DOCSLIB.ORG

University of Nevada, Reno Dendrochronological Potential Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
University of Nevada, Reno Dendrochronological Potential Of University of Nevada, Reno Dendrochronological Potential of Bermuda Cedar A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geography by Jehren A. Boehm Dr. Adam Csank/Thesis Advisor December, 2019 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by Entitled be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of , Advisor , Committee Member , Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School i Abstract The Bermuda cedar, Juniperus bermudiana, is an endangered species endemic to the Bermuda Islands. Likely speciating from a common ancestor of mainland and Caribbean junipers, the Bermuda cedar thrives in the limestone soil and breaks the salty Atlantic wind for less hardy flora. From the time of its establishment on the isolated archipelago until the 15th century, no mammals treaded beneath the Bermuda cedar canopy. The first human use for Bermuda cedar was to repair ships that had wrecked on the treacherous reefs igniting a craze for the valuable lumber. After multiple waves of deforestation and large shifts in land use, conservation of the Bermuda cedar was always an issue and eventually was prioritized by the late 20th century. By 1950 between 90-95% of Bermuda cedars, already competing with multitudes of introduced species, were defoliated and killed by an outbreak of invasive scale leaf insects that were accidentally introduced. Roughly 1% of Bermuda cedars that lived in the 1930’s are still growing today. As a culturally important forestry product since the 17th century an accurate chronology is vital to tell the story of Churches, historic structures and to reconstruct weather and climate that has impacted the Bermuda Islands over the last centuries. To date there has been no successful attempt to create a chronology from this species for historical timber dating or climate reconstruction. Construction of a regional chronology for the island of Bermuda was attempted with 110 cores, 1 partial section, and 1 full section. Using computer assisted cross-dating with independent radiocarbon testing, a statistically robust regional chronology was not successfully created with the samples provided. While a faint common signal was detected amongst Bermuda cedar across the ii territory, more compiled cross sections and geochemical analysis are required to produce a statistically robust regional chronology. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ iv LIST OF FIGURES: ........................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 STUDY GEOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................5 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 12 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 29 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 39 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 46 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 49 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................... 62 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 .......................................................................................................................... 35 Table 2 .......................................................................................................................... 65 v LIST OF FIGURES: Figure 1 ...........................................................................................................................3 Figure 2 ...........................................................................................................................6 Figure 3 ...........................................................................................................................7 Figure 4 ...........................................................................................................................8 Figure 5 ......................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 6 ......................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7 ......................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 8 ......................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 9 ......................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 10 ....................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 11 ....................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 12 ....................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 13 ....................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 14 ....................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 15 ....................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 16 ....................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 17 ....................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 18 ....................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 19 ....................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 20 ....................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 21 ....................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 22 ....................................................................................................................... 54 vi Figure 23 ....................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 24 ....................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 25 ....................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 26 ....................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 27 ....................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 28 ....................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 29 ....................................................................................................................... 61 1 Introduction Motivating science questions This attempt at creating a chronology of Bermuda cedar began as an offshoot of a dendro-provenancing study looking at the timber trade between Bermuda and Continental North America in the 18th and 19th centuries (Kirsten Greer et al., 2019). The National Museum of Bermuda took interest in the ability of dendrochronology to date structural timbers with annual precision and requested a chronology be attempted from the few remaining specimens of Bermuda cedar that still grow in the territory today. Having a master chronology of Bermuda cedar would allow them to date historic structures on Bermuda that were built from local timber. The Conservation Services of Bermuda also saw value in developing a chronology. From their perspective a chronology of Bermuda cedar would aid them in identifying trees that had survived and recovered from the ecological disaster created when scale leaf insects Lepidosaphes newsteadii, Carulaspis minima, and Diapsis carueli defoliated all but a few Bermuda cedars in the 1940s (Challinor & Wingate, 1971; Walker, 1998). The accidental introduction of exotic insects that feed on the photosynthesizing scales of Junipers led to a profound decline in the Bermuda cedar population which had not inherited any resistance from its mainland relatives. A first attempt at reforesting the territory with the related Juniperus virginiana was hopeful to reintroduce a canopy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Letter from the Desk of David Challinor August 2001 About 1,000
    Letter From the Desk of David Challinor August 2001 About 1,000 miles west of the mid-Atlantic Ridge at latitude 32°20' north (roughly Charleston, SC), lies a small, isolated archipelago some 600 miles off the US coast. Bermuda is the only portion of a large, relatively shallow area or bank that reaches the surface. This bank intrudes into the much deeper Northwestern Atlantic Basin, an oceanic depression averaging some 6,000 m deep. A few kilometers off Bermuda's south shore, the depth of the ocean slopes precipitously to several hundred meters. Bermuda's geographic isolation has caused many endemic plants to evolve independently from their close relatives on the US mainland. This month's letter will continue the theme of last month's about Iceland and will illustrate the joys and rewards of longevity that enable us to witness what appears to be the beginnings of landscape changes. In the case of Bermuda, I have watched for more than 40 years a scientist trying to encourage an endemic tree's resistance to an introduced pathogen. My first Bermuda visit was in the spring of 1931. At that time the archipelago was covered with Bermuda cedar ( Juniperus bermudiana ). This endemic species was extraordinarily well adapted to the limestone soil and sank its roots deep into crevices of the atoll's coral rock foundation. The juniper's relatively low height, (it grows only 50' high in sheltered locations), protected it from "blow down," a frequent risk to trees in this hurricane-prone area. Juniper regenerated easily and its wood was used in construction, furniture, and for centuries in local boat building.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Analyses of Juniperus Species in Turkey and Their Relations with Other Juniperus Based on Cpdna Supervisor: Prof
    MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES OF JUNIPERUS L. SPECIES IN TURKEY AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH OTHER JUNIPERS BASED ON cpDNA A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY AYSUN DEMET GÜVENDİREN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN BIOLOGY APRIL 2015 Approval of the thesis MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES OF JUNIPERUS L. SPECIES IN TURKEY AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH OTHER JUNIPERS BASED ON cpDNA submitted by AYSUN DEMET GÜVENDİREN in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Department of Biological Sciences, Middle East Technical University by, Prof. Dr. Gülbin Dural Ünver Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Prof. Dr. Orhan Adalı Head of the Department, Biological Sciences Prof. Dr. Zeki Kaya Supervisor, Dept. of Biological Sciences METU Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Musa Doğan Dept. Biological Sciences, METU Prof. Dr. Zeki Kaya Dept. Biological Sciences, METU Prof.Dr. Hayri Duman Biology Dept., Gazi University Prof. Dr. İrfan Kandemir Biology Dept., Ankara University Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sertaç Önde Dept. Biological Sciences, METU Date: iii I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Aysun Demet GÜVENDİREN Signature : iv ABSTRACT MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES OF JUNIPERUS L. SPECIES IN TURKEY AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH OTHER JUNIPERS BASED ON cpDNA Güvendiren, Aysun Demet Ph.D., Department of Biological Sciences Supervisor: Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Polyploidy in the Conifer Genus Juniperus: an Unexpectedly High Rate
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 22 May 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00676 Polyploidy in the Conifer Genus Juniperus: An Unexpectedly High Rate Perla Farhat 1,2, Oriane Hidalgo 3,4, Thierry Robert 2,5, Sonja Siljak-Yakovlev 2, Ilia J. Leitch 3, Robert P. Adams 6 and Magda Bou Dagher-Kharrat 1* 1 Laboratoire Biodiversité et Génomique Fonctionnelle, Faculté des Sciences, Université Saint-Joseph, Campus Sciences et Technologies, Beirut, Lebanon, 2 Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France, 3 Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, United Kingdom, 4 Laboratori de Botànica, Facultat de Farmàcia, Universitat de Barcelona, Unitat Associada CSIC, Barcelona, Spain, 5 Biology Department, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France, 6 Biology Department, Baylor University, Waco, TX, United States Recent research suggests that the frequency of polyploidy may have been underestimated in gymnosperms. One notable example is in the conifer genus Juniperus, where there are already a few reports of polyploids although data are still missing for most species. In this study, we evaluated the extent of polyploidy in Juniperus by conducting the first comprehensive screen across nearly all of the genus. Genome size data from fresh material, together with chromosome counts, were used to demonstrate that genome sizes estimated from dried material could be used as reliable proxies to uncover Edited by: the extent of ploidy diversity across the genus. Our analysis revealed that 16 Juniperus Michael R. McKain, University of Alabama, United States taxa were polyploid, with tetraploids and one hexaploid being reported. Furthermore, by Reviewed by: analyzing the genome size and chromosome data within a phylogenetic framework we Dirk Carl Albach, provide the first evidence of possible lineage-specific polyploidizations within the genus.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare and Endangered
    AMERICAN CONIFER SOCIETY coniferQUARTERLY PAGE 13 Rare and Endangered SAVE THE DATES: The American Conifer Society National Meeting June 14 - 17, 2018 Summer 2017 Volume 34, Number 3 CONIFERQUARTERLY (ISSN 8755-0490) is published quarterly by the American Conifer Society. The Society is a non-profit organization incorporated under the laws of the CONIFER Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is tax exempt under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Service Code. QUARTERLY You are invited to join our Society. Please address Editor membership and other inquiries to the American Conifer Society National Office, PO Box 1583, Minneapolis, MN Ronald J. Elardo 55311, [email protected]. Membership: US & Canada $40, International $58 (indiv.), $30 (institutional), $75 Technical Editors (sustaining), $100 (corporate business) and $150 (patron). Steven Courtney If you are moving, please notify the National Office 4 weeks David Olszyk in advance. All editorial and advertising matters should be sent to: Advisory Committee Ron Elardo, 5749 Hunter Ct., Adrian, MI 49221-2471, Tom Neff, Committee Chair (517) 902-7230 or email [email protected] Sara Malone Martin Stone Copyright © 2017, American Conifer Society. All rights reserved. No material contained herein may be reproduced Ronald J. Elardo in any form without prior written permission of the publisher. Evelyn Cox, past Editor Opinions expressed by authors and advertisers are not necessarily those of the Society. Cover Photo Keteleria davidiana Taiwan and SE Note: Hardiness Zone references in CONIFERQUARTERLY are USDA classifications unless otherwise specified. Asia. Photo by Tom Cox. Climate Zone Cwa TABLE OF CONTENTS Florida’s BIG Bald Cypress 4 FROM ASHES to REBIRTH By Ronald J.
    [Show full text]
  • CHEMOTAXONOMY of the CUPRESSACEAE. by P. A. GADEK School of Botany University of New South Wales February, 1986. Thesis Submitte
    CHEMOTAXONOMY OF THE CUPRESSACEAE. by P. A. GADEK School of Botany University of New South Wales February, 1986. Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. DECLARATION. "I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of a university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis." ABSTRACT. The aim of this thesis was to extend the data base of the Cupressaceae s.s. by a survey of leaf biflavonoids, and to apply this, with other available data, to a critical reassessment of the current tribes and subfamilies. The biflavonoids in ethanolic leaf extracts of representatives of all genera were analysed by thin layer chromatography. Compounds were identified by chromatographic comparisons with a range of standards, by colour of fluorescence after spraying with an ethanolic solution of AlCu, shifts in UV absorption spectra, as well as permethylation. TLC of permethylated raw extracts proved to be a sensitive method of detecting the range of biflavonoid skeletons present in each species. While there was a high degree of uniformity in the biflavonoid series present in most genera, marked discontinuities were detected within Calocedrus, Chamaecyparis and Thuja. A reassessment of these genera on a broad -range of available data led to the resurrection of two genera, Heyderia and Callitropsis, a redefinition of Thuja as a monotypic genus and the erection of a new genus, Neothuja, to encompass the species removed from Thuja.
    [Show full text]
  • WRA Species Report
    Family: Cupressaceae Taxon: Juniperus bermudiana Synonym: Juniperus virginiana var. bermudiana (L.) Va Common Name: Bemuda juniper Sabina bermudiana (L.) Antoine Bermuda cedar Questionaire : current 20090513 Assessor: Chuck Chimera Designation: H(HPWRA) Status: Assessor Approved Data Entry Person: Chuck Chimera WRA Score 7 101 Is the species highly domesticated? y=-3, n=0 n 102 Has the species become naturalized where grown? y=1, n=-1 103 Does the species have weedy races? y=1, n=-1 201 Species suited to tropical or subtropical climate(s) - If island is primarily wet habitat, then (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2- High substitute "wet tropical" for "tropical or subtropical" high) (See Appendix 2) 202 Quality of climate match data (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2- High high) (See Appendix 2) 203 Broad climate suitability (environmental versatility) y=1, n=0 n 204 Native or naturalized in regions with tropical or subtropical climates y=1, n=0 y 205 Does the species have a history of repeated introductions outside its natural range? y=-2, ?=-1, n=0 y 301 Naturalized beyond native range y = 1*multiplier (see y Appendix 2), n= question 205 302 Garden/amenity/disturbance weed n=0, y = 1*multiplier (see y Appendix 2) 303 Agricultural/forestry/horticultural weed n=0, y = 2*multiplier (see n Appendix 2) 304 Environmental weed n=0, y = 2*multiplier (see Appendix 2) 305 Congeneric weed n=0, y = 1*multiplier (see y Appendix 2) 401 Produces spines, thorns or burrs y=1, n=0 n 402 Allelopathic y=1, n=0 403 Parasitic y=1, n=0 n 404 Unpalatable to grazing animals y=1,
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Notes: Juniperus Bermudiana Tunyalee Morisawa the Nature
    Weed Notes: Juniperus bermudiana TunyaLee Morisawa The Nature Conservancy Wildland Weeds Management and Research http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu 16 November 1999 Background: Juniperus bermudiana L. (Cupressaceae) is commonly called Bermuda juniper or Bermuda cedar. J. bermudiana is native to the Bermuda Islands where the berries were used by early settlers for food and drink. The wood was used to make furniture, houses and ships (1). Horticulturists find that the tree does not grow as large (4 m high and 3 m wide after 10 years) as in its native Bermuda (15 m tall). J. bermudiana is recommended for planting in zone 9 (2). During the early 1940s, two scale insects were apparently introduced from the US mainland. Lepidosaphes newsteadi and Carulaspis minima killed 90% of J. bermudiana trees by 1955. By 1978 it was estimated that 99% of the trees were dead (Adams, 1995). Predatory insects were released but tree mortality still occurred. The 1% of J. bermudiana trees remaining demonstrated some resistance to the scale insects. Progeny from these resistant trees are being replanted (3) Description: J. bermudiana in Bermuda can grow 15 m tall. The thin bark exfoliates in strips. The leafy branchlets are 2-4 cm in length and 1.3-1.6 mm wide. Leaves are opposite, forming strongly quadriform (four sided) branchlets. Green leaves are decurrent (winged or ridge-like) on young plants and on rapidly growing shoots. Otherwise the leaves are scale-green and 1 mm in length. Glands on scale-like leaves are inconspicuous. Cones are dark blue, 4-5 mm long and 6-8 mm wide.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification Key to the Cypress Family (Cupressaceae)1
    Feddes Repertorium 116 (2005) 1–2, 96–146 DOI: 10.1002/fedr.200411062 Weinheim, Mai 2005 Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Lehrstuhl für Spezielle Botanik, Bochum C. SCHULZ; P. KNOPF & TH. STÜTZEL Identification key to the Cypress family (Cupressaceae)1 With 11 Figures Summary Zusammenfassung The identification of Cupressaceae taxa, except for Bestimmungsschlüssel für die Familie der Cup- some local and easily distinguishable taxa, is diffi- ressaceae cult even for specialists. One reason for this is the lack of a complete key including all Cupressaceae Die Bestimmung von Cupressaceae-Taxa ist mit taxa, another reason is that diagnoses and descrip- Ausnahme einiger lokaler und leicht bestimmbarer tions are spread over several hundred publications Taxa schwierig, selbst für Spezialisten. Ein Grund, which are sometimes difficult to access. Based on warum es noch keinen vollständigen Bestimmungs- morphological studies of about 3/4 of the species and schlüssel mit allen Cupressaceae-Taxa gibt ist, dass a careful compilation of the most important descrip- die Sippen-Beschreibungen sich auf mehrere hundert tions of Cupressaceae, a first identification key for Publikationen verteilen, welche teilweise schwierig the entire Cypress family (Cupressaceae) could be zu beschaffen sind. Etwa 3/4 der Cupressaceae-Ar- set up. The key comprises any of the 30 genera, 134 ten wurden morphologisch untersucht und die wich- species, 7 subspecies, 38 varieties, one form and thus tigsten Beschreibungen zusammengefasst, daraus all 180 taxa recognized by FARJON (2001). The key wurde dann der erste vollständige Bestimmungs- uses mainly features of adult leaves, female cones schlüssel für Cupressaceae erstellt. Der Bestim- and other characters which are all relatively easy to mungsschlüssel enthält 30 Gattungen, 134 Arten, be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Latin for Gardeners: Over 3,000 Plant Names Explained and Explored
    L ATIN for GARDENERS ACANTHUS bear’s breeches Lorraine Harrison is the author of several books, including Inspiring Sussex Gardeners, The Shaker Book of the Garden, How to Read Gardens, and A Potted History of Vegetables: A Kitchen Cornucopia. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 © 2012 Quid Publishing Conceived, designed and produced by Quid Publishing Level 4, Sheridan House 114 Western Road Hove BN3 1DD England Designed by Lindsey Johns All rights reserved. Published 2012. Printed in China 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 1 2 3 4 5 ISBN-13: 978-0-226-00919-3 (cloth) ISBN-13: 978-0-226-00922-3 (e-book) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Harrison, Lorraine. Latin for gardeners : over 3,000 plant names explained and explored / Lorraine Harrison. pages ; cm ISBN 978-0-226-00919-3 (cloth : alkaline paper) — ISBN (invalid) 978-0-226-00922-3 (e-book) 1. Latin language—Etymology—Names—Dictionaries. 2. Latin language—Technical Latin—Dictionaries. 3. Plants—Nomenclature—Dictionaries—Latin. 4. Plants—History. I. Title. PA2387.H37 2012 580.1’4—dc23 2012020837 ∞ This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper). L ATIN for GARDENERS Over 3,000 Plant Names Explained and Explored LORRAINE HARRISON The University of Chicago Press Contents Preface 6 How to Use This Book 8 A Short History of Botanical Latin 9 Jasminum, Botanical Latin for Beginners 10 jasmine (p. 116) An Introduction to the A–Z Listings 13 THE A-Z LISTINGS OF LatIN PlaNT NAMES A from a- to azureus 14 B from babylonicus to byzantinus 37 C from cacaliifolius to cytisoides 45 D from dactyliferus to dyerianum 69 E from e- to eyriesii 79 F from fabaceus to futilis 85 G from gaditanus to gymnocarpus 94 H from haastii to hystrix 102 I from ibericus to ixocarpus 109 J from jacobaeus to juvenilis 115 K from kamtschaticus to kurdicus 117 L from labiatus to lysimachioides 118 Tropaeolum majus, M from macedonicus to myrtifolius 129 nasturtium (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh Collection Policy for The
    Collection Policy for the Living Collection David Rae (Editor), Peter Baxter, David Knott, David Mitchell, David Paterson and Barry Unwin 3908_Coll_policy.indd 1 21/9/06 3:24:25 pm 2 | ROYAL BOTANIC GARDEN EDINBURGH COLLECTION POLICY FOR THE LIVING COLLECTION Contents Regius Keeper’s Foreword 3 Section IV Collection types 22 Introduction 22 Introduction 3 Conservation collections 22 PlantNetwork Target 8 project 24 Purpose, aims and objectives 3 Scottish Plant Project 25 International Conifer Conservation Programme 25 Section I National and international context, National Council for the Conservation of Plants stakeholders and user groups 4 and Gardens (NCCPG) 25 Off-site collections 26 National and international context 4 Convention on Biological Diversity 4 Heritage or historic plants, plant collections or Global Strategy for Plant Conservation 4 landscape features 27 Plant Diversity Challenge 5 British native plants International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Scottish Plants Project (formerly known as the Conservation 6 Scottish Rare Plants Project) 29 Action Plan for the Botanic gardens in the European Union & Planta Europa 6 Section V Acquisition and transfer 30 Convention on Trade in Endangered species of Introduction 30 Wild Flora and Fauna 8 Fieldwork 30 Global warming/outside influences 8 Index Seminum 31 Stakeholders and user groups 9 Other seed and plant catalogues 31 Research and conservation 9 Acquisition 31 Education and teaching 10 Repatriation 32 Interpretation 10 Policy for the short to medium term storage Phenology 10
    [Show full text]
  • The Decline of Endemic Cedar and Palmetto Since 1609, Recorded in the Holocene Pollen Record of Devonshire Marsh *
    Journal of Paleolimnology 16: 59-66, 1996. 1996 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printedin Belgium. Human impact on the forests of Bermuda: the decline of endemic cedar and palmetto since 1609, recorded in the Holocene pollen record of Devonshire Marsh * Bruce E Rueger I & Theodore N. von Wallmenich2 l Department of Geology, Colby College, Waterville, ME 04901 and Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA (email: [email protected]) 2GeoEngineers, Inc., 8410 154th Ave., NE, Redmond, WA 98052, USA Received: 12 October 1994; accepted 3 August 1995 Key words: Bermuda, Devonshire Marsh, peat marshes, palynology, anthropogenic influence Abstract The wreck of the Sea Venture on Bermuda reefs in 1609 initiated continuous habitation by humans on these islands. Colonization brought significant changes to the native and endemic flora of Bermuda. Original floral diversity was low, due to the effects of isolation and lack of previous anthropogenic influences. Two dominant endemic components of the flora, Bermuda cedar (Juniperus bermudiana) and Bermuda palmetto (Sabal bermudana), were extensively utilized by the colonists. Cedar was used for housing, furniture, shipbuilding and export, while the palmetto was used for roof thatch, basketry, food and drink. Exploitation of these species occurred to such extent that the General Laws of Bermuda included resolutions protecting them as early as 1622. Later, in the period between 1946 and 1951, two accidentally introduced scale insects eliminated 95% of the existing cedar population. While the flora and geography of upland habitats on Bermuda have been drastically modified by humans, the peat marsh basins have remained relatively unaffected. From the peats of one of these, Devonshire Marsh, a 9-m core was extracted for pollen analysis and to evaluate the potential for further study.
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Sensing of Native and Invasive Species in Hawaiian Forests ⁎ Gregory P
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Remote Sensing of Environment 112 (2008) 1912–1926 www.elsevier.com/locate/rse Remote sensing of native and invasive species in Hawaiian forests ⁎ Gregory P. Asner a, , Matthew O. Jones a, Roberta E. Martin a, David E. Knapp a, R. Flint Hughes b a Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA b Institute for Pacific Islands Forestry, Pacific Southwest Station, U.S. Forest Service, 60 Nowelo Street, Hilo, HI 96720 USA Received 26 October 2006; received in revised form 25 January 2007; accepted 13 February 2007 Abstract Detection and mapping of invasive species is an important component of conservation and management efforts in Hawai'i, but the spectral separability of native, introduced, and invasive species has not been established. We used high spatial resolution airborne imaging spectroscopy to analyze the canopy hyperspectral reflectance properties of 37 distinct species or phenotypes, 7 common native and 24 introduced tree species, the latter group containing 12 highly invasive species. Airborne Visible and Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) reflectance and derivative- reflectance signatures of Hawaiian native trees were generically unique from those of introduced trees. Nitrogen-fixing trees were also spectrally unique from other groups of non-fixing trees. There were subtle but significant differences in the spectral properties of highly invasive tree species in comparison to introduced species that do not proliferate across Hawaiian ecosystems. The observed differences in canopy spectral signatures were linked to relative differences in measured leaf pigment (chlorophyll, carotenoids), nutrient (N, P), and structural (specific leaf area; SLA) properties, as well as to canopy leaf area index.
    [Show full text]