AQUATIC BEETLES IN THE RAVENNA TRAINING AND LOGISTICS SITE OF NORTHEASTERN OHIO

AQUATIC BEETLES IN THE RAVENNA TRAINING AND LOGISTICS SITE OF

NORTHEASTERN OHIO

ROGER N. WILLIAMS

Department of EntomologyOhio Agricultural Research and Development Center

The Ohio State University1680 Madison Avenue

Wooster, OH 44691, U.S.A.

ERIC G. CHAPMAN

Department of Biological SciencesKent State University256 Cunningham Hall

Kent, OH 44242, U.S.A.

AND

TIMOTHY A. EBERT AND DIANE M. HARTZLER

Department of EntomologyOhio Agricultural Research and Development Center

The Ohio State University1680 Madison Avenue

Wooster, OH 44691, U.S.A.

Abstract

Aquatic beetles in the families Dryopidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae,Hydrophilidae, Noteridae, Psephenidae, and Scirtidae were sampled at the RavennaTraining and Logistics (RTLS) site in northeast Ohio from 1999 through 2001. The site isa military base with restricted access, but military activities can cause considerableenvironmental disturbance. The RTLS has many headwater streams that are part of theMahoning River basin. It is therefore an important resource in maintaining stream qualityin this watershed. This survey is the first comprehensive effort at surveying the aquaticbeetles at the RTLS. 124 species were collected including three haliplids, three dytiscids, onegyrinid, and three hydrophilids that were new state records for Ohio. We used these capturedata to obtain preliminary estimates of biodiversity in different portions of the RTLS, andestimate how many species we missed in our sampling program. We estimated that about90% of the total species present at the RTLS were recovered in this survey.

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

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

41

goals were to evaluate sampling methods, determine the relative importance ofdifferent habitat types as it applies to the aquatic beetles inhabiting the RTLS,and establish a species inventory.

RTLS is located in northeastern Ohio in eastern Portage and western Trumbullcounties (Fig. 1). Ostheimer and Tertuliani (2002) described the RTLS as rangingin elevation from 372 m above sea level in the northwestern corner to 283 m inthe southeastern corner. The land is 87% forested, with the remaining area havinga variety of different habitat types. From 1961 to 1991, the site received anaverage of 137 cm snow per year, and an average of 94 cm precipitation per year(rain + melted snow and ice). The average monthly temperature ranges from24uC in January to 22uC in July. The RTLS is approximately 17.7 km east-westand 5.6 km north-south, encompassing 8,672 ha. All of the streams in the RTLSare in the Mahoning River basin. In the western, southern, and eastern portionsof the RTLS, Hinkley Creek and other small streams flow into the West Branchof the Mahoning River. Sand Creek and the South Fork of Eagle Creek drain thenorth-central portion, become confluent near the northern border of the RTLS,and eventually flow into the Mahoning River.

RTLS was constructed in the early 1940’s to make ordnance for World War II.Before its construction, the land was used for farming. Since its construction, theRTLS has been a secured military compound with restricted access. Consequent-ly, few biological surveys have been conducted on this property. The (U.S. ArmyEnvironmental Hygiene Agency 1992) conducted a macroinvertebrate survey intwo areas of the RTLS where controlled burning and detonation were conducted,and reported four species of aquatic beetles. From 1995 to 1997, Eric Chapman

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

42 THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 61(1), 2007

surveyed the aquatic beetles of northeastern Ohio, including the counties in whichthe RTLS is located (Chapman 1998, 2000). In this study, only one specimen fromeach of two species were reported from the RTLS. In 1998, the U.S. GeologicalSurvey conducted an aquatic macroinvertebrate study at 24 sites in the RTLS,reporting 15 species of aquatic beetles (Tertuliani 1999). This report also includedan additional 17 aquatic beetle genera, none of which were identified to species.As part of a larger project, all of the nearby collections (Carnegie Museum ofNatural History, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Kent State University,Ohio University, The Ohio State University, and Youngstown State University)were inventoried by Eric Chapman within the past seven years, yielding noadditional specimens of aquatic beetles collected at the RTLS, including the yearsprior to its construction.

The purposes of this study were to collect and identify aquatic beetles in asmany aquatic habitats as possible in the RTLS, report any new state records, anddevelop a baseline data set upon which to monitor and manage the naturalresources at the RTLS. The beetle families surveyed in this study were theDryopidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hydrophilidae, Noter-idae, Psephenidae, and Scirtidae.

Materials and Methods

An attempt was made to sample all types of aquatic habitats at the arsenal from1999 to 2001. Most of the 84 sites were sampled using a D-frame dip net. Each sitewas sampled for approximately 1.5 h, but no formal attempt was made to samplefor a specified period. In small to medium-sized ponds, sampling was often doneat various points around the entire perimeter. In larger bodies of water, only theshallower areas were sampled, especially where small streams or seeps wereflowing into the waterbody. Riffle areas in streams were kick-sampled, and themargins were dip-netted, especially in areas with vegetation or where roots werehanging into the water. Light trapping, using a 15-watt black-light (BioquipH partno. 2805) with a standard black-light trap (O. B. Enterprises, Inc.), was done atseven aquatic sites, and bottle traps (Hilsenhoff 1987, 1991) were used repeatedlyat five sites. Aquatic beetles were also collected in light traps at 13 non-aquaticsites, and a window trap yielded a few specimens at one site. This project involvedsampling many different sites using a variety of techniques.

Given limited funding and a relatively large geographic area, we had a choice ofsampling many locations irregularly, or a few locations very intensively. Bothapproaches have serious problems when trying to estimate the distribution,abundance, or diversity of organisms. We also decided to use several collectionmethods. While some methods are more effective at capturing aquatic beetles, nosingle method is efficient for all species. By using several methods we improve ourchance of detecting all species present. This approach introduces an error due todifferent capture efficiencies for different species using the different collectionmethods, but without doing behavioral bioassays to estimate collection efficiencywe could not address this issue. We chose to sample many sites using one ofseveral different collection methods, with the understanding that our resultsprovide preliminary estimates, not definitive answers.

The RTLS can be broken down into about 27 different drainages, of whichonly Eagle Cr. and Sand Cr. are confluent within the boundaries of the property.The RTLS is dominated by three drainages, of which Sand Creek comprises 41%of the area. While many samples were taken within the Sand Cr. drainage, thenumber of samples per area within this drainage was low relative to some of the

THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 61(1), 2007 43

other drainages. A total of 93.4% of the area within the RTLS was in watershedsthat were sampled at some time during this project. Percentages were based ona figure in Ostheimer and Tertuliani (2002), that was analyzed by tracing thewatershed boundaries in Photoshop (http://www.adobe.com), and using ImagePro Plus (http://www.mediacy.com) to calculate the area of each watershed.

The effectiveness of a sampling program can be measured by the number ofspecies that were missed. We first looked at the number of species collected ineach year that were not collected in previous years. For each year, this numbershould decline, and at some point each additional year will have a lowerprobability of adding another species to the list. The sum of the expected numberof species from each year is an estimate of the total species at RTLS. A relatedapproach is to look at the probability of capturing another species to add to thelist for each additional sample collected or for each new record collected. Theprogram EstimateS (v 7.5; Colwell 2005) was used to estimate total speciesrichness of aquatic beetles in the RTLS using this type of approach to theproblem. Only the specimens that could be identified as originating from one ofthe 84 sites sampled during the study were used in the calculations. Sixteen of the1,092 records could not be used because their locality information was not specificenough to identify a particular waterbody. Multiple specimens of a single speciesat a given site were pooled and treated as one record. The term record in this studyrefers to the documented collection of a single species from a specific locality.Sites and species were numbered in order to run EstimateS on our data. A total of985 sample-species-abundance triplets was used in the calculations. The programaveraged the results from 1,000 randomizations.

All specimens were stored in 70% ethanol, and many were eventually pinned.Specimens were deposited in the RTLS Collection, or The Ohio State UniversityMuseum of Biological Diversity, Columbus. Eric Chapman identified all thespecies except for the Scirtidae, which were all identified by Dan Young(University of Wisconsin-Madison). All new state records were sent to a specialistfor confirmation (see acknowledgments).

For the classification of the family Hydrophilidae, we follow that of (Lawrenceand Newton 1995). Hansen (1991) raised the subfamilies Hydrochinae, Helo-phorinae, and three terrestrial subfamilies to family status, but (Lawrence andNewton 1995) considered them all to be subfamilies of Hydrophilidae.

Results and Discussion

A total of 4,010 individuals were collected from which 53 genera and 124species were identified. Of these, 10 species were new records for Ohio. Table 1lists the taxa found at the RTLS, along with collection method, number ofspecimens, number of records with that species, habitat, and where in Fig. 1 thespecies was found.

Survey Evaluation. The survey was focused on developing an inventory of theaquatic beetles at the RTLS. While the sampling methodology was not designedto address questions of biodiversity or habitat quality, we can use these data toprovide a preliminary assessment with the understanding that more data will needto be collected to confirm these observations.

Survey effectiveness was evaluated by estimating the number of species thatwere not captured. Table 2 lists the number of species captured in each year thathad not been captured in previous years. Using the total number of individualscaptured in a year as a means of correcting for yearly differences in samplingeffort, we looked at the percentage of species not previously captured to estimate


Tab

le1

.L

ist

of

spec

ies

coll

ecte

da

tth

eR

TL

S.

Co

llec

tin

gm

eth

od

s(C

M)

are

ab

bre

via

ted

as

foll

ow

s:B

ott

letr

ap

(B),

Dip

Net

(N),

Lig

ht

tra

p(L

),H

an

dp

ick

ing

(H),

an

dW

ind

ow

tra

p(W

).In

clu

ded

are

the

nu

mb

ero

fsp

ecim

ens

(S),

nu

mb

ero

fre

cord

s(R

),h

ab

ita

t(H

)is

cod

edd

5d

itch

,m

5m

ars

h,

p5

po

nd

,st

5st

ream

,sw

5sw

am

p,

an

dw

5w

oo

ds,

an

dsi

ten

um

ber

s(c

orr

esp

on

dto

tho

seo

nF

ig.

1).

Hy

ph

ens

inth

esi

ten

um

ber

den

ote

an

incl

usi

ve

ran

ge

insi

ten

um

ber

.

Fam

ily

/Sp

ecie

sC

MS

RH

Sit

en

um

ber

Dry

opid

ae

(1sp

ecie

s,9

ind

ivid

uals

)H

elic

hus

basa

lis

LeC

on

teN

,H

93

st10,1

3,7

6

Dyti

scid

ae

(47

spec

ies,

1,1

06

ind

ivid

uals

)A

cili

us

frate

rnus

(Harr

is)

B,

N3

3p

,st

39,7

3A

cili

us

med

iatu

s(S

ay)

N9

4p

,st,

sw11,2

3,6

1,8

1A

cili

us

sem

isulc

atu

sA

ub

eB

,N

18

11

m,p

3,1

5,2

5,2

8,3

8,5

9,6

9,7

0,7

8A

cili

us

sylv

anus

Hil

sen

ho

ffB

,N

13

5p

,st,

sw24,3

8,3

9,6

5A

gabet

esacu

duct

us

(Harr

is)

N1

1sw

65

Agabus

am

big

uus

(Say)

N9

6m

,p,s

t,sw

11,4

1,4

7,5

1,6

9,8

1A

gabus

anth

raci

nus

Man

ner

hei

mN

11

p69

Agabus

gagate

sA

ub

eL

,N

22

st11,5

2A

gabus

punct

atu

sM

elsh

eim

erN

32

p,s

t55,6

4A

gabus

sem

ivit

tatu

s(L

eCo

nte

)N

11

st83

Bid

esso

notu

sin

consp

icuus

(LeC

on

te)

N23

12

m,p

3,1

9,2

6,3

4,3

6,3

8,4

2,6

3,6

9,7

3,7

4,7

8C

elin

ahubbel

liY

ou

ng

L,

N10

4p

7,3

6,3

7,7

4C

opel

atu

sgly

phic

us

(Say)

L,

N,

H23

12

p,s

t,sw

4,7

,22,2

6,5

2,5

9,6

5,7

3,7

7,7

9C

opto

tom

us

lenti

cus

Hil

sen

ho

ffL

,N

21

10

m,p

7,1

5,3

0,3

5,3

6,4

5,5

8,6

4,6

7,7

8C

opto

tom

us

venust

us

(Say)

L2

1p

7C

ybis

ter

fim

bri

ola

tus

(Say)

N1

1p

36

Des

mopach

ria

conve

xa

(Au

be)

N14

m,p

7,2

6,2

8,3

6,6

4,6

7,6

9,7

8D

yti

scus

vert

icali

sS

ay

B6

138

Gra

phoder

us

liber

us

(Say)

N14

2p

30,7

8H

eter

ost

ernuta

ohio

nis

(Fall

)N

11

st76

Het

erost

ernuta

wic

kham

i(Z

ait

zev)

L,

N25

8p

,st,

sw7,1

3,3

2,5

2,5

9,6

5,7

6H

ydro

poru

sdic

hro

us

Mel

shei

mer

N24

11

m,p

19,2

4,3

6,4

7,6

1,6

7,6

9,7

0,7

3,7

4,7

8H

ydro

poru

sm

elsh

eim

eri

Fall

N23

13

m,p

,sw

3,1

5,1

9,2

3,2

6,3

6,4

6,4

7,4

8,6

7,6

9,7

4,8

1H

ydro

poru

snig

erS

ay

N96

27

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

4,1

5,1

9,2

4,2

6,2

8,3

2–

34,3

6,4

0,4

1,4

6–48,5

8,

61–64,6

7–70,7

3,7

8,8

1H

ydro

poru

ssi

gnatu

sM

an

ner

hei

mN

96

m,p

15,3

4,3

6,4

4,6

1,7

4H

ydro

poru

sst

riola

Gyll

enh

al

L,

N2

2m

,sw

47,6

5


Ta

ble

1.

Co

nti

nu

ed.

Fam

ily/S

pec

ies

CM

SR

HS

ite

nu

mb

er

Hydro

vatu

spust

ula

tus

(Mel

shei

mer

)N

22

10

d,p

3,1

9,2

4,3

6,4

5,5

8,6

4,6

8,7

4,7

8H

ygro

tus

lacc

ophil

inus

(LeC

on

te)

L,

N5

4m

,p18,5

8,6

4,6

7H

ygro

tus

nubil

us

(LeC

on

te)

L,

N10

6p

7,5

8,7

3,7

8H

ygro

tus

pic

atu

s(K

irb

y)

N1

1m

,sw

48

Hygro

tus

sayi

Balf

ou

r-B

row

ne

L,

N109

27

m,p

,st,

sw3,6

,15,1

8,1

9,2

3,2

6,2

8,3

0,3

4,3

6,3

7,3

9,4

0,4

2,4

7,

59,6

4,6

6,6

7,6

9,7

0,7

3,7

4,7

7,7

8,8

1Il

ybiu

sbig

utt

ulu

s(G

erm

ar)

L,

N26

18

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

5,6

,11,1

7,1

9,2

1,2

3,3

2,3

3,3

5,4

7,4

8,5

2,5

8,6

5,6

6Il

ybiu

sobli

tus

Sh

arp

N13

7m

,p30,3

6,4

7,5

9,6

6,6

9L

acc

ophil

us

fasc

iatu

sru

fus

Mel

shei

mer

N14

8d

,m,p

19,2

6,2

8,4

2,6

8,7

0,7

4,7

7L

acc

ophil

us

macu

losu

sm

acu

losu

sS

ay

B,

L,

N148

43

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

2,3

,5,6

,10,1

1,1

5,1

9,2

4–26,2

8,3

0–33,3

5–38,4

2,

44,4

5,4

7,4

8,5

1,5

8,6

2–68,7

0,7

3,7

4,7

6,7

8,8

1,8

2L

acc

ophil

us

undatu

sA

ub

eN

44

12

m,p

3,1

5,1

9,2

4–26,3

0,3

6,3

7,4

8,7

4L

iodes

sus

aff

inis

(Fall

)N

17

12

m,p

,st

10,2

6,4

2,4

4,4

7,4

8,5

8,6

3,6

4,7

3,7

7L

iodes

sus

fusc

atu

s(C

rotc

h)

N6

3m

,p44,6

3,6

4M

atu

sbic

ari

natu

s(S

ay)

N7

2p

36,4

9M

atu

sova

tus

ova

tus

Lee

chL

,N

32

d,m

5,7

0N

eoporu

scl

ypea

lis

(Sh

arp

)L

,N

88

17

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

2,6

,11,2

8,3

2,3

3,3

9,4

8,5

5,6

2,6

5,6

8,6

9,7

5,8

1–83

Neo

poru

ssp

.N

31

st55

Neo

poru

ssu

lcip

ennis

(Fall

)N

29

4st

10,5

5,7

6N

eoporu

sundula

tus

(Say)

B,

L,

N190

43

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

2,3

,6,7

,11,1

5,1

8,1

9,2

3–26,2

8,3

0–32,3

4,3

6,3

7,

40,4

2,4

4–48,5

1,5

9,6

2,6

4,6

6–71,7

3,7

4,7

7,8

1,8

2N

eoporu

svi

ttati

pen

nis

(Gem

min

ger

an

dH

aro

ld)

N2

st55

Rhantu

sbin

ota

tus

(Harr

is)

N5

4d

,m,s

t39,4

8,6

2,6

3T

her

monec

tus

basi

llari

s(H

arr

is)

N3

1m

70

Uva

rus

fall

iY

ou

ng

N7

5m

,p26,4

2,6

3,6

4,7

8

Elm

idae

(6sp

ecie

s,87

ind

ivid

uals

)A

ncy

ronyx

vari

egata

(Ger

mar)

H1

1st

80

Dubir

aphia

min

ima

Hil

sen

ho

ffN

11

st10

Dubir

aphia

quadri

nota

ta(S

ay)

N13

2st

1,1

0M

acr

onych

us

gla

bra

tus

Say

N7

2st

10,7

6


Tab

le1

.C

on

tin

ued

.

Fa

mil

y/S

pec

ies

CM

SR

HS

ite

nu

mb

er

Opti

ose

rvus

ova

lis

(LeC

on

te)

N18

3st

1,1

2,2

7S

tenel

mis

cren

ata

(Say)

L,

N,

H47

6st

,sw

1,4

,13,2

7,5

5,8

3

Gyri

nid

ae

(8sp

ecie

s,197

ind

ivid

uals

)D

ineu

tus

ass

imil

isK

irb

yL

,N

76

12

m,p

,st,

sw2,1

0,3

1,4

4,4

5,4

8,5

1,5

8,6

4–66,7

4D

ineu

tus

dis

colo

rA

ub

eN

73

st53,5

4D

ineu

tus

emarg

inatu

sS

ay

N1

1D

ineu

tus

nig

rior

Ro

ber

tsL

,N

24

5p

,*30,4

5,6

0,6

4G

yri

nus

gib

ber

LeC

on

teN

47

3p

31,4

4,6

4G

yri

nus

leco

nte

iF

all

N24

5m

,p,s

t10,3

8,4

2,6

4,7

6G

yri

nus

macu

live

ntr

isL

eCo

nte

N1

1p

64

Gyri

nus

marg

inel

lus

Fall

N17

1st

76

Hali

pli

dae

(14

spec

ies,

1,4

45

ind

ivid

uals

)H

ali

plu

sbore

ali

sL

eCo

nte

N37

8d

,p7,1

9,2

4,2

5,4

5,6

6,7

1,8

2H

ali

plu

sfa

scia

tus

Au

be

N131

32

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

3,4

,7,1

5,1

9,2

3,2

5,2

6,3

0–

32,3

6,4

0,4

5–47,5

1,5

8,

59,6

2,6

5–67,6

9,7

1,7

3,7

5–

77,8

1,8

2H

ali

plu

sim

macu

lico

llis

Harr

isN

86

23

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

3,6

,15,2

3–26,2

8,3

0,3

2,3

4,3

6,4

0,4

4,4

7,6

2,6

6,

68,6

9,7

4,7

5,8

1H

ali

plu

sle

opard

us

Ro

ber

tsN

13

7p

3,3

6,3

7,4

5,5

9,7

4,7

7H

ali

plu

slo

ngulu

sL

eCo

nte

N2

1p

34

Hali

plu

spanth

erin

us

Au

be

N21

9d

,p,s

t3,7

,30,4

0,4

6,5

8,6

6,8

2H

ali

plu

str

iopsi

sS

ay

N25

16

d,p

,st,

sw2,4

,6,7

,19,4

0,4

5,4

9,5

1,5

8,6

4,7

5,8

2P

elto

dyte

sduodec

impunct

atu

s(S

ay)

N52

12

d,p

,st

6,7

,10,2

8,3

2,3

3,6

2,6

6,7

6,8

2P

elto

dyte

sed

entu

lus

(LeC

on

te)

L,

N29

15

m,p

2,3

,7,2

4,3

1,4

5,4

6,4

8,5

8,6

6,7

4,7

5P

elto

dyte

sle

ngi

Ro

ber

tsB

,N

,H

641

36

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

2–4,6

,7,1

0,1

5,1

9,2

3–

25,3

5,3

6,3

8,4

0,4

5,4

6,4

8,

58,5

9,6

2,6

6,6

9,7

1,7

3–75,7

8,8

0–82

Pel

todyte

sm

uti

cus

(LeC

on

te)

B,

L,

N280

48

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

2–4,6

,7,1

1,1

9,2

3,2

4,2

8,3

0,3

2–34,3

6–38,

40–42,4

4–47,5

1,5

2,5

8,5

9,6

2,6

4–71,7

4,7

5,

77,7

8,8

1,8

2P

elto

dyte

sse

xm

acu

latu

sR

ob

erts

L,

N106

22

d,p

,st,

sw4,7

,10,1

9,2

4,2

5,3

2,3

5,3

6,4

0,4

5,5

8,6

6,6

8,7

1,7

3,

74,7

5,7

7P

elto

dyte

ssh

erm

ani

Ro

ber

tsN

49

7d

,p3,1

9,3

0,3

7,4

5,4

6,8

2P

elto

dyte

sto

rtulo

sus

Ro

ber

tsN

22

p,s

w49,8

1


Tab

le1

.C

on

tin

ued

.

Fa

mil

y/S

pec

ies

CM

SR

HS

ite

nu

mb

er

Hydro

phil

idae

(40

spec

ies,

1,0

24

ind

ivid

uals

)A

naca

ena

lim

bata

(Fab

rici

us)

N56

16

m,p

,st,

sw11,1

3,2

6,2

8,3

2,3

4,4

1,4

4,4

8,6

1,6

3,6

5,7

3,7

4,7

7,7

9A

naca

ena

sutu

rali

s(L

eCo

nte

)N

11

m47

Ber

osu

sfr

ate

rnus

LeC

on

teL

,N

11

4m

,p7,6

3,6

4B

erosu

spanth

erin

us

LeC

on

teL

,N

35

13

m,p

,st,

sw2,6

,7,1

9,2

5,3

1,4

4,4

8,5

8,5

9,7

3B

erosu

sper

egri

nus

(Her

bst

)L

,N

11

6p

2,7

,44,5

2,6

4B

erosu

sst

riatu

s(S

ay)

L,

N86

31

m,p

,sw

2,7

,15,1

9,2

4–26,2

8,3

4,3

6,3

7,4

2,4

8,5

2,5

8,5

9,6

3–

66,6

9,7

4,7

7,7

8C

renit

isdig

esta

(LeC

on

te)

N2

1st

13

Cym

bio

dyta

cham

ber

lain

iS

met

an

aN

13

1st

11

Cym

bio

dyta

vindic

ata

Fall

N7

5m

,p26,4

1,4

7,6

1,7

8E

noch

rus

cinct

us

(Say)

B,

L,

N17

12

m,p

7,2

1,2

6,3

4,3

8,4

8,5

2,5

7,6

1,6

6E

noch

rus

coll

inus

Bro

wn

N1

1m

47

Enoch

rus

conso

rtus

Gre

enL

,N

27

13

m,p

,sw

7,2

6,3

5,3

6,4

8,5

8,5

9,6

5,7

7E

noch

rus

fim

bri

atu

s(M

elsh

eim

er)

L,

N,

W53

20

d,m

,p,s

w,w

5,7

,14,2

6,2

8,4

1,4

4,5

9,6

3–66,7

3,7

7,7

8E

noch

rus

ham

ilto

ni

(Ho

rn)

L,

N6

4p

,sw

7,3

6,6

5E

noch

rus

horn

iL

eech

L1

1d

5E

noch

rus

och

race

us

(Mel

shei

mer

)L

,N

165

32

m,p

,st,

sw3,6

,11,1

5,1

9,2

4,2

6,2

8,3

4–36,3

8,4

1,4

2,4

6–48

,58,5

9,6

1,6

3–65,6

9,7

0,7

3,7

4,7

7,7

8,8

1E

noch

rus

pygm

aeu

sneb

ulo

sus

(Say)

L,

N6

5m

,p,s

w7,5

1,6

5,7

0E

noch

rus

sayi

Gu

nd

erse

nL

,N

85

p7,3

5,3

6,5

8,7

8H

eloch

are

sm

acu

lico

llis

Mu

lsan

tN

33

m,p

15,2

4,5

8H

eloco

mbus

bif

idus

(LeC

on

te)

L,

N,

H13

10

d,p

,sw

,st

5,2

9,3

4,3

5,5

7,6

5,7

7–79

Hel

ophoru

sli

nea

ris

LeC

on

teN

11

p58

Hel

ophoru

sli

nea

tus

Say

N1

1m

67

Hel

ophoru

sm

arg

inic

oll

isS

met

an

aN

41

7m

,p34,3

8,4

8,6

3,7

4,7

7,7

8H

ydro

biu

sfu

scip

es(L

inn

aeu

s)L

,N

56

14

d,m

,p,s

w4,5

,7,2

8,3

5,3

8,4

1,4

8,5

2,5

9,6

5H

ydro

biu

sm

elaen

us

Ger

mar

N10

3st

11,3

2,5

5H

ydro

chara

obtu

sata

(Say)

L,

N11

9d

,p,s

w5,7

,28,5

7,6

5,7

8H

ydro

chara

soro

rS

met

an

aB

,L

,N

56

18

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

,w4,7

,16,2

0,2

1,2

9,4

3,4

8,5

0,5

6,5

7,6

2,7

0,7

8H

ydro

chus

neo

squam

ifer

Sm

etan

aN

23

8m

,p26,3

0,5

8,6

3,6

4,7

3,7

7,7

8H

ydro

chus

rufi

pes

Mel

shei

mer

L,

N16

6m

,p,s

w36,4

8,6

5,7

3,7

7,7

8


Ta

ble

1.

Co

nti

nu

ed.

Fa

mil

y/S

pec

ies

CM

SR

HS

ite

nu

mb

er

Hydro

chus

scabra

tus

Mu

lsan

tN

44

d,p

,st

28,4

0,6

8,7

3H

ydro

chus

squam

ifer

LeC

on

teN

32

p26,7

7H

ydro

chus

subcu

pre

us

Ran

dall

L,

N5

5m

,p,s

w7,4

8,6

4,6

5,7

8L

acc

obiu

ssp

angle

riC

hea

ryN

11

p34

Para

cym

us

subcu

pre

us

(Say)

L,

N56

24

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

3,6

,23,2

8,3

1,3

4–36,4

1,4

2,4

4,

46–48,5

8,6

3–66,6

8,7

3,7

4,7

7,7

8P

haen

onotu

mex

stri

atu

m(S

ay)

L1

1sw

65

Tro

pis

tern

us

bla

tchle

yi

d’O

rch

ym

on

tL

,N

78

19

m,p

,sw

3,1

5,2

4–26,3

1,3

6,3

7,4

5,4

8,5

6,5

9,

64,6

5,6

7,7

0,7

4,7

7,7

8T

ropis

tern

us

gla

ber

(Her

bst

)N

95

d,p

19,3

6,5

9,6

2,7

8T

ropis

tern

us

late

rali

sn

imb

atu

s(S

ay)

L,

N34

21

m,p

,sw

,w7,1

5,1

9,2

6,2

8,3

1,3

5,5

8,5

9,6

5–67,7

0,7

2,7

3,7

7,

78,8

1T

ropis

tern

us

mix

tus

(LeC

on

te)

B,

N11

10

m,p

,sw

3,1

5,2

4,2

5,2

8,4

8,5

9,6

5,7

0T

ropis

tern

us

nata

tor

d’O

rch

ym

on

tN

85

33

d,m

,p,s

t,sw

2–4,6

,9,1

0,1

9,2

3–25,2

8,3

2,3

3,3

5,4

0,4

1,4

4–48,

51,5

3,5

8,6

1,6

2,6

4,6

6,6

9,7

3,7

4,8

1,8

2

Note

ridae

(2sp

ecie

s,99

ind

ivid

uals

)H

ydro

canth

us

iric

olo

rS

ay

N88

21

m,p

,sw

3,1

5,2

3,2

4,3

6,3

7,4

6,4

8,4

9,5

8,5

9,6

5,6

7,6

9,7

0,

73,7

4,7

7,7

8,8

1S

uphis

ellu

spunct

icoll

isC

rotc

hN

11

3p

,sw

23,3

6,5

8

Pse

phen

idae

(1sp

ecie

s,6

ind

ivid

uals

)E

ctopri

aner

vosa

(Mel

shei

mer

)L

11

52

Ect

opri

asp

.N

51

st12

Sci

rtid

ae

(5sp

ecie

s,8

ind

ivid

uals

)C

yphon

cooper

iS

chaef

erN

11

p7

Cyphon

neb

ulo

sus

(LeC

on

te)

N3

2w

14

Cyphon

neo

vari

bil

isK

lau

snit

zer

N1

1p

84

Pri

onocy

phon

dis

coid

eus

(Say)

L1

1st

6P

rionocy

phon

lim

batu

sL

eCo

nte

N2

1m

,p47,6

6


how many we might capture if the study would have been continued. Theequation we used was log10(%) 5 1.57 (0.008) 2 0.57 (0.004) 3 year (r2 5 0.99,P . F 5 0.004), with standard error in parentheses. Since the estimated numberof new captures is dependent on the sampling effort, we use the actual number ofcaptures in year 1 (651), and either 1,712 or 1,637 as the number of captures forall other years. If our sampling effort for all other years is similar to that in 2000and 2001, we would expect to find between 127 and 129 total species. Our currenttotal of 124 species is about 96% of these estimated totals. If one estimatesabundance using twice the standard error the maximum number of species is only140. This is close to the 159/164 species reported by Chapman (1998, 2000,respectively) from a broader survey of aquatic Coleoptera in northeast Ohio. Forother approaches to estimating the number of species, we used the programEstimateS. The maximum number of species was 167 using the Second-orderJackknife Richness Estimator (Brunham and Overton 1979; Smith and van Belle1984; Palmer 1991), while the minimum was 132 using the Michaelis-MentenRichness Estimator (Raaijmakers 1987; Colwell et al. 2004). Thus, based on theEstimateS output, we caught between 74 and 94 percent of the species that we cancapture using our collection strategy. The average of all approaches calculated inEstimateS was 145, which is close to the number of species reported by Chapman(1998, 2000).

Another way to estimate sampling effectiveness is to examine the number ofspecies within a family represented by a single capture. The higher thisproportion, the less effective the sampling technique(s). Carlton et al. (2004)

Table 3. Genera, species, and abundance compositions by percent for RTLS’s aquaticbeetle fauna by family. For example, 43.4% of all genera of aquatic beetles found at RTLSwere in the family Dytiscidae. Within each family we show the percentage of species withinthat group that were represented by only one capture (singletons).

Family Genera Species Individuals % Singletons

Dryopidae 1.9 0.8 0.2 0%Dytiscidae 43.4 36.4 27.4 13%Elmidae 9.4 4.5 2.2 33%Gyrinidae 3.8 6.8 4.9 33%Haliplidae 3.8 10.6 36.5 0%Hydrophilidae 28.3 34.1 26.0 18%Noteridae 3.8 1.5 2.5 0%Psephenidae 1.9 1.5 0.1 *Scirtidae 3.8 3.8 0.2 60%

* five of six specimens were identified only to genus.

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

Year Individuals Species Unique species Not previously collected species

1999 646 65 8 65 (10.1%)2000 1,712 102 20 47 (2.7%)2001 1,652 90 12 12 (0.7%)


used this measure in their survey where singletons accounted for 38 to 43% oftheir sample. By this measure, our sampling efforts were sufficient for theDryopidae, Haliplidae, and Noteridae (Table 3), but more work needs to be donein sampling the Elmidae, Gyrinidae, and Scirtidae. The status of the Psephenidaeis unclear since 5 of the 6 specimens collected were only identified to genus.

In future studies that may have more limited resources, it would be useful toknow the distribution of aquatic beetles in the seven different habitat types(Table 4). No species were collected in fields (using black light traps) that werenot recovered elsewhere, and only one unique species was recovered from a ditch.More species were recovered from ponds than other lentic habitats, and thenumber of species unique to ponds was greater than other lentic habitats. Thenumber of unique species recovered from streams was comparable to thatrecovered from ponds. However, many species require specialized habitats, andfailure to sample these habitats will reduce the quality of such studies.

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

Table 4. Number of species collected by habitat, and the number of those species uniqueto that habitat.

Habitat Type Number Unique

Ditch 29 1Field 12 0Marsh 56 5Pond 91 18Stream 66 21Swamp 56 7Woods 8 4


Watershed Quality. There is a well documented relationship between thenumber of species and the area sampled. For aquatic beetles at the RTLS site, theequation is log(number of species) 5 20.47 + 0.83 log(area in ha) (Fig. 2). Basedon this equation, watershed 1 had a very large number of species relative to itsarea. It may be that watershed 1 was less disturbed than other areas that weresampled. In contrast watersheds 8 and 11 appeared to be impoverished. Forwatershed 8, this was likely due to having only one sample and that sample camefrom a UV-light trap in a field. For watershed 11, two samples came from a field,while the third site was a stream that was sampled only once.

The 8,672 ha encompassed by the RTLS is a relatively diverse landscape witha good variety of both lotic and lentic habitats. This is reflected by the diversity ofaquatic beetles collected. Chapman (1998) reported 159 species from 8northeastern Ohio counties (including Portage), an area encompassing 3,972square miles. We found 104 of the 159 species reported by Chapman, anadditional 10 new state records, and five species that Chapman did not find(Heterosternuta ohionis, Matus bicarinatus, Optioservus ovalis, Phaenonotumexstriatum, and Prionocyphon discoideus). Thus, in an area roughly 10% the sizeof (Chapman’s 1998) study area, we found 75% of the number of species reportedby Chapman. In an area of similar size as the RTLS in southeastern Ohio,Chapman (unpublished) recorded 77 species of aquatic beetles from 76 waterbodies (5,967 specimens). Hence, in an area of southeastern Ohio where ,2,000more specimens were collected from a comparable number of water bodies, 47fewer species were collected than in the RTLS.

New State Records

HaliplidaeHaliplus leopardus Roberts, 1913

The geographic range of this species extends along the east coast fromMassachusetts to Georgia to Louisiana, with an extension westwards through theGreat Lakes states to Wisconsin (Hilsenhoff and Brigham 1978). Thirteenspecimens were collected from ponds at seven sites in the RTLS.

Haliplus longulus LeConte, 1850This species is known from the northern U.S. and Canada, extending from New

York to Oregon and northward to the Northwest Territories and Newfoundland.One collection was taken from a pond in the RTLS (2 specimens; site 34). Mosthaliplids reach peak adult abundance in late summer or early fall, however(Hilsenhoff and Brigham 1978) reported that H. longulus was collected most oftenin May and June in Wisconsin, less so after July. The RTLS record was collectedMay 30, 2001.Peltodytes shermani Roberts, 1913

This species’ geographic range is similar to that of H. leopardus, being knownon the East Coast from Massachusetts to Georgia, and west to Alabama. Downieand Arnett (1996) reported that it is ‘‘a coastal species.’’ However, that statementis misleading, as (Matta 1976) reported that it is rare in the southeastern Virginia,being common only in the Appalachian Highlands. Forty-nine specimens werecollected from seven sites in the RTLS.

DytiscidaeNeoporus sulcipennis (Fall 1917)

The geographic range of this species is mostly Appalachian, from NewBrunswick and southeastern Ontario south to Tennessee and Virginia (Larson et


al. 2000). This species occurs among root masses of terrestrial plants hanging intothe water along the banks of small to medium-sized streams. It was collected atthree sites (29 specimens; sites 10, 55, & 76) in the RTLS, all small, sandy-bottomed, woodland streams. This species was collected on two different dates in2000 both at the same site (76), which is why Table 1 lists 4 collection records, butonly 3 collection sites.

Neoporus vittatipennis (Gemminger & Harold 1868)This is another species that occurs among root masses of terrestrial plants

hanging into small streams. Wolfe (1984) reported that it commonly occursamong root masses along the margins of sloughs and swamps. Its geographicrange extends from North Carolina to northern Florida to Arkansas to centralIllinois (Larson et al. 2000), being absent (in the literature) from all statessurrounding Ohio. Two specimens were collected from a small woodland streamin the southeastern part of the RTLS.Uvarus falli (Young 1940)

Until recently (Larson et al., 2000), it was difficult to identify species of Uvarusin North America, and the genus is still in need of revision on a worldwide basis.Larson et al. (2000) reported it from Nova Scotia, Ontario, Florida and Texas. Itwas collected from five sites (three ponds and two marshes) in the RTLS (sevenspecimens; sites 26, 42, 63, 64, & 78).

GyrinidaeGyrinus marginellus Fall, 1922

This species is known from New Hampshire to South Carolina with strayrecords in Alabama (Oygur and Wolfe 1991; Ciegler 2003). Hilsenhoff (1990)found it to be common statewide in Wisconsin. In the RTLS, it was collectedamong the roots of grasses in the middle of a small woodland stream (17specimens; site 76).

HydrophilidaeAnacaena suturalis (LeConte 1866)

This species has a southeastern distribution, being known from Maryland toFlorida, and west to Mississippi. It has been reported from lotic (Young 1954;Ciegler 2003) and lentic (Matta 1974; Testa and Lago 1994; Ciegler 2003)habitats. One specimen was collected from a marsh in the RTLS (site 47).

Crenitis digesta (LeConte 1855)This is the first time any species in this genus has been reported from Ohio (,12

North American species). Smetana (1988) reported that it is ‘‘widely distributed ineastern North America,’’ but only reported the Canadian records (Nova Scotia tocentral Alberta). Hilsenhoff (1995) reported it as rare in Wisconsin. It appears tobe absent in the southeastern U.S., as it was not reported in surveys of Virginia(Matta 1974), North Carolina (Brigham 1982), South Carolina (Ciegler 2003),Florida (Epler 1996), and Mississippi (Testa and Lago 1994). Smetana (1988)reported that it occurs in both lentic and lotic habitats. Two female specimenswere collected from Hinkley Creek (site 13) in the RTLS.

Enochrus collinus Brown, 1931This species was synonymized with E. hamiltoni (Horn 1890) by (Gundersen

1977), but (Hilsenhoff 1995) recognized E. collinus as a valid species. Itsgeographic range extends from southern Quebec, south to Vermont, southwest toOhio and northwest to Minnesota and Manitoba. A single specimen was collectedfrom a marsh (site 47) in the RTLS.


Acknowledgments

We thank David J. Larson (University of Newfoundland, St. Johns, NF) andWilliam L. Hilsenhoff (University of Wisconsin) for confirming our determina-tions of new state records. We also thank Daniel K. Young (University ofWisconsin-Madison) for identification of Scirtidae. At The Ravenna Training andLogistics Site we wish to thank Timothy Morgan, Natural Resources Manager,and Lt. Col. Thomas A. Tadsen, Deputy Training Site Commander, for theirvalued cooperation. Also thanks are due to Captain Thomas Daugherty,Environmental Protection Specialist for the Ohio National Guard, for his keeninterest in preserving the environment, and his interest in beetles, which made thisproject possible. Guards Frank Hertig and Emma Lamp at the gate who kept usinformed of daily activities at the Arsenal, were extremely helpful with theirassistance on directions, and passing along pertinent information to otherresearchers.

Literature Cited

Brigham, W. U. 1982. Aquatic Coleoptera [pp. 10. 1–10. 136]. In: Aquatic Insects andOligochaetes of North and South Carolina (A. R. Brigham, W. U. Brigham, and A.Gnilka, editors). Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, IL. 837 pp.

Burnham, K. P., and W. S. Overton. 1979. Robust estimation of population size whencapture probabilities vary among animals. Ecology 60:927–936.

Carlton, C., M. Dean, and A. Tishechkin. 2004. Diversity of two beetle taxa at a westernAmazonian locality (Coleoptera: Histeridae; Staphylinidae, Pselaphinae). Coleop-terists Bulletin 58:163–170.

Chapman, E. G. 1998. The aquatic beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera) of northeastern Ohio(Haliplidae, Dytiscidae, Noteridae, Gyrinidae, Hydrophilidae, Psephenidae, Dryo-pidae, Elmidae, and Ptilodactylidae). Ohio Biological Survey MiscellaneousContribution No. 4. vi+117 pp.

Chapman, E. G. 2000. A Survey of the Aquatic Beetles of Northeastern Ohio (Haliplidae,Dytiscidae, Noteridae, Gyrinidae, Hydrophilidae, Psephenidae, Dryopidae, Elmidae,Ptilodactylidae). M.S. Thesis, Kent State University.

Ciegler, J. C. 2003. Water Beetles of South Carolina (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae, Haliplidae,Noteridae, Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae, Hydraenidae, Scirtidae, Elmidae, Dryopidae,Limnichidae, Heteroceridae, Psephenidae, Ptilodactylidae, and Chelonariidae). Biotaof South Carolina. Volume 3. Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.210 pp.

Colwell, R. K. 2005. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared speciesfrom samples. http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates. [Persistent URL: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates.] (accessed 15 December 2005)

Colwell, R. K., C. X. Mao, and J. Chang. 2004. Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparingincidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85:2717–2727.

Downie, N. M., and R. H. Arnett, Jr. 1996. The Beetles of Northeastern North AmericaVols I and II. The Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, Florida. 1721 pp.

Epler, J. H. 1996. Identification manual for the water beetles of Florida (Coleoptera:Dryopidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hydraenidae, Hydrophili-dae, Noteridae, Psephenidae, Ptilodactylidae, Scirtidae). Florida DepartmentEnvironmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. iv+253 pp.

Gundersen, R. W. 1977. New species and taxonomic changes in the genus Enochrus(Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Coleopterists Bulletin 31:251–272.

Hansen, M. 1991. The hydrophiloid beetles: Phylogeny, classification and a revision of thegenera (Coleoptera: Hydrophiloidea). Biologiske Skrifter 40:1–367.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1987. Effectiveness of bottle traps for collecting Dytiscidae (Coleoptera).Coleopterists Bulletin 41:377–380.


Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1990. Gyrinidae of Wisconsin, with a key to adults of both sexes and noteson distribution and habitat. Great Lakes Entomologist 23:77–91.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1991. Comparison of bottle traps with a D-frame net for collecting adultsand larvae of Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera). Coleopterists Bulletin45:143–146.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1995. Aquatic Hydrophilidae and Hydraenidae of Wisconsin (Co-leoptera). II. Distribution, habitat, life cycle and identification of species ofHydrobiini and Hydrophilini (Hydrophilidae: Hydrophilinae). Great Lakes Ento-mologist 28:97–126.

Hilsenhoff, W. L., and W. U. Brigham. 1978. Crawling water beetles of Wisconsin(Coleoptera: Haliplidae). Great Lakes Entomologist 11:11–22.

Larson, D. J., Y. Alarie, and R. E. Roughley. 2000. Predaceous diving beetles (Coleoptera:Dytiscidae) of the Nearctic Region, with emphasis on the fauna of Canada andAlaska. National Research Council of Canada Research Press, Ottawa. xiv+982 pp.

Lawrence, J. F., and A. F. Newton. 1995. Families and subfamilies of Coleoptera (withselected genera, notes, references and data on family-group names). [pp. 779–1006+48 p. index not in original publication]. In: Biology, phylogeny and classification ofColeoptera. Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson (J. Pakalukand S. A. Slipinski, editors). Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warsaw.

Matta, J. F. 1974. The aquatic Hydrophilidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Polyphaga). Theinsects of Virginia: No 8. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Research Division Bulletin 94:1–44.

Matta, J. F. 1976. The Haliplidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Adephaga). The insects ofVirginia. No. 10. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, ResearchDivision Bulletin 109:1–26.

Ostheimer, C. J., and J. S. Tertuliani. 2002. Watershed inventory, Ravenna Training andLogistics Site, Ohio. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-495. 40 pp.

Oygur, S., and G. W. Wolfe. 1991. Classification, distribution, and phylogeny of NorthAmerican (north of Mexico) species of Gyrinus Muller (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae).Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 207:1–97.

Palmer, M. W. 1991. Estimating species richness: The second-order jackknife reconsidered.Ecology 72:1512–1513.

Raaijmakers, J. G. W. 1987. Statistical analysis of the Michaelis-Menten equation.Biometrics 43:793–803.

Smetana, A. 1988. Review of the family Hydrophilidae of Canada and Alaska (Coleoptera).Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada No. 142. 316 pp.

Smith, E. P., and G. van Belle. 1984. Nonparametric estimation of species richness.Biometrics 40:119–129.

Tertuliani, J. S. 1999. Aquatic macroinvertebrates collected at Ravenna Army AmmunitionPlant, Portage and Trumbull counties, Ohio, 1998. Water-Resources InvestigationsReport No. 99-4202. iv+38 pp.

Testa, S. III, and P. K. Lago. 1994. The aquatic Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera) of Mississippi.Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experimental Station, Mississippi StateUniversity Technical Bulletin No. 193. v+73 pp.

U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. 1992. Soils, groundwater, and surface watercharacterization for the open burning and open detonation areas, Ravenna ArmyAmmunition Plant: Geohydrologic Study No. 38-26-KF95-92 [variously paged].

Wolfe, G. W. 1984. A revision of the vittatipennis species group of Hydroporus Clairville,subgenus Neoporus Guignot (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Transactions of the AmericanEntomological Society 110:389–433.

Young, F. N. 1954. The water beetles of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. ix+238 pp.

(Received 20 December 2004; accepted 12 September 2006. Publication date 30 April 2007.)


AQUATIC BEETLES IN THE RAVENNA TRAINING AND LOGISTICS SITE OF NORTHEASTERN OHIO

Documents

Transcript of AQUATIC BEETLES IN THE RAVENNA TRAINING AND LOGISTICS SITE OF NORTHEASTERN OHIO