DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Resource Condition Assessment Horseshoe Bend National Military Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Resource Condition Assessment Horseshoe Bend National Military Park National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment Horseshoe Bend National Military Park Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2015/981 ON THE COVER Photo of the Tallapoosa River, viewed from Horseshoe Bend National Military Park Photo Courtesy of Elle Allen Natural Resource Condition Assessment Horseshoe Bend National Military Park Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2015/981 JoAnn M. Burkholder, Elle H. Allen, Stacie Flood, and Carol A. Kinder Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology North Carolina State University 620 Hutton Street, Suite 104 Raleigh, NC 27606 June 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available in digital format from the Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring Network website (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/secn/index.cfm) and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this report in a format optimized for screen readers, please email [email protected]. Please cite this publication as: Burkholder, J. M., E. H. Allen, S. Flood, and C. A. Kinder. 2015. Natural resource condition assessment: Horseshoe Bend National Military Park. Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR— 2015/981. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 407/128933, June 2015 ii Contents Page Figures.................................................................................................................................................. vii Tables .................................................................................................................................................... xi Plates .................................................................................................................................................. xvii Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... xvii Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... xix Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... xxi Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... xxv 1. NRCA Background Information .................................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction and Setting ................................................................................................................. 5 2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.2. Enabling Legislation and Potential for Expansion ............................................................. 8 2.3. Geographic Setting ............................................................................................................. 8 2.4. Demographics .................................................................................................................. 12 2.5. Visitation Statistics .......................................................................................................... 15 2.6. Watersheds ....................................................................................................................... 16 2.7. GIS Data Layers ............................................................................................................... 18 2.7.1. Data Selection and Acquisition .......................................................................... 18 2.7.2. Data Oversight and Database Management ........................................................ 18 2.7.3. Map Generation .................................................................................................. 19 3. Natural Resources Inventory ........................................................................................................ 21 3.1. Climate ............................................................................................................................. 21 3.1.1. Temperature ........................................................................................................ 23 3.1.2. Precipitation ........................................................................................................ 25 3.1.3. Moisture .............................................................................................................. 27 3.1.4. Phenology (Growing Degree Days).................................................................... 29 3.1.5. Extreme Weather Events .................................................................................... 33 3.2. Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 36 3.2.1. Federal Criteria for Major Air Pollutants, and a Federal Index Scale ................ 36 iii 3.2.2. National Park Service Indices for Air Quality .................................................... 40 3.2.3. Air Quality in the Park and Vicinity ................................................................... 42 3.3. Soundscape ...................................................................................................................... 50 3.3.1. Some Definitions and Interpretations ................................................................. 50 3.3.2. The Horseshoe Bend Soundscape ....................................................................... 51 3.4. Lightscape ........................................................................................................................ 52 3.5. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 56 3.5.1. Geologic Resources ............................................................................................ 56 3.5.2. Soils and Erosion ................................................................................................ 58 3.6. Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 61 3.6.1. Surface Water ..................................................................................................... 62 3.6.2. Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 84 3.7. Biological Resources and Management ........................................................................... 89 3.7.1. Attributes Used in Assessment ........................................................................... 89 3.7.2. Horseshoe Bend Biota Assessment – Overview ................................................. 91 3.7.3. Vascular Flora ..................................................................................................... 95 3.7.4. Fish ..................................................................................................................... 99 3.7.5. Herpetofauna .................................................................................................... 101 3.7.6. Birds.................................................................................................................. 106 3.7.7. Mammals .......................................................................................................... 107 3.7.8. Species of Special Management Concern......................................................... 109 3.7.9. Exotic/Invasive Species ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Erigenia : Journal of the Southern Illinois Native Plant Society
    ERIGENIA THE LIBRARY OF THE DEC IS ba* Number 13 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS June 1994 ^:^;-:A-i.,-CS..;.iF/uGN SURVEY Conference Proceedings 26-27 September 1992 Journal of the Eastern Illinois University Illinois Native Plant Society Charleston Erigenia Number 13, June 1994 Editor: Elizabeth L. Shimp, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Shawnee National Forest, 901 S. Commercial St., Harrisburg, IL 62946 Copy Editor: Floyd A. Swink, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL 60532 Publications Committee: John E. Ebinger, Botany Department, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL 61920 Ken Konsis, Forest Glen Preserve, R.R. 1 Box 495 A, Westville, IL 61883 Kenneth R. Robertson, Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr., Champaign, IL 61820 Lawrence R. Stritch, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Shawnee National Forest, 901 S. Commercial Su, Harrisburg, IL 62946 Cover Design: Christopher J. Whelan, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL 60532 Cover Illustration: Jean Eglinton, 2202 Hazel Dell Rd., Springfield, IL 62703 Erigenia Artist: Nancy Hart-Stieber, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL 60532 Executive Committee of the Society - April 1992 to May 1993 President: Kenneth R. Robertson, Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr., Champaign, IL 61820 President-Elect: J. William Hammel, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, IL 62701 Past President: Jon J. Duerr, Kane County Forest Preserve District, 719 Batavia Ave., Geneva, IL 60134 Treasurer: Mary Susan Moulder, 918 W. Woodlawn, Danville, IL 61832 Recording Secretary: Russell R. Kirt, College of DuPage, Glen EUyn, IL 60137 Corresponding Secretary: John E. Schwegman, Illinois Department of Conservation, Springfield, IL 62701 Membership: Lorna J. Konsis, Forest Glen Preserve, R.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollinator–Friendly Parks
    POLLINATOR–FRIENDLY PARKS How to Enhance Parks, Gardens, and Other Greenspaces for Native Pollinator Insects Matthew Shepherd, Mace Vaughan, and Scott Hoffman Black The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation is an international, nonprofit, member–supported organiza- tion dedicated to preserving wildlife and its habitat through the conservation of invertebrates. The Society promotes protection of invertebrates and their habitat through science–based advocacy, conservation, and education projects. Its work focuses on three principal areas—endangered species, watershed health, and pollinator conservation. Copyright © 2008 (2nd Edition) The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 4828 SE Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, OR 97215 Tel (503) 232-6639 Fax (503) 233-6794 www.xerces.org Acknowledgements Thank you to Bruce Barbarasch (Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District, OR) and Lisa Hamerlynck (City of Lake Oswego, OR) for reviewing early drafts. Their guidance and suggestions greatly improved these guide- lines. Thank you to Eric Mader and Jessa Guisse for help with the plant lists, and to Caitlyn Howell and Logan Lauvray for editing assistance. Funding for our pollinator conservation program has been provided by the Bradshaw-Knight Foundation, the Bullitt Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the CS Fund, the Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund, the Dudley Foundation, the Gaia Fund, NRCS Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center, NRCS California, NRCS West National Technical Support Center, the Panta Rhea Foundation, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Founda- tion, the Turner Foundation, the Wildwood Foundation, and Xerces Society members Photographs We are grateful to Jeff Adams, Scott Bauer/USDA–ARS, John Davis/GORGEous Nature, Chris Evans/ www.forestryimages.com, Bruce Newhouse, Jeff Owens/Metalmark Images, and Edward S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLISHER S Candolle Herbarium
    Guide ERBARIUM H Candolle Herbarium Pamela Burns-Balogh ANDOLLE C Jardin Botanique, Geneva AIDC PUBLISHERP U R L 1 5H E R S S BRILLB RI LL Candolle Herbarium Jardin Botanique, Geneva Pamela Burns-Balogh Guide to the microform collection IDC number 800/2 M IDC1993 Compiler's Note The microfiche address, e.g. 120/13, refers to the fiche number and secondly to the individual photograph on each fiche arranged from left to right and from the top to the bottom row. Pamela Burns-Balogh Publisher's Note The microfiche publication of the Candolle Herbarium serves a dual purpose: the unique original plants are preserved for the future, and copies can be made available easily and cheaply for distribution to scholars and scientific institutes all over the world. The complete collection is available on 2842 microfiche (positive silver halide). The order number is 800/2. For prices of the complete collection or individual parts, please write to IDC Microform Publishers, P.O. Box 11205, 2301 EE Leiden, The Netherlands. THE DECANDOLLEPRODROMI HERBARIUM ALPHABETICAL INDEX Taxon Fiche Taxon Fiche Number Number -A- Acacia floribunda 421/2-3 Acacia glauca 424/14-15 Abatia sp. 213/18 Acacia guadalupensis 423/23 Abelia triflora 679/4 Acacia guianensis 422/5 Ablania guianensis 218/5 Acacia guilandinae 424/4 Abronia arenaria 2215/6-7 Acacia gummifera 421/15 Abroniamellifera 2215/5 Acacia haematomma 421/23 Abronia umbellata 221.5/3-4 Acacia haematoxylon 423/11 Abrotanella emarginata 1035/2 Acaciahastulata 418/5 Abrus precatorius 403/14 Acacia hebeclada 423/2-3 Acacia abietina 420/16 Acacia heterophylla 419/17-19 Acacia acanthocarpa 423/16-17 Acaciahispidissima 421/22 Acacia alata 418/3 Acacia hispidula 419/2 Acacia albida 422/17 Acacia horrida 422/18-20 Acacia amara 425/11 Acacia in....? 423/24 Acacia amoena 419/20 Acacia intertexta 421/9 Acacia anceps 419/5 Acacia julibross.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Performance Report Endangered Species
    INTERIM PERFORMANCE REPORT ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM GRANT NUMBER F17AP01052 WILDLIFE PROJECTS – ALABAMA PROJECT Reproductive Characteristics and Host Fish Determination of Canoe Creek Clubshell, Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al. 2006) in Big Canoe Creek drainage (Etowah and St. Clair Counties), Alabama October 1, 2018 - September 30, 2020 ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES DIVISION Prepared by: Todd B. Fobian Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries PROJECT Reproductive Characteristics and Host Fish Determination of Canoe Creek Clubshell, Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al. 2006) in the Big Canoe Creek drainage (Etowah and St. Clair Counties), Alabama Year 1 Interim Report State: Alabama Introduction Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al, 2006), Canoe Creek Clubshell is currently a candidate for federally threatened/endangered status by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). It is Coosa Basin endemic, with historical records only known from the Big Canoe Creek (BCC) system in Alabama (Gangloff et al. 2006, Williams et al. 2008). Recent surveys completed by ADCNR and USFWS established the species is extant at six localities in the basin, with two in Upper Little Canoe Creek (ULCC), one in Lower Little Canoe Creek (LLCC), and three in BCC proper. (Fobian et al. 2017). As culture methods improve, propagated P. athearni juveniles could soon be available to support reintroduction/augmentation efforts within historical range. Little is known about Pleurobema athearni reproduction, female brooding period, or glochidial hosts. Female P. athearni are presumed short term-brooders and likely gravid from late spring to early summer (Gangloff et al. 2006, Williams et al. 2008). Glochidial hosts are currently unknown although other Mobile River Basin Pleurobema species often utilize Cyprinidae (shiners) to complete metamorphosis (Haag and Warren 1997, 2003, Weaver et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Annonaceae), from Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR), India
    Indian Journal of Experimental Biology Vol. 57, July 2019, pp. 516-525 Reproductive biology and pollinators of a steno-endemic and critically endangered tree, Monoon tirunelveliense (Annonaceae), from Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR), India MB Viswanathan*, C Rajasekar & P Sathish Kumar Centre for Research and Development of Siddha-Ayurveda Medicines (CRDSAM), Department of Botany, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli-620 024, Tamil Nadu, India Received 06 June 2014; revised 27 June 2015 Reproductive biological studies on the endemic and threatened plants are vital to understand pollinators and their role in seed setting and their dispersal, and thereby identify appropriate initiatives for conservation. In this study, we investigated Monoon tirunelveliense (M.B. Viswan. & Manik.) B. Xue & R.M.K. Saunders (Annonaceae), a steno-endemic and critically endangered tree species from the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve of India for its phenology, pollen morphology and viability, pollinators and conditions required to increase individuals and populations. We used Global Positioning System mapping to collect required data. Recording of mere 171 individuals in 7 populations justify its inclusion in IUCN Red List Category of critically endangered. Though flowering occurs throughout the year, it is at peak in July. Flowers are protogynous and cantharophilous and bear 215+10 anthers/flower, 750+60 pollen grains/anther, 1,65,000+100 pollen grains/flower, 25+12 ovules/flower and 6,600:1 pollen/ovule. Predominant pollinators are beetles belonging to Carpophilus plagiatipennis and Cerambycid species. Other pollinators include species of Aphis, Azteca, Endaeus, Pseudococcus and Psylla. Species of Halyzia and Scolopendra have also been noticed. Pollinators left behind black markings after feeding.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of the East Texas Baptist University Campus with Birds Observed Off-Campus During BIOL3400 Field Course
    Birds of the East Texas Baptist University Campus with birds observed off-campus during BIOL3400 Field course Photo Credit: Talton Cooper Species Descriptions and Photos by students of BIOL3400 Edited by Troy A. Ladine Photo Credit: Kenneth Anding Links to Tables, Figures, and Species accounts for birds observed during May-term course or winter bird counts. Figure 1. Location of Environmental Studies Area Table. 1. Number of species and number of days observing birds during the field course from 2005 to 2016 and annual statistics. Table 2. Compilation of species observed during May 2005 - 2016 on campus and off-campus. Table 3. Number of days, by year, species have been observed on the campus of ETBU. Table 4. Number of days, by year, species have been observed during the off-campus trips. Table 5. Number of days, by year, species have been observed during a winter count of birds on the Environmental Studies Area of ETBU. Table 6. Species observed from 1 September to 1 October 2009 on the Environmental Studies Area of ETBU. Alphabetical Listing of Birds with authors of accounts and photographers . A Acadian Flycatcher B Anhinga B Belted Kingfisher Alder Flycatcher Bald Eagle Travis W. Sammons American Bittern Shane Kelehan Bewick's Wren Lynlea Hansen Rusty Collier Black Phoebe American Coot Leslie Fletcher Black-throated Blue Warbler Jordan Bartlett Jovana Nieto Jacob Stone American Crow Baltimore Oriole Black Vulture Zane Gruznina Pete Fitzsimmons Jeremy Alexander Darius Roberts George Plumlee Blair Brown Rachel Hastie Janae Wineland Brent Lewis American Goldfinch Barn Swallow Keely Schlabs Kathleen Santanello Katy Gifford Black-and-white Warbler Matthew Armendarez Jordan Brewer Sheridan A.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor
    Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee Drainage Basins of the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ……... Pg. 1 Map of Ridge and Valley Ecoregion………………………………..……............... Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion……………………. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………. ………Pg. 8 Coosa Basin Group (ACT) MSR Graphs..………………………………….Pg. 9 Tennessee Basin Group (TEN) MSR Graphs……………………………….Pg. 17 Ridge and Valley Ecoregion Fish List………………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Ridge and Valley ecoregion is one of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part 1, Figure 1). It is drained by two major river basins, the Coosa and the Tennessee, in the northwestern corner of Georgia. The Ridge and Valley ecoregion covers nearly 3,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000) and includes all or portions of 10 counties (Figure 1), bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the south and the Blue Ridge ecoregion to the east. A small portion of the Southwestern Appalachians ecoregion is located in the upper northwestern corner of the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria adapted to the Ridge and Valley ecoregion were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the two major river basins that drain the Ridge and Valley ecoregion, the Coosa (ACT) and the Tennessee (TEN).
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Flora of the Lake Thoreau Environmental Center
    THE VASCULAR FLORA OF THE LAKE THOREAU ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, FORREST AND LAMAR COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI, WITH COMMENTS ON COMPOSITIONAL CHANGE AFTER A DECADE OF PRESCRIBED FIRE William J. McFarland, Danielle Cotton, Mac H. Alford, Micheal A. Davis 118 College Dr., Box 5018 School of Biological, Environmental, and Earth Sciences The University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406, U.S.A. [email protected] ABSTRACT Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) ecosystems exhibit high species diversity and are major contributors to the extraordinary levels of regional biodiversity and endemism found in the North American Coastal Plain Province. These forests require frequent fire return inter- vals (every 2–3 years) to maintain this rich diversity. In 2009, a floristic inventory was conducted at the Lake Thoreau Environmental Center owned by the University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The Center is located on 106 ha with approximately half cov- ered by a 100+ year old longleaf pine forest. When the 2009 survey was conducted, fire had been excluded for over 20 years resulting in a dense understory dominated by woody species throughout most of the forest. The 2009 survey recorded 282 vascular plant species. Prescribed fire was reintroduced in 2009 and reapplied again in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. A new survey was conducted in 2019 to assess the effects of prescribed fire on floristic diversity. The new survey found an additional 268 species bringing the total number of plants species to 550. This study highlights the changes in species diversity that occurs when fire is reintroduced into a previously fire-suppressed system and the need to monitor sensitive areas for changes in species composition.
    [Show full text]
  • Lyonia Preserve Plant Checklist
    Lyonia Preserve Plant Checklist Volusia County, Florida Aceraceae (Maple) Asteraceae (Aster) Red Maple Acer rubrum Bitterweed Helenium amarum Blackroot Pterocaulon virgatum Agavaceae (Yucca) Blazing Star Liatris sp. Adam's Needle Yucca filamentosa Blazing Star Liatris tenuifolia Nolina Nolina brittoniana Camphorweed Heterotheca subaxillaris Spanish Bayonet Yucca aloifolia Cudweed Gnaphalium falcatum Dog Fennel Eupatorium capillifolium Amaranthaceae (Amaranth) Dwarf Horseweed Conyza candensis Cottonweed Froelichia floridana False Dandelion Pyrrhopappus carolinianus Fireweed Erechtites hieracifolia Anacardiaceae (Cashew) Garberia Garberia heterophylla Winged Sumac Rhus copallina Goldenaster Pityopsis graminifolia Goldenrod Solidago chapmanii Annonaceae (Custard Apple) Goldenrod Solidago fistulosa Flag Paw paw Asimina obovata Goldenrod Solidago spp. Mohr's Throughwort Eupatorium mohrii Apiaceae (Celery) Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia Dollarweed Hydrocotyle sp. Saltbush Baccharis halimifolia Spanish Needles Bidens alba Apocynaceae (Dogbane) Wild Lettuce Lactuca graminifolia Periwinkle Catharathus roseus Brassicaceae (Mustard) Aquifoliaceae (Holly) Poorman's Pepper Lepidium virginicum Gallberry Ilex glabra Sand Holly Ilex ambigua Bromeliaceae (Airplant) Scrub Holly Ilex opaca var. arenicola Ball Moss Tillandsia recurvata Spanish Moss Tillandsia usneoides Arecaceae (Palm) Saw Palmetto Serenoa repens Cactaceae (Cactus) Scrub Palmetto Sabal etonia Prickly Pear Opuntia humifusa Asclepiadaceae (Milkweed) Caesalpinceae Butterfly Weed Asclepias
    [Show full text]