DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecology of Skunkbush Sumac (Rhus Trilobata Nutt.)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecology of Skunkbush Sumac (Rhus Trilobata Nutt.) Ecology of skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata Nutt.) in Montana with special reference to use by mule deer by Peter Raymond Martin A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Fish and Wildlife Management Montana State University © Copyright by Peter Raymond Martin (1973) Abstract: This study determined various ecological characteristics and relationships for skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata Nutt.) within its range in Montana east of the Continental Divide. Intensive investigations were conducted in 25 skunkbush stands on 5 widely separated study areas. Highest skunkbush densities were associated with areas of extensive rough "breaks" and uplands adjacent to major rivers and frost-free or growing seasons longer than 120 days. Skunkbush stands occurred significantly more often (P=.0l) on south exposures, slopes with gradients between 40 and 80 percent, and at altitudes below 5,000 feet. Soils associated with the stands tended to be sandy clay loams, low in organic matter (3.09 percent), mildly alkaline (pH=7.44), very low in phosphorus (22.4 ppm), and high in potassium (377.4 ppm). The stands were typically "open" with a distinct tree overstory either lacking or only poorly developed and a generally sparse ground cover. Ponderosa pine, Rocky Mountain juniper, bluebunch wheatgrass, and fringed sagewort were the most important plant associates. Skunkbush was the dominant shrub in most stands with a mean stand density of 549 plants/ha. and an overall importance rating of 1.61. It attained highest importance in stands on southwest exposures, slopes less than 40 percent, and at elevations below 5,500 feet. Skunkbush plants tended to be rather low growing with dense rounded crowns comprised of many leaders, a growth form resulting from natural "hedging" and predominantly lateral, twig growth. Upon completion of annual growth, twigs either developed flower buds terminally or died back to the first lateral vegetative bud. Average measurements for 500 plants were. 2.35 meters diameter, .079 meters height, 3.5m^2 live crown area, and 26 percent of total crown dead. Plant size and growth form varied among stands and study areas in response to local weather and site conditions. Annual growth of skunkbush plants commenced with flowering in late April and early May. Twig growth began about mid-May and was essentially com-' pleted by mid-June. The longest annual growth twigs were produced on open sites, dominated by skunkbush, of south and east exposure, and at lowest elevations' with relatively long growing seasons. An average of 1.34' annual growth twigs developed from each year-old twig. Of the 1.2 flower buds which developed on each "fruiting" twig, only'10'percent produced mature fruits and seeds. Reproduction .from seed was extremely rare, while the potential for vegetative reproduction through resprouting was extremely high.' Skunkbush was important as forage only for mule deer. In eastern Montana utilization occurred primarily during summer and fall while on foothill ranges in west and south central Montana use occurred primarily during winter. Total utilization varied from 3.4 to 27.0 percent among the study areas. Broad variation between areas and years seemed related to the seasonal use patterns and the relative availability of other higher quality and more preferred forage plant's. Correlation coefficients between counted- and estimated twig use were very high, r =.94 and .93 for spring and fall, respectively. Permission to Copy In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the require­ ments for an Advanced Degree at Montana State University* I agree that . the Library shall make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by my major professor, or, in his absence, by the Director of Libraries. It is understood that any copying or pub­ lication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Signature Date 'J&MUetir/j /f '73 ■ L- ECOLOGY OF SKUNKBUSH SUMAC (Rhus t'rilobata Nutt.) ■ IN MONTANA WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO USE BY MULE-DEER- PETER RAYMOND MARTIN A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Fish and Wildlife Management Approyeds Graduate Bean MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana March, 1973 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT To the following, among others„ I wish to extend sincere appreciation for their contribution to this study: Dr= Richard J 0 Mackie, Montana State University, for project planning, invaluable advice and aid in prep­ aration of the manuscript, and for permission to use unpublished data from a growth and production study of key browse plants inside and Outside of exclosures on big game ranges in Montana; Dr0 Don C„ Quimby, Montana State University, for critical reading of the manuscript and personal en­ couragement; Dr0 Gene F 0 Payne, for critical reading of the manuscript; Dr0 W 0 E 0 Booth, Montana State University, for aid in identification of plant species; Mr0 Thomas W 0 Mussehl and Mr0 Kenneth R 0 Greer, Montana Fish and Game Department, for providing facilities; Mr*.Charles D 0 Eustace and Mr0 Floyd A 0 Gordon, Montana Fish and Game Department, for field assist­ ance; Mr* Ernest Kehrberg, District Forest Ranger, Fort Howes, Custer National Forest and Hubert Ellwein, Beartooth Game Range Manager, for use of facilities; Dr0 Martin A, Hamilton, Montana State University, for con­ sultation on statistical analysis; Mrs* Joyce Hanson for typing the manu­ script; all the private individuals who allowed me to establish sites on their land; and most of all to my wife, Susan, for encouragement, patience and assistance, I was employed by the Montana Fish and Game Department under Federal Aid Project No, W-120-R-3 and W-120-R-4= TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VITA eooooeooeooooooooooooooooooooeooooooooeeeoooooooeoeoooeoooo ii ACKNOWHiDGEMENT oeeeooeeeoeoeeodoeeeeeeoooooooooeeeeooooeeeooeoe iii TAB TiE OF CONTENTS eoooeepeoooeodeooeeo'eooeeeeeooeeoeoooeoooooooe iv XjIST OF TABIES eoaeeeeeeeooooeeeeoooeoooeoeooeoeoeeeeeoeoeeoeooe vi LIST OF FIGURES eeeo0eeooooeeeeeoe»ooeeooe9eeeoooo©oeeeo4 oooeoeo viii ABSTRACT eo©doeeoo0©eodoeeo6©09»eo0©eo©o©eooeooeeoeeo0e©©©©eoooo xii INTRODUCTION eoooooooo©o«oeo9©oooo0o©ooooeoo©eoooaoooeeoooooooeo ■ I PROCEDURES eeoeeooo©oo0oeooeoo0oo©0»eoo©' oeeoooeooeedoeeeodooeoe© 4 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS ooooooeooeoeeeoeeeeoeeeoaoe o ©oeoeeeoe 9 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ooodooooeooooeoeeoooooodoodoopooddoea©©©© 22 Distribution eoooodooooodoooooooooooooooooeoooeoeeeooooocoo 22 Edaphic Characteristics and Relationships .o...<,<,»»». 24 Climatological Characteristics and Relationships a»o0<><>o..« 29 ■ Synecological Characteristics and Relationships oo»ooooo«o« 37 Oeneral Community Affiliations ooeeoeooeeeoeooeotioeeeeeo 37 Phytosociology of Skunkbush Stands e0ooeee6oo»ooeeoeeoe<. 40 Tree-Shrub Characteristics oooeoeoo»ooooooeooooo"oeooo 44 Grass, Forb and Ground Cover Characteristics «««««.oo 51 Growth Characteristics and Relationships oooooooooooooooooo 56 GrOWth FOrm oooeoeeeooeo'oeeeeodtieooeoeotieooooeeeoooeeoeo 56 ’Annual Growth eooeoeeooeoeeoeoooo 'e ecoooeeepeeeeoeeeooeeo 61 BrOWSe Production eodooooooooooooooeooooeeoooooeeoeeeeeo 70 Reproductive Characteristics and Relationships 0»<. o e o o o o o o« 73 Browse Utilization Characteristics and Relationships ».«.<>. 78 V TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page APPENDIX eeooooooodo«ooe o'oooeoooooooooeoooeeeooooooooooooe'e eooeo86. LITERATURE CITED oooeooooo o.o ooooooooooooooooooooooeeoooooooooooo94 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page I DISTRIBUTION OF 25 SKUNKBUSH STANDS AMONG VARIOUS EX­ POSURES, SLOPE GRADIENTS AND ELEVATIONS COMPARED STATIS- . TICALIZ BY ONE W A Y ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ................ 25 2 EDAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SKUNKBUSH STANDS INCLUDING pH, ORGANIC MATTER, FIVE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS AND SALT HAZARD CN THE FIVE MAJOR STUDY AREAS.....o.**................... 26 3 TEMPERATURE, PRECIPITATION AND FROST-FREE PERIOD DATA FROM THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WEATHER STATION NEAREST EACH MAJOR AREA FOR 1971 ALONG WITH STATION NORMS .09000000000.OOOOO.000000000000.000000009.0.00«.0.9 36 4 CONSTANCY, CANOPY COVERAGE AND FREQUENCY OF LOW GROWING TAXA ON MAJOR STUDY AREAS A S .DETERMINED BY EXAMINATION OF 2 X 5 DECIMETER PLOTS ON EACH OF FIVE SKUNKBUSH STANDS PER AREA 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.00000 41 5 CONSTANCY, IMPORTANCE VALUE AND PLANTS PER HECTARE OF TREES AND SHRUBS ON MAJOR AREAS AS DETERMINED BY POINT- CENTER-QUARTER MEASUREMENTS ON EACH OF FIVE SKUNKBUSH , 'STANDS PER AREA oooo.oooooo.ooooooooo.ooooooooooooooo.ooo 45 6 IMPORTANCE VALUES AND DENSITIES OF TREES AND TALL SHRUBS FROM 25 SKUNKBUSH STANDS COMPARED STATISTICALLY BY THE BEHRENS—FISCHER TEST oo.oo.ooo.oooooo.o0000.000.000.0.0.0 46 7 SIGNIFICANT GYNECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH EXPOSURE, SLOPE GRADIENT AND ELEVATION BASED ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES INDIVIDUAL SPECIES HAD THE HIGHEST CANOPY COVER, ' IMPORTANCE VALUE OR OCCURRENCE FREQUENCY ON 25 SKUNK- BUSH STANDS .OOOOO.09000000000000000000000000000000000 000 47 S MEAN SKUNKBUSH IMPORTANCE AND DENSITY VALUES ON VARIOUS EXPOSURES, SLOPE GRADIENTS AND ELEVATIONS ALCNG WITH THE NUMBER OF TIMES SKUNKBUSH IMPORTANCE VALUES WERE LARGEST .GN EACH COMPARED STATISTICALLY BY ONE WAY ANALYSIS ■ OF VARIANCE ....oo.»o.ooo..oo.oooooo*o*.oo.o**. 48 9 GYNECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE MAJOR STUDY AREAS AND STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Native Nebraska Woody Plants
    THE NEBRASKA STATEWIDE ARBORETUM PRESENTS NATIVE NEBRASKA WOODY PLANTS Trees (Genus/Species – Common Name) 62. Atriplex canescens - four-wing saltbrush 1. Acer glabrum - Rocky Mountain maple 63. Atriplex nuttallii - moundscale 2. Acer negundo - boxelder maple 64. Ceanothus americanus - New Jersey tea 3. Acer saccharinum - silver maple 65. Ceanothus herbaceous - inland ceanothus 4. Aesculus glabra - Ohio buckeye 66. Cephalanthus occidentalis - buttonbush 5. Asimina triloba - pawpaw 67. Cercocarpus montanus - mountain mahogany 6. Betula occidentalis - water birch 68. Chrysothamnus nauseosus - rabbitbrush 7. Betula papyrifera - paper birch 69. Chrysothamnus parryi - parry rabbitbrush 8. Carya cordiformis - bitternut hickory 70. Cornus amomum - silky (pale) dogwood 9. Carya ovata - shagbark hickory 71. Cornus drummondii - roughleaf dogwood 10. Celtis occidentalis - hackberry 72. Cornus racemosa - gray dogwood 11. Cercis canadensis - eastern redbud 73. Cornus sericea - red-stem (redosier) dogwood 12. Crataegus mollis - downy hawthorn 74. Corylus americana - American hazelnut 13. Crataegus succulenta - succulent hawthorn 75. Euonymus atropurpureus - eastern wahoo 14. Fraxinus americana - white ash 76. Juniperus communis - common juniper 15. Fraxinus pennsylvanica - green ash 77. Juniperus horizontalis - creeping juniper 16. Gleditsia triacanthos - honeylocust 78. Mahonia repens - creeping mahonia 17. Gymnocladus dioicus - Kentucky coffeetree 79. Physocarpus opulifolius - ninebark 18. Juglans nigra - black walnut 80. Prunus besseyi - western sandcherry 19. Juniperus scopulorum - Rocky Mountain juniper 81. Rhamnus lanceolata - lanceleaf buckthorn 20. Juniperus virginiana - eastern redcedar 82. Rhus aromatica - fragrant sumac 21. Malus ioensis - wild crabapple 83. Rhus copallina - flameleaf (shining) sumac 22. Morus rubra - red mulberry 84. Rhus glabra - smooth sumac 23. Ostrya virginiana - hophornbeam (ironwood) 85. Rhus trilobata - skunkbush sumac 24. Pinus flexilis - limber pine 86. Ribes americanum - wild black currant 25.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Oak Chapparal Species Plant Lists
    NATIVE OAK CHAPPARAL SPECIES PLANT LISTS Scientific Name Common Name Plant Type Height Bloom Period Picture Achillea millefolium Common yarrow Forb, PF 8-6” Summer (butterflies, bees), DF, DR Bromus carinatus Lemon’s Grass 7.5-32” Spring needlegrass Amelanchier alnifolia Western Shrub, PF 5-20’ Mid Spring serviceberry (butterflies, bees), DT Arbutus menziesii Pacific madrone Evergreen 15-100’ Spring Tree, PF (butterflies, moths, hummingbir ds), DT Balsamorhiza sagittata Arrowleaf Forb, PF 8-36” Mid-Late balsamroot Spring Bromus carinatus California Grass 1-5’ Spring brome Bromus laevipes Chinook brome Grass 5’ Spring - Summer Resource Factsheets: Plants 1 NATIVE OAK CHAPPARAL SPECIES Castilleja varieties Indian paintbrush Forb, PF 2’ Spring - Summer Ceanothus cuneatus Buckbrush Shrub, PF 3-12’ Late spring Ceanothus integerrimus Deerbrush Shrub, PF 3-13’ Spring-Summer (bees) Cercocarpus Mountain Shrub 8-20’ Winter, Spring mahogany Collomia grandiflora Grand collomia Forb, PF 18” Mid Spring – Mid Summer Corylus cornuta California Shrub 3-50’ Spring-Fall hazelnut Dichelostemma Blue dicks Forb, PF 6-27” Early Summer capitatum Elymus glaucus Blue wildrye Grass 1-5’ Summer Eschscholzia californica California poppy Forb, PF, 6-16” Spring-Summer DT Resource Factsheets: Plants 2 NATIVE OAK CHAPPARAL SPECIES Festuca californica California fescue Grass, DT 1-4’ Spring, Winter Festuca occidentalis Western fescue Grass, DT 3-4’ Spring Garrya fremontii Bearbrush Shrub, PF, 9-13’ DT Iris chrysophylla Yellowleaf iris Forb, PF 2-8” Late Spring (butterflies,
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Prehistoric Land Use Patterns in the Tongue River Valley, North of Decker, Montana
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1997 Analysis of prehistoric land use patterns in the Tongue River Valley, north of Decker, Montana Glenn A. Walter The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Walter, Glenn A., "Analysis of prehistoric land use patterns in the Tongue River Valley, north of Decker, Montana" (1997). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 1540. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1540 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of IVIONTANA Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published ^vorks and reports. ** Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature Yes, I grant permission No, I do not grant permission Author's Signature Date ie Çpl. im Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. AN ANALYSIS OF PREHISTORIC LAND USE PATTERNS IN THE TONGUE RIVER VALLEY. NORTH OF DECKER, MONTANA by Glenn A. Walter B.A. The University of Montana, 1992 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The University of Montana 1996 Appôved b y Chairperson Dean, Graduate School Date UMI Number: EP36188 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL U SERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Mapping of the Mckenzie Preserve at Table Mountain and Environs, Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills, California
    Vegetation Mapping of the McKenzie Preserve at Table Mountain and Environs, Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills, California By Danielle Roach, Suzanne Harmon, and Julie Evens Of the 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento CA, 95816 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To Those Who Generously Provided Support and Guidance: Many groups and individuals assisted us in completing this report and the supporting vegetation map/data. First, we expressly thank an anonymous donor who provided financial support in 2010 for this project’s fieldwork and mapping in the southern foothills of the Sierra Nevada. We also are thankful of the generous support from California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in funding 2008 field survey work in the region. We are indebted to the following additional staff and volunteers of the California Native Plant Society who provided us with field surveying, mission planning, technical GIS, and other input to accomplish this project: Jennifer Buck, Andra Forney, Andrew Georgeades, Brett Hall, Betsy Harbert, Kate Huxster, Theresa Johnson, Claire Muerdter, Eric Peterson, Stu Richardson, Lisa Stelzner, Aaron Wentzel, and in particular, Kendra Sikes. To Those Who Provided Land Access: Joanna Clines, Forest Botanist, USDA Forest Service, Sierra National Forest Ellen Cypher, Botanist, Department of Fish and Game, Region 4 Mark Deleon, Supervising Ranger, Millerton Lake State Recreation Area Bridget Fithian, Mariposa Program Manager, Sierra Foothill Conservancy Coke Hallowell, Private landowner, San Joaquin River Parkway & Conservation Trust Wayne Harrison, California State Parks, Central Valley District Chris Kapheim, General Manager, Alta Irrigation District Denis Kearns, Botanist, Bureau of Land Management Melinda Marks, Executive Officer, San Joaquin River Conservancy Nathan McLachlin, Scientific Aid, Department of Fish and Game, Region 4 Eddie and Gail McMurtry, private landowners Chuck Peck, Founder, Sierra Foothill Conservancy Kathyrn Purcell, Research Wildlife Ecologist, San Joaquin Experimental Range, USDA Forest Service Carrie Richardson, Senior Ranger, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashland Post Fire Landscape Assessment 2014 2
    Ashland Post Fire Landscape United States Assessment Forest Depart ment of Service Agriculture Ashland Ranger District Custer National Forest Powder River and Rosebud Counties, MT May 2014 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Ashland Post Fire Landscape Assessment 2014 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Ashland Ecological and Social/Economic Niche .............................................................................. 11 1.1.1 Livestock Grazing ...................................................................................................................... 11 1.1.2 Mixed Prairie and Forest ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Monophyly of Bursera and Its Impact for Divergence Times of Burseraceae
    TAXON 61 (2) • April 2012: 333–343 Becerra & al. • Monophyly of Bursera The monophyly of Bursera and its impact for divergence times of Burseraceae Judith X. Becerra,1 Kogi Noge,2 Sarai Olivier1 & D. Lawrence Venable3 1 Department of Biosphere 2, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, U.S.A. 2 Department of Biological Production, Akita Prefectural University, Akita 010-0195, Japan 3 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, U.S.A. Author for correspondence: Judith X. Becerra, [email protected] Abstract Bursera is one of the most diverse and abundant groups of trees and shrubs of the Mexican tropical dry forests. Its interaction with its specialist herbivores in the chrysomelid genus Blepharida, is one of the best-studied coevolutionary systems. Prior studies based on molecular phylogenies concluded that Bursera is a monophyletic genus. Recently, however, other molecular analyses have suggested that the genus might be paraphyletic, with the closely related Commiphora, nested within Bursera. If this is correct, then interpretations of coevolution results would have to be revised. Whether Bursera is or is not monophyletic also has implications for the age of Burseraceae, since previous dates were based on calibrations using Bursera fossils assuming that Bursera was paraphyletic. We performed a phylogenetic analysis of 76 species and varieties of Bursera, 51 species of Commiphora, and 13 outgroups using nuclear DNA data. We also reconstructed a phylogeny of the Burseraceae using 59 members of the family, 9 outgroups and nuclear and chloroplast sequence data. These analyses strongly confirm previous conclusions that this genus is monophyletic.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants of Piedras Pintadas Ridge, Lake Hodges James Dillane May, 1997 [email protected]
    Plants of Piedras Pintadas Ridge, Lake Hodges James Dillane May, 1997 [email protected] Status N California native I introduced Scientific Name Common Name Status Amaranthaceae Amaranth Family Amaranthus blitoides Prostrate Amaranth N Anacardiaceae Sumac Family Malosma laurina Laurel Sumac N Rhus trilobata Skunkbrush N Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison Oak N Apiaceae Carrot Family Apiastrum angustifolium Mock Parsley N Bowlesia incana American Bowlesia N Daucus pusillus Rattlesnake Weed N Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific Sanicle N Tauschia arguta Southern Tauschia N Asclepiadaceae Milkweed Family Asclepias eriocarpa Indian Milkweed N Asteraceae Aster Family Acourtia microcephala Sacapellote N Ambrosia psilostachya Western Ragweed N Artemisia californica California Sagebrush N Baccharis pilularis Coyote Bush N Brickellia californica California Brickelbush N Centaurea melitensis Star-Thistle / Tocalote I Chaenactis artemisiifolia White Pincushin N Chaenactis glabriuscula San Diego Pincushion N Chamomilla suaveolens Pineapple Weed I Chrysanthemum coronarium Garland Chrysanthemum I Coreopsis californica California Coreopsis N Erigeron foliosus var. foliosus Fleabane Daisy N Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. confertiflorum Golden-Yarrow N Filago californica California Filago N Gnaphalium bicolor Bicolor Everlasting N Gnaphalium californicum California Everlasting N Gnaphalium canescens ssp. beneolens Fragrant Everlasting N Gnaphalium canescens ssp. microcephalum White Everlasting N Hazardia squarrosa ssp. grindelioides Sawtooth Goldenbush N Hedypnois cretica Hedypnois I Helianthus gracilentus Slender Sunflower N Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph Weed N Hypochaeris glabra Smooth Cat's-Ear I Isocoma menziesii var. vernonioides Goldenbush N Lasthenia californica Goldfields N Lessingia filaginifolia California-Aster N Pentachaeta aurea Golden Daisy N Rafinesquia californica California Chicory n Senecio californicus California Butterweed N Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow Thistle I Stebbinoseris heterocarpa Stebbinoseris N Stephanomeria virgata ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Mapping of Eastman and Hensley Lakes and Environs, Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills, California
    Vegetation Mapping of Eastman and Hensley Lakes and Environs, Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills, California By Sara Taylor, Daniel Hastings, Jaime Ratchford, Julie Evens, and Kendra Sikes of the 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento CA, 95816 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To Those Who Generously Provided Support and Guidance: Many groups and individuals assisted us in completing this report and the supporting vegetation map/data. First, we expressly thank an anonymous donor who provided financial support in 2010 for this project’s fieldwork and mapping in the southern foothills of the Sierra Nevada. We also are thankful of the generous support from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, previously Department of Fish and Game) in funding 2008 field survey work in the region. We are indebted to the following additional staff and volunteers of the California Native Plant Society who provided us with field surveying, mission planning, technical GIS, and other input to accomplish this project: Jennifer Buck, Andra Forney, Andrew Georgeades, Brett Hall, Betsy Harbert, Kate Huxster, Theresa Johnson, Claire Muerdter, Eric Peterson, Stu Richardson, Lisa Stelzner, and Aaron Wentzel. To Those Who Provided Land Access: Angela Bradley, Ranger, Eastman Lake, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bridget Fithian, Mariposa Program Manager, Sierra Foothill Conservancy Chuck Peck, Founder, Sierra Foothill Conservancy Diana Singleton, private landowner Diane Bohna, private landowner Duane Furman, private landowner Jeannette Tuitele-Lewis, Executive Director, Sierra Foothill Conservancy Kristen Boysen, Conservation Project Manager, Sierra Foothill Conservancy Park staff at Hensley Lake, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers i This page has been intentionally left blank. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I.
    [Show full text]
  • Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List
    Arizona Department of Water Resources Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List Official Regulatory List for the Phoenix Active Management Area Fourth Management Plan Arizona Department of Water Resources 1110 West Washington St. Ste. 310 Phoenix, AZ 85007 www.azwater.gov 602-771-8585 Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List Acknowledgements The Phoenix AMA list was prepared in 2004 by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) in cooperation with the Landscape Technical Advisory Committee of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, comprised of experts from the Desert Botanical Garden, the Arizona Department of Transporation and various municipal, nursery and landscape specialists. ADWR extends its gratitude to the following members of the Plant List Advisory Committee for their generous contribution of time and expertise: Rita Jo Anthony, Wild Seed Judy Mielke, Logan Simpson Design John Augustine, Desert Tree Farm Terry Mikel, U of A Cooperative Extension Robyn Baker, City of Scottsdale Jo Miller, City of Glendale Louisa Ballard, ASU Arboritum Ron Moody, Dixileta Gardens Mike Barry, City of Chandler Ed Mulrean, Arid Zone Trees Richard Bond, City of Tempe Kent Newland, City of Phoenix Donna Difrancesco, City of Mesa Steve Priebe, City of Phornix Joe Ewan, Arizona State University Janet Rademacher, Mountain States Nursery Judy Gausman, AZ Landscape Contractors Assn. Rick Templeton, City of Phoenix Glenn Fahringer, Earth Care Cathy Rymer, Town of Gilbert Cheryl Goar, Arizona Nurssery Assn. Jeff Sargent, City of Peoria Mary Irish, Garden writer Mark Schalliol, ADOT Matt Johnson, U of A Desert Legum Christy Ten Eyck, Ten Eyck Landscape Architects Jeff Lee, City of Mesa Gordon Wahl, ADWR Kirti Mathura, Desert Botanical Garden Karen Young, Town of Gilbert Cover Photo: Blooming Teddy bear cholla (Cylindropuntia bigelovii) at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monutment.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Plants for Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve
    Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Plant Checklist DRAFT as of 29 November 2005 FERNS AND FERN ALLIES Equisetaceae (Horsetail Family) Vascular Plant Equisetales Equisetaceae Equisetum arvense Present in Park Rare Native Field horsetail Vascular Plant Equisetales Equisetaceae Equisetum laevigatum Present in Park Unknown Native Scouring-rush Polypodiaceae (Fern Family) Vascular Plant Polypodiales Dryopteridaceae Cystopteris fragilis Present in Park Uncommon Native Brittle bladderfern Vascular Plant Polypodiales Dryopteridaceae Woodsia oregana Present in Park Uncommon Native Oregon woodsia Pteridaceae (Maidenhair Fern Family) Vascular Plant Polypodiales Pteridaceae Argyrochosma fendleri Present in Park Unknown Native Zigzag fern Vascular Plant Polypodiales Pteridaceae Cheilanthes feei Present in Park Uncommon Native Slender lip fern Vascular Plant Polypodiales Pteridaceae Cryptogramma acrostichoides Present in Park Unknown Native American rockbrake Selaginellaceae (Spikemoss Family) Vascular Plant Selaginellales Selaginellaceae Selaginella densa Present in Park Rare Native Lesser spikemoss Vascular Plant Selaginellales Selaginellaceae Selaginella weatherbiana Present in Park Unknown Native Weatherby's clubmoss CONIFERS Cupressaceae (Cypress family) Vascular Plant Pinales Cupressaceae Juniperus scopulorum Present in Park Unknown Native Rocky Mountain juniper Pinaceae (Pine Family) Vascular Plant Pinales Pinaceae Abies concolor var. concolor Present in Park Rare Native White fir Vascular Plant Pinales Pinaceae Abies lasiocarpa Present
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Summary of results of the Coal Resource Occurrence and Coal Development Potential mapping program in part of the Powder River Basin, Montana and Wyoming by Virgil A. Trent OPEN-FILE REPORT 85-621 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards. Reston, Virginia 1985 CONTENTS Page Abstract .................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................. 2 Geographic setting ......................................... 12 Scope of present study ...................................... 12 Sources of data ........................................... 23 Land use and ownership...................................... 23 Acknowledgments. ......................................... 24 GEOLOGIC SETTING ........................................... 24 Stratigraphy.............................................. 24 Cretaceous beds ............ ........................ 25 Tertiary beds ...............*......................... 25 Structure................................................ 26 Economic Geology ......................................... 27 Oil and gas.......................................... 27 Uranium ........................................... 27 Coal .............................................. 27 CRO/CDP PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS AND PRODUCTS ................ 30 Reserve base problem ....................................... 32 Contract specifications.....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Poison Ivy, Poison Oak and Similar Plant Identification October 2020
    Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service HLA-6459 Poison Ivy, Poison Oak and Similar Plant Identification October 2020 Brooklyn Evans Extension Horticulture Intern Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Fact Sheets are also available on our website at: Pam Sharp extension.okstate.edu Extension Horticulture Assistant Shelley Mitchell Associate Extension Specialist, Youth and Horticulture Justin Quetone Moss Department Head, Horticulture and Landscape Architecture “Leaves of three let it be”. From that rhyme, you would think identifying poison ivy would be simple, but that isn’t necessarily the case. Knowing how to recognize poison ivy, oak and sumac can save you from a miserable red itchy rash. All three of these closely related plants contain an irritating, oily sap called urushiol. Urushiol causes many people to break out in a rash when it comes in contact with their skin. Being able to identify these plants is beneficial considering there are many plants that look similar, but are harmless. This Fact Sheet is to help inform and educate the general public on how to identify poison ivy, poison oak and poison sumac so they can be avoided. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) is located through- out the lower 48 states and grows in a variety of conditions, although it is most abundant along forest edges and in open forests with moderate sunlight. In Oklahoma, poison ivy is distributed across most of the state but is less abundant in the southwest and panhandle areas of the state. Poison oak (Toxicodendron toxicarium) is mostly in coastal states in the east and west and not as common in the central region.
    [Show full text]