred with a more zonal flow. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge Western Ken- tucky University students P. Smith, B. M. Biache, M. L. Johns, K. J. Batson, and W. N. Rodgers for their contributions to the Ken- tucky historical snowfall climatology. LITERATURE CITED Bamston, A. G., and R. E. Livezey. 1987. Classification, seasonality and persistence of low-frequency atmo- spheric circulation patterns. Monthly Weather Review 115:1083-1126. Branick, M. L. 1997. A climatology of significant winter- type weather events in the contiguous United States, 1982-1994. Weather and Forecasting 12:193-207. Changnon, S. A., D. Changnon, and T. R. Karl. 2006. Temporal and spatial characteristics of snowstorms in the contiguous United States. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 45:1141-1155. Changnon, S. 2007. Catastrophic winter storms: An escalating problem. Climatic Change 84:131-139. Cox, R., C. Swain, and T. Funk. 2004. Preliminary results of a heavy snow climatology across Kentucky and southern Indiana (1982-1996). National Weather Service, www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/soo/sclimo/index.php (6 August 2008) Dixon, P. G., D. M. Brommer, B. C. Hedquist, A. J. Kalkstein, G. B. Goodrich, J. C. Walter, C. C. Dickerson, IV, S. J. Penny, and R. S. Cerveny. 2005. Heat mortality versus cold mortality: A study of conflicting databases in the United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86:937-943. Ge, Y., and G. Gong. 2009. Northern American snow depth and climate teleconnections patterns. Journal of Climate 22:217-233. Goodrich, G. B., and A. W. Ellis. 2008. Climatic controls and hydrologic impacts of a recent Extreme Seasonal Precipitation Reversal in Arizona. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47:498-508. Hare, S. R., and N. J. Mantua. 2000. Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989. Progress in Oceanography 47:103-146. Hartley, S. 1999. Winter Atlantic climate and snowfall in the south and central Appalachians. Physical Geogra- phy 20:1-13. Kocin, P. J., and L. W. Uccellini. 2004. A snowfall impact scale derived from Northeast storm snowfall distribu- tions. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 85:177-194. Kunkel, K. E., and J. R. Angel. 1999. Relationship of ENSO to snowfall and related cyclone activity in the contiguous United States. Journal of Geophysical Research 104:19,425-19,434. Miller, J. A., and G. B. Goodrich. 2007. Regionalization and trends in winter precipitation in the Pacific Northwest. Climate Research 33:215-227. 46 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Morin, J., P. Block, B. Rajagopolan, and M. Clark. 2008. Identification of large scale climate patterns affecting snow variability in the eastern United States. Interna- tional Journal of Climatology 28:315-328. Mote, T. L., D. W. Gamble, S. J. Underwood, and M. L. Bentley. 1997. Synoptic-scale features common to heavy snowstorms in the Southeast United States. Weather and Forecasting 12:5-23. Ross, T., and N. Lott. 2003. A climatology of 1980-2003 extreme weather and climate events. NOAA, Technical report 2003-01:1-15. Schwartz, R. M., and T. W. Schmidlin. 2002. Climatology of blizzards in the conterminous United States, 1959- 2000. Journal of Climate 15:1765-1772. Seager, R., Y. Kushnir, J. Nakamura, M. Ting, and N. Naik. 2009. Northern Hemisphere winter snow anomalies: ENSO, NAO and the winter of 2009/10. Geophysical Research Letters 37:L14703, doi:10.1029/2010GL043830. Walker, J. M., R. D. Leeper, P. Smith, M. L. Johns, B. M. Biache, W. N. Rodgers, K. J. Batson, and G. B. Goodrich. 2008. Development of a Kentucky Snowfall Impact Scale. Focus on Geography 50:15-21. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 71(l-2):47-53. 2010. Mossbauer Study of Iron Rich Cereal and Iron Supplement Matthew M. Bailey, Mohammed H. Yusuf, and Amer S. Lahamer1 Physics Department, Berea College, Berea, Kentucky 40404 ABSTRACT Mossbauer spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction measurements were performed on commercial iron rich cereal and on an iron supplement at room temperature. X-ray diffraction patterns of the raw cereal showed it to be more of an amorphous compound while the iron supplement was found to be in a crystalline form. Mossbauer spectra of the raw cereal showed about 81% of the iron in the ferric phase (Fe+3), 18% in the metal form (Fe), and less than 1% in the ferrous phase (Fe+2). Mossbauer spectra of the extracted iron from the raw cereal showed about 29% in the ferric phase, 70% in the metal phase, and less than 1% in the ferrous phase. Mossbauer measurements of the iron supplement showed 100% of the iron to be in the ferrous phase. The bioavailability of iron is generally attributed to the solubility of iron that is dependent on the oxidation state of iron in food and iron supplements. This study suggested that iron-rich cereal might not be the optimum source of iron for humans. KEY WORDS: Mossbauer, iron supplement, iron rich, cereal INTRODUCTION Iron (Fe) is the end element of the fusion process of the life cycles of stars and the most abundant element in the core of red giants. It is the sixth most abundant element in the universe (Burbidge et al. 1957). Iron is believed to constitute 35% of the Earth, mostly in the core. On the surface of the earth it is found in the form of the hematite (Fe203) iron ores. Iron resides in group eight and period four of the periodic table. Iron has an atomic number of 26 with the electronic configuration (Ar)3d64S2. Iron can exist in many oxidation states but the two common ones are ferrous Fe+2 and ferric Fe+3. The state of iron plays an important role in many biological molecules such as proteins and hemoglobin. With low levels of iron (anemia), the body cannot produce normal amounts of hemoglobin and in turn less oxygen is transported to the cells of the body, hence less energy is available for growth and performing bodily functions (Maton et al. 1993). Free iron ions can be toxic; therefore, iron that is available to the body must be in the non-toxic ferrous state (Fe+2) rather than the ferric state (Fe+3) before assimilation in the blood stream (Jeppsen et al. 1999; Davisson et al. 2000). It was reported that toxic side effects were more severe with ferric salts because the absorption of ferric iron is relatively slower 1 Corresponding author e-mail: laliamera@berea.edu than the ferrous state (Sud et al. 1988). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agency requires that ferrous fumarate should not contain more than 2% of ferric iron (Food and Drugs, Sec. 172.350). Therefore, the knowledge of the state of iron that is to be consumed in cereals and iron supplements is of great importance as it may determine its biological effects as well as its toxicity. Mossbauer spectroscopy is a sensitive technique in determining the iron oxidation state in solid compounds that contain iron. Mossbauer spectroscopy has been applied in biomedical research, particularly for analysis of iron containing pharmaceutical compounds (Oshtrakh 1991, 1999, 2004). This study examined the oxidation state of iron in iron rich cereals, and the results were contrasted with iron-supplement pills for comparison. Room temperature Mossbauer measurements were carried out on raw cereal, on iron that was extracted from the cereal, and on one iron supplement pill. METHODS Material and Sample Preparation A few cups of iron enriched Bran Flakes™ cereal were pulverized using a mortar and a pestle. Following pulverization, a 1000-ml glass beaker was filled with 600 ml of tap water and heated to a temperature of approximately 75°C. Approximately 75 ml of pulverized bran cereal was added to the 600 ml 47 48 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) a) Raw Cereal b) Extracted Iron Position (2 6) Figure 1. X-ray diffraction patterns of raw cereal (a) and of extracted iron from the cereal (b). The patterns of the extracted iron are consistent with metal iron. of water and stirred with a wooden spoon for about 5 min in order to dissolve the cereal. Heating the water enabled the pulverized cereal to dissolve more rapidly, and it was observed that the amount of iron extracted also increased in relation to the amount of cereal dissolved in the water. Once dissolved, the beaker containing the cereal solution was situated atop a strong horseshoe magnet and held in place by hand while the stirring continues for 2-3 min. The poles of the magnet made physical contact with the base of the beaker. Carefully, while continuing to support the beaker, both the magnet and the beaker were simultaneously lifted and the cereal solution poured slowly into an empty 1000-ml beaker. It was im- perative that the base of beaker remained in contact with the poles of the magnet through- out the pouring process. As the solution was transferred from one beaker to the other, a small concentration of dark iron filings was observed to be clumped into a small region corresponding to the poles of the magnet. An aluminum scraper was used to clean away any undissolved larger particulates of remaining cereal, leaving behind a small clump of extracted iron. Coffee filter paper was used to remove the small iron clump. Coffee filter paper allowed any remaining moisture to be Mossbauer Study of Iron in a Cereal and a Supplement — Bailey et al. 49 Position (2 8) Figure 2. X-ray diffraction patterns of iron supplement pills. The patterns are consistent with FeS04. absorbed although not allowing a significant portion of the miniscule iron filings to be absorbed. An aluminum scooping tool was used to transfer the iron clump from the filter paper onto a glass microscope slide where it was allowed to air dry. Once dried, the iron was scrapped into a mortar and pestle and re- pulverized to break down any clumps, and some of the sample was loaded in a small sample holder that was placed into the Mossbauer Spectrometer. The remainder was used for x-ray diffraction analysis. The iron supplement 65 mg pill (which is equivalent to 325 mg of iron sulfate) used for comparison was manufactured by Pharmavite LLC of Mission Hill, CA. X-ray and Mossbauer Measurements A commercial Xpert X-ray diffraction system made by Philips was used to collect data for crystal structure identification. X-ray spectra of the raw cereal indicate that raw cereal can be characterized as an amorphous compound (Figure la). X-ray spectra of the extracted iron are consistent with that of a metal iron (Figure lb). The x-ray patterns of the iron supplement are consistent with those of FeS04 which is the primary ingredient of the supplement pill (Figure 2). Absorption Mossbauer data were taken at room temperature using a Wessel Mossbauer spectrometer (MVT 1000). About 4 miC of 57Co(Rh) source was used in accumulating the data in a sinusoidal mode. More than a million counts were accumulated over several days of the raw cereal and the extracted iron samples. All Mossbauer data were referenced and calibrated to metallic iron (Figure 3). Moss- bauer data were fitted using the commercial fitting program Recoil. The resulting fitting parameters of the isomer shift (I.S.), the quadrupole splitting (A), and the hyperfine 50 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Figure 3. Mossbauer spectrum of metallic iron at room temperature used for reference and calibration. magnetic field (hmf) of all Mossbauer data were tabulated (Table 1). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Mossbauer data of the raw cereal clearly showed a magnetic splitting as deter- mined by the six absorption lines in addition to a quadrupole effect as represented by the doublet in the middle of the Mossbauer spectrum (Figure 4). The Mossbauer data of the raw cereal were fitted with one sextet and one doublet (Table 1). The quadrupole value of the doublet (0.289 mm/sec) suggested that the oxidation state of the iron in raw cereal was the undesirable ferric (Fe+3) plus 3 oxidation state. This quadrupole value is consistent with that reported in the literature (Oshtrak 1999, 2004). The ferric doublet constituted about 83% of the available iron in the raw cereal. About 17% of the available iron in the raw cereal was metallic iron. The Mossbauer data of the extracted iron showed that the Fe+3 doublet constituted about 30% of the total iron (Figure 5). This difference in the amount of Fe+3 appeared to be due to the method of the iron extraction. In either case, our study suggests further Moss- bauer measurements on iron supplements. The Mossbauer measurements of the iron Table 1. Summary of the fitting routine (Recoil) results of the Mossbauer data. I.S. is the isomer shift (mm/sec), A is the quadrupole splitting (mm/sec), and hmf is the hyperfine magnetic field (mm/sec and Tesla). The accepted value of the hmf in iron is 33 T. Sample I.S. (mm/sec) A (mm/sec) hmf (mm/sec, T) % Site Population Metal Iron -0.003 -t- 0.002 0.000 H- 0.002 2.237 ± 0.001 (32.952 ± 0.017 T) 100 Raw Cereal Doublet 0.225 0.004 0.289 H- 0.007 — 82.7 Raw Cereal Sextet -0.018 + 0.032 0.024 -+- 0.032 2.230 ± 0.015 (32.850 ± 0.220 T) 17.3 Extracted Fe+3 Doublet 0.363 + 0.007 0.738 H- 0.001 — 31.58 ± 0.94 Extracted Fe+2 Doublet 1.536 + 0.018 2.841 -+- 0.035 — 0.55 ± 0.85 Extracted Fe Sextet -0.001 -+- 0.0003 0.001 H- 0.0003 2.234 ± 0.015 (32.895 ± 0.011 T) 67.87 ± 0.24 Iron supplement 1.257 -+- 0.005 2.690 0.001 — 100 Mossbauer Study of Iron in a Cereal and a Supplement — Bailey et al. 51 in v (mm/s) Figure 4. Iron Mossbauer spectrum of raw cereal. Data were fitted with one sextet and one ferric doublet. '55 c a> c CD v (mm/s) Figure 5. Iron Mossbauer spectrum of the extracted iron from the cereal. Data were fitted with one sextet and two doublets. The top small doublet represents the ferrous iron (Fe+2) state while the middle more pronounced doublet represents the ferric iron (Fe+3) state. 52 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Figure 6. Iron Mossbauer spectrum of the iron supplement. Data were fitted with one pure ferrous iron (Fe+2) doublet. supplements showed that the oxidation state of iron is about 100% ferrous (Fe+2) and the quadrupole value was consistent with the literature values of FeS04 (Figure 6) (Osh- trakh 2004). To further understand the oxidation states of iron in raw cereal, the Mossbauer data of the extracted iron were fitted with two sets of doublets, one representing the ferrous iron state and the other representing the ferric state (Figure 5). Such fits produced a differ- ence of only about 0.5% as a possible phase of the ferrous iron (Table 1). This supports the conclusion that most of the iron which is in the commercial iron-rich cereal is in the less useful ferric (Fe+3) state. CONCLUSIONS The raw cereal was found to contain about 81.5% ferric phase, possibly less than 0.5% ferrous phase, and about 18% iron metal. In the extracted iron from the cereal, about 70% of the iron available for the body was in a metal form and about 30% constituted the ferric toxic state of iron. Further studies are needed on iron in cereals in general. In the iron supplement; however, the iron was almost 100% ferrous phase. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the Appalachian College Association (ACA) for their financial support. We also would like to thank Dr. Ralph L. Thompson of Berea College Biology department for the useful discussion of the article. Finally, we would like to thank Berea College Dean of Faculty, Dr. Stephanie Browner, for her support for research in the sciences; without such support this research would not be possible. LITERATURE CITED Burbidge, E. M., G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle. 1957. Synthesis of the elements in stars. Reviews of Modern Physics 29:547-650. Davidsson, L., P. Kastenmayer, H. Szajewwska, R. F. Hurrell, and D. Barclay. 2000. Iron bioavailability in infants from an infant cereal fortified with ferric pyrophosphate or ferrous fumarate. American Journal Clinical Nutrition 71:1597-1602. Jeppsen, R. B., and J. F. Borzelleca. 1999. Safety evaluation of ferrous bisglycinate chelate. Food and Chemical Toxicology 37:723-731. Maton, A., J. Hopkins, C. W. McLaughlin, S. Johnson, M. Q. Warner, D. LaHart, and J. D. Wright. 1993. Human biology and health. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Oshtrakh, M. I. 1991. Biomedical applications of the Mossbauer effect. Hyperfine Interactions 66:127-139. Mossbauer Study of Iron in a Cereal and a Supplement — Bailey et al. 53 Oshtrakh, M. I. 1999. Mossbauer spectroscopy of iron containing biomolecules and model compounds in biomedical research. Journal of Molecular Structure 480:109-120. Oshtrakh, M. I. 2004. Study of the relationship of small variations of the molecular structure and the iron state in iron containing proteins by Mossbauer spectroscopy: biomedical approach. Spetcrochimica Acta Part A 60:217-234. Sud, M., N. Bala, V. Liveleen, and S. P. Puri. 1988. Iron oxidation states in medicine. Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Physics 26:701-704. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 71(l-2):54-58. 2010. Hispanic Consumer Perceptions of Kentucky-Grown Pigs Siddhartha Dasgupta1 Kentucky State University, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Scarlett Wesley University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506 and Kelly R. Probst Kentucky State University, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 ABSTRACT Data were collected via a 2010 survey of Hispanic consumers in Kentucky regarding their willingness to purchase pigs from local growers. Focus was given on live animal sales because of the convenience of small- scale livestock producers. Results show that nearly 30% of respondents were willing to buy live pigs; however, only 13% of surveyed consumers were willing to process the live animals. The most popular size of pig was from 4.5 kg (10 lbs) to 18 kg (40 lbs). Hispanic consumers who lived with their families in Kentucky and/or were willing to travel to farms to purchase food products exhibited a significantly higher proclivity to buy pigs. Hence, the data indicated a strong potential for developing a direct-to-consumer market for pigs in Kentucky, particularly if farmers can cooperate with local butchers such that Hispanic consumers could conveniently buy live pigs and have them processed to their specifications. INTRODUCTION Pig farming is part of Kentucky’s small-scale agricultural tradition, although the total pro- duction had diminished significantly from 138,000 farms in 1950 to only 900 farms in 2006 (USDA: NASS 2007). Marketing from small-scale farms is usually a challenge due to the relative high unit costs of production and low output volume. Small-scale Kentucky farmers have been successful in selling various products via direct-to-consumer markets or farmers markets (Dasgupta et al. 2010b). One direct-to-consumer market that is available to Kentucky’s producers is the Hispanic con- sumer market. Anecdotal evidence from farmers and marketing research data simulta- neously indicate that many Hispanic consum- ers are willing to purchase food directly from farms, including live animals (Sande et al. 2005; Dasgupta et al. 2010a). The Hispanic population in Kentucky has been expanding rapidly; in 2000 the Hispanic population in Kentucky was 59,939 (1.39% of Kentucky population), and the estimated Hispanic 1 Corresponding author e-mail: Siddhartha.dasgupta@ kysu.edu population in 2009 was 103,538 (2.56% of Kentucky population) (U.S. Census Bureau). Hence, if Kentucky producers could access the Hispanic communities for direct market- ing, it would be good news for enhancing profitability for Kentucky’s small scale pro- ducers. This paper reports the perceptions of Kentucky’s Hispanic consumers towards pur- chasing pigs locally. Data for this study were obtained via a Hispanic consumer survey as part of a USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service: Federal-State Marketing Improve- ment Program grant. Results of this paper could be useful tools to delineate the market- ability of pigs to Hispanic consumers in Kentucky. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE During the 1990s, the hog-pork sector in the United States underwent dramatic change with the expansion of large-scale, industrial operations. Since this time, the large-scale corporately-owned hog operations have dom- inated the market making it challenging for small scale pig farmers to compete using conventional production and marketing meth- 54 Hispanic Consumer Perceptions of Kentucky-Grown Pigs — Dasgupta et al. 55 ods (Ikerd 2001). Consequently, small scale farmers needed different approaches to pig marketing to remain competitive. One alternative is direct-to-consumer mar- kets that target Hispanic consumers. In research by the USDA, the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) found that typically Hispanics ate pork at about the same rate as the rest of the U.S. population, but they have a significant preference for fresh pork products over processed meats (Davis and Lin 2005). Other data showed that Hispanic consumers prefer whole carcasses over specific cuts of pork (Value added agriculture program 2010). For example, in Mexican-American cooking, the spine bone is used for stews. This bone is only available in a whole carcass. Whole carcasses also provide pig skin and pig head that are used for various Hispanic dishes (Value added agriculture program 2010). While whole carcasses are difficult to obtain from large meatpackers, small-scale pig producers might be able to supply live pigs/whole carcasses to Hispanic consumers. The Hispanic population in the United States has been increasing sharply; there has been a 33% increase from 35.2 million in 2000 to 46.8 million in 2008 (Dockterman and Velasco 2010). It is projected that by 2020 36% or one-in-four people in the United States will be Hispanic, making this ethnic group the largest and fastest growing in the country (Berry 2009). Kentucky has seen a dramatic increase in Hispanic population with a 72% growth from 2000 to 2008 (Kentucky Quick Facts 2008). Hispanics have been found to spend more money on food purchases than the average American consumer (Wagner and Soberon- Ferrer 1990; Fan and Zuiker 1998; Paulin 1998; Paulin 2001). In general, Hispanics spend an average of $133 per week on groceries as compared with $93 spent per week by non- Hispanics. Hispanics have shown distinctive food preferences including the preference for fresh and authentic ingredi- ents. Hispanics were more likely to cook meals at home than their non-Hispanic counterparts which translated to their spending 16.4% more on meat than non-Hispanic consumers (Diaz-Valensuela et al. 2008). Hispanic con- sumers in the United States are heavily influenced by the dietary patterns of their home countries with flavor and family-pleas- ing qualities being the primary attraction to certain foods. While cuisine can vary dramat- ically among countries of origin, many His- panics retain the core elements of a Hispanic diet. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data for this study came from a 2010 survey of Hispanic consumers in Kentucky. The survey questions were designed after discus- sions with a Hispanic focus group consisting of consumers, restaurateurs/caterers, and coop- erative extension personnel serving Hispanic communities. The survey questionnaire was tested by members of the focus group to ensure relevancy. The survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews during which con- sumers answered questions regarding 1) grocery shopping habits and willingness to purchase food products from farms or “farm- ers’ market alternatives,” 2) willingness to purchase pigs, and 3) consumer demograph- ics. A total of 144 useful observations were obtained from the survey including demo- graphic data (Table 1). Consumer preference data were analyzed by statistically comparing proportions exhibit- ed by various demographic groups towards their willingness to buy pigs in Kentucky. It was hypothesized that consumer demograph- ics and shopping habits might exert a system- atic influence over their preference towards buying pigs. Variables related to consumer demographics and shopping habits were used as independent variables in a logistic regres- sion model (equation 1) where the dichoto- mous dependent variable exhibited respon- dents willingness to buy live pigs (Greene 1993). (1) P [consumer i is willing to buy live pigs] = A(ft' X Xj), where A represents the Logistic cumulative distribution function, pj represents a (k X 1) vector of regression coefficients for the jth attribute of a product, and Xj represents a (k X 1) vector of consumer characteristics, as discussed above. By applying (1) to our data, we developed a logistic likelihood function that was maxi- mized by selecting the appropriate PjS. These 56 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Table 1. Distribution of demographic information ex- pressed as a percentage of total respondents. U.S. Hispanic population demographics provided for compar- ison purposes. N = 144. Our data" U.S. Hispanic population1’ Gender: Male 45% 51% Female 47% 49% Age. 30 or less 41% 57% 31-40 31% 17% 41-50 13% 13% 51-60 3% 7% 61-65 1% 2% 66 or more 0% 4% Education: High school or below 67% 71% Technical 18% _e 4-year degree or more 7% 10% Country of Origin: Mexico 65% 65% Honduras 6% 1% Guatemala 4% 2% El Salvador 3% 3% Nicaragua 3% 1% Other 9% 28% Household income: Less than $20K 52% 20% >$20K but <$30K 28% 15% >$30K but <$40K 10% 13% >$40K but <$50K 2% 11% >$50K 2% 40% Occupation of breadwinner: Agricultural industry 26% 7% Labor 27% 27% Sales 3% 14% Management 6% 11% " Percentages do not always sum to 100% due to lack of responses from various completed questionnaires. b 2007 data from United States Census Bureau: http://factfinder.census.gov. c Data unavailable. pjS were used to identify subgroups of consumers that exhibited a significantly (i.e., P ^ 5%) higher/lower willingness to buy live pigs from Kentucky producers. RESULTS Survey results showed that most of the respondents (74%) bought groceries primarily from chain stores, such as Wal-Mart and Kroger, with only 26% of respondents buying food mainly from smaller grocery chains such as Save-A-Lot and Hispanic groceries. While Hispanic grocery stores were not always the main grocery outlet, they remained popular among Hispanic consumers; 72% of respon- dents made at least two grocery-shopping trips to Hispanic grocery stores per month. Inter- estingly, farmers’ markets were rarely visited by Hispanic consumers with 69% of respon- dents reporting that they did not attend farmers’ markets; language barrier was the commonly-cited reason for this result. Respondents indicated their willingness to travel to a farm to buy food items, including live animals. The data showed that 56% of respondents would be willing to travel to a farm to buy food products, and an additional 16% reported that they would also go to farms, except that they did not have transpor- tation. Twenty-four percent of respondents (35 individuals) were willing to travel to farms within a 5 mile radius of their residence, an additional 27% of respondents were willing to travel up to 10 miles of their residence, and an additional 21% were willing to travel to farms that were up to 20 miles of their residence. Correspondingly, 85% of respondents indicat- ed that they would buy food from vendors if they would bring farm products directly to Hispanic communities. Surveyed consumers indicated their will- ingness to purchase live pigs. The focus was on live pigs because it is convenient for small- scale producers to sell a few live animals, instead of going to the expense of processing the animals themselves. The data showed that although very few respondents have bought live pigs in Kentucky (4 affirmative responses; 6%), many more were willing to purchase live pigs from Kentucky’s producers (42 affirma- tive responses; 29%). However, proportion- ately fewer respondents were willing to butcher pigs by themselves; only 19 respon- dents (13%) were willing to process pigs. Respondents were asked to indicate their size preferences for live pigs (Table 2). Of the total 50 (35%) respondents who answered with a size preference, more than half (27) preferred pigs between 4.5 kg (10 lbs) and 18 kg (40 lbs). Adult pigs (approximately 45 kg/100 lbs or more) were the next most popular size class with 13 respondents choos- ing this size. Respondents indicated how often they would be willing to buy live pigs from farmers. Nineteen respondents (13%) reported they Hispanic Consumer Perceptions of Kentucky-Grown Pigs — Dasgupta et al. 57 Table 2. Size of pigs preferred by respondents. N = 144. Size of pigs Number of respondents exhibiting preference (percentage) 10 lbs or smaller 6 (4.17%) >10 and <40 lbs 27 (8.75%) Adult pig 13 (9.03%) >10 and <40 lbs or adult 3 (2.08%) Any sized live pig 1 (0.69%) An additional 30% of respondents indicated that they would not purchase live pigs and the remaining 35% of respondents did not respond to this question. will buy pigs once a year, while an additional 22 respondents (15%) said that they will buy twice per year. Only 6 respondents (4%) said that they will buy live pigs three times, or more, per year. Statistical analyses investigated if certain consumer characteristics were associated with respondents who exhibited a willingness to buy live pigs. The data showed that 63% of such respondents had spouse and children living with them in Kentucky. This group of respondents, with families living with them, was significantly more willing to buy live pigs (X2 test statistic, 1 df, was 6.45; P = 1.11%). Respondents who were willing to travel to farms to purchase fresh foods also showed a significantly higher proclivity to buy live pigs (X2 test statistic, 1 df, was 12.14; P — 0.05%). Logit regression results corroborated our results above. The dependent variable was binary with a value of 1 indicating that the respondent was willing to buy live pigs; 0, otherwise. Results of this regression that shows that a consumer’s willingness to travel to a farm to purchase food, and having their family living with them in Kentucky signifi- cantly increased their likelihood of purchasing live pigs (Table 3). However, consumers that spend $500 or more on monthly groceries, on average, had a significantly lower willingness to buy live pigs. CONCLUSIONS This study investigated the perceptions of Hispanic consumers towards buying pigs from Kentucky producers. The results showed that there was a strong potential for small-scale pig producers to sell their product to Hispanics. The survey showed that nearly 30% of the respondents were willing to buy live pigs. With the rapid growth of Kentucky’s Hispanic population, this represents a substantial de- mand for such a product. The main conclusions from this study are 1) consumers willing to travel to farms to buy food products have a significantly higher willingness to buy live pigs, 2) consumers with families in Kentucky also have a signif- icantly higher willingness to buy live pigs, and 3) pigs of size 18 kg (40 lbs) or less are most popular in this market. Additional information from some of the surveyed consumers seemed to indicate that this pig size typically corre- sponds to the right size for roasting, particu- larly at family gatherings. Other results showed that while a sizeable portion of Hispanic consumers were willing to buy live pigs from Kentucky farmers, few were willing to process the animals. This is consis- tent with findings of Davis and Lin (2005) that suggests that Hispanics would rather purchase whole pig carcasses. This suggests that small- scale pig producers should consider cooper- ating with local butcher shops such that Hispanic consumers could purchase live pigs from a farm and conveniently have the animals processed to their specifications. Table 3. Results of a logistic regression on the willingness to buy live pigs by Hispanic consumers in Kentucky to identify systematic effects of demographic parameters '. Regressors1’ Intercept AgOccup GoToFarm FarmToComm FKY SpendMore Coefficient estimate -4.63 0.33 2.62 0.76 1.08 -2.22 Standard error 1.49 0.49 1.06 1.16 0.54 1.08 P-value (%) 0.19 49.56 1.32 51.19 4.45 4.03 N = 123; Generalized R- = 0.21; LR test = 27.36 ( P = 0.01%); Tau-a = 0.228. ' Dependent variable: BuyLivePigs = 1 if respondents were willing to purchase live pigs from Kentucky producers; ‘0’ otherwise. h AgOccup is a dichotomous variable which is T if a respondent had an immediate family member who had an agricultural occupation; ‘0’ otherwise. GoToFarm is a dichotomous variable which is T if a respondent was willing to travel to a farm to purchase food products including live animals; ‘0’ otherwise. FarmToComm is a dichotomous variable which is T if a respondent was willing to support vendors bringing food products from a farm to their community for sale; ‘0’ otherwise. FKY is a dichotomous variable which is T if respondent’s spouse and children lived with them in Kentucky; ‘0’ otherwise. SpendMore = ‘F if respondent spent $500 or more, on average, on monthly groceries; otherwise it is ‘O’. 58 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) In conclusion, this paper indicates that there is a direct-to-consumer market where Kentucky farmers could sell pigs to Hispanic consumers, although this sales potential will be fully realized if fresh pig carcasses of size between 4.5 kg (10 lbs) and 18 kg (40 lbs) could be sold through local butchers. The survey data showed that 72% of respondents would travel 20 miles or less from their residence to a farm to buy various food products, including animals. Hence, Kentucky producers within 20 miles of Hispanic popu- lation centers should consider diversifying into direct marketing to Hispanic consumers and pigs could be an important part of their various product offerings. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful for the US DA Federal State Marketing Improvement Pro- gram for funding this study. We are also grateful for all reviewers’ comments which improved the manuscript. LITERATURE CITED Berry, B. 2009. Marketing to Hispanic consumers in the United States. Agriculture and Agr-Food Canada. Dasgupta, S., K. R. Probst, and S. Wesley. 2010a. Hispanic consumers’ willingness to purchase aquaculture prod- ucts directly from farmers: Results from a recent survey. Unpublished document, Aquaculture Research Center, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY. Dasgupta, S., J. Eaton, and A. Caporelli. 2010b. Consumer Perceptions of Freshwater Prawns: Results from a Kentucky Farmers’ Market. Journal of Shellfish Research. In press. Davis, C. G., and B. H. Lin. 2005. Factors affecting U.S. pork consumption. United States Department of Agriculture. LDP-M-130-01. Diaz-Valenzuela, J. F., G. C. Ames, and J. E. Houston. 2008. An analysis of the Hispanic consumers’ demand for food eaten at home. American Agricultural Eco- nomics Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, 27- 29 July. Dockterman, D., and G. Velasco. 2008. Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States. Pew Hispanic Center, http://pewhispanic.org/factsheets/factsheet. php?FactsheetID=58. Date accessed (27 April 2010) Fan, J. X., and V. S. Zuiker. 1998. A comparison of household budget allocation patterns between Hispanic Americans and non-Hispanic White Americans. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 19:151-174. Greene, W. H. 1993. Econometric Analysis. 2nd Ed. Macmillian Publishing Company, New York, New York. Ikerd, J. 2001. Economic fallacies of industrial hog production. Presented at Sustainable Hog Farming Summit, sponsored by the Water Keepers Alliance, White Plains, NY, 11 January. Kentucky Quick Facts. 2008. http://quickfacts.census.gov/ qfd/states/2100.html. Date accessed (27 April 2010) Paulin, G. D. 1998. A growing market: A study of expenditures by Hispanic consumers. Monthly Labor Review, March: 3-21. Paulin, G. D. 2001. Variation in food purchases: A study of inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic group patterns involving the Hispanic community. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 29:336-381. Sande, D. N., J. E. Houston, and J. E. Epperson. 2005. The relationship of consuming populations to meat-goat production in the United States. Journal of Food Distribution Research 36:156-160. United States Census Bureau. http://factfinder.census. gov. Date accessed (27 April 2010) USDA: National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007. Kentucky hog and pig facts, http://www.nass.usda.gov/ Statistics_by_State/Kentucky/Publications/Pamphlets/ hog06.pdf. Date accessed (27 April 2010) Value added agriculture program: Gordito’s Meats. 2010. Iowa State University Extension. http://www.extension. iastate.edu/valueaddedag/info/gorditosmeats.htm. Date accessed (27 April 2010) Wagner, J., and H. Soberon-Ferrer. 1990. The effect of ethnicity on selected household expenditures. The Social Science Journal 27:181-198. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 71(l-2):59-66. 2010. Effect of Different Schedules of Baby Com (Z ea mays L.) Harvests on Baby Com Yield, Grain Yield, and Economic Betum Zheng Wang, Martin Stone, and Elmer Gray1 Department of Agriculture, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101-3576 ABSTRACT Baby com (Z ea mays L.) consists of unfertilized young ears harvested 2 or 3 days after silk emergence. The present study, conducted in 2009, was the culmination of three successive years of production and evaluation of baby com at Western Kentucky University Agriculture Research and Education Center (36.93 N, 86.47 E) in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of different schemes of harvests on baby corn (BC) yield, grain maize (GM) yield, and estimated economic return. Harvest treatments were 1) no BC harvest, only GM harvest, 2) first harvest as BC, final harvest as GM, 3) first and second harvests as BC, final harvest as GM, and 4) first, second, and third harvests as BC, final harvest as GM. Average BC yields (kg/ha) for Treatments 2, 3, and 4 were 1445.1, 2681.8, and 3437.5; Average GM yields (kg/ha) for Treatments 1, 2, and 3 were 12,522.2, 8226.5, and 1380.9; respectively. Since few grain kernels were found after three BC harvests (Treatment 4), no usable GM yield was produced. BC and GM yields were used for evaluating the economic returns. Results indicated that the descending sequence of treatments for economic returns were Treatments 4, 3, 2, and 1. Although the three BC harvest system (Treatment 4) was the most profitable, if required the most human labor and critical timing of harvests. In Kentucky, BC could be grown as an additional crop or to supplant a limited amount of traditional GM hectarage. KEY WORDS: Baby com, specialty crop, vegetable crop com INTRODUCTION Maize (Zea mays L.) has been cultivated for centuries as a grain crop and more recently as a vegetable crop, including sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata) and baby corn (Muthu- kumar et al. 2005; Mahajan et al. 2007). Baby corn is the young, finger-length fresh ear harvested within 2 or 3 days of silk emergence but prior to fertilization (Figure 1) (Almeida et al. 2005; Siliva et al. 2006; Mahajan et al. 2007; Muthukumar et al. 2007; Saha et al. 2007). Baby corn is a vegetable crop that can potentially improve the economic status of farmers (Das et al. 2008). In addition to its sweet, succulent taste, baby corn’s nutrient value is comparable to other vegetables such as cauliflower, cabbage, and tomato. Thava- prakaash et al. (2005) and Das et al. (2008) reported that baby corn contained 89.1% moisture, 0.2% fat, 1.9% protein, 8.2% carbohydrate, 0.06% ash, 0.028% calcium, 0.086% phosphorus, and 0.011% ascorbic acid. Globally, as an immature vegetable, baby corn consumption has increased due to the enhanced living standards and shift in dietary 1 Corresponding author e-mail: elmer.gray@wku.edu habit from non-vegetarian to vegetarian; however, the production areas are still con- fined to a few countries, including Thailand, Indonesia, India, and Brazil. The greatest production of baby corn is in Thailand with the value of approximate $64 million (U.S.) in 2000 (Chatuchak 2001). In addition to high nutritional value as human food, another benefit of baby corn consists of utilizing the husk, silk, and stover as green herbage for feeding ruminants and swine (Aekatasanawan 2001). There are no reported data for baby corn production in the United States; never- theless, the U.S. is the leading importer of baby corn, mainly from Thailand. The U.S. imports accounted for approximately 40% of total baby corn exported by these countries (Aekatasanawan 2001). In the U.S., baby corn production is its infancy and there is a dearth of research information, especially on the impact of baby corn harvest systems on baby corn yield and economic returns; therefore, it is imperative that further research be con- ducted to improve both yield and quality. The objective of the present study was to compare the effect of different systems of harvest on baby corn yield, grain yield, and estimated economic return. 59 60 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Figure 1. Regular baby com ears and acceptable baby com ear (Stone et al. 2008, unpublished). MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY The field study was conducted in 2009 at Western Kentucky University Agriculture Research and Education Center, Bowling Green, Kentucky (36.93 N, 86.47 E). The experiment was a two-way design with four harvest treatments and eight locations as replications. The four treatments included: 1) only harvest as grain, 2) first harvest as baby corn, then as grain, 3) first and second harvests as baby com and final for grain harvest, and 4) first, second, and third harvests as baby corn, and final for grain. An experi- mental unit consisted of two rows with 5.33 m in length and separated by 0.76 m. The locations (replications) were on the same farm, separated by a maximum distance of approximately 500 m, and on the same soil, Crider silt loam ( Tijpic Paleudalf ). Field corn experimental lines being evaluated for pro- duction in Central Kentucky were used in the study. The Northrup King lines were ‘N77F- 3000GT\ ‘NCT-3000GT\ EXIGEN-518\ and ‘ N77P-3000GT\ seeded at 62,000 to 70,000 plants per hectare. Soil test results for eight locations gave ranges of 5.1 to 6.3 for pH; no lime was applied. Nitrogen (N) was applied at 188 kg/ ha for all eight locations, phosphorus (P2O5) application ranged from 38 to 56 kg/ha, and potassium (k20) application ranged from 28 to 38 kg/ha for eight locations. Pre- and post- plant glyphosate applications were used for weed control. Baby corn ears were harvested at weekly intervals, counted, weighed, and categorized into marketable and unmarket- able based upon the standard by Aekatasana- wan (2001). Weights (g) of the marketable and unmarketable husk covered ears were record- ed in order to determine yield (kg/ha). Ears were left in the husk to extend their fresh condition. All baby corn harvests were com- pleted between 8 July and 4 August; all grain harvests were completed between 14 and 17 September when the grain moisture ranged from 30-35%. For each treatment, total Baby Corn Harvests — Wang et al. 61 Table 1. Average number of baby com ears per row from first, second, and third harvests within and across locations. Order of harvest Number of ears by location Average1 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total First 31 16 15 30 27 18 19 19 175 21.9 A Second 17 29 23 26 29 25 31 26 206 25.8 A Third 9 5 12 22 14 12 14 20 108 13.5 B Total 57 50 50 78 70 55 64 65 489 Average2 19.0 16.7 16.7 26.0 23.3 18.3 21.3 21.7 1 DMR-average followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.01. 2 Location averages are not significantly different (P > 0.05). number of ears was recorded and three ears were randomly selected and shelled to deter- mine the grain-cob ratio. Total kernel weight was used for estimating the grain yield (kg/ha) at 15% moisture (Hoeft et al. 2000). For analysis, baby corn income was sourced from the number of harvested marketable ears per hectare with the unit price of 12 ears per dollar. Cost was mainly the labor expense for harvesting and varied by different treatments. Likewise, for grain maize, income was sourced from the unit price of the American Maize Market, $3.35 per bushel, converted to ap- proximately $132 per metric ton. Cost for grain harvest was divided into variable cost (seed, fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, fuel, machine repairs, and labor) and fixed cost (depreciation, taxes, and insurance). All costs were the same for each treatment because there was only one grain harvest. Net incomes for both baby corn and grain maize were generated by the subtraction of respective costs from the gross income. The final net profit values for each treatment came from the summation of baby com and grain maize’s net incomes. Analysis of variance was conducted for baby com yield, number of baby corn ears, and grain yield. Comparisons of the averages over the four treatments and eight locations were analyzed using Duncan Multiple Range Test to further determine the difference among treatments and locations. RESULTS AND ANALYSES Number of Baby Corn Ears Difference among three harvests were highly significant ( P < 0.01); whereas, loca- tions did not differ (P > 0.05). Further comparison indicated that average number of baby corn ears in the third harvest was lower ( P < 0.01) than first and second harvests which did not differ from one another (P > 0.05) (Table 1). Results indicated that removing the first harvest as baby corn stimulated more inflorescences (baby corn ears) in the second harvest. However, the number of baby corn ears for the third harvest was 50% less than the second harvest. Percentage of Market Acceptable Baby Corn Ears Percentages of acceptable baby corn ears were determined based upon established standards for marketable baby corn (Aekata- sanawan 2001). These requirements include: 1) ear size of 4 to 9 cm length and 1.0 to 1.5 cm diameter, and 2) good quality such as straight ovary row arrangement, unfertilized and unbroken ears, and size within factory spec- ifications (Figure 1). Results showed that the percentages of acceptable ears for harvests 1, 2, and 3 were 96.9, 48.6, and 57.5; respec- tively. All differences among harvest means were highly significant (P < 0.01) (Table 2). Table 2. Percentage of marketable baby com ears of first, second, and third harvests within and across locations. Order of harvest Marketable ears by location (%) l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Average1 First 93.5 100 93.3 93.3 100 100 94.7 100 96.9 A Second 41.2 27.6 56.5 42.3 48.3 64.0 54.8 53.8 48.6 C Third 55.6 60.0 41.7 54.5 50.0 66.7 71.4 60.0 57.5 B Average2 63.4 62.5 63.8 63.4 66.1 76.9 73.6 71.3 1 DMR-average followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.01. 2 Location averages are not significantly different (P > 0.05). 62 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) harvest 1 Hi*®8 harvest 2 “***§1?** harvest 3 Figure 2. Percentage of marketable baby com for first, second, and third harvests within each location. BC = Baby com. GM = Grain maize. There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in percentages marketable ears among loca- tions (Table 2). Although the average number of harvested baby corn ears was the largest in the second harvest, average percentage of the marketable baby corn ear was the lowest (Table 1, Figure 2). This situation suggests that production and growth of baby corn were accelerated during the period between first and second harvests. Baby Corn Yield Baby corn yields for Treatments 2, 3, and 4 were based upon weights of the marketable ears for each treatment. Results showed that Treatment 4 had the largest yield of the three treatments (P < 0.01) and that yield increased with the increase in number of baby corn harvests (Treatment 2 to Treatment 4, Ta- ble 3). DMR test results showed that differ- ences (P < 0.01) existed among the three treatments (Table 3). Number of marketable baby corn ears per hectare was also estimated with the basis of total number of harvested marketable baby corn ears. Similar results were obtained in which Treatment 4 had a greater (P < 0.01) number of marketable baby corn ears compared with the other two treatments (Table 4). Grain Yield Average grain yield of Treatment 1 which had no baby com harvest was greater (P < 0.01) than those for Treatments 2, 3, and 4 which had baby corn harvests (Table 5). Treatment 2 which had only one baby corn harvest produced more grain than Treatments 3 and 4 which had two and three baby corn harvests; respectively (Table 5). Treatment 4 which had three baby corn harvests produced negligible grain yield. Combination of Baby Corn and Grain Yield Combinations of average baby com yield and grain yield for each treatment are presented in Table 3. Estimated baby com yields for Treatments 2, 3, and 4 within and across locations. Baby com yield by locations (kg/ha) Treatments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Treatment average1 2 1876.0 1086.8 895.4 2092.1 1977.2 1440.0 1010.2 1183.1 1445.1 C 3 2829.4 2082.2 1936.5 2579.9 3842.1 2431.7 2636.7 3115.9 2681.8 B 4 4513.9 1403.0 3030.7 4770.8 4165.7 2957.8 3835.9 2822.0 3437.5 A Location average2 3073.1 AB 1524.0 D 1954.2 CD 3147.6 AB 3328.3 A 2276.5 C 2494.3 BC 2373.7 C 1 DMR-average followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.01. 2 DMR-location averages followed by same letters are not significant ( P > 0.01). Baby Com Harvests — Wang et al. 63 Table 4. Estimated number of baby corn ears per hectare for Treatments 2, 3, and 4 within and across locations. Number < of baby com ears by location Treatments l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Treatment average' 2 61750 43225 34580 82745 67925 45695 49400 41990 53413 C 3 121030 124735 87685 138320 140790 111150 128440 130910 122882 B 4 Location 156845 109915 137085 187720 175370 137085 155610 155610 151905 A average2 113208 B 92625 CD 86450 D 136261 A 128028 A 97976 CD 111150 BC 109503 BC 1 DMR-average followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.01. 2 DMR-location averages followed by same letters are not significant ( P > 0.01). Table i 5. Estimated grain yield for each treatment within and across eight locations. Grain yield by locations (kg/ha) Treatments l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Treatment average1 1 10184.8 13414.6 10327.8 14887.4 15462.9 14236.1 10280.0 11383.6 12522.2 A 2 6484.9 8203.7 10258.9 9270.8 9819.0 6817.4 7230.2 7727.2 8226.5 B 3 Location 447.5 447.9 4109.3 1583.9 1487.1 878.5 740.2 1353.1 1380.9 C average2 5705.7 7355.4 8232.0 8580.7 8923.0 7310.7 6083.5 6821.3 1 DMR- average followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.01. 2 Location averages are not significantly different ( P > 0.05). Figure 3. As baby corn yield increased, grain yield decreased markedly from Treatment 1 to 3 and reached 0 in Treatment 4. In Treatment 4, average grain yields for eight locations were less than 50 kg/ha, which were agronomically negligible. Correlation analyses showed that baby corn yield was positively correlated (r = 0.996, P < 0.01) with number of marketable baby com ears but negatively correlated (r = —0.988, P < 0.05) to grain yield and likewise, number of marketable baby com ears was negatively correlated (r = —0.997, P < 0.01) with grain yield, resulting in a substantially negative relationship between grain yield and BC=Baby corn GM=Grain maize Figure 3. Average baby com and grain yields for the four treatments. 64 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Table 6. Average net economic returns ($) per hectare for different schedules of maize harvests across eight locations. Economic return for the four treatments ($) l 2 3 4 Baby com incomes 0 4451 10240 12658 Baby com cost 0 1853 3706 5559 Net income of baby corn 0 2598 6534 7099 Grain income 1652 1085 182 0 Grain production cost Variable cost 539 539 539 539 Fixed cost 123 123 123 123 Total grain production cost 662 662 662 662 Net income of grain production 990 423 -480 -662 Total net income 990 3021 6054 6437 baby com yield and with number of marketable baby com ears. Economic Return The economic returns for different harvest models were variable. For baby corn, it was estimated that 247 hours would be needed per hectare with a cost of $7.50 per hour, resulting in the total labor cost as $1853 per hectare for each harvest. Based upon a standard price of baby corn ear ($1 per dozen), estimated income of marketable baby corn ears for Treatments 2, 3, and 4 were $4451, $10,240, and $12,658; respectively. Labor costs for Treatments 2, 3, and 4 were $1853, $3706, and $5559; respectively. Thus, net returns per hectare for baby corn under diverse harvests (4 treatments) from eight locations were 0, $2598, $6534, and $7099; respectively. For grain harvest, average incomes per hectare for grain under different treatments through the eight locations were $1652, $1085, $182, $0 (no usable grain harvest); respectively (Ta- bles 5, 6). Based upon University of Kentucky Agricultural Extension’s report, the total variable and fixed costs for grain production per hectare were estimated as $539 and $123 with total cost of $662 (Table 6). Average net incomes for different treatments among loca- tions were $990, $423, $-480, and $-662 per hectare; respectively (Table 6). Hence, total net returns per hectare for Treatments 1, 2, 3, and 4 were $990, $3021, $6054, and $6437; respectively (Table 6). DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY Corn plants have a high level of plasticity for number of ear shoots per plant. In grain production most plants produce a maximum of two shoots. However, early removal of an ear shoot often results in another shoot emergence from the next lower leaf axil. This characteristic of corn plants is basic to baby com, a specialty corn industry that is well established in Asia but only of recent recog- nition in the United States. Figure 4. Baby corn ear shoots at low leaf axil and brace root. Baby Corn Harvests — Wang et al. 65 Figure 5. Bare cobs after three harvests as baby com selected from plants in Treatment 4. A tripartite set of questions were pursued in the present study. First, will plants continue to produce both quantity and quality baby corn over successive harvests? The results indicat- ed that at least three baby corn harvests at weekly intervals were productive. The seven- day harvest interval was too long resulting in ears that often exceeded market standard for length and width. It was apparent that three- day harvest intervals as reported by Silva et al. (2006) would increase the number of accept- able ears. Although quality as indicated by ear shape, size, and straightness of ovary arrange- ment, deteriorated with successive harvests, some plants were observed that produced ears shoots at their base even below brace roots (Figure 4). Second, will harvests of baby corn impact the subsequent grain yield in the present study? Baby corn was not harvested in Treatment 1, providing the control for the other treatments which were harvested for baby com. In all comparisons, subsequent grain production was reduced by previous baby corn harvests ). Compared with Treatment 1, reductions for 1, 2, and 3 harvests (Treatments 2, 3, and 4) were 34%, 89%, and 100%; respectively. Three harvests of baby corn over a two-week period (Treatment 4) resulted in virtual failure of grain production. The plants continued to produce cobs and ovules but few or no grains indicating cessation of pollen production (Figure 5). Others, including Geraldi et al. (1985), Almeida et al. (2005), and Silva et al. (2006), reported that corn produced pollen for 7 to 9 days. Ears left for subsequent grain production would need to be pollinated within this period. Third, what will be the likely economic impact of the negative association between baby corn and grain yield? Income figures in Table 6 showed the increase in income from baby com and the decrease from grain production as the number of baby com harvests increased within each treatment, resulting in an increased total net income. The explanation would be that increased time for additional baby com harvest 66 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) shortened the period of pollen availability for grain production. These results indicated that the lowest income resulted from only grain har- vest and highest income from only baby com harvest. It would be advantageous for larger com producers to meet expected market demands by taking a small area and harvesting only baby com multiple times rather than using a larger area and harvesting fewer times. Shortening harvest intervals to three days would increase the percentage of marketable baby com ears. In combined production, earlier final baby com harvest is conducive to more completed fertiliza- tion of ovules for final grain harvest. In the present study, there were no consistent differences among locations or cultivars. However, there was only limited variation within each of these factors. It is not expected that baby corn production will be restricted by cultivars or environments. The three critical factors for baby com production are timing of harvest, intensity of harvesting labor, and available markets. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge Drs. Todd Willian and Becky Gilfillen, for their agronomic guidance, and Mr. Joseph Reynolds for the experimental assistance. Also, thanks are given to the Ogden College of Science and Engineering and the Department of Agriculture for supporting our research. LITERATURE CITED Aekatasanawan, C. 2001. Chapter 9: Baby Com. Pages 275-293 in A. R. Ohiorhenuan (ed). Specialty Com, 2nd ed. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida. Almeida, I. P., P. S. Silva, M. Z. Negreiros, and Z. Barbosa. 2005. Baby com, green ear, and grain yield of com cultivars. Hortic. Bras 23(4):960-964. Chatuchak, C. 2001. Baby corn development: Thailand. Pages 160-169 in J. Ohiorhenuan (ed). Examples of successful initiatives in agriculture are mral develop- ment in the South. United Nations Development Program, Rome, Italy. Das, S., G. Ghosh, M. D. Kaleem, and V. Bahadur. 2008. Effect of different levels of nitrogen and crop geometry on the growth, yield and quality of baby corn (Z ea mays L.) CV. ‘GOLDEN BABY’. ISHS Acta Horticulturae 809: International Symposium on the Socio-Economic Impact of Modem Vegetable Production Technology in Tropical Asia. Geraldi, I. O., J. B. Miranda Filho, and R. Vencovsky. 1985. Estimatives of genetic parameters for tassel characters in maize (Z ea mays L.) and breeding per- spectives. Maydica 30(1):1-14. Hoeft, R. G., E. D. Nafziger, R. R. Johnson, and S. R. Aldrich. 2000. Chapter 1: Com as a Crop. Pages 1-29 in R. G. Hoeft, E. D. Nafziger, R. R. Johnson and S. R. Aldrich (eds). Modem Com and Soybean Production, 1st ed. MSCP Publications. Mahajan, G., R. Sharda, A. Kumar, and K. G. Singh. 2007. Effect of plastic mulch on economizing irrigation water and weed control in baby corn sown by different methods. African Journal of Agricultural Research 2(1): 19-26. Muthukumar, V. B., K. Velayudham, and N. Thavapra- kaash. 2005. Growth and yield of baby com (Z ea mays L.) as influenced by plant growth regulators and different time of nitrogen application. Research Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences l(4):303-307. Muthukumar, V. B., K. Velayudham, and N. Thavapra- kaash. 2007. Plant growth regulators and split applica- tion of nitrogen improves the quality parameters and green cob yield of baby com (Z ea mays L.). Journal of Agronomy 6(1):208-211. Saha, S., G. K. Appireddy, S. Kundu, and H. S. Gupta. 2007. Comparative efficiency of three organic manures at varying rates of its application to baby com. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 53(5):507-517. Silva, P. S., P. I. Silva, A. K. Sousa, K. M. Gurgel, and I. P. Filho. 2006. Green ear yield and grain yield of maize after harvest of the first ear as baby corn. Hortic. Bras 24(2): 151-155. Stone, M., E. Gray, and T. Willian. 2008. Yield of baby com (Z ea Mays L.) in Kentucky as influenced by density and cultivar flex. Unpublished. Thavaprakaash, N., K. Velayudham, and V. B. Muthuku- mar. 2005. Effect of crop geometry, intercropping system and integrated nutrient management practices on productivity of baby com (Z ea mays L.) based intercropping systems. Research Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences l(4):295-302. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 71(l-2):67-81. 2010. Rare and Extirpated Biota and Natural Communities of Kentucky Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission1 801 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 ABSTRACT The Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission has updated and revised the lists of rare and extinct or extirpated biota last published in 2000 and updated in 2001, 2004 and 2005 based on a standard methodology now utilized by NatureServe. Natural communities have been included in this update. The newly revised lists include one lichen, 387 vascular plant and lesser taxa, 346 animal taxa, and 36 natural communities considered rare. Nineteen plant and 47 animal taxa are considered extirpated or extinct from Kentucky. KEY WORDS: Threatened, endangered, extinct, status, rare species, natural communities, Kentucky INTRODUCTION The Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) is mandated to identify and protect natural areas to conserve Ken- tucky’s natural heritage. To accomplish this mandate, KSNPC works in cooperation with many scientific authorities in the public, private, and academic sectors. KSNPC uses the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) infor- mation system (NatureServe 2010a) to man- age distributional and ecological information on rare taxa, high quality natural communities, and other unique natural features. This information is used to assess conservation status and priorities through the evaluation of occurrences of rare taxa, communities, and their supporting natural environments. Utilizing this methodology, KSNPC has developed a list of taxa and communities native to the state that are considered rare. In addition, a list of species presumed extinct or extirpated from Kentucky is maintained to document losses of biodiversity, much of which are attributable to human activities. The overall goal of publishing these lists is to assist in the recovery and preservation of Kentucky’s rich natural diversity and to disseminate conservation status information to interested parties. KSNPC has utilized the NHP methodology for previous iterations of this list. Abernathy et al. (2010) recently published a list of Kentucky’s species and natural commu- nities. While Abernathy et al. (2010) was based on 2007 data; this paper provides the most currently available information. It differs 1 Corresponding author e-mail: Ryan.Evans@ky.gov both in terms of the number of species listed as rare and has several adjusted conservation ranks. Furthermore, this marks the first iteration of rare, threatened, and endangered natural communities. We intend this list to be of use to academic and other scientific professionals. MATERIALS AND METHODS Each taxon or community listed by KSNPC (most recently in 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005), as well as other unlisted organisms or communi- ties, was evaluated to assign a conservation status. Evaluation criteria used included the number, age, quality, and accuracy of element occurrences, historical and present geographic distributions, habitat requirements, threats to the taxon or community including habitat loss, and ecological sensitivity. The information used to make the evaluation was available as of 30 November 2010. The resulting list and proposed status designations were submitted to state and regional experts for peer review; their recommendations were used to refine the list and rankings. All comments received were considered and in many cases discussed with the reviewer before the list was finalized. Sources consulted for the plant and lichen names were Anderson (1990), Jones (2005), and Esslinger (2009). Sources consulted for the common and scientific names of animals were as follows: gastropods - Hubricht (1985), Turgeon et al. (1998), and Minton and Lydeard (2003); freshwater mussels - Gordon (1995) and Turgeon et al. (1998); crustaceans - Barr (1968), Holsinger (1972), Hobbs (1989), Zhang and Holsinger (2003), Taylor and Schuster (2004), McLaughlin et al. (2005), 67 68 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Taylor et al. (2007), and Buhay and Crandall (2008); insects - Hodges (1983), Barr (1996; 2004), McCafferty (1996), Stark et al. (1998), Needham et al. (2000), Westfall and May (2006), Pelham (2008), NatureServe (2010a), and Morse (2010); fishes - Page and Burr (1991), Nelson et al. (2004), Blanton and Jenkins (2008), Welsh and Wood (2008), Strange and Mayden (2009), and USFWS (2010a); amphibians and reptiles - King and Burke (1989), Collins and Taggart (2002), and Crother (2008); breeding birds - AOU (1998); mammals - Hall (1981), Jones et al. (1992), and Wilson and Reeder (1993). Because no standard nomenclature exists for natural communities in Kentucky, KSNPC has developed a working classification (KSNPC 2009) that has resulted in a non-standard set of names. Sources consulted were specific to Kentucky, surrounding states, or the overall region and focused on vegetation ecology and/ or natural community classification. Synoptic sources for the current KSNPC classification include Braun (1935, 1950), Cowardin et al. (1979), KSNPC (1991, 2009), Fleming et al. (2006), Grossman et al. (1998), Nelson (2007), and NatureServe (2010b). Status Designations The intent of assigning status designations was to (1) indicate the degree of rarity of the taxon or community, (2) indicate the degree of threat to the continued survival of the taxon or community, and (3) aid in establishing con- servation priorities. The five KSNPC status designations defined below have no legal or statutory implication. Endangered (E). A taxon or natural commu- nity in danger of extirpation and/or extinc- tion throughout all or a significant part of its range in Kentucky. Threatened (T). A taxon or natural community likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range in Kentucky. Special Concern (S). A taxon or natural community that should be monitored be- cause (1) it exists in a limited geographic area in Kentucky, (2) it may become threatened or endangered due to modifica- tion or destruction of habitat, (3) certain characteristics or requirements make it especially vulnerable to specific pressures. (4) experienced researchers have identified other factors that may jeopardize it, or (5) it is thought to be rare or declining in Kentucky, but insufficient information ex- ists for assignment to the threatened or endangered status categories. Historical (H). A taxon or natural community that has not been reliably reported in Kentucky since 1990 but is not considered extinct or extirpated — see next designation. Extinct/Extirpated. A taxon for which habitat loss has been pervasive and/or concerted efforts by knowledgeable biologists to collect or observe specimens within appro- priate habitat have failed. Federal statuses are defined below. Non- breeding birds with a federal status occurring as a migrant or visitor in Kentucky (e.g., Charadrius melodus, Mycteria americana) are not included within this list (Note, no natural communities have been assigned a federal status). Endangered (E). “... any species ... in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range ...” (USFWS 2010a). Threatened (T). “... any species ... likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a signif- icant portion of its range” (USFWS 2010a). Candidate (C). Taxa for which the USFWS has “. . . sufficient information on biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened” (USFWS 2010b). RESULTS Our analysis designates one lichen, 387 vascular plant and lesser taxa, 346 animal taxa, and 36 natural communities as rare in Kentucky (Tables 1, 2). Based on generally accepted estimates of the number of native taxa in Kentucky and the KSNPC estimate of the number of natural communities (not including extirpated or extinct), the following approximate percent of the groups are con- sidered to be Endangered, Threatened, Spe- cial Concern, or Historical. The numbers of respective Kentucky native species/communi- ties are given in parentheses. • Vascular plant species and lesser taxa (2,347, unknown for lichens): 16.4% • Gastropods (251): 10.7% • Freshwater mussels (103): 33% • Crustaceans (unknown): unknown Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky — KSNPC 69 Table 1. Kentucky’s endangered, threatened, special con- Table 1. Continued, cem, and historical biota and natural communities, 2010. Status KSNPC U.S. KSNPC U.S. Lichens Phaeophyscia leana Lea’s Bog Lichen E Plants Mosses' Abietinella abietina Wire Fern Moss T Anomodon rugelii T Brachythecium populeum Matted Feather Moss E Bryum cyclophyllum E Bryum miniatum E Cirriphyllum piliferum T Dicranodontium asperulum E Entodon brevisetus E Herzogiella turfacea E Neckera pennata T Oncophoms raui E Orthotrichum diaphanum E Polytrichum pallidisetum A Hair Cap Moss T Polytrichum piliferum E Polytrichum strictum E Sphagnum quinquefarium A Sphagnum Moss E Tortula norvegica Tortula E Vascular Plants Acer spicatum Mountain Maple E Aconitum uncinatum Blue Monkshood T Adiantum capillus-veneris Southern Maidenhair-fern T Adlumia fungosa Allegheny-vine H Aesculus pavia Red Buckeye T Agalinis auriculata Earleaf False Foxglove E Agalinis obtusifolia Ten-lobe False Foxglove E Agalinis skinneriana Pale False Foxglove H Ageratina luciae-brauniae Lucy Braun’s White Snakeroot S Agrimonia gryposepala Tall Hairy Groovebur T Amianthium muscitoxicum Fly Poison E Amsonia tabemaemontana var. gattingeri Eastern Blue-star E Angelica atropurpurea Great Angelica E Angelica triquinata Filmy Angelica E Apios priceana Price’s Potato-bean E Arabis hirsuta Western Hairy Rockcress H Arabis missouriensis Missouri Rockcress H Arabis perstellata Braun’s Rockcress T Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla E Aristida ramosissima Branched Three-awn Grass H Armoracia lacustris Lakecress T Aureolaria patula Spreading False Foxglove S Baptisia australis var. minor Blue Wild Indigo S Baptisia bracteata var. glabrescens Cream Wild Indigo S Baptisia tinctoria Yellow Wild Indigo T Bartonia virginica Yellow Screwstem T Berberis canadensis American Barberry E Berchemia scandens Supple-jack T Bolboschoenus fluviatilis River Bulrush E LT LE Botrychium matricariifolium Matricary Grape-fern E Botrychium oneidense Blunt-lobe Grape-fern H Bouteloua curtipendula Side-oats Grama S Boykinia aconitifolia Brook Saxifrage E Cabomba caroliniana Carolina Fanwort T Calamagrostis canadensis var. macouniana Blue-joint Reedgrass H Calamagrostis porteri ssp. insperata Bent Reedgrass E Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri Porter’s Reedgrass T Calamovilfa arcuata Cumberland sandgrass E Calopogon tuberosus Grass Pink E Calycanthus floridus var. glaucus Eastern Sweetshrub T Calylophus serrulatus Yellow Evening Primrose H Carex aestivalis Summer Sedge E Carex alata Broadwing Sedge T Carex appalachica Appalachian Sedge T Carex atlantica ssp. capillacea Prickly Bog Sedge E Carex austrocaroliniana Tarheel Sedge S Carex buxbaumii Brown Bog Sedge H Carex comosa Bristly Sedge H Carex cratvei Crawe’s Sedge S Carex crebriflora Coastal Plain Sedge E Carex decomposita Epiphytic Sedge T Carex gigantea Large Sedge E Carex hystericina Porcupine Sedge H Carex joorii Cypress-swamp Sedge E Carex juniperorum Juniper Sedge E Carex leptonervia Finely-nerved Sedge E Carex pellita Woolly Sedge H Carex reniformis Reniform Sedge E Carex roanensis Roan Mountain Sedge E Carex seorsa Weak Stellate Sedge T Carex stipata var. maxima Stalkgrain Sedge H Carex straminea Straw Sedge T Carex tetanica Rigid Sedge E Carex tonsa var. rugosperma Umbel-like Sedge T Carya aquatica Water Hickory T Castanea dentata American Chestnut E Castanea pumila Allegheny Chinkapin T Castilleja coccinea Scarlet Indian Paintbrush E Cayaponia quinqueloba Five-lobe Cucumber E Ceanothus herbaceus Prairie Redroot T Cheilanthes alabamensis Alabama Lipfem H Cheilanthes feei Fee’s Lipfem E Chelone obliqua var. obliqua Red Turtlehead E Chelone obliqua var. speciosa Rose Turtlehead S Chrysogonum virginianum Green -and-gold E Chrysosplenium americanum American Golden-saxifrage T Cimicifuga rubifolia Appalachian Bugbane T Circaea alpina Small Enchanter’s Nightshade S Clematis catesbyana Satin-curls H Clematis crispa Blue Jasmine Leather-flower T 70 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Table 1. Continued. Table 1. Continued. Status KSNPC U.S. Status KSNPC U.S. Collinsonia verticillata Whorled Horse-balm E Collinsonia verticillata Whorled Horse-balm E Conradina verticillata Cumberland Rosemary E Convallaria montana American Lily-of-the- valley E Corallorhiza maculata Spotted Coralroot E Coreopsis pubescens Star Tickseed S Corydalis sempervirens Rock Harlequin S Cymophyllus fraserianus Fraser’s Sedge E Cyperus plukenetii Plukenet’s Cyperus H Cypripedium candidum Small White Lady’s- slipper E Cypripedium kentuckiense Kentucky Lady’s- slipper E Cypripedium parvifloruin Small Yellow Lady’s-slipper T Dalea purpurea Purple Prairie-clover S Delphinium carolinianum Carolina Larkspur T Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted Hairgrass E Deschampsia flexuosa Crinkled Hairgrass T Dichanthelium boreale Northern Witchgrass S Didiplis diandra Water-purslane E Dodecatheon frenchii French’s Shooting Star S Draba cuneifolia Wedge-leaf Whitlow-grass E Drosera brevifolia Dwarf Sundew E Drosera intermedia Spoon-leaved Sundew E Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Wood Fern S Echinodorus berteroi Burhead T Echinodorus tenellus var. parvulus Dwarf Burhead E Eleocharis flavescens Bright Green Spikerush S Elodea nuttallii Western Waterweed T Elymus svensonii Svenson’s Wildrye T Eriophorum virginicum Tawny Cotton-grass E Eryngium integrifolium Blue-flower Coyote- thistle E Erythronium rostratum Yellow Troutlily S Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe-pye-weed H Eupatorium semiserratum Small-flower Thoroughwort E Eupatorium steelei Steele’s Joe-pye-weed T Euphorbia mercurialina Mercury Spurge T Eurybia hemispherica Tennessee Aster E Eurybia radula Rough-leaved Aster E Eurybia saxicastellii Rockcastle Aster T Fimbristylis puberula chesnut sedge T Forestiera ligustrina Upland Privet T Gaylussacia ursina Bear huckleberry T Gentiana decora Showy Gentian S Gentiana flavida Yellow Gentian E Gentiana puberulenta Prairie Gentian E Gleditsia aquatica Water Locust S Glyceria acutiflora Sharp-scaled Manna-grass E Goodyera repens Lesser rattlesnake-plantain E Gratiola pilosa Shaggy Hedgehyssop T Gratiola quartermaniae Quarterman’s Hedge- hyssop H Gratiola viscidula Short’s Hedgehyssop S Gymnopogon ambiguus Bearded Skeleton- grass S LT Gymnopogon brevifolius Shortleaf Skeleton- grass E Halesia Carolina Common Silverbell E Hedeoma hispidum Rough Pennyroyal T Helianthemum bicknellii Plains Frostweed E Helianthemum canadense Canada Frostweed E Helianthus eggertii Eggert’s Sunflower T Helianthus silphioides Silphium Sunflower E Heracleum lanatum Cow-parsnip H Heteranthera dubia Grassleaf Mud-plantain S Heteranthera limosa Blue Mud-plantain S Heterotheca subaxillaris var. latifolia Broad- leaf Golden -aster T Hexastylis contracta Southern Heartleaf E Hieracium longipilum Hairy Hawkweed T Houstonia serpyllifolia Michaux’s Bluets E Hydrocotyle americana American Water- pennywort E Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Floating Pennywort E Hydrolea ovata Ovate Fiddleleaf E Hydrolea uniflora One-flower Fiddleleaf E Hydrophyllum virginianum Eastern Waterleaf T Hypericum adpressum Creeping St. John’s- wort H Hypericum crux-andreae St. Peter’s-wort T Hypericum pseudomaculatum Large Spotted St. John’s-wort H Iris brevicaulis Zigzag Iris T Iris fulva Copper Iris E Isoetes butleri Butler’s Quillwort E Isoetes melanopoda Blackfoot Quillwort E Juglans cinerea White Walnut T Juncus articulatus Jointed Rush S Juncus elliottii Bog Rush H Juncus filipendulus Ringseed Rush T Juniperus communis var. depressa Ground Juniper T Koeleria macrantha Prairie Junegrass E Krigia occidentalis Western Dwarf Dandelion E Lathyrus palustris Vetchling Peavine T Lathyrus venosus Smooth Veiny Peavine S Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata Kentucky Gladecress E Leavenworthia torulosa Necklace Gladecress T Lespedeza capitata Round-head Bush-clover S Lespedeza stuevei Tall Bush-clover T Lesquerella globosa Globe Bladderpod E Lesquerella lescurii Lescur’s Bladderpod H Leucothoe recurva Red-twig Doghobble E Liatris cylindracea Slender Blazingstar T Lilium philadelphicum Wood Lily T Lilium superbum Turk’s Cap Lily T Limnobium spongia American Frog’s-bit T Liparis loeselii Loesel’s Twayblade T Listera australis Southern Twayblade H Listera smallii Kidney-leaf Twayblade T Lobelia gattingeri Gattinger’s Lobelia E Lobelia nuttallii Nuttall’s Lobelia T C C Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky — KSNPC 71 Table 1. Continued. Table 1. Continued. Status Status KSNPC U.S. KSNPC U.S. Lonicera dioica var. orientalis Wild Honeysuckle E Lonicera reticulata Grape Honeysuckle T Ludwigia hirtella Hairy Ludwigia E Lycopodiella appressa Southern Bog Clubmoss E Lycopodiella inundata Northern Bog Clubmoss E Lycopodium clavatum Running Pine E Lysimachia terrestris Swamp Candles E Magnolia pyramidata Pyramid Magnolia H Maianthemum canadense Wild Lily-of-the- valley T Maianthemum stellatum Starflower False Solomon’s-seal E Malus ioensis Iowa Crabapple S Malvastrum hispidum Hispid Falsemallow T Marshallia grandijlora Barbara’s Buttons E Matelea carolinensis Carolina Anglepod E Melampyrum lineare var. latifolium American Cowwheat T Melampyrum lineare var. pectinatum American Cow-wheat H Melanthera nivea Snow Squarestem S Melanthium virginicum Virginia Bunchflower E Minuartia cumberlandensis Cumberland Sandwort E Minuartia glabra Appalachian Sandwort T Mirabilis albida Pale Umbrella-wort H Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap T Muhlenbergia bushii Bush’s Muhly E Muhlenbergia cuspidata Plains Muhly T Muhlenbergia glabrifloris Hair Grass S Myriophyllum heterophyllum Broadleaf Water-milfoil S Myriophyllum pinnatum Cutleaf Water- milfoil H Najas gracillima Thread-like Naiad S Nemophila aphijlla Small-flower Baby-blue- eyes T Nestronia umbellula Conjurer’s-nut E Oclemena acuminata Whorled Aster T Oenothera linifolia Thread-leaf Sundrops E Oenothera oakesiana Evening Primrose H Oenothera perennis Small Sundrops E Oenothera triloba Stemless Evening-primrose T Oldenlandia uniflora Clustered Bluets E Onosmodium hispidissimum Hairy False Gromwell E Onosmodium molle Soft-hairy False-gromwell H Onosmodium occidentale Western False Gromwell E Orobanche ludoviciana Louisiana Broomrape H Orontium aquaticum Golden Club T Oxalis macrantha Price’s Yellow Wood Sorrel H Pamassia asarifolia Kidneyleaf Grass-of- pamassus E Pamassia grandifolia Large-leaved Grass-of- pamassus E Paronychia argyrocoma Silverling E LE Paspalum boscianum Bull Paspalum S Paxistima canbyi Canby’s Mountain-lover T Perideridia americana Eastern Yampah T Phacelia ranunculacea Blue Scorpion-weed S Philadelphus inodorus Mock Orange T Philadelphus pubescens Hoary Mock Orange E Phlox bifida ssp. bifida Cleft Phlox T Phlox bifida ssp. stellaria Starry-cleft Phlox E Platanthera cristata Yellow-crested Orchid T Platanthera integrilabia White Fringeless Orchid E Platanthera psycodes Small Purple-fringed Orchid E Poa saltuensis Drooping Bluegrass E Podostemum ceratophyllum Threadfoot S Pogonia ophioglossoides Rose Pogonia E Polygala cruciata Crossleaf Milkwort E Poly gala nuttallii Nuttall’s Milkwort H Polygala paucifolia Gaywings E Poly gala polygama Racemed Milkwort T Polymnia laevigata Tennessee Leafcup E Pontederia cordata Pickerel-weed T Potamogeton amplifolius Large-leaf Pondweed E Potarnogeton illinoensis Illinois Pondweed S Potamogeton pulcher Spotted Pondweed T Prenanthes alba White Rattlesnake-root E Prenanthes aspera Rough Rattlesnake-root E Prenanthes barbata Barbed Rattlesnake-root E Prenanthes crepidinea Nodding Rattlesnake- root S Prenanthes racemosa Glaucous Rattlesnake- root S Prosartes maculata Nodding Mandarin S Pseudognaphalium helleri ssp. micradenium Small Rabbit-tobacco H Psoralidium tenuiflomm Few-flowered Scurf- pea H Ptilimnium capillaceum Mock Bishop’s-weed T Ptilimnium costatum Eastern Mock Bishop’s- weed H Ptilimnium nuttallii Nuttall’s Mock Bishop’s- weed E Pycnanthemum albescens Whiteleaf Mountainmint H Pycnanthemum muticum Blunt Mountainmint E Quercus ilicifolia Scrub oak H Quercus nigra Water Oak T Quercus texana Nuttall’s Oak T Ranunculus ambigens Waterplantain Spearwort S Rhododendron canescens Hoary Azalea E Rhynchosia tomentosa Hairy Snoutbean E Rhynchospora macrostachya Tall Beaked-rush E Rhynchospora recognita Globe Beaked-rush S Ribes americanum Eastern Black Currant T Rubus canadensis Smooth Blackberry E Rudbeckia suhtomentosa Sweet Coneflower E Sabatia campanulata Slender Marsh Pink E Sagina fontinalis Water Stitchwort E Sagittaria graminea Grassleaf Arrowhead T C 72 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Table 1. Continued. Table 1. Continued. Status Status KSNPC U.S. KSNPC U.S. Sagittaria platyphylla Delta Arrowhead E Sagittaria rigida Sessile-fruited Arrowhead E Salix amygdaloides Peach-leaved Willow H Salix discolor Pussy Willow H Salvia urticifolia Nettle-leaf Sage E Sambucus racemosa ssp. pubens Red Elderberry E Sanguisorba canadensis Canada Burnet E Saxifraga michauxii Michaux’s Saxifrage T Saxifraga micranthidifolia Lettuce-leaf Saxifrage E Schisandra gjabra Bay Starvine E Schizachne purpurascens Purple Oat T Schoenoplectus hallii Halls Bulrush E Schoenoplectus heterochaetus Slender Bulrush H Schwalbea americana Chaffseed H Scirpus expansus Woodland Beakrush E Scleria ciliata Fringed Nutrush E Scutellaria arguta Hairy Skullcap E Scutellaria saxatilis Rock Skullcap T Sedum telephioides Allegheny Stonecrop T Sida hermaphrodita Virginia Mallow T Silene ovata Ovate Catchfly E Silene regia Royal Catchfly E Silphium laciniatum Compassplant T Silphium pinnatifidum Tansy Rosinweed S Silphium wasiotense Appalachian Rosinweed S Solidago albopilosa White-haired Goldenrod T Solidago buckleyi Buckley’s Goldenrod S Solidago curtisii Curtis’ Goldenrod S Solidago gracillima Southern Bog Goldenrod S Solidago puberula Downy Goldenrod S Solidago roanensis Roan Mountain Goldenrod T Solidago shortii Short’s Goldenrod E Solidago simplex ssp. randii var. racemosa Rand’s Goldenrod S Solidago squarrosa Squarrose Goldenrod H Sparganium eurycarpum Large Bur-reed E Sphenopholis pensylvanica Swamp Wedgescale S Spiraea alba Narrow-leaved Meadow-sweet H Spiraea virginiana Virginia Spiraea T Spiranthes lucida Shining Ladies’-tresses T Spiranthes magnicamporum Great Plains Ladies’-tresses T Spiranthes ochroleuca Yellow Nodding Ladies’-tresses T Spiranthes odorata Sweetscent Ladies’-tresses E Sporobolus clandestinus Rough Dropseed T Sporobolus heterolepis Northern Dropseed E Stachys eplingii Epling’s Hedgenettle H Stellaria longifolia Longleaf Stitchwort S Stenanthium gramineum Eastern Featherbells T Streptopus lanceolatus Rosy Twisted-stalk E Styrax grandifolius Bigleaf Snowbell E Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry E Symphyotrichum concolor Eastern Silvery Aster T Symphyotrichum drummondii var. texanum Hairy Heart-leaved Aster H LE LT LE LT Symphyotrichum pratense Barrens Silky Aster S Symphyotrichum priceae White Heath Aster E Talinum calcaricum Limestone Fameflower E Talinum teretifolium Roundleaf Fameflower E Taxus canadensis Canadian Yew T Tephrosia spicata Spiked Hoary-pea E Thaspium pinnatifidum Cutleaf Meadow- parsnip T Thermopsis mollis Soft-haired Thermopsis E Thuja occidentalis Northern White Cedar T Torreyochloa pallida Pale Manna Grass H Toxicodendron vemix Poison Sumac E Tragia urticifolia Nettle-leaf Nosebum E Trepocarpus aethusae Trepocarpus S Trichophorum planifolium Bashful Bulrush E Trichostema setaceum Narrowleaved Bluecurls E Trientalis borealis Northern Starflower E Trifolium reflexum Buffalo Clover E Trifolium stoloniferum Running Buffalo Clover T Trillium nivale Snow Trillium E Trillium pusillum Least Trillium E Trillium undulatum Painted Trillium T Ulmus serotina September Elm S Utricularia macrorhiza Greater Bladderwort E Vaccinium erythrocarpum Southern Mountain Cranberry E Vallisneria americana Eelgrass S Veratrum parviflorum Appalachian Bunchflower T Veratrum woodii Wood’s Bunchflower T Verbena canadensis Rose Mock-vervain E Veronica americana American Speedwell H Viburnum lantanoides Alderleaved Viburnum E Viburnum molle Softleaf Arrowwood S Viburnum nudum Possumhaw E Viburnum rafinesquianum var. rafinesquianum Downy Arrowwood T Viola septemloba var. egglestonii Eggleston’s Violet S Viola walteri Walter’s Violet T Vitis labrusca Northern Fox Grape T Vitis rupestris Sand Grape T Woodsia scopulina ssp. appalachiana Appalachian Woodsia H Xyris difformis Carolina Yellow-eyed-grass E Zizania palustris var. interior Indian Wild Rice H Z izaniopsis miliacea Southern Wild Rice T Animals Snails Anguispira rugoderma Pine Mountain Tigersnail E Antroselates spiralis Shaggy Cavesnail S Appalachina chilhoweensis Queen Crater S Fumonelix wetherbyi Clifty Covert S Glyphyalinia raderi Maryland Glyph S Glyphyalinia rhoadsi Sculpted Glyph T Helicodiscus notius specus A Terrestrial Snail T LE Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky — KSNPC 73 Table 1. Continued. Table 1. Continued. Status Status KSNPC U.S. KSNPC U.S. Helicodiscus punctatellus Punctate Coil S Leptoxis praerosa Onyx Rocksnail S Lioplax sulculosa Furrowed Lioplax S Lithasia armigera Armored Rocksnail S Lithasia geniculata Ornate Rocksnail S Lithasia salehrosa Muddy Rocksnail S Lithasia verrucosa Varicose Rocksnail S Mesomphix rugeli Wrinkled Button T Neohelix dentifera Big-tooth Whitelip T Paravitrea lapilla Gem Supercoil T Patera panselenus Virginia Bladetooth S Pilsbryna vanattai Honey Glyph E Pleurocera alveare Rugged Homsnail S Pleurocera curta Shortspire Homsnail S Rabdotus dealbatus Whitewashed Rabdotus T Rhodacme elatior Domed Ancylid S Vertigo bollesiana Delicate Vertigo E Vertigo clappi Cupped Vertigo E Vitrinizonites latissimus Glassy Grapesldn T Webbhelix multilineata Striped Whitelip T Freshwater Mussels Alasmidonta atropurpurea Cumberland Elktoe E Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe T Anodontoides denigratus Cumberland Papershell E Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase E Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell E Dromus dromas Dromedary Pearlymussel E Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian Combshell E Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster Mussel E Epioblasma florentina walkeri Tan Riffleshell E Epioblasma obliquata obliquata Catspaw E Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Northern Riffleshell E Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox E Lampsilis abrupta Pink Mucket E Lampsilis ovata Pocketbook E Lasmigona compressa Creek Heelsplitter E Obovaria retusa Ring Pink E Pegias fabula Littlewing Pearlymussel E Plethobasus cooperianus Orangefoot Pimpleback E Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose E Pleurobema clava Clubshell E Pleurobema oviforme Tennessee Clubshell E Pleurobema plenum Rough Pigtoe E Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid Pigtoe E Potamilus capax Fat Pocketbook E Potamilus purpuratus Bleufer E Ptychobranchus subtentum Fluted Kidneyshell E Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica Rabbitsfoot T Simpsonaias ambigua Salamander Mussel T Toxolasma lividus Purple Lilliput E Toxolasma texasiensis Texas Lilliput E Villosa lienosa Little Spectaclecase S Villosa ortmanni Kentucky Creekshell T Villosa trabalis Cumberland Bean E LE C LE LE LE LE LE LE LE PE LE LE LE LE C LE LE LE C C LE Villosa vanuxemensis vanuxemensis Mountain Creekshell T Crustaceans Barbicambarus comutus Bottlebrush Crayfish S Bryocamptus morrisoni elegans A Copepod T Caecidotea barri Clifton Cave Isopod E Cambarellus puer Swamp Dwarf Crayfish E Cambarellus shufeldtii Cajun Dwarf Crayfish S Cambarus bouchardi Big South Fork Crayfish E Cambarus buntingi Longclaw Crayfish S Cambarus friaufi Hairy Crayfish S Cambarus parvoculus Mountain Midget Crayfish T Cambarus veteranus Big Sandy Crayfish S Crangonyx caecus An Amphipod T Crangonyx castellanum An Amphipod E Crangonyx lewisi Lewis Cave Amphipod T Crangonyx longidactylus An Amphipod T Crangonyx specus An Amphipod E Gammarus bousfieldi Bousfield’s Amphipod E Macrobrachium ohione Ohio Shrimp E Orconectes barri Cumberland Plateau Cave Crayfish T Orconectes bisectus Crittenden Crayfish T Orconectes burn Burr Crayfish T Orconectes inermis inermis Ghost Crayfish S Orconectes jeffersoni Louisville Crayfish E Orconectes lancifer Shrimp Crayfish E Orconectes margorectus Livingston Crayfish T Orconectes packardi Appalachian Cave Crayfish T Orconectes palmeri palmeri Gray-Speckled Crayfish E Orconectes pellucidus Mammoth Cave Crayfish S Orconectes ronaldi Mud River Crayfish T Palaemonias ganteri Mammoth Cave Shrimp E Procambarus viaeviridis Vernal Crayfish T Pseudocandona jeanneli Jeannel’s Cave Ostracod E Sagittocythere stygia An Ectocommensal Ostracod T Stygobromus vitreus An Amphipod S Insects Acroneuria hitchcocki Kentucky Stone T Acroneuria kosztarabi Virginia Stone S Allocapnia cunninghami Karst Snowfly T Amphiagrion saucium Eastern Red Damsel E Arigomphus maxwelli Bayou Clubtail T Arrhopalites altus A Cave Obligate Springtail T Arrhopalites bimus A Cave Obligate Springtail T Batriasymmodes quisnamus A Cave Obligate Beetle T Batrisodes henroti A Cave Obligate Beetle T Batrisodes hubrichti A Cave Obligate Beetle T Calephelis borealis Northern Metalmark T Calephelis muticum Swamp Metalmark E Callophnjs inis Frosted Elfin E Calopteryx dimidiata Sparkling Jewelwing E Celithemis vema Double-ringed Pennant H LE 74 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Table 1. Continued. Table 1. Continued. Status KSNPC u.s. Cheumatopsyche helma Helma’s Net-spinning Caddisfly H Dannella provonshai An Ephemerellid Mayfly H — Dryobius sexnotatus Six-banded Longhorn Beetle T Erora laeta Early Hairstreak T — Euphyes dukesi Dukes’ Skipper S — Gomphus hybridus Cocoa Clubtail E — Habrophlebiodes celeteria A Leptophlebiid Mayfly H Hansonoperla hokolesqua Splendid Stone S — Litobrancha recurvata A Burrowing Mayfly S — Lordithon niger Black Lordithon Rove Beetle H Lytrosis permagnaria A Geometrid Moth E — Maccajfertium bednariki A Heptageniid Mayfly S _ Manophylax butleri A Limnephilid Caddisfly S — Mesamia stramineus Helianthus Leafhopper E — Nannothemis bella Elfin Skimmer E — Nehalennia irene Sedge Sprite E — Nixe flowersi A Heptageniid Mayfly H — Ophiogomphus aspersus Brook Snaketail H — Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy Snaketail T — Ophiogomphus mainensis Maine Snaketail E — Papaipema beeriana Blazing Star Stem Borer E — Papaipema eryngii Rattlesnake-master Borer Moth E Papaipema silphii Silphium Borer Moth E — Papaipema sp. 5 Rare Cane Borer Moth T — Papaipema speciosissima Osmunda Borer Moth E Phyciodes batesii Tawny Crescent H — Poanes viator Broad-winged Skipper T — Polygonia faunus Green Comma H — Polygonia progne Gray Comma H — Prairiana kansana A Cicadellid Leafhopper E — Pseudanophthalmus abditus Concealed Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus audax Bold Cave Beetle T — Pseudanophthalmus caecus Clifton Cave Beetle T C Pseudanophthalmus calcareus Limestone Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus catoryctos Lesser Adams Cave Beetle E Pseudanophthalmus cnephosus A Cave Obligate Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus conditus Hidden Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus elongatus A Cave Obligate Beetle S Pseudanophthalmus exoticus Exotic Cave Beetle H Pseudanophthalmus frigidus Icebox Cave Beetle T C Pseudanophthalmus globiceps Round-headed Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus horni Garman’s Cave Beetle S — Status KSNPC u.s. Pseudanophthalmus hypolithos Ashcamp Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus inexpectatus Surprising Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus major Beaver Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus parvus Tatum Cave Beetle T C Pseudanophthalmus pholeter Greater Adams Cave Beetle E Pseudanophthalmus pubescens intrepidus A Cave Obligate Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus puteanus Old Well Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus rogersae Rogers’ Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus scholasticus Scholarly Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus simulans Cub Run Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus solivagus A Cave Obligate Beetle S Pseudanophthalmus tenebrosus Stevens Creek Cave Beetle T Pseudanophthalmus transfluvialis A Cave Obligate Beetle S Pseudanophthalmus troglodytes Louisville Cave Beetle T C Pseudosinella espanita A Cave Obligate Springtail S Raptoheptagenia cruentata A Heptageniid Mayfly H _ Rasvena tema Vermont Sallfly S — Satyrium favonius Ontario Northern Oak Hairstreak S Soyedina calcarea A Stonefly E — Speyeria idalia Regal Fritillary H — Stylurus notatus Elusive Clubtail E — Stylurus scudderi Zebra Clubtail E — Tomocerus missus A Cave Obligate Springtail T — Traverella lewisi A Leptophlebiid Mayfly H — Tychobythinus hubrichti A Cave Obligate Beetle T _ Other Invertebrates Belba bulbipedata A Cave Obligate Mite T Galumna alata A Cave Obligate Mite T — Geocentrophora cavemicola A Cave Obligate Planarian T Hesperonemastoma inops A Cave Obligate Harvestman S Kleptochthonius attenuatus A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion T Kleptochthonius cerberus A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion S Kleptochthonius erebicus A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion T Kleptochthonius hageni A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion S Kleptochthonius hubrichti A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion T — Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky — KSNPC 75 Table 1. Continued. Table 1 . Continued. Status Status KSNPC U.S. KSNPC U.S. Kleptochthonius microphthalmus A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion T Macrocheles stygius A Cave Obligate Mite T Macrocheles troglodytes A Cave Obligate Mite T Pseudotremia amphiorax A Cave Obligate Milliped T Pseudotremia carterensis A Cave Obligate Milliped S Pseudotremia merops A Cave Obligate Milliped T Pseudotremia spira A Cave Obligate Milliped T Pseudotremia unca A Cave Obligate Milliped T Sphalloplana buchanani A Cave Obligate Planarian T Tyrannochthonius hypogeus A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion S Fishes Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon E Alosa alabamae Alabama Shad E Amblyopsis spelaea Northern Cavefish S Ammocrypta clara Western Sand Darter E Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar E Chrosomus cumberlandensis Blackside Dace T Cyprinella camura Bluntface Shiner E Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner S Erimystax insignis Blotched Chub E Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker T Esox niger Chain Pickerel S Etheostoma chienense Relict Darter E Etheostoma cinereum Ashy Darter S Etheostoma fusiforme Swamp Darter E Etheostoma lemniscatum Tuxedo Darter E Etheostoma lynceum Brighteye Darter E Etheostoma maculatum Spotted Darter T Etheostoma microlepidum Smallscale Darter E Etheostoma parvipinne Goldstripe Darter E Etheostoma proeliare Cypress Darter T Etheostoma pyrrhogaster Firebelly Darter E Etheostoma saaitta s a Pitt a Cumberland Arrow Darter S Etheostoma sagitta spilotum Kentucky Arrow Darter T Etheostoma susanae Cumberland Darter E Etheostoma swaini Gulf Darter E Etheostoma tecumsehi Shawnee Darter S Fundulus chrysotus Golden Topminnow E Fundulus dispar Starhead Topminnow E Hybognathus hayi Cypress Minnow E Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow S Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner E Ichthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut Lamprey S Ichthyomyzon fossor Northern Brook Lamprey T Ichthyomyzon greeleyi Mountain Brook Lamprey T Ictiobus niger Black Buffalo S Lampetra appendix American Brook Lamprey T Lampetra sp. 1 Undescribed Terrapin Creek brook lamprey E Lepomis marginatus Dollar Sunfish E Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish T LT LE LE C PE Lota lota Burbot S Macrhybopsis gelida Sturgeon Chub E Macrhybopsis meeki Sicklefin Chub E Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside T Moxostoma poecilurum Blacktail Redhorse E Nocomis biguttatus Homyhead Chub S Notropis albizonatus Palezone Shiner E Notropis hudsonius Spottail Shiner S Notropis maculatus Taillight Shiner T Notropis sp. 4 Sawfin Shiner E Noturus exilis Slender Madtom E Noturus hildebrandi Least Madtom E Noturus phaeus Brown Madtom E Noturus stigmosus Northern Madtom S Percina macrocephala Longhead Darter E Percina squamata Olive Darter E Percopsis omiscomaycus Trout-perch S Phenacobius uranops Stargazing Minnow S Platygobio gracilis Flathead Chub S Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon E Thobumia atripinnis Blackfin Sucker S Typhlichthys subterraneus Southern Cavefish S Umbra limi Central Mudminnow T Amphibians Amphiuma tridactylum Three-toed Amphiuma E Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis Eastern Hellbender E Eurycea guttolineata Three-lined Salamander T Hyla avivoca Bird-voiced Treefrog S Hyla gratiosa Barking Treefrog S Hyla versicolor Gray Treefrog S Plethodon cinereus Redback Salamander S Plethodon wehrlei Wehrle’s Salamander E Rana areolata circulosa Northern Crawfish Frog S Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog S Reptiles Apalone mutica mutica Midland Smooth Softshell S Chrysemys dorsalis Southern Painted Turtle T Clonophis kirtlandii Kirtland’s Snake T Elaphe guttata Com Snake S Eumeces anthracinus Coal Skink T Eumeces inexpectatus Southeastern Five-lined Skink S Farancia abacura reinwardtii Western Mud Snake S Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides Scarlet Kingsnake S Macrochelys temminckii Alligator Snapping Turtle T Nerodia cyclopion Green Water Snake E Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Copperbelly Water Snake S Nerodia fasciata confluens Broad-banded Water Snake E Ophisaurus attenuates longicaudus Eastern Slender Glass Lizard T Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus Northern Pine Snake T LE LE 76 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 71(1-2) Table 1. Continued. Table 1. Continued. Status Status KSNPC U.S. KSNPC U.S. Sistrurus miliarius streckeri Western Pygmy Rattlesnake T Thamnophis proximus proximus Western Ribbon Snake T Thamnophis sauritus sauritus Eastern Ribbon Snake S Breeding Birds Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk S Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper E Aimophila aestivalis Bachman’s Sparrow E Ammodramus henslowii Henslow’s Sparrow S Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler E Anas discors Blue-winged Teal T Ardea alba Great Egret T Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl E Asio otus Long-eared Owl E Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper H Botaums lentiginosus American Bittern H Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret S Certhia americana Brown Creeper E Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow T Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier T Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren S Corvus corax Common Raven T Corvus ossifragus Fish Crow S Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler T Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink S Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron E Egretta thula Snowy Egret E Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher E Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon E Fulica americana American Coot E Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen T Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite S Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern T Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco S Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser T Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned Night- heron T Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night- heron T Pandion haliaetus Osprey S Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow S Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant T Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak S Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe E Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow E Rallus elegans King Rail E Riparia riparia Bank Swallow S Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch E Stemula antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern T Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s Wren S Tyto alba Bam Owl S Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler T Vireo bellii Bell’s Vireo S LE Wilsonia canadensis Canada Warbler Mammals Clethrionomys gapperi maurus Kentucky S — Red-backed Vole Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s Big- S — eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus Virginia S — Big-eared Bat E LE Mustela nivalis Least Weasel S — Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis E — Myotis grisescens Gray Myotis T LE Myotis leibii Eastern Small-footed Myotis T — Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat E LE Nycticeius humeralis Evening Bat S — Peromyscus gossypinus Cotton Mouse T — Sorex cinereus Cinereus Shrew S — Sorex dispar blitchi Long-tailed Shrew E — Spilogale putorius Eastern Spotted Skunk S — Ursus americanus American Black Bear Natural Communities S Acid seep/bog — S Appalachian seep/bog — T Bluegrass mesophytic cane forest — E Bluegrass woodland — E Bottomland hardwood forest — S Bottomland lake — S Bottomland marsh — T Bottomland ridge/terrace forest — E Bottomland slough — T Calcareous seep/bog — E Coastal Plain forested acid seep — E Coastal Plain mesophytic cane forest — T Coastal Plain slough — T Cumberland highlands forest — E Cumberland Mountains pitch pine woodland — E Cumberland Plateau gravel/cobble bar — E Cumberland Plateau sandstone glade — E Cypress (tupelo) swamp — E Dolomite glade — E Limestone barrens (open woodland) — T Limestone flat rock glade — E Limestone slope glade — S Limestone/dolomite prairie — E Sand bar — S Sandstone barrens (open woodland) — E Sandstone prairie — E Shawnee Hills sandstone glade — T Shrub swamp — T Sinkhole/depression marsh — E Sinkhole/depression pond — T Tallgrass prairie — E Wet bottomland hardwood forest — T Wet depression/sinkhole forest — T Wet meadow — E Wet prairie — E Xerohydric flatwoods — E 1 Species without English (common) names have not been assigned official names. Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky — KSNPC 77 • Insects (estimated to be 15,202): unknown • Fishes (245): 25.3% • Amphibians and reptiles (107): 25.2% • Breeding birds (168): 28.6% • Mammals (67): 20.9% • Natural communities — (63): 57%. Nineteen plant and 47 animal taxa are currently presumed extinct or extirpated from Kentucky (Tables 2, 3) (KSNPC 2010). DISCUSSION These lists summarize the best available and current knowledge on the status of Kentucky’s rare plants, animals, and natural communities as of 2010. Many species that are believed extinct or extirpated from Kentucky have experienced range-wide declines due to habitat destruction, stream modification, and pollution (Jones 2005; Poff et al. 2007). Subsequently, these losses and declines in biodiversity are also felt in ecosystems (Hooper et al. 2005; Vaughn 2010). The potential long-term effect of climate change on Kentucky’s biodiversity is an area of research that is needed for future management considerations. In particular, knowledge on the extent and design of biodiversity corridors for use in mitigating the effects of climate change is needed. We feel that the inclusion of natural com- munities as part of this publication is a significant addition to the rare and extirpated species list. Many types of natural communities are common in the state, but high quality examples of any natural community type are rare. Therefore, all natural communities classi- fied by KSNPC (including those not listed here) are monitored in Kentucky. The high percent- age of communities that are rare and threat- ened reflects the widespread modification of the landscape by humans and the lack of sufficient protection. KSNPC hopes that pub- lishing a list of rare natural communities to the wider scientific community will help to strengthen the goal of recovery and preserva- tion of Kentucky’s rich natural diversity. Efforts to standardize community classifi- cation at the national level (Grossman 1998) are still on-going. Due to an incomplete national classification, many state natural heritage programs have developed their own community classifications. If a widely accept- ed standard is developed in the future, T3 G 03 -a-p