DOCSLIB.ORG

At Risk Species

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
At Risk Species United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Francis Marion National Forest Draft Forest Plan Assessment Francis Marion National Forest, Berkeley and Charleston Counties, South Carolina Section 5.1-5.3: At Risk Species December 2013 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found on-line at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found on-line at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]. Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845- 6136 (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Francis Marion National Forest Draft Forest Plan Assessment Berkeley and Charleston Counties, South Carolina Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: John Richard Lint, Forest Supervisor Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests For Information Contact: Mary Morrison, Forest Planner 4931 Broad River Road Columbia, SC 29212 803-561-4000 Email Comments or Questions to: [email protected] Documents are Posted at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/scnfs Sections 5.1-5.3 is still under construction and needs further revisions. 2 5.0 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES, AND POTENTIAL SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN PRESENT IN THE PLAN AREA (AT-RISK SPECIES) 5.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS – AT-RISK PLANTS We are identifying lists of at-risk species and evaluating plan area ecological conditions for these species in the plan area. The set of at-risk species evaluated within this assessment includes: 1). Federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species; 2). Potential species of conservation concern. The planning rule requires that species of conservation concern be “known to occur in the plan area” and that the Regional Forester ultimately identify “species of conservation concern”, for which “the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long term in the plan area”. The 1996 Revised Forest Plan addressed 38 Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (PETS), including 3 mammals, 8 birds, 3 amphibians, 4 reptiles, and 20 plants, and suggests that conditions would be provided for them and in some cases, that the species would be thriving. Of the 20 plants included as “PETS” in the 1996 Revised Forest Plan, all are being addressed as “at-risk” species in this 2013 assessment, with the exception of 1 plant species which is not known to occur on the forest – Carolina Least Trillium (Trillium pusillum). A list of 75 “at-risk” plants including 3 federally-listed species and 72 “Potential Species of Conservation Concern” has been identified as of 10/30//2013. The list of the 72 species of potential conservation concern are included in Appendix A, including their ranks and the number of known occurrences on the forest. These lists are based on a review of federally- listed and “at-risk” species identified by USDA and NOAA, State and Globally ranked plant species lists maintained by South Carolina Department of Natural Resources – Heritage Program, and by Natureserve, species expert opinion, rare species records for the forest, and a review of the PETS list addressed in the 1996 Forest Plan. Numbers of federally endangered American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) plants declined by 60% between 2001 and 2008, and declines are associated with a lack of frequent, 1-3 year fire regimes, particularly in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). We have 4 populations and as many as 20 occurrences for American chaffseed on the forest in 2013 occurring primarily along roadsides, and are restoring nine populations off roadsides and into the adjacent upland longleaf pine stands. We are enhancing the genetics of some of our populations using seed from populations occurring on nearby private lands. Several new occurrences for the federally endangered pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) were discovered, but are threatened by competition with woody shrubs at depression pond ecotones, and few populations are producing fruit. We have 5 natural populations for pondberry on the forest, including at least 24 occurrences, two experimental populations. 3 Three populations have been enhanced with genetic material, one recently, and two in the late 1970’s. Information on management needs for this species has evolved from protection of colonies to careful management (Glitzenstein, 2007; Gustafson, 2012; Lockhart et.al., 2013). One confirmed occurrence for the federally endangered Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) was discovered from a pond cypress savanna depression pond in 2000, but no plants have been observed on the forest since 2006. This decline is in part associated with successional vegetation and lack of frequent prescribed fire in the WUI. In a species status survey in 2006 (USDI), Chick Gaddy describes the habitat in this pond as excellent. More recent monitoring describes threats from successional woody vegetation (Glitzenstein, 2012). In 2013, the Forest Service began enhancing and restoring populations for American chaffseed, pondberry, and Canby’s dropwort at known and historic sites, where management strategies alone had failed, and genetic bottlenecks were likely limiting sexual reproduction (USDI, 2013; Gustafson, 2012; Echt et.al., 2011). The 75 at-risk plant species were grouped by the primary ecosystem or species group with which they are associated in Appendix B, for the purposes of identifying ecological conditions, drivers and threats. Of 74 at-risk plant species, 26 are associated with pine woodland and savanna ecosystems, including 5 in dry to mesic upland pine woodlands, and 21 in mesic to wet pine savannas (including marl savannas); 20 are associated with pond cypress savannas and herbaceous meadows (associated with Carolina bays and depression ponds), 4 occur in non-riverine swamp and wet hardwood forests, 4 in calcareous mesic slope hardwood forests, 8 in calcareous blackwater stream and river floodplain forests, 3 in marl outcrops or in maritime shell forests, and 10 in seepage slopes, pocosins, and non-riverine swamp ecotones. Twenty-one at-risk plant species occur in pine savannas and flatwoods including wet marl savannas, making this the largest at-risk plant species group. Several species in this group are in decline, particularly those occurring in the WUI (Sporobolus curtisii, Sporobolus pinetorum, Platanthera integra, including Awendaw and Gumville savannas). 5.1.2 CHANGING CONDITIONS The 1996 Revised Forest Plan lists 38 Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (PETS) in the Forest Monitoring Report, including 3 mammals, 8 birds, 3 amphibians, 4 reptiles, and 20 plants, and suggests that conditions will be provided for them and in some cases, that they would be thriving. In many cases, that has not occurred. The new forest planning regulations specify a focused coarse-filter/fine-filter approach which also takes into account the species rarity on the unit and the inherent capability of the plan area. Consistent with the forest planning regulations, as part of this assessment, we are including 4 consideration of lists of “at-risk” plant, animal, and aquatic species, and are evaluating plan area ecological conditions. The set of at-risk species for assessment planning purposes include: 1). Federally -listed threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species; and 2). Potential species of conservation concern. Ultimately, species of conservation of concern will be identified to include those species “known to occur in the plan area” and for which the regional forester has identified that “the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist
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]
  • The Natural Communities of South Carolina
    THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA BY JOHN B. NELSON SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE & MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1986 INTRODUCTION The maintenance of an accurate inventory of a region's natural resources must involve a system for classifying its natural communities. These communities themselves represent identifiable units which, like individual plant and animal species of concern, contribute to the overall natural diversity characterizing a given region. This classification has developed from a need to define more accurately the range of natural habitats within South Carolina. From the standpoint of the South Carolina Nongame and Heritage Trust Program, the conceptual range of natural diversity in the state does indeed depend on knowledge of individual community types. Additionally, it is recognized that the various plant and animal species of concern (which make up a significant remainder of our state's natural diversity) are often restricted to single natural communities or to a number of separate, related ones. In some cases, the occurrence of a given natural community allows us to predict, with some confidence, the presence of specialized or endemic resident species. It follows that a reasonable and convenient method of handling the diversity of species within South Carolina is through the concept of these species as residents of a range of natural communities. Ideally, a nationwide classification system could be developed and then used by all the states. Since adjacent states usually share a number of community types, and yet may each harbor some that are unique, any classification scheme on a national scale would be forced to recognize the variation in a given community from state to state (or region to region) and at the same time to maintain unique communities as distinctive.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversification of Myco-Heterotrophic Angiosperms: Evidence From
    BMC Evolutionary Biology BioMed Central Research article Open Access Diversification of myco-heterotrophic angiosperms: Evidence from Burmanniaceae Vincent Merckx*1, Lars W Chatrou2, Benny Lemaire1, Moses N Sainge3, Suzy Huysmans1 and Erik F Smets1,4 Address: 1Laboratory of Plant Systematics, K.U. Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 31, P.O. Box 2437, BE-3001 Leuven, Belgium, 2National Herbarium of the Netherlands, Wageningen University Branch, Generaal Foulkesweg 37, NL-6703 BL Wageningen, The Netherlands, 3Centre for Tropical Forest Sciences (CTFS), University of Buea, Department of Plant & Animal Sciences, P.O. Box 63, Buea, Cameroon and 4National Herbarium of the Netherlands, Leiden University Branch, P.O. Box 9514, NL-2300 RA, Leiden, The Netherlands Email: Vincent Merckx* - [email protected]; Lars W Chatrou - [email protected]; Benny Lemaire - [email protected]; Moses N Sainge - [email protected]; Suzy Huysmans - [email protected]; Erik F Smets - [email protected] * Corresponding author Published: 23 June 2008 Received: 25 February 2008 Accepted: 23 June 2008 BMC Evolutionary Biology 2008, 8:178 doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-178 This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/178 © 2008 Merckx et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background: Myco-heterotrophy evolved independently several times during angiosperm evolution. Although many species of myco-heterotrophic plants are highly endemic and long- distance dispersal seems unlikely, some genera are widely dispersed and have pantropical distributions, often with large disjunctions.
    [Show full text]
  • ATLAS of FLORIDA PLANTS - 7/29/19 Lake County Native Species
    ATLAS OF FLORIDA PLANTS - 7/29/19 Lake County Native Species Scientific_Name Common_Name Endemic State US 1 Abutilon hulseanum MAUVE N 2 Acalypha gracilens SLENDER THREESEED MERCURY N 3 Acalypha ostryifolia PINELAND THREESEED MERCURY N 4 Acer negundo BOXELDER N 5 Acer rubrum RED MAPLE N 6 Acrolejeunea heterophylla 7 Acrostichum danaeifolium GIANT LEATHER FERN N 8 Aeschynomene americana SHYLEAF N 9 Aeschynomene viscidula STICKY JOINTVETCH N 10 Aesculus pavia RED BUCKEYE N 11 Agalinis fasciculata BEACH FALSE FOXGLOVE N 12 Agalinis filifolia SEMINOLE FALSE FOXGLOVE N 13 Agalinis linifolia FLAXLEAF FALSE FOXGLOVE N 14 Agalinis plukenetii PLUKENET'S FALSE FOXGLOVE N 15 Agarista populifolia FLORIDA HOBBLEBUSH; PIPESTEM N 16 Ageratina jucunda HAMMOCK SNAKEROOT N 17 Aletris lutea YELLOW COLICROOT N 18 Allium canadense var. canadense MEADOW GARLIC N 19 Amaranthus australis SOUTHERN AMARANTH N 20 Amblystegium serpens 21 Ambrosia artemisiifolia COMMON RAGWEED N 22 Amorpha fruticosa BASTARD FALSE INDIGO N 23 Amorpha herbacea var. herbacea CLUSTERSPIKE FALSE INDIGO N 24 Amphicarpum muehlenbergianum BLUE MAIDENCANE N 25 Amsonia ciliata FRINGED BLUESTAR N 26 Andropogon brachystachyus SHORTSPIKE BLUESTEM N 27 Andropogon floridanus FLORIDA BLUESTEM N 28 Andropogon glomeratus var. glaucopsis PURPLE BLUESTEM N 29 Andropogon glomeratus var. hirsutior BUSHY BLUESTEM N 30 Andropogon glomeratus var. pumilus BUSHY BLUESTEM N 31 Andropogon gyrans ELLIOTT'S BLUESTEM N 32 Andropogon longiberbis HAIRY BLUESTEM N 33 Andropogon ternarius SPLITBEARD BLUESTEM N 34 Andropogon
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Special Plants - Tracking List -2018
    MISSISSIPPI NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM SPECIAL PLANTS - TRACKING LIST -2018- Approximately 3300 species of vascular plants (fern, gymnosperms, and angiosperms), and numerous non-vascular plants may be found in Mississippi. Many of these are quite common. Some, however, are known or suspected to occur in low numbers; these are designated as species of special concern, and are listed below. There are 495 special concern plants, which include 4 non- vascular plants, 28 ferns and fern allies, 4 gymnosperms, and 459 angiosperms 244 dicots and 215 monocots. An additional 100 species are designated “watch” status (see “Special Plants - Watch List”) with the potential of becoming species of special concern and include 2 fern and fern allies, 54 dicots and 44 monocots. This list is designated for the primary purposes of : 1) in environmental assessments, “flagging” of sensitive species that may be negatively affected by proposed actions; 2) determination of protection priorities of natural areas that contain such species; and 3) determination of priorities of inventory and protection for these plants, including the proposed listing of species for federal protection. GLOBAL STATE FEDERAL SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS BRYOPSIDA Callicladium haldanianum Callicladium Moss G5 SNR Leptobryum pyriforme Leptobryum Moss G5 SNR Rhodobryum roseum Rose Moss G5 S1? Trachyxiphium heteroicum Trachyxiphium Moss G2? S1? EQUISETOPSIDA Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail G5 S1S2 FILICOPSIDA Adiantum capillus-veneris Southern Maidenhair-fern G5 S2 Asplenium
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.
    [Show full text]
  • 4Th Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference
    Stephen F. Austin State University SFA ScholarWorks Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference SFA Gardens 2008 4th Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference David Creech Dept of Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State University, [email protected] Greg Grant Stephen F. Austin State University James Kroll Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State University, [email protected] Dawn Stover Stephen F. Austin State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/sfa_gardens_lonestar Part of the Agricultural Education Commons, Botany Commons, Forest Sciences Commons, Horticulture Commons, Other Plant Sciences Commons, and the Viticulture and Oenology Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Repository Citation Creech, David; Grant, Greg; Kroll, James; and Stover, Dawn, "4th Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference" (2008). Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference. 6. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/sfa_gardens_lonestar/6 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the SFA Gardens at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference by an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. • In 00 5' --. , In Associqtion with the cullowhee Nqtive plqnt Confetence Ptoceec!ings ofthe 4th Lone Stat Regional Native Plant Confetence Hoste~ by Stephen F. Austin St~te University Pineywoods N~tive PI~nt Centel' N~cogdoches, Texqs M~y 28-31,2008 Proceed ings ofthe 4th
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. [email protected] 1.800.427.0307
    Scientific Name Common Name Reg. C Habit Scientific Name Common Name Region C Habit Abildgaardia ovata RUSH,FLAT-SPIKE FAC+ PNGL Buchenavia capitata SANDERS,YELLOW FAC NT Acalypha bisetosa COPPER-LEAF,STREAMBANK FACW NS Buchnera longifolia BLUEHEARTS,ELONGATED OBL PNF Acalypha virginica MERCURY,THREE-SEEDED NI* ANF Bucida buceras WOOD,GREGORY FAC NT Acisanthera erecta OBL PNHF Bulbostylis capillaris HAIRSEDGE,DENSE-TUFT FAC APNGL Acnistus arborescens GALLINERO FAC- NST Bulbostylis juncoides HAIRSEDGE,RUSH FAC PNGL Acrostichum aureum LEATHER FERN,GOLDEN OBL PNF3 Burmannia biflora BURMANNIA,NORTHERN NI* AN-F Acrostichum danaeifolium FERN,INLAND LEATHER FACW+ PNF3 Burmannia capitata BURMANNIA,SOUTHERN OBL AN-F Actinostachys germanii FERN,RAY OBL F3 Cabomba piauhyensis FISH-GRASS OBL PNZ/F Adiantum capillus-veneris FERN,SOUTHERN MAIDEN-HAIR FACW+ PNF3 Caesalpinia bonduc NICKER,YELLOW FACU NSV Adiantum obliquum FERN,OBLIQUE MAIDEN-HAIR FAC- PNF3 Caesalpinia decapetala WAIT-A-BIT FACU ISV Adiantum pulverulentum FACU- PNF3 Caesalpinia major NICKER,GRAY NI* IVH Adiantum tenerum FERN,FAN MAIDEN-HAIR FACU- PNF3 Cakile lanceolata SEAROCKET,COASTAL UPL PNF Aeschynomene americana JOINT-VETCH,AMERICAN FAC PNF Calathea lutea PAMPANO FACW PNF Aeschynomene evenia JOINT-VETCH FAC PNF Callicarpa ampla CAPA-ROSA FACW NST Aeschynomene gracilis JOINT-VETCH FAC NH Callicarpa dichotoma BEAUTY-BERRY,PURPLE NI* IS Aeschynomene sensitiva JOINT-VETCH,SENSITIVE OBL NHS Calyptronoma rivalis MANAC,PUERTO RICO OBL NT Agalinis fasciculata FALSE-FOXGLOVE,BEACH FACU ANF
    [Show full text]
  • A Monograph of the Burmanniaceae
    A monograph of the Burmanniaceae BY F.P. Jonker (Published December 5th 1938) CONTENTS. Page I. Introduction 1 II. General Part 4 History of the Family 4 Place of the Family in the System of Monocotyledons 4 Subdivision of the 7 Family . Geographical Distribution 10 Habitat and Plant-Community 12 Use 14 III. Critical Part 15 Tribus I, Burmannieae 17 Subtribus 1, Euburmannieae 17 1. Campylosiphon Benth 17 2. Hexapterella Urb 17 3. Burmannia L 18 Taxonomy 18 Sect. 1, Foliosa Jonk 20 Sect. 2, Euburmannia Malme 21 Geography 25 Subtribus 2, Apterieae 26 4. Cymbocarpa Miers 26 5. Gymnosiphon B1 27 Limits of the Genus 27 Taxonomy 30 Sect. I, Eugymnosiphon Urb 30 Sect. II, Ptychomeria (Benth.) Urb 31 Subsect, 1, Inappendiculati Jonk 32 Subsect. 2, Appendiculati Jonk 32 PAGE 6. Apteria Nutt 35 Taxonomy 35 Geography 36 7. Marthella Urb 36 8. Dictyostega Miers 38 Taxonomy 38 Geography 38 9. Miersiella Urb 40 Tribus II, Thismieae 41 Subtribus 1, Euthismieae 41 10. Afrothismia Schltr 41 11. Triscyphus Taub 42 12. Glaziocharis Taub 42 13. Thismia Griff 42 14. Geomitra Becc 46 15. Scaphiophora Schltr 46 Subtribus 2, Oxygyneae 47 16. Oxygyne Schltr 47 IV. Taxonomical Part. 49 Burmanniaceae 51 Key to the tribes 52 Tribus I, Burmannieae Miers 52 Subtribus 1, Euburmannieae Benth. et Hook 53 1. Campylosiphon Benth 53 2. Hexapterella Urb 55 3. Burmannia L 57 Sect. I, Foliosa Jonk 58 Sect. II, Euburmannia Malme 67 Subtribus 2, Apterieae Miers 164 4. Cymbocarpa Miers 165 5. Gymnosiphon B1 168 Sect. I, Eugymnosiphon Urb 169 Sect. II, Ptychomeria (Benth.) Urb 177 Subsect.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ACORACEAE
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ACORACEAE ACORACEAE Martinov 1820 (Calamus Family) The family consists only of Acorus. References: Thompson in FNA (2000); Bogner & Mayo in Kubitzki (1998b). Acorus Linnaeus 1753 (Calamus, Sweetflag) A genus of 2-4 species, widespread in north temperate and subtropical regions. Although traditionally treated as part of the Araceae, recent evidence strongly suggests that Acorus should be segregated in a separate family. A wide variety of morphological, anatomical, and embryological evidence supports the segregation of the Acoraceae (Grayum 1987), a segregation additionally supported by molecular studies (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993). The spathe in Acorus is not morphologically equivalent to the spathe of the Araceae. References: Thompson in FNA (2000); Grayum 1987. 1 Midvein of the leaves not well-developed, about equally as prominent as the lateral veins; mature fruits produced . ..................................................................................... A. americanus 1 Midvein of the leaves well-developed, distinctly more prominent than the lateral veins; mature fruits not produced A. calamus Acorus americanus (Rafinesque) Rafinesque, American Calamus, Sweetflag. Cp (GA?, VA), Mt (GA): marshes, wet meadows, other wet areas, limey seeps; rare (GA Special Concern). May-June. Widespread in ne. North America. This species is apparently a fertile diploid. Because this species has not generally been recognized in floras, its distribution is poorly known; additional distributional records should be expected and sought. [= FNA, K; A. calamus Linnaeus -- RAB, C, F, G, GW, in part; A. americanus -- W, in part] * Acorus calamus Linnaeus, European Calamus, Sweetflag. Cp, Pd, Mt (NC, SC, VA): marshes, wet meadows, other wet areas; uncommon, introduced from Eurasia, now widespread in e.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive and Conservation Plant Species Winn Range
    Botanical Report for Herbicide Release for Longleaf Pine Plantations 2013: Sensitive and Conservation Plant Species Winn Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest Southern Region USDA Forest Service Proposed Actions: Herbicide release on 535 acres in 17 separate stands of young longleaf pine trees. Contact Person: David Moore Forest Botanist, Kisatchie National Forest 2500 Shreveport Highway Pineville, LA (318) 473-7016 [email protected] Abstract. The Winn RD is proposing an herbicide release project in 17 longleaf pine plantations encompassing 535 acres. The herbicides proposed for use are triclopyr, imazapyr, and glyphosate. The herbicides will be applied as per label instructions, and by following Forest Service regulations and guidelines. This treatment should kill the competing understory and release the newly-planted longleaf pine trees. This action will also prevent further or future damage to trees after applications have been completed. Surveys were conducted by Moore on September 20, September 21, October 17, October 19, 2012, Nov. 8, 2012, Dec. 6, 2012 and Dec. 12, 2012. No sensitive or conservation plant species were found. No significant populations of non-native invasive species (NNIS) were found. It is expected that none of the 81 sensitive or conservation plant species on the Kisatchie National Forest will occur in the project area, and no trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability is expected to result from the proposed actions. Introduction and Proposed Management Actions This botanical report considers the effects of herbicide release in 17 longleaf pine plantations on the Winn Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana. Sensitive Plant Species are identified on the USFS Region 8 Intranet, at http://fsweb.r8.fs.fed.us/nr/fwr/PETS_FSWeb/ref/fs/080701_rfss_fsweb.xls.
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Composition of the South-Central Florida Dry Prairie Landscape Steve L
    Floristic Composition of the South-Central Florida Dry Prairie Landscape Steve L. Orzell Avon Park Air Force Range, 29 South Blvd., Avon Park Air Force Range, FL 33825-5700 [email protected] Edwin L. Bridges Botanical and Ecological Consultant, 7752 Holly Tree Place NW, Bremerton, WA 98312-1063 [email protected] ABSTRACT Floristic composition of the Florida dry prairie landscape was compiled from 291 sites in nine south-central peninsular counties. Floristic lists were based upon field inventory and compilation from reliable sources to- taling 11,250 site and community type-specific observations and were analyzed by region (Kissimmee River, Desoto/Glades “Big Prairie,” and Myakka). The known vascular flora consists of 658 vascular plant taxa, rep- resenting 317 genera and 115 families. Families with the highest number of species are Poaceae (103), Asteraceae (78), Cyperaceae (76), Fabaceae (23), Scrophulariaceae (20), and Orchidaceae (18). The most diverse genera are Rhynchospora (29), Dichanthelium (17), Ludwigia (13), Xyris (12), and Andropogon (11). Of this flora 24 taxa are endemic to central or southern peninsular Florida, primarily within the pine savanna- flatwood/dry prairie landscape, and 41 taxa are of Floridian biotic affinity. Although most species are not re- gionally specific, a few (Carphephorus carnosus, Ctenium aromaticum, and Liatris spicata) appear to be ab- sent from the Myakka prairie region, while Marshallia tenuifolia appears to be absent from both the Desoto/ Glades and Myakka prairie regions. Within the dry prairie landscape Hypericum edisonianum is restricted to the Desoto/Glades region. A few other species somewhat differentiate between prairie regions; however, most occur in other habitats in the counties where they are absent or nearly absent from dry prairie.
    [Show full text]