Showing papers in "Virginia journal of science in 2015"

Sea Level Rise in Virginia – Causes, Effects and Response

Abstract: Sea level rise (SLR) along Virginia’s coasts and around the Chesapeake Bay as measured by tide gauges is analyzed and discussed. It is shown that the SLR rates vary between one location to another and in most locations the rates increase over time (i.e., SLR is accelerating). The latest science of SLR is reviewed and the causes of the high SLR rates in Virginia are discussed. The impacts of land subsidence and ocean currents (changes in the Gulf Stream in particular) on sea level are especially notable and important for predicting future SLR in Virginia. The consequences of SLR on increased duration and severity of floods are demonstrated and potential responses are discussed. INTRODUCTION One of the environmental consequences of climate change that have been the most visible in Virginia is sea level rise (SLR). While sea level along the coasts of Virginia is slowly rising, the impacts of waves and storm surges increase as waters are pushed farther into previously unaffected coastal areas and low-lying streets. Both natural features such as marshes and barrier islands and also the built features such as docks, shipyards, tunnels, homes and hotels constructed along the shoreline are all affected. People living on the coast do not always recognize sea level rise itself, but they clearly see that there is more frequent flooding and that areas that were not flooded in the past are now becoming new flood-prone areas (Atkinson et al. 2013, Mitchell et al. 2013, Ezer and Atkinson 2014, Sweet and Park 2014). The relative SLR rate (i.e., local water level relative to land) on Virginia’s coasts is one of the highest of all U.S. coasts and the rate appears to be accelerating (Boon 2012, Ezer and Corlett 2012, Ezer 2013, Sallenger et al. 2012, Kopp 2013). SLR rates from tide gauges in Virginia over the past 10-30 years are ~4-6 mm/year, which are higher than the global mean SLR rate of ~1.7 mm/year over the past century as seen from tide gauges and even higher than the ~3.2 mm/year over the past 20 years as seen from satellite altimeter data (Church and White 2011, Ezer 2013). Note that SLR of 3 mm/yr is equivalent to about 1 foot/century. Relative SLR is primarily the result of 1 Corresponding author: tezer@odu.edu, latkinso@odu.edu 356 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE three processes: 1. global SLR due to warming ocean temperatures and melting land ice, 2. local land subsidence (sinking) and 3. ocean dynamics. The impact of land subsidence and ocean dynamics is especially evident in Virginia. The Virginia coast is experiencing subsidence due to human activities such as groundwater extraction and historic geological processes (Boon et al. 2010, Eggleston and Pope 2013). Changes in the flow of offshore currents and the Gulf Stream in particular can result in water level anomalies and flooding (Sweet et al. 2009, Ezer and Atkinson 2014). Since much of Virginia’s coastal areas are flat, small amounts of SLR can have dramatic impactsincreased flooding and coastal erosion, and altering marshes. Dealing with these issues requires knowledge on future SLR to design and plan accordingly. CURRENT TRENDS IN SEA LEVEL RISE Water level measurements from 13 locations around the Chesapeake Bay and the Virginia coast were analyzed (Figure 1)8 stations with long records (~40-110 years) and 5 stations with shorter records (10-20 years). Water levels along the U.S. coast are measured by tide gauges maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Zervas 2009). Hourly data are obtained from the NOAA website (www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov); these data are used for calculations of potential flooding and storm surge impacts (Atkinson et al. 2013, Ezer and Atkinson 2014, Sweet and Park 2014). Monthly mean data for stations around the globe are archived by the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL, www.psmsl.org, Woodworth and Player 2003). The PSMSL monthly data were used for the stations with long records, while the NOAA data were used for the stations with short records (Figure 1); monthly means were calculated from hourly data before calculating SLR rates. Note that the statistical accuracy of calculating SLR rates from linear regression (fitting the data with a straight line, the slope of which represents the mean rate) depends on record length. For example, a record of 60 years would yield an error in SLR of less than ±0.5 mm/yr (at 95% confidence level), while a record of 30 years would have an error of less than ±1.5 mm/yr (Zervas 2009, Boon et al. 2010). However, there are only 2 tide gauge stations in Virginia with observations of over 60 years (86 years at Sewells Point in Norfolk and 62 years at Kiptopeake on the eastern shore). Therefore, long records from Maryland and short records from Virginia are analyzed as well. The analysis of the long records is shown in Figure 2 and that for the shorter records is shown in Figure 3. Also shown (smooth black line in Figure 2) are inter-annual variations after removing high-frequency variations using Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD, Huang et al. 1998, Ezer and Corlett 2012). SLR rates are calculated for the past 30 years, and the 30 years before that, to see if the rates are constant or changing. Our results reveal that everywhere within the region sea level is rising faster than the global rates. However, SLR rates are not constantthey vary in time (due to climatic changes in the ocean) and in place (due to local and regional land subsidence, see discussion later). SLR is largest in the lower Chesapeake Bay (Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT) and Norfolk), and a little lower in the northern REVIEW OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN VIRGINIA 357 FIGURE 1. Map of the Chesapeake Bay region and location of tide gauge stations. Long and short records are indicated and analyzed separately in figures 2 and 3, respectively. 358 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE FIGURE 2. Monthly sea level in the Chesapeake Bay for stations with long records (from 40 years in Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, CBBT, to 110 years in Baltimore). Inter-annual variations are shown by black heavy lines and linear trends by dash lines. SLR rates in mm/yr are shown for two 30-year periods. REVIEW OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN VIRGINIA 359 FIGURE 3. Monthly sea level and trends as in Figure 2, but for tide gauge stations in Virginia with relatively short records. The SLR rates in mm/y are listed under the

Freshwater Mussels of Virginia (Bivalvia: Unionidae): An Introduction to Their Life History, Status and Conservation

Abstract: With 77 species, the mussel fauna of Virginia is one of the most diverse in the United States. Fifty-four species or ~70% of the state’s mussel fauna occurs in the rivers of the upper Tennessee River basin, especially in the Clinch and Powell rivers of southwestern Virginia. An additional 23 species reside in rivers of the Atlantic Slope, including the Potomac, Rappahannock, York, James and Chowan basins, and in the New River, a major tributary to the Ohio River. A total of 39 species or 51% of Virginia’s mussel fauna is listed as federally endangered, state endangered or state threatened. Excess sediment, nutrients and various types of pollutants entering streams from agriculture and industries are the main drivers of imperilment. Freshwater mussels reproduce in a specialized way, one that requires a fish to serve as a host to their larvae, called glochidia, allowing the larvae to metamorphose to the juvenile stage. This extra step in their life cycle uniquely defines mussels among bivalve mollusks worldwide, in freshwater or marine environments, and adds significant complexity to their reproductive biology. Further, they utilize “lures” that mimic prey of fishes to attract their host. Mussels rely on their fish host to provide them with long-distance dispersal and nutrition while they are glochidia, which are small (<0.5 mm) ecto-parasites that attach and encyst on the gills and fins of fishes, typically taking weeks to months to metamorphose, excyst and then drop-away as similar-sized juveniles to the stream bottom where they grow into adults. Adult mussels are mostly sedentary animals living in the benthos, i.e., the bottom of streams and lakes, typically in mixed substrates of sand, gravel and fine sediments. Mussels generally filter suspended organic particles <20 μm from the water column but can also filter deposited particles through the shell-gap when burrowed in the benthos. Further, the adults of most species are long-lived, regularly living 25-50 years or longer in freshwater environments throughout North America. Conservation of freshwater mussels in Virginia will require citizens, nongovernmental organizations, local, county, state and federal governments to apply their resources to five main areas: (1) water quality monitoring and Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 310 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE regulation enforcement, (2) restoration of stream habitat, (3) restoration of mussel populations, (4) educating the public about the importance and status of mussels, and (5) monitoring and research to understand why mussels are declining and what are the best ways to protect them. Sustained long-term efforts in these five areas offers the greatest potential to conserve freshwater mussels throughout Virginia. INTRODUCTION With 77 documented species, the mussel fauna of Virginia is one of the most diverse in the United States — only the states of Alabama (178 species), Tennessee (129 species), Georgia (123 species), Kentucky (104 species) and Mississippi (84) have more species than Virginia (Neves et al. 1997; Paramalee and Bogan 1998; Williams et al. 2008). Virginia’s mussel fauna spans two major geographic regions, the southwest region where rivers drain to the Mississippi River and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico, and the eastern region where rivers drain to the Chesapeake Bay and ultimately to the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1). The species occurring in these two regions generally are restricted to the major river basins of these areas. Hence, their distributions do not overlap and distinct morphological and biological differences exist between the regional faunas. These differences are in part due to the varied ecological and geological conditions that exist throughout Virginia, and the long-term separation of the Atlantic Slope and Mississippi River basin faunas. Nationally, freshwater mussels are considered one of the most imperiled groups of animals in the country, with 213 species (72 %) listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern (Williams et al. 1993). Virginia’s fauna is no exception, with more than 50% of its species listed at the federal or state level (Figure 2) (Terwilliger 1991). Most of the endangerment is caused by habitat loss and destruction due to sedimentation, water pollution, dredging, and other anthropogenic factors (Neves et al. 1997). Many of these listed species occur in southwestern Virginia in the Clinch, Powell and Holston rivers, headwater tributaries to the Tennessee River (Figure 1). However, nearly all river systems in the state have mussel species of conservation concern. The rate of mussel imperilment in Virginia and nationally is increasing over time as populations of many species continue to decline and as additional species are listed as endangered by the federal government and state governments. Population declines and the listing of many mussel species has prompted interest in their conservation (Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 2016). State and federal natural resource management agencies, including Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), various non-governmental organizations and universities are involved in improving water quality, stream habitat, and increasing abundance and distribution of mussels using population management techniques, such as out-planting hatchery-reared mussels back to native streams, and monitoring populations to determine their status and trends. For example, Virginia Tech, VDGIF and USFWS have been working together to raise mussels in hatcheries and release them to their native streams to build-up populations. Since 2004, this program has released thousands of mussels of numerous species to population restoration sites throughout Virginia. Most mussels rely on fishes as hosts to metamorphose their larvae to juveniles, and therefore to complete their life cycle. This parasitic relationship uniquely defines Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF VIRGINIA 311 FIGURE 1. Major river drainages of Virginia. Map created by T. Lane, Virginia Tech. freshwater mussels among bivalve mollusks worldwide, both in freshwater and marine environments. The larvae and newly metamorphosed juveniles are very small, typically less than 0.5 mm long. Hence, these stages are considered weak links in the mussel life cycle, as they are susceptible to loss of host fishes, contaminants in streams, and physical disturbance of stream habitats. However, it is this interaction with fishes that makes mussels unique, and evolutionarily has given rise to some of the most complex and striking mimicry known in the natural world. For students of all ages, mussels are a fascinating portal to understanding streams and the incredible organisms that they contain. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction to the life history, status and conservation of freshwater mussels in Virginia. METHODS Occurrence of mussel species in the major river basins of Virginia was determined from publications, reports and personal communications with biologists. However, because mussel surveys and records from the Albemarle, Big Sandy, Eastern Shore and Yadkin basins are sparse to non-existent, species occurrences for these basins were not determined. A mussel species was considered extant in a basin if a live individual was recorded from 1985 to the present. Otherwise, it was considered extirpated or extinct. Species occurrences in the upper Tennessee River basin were determined for the Powell River from Ortmann (1918), Johnson et al. (2012), and Ahlstedt et al. (2016), for the Clinch River from Ortmann (1918), Jones et al. (2014), and Ahlstedt et al. (2016), for the North Fork Holston River from Ortmann (1918), Henley and Neves (1999), and Jones and Neves (2007), for the Middle Fork Holston River from Ortmann (1918), Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 312 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE FIGURE 2. Number of species per major aquatic taxon in Virginia. Number of listed species includes species listed as federally endangered, federally threatened, state endangered, and state threatened. Henley et al. (1999), and Henley et al. (2013), and for the South Fork Holston River from Ortmann (1918) and Pinder and Ferraro (2012). Species occurrences in the New River basin were determined from Pinder et al. (2002). Species occurrences in the major Atlantic Slope river basins were determined for the Roanoke, Chowan, James, York, Rappahannock, and Potomac (including its major tributary the Shenandoah River) river basins from Johnson (1970) and personal communication with VDGIF state malacologist Brian Watson. The legal status of listed species, including federally endangered (FE), federally threatened (FT), federal candidate species (FC), state endangered (SE), state threatened (ST) were accessed from VDGIF’s database (last u p d a t e d o n J u l y 1 8 , 2 0 1 4 ) a n d a v a i l a b l e o n l i n e a t : http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/virginiatescspecies.pdf. The number and status of fishes in Virginia was obtained from Jenkins and Burkhead (1993), for snails from Johnson et al. (2013) and for crayfishes based on personal communication with B. Watson. The common and scientific names of freshwater mussels generally follow Turgeon et al. (1998). RESULTS A total of 77 mussel species are known from the major river basins of Virginia. Of these, three species (Epioblasma haysiana, E. lenior, and Lexingtonia subplana) and one sub-species (E. torulosa gubernaculum) are considered extinct range-wide, and Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF VIRGINIA 313 four species (Anodontoides ferrusacianus, Leptodea fragilis, L. leptodon, and Villosa fabalis) a

Viewing the status of Virginia’s environment through the lens of freshwater fishes

Abstract: We summarize a range of topics related to the status of Virginia’s freshwater fishes, their reflection of environmental quality, and their contribution to human wellbeing. Since 1994 the list of extant Virginia fishes has lengthened from 210 species to 227 species, mostly due to taxonomic reorganizations. Virginia’s list of Species of Greatest Conservation Need currently contains 96 fish species, predominated by darters (32 species) and minnows (28 species). Increasing trends in species rarity and threats to fishes suggest that Virginia’s aquatic environment is becoming less hospitable for fishes. Prevailing anthropogenic threats to fishes include agriculture, urban development, mineral extraction, forestry, and power generation; emerging threats include introduction of nonnative species and climate change. Agency assessments of Virginia’s streams, rivers, and lakes indicate that over 40% of them are impaired and that dozens of these waterbodies have fishes that, if consumed by people, contain harmful levels of mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls. Multiple state agencies are responsible for managing Virginia’s freshwaters and fishes to achieve objectives related to recreation, conservation, and environmental health. We close with a discussion of the challenges and opportunities associated with conserving Virginia’s diverse fish fauna and identify several research, management, and outreach actions that may enhance conservation effectiveness. INTRODUCTION Freshwater fishes represent a substantial component of Virginia’s rich natural heritage and are tightly interwoven into our economic, environmental, and cultural fabrics. With over 200 native species, Virginia’s fish fauna far exceeds the average diversity among other states in the United States. One reason for this remarkable diversity is that the state is uniquely situated at the distributional crossroads of many southern, northern, eastern and western fish species. The importance of fishes to * Corresponding Author: Paul L. Angermeier Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 148 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Virginians goes back centuries to connect with Native Americans and European colonists (McPhee 2002) but still holds true today, albeit in different ways. Whereas most early Virginians were connected to fishes primarily as a major source of food, most Virginians today are not. Instead, our main uses of freshwater fishes are related to recreation (e.g., sportfishing) and environmental monitoring. Of course, fishes are also an important source of natural beauty and knowledge for those who take the time to study them. In this paper, we focus on the insights that fishes offer regarding the condition of our precious water resources. Fishes are excellent environmental monitors because they reflect conditions in the water bodies where they live; those conditions are strongly affected by how people use water and land nearby. Water bodies integrate environmental conditions in their watersheds and, in turn, fishes integrate the conditions of the water in which they live (Karr and Chu 1999). Ultimately, fishes’ abilities to persist in a water body reflect the environmental conditions to which they are exposed. For example, human activities are shifting the spatial and temporal dynamics of the water cycle, accelerating the rates at which sediment and nutrients enter freshwaters, preventing some animals from migrating upstream and downstream, and altering river flooding patterns (Helfman 2007). Common practices that alter freshwater availability through time include building impoundments (especially those that regulate the release of water) and altering land cover. The many ways in which people use land and water affect water quality by altering a wide range of its physical, chemical, and biotic properties. Intensive uses of land and water, such as uses by large industries or many people, commonly diminish water quality. The regional and local status of freshwater fishes can teach us a lot about our performance as environmental stewards. Below, we discuss a range of topics connecting Virginia’s fishes to environmental quality and human wellbeing. We begin with a brief summary of ecological factors limiting fish distributions, then describe key recent changes to the state’s fish fauna and its conservation status. We also devote considerable text to the prevailing anthropogenic threats to fishes and how fishes are used to measure stream health. We close with a summary of Virginia’s regulatory framework germane to fish conservation and some thoughts on needs for fish conservation going forward. FACTORS LIMITING FISH DISTRIBUTIONS Well over 200 species of freshwater fish live among Virginia’s water bodies, including streams, swamps, rivers, ponds, lakes and estuaries (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Figure 1). However, the particular species living in a water body vary greatly among locations, depending on a suite of factors that includes zoogeography, prevailing physicochemical conditions, dispersal abilities of fishes, interspecific interactions, and anthropogenic impacts. Many physicochemical factors collectively determine if a given water body is suitable for a given fish species, and each species has distinctive sensitivities to these factors. Further, these limiting factors vary naturally through space and time but can also be dramatically influenced by human uses of air, land, and water. Herein, we follow Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) and Jelks et al. (2008) in defining ‘freshwater’ fishes. This definition encompasses all fishes that commonly spend much of their life in fresh waters, including diadromous species. Fishes are especially sensitive to water chemistry and temperature and most species have narrow ranges of chemistry and temperature under which they can thrive. Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 STATUS OF VIRGINIA FRESHWATER FISHES 149 Chemical parameters such as pH, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, salinity, and a vast array of toxicants (e.g., metals, pesticides, chlorine) commonly limit fish distributions (Matthews 1998, Helfman 2007). Different tolerances to salinity distinguish most freshwater fishes from marine fishes but a few freshwater species, such as American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) and Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis), can adapt to very different ranges of salinity during certain life stages. Similarly, seasonally high or low water temperatures preclude coldwater or warmwater fishes, respectively, from occurring in certain water bodies. In addition to being sensitive to properties of the water itself, fishes are also sensitive to the physical structure of water bodies, such as their size, slope, depth, movement, and bottom composition. Thus, species are differentially adapted to live and thrive in streams versus rivers, rivers versus lakes, rocky streams versus sandy streams, and other structural types of water bodies. Collectively, parameters of temperature, water chemistry, and physical structure are used to describe fish habitats; the availability of suitable habitat is a fundamental factor regulating species’ distributions. The types of habitat available to fishes can vary widely, so in turn the fish assemblages present at a locality also vary considerably among regions of Virginia. Each of the five physiographic provinces represented in Virginia (i.e., Appalachian Plateau, Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain) exhibit distinctive geology, topography, and land use, all of which promote distinctive arrays of habitat types and distinctive fish assemblages. Similarly, each of the ten major river drainages (i.e., Potomac, Rappahannock, York, James, Chowan, Roanoke, Peedee, New, upper Tennessee, and Big Sandy; see Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) is bounded by barriers to fish dispersal (e.g., ridge tops and ocean), which promote evolution of sibling species and differentiation among assemblages. Accounting for the various combinations of elevation (a surrogate for temperature), stream size, physiography, and river drainage, Virginia supports approximately 90 distinctive types of freshwater fish assemblage (Angermeier and Winston 1999). Understanding natural patterns of habitat availability and fish distribution across Virginia is crucial to using fishes as a lens to interpret environmental quality. Readers interested in learning more about natural and anthropogenic factors that limit freshwater fish distributions, including patterns specific to Virginia, are encouraged to see Jenkins and Burkhead (1994), Matthews (1998), and Helfman (2007) for additional details. CHANGES IN VIRGINIA’S FISH LIST SINCE 1994 Over 20 years ago, Robert Jenkins and Noel Burkhead authored the seminal volume on the systematics, morphology, biology, habitat, and distribution of Virginia’s freshwater fishes (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). In that volume they provided a thorough summary account for each of the 210 species known to occur in Virginia waters, including chronologies of taxonomic reorganizations, introductions, and extirpations. Many changes in Virginia’s freshwater fish fauna have occurred since Jenkins and Burkhead’s book was published, largely due to introductions, discoveries, and taxonomic reorganization. In short, the list of extant Virginia fishes has lengthened from 210 species and 230 taxa (i.e., species, subspecies, and undescribed forms) to 227 species and 235 taxa (Tables 1 and 2). Two species have been introduced: Northern Snakehead (Channa argus) and Blackside Dace (Chrosomus cumberlandensis). One Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 150 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TABLE 1. List of freshwater fish families and species known from Virginia. The order is taxonomic. Scientific names are followed by common names. Numbers in parentheses indicate species counts. “*” indicates a spe

A Comparison of Survey Methods for Documenting Presence of Myotis leibii (Eastern Small-Footed Bats) at Roosting Areas in Western Virginia

Abstract: Many aspects of foraging and roosting habitat of Myotis leibii (Eastern Small-Footed Bat), an emergent rock roosting-obligate, are poorly described. Previous comparisons of effectiveness of acoustic sampling and mist-net captures have not included Eastern Small-Footed Bat. Habitat requirements of this species differ from congeners in the region, and it is unclear whether survey protocols developed for other species are applicable. Using data from three overlapping studies at two sampling sites in western Virginia’s central Appalachian Mountains, detection probabilities were examined for three survey methods (acoustic surveys with automated identification of calls, visual searches of rock crevices, and mist-netting) for use in the development of “best practices” for future surveys and monitoring. Observer effects were investigated using an expanded version of visual search data. Results suggested that acoustic surveys with automated call identification are not effective for documenting presence of Eastern Small-Footed Bats on talus slopes (basal detection rate of 0%) even when the species is known to be present. The broadband, high frequency echolocation calls emitted by Eastern Small-Footed Bat may be prone to attenuation by virtue of their high frequencies, and these factors, along with signal reflection, lower echolocation rates or possible misidentification to other bat species over talus slopes may all have contributed to poor acoustic survey success. Visual searches and mist-netting of emergent rock had basal detection probabilities of 91% and 75%, respectively. Success of visual searches varied among observers, but * Corresponding author: jhuth@VT.edu Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss4 414 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE detection probability improved with practice. Additionally, visual searches were considerably more economical than mist-netting. INTRODUCTION There has been an estimated mortality of more than 6 million bats in the genus Myotis in White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) affected areas (Blehert et al. 2009; Ford et al. 2011; Francl et al. 2011; Minnis and Lindner 2013; Puechmaille et al. 2011). This disease has continued to spread across the Northeast into the Appalachians, Midwest and mid-South (Francl et al. 2012), and now is present throughout much of the eastern United States and Canada (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2016a). Undoubtedly, this increased geographic footprint has led to higher overall mortality than original estimates. Biologists have long relied on capture methods such as mist-netting near roosts or water sources and along flyways to document presence of bats (Kunz et al. 2009). Declines in bat populations due to WNS have made previous standard capture methods largely ineffective for some bat species of conservation concern in WNS-impacted areas (Coleman et al. 2014; Ford et al. 2011). As early as 1994, long before the WNS emergence, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) acknowledged a need to resolve questions about bat population status, recognizing that data available from state and federal agencies were insufficient to provide population estimates and assess trends, thereby recommending new sampling strategies (Loeb et al. 2015). Threats of additional population declines and regional extirpation of some bat species from WNS have heightened the need to effectively monitor long-term trends in population status, distribution, and structure of species assemblages within both WNS and presumed future WNS-impacted areas. The distribution, use of hibernacula, and foraging and roosting habits during the maternity season by Myotis leibii (Eastern Small-Footed Bat) were poorly documented prior to WNS, compared to its congeners (Krutzsch 1966; Best and Jennings 1997; Chapman 2007; Johnson et al. 2011). In Virginia, lack of targeted survey efforts and research has led to considerable variability in conclusions about the species’ conservation status; including designations as locally abundant in western Virginia (Dalton 1987), uncommon in Virginia (Webster et al. 2003), and greatest conservation need, Tier I Virginia Wildlife Action Plan (Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 2016). Moreover, reports of declines in population sizes associated with WNS vary among bat species (Hayes 2012). It has been difficult to precisely document declines for Eastern Small-Footed Bats because they often hibernate alone, in small groups, and often in obscure locations opposed to aggregative hibernators such as Myotis lucifugus (Little Brown Bats) and Myotis sodalis (Indiana Bats; Veilleux 2007:Turner et al. 2011; Francl et al. 2012). In 2013, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) was petitioned to consider listing Eastern Small-Footed Bat as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2014). After reviewing the available scientific information, USFWS (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2013) determined that listing the Eastern Small-Footed Bat was not warranted; however, numerous data gaps were noted that need to be addressed to better understand Eastern Small-Footed Bat ecology and true conservation status. Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss4 SURVEY METHODS FOR Myotis leibii 415 For most Myotis in WNS-impacted areas, acoustic monitoring has emerged as an increasingly-used method to detect presence. Acoustic monitoring requires less effort and mitigates the higher costs, low detection probabilities, and potential false negatives from surveying with mist-nets (Coleman et al. 2014). Accordingly, USFWS now allows acoustic surveys to document presence or presumed absence of the endangered Indiana Bat (Niver et al. 2014) and is currently developing similar guidelines for the threatened Myotis septentrionalis (Northern Long-Eared Bat; Mike Armstrong, U.S Fish & Wildlife Service, personal communication). Although mist-netting allows gathering of information on sex ratios, body condition, and reproductive condition (Kunz et al. 2009), acoustic detectors are an attractive alternative sampling tool because they are relatively simple to operate and can collect large amounts of data for extended periods (Morris et al. 2011). Acoustic detectors also are capable of sampling a much larger area than nets (O’Farrell and Gannon 1999), and detection should be less sensitive to abundance, adding to the technique’s utility. Even prior to WNS, a combination of sampling methods had been proposed as the most effective monitoring strategy, as this maximized information collected and leveraged the strengths of each method (O’Farrell and Gannon 1999; Patriquin et al. 2003; Flaquer et al. 2007; Robbins et al. 2008). Although acoustic monitoring is effective for many species, a post-WNS study on bat detection probabilities in northwestern New York using opportunistic capture and acoustic methods found that Eastern Small-Footed Bats had substantially lower detection probabilities than other species in that area (Coleman et al. 2014). Because Coleman et al. (2014) focused on Indiana and Little Brown Bats’ foraging habitats, the efficacy of acoustic surveys in habitats more likely to be used by Eastern Small-Footed Bats (i.e., emergent rock formations and nearby 1 and 2 order streams) largely is unknown. To address the lack of comparisons of detection methods within Eastern SmallFooted Bat roosting areas in the central Appalachians and to aide in the development of “best practices” for future surveys and monitoring, a post-hoc comparison of detection probabilities of three survey methods was performed: acoustic surveys with automated identification of calls, visual searching for roosts on emergent rock formations, and mist-netting at sites where Eastern Small-Footed Bats were known to occur. Secondary benefits of each survey method also were considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS This post-hoc study used Eastern Small-Footed Bat detection data collected during three separate studies from sites in Virginia where Eastern Small-Footed Bats were known to occur. To maximize comparability, the original datasets were reduced to two local sites utilized by all three studies and where Eastern Small-Footed Bats previously had been detected (Moosman et al. 2015). The study sites were post-Pleistocene colluvial fields (talus slopes) in western Virginia. Sites differed in their specific geology and physical setting. Site one, Devil’s Marbleyard (hereafter DMY), is a 3.0 ha field of large Antietam quartzite boulders located in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest in Rockbridge County (37.581332°N, 79.471420°W, datum WGS 84). The DMY is surrounded by a mixed deciduous forest predominated by Quercus prinus L. (Chestnut Oak), Quercus rubra L. (Northern Red Oak), Quercus coccinea (Scarlet oak), Pinus virginiana (Virginia Pine), and Acer rubrum L. (Red Maple) (Mengak and Castleberry, 2008). Site two is a 3.34 ha talus slope of smaller Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss4 416 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE scree composed of quartzite with some larger boulders located within the Sherando Lake’s Recreation Area (hereafter Sherando) of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest in Augusta County (37.929370°N, -79.004356°W, datum WGS 84). Sherando is surrounded by a mixed deciduous forest similar to that surrounding DMY. As a capture baseline, mist-net data were collected during June 2009 and July 2014 (Moosman et al. 2015), and visual search and acoustic data were collected between June and August 2014. Mist-nets were deployed with 38-mm mesh in two manners. Two 12-m-long x 3-m-high nets end to end directly on the talus slope were deployed at DMY because the location lacked corridors conventionally considered suitable for surveys with mist-nets. Mist-nets were placed perpendicular to the forest edge extending toward the center of t

Pesticide Analysis in Vegetables Using QuEChERS Extraction and Colorimetric Detection

Abstract: A novel combination of extraction and detection methods is demonstrated for pesticide residue analysis in vegetable samples. Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition was used as a simple colorimetric test for organophosphates/carbamates (OP/C), and was tested with extracts from the widely-used QuEChERS extraction method. In the absence of pesticide, diluted (50% with water) acetonitrile did not inhibit enzyme activity, demonstrating the compatibility of this extraction solvent with the AChE inhibition test. QuEChERS extraction of chlorpyrifos-spiked tomato, spinach and lettuce samples indicated a high sensitivity to OP/C, with AChE inhibition occurring in the ppb range. The applicability of this method combination was tested by screening tomatoes from 18 different sources, including private gardens, farmer’s market venders, and local supermarkets. Tomatoes from one private garden, three “certified naturally grown” farmer’s market venders and two “organic” supermarket source had AChE inhibition significantly above nominally pesticide-free controls, suggesting the presence of OP/C residue. These residues were likely below levels of health concern, as indicated by lack of complete AChE inhibition, and the absence of inhibition upon sample dilution. This study demonstrates that the combination of QuEChERS extraction and AChE-inhibition detection provides a relatively simple and inexpensive alternative for detection of OP/C in vegetable samples.

Breeding birds of Virginia

Abstract: Virginia supports a diverse community of breeding birds that has been the focus of investigation for more than 400 years. The avifauna reflects the latitudinal position of the state and the fact that the border extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Appalachian Mountains. A total of 224 species have been recorded breeding in Virginia, 214 of which are extant. Twenty species have colonized the state since 1900 including 14 since 1950. Of all extant species, 102 (48%) are considered common at least somewhere in the state and 64 (30%) are rare to very rare. Diversity varies by physiographic region with 179 (83%), 168 (78%) and 141 (66%) in the Coastal Plain, Mountains and Piedmont, respectively. Two significant landscape features make significant contributions to the state-wide diversity including tidal waters along the coast and isolated spruce-fir forests of the Appalachians that represent Pleistocene-era relicts. In all, nearly 25% of the state-wide avifauna is either wholly or nearly confined to tidal water and 10% is confined to “sky island” refugia. Since 1978, 25 species of birds throughout Virginia have been identified as requiring immediate conservation action. A retrospective assessment shows that 5 of these species including osprey (Pandion haliaetus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) and piping plover (Charadrius melodus) have recovered to or beyond historic numbers. Three species including Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Bachman’s sparrow (Peucaea aestivalis) and upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) have been lost from the state and the black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) and Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii ) are in imminent danger of extirpation. Several species including the peregrine falcon, piping plover, Wilson’s plover (Charadrius wilsonia) and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) are the focus of intensive monitoring and management programs. The underlying causes of imperilment remain unclear for several species of concern, limiting our ability to development effective conservation strategies. 1 Corresponding author: bdwatts@wm.edu Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 224 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE INTRODUCTION The ornithological record in Virginia stretches back more than four centuries. From the time of settlement at Jamestown in 1607, residents of Virginia and visitors to the state reported on the birds they encountered or were told about by Native Americans. William Strachey who lived in the settlement from 1610 to 1612 remarked at length on the birds he observed (Strachey 1849). Contemporaries including Captain John Smith, Raphe Hamor, and Edward Topsell describe many species including the waterfowl on the Chesapeake Bay, cardinals, mockingbirds and ruby-throated hummingbirds (Smith 1612, Hamor 1615, Christy 1933). Later in the century significant accounts by George Percy and John Clayton, Vicar of Crofton, would describe immense flocks of passenger pigeons and Carolina parakeets (Clayton 1685). These were followed by contributions by Thomas Glover and William Byrd (Glover 1676, Byrd 1841). Early accounts were primarily anecdotal descriptions or lists of birds within localities. As time passed, early local accounts began to coalesce and were compiled into growing lists that began to provide a more complete assessment of the avifauna within the state. One of these early treatises, Mark Catesby’s work (Catesby 1771), though centered to the south, had its beginning on Westover Plantation and generally includes the species described to that time. Thomas Jefferson would later give a list of 125 bird species for the “Virginias” (Jefferson 1787). These early treatments lead up to two significant works that gave a more complete assessment of the breeding birds including William Cabell Rives’ “A catalogue of the birds of the Virginias” and Harold Bailey’s “The Birds of Virginia” (Rives 1890, Bailey 1913). Throughout the early 1900s a community of bird enthusiasts including academics and citizen volunteers would form, eventually leading to the establishment of the Virginia Society of Ornithology in 1929 (Johnston 2003). One of the stated missions of the organization was “to gather and assemble data on the birds of Virginia.” Through annual forays designed to document breeding birds in specific locations that moved throughout the state an increasingly complete accounting of the breeding bird community would emerge over time. The long period of “ornithological exploration” in Virginia would eventually come to a close with Murray’s production of “A check-list of the birds of Virginia” (1952). This benchmark work was a comprehensive compilation of birds observed in the state that provided a blueprint followed by subsequent updates (Larner 1979, Kain 1987, Rottenborn and Brinkley 2007). Incredibly, virtually all of the breeding species that have been added to the avifauna since Murray’s initial checklist have been the result of range expansions into the state rather than new discoveries of long-existing species. The early writings about Virginia birds were more than lists of occurrences. Descriptions of forces effecting populations such as market hunting and habitat loss demonstrate a conservation ethic that extends back in time. This ethic would build throughout the twentieth century and eventually become consolidated with the passage of Virginia’s Endangered Species Act (§29.1-563 §29.1-570) in 1972 and the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884) in 1973. These two laws laid the foundation for the establishment of an organized effort to protect the nongame bird species of Virginia. In order to facilitate this mission, an avian taxonomic committee was formed and charged with identifying bird populations that were most in need of conservation efforts and funding. The committee would report on its assessment to a symposium held in Blacksburg during the spring of 1978 focused on Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 BREEDING BIRDS OF VIRGINIA 225 endangered and threatened plants and animals of Virginia (Linzey 1979). This event would be followed by subsequent assessments in 1989 (Terwilliger 1991) and 2005 (VDGIF 2005). Both the avifauna of Virginia and the conditions experienced by threatened populations are ever changing. The objectives of this paper are 1) to present an updated list of the bird species known to breed in Virginia and 2) to provide an update and retrospective on the status of species that have been identified as requiring the highest level of conservation attention (i.e. recommended for threatened or endangered status or placed in Tier I) during the 1978, 1989 and 2005 benchmark treatments. METHODS This treatment includes all bird species (extant or extinct) with recognized breeding records within the state of Virginia as of June 2014. Presentation follows the scientific and English nomenclature, and the order, of the seventh edition of the American Ornithologists’ Union check-list of North American Birds (American Ornithologists’ Union 1998) through the 55 supplement (Chesser et al. 2014). In order to provide information on broad distribution within the state, status is provided by physiographic region. To simplify for this presentation, regions include the 1) Coastal Plain, 2) Piedmont and 3) Mountains and Valleys. The Coastal Plain is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the fall line to the west. The fall line is an erosional scarp where the metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont meet the sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain. Between these two boundaries the land slopes gently toward the fall line where it generally reaches an elevation of less than 80 m. The Piedmont is bounded to the east by the fall line and to the west by the escarpment of the Blue Ridge. In the northern parts of the state the Piedmont is only 75 km wide but broadens to the south reaching nearly 300 km wide at the state line. The land slopes up to the west reaching 300 m in elevation at the escarpment. The Mountains and Valleys Region is bounded by the east slope of the Blue Ridge and the state line. For ease of presentation this region has been forged from three provinces including the Blue Ridge Province, the Ridge and Valley Province and the Appalachian Plateaus Province. The region supports many areas above 1,000 m including Mount Rogers (1,746 m) and Whitetop (1,682 m), the two highest peaks in the state. Within each physiographic region, the status of breeding populations was assessed in broad categories including common, uncommon, and rare. For species with known population estimates these categories follow the values: common – greater than 10,000 pairs, uncommon – greater than 1,000 but less than 10,000 pairs, rare – greater than 100 but less than 1,000 pairs and very rare – less than 100 pairs. For species with no population estimates these categories follow the following conditions: common – species with a relatively common habitat that is found easily, uncommon – species that requires a limited habitat and may be difficult to find, rare – species that is restricted to a limited habitat or is so scarce that it cannot be expected with any certainty, very rare – species that is restricted to only a few localities or has a small number of documented occurrences in the state. Although these categories are broad and have not been subjected to rigorous evaluation, they provide a description of relative abundance. Sources of data The treatment of breeding status and distribution presented here relied heavily on the work of the Virginia Society of Ornithology. Over the past 70 years, the society has Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 226 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIE

Forest diversity and disturbance: changing influences and the future of Virginia's Forests

Abstract: The Virginia landscape supports a remarkable diversity of forests, from maritime dunes, swamp forests, and pine savannas of the Atlantic coastal plain, to post-agricultural pine-hardwood forests of the piedmont, to mixed oak, mixed-mesophytic, northern hardwood, and high elevation conifer forests in Appalachian mountain provinces. Virginia’s forests also have been profoundly shaped by disturbance. Chestnut blight, hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, and other pests have caused declines or functional extirpation of foundation species. Invasive plants like multiflora rose, Oriental bittersweet, and Japanese stiltgrass threaten both disturbed and intact forests. Oaks and other fire-dependent species have declined with prolonged fire suppression, encouraging compositional shifts to maple, beech, and other mesophytic species. Agriculture has left lasting impacts on soil and microsite variations, and atmospheric nitrogen deposition has led to soil acidification, nutrient loss, and diversity declines. And, future changes associated with climate warming are expected to influence species distributions and habitat quality, particularly for hemlock-northern hardwood and spruce-fir forests. These and other disturbances will continue to shape Virginia’s forests, influencing species interactions, successional trajectories, and susceptibility to invasive plants and secondary stressors, and initiating broader impacts on forest diversity, ecosystem processes, and habitat resources for associated species and neighboring ecosystems.

Status of Plants in Virginia

Abstract: OVERVIEW OF BOTANICAL DIVERSITY Virginia possesses a unique and varied assemblage of plant life. There are 3,164 species, subspecies and varieties of plants in Virginia (Weakley et al. 2012). As classified by the Virginia Departmentof Conservation and Recreation’s Division of Natural Heritage (DCR-DNH), they form some 94 ecological groups and 317 community types across five distinct physiographic provinces: Coastal Plain, Piedmont, Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley, and Appalachian Plateau. The state extends 469 miles from east to west and 201 miles north to south at the widest points, enclosing 42,326 square miles of territory. This diverse range of environmental conditions supports the wide diversity of plant life found within the state. Virginia is on the northern boundary of many southern plant species and on the southern boundary of many northern plant species. This range overlap combined with seashore to mountain variation leads to one of the richer diversities of plant life within the continental United States. Virginia was the source of some of the earlier plant collections by European botanists (Berkeley and Berkeley 1963).Europeans started observing and documenting Virginia’s flora as early as the 1500s (Hugo and Ware 2012). Over the next two centuries, there were various explorations and reports by laypersons and scientifically trained individuals. In the eighteenth century, there were significant contributions to the documentation and descriptions of plants in Virginia. In 1739 J. F. Gronovius published John Clayton’s work titled Flora Virginica describing some 500 or so plant species (Hugo and Ware 2012). John Mitchell, James Greenway, and prominently, John Bartram wrote extensively about plants of Virginia. Later, such botanists as Andre Michaux, Asa Gray, and John Torrey published work that included plants of Virginia (Hugo and Ware 2012). Work toward a new Flora of Virginia began in earnest in 1926 when the Virginia Academy of Science established a flora committee through the leadership of A.B. Massey of Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Hugo and Ware 2012). Through Massey’s vision and the efforts of many subsequent scientists, a new Flora of Virginia was finally published in 2012 documenting 3,164 plant species, subspecies, and varieties in 189 families in the commonwealth of Virginia (Weakley et al. 2012). The public charge to inventory and protect this wealth of plant biodiversity is given to the Office of Plant Protection within the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which under the Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act has responsibility to list and protect Virginia’s endangered and threatened plant species. There were 26 species listed in 2013, whereas there were 17 species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Townsend 2014). The Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act also contains provisions for the recovery of endangered and threatened species in Virginia. The VDCR, DNH and the Virginia Department of

Amphibian and Small Mammal Assemblages in a Northern Virginia Forest Before and After Defoliation by Gypsy Moths (Lymantria dispar)

Abstract: The introduced European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) caused substantial defoliation and mortality of oak trees along the North Fork of Quantico Creek in Prince William Forest Park, Prince William County, Virginia, U.S.A., in 1989 and the early 1990s. Results of a drift fence/pitfall study conducted in 1988 were compared to those obtained from the same technique in the same areas in 1993 to elucidate whether the amphibian and small mammal assemblages had changed over time. Number of Lithobates sylvaticus increased significantly in 1993, but the numbers of Lithobates clamitans and Plethodon cinereus were significantly higher in 1988. Total numbers of amphibians caught in both years was similar. Two species of salamanders caught in 1988 were not caught in 1993, and one salamander and one frog caught in 1993 were absent in 1988. Total numbers of small mammals caught in 1993 were significantly greater than in 1988. The increase was due to greater numbers of Blarina brevicauda and Sorex longirostris. The hypothesis that no significant differences in amphibian and small mammal species richness and relative abundance before and after gypsy moth defoliation hypothesis was not supported by the results of this study.

Virginia Air Quality: Trends, Exposure, and Respiratory Health Impacts

Abstract: Air quality is an important determinant of public health and quality of life. A secondary data analysis was carried out to investigate trends and air quality in Virginia. The analysis included an evaluation of two major air pollution source categories, emission of criteria and hazardous air pollutants, ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants, ozone standard violations and associated meteorology, and hospital admissions for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Virginia. Comparisons were also made to national trends and statistics. Data was gathered from many open reputable on-line sources available through various state and federal agencies. Virginia routinely meets 5 of the 6 criteria air pollutant ambient standards. Ozone does continue to represent a challenge for Virginia, as it does for many other states. Potential focus on further production and consumption of renewable energy, improvement in fuel efficiency among SUV’s and light trucks, reduction of the metals content in fuels burned by electric utilities, utilization of emissions inspections for automobiles, utilization of vapor recovery systems at gas stations, and continued emphasis on ozone precursors all have the potential to further improve air quality within Virginia. This is important because the very young and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of poor air quality. INTRODUCTION Poor air quality has long been associated with adverse human and ecological health impacts. For example, poor air quality led King Edward I in 1273 to prohibit the burning of coal due to noxious air emissions (Beck 2007). Although we have made significant progress in controlling air pollution in many developed countries today, concern still exists regarding the impact of air quality on health. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, several epidemiologic research studies showed that in the United States both particulate matter (Wilson and Spengler 1996) and ozone (Lippmann 1989) were associated with adverse human health effects at levels typical of that time. Additional * Corresponding author: jblando@odu.edu Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 372 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE studies were conducted and this body of research is now reflected in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Criteria Documents required under Title I of the Clean Air Act (USEPA 2014a; USEPA 2010). These Criteria Documents form the basis for the compliance levels set under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Today in the Unites States, the USEPA regulates ambient air quality through six NAAQS. The Criteria Air Pollutants regulated under Title I of the Clean Air Act are particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), oxides of sulfur (SOx), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and lead (Pb). The particulate matter standards include both particles under 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) and particles under 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5). Ambient levels of these Criteria Air Pollutants and other ambient air pollutants are measured continuously through several of USEPA’s extensive ambient air monitoring networks, including the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS), National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS), Special Purpose Monitors (SPMS), and Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) (USEPA 2015a). In addition, emissions of the six criteria pollutants are tracked through the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The USEPA utilizes state inventory data to compile the NEI on an annual basis and conducts a more comprehensive NEI review of the state inventories every three years. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are also regulated by the USEPA through several programs. One of these programs created by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Section 313 created the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program and contains a list of roughly 650 chemical compounds, many of which are HAPs. HAPs, in addition to waste water and solid waste toxics, are tracked through the TRI (USEPA 2015b), which is a multi-media inventory system designed to fulfill requirements under EPCRA. Trends in the release of HAPs can be tracked by industrial sector and by geographic region through the TRI. In addition to the actual measurement of airborne concentrations of pollutants and an inventory of air pollution releases, significant sources of air pollution can be tracked through various databases. Two industrial sectors that are particularly important contributors to ambient air pollution are the energy sector and the mobile source (e.g. automobiles) sector. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) (www.eia.gov) is a semiautonomous agency within the US Department of Energy that tracks trends and makes projections of energy production and use in the United States and within individual states. Many state Department of Transportation (DOT) agencies carefully track mobile sources by compiling data on automobile and truck use throughout their state. Mobile source data such as the number of vehicles, total vehicle miles traveled, and fuel efficiency statistics of the motor vehicle fleet are compiled by most state DOTs and the EIA. This information can be used to assess the impact of these two important sectors on ambient air quality. We endeavored to utilize the information described above to investigate trends in important air pollution sources (energy and mobile sources), TRI data, NEI data, and ambient measurements made by SLAMS monitoring sites for the state of Virginia and explore potential contributors to human exposure and risks of chronic respiratory disease. Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 VIRGINIA AIR QUALITY 373

Virginia’s Amphibians: Status, Threats and Conservation

Abstract: Virginia’s diverse environments support 84 amphibian species (anurans and caudates), making it the third highest state in terms of species richness. However, the Commonwealth matches the global trend in declining amphibian populations with over one-third of its amphibian species in conservation need. The Species of Greatest Conservation Need included in the most recent Virginia Wildlife Action Plan cut across amphibian families and ecoregions. It is challenging to ascertain the exact cause of most of the population declines. In one degree or another, all of the global threats to amphibians exist within Virginia’s borders. While an active research program on amphibians exists in the Commonwealth, there are an abundance of data deficient topics where research can help detect and inform the cause of these declines, as well as evaluate management efforts. On a positive note, there are a large number of existing conservation efforts being undertaken across Virginia that directly or indirectly benefit local amphibians. “These foal and loathsome animals are abhorrent because of their cold body, pale color, cartilaginous skeleton, filthy skin, fierce aspect, calculating eye, offensive smell, harsh voice, squalid habitation, and terrible venom; and so their Creator has not exerted his powers to make many of them.” Carolus Linnaeus 1758 INTRODUCTION Some people would likely still describe amphibians as Linnaeus once did, but today we know they are a diverse class of vertebrates, many in number and integral components of ecosystems (Hocking and Babbitt 2014). They are ecologically recognized for their energy efficiency and nutrient cycling. Amphibians serve as prey to many different organisms and as predators consuming vast numbers of insects, including those species that are vectors for diseases or cause agricultural damage. 1 Corresponding author: jennifer.sevin@gmail.com Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 278 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE People have, and continue, to use amphibians for a variety of purposes, including as food, pets and cultural icons. Additionally, the applications of amphibians for human health are wide ranging, including serving as important research subjects and for the treatment of all kinds of ailments (Burggren and Warburton 2007, O'Rourke 2007, Hocking and Babbitt 2014). Amphibians are the earliest terrestrial Tetrapods, first appearing during the late Devonian Period about 360 million years ago. Their physiological, biological, behavioral and ecological adaptations have enabled them to inhabit every continent except Antarctica. Over 7,400 species of amphibians have been described globally across three orders: Anura (frogs and toads), Caudata (salamanders and newts) and Gymnophiona (caecilians) (refer to www.amhibiaweb.org for the most up to date species list). Amphibians are ectothermic organisms mostly known for their permeable skin, complex life cycles, limited mobility, and strong site fidelity. They have anamniotic (jelly-like) eggs with dozens of reproductive modes, ranging from internal to external fertilization, and small clutches of guarded eggs on land to thousands of eggs deposited in standing water. The same characteristics which make amphibians unique are the very attributes which also make them susceptible to changes in the environment. For these reasons, amphibians are considered good indicator species of ecosystem health (Blaustein et al. 1994, Welsh and Droege 2001, Davic and Welsh 2004, Hopkins 2007). However, if the responses of these organisms are truly indicative of what is happening in the environment, there is great cause for continued concern. Over the past few decades, amphibian populations across the globe have experienced declines, local extirpations and species extinctions (Blaustein and Wake 1990, Gibbons et al. 2000, Stuart et al. 2004, Lannoo 2005, Bishop et al. 2012). Amphibians are now considered one of the most threatened groups of organisms globally, with approximately 40% of species threatened (Stuart et al. 2004, Bishop et al. 2012). This paper explores the status of amphibian populations across Virginia, their potential threats, and actions taken to conserve them. VIRGINIA’S AMPHIBIANS Noted for their loud calls, the first printed record of frogs in Virginia is from Robert Beverley’s The History and Present State of Virginia in 1705 (Mitchell 2013). However, it was not until the early 1900s when Emmet Reid Dunn conducted his seminal work on Virginia’s amphibians that the true diversity was realized (Mitchell 2013). Even today, studies using genetic techniques are describing new species (Tilley et al. 2008, Fienberg et al. 2014). There are currently 84 documented species of anurans (referred to as frogs throughout the remainder of paper) and caudates (referred to as salamanders throughout the remainder of paper) in the Commonwealth of Virginia (Appendix). The Big Levels Salamander (Plethodon sherando), Shenandoah Salamander (P. shenandoah) and Peaks of Otter Salamander (P. hubrichti) are endemic to the Commonwealth; meaning they are found only in Virginia and nowhere else in the world. The other 81 species are found in at least one other adjacent state. The most recent addition to Virginia’s species Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 VIRGINIA’S AMPHIBIAN SPECIES 279 list came in 2015, with the Atlantic Coast Leopard Frog (Rana kauffeldi) (Feinberg et al. 2014). Virginia has the third highest amphibian diversity of the states (Stein 2002). Supported by a diverse array of habitats, these amphibians span the Commonwealth, from coastal wetlands to mountain top ridgelines. Some species of amphibians are habitat generalists, such as the ubiquitous American Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) which occupies every county in Virginia and a variety of freshwater aquatic habitats. Other species are habitat specialists, such as the rock outcrop residing Green salamander (Aneides aeneus). Virginia has six main ecoregions as described by The Nature Conservancy, including the Cumberland and Southern Ridge and Valley, Southern Blue Ridge, Central Appalachian Forest, Piedmont, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, and the Chesapeake Bay Lowlands. Each region differs in topography, geology, climate and vegetation. Both frogs and salamanders occupy each ecoregion, but they display different patterns of species richness (Figure 1). In general, frogs predominate in the eastern ecoregions, while more salamanders reside in the western ecoregions. STATUS OF VIRGINIA’S AMPHIBIANS Species assessments are conducted by multiple organizations and for a variety of purposes. This paper uses established rating systems in discussing the status of Virginia’s amphibians (Appendix), including the IUCN Red List, NatureServe Conservation Status (global=GRank and state=SRank), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species listing (ESA), State of Virginia endangered species listing (State) and the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan (2005 and 2015 WAP). The authors consider a species of concern to be one that has been ranked as imperiled by at least one of the known ranking systems. All 28 species of frogs found in Virginia also occur in at least one other state. According to the range-wide assessments (i.e. IUCN, NatureServe GRank and ESA), none of these species are imperiled. On the local level, eight of the 28 species (29% of total frogs) are of conservation concern in Virginia. Five species are listed by both NatureServe SRank and Virginia’s WAP, while an additional three species are listed only on the WAP. The Barking Treefrog (Hyla gratiosa), listed as State Threatened, is the only State listed species. The Atlantic Coast Leopard Frog is not considered in any ranking system because it is newly described (Fienberg et al. 2014) and therefore no previous data for comparison are available for assessment purposes. A different story holds true for the salamanders. According to the NatureServe GRank, ten species are of conservation concern across their entire range. The IUCN ranking is in agreement with the NatureServe GRank on eight of these species. According to the NatureServe SRank and Virginia’s WAP an additional 19 species are of conservation concern within Virginia. Four of these species, however, are only listed by NatureServe and one additional species only by the WAP. Including all listings, the total salamander species of conservation concern in Virginia is 29 (52% of total). Three of these species are listed as State Threatened or Endangered, including the Mabee’s Salamander (Ambystoma mabeei) (ST), Eastern Tiger Salamander (A. Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 280 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE FIGURE 1. Number of Virginia amphibians based on the six terrestrial ecoregions designated by The Nature Conservancy. A species may be represented in more than one ecoregion. Ecoregions include CSRV = Cumberland and Southern Ridge and Valley, SBR = Southern Blue Ridge, CAP = Central Appalachian Forest, PIED = Piedmont, CBL = Chesapeake Bay Lowlands and MACP = Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. tigrinum) (SE) and Shenandoah Salamander (SE)). The Shenandoah Salamander is the only amphibian in Virginia listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as Federally Endangered. Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2015 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss3 VIRGINIA’S AMPHIBIAN SPECIES 281 Of note are the discrepancies in the different assessments. There may be a number of contributing factors for the differences, but two considerations are worth mentioning in relation to rankings in Virginia. The NatureServe listings were last reviewed on average 11 years ago and in some cases may be outdated. In addition, useful information about species on a state or more local level are not always published in the peer-reviewed literature used i

Life-history Aspects of Moxostoma cervinum (Blacktip Jumprock) in the Roanoke River, Virginia

Abstract: Life-history aspects of Moxostoma cervinum (Blacktip Jumprock) were identified using specimens from recent collections and the Roanoke College Ichthyological Collection. The largest specimen examined was a female 161.27 mm SL and 66 months of age. Spawning appears to occur in May, with a mean of 2477.6 oocytes (SD = 2825.3) up to 1.54 mm diameter in gravid females. Sexual maturity appears to occur by 1-2 years of age in males and 2-3 years of age in females. Male to female ratio was not significantly different from 1:1. Chironomidae composed the bulk of the diet; while detritus, Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Acari were important food items in multiple months. Weight of gut contents and proportion of Chironomidae as food items increased with size of specimens examined. INTRODUCTION Moxostoma cervinum (Cope) (Blacktip Jumprock) inhabits upland streams in the James, New, Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse river systems of Virginia and North Carolina (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Jenkins (1970), Buth (1978), and Smith (1992) all placed the species in the genus Scartomyzon with other small suckers inhabiting faster, shallower waters. However, most recent analyses embed the species within the genus Moxostoma (Harris et al. 2002, Doosey et al. 2010, Chen and Mayden 2012) with larger suckers often found in very different habitats. This phylogenetic placement means that understanding the biology and life-history of M. cervinum is important in identifying derived and ancestral character states, thus helping to interpret the substantial variation in the biology and life-history of the Moxostoma. Despite this importance, our understanding of this species’ life history is restricted to three paragraphs in the species account in Freshwater Fishes of Virginia, which gives limited details on aspects of diet, size and age at maturity, and timing of spawning (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). The objective of this study is to document more detailed life-history aspects of M. cervinum from specimens collected throughout the year employing methods utilized in similar studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS Moxostoma cervinum were collected from the Roanoke River near Salem, VA (Roanoke County) between September 2010 and August 2011 by sampling daylight 1 Corresponding author: powers@roanoke.edu Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss4 392 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE hours near the end of each month using a Smith-Root LR-24 electrofisher and a 3.3-m x 1.3-m seine with 9.5-mm mesh. We supplemented our collections with specimens from the Roanoke College Ichthyological Collection (RC) for months when we collected few specimens (n < 15). Specimens were collected following Nickum et al. (2004) protocols, fixed in 10% formalin, rinsed with water and then stored in 45% isopropyl alcohol. A total of 154 specimens were examined in this study. Details on specimens examined (collection sites, collection dates, numbers of specimens taken, collector field numbers) are available from the authors upon request. Standard length (SL) of preserved specimens was measured to the nearest 0.01 mm using digital calipers. Total weight (TW) and eviscerated weight (EW) were measured by blotting the specimens dry and weighing to the nearest 0.001g on a digital analytical scale. Regressions by least sum of squares were performed for EW and SL to examine the relationship between length and weight. A two sample t-test was used to test for difference between male and female standard length. A chi-square test was used to detect a sex ratio different from 1:1. All statistical analyses were performed using Minitab 17 Statistical Software (Minitab, Inc., State College, PA) with alpha equal to 0.05. Specimens were aged using two methods. For all specimens, three scales were removed from the right dorsolateral portion of the body, mounted on a slide and examined under 40x magnification for annuli (see Bond 1996). If the three scales removed did not have the same number of annuli (e.g. regenerated scales that lack a focus), more scales were removed until a clear consensus number of annuli was identified. For specimens with a standard length >119 mm, a single opercle was removed, prepared and analyzed following Beckman and Hutson (2012). Each opercle was removed from the left portion of the body, set in boiling water for 10 minutes, then set in bleach for another 10 minutes to facilitate the removal of excess tissue and then allowed to air dry until annuli were clearly visible. Annuli were read by locating the presence of an opaque region near the edge of the opercle, and counting each opaque region as a single annulus; the number of annuli present was determined by two observers. This method, in comparison to scale annuli data, revealed that the number of annuli on the scales underestimated the age of specimens three years of age or greater and agreed with the scale data for specimens less than three years of age. Therefore, the number of annuli on the opercle was solely used to estimate the age of specimens three years of age or greater. Specimens less than 12 months of age were counted as 0+, specimens 12-23 months were counted as age 1+, specimens 24-35 months were counted as age 2+, specimens 36-47 months were counted as age 3+, specimens 48-59 months were counted as age 4+, and specimens greater than 60 months were counted as age 5+. The proportion of all specimens examined represented by each age class was calculated to approximate the age-class distribution of the population. A t-test of age in months was used to test for differences in lifespan among sexes. Gonads were examined to determine sex, removed from each specimen, and weighed to the nearest 0.001 g. Gonadosomatic Index (GSI) was calculated for all specimens by dividing gonad weight by EW. One-way analysis of variance was performed to test for differences in GSI among specimens of the same sex collected from different months. In gravid females, fully yolked, mature oocytes were counted, and five representative oocytes were measured to provide an approximation of ova size Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss4 LIFE HISTORY OF Moxostoma cervinum 393 and number (Heins and Baker 1988). Regression of SL as a predictor of number of mature oocytes was performed to test the influence of specimen size on fecundity. Due to GSI values peaking in May, declining in June, and reaching a minimum level in July, we used May as the month of spawning for estimating age of specimens. The anterior third of the gastrointestinal tract was opened and its contents were removed and weighed using a digital analytical balance and recorded to the nearest 0.001 g. Weight of gut contents for specimens with empty guts was recorded as 0. Food items were counted and identified to the lowest taxonomic category possible following Thorp and Covich (1991) and Merritt and Cummins (1996). Detritus was noted as being present or absent in an individual specimen. The number of identifiably different food items in each specimen was recorded as variety of food items. One-way analysis of variance was performed on weight of gut contents, variety of food items, and percent Chironomidae to test for differences in feeding throughout the year. Regressions by least sum of squares were performed for SL and weight of gut contents, SL and variety of gut contents, and SL and percent Chironomidae to test the influence of size on feeding. RESULTS Eviscerated weight increased with standard length (r = 88.78%, P < 0.0001) and is described by the model EW = (SL) x 0.4952 – 29.05. Females were larger than males (P < 0.0001) with the mean size of females 105.57 mm SL (SD = 33.26) and males 85.02 mm SL (SD = 25.46). The smallest specimen examined (37.94 mm SL) was collected in January, had zero annuli and appeared to be eight months of age. The largest specimen examined (161.27 mm SL) was a female collected in November, had five annuli, and appeared to be one of the oldest specimens examined at 66 months of age (Figure 1). All specimens examined for annuli had zero to five which corresponded to annuli forming near the end of winter or early spring in specimens up to 66 months of age. Mean lifespan was greater (P = 0.003) for females (24.76 months, SD = 16.11) than males (18.08 months, SD = 11.31). There was also a slightly skewed sex ratio of 1:1.69 in favor of females; however, the difference in the number of males and females was not significant (P = 0.938). Standard length increased with age in months (r = 83.99, P < 0.0001) and is described by the model LOGSL = (LOG age in months) x 0.4906 + 1.3465. Of the 154 collected specimens, 25.97% were age 0+, 35.06% were age 1+, 23.38% were age 2+, 6.49% were age 3+, 7.41% were age 4+, and 1.95% were age 5+ (Figure 2). Monthly GSI was not uniform for females (females P = 0.005), but did not differ significantly for males (P = 0.116). Individual GSI was highest in May for females (0.135) (Figure 3) and males (0.052) (Figure 4). Maximum GSI values declined in June to 0.002 for males, and for females reaching a minimum value of 0.00453 in July. Mean GSI values were lowest during June and July for both females (June = 0.01, SD = 0.013; July = 0.008, SD = 0.004) and males (June = 0.003, SD = 0.0005; July = 0.004, SD = 0.004). Mean GSI values were highest for both sexes during November (females = 0.05, SD = 0.04; males = 0.03, SD = 0.008). Elevated GSI values generally persisted from fall months through spring for both sexes (Figures 3 and 4). Mature oocytes were 0.6-1.54 (mean = 0.96, SD = 0.19) mm in diameter and numbered from 560 to 15,441 (mean = 2477.6, SD = 2825.3). The smallest female with mature oocytes was 24 months of age and had a SL of 93.3 mm. All females collected during spring Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2015 http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/vjs/vol66/iss4 394 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE FIGURE 1. Standard length