DOCSLIB.ORG

18.0 Potential Species of Conservation Concern

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
18.0 Potential Species of Conservation Concern Nez Perce–Clearwater National Forests Forest Plan Assessment 18.0 Potential Species of Conservation Concern June 2014 (updated 7/10/2014) Table of Contents 18.1 Potential Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern ................................................. 18-1 18.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 18-1 18.1.1.1 The Coarse-Filter / Fine-Filter Approach ............................................ 18-3 18.1.1.2 Mesofilter ............................................................................................. 18-4 18.1.1.3 Monitoring ........................................................................................... 18-4 18.1.1.4 Quantifying Wildlife Habitat ............................................................... 18-6 18.1.2 Potential Species of Conservation Concern ................................................. 18-7 18.1.2.1 Species Accounts ............................................................................... 18-11 18.1.3 Habitat Characterizations ........................................................................... 18-77 18.1.3.1 Broad-scale (Basin Level): Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project .............................................................................................. 18-77 18.1.4 Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Key Findings and Implications .............................................................................................................. 18-117 18.1.4.1 Habitat Families ............................................................................... 18-117 18.1.4.2 Species Groups................................................................................. 18-118 18.1.5 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy ........................... 18-120 18.1.5.1 Species of Conservation Concern Relationships with Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy............................................................................ 18-120 18.1.6 Mid-scale (Forest Level): Nez Perce–Clearwater National Forests ........ 18-129 18.1.6.1 SCC Existing Habitat, Historical Range of Variation and 50-Year Projection Data..................................................................................................... 18-130 18.1.6.2 Other Species of Conservation Concern: Not Modeled ................... 18-156 18.1.7 Forest Plan Revision Landscapes (Sections and Biophysical Settings) relevant to Terrestrial Wildlife Species .................................................................................. 18-156 18.1.7.1 Idaho Batholith and Bitterroot Mountains ....................................... 18-156 18.1.7.2 Uplands Biophysical Setting ............................................................ 18-159 18.1.7.3 Subalpine Biophysical Setting ......................................................... 18-160 18.1.8 Forest Habitat-Type Groups (Fine-scale) ................................................ 18-162 18.1.8.1 Warm/Dry (Habitat Type Group 1) ................................................. 18-163 18.1.8.2 Moderately Warm/Dry (Habitat Type Groups 2 and 3) ................... 18-163 18.1.8.3 Moist Mixed Conifer (Habitat Type Groups 4, 5, and 6) ................ 18-164 18.1.8.4 Cool and Wet/Moist Subalpine Fir (Habitat Type Groups 7 and 8) 18-164 18.1.8.5 Cool/Cold Upper Subalpine (Habitat Type Groups 9, 10 and 11) ... 18-165 i 18.1.9 Other Fine-Scale Habitats ........................................................................ 18-165 18.1.9.1 Grasslands and Shrublands .............................................................. 18-165 18.1.9.2 Riverine Riparian and Wetlands ...................................................... 18-166 18.1.9.3 Old Forest Habitat ............................................................................ 18-166 18.1.9.4 Fine- or Meso-filter Elements .......................................................... 18-168 18.1.10 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 18-171 18.1.11 Potential Plan Components ...................................................................... 18-173 18.1.12 Literature Cited ........................................................................................ 18-174 18.2 Potential aquatic species of conservation concern ................................................. 18-185 18.2.1 Trout Group ............................................................................................. 18-185 18.2.2 Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) ............................................. 18-185 18.2.3 Western Pearlshell (Margaritifera falcate) ............................................... 18-186 18.2.4 Pristine Pyrg ............................................................................................. 18-186 18.2.5 Literature Cited and Source Information ................................................. 18-187 18.3 Potential Plant Communities of Conservation Concern ......................................... 18-188 18.3.1 Existing Information ................................................................................ 18-188 18.3.2 Informing the Assessment........................................................................ 18-188 18.3.3 Identifying Plant Communities of Conservation Concern ....................... 18-188 18.3.4 Current Conditions ................................................................................... 18-188 18.3.4.1 Plant Communities of Conservation Concern.................................. 18-188 18.3.4.2 Trends and Drivers ........................................................................... 18-207 18.3.4.3 Information Needs ........................................................................... 18-207 18.3.5 Literature Cited ..............................................................................................209 18.4 Potential Botanical Species of Conservation Concern ........................................... 18-213 18.4.1 Existing Information ................................................................................ 18-213 18.4.2 Informing the Assessment........................................................................ 18-213 18.4.2.1 Ecosystem Integrity ......................................................................... 18-213 18.4.2.2 Ecosystem Diversity ........................................................................ 18-214 18.4.2.3 Identifying Potential Species of Conservation Concern .................. 18-214 18.4.3 Current Conditions ................................................................................... 18-215 18.4.3.1 Potential Plant Species of Conservation Concern ............................ 18-215 18.4.4 Trends and Drivers ................................................................................... 18-234 18.4.5 Information Needs ................................................................................... 18-234 ii 18.4.6 Literature Cited ........................................................................................ 18-235 List of Tables Table 18-1. NatureServe global (G) and state (S) rankings ................................................. 18-9 Table 18-2. Species of Conservation Concern and habitat associations ............................ 18-10 Table 18-3. Percentage of Watersheds (5th Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]) in Three Trend Categories by relevant Terrestrial Habitat Family (Wisdom et al. 2000) .............. 18-79 Table 18-4. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) Families and Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) representation ................................ 18-81 Table 18-5. Percentage of Watersheds (5th Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]) in Three Trend Categories for Family 1, by Ecological Reporting Unit (Wisdom et al. 2000) ..... 18-82 Table 18-6. Percentage of Watersheds (5th Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]) in Three Trend Categories for Family 2, by Ecological Reporting Unit (Wisdom et al. 2000) ..... 18-84 Table 18-7. Percentage of Watersheds (5th Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]) in 3 Trend Categories for Family 3, by Ecological Reporting Unit (Wisdom et al. 2000) ..... 18-86 Table 18-8. Percentage of Watersheds (5th Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]) in 3 Trend Categories for Family 5, by Ecological Reporting Unit (Wisdom et al. 2000) ..... 18-88 Table 18-9. Percentage of Watersheds (5th Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]) in 3 Trend Categories for Family 7, by Ecological Reporting Unit (Wisdom et al. 2000) ..... 18-89 Table 18-10. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) families and Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) representation ................................ 18-90 Table 18-11. Source habitat trends at the group level (Wisdom et al. 2000) .................... 18-91 Table 18-12. Summary of Effects and Potential Plan Components for Rare Plant Communities ........................................................................................................ 18-203 Table 18-13. Summary of Rare Plant Communities, Nez Perce–Clearwater National Forests .............................................................................................................................. 18-205 Table 18-14. Summary of Species of Conservation Concern Considerations by Species Guild .............................................................................................................................. 18-217 List
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ZOOLOGY Zoology 110 (2007) 409–429
    ARTICLE IN PRESS ZOOLOGY Zoology 110 (2007) 409–429 www.elsevier.de/zool Towards an 18S phylogeny of hexapods: Accounting for group-specific character covariance in optimized mixed nucleotide/doublet models Bernhard Misofa,Ã, Oliver Niehuisa, Inge Bischoffa, Andreas Rickerta, Dirk Erpenbeckb, Arnold Staniczekc aAbteilung fu¨r Entomologie, Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany bDepartment of Coelenterata and Porifera (Zoologisch Museum), Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94766, 1090 GT Amsterdam, The Netherlands cStaatliches Museum fu¨r Naturkunde Stuttgart, Abt. Entomologie, Rosenstein 1, D-70191 Stuttgart, Germany Received 19 May 2007; received in revised form 2 August 2007; accepted 22 August 2007 Abstract The phylogenetic diversification of Hexapoda is still not fully understood. Morphological and molecular analyses have resulted in partly contradicting hypotheses. In molecular analyses, 18S sequences are the most frequently employed, but it appears that 18S sequences do not contain enough phylogenetic signals to resolve basal relationships of hexapod lineages. Until recently, character interdependence in these data has never been treated seriously, though possibly accounting for the occurrence of biased results. However, software packages are readily available which can incorporate information on character interdependence within a Bayesian approach. Accounting for character covariation derived from a hexapod consensus secondary structure model and applying mixed DNA/RNA substitution models, our Bayesian analysis of 321 hexapod sequences yielded a partly robust tree that depicts many hexapod relationships congruent with morphological considerations. It appears that the application of mixed DNA/RNA models removes many of the anomalies seen in previous studies. We focus on basal hexapod relationships for which unambiguous results are missing.
    [Show full text]
  • Well-Known Plants in Each Angiosperm Order
    Well-known plants in each angiosperm order This list is generally from least evolved (most ancient) to most evolved (most modern). (I’m not sure if this applies for Eudicots; I’m listing them in the same order as APG II.) The first few plants are mostly primitive pond and aquarium plants. Next is Illicium (anise tree) from Austrobaileyales, then the magnoliids (Canellales thru Piperales), then monocots (Acorales through Zingiberales), and finally eudicots (Buxales through Dipsacales). The plants before the eudicots in this list are considered basal angiosperms. This list focuses only on angiosperms and does not look at earlier plants such as mosses, ferns, and conifers. Basal angiosperms – mostly aquatic plants Unplaced in order, placed in Amborellaceae family • Amborella trichopoda – one of the most ancient flowering plants Unplaced in order, placed in Nymphaeaceae family • Water lily • Cabomba (fanwort) • Brasenia (watershield) Ceratophyllales • Hornwort Austrobaileyales • Illicium (anise tree, star anise) Basal angiosperms - magnoliids Canellales • Drimys (winter's bark) • Tasmanian pepper Laurales • Bay laurel • Cinnamon • Avocado • Sassafras • Camphor tree • Calycanthus (sweetshrub, spicebush) • Lindera (spicebush, Benjamin bush) Magnoliales • Custard-apple • Pawpaw • guanábana (soursop) • Sugar-apple or sweetsop • Cherimoya • Magnolia • Tuliptree • Michelia • Nutmeg • Clove Piperales • Black pepper • Kava • Lizard’s tail • Aristolochia (birthwort, pipevine, Dutchman's pipe) • Asarum (wild ginger) Basal angiosperms - monocots Acorales
    [Show full text]
  • Global Biodiversity Patterns of the Photobionts Associated with the Genus Cladonia (Lecanorales, Ascomycota)
    Microbial Ecology https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-020-01633-3 FUNGAL MICROBIOLOGY Global Biodiversity Patterns of the Photobionts Associated with the Genus Cladonia (Lecanorales, Ascomycota) Raquel Pino-Bodas1 & Soili Stenroos2 Received: 19 August 2020 /Accepted: 22 October 2020 # The Author(s) 2020 Abstract The diversity of lichen photobionts is not fully known. We studied here the diversity of the photobionts associated with Cladonia, a sub-cosmopolitan genus ecologically important, whose photobionts belong to the green algae genus Asterochloris. The genetic diversity of Asterochloris was screened by using the ITS rDNA and actin type I regions in 223 specimens and 135 species of Cladonia collected all over the world. These data, added to those available in GenBank, were compiled in a dataset of altogether 545 Asterochloris sequences occurring in 172 species of Cladonia. A high diversity of Asterochloris associated with Cladonia was found. The commonest photobiont lineages associated with this genus are A. glomerata, A. italiana,andA. mediterranea. Analyses of partitioned variation were carried out in order to elucidate the relative influence on the photobiont genetic variation of the following factors: mycobiont identity, geographic distribution, climate, and mycobiont phylogeny. The mycobiont identity and climate were found to be the main drivers for the genetic variation of Asterochloris. The geographical distribution of the different Asterochloris lineages was described. Some lineages showed a clear dominance in one or several climatic regions. In addition, the specificity and the selectivity were studied for 18 species of Cladonia. Potentially specialist and generalist species of Cladonia were identified. A correlation was found between the sexual reproduction frequency of the host and the frequency of certain Asterochloris OTUs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Centaurea Stoebe (Spotted Knapweed)
    Endophytic fungi as a biodiversity hotspot: the case of Centaurea stoebe (spotted knapweed) Alexey Shipunov Department of Forest Resources University of Idaho Spotted knapweed Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe L., also known as C. maculosa, C. micrantha, C. biebersteinii) is a noxious, invasive plant which was introduced into North America from Eurasia in 1890s. Plant fungal endophytes • Grow inside plant, but do not cause any symptoms • Cryptic symbionts, inhabiting all plants • Play lots of different roles, include host tolerance to stressful conditions, plant defense, plant growth, and plant community biodiversity • One example of the economic importance of endophytes is taxol, well-known anticancer drug, which is not a product of Taxus brevifolia (yew) tree, but of its endophyte Taxomyces andreana Anamorphs and teleomorphs More than 1/3 of fungi do not normally express any sexual characters. They are anamorphs. Sometimes, some anamorphic fungi develop into sexual teleomorphs which have “more morphology” and can be properly classified. Before molecular era, all anamorphic fungi have been treated as Alternaria (anamorph, above), “Deuteromycota”. and Lewia (teleomorph, below) Most of knapweed endophytes are are the same organism. anamorphic ascomycetes. BLAST search usually reveals mixed lists of ana- and teleomorph names Pleomorphic fungi (with variable anamorph/teleomorph relationships) are one of the most painful problem for fungal taxonomy. The weakness of morphology From Jeewon et al. (2003), and Hu et al. (2007) Pestalotiopsis example: morphology chosen as the only identification tool leads to highly tangled molecular tree. “Identify, then sequence” does not work for novel isolates. Thus, the identification of fungi depends on either high level of expertise, or on proper barcoding.
    [Show full text]
  • Lichens of Alaska's South Coast
    United States Department of Agriculture Lichens of Alaska’s South Coast Forest Service R10-RG-190 Alaska Region Reprint April 2014 WHAT IS A LICHEN? Lichens are specialized fungi that “farm” algae as a food source. Unlike molds, mildews, and mushrooms that parasitize or scavenge food from other organisms, the fungus of a lichen cultivates tiny algae and / or blue-green bacteria (called cyanobacteria) within the fabric of interwoven fungal threads that form the body of the lichen (or thallus). The algae and cyanobacteria produce food for themselves and for the fungus by converting carbon dioxide and water into sugars using the sun’s energy (photosynthesis). Thus, a lichen is a combination of two or sometimes three organisms living together. Perhaps the most important contribution of the fungus is to provide a protective habitat for the algae or cyanobacteria. The green or blue-green photosynthetic layer is often visible between two white fungal layers if a piece of lichen thallus is torn off. Most lichen-forming fungi cannot exist without the photosynthetic partner because they have become dependent on them for survival. But in all cases, a fungus looks quite different in the lichenized form compared to its free-living form. HOW DO LICHENS REPRODUCE? Lichens sexually reproduce with fruiting bodies of various shapes and colors that can often look like miniature mushrooms. These are called apothecia (Fig. 1) and contain spores that germinate and Figure 1. Apothecia, fruiting grow into the fungus. Each bodies fungus must find the right photosynthetic partner in order to become a lichen. Lichens reproduce asexually in several ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Plant List Douglas County by Scientific Name
    The NatureMapping Program Washington Plant List Revised: 9/15/2011 Douglas County by Scientific Name (1) Non- native, (2) ID Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Invasive √ 763 Acer glabrum Douglas maple Aceraceae 800 Alisma graminium Narrowleaf waterplantain Alismataceae 19 Alisma plantago-aquatica American waterplantain Alismataceae 1087 Rhus glabra Sumac Anacardiaceae 650 Rhus radicans Poison ivy Anacardiaceae 29 Angelica arguta Sharp-tooth angelica Apiaceae 809 Angelica canbyi Canby's angelica Apiaceae 915 Cymopteris terebinthinus Turpentine spring-parsley Apiaceae 167 Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip Apiaceae 991 Ligusticum grayi Gray's lovage Apiaceae 709 Lomatium ambiguum Swale desert-parsley Apiaceae 997 Lomatium canbyi Canby's desert-parsley Apiaceae 573 Lomatium dissectum Fern-leaf biscuit-root Apiaceae 582 Lomatium geyeri Geyer's desert-parsley Apiaceae 586 Lomatium gormanii Gorman's desert-parsley Apiaceae 998 Lomatium grayi Gray's desert-parsley Apiaceae 999 Lomatium hambleniae Hamblen's desert-parsley Apiaceae 609 Lomatium macrocarpum Large-fruited lomatium Apiaceae 1000 Lomatium nudicaule Pestle parsnip Apiaceae 634 Lomatium triternatum Nine-leaf lomatium Apiaceae 474 Osmorhiza chilensis Sweet-cicely Apiaceae 264 Osmorhiza occidentalis Western sweet-cicely Apiaceae 1044 Osmorhiza purpurea Purple sweet-cicely Apiaceae 492 Sanicula graveolens Northern Sierra) sanicle Apiaceae 699 Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane Apocynaceae 813 Apocynum cannabinum Hemp dogbane Apocynaceae 681 Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed Asclepiadaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Milk Thistle
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control BIOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF EXOTIC T RU E T HISTL E S RACHEL WINSTON , RICH HANSEN , MA R K SCH W A R ZLÄNDE R , ER IC COO M BS , CA R OL BELL RANDALL , AND RODNEY LY M FHTET-2007-05 U.S. Department Forest September 2008 of Agriculture Service FHTET he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 Tby the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ On the cover: Italian thistle. Photo: ©Saint Mary’s College of California. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for information only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Lichens and Associated Fungi from Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska
    The Lichenologist (2020), 52,61–181 doi:10.1017/S0024282920000079 Standard Paper Lichens and associated fungi from Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska Toby Spribille1,2,3 , Alan M. Fryday4 , Sergio Pérez-Ortega5 , Måns Svensson6, Tor Tønsberg7, Stefan Ekman6 , Håkon Holien8,9, Philipp Resl10 , Kevin Schneider11, Edith Stabentheiner2, Holger Thüs12,13 , Jan Vondrák14,15 and Lewis Sharman16 1Department of Biological Sciences, CW405, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R3, Canada; 2Department of Plant Sciences, Institute of Biology, University of Graz, NAWI Graz, Holteigasse 6, 8010 Graz, Austria; 3Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, Montana 59812, USA; 4Herbarium, Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA; 5Real Jardín Botánico (CSIC), Departamento de Micología, Calle Claudio Moyano 1, E-28014 Madrid, Spain; 6Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 16, SE-75236 Uppsala, Sweden; 7Department of Natural History, University Museum of Bergen Allégt. 41, P.O. Box 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway; 8Faculty of Bioscience and Aquaculture, Nord University, Box 2501, NO-7729 Steinkjer, Norway; 9NTNU University Museum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway; 10Faculty of Biology, Department I, Systematic Botany and Mycology, University of Munich (LMU), Menzinger Straße 67, 80638 München, Germany; 11Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK; 12Botany Department, State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart, Rosenstein 1, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany; 13Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK; 14Institute of Botany of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, 252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic; 15Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branišovská 1760, CZ-370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic and 16Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Vitales, C Nymphaeales Austrobaileyales
    Amborellales Vitales, C Nymphaeales Austrobaileyales Acorales G Eenzaadlobbigen G Alismatales Vitales Petrosaviales Pandanales De Wijnstokfamilie (Vitaceae), d Dioscoreales vroeger samen met de Wegedoo Liliales geplaatst, omdat in beide famil Asparagales kroonbladen staan. Dat de Vital Arecales maar niet precies waar. Hiervoo G Commeliniden G Dasypogonales Poales Commelinales Crossosomatales Zingiberales Deze nieuwe orde in de Rosiden ordes en wordt ondersteund do Ceratophyllales kenmerken, zoals de structuur v Chloranthales afkomstig uit de Violales, Celast Het zijn 5 kleine families uit wa Canellales Piperales Aphloiaceae, Geissolomataceae G Magnoliiden G Magnoliales Stachyuraceae, en 2 iets grotere Laurales (Staphyleacea) en de Crossosom Ranunculales Sabiales Proteales Vitaceae Trochodendrales Buxales Aphloiacea Geissoloma Gunnerales Ixerbaceae Berberidopsidales Strasburge Dilleniales Staphyleac Caryophyllales Stachyurac Santalales Crossosom Saxifragales Melianthac G Geavanceerde tweezaadlobbigen G Vitales Francoacea Crossosomatales Ledocarpa Geraniales Vivianiacea Myrtales Geraniacea Zygophyllales Combretac Celastrales Lythraceae Malpighiales Onagracea G Fabiden G Oxalidales Vochysiace Fabales Myrtaceae G Rosiden G Rosales Crypteroni Cucurbitales Alzateacea Fagales Rhynchoca Oliniaceae Brassicales Penaeacea G G Malviden Malvales Melastoma Sapindales Cornales kenmerken. Uit de Polygalales z Ericales G Asteriden G erbij gevoegd, een kleine famili Garryales Afrika en Amerika. G Lamiiden G Gentianales De bladeren zijn meestal tegeno Solanales
    [Show full text]
  • Jessica's Aster
    Jessica’s Aster (Aster jessicae) Population Monitoring: Third-year Results Idaho Conservation Data Center Idaho Department of Fish and Game PO Box 25 Juanita Lichthardt Boise, Idaho Karen Gray 83707 2005 Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ABSTRACT Jessica’s aster (Aster jessicae) is a tall, rhizomatous aster endemic to the Palouse region of southeastern Washington and adjacent Idaho. Its habitat has been severely reduced by conversion of this region to intensive agricultural uses. It is restricted almost entirely to private lands, and because of this, little was known of its distribution and abundance until a 1991 status survey was conducted. Five permanent monitoring plots were established in 2001, to track and compare populations occupying contrasting sites. Monitoring sites differ in amount of edge, degree of isolation from other populations, habitat extent, and amount of forest cover. This report summarizes three consecutive years of monitoring data. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................i TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Contribution to the Biosystematics of Celtis L. (Celtidaceae) with Special Emphasis on the African Species
    Contribution to the biosystematics of Celtis L. (Celtidaceae) with special emphasis on the African species Ali Sattarian I Promotor: Prof. Dr. Ir. L.J.G. van der Maesen Hoogleraar Plantentaxonomie Wageningen Universiteit Co-promotor Dr. F.T. Bakker Universitair Docent, leerstoelgroep Biosystematiek Wageningen Universiteit Overige leden: Prof. Dr. E. Robbrecht, Universiteit van Antwerpen en Nationale Plantentuin, Meise, België Prof. Dr. E. Smets Universiteit Leiden Prof. Dr. L.H.W. van der Plas Wageningen Universiteit Prof. Dr. A.M. Cleef Wageningen Universiteit Dr. Ir. R.H.M.J. Lemmens Plant Resources of Tropical Africa, WUR Dit onderzoek is uitgevoerd binnen de onderzoekschool Biodiversiteit. II Contribution to the biosystematics of Celtis L. (Celtidaceae) with special emphasis on the African species Ali Sattarian Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor op gezag van rector magnificus van Wageningen Universiteit Prof. Dr. M.J. Kropff in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 26 juni 2006 des namiddags te 16.00 uur in de Aula III Sattarian, A. (2006) PhD thesis Wageningen University, Wageningen ISBN 90-8504-445-6 Key words: Taxonomy of Celti s, morphology, micromorphology, phylogeny, molecular systematics, Ulmaceae and Celtidaceae, revision of African Celtis This study was carried out at the NHN-Wageningen, Biosystematics Group, (Generaal Foulkesweg 37, 6700 ED Wageningen), Department of Plant Sciences, Wageningen University, the Netherlands. IV To my parents my wife (Forogh) and my children (Mohammad Reza, Mobina) V VI Contents ——————————— Chapter 1 - General Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 - Evolutionary Relationships of Celtidaceae ..................................................................... 7 R. VAN VELZEN; F.T. BAKKER; A. SATTARIAN & L.J.G. VAN DER MAESEN Chapter 3 - Phylogenetic Relationships of African Celtis (Celtidaceae) ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland
    NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PUBLIC LANDS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Department of the Interior March 2020 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Draft Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration in the Great Basin Volume 3: Appendices B through N Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this EIS $2,000,000 The Bureau of Land Management’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands. Appendix B. Acronyms, Literature Cited, Glossary B.1 ACRONYMS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AML appropriate management level ARMPA Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment BCR bird conservation region BLM Bureau of Land Management BSU biologically significant unit CEQ Council on Environmental Quality EIS environmental impact statement EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESR emergency stabilization and rehabilitation FIAT Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FY fiscal year GHMA general habitat management area HMA herd management area IBA important bird area IHMA important habitat management area MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU memorandum of understanding MtCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NIFC National Interagency Fire Center NRCS National Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWCG National Wildfire Coordination Group OHMA other habitat management area OHV off-highway vehicle Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration in the Great Basin B-1 B.
    [Show full text]