Papaipema sp. 1
Flypoison Borer Moth
Taxonomic Status: Provisionally accepted
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.111628
Element Code: IILEYC0X10
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: Schweitzer, Dale F. Terrestrial Invertebrate Zoologist, NatureServe. 1761 Main St. Port Norris, NJ 08349. 856-785-2470.
Concept Reference Code: PNDSCH01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Papaipema sp. 1
Taxonomic Comments: An extremely distinctive species with known biology.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 02May2005
Global Status Last Changed: 18Sep1999
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: All available evidence indicates this species has an extremely limited range in and just outside of the Pocono Plateau. However, it is rather common within this range. An exact rank would require better data on number of occurrences and population structure and stability. Also severity of threats from gypsy moth spraying and development would need to be reconsidered since Pennsylvania does use, or recently has, Diflubenzuron in wildlands including State Parks.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2 (12Aug1999)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Pennsylvania (S2)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: So far known only from notheastern Pennsylvania, but New Jersey Heritage staff noted damaged plants in 1984-a likely EO, but since destroyed by development. Would not have affected range extent much and this species has been looked for in VA the one other state where there is a lot of good habitat.

Area of Occupancy: 26-12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: About 10-15 known, but there must certainly be more, at least in PA. Probably most are in C quality range.

Population Size: 1000 - 10,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Seems to be rather common in its small range.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Few to many (4-125)

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Only likely serious threats would be development, widespread fire, esp. from Sept-early May, and Diflubenzuron (Dimilin) spraying at or before time of larval hatch. Some to very high survival likely in late June-August fires. While severely out of control deer have been an ecological problem rangewide for a decade or two this species has apparently not been negatively impacted and possibly has even benefitted. Deer conspicuoulsy avoid the new growth of the foodplant in April and early May making it sometimes virtually the only herbaceous growth present (observations by D. Schweitzer in the 1980s).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)

Long-term Trend: Decline of <50% to Relatively Stable

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Likely to persist if habitat is not destroyed

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: this species seesm to be able to use a range of woodland and forest habitats as long as they contain a lot of the foodplant.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Should be looked for as larvae/pupae in bulbs of foodplant in July-Aug. Watch for yellowing or wilting foliage. Or can be collected at blacklights on warm nights in second half of September-early October. There still has not be andequate inventory in Virginia and elsewhere to be sure that this species does not occur in these more southern mountains where the foodplant can be common.

Protection Needs: Several due to risk from fire.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)) So far known only from notheastern Pennsylvania, but New Jersey Heritage staff noted damaged plants in 1984-a likely EO, but since destroyed by development. Would not have affected range extent much and this species has been looked for in VA the one other state where there is a lot of good habitat.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: endemic to a single state or province

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States PA

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
PA Berks (42011), Carbon (42025), Dauphin (42043), Luzerne (42079), Lycoming (42081), Monroe (42089), Schuylkill (42107)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Lehigh (02040106)+, Schuylkill (02040203)+, Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna (02050107)+, Lower West Branch Susquehanna (02050206)+, Lower Susquehanna-Penns (02050301)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Flypoison borer (moth)
General Description: One of the more reddish Papaipema with very prominent white ordinary spots on forewing. Looks rather intermediate between P. appassionata (illustrated by Covell, 1984) and the P. birdi complex (illustrated as P. marginidens by Holland (1903), Rings et al. (1992) and others. About 45-50 mm.
Diagnostic Characteristics: This very distinctive species is intermediate in appearance between the Papaipema birdi/Papaipema baptisiae group and Papaipema appassionata (Harvey) (illustrated by Covell 1984). All of the forewing spots are white. The median area and postmedian line are not yellow and the white reniform spot ring is proportionally larger than other species, except not quite equaling most P. appassionata. Also habitat and numbers will usually be strong identification clues, since one typically gets several per night at lights in acid forest or barrens with the foodplant and usually where no other species of Papaipema occurs.

Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: A few adults have been captured up to several miles from known habitat indicating that this species is to some extent dispersive--as are most PAPAIPEMA.
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Habitats are wooded to forested situations on acid soils where the foodplant, AMINATHIUM MUSCAETOXICUM (Liliaceae), is abundant. Most are oak dominated forests but some are or include pitch pine scrub-oak barrens and some are mostly mixed northern hardwoods.
Adult Food Habits: Unknown
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Adults do feed (they will come to standard baits) but their natural foods are unknown. Flowers are usually not readily available. Larvae bore in the bulb of Amianthium muscaetoxicum only.
Adult Phenology: Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: Eggs hiberante in this entire genus. Larvae probably hatch in May. Larvae become large and can be found by end of July. They pupate in August. There is no aestivation and adults eclose in mid September.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: The main threats are habitat loss and fragmentation due to development, although prescribed burning will probably become an issue in some habitats. Survival of eggs, which occur from about mid September into May, during any fire would be very low at best, but durvival of larvae and pupae which are inside the bulbs from June into September would probably be substantial. However if the plants had not releafed females would not be able locate places to lay their eggs. Use of Dimilin for Gypsy Moth suppression could also be a threat, especially if application occurs before hatchlings enter the foodplants. Larvae could be killed either by chewing into contaminated foorplant or by crawling over contaminated substrate. However some populations have definitely survived at least one past application. Deer probably actually benefit the Fly-poison Borer. Deer will not eat Fly-poison and where deer are excesively abundnat the toxic fly-poison is sometimes essentially the only non-woody greenery in spring and the plants probably respond positively to removal of the competition.

Biological Research Needs: Population size at some of the apparently better EOs would be very useful information--also degree of fluctuation from year to year.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Forest Papaipema

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: 01Feb2007
Author: Schweitzer, D.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 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.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
Excellent Viability: Unlike many Papaipema species this one often occurs at high densities and can be quite common at lights. An A-rank is appropriate for a few of the better sites where the foodplant is distributed over more than 1000 hectares, not necessarily completely contiguously (see separation distances for group), and where several to many adults can typically be taken at blacklight or where larval or pupal survey shows bored plants scattered throughout the area at several per hectare; that is places that probably often produce 1000 adults in a season. A-rank might also be appropriate for somewhat smaller occurrences (e.g. 500 hectares) where density is consistently high, for example where 20 or more adults are often taken at a blacklight. Also consider management practices and needs (if any) when considering applying an A-rank, however in most cases neither is an issue.
Good Viability: Unlike many Papaipema species this one often occurs at high densities and can be quite common at lights. An B-rank is appropriate for several to many sites where the foodplant is distributed over more than 200 hectares, not necessarily completely contiguously (see separation distances for group), and where several to many adults can typically be taken at blacklight or where larval or pupal survey shows bored plants scattered throughout the area at several per hectare; that is places that probably often produce 500 adults in a season. B might also be appropriate for somewhat smaller occurrences (e.g. 100 hectares) where density is consistently high, for example where 20 or more adults are often taken at a blacklight but should not be applied to dense populations on small sites. . Also consider management practices and needs (if any) when considering applying an A-rank, however in most cases neither is an issue.
Fair Viability: Populations that, while not necessarily dense, numerous, or occupying large habitats, nevertheless are likely to persist should current conditions prevail. As general guidelines there should be some evidence suggesting more than 50 adults are produced most years or that the occurrence occupies 50 hectares, but a C-rank can be appropriate simply based on expert judgement.
Poor Viability: Places where only occasional breeding or transient populations occur, or where a remnant of a once larger population still exists but is unlikely to persist much longer. Isolated occurrences that probably produce less than 50 adults most years or on less than 10 hectares probably rate D or CD, unless there is some real evidence of persistence at such a small size.
Justification: While actual quantitification here is arbitrary it is well-known that both population size and, probably more importantly in this case, habitat size affect survival prospects. Numbers do fluctuate from year to year but it is not known how much and based on collections with lights, this species appears to occur in much denser populations than most related species do. Rodents or many other predators or parasites can cause high mortality or even eradication in small Papaipema colonies (Hessel, 1954; D. Schweitzer) and probably parasites do so especially at high densities. Hatchling mortality is probably very high as Decker(1934) documents for P. nebris. Occupancy in a given year can be patchy very inconsistent from year to year. Thus a large habitat assures that some patches will always produce adults. Some variation in features like degree of shade, aspect, moisture might also increase such chances. Habitats of this species are not likely to be subject to prescribed burns, but occupancy should be assumed zero the following season after any fall, winter or spring fire, but not with summer fires. Most likely fires will be too infrequent to be a consideration in EO ranking. Gypsy moth spraying could be a factor, while survival of exposed larvae would be zero with Dimilin colonies have survived applications indicating exposure was low in these cases. Still exposure could vary greatly over a few days depending on exactly when eggs hatch. It is not likely BTK would cause much mortality since it has to be eaten to be toxic.
Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
Date: 16Feb2007
Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 25May2005
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Management Information Edition Date: 21Mar2007
Management Information Edition Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 21Mar2007
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
  • Covell, C.V., Jr. 1984. A field guide to the moths of eastern North America. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 496 pp.

  • 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).

  • Holland, W. J. 1903. The moth book. A guide to the moths of North America. Doubleday, Page & company, New York. 479 pp.

  • Schweitzer, D. F., M. C. Minno, and D. L. Wagner. 2011. Rare, declining, and poorly known butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) of forests and woodlands in the eastern United States. USFS Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Technology Transfer Bulletin FHTET-2011-01. 517 pp.

  • 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 March 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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.