DOCSLIB.ORG

Plant Species of Horticultural Concern

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Jan 2021 LNAGSL Workshop: MoIP “Cease the Sale” Plant Species of Horticultural Concern facebook.com/LNAGSL 1328 Forest Avenue Kirkwood, MO 63122 The Missouri Invasive Plant (MoIP) Task Force has identified 142 invasive plant species which they are requesting input on from 90 stakeholders as of December 2020. LNAGSL has been invited as one of those stakeholders to provide input on this list representing landscaping services, and production and retail horticulture. LNAGSL is planning to hold a virtual workshop on Monday, January 18th for all member input on the plant species on the MoIP list. Current members will be allowed to provide input on any of the 142 included plant species on the list. However, not all 142 plant species are particularly relevant to the horticulture industry. Thus, in order to save time and make this process more efficient, the LNAGSL Committee on the Cease the Sale Workshop has gone through the MoIP list of 142 plant species and identified the plants which are most relevant to our industry. We will be asking for member input on the most relevant species first, and then allowing input on any of the less relevant species following that discussion. The following document divides the list into the Most Relevant and Less Relevant plants on the MoIP list in alphabetical order: Most Relevant These plants are either currently commonly available in the horticultural industry and/or can be found on availability lists from production or retail businesses in the Greater St. Louis region. Scientific Name Common Name 1. Acer tataricum subsp. ginnala Amur Maple 2. Acer platanoides Norway Maple 3. Akebia quinata Chocolate Vine 4. Albizia julibrissin Mimosa; aka Silktree 5. Arundo donax Giant Reed 6. Belamcanda chinensis Blackberry Lily 7. Berberis thunbergii Japanese Barberry 8. Butomus umbellatus Flowering Rush 9. Castanea mollissima Chinese Chestnut 10. Cenchrus purpureus (AKA Pennisetum purpureum) Fountain Grass 11. Clematis terniflora Sweet Autumn Clematis 12. Eichhornia crassipes Water Hyacinth 13. Euonymus alatus Burning Bush 14. Euonymus fortunei Climbing Euonymus 15. Festuca arundinacea Tall Fescue 16. Frangula alnus AKA Rhamnus frangula Glossy Buckthorn (‘Fine Line’ is a cultivar of this species) 17. Glechoma hederacea Ground Ivy, Creeping Charlie 18. Hedera helix English Ivy 19. Hemerocallis fulva Orange Daylily 20. Imperata cylindrical Cogongrass 21. Iris pseudacorus Yellow Flag Iris 22. Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Rain Tree 23. Lespedeza thunbergii Thunberg’s Bushclover 24. Ligustrum amurense Amur Privet 25. Ligustrum japonicum Japanese Privet 26. Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet 27. Ligustrum ovalifolium California Privet 28. Ligustrum vulgare European Privet 29. Lonicera xylosteum Dwarf Honeysuckle 30. Lysimachia nummularia Creeping Jenny 31. Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife 32. Lythrum virgatum European Wand Loosestrife 33. Miscanthus sinensis Japanese Plume Grass 34. Miscanthus x giganteus Giant Miscanthus 35. Morus alba White Mulberry 36. Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrotfeather 37. Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian Watermilfoil 38. Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo 39. Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass 40. Phellodendron amurense Amur Corktree 41. Phyllostachys aurea Golden Bamboo 42. Pyrus calleryana Callery Pear 43. Quercus acutissima Sawtooth Oak 44. Rhodotypos scandens Jetbead 45. Saccharum ravennae Ravennagrass/Hardy Pampas Grass 46. Ulmus parvifolia Lacebark Elm/Chinese Elm 47. Viburnum opulus European Cranberry Bush 48. Vinca minor Common Periwinkle 49. Wisteria floribunda Japanese Wisteria 50. Wisteria sinensis Chinese Wisteria 51. Zelkova serrata Japanese Zelkova Less Relevant These plants have either never been important to the horticultural industry or are no longer important (or available) and/or are possibly already recognized as invasive by our industry. Scientific Name Common Name 1. Achyranthes japonica Japanese Chaff Flower 2. Acroptilon repens Hardheads (aka Russian Knapweed) 3. Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven 4. Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard 5. Alternanthera sessilis Sessile Joyweed 6. Ampelopsis brevipedunculata Porcelain Berry 7. Aralia elata Japanese Angelica Tree 8. Arctium minus Burdock 9. Bothriochloa bladhii Caucasian Bluestem 10. Bothriochloa ischaemum Yellow Bluestem 11. Bromus inermis Smooth Brome 12. Bromus sterilis Bromegrass 13. Bromus tectorum Cheat Grass 14. Broussonetia papyrifera Paper Mulberry 15. Cardamine impatiens Narrowleaf Bittercress 16. Carduus nutans Musk Thistle 17. Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental Bittersweet 18. Centaurea solstitialis Yellow Star Thistle 19. Centaurea stoebe subsp. micranthos Spotted Knapweed 20. Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle 21. Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle 22. Conium maculatum Poison Hemlock 23. Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed 24. Cynanchum louiseae Black Swallow-Wort 25. Cynanchum rossicum European Swallow-Wort 26. Dioscorea polystachya Air Potato 27. Dipsacus fullonum Common Teasel 28. Dipsacus laciniatus Cut-Leaf Teasel 29. Echium vulgare Common Viper’s Bugloss 30. Egeria densa Brazilia Waterweed 31. Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian Olive 32. Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn Olive 33. Eragrostis curvula Weeping Lovegrass 34. Euphorbia esula Leafy Spurge 35. Fallopia japonica Japanese Knotweed 36. Galega officinalis Goatsrue 37. Heracleum mantegazzianum Giant Hogweed 38. Hesperis matronalis Dame’s Rocket 39. Humulus japonicas Japanese Hops 40. Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla 41. Hypericum perforatum St. John’s Wort 42. Kummerowia stipulacea Korean Clover 43. Kummerowia striata Japanese Clover 44. Landoltia punctata Dotted Duckweed 45. Lepidium latifolium Pepperweed 46. Lespedeza bicolor Bicolor Lespedeza 47. Lespedeza cuneata Sericea Lespedeza 48. Ligustrum lucidum Glossy Privet 49. Ligustrum obtusifolium Border Privet 50. Ligustrum quihoui Waxyleaf Privet 51. Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle 52. Lonicera fragrantissima Sweet Breath of Spring 53. Lonicera maackii Amur Honeysuckle 54. Lonicera morrowii Morrow’s Honeysuckle 55. Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Bush Honeysuckle 56. Lonicera x bella Bell’s Honeysuckle 57. Lotus corniculatus Birdsfoot Trefoil 58. Melilotus albus White Sweet Clover 59. Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweet Clover 60. Microstegium vimineum Japanese Stiltgrass 61. Najas minor Brittle Naiad 62. Onopordum acanthium Scotch Thistle 63. Ornithogalum umbellatum Star of Bethlehem 64. Pastinaca sativa Parsnip 65. Paulownia tomentosa Princess Tree 66. Perilla frutescens Beefsteak Plant 67. Persicaria perfoliata Mile-A-Minute Weed 68. Phragmites australis Common Reed 69. Populus alba White Poplar 70. Potamogeton crispus Curly Leaf Pondweed 71. Prunus mahaleb Mahaleb Cherry 72. Pueraria montana var. lobata Kudzu 73. Ranunculus ficaria Lesser Celandine 74. Rhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn 75. Rhamnus davurica Dahurian Buckthorn 76. Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose 77. Rottboellia cochinchinensis Itchgrass 78. Rubus armeniacus Himalayan Blackberry 79. Rubus phoenicolasius Wine Raspberry 80. Scabiosa atropurpurea Pincushion Flower 81. Securigera varia Crown Vetch 82. Sesbania herbacea Hemp Sesbania 83. Sesbania vesicaria Bagpod 84. Solanum viarum Tropical Soda Apple 85. Sonchus arvensis Field Sowthistle 86. Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass 87. Sparganium erectum Simplestem Bur-Reed 88. Tamarix chinensis Saltcedar 89. Tanacetum vulgare Common Tansy 90. Ulmus pumila Siberian Elm 91. Vicia villosa Winter Vetch .
Recommended publications
  • Herbicides for Management of Waterhyacinth in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California

    Herbicides for Management of Waterhyacinth in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California

    J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 58: 98–104 Herbicides for management of waterhyacinth in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California JOHN D. MADSEN AND GUY B. KYSER* ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.)Solms)isa Waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) is a free- global aquatic weed. Although a number of herbicides floating, rosette-forming aquatic plant originally from such as 2,4-D and glyphosate effectively control this plant, South America (Pfingsten et al. 2017). It has been rated as additional herbicides need to be evaluated to address the world’s worst aquatic weed (Holm et al. 1977) and one of concerns for herbicide stewardship and environmental the world’s worst 100 invasive alien species (Lowe et al. restrictions on the use of herbicides in particular areas. 2000). The Invasive Species Specialist Group reports that, as Waterhyacinth has become a significant nuisance in the of the year 2000, it was reported in 50 countries on 5 Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. The predominant continents (Lowe et al. 2000). Introduced to the United herbicides for management of waterhyacinth in the Delta States at the Cotton Centennial Exposition in New Orleans have been 2,4-D and glyphosate. However, environmental in 1884, it spread rapidly throughout the southeastern restrictions related to irrigation water residues and United States soon thereafter and was documented to cause restrictions for preservation of endangered species are widespread navigation issues within 15 yr (Klorer 1909, prompting consideration of the new reduced-risk herbi- Penfound and Earle 1948, Williams 1980). The U.S. cides imazamox and penoxsulam. Two trials were per- Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation formed in floating quadrats in the Delta during the Service (USDA-NRCS) (2017) currently reports it for 23 summer of 2016.
  • Effect of Water Hyacinth Leaves (Eichhornia Crassipes)

    Effect of Water Hyacinth Leaves (Eichhornia Crassipes)

    1 Plant Archives Vol. 19, Supplement 2, 2019 pp. 1833-1835 e-ISSN:2581-6063 (online), ISSN:0972-5210 EFFECT OF WATER HYACINTH LEAVES ( EICHHORNIA CRASSIPES ) SUBSTITUTION WITH MAIZE ON SOME GROWTH PARAMETERS OF COMMON CARP (CYPRINUS CARPIO ) Eesa Jasim Mohammed Al-Gburi 1* and Saeed Abdualsada Al-Shawi 2 1Ministry of Agriculture/ Office of Planning & Follow-up, Iraq 2Department of Animal Production, College of Agriculture Engineering Sciences, University of Baghdad, Iraq *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract This study was conducted to Knowing the effect of using dried Water hyacinth leaves instead of maize in the feeding of common carp Cyprinus carpio L. 60 fish with an average weight of 27 ± 1 g/fish were randomly distributed on six replicates. Five similar proteins were produced with protein content and different levels of use of Water hyacinth leaf powder (5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%). treatments (T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6) respectively, as well as T1 control, which is free of Water hyacinth leaf powder, Fish were fed on experimental treatments by 3% of their weight. The experiment lasted for 90 days. Growth parameters were used to evaluated ration effect on fish performance as weight gain, Relative growth rate, Specific growth rate, Food conversion ratio and Food conversion efficiency. The results showed that the best experimental diets was T4 which gave the higher levels for most studied parameters . There were significant differences (p ≥ 0.01) between it and T1 control treatment on most studied parameters. The fish were fed diet of T4 gave higher rate of weight gain (32.72 ± 0.07 ) gm/fish, and the lowest weight gain for fish of T6 ( 18.30 ± 0.10) g / fish , T4 was the highest relative growth rate (104.72 ± 0.07)% and did not differ significantly from what was recorded by the rest treatments.
  • P) Acquisition of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes

    P) Acquisition of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes

    Aquatic Botany 75 (2003) 311–321 The significance of lateral roots in phosphorus (P) acquisition of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Yonghong Xie, Dan Yu∗ Institute of Ecology, School of Life Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, PR China Received 26 March 2002; received in revised form 18 October 2002; accepted 9 December 2002 Abstract The morphology of lateral root and plant growth in relation to phosphorus (P) acquisition of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) were examined in lakes with different nutrient levels and in mesocosm tanks with two levels of P supply (4.8 and 0.6 g m−2 per year). Lateral root was 2.43 times longer and 1.97 times denser at low-P than at high-P treatments, while the diameter decreased by 20% when the P application rate was lowered from 4.8 to 0.6 g m−2 per year. Specific root length (SRL) and specific root area (SRA) of water hyacinth were significantly higher and plant allocated more biomass to lateral root when grown in low-P environments. Although only accounting for 85.35% of total root biomass in condition with low-P availability, lateral roots constituted 99.8% of total root surface area. In natural habitats, plant displayed the same tendency as in experimental tanks. Biomass increased during the experimental period and plant P concentration declined with time under either high- or low-P conditions, the total plant P, however, remained constant at low-P treatment (P>0.05). These results indicate that the variation in lateral roots of water hyacinth can be considerable and the plant can satisfy P requirements for growth by redistribution of internal P source and increase of P absorption capability in low-P waters.
  • GREAT PLAINS REGION - NWPL 2016 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant Species Not Listed Are Considered UPL for Wetland Delineation Purposes

    GREAT PLAINS REGION - NWPL 2016 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant Species Not Listed Are Considered UPL for Wetland Delineation Purposes

    GREAT PLAINS REGION - NWPL 2016 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps region.
  • Update from the IFAS Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Florida's

    Update from the IFAS Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Florida's

    IFAS Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas Nandina domestica (heavenly bamboo) Deah Lieurance, Aimee Cooper, & S. Luke Flory CAIS/IFAS & Agronomy Department University of Florida, Gainesville @IFASassessment http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/assessment/ • ~85% of all non-native plants enter through Florida • 1300 non-native species established in Florida /124 currently found in state parks • Significant impacts to recreation/expensive to manage • Cost >$34 million/year to control on public land (2004-05) Lygodium microphyllum Melaleuca quinquenervia Eichhornia crassipes What is The Assessment? • Tools to assess the status of species currently present in the state – Reduce cost & increase efficiency of management efforts • Protocol to predict the potential invasiveness of species proposed for release – Preemptively stop future invasions Outline • History & purpose of the Assessment • 3 tools – Status assessment – Predictive tool – Infraspecific taxon protocol • New species additions • Reassessments • The website History & Purpose • Developed in 1999 • UF/IFAS Invasive Plants Working Group • Descriptions & recommendations for use & management • 2008 Predictive Tool & Infraspecific Taxon Protocol Status Assessment • Evaluates species already in Florida • 3 Zones • Describe the status of the species – Ecological impacts – Potential for expanded distribution in Florida – Management difficulty – Economic value • Incorporates field data from experts Status Assessment Possible Results 1. Not considered a problem species at this time
  • Genomic and Breeding Resources to Produce Seeded and High Biomass Interspecific Hybrids of Napiergrass and Pearl Millet

    Genomic and Breeding Resources to Produce Seeded and High Biomass Interspecific Hybrids of Napiergrass and Pearl Millet

    GENOMIC AND BREEDING RESOURCES TO PRODUCE SEEDED AND HIGH BIOMASS INTERSPECIFIC HYBRIDS OF NAPIERGRASS AND PEARL MILLET By DEV RAJ PAUDEL A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2018 © 2018 Dev Raj Paudel To my late Mom ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to the members of my advisory committee: Dr. Fredy Altpeter, Dr. Jianping Wang, Dr. Patricio Munoz, Dr. Calvin Odero, and Dr. Salvador Gezan, who have guided, supported, and encouraged me throughout the course of my research project. Sincere thanks to my research advisor Dr. Fredy Altpeter for allowing me to join his group and pursue the work described here. Thank you for all the support, guidance, and mentorship that you have provided during my graduate studies. I am truly inspired by your professionalism and leadership role. I am particularly indebted to my co-advisor Dr. Jianping Wang who provided me with space in her lab to do my experiments and provided me with opportunities to develop skills in molecular and computational biology. Your mentorship has been an invaluable gift over the past couple of years. One day, I hope to inspire others as you've inspired me. I would like to gratefully acknowledge the University of Florida Graduate School Fellowship for funding the first four years of my PhD. I am thankful to the Graduate School Doctoral Dissertation Award for funding my final semester. I am grateful to the Florida Plant Breeders Working Group for providing funds for this research.
  • A. Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey

    A. Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey

    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANAHOLA SOLAR PROJECT APPENDIX A A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY PAGE A-1 T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc. 735 Bishop St., Suite 315, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Archaeological Inventory Survey with Backhoe Trenching near Anahola∗ Kamalomalo‘o Ahupua‘a, Puna District, Kaua‘i Island TMK: (4) 4–7–004:002 Carl E. Sholin Thomas S. Dye February 14, 2013 Abstract At the request of Planning Solutions, Inc., T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists conducted an archaeological inventory survey for a 60 ac. portion of TMK: (4) 4– 7–004:002, located near Anahola, in Kamalomalo‘o Ahupua‘a, Puna District, Kaua‘i Island. The Kaua‘i Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) proposes to install a photovoltaic facility, substation, and service center at this location. The inventory survey was undertaken in support of KIUC’s request for financial assistance from the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The area of potential effect (APE) includes includes the area of the proposed photovoltaic facility, and a substation, service center, access roads, and storage yards. Background research indicated that the APE had been a sugarcane field for many years. The archaeological inventory survey consisted of the excavation and sampling of ten test trenches throughout the APE. Four stratigraphic layers were identified during the inventory survey: two were determined to be related to historic-era agriculture, and two were determined to be deposits of natural terrestrial sediments that developed in situ. No traditional Hawaiian cultural materials were identified during the inventory survey; however, features from use of the area as a sugarcane field, including two historic-era raised agricultural ditches, were identified within the APE.
  • Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes (Mart.) Solms)

    Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes (Mart.) Solms)

    Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) Gray Turnage, M.S., Research Associate III, Mississippi State University Problems: Forms dense mats of floating vegetation (Figure 1) that inhibit growth of native plant species and reduce the water quality of habitat utilized by aquatic fauna. Mats can also inhibit recreational uses of waterbodies, commercial navigation, hydro power generation, clog irrigation pumps, and worsen flood events. Water hyacinth is often called “the world’s worst aquatic weed” due to its presence on every continent (except Antarctica) and its rapid growth rate. Regulations: None in MS. Description: Water hyacinth a free-floating, perennial plant that is often confused with the native American frogbit. The primary characteristic used to distinguish hyacinth from frogbit is the presence of a ‘bulbous’ structure at the base of the hyacinth leaves. Hyacinth can grow to approximately a meter in height (referred to as ‘bull hyacinth’ at this stage) and produces large, showy, purple flowers throughout the growing season (Figure 1). Dispersal: A popular water-gardening plant, water hyacinth is native to South America but has been found throughout many states in the U.S. and is very common in MS (Figure 2; Turnage and Shoemaker 2018; Turnage et al. 2019). Water hyacinth primarily spreads through daughter plants and seeds (Figure 2). Each rosette is capable of producing multiple daughter plants per growing season. In optimal growing conditions, water hyacinth can double in biomass in 5-6 days. Control Strategies: Physical-summer drawdown may control water hyacinth but will likely cause negative impacts to fish populations. Mechanical-hand removal of small patches and individual rosettes may be effective; mechanical mowers can provide short term relief but usually cause further spread through plant fragmentation.
  • HAWAII and SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS REGION - 2016 NWPL FINAL RATINGS U.S

    HAWAII and SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS REGION - 2016 NWPL FINAL RATINGS U.S

    HAWAII and SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS REGION - 2016 NWPL FINAL RATINGS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY (CRREL) - 2013 Ratings Lichvar, R.W. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps region. Scientific Name Common Name Hawaii Status South Pacific Agrostis canina FACU Velvet Bent Islands Status Agrostis capillaris UPL Colonial Bent Abelmoschus moschatus FAC Musk Okra Agrostis exarata FACW Spiked Bent Abildgaardia ovata FACW Flat-Spike Sedge Agrostis hyemalis FAC Winter Bent Abrus precatorius FAC UPL Rosary-Pea Agrostis sandwicensis FACU Hawaii Bent Abutilon auritum FACU Asian Agrostis stolonifera FACU Spreading Bent Indian-Mallow Ailanthus altissima FACU Tree-of-Heaven Abutilon indicum FAC FACU Monkeybush Aira caryophyllea FACU Common Acacia confusa FACU Small Philippine Silver-Hair Grass Wattle Albizia lebbeck FACU Woman's-Tongue Acaena exigua OBL Liliwai Aleurites moluccanus FACU Indian-Walnut Acalypha amentacea FACU Alocasia cucullata FACU Chinese Taro Match-Me-If-You-Can Alocasia macrorrhizos FAC Giant Taro Acalypha poiretii UPL Poiret's Alpinia purpurata FACU Red-Ginger Copperleaf Alpinia zerumbet FACU Shellplant Acanthocereus tetragonus UPL Triangle Cactus Alternanthera ficoidea FACU Sanguinaria Achillea millefolium UPL Common Yarrow Alternanthera sessilis FAC FACW Sessile Joyweed Achyranthes
  • American Memorial Park

    American Memorial Park

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment American Memorial Park Natural Resource Report NPS/AMME/NRR—2019/1976 ON THIS PAGE A traditional sailing vessel docks in American Memorial Park’s Smiling Cove Marina Photograph by Maria Kottermair 2016 ON THE COVER American Memorial Park Shoreline and the Saipan Lagoon, looking north to Mañagaha Island. Photograph by Robbie Greene 2013 Natural Resource Condition Assessment American Memorial Park Natural Resource Report NPS/AMME/NRR—2019/1976 Robbie Greene1, Rebecca Skeele Jordan1, Janelle Chojnacki1, Terry J. Donaldson2 1 Pacific Coastal Research and Planning Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands 96950 USA 2 University of Guam Marine Laboratory UOG Station, Mangilao, Guam 96923 USA August 2019 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations.
  • Community Structure of Migratory Waterbirds at Two Important Wintering Sites in a Sub-Himalayan Forest Tract in West Bengal, India

    Community Structure of Migratory Waterbirds at Two Important Wintering Sites in a Sub-Himalayan Forest Tract in West Bengal, India

    THE RING 42 (2020) 10.2478/ring-2020-0002 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OF MIGRATORY WATERBIRDS AT TWO IMPORTANT WINTERING SITES IN A SUB-HIMALAYAN FOREST TRACT IN WEST BENGAL, INDIA Asitava Chatterjee1, Shuvadip Adhikari2, Sudin Pal*2, Subhra Kumar Mukhopadhyay2 ABSTRACT Chatterjee A., Adhikari S., Pal S. Mukhopadhyay S. K. 2020. Community structure of migratory waterbirds in two important wintering sites at sub-Himalayan forest tract in West Bengal, India. Ring 42: 15-–37 The waterbird community structures of two sub-Himalayan wetlands (Nararthali and Rasomati) situated in forested areas were compared during the wintering period. These wetlands had similar geophysical features but were subject to different conservation efforts. Sixty species of waterbirds, including four globally threatened species, were recorded during the study. Nararthali was found to be more densely inhabited (116.05±22.69 ind./ha) by birds than Rasomati (76.55±26.47 ind./ha). Density increased by 44.6% at Nararthali and by 59% at Rasomati over the years of the study, from 2008 to 2015. Winter visitors increased considerably at Nararthali (66.2%), while a 71.1% decrease at Rasomati clearly indicated degradation of habitat quality at that site during the later years. Luxuriant growth of Eichhornia crassipes, siltation, poor maintenance and unregulated tourist activities were the key factors leading to the rapid degradation of Rasomati. Nararthali, on the other hand, a well-managed wetland habitat, showed an increasing trend in bird densities. Therefore, poor habitat management and rapid habitat alterations were observed to be the main reasons for depletion of bird density in the wetlands of eastern sub-Himalayan forest regions.
  • Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis from Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes)

    Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis from Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes)

    KMITL Sci. Tech. J. Vol. 14 No. 2 Jul. - Dec. 2014 Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis from Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Atcharaporn Jongmeesuk1*, Vorapat Sanguanchaipaiwong 2 and Duangjai Ochaikul 1, 2 1 Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand 2Bioenergy Research Unit, Faculty of Science, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand Abstract Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) is a noxious aquatic weed which grows fast and is a lignocellulosic material containing cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. It can be utilized to produce reducing sugar for bioethanol production. This research studied a production of reducing sugar from water hyacinth using physical combined with chemical method. The water hyacinth was milled and dried at 105 °C for 5-6 h, then pretreated with acid (sulfuric acid 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 % v/v) and alkali (sodium hydroxide 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 % w/v). After heating in an autoclave at 121°C for 15 min, it was found that using 2.0 % v/v sulfuric acid and 2.0 % w/v sodium hydroxide providing the highest reducing sugar of 15.63 and 2.35 g/L, respectively. Therefore, the sulfuric acid concentration of 2.0 % v/v was the most suitable concentration for pretreated water hyacinth. In addition, enzyme loading and time were studied for the optimization of reducing sugar production. The water hyacinth hydrolysate (sludge) was hydrolyzed with ACCELLERASE1500. The result showed that ACCELLERASE1500 loading at 0.30 ml/g water hyacinth and incubated at 50°C for 48 h produced reducing sugar of 11.95 g/L.