DOCSLIB.ORG

Using Scenarios to Evaluate Vulnerability of Grassland Communities to Climate Change in the Southern Great Plains of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Using Scenarios to Evaluate Vulnerability of Grassland Communities to Climate Change in the Southern Great Plains of the United States In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Science Applications Program, Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative Using Scenarios to Evaluate Vulnerability of Grassland Communities to Climate Change in the Southern Great Plains of the United States Open-File Report 2019–1046 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Wind turbines and domestic cattle grazing in grassland illustrate energy development and the shift in dominance from native herbivores to domestic livestock. Photograph by Natasha Carr, U.S. Geological Survey, August 23, 2012. Using Scenarios to Evaluate Vulnerability of Grassland Communities to Climate Change in the Southern Great Plains of the United States By Daniel J. Manier, Natasha B. Carr, Gordon C. Reese, and Lucy Burris In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Science Applications Program, Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative Open-File Report 2019–1046 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Manier, D.J., Carr, N.B., Reese, G.C., and Burris, L., 2019, Using scenarios to evaluate vulnerability of grassland communities to climate change in the Southern Great Plains of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2019–1046, 48 p., https://doi.org/10.3313/ofr20191046. ISSN 0196-1497 (print) ISSN 2331-1258 (online) ISBN 978-1-4113-4297-2 iii Acknowledgments We acknowledge staff and partners of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Science Applications Program, Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GPLCC) for guidance and assistance in the scope and implementation of this research, especially: Nicole Athearn (formerly GPLCC), James Broska (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Jonathan Hayes (formerly GPLCC), and Amie Truer-Kuehn (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department). We especially thank additional participants in the Fort Collins Project Kickoff Meeting: Reesa Conrey and George Schisler (Colorado Parks and Wildlife); Alex Daniels and Kyle Taylor (Playa Lakes Joint Venture); Bruce Hoagland (Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation); Brian Trusty, John Takekawa, and Curtis Burhkalter (National Audubon Society); and Mike Langston, Kim Winton, and Carlos Gaitan (South-Central Climate Science Center). Special thanks are extended to Amie Truer-Kuehn, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and Bruce Hoagland, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, for supplying field data that supported evaluation and parameterization of our models. We also appreciated the assistance of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) staff who provided guidance and assistance during different stages of this project: Aaron Freeman (formerly Fort Collins Science Center), Sarah Carter (Fort Collins Science Center), Jeff Morisette (formerly North Central Climate Science Center), Marian Talbert (formerly North Central Climate Science Center), Colin Talbert (Fort Collins Science Center, and formerly North Central Climate Science Center) and Terry Sohl (Earth Resources Observation and Science Center). Reviews of the manuscript were provided by Jeff Morisette and Brian Miller. Finally, we acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), and we thank the climate modeling groups (listed in table 2) for producing and making their model output available for use. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals for CMIP. iv Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................iii Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 Methods...........................................................................................................................................................3 Project Area and Ecological Setting .................................................................................................3 Climate Scenarios .................................................................................................................................5 Grassland Species Productivity Modeling .......................................................................................8 Indicator Species .........................................................................................................................8 Productivity Models ....................................................................................................................8 Quantifying Current Land Use .............................................................................................................9 Results .............................................................................................................................................................9 Semi-Desert Grassland Species ......................................................................................................10 Tobosagrass ................................................................................................................................10 Black Grama ...............................................................................................................................10 Shortgrass Prairie ...............................................................................................................................14 Blue Grama .................................................................................................................................14 Buffalograss................................................................................................................................14 Mixed-Grass Prairie ...........................................................................................................................18 Sideoats Grama ..........................................................................................................................18 Little Bluestem ............................................................................................................................18 Tallgrass Prairie ..................................................................................................................................22 Indiangrass .................................................................................................................................22 Big Bluestem...............................................................................................................................22 Community-Level Vulnerability to Climate Scenarios ...................................................................26 Relative and Synergistic Effects of Land Use and Climate Change ...........................................26 Discussion .....................................................................................................................................................26 Uncertainty in Future Distribution, Structure, and Composition of Grassland Communities .......................................................................................................33 Management Implications ................................................................................................................34 Potential Implications for Landscape Conservation Design .......................................................34 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................34 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................35 Appendix 1. Classified Relative Production Estimates .......................................................................39 Model Convergence and Uncertainty .............................................................................................48 v Figures 1. Maps showing A, Grassland communities of the Southern Great Plains of the United States and B, spatial patterns of land use as represented by the terrestrial development index (TDI), as applied to grassland communities ..........................................4 2. Maps showing mean temperature
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument
    In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service This page left intentionally blank. In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument By Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt, William L. Halvorson, and Pamela Anning Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey 125 Biological Sciences East National Park Service Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web:http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested Citation Powell, B.F., Schmidt, C.A., Halvorson, W.L., and Anning, Pamela, 2008, Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Chiricahua National Monument: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1023, 104 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1023/]. Cover photo: Chiricahua National Monument. Photograph by National Park Service. Note: This report supersedes Schmidt et al. (2005). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Mixedgrass Prairie Ecological System (Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregion Version)
    CENTRAL MIXEDGRASS PRAIRIE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM (CENTRAL SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE ECOREGION VERSION) ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT Draft of June 29, 2007 Prepared by: Karin Decker Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 Table of Contents A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 A.1 Classification Summary ........................................................................................... 3 A.2 Ecological System Description ................................................................................ 5 A.2.1 Environment....................................................................................................... 5 A.2.2 Vegetation & Ecosystem.................................................................................... 6 A.2.3 Dynamics ........................................................................................................... 8 A.2.4 Landscape......................................................................................................... 10 A.2.5 Size................................................................................................................... 11 A.3 Ecological Integrity................................................................................................ 12 A.3.1 Threats.............................................................................................................. 12 A.3.2 Justification of Metrics....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montana's Glaciated
    Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management Prepared by: Stephen V. Cooper, Catherine Jean and Paul Hendricks December, 2001 Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report 2001 Montana Natural Heritage Program Montana State Library P.O. Box 201800 Helena, Montana 59620-1800 (406) 444-3009 BLM Agreement number 1422E930A960015 Task Order # 25 This document should be cited as: Cooper, S. V., C. Jean and P. Hendricks. 2001. Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Pro- gram, Helena. 24 pp. plus appendices. Executive Summary Throughout much of the Great Plains, grasslands limited number of Black-tailed Prairie Dog have been converted to agricultural production colonies that provide breeding sites for Burrow- and as a result, tall-grass prairie has been ing Owls. Swift Fox now reoccupies some reduced to mere fragments. While more intact, portions of the landscape following releases the loss of mid - and short- grass prairie has lead during the last decade in Canada. Great Plains to a significant reduction of prairie habitat Toad and Northern Leopard Frog, in decline important for grassland obligate species. During elsewhere, still occupy some wetlands and the last few decades, grassland nesting birds permanent streams. Additional surveys will have shown consistently steeper population likely reveal the presence of other vertebrate declines over a wider geographic area than any species, especially amphibians, reptiles, and other group of North American bird species small mammals, of conservation concern in (Knopf 1994), and this alarming trend has been Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2013 Rare Plants on Display by Chet Neufeld NPSS Executive Director the NPSS Has Once Again Been Busy with Field Tours
    Vol. 18, No. 2 /npss.sk www.npss.sk.ca @NPSS_SK Summer 2013 Rare plants on display By CHET NEUFELD NPSS Executive Director The NPSS has once again been busy with field tours. While the weather didn’t always cooperate, we managed to have some good times and find a lot of interesting and rare plants. Here’s a break- down of the tours for 2013. Peggy McKercher Conservation Area Tour - May 25 The summer tour schedule started out with a tour to the Peggy McKercher Conservation Area on the outskirts of Saskatoon. This is an area in transition; it has recently been acquired by the Meewasin Valley Author- ity but had been a Catholic Church retreat for a number of years. As such, there was a mix of introduced and native plants, and signs of human use which will be remediated as the site is brought back to a more natural state. Continued on Pages 4, 5 & 6 PHOTOS BY CANDACE AND CHET NEUFELD ABOVE – Woolly gromwell (Lithospermum ruderale) found during the Southwest Corner Tour in Cypress Hills on June 22 and 23. RIGHT – Smooth Cliffbrake (Pellaea glabella ssp. occidentalis) found in the Cypress Hills, a new location for Saskatchewan. NPSS could Getting to NatureCity Holts win Spot use a few good the root of an Festival draws the Crocus 2 board members 3 invasive problem 7 1,200 people 8 contest, again 1 In search of a NPSS Board of Directors President: few good plants, Shelley Heidinger 306-634-9771 Past-President Tara Sample 306-777-9137 Vice-President: board members John Hauer 306-463-5507 I hope that everyone enjoyed their summer! So far at least.
    [Show full text]
  • Low-Water Native Plants for Colorado Gardens: Prairie and Plains
    Low-Water Native Plants for Colorado Gardens: Prairie and Plains Published by the Colorado Native Plant Society 1 Prairie and Plains Region Denver Botanic Gardens, Chatfield Photo by Irene Shonle Introduction This range map is approximate. Please be familiar with your area to know which This is one in a series of regional native planting guides that are a booklet is most appropriate for your landscape. collaboration of the Colorado Native Plant Society, CSU Extension, Front Range Wild Ones, the High Plains Environmental Center, Butterfly The Colorado native plant gardening guides cover these 5 regions: Pavilion and the Denver Botanic Gardens. Plains/Prairie Front Range/Foothills Many people have an interest in landscaping with native plants, Southeastern Colorado and the purpose of this booklet is to help people make the most Mountains above 7,500 feet successful choices. We have divided the state into 5 different regions Lower Elevation Western Slope that reflect different growing conditions and life zones. These are: the plains/prairie, Southeastern Colorado, the Front Range/foothills, the This publication was written by the Colorado Native Plant Society Gardening mountains above 7,500’, and lower elevation Western Slope. Find the Guide Committee: Committee Chair, Irene Shonle, Director, CSU Extension, area that most closely resembles your proposed garden site for the Gilpin County; Nick Daniel, Horticulturist, Denver Botanic Gardens; Deryn best gardening recommendations. Davidson, Horticulture Agent, CSU Extension, Boulder County; Susan Crick, Front Range Chapter, Wild Ones; Jim Tolstrup, Executive Director, High Plains Why Native? Environmental Center (HPEC); Jan Loechell Turner, Colorado Native Plant There are many benefits to using Colorado native plants for home Society (CoNPS); Amy Yarger, Director of Horticulture, Butterfly Pavilion.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Hachita' Blue Grama Plantings ‘Hachita' Blue Grama (Bouteloua Gracilis (Willd
    ‘Hachita’ blue grama Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. ex Kunth) Lag. ex Griffiths A Conservation Plant Release by USDA NRCS Los Lunas Plant Materials Center Conservation Uses Hachita blue grama is a good ground cover and provides valuable protection from soil erosion. Because Hachita blue grama is more drought resistant than other varieties of blue grama, it is well-suited for rangeland improvement, mine-spoil reclamation, and roadside stabilization in the semiarid Southwest. It makes excellent pasture or lawngrass. It requires less water than traditional turfgrasses. Area of Adaptation and Use Blue grama is widely-distributed throughout the Americas. It is found at elevations of 1,000 to 7,000 feet from Canada, south through Mexico and into South America. Hachita blue grama is climatically adapted to areas of southeastern Utah, northeastern Arizona, New Mexico, Kansas and the panhandles of Texas and Oklahoma, where blue grama is recommended at elevations of 3,000 to 7,500 feet. Establishment and Management for Conservation 'Hachita' Blue Grama Plantings ‘Hachita' blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. ex To establish Hachita blue grama as a pasture or range Kunth) Lag. ex Griffiths) was released by the New grass, plant 1½ to 2½ pounds per acre of pure live seed Mexico State University’s Los Lunas Agricultural between June 15 and August 15. For a lawn, broadcast Science Center, Colorado State University, and the 1 pound per 1000 square feet and mulch with straw. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Los Lunas Plant Materials Center. Ecological Considerations Hachita blue grama's high palatability to livestock makes Description it a choice forage species.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting
    ROOT CHARACTERISTICS OF WARM SEASON TURFGRASS SPECIES UNDER LIMITED SOIL WATER AND VARYING MOWING HEIGHTS By BISHOW PRAKASH POUDEL DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2016 © 2016 Bishow P. Poudel Dedicated to my family and all the earthquake victims of Nepal ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisers Dr. Diane Rowland and Dr. Kevin Kenworthy and the supervisory committee for their continuous support and help throughout the program. My sincere acknowledgement goes to Andy Schreffler for his help with root images collections throughout the study period. Sincere thanks goes to Dr. Patricio Munoz and James Colee for their help with statistical analysis. Similarly I would also like to acknowledge my lab mates, colleague and friends for their help and support. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 12 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 14 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Chlorophyll a Fluorescence Study on Isolated Cells and Intact Leaves of Bouteloua Gracilis (Blue Grama Grass)
    DOI: 10.32615/ps.2019.148 PHOTOSYNTHETICA 57 (SI): 77-89, 2019 Special issue in honour of Prof. Reto J. Strasser A comparative chlorophyll a fluorescence study on isolated cells and intact leaves of Bouteloua gracilis (blue grama grass) *,† **,† *** * B. JIMÉNEZ-FRANCISCO , A. STIRBET , G.A. AGUADO-SANTACRUZ , H. CAMPOS , F.V. CONDE-MARTÍNEZ*, D. PADILLA-CHACÓN*, C. TREJO*,+, C.J. BERNACCHI#, and G. GOVINDJEE##,a,+ Department of Botany, Postgraduate College, Carretera México-Texcoco km 36.5, Montecillo, 56230 México, México* Anne Burras Lane, Newport News, Virginia 23606, USA** National Technological Institute of Mexico/IT Roque, Carretera Celaya-Juventino Rosas km. 8, 38110 Celaya, Guanajuato, México*** USDA-ARS and the Department of Plant Biology, 196 E.R. Madigan Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA# Department of Biochemistry, Department of Plant Biology, and Center of Biophysics & Quantitative Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA## Abstract Bouteloua gracilis (blue grama grass) is one of the most drought and grazing tolerant plants in the short-grass ecosystem. To obtain information on their photosystem activities, we measured the fast (< 1 s) chlorophyll a fluorescence transient (the OJIP curve) from their leaves, and isolated cells grown photoautotrophically in suspension in a culture medium, or with added sucrose. One of our goals was to study the effect of different sucrose concentrations (0, 0.15, 0.3, and 3%) on PSII activity in isolated cells. Our results on cells suspended in culture medium, using the JIP-test, showed a decrease in PSII activity at increasing sucrose concentrations, while the photoautotrophic cells showed an optimal PSII activity, close to that of the leaves.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Grasses Benefit Butterflies and Moths Diane M
    AFNR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE Native Grasses Benefit Butterflies and Moths Diane M. Narem and Mary H. Meyer more than three plant families (Bernays & NATIVE GRASSES AND LEPIDOPTERA Graham 1988). Native grasses are low maintenance, drought Studies in agricultural and urban landscapes tolerant plants that provide benefits to the have shown that patches with greater landscape, including minimizing soil erosion richness of native species had higher and increasing organic matter. Native grasses richness and abundance of butterflies (Ries also provide food and shelter for numerous et al. 2001; Collinge et al. 2003) and butterfly species of butterfly and moth larvae. These and moth larvae (Burghardt et al. 2008). caterpillars use the grasses in a variety of ways. Some species feed on them by boring into the stem, mining the inside of a leaf, or IMPORTANCE OF LEPIDOPTERA building a shelter using grass leaves and silk. Lepidoptera are an important part of the ecosystem: They are an important food source for rodents, bats, birds (particularly young birds), spiders and other insects They are pollinators of wild ecosystems. Terms: Lepidoptera - Order of insects that includes moths and butterflies Dakota skipper shelter in prairie dropseed plant literature review – a scholarly paper that IMPORTANT OF NATIVE PLANTS summarizes the current knowledge of a particular topic. Native plant species support more native graminoid – herbaceous plant with a grass-like Lepidoptera species as host and food plants morphology, includes grasses, sedges, and rushes than exotic plant species. This is partially due to the host-specificity of many species richness - the number of different species Lepidoptera that have evolved to feed on represented in an ecological community, certain species, genus, or families of plants.
    [Show full text]
  • G - S TC/50/4 ORIGINAL: English/Français/Deutsch/Español DATE/DATUM/FECHA: 2014-03-26
    E - F - G - S TC/50/4 ORIGINAL: English/français/deutsch/Español DATE/DATUM/FECHA: 2014-03-26 INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR UNION INTERNATIONALE INTERNATIONALER VERBAND UNIÓN INTERNACIONAL PARA THE PROTECTION OF NEW POUR LA PROTECTION ZUM SCHUTZ VON LA PROTECCIÓN DE LAS VARIETIES OF PLANTS DES OBTENTIONS VÉGÉTALES PFLANZENZÜCHTUNGEN OBTENCIONES VEGETALES Geneva Genève Genf Ginebra TECHNICAL COMMITTEE COMITÉ TECHNIQUE TECHNISCHER AUSSCHUSS COMITÉ TÉCNICO Fiftieth Session Cinquantième session Fünfzigste Tagung Quincuagésima sesión Geneva, April 7 to 9, 2014 Genève, 7–9 avril 2014 Genf, 7. bis 9. April 2014 Ginebra, 7 a 9 de abril de 2014 LIST OF GENERA AND SPECIES FOR WHICH AUTHORITIES HAVE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE IN THE EXAMINATION OF DISTINCTNESS, UNIFORMITY AND STABILITY LISTE DES GENRES ET ESPÈCES POUR LESQUELS LES SERVICES ONT UNE EXPÉRIENCE PRATIQUE EN MATIÈRE D’EXAMEN DE LA DISTINCTION, DE L’HOMOGÉNÉITÉ ET DE LA STABILITÉ LISTE DER GATTUNGEN UND ARTEN, FÜR DIE DIE BEHÖRDEN ÜBER PRAKTISCHE ERFAHRUNG BEI DER PRÜFUNG DER UNTERSCHEIDBARKEIT, HOMOGENITÄT UND BESTÄNDIGKEIT VERFÜGEN LISTA DE GÉNEROS Y ESPECIES RESPECTO DE LOS CUALES LAS AUTORIDADES POSEEN EXPERIENCIA PRÁCTICA EN EL EXAMEN DE LA DISTINCIÓN, LA HOMOGENEIDAD Y LA ESTABILIDAD Document prepared by the Office of the Union / Document établi par le Bureau de l’Union / Vom Verbandsbüro ausgearbeitetes Dokument / Documento preparado por la Oficina de la Unión TC/50/4 page 2 / Seite 2 / página 2 EN 1. During its forty-ninth session, in March 2013, the Technical Committee (TC) noted document TC/49/4 comprising the List of Genera and Species for which Authorities have Practical Experience in the Examination of Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability and agreed that the document should be updated for its fiftieth session.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Roof Plant Trials for the Central Great Plains Introduction Materials
    Green Roof Plant Trials for the Central Great Plains Abstract Forty-three taxa representing native and adaptable plants were trialed for 4 years on an irrigated (as needed) 15 cm (6 inch) deep extensive green roof in Lincoln, NE. Twenty-three of the taxa showed good performance with minimal maintenance. At the end of the trial in fall 2014, 32 of the taxa still had at least one specimen surviving. Drought impacts in the trial’s second year eliminated several taxa. Four taxa, Festuca cinerea, Carex glauca, Eragrostis trichodes, and Distichilis spicata, performed well and have not been reported for extensive green roofs. Key words: green roof, plant evaluation, Great Plains, Bouteloua hirsuta, Carex bicknellii, Distichilis spicata, Muhlenbergia cuspidata, Introduction Interest and necessity for expanding the palette of native and adaptable plants for extensive green roofs continues in many locales across North America (Monterusso et al 2005, Bousselot et al 2009, Lambrinos 2011, MacIvor and Lundholm, 2011, Dvorak et al 2013, Sutton 2013, Skabelund 2014, Schneider 2014). Additionally, Lundholm et al (2010) have suggested that a palette that mixes plant life-forms improves ecological function and diversifies green roof plant assemblage structure. Many of those palettes are of local interest and plant trials provide unbiased information for use by green roof designers. The goal of this trial was to study 43 taxa for a several year period starting in 2011, observe the plants’ growth habits, and report on their potential for central Great Plains’ green roof use. Unfortunately the intention of gathering at least 10 years of observations was truncated to 4 when the structure supporting green roof site was scheduled to be expanded and reconstructed in 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Types-Of-Grasses.Pdf
    TYPES OF GRASSES Warm Season Lawn Grasses Turf Grass Common Name: Bermuda Scientific Name: Cynodon dactylon Source: www.bamertseed.com Common Bermuda loves full sun and has excellent traffic tolerance. Their peak growing time is mid-summer when the temperatures are the hottest. Drought tolerant warm season grasses have the ability to survive on little water during these peak growing times. It responds quickly to watering after drought and requires frequent mowing. Blackjack Blackjack Bermuda is perfect for the home lawn, parks or sports fields. This vigorous, fine-bladed cultivar adds color and density to any warm-season blend. Blackjack lawn seed produces a sun-loving turf that performs throughout the hottest summer months, and in addition, Blackjack shows remarkable shade and cold tolerance even in cold winter areas. Common Name: Buffalo grass Scientific Name: Bouteloua dactyloides Source: www.bamertseed.com If you're looking for low-maintenance turfgrass for your lawn, Buffalo grass should be considered. The need for irrigation is less than the typical Bermuda grass and Buffalo grass will establish and thrive with little irrigation applications. The amount of water needed for a Buffalo grass seed to thrive is significantly less than the amount needed by bluegrass or tall fescue seeds. Excessive water applications can lead to the potential of weed pressure or root rot. Although growing in popularity for use in low traffic areas and as a substitute for Bermuda grass and other non- native warm season grass types, Buffalo grass is primarily used for range grazing, is an essential component of the shortgrass and mixed grass prairies, and can be used for all kinds of livestock.
    [Show full text]