Chinquapin the Newsletter of the Southern Appalachian Botanical Society
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. -
Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing -
Biological Resources Assessment the Ranch ±530- Acre Study Area City of Rancho Cordova, California
Biological Resources Assessment The Ranch ±530- Acre Study Area City of Rancho Cordova, California Prepared for: K. Hovnanian Homes October 13, 2017 Prepared by: © 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Project Description ........................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................ 2 2.1. Federal Regulations .......................................................................................................... 2 2.1.1. Federal Endangered Species Act ............................................................................... 2 2.1.2. Migratory Bird Treaty Act ......................................................................................... 2 2.1.3. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ............................................................... 2 2.2. State Jurisdiction .............................................................................................................. 3 2.2.1. California Endangered Species Act ........................................................................... 3 2.2.2. California Department of Fish and Game Codes ...................................................... 3 2.2.3. Native Plant Protection Act ..................................................................................... -
Towards Resolving Lamiales Relationships
Schäferhoff et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2010, 10:352 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/352 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Towards resolving Lamiales relationships: insights from rapidly evolving chloroplast sequences Bastian Schäferhoff1*, Andreas Fleischmann2, Eberhard Fischer3, Dirk C Albach4, Thomas Borsch5, Günther Heubl2, Kai F Müller1 Abstract Background: In the large angiosperm order Lamiales, a diverse array of highly specialized life strategies such as carnivory, parasitism, epiphytism, and desiccation tolerance occur, and some lineages possess drastically accelerated DNA substitutional rates or miniaturized genomes. However, understanding the evolution of these phenomena in the order, and clarifying borders of and relationships among lamialean families, has been hindered by largely unresolved trees in the past. Results: Our analysis of the rapidly evolving trnK/matK, trnL-F and rps16 chloroplast regions enabled us to infer more precise phylogenetic hypotheses for the Lamiales. Relationships among the nine first-branching families in the Lamiales tree are now resolved with very strong support. Subsequent to Plocospermataceae, a clade consisting of Carlemanniaceae plus Oleaceae branches, followed by Tetrachondraceae and a newly inferred clade composed of Gesneriaceae plus Calceolariaceae, which is also supported by morphological characters. Plantaginaceae (incl. Gratioleae) and Scrophulariaceae are well separated in the backbone grade; Lamiaceae and Verbenaceae appear in distant clades, while the recently described Linderniaceae are confirmed to be monophyletic and in an isolated position. Conclusions: Confidence about deep nodes of the Lamiales tree is an important step towards understanding the evolutionary diversification of a major clade of flowering plants. The degree of resolution obtained here now provides a first opportunity to discuss the evolution of morphological and biochemical traits in Lamiales. -
Rebecca K. Swadek Tony L. Burgess
THE VASCULAR FLORA OF THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS WALNUT FORMATION Rebecca K. Swadek Tony L. Burgess Texas Christian University Texas Christian University Department of Environmental Science Department of Environmental Science Botanical Research Institute of Texas TCU Box 298830 1700 University Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76129, U.S.A. Fort Worth, Texas 76107-3400, U.S.A. [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Political boundaries frequently define local floras. This floristic project takes a geological approach inspired by Dalea reverchonii (Comanche Peak prairie clover), which is primarily endemic to glades of the Walnut Formation. The Cretaceous Walnut Formation (Comanchean) lies on the drier western edge of the Fort Worth Prairie in North Central Texas. Its shallow limestone soils, formed from alternating layers of hard limestone and clayey marl, support a variety of habitats. Glades of barren limestone typically appear on ridgetops, grassland savannas form on eroding hillslopes, and seeps support diverse hyperseasonal vegetation. Vouchers were collected from January 2010 to June 2012 resulting in 469 infraspecific taxa, 453 species in 286 genera and 79 families. The richest five plant families are Asteraceae (74 taxa), Poa- ceae (73), Fabaceae (34), Euphorbiaceae (18), and Cyperaceae (17). There are 61 introduced species. Results indicate floristic affinities to limestone cedar glades of the Southeastern United States, the Edwards Plateau of Central Texas, and calcareous Apacherian Savannas of Southwestern North America. RESUMEN Las fronteras políticas definen frecuentemente las floras locales. Este proyecto florístico toma una aproximación geológica inspirada en Dalea reverchonii (trébol de la paradera de Comanche Peak), que es primariamente endémico de los claros de la formación Walnut. -
The Vascular Flora of Rarău Massif (Eastern Carpathians, Romania). Note Ii
Memoirs of the Scientific Sections of the Romanian Academy Tome XXXVI, 2013 BIOLOGY THE VASCULAR FLORA OF RARĂU MASSIF (EASTERN CARPATHIANS, ROMANIA). NOTE II ADRIAN OPREA1 and CULIŢĂ SÎRBU2 1 “Anastasie Fătu” Botanical Garden, Str. Dumbrava Roşie, nr. 7-9, 700522–Iaşi, Romania 2 University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Iaşi, Faculty of Agriculture, Str. Mihail Sadoveanu, nr. 3, 700490–Iaşi, Romania Corresponding author: [email protected] This second part of the paper about the vascular flora of Rarău Massif listed approximately half of the whole number of the species registered by the authors in their field trips or already included in literature on the same area. Other taxa have been added to the initial list of plants, so that, the total number of taxa registered by the authors in Rarău Massif amount to 1443 taxa (1133 species and 310 subspecies, varieties and forms). There was signaled out the alien taxa on the surveyed area (18 species) and those dubious presence of some taxa for the same area (17 species). Also, there were listed all the vascular plants, protected by various laws or regulations, both internal or international, existing in Rarău (i.e. 189 taxa). Finally, there has been assessed the degree of wild flora conservation, using several indicators introduced in literature by Nowak, as they are: conservation indicator (C), threat conservation indicator) (CK), sozophytisation indicator (W), and conservation effectiveness indicator (E). Key words: Vascular flora, Rarău Massif, Romania, conservation indicators. 1. INTRODUCTION A comprehensive analysis of Rarău flora, in terms of plant diversity, taxonomic structure, biological, ecological and phytogeographic characteristics, as well as in terms of the richness in endemics, relict or threatened plant species was published in our previous note (see Oprea & Sîrbu 2012). -
Species of Concern Asheville Field Office, U.S
Species of Concern Asheville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species of concern is an informal term referring to species appearing to be declining or otherwise needing conservation. It may be under consideration for listing or there may be insufficient information to currently support listing. Subsumed under the term “species of concern” are species petitioned by outside parties and other selected focal species identified in Service strategic plans, State Wildlife Action Plans, Professional Society Lists (e.g., AFS, FMCS) or NatureServe state program lists. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATE FEDERAL At-Risk TAXONOMIC GROUP STATUS STATUS Species Abies fraseri Fraser Fir W5 SC Vascular Plant Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon SC SC Freshwater Fish Aegolius acadicus Northern Saw-whet Owl T SC Bird Alasmidonta varicosa Brook Floater E SC ARS Freshwater Bivalve Alasmidonta viridis Slippershell E SC Freshwater Bivalve Ambloplites cavifrons Roanoke Bass SR SC Freshwater Fish Aneides aeneus Green Salamander E SC ARS Amphibian Anguilla rostrata American Eel SC ARS Freshwater Fish Arthonia cupressina Golden spruce dots (lichen) SC Lichen Arthonia kermesina Hot dots (lichen) W7 SC Lichen Arthopyrenia betulicola Old birch spots (lichen) SC Lichen Bombus terricola Yellow banded bumble bee SC ARS Insect Buckleya distichophylla Piratebush T SC Vascular Plant Buellia sharpiana Evelyn's buttons (lichen) SC Lichen Calamagrostis cainii Cain's Reedgrass E SC Vascular Plant Callophrys irus Frosted elfin SR SC ARS Butterfly Cambarus brimleyorum -
Southern Appalachian Low Elevation Pine Forest
Southern Appalachian Low Elevation Pine Forest Macrogroup: Southern Oak-Pine yourStateNatural Heritage Ecologist for more information about this habitat. This is modeledmap a distributiononbased current and is data nota substitute for field inventory. based Contact © Mike Schafale (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program) Description: An open forest or woodland of acidic substrates at low elevations in southwest Virginia. Vegetation is dominated by Virginia and shortleaf pine; occasionally with pitch pine. Hardwoods may be abundant, especially dry-site oaks such as southern red oak, chestnut oak, and scarlet oak, but also pignut hickory, red maple, and others. A heath shrub layer may be well developed. Herbs are usually sparse, though communities of this system may have been grassy when fires were more frequent. The ecological character and natural distribution of this system has been obscured over the years by human settlement, universal logging, pine beetle outbreaks, and fire suppression. Pine-dominated State Distribution: VA, WV forests have been both created and destroyed in different places by these disturbances. Total Habitat Acreage: 22,261 Ecological Setting and Natural Processes: Percent Conserved: 7.1% Occurs on a variety of acidic bedrock types and a variety of State State GAP 1&2 GAP 3 Unsecured landforms, mostly below about 2300 feet. Frequent, low- State Habitat % Acreage (acres) (acres) (acres) intensity fires coupled with severe fires may have been solely VA 100% 22,257 282 1,303 20,672 responsible for maintaining this system under natural WV 0% 4 0 0 4 conditions. Occurrences may have covered thousands of acres in the past, but most relatively intact remnants are probably small patches. -
Forest/ Woodlands Forest/Woodland Habitats Describe Large Areas Primarily Dominated by Trees, with Moderate Ground Coverage, Such As Grasses and Shrubs
HABITAT TYPE: Forest/ Woodlands Forest/Woodland habitats describe large areas primarily dominated by trees, with moderate ground coverage, such as grasses and shrubs. Density, tree height, and land use may all vary, though woodland is typically used to describe lower density forests. A forest may have an open canopy, but a woodland must have an open canopy with enough sunlight to reach the ground and limited shade. Predicted climate change will largely impact changes in temperature and moisture availability in forest/ woodlands systems, likely having a cascading effect on a species habitat and increasing stress to many of these species. The Appalachian LCC funded NatureServe to conduct vulnerability assessments on a suite of plants, animals, and habitats within the Appalachians. These assessments can be used as an early warning system to alert resource managers about changing conditions. Two such organisms within forest/woodland that managers can use to monitor such change are… PIRATEBUSH DIANA FRITILLARY Buckleya distichophylla Speyeria diana Distribution: Has only been identified in NC, TN, and VA Distribution: Found in the southern Appalachians from VA with the greatest concentration believed to be atop Poor across the Ohio River Valley down to AK and MO, typically Mountain in Roanoke County, Va. in deciduous and pine woodland areas near streams. Habitat Requirements: Exclusively found in mountainous Habitat Requirements: Most often found in glades and areas. Piratebush requires direct sunlight to grow. Though other open areas within rich, moist mountain forests. Males many locations in Appalachian feature habitats that should usually patrol for females deep in woods. be able to support piratebush, scientists have yet to determine Interactions: The violet is this species host plant, though why it exists in so few places. -
Systematics of Gratiola (Plantaginaceae)
University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 5-2008 Systematics of Gratiola (Plantaginaceae) Larry D. Estes University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Estes, Larry D., "Systematics of Gratiola (Plantaginaceae). " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2008. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/381 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Larry D. Estes entitled "Systematics of Gratiola (Plantaginaceae)." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Randall L. Small, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Edward E. Schilling, Karen W. Hughes, Sally P. Horn Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Larry Dwayne Estes entitled “Systematics of Gratiola (Plantaginaceae).” I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Ecology and Evolution. -
Native Vascular Plants
!Yt q12'5 3. /3<L....:::5_____ ,--- _____ Y)Q.'f MUSEUM BULLETIN NO.4 -------------- Copy I NATIVE VASCULAR PLANTS Endangered, Threatened, Or Otherwise In Jeopardy In South Carolina By Douglas A. Rayner, Chairman And Other Members Of The South Carolina Advisory Committee On Endangered, Threatened And Rare Plants SOUTH CAROLINA MUSEUM COMMISSION S. C. STATE LIR7~'· '?Y rAPR 1 1 1995 STATE DOCU~ 41 ;::,·. l s NATIVE VASCULAR PLANTS ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR OTHERWISE IN JEOPARDY IN SOUTH CAROLINA by Douglas A. Rayner, Chairman and other members of the South Carolina Advisory Committee on Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants March, 1979 Current membership of the S. C. Committee on Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants Subcommittee on Criteria: Ross C. Clark, Chairman (1977); Erskine College (taxonomy and ecology) Steven M. Jones, Clemson University (forest ecology) Richard D. Porcher, The Citadel (taxonomy) Douglas A. Rayner, S.C. Wildlife Department (taxonomy and ecology) Subcommittee on Listings: C. Leland Rodgers, Chairman (1977 listings); Furman University (taxonomy and ecology) Wade T. Batson, University of South Carolina, Columbia (taxonomy and ecology) Ross C. Clark, Erskine College (taxonomy and ecology) John E. Fairey, III, Clemson University (taxonomy) Joseph N. Pinson, Jr., University of South Carolina, Coastal Carolina College (taxonomy) Robert W. Powell, Jr., Converse College (taxonomy) Douglas A Rayner, Chairman (1979 listings) S. C. Wildlife Department (taxonomy and ecology) INTRODUCTION South Carolina's first list of rare vascular plants was produced as part of the 1976 S.C. En dangered Species Symposium by the S. C. Advisory Committee on Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants, 1977. The Symposium was a joint effort of The Citadel's Department of Biology and the S. -
Vascular Plants of Santa Cruz County, California
ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECOND EDITION Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland & Maps by Ben Pease CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CHAPTER Copyright © 2013 by Dylan Neubauer All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission from the author. Design & Production by Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland Maps by Ben Pease, Pease Press Cartography (peasepress.com) Cover photos (Eschscholzia californica & Big Willow Gulch, Swanton) by Dylan Neubauer California Native Plant Society Santa Cruz County Chapter P.O. Box 1622 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 To order, please go to www.cruzcps.org For other correspondence, write to Dylan Neubauer [email protected] ISBN: 978-0-615-85493-9 Printed on recycled paper by Community Printers, Santa Cruz, CA For Tim Forsell, who appreciates the tiny ones ... Nobody sees a flower, really— it is so small— we haven’t time, and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time. —GEORGIA O’KEEFFE CONTENTS ~ u Acknowledgments / 1 u Santa Cruz County Map / 2–3 u Introduction / 4 u Checklist Conventions / 8 u Floristic Regions Map / 12 u Checklist Format, Checklist Symbols, & Region Codes / 13 u Checklist Lycophytes / 14 Ferns / 14 Gymnosperms / 15 Nymphaeales / 16 Magnoliids / 16 Ceratophyllales / 16 Eudicots / 16 Monocots / 61 u Appendices 1. Listed Taxa / 76 2. Endemic Taxa / 78 3. Taxa Extirpated in County / 79 4. Taxa Not Currently Recognized / 80 5. Undescribed Taxa / 82 6. Most Invasive Non-native Taxa / 83 7. Rejected Taxa / 84 8. Notes / 86 u References / 152 u Index to Families & Genera / 154 u Floristic Regions Map with USGS Quad Overlay / 166 “True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.” —MIGUEL DE UNAMUNO 1 ~ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~ ANY THANKS TO THE GENEROUS DONORS without whom this publication would not M have been possible—and to the numerous individuals, organizations, insti- tutions, and agencies that so willingly gave of their time and expertise.