DOCSLIB.ORG

Endangered and Threatened Species

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Endangered and Threatened Species This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/sonar/sonar.asp STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS In the Matter of Proposed Amendment to and Repeal of Rules Governing Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134: Endangered and Threatened Species STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES August 10, 2012 Conclusion Based upon the following, the proposed amendments to and repeal of rules are both needed and reasonable. Dated: August 15, 2012 /S/ Tom Landwehr, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources STATE OF MINNESOTA Proposed Amendment of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134: Endangered and Threatened Species Statement of Need and Reasonableness: August 10, 2012 Page 1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES In The Matter Of Proposed Amendment to and Repeal of Rules Governing Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134: Endangered and Threatened Species STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS General Statement Introduction Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species (List) was created in 1984, amended in 1996, and has remained unchanged since. The List, established under the authority of Minnesota’s Endangered and Threatened Species Statute, draws attention to species that are at greatest risk of extinction within the state; special regulations are applied to those listed as endangered or threatened. By alerting resource managers and the public to species in jeopardy, activities can be reviewed and prioritized to help preserve the diversity and abundance of Minnesota’s flora and fauna. Because of the importance of this List in influencing resource use and management activities in Minnesota, it is critical that it reflect the most current information regarding the distribution, abundance, and security of species within the state. In this document, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) describes and explains the changes it proposes to make to the status of 302 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, fish, mollusks, jumping spiders, butterflies and moths, caddisflies, tiger beetles, leafhoppers, dragonflies, vascular plants, lichens, mosses and liverworts, and fungi. History of Minnesota’s Endangered and Threatened Species Statute Minnesota law pertaining to endangered species dates to Laws of Minnesota 1971, Ch. 825, which listed several animal species as endangered, and granted authority to the DNR’s commissioner to add or delete animals by rule. Laws of Minnesota 1974, Ch. 465 added a threatened category to the statute and dropped the listing of specific species in statute. Laws of Minnesota 1981, Ch. 285 added a special concern category to the statute, and added plants to the statute’s protection. The statute, entitled Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species was codified into its current form (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895) in 1986 (Laws of Minnesota 1986, Ch. 386, art. 4, s. 9). Content of Minnesota’s Endangered and Threatened Species Statute and Associated Rule Minnesota's Endangered and Threatened Species Statute provides protection to species at risk of extinction within Minnesota, and reflects the Legislature’s intent that the DNR manage these species in such a way as to prevent their extinction and restore their viability within the bounds of the state, and thus maintain all elements of the state’s native flora and fauna. The statute identifies those activities from which an endangered species is protected (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 1), specifies that violation of this prohibition is a misdemeanor (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 9), and authorizes peace officers or conservation officers to enforce the statute (Minn. Stat., secs. 84.0894 and 84.0895, subd. 6). It authorizes the DNR commissioner to conduct studies to support species conservation (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 4), to develop programs, orders, and rules to recover species from threatened or endangered status (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 5), and to designate species as endangered, threatened, or of special concern (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 3, see below). While the statute and associated rule provide protection from prohibited acts to all endangered or threatened species, species of special concern receive no such protection. The statute also provides exemptions from its stated prohibitions for: 1) plants on land classified for property tax purposes as class 2a or 2b agricultural land, or on ditches and roadways; 2) noxious weeds designated as such under statute or weeds otherwise designated as troublesome by the Department of Agriculture; 3) noxious weed control; 4) the application of pesticides or other agricultural chemicals on land adjacent to class 3 or 3b agricultural land; and 5) the accidental taking of endangered and threatened plants where the existence of the plant is not known at the time of the taking (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 2). It also provides for the capture or destruction of a protected species, without permit, to avoid an immediate and demonstrable threat to human life or Proposed Amendment of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134: Endangered and Threatened Species Statement of Need and Reasonableness: August 10, 2012 Page 2 property (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 7(c)). Further, the statute authorizes the DNR commissioner to issue permits, including general permits, that allow the prohibited acts if: 1) the act is for purposes of zoological, educational, or scientific study; 2) the act enhances the propagation or survival of the affected species; 3) the act prevents injury to persons or property (provided that all alternatives, including live trapping and transplantation, have been evaluated and rejected); or 4) the social and economic benefits of the act outweigh the harm caused by it (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 7). The statute also authorizes the DNR commissioner to prescribe conditions to propagate a species or subspecies (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 7(b)), and allows the commissioner to issue permits for forest management (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 7(d)). Finally, the statute specifies that it does not apply retroactively to, or prohibit importation into the state of species (or their parts) that are legally acquired from elsewhere (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 8). Rules governing permits for the taking, possession, and disposition of endangered species were first promulgated in 1974 (Commissioners Order No. 1901; July 31, 1974). These were substantially expanded in 1985, and extended protection and permit requirements to threatened species as well (Commissioners Order No. 2204; May 30, 1985). The provisions of Commissioners Order No. 2204 were codified into rule in 1993 (18 S.R. 83; July 12, 1993), and are found at Minn. Rules, parts 6212.1800 to 6212.2300. The permit scheme, including the application process, limits on possession of specimens or their offspring, reporting, and expiration or cancellation of permits is detailed in Minn. Rules, part 6212.1800. Permitting for the rehabilitation of living specimens, possession of previously acquired specimens or specimens acquired as a result of emergency taking, and other activities otherwise prohibited is detailed in Minn. Rules, parts 6212.1900 to 6212.2300. Note that Minn. Rules, parts 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 are not the subject of this rulemaking. History of Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species The authority to designate state endangered animals by rulemaking was first given to the DNR commissioner in Laws of Minnesota 1971, Ch. 825, although this authority was not exercised until 1984. However, the 1971 law listed several species as endangered, and provided that an “endangered” designation by the Secretary of the Interior (pursuant to federal endangered species law) would be prima facie evidence for a state designation by the commissioner. The category of threatened animals was added to the authority to designate species in Laws of Minnesota 1974, Ch. 465. The 1974 amendment reaffirmed the DNR commissioner’s authority to designate state endangered and threatened animals, and dropped the statutory list of species created in 1971, but provided that “...until the commissioner adopts such a regulation, those species designated as endangered by Section 4(c)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) at the time of enactment thereof shall be considered endangered within the meaning of this section.” The special concern category was added to the statute in 1981, as was the application of all three categories to plants (Laws of Minnesota 1981, Ch. 285). The 1981 amendment once again directed the DNR commissioner to promulgate by rule a state List, required the convening of a voluntary Technical Advisory Committee to assist in developing the List, and specified that the List be promulgated by January 1, 1984. The 1981 amendment also provided that this committee would terminate upon adoption of the resulting rule, but in no event later than January 1, 1984. As a result, the advisory committee provision is not a part of the current statute. Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species was adopted on March 5, 1984. Promulgation of this List resulted in the legislature deleting the language incorporating the federal list into Minnesota law (Laws of Minnesota 1986, Ch. 386). The 1981 amendment also added the requirement that “The commissioner shall reevaluate the designated species list every three years after it is first adopted and make appropriate changes.” (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 3(c)) In 1987, the DNR published a notice in the State Register stating (in part) that “the 1984 list remains an accurate statement of the status of Minnesota’s native fauna and flora and therefore the current list will remain in effect through 1990.” (12 S.R. 1266, December 21, 1987) Revision of the List was initiated in 1990 and the resulting revised rule became effective on July 1, 1996.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cercidospora Trypetheliza Und Einige Weitere Lichenicole Ascomyceten Auf Arthrorhaphis
    Cryptogamie, Bryol.Lichénol. 1995, 16(3): 177-190 177 CERCIDOSPORA TRYPETHELIZA UND EINIGE WEITERE LICHENICOLE ASCOMYCETEN AUF ARTHRORHAPHIS J. HAFELLNER & W. OBERMAYER Institut für Botanik, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Holteigasse 6, A-8010 GRAZ, Austria ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - Neonorrlinia trypetheliza, ein bisher als Flechte betrachteter Organismus, wird als eine auf Arthrorhaphis lebende Sippe der Pilzgattung Cercidospora erkannt und mit anderen Beispielen falsch interpretierter Beziehungen zwischen Flechten und lichenicolen Pilzen diskutiert. Damit ist die Familie Arthrorhaphidaceae monotypisch und Neonorrlinia ein Synonym von Cercidospora. Cercidospora soror Obermayer & Triebel und Stigmidium arthrorhaphidis Hafellner & Obermayer werden als neue, auf Arthrorhaphis parasitierende Arten vorgestellt. Ein Schlüssel für die bisher bekannten lichenicolen Pilze auf Sippen der Gattung Arthrorhaphis wird präsentiert. SUMMARY - Neonorrlinia trypetheliza, hitherto regarded as a lichenized fungus, has turned out to be a lichenicolous Cercidospora species on Arthrorhaphis, thus the Arthrorhaphidaceae becoming monotypic and Neonorrlinia becoming a synonym of Cercidospora. Types of misinterpreted relationships between lichens and lichenicolous fungi are discussed. Cercidospora soror Obermayer & Triebel and Stigmidium arthrorhaphidis Hafellner & Obermayer, both lichenicolous on Arthrorhaphis, are new to science. A key to fungi growing on Arthrorhaphis is provided. EINLEITUNG Das biologische Beziehungsgefüge zwischen einem lichenisierten Thallus und
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of the Cetrarioid Core (Parmeliaceae) Based on Five
    The Lichenologist 41(5): 489–511 (2009) © 2009 British Lichen Society doi:10.1017/S0024282909990090 Printed in the United Kingdom Phylogeny of the cetrarioid core (Parmeliaceae) based on five genetic markers Arne THELL, Filip HÖGNABBA, John A. ELIX, Tassilo FEUERER, Ingvar KÄRNEFELT, Leena MYLLYS, Tiina RANDLANE, Andres SAAG, Soili STENROOS, Teuvo AHTI and Mark R. D. SEAWARD Abstract: Fourteen genera belong to a monophyletic core of cetrarioid lichens, Ahtiana, Allocetraria, Arctocetraria, Cetraria, Cetrariella, Cetreliopsis, Flavocetraria, Kaernefeltia, Masonhalea, Nephromopsis, Tuckermanella, Tuckermannopsis, Usnocetraria and Vulpicida. A total of 71 samples representing 65 species (of 90 worldwide) and all type species of the genera are included in phylogentic analyses based on a complete ITS matrix and incomplete sets of group I intron, -tubulin, GAPDH and mtSSU sequences. Eleven of the species included in the study are analysed phylogenetically for the first time, and of the 178 sequences, 67 are newly constructed. Two phylogenetic trees, one based solely on the complete ITS-matrix and a second based on total information, are similar, but not entirely identical. About half of the species are gathered in a strongly supported clade composed of the genera Allocetraria, Cetraria s. str., Cetrariella and Vulpicida. Arctocetraria, Cetreliopsis, Kaernefeltia and Tuckermanella are monophyletic genera, whereas Cetraria, Flavocetraria and Tuckermannopsis are polyphyletic. The taxonomy in current use is compared with the phylogenetic results, and future, probable or potential adjustments to the phylogeny are discussed. The single non-DNA character with a strong correlation to phylogeny based on DNA-sequences is conidial shape. The secondary chemistry of the poorly known species Cetraria annae is analyzed for the first time; the cortex contains usnic acid and atranorin, whereas isonephrosterinic, nephrosterinic, lichesterinic, protolichesterinic and squamatic acids occur in the medulla.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lichens' Microbiota, Still a Mystery?
    fmicb-12-623839 March 24, 2021 Time: 15:25 # 1 REVIEW published: 30 March 2021 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.623839 The Lichens’ Microbiota, Still a Mystery? Maria Grimm1*, Martin Grube2, Ulf Schiefelbein3, Daniela Zühlke1, Jörg Bernhardt1 and Katharina Riedel1 1 Institute of Microbiology, University Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany, 2 Institute of Plant Sciences, Karl-Franzens-University Graz, Graz, Austria, 3 Botanical Garden, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany Lichens represent self-supporting symbioses, which occur in a wide range of terrestrial habitats and which contribute significantly to mineral cycling and energy flow at a global scale. Lichens usually grow much slower than higher plants. Nevertheless, lichens can contribute substantially to biomass production. This review focuses on the lichen symbiosis in general and especially on the model species Lobaria pulmonaria L. Hoffm., which is a large foliose lichen that occurs worldwide on tree trunks in undisturbed forests with long ecological continuity. In comparison to many other lichens, L. pulmonaria is less tolerant to desiccation and highly sensitive to air pollution. The name- giving mycobiont (belonging to the Ascomycota), provides a protective layer covering a layer of the green-algal photobiont (Dictyochloropsis reticulata) and interspersed cyanobacterial cell clusters (Nostoc spec.). Recently performed metaproteome analyses Edited by: confirm the partition of functions in lichen partnerships. The ample functional diversity Nathalie Connil, Université de Rouen, France of the mycobiont contrasts the predominant function of the photobiont in production Reviewed by: (and secretion) of energy-rich carbohydrates, and the cyanobiont’s contribution by Dirk Benndorf, nitrogen fixation. In addition, high throughput and state-of-the-art metagenomics and Otto von Guericke University community fingerprinting, metatranscriptomics, and MS-based metaproteomics identify Magdeburg, Germany Guilherme Lanzi Sassaki, the bacterial community present on L.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) by Boris C. Kondratieff, Paul A. Opler, Matthew C. Garhart, and Jason P. Schmidt C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 March 15, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration (top to bottom): Widow Skimmer (Libellula luctuosa) [photo ©Robert Behrstock], Stonefly (Perlesta species) [photo © David H. Funk, White- lined Sphinx (Hyles lineata) [photo © Matthew C. Garhart] ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Copyrighted 2004 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………….…1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..…………………………………………….…3 OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………………………………………….………5 Site Descriptions………………………………………….. METHODS AND MATERIALS…………………………………………………………………………….5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………..…...11 Dragonflies………………………………………………………………………………….……..11
    [Show full text]
  • Cuivre Bryophytes
    Trip Report for: Cuivre River State Park Species Count: 335 Date: Multiple Visits Lincoln County Agency: MODNR Location: Lincoln Hills - Bryophytes Participants: Bryophytes from Natural Resource Inventory Database Bryophyte List from NRIDS and Bruce Schuette Species Name (Synonym) Common Name Family COFC COFW Acarospora unknown Identified only to Genus Acarosporaceae Lichen Acrocordia megalospora a lichen Monoblastiaceae Lichen Amandinea dakotensis a button lichen (crustose) Physiaceae Lichen Amandinea polyspora a button lichen (crustose) Physiaceae Lichen Amandinea punctata a lichen Physiaceae Lichen Amanita citrina Citron Amanita Amanitaceae Fungi Amanita fulva Tawny Gresette Amanitaceae Fungi Amanita vaginata Grisette Amanitaceae Fungi Amblystegium varium common willow moss Amblystegiaceae Moss Anisomeridium biforme a lichen Monoblastiaceae Lichen Anisomeridium polypori a crustose lichen Monoblastiaceae Lichen Anomodon attenuatus common tree apron moss Anomodontaceae Moss Anomodon minor tree apron moss Anomodontaceae Moss Anomodon rostratus velvet tree apron moss Anomodontaceae Moss Armillaria tabescens Ringless Honey Mushroom Tricholomataceae Fungi Arthonia caesia a lichen Arthoniaceae Lichen Arthonia punctiformis a lichen Arthoniaceae Lichen Arthonia rubella a lichen Arthoniaceae Lichen Arthothelium spectabile a lichen Uncertain Lichen Arthothelium taediosum a lichen Uncertain Lichen Aspicilia caesiocinerea a lichen Hymeneliaceae Lichen Aspicilia cinerea a lichen Hymeneliaceae Lichen Aspicilia contorta a lichen Hymeneliaceae Lichen
    [Show full text]
  • A New Species of Allocetraria (Parmeliaceae, Ascomycota) in China
    The Lichenologist 47(1): 31–34 (2015) 6 British Lichen Society, 2015 doi:10.1017/S0024282914000528 A new species of Allocetraria (Parmeliaceae, Ascomycota) in China Rui-Fang WANG, Xin-Li WEI and Jiang-Chun WEI Abstract: Allocetraria yunnanensis R. F. Wang, X. L. Wei & J. C. Wei is described as a new species from the Yunnan Province of China, and is characterized by having a shiny upper surface, strongly wrinkled lower surface, and marginal pseudocyphellae present on the lower side in the form of a white continuous line or spot. The phylogenetic analysis based on nrDNA ITS sequences suggests that the new species is related to A. sinensis X. Q. Gao. Key words: Allocetraria yunnanensis, lichen, taxonomy Accepted for publication 26 June 2014 Introduction genus, as all ten species have been reported there (Kurokawa & Lai 1991; Thell et al. The lichenized genus Allocetraria Kurok. & 1995; Randlane et al. 2001; Wang et al. M. J. Lai was described in 1991, with a new 2014). During our taxonomic study of Allo- species A. isidiigera Kurok. & M. J. Lai, and cetraria, a new species was found. two new combinations: A. ambigua (C. Bab.) Kurok. & M. J. Lai and A. stracheyi (C. Bab.) Kurok. & M. J. Lai (Kurokawa & Lai 1991). The main distribution area of Allocetraria Materials and Methods species was reported to be in the Himalayas, A dissecting microscope (ZEISS Stemi SV11) and com- including China, India, and Nepal. pound microscope (ZEISS Axioskop 2 plus) were used Allocetraria is characterized by dichoto- to study the morphology and anatomy of the specimens. Colour test reagents [10% aqueous KOH, saturated mously or subdichotomously branched lobes aqueous Ca(OCl)2, and concentrated alcoholic p- and a foliose to suberect or erect thallus with phenylenediamine] and thin-layer chromatography sparse rhizines, angular to sublinear pseudo- (TLC, solvent system C) were used for the detection cyphellae, palisade plectenchymatous upper of lichen substances (Culberson & Kristinsson 1970; Culberson 1972).
    [Show full text]
  • Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)
    Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) By Richard Henderson Research Ecologist, WI DNR Bureau of Science Services Summary This is a preliminary list of insects that are either well known, or likely, to be closely associated with Wisconsin’s original native prairie. These species are mostly dependent upon remnants of original prairie, or plantings/restorations of prairie where their hosts have been re-established (see discussion below), and thus are rarely found outside of these settings. The list also includes some species tied to native ecosystems that grade into prairie, such as savannas, sand barrens, fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh. The list is annotated with known host(s) of each insect, and the likelihood of its presence in the state (see key at end of list for specifics). This working list is a byproduct of a prairie invertebrate study I coordinated from1995-2005 that covered 6 Midwestern states and included 14 cooperators. The project surveyed insects on prairie remnants and investigated the effects of fire on those insects. It was funded in part by a series of grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, the list has 475 species. However, this is a partial list at best, representing approximately only ¼ of the prairie-specialist insects likely present in the region (see discussion below). Significant input to this list is needed, as there are major taxa groups missing or greatly under represented. Such absence is not necessarily due to few or no prairie-specialists in those groups, but due more to lack of knowledge about life histories (at least published knowledge), unsettled taxonomy, and lack of taxonomic specialists currently working in those groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Air Quality in Class I Wilderness Areas of the Northeastern United States Using Lichens and Bryophytes Alison C
    United States Department of Agriculture Monitoring Air Quality in Class I Wilderness Areas of the Northeastern United States Using Lichens and Bryophytes Alison C. Dibble, James W. Hinds, Ralph Perron, Natalie Cleavitt, Richard L. Poirot, and Linda H. Pardo Forest Service Northern Research Station General Technical Report NRS-165 December 2016 1 Abstract To address a need for air quality and lichen monitoring information for the Northeast, we compared bulk chemistry data from 2011-2013 to baseline surveys from 1988 and 1993 in three Class I Wilderness areas of New Hampshire and Vermont. Plots were within the White Mountain National Forest (Presidential Range—Dry River Wilderness and Great Gulf Wilderness, New Hampshire) and the Green Mountain National Forest (Lye Brook Wilderness, Vermont). We sampled epiphyte communities and found 58 macrolichen species and 55 bryophyte species. We also analyzed bulk samples for total N, total S, and 27 additional elements. We detected a decrease in Pb at the level of the National Forest and in a subset of plots. Low lichen richness and poor thallus condition at Lye Brook corresponded to higher N and S levels at these sites. Lichen thallus condition was best where lichen species richness was also high. Highest Hg content, from a limited subset, was on the east slope of Mt. Washington near the head of Great Gulf. Most dominant lichens in good condition were associated with conifer boles or acidic substrates. The status regarding N and S tolerance for many lichens in the northeastern United States is not clear, so the influence of N pollution on community data cannot be fully assessed.
    [Show full text]
  • 1307 Fungi Representing 1139 Infrageneric Taxa, 317 Genera and 66 Families ⇑ Jolanta Miadlikowska A, , Frank Kauff B,1, Filip Högnabba C, Jeffrey C
    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 79 (2014) 132–168 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev A multigene phylogenetic synthesis for the class Lecanoromycetes (Ascomycota): 1307 fungi representing 1139 infrageneric taxa, 317 genera and 66 families ⇑ Jolanta Miadlikowska a, , Frank Kauff b,1, Filip Högnabba c, Jeffrey C. Oliver d,2, Katalin Molnár a,3, Emily Fraker a,4, Ester Gaya a,5, Josef Hafellner e, Valérie Hofstetter a,6, Cécile Gueidan a,7, Mónica A.G. Otálora a,8, Brendan Hodkinson a,9, Martin Kukwa f, Robert Lücking g, Curtis Björk h, Harrie J.M. Sipman i, Ana Rosa Burgaz j, Arne Thell k, Alfredo Passo l, Leena Myllys c, Trevor Goward h, Samantha Fernández-Brime m, Geir Hestmark n, James Lendemer o, H. Thorsten Lumbsch g, Michaela Schmull p, Conrad L. Schoch q, Emmanuël Sérusiaux r, David R. Maddison s, A. Elizabeth Arnold t, François Lutzoni a,10, Soili Stenroos c,10 a Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0338, USA b FB Biologie, Molecular Phylogenetics, 13/276, TU Kaiserslautern, Postfach 3049, 67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany c Botanical Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland d Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, 358 ESC, 21 Sachem Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA e Institut für Botanik, Karl-Franzens-Universität, Holteigasse 6, A-8010 Graz, Austria f Department of Plant Taxonomy and Nature Conservation, University of Gdan´sk, ul. Wita Stwosza 59, 80-308 Gdan´sk, Poland g Science and Education, The Field Museum, 1400 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Species List For: Engelmann Woods NA 174 Species
    Species List for: Engelmann Woods NA 174 Species Franklin County Date Participants Location NA List NA Nomination List List made by Maupin and Kurz, 9/9/80, and 4/21/93 WGNSS Lists Webster Groves Nature Study Society Fieldtrip Participants WGNSS Vascular Plant List maintained by Steve Turner Species Name (Synonym) Common Name Family COFC COFW Acalypha virginica Virginia copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 2 3 Acer negundo var. undetermined box elder Sapindaceae 1 0 Acer saccharum var. undetermined sugar maple Sapindaceae 5 3 Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae/Anthemideae 1 3 Actaea pachypoda white baneberry Ranunculaceae 8 5 Adiantum pedatum var. pedatum northern maidenhair fern Pteridaceae Fern/Ally 6 1 Agastache nepetoides yellow giant hyssop Lamiaceae 4 3 Ageratina altissima var. altissima (Eupatorium rugosum) white snakeroot Asteraceae/Eupatorieae 2 3 Agrimonia rostellata woodland agrimony Rosaceae 4 3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 3 Ambrosia trifida giant ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 -1 Amelanchier arborea var. arborea downy serviceberry Rosaceae 6 3 Antennaria parlinii var. undetermined (A. plantaginifolia) plainleaf pussytoes Asteraceae/Gnaphalieae 5 5 Aplectrum hyemale putty root Orchidaceae 8 1 Aquilegia canadensis columbine Ranunculaceae 6 1 Arisaema triphyllum ssp. triphyllum (A. atrorubens) Jack-in-the-pulpit Araceae 6 -2 Aristolochia serpentaria Virginia snakeroot Aristolochiaceae 6 5 Arnoglossum atriplicifolium (Cacalia atriplicifolia) pale Indian plantain Asteraceae/Senecioneae 4 5 Arnoglossum reniforme (Cacalia muhlenbergii) great Indian plantain Asteraceae/Senecioneae 8 5 Asarum canadense wild ginger Aristolochiaceae 6 5 Asclepias quadrifolia whorled milkweed Asclepiadaceae 6 5 Asimina triloba pawpaw Annonaceae 5 0 Asplenium rhizophyllum (Camptosorus) walking fern Aspleniaceae Fern/Ally 7 5 Asplenium trichomanes ssp. trichomanes maidenhair spleenwort Aspleniaceae Fern/Ally 9 5 Srank: SU Grank: G? * Barbarea vulgaris yellow rocket Brassicaceae 0 0 Blephilia hirsuta var.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 2 – Fruticose Species
    Appendix 5.2-1 Vegetation Technical Appendix APPENDIX 5.2‐1 Vegetation Technical Appendix Contents Section Page Ecological Land Classification ............................................................................................................ A5.2‐1‐1 Geodatabase Development .............................................................................................. A5.2‐1‐1 Vegetation Community Mapping ..................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐1 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ............................................................................ A5.2‐1‐3 Limitations of Ecological Land Classification .................................................................... A5.2‐1‐3 Field Data Collection ......................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐3 Supplementary Results ..................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐4 Rare Vegetation Species and Rare Ecological Communities ........................................................... A5.2‐1‐10 Supplementary Desktop Results ..................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐10 Field Methods ................................................................................................................. A5.2‐1‐16 Supplementary Results ................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐17 Weed Species
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Coefficient Listing.Xlsx
    Wisconsin Native Plants Coefficient of Conservativsm Table August 2013 Coefficient of Latin Name Common Name Family Conservatism Acalypha rhomboidea Rhombic Cooper Leaf Euphorbiaceae 0 Achillea millefolium Yarrow Asteraceae 1 Aconitum columbianum Columbia Monk's Hood Ranunculaceae 10 Aconitum noveboracense Northern Blue Monkshood Ranunculaceae 10 Acorus americanus Sweet flag Acoraceae 7 Actaea pachypoda White baneberry Ranunculaceae 6 Actaea rubra Red baneberry Ranunculaceae 7 Adiantum pendatum Maidenhair Fern Pteridaceae 7 Adlumia fungosa Allegheny Vine Fumariaceae 7 Adoxa moschatellina Moschatel Adoxaceae 10 Agalinis aspera Rough false foxglove Scrophulariaceae 7 Agalinis gattingeri Round-stem False Foxglove Scrophulariaceae 8 Agalinis paupercula Small-flowered False Foxglove Scrophulariaceae 7 Agalinis purpurea Purple False Foxglove Scrophulariaceae 7 Agalinis skinneriana Pale False Foxglove Scrophulariaceae 9 Agalinis tenuifolia Common Foxglove Scrophulariaceae 7 Agastache foeniculum Blue Giant Hyssop Lamiaceae 5 Agastache nepetoides Yellow giant hyssop Lamiaceae 5 Agastache scrophulariaefolia Purple giant hyssop Lamiaceae 4 Agrimonia gryposepala Tall agrimony Rosaceae 2 Agrimonia parviflora Southern Agrimony Rosaceae 4 Agrimonia pubescens Downy Agrimony Rosaceae 5 Agrimonia striata Grooved Agrimony Rosaceae 3 Agrostis hyemalis Ticklegrass Poaceae 4 Aletris farinosa Colic root Liliaceae 9 Alisma gramineum Grass-leaved Water Plantain Alismataceae 5 Alisma subcordatum Common Water Plantain Alismataceae 3 Alisma triviale Northern Water
    [Show full text]