DOCSLIB.ORG

Executive Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Executive Summary A Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary June 2006 Citation: Westervelt, K., E. Largay, R. Coxe, W. McAvoy, S. Perles, G. Podniesinski, L. Sneddon, and K. Strakosch Walz. 2006. A Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary: Version 1. NatureServe. Arlington, Virginia. PDE Report No. 06-02 Copyright © 2006 NatureServe COVER PHOTOS Top L: Eastern Hemlock - Great Laurel Swamp, photo from Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Top R: Pitch Pine - Oak Forest, photo by Andrew Windisch, photo from New Jersey Natural Heritage Bottom R: Maritime Red Cedar Woodland, photo by Robert Coxe, photo from Delaware Natural Heritage Bottom L: Water Willow Rocky Bar and Shore in Pennsylvania, photo from Pennsylvania Natural Heritage A GUIDE TO THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY Kellie Westervelt Ery Largay Robert Coxe William McAvoy Stephanie Perles Greg Podniesinski Lesley Sneddon Kathleen Strakosch Walz. Version 1 June 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................................................................................11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 12 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 13 CLASSIFICATION APPROACH..................................................................................................... 14 International Terrestrial Ecological Systems Classification ..................................................................... 14 National Vegetation Classification System.............................................................................................. 14 DATA COLLECTION & MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................... 15 NatureServe............................................................................................................................................ 15 Data Gaps............................................................................................................................................... 15 FORMAT OF THIS REPORT ........................................................................................................ 15 Ecological Systems................................................................................................................................. 16 Natural Communities............................................................................................................................... 17 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Dichotomous Key.................................................................................................................................... 19 ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY ...................... 21 Ecological System: Appalachian (Hemlock)-Northern Hardwood Forest................................................ 22 Central Appalachian Forested Acid Seep...........................................................................................................23 Central Appalachian White Pine - Eastern Hemlock Forest ...............................................................................23 East-central Hemlock Hardwood Forest .............................................................................................................24 Golden-saxifrage Forested Seep........................................................................................................................26 Hemlock - Beech - Oak Forest ...........................................................................................................................26 Hemlock / White Pine - Red Oak - Mixed Hardwood Forest...............................................................................27 High Allegheny Rich Red Oak - Sugar Maple Forest..........................................................................................28 Northern Hardwood Forest .................................................................................................................................29 Red Maple - Blackgum Basin Swamp ................................................................................................................31 Red Maple Upland Forest...................................................................................................................................32 Red Oak - Northern Hardwood Forest................................................................................................................33 White Pine - Hemlock Dry-Mesic Coniferous Forest...........................................................................................34 Ecological System: Appalachian Serpentine Woodland......................................................................... 36 Serpentine Emergent Wetland............................................................................................................................36 Serpentine Indiangrass - Little Bluestem Grassland...........................................................................................37 Serpentine Little Bluestem - Prairie Dropseed Grassland ..................................................................................38 Serpentine Red Maple - Oak - Catbrier Serpentine Forest.................................................................................39 Serpentine Red Maple - Pine Forest ..................................................................................................................40 Serpentine Red-cedar - Virginia Pine - Catbrier Serpentine Forest....................................................................41 Virginia Pine Serpentine Forest..........................................................................................................................42 Ecological System: Atlantic Coastal Plain Blackwater Stream Floodplain Forest................................... 44 Atlantic White-cedar / Seaside Alder Swamp .....................................................................................................44 Coastal Plain Atlantic White-cedar - Red Maple Swamp....................................................................................45 Ecological System: Atlantic Coastal Plain Brownwater Stream Floodplain Forest ................................. 47 Coastal Plain Oak Floodplain Swamp ................................................................................................................47 Ecological System: Atlantic Coastal Plain Mesic Hardwood Forest........................................................ 49 Basic Mesic Ravine Forest .................................................................................................................................49 4 Mesic Coastal Plain Oak Forest .........................................................................................................................50 Mid-Atlantic Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest .......................................................................................................51 Northern Coastal Plain/Piedmont Basic Mesic Hardwood Forest.......................................................................53 Ecological System: Atlantic Coastal Plain Northern Basin Peat Swamp ................................................ 54 Atlantic White-cedar / Seaside Alder Swamp .....................................................................................................54 Blueberry Wetland Thicket..................................................................................................................................55 Coastal Plain Atlantic White-cedar - Red Maple Swamp....................................................................................56 Coastal Plain Atlantic White-cedar Swamp ........................................................................................................57 Red Maple / Seaside Alder Woodland................................................................................................................58 Southern Red Maple - Black Gum Swamp Forest..............................................................................................59 Ecological System: Atlantic Coastal Plain Northern Basin Swamp and Wet Hardwood Forest.............. 61 Cape May Lowland Swamp................................................................................................................................61 Chesapeake Red Maple Swamp ........................................................................................................................62 Coastal Loblolly Pine Wetland Forest.................................................................................................................63 Coastal Plain Calcareous Seepage Swamp.......................................................................................................64 Red Maple - Sweetgum Swamp .........................................................................................................................64 Southern New England Red Maple Seepage Swamp ........................................................................................65 Southern Red Maple - Black Gum Swamp Forest..............................................................................................66 Ecological
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2018 Walk Schedule
    2018 WALK SCHEDULE Schuylkill On the Move is a project of Schuylkill County’s VISION and promotes positive steps toward good health through walking and an appreciation of the natural beauty and fascinating history of our area. For more information on each walk: [email protected] Sunday, January 28th, 8:00 a.m.-1:30 p.m., “Stump Dam”. “ Hiker Jim” Murphy will take you to the Gumboot then Black Dia- mond Road to Blackwood and then Stump Dam. You’ll follow the old Lehigh Railroad to Silverton. Meet at Llewellyn Hose park- ing lot. (9 miles, easy) This walk goes on even with light snow on ground. Sunday, January 28th, 2:00-4:30 p.m., “Fort Dietrich Snyder and Appalachian Trail”. Located on top of Blue Mountain at Rte.183. A short hike to a monument for the fort location. See a natural spring along an abandoned farm pond and continue to hike the AT. Meet at Rte. 183 on top of Blue Mountain. (3 miles, easy) Saturday, February 24th, 10:00-11:00 a.m., “Cabin Fever Walk”. “ Porcupine Pat” guarantees that this walk will cure your fever! Meet at the Waterfall Road parking lot of Sweet Arrow Lake Park. (3 miles, moderate) Sunday, February 25th, 8:00 a.m.-1:30 p.m., “County View”. “ Hiker Jim” offers plenty to see including the “88” and diversion canal plus “The Old Jerk” and a spectacular view of County Schuylkill. Meet behind Mt. Pleasant Hose Company in Buck Run on Rte. 901. (8.4 miles, easy) Sunday, March 11th, 8:00 a.m.-1:30 p.m., “Broad Mtn.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Natural History and Conservation Genetics of the Federally Endangered Mitchell’S Satyr Butterfly, Neonympha Mitchellii Mitchellii
    NATURAL HISTORY AND CONSERVATION GENETICS OF THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED MITCHELL’S SATYR BUTTERFLY, NEONYMPHA MITCHELLII MITCHELLII By Christopher Alan Hamm A DISSRETATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Entomology Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior – Dual Major 2012 ABSTRACT NATURAL HISTORY AND CONSERVATION GENETICS OF THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED MITCHELL’S SATYR BUTTERFLY, NEONYMPHA MITCHELLII MITCHELLII By Christopher Alan Hamm The Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii, is a federally endangered species with protected populations found in Michigan, Indiana, and wherever else populations may be discovered. The conservation status of the Mitchell’s satyr began to be called into question when populations of a phenotypically similar butterfly were discovered in the eastern United States. It is unclear if these recently discovered populations are N. m. mitchellii and thus warrant protection. In order to clarify the conservation status of the Mitchell’s satyr I first acquired sample sizes large enough for population genetic analysis I developed a method of non- lethal sampling that has no detectable effect on the survival of the butterfly. I then traveled to all regions in which N. mitchellii is known to be extant and collected genetic samples. Using a variety of population genetic techniques I demonstrated that the federally protected populations in Michigan and Indiana are genetically distinct from the recently discovered populations in the southern US. I also detected the presence of the reproductive endosymbiotic bacterium Wolbachia, and surveyed addition Lepidoptera of conservation concern. This survey revealed that Wolbachia is a real concern for conservation managers and should be addressed in management plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Designation of a Neotype for Mitchellâ•Žs Satyr, Neonympha Mitchellii
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 40 Numbers 3 & 4 - Fall/Winter 2007 Numbers 3 & Article 11 4 - Fall/Winter 2007 October 2007 Designation of a Neotype for Mitchell’s Satyr, Neonympha Mitchellii (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) Christopher A. Hamm Michigan State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Hamm, Christopher A. 2007. "Designation of a Neotype for Mitchell’s Satyr, Neonympha Mitchellii (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 40 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol40/iss2/11 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Hamm: Designation of a Neotype for Mitchell’s Satyr, <i>Neonympha Mitch 2007 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 201 DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR MITCHELL’S SATYR, Neonympha miTchellii (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) Christopher A. Hamm1 The Mitchell’s satyr, Neonympha mitchellii French 1889 (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) was described as a new species based on a series of six males and four females collected by J. N. Mitchell from “Wakelee bog” in Cass County, Michigan (French 1889). French did not designate a holotype from this series. Much of French’s collection, and the original material included in the description, are thought to be lost (J. Shuey, M. Nielsen and J. Wilker, pers. comm.). I did not find the syntype series ofNeonympha mitchellii in potential re- positories including the collections of the American Museum of Natural History, Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, and the Field Museum of Natural History.
    [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]
  • WRITTEN FINDINGS of the WASHINGTON STATE NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD 2018 Noxious Weed List Proposal
    DRAFT: WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD 2018 Noxious Weed List Proposal Scientific Name: Tussilago farfara L. Synonyms: Cineraria farfara Bernh., Farfara radiata Gilib., Tussilago alpestris Hegetschw., Tussilago umbertina Borbás Common Name: European coltsfoot, coltsfoot, bullsfoot, coughwort, butterbur, horsehoof, foalswort, fieldhove, English tobacco, hallfoot Family: Asteraceae Legal Status: Proposed as a Class B noxious weed for 2018, to be designated for control throughout Washington, except for in Grant, Lincoln, Adams, Benton, and Franklin counties. Images: left, blooming flowerheads of Tussilago farfara, image by Caleb Slemmons, National Ecological Observatory Network, Bugwood.org; center, leaves of T. farfara growing with ferns, grasses and other groundcover species; right, mature seedheads of T. farfara before seeds have been dispersed, center and right images by Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut, Bugwood.org. Description and Variation: The common name of Tussilago farfara, coltsfoot, refers to the outline of the basal leaf being that of a colt’s footprint. Overall habit: Tussilago farfara is a rhizomatous perennial, growing up to 19.7 inches (50 cm tall), which can form extensive colonies. Plants first send up flowering stems in the spring, each with a single yellow flowerhead. Just before or after flowers have formed seeds, basal leaves on long petioles grow from the rhizomes, with somewhat roundish leaf blades that are more or less white-woolly on the undersides. Roots: Plants have long creeping, white scaly rhizomes (Griffiths 1994, Chen and Nordenstam 2011). Rhizomes are branching and have fibrous roots (Barkley 2006). They are also brittle and can break easily (Pfeiffer et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Grass Varieties for North Dakota
    R-794 (Revised) Grass Varieties For North Dakota Kevin K. Sedivec Extension Rangeland Management Specialist, NDSU, Fargo Dwight A. Tober Plant Materials Specialist, USDA-NRCS, Bismarck Wayne L. Duckwitz Plant Materials Center Manager, USDA-NRCS, Bismarck John R. Hendrickson Research Rangeland Management Specialist, USDA-ARS, Mandan North Dakota State University Fargo, North Dakota June 2011 election of the appropriate species and variety is an important step in making a grass seeding successful. Grass species and varieties differ in growth habit, productivity, forage quality, drought resistance, tolerance Sto grazing, winter hardiness, seedling vigor, salinity tolerance and many other characteristics. Therefore, selection should be based on the climate, soils, intended use and the planned management. Planting a well-adapted selection also can provide long-term benefi ts and affect future productivity of the stand. This publication is designed to assist North Dakota producers and land managers in selecting perennial grass species and varieties for rangeland and pasture seeding and conservation planting. Each species is described following a list of recommended varieties Contents (releases). Variety origin and the date released are Introduction. 2 included for additional reference. Introduced Grasses . 3 A Plant Species Guide for Special Conditions, found Bromegrass . 3 near the end of this publication, is provided to assist Fescue . 4 in selection of grass species for droughty soils, arid Orchardgrass . 4 Foxtail. 5 or wet environments, saline or alkaline areas and Wheatgrass . 5 landscape/ornamental plantings. Several factors should Timothy. 7 be considered before selecting plant species. These Wildrye . 7 include 1) a soil test, 2) herbicides previously used, Native Grasses .
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves
    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats
    Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats J. W. Connelly S. T. Knick M. A. Schroeder S. J. Stiver Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies June 2004 CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE and SAGEBRUSH HABITATS John W. Connelly Idaho Department Fish and Game 83 W 215 N Blackfoot, ID 83221 [email protected] Steven T. Knick USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Snake River Field Station 970 Lusk St. Boise, ID 83706 [email protected] Michael A. Schroeder Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 1077 Bridgeport, WA 98813 [email protected] San J. Stiver Wildlife Coordinator, National Sage-Grouse Conservation Framework Planning Team 2184 Richard St. Prescott, AZ 86301 [email protected] This report should be cited as: Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Cover photo credit, Kim Toulouse i Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats Connelly et al. Author Biographies John W. Connelly Jack has been employed as a Principal Wildlife Research Biologist with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game for the last 20 years. He received his B.S. degree from the University of Idaho and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Washington State University. Jack is a Certified Wildlife Biologist and works on grouse conservation issues at national and international scales. He is a member of the Western Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Technical Committee and the Grouse Specialists’ Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Umbilicariaceae Phylogeny TAXON 66 (6) • December 2017: 1282–1303
    Davydov & al. • Umbilicariaceae phylogeny TAXON 66 (6) • December 2017: 1282–1303 Umbilicariaceae (lichenized Ascomycota) – Trait evolution and a new generic concept Evgeny A. Davydov,1 Derek Peršoh2 & Gerhard Rambold3 1 Altai State University, Lenin Ave. 61, Barnaul, 656049 Russia 2 Ruhr-Universität Bochum, AG Geobotanik, Gebäude ND 03/170, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany 3 University of Bayreuth, Plant Systematics, Mycology Dept., Universitätsstraße 30, NW I, 95445 Bayreuth, Germany Author for correspondence: Evgeny A. Davydov, [email protected] ORCID EAD, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2316-8506; DP, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5561-0189 DOI https://doi.org/10.12705/666.2 Abstract To reconstruct hypotheses on the evolution of Umbilicariaceae, 644 sequences from three independent DNA regions were used, 433 of which were newly produced. The study includes a representative fraction (presumably about 80%) of the known species diversity of the Umbilicariaceae s.str. and is based on the phylograms obtained using maximum likelihood and a Bayesian phylogenetic inference framework. The analyses resulted in the recognition of eight well-supported clades, delimited by a combination of morphological and chemical features. None of the previous classifications within Umbilicariaceae s.str. were supported by the phylogenetic analyses. The distribution of the diagnostic morphological and chemical traits against the molecular phylogenetic topology revealed the following patterns of evolution: (1) Rhizinomorphs were gained at least four times independently and are lacking in most clades grouping in the proximity of Lasallia. (2) Asexual reproductive structures, i.e., thalloconidia and lichenized dispersal units, appear more or less mutually exclusive, being restricted to different clades.
    [Show full text]
  • And Sand Bluestem (Andropogon Hallii) Performance Trials North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota
    United States Prairie Sandreed Department of Agriculture (Calamovilfa longifolia) Natural Resources and Conservation Service Sand Bluestem Plant Materials Center (Andropogon hallii) June 2011 Performance Trials North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota Who We Are Plants are an important tool for conservation. The Bismarck Plant Materials Center (PMC) is part of the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resouces Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). It is one of a network of 27 centers nationwide dedicated to providing vegetative solutions to conservation problems. The Plant Materials program has been providing conservation plant materials and technology since 1934. Contact Us USDA, NRCS Plant Materials Center 3308 University Drive Bismarck, ND 58504 Phone: (701)250-4330 In this photo: Fax: (701)250-4334 Sand bluestem seed that http://Plant-Materials.nrcs.usda.gov has not been debearded Acknowledgements Cooperators and partners in the warm-season grass evaluation trials, together with the USDA, NRCS Plant Materials Center at Bismarck, ND, included: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge near Upham, ND; Wetland Management District at Fergus Falls, MN; and Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge near Pickstown, SD); South Dakota Department of Agriculture Forestry Division; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; USDA, NRCS field and area offices and Soil and Water Conservation District offices located at Bottineau, ND; Fergus Falls, MN; Lake Andes, SD; Onida, SD; Rochester, MN; and Pierre, SD; Southeastern Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts; Hiawatha Valley Resource Conservation and Development In this photo: Area (Minnesota); and North Central Resource Prairie sandreed seed Conservation and Development Office (South with fuzz removed Dakota).
    [Show full text]
  • A Five-Gene Phylogeny of Pezizomycotina
    Mycologia, 98(6), 2006, pp. 1018–1028. # 2006 by The Mycological Society of America, Lawrence, KS 66044-8897 A five-gene phylogeny of Pezizomycotina Joseph W. Spatafora1 Burkhard Bu¨del Gi-Ho Sung Alexandra Rauhut Desiree Johnson Department of Biology, University of Kaiserslautern, Cedar Hesse Kaiserslautern, Germany Benjamin O’Rourke David Hewitt Maryna Serdani Harvard University Herbaria, Harvard University, Robert Spotts Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Wendy A. Untereiner Department of Botany, Brandon University, Brandon, Franc¸ois Lutzoni Manitoba, Canada Vale´rie Hofstetter Jolanta Miadlikowska Mariette S. Cole Vale´rie Reeb 2017 Thure Avenue, St Paul, Minnesota 55116 Ce´cile Gueidan Christoph Scheidegger Emily Fraker Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Research, WSL Zu¨ rcherstr. 111CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Durham, North Carolina 27708 Switzerland Thorsten Lumbsch Matthias Schultz Robert Lu¨cking Biozentrum Klein Flottbek und Botanischer Garten der Imke Schmitt Universita¨t Hamburg, Systematik der Pflanzen Ohnhorststr. 18, D-22609 Hamburg, Germany Kentaro Hosaka Department of Botany, Field Museum of Natural Harrie Sipman History, Chicago, Illinois 60605 Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin- Dahlem, Freie Universita¨t Berlin, Ko¨nigin-Luise-Straße Andre´ Aptroot 6-8, D-14195 Berlin, Germany ABL Herbarium, G.V.D. Veenstraat 107, NL-3762 XK Soest, The Netherlands Conrad L. Schoch Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon Claude Roux State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Chemin des Vignes vieilles, FR - 84120 MIRABEAU, France Andrew N. Miller Abstract: Pezizomycotina is the largest subphylum of Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity, Ascomycota and includes the vast majority of filamen- Champaign, Illinois 61820 tous, ascoma-producing species.
    [Show full text]