Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Calendar
Upcoming Events

Discussion of 2018 gathering

Photos of insects and people from the 2015 gathering in Wisconsin, July 10-12

Photos of insects and people from the 2014 gathering in Virginia, June 4-7.

Photos of insects and people from the 2013 gathering in Arizona, July 25-28

Photos of insects and people from the 2012 gathering in Alabama

Photos of insects and people from the 2011 gathering in Iowa

Photos from the 2010 Workshop in Grinnell, Iowa

Photos from the 2009 gathering in Washington

TaxonomyBrowseInfoImagesLinksBooksData
National review of state wildlife action plans for Odonata species of greatest conservation need.
By Bried, J.T. and C.A. Mazzacano.
Insect Conservation and Diversity 3(2): 61–71., 2010
Cite: 1207927
Bried, J.T. and C.A. Mazzacano. (2010). National review of state wildlife action plans for Odonata species of greatest conservation need. Insect Conservation and Diversity 3(2): 61–71.

Keywords: Conservation; damselflies; dragonflies; rare species

Abstract. 
1. The overarching goal of United States wildlife action plans is to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered or declining to levels where recovery becomes unlikely. Effective plan implementation depends on establishing Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), defined as wildlife species with small or declining populations or other characteristics that make them vulnerable.

2. Although nearly two-thirds of distinct Odonata species known from the U.S. (441 species as of 2005) were appointed as SGCN, over half the states neglected to assign dragonfly SGCN, damselfly SGCN, or both. Western and southern states listed proportionately fewer odonate SGCN than states of the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and New England regions, apparently reflecting geographic patterns of legal authority, available information, and involvement by Odonata specialists.

3. Greater consultation of Odonata specialists is encouraged in any revision of state wildlife action plans, along with increased: (i) use of existing conservation lists, (ii) inferences from field guides and major faunal synopses, (iii) recognition of patterns of endemism, and (iv) application of empirical species distribution modelling.

4. Legal and management restrictions aside, insects and other invertebrates are often neglected in mainstream conservation efforts because they are perceived as understudied. It is erroneous to assume ‘not enough information’ exists for well-studied microfauna such as Odonata and doing so further undermines the conservation of less conspicuous and charismatic taxa.