DOCSLIB.ORG

Your Name Here

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Your Name Here EVALUATING THE LOCATION, EXTENT, AND CONDITION OF ISOLATED WETLANDS IN THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN, GEORGIA, USA by GLENN I. MARTIN (Under the Direction of Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman) ABSTRACT Geographically isolated wetlands are common throughout Georgia’s Dougherty Plain physiographic district, and provide many valuable ecosystem services. However, they are currently excluded from federal and state protection. To better understand the isolated wetland resource, we created a spatially-explicit timeline of land use and land cover within Dougherty Plain, developed a spatial map of isolated wetlands, and constructed a multi-metric framework to assess the ecological condition of 40 isolated wetlands at multiple scales. We found drastic shifts in land use and land cover between 1948 and 2007. We estimate that there are approximately 11,620 isolated wetlands covering 42,431 ha within the Dougherty Plain. The ecological assessment showed strong correlation between assessment methods and scales, and indicates that a remote assessment may be suitable for future studies. Future research can use this information to identify isolated wetlands in the Dougherty Plain, explore their land cover trajectories, and assess their ecological condition. INDEX WORDS: Dougherty Plain, Georgia, ecological assessment, isolated wetland, land cover, land use, EVALUATING THE LOCATION, EXTENT, AND CONDITION OF ISOLATED WETLANDS IN THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN, GEORGIA, USA by GLENN I. MARTIN B.S., The University of Georgia, 2005 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2010 © 2010 GLENN I. MARTIN All Rights Reserved EVALUATING THE LOCATION, EXTENT, AND CONDITION OF ISOLATED WETLANDS IN THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN, GEORGIA, USA by GLENN I. MARTIN Major Professor: Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman Committee: L. Katherine Kirkman Stephen W. Golladay Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia December 2010 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply grateful to “The Boss” for making this research possible. I thank my advisor and committee for their advice, support, and encouragement. I also recognize the contributions and assistance of Dr. Mike Connor, Larry Etheridge, Liz Cox, Jean Brock, and the Plant Ecology and Aquatic Ecology labs at Ichauway. I am grateful to the many private landowners who supported this research by granting access to their land. Thanks to my family for instilling in me a love of nature. I am indebted to my wife, Hayden, for her sacrifice and support during this process; it did not go unnoticed. This project was supported by the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, and the University of Georgia. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................................2 OBJECTIVES .........................................................................................................24 LITEATURE CITED ..............................................................................................25 2 SIX DECADES (1948 – 2007) OF LANDSCAPE CHANGE IN THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN OF SOUTHWEST GEORGIA, USA .........................................................40 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................41 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................42 METHODS ..............................................................................................................43 RESULTS ................................................................................................................47 DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................50 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................54 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................55 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................55 APPENDIX A .........................................................................................................70 vi 3 MAPPING GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED WETLANDS IN THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN, GEORGIA, USA .............................................................78 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................79 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................80 METHODS ..............................................................................................................84 RESULTS ................................................................................................................90 DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................92 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................95 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................95 4 DEVELOPING A WETLAND ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR ISOLATED WETLANDS IN THE DOUGHERTY PLAIN, GEORGIA, USA ......................109 ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................110 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................111 METHODS ............................................................................................................113 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................119 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................120 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................123 LITERATURE CITED ..........................................................................................123 APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................134 5 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................153 LITERATURE CITED ..........................................................................................157 vii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1: Name and description of land use and land cover classes ............................................60 Table 2.2: Description of land use and land cover metrics ............................................................61 Table 2.3: Median values of land use and land cover pattern metrics for the total sample landscape (Landscape) and individual LULC classes in the Dougherty Plain, Georgia, USA ...............................................................................................................................63 Table 2.4: Estimate of mean area (km2) and 95% confidence intervals around these means for each land use and land cover class throughout the entire Dougherty Plain in each sample year ....................................................................................................................64 Table 3.1: Accuracy and wetland statistics of GIS-based model results of isolated wetlands in the Dougherty Plain, Georgia, USA. ...................................................................................99 Table 4.1: Land cover classification scheme ...............................................................................126 Table 4.2: Correlations of metrics from assessment Levels 2 and 3 with LDI index values calculated from 2009 aerial photographs ....................................................................127 Table 4.3: Testing the ability of individual Level 2 and Level 3 metrics to differentiate between “low” (LDI < 2.00) (n = 20) and “high” (LDI ≥ 2.00) (n = 20) wetland groups using Mann-Whitney U Tests ...............................................................................................129 Table 4.4: Spearman’s rank correlations of Wetland Condition Indices (WCIs) with LDI index values calculated from 2009 aerial photographs, 2005 Georgia Land Use Trends (GLUT) data, 2001 National Land Cover Data (NLCD), 1998 18-class Georgia land cover data (GA18), and 1998 44-class Georgia land cover data (GA44) ...................130 viii Table A.1: Field delineated areas (hectare) of the 40 sample wetlands.......................................135 Table A.2: Level 1 – Remote Assessment scores for each sample wetland ................................137 Table A.3: Level 2 – Rapid Assessment scores for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • Carex Gigantea Rudge in Florida
    ILLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. c f ConservationAssessment for the Giant Sedge (Carex giganteaRudge) 31 July 2006 Steven R. Hill, Ph.D. Illinois Natural History Survey Center for Wildlife and Plant Ecology 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, Illinois 61820 ILLINOIS NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY Illinois Natural History Survey Center for Wildlife and Plant Ecology Technical Report 2006 (10) Cover photo: Carex gigantea Rudge in Florida. Photo by Shirley Denton. http://www.simple-grandeur.com/plants/native.php This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service - Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. 2 Conservation Assessment for the Giant Sedge (Carex gigantea Rudge) Table of Contents Acknowledgm
    [Show full text]
  • Host Specificity of Ischnodemus Variegatus, an Herbivore of West
    BioControl DOI 10.1007/s10526-008-9188-3 Host specificity of Ischnodemus variegatus, an herbivore of West Indian marsh grass (Hymenachne amplexicaulis) Rodrigo Diaz Æ William A. Overholt Æ James P. Cuda Æ Paul D. Pratt Æ Alison Fox Received: 31 January 2008 / Accepted: 17 July 2008 Ó International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) 2008 Abstract West Indian marsh grass, Hymenachne to suboptimal hosts occurred in an area where amplexicaulis Rudge (Nees) (Poaceae), is an emer- H. amplexicaulis was growing in poor conditions gent wetland plant that is native to South and Central and there was a high density of I. variegatus. Thus, America as well as portions of the Caribbean, but is laboratory and field studies demonstrate that considered invasive in Florida USA. The neotropical I. variegatus had higher performance on H. amplexi- bug, Ischnodemus variegatus (Signoret) (Hemiptera: caulis compared to any other host, and that suboptimal Lygaeoidea: Blissidae) was observed feeding on hosts could be colonized temporarily. H. amplexicaulis in Florida in 2000. To assess whether this insect could be considered as a specialist Keywords Blissidae Á Hemiptera Á Herbivore biological control agent or potential threat to native performance Á Host quality Á Poaceae and cultivated grasses, the host specificity of I. variegatus was studied under laboratory and field conditions. Developmental host range was examined Introduction on 57 plant species across seven plant families. Complete development was obtained on H. amplexi- West Indian marsh grass, Hymenachne amplexicaulis caulis (23.4% survivorship), Paspalum repens (0.4%), Rudge (Nees) (Poaceae), is a perennial emergent Panicum anceps (2.2%) and Thalia geniculata weed in wetlands of Florida USA and northeastern (0.3%).
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Table 1 the Phenology of Chasmogamous (CH) and Cleistogamous (CL) Flower Production by Life History (Annual Or Perennial) and Genus
    Supplemental Table 1 The phenology of chasmogamous (CH) and cleistogamous (CL) flower production by life history (annual or perennial) and genus. Phenology is described as sequential (no overlap in the production of CH and CL flowers), overlapping (partial overlap), or simultaneous (complete overlap in production of CH and CL flowers). Flower type initiated first indicates which flower type is produced first within a flowering season. Flower Flower type Genus (Family) phenology initiated first Reference Annuals Amphicarpaea (Fabaceae) Overlapping CL 1-2 Amphicarpum (Poaceae) Overlapping CL 3-4 Andropogon (Poaceae) Overlapping CL 5 Centaurea (Asteraceae) Overlapping CL 6 Ceratocapnos (Fumariaceae) Overlapping CL 7 Collomia (Polemoniaceae) Overlapping CL 8-9 Emex (Polygonaceae) Overlapping CL 10 Impatiens (Balsaminaceae) Overlapping CL 11-16 Lamium (Lamiaceae) Overlapping CL 17 Mimulus (Scrophulariaceae) Overlapping CL 18 Salpiglossis (Solanaceae) Overlapping CL 19 Perennials Ajuga (Lamiaceae) Overlapping CL 20 Amphibromus (Poaceae) Overlapping CL 21 Calathea (Marantaceae) Simultaneous, NA 22 year round Danthonia (Poaceae) Overlapping CL 21; 23-24 Dichanthelium (Poaceae) Sequential CH 25 Microleana (Poaceae) Simultaneous unknown 26 Oxalis (Oxalidaceae) Sequential CH 27-29 Scutellaria (Lamiaceae) Sequential CH 30 Viola (Violaceae) Sequential CH 28; 31-34 LITERATURE CITED 1. Schnee BK, Waller DM. 1986. Reproductive-behavior of Amphicarpaea bracteata (Leguminosae), an amphicarpic annual. Am. J. Bot. 73: 376–86 2. Trapp EJ, Hendrix SD. 1988. Consequences of a mixed reproductive system in the hog peanut, Amphicarpaea bracteata (Fabaceae). Oecologia 75: 285–90 3. Cheplick GP, Quinn JA. 1982. Amphicarpum purshii and the pessimistic strategy in amphicarpic annuals with subterranean fruit. Oecologia 52: 327–32 4. Cheplick GP. 1989. Nutrient availability, dimorphic seed production, and reproductive allocation in the annual grass Amphicarpum purshii.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited By
    New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited by: Stephen M. Young and Troy W. Weldy This list is also published at the website: www.nynhp.org For more information, suggestions or comments about this list, please contact: Stephen M. Young, Program Botanist New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 518-402-8951 Fax 518-402-8925 E-mail: [email protected] To report sightings of rare species, contact our office or fill out and mail us the Natural Heritage reporting form provided at the end of this publication. The New York Natural Heritage Program is a partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and by The Nature Conservancy. Major support comes from the NYS Biodiversity Research Institute, the Environmental Protection Fund, and Return a Gift to Wildlife. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... Page ii Why is the list published? What does the list contain? How is the information compiled? How does the list change? Why are plants rare? Why protect rare plants? Explanation of categories.................................................................................................................... Page iv Explanation of Heritage ranks and codes............................................................................................ Page iv Global rank State rank Taxon rank Double ranks Explanation of plant
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation of Mitochondrial-Derived Plastome Sequences in the Paspalum Lineage (Panicoideae; Poaceae) Sean V
    Burke et al. BMC Plant Biology (2018) 18:152 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-018-1379-1 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Investigation of mitochondrial-derived plastome sequences in the Paspalum lineage (Panicoideae; Poaceae) Sean V. Burke1* , Mark C. Ungerer2 and Melvin R. Duvall1 Abstract Background: The grass family (Poaceae), ca. 12,075 species, is a focal point of many recent studies that aim to use complete plastomes to reveal and strengthen relationships within the family. The use of Next Generation Sequencing technology has revealed intricate details in many Poaceae plastomes; specifically the trnI - trnL intergenic spacer region. This study investigates this region and the putative mitochondrial inserts within it in complete plastomes of Paspalum and other Poaceae. Results: Nine newly sequenced plastomes, seven of which contain an insert within the trnI - trnL intergenic spacer, were combined into plastome phylogenomic and divergence date analyses with 52 other species. A robust Paspalum topology was recovered, originating at 10.6 Ma, with the insert arising at 8.7 Ma. The alignment of the insert across Paspalum reveals 21 subregions with pairwise homology in 19. In an analysis of emergent self- organizing maps of tetranucleotide frequencies, the Paspalum insert grouped with mitochondrial DNA. Conclusions: A hypothetical ancestral insert, 17,685 bp in size, was found in the trnI - trnL intergenic spacer for the Paspalum lineage. A different insert, 2808 bp, was found in the same region for Paraneurachne muelleri. Seven different intrastrand deletion events were found within the Paspalum lineage, suggesting selective pressures to remove large portions of noncoding DNA. Finally, a tetranucleotide frequency analysis was used to determine that the origin of the insert in the Paspalum lineage is mitochondrial DNA.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    A Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary June 2006 Citation: Westervelt, K., E. Largay, R. Coxe, W. McAvoy, S. Perles, G. Podniesinski, L. Sneddon, and K. Strakosch Walz. 2006. A Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary: Version 1. NatureServe. Arlington, Virginia. PDE Report No. 06-02 Copyright © 2006 NatureServe COVER PHOTOS Top L: Eastern Hemlock - Great Laurel Swamp, photo from Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Top R: Pitch Pine - Oak Forest, photo by Andrew Windisch, photo from New Jersey Natural Heritage Bottom R: Maritime Red Cedar Woodland, photo by Robert Coxe, photo from Delaware Natural Heritage Bottom L: Water Willow Rocky Bar and Shore in Pennsylvania, photo from Pennsylvania Natural Heritage A GUIDE TO THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY Kellie Westervelt Ery Largay Robert Coxe William McAvoy Stephanie Perles Greg Podniesinski Lesley Sneddon Kathleen Strakosch Walz. Version 1 June 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................................................................................11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 12 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 13 CLASSIFICATION APPROACH..................................................................................................... 14 International Terrestrial Ecological Systems Classification
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Renovate® 3 Label and MSDS
    Appendix A Renovate® 3 Label and MSDS J:\Govt\Projects\SePRO\Renovate-GEIS\Draft GEIS\Appendices\AppendixCovers.doc July 2006 Appendix B New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List1 1 Appendix I (NYS DEC Protected Plant List ) of June 2005 list provided J:\Govt\Projects\SePRO\Renovate-GEIS\Draft GEIS\Appendices\AppendixCovers.doc July 2006 New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List June 2005 Edited by: Stephen M. Young and Troy W. Weldy This list is also published at the website: www.nynhp.org For more information, suggestions or comments about this list, please contact: Stephen M. Young, Program Botanist New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 518-402-8951 Fax 518-402-8925 E-mail: [email protected] To report sightings of rare species, contact our office or fill out and mail us the Natural Heritage reporting form provided at the end of this publication. The New York Natural Heritage Program is a partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and by The Nature Conservancy. Major support comes from the NYS Biodiversity Research Institute, the Environmental Protection Fund, and Return a Gift to Wildlife. Appendix I: NYS DEC Protected Plant List 193.3 Protected native plants. (a) All plants enumerated on the lists of endangered species in subdivision (b) of this section, threatened species in subdivision (c) of this section, rare species in subdivision (d) of this section, or exploitably vulnerable species in subdivision (e) of this section are protected native plants pursuant to section 9-1503 of the Environmental Conservation Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Acadian-Appalachian Alpine Tundra
    Acadian-Appalachian Alpine Tundra Macrogroup: Alpine yourStateNatural Heritage Ecologist for more information about this habitat. This is modeledmap a distributiononbased current and is data nota substitute for field inventory. based Contact © Josh Royte (The Nature Conservancy, Maine) Description: A sparsely vegetated system near or above treeline in the Northern Appalachian Mountains, dominated by lichens, dwarf-shrubland, and sedges. At the highest elevations, the dominant plants are dwarf heaths such as alpine bilberry and cushion-plants such as diapensia. Bigelow’s sedge is characteristic. Wetland depressions, such as small alpine bogs and rare sloping fens, may be found within the surrounding upland matrix. In the lower subalpine zone, deciduous shrubs such as nannyberry provide cover in somewhat protected areas; dwarf heaths including crowberry, Labrador tea, sheep laurel, and lowbush blueberry, are typical. Nearer treeline, spruce and fir that State Distribution: ME, NH, NY, VT have become progressively more stunted as exposure increases may form nearly impenetrable krummholz. Total Habitat Acreage: 8,185 Ecological Setting and Natural Processes: Percent Conserved: 98.1% High winds, snow and ice, cloud-cover fog, and intense State State GAP 1&2 GAP 3 Unsecured summer sun exposure are common and control ecosystem State Habitat % Acreage (acres) (acres) (acres) dynamics. Found mostly above 4000' in the northern part of NH 51% 4,160 4,126 0 34 our region, alpine tundra may also occur in small patches on ME 44% 3,624 2,510 1,082 33 lower ridgelines and summits and at lower elevations near the Atlantic coast. NY 3% 285 194 0 91 VT 1% 115 115 0 0 Similar Habitat Types: Acadian-Appalachian Montane Spruce-Fir-Hardwood Forests typically occur downslope.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Peanutgrass
    Natural Heritage Annual Peanutgrass & Endangered Species Amphicarpum amphicarpon (Pursh) Nash Program www.mass.gov/nhesp State Status: Endangered Federal Status: None Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife DESCRIPTION: Annual Peanutgrass (Amphicarpum amphicarpon) is a medium-sized (30–80 cm; 12–31 in.), erect annual in the Grass family (Poaceae), with hairy stem and leaves. The leaves are 10 to 15 cm long, 5 to 15 mm wide, and largely clustered at the lower end of the stem, becoming more sparse and smaller on the upper part of the stem. The leaf blades and the leaf sheaths – the lower part of the leaf that clasps the stem – are covered with short hairs that make them rough to the touch. The genus name, which translates to “double fruiting,” and the common name refer to the underground flowers produced by this species in addition to the more familiar above-ground inflorescence. The 5 to 15 cm aerial inflorescence is either un-branched or has a few simple branches held close, with awnless, elliptical spikelets (4 mm) held singly. The plump underground spikelets are 6 to 7 mm, each attached singly to a slender root-like branch. Annual Peanutgrass has subterranean spikelets in addition to the above- ground inflorescence. USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913. An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British Possessions. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. Vol. 1: 164. AIDS TO IDENTIFICATION: Positive identification of grasses requires the use of specialized keys. The following features help to distinguish Annual Peanutgrass: .
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands of Delaware
    SE M3ER 985 U.s. - artm nt of h - n erior S ate of D lawa FiSh and Wildlife Service Department of Natural Resourc and Enviro mental Con ra I WETLANDS OF DELAWARE by Ralph W. Tiner, Jr. Regional Wetland Coordinator Habitat Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Newton Corner, MA 02158 SEPTEMBER 1985 Project Officer David L. Hardin Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Wetlands Section State of Delaware 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19903 Cooperative Publication U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Delaware Department of Natural Region 5 Resources and Environmental Habitat Resources Control One Gateway Center Division of Environmental Control Newton Corner, MA 02158 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19903 This report should be cited as follows: Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Newton Corner, MA and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section, Dover, DE. Cooperative Publication. 77 pp. Acknowledgements Many individuals have contributed to the successful completion of the wetlands inventory in Delaware and to the preparation of this report. The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section contributed funds for wetland mapping and database construction and printed this report. David Hardin served as project officer for this work and offered invaluable assistance throughout the project, especially in coor­ dinating technical review of the draft report and during field investigations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District also provided funds for map production. William Zinni and Anthony Davis performed wetland photo interpretation and quality control of draft maps, and reviewed portions of this report.
    [Show full text]