DOCSLIB.ORG

31762100213881.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
31762100213881.Pdf Wildlife use of fire-disturbed areas in sagebrush steppe on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory by William Edward Moritz A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fish and Wildlife Management Montana State University © Copyright by William Edward Moritz (1988) Abstract: From June, 1984 through June, 1987, a study was conducted on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) in southeast Idaho to collect data on sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and small mammal use of nine burned areas (fire s cars) of various ages in sagebrush steppe- Information on plant community composition of burned areas and adjacent nonburned (control) areas was reported. Fire scars were characterized by an absence of sagebrush, although revegetation was not clearly directional or predictable. Two years of seasonal use by sage grouse and pronghorn of fire scars and control areas were determined. Sage grouse use of a newly burned area was significantly greater (p<0.05) than controls. Fire scars dominated by cheatgras s (Bromus textorurn) were used by sage grouse significantly less than controls. Incomplete burns created a mosiac pattern of vegetation which sage grouse used significantly more than adjacent controls. Significant trends in use by sage grouse of older burned areas, dominated by perennial grasses/rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) were not detected. The lush growth of grasses and forbs following disturbance attracted pronghorn, as use of the fire scar was significantly higher than controls. Pronghorn use of cheatgrass-dominated fire scars was significantly greater than controls. Overall use of incompletely-burned areas was not significantly different than controls, although seasonal- differences existed. Results of pronghorn use of perennial grass/rabbitbrush fire scars,indicated that fire did not reduce use of areas, although use of fire scars was not significantly greater in all areas. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and elk (Cervus elaphus) use of burned areas appeared greater than controls. Small mammal populations on fire scars were similar in composition but of lesser density than adjacent populations in sagebrush. WILDLIFE USE 0,F FIRE-DISTURfiED AREAS IN SAGEBRUSH STEPPE ON THE IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY by William Edward Moritz A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fish and Wildlife Management MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana February 1988 ZyIcx", n V S l Z M ? Ji LS I i APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by William Edward Moritz This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for Tfu. 12. n?t Date Approved for the Mg/j'oh: Department Date Z Head, Major Department Approved for the College of Graduate Studies Date Graduate Dean A ill STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under the rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction of this thesis may be granted by my major professor, or in his absence, by the Dean of Libraries when, in the opinion of either, the proposed use of the material is for scholarly purposes. Any copying or use of the material in this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. LjJ iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was funded by the Office of Health and Environmental Research, United States Department of Energy. I wish to thank the following individuals for their advice and assistance: 0. D. Markham, T . D . Reynolds, and S. J . Rope of the Department of Energy; J . E . Anderson and B. L . Keller of Idaho State University; M . P. Stafford of the University of Idaho; and J . E . Toepfer of Montana State University. Field assistance was provided by students from the Associated Western Universities summer program. Special appreciation is due my major professor, Dr. R. L . Eng, for his support and friendship. I also thank my committee members, Drs. R . J . Mackie, B. S. Sindelar, W. S. Gould, and J . T . Taylor for their advice and critical reviews of this thesis. Words cannot express the love and understanding of my wife, Zoe, throughout this project; to her I owe the greatest thanks. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPROVAL................................................ ii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE........................ iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................ iv TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................... v LIST OF TABLES......................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES.............. xi ABSTRACT........... xiii INTRODUCTION........................................... I STUDY AREA.......................‘___ :................. 4 METHODS............................. 7 Introduction........................................ 7 Vegetation Measurements and Analysis......... 9 Measurement of Sage Grouse and Pronghorn Use..... 11 Measurement of Small Mammal Use................... 13 Measurement of Population Indices.............. 14 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................ 17 Vegetation.......................................... 17 7 MIRD Study Area (Area # I )............. ........ 17 INEL Study Area (Area #2)....................... 21 Rabbit Ears Study Area (Area #3)............... 23 Utah P&L Study Area (Area #4).................. 25 Fire Station Study Area (Area //5)............ 27 Arco Highway Study Area (Area #6)............. 29 N Idaho 22 Study Area (Area #7)............... 30 B&B Co Study Area (Area #8).................... 32 Trac Flat Study Area (Area #9).......... 34 Discussion of Post-burn Vegetation Trends.... 36 v i TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued Page Sage Grouse........................................ 46 Immediate Response Following a Complete Burn.. 46 Use of an Incompletely-burned Fire Scar...... 52 Use of Perennial Grass/Rabbi thrush Fire Scars. 56 Pronghorn.......................................... 60 Immediate Response Following a Complete Burn.. 60 Use of an Incompletely-burned Fire Scar........ 64 Use of Perennial Grass/Rabbi thrush Fire Scars. 66 Elk................................................. 6 9 Small Mammals.......... ........................... 70 Use of Cheatgrass-dpminated Fire Scars.......... 71 Use of an Incompletely-burned Fire Scar...... 75 Use of Perennial Grass/Rabbit brush Fire Scars. 76 Trends in Small Mammal Use............. ........... , 7g SUMMARY................................................. 8 2 LITERATURE CITED...,.............. •............ ..... f . 8'6 APPENDICES.............................................. 96 Appendix I -Study Area Maps........... ............... 9 7 • Appendix, 2-Sage Grouse Raw Data Sets............... 106 Appendix 3-Pronghorn Raw Data Sets.................. 116 Appendix 4-Small Mammal Raw Data Sets 126 vii ■LIST OF TABLES Table ' ■" Page 1. Study area fire history......................... 5 2. Average canopy height, (cm) of Artemisia tridentata on burn and control sample lines on all study areas, 1986 (number of plants measured in parentheses).................... % g 3. Relative amounts of dead and living Artemisia plants occurring in transects on control areas , 1986............... ................... 20 . I ■ 4. Sage grouse fecal pellet densities (single pellets/ha) found in all sample periods on all study areas , 1985-1987............... 4 g 5. Frequency of single sage grouse pellets (plots/grid) occurring on pellet plots in all sample periods on all sample areas, 1985-1987 (all data arcsine transformed before analysis)..,....!...... .............. 51 6. Sage grouse roost pelle,t groups occurring on pellet plots in all; sample periods on all study areas , 1985-1987 ...................... 5 4 7. Pronghorn fecal pellet -’densities (groups/ha) occurring on pellet plots in all s-ample periods on all study areas , , 1985-1987 ...... 62 8 . Pronghorn fecal pellet group frequency (plots/grid) found in all sample periods on all study areas, 1985-1987 (all data arcsine transformed before analysis).... 65 9. Small mammal population indices. Fall, 1985.... 73 10. Small mammal population indices, Spring, 1986.. 74 vii i LIST OF TABLES— Continued Table Page 11. Sage grouse pellet densities (pellets/ha) and % joccurrence on the turn and control pellet grids, 7MIRD study area, 1985-1987... 107 12. Sage grouse pellet densities (pellets/ha) and % occurrence on the burn and control grids, INEL study area, 1985-1987............. 108 13. Sage grouse pellet densities (pellets/ha) and % occurrence on the burn and control grids. Rabbit Ears study area, 1985-1987............. 109 14. Sage grouse pellet densities (pellets/ha) and % occurrence on the burn and control grids, Utah P&L. study area, 1985-1987 .............. H O 15. Sage grouse pellet densities (pellets/ha) and % occurrence on the burn and control grids. Fire Station study area, 1985-1987.......... Ill 16. Sage grouse pellet densities (pellets/ha) and % occurrence on the burn and control grids, Arco Hwy study area, 19 8 5-1987 .............. 1 1 2 17. Sage grouse pellet densities (pellets/ha) and % occurrence on the burn and control grids,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phylogeny and Phylogenetic Taxonomy of Dipsacales, with Special Reference to Sinadoxa and Tetradoxa (Adoxaceae)
    PHYLOGENY AND PHYLOGENETIC TAXONOMY OF DIPSACALES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SINADOXA AND TETRADOXA (ADOXACEAE) MICHAEL J. DONOGHUE,1 TORSTEN ERIKSSON,2 PATRICK A. REEVES,3 AND RICHARD G. OLMSTEAD 3 Abstract. To further clarify phylogenetic relationships within Dipsacales,we analyzed new and previously pub- lished rbcL sequences, alone and in combination with morphological data. We also examined relationships within Adoxaceae using rbcL and nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences. We conclude from these analyses that Dipsacales comprise two major lineages:Adoxaceae and Caprifoliaceae (sensu Judd et al.,1994), which both contain elements of traditional Caprifoliaceae.Within Adoxaceae, the following relation- ships are strongly supported: (Viburnum (Sambucus (Sinadoxa (Tetradoxa, Adoxa)))). Combined analyses of C ap ri foliaceae yield the fo l l ow i n g : ( C ap ri folieae (Diervilleae (Linnaeeae (Morinaceae (Dipsacaceae (Triplostegia,Valerianaceae)))))). On the basis of these results we provide phylogenetic definitions for the names of several major clades. Within Adoxaceae, Adoxina refers to the clade including Sinadoxa, Tetradoxa, and Adoxa.This lineage is marked by herbaceous habit, reduction in the number of perianth parts,nectaries of mul- ticellular hairs on the perianth,and bifid stamens. The clade including Morinaceae,Valerianaceae, Triplostegia, and Dipsacaceae is here named Valerina. Probable synapomorphies include herbaceousness,presence of an epi- calyx (lost or modified in Valerianaceae), reduced endosperm,and distinctive chemistry, including production of monoterpenoids. The clade containing Valerina plus Linnaeeae we name Linnina. This lineage is distinguished by reduction to four (or fewer) stamens, by abortion of two of the three carpels,and possibly by supernumerary inflorescences bracts. Keywords: Adoxaceae, Caprifoliaceae, Dipsacales, ITS, morphological characters, phylogeny, phylogenetic taxonomy, phylogenetic nomenclature, rbcL, Sinadoxa, Tetradoxa.
    [Show full text]
  • Mistaken Identity? Invasive Plants and Their Native Look-Alikes: an Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic
    Mistaken Identity ? Invasive Plants and their Native Look-alikes an Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic Matthew Sarver Amanda Treher Lenny Wilson Robert Naczi Faith B. Kuehn www.nrcs.usda.gov http://dda.delaware.gov www.dsu.edu www.dehort.org www.delawareinvasives.net Published by: Delaware Department Agriculture • November 2008 In collaboration with: Claude E. Phillips Herbarium at Delaware State University • Delaware Center for Horticulture Funded by: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Cover Photos: Front: Aralia elata leaf (Inset, l-r: Aralia elata habit; Aralia spinosa infloresence, Aralia elata stem) Back: Aralia spinosa habit TABLE OF CONTENTS About this Guide ............................1 Introduction What Exactly is an Invasive Plant? ..................................................................................................................2 What Impacts do Invasives Have? ..................................................................................................................2 The Mid-Atlantic Invasive Flora......................................................................................................................3 Identification of Invasives ..............................................................................................................................4 You Can Make a Difference..............................................................................................................................5 Plant Profiles Trees Norway Maple vs. Sugar
    [Show full text]
  • Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas
    Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Texas Parks and Wildlife Department • 4200 Smith School Road • Austin, Texas 78744 • (512) 389-4800 Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Developed by Michael Warriner and Ben Hutchins Nongame and Rare Species Program Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Acknowledgements Critical content review was provided by Mace Vaughn, Anne Stine, and Jennifer Hopwood, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Shalene Jha Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin. Texas Master Naturalists, Carol Clark and Jessica Womack, provided the early impetus for development of management protocols geared towards native pollinators. Cover photos: Left top to bottom: Ben Hutchins, Cullen Hanks, Eric Isley, Right: Eric Isley Design and layout by Elishea Smith © 2016 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department PWD BK W7000-1813 (04/16) In accordance with Texas State Depository Law, this publication is available at the Texas State Publications Clearinghouse and/or Texas Depository Libraries. TPWD receives federal assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies and is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and state anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any TPWD program, activity or facility, or need more information, please contact Office of Diversity and Inclusive Workforce Management, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Alien Flora of Europe: Species Diversity, Temporal Trends, Geographical Patterns and Research Needs
    Preslia 80: 101–149, 2008 101 Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs Zavlečená flóra Evropy: druhová diverzita, časové trendy, zákonitosti geografického rozšíření a oblasti budoucího výzkumu Philip W. L a m b d o n1,2#, Petr P y š e k3,4*, Corina B a s n o u5, Martin H e j d a3,4, Margari- taArianoutsou6, Franz E s s l7, Vojtěch J a r o š í k4,3, Jan P e r g l3, Marten W i n t e r8, Paulina A n a s t a s i u9, Pavlos A n d r i opoulos6, Ioannis B a z o s6, Giuseppe Brundu10, Laura C e l e s t i - G r a p o w11, Philippe C h a s s o t12, Pinelopi D e l i p e t - rou13, Melanie J o s e f s s o n14, Salit K a r k15, Stefan K l o t z8, Yannis K o k k o r i s6, Ingolf K ü h n8, Hélia M a r c h a n t e16, Irena P e r g l o v á3, Joan P i n o5, Montserrat Vilà17, Andreas Z i k o s6, David R o y1 & Philip E. H u l m e18 1Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Hill of Brathens, Banchory, Aberdeenshire AB31 4BW, Scotland, e-mail; [email protected], [email protected]; 2Kew Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, United Kingdom; 3Institute of Bot- any, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic, e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]; 4Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 01 Praha 2, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected]; 5Center for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain, e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]; 6University of Athens, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology & Systematics, 15784 Athens, Greece, e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]; 7Federal Environment Agency, Department of Nature Conservation, Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria, e-mail: [email protected]; 8Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Community Ecology, Theodor-Lieser- Str.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetics of the Caprifolieae and Lonicera (Dipsacales)
    Systematic Botany (2008), 33(4): pp. 776–783 © Copyright 2008 by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists Phylogenetics of the Caprifolieae and Lonicera (Dipsacales) Based on Nuclear and Chloroplast DNA Sequences Nina Theis,1,3,4 Michael J. Donoghue,2 and Jianhua Li1,4 1Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, 22 Divinity Ave, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 U.S.A. 2Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, P.O. Box 208106, New Haven, Conneticut 06520-8106 U.S.A. 3Current Address: Plant Soil, and Insect Sciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003 U.S.A. 4Authors for correspondence ([email protected]; [email protected]) Communicating Editor: Lena Struwe Abstract—Recent phylogenetic analyses of the Dipsacales strongly support a Caprifolieae clade within Caprifoliaceae including Leycesteria, Triosteum, Symphoricarpos, and Lonicera. Relationships within Caprifolieae, however, remain quite uncertain, and the monophyly of Lonicera, the most species-rich of the traditional genera, and its subdivisions, need to be evaluated. In this study we used sequences of the ITS region of nuclear ribosomal DNA and five chloroplast non-coding regions (rpoB–trnC spacer, atpB–rbcL spacer, trnS–trnG spacer, petN–psbM spacer, and psbM–trnD spacer) to address these problems. Our results indicate that Heptacodium is sister to Caprifolieae, Triosteum is sister to the remaining genera within the tribe, and Leycesteria and Symphoricarpos form a clade that is sister to a monophyletic Lonicera. Within Lonicera, the major split is between subgenus Caprifolium and subgenus Lonicera. Within subgenus Lonicera, sections Coeloxylosteum, Isoxylosteum, and Nintooa are nested within the paraphyletic section Isika. Section Nintooa may also be non-monophyletic.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Snowberry (Symphoricarpos Albus)
    California Phenology Project: species profile for Common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) CPP site(s) where this species is monitored: John Muir Naonal Historic Site What does this species look like? This deciduous shrub or tree is densely branched and grows between 0.6 to 1.8 meters tall. It can form thickets with creeping underground stems. The small but showy flowers are white to pink and have both male and female parts. These flowers occur in small clusters of 8 to 16 along the stems and are insect- pollinated. The round fruit is 8 to 12 mm long. When monitoring this species, use the USA-NPN deciduous trees and shrubs datasheet. Photo credit Gertrud K (flickr) Species facts! • The CPP four leOer code for this species is SYAL. • Nave Americans used this species medicinally and for arrowshas, brooms, and shampoo. • The berries can be toxic to humans, causing vomi+ng and dizziness. • The berries are an important food source for birds and mammals. The floral nectar is an important resource for buOerflies and moths. • Re-sprouts from spreading rhizomes easily aer fires. Photo credit: onok (flickr) Where is this species found? • Favors well-drained, moist, fer+le soils but also will grow on dry or rocky soils. • Found in shady woods, streambanks, and northern slopes. • Occurs at elevaons less than 1200 meters. • Naturally distributed throughout northwest, central-western, and southwestern California as well as north through Alaska and throughout Western U.S. • Naturalized species in the Eastern U.S. Photo credit: Lil worlf (flickr) For more informaon
    [Show full text]
  • Dipsacales Phylogeny Based on Chloroplast Dna Sequences
    DIPSACALES PHYLOGENY BASED ON CHLOROPLAST DNA SEQUENCES CHARLES D. BELL,1, 2 ERIKA J. EDWARDS,1 SANG-TAE KIM,1 AND MICHAEL J. DONOGHUE 1 Abstract. Eight new rbcL DNA sequences and 15 new sequences from the 5' end of the chloroplast ndhF gene were obtained from representative Dipsacales and outgroup taxa. These were analyzed in combination with pre- viously published sequences for both regions. In addition, sequence data from the entire ndhF gene, the trnL-F intergenic spacer region,the trnL intron,the matK region, and the rbcL-atpB intergenic spacer region were col- lected for 30 taxa within Dipsacales. Phylogenetic relationships were inferred using maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood methods. Inferred tree topologies are in strong agreement with previous results from sep- arate and combined analyses of rbcL and morpholo gy, and confidence in most major clades is now very high. Concerning controversial issues, we conclude that Dipsacales in the traditional sense is a monophyletic group and that Triplostegia is more closely related to Dipsacaceae than it is to Valerianaceae. Heptacodium is only weakly supported as the sister group of the Caprifolieae (within which relationships remain largely unresolved), and the exact position of Diervilleae is uncertain. Within Morinaceae, Acanthocalyx is the sister group of Morina plus Cryptothladia. Dipsacales now provides excellent opportunities for comparative studies, but it will be important to check the congruence of chloroplast results with those based on data from other genomes. Keywords: Dipsacales, Adoxaceae, Caprifoliaceae, Morinaceae, Dipsacaceae, Valerianaceae, phylogeny, chloroplast DNA. The Dipsacales has traditionally included the Linnaea). It excludes Adoxa and its relatives, as C ap ri foliaceae (s e n s u l at o, i .
    [Show full text]
  • Symphoricarpos (Sneeuwbes) Is Een Heester Die Veel Wordt Gebruikt in Het Openbaar Groen En - Op Wat Beperkter Schaal - in Particuliere Tuinen
    6\PSKRULFDUSRV - sortimentsonderzoek en keuringsrapport Ir. M.H.A. Hoffman Symphoricarpos (Sneeuwbes) is een heester die veel wordt gebruikt in het openbaar groen en - op wat beperkter schaal - in particuliere tuinen. Van nature is het een zeer gemakkelijke plant, die vooral gewaardeerd wordt vanwege de opvallende witte of paarsroze bessen en/of de zeer goede bodembedekking. Het gewas is de afgelo- pen jaren ook uitgegroeid tot één van de populairste snijheesters. Vooral voor dit gebruik zijn er de afgelopen jaren veel nieuwe cultivars op de markt verschenen. Inmiddels zijn er ruim 60 verschillende cultivars bekend. Ruim 30 cultivars zijn op twee verschillende locaties getest. De planten zijn door PPO beschreven en beoor- deeld op gebruik als tuin- en plantsoenplant. De KVBC voerde een sterrenkeuring uit. 'DDUQDDVWVWDDWRRNGHFODVVL¿FDWLHYDQ Symp- dens de keuringen. De weergegeven gebruiks- horicarpos ter discussie. Tot nu toe werden waardedata, zoals ziektegevoeligheid en stevig- cultivars ingedeeld in soorten en soorthybri- heid zijn een gemiddelde van de waarnemingen den, met name S. albus , S. × doorenbosii en S. van de opplantingen in Boskoop en Leersum. ×chenaultii . Vooral voor nieuwe cultivars blijkt De plantbeschrijvingen zijn samengesteld aan dit steeds lastiger vol te houden, omdat de gene- de hand van het materiaal in Boskoop, toen de tische herkomst gecompliceerd of discutabel is. planten zo’n 5 jaar oud waren. Daarom is voor de praktijk een nieuwe inde- +HWRQGHU]RHNZHUGJH¿QDQFLHUGGRRUKHW3UR - ling in groepen gemaakt, die in deze publicatie ductschap Tuinbouw. wordt gepresenteerd. Taxonomie en verspreiding +HWRQGHU]RHN Symphoricarpos behoort tot de Caprifoliaceae In totaal zijn er 32 verschillende soorten en (Kamperfoeliefamilie) en wordt in Nederland, cultivars verzameld en aangeplant op twee ver- behalve Sneeuwbes, ook wel Klapbes genoemd.
    [Show full text]
  • L-1 . Planting Plan
    1/L-1 - SEE ENLARGEMENT THIS SHEET PLANTING PLAN 1" = 20'-0" (CHECK SCALE BAR FOR ACCURACY) 588 Gaultheria shallon 70% 84 Oemleria cerasiformis 10% 84 Ribes sanguineum 10% 84 Symphoricarpos albus 10% 3 Acer circinatum 8% 13 Gaultheria shallon 40% 381 Gaultheria shallon 70% 3 Oemleria cerasiformis 8% 28 Acer circinatum 8% 55 Oemleria cerasiformis 10% 140 Gaultheria shallon 40% 5 Pseudotsuga menziesii 13% 55 Ribes sanguineum 10% 3 Ribes sanguineum 8% 28 Oemleria cerasiformis 8% 55 Symphoricarpos albus 10% 3 Acer circinatum 8% 46 Pseudotsuga menziesii 13% 3 Symphoricarpos albus 8% 12 Gaultheria shallon 40% 88 Gaultheria shallon 70% 5 Thuja plicata 15% 28 Ribes sanguineum 8% 13 Oemleria cerasiformis 10% 3 Oemleria cerasiformis 8% 28 Symphoricarpos albus 8% 13 Ribes sanguineum 10% 4 Pseudotsuga menziesii 13% 53 Thuja plicata 15% 13 Symphoricarpos albus 10% 13 Acer circinatum 8% 3 Ribes sanguineum 8% 65 Gaultheria shallon 40% 3 Symphoricarpos albus 8% 13 Oemleria cerasiformis 8% 5 Thuja plicata 15% 21 Pseudotsuga menziesii 13% 13 Ribes sanguineum 8% 13 Symphoricarpos albus 8% 25 Thuja plicata 15% 56 Gaultheria shallon 70% 8 Oemleria cerasiformis 10% 8 Ribes sanguineum 10% 8 Symphoricarpos albus 10% 38 Acer circinatum 15% 38 Cornus stolonifera 15% 152 Gaultheria shallon 60% 5 Acer circinatum 8% 26 Ribes sanguineum 10% 13 Acer circinatum 8% 21 Gaultheria shallon 40% 65 Gaultheria shallon 40% 5 Oemleria cerasiformis 8% 13 Oemleria cerasiformis 8% 7 Pseudotsuga menziesii 13% 22 Pseudotsuga menziesii 13% 5 Ribes sanguineum 8% 13 Ribes sanguineum
    [Show full text]
  • Coralberry (Symphoricarpos Orbiculatus): a Native Landscaping and Wildlife Habitat Alternative to Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera Maackii) BRENT E
    Coralberry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus): a native landscaping and wildlife habitat alternative to Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) BRENT E. WACHHOLDER1, HENRY R. OWEN1, and JANICE M. COONS1,2 1Eastern Illinois University, Charleston 61920, 2University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana 61801 Abstract Until the late 1980’s, the ornamental shrub Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) was promoted by the USDA Soil Conservation Service to control erosion and to provide food and habitat for wildlife (Luken and Thieret 1996). Amur honeysuckle is no longer favored by many conservation organizations since its negative effects on native forest plant species have been recognized (Collier and Vankat 2002, Gould 2000). Coralberry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus), a native species, could be used in place of Amur honeysuckle for erosion control, wildlife conservation/restoration, and ornamental landscaping. The objectives of this study were to compare coralberry and Amur honeysuckle and determine if coralberry has similar negative effects on forest communities. In spring of 2000, coralberry was removed from three 100 m2 plots in Burgner Acres Natural Area, Loxa, IL. Control plots were established and twenty 1 m2 quadrats were surveyed in each plot. Four transects were established, three at Burgner Acres and one at Hidden Springs State Forest, Strasburg, IL. Thirty quadrats were sampled along each. All vascular plants species and percent cover of coralberry and Amur honeysuckle were recorded. ANOVA test results showed an increase in mean herbaceous species richness (6.4 control, 7.3 removal, P < 0.001) and mean woody species richness (1.3 control, 1.5 removal, P < 0.001) in coralberry removal plots. Regression analysis of transect data showed a negative association between percent cover of coralberry and herbaceous species richness (standardized coefficient = -0.25, P = 0.016).
    [Show full text]
  • Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas
    Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Texas Parks and Wildlife Department • 4200 Smith School Road • Austin, Texas 78744 • (512) 389-4800 Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Developed by Michael Warriner and Ben Hutchins Nongame and Rare Species Program Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Acknowledgements Critical content review was provided by Mace Vaughn, Anne Stine, and Jennifer Hopwood, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Shalene Jha Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin. Texas Master Naturalists, Carol Clark and Jessica Womack, provided the early impetus for development of management protocols geared towards native pollinators. Cover photos: Left top to bottom: Ben Hutchins, Cullen Hanks, Eric Isley, Right: Eric Isley Design and layout by Elishea Smith © 2016 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department PWD BK W7000-1813 (04/16) In accordance with Texas State Depository Law, this publication is available at the Texas State Publications Clearinghouse and/or Texas Depository Libraries. TPWD receives federal assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies and is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and state anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any TPWD program, activity or facility, or need more information, please contact Office of Diversity and Inclusive Workforce Management, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Symphoricarpos Albus, Snowberry
    Symphoricarpos albus,Snowberry General Botanical Characteristics Symphoricarpos albus, commonly known as Snowberry for its snow-white berries, is a deciduous shrub that is densely branched and varies in height from 3 feet to 4.5 feet. Snowberry can reach heights of 6 feet in riparian areas. They can be identified by their lobed, opposite leaves and clumps of fruit that commonly remain on the plant over winter. It propagates both by seed and rhizomes. Seasonal Development Snowberry begins budding in April to May and leaves become full-grown within a month of sprouting. Flowers appear any time from May to August and may be present as late as September. Peak flowering time is June and July. Fruit ripening times are also variable, but typically occur during late August and early September, coinciding closely with leaf fall. Distribution/Habitat Snowberry occurs as far north as Alaska, south to California and east to North Carolina. Common snowberry is considered subdominant with Ponderosa Pine in Oregon, and is considered subdominant to Douglas Hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) and in dense tall shrub communities with Wood's Rose (Rosa woodsii). Some species commonly associated with Snowberry include Ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor) and Bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi). Interesting Facts • Snowberry was used on hair as soap, and the fruits and leaves mashed and applied to cuts or skin sores as a poultice and to soothe sore, runny eyes. • The bark was used for medicinal teas, to treat tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases. A brew made from the entire plant was used as a tonic. • The straight branches made good arrow shafts and pipe stems.
    [Show full text]