DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Community and Plant Inventory of Grass River Natural

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Community and Plant Inventory of Grass River Natural Natural Community Delineation and Floristic Quality Assessments of Grass River Natural Area, Antrim County, Michigan Prepared by: Rachel Hackett, Phyllis Higman, and Liana May Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Grass River Natural Area 6500 Alden Hwy, Bellaire, MI 49615 December 31, 2017 Report No. 2017-12 Funding for this project was provided by the Grass River Natural Area through a grant from the Grand Traverse Regional Community Foundation. Suggested Citation: Hackett, R.A., P. Higman, and L. May. 2017. Natural Community Delineation and Floristic Quality Assessments of Grass River Natural Area, Antrim County, Michigan. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report No. 2017-12, Lansing, MI. 64 pp. Appendices: 62 pp. Copyright 2017 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientations, marital status, or family status. Cover photographs: Utricularia cornuta in northern fen, MI #1A, Antrim Co., Mich., June 20, 2017; Sarracenia purpurea in rich conifer swamp, DELANGE #1B, Antrim Co., MI, June 23, 2017. All photographs in report by R.A. Hackett unless otherwise noted. Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Survey Site .................................................................................................................................. 2 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 7 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Natural Communities .................................................................................................................. 8 Emergent Marsh .................................................................................................................... 11 Northern Wet Meadow .......................................................................................................... 13 Northern Fen ......................................................................................................................... 15 Northern Shrub Thicket ......................................................................................................... 21 Poor Conifer Swamp ............................................................................................................. 23 Rich Conifer Swamp ............................................................................................................. 26 Hardwood-Conifer Swamp ................................................................................................... 30 Dry-mesic Northern Forest ................................................................................................... 33 Mesic Northern Forest .......................................................................................................... 35 Anthropogenic Systems ............................................................................................................ 37 Vernal pools .............................................................................................................................. 41 Species Documented ................................................................................................................. 44 Threats ...................................................................................................................................... 47 Invasive Species .................................................................................................................... 47 Nutrient loading .................................................................................................................... 51 Groundwater contamination ................................................................................................. 51 Land use restrictions ......................................................................................................... 51 Underground storage tanks ............................................................................................... 51 Environmental contamination ........................................................................................... 51 Abandoned wells ............................................................................................................... 51 Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 52 Natural Communities ................................................................................................................ 52 Anthropogenic Systems ............................................................................................................ 53 Species Documented ................................................................................................................. 54 Rare species .......................................................................................................................... 55 Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................ 55 Open wetland invaders ......................................................................................................... 56 Early detection species ......................................................................................................... 56 Shrubs ................................................................................................................................... 56 Thistles .................................................................................................................................. 57 Swamp ground covers ........................................................................................................... 57 Natural Community Delineation and FQAs, Grass River Natural Area, Page i Spotted knapweed .................................................................................................................. 57 Other non-native species ....................................................................................................... 58 Invasive Species Decontamination Protocols ....................................................................... 58 Shoreline Habitat ...................................................................................................................... 58 Groundwater Contamination & Water Quality ......................................................................... 59 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 60 References ..................................................................................................................................... 61 Figures Figure 1. A loon visits Clam Lake. ............................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Location of GRNA in Sub-subsection VII.2.3 Vanderbilt Moraines. ........................... 3 Figure 3. Grass River Natural Area Parcel Map. .......................................................................... 4 Figure 4. Groundwater-influenced northern fen .......................................................................... 5 Figure 5. Circa 1800 vegetation of GRNA ................................................................................... 6 Figure 6. Phragmites australis subsp. americanus in northern fen . ............................................ 9 Figure 7. Natural communities and anthropogenic systems delineated in GRNA ..................... 10 Figure 8. Emergent marsh along the edge of northern shrub thicket .......................................... 11 Figure 9. Emergent marsh delineated within the parcel boundaries of GRNA. ......................... 12 Figure 10. Northern wet meadow borders the Grass River .......................................................... 13 Figure 11. Northern wet meadow delineated within the parcel boundaries of GRNA ................. 14 Figure 12. Horned bladderwort growing in a marl zone of northern fen. ..................................... 15 Figure 13. Peat mounds covered with sphagnum mosses, sedges and stunted conifers ............... 16 Figure 14. Pitcher plant in northern fen ........................................................................................ 16 Figure 15. Many forbs bloom in late summer among the sedges in northern fen ........................ 17 Figure 16. A sandhill crane in northern fen .................................................................................. 18 Figure 17. Kalm’s lobelia in northern fen ..................................................................................... 18 Figure 18. Bulrush in northern fen ................................................................................................ 19 Figure 19. Northern fen delineated within the parcel boundaries of GRNA ................................ 20 Figure 20. Dense shrubs dominate
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RI Equisetopsida and Lycopodiopsida.Indd
    IIntroductionntroduction byby FFrancisrancis UnderwoodUnderwood Rhode Island Equisetopsida, Lycopodiopsida and Isoetopsida Special Th anks to the following for giving permission for the use their images. Robbin Moran New York Botanical Garden George Yatskievych and Ann Larson Missouri Botanical Garden Jan De Laet, plantsystematics.org Th is pdf is a companion publication to Rhode Island Equisetopsida, Lycopodiopsida & Isoetopsida at among-ri-wildfl owers.org Th e Elfi n Press 2016 Introduction Formerly known as fern allies, Horsetails, Club-mosses, Fir-mosses, Spike-mosses and Quillworts are plants that have an alternate generation life-cycle similar to ferns, having both sporophyte and gametophyte stages. Equisetopsida Horsetails date from the Devonian period (416 to 359 million years ago) in earth’s history where they were trees up to 110 feet in height and helped to form the coal deposits of the Carboniferous period. Only one genus has survived to modern times (Equisetum). Horsetails Horsetails (Equisetum) have jointed stems with whorls of thin narrow leaves. In the sporophyte stage, they have a sterile and fertile form. Th ey produce only one type of spore. While the gametophytes produced from the spores appear to be plentiful, the successful reproduction of the sporophyte form is low with most Horsetails reproducing vegetatively. Lycopodiopsida Lycopodiopsida includes the clubmosses (Dendrolycopodium, Diphasiastrum, Lycopodiella, Lycopodium , Spinulum) and Fir-mosses (Huperzia) Clubmosses Clubmosses are evergreen plants that produce only microspores that develop into a gametophyte capable of producing both sperm and egg cells. Club-mosses can produce the spores either in leaf axils or at the top of their stems. Th e spore capsules form in a cone-like structures (strobili) at the top of the plants.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • State of Colorado 2016 Wetland Plant List
    5/12/16 State of Colorado 2016 Wetland Plant List 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 http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ Aquilegia caerulea James (Colorado Blue Columbine) Photo: William Gray List Counts: Wetland AW GP WMVC Total UPL 83 120 101 304 FACU 440 393 430 1263 FAC 333 292 355 980 FACW 342 329 333 1004 OBL 279 285 285 849 Rating 1477 1419 1504 1511 User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps Region. 3) Some state boundaries lie within two or more Corps Regions. If a species occurs in one region but not the other, its rating will be shown in one column and the other column will be BLANK. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 1/22 5/12/16 Scientific Name Authorship AW GP WMVC Common Name Abies bifolia A. Murr. FACU FACU Rocky Mountain Alpine Fir Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL UPL FACU Velvetleaf Acalypha rhomboidea Raf. FACU FACU Common Three-Seed-Mercury Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FACU Rocky Mountain Maple Acer grandidentatum Nutt. FACU FAC FACU Canyon Maple Acer negundo L. FACW FAC FAC Ash-Leaf Maple Acer platanoides L. UPL UPL FACU Norw ay Maple Acer saccharinum L. FAC FAC FAC Silver Maple Achillea millefolium L. FACU FACU FACU Common Yarrow Achillea ptarmica L.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • TALL BEECH FERN a New Beech
    TALL BEECH FERN A new beech fern in New England, New York, and Canada Arthur V. Gilman 16 January 2020 This document is meant to be an aid to identification of Phegopteris excelsior, tall beech fern, which has recently been recognized as a new, but cryptic, species. As outlined below, evidence shows it is of hybrid origin, with half or even three quarters of its genome contributed by long beech fern and the rest by another beech fern species—but what (and where) that species may be, is yet unknown. Its resemblance to the long beech fern in its heritage means tall beech fern can be difficult to identify. My experience over the past 25 years, however, is that it can be field-identified—at least, if plants are relatively well-grown and robust. I have found it in approximately 15–20 locations, more or less evenly divided between central Maine and northern Vermont, where most of my field work has been done. This guide is primarily visual, showing well-grown plants and giving some pointers on the diagnostic characters. Unfortunately, no completely unequivocal visual characters have emerged and only chromosome number and molecular markers are one hundred percent diagnostic. Nevertheless, avid pteridologists should be able to confidently identify a large majority of plants encountered, based on the images presented here. I wish to thank Niki Patel and Susan Fawcett, my co-authors on the paper that formalized P. excelsior, with special thanks also extended to David Barrington and Heather Driscoll. These botanists accomplished laboratory work and data analysis far beyond my capabilities, which are mainly those of a field botanist.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps
    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Virginia: Ecological Groups and Community Types
    COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA The Natural Communities of Virginia: Ecological Groups and Community Types Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage Natural Heritage Technical Report 21-15 July 2021 Cover photos by Gary Fleming This report can be cited as: Fleming, Gary P. and Karen D. Patterson 2021. Natural Communities of Virginia: Ecological Groups and Community Types: a listing with conservation status ranks. Natural Heritage Technical Report 21-15. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia. 31 pages. The Natural Communities of Virginia: Ecological Groups and Community Types a listing with conservation status ranks July 2021 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 600 East Main Street, 24th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 List Compiled by Gary P. Fleming, Vegetation Ecologist Karen D. Patterson, Vegetation Ecologist Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................. I CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE ......................................................................................................................................................... i RELATIONSHIP TO THE USNVC AND OTHER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM .......................................................................................... iii CHANGES TO CLASSES, ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY GROUPS AND COMMUNITY
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Notes
    Botanical Notes ISSN 1541-8626 An irregularly published newsletter dedicated to dispersing taxonomic and ecological information useful for plant identification and conservation primarily in New England Available online at http://www.woodlotalt.com/publications/publications.htm Number 12. 22 July 2007 30 Park Drive, Topsham, ME 04086 AN EMENDED DESCRIPTION AND POSSIBLE number of upright shoots per horizontal shoot segment. ORIGIN OF LYCOPODIELLA SUBAPPRESSA In fact, images of pressed specimens provided by Bruce et al. (1991; Figure 1, page 5) clearly show (LYCOPODIACEAE) inconsistencies with the collected plants and the written description (e.g., the sporophylls and upright shoot Lycopodiella Holub is a small, but difficult, genus of trophophylls are not appressed as stated in the text and wetland clubmosses. Contributing to the complexity of identification key). Table 1 compares critical the group is the presence of three different ploidy morphological features for L. appressa, L. subappressa levels—diploid, triploid, and tetraploid. Bruce (1975) (both original and emended descriptions), and L. first noted the presence of two tetraploid Lycopodiella ×copelandii (Eiger) Cranfill. and abortive-spored triploid hybrids in North America. He informally named the two tetraploid species “northern appressum” and “appressed inundatum”. He attributed Michigan and Nova Scotia to “northern appressum” and Michigan and New England to “appressed inundatum”. These two species were formally described by Bruce et al. (1991) as L. subappressa (“northern appressum”) and L. margueritae (“appressed inundatum”). Both Bruce et al. (1991) and Wagner and Beitel (1993) considered both species restricted to Michigan. No statements were provided to refute the earlier reports of either species in northeastern North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Ferns of the National Forests in Alaska
    Ferns of the National Forests in Alaska United States Forest Service R10-RG-182 Department of Alaska Region June 2010 Agriculture Ferns abound in Alaska’s two national forests, the Chugach and the Tongass, which are situated on the southcentral and southeastern coast respectively. These forests contain myriad habitats where ferns thrive. Most showy are the ferns occupying the forest floor of temperate rainforest habitats. However, ferns grow in nearly all non-forested habitats such as beach meadows, wet meadows, alpine meadows, high alpine, and talus slopes. The cool, wet climate highly influenced by the Pacific Ocean creates ideal growing conditions for ferns. In the past, ferns had been loosely grouped with other spore-bearing vascular plants, often called “fern allies.” Recent genetic studies reveal surprises about the relationships among ferns and fern allies. First, ferns appear to be closely related to horsetails; in fact these plants are now grouped as ferns. Second, plants commonly called fern allies (club-mosses, spike-mosses and quillworts) are not at all related to the ferns. General relationships among members of the plant kingdom are shown in the diagram below. Ferns & Horsetails Flowering Plants Conifers Club-mosses, Spike-mosses & Quillworts Mosses & Liverworts Thirty of the fifty-four ferns and horsetails known to grow in Alaska’s national forests are described and pictured in this brochure. They are arranged in the same order as listed in the fern checklist presented on pages 26 and 27. 2 Midrib Blade Pinnule(s) Frond (leaf) Pinna Petiole (leaf stalk) Parts of a fern frond, northern wood fern (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Autumn Willow in Rocky Mountain Region the Black Hills National
    United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Assessment Forest Service for the Autumn Willow in Rocky Mountain Region the Black Hills National Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Forest Custer, South Dakota Wyoming April 2003 J.Hope Hornbeck, Carolyn Hull Sieg, and Deanna J. Reyher Species Assessment of Autumn willow in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming J. Hope Hornbeck, Carolyn Hull Sieg and Deanna J. Reyher J. Hope Hornbeck is a Botanist with the Black Hills National Forest in Custer, South Dakota. She completed a B.S. in Environmental Biology (botany emphasis) at The University of Montana and a M.S. in Plant Biology (plant community ecology emphasis) at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Carolyn Hull Sieg is a Research Plant Ecologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Flagstaff, Arizona. She completed a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and M.S. in Range Science from Colorado State University and a Ph.D. in Range and Wildlife Management (fire ecology) at Texas Tech University. Deanna J. Reyher is Ecologist/Soil Scientist with the Black Hills National Forest in Custer, South Dakota. She completed a B.S. degree in Agronomy (soil science and crop production emphasis) from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Autumn willow, Salix serissima (Bailey) Fern., is an obligate wetland shrub that occurs in fens and bogs in the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. Disjunct populations of autumn willow occur in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Only two populations occur on Black Hills National Forest lands: a large population at McIntosh Fen and a small population on Middle Boxelder Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Nabalus Racemosus (Michx.) Hook. Glaucous White Lettuce
    New England Plant Conservation Program Nabalus racemosus (Michx.) Hook. Glaucous white lettuce Conservation and Research Plan for New England Prepared by: Lisa St. Hilaire Ecologist 14 Prospect St. Augusta, Maine 04339 USA For: New England Wild Flower Society 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 USA 508/877-7630 e-mail: [email protected] • website: www.newfs.org Approved, Regional Advisory Council, December 2003 1 SUMMARY Nabalus racemosus (Michx.) Hook., glaucous white lettuce, is a perennial member of the Asteraceae or composite family. It is considered globally secure (G5), but in New England, it is known only from northern Maine, primarily along the St. John River. There are also several occurrences along the Aroostook River. Ice scour and flooding are common annual disturbances on these rivers. Many of the N. racemosus populations were discovered during survey efforts for Pedicularis furbishiae (Furbish’s lousewort), and both species, as well as many other rarities, may be found at some sites. In other parts of the country, N. racemosus grows in prairie communities. There are currently 31 extant occurrences in Maine, 28 of these along the St. John River, and three on the Aroostook River. There are four historic occurrences, all on the Aroostook River, and one extirpated population on the Aroostook River. Nabalus racemosus is a species of Special Concern in Maine, where it is ranked S3. Other nearby areas from which it is recorded include New Brunswick (S3), Nova Scotia (S1), Newfoundland Island (S1S2), Labrador (SR), Quebec (SR), Vermont (SR), New Jersey (SH), New York (SX), and Pennsylvania (SX). Little is known regarding the biology of Nabalus racemosus.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecophysiology of Four Co-Occurring Lycophyte Species: an Investigation of Functional Convergence
    Research Article Ecophysiology of four co-occurring lycophyte species: an investigation of functional convergence Jacqlynn Zier, Bryce Belanger, Genevieve Trahan and James E. Watkins* Department of Biology, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY 13346, USA Received: 22 June 2015; Accepted: 7 November 2015; Published: 24 November 2015 Associate Editor: Tim J. Brodribb Citation: Zier J, Belanger B, Trahan G, Watkins JE. 2015. Ecophysiology of four co-occurring lycophyte species: an investigation of functional convergence. AoB PLANTS 7: plv137; doi:10.1093/aobpla/plv137 Abstract. Lycophytes are the most early divergent extant lineage of vascular land plants. The group has a broad global distribution ranging from tundra to tropical forests and can make up an important component of temperate northeast US forests. We know very little about the in situ ecophysiology of this group and apparently no study has eval- uated if lycophytes conform to functional patterns expected by the leaf economics spectrum hypothesis. To determine factors influencing photosynthetic capacity (Amax), we analysed several physiological traits related to photosynthesis to include stomatal, nutrient, vascular traits, and patterns of biomass distribution in four coexisting temperate lycophyte species: Lycopodium clavatum, Spinulum annotinum, Diphasiastrum digitatum and Dendrolycopodium dendroi- deum. We found no difference in maximum photosynthetic rates across species, yet wide variation in other traits. We also found that Amax was not related to leaf nitrogen concentration and is more tied to stomatal conductance, suggestive of a fundamentally different sets of constraints on photosynthesis in these lycophyte taxa compared with ferns and seed plants. These findings complement the hydropassive model of stomatal control in lycophytes and may reflect canaliza- tion of function in this group.
    [Show full text]