DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Departme• Forest Service

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ARLIS -.JK 146 .V54 1972 .u.s. Departme• CHECK FOR j N\~p Forest Service Agr -T- IN Fot..'b&~ . Leslie A. Viereck .·.·.:.·.·:·:: : ,. / ..·· /: / ·· .. ·· .. .. / / ··•.. /:· I / ')·... / _./ ··•· ... / ··. ·. / ...... .. .. ' / /: / .. ' ·:· ' -~; :1 'H :B:·:. H "-;~.;.;.·:·>.•.,••• 'J ••• ·.············~:.•. ·.·.·.·.·.·.·X:-:·:··-·.·.:.:;;;:·:·.·.·.·.·.·.·~·.·.··········-.{:"'·>~·~r· \•;;::.;>~:·~:·"i::·:·:·:·»!!;•;-;o;·!'~:.:-".. 'X.: ... ·.::lt;... ... X''Xol•... ~·...... l1ltl>lf~: 1\t::.~=.L:::- i<:(:_<:··:: :-:·· L.;.i.. • ..... ·:.'.·.·.'.'.:· ·:· : .. · .·.·; . .... ··;.: .. ·:.:.:: ' ~ . ... .· :: ·. ·::; ........ ALASKA TRE AND SHRUBS by Leslie A. Viereck, Principal Plant Ecologist Institute of Northern Forestry Pacific Northwest Forest and-Range E;xperiment Station U.S.D.A. Forest SerVice, College, Alaska and I' ·~- Elbert L. Little, Jr., Chief Dendrologist i '::!- ~ Division of Timber Management Research 0 U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 0 0 ~ 0'­ "l"' {'() ~ Agriculture Handbook No. 410 Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture ARLIS Washington, D.C. 1972 Alaska Resources Library & Information Services ARLIS Alaska Resources Library & Information Services ife Serviae """"'',..,."..... "'oad Anchorage, Alaska 9-9-503 Library of Congress Catalog Card;Number: 70-176230 Cover: The scratchboard cover design by William Berry is a typical white spruce-paper birch stand in interior Alaska in early winter. The shrub layer is alder and willow. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 001-00<Hl1344-1 CONTENTS Page List of species ~--------------------------------------------- 1v Introduction ------------------------------------------------ 1 Previous work ------------------------------------------ 2 Preparation of this handbook ----------------------------- 3 Plan --------------------------------------------------- 4 How to use this handbook -------------------------------- 5 )lcknowledgTJnents ----------~---------------------------- 5 Statistical summary -----"------------------------------------- 6 Growth forms -------------------------------~----------- 6 )llaska trees --------------~-----~----------------------- 8 Geographic distribution ----~~---------------------------- 9 Local and rare species ------------------------------------ 10 Vegetation of )llaska _________________ ..\______________________ 11 Coastal forests --------------------------~--------------- 13 1. Coastal spruce-hemlock forests --------------------- 14 Interior forests ---------~--.:______________________________ 15 2. Closed spruce-hardwood forests --------------------- 15 3. Open, low growing spruce forests ------------------- 18 4. Treeless bogs ---------.--...::._________________________ 19 5. Shrub thickets _________ ::.:.:._________________________ 20 Tundra ------------------------------------------------- 21 6. Moist tundra ------------------------------------- 21 7. Wet tundra --------------------------------------- 22 8. )llpine tundra ------------------------------------ 22 Vegetation map ----------------------------------------- 23 Keys for identification________________________________________ 24 Key to )llaska trees based mainly on leaves ________________ 25 Winter key to deciduous trees of )llaska -------------------- 28 Key to genera of )llaska shrubs ---------------------------- 30 Winter key to )llaska shrubs ------------------------------ 34 Alaska trees and shrubs -------------------------------------- 43 Key to )llaska willows ----------------------------------- 78 Vegetative Key to )llaska willows ------------------------- 82 Selected references ------------------------------------------ 254 Index of common and scientific names ------------------------- 260 iii LIST OF SPECIES 1 Page Yew :family (Taxaceae) 1. Pacific yew, Tamus brevifolia Nutt. (LS-ST, C, R) 44 Pine :family (Pinaceae) 2. lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta Dougl. (ST-LT, C) ________ 45 3. tamarack, Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch (ST-MT, I) ___ 48 4. black spruce, Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P. (ST-MT, I) ____ 51 5. *whitespruce,Piceaglauca (Moench) Voss (MT-LT,I-c) __ 52 6. *Sitka spruce,.Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. (LT, C) ______ 54 7. *western hemlock, Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. (LT, C) ------------------------------------------- 58 8. *mountain hemlock, Tsuga mertensianu, (Bong.) Carr. (ST-LT, C) --------------------------------------- 59 9. Pacific silver fir, .Abies arnabilis (Dougl.) Forbes (MT-LT, C,R) ---------------------------------------------- 61 10. subalpine fir, .Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. (ST-LT, C,R) ---------------------------------------------- 62 Cypress :family (Cupressaceae) 11. *western redcedar, Thuja plicata. Donn (LT, C) __________ 64 12. *Alaska-cedar, Ohamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach (MT-LT, C) --------------------------------------- 66 13. common juniper, Juniperus communis L. · (PS-SS, I-C) ____ 68 14. creeping juniper, Juniperus horizontalis Moench (PS, I) ___ 69 Willow :family (Salic~eae) 15. *balsam poplar, Populus balsamifera L. (MT-LT, I-c) ___ 72 16. *black cottonwood, Populu8 trichbcarpa Torr. & Gray (LT, C) ------------------------------------------ 74 17. *quaking aspen, Populus tremuloides Michx. (SM-MT, I) __ 76 18. netlea:f willow, Salix reticulata L. (PS, I-C) ______________ 86 19. Setchell willow, Salix setchelliana Ball (PS, I-c) __________ 87 20. polar willow, Salix polaris Wahlenb. ssp. pseudopolaris (Flod.) Hult. (PS, I-c) ---------------------------- 88 21. skeletonlea:f willow, Salix phlebophylla Anderss. (PS, I) ___ 89 22. least willow, Salix rotundifolia Trautv. (PS, 1-C) ________ 90 23. arctic willow, Salix arctica Pall. (PS, I-C) _______________ 91 1 Size is indicated by letters: LT, large tree; MT, medium tree; ST, small tree; LS, large shrub; MS, medium shrub; SS, small shrub; PS, prostrate shrub. General distribution is given as I, interior, and C, coastal, with small letter where restricted, and R, rare. The 10 tree species producing nearly all the commercial timber are indicated by an asterisk (*). Explanation under Statistical Summary, page 6. iv Page 24. Alaska bog willow, Salix fusoesoens Anderss. (PS, I-C) ---- 92 25. ovallea:f willow, Salix ovalifolia Trautv. and Salix stolonifera Cov. (PS, i-C) ------------------------------------- 94 26. graylea:f willow, Salix glauoa L. (MS-ST, I-C) ------------ 95 27. barren-ground willow, Salix braohyoarpa Nutt. ssp. nipho- olada (Rydb.) Argus (SS-J\II:S, I) ------------------- 97 28. halberd willow, Salix hastata L. (MS, I) ------------------ 98 29. low blueberry willow, Salix myrtillifolia Anderss. (SS, I) --- 99 30. tall blueberry willow, Salix novae-angliae Anderss. (LS, I) -------------------------------------------- 101 31. Barclay willow, Salix barolayi Anderss. (MS-LS, I-C) ____ 102 32. Hooker willow, Salix hookeriana Cov. (LS-ST, C, R) 106 33. undergreen willow, Salix oommutata Bebb (MS, I-C) _____ 106 34. Chamisso willow, Salix ohamissonis Anderss. (PS, I) ______ 108 35. park willow, Salix montioola Bebb. (MS-LS, I-c) ________ 108 36. Richardson willow, Salix lanata L. ssp. riohardsonii (Hook.) A. Skwortz. (MS-LS, I-C) ------------------------- 110 37. Barratt willow, Salix barrattiana Hook. (SS, I) __________ 110 38. :feltlea:f willow, Salix alawensis (Anderss.) Cov. (LS-ST, I-C) ---------------------------------------------- i12 39. silver willow, Salix candida Fluegge (MS, I, R) ___________ 115 40. Bebb willow, Salix bebbiana Sarg. (LS-ST, I-C) _________ 116 41. diamondlea:f willow, Salix planifolia Pursh ssp. pulohra (Cham.) Argus (PS-LS, I-C) ______________________ 118 42. Scouler willow, Salix soouleriana Barratt (LS-MT, I-C) ___ 120 43. Sitka willow, Salix sitohensis Sanson (LS-ST, I-C) ______ 122 44. littletree willow, Salix arbusouloides Anderss. (LS-ST, I--c) -------------------------------------- 123 45. sandbar willow, Salix interior Rowlee (LS, I) ____________ 126 46. Pacific willow, Salix lasiandra Benth. (LS-ST, I--c) ________ 126 Bayberry :family (Myricaceae) 4'7. sweetgale, ·llfyrioa gale L. (SS-MS, I-C) __________________ 128 Birch :family (Betulaceae) 48. dwarf arctic birch, Betula nana L. (SS-MS, I-C) __________ 130 49. resin birch, Betula glandulosa Michx. (SS-MS, I--c) _______ 130 50. *paper birch, Betula papyrifera Marsh. (ST-LT, I-C) _____ 134 51. American green alder, Alntts orispa (Ait.) Pursh (MS-LS,I) -----------------~---------------------- 140 52. Sitka alder, Alnus sinuata (Reg.) Rydb. (LS-ST, I-C) ____ 142 53. red alder, Alnus rubra Bong. (ST-MT, C) ________________ 144 v Page 54. thinlea£ alder, Alnus tenuifolia Nutt. (LS-ST, I-C) ______ 146 Mistletoe £amily (Loranthaceae) 55. hemlock dwarf-mistletoe, Arceuthobium tsugense (Rosend.) G. N. Jones (Parasite, C) --------------------------- 146 Gooseberry £amily ( Grossulariaceae) 56. swamp gooseberry, Ribeslacustre (Pers.) Poir. (MS, I-C) __ 150 57. stink currant, Ribes bracteosum Dougl. (MS-LS, C) ______ 150 58. northern black currant, Ribes hudsonianum Richards. (PS- MS,I-C) ------------------------------------------ 152 59. skunk currant, Ribes glandulosum Grauer (SS-MS, I) _____ 154 60. trailing black currant, Ribes laxiflorum Pursh (PS-MS, C) 155 61. American red currant, Ribes triste Pall. (P.S-MS, I-C) 156 Rose £amily (Rosaceae) 62. Pacific ninebark, Physocarpus capitatus (Pursh) Kuntze (MS-LS, C) --------------------------------------- 158 63. Beauverd spirea, Spiraea beauverdiana Schneid. (SS, I-C) __ 159 64. Douglas spirea, Spiraea douglasii Hook.
Recommended publications
  • Ursus Arctos): Assessing Future Climate Impacts with Open Access Online Software

    Ursus Arctos): Assessing Future Climate Impacts with Open Access Online Software

    Predictive modeling of Alaskan brown bears (Ursus arctos): assessing future climate impacts with open access online software Item Type Thesis Authors Henkelmann, Antje Download date 24/09/2021 14:36:02 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/5040 PREDICTIVE MODELING OF ALASKAN BROWN BEARS (URSUS ARCTOS): ASSESSING FUTURE CLIMATE IMPACTS WITH OPEN ACCESS ONLINE SOFTWARE Master thesis submitted by Antje Henkelmann to the Faculty of Biology, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the integrated bi- national degree MASTER OF SCIENCE / MASTER OF INTERNATIONAL NATURE CONSERVATION (M.SC. / M.I.N.C.) of Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany and Lincoln University, New Zealand 21 February 2011 1. Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Falk Huettmann 2. Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Christoph Kleinn Abstract As vital representative indicators of the state of the ecosystem, Alaskan brown bear (Ursus arctos) populations have been studied extensively. However, an updated statewide density estimate is still absent, as are models predicting future occurrence and abundance. This kind of information is crucial to ensure population viability by adapting conservation planning to future needs. In this study, a predictive model for brown bear densities in Alaska was developed based on brown bear estimates derived on the best publicly available data (Miller et al. 1997). Salford’s TreeNet data mining software was applied to determine the impact of different environmental variables on bear density and for the first state-wide GIS prediction map for Alaska. The results emphasize the importance of ecoregions, climatic factors in December, human influence and food availability such as salmon. In order to assess the influence of changing climate conditions on brown bear populations, two different IPCC scenarios (A1B and A2) were applied to establish different predictive climate models.
  • Guide Alaska Trees

    Guide Alaska Trees

    x5 Aá24ftL GUIDE TO ALASKA TREES %r\ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Agriculture Handbook No. 472 GUIDE TO ALASKA TREES by Leslie A. Viereck, Principal Plant Ecologist Institute of Northern Forestry Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station ÜSDA Forest Service, Fairbanks, Alaska and Elbert L. Little, Jr., Chief Dendrologist Timber Management Research USD A Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Agriculture Handbook No. 472 Supersedes Agriculture Handbook No. 5 Pocket Guide to Alaska Trees United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Washington, D.C. December 1974 VIERECK, LESLIE A., and LITTLE, ELBERT L., JR. 1974. Guide to Alaska trees. U.S. Dep. Agrie., Agrie. Handb. 472, 98 p. Alaska's native trees, 32 species, are described in nontechnical terms and illustrated by drawings for identification. Six species of shrubs rarely reaching tree size are mentioned briefly. There are notes on occurrence and uses, also small maps showing distribution within the State. Keys are provided for both summer and winter, and the sum- mary of the vegetation has a map. This new Guide supersedes *Tocket Guide to Alaska Trees'' (1950) and is condensed and slightly revised from ''Alaska Trees and Shrubs" (1972) by the same authors. OXFORD: 174 (798). KEY WORDS: trees (Alaska) ; Alaska (trees). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number î 74—600104 Cover: Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis)., the State tree and largest in Alaska, also one of the most valuable. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402—Price $1.35 Stock Number 0100-03308 11 CONTENTS Page List of species iii Introduction 1 Studies of Alaska trees 2 Plan 2 Acknowledgments [ 3 Statistical summary .
  • The Alaska-Yukon Region of the Circumboreal Vegetation Map (CBVM)

    The Alaska-Yukon Region of the Circumboreal Vegetation Map (CBVM)

    CAFF Strategy Series Report September 2015 The Alaska-Yukon Region of the Circumboreal Vegetation Map (CBVM) ARCTIC COUNCIL Acknowledgements CAFF Designated Agencies: • Norwegian Environment Agency, Trondheim, Norway • Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada • Faroese Museum of Natural History, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands (Kingdom of Denmark) • Finnish Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki, Finland • Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Reykjavik, Iceland • Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Greenland • Russian Federation Ministry of Natural Resources, Moscow, Russia • Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden • United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska CAFF Permanent Participant Organizations: • Aleut International Association (AIA) • Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC) • Gwich’in Council International (GCI) • Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) • Russian Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) • Saami Council This publication should be cited as: Jorgensen, T. and D. Meidinger. 2015. The Alaska Yukon Region of the Circumboreal Vegetation map (CBVM). CAFF Strategies Series Report. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Akureyri, Iceland. ISBN: 978- 9935-431-48-6 Cover photo: Photo: George Spade/Shutterstock.com Back cover: Photo: Doug Lemke/Shutterstock.com Design and layout: Courtney Price For more information please contact: CAFF International Secretariat Borgir, Nordurslod 600 Akureyri, Iceland Phone: +354 462-3350 Fax: +354 462-3390 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.caff.is CAFF Designated
  • Plant Collecting Expedition for Berry Crop Species Through Southeastern

    Plant Collecting Expedition for Berry Crop Species Through Southeastern

    Plant Collecting Expedition for Berry Crop Species through Southeastern and Midwestern United States June and July 2007 Glassy Mountain, South Carolina Participants: Kim E. Hummer, Research Leader, Curator, USDA ARS NCGR 33447 Peoria Road, Corvallis, Oregon 97333-2521 phone 541.738.4201 [email protected] Chad E. Finn, Research Geneticist, USDA ARS HCRL, 3420 NW Orchard Ave., Corvallis, Oregon 97330 phone 541.738.4037 [email protected] Michael Dossett Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Department of Horticulture, Corvallis, OR 97330 phone 541.738.4038 [email protected] Plant Collecting Expedition for Berry Crops through the Southeastern and Midwestern United States, June and July 2007 Table of Contents Table of Contents.................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements:................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 4 Part I – Southeastern United States ...................................................................................... 5 Summary.............................................................................................................................. 5 Travelog May-June 2007.................................................................................................... 6 Conclusions for part 1 .....................................................................................................
  • Are Our Raspberries Derived from American Or European Species ? Geo

    Are Our Raspberries Derived from American Or European Species ? Geo

    ARE OUR RASPBERRIES DERIVED FROM AMERICAN OR EUROPEAN SPECIES ? GEO. M. DARROW Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture T HAS been the common supposition Foche* makes but one species of both, of pomologists that most of our classing R. strigosius as a variety of I cultivated red raspberries are de- R. idaeus. His distinctions between the rived from American species. Va- two, however, are similar to those of rieties from the European species have Rydberg, but he emphasizes the fact been considered very susceptible to win- that while the upper part of the ma- ter injury while those from the Amer- ture plants of R. strigosus is densely, ican species have been considered very rarely sparsely bristly, the upper part hardy. Because varieties of red rasp- of R. idaeus is without bristles, berries commonly grown in this conn- An examination of Rubus idaeus try have been moderately hardy they grown in this country under garden were, therefore, thought to be derived conditions show that these distinctions from the American species. are apparently correct. As Rydberg A brief review of the points of dif- states, the plants are not glandular- ference between the two species of red hispid, the stems, peduncles, and raspberries which are the parents of our sepals are tomentose, the fruit is dark cultivated varieties will show how er- red • and thimble shaped. As Card roneous this view is. states, the canes are stouter, and less Rydberg1 gives the following distinc- free in habit of growth. The'prickles tions between the European and Amer- are firm, recurved, and less numerous ican species : than the bristles of R- strigosus.
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24

    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24

    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2018-07-24 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff July 24, 2018 2 Cover image: map of 16,213 georeferenced occurrence records included in the checklist. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 55 Vascular Plants........................................................ 91 Bryophytes ..........................................................164 Other Plants .........................................................171 Chromista...........................................................171 Fungi .............................................................173 Protozoans ..........................................................186 Non-native species 187 Vertebrates ..........................................................187 Invertebrates .........................................................187 Vascular Plants........................................................190 Extirpated species 207 Vertebrates ..........................................................207 Vascular Plants........................................................207 Change log 211 References 213 Index 215 3 Introduction Purpose to avoid implying
  • Spiked Saxifrage,Micranthes Spicata

    Spiked Saxifrage,Micranthes Spicata

    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Spiked Saxifrage Micranthes spicata in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2015 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2015. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Spiked Saxifrage Micranthes spicata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 38 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Spiked Saxifrage Micranthes spicata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 35 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Rhonda Rosie for writing the status report on the Spiked Saxifrage (Micranthes spicata) in Canada. This report was prepared under contract with Environment Canada and was overseen and edited by Bruce Bennett, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Vascular Plant Species Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Saxifrage à épis (Micranthes spicata) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Spiked Saxifrage — Photo: Syd Cannings. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2015. Catalogue No. CW69-14/677-2015E-PDF ISBN 978-0-660-02623-7 COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – May 2015 Common name Spiked Saxifrage Scientific name Micranthes spicata Status Special Concern Reason for designation This perennial wildflower grows only in Yukon and Alaska.
  • Raspberry Breeding and Protection Against Disease and Pests I

    Raspberry Breeding and Protection Against Disease and Pests I

    391 Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 20 (No 2) 2014, 391-404 Agricultural Academy RASPBERRY BREEDING AND PROTECTION AGAINST DISEASE AND PESTS I. TOTIC State University of Novi Pazar, Novi Pazar, Republic of Serbia Abstract TOTIC, I., 2014. Raspberry breeding and protection against disease and pests. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 20: 391-404 The raspberry (Rubus idaeus) is a very important type of small perennial berry. Based on the extent of its production, it comes second only to the strawberry and currant, and based on its economic importance, it is second only to the strawberry. Considering that the first raspberry cultivars in the true sense of the word originated from the beginning of the 17th century, polmology has managed to this day to register and systematize over one thousand raspberry cultivars. The raspberry belongs to the group of products, which have the greatest degree of marketability, and in some countries (the Republic of Serbia) over 99 % of the overall production is meant to be sold on the market. In suitable agro-ecological and technical conditions (a profes- sional staff, processing and freezing capacities, organized purchase locations, high quality roads and means of transportation, a sufficient workforce needed to harvest the crop), it is possible to achieve a yield of up to 35 tons per acre. Raspberry canes meant for planting need to be formed in suitable soil and must be healthy. Raspberries are traditionally cultivated in open ar- eas, and lately also in high tunnels. The canes are susceptible to disease caused by different types of pests and weeds. In order to protect them, it is necessary to regularly resort to pomotechnic and agrotechnic measures in order to prevent cane decay and a poor harvest.
  • And Flora of the Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum

    And Flora of the Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum

    THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND FLORA OF THE MAttHAEI BOTANICAL GARDENS AND NICHOLS ARBORETUM BEVERLY WALTERS : MARY HEJNA : CONNIE CRANCER : JEFF PLAKKE 2011-2012 Caring for Nature, Enriching Life mbgna.umich.edu ACKNOWLEDgements This report is the product of a project entitled Assessing Globally-Ranked At-Risk Native Plant Communities: A General Conservation Survey of High Quality Natural Areas of the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum, which was funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Principal Investigator: Bob Grese, Director, Matthaei-Nichols. Lead Author: David Michener, Curator, Matthaei-Nichols. Editor and Project Manager: Jeff Plakke, Natural Areas Manager, Matthaei-Nichols. IMLS Sponsored Botanist: Beverly Walters, Research Museum Collection Manager (Vascular Plants), University of Michigan Herbarium. Assisting Botanist: Connie Crancer, Native Plant Specialist, Matthaei-Nichols. IMLS Sponsored GIS Technician: Mary Hejna Natural Areas Advisory Committee: Burt Barnes, Professor Emeritus, University of Michigan Dave Borneman, City of Ann Arbor Natural Areas Preservation Manager Aunita Erskine, Volunteer Steward Drew Lathin, Huron Arbor Cluster Coordinator for The Stewardship Network Kris Olson, Watershed Ecologist, Huron River Watershed Council Anton Reznicek, Assistant Director and Curator, University of Michigan Herbarium Shawn Severance, Washtenaw County Natural Areas Naturalist Sylvia Taylor, Faculty Emeritus, University of Michigan Scott Tyrell, Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy Volunteer Dana Wright, Land Stewardship Coordinator, Legacy Land Conservancy Many thanks also to Paul Berry for releasing Bev from duties at the University of Michigan Herbarium so that she could conduct the surveys, to Tony Reznicek for assistance with plant identification, and to Aunita Erskine for assistance in the field. Photographs on cover page and page 94 taken by MBGNA Staff.
  • Downloaded From

    Downloaded From

    Rubus strigosus Michx. Common Names: American red raspberry (1), wild red raspberry (6), grayleaf red raspberry (2). Etymology: “Rubus” is the latin word for blackberry/raspberry and “strigosus” is the latin word for thin (5). Botanical synonyms: Rubus idaeus L. ssp. strigosus (Michx.) Focke, Rubus melanolasius Dieck, Rubus neglectus Peck, Rubus carolinianus Rydb (2). FAMILY: Rosaceae, the Rose family (1) Quick Notable Features: ¬ Glandular-bristly stems ¬ Pinnately compound leaves with 3- 5 serrated leaflets, abaxially glaucous ¬ Perfect, white flowers with the sepals longer than the petals ¬ Red aggregate of drupelets that separates from the receptacle Plant Height: Rubus strigosus can reach up to 2m (7). Subspecies/varieties recognized (source 1,13): R. strigosus var. aberratus, R. strigosus var. acalyphaceus, R. strigosus var. albus, R. strigosus var. arizonicus, R. strigosus var. caudatus, R. strigosus var. eucyclus, R. strigosus var. heterolasius, R. strigosus var. strigosus, R. strigosus var. tonsus. Most Likely Confused with: Other members of the genus Rubus, such as Rubus occidentalis, Rubus idaeus, and Rubus neglectus. Rosa englanteria and Rosa setigera may also be similar in appearance (8,9). Habitat PreFerence: Rubus strigosus grows in open or disturbed areas with well drained soil (7,8). Geographic Distribution in Michigan: Rubus strigosus is found in most counties of the Upper and Lower Peninsulas (2). Known Elevational Distribution: R. strigosus was found at Mount Mitchell State Park (NC), at an elevation of 2,037m (12). Complete Geographic Distribution: R. strigosus is native to North America and widely distributed on the United States (AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, IA, ID, IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY), Canada (AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, NU, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT), and France (St.
  • A Vascular Flora Inventory

    A Vascular Flora Inventory

    A Vascular Flora Inventory Ottawa Sands Ottawa County Parks, Michigan September 2020 Prepared by William Martinus & Associates Financial assistance for this project was provided, in part, by the Coastal Management Program, Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, under the National Coastal Zone Management program, through a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations in this report are those of the Ottawa County Parks & Recreation Commission and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction and Purpose 3 II. Overview 3 III. Plant Communities 4 IV. Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species 5 V. Species Lists 7 VI. References 21 2 I. Introduction and Purpose Ottawa Sands, Ottawa County Parks, consists of 345 acres including an 80-acre inland lake, natural forests, coastal dunes, intermittent wetlands, inundated shrub swamp, and riparian marsh, shrub, and swamp communities. The eleven natural plant communities occurring on the site are listed along with hundreds of associated plant and animal species. - Ottawa Sands is located near the mouth of the Grand River in sections 17, 18 and 20 of Spring Lake Township, Ottawa County, in Western Michigan. - Property includes 5,585 feet of Grand River frontage. - A Floristic Quality Assessment demonstrates that a diverse and extremely high-quality plant component exists at Ottawa Sands. Purpose - To gain an understanding of the vegetative plant communities and flora of western Ottawa County and central west Michigan area.
  • National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings

    National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings

    Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1–17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X THE NATIONAL WETLAND PLANT LIST: 2016 WETLAND RATINGS ROBERT W. LICHVAR U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 72 Lyme Road Hanover, New Hampshire 03755-1290 DARIN L. BANKS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Watershed Support, Wetland and Stream Protection Section 11201 Renner Boulevard Lenexa, Kansas 66219 WILLIAM N. KIRCHNER U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 911 NE 11 th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 NORMAN C. MELVIN USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Central National Technology Support Center 501 W. Felix Street, Bldg. 23 Fort Worth, Texas 76115-3404 ABSTRACT The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) administers the National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) for the United States (U.S.) and its territories. Responsibility for the NWPL was transferred to the Corps from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 2006. From 2006 to 2012 the Corps led an interagency effort to update the list in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FWS, and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), culminating in the publication of the 2012 NWPL. In 2013 and 2014 geographic ranges and nomenclature were updated. This paper presents the fourth update of the list under Corps administration. During the current update, the indicator status of 1689 species was reviewed. A total of 306 ratings of 186 species were changed during the update.