DOCSLIB.ORG

Piedmont Alluvial Vegetation: Classification, Geographic Variation, and Restoration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Piedmont Alluvial Vegetation: Classification, Geographic Variation, and Restoration Elizabeth Rainey Matthews A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Univeristy of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology in the Curriculum for the Environment and Ecology Chapel Hill 2011 Approved by: Robert K. Peet Alan S. Weakley Thomas R. Wentworth Peter S. White James S. Clark © 2011 Elizabeth Rainey Matthews ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii Abstract Elizabeth Rainey Matthews Piedmont alluvial vegetation: Classification, geographic variation, and restoration (Under the direction of Robert K. Peet) Riparian ecosystems are home to diverse and highly productive plant communities, long known to be among the more species-rich terrestrial communities. However, few pristine riparian systems remain, particularly in North America. Due to their ecological significance and their current imperiled status, there is substantial interest in conservation and restoration of riparian habitat in the Southeastern United States. Successful conservation and restoration require detailed information regarding the composition and structure of natural floodplain plant communities, in addition to an understanding of the environmental drivers associated with compositional variation. While southeastern alluvial vegetation has been well-studied, most studies have focused on the larger rivers of the Coastal Plain region, rather than the relatively smaller streams of the topographically more complex inland Piedmont. In fact, there is relatively little documentation or understanding of Piedmont bottomland vegetation in North Carolina or elsewhere on the Southeastern Piedmont. This dissertation advances our understanding of Piedmont alluvial vegetation by documenting and describing vegetation patterns and environmental drivers in this system. This work provides the vital information that is necessary both for successful management of alluvial habitat and for restoration of degraded alluvial vegetation. As part of this work, I sampled high-quality alluvial vegetation in five North Carolina river basins: the Catawba, iii Yadkin-Pee Dee, Cape Fear, Neuse, and Tar-Pamlico. As a first step towards advancing our understanding of these systems, I developed a vegetation classification of the Piedmont alluvial plant communities in North Carolina. I expect this classification will provide guidance for revising Piedmont alluvial plant community concepts currently recognized in the U.S. National Vegetation Classification. I also explored the spatial distribution of plant species richness across the Piedmont riparian landscape and examined compositional variation in a metacommunity context, quantifying the relative influence of niche-processes and dispersal-processes in shaping riparian plant community composition. I found that niche- processes are dominant in this system, with environmental variables explaining more variation in community composition than spatial structure. Finally, I developed an approach for using quantitative vegetation descriptions to develop reference information for riparian restoration efforts. Because these communities are strongly structured by environmental variables, I was able to develop a matching tool to link restoration sites to described vegetation types based on environmental similarity. In all, I expect the work described in this dissertation to improve management and restoration outcomes for alluvial plant communities in the North Carolina Piedmont. iiiiv Acknowledgements Many individuals and organizations supported both the research and the writing of this dissertation. First, I would like to thank the members of my committee for their guidance, encouragement, and helpful feedback throughout this process. I would like to thank my co-advisors, Robert Peet and Alan Weakley, for their invaluable advice and insight from the very beginning of this project; their knowledge of North Carolina vegetation is unmatched, and I am extremely grateful to have learned so much from them about the flora and natural history of North Carolina. I would also like to thank Tom Wentworth, Peter White, and Jim Clark for their helpful comments and constructive feedback from the early stages of developing my ideas through the completion of this dissertation. I thank the many individuals and institutions that provided logistical and financial support. First and foremost, I would like to thank my three fabulous field assistants, Jessie Outz, Jose Zúñiga, and Megan Faestel, who worked long, hot summer days with me in poison-ivy and insect infested Piedmont bottomlands-- and still kept their cool. I could not have completed this project without their hard work and companionship! Many private organizations, land owners, and land trusts granted permission to access privately owned alluvial forests, including Lislott Harbets of Allison Woods, the Triangle Land Conservancy, the Land Trust for Central North Carolina, the Piedmont Land Conservancy, and the Catawba Land Conservancy. I would also like to thank Bruce Sorrie, Richard LeBlond, and Michael Schafale of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Bruce and Richard were v invaluable resources in identifying pressed plant specimens. Bruce and Michael suggested many high-quality alluvial forests for sampling, which I never would have located without their guidance. Michael Schafale also offered extremely helpful insights on Piedmont alluvial systems and vegetation, gained from many years of field experience, in addition to offering feedback at many junctures in the development of the vegetation classification. The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC-EEP) funded three years of this research, and financial support from the Society of Wetland Scientists and North Carolina Beautiful improved the quantity and quality of data I was able to collect. The University of North Carolina, the Curriculum for the Environment and Ecology, and the Department of Biology also provided funding in the form of fellowships and teaching assistantships to support my work. I also want to acknowledge and thank my fellow students, friends, and Chapel Hill family, all of whom supported the completion of this work. The UNC Plant Ecology Lab was always a major source of support, both intellectually and socially. In particular, I would like to thank Forbes Boyle, Brenda Wichmann, Jackie White, Kyle Palmquist, Megan Faestel, Brooke Wheeler, Sam Tessel, Michael Lee, Stephanie Seymour, Bianca Lopez and Peter Wilfahrt for their friendship and for being an endless source of fun around Coker. It was on PEL excursions that I first experienced many NC landscapes and vegetation types (pocosins, long-leaf pine, the Sandhills, coastal fringe, and more). I learned much about the NC flora with PEL, in addition to developing important skills related to analyzing and organizing vegetation data in lab meetings. I would also like to thank the Talikoff family for being an important part of my Chapel Hill family; over the last few years, Kim and Alex have been vi my biggest supporters and cheerleaders, and Meg and Lu were experts at distracting me from the stresses of graduate school and reminding me to enjoy each day. Above all, I want to thank my family. My closest friend and roommate for much of my adult life, Chrissie Norton, is a major source of joy and laughter in my life, and she is my favorite, often much-needed and always super-fun, distraction from school. She helped me get through three field seasons in the North Carolina Piedmont (poison ivy, ticks, and more!) and was always there with the emotional and social support I needed throughout my graduate school experience. My boyfriend and favorite botanizing-exploring-socializing-relaxing partner, Jose Zúñiga, not only shared a field season with me, but is my only family member that can provide the “scientist” perspective. He supported and encouraged me to push through to the end of my graduate work many times, and his encouragement always means so much because I know he understands many of the frustrations and difficulties I have confronted. Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank my parents and sisters, who I think are the most wonderful people alive; their unconditional love and support is the inspiration for everything I do. vii Table of Contents List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... xii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1. Introduction: Piedmont brown-water alluvial vegetation...................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Chapter Summaries ................................................................................................... 4 References ................................................................................................................. 7 2. Classification and description of alluvial plant communities of the Piedmont region, North Carolina, U.S.A. .............................................................. 10 Abstract .................................................................................................................... 10 Keywords ................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Report Text.Final Word 2006

    Report Text.Final Word 2006

    1 Floristic Survey and Assessment (2006) of the Illinois Department of Transportation North Chicago Wetland Mitigation Site, Lake County, Illinois John B. Taft, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist Center for Wildlife and Plant Ecology Technical Report Illinois Natural History Survey 1816 S. Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 28 September 2006 Report submitted to: Mike Hine, Bureau Chief Illinois Department of Transportation Bureau of Design and Environment 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764 2 INTRODUCTION A request was received on 2 May 2006 from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for a botanical survey of the North Chicago Wetland Mitigation Site (Figure 1). The specified goal of this study was to update a previously completed floristic survey (Taft 1996). This previous survey described the vegetation history of the site, soil characteristics, species composition including occurrences of three species listed as threatened or endangered by the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board (IESPB), and an evaluation of the natural quality of the site with specific attention to prairie, sedge meadow, and marsh remnants. The study area is an approximately 65 ha (160 acres) rectangular unit that can be subdivided into four equal-sized quarter units, approximately 16 ha (40 acres) in size, along a north-to-south axis (Figure 1). These quarter units will be referred to in the text as the north-quarter, second-quarter, third- quarter, and south-quarter units. The study area occurs in the Morainal Section of the Northeastern Morainal Natural Division; however, at only about 4 km (2.5 miles) from Lake Michigan, it is near the border of the Lake Michigan Dunes Section (Schwegman et al.
  • Checklist of Illinois Native Trees

    Checklist of Illinois Native Trees

    Technical Forestry Bulletin · NRES-102 Checklist of Illinois Native Trees Jay C. Hayek, Extension Forestry Specialist Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences Updated May 2019 This Technical Forestry Bulletin serves as a checklist of Tree species prevalence (Table 2), or commonness, and Illinois native trees, both angiosperms (hardwoods) and gym- county distribution generally follows Iverson et al. (1989) and nosperms (conifers). Nearly every species listed in the fol- Mohlenbrock (2002). Additional sources of data with respect lowing tables† attains tree-sized stature, which is generally to species prevalence and county distribution include Mohlen- defined as having a(i) single stem with a trunk diameter brock and Ladd (1978), INHS (2011), and USDA’s The Plant Da- greater than or equal to 3 inches, measured at 4.5 feet above tabase (2012). ground level, (ii) well-defined crown of foliage, and(iii) total vertical height greater than or equal to 13 feet (Little 1979). Table 2. Species prevalence (Source: Iverson et al. 1989). Based on currently accepted nomenclature and excluding most minor varieties and all nothospecies, or hybrids, there Common — widely distributed with high abundance. are approximately 184± known native trees and tree-sized Occasional — common in localized patches. shrubs found in Illinois (Table 1). Uncommon — localized distribution or sparse. Rare — rarely found and sparse. Nomenclature used throughout this bulletin follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System —the ITIS data- Basic highlights of this tree checklist include the listing of 29 base utilizes real-time access to the most current and accept- native hawthorns (Crataegus), 21 native oaks (Quercus), 11 ed taxonomy based on scientific consensus.
  • Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List Flowering Latin Name Common Name Community Date

    Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List Flowering Latin Name Common Name Community Date

    Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List Flowering Latin Name Common Name Community Date EQUISETACEAE HORSETAIL FAMILY Equisetum arvense L. Field Horsetail FF Equisetum fluviatile L. Water Horsetail LRB Equisetum hyemale L. ssp. affine (Engelm.) Stone Common Scouring-rush BS Equisetum laevigatum A. Braun Smooth Scouring-rush WM Equisetum variegatum Scheich. ex Fried. ssp. Small Horsetail LRB Variegatum DENNSTAEDIACEAE BRACKEN FAMILY Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn Bracken-Fern COF DRYOPTERIDACEAE TRUE FERN FAMILILY Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth ssp. angustum (Willd.) Northeastern Lady Fern FF Clausen Cystopteris bulbifera (L.) Bernh. Bulblet Fern FF Dryopteris carthusiana (Villars) H.P. Fuchs Spinulose Woodfern FF Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Tod. Ostrich Fern FF Onoclea sensibilis L. Sensitive Fern FF Polystichum acrostichoides (Michaux) Schott Christmas Fern FF ADDER’S-TONGUE- OPHIOGLOSSACEAE FERN FAMILY Botrychium virginianum (L.) Sw. Rattlesnake Fern FF FLOWERING FERN OSMUNDACEAE FAMILY Osmunda regalis L. Royal Fern WM POLYPODIACEAE POLYPODY FAMILY Polypodium virginianum L. Rock Polypody FF MAIDENHAIR FERN PTERIDACEAE FAMILY Adiantum pedatum L. ssp. pedatum Northern Maidenhair Fern FF THELYPTERIDACEAE MARSH FERN FAMILY Thelypteris palustris (Salisb.) Schott Marsh Fern WM LYCOPODIACEAE CLUB MOSS FAMILY Lycopodium lucidulum Michaux Shining Clubmoss OF Lycopodium tristachyum Pursh Ground-cedar COF SELAGINELLACEAE SPIKEMOSS FAMILY Selaginella apoda (L.) Fern. Spikemoss LRB CUPRESSACEAE CYPRESS FAMILY Juniperus communis L. Common Juniper Jun-E DS Juniperus virginiana L. Red Cedar Jun-E SD Thuja occidentalis L. White Cedar LRB PINACEAE PINE FAMILY Larix laricina (Duroi) K. Koch Tamarack Jun LRB Pinus banksiana Lambert Jack Pine COF Pinus resinosa Sol. ex Aiton Red Pine Jun-M CF Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List 1 Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List Flowering Latin Name Common Name Community Date Pinus strobus L.
  • INTRODUCTION This Check List of the Plants of New Jersey Has Been

    INTRODUCTION This Check List of the Plants of New Jersey Has Been

    INTRODUCTION This Check List of the Plants of New Jersey has been compiled by updating and integrating the catalogs prepared by such authors as Nathaniel Lord Britton (1881 and 1889), Witmer Stone (1911), and Norman Taylor (1915) with such other sources as recently-published local lists, field trip reports of the Torrey Botanical Society and the Philadelphia Botanical Club, the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program’s list of threatened and endangered plants, personal observations in the field and the herbarium, and observations by other competent field botanists. The Check List includes 2,758 species, a botanical diversity that is rather unexpected in a small state like New Jersey. Of these, 1,944 are plants that are (or were) native to the state - still a large number, and one that reflects New Jersey's habitat diversity. The balance are plants that have been introduced from other countries or from other parts of North America. The list could be lengthened by hundreds of species by including non-persistent garden escapes and obscure waifs and ballast plants, many of which have not been seen in New Jersey since the nineteenth century, but it would be misleading to do so. The Check List should include all the plants that are truly native to New Jersey, plus all the introduced species that are naturalized here or for which there are relatively recent records, as well as many introduced plants of very limited occurrence. But no claims are made for the absolute perfection of the list. Plant nomenclature is constantly being revised. Single old species may be split into several new species, or multiple old species may be combined into one.
  • A List of Vascular Plant Species in the Nova Scotia Flora

    A List of Vascular Plant Species in the Nova Scotia Flora

    A list of vascular plant species in the Nova Scotia flora AFTER the page below was posted, The Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre posted their authoritative lists of Species Ranks for vascualar and non-vascular plants and for invertebrate and vertebrate animals for each of the Atlantic Provinces. See ACCDC Species Ranks. The page below remains posted for the time-being, but visitors are advised that the ACCDC Species Ranks pages are the better ones to consult. A list of native and naturalized vascular plant species in Nova Scotia was generated from Wild Species 2005: The General Status of Species in Canada using the General Status Search Tool. See Wild Species 2005:General Status Summaries:Vascular Plants for details about the listings. The Report parameters were: Report: "Ferns (2005), Orchids (2005), Vascular Plants (2005)" Status: "At risk, May be at risk, Sensitive, Secure, Undetermined, Not assessed, Exotic" Range: "NS" A total of 1657 records matched those criteria. The conservation rankings and number of species within each rank were as follows: Rank Description No. Species 1 At Risk 8 2 May Be At Risk 127 3 Sensitive 136 4 Secure 694 5 Undetermined 96 6 Not Assessed 0 7 Exotic 596 The list is convenient for looking up scientific names of species for which you have a common name or vice versa, also to see a list of all species within a family. Use your browser's FIND function to find a name within the page. Limitations Please note that only one common name for each species is given, also that synonyms for the scientific names are not listed.
  • Point Pelee National Park • Common Name

    Point Pelee National Park • Common Name

    Point Pelee National Park Flora • Common Name (Order Family Genus species) Monocotyledons • Arrow-grass, Marine (Najadales Juncaginaceae Triglochin maritimum) • Arrowhead, Broadleaf (Alismatales Alismataceae Sagittaria latifolia) • Asparagus (Liliales Liliaceae Asparagus officinalis) • Barley, Foxtail (Poales Poaceae/Gramineae Hordeum jubatum) • Bellwort (Liliales Liliaceae Uvularia grandiflora) • Bentgrass, Autumn (Poales Poaceae/Gramineae Agrostis perennans) • Bentgrass, Creepingp (Poales Poaceae/Gramineae Agrostis stolonifera) • Bluegrass, Marsh (Poales Poaceae/Gramineae Poa palustris) • Bluejoint (Poales Poaceae/Gramineae Calamagrostis canadensis) • Bluestem, Big (Poales Poaceae/Gramineae Andropogon gerardii) • Bluestem, Little (Poales Poaceae/Gramineae Schizachyrium scoparium) • Brome, Downy (Poales Poaceae/Gramineae Bromus pubescens) • Brome, Smooth (Poales Poaceae/Gramineae Bromus inermis) • Bulrush, Bluntscale (Cyperales Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus smithii) • Bulrush, Common Three-square (Cyperales Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus pungens) • Bulrush, Great (Cyperales Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus acutus) • Bulrush, Green (Cyperales Cyperaceae Scirpus atrovirens) • Bulrush, River (Cyperales Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus fluviatilis) • Bulrush, Rusty (Cyperales Cyperaceae Scirpus pendulus) • Bulrush, Slender (Cyperales Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus heterochaetus) • Bulrush, Soft-stem (Cyperales Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani) • Bulrush, Swaying (Cyperales Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus subterminalis) • Bunchgrass, Early (Poales Poaceae/Gramineae
  • Karl Anderson 2009 Plant List INTRODUCTION This Check List Of

    Karl Anderson 2009 Plant List INTRODUCTION This Check List Of

    Karl Anderson 2009 Plant List INTRODUCTION This Check List of the Plants of New Jersey has been compiled by updating and integrating the catalogs prepared by such authors as Nathaniel Lord Britton (1881 and 1889), Witmer Stone (1911), and Norman Taylor (1915) with such other sources as recently-published local lists, field trip reports of the Torrey Botanical Society and the Philadelphia Botanical Club, the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program’s list of threatened and endangered plants, personal observations in the field and the herbarium, and observations by other competent field botanists. The Check List includes 2,790 species and hybrids, a botanical diversity that is rather unexpected in a small state like New Jersey. Of these, 1,976 are plants that are (or were) native to the state - still a large number, and one that reflects New Jersey's habitat diversity. The balance are plants that have been introduced from other countries or from other parts of North America. The list could be lengthened by several hundred species by including non-persistent garden escapes and obscure waifs and ballast plants that have not been seen in New Jersey since the nineteenth century, but it would be misleading to do so. The Check List should include all the plants that are truly native to New Jersey, plus all the introduced species that are naturalized here or for which there are relatively recent records, as well as many introduced plants of very limited occurrence. But no claims are made for the absolute perfection of the list. Plant nomenclature is constantly being revised.
  • New York Rare Plant Status Lists November 2020 Compiled by Stephen M

    New York Rare Plant Status Lists November 2020 Compiled by Stephen M

    New York Rare Plant Status Lists November 2020 Compiled by Stephen M. Young Eurybia spectabilis Showy Aster Opuntia cespitosa Prickly Pear New York Natural Heritage Program A Partnership between SUNY ESF and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 https://www.nynhp.org/ New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status Lists November 2020 Compiled by: Stephen M. Young This list is also published at the website: https://www.nynhp.org/ Plant Conservation Guides for most species are available at: https://guides.nynhp.org/ More information is available about all the plants at: https://newyork.plantatlas.usf.edu/ For more information, suggestions, or comments about this list, please contact: Steve Young, Chief Botanist New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 518-402-8951 Fax 518-402-8925 E-mail: [email protected] To report sightings of rare plants, contact Steve Young, enter the observation in our iNaturalist project, Rare Plants of New York State, or fill out the online rare species reporting form at https://www.nynhp.org/report-rare Established in 1985, the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) is a program of the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY ESF). The Program is funded through grants and contracts with government agencies whose missions involve natural resource management, private organizations involved in land protection and stewardship, and both government and private organizations interested in advancing the conservation of biodiversity. The NYNHP Botany Program, including the production of this Rare Plant Status List, is made possible by the New York State Environmental Protection Fund, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
  • Checklist Appendix

    Checklist Appendix

    P a g e | 1 Appendix Species Excluded from the 2019 Newfoundland and Labrador Checklist This appendix includes species that have been reported from the Province, but have been excluded from the Vascular Plant Checklist of Newfoundland and Labrador for one or more reasons. Although these species may appear in other databases as occurring in the Province, such reports are unvalidated. If the species report was based on a misidentification, a reference to the correct species is listed. If no proof of a species occurrence in the Province was found, based on herbarium records, the report was considered unvalidated and placed in this Appendix, usually with no additional comment. If species included in this Appendix are subsequently discovered to occur outside of cultivation in the Province, they will be moved from the Appendix to the main part of the checklist. • Species reported erroneously from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, often due to a misapplication of the nomenclature. • Species reports based on misidentification of existing herbarium records. • Horticultural species that are not found naturally outside of cultivation; including species such as lilacs, that have persisted from deliberate plantings at abandoned homesteads, but which have not spread to new areas. • Ephemeral introductions, often introduced with garden soils from imported nursery stock or as contaminants in agricultural seed. Those introduced species do not persist in the NL flora Lycophytes: Quillworts & Clubmosses Isoetaceae / Isoetacées - Quillwort Family [n] Isoetes riparia Engelm. ex A.Braun En: shore quillwort, riverbank quillwort; Fr: isoète riparien. Temp. eNA, aq. Lycopodiaceae / Lycopodiacées - Clubmoss Family [n] Dendrolycopodium obscurum (L.) A.Haines En: flatbranch tree-clubmoss, common groundpine; Fr: lycopode obscur.
  • Appendix B. All Plant Species Detected

    Appendix B. All Plant Species Detected

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Vegetation Community Monitoring at Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, 2012 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2014/712 ON THE COVER The bright pink blossom of quill fameflower (Talinum teritifolium) on a granite outcrop atop Kennesaw Mountain at Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park. Photograph by: Sarah C. Heath, SECN Botanist. Vegetation Community Monitoring at Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, 2012 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2014/712 Sarah Corbett Heath1 Michael W. Byrne2 1USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network Cumberland Island National Seashore 101 Wheeler Street Saint Marys, Georgia, 31558 2USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network 135 Phoenix Road Athens, GA 30605 October 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for the timely release of basic data sets and data summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data in this report are provisional and subject to change. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
  • An All-Taxa Biodiversity Inventory of the Huron Mountain Club

    An All-Taxa Biodiversity Inventory of the Huron Mountain Club

    AN ALL-TAXA BIODIVERSITY INVENTORY OF THE HURON MOUNTAIN CLUB Vers io n: February 2020 Cite as: Woods, K.D. (Compiler). 2020. An all-taxa biodiversity inventory of the Huron Mountain Club. Version February 2020. Occasional papers of the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation, No. 5. [http://www.hmwf.org/species_list.php] Introduction and general compilation by: Kerry D. Woods Natural Sciences Bennington College Bennington VT 05201 Kingdom Fungi compiled by: Dana L. Richter School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI 49931 DEDICATION This project is dedicated to Dr. William R. Manierre, who is responsible, directly and indirectly, for documenting a large proportion of the taxa listed here. INTRODUCTION No complete species inventory exists for any area. Particularly charismatic groups – birds, large mammals, butterflies – are thoroughly documented for many areas (including the Huron Mountains), but even these groups present some surprises when larger or more remote areas are examined closely, and range changes lead to additions and subtractions. Other higher-level taxa are generally much more poorly documented; even approximate inventories exist for only a few, typically restricted locales. The most diverse taxa (most notably, in terrestrial ecosystems, insects) and many of the most ecologically important groups (decay fungi, soil invertebrates) are, with few exceptions, embarrassingly poorly documented. The notion of an ‘all-taxon biodiversity inventory’ (or ATBI) – a complete listing of species, of all taxonomic groups for a defined locale – is of relatively recent vintage, originating with ecologist Daniel Janzen’s initiative to fully document the biota of Costa Rica’s Guanacaste National Park. Miller (2005) offers a brief a history of ATBI efforts, and notes that only three significant regional efforts appear to be ongoing.
  • Native Shrubs, Subshrubs & Lianas of New Hampshire

    Native Shrubs, Subshrubs & Lianas of New Hampshire

    Native Shrubs, Subshrubs & Lianas of New Hampshire By William F. Nichols, State Botanist and Senior Ecologist, N.H. Natural Heritage Bureau, Division of Forests and Lands, Dept. of Resources and Economic Development and Karen P. Bennett, Extension Forestry Professor and Specialist. We list 235 species of native shrubs, subshrubs, and lianas known to occur in New Hampshire. The exact number is tricky to pin down because some shrub species can also occur in tree form. Others are subshrubs, dwarf shrubs or perennial plants that are woody only near the base, where new growth above the base dies back each year. Finally, lianas (woody vine-like plants) are also included in the list. Forty species are rare (state endangered or threatened), 14 are uncommon (state watch), and 19 are listed as indeterminate (see “Category Definitions” below). The following criteria were used to determine inclusion on this list: • Woody species (subshrubs to shrubs to lianas) native to at least part of New Hampshire. • Woody species that typically grow no more than 20 feet tall. • Woody species that commonly grow in a multi-stem form. The list is split into conifers (gymnosperms) and flowering species (angiosperms). Within these two categories, the list is first arranged alphabetically by the generic common name of groups (i.e., dogwood, elderberry, false heather, etc.), then by the common name of the species. Scientific (Latin) names are also given (family name follow the genus name header). Both common and scientific names follow Arthur Haines’ Tracheophyte Checklist of New England (2016): http://www.arthurhaines.com/tracheophyte-checklist/. Superscript numbers by the name of a species indicate the following: The N.H.