DOCSLIB.ORG

Pdf ] Kartesz, J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pdf ] Kartesz, J STANDARDS FOR ASSOCIATIONS AND ALLIANCES OF THE U.S. NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION Michael Jennings1*, Orie Loucks2, David Glenn-Lewin3, Robert Peet4, Don Faber-Langendoen5, Dennis Grossman5, Antoni Damman6, Michael Barbour7, Robert Pfister8, Marilyn Walker9, Stephen Talbot10, Joan Walker9, Gary Hartshorn11, Gary Waggoner1, Marc Abrams12, Alison Hill9, David Roberts13, David Tart9 The Ecological Society of America Vegetation Classification Panel Version 1.0 May 2002 1. U.S. Geological Survey, 2. Miami University, 3. Unity College, 4. University of North Carolina, 5. NatureServe, 6. Kansas State University, 7. University of California-Davis, 8. University of Montana, 9. USDA Forest Service, 10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11. Organization for Tropical Studies, 12. Pennsylvania State University, 13. Utah State University *Contact: U.S. Geological Survey, 530 S. Asbury St., Suite 1, Moscow, ID 83843, USA; [email protected]; 208-885-3901 Standards For Floristic Vegetation Classification, Version 1.0, May 2002 Dedicated to Antoni Damman 1932-2000 He worked hard to help create a unified vegetation classification in the United States, based on his wealth of experience from around the world. These standards have been shaped by his desire for a rigorous, plot-based approach to vegetation description and analysis. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work of the Panel on Vegetation Classification has been made possible by support from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Gap Analysis Program, the Federal Geographic Data Committee, the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, the Army Environmental Policy Institute, and the Ecological Society of America’s Sustainable Biosphere Program. Many individuals have contributed in one way or another to the development of these standards, including Mark Anderson, David Brown, Rex Crawford, Kathy Goodin, David Graber, John Harris, Miles Hemstrom, Bruce Kahn, Kat Maybury, Ken Metzler, William Michener, J. Scott Peterson, Thomas Philippi, Milo Pyne, Marion Reid, Rebecca Sharitz, Denice Shaw, Marie Loise Smith, Lesley Sneddon, Miklos Udvardy, Jan van Wagtendonk, Alan Weakley, Neil West, and Peter White. Jim MacMahon, Jerry Franklin, Jane Lubchenko, Mary Barber, and Julie Denslow fostered establishment of the Panel and liaison to the ESA Governing Board. Thanks to Elisabeth Brackney for help with editing. Special thanks to Lori Hidinger of ESA who provided unflagging staff support over the many years of deliberation, ebb, and flow, in developing these standards. 2 Standards For Floristic Vegetation Classification, Version 1.0, May 2002 SUMMARY The purpose of this document is to provide both a technical and a general basis for describing and classifying the plant associations and alliances that are to be formally recognized as units of vegetation under the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (NVC). It should be useful to practitioners, researchers, and students of vegetation ecology. The standards presented here are to be used by anybody proposing additions, deletions, or other changes to the named units of the NVC. By implementing standards for field sampling, analysis, description, peer review, archiving, and dissemination, the Ecological Society of America’s Vegetation Classification Panel—in collaboration with the Federal Geographic Data Committee, NatureServe, the U.S. Geological Survey, and others—intends to advance our common understanding of vegetation and improve our capability to sustain this resource by formal, science-based processes. We begin with the rationale for developing these standards. Then the history and development of vegetation classification in the United States is briefly reviewed. Standards for establishing and revising the floristic units of vegetation include the definition of association and alliance concepts, requirements for vegetation field plots, and classification and description of associations and alliances. A standard framework for peer review of types that are proposed for inclusion in the National Vegetation Classification is provided, as is a structure for data access and management. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of future prospects of and new directions in vegetation classification. Because new knowledge will inevitably lead to the need for improvements to the standards described here, this document is written with the intention that it will be revised, with new versions produced as needed. Recommendations for revisions should be addressed to the Panel Chair, Vegetation Classification Panel, Ecological Society of America, Suite 400, 735 H St, NW, Washington, DC. Email contact information can be found at www.esa.org/vegwebpg.htm or contact the Ecological Society of America’s Science Program Office, 1707 H St, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: (202) 833-8773. 3 Standards For Floristic Vegetation Classification, Version 1.0, May 2002 Table Of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................2 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................6 1. RATIONALE .......................................................................................................................6 2. THE EMERGING FLORISTIC CLASSIFICATION.....................................................8 3. A BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.....................................................................12 3.1. DESCRIBING AND CLASSIFYING VEGETATION ..............................................12 3.1. A NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION IN THE UNITED STATES......2 STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHMENT AND REVISION OF FLORISTIC UNITS OF VEGETATION...............................................................................................................1 4. THE ASSOCIATION AND ALLIANCE CONCEPTS....................................................1 4.1. ASSOCIATION.............................................................................................................1 4.2 ALLIANCE....................................................................................................................3 4.3. LIMITATIONS OF FLORISTIC CONCEPTS .............................................................5 4.4. STANDARDS FOR FLORISTIC UNITS.....................................................................5 5. VEGETATION FIELD PLOTS .........................................................................................6 5.1. MAJOR TYPES OF REQUIRED DATA .....................................................................6 5.2. STAND SELECTION AND PLOT DESIGN ...............................................................7 5.3. VEGETATION PLOT DATA.....................................................................................11 5.4. LEGACY DATA .........................................................................................................16 5.5. STANDARDS FOR VEGETATION PLOTS .............................................................17 6. CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF FLORISTIC UNITS..........................21 6.1. FROM PLANNING TO DATA INTERPRETATION ...............................................21 6.2. DOCUMENTATION AND DESCRIPTION OF TYPES...........................................25 6.3. NOMENCLATURE OF VEGETATION TYPES......................................................28 6.4. STANDARDS FOR DESCRIPTION OF FLORISTIC UNITS OF VEGETATION .31 7. PEER REVIEW .................................................................................................................35 7.1. CLASSIFICATION CONFIDENCE...........................................................................35 7.2. PEER-REVIEW TEAMS ............................................................................................37 7.3. PEER-REVIEW PROCESS.........................................................................................38 4 Standards For Floristic Vegetation Classification, Version 1.0, May 2002 7.4. PUBLICATION...........................................................................................................40 7.5. STANDARDS FOR PEER REVIEW..........................................................................41 8. DATA ACCESS AND MANAGEMENT.........................................................................43 8.1. INFORMATION FLOW AND THE USER COMMUNITY......................................43 8.2. BASIC DATABASE REQUIREMENTS....................................................................44 8.3. COMPONENT DATABASE ARCHITECTURE.......................................................45 8.4. DATA MANAGEMENT.............................................................................................49 8.5. STANDARDS FOR DATA MANAGEMENT...........................................................49 PROSPECTS AND NEW DIRECTIONS.......................................................................51 9. LOOKING AHEAD...........................................................................................................51 9.1. DIRECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES ................................................................51 9.2. POTENTIAL COLLABORATION WITH OTHER COUNTRIES............................54 9.3. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................55
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
    Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese
    [Show full text]
  • Research Article: Life History and Host Range of Prochoerodes Onustaria, an Unsuitable Classical Biological Control Agent of Brazilian Peppertree
    Biocontrol Science and Technology ISSN: 0958-3157 (Print) 1360-0478 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbst20 Research article: life history and host range of Prochoerodes onustaria, an unsuitable classical biological control agent of Brazilian peppertree E. Jones & G. S. Wheeler To cite this article: E. Jones & G. S. Wheeler (2017) Research article: life history and host range of Prochoerodes onustaria, an unsuitable classical biological control agent of Brazilian peppertree, Biocontrol Science and Technology, 27:4, 565-580, DOI: 10.1080/09583157.2017.1325837 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2017.1325837 Published online: 16 May 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 24 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbst20 Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 13 July 2017, At: 08:24 BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2017 VOL. 27, NO. 4, 565–580 https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2017.1325837 Research article: life history and host range of Prochoerodes onustaria, an unsuitable classical biological control agent of Brazilian peppertree E. Jonesa,b and G. S. Wheelera aUSDA/ARS Invasive Plant Research Laboratory, Ft Lauderdale, FL, USA; bSCA/AmeriCorps, Ft Lauderdale, FL, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The life history and host range of the South American defoliator Received 13 January 2017 Prochoerodes onustaria (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) were examined Accepted 26 April 2017 to determine its suitability as a classical biological control agent of KEYWORDS the invasive weed Brazilian Peppertree, Schinus terebinthifolia,in Schinus terebinthifolia; the U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • A Phylogenetic Analysis of Rhamnaceae Using Rbcl and Trnl-F Plastid DNA Sequences James E. Richardson
    A Phylogenetic Analysis of Rhamnaceae using rbcL and trnL-F Plastid DNA Sequences James E. Richardson; Michael F. Fay; Quentin C. B. Cronk; Diane Bowman; Mark W. Chase American Journal of Botany, Vol. 87, No. 9. (Sep., 2000), pp. 1309-1324. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9122%28200009%2987%3A9%3C1309%3AAPAORU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 American Journal of Botany is currently published by Botanical Society of America. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/botsam.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Inventory and Analysis National Core Field Guide
    National Core Field Guide, Version 5.1 October, 2011 FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS NATIONAL CORE FIELD GUIDE VOLUME I: FIELD DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES FOR PHASE 2 PLOTS Version 5.1 National Core Field Guide, Version 5.1 October, 2011 Changes from the Phase 2 Field Guide version 5.0 to version 5.1 Changes documented in change proposals are indicated in bold type. The corresponding proposal name can be seen using the comments feature in the electronic file. • Section 8. Phase 2 (P2) Vegetation Profile (Core Optional). Corrected several figure numbers and figure references in the text. • 8.2. General definitions. NRCS PLANTS database. Changed text from: “USDA, NRCS. 2000. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 1 January 2000). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. FIA currently uses a stable codeset downloaded in January of 2000.” To: “USDA, NRCS. 2010. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 1 January 2010). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. FIA currently uses a stable codeset downloaded in January of 2010”. • 8.6.2. SPECIES CODE. Changed the text in the first paragraph from: “Record a code for each sampled vascular plant species found rooted in or overhanging the sampled condition of the subplot at any height. Species codes must be the standardized codes in the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) PLANTS database (currently January 2000 version). Identification to species only is expected. However, if subspecies information is known, enter the appropriate NRCS code. For graminoids, genus and unknown codes are acceptable, but do not lump species of the same genera or unknown code.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Forest Community Delineation Methods
    Natural Forest Community Delineation Methods Keith A. Bradley and George D. Gann February 2, 2005 The Institute for Regional Conservation 22601 S.W. 152 Avenue; Miami, Florida 33170 George D. Gann, Executive Director Introduction The Natural Forest Community (NFC) system was established in 1984 under ordinance 89-9, Chapter 24-60 of the Miami-Dade County Code. The ordinance provides legal protection for sites designated by the county as NFCs: “Natural Forest Community shall mean all stands of trees (including their associated understory) which were designated as Natural Forest Communities on the Dade County Natural Forest Community Maps and approved by the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to Resolution No. R-1764-84.” Factors for reviewing proposed Natural Forest Community sites in the original ordinance included: 1) Presence of endangered, threatened, rare, or endemic species (plants or animals); 2) Plant species diversity on the site; 3) Size of trees; 4) Size of site; 5) Wildlife habitat value; 6) Geological features; and 7) Percentage of site covered by non-native plant species. As required by the ordinance, quantitative evaluation criteria were developed by DERM incorporating the above factors, including separate criteria for the delineation of hardwood hammocks and pinelands. These criteria have become outdated as more scientifically rigorous criteria for delineating natural areas have been developed since 1984, primarily relating to delineation of wetland habitats. Some of the methods used to delineate NFCs by DERM proved to be ineffective including the establishment of transects to measure plant species cover and diversity on each site. As specified in section 151 of the ordinance, evaluation criteria may be revised occasionally.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeochemical Relationships of a Subtropical Dry Forest on Karst
    2017 CARIBBEANCaribbean Naturalist NATURALIST No. 41:1–24No. 41 E. Medina, E. Cuevas, H. Marcano-Vega, E. Meléndez-Ackerman, and E.H. Helmer Biogeochemical Relationships of a Subtropical Dry Forest on Karst Ernesto Medina1,2,*, Elvira Cuevas3, Humfredo Marcano-Vega4, Elvia Meléndez-Ackerman3, and Eileen H. Helmer1 Abstract - Tropical dry forests on calcareous substrate constitute the main vegetation cover in many islands of the Caribbean. Dry climate and nutrient scarcity in those environments are ideal to investigate the potential role of high levels of soil calcium (Ca) in regulating plant selection and productivity. We analyzed the elemental composition of soil, loose lit- ter, and leaf samples of the woody vegetation on the plateau of Mona Island, an emergent block of carbonate rock in the Caribbean located between Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, to explore the nutrient relationships of plants growing on calcareous substrates. The mineral soil has an elemental composition characterized by high levels of aluminum (Al) and iron (Fe) in agreement with the hypothesis that it derives in part from sediments transported by rivers eroding plutonic rocks, and deposited before the massive lifting of biological limestone. Calcium concentration varied within sites, and Ca–Al and Ca–Fe cor- relations were negative in soils and positive in plant material, implying that element uptake from these soils depends on acidification of the rhizosphere. This acidification should be high enough to extract carbonate-bound elements and solubilize Al, Fe, and probably phos- phate (P) compounds. The most abundant cation in leaves was Ca, followed by potassium (K) and magnesium (Mg); Ca/K and Ca/Mg molar ratios averaged 2 and 3, respectively, in- dicating that most species maintain K and Mg uptake in the presence of high Ca levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Poisonous Plants -John Philip Baumgardt TURIST Are Those of the Authors and Are Not Necessarily Tho Se of the Society
    American · ulturist How you spray does make a differenee. Now, more than ever, it's im ­ portant to use just the right amount of spray to rid your garden of harmful insects and disease . This is the kind of precise 12. Right &1pressure: A few 4. Right pattern: Just turn control you get with a Hudson strokes of the pump lets you spray nozzle to get a fine or sprayer. Here's why you get spray at pressure you select coarse spray . Or for close-up best results, help protect the -high for a fine mist (good or long-range spraying. environment: for flowers) or low for a wet 5. Most important, right place: With a Hudson sprayer, 1 L( 1 spra~ (:~Stfor weeds) you place spray right where the trouble is. With its long extension and adjustable noz­ zle, you easily reach all parts I. R;ghl m;" W;lh a Hudson of plant. Especially under the ~ leaves where many insects sprayer, you mix spray exact- . Iy 'as recommended And 3. Right amount: Squeeze hide and most disease starts. that's the way it goes o~ your handle, spray's on. Release, For a more beautiful garden plants-not too strong or too it's off. Spray just to the point -a better environment­ weak. of runoff. C?at the plant, keep you r sprayi ng right on .,.J... IJ:~:1i.~ ,don't drench It. target-with a Hudson spray­ er. Get yours now. How you spray does make a difference! SIGN OF THE BEST BUV SPRAYERS AND DUSTERS .,..~<tlt\O ' P * "'Al Cf O('f"(I,1: ~Good Housekeeping; ""'1,; GU, U N1(( S ~.'" Allow 2 to 4 weeks delivery, Offer expires December 31 , 1972.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary List of the Vascular Plants and Wildlife at the Village Of
    A Floristic Evaluation of the Natural Plant Communities and Grounds Occurring at The Key West Botanical Garden, Stock Island, Monroe County, Florida Steven W. Woodmansee [email protected] January 20, 2006 Submitted by The Institute for Regional Conservation 22601 S.W. 152 Avenue, Miami, Florida 33170 George D. Gann, Executive Director Submitted to CarolAnn Sharkey Key West Botanical Garden 5210 College Road Key West, Florida 33040 and Kate Marks Heritage Preservation 1012 14th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington DC 20005 Introduction The Key West Botanical Garden (KWBG) is located at 5210 College Road on Stock Island, Monroe County, Florida. It is a 7.5 acre conservation area, owned by the City of Key West. The KWBG requested that The Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC) conduct a floristic evaluation of its natural areas and grounds and to provide recommendations. Study Design On August 9-10, 2005 an inventory of all vascular plants was conducted at the KWBG. All areas of the KWBG were visited, including the newly acquired property to the south. Special attention was paid toward the remnant natural habitats. A preliminary plant list was established. Plant taxonomy generally follows Wunderlin (1998) and Bailey et al. (1976). Results Five distinct habitats were recorded for the KWBG. Two of which are human altered and are artificial being classified as developed upland and modified wetland. In addition, three natural habitats are found at the KWBG. They are coastal berm (here termed buttonwood hammock), rockland hammock, and tidal swamp habitats. Developed and Modified Habitats Garden and Developed Upland Areas The developed upland portions include the maintained garden areas as well as the cleared parking areas, building edges, and paths.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity in Forests of the Ancient Maya Lowlands and Genetic
    Biodiversity in Forests of the Ancient Maya Lowlands and Genetic Variation in a Dominant Tree, Manilkara zapota (Sapotaceae): Ecological and Anthropogenic Implications by Kim M. Thompson B.A. Thomas More College M.Ed. University of Cincinnati A Dissertation submitted to the University of Cincinnati, Department of Biological Sciences McMicken College of Arts and Sciences for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy October 25, 2013 Committee Chair: David L. Lentz ABSTRACT The overall goal of this study was to determine if there are associations between silviculture practices of the ancient Maya and the biodiversity of the modern forest. This was accomplished by conducting paleoethnobotanical, ecological and genetic investigations at reforested but historically urbanized ancient Maya ceremonial centers. The first part of our investigation was conducted at Tikal National Park, where we surveyed the tree community of the modern forest and recovered preserved plant remains from ancient Maya archaeological contexts. The second set of investigations focused on genetic variation and structure in Manilkara zapota (L.) P. Royen, one of the dominant trees in both the modern forest and the paleoethnobotanical remains at Tikal. We hypothesized that the dominant trees at Tikal would be positively correlated with the most abundant ancient plant remains recovered from the site and that these trees would have higher economic value for contemporary Maya cultures than trees that were not dominant. We identified 124 species of trees and vines in 43 families. Moderate levels of evenness (J=0.69-0.80) were observed among tree species with shared levels of dominance (1-D=0.94). From the paleoethnobotanical remains, we identified a total of 77 morphospecies of woods representing at least 31 plant families with 38 identified to the species level.
    [Show full text]
  • Woody and Herbaceous Plants Native to Haiti for Use in Miami-Dade Landscapes1
    Woody and Herbaceous Plants Native to Haiti For use in Miami-Dade Landscapes1 Haiti occupies the western one third of the island of Hispaniola with the Dominican Republic the remainder. Of all the islands within the Caribbean basin Hispaniola possesses the most varied flora after that of Cuba. The plants contained in this review have been recorded as native to Haiti, though some may now have been extirpated due in large part to severe deforestation. Less than 1.5% of the country’s original tree-cover remains. Haiti’s future is critically tied to re- forestation; loss of tree cover has been so profound that exotic fast growing trees, rather than native species, are being used to halt soil erosion and lessen the risk of mudslides. For more information concerning Haiti’s ecological plight consult references at the end of this document. For present purposes all of the trees listed below are native to Haiti, which is why non-natives such as mango (the most widely planted tree) and other important trees such as citrus, kassod tree (Senna siamea) and lead tree (Leucanea leucocephala) are not included. The latter two trees are among the fast growing species used for re-forestation. The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History’s Flora of the West Indies was an invaluable tool in assessing the range of plants native to Haiti. Not surprisingly many of the listed trees and shrubs 1 John McLaughlin Ph.D. U.F./Miami-Dade County Extension Office, Homestead, FL 33030 Page | 1 are found in other parts of the Caribbean with some also native to South Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribe Species Secretory Structure Compounds Organ References Incerteae Sedis Alphitonia Sp. Epidermis, Idioblasts, Cavities
    Table S1. List of secretory structures found in Rhamanaceae (excluding the nectaries), showing the compounds and organ of occurrence. Data extracted from the literature and from the present study (species in bold). * The mucilaginous ducts, when present in the leaves, always occur in the collenchyma of the veins, except in Maesopsis, where they also occur in the phloem. Tribe Species Secretory structure Compounds Organ References Epidermis, idioblasts, Alphitonia sp. Mucilage Leaf (blade, petiole) 12, 13 cavities, ducts Epidermis, ducts, Alphitonia excelsa Mucilage, terpenes Flower, leaf (blade) 10, 24 osmophores Glandular leaf-teeth, Flower, leaf (blade, Ceanothus sp. Epidermis, hypodermis, Mucilage, tannins 12, 13, 46, 73 petiole) idioblasts, colleters Ceanothus americanus Idioblasts Mucilage Leaf (blade, petiole), stem 74 Ceanothus buxifolius Epidermis, idioblasts Mucilage, tannins Leaf (blade) 10 Ceanothus caeruleus Idioblasts Tannins Leaf (blade) 10 Incerteae sedis Ceanothus cordulatus Epidermis, idioblasts Mucilage, tannins Leaf (blade) 10 Ceanothus crassifolius Epidermis; hypodermis Mucilage, tannins Leaf (blade) 10, 12 Ceanothus cuneatus Epidermis Mucilage Leaf (blade) 10 Glandular leaf-teeth Ceanothus dentatus Lipids, flavonoids Leaf (blade) (trichomes) 60 Glandular leaf-teeth Ceanothus foliosus Lipids, flavonoids Leaf (blade) (trichomes) 60 Glandular leaf-teeth Ceanothus hearstiorum Lipids, flavonoids Leaf (blade) (trichomes) 60 Ceanothus herbaceus Idioblasts Mucilage Leaf (blade, petiole), stem 74 Glandular leaf-teeth Ceanothus
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Modern Threats to the Lepidoptera Fauna in The
    MODERN THREATS TO THE LEPIDOPTERA FAUNA IN THE FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM By THOMSON PARIS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011 1 2011 Thomson Paris 2 To my mother and father who helped foster my love for butterflies 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank my family who have provided advice, support, and encouragement throughout this project. I especially thank my sister and brother for helping to feed and label larvae throughout the summer. Second, I thank Hillary Burgess and Fairchild Tropical Gardens, Dr. Jonathan Crane and the University of Florida Tropical Research and Education center Homestead, FL, Elizabeth Golden and Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park, Leroy Rogers and South Florida Water Management, Marshall and Keith at Mack’s Fish Camp, Susan Casey and Casey’s Corner Nursery, and Michael and EWM Realtors Inc. for giving me access to collect larvae on their land and for their advice and assistance. Third, I thank Ryan Fessendon and Lary Reeves for helping to locate sites to collect larvae and for assisting me to collect larvae. I thank Dr. Marc Minno, Dr. Roxanne Connely, Dr. Charles Covell, Dr. Jaret Daniels for sharing their knowledge, advice, and ideas concerning this project. Fourth, I thank my committee, which included Drs. Thomas Emmel and James Nation, who provided guidance and encouragement throughout my project. Finally, I am grateful to the Chair of my committee and my major advisor, Dr. Andrei Sourakov, for his invaluable counsel, and for serving as a model of excellence of what it means to be a scientist.
    [Show full text]