Eastern persius duskywing: COSEWIC assessment and status report: chapter 16

• Previous page
• Table of contents

• Appendix 1: Specimens and Reports of Erynnis persius persius in Ontario
• Appendix 2: Erynnis persius persius Surveys 2002

Appendix 1: Specimens and Reports of Erynnis persius persius in Ontario

Other Abbreviations: ROM = Royal Ontario Museum collection, UoG = University of Guelph collection, CNC = Canadian National Collection (Ottawa, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), SMD = S.M. Daniels Collection. L&H = examined by Layberry and Holder.

Appendix 2: Erynnis persius persius Surveys 2002

Surveys were done on six separate dates during May and June, 2002. The spring was considered by many to be a late spring, perhaps by as much as two weeks. However, observations of other insect species during the surveys indicate that if E. p. persius was present, it should have been flying.

Survey Sites

Because of project constraints preventing the surveying of all extant or possibly extant lupine sites, three study areas considered to have the highest potential for hosting E. p. persius were identified for surveys. One study area was centred on St. Williams Regional Forest, specifically the Manestar Tract (Figure A1), which was the location for most of the previous observations of E. p. persius. This study area also included other prairie remnants north of the Manestar Tract within Norfolk County (Figure A2). The second study area was the Municipality of Lambton Shores (formerly Bosanquet Township) in northern Lambton County. Focus was placed on locations within and near to The Pinery Provincial Park (Figure A3) and the Karner Blue Sanctuary (Figure A4). The third study area included locations near Rice Lake in Peterborough County (Figure A5). Within each of the study areas, specific sites were walked where wild lupines (Lupinus perennis) were found (noted as black areas). Other areas of similar habitat where lupines were apparently absent (marked as grey, bordered with black) were usually walked or were slowly traversed in a car while lupines or butterflies were sought.

Other sites were considered but were excluded from surveys for various reasons. A site on Walpole Island was seriously considered, but after consulting with A. Woodliffe (pers. comm., 2002), it was determined that the site had been destroyed prior to the 2002 field season. A site in Sarnia was described by P.M. Banks (pers. comm., 2002) as hosting very few, scattered lupines. The lupine population of High Park was not surveyed because the likelihood that E. p. persius would be located at the site was low. This low likelihood was based on knowledge that the habitat and the lupine population at High Park had suffered from management that was not intended to promote or maintain oak savannah habitat. Although land management has since been modified to promote the health of lupine populations and oak savannah, M. Holder considered it unlikely that E. p. persius populations had persisted in this urban park, if indeed the species ever existed at High Park.

Survey Timing and Conditions

The following table describes the dates, time spent, weather and observers for each of the surveys (Table A1). The observers listed in Table A1 are all capable observers, in particular Andrea Kingsley and Carl Rothfels. They assisted in both searching for and catching Erynnis. Another capable observer, Mary Gartshore, visited St. Williams throughout May and June, 2002, and collected multiple Erynnis specimens for later determination by Matt Holder.

Survey Site Habitat

Overall, the visited sites appeared suitable for E. p. persius at a coarse scale (i.e., they were open environments with prairie or savannah affinities), but the quality differed. Some sites had abundant lupines, while at other sites, lupines were sparse. Figures A1-A5 show the sites that were surveyed during the dates and times identified in Table A1. Sites where lupines were present are identified in black. Below are some further details on the habitat surveyed.

The St. Williams site (Figure A1) has many wild lupines present (and wild indigo Baptisia tinctoria), spread out along the edges (especially southern and western edges) of the open sand area present at the site. The largest patches had between 75 and 100 plants, while other patches had as few as one or two plants. Overall, between 250 and 300 individual lupines were noted at St. Williams, with many of them in the open sand area of the Tract. Smaller clumps of lupines were located along partly wooded trails leading to the west and south of the open sand area. Shrubby vegetation is encroaching on the areas with lupines, and the canopy cover, though fairly open, is probably greater than 30% at all sites away from the open sand area. An estimated 0.03-0.04 ha of lupines were surveyed, scattered throughout the site (Figure A1).

Figure A1: St. Williams Regional Forest Survey Sites

Surveyed sites elsewhere in Norfolk County (Figure A2) were roadsides or railway beds. These sites are heavily fragmented and influenced by roadside/railway management. Although many superficially similar-looking sites were surveyed, only four sites with lupine plants were found, and each of these was sparsely populated by lupines. Combined, approximately 0.01 ha of suitable habitat with lupines was surveyed.

Figure A2: Norfolk County Survey Sites

Figure A3: Pinery Provincial Park and Environs Survey Sites

In the Municipality of Lambton Shores (formerly Bosanquet Township) in northern Lambton County, lupines were more abundant than at other sites. The Pinery Provincial Park has prime examples of oak savannah, although its health has suffered from past forest management practices and the influence of hundreds of browsing deer. However, lupines persist with hundreds of plants noted at several sites. Some patches of plants had as few as six lupines, while the bigger patches had between 100 and 200 plants, for an estimated total of 400 plants covering a combined area of approximately 0.04 ha. Outside of the park, lupines were found growing on roadsides in scattered and sparse clumps of 2 to 25 plants per station for an estimated total of 100 plants, covering a combined area of less than 0.01 ha. The Karner Blue Sanctuary had hundreds of plants at certain locations within its confines, for a total of between 500 and 1000 plants over a combined area of between 0.1 ha and 0.2 ha (Figure A4), while other areas in the Sanctuary, though appearing similar structurally, did not host lupines.

Figure A4: Karner Blue Sanctuary and Environs Survey Sites

The Rice Lake study area included survey sites to the south and north of Rice Lake in Hiawatha First Nation (Figure A5). Only one patch of lupines, comprising between 200 and 300 plants in an area of approximately 0.04 ha, was located on a roadside. Other sites within the area were surveyed, but no other lupines could be located.

Figure A5: Rice Lake Study Area Survey Sites

Survey Methodology

At each site, observers searched for lupines and looked for any skipper visiting the flowers or leaves of the lupines or flying through or near the patches. All Erynnis individuals seen were carefully observed, and attempts were made to capture all individuals seen. All species of butterflies (and other taxa opportunistically) observed and/or captured during surveys were noted. Additionally, lupine leaves were examined for insect herbivory, and an attempt was made to look for eggs on the undersurfaces of the leaves (although the efficacy of this approach is unknown and could very well be poor). Candidate Erynnis were collected and identified by examining their genitalia using a dissecting microscope.

Survey Results

No E. p. persius was observed or collected during surveys done for this report. Other Erynnis spp. observed and collected included E. lucilius, E. icelus, E. baptisiae, E. juvenalis and E. brizo. Other early spring, small butterflies were also noted throughout the survey period, including Callophrys niphon and Celastrina ladon, in addition to other larger species (e.g., Nymphalis antiopa).

The first survey at St. Williams, was conducted on May 11, 2002 during a cool spring day. Very few insects were observed until it warmed up during midday, and even then, the only butterflies observed were two C. ladon. However, a lot of butterfly activity was noted on May 22, 2002 in Lambton County, with many species seen. Many Erynnis spp. were seen and captured, although all of them were identified on site or later in the lab to be E. juvenalis, E. icelus and E. lucilius. Other butterflies observed on May 22, 2002 include several C. ladon, N. antiopa and a single Pieris sp. that could not be identified to species. No new species were seen the following day, but the warmer temperatures helped to increase the number of butterflies flying. Still later, on May 31, 2002, insects were very active and a typical assemblage of May butterfly species was noted, including E. brizo and E. baptisiae. The remainder of the species observed on May 31 and especially June 1, 2002 included: Papilio polyxenes, P. glaucus, Pieris rapae, Colias sp., Lycaena phlaeas, Callophrys nephon, Celastrina ladon, Polygonia interrogationis, N. antiopa, Vanessa atalanta, V. virginiensis, Coenonympha tullia, Danaus plexippus and Poanes hobomok. The survey undertaken on the final day in the Rice Lake area on June 11, 2002 was in very warm and sunny weather, and the local insect fauna was active with many individuals observed. Species observed during this survey included the duskywings E. juvenalis, E. lucilius and E. icelus, as well as other species, including Papilio canadensis, Pieris rapae, P. oleracea, Celastrina ladon, Glaucopsyche lygdamus, Phyciodes tharos, Nymphalis vaualbum, Coenonympha tullia, Carterocephalus palaemon, Thymelicus lineola, Poanes hobomok, and Amblyscirtes vialis.

Existing Threats

No threats to E. p. persius were identified beyond those already mentioned in the report (e.g., forest practices, deer herbivory).