Papaipema eryngii - Bird, 1917
Rattlesnake-master Borer Moth
Other English Common Names: rattlesnake-master borer moth
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.111888
Element Code: IILEYC0310
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Papaipema Moths
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Papaipema
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Hodges, R.W. et al., eds. 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico. E.W. Classey Limited and The Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, London. 284 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B83HOD01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Papaipema eryngii
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G1G2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 22Mar2011
Global Status Last Changed: 20Sep1999
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: The available information suggests this species probably qualifies for G1, but there is some level of protection at the known extant sites and some are well-managed. About seven occurrences have been documented since 1990. but the one in North Carolina may have been lost to a fire. A few others will probably be found. This species is now very reduced and widely scattered with no potential for recolonization at most sites, thus making occurrences vulnerable to accidents or natural events. Unless this species is more common in some undercollected southern region, it seems to be the most reduced of the described prairie Papaipema. There is probably no interaction between remnant populations unless perhaps in Oklahoma or if there are undocumented occurrences in North Carolina. There would be substantial risk from accidental wildfires etc. if colonies are clustered closely enough to be vulnerable to single fires. Population sizes are unknown but probably not more than a few dozen to a few hundred adults annually. Given the uncertain degree of threat, habitat loss and fragmentation and near or total loss of metapopulation dynamics at most sites, this species may be even more imperiled than suggested by the very low number of known occurrences. On the other hand there probably are undiscovered populations in the Southeast and there a few apparently secure ones in the Midwest. The Rank Calculator 3.0 rank is "G2?", but it seems unlikely that the species would be G3.
Nation: United States
National Status: N1N2 (12Aug1999)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Arkansas (S1), Illinois (S1), Indiana (SX), Iowa (SNR), Kentucky (S1), North Carolina (S1), Oklahoma (S1?)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): C: Candidate (14Aug2013)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 100-2,500,000 square km (about 40-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species is so drastically reduced and fragmented that any statement about current range extent would be misleading. The original extent would probably have been G or H but by the time it was discovered in the early 20th century it was already too far gone to assess. Known range is vicinity of Chicago, Illinois formerly including adjacent Indiana, an old specimen from Iowa, two counties in central Arkansas, northeastern Oklahoma, one county in Kentucky and one in extreme southeastern North Carolina. Since it formerly occurred in Iowa and is extant in Oklahoma and Arkansas, this species obviously must have occurred in Missouri. It also must have occurred between the prairie region and coastal North Carolina. Notably one of the Arkansas localities is near the edge of the coastal plain. Dale Schweitzer, the late Joseph Muller and probably others failed to find the species in Cape May County, New Jersey in the 1970s, in some large Eryngium stands. As of 2004 believed extant in at least Illinois, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky. Soon after the mid 1990s collection of a few adults, a winter prescribed fire burned the entire Carolina site. That summer only a single larva could be found (and was collected) in a thorough search according to Stephen Hall and Eric Quinter. Without additional follow up the only defensible rank for this occurrence (and thus North Carolina) is historic. However, it does seem likely that other colonies exist nearby and so this site may be recolonized, and management is likely to consider this species in the future. It is not impossible there is a significant distribution in the southern coastal plain or in Oklahoma-Arkansas although this is not likely.

Area of Occupancy: 3-500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Probably under 2000 acres but extent of Oklahoma occurrence is unclear and could be much greater than has been documented. In particular it could expand a bit there if the fire practices of the early 1990s are relaxed as is believed to be the case.

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: At least two populations still occur in Illinois, two more probably still do in Arkansas, and another in Oklahoma. The North Carolina occurrence should be regarded as historic but not presumed extirpated. A few more colonies probably exist but this moth is apparently absent from great majority of prairie remnants now.

Population Size: 1000 - 10,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: This is merely a best guess based on number of EOs but utter lack of any population size data. if there are in fact a lot of undiscovered occurrneces or the Oklahoma one is now a functioning metapopulation, this assessment would be revised upward. Clearly low numbers for an insect.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few to few (1-12)

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The greatest long term threat may be habitat fragmentation which has resulted in a few very isolated colonies such that recolonization would be unlikely to impossible if any occurrences were to die out, or be wiped out in a wild fire etc. Papaipema females do sometimes disperse a few kilometers (at least two), but probably infrequently.

Ron Panzer considers at least two sites well managed and secure. One Arkansas site is managed mainly by mowing and both may be secure for now. Others may have no imminent threats, but most or all sites could be vulnerable to catastrophic events such as complete burns by fall or spring wildfires. Data in Panzer (1998) show this species recovers quickly and can be managed with judicious partial rotational burning but it is important that foodplants be well distributed in several units. Population sizes are largely unknown so it is not clear if they could also be vulnerable to natural fluctuations or inbreeding especially if reduced temporarily by fires. Schweitzer and Quinter consider it uncertain whether management practices in Oklahoma threaten or protect this species. While this may change in the near future, for now prescribed burning does appear to threaten the species in North Carolina (unless it is already eradicated) based on 1990s practices. Possibly, but by no means certainly, this one may be more fire sensitive than other Papaipema as implied by Bird (1917). At any rate it has declined far more than any of the other well known prairie Papaipema at least in the northern part of its range. If colonies are small (some are not) and isolated even a conservative fire regimen applied during a "bad year" could probably threaten an occurrence.

There has been one documented case in Illinois of an unscrupulous collector damaging foodplants on a large scale while looking for larvae. James Bess also notes damage from collectors in Kentucky where the population is possible small enough to be vulnerable to over collecting. This is one of exceedingly few moths or butterflies in the USA for which collectors may really pose a threat. Specifically collecting large numbers of immatures is a potential problem. However normal collecting practices, e.g use of blacklights, are not a threat and if any suspected new occurrences are found, these need to be documented with a few specimens.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: May have been eradicated by fire from North Carolina soon after its discovery but this is not certain. If not, the colony was at least greatly reduced in the short term. Could be stable, declining or increasing in Oklahoma depending on recent fire practices there which have not been reviewed. Probably fairly stable in Illinois and Arkansas, but very few occurrences. May have declined in Kentucky (James Bess pers. comm. to Schweitzer, February 2005).

Long-term Trend: Decline of >90%
Long-term Trend Comments: Has lost up to 99%+ of its original habitat in the past 150 years or so and as early as its original description and often since threats from excessive fire have been noted, although not well documented. Most of what little habitat remains now is vacant.

Environmental Specificity: Narrow to moderate.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Not really clear if there are habitat needs other than sufficient foodplant and lack of excessive fire.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Should be looked for in prairies and southeastern US savannas with abundant foodplant. Adults come late at night to blacklights about October 1 and larvae can be found in summer (see Hessel, 1954).

Protection Needs: Appropriate fire regimen in the number one need on most sites. See EMG for genus. Reintroduction to other prairie remnants should be considered. Panzer has conducted one successful reintroduction.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (100-2,500,000 square km (about 40-1,000,000 square miles)) This species is so drastically reduced and fragmented that any statement about current range extent would be misleading. The original extent would probably have been G or H but by the time it was discovered in the early 20th century it was already too far gone to assess. Known range is vicinity of Chicago, Illinois formerly including adjacent Indiana, an old specimen from Iowa, two counties in central Arkansas, northeastern Oklahoma, one county in Kentucky and one in extreme southeastern North Carolina. Since it formerly occurred in Iowa and is extant in Oklahoma and Arkansas, this species obviously must have occurred in Missouri. It also must have occurred between the prairie region and coastal North Carolina. Notably one of the Arkansas localities is near the edge of the coastal plain. Dale Schweitzer, the late Joseph Muller and probably others failed to find the species in Cape May County, New Jersey in the 1970s, in some large Eryngium stands. As of 2004 believed extant in at least Illinois, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky. Soon after the mid 1990s collection of a few adults, a winter prescribed fire burned the entire Carolina site. That summer only a single larva could be found (and was collected) in a thorough search according to Stephen Hall and Eric Quinter. Without additional follow up the only defensible rank for this occurrence (and thus North Carolina) is historic. However, it does seem likely that other colonies exist nearby and so this site may be recolonized, and management is likely to consider this species in the future. It is not impossible there is a significant distribution in the southern coastal plain or in Oklahoma-Arkansas although this is not likely.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AR, IA, IL, INextirpated, KY, NC, OK

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IL Cook (17031), Effingham (17049), Fayette (17051), Grundy (17063), Livingston (17105), Marion (17121), Will (17197)
KY Christian (21047), Hardin (21093)
NC Pender (37141)
OK Osage (40113)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Northeast Cape Fear (03030007)+
05 Upper Green (05110001)+, Rough (05110004)+, Little Wabash (05120114)+, Skillet (05120115)+, Tradewater (05140205)+
07 Kankakee (07120001)+, Chicago (07120003)+, Des Plaines (07120004)+, Upper Illinois (07120005)+, Middle Kaskaskia (07140202)+
11 Caney (11070106)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A moth, one of the reddish Papaipema with prominent white spots.
General Description: A large dark reddish-purplish brown Papaipema with the ordinary spots white--similar to but larger than most specimens of the P. birdi complex.
Diagnostic Characteristics: See key in Forbes (1954) for tentative identification and a genitalia drawing, and adult is Illustrated in original description. There are at least half a dozen more or less similar species within the prairie portion of the range, and this species must be confirmed by an expert and should always be verified by an actual specimen (preferably a male) and not merely a photograph. Color distortion of electronic images or film photos causes frequent misidentification of Papaipema and other moths for which size and color are useful characters, causing errors even by experts with familiar species. This is especially true with images not taken in sunlight, such as at collecting lights. Genitalia sometimes are necessary to be certain of identity of P. eryngii. Compared to other Papaipema this one is relatively large, has a complete pattern of white spots on a dark brownish to somewhat reddish ground color. The color is often distinctive but differs slightly between North Carolina and the rest of the range. The reniform is normal and there is no dark spot in the orbicular spot. Male genitalia very distinctive and the valve is illustrated by Forbes (1954). It is not certain whether larvae can be identified without rearing them out and other species of Papaipema could turn up in Eryngium.


Ecology Comments: Larvae of this genus borer stems and roots. Like most prairie PAPAIPEMA the larva of this one apparently moves below ground sometime in summer and also pupates there. It would then be safe from naturally occurring or other summer fires, but not from anthropogenic spring or fall fires. Species apparently had a wide range at one time but is now one of the rarest of the genus. Note that in Hessel (1954) accounts both under this name and under P. NEPHRASYNTHETA actually refer to P. ERYNGII.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Originally probably was a good colonizer, but today colonization between habitat remnants must be very rare at best. In fact only in Oklahoma does this seem plausible now.
Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Grassland/herbaceous, Savanna, Woodland - Conifer
Habitat Comments: Apparently restricted to mesic prairies and associated wetlands in the midwest, often but not always calcareous. Known site in North Carolina is/was a rather calcareous wet savanna. Critical habitat features include a substantial amount of Eryngium yuccafolium and lack of complete dormant season fires. There may be other special needs since this species has declined even more severely than most prairie Papaipema.
Adult Food Habits: Unknown
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Adults of this genus do feed, or at least take water, and some visit flowers, but feeding habits of this species are unknown. Larvae bore in stems and root crown of ERYNGIUM See Hessel (1954) for details. So far only ERYNGIUM YUCCIFOLIUm, including variety SYNCHAETUM in North Carolina, has been confirmed
Adult Phenology: Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: Adults are active at night, apparently mostly after 11PM, and probably require temperatures over 10C for sustained activity. Adults occur in about late September to mid October so far as known around Chicago, probably be a few weeks later in Oklahoma. Flight season in North Carolina is unclear but the one adult was collected 19 October in moderately worn condition, indicating (as would be expected) an October flight season there. Eggs overwinter in leaf litter or on old stems in entire genus. Larvae probably enter foodplants in May (April in NC) and later pupate there. They are thus in the plant until about end of September (into October in NC). Larvae probably aestivate for a few weeks before pupation, probably a month or two in NC. Aestivation in this genus is usually as fully grown prepupal larvae.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: If fire is used burn no more than 25% of site in any year and 25% every other year is recommended. All units should have at least three rest years before being burned again. Four or more years is recommended since some margin of error needs to be incorporated even if recovery is usually good in two or three years. Strongly consider use of more naturally timed (late summer) fires. Mowing between 1 November and 15 April is probably a good alternate management practice for this and most specialized prairie Lepidoptera. Continue to avoid burning major areas of larval concentration and monitor at Kentucky site. Institute or maintain a much more appropriate management regimen for this and other rare Lepdioptera at Oklahoma site than the massive burning practices of the early 1990s.

Biological Research Needs: See also Element Management Group Information for Papaipema-prairie species. Information on colonization distances would also be useful. Long term study of population on one or more apparently well managed sites would be instructive. Response to summer fires and summer and dormant season grazing should be investigated. Comparison of effects of fall-winter-spring mowing with fire should be investigated. Such topics would be relevant for managing small or highly concentrated populations, for which rotational burning might be too risky.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Papaipema and Related Borers

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A location supporting a breeding population. Minimally a specimen (exceptionally for some species a photograph or larval burrows in the foodplant) in association with plausible habitat including the foodplant. In mmost cases a photograph of an individual sitting near a collecting light will not be identifiable to species, especially from and JPEGS due to color distortion, although use of natural light does help. A genuine expert must approve all identifications based on less than an actual specimen and some specimens are difficult and require expert identification. Generally identification of Papaipema feeding damage (burrows, frass, borings) to genus is rather easy but in many cases these cannot be identified to species because more than one species could occur in that plant species. In a few cases location an symptoms on the plant (Hessel, 1954) will distinguish among possible species, e.g. P. nebris and P. maritima in the same sunflowers. Sometimes larval specimens can be identified to species. Collections of an adult not associated with habitats containing the foodplant are not EOs.

Mapping Guidance: The essential resource is the larval foodplant so in general EOs consist of foodplant patches and to some extent intervening connecting space, for example one would probably map an entire small bog, and not just the pitcher plant patches, as the EO for northern populations of P. APPASIONATA. Within the overall occurrence it may be advisable to map major foodplant patches carefully so that managers will know their exact locations. See habitat and food comments fields for species-specific information on what constitutes habitat when mapping occurrences.
Separation Barriers: None are really known and it is suspected there are none in practice, although nocturnal lighting could become a barrier in extreme cases. Some species at least do occur in fairly brightly lit residential areas.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: In general when multiple colonies occur in a distinct natural community occurrence, such as a prairie remnant or wetland complex, they should usually regarded as one metapopulation occurrence and so the suitable habitat distance should be used within the general habitat type(s) (forest, marsh, prairie) occupied by the species in that general area even if the foodplants are patchy. Do not do this across major vegetational changes such as prairie to forest unless both types actually sometimes support the foodplant and its borers. Also if the foodplants are highly patchy and the overall habitat not clearcut-consider compromise distances in marginal habitat but not less than twice the unsuitable distance. For widespread forest understory species, even occasionally the rarer ones like P. duplicata, large occurrences still exist and the Specs for "Forest, Woodland and Scrub Noctuidae" are justified.
Separation Justification: Females of Papaipema, and at least some related genera (e.g. Bellura spp., and Spartiniphaga carterae) are occasionally collected two or more kilometers from any potential larval habitat, but for the most part these are sedentary moths that are usually found within 10 meters of foodplant patches. Females apparently are more dispersive than males and tend to do so after laying some eggs at the natal site. So two kilometers while arbitrary seems adequate. Suitable habitat distance is shorter than for most Noctuidae because habitats and populations of these borers tend to be small, and situations do occur where patches a few km from known colonies remain unoccupied for no obvious reason. Sometimes, but not often, some foodplant is unsuitable due to edaphic or other conditions.

P. pterisii, P. sp. 1, P. frigida, P. furcata, P. inquaesita, and S. carterae can have large occurrences where they are ubiquitous over several hundred hectares. In most cases suitable foodplant patches are occupied at least in some years but in any given year some may not support mature larvae. Foodplant patches are often unoccupied or nearly so by immatures for the first season after a fall, winter or spring burn since by far most are killed. However, the same patch may be very good habitat a year later and until the next burn if there are unburned refugia adjacent (see e.g. Panzer, 1998). Similarly for some species such as P. sulphurata and P. stenocelis some, many, or all habitats may be suitable only in certain years depending on water levels and most or all patches are part of the metapopulation EO regardless of occupancy in a given season. In general then extensive suitable habitat will probably be occupied at least over several years if not every year, but it does seem prudent to consider collections more than five kilometers apart as separate occurrences pending more information especially given that patch sizes and therefore deme size can be quite small.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Use this radius only with virtually contiguous habitats with the foodplants widespread. Some known occurrences for P. pterisii, P. sp. 1, and S. carterae are several square kilometers. In by far most cases the inferred extent is the entire contiguous habitat which will usually be a few hundred hectares or less and if the habitat is under 400 hectares assume full occupancy (at least over time if not every year). Note also for riparian habitats this distance is not really a radius but more of a linear distance.
Date: 12Sep2001
Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A location supporting a breeding population. Minimally a specimen (exceptionally for some species a photograph or larval burrows in the foodplant) in association with plausible habitat including the foodplant. In most cases a photograph of an individual sitting near a collecting light will not be identifiable to species, especially from and JPEGS due to color distortion, although use of natural light does help. A genuine expert must approve all identifications based on less than an actual specimen and some specimens are difficult and require expert identification. Generally identification of Papaipema feeding damage (burrows, frass, borings) to genus is rather easy but in many cases these cannot be identified to species because more than one species could occur in that plant species. In a few cases location an symptoms on the plant (Hessel, 1954) will distinguish among possible species, e.g. P. nebris and P. maritima in the same sunflowers. Sometimes larval specimens can be identified to species. Collections of an adult not associated with habitats containing the foodplant are not EOs.


Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Date: 05Feb2007
Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
Group Name: Prairie Papaipema and related borers

Excellent Viability: No current occurrences are thought to approach the best, or probably even typical, all time occurrences, so any A-SPECS would be moot.
Good Viability: This rank is also arguably moot since there really are no especially good occurrences left by original standards. However there probably are a few that are better than merely potentially persistent. B probably could be applied in a few places where large well managed populations are likely to persist at about their current level and to maintain whatever genetic diversity they have left under current and expected conditions. If the region is fire prone a B-ranked occurrence must be likely to persist through a wild fire that burns up to 95% of the surface area. Management should approach optimal and not be merely acceptable. Such populations should be well distributed over multiple (at least four) burn units with a highly compatible fire regimen (or managed without fire) featuring rotational partial burning over a large tract such that available (=unburned) actual habitat is at least 500 hectares most years, although the foodplant might be sparse in some portions. Generally there should be some evidence suggesting that at least a few hundred adults eclose in most years, that is average density is at least one per hectare, and around 200 in poor years, and that larvae are widely distributed within the habitat. Generally ten last instar larval borings per hectare would suggest adult density exceeds one per hectare. B should generally not be applied where a given patch typically has only three seasons between burns unless it is actually documented that numbers consistently recover to pre-burn levels within that time, and B should not be considered with two year rotations. While these B-SPECS probably would not approach even typical historic occurrences, such a population would nevertheless stand out as a particularly good occurrence today. For these species occurrences in other habitats like glades, fens, meadows are usually small and, especially if managed with fire, would not likely merit a B-rank, and definitely not an A since they do not remotely approach best all time occurrences.
Fair Viability: Most occurrences appear to merit this rank, that is they have some possibility for persistence but other comparable habitats are often unoccupied meaning persistence is far from assured. These are generally occurrences occupying less than 100 hectares of available habitat in a given year (sometimes within a larger prairie remnant) and managed by rotational burning, or isolated colonies in smaller habitats like glades, wet meadows, or fens. If the habitat is maintained by fire, generally there should be at least two burn units producing adults in any given non-burn year and two or more non-fire years for each unit per cycle to qualify as a straight C (rather than CD). Exceptionally C could also apply where complete burns or two year rotations are used if the habitat is wet enough or the fires for some reason are patchy enough that the occurrence has been able to persist under such a regimen, but generally CD would be more appropriate given the likelihood the occurrence will eventually fail to survive or recover from one of these burns. Population size for C-ranked occurrences would typically be a few dozen to a few hundred adults in most years, but if there is reason to believe the occurrence has been persisting at such low levels this rank could apply to smaller populations, even some that occasionally produce as less than 20 adults in very bad years. Few occurrences of these speciesd in habitats other than prairies would rank higher than C, especially if they are small patches and subject to any fire regimen.
Poor Viability: These occurrences are unlikely to persist due to small habitat (e.g. <5 hectares), low numbers (e.g. often less than 20 adults per year), vulnerability to wildfire or other catastrophic event, or that are subject to complete burning over a one or two year period (but see C-RANKSPEC).
Justification: Use these SPECs for general guidance and consider combination ranks given unknowns like population size. In their core ranges these species occurred widely in mesic to wet portions of vast prairies using common to co-dominant plants, either as metapopulations or more continuously, but unevenly, distributed such that occurrences would have been hard to define and probably variable from year to year. However local declines and temporary extirpations were probably common. Nomadic bison herds periodically ate the foodplants along with any eggs or larvae present. Egg mortality during fall, winter, or spring fires is usually 80-100% (Panzer, 1998, Decker, 1934, since late instar larvae and pupae are usually near or below ground they would have some protection from both grazers and fire in mid to late summer. On the original landscapes recolonization probably occurred very rapidly just as occurs now on burned units (Panzer, 1998) but extirpation of an entire occurrence now would probably be permanent. No occurrences now approach size and extent of metapopulations present before European invasion, that is best all-time conditions, so use of A-rank now is unjustified. Modern occurrences are mostly in small scraps of prairie or other small habitats.

Papaipema can be managed with conservative rotational burning (e.g. Panzer, 1998), although past complete burns probably account for many absences (e.g. Bird, 1917,1934, Hessel, 1954). Habitat burned since the previous fall is unoccupied, so a 100 hectare remnant with 25% burned each year has 75 hectares of habitat in a given year. Panzer's data suggest that with unburned refugia present good recovery can occur by the third, or even second, summer, but recovery time probably sometimes takes longer due to low nocturnal temperatures when the adults are active, hot, dry weather when larvae hatch in spring (Decker, 1934), or low adult numbers (for any reason) in adjacent unburned units. Therefore a somewhat longer recovery time than 2-3 years is appropriate for a B-SPEC. B-ranked occurrences should have some margin for annually variable distribution among burn units leading to higher than expected mortality in some prescribed burns. Larger areas provide such buffer. A regimen of four or more burn units each burned at five year or longer intervals on a rotational schedule with 500 hectares of unburned habitat each year should virtually assure persistence in the absence of other disturbances. Large habitats provide some buffer against common mortality agents like grazing, rodents, and parasites that can have very spatially uneven impacts and can even eradicate small populations (Hessel, 1954, D.F. Schweitzer) and could mitigate wildfire impacts. If 95% of a 500 hectare habitat burned, the 25 ha unburned area would be larger than some occupied Papaipema habitats, so there would be a good chance for recovery. However recolonization probably could not occur as fast as in Panzer's studies. If density is usually more than one adult per hectare and stays above half that, even genetic diversity might persist. Assume that five last instar larvae (much easier to estimate) per hectare meets this criterion, although the implied assumption that more than 20% of last instar larvae survive to adulthood is unproven.

Small colonies of Papaipema often die out and many small habitats and some larger remnants are unoccupied by some expected species, but Panzer et al. (1995) report populations persisting on 100 hectares or less. Dale Schweitzer has seen P. impecuniosa and P. baptisiae persist at less than ten pupae in <100 square meters for several years, so populations that only occasionally drop to 20 or fewer adults could merit a C-rank. Mortality factors tend to be similar among species, so in borderline situations, especially between C and D, consider presence or absence of other species with comparable or lesser resource bases as indicative of potential for persistence

Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
Date: 31Jan2007
Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 02Nov2010
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Management Information Edition Date: 01Mar2005
Management Information Edition Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 01Mar2005
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): SCHWEITZER, D. F.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Bird, Henry. 1917. New species and histories in Papaipema (Lepidoptera) no. 19. Can. Ent. XLIX: pp. 120-128.

  • Forbes, W. T. M. 1954. Lepidoptera of New York and Neighboring States, Noctuidae, Part III. Memoir 329. Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station. Ithaca, NY.

  • Hessel, Sidney, A. 1954. A guide to collecting the plant-boring larvae of the genus Papaipema (Noctuidae). Lepid. News. 8: pp. 57-63. Note a corrected version is included as Appendix D of the Lepidopterists' Society's basic techniques manual (Winter, 2000).

  • Hodges, R.W. et al., eds. 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico. E.W. Classey Limited and The Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, London. 284 pp.

  • Lafontaine, J.D. and B. C. Schmidt. 2010. Annotated check list of the Noctuoidea (Insecta, Lepidoptera) of North America north of Mexico. ZooKeys 40:1-239.

  • Panzer, R.J., 1998. Insect Conservation within the severely fragmented eastern tallgrass prairie landscape. Ph.D. thesis Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998.

  • Schweitzer, D.F. 1989. A review of Category 2 Insecta in USFWS regions 3, 4, 5. Prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

  • Schweitzer, D.F. 1999. Papaipema moths with emphasis on prairie species. Element Management record, Current version date: 1999-12-01. IN Natureserve 2004. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, Virginia. U.S.A.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.