DOCSLIB.ORG

An Ethnobotany of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore: Plant Uses of the Ojibwa People Final Report April 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Ethnobotany of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore: Plant Uses of the Ojibwa People Final Report April 2009 An Ethnobotany of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore: Plant Uses of the Ojibwa People Final Report April 2009 Paper birch John M. Schoeneker & University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point White cedar © State of Michigan Sweetgrass © Blackfoot Native by Plant Nursery Rebecca S. Toupal, Principal Investigator Kacy Hollenback Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology University of Arizona An Ethnobotany of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore: Plant Uses of the Ojibwa People Final Report Prepared by Rebecca S. Toupal and Kacy Hollenback Prepared for The National Park Service Cooperative Agreement Number H1200050003 R.S. Toupal, Principal Investigator Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 April 30, 2009 Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 Research Summary .......................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Findings....................................................................................................... 2 Future Research Needs .................................................................................................... 13 Chapter One: Study Overview............................................................................................... 14 Geographic and Cultural Focus of the Research.............................................................. 15 Project Scope and Methodology ...................................................................................... 17 Research Team................................................................................................................. 17 Chapter Two: Ojibway Ethnobotanical Knowledge.............................................................. 19 Chapter Three: An Ojibway Ethnobotanical Catalog: Grasses, Forbs, Shrubs, and Trees.... 23 Chapter Four: An Ojibway Ethnobotanical Catalog: Mosses, Lichens, and Fungi...............297 Chapter Five: Fire: Unnatural Disturbance, Ecological Process, or Management Tool .......331 Fire Behavior and Effects ................................................................................................331 Indian Burning .................................................................................................................334 Management Potential .....................................................................................................338 Chapter Six: Summary and Future Research.........................................................................341 References Cited ....................................................................................................................343 Appendix A: Ojibway Traditional Use Species by Use.........................................................417 Plants for Agricultural Purposes Plants used for Smoking Plants used for Ceremonial Purposes Plants with Mythic Roles Plants considered Sacred Plants used as Food Plants used as Medicine Plants used for Utilitarian Purposes Plants used for Crafts Plants used for Dye Plants used for Clothing Plants used as Trade Items Plants used as Charms Plants for Other or Unspecified Uses Appendix B: Ojibway Traditional Use Species by Survey/Management Unit......................468 Miller Woods Traditional Use Plants Tolleston Dunes Traditional Use Plants West Beach Traditional Use Plants Bailly Traditional Use Plants Dune Acres Traditional Use Plants Dune State Park Area Traditional Use Plants Old Visitor Center area Traditional Use Plants Keiser Unit Traditional Use Plants Tamarack Unit Traditional Use Plants Heron Rookery Traditional Use Plants Hoosier Prairie Traditional Use Plants Pinhook Bog Traditional Use Plants i Tables Table ES1. Percentage use category by park survey unit. ..................................................... 2 Table ES2. Ojibway traditional use plants identified in the literature................................... 3 Table 1. Number and percent of traditional plants for Indiana Dunes survey units. ............. 23 Table 2. Number of previously documented Ojibway traditional use species ...................... 24 Figures Figure 1. Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore comprises a fragmented area at the south end of Lake Michigan ........................................................................................................ 14 Figure 2. The tribes of Michigan ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 3. The tribes of Wisconsin.......................................................................................... 16 Figure 4. Miller Woods.......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 5. West Beach............................................................................................................. 24 Figure 6. Howes Prairie ......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 7. Pinhook Bog ........................................................................................................... 25 Figure 8. Indian burning in the U. S. from initial occupation through the 19th century .......335 ii Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Ethnobotany Executive Summary Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (INDU) was established at the south end of Lake Michigan on November 5, 1966 “to preserve for the educational, inspirational, and recreational use of the public certain portions of the Indiana dunes and other areas of scenic, scientific, and historic interest and recreational value” (P.L. 89-761, 89th Congress, 80 Stat 1309). The combination of sand dunes and diverse native flora in such close proximity to several urban areas provided the impetus for protection of the area. Subsequent amendments to the original authorizing legislation in 1976, 1980, 1986, and 1992 increased the park’s acreage to over 15,000 acres including 2,182 acres in Indiana Dunes State Park that are managed by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. The management of INDU includes consideration of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, and various statutes, executive orders, and National Park Service (NPS) policies and guidelines. The NPS, consequently, strives to be responsive to the concerns of contemporary traditionally associated people including American Indian and non-Indian groups. To do so effectively, the agency needs a deeper understanding of how these groups value the natural and cultural resources within INDU boundaries. This report on Ojibway ethnobotany builds on the previous Miami-Potawatomi baseline ethnobotany (Toupal, Banks, and Carroll 2006) by providing additional traditional plant use data to further the agency’s understanding of traditionally associated groups’ relationship to the Indiana Dunes landscape. Research Summary As a supplement to the Miami-Potawatomi report, this study focused on Ojibway traditional uses. It was intended to include fieldwork with traditionally associated Ojibway groups, however, the one group who expressed interest in participating, Saginaw Chippewa, experienced internal miscommunications and elections that eventually precluded their participation. Other Ojibway groups either were not interested in participating, or not traveling the distance to the park, which averaged 350 miles. This report, consequently, is based on previously documented sources that include several original ethnographic works (e.g. Densmore (1928), Gilmore (1933), Smith (1932)). As a result of consultation with the NPS Key Official for the project, the report includes, in lieu of primary field data, a fire management chapter and fire response data for some species. As outlined in the Scope of Work, the final report includes a detailed plant catalog, descriptions of traditionally associated Ojibway groups, and future data needs. 1 Summary of Findings The Ojibway people continue to use plant species found in INDU in traditional ways (Zedeño et al. 2000, 2001). Plant knowledge is not given lightly and Ojibway groups today are concerned about the fate of information they share (Saginaw Chippewa 2007). Traditional uses by the Ojibway were found for 487 species (33.3%) of the park’s 1,462 plants (Table ES1). As a supplement to the Miami-Potawatomi ethnobotany, this study found additional uses for 318 species and added 10 species. The total traditional use species documented by both reports is 983 (67.2%) of the park’s 1,462 species. Of the 487 species (Table ES2), 90% are native. Many of the introduced species with traditional uses have been here since the early settlement period, and were introduced purposefully in the 17th and 18th centuries, and shared with the tribes on occasion (Josselyn 1674). The primary traditional uses of the 50 introduced species are medicinal and as charms. Other/unspecified, food, utility, smoking, ceremonial, craft, agriculture, and dye are the other use categories found for these species. Of the 487 traditional use species, 53 have a special status: threatened (10), endangered (8), extirpated (2), rare (11), locally rare (18), and watch list (1). Of these species, 31 have one to two uses, 10 have three to four uses, seven have five to six uses, four have seven to eight uses, and one has 13 uses (Thuja occidentalis). Tables
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plant List Bristow Prairie & High Divide Trail
    *Non-native Bristow Prairie & High Divide Trail Plant List as of 7/12/2016 compiled by Tanya Harvey T24S.R3E.S33;T25S.R3E.S4 westerncascades.com FERNS & ALLIES Pseudotsuga menziesii Ribes lacustre Athyriaceae Tsuga heterophylla Ribes sanguineum Athyrium filix-femina Tsuga mertensiana Ribes viscosissimum Cystopteridaceae Taxaceae Rhamnaceae Cystopteris fragilis Taxus brevifolia Ceanothus velutinus Dennstaedtiaceae TREES & SHRUBS: DICOTS Rosaceae Pteridium aquilinum Adoxaceae Amelanchier alnifolia Dryopteridaceae Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea Holodiscus discolor Polystichum imbricans (Sambucus mexicana, S. cerulea) Prunus emarginata (Polystichum munitum var. imbricans) Sambucus racemosa Rosa gymnocarpa Polystichum lonchitis Berberidaceae Rubus lasiococcus Polystichum munitum Berberis aquifolium (Mahonia aquifolium) Rubus leucodermis Equisetaceae Berberis nervosa Rubus nivalis Equisetum arvense (Mahonia nervosa) Rubus parviflorus Ophioglossaceae Betulaceae Botrychium simplex Rubus ursinus Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata Sceptridium multifidum (Alnus sinuata) Sorbus scopulina (Botrychium multifidum) Caprifoliaceae Spiraea douglasii Polypodiaceae Lonicera ciliosa Salicaceae Polypodium hesperium Lonicera conjugialis Populus tremuloides Pteridaceae Symphoricarpos albus Salix geyeriana Aspidotis densa Symphoricarpos mollis Salix scouleriana Cheilanthes gracillima (Symphoricarpos hesperius) Salix sitchensis Cryptogramma acrostichoides Celastraceae Salix sp. (Cryptogramma crispa) Paxistima myrsinites Sapindaceae Selaginellaceae (Pachystima myrsinites)
    [Show full text]
  • Colored Illustrations and Popular Descriptions of Plants
    ADDISONIA COLORED ILLUSTRATIONS AND POPULAR DESCRIPTIONS OP PLANTS Volume 3 1918 BOTA' 3CAL PUBLISHED BY THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN (ADDISON BROWN FUND) PRESS OF THE NEW ERA PRINTINQ COMPANY LANCASTER, PA. m CONTENTS Part 1 March 30, 1918 platb pagb 81 Aronia atropurpurea 1 82 Aster Novae-Angliae 3 83A Gymnocalycium multiflorum 5 83B Gymnocalycium Mostii 5 84 Euonymus alata 7 85 Diospyros virginiana 9 86 Lepadena marginata 11 87 Maackia amurensis Buergeri 13 88 Hibiscus oculiroseus 15 89 Comus ofl&cinalis 17 90 Opuntia lasiacantha 19 Part 2 June 29, 1918 91 Cotoneaster Simonsii 21 92 Echeveria nodulosa 23 93 Helianthus orgyalis 25 94 Symphoricarpos albus laevigatus 27 95 Sinningia speciosa 29 96 Stylophorum diphyllum 31 97 Aronia arbutifolia 33 98 Hamamelis japonica 35 99 Hibiscus Moscheutos 37 100 Sobralia sessilis 39 Part 3 September 30, 1918 101 Comus Mas 41 102 Solidago squarrosa 43 103 Callicarpa japonica 45 104 Aster laevis 47 105 Opuntia Opuntia .49 106 Ilex serrata argutidens 51 107 Othonna crassifolia 53 108 Magnolia Kobus 55 109 Crassula portulacea 57 110 Viburnum prunifolium 59 «•• lU iv Addisonia Part 4 December 31, 1918 111 Symphoricarpos Symphoricarpos 61 112 Spiraea Thunbergii 63 j 113 Coreopsis Leavenworthii 65 114 Echinacea purpurea 67 115 Lantana 69 depressa ; 116 Ilex verticillata 71 j 117 Vioma Baldwinii 73 ] 118 Jussiaea peruviana 75 i 119 Salvia farinacea 77 i 120 Dianthera crassifolia 79 i Index 81 i 1 ADDISONIA COLORED ILLUSTRATIONS AND POPULAR DESCRIPTIONS OF PLANTS Volume 3 Number i MARCH, 1918 PUBLISHED BY
    [Show full text]
  • Title Studies in the Morphology and Systematics of Berberidaceae (V
    Studies in the Morphology and Systematics of Berberidaceae Title (V) : Floral Anatomy of Caulophyllum MICHX., Leontice L., Gymnospermium SPACH and Bongardia MEY Author(s) Terabayashi, Susumu Memoirs of the Faculty of Science, Kyoto University. Series of Citation biology. New series (1983), 8(2): 197-217 Issue Date 1983-02-28 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/258852 Right Type Departmental Bulletin Paper Textversion publisher Kyoto University MEMolRs OF THE FAcuLTy ol" SclENCE, KyOTO UNIvERslTy, SERMS OF BIoLoGy Vol. VIII, pp. 197-217, March l983 Studies in the Morphology and Systematics of Berberidaceae V. Floral Anatomy ef Cauloplrytlum MICHX., Leontice L., Gymnospermium SpACH and Bongardia MEY. Susumu TERABAYASHI (Received iNovember 13, l981) Abstract The floral anatomy of CauloPh71tum, Leontice, G"mnospermittm and Bongardia are discussed with special reference given to vasculature. Comparisons offloral anatomy are made with the other genera og the tribe Epimedieae. The vasculature in the receptacle of Caulopnjilum, Leontice and G]mnospermiitm is similar, but that of Bongardia differs in the very thick xylem of the receptacular stele and in the independent origin ef the traces to the sepals, petals and stamens from the stele. A tendency is recognized in that the outer floral elements receive traces ofa sing]e nature in origin from the stele while the inner elements receive traces ofa double nature. The traces to the inner e}ements are often clerived from common bundles in Caulop/tyllttm, Leontice and G"mnospermittm. A similar tendency is observed in the trace pattern in the other genera of Epimedieae, but the adnation of the traces is not as distinct as in the genera treated in this study.
    [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]
  • Bureau County~
    REMINISCENCES OF BUREAU COUNTY~ IN TWO PARTS, WITH ILLUSTRATIONS. Bv N. MATSON. PRINCETON, ILLINOIS: REPl,TJJLICAN BOOK AND JOB OFFICE. 1872. Entered according to an act of Congress, in the year lb"T:?, by N. :MATSON, In the Clerk's office of the District Conrt of the United States, in and for Northern District of Illinois. -:---.:::--------- ~---------·· FLIGHT OF SET'l'LEUS, INTRODUCTION TO PART FIRST. The writer ot the following story came to Bureau soon after the settlement had been commenced, and experienced some of the inconveniences common to the settlement of a new country. At that time, the prairies of this county were in a state of nature, without roads, fields, or dwellings, a part of which had not yet been surveyed. The only marks of civilization to be seen were a few log cabins, built here and there in the edge of the timber, and throughout the county there was scarcely a school, or meeting house; not one surveyed road, nor one stream bridged. Indian trail1.-­ were still to be seen, and traveled both by whites and Indians. The writer was .well acquainted with the first settlers. and from them much of this story was obtained. He also had frequent interviews with Indians, who had spent their youthful days on ~ureau, and from them many important facts were gathered. There are some incidents narrated in this story, which were unknown to the early settlers, but the most of them were well known, and will be confirmed by persons still living. Efforts were made to harmonize the early traditions of this county, as well as the state­ ments of Indians, with well established facts, and with a few exceptions it has been successful.
    [Show full text]
  • Buzz-Pollination and Patterns in Sexual Traits in North European Pyrolaceae Author(S): Jette T
    Buzz-Pollination and Patterns in Sexual Traits in North European Pyrolaceae Author(s): Jette T. Knudsen and Jens Mogens Olesen Reviewed work(s): Source: American Journal of Botany, Vol. 80, No. 8 (Aug., 1993), pp. 900-913 Published by: Botanical Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2445510 . Accessed: 08/08/2012 10:49 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Botanical Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Botany. http://www.jstor.org American Journalof Botany 80(8): 900-913. 1993. BUZZ-POLLINATION AND PATTERNS IN SEXUAL TRAITS IN NORTH EUROPEAN PYROLACEAE1 JETTE T. KNUDSEN2 AND JENS MOGENS OLESEN Departmentof ChemicalEcology, University of G6teborg, Reutersgatan2C, S-413 20 G6teborg,Sweden; and Departmentof Ecology and Genetics,University of Aarhus, Ny Munkegade, Building550, DK-8000 Aarhus,Denmark Flowerbiology and pollinationof Moneses uniflora, Orthilia secunda, Pyrola minor, P. rotundifolia,P. chlorantha, and Chimaphilaumbellata are describedand discussedin relationto patternsin sexualtraits and possibleevolution of buzz- pollinationwithin the group. The largenumber of pollengrains are packedinto units of monadsin Orthilia,tetrads in Monesesand Pyrola,or polyadsin Chimaphila.Pollen is thesole rewardto visitinginsects except in thenectar-producing 0.
    [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]
  • Download Download
    10/23/2014 The Historical Roots of The Nature Conservancy in the Northwest Indiana/Chicagoland Region: From Science to Preservation Category: Vol. 3, 2009 The Historical Roots of The Nature Conservancy in the Northwest Indiana/Chicagoland Region: From Science to Preservation Written by Stephanie Smith and Steve Mark Hits: 10184 The South Shore Journal, Vol. 3, 2009, pp.1-10. Stephanie Smith - Indiana University Northwest Steve Mark - Chicago, Illinois Abstract The present article highlights the impact that scientists, educators, and activists of the Northwest Indiana/Chicagoland area had on the conservation of land. The habitat and ecosystems of the Indiana Dunes were deemed to be of scientific interest by Henry Cowles, who led an international group of ecologists to visit the area in 1913. This meeting resulted in the formation of the Ecological Society of America, an offshoot of which eventually became The Nature Conservancy. It was only when preservation efforts expanded their focus from scientists attempting to prove that habitats were worthy of preservation to include contributions by people from all walks of life, did conservation take off. Keywords: The Nature Conservancy, Ecologists Union, Volo Bog The Historical Roots of The Nature Conservancy in the Northwest Indiana/Chicagoland Region: From Science to Preservation …There is not a sufficient number of scientific people as voters to enthuse the politicians… …. (Garland, 1954). In the late 1890’s and early 1900’s, Henry Chandler Cowles, a botanist at the University of Chicago, published a number of scientific papers on ecological succession from research conducted in the sand dunes of northwestern Indiana (e.g., Cowles, 1899; Cowles, 1901).
    [Show full text]
  • Ual Report of the Trustees
    THE CENTRAL PARK, NEW YORK CITY. (77th Street and 8th Avenue.) ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TRUSTEES AND - LIST OF MEMBERS FOR THE- YEnAR 1886=7. PRINTED FOR THE MUSEUM. THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, CENTRAL PARK, NEW YORK CITY. (77th Street and 8th Avenue.) ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TRUSTEES AND LIST OF MEMBERS FOR THE YEsAR 1886-7. NEW YORK: PRINTED FOR THE MUSEUM. 1887. &4iSox-a-E.t-t ;-S60-. buff. 0. kAAnTIN. ill JOHX ton -,q..Jwm9 BOARD OF TRUSTEES. MORRIS K. JESUP. ABRAM S. HEWITT. BENJAMIN H. FIELD. CHARLES LANIER. ADRIAN ISELIN. HUGH AUCHINCLOSS. J. PIERPONT MORGAN. OLIVER HARRIMAN. D. JACKSON STEWARD. C. VANDERBILT. JOSEPH H. CHOATE. D. 0. MILLS. PERCY R. PYNE. CHAS. G. LANDON. JOHN B. TREVOR. H. R. BISHOP. JAMES M. CONSTABLE. ALBERT S. BICKMORE. WILLIAM E. DODGE. THEODORE ROOSEVELT. JOSEPH W. DREXEL. OSWALD OTTENDORFER. ANDREW H. GREEN. J. HAMPDEN ROBB. OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES FOR I887. President. MORRIS K. JESUP. Vice-Presidents. D. JACKSON STEWARD. JAMES M. CONSTABLE. Secretary. ALBERT S. BICKMORE. Treasurer. J. PIERPONT MORGAN. Executive Committee. JAMES M. CONSTABLE, Chairman. D. JACKSON STEWARD. JOSEPH W. DREXEL. H. R. BISHOP. THEODORE ROOSEVELT. The President and Secretary, ex-ojficio. Auditing Committee. CHARLES LANIER. ADRIAN ISELIN. C. VANDERBILT. Finance Committee. J. PIERPONT MORGAN. D. 0. MILLS. JOHN B. TREVOR. PROF. ALBERT S. BICKMORE, Curator of the Ethnological Department, and in charge of the Department of Public Instruction. PROF. R. P. WHITFIELD, Curator of the Geological, Mineralogical and Conchological Department. L. P. GRATACAP, Assistant Curator of the Geological Department. J. A. ALLEN, Curator of the Department of Ornithology and Mammalogy.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ethnobotany of Mount Rushmore National Memorial
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Masters Projects Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Summer 2019 An Ethnobotany of Mount Rushmore National Memorial Meredith Savage University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/larp_ms_projects Part of the Landscape Architecture Commons Savage, Meredith, "An Ethnobotany of Mount Rushmore National Memorial" (2019). Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Masters Projects. 92. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/larp_ms_projects/92 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN ETHNOBOTANY OF MOUNT RUSHMORE NATIONAL MEMORIAL Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning University of Massachusetts Amherst Master of Regional Planning Project Meredith S. Savage July 2019 © Copyright by Meredith S. Savage 2019 All Rights Reserved AN ETHNOBOTANY OF MOUNT RUSHMORE NATIONAL MEMORIAL Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning University of Massachusetts Amherst Master of Regional Planning Project Meredith S. Savage July 2019 Approved as to style and content by: __________________________________________ Dr. Elizabeth Brabec,
    [Show full text]
  • The Campanulaceae of Ohio1
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by KnowledgeBank at OSU 142 WIENS ET AL. Vol. 62 THE CAMPANULACEAE OF OHIO1 ROBERT W. CRUDEN2 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Ohio State University, Columbus 10 In Ohio the family Campanulaceae is represented by three genera: Campanula, Lobelia, and Specularia; and eleven species, of which five are common throughout the state and two are quite limited in their distribution. Following the key to species each species is briefly described, and distribution, common names, chromosome numbers, if known, and other pertinent data are given. Chromosome numbers are those given in Darlington and Wylie (1956) and in the papers of Bowden (1959a, 1959b). Average time of flowering is indi- ^ontribution Nc. 666 of the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University. Research completed while a National Science Foundation Co-operative Fellow. 2Present address: Department of Botany, University of California, Berkeley 4, California. THE OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 62(3): 142, May, 1962. No. 3 CAMPANULACEAE OF OHIO 143 cated as well as the extreme flowering dates as determined from a study of her- barium material. The genera and species are arranged alphabetically. Distri- bution maps are included. A dot represents a collection of a particular species in a given county. No attempt has been made to indicate the general area of collection within the county, as a majority of herbarium specimens do not have this information. It should also be pointed out that many of the collections examined are forty or more years old and thus the distribution maps do not neces- sarily indicate present distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen Scientists Document Geographic Patterns in Pollinator Communities
    Journal of Pollination Ecology, 23(10), 2018, pp 90-97 CITIZEN SCIENTISTS DOCUMENT GEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN POLLINATOR COMMUNITIES Alison J. Parker* and James D. Thomson University of Toronto, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 25 Harbord Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G5 Canada Abstract—It is widely recognized that plants are visited by a diverse community of pollinators that are highly variable in space and time, but biologists are often unable to investigate the pollinator climate across species’ entire ranges. To study the community of pollinators visiting the spring ephemerals Claytonia virginica and Claytonia caroliniana, we assembled a team of citizen scientists to monitor pollinator visitation to plants throughout the species’ ranges. Citizen scientists documented some interesting differences in pollinator communities; specifically, that western C. virginica and C. caroliniana populations are visited more often by the pollen specialist bee Andrena erigeniae and southern populations are visited more often by the bombyliid fly Bombylius major. Differences in pollinator communities throughout the plants’ range will have implications for the ecology and evolution of a plant species, including that differences may affect the male fitness of individual plants or the reproductive success of plant populations, or both. Keywords: citizen science, plant-pollinator interactions INTRODUCTION Looking for and documenting large-scale patterns in A rich history of research has explored the role of a pollinator communities requires a great deal of observational pollinator species in determining the reproductive success of a data. Studies are often limited to just one or a few plant plant, selecting for plant traits, and in some cases influencing populations (Herrera et al.
    [Show full text]