DOCSLIB.ORG

Report Appendices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report Appendices LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Acknowledgements Appendix B: Planning Team Structure Appendix C: Project Timeline Appendix D: Map Units in the GCP&M Ecoregion Appendix E: Portfolio of Conservation Areas in the GCP&M Ecoregion Appendix F: Conservation Element Selection Criteria Appendix G: Terrestrial Systems Appendix H: Freshwater Aquatic Ecological Systems Appendix I: Viable Conservation Element Occurrences--Progress Towards Portfolio Goals Appendix J: Definitions of Rarity Appendix K: Geographic Distribution of Elements Appendix L: Spatial Scale of Elements Appendix M: Viability Guidelines Appendix N: Conservation Goal Default Numbers Appendix O: Method of Portfolio Assembly Appendix P: Viable Conservation Element Occurrences by Taxa Type in the Portfolio Appendix Q: Portfolio Conservation Areas with Captured Elements Appendix R: Functional Landscapes, Sites and Biological Richness Appendix S: List of Data Gaps APPENDIX A ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The successful completion of the ecoregional conservation plan for the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes would not have been possible without the diligent, flexible, and concerted effort of the numerous individuals who assisted along the way as members of the ecoregional planning team and in other capacities. Of particular note have been the contributions of members of the Core Team who devoted large amounts of time, sometimes under duress, toward the completion of this report: Jorge Brenner, Bill Carr, Amalie Couvillion, Troy Ettel, Steve Gilbert, Ray Johnson, Richard Martin, Latimore Smith, and David Wolfe. Special thanks go to Amalie Couvillon who kept momentum going when no one else would or could. In addition, Steve Gilbert went the “extra yard” regarding data management and GIS analysis with committed and positive spirit. The completion of this plan would not have been possible without their dedication to the project and incredible knowledge of the ecoregion. Thanks also go to the other Conservancy staff who contributed their time and expertise to the plan, including Susan Carr, Heidi Christoffel, Mark Dumesnil, Lee Elliott, Rob Evans, John Karges, Sally Landaal, Bob McCready, Russell McDowell, Cathy Porter, John Prince, Carter Smith, Michelle Smythe, Jim Sulentich, Alan Weakley, Jeff Weigel, Kimberly Wheaton, Wayne Ostlie, Mark Gallyoun, and Lisa Williams. We would also like to acknowledge the significant contributions made by regional experts not affiliated with The Nature Conservancy. Without the assistance of these individuals, this plan would be an inferior product. Our appreciation goes to David Bezanson (formerly Texas General Land Office, now NAPA), Kathy Bruce (PBS&J Consulting), David Brunet (formerly LA Natural Heritage Program), Mauricio Cotera (Pronatura Noreste), Miguel Angel Cruz (Pronatura Noreste), Duane German (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department), Bob Gottfried (formerly LA Natural Heritage Program), Steve Shively (LA Heritage Program), Gary Lester (LA Heritage Program), Julie Noriega (formerly Pronatura Noreste), Cecilia Riley (Gulf Coast Bird Observatory), Jason Singhurst (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department), Judy Teague (Natureserve), and Wes Tunnell (Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi). In addition to the expertise provided by the above individuals and organizations, much of the work and the distribution of the report would not have been possible without the generous funding for this project by Chevron (particularly, Patrick O’Brien), Equistar, Shiner, Moseley, and Associates (particluarly Joe Moseley), and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (freshwater analysis). We would also like to thank the personnel at the University of Texas – Marine Science Institute, Rockefeller Refuge and Matagorda Island National Wildlife Refuge for hosting and accommodating our team meetings. Finally, appreciation goes to Robert Potts (The Nature Conservancy South Central Division Director and former Texas Chapter State Director), Keith Ouchley (Louisiana Chapter State Director), and Ernesto Enkerlin (former Director of Pronatura Noreste) for their enthusiasm and support which made this endeavor possible. GCPM Plan APPENDIX B PLANNING TEAM STRUCTURE CORE TEAM Judy Teague, TNC Southern Resource Office Alan Weakley, TNC Southern Resource Office Jim Bergan, TNC TX (Team Co-Leader) Lisa Williams, TNC TX Jorge Brenner, Pronatura Noreste Amalie Couvillion, TNC TX (Team Co-Leader) ZOOLOGY TEAM Mark Gallyoun, TNC TX Bob McCready, TNC TX Mauricio Cotera, Pronatura Noreste Kimberly Wheaton, TNC SRO Troy Ettel, TNC TX David Wolfe, TNC TX, now ED John Karges, TNC TX Ray Johnson, TNC TX, now Montana Audubon Keith Ouchley, TNC LA Cecilia Riley, Galveston Bay Bird Observatory MARINE TEAM Steve Shively, LA Natural Heritage Program Mike Beck, TNC Cathy Porter, TNC FRESHWATER TEAM MEXICO TEAM Ryan Smith, TNC Southern Resource Office Jorge Brenner Ernesto Enkerlin DATA MANAGEMENT TEAM Julia Norriega Miguel Angel Cruz Heidi Christoffel, TNC TX Mauricio Cotera Steve Gilbert, TNC TX Bob Gottfried, LA Natural Heritage Program BOTANY TEAM David Brunet, LA Natural Heritage Program IMPLEMENTATION TEAM Bill Carr, TNC TX Ray Johnson, TNC TX Richard Martin, TNC LA ECOLOGY TEAM Keith Ouchley, TNC LA Robert Potts, TNC TX Kathy Bruce, PBS&J Consulting Carter Smith, TNC TX Lee Elliott, TNC TX Latimore Smith, TNC LA Rob Evans, TNC Southern Resource Office Jim Sulentich, TNC TX Sally Landaal, TNC Southern Resource Office Diane Schenke, TNC TX Latimore Smith, TNC LA GCPM Plan APPENDIX C PROJECT TIMELINE Date Activity August, 1998 Zoology team meeting in Corpus Christi, Texas. December, 1998 Project planning meeting at Matagorda Island, Texas Ecoregional kickoff meeting at Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge, Grand April, 1999 Chenier, Louisiana. Reviewed element lists and set conservation goals. September, 1999 Community ecology team meeting in San Antonio, Texas. Preliminary site selection meeting at Port Aransas, Texas, based on October, 1999 proto-sites. April, 2000 Zoology team review of draft portfolio. May, 2000 Botany team review of draft portfolio. June, 2000 Community team review of draft portfolio. August, 2000 Highest-quality LA marshes identified by Visser et al. for TNC. October, 2000 Northern Gulf of Mexico Ecoregional Plan released. November, 2000 Freshwater aquatics experts’ workshop held at Mo Ranch, Texas December, 2000 Final draft of portfolio of conservation areas. Implementation team review of portfolio. Threats to ecoregional January, 2001 biodiversity identified. February 2001 Mexico Experts’ Meeting and review of draft portfolio April, 2001 Ecoregional roundtable review of plan. GCPM Plan APPENDIX D MAP UNITS IN THE GCP&M ECOREGION TERRESTRIAL STRATIFICATION UNITS IN GCP&M From a conservation planning perspective, ecoregions are defined as “…relatively large areas of land and water that contain geographically distinct assemblages of natural communities. These communities (1) share a large majority of their species, dynamics, and environmental conditions, and (2) function together effectively as a conservation unit at global and continental scales” (Ricketts et al. 1999). The Conservancy has chosen the U.S. Forest Service ECOMAP framework as the base map of ecoregional planning units in the United States (Bailey 1995; 1998). In ecoregional planning, it is useful to subdivide ecoregions into smaller units to help ensure appropriate stratification of conservation elements in portfolio conservation areas. For instance, if the range of a particular species spans the entire ecoregion, it is preferable to select viable occurrences throughout the ecoregion, rather than clustered in one place, to ensure that the range of variability of the species is being represented in the portfolio of conservation areas. In the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes, the ecoregion was stratified into four subregions: Mississippi Delta, Chenier Plain, Texas Bays and Marshes, and Hypersaline Lagoon. Figure D-1. Terrestrial stratification units in GCP&M. Beaumont & Lake Port A rthur Charles Lafa yette New Orleans Houston Chenier Plain Mississippi Delta Texas Bays and Marshes Corpus Christi Hypersaline Lagoon Brownsville GCPM Plan FRESHWATER STRATIFICATION UNITS IN GCP&M Like terrestrial species and communities, aquatic systems are stratified across the ecoregion to ensure that all intra-ecoregional variation in species pools is accounted for when representing biotic assemblages with physical variables. Aquatic system stratification units are called Ecological Drainage Units (EDUs). EDUs are broad-scale watershed units with similar patterns of zoogeography, connectivity, climate, and hydrologic characteristics. Numerical goals for representation of aquatic systems in the ecoregional portfolio are stratified across EDUs. Four EDUs were mapped in the GCP&M by aggregating the USGS 8th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC8) according to their inclusion in one of four aquatic zoogeographic units from Maxwell et al. (1995). These EDUs correspond to zoogeographic unit names and are Lower Rio Grande/Gulf Coastal, East Texas Gulf, West Texas Gulf, and Mississippi Embayment (Maxwell et al. 1995). Figure D-2. Ecological drainage units in the GCP&M. Lake Mississippi Embayment East Texas Gulf Charles Lafayette New Orleans Beaumont & Houston Port Arthur West Texas Gulf Corpus Christi Rio Grande Brownsville GCPM Plan APPENDIX F CONSERVATION ELEMENT SELECTION CRITERIA The hypothesis that a subset of biodiversity, (which we refer to as conservation elements or targets in ecoregional planning) can represent all viable native species and community types,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Some Native Hill Country Trees Other Than Oaks
    Some Native Hill Country Trees Other Than Oaks Several weeks ago I wrote about the Hill Country oaks in this column. There are, however a number of common, large, native trees that are not oaks. Here are some of them. Bald cypress ( Taxodium distichum ) is common along the banks of the Guadalupe and its tributaries as well as many other streams in the Hill Country. It is unusual for a conifer (cone-bearing) tree to be deciduous (loses its leaves in the winter) which is why it is called a bald cypress. These trees were highly prized for the durability of the wood for making shingles, which led to the settlement of Kerrville. They are fast growing, and generally the largest trees in the Hill Country. Cedar elm ( Ulmus crassifolia ) is an elm with very small, stiff, rough leaves. It is common throughout the Hill Country where it appears to be equally at home on limestone soils or acidic soils. It flowers and sets seed in late summer, which is unusual, and, because not much is blooming then, it attracts many native bees when flowering. Its leaves turn yellow in the fall. Two other species of elms grow in the Hill Country, although they are not nearly as common as cedar elms. American elm ( Ulmus americana ) and Slippery elm ( Ulmus rubra ) are both large trees with large leaves and are usually found in riparian areas. Escarpment black cherry ( Prunus serotina var. eximia ) is a Hill Country native cherry with thin, soft leaves that turn yellow in the fall. The tiny white flowers are produced on stalks in the spring, followed by tiny cherries for the birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site
    Powell, Schmidt, Halvorson In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site Plant and Vertebrate Vascular U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center 2255 N. Gemini Drive Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Open-File Report 2005-1167 Southwest Biological Science Center Open-File Report 2005-1167 February 2007 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site By Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt , and William L. Halvorson Open-File Report 2005-1167 December 2006 USGS Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey 125 Biological Sciences East National Park Service Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web:http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested Citation Powell, B. F, C. A. Schmidt, and W. L. Halvorson. 2006. Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site.
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Prairie Dawn-Flower (Hymenoxys Texana) 5-Year Review
    Texas prairie dawn-flower (Hymenoxys texana) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo credit: USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office Houston, Texas Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 4 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 7 2.4 SYNTHESIS .................................................................................................................. 24 3.0 RESULTS....................................................................................................................... 25 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS.................................................... 26 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 31 Recommendation resulting from the 5-Year Review: .................................................................. 34 Figures Figure 1 Current H. texana county occurrences ............................................................................. 9 Tables Table 1 Renaming of species historically associated with H. texana ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Big Tree Registry a List of the Largest Trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas a & M Forest Service
    Texas Big Tree Registry A list of the largest trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas A & M Forest Service Native and Naturalized Species of Texas: 320 ( D indicates species naturalized to Texas) Common Name (also known as) Latin Name Remarks Cir. Threshold acacia, Berlandier (guajillo) Senegalia berlandieri Considered a shrub by B. Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, blackbrush Vachellia rigidula Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' acacia, Gregg (catclaw acacia, Gregg catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. greggii Was named A. greggii 55'' or 4.6 ' acacia, Roemer (roundflower catclaw) Senegalia roemeriana 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, sweet (huisache) Vachellia farnesiana 100'' or 8.3 ' acacia, twisted (huisachillo) Vachellia bravoensis Was named 'A. tortuosa' 9'' or 0.8 ' acacia, Wright (Wright catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. wrightii Was named 'A. wrightii' 70'' or 5.8 ' D ailanthus (tree-of-heaven) Ailanthus altissima 120'' or 10.0 ' alder, hazel Alnus serrulata 18'' or 1.5 ' allthorn (crown-of-thorns) Koeberlinia spinosa Considered a shrub by Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' anacahuita (anacahuite, Mexican olive) Cordia boissieri 60'' or 5.0 ' anacua (anaqua, knockaway) Ehretia anacua 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Carolina Fraxinus caroliniana 90'' or 7.5 ' ash, Chihuahuan Fraxinus papillosa 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, fragrant Fraxinus cuspidata 18'' or 1.5 ' ash, green Fraxinus pennsylvanica 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Gregg (littleleaf ash) Fraxinus greggii 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, Mexican (Berlandier ash) Fraxinus berlandieriana Was named 'F. berlandierana' 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Texas Fraxinus texensis 60'' or 5.0 ' ash, velvet (Arizona ash) Fraxinus velutina 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, white Fraxinus americana 100'' or 8.3 ' aspen, quaking Populus tremuloides 25'' or 2.1 ' baccharis, eastern (groundseltree) Baccharis halimifolia Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' baldcypress (bald cypress) Taxodium distichum Was named 'T.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 AMENDED BIOLOGICAL OPINION United States Department of the Interior
    2003 AMENDED BIOLOGICAL OPINION United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDUFE SERVICE Ecological Services do TAMU-CC, Campus Box 338 6300 Ocean Drive Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 May23, 2003 Ms. Sylvia A, Waggoner Division Engineer Environmental Management Division International Boundary and Water Commission The Commons, Building C, Suite 310 4171 N. Mesa Street El Paso, TX 79902 Consultation No. 2-11-91-F-144 Dear Ms. Waggoner: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) reinitiated Final Biological Opinion based on our review of the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission's (USIBWC) ongoing implementation of vegetation management practices for the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP) in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy Counties, Texas. We have analyzed the proposed action and its effects on the endangered ocelot Leopardus (Felis) pardalis, listed throughout its entire range that includes Texas, Arizona, Mexico to Central and South America, and the Gulf Coast jaguarundi Hemailurus yagouaroundi cacomitli that ranges from Texas to Mexico, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). USffiWC's request and information provided for reinitiation of the 1993 formal consultation and Biological Opinion was considered complete by the Corpus Christi, Texas Ecological Services Field Office (CCESFO) on December 11, 2002. This biological opinion is based on information provided in the April 2002 "Threatened and Endangered Species Report in Support of the Environmental Impact Statement f~r the Maintenance Program of the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project", Volume III of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement {PDEIS) entitled Alternative Vegetation Management Practices for the LRGFCP Cameron, Hildago, and Willacy Counties, Texas, as well as telephone conversations, field investigations, and other relevant sources of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclassification of North American Haplopappus (Compositae: Astereae) Completed: Rayjacksonia Gen
    AmericanJournal of Botany 83(3): 356-370. 1996. RECLASSIFICATION OF NORTH AMERICAN HAPLOPAPPUS (COMPOSITAE: ASTEREAE) COMPLETED: RAYJACKSONIA GEN. NOV.1 MEREDITH A. LANE2 AND RONALD L. HARTMAN R. L. McGregor Herbarium(University of Kansas NaturalHistory Museum Division of Botany) and Departmentof Botany,University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66047-3729; and Rocky MountainHerbarium, Department of Botany,University of Wyoming,Laramie, Wyoming82071-3165 Rayjacksonia R. L. Hartman& M. A. Lane, gen. nov. (Compositae: Astereae), is named to accommodate the "phyllo- cephalus complex," formerlyof Haplopappus Cass. sect. Blepharodon DC. The new combinationsare R. phyllocephalus (DC.) R. L. Hartman& M. A. Lane, R. annua (Rydb.) R. L. Hartman& M. A. Lane, and R. aurea (A. Gray) R. L. Hartman & M. A. Lane. This transfercompletes the reclassificationof the North American species of Haplopappus sensu Hall, leaving that genus exclusively South American.Rayjacksonia has a base chromosomenumber of x = 6. Furthermore,it shares abruptlyampliate disk corollas, deltatedisk style-branchappendages, and corolla epidermalcell type,among other features,with Grindelia, Isocoma, Olivaea, Prionopsis, Stephanodoria, and Xanthocephalum.Phylogenetic analyses of morphologicaland chloroplastDNA restrictionsite data, taken together,demonstrate that these genera are closely related but distinct. Key words: Astereae; Asteraceae; Compositae; Haplopappus; Rayjacksonia. During the past seven decades, taxonomic application lopappus sensu Hall (1928) are reclassifiedand are cur-
    [Show full text]
  • Sugarberry Plant Fact Sheet
    Plant Fact Sheet Wildlife: Many species of songbirds including SUGARBERRY mockingbirds and robins eat the fruit and use the tree for nesting habitat. It is a larval and nectar host for two Celtis laevigata Willd. butterflies: hackberry emperor (Asterocampa celtis) and Plant Symbol = CELA American snout (Libytheana carineta). White-tailed deer browse the leaves and fruit. Contributed by: USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program Other Uses: Sugarberry is used for furniture, athletic goods, firewood, and plywood. It has limited use for flooring, creating, and for wood posts. It is used as an ornamental and as a street tree in residential areas in the lower South Status Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s current status (e.g. threatened or endangered species, state noxious status, and wetland indicator values). Description and Adaptation Sugarberry is a native tree that can grow up to 80 feet in height and up to 3 feet in diameter. It is a short lived tree, probably living not more than 150 years. It has a broad crown formed by spreading branches that are often drooped. The bark is light gray in color and can be smooth or covered with corky warts. The branchlets are covered with short hairs at first and eventually they become smooth. The leaves are alternated, simple, and slightly serrate. The leaves are 2-4 inches long and 1 to 2 Robert H. Mohlenbrock. USDA SCS, 1989. Midwest wetland flora: inches wide. The lance-shaped leaves gradually taper to a Field office illustrated guide to plant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants for Bats
    Suggested Native Plants for Bats Nectar Plants for attracting moths:These plants are just suggestions based onfloral traits (flower color, shape, or fragrance) for attracting moths and have not been empirically tested. All information comes from The Lady Bird Johnson's Wildflower Center's plant database. Plant names with * denote species that may be especially high value for bats (based on my opinion). Availability denotes how common a species can be found within nurseries and includes 'common' (found in most nurseries, such as Rainbow Gardens), 'specialized' (only available through nurseries such as Medina Nursery, Natives of Texas, SA Botanical Gardens, or The Nectar Bar), and 'rare' (rarely for sale but can be collected from wild seeds or cuttings). All are native to TX, most are native to Bexar. Common Name Scientific Name Family Light Leaves Water Availability Notes Trees: Sabal palm * Sabal mexicana Arecaceae Sun Evergreen Moderate Common Dead fronds for yellow bats Yaupon holly Ilex vomitoria Aquifoliaceae Any Evergreen Any Common Possumhaw is equally great Desert false willow Chilopsis linearis Bignoniaceae Sun Deciduous Low Common Avoid over-watering Mexican olive Cordia boissieri Boraginaceae Sun/Part Evergreen Low Common Protect from deer Anacua, sandpaper tree * Ehretia anacua Boraginaceae Sun Evergreen Low Common Tough evergreen tree Rusty blackhaw * Viburnum rufidulum Caprifoliaceae Partial Deciduous Low Specialized Protect from deer Anacacho orchid Bauhinia lunarioides Fabaceae Partial Evergreen Low Common South Texas species
    [Show full text]
  • Sugarberry Dieback and Mortality Is an Expanding Forest Health Challenge Facing the Southern United States
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Region State and Private Forestry R8–PR–02–19 December 2019 diseases involving phytoplasmas, which are pathogenic bacteria Sugarberry dieback and found in the phloem that are primarily moved by phloem- feeding insects. Phytoplasma species are known to be mortality associated with the dieback of European hackberry and the presence of phytoplasmas and their potential role in sugarberry Introduction dieback and mortality are a major focus of current investigations. Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) is a common native tree up to 80 ft tall that is found throughout much of the South, ranging from southeastern Virginia to South Florida and west to central Texas. High rates of sugarberry mortality were first reported in Columbia, South Carolina in 2009. The issue has since expanded westward beyond the Savannah River and eastward to the coasts of South Carolina and Georgia (Fig. 1). Although mortality is most conspicuous in urban and residential areas, large numbers of sugarberry are dying in forested areas as well. This is by far the most severe and widespread episode of Celtis mortality known from the United States and the cause remains unknown. Symptoms Fig. 1. Map showing known affected locations. Colors represent Affected trees show progressive crown deterioration. Crown density of sugarberry (blue) and hackberry (green) in the thinning often begins at branch tips but ultimately spreads southeastern U.S. throughout the crown. Foliage of affected trees is typically chlorotic and stunted (Fig. 2A). The phloem, as visible beneath the bark of both the main stem and roots, is often brown in symptomatic trees (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Persimmons, Kakis, Date Plums, and Chapotes by STEPHEN A
    Notes on Persimmons, Kakis, Date Plums, and Chapotes by STEPHEN A. SPONGBERG The genus Diospyros is not at present an important genus of orna- mental woody plants in North America, and while native persimmons once were valuable fruits in the eastern United States, the fruits pro- duced by Diospyros species no longer are important food items in the American home. In the countries of eastern Asia at least two species of Diospyros are among the most common trees encountered in door- yard gardens and orchards, where they are cultivated for their edible fruits as well as for other uses and for their ornamental beauty. J. J. Rein, a German traveler and author, wrote in 1889 that Diospyros kaki Linnaeus f. was "undeniably the most widely distributed, most important, and most beautiful fruit-tree in Japan, Corea, and North- ern China." And in Japan, where D. kaki is second in importance as an orchard crop only to citrus fruit, the kaki often is referred to as the national fruit (Childers, 1972). The rarity with which species of Diospyros are found in cultivation in cool-temperate North America is partially due to the fact that most are native to regions of tropical and subtropical climate and are not hardy in areas of temperate climate. A member of the Ebenaceae or Ebony Family, the genus contains upwards of 400 species that occur Stephen A. Spongberg is a horticultural taxonomist at the Arnold Arbore- tum. He participated in the Arboretum’s collecting trip to Japan and Korea in the fall of 1977, an experience which intensifted his interest in persim- mons.
    [Show full text]