DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 1: Ecoregional Planning in the Interior Low Plateau

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 CHAPTER 1: ECOREGIONAL PLANNING IN THE INTERIOR LOW PLATEAU 1.1. INTRODUCTION 1.2. OVERVIEW OF PLANNING 1.2.1. Developing a Plan to Plan 1.2.2. Budget and Workplan 1.3. DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERIOR LOW PLATEAU 1.3.1. Ecological Overview 1.3.2. Ecological Systems 1.3.3. Present Land Use CHAPTER 2: PLANNING TEAMS 2.1. INTRODUCTION 2.2. THE STEERING COMMITTEE 2.3. THE CORE TEAM 2.4. TECHNICAL TEAMS 2.5. DESIGN TEAM CHAPTER 3: GATHERING THE PIECES 3.1. INTRODUCTION 3.2. DATA SOURCES AND DATA MANAGEMENT 3.2.1. Conservation Target Data 3.2.2. Geographic Information Systems 3.3. IDENTIFICATION OF CONSERVATION TARGETS, SETTING CONSERVATION GOALS, AND SELECTING TARGET ELEMENT OCCURRENCES 3.3.1. General Guidelines 3.3.2. Terrestrial Natural Communities 3.3.3. Plant Species 3.3.4. Terrestrial Invertebrates 3.3.5. Terrestrial Vertebrates (other than birds) Birds 3.3.6. Aquatic Species 3.3.7. Aquatic Communities 3.3.8. The Conservation Targets CHAPTER 4: ASSEMBLING THE PORTFOLIO 4.1. INTRODUCTION 4.2. DEVELOPING A PRELIMINARY PORTFOLIO 4.3. DESIGNING AND REFINING THE PORTFOLIO 4.3.1. Assessing Preliminary Sites 4.3.2. Representing Matrix Communities CHAPTER 5: ASSESSING THE PORTFOLIO AND SETTING PRIORITES 5.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PORTFOLIO 5.2. IDENTIFYING ACTION SITES 5.2.1. Action Sites 5.2.2. Landscape-Scale Action Sites 5.3. MEETING CONSERVATION GOALS 5.4. PATTERNS OF THREATS AND STRATEGIES IN THE PORTFOLIO 5.4.1. Stresses and Sources of Stress 5.4.2. Strategies CHAPTER 6: IMPLEMENTING THE CONSERVATION PLAN 6.1. IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES 6.1.1. Multi-Site and Ecoregional Strategies 2 6.1.2. Filling Data Gaps 6.2. ENGAGING PARTNERS 6.3. COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY 6.4. FUTURE PLAN ITERATIONS 6.4.1. The Role of the Core Team 6.4.2. Managing the Ecoregional Database 6.5. Summary and Lessons Learned 3 CHAPTER 1: ECOREGIONAL PLANNING IN THE INTERIOR LOW PLATEAU 1.1. INTRODUCTION The conservation goal of The Nature Conservancy, as stated in Conservation by Design: A Framework for Mission Success (The Nature Conservancy 1996a) is “the long-term survival of all viable native species and community types through the design and conservation of portfolios of sites within ecoregions.” This statement represents the first time the Conservancy made explicit the geographic framework—ecoregions—which would enable the overall mission of the organization to be implemented in ecologically meaningful units of the earth’s surface. Within each ecoregion, the specific species and natural communities that would become the focus of conservation planning and implementation—the conservation targets—could be considered in the context of the ecological patterns and processes that helped to shape their distribution, abundance, composition, structure, and life history. To support this approach to conservation, the Conservancy developed guidelines that laid out the initial framework of ecoregions, adopted from the work of Robert G. Bailey of the U.S. Forest Service for the continental US (Bailey 1994), and the process to be followed in planning for ecoregional conservation (Designing a Geography of Hope, The Nature Conservancy 1996b). In the Continental US, 64 ecoregions have been identified. For strategic purposes, The Conservancy has made the development of plans for these ecoregions a high priority. Planning for the Interior Low Plateau was initiated in mid-1998 and was completed over a period of roughly two and a half years, simultaneously with several other ecoregional plans in the Midwest region. Many of the partners involved in this planning process were also involved in planning for other ecoregions. Involvement in several plans enhanced the familiarity of participants with the concepts and approaches being used and in all probability increased the efficiency of the process. At the same time, some partners were perhaps asked to do too much and may have experienced some burnout from early plans that carried over into later plans. Overall, the overlap among planning processes probably resulted in a net benefit and improvement of plans, especially in learning ways to streamline the process. 1.2. OVERVIEW OF PLANNING 1.2.1. Developing an Initial Planning Framework Initial leadership of the planning process was established in late 1997, with the Indiana Chapter taking lead responsibility. At the Kickoff Meeting, representatives from all state all state programs and heritage scientists outlined a general strategy, timeline and budget for the process. In addition to a Core Team composed of representatives from all state field offices and MRO support staff, it was decided that five technical teams would be established to develop conservation targets and set conservation. The five technical teams were organized around plant communities, plant species, aquatic species, subterranean species, and residual animal species (mostly composed of terrestrial animals and bats). In keeping with the Mission of The Conservancy, a general, fairly simple, conservation goal was agreed upon: “The goal of the Interior Low Plateau is to conserve all native, viable species." 4 We agreed that best approach for conserving terrestrial species was to focus on using coarse community filters, with secondary emphasis on individual rare species. For selecting aquatic conservation sites, we decided to focus first on G1-G3 species, and then use broad guidelines to assess the representative quality of the aquatic sites selected. Similarly for caverniculus species, we decided to first select sites for G1-G3 species and then evaluate the preliminary portfolio for its representative qualities. 1.2.2. Budget and Workplan Two major outcomes of the Kickoff Meeting were the establishment of an initial workplan and a budget. While admittedly tentative and later to be modified, these items established some order to the planning process. Planning team memberships and responsibilities were laid out; benchmarks were set; and planning goals established. The original vision was to complete the plan in approximately 18 months and at an estimated cost of $40,000 (not including Field Office Staff Time). The process took roughly 28 months to reach the first draft, so the original timeline was not met. The primary reason for this was the availability of staff from Conservancy and Heritage programs to carry out major tasks, such as assessment of target viability and of site parameters. Insufficient time was budgeted for project management and data management as well. Conservancy chapters covered their own costs for travel and staff time, easing the task of budget management. The budget was used to cover data entry costs for Kentucky and Alabama Heritage Programs, GIS and data management support at the Midwest Resource Office, general heritage staff and MRO travel costs, and various meetings. Each state Field Office was asked to contribute towards this budget, and USDA, US Forest Service provided $15,000 in cost share towards this project. Additional funds would have allowed for better participation from Heritage programs, covering staff time and travel for meetings. 1.3. DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERIOR LOW PLATEAU 1.3.1. Ecological Overview The Interior Low Plateau ecoregion occupies portions of six states in the Midwest and South East regions of the United States, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama (Map 1). Compared with other ecoregions, it is of average size, covering 47,769,500 acres; (74,639 square miles). Surficial geology is of two primary types: on the northern edges on the ecoregion in Ohio and Indiana, and over much of Illinois, Illinoian till dominates the landscape. To the south, the bulk of the ecoregion is characterized by unglaciated limestone and related geology. Elevation ranges from a high in Illinois of 1,060 at Williams Hill, to a low of 325 ft. along the Ohio River as it leaves the ecoregion in Illinois and Kentucky. Most of the ecoregion lies between 500 and 850 ft. in elevation. Much of the unglaciated portion of the ecoregion is characterized by rolling limestone plains punctuated with regions of fairly rugged topography, and 250 feet of relative topographic relief is common in many areas (maximum relative relief is over 500 ft). Topography is mostly hilly and rolling, with areas of swampy alluvial valleys, deeply entrenched rivers and streams, and expansive karst plains. Several large rivers traverse the ecoregion, including the Ohio, Tennessee, Cumberland Kentucky and Licking Rivers. Originally the unglaciated portion of the ecoregion was dominated by expansive forest systems, although extensive prairies and barrens and oak savanna dominated portions of karst plains. Interspersed throughout the unglaciated ecoregion were caves, glades, and swamps, which today remain as biologically diverse conservation targets. The Illinoinan Tillplain was characterized by rolling topography that was dominated by a prairie forest ecotone in Illinois and forested in the eastern portions. 5 1.3.2. Ecological Systems Terrestrial Systems - The ecological systems of the Interior Low Plateau have developed, for the most part, on landforms and substrates derived from either limestone bedrock substrates, or from Illinoian glacial till. The ecoregion is divided into four subsections, each with characteristic geology and ecological characteristics (Map 1). The Shawnee Hills Section is a geologically complex unit with towering sandstone cliffs over deeply dissected terrain. Other landforms include rolling topography, karst landforms, and bottomlands along major rivers. Soils are generally well to moderately
Recommended publications
  • Department of Planning and Zoning

    Department of Planning and Zoning

    Department of Planning and Zoning Subject: Howard County Landscape Manual Updates: Recommended Street Tree List (Appendix B) and Recommended Plant List (Appendix C) - Effective July 1, 2010 To: DLD Review Staff Homebuilders Committee From: Kent Sheubrooks, Acting Chief Division of Land Development Date: July 1, 2010 Purpose: The purpose of this policy memorandum is to update the Recommended Plant Lists presently contained in the Landscape Manual. The plant lists were created for the first edition of the Manual in 1993 before information was available about invasive qualities of certain recommended plants contained in those lists (Norway Maple, Bradford Pear, etc.). Additionally, diseases and pests have made some other plants undesirable (Ash, Austrian Pine, etc.). The Howard County General Plan 2000 and subsequent environmental and community planning publications such as the Route 1 and Route 40 Manuals and the Green Neighborhood Design Guidelines have promoted the desirability of using native plants in landscape plantings. Therefore, this policy seeks to update the Recommended Plant Lists by identifying invasive plant species and disease or pest ridden plants for their removal and prohibition from further planting in Howard County and to add other available native plants which have desirable characteristics for street tree or general landscape use for inclusion on the Recommended Plant Lists. Please note that a comprehensive review of the street tree and landscape tree lists were conducted for the purpose of this update, however, only
  • Unexpected Diversity in Neelipleona Revealed by Molecular Phylogeny Approach (Hexapoda, Collembola)

    Unexpected Diversity in Neelipleona Revealed by Molecular Phylogeny Approach (Hexapoda, Collembola)

    S O I L O R G A N I S M S Volume 83 (3) 2011 pp. 383–398 ISSN: 1864-6417 Unexpected diversity in Neelipleona revealed by molecular phylogeny approach (Hexapoda, Collembola) Clément Schneider1, 3, Corinne Cruaud2 and Cyrille A. D’Haese1 1 UMR7205 CNRS, Département Systématique et Évolution, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, CP50 Entomology, 45 rue Buffon, 75231 Paris cedex 05, France 2 Genoscope, Centre National de Sequençage, 2 rue G. Crémieux, CP5706, 91057 Evry cedex, France 3 Corresponding author: Clément Schneider (email: [email protected]) Abstract Neelipleona are the smallest of the four Collembola orders in term of species number with 35 species described worldwide (out of around 8000 known Collembola). Despite this apparent poor diversity, Neelipleona have a worldwide repartition. The fact that the most commonly observed species, Neelus murinus Folsom, 1896 and Megalothorax minimus Willem, 1900, display cosmopolitan repartition is striking. A cladistic analysis based on 16S rDNA, COX1 and 28S rDNA D1 and D2 regions, for a broad collembolan sampling was performed. This analysis included 24 representatives of the Neelipleona genera Neelus Folsom, 1896 and Megalothorax Willem, 1900 from various regions. The interpretation of the phylogenetic pattern and number of transformations (branch length) indicates that Neelipleona are more diverse than previously thought, with probably many species yet to be discovered. These results buttress the rank of Neelipleona as a whole order instead of a Symphypleona family. Keywords: Collembola, Neelidae, Megalothorax, Neelus, COX1, 16S, 28S 1. Introduction 1.1. Brief history of Neelipleona classification The Neelidae family was established by Folsom (1896), who described Neelus murinus from Cambridge (USA).
  • East and Central Farming and Forest Region and Atlantic Basin Diversified Farming Region: 12 Lrrs N and S

    East and Central Farming and Forest Region and Atlantic Basin Diversified Farming Region: 12 Lrrs N and S

    East and Central Farming and Forest Region and Atlantic Basin Diversified Farming Region: 12 LRRs N and S Brad D. Lee and John M. Kabrick 12.1 Introduction snowfall occurs annually in the Ozark Highlands, the Springfield Plateau, and the St. Francois Knobs and Basins The central, unglaciated US east of the Great Plains to the MLRAs. In the southern half of the region, snowfall is Atlantic coast corresponds to the area covered by LRR N uncommon. (East and Central Farming and Forest Region) and S (Atlantic Basin Diversified Farming Region). These regions roughly correspond to the Interior Highlands, Interior Plains, 12.2.2 Physiography Appalachian Highlands, and the Northern Coastal Plains. The topography of this region ranges from broad, gently rolling plains to steep mountains. In the northern portion of 12.2 The Interior Highlands this region, much of the Springfield Plateau and the Ozark Highlands is a dissected plateau that includes gently rolling The Interior Highlands occur within the western portion of plains to steeply sloping hills with narrow valleys. Karst LRR N and includes seven MLRAs including the Ozark topography is common and the region has numerous sink- Highlands (116A), the Springfield Plateau (116B), the St. holes, caves, dry stream valleys, and springs. The region also Francois Knobs and Basins (116C), the Boston Mountains includes many scenic spring-fed rivers and streams con- (117), Arkansas Valley and Ridges (118A and 118B), and taining clear, cold water (Fig. 12.2). The elevation ranges the Ouachita Mountains (119). This region comprises from 90 m in the southeastern side of the region and rises to 176,000 km2 in southern Missouri, northern and western over 520 m on the Springfield Plateau in the western portion Arkansas, and eastern Oklahoma (Fig.
  • Legumes of the North-Central States: C

    Legumes of the North-Central States: C

    LEGUMES OF THE NORTH-CENTRAL STATES: C-ALEGEAE by Stanley Larson Welsh A Dissertation Submitted, to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Subject: Systematic Botany Approved: Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy. artment Signature was redacted for privacy. Dean of Graduat College Iowa State University Of Science and Technology Ames, Iowa I960 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 8 TAXONOMIC AND NOMENCLATURE TREATMENT 13 REFERENCES 158 APPENDIX A 176 APPENDIX B 202 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his deep gratitude to Professor Duane Isely for assistance in the selection of the problem and for the con­ structive criticisms and words of encouragement offered throughout the course of this investigation. Support through the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station and through the Industrial Science Research Institute made possible the field work required in this problem. Thanks are due to the curators of the many herbaria consulted during this investigation. Special thanks are due the curators of the Missouri Botanical Garden, U. S. National Museum, University of Minnesota, North Dakota Agricultural College, University of South Dakota, University of Nebraska, and University of Michigan. The cooperation of the librarians at Iowa State University is deeply appreciated. Special thanks are due Dr. G. B. Van Schaack of the Missouri Botanical Garden library. His enthusiastic assistance in finding rare botanical volumes has proved invaluable in the preparation of this paper. To the writer's wife, Stella, deepest appreciation is expressed. Her untiring devotion, work, and cooperation have made this work possible.
  • Native Plantings for Beneficial Insects and Pollinators

    Native Plantings for Beneficial Insects and Pollinators

    NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES provide ecological support to fruit and vegetable growers by increasing the number and diversity of beneficial insects and pollinators. This guide provides a recommended species list and methodology for establishing a native planting on Indiana small farms and gardens. These species are found to be especially productive in providing habitat for pollinators and for beneficial insects that suppress crop pests. Native plantings can be beautiful, but their benefits go far beyond aesthetics. Beneficial insects include, but are not limited to, soldier beetles, predatory wasps, tachinid flies, and an assortment of bees. Providing habitat in close proximity to crop production can have an impact on aphids, colorado potato beetles, and other pests through predation and parasitoidism. NATIVE PLANTINGS FOR BENEFICIAL INSECTS & POLLINATORS This publication was funded through the Indiana State Department of Agriculture’s Clean TOP: Snowberry Clearwing Hummingbird Moth on Bergamot Water Indiana program with technical contributions from Kevin Tungesvick. BOTTOM LEFT: Soldier Beetle on Virginia Mountain Mint BOTTOM RIGHT: Nodding Wild Onion 1 RECOMMENDED SPECIES LIST Target 70%–80% forbs (wildflowers) and 20%–30% graminoids (grass and sedges). Field Strip (FS) Plants suited for plantings in close Choose a diversity of plants with different bloom periods to provide continuous proximity to crops, such as beds or strips within the flowering throughout the year. growing area. These plants are non-flopping, cast little shade, and can tolerate full sun and hot conditions. Stature: Short: <24" Medium: 24-48" Field Border (FB) Plants suited for perimeter and Large: >48” pocket plantings. O’C’ Spacing On-center spacing indicates the spacing between plants.
  • Checklist of Illinois Native Trees

    Checklist of Illinois Native Trees

    Technical Forestry Bulletin · NRES-102 Checklist of Illinois Native Trees Jay C. Hayek, Extension Forestry Specialist Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences Updated May 2019 This Technical Forestry Bulletin serves as a checklist of Tree species prevalence (Table 2), or commonness, and Illinois native trees, both angiosperms (hardwoods) and gym- county distribution generally follows Iverson et al. (1989) and nosperms (conifers). Nearly every species listed in the fol- Mohlenbrock (2002). Additional sources of data with respect lowing tables† attains tree-sized stature, which is generally to species prevalence and county distribution include Mohlen- defined as having a(i) single stem with a trunk diameter brock and Ladd (1978), INHS (2011), and USDA’s The Plant Da- greater than or equal to 3 inches, measured at 4.5 feet above tabase (2012). ground level, (ii) well-defined crown of foliage, and(iii) total vertical height greater than or equal to 13 feet (Little 1979). Table 2. Species prevalence (Source: Iverson et al. 1989). Based on currently accepted nomenclature and excluding most minor varieties and all nothospecies, or hybrids, there Common — widely distributed with high abundance. are approximately 184± known native trees and tree-sized Occasional — common in localized patches. shrubs found in Illinois (Table 1). Uncommon — localized distribution or sparse. Rare — rarely found and sparse. Nomenclature used throughout this bulletin follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System —the ITIS data- Basic highlights of this tree checklist include the listing of 29 base utilizes real-time access to the most current and accept- native hawthorns (Crataegus), 21 native oaks (Quercus), 11 ed taxonomy based on scientific consensus.
  • Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Stones River National Battlefield

    Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Stones River National Battlefield

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Stones River National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/STRI/NRR—2016/1141 ON THIS PAGE Native warm season grass, located south of Stones River National Battlefield visitor center Photograph by: Jeremy Aber, MTSU Geospatial Research Center ON THE COVER Karst topography in the cedar forest at the “Slaughter Pen,” Stones River National Battlefield Photograph by: Jeremy Aber, MTSU Geospatial Research Center Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Stones River National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/STRI/NRR—2016/1141 Henrique Momm Zada Law Siti Nur Hidayati Jeffrey Walck Kim Sadler Mark Abolins Lydia Simpson Jeremy Aber Geospatial Research Center Department of Geosciences Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132 February 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.
  • How Illinois Kicked the Exotic Habit

    How Illinois Kicked the Exotic Habit

    HOW ILLINOIS KICKED THE EXOTIC HABIT Francis M. Harty Illinois Department of Conservation 2005 Round Bam Road Champagne, IL 61821 Introduction For the purpose of this paper, an exotic species is defined as "a plant or animal not native to North America." The history of folly surrounding the premeditated and accidental introduction of exotic animals has been well-documented (DeVos et al. 1956, Elton 1958, Hall 1963, Laycock 1966, Ehrenfeld 1970, Bratton 1974/1975, Howe and Bratton 1976, Moyle 1976, Courtenay 1978, Coblentz 1978, Iverson 1978, Weller 1981, Bratton 1982, Vale 1982, and Savidge 1987). In 1963, Dr. E. Raymond Hall wrote, "Introducing exotic species of vertebrates is unscientific, economically wasteful, politically shortsighted, and biologically wrong." Naturalizing exotic species are living time bombs, but no one knows for sure how much time we have. For example, the ring­ necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), touted as the Midwestern example of a good exotic introduction, has recently developed a nefarious relationship with the greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) in Illinois. Parasitism of prairie chicken nests by hen pheasants and harassment of displaying male chickens by cock pheasants are contributing to the decline of prairie chickens in Illinois (Vance and Westemeier 1979). The interspecific competition between the exotic pheasant (which is expanding its range in Illinois) and the native prairie chicken (which is an endangered species in Illinois) may be the final factor causing the extirpation of the prairie chicken from Illinois; it has already been extirpated from neighboring Indiana. In 1953, Klimstra and Hankla wrote, "In connection with the development of a pheasant adapted to southern conditions, the compatibility of pheasants and quail (Colinus virginianus) needs to be evaluated.
  • Native Nebraska Woody Plants

    Native Nebraska Woody Plants

    THE NEBRASKA STATEWIDE ARBORETUM PRESENTS NATIVE NEBRASKA WOODY PLANTS Trees (Genus/Species – Common Name) 62. Atriplex canescens - four-wing saltbrush 1. Acer glabrum - Rocky Mountain maple 63. Atriplex nuttallii - moundscale 2. Acer negundo - boxelder maple 64. Ceanothus americanus - New Jersey tea 3. Acer saccharinum - silver maple 65. Ceanothus herbaceous - inland ceanothus 4. Aesculus glabra - Ohio buckeye 66. Cephalanthus occidentalis - buttonbush 5. Asimina triloba - pawpaw 67. Cercocarpus montanus - mountain mahogany 6. Betula occidentalis - water birch 68. Chrysothamnus nauseosus - rabbitbrush 7. Betula papyrifera - paper birch 69. Chrysothamnus parryi - parry rabbitbrush 8. Carya cordiformis - bitternut hickory 70. Cornus amomum - silky (pale) dogwood 9. Carya ovata - shagbark hickory 71. Cornus drummondii - roughleaf dogwood 10. Celtis occidentalis - hackberry 72. Cornus racemosa - gray dogwood 11. Cercis canadensis - eastern redbud 73. Cornus sericea - red-stem (redosier) dogwood 12. Crataegus mollis - downy hawthorn 74. Corylus americana - American hazelnut 13. Crataegus succulenta - succulent hawthorn 75. Euonymus atropurpureus - eastern wahoo 14. Fraxinus americana - white ash 76. Juniperus communis - common juniper 15. Fraxinus pennsylvanica - green ash 77. Juniperus horizontalis - creeping juniper 16. Gleditsia triacanthos - honeylocust 78. Mahonia repens - creeping mahonia 17. Gymnocladus dioicus - Kentucky coffeetree 79. Physocarpus opulifolius - ninebark 18. Juglans nigra - black walnut 80. Prunus besseyi - western sandcherry 19. Juniperus scopulorum - Rocky Mountain juniper 81. Rhamnus lanceolata - lanceleaf buckthorn 20. Juniperus virginiana - eastern redcedar 82. Rhus aromatica - fragrant sumac 21. Malus ioensis - wild crabapple 83. Rhus copallina - flameleaf (shining) sumac 22. Morus rubra - red mulberry 84. Rhus glabra - smooth sumac 23. Ostrya virginiana - hophornbeam (ironwood) 85. Rhus trilobata - skunkbush sumac 24. Pinus flexilis - limber pine 86. Ribes americanum - wild black currant 25.
  • Cytogenetics of Fraxinus Mandshurica and F. Quadrangulata: Ploidy Determination and Rdna Analysis

    Cytogenetics of Fraxinus Mandshurica and F. Quadrangulata: Ploidy Determination and Rdna Analysis

    Tree Genetics & Genomes (2020) 16:26 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-020-1418-6 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Cytogenetics of Fraxinus mandshurica and F. quadrangulata: ploidy determination and rDNA analysis Nurul Islam-Faridi1,2 & Mary E. Mason3 & Jennifer L. Koch4 & C. Dana Nelson5,6 Received: 22 July 2019 /Revised: 1 January 2020 /Accepted: 16 January 2020 # The Author(s) 2020 Abstract Ashes (Fraxinus spp.) are important hardwood tree species in rural, suburban, and urban forests of the eastern USA. Unfortunately, emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis) an invasive insect pest that was accidentally imported from Asia in the late 1980s–early 1990s is destroying them at an alarming rate. All North American ashes are highly susceptible to EAB, although blue ash (F. quadrangulata) may have some inherent attributes that provide it some protection. In contrast Manchurian ash (F. mandshurica) is relatively resistant to EAB having coevolved with the insect pest in its native range in Asia. Given its level of resistance, Manchurian ash has been considered for use in interspecies breeding programs designed to transfer resistance to susceptible North American ash species. One prerequisite for successful interspecies breeding is consistency in chromosome ploidy level and number between the candidate species. In the current study, we cytologically determined that both Manchurian ash and blue ash are diploids (2n) and have the same number of chromosomes (2n =2x = 46). We also characterized these species’ ribosomal gene families (45S and 5S rDNA) using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Both Manchurian and blue ash showed two 45S rDNA and one 5S rDNA sites, but blue ash appears to have an additional site of 45S rDNA.
  • Perennials in the Landscape

    Perennials in the Landscape

    Perennials in the Landscape Home gardeners and commercial landscapers alike are becoming more aware of the rich potential hardy herbaceous perennials have to offer. Perennials just may be the most overlooked group of landscaping plants in our area, and for no good reason. They offer a certain permanency to the landscape, and are virtually unequaled in providing abundant color and interest in return for the care they require. Botanically, perennials are plants which live for more than two years. This, of course, would include trees, turf grasses and shrubs. Horticulturally, though, the term perennial refers to a group of herbaceous (nonwoody) plants most frequently grown for their colorful flowers. Plants possessing bulbs and bulblike structures (corms, tubers, etc.) technically belong to this group, and are often included with them. More frequently they are separated off into their own category, though the dividing line is often blurred. Perennials have probably been under utilized in the South because of a general assumption that they don't do well here. Many perennials, however, thrive under our growing conditions. Just make sure you exercise care in choosing varieties suitably adapted to your situation. Most perennials are completely winter-hardy in the Southeast, although there are a number of tender perennials grown in the Gulf Coastal areas which would not be suitable in areas with colder winters. Conversely, some perennials like peonies do better where winters are colder. Overall, the major limiting factors for tolerance and susceptibility to diseases favored by heat and humidity. When selecting perennials, you should tend toward those with a reputation for heat tolerance.
  • Literature Cited

    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.