DOCSLIB.ORG

Xerophytic Species Evaluated for Renewable Energy Resources1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Purchased by U.S. Department of Agriculture for Official Use Xerophytic Species Evaluated for Renewable Energy Resources 1 M. E. CARR,2 B. S. PHILLIPS,2 AND M. O. BAGBy3 Previously, the USDA Northern Regional Research Center has examined 600 plant species in 88 families for their multipurpose, energy-producing potential. About three-fourths ofthese species have been from central and southern Illinois, but only about 2% have been from arid or semiarid regions ofthe United States. For this report, 100 species collected from Arizona were evaluated, bringing the total number ofspecies evaluated at this Center to 700 in 96 families. Plant spec­ imens were analyzed for yields offractions referred to as "oil," "polyphenol," "hydrocarbon," and protein and were examinedfor botanical characteristics. Oil and hydrocarbon fractions of selected species were partially characterized. Ten species gave high yields ofoil and/or polyphenol. For example, Asclepias linaria yielded 8.7% oil (dl)', ash-free sample basis) + 11.7% polyphenol (1.9Q6 hydrocar­ bon). Rhus choriophylla yielded 7.0% oil + 20% polyphenol (0.4% hydrocarbon) and Juglans major yielded 7.0% oil + 9.4% polyphenol (0.2% hydrocarbon). Pit­ tosporum tobira gave the highest yield ofhydrocarbon (2.3%). Fourteen species contained at least 18% protein. In general, the percentages of species yielding substantial amounts of oil and/or polyphenol were considerably higher for the Arizona species than for those 600 species previously analyzed. Complete analyt­ ical data are presentedfor 38 species and are discussed in relationship to the 600 species previously reported. In recent years, there has been much interest in developing and using more effectively plants that are able to tolerate arid and semiarid areas, particularly for industrial nonfood uses (Davis et aI., 1983). The use of new crops grown in underused land areas could supplement our need for fuels and chemicals, as well as stimulate industrial and economic growth (Buchanan and Duke, 1981; Bungay, 1982; Calvin, 1983; Princen, 1983). Currently, our Center is screening plant species in a program designed ultimately to identify plants that have potential uses as multipurpose, energy-producing crops. Previously, we have screened 600 plant species in 88 families (Carr, 1985). Most ofthese plants were collected from central and southern Illinois. This report discusses our evaluation of 100 addi­ tional species collected from Arizona, which brings our total to 700 species screened in 96 families. Plant materials were analyzed for contents of"oil," "polyphenol," "hydrocarbon" and protein. Oil and hydrocarbon fractions of selected species were partially characterized. Analytical and botanical criteria previously estab­ lished at this Center were used as an aid in selecting species for discussion. Data are compared to those of the 600 species previously analyzed. I Received 18 June 1984; accepted 5 January 1985. 2 Northern Regional Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Peoria, IL 61604. The mention of firm names or trade products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the USDA over other firms or similar products not mentioned. 3 Northern Agricultural Energy Center, USDA, Peoria, IL 61604. Economic Botany, 39(4), 1985, pp. 505-513 © 1985, by the New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458 506 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 39 TABLE 1. ANALYTICAL DATA OF PLANT SPECIES WITH RATINGS OF LESS THAN 11.' Collector Family and Herbarium Polv- Hydro- Pro- Species collection voucher Oil phenol carbon tein Rat- Common name Type of plant areab number qh tv.0 0/.0 qb ing Anacardiaceae Rhus choriophylla shrub H,SC 80366 7.0 20.0 0.4 7.0 9 Woot. and StandI. Skunkbush Asclepidaceae Asclepias linaria Cav. herbaceous H,P 80176 8.7 11.7 1.9 8.5 8 perennial Boraginaceae Cordia boissieri evergreen shrub M,P 80385 3.6 8.7 1.2 12.3 9 A. DC. or tree Anacahuita Chenopodiaceae Atriplex elegans (Moq.) herbaceous M,P 80133 2.1 4.4 0.1 20.9 10 D. Dietr. annual Four-wing saltbush Compositae Artemisia ludoviciana herbaceous H,P 80190 2.1 7.7 0.5 8.6 10 Nutt. subsp. albula perennial (Wooton) Keck White sage Baccharis glwinosa evergreen shrub M,P 80132 2.6 9.7 0.4 15.7 9 Pers. Seep willow Guardiola platyphylla herbaceous H,SC 80381 2.6 5.0 1.5 5.1 9 Gray perennial GWierrezia micro- herbaceous M,P 80375 2.2 8.9 0.5 8.5 10 cephala (DC.) Gray perennial Threadleaf snakeweed Hymenoclea monogyra shrub H,SC 80368 2.0 15.7 0.0 14.2 10 Torr. and Gray White burro bush Euphorbiaceae Jatropha cardiophylla shrub M,P 80238 2.4 3.9 0.1 14.5 10 (Torr.) Muell. Arg. Sangre-de-Cristo Garryaceae Garrya wrightii Torr. shrub H,P 80255 3.8 12.2 1.9 6.1 9 Silk-tassel bush Juglandaceae JuglallS major (Torr.) tree M,P 80221 7.0 9.4 0.2 10.4 10 A. Heller Arizona walnut Leguminosae Cassia leptocarpa herbaceous M,P 80245 4.0 4.8 0.1 15.8 10 Benth. perennial Slimpod senna Elythrina flabelliformis shrub or tree H,P 80189 3.7 8.8 0.2 15.8 10 Kearney Coral bean Robinia neomexicana shrub H,P 80392 2.4 7.6 0.0 19.9 10 Gray Mexican locust 1985] CARR ET AL.: XEROPHYTES AS ENERGY SOURCES 507 TABLE 1. CONTINUED. Collector Family and Herbarium Poly. Hvdro- Pro- Species collection voucher Oil phenol carbon lein Rat· b 0' Common name Type of plant area number go t}o iO (}" iog Onagraceae Oenothera hookeri herbaceous M,P 80284 5.6 8.0 0.1 7.8 10 Torr. and Gray biennial Hooker's evening primrose Pittosporaceae PittosporUIIl tobira shrub or tree M,Mc 80383 4.1 5.1 2.3 8.8 8 (Thunb.) Ail. Mock orange Solanaceae SolanulIl eriantlzulIl shrub or tree M,P 80376 2.4 6.6 0.1 21.7 10 D. Don. a Percent yields are on a dry. ash-free sample basis. b Plant specimens ,..'ere collected by Robert \V. Hoshaw. Department of Ecology. University of Arizona. Tucson. AZ. and by Charles T. j\'lason, Jr.. Curator of Herbarium. University of Arizona. H = Hoshaw. rvl = .t-.lason. SC = Santa Cruz County..A.Z. P = Pima County, AZ. Me Maricopa County. .AZ. See Experimental. EXPERIMENTAL Specimens were collected in 1982 from the Arizona counties of Pima, Santa Cruz, and Maricopa. Herbaceous specimens were collected as mature, whole plants, clipped at ground level. Trees and large shrubs were sampled by cutting the latest year's growth. Voucher specimens are stored at the USDA Northern Regional Research Center herbarium. About 2 lb of each plant sample was dried at ambient conditions in a sheltered area, near the collection site. The air-dried samples were ground in a Wiley mill to pass l-mm-diameter holes and then analyzed for moisture, ash and protein (% Kjeldahl nitrogen x 6.25). About 50 g of each milled sample was extracted in a Soxhlet apparatus with acetone and then hexane (48 h each solvent). Constituents from acetone extraction were par­ titioned between hexane and aqueous ethanol to obtain fractions, referred to as "oil" and "polyphenol," respectively. Constituents from hexane extraction are referred to as "hydrocarbon." Ifyield ofoil was at least 3.0% (dry, ash-free sample basis), the oil was analyzed for classes of lipid constituents by thin-layer chro­ matography and, after saponification, for yields of unsaponifiable matter (UM) and free acids (FA). Ifyield of hydrocarbon was at least 0.4%, the hydrocarbon was analyzed by infrared (IR) spectroscopy to detect the presence ofrubber, gutta, and/or waxes. Rubber and gutta were analyzed for average molecular weight by gel permeation chromatography. Details ofthe various analytical procedures have been described recently (Carr, 1985). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION General Ofthe 100 Arizona species analyzed, yields ranged from 1.0-8.7% oil (dry, ash­ free, sample basis), 1.6-30.2% polyphenol, 0-2.3% hydrocarbon, and 3.3-32.9% protein. Twenty-three species yielded at least 3.0% oil, 9 yielded at least 4.0% oil, 508 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 39 and 3 yielded at least 7.0% oil. Polyphenol yields were at least 10% for 32 species, 15% for 15 species, and 20% for 5 species. Yields of hydrocarbon were at least 0.6% for 9 species, 0.8% for 6 species, and 2.0% for 1 species. Protein contents were at least 14, 18 and 22% for 26, 14 and 3 species, respectively. The percentages ofspecies yielding substantial quantities ofoil and/or polyphenol were greater for these Arizona species than for the 600 species previously analyzed. For example, about 5% ofthe 600 species had 4% or more oil, and about 1% had 6% or more oil. Another 5% had 15% or more polyphenol. Fewer than 1% had 20% or more polyphenol. With few exceptions yields ofhydrocarbon have been low «2%) for species collected from all of the regions investigated to date (Roth et al., 1982; Carr, 1985). Each species was assigned a numerical "crop rating," based on yields of oil, hydrocarbon, and protein and on its fiber and botanical characteristics (Buchanan et al., 1978a; Cull, 1983). On a scale of 5 (best)-17 (worst), the potential ofplant species as oil- and hydrocarbon-multipurpose-producing crops has been suggested but is considered far from absolute. All the species will be further screened for possible advanced study based on broader and more definitive criteria (Knowles et al., 1984). However, it is likely that most of the species finally selected will have ratings of < 11. Of the 100 Arizona species analyzed for this report, data is reported on 38, based on results described below.
Recommended publications

  • FINAL REPORT Pines Vs

    FINAL REPORT Pines vs. Oaks Revisited: Forest Type Conversion Due to High-severity Fire in Madrean Woodlands JFSP PROJECT ID: 15-1-07-22 December 2017 Andrew M. Barton University of Maine at Farmington Helen M. Poulos Wesleyan University Graeme P. Berlyn Yale University The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government. ii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................2 Background ......................................................................................................................................3 Materials and Methods .....................................................................................................................4 Study System .............................................................................................................................4 Climate and Fire Patterns in Southeastern Arizona ...................................................................6 Plot Sampling Design ................................................................................................................6 Plot
  • Valley Native Plants for Birds

    Valley Native Plants for Birds

    Quinta Mazatlan WBC 1/19/17 SB 1 TOP VALLEY NATIVE FRUITING PLANTS FOR BIRDS TALL TREES, 30 FT OR GREATER: Common Name Botanical Name Height Width Full Shade/ Full Evergreen Bloom Bloom Fruit Notes (ft) (ft) Sun Sun Shade Color Period Color Anacua, Ehretia anacua 20-50 40-60 X X X White Summer- Yellow- Leaves feel like sandpaper; Sandpaper Tree, Fall Orange fragrant flowers. Mature trunk has Sugarberry characteristic outgrowth which resembles cylinders put together to form it. Edible fruit. Butterfly nectar plant. Sugar Hackberry, Celtis laevigata 30-50 50 X X X Greenish, Spring Red Fast-growing, short-lived tree, with Palo Blanco tiny an ornamental grey, warty bark. Shallow rooted and prone to fungus; should be planted away from structures. Caterpillar host plant. SMALL TREES (LESS THAN 30 FT): Common Name Botanical Name Height Width Full Shade/ Full Evergreen Bloom Bloom Fruit Notes (ft) (ft) Sun Sun Shade Color Period Color Brasil, Condalia hookeri 12-15 15 X X X Greenish- Spring- Black Branches end in thorns; shiny Capul Negro, yellow, Summer leaves. Capulín, Bluewood small Condalia Coma, Sideroxylon 15-30 15 X X X White Summer- Blue- Very fragrant flowers; sticky, edible Chicle, celastrinum Fall, after black fruit; thorny; glossy leaves. Saffron Plum rain Granjeno, Celtis pallida 10-20 12 X X X X Greenish, Spring Orange Edible fruit; spiny; bark is mottled Spiny tiny grey. Can be small tree or shrub. Hackberry Texas Diospyros 15-30 15 X X X X White Spring Black Mottled, peeling ornamental bark; Persimmon, texana great native choice instead of the Chapote Crape Myrtle.
  • ASHY DOGWEED (Thymophylla [=Dyssodia] Tephroleuca)

    ASHY DOGWEED (Thymophylla [=Dyssodia] Tephroleuca)

    ASHY DOGWEED (Thymophylla [=Dyssodia] tephroleuca) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photograph: Chris Best, USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office Corpus Christi, Texas September 2011 1 FIVE YEAR REVIEW Ashy dogweed/Thymophylla tephroleuca Blake 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Reviewers Lead Regional Office: Southwest Regional Office, Region 2 Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Threatened and Endangered Species, 505-248-6641 Wendy Brown, Endangered Species Recovery Coordinator, 505-248-6664 Julie McIntyre, Recovery Biologist, 505-248-6507 Lead Field Office: Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office Robyn Cobb, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 361- 994-9005, ext. 241 Amber Miller, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 361-994-9005, ext. 247 Cooperating Field Office: Austin Ecological Services Field Office Chris Best, Texas State Botanist, 512- 490-0057, ext. 225 1.2 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species once every five years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing as endangered or threatened is based on the species’ status considering the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
  • Arctostaphylos Pungens Woodland

    Arctostaphylos Pungens Woodland

    54. [Quercus arizonica - Quercus emoryi] / Arctostaphylos pungens Woodland Association (P) [Arizona white oak - Emory oak] / Pointleaf manzanita Woodland Association (P) This woodland is characterized by a variably dense (20–40% cover) canopy stratum (2–5 m) dominated by Arizona white oak (Quercus Common species arizonica) and Emory oak (Quercus emoryi) with a similarly dense • Quercus arizonica (20–40% cover) subcanopy (0.5–2 m) dominated by manzanita (Arcto- • Quercus emoryi staphylos sp.), mainly pointleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos pungens). The • Arctostaphylos pungens oak species provide similar cover (10%) as co-dominants or with either one becoming the sole dominant. Both species can range from small (<2 m), shrubby trees to single-stem individuals with heights up to 5 meters. Alligator juniper (Juniperus deppeana) and border pinyon (Pinus discolor) are sparse (1%) associates. Pointleaf manzanita (A. pungens) provides around 20+% cover throughout the community, with some areas reaching up to 40%. Other documented species include Pringle’s manzanita (Arctostaphylos pringlei), Wright’s silktassel (Garrya wrightii), yucca (Yucca madrensis), beargrass (Nolina microcarpa), California brickellbush (Brickellia californica), Fendler’s ceanothus (Ceanothus fendleri), and bullgrass (Muhlenbergia emersleyi). This community is contained within a two-association map class that covers 1.3% (362 ha/894 ac) of the Rincon Mountain District and occurs throughout the high slopes of Tanque Verde and Heartbreak ridges, often within the boundaries of historic fire events, specifically the 1989 Chiva Fire. It is primarily present on Rincon Mountain District, Saguaro National Park Rincon Mountain District, Saguaro moderately steep (20–40%) mountain backslopes from 1,450 to 1,650 meters (4,757–5,413 ft).
  • Plants for Bats

    Plants for Bats

    Suggested Native Plants for Bats Nectar Plants for attracting moths:These plants are just suggestions based onfloral traits (flower color, shape, or fragrance) for attracting moths and have not been empirically tested. All information comes from The Lady Bird Johnson's Wildflower Center's plant database. Plant names with * denote species that may be especially high value for bats (based on my opinion). Availability denotes how common a species can be found within nurseries and includes 'common' (found in most nurseries, such as Rainbow Gardens), 'specialized' (only available through nurseries such as Medina Nursery, Natives of Texas, SA Botanical Gardens, or The Nectar Bar), and 'rare' (rarely for sale but can be collected from wild seeds or cuttings). All are native to TX, most are native to Bexar. Common Name Scientific Name Family Light Leaves Water Availability Notes Trees: Sabal palm * Sabal mexicana Arecaceae Sun Evergreen Moderate Common Dead fronds for yellow bats Yaupon holly Ilex vomitoria Aquifoliaceae Any Evergreen Any Common Possumhaw is equally great Desert false willow Chilopsis linearis Bignoniaceae Sun Deciduous Low Common Avoid over-watering Mexican olive Cordia boissieri Boraginaceae Sun/Part Evergreen Low Common Protect from deer Anacua, sandpaper tree * Ehretia anacua Boraginaceae Sun Evergreen Low Common Tough evergreen tree Rusty blackhaw * Viburnum rufidulum Caprifoliaceae Partial Deciduous Low Specialized Protect from deer Anacacho orchid Bauhinia lunarioides Fabaceae Partial Evergreen Low Common South Texas species
  • Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List

    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.
  • Reference Plant List

    Reference Plant List

    APPENDIX J NATIVE & INVASIVE PLANT LIST The following tables capture the referenced plants, native and invasive species, found throughout this document. The Wildlife Action Plan Team elected to only use common names for plants to improve the readability, particular for the general reader. However, common names can create confusion for a variety of reasons. Common names can change from region-to-region; one common name can refer to more than one species; and common names have a way of changing over time. For example, there are two widespread species of greasewood in Nevada, and numerous species of sagebrush. In everyday conversation generic common names usually work well. But if you are considering management activities, landscape restoration or the habitat needs of a particular wildlife species, the need to differentiate between plant species and even subspecies suddenly takes on critical importance. This appendix provides the reader with a cross reference between the common plant names used in this document’s text, and the scientific names that link common names to the precise species to which writers referenced. With regards to invasive plants, all species listed under the Nevada Revised Statute 555 (NRS 555) as a “Noxious Weed” will be notated, within the larger table, as such. A noxious weed is a plant that has been designated by the state as a “species of plant which is, or is likely to be, detrimental or destructive and difficult to control or eradicate” (NRS 555.05). To assist the reader, we also included a separate table detailing the noxious weeds, category level (A, B, or C), and the typical habitats that these species invade.
  • Trees Sanantonioregion

    Trees Sanantonioregion

    TrTreeeess fo r th e SSaann AntonioRegiAntonioRegioonn A Guide to the Selection, Planting and Care of Trees in the Greater San Antonio Region Trees provide our community with cleaner air, cooler temperatures, shadier summers, beautiful landscapes, healthier children, and bountiful wildlife. City Public Service encourages every citizen to increase our tree canopy and maximize its benefits by selecting recommended trees for the San Antonio region and planting them in the appropriate location. Use this guide to assist you in planning your landscape, planting your tree, and providing maintenance. P LANNING YOUR LANDSCAPE Specific trees have been selected by the local regional experts as Why are you planting a tree? Do you want to beautify your appropriate for planting in the San Antonio region. It also landscape, shade your home for energy conservation, or contains information about foliage, flower, fruit, fall color honor an event? Knowing your specific goal will help you and attracting wildlife. select where to plant and what species of tree to select. For If you are still having trouble choosing the appropriate example, if you want to conserve energy in the summer tree to plant, consult with the local experts, such as the months, this requires a tree that will shade your roof and Texas Cooperative Extension, the Texas Forest Service, or a sides of your house from the summer sun. local arborist, landscape architect, nurseryman, or other qualified professional. Season When can you plant a tree? For best results, plant your tree Structure & Standards from November 1st through March 31st. This allows the How do you know it's the best quality tree? A good quality tree's root system to get established before the extreme tree has a straight and well tapered trunk, and should stand summer temperatures create considerable stress.
  • Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference

    Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference

    Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants : UnitedUnited States States DepartmentDepartment ofof Agriculture Agriculture ForestForest Service Service Proceedings of the Fourth RockyRocky Mountain Mountain ResearchResearch Station Station Conference ProceedingsProceedings RMRS-P-48CD RMRS-P-48CD JulyJuly 2007 2007 March 22-26, 2004 Las Cruces, New Mexico Barlow-Irick, P., J.J. AndersonAnderson andand C.C. McDonald,McDonald, techtech eds.eds. 2007.2006. SouthwesternSouthwestern rarerare andand endangered plants: Proceedings of the fourth conference; March 22-26, 2004; Las Cruces, New Mexico. Proceedings RMRS-P-XX.RMRS-P-48CD. Fort Fort Collins, Collins, CO: CO: U.S. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Service, Rocky Mountain ResearchResearch Station.Station. 135 pp.p. Abstract These contributed papers review the current status of plant conservation in the southwestern U.S. Key Words: plant conservation, conservation partnerships, endangered plants, plant taxonomy, genetics, demography, reproductive biology, biogeography, plant surveys, plant monitoring These manuscripts received technical and statistical review. Views expressed in each paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the sponsoring organizations or the USDA Forest Service. Cover illustration: Have Plant Press, Will Travel by Patricia Barlow-Irick You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify the publication title and series number. Fort Collins Service Center Telephone (970) 498-1392 FAX (970) 498-1122 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs Mailing address Publications Distribution Rocky Mountain Research Station 240 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-XXRMRS-P-48CD Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference March 22-26, 2004 Las Cruces, New Mexico Technical Coordinators: Patricia Barlow-Irick Largo Canyon School Counselor, NM John Anderson U.S.
  • Foods Eaten by the Rocky Mountain

    Foods Eaten by the Rocky Mountain

    were reported as trace amounts were excluded. Factors such as relative plant abundance in relation to consumption were considered in assigning plants to use categories when such information was Foods Eaten by the available. An average ranking for each species was then determined on the basis Rocky Mountain Elk of all studies where it was found to contribute at least 1% of the diet. The following terminology is used throughout this report. Highly valuable plant-one avidly sought by elk and ROLAND C. KUFELD which made up a major part of the diet in food habits studies where encountered, or Highlight: Forty-eight food habits studies were combined to determine what plants which was consumed far in excess of its are normally eaten by Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni), and the rela- vegetative composition. These had an tive value of these plants from a manager’s viewpoint based on the response elk have average ranking of 2.25 to 3.00. Valuable exhibited toward them. Plant species are classified as highly valuable, valuable, or least plants-one sought and readily eaten but valuable on the basis of their contribution to the diet in food habits studies where to a lesser extent than highly valuable they were recorded. A total of 159 forbs, 59 grasses, and 95 shrubs are listed as elk plants. Such plants made up a moderate forage and categorized according to relative value. part of the diet in food habits studies where encountered. Valuable plants had an average ranking of 1.50 to 2.24. Least Knowledge of the relative forage value elk food habits, and studies meeting the valuable plant-one eaten by elk but which of plants eaten by elk is basic to elk range following criteria were incorporated: (1) usually made up a minor part of the diet surveys, and to planning and evaluation Data must be original and derived from a in studies where encountered, or which of habitat improvement programs.
  • &lt;I&gt;Cordia Subcordata&lt;/I&gt;

    <I>Cordia Subcordata</I>

    Plant Ecology and Evolution 153 (3): 361–372, 2020 https://doi.org/10.5091/plecevo.2020.1757 REGULAR PAPER Cordia subcordata (Boraginaceae), a distylous species on oceanic coral islands, is self-compatible and pollinated by a passerine bird Xiangping Wang, Meihong Wen, Mingsong Wu & Dianxiang Zhang* Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, Guangdong, China *Corresponding author: [email protected] Background and aims – Distyly is usually rare on oceanic islands, which is probably due to the difficulty for distylous plants to colonize those islands. However, Cordia subcordata was observed to be distylous with short- and long-styled morphs on the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea. To characterize the reproduction system of Cordia subcordata and to understand how this distylous species maintains itself on these islands, we studied its reproductive and pollination biology. Methods – Seed set and pollen tube growth under manipulated intermorph, intramorph, and self-pollination were examined to investigate self-incompatibility in the species. The number of pollen grains deposited on the stigmas after a single pollinator visit were counted to investigate the pollination efficiency of different visitors. Key results – Our study indicated that Cordia subcordata shows reciprocal herkogamy as is typical in distylous species. Pollen tubes could reach the base of the style and move into the ovules under all the manipulated pollination treatments in both morphs. Seed set resulting from four hand-pollination experiments did not show any differences between both morphs, suggesting that Cordia subcordata lacks heterostylous self-incompatibility. The most frequent flower visitors,Zosterops japonicus and Apis cerana, were observed foraging on the large volumes of nectar and pollen grains, respectively, with Zosterops japonicus being the most effective pollinator, depositing large number of pollen grains on the stigmas during their visits.
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rio Grande City Station Road

    Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rio Grande City Station Road

    DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFIGANT IMPACT (FONSI) RIO GRANDE CITY STATION ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIO GRANDE CITY, TEXAS, RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. BORDER PATROL, RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, TEXAS U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON, D.C. INTRODUCTION: United States (U.S.) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) plans to upgrade and lengthen four existing roads in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Rio Grande City (RGC) Station’s Area of Responsibility (AOR). The Border Patrol Air and Marine Program Management Office (BPAM-PMO) within CBP has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). This EA addresses the proposed upgrade and construction of the four aforementioned roads and the BPAM-PMO is preparing this EA on behalf of the USBP Headquarters. CBP is the law enforcement component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that is responsible for securing the border and facilitating lawful international trade and travel. USBP is the uniformed law enforcement subcomponent of CBP responsible for patrolling and securing the border between the land ports of entry. PROJECT LOCATION: The roads are located within the RGC Station’s AOR, Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector, in Starr County, Texas. The RGC Station’s AOR encompasses approximately 1,228 square miles, including approximately 68 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border and the Rio Grande from the Starr/Zapata County line to the Starr/Hidalgo County line. From north to south, the four road segments are named Mouth of River to Chapeno Hard Top, Chapeno USIBWC Gate to Salineno, Salineno to Enron, and 19-20 Area to Fronton Fishing, and all of these segments are located south of Falcon International Reservoir (Falcon Lake), generally parallel to the Rio Grande.