![]() |
![]() |
FEIS Home Page |
![]() |
|
Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility (CBIF) |
Landscape-scale characteristics may have greater influence on barren dagger moth habitat quality than patch- or plot-level characteristics [3]. Patches of remnant habitat occupied by barrens dagger moths are typically larger than 2,000 acres (1,000 ha) [10,14]. In models based on surveys of rare moths in a pitch pine-bear oak community in southeastern Massachusetts, barrens dagger moth was positively associated with landscapes with a high percentage of open-canopy oak scrub [3] and negatively associated (P=0.03) with mixed hardwood-conifer forest without pitch pine at the 1,120-acre (450 ha) scale. At a smaller scale (17 acres (7 ha)), barrens dagger moth was negatively associated (P=0.02) with the dispersion and interspersion of cover types [2]. Connectivity of habitat did not appear important in this study area, but connectivity was generally low [3].
COVER REQUIREMENTS:Threats: Threats to the persistence of barrens dagger moths include habitat loss, fire suppression, extensive fires, high levels of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) browsing, introduced species, insecticides, off-road vehicles, and light pollution [9,10,14,16]. Introduced species that may negatively impact barrens dagger moth are gypsy moths (Lymantria dispar) and parasitoids such as compsilura (Compsilura concinnata) [9,10]. Spraying for mosquitoes (Culicidae) and gypsy moths could negatively impact barrens dagger moth. Since it is not as persistent as other insecticides, use of the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki in spring is recommended if severe defoliation by gypsy moths appears imminent. White-tailed deer damage may have contributed to the extirpation of the barrens dagger moth population at Pinery Park, Ontario [14]. For information on the potential impacts of fire on barrens dagger moth, see Fire Effects and Management.
Sampling: Barrens dagger moths are attracted to blacklights and in some areas will come to bait [14].
Habitat management: The following information is based on the general habitat requirements of barrens dagger moths and responses of vegetation and pine barren moths to habitat management. These comparisons are speculative, and responses of barrens dagger moth to various habitat management techniques were uncertain based on data available as of 2008 [10,11,14,16].
Protecting barrens dagger moth habitat is a high priority. Currently occupied habitat is important to the long-term persistence of barrens dagger moth populations [11]. The preservation of large patches of pitch pine-oak scrub vegetation is also recommended, since barrens dagger moths are associated with large habitat patches that are disturbance dependent [16] (see Fire Regime).
A habitat mosaic that varies in space and time and consists of patches ranging from bare sand to oak scrub thickets and closed-canopy pitch pine-oak forests will likely help support various life stages and species of moths [11,16]. Modeling of rare pine barren moth habitat requirements based on survey data from southeastern Massachusetts led to the recommendation that a range of successional stages be maintained and that management treatments focus on areas of about 69 to 279 acres (28-113 ha) [3].
Mowing, prescribed burning (see Fire Effects and Management), thinning, and potentially grazing can help maintain vegetation used by barrens dagger moths and assist in maintaining a habitat mosaic. Barrens dagger moths occur in an area of the Atlantic City International Airport in New Jersey that has been mowed every 1 to 2 winters since the 1940s [14,16]. Since it could result in the removal of oak scrub, mowing more than once a year would likely be detrimental [11,16]. Mowing in the summer may have negative initial results [11]. Thinning of pitch pine could benefit barrens dagger moth, since oak scrub cover would likely increase. Thinning of oaks to savanna may also benefit barrens dagger moth due to increases in oak scrub and maintenance of overstory oaks [11]. In the current landscape, cutting of vegetation followed by prescribed burning may be needed to maintain habitat structure and mimic high-severity summer fires [16]. Grazing may benefit barrens dagger moth habitat due to sprouting oak scrub. However, grazing multiple times a year would likely negatively impact barrens dagger moth habitat. In addition, grazing can introduce nonnative species [11], and the impacts of grazing in oak scrub are poorly understood [16]. Plowing and harrowing are not recommended due to slow recovery of vegetation and establishment of nonnative species [16]. No matter the treatment used, untreated refugia are recommended to provide a colonization source for treated areas [11,16].INDIRECT FIRE EFFECTS: As of 2008, there was very little information on the indirect effects of fire on barrens dagger moth. See FEIS reviews for information on the effects of fire on larval hosts such as bear oak.
Habitat-related fire effects: Research is needed on the effects of fire frequency, severity, timing, and continuity on barrens dagger moth habitat quality [10,14,16]. At least some communities occupied by barrens dagger moths, including pine barrens and scrub oak thickets, are maintained by fire [10,14,16]. Succession of pine barren-oak scrub to shade-tolerant hardwood species would result in a loss of barrens dagger moth habitat [16]. It is possible that burns with sprouting oaks provide quality barrens dagger moth habitat, but there are no data to support this [11,14]. Prescribed fire could be used in combination with thinning and mowing (See Habitat management) to maintain the mosaic habitat structure recommended for rare moths of the eastern United States [3,16].
FIRE REGIME: The fire-return intervals in barrens dagger moth habitat are affected by several factors, including edaphic conditions and anthropogenic influences [16]. A review suggests that presettlement fires in these communities generally occurred in summer [11]. Typical barrens dagger moth communities experience low-severity fire more frequently than high-severity fire (see the Fire Regime Table below). More detailed information on the fire regimes of these cover types is available in the FEIS reviews of bear oak and pitch pine.
Fire regime information on vegetation communities that may provide habitat for barrens dagger moth. For each community, fire regime characteristics are taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [7]. These vegetation models were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion as documented in the PDF file linked from the name of each Potential Natural Vegetation Group listed below. Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model. | |||||
Northern Great Plains | Great Lakes | Northeast | South-central US | Southern Appalachians | |
Southeast | |||||
Northern Great Plains | |||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
||
Northern Plains Grassland | |||||
Oak savanna | Replacement | 7% | 44 | ||
Mixed | 17% | 18 | |||
Surface or low | 76% | 4 | |||
Northern Plains Woodland | |||||
Oak woodland | Replacement | 2% | 450 | ||
Surface or low | 98% | 7.5 | |||
Great Lakes | |||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
||
Great Lakes Woodland | |||||
Great Lakes pine barrens | Replacement | 8% | 41 | 10 | 80 |
Mixed | 9% | 36 | 10 | 80 | |
Surface or low | 83% | 4 | 1 | 20 | |
Northern oak savanna | Replacement | 4% | 110 | 50 | 500 |
Mixed | 9% | 50 | 15 | 150 | |
Surface or low | 87% | 5 | 1 | 20 | |
Great Lakes Forested | |||||
Oak-hickory | Replacement | 13% | 66 | 1 | |
Mixed | 11% | 77 | 5 | ||
Surface or low | 76% | 11 | 2 | 25 | |
Northeast | |||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
||
Northeast Woodland | |||||
Eastern woodland mosaic | Replacement | 2% | 200 | 100 | 300 |
Mixed | 9% | 40 | 20 | 60 | |
Surface or low | 89% | 4 | 1 | 7 | |
Rocky outcrop pine (Northeast) | Replacement | 16% | 128 | ||
Mixed | 32% | 65 | |||
Surface or low | 52% | 40 | |||
Pine barrens | Replacement | 10% | 78 | ||
Mixed | 25% | 32 | |||
Surface or low | 65% | 12 | |||
Oak-pine (eastern dry-xeric) | Replacement | 4% | 185 | ||
Mixed | 7% | 110 | |||
Surface or low | 90% | 8 | |||
Northeast Forested | |||||
Appalachian oak forest (dry-mesic) | Replacement | 2% | 625 | 500 | >1,000 |
Mixed | 6% | 250 | 200 | 500 | |
Surface or low | 92% | 15 | 7 | 26 | |
South-central US | |||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
||
South-central US Grassland | |||||
Oak savanna | Replacement | 3% | 100 | 5 | 110 |
Mixed | 5% | 60 | 5 | 250 | |
Surface or low | 93% | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
South-central US Woodland | |||||
Interior Highlands dry oak/bluestem woodland and glade | Replacement | 16% | 25 | 10 | 100 |
Mixed | 4% | 100 | 10 | ||
Surface or low | 80% | 5 | 2 | 7 | |
Interior Highlands oak-hickory-pine | Replacement | 3% | 150 | 100 | 300 |
Surface or low | 97% | 4 | 2 | 10 | |
Pine bluestem | Replacement | 4% | 100 | ||
Surface or low | 96% | 4 | |||
South-central US Forested | |||||
Interior Highlands dry-mesic forest and woodland | Replacement | 7% | 250 | 50 | 300 |
Mixed | 18% | 90 | 20 | 150 | |
Surface or low | 75% | 22 | 5 | 35 | |
Southern Appalachians | |||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
||
Southern Appalachians Grassland | |||||
Eastern prairie-woodland mosaic | Replacement | 50% | 10 | ||
Mixed | 1% | 900 | |||
Surface or low | 50% | 10 | |||
Southern Appalachians Forested | |||||
Appalachian oak-hickory-pine | Replacement | 3% | 180 | 30 | 500 |
Mixed | 8% | 65 | 15 | 150 | |
Surface or low | 89% | 6 | 3 | 10 | |
Oak (eastern dry-xeric) | Replacement | 6% | 128 | 50 | 100 |
Mixed | 16% | 50 | 20 | 30 | |
Surface or low | 78% | 10 | 1 | 10 | |
Appalachian Virginia pine | Replacement | 20% | 110 | 25 | 125 |
Mixed | 15% | 145 | |||
Surface or low | 64% | 35 | 10 | 40 | |
Appalachian oak forest (dry-mesic) | Replacement | 6% | 220 | ||
Mixed | 15% | 90 | |||
Surface or low | 79% | 17 | |||
Southeast | |||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
||
Southeast Woodland | |||||
Longleaf pine-Sandhills prairie | Replacement | 3% | 130 | 25 | 500 |
Surface or low | 97% | 4 | 1 | 10 | |
Southeast Forested | |||||
Coastal Plain pine-oak-hickory | Replacement | 4% | 200 | ||
Mixed | 7% | 100 | |||
Surface or low | 89% | 8 | |||
*Fire Severities— Replacement: Any fire that causes greater than 75% top removal of a vegetation-fuel type, resulting in general replacement of existing vegetation; may or may not cause a lethal effect on the plants. Mixed: Any fire burning more than 5% of an area that does not qualify as a replacement, surface, or low-severity fire; includes mosaic and other fires that are intermediate in effects. Surface or low: Any fire that causes less than 25% upper layer replacement and/or removal in a vegetation-fuel class but burns 5% or more of the area [4,6]. |
1. Forbes, William T. M. 1954. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states. Noctuidae: Part III. Memoir No. 329. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, New York State College of Agriculture. 433 p. [70970]
2. Grand, Joanna; Buonaccorsi, John; Cushman, Samuel A.; Griffin, Curtice R.; Neel, Maile C. 2004. A multiscale landscape approach to predicting bird and moth rarity hotspots in a threatened pitch pine--scrub oak community. Conservation Biology. 18(4): 1063-1077. [61269]
3. Grand, Joanna; Mello, Mark J. 2004. A multi-scale analysis of species-environment relationships: rare moths in a pitch pine--scrub oak (Pinus rigida--Quercus ilicifolia) community. Biological Conservation. 119(4): 495-506. [61266]
4. Hann, Wendel; Havlina, Doug; Shlisky, Ayn; [and others]. 2008. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 1.3, [Online]. In: Interagency fire regime condition class website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy; Systems for Environmental Management (Producer). 119 p. Available: http://frames.nbii.gov/frcc/documents/FRCC_Guidebook_2008.07.10.pdf [2008, September 03]. [70966]
5. Jordan, Marilyn J.; Patterson, William A., III; Windisch, Andrew G. 2003. Conceptual ecological models for the Long Island pitch pine barrens: implications for managing rare plant communities. Forest Ecology and Management. 182(1-2): 151-168. [42026]
6. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Reference condition modeling manual (Version 2.1), [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Agreement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior (Producers). 72 p. Available: https://www.landfire.gov/downloadfile.php?file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. [66741]
7. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2007. Rapid assessment reference condition models, [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: https://www.landfire.gov/models_EW.php [2008, April 18] [66533]
8. Lyon, L. Jack; Telfer, Edmund S.; Schreiner, David Scott. 2000. Direct effects of fire and animal responses. In: Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 17-23. [44435]
9. Nelson, M. W. 2007. Species fact sheet: Barrens dagger moth (Acronicta albarufa), [Online]. In: Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program. Westborough, MA: Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (Producer). Available: http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/species_info/nhfacts/acronicta_albarufa.pdf [2008, September 8]. [71013]
10. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2008. New York Natural Heritage Program Conservation Guide: Barrens dagger moth (Acronicta albarufa), [Online]. In: Animal guides. New York Natural Heritage Program (Producer). Available: http://acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=8081 [2008, September 8]. [71014]
11. Patterson, William A., III; Clarke, Gretel L.; Haggerty, Sarah A.; Sievert, Paul R.; Kelty, Matthew. 2005. Wildland fuel management options for the central plains of Martha's Vineyard: impacts on fuel loads, fire behavior, and rare plant and insect species, [Online]. Final Report RFR# DEM705. In: Managing fuels in Northeastern Barrens. In: Publications--Fuel treatments. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Department of Natural Resources Conservation (Producer). Available: http://www.umass.edu/nebarrensfuels/publications/pdfs/FINAL%20DCR%20report.pdf [2008, September 8]. [70314]
12. Rivers, William H. 1997. Coming full circle: restoring sandplain grassland communities in the State Forest on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. In: Vickery, Peter D.; Dunwiddie, Peter W., eds. Grasslands of northeastern North America: Ecology and conservation of native and agricultural landscapes. Lincoln, MA: Massachusetts Audubon Society: 79-84. [70151]
13. Robbins, Louise E.; Myers, Ronald L. 1992. Seasonal effects of prescribed burning in Florida: a review. Misc. Publ. No. 8. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research, Inc. 96 p. [21094]
14. Schweitzer, Dale F. 2007. Comprehensive report species - Acronicta albarufa, Barrens dagger moth, [Online]. In: NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. Arlington, VA: NatureServe (Producer). Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?loadTemplate= tabular_report.wmt&paging=home&save=all&sourceTemplate=reviewMiddle.wmt [2008, September 17]. [71015]
15. Shuey, John A.; Metzler, Eric H.; Iftner, David C.; Calhoun, John V.; Peacock, John W.; Watkins, Reed A.; Hooper, Jeffrey D.; Babcock, William F. 1987. Status and habitats of potentially endangered Lepidoptera in Ohio. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society. 41(1): 1-12. [70313]
16. Wagner, David L.; Nelson, Michael W.; Schweitzer, Dale F. 2003. Shrubland Lepidoptera of southern New England and southeastern New York: ecology, conservation, and management. Forest Ecology and Management. 185(1-2): 95-112. [61257]