DOCSLIB.ORG

The Naturally Occurring Historical and Extant Flora of Central Park, New

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Naturally Occurring Historical and Extant Flora of Central Park, New Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 134(4), 2007, pp. 552–569 The naturally occurring historical and extant flora of Central Park, New York City, New York 1857–2007 Robert DeCandido1,2,3 Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, 410 Summer Valley Road, Orwigsburg, PA 17961 N. Calvanese Central Park Conservancy, 14 East 60th Street, New York, NY 10022 Regina V. Alvarez Central Park Conservancy, 14 East 60th Street, New York, NY 10022 Matthew I. Brown and Tina M. Nelson Central Park Conservancy, Soil, Water and Ecology Lab, 830 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10021 DECANDIDO, R. (Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, 410 Summer Valley Road, Orwigsburg, PA 17961), N. CALVANESE (Central Park Conservancy, 14 East 60th Street, New York, NY 10022), R. V. ALVAREZ (Central Park Conservancy, 14 East 60th Street, New York, NY 10022), M. I. BROWN (Central Park Conservancy, Soil, Water and Ecology Lab, 830 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10021), and T. M. NELSON (Central Park Conservancy, Soil, Water and Ecology Lab, 830 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10021). The naturally occurring historical and extant flora of Central Park, New York City, New York 1857–2007. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 134: 552–569. 2007—This vascular flora of Central Park, New York County, New York State is based upon field work by the authors in 2006–2007 combined with three 19th century plant lists, and specimens held at metropolitan herbaria collected from 1885–2006. Altogether, 106 families, 351 genera, and 583 species are reported. The largest family in Central Park in both the historical (1858 to 1910) and modern period (1985 to 2007) is the Asteraceae. The largest genera are Polygonum, Quercus,andAster. Analyses of the ecological characteristics of the historical flora show that species indicative of riparian areas including ponds, swamps, wet meadows and woods, were formerly common in the area that was developed into Central Park. Twenty- one species would have special New York State Natural Heritage Program designations if they were extant today. In the 19th and early 20th century, native plant species (255; 74%) far exceeded non-natives (91; 26%)in Central Park. However, 70% (178) of the native plants recorded in the historical time period have been extirpated. Most extirpated native species were herbaceous plants (111; 62%), and were significantly more likely to prefer wet meadows and woods than drier habitats. By comparison, in our field work in 2006–2007 and examination of BBG and NYBG plant collections, we found 362 species, most of which were non-native plants (211; 58%). Three species we collected have special status designations in New York State: Eclipta prostrata, Eupatorium serotinum,andPtelea trifoliata. We recommend the continuation of native plant restoration efforts in Central Park, with an emphasis upon re-establishing herbaceous species characteristic of meadows, open woodlands and riparian areas, as well as increasing the diversity and number of Quercus spp. in the forest. Combined with educational outreach that calls to attention the environmental history of Central Park, much can be done to make people aware of the significant role urban areas can play in conservation efforts. Key words: biotic homogenization, Central Park, historical flora, New York City, restoration, urban. Central Park (Fig. 1) is one of the best 1 This paper is dedicated to two distinguished known urban parks in North America. At New York City naturalists who have studied plants 341.2 ha., it is the fifth largest green space in in Central Park for more than 50 years: William Schiller of the Education Department of the New York City (NYC). The park was American Museum of Natural History, and Sarah established in 1853 when the land was M. Elliott, author and illustrator. We also thank obtained via decree by the New York State these colleagues for their expertise and advice: N. legislature. After substantial construction, Wagerik, E. Levine, D. Allen, H. Becker, N. Dicker, landscaping, and planting, the park was A.M. Greller, R. S. Lieberman, R. E. Loeb, L. Miller, S.C. Miller, R. Schutz, A. Stillman, H. H. opened to the public in 1858 (Richards 1861, Stillman and S. J. Wiley. M. F. Baron labeled pressed plant specimens and organized the herbar- 3 Author for correspondence: E-mail: rdcny@ ium. A. Arrowsmith designed the map. earthlink.net 2 Present address: 1831 Fowler Avenue, The Received for publication January 18, 2007, and in Bronx, New York 10462. revised form August 28, 2007. 552 Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society tbot-134-04-13.3d 7/12/07 11:10:12 552 Cust # 07-RA-002 2007] DECANDIDO ET AL.: FLORA OF CENTRAL PARK, NEW YORK CITY 553 Cook 1869). By 2000, it was estimated that 25 million people visit Central Park each year (The Trust for Public Land 2006). People have a long association with Central Park. In 1853, there were approximately 1600 residents in the area that would become the park (Rosenzweig and Blackmar 1992). At that time, a community of mostly African- American citizens lived in ‘Seneca Village’ between present day 81st and 86th Streets near the west side. Businesses, including leather tanning works and slaughterhouses, also operated in the park. Up until 1858, it is likely that anthropogenic activities such as cutting wood for fuel, fire, and shelter maintained a diversity of habitats in the area of Central Park including open fields, swamps, meadows, and early successional woodlands. During the construction phase beginning in 1858, almost 1000 workers were hired for landscaping projects. By 1873, at least 10 million cartloads of material had been hauled through the park. Approximately four million trees, shrubs, and plants, representing more than 1000 species were planted (Barlow 1977, Graff 1985, Rosenzweig and Blackmar 1992). Today, there are about 200 workers employed by the Central Park Conservancy as gardeners and others, working directly with the park’s plants and landscape. Beginning in the mid 19th century, research- ers documented the biodiversity of Central Park including its terrestrial plant species (Rawolle and Pilat 1857), fresh water flora and fauna (Gratacap and Woodward 1884), and breeding birds (Woodruff and Paine 1886). In the last 25 years, geologists have mapped the rock formations and geo- logic history of the park (Taterka 1987, Merguerian and Sanders 1993). Other research has assessed long-term changes in woody plant species of the park (Loeb 1993), as well as atmospheric particulates found in sediment cores extracted from the Central Park lake (Chillrud et al. 1999, Yan et al. 2005). However since the 19th century, bota- nists have not compiled a complete flora of the park. r FIG. 1. Map of Central Park, New York Coun- ty, New York. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society tbot-134-04-13.3d 7/12/07 11:10:19 553 Cust # 07-RA-002 554 JOURNAL OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL SOCIETY [VOL.134 Most people are unaware of the great present in Central Park in the past? Are any diversity of plant species found in NYC. New York State listed native plants found in Sanderson and Brown (2007) mapped 54 the park today? By answering such questions, ecological communities that once existed on we could provide guidance to park managers Manhattan Island prior to the 18th century. As interested in restoring native plant species recently as the late 19th century, 30 of the 58 diversity to natural areas of the park, and native orchids of New York State could be trace an environmental history of Central Park found in NYC, with 21 species occurring on since the mid-19th century. Manhattan Island (Denslow 1924, DeCandido et al. 2004, Lamont in press). Materials and Methods. STUDY SITE. Central McKinney (2006) has shown that urbaniza- Park is located in the center of Manhattan tion produces biotic homogenization of plant (New York County) in the southeastern part species diversity in cities and suburbs in North of New York State (40u 469 120 N, 73u 589 10 America and elsewhere. Uncommon and rare W; Fig. 1). The park is rectangular, approxi- native plant species are often extirpated locally mately 4.0 km long and 0.8 km wide, trending as urbanization increases, while on a regional 29u NE (Taterka 1987) stretching from 59th scale, synanthropic (primarily non-native) Street (Central Park South) north to 110th plants become more widespread (see Chocho- Street. The original northern boundary of the louskova and Pysek 2003, Standley 2003, park was at 106th Street in 1853, but in 1863 Clemants and Moore 2005). This process has additional land was added up to 110th Street been especially pronounced in port cities of the (Olmstead and Kimball 1928). The lowest northeastern United States (Clemants and point of the park is 4.5 m above sea level (asl) Moore 2003). The establishment of gardens at the Harlem Meer at the northeastern section or other exotic plantings further augments of the park. The highest point (excluding man- diversity of alien species in cities (Smith et al. made structures) is 41.3 m asl atop Summit 2006). Also, urbanization creates barriers to Rock near Central Park West and 83rd Street. migration by eliminating direct biotic corri- Today, ballfields, lawns, formal gardens, dors that native plant species can utilize to re- paved recreational areas and roadways form establish populations in city parks. As a result, the major part of the park. However, there still despite the overall increase in alpha-level remain three significant natural areas man- biodiversity in cities, the loss of unique native aged by Central Park Conservancy staff: the plants impoverishes urban parks and other North Woods and adjacent Wildflower Mead- natural areas. Urban habitats most affected ow (36.4 ha), the Ramble (14.6 ha), and have been wetlands, moist meadows, and Hallett Sanctuary (1.6 ha).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Experimental Evidence That Evolutionarily Diverse Assemblages Result in Higher Productivity
    Experimental evidence that evolutionarily diverse assemblages result in higher productivity Marc W. Cadotte1 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, ON, Canada M1C 1A4; and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3B2 Edited by Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved April 22, 2013 (received for review January 28, 2013) There now is ample experimental evidence that speciose assemblages in polyculture against the expected performance from its mono- are more productive and provide a greater amount of ecosystem cultures (22, 23). Polycultures also might appear more productive services than depauperate ones. However, these experiments often compared with monocultures via a selection effect—if highly conclude that there is a higher probability of including complemen- productive species dominate the polyculture, displacing low- tary species combinations in assemblages with more species and lack productivity species (22). Thus, if distantly related species show a priori prediction about which species combinations maximize reduced resource overlap, then we should observe greater com- function. Here, I report the results of an experiment manipulating plementarity when they are combined. the evolutionary relatedness of constituent plant species across Here, I report the results of a biodiversity–ecosystem func- a richness gradient. I show that assemblages with distantly re- tion experiment that explicitly manipulated the phylogenetic
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [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]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 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 orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Group Forest Restoration Team Planting Report Fall 2010
    Natural Resources Group Forest Restoration Team Planting Report Fall 2010 Dear Parkie, The Natural Resources Group (NRG) moved closer to our PlaNYC goal of planting over 400,000 trees throughout the city. This past fall we planted over 30,000 trees in 2 properties in all five boroughs. Our current tally stands at 222,188. Furthermore, we planted over 7,000 shrubs and over 4,000 herbaceous plants Our primary goal is to create and restore multi-story forests, bringing back the ecological richness of our region. Healthy multi-story forests provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and increased biodiversity. NRG again hosted the Million Trees volunteer day. Volunteers and Parks’ staff planted 21,806 trees altogether. Without volunteers and the support of the Agency, and our institutional and community partners, NRG would not reach its planting goals. Below is a summary of fall 2010. • Containerized trees planted by the Forest Restoration Team: 27,130 (2009: 26,139) • Containerized trees planted through contractors: 4,332 (2009: 9,652) • Balled & burlapped trees planted through contractors: 58 (2009: 267) • Containerized shrubs planted by the Forest Restoration Team: 5,701 (2009: 4,626) • Containerized shrubs planted through contractors: 1,492 (2009: 0) • Herbaceous plugs planted by the Forest Restoration Team: 4,540 (2009: 18,528) • Hosted 11 volunteer events with a total of 341 volunteers (2009: 32, 468) Sincerely, Tim Wenskus Deputy Director Natural Resources Group Total Plants Planted Trees 31,520 Shrubs 7,193 Herbaceous 4,540 Grand Total 43,253
    [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]
  • Species Lists
    Appendix D: Species Lists Appendix D: Species Lists In this appendix: Great Lakes Fish Species Gravel Island NWR Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs Harbor Island NWR Huron NWR Michigan Islands NWR (National Wildlife Refuge = NWR, Refuge) Great Lakes Fish Species Common Name Scientific Name Present/Absent Regional/State Status Lake Lake Huron Lake R3-Conservation Priority in Region 3 Michigan Superior E- Federal Endangered T-Federal Threatened SE-State Endangered ST-State Threatened SSC-State Special Concern Acipenseridae R3 (rare/declining, recreational/ Acipenser Lake sturgeon x x x economic value, tribal trust), SSC fulvescens (WI), ST (MI) Amiidae Bowfin Amia calva x x Catostomidae Catostomus White sucker x x x commersoni Catostomus Longnose sucker x x x catostomus Centrarchidae Ambloplites Rockbass x x x rupestris Micropterus Smallmouth bass x x x dolomieui Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus x x x Clupeidae Dorosoma Gizzard shad # x x x cepedianum Alosa Alewife # x x pseudoharengus Cyprinidae Carp # Cyprinus Carpio x x x Esocidae Northern pike Esox Lucieus x x x Muskellunge Esox masquinongy x x x Gadidae Burbot Lota lota x x x Gobiidae Neogobius Round goby # x x x R3 (nuisance) melanostomus Moronidae White bass Morone chrysops x x Osmeridae Rainbow smelt # Osmerus mordax x x x Percichthyidae White perch # Morone americana x x x Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan 221 Appendix D: Species Lists Common Name Scientific Name Present/Absent Regional/State Status Percidae R3 (rare/declining,
    [Show full text]
  • New York Pass Attractions
    Free entry to the following attractions with the New York Pass Top attractions Big Bus New York Hop-On-Hop-Off Bus Tour Empire State Building Top of the Rock Observatory 9/11 Memorial & Museum Madame Tussauds New York Statue of Liberty – Ferry Ticket American Museum of Natural History 9/11 Tribute Center & Audio Tour Circle Line Sightseeing Cruises (Choose 1 of 5): Best of New York Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum Local New York Favourite National Geographic Encounter: Ocean Odyssey - NEW in 2019 The Downtown Experience: Virtual Reality Bus Tour Bryant Park - Ice Skating (General Admission) Luna Park at Coney Island - 24 Ride Wristband Deno's Wonder Wheel Harlem Gospel Tour (Sunday or Wednesday Service) Central Park TV & Movie Sites Walking Tour When Harry Met Seinfeld Bus Tour High Line-Chelsea-Meatpacking Tour The MET: Cloisters The Cathedral of St. John the Divine Brooklyn Botanic Garden Staten Island Yankees Game New York Botanical Garden Harlem Bike Rentals Staten Island Zoo Snug Harbor Botanical Garden in Staten Island The Color Factory - NEW in 2019 Surrey Rental on Governors Island DreamWorks Trolls The Experience - NEW in 2019 LEGOLAND® Discovery Center, Westchester New York City Museums Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) Metropolitan Museum of Art (The MET) The Met: Breuer Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum Whitney Museum of American Art Museum of Sex Museum of the City of New York New York Historical Society Museum Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum Museum of Arts and Design International Center of Photography Museum New Museum Museum of American Finance Fraunces Tavern South Street Seaport Museum Brooklyn Museum of Art MoMA PS1 New York Transit Museum El Museo del Barrio - NEW in 2019 Museum of Jewish Heritage – A Living Memorial to the Holocaust Museum of Chinese in America - NEW in 2019 Museum at Eldridge St.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Wetland Assessment for Michigan: Section 1 Biological
    RAPID WETLAND ASSESSMENT FOR MICHIGAN SECTION 1: BIOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Prepared by: Dennis A. Albert, Paul Adamus, David Campbell, John Christy, Joshua G. Cohen, Theadore Cook, Helen Enander, Linda Hardison, Michael A. Kost, Katie Mitchell, Jennifer Sackinger, and Bradford S. Slaughter Of: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Oregon State University, and Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. For: Michigan Department of Transportation September 2008 Report Number 2008-06 Cover image taken by: D. Albert Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Literature Review........................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Field Sampling ............................................................................................................................................ 2 4.0 Plant Community Classification and Distribution Map Development ........................................................ 4 5.0 Quantitative Metrics for Wetland Quality, Function, and Value ................................................................. 5 6.0 Hydrologic Metric - Relationship to Plant Communities and Species ........................................................ 5 7.0 Characteristic Plant Species for Each Wetland Type ................................................................................ 10 8.0 Photos and Diagrams of Plant
    [Show full text]
  • Greening Nyc:Streettree Care Tipsand Citywide
    GREENING NYC: STREET TREE CARE TIPS AND CITYWIDE RESOURCES Tree Care Steps Remove any garbage (cigarette buds, plastic wrappers, dog poop, gum etc.) Weed tree pit with a hand trowel Loosen top soil of tree bed (2-3 inches top layer) with hand cultivator or trowel while being mindful not to disturb the soil immediately around the trunk Mix compost into the loosened soil DO NOT RAISE THE SOIL LEVEL IN THE BED, MIX COMPOST INTO EXISTING SOIL Mulch tree bed with one to two inches of fresh mulch being careful not to mound mulch up against the trunk Take a Citizen Pruner Course Water each young tree 15-20 gallons once a week between May and October What to Pack for Your Next Street Tree Stewardship Day Trowels and Hand Cultivators Trash Bags and Grabbers Brooms Compost and Mulch Watering jugs Web Resources Million Trees (NYC Parks) - Excellent information about the proper care of street trees in NYC, resources and plant lists for street tree pits www.milliontreesnyc.org Trees New York – Citizen Pruner courses, curb your dog signs, stormwater control, youth programs and tree guard information http://www.treesny.org/ Partnerships for Parks – Partnerships for Parks helps New Yorkers work together to make neighborhood parks thrive! Visit our website for the latest information on programs and resources http://www.partnershipsforparks.org New York Restoration Project (NYRP) - As part of the MillionTreesNYC initiative, NYRP partners with community organizations throughout the five boroughs to give away hundreds of free trees to New
    [Show full text]
  • TELOPEA Publication Date: 13 October 1983 Til
    Volume 2(4): 425–452 TELOPEA Publication Date: 13 October 1983 Til. Ro)'al BOTANIC GARDENS dx.doi.org/10.7751/telopea19834408 Journal of Plant Systematics 6 DOPII(liPi Tmst plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/Telopea • escholarship.usyd.edu.au/journals/index.php/TEL· ISSN 0312-9764 (Print) • ISSN 2200-4025 (Online) Telopea 2(4): 425-452, Fig. 1 (1983) 425 CURRENT ANATOMICAL RESEARCH IN LILIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE AND IRIDACEAE* D.F. CUTLER AND MARY GREGORY (Accepted for publication 20.9.1982) ABSTRACT Cutler, D.F. and Gregory, Mary (Jodrell(Jodrel/ Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England) 1983. Current anatomical research in Liliaceae, Amaryllidaceae and Iridaceae. Telopea 2(4): 425-452, Fig.1-An annotated bibliography is presented covering literature over the period 1968 to date. Recent research is described and areas of future work are discussed. INTRODUCTION In this article, the literature for the past twelve or so years is recorded on the anatomy of Liliaceae, AmarylIidaceae and Iridaceae and the smaller, related families, Alliaceae, Haemodoraceae, Hypoxidaceae, Ruscaceae, Smilacaceae and Trilliaceae. Subjects covered range from embryology, vegetative and floral anatomy to seed anatomy. A format is used in which references are arranged alphabetically, numbered and annotated, so that the reader can rapidly obtain an idea of the range and contents of papers on subjects of particular interest to him. The main research trends have been identified, classified, and check lists compiled for the major headings. Current systematic anatomy on the 'Anatomy of the Monocotyledons' series is reported. Comment is made on areas of research which might prove to be of future significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstructing the Basal Angiosperm Phylogeny: Evaluating Information Content of Mitochondrial Genes
    55 (4) • November 2006: 837–856 Qiu & al. • Basal angiosperm phylogeny Reconstructing the basal angiosperm phylogeny: evaluating information content of mitochondrial genes Yin-Long Qiu1, Libo Li, Tory A. Hendry, Ruiqi Li, David W. Taylor, Michael J. Issa, Alexander J. Ronen, Mona L. Vekaria & Adam M. White 1Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, The University Herbarium, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1048, U.S.A. [email protected] (author for correspondence). Three mitochondrial (atp1, matR, nad5), four chloroplast (atpB, matK, rbcL, rpoC2), and one nuclear (18S) genes from 162 seed plants, representing all major lineages of gymnosperms and angiosperms, were analyzed together in a supermatrix or in various partitions using likelihood and parsimony methods. The results show that Amborella + Nymphaeales together constitute the first diverging lineage of angiosperms, and that the topology of Amborella alone being sister to all other angiosperms likely represents a local long branch attrac- tion artifact. The monophyly of magnoliids, as well as sister relationships between Magnoliales and Laurales, and between Canellales and Piperales, are all strongly supported. The sister relationship to eudicots of Ceratophyllum is not strongly supported by this study; instead a placement of the genus with Chloranthaceae receives moderate support in the mitochondrial gene analyses. Relationships among magnoliids, monocots, and eudicots remain unresolved. Direct comparisons of analytic results from several data partitions with or without RNA editing sites show that in multigene analyses, RNA editing has no effect on well supported rela- tionships, but minor effect on weakly supported ones. Finally, comparisons of results from separate analyses of mitochondrial and chloroplast genes demonstrate that mitochondrial genes, with overall slower rates of sub- stitution than chloroplast genes, are informative phylogenetic markers, and are particularly suitable for resolv- ing deep relationships.
    [Show full text]