DOCSLIB.ORG

Threats to Australia's Grazing Industries by Garden

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Threats to Australia's Grazing Industries by Garden final report Project Code: NBP.357 Prepared by: Jenny Barker, Rod Randall,Tony Grice Co-operative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management Date published: May 2006 ISBN: 1 74036 781 2 PUBLISHED BY Meat and Livestock Australia Limited Locked Bag 991 NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2059 Weeds of the future? Threats to Australia’s grazing industries by garden plants Meat & Livestock Australia acknowledges the matching funds provided by the Australian Government to support the research and development detailed in this publication. This publication is published by Meat & Livestock Australia Limited ABN 39 081 678 364 (MLA). Care is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication. However MLA cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information or opinions contained in the publication. You should make your own enquiries before making decisions concerning your interests. Reproduction in whole or in part of this publication is prohibited without prior written consent of MLA. Weeds of the future? Threats to Australia’s grazing industries by garden plants Abstract This report identifies 281 introduced garden plants and 800 lower priority species that present a significant risk to Australia’s grazing industries should they naturalise. Of the 281 species: • Nearly all have been recorded overseas as agricultural or environmental weeds (or both); • More than one tenth (11%) have been recorded as noxious weeds overseas; • At least one third (33%) are toxic and may harm or even kill livestock; • Almost all have been commercially available in Australia in the last 20 years; • Over two thirds (70%) were still available from Australian nurseries in 2004; • Over two thirds (72%) are not currently recognised as weeds under either State or Commonwealth legislation. Collectively, these species have the potential to establish as weeds across Australia, affecting all major sectors of the grazing industry. Recommendations recognises that Meat and Livestock Australia can play an important role in increasing awareness of weed risks and costs through the education of graziers and the wider public; by lobbying the state/territory and federal governments to tighten legislation relating to the importation, sale and movement of weed species; and in promoting, and appropriately responding to, weed risk assessments of plants already in Australian gardens. Page 2 of 137 Weeds of the future? Threats to Australia’s grazing industries by garden plants Executive Summary This report has been produced by the CRC for Australian Weed Management. It extends an earlier publication (Grice 2003) which reported on naturalised plant species that present existing and emerging weed threats to Australia’s grazing industries. The research is underpinned by the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food’s “Plant Database” (Randall 2006). The database collates information from c. 1.5 million species-related records drawn from over 3000 publications and presently treats approximately 576,000 plant taxa. Used in conjunction with regional climate zones and by extrapolating from overseas weed experiences, the database provides a unique opportunity to identify weeds currently present in Australian gardens that may threaten Australia’s agricultural industries or natural environment in the future. The research focuses on plants that are currently available in Australian nurseries because most of Australia’s naturalised flora has been introduced for ornamental purposes (Groves, Boden & Lonsdale 2005: 18, Spencer 2005: 8; Anonymous 2005: 3; Virtue, Bennet & Randall 2004). These plants also present the most immediate threat compared to species outside Australia and being in commercial trade enjoy a level of dispersal well beyond that of natural means. The report identifies 281 introduced garden plants (Appendix 1) – as well as 800 lesser priority species (Appendix 2) – which present a significant risk to Australia’s grazing industries should they escape from Australian gardens and naturalise. The research evaluates these risks as a precursor to formal weed risk assessment. Of the 281 species: • Nearly all have been recorded overseas as agricultural or environmental weeds (or both); • More than one tenth (11%) have been recorded as noxious1 weeds overseas; • At least one third (33%) are toxic and may harm or even kill livestock; • Almost all have been commercially available in Australia in the last 20 years; • Over two thirds (70%) were still available from Australian nurseries in 2004; • Over two thirds (72%) are not currently recognised as weeds under either State or Commonwealth legislation. Whilst studies of predicted economic impact have not been conducted, previous research (Centre for International Economics 2001: 24, 26) has predicted that infestations of just two of the 281 species – Nassella tenuissima (Trin.) Barkworth and Onopordum nervosum Boiss. – could cost Australia up to A$82m over the next 40-60 years. 1 This term is usually used for a plant that has been banned by legislation in recognition of the significant threat it presents to a country’s economy or environment (Spencer 2005: 12). Page 3 of 137 Weeds of the future? Threats to Australia’s grazing industries by garden plants Case studies are provided for 11 taxa representing a variety of vegetation types – herbs, trees, shrubs, vines and grasses: • Asclepias syriaca L. • Equisetum L. spp. • Festuca gautieri (Hackel) K. Richter • Hieracium L. spp. • Inula helenium L. • Lonicera L. spp. • Miscanthus floridulus (Labill.) Warb. ex K. Schum. & Lauterb. • Nassella tenuissima (Trin.) Barkworth • Onopordum nervosum Boiss. • Ornithogalum nutans L. • Tamarix gallica L. Maps of predicted Australia distribution indicate that, collectively, these species have the potential to establish as weeds across Australia, affecting the four major sectors of the grazing industries: beef, dairy, lamb and wool. Infestations of these 11 species alone have the potential to cost the grazing industries of Australia millions of dollars. Recommendations recognise the role that Meat and Livestock Australia can play in increasing awareness of weed risks and costs through the education of graziers and the wider public; by lobbying the state/territory and federal governments to tighten legislation relating to the importation, sale and movement of weed species; and in promoting (and appropriately responding to) weed risk assessments of plants already in Australian gardens. Foremost amongst the report’s recommendations are the formal weed risk assessment of the 1081 listed species and the subsequent withdrawal from sale and prohibition from importation into Australia of high-risk species. Page 4 of 137 Weeds of the future? Threats to Australia’s grazing industries by garden plants Contents Page 1 Background - Section......................................... 7 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 7 1.2 Context........................................................................................... 7 1.2.1 Five major areas of weed impact..................................................... 7 1.2.2 Three major reasons for plant introduction to Australia ................... 8 1.2.3 Three stages of weed development ................................................ 8 1.2.4 Three weed groups ......................................................................... 9 1.2.5 Australia’s grazing industries......................................................... 10 1.2.6 Invasive (Group 1) weeds.............................................................. 11 1.2.7 Emerging (Group 2) weeds ........................................................... 13 2 Project Objectives............................................. 15 3 Methodology - Section ..................................... 16 3.1 WA Department of Agriculture & Food’s “Plant Database”..... 16 3.2 Query Check commercial availability ........................................ 18 3.3 Collect relevant information....................................................... 18 3.4 Remove species less likely to establish in Australia ............... 18 4 Results and Discussion ................................... 19 4.1 281 garden plants that threaten grazing industries ................. 19 4.2 Analysis........................................................................................ 20 4.2.1 Family............................................................................................ 20 4.2.2 Growth form/longevity ................................................................... 21 4.2.3 Origin............................................................................................. 21 4.2.4 Weeds of the environment & agriculture ....................................... 22 4.2.5 Toxicity .......................................................................................... 23 4.2.6 Weed history ................................................................................. 23 4.2.7 Climatic suitability.......................................................................... 23 Page 5 of 137 Weeds of the future? Threats to Australia’s grazing industries by garden plants 4.2.8 Propagule pressure/plant availability from nurseries ..................... 23 4.2.9 Existing legislation on 281 species................................................ 29 4.3 11 case studies............................................................................ 34 4.3.1 Selection of the 11 profiled
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genetic Diversity of Aloe Species in Kenya and the Efficacy of Aloe Secundiflora, Aloe Lateritia and Aloe Turkanesis on Fusarium
    (icnetic diversity of Aloe species in Kenya and the efficacy of Aloe secundiflora, Aloe lateritia and Aloe turkanesis on Fusarium oxysporum and Pythium ultimum 1 A research thesis submitted for examination in partial fulfillment for the requirements for the award of Master of Science in Microbiology 156/68748/2011 SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES COLLEGE OF BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI December, 2015 University of N AIROBI Library DECLARATION I his thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in anj other University or any other institution of higher learning. Micheni C. Mugambi Da.e...2j..i .'.l2 ..:,.2 -O lS .......... I his thesis has been submitted with our approval as Supervisors. Dr. Maina Wagacha School of Biological Sciences Universiii_tt£-Nairobi Date .J.V l.& l. Dr. Nelson Amugune School of Biological Sciences University of Nairobi Sign..!!p^.^ff.. ........ Dr. Simon T. Gichuki Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) Sign.....C ^dLJ ..... Date....c£-£)t5 ii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my loving mum Elyjoy Muthoni Michcni and dad Isaac Micheni Nkari who have gone out of their way to support my education. I also dedicate this work to my brothers Maurice Murimi and Brian Muchiri Micheni who have been a constant source of encouragement. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am heavily indebted to my supervisors Dr. Maina Wagacha, Dr. Nelson Amugune and Dr.Simon Gichuki for their invaluable support, training, mentorship, and advice throughout this work. Without your support, this work would not have achieved anything significant. I would also like to thank Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Or Suitable Plants City of Mccall
    Native or Suitable Plants City of McCall The following list of plants is presented to assist the developer, business owner, or homeowner in selecting plants for landscaping. The list is by no means complete, but is a recommended selection of plants which are either native or have been successfully introduced to our area. Successful landscaping, however, requires much more than just the selection of plants. Unless you have some experience, it is suggested than you employ the services of a trained or otherwise experienced landscaper, arborist, or forester. For best results it is recommended that careful consideration be made in purchasing the plants from the local nurseries (i.e. Cascade, McCall, and New Meadows). Plants brought in from the Treasure Valley may not survive our local weather conditions, microsites, and higher elevations. Timing can also be a serious consideration as the plants may have already broken dormancy and can be damaged by our late frosts. Appendix B SELECTED IDAHO NATIVE PLANTS SUITABLE FOR VALLEY COUNTY GROWING CONDITIONS Trees & Shrubs Acer circinatum (Vine Maple). Shrub or small tree 15-20' tall, Pacific Northwest native. Bright scarlet-orange fall foliage. Excellent ornamental. Alnus incana (Mountain Alder). A large shrub, useful for mid to high elevation riparian plantings. Good plant for stream bank shelter and stabilization. Nitrogen fixing root system. Alnus sinuata (Sitka Alder). A shrub, 6-1 5' tall. Grows well on moist slopes or stream banks. Excellent shrub for erosion control and riparian restoration. Nitrogen fixing root system. Amelanchier alnifolia (Serviceberry). One of the earlier shrubs to blossom out in the spring.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Native Plants
    - AA GUIDEGUIDE TOTO THETHE NATIVENATIVE PLANTS,PLANTS, NATURALNATURAL PLANTPLANT COMMUNITIESCOMMUNITIES ANDAND THETHE EXOTICEXOTIC ANDAND INVASIVEINVASIVE SPECIESSPECIES OFOF EASTEAST HAMPTONHAMPTON TOWNTOWN EAST HAMPTON TOWN Natural Resources Department TableTable ofof Contents:Contents: Spotted Beebalm (Monarda punctata) Narrative: Pages 1-17 Quick Reference Max Clearing Table: Page 18 Map: East Hampton Native Plant Habitats Map TABS: East Hampton Plant Habitats (1-12); Wetlands flora (13-15): 1. Outer Dunes Plant Spacing 2. Bay Bluffs 3. Amagansett Inner Dunes (AID) 4. Tidal Marsh (TM) Table: A 5. Montauk Mesic Forest (MMF) 6. Montauk Moorland (MM) guideline for the 7. North of Moraine Coastal Deciduous (NMCD) 8. Morainal Deciduous (MD) 9. Pine Barrens or Pitch Pine Oak Forest (PB) (PPO) number of 10. Montauk Grasslands (MG) 11. Northwest Woods (NWW) plants needed 12. Old Fields 13. Freshwater Wetlands 14. Brackish Wetlands and Buffer for an area: 15. East Hampton Wetland Flora by Type Page 19 Native Plants-Resistance to Deer Damage: Pages 20-21 Local Native Plant Landscapers, Arborists, Native Plant Growers and Suppliers: Pages 22-23 Exotic and Invasive Species: Pages 24-33 Native Wildflower Pictures: Pages 34-45 Samdplain Gerardia (Agalinas acuta) Introduction to our native landscape What is a native plant? Native plants are plants that are indigenous to a particular area or region. In North America we are referring to the flora that existed in an area or region before European settlement. Native plants occur within specific plant communities that vary in species composition depending on the habitat in which they are found. A few examples of habitats are tidal wetlands, woodlands, meadows and dunelands.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Exotic Species List
    Exotic Species in Illinois Descriptions for these exotic species in Illinois will be added to the Web page as time allows for their development. A name followed by an asterisk (*) indicates that a description for that species can currently be found on the Web site. This list does not currently name all of the exotic species in the state, but it does show many of them. It will be updated regularly with additional information. Microbes viral hemorrhagic septicemia Novirhabdovirus sp. West Nile virus Flavivirus sp. Zika virus Flavivirus sp. Fungi oak wilt Ceratocystis fagacearum chestnut blight Cryphonectria parasitica Dutch elm disease Ophiostoma novo-ulmi and Ophiostoma ulmi late blight Phytophthora infestans white-nose syndrome Pseudogymnoascus destructans butternut canker Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum Plants okra Abelmoschus esculentus velvet-leaf Abutilon theophrastii Amur maple* Acer ginnala Norway maple Acer platanoides sycamore maple Acer pseudoplatanus common yarrow* Achillea millefolium Japanese chaff flower Achyranthes japonica Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens climbing fumitory Adlumia fungosa jointed goat grass Aegilops cylindrica goutweed Aegopodium podagraria horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum fool’s parsley Aethusa cynapium crested wheat grass Agropyron cristatum wheat grass Agropyron desertorum corn cockle Agrostemma githago Rhode Island bent grass Agrostis capillaris tree-of-heaven* Ailanthus altissima slender hairgrass Aira caryophyllaea Geneva bugleweed Ajuga genevensis carpet bugleweed* Ajuga reptans mimosa
    [Show full text]
  • Maranta Leuconeura • Usually Grows About 30Cm Tall • Easy to Grow Plant • Grown for Foliage • Selectively Prune Off Larger Leaves to Promote Air Flow
    Living Walls Indoor Plant List List of recommended plants for use on indoor living walls to assist designers and other specialists with plant choice T: +353 (0)1 627 5177 W: www.sapgroup.com E: [email protected] Indoor Plant List Achimenes Erecta • Trailing plant which grows 45cm long • Bright indirect light • Will flower during the summer months • Normal moisture Adiantum Raddianum • Maidenhair fern • Light shade or dappled sunlight • Moist soil • Grown for foliage Agapanthus • Use dwarf varieties such as Snowball or Baby Pete • Evergreen • Summer flowering • Flowering height 30cm Aglaonema • Thrives in poor light areas • Grown for its foliage • Slow growing • Popular varieties include ‘Silver Queen’ and ‘Silver King’ +353 (0)1 627 5177 www.sapgroup.com [email protected] 1 Indoor Plant List Alocasia Reginula • Bright indirect light • Will rot from base if over wet • Will grow 30cm • May suffer from mealybug and aphids • Toxic if eaten Alocasia Sanderiana • Bright indirect light • Leaves will grow 40cm long • Grown for foliage • May suffer from mealybug and aphids • Toxic if eaten Anthurium Clarinervium • Grown for foliage which can grow 60cm (prune larger leaves) • Bright light but not direct for best growth • Keep soil moist • Neutral PH Anthurium Scherzerianum • Bright spot but no direct sunlight • Flowering from Spring to late summer • Grows 40cm tall • Keep compost moist +353 (0)1 627 5177 www.sapgroup.com [email protected] 2 Indoor Plant List Asparagus Fern • Asparagus Fern is the most popular variety • Grown for foliage • Bright
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 9-17-2018 Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park" (2018). Botanical Studies. 85. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/85 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL & STATE PARKS James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State Univerity Arcata, California 14 September 2018 The Redwood National and State Parks are located in Del Norte and Humboldt counties in coastal northwestern California. The national park was F E R N S established in 1968. In 1994, a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation added Del Norte Coast, Prairie Creek, Athyriaceae – Lady Fern Family and Jedediah Smith Redwoods state parks to form a single administrative Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosporum • northwestern lady fern unit. Together they comprise about 133,000 acres (540 km2), including 37 miles of coast line. Almost half of the remaining old growth redwood forests Blechnaceae – Deer Fern Family are protected in these four parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Background Document: Roc: Aristolochic Acids ; 2010
    FINAL Report on Carcinogens Background Document for Aristolochic Acids September 2, 2008 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Services National Toxicology Program Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 This Page Intentionally Left Blank RoC Background Document for Aristolochic Acids FOREWORD 1 The Report on Carcinogens (RoC) is prepared in response to Section 301 of the Public 2 Health Service Act as amended. The RoC contains a list of identified substances (i) that 3 either are known to be human carcinogens or are reasonably be anticipated to be human 4 carcinogens and (ii) to which a significant number of persons residing in the United 5 States are exposed. The Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has 6 delegated responsibility for preparation of the RoC to the National Toxicology Program 7 (NTP), which prepares the report with assistance from other Federal health and 8 regulatory agencies and nongovernmental institutions. 9 Nominations for (1) listing a new substance, (2) reclassifying the listing status for a 10 substance already listed, or (3) removing a substance already listed in the RoC are 11 reviewed in a multi-step, scientific review process with multiple opportunities for public 12 comment. The scientific peer-review groups evaluate and make independent 13 recommendations for each nomination according to specific RoC listing criteria. This 14 background document was prepared to assist in the review of aristolochic acids. The 15 scientific information used to prepare Sections 3 through 5 of this document must come 16 from publicly available, peer-reviewed sources. Information in Sections 1 and 2, 17 including chemical and physical properties, analytical methods, production, use, and 18 occurrence may come from published and/or unpublished sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphological and Anatomical Adaptations to Dry, Shady Environments in Adiantum Reniforme Var
    Morphological and anatomical adaptations to dry, shady environments in Adiantum reniforme var. sinense (Pteridaceae) Di Wu1, Linbao Li1, Xiaobo Ma1, Guiyun Huang1 and Chaodong Yang2 1 Rare Plants Research Institute of Yangtze River, Three Gorges Corporation, Yichang, China 2 Engineering Research Center of Ecology and Agriculture Use of Wetland, Ministry of Education, Yangtze University, Jingzhou, China ABSTRACT The natural distribution of the rare perennial fern Adiantum reniforme var. sinense (Pteridaceae), which is endemic to shady cliff environments, is limited to small areas of Wanzhou County, Chongqing, China. In this study, we used brightfield and epifluorescence microscopy to investigate the anatomical structures and histochemical features that may allow this species to thrive in shady, dry cliff environments. The A. reniforme var. sinense sporophyte had a primary structure and a dictyostele. The plants of this species had an endodermis, sclerenchyma layers and hypodermal sterome, reflecting an adaption to dry cliff environments. Blades had a thin cuticle and isolateral mesophyll, suggesting a tolerance of shady environments. These characteristics are similar to many sciophyte ferns such as Lygodium japonicum and Pteris multifida. Thus, the morphological and anatomical characteristics of A. reniforme var. sinense identified in this study are consistent with adaptations to shady, dry cliff environments. Subjects Conservation Biology, Plant Science Keywords Endodermis, Dictyostele, Sclerenchyma layer, Suberin lamellae, Thin cuticle Submitted 14 April 2020 Accepted 24 August 2020 INTRODUCTION Published 30 September 2020 Adiantum reniforme var. sinense (Pteridaceae, subfamily Vittarioideae) is a rare Corresponding authors Guiyun Huang, cliff-dwelling perennial pteridophyte, with a natural distribution limited to small areas of [email protected] Wanzhou County, Chongqing, China.
    [Show full text]
  • Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes
    National Plant Data Team August 2012 Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes and the Klamath Tribe of Oregon in the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum of Anthropology Collections, University of California, Berkeley August 2012 Cover photos: Left: Maidu woman harvesting tarweed seeds. Courtesy, The Field Museum, CSA1835 Right: Thick patch of elegant madia (Madia elegans) in a blue oak woodland in the Sierra foothills The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its pro- grams and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sex- ual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Acknowledgments This report was authored by M. Kat Anderson, ethnoecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Jim Effenberger, Don Joley, and Deborah J. Lionakis Meyer, senior seed bota- nists, California Department of Food and Agriculture Plant Pest Diagnostics Center. Special thanks to the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum staff, especially Joan Knudsen, Natasha Johnson, Ira Jacknis, and Thusa Chu for approving the project, helping to locate catalogue cards, and lending us seed samples from their collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants of Piedras Pintadas Ridge, Lake Hodges James Dillane May, 1997 [email protected]
    Plants of Piedras Pintadas Ridge, Lake Hodges James Dillane May, 1997 [email protected] Status N California native I introduced Scientific Name Common Name Status Amaranthaceae Amaranth Family Amaranthus blitoides Prostrate Amaranth N Anacardiaceae Sumac Family Malosma laurina Laurel Sumac N Rhus trilobata Skunkbrush N Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison Oak N Apiaceae Carrot Family Apiastrum angustifolium Mock Parsley N Bowlesia incana American Bowlesia N Daucus pusillus Rattlesnake Weed N Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific Sanicle N Tauschia arguta Southern Tauschia N Asclepiadaceae Milkweed Family Asclepias eriocarpa Indian Milkweed N Asteraceae Aster Family Acourtia microcephala Sacapellote N Ambrosia psilostachya Western Ragweed N Artemisia californica California Sagebrush N Baccharis pilularis Coyote Bush N Brickellia californica California Brickelbush N Centaurea melitensis Star-Thistle / Tocalote I Chaenactis artemisiifolia White Pincushin N Chaenactis glabriuscula San Diego Pincushion N Chamomilla suaveolens Pineapple Weed I Chrysanthemum coronarium Garland Chrysanthemum I Coreopsis californica California Coreopsis N Erigeron foliosus var. foliosus Fleabane Daisy N Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. confertiflorum Golden-Yarrow N Filago californica California Filago N Gnaphalium bicolor Bicolor Everlasting N Gnaphalium californicum California Everlasting N Gnaphalium canescens ssp. beneolens Fragrant Everlasting N Gnaphalium canescens ssp. microcephalum White Everlasting N Hazardia squarrosa ssp. grindelioides Sawtooth Goldenbush N Hedypnois cretica Hedypnois I Helianthus gracilentus Slender Sunflower N Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph Weed N Hypochaeris glabra Smooth Cat's-Ear I Isocoma menziesii var. vernonioides Goldenbush N Lasthenia californica Goldfields N Lessingia filaginifolia California-Aster N Pentachaeta aurea Golden Daisy N Rafinesquia californica California Chicory n Senecio californicus California Butterweed N Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow Thistle I Stebbinoseris heterocarpa Stebbinoseris N Stephanomeria virgata ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • History and Current Status of Systematic Research with Araceae
    HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH WITH ARACEAE Thomas B. Croat Missouri Botanical Garden P. O. Box 299 St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A. Note: This paper, originally published in Aroideana Vol. 21, pp. 26–145 in 1998, is periodically updated onto the IAS web page with current additions. Any mistakes, proposed changes, or new publications that deal with the systematics of Araceae should be brought to my attention. Mail to me at the address listed above, or e-mail me at [email protected]. Last revised November 2004 INTRODUCTION The history of systematic work with Araceae has been previously covered by Nicolson (1987b), and was the subject of a chapter in the Genera of Araceae by Mayo, Bogner & Boyce (1997) and in Curtis's Botanical Magazine new series (Mayo et al., 1995). In addition to covering many of the principal players in the field of aroid research, Nicolson's paper dealt with the evolution of family concepts and gave a comparison of the then current modern systems of classification. The papers by Mayo, Bogner and Boyce were more comprehensive in scope than that of Nicolson, but still did not cover in great detail many of the participants in Araceae research. In contrast, this paper will cover all systematic and floristic work that deals with Araceae, which is known to me. It will not, in general, deal with agronomic papers on Araceae such as the rich literature on taro and its cultivation, nor will it deal with smaller papers of a technical nature or those dealing with pollination biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter 27
    Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network Newsletter No 27. September 2013 ISSN 1833-8674 Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network | Newsletter No 27, 2013 | Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network The Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network (RBCN) operates under the umbrella of Wildlife Queensland, publisher of this newsletter. RBCN promotes conservation of the Richmond birdwing butterfly Ornithoptera richmondia, its food plant, Pararistolochia spp. and butterfly habitats. Membership of RBCN is open to anyone interested in the Richmond birdwing butterfly or insects of conservation concern. RBCN encourages liaison between community members, catchment and landcare groups and government authorities. RBCN Committee Richard Bull [email protected] Ian Gynther [email protected] Chris Hosking [email protected] Susan Hollindale [email protected] Catherine Madden [email protected] Phil Moran [email protected] Don Sands (Chair) [email protected] Area Representatives Dale Borgelt (Brisbane Region) [email protected] Richard Bull (Gold Coast-Tamborine) [email protected] Keith McCosh (Scenic Rim) [email protected] Phil Moran (Sunshine Coast) [email protected] Why not receive your newsletter by email? If you have access to the internet, please consider receiving your newsletter in colour by email. saving on printing and postage costs. Email [email protected] to let us know your choice. Newsletter: Ewa Meyer Cover image: Pararistolochia praevenosa Photo © Paul Grimshaw Richmond Birdwing
    [Show full text]