Field Guide to Terrestrial Invasive Plants in Wisconsin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
"National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment. -
Rule 40-12-4-.01 Limitations on Noxious Weed Seeds(MARKED)
Rule 40-12-4-.01. Limitations on Noxious Weed Seeds It is unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or expose for sale, any agricultural or vegetable seed for planting purposes in this State if the noxious weed seeds per pound of pure seed is in excess of the following limitations: (a) Prohibited Noxious Weed Seeds. Name Limitations 1. Balloonvine (Cardiospermum halicacabum)………………..…………….....Prohibited 2. Bindweed, Field (Convolvulus arvensis) ……….………………...…….…..Prohibited 3. Bindweed, Hedge (Calystegia sepium) ………….………………...………..Prohibited 4. Cocklebur (Xanthium spp.) …………………….…………………...…..…..Prohibited 5. Crotalaria (Crotalaria spp.) …………………….…………………...…….....Prohibited 6. Morningglory, Giant or Moonflower (Ipomoea turbinata) ………………………………………………....…..Prohibited 7. Nutsedge, Purple (Cyperus rotundus) ………………...………………...…..Prohibited 8. Nutsedge, Yellow (Cyperus esculentus).. ……….….………………..……..Prohibited 9. Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum) …………………………...…...…..Prohibited 10. Tussock, Serrated (Nassella trichotoma) ………………………………..…..Prohibited Genus Species Common Name Limitations Acalypha ostryifolia Hophornbeam Copperleaf Prohibited Acalypha virginica Three-seeded mercury Prohibited Calystegia Spp. Hedge Bindweed Prohibited Cardiospermum halicacabum Balloonvine Prohibited Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed, Field Prohibited Convolvulus Equitans Bindweed, hoary Prohibited Conyza canadensis Horseweed (Marestail) Prohibited Crotalaria Spp. Crotalaria Prohibited Cyperus esculentus Nutsedge, Yellow Prohibited Cyperus rotundus Nutsedge, Purple Prohibited -
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, -
Apiaceae) - Beds, Old Cambs, Hunts, Northants and Peterborough
CHECKLIST OF UMBELLIFERS (APIACEAE) - BEDS, OLD CAMBS, HUNTS, NORTHANTS AND PETERBOROUGH Scientific name Common Name Beds old Cambs Hunts Northants and P'boro Aegopodium podagraria Ground-elder common common common common Aethusa cynapium Fool's Parsley common common common common Ammi majus Bullwort very rare rare very rare very rare Ammi visnaga Toothpick-plant very rare very rare Anethum graveolens Dill very rare rare very rare Angelica archangelica Garden Angelica very rare very rare Angelica sylvestris Wild Angelica common frequent frequent common Anthriscus caucalis Bur Chervil occasional frequent occasional occasional Anthriscus cerefolium Garden Chervil extinct extinct extinct very rare Anthriscus sylvestris Cow Parsley common common common common Apium graveolens Wild Celery rare occasional very rare native ssp. Apium inundatum Lesser Marshwort very rare or extinct very rare extinct very rare Apium nodiflorum Fool's Water-cress common common common common Astrantia major Astrantia extinct very rare Berula erecta Lesser Water-parsnip occasional frequent occasional occasional x Beruladium procurrens Fool's Water-cress x Lesser very rare Water-parsnip Bunium bulbocastanum Great Pignut occasional very rare Bupleurum rotundifolium Thorow-wax extinct extinct extinct extinct Bupleurum subovatum False Thorow-wax very rare very rare very rare Bupleurum tenuissimum Slender Hare's-ear very rare extinct very rare or extinct Carum carvi Caraway very rare very rare very rare extinct Chaerophyllum temulum Rough Chervil common common common common Cicuta virosa Cowbane extinct extinct Conium maculatum Hemlock common common common common Conopodium majus Pignut frequent occasional occasional frequent Coriandrum sativum Coriander rare occasional very rare very rare Daucus carota Wild Carrot common common common common Eryngium campestre Field Eryngo very rare, prob. -
Management of Invasive Plants and Pests of Illinois
MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE PLANTS AND PESTS OF ILLINOIS AUTHORS Tricia Bethke, Forest Pest Outreach Coordinator, The Morton Arboretum Christopher Evans, Extension Forester, UIUC NRES ORIGINAL AUTHOR Karla Gage, Southern Illinois University 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This publication was funded, in part, through a grant from the Illinois Forestry Development Council (ifdc.nres.illinois.edu). Management of Invasive Plants and Pests of Illinois is an update and expansion of the original Management of Invasive Plants of Southern Illinois. The authors wish to acknowledge the Illinois Wildlife Preservation Fund, which supported the creation of the original document. The authors wish to thank The Morton Arboretum and Kurt Dreisilker, Mark Hochsprung, Mark McKinney and Clair Ryan for their edits and review of this document. The authors wish to thank The Morton Arboretum’s Natural Areas Conservation Training Program, which is generously funded by the Tellabs Foundation, for support, in part, of the publication of this guide. The authors wish to thank the USDA Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service which supported, in part, the update and publication of this document. The authors wish to thank the River to River Cooperative Weed Management Area and Kevin Rohling for assisting in the development of this publication. The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences and Extension Forestry at the University of Illinois would like to thank and acknowledge the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture -
Epipactis Tremolsii Seed Diversity in Two Close but Extremely Different Populations: Just a Case of Intraspecific Variability?
plants Article Epipactis tremolsii Seed Diversity in Two Close but Extremely Different Populations: Just a Case of Intraspecific Variability? 1 1, , 1 2 Antonio De Agostini , Pierluigi Cortis * y , Annalena Cogoni , Roberta Gargiulo and Giuseppe Fenu 1 1 Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Cagliari, Via Sant’Ignazio da Laconi 13, 09123 Cagliari, CA, Italy; [email protected] (A.D.A.); [email protected] (A.C.); [email protected] (G.F.) 2 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Richmond, Surrey TW9 3DS, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Shared first co-authorship. y Received: 9 November 2020; Accepted: 20 November 2020; Published: 23 November 2020 Abstract: Analysis of the seed morphology is a widely used approach in ecological and taxonomic studies. In this context, intraspecific variability with respect to seed morphology (size, weight, and density) was assessed in two close Epipactis tremolsii Pau. populations sharing the same ecological conditions, except for the soil pollution distinguishing one of them. Larger and heavier seeds were found in plants growing on the heavy metal polluted site, while no differences in seed density were detected between seeds produced by plants growing on the contaminated and the control site. Moreover, seed coats and embryos varying together in their dimensions were described in the control population, while coats varying in their size independently from embryos were described in plants growing on the polluted site. Seeds from the two studied populations significantly differed in several parameters suggesting that intraspecific seed variability occurred in the case study. Keywords: Epipactis; intraspecific variability; seed ecology; seed morphometry; heavy metals 1. -
Thistles of Colorado
Thistles of Colorado About This Guide Identification and Management Guide Many individuals, organizations and agencies from throughout the state (acknowledgements on inside back cover) contributed ideas, content, photos, plant descriptions, management information and printing support toward the completion of this guide. Mountain thistle (Cirsium scopulorum) growing above timberline Casey Cisneros, Tim D’Amato and the Larimer County Department of Natural Resources Weed District collected, compiled and edited information, content and photos for this guide. Produced by the We welcome your comments, corrections, suggestions, and high Larimer County quality photos. If you would like to contribute to future editions, please contact the Larimer County Weed District at 970-498- Weed District 5769 or email [email protected] or [email protected]. Front cover photo of Cirsium eatonii var. hesperium by Janis Huggins Partners in Land Stewardship 2nd Edition 1 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Introduction Native Thistles (Pages 6-20) Barneyby’s Thistle (Cirsium barnebyi) 6 Cainville Thistle (Cirsium clacareum) 6 Native thistles are dispersed broadly Eaton’s Thistle (Cirsium eatonii) 8 across many Colorado ecosystems. Individual species occupy niches from Elk or Meadow Thistle (Cirsium scariosum) 8 3,500 feet to above timberline. These Flodman’s Thistle (Cirsium flodmanii) 10 plants are valuable to pollinators, seed Fringed or Fish Lake Thistle (Cirsium 10 feeders, browsing wildlife and to the centaureae or C. clavatum var. beauty and diversity of our native plant americanum) communities. Some non-native species Mountain Thistle (Cirsium scopulorum) 12 have become an invasive threat to New Mexico Thistle (Cirsium 12 agriculture and natural areas. For this reason, native and non-native thistles neomexicanum) alike are often pulled, mowed, clipped or Ousterhout’s or Aspen Thistle (Cirsium 14 sprayed indiscriminately. -
Observational Monitoring of Biological Control Vs. Herbicide to Suppress Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia Esula) for Eight Years
Session 9 Post-release Evaluation and Management 417 Observational Monitoring of Biological Control vs. Herbicide to Suppress Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) for Eight Years R. A. Progar1, G. Markin2, D. Scarbrough3, C. L. Jorgensen4 and T. Barbouletos5 1USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 [email protected] 2USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 1648 South 7th Avenue, MSU Campus, Bozeman, MT 59717-2780 [email protected] 3USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Boise Field Office, 1249 Vinnell Way, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83709 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract The effectiveness of Aphthona flea beetles (87 percent A. lacertosa Rosenhauer and A. czwalinae Weise, and 13 percent A. nigriscutis Foudras) as biological control agents of leafy spurge, Ephorbia esula L. was compared with a single application of herbicide (picloram) and untreated plots for a period of 8 years. Percentage of cover of leafy spurge, grasses; and flea beetle numbers were measured each year from 2000 through 2007. Cover of leafy spurge on Aphthona biological control plots exhibited annual declines until 2005. In 2006, these plots showed a temporary rebound in leafy spurge coverage followed by a decline in 2007. Spurge cover increased on the herbicide-treated plots and remained unchanged on the untreated check plots from 2000 through 2003. In 2003, the flea beetles began to emigrate from the release points within the biological control plots and dispersed throughout much of the surrounding leafy spurge infested area including the herbicide treated and check plots. This dispersal and colonization caused a subsequent decline in spurge cover on the herbicide-treated and control plots from 2004 through 2007. -
Ethnobotanical Uses of Alien and Native Plant Species of Yeşilırmak Delta, Samsun, Turkey
Ethnobotanical uses of alien and native plant species of Yeşilırmak Delta, Samsun, Turkey Ümmügülsüm MUMCU1*, Hasan KORKMAZ2 1Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Kurupelit, Samsun, Turkey. 2Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Ondokuz Mayıs University, 55139 Kurupelit, Samsun, Turkey. *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract: Plants produce chemicals, known as secondary metabolites, have a variety of ecophysiological functions e.g. defense against herbivory/pathogen attacks and competitor plants, attracting pollinators and symbionts, protection against abiotic stresses, etc. These metabolites also have potential medicinal effects on humans. The Yeşilırmak Delta, Samsun, Turkey, is the second largest delta plain of Turkey. Among the plants distributed in different habitats of the delta, medically important species and their usage were investigated based on the literature. It has been determined 160 species and infraspecific taxa belonging 61 families and 141 genera which can be used for medicinal purposes in the research area. Our aim is to provide a database in relation to medicinal plants distributed naturally in such a region that 65.4% of which is assigned as agricultural area. Keywords: Ethnomedicine, Toxic effect, Yeşilırmak Delta. Introduction identification (Briskin, 2000). Food and medicines are integral part of human life (Datir While primary metabolites (such as carbohydrates, and Bhore, 2017) and the plants we have consumed are lipids, proteins, heme, chlorophyll, -
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. -
Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting -
Italy: First Steps to Be Taken
The National Crop Wild Relative Strategy for Italy: First Steps To Be Taken PGR Secure The National Crop Wild Relative Strategy for Italy: First Steps To Be Taken * Panella L. 1, Landucci S. 12, Torricelli R. 1, Gigante D. 13, Donnini D. 1, Venanzoni R.13 and V. Negri1 1 Department of Agricultural, Nutritional and Environmental Sciences, University of Perugia, Borgo XX Giugno 74, 06121 Perugia, Italy 2 Department of Botany and Zoology, Masaryk University, Kotlárská 2, Brno 61137 (present address) 3 Department of Chemistry, Biology and Biotechnology, University of Perugia, via Elce di Sotto 8, 06123 Perugia, Italy (present address) * Largely based on Landucci et al. (2014). A prioritized inventory of crop wild relatives and harvested plants of Italy. Crop Science. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2013.05.0355. Index 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 DEFINITION OF A CROP WILD RELATIVE ....................................................................................................... 4 1.2 CROP WILD RELATIVE CONSERVATION AND INTERNATIONAL TREATIES .............................................. 4 1.3 ITALIAN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANT CONSERVATION STRATEGIES .............................................. 5 1.4 GENETIC RESOURCES OF THE MEDITERRANEAN BASIN AND OF ITALY .................................................. 6 1.5 ITALIAN PROTECTED AREAS AND SPECIES .....................................................................................................