January 12 - 2022 Ohio Odonata Numbers
2022 Metrics by County
Mar 3 to Nov 10, as of Jan 16, 2023
| 88 Counties | # Observations | # Sp | # Users | # Days | New High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adams | 108 | 34 | 22 | 27 | |
| Allen | 71 | 24 | 6 | 16 | |
| Ashland | 249 | 36 | 13 | 30 | o/s/d |
| Ashtabula | 2374 | 67 | 19 | 148 | o |
| Athens | 111 | 34 | 21 | 34 | |
| Auglaize | 67 | 23 | 2 | 6 | |
| Belmont | 393 | 27 | 2 | 7 | o/s/d |
| Brown | 74 | 32 | 6 | 6 | |
| Butler | 617 | 41 | 50 | 108 | |
| Carroll | 106 | 27 | 6 | 14 | |
| Champaign | 1296 | 68 | 41 | 73 | s |
| Clark | 856 | 59 | 25 | 74 | o/s/d |
| Clermont | 385 | 51 | 43 | 116 | d |
| Clinton | 112 | 30 | 12 | 23 | |
| Columbiana | 159 | 46 | 11 | 20 | o/s/d |
| Coshocton | 1409 | 58 | 13 | 116 | o/s/u |
| Crawford | 117 | 34 | 6 | 32 | d |
| Cuyahoga | 762 | 52 | 99 | 136 | u/d |
| Darke | 217 | 46 | 7 | 25 | |
| Defiance | 56 | 21 | 6 | 9 | |
| Delaware | 272 | 38 | 44 | 64 | |
| Erie | 268 | 30 | 24 | 68 | o/d |
| Fairfield | 138 | 31 | 22 | 26 | |
| Fayette | 168 | 32 | 5 | 15 | |
| Franklin | 2341 | 62 | 117 | 144 | s |
| Fulton | 214 | 30 | 6 | 23 | o/u/d |
| Gallia | 141 | 25 | 7 | 14 | d |
| Geauga | 550 | 69 | 40 | 91 | |
| Greene | 745 | 64 | 62 | 108 | u/d |
| Guernsey | 126 | 23 | 3 | 5 | |
| Hamilton | 724 | 56 | 68 | 120 | o |
| Hancock | 392 | 60 | 19 | 83 | d |
| Hardin | 85 | 32 | 3 | 18 | |
| Harrison | 274 | 38 | 5 | 24 | o/d |
| Henry | 315 | 34 | 6 | 17 | o/s/d |
| Highland | 76 | 28 | 13 | 17 | d |
| Hocking | 121 | 36 | 24 | 30 | |
| Holmes | 205 | 29 | 8 | 27 | o/s |
| Huron | 340 | 29 | 5 | 31 | o/s/d |
| Jackson | 120 | 31 | 8 | 18 | |
| Jefferson | 231 | 34 | 7 | 26 | o/s/u/d |
| Knox | 156 | 22 | 17 | 22 | u |
| Lake | 605 | 68 | 46 | 83 | |
| Lawrence | 231 | 38 | 4 | 10 | o/s |
| Licking | 198 | 34 | 25 | 43 | |
| Logan | 401 | 47 | 16 | 46 | o/d |
| Lorain | 753 | 49 | 38 | 112 | |
| Lucas | 3012 | 76 | 74 | 169 | o/u/d |
| Madison | 240 | 34 | 15 | 22 | |
| Mahoning | 105 | 42 | 10 | 48 | |
| Marion | 329 | 30 | 8 | 9 | o |
| Medina | 216 | 44 | 31 | 63 | |
| Meigs | 381 | 31 | 1 | 4 | o |
| Mercer | 93 | 22 | 3 | 7 | |
| Miami | 485 | 54 | 21 | 23 | o/s/u |
| Monroe | 187 | 28 | 2 | 5 | o |
| Montgomery | 1211 | 79 | 50 | 123 | o/s/d |
| Morgan | 144 | 32 | 7 | 13 | |
| Morrow | 491 | 31 | 15 | 24 | o/s/u/d |
| Muskingum | 201 | 34 | 9 | 26 | d |
| Noble | 372 | 27 | 7 | 9 | o/s/d |
| Ottawa | 185 | 31 | 50 | 56 | s/u/d |
| Paulding | 59 | 21 | 2 | 4 | |
| Perry | 94 | 21 | 1 | 24 | |
| Pickaway | 124 | 34 | 16 | 24 | |
| Pike | 267 | 40 | 9 | 14 | o |
| Portage | 484 | 76 | 53 | 83 | s |
| Preble | 230 | 36 | 12 | 20 | |
| Putnam | 125 | 23 | 1 | 7 | |
| Richland | 138 | 30 | 15 | 27 | |
| Ross | 114 | 34 | 13 | 16 | |
| Sandusky | 254 | 42 | 11 | 36 | o/s |
| Scioto | 117 | 33 | 9 | 15 | |
| Seneca | 287 | 31 | 7 | 12 | o |
| Shelby | 139 | 34 | 15 | 13 | u |
| Stark | 2755 | 76 | 45 | 129 | o/s/u/d |
| Summit | 1122 | 73 | 111 | 134 | s |
| Trumbull | 140 | 39 | 10 | 28 | |
| Tuscarawas | 192 | 29 | 6 | 15 | o |
| Union | 331 | 28 | 10 | 23 | o |
| Van Wert | 52 | 22 | 1 | 4 | |
| Vinton | 133 | 30 | 8 | 16 | |
| Warren | 232 | 45 | 32 | 60 | |
| Washington | 100 | 27 | 3 | 7 | |
| Wayne | 220 | 31 | 26 | 59 | o/s |
| Williams | 141 | 37 | 4 | 6 | |
| Wood | 157 | 33 | 27 | 43 | u |
| Wyandot | 80 | 29 | 12 | 16 |
The "New High" column highlights those values where 2022 is now the top: o for # of observations, s for # of species, u for # of users, and d # of days
Note that Stark, Jefferson, and Morrow set new highs for all of these metrics.
Comentarios
Thanks for all the stats reporting! You do a great job.
Might want to make a note that the annual Ohio Dragonfly Conference was held in Montgomery County in 2022 with tours to Montgomery and Greene County wetlands and parks with resulting odonatan observations. The well attended meeting/tours no doubt contributed to the new records in those two counties.
Stark county stands out to me as very unusual given the total number of observations and number of records...any reason for this? Did some sort of dragonfly event in Canton contribute to these records?
Hi Mike, thanks for the comment. Stark Co numbers are the result of a dedicated effort by a group of observers there - especially jcefus, but also mbarath, kent_miller, benniesaylor, dhochadel.
Jim...Thanks for the reply...dedicated indeed.
Añade un comentario