Chordas, Stephen W., III

Harp, George L.

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 45 Article 36 1991 Synopsis of the Notonectidae of Arkansas Stephen W. Chordas III Arkansas State University George L. Harp Arkansas State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Chordas, Stephen W. III and Harp, George L. (1991) "Synopsis of the Notonectidae of Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 45 , Article 36. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol45/iss1/36 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This General Note is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. IProceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 45, 1991 117General Notesand 1948b), and toinformation theory by Haynes (1957). These applications, in addition to the applications mentioned previously, suggest that physicists shouldbecome more familiar with the techniques of application offunctional equations. The theorem derived in this paper is useful forcalculating general results frommeasurements made on fixed amounts ofmaterials. The methods developed in this paper allow the student to develop an understanding of the mathematical tech-niques used in the application ofhomogeneous functions; this allows these students to concentrate on the physics ofcritical point phenomena when they are firstmet, thus affording a deeper understanding.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis paper was written to honor the teaching career ofDr. Robert E. Kelly, formerly of the University of Mississippi, and currently at LosAlamos Scientific Laboratories. Itwas in his classroom that Ilearned the axiomatic approach to thermodynamics and much else. The basic meth-ods of this paper were taught by Dr. Kellyformany years, though the particular forms and proofs presented above are due to the present author.LITERATURE CITEDACZEL, J. 1966. Lectures on Functional Equations and their applications.Academic Press. New York. 498 pp.ACZEL, J. 1969. On Applications and theory of functional equations.Academic Press. New York. 63 pp.CALLEN,H.B. 1960. Thermodynamics. Wiley. New York. 376 pp.CHANDLER, DAVID.1987. Introduction to modem statistical mechanics.Oxford University Press. New York. 274 pp.DAVIS, HAROLDT. 1960. Introduction to non linear differential and inte-gral equations. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., 566pp. (Reprinted by Dover. New York. 1962.)EULER, L. 1755. Institutions Calculi Differentialis. Berlin. (Reprinted,Opera Omnia, Ser. I,Vol. 10. Leipzig. 1913.)EULER, L. 1768. Institutiones, Calculi Integralis. Petropol. (Reprinted,Opera omnia, Ser. I,Vol. 11, Leipzig. 1913.)EULER, L. 1770. Institutiones Calculi Integralis m. Petropol. (Reprinted,Opera Omnia, Ser. I,Vol. 13, Berlin. 1925.)JAYNES, E.T. 1957. Information theory and statistical mechanics, I.Phys.Rev. 106:620-630.LUNN, A.C. 1919. Some functional equations in the theory of relativity.Bull. Am. Math.Soc. 21:26-34.SHANNON, C.E. 1948a. Amathematical theory of communication, I.BellSystem Tech. J. 27:379-423.SHANNON, C.E. 1948b. Amathematical theory of communication, II.BellSystem Tech. J. 27:623-656.STANLEY, H.E. 1971. Introduction to phase transitions and critical phe-nomena. Oxford University Press. New York. 308 pp.TIEN, C.L. and J.H. LIENHARD. 1985. Statistical thermodynamics,Revised Printing. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. New York. 397pp.WIDDER, D.V.1961. Advanced calculus, 2nd E. Prentice-Hall. EnglewoodCliffs. 52O.pp.ZEMANSKY, M.W. and R.H. DITTMAN. 1981. Heat and Thermody-namics, 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill. New York. 543 pp.STEPHEN R. ADDISON, Department ofPhysics, University ofCentral Arkansas, Conway, AR 72032.A SYNOPSIS OF THENOTONECTTDAE OF ARKANSASThere have been no studies pertaining specifically to the Notonectidae (back swimmers) ofArkansas. Pertinent information is either in taxonomic stud-ies which include Arkansas material (Hungerford, 1933; Truxal, 1953) or aquatic macroinvertebrate lists from particular sites in the state (Harp and Hubbard,1972; Harp and Harp, 1980; Farris and Harp, 1982; Huggins and Harp, 1983). The purposes of this paper are to present the first statewide species list, to delineategeographic distributions and to define preferred habitats fornotonectid species in this state. Arkansas species may be identified by using Froeschner's (1962) keyto Missouri species.Most data presented have been synthesized from specimens in the Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Collection of the Arkansas State University Museum ofZoology; however contributions from museum collections from the Universities of Arkansas-Fayetteville and -Little Rock, along with literature records, areincluded. Supplemental collections were made by the authors to diminish distributional gaps in the data.Two genera encompass the eight species ofNotonectidae that occur in Arkansas. All species undergo fivenymphal instars to reach adulthood and passthe winter as adults. Species of the two genera differ with respect to respiration, however. Notonecta species must surface frequently to replenish their oxygensupply. Buenoa individuals, however, have hemoglobin-filled abdominal sacs which greatly increase their capacity to store atmospheric oxygen (Truxal, 1953).This difference allows Buenoa toinhabit deeper water farther from shore and probably explains inpart why fewer specimens of this genus are collected.Buenoa confusa (Truxal) was first reported from Arkansas by Harp and Hubbard (1972). Distributionally, itis our least common notonectid, being rep-resented by 35 specimens from 11 collections in three counties (Fig. 1). The collection in Monroe Co. contained three specimens taken by ablack light trap. Allother specimens were taken from the remaining two counties and were collected with a dipnet. Wilson (1958) reported this species in Mississippi from a singlebrackish poolfilled with vegetation. InArkansas, all collections were taken from clear, acid bauxite lakes, clear lakes or ponds with vegetation present. Arkansascollections thus far are from three ecoregions: Crowley's Ridge, the Ouachitas and the Mississippi AlluvialPlain. Truxal (1953) reported this species has beencollected every month except February, March, October and December. Arkansas specimens have been collected during May and July-October.117Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 45 [1991], Art. 36Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1991'118 Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.45, 1991Arkansas Academy of ScienceFig. 1. B. confusa O Fig. 2. B. scinitra Fig. 3. N. indicaB. margaritaceaFig. 4. N. irrorata Fig. 5. N. raleighi Fig. 6. N. uhleriN. undulataBuenoa margaritacea (Torre-Bueno) was first reported from Arkansas by Truxal (1953). Itisknown from 35 specimens in 20 collections from 12 coun-ties (Fig. 1). Ithas been taken in allofArkansas' ecoregions except the Gulf Coastal Plain. Wilson (1958) reported that in Mississippi this species was most com-monly collected from ponds. The only records for Missouri of this species came from TruxaTs (1953) revisionary study (Froeschner, 1962). Most Arkansasspecimens have been taken from ponds or lakes. However, specimens have also been taken from a pool area of Black River, a stream, roadside ditches andx>rrow-pits. Truxal (1953) reported collections of this species from every month of the year. Arkansas collections have been taken during February-May, July-September and November.Buenoa scimitra (Bare) was first reported from Arkansas by Truxal (1953). Itis the most common species of this genus in Arkansas, being known from163 individuals in 29 collections from 14 counties (Fig. 2). like11. margaritacea, B. scimitra has been collected from all five ecoregions ofArkansas except theGulf Coastal Plain. Only in recent collections has this species been taken inlarge numbers in the state. Wilson (1958) and Froeschner (1962) reported this specieso be the most common Buenoa in Mississippi and Missouri, respectively. Wilson (1958) reported this species to prefer sparsely vegetated, muddy, roadsidejooIs, streams, small ponds and borrow -pits. Arkansas collections have been from these same habitat types. Itis verycommonly collected inblack light trap sam->les. Truxal (1953) reported this species was collected every month of the year. Mississippi specimens have been taken from March to December (Wilson, 1958).Missouri specimens were taken during July, August and November (Froeschner, 1962). Arkansas collections occurred during January -May, July, September andNovember.Notonecta indica (Linnaeus) was firstreported from Arkansas by Hungerford (1933). Itis our most common and most plastic notonectid species, beingmown from 519 individuals from 115 collections in 40 ofArkansas' 75 counties (Fig. 3). Ithas been collected from all fiveecoregions of Arkansas. Froeschner1962) reported this species tobe uncommon in Missouri. Conversely, Wilson (1958) reported ittobe very common and widespread inMississippi. He also noteda wide range of color patterns for this species. Alexander (1982) observed eight hemclytral color patterns exhibited by specimens from Arkansas. We have seenhe color patterns for this species range from completely white to almost completely black. Wilson (1958) reported this species to be commonly collected from>onds, borrow-pits, and small streams. Arkansas specimens have been taken from most every type of aquatic environment, including swimming pools.•roeschner (1962) reported that in Missouri this species was taken inMarch, June and November. Hungerford (1933) reported that this species had been collect-ed, as ithas in Arkansas, every month of the year.Notonecta irrorata (Uhler), the largest notonectid in Arkansas, was first reported from the state by Hungerford (1933). Itis a common and widespreadspecies, being represented by 217 individuals from 69 collections in 31 counties throughout the five ecoregions ofArkansas (Fig. 4). Froeschner (1962) reporteditto be known inMissouri from a few specimens taken in the southeast corner of the state. This species is common and widespread inMississippi and occurs inawide range of aquatic habitats (Wilson, 1958). Hungerford (1933) reported this species to be most common in water shaded by vegetation or overhanging limbs.Arkansas specimens were collected ina wide range of aquatic habitats but most often from habitats similar to those described by Hungerford. InMissouri, this118Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 45 [1991], Art. 36https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol45/iss1/36Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.45, 1991119General Notesspecies was taken during March and June (Froeschner, 1962). Hungerford (1933) reported this species was collected every month except January and February,butnoted that itwas observed swimming under ice inIthaca, N.Y.,during early February. Arkansas specimens have been taken every month except May.Notonecta raleighi (Bueno) was first reported from Arkansas by Harp and Harp (1980). Materials at hand show 116 individuals in48 collections in 27counties (Fig. 5). Ithas been collected in all five ecoregions of Arkansas, but seems to be most common in the southern portion of the state. Foreschner (1962)reported this species tobe uncommon in Missouri, being collected only from large ponds and a pool area of a nearly dry stream bed. Wilson (1958) reported thisspecies to be fairly common in Mississippi, being taken from a wide range of aquatic habitats except for running streams and borrow-pits. Collections inArkansas are from habitats similar to those reported by Wilson (1958). Missouri specimens of this species were taken during March, June and October(Froeschner, 1962). Arkansas specimens of this species have been collected every month except April,July and December.tNotonecta uhleri (Kirkaldy) has not previously been reported from Arkansas. Itis the least common notonectid species in the state, being now knownm only 12individuals having been taken in eight collections from seven counties (Fig. 6). Of the eight collections, three were from the Ouachita Mountains,3 were from Crowley's Ridge, and one each from the Mississippi AlluvialPlain and Gulf Coastal Plain. Wilson (1958) reported this species tobe very uncom-n inMississippi, being collected from a roadside borrow-pit and a deep stream, neither of which had vegetation, but Froeschner (1962), whilelisting it,had noord ofits occurrence. Arkansas specimens have been collected from a farm pond, poolareas of rivers or creeks and a lake. Allcollection sites contained turbidter, vegetation was present in all habitats except the lake. Hungerford (1933) reported this species to have been collected during the months of July-October.lson (1958) reported taking itin August and October. Arkansas specimens were taken during March, Apriland October-December.INotonecta undulata (Say) was first reported from Arkansas by Hungerford (1933). Itis a common and widespread species in Arkansas, being represent-by 205 individuals in 54 collections from 23 counties throughout the fivenatural divisions ofArkansas (Fig. 6). The majority of the collections of this speciesve been taken from the eastern portion of the state. Hungerford (1933) thought this species tobe "the most common species in the United States". This speciessimilar in size and color pattern to N. indicia, and therefore these two species are often confused for each other (Hungerford, 1933). Further, causing even:ater confusion, these two species are often collected together in the same sample. Froeschner (1962) reported this species to be very common in Missouri,inversely, Wilson (1958) listed this species but had no record ofits occurrence inMississippi. Missouri specimens were collected fromponds and quiet sectionsrivers (Froeschner, 1962). Arkansas specimens have been taken frommost aquatic habitats, including swimming pools. Missouri specimens of the species werelected from January toJuly (Froeschner, 1962). Hungerford (1933) reported collections of this species forevery month of the year. Arkansas specimens ofthis:cies have been taken during all months except July.IFrom present knowledge, it is probable that all eight notonectid species can be collected during any month of the year in Arkansas. Most should bend in any of the state's ecoregions. B.confusa and N. uhleri may be restricted in their habitat preference, however. The former appears to prefer clear well-etated waters, whereas the latter prefers turbid water withmud substrates.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank Ed J. Bacon (UA-Monticello), Harvey E. Barton (ASU Entomological Museum), Chris Carlton (UA-FayettevilleEntomological Museum) and Robert Watson (UA-LittleRock Entomological Museum) forproviding specimens.LITERATURE CITEDrZANDER, T. C. 1982. Incidence, abundance, predation, and toxologi-cal studies of Notonectidae (Insecta: Hemiptera) in Arkansas ricefields. MS Thesis. University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. 62 p.rJS, J.L. and G.L. HARP. 1982. Aquatic macroinvertebrates of threeacid bogs on Crowley's Ridge innortheast Arkansas. Proc. Ark. Acad.Sci. 36:23-27.rESCHNER, R.C. 1962. Contributions to a synopsis of the aquaticHemiptera ofMissouri, part V.Am. Mid.Nat. 67(1 ): 208-240.fRP, G.L. and P.A. HARP. 1980. Aquatic macroinvertebrates ofWapanocca National Wildlife Refuge. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 34:115-117.HARP, G.L. and R.D. HUBBARD. 1972. Limnology of four bauxite openpit lakes. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 26:47-51.HUGGINS, J.A. and G.L. HARP. 1983. Aquatic macroinvertebrates of theIliattPrairie region. Franklin County, Arkansas. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci.37:92-94.HUNGERFORD, H.B. 1933. The genus Notonecta of the world(Notonectidae-Hemiptera). Univ.Kans. Sci. Bull.,21:5-195.TRUXAL, F.S. 1953. A revision of the genus Buenoa. Univ. Kans. Sci.Bull.,35:1351-1523.WILSON, C.A. 1958. Aquatic and semi-aquatic Hemiptera of Mississippi.STEPHEN W. CHORDAS IIIand GEORGE L.HARP, Department ofBiological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University, AR 72467.EVALUATION OF PARTICULATE AIRFILTERS FOR INDOOR AIRCLEANINGK Indoor AirQuality is a growing health concern. Efforts are currently being made to reduce pollutants and to prevent illnesses resulting from inhalationergens and pathogens at home and in the workplace. Without adequate air filtration inthe heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)system, airpol-ts may distribute through the house or building, or the HVACsystem may become a source ofallergens and pathogens.tinthis study several types of filter were evaluated for their effectiveness in removing airborne particles in the size range of 0.2 to 1.0 |J.m in diameterfor the energy requirements associated with the filtration. Tested were: (1) a pleated paper type filter,(2) a7.5 cm thick, medium efficiency pleated electretr, (3) a 15 cm thick, High Efficiency Paniculate Air(HEPA) electret filter, and (4) a standard fiberglass HVAC filter. The electret filter material consists ofs having a semi-permanent charge which enhances collection efficiency through electrostatic attraction of the aerosol particles. Each of the filters was aboutm2 in cross section with the actual filter surface area varying depending on the thickness and number of pleats.119Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 45 [1991], Art. 36Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1991

English

Synopsis of the Notonectidae of Arkansas

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 45 Article 361991Synopsis of the Notonectidae of ArkansasW. Stephen Chordas IIIArkansas State UniversityGeorge L. HarpArkansas State UniversityFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This General Note is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the ArkansasAcademy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu.Recommended CitationChordas, W. Stephen III and Harp, George L. (1991) "Synopsis of the Notonectidae of Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy ofScience: Vol. 45 , Article 36.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol45/iss1/36IProceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 45, 1991 117General Notesand 1948b), and toinformation theory by Haynes (1957). These applications, in addition to the applications mentioned previously, suggest that physicists shouldbecome more familiar with the techniques of application offunctional equations. The theorem derived in this paper is useful forcalculating general results frommeasurements made on fixed amounts ofmaterials. The methods developed in this paper allow the student to develop an understanding of the mathematical tech-niques used in the application ofhomogeneous functions; this allows these students to concentrate on the physics ofcritical point phenomena when they are firstmet, thus affording a deeper understanding.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis paper was written to honor the teaching career ofDr. Robert E. Kelly, formerly of the University of Mississippi, and currently at LosAlamos Scientific Laboratories. Itwas in his classroom that Ilearned the axiomatic approach to thermodynamics and much else. The basic meth-ods of this paper were taught by Dr. Kellyformany years, though the particular forms and proofs presented above are due to the present author.LITERATURE CITEDACZEL, J. 1966. Lectures on Functional Equations and their applications.Academic Press. New York. 498 pp.ACZEL, J. 1969. On Applications and theory of functional equations.Academic Press. New York. 63 pp.CALLEN,H.B. 1960. Thermodynamics. Wiley. New York. 376 pp.CHANDLER, DAVID.1987. Introduction to modem statistical mechanics.Oxford University Press. New York. 274 pp.DAVIS, HAROLDT. 1960. Introduction to non linear differential and inte-gral equations. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., 566pp. (Reprinted by Dover. New York. 1962.)EULER, L. 1755. Institutions Calculi Differentialis. Berlin. (Reprinted,Opera Omnia, Ser. I,Vol. 10. Leipzig. 1913.)EULER, L. 1768. Institutiones, Calculi Integralis. Petropol. (Reprinted,Opera omnia, Ser. I,Vol. 11, Leipzig. 1913.)EULER, L. 1770. Institutiones Calculi Integralis m. Petropol. (Reprinted,Opera Omnia, Ser. I,Vol. 13, Berlin. 1925.)JAYNES, E.T. 1957. Information theory and statistical mechanics, I.Phys.Rev. 106:620-630.LUNN, A.C. 1919. Some functional equations in the theory of relativity.Bull. Am. Math.Soc. 21:26-34.SHANNON, C.E. 1948a. Amathematical theory of communication, I.BellSystem Tech. J. 27:379-423.SHANNON, C.E. 1948b. Amathematical theory of communication, II.BellSystem Tech. J. 27:623-656.STANLEY, H.E. 1971. Introduction to phase transitions and critical phe-nomena. Oxford University Press. New York. 308 pp.TIEN, C.L. and J.H. LIENHARD. 1985. Statistical thermodynamics,Revised Printing. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. New York. 397pp.WIDDER, D.V.1961. Advanced calculus, 2nd E. Prentice-Hall. EnglewoodCliffs. 52O.pp.ZEMANSKY, M.W. and R.H. DITTMAN. 1981. Heat and Thermody-namics, 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill. New York. 543 pp.STEPHEN R. ADDISON, Department ofPhysics, University ofCentral Arkansas, Conway, AR 72032.A SYNOPSIS OF THENOTONECTTDAE OF ARKANSASThere have been no studies pertaining specifically to the Notonectidae (back swimmers) ofArkansas. Pertinent information is either in taxonomic stud-ies which include Arkansas material (Hungerford, 1933; Truxal, 1953) or aquatic macroinvertebrate lists from particular sites in the state (Harp and Hubbard,1972; Harp and Harp, 1980; Farris and Harp, 1982; Huggins and Harp, 1983). The purposes of this paper are to present the first statewide species list, to delineategeographic distributions and to define preferred habitats fornotonectid species in this state. Arkansas species may be identified by using Froeschner's (1962) keyto Missouri species.Most data presented have been synthesized from specimens in the Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Collection of the Arkansas State University Museum ofZoology; however contributions from museum collections from the Universities of Arkansas-Fayetteville and -Little Rock, along with literature records, areincluded. Supplemental collections were made by the authors to diminish distributional gaps in the data.Two genera encompass the eight species ofNotonectidae that occur in Arkansas. All species undergo fivenymphal instars to reach adulthood and passthe winter as adults. Species of the two genera differ with respect to respiration, however. Notonecta species must surface frequently to replenish their oxygensupply. Buenoa individuals, however, have hemoglobin-filled abdominal sacs which greatly increase their capacity to store atmospheric oxygen (Truxal, 1953).This difference allows Buenoa toinhabit deeper water farther from shore and probably explains inpart why fewer specimens of this genus are collected.Buenoa confusa (Truxal) was first reported from Arkansas by Harp and Hubbard (1972). Distributionally, itis our least common notonectid, being rep-resented by 35 specimens from 11 collections in three counties (Fig. 1). The collection in Monroe Co. contained three specimens taken by ablack light trap. Allother specimens were taken from the remaining two counties and were collected with a dipnet. Wilson (1958) reported this species in Mississippi from a singlebrackish poolfilled with vegetation. InArkansas, all collections were taken from clear, acid bauxite lakes, clear lakes or ponds with vegetation present. Arkansascollections thus far are from three ecoregions: Crowley's Ridge, the Ouachitas and the Mississippi AlluvialPlain. Truxal (1953) reported this species has beencollected every month except February, March, October and December. Arkansas specimens have been collected during May and July-October.117Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 45 [1991], Art. 36Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1991'118 Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.45, 1991Arkansas Academy of ScienceFig. 1. B. confusa O Fig. 2. B. scinitra Fig. 3. N. indicaB. margaritaceaFig. 4. N. irrorata Fig. 5. N. raleighi Fig. 6. N. uhleriN. undulataBuenoa margaritacea (Torre-Bueno) was first reported from Arkansas by Truxal (1953). Itisknown from 35 specimens in 20 collections from 12 coun-ties (Fig. 1). Ithas been taken in allofArkansas' ecoregions except the Gulf Coastal Plain. Wilson (1958) reported that in Mississippi this species was most com-monly collected from ponds. The only records for Missouri of this species came from TruxaTs (1953) revisionary study (Froeschner, 1962). Most Arkansasspecimens have been taken from ponds or lakes. However, specimens have also been taken from a pool area of Black River, a stream, roadside ditches andx>rrow-pits. Truxal (1953) reported collections of this species from every month of the year. Arkansas collections have been taken during February-May, July-September and November.Buenoa scimitra (Bare) was first reported from Arkansas by Truxal (1953). Itis the most common species of this genus in Arkansas, being known from163 individuals in 29 collections from 14 counties (Fig. 2). like11. margaritacea, B. scimitra has been collected from all five ecoregions ofArkansas except theGulf Coastal Plain. Only in recent collections has this species been taken inlarge numbers in the state. Wilson (1958) and Froeschner (1962) reported this specieso be the most common Buenoa in Mississippi and Missouri, respectively. Wilson (1958) reported this species to prefer sparsely vegetated, muddy, roadsidejooIs, streams, small ponds and borrow -pits. Arkansas collections have been from these same habitat types. Itis verycommonly collected inblack light trap sam->les. Truxal (1953) reported this species was collected every month of the year. Mississippi specimens have been taken from March to December (Wilson, 1958).Missouri specimens were taken during July, August and November (Froeschner, 1962). Arkansas collections occurred during January -May, July, September andNovember.Notonecta indica (Linnaeus) was firstreported from Arkansas by Hungerford (1933). Itis our most common and most plastic notonectid species, beingmown from 519 individuals from 115 collections in 40 ofArkansas' 75 counties (Fig. 3). Ithas been collected from all fiveecoregions of Arkansas. Froeschner1962) reported this species tobe uncommon in Missouri. Conversely, Wilson (1958) reported ittobe very common and widespread inMississippi. He also noteda wide range of color patterns for this species. Alexander (1982) observed eight hemclytral color patterns exhibited by specimens from Arkansas. We have seenhe color patterns for this species range from completely white to almost completely black. Wilson (1958) reported this species to be commonly collected from>onds, borrow-pits, and small streams. Arkansas specimens have been taken from most every type of aquatic environment, including swimming pools.•roeschner (1962) reported that in Missouri this species was taken inMarch, June and November. Hungerford (1933) reported that this species had been collect-ed, as ithas in Arkansas, every month of the year.Notonecta irrorata (Uhler), the largest notonectid in Arkansas, was first reported from the state by Hungerford (1933). Itis a common and widespreadspecies, being represented by 217 individuals from 69 collections in 31 counties throughout the five ecoregions ofArkansas (Fig. 4). Froeschner (1962) reporteditto be known inMissouri from a few specimens taken in the southeast corner of the state. This species is common and widespread inMississippi and occurs inawide range of aquatic habitats (Wilson, 1958). Hungerford (1933) reported this species to be most common in water shaded by vegetation or overhanging limbs.Arkansas specimens were collected ina wide range of aquatic habitats but most often from habitats similar to those described by Hungerford. InMissouri, this118Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 45 [1991], Art. 36http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol45/iss1/36Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.45, 1991119General Notesspecies was taken during March and June (Froeschner, 1962). Hungerford (1933) reported this species was collected every month except January and February,butnoted that itwas observed swimming under ice inIthaca, N.Y.,during early February. Arkansas specimens have been taken every month except May.Notonecta raleighi (Bueno) was first reported from Arkansas by Harp and Harp (1980). Materials at hand show 116 individuals in48 collections in 27counties (Fig. 5). Ithas been collected in all five ecoregions of Arkansas, but seems to be most common in the southern portion of the state. Foreschner (1962)reported this species tobe uncommon in Missouri, being collected only from large ponds and a pool area of a nearly dry stream bed. Wilson (1958) reported thisspecies to be fairly common in Mississippi, being taken from a wide range of aquatic habitats except for running streams and borrow-pits. Collections inArkansas are from habitats similar to those reported by Wilson (1958). Missouri specimens of this species were taken during March, June and October(Froeschner, 1962). Arkansas specimens of this species have been collected every month except April,July and December.tNotonecta uhleri (Kirkaldy) has not previously been reported from Arkansas. Itis the least common notonectid species in the state, being now knownm only 12individuals having been taken in eight collections from seven counties (Fig. 6). Of the eight collections, three were from the Ouachita Mountains,3 were from Crowley's Ridge, and one each from the Mississippi AlluvialPlain and Gulf Coastal Plain. Wilson (1958) reported this species tobe very uncom-n inMississippi, being collected from a roadside borrow-pit and a deep stream, neither of which had vegetation, but Froeschner (1962), whilelisting it,had noord ofits occurrence. Arkansas specimens have been collected from a farm pond, poolareas of rivers or creeks and a lake. Allcollection sites contained turbidter, vegetation was present in all habitats except the lake. Hungerford (1933) reported this species to have been collected during the months of July-October.lson (1958) reported taking itin August and October. Arkansas specimens were taken during March, Apriland October-December.I Notonecta undulata (Say) was first reported from Arkansas by Hungerford (1933). Itis a common and widespread species inArkansas, being represent-by 205 individuals in 54 collections from 23 counties throughout the fivenatural divisions ofArkansas (Fig. 6). The majority of the collections of this speciesve been taken from the eastern portion of the state. Hungerford (1933) thought this species tobe "the most common species in the United States". This speciessimilar in size and color pattern to N. indicia, and therefore these two species are often confused for each other (Hungerford, 1933). Further, causing even:ater confusion, these two species are often collected together in the same sample. Froeschner (1962) reported this species to be very common in Missouri,inversely, Wilson (1958) listed this species but had no record ofits occurrence inMississippi. Missouri specimens were collected fromponds and quiet sectionsrivers (Froeschner, 1962). Arkansas specimens have been taken frommost aquatic habitats, including swimming pools. Missouri specimens of the species werelected from January toJuly (Froeschner, 1962). Hungerford (1933) reported collections of this species forevery month of the year. Arkansas specimens ofthis:cies have been taken during all months except July.IFrom present knowledge, it is probable that all eight notonectid species can be collected during any month of the year in Arkansas. Most should bend in any of the state's ecoregions. B.confusa and N. uhleri may be restricted in their habitat preference, however. The former appears to prefer clear well-etated waters, whereas the latter prefers turbid water withmud substrates.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank Ed J. Bacon (UA-Monticello), Harvey E. Barton (ASU Entomological Museum), Chris Carlton (UA-FayettevilleEntomological Museum) and Robert Watson (UA-LittleRock Entomological Museum) forproviding specimens.LITERATURE CITEDrZANDER, T. C. 1982. Incidence, abundance, predation, and toxologi-cal studies of Notonectidae (Insecta: Hemiptera) in Arkansas ricefields. MS Thesis. University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. 62 p.rJS, J.L. and G.L. HARP. 1982. Aquatic macroinvertebrates of threeacid bogs on Crowley's Ridge innortheast Arkansas. Proc. Ark. Acad.Sci. 36:23-27.rESCHNER, R.C. 1962. Contributions to a synopsis of the aquaticHemiptera ofMissouri, part V.Am. Mid.Nat. 67(1 ): 208-240.fRP, G.L. and P.A. HARP. 1980. Aquatic macroinvertebrates ofWapanocca National Wildlife Refuge. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 34:115-117.HARP, G.L. and R.D. HUBBARD. 1972. Limnology of four bauxite openpit lakes. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 26:47-51.HUGGINS, J.A. and G.L. HARP. 1983. Aquatic macroinvertebrates of theIliattPrairie region. Franklin County, Arkansas. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci.37:92-94.HUNGERFORD, H.B. 1933. The genus Notonecta of the world(Notonectidae-Hemiptera). Univ.Kans. Sci. Bull.,21:5-195.TRUXAL, F.S. 1953. A revision of the genus Buenoa. Univ. Kans. Sci.Bull.,35:1351-1523.WILSON, C.A. 1958. Aquatic and semi-aquatic Hemiptera of Mississippi.STEPHEN W. CHORDAS IIIand GEORGE L.HARP, Department ofBiological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University, AR 72467.EVALUATION OF PARTICULATE AIRFILTERS FOR INDOOR AIRCLEANINGK Indoor AirQuality is a growing health concern. Efforts are currently being made to reduce pollutants and to prevent illnesses resulting from inhalationergens and pathogens at home and in the workplace. Without adequate air filtration inthe heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)system, airpol-ts may distribute through the house or building, or the HVACsystem may become a source ofallergens and pathogens.tin this study several types of filter were evaluated for their effectiveness in removing airborne particles in the size range of 0.2 to 1.0 |J.m in diameterfor the energy requirements associated with the filtration. Tested were: (1) a pleated paper type filter,(2) a7.5 cm thick, medium efficiency pleated electretr, (3) a 15 cm thick, High Efficiency Paniculate Air(HEPA) electret filter, and (4) a standard fiberglass HVAC filter. The electret filter material consists ofs having a semi-permanent charge which enhances collection efficiency through electrostatic attraction of the aerosol particles. Each of the filters was aboutm2 in cross section with the actual filter surface area varying depending on the thickness and number of pleats.119Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 45 [1991], Art. 36Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1991

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2143&context=jaas

Synopsis of the Notonectidae of Arkansas

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UARK (University of Arkansas )

ScholarWorks@UARK