DOCSLIB.ORG

Butomus Umbellatus L. USDA Plants Code

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Butomus Umbellatus L. USDA Plants Code NEW YORK NON-NATIVE PLANT INVASIVENESS RANKING FORM Scientific name: Butomus umbellatus L. USDA Plants Code: BUUM Common names: flowering-rush Native distribution: Eurasia (Europe, Asia) and Africa Date assessed: June 5, 2012 Assessors: Steven D. Glenn Reviewers: LIISMA SRC Date Approved: 14 August 2012 Form version date: 29 April 2011 New York Invasiveness Rank: Moderate (Relative Maximum Score 50.00-69.99) Distribution and Invasiveness Rank (Obtain from PRISM invasiveness ranking form) PRISM Status of this species in each PRISM: Current Distribution Invasiveness Rank 1 Adirondack Park Invasive Program Not Assessed Not Assessed 2 Capital/Mohawk Not Assessed Not Assessed 3 Catskill Regional Invasive Species Partnership Not Assessed Not Assessed 4 Finger Lakes Not Assessed Not Assessed 5 Long Island Invasive Species Management Area Not Present Insignificant 6 Lower Hudson Not Assessed Not Assessed 7 Saint Lawrence/Eastern Lake Ontario Not Assessed Not Assessed 8 Western New York Not Assessed Not Assessed Invasiveness Ranking Summary Total (Total Answered*) Total (see details under appropriate sub-section) Possible 1 Ecological impact 40 (20) 6 2 Biological characteristic and dispersal ability 25 (25) 18 3 Ecological amplitude and distribution 25 (25) 19 4 Difficulty of control 10 (10) 8 Outcome score 100 (80)b 51a † Relative maximum score 63.75 § New York Invasiveness Rank Moderate (Relative Maximum Score 50.00-69.99) * For questions answered “unknown” do not include point value in “Total Answered Points Possible.” If “Total Answered Points Possible” is less than 70.00 points, then the overall invasive rank should be listed as “Unknown.” †Calculated as 100(a/b) to two decimal places. §Very High >80.00; High 70.00−80.00; Moderate 50.00−69.99; Low 40.00−49.99; Insignificant <40.00 Not Assessable: not persistent in NY, or not found outside of cultivation. A. DISTRIBUTION (KNOWN/POTENTIAL): Summarized from individual PRISM forms A1.1. Has this species been documented to persist without cultivation in NY? (reliable source; voucher not required) Yes – continue to A1.2 No – continue to A2.1 A1.2. In which PRISMs is it known (see inset map)? Adirondack Park Invasive Program Capital/Mohawk Catskill Regional Invasive Species Partnership Finger Lakes Long Island Invasive Species Management Area Lower Hudson Saint Lawrence/Eastern Lake Ontario Western New York 1 NEW YORK NON-NATIVE PLANT INVASIVENESS RANKING FORM Documentation: Reported from several upstate NY counties and the Hudson River Basin. Sources of information: Marsden & Hauser, 2009; Mills, et al., 1996; Weldy & Werier, 2012. A2.1. What is the likelihood that this species will occur and persist outside of cultivation, given the climate in the following PRISMs? (obtain from PRISM invasiveness ranking form) Not Assessed Adirondack Park Invasive Program Not Assessed Capital/Mohawk Not Assessed Catskill Regional Invasive Species Partnership Not Assessed Finger Lakes Unlikely Long Island Invasive Species Management Area Not Assessed Lower Hudson Not Assessed Saint Lawrence/Eastern Lake Ontario Not Assessed Western New York Documentation: This species is certainly cold hardy enough to survive in LISSMA based on home and North American infestation ranges (Anderson, et al., 1974; Haynes, 2000; Weldy & Werier, 2012. Been in NYS since 1929 and has not expanded south of Schenectady. On possible limiting factor could be pH. Little was found in the literature regarding pH ecology and Butomus, except one web site anecdotally stated “plant prefers acid, neutral and basic (alkaline) soils.” In sites where pH is known water is neutral to alkaline. A survey of some of the documented sites of infestation in North America reveals the following: Cayuga Lake- pH approximately 8 (Nitzova, I. 2010) Lake Champlain – 1992-2011, various localities pH 7-9 (Anonymous, 2012) St. Lawrence River – data from 1950-1980, various localities, pH 7.2-7.8 (Ramesh, 1989). Lake Erie - close to pH 8.4 year-around, as high as 8.9, (but under the thermocline, during anoxia, pH in the 7 and upper 6 range) (Anonymous, 2012b). While a survey of Long Island and Staten Island references regarding pH reveals the following: Peconic River – between 1990-1993 from several sites – pH 4.5 -6.6 (Schoonen & Brown, no date) Carmens River – several locations pH 6.6-7.2 (Winslow, et al. 2008) For Nassau County soils- a survey of all soil types under table 15, ”Physical and chemical properties of soils” finds that out of 26 soil types with a pH rating, 23 range in pH from 3.6-6, with only 3 soil types ranging in pH to 7.8 (Wulforst, 1987). For Suffolk County soils- a survey of all soil types under table 5, ”Estimated engineering properties of soils” finds that out of 18 soil series with a pH rating, all range 4.5 to 6.0 (Warner, et al., 1975). For Richmond County soils- the one area referenced on Staten Island exhibited pHs ranging from 5-6.4. Hernandez & Galbraith, 1997). More research into the pH ranges of Butomus in its native Eurasian range may provide better insight regarding its water chemistry requirements and could change this species likelihood of occurrence from moderately likely to unlikely. Sources of information (e.g.: distribution models, literature, expert opinions): Anderson, et al., 1974; Anonymous, 2012; Anonymous, 2012b; George Safford Torrey Herbarium (CONN), 2012; Haynes, 2000; Hernandez & Galbraith, 1997; Nitzova, 2010; Ramesh, 1989; Schoonen & Brown, no date; Warner, , et al. 1975; Weldy & Werier, 2012; Winslow, et al., 2008; Wulforst, 1987. 2 NEW YORK NON-NATIVE PLANT INVASIVENESS RANKING FORM If the species does not occur and is not likely to occur in any of the PRISMs, then stop here as there is no need to assess the species. Rank is “Not Assessable.” A2.2. What is the current distribution of the species in each PRISM? (obtain rank from PRISM invasiveness ranking forms) Distribution Adirondack Park Invasive Program Not Assessed Capital/Mohawk Not Assessed Catskill Regional Invasive Species Partnership Not Assessed Finger Lakes Not Assessed Long Island Invasive Species Management Area Not Present Lower Hudson Not Assessed Saint Lawrence/Eastern Lake Ontario Not Assessed Western New York Not Assessed Documentation: Sources of information: Brooklyn Botanic Garden, 2012; Weldy & Werier, 2012. A2.3. Describe the potential or known suitable habitats within New York. Natural habitats include all habitats not under active human management. Managed habitats are indicated with an asterisk. Aquatic Habitats Wetland Habitats Upland Habitats Salt/brackish waters Salt/brackish marshes Cultivated* Freshwater tidal Freshwater marshes Grasslands/old fields Rivers/streams Peatlands Shrublands Natural lakes and ponds Shrub swamps Forests/woodlands Vernal pools Forested wetlands/riparian Alpine Reservoirs/impoundments* Ditches* Roadsides* Beaches and/or coastal dunes Other potential or known suitable habitats within New York: Documentation: Canal; "It is intolerant of salt or brackish water" (IPANE, 2012) Sources of information: Haynes, 2000; IPANE, 2012; Marsden & Hauser, 2009; Roberts, 1972; Weldy & Werier, 2012; Witmer, 1964. B. INVASIVENESS RANKING Questions apply to areas similar in climate and habitats to New York unless specified otherwise. 1. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT 1.1. Impact on Natural Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide Parameters (e.g. fire regime, geomorphological changes (erosion, sedimentation rates), hydrologic regime, nutrient and mineral dynamics, light availability, salinity, pH) A. No perceivable impact on ecosystem processes based on research studies, or the absence of 0 impact information if a species is widespread (>10 occurrences in minimally managed areas), has been well-studied (>10 reports/publications), and has been present in the northeast for >100 years. B. Influences ecosystem processes to a minor degree (e.g., has a perceivable but mild influence 3 on soil nutrient availability) C. Significant alteration of ecosystem processes (e.g., increases sedimentation rates along 7 streams or coastlines, reduces open water that are important to waterfowl) 3 NEW YORK NON-NATIVE PLANT INVASIVENESS RANKING FORM D. Major, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of ecosystem processes (e.g., the 10 species alters geomorphology and/or hydrology, affects fire frequency, alters soil pH, or fixes substantial levels of nitrogen in the soil making soil unlikely to support certain native plants or more likely to favor non-native species) U. Unknown Score U Documentation: Identify ecosystem processes impacted (or if applicable, justify choosing answer A in the absence of impact information) One study found a small British stream tending to "stagnate" when large stretches became choked with Butomus (Hynes, 1950). Sources of information: Hynes, 1950. 1.2. Impact on Natural Community Structure A. No perceived impact; establishes in an existing layer without influencing its structure 0 B. Influences structure in one layer (e.g., changes the density of one layer) 3 C. Significant impact in at least one layer (e.g., creation of a new layer or elimination of an 7 existing layer) D. Major alteration of structure (e.g., covers canopy, eradicating most or all layers below) 10 U. Unknown Score 3 Documentation: Identify type of impact or alteration: Forms dense stands Sources of information: IPANE, 2012; Killeffer, 2004; Marsden & Hauser, 2009; NYFA 1.3. Impact on Natural Community Composition A. No perceived impact; causes no apparent change in native populations 0 B. Influences community composition (e.g., reduces the number of individuals in one or more 3 native species in the community) C. Significantly alters community composition (e.g., produces a significant reduction in the 7 population size of one or more native species in the community) D. Causes major alteration in community composition (e.g., results in the extirpation of one or 10 several native species, reducing biodiversity or change the community composition towards species exotic to the natural community) U. Unknown Score 3 Documentation: Identify type of impact or alteration: Reported to form dense stands which may displace native species. Sources of information: IPANE, 2012; Killeffer, 2004; Marsden & Hauser, 2009 1.4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary History of Floral Key Innovations in Angiosperms Elisabeth Reyes
    Evolutionary history of floral key innovations in angiosperms Elisabeth Reyes To cite this version: Elisabeth Reyes. Evolutionary history of floral key innovations in angiosperms. Botanics. Université Paris Saclay (COmUE), 2016. English. NNT : 2016SACLS489. tel-01443353 HAL Id: tel-01443353 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01443353 Submitted on 23 Jan 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. NNT : 2016SACLS489 THESE DE DOCTORAT DE L’UNIVERSITE PARIS-SACLAY, préparée à l’Université Paris-Sud ÉCOLE DOCTORALE N° 567 Sciences du Végétal : du Gène à l’Ecosystème Spécialité de Doctorat : Biologie Par Mme Elisabeth Reyes Evolutionary history of floral key innovations in angiosperms Thèse présentée et soutenue à Orsay, le 13 décembre 2016 : Composition du Jury : M. Ronse de Craene, Louis Directeur de recherche aux Jardins Rapporteur Botaniques Royaux d’Édimbourg M. Forest, Félix Directeur de recherche aux Jardins Rapporteur Botaniques Royaux de Kew Mme. Damerval, Catherine Directrice de recherche au Moulon Président du jury M. Lowry, Porter Curateur en chef aux Jardins Examinateur Botaniques du Missouri M. Haevermans, Thomas Maître de conférences au MNHN Examinateur Mme. Nadot, Sophie Professeur à l’Université Paris-Sud Directeur de thèse M.
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Strategy for Flowering Rush (Butomus Umbellatus L.) Management
    State of Michigan’s Status and Strategy for Flowering Rush (Butomus umbellatus L.) Management Scope Invasive flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus L., hereafter FR) has invaded the shores of Michigan waterways since the early 1900’s (Core 1941; Stuckey 1968; Anderson et al. 1974). This document was developed by Central Michigan University and reviewed by Michigan Departments of Environmental Quality and Natural Resources for the purposes of: • Summarizing the current level of understanding on the biology and ecology of FR. • Summarizing current management options for FR in Michigan. • Identifying possible future directions of FR management in Michigan. This document used the current information available in journals, publications, presentations, and experiences of leading researchers and managers to meet its goals. Any chemical, company, or organization that is mentioned was included for its involvement in published, presented, or publically shared information, not to imply endorsement of the chemical, company, or organization. Biology and Ecology I. Identification Flowering rush is an emergent aquatic perennial plant with linear, sword-like leaves, triangular in cross-section, and a showy umble of pink flowers (Figure 1). Rhizomes (i.e. horizonal root-like stems) are fleshy, and leaves have parallel veination and can be submersed or emergent. Submersed leaves are linear and limp, unlike sword-like emergent leaves. Flowering rush blooms from June to August. Flowers are arranged in terminal umbels. Flower parts are found in multiples of three (e.g. six tepals, nine stamen, six carpels) with pink to purple tepals 0.25 – 0.5 in (6 - 11.5 mm) long (eFloras 2008). Each flower produces up to six beaked fruits.
    [Show full text]
  • GENOME EVOLUTION in MONOCOTS a Dissertation
    GENOME EVOLUTION IN MONOCOTS A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School At the University of Missouri In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy By Kate L. Hertweck Dr. J. Chris Pires, Dissertation Advisor JULY 2011 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled GENOME EVOLUTION IN MONOCOTS Presented by Kate L. Hertweck A candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Dr. J. Chris Pires Dr. Lori Eggert Dr. Candace Galen Dr. Rose‐Marie Muzika ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many people for their assistance during the course of my graduate education. I would not have derived such a keen understanding of the learning process without the tutelage of Dr. Sandi Abell. Members of the Pires lab provided prolific support in improving lab techniques, computational analysis, greenhouse maintenance, and writing support. Team Monocot, including Dr. Mike Kinney, Dr. Roxi Steele, and Erica Wheeler were particularly helpful, but other lab members working on Brassicaceae (Dr. Zhiyong Xiong, Dr. Maqsood Rehman, Pat Edger, Tatiana Arias, Dustin Mayfield) all provided vital support as well. I am also grateful for the support of a high school student, Cady Anderson, and an undergraduate, Tori Docktor, for their assistance in laboratory procedures. Many people, scientist and otherwise, helped with field collections: Dr. Travis Columbus, Hester Bell, Doug and Judy McGoon, Julie Ketner, Katy Klymus, and William Alexander. Many thanks to Barb Sonderman for taking care of my greenhouse collection of many odd plants brought back from the field.
    [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]
  • Columbia Basin Flowering Rush Management Plan
    COLUMBIA BASIN COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA COLUMBIA BASIN FLOWERING RUSH MANAGEMENT PLAN A regional strategy to address Butomus umbellatus throughout the Columbia Basin www.columbiabasincwma.org Statement of Collaboration: When possible, the partners of the Columbia Basin Cooperative Weed Management Area will strive to communicate and work collaboratively to develop a unified management effort for flowering rush throughout the Columbia Basin. The completion of this document was supported by funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Suggested citation: Columbia Basin Cooperative Weed Management Area. 2019. Columbia Basin Flowering Rush Management Plan: A regional strategy to address Butomus umbellatus throughout the Columbia Basin. pp 67 www.columbiabasincwma.org Pg. 1 CONTENT Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Preface ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7 Scope and Purpose ........................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology and Phenology of Flowering Rush in the Detroit Lakes Chain of Lakes, Minnesota
    J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 53: 54–63 Ecology and phenology of flowering rush in the Detroit Lakes chain of lakes, Minnesota MICHELLE D. MARKO, JOHN D. MADSEN, R. A. SMITH, B. SARTAIN, AND C. L. OLSON* ABSTRACT al. 1974, Boutwell 1990, Brown and Eckert 2005). Flowering rush can form monotypic stands that crowd out native Flowering rush, Butomus umbellatus L., has been an plants and interfere with recreational water use and water increasing problem in the Detroit Lakes chain of lakes for flow (Boutwell 1990, Jacobs et al. 2011). In the St. Lawrence more than 40 yr. Flowering rush dominates ecosystems by River region, it was found to be more invasive than purple crowding out native species, including hardstem bulrush, loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.; Lavoie 2003). The spread of Schoenoplectus acutus (Muhl. ex Bigelow) A & D Love,¨ a vital flowering rush in irrigation ditches has affected water flow part of native ecosystems. Furthermore, flowering rush and become a management concern for native fish species, creates boating hazards and hampers recreational activities such as cutthroat and bull trout (Jacobs et al. 2011). One on the lakes. The phenological differences between flower- region in Minnesota, the Pelican River Watershed, has been ing rush and the native hardstem bulrush were examined as struggling with flowering rush for over 40 yr as it has spread part of a project to determine best management practices through the Detroit Lakes chain of lakes since the 1960s (T. for controlling this invasive species. Biomass allocation, Guetter, Pelican River Watershed District, pers. comm.). plant height, carbohydrate allocation, and reproductive Since its introduction as an ornamental species in Lake structures of flowering rush were examined in the Detroit Sallie (Becker County, Minnesota), different methods of Lakes system.
    [Show full text]
  • Butomus Umbellatus L.) Management
    State of Michigan’s Status and Strategy for Flowering Rush (Butomus umbellatus L.) Management Scope Invasive flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus L., hereafter FR) has invaded the shores of Michigan waterways since the early 1900’s (Core 1941; Stuckey 1968; Anderson et al. 1974). This document was developed by Central Michigan University and reviewed by Michigan Departments of Environmental Quality and Natural Resources for the purposes of: • Summarizing the current level of understanding on the biology and ecology of FR. • Summarizing current management options for FR in Michigan. • Identifying possible future directions of FR management in Michigan. This document used the current information available in journals, publications, presentations, and experiences of leading researchers and managers to meet its goals. Any chemical, company, or organization that is mentioned was included for its involvement in published, presented, or publically shared information, not to imply endorsement of the chemical, company, or organization. Biology and Ecology I. Identification Flowering rush is an emergent aquatic perennial plant with linear, sword-like leaves, triangular in cross-section, and a showy umble of pink flowers (Figure 1). Rhizomes (i.e. horizonal root-like stems) are fleshy, and leaves have parallel veination and can be submersed or emergent. Submersed leaves are linear and limp, unlike sword-like emergent leaves. Flowering rush blooms from June to August. Flowers are arranged in terminal umbels. Flower parts are found in multiples of three (e.g. six tepals, nine stamen, six carpels) with pink to purple tepals 0.25 – 0.5 in (6 - 11.5 mm) long (eFloras 2008). Each flower produces up to six beaked fruits.
    [Show full text]
  • Flowering Rush
    IPANE - Catalog of Species Search Results http://www.lib.uconn.edu/webapps/ipane/browsing.cfm?descriptionid=16 Home | Early Detection | IPANE Species | Data & Maps | Volunteers | About the Project | Related Information Catalog of Species Search Results Butomus umbellatus (Flowering rush ) :: Catalog of Species Search Common Name(s) | Full Scientific Name | Family Name Common | Family Scientific Name | Images | Synonyms | Description | Similar Species | Reproductive/Dispersal Mechanisms | Distribution | History of Introduction in New England | Habitats in New England | Threats | Early Warning Notes | Management Links | Documentation Needs | Additional Information | References | Data Retrieval | Maps of New England Plant Distribution COMMON NAME Flowering rush FULL SCIENTIFIC NAME Butomus umbellatus L. FAMILY NAME COMMON Flowering rush family FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME Butomaceae IMAGES Flowers Habit Flowers Fruit Incursion Roots 1 of 5 9/24/2007 3:36 PM IPANE - Catalog of Species Search Results http://www.lib.uconn.edu/webapps/ipane/browsing.cfm?descriptionid=16 Habitat NOMENCLATURE/SYNONYMS Synonyms: Butomus umbellatus f. vallisneriifolius (Sagorski) Gluck DESCRIPTION Botanical Glossary Butomus umbellatus is a perennial, aquatic herb that grows from a fleshy rhizome on freshwater shorelines. It can be found in water several meters deep, and its flowering stem can reach up to 1 m (3.3 ft.) above the surface of the water. The 0.6-0.9 m (2-3 ft.) long ensiform leaves can be erect or floating on the water's surface. The leaves are three angled, fleshy and have twisted ends. The plants flower from the summer to the fall depending on the depth of the water. The flowers are arranged in a bracted umbel. The bracts are purple-tinged, and numerous flowers are on long, slender ascending pedicels.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Assessment of Butomus Umbellatus L
    Mississippi State University Scholars Junction Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1-1-2014 Experimental Assessment of Butomus Umbellatus L. Growth and Expansion Using a Mesocosm Approach Christian Carter Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td Recommended Citation Carter, Christian, "Experimental Assessment of Butomus Umbellatus L. Growth and Expansion Using a Mesocosm Approach" (2014). Theses and Dissertations. 2137. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td/2137 This Graduate Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Automated Template C: Created by James Nail 2013V2.1 Experimental assessment of Butomus umbellatus L. growth and expansion using a mesocosm approach By Christian Carter A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mississippi State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences in the Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi State, Mississippi August 2014 Copyright by Christian Carter 2014 Experimental assessment of Butomus umbellatus L. growth and expansion using a mesocosm approach By Christian Carter Approved: ____________________________________ Gary N. Ervin (Major Professor/Graduate Coordinator) ____________________________________ Lisa Wallace (Committee Member) ____________________________________ John D. Madsen (Committee Member) ____________________________________ R. Gregory Dunaway Professor and Dean College of Arts and Sciences Name: Christian Carter Date of Degree: August 15, 2014 Institution: Mississippi State University Major Field: Biological Sciences Major Professor: Gary N. Ervin Title of Study: Experimental assessment of Butomus umbellatus L.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Experiments on Lake Erie Flowering Rush
    Bowling Green State University ScholarWorks@BGSU Honors Projects Honors College Spring 4-29-2013 Management Experiments on Lake Erie Flowering Rush Alyssa Dietz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/honorsprojects Repository Citation Dietz, Alyssa, "Management Experiments on Lake Erie Flowering Rush" (2013). Honors Projects. 19. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/honorsprojects/19 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College at ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@BGSU. 1 Management Experiments on Lake Erie Flowering Rush Alyssa Dietz HONORS PROJECT Submitted to the University Honors Program at Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with UNIVERSITY HONORS April 29 th , 2013 Advisors: Dr. Helen J. Michaels, Department of Biological Sciences Dr. Enrique Gomezdelcampo, Department of Environment and Sustainability 2 Summary: The issue of invasive species has been a major concern for many Great Lakes ecosystems over the past several decades. Since the first noted invasive animal, the sea lamprey, these fresh water ecosystems have been invaded by over 180 different plants and animals that create over $100 million worth of damage a year (Rosaen et al . 2012). Because the five Great Lakes, along with their rivers, streams, and wetlands are such an interconnected series, the introduction of any invasive species to one of the Great Lakes, such as Lake Erie, means that invaders are likely to spread to all other freshwater ecosystems in the area (Rosaen et al . 2012). With the various ways that many introduced species can alter the nutrient availability, habitat quality, and species richness, many wildlife managers are continuing to develop management strategies that remove or greatly limit the further spread of invasive species.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT: WRITTEN FINDINGS of the WASHINGTON STATE NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD Updated in 2020, Original Draft from 2008
    DRAFT: WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD Updated in 2020, original draft from 2008 Scientific Name: Butomus umbellatus L. Synonyms: Butomus junceus Turcz, Butomus umbellatus L. f. vallisneriifolius (Sagorski) Glnck Common Name: Flowering-rush (sometimes known as grass rush) Family: Butomaceae (Flowering-rush family) Legal Status: Class A noxious weed; Quarantine List (WAC 16-752) Images: left, flowering rush with emergent leaves growing along a shoreline; center, rhizome with leaf bases and developing bud; right, piece of flowering rush rhizome with leaves, all images by Greg Haubrich. Introduction: Flowering rush is an invasive aquatic perennial monocot that is able to exploit a wide range of aquatic habitats. It grows emergent along the shoreline of lakes and rivers out to water depths of 7 m (24 ft.) or more where it is fully submersed. It will grow in still water with muddy substrate to flowing water with rocky substrate and everything in between. It thrives in areas with fluctuating water levels, but also persists and spreads in stable water conditions (Hroudova ́ 1989, Hroudova ́ et al. 1996). It will invade and dominate native plant beds (Madsen et al. 2012, Harms 2020) and can also colonize habitats previously barren of plant growth (Parkinson et al. 2010). When growing submersed, the leaves are stiff relative to other submersed plants, and thus in flowing water they are present higher in the water column. It has been termed an ecosystem engineer for its ability to alter habitat by sediment accretion (Gunderson et al. 2016). These characteristics, along with the rapidly expanding population, have raised concern about potential impacts on habitat and water delivery if flowering rush becomes well established throughout its potential range in western North America.
    [Show full text]