Distribution and Persistence of Phyllachora Species on Poaceae in Iowa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The 2016-2017 Roadside Vegetation Survey of Scott County, Iowa
FINAL REPORT: THE 2016-2017 ROADSIDE VEGETATION SURVEY OF SCOTT COUNTY, IOWA Submitted by Leland M. Searles, Owner Leeward Solutions, LLC December 25, 2017 Bob Bryant photographs Sullivant’s Milkweed in a Scott County roadside. Sullivant’s Milkweed is uncommon, but, like other milkweeds, it attracts Monarch butterflies for egg-laying and food. Bob joined the survey in 2016 and 2017 as a field assistant and expert on the county’s flora and botanical history. [this page intentionally blank] TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Acknowledgements Introduction General description of Scott County Past botanical studies The landscape: Former ecosystems, geology, & topography Methods GIS data capture & data fields From-the-vehicle observations On-foot methods What is a remnant? Results Invasive species Indigenous species Possible misidentifications Woody growth in ROWs Residential encroachments Conclusions Roadsides as habitat Biogeography of Scott County plants Roadsides as seed resources Other uses of survey data Bibliography Appendices Scott County RVS Species Inventory, 2016 & 2017 Scott County Plant Communities Based on Survey Findings 10th Avenue Corridor: Remnant Plants & Plant Communities EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Roadside Vegetation Survey (RVS) of Scott County, Iowa, was conducted by Leeward Solutions, LLC, under contract with Scott County Secondary Roads Department (SCSRD). The RVS occurred in two phases, with hard-surfaced roads surveyed in 2016 and gravel roads driven in 2017. Level B and C roads were not included, with only a few exceptions. The field component was completed in early September 2017. This final report contains information and conclusions based on both phases. The survey began on July 25, 2016, with training on GPS equipment. -
Plants for Wet Areas
info # 61 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PLANTS FOR WET AREAS Oregonians are no strangers to water, but it seems like some places are just too moist to grow anything. For one reason or another, be it general drainage, high water tables, poor soils, or runoff patterns, some areas never seem to dry. The best idea is to try and fix the water problem by diverting runoff, adding subsurface drainage, or simply amending your soil. This doesn’t always work though, so here is a list of plants tolerant of those moist conditions. Keep in mind that although they will tolerate moisture, these plants will still need some drainage, very few plants can survive in standing water. TREES Acer rubrum- Red Maple and its cultivars Betula varieties- Birch Fraxinus americana and F. pennsylvanica- Ash varieties (NOT Raywood!) Liquidambar styraciflua- Sweetgum (avoid compacted soils) Magnolia virginiana- Sweet Bay Magnolia (None of the others, though) Nyssa sylvatica- Sour gum, Black Tupelo Populus varieties- Poplar Populus tremuloides- Quaking Aspen (Okay in moist soil, but NOT heavy and poorly drained soil) Salix varieties- Willow Stewartia- will take moist soil, drainage helps There are only a handful of conifer trees that will tolerate wet soils. Usually, a conifer tree will not be recommended because of this fact. In order for most conifer trees to thrive, there must be fair drainage in the area. Examples of more moisture tolerant conifer trees are Metasequoia spp.- Dawn Redwood Taxodium spp.- Bald Cypress Thuja spp.- Thuja SHRUBS Andromeda polifolia- Bog Rosemary Bamboo Calycanthus- Allspice Clethra varieties- Summersweet Cornus varieties (Shrub type only)- Shrub Dogwoods (NOT Tree types) Gaultheria shallon- Salal Itea virginica and varieties- Sweetspire Leucothoe Salix varieties- Willow Sambucus canadensis and varieties- Elderberry Symphoricarpos- Snowberry Viburnum- Deciduous types V. -
Poaceae Pollen from Southern Brazil: Distinguishing Grasslands (Campos) from Forests by Analyzing a Diverse Range of Poaceae Species
ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 06 December 2016 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01833 Poaceae Pollen from Southern Brazil: Distinguishing Grasslands (Campos) from Forests by Analyzing a Diverse Range of Poaceae Species Jefferson N. Radaeski 1, 2, Soraia G. Bauermann 2* and Antonio B. Pereira 1 1 Universidade Federal do Pampa, São Gabriel, Brazil, 2 Laboratório de Palinologia da Universidade Luterana do Brasil–ULBRA, Universidade Luterana do Brazil, Canoas, Brazil This aim of this study was to distinguish grasslands from forests in southern Brazil by analyzing Poaceae pollen grains. Through light microscopy analysis, we measured the size of the pollen grain, pore, and annulus from 68 species of Rio Grande do Sul. Measurements were recorded of 10 forest species and 58 grassland species, representing all tribes of the Poaceae in Rio Grande do Sul. We measured the polar, equatorial, pore, and annulus diameter. Results of statistical tests showed that arboreous forest species have larger pollen grain sizes than grassland and herbaceous forest species, and in particular there are strongly significant differences between arboreous and grassland species. Discriminant analysis identified three distinct groups representing Edited by: each vegetation type. Through the pollen measurements we established three pollen Encarni Montoya, types: larger grains (>46 µm), from the Bambuseae pollen type, medium-sized grains Institute of Earth Sciences Jaume < Almera (CSIC), Spain (46–22 µm), from herbaceous pollen type, and small grains ( 22 µm), from grassland Reviewed by: pollen type. The results of our compiled Poaceae pollen dataset may be applied to the José Tasso Felix Guimarães, fossil pollen of Quaternary sediments. Vale Institute of Technology, Brazil Lisa Schüler-Goldbach, Keywords: pollen morphology, grasses, pampa, South America, Atlantic forest, bamboo pollen Göttingen University, Germany *Correspondence: Jefferson N. -
Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montana's Glaciated
Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management Prepared by: Stephen V. Cooper, Catherine Jean and Paul Hendricks December, 2001 Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains Final Report 2001 Montana Natural Heritage Program Montana State Library P.O. Box 201800 Helena, Montana 59620-1800 (406) 444-3009 BLM Agreement number 1422E930A960015 Task Order # 25 This document should be cited as: Cooper, S. V., C. Jean and P. Hendricks. 2001. Biological Survey of a Prairie Landscape in Montanas Glaciated Plains. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Pro- gram, Helena. 24 pp. plus appendices. Executive Summary Throughout much of the Great Plains, grasslands limited number of Black-tailed Prairie Dog have been converted to agricultural production colonies that provide breeding sites for Burrow- and as a result, tall-grass prairie has been ing Owls. Swift Fox now reoccupies some reduced to mere fragments. While more intact, portions of the landscape following releases the loss of mid - and short- grass prairie has lead during the last decade in Canada. Great Plains to a significant reduction of prairie habitat Toad and Northern Leopard Frog, in decline important for grassland obligate species. During elsewhere, still occupy some wetlands and the last few decades, grassland nesting birds permanent streams. Additional surveys will have shown consistently steeper population likely reveal the presence of other vertebrate declines over a wider geographic area than any species, especially amphibians, reptiles, and other group of North American bird species small mammals, of conservation concern in (Knopf 1994), and this alarming trend has been Montana. -
Designing W Grasses Complete Notes
DESIGNING W/ GRASSES: SLIDESHOW NAMES TONY SPENCER Google search botanical plant names or visit Missouri Botanical Garden site for more info: 1. Pennisetum alopecuroides + Sanguisorba + Molinia arundinacea ‘Transparent’ 2. Pennisetum alopecuroides + Aster + Molinia arundinacea ‘Transparent’ 3. Calamagrostis x. acutiflora ‘Karl Foerster’ + Panicum ‘Shenandoah’ 4. Helianthus pauciflorus – Photo Credit: Chris Helzer 5. Nassella tenuissima + Echinacea simulata + Monarda bradburiana 6. Hordeum jubatum + Astilbe 7. Deschampsia cespitosa + Helenium autumnale 8. Calamagrostis brachytricha + Miscanthus sinensis + Cimicifuga atropurpurea 9. Sporobolus heterlolepis + Echinacea pallida 10. Panicum virgatum + Echinacea pallida + Monarda + Veronica 11. Molinia arundinacea ‘Transparent + Sanguisorba officinalis 12. Bouteloua gracilis 13. Calamagrostis brachytricha + Helenium autumnale 14. Peucedanum verticillare 15. Anemone ‘Honorine Jobert’ 2016 Perennial Plant of the Year 16. Miscanthus sinsensis 17. Calamagrostis brachytricha 18. Molinia caerulea + Calamagrostis ‘Karl Foerster’ 19. Calamagrostis ‘Karl Foerster’ + Lythrum alatum + Parthenium integrafolium 20. Panicum virgatum ‘Shenandoah’ 21. Bouteloua gracilis + Echinacea ‘Kim’s Knee High’ + Salvia nemorosa 22. Baptisia alba 23. Calamagrostis ‘Karl Foerster’ in Hummelo meadow planting 24. Panicum amarum ‘Dewey Blue’ + Helenium autumnale 25. Deschampsia cespitosa 26. Echinacea purpurea seedheads 27. Calamagrostis brachytricha + Calamagrostis ‘Karl Foerster’ + Echinacea + Veronicastrum + Eupatorium -
Moorhead Ph 1 Final Report
Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Ecological Assessment of a Wetlands Mitigation Bank August 2001 (Phase I: Baseline Ecological Conditions and Initial Restoration Efforts) 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Kevin K. Moorhead, Irene M. Rossell, C. Reed Rossell, Jr., and James W. Petranka 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Departments of Environmental Studies and Biology University of North Carolina at Asheville Asheville, NC 28804 11. Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Research and Special Programs Administration May 1, 1994 – September 30, 2001 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590-0001 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, through the Center for Transportation and the Environment, NC State University. 16. Abstract The Tulula Wetlands Mitigation Bank, the first wetlands mitigation bank in the Blue Ridge Province of North Carolina, was created to compensate for losses resulting from highway projects in western North Carolina. The overall objective for the Tulula Wetlands Mitigation Bank has been to restore the functional and structural characteristics of the wetlands. Specific ecological restoration objectives of this Phase I study included: 1) reestablishing site hydrology by realigning the stream channel and filling drainage ditches; 2) recontouring the floodplain by removing spoil that resulted from creation of the golf ponds and dredging of the creek; 3) improving breeding habitat for amphibians by constructing vernal ponds; and 4) reestablishing floodplain and fen plant communities. -
Ornamental Grasses for Kentucky Landscapes Lenore J
HO-79 Ornamental Grasses for Kentucky Landscapes Lenore J. Nash, Mary L. Witt, Linda Tapp, and A. J. Powell Jr. any ornamental grasses are available for use in resi- Grasses can be purchased in containers or bare-root Mdential and commercial landscapes and gardens. This (without soil). If you purchase plants from a mail-order publication will help you select grasses that fit different nursery, they will be shipped bare-root. Some plants may landscape needs and grasses that are hardy in Kentucky not bloom until the second season, so buying a larger plant (USDA Zone 6). Grasses are selected for their attractive foli- with an established root system is a good idea if you want age, distinctive form, and/or showy flowers and seedheads. landscape value the first year. If you order from a mail- All but one of the grasses mentioned in this publication are order nursery, plants will be shipped in spring with limited perennial types (see Glossary). shipping in summer and fall. Grasses can be used as ground covers, specimen plants, in or near water, perennial borders, rock gardens, or natu- Planting ralized areas. Annual grasses and many perennial grasses When: The best time to plant grasses is spring, so they have attractive flowers and seedheads and are suitable for will be established by the time hot summer months arrive. fresh and dried arrangements. Container-grown grasses can be planted during the sum- mer as long as adequate moisture is supplied. Cool-season Selecting and Buying grasses can be planted in early fall, but plenty of mulch Select a grass that is right for your climate. -
El Género Muhlenbergia
www.unal.edu.co/icn/publicaciones/caldasia.htm CaldasiaGiraldo-Cañas 31(2):269-302. & Peterson 2009 EL GÉNERO MUHLENBERGIA (POACEAE: CHLORIDOIDEAE: CYNODONTEAE: MUHLENBERGIINAE) EN COLOMBIA1 The genus Muhlenbergia (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae: Muhlenbergiinae) in Colombia DIEGO GIRALDO-CAÑAS Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Apartado 7495, Bogotá D.C., Colombia. [email protected] PAUL M. PETERSON Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012, U.S.A. [email protected] RESUMEN Se presenta un estudio taxonómico de las especies colombianas del género Muhlenbergia. Se analizan diversos aspectos relativos a la clasificación, la nomenclatura y la variación morfológica de los caracteres. El género Muhlenbergia está representado en Colombia por 14 especies. Las especies Aegopogon bryophilus Döll, Aegopogon cenchroides Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd., Lycurus phalaroides Kunth y Pereilema crinitum J. Presl se transfi eren al género Muhlenbergia. El binomio Muhlenbergia cleefi i Lægaard se reduce a la sinonimia de Muhlenbergia fastigiata (J. Presl) Henrard. Las especies Muhlenbergia beyrichiana Kunth, Muhlenbergia ciliata (Kunth) Trin. y Muhlenbergia nigra Hitchc. se excluyen de la fl ora de Colombia. Se presentan las claves para reconocer las especies presentes en Colombia, así como también las descripciones de éstas, sus sinónimos, la distribución geográfi ca, se comentan algunas observaciones morfológicas y ecológicas, los usos y los números cromosómicos. Del tratamiento taxonómico se excluyen las especies Muhlenbergia erectifolia SwallenSwallen [[== Ortachne erectifolia (Swallen)(Swallen) CClayton]layton] y Muhlenbergia wallisii Mez [= Agrostopoa wallisii (Mez) P. M. Peterson, Soreng & Davidse]. Palabras clave. Aegopogon, Lycurus, Muhlenbergia, Pereilema, Chloridoideae, Poaceae, Gramíneas neotropicales, Flora de Colombia. -
Cynodonteae Tribe
POACEAE [GRAMINEAE] – GRASS FAMILY Plant: annuals or perennials Stem: jointed stem is termed a culm – internodial stem most often hollow but always solid at node, mostly round, some with stolons (creeping stem) or rhizomes (underground stem) Root: usually fibrous, often very abundant and dense Leaves: mostly linear, sessile, parallel veins, in 2 ranks (vertical rows), leaf sheath usually open or split and often overlapping, but may be closed Flowers: small in 2 rows forming a spikelet (1 to several flowers), may be 1 to many spikelets with pedicels or sessile to stem; each flower within a spikelet is between an outer limna (bract, with a midrib) and an inner palea (bract, 2-nerved or keeled usually) – these 3 parts together make the floret – the 2 bottom bracts of the spikelet do not have flowers and are termed glumes (may be reduced or absent), the rachilla is the axis that hold the florets; sepals and petals absent; 1-6 but often 3 stamens; 1 pistil, 1-3 but usually 2 styles, ovary superior, 1 ovule – there are exceptions to most everything!! Fruit: seed-like grain (seed usually fused to the pericarp (ovary wall) or not) Other: very large and important family; Monocotyledons Group Genera: 600+ genera; locally many genera 2 slides per species WARNING – family descriptions are only a layman’s guide and should not be used as definitive POACEAE [GRAMINEAE] – CYNODONTEAE TRIBE Sideoats Grama; Bouteloua curtipendula (Michx.) Torr. var. curtipendula - Cynodonteae (Tribe) Bermuda Grass; Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. (Introduced) - Cynodonteae (Tribe) Egyptian Grass [Durban Crowfoot]; Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd (Introduced) [Indian] Goose Grass; Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. -
Species List For: Labarque Creek CA 750 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location 4/19/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey
Species List for: LaBarque Creek CA 750 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location 4/19/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey 5/15/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey 5/16/2006 Nels Holmberg, George Yatskievych, and Rex Plant Survey Hill 5/22/2006 Nels Holmberg and WGNSS Botany Group Plant Survey 5/6/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey Multiple Visits Nels Holmberg, John Atwood and Others LaBarque Creek Watershed - Bryophytes Bryophte List compiled by Nels Holmberg Multiple Visits Nels Holmberg and Many WGNSS and MONPS LaBarque Creek Watershed - Vascular Plants visits from 2005 to 2016 Vascular Plant List compiled by Nels Holmberg Species Name (Synonym) Common Name Family COFC COFW Acalypha monococca (A. gracilescens var. monococca) one-seeded mercury Euphorbiaceae 3 5 Acalypha rhomboidea rhombic copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 1 3 Acalypha virginica Virginia copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 2 3 Acer negundo var. undetermined box elder Sapindaceae 1 0 Acer rubrum var. undetermined red maple Sapindaceae 5 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple Sapindaceae 2 -3 Acer saccharum var. undetermined sugar maple Sapindaceae 5 3 Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae/Anthemideae 1 3 Actaea pachypoda white baneberry Ranunculaceae 8 5 Adiantum pedatum var. pedatum northern maidenhair fern Pteridaceae Fern/Ally 6 1 Agalinis gattingeri (Gerardia) rough-stemmed gerardia Orobanchaceae 7 5 Agalinis tenuifolia (Gerardia, A. tenuifolia var. common gerardia Orobanchaceae 4 -3 macrophylla) Ageratina altissima var. altissima (Eupatorium rugosum) white snakeroot Asteraceae/Eupatorieae 2 3 Agrimonia parviflora swamp agrimony Rosaceae 5 -1 Agrimonia pubescens downy agrimony Rosaceae 4 5 Agrimonia rostellata woodland agrimony Rosaceae 4 3 Agrostis elliottiana awned bent grass Poaceae/Aveneae 3 5 * Agrostis gigantea redtop Poaceae/Aveneae 0 -3 Agrostis perennans upland bent Poaceae/Aveneae 3 1 Allium canadense var. -
Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris Arundinacea Subsp
Invasive Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea subsp. arundinacea) Best Management Practices in Ontario ontario.ca/invasivespecies BLEED Foreword These Best Management Practices (BMPs) are designed to provide guidance for managing the invasive species of Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea subsp. arundinacea) in Ontario. Funding and leadership in the development of this document was provided by Environment Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The BMPs were developed by the Ontario Invasive Plant Council (OIPC) and partners. These guidelines were created to complement the invasive plant control initiatives of organizations and individuals concerned with the protection of biodiversity, species at risk, infrastructure, and natural lands. These BMPs are based on the most effective and environmentally safe control practices known from research and experience. They reflect current provincial and federal legislation regarding pesticide usage, habitat disturbance and species at risk protection. These BMPs are subject to change as legislation is updated or new research findings emerge. They are not intended to provide legal advice, and interested parties are advised to refer to the applicable legislation to address specific circumstances. Check the website of the Ontario Invasive Plant Council (www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca) or Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (www.ontario.ca/invasivespecies) for updates. Anderson, Hayley. 2012. Invasive Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea subsp. arundinacea) -
Plant Community Composition and Structure Monitoring for Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 2011-2015 Summary Report
National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Plant Community Composition and Structure Monitoring for Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 2011-2015 Summary Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NGPN/NRR—2016/1198 ON THIS PAGE Photograph of riparian long-term monitoring plot 261 at Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, 2015. Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service. ON THE COVER Photograph of plant community monitoring at Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, 2015. Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service. Plant Community Composition and Structure Monitoring for Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 2011-2015 Summary Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NGPN/NRR—2016/1198 Isabel W. Ashton Christopher J. Davis National Park Service Northern Great Plains Inventory & Monitoring Network 231 East St. Joseph Street Rapid City, SD 57701 April 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations.