DOCSLIB.ORG

Carter Et Al, Contributions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Carter Et Al, Contributions CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FLORA OF GEORGIA, U.S.A. RICHARD CARTER1,4, W. WILSON BAKER2, M. WAYNE MORRIS3 Abstract. Additions to the flora of Georgia, U.S.A., and other noteworthy records are reported. Voucher specimen data are cited to document species from Georgia previously not known to occur in the state; additional records of poorly known or infrequently collected native and exogenous naturalized species; and additional populations of rare, threatened, and endangered species or species otherwise listed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Data on the status of protected plants, special concern plants, and watched plants as indicated by the Georgia De- partment of Natural Resources are provided, and exogenous taxa are denoted. One hundred seventy-seven species are reported, of which 59 are putative state records and 68 are exogenous. Keywords: flora, floristics, Georgia, range extensions, vascular plants, noteworthy plants, rare plants, invasive weeds. Venard (1969) compiled a comprehensive list of 1949b, 1951), Faircloth (1971), and Lane (1976). published botanical work pertaining to Georgia. Other works with broader geographical coverage While it is beyond the scope of this paper to up- also bear substantially on the flora of Georgia, i.e., date that work, below we review some of the high- Chapman (1860, 1889, 1897), Small (1903, 1913, lights of Georgia’s floristic botany, with particular 1933), Radford et al. (1968), Duncan (1975), God- emphasis on published research since Venard’s frey and Wooten (1979, 1981), and Godfrey 1969 compilation. Other than Stephen Elliott’s (1988). Notable too are Robert Kral’s (1983) com- Sketch (1816–1821, 1821–1824) no comprehensive prehensive treatment of rare flora of the south- flora of the state has been published. However, eastern United States and compilations on Geor- Roland Harper’s remarkable contributions to the gia’s rare plants by Patrick et al. (1995) and Chafin knowledge of Georgia’s flora in the first decade of (2007). Moreover, numerous florulas of smaller the 20th Century aside (Harper 1900a, 1900b, 1901, areas such as counties or state parks have been 1903a, 1903b, 1904, 1905a, 1905b, 1906a, 1906b, published since Venard (1969), i.e., Lipps and De 1909, 1910), there have been a number of impor- Selm (1969), Bostick (1971), Jones (1974), Leslie tant works dealing with various taxonomic groups, and Burbanck (1979), Coile (1981), Duncan i.e., McVaugh and Pyron (1951), Russell and Dun- (1982), Houle (1987), Coile and Jones (1988), can (1972), Muir (1979), Bruce et al. (1980), and Howel (1991), Drew et al. (1998), Stiles and Howel Snyder and Bruce (1986), or with specific geo- (1996, 1998), Zomlefer et al. (2008), Echols and graphical regions of the state, i.e., Thorne (1949a, Zomlefer (in press). Also, during this period nu- Colleagues kindly confirmed the identities of duplicate specimens as follows: Dr. Robert Kral (VDB), Asimina pygmaea and A. × nashii; Dr. Charles Bryson (SWSL) and Dr. Rob Naczi (DOV), Carex annectens, C. chapmanii, C. floridana, and C. godfreyi; Dr. Kelly Allred (NMCR), Bothriochloa spp.; Dr. Richard Spellenberg (NMC), Boerhaavia diffusa and its status as new state record; and Dr. John Nelson (USCH), Pycnanthemum floridanum. Dr. Rob Naczi determined duplicate specimens of Carex gholsonii. Mr. John B. Jensen, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Nongame Conservation Section, graciously shared site data on his Rhexia salicifolia site and granted permission to report our voucher specimens. Mr. Greg Lee and Mr. Paul Schoenfeld secured clearance for us to publish data on records from Moody Air Force Base and Kings Bay Submarine Base, respectively. Support for field research was provided to the first author through grants and contracts from the following agen- cies and organizations: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program; Georgia Botanical Society; USDA -APHIS. through University of Georgia (Tifton); US Department of Defense through the Georgia Department of Natural Re- sources, Grant No. 1995CCD002; US Fish & Wildlife Service; US Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force, through The Nature Conservancy of Georgia, Contract No. M6700491D0010-5W01; the US Army through the Nature Conser- vancy of Georgia; and the Faculty Research Fund of Valdosta State University. The Botany Department, University of Florida, provided financial support to M.W. Morris. The constructive reviews of Dr. Loran Anderson (FSU) and Dr. Alan Weakley (NCU) improved this paper. 1 Herbarium, Department of Biology, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA 31698, U.S.A. 2 1422 Crestview Avenue, Tallahassee, FL 32303, U.S.A. 3 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Troy University, Troy, AL 36082, U.S.A. 4 Author for correspondence: [email protected] Vulpia, Vol. 8, 2009, pp. 1–54. © The North Carolina State University Herbarium, 2009. ISSN 1540-3599 2 VULPIA Vol. 8 merous reports of new state records or significant protected plants, special concern plants, and range extensions have appeared, i.e., Norsworthy watched plants compiled by the Georgia Depart- (1966), Faircloth (1970, 1975, 1981), Duncan ment of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Pro- (1971, 1985), Duncan and Funderburk (1972), gram (Patrick et al. 1995; Anonymous 2007) were Bostick (1977), Duncan and Duncan (1978), Den- used to determine the status of species reported nis (1980), Kral (1981), Carter and Faircloth on herein, and it is anticipated that data reported (1986), Hunt (1986), Whetstone et al. (1987), herein will be useful in revising those lists. Broyles and Wyatt (1988), Coile (1988), Bridges Following is an alphabetical annotated list of and Orzell (1989), Carter (1990), Matthews et al. noteworthy contributions to the flora of Georgia. (1991), Stiles and Howel (1994), Ruter et al. Tropicos (Missouri Botanical Garden 2008) was (1995), Bryson et al. (1996), Sorrie (1998), Carter used to confirm authority citations and synonymy. et al. (1999), Carter and Bryson (2000), Holmes Based upon voucher specimens, the atlases of (2000), Townsend et al. (2000), McMillan et al. Jones and Coile (1988) for dicots and Sweeney and (2002), and Jenkins and McMillan (2005). Since Giannasi (2000) for pteridophytes and monocots 1980, several checklists and atlases based upon have been our primary means for determining voucher specimens housed primarily at the Uni- which taxa have previously been documented for versity of Georgia Herbarium (GA) have been the state. Names for physiographic provinces published: Duncan and Kartesz (1981), Coile and mostly follow Bruce et al. (1980). As indicated, Jones (1985), Jones and Coile (1988), and most voucher specimens for the records reported herein recently Sweeney and Giannasi (2000). are housed primarily at Valdosta State University Our purpose herein is to provide data from Herbarium (VSC), with duplicates distributed else- voucher specimens documenting for Georgia (1) where. Duplicates yet to be distributed are indi- species previously not known to occur in the state, cated “others tbd.” Herbarium acronyms follow (2) additional records of poorly known or infre- Holmgren and Holmgren (1998). Author abbre- quently collected native and exogenous naturalized viations follow Brummitt and Powell (1992). species, and (3) additional populations of rare, Other abbreviations and symbols are keyed in threatened, or endangered species. Recent lists of Table 1. TABLE 1. Key to symbols denoting species status and rank. State status according to Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Anonymous 2007) E Listed as endangered; species in danger of extinction throughout all or part of its range T Listed as threatened; species likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all or parts of its range R Listed as rare; species may not be endangered or threatened but should be protected because of scarcity U Listed as unusual (and thus deserving of special consideration); plants subject to commercial exploitation State rank according to Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Anonymous 2007) S Listed among plant species of special concern W Listed among watched plant species S1 Critically imperiled in state because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences) S2 Imperiled in state because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences) S3 Rare or uncommon in state (21 to 100 occurrences) SN Regularly occurring, usually migratory and typically nonbreeding species SR Reported from state, but without persuasive documentation (precise site records or verification of taxon- omy lacking) SU Possibly in peril in state but status uncertain; need more information on threats or distribution SH Of historical occurrence in state, perhaps not verified in past 20 years, but suspected to be extant SNR State not ranked ? Denotes questionable rank; best guess given whenever possible (e.g. S3?) Miscellaneous symbols and abbreviations * Putative first record for Georgia † Exogenous taxon EPPC Listed among invasive exotic plants in Florida (FLEPPC 2007) FNW Federal Noxious Weed (Anonymous 2006) 2009 Carter et al., Contributions to the flora of Georgia 3 †Acmella pusilla (Hook. & Arn.) R.K. Jansen VSC), 17 Sep 2006, R. Carter 17215, W.W. Baker (Asteraceae) and G. Nelson (VSC); Wade Tract, 30.76072°N U.S.A. GEORGIA. Chatham Co.: Garden City, 84.002854°W, locally abundant, 22 Sep 2008, 0.2 mi W jct Hwy GA 307 and Hwy GA 21, W.W. Baker s.n. (FSU, TTRS, VSC). Worth Co.: beween Export Blvd and Hwy GA 21, mowed 4.35 air mi NNW Anderson City,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Benning Training Areas
    FINAL REPORT Impacts of Military Training and Land Management on Threatened and Endangered Species in the Southeastern Fall Line Sandhills Communities SERDP Project SI-1302 MAY 2009 Dr. Rebecca R. Sharitz Dr. Donald W. Imm Ms. Kathryn R. Madden Dr. Beverly S. Collins Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia This document has been approved for public release. This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. i Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations …………………………………………………… iv List of Figures……………………………………………………………………...v List of Tables……………………………………………………………………...vii Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………….viii 1. Executive Summary………..………………………………………………… 1 2. Objectives……………………………………………………………………. 5 3. Background………………………………………………....………………... 6 4. Materials and Methods……..………………………………………………… 8 4.1. Characterize sandhills and related xeric woodlands and discriminate from adjacent forests………………………………………………… 8 4.2. Spatial analyses and mapping of sandhills and related xeric woodland communities and comparison with spatial information on forest management and military activities………………………… 9 4.3. Effects of forest understory control practices used to maintain RCW habitat on sandhills plant communities………………………... 9 4.4. Habitat characterization of selected TES plant species……………… 10 4.5. Development of habitat models for TES plants and identification of potential additional suitable habitat……………………………….. 11 4.6.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Plant Species List
    Acanthaceae Hygrophila Occasional lacustris Acanthaceae Justicia ovata Uncommon Acanthaceae Ruellia humilis Common Acanthaceae Ruellia nudiflora s.n. Uncommon Acanthaceae Ruellia Occasional pedunculata Aceraceae Acer rubrum Occasional Agavaceae Yucca louisianica Uncommon Aiozaceae Molluga Occasional verticillata Alismataceae Echinodorus Occasional cordifolius Alismataceae Sagittaria Rare papillosa Alismataceae Sagittaria 156 Uncommon platyphylla Alliaceae Allium Occasional canadense var. canadense Alliaceae Allium Occasional canadense var. mobilense Alliaceae Allium 96, Uncommon drummondii 124 (Keith 96, 124) Amaranthaceae Alternanthera Common philoxeroides Amaryllidaceae Hymenocallis Uncommon liriosome Anacardiaceae Rhus aromatica Uncommon Anacardiaceae Rhus copallinum Occasional Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron Frequent radicans Apiaceae Bifora americana Common Apiaceae Centella erecta Uncommon Apiaceae Chaerophyllum Uncommon tainturieri Apiaceae Cicuta Uncommon maculatum Apiaceae Cynosciadium Uncommon digitatum Apiaceae Eryngium Common yuccifolium Apiaceae Hydrocotyle Occasional verticillata Apiaceae Polytaenia Frequent texana Apiaceae Ptilimnium Common capillaceum Apiaceae Ptilimnium Common nuttallii Apiaceae Spermolepsis Common inermis Apiaceae Torilis arvensis Occasional Apocynaceae Apocynum Occasional cannibinum Apocynaceae Nerium oleander Rare Apocynaceae Trachelospermu Occasional m difforme Aquifoliaceae Ilex decidua Common Aquifoliaceae Ilex opaca Common Aquifoliaceae Ilex vomitoria Abundant Araceae Arisaema Rare dracontium Araceae
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi
    The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Honors Theses Honors College Spring 5-2016 Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi Hanna M. Miller University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses Part of the Biodiversity Commons, and the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Hanna M., "Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi" (2016). Honors Theses. 389. https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses/389 This Honors College Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College at The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Southern Mississippi Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi by Hanna Miller A Thesis Submitted to the Honors College of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in the Department of Biological Sciences May 2016 ii Approved by _________________________________ Mac H. Alford, Ph.D., Thesis Adviser Professor of Biological Sciences _________________________________ Shiao Y. Wang, Ph.D., Chair Department of Biological Sciences _________________________________ Ellen Weinauer, Ph.D., Dean Honors College iii Abstract The North American Coastal Plain contains some of the highest plant diversity in the temperate world. However, most of the region has remained unstudied, resulting in a lack of knowledge about the unique plant communities present there.
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Laurel Wilt Disease on Native Persea of the Southeastern United States Timothy M
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 5-2016 Impacts of Laurel Wilt Disease on Native Persea of the Southeastern United States Timothy M. Shearman Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Recommended Citation Shearman, Timothy M., "Impacts of Laurel Wilt Disease on Native Persea of the Southeastern United States" (2016). All Dissertations. 1656. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/1656 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPACTS OF LAUREL WILT DISEASE ON NATIVE PERSEA OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Forest Resources by Timothy M. Shearman May 2016 Accepted by: Dr. G. Geoff Wang, Committee Chair Dr. Saara J. DeWalt Dr. Donald L. Hagan Dr. Julia L. Kerrigan Dr. William C. Bridges ABSTRACT Laurel Wilt Disease (LWD) has caused severe mortality in native Persea species of the southeastern United States since it was first detected in 2003. This study was designed to document the range-wide population impacts to LWD, as well as the patterns of mortality and regeneration in Persea ecosystems. I used Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data from the U.S. Forest Service to estimate Persea borbonia (red bay) populations from 2003 to 2011 to see if any decline could be observed since the introduction of LWD causal agents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Natural Communities of South Carolina
    THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA BY JOHN B. NELSON SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE & MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1986 INTRODUCTION The maintenance of an accurate inventory of a region's natural resources must involve a system for classifying its natural communities. These communities themselves represent identifiable units which, like individual plant and animal species of concern, contribute to the overall natural diversity characterizing a given region. This classification has developed from a need to define more accurately the range of natural habitats within South Carolina. From the standpoint of the South Carolina Nongame and Heritage Trust Program, the conceptual range of natural diversity in the state does indeed depend on knowledge of individual community types. Additionally, it is recognized that the various plant and animal species of concern (which make up a significant remainder of our state's natural diversity) are often restricted to single natural communities or to a number of separate, related ones. In some cases, the occurrence of a given natural community allows us to predict, with some confidence, the presence of specialized or endemic resident species. It follows that a reasonable and convenient method of handling the diversity of species within South Carolina is through the concept of these species as residents of a range of natural communities. Ideally, a nationwide classification system could be developed and then used by all the states. Since adjacent states usually share a number of community types, and yet may each harbor some that are unique, any classification scheme on a national scale would be forced to recognize the variation in a given community from state to state (or region to region) and at the same time to maintain unique communities as distinctive.
    [Show full text]
  • Pineland Chaffhead (Carphephorus Carnosus Aka Litrisa Carnosa)
    Pineland chaffhead (Carphephorus carnosus aka Litrisa carnosa) For definitions of botanical terms, visit en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_botanical_terms. Pineland chaffhead is a short-lived perennial wildflower that occurs naturally in wet pine flatwoods, savannas and seepage slopes. It typically blooms in late summer through early fall and attracts butterflies, moths and other pollinators. It is endemic to only 13 Central and South Florida counties. The plant’s many purple rayless flowers are borne in broad terminal corymbs. Each flower is held by several hairy, spine-tipped bracts. The flower stalk emerges from a basal rosette of narrow, pointed leaves with entire margins. Stem leaves are significantly reduced. Stems are finely pubescent. Fruits are whitish pubescent achenes. Some botanists have separated most species of the genus Carphephorus into the genera Litrisa and Trilisa. Both genera names are anagrams of the genus Liatris, whose flowers have a similar appearance toCarphephorus Photo by Mary Keim flowers. Pineland chaffhead is the only species in the genus Litrisa. Family: Asteraceae (Aster, composite or daisy family) Native range: Central peninsula, Charlotte, Lee and Martin counties To see where natural populations of Pineland chaffhead have been vouchered, visit www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu. Hardiness: Zones 8–9 Soil: Wet to moderately dry sandy soils Exposure: Full sun Growth habit: 1–2’ tall Propagation: Seed Garden tips: Pineland chaffhead is drought tolerant in winter and spring, but needs plenty of water to survive the hot summer months. Pineland chaffhead plants are occasionally available from nurseries that specialize in Florida native plants. Visit www.PlantRealFlorida.org to find a nursery in your area.
    [Show full text]