DOCSLIB.ORG

Native Plants of East Central Illinois and Their Preferred Locations”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Native Plants at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Campus:
A Sourcebook for Landscape Architects and Contractors

James Wescoat and Florrie Wescoat with Yung-Ching Lin
Champaign, IL

October 2007

Based on

“Native Plants of East Central Illinois and their Preferred Locations”

An Inventory Prepared by Dr. John Taft, Illinois Natural History Survey, for the
UIUC Sustainable Campus Landscape Subcommittee

1

- -

1. Native Plants and Plantings on the UIUC Campus

This sourcebook was compiled for landscape architects working on projects at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus and the greater headwaters area of east central Illinois.1 It is written as a document that can be distributed to persons who may be unfamiliar with the local flora and vegetation, but its detailed species lists and hotlinks should be useful for seasoned Illinois campus designers as well.

Landscape architects increasingly seek to incorporate native plants and plantings in campus designs, along with plantings that include adapted and acclimatized species from other regions. The term “native plants” raises a host of fascinating scientific, aesthetic, and practical questions. What plants are native to East Central Illinois? What habitats do they occupy? What communities do they form? What are their ecological relationships, aesthetic characteristics, and practical limitations? As university campuses begin to incorporate increasing numbers of native species and areas of native planting, these questions will become increasingly important.

We offer preliminary answers to these questions, and a suite of electronic linkages to databases that provide a wealth of information for addressing more detailed issues. We begin with a brief introduction to the importance of native plants in the campus environment, and the challenges of using them effectively, followed by a description of the database, online resources, and references included below.

2. The Historical Importance of Native Plants in the Campus Environment

The current wave of interest in native plants at the University of Illinois has a long history. In fact, it begins in prehistory with Native American uses and modification of native vegetation for food, medicine, and spiritual purposes. Despite extensive clearing of the prairies following European settlement (McManis, 1964), some early plant uses continue to the present day as documented in ethnobotanical studies such as Kelly Kindscher’s Medicinal Wild Plants of the

Prairie (1992) and Edible Wild Plants of the Prairie (1987).

Wilhelm Miller (1915) was an early advocate for landscape architects who used and drew inspiration from prairie vegetation. In the early 20th century landscape architect Jens Jensen and others founded “Friends of our Native Landscape” (Jensen, 1956). While the “prairie style” persisted through the mid-20th century in the work of Alfred Caldwell (Domer, 1997), it encountered strong resistance from both picturesque and modern traditions of landscape architecture that emphasized mown lawns and exotic ornamental introductions (e.g., see Jenkins, 1994; and Teyssot, 1999). Criticism of slavish and superficial approaches to native planting continues in the work of German landscape architects Groning and WolschkeBulmahn (1992) and insightful editorial essays in Ecological Restoration (cf. Elliot, 1997). But

1

Prepared at the request of the UIUC Sustainable Campus Landscape Subcommittee, using the headwaters area inventory of native plants compiled by Dr. John Taft of the Illinois Natural History Survey; and Dr. Kenneth Robertson’s “Considerations Regarding Landscaping with Natives on the U of I Campus” (2004). We are grateful to Drs. Taft and Robertson for their input to this sourcebook.

2

- -

overall, native plant movements have been gaining popular, scientific, and design support in recent decades.

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has a strong record of research on native vegetation. The websites of taxonomist Dr. Kenneth Robertson contain a wealth of information about pragmatic as well as scientific and aesthetic aspects of prairie vegetation and

planting (http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/~kenr/prairienativelinks.html). At a larger scale,

Southern Illinois University professor Robert Mohlenbrock produced the superb Illustrated

Flora of Illinois volumes.

Many individual native specimens on the UIUC campus, with fine results, but few native plantings have been established. For example, prairie plantings were installed at the Helene Gateway several years ago, but were reportedly removed within weeks for being too “messy and weedy” looking. Professor Terry Harkness and his students have recently installed a hill prairie planting on the west side of Temple Hoyne Buell Hall (2007) to demonstrate a native plant aesthetic for the university and wider community. Individual native specimens and small plantings occur across campus, but they are rarely woven within a broadly native or even naturalistic planting aesthetic. The same trends apply to the wider landscapes of east central Illinois. Only a few remnants of our native landscape survive on campus.

The value of native plantings is manifold (see also Robertson, 2004). It includes:
• Expansion of native flora, associated habitats, and biodiversity • Educational opportunities for the university community, including service learning by student groups, e.g., Red Bison.
• Cultivation of aesthetic enjoyment of the plants specific to this area. • Reduced lawn chemical application, mowing costs, and other functional requirements.

This sourcebook compiles information for those who seek to achieve these values in design, construction, and maintenance of native and naturalistic plantings on campus.

3. Native Plants in the Design Process

Landscape architect Terry Harkness and others present a basic design approach that has application to native, and more generally sustainable, plantings. He suggests that designers develop “landscape models” (e.g., ecological communities such as upland forest, hill prairie, savanna, etc.) and “plant lists” of species that fit the site and model. The designer strives to integrate these models and plant species choices and compositions in ways that creatively address site conditions and program requirements (fig. 1).2

The best published example of this approach is Judith Phillips’ two-volume work, Natural by

Design and Plants for Natural Gardens.  Although focused on New Mexico, it elegantly presents

2 This simplified representation of the design process indicates in general terms how native plant species lists such as those in this sourcebook are used along with other information. For much more detailed information about prairie design, construction, maintenance, and long-term management see references such as Packard and Mutel, 1997.

3

- -

the natural landscapes and how they have been adapted in planting design in volume 1, and provides a rich description of native plant species useful for achieving those aims in volume 2.

While there is no comparable publication for landscape architecture in Illinois, the Illinois Natural History Survey has prepared valuable reports on (1) remnant nature preserves that may serve as ecological landscape design models; and (2) a detailed list of plant species that are native to the “headwaters area” of east central Illinois.

Site and Program Analysis
Plant Species Lists
Landscape Models
(e.g., ecological communities)

Alternative Planting Design Concepts

Fig. 1: Simplified model of planting design

A. Ecological Landscape Models -- Directory of Illinois Nature Preserves

The INHS Directory of Illinois Nature Preserves identifies many of the small remnant areas of woodland, prairie, savannas, and wetlands in the state. To give a sense of the magnitude of vegetation change at UIUC, only one preserve is listed in Champaign County (Tomlinson prairie). There are other parcels of woodland, wetland, and constructed prairie in Champaign County, which are managed by the park districts, forest preserve, and private landowners – but they represent a tiny fraction of the land area. Thus, to gain a broad perspective on “natural vegetation models”, the INHS Directory is a useful source.

B. Species Lists–“Native Plants of East Central Illinois and their Preferred Locations”

Defining plants regarded as “native” has human as well as ecological dimensions. Dr. Robertson (2004, 1-2) highlights the following criteria and considerations:

1. Political boundaries – are sometimes used to inventory native plants, in part because management and funding are provided by those jurisdictions (e.g., Champaign County; or Illinois as in Mohlenbrock’s Vascular Flora of Illinois [2002]).

2. Ecological boundaries – provide a scientific basis for describing native vegetation, though it should be recognized that these distributions vary in space and time (e.g.

4

- -

Grand Prairie section and division of the Midwestern Tallgrass Prairie; or the Headwaters watershed area used in John Taft’s survey).

3. Genotypes associated with local niches –sometimes referred to as “ecotypes”, denote

genetic variation of a native species within a region. Genotypes are particularly important for plant and seed collection strategies in ecological restoration planting.

4. Cultivars of native plants – are not strictly “native” to any area, but they may be all that is commercially available and have desirable (or undesirable) ornamental and/or practical characteristics.

As Robertson (2004) underscores, the definition of what is native usually depends on several of these factors. Designers should indicate the criteria used to develop a plant list, especially when it expands the list of “approved plants” to include more native plants (UIUC Facilities and Services, 2007).

Native Plants of East Central Illinois and their Preferred Locations. In 2003, Dr. John

Taft prepared an Excel spreadsheet of 695 species observed in the “headwaters area assessment,” that is, in the counties of east central Illinois that comprise the headwaters of the Sangamon, Embarras, and Vermillion rivers that discharge into tributaries of the Mississippi and Ohio River basins. The Illinois Plant Information Network lists 1,190 records for

Champaign County http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/ilpin/c19.dat.

Dr. Taft’s Excel spreadsheet (in the attached CD) contained two lists, one sorted by Latin plant names and the other by common names. The spreadsheet further designated species locations by the following major habitat classes (i.e., forest, prairie, savanna, and wetland), subclasses, and moisture conditions:

1. Forest a. Upland (dry, dry-mesic, mesic, and wet-mesic) b. Floodplain (mesic, wet-mesic, wet)
2. Prairie a. Prairie (dry-mesic, mesic, wet-mesic, wet) b. Hill Prairie (glacial drift hills)
3. Savanna a. Savanna
4. Wetlands a. Seep b. Marsh c. Other (streams, ponds)
5. Cultural (all community types)

This last, cultural, category consists largely of native ruderal (weed) species that thrive in areas disturbed by construction, compaction, and other human activities, though these conditions are not well-defined.3 The term “weed” is more problematic: for it can refer to non-compact

3 As the entire campus landscape is affected by disturbance of different sorts and to greater or lesser degrees, this category deserves detailed treatment in future studies.

5

- -

plant forms, disturbance tolerance, invasiveness, or undesirable impacts on other species. The inventory indicates exotic species with an asterisk that have naturalized and proliferated in the area.

This list is valuable for the number of plants listed, and for its designation of preferred vegetation communities and moisture conditions. These categories can serve as a partial basis for the native planting design concepts and species lists described above.

C. Limitations of the Full Database

However, the original full matrix presents landscape architects with a number of challenges beginning with the number of species which are listed in alphabetical order. As noted above, the list does not differentiate among “cultural” situations that range from disturbance to issues of compatibility with different aspects of human activities and preferences. It does not indicate how the moisture categories of forests compare with those of prairies, or how these relative conditions should be determined in the field.

Finally, the raw matrix does not include plant characteristics that landscape architects need to know when selecting species. These include major characteristics such as plant type -- tree, shrub, grass, herb, etc. Landscape architects also consider a host of detailed plant qualities -- ranging from plant height and form to flowering time, color, and fragrance; fruiting qualities; leaf and branching texture; growth rate; soil tolerance; microclimate preferences; disease problems; wildlife and insect associations; and maintenance requirements – clearly far more than would be possible to include in any single matrix or even anticipate (though see TimeLife plant books of the 1970s for attempts of this sort).

These limitations notwithstanding, “Native Plants of East Central Illinois and their Preferred Locations” is a good starting point for landscape professionals working on the UIUC campus and surrounding areas, and for that reason its entire list is included as an attachment.

D. Organizing and Expanding the Database for Landscape Architectural Use

To make the database more useful for campus landscape architectural projects, we modified it in four initial ways:

1. Addition of a Plant Types Classification – i.e., tree, shrub, vine, grass, and herbaceous plants categories commonly used by landscape architects.4

2. Sorting and Listing by Plant Types and Habitats (included in this document and on
CD)5 a. Lists of plant types (e.g., trees) for different habitats b. Lists of different plant types for each major habitat (e.g., hill prairies)

4 Future editions should add plant sizes, e.g., small, medium, and large trees; short, medium, and tall grasses; etc. 5 Future editions should differentiate lists by moisture conditions, esp. dry and wet preferences.

6

- -

3. Weblinks to Four On-line Databases – to provide ready access to the wealth of additional species characteristics listed above.6 a. USDA Plants database -- http://plants.usda.gov/index.html -- the most comprehensive on-line botanical database b. Kemper Center for Home Gardening (MOBOT) – a detailed garden website

http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/serviceplantfinder.shtml7

c. UI Plants [Kling] -- http://woodyplants.nres.uiuc.edu/ -- the best website on woody ornamentals for landscape architects

d. Illinois Wildflowers [Hilty] -- http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/ -- the most

detailed, searchable, website for native herbaceous plants in east central Illinois.
4. Culling of Exotic, Invasive, and Less Well-Known Species. As this document focuses on native plants that have promise for landscape architecture, it strives for a balance between maximizing the plant palette and identifying a practical list of plants. The criteria for culling were: a. Plants identified as exotic * were dropped b. Plants that were only listed on the USDA site were dropped (i.e., not on any of the MOBOT, Kling, or Hilty specialized and ornamental lists).
These steps reduced the total plant list from 695 to 438, which remains a large but more tractable and useful database.8

E. A “Reverse-Lookup” Tool

Illinois does not have a search engine for native plants that have specific landscape traits, e.g., “1 to 3 foot perennials that prefers moist sunny conditions and has yellow flowers.” However the MOBOT Kemper site allows that type of search for Missouri natives, some of which may overlap with the east central Illinois flora (see search interface below and its “Missouri Native”

box). http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/Search.asp

6 These websites were selected for national, regional, and local expertise; and search tools. 7 When Kemper-MOBOT did not list the species, we linked the plant to the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center or the UW Stevens Point Herbarium. 8 Further culling is warranted as some aggressive and disturbance-intolerant species remain on the list.

7

- -

With these tools in hand, landscape architects can utilize lists of native plants organized by habit and community type, and bring up three electronic reference sources that have photographs and the fine-grained information needed to select plants for a design project.

F. Conclusion -- Using the Native Species Lists

The plant lists appended below are only the first step toward native plant species selection and design on campus. Some of the additional steps needed to make the lists more useful have been mentioned in the footnotes. The three most important issues that require concurrent attention at this point are:

• First, for designers to absorb the wealth of native plant species and vegetation knowledge that is already available to achieve excellence in campus planting design, which no amount of lists and websites can adequately convey.
• Second, for plant ecologists and designers to study the dynamics of human experience, disturbance, and microclimates that affect the effectiveness and enjoyment of native vegetation in the campus environment.
• Third, for university facilities planners to encourage experimentation with and expansion of the “Approved Plant List” to encompass the widest possible palette of native plants that fulfill campus design goals, standards, and natural heritage.

When these two longer-term commitments are pursued, the campus will begin to move toward a more dynamic harmony between the people and mission of the university and their native, naturalized, and adaptive vegetation systems.9

3. REFERENCES AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Darke, Rick. 2002. The American Woodland Garden: Capturing the Spirit of the Deciduous Forest.

Portland: Timber Press.
This volume gets to a deep level of understanding the woodland garden, i.e., in different contexts, successional stages, seasons, and times of day. It is relevant for translating upland forest and floodplain forest flora into planting design concepts.

Dirr, M.A. 1998. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants: Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. Fifth Edition. Champaign, Illinois: Stipes

Publishing,

Dirr, M.A. 1997. Dirr's Hardy Trees and Shrubs: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. Portland,

Oregon: Timber Press.

9 On timescales of decades, in the context of climate change, native and invasive plant lists will change as will human needs, wants, and tastes.

8

- -

Domer, Dennis. 1997. Alfred Caldwell: The Life and Work of a Prairie School Landscape Architect.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Biography of the mid-20th century legacy of prairie landscape architecture and its strong links with modern architecture.

Druse, Ken. 1994. The Natural Habitat Garden.  New York: Clarkson Potter.

This volume covers the full spectrum of woodland, grassland, dryland, and wetland gardens. It has less depth and detail for each of these types, and is thus a good first reference.

Ecological Restoration – oldest journal of restoration theory and practice. Published by the Society for Ecological Restoration International and the University of Wisconsin Press.

Gobster, Paul H.; Haight, Robert G. 2004. From Landscapes to Lots: Understanding and Managing

Midwestern Landscape Change.  Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-245. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station.

Regional perspective on and strategies for landscape change in the Midwest, from a office for urban ecological research in the USFS.

Groening, Gert; and J. Wolschke-Bulmahn. 1992. “Some Notes on the Mania for Native Plants in Germany,” Landscape Journal 11, 2: 116–26. Critique by: Kim Sorvig, “Natives and Nazis: An Imaginary Conspiracy in Ecological Design. Commentary on G. Groening and J. Wolschke-Bulmahn’s ‘Some Notes on the Mania for Native Plants in Germany, ”Landscape Journal 13, 1 (1994), 58. Reply by G. Groening and J. Wolschke-Bulmahn, “Response: If the Shoe Fits, Wear It!” Landscape Journal 13, 1 (1994). And more!

Harkness, T.G. 1970. “A Landscape in Evolution: The Graphic History of Champaign and Piatt Counties from 70,000 B.C. to A.D. 1860.” M.L.A. Thesis. Urbana: City Planning and Landscape Architecture Library.

Harkness, T.G. 1990. “Garden from Region,” in The Meaning of Gardens, 110-19. Ed. M. Francis and R.T. Hester. Cambridge: MIT Press.

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

    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.
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."

    "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."

    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
  • Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

    Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

    Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts New England Wildflower Society 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, MA 01701 508-877-7630 www.newfs.org Report by Joy VanDervort-Sneed, Atkinson Conservation Fellow and Ailene Kane, Plant Conservation Volunteer Coordinator Prepared for the Arboretum Park Conservancy Funded by the Arnold Arboretum Committee 2 Conducted 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................4 METHODS....................................................................................................................................6 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................8 Plant Species ........................................................................................................................8 Natural Communities...........................................................................................................9 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................15 Recommendations for Management ..................................................................................15 Recommendations for Education and Interpretation .........................................................17 Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................19
  • Osher Lifelong Learning Institute

    Osher Lifelong Learning Institute

    USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System Conservation of Fruit & Nut Genetic Resources Joseph Postman Plant Pathologist & Curator National Clonal Germplasm Repository Corvallis, Oregon May 2010 Mission: Collect – Preserve Evaluate – Enhance - Distribute World Diversity of Plant Genetic Resources for Improving the Quality and Production of Economic Crops Important to U.S. and World Agriculture Apple Accessions at Geneva Malus angustifolia ( 59 Accessions) Malus sikkimensis ( 14 Accessions) Malus baccata ( 67 Accessions) Malus sp. ( 41 Accessions) Malus bhutanica ( 117 Accessions) Malus spectabilis ( 9 Accessions) Malus brevipes ( 2 Accessions) Malus sylvestris ( 70 Accessions) Malus coronaria ( 98 Accessions) Malus toringo ( 122 Accessions) Malus domestica ( 1,389 Accessions) Malus transitoria ( 63 Accessions) Malus doumeri ( 2 Accessions) Malus trilobata ( 2 Accessions) Malus florentina ( 4 Accessions) Malus tschonoskii ( 3 Accessions) Malus floribunda ( 12 Accessions) Malus x adstringens ( 2 Accessions) Malus fusca ( 147 Accessions) Malus x arnoldiana ( 2 Accessions) Malus halliana ( 15 Accessions) Malus x asiatica ( 20 Accessions) Malus honanensis ( 4 Accessions) Malus x astracanica ( 1 Accessions) Malus hupehensis ( 185 Accessions) Malus x atrosanguinea ( 2 Accessions) Malus hybrid ( 337 Accessions) Malus x dawsoniana ( 2 Accessions) Malus ioensis ( 72 Accessions) Malus x hartwigii ( 5 Accessions) Malus kansuensis ( 45 Accessions) Malus x magdeburgensis ( 2 Accessions) Malus komarovii ( 1 Accessions) Malus x micromalus ( 25 Accessions)
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description

    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description

    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
  • Floristic Survey of the Vascular Flora of the North Springfield Bog By

    Floristic Survey of the Vascular Flora of the North Springfield Bog By

    Floristic Survey of the Vascular Flora of the North Springfield Bog, North Springfield, Vermont By Robert Lichvar Botanist and Research Ecologist Post Mills, Vermont January 2007 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................3 STUDY AREA...............................................................................................................4 METHODS....................................................................................................................4 DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................5 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................5 SPECIES OCCURRENCES IN THE SURROUNDING UPLAND FOREST ...........5 SPECIES DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN THE BOG.............................................5 OTHER PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE BOG ......................................................6 SPHAGNUM LAWN ....................................................................................................6 RARE SPECIES............................................................................................................6 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................6 FIGURE 1. NORTH
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018

    State of New York City's Plants 2018

    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
  • Wildflower Plant Characteristics for Pollinator and Conservation Plantings

    Wildflower Plant Characteristics for Pollinator and Conservation Plantings

    Wildflower Plant Characteristics for Pollinator and Conservation Plantings Prepared By: Shawnna Clark and Kelly Gill 1 Wildflower Plant Characteristics for Pollinator and Conservation Plantings in the Northeast US Soil Bloom Bloom Height Wetland Scientific Name Common name Drainage Seeds/# 5 Other Time2 Color (ft)3 Indicator4 Class Achillea millefolium yarrow july-aug white 1-3 WD-MWD FACU 180,000 low moisture needs july- Establishes quickly, fragrant showy spikes of flowers on upper Agastache foeniculum anise hyssop purple 2-5 WD-MWD UPL 1,400,000 sept stems, grows best in full-partial sun and dry-medium moisture Agastache purple giant july- purple 3-4 MWD-SPD FACW 1,240,000 attractive to bees and butterflies, birds scrophulariifolia hyssop sept june- Apocynum cannabinum Indian hemp white 2-4 WD-SPD FACU 500,000 extensive root system, aggressive and can become weedy aug One of the earliest wildflowers to bloom; striking red flowers with Aquilegia canadensis Eastern columbine apr red 1-2 WD FACU 504,000 yellow centers; grows best in partial shade and moist soils pink/ Asclepias exalta poke milkweed july-aug 4-6 WD-MWD UPL 48,000 great for wood edges purple branching habit; grows best in full-partial sun and moderate-wet Asclepias incarnata swamp milkweed july-aug pink 3-6 SPD-PD OBL 75,000 conditions; tolerates occasional flooding; great for monarch; high deer resistant, slow to spread common pink grows best in full sun and moist soils; but will tolerate a variety of Asclepias syriaca july-aug 3-4 WD-MWD UPL 70,000 milkweed purple situations;
  • GENOME EVOLUTION in MONOCOTS a Dissertation

    GENOME EVOLUTION in MONOCOTS a Dissertation

    GENOME EVOLUTION IN MONOCOTS A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School At the University of Missouri In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy By Kate L. Hertweck Dr. J. Chris Pires, Dissertation Advisor JULY 2011 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled GENOME EVOLUTION IN MONOCOTS Presented by Kate L. Hertweck A candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Dr. J. Chris Pires Dr. Lori Eggert Dr. Candace Galen Dr. Rose‐Marie Muzika ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many people for their assistance during the course of my graduate education. I would not have derived such a keen understanding of the learning process without the tutelage of Dr. Sandi Abell. Members of the Pires lab provided prolific support in improving lab techniques, computational analysis, greenhouse maintenance, and writing support. Team Monocot, including Dr. Mike Kinney, Dr. Roxi Steele, and Erica Wheeler were particularly helpful, but other lab members working on Brassicaceae (Dr. Zhiyong Xiong, Dr. Maqsood Rehman, Pat Edger, Tatiana Arias, Dustin Mayfield) all provided vital support as well. I am also grateful for the support of a high school student, Cady Anderson, and an undergraduate, Tori Docktor, for their assistance in laboratory procedures. Many people, scientist and otherwise, helped with field collections: Dr. Travis Columbus, Hester Bell, Doug and Judy McGoon, Julie Ketner, Katy Klymus, and William Alexander. Many thanks to Barb Sonderman for taking care of my greenhouse collection of many odd plants brought back from the field.
  • Michigan Native Plants for Bird-Friendly Landscapes What Are Native Plants? Why Go Native? Native Plants Are Those That Occur Naturally in an Area

    Michigan Native Plants for Bird-Friendly Landscapes What Are Native Plants? Why Go Native? Native Plants Are Those That Occur Naturally in an Area

    Michigan Native Plants for Bird-Friendly Landscapes What are native plants? Why go native? Native plants are those that occur naturally in an area. They are well-adapted to the climate and birds, insects, and Help baby birds Nearly all landbirds feed their chicks insect wildlife depend on native plants to survive. larva, but insects have a hard time eating and reproducing on non-native plants. Plant native plants and stay away from Invasive plants are those that are not native to an area and the pesticides—baby birds need those little pests to survive! aggressively outcompete native flora. These species degrade Michigan’s natural ecosystems and should be removed or Pollinators love natives, too Did you know that many avoided when planting new gardens. pollinators don’t or can’t use ornamental and non-native plants? Attract hummingbirds, butterflies, and honeybees by adding native flowering plants or better yet—select “host How to use this guide plants” that each species of butterfly and moth requires to reproduce. When thinking about bird habitat, it’s important to think in layers: from canopy trees to ground cover. Different bird Go local Michigan’s native plants are unique and beautiful, species rely on different layers to forage and nest. So, by but many are rare or threatened with extirpation. Keep providing a greater variety of layers in your yard, you can Michigan unique by planting a Michigan Garden! Bonus: attract a greater variety of birds. Many natives are drought tolerant and low maintenance. This guide separates each habitat layer and suggests several Healthy habitat for birds = Healthy yard for you Mowed native plants for each layer that are known to benefit birds.
  • A List of Grasses and Grasslike Plants of the Oak Openings, Lucas County

    A List of Grasses and Grasslike Plants of the Oak Openings, Lucas County

    A LIST OF THE GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS OF THE OAK OPENINGS, LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO1 NATHAN WILLIAM EASTERLY Department of Biology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 4-3403 ABSTRACT This report is the second of a series of articles to be prepared as a second "Flora of the Oak Openings." The study represents a comprehensive survey of members of the Cyperaceae, Gramineae, Juncaceae, Sparganiaceae, and Xyridaceae in the Oak Openings region. Of the 202 species listed in this study, 34 species reported by Moseley in 1928 were not found during the present investigation. Fifty-seven species found by the present investi- gator were not observed or reported by Moseley. Many of these species or varieties are rare and do not represent a stable part of the flora. Changes in species present or in fre- quency of occurrence of species collected by both Moseley and Easterly may be explained mainly by the alteration of habitats as the Oak Openings region becomes increasingly urbanized or suburbanized. Some species have increased in frequency on the floodplain of Swan Creek, in wet ditches and on the banks of the Norfolk and Western Railroad right-of-way, along newly constructed roadsides, or on dry sandy sites. INTRODUCTION The grass family ranks third among the large plant families of the world. The family ranks number one as far as total numbers of plants that cover fields, mead- ows, or roadsides are concerned. No other family is used as extensively to pro- vide food or shelter or to create a beautiful landscape. The sedge family does not fare as well in terms of commercial importance, but the sedges do make avail- able forage and food for wild fowl and they do contribute plant cover in wet areas where other plants would not be as well adapted.
  • An Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Guthrie County, Iowa

    An Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Guthrie County, Iowa

    Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science: JIAS Volume 98 Number Article 4 1991 An Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Guthrie County, Iowa Dean M. Roosa Department of Natural Resources Lawrence J. Eilers University of Northern Iowa Scott Zager University of Northern Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright © Copyright 1991 by the Iowa Academy of Science, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/jias Part of the Anthropology Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Science and Mathematics Education Commons Recommended Citation Roosa, Dean M.; Eilers, Lawrence J.; and Zager, Scott (1991) "An Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Guthrie County, Iowa," Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science: JIAS, 98(1), 14-30. Available at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/jias/vol98/iss1/4 This Research is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa Academy of Science at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science: JIAS by an authorized editor of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jour. Iowa Acad. Sci. 98(1): 14-30, 1991 An Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Guthrie County, Iowa DEAN M. ROOSA 1, LAWRENCE J. EILERS2 and SCOTI ZAGER2 1Department of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 2Department of Biology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50604 The known vascular plant flora of Guthrie County, Iowa, based on field, herbarium, and literature studies, consists of748 taxa (species, varieties, and hybrids), 135 of which are naturalized.