DOCSLIB.ORG

Cutting and Mulching Broom (Cytisus Scoparius (L.) Link): a Tasmanian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cutting and Mulching Broom (Cytisus Scoparius (L.) Link): a Tasmanian Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.15(4) 2000 183 Proceedings of the Bushfire 99 confer- Panetta, R.H. Groves, and R.C.H. Shep- Robertson, D.C., Morgan, J.W. and White, ence, Albury, 7–9 July 1999, pp. 111-7. herd, pp. 77-88. (R.G and F.J. M. (1999). Use of prescribed fire to (Charles Sturt University, Albury). Richardson, Melbourne). enhance control of English broom Downey, P.O. and Smith, J.M.B. (2000). Humphries, S.E., Groves, R.H. and (Cytisus scoparius) invading a subalpine Demography of the invasive shrub Mitchell, D.S. (1991). Plant invasions of snowgum woodland in Victoria. Plant Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius (L.) Australian ecosystems: a status review Protection Quarterly 14, 51-6. Link) at Barrington Tops, NSW: and management directions. Kowari 2, Schroder, M. and Howard, C. (2000). Con- insights for management. Austral Ecol- 1-134. trolling broom (Cytisus scoparius (L.) ogy 25(5). Mack, M.C. and D’Antonio, C.M. (1998). Link) in natural ecosystems in Fernandez-Santos, B., Gomez-Gutierrez, Impacts of biological invasions on dis- Barrington Tops National Park. Pro- J.M. and Moreno-Marcos, G. (In press). turbance regimes. Tree 13, 195-8. ceedings of the broom symposium held The effect of traditional Spanish rural- Nicholson, P.H. (1981). Fire and the Aus- at Ellerston and Moonan, 16–17 No- practice perturbations on the regenera- tralian Aborigine-an enigma. In ‘Fire vember 1998, eds A.W. Sheppard, J.R. tive response in Cytisus multiflorius. and the Australian Biota’, eds A.M. Hosking. Plant Protection Quarterly 15, Grabe, D.F. (ed.) (1970). Tetrazolium Test- Gill, R.H. Groves and I.R. Noble, pp. 55- 169-72. ing Handbook for Agricultural Seeds, 76. (Australian Academy of Science, Smith, J.M.B. (2000). An introduction to The tetrazolium testing committee, The Canberra). the biogeography and ecology of Association, Amherst, Massachusetts, Parsons, W.T. and Cuthbertson, E.G. broom (Cytisus scoparius) in Australia. 62 pp. (1992). ‘Noxious Weeds of Australia’. Proceedings of the broom symposium Hardman, D.C. (1980) Scottish Broom (Inkata Press, Melbourne). held at Ellerston and Moonan, 16–17 (Sarothomnus scoparius): Control Pro- Peterson, D.J. and Prasad, R. (1999). The November 1998, eds A.W. Sheppard, gramme, Barrington Tops National biology of Canadian weeds. 109. J.R. Hosking. Plant Protection Quarterly Park. New South Wales National Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link. Canadian 15, 140-4. Parkes and Wildlife Service unpub- Journal of Plant Sciences 78, 497-504. Syrett P., Fowler S.V., Coombs E.M., lished report. Rees, M. and Paynter, Q. (1997). Biological Hosking J.R., Markin G.P., Paynter Q.E. Hosking, J.R., Smith, J.M.B. and Sheppard, control of scotch broom: modelling the and Sheppard A.W. (1999). The poten- A.W. (1998). Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link determinants of abundance and the po- tial for biological control of Scotch ssp. scoparius. In ‘The Biology of Aus- tential impact of introduced insect her- broom (Cytisus scoparius) (Fabaceae) tralian Weeds’, Volume 2, eds F.D. bivores. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, and related weedy species. Biocontrol 1203-22. News and Information 20, 17N-34N. West Coast Weed Strategy The West Coast Weed Strategy was a five- Cutting and mulching broom (Cytisus scoparius (L.) year plan put forward by Bob Curley Link): a Tasmanian perspective (Ranger, Parks and Wildlife Service) in 1992 to coordinate weed control activities currently being undertaken by a number Eddie Talbot, West Coast Weed Strategy, PO Box 598, Queenstown, of organizations with independent goals. Tasmania 7467, Australia. This was the first community-based re- gional weed management strategy set up in Tasmania and led to the setting up of a Summary liver complaints (Launert 1981, Chevallier West Coast Landcare Group. The major This paper reviews current practices for 1996). Despite this diverse utilitarian his- weed species included were gorse (Ulex broom control used in north-west Tas- tory, none of these uses have yet been europaeus L.), brooms (C. scoparius and mania and describes the instigation and transferred to Australia where the plant Genista monspessulana L.A.S.Johnson), operating of the first community-based has become as serious noxious weed. pampass grass (Cortaderia spp.), black- regional weed management strategy de- Following introduction into Tasmania berry (Rubus frutisosus L. complex), and veloped in Australia. It also presents and soon after colonization, broom has spread Elisha’s tears (Leycesteria formosa Wall.). costs the ‘cut and mulch’ method devel- to be a significant weed of forestry, min- Landcare and various private and govern- oped for broom control as part of a ing company and public land and native ment organizations sponsored a part-time project by the West Coast Weed Strategy vegetation in north-west Tasmania, par- coordinator position from May 1994. The and funded by the National Heritage ticularly around the town of Waratah coordinator’s role is to coordinate weed Trust. where this weed has special ‘secondary control efforts in the group, provide rel- weed’ status under the State Noxious evant information, represent the group at Introduction Weeds Act 1964. It is also a scattered weed meetings, organize weed control meetings Broom (Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link), has a in other parts of Tasmania (J. Ireson per- and promote and sustain interest in the long history of cultural uses in its native sonal communication). It is now estimated Strategy. The coordinator is also responsi- range. In addition to being adopted by the to have infested at least 33 000 ha in the ble for maintaining in-kind funding from English king, Henry II (the ‘Plantagenet’ state (Hosking et al. 1998). This paper first affected organizations and councils and to from planta genista) as a personal emblem, describes the West Coast Weed Strategy; a obtain external grants (e.g. from the Na- these cultural uses also included: an agent project which developed a five-year plan tional Heritage Trust) to run this weed for tanning leather; as a source for yellow to coordinate major weed control efforts in control initiative. However, without active dye; for broom, rope and paper manufac- north-west Tasmania and then reviews involvement of supporting organizations ture; as rabbit feed; and for making an al- past broom control methods in this region and their adherence to the agreed plan the ternative medicine for use as a heart tonic, and describes a successful ‘cut and mulch’ strategy would fail. Areas of concern to diuretic, emetic, purgative and relief from control method for broom. the Strategy were to tackle weed problems 184 Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.15(4) 2000 in urban areas, monitor spread of weeds into bush via off-road tracks and control weeds in areas adjacent to the World Her- itage Areas. Since 1997 the West Coast Weed Strat- egy has obtained regular financial support from the National Heritage Trust, the West Coast Council and other stake- holders such as the Hydro Electric Com- mission and Renison Bell Gold Mines. The main successful management strategy for broom trialed by the West Coast Weed Strategy is the cut and mulch method. Lessons to be learned from north- west Tasmania A number of different broom control pro- cedures have been used in the region. These and their effectiveness are dis- cussed below. Bulldozing and fire Figure 1. Broom demonstration site at Waratah prior to the cut and mulch Bulldozing infestations into heaps and method being applied on 26 March 1996. burning resulting weed mounds has been a common practice. This causes massive soil disturbance and physical movement of broom plants not only burying seeds but also spreading seeds beyond the origi- nal infestation and leaving a perfect seed bed for regrowth. Topsoil is often buried in the process. In at least one situation (i.e. Waratah, Tasmania) this practice and a lack of follow up treatments exacerbated the broom problem throughout the town. Herbicides In the past the general practice in the re- gion has been to control broom along roadsides with herbicides. This approach generally led to poor control. Plants along roadsides were sprayed to a set distance onto the verge resulting in only half of many plants being affected by herbicide. Such plants regrew and produced many seeds allowing continued spread out into adjacent paddocks or bush. These at- tempts to control broom also failed due to Figure 2. Picture of tractor and mulcher attachment used during the broom inadequate consultation with adjoining landowners. Since the instigation of the control demonstration trial. Strategy cooperation between adjacent landholders and a strategic spraying pro- gram by the Civil Construction Company Cut and mulch method using machinery The tractor and mulcher consisted of a has improved the success of chemical con- The cut and mulching method was devel- 115 horse power four wheel drive tractor trol programs. oped as a response to the tendency of pulling a Seppi Heavy Duty Forest Mower many landholders to think that herbicides which has a large rotating drum equipped Treating large infestations are the only answer to woody weed con- with what are termed ‘Hammers’, driven Large infestations have been generally trol. The Coordinator teamed up with the by the power take-off (Figure 2). As the treated haphazardly, such as by spraying commercial operations of a small com- tractor pushes and flattens plants the ma- herbicides around the perimeter, then pany (Silvi Culture Contracting, Laun- chine chews them up and deposits the when dry setting fire to the infestation. ceston) marketing vegetation mulching of leftovers as mulch. The mulcher did not There are inherent fire risks in this prac- inter-row weeds in plantations, where ac- disturb the soil surface and the tractor tice and it has failed to be used in any cess was required for pruning, thinning or caused much less disturbance than a bull- regulated manner.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genista Monspessulana – Montpellier Broom, Cape Broom, Canary Broom
    Application for WoNS candidacy Genista monspessulana – Montpellier Broom, Cape Broom, Canary Broom Contact: Ashley Millar - (08) 9334 0312; Department of Environment and Conservation (WA) October 2010 Introduction Genista monspessulana (L.) L.A.S.Johnson (Fabaceae), also known more commonly as Montpellier Broom, Cape Broom and Canary Broom, is a woody legume weed with significant current and potential impacts on forestry production, biodiversity of natural ecosystems, grazing systems, access to amenity areas and fire risk. Infestations occur in all temperate states of Australia, with particularly severe infestations in the Adelaide Hills, southern Tasmania, central and southern Great Dividing Range of NSW, central Victoria and south west WA. G. monspessulana was ranked 37th in the initial evaluation of weeds nominated for Weeds of Natural Significance (WONS) (Thorp and Lynch 2000), with a particularly high impact score due to its formation of dense, impenetrable thickets arising from a long-lived soil seed bank (source: Henry et al . 2010). Species description: G. monspessulana is an erect, perennial slender shrub which grows up to 5-6m. It has trifoliolate petiolate leaves which are more or less glabrous. This species has yellow flowers which are produced from August to January. G. monspessulana occurs in loamy soil through to lateritic and peaty sand and is commonly found along rivers and roadsides (Parsons and Cuthbertson 2001; FLORABASE DEC 2010). G. monspessulana is native to the Mediterranean region that has become established, and is considered a persistent and deleterious plant, in several other regions of the world, including the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. It is considered deleterious because of its ability to form dense almost mono-cultural stands, which replace and suppress native flora and economically valuable timber plants (Lloyd 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Plants of Bendigo
    Produced by Indigenous Plants of Bendigo Indigenous Plants of Bendigo PMS 1807 RED PMS 432 GREY PMS 142 GOLD A Gardener’s Guide to Growing and Protecting Local Plants 3rd Edition 9 © Copyright City of Greater Bendigo and Bendigo Native Plant Group Inc. This work is Copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the City of Greater Bendigo. First Published 2004 Second Edition 2007 Third Edition 2013 Printed by Bendigo Modern Press: www.bmp.com.au This book is also available on the City of Greater Bendigo website: www.bendigo.vic.gov.au Printed on 100% recycled paper. Disclaimer “The information contained in this publication is of a general nature only. This publication is not intended to provide a definitive analysis, or discussion, on each issue canvassed. While the Committee/Council believes the information contained herein is correct, it does not accept any liability whatsoever/howsoever arising from reliance on this publication. Therefore, readers should make their own enquiries, and conduct their own investigations, concerning every issue canvassed herein.” Front cover - Clockwise from centre top: Bendigo Wax-flower (Pam Sheean), Hoary Sunray (Marilyn Sprague), Red Ironbark (Pam Sheean), Green Mallee (Anthony Sheean), Whirrakee Wattle (Anthony Sheean). Table of contents Acknowledgements ...............................................2 Foreword..........................................................3 Introduction.......................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Non-Native: Crofton Weed, Eupatory (Ageratina Adenophora)
    Invasive Non-Native: Crofton Weed, Eupatory (Ageratina adenophora) Description: perennial herb or subshrub, woody base, 2-5 ft (.6-1.5m) tall. Opposite leaves 1-4” (3-10cm). Stems: purple, glandular hairy. Flowers: composite, flower head all discoid flowers (no ray flowers) ¼” (6mm) across, clustered in groups, individual flowers 1/16-1/8 ” (<5mm) across, white or pink tinged. Ecology: disturbed areas, wetland/riparian edges, canyons, hillsides. Similar to: no common natives or non-natives. Mule-fat has discoid ray flowers, but thinner leaves. Report sightings to: [email protected] and database at www.Calflora.org Invasive Non-Native: French Broom (Genista monspessulana) Description: large, evergreen, woody shrub up to 9 feet (3m) tall. Leaves: small < ½” (1cm), compound leaflets in groups of three. Flower: small, < ¼” (6mm), yellow, 1-2 per axil. Ecology: occurs in a variety of habitats from disturbed to undisturbed areas, coastal scrub, oak woodlands, riparian corridors and open forests. Similar to (see back): Spanish broom (non-native) large shrub with deciduous leaves and 1” (3cm) yellow flowers. Scotch broom (non- native) large shrub with deciduous leaves and 1” (3cm) yellow flowers. Deerweed (native) short-lived perennial < 2 ft (.6m) tall with smaller yellow-orange-red flowers. Report sightings to: [email protected] and database at www.Calflora.org Spanish broom Plants SIMILAR TO: French broom (Genista monspessulana) Spanish broom (Spartium junceum): (non-native) deciduous shrub that can grow up to 10 ft (3m) tall. Stems: round in cross-section. Flowers: several yellow flowers per axil giving it a denser overall appearance than Scotch broom. ( PLEASE MAP new locations).
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Identification of Younger Lagoon Reserve
    Plant Identification of Younger Lagoon Reserve A guide written by Rebecca Evans with help from Dr. Karen Holl, Elizabeth Howard, and Timothy Brown "1 Table of Contents The table of contents is empty because you aren’t using the paragraph styles set to appear in it. Introduction to Plant Identification For any environmental studies or ecology student having some basic natural history knowledge of the ecosystem on which one is working is key in applying a management plan, performing research, or doing restoration work. At the base of all ecosystems, are plants. Plants support all other life forms and are used to define the community type (e.g. grassland and chaparral). Terminology Younger Lagoon Reserve (YLR) is actively being restored as the reserve is dominated by exotic plants. It is important to differentiate between the following terms: native, non-native/ exotic, and invasive. Native is a term that describes a plant endemic (indigenous) to a given area. In California, the term, native usually includes pants that were present in an area prior to European Colonization. Native usually includes plants that were present in an area before human colonization (NRCS, 2009). A non-native/exotic/introduced plant is a specimen that was not found naturally in a given habitat prior to European colonization. Exotic plants were usually introduced for agriculture, as an ornamental plant in gardens or landscapes, or by accident; such as, seeds being brought in soil or humans carrying seeds and burs on their clothes. Naturalized is another "2 common term. A naturalized plant is a plant that is non-native and has spread via rapid reproduction into a new environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Genista Monspessulana (L.) L
    WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD DRAFT August 24, 2012 Scientific name: Genista monspessulana (L.) L. A. S. Johnson Synonyms: Cytisus monspessulanus L., Cytisus monspessulanus var. umbellulatus (Webb) Briq., Teline candicans var. umbellulatus Webb & Berthel., Teline monspessulana (L.) K. Koch Common name: French broom, canary broom, cape broom, Montpellier broom, soft broom Family: Fabaceae Legal Status: Proposed Class A noxious weed Description and Variation: (Unless otherwise noted, information in this section is from DiTomaso and Healy (2007). Overall Habit: Genista monspessulana is a shrub in the Fabaceae (legume) family that typically grows less than 3 m (10 feet) tall but sometimes grows to 5 m (16 feet) tall (Baldwin et al. 2012, Bossard 2000). Plants can be evergreen or deciduous; in California G. monspessulana keeps much of its leaves in coastal areas and loses more of its leaves in inland areas (Bossard 2000). Stems are erect, typically leafy and covered in silky, silvery hairs (Baldwin et al. 2012, Stace 2010). Younger stems are green and round in cross-section and often strongly 8-10 ridged, while older stems are brown and may not have ridges. Roots: Genista monspessulana is a taprooted shrub that has fine roots associated with nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Leaves: Leaves are alternately arranged with a petiole (<5mm) and compound with 3 leaflets (Baldwin et al. 2012). Leaflets are oblong to obovate and variable in size with most 10-20 mm long, with the length generally +/- 2 times the width (Baldwin et al. 2012). The leaf’s upper and lower surface is sparsely to densely covered with appressed short, silvery hairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Management of Genista Monspessulana (L.) L.A.S
    Biology and Management of Genistn monspessulana (L.) L.A.S. Johnson (Montpellier Broom) g? '2t -S-O7 Janine Lloyd Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Applied and Molecular Ecology Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resource Sciences University of Adelaide December.2000 DECLARATION I hereby declare that the work in the thesis has been carried out by myself and does not incorporate any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge, it does not contain any material previously written or published by another person, except where due reference is made in the text. I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University library, being available for loan and Janine Lloyd lt Acknowledgments My heartfelt thanks and gratitude go to Dr Christopher Preston for his positive attitude, support, encouragement, willingness to clamber across steep slopes with spraying apparatus, academic guidance and patience. Dr Richard Roush for his enthusiasm, academic guidance, support, slashing the 'wretched' plant. To both Anne Frodsham and Rick for providing the steep slope to clamber across, allowing several fires, fire-fighting and making sure I hadn't slipped down the steep slope to weedy oblivion. Dr Andy Sheppard for teaching me how to drive on the other side of the road, ensuring my work and stay in France was pleasant and productive. Credit is also due for his assistance with collecting density, seed production and seedbank data. Dr Richard Groves for editing, advice and encouragement. Dr Stephen Powles for spotting my talent and getting me involved in weeds.
    [Show full text]
  • Angel Island Angel Island Geography Location San Francisco Bay Coordinates 37°52
    Angel Island Angel Island Geography Location San Francisco Bay Coordinates 37°52′N 122°26′W / 37.86°N 122.43°W Area 1.2 sq mi (3.1 km2) Elevation 788.76 ft (240.41 m) Highest point Mount Caroline Livermore Country United States State California County Marin County City and County of San Francisco Demographics Population 57 Density 18.35/km2 (47.5/sq mi) Additional information California Historical Landmark Reference #: 529 Angel Island is an island in San Francisco Bay offering expansive 360° views of the San Francisco skyline, the Marin County Headlands and Mount Tamalpais. The entire island is included within Angel Island State Park and is administered by California State Parks. The island, a California Historical Landmark, has been used for a variety of purposes, including military forts, a US Public Health Service Quarantine Station, and a US Bureau of Immigration inspection and detention facility. The Angel Island Immigration Station on the northeast corner of the island, where officials detained, inspected, and examined approximately one million immigrants, has been designated a National Historic Landmark. Contents Geography History Fort McDowell Immigration station Angel Island State Park Ecology 2008 fire Access Geography Port of Angel Island Angel Island is the second largest island in area of the San Francisco Bay (Alameda is the largest). The island is so large that on a clear day, Sonoma and Napa can be seen from the north side of the island; San Jose can be seen from the south side of the island. The highest point on the island, almost exactly at its center, is Mount Caroline Livermore at a height of 788 feet (240 m).
    [Show full text]
  • 35 Oak Ecosystem Restoration on Santa Catalina Island, California
    35 CATALINA ISLAND’S INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON INVASION AND PROTECTION OF OAK ECOSYSTEMS John Knapp Native Range, Inc. (formerly the Catalina Island Conservancy’s Invasive Plant Program Manager) 4360 E. Main St., Suite A #478, Ventura, California 93003, USA, [email protected] ABSTRACT: Invasive species are considered one of the greatest threats to biodiversity and are the leading cause of species extinctions in island ecosystems; Catalina Island, California is no exception. The Catalina Island Conservancy, which owns and manages 88% of the 19,425-hectare island, has developed and implemented a comprehensive management program (Catalina Habitat Improvement and Restoration Program, CHIRP) to protect its unique ecosystems from priority invasive plant species. In 2003, an extensive island-wide invasive plant survey and analysis was conducted, and 76 non-native invasive plant species were mapped and prioritized for management action. Thirty-nine of these taxa were found to infest island scrub oak chaparral while nine invade island oak woodland. Not all 39 species that have invaded oak ecosystems are considered a serious threat to these systems, nor are they all being targeted. In 2004, the CHIRP program was initiated utilizing both a species-based and a site-based approach to prioritizing management actions, along with treatment along dispersal corridors, and prevention of new introductions. This combination of management approaches, based on extensive research data, has resulted in 43 priority invasive plant species being targeted for some type of management action: eradication (25 species), reduction (6 species), and control (12 species). Of the species being managed island-wide, 18 species are considered to be the most threatening to oak ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Genista Monspessulana (L.) L
    \ ' CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF :(c dfa FOOD & AGRICULTURE ~ California Pest Rating Proposal for Genista monspessulana (L.) L. A. S. Johnson: French broom, Family Fabaceae Current Pest Rating: C Proposed Pest Rating: C Synonyms: Cytisus monspessulanus L., Teline monspessulana (L.) K. Koch Other common names: Montpellier broom, Cape broom, soft broom Comment Period:04/16/2020 through 05/31/2020 Initiating Event: This species is on the CCR 4500 List of noxious weed species and has not previously undergone the pest rating proposal process. History & Status: Background: French broom, Genista monspessulana, is an erect-stemmed unarmed evergreen shrub growing up to 3 meters in height (DiTomaso and Healy, 2007; Gibbs, 1968; Talavera and Gibbs, 2006). The greenish twigs are angular in cross section and usually silky-hairy. The leaves are short-stalked and trifoliate. The obovate to oblanceolate leaflets are approximately 10-15 mm in length and hairy, especially on the lower surface. The inflorescences are borne on short shoots in the leaf axils and consist of dense clusters of 3 to 10 flowers. The silky-hairy calyx is approximately 5-7 mm in length, with the lower lip longer than the upper. The pea-like flowers are yellow, with a broadly ovate banner petal approximately 10-17 mm in length. The narrowly oblong legume fruit is approximately 15 to 25 mm long and silky-hairy. The ovoid seeds are approximately 2.6 to 3.3 mm in length and yellowish- green, brownish, or black in color. Worldwide Distribution: French broom is native to scrub and open woodland habitats in the Mediterranean region of Europe, including the islands of Sardinia, Sicily, and Corsica, and parts of southwestern Asia and north coastal Africa (USDA GRIN database; Gibbs, 1968).
    [Show full text]
  • Plants at MCBG
    Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens All recorded plants as of 10/1/2016 Scientific Name Common Name Family Abelia x grandiflora 'Confetti' VARIEGATED ABELIA CAPRIFOLIACEAE Abelia x grandiflora 'Francis Mason' GLOSSY ABELIA CAPRIFOLIACEAE Abies delavayi var. forrestii SILVER FIR PINACEAE Abies durangensis DURANGO FIR PINACEAE Abies fargesii Farges' fir PINACEAE Abies forrestii var. smithii Forrest fir PINACEAE Abies grandis GRAND FIR PINACEAE Abies koreana KOREAN FIR PINACEAE Abies koreana 'Blauer Eskimo' KOREAN FIR PINACEAE Abies lasiocarpa 'Glacier' PINACEAE Abies nebrodensis SILICIAN FIR PINACEAE Abies pinsapo var. marocana MOROCCAN FIR PINACEAE Abies recurvata var. ernestii CHIEN-LU FIR PINACEAE Abies vejarii VEJAR FIR PINACEAE Abutilon 'Fon Vai' FLOWERING MAPLE MALVACEAE Abutilon 'Kirsten's Pink' FLOWERING MAPLE MALVACEAE Abutilon megapotamicum TRAILING ABUTILON MALVACEAE Abutilon x hybridum 'Peach' CHINESE LANTERN MALVACEAE Acacia craspedocarpa LEATHER LEAF ACACIA FABACEAE Acacia cultriformis KNIFE-LEAF WATTLE FABACEAE Acacia farnesiana SWEET ACACIA FABACEAE Acacia pravissima OVEN'S WATTLE FABACEAE Acaena inermis 'Rubra' NEW ZEALAND BUR ROSACEAE Acca sellowiana PINEAPPLE GUAVA MYRTACEAE Acer capillipes ACERACEAE Acer circinatum VINE MAPLE ACERACEAE Acer griseum PAPERBARK MAPLE ACERACEAE Acer macrophyllum ACERACEAE Acer negundo var. violaceum ACERACEAE Acer palmatum JAPANESE MAPLE ACERACEAE Acer palmatum 'Garnet' JAPANESE MAPLE ACERACEAE Acer palmatum 'Holland Special' JAPANESE MAPLE ACERACEAE Acer palmatum 'Inaba Shidare' CUTLEAF JAPANESE
    [Show full text]
  • Host Specificity of Uresiphita Reversalis (Guenee) (Crambidae)
    .Journal o{ the LCl'id<Jl'terists' Society .51(2 ), 1997, 149- 1.5.5 HOST SPECIFICITY OF URESIPHITA REVERSALIS (GUENEE) (CRAMBIDAE) ROSEMARY LEEN United States D epartment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, P. O. Box 236, Volcano, Hawaii 96785, USA ABSTRACT. Host specificity tests were conducted on (Jresiphita reversalis and to a lesser degree on U. pulygonalis. First instal's of U. reversalis were limited to feeding on quinolizidine-bearing tribes of fabaceous legumes. However, U polygonali.Y from the Ca­ nary Islands and u. reversalis both fail ed to complete development on Cytisus scoparius (Genisteae) beyond the second instar. Cytisus scoparius and Cytisus striatus were never observed as hosts of U. reversatis in California during the years of this study (1984- 1989). Host range of U. reversa/is encompassed six quinolizidine-bearing tribes of the Fabaceae: Genisteae, Snphoreae, Thermopsidae, Bossiaeeae, Podalyreae, and Euchresteae, although the latter two tribes have not been reported as hosts in the field. Both native and intro­ duced species in quinolizidine-bearing tribes will undoubtedly be used by U. reversalis when the opportunity arises. Additional key words: Pyralidae, Pyraustinae, aposernatism, host plant range, French broom, quinolizidine alkaloids. Uresiphita reversalis (Guenee) expande d its host range from native legumes to include several introduced ornamental broom species. Feed­ ing by U. reversalis on Genista monspessulana (L.) L. Johnson (commonly known as French broom or Genista) was first reported to the USDA Agri­ cultural Research Service, Albany, California, in 1983 when larvae caused substantial defoliation of some populations in the San Francisco Bay area.
    [Show full text]
  • NEPA--Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Environmental Agriculture Forest Assessment Service December 2011 Invasive Plant Treatment Project San Gabriel River Ranger District, Angeles National Forest and San Dimas Experimental Forest, Pacific Southwest Research Station Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California Portions of T1N, R8W, R9W, R10W, and R11W; T2N, R8W, R9W, R10W, and R11W; and T3N, R8W, R9W, and R10W, SBM For Information Contact: Marian Kadota Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team (805) 220-6388 http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/angeles/projects The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Invasive Plant Treatment Project Table of Contents
    [Show full text]