DOCSLIB.ORG

Fall/Winter 2018 Volume 9, Issue 2 a Publication of the Maryland Native

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fall/Winter 2018 Volume 9, Issue 2 a Publication of the Maryland Native Fall/Winter 2018 A Publication of the Maryland Native Plant Society Volume 9, Issue 2 Letter from the President A Publication of the Maryland Native Plant Society Kirsten Johnson www.mdflora.org P.O. Box 4877 Silver Spring, MD 20914 Dear Members, Preparing Kerry Wixted’s article for this issue, I asked myself – What about my own small garden here CONTACTS in Baltimore City? It’s almost all native plants, but is it maximized for pollinators? Am I doing it Membership & Website right? ese thoughts were completely contrary to my typical exhortations to people wondering Karyn Molines, [email protected] about planting native. I always say, ‘Just get started! You don’t need to be an expert!” I still believe that Marilandica Editors and I applaud each individual decision to go with native sedges instead of (God forbid!) English ivy Kirsten Johnson, [email protected] as a ground cover. Or to tolerate a certain number of white snakeroots sneaking in, and to leave dead Vanessa Beauchamp, [email protected] stalks standing through the winter. No one will convert to native gardening if we make it too hard. General Inquiries But I personally will make two changes based on Kerry’s advice. I’ll stop buying a little of this and a [email protected] little of that. No more plant zoo. I’ll concentrate on a few piedmont native plants that will thrive MNPS CHAPTERS without tending (since I’m not going to tend them) and I’ll turn off my outdoor lights. Our planet is Eastern Shore in trouble. We all know that. Let me just do my best. [email protected] ~ Kirsten Johnson, President Greater Baltimore Kirsten Johnson, [email protected] Montgomery County We Welcome New Board Members [email protected] North East Tracey Ripani, [email protected] Kerrie Kyde was until recently the Invasive Plant Ecologist for Maryland’s Natural Heritage Program Prince George’s/Anne Arundel Counties at MD Department of Natural Resources. She served as Chair of the state Invasive Plant Advisory Robinne Grey, [email protected] Committee from its inception; she created the citizen science data collection Statewide Eyes, designed Southern Maryland to increase the volume of invasive species data available to Maryland land managers; she was a found- Karyn Molines, [email protected] ing member of the Maryland Invasive Species Council and the founding president of the Mid-Atlan- Washington, DC tic Invasive Plant Council. Now retired from DNR, she is catching up on her native plant ID skills Claudine Lebeau, [email protected] and stewarding her own little piece of land. Western Mountains Liz McDowell, [email protected] Michelle Wenisch, a native of Michigan, is a soil scientist/agronomist and environmental attorney EXECUTIVE OFFICERS with the US Department of Environmental Protection. She has a special interest in soil biology, par- Kirsten Johnson, President ticularly mycorrhizal fungi. In her spare time she’s a Montgomery County Weed Warrior Supervisor. Karyn Molines, Vice-president Anne Denovo, Secretary Other changes on the Board Sujata Roy, Treasurer – Matt Cohen is stepping down as Treasurer, to be replaced by Sujata Roy. Anne DeNovo will be Secretary in addition to continuing as Field Trip Coordinator. Our BOARD OF DIRECTORS organization could not function without the dedication of conscientious volunteers like Matt, Sujata, Vanessa Beauchamp and Anne. Carole Bergmann Allen Browne Michael Ellis All new positions were effective as of the Annual Meeting on November 27. Marc Imlay Beth Johnson Kerrie Kyde Liz Matthews ank you to our members whose dues and donations support all of these activities and more. Brett McMillan In addition to publishing Marilandica, Maryland Native Plant Society — Christopher Puttock · Sponsors at least 50 field trips each year in Maryland’s natural areas, free of charge, Roderick Simmons · Holds free evening programs monthly in Montgomery County and bimonthly in Jil Swearingen Allegany County, Michelle Wenisch · Lou Aronica, Emeritus Holds a 2-day conference each fall, Chris Fleming, Emeritus · Supports conservation projects in Maryland, Joe Metzger, Emeritus · Publishes and distributes a booklet on landscaping with native plants, · Supports scientific research on Maryland’s native plants and their habitats, · Has over 1500 members, Our Mission Promote awareness, appreciation and conservation AND does all this as an all-volunteer organization on a budget of less than $50,000 per year. of Maryland’s native plants and their habitats. We pursue our mission through education, research, On the cover: Common Milkweed, Asclepias syriaca, in winter. Photo: Kirsten Johnson. advocacy, and service activities. Graphic design of Marilandica is provided by Marjie Paul, [email protected]. Marilandica Fall/Winter 2018 page 1 Wildflower in Focus — Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca L Common milkweed Dogbane Family, Apocynaceae ilkweed. So much to say, so little space. ere’s the Interestingly, a similar structure evolved independently in the Orchid complex flower structure, rivaling that of orchids, Family, although there, the mechanism for attaching the pollinia to the and there’s the poison, and the evolution… I could insect is different and orchids generally don’t require pollination by large go on and on. In the last issue, I wrote about the strong insects the way milkweeds do. effect of insect herbivory on milkweed evolution. is time, let’s start with pollination and end up at So why combine the milkweeds into the Dogbane Family? A goal of taxonomy. Our focus this year is on the Dogbane Family (Apocynaceae) taxonomic grouping is that all the species in each family should be of which the milkweeds comprise one of five subfamilies. What are the derived from a single ancestor and that all the species derived from the milkweeds doing in that family anyway? Didn’t we learn that they had a family ancestor should be included in the family. A family that meets family of their own, the Asclepiadaceae? Or to reverse the question, why these criteria is called “monophyletic.” It has long been understood that were the milkweeds ever classified in a separate family? the milkweeds and the members of the narrowly defined Dogbane Family Pollinia of common milkweed cling to the foot of a margined Apocynum cannabinum, Indian hemp, with a grapeleaf skeletonizer moth. leatherwing beetle. Photo: Robert Ferraro Compare the flower structure to that of milkweed. Photo: Robert Ferraro. Anyone who’s spent time in the field knows that milkweeds have charac- are closely related. In fact, they were derived from the same common teristics in common with Indian hemp and other dogbanes. Not so ancestor. is meant that the absence of the milkweeds created a hole in visible is an important feature that distinguishes them and that was at the old Dogbane Family tree, a condition known as “paraphyly” that least one reason for their prior taxonomists avoid whenever classification as a separate family. possible. With the addition of the Milkweeds do not produce pollen milkweeds, the Dogbane Family is in the form of a loose powder as monophyletic, and better reflects most plants do. Instead, they the evolutionary relationships produce pollen in waxy sacs called among the species in the newly pollinia, located in two anther constituted family. pouches adjacent to vertical ~Kirsten Johnson stigmatic slits. An insect trying to drink nectar from the slippery References flower will sometimes accidently Agrawal, A. 2017. Monarchs and slip its leg or other appendage into Milkweed. Princeton Univ. Press. the opening at the bottom of the Eldridge, E.P. 2015. Milkweed stigmatic slit. is slit is lined with Pollination Biology, https://www. bristles that force the leg up into Close-up of Asclepias quadrifolia, whorled milkweed. Note the reflexed petals, nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_ the opening of a clamp-like and the vertically oriented scoop-shaped “hoods.” e stigmatic slits are PLANTMATERIALS/publica- between the hoods. Photo: Jim Stasz. tions /nvpmctn12764.pdf structure that pinches tight onto the insect’s leg. As the insect struggles to escape, it withdraws pollinia Endress, M.P. and P.V. Bruyns 2000. A Revised Classification of the from the anther pouches. Each of the pollinia contains an enormous Apocynaceae s.l, e Botanical Review, Vol. 66, pp. 1–56. number of pollen grains, so that this mechanism is a highly efficient method of transporting pollen. e effort requires strength, and the Johnson, S.D. and T.J. Edwards 2000. e structure and function of best pollinators are large hymenopterans (bees and wasps). Smaller, orchid pollinaria, Plant Systematics and Evolution, Vol. 222, pp. 243–269. weaker insects (including non-native honeybees) are likely to become Nazar, N. et al. 2013. e taxonomy and systematics of Apocynaceae: trapped and die. A photo on this page shows a beetle with pollinia stuck where we stand in 2012, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, Vol. to its foot. 171, pp. 482–490. Marilandica Fall/Winter 2018 page 2 placing it on timers or on sensors. Light pollution also affects birds It was fun watching the workers snag bugs from my garden and drag Concerned about Pollinators? Here are Some Points to Consider. and bats. Florida Fish and Wildlife has a comprehensive site on them down into their nest. A raccoon eventually dug it all up and certified fixtures and bulbs that reduce impacts to wildlife. http://my- made a meal after the second year. fwc.com/conservation/you-conserve/lighting/ Editor’s Note: In July Kerry Wixted, Wildlife Education and Outreach Society has a chart showing the relative toxicity of various pesticides: · Don’t forget the beetles! Some beetle-pollinator associations, like Specialist of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, posted an https://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/xerces-or- that of magnolia, have ancient evolutionary origins. Beetles also extremely informative email on the Maryland Master Naturalists’ listserv ganic-approved-pesticides-factsheet.pdf pollinate more recently evolved species like goldenrods and viburnums.
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.
    [Show full text]
  • Gunpowder River
    Table of Contents 1. Polluted Runoff in Baltimore County 2. Map of Baltimore County – Percentage of Hard Surfaces 3. Baltimore County 2014 Polluted Runoff Projects 4. Fact Sheet – Baltimore County has a Problem 5. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Back River 6. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Gunpowder River 7. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Middle River 8. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Patapsco River 9. FAQs – Polluted Runoff and Fees POLLUTED RUNOFF IN BALTIMORE COUNTY Baltimore County contains the headwaters for many of the streams and tributaries feeding into the Patapsco River, one of the major rivers of the Chesapeake Bay. These tributaries include Bodkin Creek, Jones Falls, Gwynns Falls, Patapsco River Lower North Branch, Liberty Reservoir and South Branch Patapsco. Baltimore County is also home to the Gunpowder River, Middle River, and the Back River. Unfortunately, all of these streams and rivers are polluted by nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment and are considered “impaired” by the Maryland Department of the Environment, meaning the water quality is too low to support the water’s intended use. One major contributor to that pollution and impairment is polluted runoff. Polluted runoff contaminates our local rivers and streams and threatens local drinking water. Water running off of roofs, driveways, lawns and parking lots picks up trash, motor oil, grease, excess lawn fertilizers, pesticides, dog waste and other pollutants and washes them into the streams and rivers flowing through our communities. This pollution causes a multitude of problems, including toxic algae blooms, harmful bacteria, extensive dead zones, reduced dissolved oxygen, and unsightly trash clusters.
    [Show full text]
  • DNR Fine Schedule
    JOHN P. MORRISSEY DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND 187 Harry S Truman Parkway, 5th Floor Chief Judge Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Tel: (410) 260-1525 Fax: (410) 260-1375 December 31, 2020 TO: All Law Enforcement Officers of the State of Maryland Authorized to Issue Citations for Violations of the Natural Resources Laws The attached list is a fine or penalty deposit schedule for certain violations of the Natural Resources laws. The amounts set out on this schedule are to be inserted by you in the appropriate space on the citation. A defendant who does not care to contest guilt may prepay the fine in that amount. The fine schedule is applicable whether the charge is made by citation, a statement of charges, or by way of criminal information. For some violations, a defendant must stand trial and is not permitted to prepay a fine or penalty deposit. Additionally, there may be some offenses for which there is no fine listed. In both cases, you should check the box which indicates that the defendant must appear in court on the offense. I understand that this fine schedule has been approved for legal sufficiency by the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Natural Resources. This schedule has, therefore, been adopted pursuant to the authority vested in the Chief Judge of the District Court by the Constitution and laws of the State of Maryland. It is effective January 1, 2021, replacing all schedules issued prior hereto, and is to remain in force and effect until amended or repealed. No law enforcement officer in the State is authorized to deviate from this schedule in any case in which they are involved.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • THE FISCHER FAMILY of BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND: a PICTURE of the LIFE of a GERMAN-AMERICAN FAMILY in the EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY in 1990, Rudolph F
    THE FISCHER FAMILY OF BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND: A PICTURE OF THE LIFE OF A GERMAN-AMERICAN FAMILY IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY In 1990, Rudolph F. Fischer, Sr. finished writing his recollections from child- hood. Although Mr. Fischer intended his narrative solely for his family, the story he tells will likely appeal to many. He focuses on his own experiences yet recounts a virtual chronicle of life in rural Baltimore County in the early twentieth century. Mr. Fischer is now deceased, but his son, Rudolph, Jr., has graciously con- sented to the publication of his father's narrative in the Report. The story is presented largely as Mr. Fischer wrote it. Some explicit references to fami- ly members have been omitted, and several notes and illustrations have been added to make the whole accessible to a wider audience, particularly those who might not be intimately familiar with the geography of Baltimore City and County (Ed.). In June, 1896, my grandfather, Friedrich stated: "having declared an oath taken in J. Fischer, purchased four acres, one open court his intentions to become a citizen rood and eight perches1 of land on the of the United States and that he doth north side of Bird River Neck Road from absolutely renounce all allegiance and James J. Milling, He paid $40.00 per acre fidelity to the Emperor of Germany of or a total price of $172.00. whom he was heretofore a subject." Grandfather Fischer had recently In 1905 my father returned to his na- arrived in America from Germany, where he tive village of Widerau in Saxony to bring was born in 1842.
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Quality Assessment Report
    FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Watersheds.Pdf
    Watershed Code Watershed Name 02130705 Aberdeen Proving Ground 02140205 Anacostia River 02140502 Antietam Creek 02130102 Assawoman Bay 02130703 Atkisson Reservoir 02130101 Atlantic Ocean 02130604 Back Creek 02130901 Back River 02130903 Baltimore Harbor 02130207 Big Annemessex River 02130606 Big Elk Creek 02130803 Bird River 02130902 Bodkin Creek 02130602 Bohemia River 02140104 Breton Bay 02131108 Brighton Dam 02120205 Broad Creek 02130701 Bush River 02130704 Bynum Run 02140207 Cabin John Creek 05020204 Casselman River 02140305 Catoctin Creek 02130106 Chincoteague Bay 02130607 Christina River 02050301 Conewago Creek 02140504 Conococheague Creek 02120204 Conowingo Dam Susq R 02130507 Corsica River 05020203 Deep Creek Lake 02120202 Deer Creek 02130204 Dividing Creek 02140304 Double Pipe Creek 02130501 Eastern Bay 02141002 Evitts Creek 02140511 Fifteen Mile Creek 02130307 Fishing Bay 02130609 Furnace Bay 02141004 Georges Creek 02140107 Gilbert Swamp 02130801 Gunpowder River 02130905 Gwynns Falls 02130401 Honga River 02130103 Isle of Wight Bay 02130904 Jones Falls 02130511 Kent Island Bay 02130504 Kent Narrows 02120201 L Susquehanna River 02130506 Langford Creek 02130907 Liberty Reservoir 02140506 Licking Creek 02130402 Little Choptank 02140505 Little Conococheague 02130605 Little Elk Creek 02130804 Little Gunpowder Falls 02131105 Little Patuxent River 02140509 Little Tonoloway Creek 05020202 Little Youghiogheny R 02130805 Loch Raven Reservoir 02139998 Lower Chesapeake Bay 02130505 Lower Chester River 02130403 Lower Choptank 02130601 Lower
    [Show full text]
  • 2000 Data Report Gunpowder River, Patapsco/Back River West Chesapeake Bay and Patuxent River Watersheds
    2000 Data Report Gunpowder River, Patapsco/Back River West Chesapeake Bay and Pat uxent River Watersheds Gunpowder River Basin Patapsco /Back River Basin Patuxent River Basin West Chesapeake Bay Basin TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3 GUNPOWDER RIVER SUB-BASIN ............................................................................. 9 GUNPOWDER RIVER....................................................................................................... 10 LOWER BIG GUNPOWDER FALLS ................................................................................... 16 BIRD RIVER.................................................................................................................... 22 LITTLE GUNPOWDER FALLS ........................................................................................... 28 MIDDLE RIVER – BROWNS............................................................................................. 34 PATAPSCO RIVER SUB-BASIN................................................................................. 41 BACK RIVER .................................................................................................................. 43 BODKIN CREEK .............................................................................................................. 49 JONES FALLS .................................................................................................................. 55 GWYNNS FALLS ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assembled by Mark Frey with Help from Many Volunteers 1/9/2015 DRAFT 1. No Apparent Leaves
    Vine key for the National Capital Region This key includes vine and vine-like plants found in the National Capital Region. Much of the information was drawn from Gleason and Cronquist (1991) and Weakley (2013). Vines and vine-like plants are defined here as species you might, at least occasionally, encounter growing above your knee and requiring the support of another plant or structure to grow that high. Brambles (Rubus spp.) are not included because they don't act as vines and multiflora rosa (Rosa multiflora ) is included because it does occaisionally act as a vine. Plants found only under cultivation are not included. Assembled by Mark Frey with help from many volunteers 1/9/2015 DRAFT 1. No apparent leaves - stems reddish Cuscuta spp. 1' Leaves apparent - stems of any color 2. Simple leaves with no leaflets; leaves may be lobed 3. Opposite or whorled leaves 4. Not woody ---------------------------------------------- Key A 4' Woody ---------------------------------------------- Key B 3' Alternate leaves (sometimes nearly opposite on new leaves) 29. Parallel venation Key C 29' Pinnate or palmate venation 36. Not woody ---------------------------------------------- Key D-1 36' Woody ---------------------------------------------- Key D-2 2' Compound leaves; leaflets of any number 58. Opposite ---------------------------------------------- Key E 58' Alternate 66. Fewer than 4 leaflets ---------------------------------------------- Key F 66' More than 4 leaflets ---------------------------------------------- Key G Notes Bold means I have keyed it in the field successfully. * means non-native For some species I list synonyms if the taxonomy has changed; this is far from a complete taxonomic record. See the glossary on the final page for definitions of key technical terms. Keys I relied upon most heavily Gleason H.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Chestnut (Trapa Natans) in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: a Regional Management Plan
    Water Chestnut (Trapa natans) in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: A Regional Management Plan Prepared by: Mike Naylor Maryland Department of Natural Resources December 10, 2003 Regional Trapa natans Working Group Membership List Mike Naylor Maryland Department of Natural Resources Laura Goldblatt Chesapeake Bay Program i Executive Summary Trapa natans, commonly known as water chestnut, is a non-native aquatic macrophyte with a long invasion history in North America. Water chestnut is an annual herb with a floating rosette of leaves around a central stem that is rooted in the sediment. The plant spreads rapidly and seeds can remain dormant for up to 12 years. Due to its dense canopy formation, water chestnut impedes navigation and can have a substantial impact on native species of submerged grasses, as it is capable of blocking all sunlight from reaching the sediment surface. Since it’s first introduction in the late 1800’s, many Chesapeake Bay partner states have been forced to devote extensive financial resources for combating water chestnut, including New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that if discovered in the early stages of expansion, aggressive and persistent local control can be effective at reducing populations to near extinction. When allowed to expand unchecked, or if control is intermittent, massive problems develop that create both ecological change and substantial water use restrictions. Water chestnut was first recorded in North America near Concord, Massachusetts in 1859. Wild populations have since become established in many locations in the Northeastern United States. Within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, water chestnut first appeared in the Potomac River near Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant Inventory and Plant Community Classification for Mammoth Cave National Park
    VASCULAR PLANT INVENTORY AND PLANT COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION FOR MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK Report for the Vertebrate and Vascular Plant Inventories: Appalachian Highlands and Cumberland/Piedmont Network Prepared by NatureServe for the National Park Service Southeast Regional Office February 2010 NatureServe is a non-profit organization providing the scientific basis for effective conservation action. A NatureServe Technical Report Prepared for the National Park Service under Cooperative Agreement H 5028 01 0435. Citation: Milo Pyne, Erin Lunsford Jones, and Rickie White. 2010. Vascular Plant Inventory and Plant Community Classification for Mammoth Cave National Park. Durham, North Carolina: NatureServe. © 2010 NatureServe NatureServe Southern U. S. Regional Office 6114 Fayetteville Road, Suite 109 Durham, NC 27713 919-484-7857 International Headquarters 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor Arlington, Virginia 22209 www.natureserve.org National Park Service Southeast Regional Office Atlanta Federal Center 1924 Building 100 Alabama Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 The view 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. This report consists of the main report along with a series of appendices with information about the plants and plant communities found at the site. Electronic files have been provided to the National Park Service in addition to hard copies. Current information on all communities described here can be found on NatureServe Explorer at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ Cover photo: Mature Interior Low Plateau mesophytic forest above the Green River, Mammoth Cave National Park - Photo by Milo Pyne ii Acknowledgments This report was compiled thanks to a team including staff from the National Park Service and NatureServe.
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna Flats Chesapeake Bay Havre De Grace
    CB1TF (Hectares) 6000 5000 39 37’30" 4000 3000 pd Robert 2000 Island S 1000 u pdndndndnd nd sq u 0 e 787980818283848586878889909192939495969798990001020304 h a n n a River Garrett Island Furnace Bay River Mill Creek Baker Havre Cove de Grace Sandy Cove Stump Point Northeast Concord Point High Point Cara Cove Susquehanna Carpenter Flats Point 39 30’00" Battery Island Swan Creek Spesutie er iv Narrows Spesutie R lk Island E Mosquito Creek Back Creek Pond Creek Chesapeake Bay 76 07’30" 76 00’00" 1012345Kilometers 2004 SAV SAV distribution in Northern Chesapeake Bay (CB1TF) in 2004. (See Figure 11 for key.) NORTF (Hectares) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 ndndndndnd 0 0 * nd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 787980818283848586878889909192939495969798990001020304 39 37’30" North East Charlestown Hance Point Sandy Northeast River Cove Roach Point Carpenter Cara Cove Point Piney Creek Cove 76 00’00" 1012345Kilometers 2004 SAV SAV distribution in the Northeast River (NORTF) in 2004. (See Figure 11 for key.) 2004 SAV Upper Bay Zone Results 39 37’30" Plum Point Locust Point Paddyle Sandy idd Cove B Northeast River Cove Cara Cove Long Branch Piney Chesapeake and Creek Delaware Canal Cove Back Creek Hylands iver Herring Creek k R Point El 39 30’00" Elk Town Neck Pt. Rich Timber hemia Point Pt. Bo River Greenbush Veazey Pt. Cove Arnold Cabin Pt. John ELKOH (Hectares) Creek 900 800 700 600 Pearce Creek 500 Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake 400 300 200 100 * ndndndndnd * * nd 0 787980818283848586878889909192939495969798990001020304 76 00’00" 75 52’30" 75 45’00" 1012345Kilometers 2004 SAV
    [Show full text]